20190116 : Corporatism is the control of government by big business. This is what we have in the USA today. The main difference between corporatism and fascism is the level of repressions against opposition. Corporatism now tales forma of inverted totalitarism and use ostracism instead of phycal repressions ( Jan 16, 2019 , profile.theguardian.com )
1) Democracy with a population that is at least minimally engaged and angrily stays that
way (including removing powerful special interests from premises with pitchforks)
2) Being "managed" on behalf of various power centers. This can be liveable or can turn into
strip mining of your "resources".
Sadly, there is no algorithm that allows you to detect whether your are engaged or are
being engaged on behalf of others. That would be easy. But one should start with a minimal
state, hard money and the sons of the upper crust on the front lines and forbidden from
taking office in government.
That being said, this article is a bit meandering. Came for Bellingcat but was
confused.
Who presented the Emmy Award to the film makers, but none other than the rebel
journalist Chris Hedges.
@El Dato "1) Democracy with a population that is at least minimally engaged and angrily
stays that way (including removing powerful special interests from premises with pitchforks)"
There are no revolutions by means of pitchforks in a democracy, everything is weakened by
compromise, false promises, infiltration, manipulation, etc. You cannot stay angry all the
time too, it is very bad for your health, it needs to be short and intense to be effective,
which is exactly what democracy prevents.
Democracy turns you into a petted animal.
CARLSON: But more broadly, what you are saying, I think is, that the Democratic Party
understands what it is and who it represents and affirmatively represents them. They do
things for their voters, but the Republican Party doesn't actually represent its own voters
very well.
VANCE: Yes, that's exactly right. I mean, look at who the Democratic Party is and look, I
don't like the Democratic Party's policies.
CARLSON: Yes.
VANCE: Most of the times, I disagree with them. But I at least admire that they recognize
who their voters are and they actually just as raw cynical politics do a lot of things to
serve those voters.
Now, look at who Republican voters increasingly are. They are people who
disproportionately serve in the military, but Republican foreign policy has been a disaster
for a lot of veterans. They are disproportionately folks who want to have more children.
They are people who want to have more single earner families. They are people who don't
necessarily want to go to college but they want to work in an economy where if you play by
the rules, you can you actually support a family on one income.
CARLSON: Yes.
VANCE: Have Republicans done anything for those people really in the last 15 or 20 years?
I think can you point to some policies of the Trump administration. Certainly, instinctively,
I think the President gets who his voters are and what he has to do to service those folks.
But at the end of the day, the broad elite of the party, the folks who really call the shots,
the think tank intellectuals, the people who write the policy, I just don't think they
realize who their own voters are.
Now, the slightly more worrying implication is that maybe some of them do realize who
their voters are, they just don't actually like those voters much.
CARLSON: Well, that's it. So I watch the Democratic Party and I notice that if there is a
substantial block within it, it's this unstable coalition, all of these groups have nothing
in common, but the one thing they have in common is the Democratic Party will protect
them.
VANCE: Yes.
CARLSON: You criticize a block of Democratic Voters and they are on you like a wounded
wombat. They will bite you. The Republicans, watch their voters come under attack and sort of
nod in agreement, "Yes, these people should be attacked."
VANCE: Yes, that's absolutely right. I mean, if you talk to people who spent their lives
in D.C. I know you live in D.C.
CARLSON: Yes.
VANCE: I've spent a lot of my life here. The people who spend their time in D.C. who work
on Republican campaigns, who work at conservative think tanks, now this isn't true of
everybody, but a lot of them actually don't like the people who are voting for Republican
candidates these days.
Wishful thinking. The neoliberal oligarchy is in conrol of all political power centers. Looks like neoliberal ideas became completely discredited. Even Krugman abandoned them.
Notable quotes:
"... In the age of AI the US needs a grand rebuilding of our infrastructure including electrical grids, bridges, highways, mass transit systems, and conversion to renewable energy. ..."
"... Elizabeth Warren showed her chops years ago when she was a guest on Bill Moyer's PBS show, and I've been a fan ever since. But - we don't just need more of Teddy Roosevelt - we need a good dose of Franklin Roosevelt, too ..."
"... In Senator Warren we finally have a politician who understands the difference between wealth and income and is willing to start taxing wealth. This is especially important as the truly wealthy receive very little of their money in the form of income and are therefore taxed on far less than they are actually worth. This only serves to exacerbate our inequality problem. ..."
"... Extreme income inequality is damaging to social capital and to public health - and thus in the long run to sustainable prosperity. The American epidemic of depression, opioid abuse and suicide is is correlated with the acceleration of income inequality. ..."
"... Finally, Senator Warren's proposal seems like an acceleration of the estate tax. ..."
"... Having worked in trusts and estates law for decades, I suspect that this proposal will invite use of the same techniques used by estate planners, lawyers, and accountants to drive down the fair market value of assets. Her proposal may work, if it is ever enacted, but the devil, as usual, will be in the details. This is a very complex concept, simple as it may seem at first blush. That is not an argument for not trying, but for being very careful in the implementation, beginning with the statutory language. ..."
"... This tax will require staffing up the IRS and that will require dems control over both houses of Congress as the GOPers have defunded the IRS. ..."
"... Pretax income concentration at the top increased starting in the 1980s as a direct result of the large reductions in the top marginal income tax rates. ..."
"... Even if a 70% top marginal tax rate did not raise a penny more in tax revenue it would still be justified on the grounds of preventing extreme concentration of wealth and income. Recent economic research has shown that in a purely capitalistic society in which there is no taxation nor redistribution all wealth in the whole society will ultimately be owned by a single household. https://voxeu.org/article/what-would-wealth-distribution-look-without-redistribution ..."
"... I applaud Elizabeth Warren and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez for espousing Teddy an Franklin Roosevelt's ideas about reducing the concentration of 90% of wealth in the upper 1/10th of 1 per cent (0.1%). That is the situation which can lead to major social unrest, widespread crime, and ultimately, civil war as happened in England in the 17th century, in Russia in 1917, and in the French Revolution that beheaded Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette - along with thousands of other members of the nobility. ..."
"... "wealthiest 0.1 percent of Americans almost equal to that of the bottom 90 percent combined." The corrupt neoliberalism of the 1% is unsustainable but is reflective of a downward spiral of decline. While we experience continuous political campaigning the U.S. is, in reality, a criminal and corrupt corporate state enriching the 1% and masquerading as a democracy, an Inverted Totalitarianism. ..."
"... Great. The pendulum swings back to sensible taxation rates for the ultra wealthy. Hard to feel sorry for hedge fund managers. I can just see Sean Hannity railing against it now. He would have to cough up. ..."
"... Fascinating article. Thanks for sharing. Her Accountable Capitalism Act also addresses the root causes of inequality, although some critics have stated that it would lead to the semi-nationalization of business. ..."
@Horsepower the tax bill has, as predicted by almost everyone but the GOP lawmakers,
caused the deficit to balloon. Currently, the resulting debt must be paid by the descendents
of all of us but the ultra-wealthy. The alternative to that approach, openly proposed by the
GOP, was to take away vital services from most of us, like medical care, public education,
and retirement support. I'm surprised that you don't find those things "consequential to the
life of most Americans".
There is no reason -- economic, social or moral -- why anyone needs a personal fortune above
$500 million dollars.
Eddie Cohen M.D ecohen2 . com Poway, California Jan. 29
In the age of AI the US needs a grand rebuilding of our infrastructure including
electrical grids, bridges, highways, mass transit systems, and conversion to renewable
energy.
It also needs a medical care system that provides a high level of to all of our
citizens including the poor and those with pre-existing conditions. What better down payment
on these costly necessities than a tax on the ultra rich.
Elizabeth Warren showed her chops years ago when she was a guest on Bill Moyer's PBS show,
and I've been a fan ever since. But - we don't just need more of Teddy Roosevelt - we need a
good dose of Franklin Roosevelt, too.
Given where this country is at, taxing the uber-rich
alone isn't going to be enough to solve our problems. We need a jobs program - good, family
wage jobs - that have been chipped away at for decades by both automation and off-shoring.
Taxing will help fund much needed gov't infrastructure problems, but it's purchasing power
that drives the economy - and we can't have one without a vibrant middle class that's
actually making and doing stuff. Since the Clinton years, the USA has spawned a bloated
investor class, making a lot of money shuffling paper, but what do they produce that drives
this country forward? Our infrastructure is fast becoming 3rd world.
In Senator Warren we finally have a politician who understands the difference between
wealth and income and is willing to start taxing wealth. This is especially important as the
truly wealthy receive very little of their money in the form of income and are therefore
taxed on far less than they are actually worth. This only serves to exacerbate our inequality
problem. The big banks, in particular, are very worried about what would happen should Warren
become president. Like that other Roosevelt - Franklin - she welcomes their hatred. Good for
her.
Extreme income inequality is damaging to social capital and to public health - and thus in
the long run to sustainable prosperity. The American epidemic of depression, opioid abuse and
suicide is is correlated with the acceleration of income inequality.
Worldwide, countries
with high income inequality have more depression, more suicide and less happiness, even when
their per capita GNP is higher than their neighbors'. The toxic effects of inequality are
especially great in a nation like the US where children are taught that anyone can make it if
they work hard enough. In fact, there's a lot more upward mobility in those awful socialist
Nordic countries, where teaching public school is a prestigious and well-paid job, college
and vocational training are taxpayer-funded (not 'free'), and no one goes bankrupt from a
serious illness or injury.
Without endorsing anyone's proposals here, a couple of examples from recent history on
what's actually possible, despite what people may think: -- Six weeks before the Berlin Wall
fell and reunited Germany, the then-West German government issued a report projecting that
German reunification was at least 20 years away. -- Japan went from a highly-nuclear power
dependent country, with no prospect of changing, to one that drastically cut its dependence
on nuclear in just one year after the Fukushima disaster. -- One of my favorites: FDR sits
down with the leaders of General Motors at the dawn of WWII and says I need so many tanks, so
many trucks etc etc for the war effort. A GM exec responds on these lines: "Mr. President, we
can't fulfill those needs and still produce X-hundred-thousand cars a year." FDR: "You don't
understand. You're no longer a car company." So the lesson is, no one knows what's possible
in a society till you try.
Eliminating carried interest seems perfectly rational. Compensation by any other name is
compensation and taxable as ordinary income as it is for everyone else in this country. Once
upon a time, capital gains were taxed at 15% and ordinary income at rates as high as 91%.
That led to all sorts of devices to game the system, including the infamous collapsible
corporation.
But with the difference down to around 10-15%, we may as well bite the bullet
and tax income from capital at the same rate we tax income from work. I doubt this will hurt
savings, investment, or capital formation.
It is still nice to have money, and owning capital
assets will still beat the alternative.
Finally, Senator Warren's proposal seems like an
acceleration of the estate tax.
Having worked in trusts and estates law for decades, I
suspect that this proposal will invite use of the same techniques used by estate planners,
lawyers, and accountants to drive down the fair market value of assets. Her proposal may
work, if it is ever enacted, but the devil, as usual, will be in the details. This is a very
complex concept, simple as it may seem at first blush. That is not an argument for not
trying, but for being very careful in the implementation, beginning with the statutory
language.
@Steve B People receiving Social Security only pay taxes on the benefits if their income
exceeds the same thresholds that apply to people who go out and work for a living, and pay
Social Security taxes that go to the elderly. Ellen, stop treating Social Security like it's
a savings bank.
Your Social Security taxes paid for the generation before you, and the Social
Security taxes raised now are paying for you. The average Social Security recipient today
will receive twice as much as they paid into the system during their earning years.
So please
give the "I'm just getting back the money I paid into the system" routine a rest. It's a
fiction. The wealth of the over 65s is growing faster than any other age group in our
society, and the fraction of government spending on over-65s is the only part of government
that has grown in decades.
If you're making enough to pay income taxes, pay your taxes and
stop complaining. That means you're doing OK. You'd better hope young people don't wake up
and realize just how much of their hard-earned pay is going to pay for
retirees.
The seriousness in her policies is in her work ethics and brilliance. She means what she
says and works her heart out to achieve those goals. There isn't anyone out there that
matches those qualities.
This tax will require staffing up the IRS and that will require dems control over both
houses of Congress as the GOPers have defunded the IRS.
The ultra right, ultra rich will be
paying more and more of their fortunes to their already privately-owned senators to defeat
this and any other progressive tax proposals. We need more, more and more people to get into
the democratic process and VOTE to recapture the nation's leadership in 2020!
Pretax income concentration at the top increased starting in the 1980s as a direct result
of the large reductions in the top marginal income tax rates. Those who complain that a 70%
top marginal tax rate is confiscatory need to understand that's the whole point.
When top
marginal tax rates are confiscatory that leads to lower pre-tax income inequality because tax
aversion of the wealthy leads they to pay themselves less income to avoid paying the
government so much in taxes.
Unlike most workers, corporate executives can easily arrange for
their boards to pay them far more than their marginal product would justify.
Furthermore,
wealth tends to concentrate automatically when top marginal tax rates are low. This is simply
due to the math of compound interest. When investment returns are not taxed sufficiently by
the estate tax or by capital gains taxes, they will be reinvested leading to extreme wealth
accumulation over generations that is automatic and not the result of any kind of investing
skill.
Even if a 70% top marginal tax rate did not raise a penny more in tax revenue it would
still be justified on the grounds of preventing extreme concentration of wealth and income.
Recent economic research has shown that in a purely capitalistic society in which there is no
taxation nor redistribution all wealth in the whole society will ultimately be owned by a
single household. https://voxeu.org/article/what-would-wealth-distribution-look-without-redistribution
@Baldwin Actually, it's 2% on what is on top of those 50M, so 2% on 100M, if you have a
net worth of $150M. That being said, nobody with $150M net worth just "sits" on his money for
35 years. To get there in the first place, in the 21st century you usually have to pay an
expert and engage in financial speculation (= speculation about financial transactions, not
an investment in the "real" economy), and of course you won't stop paying that expert once
you reach $150M, so you continue to add millions to your wealth anyhow. On the other hand, if
you belong to the middle class, you easily pay $30,000 taxes a year.
After ten years, that's
$300,000, and after 33 years that's a million dollars paid in taxes. Seen in this way, even
having the middle class paying taxes seems "unfair", because when they only earn $75,000 a
year, why should they pay a million in taxes over 33 years ... ?
Conclusion: taxes are paid
year after year not in function of how many you will have paid in total at the end of your
career, but in function of what we collectively need to run this country smoothly (military,
government, education, roads and bridges, EPA, ...).
A "fair" tax code is a tax code that
allows anyone who works hard to live comfortably, weather your a hedge fund manager or
teacher. And in order to get there, we can't continue the GOP's constantly lowering taxes for
the wealthiest all while cutting services to the 99%. NO one with $150M will suffer by paying
$2M in taxes a year ...
I applaud Elizabeth Warren and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez for espousing Teddy an Franklin
Roosevelt's ideas about reducing the concentration of 90% of wealth in the upper 1/10th of 1
per cent (0.1%). That is the situation which can lead to major social unrest, widespread
crime, and ultimately, civil war as happened in England in the 17th century, in Russia in
1917, and in the French Revolution that beheaded Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette - along with
thousands of other members of the nobility.
We see this anger and violence today in the
United States - in mass shootings, in failing public schools (the salaries are not sufficient
to attract qualified teachers who instead will work in more remunerative fields, like law and
computer technology. What works better is to reduce the concentration of wealth so people in
the lower 90% can have more prosperity and social stability in their lives.
All people need a
reliable source of food, healthcare, and a place for them and their families to live. All
people need access to good education, family planning, and higher education sufficient to alllow them to work. With so much reliance on mechanical work, we also need for all people to
have a minimum income - something that no one talks abou yet - but enough to live safely.
There is support for this not only among Democrats but also among Republicans. The help
should be for everyone, not based on need (Marxism). This is common sense not
socialism.
It was hilarious to read that Rush Limbaugh is SO terrified of AOC and Liz Warren that he,
the grandmaster of Goebbels-like mis-information, is calling them "hitlerian" as he and
Hannity push Trump every day to emulate Mussolini! But why is simple: I read that Limbaugh
makes about $100 million a year, which puts him in the super-rich category. I doubt highly
that he's paying the maximum 37(?)% on his income and if he is he needs better accountants
and tax lawyers! But AOC's proposal means that $90 million of his $100 million would be taxed
at 70%, leaving him "only" a measly $27 million a year to try not to starve on. Along with
whatever millions are left after taxes on the first $10 million, say, $5 million (again,
needs better tax advice). So he's stuck trying to survive on $32 million! (BTW, Hannity only
makes about $29 million before taxes, Oh! The Humanity!--Or is it "Oh! The Hannity"?) That's
really why they are vitriolic. Taxes are for the "little people", the suckers who call in and
rant, who watch Fox and believe, no matter how illogical their logic. Rush and Sean see a
REAL movement to tax their excessive income and will fight it tooth and nail, with fact and
fiction (mostly fiction) to protect themselves and their wealth.
Interesting how it is almost exactly a hundred years since this problem was dealt with in
the last Gilded Age. Enough time so that the generations that remember are long gone and so
the problem came back.
The Uber rich did this to themselves with their complete disconnect
from the economic realities facing the 99%. TARP was the kicker - we gave a trillion dollars
to the 1% while the 99% were left to fend for themselves. Despite the protestations of the
99%. Now that's political power in the hands of the few for the benefit of the few. Time to
stop it now.
"wealthiest 0.1 percent of Americans almost equal to that of the bottom 90 percent
combined." The corrupt neoliberalism of the 1% is unsustainable but is reflective of a
downward spiral of decline. While we experience continuous political campaigning the U.S. is,
in reality, a criminal and corrupt corporate state enriching the 1% and masquerading as a
democracy, an Inverted Totalitarianism.
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can
have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." Louis D.
Brandeis
Great. The pendulum swings back to sensible taxation rates for the ultra wealthy. Hard to
feel sorry for hedge fund managers. I can just see Sean Hannity railing against it now. He
would have to cough up.
This column makes a good case for Elizabeth Warren as Secretary of the Treasury, or head
of the Consumer Protection Bureau which she invented following Dodd Frank legislation. But
the best way to reach the widest audience is a Presidential campaign. Most of the responses
here focus on enough wealth, extreme wealth and self-interest. Beyond their tax liabilities
is the reality of the power the the rich wield through lobbyists, campaign contributions,
corporate takeovers, and tax dodges over our politics, governments, and over us, the people.
It's a pity that any proposed tax fairness adjustments are reduced to epithets against
socialism.
The problem is that the big money against this will say (ie: fund ads saying) anything
(true or false) about any other subject to swing votes against any candidate who's a serious
chance of pushing such a tax increase. One can only hope I am wrong.
Fascinating article. Thanks for sharing. Her Accountable Capitalism Act also addresses the
root causes of inequality, although some critics have stated that it would lead to the
semi-nationalization of business. I think its effect would be commonsense regulation of the
economic playing field so that excesses do not occur in how rewards are distributed. It has
the potential to address issues early enough to prevent problems.
@George Thanks to the Republican budget busting tax holiday for rich folks we will need
every penny of revenue just to keep our fiscal boat afloat. We should add AOC's 70% rate just
to patch our leaks in infrastructure, healthcare, education and social security for the
retirees who were gutted by the 2008 Republican Great Recession.
Since the super-rich are already paying 2+20 for their wealth management, paying another 2
to the government hardly seems like it would kill incentive...
Throughout most of the history of civilizations, governments have been funded by a wealth
tax. This was in the form of property tax, as that was the only wealth there was. Somehow
when financial wealth started to build, it was made largely exempt. Proposals to close this
loophole are well overdue. It's not so radical as it is just restoring traditional funding
methods.
A sure sign of health when Warren, a veteran politician and Ocasio-Cortez, a first term
member of Congress publish ideas early in the election cycle. The next steps are laws that
dismantle Citizens United and protect voting rights.
Elizabeth Warren had better take care. If she doesn't tread softly on these plans to
progressively tax the rich and make them spread the wealth to all those millions of people
out there who have had a hand in generating their economic success, she'll be called
something equally invidious to a 'socialist' -- a 'Canadian'.
Prof. Krugman is speaking truth to power but power tends to speak back, telling our
citizens that progressives like Sen. Warren are aiming to increase taxes across the board.
Never EVER do they narrow the stated target of such projected increases to the uppermost
economic stratum. And progressives always manage to let them get away with this. Democratic
candidates for political office need to assign members of their campaign staffs to Republican
events and arm them with bullhorns for the expressed purpose of shouting out the words "for
the rich" every time a typically disingenuous Republican opponent announces that a specific
Democrat has a plan to raise Americans' taxes.
"More important, my sense is that a lot of conventional political wisdom still assumes
that proposals to sharply raise taxes on the wealthy are too left-wing for American voters."
It's just shocking to me that conservative voters supposedly hate liberal elites, yet refuse
continuously to tax the mega rich and/or ignore the tax cuts for those households. Do they
not see the hypocrisy they're being fed by Fox News?
I know that it's inconvenient, but the US Constituion prohibits a direct tax that is not
apportioned among the states on the basis of population. Hard to see how Ms. Warren's "plan"
meets this standard. Serious presidential candidates need to propose plans that actually have
a chance to work. After what we're experiencing now, we don't need four additional years of
bombast.
@Mkm Can you give any arguments as to why this is unconstitutional, or a source as to when
it was declared so? Note that once (ie, just a few generations ago) abhorrent laws concerning
voting rights and segregation were considered just fine.
@Paul Wortman We indeed tend to believe that the poor and lower middle class must be
(more) ignorant, and as such easier victims of the GOP's massive fake news campaigns. Studies
show however that a majority of those earning less than $100,000 a year voted for Hillary,
whereas a small majority of those earning more than that voted for Trump. That's because her
platform included VERY clear and urgent, fact-based measures that would have helped the poor
and middle class, after Obama already made serious progress on these issues (a public option
added to Obamacare, and many other things). So imho the only ones risking "forgetting" about
the needs of the 99% when it comes to voting, are those who don't carefully fact-check
politicians' achievements and campaign agenda, before voting (or deciding not to vote)
...
@BC The current standard deduction of $12K for single people means that the first $12K is
not taxed ($24K joint) which means that your wish has already come true.
Fundamentally, a fallacy of modern American society is a perversion of the golden rule.
Let's call it "tax not lest ye be taxed." Even though the electorate will never in their
wildest dreams make this kind of income, their wildest dreams persist. And thus they will not
permit the thought of "unfair" taxation on the ultra-rich, using all the talking points the
richest 1% have lobbied deep into our political system at every level.
At this stage in our history when wealth hasn't been more concentrated, raising taxes on
the ultra-rich is exactly what populism is about. Think TR and FDR, not DJT.
@Ronald B. Duke, I think I remember people saying that during the civil rights movement
too. Be patient. You'll get what you want by'n'by. Waiting for dynastic fortunes trickle away
is sort of like waiting for the mountain to be worn away by the wind. It's not gonna happen
in our lifetime. There's always a reason for not depriving the wealthy of any part of their
fortunes. Each time we fail to do that, the need to do it becomes more dire. Things just
don't get better by waiting for someone to voluntarily or even accidentally, divest
themselves of money or power. It can be done by legislation, and that's better than by
revolution. And, you know, the wealth accumulation has already begun. What has to happen now
is to keep it from falling over and crushing all of us (Make that almost all of
us).
@Rockets Pual Krugman is almost surely right about incentives on the individual level
since few of us will hold off just because the second $50 MM is slightly less lucrative. Buts
its funny how he ignores the macroeconomic effect. If the Bezos tax bill was $1 billion, I
think we agree it would come exclusively out of savings. *IF* the government simply used the
proceeds to reduce spending (below some credible prior baseline) then the net effect on
national savings is zero; interest rates unchanged, economic activity unaffected, and so on.
But if the government spends the money (as seems likely under President Warren) then national
savings is reduced and the fed will (in the current environment) probably feel obliged to
push back against a stimulative fiscal policy with a restrictive monetary policy: higher
rates, less investment, less consumer spending, etc. So Bezos has no incentive to invest less
but as a nation we will do just that. Is that good? Maybe - it would have been great in 2009.
Seems to merit a discussion.
The 2020 campaign for POTUS is shaping up to be very interesting. That is, if Trump makes
it. Combine Warren and Harris we would have a great team. Warren adds specifics with
intellectual heft and Harris inspires us with her open, honest and intelligent persona. Just
need to find room for Amy K. on that team.
This is far better than changing the rate on capital gains, which would tend to punish
middle class retirees for having invested over the years (Mr. Rattner's proposal today) and,
I think, would be difficult for the uber-wealthy to avoid. I'm not sure that $50 million is
the correct starting point (perhaps a meager $25 million of net worth should be taxed) but
this is a brilliant new concept that offers promise of slowing wealth inequality while not
terribly constraining the wealthy.
In reading this column and the associated comments, there seems to be one glaring
omission: the necessity of overturning the Citizens United decision which provides the
ultra-rich avenues to continually push their lower taxes agenda by hiring hoards of
lobbyists, by "buying" politicians with campaign contributions, by funding misleading and
excessive political advertising, and by controlling various media outlets that are little
more than propaganda mills. Until Citizens United is overturned much-needed, rational
progressive taxation reforms have little chance of becoming reality, and with the current
composition of the Supreme Court overturning this decision is unfortunately extremely
unlikely.
@Yabasta Yeah, Dr. Krugman must have sustained a hit to the head since 2016 and would not
recognize a photo of Hillary Clinton if it was flashed before him. His incessant savaging of
Bernie was positively embarrassing to witness and never adequately explained. Only goes to
show you that our much vaunted reason is designed to justify our emotions and that even Nobel
laureates have deep subconscious axes to grind.
Under Eisenhower marginal tax rates were approximately 90%. This "Greatest Generation"
built the interstate system. We can't even maintain the interstate system we have let alone
build a new one. Our national-level political system is dominated by the rich. Our economic
policies are totally skewed towards the rich. Our educational system is biased towards the
rich. We've let capitalism trump democracy. If making America Great Again means taxing the
rich back into reality, I have no problem with that. My only annoyance with Mr. Krugman's
essay is his monomaniacal avoidance of saying the word, "Sanders." What's that
about?
This makes perfect sense to me. Under Senator Warren's plan households with more than $50
million of annual income would pay a 2% wealth surcharge. I can't imagine this would have any
significant effect on any of the 75,000 wealthiest U.S. households. I'd much rather see
Michael Bloomberg and his financial peers support broader efforts to make college free or
reduce student debt levels than make more lavish gifts to elite institutions like John
Hopkins.
cks, broken promises, scandal. and a presidency in trouble – all pushed Bill Clinton
into taking a brand new tack: triangulation. In addition to the definition of triangulation
offered by Dick Morris in his Frontline appearance on PBS, here is a quote from his book:
"The idea behind triangulation is to work hard to solve the problems that motivate the other
party's voters, so as to defang them politically The essence of triangulation is to use your
party's solutions to solve the other side's problems. Use your tools to fix their car." The
problem with that is that triangulation has not quite worked out that way. "Their car" wasn't
what was actually being fixed. What the "tools" did address, however, were the goals of the
Republican party.
https://www.rimaregas.com/2017/09/04/triangulation-when-neoliberalism-is-at-its-most-dangerous-to-voters-updated-dem-politics-on-blog42
/
@Jonathan....Current S+P 500 dividend yield is 2.02%. That would provide cash to cover
most of the wealth tax. A wealth tax might impact the market for high end art and
collectibles, but that is probably a very small fraction of total wealth.
@Duane McPherson I realize Warren may have some limitations re emotional appeal (also re
men not wanting to vote for a woman), which is why I said I put her "at the top of my list
for Dems, SO FAR." I'll see how this plays out on the campaign trail. Someone else may emerge
who has both the smarts and the charisma- or Warren may find an emotional niche. Time will
tell.
@Phyliss Dalmatian I'm afraid Sherrod is not liberal enough. Nowadays, if you talk about
bi-partisanship and reaching across the aisle, you're talking about making a deal with the
devil.
This is a pie pie-in-the-sky comment, but I'll stand by the overall premise based on our
history. It's all about the velocity of money and resources. You have to spend it to grow it.
Infrastructure also includes 100% healthcare cradle to grave, baseline living standards,
Social Security clean water, clean air, clean power, full education, etc. Infrastructure is
the key to everything throughout history, period. Close all tax loop holes. Reduce all
business taxes by at least half or more. Create a progressive tax rate starting at 0% raised
all the way to 80% up the ladder. If you don't like it, renounce your citizenship with all of
what that entails and leave. Completely get rid of the cap on Social Security. Everyone
except those at the 0% tax rate pays in 7%. That is fair. Make the business contribution 3%
of the first $100,000 Reinstate a stronger set of anti-trust guard rails. Re-instate a
stronger form of Glass/Steagle. Reinstate a stronger Fairness Doctrine Realize that a
corporation is NOT a person and if we think they are, subject them to the 13th amendment
regarding one person owning another. They also are not allowed participate in anything of a
political nature, in any way shape or form. Period. Full stop. Invest in the poor and middle
classes in all ways. Raising standards from the bottom up raises all boats. It's not "trickle
down" it's "trickle up". It's all about the velocity of money. You have to spend it to grow
it. We can do this in this country.
Why do by indirection what is better done directly? Income tax rates should be adjusted to
push the marginal rate to a percentage needed to produce the estimated revenue from Warren's
proposal. This would (1) not require creation of a new beauracracy and a new wealth tax code
to administer the new wealth tax, (2) not create incentives for lawyers and accounts to
redefine net worth and would (3) not change incentives for investments by wealthy
individuals, with unknown and unknowable side effects. If we also want to reduce fortunes
directly, enact a truly functional estate tax, not the joke which we have
now.
One other thought, the high tax rates of the 1950s and 1960s carried with them many, many
deductions which are no longer available -- -which were surrendered politically in exchange
for lower overall ages. Maybe something additionally to be considered would be combing
through the tax code and addressing the special interest provisions which conflate social
policy about certain companies/products/goals with tax policy.
@A P As you note, simply giving the money to their foundation can spare them the tax bill.
They don't actually need to have the foundation disburse that much of it. And my casual
impression is that Bill Gates' ability to direct billions through his foundation has
preserved his "social capital" - he is still invited to Davos, can tour Africa with Bono or
the Pope, get his phone calls returned by Important People, get his kids into whatever
college he chooses to endow, hop on private jets to wherever, and so on. As punishments go
forcing him to chair a major foundation is not much.
The government has never proven itself to be a good steward of capital. They will tax and
spend, tax and reallocate, tax and waste. No thanks. Would rather the incentives remain and
America push back against socialist notions. So expected from Krugman.
@CDN Eh? Real estate is already valued every year and taxed accordingly, it's called
property taxes. Art and antiquities are already valued for insurance purposes. It's not
difficulty at all.
@Shiv "I'm completely unable to determine how Jeff Bezos's work building Amazon has caused
me or anyone else to be worse off. In fact, we're all better off." So you know nobody who had
been making a decent living with a bookstore - or in publishing - or in many other small
businesses that have been priced into oblivion by Amazon if they'd been lucky enough to
survive the WalMart effect that came before. Robert Reich in "Supercapitalism" was right. The
consumer side of a person can so easily derange the thinking of the rest of the person. Not
following me? Than picture the dream world of big tech companies with their dreams of
stupendous individual wealth by "disrupting" something where people have been making their
livings. Each wave of disruption leaves people without their jobs. And these days, the chance
of getting into a better-paying job after being disruptive aren't all that terrific if you
look at the statistical outcomes. So is your view of morality served by the relentless push
to undercut older businesses that provided employment, simply because the disrupting model is
"more efficient"? Reconsider what "efficiency" is supposed to accomplish in the bigger
picture of society rather than just shareholder (and top executive) financial
reward.
As an authentic Republican, not one of the brigands who hijacked the party as a means to
plunder and pillage, I heartily endorse the Warren proposal. To make it somewhat more
palatable for voters I would suggest it earmark 50% of the revenue generated go to starting
to pay down the national debt. That would mean, using the 2.75 trillion estimate, that in the
first decade we would reclaim from the wealthiest approximately what Republicans gave away in
the deficit-financed tax cuts of 2017. In effect having had an interest-free loan from us for
a decade they would return the cash we have been paying interest on. Would be quite big of
them, actually.
@Alice It's not as if we ignore which tax loopholes for the wealthiest have to be closed
and how to do so, you know. Democrats have been trying to do this for quite some time
already, but the GOP blocks it. And Obamacare already includes a tax increase for the
wealthiest - that's one of the reasons why it cuts the deficit by $100 billion, rather than
adding to it. That proves that the wealthiest DNC donors and Democrats (such as Obama
himself, and Pelosi) FULLY agree to increase their own taxes. Conclusion: cynicism never
helped us move forward, fact-checking does ... ;-)
@Vink Why do you think they all own a dozen sprawling properties scattered around the
globe? They are all Bond villain wannabes never far from a secret citadel. I hope they've got
plenty of toilet paper on hand for the siege.
@Michael Blazin You think that... why? It's not at all clear. But it is clear that the law
could be written so that any transaction could be taxed. So unless the billionaires want to
hide their money under their mattresses.....
A progressive wealth tax is an"idea whose time has come". See Piketty, Thomas. Capital in
the Twenty-First Century . Harvard University Press. Use the revenue generated for
infrastructure repair.
@Blue Moon As far as Social Security and Medicare, all we have to do to fix that is tax
the millionaires' income the same as we do the peon- every dime that goes in their overseas
accounts should be taxed, same as the rest of us.
There are numerous holes in this proposal, none of which have anything to do with "greed".
1. What Krugman, Saez and Zucman fail to mention is that Denmark repealed its wealth tax in
1996 and Sweden repealed its wealth tax more than a decade ago. Not hard to understand why --
it is ultimately a self-defeating tax policy that just drives wealth out of your economy.
Krugman doesn't mention that Saez and Zucman's basic premise is that every country has to
implement a wealth tax for it to work, which is never going to happen. 2. Warren's proposal
is blatantly unconstitutional as a direct tax, so she would need to garner the political
support not just to pass the tax but amend the constitution similar to what was done for the
income tax. Highly unlikely. The bottom line is that the only way to actually pay for all of
the middle-class goodies that Democrats want to be provided by the Federal government (free
college, Medicare for all, free daycare, paid leave) is to tax the middle-class like what
they do in Sweden and Denmark through VAT and much lower income tax thresholds. Of course,
once everyone figures that out, those proposals won't poll nearly as well, which is why AOC
is now claiming that it will be magically paid for through the hocus-pocus of Modern Monetary
Theory.
For Warren's tax proposal that "wouldn't lead to large-scale evasion if the tax applied to
all assets and was adequately enforced ..." the IRS needs more staff and a bigger budget.
Past Republican congresses have purposely gutted the agency's audit and enforcement
capabilities at the direction of the very interests Warren's proposal targets.
"Would such a plan be feasible? Wouldn't the rich just find ways around it?" The most
likely way around it would be to bribe Congress not to vote for it. Isn't that why they
"... Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the world has not seen these levels of concentration of ownership. The Soviet Union did not die because of apparent ideological reasons but due to economic bankruptcy caused by its uncompetitive monopolistic economy. Our verdict is that the US is heading in the same direction. ..."
"... In a future instalment of this report, we will show that the oligarchization of America – the placing it under the rule of the One Percent (or perhaps more accurately the 0.1%, if not 0.01%) - has been a deliberate ideologically driven long-term project to establish absolute economic power over the US and its political system and further extend that to involve an absolute global hegemony (the latter project thankfully thwarted by China and Russia). ..."
"... In present-day United States a few major investors – equity funds or private capital - are as a rule cross-owned by each other, forming investor oligopolies, which in turn own the business oligopolies. ..."
"... A study has shown that among a sample of the 1,500 largest US firms (S&P 1500), the probability of one major shareholder holding significant shares in two competing firms had jumped to 90% in 2014, while having been just 16% in 1999. (*2). ..."
"... Institutional investors like BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street, Fidelity, and JP Morgan, now own 80% of all stock in S&P 500 listed companies. The Big Three investors - BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street – alone constitute the largest shareholder in 88% of S&P 500 firms, which roughly correspond to America's 500 largest corporations. (*3). Both BlackRock and Vanguard are among the top five shareholders of almost 70% of America's largest 2,000 publicly traded corporations. (*4). ..."
A close-knit oligarchy controls all major corporations. Monopolization of ownership in US
economy fast approaching Soviet levels
Starting with Ronald Reagan's presidency, the US government willingly decided to ignore the
anti-trust laws so that corporations would have free rein to set up monopolies. With each
successive president the monopolistic concentration of business and shareholding in America has
grown precipitously eventually to reach the monstrous levels of the present day.
Today's level of monopolistic concentration is of such unprecedented levels that we may
without hesitation designate the US economy as a giant oligopoly. From economic power follows
political power, therefore the economic oligopoly translates into a political oligarchy. (It
seems, though, that the transformation has rather gone the other way around, a ferocious set of
oligarchs have consolidated their economic and political power beginning from the turn of the
twentieth century). The conclusion that
the US is an oligarchy finds support in a 2014 by a Princeton University study.
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the world has not seen these levels of concentration
of ownership. The Soviet Union did not die because of apparent ideological reasons but due to
economic bankruptcy caused by its uncompetitive monopolistic economy. Our verdict is that the
US is heading in the same direction.
In a later report, we will demonstrate how all sectors of the US economy have fallen prey to
monopolization and how the corporate oligopoly has been set up across the country. This post
essentially serves as an appendix to that future report by providing the shocking details of
the concentration of corporate ownership.
Apart from illustrating the monopolization at the level of shareholding of the major
investors and corporations, we will in a follow-up post take a somewhat closer look at one
particularly fatal aspect of this phenomenon, namely the
consolidation of media (posted simultaneously with the present one) in the hands of
absurdly few oligarch corporations. In there, we will discuss the monopolies of the tech giants
and their ownership concentration together with the traditional media because they rightfully
belong to the same category directly restricting speech and the distribution of opinions in
society.
In a future instalment of this report, we will show that the oligarchization of America
– the placing it under the rule of the One Percent (or perhaps more accurately the 0.1%,
if not 0.01%) - has been a deliberate ideologically driven long-term project to establish
absolute economic power over the US and its political system and further extend that to involve
an absolute global hegemony (the latter project thankfully thwarted by China and Russia). To
achieve these goals, it has been crucial for the oligarchs to control and direct the narrative
on economy and war, on all public discourse on social affairs. By seizing the media, the
oligarchs have created a monstrous propaganda machine, which controls the opinions of the
majority of the US population.
We use the words 'monopoly,' 'monopolies,' and 'monopolization' in a broad sense and subsume
under these concepts all kinds of market dominance be it by one company or two or a small
number of companies, that is, oligopolies. At the end of the analysis, it is not of great
importance how many corporations share in the market dominance, rather what counts is the death
of competition and the position enabling market abuse, either through absolute dominance,
collusion, or by a de facto extinction of normal market competition. Therefore we use the term
'monopolization' to describe the process of reaching a critical level of non-competition on a
market. Correspondingly, we may denote 'monopoly companies' two corporations of a duopoly or
several of an oligopoly.
Horizontal shareholding – the cementation of the
oligarchy
One especially perfidious aspect of this concentration of ownership is that the same few
institutional investors have acquired undisputable control of the leading corporations in
practically all the most important sectors of industry. The situation when one or several
investors own controlling or significant shares of the top corporations in a given industry
(business sector) is referred to as horizontal shareholding . (*1). In present-day United
States a few major investors – equity funds or private capital - are as a rule
cross-owned by each other, forming investor oligopolies, which in turn own the business
oligopolies.
A study has shown that among a sample of the 1,500 largest US firms (S&P 1500), the
probability of one major shareholder holding significant shares in two competing firms had
jumped to 90% in 2014, while having been just 16% in 1999. (*2).
Institutional investors like BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street, Fidelity, and JP Morgan, now
own 80% of all stock in S&P 500 listed companies. The Big Three investors - BlackRock,
Vanguard and State Street – alone constitute the largest shareholder in 88% of S&P
500 firms, which roughly correspond to America's 500 largest corporations. (*3). Both BlackRock
and Vanguard are among the top five shareholders of almost 70% of America's largest 2,000
publicly traded corporations. (*4).
Blackrock had as of 2016 $6.2 trillion worth of assets under management, Vanguard $5.1
trillion, whereas State Street has dropped to a distant third with only $1 trillion in assets.
This compares with a total market capitalization of US stocks according to Russell
3000 of $30 trillion at end of 2017 (From 2016 to 2017, the Big Three has of course also
put on assets).Blackrock and Vanguard would then alone own more than one-third of all US
publicly listed shares.
From an expanded sample that includes the 3,000 largest publicly listed corporations
(Russell 3000 index), institutions owned (2016) about
78% of the equity .
The speed of concentration the US economy in the hands of institutions has been incredible.
Still back in 1950s, their share of the equity was 10%, by 1980 it was 30% after which the
concentration has rapidly grown to the present day approximately 80%. (*5). Another study puts
the present (2016) stock market capitalization held by institutional investors at 70%. (*6).
(The slight difference can possibly be explained by variations in the samples of companies
included).
As a result of taking into account the common ownership at investor level, it emerges that
the US economy is yet much more monopolized than it was previously thought when the focus had
been on the operational business corporation alone detached from their owners. (*7).
The
Oligarch owners assert their control
Apologists for monopolies have argued that the institutional investors who manage passive
capital are passive in their own conduct as shareholders as well. (*8). Even if that would be
true it would come with vastly detrimental consequences for the economy as that would mean that
in effect there would be no shareholder control at all and the corporate executives would
manage the companies exclusively with their own short-term benefits in mind, inevitably leading
to corruption and the loss of the common benefits businesses on a normally functioning
competitive market would bring.
In fact, there seems to have been a period in the US economy – before the rapid
monopolization of the last decade -when such passive investors had relinquished control to the
executives. (*9). But with the emergence of the Big Three investors and the astonishing
concentration of ownership that does not seem to hold water any longer. (*10). In fact, there
need not be any speculation about the matter as the monopolist owners are quite candid about
their ways. For example, BlackRock's CEO Larry Fink sends out
an annual guiding letter to his subject, practically to all the largest firms of the US and
increasingly also Europe and the rest of the West. In his pastoral, the CEO shares his view of
the global conditions affecting business prospects and calls for companies to adjust their
strategies accordingly.
The investor will eventually review the management's strategic plans for compliance with the
guidelines. Effectively, the BlackRock CEO has in this way assumed the role of a giant central
planner, rather like the Gosplan, the central planning agency of the Soviet command
economy.
The 2019 letter (referenced above) contains this striking passage, which should quell all
doubts about the extent to which BlackRock exercises its powers:
"As we seek to build long-term value for our clients through engagement, our aim is not to
micromanage a company's operations. Instead, our primary focus is to ensure board
accountability for creating long-term value. However, a long-term approach should not be
confused with an infinitely patient one. When BlackRock does not see progress despite ongoing
engagement, or companies are insufficiently responsive to our efforts to protect our clients'
long-term economic interests, we do not hesitate to exercise our right to vote against
incumbent directors or misaligned executive compensation."
Considering the striking facts rendered above, we should bear in mind that the establishment
of this virtually absolute oligarch ownership over all the largest corporations of the United
States is a relatively new phenomenon. We should therefore expect that the centralized control
and centralized planning will rapidly grow in extent as the power is asserted and methods are
refined.
Most of the capital of those institutional investors consists of so-called passive capital,
that is, such cases of investments where the investor has no intention of trying to achieve any
kind of control of the companies it invests in, the only motivation being to achieve as high as
possible a yield. In the overwhelming majority of the cases the funds flow into the major
institutional investors, which invest the money at their will in any corporations. The original
investors do not retain any control of the institutional investors, and do not expect it
either. Technically the institutional investors like BlackRock and Vanguard act as fiduciary
asset managers. But here's the rub, while the people who commit their assets to the funds may
be considered as passive investors, the institutional investors who employ those funds are most
certainly not.
Cross-ownership of oligarch corporations
To make matters yet worse, it must be kept in mind that the oligopolistic investors in turn
are frequently cross-owned by each other. (*11). In fact, there is no transparent way of
discovering who in fact controls the major institutional investors.
One of the major institutional investors, Vanguard is ghost owned insofar as it does not
have any owners at all in the traditional sense of the concept. The company claims that it is
owned by the multiple funds that it has itself set up and which it manages. This is how the
company puts it on
their home page : "At Vanguard, there are no outside owners, and therefore, no conflicting
loyalties. The company is owned by its funds, which in turn are owned by their shareholders --
including you, if you're a Vanguard fund investor." At the end of the analysis, it would then
seem that Vanguard is owned by Vanguard itself, certainly nobody should swallow the charade
that those funds stuffed with passive investor money would exercise any ownership control over
the superstructure Vanguard. We therefore assume that there is some group of people (other than
the company directors) that have retained the actual control of Vanguard behind the scenes
(perhaps through one or a few of the funds). In fact, we believe that all three (BlackRock,
State Street and Vanguard) are tightly controlled by a group of US oligarchs (or more widely
transatlantic oligarchs), who prefer not to brandish their power. It is beyond the scope of
this study and our means to investigate this hypothesis, but whatever, it is bad enough that as
a proven fact these three investor corporations wield this control over most of the American
economy. We also know that the three act in concert wherever they hold shares.
(*12).
Now, let's see who are the formal owners of these institutional investors
In considering these ownership charts, please, bear in mind that we have not consistently
examined to what degree the real control of one or another company has been arranged through a
scheme of issuing different classes of shares, where a special class of shares give vastly more
voting rights than the ordinary shares. One source asserts
that 355 of the companies in the Russell index consisting of the 3000 largest corporations
employ such a dual voting-class structure, or 11.8% of all major corporations.
We have mostly relied on www.stockzoa.com for the shareholder data. However, this and
other sources tend to list only the so-called institutional investors while omitting corporate
insiders and other individuals. (We have no idea why such strange practice is employed
"... The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) has designated Slotkin as one of its top candidates, part of the so-called "Red to Blue" program targeting the most vulnerable Republican-held seats -- in this case, the Eighth Congressional District of Michigan, which includes Lansing and Brighton. The House seat for the district is now held by two-term Republican Representative Mike Bishop. ..."
"... The 23rd Congressional District in Texas, which includes a vast swathe of the US-Mexico border along the Rio Grande, features a contest for the Democratic nomination between Gina Ortiz Jones, an Air Force intelligence officer in Iraq, who subsequently served as an adviser for US interventions in South Sudan and Libya, and Jay Hulings. The latter's website describes him as a former national security aide on Capitol Hill and federal prosecutor, whose father and mother were both career undercover CIA agents. The incumbent Republican congressman, Will Hurd, is himself a former CIA agent, so any voter in that district will have his or her choice of intelligence agency loyalists in both the Democratic primary and the general election. ..."
An extraordinary number of former intelligence and military operatives from the CIA, Pentagon, National Security Council and State
Department are seeking nomination as Democratic candidates for Congress in the 2018 midterm elections. The potential influx of military-intelligence
personnel into the legislature has no precedent in US political history.
If the Democrats capture a majority in the House of Representatives on November 6, as widely predicted, candidates drawn from
the military-intelligence apparatus will comprise as many as half of the new Democratic members of Congress. They will hold the balance
of power in the lower chamber of Congress.
Both push and pull are at work here. Democratic Party leaders are actively recruiting candidates with a military or intelligence
background for competitive seats where there is the best chance of ousting an incumbent Republican or filling a vacancy, frequently
clearing the field for a favored "star" recruit. A case in point is Elissa Slotkin, a former CIA operative with three tours in Iraq,
who worked as Iraq director for the National Security Council in the Obama White House and as a top aide to John Negroponte, the
first director of national intelligence. After her deep involvement in US war crimes in Iraq, Slotkin moved to the Pentagon, where,
as a principal deputy assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs, her areas of responsibility included drone
warfare, "homeland defense" and cyber warfare. Elissa Slotkin
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) has designated Slotkin as one of its top candidates, part of the so-called
"Red to Blue" program targeting the most vulnerable Republican-held seats -- in this case, the Eighth Congressional District of Michigan,
which includes Lansing and Brighton. The House seat for the district is now held by two-term Republican Representative Mike Bishop.
The Democratic leaders are promoting CIA agents and Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans. At the same time, such people are choosing
the Democratic Party as their preferred political vehicle. There are far more former spies and soldiers seeking the nomination of
the Democratic Party than of the Republican Party. There are so many that there is a subset of Democratic primary campaigns that,
with a nod to Mad magazine, one might call "spy vs. spy."
The 23rd Congressional District in Texas, which includes a vast swathe of the US-Mexico border along the Rio Grande, features
a contest for the Democratic nomination between Gina Ortiz Jones, an Air Force intelligence officer in Iraq, who subsequently served
as an adviser for US interventions in South Sudan and Libya, and Jay Hulings. The latter's website describes him as a former national
security aide on Capitol Hill and federal prosecutor, whose father and mother were both career undercover CIA agents. The incumbent
Republican congressman, Will Hurd, is himself a former CIA agent, so any voter in that district will have his or her choice of intelligence
agency loyalists in both the Democratic primary and the general election.
CNN's "State of the Union" program on March 4 included a profile of Jones as one of many female candidates seeking nomination
as a Democrat in Tuesday's primary in Texas. The network described her discreetly as a "career civil servant." However, the Jones
for Congress website positively shouts about her role as a spy, noting that after graduating from college, "Gina entered the US Air
Force as an intelligence officer, where she deployed to Iraq and served under the US military's 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy" (the
last phrase signaling to those interested in such matters that Jones is gay).
According to her campaign biography, Ortiz Jones was subsequently detailed to a position as "senior advisor for trade enforcement,"
a post President Obama created by executive order in 2012. She would later be invited to serve as a director for investment at the
Office of the US Trade Representative, where she led the portfolio that reviewed foreign investments to ensure they did not pose
national security risks. With that background, if she fails to win election, she can surely enlist in the trade war efforts of the
Trump administration.
"The Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies, which is cited by the U.S. Department of Education, defines
literacy as "the ability to understand, evaluate, use and engage with written texts to participate in society, to achieve one's
goals, and to develop one's knowledge and potential." It divides the population into five levels -- with levels 2 and above being
considered literate.
According to PIAAC , one in five U.S. adults has "low
literacy" skills, which includes those classified as being either level 1 or below.
There are an estimated 26.5 million adults at level 1 according to PIAAC -- those who can read and write at the most basic
level but couldn't read a newspaper or would have trouble filling out forms at a doctor's office. Another estimated 8.4 million
people are below level 1 and considered "functionally illiterate." There are also 8.2 million others who were unable to participate
in the survey because of either a language barrier or a cognitive or physical inability, and the PIAAC data classifies them as
also having low literacy abilities."
Former Vice President Joe Biden has released
a video statement telling the American people that the
accusations he is now facing
of touching women in inappropriate ways without their consent is the product of changing "social norms", assuring everyone that
he will indeed be adjusting to those changes.
And thank goodness. For a minute there, I was worried Biden might cave under the pressure of a looming scandal and decline to
run for president on the grounds that it could cripple his campaign and leave America facing another four years of Donald Trump.
Here are nine good reasons why I hope Joe Biden runs for president, and why you should support him too:
1. It's his turn.
It's Biden's turn to be president. He's spent years playing second fiddle while other leading Democrats hogged all the limelight,
and that's not fair. He's been waiting very patiently. Come on.
2. Most Qualified Candidate Ever.
If Joe Biden secures the Democratic Party nomination for president, he would be the Most Qualified Candidate Ever to run for
office. His service as a US Senator and a Vice President has given him unparalleled experience priming him for the most powerful
elected office in the world. Everything Biden has done throughout his entire career proves that he'd make a great Commander-in-Chief.
3. He's closely associated with a popular Democratic president.
You think Biden, you think Obama. You think Obama, you think greatness. You can't spend that much time with a great Democratic
president without absorbing his greatness yourself. It's called osmosis.
4. You liked Obama, didn't you?
Biden was part of the Obama administration. Remember the Obama administration? It was magical, right? If you want more of that,
vote Biden.
5. But Trump!
Do you want Trump to win the next election? You know he'll shatter all our norms and literally end the world if he does, right?
You should be terrified of the possibility of Trump winning in 2020, and if you are, you should want him running against Joe Biden.
What's the alternative? Nominating some crazy unelectable socialist like Bernie Sanders? Might as well just hand Trump the victory
now, then. Anyone who wants to beat Trump must fall in line behind the Most Qualified Candidate Ever.
6. Iraq wasn't so bad.
Okay, maybe some of his past foreign policy positions look bad in hindsight, but come on. Pushing for the Iraq war was what
everyone was doing back in those days. It was all the rage. We all made it through, right? I mean, most of us?
7. This is happening whether you like it or not.
We're doing this. We're going to push Joe Biden through whether you like it or not, and we can do it the easy way or the hard
way. Just relax, take deep breaths, and think about a nice place far away from here. Don't struggle. This will be over before
you know it. We'll use plenty of lube.
8. Just vote for him.
Just vote for him, you insolent little shits. Who the fuck do you think you are, anyway? You think you're entitled to a bunch
of ponies and unicorns like healthcare and drinkable water? You only think that because you're a bunch of racist, sexist homophobes.
You will vote for who we tell you to or we'll spend the next four years calling you all Russian agents and screaming about Susan
Sarandon.
9. Nothing could possibly go wrong.
Honestly, what could possibly go wrong? It's not like the Most Qualified Candidate Ever could manage to lose an election to
some oafish reality TV star. Hell, Biden could beat Trump in his sleep. He could even skip campaigning in Michigan, Wisconsin
and Pennsylvania and still win by a landslide, because those states are in the bag. There's no way he could fail, barring some
unprecedented and completely unforeseeable freak occurrences from way out of left field that nobody could possibly have anticipated.
It is reasonably cheap to buy a journalist and turn him into the attack dog on particular, inconvenient or dangerious for the
financial oligarchy candidate.
New article about Tulsi Gabbard being viciously attacked over religion during Christmas.
Angry Bernie Sanders supporters whom I guess forgot to take their meds over the holidaze
are viciously attacking Tulsi because of Jesus? LOL. This new article is specifically about
Mike Figueroa from The Humanist Report, a semi-popular vlogger, and also a fanatic atheist
type.
He used to be a Tulsi supporter, but since he is connected to the TYT network which is
funded by Hollywood Billionaire and major DNC Clinton funder Katzenberg, he must have
recently been told to toe the party line on smearing Tulsi if he wanted to reap the funding
benefits of TYT who are hardcore Tulsi haters, following the DNC line.
I guess Tulsi showing the Christmas spirit gave him a reason to look hardcore to his
fellow fanatics and appease TYT money folks. Anyways, here is the new article Like, In The
Year 2024
"... "Today I say to Mr. Putin: We will not allow you to undermine American democracy or democracies around the world," Sanders said. "In fact, our goal is to not only strengthen American democracy, but to work in solidarity with supporters of democracy around the globe, including in Russia. In the struggle of democracy versus authoritarianism, we intend to win." ..."
"... And yet, Warren too seems in thrall to the idea that the world order is shaping up to be one in which the white hats (Western democracies) must face off against the black hats (Eurasian authoritarians). Warren says that the "combination of authoritarianism and corrupt capitalism" of Putin's Russia and Xi's China "is a fundamental threat to democracy, both here in the United States and around the world." ..."
"... The Cold War echoes here are as unmistakable as they are worrying. As Princeton and NYU professor emeritus Stephen F. Cohen has written, during the first Cold War, a "totalitarian school" of Soviet studies grew up around the idea "that a totalitarian 'quest for absolute power' at home always led to the 'dynamism' in Soviet behavior abroad was a fundamental axiom of cold-war Soviet studies and of American foreign policy." ..."
"... Cold warriors in both parties frequently mistook communism as a monolithic global movement. Neoprogressives are making this mistake today when they gloss over national context, history, and culture in favor of an all-encompassing theory that puts the "authoritarian" nature of the governments they are criticizing at the center of their diagnosis. ..."
"... By citing the threat to Western democracies posed by a global authoritarian axis, the neoprogressives are repeating the same mistake made by liberal interventionists and neoconservatives. They buy into the democratic peace theory, which holds without much evidence that a world order populated by democracies is likely to be a peaceful one because democracies allegedly don't fight wars against one another. ..."
"... George McGovern once observed that U.S. foreign policy "has been based on an obsession with an international Communist conspiracy that existed more in our minds than in reality." So too the current obsession with the global authoritarians. Communism wasn't a global monolith and neither is this. By portraying it as such, neoprogressives are midwifing bad policy. ..."
"... Some of these elected figures, like Trump and Farage, are symptoms of the failure of the neoliberal economic order. Others, like Orban and Kaczyński, are responses to anti-European Union sentiment and the migrant crises that resulted from the Western interventions in Libya and Syria. Many have more to do with conditions and histories specific to their own countries. Targeting them by painting them with the same broad brush is a mistake. ..."
"... "Of all the geopolitical transformations confronting the liberal democratic world these days," writes neoconservative-turned-Hillary Clinton surrogate Robert Kagan, "the one for which we are least prepared is the ideological and strategic resurgence of authoritarianism." Max Boot also finds cause for concern. Boot, a modern-day reincarnation (minus the pedigree and war record) of the hawkish Cold War-era columnist Joe Alsop, believes that "the rise of populist authoritarianism is perhaps the greatest threat we face as a world right now." ..."
You can hear echoes of progressive realism in the statements of leading progressive
lawmakers such as Senator Bernie Sanders and Congressman Ro Khanna. They have put ending
America's support for the Saudi war on Yemen near the top of the progressive foreign policy
agenda. On the stump, Sanders now singles out the military-industrial complex and the runaway
defense budget for criticism. He promises, among other things, that "we will not continue to
spend $700 billion a year on the military." These are welcome developments. Yet since November
of 2016, something else has emerged alongside the antiwar component of progressive foreign
policy that is not so welcome. Let's call it neoprogressive internationalism, or
neoprogressivism for short.
Trump's administration brought with it the Russia scandal. To attack the president and his
administration, critics revived Cold War attitudes. This is now part of the neoprogressive
foreign policy critique. It places an "authoritarian axis" at its center. Now countries ruled
by authoritarians, nationalists, and kleptocrats can and must be checked by an American-led
crusade to make the world safe for progressive values. The problem with this neoprogressive
narrative of a world divided between an authoritarian axis and the liberal West is what it will
lead to: ever spiraling defense budgets, more foreign adventures, more Cold Wars -- and hot
ones too.
Unfortunately, Senators Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have adopted elements of the
neoprogressive program. At a much remarked upon address at Westminster College in Fulton,
Missouri, the site of Churchill's 1946 address, Sanders put forth a vision of a Manichean
world. Instead of a world divided by the "Iron Curtain" of Soviet Communism, Sanders sees a
world divided between right-wing authoritarians and the forces of progress embodied by American
and Western European progressive values.
"Today I say to Mr. Putin: We will not allow you to undermine American democracy or
democracies around the world," Sanders said. "In fact, our goal is to not only strengthen
American democracy, but to work in solidarity with supporters of democracy around the globe,
including in Russia. In the struggle of democracy versus authoritarianism, we intend to
win."
A year later, Sanders warned that the battle between the West and an "authoritarian axis"
which is "committed to tearing down a post-Second World War global order that they see as
limiting their access to power and wealth." Sanders calls this "a global struggle of enormous
consequence. Nothing less than the future of the -- economically, socially and environmentally
-- is at stake."
Sanders's focus on this authoritarian axis is one that is shared with his intraparty rivals
at the Center for American Progress (a think-tank long funded by some of the least progressive
regimes on the planet), which he has pointedly criticized for smearing progressive Democrats
like himself. CAP issued a report last September about "the threat presented by opportunist
authoritarian regimes" which "urgently requires a rapid response."
The preoccupation with the authoritarian menace is one Sanders and CAP share with prominent
progressive activists who warn about the creeping influence of what some have cynically hyped
as an "authoritarian Internationale."
Cold War Calling
Senator Warren spelled out her foreign policy vision in a speech at American University in
November 2018. Admirably, she criticized Saudi Arabia's savage war on Yemen, the defense
industry, and neoliberal free trade agreements that have beggared the American working and
middle classes.
"Foreign policy," Warren has said, "should not be run exclusively by the Pentagon." In the
second round of the Democratic primary debates, Warren also called for a nuclear "no first use"
policy.
And yet, Warren too seems in thrall to the idea that the world order is shaping up to be
one in which the white hats (Western democracies) must face off against the black hats
(Eurasian authoritarians). Warren says that the "combination of authoritarianism and corrupt
capitalism" of Putin's Russia and Xi's China "is a fundamental threat to democracy, both here
in the United States and around the world."
Warren also sees a rising tide of corrupt authoritarians "from Hungary to Turkey, from the
Philippines to Brazil," where "wealthy elites work together to grow the state's power while the
state works to grow the wealth of those who remain loyal to the leader."
The concern with the emerging authoritarian tide has become a central concern of progressive
writers and thinkers. "Today, around the world," write progressive foreign policy activists
Kate Kinzer and Stephen Miles, "growing authoritarianism and hate are fueled by oligarchies
preying on economic, gender, and racial inequality."
Daniel Nexon, a progressive scholar of international relations, believes that "progressives
must recognize that we are in a moment of fundamental crisis, featuring coordination among
right-wing movements throughout the West and with the Russian government as a sponsor and
supporter."
Likewise, The Nation 's Jeet Heer lays the blame for the rise of global
authoritarianism at the feet of Vladimir Putin, who "seems to be pushing for an international
alt-right, an informal alliance of right-wing parties held together by a shared
xenophobia."
Blithely waving away concerns over sparking a new and more dangerous Cold War between the
world's two nuclear superpowers, Heer advises that "the dovish left shouldn't let Cold War
nightmares prevent them [from] speaking out about it." He concludes: "Leftists have to be ready
to battle [Putinism] in all its forms, at home and abroad."
The Cold War echoes here are as unmistakable as they are worrying. As Princeton and NYU
professor emeritus Stephen F. Cohen has written, during the first Cold War, a "totalitarian
school" of Soviet studies grew up around the idea "that a totalitarian 'quest for absolute
power' at home always led to the 'dynamism' in Soviet behavior abroad was a fundamental axiom
of cold-war Soviet studies and of American foreign policy."
Likewise, we are seeing the emergence of an "authoritarian school" which posits that the
internal political dynamics of regimes such as Putin's cause them, ineffably, to follow
revanchist, expansionist foreign policies.
Cold warriors in both parties frequently mistook communism as a monolithic global
movement. Neoprogressives are making this mistake today when they gloss over national context,
history, and culture in favor of an all-encompassing theory that puts the "authoritarian"
nature of the governments they are criticizing at the center of their diagnosis.
By citing the threat to Western democracies posed by a global authoritarian axis, the
neoprogressives are repeating the same mistake made by liberal interventionists and
neoconservatives. They buy into the democratic peace theory, which holds without much evidence
that a world order populated by democracies is likely to be a peaceful one because democracies
allegedly don't fight wars against one another.
Yet as Richard Sakwa, a British scholar of Russia and Eastern Europe, writes, "it is often
assumed that Russia is critical of the West because of its authoritarian character, but it
cannot be taken for granted that a change of regime would automatically make the country align
with the West."
George McGovern once observed that U.S. foreign policy "has been based on an obsession
with an international Communist conspiracy that existed more in our minds than in reality." So
too the current obsession with the global authoritarians. Communism wasn't a global monolith
and neither is this. By portraying it as such, neoprogressives are midwifing bad
policy.
True, some of the economic trends voters in Europe and South America are reacting to are
global, but a diagnosis that links together the rise of Putin and Xi, the elections of Trump in
the U.S., Bolsonaro in Brazil, Orban in Hungary, and Kaczyński in Poland with the
right-wing insurgency movements of the Le Pens in France and Farage in the UK makes little
sense.
Some of these elected figures, like Trump and Farage, are symptoms of the failure of the
neoliberal economic order. Others, like Orban and Kaczyński, are responses to
anti-European Union sentiment and the migrant crises that resulted from the Western
interventions in Libya and Syria. Many have more to do with conditions and histories specific
to their own countries. Targeting them by painting them with the same broad brush is a
mistake.
Echoes of Neoconservatism
The progressive foreign policy organization Win Without War includes among its 10 foreign
policy goals "ending economic, racial and gender inequality around the world." The U.S.,
according to WWW, "must safeguard universal human rights to dignity, equality, migration and
refuge."
Is it a noble sentiment? Sure. But it's every bit as unrealistic as the crusade envisioned
by George W. Bush in his second inaugural address, in which he declared, "The survival of
liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best
hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world."
We know full well where appeals to "universal values" have taken us in the past. Such
appeals are not reliable guides for progressives if they seek to reverse the tide of unchecked
American intervention abroad. But maybe we should consider whether it's a policy of realism and
restraint that they actually seek. Some progressive thinkers are at least honest enough
to admit as much that it is not. Nexon admits that "abandoning the infrastructure of American
international influence because of its many minuses and abuses will hamstring progressives for
decades to come." In other words, America's hegemonic ambitions aren't in and of themselves
objectionable or self-defeating, as long as we achieve our kind of hegemony. Progressive
values crusades bear more than a passing resemblance to the neoconservative crusades to remake
the world in the American self-image.
"Of all the geopolitical transformations confronting the liberal democratic world these
days," writes neoconservative-turned-Hillary Clinton surrogate Robert Kagan, "the one for which
we are least prepared is the ideological and strategic resurgence of authoritarianism." Max
Boot also finds cause for concern. Boot, a modern-day reincarnation (minus the pedigree and war
record) of the hawkish Cold War-era columnist Joe Alsop, believes that "the rise of populist
authoritarianism is perhaps the greatest threat we face as a world right now."
Neoprogressivism, like neoconservatism, risks catering to the U.S. establishment's worst
impulses by playing on a belief in American exceptionalism to embark upon yet another global
crusade. This raises some questions, including whether a neoprogressive approach to the crises
in Ukraine, Syria, or Libya would be substantively different from the liberal interventionist
approach of Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Hillary Clinton. Does a neoprogressive foreign policy
organized around the concept of an "authoritarian axis" adequately address the concerns of
voters in the American heartland who disproportionately suffer from the consequences of our
wars and neoliberal economic policies? It was these voters, after all, who won the election for
Trump.
Donald Trump's failure to keep his campaign promise to bring the forever wars to a close
while fashioning a new foreign policy oriented around core U.S. national security interests
provides Democrats with an opportunity. By repeatedly intervening in Syria, keeping troops in
Afghanistan, kowtowing to the Israelis and Saudis, ratcheting up tensions with Venezuela, Iran,
Russia, and China, Trump has ceded the anti-interventionist ground he occupied when he ran for
office. He can no longer claim the mantle of restraint, a position that found support among
six-in-ten Americans in 2016.
Yet with the exception of Tulsi Gabbard, for the most part the Democratic field is offering
voters a foreign policy that amounts to "Trump minus belligerence." A truly progressive foreign
policy must put questions of war and peace front and center. Addressing America's post 9/11
failures, military overextension, grotesquely bloated defense budget, and the ingrained
militarism of our political-media establishment are the proper concerns of a progressive U.S.
foreign policy.
But it is one that would place the welfare of our own citizens above all. As such, what is
urgently required is the long-delayed realization of a peace dividend. The post-Cold War peace
dividend that was envisioned in the early 1990s never materialized. Clinton's secretary of
defense Les Aspin strangled the peace dividend in its crib by keeping the U.S. military on a
footing that would allow it to fight and win two regional wars simultaneously. Unipolar
fantasies of "full spectrum dominance" would come later in the decade.
One might have reasonably expected an effort by the Obama administration to realize a
post-bin Laden peace dividend, but the forever wars dragged on and on. In a New Yorker profile
from earlier this year, Sanders asked the right question: "Do we really need to spend more than
the next ten nations combined on the military, when our infrastructure is collapsing and kids
can't afford to go to college?"
The answer is obvious. And yet, how likely is it that progressives will be able realize
their vision of a more just, more equal American society if we have to mobilize to face a
global authoritarian axis led by Russia and China?
FDR's Good Neighbor Policy
The unipolar world of the first post-Cold War decade is well behind us now. As the world
becomes more and more multipolar, powers like China, Russia, Iran, India, and the U.S. will
find increasing occasion to clash. A peaceful multipolar world requires stability. And
stability requires balance.
In the absence of stability, none of the goods progressives see as desirable can take root.
This world order would put a premium on stability and security rather than any specific set of
values. An ethical, progressive foreign policy is one which understands that great powers have
security interests of their own. "Spheres of influence" are not 19th century anachronisms, but
essential to regional security: in Europe, the Western Hemisphere and elsewhere.
It is a policy that would reject crusades to spread American values the world over. "The
greatest thing America can do for the rest of the world," George Kennan once observed, "is to
make a success of what it is doing here on this continent and to bring itself to a point where
its own internal life is one of harmony, stability and self-assurance."
Progressive realism doesn't call for global crusades that seek to conquer the hearts and
minds of others. It is not bound up in the hoary self-mythology of American Exceptionalism. It
is boring. It puts a premium on the value of human life. It foreswears doing harm so that good
may come. It is not a clarion call in the manner of John F. Kennedy who pledged to "to pay any
price, bear any burden." It does not lend itself to the cheap moralizing of celebrity
presidential speechwriters. In ordinary language, a summation of such a policy would go
something like: "we will bear a reasonable price as long as identifiable U.S. security
interests are at stake."
A policy that seeks to wind down the global war on terror, slash the defense budget, and
shrink our global footprint won't inspire. It will, however, save lives. Such a policy has its
roots in Franklin Delano Roosevelt's first inaugural address. "In the field of World policy,"
said Roosevelt, "I would dedicate this nation to the policy of the good neighbor, the neighbor
who resolutely respects himself and, because he does so, respects the rights of others, the
neighbor who respects his obligations and respects the sanctity of his agreements in and with a
World of neighbors."
What came to be known as the "Good Neighbor" policy was further explicated by FDR's
Secretary of State Cordell Hull at the Montevideo Conference in 1933, when he stated that "No
country has the right to intervene in the internal or external affairs of another." Historian
David C. Hendrickson sees this as an example of FDR's principles of "liberal pluralism," which
included "respect for the integrity and importance of other states" and "non-intervention in
the domestic affairs of neighboring states."
These ought to serve as the foundations on which to build a truly progressive foreign
policy. They represent a return to the best traditions of the Democratic Party and would likely
resonate with those very same blocs of voters that made up the New Deal coalition that the
neoliberal iteration of the Democratic Party has largely shunned but will sorely need in order
to unseat Trump. And yet, proponents of a neoprogressive foreign policy seem intent on running
away from a popular policy of realism and restraint on which Trump has failed to deliver.
James W. Carden is contributing writer for foreign affairs at The Nation and a
member of the Board of the Simone Weil Center for Political Philosophy.
President Obama's Director of National Intelligence (DNI) James Clapper and his
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) director John Brennan oversaw a secret supercomputer
system known as "THE HAMMER," according to former NSA/CIA contractor-turned whistleblower
Dennis Montgomery.
Clapper and Brennan were using the supercomputer system to conduct illegal and
unconstitutional government data harvesting and wiretapping. THE HAMMER was installed on
federal property in Fort Washington, Maryland at a complex which some speculate is a secret CIA
and NSA operation operating at a US Naval facility.
President Trump's allegation that the Obama Administration was wiretapping him is not only
supported by Montgomery's whistleblower revelations about Brennan's and Clapper's computer
system THE HAMMER, but also by statements made this week by William Binney, a former NSA
Technical Director of the World Geopolitical and Military Analysis Reporting Group, by former
CIA and State Department official Larry Johnson, and by Montgomery's attorney Larry
Klayman.
Computer expert Dennis Montgomery developed software programs that could breach secure
computer systems and collect massive amounts of data.
That system, THE HAMMER, according to the audio tapes, accessed the phone calls, emails and
bank accounts of millions of ordinary Americans.
The tapes also reveal that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance court (FISA), Supreme Court
Chief Justice John Roberts, 156 other judges, members of Congress, and Donald J. Trump were
targeted by the HAMMER.
One of the audio tapes made public by Federal Judge G. Murray Snow revealed that Brennan
and Clapper particularly targeted and wiretapped Donald Trump a " zillion
times."
Montgomery also contends that the government can plant files such as child *********** or
state secrets on a target's computer, setting up the owner of that device for blackmail or
framed prosecution.
Former CBS Reporter Sharyl Attkisson Alleged In 2013 She Was Under Electronic Surveillance
For At Least Two Years And That Three Classified Documents Were Planted On Her "Compromised"
Computer.
The audio tapes were released by Federal Judge G. Murray Snow in Maricopa County, Arizona in
the Justice Department's civil contempt case against Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio.
Attorney Klayman, founder of Freedom Watch, represented Montgomery before federal Judge
Royce C. Lamberth. Klayman, who characterizes his client Montgomery as a "whistleblower," told
Fox News that Montgomery "turned over 600 million plus pages of information to the FBI." Judge
Lamberth was formerly the presiding judge over the FISA court.
After Montgomery produced his documentation, the FBI gave him two immunity agreements: one
in the area of "production" and the other regarding "testimony."
The FBI then took possession of Montgomery's documentation.
Attorney Klayman asserts that this information precipitated James Clapper's resignation.
Clapper had gone before Congress to testify under oath that the NSA, and other intelligence
agencies including the CIA," were not collecting massive amounts of telephonic and Internet
metadata on hundreds of millions of innocent American citizens" according to Klayman.
Whistleblower Edward Snowden's revelations proved otherwise.
Clapper was subsequently found to be untruthful and resigned on November 17, 2016, effective
January 20, 2017, the day Donald Trump was sworn in.
Clapper has not been prosecuted for perjury and we wonder why.
7 minutes ago Thanks Q! I bring up Montgomery all of the time here. The Eff Bee Eye and Dee oh
Jay have all of the documents and are sitting on them. This is how the IC controls everything
in the Swamp.
BOMBSHELL: CIA Whistleblower Leaked Proof Trump Under "Systematic Illegal" Surveillance
Over Two Years Ago: FBI Sat On It by ZeroPointNow Wed, 03/22/2017 - 22:37 0
SHARES
The same day House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes gave a press conference
disclosing that President Trump had been under "
incidental surveillance ," Attorney and FreedomWatch Chairman, Larry Klayman, sent a letter
to the House Committee on Intelligence imploring them to pursue the claims and evidence
presented under oath at a Washington DC FBI Field Office by his client - CIA / NSA
Whistleblower Dennis Montgomery - who Klayman claims "holds the keys to disproving the false
claims... ...that there is no evidence that the president and his men were wiretapped"
When Montgomery attempted to deliver this information through the appropriate channels two
years ago , the former CIA and NSA contractor wasn't given the time of day:
[W]hen Montgomery came forward as a whistleblower to congressional intelligence committees
and various other congressmen and senators, including Senator Charles Grassley , Chairman of
the Senate Judiciary Committee, who, like Comey, once had a reputation for integrity, he was
"blown off;" no one wanted to even hear what he had to say.
As a result, Montgomery went to attorney and FreedomWatch founder Larry Klayman - who then
approached the FBI:
Under grants of immunity, which I obtained through Assistant U.S. Attorney Deborah Curtis,
Montgomery produced the hard drives and later was interviewed under oath in a secure room at
the FBI Field Office in the District of Columbia . There he laid out how persons like
then-businessman Donald Trump were illegally spied upon by Clapper, Brennan, and the spy
agencies of the Obama administration.
Montgomery left the NSA and CIA with 47 hard drives and over 600 million pages of
information , much of which is classified, and sought to come forward legally as a
whistleblower to appropriate government entities, including congressional intelligence
committees, to expose that the spy agencies were engaged for years in systematic illegal
surveillance on prominent Americans, including the chief justice of the Supreme Court, other
justices, 156 judges, prominent businessmen such as Donald Trump , and even yours truly.
Working side by side with Obama's former Director of National Intelligence (DIA), James
Clapper, and Obama's former Director of the CIA, John Brennan, Montgomery witnessed "up close
and personal" this "Orwellian Big Brother" intrusion on privacy , likely for potential
coercion, blackmail or other nefarious purposes.
He even claimed that these spy agencies had manipulated voting in Florida during the 2008
presidential election , which illegal tampering resulted in helping Obama to win the White
House.
Given the fact that the FBI had Montgomery's testimony and evidence for over two years,
Klayman traveled to Washington DC last Thursday to meet with Committee Chairman Devin Nunes in
the hopes that he would ask FBI Director Comey why the FBI hadn't pursued Montgomery's
evidence. When Klayman arrived to speak with Nunes, he was "blown off" and instead shared his
information with committee attorney Allen R. Souza - who Klayman requested in turn brief Nunes
on the situation.
During my meeting with House Intelligence Committee counsel Allen R. Sousa I politely
warned him that if Chairman Nunes, who himself had that same day undercut President Trump by
also claiming that there is no evidence of surveillance by the Obama administration, I would
go public with what would appear to be the House Intelligence Committee's complicity in
keeping the truth from the American people and allowing the FBI to continue its apparent
cover-up of the Montgomery "investigation."
And, that is where it stands today. The big question: will House Intelligence Committee
Chairman Nunes do his job and hold FBI Director Comey's feet to the fire about the Montgomery
investigation?
Klayman has detailed all of this in a
NewsMax article , followed up with an official
letter to Chairman Nunes today, requesting that he question Comey on Montgomery's evidence.
Perhaps this explains Nunes' impromptu press conference today admitting that Trump's team was
under "
Incidental Surveillance " before making his way to the White House to discuss with the
President.
So - we know that evidence exists from a CIA / NSA contractor turned whistleblower,
detailing a massive spy operation on 156 judges, the Supreme Court, and high profile Americans
including Donald Trump. See the letter below:
@earthling1
I honestly do believe that she thinks long term and, for whatever reason, her decision not to
run for her own congressional seat is a part of her long term plans. Despite her being
smeared over and over by the media, Tulsi has the unique ability to effectively expand the
electorate by appealing to rational people, regardless of party affiliation.
The establishment is terrified of her message. Otherwise, why would they be attacking her
so viciously despite her reported low polling numbers?
While Tulsi is a practicing Hindu, she was raised in a multi faith family with her father
being a still practicing Catholic. And she mentioned that they had attended a Baptist church
in South Carolina on Christmas Eve. I noticed that her parents were in attendance at the
dinner that her brother in law and his mother prepared.
is detonating.
Someone is gonna have to clean up the debri and make some kind of use of what is left
over. Recycle the trash. Make it green. Bernie is past his best by date.
This is what I have suspected all along. To save the Party, we must completely destroy
it.
Even if it means four more years of Trump. By then, climate change will be obvious to
even the dullest among us.
Tulsi is angling to be there to clean up the mess.
IMHO
@gulfgal98
She will not be campaigning as a Dem this cycle, unless perhaps Bernie gets the nomination.
The severance from Congress means de facto severance from the Democrat Party. The stink of
said party becomes more and more apparent daily as Shiftless, No-Nads, Nervous Nancy et. al.
continue their demeaning and angering stupidity. More Dems are getting turned off by the
House sham impeachment daily.
#2 I honestly do
believe that she thinks long term and, for whatever reason, her decision not to run for
her own congressional seat is a part of her long term plans. Despite her being smeared
over and over by the media, Tulsi has the unique ability to effectively expand the
electorate by appealing to rational people, regardless of party affiliation.
The establishment is terrified of her message. Otherwise, why would they be attacking
her so viciously despite her reported low polling numbers?
While Tulsi is a practicing Hindu, she was raised in a multi faith family with her
father being a still practicing Catholic. And she mentioned that they had attended a
Baptist church in South Carolina on Christmas Eve. I noticed that her parents were in
attendance at the dinner that her brother in law and his mother prepared.
@earthling1
that suggest that the Democratic Party is "detonating"?
It looks to me that the Democrats are settling in for a long period of existence as
America's Vichy party. The Democrats are that party that exists so that those Americans who
are afraid of Republican policymakers can vote for them so that, when elected, they can find
clever ways of giving away power to the Republicans.
As for destroying the Democratic Party, we are on the same page.
is detonating.
Someone is gonna have to clean up the debri and make some kind of use of what is left
over. Recycle the trash. Make it green. Bernie is past his best by date.
This is what I have suspected all along. To save the Party, we must completely destroy
it.
Even if it means four more years of Trump. By then, climate change will be obvious to
even the dullest among us.
Tulsi is angling to be there to clean up the mess.
IMHO
@Cassiodorus
friends and family demexiting even today. Many of my union buddies are still pissed that the
union bosses supported Her in 2016.
The teacher strikes last year and before showed the leadership out of step with the rack and
file.
Now, in France the union leadership is being ignored entirely by the membership and see them
as sell-outs to the labor movment.
Ditto in Chile, Peru, Ecuador, and numerous other countries around the globe.
It's the same all over the world. Working people are seeing their representation being
deminished by union leaders.
IMHO
#2 that suggest that
the Democratic Party is "detonating"?
It looks to me that the Democrats are settling in for a long period of existence as
America's Vichy party. The Democrats are that party that exists so that those Americans
who are afraid of Republican policymakers can vote for them so that, when elected, they
can find clever ways of giving away power to the Republicans.
As for destroying the Democratic Party, we are on the same page.
@earthling1
Those French union bosses, btw, really like that lockstep marching. One of the primary
reasons for the current general strike is that the union bosses in France finally gave their
okay to the whole thing. Or at least this is what my source, who hails from Montpellier,
tells me.
As for your friends and family, Demexiting has one really big advantage -- they will no
longer be persecuted for not voting for Democrats. Can they still vote for Bernie
Sanders?
#2.5
friends and family demexiting even today. Many of my union buddies are still pissed that
the union bosses supported Her in 2016.
The teacher strikes last year and before showed the leadership out of step with the rack
and file.
Now, in France the union leadership is being ignored entirely by the membership and see
them as sell-outs to the labor movment.
Ditto in Chile, Peru, Ecuador, and numerous other countries around the globe.
It's the same all over the world. Working people are seeing their representation being
deminished by union leaders.
IMHO
her chances will be much better in 2024 if Bernie wins in 2020. She will have a base to
lead in place rather than in the wilderness. In short, there will still be an America.
@doh1304
So maybe not should he win and hangs on for all four. (Two big hypotheticals). And unless he
picks her for VP, she will still be in the wilderness in 2024.
her chances will be much better in 2024 if Bernie wins in 2020. She will have a base
to lead in place rather than in the wilderness. In short, there will still be an
America.
Alligator Ed
on Wed, 12/25/2019 - 11:02pm After bravely contesting a nomination she knows she cannot
win, Tulsi Gabbard has and continues to exhibit a tenacious adherence to achievement of
purpose. What is that purpose? I believe it is evident if you only let your eyes see and your
ears hear. Listen to what she says. Looks at what she does.
What this does is obvious. However, please forgive me if I proceed to explain the meaning.
People see what apparently is her home milieu. I've been to Filipino homes for dinner as many
of my nurse friends were Filipino. Tulsi is so human. Despite Hindu belief, she is respectful
to the presence and perhaps the essence of Jesus, and does not sound pandering or
hypocritical.
Getting to know Tulsi at the beginning of her hoped-for (by me) political ascendancy. Get in
on almost the ground floor of what will become an extremely powerful force in future American
life.
Why? What's the hurry?
The more support and the earlier Tulsi receives it propel the campaign. That's what momentum
means: a self-generating growing strength.
One doesn't have to be a Tulsi supporter to hopefully receive some ideas which may not have
occurred to you. This essay does not concern any specific Gabbard policy. What I write here is
what I perceive of her character and thus her selected path. Mind-reading, perhaps. Arm-chair
speculation, possibly.
Tulsi has completed phase 2A in her career. The little that I know of her early life,
especially politically (such as how she voted in HI state legislature) limits a deep
understanding which such knowledge would provide. As the tree is bent, etc.
Phase 1A: youth, formative years, military
Phase 1B: state legislature
Phase 1C: Congress
Phase 2B and possibly subsequent: interim between Congress and Presidential campaigning with
realistic chance of victory.
We are in Phase 2B. Tulsi, as I wrote in another essay, is letting the tainted shroud of
Democrat corruption fall off her shoulders without any effort of her own. The Democrat party is
eating itself alive. It is all things to all people at once. That is a philosophy incapable of
satisfaction.
Omni Democraticorundum in tres partes est (pardon the reference to the opening of Caesar's
Gallic Wars, with liberal substitution by me).
The Dems trifurcate and the division will be neither pleasant nor reconcilable. Tribalism
will be reborn after Trump crushes whomever in 2020.
Tribe one: urban/techno/überkinden.
Tribe two: leftward bound to a place where no politician has ever ventured. Not socialism.
Not Communism. We could call it Fantasy Land, although I fear Disney owns that name.
Tribe three: progressive realists. By using such positive wording, you will correctly
suspect my bias as to which Tribe I belong to.
Once again, policy will not be discussed. Only strategy and reality. Can't have good
strategy without a good grasp of reality. This is why Establidems are bereft of thematic
variability. For the past 3.3 years, they have been singing from a hymn book containing but one
song. You know the title. Orange Man Bad. Yeah, that's it. If they don't like that
title, we establidems have another song for ya. It's called Orange Man Bad. Like that
one, huh? Wazzat, ya didn't like the song the first time. Hey, we thought the song would grown
on you.
Them Dems, noses up, can't see the sidewalk. Oops. Stepped in something there, huh? Oh, yeah
like the Impeachment.
But I digress: The latter part of Phase 2B is not clear. Tulsi will continue to accept small
donor contributions, even after not obtaining the nomination next year. Public appearances will
be important but should be low key with little press attention. Press attention is something
however that won't be available when most desirable. What else Tulsi will do may be to form a
nucleus of like-minded activists, thinkers, and other supporters to promote an agenda for a
more liberal, tolerant society.
If Sanders' candidacy continues to be taken seriously, he will eventually be subjected to
the scrutiny that Warren and Biden have faced for prolonged stretches. That includes an
examination of his electability. "That conversation has never worked well for anyone,"
Pfeiffer said.
What a bunch of hypocritical horseshit. Bernie not getting scrutiny? In 2016, when not
being derided for this, that or the other, Bernie was always scrutinized. There are only two
things voters have learned since the DNC 2016 convention:
1. Bernie had a heart attack
2. Bernie supported H. Rodent Clinton in the general election.
. . . and to the much noted "Bernie blackout" up until now this time around.
It's gotten to the point given the polls and the first primary in being held in about a
month where TPTB in conjunction with the MSM can no longer afford to turn a blind eye towards
Bernie. It's gonna get really nasty.
The most recent tropes on the twitters, probably in response to Brock talking point memos,
have been pushing Bernie as an anti-Semite and him purportedly triggering rape survivors. Of
course it's horsehit but it's the propagandistic method of the Big Lie.
I'm genuinely curious. How will you react if Tulsi endorses the Dem nominee and it ain't
Bernie? Bernie's endorsement of she-who-shall-not-be-named in 2016 seems to have pretty much
completely soured him to you. Endorsing Biden better? Or at least acceptable? Not for me.
Bernie doing so in 2016 I could understand and forgive. But this is my last go round absent a
Bernie miracle.
If Sanders' candidacy continues to be taken seriously, he will eventually be
subjected to the scrutiny that Warren and Biden have faced for prolonged stretches.
That includes an examination of his electability. "That conversation has never worked
well for anyone," Pfeiffer said.
What a bunch of hypocritical horseshit. Bernie not getting scrutiny? In 2016, when not
being derided for this, that or the other, Bernie was always scrutinized. There are only
two things voters have learned since the DNC 2016 convention:
1. Bernie had a heart attack
2. Bernie supported H. Rodent Clinton in the general election.
@Wally
She might back Yang--who won't get nominated. But I hope she doesn't do anything more than a
neutral statement, somewhat to the effect that "We must defeat Donald Trump", then not
campaign otherwise.
. . . and to the much noted "Bernie blackout" up until now this time around.
It's gotten to the point given the polls and the first primary in being held in about
a month where TPTB in conjunction with the MSM can no longer afford to turn a blind eye
towards Bernie. It's gonna get really nasty.
The most recent tropes on the twitters, probably in response to Brock talking point
memos, have been pushing Bernie as an anti-Semite and him purportedly triggering rape
survivors. Of course it's horsehit but it's the propagandistic method of the Big Lie.
I'm genuinely curious. How will you react if Tulsi endorses the Dem nominee and it
ain't Bernie? Bernie's endorsement of she-who-shall-not-be-named in 2016 seems to have
pretty much completely soured him to you. Endorsing Biden better? Or at least acceptable?
Not for me. Bernie doing so in 2016 I could understand and forgive. But this is my last
go round absent a Bernie miracle.
. . . to campaign in support of their candidacies.
Maybe Biden will accept her support. I've still never been able to figure why she never
and probably still won't take any shots at his warmongering and otherwise cruddy record
regarding domestic affairs.
#2.1.1.1.1 She might
back Yang--who won't get nominated. But I hope she doesn't do anything more than a
neutral statement, somewhat to the effect that "We must defeat Donald Trump", then not
campaign otherwise.
. . . to campaign in support of their candidacies.
Maybe Biden will accept her support. I've still never been able to figure why she
never and probably still won't take any shots at his warmongering and otherwise cruddy
record regarding domestic affairs.
@Alligator
Ed@Alligator
Ed be unfamiliar with the neutral position. Though I wonder if she would feel
comfortable dipping into that well again given how much grief she got the last time.
Of course, if she again puts it in Neutral, and doesn't support the D nominee (anyone but
Bloomberg), she will be finished as a Dem pol. She might as well go off and start a Neutral
Party.
#2.1.1.1.1 She might
back Yang--who won't get nominated. But I hope she doesn't do anything more than a
neutral statement, somewhat to the effect that "We must defeat Donald Trump", then not
campaign otherwise.
@wokkamile
Her dismissal papers will be submitted to her after she is barred entry into the DNC
convention, regardless of how many delegates she may have won.
#2.1.1.1.1.1
#2.1.1.1.1.1 be unfamiliar with the neutral position. Though I wonder if she would
feel comfortable dipping into that well again given how much grief she got the last
time.
Of course, if she again puts it in Neutral, and doesn't support the D nominee (anyone
but Bloomberg), she will be finished as a Dem pol. She might as well go off and start a
Neutral Party.
Don't forget that 15% state threshold for eligibility to be awarded delegates.
#2.1.1.1.1.1.2 Her
dismissal papers will be submitted to her after she is barred entry into the DNC
convention, regardless of how many delegates she may have won.
I will be surprised if Tulsi gets so much as one delegate.
More than a few knowledgeable people think he has a very good shot of winning California.
I am less optimistic about NYS but I think he will do well enough to get a good number of
delegates especially if he does well in the earlier primaries (NYS comes April 28).
I don't feel solidly about making any kind of predictions at this point but given the
nature of the Democratic Party, I don't see it as falling into oblivion anytime soon or in
our lifetimes.
As far as Bernie goes, I am not optimistic but I still have some hope. I still fervantly
believe that his candidacy is the best chance we will have in our lifetimes of bringing about
any substantial change -- and if he and his critical mass of supporters can't pull it off
this time around, we're all phluckled big time, even alligators, in terms of combating
climate change and putting a kabosh on endless wars. I wish you good future luck with Tulsi
though. I just don't see it. But I've been wrong on more than one occasion in my life.
The Deplorables are ascending in America, with Trump, in Britain with Brexit, in Hong Kong,
in much of Europe, in Latin America, in Iran.
...The Mandate of Heaven has been removed from the elitist establishment. It is passing to
the Deplorables.
The Deplorables are ascending in America, with Trump, in Britain with Brexit, in Hong Kong,
in much of Europe, in Latin America, in Iran. Deplorables are the antidote to arrogant
globalists.
Deplorables everywhere say "from now on we will make our own decisions."
What is it with
the Deplorables? What gives them such power?
Three things, I believe, are elevating them.
Deplorables are pragmatic . They are not wedded to any extreme ideology. Deplorables will
go with anything that works. It is no wonder that the Deplorables began in America. For, as
Americans we inherit the pragmatism of our pioneering ancestors.
The article incorrectly lumps the astro-turfed Hong Kong protests in with the "Deplorable"
populist movements in the USA and western Europe.
The Hong Kong protests are being backed by Soros and the Davos globalist elites as well
the the CIA, MIC, and the DC Uniparty. This same bunch of Swamp scum are enemies of the
"Deplorables".
More pure American establishment propaganda as if the globalist movement is essentially a
creature of the socialists, government bureaucracies, and the Asian block. The truth is that
it is a creature mainly of the Rothschild banking cartel and with the support of most Western
based multi-nationals, which have utilized the Rothschild & Soros backed international
socialists, the Western mainstream media, most Western governments, plus the Catholic Church
hierarchy, in order to bring about a world government. The Rothschild wet dream is control of
world finances just like they control those in the West, and their stated intentions are for
a One-World Bank with a one-world currency. However, the cartel cannot do that without a
world government with real enforcement powers for trade and protection with their world
currency. The multinonals mainly want borderless nations for freer access to resources and
markets.
Trump has been used to whump up US stature and ultimately will be seen as much an
instrument of the globalist cause as was Obama. Perhaps he was put in the game by his backers
to secure a higher return on the US dollar when they are cashed in for the proposed one-world
currency, and by the Zionists to secure more turf for Israel. Israel is getting very itchy
with the old trigger finger and we await in the New Year another false flag at least on the
scale of 9/11. It will likely have to involve a US city.
As we know, the term 'deplorables' came from Hillary in the last US presidential election
and was applied to people who amplified "hateful views and voices" about her, but later the
term was used to characterize mainly Trump supporters. The Hong Kong protesters as not
"deplorables" because their cause in not for Trump or for the US. It is for their own liberty
against the communist Chinese government usurping their basic legal and local rights, which
Trump could care less about. Aslo, he is not a populist. He is an elitist and he is totally
controlled by elitists with more money and power than even he every dreamed of.
Left or right, Democrat or Republican, the puppet masters are the same and run the show.
They are all global elites using their money and power to swing the public audiences left and
right with every pull at the strings of their dummy politicians. What they fear the most, is
the people in the middle uniting without their money or the media and taking control of their
lives and their nations.
Congress' constitutional duty is putting Israel first!
House Dems Unanimously Vote to Condemn Withdrawal From Syria - Oct 16, 2019
In a Wednesday vote, the House overwhelmingly backed a resolution expressing opposition to
the end of the US war in Syria, and calling on the US to protect the Syrian Kurds from
Turkey. The vote was 354-60, with the majority of Republicans supporting it, and unanimous
support from Democrats who cast votes .
Positions from Democrat leaders suggested an unconditional opposition to Trump ending
any war and withdrawing any troops under any circumstances. They also objected to the
notion that a president could end a war without their permission .
Democrats and Republicans Aren't Just Divided. They Live in Different Worlds
The two parties represent radically different slices of the American economy.
America's political polarization is almost complete. Its two main political parties
increasingly represent two different economies. And they barely overlap.
Democrats can be found in educated cities and suburbs where professional jobs are
plentiful. Republicans live in working-class and rural communities, home to agriculture and
low-skill manufacturing.
I don't think Warren is a stalking horse for neoliberalism or whatever, but her inability
to fight back against bad press (combined with her occasional baffling decisions to give
herself bad press) is a big mark against her candidacy. There will be bad press for either of
them.
NEW POLL: @BernieSanders is uniting the Democratic Party -- he's not only gaining momentum
overall, the new Morning Consult post-debate poll shows that out of all the candidates, he is
the second choice of the largest percentage of BOTH Biden supporters AND Warren
supporters
Trump can be impeached as a war criminal just for his false flag Douma attack (along with
members of his administration). But Neoliberal Dems and frst of all Pelosi are war criminals too,
with Pelosi aiding and abetting war criminal Bush.
So this is a variation of the theme of Lavrentiy Beria most famous quote: "Show me a
man and I will find you a crime"
I think tose neolib Dems who supported impeachment disqualified themselves from the running.
That includes Warren, who proved to be a very weak, easily swayed politician. It is quote
probably that they increased (may be considerably) chances of Trump reelection, but pushing
independents who were ready to abandon him, back into Trump camp. Now Trump is able to present
himself as a victim of neoliberal Dems/neocons witch hunt.
The only real check left is impeachment. It is rarely invoked and (until very recently) has
atrophied as a credible threat. But that doesn't make it any less
indispensable.
The problem was exacerbated by the Clinton impeachment fiasco, which history has proved
foolhardy. (I supported it at the time, but I was a government lawyer then, not a public
commentator.) Republicans were sufficiently spooked by the experience that they seemed to
regard impeachment as obsolete. Faithless Execution countered that this was the wrong
lesson to take from the affair. Clinton's impeachment was a mistake because (a) his conduct,
though disgraceful and indicative of unfitness, did not implicate the core responsibilities of
the presidency; and more significantly, (b) the public, though appalled by the behavior,
strongly opposed Clinton's removal. The right lesson was that impeachment must be reserved for
grave misconduct that involves the president's essential Article II duties; and that because
impeachment is so deeply divisive, it should never be launched in the absence of a public
consensus that transcends partisan lines.
This is why, unlike many opponents of President Trump's impeachment, I have never questioned
the legitimacy of the Democratic-controlled House's investigations of misconduct allegations
against the president. I believe the House must act as a body (investigations should not be
partisan attacks under the guise of House inquiries), and it must respect the lawful and
essential privileges of the executive branch; but within those parameters, Congress has the
authority and responsibility to expose executive misconduct.
Moreover, while egregious misconduct will usually be easy to spot and grasp, that will not
always be the case. When members of Congress claim to see it, they should have a fair
opportunity to expose and explain it. To my mind, President Obama was the kind of chief
executive that the Framers feared, but this was not obvious because he was not committing
felonies. Instead, he was consciously undermining our constitutional order. He usurped the
right to dictate law rather than execute it. His extravagant theory of executive discretion to
"waive" the enforcement of laws he opposed flouted his basic constitutional duty to execute the
laws faithfully. He and his underlings willfully and serially deceived Congress and the public
on such major matters as Obamacare and the Benghazi massacre. They misled Congress on, and
obstructed its investigation of, the outrageous Fast and Furious "gun-walking" operation, in
connection with which a border patrol agent was murdered. With his Iran deal, the president
flouted the Constitution's treaty process and colluded with a hostile foreign power to withhold
information from Congress, in an arrangement that empowered (and paid cash ransom to) the
world's leading sponsor of anti-American terrorism.
My critics fairly noted that I opposed Obama politically, and therefore contended that I was
masquerading as a constitutional objection what was really a series of policy disputes. I don't
think that is right, though, for two reasons.
First, my impeachment argument was not that Obama was pursuing policies I deeply opposed. I
was very clear that elections have consequences, and the president had every right to press his
agenda. My objection was that he was imposing his agenda lawlessly, breaking the limitations
within which the Framers cabined executive power, precisely to prevent presidents from becoming
tyrants. If allowed to stand, Obama precedents would permanently alter our governing framework.
Impeachment is there to protect our governing framework.
Second, I argued that, my objections notwithstanding, Obama should not be impeached in the
absence of a public consensus for his removal. Yes, Republicans should try to build that case,
try to edify the public about why the president's actions threatened the Constitution and its
separation of powers. But they should not seek to file articles of impeachment simply because
they could -- i.e., because control of the House theoretically gave them the numbers to do it.
The House is not obliged to file impeachment articles just because there may be impeachable
conduct. Because impeachment is so divisive, the Framers feared that it could be triggered on
partisan rather than serious grounds. The two-thirds supermajority requirement for Senate
conviction guards against that: The House should not impeach unless there is a reasonable
possibility that the Senate would remove -- which, in Obama's case, there was not.
I also tried to focus on incentives. If impeachment were a credible threat, and Congress
began investigating and publicly exposing abuses, a sensible president would desist in the
misconduct, making it unnecessary to proceed with impeachment. On the other hand, a failed
impeachment effort would likely embolden a rogue president to continue abusing power. If your
real concern is executive lawlessness, then impeaching heedlessly and against public opinion
would be counterproductive.
I've taken the same tack with President Trump.
The objections to Trump are very different from those to Obama. He is breaking not laws but
norms of presidential behavior and decorum. For the most part, I object to this. There are lots
of things about our government that need disruption, but even disruptive presidents should be
mindful that they hold the office of Washington and Lincoln and aspire to their dignity, even
if their greatness is out of reach.
That said, impeachment is about serious abuse of the presidency's core powers, not behavior
that is intemperate or gauche. Critics must be mindful that the People, not the pundits, are
sovereign, and they elected Donald Trump well aware of his flaws. That he turns out to be as
president exactly what he appeared to be as a candidate is not a rationale for impeaching
him.
The president's misconduct on Ukraine is small potatoes. Democrats were right to expose it,
and we would be dealing with a more serious situation if the defense aid appropriated by
Congress had actually been denied, rather than inconsequentially delayed. If Democrats had
wanted to make a point about discouraging foreign interference in American politics
(notwithstanding their long record of encouraging it), that would have been fine. They could
have called for the president's censure, which would have put Republicans on the defensive.
Ukraine could have been incorporated as part of their 2020 campaign that Trump should be
defeated, despite a surging economy and relative peace.
Conducting an impeachment inquiry is one thing, but for the House to take the drastic step
of impeaching the president is abusive on this record. Yes, it was foolish of Trump to mention
the Bidens to President Zelensky and to seek Ukraine's help in investigating the Bidens. There
may well be corruption worth probing, but the president ought to leave that to researchers in
his campaign. If there is something that a government should be looking into, leave that to the
Justice Department, which can (and routinely does) seek foreign assistance when necessary. The
president, however, should have stayed out of it. Still, it is absurd to posit, as Democrats
do, that, by not staying out of it, the president threatened election integrity and U.S.
national security. Such outlandish arguments may make Ukraine more of a black eye for Democrats
than for the president.
But whoever ultimately bears the brunt of the impeachment push, I have to ask myself a hard
question: Is this the world I was asking for when I wrote a book contending that, for our
system to work as designed, impeachment has to be a credible threat? I don't think so . . . but
I do worry about it.
Back to the Clinton impeachment. I tried to make the point that that impeachment effort --
against public opinion, and based on misconduct that, while dreadful, was not central to the
presidency -- has contributed significantly to the poisonous politics we have today. Democrats
have been looking for payback ever since, and now they have it -- in a way that is very likely
to make impeachment more routine in the future.
I don't see how our constitutional system can work without a viable impeachment remedy. But
I may have been wrong to believe that we could be trusted to invoke the remedy responsibly. I
used to poke fun at pols who would rather hide under their desks than utter the dreaded I-word.
Turns out they knew something I didn't.
If the British were the ones to organise an independence referendum in Crimea, they would
probably push as many people as possible into postal voting and reduce the number of polling
stations as part of this strategy.
Stratfor, December 2019:The death of the American middle class and, with it, large
swaths of the American interior, is no secret. In March, we looked at how globalization,
technological change and other factors have decimated the heartland of the country:https://archive.md/mu9cv
Please acknowledge the difference between Democrats/Liberals and Progressives.
Establishment Democrats like to call themselves Progressives, because they want to gain
popularity.
The real Progressives like Jimmy Dore, Status Coup, Michael Tracy, and anti-war real
Jewish activists/journalists like "The Gray Zone" Max Blumenthal, Arron Matte, The Real News,
Glen Greenwald have been against this fake #RussiaGate/ Muller/ Impeachment scandals.
"Jimmy Dore: until we fix Democratic Party elites' corruption, we won't defeat Trump's"
https://youtu.be/ufduP0bLfAY
"Aaron Maté: from Russiagate to Ukrainegate, liberals enlist in self-defeating Cold
War: https://youtu.be/M9ZzERen_U8
"Max Blumenthal on how corporate media manufactures consent for war and regime change":
https://youtu.be/oOV-RYnpQH4
"... we have sent the factories to distant lands and eliminated your jobs, and all the meaning and purpose in your lives -- and cheap stuff from Asia is your consolation prize. Enjoy ..."
"... Homelessness in America runs way deeper than just the winos and drug addicts living on the big city sidewalks. ..."
All the people of America, including the flyovers, are responsible for the sad situation
we're in: this failure to reestablish a common culture of values most people can subscribe to
and use it to rebuild our towns into places worth caring about. Main Street, as it has come to
be, is the physical manifestation of that failure. The businesses that used to occupy the
storefronts are gone, except for second-hand stores. Nobody in 1952 would have believed this
could happen. And yet, there it is: the desolation is stark and heartbreaking.
Even George Bailey's "nightmare" scene in It's a Wonderful Life depicts the
supposedly evil Pottersville as a very lively place, only programmed for old-fashioned
wickedness: gin mills and streetwalkers. Watch the movie and see for yourself.
Pottersville is way more appealing than 99 percent of America's small towns today,
dead as they are.
The dynamics that led to this are not hard to understand. The concentration of retail
commerce in a very few gigantic corporations was a swindle that the public fell for.
Enthralled like little children by the dazzle and gigantism of the big boxes, and the free
parking, we allowed ourselves to be played.
The excuse was "bargain shopping," which actually meant we have sent the factories to
distant lands and eliminated your jobs, and all the meaning and purpose in your lives -- and
cheap stuff from Asia is your consolation prize. Enjoy
The "bones" of the village are still standing but the programming for the organism of a
community is all gone: gainful employment, social roles in the life of the place, confidence in
the future. For a century starting in 1850, there were at least five factories in town. They
made textiles and later on, paper products and, in the end, toilet paper, ironically enough.
Yes, really.
They also made a lot of the sod-busting steel ploughs that opened up the Midwest, and cotton
shirts, and other stuff. The people worked hard for their money, but it was pretty good money
by world standards for most of those years.
It allowed them to eat well, sleep in a warm house, and raise children, which is a good
start for any society. The village was rich with economic and social niches, and yes, it was
hierarchical, but people tended to find the niche appropriate to their abilities and
aspirations -- and, believe it or not, it is better to have a place in society than to have no
place at all, which is the sad situation for so many today.
Homelessness in America runs way deeper than just the winos and drug addicts living on
the big city sidewalks.
It seems there's a major political party exactly working against a common American
culture. They jeer at the thought of it. It seems to be the main platform, above all
else.
It is a major party alright BRH, but it is no so much political as it is economic and
socially stratified. They are opulent, self consumed and greedy as hell (literally). There
can only be so many parasites sucking the lifeblood out of any herd of servant beasts, and
they can only suck so long on their hosts before the poor beasts fall over and die. And that
is the tipping point, where we lose enough life blood that we can no longer stand upright,
but drop to the deck and are consumed. It is the classic Goose that laid the Golden Egg fairy
tale being acted out in real life and coming to a neighborhood near you soon.
Log in to Reply
Beautiful, thoughtful post Jim, yet to be honest it fills me with a sense of anxiety, and
this is simply because the catastrophic events you forecast, although for the better in the
long run (as they will compel a return to a world made by hand, or the recovery of human
scale) will nonetheless bring much suffering to a lot of people ( including my own family). I
would personally like to believe there is another way a more sustainable civilization could
be attained than on the heels of societal collapse. I do believe the world is full of
mystery, and that life itself is a series of unfolding miracles we lack the capacity to
comprehend due to our limited perspective. Yet perhaps you are right and some type of
collapse is inevitable before a new beginning can be made. If such be the case, as
individuals we will be compelled to tap into inner potentials that will needed to meet the
approaching apocalypse, potentials which currently lie dormant and undeveloped. Maybe in the
process of doing so we will recover our wholeness as well.
"Change we can believe in" the second series ? That's a real warning sign ;-)
Notable quotes:
"... A few weeks ago I read in this spot that while Clinton people hate Sanders and like Warren, Obama was pushing Buttigieg because Warren was such a pain in his ass. Seems he's finally given his signal. Hopefully it's the kiss of death for both Warren and Buttigieg. ..."
"... as the neoliberal corporate Democrats which she is aligning herself with are a sinking ship .. ..."
So, the fact that Obama is willing to put in a good word for Warren on behalf of the
wealthy elite should give you a clue as to which side Warren is really on. While many
non-political "normies" look upon the Obama years with rose-tinted glasses, I wonder if the
disillusionment that many people had in retrospect with Obama has sunk in to mainstream
political consciousness yet. If that is the case, an Obama endorsement might actually
backfire among progressives, seeing as how it has become evident that Obama was basically a
silver-tongued neoliberal in the same mold as Clinton and Pelosi.
I know that Warren is a political careerist at heart, but I was willing to give her the
benefit of the doubt when she first launched her 2020 presidential campaign. However, it has
become increasingly clear that she has hitched her wagon to the wrong horse as the neoliberal
corporate Democrats which she is aligning herself with are a sinking ship. I honestly do not
think that she would even be fit to be Sander's vice presidential pick at this point
considering how wide the political gulf between Warren and Sanders actually is. A better
choice would be Nina Turner as Sander's running mate, with Tulsi Gabbard as his Secretary of
State if he gets that far.
My guess is that this is why he's working behind the scenes, minimizing the chances of a
backfire on the left. Of course, how behind-the-scenes is it if it's reported by Politico?
Still.
I'm actually undecided on Warren. There was that story last week about her supposedly
pushing Hillary in 2016 to name decent people to her cabinet if elected. But then you have to
ask why that particular story surfaced at the particular time when Warren was sinking in the
polls.
If true, though, and if what the new Politico story says about her clashes with Obama are
true, maybe Warren isn't quite as objectionable as we tend to think. Then again, she came
right out last week (I believe) and said Medicare for All would be a matter of choice under
her plan, emphasizing that "choice" factor.
So I'm confused. But maybe that's what she, her campaign and various surrogates want at
this stage.
It starts with an ambitious goal: consistent with the objectives of the Green New Deal,
the Pentagon should achieve net zero carbon emissions for all its non-combat bases and
infrastructure by 2030.
having the pentagon 'lead the fight' against climate change is akin to appointing prince
andrew as head of the global task force against pedophilia and child trafficking.
A few weeks ago I read in this spot that while Clinton people hate Sanders and like
Warren, Obama was pushing Buttigieg because Warren was such a pain in his ass. Seems he's
finally given his signal. Hopefully it's the kiss of death for both Warren and
Buttigieg.
A few weeks ago I read in this spot that while Clinton people hate Sanders and like
Warren, Obama was pushing Buttigieg because Warren was such a pain in his ass. Seems he's
finally given his signal. Hopefully it's the kiss of death for both Warren and
Buttigieg.
Buttigieg takes no votes from Sanders. While Warren does on the margins. I think Obama's
calculation is simple as that. She also has special appeal to the virtue signaling liberals
that are Obama's base.
as the neoliberal corporate Democrats which she is aligning herself with are a sinking
ship ..
Bingo. Trump's letter goes right to the heart of it. These clowns are completely exposed
and Obama hawking Warren to donors while the blob talks up a gay McKinsey/CIA Indiana Mayor
shows just how far they have fallen.
It would be impossible for Trump to re-energize his base in any other way. Pelosi acts as
covert agent for Trump re-election? Peloci calculation that she can repar "Mueller effect" of
2018 with this impeachment proved to be gross miscalculation.
Warren who stupidly and enthusiastically jumped into this bandwagon will be hurt. She is such
a weak politician that now it looks like she does not belong to the club. Still in comparison
with Trump she might well be an improvement as she has Trump-like economic program, which Trump
betrayed and neutered. And her foreign policy can't be worse then Trump foreign policy. It is
just impossible.
I am convinced that the Dems are not actually interested or focused on defeating Trump, or
they would adopt an effective strategy. The question I keep wrestling with is, what is the point
to the strategy that is so ineffective?
Notable quotes:
"... The fact that the impeachment is dead in the water, by Pelosi's own admission , is evident in Trump's being adamant that indeed it must be sent to the Senate – where he knows he'll be exonerated. But even if it doesn't go to the Senate, what we're left with still appears as a loss for Democrats. Both places are his briar patch. This makes all of this a win-win for team Trump. ..."
"... fake impeachment procedure ..."
"... For in a constitutional republic like the United States, what makes an impeachment possible is when the representatives and the voters are in communion over the matter. This would normally be reflected in a mid-term election, like say for example the mid-term Senatorial race in 2018 where Democrats failed to take control. Control of the Senate would reflect a change of sentiment in the republic, which in turn and not coincidentally, would be what makes for a successful impeachment. ..."
"... Nancy Pelosi is evidently extraordinarily cynical. Her politics appears to be 'they deserve whatever they believe'. ..."
"... little else can explain the reasoning behind her claim that she will 'send the impeachment to the Senate' as soon as she 'has assurances and knows how the Senate will conduct the impeachment', except that it came from the same person who told the public regarding Obamacare that we have to 'We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.". ..."
"... "We have been attacked. We are at war. Imagine this movie script: A former KGB spy, angry at the collapse of his motherland, plots a course for revenge – taking advantage of the chaos, he works his way up through the ranks of a post-soviet Russia and becomes president. ..."
"... He establishes an authoritarian regime, then he sets his sights on his sworn enemy – the United States. And like the KGB spy that he is, he secretly uses cyber warfare to attack democracies around the world. Using social media to spread propaganda and false information, he convinces people in democratic societies to distrust their media, their political processes, even their neighbors. And he wins." ..."
"... We'll say we impeached him, because we did, and we'll say he was impeached. We'll declare victory, and go home. This will make him unelectable because of the stigma of impeachment. ..."
And so it came to pass, that in the deep state's frenzy of
electoral desperation, the 'impeachment' card was played. The hammer has fallen. Nearly the
entirety of the legacy media news cycle has been dedicated to the details, and not really
pertinent details, but the sorts of details which presume the validity of the charges against
Trump in the first place. Yes, they all beg the question. What's forgotten here is that the use
of this process along clearly partisan lines, and more – towards clearly partisan aims
– is a very serious symptom of the larger undoing of any semblance of stability in the US
government.
The fact that the impeachment is dead in the water,
by Pelosi's own admission , is evident in Trump's being adamant that indeed it must be sent
to the Senate – where he knows he'll be exonerated. But even if it doesn't go to the
Senate, what we're left with still appears as a loss for Democrats. Both places are his briar
patch. This makes all of this a win-win for team Trump.
Only in a country that produces so much fake news at the official level, could there be a
fake impeachment procedure made purely for media consumption, with no real or tangible
possible victory in sight.
For in a constitutional republic like the United States, what makes an impeachment
possible is when the representatives and the voters are in communion over the matter. This
would normally be reflected in a mid-term election, like say for example the mid-term
Senatorial race in 2018 where Democrats failed to take control. Control of the Senate would
reflect a change of sentiment in the republic, which in turn and not coincidentally, would be
what makes for a successful impeachment.
Don't forget, this impeachment is fake
Nancy Pelosi is evidently extraordinarily cynical. Her politics appears to be 'they
deserve whatever they believe'. And her aim appears to be the one who makes them believe
things so that they deserve what she gives them. For little else can explain the reasoning
behind her claim that she will 'send the impeachment to the Senate' as soon as she 'has
assurances and knows how the Senate will conduct the impeachment', except that it came from the
same person who told the public regarding Obamacare that we have to 'We have to pass the bill
so that you can find out what is in it.".
In both cases, reality is turned on its head – for rather we will know how the Senate
intends to conduct its procedure as soon as it has the details, which substantively includes
the impeachment documents themselves, in front of them, and likewise, legislators ought to know
what's in a major piece of legislation before they vote either way on it. Pelosi's assault on
reason, however, isn't without an ever growing tide of resentment from within the progressive
base of the party itself.
We have quickly entered into a new era which increasingly resembles the broken political
processes which have struck many a country, but none in living memory a country like the US.
Now elected officials push judges to prosecute their political opponents, constitutional crises
are manufactured to pursue personal or political vendettas, death threats and rumors of coups
coming from media and celebrities being fed talking points by big and important players from
powerful institutions.
This 'impeachment' show really takes the cake, does it not? We will recall shortly after
Trump was elected, narrator for hire Morgan Freeman made a shocking public service
announcement. It was for all intents and purposes, a PSA notifying the public that a military
coup to remove Trump would be legitimate and in order. Speaking about this PSA, and recounting
what was said, would in any event read as an exaggeration, or some allegorical paraphrasing
made to prove a point. Jogging our memories then, Freeman spoke to tens of millions of viewers
on television and YouTube
saying :
"We have been attacked. We are at war. Imagine this movie script: A former KGB spy,
angry at the collapse of his motherland, plots a course for revenge – taking advantage of
the chaos, he works his way up through the ranks of a post-soviet Russia and becomes
president.
He establishes an authoritarian regime, then he sets his sights on his sworn enemy
– the United States. And like the KGB spy that he is, he secretly uses cyber warfare to
attack democracies around the world. Using social media to spread propaganda and false
information, he convinces people in democratic societies to distrust their media, their
political processes, even their neighbors. And he wins."
This really set the tone for the coming years, which have culminated in this manufactured
'impeachment' crisis, really befitting a banana republic.
It would be the height of dishonesty to approach this abuse of the impeachment procedure as
if until this moment, the US's own political culture and processes were in good shape. Now
isn't the time for the laundry list of eroded constitutional provisions, which go in a thousand
and one unique directions. The US political system is surely broken, but as is the case with
such large institutions several hundreds of years old, its meltdown appears to happen in slow
motion to us mere mortals. And so what we are seeing today is the next phase of this
break-down, and really ought to be understood as monumental in this sense. Once again revealed
is the poor judgment of the Democratic Party and their agents, tools, warlords, and
strategists, the same gang who sunk Hillary Clinton's campaign on the rocks of hubris.
Nancy Pelosi also has poor judgment, and these short-sighted and self-interested moves on
her part stand a strong chance of backfiring. Her role in this charade is duly noted. This
isn't said because of any disagreement over her aims, but rather that in purely objective terms
it just so happens that her aims and her actions are out of synch – that is unless she
wants to see Trump re-elected. Her aims are her aims, our intention is to connect these to
their probable results, without moral judgments.
The real problem for the Democrats, the DNC, and any hopes for the White House in 2020, is
that this all has the odor of a massive backfire, and something that Trump has been counting on
happening. When one's opponent knows what is probable, and when they have a track record for
preparing very well for such, it is only a question of what Trump's strategy is and
how this falls into it, not whether there is one.
Imagine being a fly on the wall of the meeting with Pelosi where it was decided to go
forward with impeachment in the House of Representatives, despite not having either sufficient
traction in the Senate or any way to control the process that the Senate uses.
It probably went like this: ' We'll say we impeached him, because we did, and we'll say
he was impeached. We'll declare victory, and go home. This will make him unelectable because of
the stigma of impeachment. '
Informed citizens are aware that whatever their views towards Trump, nothing he has done
reaches beyond the established precedent set by past presidents. Confused citizens on the other
hand, are believing the manufactured talking points thrown their way, and the idea that a US
president loosely reference a quid pro quo in trying to sort a corruption scandal in dealings
with the president of a foreign country, is some crazy, new, never-before-done and
highly-illegal thing. It is none of those things though.
Unfortunately, not needless to say, the entirety of the direct, physical evidence against
Trump solely consists of the now infamous transcript of the phone call which he had with
Ukrainian president Zelensky. The rest is hearsay, a conspiracy narrative, and entirely
circumstantial. As this author has noted in numerous pieces, Biden's entire candidacy rests
precisely upon his need to be a candidate so that any normal investigation into the wrongdoings
of himself or his son in Ukraine, suddenly become the targeted persecution of a political
opponent of Trump.
Other than this, it is evident that Biden stands little chance – the same polling
institutions which give him a double-digit lead were those which foretold a Clinton electoral
victory. Neither their methods nor those paying and publishing them, have substantively
changed. Biden's candidacy, like the impeachment, is essentially fake. The real contenders for
the party's base are Sanders and Gabbard.
The Democratic Party Activist Base Despises Pelosi as much as Clinton
The Democratic Party has two bases, one controlled by the DNC and the Clintons, and one
which consists of its energized rank-and-file activists who are clearer in their populism,
anti-establishment and ant-corporate agenda. Candidates like Gabbard and Sanders are closest to
them politically, though far from perfect fits. Their renegade status is confirmed by the
difficulties they have with visibility – they are the new silent majority of the party.
The DNC base, on the other hand, relies on Rachel Maddow, Wolf Blitzer, and the likes for their
default talking points, where they have free and pervasive access to legacy media. In the
context of increased censorship online, this is not insignificant.
Among the important reasons this 'impeachment' strategy will lose is that it will not
energize the second and larger base. Even though this more progressive and populist base is
also more motivated, they have faced – as has the so-called alt-light – an
extraordinarily high degree of censorship on social media. Despite all the censorship, the
Democrats' silent majority are rather well-informed people, highly motivated, and tend to be
vocal in their communities and places of work. Their ideas move organically and virally among
the populace.
This silent majority has a very good memory, and they know very well who Nancy Pelosi is,
and who she isn't.
The silent majority remembers that after years of the public backlash against Bush's war
crimes, crimes against humanity, destruction of remaining civil liberties with the Patriot Act,
torture, warrantless search – and the list goes on and on – Democrats managed to
retake the lower house in 2006. If there was a legitimate reason for an impeachment, it would
have been championed by Pelosi against Bush for going to war using false, falsified,
manufactured evidence about WMD in Iraq. At the time, Pelosi squashed the hopes of her own
electorate, reasoning that such moves would be divisive, that they would distract from the
Democrats' momentum to take the White House in '08, that Bush had recently (?) won his last
election, and so on. Of course these were real crimes, and the reasons not to prosecute may
have as much to do with Pelosi's own role in the war industry. Pelosi couldn't really push
against Bush over torture, etc. because she had been on an elite congressional committee
– the House Intelligence Committee – during the Bush years in office which starting in
2003 was dedicated to making sure that torture could and would become normalized and
entirely legal.
It seems Pelosi can't even go anywhere with this impeachment on Trump today, and therefore
doesn't even really plan to submit it to the Senate for the next stage .
The political stunt was pulled, a fireworks show consisting of one lonely rocket that sort of
fizzled off out of sight.
Trump emerges unscathed, and more to the point, we are closer to the election and his base
is even more energized. Pelosi spent the better part of three years inoculating the public
against any significance being attached to any impeachment procedure. Pelosi cried wolf so many
times, and Trump has made good on the opportunities handed to him to get his talking points in
order and to condition his base to receive and process the scandals in such and such way. This
wouldn't have been possible without Pelosi's help. Thanks in part to Pelosi and the DNC, Trump
appears primed for re-election.
Trump energizes his base, and the DNC suppresses and disappoints theirs. That's where the
election will be won or lost.
The US goes to foreign nations, destroys millions of people's lives and the American people
are as ignorant and dumb as a wall.
They don't care and here is what needs to be done:
the US military must be brought up on war crimes, crimes against the peace and crimes
against humanity charges in world courts.
The US government should be tried, with the past Presidents, Obama, Bush in the
docket.
Include ignorant Trump. This guy is so creepy, he actually says things like, "we're gonna
take the oil..." by being illegally and immorally in Syria. And, that jews ain't extreme
enough for Israel. Is this guy a bad joke or what. What he says ain't kosher, dig?
Then the US should be fined several trillion dollars for damages to Afghanistan, Syria,
Palestine, Iraq, Libya and to Venezuela, Nicaraqua, Chile and more.
Wow, the US is now the bum nation of the world and the most hated nation/people in the
world.
Also, you all can spare me the 'if you don't like it here...' or 'America love it or leave
it...;
I've been hearing that since I as a kid in the early 60's. You go back, only the Indians
(American) are legally here, anyway. Dig it and have a nice day, buy me coffee when you see
me.
Where is AOC in all this? She was the prime mover on impeachment, specifically impeachment
over a phone call rather than concentration camps and genocide.
And now with impeachment she gave Pelosi cover to sell the country out again.
I was wondering why many libreral centrists were expreasing admiration for her, a
socialist. Maybe they recognized something?
"Prime mover"? What planet are you from? They were Schiff, Nadler, and Pelosi. Did you
miss that Russiagate was in motion while AOC was still tending bar? AOC isn't even on any of
the key committees (Judiciary and Intel).
I shouldn't have said THE prime mover, but ONE OF the prime movers in the House in
actually pushing it over the line against Pelosi's opposition. It seems like the House Dem
consensus ever since Russiagate was just to tease their base with it and milk the suspense
for all it was worth, until AOC, among others, rallied the base.
There were other reps who pushed for impeachment, but AOC has one of the biggest platforms
and crucially, expanded popular support for impeachment outside the MSNBC crowd. So yes, a
key figure in the political/PR effort to move from conspiracy theories to actual
impeachment.
"AOC is one of the highest-profile members of Congress and she blasted Pelosi for
resisting impeachment since May."
Liz Warren is the one who made it a part of her campaign before anyone else. Rashida
Tlaib was the one who made t-shirt with her "impeach the mf'er" quote on it. A lot of them
were "blasting" Pelosi for dithering. AOC also "blasted" her for giving ICE more money and a
lot of their things .
Your central focus on AOC for the impeachment fiasco while ignoring her active role in
spotlighting so many other issues of importance which no one else speaks about is
interesting. Did you catch any of her speaking at the Sanders rally in LA today? Any other
"high profile" Dems pushing such important issues and campaigns?
Thanks for this comment. I don't trust *any of them* except Sanders, but AOC has been
making more good noises than bad, and to claim that it was she who's been driving Pelosi to
impeachment is quite a stretch. Poor, helpless/hapless Rep. Pelosi sure.
Pelosi has repeatedly stared down the progressives in the House. The overwhelming majority
of the freshmen reps are what used to be called Blue Dogs, as in corporate Dems. AOC making
noise on this issue would not move Pelosi any more than it has on other issues.
IMHO Pelosi didn't try to tamp down Russiagate, and that created expectations that
Something Big would happen. Plus she lives in the California/blue cities bubble.
What Dem donors think matters to her way more than what AOC tweets about. If anything,
Pelosi (secondarily, I sincerely doubt this would be a big issue in her calculus) would view
impeachment as a way to reduce the attention recently given to progressive issues like single
payer and student debt forgiveness.
"... My paranoid fear is that Pelosi or McConnell might try to time the proceedings so as to take Bernie and Warren off the campaign trail at a crucial moment, helping Biden. ..."
"... Amfortas the hippie , December 21, 2019 at 5:40 pm ..."
"... that, and sucking the air out of the room for the primaries. When's super tuesday, again? surely they can engineer it so that their "high drama" coincides. ..."
"... "let's talk about universal material benefits" " ok, Vlad trying to distract us from whats really important " ..."
"... Hepativore , December 21, 2019 at 6:49 pm ..."
"... Happy winter Solstice, everyone! ..."
"... Anyway, the funny thing is, that Biden himself has said that he only wants to be a one-term president. It makes me wonder if he knows that he has neither the energy or presence of mind to hold the office, and that he is merely doing so because of establishment pressure to stop Sanders at all costs. ..."
Please bone up on US procedure. It's not good to have you confuse readers.
The Senate can't do anything until the House passes a motion referring the impeachment to
the Senate. The House ALSO needs to designate managers as part of that process.
Michael
Tracey argued that it's only Senate rules that require that the House formally transmit
the impeachment verdict. The Constitution says that the Senate has to try an impeached
president, and the Constitution trumps the Senate's rules. Logically, then, the Senate could
just modify its rules to try the president.
But the whole delay is weird and impeachment has only been done twice before, so not a lot
of precedent.
My paranoid fear is that Pelosi or McConnell might try to time the proceedings so as
to take Bernie and Warren off the campaign trail at a crucial moment, helping Biden.
that, and sucking the air out of the room for the primaries. When's super tuesday,
again? surely they can engineer it so that their "high drama" coincides.
"let's talk about universal material benefits" " ok, Vlad trying to distract us from
whats really important "
Anyway, the funny thing is, that Biden himself has said that he only wants to be a
one-term president. It makes me wonder if he knows that he has neither the energy or presence
of mind to hold the office, and that he is merely doing so because of establishment pressure
to stop Sanders at all costs. Plus, if the Democrats get the brokered convention they
are after, he can bow out, satisfied that he helped the DNC protect the donor class from the
Sanders threat.
There have been numerous smears of Tulsi Gabbard that have been repeated over and over the
last few years after she went to Syria. She started to give the foreign policy blob a lot of
grief for their support of the overthrow of Syria to install a theocratic jihadi government
controlled by the usual suspects.
One smear they like to use is to call Tulsi an Islamophobe. That began years ago when she
criticized Our Savior Obama (pbaj) for claiming ISIS was not a religious extremist
organization, that it was a criminal group and the US needed to give Iraqi men more to do and
then they wouldn't join those criminal gangs like...ISIS.
Anyways, this article goes into a deeper state (yup, deeper than usual) conspiracy by
various actors to smear Tulsi for a variety of reasons subservient to foreign interests, with
a surprise intro to another often unspoken of interest with a lot of hidden power in
Washington.
Mark Galli, its current editor (who is leaving the publication in two weeks)
takes on Trump directly -- a courageous move on his part, as his magazine has largely been
apolitical. "The facts in this instance are unambiguous: the president of the United States
attempted to use his political power to coerce a foreign leader to harass and discredit one of
the president's political opponents," Galli writes. He draws the obvious conclusion for
Christians: "That is not only a violation of the Constitution; more importantly, it is
profoundly immoral." Galli goes further, digging into the behavior of the man in the Oval
Office, noting that Trump "has dumbed down the idea of morality in his administration." He gets
specific: "He has hired and fired a number of people who are now convicted criminals." As if
that wasn't enough, Galli adds, "He himself has admitted to immoral actions in business and his
relationship with women, about which he remains proud. His Twitter feed alone -- with its
habitual string of mischaracterizations, lies, and slanders -- is a near perfect example of a
human being who is morally lost and confused." Galli's warning to Christians is clear. "To the
many evangelicals who continue to support Mr. Trump in spite of his blackened moral record, we
might say this: remember who you are and whom you serve," Galli writes. "Consider how your
justification of Mr. Trump influences your witness to your Lord and Savior. Consider what an
unbelieving world will say if you continue to brush off Mr. Trump's immoral words and behavior
in the cause of political expediency. If we don't reverse course now, will anyone take anything
we say about justice and righteousness with any seriousness for decades to come?" Galli also
acknowledged Friday in an interview on CNN's "New Day" that his stand is unlikely to shake
loose Trump's strong hold on this voter segment, a crucial portion of his political base.
Galli's move is even more admirable when you consider that he published his editorial even
knowing that, as he said in his interview, he's not optimistic that his editorial will alter
Trump's support among white evangelicals. It's not a stretch to say that white evangelicals put
Trump into office in 2016. About
80% of them voted for him. They did so because of the abortion issue, mostly. They wanted
pro-life judges throughout the justice system. But this was a devil's bargain, at best.
<img alt="Faith could bring us together. But too often it divides us"
src="//cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/191121180252-20191121-fractured-states-religious-leaders-large-169.jpg">Faith
could bring us together. But too often it divides us Younger evangelicals, those under 45,
have been slowly but steadily
moving away from Trump during the past two years or so, unhappy about his example. A key
topic that has driven them away is immigration. Loving your neighbor as yourself has always
been a bedrock Christian value. And Trump's stance on immigrants (especially those of color)
has upset the younger generation of evangelicals, with two-thirds of them saying in surveys
that immigrants strengthen our country, bringing their work ethic and talents with them from
Mexico or Central America or Syria. Climate change is another issue that has caught the
imagination of younger evangelicals. "I can't love my neighbor if I'm not protecting the earth
that sustains them and defending their rights to clean water, clean air, and a stable climate,"
Kyle Meyaard-Schaap, a national organizer for Young Evangelicals for Climate Action, told
Grist . Needless to say, Trump's contempt on this subject grates badly on these young
Christians. Perhaps naively, Americans have always looked to the presidency for exemplary moral
behavior, and when there are obvious personal or moral failures, as with Nixon and Clinton,
there is disappointment, even anger. But if you're a Christian -- and I lay claim to this for
myself -- you understand that it's human to fail at perfect behavior. There is always
forgiveness. And, as T.S. Eliot wrote, "Humility is endless."
Humility lies at the heart of
Christian behavior. As does honesty. In these, Trump has set a terrible example, and he's now
been taken down for this by an important Christian voice. If only another 10 percent of
evangelicals take this seriously, and I suspect they will, Donald J. Trump's presidency is
destined for the ash heap of history.
Delaying the Senate trial erodes the Democrats' argument that impeachment was so urgent that
they could not wait for the courts to act on Trump's aggressive claims of privilege.
Seven Democratic presidential candidates who gathered on a debate stage in Los Angeles on
Thursday represent another argument for moving beyond impeachment.
... ... ...
Washington is fixated on the daily turns of the impeachment saga, but polls indicate that
most Americans are not. Business executive Andrew Yang pointed out that, even when the current
president is gone, the struggles of many people will remain, particularly in parts of the
country that helped elect Trump in 2016.
"We blasted away 4 million manufacturing jobs that were primarily based in Ohio, Michigan,
Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Missouri. I just left Iowa -- we blasted 40,000 manufacturing jobs
there," Yang said. "The more we act like Donald Trump is the cause of all our problems, the
more Americans lose trust that we can actually see what's going on in our communities and solve
those problems."
That is what voters are waiting to hear, and the sooner the better for Democrats.
> alliances like NATO, and ultimately the loss of our democracy
Changes might be coming, but Republicans and Clinton faction of Dems are now fully
prepared to resist those changes tooth and nail.
Neoliberal Dems just invented the template for deposing or, at least, paralyzing any
future antiwar president. Via vote of non-confidence mechanism, which essentially what
House impeachment "investigation" was about.
You can always find another Fiona Hill, or Alexander Vindman or a half-dozen State
Department neocon hawks (where in some cases it was unclear who is their real employee )
, or find another jingoistic and complexly detached from reality professor like Karlan,
to support this action. Neocons feed from threat inflation. And money from MIC doesn't
smell.
The problems with the current impeachment goes far deeper then Trump. It is a change
of the constitutional system converting it closer to the UK model.
"... Trump's performance record as president is comprised of an unbroken string of broken promises, opportunities squandered, principles violated, and intentions abandoned. ..."
"... despite another supposedly positive personal relationship, the Trump administration has applied more sanctions on Moscow, provided more anti-Russian aid to Ukraine, further increased funds and troops to NATO Europe, and sent home more Russian diplomats than the Obama administration. ..."
"... Worse, Washington has made no serious effort to resolve the standoff over Ukraine. No one imagines Moscow returning Crimea to Ukraine or giving in on any other issue without meaningful concessions regarding Kiev. Instead of moderating and minimizing bilateral frictions, the administration has made Russia more likely today than before to cooperate with China against Washington and contest American objectives in the Middle East, Africa, and even Latin America. ..."
"... Although Trump promised to stop America's endless wars, as many - if not more - U.S. military personnel are abroad today as when he took office. He increased the number of troops in Afghanistan and is now seeking to negotiate an exit that would force Washington to remain to enforce the agreement. This war has been burning for more than eighteen years. ..."
"... The administration has maintained Washington's illegal deployment in Syria, shifting one contingent away from the Turkish-Kurdish battle while inserting new forces to confiscate Syrian oil fields-a move that lacks domestic authority and violates international law. A few hundred Americans cannot achieve their many other supposed objectives, such as eliminating Russian, Iranian, and other malign influences and forcing Syria's President Bashar al-Assad to resign or inaugurate democracy. However, their presence will ensure America's continued entanglement in a conflict of great complexity but minimal security interest. ..."
"... This is an extraordinarily bad record after almost three years in office. Something good still might happen between now and November 3, 2020. However, more issues are likely to get worse. Imagine North Korean missile and nuclear tests, renewed Russian attempts to influence Western elections, a bloody Chinese crackdown in Hong Kong, increased U.S.-European trade friction, more U.S. pressure on Iran matched by asymmetric responses, and more. At the moment, there is no reason to believe any of the resulting confrontations would turn out well. ..."
Trump's performance record as president is comprised of an unbroken string of broken promises, opportunities squandered, principles
violated, and intentions abandoned.
North Korea may have been the one issue on which President Donald Trump apparently listened to his predecessor, Barack Obama,
when he warned about the serious challenge facing the incoming occupant of the Oval Office. Nevertheless, Trump initially drove tensions
between the two countries to a fever pitch, raising fears of war in the midst of proclamations of "fire and fury." Then he played
statesman and turned toward diplomacy, meeting North Korea's supreme leader, Kim Jong-un, in Singapore.
Today that effort looks kaput. The North has declared denuclearization to be off the table. Actually, few people other than the
president apparently believed that Kim was prepared to turn over his nuclear weapons to a government predisposed toward intervention
and regime change.
Now that this Trump policy is formally dead, and there is no Plan B in sight, Pyongyang has begun deploying choice terms from
its fabled thesaurus of insults. Democrats are sure to denounce the administration for incompetent naivete. And the bipartisan war
party soon will be beating the drums for more sanctions, more florid rhetoric, additional military deployments, new plans for war.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) already has dismissed the risks since any conflict would be "over there," on the distant Korean Peninsula.
At which point Trump's heroic summitry, which offered a dramatic opportunity to break decades of deadly stalemate, will be judged
a failure.
If the president had racked up several successes-wars ended, peace achieved, disputes settled, relations strengthened-then one
disappointment wouldn't matter much. However, his record is an unbroken string of broken promises, opportunities squandered, principles
violated, and intentions abandoned.
There is no relationship more important than that between the United States and the People's Republic of China. Despite Trump's
supposed friendship with China's Xi Jinping, the trade war rages to the detriment of both countries. Americans have suffered from
both the president's tariffs and China's retaliation, with no end in sight. Despite hopes for a resolution, Beijing is hanging tough
and obviously doubts the president's toughness, given the rapidly approaching election.
Beyond economics, the relationship is deteriorating sharply. Disagreements and confrontations over everything from geopolitics
to human rights have driven the two countries apart, with the administration lacking any effective strategy to positively influence
China's behavior. The president's myopic focus on trade has left him without a coherent strategy elsewhere.
Perhaps the president's most pronounced and controversial promise of the 2016 campaign was to improve relations with Russia. However,
despite another supposedly positive personal relationship, the Trump administration has applied more sanctions on Moscow, provided
more anti-Russian aid to Ukraine, further increased funds and troops to NATO Europe, and sent home more Russian diplomats than the
Obama administration.
Worse, Washington has made no serious effort to resolve the standoff over Ukraine. No one imagines Moscow returning Crimea to
Ukraine or giving in on any other issue without meaningful concessions regarding Kiev. Instead of moderating and minimizing bilateral
frictions, the administration has made Russia more likely today than before to cooperate with China against Washington and contest
American objectives in the Middle East, Africa, and even Latin America.
Although Trump promised to stop America's endless wars, as many - if not more - U.S. military personnel are abroad today as when he
took office. He increased the number of troops in Afghanistan and is now seeking to negotiate an exit that would force Washington
to remain to enforce the agreement. This war has been burning for more than eighteen years.
The administration has maintained Washington's illegal deployment in Syria, shifting one contingent away from the Turkish-Kurdish
battle while inserting new forces to confiscate Syrian oil fields-a move that lacks domestic authority and violates international
law. A few hundred Americans cannot achieve their many other supposed objectives, such as eliminating Russian, Iranian, and other
malign influences and forcing Syria's President Bashar al-Assad to resign or inaugurate democracy. However, their presence will ensure
America's continued entanglement in a conflict of great complexity but minimal security interest.
The Saudi government remains corrupt, incompetent, repressive, reckless and dependent on the United States. Only Washington's
refusal to retaliate against Iran for its presumed attack on Saudi oil facilities caused Riyadh to turn to diplomacy toward Tehran,
yet the president then increased U.S. military deployments, turning American military personnel into bodyguards for the Saudi royals.
The recent terrorist attack by the pilot-in-training-presumably to join his colleagues in slaughtering Yemeni civilians-added to
the already high cost of the bilateral relationship.
The administration's policy of "maximum pressure" has proved to be a complete bust around the world. As noted earlier, North Korea
proved unwilling to disarm despite the increased financial pressure caused by U.S. sanctions. North Koreans are hurting, but their
government, like Washington, places security first.
Russia, too, is no more willing to yield Crimea, which was once part of Russia and is the Black Sea naval base of Sebastopol.
Several European governments also disagree with the United States, having pressed to lighten or eliminate current sanctions. The
West will have to offer more than the status quo to roll back Moscow's military advances.
Before Trump became president, Iran was well contained, despite its malign regional activities. The Islamic regime was hemmed
in by Israel and the Gulf States, backed by nations as diverse as Egypt and America. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA,
sharply curtailed Iran's nuclear activities and placed the country under an intensive oversight regime. Now Tehran has reactivated
its nuclear program, expanded its regional interventions, interfered with Gulf shipping, and demonstrated its ability to devastate
Saudi oil production. To America's consternation, its Persian Gulf allies now are more willing to deal with Iran than before.
Additionally, the Trump administration has largely destroyed hope for reform in Cuba by reversing the Obama administration's progress
toward normalizing relations and discouraging visits by-and trade with-Americans. The entrepreneurs I spoke to when I visited Cuba
two years ago made large investments in anticipation of a steadily increasing number of U.S. visitors but were devastated when Washington
shut off the flow. What had been a steadily expanding private sector was knocked back and the regime, with Raoul Castro still dominant
behind the scenes, again can blame America for its own failings. There is no evidence that extending the original embargo and additional
sanctions, which began in 1960, will free anyone.
For a time, Venezuela appeared to be an administration priority. As usual, Trump applied economic sanctions, this time on a people
whose economy essentially had collapsed. Washington threatened more sanctions and military invasion but to no avail. Then the president
and his top aides breathed fire and fury, insisting that both China and Russia stay out, again without success. Eventually, the president
appeared to simply lose interest and drop any mention of the once urgent crisis. The corrupt, repressive Maduro regime remains in
power.
So far, the president's criticisms of America's alliances have gone for naught. Until now, his appointees, all well-disposed toward
maintaining generous subsidies for America's international fan club, have implemented his policies. More recently, the administration
demanded substantial increases in "host nation" support, but in almost every negotiation so far the president has given way, accepting
minor, symbolic gains. He is likely to end up like his predecessor, whining a lot but gaining very little from America's security
dependents.
Beyond that, there is little positive to say. Trump and India's Narendra Modi are much alike, which is no compliment to either,
but institutional relations have changed little. Turkey's incipient dictator, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, receives a free pass from the
president for the former's abuses and crimes. But even so Congress is thoroughly arrayed against Ankara for sins both domestic and
foreign.
The president's aversion to genuine free trade and the curious belief that buying inexpensive, quality products from abroad is
a negative has created problems with many close allies, including Canada, Mexico, Japan, South Korea, Australia, and multiple European
states. Perhaps only with Israel are Washington's relations substantially improved, and that reflects the president's abandonment
of any serious attempt to promote a fair and realistic peace between Israelis and Palestinians.
This is an extraordinarily bad record after almost three years in office. Something good still might happen between now and November
3, 2020. However, more issues are likely to get worse. Imagine North Korean missile and nuclear tests, renewed Russian attempts to
influence Western elections, a bloody Chinese crackdown in Hong Kong, increased U.S.-European trade friction, more U.S. pressure
on Iran matched by asymmetric responses, and more. At the moment, there is no reason to believe any of the resulting confrontations
would turn out well.
Most Americans vote on the economy, and the president is currently riding a wave of job creation. If that ends before the November
vote, then international issues might matter more. If so, then the president may regret that he failed to follow through on his criticism
of endless war and irresponsible allies. Despite his very different persona, his results don't look all that different from those
achieved by Barack Obama and other leading Democrats.
Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. He is a former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan and the
author of several books, including Foreign Follies: America's New Global Empire.
rshimizu12 • 15 hours ago
Personally I think Trumps foreign policy has had mix results. Part of the problem is that Trump has adopted a ad hoc foreign policy
tactics. The US has had limited success with North Korea. While we have not seen any reductions of nuclear weapons. He probably
has stopped flight testing of ICBM's. The daily back and forth threats of destroying each other countries have stopped. We should
have been making more progress with N Korea, but Trump has not been firm enough. Russia on the other hand is a much tougher country
to deal with. As for China we will have to keep up the pressure in trade negotiations.
"... Disappointing to see him peddling that crap to progressives, and as Caitlin Johnstone writes, it's a big deal; pushing that narrative threatens our existence. ..."
Speaking of Bernie, he's gone full Maddow on Russia many times in the past. Disappointing to
see him peddling that crap to progressives, and as Caitlin Johnstone writes, it's a big deal;
pushing that narrative threatens our existence.
If it were him against Trump next fall maybe
I cast my vote for him, then leave the polling place feeling like I'd stepped in dog crap.
The Dems led by Adam Schiff painted Devin Nunes as some raving lunatic. And in the end.
Devin Nunes was right all along. I truly hope the American people are smart enough to see
this for themselves
FISA courts are just as corrupt as FBI and now they are just trying to dump everything on
FBI when they are equally culpable in this coup attempt to dispose a duly elected
president.
Those judges didn't do their job! The reality is they ,,the fisa court aided an abetted in
this coup. Yes the FISA court should be done away with , now.
Ok, at least Nunez admitted that "election meddling" isn't unique to Russia. I am so tired
of this new cold war. We must deescalate tensions between nuclear powers.
WHAT IS DEMOCRACY? Since this deceptively simple question first came into my mind, I haven't
been able to shake it. We think we understand the word, but what are we really referring to
when we talk about a system in which the people rule themselves?
The word democracy is all around us, invoked in almost every
conceivable context: government, business, technology, education, and media. At the same time,
its meaning, taken as self-evident, is rarely given much serious consideration. Though the
headlines tell us democracy is in "crisis," we don't have a clear conception of what it is that
is at risk. The significance of the democratic ideal, as well as its practical substance, is
surprisingly elusive.
For most of my life, the word democracy didn't hold much appeal. I
was of course never against democracy per se, but words such as justice
, equality , freedom , solidarity , socialism , and revolution resonated more deeply. Democracy struck me as
mealy-mouthed, even debased. That idealistic anarchists and authoritarian leaders are equally
inclined to claim "democracy" as their own only demonstrated its lack of depth. North Korea
does, after all, call itself a "Democratic People's Republic," and Iraq was invaded by the U.S.
Army in the name of bringing democracy to the Middle East. But today I no longer see the
opportunistic use of the word as a sign of the idea's vapidity. Those powers co-opt the concept
of democracy because they realize that it represents a profound threat to the established
order, a threat they desperately hope to contain.
After making a documentary film, What Is Democracy? , I now
understand the concept's disorienting vagueness and protean character as a source of strength;
I have come to accept, and even appreciate, that there is no single definition I can stand
behind that feels unconditionally conclusive. Though the practice has extensive global roots,
the word democracy comes to us from ancient Greece, and it conveys a
seemingly simple idea: the people ( demos ) rule or hold power (
kratos ). Democracy is the promise of the people ruling, but a promise
that can never be wholly fulfilled because its implications and scope keep changing. Over
centuries our conceptions of democracy have expanded and evolved, with democracy becoming more
inclusive and robust in many ways, yet who counts as the people, how they rule, and where they
do so remain eternally up for debate. Democracy destabilizes its own legitimacy and purpose by
design, subjecting its core components to continual examination and scrutiny.
Perfect democracy, I've come to believe, may not in fact exist and never will, but that
doesn't mean we can't make progress toward it, or that what there is of it can't disappear. For
this reason, I am more convinced than ever that the questions of what democracy is -- and, more
important, what it could be -- are ones we must perpetually ask.
Right now, many who question democracy do so out of disillusionment, fear, and outrage.
Democracy may not exist, yet it still manages to disappoint. Political gridlock, corruption,
unaccountable representatives, and the lack of meaningful alternatives incense people across
the ideological spectrum; their anger simmers at dehumanizing bureaucracy, blatant hypocrisy,
and lack of voice. Leaders are not accountable and voters rightly feel their choices are
limited, all while the rich keep getting richer and regular people scramble to survive. In
advanced democracies around the world, a growing number of people aren't even bothering to vote
-- a right many people fought and died for fairly recently. Most Americans will say that they
live in a democracy, but few will say that they trust the government, while the state generally
inspires negative reactions, ranging from frustration to contempt and suspicion. The situation
calls to mind Jean-Jacques Rousseau's observation from The Social
Contract : "In a well-ordered city every man flies to the assemblies; under a bad
government no one cares to stir a step to get to them. As soon as any man says of the State
What does it matter to me? the State may be given up for lost."
1
A cauldron of causes generates an atmosphere of corrosive cynicism, social fragmentation,
and unease, with blame too often directed downward at the most vulnerable populations. And it's
not just in the United States. Consider the United Kingdom vote to leave the European Union,
the decision known as Brexit; the resurgence of right-wing populism across Europe; coups and
reactionary electoral victories in Brazil; and the rise of fascism in India. Plato's warning
about democracy devolving into tyranny rings chillingly prophetic. The promise of self-rule
risks becoming not a promise but a curse, a self-destructive motor pushing toward destinations
more volatile, divided, despotic, and mean.
But this book isn't about the pitfalls of popular sovereignty, though it certainly has its
perils. Nor is it about the shortcomings of current liberal democratic political systems or the
ways they have been corrupted by money and power -- though they have been. That's a story that
has been told before, and while it will be the backdrop to my inquiry it is not the focus. This
book, instead, is an invitation to think about the word democracy from
various angles, looking back through history and reflecting on the philosophy and practice of
self-rule in hopes that a more contemplative view will shed useful light on our present
predicament. My goal is not to negate the sense of alarm nor deter people from action but to
remind us that we are part of a long, complex, and still-unfolding chronicle, whatever the
day's headlines might be or whoever governs the country.
Taking a more theoretical approach to democracy's winding, thorny path and inherently
paradoxical nature can also provide solace and reassurance. Ruling ourselves has never been
straightforward and never will be. Ever vexing and unpredictable, democracy is a process that
involves endless reassessment and renewal, not an endpoint we reach before taking a rest
(leaving us with a finished system to tweak at the margins). As such, this book is my
admittedly unorthodox, idiosyncratic call to democratize society from the bottom to the top. It
is also an expression of my belief that we cannot re think democracy if
we haven't really thought about it in the first place.
WHAT IS DEMOCRACY? Since this deceptively simple question first came into my mind, I haven't
been able to shake it. We think we understand the word, but what are we really referring to
when we talk about a system in which the people rule themselves?
The word democracy is all around us, invoked in almost every
conceivable context: government, business, technology, education, and media. At the same time,
its meaning, taken as self-evident, is rarely given much serious consideration. Though the
headlines tell us democracy is in "crisis," we don't have a clear conception of what it is that
is at risk. The significance of the democratic ideal, as well as its practical substance, is
surprisingly elusive.
For most of my life, the word democracy didn't hold much appeal. I
was of course never against democracy per se, but words such as justice
, equality , freedom , solidarity , socialism , and revolution resonated more deeply. Democracy struck me as
mealy-mouthed, even debased. That idealistic anarchists and authoritarian leaders are equally
inclined to claim "democracy" as their own only demonstrated its lack of depth. North Korea
does, after all, call itself a "Democratic People's Republic," and Iraq was invaded by the U.S.
Army in the name of bringing democracy to the Middle East. But today I no longer see the
opportunistic use of the word as a sign of the idea's vapidity. Those powers co-opt the concept
of democracy because they realize that it represents a profound threat to the established
order, a threat they desperately hope to contain.
After making a documentary film, What Is Democracy? , I now
understand the concept's disorienting vagueness and protean character as a source of strength;
I have come to accept, and even appreciate, that there is no single definition I can stand
behind that feels unconditionally conclusive. Though the practice has extensive global roots,
the word democracy comes to us from ancient Greece, and it conveys a
seemingly simple idea: the people ( demos ) rule or hold power (
kratos ). Democracy is the promise of the people ruling, but a promise
that can never be wholly fulfilled because its implications and scope keep changing. Over
centuries our conceptions of democracy have expanded and evolved, with democracy becoming more
inclusive and robust in many ways, yet who counts as the people, how they rule, and where they
do so remain eternally up for debate. Democracy destabilizes its own legitimacy and purpose by
design, subjecting its core components to continual examination and scrutiny.
Perfect democracy, I've come to believe, may not in fact exist and never will, but that
doesn't mean we can't make progress toward it, or that what there is of it can't disappear. For
this reason, I am more convinced than ever that the questions of what democracy is -- and, more
important, what it could be -- are ones we must perpetually ask.
Right now, many who question democracy do so out of disillusionment, fear, and outrage.
Democracy may not exist, yet it still manages to disappoint. Political gridlock, corruption,
unaccountable representatives, and the lack of meaningful alternatives incense people across
the ideological spectrum; their anger simmers at dehumanizing bureaucracy, blatant hypocrisy,
and lack of voice. Leaders are not accountable and voters rightly feel their choices are
limited, all while the rich keep getting richer and regular people scramble to survive. In
advanced democracies around the world, a growing number of people aren't even bothering to vote
-- a right many people fought and died for fairly recently. Most Americans will say that they
live in a democracy, but few will say that they trust the government, while the state generally
inspires negative reactions, ranging from frustration to contempt and suspicion. The situation
calls to mind Jean-Jacques Rousseau's observation from The Social
Contract : "In a well-ordered city every man flies to the assemblies; under a bad
government no one cares to stir a step to get to them. As soon as any man says of the State
What does it matter to me? the State may be given up for lost."
1
A cauldron of causes generates an atmosphere of corrosive cynicism, social fragmentation,
and unease, with blame too often directed downward at the most vulnerable populations. And it's
not just in the United States. Consider the United Kingdom vote to leave the European Union,
the decision known as Brexit; the resurgence of right-wing populism across Europe; coups and
reactionary electoral victories in Brazil; and the rise of fascism in India. Plato's warning
about democracy devolving into tyranny rings chillingly prophetic. The promise of self-rule
risks becoming not a promise but a curse, a self-destructive motor pushing toward destinations
more volatile, divided, despotic, and mean.
But this book isn't about the pitfalls of popular sovereignty, though it certainly has its
perils. Nor is it about the shortcomings of current liberal democratic political systems or the
ways they have been corrupted by money and power -- though they have been. That's a story that
has been told before, and while it will be the backdrop to my inquiry it is not the focus. This
book, instead, is an invitation to think about the word democracy from
various angles, looking back through history and reflecting on the philosophy and practice of
self-rule in hopes that a more contemplative view will shed useful light on our present
predicament. My goal is not to negate the sense of alarm nor deter people from action but to
remind us that we are part of a long, complex, and still-unfolding chronicle, whatever the
day's headlines might be or whoever governs the country.
Taking a more theoretical approach to democracy's winding, thorny path and inherently
paradoxical nature can also provide solace and reassurance. Ruling ourselves has never been
straightforward and never will be. Ever vexing and unpredictable, democracy is a process that
involves endless reassessment and renewal, not an endpoint we reach before taking a rest
(leaving us with a finished system to tweak at the margins). As such, this book is my
admittedly unorthodox, idiosyncratic call to democratize society from the bottom to the top. It
is also an expression of my belief that we cannot re think democracy if
we haven't really thought about it in the first place.
WHAT IS DEMOCRACY? Since this deceptively simple question first came into my mind, I haven't
been able to shake it. We think we understand the word, but what are we really referring to
when we talk about a system in which the people rule themselves?
The word democracy is all around us, invoked in almost every
conceivable context: government, business, technology, education, and media. At the same time,
its meaning, taken as self-evident, is rarely given much serious consideration. Though the
headlines tell us democracy is in "crisis," we don't have a clear conception of what it is that
is at risk. The significance of the democratic ideal, as well as its practical substance, is
surprisingly elusive.
For most of my life, the word democracy didn't hold much appeal. I
was of course never against democracy per se, but words such as justice
, equality , freedom , solidarity , socialism , and revolution resonated more deeply. Democracy struck me as
mealy-mouthed, even debased. That idealistic anarchists and authoritarian leaders are equally
inclined to claim "democracy" as their own only demonstrated its lack of depth. North Korea
does, after all, call itself a "Democratic People's Republic," and Iraq was invaded by the U.S.
Army in the name of bringing democracy to the Middle East. But today I no longer see the
opportunistic use of the word as a sign of the idea's vapidity. Those powers co-opt the concept
of democracy because they realize that it represents a profound threat to the established
order, a threat they desperately hope to contain.
After making a documentary film, What Is Democracy? , I now
understand the concept's disorienting vagueness and protean character as a source of strength;
I have come to accept, and even appreciate, that there is no single definition I can stand
behind that feels unconditionally conclusive. Though the practice has extensive global roots,
the word democracy comes to us from ancient Greece, and it conveys a
seemingly simple idea: the people ( demos ) rule or hold power (
kratos ). Democracy is the promise of the people ruling, but a promise
that can never be wholly fulfilled because its implications and scope keep changing. Over
centuries our conceptions of democracy have expanded and evolved, with democracy becoming more
inclusive and robust in many ways, yet who counts as the people, how they rule, and where they
do so remain eternally up for debate. Democracy destabilizes its own legitimacy and purpose by
design, subjecting its core components to continual examination and scrutiny.
Perfect democracy, I've come to believe, may not in fact exist and never will, but that
doesn't mean we can't make progress toward it, or that what there is of it can't disappear. For
this reason, I am more convinced than ever that the questions of what democracy is -- and, more
important, what it could be -- are ones we must perpetually ask.
Right now, many who question democracy do so out of disillusionment, fear, and outrage.
Democracy may not exist, yet it still manages to disappoint. Political gridlock, corruption,
unaccountable representatives, and the lack of meaningful alternatives incense people across
the ideological spectrum; their anger simmers at dehumanizing bureaucracy, blatant hypocrisy,
and lack of voice. Leaders are not accountable and voters rightly feel their choices are
limited, all while the rich keep getting richer and regular people scramble to survive. In
advanced democracies around the world, a growing number of people aren't even bothering to vote
-- a right many people fought and died for fairly recently. Most Americans will say that they
live in a democracy, but few will say that they trust the government, while the state generally
inspires negative reactions, ranging from frustration to contempt and suspicion. The situation
calls to mind Jean-Jacques Rousseau's observation from The Social
Contract : "In a well-ordered city every man flies to the assemblies; under a bad
government no one cares to stir a step to get to them. As soon as any man says of the State
What does it matter to me? the State may be given up for lost."
1
A cauldron of causes generates an atmosphere of corrosive cynicism, social fragmentation,
and unease, with blame too often directed downward at the most vulnerable populations. And it's
not just in the United States. Consider the United Kingdom vote to leave the European Union,
the decision known as Brexit; the resurgence of right-wing populism across Europe; coups and
reactionary electoral victories in Brazil; and the rise of fascism in India. Plato's warning
about democracy devolving into tyranny rings chillingly prophetic. The promise of self-rule
risks becoming not a promise but a curse, a self-destructive motor pushing toward destinations
more volatile, divided, despotic, and mean.
But this book isn't about the pitfalls of popular sovereignty, though it certainly has its
perils. Nor is it about the shortcomings of current liberal democratic political systems or the
ways they have been corrupted by money and power -- though they have been. That's a story that
has been told before, and while it will be the backdrop to my inquiry it is not the focus. This
book, instead, is an invitation to think about the word democracy from
various angles, looking back through history and reflecting on the philosophy and practice of
self-rule in hopes that a more contemplative view will shed useful light on our present
predicament. My goal is not to negate the sense of alarm nor deter people from action but to
remind us that we are part of a long, complex, and still-unfolding chronicle, whatever the
day's headlines might be or whoever governs the country.
Taking a more theoretical approach to democracy's winding, thorny path and inherently
paradoxical nature can also provide solace and reassurance. Ruling ourselves has never been
straightforward and never will be. Ever vexing and unpredictable, democracy is a process that
involves endless reassessment and renewal, not an endpoint we reach before taking a rest
(leaving us with a finished system to tweak at the margins). As such, this book is my
admittedly unorthodox, idiosyncratic call to democratize society from the bottom to the top. It
is also an expression of my belief that we cannot re think democracy if
we haven't really thought about it in the first place.
Democracy May Not Exist, but We'll Miss It When It's Gone is one of those books you
might want to get in its physical form so you can shove it full of bookmarks, highlight
sentences, write notes, stick little sticky arrows to note something special, and generally
leave it in unfit condition for anyone but you, but that will be okay because you will be
going back to it again and again whenever you want to argue about something. Yes, it's that
good.
Astra Taylor does the difficult job examining democracy, something we talk about a lot
without ever completely understanding its full implications. To do this, she examines eight
tensions that pull democracies in different directions and are critical to balance or at
least understand when understanding democracy. These tensions are interrogated in separate
chapters, looking at history, research, and political experience that impinge on them. The
vast research involved in these explorations is astonishing.
In the first chapter she examines the tension between freedom and equality and notes
that once upon a time we thought they went hand in hand, but that they have become
oppositional thanks to political movements that serve the powerful who define freedom in
terms of making money and avoidance of regulation rather than freedom from want, hunger, or
fear. Equality has become, to American eyes, the enemy of freedom. The second chapter looks
at decision-making, the tension of conflict and consensus. This includes the understanding
of loyal opposition, something that seems to be lost with a president who calls his
political opponents traitors. I appreciated her taking on how consensus can become
anti-democratic and stultifying.
The third chapter looks at the tension of inclusion and exclusion, who is the demos, to
whom is the democracy accountable. In the fourth, the balance between choice and coercion
is explored. Pro-corporate theorists talk about government coercion and attacks on liberty
when they are not allowed to poison our drinking water and make government the enemy of the
people. She also explores how we seem to think freedom is the be all, end all except at
work. Chapter Five looks at spontaneity versus structure. This has an important analysis of
organizing versus activism and how the focus on youth movements has weakened social justice
movements overall as the energy dissipates after college without the labor and community
organizations to foster movement energy. Chapter Six explores the balance between mass
opinion and expertise and how meritocracy works against democracy. This chapter looks at
how education functions to keep the powerful powerful from generation to generation, "the
paradoxical, deeply contradictory role of education under capitalism , which facilitates
the ascension of some while preparing a great many more for lowly positions of
servitude."
Chapter Seven looks at the geography of democracy, not just in terms of federalism and
the federal, state, and local levels of participating in democracy but also the
supranational entities like the World Trade Organization and how they undercut democracy
and the integrity of the state. Chapter Eight considers what we inherit from the past, the
traditions and norms of democracy and what we owe the future, including our obligations to
pass on a livable planet.
Needless to say, this is all very discouraging in its totality, but the final chapter
encourages us to balance pessimism with optimism just as democracy must balance all those
other tensions.
It took me forever to read Democracy May Not Exist, but We'll Miss It When It's Gone.
That is because after I read a chapter I needed to think about it before I moved on to the
next. I took sixteen pages of notes while reading it. I hate taking notes, but I did not
want to lose the ideas.
This is also a book you might want to read with some other people, perhaps discussing a
chapter at a time. I do not think it is a book you can read passively, without stopping to
talk to someone, tweet, or reread. It's that good.
That does not mean I agree with every word of the book, but then the author does an
excellent job of interrogating her own ideas. She might seem to be asserting an opinion,
and then offer a counter-example because she is rigorous like that. She perhaps places too
much faith in Marxist theory from time to time, but then that may be because like
democracy, it has never really existed except in conceptual form.
Taylor does not offer a simple answer because there are no simple answers. She does not
pretend to know how to, or even if we can, fix democracy. She gives us the questions, the
problems, and some ideas, but as someone who truly believes in government by the people,
she asks us to take up the challenge.
I received an e-galley of Democracy May Not Exist, but We'll Miss It When It's Gone from
the publisher through NetGalley.
"I could not in good conscience vote against impeachment because I believe President Trump
is guilty of wrongdoing," she said. "I also could not in good conscience vote for impeachment
because removal of a sitting President must not be the culmination of a partisan process,
fueled by tribal animosities that have so gravely divided our country."
A censure would "send a strong message to this president and future presidents that their
abuses of power will not go unchecked, while leaving the question of removing Trump from
office to the voters to decide," Gabbard said.
The Trump Card was and is a masterstroke of scripting live, non-stop, divisive, politically
paralytic distraction while the US oligarchy goes all-tard-in for private power.
Since the whole impeachment farce already has been a political loser for the idiot Democrats,
they'd have to be doubly stupid to double down on political stupidity by obstructing the
transmission to the Senate, when most Americans just want this crap to be over with.
Meanwhile the Senate Republicans, once they get the charges, would be stupid to do
anything but vote them down immediately. Otherwise they'll become complicit in the odious
circus and rightly incur their share of the political blame.
@ Posted by: jalp | Dec 19 2019 6:00 utc | 80 with the Green Party status....Thanks
If Tulsi is totally left out of the Democratic race, is it possible that she could be a
Green candidate? When is the "drop dead" date for that to occur? How is the VP pick
handled?
I see Tulsi Gabbard managed to distance herself from the affair and rise above it by
voting "present" instead of "yes" or "no". I sense she is purposely putting a lot of space
between herself and the DNC, and may even be positioning herself to run as an independent
come spring, despite saying that was not her objective only a couple of months ago. Given the
lack of wisdom and loss of sense of direction being shown by the Democrat leadership it would
be a very wise move.
Pres. Trump wants to go down in history for something other than the impeachment
charade.
He thinks outside the box, is afraid of nothing, can turn on a dime, and may be the only
person who can kick open a door that seems jammed, thereby healing half the nation.
"... The NEW Democrats and the Return to Power ..."
"... Reading between the lines: many people think that government spending only helps "those" people (the poor/the politically connected businesses/the bureaucrats/the old/the young/the non-innovative). You yourself are always a virtuous wealth creator, because of course you are. ..."
MSNBC and the New Democrats claim they share the same prime directive – Democratic
Party electoral victories are the only imperative.
This is exactly the justification Al From gave for the program of the Democratic
Leadership Council (see The NEW Democrats and the Return to Power ). All those who
joined shared the same goal. They took control of the party in 1992, and still control it.
That's why I think Trump is going to be re-elected.
Reading between the lines: many people think that government spending only helps "those"
people (the poor/the politically connected businesses/the bureaucrats/the old/the young/the
non-innovative). You yourself are always a virtuous wealth creator, because of course you
are.
Even many former government employees now living on a government pension believe this.
And when austerity comes for something important to you, it is a mistake, not something
that makes you question austerity, since of course you are not one of "those" people.
It's prejudice/arrogance all the way down, and extremely hard to argue with since it goes
against people's self-image in many ways.
Reading between the lines: many people think that government spending only helps "those"
people (the poor/the politically connected businesses/the bureaucrats/the old/the young/the
non-innovative). You yourself are always a virtuous wealth creator, because of course you
are.
Even many former government employees now living on a government pension believe this.
And when austerity comes for something important to you, it is a mistake, not something
that makes you question austerity, since of course you are not one of "those" people.
It's prejudice/arrogance all the way down, and extremely hard to argue with since it goes
against people's self-image in many ways.
IMO, some parts of the world are finding the D-Party v Trump battle quite entertaining and
informative. For example, given what the Outlaw US Empire just did to Hong Kong, this observation made in
China's Global Times was quite measured yet pointed:
"To many Chinese, it seems that US-style democracy has already become a negative concept,
which has brought ceaseless chaos and produced absurd farces.
"Democracy itself is a good thing, but the point is how to utilize it. Democracy is never
the purpose, but an approach, of governing. A government's primary job should be meeting the
needs of the vast majority of the people and driving the country forward, which requires
national consensus.
"In other words, it is true that all people should be entitled to freedom of expression.
But when it comes to policymaking, democracy alone is not enough - democratic centralism is
needed."
Many of us have noted this charade will serve to cover-up lots of happenings domestically
and globally. And as I've written before, Trump's committed impeachable offenses, but they're
not even being questioned because the Ds have done and will want to continue doing the same
things.
Most of them can't be taken seriously in any case as their task is not to report but to
influence the public opinion. Look at Biden polls for confirmation.
Life is strange. Just as I was reading b's summary of a poll showing increased support for
Trump, NPR ran a story of a poll taken of military people showing just the opposite. Neither
poll can be taken seriously, since neither bothers to include a margin of error, likely to be
about the same amount as the difference between "yes" and "no".
Keith Olbermann is the only media person I have ever heard that talked about polls and
margin of error. He actually included the margin of error in every poll-related story he did
while on MSNBC. Too bad there aren't more journalists like Mr Olbermann.
I did not know about former admitted spooks being elected to Congress. It is very
disturbing that they are operating so openly as to publicly organize and promote the
impeachment circus. It suggests to me that the spooks will not accept a Not Guilty verdict
from the Senate. Not sure I want to think about what they might try next.
It still amazes me that people actually think impeachment accomplishes anything other than
diverting attention from the Dems giving Trump everything he wants. Kayfabe.
I'm starting to think the whole trump presidency is a con by making him look like a target
for the deep state and anti establishment, he continues the empire while people who want real
change get sunk.
I have had this thought more than once since Trump was selected to play president. He makes
too many unforced errors that are timely for democrats to jump on. He could have nipped Russia
Gate in its tracks by having the NSA show how Russia did not hack into the DNC computers. I'm
sure that there were other things he could have done, but never did. But if the Huber
investigation has legs and someone actually gets held accountable for taking the country on
this 3 year insanity I'll rethink my opinion.
So from now on the party which hold the House can start impeachment process on false premises
the day the President from other party was elected. As simple as that.
That open a huge can to worms for future Presidents,
Notable quotes:
"... Let me explain something. This will set a precedent for house of reps to come. When we have a liberal president and a republican house we will do the same and impeach him for nothing because this just shows that if you own the house you can impeach him for nothing and that isn't good for the future ..."
I don't know anything about politics but i know that impeaching a president with radical
fans might not be the smartest move for a country that's all ready divided , just my
opinion.
The claim its a danger to our constitution when they have no pronlem with infringing our
2nd Amendment, 1st Amendment and pledge to do away with the elctorial college...
Hypocrisy
Let me explain something. This will set a precedent for house of reps to come. When we
have a liberal president and a republican house we will do the same and impeach him for
nothing because this just shows that if you own the house you can impeach him for nothing and
that isn't good for the future
Trump is doing a great job,and doing every thing he promises. The only high crime was
defying Dems authority.He has become a clear and present danger to their chances of ever
winning another election.
"... But as we know it has become politically incorrect on the left to do anything but to put on your clown makeup and join the circus. ..."
"... But Tulsi Gabbard as usual doesn't play their game. And because of that, like Trump she is also a target of the deep state and not just the deep state of America--it is the deep state of the entire 5-Eyes security apparatus who together work overtime to overthrow Trump and any and all who resist their attempt to rule the world. ..."
"... Today's Deep State most resembles the colonial administrations during the heyday of European imperialism. These too worked to run their own secret foreign policy, and to bring their power to bear on domestic policy as well. ..."
Tulsi Gabbard did the smart thing and abstained in the vote from the circus. But as we know
it has become politically incorrect on the left to do anything but to put on your clown
makeup and join the circus.
But Tulsi Gabbard as usual doesn't play their game. And because of that, like Trump she is
also a target of the deep state and not just the deep state of America--it is the deep state
of the entire 5-Eyes security apparatus who together work overtime to overthrow Trump and any
and all who resist their attempt to rule the world.
Historically the ability of unelected, unaccountable, secretive bureaucracies (aka the "Deep
State") to exercise their own policy without regard for the public or elected officials,
often in defiance of these, has always been the hallmark of the destruction of democracy and
incipient tyranny.
Today's Deep State most resembles the colonial administrations during the heyday of
European imperialism. These too worked to run their own secret foreign policy, and to bring
their power to bear on domestic policy as well.
Although both halves of the One-Party really want the effective tyranny of state and
corporate bureaucracies, it's not surprising that it's the Democrats (along with the MSM)
taking the lead in openly defending the tyrannical proposition that the CIA should be
running its own foreign (and implicitly domestic) policy, and that the president should be
just a figurehead which follows orders. That goes with the Democrats' more avowedly
technocratic style, and it goes with the ratchet effect whereby it's usually Democrats which
push the policy envelope toward ever greater inequality, ecocide and tyranny.
Now is a time of rising irredentism and the decline of all the ideas of
globalization and technocracy, though the reality is likely to hang on for awhile. The whole
Deep State-Zionist-Russia-Deranged-Trump-Deranged-MSM-social media censorship campaign is
globalization trying to maintain its monopoly of ideas by force, since it knows it can never
win in a free clash of ideas.
Impeachment, and the pro-bureaucracy anti-democracy campaign related to it, besides its
more petty purposes (distraction from real social problems; forestalling Sanders), is the
culmination of technocracy's attempted coup against a president who, even though he agrees
with this cabal on all policy matters, is considered too unreliable, too undisciplined, too
damn honest about the evil of the US empire. If they can take him down, they think
they can restore the full business-as-usual status quo including the compliance of the rest
of the world.
Since impeachment's going to fail, we can expect the system to try other ways.
But also may I compliment Kali@18 and Russ@19 for their terrific comments. I have just
finished reading the link provided by Kali, which is an outstanding essay by Pam Ho- a
paradigm shifter if ever there was one! I have been making a determined effort to liberate my
thinking from ideological partisanship and reading this essay was like pressing a refresh
button in my brain.
Despite the ra ra b. s.,Trump's letter will become an historical document, as it does
encapsulate all the manufactured tribulations that have been foisted on his presidency,
though I would have liked b to include all those words which were CAPITALIZED. He's quite a
personality, your president The best summation of the man is, curiosly enough, provided by
Syria's president Assad. There is an honesty about him even when he's uttering a bald-faced
lie!
Tulsi has been newsworthy for a number of years now and right from the getgo I said to
myself "she's my kind of gal"
Here is a woman of courage and presence. She's young and principled, even if she's a
member of a very corrupted party.
@ Posted by: Australian lady | Dec 19 2019 3:26 utc | 71 who ended her comment expressing
support for Tulsi Gabbard
When the impeachment vote was taken today, there were two Dems that voted against and
Tulsi voted Present
She will be ostracized for her non vote but I give her credit for distancing herself from
the impeachment circus. Given that she has stated that she won't run again for Congress, I
speculate that she may jump to the Green Party if given the chance to run ahead of or with
Jill Stein.....any barflies know how the Greens are shaping up for this coming election?
I read in a couple of places today that the strategy of the Dems is to not forward the
impeachment to the Senate for an indeterminate amount of time......let the stew, the Senate
and Trump simmer a bit.....more kabuki for the masses while the public continues to be
screwed economically.
Pelosi risk to turn the case into personal vendetta and DemoRats will be burned as the
result. McConnell just need to wait a couple on months as time works for him.
This pressure from Pelosi actually helps Trump opening interesting lines of the attack:
"McConnell said on the Senate floor that Pelosi and House Democrats "may be too afraid to even
transmit their shoddy work product to the Senate." Trump tweeted as Pelosi spoke Thursday
morning, saying that "Pelosi feels her phony impeachment HOAX is so pathetic she is afraid to
present it to the Senate".
The Deep State Sunk The Democratic Party
Notable quotes:
"... she would delay naming impeachment managers -- who would argue the House case in the Senate -- until the Senate lays out its procedures for the trial. ..."
41 Million people in the US suffer from hunger and lack of food security"--US Dept. of
Agriculture. That number of people constituted a crisis for FDR when he delivered his One-Third
of a Nation speech for his 2nd Inaugural. About four years later, FDR expanded on that issue in
his Four Freedoms speech: 1.Freedom of speech; 2.Freedom of worship; 3.Freedom from want;
4.Freedom from fear.
Faced with a similar situation, Trump advances plans to cut more people from the food stamp
program thus increasing immiseration. One might say Trump's out of step with traditional
American values; but were Obama, Bush, or Clinton any better?
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday extended her standoff with Senate Majority Leader
Mitch McConnell over starting President Donald Trump 's impeachment trial,
insisting she's waiting to see whether Republicans will agree to a "fair" process.
Pelosi surprised many House Democrats Wednesday night after the House impeached Trump when
she said she would delay naming impeachment managers -- who would argue the House case in
the Senate -- until the Senate lays out its procedures for the trial.
"When we see what they have, we'll know who and how many we will send over," she said at a
news conference Thursday. Pelosi cast it as a procedural matter and cited the Senate's
ability to come up with a bipartisan trial plan after President Bill Clinton was
impeached.
... ... ...
McConnell and other GOP senators have been indicating they want a quick
trial, with arguments presented by the House managers and Trump's counsel without witnesses.
McConnell was giving no ground.
"It's beyond me how the speaker and Democratic leader in the Senate think withholding the
articles of impeachment and not sending them over gives them leverage," he told reporters at
the Capitol. "Frankly, I'm not anxious to have the trial."
... ... ...
McConnell called the House impeachment process rushed and shoddy.
"If the speaker ever gets her house in order, that mess will be dumped in the Senate's
lap," he said on the Senate floor. "If the nation accepts this, presidential impeachments may
cease being a once-in-a-generation event."
Trump's letter notes that talk about impeachment started as soon as he stepped into
office:
IMO the Deep State wanted to initiate a new McCarthyism.
Russiagate was the means to do so and that means that Impeachment was always a possibility
(though likely a red-herring, as I explain below).
IMO After the Mueller investigation progressives pressed for Impeachment but establishment
Democratics (led by Pelosi and Hillary) wouldn't allow it. People were (rightfully) asking
why establishment Democrats were protecting Trump.
With this in mind, Ukrainegate is a convenient diversion from Russiagate while providing
the Impeachment satisfaction that progressives had clamored for.
It's difficult NOT to notice that ...
... America First Trump actually furthered Russiagate when he hired Manafort
(who was known to have worked for pro-Russian Parties in Ukraine and had NO recent
experience in US elections) and called upon Russia to publish Hillary's emails (which were
KNOWN to contain top-secret information - making any publication a crime under US law);
... and America First Trump furthered Ukrainegate by the mentioning the
name of an announced political opponent when talking about investigating corruption on a
call with Zelensky.
One might excuse this in many ways: Trump's ego; his unfamiliarity with politics
and statecraft; or just bad luck. But one can also see these actions, in a larger context, as
disturbing part of the effort to initiate the new McCarthyism.
"... Today's Deep State most resembles the colonial administrations during the heyday of European imperialism. These too worked to run their own secret foreign policy, and to bring their power to bear on domestic policy as well. ..."
"... Impeachment, and the pro-bureaucracy anti-democracy campaign related to it, besides its more petty purposes (distraction from real social problems; forestalling Sanders), is the culmination of technocracy's attempted coup against a president who, even though he agrees with this cabal on all policy matters, is considered too unreliable, too undisciplined, too damn honest about the evil of the US empire. If they can take him down, they think they can restore the full business-as-usual status quo including the compliance of the rest of the world. ..."
Historically the ability of unelected, unaccountable, secretive bureaucracies (aka the "Deep
State") to exercise their own policy without regard for the public or elected officials,
often in defiance of these, has always been the hallmark of the destruction of democracy and
incipient tyranny.
Today's Deep State most resembles the colonial administrations during the heyday of
European imperialism. These too worked to run their own secret foreign policy, and to bring
their power to bear on domestic policy as well.
Although both halves of the One-Party really want the effective tyranny of state and
corporate bureaucracies, it's not surprising that it's the Democrats (along with the MSM)
taking the lead in openly defending the tyrannical proposition that the CIA should be
running its own foreign (and implicitly domestic) policy, and that the president should be
just a figurehead which follows orders. That goes with the Democrats' more avowedly
technocratic style, and it goes with the ratchet effect whereby it's usually Democrats which
push the policy envelope toward ever greater inequality, ecocide and tyranny.
Now is a time of rising irredentism and the decline of all the ideas of
globalization and technocracy, though the reality is likely to hang on for awhile. The whole
Deep State-Zionist-Russia-Deranged-Trump-Deranged-MSM-social media censorship campaign is
globalization trying to maintain its monopoly of ideas by force, since it knows it can never
win in a free clash of ideas.
Impeachment, and the pro-bureaucracy anti-democracy campaign related to it, besides
its more petty purposes (distraction from real social problems; forestalling Sanders), is the
culmination of technocracy's attempted coup against a president who, even though he agrees
with this cabal on all policy matters, is considered too unreliable, too undisciplined, too
damn honest about the evil of the US empire. If they can take him down, they think
they can restore the full business-as-usual status quo including the compliance of the rest
of the world.
Since impeachment's going to fail, we can expect the system to try other ways.
hey b... i like your title - "How The Deep State Sunk The Democratic Party" ... could change
it to" How the Deep State Sunk the USA" could work just as well...
Seven of the 11 security state representatives who had joined the Democrats in 2018 gave
the impulse for impeachment.
is this intentional?? it sort of looks like it...
good quote from @ 26 lk - "The contradictions of US empire and global capitalism cannot be
mitigated by either more liberal strategies or realist ones."
@babyl-on 35
yes that is about right. The top power networks are all a tight mix of names from govt, MIC,
and private equity (incl. top 2-3 investment banks). With the latter group naturally paying
the salaries of the whole policy making ecosystem, and holding the positions that select
future generations who will eventually take their place.
They want the security of knowing noone in the world will mess with them. This
necessitates that noone in the world *can* mess with them. Pretty straightforward from
there.
BULLSH!AT. U don't compromise with neocunts. Obama, 3 NEW WARS. TRUMP ZERO. U tell me who are the warmongers. BERNIE
VOTED FOR MULTIPLE HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTIONS UNDER HALF BLACK 44. Do you find the old man physically attractive? Why are you
so obsessed with a wannabe dictator?
While both Corbyn and Democrats separate themselves from the Working Class, Corbyn was
derived and smeared much like Trump by the MSM as a 'racist' and "anti-Semite', and actively
opposed by the British Intelligence Agencies as was Trump. Corbyn was a darling of London,
much as Democrats are beloved by the bureaucrats in DC and the bankers in NYC. Will be
interesting to see which forces are strongest come November 2020; not sure that voting is
legit anymore anyway. "It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the
votes."-- Stalin
Although Corbyn and Sanders are similar figures in many respects -- and have an avowed
affinity for each other's projects -- they are also very different politicians, both
ideologically and personally. Sanders's political vision is
less radical than Corbyn's, particularly on foreign policy. The Vermont senator is a
supporter of NATO and a liberal Zionist. Corbyn has called for the abolition of NATO, and
evinced more sympathy for anti-Zionism. Sanders supported America's bombing of Kosovo in 1999,
Corbyn opposed it. Meanwhile, at least until
recently , Corbyn's economic views were markedly more socialist than Sanders's.
But the most relevant distinctions are personal. Before becoming leader of the Labour Party,
Corbyn had represented a roughly 70,000-person district in London, which has voted for Labour
candidates in every election since 1937. Before his present campaign, meanwhile, Sanders had
not only won statewide elections in a largely rural constituency that voted for Ronald Reagan
twice, but outperformed the state's partisan lean while doing so. Which is to say, Sanders has
demonstrated a capacity to win votes outside of historically left-wing urban areas, while
Corbyn never did.
One fundamental challenge facing contemporary socialists (and social democrats) has been the
decline of class-based voting throughout much of the developed world. The American
Prospect 's Harold Meyerson offers this excellent summary of the predicament:
... ... ...
Underlying all three of these fragmentations is the de-linking of class interests: As
globalization and financialization (the latter particularly pronounced in the U.K. and U.S.)
have undermined the egalitarian achievements of the postwar era, parties of the center-left
have been stretched ideologically, often to the breaking point. The '90s saw Britain's New
Labour under Tony Blair, America's Democrats under Bill Clinton, and Germany's Social
Democrats under Gerhard Schröder all move to globalize and deregulate their economies,
to the benefit of those nations' banking and corporate sectors and the detriment of their
working-class voters. The collapse of 2008 and the hugely unequal recovery that followed has
led to battles between the center-left and a more militant left in virtually every
industrialized nation.
Socialists in the U.S. and U.K. contend that
realigning the bulk of white workers with the left is a precondition for arresting
neoliberal capitalism's descent into neo-feudalism (if not
eco-fascism ): Only a unified, militant working-class can muster the objective political
and economic strength necessary to bring our oligarchic overlords to heel.
We are operating in a cloud at the moment. And despite the fact that the impeachment is
nonsensical and maliscious, i think ie has an impact on people immediate senses.
I agree that we have a long ways to go and that this remains the president's election to
lose. It would have been helpful if he had diligently governed. And really pressed the
domestic issues forcing the democrats to defend all the positions the country dislikes, but
that can still come into play.
In some ways, I think the president likes the drama
laugh.
And campaigning is going to be a very different front. That is the transition that i wish
had been faster. From politician to administrator of policy.
@Realist
Agreed.
What is not shown, is where the polls were taken. Urban USA votes Democrat, rural USA votes
Republican. This article from 2016 made the most sense of anything I'd seen https://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about/
The 2016 polls were being fixed for Clinton to create a bandwagon effect. That's why she was
90% sure to be elected. These polls will be irrelevant because, as Jeff Rense predicted well
over a year ago, Clinton will run and be the nominee.
He has built more wall than the last three presidents and is on track to have one fully
built by November next year. He has also reduced the amount of illegal immigration into the
US.
he signed a law that granted tax cuts for the wealthy,
If you want to bring money back into the country where it can do some good, you have to
reduce taxes. In any event, he also cut taxes for the not so well off.
he engaged in a quid pro quo
Which QPQ? Ohhh, you mean getting Ukraine to follow up on the terms of the
mutual-assistance treaty between the US and Ukraine to investigate corruption instigated by
US politicians.
@Corvinus
We have more wall built under Trump than Obama. We have had more immigration enforcement (ICE
activity) under Trump than Obama. We all want more, better, faster .. However, Trump has been
limited by the Deep State left.
As a practical matter -- Trump will be infinitely better than the anti-Christian,
Globalist, racist, Soros-funded, DNC candidate. Voters understand this, and that will be more
clear once the campaign becomes one-on-one.
The anti-Jew, White Nationalist & Muslim voters knew about Trump's family before the
last election. And, they voted against him. However, the leftist WN movement is small &
the leftist Muslim movement is smaller. They can not move the needle in U.S. elections
@LoutishAngloQuebecker
Exactly, I feel like other non whites would support the GOP if they made themselves the party
of White Civilization, which is why they are all here in the United States.
Instead the Republican Party is for the Financiers and the Warmongers. Even if Republicans
were pro-immigration, why would any working class nonwhite support them?
Republicans need to make the explicit argument that a more White America will be better
for nonwhites payroll than a less White America. Even Hispanics, Arabs, and Asians can tell
that they will do better in a America with Seattle's demographics than Detroit's, and one
that wont send their kids to die fighting some random Neocon fetish.
This always happens during every primary season. When it's "generic Democrat candidate vs.
incumbent Republican", all of the polls say Democrat, but when there is an actual
candidate chosen and no other alternatives, the polls all flip.
If 2020 goes 368-170 against Trump, I will eat my hat. In favor of Trump, I
wouldn't even be that surprised.
@houston
1992 72, 80, 84, 88, 08 and 12 were inevitable landslides.
I don't agree on 1960.
Nixon carried 4 Southern states worth 40+ EVs. Liberal HC Lodge would not have.
Nixon won his home state with 32 EVs by 0.5%. Would Lodge have won Cal after beating the
home state fav in the primary? Northern liberal Republicans like Lodge lost badly in 44 and
48.
I don't see why Dole would have been stronger than Bush 41.
76? Maybe, but probably not. The public was still in a liberal mood after Vietnam and
Watergate. Ford won 40EVs in the NE, Reagan might have been shut out there, as well as losing
MI (21) and IL (26). Reagan would have done better than Ford in the South, but enough to make
up for doing worse in the midwest and NE? Carter won TN and NC by 10+ points, many other
states by 4+.
Fuck this is depressing. The daily slander and hate mongering against white men is now a
fixture of popular culture and it will only get worse. More great white defendants, more
self-righteous and black womxn rambling incoherently about critical theory and how society is
insufficiently appreciative of their hair.
Once the left takes full power, American free speech exceptionalism will fall by the wayside.
Hate speech restrictions will emerge and anyone that departs from woke orthodoxy will be
threatened with criminal liability.
As a zoomer it is hard to feel optimistic about anything
@Curmudgeon
There were two key pieces of analysis needed to understand the 2016 election.
I have seen _no_ articles that explained both of them.
I know of no political analyst that understands both of them.
If you don't get them _both_ right you cannot predict 2020 correctly.
(1) Black turnout. Blacks turned out for Obama in 2008 and 2012. They did not turn out for
Hillary in 2016. The Democrats have no candidate that will get 2008/2012 like black turnout
numbers. That is one reason they have to be the underdog in 2020 (regardless of "poll
numbers") in states like PA, WI, MI that doomed them in 2016.
(2) You need to look at the counties that voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012 and voted for
Trump in 2016.
There were a fair number of them. You need to understand where they were and what issues
influenced them.
Many of them were rust belt rural areas. The Democrats have no candidate that has anything to
offer them but insults.
I just don't see the Democrats learning _anything_ from 2016, so I have to predict this
election will be a rerun of 2016.
Trump is still Trump. The Democrats are still the Democrats.
"... ...My definition of "bad economy" is when there is no debate and no lying statistics that can hide it. ..."
"... The reality was that half the Republican Party was hoping the Russia hoax was true. ..."
"... Trump has abandoned the European Christian ancestral core of the USA and those White Core American voters will repay the favor by abandoning Trump. Trump is a weak coward who wants to flood the USA with nation-wrecking mass legal immigration "in the largest numbers ever." Trump refuses to deport the upwards of 30 million illegal alien invaders in the USA. ..."
"... What did the state by state polls show before the 2016 election? If I remember correctly a landslide for Clinton. I'm no fan of Trump. I voted for a third party candidate in the last election. But I will be casting my vote for Trump in 2020, and not because my opinion of him has improved. ..."
"... The so-called election is nothing more than a poorly prepared Hollywood fantasy movie. ..."
"... America is not a sovereign nation. The elections are just Theater. Democraps, Republicants, Red States, Blue States, Huh? Not one picture of a Christmas Tree, or of Proud Americans holding good jobs, of our cities prosperous, of our Liberty – intact. ..."
"... In 2016 polls predicted that cackling hyena wins. We know how reliable that prediction was. Is there any reason to believe that these predictions are any better? ..."
The problem with polling data is that there is a huge discrepancy between polls of "likely
voters" and "registered voters". Most polls of "likely voters" show Trump at parity or ahead
of the Democrats in swing states. Most polls of "registered voters" show Trump getting
clobbered. It's very hard to interpret what the data actually means, plus there is the whole
methodological problem around using landlines for polling purposes.
Second, the race is likely to tighten when an actual Democrat becomes the front-runner and
secures the nomination, and there is a race to define the candidate negatively or positively.
Trump is an incumbent, the economy and the unemployment numbers continue to hold, while
clearly the East German Communist party (or whoever is the Minister of Propaganda in charge
of our MSM) is continuing to provide exclusively negative coverage.
I'd like to see Sanders get the nomination, because I imagine that overnight the MSM will
turn on a dime for Trump when their billionaire owners face the possibility of having to pay
their fair share in taxes.
It's kabuki theater. If the Left (the Deep State) gets fully back into power, the S will
HTF.
It's a given. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me in the least that this was already
war-gamed, and that the vertical, 10 year market rallies (bonds and stocks), coming after a 9
year bear market (2000-2009) and a stunningly vertical 1974/82-2000 moon-shot, will reverse a
year from now (+/-) and that the Ruling Class' behavior (doubling down on crushing
"Deplorables' Dissent") will combine with rapidly growing economic hardship to set off a very
real, very bloody revolution in the USA.
Damn it, what is anyone looking at?!
Run a graph of the DJIA from 1928 to now. Look at the St. Louis Fed's FRED graph of TCMDO
(total credit market debt outstanding.) READ Codevilla's essay "Our Revolution's
Logic."https://americanmind.org/essays/our-revolutions-logic/
Then try, just try to tell me that a year from now, if Trump wins reelection and the
Ruling Elite goes even more to war, or if the Demoncrat gets elected and near-literally
unleashes the Dogs of War on MAGA-hat-wearing foes, that we'll all just be hammering our
keyboards while sipping coffee like always.
We're heading for a cataclysm, and the election is borderline irrelevant.
Why did the American Revolution occur? Hint: everything you read in the history books
was a lie, a complete and utter fabrication. People were well-off. But the colonists
revolted anyway.
The sectionalized colonial ruling classes -- especially in Virginia and Massachusetts --
thought they could get a better and bigger deal by exiting the British Empire than by staying
in.
Planter class tired of factors in England ripping them off and Massachusetts book people
types -- lawyers, merchants, traders etc. -- thinking they'd be better off without any
British Empire bean counter middle men around clam raking loot they thought should rightfully
be theirs.
Sam Francis gets more and more right the older I get.
It's always about the current ruling class and the potential ruling class.
White Core America is the new ruling class in waiting that will remove the evil and
immoral JEW/WASP ruling class of the American Empire from power.
Remember, the JEW/WASP ruling class of the American Empire owns and controls the private
consortium of banks called the Federal Reserve Bank.
If the federal funds rate were to go to the normal level of 6 percent, the asset bubbles
in stocks and bonds and real estate would implode in ten minutes.
It's all about the JEW/WASP ruling class and monetary policy and demography.
@Audacious
Epigone My gut is that either Sanders will win the nomination or it will be a contested
convention.
Here's how it could happen:
1. Other candidates fight each other: Other candidates have no incentive to attack
Sanders as his base is dedicated to him. Even Joe Biden says "at least Sanders is honest."
Thus right now we have a Buttigieg vs. Warren fight.
2. Billionaire backlash: As Bloomberg and billionaires try to stop Sanders, it
could backfire on them. With Kamala's resignation, I was honestly surprised it wasn't all
race and gender. (The top highlight on her Medium resignation note is "I am not a
billionaire"). Cory Booker said the DNC rules were favoring "millionaires and billionaires"
and that there were more "billionaires than black people" on the debate stage. Booker and
Harris are neoliberal shills IMO. Booker even defended Romney against Bain attacks, so I was
surprised to see him meeting Sanders halfway in rhetoric. Kamala may have decided to pull the
plug rather than rebuild in part due to Bloomberg's California ad spending.
3. Differing incentives for individual establishment players vs. the establishment
overall (e.g. similar to Rubio and Kasich being unable to team up early to stop a Trump
victory). What if Warren/Buttigieg/Bloomberg (all of which are well funded) all do okay but
not great. Also the calendar is front-end loaded so long as campaigns are completely broke ,
they might as well stay in.
4. Better than expected turnout for younger groups : The latest Quinnipiac poll has
Sanders at 52% within the 18-34 age group. What if turnout impresses in this group. Sanders
is also doing well with Hispanics (a group that historically is lower-turnout). Sanders also
has the financial resources to help drive turnout.
5 A weakened Biden may not be the windfall the other candidates think it is: Bernie
has a pulse with black voters and some Biden voters may actually gravitate to Sanders.
Anecdote: I was in an uber recently driven by a older black gentleman and he said he would
vote for Biden though noted he really liked Sanders but was concerned given his heart
attack.
Of course the key difference is that rather than the winner-take-most system of the GOP,
Democrats award delegates proportionally subject to a 15% minimum)
What if California (today's poll is Biden 21, Sanders 20, Warren 17, Buttigieg 9, Yang 6,
Bloomberg 5) turns into the following:
He's not. Reality doesn't conform to your political preferences. The US is in an enormous
stock market bubble inflated by low interest rates and corporate stock buybacks, among other
things. The rich are frightened by Warren and have repeatedly attacked her in the media.
Result: she's lost quite a bit of support in recent polls among democrats, likely upperclass
whites. The economy is not fundamentally sound, and it hasn't been since before the 2008
housing crash. I could easily see the bubble bursting should she panic the market / bring
them back to reality.
Trump ran as a Republican. That doesn't mean he is one.
Everything you just said about Donald Trump applies to Elizabeth Warren. She was once a
republican even though she's now running as a democrat. Try again.
Democrats and Republicans decried Russian Interference in our Presidential Election Democrats
claimed Trump colluded with the Russians to defeat Hillary Clinton and demanded an
investigation.
The FBI opened Crossfire Hurricane on July 31, 2016 (6 months before the election)
Andrew McCabe a Senior FBI Director selected 3 teams of 24 people to investigate. All 24
people were senior members of the FBI and DOJ.
8 months later another the Mueller Investigation is formed and it goes for 22 months, what
did it find?
No proof of collusion by the Trump campaign, but it did find 10 instances where Trump
resisted and objected to the instruction and investigation.
The Bureaucracy demands an investigation of the Mueller Investigation, this Horowitz
Investigation finds what?
51 Misconduct violations by these Senior FBI employees.
17 "Serious Misconduct Violations" of these Senior FBI employees
4 Individuals who were considered "Informants"
1 "Unlawful Informant" that folks is a spy.
Let's look at Appendix 1 (Woods Process Review) of the Horowitz Report, it finds:
23 instances of undocumented "fact" stated in the 4 FISA applications
18 outright "lies" stated in the 4 FISA applications.
Folks what in taxpayer funds has this cost you and I?
Crossfire Hurricane – 8 month investigation $16.7 million dollars
Mueller Investigation – 22 month investigation $45 million dollars
Horowitz Investigation -12 months $24.5 million dollars.
The Democrats spend $86.2 million dollars to accomplish what?
1. No proof of collusion of President Trump or his people.
2. 3 people arrested and convicted of Tax Evasion crimes that had NOTHING to do with the
Investigation or the election.
3. 3 people prosecuted for process lies of which they never would have been involved had this
sham investigation not transpired.
4. 34 Nebulous Russians accused of election interference who can never be prosecuted.
5. 10 Senior FBI and DOJ employees, fired, demoted, resigned, retired or reassigned for
misconduct.
6. 51 Violations by Senior FBI employees during the Investigations
7. 17 Serious Misconduct violations by Senior FBI and DOJ employees
8. 4 FBI informants "spying" on American citizens
9. 1 Illegal FBI informant spying on American citizens
10. HOW MANY WILL BE PROSECUTED, that remains to be seen.
All of this because a career bureaucrat Hillary Clinton lost an election to a novice
politician.
We the taxpayer and American voter must re-elect President Trump and give him a House and
Senate who will help him purge the entrenched bureaucracy otherwise known as the Swamp, Deep
State or just garbage in Washington DC.
@dc.sunsets
From Polybius' Histories , written around 140 BC.
For this evil grew upon us rapidly [1960-1980], and without attracting attention, by our
men becoming perverted [Grindr and Tinder?] to a passion for show and money and the
pleasures of an idle life [the cult of Celebrity], and accordingly either not marrying at
all, or, if they did marry, refusing to rear the children that were born [only whites play
child support], or at most one or two out of a great number, for the sake of leaving them
well off or bringing them up in extravagant luxury. For when there are only one or two
sons, it is evident that, if war or pestilence carries off one, the houses must be left
heirless: and, like swarms of bees, little by little the cities become sparsely inhabited
and weak. On this subject there is no need to ask the gods how we are to be relieved from
such a curse: for any one in the world will tell you that it is by the men themselves if
possible changing their objects of ambition; or, if that cannot be done, by passing laws
for the preservation of infants. On this subject there is no need of seers or prodigies.
And the same holds good of all similar things.
There's nothing new under the sun.
We haven't arrived at the End of History.
The Shit-storms of the past are not relegated forever to dusty books.
Idiocracy is a movie; it's not a comedy, it's a tragedy. And anyone with a brain
can see that as our world moves inexorably toward Idiocracy (due to demographics
alone), it will be accompanied by a depopulation of humanity so epic that no poetic
representation is possible.
This is in large part, Trumps fault for caving to the DNC by not prosecuting them and the
Clintons and Clinton Foundation. Due to his taking terrible advice, Trump is now in a
defensive position. He had every reason to go on the offense right off the bat. His voters
expected it. People wanted the corruption, Civil Rights abuses, and the wars to end. Trump
has made matters worse by placing Israel's interests over America's and antagonizing Iran for
no reason other than to please Israel and Saudi Arabia. Iran is not a threat to either
country, both of which have had a history of threatenning their neighbors.
Because at some point Biden's handlers have to let him open his mouth, and when that happens, the saliva will run out and
start dripping off his chin, and that'll be that.
No Malarkey is already tipping his dementia with every appearance as it is. With Quid Pro Ho' now gone and Quid Pro Homo
and Quid Pro NotANavajo ebbing, it'll soon enough be Quid Pro Joe, and once that happens, the Trump squad with its record
minimum $/vote in '16 fixates on the 2020 edition of Walter Mondale '84 and off we go.
Trump was boxed in by Ryan, McCain, and Gramnesty. Remember all the threats to impeach if he
fired Mueller. The reality was that half the Republican Party was hoping the Russia hoax was
true.
If blacks don't turn on Biden after Iowa and New Hampshire, they will be with him
through the entire primary season, no matter what he says or does.
Biden has Obama to thank for his position as the candidate most likely to successfully
combine the AUNT JEMIMA STRATEGY and the GREEDY WHITE GEEZER STRATEGY and the GOVERNMENT
WORKER STRATEGY. Biden will have a formidable bloc of voters with those three blocs, and
other voters will be quick to fall in line and go with the guy they think can beat Trump.
Obama will not undercut nor undermine Biden in any way. Obama will eat burgers on his new
estate on the water on Martha's Vineyard and he'll read books and maybe eat some delicious
potato salad made by the nice Methodist ladies at their lovely island spot.
Warren and Buttigieg will wreck each other and Sanders won't be able to bust through to a
new level of support and the beautiful Black church ladies don't much care for Warren nor
Buttigieg nor Sanders anyhow.
The big story of the Democrat Party presidential primary will be how quickly Biden wraps
it up and how quickly the GREEN PARTY surges with supporters who refuse to vote for Biden or
the Democrat Party ruling class. Biden could have the nomination wrapped up by March 3.
The big story of the upcoming general election will be the rise of the new political party
called WHITE CORE AMERICA.
Trump has abandoned the European Christian ancestral core of the USA and those White Core
American voters will repay the favor by abandoning Trump. Trump is a weak coward who wants to
flood the USA with nation-wrecking mass legal immigration "in the largest numbers ever."
Trump refuses to deport the upwards of 30 million illegal alien invaders in the USA.
Trump has completely capitulated to the globalizers and the financialiers by crawling
into bed with the transnationalist free traders on tariffs. The USA must have a tariff system
that is somewhere between revenue raising and prohibitive and Trumpy is selling out on trade
for a pile of frigging soybeans!
What did the state by state polls show before the 2016 election? If I remember correctly a
landslide for Clinton. I'm no fan of Trump. I voted for a third party candidate in the last
election. But I will be casting my vote for Trump in 2020, and not because my opinion of him
has improved. The last three years have revealed how frightening the Democrats and the media
are- far worse than I ever imagined. I don't believe I'm alone in this assessment.
Part of it is that Trump is a known quantity. Barring a market collapse, he's at his
floor. Though Biden and Sanders are familiar to low-information voters, they've not been
fully scrutinized, so both are likely to come down upon getting the nomination if either
does.
You have written an article, followed by numerous commenters who join you in ignoring the
History of America and its citizens since November 22, 1963.
The so-called election is nothing more than a poorly prepared Hollywood fantasy movie.
America is not a sovereign nation. The elections are just Theater. Democraps,
Republicants, Red States, Blue States, Huh? Not one picture of a Christmas Tree, or of Proud
Americans holding good jobs, of our cities prosperous, of our Liberty – intact.
Is this Braindead piece of shit by 'Epigone' a sign of things to come on this so-called
'Alternate Media' website?
Huh? Ms. Pocahontis, vs Biden (who with his son has looted the Ukraine), vs. Sanders, the
'socialist' who votes for all military appropriations, and serves a Foreign Power, vs. Casino
Trump; do I need a verb?
This article would fit on MSNBC, CNN, or in The New York Times, Wasshington Post, FOX,
etc.
Are there none, who dare Love Their Country , and are willing to at least
understand that our Yellow Brick Road to Freedom lies in a Revolutionary Struggle to
Restore Our Republic , that was assassinated, along with our Last Constitutional
President, John F. Kennedy, in a Zionist MOSSAD/CIA Coup D'etat – hail of
bullets on November 22, 1963?
Has 9/11 , and the attack on the Liberty been forgotten? Notice: there was
not a mention of unperson Tulsi Gabbard . For some reason they do not trust her. She
must have refused an implant.
Epigone (whoever she is?) writes about elections that do not exist, candidates that do not
exist, an Independent America that is just a Dream, a Distant memory. This article is
standard Mainstream Media Crap. Why is it necessary for the/its author to hide her identity?
Ms. Maddow; is this you?
We might as well discuss Professional Wrestling. Epigone, Be Gone!
Conclusion:
America is not a Sovereign Nation. We Americans are not Free. We are slaves. We will throw
off our chains and regain our Honor, as soon as we realize:
@houston
1992 You seem to be ignoring the massive vote fraud in Illinois, particularly Chicago,
where more votes were cast than there were voters, including lots of the dead ones showing up
to vote for Kennedy. Nixon did the honorable thing, not the right thing, by accepting the
fraudulent result that would have given him the election.
"The people who cast the votes don't decide an election, the people who count the votes do."
Joseph Stalin
Who's Afraid of an Open Debate? The Truth About the Commission on Presidential Debates
The Commission on Presidential Debates is a private corporation headed by the former
chairmen of the Republican and Democratic parties. The CPD is a duopoly which allows the
major party candidates to draft secret agreements about debate arrangements including
moderators, debate format and even participants.
@dfordoom
Polling tends to find between 20%-35% of the population amenable to the idea. It's definitely
much higher than 1%. In California, polling showed support for Calexit at around 20%. That
was three years ago.
There is a clear generational angle to it–young people are much more open to the
idea than older people are.
The idea that support for political dissolution indicates support for a white ethnostate
is a non sequitur. The first secessionist movement in the US was in Massachusetts for what
are conventionally considered leftwing reasons.
In 2016 polls predicted that cackling hyena wins. We know how reliable that prediction was.
Is there any reason to believe that these predictions are any better?
So far Dems do their level best to help Trump reelection. Their impeachment circus, which
boils down to "Biden is corrupt, so let's impeach Trump" is doing wonders to bury Dems.
@Daniel
Rich You're talking about outcome odds, not polls per se, but the point is well taken.
Polls had Clinton winning Michigan by 6, Wisconsin by 3, and Pennsylvania by 2. The upper
Midwest was the difference. The national polls were pretty accurate–they had Clinton
winning by 3.5 and she ended up winning by 2.
I sometimes tire of defending what might be considered 'black positioning". In fact, I have
had enough black experiences to become dismayed. But I was taught, two wrongs don't make a
right. And as I have a conscience cannot maybe will not bend truth to suit political
advantage. Despite the negative consequence to myself.
Blacks band together for rather obvious reasons. I don't think there';s a need to wrangle
on about that history, most know it well enough.
This president did not win election because of a spike in crimes by blacks. Though
admittedly, the turmoil over the shooting of unarmed blacks by police mattered and the
responses that resulted in several officers being killed were high mileage news stories. The
truth is that the police while having a very tough job at times, are more than relatively
safe from harm.
The key issues
immigration
foreign policy, ie. regime change
the economy: employment, manufacturing, trade
whiteness pressure did play a role as it almost always does but the backdrop of social
somersaults on normalcy was a much larger factor in my view
This election as long as there are no major upheavels, I don't think there will be much
damage from the democratic ploy of impeachment, most likely it will backfire as it well
should, the current president stands in good stead.
I don't think there is anyone to blame for low north rates among whites, aside from
whites. No one is forcing whites to stop having children. Speaking of which my condolences to
the passing of Danny Aiello.
And anyone who thinks that immigration, isn't a contributor to the demographic shift is
simply not paying attention in my view. And worse, that immigration is the diversity that
matters to US citizenship as a culture and national ethos not skin color. Skin color is the
easy ruse and distraction from the importation of people who arrive and for whom we start
catering to their wants:
language, religious practices, cultural ethos and activities, re-imagined histories of the
US as theives and marauders -- it is easy to take these issues out on blacks. But blacks did
not import millions of Irish, Germans, Italians, Greeks, and now Indians, Pakistanis, Chinese
and latinos. And the latino gamesmanship has been going on since before Spain gave up Mexico
and excellerated when Pres. Grant's enfranchisement of blacks was stifled, found solace in
importing and improving relations with Mexico, afterall, he had been part of that war and
knew some Mexicans he was fond of. Some solace. And the Cubans have been playing that latin
card under the guise of communist aggression/oppression for all its worth and others have
caught on -- and even this president has played right into their hands --
It;s hard to buy the white intelligentsia card when whotes have been importing millions of
very low intelligent people from across the planet and most of them have been white. And it
simply boggles the mind why if education mattered we as a country would literally refuse to
educate some 4 million freed slaves -- and then wonder about why said people seem
uneducated
-- it just wreaks of the deepest and worst hypocrisies one can dredge up from our history.
Since the record on welfare is clear regarding blacks and one has to reject the canard
printed in a recent Atlantic Magazine how blacks were uplifted by New Deal policies when in
fact, blacks were shunted to the back of the line and in many cases absolutely denied access
to the same.
Litsening to the whites in Congress discuss impeachment was hardly a boon to well thought
argument and critical thought, muchless simple legal grasp of the issues -- which given how
many are supposed lawyers and business people is a more than surprising. Law makers don't the
difference between legal standard and personal taste would be funny if not for what it speaks
about the future or the past.
Even now faced with a cold hard reality that blacks have crossed the color line
repeatedly, many here continue their diatribe about whites as some holder of ethics, but when
facing even recent history, from Vietnam era to this day the list of issues advocated by
whites has shredded ethics as an ethos and as practice. I watched Richard Jewel last night
and its a devastating commentary about one of the most respected law enforcement
organizations we have. But then that commentray isn't new. Most of just pretend that our law
enforcement agencies are nothing but clean cut whites with no capabilities hedged in by
"truth justice and the american way". When in fact most of law enforcement that is hemmed by
those ethics actually coddle and protect those who are not or even make mistakes, unless some
extreme event occurs – power – has outweighed ethics, regardless of skin color.
We are simply so afraid that if hold the system to account the whole thing ill fall
apart.
As i have to face the issues regarding my accident, I am also faced with stark terms with
why I simply bail out of this time of year. It's hard to celebrate either the gift of a meal
or the birth of Christ knowing that people I labored with and for quite successfully, sought
to destroy not only my ability to work, but my very existence as a human being -- - "good
will toward men" is just more hypocrisy than I can bare. Laughing And I am certainly not
alone in that. I chagrin that blacks are not supportive republicans or conservatives despite
having many of the same ethics on key issues. If this president decides as we should have
ages ago, to brake with the old tired molds of identity politics, then
"bully for him"
And i going to say this, if in fact whites are the better humans -- their mindset on
action and ethics should reflect as much. If the innate character by genes is a better human
-- superior than by said truth of the advance that should be in demonstration -- but if one
is going to hold as model a practice the constant double standard -- then we shouldn't be at
all surprised when the mexican help sleeps with our spouse, has a child and anchor baby's the
same, not only to citizenship, but the family's treasure chest as well.
As for me, I will deal with the black or white criminal as of greater value if they are
citizens whose parents were citizens and obtained the same legally.
Immigration and the economy should trump the politics of color. And by the way, I think
less than 5%, far less, of the black population are criminals. Making that a national call to
vote for president Trump may gain votes, but at the end of the day we are still left with the
Frank getting an operation so he can compete against Nadia Comaneci – and blacks didn't
come up with that.
menter's history–1
comment–it is more than likely a regular on your fine blog trying to get their shot in,
rather than discuss topics with style and substance.
@By-tor
You don't have to get a majority of blacks to do a lot of damage to the Democrats. If Trump
got 20% (and I am not predicting) then it would be a Trump blowout in the Electoral College.
Let me see .should I vote for the red [ Trump] commies, or the blue [anti-Trump] commies?
Hmm, quite choice, I'll admit- too much for me to handle all in one go. I'll need to
seriously think on that for quite a while, it makes my brain hurt.
@CorvinusActually, it is a robust set of charges. You haven't been paying attention.
Actually, we have been paying attention. Even more so to your ridiculous posts about the
Mueller probe and everything he was going to uncover. Your track record in believing stupid
things is well documented.
Does Boris Johnson's stunning triumph presage a victory for Donald Trump in November
2020?
Just as Trump won in the Rust Belt states in 2016, so Johnson cruised to victory in
working-class areas that supported Brexit and want to see a rebirth of their traditional
industries. For Trump, it's a sign that his strength in the Rust Belt was no fluke.
With the help of impeachment Trump entered an increasingly solid political terrain. If
current trends continue, Trump will win 2020 elections.
The parallels between British and American politics go even further. Just like Labour, the
Democrats have become the party of urban centers, consisting mainly of the well-to-do and
intellectual elite, such as those in academia or the media.
And just like Conservatives, the Republicans have become the party of rural America,
consisting mainly of the working class and those who feel "left behind" by globalization.
Warren's awkward attempts to portray herself as a woman of color, even if a etsy weeny
tiny bit, always seemed strange to me, ignoring the resume nonsense. It makes sense with the
realization that Women of Color, have become a new politically privileged class, in spite of
some of them being not very oppressed.
Indian (subcontinent) women come from a tradition of a caste based society of wealth and
privilege. The most succesful ones intuitively home in on and game American race-based
identity politics in spite of their advantages, such as being one of the wealthiest religious
groups in the nation,
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/11/how-income-varies-among-u-s-religious-groups/
No Bernie style economic class based socialism for them, no way. It's maintain privilege,
Silicon Valley corporate caste based salaries, Republican reductionism, Hillary hopium and
yet, they proudly proclaim their affiliation with real women of color, on whose backs they
surf, like last generation's black cleaning women, the grandparents of which might have
actually been slaves.
3 examples: Nimrata Nikki Randhawa, Neera Tanden and Kamala Harris.
Women-of-color in general are not a privileged class. The not-very-poor women of color are
perhaps a newly privileged class.
The Goldman Sachs women-of-color have become a new privileged class, in line with the
tenets of Goldman Sachs Feminism. " The arc of history is long, and it bends towards rainbow
gender-fluid oligarchy."
"... And in the case of Carter Page, the FISA judges initially denied a warrant to surveil the former Trump aide until the agency padded the application with the wildly unverified Steele Report , lying about Steele's credibility, and then fabricating evidence to specifically say Page was not an "operational contact" for the CIA , when in fact he was - and had a "positive assessment." ..."
"... Let's not forget that FISA court judge Rudolph Contreras recused himself from overseeing the case of former national security adviser Michael Flynn due to his personal friendship with former FBI counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok. ..."
"... And the only reason Contreras did so was because his friendship with Strzok was revealed in their anti-Trump text messages found by the Inspector General. ..."
The shadowy Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA court) and the processes behind
obtaining a warrant from it has fallen under harsh scrutiny by lawmakers following the release
of the DOJ Inspector General's report which found that the FBI was able to easily mislead the
judges to surveil Trump adviser Carter Page.
"The goal is to make sure this doesn't happen again, so you tighten up the system right,"
said Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC), adding: "Quite frankly, I'm looking at
the FISA court itself. ... I'm looking for the court to tell the public, 'Hey, we're upset
about this too,' and, you know, take some corrective steps."
Graham said his committee will look into legislation to introduce more "checks and balances"
to the FISA process, according to
The Hill .
When asked if he thought there would be bipartisan support for FISA reform, Sen. Dick Durban
(D-IL) said "I hope so," adding "This was a real wake-up call that three different teams can
screw this up at the FBI."
The renewed interest comes after five hours of partisan barb trading during a Judiciary
hearing Wednesday with Horowitz that resulted in one clear bipartisan interest: overhauling
the FISA court.
"One of the only points I've heard with bipartisan agreement today is a renewed interest
in reforming the FISA process," said Sen. Christopher Coons (D-Del.). -
The Hill
Created under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, the FISA court is made up
of 11 judges who are chosen by the chief justice of the Supreme Court to serve seven-year
terms. They are responsible for approving warrant applications for intelligence gathering
purposes and national security operations, which - as The Hill notes, "more often than not,
they sign off."
And in the case of Carter Page, the FISA judges initially denied a warrant to surveil the
former Trump aide until the agency padded the application with the wildly unverified Steele
Report , lying about Steele's credibility, and then fabricating evidence to specifically say
Page was not
an "operational contact" for the CIA , when in fact he was - and had a "positive
assessment."
Last year the government filed 1,117 FISA warrant applications, including 1,081 for
electronic monitoring. The court signed off on 1,079 according to a DOJ report.
That said, reform may come slowly.
But the timeline for any legislative reforms is unclear. Congress already faces a
mid-March deadline to extend expiring surveillance authorities under the USA Freedom Act.
Durbin suggested the discussions could merge, while Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), a longtime privacy advocate,
appeared skeptical that Republicans would ultimately get on board with broader changes to
surveillance powers.
"Why after YEARS of blocking bipartisan FISA reforms are senior Republicans suddenly
interested in it? There is no question that we need to improve transparency, accountability
and oversight of the FISA process," Wyden tweeted. -
The Hill
Still, the IG report appears to have 'enlightened' some GOP lawmakers who previously
resisted the notion of reining in FISA courts . Several GOP senators gave credit to their
libertarian-minded colleagues on the hill, who have pushed for surveillance reform after
accurately predicting the potential for abuse.
Those who have long-advocated for reform include GOP Sens. Thom Tillis (N.C.) and Ben Sasse
(Neb.), according to Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT).
"I wish Mike Lee weren't sitting here two people from me right now, because as a national
security hawk I've argued with Mike Lee in the 4 1/2 or five years that I've been in the Senate
that stuff just like this couldn't possibly happen at the FBI and at the Department of
Justice," said Sasse during the Horowitz testimony, who added that the IG's findings marked a
"massive crisis of public trust" since we should know about FISA applications that aren ' t as
high-profile as Page's.
Horowitz reported a total of 17 "significant inaccuracies and omissions" in the
applications to monitor Page , taking particular issue with applications to renew the FISA
warrant and chastising the FBI for a lack of satisfactory explanations for those
mistakes.
Horowitz stressed that he would not have submitted the follow-up applications as they were
drafted by the FBI . Kevin Clinesmith, an FBI lawyer, altered an email related to the warrant
renewal application, according to Horowitz's report.
" [The] applications made it appear as though the evidence supporting probable cause was
stronger than was actually the case ," Horowitz said. " We also found basic, fundamental and
serious errors during the completion of the FBl's factual accuracy reviews. "
Horowitz also found that there were errors that "represent serious performance failures by
the supervisory and non-supervisory agents with responsibility over the FISA applications." -
The Hill
Let's not forget that FISA court judge Rudolph Contreras recused himself from overseeing the
case of former national security adviser Michael Flynn due to his personal friendship with
former FBI counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok.
As Dean Baker pointed out in his book Rigged, the neoliberal capitalism of America is
rigged to benefit the top 1%. After all, they were the architects. Most Americans appreciate
that. Nevertheless, the vast majority willingly wade into its rigged quicksand. All economies
are rigged in the sense that there is a structure to it all. Moreover, the architects of that
system will ensure there is something in it for themselves – rigged. Our school system
does not instruct Americans on how their own economic system works (is rigged), so most of us
become its victims rather than its beneficiaries.
Books by Liz Warren and her daughter offer remedial guidance on how to make the current US
economic system work for the average household. So, in a sense, Liz comes across as an
adherent to the system she is trying to help others master .
This seems to be a losing proposition for candidate Warren because most Americans want a
new system with new rigging; not a repaired system that has been screwing them for
generations.
When the Impeachment gets finally voted on in the Senate, what will Sanders do? He will do
best by being true to his own self, regardless of what votes he loses whichever way he
votes.
But I hope that being true to himself involves voting NOT to remove. Because depending on
how bitter the Democratic Convention is, a Nominee Sanders may get few or zero Clintonite
Democratic votes by definition, regardless of what he does. Whereas if he votes TO remove, he
will lose any votes, or even respectful hearing, that he might have had otherwise among the
deplorables.
started by an unemployed Englishman named Eliot Higgins
Good on him – being able to create a thing that rises to such prominence in such a
short space of time speaks volumes about this Higgins guy's entrepreneurial ability. And if he
wasn't mobbed-up to begin with, he sure as fuck is now – which is a double-
mitzvah (for him).
If he did so starting from being unemployed, then anybody who turned down a job application
from the guy must be kicking themselves. (' Unemployed ' is obviously used pejoratively
in the blockquote; 'Englishman' is purely-descriptive).
.
Also, the entire article accepts Bernays' conclusion, but disagrees as to which objectives
should be pursued.
Bernays' conclusions are hardly controversial: most people are gullible imbeciles .
It's not clear to me how much more empirical evidence we need before that becomes just a thing
that everyone with an IQ above 115 accepts.
So the question then becomes " OK, now what? ".
As usual, the right answer is " Depends " – and not just for those with bladder
control problems.
If you want to do things that are just , exploiting gullible imbeciles would appear
to violate the playing conditions. It would be hors jeu ; not done; just not
cricket .
As the Laconian famously said . " IF ."
For those for whom the 'if' condition returns 'false', it does very little to bleat about
how awful they are. You're not going to cause a little switch in their brain to flick on (or
off?), whereupon they realise the error of their ways and make a conscious decision to leave
the gullible imbeciles unexploited.
It's even unlikely to affect their victims (remember, they're imbeciles) – because
otherwise some infra-marginal imbeciles would have to process their way through quite a bit of
cognitive dissonance, and they're not wired for introspection (or processing).
So the sole real purpose (apart from κάθαρσις
catharsis ) is prophylaxis (προ +
φύλαξις – guarding ). Both good enough aims
obviously the writer is the one who gets the cathartic benefit, but who is going to be on
heightened alert as a result of this Cassandra -ish jeremiad -ing?
Non-imbeciles don't need it; imbeciles won't benefit.
Here's the thing: the gullible imbeciles are going to be exploited by someone
.
.
This is something that people of my persuasion struggle with. It boils down to the
following:
Let's assume that a reprehensible thing exists already, and is unlikely to be overthrown
by my opposition to it. Should I just participate and line my pockets?
The resources used are going to be used whether I participate or not, so it may as well be
me who gets them. After all, I will put them to moral uses – and while inside, I can do
things that are contrary to the interests of the reprehensible thing.
There is no satisfactory counter-argument to that line of reasoning, and yet I reject
it.
Then again: I was dropped on my head as an infant, so YMMV.
A few days ago, veterans' group VoteVets endorsed Pete Buttigieg. It has previously supported
Tulsi Gabbard. Details:
New York Times, "Liberal Veterans' Group Endorses Pete Buttigieg in 2020 Race":
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/04/us/politics/pete-buttigieg-votevets-endorsement.html
"... Public choice economics has big influence and a bad name. It is a school of economic thought that has at different times been associated with scholars at the University of Rochester, Virginia Tech, and George Mason University. ..."
"... Samuelson, in his famous and influential textbooks, saw a clear role for government in regulating markets. Public choice scholars vehemently disagreed . For political and theoretical reasons, they instead saw government as a fountain of corruption. Public choice economists argued that government regulations were the product of special interest groups that had "captured" the power of the state, to cripple rivals and squeeze money from citizens and consumers. Regulations were not made in the public interest, but instead were designed to bilk ordinary citizens. ..."
"... The conventional story is that as Warren moved from the right to the left, she abandoned the public choice way of thinking about the world, in favor of a more traditional left-wing radicalism. A more accurate take might be that she didn't abandon public choice, but instead remained committed to its free-market ideals, while reversing some of its valences. ..."
"... A recent popular history book, which qualified as a finalist for the National Book Award, depicts public choice as a kind of stealth intellectual weapons program , developed by economist James Buchanan to provide Chilean President Augusto Pinochet with the justification for his dictatorial constitution, and the Koch brothers with the tools to dismantle American democracy. ..."
"... Warren's ideas have a close family resemblance to those of Olson, a celebrated public choice theorist. (Perhaps she has read him; perhaps she has just reached similar conclusions from similar starting points.) Olson, like other public choice scholars, worried about the power of interest groups. He famously developed a theory of collective action that shows how narrowly focused interest groups can dominate politics, because they can organize more cheaply and reap great benefits by setting rules and creating monopolies at the expense of the ordinary public. This means that government programs often actively harm the poor rather than helping them. ..."
"... Olson also castigated libertarian economists for their "monodiabolism" and "almost utopian lack of concern about other problems" so long as the government was chained down. He argued that the government was not the only source of economic power: Business special interests would corrupt markets even if the government did not help them. ..."
"... Warren shares far more intellectual DNA with Mancur Olson and his colleagues than with traditional socialism. However, there are important differences. Olson wrote his key work in the 1980s, before the globalization boom. His arguments for free trade depend on the assumption that open borders will disempower special interests. ..."
Elizabeth Warren's politics seem like a tangle of contradictions. She wants free markets,
but also wants to tax billionaires' capital. Her enemies on the right claim that
she is a socialist , but Warren
describes herself as "capitalist to my bones."
Warren's politics are so confusing because we have forgotten that a pro-capitalist left is
even possible. For a long time, political debate in the United States has been a fight between
conservatives and libertarians on the right, who favored the market, and socialists and
liberals on the left, who favored the government.
It has been clear since 2016 that the traditional coalition of the right was breaking up.
Conservatives such as U.S. President Donald Trump are no fans of open trade and free markets,
and even favor social protections so long as they benefit their white supporters. Now, the left
is changing too.
Warren is reviving a pro-market left that has been neglected for decades, by drawing on a
surprising resource: public choice economics. This economic theory is reviled by many on the
left, who have claimed that it is a Koch-funded intellectual conspiracy designed to destroy
democracy. Yet there is a left version of public choice economics too, associated with thinkers
such as the late Mancur Olson. Like Olson, Warren is not a socialist but a left-wing
capitalist, who wants to use public choice ideas to cleanse both markets and the state of their
corruption.
Public choice economics has big influence and a bad name. It is a school of
economic thought that has at different times been associated with scholars at the University of
Rochester, Virginia Tech, and George Mason University. Public choice came into being in fervent
opposition to the mainstream of economics, which was dominated by scholars such as Paul
Samuelson.
Samuelson, in his famous and influential textbooks, saw a clear role for government in
regulating markets. Public choice scholars vehemently disagreed . For
political and theoretical reasons, they instead saw government as a fountain of corruption.
Public choice economists argued that government regulations were the product of special
interest groups that had "captured" the power of the state, to cripple rivals and squeeze money
from citizens and consumers. Regulations were not made in the public interest, but instead were
designed to bilk ordinary citizens.
Perhaps the most influential version of public choice was known as law and economics. For
decades, conservative foundations supported seminars that taught judges and legal academics the
principles of public choice economics. Attendees were taught that harsh sentences would deter
future crime, that government regulation should be treated with profound skepticism, and that
antitrust enforcement had worse consequences than the monopolies it was supposed to correct. As
statistical research by Elliott Ash, Daniel L. Chen, and Suresh Naidu has shown
, these seminars played a crucial role in shifting American courts to the right.
Warren was one of the young legal academics who attended
these seminars , and was largely convinced by the arguments. Her early work on bankruptcy
law started from public choice principles, and displayed a deep skepticism of intervention.
The conventional story is that as Warren moved from the right to the left, she abandoned the
public choice way of thinking about the world, in favor of a more traditional left-wing
radicalism. A more accurate take might be that she didn't abandon public choice, but instead
remained committed to its free-market ideals, while reversing some of its valences. Her work as
an academic was aimed at combating special interests, showing how the financial industry had
shaped bankruptcy reforms so that they boosted lenders' profits at borrowers' expense.
Notably, she applied public choice theory to explain some aspects of public choice, showing how
financial interests had funded scholarly centers which
provided a patina of genteel respectability to industry's preferred positions.
Now, Warren wants to to wash away the filth that has built up over decades to clog the
workings of American capitalism. Financial rules that have been designed by lobbyists need to
be torn up. Vast inequalities of wealth, which provide the rich with disproportionate political
and economic power, need to be reversed. Intellectual property rules, which make it so that
farmers no longer really own the seeds
they sow or the machinery they use to plant them, need to be abolished. For Warren, the problem
with modern American capitalism is that it is not nearly capitalist enough. It has been
captured by special interests, which are strangling competition.
It is hard to see how deeply Warren's program is rooted in
public choice ideas, because public choice has come to be the target of left-wing conspiracy theories. A recent popular
history book, which qualified as a finalist for the National Book Award, depicts public choice as a kind of
stealth intellectual weapons program , developed by economist James Buchanan to provide
Chilean President Augusto Pinochet with the justification for his dictatorial constitution, and
the Koch brothers with the tools to dismantle American democracy.
For sure, the mainstream of public choice is strongly libertarian, and the development of
the approach was funded by conservative individuals and foundations. What left-wing paranoia
overlooks is that there has always been a significant left-wing current of public choice, and
even a potent left-wing radicalism buried deep within public choice waiting to be uncovered.
The free-market ideal is a situation in which no actor has economic power over any other. As
many of Warren's proposals demonstrate, trying to achieve this ideal can animate a radical
program for reform.
Warren's ideas have a close family resemblance to those of Olson, a celebrated public choice
theorist. (Perhaps she has read him; perhaps she has just reached similar conclusions from
similar starting points.) Olson, like other public choice scholars, worried about the power of
interest groups. He famously developed a theory of collective action that shows how narrowly
focused interest groups can dominate politics, because they can organize more cheaply and reap
great benefits by setting rules and creating monopolies at the expense of the ordinary public.
This means that government programs often actively harm the poor rather than helping them.
However, Olson also castigated libertarian economists for their "monodiabolism" and "almost
utopian lack of concern about other problems" so long as the government was chained down. He
argued that the government was not the only source of economic power: Business special
interests would corrupt markets even if the government did not help them.
The result, according to Olson, was that societies, economies, and political systems became
increasingly encrusted with special-interest politics as the decades passed. Countries
benefited economically from great upheavals such as wars and social revolutions, which tore
interest groups from their privileged perches and sent them tumbling into the abyss.
Olson wanted to open up both politics and the economy to greater competition, equalizing
power relations as much as possible between the many and the few. He argued that under some
circumstances, powerful trade unions could benefit the economy. When unions and business groups
were sufficiently big that they represented a substantial percentage of workers or business as
a whole, they would be less likely to seek special benefits at the expense of the many, and
more likely to prioritize the good of the whole. Olson also believed strongly in the benefits
of open trade, not just because it led to standard economic efficiencies, but because it made
it harder for interest groups to capture government and markets. Northern European economies
such as Denmark, which combine powerful trade unions with a strong commitment to free markets,
represent Olsonian politics in action.
Warren shares far more intellectual DNA with Mancur Olson and his colleagues than with
traditional socialism. However, there are important differences. Olson wrote his key work in
the 1980s, before the globalization boom. His arguments for free trade depend on the assumption
that open borders will disempower special interests.
As economists such as Dani Rodrik and political scientists such as Susan Sell have shown,
this hasn't quite worked out as Olson expected. Free trade agreements have become a magnet for
special interest groups, who want to cement their preferences in international agreements that
are incredibly hard to reverse. The U.S. "fast track" approach to trade negotiations makes it
harder for Congress to demand change, but allows industry lobbyists to shape the
administration's negotiating stance. Investor-state dispute resolution mechanisms provide
business with a friendly forum where they can target government rules that hurt their economic
interests. All of this helps explain why Warren is skeptical of arguments for the general
benefits of free-trade agreements: they aren't nearly so general as economists claim.
Close attention to Warren's public choice influences reveals both her radicalism and its
limits. Like Olson, she is committed to the notion that making capitalism work for citizens
will require changes that border on the revolutionary. The sweeping proposals she makes for
changes to America's gross economic inequality, its economic relations with the rest of the
world, its approach to antitrust legislation, and its tolerance of sleazy relationships among
politicians, regulators, and industry are all aimed at creating a major upheaval. Where she
proposes major state action, as in her "Medicare for All" plans, it is to supplant market
institutions that aren't working, and are so embedded in interest group power dynamics that
they are incapable of reform.
Yet this is a distinctly capitalist variety of radicalism. Socialists will inevitably be
disappointed in the limits to her arguments. Warren's ideal is markets that work as they
should, in contrast to the socialist belief that some forms of power are inherent within
markets themselves. Not only Marxists, but economists such as Thomas Piketty, have suggested
that the market system is rigged in ways that will inevitably favor capital over the long run.
The fixes that Warren proposes will at most dampen down these tendencies rather than remove
them.
If Warren wins, she will not only disappoint socialists. Her proposals may end up being too
radical for Congress, but not nearly radical enough to tackle challenges such as climate
change, which will require a rapid and dramatic transformation of the global economy if
catastrophe is to be averted. Libertarians and mainstream public choice scholars will attack
her from a different vantage point, arguing that she is both too skeptical about existing
market structures and too trusting of the machineries of the state that she hopes to use to
remedy them. State efforts to reform markets can easily turn into protectionism.
What Warren offers, then, is neither a socialist or deep green alternative to capitalism,
nor a public choice justification for why regulators ought to leave it alone. The bet she is
making is that capitalism can solve the major problems that the United States faces, so long as
the government tackles inequality and defangs the special interests that have parasitized the
political and economic systems. Like all such bets, it is a risky one, but one that might
transform the U.S. model of capitalism if it succeeds.
Henry Farrell is a professor of
political science and international affairs at George Washington University.
Sanders (D)(1): "Don't Think Sanders Can Win? You Don't Understand His Campaign"
[Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor, New York
Times ]. "Mr. Sanders has reached the typically invisible, downwardly mobile working class
with his language of "class warfare." He has tapped into the anger and bitterness coursing
through the lives of regular people who have found it increasingly impossible to make ends meet
in this grossly unequal society . Since Mr. Trump's election, "class," when it's discussed at
all, has been invoked for its hazy power to chart Mr. Trump's rise and potential fall. Recall
the endless analyses of poor and working-class white voters shortly after his election and the
few examinations of poor and working-class people of color. But the Sanders campaign has become
a powerful platform to amplify the experiences of this multiracial contingent. Under normal
circumstances, the multiracial working class is invisible .
This has meant its support for Mr. Sanders's candidacy has been hard to register in the
mainstream coverage of the Democratic race. But these voters are crucial to understanding the
resilience of the Sanders campaign, which has been fueled by small dollar donations from more
than one million people, a feat none of his opponents has matched. Remarkably, he also has at
least 130,000 recurring donors, some of whom make monthly contributions." • Unsurprising,
when you think about it. Of course the working class is multiracial. Far more so than
the Democrat based in the 10%.
Sanders (D)(2): "Defense Industry Gives More To Bernie Than Any 2020 Candidate" [
The American Conservative ]. "Despite his frequent votes against defense bills, Senator
Bernie Sanders has collected more presidential campaign contributions from defense industry
sources than any other candidate, including Donald Trump. That's according to data on 2020
funding at the OpenSecrets.org
website, which is sponsored by the Center for Responsive Politics . As of early December,
Sanders had out-collected Trump $172,803 to $148,218 in defense industry contributions, a
difference of 17 percent. And his margin had been growing in October and November . Sanders
also out-collected all of his Democratic rivals . The implications for the relationship of
defense industry contributors to Sanders and the others may, or may not, be everything you
might assume. Defense industry PACs, and the corrupting influence they have over compliant
politicians, are not the source of this money . Instead, it all comes from what the
OpenSecrets.org data show as "Individuals" From OpenSecrets.org, it appears that Sanders has
thousands of individual contributions from people who identified affiliations with Boeing and
Lockheed Martin, though no donations appear to amount to the legal maximum, and most seem to be
from engineers, technicians, and other non-management types." • Nevertheless, industry
influence is industry influence, and the writer brings up, as they ought, the basing of the
F-35 in Vermont.
Sanders (D)(3): "Bernie Sanders is breaking barriers with young Latinos. Now he just needs
them to vote" [
CNN ]. "Recent polling suggests that Sanders has a clear advantage with young Latino
voters, who could, with even a modest growth in turnout, fundamentally alter the composition --
racially and ideologically -- of the Democratic electorate." • This is so hilarious. For
years , liberal Democrats have waited for demographics to do their work for them. Now
Latinx voters have arrived -- and Sanders is hijacking them with a policy-based appeal. And he
doesn't need to carry hot sauce in his purse or call himself mi abuelo !
Sanders (D)(4): "Grandpa Slacks Are The New Dad Jeans" [
Elle ]. "When you think of style icons, Bernie Sanders is probably low on your list. I'm
not referencing campaign trail Bernie, with his
hypebeast parka and
sleek navy suit . I'm all about Bernie off-duty: the one who visits Ariana Grande concerts
or walks around in stained button downs. His style should be dissected with the same fervor we
approach female politicians. Feel the Bern, because at a second glance, his style is, looks at
notes, cool . Canceling student debt is nice and all, but let's praise his presidential
crusade for the next it-pant: grandpa slacks." • This here is what they call earned media.
Next week: Hair styles.
UPDATE Sanders (D)(5): "The Trailer: What Nevada could mean for Bernie Sanders" [
WaPo ]. On the Weigel flight jacket incident (
yesterday ): "It was a warm moment, it led local news, and it grew organically from the
Sanders strategy to win Nevada. The senator from Vermont has poured money into organizing, just
like in other early states, with the campaign planning to hire its 100th Nevada staffer by this
weekend. And just like in other early states, Sanders focuses his speeches on voters with
something to lose . more than Iowa or New Hampshire, it could prove whether the Sanders
strategy is working at scale, ready to be expanded into the next 47 states." • Nevada is
Harry Reid's patch, and Reid supports Warren. The Nevada press, aided by the local Democrat
establishment, faked the chair-throwing incident at the state Democrat convention. And the
Culinary Workers have concerns about #MedicareForAll vs. their union plans. So Nevada is no
cakewalk for Sanders, despite his strong Latinx support.
Warren (D)(1): "ELIZABETH WARREN" [ Indivisible ]. "Elizabeth Warren is the
top-scoring candidate on the scorecard because she's got both a bold progressive vision for our
country and the day-one democracy agenda we need to make that vision a reality. She also earns
the top score for building grassroots power." • Oh.
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI), the outspoken, independent thinker from Hawaii running for the
loftiest perch in the land, has just said "no" to taking the next Democratic presidential
primary debate stage. This signals either a surrender or a strategic end-run around the field.
Yes, we've been down this road before. It is the same sentiment she expressed prior to the last
debate; although she threatened to boycott the circus, she did qualify, show up, and rebuke the
other candidates and the Democratic Party.
Gabbard has been Public Enemy #1 in those
circles since. Instead of playing into the cemented narrative, Tulsi, who has not so far
reached the conditions imposed for participation in the next round, is not wasting her
time.
The Most Repetitive Show On Earth
As the sixth platform for national domination looms, Gabbard tweeted a different plan,
saying:
"For a number of reasons, I have decided not to attend the December 19th 'debate' --
regardless of whether or not there are qualifying polls. I instead choose to spend that
precious time directly meeting with and hearing from the people of New Hampshire and South
Carolina."
Whether her bold decision is based on not quite reaching the necessary baseline
requirements, or because she has had enough of the game playing, Tulsi seems indifferent to
striving
for inclusion . And we all know Gabbard is not one to tread water in the shallow end of the
pool when a good, strong crawl will cover more territory.
Tulsi Gabbard
The Democratic National Committee (DNC) has upped the ante for primetime pandering by
requiring candidates to have a minimum of 4% support in selected national polls and 6% in two
state polls of the early primary states Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, or Nevada.
The deadline for polling qualification is Dec. 12 at the witching hour of 11:59 p.m. in the
Eastern time zone. How dramatic for what is likely to be a boring rehash of Trump-bashing, held
a scant week later.
Although Tulsi has the sheer donor numbers needed – the support of at least 200,000
unique donors – her national polling numbers haven't yet reached the threshold. Those on
the survey leaderboard are Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Amy Klobuchar
(D-MN), former Vice President Joe Biden, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, billionaire Tom Steyer, and
businessman Andrew Yang.
A Diverse Or One-Note Race?
Tulsi has been tilting
at the DNC and its primary prerequisites since the get-go, claiming the surveyors they used
weren't "accurate" enough, or that the venues were biased. Gabbard's campaign released a
statement in August, which said:
"Many of the uncertified polls, including those conducted by highly reputable
organizations such as The Economist and the Boston Globe, are ranked by Real Clear Politics
and FiveThirtyEight as more accurate than some DNC 'certified' polls."
The DNC was insistent that its criteria for inclusion have been fair and balanced. Just ask
the committee's spokeswoman Xochitl Hinojosa, who responded:
"This has been the most inclusive debate process with more women and candidates of color
participating in more debates than billionaires. We are proud of this historic and diverse
field with 20 candidates participating in the first two debates and at least 10 candidates in
each debate after that."
What's ironic is that no people of color – because of the strident stipulations
imposed – will be at the Dec. 19 debate hosted by PBS NewsHour and Politico at the Loyola
Marymount University in Los Angeles. PBS is set to broadcast the debate, and most likely, fewer
people will watch the event than Gabbard can reach by holding town halls or meet and greets.
Perhaps she's on to something, after all.
"Why this expert warns that a voting watchdog has 'lost its way' -- and our elections are at
risk" [
Alternet ]. "Verified Voting, the national advocacy group seeking accountable election
results, has been "providing cover" for untrustworthy new voting systems and the public
officials buying them, according to an esteemed academic board member who has resigned in
protest
To be accused by the inventor of its "gold-standard" audit solution of selling out while
states and counties are buy voting technology that will be used into the 2030s is remarkable
.
Stark and other critics say that the cards produced by a so-called ballot-marking device
(BMD) may not be accurate because potentially insecure software sits between a voter's fingers
and the printout.
Thus, Stark contends that his audit tool cannot assess if the reported result is correct.
Also, BMD systems are far more costly than hand-marked ballot systems, he and other critics
have said.
They note that the acquisition costs are followed by per-machine service agreements designed
to generate millions in annual revenues for vendors." • On BMDs,
see NC here .
Appearing on "Tucker Carlson Tonight," Maté
said Ukraine's efforts to tamper in the election are "no secret."
"Ukrainian officials -- they leaked information that exposed some apparent corruption by Paul Manafort and it was consequential.
It led to Paul Manafort's resignation
from the Trump campaign," he said. "And, the stated intent of Ukrainian officials was to weaken the Trump campaign because they
wanted to help elect Hillary Clinton ."
Yet, when Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., told "Meet The Press" host
Chuck Todd Sunday that reports from various
media outlets indicated that former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko favored Clinton over now-President Trump, Todd accused him
of parroting Russian President
Vladimir Putin's talking points.
"Are you at all concerned that you've been duped?" Todd asked.
On the same network, anchor
Nicolle Wallace and her guest The Bulwark Editor-at-Large Charlie Sykes echoed Todd, agreeing that Kennedy "comes off as an addled
Russian asset on television" after "peddling Vladimir Putin's talking points."
"I don't understand the proactive work on behalf of Putin's Kremlin," said Wallace.
Maté told Carlson that what these pundits are trying to do is "conflate that with a different theory by Ukrainian meddling. Which
is not proven -- it's true."
"And, that is the one that Trump tried to put forward in this
phone call with Zelenksy where he appears to be saying that it wasn't Russia that was behind the
hacking of the DNC and that it might have been Ukraine," he continued.
"It's true there's no evidence for that theory, and it's fair enough to point out that. But. what's also ironic here is that the
people who are indignant about that claim by Trump are accepting the claim that Russia hacked the DNC," Maté stated, adding that
journalists should be demanding to see the underlying evidence used by U.S. intelligence to draw that conclusion.
Carlson said the mainstream media now accuses anyone who questions their narrative of being a "traitor to the country" and supporting
Russia. Julia Musto is a reporter for Foxnews.com
So CIA agent Carter Page joins Trump campaign and then do several "improper" moves like
travel to Moscow and contracts with Russian officials things in order to create a pretext for FBI
investigation. Which of course was promptly started. This is called false flag operation.
From comments: "He wasn’t a victim, he was an asset. When actors portray a victim, they
are ACTING!!!"
Notable quotes:
"... "The media's the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that's power. Because they control the minds of the masses". - the esteemed Malcolm X. ..."
"... Seth Rich downloaded the emails on a potable drive. Was he Russian? ..."
"... DNC/ FBI/ CIA/ CNN/ NBC have merged into the 5 headed serpent. ..."
"... Roger Stone got some minor facts wrong and is facing jail time, Brennan and Comey outright lied to Congress, when are they going to jail? ..."
"... "June 2017, CIA told FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith that Carter Page was working for them (the CIA)." Clinesmith then changed that notification so he could submit the last (FISA) renewal. ..."
"... "Lets hope Carter Page spends the rest of his life sueing everyone..." lol Thats the meanest thing ive ever heard you say! O:) ..."
There are so many crooked actors and actresses hired by the MSM it is just pathetic. They
are not reporters, they are there only to put on a show for the masses.
"The media's the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the
innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that's power. Because they control the
minds of the masses". - the esteemed Malcolm X.
"June 2017, CIA told FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith that Carter Page was working for them
(the CIA)." Clinesmith then changed that notification so he could submit the last (FISA)
renewal.
1:52
- This is what a paid shill looks like. If the money is good, they'll read whatever is on the
prompter. Years from now when they're demonized by the corrupt media they'll scratch their
head and ask... What happened to integrity in our country???
If you asked me 20 years ago wether I would be watching Fox News to get the most rational
point of view in politics, I would have said you were crazy. Another great job Tucker! In my
opinion, you’re one of the best news men of our current time; questioning needless
wars, and calling out politicians, gvmnt officials and your counterparts at other news desks
with rational arguments. Well done sir!
Personally seen these types of things/cases in lower levels, police chiefs and officials,
judges, prosecutors, mayor, FBI, and so on. Not surprisingly it happens elsewhere. ...But
very disappointed of it all.
If I were an American citizen, I'd be very concerned about the utter incompetence of the
FBI that the IG report exposed. The dems don't seem to be bothered by this at all. Go
figure.
The Establishment has played this game many times before .. remember PM Harold Wilson was
put up as a Russian Agent .. sure they won that game but NOT this time .. they fear President
Trump because the have nothing over him .
The Democ-rats and the media (I repeat myself) are shamelessly LYING through their teeth
to the American People. There was NO Russian collision—it's a HOAX made by LOSERS who
can't accept their loss in 2016 so they were up to smear the winner, President Trump, by all
means, possible including Illegal surveillance, fraud and manipulation—ABUSE of
government power for political prosecution.
Steele dossier......fake evidence bought and payed for by the democrats and presented to
the FISA court by James Comey...........FELONY FELONY FELONY!......this one can’t be
talked away!
Tucker, thank you for being a constant drumbeat for the criminal activity undertaken by
the FBI and CIA to ultimately unseat a duly elected President. No rest until they are held
accountable.
How could the FBI be innocent? We saw the emails. We saw them cover up for Bill Gates,
Clinton, Epstein, Brunel, and all the others. We saw how they protected these abusers of
children. We saw how they worked to overthrow a sitting president. We saw how they protected
the Awan’s and Huma.
THE FIX WAS IN - People are saying that Nellie Orr the Russian Expert is best friends with
the IG's Horowitz wife - So nice - Bruce your husband is a lap dog and works for the FBI .
People should be outraged as the cover up continues . Just like OJ - they have 10 times the
evidence that would convict anyone else - have them charged , arrested , tried and jailed .
Different rules for corrupt politicians and their friends in law enforcement .
Michael Cohen In prison, Papadopulos went to prison, Flynn is going to prison, Roger Stone
is going to prison, Manafort is in prison and Devin Nunes and Rudy Giuliani are under
investigation.....Lock them up, lock them up!!!!
CIA tells FBI who in turn uses their corrupt media to spread the lies as truth. The less
intelligent among us believe them as gospel and thus we get "Russian Collusion, or Quid Pro
Quo, or Iraq has weapons of mass destruction " and on and on.....
Ukraine and Barisma may be corrupt, but after reading the summary of this report, this
country better not be calling any country corrupt. The USA is following Rome. Soon it will
die.
FBI is totally corrupted by it's unchecked power, these deep states have the guts to
repeatedly use FALSE Information again & again to spy on the opposition political party
presidential candidate campaign. The Fake News medias continue to cover for them, it is
sickening!
The FBI based on the IG report are either criminally liable for deceiving FISA courts, or
the most inept, bumbling criminal investigation agency ever. Looks like both to me. Any FBI
agent or employee who knew the FBI was breaking the law, and remained silent needs to be
fired immediately and prosecuted along with the principals, for aiding and abetting criminal
activity. This sounds like RICO violations.
if Carter Page didn't run the 2016 "Trump Election Campaign Committee of Moscow" from the
ROSNEFT bureau offices inside the Kremlin, where did Carter Page run the "Trump Election
Campaign Committee of Moscow" ?
Horowitz needs to stop being a wuss and tell the whole truth. His report is a big lie. The
whole thing was a political attack. It started with John McCain and he handed it off to Obama
and Crooked Hillary. There was no reason at all to investigate Trump. Is the IG part of the
deep state? Democrats are acting like this report is good news for them.
Steele was not the author of the fake dossier, DNC FusionGPS Glen Simpson was, and Steele
used as cover. Coming in the Durham findings. 17 FBI "mistakes" in a row all against Trump?
No bias? B S.
How Trump has "conned" the American tax payer: This is just a few of his fraud actions!He
set up a foundation to benefit the military, then him and his family pocketed our money.He
started a Fake University, then stole the money from the American people.He cheated on his
wives, then paid them to keep quiet so it wouldn't damage his chances in the election.He
stiffed 100's of worker's he hired and then made up an excuse y they didn't get paid
If Donald Trump was a Russian spy it would’ve been the deepest cover of any secret
agent ever....he came here after his lgb training as a young man and became a celebrity for
30 years before finally putting his dastardly plan to go from pageant owner to president into
action! If that were anywhere close to true the Russians did so much work I think they earned
the 4-8 years in the White House! I know that at this point I’d rather have Vladimir
Putin as President than any of the top democrats!
Folks..All this soap opera is just a smoke screen to hide what is really important and is
happening right now at this very minute. The Federal Reserve Banking cartel is pumping 100s
of billions of dollars into insolvent banks again like they did in 2008. This time it is more
and we taxpayers will again foot the bill. The banks are getting this money called REPO
loans. Watch your cash everyone as the Federal Reserve has only 1 product and that is
printing money( debt) that they will use to steal your assets and future.
There are many opinions about the Horowitz report. As with a prior report Horowitz lays
out damning evidence and then draws exactly the wrong conclusion. Why does he have to draw
ANY CONCLUSIONS? His job is to present the facts and the evidence and to let "We the People'
draw conclusions. Reminds me of Comey declaring that Hillary's actions were irresponsible but
not criminal. Why? She didn't act with intent. She was just incompetent! Tucker is absolutely
right! What does it matter what their motive was? Like Clinton, they behaved in a criminal
fashion.
Don't be so sure. Note that Trump congratulated Tulsi on Kamala's demise. If she isn't the
nominee, her mere presence in the campaign is a boon to Trump because she exposes the rot in
the DNC and the Empire.
Dem Establishment can't control me and that scares the hell out of them
"... "I'm opposed to conditioning the aid, and I would fight it no matter what," Engel told Al-Monitor. "The Democratic Party has traditionally been a pro-Israel party, and I see no reason for that to change now. If there are people who are Democrats who don't feel that way, then I don't think they should be elected president of the United States." ..."
"... Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., is the most vocal proponent of conditioning Israeli military aid in the presidential race -- going even further left than J Street and all his primary opponents. At J Street's conference in October he said that some of the $3.8 billion in annual assistance "should go right now to humanitarian aid in Gaza." ..."
"... J Street has set any formal Israeli annexation of the West Bank as its red line for placing conditions on Israeli military aid. But it also supports the $38 billion memorandum of understanding. ..."
"... Shortly after the vote, Sanders campaign co-chair Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., as well as Reps. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., and Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., asked colleagues to sign a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo asking him to clarify whether Israel has used US military equipment while demolishing Palestinian homes in the West Bank. ..."
"... The letter, seen by Al-Monitor, notes that the Arms Export Control Act "narrowly conditions the use of transferred US-origin defense articles" and requires the president to inform Congress if the equipment is used for unauthorized purposes ..."
The Jews try to run US policy ..but lately the Dem base (and part of the party) has become
more pro Palestine.
Democratic (Jewish) lawmakers reckon with 2020 rhetoric on Israel aid
December 6, 2019
Presidential candidates who want to place conditions on Israeli military aid have prompted
pro-Israel House Democrats to go on the offensive.
REUTERS/Joshua Roberts
It's becoming harder and harder for pro-Israel Democrats on
Capitol Hill to ignore the increasingly critical voices of the US ally within their party and
the presidential race.
House Democratic leaders -- who happen to be some of the staunchest Israel supporters on
Capitol Hill -- this week added language supportive of the annual $3.8 billion military aid
package to Israel to a symbolic resolution that endorses a two-state solution to the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The stalled resolution passed 226-188, largely along party lines, today. But pro-Israel
Democrats only came on board after House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Eliot Engel,
D-N.Y., added their new language to the bill. The new provision is a response to the fact
that several presidential candidates have come out of the woodwork in recent months with
calls to place conditions on the largest recipient of US military aid.
"I'm opposed to conditioning the aid, and I would fight it no matter what," Engel
told Al-Monitor. "The Democratic Party has traditionally been a pro-Israel party, and I see
no reason for that to change now. If there are people who are Democrats who don't feel that
way, then I don't think they should be elected president of the United
States."
When Engel's committee first advanced the resolution in July, Democratic leaders opted not
to put it on the floor, even as they passed another nonbinding resolution condemning the
pro-Palestinian boycott, divestment and sanctions movement 398-17, which was backed by the
American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
That changed last month after the Trump administration repealed a decades-old legal
opinion maintaining that Israeli settlements in the West Bank are illegal under international
law.
"There are those on the far-left side of the Democratic Party -- and some of the
presidential candidates -- who are pushing for new conditions on aid, especially in their
interactions with Gaza, which is run by Hamas -- a terrorist organization," Gottheimer told
Al-Monitor.
An October poll from the liberal Center for American Progress found that 56% of
American voters, including 71% of Democrats, oppose "unconditional financial and military
assistance to Israel if the Israeli government continues to violate American policy on
settlement expansion or West Bank annexation."
Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., is the most vocal proponent of conditioning Israeli
military aid in the presidential race -- going even further left than J Street and
all his primary opponents. At J Street's conference in October he said that some of the $3.8
billion in annual assistance "should go right now to humanitarian aid in Gaza."
J Street has set any formal Israeli annexation of the West Bank as its red line for
placing conditions on Israeli military aid. But it also supports the $38 billion memorandum
of understanding.
Presidential hopefuls Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South
Bend, Indiana, have jumped on board with J Street's position. However, the current
front-runner, former Vice President Joe Biden, has flatly ruled out conditioning the aid.
Notably, J Street did not oppose the effort to amend the Lowenthal resolution with the
military aid language. That said, progressive Democrats do not necessarily view that
provision as incompatible with calls to attach strings to that assistance. Congressional
Progressive Caucus co-chair Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Wis., called the Engel language
"meaningless."
"It's just restating what current practice or current law is," Pocan told Al-Monitor. "We
don't really see it as affecting the bill one way or the other. At any time if we feel like
we're better off putting conditions on money and holding back money, Congress could always do
that with any country through the normal process."
Shortly after the vote, Sanders campaign co-chair Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., as well as
Reps. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., and Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., asked colleagues to sign a letter to
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo asking him to clarify whether Israel has used US military
equipment while demolishing Palestinian homes in the West Bank.
The letter, seen by Al-Monitor, notes that the Arms Export Control Act "narrowly
conditions the use of transferred US-origin defense articles" and requires the president to
inform Congress if the equipment is used for unauthorized purposes
In all of this, it's worth remembering the observation of La Rouchefoucald that "hypocrisy
is the tribute vice pays to virtue". The accusation of virtue signalling represents the refusal
of vice to pay this tribute.
... in my experience the kind of people who talk about VS also talk about 'clicktivism' and
similar; in other words, a lack of effort or cost is particularly characteristic of VS (and,
in their eyes, particularly repugnant).
...And what's about all these people who wear these: "I'm a Deplorable" – T-shirts?
SusanC 12.05.19 at 12:37 pm (no link)
I thought the concept was supposed to be (a)not actually doing anything to reduce a problem;
while (b) making ostentatious signs that purport to show you care about it.
A better example might be attending an Extinction Rebellion protest without changing your
own consumption/pollution causing activities.
I wonder if it somehow relates to the Mary Douglas cultural theory of risk?
If so, we might tentatively include, e.g. Making a big noise about terrorism without
really considering yourself to be at risk from it
"Vice signaling" was a good joke; I think it captures a notion that the affiliation the
person is attempting to signal is not a universally shared one,
SusanC 12.05.19 at 12:45 pm (no link)
For that matter, terrorism itself, in its typical modern form, could be regarded as vice
signalling: ostentatiously commiting public acts of violence ostensibly in support of a
political cause, without regard to whether the political cause is in fact being advanced by
their actions.
cs 12.05.19 at 1:37 pm (no link)
... I would say the implication is about the ostentation and a kind of insincerity.
Insincerity in the sense that the person displaying the rainbow flag wants to be seen as the
kind of person who cares about gay rights, when maybe they don't actually care about it all
that much. That isn't quite the same as hypocrisy I think.
I'll try to give my economic based explanation for this, based on this paper from Piketty:
Brahmin Left vs Merchant Right:Rising Inequality & the Changing Structure of Political
Conflict
This paper has been cited here various times, however I'll drop this line from the
abstract that summarizes the main finding:
Using post-electoral surveys from France, Britain and the US, this paper documents a
striking long-run evolution in the structure of political cleavages. In the 1950s-1960s,
the vote for left-wing (socialist-labour-democratic) parties was associated with lower
education and lower income voters. It has gradually become associated with higher education
voters, giving rise to a "multiple-elite" party systemin the 2000s-2010s: high-education
elites now vote for the "left", while high-income/high-wealth elites still vote for the
"right"
I would add to Phil @2 a third option.
(a) You're a hypocrite.
(b) The thing you're signalling isn't actually a virtue.
(c) You're attacking me by reminding everyone of a virtue I don't have.
I think the old-fashioned term for virtue signalling is sanctimony, not hypocrisy. Notably,
sanctimony is also compatible with genuine belief and/or commitment. It does connote that the
committed person has a degree of self-love over their commitments, and that perhaps the
frequency or intensity of their display of their commitments is caused by an underlying
desire to experience that self-love whenever the opportunity arises.
Sanctimony–correct word, I think–puts me in mind of that old bumper sticker, "I
brake for animals" of which I once saw an example tidily shortened to: "I bake animals".
The problem I have with the whole concept is the stereotyping and bias implicit in it.
When I see the Rainbow I'm supposed to think open minded, inclusive and left-thinking and
that's fully o.k in the minds of liberals, but not in the minds of the Conservatives who see
something else (which I'm not inclined to list).
When I see the MAGA I'm supposed to think closed minded, racist and right-thinking, but
Conservatives would see hard-working Americans trying to make their country a better
place.
Displaying a rainbow flag or wearing a MAGA hat strikes me as visible tribal identification
more than virtue signaling. I think MrMister's mention of sanctimony is closer to the truth.
Another poster mentioned Pharisees and public prayer. Consider a meeting to discuss replacing
culverts to allow better passage of spawning salmon. The participants represent various
interested parties, private and government. The meeting is disrupted by a person who proceeds
to lecture all present about the history of racism, broken treaties and Native American
reverence for nature. This person is not Native American. The speaker assumes that his/her
information is unknown to the audience. The information does nothing to advance the goal of
culvert replacement nor does it do anything to right historic wrongs. The speaker gets to
feel superior. This is high-grade virtue signaling.
It has been my experience that virtue signalling is often practiced on behalf of
marginalized groups by people who do not belong to that group but presume to speak for
them.
I'll second several commenters above: "virtue signalling" isn't primarily an accusation of
hypocrisy. The related accusations targeted at the right are "sanctimony" and "prudishness"
more than hypocrisy. The accusation is that you care more about "being seen as the sort of
person who supports X" than about X.
I think it means making a political statement in order to look good, where good is understood
in a moral sense. That's a real phenomenon, especially in our age of online
narcissism/personal branding, and it probably does affect the liberal-left more than the
right because left-liberal politics tends to be more morally inspired.
I agree with SusanC at 7 and cs at 10 that the term is mostly intended to suggest that you
support some cause or other that you don't really care about, as a way to identify yourself,
or establish bona fides, with some group.
I'm so far behind I'm still bemused by the thought that a flag lapel pin, pledges of
allegiance and praying in public, are all virtue signalling. The tie-ins to libertarian
economics and evolutionary psychology are even more puzzling, but maybe that's because I
think they're just ideological scams/Vavilovian mimicry trying to pass off nonsense as real
ideas.
"... "Bernie Sanders unveils plan to boost broadband access, break up internet and cable titans" [ CNBC ]. "[T]he Vermont senator and Democratic presidential candidate calls to treat internet like a public utility. His campaign argues that the internet should not be a "price gouging profit machine" for companies such as Comcast, AT&T and Verizon ..."
"... Several of Sanders' top Democratic competitors have called to pile more money into high-speed internet development. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg released plans to invest at least $80 billion into rural broadband, while former Vice President Joe Biden has proposed putting $20 billion into expanding rural internet access." ..."
"Bernie Sanders unveils plan to boost broadband access, break up internet and cable
titans" [
CNBC ]. "[T]he Vermont senator and Democratic presidential candidate calls to treat
internet like a public utility. His campaign argues that the internet should not be a "price
gouging profit machine" for companies such as Comcast, AT&T and Verizon
Several of Sanders' top Democratic competitors have called to pile more money into
high-speed internet development. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and South Bend, Indiana, Mayor
Pete Buttigieg released plans to invest at least $80 billion into rural broadband, while former
Vice President Joe Biden has proposed putting $20 billion into expanding rural internet
access." • Here is a map of broadband in
Iowa .
"Sarsour Saga Shows Sanders's Continued Struggles With Jewish Voters"
[ Forward
].
" the latest example of Sanders, the most successful Jewish presidential candidate in
American history, drawing anger from Jewish voters over what some see as his lack of concern
for their specific communal issues "
That is, Israel. More: "And Rabbi Jacob Herber of
Wisconsin tweeted Tuesday in response to Sarsour's remarks that despite the fact that he abhors
Trump, 'I'll be damned if I'm going to vote for Bernie Sanders.'"
This list tells quite a story. It deserves a name such as "US History Written in Blood," but
more ironically and yet sufficient would be "An Inconvenient List." In any case, mass murder
for fun and profit has defined war throughout the entire history of humankind. That in the
modern era of late that the US has pioneered rentier capitalism as a means of extracting
profits from the industrial war machine is a matter of the natural evolution of state
sanctioned murder, far better at returning profits to investors than the mere slaughter of
stone age natives to steal their land.
OTOH, pacifism is indeed an aberration of political thought, not necessarily an unwarranted
aberration, yet one that should be subject to close inspection for its bona fides. My
Cherokee ancestors inform me to always be suspect of the good intentions of white men
claiming that they despise war.
Pacifism for me is individual. I was a cold warrior (pacifist not!) from '72 to '85 when I
went from supporting operating weapons to the "dark side" in weapons development, which a lot
was also nuclear related.
It's pretty obvious that Team Pelosi is more concerned with the affairs of the Empire,
even though she has no constitutional responsibility. than for the welfare of the American
people. The focus of the impeachment hearing on American policy in Ukraine is further
evidence.
Meanwhile, I have gotten no answer to my basic question: what are the top 5 pieces of
progressive legislation that Pelosi has passed--legislation that representations can brag
about to their constituents when running in 2020? It's pretty obvious that their have been
almost none.
Yet, I have been assured by others here at EV that our two party representative political
system is not merely engaging in so much Kabuki theatre in order to appear relevant. Who
knew?
Outside of the fact that this fellow is a liar of monumental proportion - for instance, this
post alone contains 3 different lies - it is fundamentally untrue that BOTH parties are just
engaged in theater. One actually passes legislation to help people and to reduce the
influence of $$$. The other - as former Republican party member Norm Orenstein has pointed
out - is anti-democracy, pro-despotism and a insurgent danger with a propaganda arm.
Huh... all team Pelosi/Schumer of is rant against the US constitution, demean the congress,
disdain the office of the President and make up things about the Donald.
See the continuing resolution good through 20 Dec because Pelosi who owns the House won't
face the responsibility to try and run the US government's purse.
More selective outrage from EMichael, the partisan hack.
Sure, it's horrendous that Trump pardoned a war criminal. But let's not forget that Obama
never even prosecuted torturers ... or closed Guantanamo as promised.
As usual for EMichael and his ilk, what's a horror when their party does something, it's
perfectly acceptable when his party does it.
All these years of being a almost pacifist and now I am seeing the error in my ways.
Sometimes - hopefully increasingly less often - good people must rise up and stomp out evil.
The pardons were not just condoning war crimes - it was telling the nazi ahs in the ranks
that they can do the same domestically. The right has an army within the US. Most of the
officers are okay - but that said, they are tolerating nazis, white supremacists, oathkeepers
and dominionists in their ranks. These exceptions are to let the other nazis know they can
mass murder if the want.
The Democratic Party needs a nominee, but right now it has a train wreck instead. The
front-runner seems too old for the job and is poised to lose the first two primary season
contests. The woman who was supposed to become the front-runner on the basis of her policy
chops is sliding in the polls after thoroughly botching her health care strategy. The
candidate rising in her place is a 37-year-old mayor of a tiny, not-obviously-thriving
city.
Meanwhile several seemingly electable alternatives have failed to catch fire; the party
establishment is casting about for other options; and not one but two billionaires are
spending millions to try to buy delegates for a brokered convention which is a
not-entirely-unimaginable endgame for the party as it prepares to face down Donald Trump.
The state of the Democratic field reflects the weaknesses of the individual candidates,
but it also reflects the heterogenous nature of the Democratic coalition, whose electorate
has many more demographic divisions than the mostly white and middle-class and aging G.O.P.,
and therefore occasionally resembles the 19th-century Hapsburg empire in the challenge it
poses to aspiring leaders.
The theory of the Kamala Harris candidacy, whose nosedive was the subject of a withering
pre-mortem from three of my colleagues over Thanksgiving, was that she was well suited to
accomplish this unification through the elixir of her female/minority/professional class
identities -- that she would embody the party's diversity much as Barack Obama did before
her, and subsume the party's potential tensions under the benevolent stewardship of a
multicultural managerialism.
That isn't happening. But it's still reasonable for Democratic voters to look for someone
who can do a version of what Harris was supposed to do, and build a coalition across the
party's many axes of division.
And there's an interesting case that the candidate best positioned to do this -- the one
whose support is most diverse right now -- is the candidate whom Obama allegedly promised to
intervene against if his nomination seemed likely: the resilient Socialist from Vermont,
Bernie Sanders.
Like other candidates, Sanders's support has a demographic core: Just as Elizabeth Warren
depends on very liberal professionals and Joe Biden on older minorities and moderates, Bernie
depends intensely on the young. But his polling also shows an interesting
better-than-you-expect pattern, given stereotypes about his support. He does
better-than-you-expect with minorities despite having struggled with them in 2016, with
moderate voters and $100K-plus earners despite being famously left-wing, and with young women
despite all the BernieBro business.
This pattern explains why, in early-state polling, Sanders shows the most strength in very
different environments -- leading Warren everywhere in the latest FiveThirtyEight average,
beating Biden in Iowa and challenging him in more-diverse Nevada, matching Pete Buttigieg in
New Hampshire and leading him easily in South Carolina and California. ...
The DNC has once again put its thumb on the scales: they are ignoring their own criteria for
determining who is to be allowed into the next debate. They are doing everything possible to
ignore Gabbard and her efforts to raise the issue of US' pointless and futile perpetual wars.
"The DNC is notorious for putting its thumb on the scales not secret forces, just
institutional structure."
[Albeit true then it might not be obvious from your comment that ALL political parties are
gated communities that can make resources available to the anointed few. For an independent
candidate to be marginally successful in comparison then they must first either be well known
on their own or rich, but both are better. Prospective primary candidates must first access
petition signatures and then campaign financing. Higher office candidates have ordinarily
been through this vetting before when running for seats in state legislatures.]
Both proved the loose outfit
Operating in this century
with the Democrat name plate
Can be entered
by an outsider campaign
and maybe almost
Railroaded into
a Non core approved
Not core wanted
potus nom
Like McGovern in 72
Yes Jesse got stopped
And
Okay both Dean and Sanders
got de railed
Recall after McGovern
Thank the god of hell fire
George was crushed
Yup after the crush
Elite ex core types
Made moves
Indeed moves were made
of course
They were made
Moves are always made
It's a struggle not a triumphal march of the virtues thru the chaff
Not for nothing but Dean got ratf#cked (the scream audio file to those of us familiar with
compression and reverb was highly modified), and Edwards got "we are all still scared of Bill
Clinton's member" ed.
"Remember corporate liberals want us to believe four more Trump years Will be a progressive
disaster"
Seems instructive that [DemoRats[ Leadership still seems to be willing to run a candidate
that may lose the general for lack of appeal to those who used to be labor. Suggests they see
their opposition as not so much republican but the rest [of the Dem bench].
"The Democratic Party needs a nominee, but right now it has a train wreck instead. The
front-runner seems too old for the job and is poised to lose the first two primary season
contests. The woman who was supposed to become the front-runner on the basis of her policy
chops is sliding in the polls after thoroughly botching her health care strategy. The
candidate rising in her place is a 37-year-old mayor of a tiny, not-obviously-thriving
city..."
[We are cursed with an embarrassment of - wait a minute, wait a minute - I know it rhymes
with riches.]
"... Writing in the 1830s, as the Industrial Revolution gathered pace, Honoré de Balzac anticipated the broader social concern: "The secret of great fortunes without apparent cause is a crime that has been forgotten, because it was properly carried out." Or, in the more popular paraphrase: behind every great fortune lies a great crime. ..."
"... In recent decades, this corporate lobbying has had two main effects. First, by erecting entry barriers to existing sectors, it protects incumbents and lowers their effective tax rates. This is a deadweight loss – a pure drag on economic growth that limits opportunities for everyone who is not already an oligarch. ..."
"... As U.S. public finances are eroded by oligarchy, so is the ability to fund essential infrastructure, improvements in education, and the kind of breakthrough science that brought America to this point. ..."
Our billionaire problem is getting worse. Any market-oriented economy creates
opportunities for new fortunes to be built, including through innovation. More innovation is
likely to take place where fewer rules encumber entrepreneurial creativity. Some of this
creativity may lead to processes and products that are actually detrimental to public
welfare.
Unfortunately, by the time the need for legislation or regulation becomes apparent, the
innovators have their billions – and they can use that money to protect their
interests.
This billionaire problem is not new. Every epoch, dating at least from Roman times,
produces versions of it whenever some shift in market structure or geopolitics creates an
opportunity for fortunes to be built quickly.
Writing in the 1830s, as the Industrial Revolution gathered pace, Honoré de
Balzac anticipated the broader social concern: "The secret of great fortunes without apparent
cause is a crime that has been forgotten, because it was properly carried out." Or, in the
more popular paraphrase: behind every great fortune lies a great crime.
Prominent historical examples include the British East India Company, the Europeans who
built vast fortunes based on African slave labor in the West Indies, and coal mine
owners.
All became rich fast, and then used their political clout to get what they wanted,
including impunity for horrendous abuses. At their peak in the nineteenth century, railway
interests held sway over many or perhaps even most members of the British parliament.
The United States has long exhibited a particularly potent strain of the billionaire
problem. This is partly because America's founders, in their pre-industrial innocence, could
not imagine that money would capture politics to the extent that it has (or that was fully
apparent just a few decades later). Moreover, U.S. leaders were long willing to let private
enterprise take on new projects that elsewhere fell into the hands of the state.
The German post office, for example, built one of the most extensive and efficient
telegraph systems in the world. Samuel Morse urged Congress to do the same (or better). But
U.S. telegraph communication was instead developed privately – as was the telephone
system that followed, all of iron and steel, the entire railroad network, and just about
every other component of the early industrial economy.
When the U.S. government did become involved in economic activity, it was mostly to open
up new frontiers – creating more opportunity for individuals and private business.
In the aftermath of World War II, Vannevar Bush – a Republican who was also a top
adviser to President Franklin D. Roosevelt – cleverly argued that science represented
the next frontier, and hence constructed a winning political argument for the government to
act as a catalyst.
As Jonathan Gruber and I have argued recently in our book Jump-Starting America, the
post-war federal government's strategic investments in basic science spurred remarkable
private-sector innovation – including productivity gains and widely shared increases in
wages. Vast new fortunes were created.
U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. /VCG
Photo
The political consequences of America's post-war private-sector boom were felt within a
generation, and they were not always positive. From the 1960s, the U.S. experienced growing
anti-tax sentiment, strong pressure for deregulation (including for the financial sector),
and a lot more corporate money pouring into politics through every possible avenue.
In recent decades, this corporate lobbying has had two main effects. First, by
erecting entry barriers to existing sectors, it protects incumbents and lowers their
effective tax rates. This is a deadweight loss – a pure drag on economic growth that
limits opportunities for everyone who is not already an oligarch.
As U.S. public finances are eroded by oligarchy, so is the ability to fund essential
infrastructure, improvements in education, and the kind of breakthrough science that brought
America to this point.
Some of America's billionaires earn kudos for their philanthropy. At the same time, most
of them adopt a dog-in-the-manger attitude throughout their business operations –
digging deeper moats to protect profits or simply destroying smaller business at every
opportunity.
There is a second effect, which is more nuanced. In some entirely new sectors,
particularly in the digital domain, entry was possible at least during an early phase.
The entrepreneurs who built the first Internet companies were not able to put up effective
entry barriers – hence the runaway success (and greater billions) of more recent
companies such as Facebook, Amazon, and Uber.
But now the controlling shareholders of these new behemoths operate pretty much in the
same way as Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller, and the original J.P. Morgan once did. They
use their money to buy influence and resist any kind of reasonable restraint on their
anti-competitive and anti-worker behavior – even if it undermines democratic
institutions.
We will always have billionaires. Ex post regulation and higher rates of taxation are
appealing today but, looking forward, will they prove sufficient in a political system that
allows individuals to spend as much as they like to get whatever they want (and repeal
whatever they hate)? It's time for a new approach, as Gruber and I propose.
Big profits follow from big new ideas. That's why federal science funding should be
designed to include upside participation in the enterprises that will be created. The public
deserves much more direct participation in those profits. And the billionaires should have to
make do with fewer billions.
"The United States has long exhibited a particularly potent strain of the billionaire
problem. This is partly because America's founders, in their pre-industrial innocence, could
not imagine that money would capture politics to the extent that it has (or that was fully
apparent just a few decades later). "
A romanticization of the founders? I seem to recall their motivation was to counter revolt
against the galloping egalitarianism of the States, and incidentally, the guys in the room
were basically the billionaires of the day.
His subsequent complaints seem right on though, and pointing out the telegraph situation,
which rightly should have been a Post Office operation, is especially appreciated.
A romanticization of the founders? I seem to recall their motivation was to counter revolt
against the galloping egalitarianism of the States, and incidentally, the guys in the room
were basically the billionaires of the day.
[Simon Johnson's] subsequent complaints seem right on though, and pointing out the
telegraph situation, which rightly should have been a Post Office operation, is especially
appreciated.
POTUS races can be effectively
Operated with
Little people funded campaigns
Bernie proved that
And Liz
Yes spreading too thin
fielding 435 house races at once
or 34 Senate races etc
Big bucks will prevail over all
But winn8ng evening enough
It requires sustainable
Solid majorities
And protracted continuity
like the new deal maintained
Why ?
The bigger problem is the pre existing
State system
Progressives might get elected
to change The show
But
Deep Sam will resist mightily
Capitalism is a system
.of organized social production
That produces and reproduces
Along with itself
Typical human consequences
Among those typical human consequences
"... This is just low level Soviet-style propaganda: "Beacon of democracy" and "Hope of all progressive mankind" cliché. My impression is that the train left the station long ago, especially as for democracy. Probably in 1963. The reality is a nasty struggle of corrupt political clans. Which involves intelligence agencies dirty tricks. BTW, how do you like that fact that Corporate Democrats converted themselves in intelligence agencies' cheerleading squad? ..."
"... And both Corporate Dems and opposing them Republican are afraid to discuss the real issues facing the country, such as loss of manufacturing, loss of good middle class jobs (fake labor statistics covers the fact the most new jobs are temps/contractors and McJobs), rampant militarism with Afghan war lasting decades, neocon dominance in foreign policy which led to increase of country debt to level that might soon be unsustainable. ..."
"... Both enjoy impeachment Kabuki theater. With Trump probably enjoying this theatre the most: if they just censure him, he wins, if charges go to Senate, he wins big. ..."
From the founding of this country, the power of the president was understood to have
limits. Indeed, the Founders would never have written an impeachment clause into the
Constitution if they did not foresee scenarios where their descendants might need to remove
an elected president before the end of his term in order to protect the American people and
the nation.
The question before the country now is whether President Trump's misconduct is severe
enough that Congress should exercise that impeachment power, less than a year before the 2020
election. The results of the House Intelligence Committee inquiry, released to the public on
Tuesday, make clear that the answer is an urgent yes. Not only has the president abused his
power by trying to extort a foreign country to meddle in US politics, but he also has
endangered the integrity of the election itself. He has also obstructed the congressional
investigation into his conduct, a precedent that will lead to a permanent diminution of
congressional power if allowed to stand.
The evidence that Trump is a threat to the constitutional system is more than sufficient,
and a slate of legal scholars who testified on Wednesday made clear that Trump's actions are
just the sort of presidential behavior the Founders had in mind when they devised the
recourse of impeachment. The decision by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to proceed with drafting
articles of impeachment is warranted.
Much of the information in the Intelligence Committee report, which was based on witness
interviews, documents, telephone records, and public statements by administration officials,
was already known to the public. The cohesive narrative that emerges, though, is worse than
the sum of its parts. This year, the president and subordinates acting at his behest
repeatedly tried to pressure a foreign country, Ukraine, into taking steps to help the
president's reelection. That was, by itself, an outrageous betrayal: In his dealings with
foreign states, the president has an obligation to represent America's interests, not his
own.
But the president also betrayed the US taxpayer to advance that corrupt agenda. In order
to pressure Ukraine into acceding to his request, Trump's administration held up $391 million
in aid allocated by Congress. In other words, he demanded a bribe in the form of political
favors in exchange for an official act -- the textbook definition of corruption. The fact
that the money was ultimately paid, after a whistle-blower complained, is immaterial: The act
of withholding taxpayer money to support a personal political goal was an impermissible abuse
of the president's power.
Withholding the money also sabotaged American foreign policy. The United States provides
military aid to Ukraine to protect the country from Russian aggression. Ensuring that fragile
young democracy does not fall under Moscow's sway is a key US policy goal, and one that the
president put at risk for his personal benefit. He has shown the world that he is willing to
corrupt the American policy agenda for purposes of political gain, which will cast suspicion
on the motivations of the United States abroad if Congress does not act.
To top off his misconduct, after Congress got wind of the scheme and started the
impeachment inquiry, the Trump administration refused to comply with subpoenas, instructed
witnesses not to testify, and intimidated witnesses who did. That ought to form the basis of
an article of impeachment. When the president obstructs justice and fails to respect the
power of Congress, it strikes at the heart of the separation of powers and will hobble future
oversight of presidents of all parties.
Impeachment does not require a crime. The Constitution entrusts Congress with the
impeachment power in order to protect Americans from a president who is betraying their
interests. And it is very much in Americans' interests to maintain checks and balances in the
federal government; to have a foreign policy that the world can trust is based on our
national interest instead of the president's personal needs; to control federal spending
through their elected representatives; to vote in fair elections untainted by foreign
interference. For generations, Americans have enjoyed those privileges. What's at stake now
is whether we will keep them. The facts show that the president has threatened this country's
core values and the integrity of our democracy. Congress now has a duty to future generations
to impeach him.
How can Trump have sabotaged American foreign policy, when he has full responsibility and
authority to set it?
IMO this impeachment is partly about Trump personally asking a foreign country for help
against a domestic political opponent. But it is mostly about geopolitics and the national
security bureaucracy's need for US world domination.
Just listen to the impeachment testimony--most of it is whining about Trump's failure to
follow the 'interagency' policies of the deep state.
Stalin would approve that. And if so, what is the difference between impeachment and a
show trial, Moscow trials style? The majority can eliminate political rivals, if it wishes
so, right? This was how Bolsheviks were thinking in 30th. Of course, those backward Soviets used "British spy" charge instead modern, sophisticated
"Putin's stooge" charge, but still ;-)
The facts show that the president has threatened this country's core values and the integrity
of our democracy.
This is just low level Soviet-style propaganda: "Beacon of democracy" and "Hope of all
progressive mankind" cliché. My impression is that the train left the station long ago, especially as for democracy.
Probably in 1963. The reality is a nasty struggle of corrupt political clans. Which involves intelligence
agencies dirty tricks. BTW, how do you like that fact that Corporate Democrats converted themselves in
intelligence agencies' cheerleading squad?
In short Boston Globe editors do not want that their audience understand the situation, in
which the county have found itself. They just want to brainwash this audience (with impunity)
And both Corporate Dems and opposing them Republican are afraid to discuss the real issues
facing the country, such as loss of manufacturing, loss of good middle class jobs (fake labor
statistics covers the fact the most new jobs are temps/contractors and McJobs), rampant
militarism with Afghan war lasting decades, neocon dominance in foreign policy which led to
increase of country debt to level that might soon be unsustainable.
Both enjoy impeachment Kabuki theater. With Trump probably enjoying this theatre the most:
if they just censure him, he wins, if charges go to Senate, he wins big.
Can you imagine result for Corporate Dems of Schiff (with his contacts with Ciaramella ) ,
or Hunter Biden (who was just a mule to get money to Biden's family for his father illegal
lobbing) testifying in Senate under oath.
The truth is that they are all criminals (with many being war criminals.) So Beria
statement "Show me the man and I'll find you the crime" is fully applicable. That really is
something that has survived the Soviet Union and has arrived in the good old USA.
"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has made no secret of her desire to pass the
U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement by the end of the year
Meanwhile, a top priority for labor has been sitting quietly on Pelosi's desk and, unlike
USMCA, already commands enough support to get it over the House finish line. The Protecting
the Right to Organize Act would be the most comprehensive rewrite of U.S. labor law in
decades. It would eliminate right-to-work laws, impose new penalties on employers who
retaliate against union organizing, crack down on worker misclassification, and establish new
rules so that employers cannot delay negotiating collective bargaining contracts." https://theintercept.com/2019/12/02/nancy-pelosi-usmca-pro-act-unions/
Echoes of 2009, when Pelosi refused to pass union card check, when it had already passed
the House in 2007? The difference? In 2007 Bush would have vetoes. In 2009, Democrats had the
votes and a Democratic president, so they chose to ignore their campaign promise.
Could Tax Increases Speed Up the Economy?
Democrats Say Yes https://nyti.ms/2RlDbJx
NYT - Jim Tankersley - December 5
WASHINGTON -- Elizabeth Warren is leading a liberal rebellion against a long-held economic
view that large tax increases slow economic growth, trying to upend Democratic policymaking
in the way supply-side conservatives changed Republican orthodoxy four decades ago.
(Warren Would Take Billionaires Down
a Few Billion Pegs https://nyti.ms/2CtMPRN
NYT - November 10)
Generations of economists, across much of the ideological spectrum, have long held that
higher taxes reduce investment, slowing economic growth. That drag, the consensus held, would
offset the benefits to growth from increased government spending in areas like education.
Ms. Warren and other leading Democrats say the opposite. The senator from Massachusetts,
who is a leading candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, contends that her
plans to tax the rich and spend the revenue to lift the poor and the middle class would
accelerate economic growth, not impede it. Other Democratic candidates are making similar
claims about their tax-and-spend proposals. Some liberal economists go further and say that
simply taxing the rich would help growth no matter what the government did with the
money.
Democrats in the past, including the party's 2016 nominee, Hillary Clinton, have argued
that a more modest combination of tax increases and spending programs would expand the
economy. But no Democratic nominee before Ms. Warren had ever proposed so many new taxes and
spending programs, and leaned so heavily into the argument that they would be, in economist
parlance, pro-growth.
That argument tries to reframe a classic debate about the economic "pie" in the United
States by suggesting there is no trade-off between increasing the size of the pie and
dividing the slices more equitably among all Americans.
Ms. Warren has proposed nearly $3 trillion a year in new taxes on businesses and
high-earners, largely focused on billionaires but sometimes hitting Americans who earn
$250,000 and above per year. The taxes would fund wide-reaching new government spending on
health care, education, and family benefits like universal child care and paid parental
leave.
Last month, Ms. Warren wrote on Twitter that education, child care and student loan relief
programs funded by her tax on wealthy Americans would "grow the economy." In a separate post,
she said student debt relief would "supercharge" growth.
The last batch of economists to disrupt a political party's consensus position were
conservative -- the so-called supply-siders who built influence in the late 1970s and gained
power in the Reagan administration. Previous Republican presidents had focused on keeping the
budget deficit low, which constrained their ability to cut taxes if they did not also cut
government spending. Supply-siders contended that well-targeted tax cuts could generate big
economic growth even without spending cuts. ...
Ms. Warren is making the case that the economy could benefit if money is redistributed from
the rich and corporations to uses that she and other liberals say would be more productive.
Their argument combines hard data showing that high levels of inequality and wealth
concentration weigh down economic growth with a belief that well-targeted government spending
can encourage more Americans to work, invest and build skills that would make them more
productive.
They also cite evidence that transferring money to poor and middle-class individuals would
increase consumer spending because they spend a larger share of their incomes than wealthy
Americans, who tend to save and invest.
"The economy has changed, our understanding of it has changed, and we understand the
constricting effects of inequality" on growth, said Heather Boushey, the president of the
Washington Center for Equitable Growth, a think tank focused on inequality.
Inequality has widened significantly in America over the last several decades. The
Congressional Budget Office estimates that the incomes of the top 1 percent of Americans more
than tripled from 1979 to 2016, before taxes and government transfer payments are taken into
account. For the middle class, incomes grew 33 percent. More than a decade after the
recession, wage growth for the middle class continues to run well behind previous times of
economic expansion, like the late 1990s.
Research by the economist Emmanuel Saez and colleagues shows that the last time such a
small sliver of Americans controlled such a large share of the nation's income and wealth was
in the late 1920s, just before a stock market crash set off the Great Depression. World Bank
researchers have warned that high levels of inequality are stifling growth in South Africa,
which has the globe's worst measured inequality.
"We have an economy that isn't delivering like it used to," said Ms. Boushey, who advised
Hillary Clinton's 2016 Democratic presidential campaign. "That's leading people to say let's
re-examine the evidence."
The contention that tax and spending increases can lift economic growth is not the only
challenge to traditional orthodoxy brewing in liberal economic circles. Some Democrats have
also embraced modern monetary theory, which reframes classic thinking that discourages large
budget deficits as a drag on growth. Its supporters, including Representative Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez of New York and the economist Stephanie Kelton, an adviser to Senator Bernie
Sanders of Vermont, argue that the United States government should be spending much more on
programs to fight inequality, like a federal job guarantee, without imposing new taxes.
Some of the inequality-focused economists say they are hoping to build new economic models
to predict the effects of their policies, though they acknowledge few of those models exist
yet. Instead, they rely on evidence about the likely effects of individual programs, added
together.
Many economists who study tax policy contend that Ms. Warren's plans -- and other large
tax-and-spend proposals from Democratic candidates this year -- would hurt the economy, just
as classic economic models suggest.
"Some elements of the large increase in government spending on health and education
proposed by Senator Warren would promote economic growth" through channels like improved
education, said Alan Auerbach, an economics professor at the University of California,
Berkeley, who has written some of the most influential research in the profession on the
relationship between tax rates and growth.
But, he said, "I am very skeptical that these growth effects would offset the negative
effects on growth of the higher taxes, particularly given that the spending increases are not
specifically targeted toward enhancing growth."
Ms. Warren disagrees. In the latest Democratic debate, she said the spending programs
funded by her wealth tax would be "transformative" for workers. Those plans would raise
wages, make college tuition-free and relieve graduates of student debt, she said, adding, "We
can invest in an entire generation's future."
An emerging group of liberal economists say taxes on high-earners could spur growth even
if the government did nothing with the revenue because the concentration of income and wealth
is dampening consumer spending.
"We are experiencing a revolution right now in macroeconomics, particularly in the policy
space," said Mark Paul, an economist who is a fellow at the liberal Roosevelt Institute in
Washington. "We can think of a wealth tax as welfare-enhancing, in and of itself, simply by
constraining the power of the very wealthy" to influence public policy and distort markets to
their advantage.
Taken together, Ms. Warren's proposals would transform the role of federal taxation. If
every tax increase she has proposed in the campaign passed and raised as much revenue as her
advisers predict -- a contingency hotly debated among even liberal economists -- total
federal tax revenue would grow more than 50 percent.
The United States would leap from one of the lowest-taxed rich nations to one of the
highest. It would collect more taxes as a share of the economy than Norway, and only slightly
less than Italy.
Mr. Sanders's plan envisions a similarly large increase in tax levels. Former Vice
President Joseph R. Biden Jr.'s proposals are much smaller in scale: He would raise taxes on
the wealthy and corporations by $3.4 trillion over a decade, in order to fund increased
spending on health care, higher education, infrastructure and carbon emissions reduction.
If Ms. Warren's tax program is enacted, said Gabriel Zucman, an economist at Berkeley who
is an architect of her wealth tax proposal, "in my view, the most likely effect is a small
positive effect on growth, depending on how the revenues are used."
Another economist who has worked with the Warren campaign to analyze its proposals, Mark
Zandi of Moody's, said he would expect her plans to be "largely a wash on long-term economic
growth."
Researchers at the Levy Economics Institute of Bard College projected this summer that Ms.
Warren's wealth tax and spending policies would generate a 1.7 percent increase in the size
of the economy. A preliminary study of a wealth tax like Ms. Warren's proposal, by the Penn
Wharton Budget Model, found that it would reduce the size of the economy by a similar 1.7
percent. The model uses the sort of classic methodology that liberals are now rebelling
against and did not evaluate Ms. Warren's spending proposals.
Historical experience offers few parallels for assessing the economic effects of a
taxation-and-spending program on the scale of Ms. Warren's ambitions. A 2002 study of wealth
taxes in rich countries found that those taxes, most of which have since been abandoned,
reduced economic growth slightly on an annual basis.
Conservative economists roundly disagree that large tax increases can spur faster growth,
even those who say government spending on paid leave and child care may get more Americans
into the labor force. They say a wealth tax on the scale of Ms. Warren's proposal would
greatly reduce savings and investment by the rich.
"What a wealth tax does is, it directly taxes savings," said Aparna Mathur, an economist
at the conservative American Enterprise Institute who favors a narrow paid leave program and
whose research finds benefits from reducing tax rates on business and investment. "If you're
taxing savings, you're implicitly taxing investment. So how can that possibly be
pro-growth?"
The supply-side economists' plans were similarly denounced -- George Bush called them
"voodoo economic policies" while running for president in 1980 -- but in time dominated
Republican proposals.
Some members of the new liberal revolt against tax orthodoxy welcome the comparison to the
supply-side uprising.
"While I think that the supply-siders were wrong, and were always wrong, they were
reacting to very real economic problems in the 1970s," said Michael Linden, the executive
director of the Groundwork Collaborative, a liberal policy and advocacy group. "There was
something really wrong with the economy at the time. I think there is now."
It has long required the support of the wealthy -- and a certain level of personal wealth --
to run for president of the United States. In 2016, billions of
dollars were raised by Donald Trump's and Hillary Clinton's presidential campaigns. But the
rich control much
of this cash flow . In 2014, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, the
top .01 percent of all income earners in the United States accounted for 29 percent of all
political committee fundraising.
There are many reasons why this is a dangerous thing. But a big one is accountability.
Exiting the news conference as she was addressed, Pelosi turned around, walked up to the
journalist -- James Rosen of Sinclair Broadcast Group -- and proceeded to wag her finger with
scorn.
"As a Catholic, I resent you using the word 'hate' in a sentence that addresses me,"
she said. "Don't mess with me when it comes to words like that."
To Republicans eager to paint Democrats as out-of-control partisans, the forceful rebuttal
was a sign of the speaker losing her grip.
"It's caused them to lose sight of why they got the majority," House Minority Whip Steve
Scalise (R-La.) said of impeachment and Pelosi's outburst. "I think things are starting to
unravel."
... ... ...
Indeed, Pelosi also has cast the constitutional clash in terms of defending
an ally against Russia, calling the concerns raised by the whistleblower complaint the "aha
moment" and repeating a phrase that she used in challenging Trump face-to-face at the White
House in October.
"All roads lead to Putin," she told reporters.
Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), a former CIA officer who was among the "national security
freshmen" who pushed Pelosi toward supporting an impeachment inquiry, praised her handling of
the process. From the beginning, she said, she asked Pelosi to ensure that the investigation
was done in a strategic, efficient and serious manner, and she said Pelosi has followed
through.
Sorry, but impeachment was successful in rallying democrats. Impeachment is always
political and every President should be impeached once.
True, but this is just a part of polarization. The same is even more true for
republicans.
But the largest group is independents. ~42% identified as independents in 2017. So
the real question is about the reaction of independents and how they like the fact
that Corporate Democrats converted themselves in intelligence agencies' cheerleading
squad.
Pelosi position is weak due to accusations that Schiff mishandled the process,
concealed critical evidence, and staged a "show trial". The Horowitz findings can
make Pelosi even more vulnerable as they negatively project on her "Russians under
each bed" stance.
In no way Dems can benefit from the Senate trial as Schiff can be called to
testify about his contacts with Ciaramella. The same is true for Hunter Biden. So
this a Catch 22 for Corporate Dems.
That why Pelosi is so nervous. She is essentially in zugzwang position now.
Censuring is a win for Trump, and Senate trial is a big win for Trump.
"... What is the Democratic Party today? Well, it's the cheerleading squad for "seventeen" government agencies that add up to the craftily-labeled "intel community ," a warm-and-fuzzy coalition of snoops, false witnesses, rogue lawfare cadres, seditionists, and bad-faith artists working sedulously to hide their previous misdeeds with ever-fresh ones. They're the party against free speech, the party against due process of law, the party determined to provoke war with Russia. They're the party of sexual confusion, sexual hysteria, and sexual conflict, the party of kangaroo courts, cancel culture, erasing boundaries (including national borders), and of making up rules for all that as they go along -- like the Nazis and Soviets used to do. The ideas and policies they advocate are so comprehensively crazy that their old support of slavery looks quaintly straightforward in comparison. ..."
"... The party's propaganda arms at The New York Times , the WashPo , and cable news networks worked up a frenzy of distractions and ruses this past week -- for instance the "bombshell" that International-Man-of-Mystery Joseph Mifsud was not a hireling of the FBI. Of course, nobody ever claimed he was. Rather, he is suspected of being an agent of the Italian intel service with links to British intel, both used by the CIA as beards for its nefarious activities around its own election meddling of 2016. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's Democratic caucus has been busy with ersatz impeachment proceedings, which are invidiously scheduled to continue next week as a smokescreen to conceal the Horowitz findings . It's been a frantic campaign for them at a fraught moment in this long saga -- but the odor of desperation is thick and rank. ..."
The last time the Democratic Party blew up in a presidential election year was 1860. It had evolved from Jefferson's 1800 bloc
of yeoman farmers to Andrew Jackson's rowdy caucus of frontier populists in the 1830s, and settled into a slough of pro-slavery apologists
by the 1850s, including two do-nothing Democratic presidents, Pierce and Buchanan. The party held a nominating convention in the
spring of 1860 and couldn't come up with a candidate when a claque of southern "fire-eaters" walked out. They tried again a few months
later and cracked up into three separate parties with three nominees -- and of course Mr. Lincoln won the election. The result was
the bloodiest war in US history.
That's one way to drain a swamp. Historical obfuscators might say the Civil War was a lofty, legalistic quarrel over "state's
rights," but of course it was really about the intolerable depravity of slavery. A hundred years later, the mysterious inversions
of history converted the old slaver's party into the Civil Rights party. That had a good fifty-year run. It included a hearty side-dish
of anti-war sentiment, and a general disposition against the Big Brother treatment of citizens, including especially the overreach
of the CIA and the FBI.
What is the Democratic Party today? Well, it's the cheerleading squad for "seventeen" government agencies that add up to the craftily-labeled
"intel community ," a warm-and-fuzzy coalition of snoops, false witnesses, rogue lawfare cadres, seditionists, and bad-faith artists
working sedulously to hide their previous misdeeds with ever-fresh ones. They're the party against free speech, the party against
due process of law, the party determined to provoke war with Russia. They're the party of sexual confusion, sexual hysteria, and
sexual conflict, the party of kangaroo courts, cancel culture, erasing boundaries (including national borders), and of making up
rules for all that as they go along -- like the Nazis and Soviets used to do. The ideas and policies they advocate are so comprehensively
crazy that their old support of slavery looks quaintly straightforward in comparison.
It's taken a while for the full efflorescence of these political pathologies to present. But now they are finally on display for
all to see in what is supposed to be a climactic impeachment melodrama. The impeachment process itself has revealed the party's genius
for inventing new debaucheries of law and government misconduct -- the latest being Rep Adam Schiff's blatantly illegal cadging of
his opponents' phone logs. And now, after three years of unchallenged wickedness, they literally face the moment of truth.
That is, when all the many players in this grand game of Gotcha have to face the consequences of what they have done. The Horowitz
report is necessarily limited to the DOJ inspector general's narrow mission scope: the IG can only interview current employees of
the agency and its stepchild, the FBI, which means that key players in the Gotcha game such as former FBI director Comey, former
acting director McCabe, fired special agent Peter Stzrok and notably ex-CIA director John Brennan were outside of Mr. Horowitz's
sphere of operations. His scope was also supposedly limited to the issues around FISA warrant mischief -- though those complex shenanigans
may have led the IG to other related dodges, cons, and crimes outright. The IG has no real law enforcement powers. He can only refer
or recommend further action. Nevertheless, a great miasma of anxiety oppresses the Democratic Party now as it awaits whatever Mr.
Horowitz has to say about these matters.
The party's propaganda arms at The New York Times , the WashPo , and cable news networks worked up a frenzy of distractions and
ruses this past week -- for instance the "bombshell" that International-Man-of-Mystery Joseph Mifsud was not a hireling of the FBI.
Of course, nobody ever claimed he was. Rather, he is suspected of being an agent of the Italian intel service with links to British
intel, both used by the CIA as beards for its nefarious activities around its own election meddling of 2016. House Speaker Nancy
Pelosi's Democratic caucus has been busy with ersatz impeachment proceedings, which are invidiously scheduled to continue next week
as a smokescreen to conceal the Horowitz findings . It's been a frantic campaign for them at a fraught moment in this long saga --
but the odor of desperation is thick and rank.
Of course, behind the Horowitz report loom the specters of Barr & Durham. Whatever they've been up to has been hermetically sealed
in a globe of silence even more oppressive and nightmarish for the Dems than the IG's inquiry. Barr & Durham are able to make things
stick, most crucially genuine criminal culpability for the entire RussiaGate fiasco and all of its offshoots, including the most
recent "Whistleblower" caper -- a patently treasonous scheme. Who knows if and when indictments start raining down, but there's a
chance that it will be a very hard rain indeed.
I'm not so sure that the Democratic Party can survive the washing away of its beloved narrative by that hard rain.
They are also faced with a field of manifestly lame presidential candidates, especially the current leader of the pack, Joe Biden,
fumbling and doddering his way down the campaign trail in an apparent effort to dodge being investigated for the grifts of his Veep
years. All this may be enough to put the party down, like a dog that has peed on the carpet one time too many. Somebody else, from
some other hastily assembled party, may have to stand against Mr. Trump in 2020.
"What is the Democratic Party today? Well, it's the cheerleading squad for "seventeen" government agencies that add up to the
craftily-labeled "intel community," a warm-and-fuzzy coalition of snoops, false witnesses, rogue lawfare cadres, seditionists,
and bad-faith artists working sedulously to hide their previous misdeeds with ever-fresh ones. They're the party against free
speech, the party against due process of law, the party determined to provoke war with Russia. They're the party of sexual confusion,
sexual hysteria, and sexual conflict, the party of kangaroo courts, cancel culture, erasing boundaries (including national borders),
and of making up rules for all that as they go along -- like the Nazis and Soviets used to do. The ideas and policies they advocate
are so comprehensively crazy that their old support of slavery looks quaintly straightforward in comparison."
e at The American Conservative say we're for a 'Main Street' conservatism . There's
perhaps no better example of what that means than this 10 minute segment from
Tucker Carlson's primetime show last night. Carlson, chairman of TAC's advisory board, dared to
go after GOP mega-donor Paul Singer for his thoroughly awful "vulture capitalism" practices --
and the Republican politicians who take his money and remain silent. It was a truly remarkable
segment, especially to appear on Fox News.
For the uninitiated, Paul Singer is a New York hedge fund manager who has made billions by
purchasing sovereign debt from financially distressed countries. He'd offer struggling foreign
governments a lifeline for their debt, then hound them with costly litigation to make a
handsome profit on repayment with interest, not unlike a vulture feeding off a carcass --
hence, vulture capitalism. Singer's vulture capitalism isn't limited to foreign countries,
though; his hedge fund, Elliot Management, also racks up quite the profit by "investing" in
struggling U.S. companies, often off-shoring good paying American jobs in the process.
Much of Carlson's exposé centered around Singer's involvement with the outdoors
retailer Cabela's. For many Americans, Cabela's is a yearly staple for hunting and fishing
gear. For residents of Sidney, Nebraska, population 6,282 and Cabela's corporate headquarters,
it was the economic engine of the flourishing town. For Singer, it was yet another way to add
to his bloated net worth. Elliot Management took an ownership stake in Cabela's in 2015, and
quickly pushed the board to sell the company. Despite its relative health, Cabela's caved to
Elliot Management's wishes, and sold to competitor Bass Pro Shops a year later. Just one week
after the merger, amidst surging Cabela's stock prices, Singer's hedge fund cashed out -- to
the tune of $90 million up front.
Of course, things didn't work out so well for the town of Sidney. With Bass Pro Shops taking
ownership of Cabela's, many good paying jobs in Sidney disappeared -- and many residents were
forced to move. Those who didn't leave town quick enough were stuck, as housing prices
collapsed. Sidney, once one of the rare thriving small towns surviving the "brain drain," found
itself decimated by a New York billionaire who probably never stepped foot in a Cabela's.
Yet the story is not just about another small town fallen prey to a changing economy,
because Singer is not just another hedge fund manager. He was the second biggest donor to the
GOP in 2016, and has pumped millions of dollars into Republican campaigns. Accordingly, he
demands outsized influence over Republican congressmen -- as Carlson noted, Nebraska Sen. Ben
Sasse has been silent on the situation in Sidney. But a closer look at Singer's political
investments is revealing as to his brand of "conservatism". He has bankrolled numerous neoconservative
foreign policy shops , advocated for more
permissive immigration policies , and has been a longtime
supporter of pro-LGBT organizations and causes . It's no surprise that he vehemently
opposed President Trump's ascendance in 2015.
If you're not yet DVR-ing the 8pm Fox News timeslot, you should be. Last night's segment was
the latest evidence that Tucker Carlson is perhaps the only voice on cable news unafraid to
call out those on his own side -- even those who are very powerful like Paul Singer. For too
long, conservatives have been beholden to moneyed interests that feel no obligation to the
country around them. 'Main Street' conservatism, by contrast, sides with the people in places
like Sidney, Nebraska over the culturally progressive, interventionist, market absolutists in
the centers of power -- regardless of which major party receives their dollars.
about the
author Emile A. Doak, senior development associate, coordinates The American
Conservative 's fundraising efforts. He is a graduate of Georgetown University, where he
studied political philosophy and theology. Prior to joining TAC , Emile worked in
education, teaching and managing college preparation courses for high school students. He and
his wife reside in their hometown of Herndon, Virginia.
Said it before and I'll say it again, Warren's personal ambition is often what
manifests her poor political instincts. Why did she claim Native American Heritage? Why did
she endorse HRC in 2016? Why did she ambiguously support, then unambiguously back away from,
M4A?
This trend leads me to suspect that she will not easily back out of the race, and
cannot be trusted finally to endorse Sanders in 2020 any more than she could be in 2016. I
suspect, in any case, that many of her voters would not default to Sanders but to Buttigieg
in any case. They seem to be mostly white professionals between 30-60yrs old who make
$120,000/year.
Wow, Sanders has really been pulling ahead of Warren if the polls over the past few days
are to be believed. I am hoping that this trend continues. Warren's overly-complicated
healthcare proposal which she decided to backpedal on at the last moment seems like it has
really cost her.
I kind of wonder at this point why Warren decided to run for president in the first place.
She seems like the type of person who would rather follow than lead, and would be ill-suited
to be president as she would be forced to take a position on something. Warren would have
been better served to be clear about what her actual positions are instead of trying to have
it both ways. Her constant mind-changing and backpedaling in response to whomever has the
political upper-hand at the moment has angered both the DNC establishment as well as the
progressive left.
Or, as Abraham Lincoln put it in a letter to "Mr FJ Hooker" as he was contemplating a push
across the Rappahannock in the wake of Lee's move westward in June 1863,
"like a bull stuck across a fence that cannot gore to the front or kick to the rear"
I think it was you, Lambert, who drew my attention to "Rich and Tracey's Civil War
podcast", and I am grateful.
I think Warren is running for treasury secretary in a Biden administration. The theory
being that that will be her reward for stopping Sanders. Everybody has an angle. Except
Bernie. Can someone show me his angle?
It has long required the support of the wealthy -- and a certain level of personal wealth --
to run for president of the United States. In 2016, billions of
dollars were raised by Donald Trump's and Hillary Clinton's presidential campaigns. But the
rich control much
of this cash flow . In 2014, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, the
top .01 percent of all income earners in the United States accounted for 29 percent of all
political committee fundraising.
There are many reasons why this is a dangerous thing. But a big one is accountability.
Tucker Carlson has been making comments like this for a long time. And he's not a
libertarian. He believes in regulated capitalism.
What we might be seeing is a the beginning of the two parties flipping from left to right
on economic issues. The social issues just obscure it, as they were designed to do.
I wonder if the powers at be at Fox News allow Tucker to go on these rants because they
know two things:
1.) 99% of bought and paid for Republican politicians will never do anything about this
except perhaps some lip service here and there.
2.) The fact that it's on Fox News will cause the Vichy left to not believe it's real or
perhaps a Russian phy op against American capitalism. Thus outside of the Sanders camp there
will be no push/support for any change.
Tucker has CHANGED his views on lots of things. Like I have. To be able to admit you were
wrong is a big deal. He supported the Iraq War. I didn't. In retrospect, he realized he did
this because of group think cool kids thing. Then he realized that he had been conned, He
doesn't like being conned. I thought Obama's speech was the opposite of John Edwards "2
Americas". Obama was delivering a "con" I.e. "We are all One America". So now Tucker and I,
from different sides, are more skeptical. I started questioning my groupthink Democratic
viewpoint in 2004. Slowly I realized that I too had been conned. So some of those on the
"right" and Some of those on the "left" have sought other ports to dock in as we figure this
all out. Naked Capitalism is one of those docks. So soon we should introduce Tucker to
Yves.
As I have frequently pointed out to my once-upon-a-time "liberal" friends, Tucker Carlson
is often these days a worthwhile antidote to the collective yelpings & bleatings of the
brain-snatched amen corner on MSNBC & CNN. In this instance (and others) his observations
are rational and clearly articulated. He makes sense! And he is on the correct (not far
right) side of the topic. The continuing Iraq/Syria catastrophe, PutinGate and the hedge fund
hooligan Paul Singer are just three recent examples. His arguments (and his snark) are well
played. Alas, following these sensible segments, he is still a Fox guy and is obliged to
revert to Fox boilerplate for most of the rest of the night. But in our present crackbrained
media environment, be thankful for small mercies such as Tucker's moments.
Thanks for the post. I probably would have missed this without you.
There are a couple things that are interesting to me. First, why does Tucker Carlson call
out Ben Sasse for accepting a maxed out campaign contribution from Paul Singer? The Governor
of Nebraska then and now is Pete Ricketts. His father (Joe – TD Ameritrade, Chicago
Cubs) is a "very good friend" of Paul Singer. Everyone believes Pete Ricketts wants to run
for US Senate and the nearest opportunity is Ben Sasse's seat. More than meets the eye?
Two, a longtime director of Cabela's is Mike McCarthy of McCarthy Capital. [Former
Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel worked for McCarthy.] ES&S (electronic voting machines)
is owned by McCarthy Group, LLC.
Hillary Clinton went on the Howard Stern show this week for a wide-ranging interview with
the popular radio host, specifically focusing on her loss to Trump and what 2020 looks like --
a race she's recently dropped hints she could be prepared to enter, however unlikely that might
be.
While the Wednesday interview was widely covered in the media, there's one segment largely
overlooked in the mainstream, but which is stunning nonetheless. We've grown used to her 'Trump
is a Russian asset' line in her typical blame game fashion anytime she makes a media
appearance; however, she did repeat the less common conspiracy that links rival Democrat Bernie
Sanders to the Kremlin .
She wasn't even asked, but briefly voluntarily inserted the reference while discussing the
Mueller investigation.
Speaking of the Russians, she claimed, "They were like - 'hey let's do everything we can
to elect Donald Trump'. Those are quotes... those are words [they used]... And they also said
Bernie Sanders ."
"But you know that's for another day..."
Stern runs with it: "Do we hate Bernie Sanders?"
"I don't hate anybody," but agrees with Stern's assessment that he took a while to endorse
her: "He could have. He hurt me, there's no doubt about it ."
Then she delivered the final punch at a moment Sanders
continues to gain in the polls , especially among young voters: "And I hope he doesn't do
it again to whoever gets the nomination. Once is enough."
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT
MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Please
enter a valid email Thank you for subscribing!Something went wrong. Please refresh
and try again.
There it is: her disastrous 2016 loss continues to be the fault of everyone else, who are
apparently all somehow Russian puppets, even the Leftist Jewish Senator from Vermont (and let's
not forget the
Green Party's Jill Stein ).
* * *
If you can stomach watching it, she elsewhere describes in detail 'how she felt' being
present for Trump's inauguration ceremony. "Which was one of the hardest days of my life, to be
honest!"
This hag hijacked the Democrat party and transformed it into a cabal of criminal misfits,
pedofiles, liars, murderers and psychopaths. The DNC is a permanent reflection of her
treachery subscribing to everything unwholesome and wicked.
"We don't want to marginalize the more extreme candidates, but make them more 'Pied Piper'
candidates who actually represent the mainstream of the Republican Party. Pied Piper
candidates include, but aren't limited to:
Ted Cruz
Donald Trump
Ben Carson
We need to be elevating the Pied Piper candidates so that they are leaders of the pack and
tell the press to them seriously."
Clinton was actively promoting the campaign of a Russian Asset.
I have long thought that paul singer is representative of the worst people in the world
(argentina wtf)
and I'm glad carlson put his face up there so many times for his victims to see, in case he
ever ventures out of mordor undisguised. For all the money he has, a truly worthless pos, as
the closing comment made so clear. Good for Carlson, though, almost seems like actual
journalism. Kudos.
Glad to see someone in the MSM point out the obvious .Carlson called out Singer, but in
doing so he also called out the Republican Party, specifically Sen. Ben Sasse from Nebraska.
It will be interesting to see if Sasse is reelected.
Nebraskans – R and D both – should toss Sasse to the curb. He's angered
regular bat-poo crazy Republicans by his "never Trump" blather, then angered Nebraska
Democrats (both of us) by voting Trump/GOP well over 90 percent of the time.
Add to this his folksy BS appearances in the media and his execrable books, and he's a
classic empty suit. Closer to a straight Republican Mayor Pete than any thing else –
over-credentialed, over-ambitious and under performing.
Our Nebraska Democratic Party problem is two-fold: incredibly thin bench for decent
candidates and preponderance of Clinton/Obama/HRC leftovers running the state party. Will be
knocking on doors for Bernie come 2020 but state races are iffy at best.
Tucker has good sense. Perhaps Paul Singer is probably retiring from vultury. He's old and
it's a nasty fight. Singer is at the end of a 30 year stint of dispossessing other people.
Being vicious really isn't enough to keep the federal government at bay. Nor are his bribes.
There has been an unspoken policy of dispossessing poor and middle class people. Why? Is the
United States actually looking at a specific future? That wouldn't align with the free market
– tsk tsk. Or would it? Live free, die free. Somebody needs to define the word "free".
Did TPTB decide to deindustrialize this country that long ago? That's when they attacked the
unions. And the consensus might have been, "Go for it; get it while you can." So Paul Singer
did just that, along with other creepy people like Mitt Romney. Because once the country has
been hosed out by these guys we won't be pushing the old capitalist economy at all. We will
be pushing a globally connected, sustainable economy. Paul Singer is just a dung beetle. And
our government didn't want to discuss it because they would have had to create a safety net.
If we despise Singer, we must also despise Congress.
If we despise Singer, we must also despise Congress. -Susan the Other
Agreed. I think you can argue Congress (and the Executive Branch) have done more to help
the Chinese middle class than the American middle class over the last 30 years. Co-locating
our industrial base with the CCP on communist soil should be looked upon as the most radical
policy in our history but is not. Imagine if at the height of the Cold War we had told
Kruschev hey..how about you make all the stuff we need and we'll pay you $20 or $30T in trade
surplus over a number of years in hard currency which you can then parlay into geopolitical
power in Africa, South America, the ME and else where. What would the America of the fifties
think of this policy?
>Because once the country has been hosed out by these guys we won't be pushing the old
capitalist economy at all. We will be pushing a globally connected, sustainable economy.
Tucker Carlson Tears into Vulture Capitalist Paul Singer for Strip Mining American Towns
Posted on
December 5, 2019
by
Yves Smith
In a bit of synchronicity, Lambert gave a mini-speech tonight that dovetails with an important Tucker
Carlson segment about how hedge funds are destroying flyover. As UserFriendly lamented, "It is beyond sad
that Tucker Carlson is doing better journalism than just about anywhere else." That goes double given that
Carlson has only short segments and TV isn't well suited to complicated arguments.
Lambert fondly recalled the America he grew up in in Indiana, before his parents moved to Maine, where
most people were comfortable or at least not in perilous shape, where blue collar labor, like working in a
factory or repairing cars, was viewed with respect, and where cities and towns were economic and social
communities, with their own businesses and local notables, and national chain operations were few. Yes,
there was an underbelly to this era of broadly shared economic prosperity, such as gays needing to be
closeted and women having to get married if they wanted a decent lifestyle.
I'm not doing his remarks justice, but among other things, the greater sense of stability contributed to
more people being able to be legitimately optimistic. If you found a decent job, you weren't exposed to
MBA-induced downsizings or merger-induced closures. Even in the transitional 1970s, Lambert got his first
job in a mill! He liked his work and was able to support himself, rent an apartment, and enjoy some modest
luxuries. Contrast that with the economic status of a Walmart clerk or an Amazon warehouse worker. And even
now, the small towns that remain cling to activities that bring people together, as Lambert highlighted in
Water Cooler earlier this week:
Please watch this clip in full. Carlson begins with an unvarnished description of the wreckage that
America's heartlands have become as financial predators have sucked local businesses dry, leaving shrunken
communities, poverty and drug addiction in their wake.
Readers may wonder why Carlson singles out hedge funds rather than private equity, but he has
courageously singled out one of the biggest political forces in DC, the notorious vulture capitalist Paul
Singer, best known for his pitched battles with Peru and Argentina after he bought their debt at
knocked-down prices. Carlson describes some US examples from his
rapacious
playbook, zeroing on Delphi, where Singer got crisis bailout money and then shuttered most US
operation, and Cabela's, where a Singer-pressured takeover wrecked one of the few remaining prosperous
American small towns, Sidney, Nebraska. Not only are former employees still afraid of Singer, but even
Carlson was warned against taking on the famously vindictive Singer.
Kev said; "It will also slit your throat tomorrow."
This, aggressive mergers and acquisitions, has been going on for a very long time and everybody
always says that but I have yet to see any wealthy person suffer more than a small loss of a point or
2.
The fact is thats where we are at with capitalism. Money MUST become more money. There are no
outside considerations not even human life.
We all talk about robots going rogue and killing off humanity. Well money is already doing that.
Sound of the Suburbs, your comment suggests that this is the way things are and that there is nothing
to do about it, but that is wrong. It's not inherent to markets or to nature. In fact, "it's not even
hard" because we have agreed to it as part of the social contract, and created policies that enable it.
We can reverse the calculation by changing the tax rules, accounting rules, and legal liability rules and
this calculation reverses. TLDR; vote Bernie.
Which "we" are you talking about? You assume an entity with agency, when there is no such thing.
How do YOU suggest "WE" rewrite the non-existent "social contract?" Or change the tax rules, the
accounting rules, the Delaware corporations law, the Federal Codes of Civil and Criminal Procedure,
the current contents of the Code of Federal Regulations, the United States Code and all the other
trappings of legitimacy that give "us" the looting we suffer and remove any access to 'agency" to
re-fix things? I hope Bernie wins/is allowed to win, but he would need the skills of a Machiavelli and
Richelieu and Bismarck to "drain the swamp" of all the horrible creatures and muck that swirls there.
Not to say it's not worth trying "our" mope-level damndest to make it happen.
That said – it doesn't seem to me that Cabelas was 'forced' to sell. Singer owned less than 12% of the
stock. Is he to blame for either managerial greed, or lack of cojones? I'm not praising Singer, just saying
ISTM that he had couldn't have succeeded there without the greed or cowardice of management. I could be
wrong.
Carlson said this behavior is banned in the UK, how does that work?
Tthis is standard operating procedure for takeovers and greenmail in the US. First, 11% is going to be
way way above average trading volumes. Second, unless management owns a lot of shares or has large blocks
in the hands of loyal friends, many investors will follow the money and align with a greenmailer.
When a hostile player is forced to announce that he has a stake >5% by the SEC's 13-D filing
requirement, managements start sweating bullets. "Activist" hedge funds regularly make tons of trouble
with 10% to 15% stakes. CalPERS was a very effective activist investor in its glory years (not even
hostile but pushing hard for governance changes) with much smaller stakes.
The New York Post, which is very strong on covering hedge funds, confirms Carlson's take. From a 2016
article:
Hedgie Paul Singer hit another bull's-eye with his Cabela's investment.
Singer's Elliott Management bought an 11 percent stake in the hunting supply chain last October and
pressed the Springfield, Mo., chain to pursue strategic alternatives -- including a sale.
On Monday, his suggestion was heeded as the 55-year-old company said it agreed to a $5.5 billion,
$65.50-per-share takeover offer from rival Bass Pro Shops.
For Singer, who purchased much of his Cabela's stake at between $36 and $40 a share, Monday's news
means that the fund gained roughly 72 percent on its investment.
The same story depicts Singer as able to exert pressure with even smaller interests:
The hedge fund had an 8.8 percent stake in the company and was expected to net $58 million in
profits, The Post reported.
Elliott, which in June announced a 4.7 stake in PulteGroup, named three board members to the
Atlanta-based homebuilding company.
Last Thursday, it readied a new target, taking an 8.1 percent stake in Mentor Graphics, a
Wilsonville, Ore.-based developer of electronic design automation software.
Since then, shares of the company have risen 6 percent, to $26.24.
Mentor represents a "classic" Elliott investment, a source close to the matter told The Post,
adding that it is a "perfect time" for the company to sell itself.
You have a gift for explaining these things to people with a lot of education but not in finance. I
was confused by this, too, until I read your comment.
"CalPERS was a very effective activist investor in its glory years (not even hostile but pushing
hard for governance changes) with much smaller stakes."
Does that mean they pulled the same parasitical stripping of companies to raise money to help pay
pensions?
But, since it represents public employees and their paymasters, the taxpayers, couldn't CALPERS be
forced to only effect deals that create the most employment, ideally in California, rather than
destroy it? i.e. a ban on job destroying deals.
That would be a long term investment in California, rather than a short term means to raise cash,
no?
Tucker Carlson has taken remarkably courageous positions on a number of issues, including Syria,
Ukraine, Russia, etc.
Matt Stoller tweets praise of Carlson's report on Singer:
"There is a real debate on the right.
@TuckerCarlson just guts billionaire Paul Singer over the destruction of a Nebraska town through
financial predation. And Carlson is merciless towards Senator @BenSasse for taking $$$ and remaining
silent."
I have noticed a considerable uptick in comments across a whole range of sites about things "going to
get biblical".
When the next downturn happens there seems to be every indication that it's going to be on an
unprecedented scale.
Traditionally that's always seem to be time to have a good war, you can get the country to focus on an
external common enemy, you can ramp up industrial production providing full employment and you can use
national security to clamp down on dissent. Nuclear weapons seems to have put paid to that idea unless
our leaders convince themselves that they can survive and flourish in their bunkers (while simultaneously
relieving themselves of a large surplus of global population)
The populations willing embrace of the security state through all our electronic devices will be a large
hurdle for revolutionary elements as well as the crushing of dissent via institutions like the FBI and
the mainstream media.
The French and the Russians succeeded in the past. I doubt if I will either live long enough to see it
(being old) or even less likely to live through it.
Biblical in the OT sense. In the NT going biblical was a sacrifice.
I'm not fond of the phrase as it is a euphemism for violence or war. Under that definition, the US,
through declared and undeclared wars, has been going biblical for most of my life.
In the Jimmy Dore show this is almost a running joke now: He shows a clip with Tucker Carlson, where
Tucker is doing what you would expect the "liberal" media to do, like going against the deep state,
criticizing regime change wars (a few times with Tusi as his guest), or something like this great piece
against Singer and the hedge funds. Jimmy Dore then, each time, shakes his head in disbelief and asks, "Why
the hell is Tucker Carlson the only one who is allowed to say things like this? Its a mystery! I dont get
it!"
-- indeed: Why, and why on Fox News?
Because it sells. Can't let RT steal all the money with anti-war voices, Watching the Hawks, Jesse
Ventura, On Contact with Chris Hedges, these shows have viewership, and the Fox news owners know it.
Perhaps they'll have to make Tucker Carlson FOX, the TCFOX news channel. An anti-establishment,
pro-capitalism libertarianesque program experience, where they can decry all the pro-war democrats, and
RINO's, while making a case that capitalism isn't working cause of "big government".
Of course "private property" requiires state enforcement, which, when you remind libertarians that
they are "statists", they don't like that too much
It sells, but also doesn't pose a real threat to the powers that be. He creates very accurate,
specific, personally moving, well-produced, diagnoses of problems (he even names names!)
Then he and his ilk imply that the only solution is to magically create a government free white
Christian ethnostate where the good non-corrupt capitalists (like, as he states in this video, the
rockefellers and carnegies apparently were) will bring us back to the good ol days.
I strongly recommend sitting down for a good long policy discussion with a Tucker Carlson fan. In
my experience they will, without exception, go to great lengths to convince you that a vote for Bernie
will, undoubtedly, make all the problems Tucker describes worse, cuz gubmint bad and racist dog
whistles.
I suspect absent Carlson and his ilk, Bernie would actually have an easier time making inroads into
the republican base.
I heard no Carlson mention of "magically create a government free white Christian ethnostate
where the good non-corrupt capitalists (like, as he states in this video, the rockefellers and
carnegies apparently were) will bring us back to the good ol days."
Carlson seemed to suggest that prior US capitalists "felt some obligation" while, to me,
implying that current US capitalist versions do not feel this obligation.
Bernie could show he will listen to good ideas from all sides, even when the ideas surface on
Fox.
Carlson did mention some "countries have banned this kind of behavior, including the United
Kingdom" which suggests legislative changes are possible.
If Bernie were to pitch a legislative fix, he might pick up some Tucker Carlson fans.
Maybe Bernie might get mentioned favorably by Carlson.
Carnegie built hundreds of public libraries, Rockefeller donated thousands of acres of land,
Sears founder
Julius Rosenwald funded the beginnings of the NAACP.
Well, we can agree to disagree on whether or not Carlson's regularly invoked vision of
deserving Americans is racist or ethnocentric, and I'll admit his view of the role of
government can seem a bit schizophrenic at times – as far as I can tell he has strongly
libertarian sensibilities but in recent years figured out that "free" markets do, in fact,
require government regulations.
But I do strongly recommend reading a few social/economic histories of the US from the
industrial revolution through the beginning of the great depression.
I promise those fellows you mention were not quite so swell as Tucker makes out, and that
the relationship between philanthropy and capital hasn't changed as much as you seem to
think.
I'll just say this, if I were playing for the other team so to speak, and I were a GOP strategist
trying to secure a future for the party, the easy move would be to adopt a degree of populist rhetoric
and at least make some gestures towards easing the pain of towns which have been rendered post-industrial
wastelands by people like Singer and acknowledge what's been done. It would be almost comically easy to
paint the Democrats as the political party of globalized capitalism (because they are), even more so
because most of the places that are key liberal constituencies are also centers of the financial industry
(Manhattan and San Fransisco, for example). It wouldn't take much to graft the loathing of "urban elites"
in these communities onto PE and hedge funds. This, combined with toning down the nationalist rhetoric,
cutting back on the racism and homophobia (hell, even just keeping your mouth shut about it) would pretty
much build an unstoppable electoral majority.
Back in the days when I was more optimistic about the Democrats, I always tried to warn people that if
the Democrats (and other center left parties) waited too long and let the GOP be the first ones to the
lifeboats when neoliberalism started to sink, they'd get stuck holding the bag even if the GOP had more
to do with those policies historically. But pursuing this strategy would imply that the GOP is somehow
less beholden to its donors than the Democrats, which it isn't, but maybe Tucker Carlson is the canary in
the coal mine. Even people on the right realize the jig is up, and that they better start trying to cut
some kind of deal with the rising populist currents in US politics if they want to stay in power.
Tucker Carlson on Fox is making sense, while MSNBC and CNN peddle nonsense. What better reason to cancel
your cable and say adios to the fakery and programming.
In other unrelated news, Paul Singer has announced that he is providing funding to the Manhattan
Institute for Policy Research to try and understand why so many "flyover" Americans give their votes to
Trump. "It's a mystery. I have no idea why they would not vote for a good Republican candidate instead –
like my boy Mitt Romney" he stated. "Why would they do that? Maybe I should run for President like my buddy
Mike. Then they could all vote for me. Or else!"
Reading his Wikipedia page, I notice that he only donates money to things that effect him personally. He
went to Harvard so he gives to Harvard. He lives in New York so he gives money to the Food bank and the
Police – which both serve to keep the place calm. He is Jewish so he gives a ton to money to pro-Israel
causes. He votes Republican so he helps fund Republicans that will defend wealthy people like him. One son
comes out as gay so he gives to same-sex marriage & LGBTQ causes. He provides money to organizations that
fight taxes being imposed on wealthy people like himself. It is a very narrow circle of concerns that he
has. And the vast bulk of Americans are outside this circle I note.
But of all people to call him on his part in destroying the real economy of the United States. That which
actually makes stuff and does stuff instead of financial bs. Of all the people to do so it is
Tucker-goddamnn-Carlson. And on Fox News to boot. The same person that "liberal" protesters were
demonstrating outside his home with his family inside because they did not like his beliefs. It is kinda
funny when you think about it. A right wing commentator is attacking the Left. But from their left.
It is kinda funny when you think about it. A right wing commentator is attacking the Left. But from
their left.
What better proof that there is no Left left in the Left any more? Today's Left is to the right of
what used to be the Centre, Liberals are what used to be Conservative and Conservatives have moved into
"here there be dragons" territory. .
This is nonsense, the DSA for example is to the right of what used to be the Center? They aren't
left enough for some, including some of their members I suspect but .. But the left period has little
actual power is the thing. And it's all about taking power.
Like I've mentioned previously – politically .. our society has gone through a phase-shift. Mr.
Carlson is but just one example. So are those of us who held our noses, after seeing how transparently
conniving the DNC et al were, and voted for the Julius de Orange !
"the crushing of dissent via institutions like the FBI and the mainstream media"
This will be unnecessary. Recent research indicates that when people feel like they are being
watched, they self-censor.
The growing number of activist special interest groups with a myriad of hot topics and disparate
worldviews and interests just about guarantees that anything you say other than parroting the current
majority opinion will offend someone.
Couple that with murky legal powers, the unpredictability of the Twitter/Instagram mob, doxing, and
the expansion, both in extent and number of players, of ubiquitous surveillance, and significant
dissent becomes more and more a thing of the past.
I wonder if this has anything to do with the growing unreliability of political polls?
There is a populist Left. Its figurehead is Bernie but there are growing local/state organizations
like the DSA that may become relevant nationally in the not-too-distant future. AOC is a
current/future leader for this faction.
There is a populist Right. Its figurehead is Trump. From what I can tell, they're primarily online
but are also gaining strength in traditional conservative institutions like churches, community orgs,
etc.. Tucker appeals to this group. Josh Hawley is a Senator from MO with presidential ambitions who I
expect will lead this faction after Trump is gone. He is the slick-but-folksy and deadly serious
neo-Fascist type many on this board worry/warn about taking power if a real Left does not arise to
counter it/him.
Then there is the establishment elites (or ruling class, or deep state, whatever), which are
primarily Neoliberal (domestic policy) and Neoconservative (foreign policy). There have long been
these types in both parties, differing only by degree, but Trump has forced most of the "liberal"
Republicans into the D party. This group controls the money and most of the key institutions,
particularly the major media, tech, energy, and financial corporations, but their grip is slipping and
the mask is falling off. Some will side with the populist Left, but most will welcome the new Fascism,
i.e. the DNC apparatchiks who would rather lose to Trump than win with Bernie.
Mitt Romney, Bain Capital, another species of parasite, sucking some of the last marrow out of the
bones of America. Beware of billionaires who demonstrate that they are aliens to our society.
I read Tucker Carlsons book "ship of fools". It is all in there: criticism of the war fare state, Wall
Street, TBTF bail outs a.s.o. He spares neither Republicans nor Democrats. Kinda crazy but he voices more or
less exactly what Sanders is saying as well. Except he doesn´t get "Medicare for all" and he is social
conservative. Still you might think that there is enough common ground to work together. Instead we get
crazy idendity politics. I more and more believe that it is indeed so that the people on top have realised
that "identity politics" is the best thing that ever happened to them: divice et impera. Divide and rule as
already the Romans knew
And the biggest threat from Tucker Carlson is that the lower orders will believe that
Carlson-cum-Trump are as much their friend as Sanders. One of the longest-standing Idpol divisions in
US history has been unions vs. scabs. Over the past half-century, the Democratic Party has realigned
its public image in favor of the scabs. The union leadership stayed with the Dems, but the
rank-and-file long ago moved over to the Repubs. Old wine, new bottle.
Unions were weakened and made easier to destroy using IdPol. First by encouraging banning,
sometimes expelling, blacks from the various unions and secondly getting rid of first the
communists, then the socialists, and finally those deemed too liberal (not conservative enough).
Although the efforts by business interests, often helped by government at all levels, to
segregate unions was mainly in the 19th century and the "Better Dead Than Red" campaign was in the
20th especially after 1947, the use of racism and anti-leftism was done in both centuries.
You can see similar successful splintering of the Civil Rights Movements. First separating the
Suffragettes from from the anti-racism efforts. Then later the efforts to unite the Women's Rights
Movement with the successful efforts against racism was the 1960s were thwarted.
Let us just say that reform movement of the past two centuries has been splintered. The earlier
women's rights and the abolitionists, blacks and whites throughout the unions, suffragettes and the
anti lynching efforts, communists from everyone else, anti poverty from equal rights ( MLK did get
lead poisoning when he tried) and so.
So when I see the latest efforts to use IdPol to split poor people from everyone else or blacks
from whites, and see people falling for the same tactics I just lose my mind. Obviously.
You might think but you'd be wrong. St Clair in Counterpunch calls hims Tuckkker Carlson–apparently
because Carlson agrees with Trump on things like immigration. I read Carlson's book too and would say
only about half of it was material I would agree with. But the notion that anyone who doesn't stand up to
IDPol standards is a villain is crushing the left. They obsess over Trump while the wealthy of both
parties wreck the country.
I'd go along sooner with Tucker Carlson than Mr. St Clair, whose CP smeared both Caitlin Johnstone
and CJ Hopkins. St Clair and CP are controlled "oppo", IMO.
The commenter you were replying to had it right: divide et impera is the order of the day;
sometimes from unexpected sources, like the one mentioned above.
Great post! TC has strode out of the Fox News subset of the Overton window a number of times in recent
years.
PS: Yves, some introductory text to the part about Lambert's speech apparently didn't make it into the
post. It would fit between the 1st and 2nd paragraphs.
In my opinion, Tucker Carlson represents a very real and very active right-libertarian view that has been
consistently present within the Republican Party for decades. Anti-war, anti-imperialist, anti-big
business/pro-small business, and of course, anti-big union. Robert Taft comes to mind. I don't share their
"ideologies" but as a self-described socialist, I am deeply attracted to their criticisms. And criticisms
ARE important and necessary, even if the solutions are left wanting. I dearly hope that his popularity is a
sign of the realignment of politics, where issues of class and war become commonplace and issues of "to
impeach or not to impeach" fall by the wayside. I recognize that my hopes may not turn to realities.
But for an employee it makes no difference if they work for a big or small business (only big business
on average is LESS exploitative if anything – if for no other reason but they can afford to be – some of
the worst exploitation out there is employees working for small business owners).
Exactly,
right
libertarian. Within the libertarian spectrum there are real and then
royal libertarians, Tucker is of the latter.
http://geolib.com/essays/sullivan.dan/royallib.html
What are his immigration views? Are people motivated to come here because this global vulture octopus
thing has ruined their home market?
I have long thought that paul singer is representative of the worst people in the world (argentina wtf)
and I'm glad carlson put his face up there so many times for his victims to see, in case he ever ventures
out of mordor undisguised. For all the money he has, a truly worthless pos, as the closing comment made so
clear. Good for Carlson, though, almost seems like actual journalism. Kudos.
If we assume that good mergers achieve cost savings which ultimately benefit the consumer (they very
often do, assuming a good merger), is it better that a relatively large number of people save money on
goods, or that a relatively smaller number of people keep duplicate, unnecessary jobs?
Can you name such a good merger? Mergers by definition must reduce competition, and by classical
Liberal theory competition is what reduces prices for consumers.
In Neoliberal theory monopoly is the just reward for beating the competition. Sorry consumers! Bad
luck workers!
By what criteria do you deem a job unnecessary? Neoliberal criteria.
Here are some ways a merger can be bad for the US consumer.
If a merger results in employee pensions being transferred to the Pension Benefit Guarantee
Corporation (US government funded) then employee pension costs are being transferred to the US
taxpayer/consumer.
Or consider that a merger might create a monopoly that can raise consumer prices.
How does one determine that a proposed merger will be a good one that will "ultimately benefit the
consumer."?
Good morning Yves.
Tucker Carlson invoke Paul Singer noted ultra vulture as vehicle to transport Yves, others to Fox News
Commentary!
Seems the Good Night and Good Luck segue from Edward R Murro via Keith Olbermann to Tucker Carlson is
complete.
Thank you for this. It is a story that has been repeated countless times across the country, including
the midwestern town where I was born and raised.
As for Carlson being the only source of occasional light in the MSM -- the clarification continues. It has
truly become Bizarro World.
I wonder if the powers at be at Fox News allow Tucker to go on these rants because they know two things:
1.) 99% of bought and paid for Republican politicians will never do anything about this except perhaps some
lip service here and there.
2.) The fact that it's on Fox News will cause the Vichy left to not believe it's real or perhaps a Russian
phy op against American capitalism. Thus outside of the Sanders camp there will be no push/support for any
change.
Glad to see someone in the MSM point out the obvious .Carlson called out Singer, but in doing so he also
called out the Republican Party, specifically Sen. Ben Sasse from Nebraska. It will be interesting to see if
Sasse is reelected.
Nebraskans – R and D both – should toss Sasse to the curb. He's angered regular bat-poo crazy
Republicans by his "never Trump" blather, then angered Nebraska Democrats (both of us) by voting
Trump/GOP well over 90 percent of the time.
Add to this his folksy BS appearances in the media and his execrable books, and he's a classic empty
suit. Closer to a straight Republican Mayor Pete than any thing else – over-credentialed, over-ambitious
and under performing.
Our Nebraska Democratic Party problem is two-fold: incredibly thin bench for decent candidates and
preponderance of Clinton/Obama/HRC leftovers running the state party. Will be knocking on doors for
Bernie come 2020 but state races are iffy at best.
In a wacky pre apocalyptic world, truth and justice is pined for by many. Conservation is a critical
requirement. I now look at what is true and what is not, I know, very subjective. Those folks that tell us
to do things that harm us are transparent. We follow them at our peril.
I consider Sanders the most conservative option we have for the nation. He intends to 'conserve' our nation
and the people first. Something we have not had for decades, or ever, perhaps. Giving the people with the
most to lose a voice in how things move forward is a critical point of distinction from the rest of the
field.
so vote conservative. Protect that which makes us whole. Stop the looting and take back what has been stolen
to benefit all instead of a small clique of criminals.
But I'm an optimist.
Tucker has good sense. Perhaps Paul Singer is probably retiring from vultury. He's old and it's a nasty
fight. Singer is at the end of a 30 year stint of dispossessing other people. Being vicious really isn't
enough to keep the federal government at bay. Nor are his bribes. There has been an unspoken policy of
dispossessing poor and middle class people. Why? Is the United States actually looking at a specific future?
That wouldn't align with the free market – tsk tsk. Or would it? Live free, die free. Somebody needs to
define the word "free". Did TPTB decide to deindustrialize this country that long ago? That's when they
attacked the unions. And the consensus might have been, "Go for it; get it while you can." So Paul Singer
did just that, along with other creepy people like Mitt Romney. Because once the country has been hosed out
by these guys we won't be pushing the old capitalist economy at all. We will be pushing a globally
connected, sustainable economy. Paul Singer is just a dung beetle. And our government didn't want to discuss
it because they would have had to create a safety net. If we despise Singer, we must also despise Congress.
If we despise Singer, we must also despise Congress.
-Susan the Other
Agreed. I think you can argue Congress (and the Executive Branch) have done more to help the Chinese
middle class than the American middle class over the last 30 years. Co-locating our industrial base with
the CCP on communist soil should be looked upon as the most radical policy in our history but is not.
Imagine if at the height of the Cold War we had told Kruschev hey..how about you make all the stuff we
need and we'll pay you $20 or $30T in trade surplus over a number of years in hard currency which you can
then parlay into geopolitical power in Africa, South America, the ME and else where. What would the
America of the fifties think of this policy?
>Because once the country has been hosed out by these guys we won't be pushing the old capitalist
economy at all. We will be pushing a globally connected, sustainable economy.
Tucker Carlson has been making comments like this for a long time. And he's not a libertarian. He
believes in regulated capitalism.
What we might be seeing is a the beginning of the two parties flipping from left to right on economic
issues. The social issues just obscure it, as they were designed to do.
the only question then is to what extent social issues DERAIL the economic issues then. If social
issues mean paid family leave must be opposed for example because women oughta be barefoot and pregnant,
then that's derailing of real concrete material benefits period. Of course progressive socially is where
demographics trend.
But of course using the example of paid family leave, we're starting from a country with almost no
safety net to begin with, and there are bigger problems with the labor market as well (people having gig
jobs with NO benefits, they aren't going to be helped by policy changes to job provided benefits period).
Medicare for All is the issue that most incisively cuts through this ruling-class kayfabe. Both the
top-dog Dems and the top-dog Repubs get their jollies having their boots licked by workers in abject fear
for the health and life of their families. It is a neon testosterone line that neither Carlson nor Trump
will cross.
I find a good explanation for many behaviors is the human practice of favoring people in their circle of
acquaintances, friends and families, and showing some degree of contempt to others.
Some phrases
He (She) is not one of us! (Typically in an upper class UK accent)
The Others (Typically in a string ulster accent)
Not on our team (US)
He's a Catholic
He's a peasant
The attitude of "them and us" coupled with Greed, appears to drive many bad Human behaviors.
Indeed! My libertarian friend* is all about helping friends and family, I have seen him do it many
times. I totally agree with him, but I have concluded that his definition of "friends and family" is just
somewhat more restrictive than mine.
* True convo: "What about if listeria in the bologna at the nursing home kills your granny?" "Ah, a
whacking great lawsuit!"
Paul Singer is leading the hedge fund group that is trying to take over PG&E from the existing
stockholders/hedge funds through the bankruptcy process. He even offered more money to PG&E fire victims
($2.5B), that PG&E almost met (they want to pay part of the funds in stock).
Does anyone have an idea how he plans to make money by taking over PG&E? While the stock is very low, its
chance of going back to where it was is very low. Besides, PG&E is under pressure to actually maintain and
fire proof the distribution/transmission system and that won't be cheap.
Here's Jon Stewart roasting Tucker Carlson back in 2006 when he was just a clown with a bow-tie. A rare
and well deserved confrontation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE
Since then Tucker has ditched his bow-tie and developed a conscience.
We used to call this "being Dutch uncle."
Tucker has CHANGED his views on lots of things. Like I have. To be able to admit you were wrong is a big
deal. He supported the Iraq War. I didn't. In retrospect, he realized he did this because of group think
cool kids thing. Then he realized that he had been conned, He doesn't like being conned. I thought Obama's
speech was the opposite of John Edwards "2 Americas". Obama was delivering a "con" I.e. "We are all One
America". So now Tucker and I, from different sides, are more skeptical. I started questioning my groupthink
Democratic viewpoint in 2004. Slowly I realized that I too had been conned. So some of those on the "right"
and Some of those on the "left" have sought other ports to dock in as we figure this all out. Naked
Capitalism is one of those docks. So soon we should introduce Tucker to Yves.
As I have frequently pointed out to my once-upon-a-time "liberal" friends, Tucker Carlson is often these
days a worthwhile antidote to the collective yelpings & bleatings of the brain-snatched amen corner on MSNBC
& CNN. In this instance (and others) his observations are rational and clearly articulated. He makes sense!
And he is on the correct (not far right) side of the topic. The continuing Iraq/Syria catastrophe, PutinGate
and the hedge fund hooligan Paul Singer are just three recent examples. His arguments (and his snark) are
well played. Alas, following these sensible segments, he is still a Fox guy and is obliged to revert to Fox
boilerplate for most of the rest of the night. But in our present crackbrained media environment, be
thankful for small mercies such as Tucker's moments.
Thanks for the post. I probably would have missed this without you.
There are a couple things that are interesting to me. First, why does Tucker Carlson call out Ben Sasse
for accepting a maxed out campaign contribution from Paul Singer? The Governor of Nebraska then and now is
Pete Ricketts. His father (Joe – TD Ameritrade, Chicago Cubs) is a "very good friend" of Paul Singer.
Everyone believes Pete Ricketts wants to run for US Senate and the nearest opportunity is Ben Sasse's seat.
More than meets the eye?
Two, a longtime director of Cabela's is Mike McCarthy of McCarthy Capital. [Former Secretary of Defense
Chuck Hagel worked for McCarthy.] ES&S (electronic voting machines) is owned by McCarthy Group, LLC.
The poll graph without three day averaging is a great visual illustration of the margin of
error concept. It's even clear in the averaged version. I guarantee people are NOT changing
their minds that fast, and I'm sure all the issues Lambert highlighted are contributing to
the inaccuracies.
That said, a few trends are clear. Biden is trending steadily (but very slowly) downward.
Sanders and Buttigieg are trending up, Sanders slowly and Buttigieg somewhat faster, while
Warren is settling back to her long term average after a bump in October. Harris' decision to
withdraw looks like a good one. Undecided numbers are all over the place, and tend to spike
up when other lines spike down, so I'm guessing that's down to differing polling
methodologies and how hard people are pushed to make a call.
Are these pollsters reading all twenty names over the telephone? Or is the polled asked to
name a candidate? I can't get my head around how to manage a list of this many candidates by
voice without 'Name Recognition' being the first choice.
> Are these pollsters reading all twenty names over the telephone?
That's a very good question. Is the list of names so long -- I don't think we've ever had
one so long -- that it enables pollsters to game the polls in new ways? Could be such a
simple and obvious mode of rigging that we did not see it.
Morning Consult (B/C)
Nov 25 – Dec 1
Mon – Sun
15,773 Likely
National
16 candidate names, plus "Someone else" (not present in data source, derived in app)
Details here: https://morningconsult.com/2020-democratic-primary/
The differences are Joe Sestak and Steve Bullock in HarrisX but not MC, going to guess
that MC decided not to list them because they dropped, and if they asked the names during the
survey their report them in the conveniently names "Someone else" category.
Regarding ChrisPacific's point about Undecideds, yes, this is affected by methodology and
whose polls came out on a particular day.
And more generally, we should expect to see noise in this data. These are minuscule
samples compared to the actual voting universe of over 65 million. The "Margin of Error" /
"Confidence Interval" claims are based on the assumption that all polls are distributed as a
uniform bell curve. Arguably useful for getting the noise out of stats for physical
observations of mechanical models, but absurd for human polling. Pollsters (who work mostly
in marketing) use MoE/CI to convince clients spend money on small polls and then spin out
reassuring MoE or CI (which scale to each other, bigger MoE = narrower CI). (Tangentially, on
political campaigns, the tactical advantages to be found in population data come from looking
into what's happening in the noise, not from smoothing it out and then assessing the
distorted surface).
And as in most viscous media, quick changes tend to snap back to origin, slow ones push
though. Consider also that a) these candidates are introducing themselves, impressions
develop over time, and engagement is still low. Also, the context of US society may be
gradually changing, but it would take a sudden shock (like 9/11 at the time) to change the
background context and be reflected in a suddenly shift in Dem Primary polls.
I participated in the last Des Moines Register/CNN Iowa poll. The pollster was required to
read all of the names, even when I could name one immediately.
The call came on my cell phone from a restricted number. I asked for what company or
candidate the poll was being conducted; the interviewer said that she was not given that
information, but at the very end I was asked whether I would be willing to talk to a reporter
from CNN or the DMR (I declined). She did tell me the research firm for which she worked,
which I later saw was the name of the firm that had conducted the poll. When I saw the
original release, I wondered whether I was correct that this was the poll, since I remembered
a question about my preference for a health care system that wasn't in the original release.
That result was released at a later date.
The M4A option for that question was simply M4A, without additional information or
qualifiers. I, as is usual for me, couldn't simply answer a multiple choice question, but
explained that I supported improved M4A, and that current Medicare is still expensive. The
interviewer told me that she herself has trouble affording Medicare, and that she
particularly has trouble paying for her medication. (We got a little chatty.)
The research firm was also contacting Republicans. She said that I had been the first
Democrat that she had reached that day, and that Republicans got different questions. She did
not know whom she was calling and, at the end, asked my first name so that her company could
verify that she had reached the right individual.
I'll check back here in case there are any other questions about the poll that I might be
able to answer. If anyone is interested in the questions themselves, those are already
available online.
Why did I agree to participate? To have my support for Bernie counted, of course!
"... A more compelling explanation for the persistence of a large global U.S. military footprint, and the concomitant creep of oversees commitments, is to be found in domestic politics. Trump's rhetoric can diverge sharply from reality without consequence because few in his party have an incentive to hold him accountable. In this hyper-polarized political moment, most voters will stick with their party regardless of how many campaign pledges are broken or foreign policy initiatives end in failure. With an all-volunteer military, flattening taxes, and deficit financing, the vast majority of Americans are insulated from the costs of American foreign policy. So long as most Americans want to look tough and influential without paying for it, politicians won't be punished for living in the same fantasy world as voters. ..."
"... The main reason why America's military commitments remain unchanged under Trump may simply be that the president doesn't really want to reduce them. ..."
aul MacDonald and Joseph Parent
explain in detail that Trump hasn't reduced U.S. military commitments overseas:
But after nearly three years in office, Trump's promised retrenchment has yet to
materialize. The president hasn't meaningfully altered the U.S. global military footprint he
inherited from President Barack Obama. Nor has he shifted the costly burden of defending U.S.
allies. To the contrary, he loaded even greater military responsibilities on the United
States while either ramping up or maintaining U.S. involvement in the conflicts in
Afghanistan, Syria, and elsewhere. On practically every other issue, Trump departed radically
from the path of his predecessor. But when it came to troop deployments and other overseas
defense commitments, he largely preserved the chessboard he inherited -- promises to the
contrary be damned.
MacDonald and Parent's article complements my earlier
post about U.S. "global commitments" very nicely. When we look at the specifics of Trump's
record, we see that he isn't ending U.S. military involvement anywhere. He isn't bringing
anyone home. On the contrary, he has been sending even more American troops to the Middle East
just this year alone. While he is being excoriated for withdrawals that never happen, he is
maintaining or steadily increasing the U.S. military presence in foreign countries. Many Trump
detractors and supporters are so invested in the narrative that Trump is presiding over
"withdrawal" that they are ignoring what the president has actually done. Trump's approach to
U.S. military involvement might be described as "loudly declaring withdrawal while maintaining
or increasing troop levels." Almost everyone pays attention only to his rhetoric about leaving
this or that country and treats it as if it is really happening. Meanwhile, the number of
military personnel deployed overseas never goes down.
The authors offer a possible explanation for why Trump has been able to get away with
this:
A more compelling explanation for the persistence of a large global U.S. military
footprint, and the concomitant creep of oversees commitments, is to be found in domestic
politics. Trump's rhetoric can diverge sharply from reality without consequence because few
in his party have an incentive to hold him accountable. In this hyper-polarized political
moment, most voters will stick with their party regardless of how many campaign pledges are
broken or foreign policy initiatives end in failure. With an all-volunteer military,
flattening taxes, and deficit financing, the vast majority of Americans are insulated from
the costs of American foreign policy. So long as most Americans want to look tough and
influential without paying for it, politicians won't be punished for living in the same
fantasy world as voters.
Trump is further insulated from scrutiny and criticism because he is frequently described as
presiding over a "retreat" from the world. Most news reports and commentary pieces reinforce
this false impression that Trump seeks to get the U.S. out of foreign entanglements. There are
relatively few people pointing out the truth that MacDonald and Parent spell out in their
article. The main reason why America's military commitments remain unchanged under Trump
may simply be that the president doesn't really want to reduce them.
Clinton curse sill is hanging over Democratic Party candidates like Damocles sword. 25 year
of betrayal of their core constituency and their alliance with Wall Street has consequences,
which they now feel. Obama now is openly despised by Democratic voters as the person who betrayed
his electorate and then enriched himself in classing "revolving door" corruption scheme. The
phrase "change is can believe in" became a curse. Bill Clinton is mired in Epstein scandal. You
can't get worse cheerleaders for the party and it does not have anybody else.
Notable quotes:
"... Obama was directly addressing Silicon Valley's wealthiest Democratic donors, telling them to "chill" in their debate over the party's candidates, and seeking to ease the tensions among tech billionaires who have broken into separate camps backing Pete Buttigieg, Joe Biden, and -- most surprisingly -- Elizabeth Warren ..."
"... Gallup released a poll last week that had some troubling news for Democrats, as only 66% of the party faithful said they're enthusiastic about the upcoming election. ..."
While there are still 15 candidates running for the Democratic nomination (after the
withdrawal of Kamala Harris earlier today), only four are polling in double digits, with most
either at 1% or 0%. But Obama said whoever gets the nod should get the vote.
"There will be differences" between the candidates, Obama said, "but I want us to make sure
that we keep in mind that, relative to the ultimate goal, which is to defeat a president and a
party that has taken a sharp turn away from a lot of the core traditions and values and
institutional commitments that built this country," those differences are "relatively
minor."
"The field will narrow and there's going to be one person, and if that is not your perfect
candidate and there are certain aspects of what they say that you don't agree with and you
don't find them completely inspiring the way you'd like, I don't care," he said. "Because the
choice is so stark and the stakes are so high that you cannot afford to be ambivalent in this
race."
Obama was directly addressing Silicon Valley's wealthiest Democratic donors, telling
them to "chill" in their debate over the party's candidates, and seeking to ease the tensions
among tech billionaires who have broken into separate camps backing Pete Buttigieg, Joe Biden,
and -- most surprisingly -- Elizabeth Warren , according to recode.
Obama may have his job cut out for him: with many Democratic voters confused or merely bored
silly by the current roster of candidates, two newcomers, Former Massachusetts Gov. Deval
Patrick and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, entered the race adding further to
the confusion. Last month, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, for instance, drew fewer than
100 people to a South Carolina "Environmental Justice" forum. And she's a frontrunner!
Meanwhile, Gallup released a poll last week that had some troubling news for Democrats,
as only 66% of the party faithful said they're enthusiastic about the upcoming election.
And while for Republicans the number is 65%, "this differed from the typical pattern Gallup has
seen over the years, whereby those who identify with the political party of the incumbent
president have been less enthusiastic about voting than members of the opposing party," Gallup
wrote.
Ironically, Obama isn't alone in saying Democrats need to hold their nose when they vote for
the eventual nominee. Joe Biden's wife, Jill, said in August that her husband might not be the
best candidate, but told voters "maybe you have to swallow a little bit" and vote for him
anyway.
"Your candidate might be better on, I don't know, health care, than Joe is," Jill Biden said
on MSNBC, "but you've got to look at who's going to win this election, and maybe you have to
swallow a little bit and say, 'OK, I personally like so-and-so better,' but your bottom line
has to be that we have to beat Trump."
During a campaign stop in New Hampshire, she repeated the point. "I know that not all of you
are committed to my husband, and I respect that. But I want you to think about your candidate,
his or her electability, and who's going to win this race. So I think if your goal -- I know my
goal -- is to beat Donald Trump, we have to have someone who can beat him," she said.
In his foreign policy Trump looks like a Republican Obama, save Nobel Peace Price. If Obama was/is a CIA-democrat, this guy
is a Deep State controlled republican. Why is the Deep State is attacking him is completely unclear. May be they just do not like unpredictable,
inpulsive politicians
Despite his surrender "Neocon crazies from the basement" still attack his exactly the same way as they attacked him for pretty
mundane meeting with Putin and other fake "misdeeds" like Ukrainegate
And that means that he lost a considerable part of his electorate: the anti-war republicans and former Sanders supporters, who voted
for him in 2016 to block Hillary election.
And in no way he is an economic nationalist. He is "national neoliberal" which rejects parts of neoliberal globalization based on
treaties and prefer to bully nations to compliance that favor the US interests instead of treaties. And his "fight" with the Deep state
resemble so closely to complete and unconditional surrender, that you might have difficulties to distinguish between the two. Most of
his appointees are rabid neocons. Just look at Pompeo, Bolton, Fiona Hill. That that extends far beyond those obvious crazies.
Washington Post stating that he "has gone to extraordinary lengths to conceal details" of his discussions with Russian President
Vladimir Putin - telling Fox News host Jeanine Pirro in a phone interview that he would be willing to release the details of a private
conversation in Helsinki last summer.
"I would. I don't care," Trump told Pirro, adding: "I'm not keeping anything under wraps. I couldn't care less."
"I mean, it's so ridiculous, these people making up," Trump said of the WaPo report.
The president referred to his roughly two-hour dialogue with Putin in Helsinki -- at which only the leaders and their translators
were present -- as "a great conversation" that included discussions about "securing Israel and lots of other things."
"I had a conversation like every president does," Trump said Saturday. "You sit with the president of various countries. I
do it with all countries." -
Politico
In July an attempt by House Democrats to subpoena Trump's Helsinki interpreter was quashed by Republicans. "The Washington Post
is almost as bad, or probably as bad, as the New York Times," Trump said. When Pirro asked Trump about a Friday night New York
Times report that the FBI had opened an inquiry into whether he was working for Putin, Pirro asked Trump "Are you now or have you
ever worked for Russia, Mr. President?" "I think it's the most insulting thing I've ever been asked," Trump responded. "I think
it's the most insulting article I've ever had written."
Trump went on an
epic tweetstorm Saturday following the Times article, defending his 2017 firing of former FBI Director James Comey, and tweeting
that he has been "FAR tougher on Russia than Obama, Bush or Clinton. Maybe tougher than any other President. At the same time, &
as I have often said, getting along with Russia is a good thing, not a bad thing. I fully expect that someday we will have good relations
with Russia again!"
While Obama organized 2014 coup data that smashed contitutional oder in Ukraine and installed far-right nationalists in power (Nulandgate) Obamam did not suppled arms toUkrains; Trump did
In his foreign policy Trump looks
like a Republican Obama, save Nobel Peace Price. If Obama was/is a CIA-democrat, this guy is a Deep State controlled republican. Why
is the Deep State is attacking him is completely unclear. May be they just do not like unpredictable, impulsive politicians
Despite his surrender "Neocon crazies from the basement" still attack his exactly the same way as they attacked him for
pretty mundane meeting with Putin and other fake "misdeeds" like Ukrainegate
And that means that he lost a considerable part of his electorate: the anti-war republicans
and former Sanders supporters, who voted for him in 2016 to block Hillary election.
And in no way he is an economic nationalist. He is
"national neoliberal" which rejects parts of neoliberal globalization based on treaties and
prefer to bully nations to compliance that favor the US interests instead of treaties. And his "fight" with the Deep state resemble so closely to complete and unconditional
surrender, that you might have difficulties to distinguish between the two. Most of his appointees are rabid neocons. Just look at Pompeo, Bolton, Fiona Hill. That that extends far beyond
those obvious crazies.
Washington
Post stating that he "has gone to extraordinary lengths to conceal details" of his
discussions with Russian President Vladimir Putin - telling Fox News host Jeanine Pirro in a
phone interview that he would be willing to release the details of a private conversation in
Helsinki last summer.
"I would. I don't care," Trump told Pirro, adding: "I'm not keeping anything under wraps. I
couldn't care less."
"I mean, it's so ridiculous, these people making up," Trump said of the WaPo report.
The president referred to his roughly two-hour dialogue with Putin in Helsinki -- at which
only the leaders and their translators were present -- as "a great conversation" that
included discussions about "securing Israel and lots of other things."
"I had a conversation like every president does," Trump said Saturday. "You sit with the
president of various countries. I do it with all countries." -
Politico
In July an attempt by House Democrats to subpoena Trump's Helsinki interpreter was quashed
by Republicans. "The Washington Post is almost as bad, or probably as bad, as the New York Times," Trump
said. When Pirro asked Trump about a Friday night New York Times report that the FBI had opened an
inquiry into whether he was working for Putin, Pirro asked Trump "Are you now or have you ever
worked for Russia, Mr. President?" "I think it's the most insulting thing I've ever been asked," Trump responded. "I think it's
the most insulting article I've ever had written."
Trump went on an
epic tweetstorm Saturday following the Times article, defending his 2017 firing of former
FBI Director James Comey, and tweeting that he has been "FAR tougher on Russia than Obama, Bush
or Clinton. Maybe tougher than any other President. At the same time, & as I have often
said, getting along with Russia is a good thing, not a bad thing. I fully expect that someday
we will have good relations with Russia again!"
"... As part of the scam, parents would "donate" money to a fake charity run by Singer. The funds would then be laundered to either pay off an SAT or ACT administrator to take the exams or bribe an employee in college athletics to name the rich, non-athlete children as recruits. Virtually every scenario relied on multiple layers of corruption, all of which eventually allowed wealthy students to masquerade as "deserving" of the merit-based college slots they paid up to half a million dollars to "qualify" for. ..."
"... When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organised interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the US political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favor policy change, they generally do not get it. ..."
"... The conclusion of the study? We live in an oligarchy: ..."
The college bribery scandal reveals an ugly truth: our society is unjust, dominated by a small elite. Actress Lori
Loughlin, who has been implicated in the Operation Varsity Blues scandal. Credit:
Featureflash Photo Agency/Shutterstock The most destructive
and pervasive myth in America today is that we live in a meritocracy. Our elites, so the myth goes, earned their places at Yale and
Harvard, on Wall Street and in Washington -- not because of the accident of their birth, but because they are better, stronger, and
smarter than the rest of us. Therefore, they think, they've "earned" their places in the halls of power and "deserve" to lead.
The fervor with which so many believe this enables elites to lord over those worse off than they are. On we slumber, believing
that we live in a country that values justice, instead of working towards a more equitable and authentically meritocratic society.
Take the Operation Varsity Blues scandal. On Tuesday, the FBI and federal prosecutors announced that 50 people had been charged in,
as Sports Illustrated put it , "a nationwide college admissions scheme that used bribes to help potential students cheat
on college entrance exams or to pose as potential athletic recruits to get admitted to high-profile universities." Thirty-three parents,
nine collegiate coaches, two SAT/ACT exam administrators, an exam proctor,
and a college athletics administrator were among those charged. The man who allegedly ran the scheme, William Rick Singer, pled
guilty to four charges of racketeering conspiracy, money laundering conspiracy, conspiracy to defraud the U.S., and obstruction of
justice.
As part of the scam, parents would "donate" money to a fake charity run by Singer. The funds would then be laundered to either
pay off an SAT or ACT administrator to take the exams or bribe an employee in college athletics to name the rich, non-athlete children
as recruits. Virtually every scenario relied on multiple layers of corruption, all of which eventually allowed wealthy students to
masquerade as "deserving" of the merit-based college slots they paid up to half a million dollars to "qualify" for.
Cheating. Bribery. Lying. The wealthy and privileged buying what was reserved for the deserving. It's all there on vivid display.
Modern American society has
become increasingly and
banally corrupt , both in the ways in which "justice" is meted out and in who is allowed to access elite education and the power
that comes with it.
The average American citizen has very little power, as a 2014
study by Princeton University found. The research reviewed 1,779 public policy questions asked between 1981 and 2002 and the
responses by different income levels and interest groups; then calculated the likelihood that certain policies would be adopted.
A proposed policy change with low support among economically elite Americans (one-out-of-five in favor) is adopted only about
18 percent of the time, while a proposed change with high support (four-out-of-five in favor) is adopted about 45% of the time.
That's in stark contrast with policies favored by average Americans:
When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organised interests, they generally lose. Moreover,
because of the strong status quo bias built into the US political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favor
policy change, they generally do not get it.
The conclusion of the study? We live in an oligarchy:
our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government
adopts. [T]he preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact
upon public policy.
The belief in the myth of merit hurts the smart kid with great grades who aced his SATs but was still rejected from Yale and Harvard.
It hurts talented athletes who have worked their tails off for so many years. It hurts parents who have committed hundreds of school
nights and weekends to their children. It hurts HR departments that believe degrees from Ivy League schools mean that graduates are
qualified. It hurts all of us who buy into the great myth that America is a democratic meritocracy and that we can achieve whatever
we want if only we're willing to expend blood, toil, sweat, and tears.
At least in an outright class system like the British Houses of Lords and Commons, there is not this farcical playacting of equal
opportunity. The elites, with their privilege and titles, know the reason they are there and feel some sense of obligation to those
less well off than they are. At the very least, they do not engage in the ritual pretense of "deserving" what they "earned" -- quite
unlike those who descend on Washington, D.C. believing that they really are better than their compatriots in flyover country.
All societies engage in myth-making about themselves. But the myth of meritocracy may be our most pervasive and destructive belief
-- and it mirrors the myth that anything like "justice" is served up in our courts.
Despite all this evidence, most Americans embrace a version of the Calvinist beliefs promulgated by their forebears, believing
that the elect deserve their status. We remain confident that when our children apply to college or are
questioned by police , they will receive just and fair outcomes. If our neighbors' and friends' kids do not, then we assure ourselves
that it is they who are at fault, not the system.
The result has been a gaping chasm through our society. Lives are destroyed because, rather than working for real merit-based
systems and justice, we worship at the altar of false promises offered by our institutions. Instead we should be rolling up our sleeves
and seeing Operation Varsity Blues for what it is: a call to action.
Barbara Boland is the former weekend editor of the Washington Examiner . Her work has been featured on Fox News, the
Drudge Report, HotAir.com, RealClearDefense, RealClearPolitics, and elsewhere. She's the author of Patton Uncovered , a book
about General Patton in World War II. Follow her on Twitter@BBatDC.
If conservatives are going to dance the graves of Aunt Beckie, the backlash is going to be big. Sure this is a 'scandal' but it
seems these parents weren't rich enough to bribe their kids in college the right way, like Trumps and Kushner, and probably slightly
duped into going along with this scheme. (It appears the government got the ring leader to call all defendants to get evidence
they participated in a crime.)
Just wait until the mug shot of Aunt Beckie is on the internet and Olivia Jade does 60 minutes doing teary eyed interview of
how much she loves her mother. And how many parents are stress that their kids will struggle in the global competitive economy.
I fully recall the days of getting government computing contracts. Once a certain threshold was reached, you discovered you had to
hire a "lobbyist," and give him a significant amount of money to dole out to various gatekeepers in the bureaucracy for your contracts
to be approved. That was the end of our government contracts, and the end was hastened by the reaction to trying to complain about
it.
Thank you, Barbara Boland, for "The Myth of American Meritocracy" and for linking ("Related Articles" box) to the 2012 "The Myth
of American Meritocracy" by Ron Unz, then publisher of the American Conservative.
The 26,000-word Ron Unz research masterpiece was the opening salvo in the nation-wide discussion that ultimately led to the federal
court case nearing resolution in Boston.
"The Myth of American Meritocracy -- How corrupt are Ivy League admissions?" by Ron Unz, The American Conservative, Nov 28, 2012:
Barbara Boland "While black people make up only 13 percent of the population, they make up 42 percent of death row and 35 percent
of those who are executed."
Ms. Boland: According to the US Department of Justice, African Americans [13 per cent of the population] accounted for 52.5% of
all homicide offenders from 1980 to 2008.
I agree with prodigalson. This is the type of article that TAC should uphold as a 'gold standard'. One reason I read, and comment
on, TAC is that it offers thought provoking, and sometimes contrarian, articles (although the constant harping on transgender BS
gets annoying).
America has always been somewhat corrupt. But, to borrow a phrase, wealth corrupts, and uber wealth corrupts absolutely.
As Warren Buffet says "There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning".
I have said it before, and I will say it again. During the next severe financial recession, if the rich are protected and coddled
and everybody else is left to fend for themselves the ARs will come out of the closets when the sheriff comes to take the house or
the pickup truck. My sense is that average Americans have had enough.
Imagine if the digital transfer of money was abolished. Imagine if everybody had to have their money in a local bank instead of
on an account in one of the major banks. Imagine if Americans saw, day after day, armored vehicles showing up at local banks to offload
sacks of currency that went to only a few individual accounts.
Instead, the elites get their financial statements showing an ever increasing pile of cash at their disposal. They see it, but
nobody else does. But, if everybody physically saw the river of wealth flowing to the elites, I believe things would change. Fast.
Right now this transfer of wealth is all digital, hidden from the view of 99.99% of Americans. And the elites, the banking industry,
and the wealth management cabal prefer it that way.
I am amazed by the media coverage of this scandal. Was anyone actually under the impression that college admissions were on the
level before these Hollywood bozos were caught red handed?
No, the meritocracy is not dead; it's not even dying. It is, in fact, alive and well and the absolute best alternative to any
other method used to separate wheat from chaff, cream from milk, diamonds from rust.
What else is there that is even half as good?
Are merit-based systems perfect? Heck, no. They've never been perfect; they will never be perfect. They are administered by people
and people are flawed. Not just flawed in the way Singer, and Huffman are flawed (and those individuals are not simply flawed, they're
corrupt) but flawed in the everyday kind of sense. Yes, we all have tendencies, biases, preferences that will -- inevitably -- leak
into our selection process, no matter how objectively strict the process may be structured, no matter how rigorously fair we try
to be.
So the fact that -- as with most things -- we can find a trace of corruption here that fact is meaningless. We can find evidence
of human corruption, venality, greed, sloth, lust, envy (all of the 7 Deadly Sins) pretty much everywhere. But if we look at the
20M students enrolled in college, the vast majority are successfully & fairly admitted through merit-based filtering systems (which
are more or less rigorous) which have been in place forever.
Ms. Boland tells us (with a straight face, no less) that "The U.S. is now a country where corruption is rampant and money buys
both access and outcomes." But what does that even mean?
Certainly money can buy access and certainly money can buy outcomes. But that's what money does. She might as well assert that
money can buy goods and services, and lions and tigers and bears -- oh my! Of course it can. Equally networks can 'buy' access and
outcomes (if my best friend is working as the manager for Adele, I'm betting he could probably arrange my meeting Adele). Equally
success & fame can buy access and outcomes. I'm betting Adele can probably arrange a meeting with Gwen Stefani .and both can arrange
a meeting with Tom Brady. So what? Does the fact that money can be used to purchase goods & services mean money or the use of money
is corrupt or morally degenerate? No, of course not. In truth, we all leverage what we have (whatever that may be) to get what we
want. That's how life works. But the fact that we all do that does not mean we are all corrupt.
But yes, corruption does exist and can usually be found, in trace amounts -- as I said -- pretty much everywhere.
So is it rampant? Can I buy my way into the NBA or the NFL? If I go to Clark Hunt and give him $20M and tell him I want to play
QB for the Chiefs, will he let me? Can I buy my way into the CEO's position at General Electric, Apple, Microsoft, Google, Sprint,
Verizon, General Motors, Toyota or any of the Fortune 500? Heck, can I even buy my way into the Governor's mansion? To become the
Mayor of Chicago? Or the Police Commissioner? No -- these things are not possible. But what I can buy is my presence on the media
stage.
What happens after cannot be purchased.
So no, by any measure, corruption is not rampant. And though many things are, in fact, for sale -- not everything is. And no matter
how much money I give anyone, I'm never gonna QB the Chiefs or play for the Lakers.
She tells us, "we are dominated by a rich and powerful elite." No, we're not. Most of us live our lives making the choices we
want to make, given the means that each of us has, without any interference from any so-called "elite". The "elite" didn't tell me
where to go to school, or where to get a job, or how to do my job, or when to have kids, or what loaf of bread to buy, or what brand
of beer tastes best, or where to go on the family vacation. No one did. The elite obviously did not tell us who to vote for in the
last presidential election.
Of course one of the problems with the "it's the fault of the elite" is the weight given institutions by people like Ms.Boland.
"Oh, lordy, the Elite used their dominating power to get a brainless twit of a daughter into USC". Now if my kid were cheated out
of a position at USC because the Twit got in, I'd be upset but beyond that who really cares if a Twit gets an undergraduate degree
from USC or Yale .or Harvard .or wherever. Some of the brightest people I've known earned their degrees at Easter PolyTechnic U (some
don't even have college degrees -- oh, the horror!); some of the stupidest have Ivy League credentials. So what?
Only if you care about the exclusivity of such a relatively meaningless thing as a degree from USC, does gaming the exclusivity
matter.
She ends with the exhortation: "The result has been a gaping chasm through our society. Lives are destroyed because, rather than
working for real merit-based systems and justice, we worship at the altar of false promises offered by our institutions. Instead
we should be rolling up our sleeves and seeing Operation Varsity Blues for what it is: a call to action."
To do what, exactly?
Toss the baby and the bathwater? Substitute lottery selection for merit? Flip a coin? What?
Again the very best method is and always will be merit-based. That is the incentive which drives all of us: the hope that if we work
hard enough and do well enough, that we will succeed. Anything else is just a lie.
Yes, we can root out this piece of corruption. Yes, we can build better and more rigorously fair systems. But in the end, merit
is the only game in town. Far better to roll-up our sleeves and simply buckle down, Winsocki. There isn't anything better.
"While black people make up only 13 percent of the population, they make up 42 percent of death row and 35 percent of those who are
executed. There are big racial disparities in charging, sentencing, plea bargaining, and executions, Department of Justice reviews
have concluded, and black and brown people are disproportionately found to be innocent after landing on death row. The poor and disadvantaged
thereby become grist for a system that cares nothing for them."
So to what degree are these "disparities" "disproportionate" in light of actual criminal behavior? To be "proportionate," would
we expect criminal behavior to correlate exactly to racial, ethnic, sex, and age demographics of society as a whole?
Put another way, if you are a victim of a violent crime in America, what are the odds your assailant is, say, an elderly, Asian
female? Approximately zero.
Conversely, what are the odds your assailant is a young, black male? Rather high, and if you yourself are a young, black male,
approaching 100 percent.
Mostly thumbs up to this article. But why you gotta pick on Calvinism at the end? Anyway, your understanding of Calvinism is entirely
upside down. Calvinists believe they are elect by divine grace, and salvation is something given by God through Jesus, which means
you can't earn it and you most assuredly don't deserve it. Calvinism also teaches that all people are made in the image of God and
worthy of respect, regardless of class or status. There's no "version" of Calvinism that teaches what you claim.
"... Aha! There you have it. Back in February 2016, Gabbard resigned her position as vice-chair of the DNC to endorse Sanders, and the DNC, controlled by establishment centrists like the Clintons as well as Barack Obama, have never forgiven her. Recently, Hillary Clinton smeared her (as well as Jill Stein, Green Party candidate from 2016) as a Russian asset, and various mainstream networks and news shows, such as "The View" and NBC, have suggested (with no evidence) she's the favored candidate of Russia and Vladimir Putin. ..."
"... Just what we don't need: two bought-and-paid-for political parties in the service of the wealthiest and the corporations. But at least the Republicans are (mostly) honest about their priorities ..."
Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard is a
compelling choice for president in 2020. She's principled, she's against America's disastrous
regimen of regime-change wars, and she's got the guts to criticize her own party for being too
closely aligned with rich and powerful interests. She's also a military veteran who enlisted in
the Army National Guard in Hawaii after the 9/11 attacks (she currently serves as a major and
deployed overseas to Iraq during that war).
What's not to like about a female veteran who oozes intelligence and independence, a woman
who represents diversity (she's a practicing Hindu and a Samoan-American), an early supporter
of Bernie Sanders who called out the DNC for its favoritism toward Hillary Clinton
Aha! There you have it. Back in February 2016, Gabbard resigned
her position as vice-chair of the DNC to endorse Sanders, and the DNC, controlled by
establishment centrists like the Clintons as well as Barack Obama, have never forgiven her.
Recently, Hillary Clinton
smeared her (as well as Jill Stein, Green Party candidate from 2016) as a Russian asset,
and various mainstream networks and news shows, such as "The View" and NBC, have suggested
(with no evidence) she's the favored candidate of Russia and Vladimir Putin.
Think about that. Hillary Clinton and much of the mainstream media are accusing a serving
major in the U.S. military of being an asset to a foreign power. It's an accusation bordering
on a charge of treason -- a charge that is libelous and recklessly irresponsible.
A reminder: Tulsi Gabbard enlisted in the military to serve her country in the aftermath of
9/11. What did Hillary Clinton do? Can you imagine Hillary going through basic training as a
private, or serving in the military in a war zone? (Hillary did falsely claim that she came
under
sniper fire in Bosnia , but that's a story for another day.)
Tulsi Gabbard is her own person. She's willing to buck the system and has shown compassion
and commitment on the campaign trail. She may be a long shot, but she deserves a long look for
the presidency, especially when you consider the (low) quality of the enemies she's made.
Reply
Whenever I post anything remotely positive about Tulsi Gabbard on Facebook, the same few
people come out to denounce her. My response is below, though I know you can't reason with
haters:
That Tulsi has been on Fox News is an argument in her favor, i.e. her crossover appeal and
her willingness to engage with the "other side." That Tulsi met with Assad is, in my view,
reasonable; true leaders are always willing to meet with "bad" people, even ruthless
dictators, in the cause of averting war. My main point is how she's being smeared as some
kind of traitor, or at least a useful idiot. She's neither. Also, I've read the piece on
Tulsi in Jacobin, and I've heard about alleged cults. Is this really the best the media can
do? Guilt by association?
Some of our readers may have concerns about Tulsi, e.g. alleged Islamophobia, alleged
cults, etc. The main point is this: Does she deserve to be smeared as a Putin puppet? What
does this say about our media? And why are they doing this? I can tell you why. Trillions of
dollars are spent on wars and weapons, and Tulsi is calling for an end to regime-change wars
and a return to diplomacy. She also, like Bernie, is willing to call out the DNC as being
against the interests of ordinary Americans -- and she's right about this. She has a lot in
her favor. I'm a Bernie fan myself, but I'll take Tulsi over all those phony "centrists" like
Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Harris, and Biden.
I can't speak to the RSS/BJP connection; I've read about it, but I admit to ignorance on the
matter. Of course, every candidate has multiple connections, positions, donors, etc. All
politicians carry baggage. So far, from what I've read, Tulsi is more principled and more
courageous than most of her peers.
I'm still a Bernie fan -- his long record of helping the poor and vulnerable speaks for
itself. Of course, he once went to Moscow oh no! Run away! 🙂
Tulsi has now done four courageous, unusual, and very positive things while merely a
candidate:
1) Tulsi effectively took down a leading contender and DNC favorite, by demonstrating that
Senator Harris had been a corrupt prosecutor.
2) Tulsi defended democracy as she sued Google for at least $50 million, for playing
favorites in search-routing of candidates.
3) Tulsi called out Hillary Clinton for the monster she is.
4) Tulsi supported a process toward 911 truth by supporting 911-victims' families' right to
see FBI documents that have been denied to them.
Tulsi is the anti-war candidate. Tulsi Gabbard should be Commander-in-Chief. Yang should
be VP and in charge of the economy. Read his book. UBI is the way to go. Tulsi needs someone
she can trust as VP.
I consider the vicious persecution of Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning -- both
languishing in prison for having committed no crime whatsoever -- along with the exile of
Edward Snowden, among the greatest travesties of justice ever committed by the U.S. and U.K.
(dishonorable mention goes to Sweden and the latest Ecuadorian government, as well). I had
hoped for this subject to come up in the "debates," giving Tulsi yet another opportunity to
shine relative to her competitors, most of whom would soil their undergarments in panic at
the thought of "crossing" the absurdly named "intelligence community" and its entirely
co-opted corporate media outlets.
If Tulsi Gabbard had done no other principled thing than this, I would have considered her
heads and shoulders above anyone else campaigning for a position in the U.S. government
today.
I ought to dedicate this one to Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard for her principled defense of
Julian Assange and Edward Snowden (and no-doubt Chelsea Manning, as well):
Star Chamber, Incorporated
Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning
Jailed as twin examples for the proles:
"Look what happens if you publish secrets:
More totalitarian controls."
In Chinese: "Kill the Chicken scare the Monkey."
Rat-out your colleagues. Do not Power tempt.
Or otherwise the judges and grand juries
Will hold you in what lawyers call "contempt."
A strange word-choice, indeed, by Power's minions
Who spend careers perfecting rank abuse.
For them I'd have to feel respect much greater
Before that is the word that I would use.
I've nothing good to say for prosecutors.
Some say I wish to "damn them with faint praise."
But I reply: "You praise with faint damnation.
So which of us has coined the the better phrase?"
Despicable, the treatment of these heroes.
The US and UK have sunk so low.
Still, Julian and Chelsea have together
More balls than these two governments can grow.
No matter, they have passed into the ages.
Already they have earned a fair renown.
Each day they live defiant, undefeated,
They rise as jailers try to put them down.
As JFK once said of his elite class:
"The ship of state leaks mainly from the top."
But if some lowly, powerless, poor person
Tries that, they'll feel the lash. No truth. Now stop!
To scare a monkey, kill another monkey.
If not, the monkeys learn impunity.
While eating KFC they ask, obtusely:
"What has a chicken got to do with me?"
And so the Corporation-State must silence
Reports of its incompetence and crime.
If citizens knew what it did they'd order
Its dissolution. Now. And just in time.
Historically, they called it the Star Chamber
A secret court designed to thwart the king.
But power then perverted it to serve him.
Grand juries in the US, same damn thing.
They now indict ham sandwiches routinely
With no protection for the innocents.
Presumed as guilty, evidence not needed.
Conviction guaranteed. No court repents.
A judge may do whatever he determines
He can. So levy fines. Coerce. Demand
On penalty of prison, testimony
Against oneself, alone upon the stand.
"Democracy" is just a euphemism
If citizens allow this to proceed.
Orwellian: first Hate then Fear of Goldstein.
Two Minutes, daily. Really, all you need.
This is a good commentary. military experience is a good thing especially when we are dealing
with the fact that over half of the national budget is devoted to the military.
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar has a thoughtful article on playing it safe, running out the clock,
prevent defense, etc., on your opponent as it would apply to politics.
Jabbar writes: Almost every poll showed her with a respectable lead over Trump just days
before the election. So, the Clinton campaign tried to run out the clock by not campaigning
much in Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Indiana, Missouri, North Dakota, and South Dakota,
all of which turned much redder than in the previous presidential election.
The tactic of trying to pick a "safe" candidate who can beat Trump by appealing to their
ideas about Middle America sends the wrong message to all of America. No team devise a game
strategy based on fear: they emphasize their strengths and exploit their opponents'
weaknesses. The Democratic candidate shouldn't be the least objectionable, but the one who
boldly forges ahead with clear and detailed plans for Making America America Again.
Democrats can't pander to voters by denigrating Trump but then promising them Trump-lite
with a wink. Promote progressive policies and plans worthy of a party that wants to lead this
country without fear of being called "socialists" or "the radical left" or whatever else your
opposing team chants.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/oct/15/how-sports-tactics-can-help-the-democrats-beat-donald-trump-in-2020
===================================
Jabbar is correct. The Corporate Democrats among them Biden, Buttigieg and Bloomberg are
fighting desperately to preserve a perceived lead aided and abetted by the McMega-Media.
Chicago Alderman, Paddy Bauler (1890-1977) said in 1955 on the election of Daley the
Elder, "Chicago ain't ready for reform yet", or "Chicago ain't ready for a reform mayor".
Today, the pundits employed by Corporate America, along with various Democratic Party
stooges for Wall Street tell us America ain't ready for Reform.
Yes, ML, so goes American 'Exceptionalism', after WW2 Victory. Today, so goes a Great
American City in violence, all so shortsighted. I'm still confused with our never-ending wars
overseas, as our cities rot in crime & violence, my main concern. I didn't grow up
– or party! -later on in today's disaster areas of Baltimore or Philadelphia, etc.It
was GREAT!
But somethings going on I don't know about, when the WORST cities have black Congresspeople
(Maxime Waters?) living in 6.5$Mil mansions as their "districts" die.
I have NO PROBLEM with black people! Such a smear an insult. But it's worth investigating why
these characters who have ruined their cities are supporters of Dems, & Billary! Oh! They
spend & vote lavishly on more money for our wars, but nothing for their own cities!
Finally starting to figure it out: They're traitors to their own race, for their personal
benefit. They make Dems "look proud", vs "REP's!" Yes, they too re dreadful maybe that's why
I feel: TULCI GO! She's neither dreadful party!
ML: Good citation of KA-J -- - although I've seen the same-sort of criticism of the Dems
elsewhere, Kareem's sports analogy is very helpful in understanding the concept.
(I have to say that I got sick of the Dems milquetoast approach to politics. Maybe it was
an understandable response to a frustrating right-wing zeitgeist, but DAMN, did they have to
be SO passive against the Reps?? Even when they briefly held majorities in Congress under
Obama, the wouldn't introduce/push bills that weren't 'filibuster-proof'!?!? I for one might
still be voting Dem POTUS IF they had pushed those progressive bills., then let the Reps
filibuster for weeks or months, meantime the Dems & Obama could've gone in front of the
public daily and said something like "We're trying to help you by passing Bill X, but the
Reps are filibustering and stopping Congress from getting any work done!" Let the government
shut-down for a few weeks because of it and keep hammering away at the Reps for being the
BLOCKERS, etc. Call their bluff, and use it against them during elections. Instead they tried
to be overly accommodating & conciliatory BEFORE debate had even begun!)
Yes. Eddie. The Democratic Party not only gets its ass kicked for breakfast, lunch, and
dinner, but it seems to have developed something of a masochistic taste for the Republican
abuse. Hence two of my verse compositions essentially agreeing with your observations:
(1) From eight years ago. From "Hope" and "Change" to despair and the status quo. And with
a Nobel Peace Prize for Endless War, too.
Congenital Stockholm Syndrome
He started by giving up quickly,
Surrendering early his case.
He offered to kiss their asses.
Replying, they pissed in his face.
Their urine, he thought, tasted strangely;
Yet not at all bad to his taste.
He'd gotten so used to it, plainly.
Why let such a drink go to waste?
The people who voted in favor
Of him and his promise of "change"
Now see in his many betrayals
A poodle afflicted with mange.
Each time that the surly and crazy
Republicans out for his skin
Condemn him for living and breathing,
He graciously helps them to win.
He'll turn on his base in an instant
With threats and disdain and neglect
While bombing some Muslims so Cheney
Might thrill to the lives that he's wrecked.
A black man in love with apartheid
He offers his stalwart support
To Zionists and their extortion
With "More, please!" his only retort.
A masochist begging for beatings
Obama takes joy in abuse
Receiving just what he has asked for
Which makes him of no earthly use
The little brown men that he's murdered
In homes far away from our land
Bring profits obscene to his backers
Who give him the back of their hand.
Obama seeks praise from the vicious
Republicans, no matter what.
He suffers, apparently, nothing
So much as his need to kiss butt.
Michael Murry, "The Misfortune Teller," Copyright 2011
(2) From twelve years ago and on the Congressional side of the Surrender Monkey
Syndrome:
Nancy the Negotiator
Nancy the Negotiator
Gives up first; surrenders later;
Takes her cards from off the table,
Then recites her loser fable:
"We don't have the votes we need,"
Nancy says, in tones that bleed:
"Mean Republicans will whine
If we do not toe their line."
Nancy bows to George and Dick
While her skinny ass they kick;
Writes them checks both blank and rubber,
Then proceeds to lamely blubber:
"We don't like what Dubya's doing.
Still, we quite enjoy the screwing.
Masochism's what we offer,
Helping crooks to loot the coffer"
"Sure, the squandered blood and treasure
Goes to those we will not measure.
Still, we promise you'll adore us
If you mark your ballot for us."
"Choices you don't have assail you,
Leaving only us who fail you.
Nonetheless, we've gotten fatter.
Why, then, should we think you matter?"
After six years in Uncle Sam's Canoe Club (the last eighteen months of that in the
now-defunct Republic of South Vietnam) it didn't take me long to realize that the Republicans
get paid a lavish salary to do what the fabulously wealthy demand, while the Democrats get a
comparatively meager allowance to do what the Republicans tell them to do, also on behalf of
the fabulously wealthy: namely, betray their own working-class anti-war base so that the
Republicans will not have anything even remotely "leftist" to worry about. In truth, the
Democratic party crawled up its own ass and died so many years ago that I think I've lost
count.
Just what we don't need: two bought-and-paid-for political parties in the service of the
wealthiest and the corporations. But at least the Republicans are (mostly) honest about their
priorities
@ jayc in comment #6 who wrote
"
Craig Murray says that Boris Johnson was notably drunk at the Cenotaph ceremony for
Remembrance Sunday in London.
Why do the UK polls appear to show the Conservatives headed to big victory?
"
Polls are more tools of propaganda in this human time frame. Add to that in the US we
(s)elected a pussy grabbing misogynist and serial bankruptcy grifter and you might start to
understand that Boris Johnson may be an alcoholic tool of the elite that run Western
nations....and they will propagandize his mythical wonderfulness in spite of his moral
vacuousness....to a degree that enough of the masses believe in him.
I refuse to take polls anymore because the questions are always worded to get the answers
whomever is paying for the poll wants.
We hope for structural change to the Western system/social contract but keep our eyes wide
open to the obvious perfidy by the elite of today in the West...hence my steady drum beat
about those of the cult that own global private finance
Fox News host Tucker Carlson has crossed an MSM Rubicon and questioned
the Douma "gas attack" fraud on air, bringing up the OPCW whistleblower. Then he "rooted for
Russia" over Ukraine...Carlson boldly went where no mainstream TV host had gone before,
unpacking the explosive story of April 2018's Douma "chemical weapons attack." While the
"attack" was attributed to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad by an altered report from the
Organization for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons, two whistleblowers within the group
accused it of omitting evidence to craft a misleading narrative - a fact that has never crossed
the lips of US media until Monday night... "America almost attacked a country and killed untold
thousands of people over an attack that may never have happened in the first place - that
powerful people may very well have been lying about," Carlson told his audience, replaying
footage of his show from the days following the attack to show he'd always been suspicious it
had happened as reported.
"... "The next president will, for example, have to deal with the enormous loss of U.S. credibility during the past three years, which has stemmedin large part from Trump's reneging on or withdrawing from agreements such as the Paris accord on climate change, arms control accords withRussia, and the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which restricted Iran's nuclear program." ..."
"... What is the PURPOSE of US Foreign Policy? To protect the US homeland and US interests abroad (freedom of navigation, freedom of commerce and trade, and the protection of US citizens travelling abroad to name a few). ..."
"... Unfortunately, US Policy really refers to US interventionism across the globe. Covert activities are presumably necessary to protect US interests so as to thwart the covert activities of our enemies. In practice, what the US really does is protect the interests of friendly countries and US-based multi-national corporations...and the whole thing is smoke and mirrors (hidden from the American people). Thus, we really have NO IDEA what US Foreign Policy is, or what we are doing behind the scenes. That's on both Democrats and Republicans. ..."
This is still a race for a party nomination, and it is well known how political battles at this stage typically focus narrowly
on what are perceived to be the parochial concerns of the party's base and take on a different character in the general election.
But positions taken now can impose constraints later on. Moreover, Democratic primary voters ought to be learning about what difference
the various contenders would make in executing the powers of the presidency, not just in who has the most attractive ideas about
policies that cannot be imposed by fiat.
Foreign policy is where more attention and debate are most required, and not just because foreign policy nearly always gets inadequate
attention in political campaigns. It also is where a president has the most power to make a difference even without getting Congress
to go along with the president's program. This fact is reflected in how many presidents late in their presidencies, especially in
second terms, have turned more of their attention to foreign relations as an area where they can make a difference after experiencing
frustration in trying to get their domestic programs through Congress.
Many issues in foreign policy could profitably be discussed more than they are now, but priority should be given to those subjects
on which Trump has caused the most damage. Candidates should explain how they intend to repair that damage, not just what their policies
would be if they somehow could be written on a clean slate. The slate on which the next administration's foreign policy will be written
starts out very dirty. Coming after Trump will be a major, task-defining fact about the next administration's foreign policy challenges.
The heavy damage to U.S. relations with the European allies represents another especially dirty part of the slate that the next
administration will have to tend to. Brexit will be an added complication in addressing this problem and in a sense is another part
of Trump's legacy given the way he has cheered on the Brexiteers,
contrary to U.S. interests.
Issues examined by the current impeachment proceeding represent more damage-repair needs. Ukraine is a large and important country
and constructing a U.S. policy that adequately reflects Ukraine's delicate situation between East and West would be a challenge in
any event. Now it has been made more difficult by Trump and Rudy Giuliani's
setting back of Ukraine's efforts to stamp out corruption and subordinating an aid relationship to dirt-digging for domestic
political reasons. What are the Democratic candidates' specific ideas for repairing this damage, and for fitting the repairs into
a sensible policy toward not just Ukraine but also Russia?
To emphasize these foreign policy challenges is not to diminish the amount of Trump-inflicted damage that extends to domestic
matters as well, and the need for the next administration to repair that damage as well. Perhaps the greatest over-arching damage,
spanning both the domestic and foreign sides, is that the nation seems to have become inured to wrongdoing because of the sheer volume
of it, with attention to each offense quickly fading as it is succeeded by a new offense or attention-hogging presidential outburst.
What will the next president do to restore a sense of national outrage over wrongdoing whenever it occurs, be it blatant self-dealing,
corruption of U.S. foreign relations, or something else?
Such problems may not have as much resonance in Iowa caucuses as the cost of health care, but they have a lot more to do with
who will make the best president.
Paul R. Pillar is Nonresident Senior Fellow at the Center for Security Studies at Georgetown University and Nonresident
Senior Fellow in Foreign Policy at the Brookings Institution. He is a contributing editor to The National Interest, where he writes
a blog.
"The next president will, for example, have to deal with the enormous loss of U.S. credibility during the past three years,
which has stemmedin large part from Trump's reneging on or withdrawing from agreements such as the Paris accord on climate change,
arms control accords withRussia, and the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which restricted Iran's nuclear program."
What a load of hooey this article is. U.S. credibility with whom? Failed Merkel? Failed Macron?...
Failure of the past three years but no mention of the failures of Obama? Sending an aging hippie James Taylor to console islamic terrorist victims in Paris apparently counts as a major foreign policy
success and that mean Trump refuses to perpetuate. And then there's the cross the red line in Syria and we'll do nothing.
Or maybe ship weapons secretly to Islamic terrorists calling them freedom fighters and surprise surprise, the weapons from
Obama are used to murder American diplomats in Benghazi. Then cover that up by blaming it on a video from a guy in Los Angeles
and sending out a team to blatantly lie about the event.
Now there's real foreign policy you can depend on - from the Democrats.
What is the PURPOSE of US Foreign Policy? To protect the US homeland and US interests abroad (freedom of navigation, freedom
of commerce and trade, and the protection of US citizens travelling abroad to name a few).
Unfortunately, US Policy really refers
to US interventionism across the globe. Covert activities are presumably necessary to protect US interests so as to thwart the
covert activities of our enemies. In practice, what the US really does is protect the interests of friendly countries and US-based
multi-national corporations...and the whole thing is smoke and mirrors (hidden from the American people). Thus, we really have
NO IDEA what US Foreign Policy is, or what we are doing behind the scenes. That's on both Democrats and Republicans.
Warren's New Proposal for Prescription Drugs Is Flying Under the Radar
By Dean Baker
Earlier this month, Sen. Elizabeth Warren put out a set of steps that she would put
forward as president as part of a transition to Medicare for All. The items that got the most
attention were including everyone over age 50 and under age 18 in Medicare, and providing
people of all ages with the option to buy into the program. This buy-in would include large
subsidies, and people with incomes of less than 200 percent of the poverty level would be
able to enter the Medicare program at no cost.
These measures would be enormous steps toward Medicare for All, bringing tens of millions
of people into the program, including most of those (people over age 50) with serious medical
issues. It would certainly be more than halfway to a universal Medicare program.
While these measures captured most of the attention given to Warren's transition plan,
another part of the plan is probably at least as important. Warren proposed to use the
government's authority to compel the licensing of drug patents so that multiple companies can
produce a patented drug.
The government can do this both because it has general authority to compel licensing of
patents (with reasonable compensation) and because it has explicit authority under the 1980
Bayh-Dole Act to require licensing of any drug developed in part with government-funded
research. The overwhelming majority of drugs required some amount of government-supported
research in their development.
These measures are noteworthy because they can be done on the president's own authority.
While the pharmaceutical industry will surely contest a president's use of the government's
authority to weaken their patent rights, those actions would not require congressional
approval.
The other reason that these steps would be so important is that there is a huge amount of
money involved. The United States is projected to spend over $6.6 trillion on prescription
drugs over the next decade, more than 2.5 percent of GDP.
The government has explicit authority under the 1980 Bayh-Dole Act to require licensing of
any drug developed in part with government-funded research.
This is an enormous amount of money. We spend more than twice as much per person on drugs
as people in other wealthy countries.
This is not an accident. The grant of a patent monopoly allows drug companies to charge as
much as they want for drugs that are necessary for people's health or even their life.
While other countries also grant patent monopolies, they limit the ability of drug
companies to exploit these monopolies with negotiations or price controls. This is why prices
in these countries are so much lower than in the United States.
But even these negotiated prices are far above what drug prices would be in a free market.
The price of drugs in a free market, without patent monopolies or related protections, will
typically be less than 10 percent of the U.S. price and in some cases, less than 1
percent.
This is because drugs are almost invariably cheap to manufacture and distribute. They are
expensive because government-granted patent monopolies make them expensive.
The rationale for patent monopolies is to give companies an incentive to research and
develop drugs. This process is expensive, and if newly developed drugs were sold in a free
market, companies would not be able to recover these expenses.
To make up for the loss of research funding supported by patent monopolies, Warren
proposes an increase in public funding for research.
To make up for the loss of research funding supported by patent monopolies, Warren
proposes an increase in public funding for research. This would be an important move toward
an increased reliance on publicly funded biomedical research.
There are enormous advantages to publicly funded research over patent monopoly-supported
research. First, the government is funding the research. It can require that all results be
fully public as soon as possible so that all researchers can quickly benefit from them.
By contrast, under the patent system, drug companies have an incentive to keep results
secret. They have no desire to share results that could benefit competitors.
Public funding would also radically reduce the incentive to develop copycat drugs. Under
the current system, drug companies will often devote substantial sums to developing drugs
that are intended to duplicate the function of drugs already on the market. While there is
generally an advantage to having more options to treat a specific condition, most often,
research dollars would be better spent trying to develop drugs for conditions where no
effective treatment currently exists.
Ending patent monopoly pricing would also take away the incentive for drug companies to
conceal evidence that their drugs may not be as safe or effective as claimed. Patent
monopolies give drug companies an incentive to push their drugs as widely as possible.
The opioid crisis provides a dramatic example of the dangers of this system. Opioid
manufacturers would not have had the same incentive to push their drugs, concealing evidence
of their addictive properties, if they were not making huge profits on them.
In short, Senator Warren's plans on drugs are a really huge deal. How far and how quickly
she will be able to get to Medicare for All will depend on what she can get through Congress.
But her proposal for prescription drugs is something she would be able to do if elected
president, and it would make an enormous difference in both the cost and the quality of our
health care.
"And how on earth did an ex comedian and MMA commentator become one of the better
political interviewers around?"
Dereliction of duty by the gatekeeper oligarch press, and discontent by the
ever-more-discerning consumer to be served cold lies? Baby Boomers and Silent Generation
dying off more by the day? People under 40 who have never experienced an economy that doesn't
suck for the non-rich?
I've started listening to Rogan interviews since Sanders's blockbuster interview a few
months ago.
The guy is actually a surprisingly good interviewer, for reasons that are hard to
understand. For one thing, he is invariably friendly and respectful, which I think draws the
subject out. His format also allows almost unlimited and uninterrupted time, (2-3 hours is
typical), which removes time pressure and allows extended and nuanced conversation. He also
has no particular agenda, and allows the conversation to go where it will, jumping in with
"questions" only when a particular topic seems to be exhausted.
The interesting thing is that anyone, either inside the media or outside it, could be
doing a similar program; it's not technically hard. But no one is.
If I didn't miss anything, then it is not 100% clear that USA will stop invading and
bombing other countries with Gabbard. She is slippery enough to continue the bombings. She
still mentions war as a last option. It is highly subjective to judge whether you have used
up all diplomatic channels to achieve your goal or not.
The wars and invasions has been about stealing natural resources, oil mainly but now
lithium too, feed the MIC-swamp creatures in general and selling out state resources to
American interests. In no way does she tackle the causes of the wars, only the
symptoms.
When have you tried all diplomatic channels to steal Iraq's, Venezuela's, Syria's and
Libya's oil fields? What do the diplomatic tools look like? Economic strangulation? IMF on
steroids?
She needs to talk about a society getting off of oil for a starter
It is amazing on how so many arguments against progressive policies coming from the
Democratic Party all seem to boil down to "Shut up and get back to work, peasants!"
Incrementalists do not even slowly improve things most of the time, as the neoliberal
Democratic Party "incrementally" follows the Republicans rightward with every broad shift to
the right on the GOP side. Today's deregulators and supply-side economic proponents are just
as likely to be Democrats as Republicans and many Democrats are probably cheering on
Kavanaugh's attacks on environmental standards as we speak.
Our aristocracy do not even pretend to adhere to any sort of sense of noblisse oblige,
unlike the feudal lords of old.
"... However, Morris contends that Clinton believes that she has to "wait until Biden drops out because he's obviously next in line for it, and if he goes away, there's an opening for her." According to Morris' scenario, Clinton would become the moderate candidate opposed to the leading progressive, Elizabeth Warren. ..."
In November, Barack Obama, who had avoided commenting on the Democratic presidential
primary, came out forcefully in opposition to the extreme positions taken by some leading
progressive contenders, positions that could cause the Democrats to be beaten by Trump in the
2020 election. Obama was a very popular president among Democrats, and what he has to say
carries considerable weight with them. While this may not be his intent, Obama's position could
open the field for Hillary Clinton to enter the fray and quite possibly become the Democrats'
nominee, given the lackluster performance of leading "moderate" Joe Biden, whose weaknesses
have been brought out by the mainstream media, despite their animosity toward Trump.
Now many in the Democratic Party leadership, as well as wealthy Democratic donors, have been
concerned for some time about the radical nature of some of the economic policies advocated by
the leading progressive Democratic contenders. They fear that instead of the 2020 election
revolving around Trump with his low approval ratings, and very likely his impeachment, which
would seem to be a slam-dunk victory for Democrats, it would focus on those radical economic
proposals. Many voters are skeptical about how free college for all, free health care for all,
high-paying jobs in "green energy" -- after greatly reducing the use of fossil fuels, free
childcare for all, just to name some of the "free" things that have been promised, would really
work. Instead of raising taxes on the middle class, most of these free things would purportedly
be paid for by the super-wealthy, which would exclude mere millionaires such as Bernie Sanders
(estimated wealth $2 million) and Elizabeth Warren (estimated wealth $12 million) who are the
leading progressive contenders.
Obama began stressing his concern about the danger of radicalism in an October speech at the
Obama Foundation Summit in Chicago. And he did this not by dealing with presidential candidates
but with youth who think they can immediately change society. "This
idea of purity and you're never compromised, and you're always politically woke and all
that stuff, you should get over that quickly," Obama lectured. "The world is messy. There are
ambiguities. People who do really good stuff have flaws."
It was at a gathering of Democratic donors in Washington, D.C., in November that Obama
cautioned Democratic candidates not to go too far to the left since that would antagonize many
voters who would otherwise support the Democratic candidate. "Even as we push the envelope and
we are bold in our vision we also have to be rooted in
reality ," Obama asserted. "The average American doesn't think we have to completely tear
down the system and remake it." Although Obama did not specify particular Democratic
candidates, his warning was widely interpreted as being directed at Elizabeth Warren and Bernie
Sanders.
Currently, the leading candidate for the Democratic nomination, according to national polls,
is Joe Biden, who is considered a moderate. But Biden has a number of problems. He continues to
make gaffes while speaking, and during his long career in the Senate took positions that are
antithetical to the Democratic Party of today. Moreover, he lacks the charisma to attract large
crowds to his events. Thus, it is questionable that he has the capability to attract large
numbers of Democratic voters to the polls in November 2020.
According to Politico Magazine , Obama was recently discussing election tactics with
an unnamed current candidate and "pointed out that during his own 2008 campaign, he had an
intimate bond with the electorate" and he is quoted as adding, "And you know who really
doesn't have it ? Joe Biden."
Biden's appeal already seems to be waning. For example, in November, a Marquette Law School
poll, which is considered the gold-standard survey in swing state Wisconsin, which the
Democrats need to win the 2020 election, shows
Trump leading Biden 47 percent to 44 percent. In October, Trump had trailed Biden by 6
points (44 percent to 50 percent), and in August, Trump trailed Biden by 9 points (42 percent
to 51 percent). In short, Biden is losing support. Trump won Wisconsin in 2016 by a slender
margin of 0.77 percent, with 47.22 percent of the total votes over the 46.45 percent for
Hillary Clinton.
Another problem Biden faces is the corrupt activities of his son Hunter and brother James,
who have taken advantage of their connection with him. The mainstream media has so far largely
kept this mostly under wraps, but this tactic won't be successful as the election approaches.
In fact, the progressive Democrats such as Bernie Sanders are likely to bring this up in a
desperate effort to be nominated. And already these issues are being mentioned by the
alternative media. For instance, there is an article in the non-partisan, anti-government
Intercept
titled, "Joe Biden's Family Has Been Cashing in on His Career for Decades. Democrats Need to
Acknowledge That," and comparable articles in the conservative Washington Examiner such
as, "Hunter Biden-linked company r
eceived $130M in special federal loans while Joe Biden was vice president," and "Hunter
Biden has
99 problems , and Burisma is only one."
David Axelrod, Democratic strategist and longtime aide to Barack Obama, said concerns about
Biden's electability clearly influenced multi-billionaire (estimated $53 billion) and
former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg's entrance into the contest for the Democratic
nominee for president. "There's no question that Bloomberg's calculus was that Biden was
occupying a space, and the fact that he's getting in is a clear indication that he's not
convinced Biden has the wherewithal to carry that torch," Axelrod said. "So yeah, I don't think
this is a positive development for Joe Biden."
Similarly, Democratic strategist Brad Bannon contended that "centrist Democrats and wealthy
donors have
lost confidence in Biden's ability to stop Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders from winning
the nomination." Bannon added that with Bloomberg entering the Democratic presidential race,
"Biden's fundraising will get even shakier than it already is. There's only room for one
moderate in this race and Bloomberg threatens Biden's status as the centrist
standard-bearer."
Bloomberg's "stop and frisk"
policy as mayor , which largely targeted blacks and Hispanics, should make it virtually
impossible that he could be the Democratic nominee, despite his recent apology. Unless he has
become senile in his late 70s, Bloomberg should well understand this since he did not make his
billions by being stupid. It could be that he intends to serve as a stalking horse to draw
Hillary Clinton into the contest by showing the weakness of Biden. Then like Superwoman,
Hillary can enter the fray, appearing not to act for her own sake but to save the country from
a likely second term for President Trump.
Similarly, Mark Penn, who was chief strategist for Clinton's unsuccessful 2008 presidential
campaign, said Bloomberg's entrance
could cause Clinton to consider to run and decide there's "still a political logic there for
her."
As Biden's support slips away, Clinton's should rise. Clinton has been recently promoting a
book she co-wrote with her daughter, Chelsea, in Britain. In an interview with BBC Radio 5
Live , Clinton said "many, many, many people" are
pressuring her to jump into the 2020 presidential race and that she thinks about this "all
the time." Clinton told the host that she is under "enormous pressure" but said it is not in
her plans, though she cryptically added that she would "never say never."
Dick Morris, who was once a close confidant of the Clintons during Bill Clinton's time as
Arkansas governor and U.S. president recently said in a radio interview that Hillary Clinton
likely wants to run for the presidency in 2020. "My feeling is that
she wants to ," Morris said. "She feels entitled to do it. She feels compelled to do it.
She feels that God put her on the Earth to do it. But she's hesitant because she realizes the
timing is bad."
However, Morris contends that Clinton believes that she has to "wait until Biden drops out
because he's obviously next in line for it, and if he goes away, there's an opening for her."
According to Morris' scenario, Clinton would become the moderate candidate opposed to the
leading progressive, Elizabeth Warren.
Morris has not been in touch with the Clintons for many years, and has become strongly
critical of them, so his claim might be questionable. Nonetheless, his portrayal of Hillary's
current thinking seems quite reasonable.
A Fox News poll included Clinton along with the active Democratic candidates in a
hypothetical election with Trump, and Hillary came out ahead of him by two percentage
points. While some actual candidates did somewhat better than Hillary, she did quite well for
someone who is not currently running for office.
Furthermore, a Harris Harvard poll in late October asked the question, "Suppose Hillary
Clinton, Michael Bloomberg, and John Kerry decides [sic] to enter the race, who would you
support as a candidate for President?" Joe Biden received the support of 19 percent of Democrat
respondents while Clinton was a
close second with 18 percent. Elizabeth Warren came in third at 13 percent, John Kerry was
at 8 percent, and Bloomberg was at 6. Again, Clinton does quite well for someone who is not
actually running for president.
One might think that if references to family members' corruption damaged Biden, then Clinton
would be subject to worse damage in that area, since she and her husband Bill were connected
with far more corrupt activities -- Whitewater, Travelgate, the Lewinsky affair, the Paula
Jones affair, t the death of Vince Foster, the Clinton Foundation, her private server, and so
on. But these issues are already known and are presumably already taken into account by the
voters, whereas the Biden family's corrupt activities are so far largely unknown.
It should be pointed out that Clinton has a number of positives as a presidential candidate.
Although losing in the Electoral College in 2016, Clinton had garnered 3 million more votes
more than Trump. The election was decided by a total of 80,000 votes in three states. It is
highly unlikely that such a fluke could be duplicated.
Clinton's staff had been overconfident assuming victory, which was based on their polling of
various states, and as a result began to focus on competing in states well beyond those Clinton
needed for victory.
Moreover, one key event outside the control of Clinton's staff was FBI Director James
Comey's investigation of Clinton's use of a personal email server during her tenure as
secretary of state. Most crucial were his July 2016 public statement terminating the
investigation, with a lengthy comment about what Clinton did wrong, and his October 28
reopening the inquiry into newly discovered emails and then closing it two days before the
election, stating that the emails had not provided any new information. The October 28 letter,
however, probably played a key role in the outcome of the election. As statistician Nate Silver
maintains: "Hillary Clinton would probably be president
if FBI Director James Comey had not sent a letter to Congress on Oct. 28. The letter, which
said the FBI had 'learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the
investigation into the private email server that Clinton used as secretary of state, upended
the news cycle and soon halved Clinton's lead in the polls, imperiling her position in the
Electoral College.'"
[Silver's organization FiveThirtyEight had projected a much higher chance (29
percent) of Donald Trump winning the presidency than most other pollsters]
Clinton has also helped to convince many Democrats and members of the mainstream media that
the 2016 election was stolen from her by Russian agents If this were really true – which
is very doubtful – then Hillary should be the Democrats' candidate for 2020 since Russian
intervention should not be as successful as it allegedly was in 2016.
In endorsing Hillary Clinton for president in 2016, Obama stated. "I don't think that
there's ever been someone
so qualified to hold this office." He has yet to make such an endorsement for Biden and
privately, as mentioned earlier, said he is a poor choice for a nominee. He might ultimately
endorse Biden, but he certainly would not renege on what he said four years ago about Clinton
if she became the Democrats' standard-bearer.
Should Clinton opt to run, she would have no trouble raising money since she set a record in
2016 of $1.4 billion
and wealthy donors want a moderate to be the Democratic nominee. It would seem likely that she
would enter the contest if Biden has serious trouble. She would miss some state primaries since
it would be too late to register in them but given the crowded field of candidates, there is a
likelihood that there will be a brokered convention, that is, the convention will go past the
first ballot. Since the superdelegates would be allowed to vote in all rounds after the first,
they could determine the winner, which would probably mean the selection of a candidate who
would be seen to have the greatest chance of winning, and that would likely be Hillary Clinton,
if she has entered the fray.
I discussed the merits of Pete Buttigieg in a previous article in
Unz Review, and what I write here might seem to conflict with that. However, while Buttigieg is
doing quite well
in the polls, he still does not get much support
from blacks and Latinos, which is essential to become the Democrats nominee for president.
Buttigieg could, however, be nominated for vice president or, more likely, given an important
cabinet position since the vice-presidential slot would probably be reserved for a black or
Latino if a white person were picked as the presidential nominee, which currently seems
likely.
But because of Buttigieg's relatively hardline foreign policy
, which largely meshes with that of Clinton's, and his wide knowledge and language ability,
Buttigieg would fit well in the all-important position of secretary of state in a Clinton
administration. Moreover, Buttigieg, whose tenure as mayor of South Bend, Indiana, will end in
January 2020, would almost certainly be willing to take such a position, which could serve as a
jumping-off point for the presidency in the future.
he Democratic establishment is increasingly irritated. Representative Tulsi Gabbard,
long-shot candidate for president, is attacking her own party for promoting the "deeply
destructive" policy of "regime change wars." Gabbard has even called Hillary Clinton "the queen
of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the
Democratic Party."
Senator Chris Murphy complained: "It's a little hard to figure out what itch she's trying to
scratch in the Democratic Party right now." Some conservatives seem equally confused. The
Washington Examiner 's Eddie Scarry asked: "where is Tulsi distinguishing herself when
it really matters?"
The answer is that foreign policy "really matters." Gabbard recognizes that George W. Bush
is not the only simpleton warmonger who's plunged the nation into conflict, causing enormous
harm. In the last Democratic presidential debate, she explained that the issue was "personal to
me" since she'd "served in a medical unit where every single day, I saw the terribly high,
human costs of war." Compare her perspective to that of the ivory tower warriors of Right and
Left, ever ready to send others off to fight not so grand crusades.
The best estimate of the costs of the post-9/11 wars comes from the Watson Institute for
International and Public Affairs at Brown University. The Institute says that $6.4 trillion
will be spent through 2020. They estimate that our wars have killed 801,000 directly and
resulted in a multiple of that number dead indirectly. More than 335,000 civilians have died --
and that's an extremely conservative guess. Some 21 million people have been forced from their
homes. Yet the terrorism risk has only grown, with the U.S. military involved in
counter-terrorism in 80 nations.
Obviously, without American involvement there would still be conflicts. Some
counter-terrorism activities would be necessary even if the U.S. was not constantly swatting
geopolitical wasps' nests. Nevertheless, it was Washington that started or joined these
unnecessary wars (e.g., Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Yemen) and expanded necessary wars well beyond
their legitimate purposes (Afghanistan). As a result, American policymakers bear responsibility
for much of the carnage.
The Department of Defense is responsible for close to half of the estimated expenditures.
About $1.4 trillion goes to care for veterans. Homeland security and interest on security
expenditures take roughly $1 trillion each. And $131 million goes to the State Department and
the U.S. Agency for International Development, which have overspent on projects that have
delivered little.
More than 7,000 American military personnel and nearly 8,000 American contractors have died.
About 1,500 Western allied troops and 11,000 Syrians fighting ISIS have been killed. The Watson
Institute figures that as many as 336,000 civilians have died, but that uses the very
conservative numbers provided by the Iraq Body Count. The IBC counts 207,000 documented
civilian deaths but admits that doubling the estimate would probably yield a more accurate
figure. Two other respected surveys put the number of deaths in Iraq alone at nearly 700,000
and more than a million, though those figures have been contested.
More than a thousand aid workers and journalists have died, as well as up to 260,000
opposition fighters. Iraq is the costliest conflict overall, with as many as 308,000 dead (or
515,000 from doubling the IBC count). Syria cost 180,000 lives, Afghanistan 157,000, Yemen
90,000, and Pakistan 66,000.
Roughly 32,000 American military personnel have been wounded; some 300,000 suffer from PTSD
or significant depression and even more have endured traumatic brain injuries. There are other
human costs -- 4.5 million Iraqi refugees and millions more in other nations, as well as the
destruction of Iraq's indigenous Christian community and persecution of other religious
minorities. There has been widespread rape and other sexual violence. Civilians, including
children, suffer from PTSD.
Even stopping the wars won't end the costs. Explained Nita Crawford of Boston University and
co-director of Brown's Cost of War Project: "the total budgetary burden of the post-9/11 wars
will continue to rise as the U.S. pays the on-going costs of veterans' care and for interest no
borrowing to pay for the wars."
People would continue to die. Unexploded shells and bombs still turn up in Europe from World
Wars I and II. In Afghanistan, virtually the entire country is a battlefield, filled with
landmines, shells, bombs, and improvised explosive devices. Between 2001 and 2018, 5,442
Afghans were killed and 14,693 were wounded from unexploded ordnance. Some of these explosives
predate American involvement, but the U.S. has contributed plenty over the last 18 years.
Moreover, the number of indirect deaths often exceeds battle-related casualties. Journalist
and activist David Swanson noted an "estimate that to 480,000 direct deaths in Afghanistan,
Iraq, and Pakistan, one must add at least one million deaths in those countries indirectly
caused by the recent and ongoing wars. This is because the wars have caused illnesses,
injuries, malnutrition, homelessness, poverty, lack of social support, lack of healthcare,
trauma, depression, suicide, refugee crises, disease epidemics, the poisoning of the
environment, and the spread of small-scale violence." Consider Yemen, ravaged by famine and
cholera. Most civilian casualties have resulted not from Saudi and Emirati bombing, but from
the consequences of the bombing.
Only a naif would imagine that these wars will disappear absent a dramatic change in
national leadership. Wrote Crawford: "The mission of the post-9/11 wars, as originally defined,
was to defend the United States against future terrorist threats from al-Qaeda and affiliated
organizations. Since 2001, the wars have expanded from the fighting in Afghanistan, to wars and
smaller operations elsewhere, in more than 80 countries -- becoming a truly 'global war on
terror'."
Yet every expansion of conflict makes the American homeland more, not less, vulnerable.
Contrary to the nonsensical claim that if we don't occupy Afghanistan forever and overthrow
Syria's Bashar al-Assad, al-Qaeda and ISIS will turn Chicago and Omaha into terrorist
abattoirs, intervening in more conflicts and killing more foreigners creates additional
terrorists at home and abroad. In this regard, drone campaigns are little better than invasions
and occupations.
For instance, when questioned by the presiding judge in his trial, the failed 2010 Times
Square bomber, Faisal Shahzad, a U.S. citizen, cited the drone campaign in Pakistan. His
colloquy with the judge was striking: "I'm going to plead guilty 100 times forward because
until the hour the U.S. pulls its forces from Iraq and Afghanistan and stops the drone strikes
in Somalia and Yemen and in Pakistan and stops the occupation of Muslim lands and stops Somalia
and Yemen and in Pakistan, and stops the occupation of Muslim lands, and stops killing the
Muslims."
Ajani Marwat, with the New York City Police Department's intelligence division, outlined
Shahzad's perspective to TheGuardian : "'It's American policies in his country.'
'We don't have to do anything to attract them,' a terrorist organizer in Lahore told me. 'The
Americans and the Pakistani government do our work for us. With the drone attacks targeting the
innocents who live in Waziristan and the media broadcasting this news all the time, the
sympathies of most of the nation are always with us. Then it's simply a case of converting
these sentiments into action'."
Washington does make an effort to avoid civilian casualties, but war will never be pristine.
Combatting insurgencies inevitably harms innocents. Air and drone strikes rely on often
unreliable informants. The U.S. employs "signature" strikes based on supposedly suspicious
behavior. And America's allies, most notably the Saudis and Emiratis -- supplied, armed,
guided, and until recently refueled by Washington -- make little if any effort to avoid killing
noncombatants and destroying civilian infrastructure.
Thus will the cycle of terrorism and war continue. Yet which leading Democrats have
expressed concern? Most complain that President Donald Trump is negotiating with North Korea,
leaving Syria, and reducing force levels in Afghanistan. Congressional Democrats care about
Yemen only because it has become Trump's war; there were few complaints under President Barack
Obama.
What has Washington achieved after years of combat? Even the capitals of its client states
are unsafe. The State Department warns travelers to Iraq that kidnapping is a risk and urges
businessmen to hire private security. In Kabul, embassy officials now travel to the airport via
helicopter rather than car.
Tulsi Gabbard is talking about what really matters. The bipartisan War Party has done its
best to wreck America and plenty of other nations too. Gabbard is courageously challenging the
Democrats in this coalition, who have become complicit in Washington's criminal wars.
Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a former special assistant to
President Ronald Reagan. He is the author of Foreign Follies: America's New Global
Empire.
And, by the way, it's important to stress that Tulsi ain't picking at Her Majesty all of a
sudden. It was the said majesty who has recently started picking at Tulsi first out of no
reason, extrapolating that joke of Trump's "Russia's candidate" status on her as well.
Also, this:
People would continue to die. Unexploded shells and bombs still turn up in Europe from
World Wars I and II. In Afghanistan, virtually the entire country is a battlefield,
filled with
landmines, shells, bombs, and improvised explosive devices.
At least in Europe it is indeed shells and bombs, which are kind of big schmucks thus
easily noticed when approached and then disarmed by engineers. While all over the Middle
East it is first and foremost IEDs that can look like, virtually, anything starting from a
hand grenade's size.
On one hand, you're right. On the other hand, the average neocon/neolib commenter who will
come to enlighten us as to Russian agents behind the authorship of the article will be
utmostly unable to read the damn thing. For such a feller it ain't gonna be much different
from 5D21DBA0000.
Unfortunately, a lot of Americans in recent years were more concerned about gays getting
married and poor women terminating their pregnancies.
At Thanksgiving dinner today, the conversation eventually turned to politics and more
specifically, Ukraine. I asked the other diners if they knew who Victoria Nuland was and
got blank stares. Most didn't know that Crimea had been part of the Russian Empire going
back to 1783, which happens to be the year that the US was formally recognized as a
separate country under the Treaty of Paris.
How big is $6.4 trillion? Enough to cover outstanding student loans about 4 times. Or
enough to stabilize Social Security and Medicare for decades to come.
Mostly a very good article - but - what possible legitimate purpose was there invading
Afghanistan ? This was the biggest war crime of the lot and you're still there. Afghanistan
had nothing whatsoever to do with the New York plane attacks. It was a failed state and had
the misfortune to have bin Laden and co supposedly holed up in the mountains there and
unable to do much about it. Dealing with that required a specific police style action.
Instead you carpet bombed Kabul to start and unleashed a frenzy of killing across the
country. Unfortunately pretty much as a lot of us predicted around the middle of Sept 2001.
And where did you find Osama in the end ? Oh yeah, hiding in luxury in a Pakistan army
town.
In response to the plane attacks you murdered countless thousands in an immiserated land
and after another brain fart thought Iraq was a good idea because they had nothing to do
with it either.
The only civilian plane to fly out of the US on Sept 11 2001 was carrying the Saudi
Royal family back home. Almost all the plane terrorists were Saudi and Pakistan conspired
against you continually. But you didn't have the guts or brains to take either of them on
and instead picked in the weakest of the lot, Afghanistan followed by a nice flat country
you'd already half destroyed and without nukes.
I'm not sure if it was a "failed state" at that point. True, we did not like the brutal
Taliban to be in charge, but I don't think it had no effective central government. It did.
How clueless do you have to be to express antipathy towards Gabbard's stance and question
"what really matters"? What do these idiots think is more important than policies that send
our children to war?
"Senator Chris Murphy complained: "It's a little hard to figure out what itch she's
trying to scratch in the Democratic Party right now.""
Couldn't agree more, Senator Chris. Most Democrats really like these pointless, endless,
trillion dollar wars. They want to keep them going strong as long as possible, because
there's nothing Democrats like better than staggeringly expensive government programs, and
when it comes down to a choice
between being more frugal and getting Americans out of the Middle East on the one hand, or
a big, juicy budget-busting festival of spending, refugee floods, and death on the other,
there's no question where Chris Murphy and the Democratic Party stand.
As for Tulsi Gabbard, who does she think she's kidding? An anti-war Democrat? A fiscal
restraint Democrat? A "focus on America not foreign wars" Democrat? Whoever heard of such a
thing? She needs a new party, one that isn't run by billionaire elites serving corporate or
foreign interests. Call it "the American Party", to distinguish it from the corrupt garbage
offered by the globalist elites and foreign interests who run the Democrats and GOP.
I appreciate your silly tirade against the Democrats, hate to rain on your biased parade
BUT it is BOTH corrupt political parties that perpetuate this senseless crusade! Both of
these parties should be dismantled and banned!
Tulsi would make the best of all presidents but I am afraid the CIA working for the owner
Oligarchs of the evil Military Industrial War Crime Complex would do the same thing they
did to Kennedy so they could put a stooge in office to do their bidding.
All these wars weren't against terrorists and such. For a good strategist, that was the
best opportunity to get in the Central Asia and plant your bases there under the belly of
Iran, Russia, and China and start making mischief and prepare for the next phases. At that
point, with the new man at helm in Moscow and China getting lift-off, it was clear that the
planned take over of the entire world economy was not happening, so action needed to be
taken.
As for the 6.4 trillion dollars and such, what should be clear to any with two brain
cells between their ears is that the US has no intention to ever repay those loans, or any,
at least not to foreigners. And is the duty of the American cogs to shed their blood for
their betters' ever expanding profits.
I could remind readers that Hillary Clinton is not now running for president and is not
ever going to be president, but I know the TAC target demographic uses snarls about Hillary
the way the rest of us use punctuation marks, so I guess I can let the gratuitous
first-paragraph sneer slide.
Your representation of the Sen. Murphy quote is upside down, inside out, and completely
obviates the rest of the article. He is not bemused that someone is trying to sell steaks
to vegetarians. He is asking why she is trying to sell refrigerators to eskimos.
Meanwhile, her fellow Democrats appear abysmally unconcerned about the human and
financial toll.
You... couldn't be bothered to spend even 15 seconds typing in a name of one of the
Democratic frontrunners and the words "foreign policy" or "endless wars" into google?
"From endless wars that strain military families to trade policies that crush our middle
class, Washington's foreign policy today serves the wealthy and well-connected at the
expense of everyone else... A strong military should act as a deterrent so that most of the
time, we won't have to use it. We must continue to be vigilant about the threat of
terrorism, but it's time to bring our troops home... That means cutting our bloated defense
budget and ending the stranglehold of defense contractors on our military policy."
I'm well to the left of center, and I donated to Tulsi early in her campaign. So many
conservatives have praised her that she's become suspect for people on the left. She's
allowed herself to become a one issue candidate, and that's unworkable in a presidential
campaign.
Her anti gay activities in the past are problematic, and although she identifies as a
Hindu, there are claims she's or was member of a cult like group. It's very clear to me
that the Evangelicals would attack her for her religion in any event. Tulsi will never be
president, but I hope she continues her battle to end the forever war.
There is blindness across the political spectrum about the perilous state of the world.
They do not see the similarities with 1914 and 1939. The situations are not identical, no
two situations are. But the pattern is clear.
https://www.ghostsofhistory...
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) announced that his campaign for president has received over four
million individual donations.
The news means Sanders is the fastest candidate in history to reach the mark, putting him
in a league of his own when it comes to donor contributions. While poll numbers can be a
strong indicator of a candidate's prospects, individual donations are often a sign of voter
enthusiasm.
"Working-class Americans across the country are chipping in $3, $18, $27, or whatever they
can to help elect Bernie Sanders because they know he is the only candidate who will fight
for them and take on corporate greed and corruption," campaign manager Faiz Shakir said in a
statement. "This is what momentum looks like."
There are many levers of political power, such as media power and infrastructure power.
Those are still firmly in the hands of the establishment.
But cracks are showing.
It's not like the Democratic Party is going to turn Left. And why should they? Democrats
are a huge, cohesive alliance of dedicated Members. They have some Liberal tolerance, but
they are most comfortable in an ambience of cosy conservative values. The last thing the
Democrats want to do is change anything. Changing things is too risky and upsetting. They are
the guardians of the status quo. The Democratic Party is where the Democrats belong.
The Left may have some mild influence in the Party, but the Party is not moving Left. It's
moving right, with stronger ties to the Neocons. They embrace the Empire and all that comes
with it. They renewed the Patriot Act two weeks ago and the Media Monopolies agreed not to
mention it. I read not a single Republican voted for the Bill. This demonstrates the ideology
of the Democrats.
The Left is oppressed by the Democratic Party whether they are inside the party, or
standing outside. When the Left finally manifests as a Party in the US, it will be via a
charismatic populist outsider. I think they can capture a majority of Americans at the
Presidential level. And that's maybe all you need for a decade or two. Executive power is
enough to get a foothold. Because building a new Party infrastructure within the Federal
election system is legally and logistically blocked by the Duopoly and the Billionaires, no
matter how many Americans are affiliated with it.
But, then, it's not like we have a functioning democracy in the first place. We're
Totalitarians who "show vote."
that power shift
in the wink of an eye
DNC will burn rubber
before going progressive
Sometimes things go the way they oughta. Unfortunately this will just encourage the DNC to
grovel to the 1%, and pander to the rest of us, all that much harder.
Bernie broke the mold in 2016 and the powers that be are trying their best to deny it ever
happened. They're even trying to give all the credit to Elizabeth Warren for President.
Those of us with long memories know that the Democratic Party has backed the conservative
candidate over the progressive time and again.
Carter wasn't the progressive. The progressive was Ted Kennedy.
Mondale wasn't the progressive. The progressive was Jesse Jackson.
Dukakis wasn't the progressive. The progressive was once again Jesse Jackson.
The Democratic Party backed Bill Clinton in 1992 over Thom Harkin.
2000 they backed Al Gore over Bill Bradley.
2004 they backed John Kerry over Howard Dean.
2008 they backed Barack Obama, but only after they made sure John Edwards was out of the
race.
2016 they torpedoed Bernie Sanders and we saw what that got us.
The Democratic Party establishment is afraid of the Left. They're afraid of us because
they know we're right. They know we vote. And now they know we can raise some money.
"... Starting to remind me more and more of JFK. She's a natural at public speaking; I don't think I've ever seen her lost for words, and while she must have prepared herself for many of these questions. she launches immediately into her response and does not use recovery pauses like "Ummm " that break up the flow of her speech. She responds instantly and seemingly spontaneously, and delivers the whole message as a seamless package. ..."
Did she say she would not vote for impeachment? Up to recently, I thought that, while she was
the best of a bunch of fakers, clowns and idiots, her lack of experience and toughness were
fatal flaws..
However, her ongoing performances suggests to me that she is capable of being a
good president – the first in decades in my opinion.
Starting to remind me more and more of JFK. She's a natural at public speaking; I don't think
I've ever seen her lost for words, and while she must have prepared herself for many of these
questions. she launches immediately into her response and does not use recovery pauses like
"Ummm " that break up the flow of her speech. She responds instantly and seemingly
spontaneously, and delivers the whole message as a seamless package.
"... The polarizing Fox host dismantled the official Western media narrative in a seven-minute segment that included an interview with the Guardian correspondent who personally witnessed the second whistleblower present evidence to the agency. ..."
"... "America almost attacked a country and killed untold thousands of people over an attack that may never have happened in the first place – that powerful people may very well have been lying about," Carlson told his audience, replaying footage of his show from the days following the attack to show he'd always been suspicious it had happened as reported. ..."
Fox News host Tucker Carlson has crossed an MSM Rubicon and questioned the Douma "gas
attack" fraud on air, bringing up the OPCW whistleblower. Then he "rooted for Russia" over
Ukraine. Was it a "betrayal," or epic truth-trolling?
Carlson boldly went where no mainstream TV host had gone before, unpacking the
explosive story of April 2018's Douma "chemical weapons attack." While the "attack" was
attributed to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad by an altered report from the Organization for
the Prevention of Chemical Weapons, two whistleblowers within the group accused it of
omitting evidence to craft a misleading narrative – a fact that has never crossed the
lips of US media until Monday night.
Must Watch @TuckerCarlson Segment Tonight: New Evidence Shows Syria's Assad May Have
Been Falsely Blamed for 2018 Chemical Attack"We've been lied to, we've been manipulated, we
knew it at the time." pic.twitter.com/vKw6YnphcT
-- The Columbia Bugle (@ColumbiaBugle) November 26, 2019
The polarizing Fox host dismantled the official Western media narrative in a
seven-minute segment that included an interview with the Guardian correspondent who
personally witnessed the second whistleblower present evidence to the agency.
"America almost attacked a country and killed untold thousands of people over an attack
that may never have happened in the first place – that powerful people may very well
have been lying about," Carlson told his audience, replaying footage of his show from the
days following the attack to show he'd always been suspicious it had happened as
reported.
Carlson is politically astute and media smart. He would not make such statements unless he
was sure they would not be excessively damaging, advance his message and boost his
popularity. A real risk is Fox News pulling the plug though.
Fortuitous indeed that I was not eating or drinking anything when he mentioned Samantha Power
and 'stupid decisions'; otherwise, there would have been a pressure-diffused spray of it
everywhere. He did indeed let it all hang out – I continue to marvel at his
transformation. Who would ever have imagined? I would once have liked to hear of him being
roasted alive over a slow fire, back when he was snarking and smirking his way through
defenses of the Bush administrations ham-fisted policy strangulation. Well, by God, whatever
it takes, and hero biscuits to the medium. Rock on, Tucker.
2:42
I find it funny that Kamala said that because if there is any candidate on that stage that
"can speak to all people" it's definitely Tulsi. Conservatives actually appreciate and
respect Tulsi Gabbard, even tho we disagree with her with just about everything, she actually
does a good job speaking to both sides. She's the only candidate that shows respect to
conservatives and isn't afraid to go on Fox News. Unlike Kamala. Conservatives do not like
her and we know she doesn't care about us.
"... Sanders went on to argue that "pressure has got to be put on media" to cover policy issues like income inequality and poverty more heavily, instead of devoting attention to sensational campaign moments and the state of political horse races. ..."
"... 'You know what, forget the political gossip. Politics is not a soap opera. Talk about the real damn issues facing this country.'" ..."
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has not been shy about
his disdain for the mainstream media. But the
Democratic presidential hopeful
has rarely, if ever, articulated it as bluntly as he did in an interview that aired on
MSNBC 's "
The Rachel Maddow Show " on Friday night. Sanders
called out the network for its corporate character in a novel exchange with host
Rachel Maddow .
"The American people are sick and tired of establishment politics and economics, and by the way, a little bit tired of corporate
media as well," Sanders told Maddow in an interview taped in Burlington, Vermont.
Maddow pressed Sanders for specifics on how he would change the media if he were president. "What's the solution to corporate
media?" she asked.
"We have got to think of ways the Democratic party, for a start, starts funding the equivalent of Fox television," Sanders
answered. Of course, MSNBC is a corporate media outlet that is widely seen as a Democratic version of Fox News because of the perceived
sympathies of many of its political talk shows.
Sanders went on to argue that "pressure has got to be put on media" to cover policy issues like income inequality and poverty
more heavily, instead of devoting attention to sensational campaign moments and the state of political horse races.
He then claimed that bringing that pressure to bear would be difficult, since corporate ownership makes it harder for news outlets
to cover issues in a way that conflicts with the interests of top executives. "MSNBC is owned by who?" Sanders asked. "Comcast, our
overlords," Maddow responded with a chuckle.
"All right, Comcast is not one of the most popular corporations in America, right?" Sanders said. "And I think the American people
are going to have to say to NBC and ABC and CBS and CNN, 'You know what, forget the political gossip. Politics is not a soap
opera. Talk about the real damn issues facing this country.'"
The question is who will listed to Obama after his "change we can believe in" betrayal. Also
is not he a war criminal? Obama election was probably the most slick false flag operation even
conducted by intelligence agencies. Somebody created for him complexly fake but still plausible
legend.
That Obama desire to interfere in 2020 election also shows gain that that he a regular
completely corrupt Clinton neoliberal. The worst king of neoliberals, wolfs in sheep's
clothing.
And the fact that CIA democrats dominates the Democratic Party actually is another reason
from "Demexit" from the Democratic party of workers and lower middle class. The sad fact that the
USA Corporate Dems recently became the second pro-war militarist party, and learned to love
intelligence agencies; two things unimaginable in 60th and 70th.
As we noted earlier, a bombshell admission from Politico today exploring Obama's
substantial behind the scenes influence as Democratic kingmaker : included in the lengthy
profile on the day-to-day of the former president's personal office in the West End of
Washington D.C. and his meeting with the field of Democratic candidates, is
the following gem :
"Obama said privately that if Bernie were running away with the nomination, Obama would
speak up to stop him."
And crucially, when asked about that prior statement reported in Politico, an Obama
spokesperson did not deny that he said it.
The frank admission underscores what many independent analysts, not to
mention prior damning WikiLeaks DNC disclosures , have pointed out for years: that the
establishment controlling the Democratic party has continuously sought to rig the system
against Bernie.
"Since losing 2016, Dem elites have waged a prolonged effort to stop Bernie. Bernie is the
obvious answer to the neoliberal Clinton-Obama legacy voters rejected..." journalist Aaron
Maté observed of the
Politico quote.
Here's the stunning and deeply revealing section in full, which began by outlining Obama's
'advice-giving' throughout meetings with Democrat contenders including Joe Biden, Elizabeth
Warren, Pete Buttigieg, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker,
and others :
Publicly, he has been clear that he won't intervene in the primary for or against a
candidate , unless he believed there was some egregious attack. "I can't even imagine with
this field how bad it would have to be for him to say something," said a close adviser.
Instead, he sees his role as providing guardrails to keep the process from getting too ugly
and to unite the party when the nominee is clear.
There is one potential exception: Back when Sanders seemed like more of a threat than he
does now, Obama said privately that if Bernie were running away with the nomination, Obama
would speak up to stop him. (Asked about that, a spokesperson for Obama pointed out that
Obama recently said he would support and campaign for whoever the Democratic nominee is.)
And a further deeply revealing but more laughable quote comes later as follows: "Obama
designed his post-presidency in 2016, at a time when he believed Hillary Clinton would win and
Biden would be out of politics." So the reality is... far from the idea that the Dem elites
would back the actual nominee the party puts forward, clearly the die has already been cast
against Bernie just
like the last time around against Hillary in 2016.
Politico author Ryan Lizza later in the story quotes a "close family friend," who described
that Obama's "politics are not strong left of center."
"I mean it's left, but he's nowhere near where some of the candidates are currently sitting,
at least when he got himself elected," the source claimed.
This means in the mind of Obama and other top party influencers and kingmakers, Bernie and
other popular outliers like Tulsi Gabbard have already long been sidelined. Tulsi, it should
also be noted, is one of the couple of candidates who did not bother to stop by Obama's D.C.
office for a 'blessing' and advice.
Progressive journalist Michael Tracey claimed Tuesday that MSNBC is has dropped all
pretenses for their "contempt" towards Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii).
The political news contributor said the left-leaning network has treated her fellow 2020
Democratic candidates, including businessman Andrew Yang , and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) unfairly, but he argued
that with Gabbard it, "crosses a certain threshold."
"Fundamentally they're beholden to whatever the market incentives are and right now it's
within their market interests to depict Tulsi as an infiltrator, as a Trojan horse in the
Democratic Party and not deal on the substance with what she's saying which is why over and
over again they tar her as a Russian plant essentially," Tracey told Hill.TV.
"There's nobody who can really offer any kind countervailing view because it's just not
economically advantageous for them at this point," he added.
MSNBC didn't immediately return Hill.TV's request for comment.
Tracey pointed to a fiery exchange between Gabbard and Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) during last week's 2020
primary debate as a prime example.
During the debate, Harris accused Gabbard of being a conservative media darling and
consistently going on Fox News to bash President Obama during his tenure.
"I think that it's unfortunate that we have someone on this stage who is attempting to be
the Democratic nominee for president of the United States, who, during the Obama
administration, spent four years full-time on Fox News criticizing President Obama," Harris
said.
Gabbard dismissed the criticism, calling it "ridiculous."
The California senator also hit Gabbard over her meeting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad,
who U.S. officials have accused of being a war criminal. Harris concluded her attack by saying
that Democrats need a candidate who can take on President Trump as well as "bring the party and
the nation together."
The back-and-forth came after Gabbard criticized the Democratic Party of fashioning outdated
foreign policies "represented "by Hillary Clinton and others' foreign
policy."
"Our Democratic Party unfortunately is not the party that is of, by and for the people. It
is a party that has been and continues to be influenced by the foreign policy establishment in
Washington, represented by Hillary Clinton and others' foreign policy, by the military
industrial complex and other greedy, corporate interests," she said.
Leading up to the fifth Democratic debate, Gabbard engaged in a weeks-long feud with Clinton
after the former Democratic presidential nominee said the Hawaii lawmaker was "the favorite of
the Russians."
'thanks b.. looking at the theatre, it seems dems have backed themselves into a corner... meanwhile obama wants to ca-bosh
sanders... You know if Sanders had some character he would run as an independent with Tulsi.. but you all know that stands a snowball
chance in hell.. the problem with conformists, is they spend too much time conforming and that doesn't end up serving anyone..
and it is the reason trump got elected - he is not a conformist.. self centered narcissist, yes, but conformist - no.. too bad
about american leadership being persona non grata...
what i don't understand is why bernie doesn't run as an independent? if he is so great and would be great for the usa, why
can't he figure this basic picture out? this is why i give merit to jackrabbit sometimes - it is all political theatre and they
are all in it together raping the common people..
"... and now Obama weighs in to warn against the real danger to the democrats, Bernie Sanders. that's who they have to beat, and Gabbard. They don't give much of a damn about beating Trump. ..."
"... This pretty much confirms my and many others here hypothesis that the Dems are fighting a "war on two fronts": one against Trump nationalist capitalism and the other against the "democratic socialists" who have been flocking to their party machine since 2014. ..."
"... Clearly, the goal is to prevent the US Polity from clawing back power from the 10% and enacting policies to their benefit. Meanwhile, a new form of Transnational Nationalism continues to take shape that will soon present a serious threat to the Financialized Globalizers and their Cult of Debt. Too many seem to laugh off the entire situation by dismissing it as Kabuki Theatre, which I see as self-serving and shortsighted since there're several very real crises we're in up to our collective armpits. ..."
"... A full blown impeachment trial that exposes the entire Russia-gate/Ukraine-gate/Whatever-gate sham is what this country needs. ..."
"... Bet the MSM sells Ukrainegate this way: Trump is guilty in Ukrainegate and should be impeached, but Democrats are moving on to focus on the election. And besides, Dems will tell us, the dastardly Republicans in the Senate will corruptly block Trump's impeachment. ..."
"... That is what they call a "trial balloon." If there isn't too much of a freakout among the true-believer base, and I don't think there is, it'll be an option they will at least take seriously. Not that I'm encouraging anyone to bet on rational thinking at this point. Anyway I agree it's the best move for congressional Democrats. ..."
"... I am liking all the commenters here that understand that there is only one empire party with two mythical faces. I think this kabuki is necessary if you don't have a major WAR to keep the masses focused on or otherwise distracted from the underlying R2P which I translate to Rape2Protect. ..."
"... If this show should teach people in the US anything (again), it is how both US parties descend like vultures onto countries where they manage to take over the government. Five billion poured into Ukraine with the requisite murder and mayhem, and who knows how many billions come pouring back out. It's a real jackpot for those in the right positions to scoop it into their pockets. ..."
"... The average people in the US don't even have a genuine safety net. Important for all those productive resources to go to pedophile islands and sinecures for coke head sons of politicians, obviously. ..."
"... The GOP is the party of the rich. The Democrats are the party the rich pay to keep the left at bay when the Republicans lose. ..."
"... the deck is stacked even more against independents than it is against actual mildly leftist candidates who run as democrats. there are a substantial number of people who think the only way to change the country is to take over the democratic party. frankly, that isn't going to happen, and nobody is going to win as an independent candidate with all the procedural rules making it so hard to even get on the ballot, while the state government, which is invariably controlled by one of the two parties, throws every roadblock, legal and illegal, in the way. my gut feeling is things are going to have to get quite a bit worse before the citizenry starts to explode, and there's no telling how that process will work out, and no way to control it once it reaches critical mass. ..."
"... the Democrats won't want to censure Trump for matters in which they themselves are equally complicit, as has been discussed here. ..."
"... "The party's true function is thus largely theatrical. It doesn't exist to fight for change, but only to pose as a force which one fine distant day might possibly bestir itself to fight for change. Thus the whole magic of the Dem Party -- the essential service it renders to the US power structure -- lies not in what it does, but in its mere existence: by simply existing, and doing nothing, it pretends to be something it's not; and this is enough to relieve despair & to let the system portray itself as a "democracy." ..."
"... Trump is up against an entrenched powerful bureaucracy and people who buy ink by the 55 gallon barrel. The democrats need to take a hard turn towards Mayor Pete and Tulsi. The rank and file Democrats are tired of the elite political class ..."
"... The real Trump move would be to hit the twitter right before the house impeachment vote and announce that he has instructed the House Republicans to vote for impeachment. ..."
"... He could lay out his story about how the American People never got to hear the full story because of house dems, and how the Senate would fully investigate the 2016 election, Russiagate, Ukraine, and whatever else they want. Maybe even make Hillary testify. Heads would explode and his base would love it. ..."
"... To the people here clamoring for Bernie Sanders to go independent: The American electoral system is very unique. The two parties -- GOP and Dems -- are much more than mere political parties: they are the American electoral machine itself. It is impossible to win the presidency without being the candidate of one of the two, that's why Trump also didn't go as an independent either. ..."
"An impeachment trial in the Senate would be a disaster for the Democrats.
I can not see why the Democrats would want to fall into such a trap. House leader Nancy
Pelosi is experienced enough to not let that happen."
The real reason in my opinion that Pelosi went along with impeachment was that she saw
Bernies message getting through, and even though the DNC pushed all the conserva-dem
candidates they could into the race, Bernie is still doing well and gaining. An impeachment
trial would require Bernie to attend the hearings rather that campaigning. Also Wall Streets
best friend Obama has just stated that Bernie is not a Democrat and that would require Obama
to get on the speaking circuit to campaign against him - you know for the sake of the
corporations - and those 500k speaking thank you gigs. They would rather elect Trump than
Bernie - that is why I think Pelosi would go along with an impeachment trial in the Senate -
Bernie is the greater threat.
The idea to censure Trump and move on has been aired since mid 2017. The latest was
Forbes.com billwhalen 26 September 2019
Link
I ordered a truckload of pop corn to snack on during the trial in the Senate. Just imagine
Joe Biden under cross examination as he flips 'n flops! "Was that me in the Video, I can't
recall."
With interest (even among Democrats) in the impeachment process sliding, the House
Judiciary Committee is set to take over the impeachment probe of President Trump next week,
scheduling a Dec. 4 hearing.
As The Hill reports, behind Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), the committee
will hear from legal scholars as Democrats weigh whether the evidence turned up in their
weeks-long impeachment inquiry warrants the drafting of articles aimed at removing the
president from office.
The hearing, scheduled for next Wednesday, will focus on the definition of an
impeachable offense and the formal application of the impeachment process. The panel
will invite White House lawyers to attend and participate.
Ahead of the hearing, Nadler wrote to Trump requesting his participation - or
that of White House counsel - as part of ensuring "a fair and informative process."[.]
Trump will take a page from the other president who campaigned on the "do nothing
congress"
and now Obama weighs in to warn against the real danger to the democrats, Bernie Sanders.
that's who they have to beat, and Gabbard. They don't give much of a damn about beating
Trump.
b, there seems to be a critical flaw in your analysis--you seem to base it on a premise that
the goal of the Democratic establishment is to win elections/gain power/govern. It's not,
it's to ensure the continuing enrichment of themselves and their oligarch peers, financial
industry, military, pharma, etc.
The question people like Pelosi (worth $100 million or so btw along with her husband whose
business she enriches via her position) are pondering isn't "Will doing x, y, z help Trump
win?" It's "Will doing x, y, z ensure Bernie Sanders doesn't win?"
This pretty much confirms my and many others here hypothesis that the Dems are
fighting a "war on two fronts": one against Trump nationalist capitalism and the other
against the "democratic socialists" who have been flocking to their party machine since
2014.
Of all the things that the Democrats could impeach President Trump over, the one thing they
seized upon was the issue that had the most potential to blow back on them and destroy Joe
Biden's chances of reaching the White House. Whoever had that brilliant idea and put it as
the long straw in a cylindrical prawn-chip can along with all the other straws for pulling
out, sure didn't think of all the consequences that could have arisen. That speaks for the
depth (or lack thereof) of the thinking among senior Democrats and their worker bee analysts,
along with a narrow-minded outlook, sheer hatred of a political outsider and a fanatical zeal
to match that hatred and outlook.
The folks who hatched that particular impeachment plan and pitched it to Nancy Pelosi must
have been the same idiots in the DNC who dreamt up the Russiagate scandal and also pursued
Paul Manafort to get him off DJT's election campaign team. Dmitri Alperovich / Crowdstrike,
Alexandra Chalupa: we're looking at you.
Impeachment takes Sanders out of the campaign and that opens things up for the
CIA/establishment's "Identity Politics Candidate #3" , Mayor Butt-gig.
That said, since "Everyone who doesn't vote for our candidate is a deplorable
misogynist!" didn't work as expected, I wonder what makes them think "Everyone who
doesn't vote for our candidate is a deplorable homophobe!" will work any better?
Lots of agreement here with the overall situation becoming clearer with Bloomberg's entrance
and the outing of Obama's plans. I just finished writing my response to Putin's speech before the annual
United Russia Party Congress on the Open Thread and suggest barflies take 10 minutes to
read it and compare what he espouses a political party's deeds & goals ought to be versus
those of the West and its vassals.
Clearly, the goal is to prevent the US Polity from clawing back power from the 10% and
enacting policies to their benefit. Meanwhile, a new form of Transnational Nationalism
continues to take shape that will soon present a serious threat to the Financialized
Globalizers and their Cult of Debt. Too many seem to laugh off the entire situation by
dismissing it as Kabuki Theatre, which I see as self-serving and shortsighted since there're
several very real crises we're in up to our collective armpits.
A full blown impeachment trial that exposes the entire
Russia-gate/Ukraine-gate/Whatever-gate sham is what this country needs.
Obviously, a sufficient number of secure Republican representatives are needed to vote in
favor of impeachment to allow this circus to continue to its bizarrely entertaining,
Democratic Party destroying end.
The MSM will declare Trump guilty - that is, he has earned impeachment for Ukrainegate.
There are Democrats still under the illusion that Trump colluded with Russia to steal the
election. Dems tell us that Trump *obstructed* the Mueller investigation thus Trump could not
be nailed, nonetheless Trump is guilty of collusion until proven innocent.
Back to Ukrainegate. Bet the MSM sells Ukrainegate this way: Trump is guilty in
Ukrainegate and should be impeached, but Democrats are moving on to focus on the election.
And besides, Dems will tell us, the dastardly Republicans in the Senate will corruptly block
Trump's impeachment.
Tulsi
Gabbard Tweet not specifically about impeachment but begs numerous questions:
"My personal commitment is to always treat you and all Americans with respect. Working
side-by-side, we can defeat the divisiveness of Donald Trump, and usher in a 21st century of
peace, human dignity, & true equality. Working side by side, we can make Dr. King's dream
our reality ." [My Emphasis]
Questions: Is Trump divisive, or is it the D-Party and Current Oligarchy that make him so;
and which is more important to defeat? Which party "usher[ed] in the 21st century" with
several wars and abetted the next two? How did Obama, Slick Willie or his wife advance "human
dignity & true equality"? How does her last sentence differ from "Hope you can believe
in"? Hasn't her D-Party worked tirelessly for decades to circumvent the goals she espouses?
Wouldn't Gabbard have a better chance running as an Enlightened Republican than as a Renegade
Democrat if her goal's to defeat Trump?
American Democracy is political professional wrestling, Kabuki Theater, and mediocre Reality
TV all rolled into. by: AK74 @ 4 <= binary divide <=conducted by the USA, is not about
America, Americans or making America great again, its about the welfare of [the few<=
which most Americans would not call fellow Americans].
Sasha.@ 23 I don't understand where you are coming from.. thank Korlof1 @18 for posting
that Putin talk alert. excerpts from the talk.. => The priority [of United Russia has
been] the protection of the people's interests, the interests of [the] Motherland, and
..responsible [approach] to ..country, its security, stability and people's lives in the
long-term perspective.
The party.. offered a unifying agenda based on freedom and well being, patriotism,
..traditional values, a strong civil society and a strong state. The key issue in the party's
work .being together with the people, Karlof1@18 <=this talk suggest change in Russian
leadership that are not congruent with your [Sasha] comment @23. I hope you will make more
clear what you spent sometime writing ( and for that effort I thank you) but it is not yet
clear what you mean.. .
Re: Brenda Lawrence talking about censure rather than impeachment:
That is what they call a "trial balloon." If there isn't too much of a freakout among
the true-believer base, and I don't think there is, it'll be an option they will at least
take seriously. Not that I'm encouraging anyone to bet on rational thinking at this point.
Anyway I agree it's the best move for congressional Democrats.
Yet another other option is to continue the investigation indefinitely. I'm going to say
it is their default move actually. In that case, the House Judiciary Committee would spend a
few weeks putting on their own show, then say they would like more evidence to be really
sure, returning matters to the House Intelligence Committee, and we repeat the cycle.
I am liking all the commenters here that understand that there is only one empire party
with two mythical faces. I think this kabuki is necessary if you don't have a major WAR to
keep the masses focused on or otherwise distracted from the underlying R2P which I translate
to Rape2Protect.
It is sad to see us all talking about which of the lesser of horrible evils will continue
the leadership of American faced empire.....I hope it crashes soon and takes the global elite
down with it.....how many barflies are ready to stand up and say NO to the owners of the
Super-Priority derivatives that will say they own the world because of their casino (no skin
in the game) bets that are currently "legal" in America when the crash comes?
American "Democracy" is a mask for the American Empire and its capitalist
system--including especially the American Military and its Intelligence apparatus (aka The
Deep State). If the American people don't identify with these institutions, you would see
much greater hostility to -- if not outright rebellion against--the American military and
spooks.
Instead, you see the very opposite: the American people saluting, glorifying, "thanking
for their service," and politically fellating the US military and spy agencies every chance
they get. That should tell you all you need to know about Americans.
If this show should teach people in the US anything (again), it is how both US parties
descend like vultures onto countries where they manage to take over the government. Five
billion poured into Ukraine with the requisite murder and mayhem, and who knows how many
billions come pouring back out. It's a real jackpot for those in the right positions to scoop
it into their pockets.
The average people in the US don't even have a genuine safety net. Important for all
those productive resources to go to pedophile islands and sinecures for coke head sons of
politicians, obviously.
Re: #3 Allen – well said. The GOP is the party of the rich. The Democrats are the
party the rich pay to keep the left at bay when the Republicans lose.
The problem with this prediction is that the MSM has been breathlessly pronouncing that THIS
IS EXPLOSIVE EVIDENCE!!!! pretty much every day and after every witness testimony.
So if you are a member of the public who gets their "information" from the MSM (and, be
honest, that is most of the people in the USA) then you have been force-fed is that Trumps
defense against these allegations has already been shredded, and that his guilt has already
been established beyond any reasonable doubt.
How can those opinion-makers then turn around and say "Nah, it'll be fine" and settle for
a mere censure?
Wouldn't the Sheeple respond with a fully-justified "Hey, hang on! What gives?"
The Democrats has leapt on a Tiger. Nobody made them do it, but now they are there I don't
think they are going to be able to leap off.
Some of the first-term nobodies, maybe, but not the Schiffs and the Pelopis and the
Nadlers.
Hang on for dear life and hope for a miracle is probably their only option now.
And, who knows, that trio may be so incompetent that they actually think they are going to
win.
james, the deck is stacked even more against independents than it is against actual
mildly leftist candidates who run as democrats. there are a substantial number of people who
think the only way to change the country is to take over the democratic party. frankly, that
isn't going to happen, and nobody is going to win as an independent candidate with all the
procedural rules making it so hard to even get on the ballot, while the state government,
which is invariably controlled by one of the two parties, throws every roadblock, legal and
illegal, in the way. my gut feeling is things are going to have to get quite a bit worse
before the citizenry starts to explode, and there's no telling how that process will work
out, and no way to control it once it reaches critical mass.
The US is a one party State-- Pepsi _Pepsi Lite. Both parties are capitalist. It is rather
humorous the attention paid to a Dim vs Repug argument. Small thinking for small minds---
As I posted at the beginning of the impeachment process, the Dems would be foolish to hang it
all on the arcane shenanigans in Ukraine but rather should impeach Trump on the numerous more
serious breaches and crimes that he has committed. I also worried that the Democratic Party
leaders would blow the opportunity to demonstrate that Trump and the Republican Party are
rotten to the core and harmful to the country. And so they have blown it. What an inept pack
of asses.
I would think that even censure is still going to be a hot potato for the Democrats. Looking
at the procedure as far as wikipedia describes it, it hasn't done anything of significance
when it comes to being used against a president, especially as the Democrats won't want
to censure Trump for matters in which they themselves are equally complicit, as has been
discussed here.
That means they would be censuring on the same shaky grounds that they would have
impeached him, which only prolongs attention upon the dubious claims of the indictment. It
seems to me Trump will, rather than be shamed by the process, only be saying 'Make my day',
and hopefully have his Attorney General come forward with exonerating revelations on that
issue in the judicial proceeding that it was my contention the impeachment effort had been a
last ditch one to forestall such.
Wishful thinking on that, I know - but at least that probe has merit.
Thanks for your reply! And thanks for linking the Keen video! Made a comment on that
thread.
As I wrote when the possibility of Trump's impeachment arose almost as soon as he was
inaugurated, the entire charade reminds me of Slick Willie's impeachment, trial and
exoneration--the Articles of Impeachment utilized were such that he'd avoid conviction just
as they will be for Trump.
Allen @ 3 said; "The party's true function is thus largely theatrical. It doesn't exist
to fight for change, but only to pose as a force which one fine distant day might possibly
bestir itself to fight for change. Thus the whole magic of the Dem Party -- the essential
service it renders to the US power structure -- lies not in what it does, but in its mere
existence: by simply existing, and doing nothing, it pretends to be something it's not; and
this is enough to relieve despair & to let the system portray itself as a
"democracy."
With very few exceptions, you nailed it..Your description of the Dem. party is sad, but
true.....
Not having much time to watch the show trial it appears to me the Democrats still have a set
of very weak candidates. Anyone who knows Biden knows he in not now and never will be able to
handle a campaign against Trump.
Trump is up against an entrenched powerful bureaucracy and people who buy ink by the
55 gallon barrel. The democrats need to take a hard turn towards Mayor Pete and Tulsi. The
rank and file Democrats are tired of the elite political class in the same fashion that
the rank and file Republicans were tired of the political establishment which caused then to
turn to Trump.
Is the Democrat political establishment smart enough to take a few steps back and push
forward some outsiders? I doubt that but they would not lose much if they did. Any new
leaders would have the same stable of bureaucrats to pick from which will still be there long
after they are gone.
The real Trump move would be to hit the twitter right before the house impeachment vote
and announce that he has instructed the House Republicans to vote for impeachment.
He could lay out his story about how the American People never got to hear the full
story because of house dems, and how the Senate would fully investigate the 2016 election,
Russiagate, Ukraine, and whatever else they want. Maybe even make Hillary testify. Heads
would explode and his base would love it.
The...***The***...core takeaway, the battle at the heart of Russiagate/Ukrainegate, is that
it does not matter who the People elect as President and what platform he was elected on the
Deep State will decide foreign policy.
democrats republicans makes no difference both teams are managed by self serving scum who
refuse to allow "what the people want" to distract them from the big one. "what can I
steal?".
People meed to appreciate two things about both the dems and the rethugs. The first is
they supply a much-needed insight into: "How low can I go as a worthless hang off the wagon
by me fingernails, careerist. The second? That every hack must understand that eventually
every talking head is seen for the ugly sellout which they are.
There is no 'honourable way through this mess', one either quietly resigns pulling the pin
on the worst of us all, or one accepts the previously unacceptable, that we are most likely
both musically n functionally illiterate but it never matters what-u-say, what really counts
is what you do.
Whoever it was the Democrats should shun that person before it creates more damage to
their party.
I would disagree here. If the Democrats continue they will destroy themselves hopefully
leading to Mutually Assured Destruction as they would need to do something very drastic to
destroy the Republicans in return e.g. expose 9/11, Iraq etc, let the swamp / Deep State go
M.A.D. and from the political ashes parties and politicians can rise who are actually working
for the betterment of the USA and its people.
To the people here clamoring for Bernie Sanders to go independent: The American
electoral system is very unique. The two parties -- GOP and Dems -- are much more than mere
political parties: they are the American electoral machine itself. It is impossible to win
the presidency without being the candidate of one of the two, that's why Trump also didn't go
as an independent either.
Bernie Sanders is different from all other independent presidential candidates in American
History because he was the first to really want to win. That's why he penetrated the
Democratic machine, even though he became senator many times as an independent. He read the
conjuncture correctly and, you have to agree, he's been more influential over American
political-ideological landscape than all the other independents put together (not considering
Eugene Debs as an independent).
American "Democracy" is a mask for the American Empire and its capitalist
system--including especially the American Military and its Intelligence apparatus (aka The
Deep State). If the American people don't identify with these institutions, you would see
much greater hostility to--if not outright rebellion against--the American military and
spooks.
Instead, you see the very opposite: the American people saluting, glorifying, "thanking
for their service," and politically fellating the US military and spy agencies every chance
they get.
That should tell you all you need to know about Americans. by: AK74 @ 34
<= No not yet do I agree with you.. The American young people are forced into the
military in order to afford to be educated, and in order to have access to health care and
good-level workforce entry jobs especially the military is default for children of struggling
parents that cannot fund a college education or for the kids who are not yet ready to become
serious students.
The USA has not always discounted America or denied Americans. When I grew up, a college
education was very affordable, health care was available to even the most needy at whatever
they could afford, most of us could work our way through the education and find decent entry
level jobs if we were willing to dedicate ourselves to make the opportunity of a job into a
success (education, degrees, licenses were not needed, just performance was enough).
Unfortunately third party private mind control propaganda was used to extend into fake space,
the belief that the USA provides a valuable service to American interest. As time went on,
the USA had to hid its activities in top secret closets, it then had to learn to spy on
everyone, and it had to prosecute those (whistle blowers) who raised a question. Hence the
predicament of the awaken American dealing with friends that still believe the USA is good
for America.. Others hope the good times will return but the USA tolerance for descent is
dissipating. After the 16th amendment and the federal reserve act in 1913 the USA began to
edge America out in favor of international globalization.
Most of the really important parts of what made the USA great for Americans has been sold
off [privatized] and the protections and umpiring and refereeing that the USA used to provide
to keep the American economic space highly competitive and freely accessible to all
competitors has not only ceased, but now operates as a monopoly factory, churning out laws,
rules and establishing agencies that make the wealthy and their corporate empires wealthier,
richer and more monopolistic at the expense of everyday Americans.
The USA began to drop America from its sights after WWII. The USA moved its efforts and
activities from American domestic concerns to global concerns in 1948, neglected its advance
and protect American ideology; it imposed the continental shelf act in 1954 and the EPA act
in 1972, in order to force American industry out of America (the oil business to Saudi Arabia
and OPEC); by 1985-95 most businesses operating in America were either forced to close or
forced to move to a cheap third world labor force places.. .<=the purpose is now clear, it
was to separate Americans from their industrial and manufacturing know-how and to block
American access to evolving technology . At first most Americans did not notice.
Many Americans are only now waking to the possibility that things topside have changed and
some are realizing just how vulnerable the US constitution has made the USA to outside
influence. .. thanks to the USA very little of good ole America remains. but the humanity
first instinct most Americans are born with remains mostly unchanged, even though the
globalist have decimated religious organizations, most Americans still believe their maker
will not look favorably on those who deny justice, democracy or who abuse mankind. The USA
has moved on, it has become a global empire, operating in a global space unknown to most
Americans. The USA has created a world of its own, it no longer needs domestic America, it
can use the people and resources of anyone anywhere in the world for its conquest.
The last two political campaigns for President were "Change=Obama" and "Make America Great
Again=Trump"; neither of these two would have succeeded if Americans did not feel the
problem.
According to the US Census there are 3031 counties in the US.
If we redirected the $3.8 billion plus the 500,000,000 for missile defense that we give
Israel to US counties budgets each county would receive about
$ 1.3 million.
If we included the $1.2 billion each we give to Egypt and Jordon for signing the Carter
peace treaty with Israel that figure increases to $2.3 million for each county.
While $2.3 million may be a small figure for counties with metro cities, it would be a
large amount for the majority of counties across the nation.
Since aid to Israel alone accounts for 50% of US foreign aid who would oppose this re
direct of taxpayers money...besides the politicians...and how would the politicians explain
their opposition to the districts they supposedly represent?
This message is brought to you thanks to the efforts of the combined staffs of the History and Sociology Departments of Alligator
University.
This year of our Lord, the holy Flying Spaghetti Monster 2019, we have discovered a legend--a living, fire-breathing legend at
that. Not since the days of Boudica , a warrior Queen, has the
earth seen such a warrior. Not surpassed by Jean d Árc nor Katherine the Great. This warrior of the wireless age has not only exhibited
compassion on the battlefield, as befits a person of high honor, but has the uncanny ability to perform as the best of Generals (not
just Majors) throughout recorded history have done. Know wherein lies the enemy. Know your own strengths. Know your own weaknesses.
When engaging the enemy, do not hold back. Fight to win! Win as big as you can, while sparing needless damage.
Tulsi, our subject (and [bias apparent here] champion), has arisen, almost from the sea. Far to the West across the Great Water,
from islands spewed from the mouths of living volcanoes, emerged, almost as an eruption, our Warrior Princess Tulsi. She fought to
defend her tribe by joining a council of the advisers, then abandoning such sedentary life and chosing battle instead. Fighting with
distinction, Tulsi saved the lives of many fellow soldiers. Her counsel proved both wise and humane. Troops and others recognized
Tulsi's emerging greatness, coupled with compassion.
To the delight of her cadre, Tulsi sallied forth to the land known today as The Great Swamp. Chauvinistically however, I believe
my south Florida estuary is the true Great Swamp. But we shall leave that debate to a later time.
She joined a regiment called the DNC. At first it seemed to Tulsi this to be a desirable posting, surrounded by fields and rivers
with pleasing structures in which to live. Continuing her steady progress up the ranks, our Warrior Princess, as yet untested by
actual combat, joined others to high councils of War and of Foreign trysts.
But only a few years had yet to pass during her service, Tulsi sensed some problems in the command chain. Plans seemed to favor
neither Nation nor Military, but instead the commanders themselves. Upon thus learning, Tulsi resigned her position, abandoning the
ill-disposed regiment, seeking mission achievement over promotion.
A loosely knit Brigade, called the Democratic Party, united by the power of money and of power itself, was to become the default
posting of TWP. Unfortunately the chain of command was rent asunder by internal factions, an unholy tug of war resulting. This war
is still actively contested--we are in a state of war.
[Injection of unpaid political endorsement, not approved by TWP] Folks, we need this brave general to lead.
Contesting amongst others for the ultimate Brigade command was Tulsi and 21 22 (23?) others. The concept grew either
too tiresome or expensive for many contestants, who either became sick or perished from fatigue and/or loneliness. The field of battle
was becoming clarified, gaining Tulsi progressively improving evaluation and appropriate planning for future campaigns.
The First Slain Enemy, Olaf the Oaf
From the gentle hills and scattered forests of Ohionia came Olaf. Initially he was known as Olaf the Ogre; until he was slain
by sword blows from Warrior Tulsi. Description of her foe is warranted. Her foe was a giant, tall and strong. But Olaf was neither
quick of wit nor of foot. Large he was, as said. The ground would rumble beneath his foot steps. Trees were bent aside as he strode
unstoppably through the woods. Local dwellers both feared and respected Olaf, the mighty.
The battle: the setting is on a level plain under illumination of many cell phones torches soon after sunset.
Other contestants on the field have agreed that only two contestants combat each other. Female referees would enforce rules of combat.
Tulsi and Olaf faced each other. In his ponderous way, Olaf declared his desire to engage. With that, Warrior Tulsi swiftly smote
his pate with a mighty broadsword blow. Owing to the thickness of Olaf's cranium, the sound of the resultant impact was heard for
miles. Yea, more than a thousand miles some say. Rending Olaf's pulsating brain irreversibly damaged, the Oaf staggered from battleground,
only to succumbing to his wounds months later.
Not being particularly fond of Olaf, I did not check the source of the following: it is estimated that 30 people attended his
internment, including undertakers.
Yet the Campaign had only just begun. More foes to conquer.
Second Casualty: Klammer the Camel
Venturing forth from the Kingdom of Kalifornication comes (but not for very long) the former Lord High Executioner, Klammer the
Camel. Since Klammer is of mixed parentage, it is unsure whether Klammer is a Dromedary (one hump camel) or a two hump Bactrian camel.
It is recorded that an expert on Klammer's humping is retired statesman Willie Brown.
It is said said that Klammer's exhalations could kill enemies at 10 paces. Yet Klammer's best weapon was heaving heavy Criminal
Code books at her victims. Strangely, Klammer looked reasonably fit in her drab clothing. Foes who faced her in battle have noted
how white Klammer's teeth are as she gnashes at them. She had a strange reaction to cannabis. When others utilized the substance,
she raged and destroyed them, if she could reach them. Yet when she herself inhaled the aroma of such burning vegetation, she became
as if in a trance.
The battlefield: very much like the field upon which brave Tulsi slew the Oaf, at night with many candles burning held
by acolytes of various contestants. Once again, only two were allowed combat at a time. Supremely self-confident of victory, flush
with self-satisfaction after inflicting a minor wound on former vice-king JoJo the Far Gone. Klammer first engaged other contestants,
smirking from her presumed victories. Now brimming with confidence bordering on hubris, Klammer stood her ground. Then, in a well-planned
straight ahead frontal attack, delivered with swiftness and ferocity, Tulsi struck her foe. And struck her. While Klammer lay quivering
on the ground, TWP demanded an apology of her for her past sins. When none was evinced, Tulsi stuck the tip of her blade into Klammer's
seeming impenetrable armor. This wound, though not immediately fatal, nevertheless is proving fatal to the now debilitated Klammer.
Klammer attempted a counter-attack at another field before falling slack-jawed after a mere glare from Tulsi. Not yet dead, but soon.
Third Casualty: Boots the Jiggler
Wandering from a land not far from the home of Olaf, proceeds the Stolid Boots. He sets his sights on new lands to conquer. The
city he leaves is burning and being plundered by wandering Mnuchkins from the neighboring fiefdom of Illinois. Unconcerned with the
plight of the subjects of the Boots' prior management, Boots bravely strides forth, still not battle-tested. He gathers with him
followers, some of whom are loyal, while others need financial encouragement to participate in his campaign.
Boots has been gifted with the ability to speak so eloquently and at such length that those auditioners of his monologues are
both amazed and yet unable to understand the essence of Boots' message.
The battlefield: interestingly quite similar to those upon which Tulsi administered the blows dispatching the Oaf and crippling
the Camel. Once again, remaining combatants aligned to watch two of their number engage upon combat.
Boots, buoyed by the support of his entourage, summoned forth 400 of his Southern Army to aid in his battle. There Boots turned
upon Tulsi, promising to not only to vanquish her by his superior generalship but send troops across the Southern border. But, becoming
anxious of TWP, he turned to assay his retinue of 400. But lo, none remained, most not having left the barracks.
In face-to-face combat Boots met Tulsi. Mutually acknowledging their military experience, Tulsi struck blows into the Jiggler.
This assault froze Boots into place, unable to respond. The above picture of Boots was made immediately after a biting blow from
Tulsi's broadsword. He was heard to mumble something like "Et tu, Tulsi?".
. . . . .
Campaigns against larger enemies are soon to come. One looming conflict may be likened to a civil war against Brooklyn Bernie
which hopefully be short. A battle against the Hokey Okie is inevitable.
Our AU colleagues assure me that the Feared Medusa will enter the fray after more rivals have fallen. The Snake-head leads a mighty
army, most of whom are oddly cyborg-like. Bots I think they call them. Hilbots actually.
A musical coda is appropriate here. A good choice is a warning, an admonition to those contemplating with the Warrior Princess.
"... Despite massive amounts of evidence to the contrary, such people now enthusiastically whitewash the decades preceding Trump to turn it into a paragon of human liberty, justice and economic wonder. You don't have to look deep to understand that resistance liberals are now actually conservatives, brimming with nostalgia for the days before significant numbers of people became wise to what's been happening all along. ..."
"... Lying to yourself about history is one of the most dangerous things you can do. If you can't accept where we've been, and that Trump's election is a symptom of decades of rot as opposed to year zero of a dangerous new world, you'll never come to any useful conclusions ..."
"... Irrespective of what you think of Bernie Sanders and his policies, you can at least appreciate the fact his supporters focus on policy and real issues ..."
"... An illiberal democracy, also called a partial democracy, low intensity democracy, empty democracy, hybrid regime or guided democracy, is a governing system in which although elections take place, citizens are cut off from knowledge about the activities of those who exercise real power because of the lack of civil liberties; thus it is not an "open society". There are many countries "that are categorized as neither 'free' nor 'not free', but as 'probably free', falling somewhere between democratic and nondemocratic regimes". This may be because a constitution limiting government powers exists, but those in power ignore its liberties, or because an adequate legal constitutional framework of liberties does not exist. ..."
From a big picture perspective, the largest rift in American politics is between those
willing to admit reality and those clinging to a dishonest perception of a past that never
actually existed. Ironically, those who most frequently use "post-truth" to describe our
current era tend to be those with the most distorted view of what was really happening during
the Clinton/Bush/Obama reign.
Despite massive amounts of evidence to the contrary, such people now enthusiastically
whitewash the decades preceding Trump to turn it into a paragon of human liberty, justice and
economic wonder. You don't have to look deep to understand that resistance liberals are now
actually conservatives, brimming with nostalgia for the days before significant numbers of
people became wise to what's been happening all along.
They want to forget about the bipartisan coverup of Saudi Arabia's involvement in 9/11, all
the wars based on lies, and the indisputable imperial crimes disclosed by Wikileaks, Snowden
and others. They want to pretend Wall Street crooks weren't bailed out and made even more
powerful by the Bush/Obama tag team, despite ostensible ideological differences between the
two. They want to forget Epstein Didn't Kill Himself.
Lying to yourself about history is one of the most dangerous things you can do. If you can't
accept where we've been, and that Trump's election is a symptom of decades of rot as opposed to
year zero of a dangerous new world, you'll never come to any useful conclusions. As such, the
most meaningful fracture in American society today is between those who've accepted that we've
been lied to for a very long time, and those who think everything was perfectly fine before
Trump. There's no real room for a productive discussion between such groups because one of them
just wants to get rid of orange man, while the other is focused on what's to come. One side
actually believes a liberal world order existed in the recent past, while the other
fundamentally recognizes this was mostly propaganda based on myth.
Irrespective of what you think of Bernie Sanders and his policies, you can at least
appreciate the fact his supporters focus on policy and real issues. In contrast, resistance
liberals just desperately scramble to put up whoever they think can take us back to a
make-believe world of the recent past. This distinction is actually everything. It's the
difference between people who've at least rejected the status quo and those who want to rewind
history and perform a do-over of the past forty years.
A meaningful understanding that unites populists across the ideological spectrum is the
basic acceptance that the status quo is pernicious and unsalvageable, while the status
quo-promoting opposition focuses on Trump the man while conveniently ignoring the worst of his
policies because they're essentially just a continuation of Bush/Clinton/Obama. It's the most
shortsighted and destructive response to Trump imaginable. It's also why the Trump-era alliance
of corporate, imperialist Democrats and rightwing Bush-era neoconservatives makes perfect
sense, as twisted and deranged as it might seem at first. With some minor distinctions, these
people share nostalgia for the same thing.
This sort of political environment is extremely unhealthy because it places an intentional
and enormous pressure on everyone to choose between dedicating every fiber of your being to
removing Trump at all costs or supporting him. This anti-intellectualism promotes an ends
justifies the means attitude on all sides. In other words, it turns more and more people into
rhinoceroses.
Eugène Ionesco's masterpiece, Rhinoceros, is about a central European town where
the citizens turn, one by one, into rhinoceroses. Once changed, they do what rhinoceroses do,
which is rampage through the town, destroying everything in their path. People are a little
puzzled at first, what with their fellow citizens just turning into rampaging rhinos out of
the blue, but even that slight puzzlement fades quickly enough. Soon it's just the New
Normal. Soon it's just the way things are a good thing, even. Only one man resists the siren
call of rhinocerosness, and that choice brings nothing but pain and existential doubt, as he
is utterly profoundly alone.
A political environment where you're pressured to choose between some ridiculous binary of
"we must remove Trump at all costs" or go gung-ho MAGA, is a rhinoceros generating machine. The
only thing that happens when you channel your inner rhinoceros to defeat rhinoceroses, is you
get more rhinoceroses. And that's exactly what's happening.
The truth of the matter is the U.S. is an illiberal democracy in practice,
despite various myths to the contrary.
An illiberal democracy, also called a partial democracy, low intensity democracy, empty
democracy, hybrid regime or guided democracy, is a governing system in which although
elections take place, citizens are cut off from knowledge about the activities of those who
exercise real power because of the lack of civil liberties; thus it is not an "open society".
There are many countries "that are categorized as neither 'free' nor 'not free', but as
'probably free', falling somewhere between democratic and nondemocratic regimes". This may be
because a constitution limiting government powers exists, but those in power ignore its
liberties, or because an adequate legal constitutional framework of liberties does not
exist.
It's not a new thing by any means, but it's getting worse by the day. Though many of us
remain in denial, the American response to various crises throughout the 21st century was
completely illiberal. As devastating as they were, the attacks of September 11, 2001 did
limited damage compared to the destruction caused by our insane response to them. Similarly,
any direct damage caused by the election and policies of Donald Trump pales in comparison to
the damage being done by the intelligence agency-led "resistance" to him.
So are we all rhinoceroses now?
We don't have to be. Turning into a rhinoceros happens easily if you're unaware of what's
happening and not grounded in principles, but ultimately it is a choice. The decision to
discard ethics and embrace dishonesty in order to achieve political ends is always a choice. As
such, the most daunting challenge we face now and in the chaotic years ahead is to become
better as others become worse. A new world is undoubtably on the horizon, but we don't yet know
what sort of world it'll be. It's either going to be a major improvement, or it'll go the other
way, but one thing's for certain -- it can't stay the way it is much longer.
If we embrace an ends justifies the means philosophy, it's going to be game over for a
generation. The moment you accept this tactic is the moment you stoop down to the level of your
adversaries and become just like them. It then becomes a free-for-all for tyrants where
everything is suddenly on the table and no deed is beyond the pale. It's happened many times
before and it can happen again. It's what happens when everyone turns into rhinoceroses.
* * *
If you enjoyed this, I suggest you check out the following 2017 posts. It's never been more
important to stay conscious and maintain a strong ethical framework.
Alligator Ed
on Fri, 11/22/2019 - 8:53pm This message is brought to you thanks to the efforts of the
combined staffs of the History and Sociology Departments of Alligator University.
This year of our Lord, the holy Flying Spaghetti Monster 2019, we have discovered a
legend--a living, fire-breathing legend at that. Not since the days of Boudica , a warrior Queen, has the earth seen such
a warrior. Not surpassed by Jean d Árc nor Katherine the Great. This warrior of the
wireless age has not only exhibited compassion on the battlefield, as befits a person of high
honor, but has the uncanny ability to perform as the best of Generals (not just Majors)
throughout recorded history have done. Know wherein lies the enemy. Know your own strengths.
Know your own weaknesses. When engaging the enemy, do not hold back. Fight to win! Win as big
as you can, while sparing needless damage.
Tulsi, our subject (and [bias apparent here] champion), has arisen, almost from the sea. Far
to the West across the Great Water, from islands spewed from the mouths of living volcanoes,
emerged, almost as an eruption, our Warrior Princess Tulsi. She fought to defend her tribe by
joining a council of the advisers, then abandoning such sedentary life and chosing battle
instead. Fighting with distinction, Tulsi saved the lives of many fellow soldiers. Her counsel
proved both wise and humane. Troops and others recognized Tulsi's emerging greatness, coupled
with compassion.
To the delight of her cadre, Tulsi sallied forth to the land known today as The Great Swamp.
Chauvinistically however, I believe my south Florida estuary is the true Great Swamp. But we
shall leave that debate to a later time.
She joined a regiment called the DNC. At first it seemed to Tulsi this to be a desirable
posting, surrounded by fields and rivers with pleasing structures in which to live. Continuing
her steady progress up the ranks, our Warrior Princess, as yet untested by actual combat,
joined others to high councils of War and of Foreign trysts.
But only a few years had yet to pass during her service, Tulsi sensed some problems in the
command chain. Plans seemed to favor neither Nation nor Military, but instead the commanders
themselves. Upon thus learning, Tulsi resigned her position, abandoning the ill-disposed
regiment, seeking mission achievement over promotion.
A loosely knit Brigade, called the Democratic Party, united by the power of money and of
power itself, was to become the default posting of TWP. Unfortunately the chain of command was
rent asunder by internal factions, an unholy tug of war resulting. This war is still actively
contested--we are in a state of war.
[Injection of unpaid political endorsement, not approved by TWP] Folks, we need this brave
general to lead.
Contesting amongst others for the ultimate Brigade command was Tulsi and 21 22
(23?) others. The concept grew either too tiresome or expensive for many contestants, who
either became sick or perished from fatigue and/or loneliness. The field of battle was becoming
clarified, gaining Tulsi progressively improving evaluation and appropriate planning for future
campaigns.
The First Slain Enemy, Olaf the Oaf
From the gentle hills and scattered forests of Ohionia came Olaf. Initially he was known as
Olaf the Ogre; until he was slain by sword blows from Warrior Tulsi. Description of her foe is
warranted. Her foe was a giant, tall and strong. But Olaf was neither quick of wit nor of foot.
Large he was, as said. The ground would rumble beneath his foot steps. Trees were bent aside as
he strode unstoppably through the woods. Local dwellers both feared and respected Olaf, the
mighty.
The battle: the setting is on a level plain under illumination of many cell
phones torches soon after sunset. Other contestants on the field have agreed that only
two contestants combat each other. Female referees would enforce rules of combat.
Tulsi and Olaf faced each other. In his ponderous way, Olaf declared his desire to engage.
With that, Warrior Tulsi swiftly smote his pate with a mighty broadsword blow. Owing to the
thickness of Olaf's cranium, the sound of the resultant impact was heard for miles. Yea, more
than a thousand miles some say. Rending Olaf's pulsating brain irreversibly damaged, the Oaf
staggered from battleground, only to succumbing to his wounds months later.
Not being particularly fond of Olaf, I did not check the source of the following: it is
estimated that 30 people attended his internment, including undertakers.
Yet the Campaign had only just begun. More foes to conquer.
Second Casualty: Klammer
the Camel
Venturing forth from the Kingdom of Kalifornication comes (but not for very long) the former
Lord High Executioner, Klammer the Camel. Since Klammer is of mixed parentage, it is unsure
whether Klammer is a Dromedary (one hump camel) or a two hump Bactrian camel. It is recorded
that an expert on Klammer's humping is retired statesman Willie Brown.
It is said said that Klammer's exhalations could kill enemies at 10 paces. Yet Klammer's
best weapon was heaving heavy Criminal Code books at her victims. Strangely, Klammer looked
reasonably fit in her drab clothing. Foes who faced her in battle have noted how white
Klammer's teeth are as she gnashes at them. She had a strange reaction to cannabis. When others
utilized the substance, she raged and destroyed them, if she could reach them. Yet when she
herself inhaled the aroma of such burning vegetation, she became as if in a trance.
The battlefield: very much like the field upon which brave Tulsi slew the Oaf, at
night with many candles burning held by acolytes of various contestants. Once again, only two
were allowed combat at a time. Supremely self-confident of victory, flush with
self-satisfaction after inflicting a minor wound on former vice-king JoJo the Far Gone. Klammer
first engaged other contestants, smirking from her presumed victories. Now brimming with
confidence bordering on hubris, Klammer stood her ground. Then, in a well-planned straight
ahead frontal attack, delivered with swiftness and ferocity, Tulsi struck her foe. And struck
her. While Klammer lay quivering on the ground, TWP demanded an apology of her for her past
sins. When none was evinced, Tulsi stuck the tip of her blade into Klammer's seeming
impenetrable armor. This wound, though not immediately fatal, nevertheless is proving fatal to
the now debilitated Klammer. Klammer attempted a counter-attack at another field before falling
slack-jawed after a mere glare from Tulsi. Not yet dead, but soon.
Third Casualty: Boots
the Jiggler
Wandering from a land not far from the home of Olaf, proceeds the Stolid Boots. He sets his
sights on new lands to conquer. The city he leaves is burning and being plundered by wandering
Mnuchkins from the neighboring fiefdom of Illinois. Unconcerned with the plight of the subjects
of the Boots' prior management, Boots bravely strides forth, still not battle-tested. He
gathers with him followers, some of whom are loyal, while others need financial encouragement
to participate in his campaign.
Boots has been gifted with the ability to speak so eloquently and at such length that those
auditioners of his monologues are both amazed and yet unable to understand the essence of
Boots' message.
The battlefield: interestingly quite similar to those upon which Tulsi administered the
blows dispatching the Oaf and crippling the Camel. Once again, remaining combatants aligned to
watch two of their number engage upon combat.
Boots, buoyed by the support of his entourage, summoned forth 400 of his Southern Army to
aid in his battle. There Boots turned upon Tulsi, promising to not only to vanquish her by his
superior generalship but send troops across the Southern border. But, becoming anxious of TWP,
he turned to assay his retinue of 400. But lo, none remained, most not having left the
barracks.
In face-to-face combat Boots met Tulsi. Mutually acknowledging their military experience,
Tulsi struck blows into the Jiggler. This assault froze Boots into place, unable to respond.
The above picture of Boots was made immediately after a biting blow from Tulsi's broadsword. He
was heard to mumble something like "Et tu, Tulsi?".
. . . . .
Campaigns against larger enemies are soon to come. One looming conflict may be likened to a
civil war against Brooklyn Bernie which hopefully be short. A battle against the Hokey Okie is
inevitable.
Our AU colleagues assure me that the Feared Medusa will enter the fray after more rivals
have fallen. The Snake-head leads a mighty army, most of whom are oddly cyborg-like. Bots I
think they call them. Hilbots actually.
A musical coda is appropriate here. A good choice is a warning, an admonition to those
contemplating with the Warrior Princess.
"... "Yeah," Tulsi answers. "I point to two things. One is you have the foreign policy establishment and the military-industrial complex in Washington that carries such a huge amount of influence over both parties." ..."
"... She continues, "There are campaign contributions, the influence that these contractors have in this pay-to-play culture , this corrupt culture in Washington, but you also just have people who don't understand foreign policy and who lack the experience to make these critical decisions that impact our lives and the safety and security of the American people. This is so serious about what's at stake here." ..."
"... Democratic presidential primary debate, Wednesday, Nov. 20, 2019, in Atlanta, via the AP. ..."
In a rare moment with MSNBC's Chris Matthews, Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi
Gabbard explained why the leading figures in her party are war hawks. Far from days of the
Democrats feigning to have any semblance of an 'anti-war' platform (only convenient for Liberal
activism during the Bush years, but fizzling out under Obama), today's party attempts to
out-hawk Republicans at every turn.
"I'm looking at the Democratic establishment figures," Matthews introduced, "people I
normally like. John Kerry, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton. You go down the list. They all supported
the war in Iraq. Why were they hawks? " (Though we might ask, what do you mean, "
were ?"). "Why so many Democrats with a party that's not hawkish, why are so many of
their leaders hawks?" Matthews reiterated.
In the segment, Matthews heaps rare praise on Tulsi for being "out there all alone tonight
fighting against the neocons."
"Yeah," Tulsi answers. "I point to two things. One is you have the foreign policy
establishment and the military-industrial complex in Washington that carries such a huge amount
of influence over both parties."
She continues, "There are campaign contributions, the influence that these contractors
have in this pay-to-play culture , this corrupt culture in Washington, but you also just have
people who don't understand foreign policy and who lack the experience to make these critical
decisions that impact our lives and the safety and security of the American people. This is so
serious about what's at stake here."
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Please
enter a valid email Thank you for subscribing!Something went wrong. Please refresh
and try again.
The interview happened immediately after this week's fifth Democratic debate Wednesday night
in Atlanta, and after pundits have continued to complain that Gabbard is a 'single issue
candidate'.
However, is there any candidate in her party or in the GOP saying these things?
We find ourselves in a rare moment of agreement with MSNBC's Matthews: she is "out there all
alone tonight fighting against the neocons." Tags Politics
This lecture is part of the McMaster Department of Philosophy's Summer School in Capitalism, democratic solidarity, and Institutional
design
https://www.solidaritydesign2019.com
At first I thought the guy makes up lack of knowledge by trying to be funny. I stand corrected though: he's smart, informative
and funny as heck. Way to go!
Cant believe he missed tulsi, i actually put biden on the lower end with beto but idk thats my perspective and yes trump will
most likely win but i wanna see who's the democratic nominee because i think hes underestimating the amount of people willing
to come out for bernie
Bernie is still THE most popular candidate, despite mainstream media pretending that he is not. The skullduggery of media and
the establishment is ENDLESS - including not allowing a couple of hundred Bernie supporters to come in with their signs and shirts,
but allowing Warren supporters to do so and showing ONLY THOSE SUPPORTERS. Nice, huh?
Nixon decided to un-peg the dollar (from gold) in 1971, which was the last remaining constraint on price inflation. Currency
supply increases, which eventually become price inflation, have been the norm since. The rest of this could be plainly foreseen
with a decent understanding of Hayek's business cycle contributions.
Professor Blythe, you are outstanding. I wish that you had been my tutor in graduate school. Everything you say makes sense
perfect sense, but the plug for the #SNP . Some
British people identify as Scottish, believe themselves to be different. The same could be said of people from Yorkshire; my grandparents
hail from Bradford & Glasgow respectively. We're all British; we all rely on the South-East; to wit, London ... like it or not.
Could Scotland - sure Scots. are cannier than Greeks ... or are they - survive as a vassal state of The Berlin-Brussels Axis?
I may be old school but give me the Anglophone world every time ;).
I would love to know how you would advise Nicky Sturgeon should Brigadoon ever become a reality or will the next
#GFC be death knell of the
#EUropean experiment, putting an end -
just for now - to the British constitutional issue - ?
Blyth is wrong about Warren, HER record is thinner than Bernie's by far. She talks a good game, stands for almost nothing and
will do almost everything our corrupt establishment wants, including the MIC and other sociopathic profiteers. smdh
"... Doesn't Warren claim to have indigenous ancestors herself and was proud of it? She caused Trump to call her "Pocahontas"? She agrees to support the unelected interim president Jeannine Añez, who refers to indigenous inhabitants as satanic? Warren is a very horrible person, inhumane, amoral, and rather stupid overall, who wants to get rich. ..."
"... I personally think that capitalism with "human face" and robust public sector is the way to go. But imperialist imposition and aggression is not the part of "human face" that I imagine. ..."
"... I'm sorry but you all need to come to terms with the farce that is the American political system. Anyone who was supporting Warren or even considering voting for her for ANY reason is apparently either in denial or is being duped. Warren is a Madison Avenue creation packaged for US liberal consumption. ..."
"... She hangs out with Hillary Clinton and Madeline Albright, two evil women if ever there were. Now they make the three witches brewing one coup/regime change after another. She's not smart enough to see that HRC and MA are leading her around by her nose. People should call out this phoney everywhere she goes. BTW, Rachel Maddow completes an odious clique. ..."
"... This is a bit of exaggeration. The three ladies are more like good students, they did not write the textbook but they good grades for answering as written, or like cheerleaders, they jump and shout but they do not play in the field. Mind you, "interagency consensus" was formed without them. ..."
"... The DNC's strategy for this election is to ensure that Bernie doesn't go into the Convention with enough delegates to win the first ballot. (Once voting goes past the first ballot, super-delegates get to weigh in and help anoint a candidate who's friendly to the Party's plutocratic-oligarch principals.) ..."
"... That's the reason the DNC is allowing and encouraging so many candidates to run. Warren's specific assignment is to cannibalize Bernie's base and steal delegates that would otherwise be his, by pretending to espouse most of his platform with only minor tweaks. She's been successful with "better educated," higher-income liberal Democrats who consider themselves well informed because they get their news from "respectable" sources -- sources that, unbeknownst to their target audiences, invariably represent the viewpoint of the aforementioned plutocratic oligarchs. ..."
"... if Warren becomes the nominee, I will support her over Trump. It's a lesser of two evils choice, but we must recognize that no candidate will be perfect–ever. ..."
"... Zionism is typically the gateway drug for Democratic would-be reformers. Once they've swallowed that fundamental poison, the DNC feels secure it's just a matter of time before they Get With the Program 100%. Given that "Harvard" and "phony" are largely synonymous, what else could've been expected? ..."
Reiterates Her Neoconservative Policies Against Venezuela
Elizabeth Warren repeated her support for regime change in Venezuela in an interview in September with the
Council on Foreign Relations , a central gear in the machinery
of the military-industrial complex. "Maduro is a dictator and a crook who has wrecked his country's economy, dismantled its democratic
institutions, and profited while his people suffer," Warren declared. She referred to Maduro's elected government as a "regime" and
called for "supporting regional efforts to negotiate a political transition." Echoing the rhetoric of neoconservatives in Washington,
Warren called for "contain[ing]" the supposedly "damaging and destabilizing actions" of China, Russia, and Cuba. The only point where
Warren diverged with Trump was on her insistence that "there is no U.S. military option in Venezuela."
Soft-Pedals Far-Right Coup in Bolivia
While Warren endorsed Trump's hybrid war on Venezuela, she more recently whitewashed the U.S.-backed coup in Bolivia.
Warren refused to comment on the putsch for more than a week, even as the far-right military junta massacred dozens of protesters
and systematically purged and detained elected left-wing politicians from MAS.
Finally, eight days after the coup, Warren broke her silence. In a short tweet, the putative progressive presidential candidate
tepidly requested "free and fair elections" and calling on the "interim leadership" to prepare an "early, legitimate election."
What Warren did not mention is that this "interim leadership" she helped legitimize is headed by an extreme right-wing Christian
fundamentalist, the unelected "interim president"
Jeanine Añez. Añez has referred
to Bolivia's majority-Indigenous population as "satanic" and immediately moved to try to overturn the country's progressive constitution,
which had established an inclusive, secular, plurinational state after receiving an overwhelming democratic mandate in a 2009 referendum.
Añez's ally in this coup regime's interim leadership is
Luis Fernando
Camacho , a multi-millionaire who emerged out of neo-fascist groups and courted support from the United States and the far-right
governments of Brazil and Colombia. By granting legitimacy to Bolilvia's ultra-conservative, unelected leadership, Warren rubber-stamped
the far-right coup and the military junta's attempt to stamp out Bolivia's progressive democracy. In other words, as The Grayzone
editor Max Blumenthal put it, Liz's
Big Structural Bailey compliantly rolled over for
Big IMF Structural Adjustment Program
.
Ben Norton is a journalist and writer. He is a reporter for The Grayzone , and the producer of the "
Moderate Rebels " podcast, which he co-hosts with Max Blumenthal. His
website is BenNorton.com , and he tweets at @
BenjaminNorton .
A vote for evil is never a good choice, and choosing a candidate you perceive as a lesser evil still condones evil. Allowing
the Oligarchy to limit your choice gives them the power to continue advancing evil policies. They control both major parties.
You may succeed in getting non-gender specific restrooms in your Starbucks, but the murdering war machine will continue unabated.
Now, we are seeing the true colors of candidates, who have professed to be progressive. Sanders went on a "tirade" against
Maduro during the last "debate" I saw. Tulsi Gabbard has stayed against US Imperialism, but, I'm sure the Democratic policy controllers
will never nominate her. I foresee I'll be voting for the Socialist next year.
Raymond M. , November 22, 2019 at 18:09
""""On Nov. 10, the U.S. government backed a far-right military coup against Bolivia's democratically elected President Evo
Morales bla blla bla".
And the 3 right wing candidates spent more time slinging mud at at each other than at Morales. Had the CIAs top front man Ortez stepped aside, the vote would not have split and allowed Morales to claim a first round victory and avoid
a run-off that he would have lost. And the right wing Christian fundamentalist for sure was a CIA plant who manged to split the
vote further.
Under the Trump administration, the CIA can even run a coup right.
If only those anti-Western rulers seen the light and joined RBWO (rule* based world order, * rules decided in DC, preferably
by bipartisan consensus), then the economy would run smoothly and the population would be happy. Every week gives another example:
By The Associated Press, Nov. 21, 2019, BOGOTA, Colombia
Colombians angry with President Iván Duque and hoping to channel Latin America's wave of discontent took the streets by the tens
of thousands on Thursday in one of the biggest protests in the nation's recent history. [ ] Police estimated 207,000 people took
part. [ ] government deployed 170,000 officers, closed border crossings and deported 24 Venezuelans accused of entering the country
to instigate unrest.
So if only Iván did not start unnecessary conflict with Maduro, these 24 scoundrels would stay home and the trouble would be
avoided. Oh wait, I got confused
CitizenOne , November 21, 2019 at 22:10
You must imagine that when candidtes suddenly become mind control puppets what is going on. The scariest thing in American
Politics is how supposedly independent and liberal progressives somehow swallow the red pill and are transported into the world
of make believe. Once inside the bubble of fiction far removed from human suffering which is after all what politicians are supposed
to be about fixing they can say crazy things. Jimmy Carter and Donald Trump are the only souls to retain their independent (yet
opposite) minds and both of them got the boot for being different.
Hide Behind , November 21, 2019 at 20:44
The puppet masters are experts, on the one hand there is A Republican, and on the other is a Democrat, but even they mess up
now and then get the different strings tangled.
Some come back on stage on the different hand so to save time they give a puppet two faces.
Watching same puppets gets old so every so often 2-4-6 they restring an old one that was used as props in past, change their makeup
a bit to give them new faces.
We do not actually elect the puppet, we instead legitimize the Puppeteers who own' s the only stage in town.
Those who choreograph the movements and change the backgrouds, media outlets and permanent bureaucrats know the plays before they
are introduced, and they know best how to get adults to leave reality behind and bring back their childhood fantacies.
Days of sugar plums, candy canes, socks filled with goodies and not coal, tooth fairys, and kind generous Fairy God Mothers.
Toy Nutcracker soldiers that turn into Angelic heros, Yellow brick roads, Bunnies with pocket watches, and and magic shoes of
red, or of glass in hand of handsome Princes and beautiful Princesses, all available if we vote.
So who votes, only those who control the voting puppets know that reality does not exist, they twitch we react, and at end of
voting counts one of hand's puppets will slump and cry, while others will leap and dance in joy, only for all to end up in one
pile until the puppeteers need them for next act.
Frederike , November 21, 2019 at 17:30
"What Warren did not mention is that this "interim leadership" she helped legitimize is headed by an extreme right-wing Christian
fundamentalist, the unelected "interim president" Jeanine Añez.
Añez has referred to Bolivia's majority-Indigenous population as "satanic" and immediately moved to try to overturn the country's
progressive constitution, which had established an inclusive, secular, plurinational state after receiving an overwhelming democratic
mandate in a 2009 referendum."
Doesn't Warren claim to have indigenous ancestors herself and was proud of it? She caused Trump to call her "Pocahontas"?
She agrees to support the unelected interim president Jeannine Añez, who refers to indigenous inhabitants as satanic?
Warren is a very horrible person, inhumane, amoral, and rather stupid overall, who wants to get rich.
Everything she agreed to in the interview listed above is pathetic. I had no idea that she is such a worthless individual.
arggo , November 22, 2019 at 19:57
"neocon" explains this. She seems to have the support of very foundational structures that enabled Hillary Clinton Democrats to attack
and destroy Bernie Sanders in 2016.
Warren has not lost my vote for the simple reason she never had it in the first place. None of this, sickening as it is, comes
as any surprise. Warren is an unapologetic capitalist. She's like Robert Reich in that regard. They both believe capitalism–if
reformed, tweaked a bit here and there–can work. To give her credit, she's always been very honest about that. And of course our
doctrine of regime change is all in the service of capitalism. Unless I'm simply confused and mistaken.
Sherwood Forrest , November 22, 2019 at 09:38
Yes, Capitalist First! That makes it so difficult for any aware person to believe she sincerely supports a wealth tax, Universal
Healthcare, Green New Deal, College loan forgiveness, family leave or anything else the 1% oppose. Because promising like Santa
is part of Capitalist politics, and then saying," Nah, we can't afford it."
I personally think that capitalism with "human face" and robust public sector is the way to go. But imperialist imposition
and aggression is not the part of "human face" that I imagine.
So Warren's imperialist positions are evil and unnecessary to preserve capitalism, how that projects at her as a person it
is hard to tell. A Polish poet has those words spoken by a character in his drama "On that, I know only what I heard, but I am
afraid to investigate because it poisons my mind about " (Znam to tylko z opowiada?, ale strzeg? si? tych bada?, bo mi truj? my?l
o ) As typical of hearsay, her concept of events in Venezuela, Bolivia etc. is quite garbled, she has no time (but perhaps some
fear) to investigate herself (easy in the era of internet). A serious politician has to think a lot about electability (and less
about the folks under the steam roller of the Empire), so she has to "pick her fights".
It is rather clear that American do not care if people south of the border are governed democratically or competently, which
led Hillary Clinton to make this emphatic statement in a debate with Trump "You will not see me singing praises of dictators or
strongmen who do not love America". One can deconstruct it "if you do not love America you are a strongman or worse, but if you
love America, we will be nice to you". I would love to have the original and deconstructed statement polled, but Warren is not
the only one afraid of such investigations. So "electability" connection to green light to Bolivian fascist and red light to Bolivarians
of Venezuela is a bit indirect. Part of it is funding, part, bad press.
brett , November 21, 2019 at 15:15
I'm sorry but you all need to come to terms with the farce that is the American political system. Anyone who was supporting
Warren or even considering voting for her for ANY reason is apparently either in denial or is being duped. Warren is a Madison
Avenue creation packaged for US liberal consumption.
She is a fraud and a liar. One trained in psychology can see, in her every
movement and utterance, the operation that is going on behind the facade. Everything Warren says is a lie to someone. She only
states truth in order to later dis-inform. Classic deception. She (her billionaires) has latched on to the populism of the DSA
etc. in order to sabotage any progressive momentum and drive a stake in it.
Rob Roy , November 22, 2019 at 00:40
She hangs out with Hillary Clinton and Madeline Albright, two evil women if ever there were. Now they make the three witches
brewing one coup/regime change after another. She's not smart enough to see that HRC and MA are leading her around by her nose.
People should call out this phoney everywhere she goes. BTW, Rachel Maddow completes an odious clique.
This is a bit of exaggeration. The three ladies are more like good students, they did not write the textbook but they good
grades for answering as written, or like cheerleaders, they jump and shout but they do not play in the field. Mind you, "interagency
consensus" was formed without them.
Peter in Seattle , November 21, 2019 at 14:53
The DNC's strategy for this election is to ensure that Bernie doesn't go into the Convention with enough delegates to win the
first ballot. (Once voting goes past the first ballot, super-delegates get to weigh in and help anoint a candidate who's friendly
to the Party's plutocratic-oligarch principals.)
That's the reason the DNC is allowing and encouraging so many candidates to run.
Warren's specific assignment is to cannibalize Bernie's base and steal delegates that would otherwise be his, by pretending to
espouse most of his platform with only minor tweaks. She's been successful with "better educated," higher-income liberal Democrats
who consider themselves well informed because they get their news from "respectable" sources -- sources that, unbeknownst to their
target audiences, invariably represent the viewpoint of the aforementioned plutocratic oligarchs.
Absolutely nothing in Warren's background supports her new calculatedly progressive primary persona. She was a Reagan
Republican. When the Republican Party moved right to become the party of batshit crazy and the Democratic Party shifted right
to become the party of Reagan Republicans, she became a Democrat. She's not a good actress, and it takes willing suspension of
disbelief to buy into her performance as a savvier, wonkier alternative to Bernie. And when she's pressed for details (Medicare
for All) and responses to crises (Venezuela and Bolivia), the cracks in her progressive façade become patently obvious. She's
a sleeper agent for Democratic-leaning plutocrats, like Obama was in 2008, and she would never get my vote.
PS: Impressed by Warren's progressive wealth-tax plan? Don't be. Our country's billionaires know she won't fight for it, and
that if she did, Congress would never pass it. (They know who owns Congress.) Besides, do you really think Pocahontas would
beat Trump? Do you think Sleepy Joe would? The billionaires wouldn't bet on it. And they're fine with that. Sure, they'd like
someone who's more thoroughly corporatist on trade and more committed to hot régime-change wars than Trump is, but they can live
just fine with low-tax, low-regulation Trump. It's the prospect of a Bernie presidency that keeps them up at night
and their proxies in the Democratic Party and allied media are doing everything they can to neutralize that threat.
mbob , November 21, 2019 at 18:13
@Peter
Thanks for this beautiful post. I agree with it 100%. I've been trying to figure out why Democrats are so consistently unable
to see through rhetoric and fall for what candidates pretend to be. Part of it is wishful thinking. A lot of it is, as you wrote,
misplaced trust in "respectable" sources. I have no idea how to fix that: how does one engender the proper skepticism of the MSM?
I haven't been able to open the eyes of any of my friends. (Fortunately my wife and daughter opened their own eyes.)
Warren is, if you look clearly, driven by her enormous ambition. She's the same as every other candidate in that regard, save
Bernie.
Bernie is driven by the same outrage that we feel. We need him.
In the last Israeli massacre on Gaza she was all for the IDF killing Palistinians. Americans like to look at the CCP and cry
about China being a one party state. Well is the US not a one party state?= Are the views of the Democrats and Republicans not
the same when it comes to slaughtering people in the third world? There is not a razor`s edge between them. Biden, Warren, Sanders,
Trump, Cruz and Pense they are all war criminals, or if elected will soon become war criminals.
From someone who at the beginning showed promise and humanity, she has turned into Albright and Clinton. How f**king sad is
that?
Dan Kuhn , November 21, 2019 at 14:33
Better to see her for what she really is now then after the election if she were to win. She is disgusting in her inhumanity.
Rob , November 21, 2019 at 13:43
This Is, indeed, disturbing and disappointing. Warren seems so genuinely right on domestic economic and social issues, so how
could she be so wrong on foreign policy issues? The same principles apply in both–justice, fairness, equity, etc. That said, she
is no worse than any of the other Democratic candidates in that regard, with the exceptions of Sanders and Gabbard, so if Warren
becomes the nominee, I will support her over Trump. It's a lesser of two evils choice, but we must recognize that no candidate
will be perfect–ever.
Far better to stick to your principles and write in " None of the above." believe me with this article we can easily see that
Trump is no worse nor better than Warren is. They are both pretty poor excuses as human beings.
Peter in Seattle , November 21, 2019 at 16:04
@Rob:
If you'll allow me to fix that for you, "What Warren tactically claims to support, in the primaries, seems so genuinely
right on domestic economic and social issues ." I'm convinced Warren is an Obama 2.0 in the making. I don't think anyone
can match Obama's near-180° turnabout from his 2008 primary platform and that if Warren is elected, she will try to make Wall
Street a little more honest and stable, maybe advocate for a $12 minimum wage, and maybe try to shave a few thousand dollars off
student-loan debts. I suppose that technically qualifies as less evil than Trump. But I fully expect her to jettison 90% of her
primary platform, including a progressive tax on wealth and Medicare for All. And when you factor in her recently confirmed approval
of US military and financial imperialism -- economic subversion and régime-change operations that cost tens of thousands of innocent
foreign lives, and other peoples their sovereignty -- at what point does "less evil" become too evil to vote for?
John Drake , November 21, 2019 at 13:13
" presidential candidate tepidly requested "free and fair elections". Such a statement ignores the fact that Evo Morales term
was not up; therefore elections are not called for. This means she supports the coup. Restoration of his position which was illegally
and violently stolen from him are in order not elections until his term is up.
Her position on Venezuela is nauseating; as the article states classic neo-conservative. Maybe Robert Kagan will welcome her into
their club as he did with Hillary.
Warren used to be a Republican, she has not been cured of that disease; and is showing her true colors. Maybe it's best as she
is differentiating herself from Bernie. I was concerned before she started down this latest path that she would do an Obama; progressive
rhetoric followed by neo-liberal-or worse- behavior once in office. Maybe she is more honest than Obama.
Guy , November 21, 2019 at 12:40
Warren can't be very informed about what democracy actually means .Democracy is not the same as capitalism .
Not a US citizen but am very disappointed with her stated platform .
Short of divine intervention Tulsi will never make it but Sanders for president and Tulsi as VP would do just fine to re-direct
the US foreign policy and maybe ,just maybe make the US more respectable among the rest of the nations of the world.
It would make a lot of sense from actuarial point of view. The chances that at least one person on the ticket would live healthily
for 8 years would be very good, without Tulsi
Punkyboy , November 21, 2019 at 12:02
I was pretty sure Warren was a Hillary clone; now I'm absolutely sure of it. Another election between worse and worser. I may
just stay home this time, if the world holds together that long.
Socratic Truth , November 21, 2019 at 11:42
Warren is just another puppet of the NWO.
Ma Laoshi , November 21, 2019 at 11:12
I remember years and years ago, I guess about when Lizzie first entered Congress, that she went on the standard pandering tour
to the Motherland and an astute mind commented: Zionism is typically the gateway drug for Democratic would-be reformers. Once
they've swallowed that fundamental poison, the DNC feels secure it's just a matter of time before they Get With the Program 100%.
Given that "Harvard" and "phony" are largely synonymous, what else could've been expected?
Peter in Seattle , November 21, 2019 at 15:32
@Ma Laoshi:
Speaking of Harvard, having contemplated the abysmal track record compiled by our "best and brightest" -- in Congress,
in the White House, and on the federal bench -- I am now almost as suspicious of the Ivy League as I am of the Western
Hemisphere Institute for Security (WHINSEC, formerly known as the School of the Americas). The mission of both is to train capable,
reliable, well-compensated servants to the US plutocracy. (And the only reason I say "almost" is because a non-negligible number
of black sheep have come out of the Ivy League and I'm not aware of any that have come out of WHINSEC.)
Sam F , November 23, 2019 at 18:59
Harvard admissions are apparently largely bought, and doubtless those of Yale and others.
MIT was strictly militarist warmongers in the 1970s, and one compete with 80% cheaters.
Dfnslblty , November 21, 2019 at 11:12
" The only point where Warren diverged with Trump was on her insistence that "there is no U.S. military option in Venezuela."
"
Hell, one doesn't need a military option after immoral, illegal and crippling sanctions.
This essay is the most disturbing piece all year-2019.
Vote anti-military – vote nonviolence.
Don't give these murderers anything but exposure to humane sensibilities.
I didn't think Trump supported a military solution in Venezuela. That was John Bolton's baby and Trump fired him as one would
hope he would soon fire Pompeo as has been hinted at. Trump campaigned on ending wars of choice but has given in to the MIC at
almost every turn. Maybe he will resign in leiu of being impeached. We might then see a Rand Paul vs. Bernie Sanders. I could
live with either one
Skip Scott , November 21, 2019 at 09:12
Once again the Democratic Party is pushing to have our choice for 2020 be between corporate sponsored war monger from column
A or B.
I wish Tulsi would "see the light" and run as an Independent in 2020. There is absolutely no way that she gets the nod from
the utterly corrupt DNC. She is abandoning her largest base (Independents) by sticking with the Democratic Party. Considering
the number of disgruntled non-voters, she could easily win the general election; but she will never win the Democratic primary.
The field is purposely flooded to ensure the "superdelegates" get the final say on a second ballot.
AnneR , November 21, 2019 at 08:50
Warren is as inhumane, amoral and imperialist as anyone in the WH and the US Congress, and she is certainly kindred in spirit,
thought and would be in deed, as Madeline Albright, the cheerful slaughterer of some 500,000 Iraqi children because the "price
was worth it." Of course, these utterly racist, amoral people do not have to pay "that price" nor do any of their families. (And
let us not forget that Albright and Killary are good friends – Warren is totally kindred with the pair, totally.)
And clearly Warren – like all of the Demrat contenders – is full on for any kind of warfare that will bring a "recalcitrant"
country into line with US demands (on its resources, lands etc.). She is grotesque.
She and those of her ilk – all in Congress, pretty much, and their financial backers – refuse to accept that Maduro and Morales
*both* were legally, legitimately and cleanly re-elected to their positions as presidents of their respective countries. But to
do that would be to go against her (commonly held) fundamental belief that the US has the right to decide who is and is not the
legitimate national leader of any given country. And what policies they institute.
Anyone who supports economic sanctions is supporting siege warfare, is happily supporting the starvation and deprivation of
potentially millions of people. And shrugging off the blame for the effects of the sanctions onto the government of the sanctioned
country is heinous, is immoral and unethical. WE are the ones who are killing, not the government under extreme pressure. If you
can't, won't accept the responsibility – as Warren and the rest of the US government clearly will not – for those deaths you are
causing, then stay out of the bloody kitchen: stop committing these crimes against humanity.
Cara , November 21, 2019 at 15:25
Please provide documentation that Sanders is, as you claim, a "full-on zionist supporter of "Israel" and clearly anti-Palestinian."
Sanders has been quite consistent in his criticism of Israel and the treatment of Palestinians: timesofisrael.com/bernie-sanders-posts-video-citing-apartheid-like-conditions-for-palestinians;
and; jacobinmag.com/2019/07/bernie-sanders-israel-palestine-bds
"Sanders is less so, but not wholly because he is a full-on zionist supporter of "Israel" and clearly anti-Palestinian"
Sanders is definitely not "full-on zionist supporter", not only he does not deny that "Palestinians exist" (to died-in-the-wool
Zionists, Palestinians are a malicious fiction created to smear Israel etc., google "Fakestinians"), but he claims that they have
rights, and using Hamas as a pretext for Gaza blockade is inhumane (a recent headline). One can pull his other positions and statements
to argue in the other direction, but in my opinion, he is at the extreme humane end of "zionist spectrum" (I mean, so humane that
almost not a Zionist).
Hopefully Kamala Harris never sniffs the White House, we'd all die in a nuclear war. Her
pathetic and stupid swipes at the courageous and brilliant Tulsi Gabbard last night in the
debates were something to cringe at.
"It Was A Coup. Period": Tulsi Gabbard Slams US 'Interference' In Bolivia
Democratic Presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard has come out swinging on Bolivia, following an initial period of being silent
and reflection on the issue after leftist President Evo Morales was forced to step down on November 10 over growing anger at election
irregularities, whereupon he was given political asylum in Mexico.
"What happened in Bolivia is a coup. Period," Gabbard wrote on Twitter in the early hours of Friday while warning against any
US interference.
"The United States and other countries should not be interfering in the Bolivian people's pursuit of self-determination and right
to choose their own government, " she argued.
Washington had been quick to endorse and recognize opposition senator Jeanine Anez as 'interim president' after she controversially
declared herself such without a senatorial quorum or public vote, and as Morales' Movement for Socialism was said to be barred from
the senate building when it happened.
Gabbard's statement, which again sets her far apart from a large field of establishment and centrist candidates on foreign policy
issues , comes a few days after Bernie Sanders was the first to condemn the events which led to Evo's ouster as a military coup.
"When the military intervened and asked President Evo Morales to leave, in my view, that's called a coup," Sanders tweeted Monday,
while linking to a video showing Bolivian security forces dispersing an indigenous pro-Morales protest using a volley of tear gas
canisters.
Meanwhile, in a new interview with Russian media this week, Evo Morales said the right-leaning Organization of American States
(OAS), which had initially cited "clear manipulations" in the voting surrounding his controversial re-election to a fourth term,
played a prime role in deposing him, and that ultimately Bolivia's huge reserves of lithium were being eyed by the United States
and its right-wing Latin American allies .
"The OAS made a decision and its report is not based on a technical report, but on a political decision,"
Evo told RT in the interview from Mexico.
Addressing his country's most valued natural resource, he said, "In Bolivia we could define the price of lithium for the world...Now
I have realized that some industrialized countries do not want competition" -- while implying Washington had helped engineer his
downfall.
Most estimates put the impoverished country's Lithium supply at about 60% of the world's known reserves .
The White House in the days after Evo's ouster
had called it a "significant moment for democracy in the Western Hemisphere"; however, the now exiled former president described
it as "the sneakiest, most nefarious coup in history."
* * *
Watch key moments of the translated RT interview below:
And again, if we do win despite all the structural injustices in the system the Rs inherited and seek to expand, well, those
injustices don't really absolutely need to be corrected, because we will still have gotten the right result from the system
as is.
This is a pretty apt description of the mindset of Corporate Democrats. Thank you !
May I recommend you to listen to Chris Hedge 2011 talk
On Death of the Liberal Class At least to the first
part of it.
Corporate Dems definitely lack courage, and as such are probably doomed in 2020.
Of course, the impeachment process will weight on Trump, but the Senate hold all trump cards, and might reverse those effects
very quickly and destroy, or at lease greatly diminish, any chances for Corporate Demorats even complete on equal footing in 2020
elections. IMHO Pelosi gambit is a really dangerous gambit, a desperate move, a kind of "Heil Mary" pass.
Despair is a very powerful factor in the resurgence of far right forces. And that's what happening right now and that's why
I suspect that far right populism probably will be the decisive factor in 2020 elections.
IMHO Chris explains what the most probable result on 2020 elections with be with amazing clarity.
Bill Clinton destroyed the USA economy and middle class like no president has ever done.
Bush II and Obama exacerbated the destruction by the hundred folds.
I believe Hedges statement that "the true correctives to society were social movements
that never achieved formal political power" is perhaps one of the most important things for
each of us to understand.
I watched this with interest and curiosity and growing skepticism although he makes some
killer points and cites some extremely disturbing facts; above all he accepts and
uncritically so the American narrative of history.
The message from democrats is "hey we're not bigots". Most people (repubs+dems) aren't. If
they keep calling on that for energy the Dems will forever continue to lose. If they don't
come back to the working class they might as well just call themselves conservatives.
Those of us who seek the truth can't stop looking under every stone. The truth will set
you free but you must share it with those who are ready to hear it and hide it from those who
can hurt you for exposing it. MT
"A Society that looses the capacity for the sacred cannibalizes itself until it dies
because it exploits the natural world as well as human beings to the point of collapse."
I believe Hedges statement that "the true correctives to society were social movements
that never achieved formal political power" is perhaps one of the most important things for
each of us to understand.
I watched this with interest and curiosity and growing skepticism although he makes some
killer points and cites some extremely disturbing facts; above all he accepts and
uncritically so the American narrative of history. The Progressive movement, for example,
(written into American history as being far more important that it ever really was,) unlike
Socialism or Communism was primarily just a literary and a trendy intellectually movement
that attempted, (unconvincingly,) to persuade poor, exploited and abused Americans that non
of those other political movements, (reactive and grass-roots,) were needed here and that
capitalism could and might of itself, cure itself; it conceded little, promised much and
unlike either Communism or Socialism delivered fuck all. Personally I remain unconvinced also
by, "climate science," (which he takes as given,) and which seems to to me to depend far too
much on faith and self important repeatedly insisting that it's true backed by lurid and
hysterical propaganda and not nearly enough on rational scientific argument, personally I
can't make head nor tail of the science behind it ? (it may well be true, or not; I can't
tell.) But above all and stripped of it his pretensions his argument is just typical theist,
(of any flavor you like,) end of times claptrap all the other systems have failed, (China for
example somewhat gives the lie to death of Communism by the way and so on,) the end is neigh
and all that is left to do is for people to turn to character out of first century fairly
story. I wish him luck with that.
The message from democrats is "hey we're not bigots". Most people (repubs+dems) aren't. If
they keep calling on that for energy the Dems will forever continue to lose. If they don't
come back to the working class they might as well just call themselves conservatives.
I have always loved Chris Hedges, but ever since becoming fully awake it pains me to see
how he will take gigantic detours of imagination to never mention Israel, AIPAC or Zionism,
and their complete takeover of the US. What a shame.
The continued growth of unproductive debt against the low or nonexistent growth of GDP is
the recipe for collapse, for the whole world economic system.
I agree with Chris about the tragedy of the Liberal Church. Making good through identity
politics however, is every bit as heretical and tragic as Evangelical Republican corrupted
church think, in my humble, Christian opinion.
The death of the present western hemisphere governments and "democratic" institutions must
die right now for humanity to be saved from the zombies that rule it. 'Cannibalization" of
oikonomia was my idea, as well as of William Engdahl. l am glad hearing Hedges to adopt the
expression of truth. ( November 2019. from Phthia , Hellas ).
ass="comment-renderer-text-content expanded"> Gosh , especially that last conclusion
,was terrific so I want to paste the whole of that Auden poem here:- September 1, 1939 W. H.
Auden - 1907-1973
... ... ...
I sit in one of the dives
On Fifty-second Street
Uncertain and afraid
As the clever hopes expire
Of a low dishonest decade:
Waves of anger and fear
Circulate over the bright
And darkened lands of the earth,
Obsessing our private lives;
The unmentionable odour of death
Offends the September night.
"... Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Summit News, ..."
"... My favorite paragraph from the NYT article depicting Tulsi as a fringe, divisive cult leader because she wears white pants suits - by the same author and paper who heaped praise on how Hillary's white pants suit shows she's ready to carry the nuclear codes. ..."
My favorite paragraph from the NYT article depicting Tulsi as a fringe, divisive cult
leader because she wears white pants suits - by the same author and paper who heaped praise
on how Hillary's white pants suit shows she's ready to carry the nuclear codes.
Her white suits are not the white suits of Ms. Clinton, nor even the white of Ms.
Williamson, whose early appearances in the shadeoften seemed tied to her wellness gospel
and ideas of renewal and rebirth. Rather, they are the white of avenging angels and flaming
swords, of somewhat combative righteousness (also cult leaders').
And that kind of association, though it can be weirdly compelling, is also not really
community building. It sets someone apart, rather than joining others together. It has
connotations of the fringe, rather than the center.
A New York Times writer who praised Hillary Clinton for wearing a white pantsuit called
Tulsi Gabbard a "cult leader" for wearing exactly the same thing.
Taken together, those twin hasbara refrains evoke a notion of divine punishment. JFK and
RFK were punished for the sins of their Jew-hating, Nazi-loving father. Mind you, it was
Yahweh who took vengeance, not Israel!
Brilliant article by Guyenot. Thoroughly well written & informative.
A Congresswoman, Tulsi Gabbard, is being viciously slandered in article after article in
the Mainstream (Zionist) Media. Read the diatribe carefully, and learn some of how the People
are misdirected-brainwashed.
Ms. Gabbard is, apparently, leading in the Polls, and the Zionist controller Power Elite
are Panicky. They will do to Ms. Gabbard what they did to Ron Paul, and his campaign.
It is a sense of frustration that We-I are not able to Revenge the murder of our last
Constitutional President, John F. Kennedy, the Destruction of our Republic, the millions of
murders from November 22, 1963, to the present, or to effectively defend & protect this
noble lady (Ms. Gabbard).
If we protect her, we protect ourselves and our Country. Freedom is not free. We must
Pay for i t!
"... Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Summit News, ..."
"... My favorite paragraph from the NYT article depicting Tulsi as a fringe, divisive cult leader because she wears white pants suits - by the same author and paper who heaped praise on how Hillary's white pants suit shows she's ready to carry the nuclear codes. ..."
My favorite paragraph from the NYT article depicting Tulsi as a fringe, divisive cult
leader because she wears white pants suits - by the same author and paper who heaped praise
on how Hillary's white pants suit shows she's ready to carry the nuclear codes.
Her white suits are not the white suits of Ms. Clinton, nor even the white of Ms.
Williamson, whose early appearances in the shadeoften seemed tied to her wellness gospel
and ideas of renewal and rebirth. Rather, they are the white of avenging angels and flaming
swords, of somewhat combative righteousness (also cult leaders').
And that kind of association, though it can be weirdly compelling, is also not really
community building. It sets someone apart, rather than joining others together. It has
connotations of the fringe, rather than the center.
A New York Times writer who praised Hillary Clinton for wearing a white pantsuit called
Tulsi Gabbard a "cult leader" for wearing exactly the same thing.
"... Is it not possible to have an article on Ukraine without all the N@ZI references? Might have been a non-biased article, but many of us will never know... ..."
"... They certainly aren't National Socialists, and arguably not nationalists. Nationalists are open to what is best for "the nation" regardless of where it lies on the political spectrum. Since they don't consider the people in Donbas to be part of "the nation", that means, if anything, they are useful idiots of Zionism. ..."
In my July 25th article " Zelenskii's dilemma " I pointed
out the fundamental asymmetry of the Ukrainian power configuration following Zelenskii's crushing victory over Poroshenko: while
a vast majority of the Ukrainian people clearly voted to stop the war and restore some kind of peace to the Ukraine, the real levers
of power in the post-Maidan Banderastan are all held by all sorts of very powerful, if also small, minority groups including:
The various "oligarchs" (Kolomoiskii, Akhmetov, etc.) and/or mobsters Arsen Avakov's internal security forces including some "legalized"
Nazi death squads The various non-official Nazi deathsquads (Parubii) The various western intelligence agencies who run various groups
inside the Ukraine The various western financial/political sponsors who run various groups inside the Ukraine The so-called "Sorosites"
(соросята) i.e. Soros and Soros-like sponsored political figures The many folks who want to milk the Ukraine down to the last drop
of Ukrainian blood and then run
These various groups all acted in unison, at least originally, during and after the Euromaidan. This has now dramatically changed
and these groups are now all fighting each other. This is what always happens when things begin to turn south and the remaining loot
shrinks with every passing day,
Whether Zelenskii ever had a chance to use the strong mandate he received from the people to take the real power back from these
groups or not is now a moot point: It did not happen and the first weeks of Zelenskii's presidency clearly showed that Zelenskii
was, indeed, in " free fall ": instead of becoming
a "Ukrainian Putin" Zelenskii became a "Ukrainian Trump" – a weak and, frankly, clueless leader, completely outside his normal element,
whose only "policy" towards all the various extremist minorities was to try to appease them, then appease them some more, and then
even more than that. As a result, a lot of Ukrainians are already speaking about "Ze" being little more than a "Poroshenko 2.0".
More importantly, pretty much everybody is frustrated and even angry at Zelenskii whose popularity is steadily declining.
... ... ...
Another major problem for Zelenskii are two competing narratives: the Ukronazi one and, shall we say, the "Russian" one. I have
outlined the Ukronazi one just above and now I will mention the competing Russian one which goes something like this:
The Euromaidan was a completely illegal violent coup against the democratically elected President of the Ukraine, whose legitimacy
nobody contested, least of all the countries which served as mediators between Poroshenko and the rioters and who betrayed their
word in less than 24 hours (a kind of a record for western politicians and promises of support!).
... ... ...
Some of the threats made by these Ukronazis are dead serious and the only person who, as of now, kinda can keep the Ukrainian
version of the Rwandan " Interahamwe " under control would probably be Arsen Avakov, but since he himself is a hardcore
Nazi nutcase, his attitude is ambiguous and unpredictable. He probably has more firepower than anybody else, but he was a pure "
Porokhobot " (Poroshenko-robot) who, in many ways, controlled Poroshenko more than Poroshenko controlled him. The best move
for Zelenskii would be to arrest the whole lot of them overnight (Poroshenko himself, but also Avakov, Parubii, Iarosh, Farion, Liashko,
Tiagnibok, etc.) and place a man he totally trusts as Minister of the Interior. Next, Zelenskii should either travel to Donetsk or,
at least, meet with the leaders of the LDNR and work with them to implement the Minsk Agreements. That would alienate the Ukronazis
for sure, but it would give Zelenskii a lot of popular support.
Needless to say, that is not going to happen. While Zelenskii's puppet master Kolomoiskii would love to stick this entire gang
in jail and replace them with his own men, it is an open secret that powerful interest groups in the US have told Zelenskii "don't
you dare touch them". Which is fine, except that this also means "don't you dare change their political course either".
...are going through the famous Kübler-Ross stages of griefs: denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance: currently,
most of them are zig-zagging between bargaining and depression; acceptance is still far beyond their – very near – horizon. Except
that Zelenskii has nothing left to bargain with.
Thank you for a rational article about Ukraine. The sad thing is that it might take years to reach the "acceptance" phase.
It would take someone like Hitler to clean out the stables. Arrest is not a viable option as they will bribe their way out.
These people need to be put down like rabid dogs. That is the only way to put an end to their mischief and it would be a deterrent
to their replacements.
Personally, I suspect that the Ukraine is being deliberately depopulated to make way for waves of "refugees" from Israel. Another
country that is still in the "denial" phase. Its military and political leaders know full-well that their strategic aims have
all failed. The boot is now firmly on the other foot.
I suspect that Crimea was their preferred destination and hence the massive non-stop propaganda against Russia on that score.
To give you an idea of how ridiculous it has all become, the UK no longer accepts medical degrees awarded by universities in Crimea.
Is it not possible to have an article on Ukraine without all the N@ZI references? Might have been a non-biased article, but
many of us will never know...
I suspect that the Ukraine is being deliberately depopulated to make way for waves of "refugees" from Israel.
You got that right – what it's all about is building a New Khazaria. But they're neither giving up on their Greater Israel
project between the two rivers, and hence more wars, conflict and chaos to drive out the native Arabs from the Middle East.
I suspect that Crimea was their preferred destination and hence the massive non-stop propaganda against Russia on that score.
@AWMThey certainly aren't National Socialists, and arguably not nationalists. Nationalists are open to what is best for
"the nation" regardless of where it lies on the political spectrum. Since they don't consider the people in Donbas to be part
of "the nation", that means, if anything, they are useful idiots of Zionism.
@bob sykes Kolomoiskii is the real hidden owner/controller of the company that bribed the Bidens. He has a finger in lots
of pies. His pretense to leaning towards Russia is his way to try to get the Americans to stop attempts to get at the many millions
that he stole from his own Ukrainians bank – fake loans to his companies.
Of course, the Russians understand all of that. This theater is aimed at the Americans – not at the Russians.
For the Ukrainian state to break up, there need to be some forces interested in a break-up. You won't find such forces inside
the Ukraine.
What is Ukrainian South-East? In pure political terms, "South-East" is a bunch of oligarchs, who are all integrated into Ukrainian
system, and have no reason to seek independence from Kiev, especially if it means getting slapped with Western sanctions.
Even the Kremlin doesn't show much interest in breaking up the Ukraine, so why the hell would it break up?
It's worth pointing out that the so-called "Novorossia movement" started out as Akhmetov's project to win concessions from
new Kiev regime. It was then quickly hijacked by Strelkov, a man who actually wanted to break up the Ukraine, and it is because
of Strelkov, that Donetsk and Lugansk are now de-facto independent. Without similar figures to lead secessionist movements elsewhere
in the Ukraine, this break-up that Saker keeps talking about will never happen.
His ratings must be sky-high, because otherwise I cannot imagine why Fox would allow him to continue to use their network as
a medium to broadcast common sense.
Of course the Dems are making it so easy.
Schiff, Kent, Taylor, Yanovitch -- what a pathetic, nauseating crew.
The opposing positions of Warren and her primary opponent Bernie Sanders on Bolivia
highlight an increasingly clear policy gap between the two Democratic frontrunners.
11-20-19
Massachusetts Senator and Democratic Presidential nomination frontrunner Elizabeth Warren
endorsed the recent U.S. backed military coup d'état in Bolivia Monday. Warren's
statement carefully avoided using the word "coup," and instead referred to the new government
of Jeanine Añez as an "interim leadership," effectively validating the new
administration.
She stated that the Bolivian people "deserve free and fair elections, as soon as
possible," implying that the October 20 vote, won convincingly by President Evo Morales, was
not clean, thus taking essentially the same position as the Trump administration, who made no
secret of their relief that Morales was ousted.
The opposing positions of Warren and her primary opponent Bernie Sanders on Bolivia
highlight an increasingly clear policy gap between the two Democratic frontrunners.
11-20-19
Massachusetts Senator and Democratic Presidential nomination frontrunner Elizabeth Warren
endorsed the recent U.S. backed military coup d'état in Bolivia Monday. Warren's
statement carefully avoided using the word "coup," and instead referred to the new government
of Jeanine Añez as an "interim leadership," effectively validating the new
administration.
She stated that the Bolivian people "deserve free and fair elections, as soon as
possible," implying that the October 20 vote, won convincingly by President Evo Morales, was
not clean, thus taking essentially the same position as the Trump administration, who made no
secret of their relief that Morales was ousted.
You're correct.
The Republicrats in the swamp - when push comes to shove - have each other's backs.
One set of laws for them, another for the masses they rule and make no mistake - we are not
governed, we are ruled.
Seems everyone here is down. The Slime mold's job is to kill all virtuous passion in the
populace, and they do a damn good job.
"The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity."
Truer words...
If we don't arise like lions, a seriously dystopian future awaits. Which is an exceedingly
melancholy reality, considering we are on the cusp of a golden age driven by a Fusion Energy
new economic platform, a quantum upshift of productivity and energy-intensive industrial
applications. Ending global poverty. Ending the very reason for war.
"The Slime mold's job is to kill all virtuous passion in the populace, and they do a damn
good job."
Today this podcast appeared in my Inbox.
No Irony Alert was appended; apparently the discussants are serious in maintaining that the
will of the people expressed "through digital media " and by the electorate "threaten
democracy" and "fuel deadly conflict."
So there ARE armed militias under the control of "populists" and they have the financial
wherewithal to form an army and wage war?
"Populism attaches itself to whatever issue provokes fear and outrage [and] hate speech
leads to hate crime".
"Populist parties have risen up across Europe and beyond, galvanising electorates and
threatening the multilateral institutions needed to address transnational challenges like
globalisation, deadly conflict, digital transformations and the climate emergency.
". . .[X] and [Y] . . . discuss how populism works, why its appeal has grown in recent
years, and the threat it poses to European democracy. From its ideological
adaptability and the role of digital media in amplifying its message to its role in
fuelling deadly conflict, they examine what can be done to address the grievances that
these parties feed off.
It could be the trial of the century, no doubt. ...
Would the jury in such a case, in a Democratic Stronghold, as Washington DC, have to be
carefully selected according to some superimposed rule beyond the general jury selection
rules reigning access to classified knowledge?
Strictly there is by now enough expertise on jury selection, even specialists. In
Washington D.C., as suggested, maybe the ultimate challenge. Thus I am sure a lot of experts
would queue up.
Not that the result would satisfy everyone, but if you carefully select people that prove
they grasp the "national interest" or are able to carry its burdons. Why not?
The fact that even the disgraced former DDFBI Andy McCabe, who's four documented, acts of
Perjury, two of which were Recorded. Statements which involve a press leak, irrelevant to any
issue of the Russia-Trump collusion myth. Has still not been Indicted, should give us all
cause for alarm...
We appear to be on the Slippery slope toward Mob Rule over law and order...
This quote from Thursday's article in Politico, says it best.
"This is not a hard case," U.S. District Court Judge Reggie Walton said. "I was a good
prosecutor for a long time. Deciding whether or not you're going to charge someone with false
statements or perjury is not that hard, factually or legally -- maybe politically, but not
factually or legally."
Sundance suggests that FBI Inspector General Horowitz's report is really being delayed so
that the Deep State can push through FISC Court reauthorization -- before we have an
opportunity to learn how the current law has been so horribly abused with a multitude of 4th
Amendment violations and so on.
Unfortunately, much as Republicans regret Fisc abuses by Democrats, this illegitimate
maneuver is so cheap and tempting that even they don't really want to let it die. In short,
the DUOPOLY will ensure continuance.
"And what there is to conquer
By strength and submission, has already been discovered
Once or twice, or several times, by men whom one cannot hope
To emulate -- but there is no competition --
There is only the fight to recover what has been lost
And found and lost again and again: and now, under conditions
That seem unpropitious."
Can the Constitution be refreshed without patriots' & tyrants' blood? Can the eye of
Mordor stop popular resistance?
Eliot was, of course, writing in England, at the outset of WWII.
"Can the Constitution be refreshed without patriots' & tyrants' blood? Can the eye of
Mordor stop popular resistance?"
You question here makes me shiver.
To me the "tyrant" is the oh-so-cool choom smoking Obama, whose minions have kept our
country in turmoil after he left office. I remember the Roman columns in my city after his
election. He had won with strong support from Soros' capital (the eye of Modor) and took
orders, it seemed to me, from the Bilderberg group of high rollers wanting power over the
world without concern for countries and their governments and their laws that might give
voice to lowly people.
I hope the MAGA hat wearing crowds (our form of Hibbits) grow and grow in number as the
election approaches so that the Democrats see that they will seem like spoiled toddlers who
only want what they want, no matter how absurd their wishes are. (That is unlikely, though,
because toddlers have little ability to see beyond their immediate desires--no
self-reflection.)
Have I interpreted your question correctly?
Who can be the elves and the dwarfs and the men who join the Hobbits? Does Trump have it
in him to be Gandalf?
Two weeks ago I thought I head a different tune. Why the change?
As I said then and say now: Bob Barr did not come to bury the Deep State, but to save
it.
The imperial republic is tottering, and the liberal dispensation of the past three hundred
years that informed it is collapsing, a victim of internal subversion and pathological
egalitarianism.
What will replace it? No one knows.
But the future will probably be like the past: tribal, ethnic, sectarian and vicious.
There is no going back. And the only way out is through.
So attack in two directions.
Shatter left-neoliberalism by provoking the worst ant-white and anti-Semitic tendencies
present in the emerging nonwhite left.
Liquidate its controlled opposition (AKA American conservatism) by attacking its fronts
men as the corporate golems and Zio-shills that they are.
The goal is to eliminate the middle ground and force the gutless middle to choose between
the globalists and us, and to make the price of an unwise choice steep, public, and
permanent.
I read the RCP article by Aaron Mate referenced above and while it was compelling, it
practically made the infamous Peter Strzok, in its brief mention of him, seem like an
innocent bystander. It focused on the CIA as though the FBI wasn't its eager and willing
partner, and yet it was the FBI that paid Christopher Steele, the FBI that obtained FISA
warrants to spy, the FBI that took out Gen. Flynn, the FBI that lied to the new POTUS, the
FBI that led to the appointment of SC Mueller, etc., etc.
Is the FBI playing dumb now as a defense, pretending it was duped by the CIA to engage in
so much nefarious activity?
sorry I am an outsider on this. ... Willmann may help, maybe? basic rules? ... I hardly
grasp my own countries juridical responsiblities, nevermind some venue curiosities. ...
last time I heard the argument concerning the US it didn't seem to be necessary based on
the outcome, at least in hindsight ...
You'll win the bet, but even if you lose, the indicted will be instantly catapulted into bona
fide "Hero of the Republic(R)" status as a result.
Just as the people who took the falls for the Clintons were, except 10x.
The chattering class really really detest Trump, and nothing else matters. They will happy
accept aid from perjurers, torturers and entrapment artists, as long as that gets them
Trump.
I detest Trump as well, but he won the election fair and square, and just because I detest
the man doesn't mean that I need to sink to the level of crackpot conspiracy theory if that
justifies his removal.
Where is the scorecard on Trump's Oct 2016 pre-election speech. Did he call it or what- time
for an accounting - three years later. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2qIXXafxCQ
I personally will settle for two new Supreme Court Justices, 150 new federal court
justices and breaking up the liberal deadlock of the 9th Circuit. However, Trump's Oct 2016
shot across the bow against the deep state remains a work in progress. However, Trump did not
back off - it is clash of civilizations still going on, as we speak.
Retrospective is often the best perspective for current events.
I think it is important to note that the Real Clear Investigations piece which the Colonel
quotes from was written by Aaron Mate. Aaron Mate is part of the new breed of independent
lefty journalists that are taking on the establishment news media. He has an excellent show
on a youtube channel called The Grayzone.
His cohorts Max Blumenthal, Ben Norton, Dan Cohen, and Anya Parampil have done excellent
reporting on Syria and Venezuela. They are part of a burgeoning new media ecosystem which
includes the other youtube channels 'The Hill' and 'The Jimmy Dore Show'.
Max Blumenthal has savaged the estimable Alison Weir, author of Against Our Better Judgment
and her years long campaign of speaking out against Israel's maltreatment of Palestinians.
Grayzone may go a bit further than establishment media, and perhaps a bit farther on
issues involving Palestine than, say, Phil Weiss at Mondoweiss, but there are still lines
that are not to be crossed by the reporters at Grayzone.
I don't think that Grayzone goes "a bit further" than establishment media. They go a lot
further.
This Grazyone video from a few days ago (Aaron Mate interviews Ali Abunimah of The
Electronic Intifada) is titled "Israel's relentless violence on Gaza met by global
silence": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o16CV4BTuU0
Or from the back cover of Blumenthal's book Goliath:
'As Blumenthal reveals, Israel has become a country where right-wing leaders like Avigdor
Lieberman and Bibi Netanyahu are sacrificing democracy on the altar of their power politics;
where the loyal opposition largely and passively stands aside and watches the organized
assault on civil liberties; where state-funded Orthodox rabbis publish books that provide
instructions on how and when to kill Gentiles; where half of Jewish youth declare their
refusal to sit in a classroom with an Arab; and where mob violence targets Palestinians and
African asylum seekers scapegoated by leading government officials as "demographic
threats."'
So Blumenthal is an anti-zionist, Alison Weir is a critic of Israeli government policy, and
Blumenthal is critical of Weir. Big deal.
The Colonel is critical of Bernie and I like Bernie - that doesn't mean that I have to
stop respecting the Colonel just because I disagree with him on some issues. One of the
lamentable shortcomings of some of those on the left is that they want to fight with each
other about relatively trivial disagreements. This only benefits the Borg.
And if I was thoroughly paranoid I would think that this whole Blumenthal vs Weir thing is
being amplified by an IO operation designed to sow discord among critics of Israel.
What is the point of indictments when the CIA/NSA/FBI can and will be perceived to be able to
blackmail each juror? The "chilling effect" is real and it will prevent successful
prosecution of any but sacrificial deep state actors.
After what has been done to Trump associates, he is politically radioactive. No one will
want to be part of his team and subject themselves to the tender ministrations of the
FBI.
The reward of the good life, is the good life itself all the sudden makes even more sense.
Picturing now J Edgar Hoover and LBJ laughing over secret files on every member of Congress
at the time. You do not exaggerate, walrus.
But how can we prevent this being only one-way Democrat street? Their manipulation of
language, repetition of talking points, media exclusives and ginned-up events have stunned me
of late. Luckily there in fact is more media transparency only because of the open internet.
Which is also closing in.
I have long wondered why MSM wanted to go to bed with the Democrats so eagerly - most
likely because the one-way street of inside gossip only flows from loose Democrat lips. .
Recent media interview with Jordan, who lambasted the ABC reporter who tried to box him
into a corner over a "secret hearing" transcript that had not been made public -and the
hearing was less than 24 hours prior. Democrat loose lips gave someone a free scoop for some
reason and luckily Jordan swatted this breach right back at her.
Quite honestly female reporters need gynocological swab testing before they go live with
any breaking news stories from now on. What did they do to get that story first.
What was done to Justice Gorsuch was politics by the left meant to keep him off the
supreme court, warn the republicans not to support others like him, and warn the rest of us
to stfu and do what we are told. Brennan and company are worse and may also include Obama and
a number of his backers in and out of his administration. And Epstein didn't kill
himself.
From RedState - DECEMBER 11 - MARK YOUR CALENDAR: The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a
hearing on Dec. 11 to examine the findings from a Justice Department inspector general's
investigation into the FBI's alleged abuse of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
during the Trump investigation, the committee said Monday.
Huber apparently has been assigned to investigate the Clinton Foundation- a report due
shortly too (which is badly bleeding red ink several years in a row after Clinton lost).
No wonder Clinton is hinting she will run again - anything to goose up re-newed donations
for her influence peddling scheme. No wonder she is in fact this time pimping out her
daughter in her latest book tour - the money will be safe with us, folks. Even if I get sent
to the slammer, Chelsea knows enough to carry on the family traditions.
Factotum mentioned Crowdstrike. Many are under the impression that the crowdstrike "server"
Trump mentioned in his typical fragmentary, herky-jerky style in the Zelensky call, must mean
the DNC email server. But I've heard it suggested he was actually referring to a different
Ukrainian server, also managed by Crowdstrike, related to another hokey Russian
hacking claim: a Ukrainian army missile system that was allegedly hacked by the Russians. See
"Fancy Bear" artillery hack. Not sure if that really was what Trump was talking about but
others out there might know.
No, colonel, not a'tall. Don't have a lazy bone in my body. BUT - I do have Extreme
challenges of the body, but less of the mind, (much, much slower organizing thoughts etc.)
but NO challenge regarding Spirit... it's not the dog in the fight, but the fight in the
dog.
No, I'm not a DAV, but I do consider myself a 'DAP' (disabled American Patriot - without
pay - but Cost aplenty) Quite like (but not There Yet) the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier... so
to speak.
I have sixty five years of Active Service... starting a the age of ten in Bristol, PA ...
and [it] will NOT end before I'm dead, down in the woods of central MS.
Alison Weir says "If Americans only Knew"... doesn't know the half of [it].
Don't drink the cool-aid and fo sho DON'T Breathe the Fort Detrick Bio-cocktail.
Thomas Paine could have put out several pamphlets in the time it took me to reply.
@Alfred I had the same thoughts. Zelenskii should show a similar coffin with the text
"This one is still empty" and then start rounding up the terrorists. He finally has a good
excuse.
Thank you Saker and Unz for the very interesting article .
I wonder what has been the role of Germany in the Ukrainian disaster . ...I have the
feeling , just the suspicion , that they contributed to the ucranian disaster out of their
genetic Drang nach Osten Nordic greed , is that right ?
Anyway since the Ukrainian disaster the cohesion of the EU is going going down . Germany
which was gifted with the german reunification , is less and less trusted spetially in south
Europe , and even less in the EU far west , in England which is going out of the EU .
Most of the people in the EU would like to keep collaborating with the US , of course ,
but also with Russia and with the rest of the world . Most of the people in the UE are scared
of the dark forces operating in Ukraine trying to provoke a war with Russia .
The stupid name-calling like the term "ukronazi" makes this article look like a rant like
North Korean communiques or the ravings of some Arab despot's propagandist. It is not better
than calling "The Saker" a "Moskal", "Sovok" or "Putler's stooge" etc. He should keep this
lingo to directly "debating" "Ukronazis" on twitter or youtube commentst etc. not for an
article that is supposed to be a serious analysis.
I understand that it is hard for a Russian nationalist to accept that the majority of
Ukrainians don't want to belong to their dream Russkiy Mir, they were seduced by the West,
which is more attractive with all its failings, because mostly of simple materialistic
reasons. Ukrainians happily go to EU countries that now allow them in as guest workers. The
fact, like it or not that majority of them chose the West over Russkiy Mir despite being very
close to Russians in culture, language, history etc. He is still in the first stage of grief
it seems.
All in all, Ukrainians are probably way above average in most human characteristics. The
area of Ukraine is by planetary standards one of the best available: arable land, great
rivers, Black see, pleasant and liveable.
But it is 2019 and life in Ukraine is barely better than it was 25-50 years ago,
population has actually dropped from its peak in early 1990's. Millions of Ukrainians live
abroad (I know some of them) and have – to be polite – at best an ambivalent
attitude towards their homeland. Almost all of them prefer to be somewhere else, even to
become someone else.
Now why is that? A normal society would have enough introspection to discuss this, to look
for answers. Throwing a temper-tantrum on a big square in Kiev every few years is not looking
for a solution. That is escapism, Orange-this, Maidan-that, 'Russians bad', 'we are going
West', 'golden toilets', and always 'Stalin did it'.
I don't agree with the facile name-calling that sees Nazis everywhere and exaggerates
throw-away symbolism. But Ukraine has not been functioning and it can't go like this much
longer. Not because it will collapse, it won't, but because during an era of general
prosperity Ukraine can't be a unstable exception (oh, I get it, they are better than Moldova,
good for them.)
Rebellions against geography are doomed. Projecting one's personal frustrations on
external enemies (Kremlin!) has never worked. Ukraine needs rationality – accepting
that they will not be in EU, that attempting to join Nato would destroy Ukraine, and that
they can't beat Russia in a war. And following advise of half-mad and half-ignorant
well-wishers from Washington or Brussels is a road to ruin. Nulands, Bidens and Tusks will
never live in Ukraine, they really deeply don't care about it. They have no skin in that
game, it is just entertainment for them.
Or alternatively you can pray that Russia collapses – good luck waiting for
that.
There is not much 'drang' left in Germany, so I think this is mostly fingers on the map
post dinner empty talk.
in 1945 the jewery asked Stalin to give Crimea to the jews , Stalin refused
Crimea is a jewel, but has one big problem: not enough water. But that's also true about
Izrael, maybe there is a deep genetic memory of coming out of a desert environment.
During WWII, Germany actually established settlements in Crimea. Think about it: there is
a massive war, you have like 1-2 years, short on transport and resources, and you start
sending settlers to Crimea – that's how much drang-nach-osten types wanted it.
And the Turks, etc This must be driving them absolutely nuts.
The mexicans are able to make fun of themselves , that`s a good thing . They have a joke
which aplies also to Ukraina ( and other countries )
The mexicans say : when God created Mexico He gave Mexico everything ; land , mountains ,
plains , tropical forests , deserts , two oceans , agriculture , gold , silver , oil . then
God saw how beautiful and perfect Mexico was and He though that He should also give something
bad to the country to prevent the sin of pride , and then he populated Mexico with pure
pendejos ,( idiots ) .
@AWM "Is it not possible to have an article on Ukraine without all the N@ZI references?
If you want a decent analysis of current events in the Ukraine, which is what The Saker
provides, I guess you'll just have to put up with his terminology.
The world won't miss a thing if Curmudgeon or AWM goes off in a huff, to sit on his toilet
and read the "one joke per dump" volume lodged on the tank and stops reading The Saker's very
thorough analysis as a protest action!
@Anon My experience is that Ukrainians individually are far from being pendejos .
But they are unable to act as a group or as a nation. (Well, they 'act', but it mostly
somehow fails.)
Maybe it is the relative shallow and heterogenous history of Ukraine. Or – and this
is what I have observed – a fundamental inner disloyalty to the Ukraine as a homeland.
When one observes the assorted Porkys, Timoshenkas, Yanuks, the oligarchs, but also the
crowds on Maidan, I get a sense that they are all about to leave Ukraine or are thinking
about leaving. Societies can't be built with one foot always at the airport, or in an old car
in a 5-km column waiting on the border of Poland. Or Russia.
Another good article – thanks – Yep, the US/EU NWO is not going to let their
"West Ukraine Isis" battalions and intel gang lose their funding , arms trafficking ops, or
terrorist reputation. This is a no win situation in Ukraine and the West knows it –
Even if NovoRossiya gets some independence, the Ukraine Isis will/can reek havoc and murder
for a long time along the border. The modern Cheka { Ukraine Isis } has been modified for the
security of the new Farmland owners – Monsanto, Cargill, DuPont and the rest of the
Globalist Corporations and their ports close to Odessa.
One point of contention since it wasn't made clear in this article – Novorussia
consists of Luhansk and Donetsk, but not Kharkov. While Kharkov has more Russians than most
other provinces of Ukraine do, it does not have a plurality like Donetsk and Luhansk.
All of Ukraine's doomsayers have been crying about Ukraine's demise for the lat 25
years, yet the fact is that it' s getting stronger and stronger every year,
USA diaspora keeps on delivering.
Shoutout to quarter/half Poles USA citizens LARPing as Ukrainian patriots in the
comments.
@Felix KeverichEven the Kremlin doesn't show much interest in breaking up the
Ukraine, so why the hell would it break up?
Follow the money my friend!
Some provinces send much more money to Kiev then they get back in "services". So long as
more loans from the EU, The USA and the IMF were forthcoming, that situation was not too bad.
Now, the spigot is being closed. Hence the sad face of Mr Z when he met Trump in
Washington.
This means that the provinces that are losing most from this internal transfer are going
to be strongly motivated to stop sending money to Kiev. Kiev will lose control and that will
fragment the country.
The Donbass was a big contributor to Kiev and got little in return – that was a
major reason for their dissatisfaction. Everyone there could see that Kiev sent the money
west and kept much for itself.
If the French provinces were to stop sending money to Paris, the Yellow movement would be
totally unnecessary.
@awry About 2.5 million Ukrainians have "emigrated" (you could also say "fled") to the RF
since 2014.
Per Bloomberg most of the outflow not to Russia has been to countries of Eastern Europe, esp.
Poland.
@AP "Ukraine was historically a marsh of Poland for centuries before it was a historical
marsh of Russia"
That was mostly Galicia and Volhynia. It is a tiny part of today's the Ukraine. In these
areas, the Poles were landowners, the Jews their rent/tax collectors and the peasants were
Ukrainian-speaking Slavs. Now, they are planning to sell the best farmland to "foreigners"
(i.e. Jews) and the Slavs will become serfs once again.
@Mr. Hack The problem with your argument is that the 'war' in the east was entirely
predicable. So was Crimea leaving and joining Russia. The people in charge in Kiev –
presumably with 3-digit IQ – would think about it, plan for it, etc They obviously
didn't. Instead they provided a needed catalyst to make it worse by voting in February 2014
to ban Russian language in official use, and the idiotic attacks on Russian speakers like in
Odessa, that were neither prevented nor punished. The other side – in this case Russia
and Russian speakers living in Donbas and Crimea – rationally took care of their own
interests. Post-Maidan Kiev handed them all they could on a silver platter while busying
themselves with silly slogans and videos of golden saunas.
Russia is actually one of the least susceptible countries to an economic collapse in the
world – it is largely self-sufficient, has enormous resources that others will always
buy, and has a very minimal percentage of its economy that deals with foreign trade. What
they are susceptible to is the loss of value for their currency – and that has already
largely happened since 2014. When it comes to energy, the countries that are low-cost
producers are least impacted – who you should worry about are the numerous higher-cost
producers like US shale, coal miners, or LNG gas that have huge upfront fixed costs and
built-in high transportation costs. Russia and Saudis will be fine.
Back to the drawing board, what exactly is the plan in Kiev? If they know that having a
war costs them investments, how do they end that war? It is highly unlikely that it would end
with a victorious Kiev army conquering Donetsk (or Crimea). So what's the plan?
It's amazing how spectacularly inept all these interventions over the last decades have been.
Iraq, Lybia, Syria, Yemen, the coup in Turkey but also Ukraine.
And I know that in the ME, the Isrseli policy, as iterated by Michael Orin is to let all
sides bleed each other to death, and that part has been relatively successful until
recently.
But in Ukraine, they were going to consolidate their control over the country from Kiev
and force-march the Russians out of Sevastopol. And that part didn't work at all, except as
leverage to impose sanctions on Russia; but the long term goal of using Ukraine to overthrow
Putin is now stuck in the Donbas.
My point being that it is the great fortune of the world that these criminal nitwits and
fools in the State (War) Department and their helpers in the "intelligence" community are so
arrogant and incompetent.
@Anon Merkel (who herself was studying in Donetsk for few months) definitely has a hand
in ze EuroUkrainian mess.
Afterall she met with Right Sector representatives one dayt before the final, bloody part
of the coup started. And that meeting of "reporting on delivering at our commitments and
asking Merkel about her delivery of her commitments" both with the next day start of "offence
at the government" was announced by Right Sector yet another day before, 16 February
2014.
However i have reservations about Merkel representing German peoples, especially some
alleged "genetical" trend of them to invade eastwards.
It was public, that Merkel's everything including public phone is spied upon by USA
"intelligence community", and Merkel considered it normal and proper.
So it is clearly stated what she considers her allegiance and whom she considers her
employees. Not citizens of Germany.
"Each of these countries is as inorganic and disunited as Ukraine, or worse, made up as they
are of various racial and ethnic groups who don't identify with each other."
I am dubious about this suggestion. But more importantly, Ukraine or the Ukraine has had a
violent revolution about every ten years. You simply cannot develop a stable government,
economy or safe social system if you you overturn the the government via violence every ten
tears.
That is the key differences and essential to any successful government, and more so for a
democracy that holds as innate belief, a tolerance for difference even competing ideas held
by its population. It is as if the only the only we are exporting is revolution as solution
to differences.
@Mr. Hack > Russia has never been able to lead with a carrot, but only with a stick.
Russia offered dozen billions of loans and years ahead orders for Ukrainian industries.
Those that Yatzenyuk begged to be re-started when he destroyed democratic government of
Ukraine.
EuroMaidan tried to stole the carrot from Ukraine, and while it succeeded in stealing what
Ukraine already picked, about 10%, the rest was kept safe of usurpers' reach, and so they
started looting Ukrainian economy instead. Hrivna fallen 3-fold – more than ruble.
> Positive outside influence into Ukraine's internal development in the form of
investments and economic development
EuroMaidan usurpers stopped real and ongoing investments from China and Russia by looting
what investments arrived into Ukraine already. But at least they got $5 billions of
investments from Nulland.
I like how "economic development" is listed as "outside influence". I thought that any
state or nation would claim being capable of their own economic development, but for
EuroMaidania it is quoted as some miracle that can only be given from outside.
> foreign investments being delayed until the war in the east is resolved
And that was why EuroMaidan usurpers invaded Donbass and started the war. To preclude
investments from the West after they stopped investments form China and Russia.
> create a chaotic situations
EuroMaidan proponent blaming chaotic situations. Precious. "Bees against honey"
movement.
> Since the West changed the dynamics of the energy game around the world
Did it? how exactly? By making Ukrainian pipelines liability no one wants to touch with a
pole?
> It's learned to better feed itself, and that's about it
But that is exactly what Ukraine knew how to do, and what EuroMaidania can not do.
While Russia is gaining this experience – EuroMaidania was and is destroying it, for
the sake of being "not like Russia". Way to go!
> One more jolt like in 2014
You mean the one when rouble fallen two-fold and hrivna three-fold?
Guess if the West could do it again – they would. But they can't.
> where are Russia's automobiles, televisions, medical equipment, computers,
pharmaceuticals etc; within the world markeplace?
Russia is not packaging consumer goods. Russia is sending technologies, which others pack
as consumer goods.
Ukraine could become one of those salesmen, packing Russian technologies into pretty wraps
and selling around.
EuroMaidan usurpers feared that and prevented that.
EuroMaidan even destroyed Antonov company, which was one of just 4 companies in the world
capable of building large airframes. Ensuring AirBus+Boeing+Tupolev/Ilyushin would have one
competitor less. And as Antonov was el-cheapo vendor with strategy based on dumping –
it was especially dangerous for Russian company, of the three. Thank you, guys, for removing
this riddance out of Russian pathway. You did great service!
@Hapalong Cassidy Beckow> the crowds on Maidan, I get a sense that they are all about
to leave Ukraine or are thinking about leaving.
You do not need to "have a feeling"
The promise of "visa-less living and working in EU" was exactly what EuroMaidan crowd
paraded as their aim and treasure, somehow magically warranted by the "Deep Association" that
Yatzenyuk and Poroshenko later dragged feet for months, trying to delay signing of this
economy suicide pact.
They were very public and honest about it. They claimed Yanukovich was somehow putting
ball and chain on them all by giving the second thought to orders from Brussels. Aid in
leaving Ukraine was the price they sold Ukrainian economy for. Ther were never shy in 2014 to
speak about it.
Hapalong Cassidy> While Kharkov has more Russians than most other provinces of Ukraine
do, it does not have a plurality like Donetsk and Luhansk.
There is a point. Kharkov in North-East and Odessa in South-West were trading cities,
routing the official and smuggled goods streams and hosting the largest foreign goods
markets. This clearly had impact upon mindsets of citizens and even more of cities
elites.
People in Kharkov went to the streets right after the coup commited and without support
they were at least equally numerous to all-Ukraine sponsored gathering of EuroMaidan #2.
But their leaders did not seek for independence, Kharkov city mayor Kernes openly shook hands
with Andrey "White Fuhrer" Byletsky and expressed his care about his (not Kharkov citizens)
safety in the night of Rymarskaya street murders, 2014 March 14th AFAIR.
People in Kharkov went against nazi from westernmost Ukraine regions (and even policemen)
and stormed those out of their district government building. Who else did then?
They had a huge impulse, but they also focused the most efforts from usurpers to deflect
and dissipate it. And little free resources the usurpers had back then.
Month later, in April, Kharkov was exhausted and pacified. But other regions of Ukraine were
overlooked those two months.
However, it was that first month which gave people in Donetsk and Lugansk both time and
examples to understand what is really going on (it was almost unbelievable that something
like that can actually happen in XXI century in Europe, wasn't it?) and learn their Ukrainian
elites are prostituting them, and then find some other leaders which would have enough skin
in the game to not sell them out.
You may rightly say Kharkov citizens did not resist for long. But have to admit the
resistance of Donbass and Lugansk was in significant part based upon time Kharkov bought them
in March and April 2014, and upon self-exposing that Kharkov's fleeting but furious
resistance forced EuroMaidan usurpers into.
"All, repeat, ALL the steps taken to sever crucial economic and cultural links between Russia
and the Ukraine were decided upon by Ukrainian leaders, never by Russia who only replied
symmetrically when needed.
Even with international sanctions directed at her, Russia successfully survived both the
severance of ties with the Ukraine and the AngloZionist attempts at hurting the Russian
economy. In contrast, severing economic ties with Russia was a death-sentence for the
Ukrainian economy which has now become completely deindustrialized."
No wonder saker deletes posts to his website containing info like these:
The top trade partner of *the* Ukraine is Russia. So his thesis is a little 'shoddy math'
ish. The links have not been severed as he pretends.
" the severance of ties with Russia " The Ukraine is more tied to Russia than any other
country, by recent trade volumes (as well as in traditional culture). Saker doesn't like
these facts to muddy up his thesis.
This means that the provinces that are losing most from this internal transfer are going
to be strongly motivated to stop sending money to Kiev.
You don't get it. Ukraine's South-Eastern provinces are inanimate objects . They
have no consciousness, no self-interest or free will. They don't decide anything.
Donbass never decided to break away from the Ukraine. That choice was made for it by
Strelkov, when he and his men occupied Slovyansk and began an armed confrontation.
@Anon The Ukraine used to export something like $20 billion worth of goods to Russia
annually. It's now closer to $5 billion, and Ukrainians are a lot poorer as a result.
@Felix Keverich The point is saker maintains it is completely de-industrialized. It is
'dead'. Total trade of >40 B all partners, isn't dead by a long shot. See what he says?
'Death sentence'. Far from it. A decrease isn't death. No doubt there has been a plunge. But
saker is over stating it. Russia is still a center of gravity for the Ukraine.
I am so sick and tired of hearing the term nazi this and nazi that when referring to the
situation in the Ukraine. The term nazi died in 1945 and should be left dead and buried. It
was a stupid word created by the British during the war because of their inability to
pronounce the German name for the NSDAP. The British and American media have a fetish for the
word and will call any "right-wing" movement "nazi" if given any opportunity. This shows
their total lack of creativity to come up with anything new and their deep obsession with
anything to do with Hitler which borders on religious worship. I say get rid of the usage of
the word on this site unless one is referring to the actual NSDAP party that existed until
1945.
@AWM You are an absurd cretin. Of course referring to current Ukraine as being controlled
by Nazi's is 100% accurate.
Ukronazis and Hitler Nazi's have many alignments with eachother:
1. Bizarre, fundamentally paganist usage of ahistoric/religious images from a millenia ago
as national symbols that should have had no connection to national identity of either state
in the 1930's or now ( swastika and Tryzub) even the UPA flag has more sense about it to any
"Ukrainian " state
2. Mass arrests and persecution of political opponents I'm fairly sure that Ukronazi's
have arrested ( and maybe even killed) far more people in their first 5 years, that the
Nazi's ever did in their 6 year, pre-war time in charge
3. Mass killing and torture of the people of the Donbass- now take on board this is with
Russia fighting the war of fighting the war that they are not even there and Russia/DNR/LNR
basically conducting huge talks with west/Banderastan and making huge concessions every time
they have been in a a hugely advantageous position or made a big breakthrough in the war.
Even Nazi's wouldn't have used such a lousy pretext for instigating war against the people of
Donbass – although at least the Nazi's could govern their state ukrops can't govern f
** k all without it descending into farce
4. Above average representation of freaks and/or highly camp idiots Goebbels, Goering and
Ribbentrop versus Avakov, "Yats" the yid, Poroshenko, Turchynov and many more – a
lamentable contest
5. Neither would have got off the ground without Anglo-American funding
Just because the Nazi's in the 30's and 40's were more competent does not take away the
similarities
Structural bottlenecks and slow reform progress lead to anemic growth in Ukraine
The rate of economic growth in Ukraine remains too low to reduce poverty and reach income
levels of neighboring European countries. Following the 16 percent cumulative contraction of
the economy in 2014-15, economic growth has recovered to 2.4 percent in 2016-17 and 3.3
percent in 2018. Faster economic growth for a sustained period of time is needed to reduce
poverty which remains above pre-crisis levels. More needs to be done if Ukraine's aspiration
is to become a high-income country and to close the income gap with advanced economies. Today
Ukraine is far from that goal. In terms of GDP-per-capita, Ukraine remains one of the poorest
countries in the region -- at levels of Moldova, Armenia and Georgia. Ukraine's GDP per
capita in purchasing power parity terms is about three times lower than in Poland, despite
having similar income levels in 1990.
At the growth rate of recent years, it will take Ukraine more than 50 years to reach income
levels of today's Poland. If Ukraine's productivity growth and investment rate remains at the
low levels observed in recent years, overt the medium-term the growth rate will converge to
almost zero per annum -- productivity growth is offset by declining contribution of labor as
Ukraine undergoes the demographic transition. Boosting total factor productivity growth to 3
percent per year and investment to 30 percent of GDP would result in sustained growth of
about 4 percent per year over the medium- to long-term. Given declining total population this
translates to GDP per capita growth of about 4.5 percent per year. These trends will not
improve on their own, they can happen only through the implementation of appropriate policies
that boost productivity and increase the returns on factors of production.
1. It does not split trade to industries. Hi-tech big added value and lo-tech slim added
value – falls into the same "total"
2. It only shows one snapshot, not YoY dynamics.
3. The column "Export Product" shows exactly the same value – literally, 100% –
for ALL the countries, all the rows. I wonder what we should deduce from it
2012 – $19,8B
2013 – $17,6B – the start of the coup
2014 – $15B – the coup won power but did not entrenched yet and did not had time
yet to enforce its ideals
2015 – $9.8B – the work started
2016 – $4.8B – 80% of 2012 exports are cut off, EuroMaidan means business
2017 – $3.6B – 82% of 2013 exports are cut off, coming to plateau ?
2018 – $3,9B – a slight rebound, plateau reached
@bob sykes I'd dismiss this, as Putin is apparently doing. Kolomoisky is looking who else
would provide money that he can steal. He, Porky, and others of their ilk stole Western loans
so blatantly, that even US-controlled IMF is balking at giving Ukraine more money. So,
Kolomoisky hopes that Russia will, so that he has more to steal. I hope that his hopes are in
vain.
The entire Ukraine farce can be explained as a simple project
Khazaria 2.0.
I met a Jew (American) in Ukraine over 20 years ago.
He told me the plan Jews were returning to historically Jewish cities in Ukraine by the
hundreds buying up for kopecki on the Gryvnia anything they could.
Media outlets, banks, factories, beachfront land, farmland, apartments, etc.
The idea? Make Ukraine the next EU Country, and benefit from the huge potential of
Ukraine.
I agreed with him at the time, that Ukraine had huge potential, I was there as an engineer
working for German companies but his lust for what could be 'looted' disgusted me.
This is a standard CIA scenario, used in Sarajevo and Deraa before Kiev. So, Ukrainians
bought an old stale show, swallowed it hook, line, and sinker.
But the Georgian snipers brought in 2014 to Kiev by Saakashvili started dying in
suspicious circumstances, so those who are still alive rushed to Belarus and started deposing
their testimony. They implicated a lot of Ukies, including former speaker Parubii, former MP
Pashinsky, etc. It was well known (to those who did not keep their eyes wide shut for
political reasons) that the sniper fire in 2014 on Maidan was from the building controlled by
the coup leaders, who later tried to blame Yanuk for it. That's why post-coup Ukrainian
authorities got rid of the trees on Maidan: bullet holes in those trees indicated where the
fire was coming from. But this recent testimony implicated particular people, who (surprise,
surprise!) happened to be among the coup leaders.
@Truth3 The truth is that you are absolutely right. 'Ukrainians' boasted that they are
the 'Khazars' since Mazeppa and Orlyk of the 'Constitution of Bendery' fame, while parading a
distaste for 'the adherents of deceitful Judaism' and noisy adherence to Orthodoxy.
Look at this entry of the http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com and see if
anything changed:
"After Mazepa's death, on 16 April 1710, Orlyk was elected hetman, with the backing of
Charles XII of Sweden, in Bendery. The chief author of the Constitution of Bendery, he
pursued policies aimed at liberating Ukraine from Russian rule. He gained the support of the
Zaporozhian Host, concluded a treaty with Charles XII* in May 1710, and sought to make the
Ukrainian question a matter of international concern by continuing Mazepa's attempts at
establishing an anti-Russian coalition ** . Orlyk signed a treaty with the Crimean khan
Devlet-Girei in February 1711, negotiated with the Ottoman Porte, which formally recognized
his authority over Right-Bank Ukraine and the Zaporizhia in 1712, conducted talks with the
Don Cossack participants in Kondratii Bulavin's revolt who had fled to the Kuban, and even
contacted the Kazan Tatars and the Bashkirs. In 1711–14 he led Cossack campaigns
against the Russians in Right-Bank Ukraine. Despite initial victories they ultimately failed,
because of Turkish vacillation and because the pillaging, raping, and taking of many civilian
captives by Orlyk's Crimean Tatar allies resulted in the loss of public and military support
on the Right Bank".
Nowhere does the 'first "European" constitution' speak about 'ukrainians', but of 'Exercitu
Zaporoviensi genteque Rossiaca" (Zaporozhian Host and the Ruthenian people) living in
"Parva Rossia"/Little Russia.
* putting Ukraine under the protection of the King of Sweden.
** an plot of 'European' and Islamic powers with an intense 'Masonic-Kabbalistic' coloring
(and Jewish financial support) against Russian 'Tsardom' and 'Patriarchal' Church. 'Ukraine'
was an anti-Russian project from the get go. Brzezinski's quip: "Ukraine, a new and important
space on the Eurasian chessboard, is a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an
independent country helps to transform Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a
Eurasian empire" reflects only the revival of the old plan in new circumstances.
@Seraphim " Brzezinski's quip: "Ukraine, a new and important space on the Eurasian
chessboard, is a geopolitical pivot "
Old Zbieg was as lunatic as Pole can be and as cunning as Jew can be (was he?).
The Poles were so desiring to became Slavic superpower, and on the height of their might
in 15th century – they could become. They occupied Russian lands – oh, that
mythical Kievan Rus oppressed by Moscow for centuries. And they even occupied Moscow for few
months – more than unified Europe managed to do under both Napoleon and Hitler
combined! Polska was really stronk then.
.well, they ate themselves from inside and sold their statehood to all the foreign bidders
while boasting about Polish pride. Like ukropeans do today. They lost their strength, they
lost their eastern colony, and for a while they even lost Poland itself.
They could never move over it.
Zbieg – coming from Galicia, the last shrink of Poland-occupied lands – had
this specifically Polish resentment burning in him. And he managed to make USA fight Polish
fights. Managed to use American incompetence in history and geography to sell them that idea
that the Ukraine – the borderlands between Poland and Russia have "geopolitical"
importance. For USA, no less. Wow!
Okay, USA invested at very least $5B into buying Ukrainian warchiefs, and we don't know
how much more was added by EU and Germany. They now have this "geopolitical asset" as Zbieg
urged them to do. What are they gonna do with it now? How do they gonna make Ukrainians pay
back the money they spent? Old Zbieg preached about the world "paid by Russia to fight
against Russia". This is that very "Russia, occupy the Ukraine finally, we are tired of
fruitless waiting!" whining they repeat again and again. But if this won't work, just like it
did not work yet, how do they think to make Ukrainians pay for it? Or whom else? I wonder
@Arioch "> My point is the ukraine isn't dead. It isn't dying.
In which quality? As a swath of land inhabited by few peasants here and there – it
surely will remain.
As an economically vibrant country, one of UN founders, with economy larger than German and
closing on France – what it used to be – it is dead.
As a laws-bound polity it is dead since 2014, though was dying even before.
As STEM engineering and education stronghold it was in USSR – it is dead.
As one in just four in the whole world producers of really large airplanes – it is
dead.
As one of the few ICBM producers – it is dead, know-how sold to Saudi.
As one of the few turbojet engines producers – it is dead, know-how sold to China.
As one of the reliable and well known tanks and APCs producer – it is dead, even
USA-occupied Iraq does not buy this trash.
As the country, living from the geographic rent, just providing roads and hotels for cargo
traffic, it is almost dead. Bridges are collapsing, roads – neither for cars nor
railways – are not maintained."
Bravado, anyone can see.
Dead countries don't produce electricity. Real economists look at things like this. Not
just at industrial reorganization. That is the only point you have. Industrial
reorganization. Not death of industry.
@Anon BTW, most *live* countries of the world do not produce ICBMs, nor jet engines, nor
APCs etc, nor super heavy aircraft. The military industrial complex remnants from the SU are
not industries that most of the planet's countries have. Specialties. Those can not be
measures of whether a country is living or dead. Use some real measures.
@Anon Actually a good point. Mass cargo logistics and energy generation. Indeed.
The thing here is, that as of now the Ukraine is enjoying its privileged position from
times Ukrainians ruled USSR (IOW, after Stalin died in 1953 and of few coup leaders Khruschev
became top dog in 1956). The Ukraine is reeking with then top-tech nuclear power plants, that
very few of other USSR republics had (one in Ignalina in Baltics, one in Armenia, and dozen
in Russia, that is all. Ukraine was #2 with huge gap).
There is a switch, though. What do you do with electricity you produced?
And, what kind of electricity you produce?
The second question is tangential to "green energy" fad.
The generation is split to "base" generation, which covers required minimum and should be
steadily generating around the clock, and "maneuvering" generation which can be turned on and
off in a matter of few minutes, to accommodate with daytime traits, like "people awoke in
between 7-8am, took shower, cooked breakfast and departed to school/work".
In general, base generation is predictable, thus does not need big reserves, can use economy
of scales and cut costs. Maneuvering one has to increase costs, dealing with unpredictable
mode changes and extra wearing it puts on the equipment and employees.
The first question, as you can not pour electricity into a tank and keep it for months
there, can be roughly split to
1) use at home, for things like washing, cleaning, entertaining (TV, computers), air
conditioning in summer and heating in winter.
2) use in industries, this is perhaps what "real economists" look for. Those should had less
daily spikes, they might even have near constant consumption around the clock.
3) export to the countries, who need it, but does not want to build their own power
plants
The export is significant thing. There is so called Byrshtyn Island, a constellation of
power plants in Western Ukraine, that was cut off from Ukrainian grid and plugged to Polish
grid, to act as maneuvering damper for Polish citizens' daylight cycles.
You chart shows that between 2014 and 2015 there was strong (about 2000 GWH) decrease in
production, which remained more or less stable after that. It also shows huge seasonal
variation.
It probably means Ukrainian industries and households enjoy a lot of winter-time heating, but
very little of summer-time AC. Just like it was built during USSR times.
Ukrainian electricity export seems rising. Were there new power plants put to service? I
did not heard. Then it means that domestic consumption shrunk.
There was also a streak of Nuclear Power Plants accidents in the news of 2017-2019.
This can stem from two factors:
1) increased reliance on NPP as other power plants go belly-up, especially forcing those
giant NPPs into maneuvering modes, which they were not designed for. You can find news
sources that Ukrainian NPPs were being tested to 105% of normative capacity and to
maneuvering modes, the modes that just do not make sense when together.
2) decreased maintenance
Anyway, those NPPs are of old Soviet design of 1980-s, they are closing to end of life.
We'll see if new ones will be built. Or if they will just be used regardless of aging until
some hard failure, "run to the ground". And what will come after.
Of course, as long as they operate – no mater how harmful to locals – EU will
buy cheap energy.
And since EuroMaidan government is living on debts, it will have no choice than to sell. Even
if domestic power consumption will get zero, the EU will buy the power.
But I do not think EU would invest into building new power plants there when Soviet ones
finally crack.
@Anon Indeed, only Airbus and Boeing can produce super-heavy aircrafts.
China and Russia are contenders. Ukraine used to be, but stepped out.
Does it mean, USA and France are hell-bent over their military industrial complex?
Maybe.
Does it make them run worse?
Bombardier and EmBraer factories are bought by Airbus and Boeing, not vice versa.
Avro of Canada once used to be a pillar, now is memory.
And all the other countries have to kiss up to political powers that allow them purchasing
Boeing and Airbus jets and maintenance as a privilege for their lapdogging.
Iran wanted to buy Airbus badly, how did it work out?
So, yeah, specialties. Those specialties that can not be replaced – for master
races.
And those that can easily – for lapdogs.
New Zealand can produce good beef. But so can Brazil and Argentina. And Ukraine too.
But Brazil can not produce irreplaceable large cargo aircrafts. And even mid-size they can
not produce independently.
All nations are completely artificial along with the gods, ideologies, fiat money & all
the rest if the human fictions. If humans went extinct overnight would the US, Russia et al
still exist? No, nor would their thousands of gods.
That little trick with the maps can be done with many countries. The US is a fine example.
1st map = 13 colonies – keep adding new maps for every new state they added after
France paid for & won US independence & include the theft/conquest of Mexican
territory & Hawaii.
The Ukraine is a huge basket case made much worse by the US, but your (Orlov too) Rabid
Russian nationalism blinds you. IOW, like the empires propagandists, you too are spinning a
narrative, albeit more truthful than empires, but a narrative (emotional) nonetheless.
@Dr Scanlon Maybe we just compare real Ukraine with what it was promised to become?
Michael Saakashvili, 2014-08-26, "Exactly one year from today Ukraine would send
humanitarian aid to Russia. Mark my words.". I am still trying to find that aid around me, no
luck
There also was a much more extended timetable, year by year, how Ukraine would rocket to
the future and how Russia would fall down to middle ages. Wanted to re-read it but could not
find.
@Anon Or yea, sure. Even Ukrainian statistics (which in terms of reliability might be
somewhat better than Nostradamus, at least sometimes) report 53 births for 100 deaths, with
the population shrinking due to this differential alone by more than 200,000 per year. If you
count in emigration, the picture becomes very bleak. Millions work in Russia, Poland, and
elsewhere. Mind you, temporary emigration for work easily becomes permanent. For example, I
have a cousin who used to live in Lvov. He worked in Russia for 20+ years, and since 2014
never visited Ukraine. I guess he is still counted, as he remains a Ukrainian citizen.
@Mr. Hack OK, let's go to the original of the constitution 'ratified' by "His Majesty the
King of Sweden" (cum consensu S-ae R-ae Maiestatis Sueciae, Protectoris Nostri/with the
consent of His Majesty the King of Sweden, our protector):
"It is no secret that Hetman Bohdan Khmelnytsky of glorious memory, with the
Zaporozhian Host, took up arms and began a just war against the Polish Commonwealth for no
other reason (apart from rights and liberties) except their Orthodox faith, which had been
forced as a result of various encumbrances placed on it by the Polish authorities into union
with the Roman church. Similarly, after the alien new Roman religion had been eradicated
from our fatherland, he with the said Zaporozhian Host and Ruthenian [Rossiaca] people,
sought and submitted himself to the protection of the Muscovite tsardom for no other
reason than "that it shared the same Orthodox religion". Therefore, if God our Lord, strong
and mighty in battle, should assist the victorious armies of His Royal Majesty the King of
Sweden to liberate our fatherland from the Muscovite yoke of slavery, the present newly
elected Hetman will be bound by duty and put under obligation to take special care that no
alien religion is introduced into our Ruthenian [Rossiacam] fatherland. Should one, however,
appear anywhere, either secretly or openly, he will be bound to extirpate it through his
authority, not allow it to be preached or disseminated, and not permit any dissenters,
MOST OF ALL THE ADHERENTS OF DECEITFUL JUDAISM, to live in Ukraine, and will be bound to make
every possible effort that only the Orthodox faith of the Eastern confession, under
obedience to the Holy Apostolic See of Constantinople, be established firmly for ever
and be allowed to expand and to flourish, like a rose among thorns, among the neighbouring
countries following alien religions, for the greater glory of God, the building of churches,
and the instruction of Ruthenian [Rossiacis] sons in the liberal arts. And for the greater
authority of the Kievan metropolitan see, which is foremost in Little Russia [Parva Rossia],
and for a more efficient administration of spiritual matters, His Grace the Hetman should,
after the liberation of our fatherland from the Muscovite yoke, obtain from the Apostolic See
of Constantinople the original power of an exarch in order thereby to renew relationship with
and filial obedience to the aforementioned Apostolic See of Constantinople, from which
it , was privileged to have been enlightened in the holy Catholic faith by the preaching of
the Gospel".
"neque ignotum est, gloriosae memoriae Ducem Theodatum Chmielniccium cum Exercitu
Zaporoviensi non ob aliam causam praeter iura libertatis commotum fuisse iustaque contra
Rempublicam Polonam arma arripuisse, solum pro Fide sua Orthodoxa, quae variorum
gravaminum compulsu a potestate Polonorum coacta fuerat ad unionem cum Ecclesia Romana;
post extirpatam quoque e patria Neoromanam exoticam Religionem, non alio motivo cum eodem
Exercitu Zaporoviensi genteque Rossiaca protectione Imperii Moscovitici dedisse et libere se
subdidisse, solum ob Religionis Orthodoxae unionem. Igitur modernus neoelectus lllustrissimus
Dux, quando Dominus Deus fortis et potens in praeliis iuvabit felicia sacrae S-ae R-ae
Maiestatis Sueciae arma ad vindicandam patriam nostram de servitutis iugo Moscovitico
tenebitur et debito iure obstringetur singularem volvere curam fortiterque obstare, ut nulla
exotica Religio in patriam nostram Rossiacam introducatur, quae si alicubi clamve , palamve
apparuerit, tune activitatem suam extirpandae ipsi debebit, praedicari ampliarique non
permittet, asseclis eiusdem, PRAESERTIM VERO PRAESTIGIOSO IUDAISMO cohabitationem in Ucraina
non concedet et omni virium conatu sollicitam impendet curam, ut sola et una Orthodoxa Fides
Orientalis Confessionis sub obedienta S-tae Apostoiicae sedis Constantinopolitanae in
perpetuum sit firmanda, atque cum amplianda gloria Divina, erigendis ecclesiis exercendisque
in artibus liberalibus filiis Rossiacis dilatetur, ac tanquam rosa inter spinas, inter vicina
exoticae Religionis Dominia virescat et florescat. Propter vero majorem authoritatem
primariae in Parva Rossia sedis Metropolitanae Kiiovensis faciliorique in Spiritualibus
regimine, impositam sibi idem Illustrissimus Dux vindicata patria nostra de iugo Moscovitico
geret provinciam circa procurandam et impertiendam a sede Apostolica Constantinopolitana
Exarchicam primitivam potestatem, ut hoc actu renovetur relatio et filialis patriae nostrae
obedientia ad praefatam Apostolicam sedem Constantinopolitanam, cuius praedicatione Evangelii
in Fide Sancta Catholica illuminari firmarique dignata est".
ТHЕ PYLYP ORLYK CONSTITUTION,
1710@http://www.lucorg.com/block.php/block_id/26
@Anon > Also, check construction spending – click on 10 year
.now how can i account there for the fact, that UAH in 2013 costed three times more than
UAH in 2015 ?
> Farming is an industry.
Grain industry – is low added value one, it is highly competitive market because
grain from any country on Earth is just grain.
USSR used to buy grain, as it sponsored bread production and peasants all around were
buying bead to feed their hens, goats, pigs, etc. Official meat production was large too.
It is definitely better to export at least something than nothing. But it also is better
to export high added value goods.
Before WW1 a minister of Russian Empire said "Let our peasants starve but we will export
all the grains we contracted" – few years later Russian Empire ceased to exist.
In 1931 and 1932 Stalin tenfold decreased then banned grains export breaking the
contracts. 15 years later USSR won WW2.
Franlky, it is just weird that Ukraine and Russia together produce most world's traded
grain, like there is no other fertile soil on Earth. Also Russia and Ukraine are both to the
north from USA, so USA should be able to produce more grains in its warmer climate. Why isn't
USA world #1 grains exporter?
and EU just whimsically bans Ukrainian meat beyond some arbitrary quota.
EU will easily find where to buy meet.
Can Ukraine reciprocate by banning Airbus or Boeing purchases? I wonder
EU can pressure Ukrainian government, and Ukraine can do little in defense.
"DNC Announces 10 Candidates in Atlanta Democratic Debate" [
Bloomberg ]. Joe Biden, Cory Booker, Pete Buttigieg, Tulsi Gabbard, Kamala Harris, Amy
Klobuchar, Bernie Sanders, Tom Steyer, Elizabeth Warren and Andrew Yang. And not Julian Castro,
sadly. "The forum will be co-hosted by the Washington Post and MSNBC. Candidates will be
questioned by four female moderators: Rachel Maddow, Andrea Mitchell and Kristen Welker from
the network, and Ashley Parker from the Post. The two-hour event had a higher bar to qualify
than previous debates. Candidates must have contributions from 165,000 donors, up from 135,000.
And the donors must be geographically dispersed, with a minimum of 600 per state in at least 20
states. In addition, participants must either show 3% support in four qualifying national or
single-state polls, or have at least 5% support in two qualifying single-state polls released
between Sept. 13 and Nov. 13 in the early nominating states of Iowa, New Hampshire, South
Carolina or Nevada."
Dems skillfully changed the narrative from Biden's Corruption to Trump actions against his potential Presidential candidate
(which is actually much less dangerous to Trump then Warren or Sanders; it is optimal for Trump variation of Hilary 2.0 theme )
The issue of supplying Ukraine arm to destabilize the region (with the USA on the receiving end of the potential Russia
retaliation incase of escalation of the conflict ) was changed in "withholding the aid from the ally". Real propaganda
professionals.
Looks like George Kent is dyed-in-the-wool neocon and belongs to the neocon vipers nest in the State Department as
Nuland. He is
actually extremely damaging for the USA foreign policy person. Another crazy USA supremacist, believer in "Full Spectrum
Domination" doctrine
Notable quotes:
"... I really wish that TAC writers would stop offering concessions to the neocons in an effort to appear "serious" and "reasonable". It's disingenuous, counterfactual, and it does not work. Russia did not invade Ukraine. (You could say that about Crimea, but if you were to do so, you should also admit that the locals welcomed the "invaders" as liberators.) ..."
"... Conservatives are basically wimps, that is why they feel they have to throw the neocon dogs some bones ..."
"... If his domestic political opponents have been engaged (or even suspected of being engaged) in corrupt dealings with foreign governments, why should they not be investigated??? ..."
"... The civilians killed are almost all on the Donbass side of the line (as a result of Ukrainian terror attacks). The civilians on the other side of the line are not attacked. The Ukrainian line is that the Novorussians are shelling themselves, but that would require them, among other absurdities, to invent artillery shells that can do a 180 degree turn mid-flight. ..."
"... These foreign policy experts ignore the fact that a large percentage of Ukrainians *are* Russians and proud of their heritage but do not want to join the Russian Federation and support a united Ukraine. I was a relentless critic of Obama but the more I read about Euromaiden and the subsequent Russian invasion/annexation the more I agree with his policy or not rushing in to supply arms in what was a confusing situation that was part civil war between factions of Ukrainians. ..."
"... The 13,000 Ukrainian deaths could probably have been avoided had the US had stayed out of Ukraine's internal affairs and not encouraged the overthrow of its elected government back in 2014, however corrupt it was. It was naive of the US State Department and specifically Victoria Nuland, the Assistant Secretary for East European Affairs (who served in this role under both Hillary Clinton and John Kerry) to think that Russia would not respond to a shift in Ukrainian foreign policy in favor of the West. ..."
"... The Deep State lies about the Ukraine and US involvement in political and economic corruption there are just astounding, but not surprising. The US and NATO bear a huge portion of the blame for destabilizing an already unstable "nation," being largely responsible for the coup that ousted the rightful President Yanukovich in 2014 (whom they also helped deny election in 2004). NATO itself should have been disbanded after the Warsaw Pact was disbanded. Instead it has taken an ever more expansionist and aggressive stance toward Russia. ..."
"... The US drove forward with NATO until this inevitably happened. Then resistance became "aggression." It was imagined that NATO would station its ships in former Russian Black Sea bases of the Crimea, and so lock down Russia's north-south river system as completely as someone allowed to capture New Orleans and close the Mississippi river system. That attempt had to produce a war of some sort. Russia just had to resist that. The US did it anyway, guys like George Kennan in his last years protesting without effect. ..."
"... Refusing to consider what it was about themselves or their agenda for why they lost the election, Unable, or unwilling to allow a change of course they set about an entire process for revenge. Refusing to take this time to reassess themselves, their candidates or their agenda they have chosen instead to plow ahead in their attempts to overturn the election. by impeachment and conviction or at least damaging the president so badly making his unelectable. ..."
"... Demonstrating the worst attributes of a prosecution: a case with no evidence to the charge, manufacturing evidence, open admissions that the witnesses saw a crime or we even in the room when the alleged crime took place -- they are showing how the system works and why government cannot be trusted, maybe the public probably too busy trying to earn a living to attend to the details explains why half of them actually believe that Russia infiltrated the US to sabotage an election, regardless that no evidence supports the accusation. ..."
"... If it is an impeachable offense, then just about every administration that has been around since I have been alive should have been nailed. Do you think we don't make deals with no strings attached? ..."
"... Those string attached are for the benefit of the US. NOT for the benefit of particular persons. Strings attached to official aid to benefit particulars is called CORRUPTION ..."
"... Not a criminal act and you have your facts wrong. The president referenced CrowdStrike at the center of the collusion and Russian hack accusations) and given the circumstances of the VP's son and the VP conduct regarding an investigation in progress in the Ukraine -- the suspicions are entirely reasonable and the VP openly speaks about what he did ---- political rival or not that confession is a fact. ..."
"... -- it's metaphysically impossible to desperately need something unless you are already receiving that same thing; or if someone else once said you didn't need the thing; or wrote an op-ed saying you needed the thing but we shouldn't be the ones to provide the thing you need ..."
Choking on the Democrats' Ukraine Fantasy Narrative
Officials and media delivered enough untruths and distortions yesterday to cause us all
heartburn. State Department deputy assistant secretary, George Kent, left, and acting U.S.
ambassador to Ukraine, William B. Taylor, right, appear for a House Intelligence Committee
impeachment hearing Wednesday November 13, 2019 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Matt McClain/The
Washington Post via Getty Images)
A top U.S. State Department official began his testimony before the House impeachment
inquiry with eye-popping analogies comparing patriotic Ukrainians to the Minutemen of the
American revolution. His narrative went unchallenged, as all of Washington appears to have
suddenly fallen in love with the poor, defenseless, disadvantaged Ukraine that President Trump
tried to deny arms to.
George Kent, a U.S. State Department official who served under five presidents, told the
House Intelligence Committee Wednesday morning that after Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014,
occupying seven percent of its territory, "Ukraine's state institutions were on the verge of
collapse" until "the 21st century Ukrainian equivalent of our own Minutemen in 1776" bought
"time for the regular army to reconstitute."
"Since then, more than 13,000 Ukrainians have died on Ukrainian soil defending their
territorial integrity and sovereignty from Russian aggression," said Kent. "American support in
Ukraine's own de facto war of independence has been critical in this regard." Here's more:
"By analogy, the American colonies may not have prevailed against British imperial might
without help from transatlantic friends after 1776. In an echo of Lafayette's organized
assistance to General George Washington's army and Admiral John Paul Jones' navy, Congress
has generously appropriated over $1.5 billion over the past five years in desperately needed
train and equip security assistance to Ukraine . Similar to von Steuben training colonials at
Valley Forge, U.S. and NATO allied trainers develop the skills of Ukrainian units at Yavoriv
near the Polish border, and elsewhere. They help rewrite military education for Ukraine's
next generation, as von Steuben did for America's first."
One would think, listening to this, that the U.S. had always provided arms to Ukraine, and
that Ukraine has relied on this aid for years. But this is completely untrue, and the
Washington blob knows it.
Back in 2014, when Russia annexed a large swath of Ukraine, the Obama administration
declined to arm Ukraine, fearing that adding American weapons to the conflict would spark a hot
war between the U.S. and Russia. At the time, Sens. Lindsey Graham and John McCain argued
vociferously against Obama's policy.
"The Obama Administration's policy in Ukraine effectively amounts to an arms embargo on
victims of aggression," Sens. Lindsey Graham and John McCain said in a joint statement. "The
United States and the European Union must provide Ukraine with the arms and related military
and intelligence support that its leaders have consistently sought and desperately need."
Russian President Vladimir Putin's aggression "demands more than additional empty rhetoric
and threats of lowest-common-denominator sanctions," they wrote. "That has been the extent of
the world's response to Putin's slow-motion dismemberment of Ukraine, and it has consistently
failed to deter new acts of aggression."
Even as NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg warned of a "serious military buildup" by
Russian forces inside Ukraine, the Obama administration still declined to provide Ukraine with
lethal aid.
"We don't think the answer to the crisis in Ukraine is simply to inject more weapons and
engage in tit-for-tat," White House deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes told CNN.
State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki stressed that the US didn't want to "get into a proxy
war with Russia."
So instead, the U.S. responded to Russian aggression with sanctions and kicking them out of
the G-8 (now G-7.) Instead of providing arms,Washington provided Ukraine with non-lethal aid
and with military advisers and continued to engage in joint training exercises together with
several other countries.
Back when a Democrat occupied the White House, foreign policy experts were comfortable with
an unarmed Ukraine.
Foreign Policy magazine published an article called "Don't Poke the Russian
Bear" just after the Russian incursion into Ukraine. Providing arms to Ukraine would be a
needless escalation of a conflict with Moscow, the piece argues.
Where are all these foreign policy experts and their fears about conflict with Russia now?
Did they all suddenly change their minds now that Donald Trump occupies the Oval Office?
Obama's opinion on arming Ukraine never wavered. Even as late as 2016, he argued to
The Atlantic that Ukraine is a core Russian interest but not an American one.
"The fact is that Ukraine, which is a non-NATO country, is going to be vulnerable to
military domination by Russia no matter what we do," said Obama.
Thus, the Trump administration decision to provide Ukraine with weapons was a significant
departure from previous US policy. In August 2017, then-U.S. Secretary of Defense James Mattis
said the Trump administration was "actively reviewing" the question of whether to provide
lethal assistance to Ukraine. Then in 2018, the State Department approved the sale of 210
Javelin portable anti-tank missiles, as well as launchers, associated equipment, and training,
at a total estimated cost of $47 million.
The media appears to be deliberately blurring the timeline to obscure this fact.
From Politico:
The U.S. has provided about $1.5 billion in military support to Kiev between 2014 and this
past June, according to an updated analysis
by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. And Trump's temporary cut off of the aid
represented a significant setback for the country.
But here's what that CRS report Politico links to actually says: "During the Obama
administration, arguments against the provision of lethal assistance centered on Russia's
ability and willingness to steadily escalate conflict in response," says the report. But things
changed significantly under the Trump administration which "has provided major defensive lethal
weaponry to Ukraine."
The U.S. has only approved the sale of weapons to Ukraine last year! But now, weapons
Obama refused to provide are "a lifeline."
Obscuring the timeline advances the narrative that Ukraine relied on military assistance
which Trump suddenly precipitously withdrew. But the truth is that Ukraine did not even have
this assistance until Trump came into office. How can a country rely on something that was only
authorized last year? about the author Barbara Boland is TAC's foreign policy and
national security reporter. Previously, she worked as an editor for the Washington
Examiner and for CNS News. She is the author of Patton Uncovered , a book about
General George Patton in World War II, and her work has appeared on Fox News, The Hill ,
UK Spectator , and elsewhere. Boland is graduate from Immaculata University in
Pennsylvania. Follow her on Twitter @BBatDC .
I really wish that TAC writers would stop offering concessions to the neocons in an effort
to appear "serious" and "reasonable". It's disingenuous, counterfactual, and it does not
work. Russia did not invade Ukraine. (You could say that about Crimea, but if you were to do
so, you should also admit that the locals welcomed the "invaders" as liberators.)
If Russia were to invade Ukraine, the Ukrainian clown army, "minuteman patriots(tm)" and
all, would be wiped out in days or hours.
Conservatives are basically wimps, that is why they feel they have to throw the neocon dogs
some bones. It also is why they tend to be history's biggest losers.
If his domestic political opponents have been engaged (or even suspected of being engaged)
in corrupt dealings with foreign governments, why should they not be investigated???
Maybe you think that senior US officials should be immune from investigation, or that
laws don't apply to them?
more than 13,000 Ukrainians have died on Ukrainian soil defending their territorial
integrity and sovereignty from Russian aggression," said Kent.
The UN has estimated that the total number killed in Ukraine's war since the Maidan is
13,000. This figure includes casualties in the Donbass region, fighters and civilians,
killed by the armed forces of Kiev. Mr. Kent is enlisting these dead into a cause they died
resisting. Is there no limit to Washington's cynicism?
1. And most of those pro-Kiev soldiers died because they rushed into reckless and poorly
planned offensives and got slaughtered as a result. When they stay on their own side of the
contact line, they don't get killed.
2. The civilians killed are almost all on the Donbass side of the line (as a result of
Ukrainian terror attacks). The civilians on the other side of the line are not attacked.
The Ukrainian line is that the Novorussians are shelling themselves, but that would require
them, among other absurdities, to invent artillery shells that can do a 180 degree turn
mid-flight.
The fact that the Obama administration did not give lethal aid to Ukraine came up at the
impeachment hearing yesterday and was confirmed by the two bureaucrats. A republican asked
about it.
These foreign policy experts ignore the fact that a large percentage of Ukrainians *are*
Russians and proud of their heritage but do not want to join the Russian Federation and
support a united Ukraine. I was a relentless critic of Obama but the more I read about
Euromaiden and the subsequent Russian invasion/annexation the more I agree with his policy
or not rushing in to supply arms in what was a confusing situation that was part civil war
between factions of Ukrainians.
Congress disagreed and passed the Ukraine Freedom Act which
mandated sanctions and authorized arms shipments. Obama signed it in December of 2014 but
in his signing statement wrote that wasn't going to implement sanctions or ship arms. Back
then ignoring the will of Congress wasn't an impeachable offense but obviously times change.
The 13,000 Ukrainian deaths could probably have been avoided had the US had stayed out of
Ukraine's internal affairs and not encouraged the overthrow of its elected government back
in 2014, however corrupt it was. It was naive of the US State Department and specifically
Victoria Nuland, the Assistant Secretary for East European Affairs (who served in this role
under both Hillary Clinton and John Kerry) to think that Russia would not respond to a
shift in Ukrainian foreign policy in favor of the West.
Russia was never going to allow
Sevastopol (in Crimea), its only warm water to become a future NATO base and Ms. Nuland
should have understood that. Crimea had been captured from the Ottoman Empire in Catherine
the Great's time (c. 1783). Nikita Khrushchev had transferred administrative control of
Crimea from Russia to Ukraine at a time (1954) when there was no land link from Crimea to
Russia and no one expected the USSR to break up.
At the time the Soviet Union gave its consent to the peaceful reunification of East and
West Germany in 1990, it was with the understanding that NATO would not expand eastward
beyond its then existing sphere of influence. But NATO and the US violated this
understanding as new member states from the old Soviet block countries were admitted to
NATO starting in 1999.
As the US continues to meddle in the internal affairs of foreign countries and to hand
out billions of dollars in military foreign aid money every year, the medical care our own
veterans who served in Iraq and Afghanistan is being short changed. Watch the documentary
"Delay, Deny and Hope You Die" (free if you have an Amazon Prime Membership).
The Deep State lies about the Ukraine and US involvement in political and economic
corruption there are just astounding, but not surprising. The US and NATO bear a huge
portion of the blame for destabilizing an already unstable "nation," being largely
responsible for the coup that ousted the rightful President Yanukovich in 2014 (whom they
also helped deny election in 2004). NATO itself should have been disbanded after the Warsaw
Pact was disbanded. Instead it has taken an ever more expansionist and aggressive stance
toward Russia.
Ukraine is a largely artificial country, parts of which (The Crimea and eastern Ukraine)
really should just be part of greater Russia (the Russian nation's very roots, after all,
are in mediaeval Kievan Rus). It had never been a sovereign nation-state before 1991, and
its current borders are arbitrary and unworkable demographically. The US line that Ukraine
is a vital national security interest in garbage - they just want to join the oligarchs in
fleecing the country and using it as a proxy in their bizarro-world where Russian bogeymen
are everywhere.
What Congress ought to be investigating is how Joe Biden's son ended up on the board of
one of the most corrupt Ukraine oil companies shortly after own visit to the country while
he was VP. That's where the real corruption is.
The US drove forward with NATO until this inevitably happened. Then resistance became
"aggression." It was imagined that NATO would station its ships in former Russian Black Sea bases of
the Crimea, and so lock down Russia's north-south river system as completely as someone
allowed to capture New Orleans and close the Mississippi river system. That attempt had to
produce a war of some sort. Russia just had to resist that. The US did it anyway, guys like
George Kennan in his last years protesting without effect.
The US did this to Ukraine. It rightly ought to be rather like Austria, Yugoslavia, and
Finland of the Cold War era, a safe space between playing off each against the other.
Instead, it got thrown into NATO's aggression.
Here is the basic question: Did Donald Trump attempt to extort the Ukrainian government to get dirt on Biden? It's a basic
yes or no question. And assuming that he did extort the Ukrainian government, is it enough of a crime and abuse of power for
him to be impeached. Every thing else is irrelevant.
No. He didn't.
Even if you think he did, his behaviour could be considered inappropriate, but that
doesn't make it a criminal offense, no matter how much you hate the man.
Like it or not, Trump WON a legal and constitutionally held election, run according to
electoral college procedures. That doesn't change because he wants to know what REALLY
happened when Biden demanded the Ukr sack its corruption investigator (and then bragged
about it) when the investigator started sniffing around the gas company that Hunter Biden
and been installed in by daddy and his pals.
Readers, don't be fooled by her focus on "arms."
Here's what the report says:
"Since independence, Ukraine has been a leading recipient of U.S. foreign and military
aid in
Europe and Eurasia. In the 1990s (FY1992-FY2000), the U.S. government provided almost
$2.6 billion in total aid to Ukraine ($287 million a year, on average).146 In the 2000s
(FY2001 to
FY2009), total aid to Ukraine amounted to almost $1.8 billion ($199 million a year, on
average).147 In the five years before Russia's 2014 invasion of Ukraine (FY2010 to
FY2014),
State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) assistance
(including
foreign military financing) totaled about $105 million a year, on average.
Separate
nonproliferation and threat reduction assistance administered by the Departments of Energy
and
Defense amounted to an average of over $130 million a year in obligated funds."
It's true that Obama didn't want to stumble into a proxy war with Russia. It's also true
that Trump tried to strong-arm Ukraine into investigating a political rival.
Blame the media!
Another example of the right's love of Trump. Grab 'em by the truth!
My week started nice. I has been setting dates to take an entire week off to give my body
a rest from exercise, but after but two and half days I couldn't do it. My mind could not
let iot rest. It plagued and nagged with all of those self deprecating thoughts press
against a change of pace or of course. I found myself trying to cram a weeks worth of
exercise into three days without a break . . it was nuts. Passing my quota was not enough
and i have not let it go to this moment, despite what damage i may do to my body.
I guess the democrats are that way. Refusing to consider what it was about themselves or
their agenda for why they lost the election, Unable, or unwilling to allow a change of
course they set about an entire process for revenge. Refusing to take this time to reassess
themselves, their candidates or their agenda they have chosen instead to plow ahead in
their attempts to overturn the election. by impeachment and conviction or at least damaging
the president so badly making his unelectable.
Demonstrating the worst attributes of a
prosecution: a case with no evidence to the charge, manufacturing evidence, open admissions
that the witnesses saw a crime or we even in the room when the alleged crime took place --
they are showing how the system works and why government cannot be trusted, maybe the
public probably too busy trying to earn a living to attend to the details explains why half
of them actually believe that Russia infiltrated the US to sabotage an election, regardless
that no evidence supports the accusation.
Maybe, just maybe enough of them will see this for what it is an abuse of the our system
worthy of condemnation and maybe the next election will be a second dose of shock and awe.
. Sadly should that be the case the message that democrats will here is that they need to
redouble their efforts potential opponents, even if means destroying the republic they
supposedly seek to save.
I see nothing in this article but deflection and whataboutism. Instead, answer the question
these hearings are actually about: Did Donald Trump withhold or threaten to withhold aid or
support from a foreign ally in return for a personal benefit? If so, that's extortion and
abuse of power and an impeachable offense. It's really that simple.
If it is an impeachable offense, then just about every administration that has been around
since I have been alive should have been nailed. Do you think we don't make deals with no
strings attached?
Those string attached are for the benefit of the US. NOT for the benefit of particular
persons. Strings attached to official aid to benefit particulars is called CORRUPTION
According to "Defense News," the millions of dollars in U.S. security assistance provided
to Ukraine during the Obama administration was "...aimed at helping Ukraine monitor and
secure its borders, deploy its forces more safely and effectively, and make progress toward
NATO interoperability." It was also militarily significant. For example, "After Ukraine
received 20 Lockheed Martin AN/TPQ-53 radar systems that track incoming mortar and
short-range artillery fire in 2015, the casualty rate for units equipped with those systems
went from 47 percent to about 18 percent..."
A year after Trump took office, the U.S.added lethal aid to the mix, as authorized in
the 2016 National Defense Authorization Act. According to Defense News, these weapons
included "anti-armor weapon systems, mortars, crew-served weapons and ammunition, grenade
launchers and ammunition, and small arms and ammunition ― but also unspecified
'cyber' and 'electronic warfare' capabilities."
Ms. Boland's article seems to ignore the amount and the helpfulness of the previous
administration's security aid. It also blithely minimizes the harm of holding up the latest
tranche of enhanced security aid (an action that was done for no discernible reason that
anyone but several impeachment witnesses and Mick Mulvaney seems able to explain).
Agree with you that is interesting that those deep state bureaucrats who think that they
make all the policy and the they run the country did lie, and lie quite often.
But I think you're wrong that they planned anything for years. The deep state just wanted
to get Trump out via any means possible and thought they could just come up with anything.
Only useful idiots (and media) believe their lies. Clearly, you are not one of these useful
idiots.
I am hopeful that Kent is educated enough not to take seriously the analogy between the
Ukraine and the 13 colonies and that this was directed to the ignorant boobocracy that is
fixated on their TV screens watching this dreck unfold and whose knowledge of history is
virtually nonexistent.
Unless, of course, I'm wrong and Kent himself is one of them.
You might want to have some facts that are related to the charges --
"Congressional approved funding would be withheld until Ukraine officials agreed to
investigate (or at least publicly announce an investigation) into the President's political
rival."
Not a criminal act and you have your facts wrong. The president referenced CrowdStrike
at the center of the collusion and Russian hack accusations) and given the circumstances of
the VP's son and the VP conduct regarding an investigation in progress in the Ukraine --
the suspicions are entirely reasonable and the VP openly speaks about what he did ----
political rival or not that confession is a fact.
You do realize there are currently investigations underway in the US on these
issues.
-- Trump did, in fact, do exactly what he was accused of doing
-- you shouldn't whine like a baby when "only" seven percent of your territory is
militarily annexed by a hostile foreign power
-- Lindsay Graham pushed for the very aid Trump held up, but that was different because
that was Obama then and anyway can't you see how Democrats are the unprincipled
hyper-partisans here?
-- non-lethal military aid including military advisors is not military aid because
something something Obama something something mainstream media something Obama
-- it's metaphysically impossible to desperately need something unless you are already
receiving that same thing; or if someone else once said you didn't need the thing; or wrote
an op-ed saying you needed the thing but we shouldn't be the ones to provide the thing you
need
"... Love the Clapper claim (the same Clapper who lied to Congress) says he was just doing his duty in Russiagate. As GBS said, " when a scoundrel is doing something of which he is ashamed, he always says he is doing his duty". ..."
"... There is also a long and inglorious history of interference in domestic politics from the Zinoviev Letter onwards. Plots to stage a military coup against the Wilson government of the 60s and 70s, with Mountbatten as its figurehead. The more recent Skripal Hoax. The contrived Syrian Gas Attack Hoaxes and the White Helmets. They would not hesitate to do the same to Corbyn if they deemed it necessary. ..."
"... The CIA and FBI conspired with the UK and Ukrainian governments to prevent the election of Trump, and then to sabotage and smear his administration once he had been elected. The UK played a major part in this through MI6 and Steele. This is highly dangerous for this country, irrespective of your view of Trump. ..."
"... The Democrats, the Deep State, the MSM, and the Deranged Left were willing to support these conspiracies and hoaxes, and even suspend disbelief, for the greater good. The ends justify the means. All that matters is getting rid of Trump. Anything goes. The corrosive erosion of trust, credibility and integrity in all the institutions of the state is probably irreparable. The legislature and the political process in general. The judiciary. The spooks and police. About 9% of Americans now believe the MSM. ..."
"... No need to even discuss, until Western societies ALL get a grip on the depths of depravity that lie within the actions and "The History of the National Security State" you have to admit, that Julian Assange could not have picked a better book to firmly grip and signal with, than GORE Vidal's, when being manhandled out of the Ecuadorian Embassy, by Spooks who would sell their own mother, let alone nation, in their utter technological ignorance and adherence to anachronistic doctrines & mentality ! ..."
"... The most important thing for us and deliciously so now the election is happening is the BLOWBACK. Our DS lying murdering arses are going to get new ones drilled by Trump and BoBos bromance exploding in full technicolor. ..."
"... By sharing we disrupt the msm messages. Bernard at MoonofAlabama is also worth a daily visitation – priceless analysis on multiple subjects. ..."
"... I'd have thought that events like the spy in the holdall, the spies caught by farmers in Libya, the Skripal's, and the whole over-the-top reaction to the domestic terrorism threat and consequent successful pleas for extra funding, the obvious danger of creating terrorists by security services, the policy of giving asylum to foreign terrorists of countries we don't like and the whole concept of the 5 eyes and GCHQ needs more than ministerial oversight, a committee of yes men/women and an intelligence services commissioner. ..."
As the Quantum field oversees the disintegration of institutions no longer in service to the public, the Democratic party continues
to lose their marbles, perpetuating their own simulated bubble as if they alone are the nation's most trusted purveyors of truth.
Since the Mueller Report failed to deliver on the dubious Russiagate accusations, the party of Thomas Jefferson continues to remain
in search of another ethical pretense to justify continued partisan turmoil. In an effort to discredit and/or distract attention
from the Barr-Durham and IG investigations, the Dems have come up with an implausible piece of political theatre known as Ukrainegate
which has morphed into an impeachment inquiry.
The Inspector General's Report, which may soon be ready for release, will address the presentation of fabricated FBI evidence
to the FISA Court for permission to initiate a surveillance campaign on Trump Administration personnel. In addition, the Department
of Justice has confirmed that Special Investigator John Durham's probe into the origin of the
FBI's counter intelligence investigation during the 2016
election has moved from an administrative review into the criminal prosecution realm. Durham will now be able to actively pursue
candidates for possible prosecution.
The defensive assault from the Democrat hierarchy and its corporate media cohorts can be expected to reach a fevered pitch of
manic proportions as both investigations threatened not only their political future in 2020 but perhaps their very existence.
NBC s uggests that the Barr investigation is a ' mysterious ' review " amid concerns about whether the probe has any legal or
factual basis " while the
NY Times continues
to cast doubt that the investigation has a legitimate basis implying that AG Barr is attempting to " deliver a political victory
for President Trump." The Times misleads its readers with:
Trump has repeatedly attacked the Russia investigation, portraying it as a hoax and illegal even months after the special counsel
closed it."
when in fact, it was the Russiagate collusion allegations that Trump referred to as a hoax, rather than the Mueller investigation
per se.
Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va), minority leader of the Senate Intel Committee suggested that Attorney General William Barr " owes the
Committee an explanation " since the committee is completing a " three-year bipartisan investigation " that has " found nothing to
justify " Barr's expanded effort.
The Senator's gauntlet will be ever so fascinating as the public reads exactly how the Intel Committee spent three years and came
up with " nothing " as compared to what Durham and the IG reports have to say.
On the House side, prime-time whiners Reps. Adam Schiff (D-Calif) and Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) commented that news of the Durham
investigation moving towards criminal liability " raised profound concerns that Barr has lost his independence and become a vehicle
for political revenge " and that " the Rule of Law will suffer irreparable damage ."
Since Barr has issued no determination of blame other than to assure a full, fair and rigorous investigation, it is curious that
the Dems are in premature meltdown as if they expect indictments even though the investigations are not yet complete.
There is, however, one small inconvenient glitch that challenges the Democratic version of reality that does not fit their partisan
spin. The news that former FBI General Counsel James Baker is actively cooperating with the BD investigation ought to send ripples
through the ranks. Baker has already stated that it was a 'small group' within the agency who led the counterintelligence inquiry
into the Trump campaign; notably former FBI Director James Comey and former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.
Baker's cooperation was not totally unexpected since he also cooperated with the
Inspector General's FISA abuse investigation which is awaiting public release.
As FBI General Counsel, Baker had a role in reviewing the FISA applications before they were submitted to the FISA court and currently
remains under criminal investigation for making unauthorized leaks to the media.
As the agency's chief legal officer, Baker had to be a first-hand participant and privy to every strategy discussion and decision
(real or contemplated). It was his job to identify potential legal implications that might negatively affect the agency or boomerang
back on the FBI. In other words, Baker is in a unique position to know who knew what and when did they know it.
His 'cooperation' can be generally attributed to being more concerned with saving his own butt rather than the Constitution.
In any case, the information he is able to provide will be key for getting to the true origins of Russiagate and the FISA scandal.
Baker's collaboration may augur others facing possible prosecution to step up since 'cooperation' usually comes with the gift of
a lesser charge.
With a special focus on senior Obama era intel officials Durham has reportedly already interviewed up to two dozen former and
current FBI employees as well as officials in the office of the Director of National Intelligence.
From the number of interviews conducted to date it can be surmised that Durham has been accumulating all the necessary facts and
evidence as he works his way up the chain of command, prior to concentrating on top officials who may be central to the investigation.
It has also been reported that Durham expects to interview current and former intelligence officials including CIA analysts, former
CIA Director John Brennan and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper regarding Russian efforts to interfere in the
2016 election.
In a recent
CNN
interview , when asked if he was concerned about any wrongdoing on the part of intel officials, Clapper nervously responded:
I don't know. I don't think there was any wrongdoing. It is disconcerting to know that we are being investigated for having
done our duty and done what we were told to do by the President."
One wonders if Clapper might be a candidate for 'cooperating' along with Baker.
As CIA Director, Brennan made no secret of his efforts to nail the Trump Administration. In the summer of 2016, he formed an inter-agency
taskforce to investigate what was being reported as Russian collusion within the Trump campaign. He boasted to Rachel Maddow that
he brought NSA and FBI officials together with the CIA to ' connect the dots ."
With the addition of James Clapper's DNI, three reports were released: October, 2016, December, 2016 and January, 2017 all disseminating
the Russian-Trump collusion theory which the Mueller Report later found to be unproven.
Since 1947 when the CIA was first authorized by President Harry Truman who belatedly regretted his approval, the agency has been
operating as if they report to no one and that they never owe the public or Congress any explanation of their behaviour or activity
or how they spend the money.
Since those days it has been a weak-minded Congress, intimidated and/or compromised Members who have allowed intel to run their
own show as if they are immune to the Constitution and the Rule of Law. Since 1947, there has been no functioning Congress willing
to provide true accountability or meaningful oversight on the intel community.
Renee Parsons has been a member of the ACLU's Florida State Board of Directors and president of the ACLU Treasure Coast
Chapter. She has been an elected public official in Colorado, an environmental lobbyist with Friends of the Earth and staff member
of the US House of Representatives in Washington DC. She can be found on Twitter @reneedove31
Martin Usher
I don't think the Democratic leadership wanted a formal impeachment, they would prefer that Trump just faded away quietly before
the 2020 election and were in the process of collecting information to reinforce this. They got cornered into formalizing the
investigation by Trump's defense team baiting them as part of their overall strategy. It really doesn't change anything.
Whichever way you slice and/or dice it Trump is fundamentally incompetent, he's unable to fulfill the duties of the office
of the President. He also refuses to distinguish between private interests and public service. His cabinet, a rag tag body of
industry insiders and special interests, are busy trying to ride roughshod over opposition, established policy and even public
opinion to grab as much as possible before the whole house of cards collapses. Its a mess, and its a mess that's quite obviously
damaging US interests. Many constituency groups will have gone along with the program because they thought they could control
things or benefit from them but as its become increasingly obvious Trump's unable to deliver they've been systematically alienated.
The DNC is playing this with a relatively weak field of potential candidates for 2020. Much as I personally like a Sanders
or Warren they're just not going to fly in a Presidential contest -- as we found from the Obama presidency the ship of state just
doesn't turn on a dime, you're not going to undo decades or generations of entrenched neoconservatism and a politically divided
country overnight by some kind of Second Coming pronouncements. My concern is that if we don't get our collective acts together
we're going to end up with a President Romney after 2020 -- a much more reasonable choice considering the last four years but
also one that's guaranteed to change nothing. We need the journey but its only going to start with a few steps.
( and as for Trump/collusion we've spent the last three years confusing money with nation states. Trump's a businessman in
a business that's notorious for laundering money from dubious sources (this doesn't mean he's involved, of course)(legal disclaimer!).
I daresay that if Russia really wanted to sink Trump they could easily do so but why would they bother when he's doing such a
great job unaided?)
Latest in series of articles by the author re USA – Ukraine connections
"American Ukrainian nationalists don't like democracy. They don't understand the concept of it and don't care to learn. But
they do understand nationalist fascism where only the top of society matters. They are behind the actors of the Intelligence coup
going on in the US today .This is the mentality and politics the Diaspora is pushing into American politics today. Hillary Clinton
and the DNC is surrounded with this infection which even includes political advisors.
Rest assured they all the related Diasporas are in a fight for their political lives. If Donald Trump wins, their ability to
infect American politics might be broken. Many of the leadership will be investigated for attempting to overthrow the government
of the United States."
"My thoughts on all this are that many of us have become distracted and failed to examine the timeline of events since 9/11. We
look at news and conflict in isolation and move on to the next without seeing what is now a clear pattern."
In terms of the Middle East you need to go back further than the fortuitous event of 9/11 – at least to 1997 and the founding
of the Project for the New American Century which was essentially the first explicit formalisation of the agenda for an imperialist
Neoliberal and Neoconservative globalist new world order deployed through the media constructed conflicts of 'good' and 'evil'
around the world and with it the call for the 'democratisation' of the Middle East under the alibi of humanitarian interventionism
against broadly socialist governments, which since the fall of communism were constructed by Neoliberal fundamentalists as being
patently heretical and ideologically illegitimate forms of government. If it is economically illogical to elect a socialist failed
form of government then one can only assume that the election must have been rigged.
I started looking at this all a few years ago when I asked myself the question 14 years after the invasion of Iraq: where was
the liberal outrage at what had subsequently taken place in the ME? The answer was that from the Invasion of Iraq onward in addition
to fully embracing the economics of Neoliberalism as the end of economic history, the progressive 'left' quietly assimilated and
reduplicated the fundamentalist illiberal political philosophy of the Neocons. The progressive 'left' both in the UK and US have
subsequently become the far Neocon 'right' in all but name and their party hosts of Labour in the UK and the Democrats in the
US remain blissfully unaware of all of this. How else can we explain why they would welcome 'Woke' Bill Kristol into their ranks?
Once one accepts this hypothesis, then an awful lot falls into place in order to explain the 'Progressive' open support for regime
change and the almost total lack of any properly liberal objections to what has taken place ever since.
One key point here is that the Neocons have nothing to do with conservatism or the right. What is striking and most informative
about the history of Neo-conservatism is that it does not have its roots in conservatism at all, but grew out of disillusioned
US left wing intellectuals who were Marxist, anti-Stalinist Trotskyites. This is important because at the heart of Neo-conservatism
is something that appeals strongly to the die hard revolutionaries of the left who hold a strong proclivity for violence, conflict
and struggle. If one looks at the type of people in the Labour party who gravitated to the 'progressive' Neoliberal imperialist
camp they all exhibit similar personality traits of sociopathic control freaks with sanctimonious Messiah complexes such as Blair.
These extremist, illiberal fundamentalists love violence and revolution and the bloodier the better. In Libya or Syria is did
not matter that Gadaffi or Assad headed socialist governments, the Neo-colonised progressives would back any form of apparent
conflict and bloody revolution in any notional struggle between any identifiable form of 'authority' or 'oppression' with any
identifiable form of 'resistance' even if those leading the 'resistance' were head chopping, misogynist, jihadist terrorists.
It makes no difference to the fundamentalist revolutionary mindset.
The original left wing who gradually morphed in the Neoconservatives took 30-40 years to make the transition for the 1960s
to 1990s. The Labour party Blairites made the same journey from 1990 to 2003. Christopher Hitchens made the same journey in his
own personal microcosm.
When is this nausea inducing confected pile of crap going to end? Does anyone else think that Adam Schiff has a screw or three
loose, and should be residing in an institution? And imagine if somehow Mike Pence became Prez. Now that would be something to
scare the bejesus out of you.
Tim Jenkins
Adam Schiff should be shot for Treason, of the highest order, along with many others, including HRC, Brennan & Clapper ; and it
should be a public execution, like in Saudi Arabia. This is war on the minds of the masses, that Schiff for brains cares nothing
for.
As for Chuck Schumer, he can have a life sentence, as long as he manages to shut his utterly unfunny dumb vulgar cousin Amy
up & keep her out of the public eye, forever
Gezzah, life may seem bad right now: but imagine if, you were Amy Schumer's Husband and father of her child. Talk about obnoxious
and utterly nauseating 🙂 , with you Gezzah, all the way.
"When is this nausea inducing confected pile of crap going to end?"
"The presidential election in Argentina was a game-changer and a graphic lesson. It pitted the people versus neoliberalism.
The people won – with new President Alberto Fernandez and former President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner (CFK) as his VP.
Neoliberalism was represented by a PR marketing product, Mauricio Macri [a Micron look-alike]: former millionaire playboy,
president of football legends Boca Juniors, obsessed with spending cuts, who was unanimously sold by Western MSM as a New Age
paradigm.
Well, the paradigm will soon be ejected, leaving behind the usual New Age wasteland: $250 billion in foreign debt, less
than $50 billion in reserves; inflation at 55 percent; 35.4 percent of Argentine homes can't make it); and (incredible as it
may seem in an agriculturally self-sufficient nation) a food emergency."
Meanwhile, in the real world, the Denmark's Ukronazi-friendly regime has been brought to heel by Germany's common sense:
Some big natural gas news very significant for Russia, Germany and the Ukraine. The Danish pipeline sector has been stalled
for a while now by anti-Russia, pro-Ukrainian forces within the Scandiwegian NATZO-friendly regimes. But it appears that Nordstream
2 _will_ get completed and that Ukraine's gas transit chokehold on the EU will come to an end when Russia's Nordstream 2 comes
online for Europe.
-- -- -- -
Permit for the Nord Stream 2 project is reluctantly granted by the Danish Energy Agency. Nord Stream 2 AG has been granted
a permit to construct natural gas pipelines on the Danish continental shelf.
The permit is granted pursuant to the Continental Shelf Act and in accordance with Denmark's obligations under the UN Convention
on the Law of the Sea. Denmark has been put under obligation to allow the construction of transit pipelines with respect to resources
and the environment.
In my humble opinion, the Trump stuff is all total nonsense.
Donald Trump was a property speculator in New York (amongst other places) and was heavily involved with the Mafia. Likewise,
Trump was heavily involved with Jeffery Epstein.
There's so much dirt on Trump that they could get him with the snap of fingers; but of course that's not what they really want.
Trump is pure theatre; a ploy to divert the masses. 'RussiaGate', 'UkraineGate' are all utter rollocks.
Trump and Obama, and all the rest going back to the assassination of Kennedy, are just puppets.
American/ deep state policy doesn't change a jot with any of them.
Wilmers31
America is always presentation over substance, wrapper over content, and shoot the messenger if you don't like the message. In
the meantime the adults in this world outside the US have to hold it all together. Why was for instance Hillary Clinton not in
the dock for saying 'Assad must go'?? It was meddling in the highest order.
phree
I guess this just goes to show you that a person can be a member of the ACLU, even a leader apparently, and still be highly biased
in favor of Trump.
Just because a witness is "cooperating" with an investigation does not entail that the witnesses testimony or evidence will
favor any particular side.
And implying that Clapper's comments somehow shows guilt when he clearly says he knows of no wrongdoing is pretty over the
top.
I've read a lot of what's out there about the start of the initial Russia investigation, and it does seem that some of the
FBI personnel leading it (McCabe particularly) were anti-Trump.
Isn't the bigger question whether the investigation was justified based on the reports from the Australians that Trump was
getting political dirt on Hillary from Russia? Is the FBI just supposed to ignore those reports? Really?
George Cornell
Love the Clapper claim (the same Clapper who lied to Congress) says he was just doing his duty in Russiagate. As GBS said,
" when a scoundrel is doing something of which he is ashamed, he always says he is doing his duty".
mark
The Spook Organisations and the Dirty Cops are a greater threat to our way of life than any foreign army or terrorist group (most
of which they created in the first place and which they directly control.) They are a law unto themselves and completely
free of any genuine oversight or control.
This applies equally to the US and UK. "We lie, we cheat, we steal", as Pompeo helpfully explains. They also murder people,
at home and abroad. JFK, David Kelly, Diana, Epstein. They plant bombs and blow people up. Many of the "terrorist atrocities"
from Northern Ireland to the present day, were false flag spook operations. The same applies with Gladio on the continent and
the plethora of recent false flags.
There is also a long and inglorious history of interference in domestic politics from the Zinoviev Letter onwards. Plots
to stage a military coup against the Wilson government of the 60s and 70s, with Mountbatten as its figurehead. The more recent
Skripal Hoax. The contrived Syrian Gas Attack Hoaxes and the White Helmets. They would not hesitate to do the same to Corbyn if
they deemed it necessary.
The CIA and FBI conspired with the UK and Ukrainian governments to prevent the election of Trump, and then to sabotage
and smear his administration once he had been elected. The UK played a major part in this through MI6 and Steele. This is highly
dangerous for this country, irrespective of your view of Trump.
Trump has repaid the favour by meddling in Brexit and interfering in UK politics. It is not in his nature to turn the other
cheek. We have spook organisations claiming for themselves a right of veto over election results and foreign policy. These people
are poor servants and terrible masters. We see Schumer warning against crossing the spook organisations, begging the obvious question
– who runs this country, you or the spooks?
The Democrats, the Deep State, the MSM, and the Deranged Left were willing to support these conspiracies and hoaxes, and
even suspend disbelief, for the greater good. The ends justify the means. All that matters is getting rid of Trump. Anything goes.
The corrosive erosion of trust, credibility and integrity in all the institutions of the state is probably irreparable. The legislature
and the political process in general. The judiciary. The spooks and police. About 9% of Americans now believe the MSM.
The irony in all this is that it very much serves Trump's interests. He is extremely vulnerable, having failed to keep
any of his promises. Building The Wall, Draining The Swamp, Bringing The Troops Home. Sorting out health care. Building "incredible,
fantastic" infrastructure.
All the Democrats had to do was highlight these failures, find a suitable candidate, and put forward some sensible policies,
and they were home and dry. Instead, they provided an endless series of diversions and distractions from Trump's failures by charging
down every rabbit hole they could find, Russiagate, Ukrainegate, Impeachment. It couldn't work out better for Trump if he was
paying them.
Expect to see the Orange Man in the White House for another 4 years. And another even more virulent outbreak of Trump Derangement
Syndrome.
Tim Jenkins
Enigmatic and brilliant synopsis, m8, lol: & surely BigB could only agree. And you never even mentioned HQ.Intel. inside.Israel,
today & their illegal trespass of WhatsApp, via corporate 'subsidiaries' with 'plausible' denial of liability of spying on everything-everything
& any body, that could possibly threaten corporate fascist computerised dictatorship: distributing backdoors, like Promis & Prism,
liberally & worldwide, the Maxwells legacy . . . (yet)
No need to even discuss, until Western societies ALL get a grip on the depths of depravity that lie within the actions
and "The History of the National Security State" you have to admit, that Julian Assange could not have picked a better book to
firmly grip and signal with, than GORE Vidal's, when being manhandled out of the Ecuadorian Embassy, by Spooks who would sell
their own mother, let alone nation, in their utter technological ignorance and adherence to anachronistic doctrines & mentality
!
Glad you mentioned 'good ole' cousin ChuckS.' >>> Lol, just for a laugh and a sense of perspective: yes, he is related to Amy
Queen of Vulgarity & hideous societal distraction. What a family of wimps & morons: the 'Schumers' being perfect fodder for ridicule
& intelligent humour, naturally . . . on a positive note, mark, think yourself lucky that you are not married to or the father
of Amy Schumer's child 🙂
The most important thing for us and deliciously so now the election is happening is the BLOWBACK. Our DS lying murdering
arses are going to get new ones drilled by Trump and BoBos bromance exploding in full technicolor.
Think May's dementia tax and Strong and Stable were bad?
Lol. This is going to be a FUN month of early xmases.
SST is essential reading for anyone concerned with US overseas policy and the corruption of the USA itself in the service of
the security state, so, many thanks for posting this link.
Dungroanin
By sharing we disrupt the msm messages. Bernard at MoonofAlabama is also worth a daily visitation – priceless analysis on
multiple subjects.
lundiel
Since those days it has been a weak-minded Congress, intimidated and/or compromised Members who have allowed intel to run
their own show as if they are immune to the Constitution and the Rule of Law. Since 1947, there has been no functioning Congress
willing to provide true accountability or meaningful oversight on the intel community.
Pretty much a carbon copy of our own oversight. We hear even less about our security services than Americans do of theirs.
I'd have thought that events like the spy in the holdall, the spies caught by farmers in Libya, the Skripal's, and the whole over-the-top
reaction to the domestic terrorism threat and consequent successful pleas for extra funding, the obvious danger of creating terrorists
by security services, the policy of giving asylum to foreign terrorists of countries we don't like and the whole concept of the
5 eyes and GCHQ needs more than ministerial oversight, a committee of yes men/women and an intelligence services commissioner.
"In 2019, the bottom 99% of families will pay 7.2% of their wealth in taxes, while the top
0.1% of households will pay just 3.2%."
~~Elizabeth Warren~
do you see how EW has finally opened our eyes?
sure! poor people think about wealth as being income. they think about Wealth as being
their salary. from the perspective of a wealthy senator wealth is a function of assets. EW
had the guts to share this perspective with us, to open our eyes to reality.
we should not be taxing the payroll we should not be taxing the capital gains and other
income. we should be taxing non productive assets, assets which cannot be hidden which cannot
be taken off shore.
the Swiss have such a tax. all of their real estate is taxed at a rate of 0.3% per annum.
it would be easy for us to stop all local taxes All County taxes all state taxes and all
federal tax then initiate a 1% tax on all real property unimproved and on all improved real
property. we should continue this tax until our federal debt is completely discharged. such a
taxation shift would revv up our productive activity and increase our per capita GDP. as
usual there would be winners and there would be losers. the losers would be those who want
more inequality and the winners would be
"... Cliff Asness, another money manager, would fly into a rage at Warren adviser Gabriel Zucman for using the term "revenue maximizing" -- a standard piece of economic jargon -- describing it as "disgustingly immoral." ..."
"... Objectively, Obama treated Wall Street with kid gloves. In the aftermath of a devastating financial crisis, his administration bailed out collapsing institutions on favorable terms. He and Democrats in Congress did impose some new regulations, but they were very mild compared with the regulations put in place after the banking crisis of the 1930s. He did, however, refer on a few occasions to "fat cat" bankers and suggested that financial-industry excesses were responsible for the 2008 crisis because, well, they were. And the result, quite early in his administration, was that Wall Street became consumed with " Obama rage ," and the financial industry went all in for Mitt Romney in 2012. ..."
No, the really intense backlash against Warren and progressive Democrats in general is
coming from
Wall Street . And while that opposition partly reflects self-interest, Wall Street's Warren
hatred has a level of virulence, sometimes crossing into hysteria, that goes beyond normal
political calculation.
What's behind that virulence?
First, let's talk about the rational reasons Wall Street is worried about Warren. She is, of
course, calling for major tax increases on the very wealthy, those with wealth exceeding $50
million, and the financial industry is strongly represented in that elite club. And since
raising taxes on the wealthy is highly popular , it's an
idea a progressive president might actually be able to turn into real policy.
Warren is also a big believer in stricter financial regulation; the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau, which was highly effective until the Trump administration set about gutting
it, was her brainchild.
So if you are a Wall Street billionaire, rational self-interest might well induce you to
oppose Warren. Neoliberal_rationality/ does not, however, explain why a money manager like Leon Cooperman
-- who just two years ago
settled a suit over insider trading for $5 million, although without admitting wrongdoing
-- would circulate an embarrassing, self-pitying open letter
denouncing Warren for her failure to appreciate all the wonderful things billionaires like
him do for society.
Nor does it explain why Cliff Asness, another money manager, would fly into a rage at Warren
adviser Gabriel Zucman for using the term "revenue maximizing" -- a standard piece of
economic jargon -- describing it as "disgustingly immoral."
The real tell here, I think, is that much of the Wall Street vitriol now being directed at
Warren was previously directed at, of all people, President Barack Obama.
Objectively, Obama treated Wall Street with kid gloves. In the aftermath of a devastating
financial crisis, his administration bailed out collapsing institutions on favorable terms. He
and Democrats in Congress did impose some new regulations, but they were very mild compared
with the regulations put in place after the banking crisis of the 1930s. He did, however, refer on a few occasions to "fat cat" bankers and suggested that
financial-industry excesses were responsible for the 2008 crisis because, well, they were. And
the result, quite early in his administration, was that Wall Street became consumed with "
Obama
rage ," and the financial industry went all in for Mitt Romney in 2012.
I wonder, by the way, if this history helps explain an odd aspect of fund-raising in the
current primary campaign. It's not surprising that Warren is getting very little money from the
financial sector. It is, however, surprising that the top recipient isn't Joe Biden but
Pete
Buttigieg , who's running a fairly distant
fourth in the polls. Is Biden suffering from the lingering effects of that old-time Obama
rage?
In any case, the point is that Wall Street billionaires, even more than billionaires in
general, seem to be snowflakes, emotionally unable to handle criticism.
I'm not sure why that should be the case, but it may be that in their hearts they suspect
that the critics have a point.
What, after all, does modern finance actually do for the economy? Unlike the robber barons
of yore, today's Wall Street tycoons don't build anything tangible. They don't even direct
money to the people who actually are building the industries of the future. The vast expansion
of credit in America after around 1980 basically involved a surge in
consumer debt rather than new money for business investment.
Moreover, there is growing evidence that when the financial sector gets too big it actually
acts as a drag on the economy -- and America is well past that point .
Now, human nature being what it is, people who secretly wonder whether they really deserve
their wealth get especially angry when others express these doubts publicly. So it's not
surprising that people who couldn't handle Obama's mild, polite criticism are completely losing
it over Warren.
What this means is that you should beware of Wall Street claims that progressive policies
would have dire effects. Such claims don't reflect deep economic wisdom; to a large extent
they're coming from people with vast wealth but fragile egos, whose rants should be discounted
appropriately. The Times is committed to publishing
a diversity of letters to the editor. We'd like to hear what you think about this or any of
our articles. Here are some tips
. And here's our email: [email protected]
.
"... The U.S. has frequently engaged in hostilities against other states in this period because our government could and not because it had to. There are very few instances in which the U.S. used force as a last resort. In several cases, U.S. intervention has been flagrantly illegal under international and/or U.S. law. The U.S. resorts to force too quickly and too easily and with far too little consideration for the consequences it will have for the people serving the military and the people living in the affected countries. Unlike people from a century ago, many of us have lost our disgust with war, whose human costs are obscured from view or simply ignored. Despite our extraordinary security, many Americans readily accept their leaders' threat inflation. Preventing more unnecessary wars and bringing the current ones to an end will require a constant effort to counter the alarmist and fear-mongering claims about foreign threats. ..."
Danny Sjursen calls
for remembering the original meaning of Armistice Day:
My fellow veterans don't necessarily need more thanks. We need, instead, your attention, your support, your careful deployment
of our energies and sacrifices only in defense of the most vital national interests and the homeland itself. Most of all we need
the reinvigorated dream of Armistice Day -- -a holiday imbued with hopes and dreams for a better world. At the very least, for
a nation that chooses not to wage forever war.
The standard for sending Americans to war should be a very high one, and even a cursory glance at the many military interventions
of the last three decades shows that almost none of them has even come close to meeting it. From the invasion to Panama to the unending
war in Afghanistan, the U.S. has been hyperactive in using force in other parts of the world for the last 30 years and very little
of it has had anything to do with vital interests or the defense of the United States. Instead of "careful deployment," we have tended
to see reckless and irresponsible deployments of U.S. troops who are tasked with carrying out vague, impossible, and sometimes illegal
missions. Virtually every intervention in that time has been a war of choice, and most of the time it has been the wrong choice.
The U.S. has frequently engaged in hostilities against other states in this period because our government could and not because
it had to. There are very few instances in which the U.S. used force as a last resort. In several cases, U.S. intervention has been
flagrantly illegal under international and/or U.S. law. The U.S. resorts to force too quickly and too easily and with far too little
consideration for the consequences it will have for the people serving the military and the people living in the affected countries.
Unlike people from a century ago, many of us have lost our disgust with war, whose human costs are obscured from view or simply ignored.
Despite our extraordinary security, many Americans readily accept their leaders' threat inflation. Preventing more unnecessary wars
and bringing the current ones to an end will require a constant effort to counter the alarmist and fear-mongering claims about foreign
threats.
Steven Katz
makes a similar case for how Americans can best honor veterans:
This year, as one of thousands of veterans who suffered moral injury in the Iraq War, I ask that in addition to the annual
"thank you for your service" that you also "thank" veterans by helping us avoid waging unjust wars.
To that end, Americans have to learn an abhorrence for starting wars.
Preventive war is inherently unjust, and it needs to be
rejected on principle. We need to understand that the Iraq war wasn't simply a "mistake," but a terrible crime that should never
be repeated. Preventive war is not just another "option" that our government can choose, but rather something illegitimate and wrong
by its very nature. When politicians and pundits entertain the idea of launching aggressive attacks on Iran or North Korea or any
other country, they need to be shamed and ridiculed as the warmongers they are. The U.S. should never engage in aggressive warfare
again.
Until Americans and our leaders learn that lesson from the Iraq debacle, we will not have learned the most important lesson.
about the author Daniel Larison is a senior editor at TAC , where he also keeps a solo
blog .
He has been published in the New York Times Book
Review , Dallas Morning News , World Politics Review , Politico Magazine , Orthodox Life , Front
Porch Republic, The American Scene, and Culture11, and was a columnist for The Week . He holds a PhD in history from the University
of Chicago, and resides in Lancaster, PA. Follow him on Twitter .
If anything good can come from the Democrat's incessant efforts to impeach Donald Trump it will be the outgrowth, from the nurturing
'mother of necessity,' of a more inclusive political system that acknowledges more than just a compromised duopoly as the voice of
the American people.
With complete disregard for the consequences of their actions, the Democrat House Intelligence Committee under Adam Schiff has
abandoned all pretense of democratic procedure in their effort to remove the 45th President of the United States from office.
Indeed, the Democrats have provided the Republicans with a Machiavellian crash course on the subtle art of decadent behavior for
getting what you want , which of course is ultimate political power, and to hell in a proverbial hand basket with the consequences.
The Republicans have been snoozing through a game of 2D checkers, holding out hope that Sheriff Billy Barr and his deputy John Durham
will
round
up the real criminals, while the Democrats have been playing mortal combat.
The dark prince in this Gothic tale of diabolical, dare I say biblical, proportions is none other than Adam 'Shifty' Schiff, who,
like Dracula in his castle dungeon, has contorted every House rule to fit the square peg of a Trump telephone call into the bolt
hole of a full-blown impeachment proceeding. Niccolò Machiavelli would have been proud of his modern-day protégé.
As if to mock the very notion of Democratic due process, whatever that means, Schiff and his torch-carrying lynch mob took their
deliberations down into the dank basement, yes, the basement, of the US Capital where they have been holding secretive depositions
in an effort to get some new twist on the now famous phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Zelensky back in June. But
why all the cloak and dagger theatrics when the transcript has long been available for public consumption?
At one point, the frazzled Republicans bared a little backbone against this bunker mentality when they
crashed the basement meetings for some really outstanding optics. Schiff, betraying a lack of foresight, could not defenestrate
the well-dressed hooligans since the meetings, as mentioned, are being held inside of a windowless dungeon. The Republican troublemakers
were ushered back up the stairs instead.
Considering what Prince Schiff has managed to pull off over the course of this not-made for television impeachment process is
astounding, and could not have happened without the drooling complicity of the lapdog media corporations. Schiff got the ball bouncing
when he performed a Saturday Night Live skit of the Trump-Zelensky phone call on the hallowed floor of Congress. The imaginary voices
in Schiff's head made the president sound like a mafia boss speaking to one of his lackeys.
Not only did Schiff survive that stunt, it was revealed that he blatantly lied, not once but several times, about his affiliation
with the White House insider, reportedly a CIA officer, who, without ever hearing the Trump-Zelensky phone call firsthand, blew the
whistle anyways. The Democrats claim Trump was looking for some 'quid pro quo' with Kiev, which would dig up the dirt on Joe Biden
and his son Hunter in exchange for the release of $400 million in military aid. The transcript, however, points to no such coercion,
while Zelensky himself denies that he was pressured by Trump.
Meanwhile, Schiff has taken great efforts to keep the identity of the whistleblower a 'secret' out of "safety concerns." The Republicans
in the House said they will subpoena the whistleblower for the public impeachment that starts next week, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio)
told reporters. Yet Schiff has awarded himself the power to reject any witnesses the Republicans may wish to grill.
"We'll see if he gives us any of our witnesses," Jordan said.
A person need not feel any particular fondness for Donald Trump to find these circumstances surrounding the impeachment show trial
as disgraceful, dishonorable and beneath the dignity of the American people. And whether they want it or not, the fallout from Schiff's
shenanigans will have repercussions long into the future of the US political system, which is groaning under the weight of corruption
and deceit.
It is doubtful the Republicans will soon forgive and forget what the Democrats have put them through ever since Trump entered
office in 2016. From Russiagate to Ukrainegate, the Trump White House has been held hostage by a non-stop, media-endorsed hate campaign
to oust a democratically elected POTUS. Although it would be difficult for the Republicans, who lack the support of the media, an
overwhelmingly left-leaning propaganda machine, to exact an equal amount of revenge on the Democrats when the latter have one of
their own in the White House, they will certainly try. This will lead the Republic into an inescapable vortex of infighting where
the sole function of the political system will be based on that of vengeance and 'pay backs' and more waste of time and money as
the parties investigate the crimes of the other side.
The public, which is slowly awakening to the problem, will ultimately demand new leadership to break the current two-party internecine
struggle. Thus, talk of a civil war in the United States, while possible, is being overplayed. The truth will be much simpler and
far less violent.
Out of the dust and ashes of the defunct duopoly that is now at war with itself, the American people will soon demand fresh political
blood in Washington and this will bring to the forefront capable political forces that are committed to the primary purpose of politics:
representing the needs of the people, once again. Tags Politics
As it turns out the once apathetic and flustered American woke up pissed off, in large numbers I might add. They sensed that
someone was starting to mess with their happy blind relationship to the materialistic free market American dream. In other words,
they are broke for the most part or are working like a beast to stay even. I get it.
"Apathy does not make us stupid. On the contrary, a great deal of energy is used to offset the world and hibernate in an
apathetic state of existence. Apathy requires an acute awareness of the obvious. It is what drives some to having a broken "give
a damn". Many can only cope with the influence of the pressure of reality by excusing themselves from it and gathering in flocks
for comfort. They yearn for a sheep dog."
And now they are awake, angry and wanting revenge against whomever shattered their illusion of American integrity. In most
respects some have herded together and really are angry political mobs.
So why hasn't Graham started a senate investigation into this whole Ukrainian affair? Why hasn't he called all of Adam Schiff's
witnesses into one of his own investigations of this thing and gotten the truth out of them under penalty of perjury should they
not come clean?
Republicans are as usual cowering in the corner hoping this will all pass by without harming their re-election chances. There
are precious few that really care and the bug eyed liar has them shut down totally. If they were playing chess, the Dems would
have the Republicans in a constant state of Check (thanks to the unwavering support of their media lap dogs). The Republicans
would be sitting at the table hoping time would run out while wetting their pants in fear that they would be discovered to be
the weak kneed mamas boys in suits who just had their lunch money stolen AGAIN by the big bad Dem boys & girls.
The Democratic Socialists will absorb the butthurt left, and Pelosi, Waters, Schiff and the rest will die naturally soon enough.
This is a result of Democrats' identity politics, and radicalizing of the left.
The Republicans will likely move farther right. Both parties will continue to spend too much - just on different causes. But
when the DS get rolling, probably with someone like AOC at the helm, it will be Kristallnacht all over again.
Except this time it will be Christians and conservatives.
I would say that a 3rd and 4th party are not only inevitable but the next organic evolution of party. This will help explain
why --> The Altered States
of America.
If there is one thing that truly illustrates the psychotic break with reality the Democrats, DC Deep State Establishment, and
their *useless* idiots in the MSM have suffered, it has to be the bizarre situation with the identity of the *whistleblower* that
EVERYONE on the planet knows but that somehow THEY think they have kept *secret*.
Cue the Twilight Zone music, America, because THAT takes a special kind of crazy! Lol! 25th Amendment for every Democrat in
the House??
On top of THAT craziness, Sen. Lindsay Graham has made it clear to Dems that if ERIC C*a*Amella (You literally cannot post
comments with his name! Hysterical! lol) does not publicly testify, their show trial is DOA in the Senate. So I hope they have
fun with their impeachment coup to nowhere as ERIC C*A*a*ell* sits like some bloated political elephant in the room for the next
two weeks!
On the upside, it will be loads of fun watching a bunch of crazy people have their mental breakdown on national T.V. so, by
all means, Dems, PLEASE carry on!
The political system is dead. You cannot run this freak show before people in the age of Internet. Most of deplorables are
more online savvy than their ruling political class.
Schiff has connections to sex trafficking and pedophilia. He has a lot to do with well know activities in the Standard Hotel
(west Pedowood) involving minors and powerful people in that filthy city which include politicians and business people. You easily
start with Ed Buck which the media has buried quickly.
This is an excellent example of Orwellian cognitive dissonance.
Everyone knows that almost all, if not all, politicians are bought off to the highest bidder.
Everyone knows that the people who control the money system have the most money.
But very few will logically assemble those two data points and conclude what exists in reality - that the Money Power Monopolists
CONTROL BOTH PARTIES!
Schitt and his cult of DemonRats represents the darkest elements of society. So without writing a long list you already know,
here's what you should prepare yourself for.
Buy guns, ammo, cameras and survival supplies to last a few months.
Civil War 2.0 is coming.
We didn't start this war, but we sure as hell will finish it.
The time has come to take this country back from an elite permanent political class who doesn't give a damn about you, your
family, your future.
Lock and load, the San Fransicko **** has already hit the fan.
The public is in a mood to vote out RINO Republicans and most Democrats, and vote in MAGA Republicans. The Democrats will all
but disappear from sight for awhile. After they reorganize and dump their radicals and after their corrupt ones go to jail, and
after the MSM completely falls apart -- they will then come back, but probably not till 2024 or 2026
The two party political system was never much of a democratic system at all. It's been with us since 1854, and has polarized
the country more than once, the first time being the Civil War. In 2003, the MIT professor Noam Chomsky said, "In the US, there
is basically one party - the business party. It has two factions, called Democrats and Republicans, which are somewhat different
but carry out variations on the same policies".
The two party system should be ended, and the Voter Access laws be repealed, and Gerrymandering districts be prohibited. Even
your own vote means nothing, since it is only designed to ratify a selection someone else made for you. The only selection you
can make is choosing personalities, but never on issues or money. You are never allowed to be a participant in the American political
system, but rather, just a "consumer". Why? Because the American society is ruled by an Oligarchy! Why would they want to allow
you to share power with them? None of this is what is practiced in a true democracy. The entire system needs to undergo some major
changes.
"... The truth is that for the Clintonite-Bushite elite almost all Americans are 'deplorable'. What is fun for them is to play geopolitics – the elite version of corporate travel perks – just look at how shocked they are that Trump is not playing along. ..."
Recent class history of US is quite simple: the elite class first tried to shift the burden
of supporting the lower classes on the middle class with taxation. But as the lower class
became demographically distinct, partially via mass immigration, the elites decided to ally
with the ' underpriviledged ' via identity posturing and squeeze no longer needed
middle class out of existence.
What's left are government employees, a few corporate sinecures, NGO parasitic sector, and
old people. The rest will be melded into a few mutually antagonistic tribal groups providing
ever cheaper service labor. With an occasional lottery winner to showcase mobility. Actually
very similar to what happened in Latin America in the past few centuries.
The truth is that for the Clintonite-Bushite elite almost all Americans are
'deplorable'. What is fun for them is to play geopolitics – the elite version of
corporate travel perks – just look at how shocked they are that Trump is not playing
along.
Unlike the USA (under Neocon stewardship) China has not squandered twenty trillion dollars
of its national solvency bombing countries which never attacked it post 9-11.
China's leaders (unlike our own) never LIED its people into launching obscenely expensive,
illegal wars of aggression across the middle east. (WMD's, Mushroom clouds, Yellow Cake,
etc.)
China has used its wealth and resources to build up its infrastructure, build out its
capital markets, and turbo charge its high tech sectors. As a consequence, it has lifted
nearly half a billion people out of poverty. There has been an explosion in the growth of the
"middle class" in China. Hundreds of millions of Chinese are now living comfortable "upwardly
mobile" lives.
The USA, on the other hand, having been defrauded by its "ruling elites" into launching
and fighting endless illegal wars, is now 23 trillion dollars in catastrophic debt.
NOT ONE PENNY of this heinous "overspending" has been dedicated to building up OUR
infrastructure, or BUILDING OUT our middle class.
It has all gone into BLOWING UP countries which never (even) attacked us on 9-11.
As a consequence , the USA is fast becoming a failed nation, a nation where all its wealth
is being siphoned into the hands of its one percent "war pilfer-teers".
It is so sad to have grown up in such an amazing country , with such immense resources and
possibilities, and having to bear witness to it going down the tubes.
To watch all our sovereign wealth being vaporized by our "lie us into endless illegal war"
ruling elites is truly heartbreaking.
The white middle class is the only group that might effectively resist Globohomo's designs on
total power.
Blacks? Too dumb. Will be disposed of once Globohomo is finished the job.
Hispanics? Used to corrupt one party systems. Give them cerveza and Netflix and they're
good.
East Asians? Perfectly fine with living like bug people.
South Asians? Cowardly; will go with the flow.
The middle class is almost completely unique to white people.
Racial aliens cannot wrap their minds around being middle class. They think I'm crazy for
appreciating my 2009 Honda Accord. They literally cannot understand why somebody would want
to live a frugal and mundane life. They are desperate to be like Drake but most end up broke.
It will be very easy for GloboHomo to control a bucket of poor brown slop.
There IS a black middle class, but a big chunk of that works for governments of all
shapes and sizes.
Strictly speaking, there is no more "middle class" in the sense of the classical
economists: a person with just enough capital to live off the income if he works the capital
himself or herself. By this definition professionals (lawyers, dentists, physicians, small
store owners, even spinsters [1] and hand loom operators in a sense) were middle class. Upper
class had enough property to turn it over to managers, lower class had little or no property
and worked for others (servants and farm workers, for example). Paupers didn't earn enough
income per year to feed themselves and didn't live all that long, usually.
What we have is "middle income" people, almost all of whom work as an employee of some
organization -- people who would be considered "lower class" by the classical economists
because they don't have freedom of action and make no independent decisions about how the
capital of their organizations is spent. Today they are considered "intelligentsia", educated
government workers, or, by analogy, educated corporate workers. IMHO, intelligentsia is a
suicide job, and is responsible for the depressed fertility rate, but that's just me.
Back in the AD 1800s and pre-AD 1930 there were many black middle class people. usually
concentrating on selling to black clientele. Now there are effectively none outside of
criminal activities, usually petty criminal. And so it goes.
Of course, back then there were many white middle class people also, usually concentrating
on selling to white clientele. Now there are effectively none, except in some rural areas.
And so it goes.
Counterinsurgency
1] Cottagers who made their living spinning wool skeins into wool threads.
@unit472 A
lot of the middle class are Democrats but not particularly liberal. Many of them vote
Democrat only when they personally benefit. For example, my parents were suburban public
school teachers. They voted for Democrats at the state level because the Democrats supported
better pay and benefits for teachers but voted for Republicans like Goldwater and Reagan at
the national level because Republicans would keep their federal taxes lower. They had no
political philosophy. It was all about what left them financially better off. My parents also
got on well with their suburban neighbors. Suburbanites generally like their local school
system and its teachers and the suburban school systems are usually careful not to engage in
teaching anything controversial. A lot of the government employed white middle class would be
like my parents. Except in situations where specific Republicans talk about major cuts to
their pay and pensions they are perfectly willing to consider voting Republican. They are
generally social moderates, like the status quo, are fairly traditionalist and don't want any
radical changes. Since the Democrats seem be trending in a radical direction, this would put
off a lot of them. Trump would be more appealing as the status quo candidate. When running
the last time, he carefully avoided talking about any major cuts in government spending and
he's governed that way too. At the same time, his talk of cutting immigration, his lack of
enthusiasm for nonwhite affirmative action, and his more traditional views on social issues
is appealing to the white middle class.
The term middle class is used in the U.S. to mean middle income. It has nothing to do with
class. Why not just say what you mean? Most of the middle class that we say is disappearing
is really that rarest of phenomenons. A prosperous working class. The prosperous American
working class is no longer prosperous due to the Neoliberal agenda. Free trade, open borders
and the financialization of everything.
Americans know nothing of class dynamics. Not even the so called socialists. They don't
even see the economy. All they see is people with infinite need and government with infinite
wealth. In their world all of Central America can come to the U.S. and the government (if it
only wants to) can give them all homes, health care and education.
Lets stop saying class when we mean income. Not using the word class would be better than
abusing it.
Anyway. Yes. Middle Class denotes white people. The coalition of the fringes is neither
working, middle nor ruling class. They are black or brown. They are perverts or feminists. If
the workers among them identified as working class they would find common ground with the
Deplorables. We can't have that now can we.
Are we to the point where we've collectively resigned ourselves to the death of the
middle class?
In the neoliberal worldview, the middle class is illegitimate, existing only as a
consequence of artificial trade and immigration barriers. Anytime Americans are spied out
making a good living, there is a "shortage" that must be addressed with more visas. Or else
there is an "inefficiency" where other countries could provide said service or produce said
product for less because they have a "comparative advantage."
Anyway. Yes. Middle Class denotes white people. The coalition of the fringes is neither
working, middle nor ruling class. They are black or brown. They are perverts or feminists.
If the workers among them identified as working class they would find common ground with
the Deplorables. We can't have that now can we.
I don't know about that anymore. Increasingly, "middle class" means Asian, with Whiteness
being associated with the lower middle class (or perhaps "working class"). Sometimes the
media uses the term " noncollege Whites," which I think is actually very apt. They are the
ones who identify with Whiteness the most.
Thank you, @BlackWomxnFor ! Black trans and
cis women, gender-nonconforming, and nonbinary people are the backbone of our democracy and I
don't take this endorsement lightly. I'm committed to fighting alongside you for the big,
structural change our country needs. https://t.co/KqWsVoRYMb
People need to remember that we literally didn't even have democracy until the trans
movement started and finally brought us to The Right Side of History.
Thank you, @BlackWomxnFor ! Black trans and
cis women, gender-nonconforming, and nonbinary people are the backbone of our democracy and I
don't take this endorsement lightly. I'm committed to fighting alongside you for the big,
structural change our country needs. https://t.co/KqWsVoRYMb
People need to remember that we literally didn't even have democracy until the trans
movement started and finally brought us to The Right Side of History.
Deval Patrick served on the board at subprime mortgage giant Ameriquest. Melody Barnes
is on the board at bigwig defense contractor Booz Allen Hamilton. Textbook cases of the
revolving door corruption Warren frequently attacks. https://t.co/KU3Ct3j9eC
If she really cared about the policies she is running on she would have endorsed Bernie.
Period. It was during the primary that Hillary said, "single payer will never ever happen
here."
Bernie was running on it and yet Warren did not endorse him for it. If she actually wants to
help us she would drop out and tell people to vote for Bernie. Sure everyone has the right to
run for president, but we know or believe that she is only running to keep Bernie from becoming
president.
She is lying to us about not taking money from rich people and corporations because she
took their money for her senate campaign and transferred it to her presidential campaign. If
she isn't up front about this then how can we trust her on anything else?
Elites eliting about elites while elitseplaining to working Americans about how they are
going to vote for some elites and beat the Republicans elite. https://t.co/l0W8QPUT0E
"Who is to the left of Bloomberg on guns and climate change?" Hmm let me think...of course
it's not Biden. Nor Harris...Kilobits.... Buttigieg or even Warren. Doh!
Warren did that(what Alex Thompson tweeted about) at her town hall here. Called herself a
teacher, really pushed her teacher history, and asked "Are there any teachers in the crowd",
etc etc. It was so fake and pandering. I wanted to barf. Do people really fall for this
stuff? The folksy garbage was poured on mighty thick. I was sitting there thinking "Come on,
lady-you've been a professor at the highest profile law school in the country for how long
now?"
Yep.
It's funny-I spent 10 years at Harvard, and I lived near The Yard and the law school. I knew
a lot of faculty at H, and was privy to a lot of the politics that went on. My bs detector
was honed there. At the town hall, I could see right through her. It was all so familiar.
Don't underestimate the cunning and doublespeak. What is that quote-"When someone shows you
who they are, believe them"?
Why didn't she proclaim her great groundbreaking achievement of being Harvard's "first
woman of color" professorial appointment? Isn't she proud of that any more?
Dog, that woman seems to be in a race to seem the least authentic. Can't her staff tell
her to act natural?
After I post this comment, I'm gonna get me a beer.
Why assume that what we see isn't her natural self, such as it is? Or, rather, that
there's anything more genuinely human underneath the pandering, opportunistic surface? As
Petal cited above, "When someone shows you who they are, believe them."
"... Journalist Glenn Greenwald summarized the testy exchange as Gabbard "responding with righteous rage but also great dignity to the disgusting smears of Democrats about her patriotism and loyalty." ..."
"... What a woman! Get Trump out and give the POTUS to Tulsi. Wonderful. I will definitely contribute to her campaign. ..."
"... What's funny about the whole thing is that the 'regular viewers' of the view are some of the most programmable 'useless' idiots that this (excuse for a country) has ever seen.... ..."
"... The View -- owned by Disney. Openly misandrist show -- in the shows more than 2 decades, having gone through dozens of hosts, the show has never had a male host. How's that for "inclusivity"? ..."
Democratic presidential candidate and Hawaii congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard faced the
increasingly nasty smears branding her a Russian asset and "traitor" head on during The View on
Wednesday, following the recent spat with Hillary Clinton who suggested the
Kremlin was "grooming" Gabbard to be a third-party candidate .
"Some of you have accused me of being a traitor to my country, a Russian asset, a Trojan
horse, or a useful idiot I think was the term that you used," Gabbard told the panel, after in
prior episodes Joy Behar especially had agreed with and aggressively amplified Hillary's
baseless claims. The panel had also previously called her a Trojan horse. Gabbard came out
swinging in her remarks: "It's offensive to me as a soldier, as an American, as a member of
Congress, as a veteran, and frankly as a woman, to be so demeaned in such a way."
"Well, useful," Behar said, referencing her previously labeling the Iraq war veteran
Moscow's 'useful idiot'. "But that's a Russian term, they use that," she added. "Are You
Calling Me Stupid?" Gabbard at one point angrily shoots back. And demonstrating just how low
and idiotic, and without substantive argument the "controversy" around Gabbard has become,
Behar at one point even offers as 'evidence' of the presidential candidate's supposed Russian
ties that she's appeared on FOX's Tucker Carlson Tonight on multiple occasions.
"I am a strong and intelligent woman of color, who has dedicated almost all of my adult life
to protecting the safety, security & liberty of Americans," Gabbard fired back.
She also schooled the panel on her distinguished military career and slammed Behar's
likening her to Putin's "useful idiot" -- explaining also that she joined the Army after the
9/11 attacks but that her country lied to her in invading Iraq.
"You are implying that I am too stupid, and too naive, and lack the intelligence to know
what I am doing," she further counter-attacked Behar with.
The full segment from Wednesday's The View appearance is below, with the fight over Behar's
"useful idiot" remarks beginning at the 1-min mark:
One astounding moment came when Gabbard reiterated her position that Hillary Clinton is a
"warmonger," at which point Behar actually asked, "What's your evidence of that?"
A perplexed Gabbard immediately shot back, "Are you serious?"
Journalist Glenn Greenwald summarized the testy exchange as Gabbard "responding with
righteous rage but also great dignity to the disgusting smears of Democrats about her
patriotism and loyalty."
What's funny about the whole thing is that the 'regular viewers' of the view are some of
the most programmable 'useless' idiots that this (excuse for a country) has ever seen....
The View -- owned by Disney. Openly misandrist show -- in the shows more than 2 decades, having gone through dozens of
hosts, the show has never had a male host. How's that for "inclusivity"?
Next time you take the kids to the movies or to a themepark, think twice about patronizing
Disney.
I am fearful the Republic for which We Stand, is falling, right before our eyes. I guess
we disengaged at some point, sad. We are all Americans, what happened to the common ground?
It is disappearing...
Joy Behar is a so fugly. She's a loudmouth ******, who is even uglier than the fat negress
with the stupid looking blonde dregs. ****, what a hideous show. Anyone who watches that POS
show is a ******* low IQ moron .
@bevin | Nov 8 2019 18:29 utc | 12
Exactly, and thanks.
Question: Could Bloomberg change the equation, the equation being that neither Sanders nor
Warren not Biden have what it takes to defeat Trump?
And thank you Tulsi Gabbard for speaking out against the war machine and the penal gulag.
With all the vitriol being leveled against Tulsi to paint her as a Russian plant or useful
idiot or whatever, whether from Hillary or the worthless females on the view, a daytime
television show aimed at influencing the political opinion of stay-at-home middlebrow moms
and retirees (Including low energy males), I think my earlier thought that without the Djt
phenomenon, there would be no Tulsi, is proven more and more correct with each passing day.
And for those suffering from such a quickening case of tds, unable to point out that
before the current potus, the tpp was a thing, fake news was as of yet unexposed, Syria was a
powderkeg with the potential of a Russophobic true believer ready to command and chief, and
where immigration as a national question had not been brought to bear on a people that had
been for decades suffering the effect of the evil of cheap, exploitative labor, your case
against the man is extremely misguided and, dare I say, you are the useful idiot here.
Perhaps
one reason Gabbard's political career will continue to be successful:
"I go on Tucker Carlson, I go on Bret Baier, I go on Sean Hannity, I go on MSNBC, I go on
CNN -- I am here to speak to every single American in this country about the unifying
leadership that I want to bring as president, not just speak to those who agree with me."
IIRC, Sanders is the only other candidate who consistently says we need to do this (Change
America) together. IMO, there's only one way Gabbard and Sanders will be nominated next year
in Milwaukee: That's because We the People hijack the Convention, driving out the
Clintonistas, DNC pukes, and their Super Delegates and nominate them via proclamation. All
that's lacking to attain such an outcome is the effort, the will, the realization that
nothing good's going to happen for We the People unless We do it Ourselves.
Ordinary people accept uncritically and uncomplainingly the laws of nature and the
fundamental and insurmountable limitations they set to the human condition. For liberals, who
have agreed with Francis Bacon since the 17th century that nature is an enemy to be subjugated,
exploited, and ultimately transcended, the program of mobilized rationalism this ambition
requires is reasonable and acceptable. But it is irrational and intolerable to non-liberals,
especially as they are the same people whom liberals, obsessed with psychology and
psychological health, view as anti-social individuals in need of therapeutic treatment and
reeducation to convert them to liberalism. One of the most famous liberals of the 20th century,
John Maynard Keynes, was in this respect a distinguished exception. "[The] pseudo-rational view
of human nature [before 1914]," he believed, "led to a thinness, a superficiality not only of
judgment but of feeling .The attribution of rationality to human nature, instead of enriching
it, now seems to me to have impoverished it."
Keynes identified this grave intellectual error as having been a major cause of the Great
War when he likened his generation to "water-spiders, gracefully skimming, as light and
reasonable as air, the surface of a stream without any contact at all with the eddies and
currents below." John Gray, writing recently in The New Statesman , compared this
sublime naivete in the years immediately preceding the war to the utter inability of
contemporary British elites to comprehend the meaning of the results of the national referendum
three years ago on whether the United Kingdom should remain within the European Union or
withdraw from it. Liberals today, he asserted, cannot grasp the fact that the post-Cold War era
is over and done. "If a majority in Sunderland continues to support Brexit despite the threat
it poses to Nissan [which operates a plant in the vicinity] the reason can only be [in the eyes
of liberals] that they are irrational and stupid. The possibility that they and millions of
others value some things more than economic gain is not considered." Gray added, "Persistently
denying respect to Leave voters in this way can only bring to Britain the dangerous populism
that is steadily marching across the European continent [and that Remainers insist on ignoring,
seeing the EU as a noble dream of mankind]."
Since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, liberals have been insisting that liberalism is
the future of democracy. Francis Fukuyama even famously argued that liberal-democratic
capitalism represents the end of history. Alain de Benoist, the French political philosopher,
says the opposite. Liberalism and democracy, he thinks, in fact are incompatible, as the first
endows the second with an agenda that commits democracy to a mission having nothing to do with
the restricted practical task it was designed for. Modern liberalism is not a creation of
political philosophy. It is a religion that has developed a body of religious law that elevates
administration over politics, an inversion that another French scholar, Pierre Manent, has also
noted. Since democratic politics is a matter of popular involvement, while administration is
the business of trained specialists, it is unsurprising that the end, or eclipse, of politics
should be a major contributing cause of "populist" rebellion. This movement away from politics
does not end there. As political activity diminishes and the administrative sphere expands ,
the rule of law -- of lawyers and judges -- takes its place. Lawyers and judges are human
beings. The most successful of them, in liberal societies, are liberals as well. And because so
much of law has become discretionary, in liberal societies the law is chiefly liberal law. In
point of fact it isn't really law at all but, as Joseph Sobran remarked decades ago, only bad
philosophy by which judges discover "penumbras" of meaning in legal documents and the
inalienable right of individuals to determine their own reality for themselves -- and afterward
impose it on society at large through the courts.
So politics is replaced by administration; administration reinforced or displaced by law;
and law succeeded by bad law based on personal whim. The result is that an increasingly narrow
space remains in public life for ordinary citizens, often aggrieved ones -- the "populists" --
to play a part in the res publica. Their absence, of course, is conspicuously
unregretted by "egalitarian" liberals. Significantly, the single demand liberals never make on
behalf of "inclusiveness" is that uneducated people be represented proportionately at the
higher levels of society with educated ones, the stupid along with the clever. Yet competency
in politics has never been dependent on technical expertise. Many highly effective, brilliant,
even great politicians have been uneducated people or persons of mediocre intelligence for
which they compensated by talent and innate shrewdness.
Benoist, a brilliant writer insufficiently known in the English-speaking world, attributes
the prevalence of "expertocracy" in part to the idea that many "negative phenomena" are also
inevitable ones. Among these are undesirable and destructive advances in technology, which (it
is argued) answers only to a logic of its own, and global migration, considered by Western
technocrats and political "experts" to be unstoppable and irresistible. These things, Benoist
says, "have been decreed inevitable because we have lost the habit of asking ourselves about
goals, and because we are accustomed to the idea that it is no longer possible to defend a
decision (which is effectively more and more the case)." Whence comes this negativity, this
defeatism?
The answer seems clear enough. The "elites," as the upper directing (and owning) strata of
the Western world are known, have not lost their will. That is confirmed by their insistent
unflagging pursuit of their globalist-technocratic project and by their relentless
determination to impose it on all and sundry who disagree with it. What they have lost
is faith in themselves; not of course as the ruthless omnicompetent titans of their imagination
but as descendants of the greatest civilization known to history, of the tradition that
nourished this civilization and allowed it to develop, and of the religion that formed the
basis of that tradition. They have lost their faith in the God Who is left no place in their
system, as the decision made by the European Union to exclude any reference in its founding
documents to Europe's Christian origins and traditions makes agonizingly plain. Nevertheless
human nature is naturally conservative; and while a large proportion of the comfortable Western
peoples have doubtless grown lazy, fat, materialistic, careless, conformist, and cowardly, the
fact remains that in order truly to disbelieve one needs to deny belief explicitly and
affirmatively, and this the majority of Christians in the West have not done. They are lapsed,
not apostatized, from their faith. Similarly, polls that claim to show that such-and-such a
percentage of the population have no religion, no church, and no belief in God cannot determine
the number of those who "feel" in some vague and indeterminate way, even if they do not
"believe." Nor can they assess in what proportion the popular classes have retained their
acceptance of the world as God made it, and of the natural law that men may deny and defy, but
not alter. What the common people lack in the way of formal knowledge they make up for by
common sense, aided by unreflective experience. Unlike Bishop Berkeley, but exactly like Dr.
Johnson, they test and affirm reality by kicking the rock in their path. Unlike Christoper
Hitchens too, but just like T.S. Eliot, they have become conscious of the stony rubbish, the
dead trees, and the dry stones that comprise the environment of the barren world -- a world in
its unmaking -- that surrounds them. They may not be able to express this consciousness in
poetry but they feel it much as the poets do, though perhaps less keenly than a developed
intellect allows for.
Populism is not, as a contemporary French lumiere has opined, the victory "of ill-educated
people over the well-educated," nor, in the estimation of another representative of the Second
Age of Enlightenment, "a denial of progress itself." It is something just as simple, but
infinitely more basic and healthy. It is the unlettered but true apprehension that the old
familiar world is being turned upside down, roundabout, and inside-out by the people who have
seized control of it and are beavering away at their task of destruction; a process that in
their minds is rather one of reimagination to be succeeded by the glorious recreation of the
original inferior thing.
Chilton Williamson Jr. is the former editor of Chronicles: A Magazine of American
Culture and the author of many books, including fiction and nonfiction. His latest
novel, The Last Westerner, is due soon from Perkunas Press .
Kirk ludicrously believes that, the Israeli attempt to sink the USS Liberty, is a conspiracy
theory. He's a privileged brat, and he needs a spanking. Now all we have to do is find his
his father. But to give him any sort of acknowledgement is plain stupid. No offense intended.
If you think this is some kind of 'gotcha' question you don't know the good folks at Unz.
Speaking only for myself, I don't want non-Europeans here in any significant numbers, 100
years ago we got all the diversity we could eat from Europe alone, diversity that could and
did assimilate, unlike today when assimilation is actually fought against.
Whites were the first to build habitable buildings more than four storeys high, the first to
construct bridges to carry the weight of steam trains, which we also invented, and the safe and
secure mines that produced the coal that smelted the metal that formed the engines that powered
the trains with the coal we mined.
We are -- in a word -- astonishing. In invention and innovation we are elves and everyone
else are orcs, and the orcs despise us for it all whilst coveting the things we have
created.
Technology is our culture, and art and music and beautiful soaring cathedrals, penicillin
and botany, flushing toilets and refrigeration and general anesthesia and Shakespeare.
Congratulations to James Kirkpatrick for an excellent article.
Such nonsense is irrelevant to the lived experience of young (and mostly white) campus
conservatives, who are confronted with radical anti-white politics, corporate censorship,
and the ruinous cost of family formation.
Yes, Patriotism, the Nationalist desire to rescue America, and Restore our Democratic
Republic, rests in the hearts of all true Citizens. The so-called 'Right & Left' politics
is making way for a politics defined by Patriotism, Nationalism, Economic control &
policies that benefit all our citizens, not just the rich.
The truth of this observation lies in Kirkpatricks fine essay, complete with
numerous visual supports.
Congrats to Prison Planet for not completely burying the story (as the rest of the
Mainstream Media has done).
Why are they (the Zionist owned & controlled Mainstream media), not asking -the
whereabouts of Ms. Maxwell? Is she with Epstein? In the Entity, Monte Carlo, Switzerland, the
Baleares, Caribbean, on one of the Rothschild's Estates?
Upcoming announcement: Hollywood's Oligarch owners & controllers are producing
a Film about the lives of Epstein/Maxwell. The Film will not mention MOSSAD, but might
misdirect by including reference to "bad elements within the CIA." Film will also have a
brief flash of Casino Trump with Epstein, but no mention of Bill Clinton (in a blue dress),
or former Entity Prime minister, Ehud Barak. Instead of Ethnic Cleansing the Palestinian
People, Hollywood's Traitor Moguls will continue their Brain Cleansing/Washing of the
American People.
Title of the Film will be: The Chosen Ones – Their Private Encounters with little
Girls, Boys, and Owned Americans.
Dave Reilly, who asked Charlie Kirk "how does anal sex help us win the culture war" at a
TPUSA event, joins Henrik and Lana for a segment during Flashback Friday November 1, 2019. We
discuss the rift inside the conservative movement. Is is going to be America First or Israel
First? Additionally, how are values not traditionally associated with conservative activists
going to help win over more people to their cause.
Mainstream Conservatives have no answer to moral questions on sodomy, fornication,
adultery, et cetera, as it pertains to the culture war, and this opens up opportunities for
interlopers. Dave will not have much competition on that topic. I admire the bravery.
Thanks for the post, good interview. Dave Reilly seems like decent fellow, but his "out of
the closet" Roman Catholic material will only work on religious cable shows. It's hard to
take, talking freedom with a back drop of massacres, indulgences, crusades, inquisitions, and
a millennium of Pedophile cover ups.
Gays try to contribute their lifestyle to everyone else. They can contribute but don't
push something I don't agree with on me. I am 100% for equality for everyone
@DanFromCT Well then, thank god for Tucker Carlson for going against the grain. He is
against all the Middle East wars, and wants to bring the troops home and put them on our
Southern Border. His is the only show that I watch anymore, and he pushes back from Fox's
Israel-first orthodoxy as much as he can and still keep his job, which he wouldn't have if
not for his high ratings. Tucker destroyed ultra hawk neocon John Bolton shortly before Trump
stupidly appointed him as his NSA.
BTW, Hannity is a war pig, who happens to be right on one issue – supporting Trump
against the democrat coup. And Buck is also right, Epstein did not kill himself.
@Patricus You are a victim of finance capitalism propaganda. Communism is Marxism, not
socialism. Socialists do not outright reject private ownership, the goal was co-ops to
displace finance capital. Co-ops are corporations where every member has only one share. The
majority decides, not one shareholder with 50.1% of the shares. The state is not the worker.
Real socialists are opposed to private central banks. I haven't heard any of the allegedly
"far left" Democratic Presidential candidates suggest nationalizing the Fed. Ron Paul was
more of a socialist than they are on that one.
Also part of the brainwashing is the absolute failure of the vast majority of Americans,
who fail to understand that immigration is the reserve army of capital, used to attack the
people of the nation. It lowers wages and working conditions; produces more pollution;
increases living costs; lowers standards of living; and most importantly, increases
profits
Any real nationalism, out of necessity, will have socialist aspects, because doing what is
right for the nation, in the truest sense of the word, means that the best solution can come
from anywhere on the political spectrum. Governments "own" armies. Is that communism, or
should it be a government asset that should be privatized just as the US government
privatized the control of its currency.
As long as people dwell in the land of "left" and "right" the owners will continue to
divide. One solution would be to ban political parties and require all candidates running for
office to be funded equally, out of the public purse. That would make candidates have to face
their electorate more directly, and make them more responsive to the electorate, rather than
the party. In Congress, the political parties would not get to choose committee chairs,
individuals would have to earn the respect of their peers for that.
@follyofwar Tucker Carlson is the only news show I can watch, too. The rest is pretty
obviously intended to neutralize the rise of native leadership with the relentless
insinuation that all we can do is whine like Lou Dobbs and his guests, vote Republican, and
show what we're made of by blowing hot air out our asses like Hannity with his mawkish
imbecilities about America still being great because he gets great deals at Costco. Sean wuvs
America and the gal who follows him turns to American-hating Alan Dershowitz to update us
about the espionage of his long-term client Jeffrey Epstein. Check.
Just yesterday the kosher msm was mendaciously portraying our Army's combat vets as baby
killers, while today no one says a word when Fox' toadeaters tout that "muh brothers, muh
mission" fake and phony honor among "warriors" -- now all heroes of course, just for putting
on the uniform for Eretz Israel and the Yinon Plan. More importantly, Fox News' elaborate
efforts concealing Israel's culpability for 9/11 constitutes, as a matter of law, powerful
circumstantial evidence of their guilt in the greatest act of treason against this country in
its history.
Fox News' basecamp commando and armchair warrior types were outed by Homer's Achilles in
the ninth century BC, in the Iliad. As Pope's translation has it,
O monster! Mixed of insolence and fear,
Thou dog in forehead, but in heart a deer!
When wert thou known in ambush'd fights to dare,
Or nobly face the horrid front of war?
'Tis ours, the chance of fighting fields to try;
Thine to look on, and bid the valiant die.
How dare Fox News demand we honor the soldiers who foolishly believed Fox News that they
were fighting for their country. They still go in droves to their possible deaths, mistaking
the costumed bureaucrats in the Pentagon who serve Israel first in all things for warrior
patriots like themselves. I do not believe a military whose leadership's chief trait is
servility toward a foreign nation and betrayal of its own can survive no matter how much
money is counterfeited by the Treasury out of thin air to pay its bills.
Cuckold - Wikipedia A cuckold is the husband of an
adulterous wife. In evolutionary biology, the term is also applied
to males who are unwittingly investing parental effort
in offspring that are not genetically their own. [1]
One definition of "cuckservative" is a conservative who sells out, In a 2015 interview with
Breitbart News, Ben Harrison said he did not
support any presidential candidate in
the 2016 election, but said he admires Trump for "shaking up the
neocon-controlled
Republican Party
Notable quotes:
"... If you're asking how many people might agree with the underlying argument -- that the conservative movement has accommodated the cultural left for too long -- the answer might be millions. ..."
"... As many as 45 percent of self-identified "conservative Republicans" oppose any legal status for undocumented immigrants -- i.e., they oppose the establishment Republican position, as represented by Jeb Bush and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. ..."
Late last week, a neologism was born. Twitter was the incubator. "Cuckservative," a portmanteau of "conservative" and "cuckold"
(i.e. a man whose wife has cheated on him)
burned up Twitter as fans of Donald Trump's politicking warred with the movement conservatives who opposed it.
... ... ...
Who are the "cuckservatives?"
You might be one! The hashtag's targets are conservatives who seem to have made peace with elements alien to traditional white
Americanism. That could mean the transgender movement; it could mean non-white immigrants. Certainly, criticizing Trump's visit to
the border, saying he will alienate certain voters, is a trial run for cuckservative status.
"Just look at them!" said Spencer. "Glenn Beck, Erik [sic] Erickson, Mike Huckabee. They're mediocrities, or sub-mediocrities.
They're grinning, obese doofuses. No person with a deep soul -- no person who wants to take part in a moment that's idealistic,
that's going to change the world -- would want to be a part of 'conservatism.' In a way, the current 'cucks' are the residue of
the Bush era. They were the 'conservative' and 'Religious Right' allies of the neoconservatives. They're still around, for no
apparent reason."
What's the opposite of a "cuckservative," and how many of those people are there? There's no catch-all term, and the answer depends
on how you limit results. If it's just the people using the new term, then it's a limited number of activists online. The white nationalism
represented by Spencer has struggled to find footing. Youth for Western Civilization, a student group that attempted to bring millennials
on campus into the "traditionalist" cause, burned brightly for a few years, then went inactive.
If you're asking how many people might agree with the underlying argument -- that the conservative movement has accommodated
the cultural left for too long -- the answer might be millions.
As many as 45 percent of self-identified "conservative Republicans"
oppose any legal status for undocumented immigrants -- i.e., they oppose the establishment Republican position, as represented
by Jeb Bush and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
"... The Clinton camp was hardly absent from social media during the 2016 race. The barely-legal activities of Clintonite David Brock were previously reported by this author to have included $2 million in funding for the creation of an online " troll army " under the name Shareblue. The LA Times described the project as meant to "to appear to be coming organically from people and their social media networks in a groundswell of activism, when in fact it is highly paid and highly tactical." In other words, the effort attempted to create a false sense of consensus in support for the Clinton campaign. ..."
"... In terms of interference in the actual election process, the New York City Board of Elections was shown to have purged over one hundred thousand Democratic voters in Brooklyn from the rolls before the 2016 primary, a move that the Department of Justice found broke federal law . Despite this, no prosecution for the breach was ever attempted. ..."
"... In 2017, the Observer reported that the DNC's defense counsel argued against claims that the party defrauded Sanders' supporters by favoring Clinton, reasoning that Sanders' supporters knew the process was rigged. Again: instead of arguing that the primary was neutral and unbiased in accordance with its charter, the DNC's lawyers argued that it was the party's right to select candidates. ..."
"... The DNC defense counsel's argument throughout the course of the DNC fraud lawsuit doubled down repeatedly in defense of the party's right to favor one candidate over another, at one point actually claiming that such favoritism was protected by the First Amendment . ..."
"... The DNC's shameless defense of its own rigging disemboweled the most fundamental organs of the U.S. body politic. This no indication that the DNC will not resort to the same tactics in the 2020 primary race, ..."
"... f Debbie Wasserman Schultz's role as disgraced chairwoman of the DNC and her forced 2016 resignation wasn't enough, serious interference was also alleged in the wake of two contests between Wasserman Schultz and professor Tim Canova in Florida's 23rd congressional district. Canova and Wasserman Schultz first faced off in a 2016 Democratic primary race, followed by a 2018 general congressional election in which Canova ran as an independent. ..."
"... Debacles followed both contests, including improper vote counts, illegal ballot destruction , improper transportation of ballots, and generally shameless displays of cronyism. After the controversial results of the initial primary race against Wasserman Schultz, Canova sought to have ballots checked for irregularities, as the Sun-Sentinel reported at the time: ..."
"... Ultimately, Canova was granted a summary judgment against Snipes, finding that she had committed what amounted to multiple felonies. Nonetheless, Snipes was not prosecuted and remained elections supervisor through to the 2018 midterms. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton's recent comments to the effect that Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard is being "groomed" by Russia, and that the former Green Party Presidential candidate Dr. Jill Stein is a "Russian asset", were soon echoed by DNC-friendly pundits. These sentiments externalize what Gabbard called the "rot" in the Democratic party outward onto domestic critics and a nation across the planet. ..."
"... Newsweek provided a particularly glaring example of this phenomenon in a recent op-ed penned by columnist Naveed Jamali, a former FBI double agent whose book capitalizes on Russiagate. In an op-ed titled: " Hillary Clinton Is Right. Tulsi Gabbard Is A Perfect Russian Asset – And Would Be A Perfect Republican Agent," ..."
Establishment Democrats and those who amplify them continue to project
blame for the public's doubt in the U.S. election process onto outside influence, despite the clear history of the party's subversion
of election integrity. The total inability of the Democratic Party establishment's willingness to address even one of these critical
failures does not give reason to hope that the nomination process in 2020 will be any less pre-ordained.
The Democratic Party's bias against Sen. Bernie Sanders during the 2016 presidential nomination, followed by the DNC defense counsel
doubling down on its right to rig the race during the
fraud lawsuit brought
against the DNC , as well as the irregularities in the races between former DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Tim Canova,
indicate a fatal breakdown of the U.S. democratic process spearheaded by the Democratic Party establishment. Influences transcending
the DNC add to concerns regarding the integrity of the democratic process that have nothing to do with Russia, but which will also
likely impact outcomes in 2020.
The content of the DNC and
Podesta emails published by WikiLeaks demonstrated that the DNC
acted in favor of Hillary Clinton in the lead up to the 2016 Democratic primary. The emails also revealed corporate media reporters
acting as surrogates of the DNC and its pro-Clinton agenda, going so far as
to promote Donald Trump during the GOP primary process as a preferred " pied-piper
candidate ." One cannot assume that similar evidence will be presented to the public in 2020, making it more important than ever
to take stock of the unique lessons handed down to us by the 2016 race.
Social Media Meddling
Election meddling via social media did take place in 2016, though in a different guise and for a different cause from that which
are best remembered. Twitter would eventually admit to actively suppressing
hashtags referencing the DNC and Podesta emails in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election. Additional
reports indicated that tech giant Google also showed measurable "pro-Hillary
Clinton bias" in search results during 2016, resulting in the alleged swaying of between 2 and 10 millions voters in favor of Clinton.
On the Republican side, a recent episode of CNLive! featured discussion
of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, in which undecided voters were micro-targeted with tailored advertising narrowed with the combined
use of big data and artificial intelligence known collectively as "dark strategy." CNLive! Executive Producer Cathy Vogan noted that
SCL, Cambridge Analytica's parent company, provides data, analytics and strategy to governments and military organizations "worldwide,"
specializing in behavior modification. Though Cambridge Analytica shut down in 2018, related companies remain.
The Clinton camp was hardly absent from social media during the 2016 race. The
barely-legal activities of Clintonite David Brock
were previously reported by this author to have included $2 million in funding
for the creation of an online " troll army " under the name Shareblue. The
LA Times described the project as meant to "to appear
to be coming organically from people and their social media networks in a groundswell of activism, when in fact it is highly paid
and highly tactical." In other words, the effort attempted to create a false sense of consensus in support for the Clinton campaign.
In terms of interference in the actual election process, the New York City Board of Elections was shown to have
purged over one hundred thousand Democratic voters in Brooklyn from the rolls
before the 2016 primary, a move that the Department of Justice found
broke federal law . Despite this, no prosecution
for the breach was ever attempted.
Though the purge was not explicitly found to have benefitted Clinton, the admission falls in line with allegations across the
country that the Democratic primary was interfered with to the benefit of the former secretary of state. These claims were further
bolstered by reports indicating that voting results from the 2016 Democratic
primary showed evidence of fraud.
DNC Fraud Lawsuit
The proceedings of the DNC fraud lawsuit provide the most damning evidence of the failure of the U.S. election process, especially
within the Democratic Party. DNC defense lawyers argued in open court for the party's
right to appoint candidates at its own discretion, while simultaneously denying
any "fiduciary duty" to represent the voters who donated to the Democratic Party under the impression that the DNC would act impartially
towards the candidates involved.
In 2017, the Observer reported that the DNC's defense counsel argued
against claims that the party defrauded Sanders' supporters by favoring Clinton, reasoning that Sanders' supporters knew the process
was rigged. Again: instead of arguing that the primary was neutral and unbiased in accordance with its charter, the DNC's lawyers
argued that it was the party's right to select candidates.
The Observer noted the sentiments of Jared Beck, the attorney representing the plaintiffs of the lawsuit:
"People paid money in reliance on the understanding that the primary elections for the Democratic nominee -- nominating process
in 2016 were fair and impartial, and that's not just a bedrock assumption that we would assume just by virtue of the fact that
we live in a democracy, and we assume that our elections are run in a fair and impartial manner. But that's what the Democratic
National Committee's own charter says. It says it in black and white."
The DNC defense counsel's argument throughout the course of the DNC fraud lawsuit doubled down repeatedly in defense of the party's
right to favor one candidate over another, at one point actually claiming that such favoritism was
protected by the First Amendment . The DNC's lawyers wrote:
"To recognize any of the causes of action that Plaintiffs allege would run directly contrary to long-standing Supreme Court
precedent recognizing the central and critical First Amendment rights enjoyed by political parties, especially when it comes to
selecting the party's nominee for public office ." [Emphasis added]
The DNC's shameless defense of its own rigging disemboweled the most fundamental organs of the U.S. body politic. This no indication
that the DNC will not resort to the same tactics in the 2020 primary race,
Tim Canova's Allegations
If Debbie Wasserman Schultz's role as disgraced chairwoman of the DNC and her forced 2016 resignation wasn't enough, serious interference
was also alleged in the wake of two contests between Wasserman Schultz and professor Tim Canova in Florida's 23rd congressional district.
Canova and Wasserman Schultz first faced off in a 2016 Democratic primary race, followed by a 2018 general congressional election
in which Canova ran as an independent.
Debacles followed both contests, including improper vote counts, illegal
ballot destruction , improper
transportation of ballots, and generally
shameless displays of cronyism. After the controversial
results of the initial primary race against Wasserman Schultz, Canova sought to have ballots checked for irregularities, as the
Sun-Sentinel reported at the time:
"[Canova] sought to look at the paper ballots in March 2017 and took Elections Supervisor Brenda Snipes to court three months
later when her office hadn't fulfilled his request. Snipes approved the destruction of the ballots in September, signing a certification
that said no court cases involving the ballots were pending."
Ultimately, Canova was granted a summary judgment against Snipes, finding that she had committed what amounted to multiple felonies.
Nonetheless, Snipes was not prosecuted and remained elections supervisor through to the 2018 midterms.
Republicans appear no more motivated to protect voting integrity than the Democrats, with
The Nation reporting that the GOP-controlled Senate
blocked a bill this week that would have "mandated paper-ballot backups in case of election machine malfunctions."
Study of Corporate Power
A 2014
study published by Princeton University found that corporate power had usurped the voting rights of the public: "Economic elites
and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average
citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence."
In reviewing this sordid history, we see that the Democratic Party establishment has done everything in its power to disrespect
voters and outright overrule them in the democratic primary process, defending their right to do so in the DNC fraud lawsuit. We've
noted that interests transcending the DNC also represent escalating threats to election integrity as demonstrated in 2016.
Despite this, establishment Democrats and those who echo their views in the legacy press continue to deflect from their own wrongdoing
and real threats to the election process by suggesting that mere discussion of it represents a campaign by Russia to attempt to malign
the perception of the legitimacy of the U.S. democratic process.
Hillary Clinton's recent comments to the effect that Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard is being "groomed" by Russia, and that the former
Green Party Presidential candidate Dr. Jill Stein is a "Russian asset", were soon echoed by DNC-friendly pundits. These sentiments
externalize what Gabbard called the "rot"
in the Democratic party outward onto domestic critics and a nation across the planet.
Newsweek provided a particularly glaring example of this phenomenon in a
recent op-ed penned by columnist Naveed Jamali, a former FBI double agent whose book capitalizes on Russiagate. In an op-ed titled:
" Hillary Clinton Is Right. Tulsi Gabbard Is A Perfect Russian Asset – And Would Be A Perfect Republican Agent," Jamali
argued :
"Moscow will use its skillful propaganda machine to prop up Gabbard and use her as a tool to delegitimize the democratic process.
" [Emphasis added]
Jamali surmises that Russia intends to "attack" our democracy by undermining the domestic perception of its legitimacy. This thesis
is repeated later in the piece when Jamali opines : "They want to see a retreat
of American influence. What better way to accomplish that than to attack our democracy by casting doubt on the legitimacy of our
elections." [Emphasis added]
The only thing worth protecting, according to Jamali and those who amplify his work (including former Clinton aide and establishment
Democrat Neera Tanden), is the perception of the democratic process, not the actual functioning vitality of it. Such deflective tactics
ensure that Russia will continue to be used as a convenient international pretext for
silencing domestic dissent as we move into 2020.
Given all this, how can one expect the outcome of a 2020 Democratic Primary -- or even the general election – to be any fairer
or transparent than 2016?
* * *
Elizabeth Vos is a freelance reporter, co-host of CN Live! and regular contributor to Consortium News. If you value this
original article, please consider
making
a donation to Consortium News so we can bring you more stories like this one.
"... In 2017, the Observer reported that the DNC's defense counsel argued against claims that the party defrauded Sanders' supporters by favoring Clinton, reasoning that Sanders' supporters knew the process was rigged. Again: instead of arguing that the primary was neutral and unbiased in accordance with its charter, the DNC's lawyers argued that it was the party's right to select candidates. ..."
Establishment Democrats and those who amplify them continue to project
blame for the public's doubt in the U.S. election process onto outside influence, despite the clear history of the party's subversion
of election integrity. The total inability of the Democratic Party establishment's willingness to address even one of these critical
failures does not give reason to hope that the nomination process in 2020 will be any less pre-ordained.
The Democratic Party's bias against Sen. Bernie Sanders during the 2016 presidential nomination, followed by the DNC defense counsel
doubling down on its right to rig the race during the
fraud lawsuit brought
against the DNC , as well as the irregularities in the races between former DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Tim Canova,
indicate a fatal breakdown of the U.S. democratic process spearheaded by the Democratic Party establishment. Influences transcending
the DNC add to concerns regarding the integrity of the democratic process that have nothing to do with Russia, but which will also
likely impact outcomes in 2020.
The content of the DNC and
Podesta emails published by WikiLeaks demonstrated that the DNC
acted in favor of Hillary Clinton in the lead up to the 2016 Democratic primary. The emails also revealed corporate media reporters
acting as surrogates of the DNC and its pro-Clinton agenda, going so far as
to promote Donald Trump during the GOP primary process as a preferred " pied-piper
candidate ." One cannot assume that similar evidence will be presented to the public in 2020, making it more important than ever
to take stock of the unique lessons handed down to us by the 2016 race.
Social Media Meddling
Election meddling via social media did take place in 2016, though in a different guise and for a different cause from that which
are best remembered. Twitter would eventually admit to actively suppressing
hashtags referencing the DNC and Podesta emails in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election. Additional
reports indicated that tech giant Google also showed measurable "pro-Hillary
Clinton bias" in search results during 2016, resulting in the alleged swaying of between 2 and 10 millions voters in favor of Clinton.
On the Republican side, a recent episode of CNLive! featured discussion
of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, in which undecided voters were micro-targeted with tailored advertising narrowed with the combined
use of big data and artificial intelligence known collectively as "dark strategy." CNLive! Executive Producer Cathy Vogan noted that
SCL, Cambridge Analytica's parent company, provides data, analytics and strategy to governments and military organizations "worldwide,"
specializing in behavior modification. Though Cambridge Analytica shut down in 2018, related companies remain.
The Clinton camp was hardly absent from social media during the 2016 race. The
barely-legal activities of Clintonite David Brock
were previously reported by this author to have included $2 million in funding
for the creation of an online " troll army " under the name Shareblue. The
LA Times described the project as meant to "to appear
to be coming organically from people and their social media networks in a groundswell of activism, when in fact it is highly paid
and highly tactical." In other words, the effort attempted to create a false sense of consensus in support for the Clinton campaign.
In terms of interference in the actual election process, the New York City Board of Elections was shown to have
purged over one hundred thousand Democratic voters in Brooklyn from the rolls
before the 2016 primary, a move that the Department of Justice found
broke federal law . Despite this, no prosecution
for the breach was ever attempted.
Though the purge was not explicitly found to have benefitted Clinton, the admission falls in line with allegations across the
country that the Democratic primary was interfered with to the benefit of the former secretary of state. These claims were further
bolstered by reports indicating that voting results from the 2016 Democratic
primary showed evidence of fraud.
DNC Fraud Lawsuit
The proceedings of the DNC fraud lawsuit provide the most damning evidence of the failure of the U.S. election process, especially
within the Democratic Party. DNC defense lawyers argued in open court for the party's
right to appoint candidates at its own discretion, while simultaneously denying
any "fiduciary duty" to represent the voters who donated to the Democratic Party under the impression that the DNC would act impartially
towards the candidates involved.
In 2017, the Observer reported that the DNC's defense counsel argued
against claims that the party defrauded Sanders' supporters by favoring Clinton, reasoning that Sanders' supporters knew the process
was rigged. Again: instead of arguing that the primary was neutral and unbiased in accordance with its charter, the DNC's lawyers
argued that it was the party's right to select candidates.
The Observer noted the sentiments of Jared Beck, the attorney representing the plaintiffs of the lawsuit:
"People paid money in reliance on the understanding that the primary elections for the Democratic nominee -- nominating process
in 2016 were fair and impartial, and that's not just a bedrock assumption that we would assume just by virtue of the fact that
we live in a democracy, and we assume that our elections are run in a fair and impartial manner. But that's what the Democratic
National Committee's own charter says. It says it in black and white."
The DNC defense counsel's argument throughout the course of the DNC fraud lawsuit doubled down repeatedly in defense of the party's
right to favor one candidate over another, at one point actually claiming that such favoritism was
protected by the First Amendment . The DNC's lawyers wrote:
"To recognize any of the causes of action that Plaintiffs allege would run directly contrary to long-standing Supreme Court
precedent recognizing the central and critical First Amendment rights enjoyed by political parties, especially when it comes to
selecting the party's nominee for public office ." [Emphasis added]
The DNC's shameless defense of its own rigging disemboweled the most fundamental organs of the U.S. body politic. This no indication
that the DNC will not resort to the same tactics in the 2020 primary race,
Tim Canova's Allegations
If Debbie Wasserman Schultz's role as disgraced chairwoman of the DNC and her forced 2016 resignation wasn't enough, serious interference
was also alleged in the wake of two contests between Wasserman Schultz and professor Tim Canova in Florida's 23rd congressional district.
Canova and Wasserman Schultz first faced off in a 2016 Democratic primary race, followed by a 2018 general congressional election
in which Canova ran as an independent.
Tim Canova with supporters, April 2016. (CanovaForCongress, CC BY-SA 4.0, Wikimedia Commons)
Debacles followed both contests, including improper vote counts, illegal
ballot destruction , improper
transportation of ballots, and generally
shameless displays of cronyism. After the controversial
results of the initial primary race against Wasserman Schultz, Canova sought to have ballots checked for irregularities, as the
Sun-Sentinel reported at the time:
"[Canova] sought to look at the paper ballots in March 2017 and took Elections Supervisor Brenda Snipes to court three months
later when her office hadn't fulfilled his request. Snipes approved the destruction of the ballots in September, signing a certification
that said no court cases involving the ballots were pending."
Ultimately, Canova was granted a summary judgment against Snipes, finding that she had committed what amounted to multiple felonies.
Nonetheless, Snipes was not prosecuted and remained elections supervisor through to the 2018 midterms.
Republicans appear no more motivated to protect voting integrity than the Democrats, with
The Nation reporting that the GOP-controlled Senate
blocked a bill this week that would have "mandated paper-ballot backups in case of election machine malfunctions."
Study of Corporate Power
A 2014
study published by Princeton University found that corporate power had usurped the voting rights of the public: "Economic elites
and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average
citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence."
In reviewing this sordid history, we see that the Democratic Party establishment has done everything in its power to disrespect
voters and outright overrule them in the democratic primary process, defending their right to do so in the DNC fraud lawsuit. We've
noted that interests transcending the DNC also represent escalating threats to election integrity as demonstrated in 2016.
Despite this, establishment Democrats and those who echo their views in the legacy press continue to deflect from their own wrongdoing
and real threats to the election process by suggesting that mere discussion of it represents a campaign by Russia to attempt to malign
the perception of the legitimacy of the U.S. democratic process.
Hillary Clinton's recent comments to the effect that Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard is being "groomed" by Russia, and that the former
Green Party Presidential candidate Dr. Jill Stein is a "Russian asset", were soon echoed by DNC-friendly pundits. These sentiments
externalize what Gabbard called the "rot"
in the Democratic party outward onto domestic critics and a nation across the planet.
Newsweek provided a particularly glaring example of this phenomenon in a
recent op-ed penned by columnist Naveed Jamali, a former FBI double agent whose book capitalizes on Russiagate. In an op-ed titled:
" Hillary Clinton Is Right. Tulsi Gabbard Is A Perfect Russian Asset – And Would Be A Perfect Republican Agent," Jamali
argued :
"Moscow will use its skillful propaganda machine to prop up Gabbard and use her as a tool to delegitimize the democratic process.
" [Emphasis added]
Jamali surmises that Russia intends to "attack" our democracy by undermining the domestic perception of its legitimacy. This thesis
is repeated later in the piece when Jamali opines : "They want to see a retreat
of American influence. What better way to accomplish that than to attack our democracy by casting doubt on the legitimacy of our
elections." [Emphasis added]
The only thing worth protecting, according to Jamali and those who amplify his work (including former Clinton aide and establishment
Democrat Neera Tanden), is the perception of the democratic process, not the actual functioning vitality of it. Such deflective tactics
ensure that Russia will continue to be used as a convenient international pretext for
silencing domestic dissent as we move into 2020.
Given all this, how can one expect the outcome of a 2020 Democratic Primary -- or even the general election – to be any fairer
or transparent than 2016?
* * *
Elizabeth Vos is a freelance reporter, co-host of CN Live! and regular contributor to Consortium News. If you value this
original article, please consider
making
a donation to Consortium News so we can bring you more stories like this one.
@DanFromCT Well then, thank god for Tucker Carlson for going against the grain. He is
against all the Middle East wars, and wants to bring the troops home and put them on our
Southern Border. His is the only show that I watch anymore, and he pushes back from Fox's
Israel-first orthodoxy as much as he can and still keep his job, which he wouldn't have if
not for his high ratings. Tucker destroyed ultra hawk neocon John Bolton shortly before Trump
stupidly appointed him as his NSA.
BTW, Hannity is a war pig, who happens to be right on one issue – supporting Trump
against the democrat coup. And Buck is also right, Epstein did not kill himself.
"... They also failed to note the voice-modulated phone calls received by the law offices of the Becks which contained a caller-ID corresponding to the law offices of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a defendant in the case. In light of this context, the Becks hardly appear to be peddlers of conspiracy theory. ..."
The defense counsel also took issue with Jared Beck for what they termed as: " Repeatedly promoted patently false and deeply offensive
conspiracy theories about the deaths of a former DNC staffer and Plaintiffs' process server in an attempt to bolster attention for
this lawsuit." This author was shocked to find that despite the characterization of the Becks as peddlers of conspiracy theory, the
defense counsel failed to mention the motion for protection filed by the Becks earlier in the litigation process.
They also failed to note the voice-modulated phone calls received by the law offices of the Becks which contained a caller-ID
corresponding to the law offices of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a defendant in the case. In light of this context, the Becks hardly
appear to be peddlers of conspiracy theory.
The DNC defense lawyers then argued:
" There is no legitimate basis for this litigation, which is, at its most basic, an improper attempt to forge the federal courts
into a political weapon to be used by individuals who are unhappy with how a political party selected its candidate in a presidential
campaign ."
The brief continued:
" To recognize any of the causes of action that Plaintiffs allege based on their animating theory would run directly contrary
to long-standing Supreme Court precedent recognizing the central and critical First Amendment rights enjoyed by political parties,
especially when it comes to selecting the party's nominee for public office."
It appears that the defendants in the DNC Fraud Lawsuit are attempting to argue that cheating a candidate in the primary process
is protected under the first amendment. If all that weren't enough, DNC representatives argued that the Democratic National Committee
had no established fiduciary duty "to the Plaintiffs or the classes of donors and registered voters they seek to represent." It seems
here that the DNC is arguing for its right to appoint candidates at its own discretion while simultaneously denying any "fiduciary
duty" to represent the voters who donated to the Democratic Party under the belief that the DNC would act impartially towards the
candidates involved.
Adding to the latest news regarding the DNC Fraud Lawsuit was the recent
finding by the UK Supreme
Court, which stated that Wikileaks Cables were admissible as evidence in legal proceedings.
If Wikileaks' publication of DNC emails are found to be similarly admissible in a United States court of law, then the contents
of the leaked emails could be used to argue that, contrary to the defendant's latest brief, the DNC did in favor the campaign of
Hillary Clinton over Senator Sanders and that they acted to sabotage Sanders' campaign.
The outcome of the appeal of the DNC Fraud Lawsuit remains to be seen.
Elizabeth Vos is the Co-Founder and Editor in Chief at
Disobedient Media .
"... There is a collection of Democratic and Republican politicians and think tanks funded by various corporations and governments and bureaucrats in the government agencies mostly all devoted to the Empire, but also willing to stab each other in the back to obtain power. They don't necessarily agree on policy details. ..."
"... They don't oppose Trump because Trump is antiwar. Trump isn't antiwar. Or rather, he is antiwar for three minutes here and there and then he advocates for war crimes. ..."
"... He is a fairly major war criminal based on his policies in Yemen. But they don't oppose him for that either or they would have been upset by Obama. They oppose Trump because he is incompetent, unpredictable and easily manipulated. And worst of all, he doesn't play the game right, where we pretend we intervene out of noble humanitarian motives. This idiot actually say he wants to keep Syrian oil fields and Syria's oil fields aren't significant to anyone outside Syria. ..."
"... Our policies are influenced in rather negative ways by various foreign countries, but would be embarrassed to go to the extremes one regularly sees from liberals talking about Russian influence ..."
" In a sense, the current NeoMcCartyism (Russophobia, Sinophobia) epidemic in the USA can
partially be viewed as a yet another sign of the crisis of neoliberalism: a desperate attempt
to patch the cracks in the neoliberal façade using scapegoating -- creation of an
external enemy to project the problems of the neoliberal society.
I would add another, pretty subjective measure of failure: the degradation of the elite.
When you look at Hillary, Trump, Biden, Warren, Harris, etc, you instantly understand what I
am talking about. They all look like the second-rate, if not the third rate politicians.
Also, the Epstein case was pretty symbolic."
I had decided to stay on the sidelines for the most part after making a few earlier
comments, but I liked this summary, except I would give Warren more credit. She is flawed like
most politicians, but she has made some of the right enemies within the Democratic Party.
On Trump and " the Deep State", there is no unified Deep State. There is a collection of
Democratic and Republican politicians and think tanks funded by various corporations and
governments and bureaucrats in the government agencies mostly all devoted to the Empire, but
also willing to stab each other in the back to obtain power. They don't necessarily agree on
policy details.
They don't oppose Trump because Trump is antiwar. Trump isn't antiwar. Or rather, he is
antiwar for three minutes here and there and then he advocates for war crimes.
He is a fairly major war criminal based on his policies in Yemen. But they don't oppose
him for that either or they would have been upset by Obama. They oppose Trump because he is
incompetent, unpredictable and easily manipulated. And worst of all, he doesn't play the game
right, where we pretend we intervene out of noble humanitarian motives. This idiot actually say
he wants to keep Syrian oil fields and Syria's oil fields aren't significant to anyone outside
Syria.
But yes, scapegoating is a big thing with liberals now. It's pathetic. Our policies are
influenced in rather negative ways by various foreign countries, but would be embarrassed to go
to the extremes one regularly sees from liberals talking about Russian influence .
For the most part, if we have a horrible political culture nearly all the blame for that is
homegrown.
Donald 11.07.19 at 4:40 am (no link)
Sigh. Various typos above. Here is one --
Our policies are influenced in rather negative ways by various foreign countries, but
would be embarrassed to go to the extremes one regularly sees from liberals talking about
Russian influence.
--
I meant to say I would be embarrassed to go to the extremes one regularly sees from
liberals talking about Russian influence.
Steven Rattner's Rant Against Warren
By Dean Baker
The New York Times gives Steven Rattner * the opportunity to push stale economic bromides in
columns on a regular basis. His column ** today goes after Senator Elizabeth Warren.
He begins by telling us that Warren's plan for financing a Medicare for All program is "yet
more evidence that a Warren presidency a terrifying prospect." He goes on to warn us:
"She would turn America's uniquely successful public-private relationship into a dirigiste,
*** European-style system. If you want to live in France (economically), Elizabeth Warren
should be your candidate."
It's not worth going into every complaint in Rattner's piece, and to be clear, there are
very reasonable grounds for questioning many of Warren's proposals. However, he deserves some
serious ridicule for raising the bogeyman of France and later Germany.
In spite of its "dirigiste" system France actually has a higher employment rate for prime
age workers (ages 25 to 54) than the United States. (Germany has a much higher employment
rate.) France has a lower overall employment rate because young people generally don't work and
people in their sixties are less likely to work.
In both cases, this is the result of deliberate policy choices. In the case of young people,
the French are less likely to work because college is free and students get small living
stipends. For older workers, France has a system that is more generous to early retirees. One
can disagree with both of these policies, but they are not obvious failures. Large segments of
the French population benefit from them.
France and Germany both have lower per capita GDP than the United States, but the biggest
reason for the gap is that workers in both countries put in many fewer hours annually than in
the United States. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, an
average worker in France puts in 1520 hours a year, in Germany just 1360. That compares to 1780
hours a year in the United States. In both countries five or six weeks a year of vacation are
standard, as are paid family leave and paid sick days. Again, one can argue that it is better
to have more money, but it is not obviously a bad choice to have more leisure time as do
workers in these countries.
Anyhow, the point is that Rattner's bogeymen here are not the horror stories that he wants
us to imagine for ordinary workers, even if they may not be as appealing to rich people like
himself. Perhaps the biggest tell in this piece is when Rattner warns us that under Warren's
proposals "private equity, which plays a useful role in driving business efficiency, would be
effectively eliminated."
Okay, the prospect of eliminating private equity, now we're all really scared!
Dirigisme is an economic doctrine in which the state plays a strong directive role, as
opposed to a merely regulatory role, over a capitalist market economy.
Maybe this is the wake-up call that Democrats need.
My old colleagues at The Upshot published a poll yesterday (*) that rightly terrified a
lot of Democrats (as well as Republicans and independents who believe President Trump is
damaging the country). The poll showed Trump with a good chance to win re-election, given his
standing in swing states like Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Florida.
This was the sentence, by Nate Cohn, that stood out to me: "Nearly two-thirds of the Trump
voters who said they voted for Democratic congressional candidates in 2018 say that they'll
back the president" in hypothetical match-ups against Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth
Warren.
Democrats won in 2018 by running a smartly populist campaign, focused on reducing health
care costs and helping ordinary families. The candidates avoided supporting progressive
policy dreams that are obviously unpopular, like mandatory Medicare and border
decriminalization.
The 2020 presidential candidates are making a grave mistake by ignoring the lessons of
2018. I'm not saying they should run to the mythical center and support widespread
deregulation or corporate tax cuts (which are also unpopular). They can still support all
kinds of ambitious progressive ideas -- a wealth tax, universal Medicare buy-in and more --
without running afoul of popular opinion. They can even decide that there are a couple of
issues on which they are going to fly in the face of public opinion.
But if they're going to do that, they also need to signal in other ways that they care
about winning the votes of people who don't consider themselves very liberal. Democrats, in
short, need to start treating the 2020 campaign with the urgency it deserves, because a
second Trump term would be terrible for the country.
What would more urgency look like? Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders would find some way
to acknowledge and appeal to swing voters. Joe Biden and Kamala Harris would offer more of a
vision than either has to date. Pete Buttigieg, arguably the best positioned to take
advantage of this moment, would reassure Democrats who are understandably nervous about his
lack of experience. And perhaps Cory Booker or Amy Klobuchar can finally appeal to more of
Biden's uninspired supporters. ...
* One Year From Election, Trump Trails Biden but
Leads Warren in Battlegrounds https://nyti.ms/2NDDeNb
NYT - Nate Cohn - November 4 - Updated
E stablishment Democrats and those who amplify them continue to project
blame for the public's doubt in the U.S. election process onto outside influence, despite the clear history of the party's subversion
of election integrity. The total inability of the Democratic Party establishment's willingness to address even one of these critical
failures does not give reason to hope that the nomination process in 2020 will be any less pre-ordained.
The Democratic Party's bias against Sen. Bernie Sanders during the 2016 presidential nomination, followed by the DNC defense counsel
doubling down on its right to rig the race during the
fraud lawsuit brought
against the DNC , as well as the irregularities in the races between former DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Tim Canova,
indicate a fatal breakdown of the U.S. democratic process spearheaded by the Democratic Party establishment. Influences transcending
the DNC add to concerns regarding the integrity of the democratic process that have nothing to do with Russia, but which will also
likely impact outcomes in 2020.
The content of the DNC and
Podesta emails published by WikiLeaks demonstrated that
the DNC acted in favor of Hillary Clinton in the lead up to the 2016 Democratic primary. The emails also revealed corporate media
reporters acting as surrogates of the DNC and its pro-Clinton agenda, going
so far as to promote Donald Trump during the GOP primary process as a preferred "
pied-piper candidate ." One cannot assume that similar evidence will be presented
to the public in 2020, making it more important than ever to take stock of the unique lessons handed down to us by the 2016 race.
Sen. Bernie Sanders and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during a 2016 Democratic primary debate. (YouTube/Screen shot)
Social Media Meddling
Election meddling via social media did take place in 2016, though in a different guise and for a different cause from that which
are best remembered. Twitter would eventually admit to actively suppressing
hashtags referencing the DNC and Podesta emails in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election. Additional
reports indicated that tech giant Google also showed measurable "pro-Hillary
Clinton bias" in search results during 2016, resulting in the alleged swaying of between 2 and 10 millions voters in favor of Clinton.
On the Republican side, a recent episode of CNLive! featured
discussion of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, in which undecided voters were micro-targeted with tailored advertising narrowed with
the combined use of big data and artificial intelligence known collectively as "dark strategy." CNLive! Executive Producer
Cathy Vogan noted that SCL, Cambridge Analytica's parent company, provides data, analytics and strategy to governments and military
organizations "worldwide," specializing in behavior modification. Though Cambridge Analytica shut down in 2018, related companies
remain.
The Clinton camp was hardly absent from social media during the 2016 race. The
barely-legal activities of Clintonite David Brock
were previously reported by this author to have included $2 million in funding
for the creation of an online " troll army " under the name Shareblue. The
LA Times described the project as meant to
"to appear to be coming organically from people and their social media networks in a groundswell of activism, when in fact it is
highly paid and highly tactical." In other words, the effort attempted to create a false sense of consensus in support for the Clinton
campaign.
In terms of interference in the actual election process, the New York City Board of Elections was shown to have
purged over one hundred thousand Democratic voters in Brooklyn from the rolls
before the 2016 primary, a move that the Department of Justice found
broke federal law . Despite this, no prosecution
for the breach was ever attempted.
Though the purge was not explicitly found to have benefitted Clinton, the admission falls in line with allegations across the
country that the Democratic primary was interfered with to the benefit of the former secretary of state. These claims were further
bolstered by reports indicating that voting results from the 2016 Democratic
primary showed evidence of fraud.
DNC Fraud Lawsuit
"Bernie or Bust" protesters at the Wells Fargo Center during Democrats' roll call vote to nominate Hillary Clinton. (Becker1999,
CC BY 2.0, Wikimedia Commons)
The proceedings of the DNC fraud lawsuit provide the most damning evidence of the failure of the U.S. election process, especially
within the Democratic Party. DNC defense lawyers argued in open court for the party's
right to appoint candidates at its own discretion, while simultaneously denying
any "fiduciary duty" to represent the voters who donated to the Democratic Party under the impression that the DNC would act impartially
towards the candidates involved.
In 2017, the Observer reported that the DNC's defense counsel argued
against claims that the party defrauded Sanders' supporters by favoring Clinton, reasoning that Sanders' supporters knew the process
was rigged. Again: instead of arguing that the primary was neutral and unbiased in accordance with its charter, the DNC's lawyers
argued that it was the party's right to select candidates.
The Observer noted the sentiments of Jared Beck, the attorney representing the plaintiffs of the lawsuit:
"People paid money in reliance on the understanding that the primary elections for the Democratic nominee -- nominating process
in 2016 were fair and impartial, and that's not just a bedrock assumption that we would assume just by virtue of the fact that
we live in a democracy, and we assume that our elections are run in a fair and impartial manner. But that's what the Democratic
National Committee's own charter says. It says it in black and white."
The DNC defense counsel's argument throughout the course of the DNC fraud lawsuit doubled down repeatedly in defense of the party's
right to favor one candidate over another, at one point actually claiming that such favoritism was
protected by the First Amendment . The DNC's lawyers wrote:
"To recognize any of the causes of action that Plaintiffs allege would run directly contrary to long-standing Supreme Court
precedent recognizing the central and critical First Amendment rights enjoyed by political parties, especially when it comes
to selecting the party's nominee for public office ." [Emphasis added]
The DNC's shameless defense of its own rigging disemboweled the most fundamental organs of the U.S. body politic. This no indication
that the DNC will not resort to the same tactics in the 2020 primary race,
Tim Canova's Allegations
Tim Canova with supporters, April 2016. (CanovaForCongress, CC BY-SA 4.0, Wikimedia Commons)
If Debbie Wasserman Schultz's role as disgraced chairwoman of the DNC and her forced 2016 resignation wasn't enough, serious interference
was also alleged in the wake of two contests between Wasserman Schultz and professor Tim Canova in Florida's 23rd congressional district.
Canova and Wasserman Schultz first faced off in a 2016 Democratic primary race, followed by a 2018 general congressional election
in which Canova ran as an independent.
Debacles followed both contests, including improper vote counts, illegal
ballot destruction , improper
transportation of ballots, and generally
shameless displays of cronyism. After the controversial
results of the initial primary race against Wasserman Schultz, Canova sought to have ballots checked for irregularities, as the
Sun-Sentinel reported at the time:
"[Canova] sought to look at the paper ballots in March 2017 and took Elections Supervisor Brenda Snipes to court three months
later when her office hadn't fulfilled his request. Snipes approved the destruction of the ballots in September, signing a certification
that said no court cases involving the ballots were pending."
Ultimately, Canova was granted a summary judgment against Snipes, finding that she had committed what amounted to multiple felonies.
Nonetheless, Snipes was not prosecuted and remained elections supervisor through to the 2018 midterms.
Republicans appear no more motivated to protect voting integrity than the Democrats, with
The Nation reporting that the GOP-controlled
Senate blocked a bill this week that would have "mandated paper-ballot backups in case of election machine malfunctions."
Study of Corporate Power
A 2014
study published by Princeton University found that corporate power had usurped the voting rights of the public: "Economic elites
and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average
citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence."
In reviewing this sordid history, we see that the Democratic Party establishment has done everything in its power to disrespect
voters and outright overrule them in the democratic primary process, defending their right to do so in the DNC fraud lawsuit. We've
noted that interests transcending the DNC also represent escalating threats to election integrity as demonstrated in 2016.
Despite this, establishment Democrats and those who echo their views in the legacy press continue to deflect from their own wrongdoing
and real threats to the election process by suggesting that mere discussion of it represents a campaign by Russia to attempt to malign
the perceptionof the legitimacy of the U.S. democratic process.
Hillary Clinton's recent comments to the effect that Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard is being "groomed" by Russia, and that the former
Green Party Presidential candidate Dr. Jill Stein is a "Russian asset", were soon echoed by DNC-friendly pundits. These sentiments
externalize what Gabbard called the "rot"
in the Democratic party outward onto domestic critics and a nation across the planet.
Newsweek provided a particularly glaring example of this phenomenon
in a recent op-ed penned by columnist Naveed Jamali, a former FBI double agent whose book capitalizes on Russiagate. In an op-ed
titled: " Hillary Clinton Is Right. Tulsi Gabbard Is A Perfect Russian Asset – And Would Be A Perfect Republican Agent," Jamali
argued :
"Moscow will use its skillful propaganda machine to prop up Gabbard and use her as a tool to delegitimize the democratic process.
" [Emphasis added]
Jamali surmises that Russia intends to "attack" our democracy by undermining the domestic perception of its legitimacy. This thesis
is repeated later in the piece when Jamali opines : "They want to see a retreat
of American influence. What better way to accomplish that than to attack our democracy by casting doubt on the legitimacy of our
elections." [Emphasis added]
The only thing worth protecting, according to Jamali and those who amplify his work (including former Clinton aide and establishment
Democrat Neera Tanden), is the perception of the democratic process, not the actual functioning vitality of it. Such deflective
tactics ensure that Russia will continue to be used as a convenient international pretext for
silencing domestic dissent as we move into 2020.
Given all this, how can one expect the outcome of a 2020 Democratic Primary -- or even the general election – to be any fairer
or transparent than 2016?
Elizabeth Vos is a freelance reporter, co-host of CN Live! and regular contributor to Consortium News.
If you value this original article, please consider making
a donation to Consortium News so we can bring you more stories like this one.
Before commenting please read Robert Parry's Comment Policy . Allegations unsupported by
facts, gross or misleading factual errors and ad hominem attacks, and abusive or rude language toward other commenters or our writers
will be removed. If your comment does not immediately appear, please be patient as it is manually reviewed. For security reasons,
please refrain from inserting links in your comments.
>>Please
Donate
to Consortium News' Fall Fund Drive<<
It appears that the DNC is responsible in fomenting this new cold war with Russia.
The party has become a war party and made the world very unsafe.
Instead of taking responsibility for Russiagate, it simply has progressed on to impeachment, no apologies simply moving on
to the next tactic.
And why you might ask?
And weren't we a bit put off by our own intelligence agencies contributing to the overthrow of the Trump administration using
the NYT and WAPO to spread innuendo and political chaos ?
Great analysis, yes it is the DNC, but larger than that it is the corporate oligarch which monoplize the power in both so-called
parties which gave us Trump and which still prefer him to Sanders.
Perception is everything. That is why the rigged "superdelegate" system was so effective. Clinton's sham "lead" became self-fulfilling
prophesy. Many people told me, "I like Bernie but I'm voting for Hillary because she's more electable." Pure perception.
To test this widely held view, in March 2016 I started tallying every poll (at Real Clear Politics) that pitted Sanders and
Clinton not against each other, but against GOP contenders including a reality-show buffoon named Trump. I did this all the way
through early June, tallying 150 polls with no cherrypicking.
Result? Sanders outperformed Clinton against GOP candidates in 135 of 150 polls. That's 90 percent of the time. You can still
see the results posted at my site BernieWorks.com.
What's more, Sanders remained consistently strong. It was so remarkable, so I dubbed him Iron Man Sanders. Meanwhile, Clinton's
pattern of results across dozens upon dozens of polls showed disturbing signs of electoral weakness.
No one was paying attention. The corrupt system's rigged structure played a crucial role. The criminally fraudulet DNC and
complicit corporate media played their respective roles.
So, disastrously wrong public perception won.
My tallies clearly show that if Sanders had become the nominee, he would have wiped the floor with Trump. And we would be living
in a different world.
vinnieoh , November 6, 2019 at 12:01
As to your last sentence: yes I think he would have won handily, but no we would not be living in a different world. Recall
that virtually no-one who should have endorsed Sanders did so – not Warren, and certainly not that oft-touted icon of "progressivism"
my own Senator Sherrod Brown; in fact none in the D party that I can think of. They all obeyed the dictate of their undemocratic
ruling central cabal. You need friends and allies to propose and enact legislation, and Bernie would have had few. As for foreign
policy, aka WAR in US-speak, there was a completely unacknowledged military coup in 2000, right here in the good ol' US. The POTUS
does not direct the ambitions of this empire.
Do I wish he would have won – absolutely, and that possibility yet exists. We've all watched the very unsubtle way in which
the media is colluding with the D establishment. As soon as one candidate rises in the polls the media ignores them and focuses
on one of the vote diluters inserted there to staunch the gathering rebellion. There was a piece by Jake Johnson on CD about the
Sanders' campaign rightfully complaining about blatant misrepresentation of Sanders popularity in the polls. When distortion or
silence proves ineffective look for primary election fraud to ensue.
My younger brother was one that was under the spell of that establishment party perception in '16 and I argued with him several
times about it. I was flabbergasted and somewhat angry to hear him say recently that "Sanders could have won" then, but he can't
now.
Good points in the article the main point being the democratic party was far more guilty of interfering with the democratic
primaries by undermining Sanders. The media was complicit and should be considered an accessory to election rigging.
We the people didn't hold the democratic party heads accountable and therefore we are seeing a repeat happening again. I refuse
to be forced to vote force someone I deplore just because they aren't republican. I will always vote for the best candidate. The
duopoly is fiercely maintained by the oligarchs for just that reason. They correctly predict that consumer zombies will stay loyal
to their team and I think they lost control of the process in 2016 by thinking if they ran Krusty the Clown Trump against Hillary,
she certainly win. They didn't have a good handle on the animosity so many people had for Hillary, including millions of progressives
who were are bitter about the wicked, illegal, immoral, unethical, un-American machinations by the democratic henchmen as laid
out expertly in the article.
Korey Dykstra , November 5, 2019 at 22:48
It must be nearly impossible to be an honest politician when many charges made against you are based on lies couched as the
truth (with out evidence) which in turn has to be defended in a way that conveys knowledge and truthfulness. Extremely difficult
against an opponent versed in or deflecting from factual and/or provable information. Great article. I have not read too mcu on
Consortium but will read it consistently from now on
Manqueman , November 5, 2019 at 20:35
Actually, far more harm to democratic institutions has been done not by the DNC or Russians and foreign interests but by our
own GOP.
Ash , November 6, 2019 at 14:55
Thank you for that totally unbiased and nonpartisan viewpoint.
Maura , November 5, 2019 at 19:19
How foolish to use Russia in their plots against republicans.And still nothing gets done!
Walton Andrews , November 5, 2019 at 18:40
Impeachment is all about manufacturing a crime and using an investigation to damage your political opponent. The goal is to
give your friends in the establishment media excuses for an endless series of negative headlines slamming your opponent. The "Russia
collusion" charges were extremely useful in generating propaganda even though they fizzled out when it came time to present some
actual evidence. Today, the Democrats are running the investigations. But the Republicans are open to the same tactics (Remember
the Benghazi hearings?). Congress doesn't have time to address the real problems of the country – they are playing political games.
I will vote third party in 2020 because any vote for a Democrat or a Republican is sending the message that you will go along
with the degenerate system in Washington.
mary-lou , November 6, 2019 at 12:17
vote, but make your ballot paper invalid (in Europe we do this): this way they can see you support the democratic process,
but not the political system. cheers!
Nathan Mulcahy , November 5, 2019 at 18:03
Until Obama's first election in 2008 I was Dem leaning. That's when I started to complain to my Democratic supporting friends
that I find it more meaningful and satisfying to debate and discuss political issues with Republicans as opposed to Democrats.
My rationale was that while I do not agree with the Republicans' worldview I see a rationale. In contrast, Democrats argue illogically
and irrationally.
I was smart enough to recognize what a fraud Obama is, and Ended up not Voting Obama. Instead I voted for the Greens.
Needless to say that that cost me a lot, including friendships Only now do I realize how perceptive I was. The irrationality
and cognitive dissonance of the Dims (among the way I thought it appropriate to change the name of the Party) are in full bloom
now. Only the sheeple are unable to recognize their mental disorder.
Mike K , November 6, 2019 at 02:43
In contrast, Democrats argue illogically and irrationally.
Yes, yes they do.
Richard Annotico , November 6, 2019 at 05:06
[And Look How Well They Did .You are Brilliant
You thereby might be responsible fot TRUMP the CON MAN !!! Take A bow !!!!
Skip Edwards , November 5, 2019 at 16:29
As our country is ever more exposed to be the democratic hypocrisy that it is, we are finding that oligarchic empires never
last. History certainly has proven that time and again. What leaves me in dismay, however, is how seemingly educated, intelligent
societies continually fall asleep while any basic securities that the majority of those populations rely on are stolen away. It
is like sailors whose ship has gone down, we cling to any flotation available to hold us up for one last breath of air as the
sharks circle. What is the answer, you might be asking? Is there an answer? That we certainly cannot be sure of. But one thing
is for certain; and that is, taking the same steps to solve this problem and expecting anything different from the usual results
does not speak wisely of an intelligent people. As the article states, or maybe it was a comment, elections have not, and will
not, change one thing in our entire existence as a nation. Taking to the streets just might be our only answer if we are to retain
any pride in ourselves. And, without pride, what are we?
Mike K. , November 6, 2019 at 03:01
Those sharks you speak of consist of among others, the multinational companies who bribe congresspeople to pass bad trade bills
and rewrite tax code which allowed those companies to offshore good paying jobs and otherwise exfiltrate our wealth. The election
of Trump may well change some things in Washington DC. After the investigations by Durham, Barr, and Horowitz are completed, you
will see the depths that govt officials and various media pundits, descended in their illegal, unconstitutional effort to overturn
the 2016 election results. Hopefully, congress will retract their claws long enough to pass a bill giving congress vastly more
oversight of our IC including the NSA and CIA, along with the FBI.
Lois Gagnon , November 5, 2019 at 16:28
Western Empire centered in the US is being challenged and its illegitimacy exposed by increased wars of aggression abroad and
creeping authoritarianism domestically. Those profiting off the system for decades will resort to the usual tactics of lies, smears
and violence to prevent having to surrender their power.
Elections have no doubt been rigged for a long time, but it's being done in the open now. Those who continue to believe they
live in a functioning democracy being attacked by Russia are probably beyond hope for the short term. The cognitive dissonance
is more than they can deal with. Trump's mistaken elevation to the presidency seems to have turned once functioning brains into
easily controlled masses of obedient children. It's been surreal to watch the transformation.
Perhaps after another election fiasco for the ruling establishment, people will being to question who is really responsible
for the way things are. Then again, maybe not.
karlof1 , November 5, 2019 at 16:13
Pardon me, but how many people were cited to have committed felonies but were never prosecuted for their criminality? Might
I presume that's merely the tip of an iceberg and that the truth of the matter is the entire electoral process within the USA
is utterly corrupt and thus illegitimate?! And of course there's a bipartisan effort to ensure no legislation regulating political
parties ever gets to a vote so we the people have no means to alter their behavior!
I've looked long, hard and deep into the USA's fundamental problems and have mused about various bandages for the 1787 Constitution
that might put the nation back into the hands of those in whose name it was organized–The People–but most people just don't seem
to give a damn or argue that the situation isn't all that bad and just greater citizen activism is all that's required. What was
it JFK said–"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." If the electoral process
is completely illegitimate as it certainly appears to be, then the only real recourse citizens retain is revolution. Have the
corporate pukes at the DNC & RNC thought through the outcome of their behavior; or perhaps revolution is what they want to see
occur so they can crush it and establish the dictatorship their actions deem they prefer.
Yes Ill join the revolution but please, just one more game of Candy Crush first. Can't you see I'm busy.
Charlene Richards , November 5, 2019 at 16:00
Progressives will NEVER have a seat at the Democrat Party table.
The Democrats and the DNC are hopelessly corrupt and the only way to strip them of their power is for ALL true Progressive
Americans to walk away and refuse to vote for ANY Democrat, Trump or no Trump.
Just as Sanders got screwed by them and he and his supporters KNEW it and he STILL supported and campaigned for Hillary Clinton
who is a known liar and corrupt criminal!
I will vote for Tulsi in the California primary only because she had the guts to call out Clinton for what she is.
But I can promise all of you, if necessary the Superdelegates will step in to stop Sanders and when the corruption happens
again next year I will start campaigning for Trump.
Believe me. Not playing their games with them is the ONLY way to stop them.
And I hope Canova will run against DWS again as an Independent. She is evil!!
Skip Edwards , November 5, 2019 at 16:52
Thank you, Charlene, for your simple clarity on a viable, trustworthy candidate to work for. That person is Tulsi Gabbard.
Bernie lost it for me when he "supported and campaigned for Hillary Clinton" after what the Clinton/DNC did to him in the last
election (sorry Bernie; but, you showed your true staying power with that one). Though again I will say it; it will take most
of us in the streets to make the changes we need. Climate change is our real enemy with regards to our survival. US created endless
wars blind us from this reality along with the silent killer, unrelenting population growth on a finite planet. If you care about
any future for those coming after us, those three issues are all that really matter.
ML , November 5, 2019 at 20:07
It seems to me though, that not voting at all would be preferable in the circumstances you describe, to voting for such a one
as trump. I'll never give my vote to any wickedly repulsive human being, no matter their party affiliation. Most Green Party candidates
have been ethical, reasonable, kind, highly intelligent, and have good plans for the commons. But of course, to each his or her
own, Charlene. Cheers, regardless.
Mike K , November 6, 2019 at 03:35
ML one more thing, would you vote for a candidate who hasn't initiated any regime change type of war and is doing his best
to extricate us from the ones he inherited?
Even saint obama sent mountains of arms to Syria via Libya, which ended up in ISIS hands and killed US troops. Despicable!
rosemerry , November 5, 2019 at 15:28
"casting doubt on the legitimacy of our elections". I am not an American but cannot believe that anyone could even pretend
that there is any aspect of democracy in the US electoral process. As well as gerrymandering, the overwhelming effect of donors"
ie bribes, and the appointment of partisan judges to SCOTUS and most of the other courts in the land make the selection and election
of candidates a completely undemocratic procedure.Interference by Russia could never be significant, especially if, as Pres. Putin
pointed out, the difference between the policies o the two Parties is minimal.
Steve Naidamast , November 5, 2019 at 15:27
I am a Green I don't care anymore :-(
Michael Crockett , November 5, 2019 at 14:03
I agree with your assessment of the DNC. They deflect from their own reprehensible conduct to blame Russia for interfering
in our elections. No evidence is needed. It just a mind numbing stream of Russia! Russia! Russia! US elections are among the most
corrupt in the world (Carter Foundation). It appears that our criminal justice system, to include our courts, can not or will
not offer any remedy to this crisis.
Hopelb , November 5, 2019 at 13:55
The only way we US citizens can circumvent this undemocratic treachery is to hold a parallel vote on paper ballots that can
be publicly counted if the election results are contested. Just read that Amazon or was it google has the cloud contract for tabulating
votes in 40% of our elections.
HRC/the DNC not screaming night and day for I hackable paper ballots/publicly counted puts the lie to their Russia hoax.
Thanks for the great article! Love your show.
DH Fabian , November 5, 2019 at 13:42
We've spent years reading and talking about the illegitimacy of elections, interspersed with people railing against those who
don't vote. Each election is "the most important of our lifetimes," and "every vote counts," and if Democrats lose, we're back
to shouting that (fill in the blank) stole the election.
We've gone over "politics 101" a thousand times. Most votes come down to economic issues, and these are the very issues by
which the Clinton right wing divided and conquered the Dem voting base., middle class vs. poor. The Obama years confirmed that
this split is permanent. It isn't the result of arcane ideological differences, much less "Facebook trolls," but of the suffering
caused by the policies of the Democrat Party. Predictably, we once again see much work going into to setting the stage to blame
an expected election defeat on anything/everything other than this.
Antiwar7 , November 5, 2019 at 13:12
One cannot?
The Democratic Party will probably annoint Warren or Biden, one of the establishment candidates. After all, they could point
to Trump as justification for "managing" their primary voters!
And then anyone with a brain and a heart will vote third party.
C.K. Gurin , November 5, 2019 at 18:52
Anyone with a brain and a heart will vote Bernie.
Why the heck do you think the DNC IS working so hard to stab him in the back again.
Mike from Jersey , November 5, 2019 at 13:11
Excellent article.
It seems that dishonesty is not just acceptable to the two political parties and to the media but it is now considered "accepted
practice."
This, of course, has nothing to do with real democracy. Real democracy requires honesty to function properly.
One can only conclude that we no longer have a democracy in this country.
Sam F , November 5, 2019 at 13:00
Very well said. While the DNC corruption is the proper focus for reformers, the Repubs celebrate corruption as an ideal. In
Florida where "Canova was granted a summary judgment against Snipes [but] Snipes was not prosecuted and remained elections supervisor"
I have an ongoing investigation of racketeering involving the theft of over 100 million in conservation funds by wealthy scammers
in government, all of whom do far are Repubs. They regularly sell public offices to donors (get yours now): $2K for committee
memberships and $32K for chairmanships, including your state university board of trustees, no qualifications at all required.
They include judges state and federal, governors, prominent senators, you name it. Money=virtue=qualification is the core of their
belief system, and white-collar theft is their profession and only skill.
I am astounded that Canova got a summary judgment against Snipes, but not that Snipes had no prosecution or penalty and remained
in the very office in which the public trust was utterly betrayed.
michael , November 6, 2019 at 07:40
Your comment calls out corruption by Republicans, but the one concrete example you give is of Brenda Snipes, a Democrat, stealing
a Democratic primary for Wasserman Schultz over Canova? As Federal and Florida judge Zloch noted, primaries are a mere formality.
The DNC can pick any candidates they want, votes are meaningless. The GOP has always been the party of business, mean and corrupt.
But since the Clintons, the DNC has passed them in Wall Street support, corruption and war mongering; and of course they have
abandoned their constituents, the Poor, the Working Class, and Progressives, knowing they will not vote for Republicans and "have
nowhere else to go".
Thank you for reinforcing my cynicism in the two party system in America. Both parties are at fault here of denigrating the
public's confidence in the electoral process. How better than to blame the Russian boogie man in trying to rig our already rigged
system. That's the purview of the plutocrat and oligarch cabal and their elite enablers in government. Stay in your lane.
Jill , November 5, 2019 at 12:50
This article makes many excellent points.
The US hasn't had an authentic election in a very long time. Even if the process was at one time more transparent, the CIA
and OGA/other entities have taken out presidents who they didn't like. Then we come to 2000 where the election for president was
clearly stolen by Bush and again in 2004, there was a likely election theft by Bush. (These thefts may have been by agreement
of both legacy parties, as opposed to actual election theft. I say this because the Democratic party did not fight tooth and nail
to make votes count or challenge voter roll purges that were happening in plain sight.)
What has changed now are the tools available to engage in mass election theft/voter disenfranchisement. Microsoft will be determining
the coming election as they are the ones rolling out the voting machines. This is why we desperately need paper ballots. I lived
in Ohio and I knew people who saw their vote changed in front of their eyes. As we will not get paper we need to figure out some
way around unverifiable machine votes. That may be by filming one's vote or community efforts to have people come out of the polls
and mark a citizen provided private paper ballot. Basically, a citizen run paper parallel voting apparatus that could provide
some basis to challenge unverified machine votes.
This article points out some other things which have changed in the current society. The ability to ignore what most people
really want is endemic. This is coupled with the ability to manipulate people to "want" someone they actually wouldn't "want"
as a candidate where it not for massive propaganda and information restriction. Further, the government is lawless. The powerful
will not be held to account for rigging or stealing elections. That has been made perfectly clear. The lack of legal accountability
has necessitated making certain that citizens will not ask for evil and illegal actions committed by "their" parties' candidate/office
holder to be questioned or called out. The government/corporate amalgam needs a closed system, no legal questions, no citizen
questions. This allows complete impunity for all wrongdoing.
Thus we find ourselves in an incredibly dangerous place. People cling to a party/candidate with a zeal once reserved for cult
leaders. As the cults run most of the discourse and have most of the information (as cults generally do) I think we must look
at ways that people have successfully left cults and apply these stories to our own lives. We must break out of the cult.
Dfnslblty , November 5, 2019 at 12:48
Thanks for a good essay
Keep writing
torture this , November 5, 2019 at 12:30
LOL! I just changed from unaffiliated to Democrat so I can caucus/vote* for the least worst Democrat knowing that I'll end
up voting Green-no-in-between anyway when the multi-party rigged election happens. I never feel dumber than when I waste my time
filling out ballots or showing up for caucuses.
* Colorado changed procedures and I haven't given enough of a shit to figure out what I have to do, yet.
Jeff Harrison , November 5, 2019 at 12:11
The Economist, of course, has called the US a flawed democracy and they were probably being kind. On top of the chicanery Ms.
Vos identifies here, we have the Republicans doing their dead level best to suppress the vote of anyone that even looks like they'd
vote for someone else besides a Republican.
This is the Republicans pure and simple. They are the ones that are focused on winning at all costs. And both parties are now
Republicans. There is, of course, the Republican party which has become extremely right wing in the wake of St. Ronnie, driving
any moderate Republican out of the party and those people have infested the Democratic party as DINOs. Three Names herself is
a former Goldwater Girl. The highly anticipated rematch between Donnie Murdo and Three Names will be a real disaster. (Hint: Donnie
Murdo might get impeached but he'll never be convicted in the Senate)
Was there ever a better argument put forth that would prove that the Chinese Communist Party is a far better form of government
than is the corrupt democratic process in the USA. At least the CCP gives the Chinese people a competant government, with the
over all well being of the population first and foremost. Just look at where this democratic????? system of government has gotten
us. The entire system looks like the movie " The Gangs of New York" with Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump as the rival gang leaders.
Well one thing is certain, we won`t be seeing this op ed in the New York Times or Newsweek or any other major American news
outlet any time soon.
Antonio Costa , November 5, 2019 at 11:25
Yes the rot that is the DNC!
Thank you for this great summary, that brings us to now.
These parties must be eliminated. They cannot be reformed.
Paul , November 5, 2019 at 11:23
When I read this I have to wonder if the Russia agenda is anything less than a raging success. The Democrat party is doing
the work for them by splitting the country by their single minded focus on Impeaching Trump. I do not know if that was the intent
but it certainly is the result.
michael , November 5, 2019 at 11:08
According to REAL CIA whistleblower John Kiriakou a Russian "asset" is someone paid by the Kremlin. The only people paid by
Putin were the Clintons who received $500,000 for a talk to Putin's bank in Moscow while Hillary was Secretary of State.
The only recent documented interference in Elections was by New Knowledge pretending to be Russians to swing the Alabama US
Senate race from Moore to Jones: a 'technological advance that we'll see much more of from NSA/State department spin-offs in 2020).
And by Ukraine's fake Black Ledger which knocked Paul Manafort from Chairman of the Trump Campaign, thus helping Hillary Clinton
in the 2016 Campaign. Manafort is a sleazy corrupt politico just like the Bidens, Ciaramalla, the Podestas and Greg Craig, the
latter two working closely with Manafort in the European Centre for a Modern Ukraine.
jmg , November 5, 2019 at 10:24
A prediction from 2016 that turned out to be correct:
"Hillary Clinton just planted a bomb under American Democracy . . .
"By far the most irresponsible and dangerous Hillary Clinton has done is however to accuse a foreign power – Russia – of meddling
in the election in order to prevent her winning, and to impose Donald Trump on the American people.
"This is dangerous and irresponsible at so many levels that it is difficult to know where to start.
"Firstly, it is not true. . . ."
(Hillary Clinton just planted a bomb under American Democracy -- The Duran -- Oct 31, 2016)
Great article. The use of Russia as the red herring to confuse the public and to serve the Democratic Party apparatchiks. Not
a surprise as ordinary folks like me can see it yet it works. Witnessing the venom in Mueller's voice when he spoke about the
evil Russians interfering in our elections says a lot about the Washington mindset.
Then the point that people don't matter, money does is not a new idea but a telling one about the way we select our leaders.
Throw in the media that benefits most from the money flow and you get what Ms. Vos eloquently describes in the article, a very
corrupt and damaging system.
Skip Scott , November 5, 2019 at 09:16
Excellent commentary! It is apparent to anyone who bothers to think that the DNC did more to destroy our democratic process
than anything Russia could ever be capable of. They constantly cry about the electoral college, yet they have "superdelegates"
set up in the primary process to ensure that "corporate sponsored warmonger from column B" becomes the only Democratic Party option
in the General Election. To call it blatant hypocrisy is an understatement.
Democracy has always been a farce in the USA, and Russia has nothing to do with it.
If everyone started boycotting corporate news shows, it would go a long way toward ending their negative influence over our
lives. There is no excuse for watching CNN, MSNBC or any of the other corporate news outlets, unless of course you want to hear
the lies that the billionaires want you to hear.
Sixty years now of mass delusion. The southern strategy has worked well during the decades.. BUT. This president has exposed
it all. Money Honey, and the Southerners are starting to feel.. STUPID.
I must say, of all of it's confessions, the "we left enough soldiers to protect the oil" (In Iraq/Iran) was casually blurted out
as plain speech.
It's the beginning of the end..good riddance gop.
Paul Ellis , November 5, 2019 at 04:19
Thank you very much for putting all this together in one article. It's great to have as a resource to help people see what's
going on with the DNC.
Jeff Harrison , November 5, 2019 at 01:26
Fortunately, the DNC doesn't want any of my money or support for their candidates. And the RNC is, if anything worse.
torture this , November 5, 2019 at 12:32
Are you crazy (I know you're not)? They lust for your vote and will do ANYTHING they can to get it except offer you anything
you need.
Realist , November 5, 2019 at 00:09
As a life-long registered Democrat I have felt totally betrayed by the DNC for the fraudulent and illegal acts that Ms. Vos
so lucidly and comprehensively outlines in her piece. It is beyond my understanding why so many rank and file party members continue
to embrace the lies and seditious acts that the organisation they entrust with defending their constitutional rights has never
stopped perpetrating, even after being repeatedly caught red-handed. Undoubtedly the collusion of a fully partisan mass media
has a great deal to do with this sad reality. However, one must insist that Trump Derangement Syndrome and extreme Russophobia,
widely propagated by that corrupt media, are not valid reasons to adopt the same sleazy standards and morals reflexively attributed
by Democrats to Republicans for generations. Maybe it used to be only half the country, when Democrats purportedly stood for strictly
objective empirical truth, impartiality and fair play, but now, in light of proven shameless Democratic fraud, deception, false
narratives and phony alibis, most of the country insists upon brazenly embarrassing itself beyond all belief. People don't seem
to care whether they are governed by a rigorously open constitutional process or a demagogic dictator who seizes or sneaks into
power through fraud, as long as that dictator is from "their" tribe. Shameful.
Ditto! It's like a pass interference call in football. My team never deserves a flag and the other side always does.
Sam F , November 5, 2019 at 13:05
Yes, primitive tribalism remains at the core of politics, due to the extreme political ignorance spawned by our corrupt mass
media.
michael , November 6, 2019 at 09:52
"It is beyond my understanding why so many rank and file party members continue to embrace the lies and seditious acts that
the organisation they entrust with defending their constitutional rights has never stopped perpetrating, even after being repeatedly
caught red-handed. "
The rank and file party members have nowhere else to go and the DNC leadership knows it.
jadan , November 4, 2019 at 23:27
Our electoral system doesn't work because no one can have any confidence that their vote is counted as cast in a state wide
or national venue. Aside from gerrymandering, the purging of voter rolls, and other tricks and techniques of election rigging,
there is the manipulation of numbers in computerized vote counts that undermines the validity of US election results. It's not
the Russians or any other outside influence. It's not possible as a practical matter to do a recount of a presidential election.
Why would any rational person have confidence in the outcome?
Fixing the electoral system would be easy in theory but too many players depend on a rigged system. Fact is, no one wants a
true count of the majority vote because it would run counter to special interests that have grown accustomed to buying elections.
The DNC becomes just another special interest. An electoral system that counted every vote as cast and could be recounted would
destroy the oligarchy.
"Our democracy" is a fantasy. Funny how no politician calls for reform of the electoral process. Not even Bernie.
Sam F , November 5, 2019 at 13:12
Yes, and the reforms are quite easy, although some require amendments to the Constitution:
1. Limiting campaign contributions to the average day's pay annually (or similar means) with accounting and penalties.
2. Monitor public officials and all relatives and associate for life, with heavy penalties for payoffs etc.
3. Similar measures to isolate mass media (say over 10% of market in subject area or region) from economic power.
4. Strict monitoring of voting machine design/production/usage, or requirement of manual balloting.
But as you note, "too many players depend on a rigged system."
DH Fabian , November 5, 2019 at 13:52
Agree, and while such reforms have been needed for decades, they would not change the consequences of Democrats successfully
splitting apart their own voting base. By now, middle class liberals simply appear to be unaware of, or unconcerned about, this
split, making it a lost cause.
Bethany , November 5, 2019 at 16:18
Right. Not even Bernie. And no one talks about Julian Assange either. None of them, including Bernie, wanted what WikiLeaks
revealed to be revealed. Bernie's refusal to fight the obvious rigging last time and his subsequent directive to vote for Hillary
were very enlightening. His weak defense of Tulsi Gabbard was also enlightening. Every day I am aware of what Hannah Arendt described
as 'the iron bands' of totalitarianism tightening and don't foresee relief in the future.
nondimenticare , November 5, 2019 at 17:45
It puts me in mind of the election of Liberal Justin Trudeau, who campaigned on a platform of reforming the unfair, he said,
Canadian voting system of first past the post to a form of proportional representation. (This was after years of a Conservative
government.) What a surprise that when he won the election with a majority government, he had a middle-of-the-night epiphany that
the voting system is quite fine as is.
The same reason we haven't gotten tax reform in the US even when people had a modicum of power: Everyone was sure that s/he
was a rich person hiding in a poor person's body and, by golly, when that rich person emerged s/he wanted to keep all the loot.
A pipe dream then, a virtual impossibility now.
Erelis , November 5, 2019 at 22:16
"Fixing the electoral system would be easy in theory but too many players depend on a rigged system. " Indeed. First, I have
worked many an election and the ONLY people who can steal an election are the people inside the electoral infrastructure. That
is, no Russian hacker sitting in Moscow who can change the results of an election. In America it is Americans cheating other Americans.
(Just look to the the centuries long disenfrancshment of African America voters or recently in Georgia–not a Russian in sight.)
In 2000 I thought the democratic party leadership would lead the way to electoral reform as there were just a ton of compliants
about computer based voting machines. Nada. Instead the democrats blamed Nader. There is only one conclusion. Neither the democrats
nor republicans want to give up their electoral advantages to change and alter and the direction of the outcomes of an election.
Zhu , November 4, 2019 at 23:23
I first voted in the US in 1972. Nothing important has ever improved because of voting. We get more wars on third world people,
more homelessness, no matter which team wins. No wonder more than half never vote!
Sweet William , November 5, 2019 at 11:30
that's just silly. Encouraging people not to vote has been highly successful in this country. thanks for your help in making
it a successful tactic. CN plays a part in that same old sorry: both sides are equally evil.
ML , November 5, 2019 at 20:30
This is to Sweet William: Denying party leaders legitimacy, which they both richly deserve to be denied them, is but one way
to deal with the utter sham that comprises our electoral system. I don't judge people for not voting out of sheer outrage and
protestation. I have always voted and since I could not abide either candidate in 2016, I voted Green, but don't judge people
for making the decision not to participate in protest. It's one thing to be completely incurious and apathetic, it's quite another
to be raging mad and calling the system out for what it is- a completely corrupted unethical mess like our fascistic, lying, murdering,
bellicose empire, the USA. I am not proud to be an American. But my right to vote includes my right NOT to, Sweet William.
jadan , November 5, 2019 at 23:01
People do not believe their votes are counted as cast because they aren't. There is no way to recount a national election.
Nothing changes for most people by and large while great benefits accrue to the elites. The war racket continues. exploitation
of the environment and labor continues. People do not trust their government to work for them, so why vote? This is the result
of a rigged system that is not transparent. It is easy to fix the system. Paper ballots will not solve the problem. We need to
develop a block chain system for voting. Just as a bitcoin is secure, so can a voter's ID be secure. You could easily check to
see if your vote was counted as cast. The election itself could be recounted quickly and easily. The majority of people are not
right wing libertarian or left wing radicals. If the voice of the genuine majority were delivered in an election, the oligarchy
would collapse.
Jeffery Denton , November 4, 2019 at 22:11
Next I would like to hear your take on WHY the Republicans went along with the russiagate conspiracy theory. And what Joe thinks
as well.
Skip Scott , November 5, 2019 at 09:20
The MIC funds both parties to a large extent. Trump's musings about detente with Russia made him the enemy of the establishment
on both sides of the aisle.
Antiwar7 , November 5, 2019 at 13:15
Because either 1) they're on the national security gravy train, or 2) they can be easily pressured by all the forces of 1).
DH Fabian , November 5, 2019 at 13:54
Republicans fully support the "Russia-gate" insanity because they see how it has driven away more Dem voters, making Democrats
too dangerous to vote for.
ML , November 5, 2019 at 20:42
I think Antiwar7 has it just about right and so does Skip Scott. I'd add that Trump's musings on detente with Russia went no
further in his tiny, grasping mind than "what will I get out of this personally" if I encourage rapprochement with Russia? Except
that the word "rapprochement" isn't in his vocabulary- but you get the idea.
Noah Way , November 4, 2019 at 21:54
Despite the blatant manipulation of the 2016 election by the Dems (to Hillary's chagrin, LOL) and the coordinated post-election
disenfranchisement of the elected president (no matter how awful he is) by the collapsed accusations of RussiaGate and likewise
the totally fabricated UkraineGate (just think about this for a millisecond – they're using an anonymous CIA "source" to blame
Trump for something Biden actually did, and which has been a basic tool of US foreign policy since WWII), this is only part of
domestic election meddling by both parties that includes gerrymandering, voter disenfranchisement, media manipulation, unlimited
anonymous money in politics, electronic vote hacking, supreme court interference, etc., etc., etc.
The entire system is corrupt from the top to the bottom.
"... First the constitution emerging from Philadelphia in 1787 did not contain the bill of rights, a fact prominently exposed when the states refused to ratify the constitution their own representatives at the Philadephia convention voted for. The states said, no to ratification unless and until, as a minimum, the first ten amendments were added. <= I assert the founders and their then corporations d\n want the governed to have any privileges or rights. ..."
"... One of the ongoing impediments to broad American public understanding of the US Constitution is its elevation to 'sacrosanct' status, thus placing it above critical discussion. ..."
"... And then you have the mantra of mass continual frequent typically hypocritical/false/programmed swearing of allegiance to it, and also, of all things, the linked elevation into 'symbolic deity' of a flag. ..."
it noted =>America's representative appointed by the electoral college into the
position of CEO of the USA interpreted the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military
Force==> <=to mean=> executive privilege includes the right to assassinate US
Citizens ?
WOW! Does that means person of wealth, corporation or foreign government can pay to get
the USA to assassinate whom ever?
The article says: The democratic institutions, including the press, ..have been neutered.
It notes that the Wealth and power once attributable to Americans is now consoliated inside
and located behind the access controlled walls of privately owned corporate enterprise; where
the dark hole of board room policy establishes how the corporation wealth and power will rape
its next million or so victims...? the article discusses how America's wealth is eqally
divided between 99% (wealth of 350,000,000 Americans) = and 1% (wealth of 35,000 in control
of America) .
But I do not subscribe to the idea that it is deep state that is the problem. I think the
problem lay in the construction of the constitution of the United States.. the deep state is
just using the highly skewed distribution of power [between the governed and the governors
placed in the constitution) to accommodate their for profit purposes. The constitution was
never intended to protect governed Americans from exploitation by those who govern; its
purpose was to protect those with the wealth and power from the Americans its federalism was
designed to govern. Its pure propaganda that the constitution is to be interpreted as a
democratic win for the governed.
First the constitution emerging from Philadelphia in 1787 did not contain the bill of
rights, a fact prominently exposed when the states refused to ratify the constitution their
own representatives at the Philadephia convention voted for. The states said, no to
ratification unless and until, as a minimum, the first ten amendments were added. <= I
assert the founders and their then corporations d\n want the governed to have any privileges
or rights.
Secondly, it was not until the 17th amendment(1913) that Americans were empowered to vote
for who would fill any of the 100 highly paid, very powerful, US Senate jobs, even today, no
American can vote for but 2 senators each. <=to date Americans have no say by vote as to
who shall be paid to be the President or VP of the USA [<=the electoral colleges
determines the President and the states each appoint whomever they wish to the electoral
college]. America is a democracy; the USA is a Republic, the states are trickle down versions
of the USA.
Thirdly, ratification was invented and placed in the constitution to avoid offering all
Americans the chance to decide for themselves if Americans wanted federalism or states
rights, or if the excluded persons (Indians and 3/5 of other persons) wanted to be excluded
or governed by federalism (federalism destroys states rights); had a popular vote been taken,
I believe federalism w\h\b soundly defeated). Ratification (Article VII)<=regime changed
[1788] the Articles of Confederation Government (AOCG: Hanson first President of the USA in
Congress) [it was the AOCG that defeated the British Armies in America [1777] and that
contributed the 1776 Declaration of Independence to the world, not the USA]. After regime
change; USA, old British wealth and corporate cronies were back in charge of governing
America. Today they might be called the deep state.
Fourthly, We, the American public, are spectators. An audience by Jackrabbit @ 36..
Fifthly, no president I am familiar with, has done in office what was promised in the
campaign.
I think the governed must look to the constitution to see how the governors have made this
happen.
My take is that civil liberties never existed in America.. the only civil liberties that
Americans have ever enjoyed were those expressed in contractual promises (offered in the
first 10 <=amendments of the COUS) and that courts were obliged to affirm because it would
defeat the propaganda that such rights actually exist. How enforceable do you think a promise
in a contract are that governors will not infringe the human rights promises made
therein?
Over 200 years, during war time, the governors have suspended such rights and during
normal times the only way to prevent infringement has often been to engage lawyers and costly
expensive courts.. to remind the governors that it is important for propaganda purposes to
honor the promises made in the amendments to the constitution? Its a joke to assume that a
clause in an amended contract would be honored when it is inconvenient to the promissors; ie.
Julian Assange?
even in the 'good articles', even in 'noble efforts' its pretty hard not to slip into,
what? Let's call it, Empire Speak. Or is that Swamp Speak? by: Robert Snefjella @ 42 <=
the mind control weapons that fire bullets made of propaganda are extremely powerful..
One of the ongoing impediments to broad American public understanding of the US
Constitution is its elevation to 'sacrosanct' status, thus placing it above critical
discussion.
Its 'supreme' status renders thoughts of ongoing improvement disabled. And then you
have the mantra of mass continual frequent typically hypocritical/false/programmed swearing
of allegiance to it, and also, of all things, the linked elevation into 'symbolic deity' of a
flag.
This is helped along by a frequent stirring rendition of the national anthem, which has
bombs exploding for the land of the "brave and the free".
(As an aside note of some curiosity and immeasurable impact, in Canada there is much
swearing of allegiance to the very aged titular head of the dysfunctional 'Royal Family' of
the UK.) Sigh.
"The 7 big bets that will decide who wins the White House in 2020" [
Politico ].
"Sanders' big bet is that this movement has the capacity to grow and to appeal to voters who
have not previously participated in Democratic contests. If true, this could give him staying
power in the race even if he has yet to score big victories by spring. From early on, Sanders
has demonstrated strength with younger voters, with Hispanics and with working-class voters.
[Politico Repoter Holly] Otterbein notes the obvious risk: Lots of candidates historically have
pledged to expand the electorate and not many have been successful. 'On the other hand,' she
observes, 'there was evidence in 2018 that some of these groups actually did see a real big
boost in turnout.
Latinos -- their voter turnout increased more than any other ethnic group.
And the younger generations outvoted the boomers and older generations.'" • Both Latinos
and young voters going disproportionately for Sanders.
[
The American Conservative ]. "Civil war is, at root, a contest over legitimacy. Legitimacy
-- literally the right to make law -- is shorthand for the consent of the citizens and
political parties to abide by the authority of a constitutional order.
Civil war begins when this larger political compact breaks down .
Hence civil war becomes a struggle in which one party must successfully assert a successor
legitimate order, and to which the opposing party must eventually submit. This is above all a
contest over constitutional authority.
Inasmuch as civil war happens after constitutional breakdown, it means that resolution must
be reached not only outside of a now-former legal framework, but also unrestrained even by
longstanding political customs and norms.
Extra-constitutional force is now the deciding factor, which is why these struggles are
called civil wars ." • This is a must-read.
The latest liberal parlor game is pretending there's no such thing as neoliberalism. The game's very popularity highlights neoliberalism's
enduring hegemony.
For the first time in decades, it has become possible to envision real alternatives to the prevailing political and economic order
of the past forty years. In both Europe and the Americas, the neoliberal consensus is facing a crisis of moral, intellectual, and
popular legitimacy: proving unable to deliver either the growth or the broad prosperity its ideologues once promised and facing robust
electoral challenges from both the socialist left and the nationalist right.
Predictably enough, this turn of events has elicited a
defensive response from neoliberalism's greatest partisans and those otherwise invested in its political and cultural hegemony.
"Reminder: Liberalism Is Working, and Marxism Has Always Failed,"
asserts
an anguished Jonathan Chait. "It's Time for the Elites to Rise Up Against the Ignorant Masses,"
bellows an indignant James Traub. "Not left, not right, but forward," meanwhile, has once again become the median posture among
those seeking the Democratic nomination for president -- with most candidates channeling the spirit of Tony Blair's
famous 1998 call
to neoliberal technocracy and making familiar appeals to moderation and tepid meliorism.
But the past several years have also given birth to another, more curious phenomenon: namely the repeated insistence of many prominent
liberals and centrists that neoliberalism is either a phantom created by leftists or, alternatively, a term so ethereal it defies
definition and therefore serves no useful purpose. In Britain and America especially (arguably neoliberalism's most significant ideological
beachheads in the 1980s and '90s), some commentators can't seem to help resist this strange line of argument, even as the contours
of the neoliberal order become ever-more visible as its political prospects weaken and its economic fortunes decline.
The argument comes in several variations.
The first, and most plainly superficial, caustically insists that neoliberalism doesn't exist or at any rate ceased to have a
meaningful existence long ago. "Nobody has spotted a neoliberal in the wild since Gary Hart's 1984 presidential campaign,"
writes
Politico 's Bill Scher, in his stunningly humorless review of The Chapo Guide to Revolution . Or, to take
the petulant words of former Clinton
sycophant Tom Watson: "There are no neoliberals in the US Congress -- not one. Not one in any statehouses in the nation, either.
Yet it's constantly bandied about by the white academic left as a functioning and present ideology."
A second, related version holds that the word primarily exists as a term of abuse: an epithet reductively deployed by leftist
trolls looking to slander everyone in sight. This variation's greatest scribe is undoubtedly the ever-aggrieved Chait who, in a
July 2017
piece titled "How 'Neoliberalism' Became the Left's Favorite Insult of Liberals," insists that liberalism has remained largely
consistent and unchanging (thus making "neo" an unnecessary and pejorative addendum). This argument hinges on the astoundingly ahistorical
claim that liberal politicians had no hand in the generalized rightward shift that followed the 1970s and, furthermore, have not
wavered in their basic commitments, particularly when it comes to economic policy, since the New Deal:
The Democratic Party has evolved over the last half-century, as any party does over a long period of time. But the basic ideological
cast of its economic policy has not changed dramatically since the New Deal . . . Progressives are correct in their belief that
something has changed for the worse in American politics. Larger forces in American life have stalled the seemingly unstoppable
progressive momentum of the postwar period . . . All this forced Democrats more frequently into a defensive posture . . . Barack
Obama's far more sweeping reforms still could
not win any support from a radicalized opposition. It is seductive to attribute these frustrations to the tactical mistakes or
devious betrayals of party leaders. But it is the political climate that has grown more hostile to Democratic Party economic liberalism.
The party's ideological orientation has barely changed.
In this telling, liberal writers like Chait and Democratic politicians like Clinton and Obama have remained consistent with the
liberalism of the midcentury. The "neoliberalism" charge is therefore an abusive tactic invented by socialists and designed primarily
to "bracket," as he puts it, "the center-left together with the right as 'neoliberal' and then force progressives to choose between
that and socialism."
This calls to mind a third, perhaps more emblematic variation on the form, which holds that the wide application of "neoliberal"
renders the term too vague or imprecise for it to retain real value. In an editorial for the Independent , Ben Chu
takes aim at the regular charge made by some on Labour's Corbynite left that the EU is a neoliberal institution: a reflex he
believes to be incoherent, conspiratorial, and even mildly sinister. Partly echoing Chait, Ed Conway (economics editor for Britain's
Sky News) asks
: "What is neoliberalism and why is it an insult?" While socialists and others on the Left are fond of branding everything they
dislike "neoliberal," he writes, no one can actually agree on the word's meaning:
You could pick any one of [Jeremy Corbyn's] speeches over the past few years for . . . examples. The Grenfell Tower was a tragedy
of neoliberalism . . . Austerity was a product of neoliberalism. The City is neoliberal, the government is neoliberal, the press
is neoliberal . . . Despite the fact that neoliberalism is frequently referred to as an ideology, it is oddly difficult to pin
down. For one thing, it is a word that tends to be used almost exclusively by those who are criticizing it -- not by its advocates,
such as they are (in stark contrast to almost every other ideology, nearly no one self-describes as a neoliberal). In other words,
it is not an ideology but an insult.
A somewhat more earnest and coherent version of this argument is found in a recent
essay by Vox 's Ezra Klein , which does at least grant the term neoliberalism some tangible meaning. "In its simplest
form," Klein writes, "neoliberalism refers to a general preference for market mechanisms over state interventions." This, however,
is where the problems begin for him:
Since almost everyone sometimes prefers market mechanisms to state interventions, and sometimes prefer state interventions
to market mechanisms, the conversation quickly gets confusing. Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher
were neoliberals . Bill Clinton is often
seen as a neoliberal. Barack Obama is
sometimes considered
a neoliberal. Elizabeth Warren is
occasionally called
a neoliberal.
As such, Klein concludes, the label is often over-applied to the point of incoherence. "A label that can describe everyone," he
argues, "doesn't usefully describe anyone." To his credit, Klein doesn't want us to abandon the term entirely. Nor does he pretend,
as others do, that the phenomenon it describes is so nebulous it might as well not exist (to his earlier definition, he even adds:
"Neoliberalism describes what happens when capitalism mutates from an economic system to a governing and even moral philosophy").
His essay's primary purpose, however, is to argue that the Obama presidency fell short of progressive expectations because of
an intransigent Congress rather than an attachment to neoliberalism. This is where Klein, his more nuanced and inquisitive posture
notwithstanding, begins to sound a bit like Chait:
In recent years, neoliberal has reemerged as political slander, meaning something like "corporatist sellout Democrat" . . . I've
become more frustrated with the lazy ways the term is tossed around -- and, particularly, how it becomes an all-purpose explanation
for any political outcome someone doesn't like.
While exhibiting variations and coming in numerous shades of good and bad faith, all of these arguments -- and others in the same
vein -- share some common features.
The first is poor, or at any rate incomplete, history.
Far from being abstract or immaterial, neoliberalism was the consciously pursued project of an initially small group of intelligentsia
who, thanks to decades of well-funded organizing and adept political maneuvering -- particularly during the economic crises that
afflicted Keynesian social democracy in the 1970s -- gradually succeeded in taking their ideology to the heights of institutional
and cultural power. First capturing the old right (in Britain's Tory Party, the disappointments of the Heath era gave way to the
more dynamic and confrontational ethos of Thatcherism, just as in America Nixon and Ford were succeeded by Reaganism), the neoliberal
ascendency eventually secured a foothold in the center-left thanks to the agency of figures like Bill Clinton and Tony Blair.
The new generation of ideologues who came to dominate Western liberalism in the 1990s were hardly dragged kicking and screaming
into the embrace of its more market-zealous incarnation. On the contrary, New Labour acolytes and
Atari Democrats
were some of neoliberalism's most enthusiastic converts and set out to realign their parties with the consensus already set in
motion by the new right. Here's how the Democratic Party's shift away from postwar liberalism was described in 2013 by
none other than Chait himself
:
[Various] magazines once critiqued Democrats from the right, advocating a policy loosely called "neoliberalism," and now stand
in general ideological concord. Why? I'd say it's because the neoliberal project succeeded in weaning the Democrats of the wrong
turn they took during the 1960s and 1970s. The Democrats under Bill Clinton -- and Obama, whose domestic policy is crafted almost
entirely by Clinton veterans -- has internalized the neoliberal critique.
Given these observable shifts, it is simply ahistorical to argue that liberalism has been ideologically stagnant, or that its
transformation into neoliberalism during the 1990s did not occur; equally so to suggest that liberal politicians like Clinton or
Obama were simply the casualties of a generalized rightward drift, akin to an intense weather event, rather than the conscious practitioners
of an ideology. If neoliberalism is sometimes invoked as a pejorative term for today's liberal politicians, it's because the Left
opposes the consensus they seek to perpetuate and holds that a more humane alternative is both possible and desirable.
Setting aside the historical details, what about the second major component of the arguments at hand -- that the moniker "neoliberalism"
is either too widely applicable or too contested to be of any use?
This is the fulcrum of the reasoning offered in varying degrees by Klein, Conway, and Chu, and like many erroneous arguments,
it contains a degree of truth. For one thing, there is indeed some ambiguity surrounding the term -- but that's only because what
it refers to is so multifaceted. Taken at face value, neoliberalism describes a mixture of classical liberal philosophy and neoclassical
economics amounting (on paper at least) to an ethic of governance that sees individual freedom as best actualized under a regime
of limited state activity, favors private enterprise over public ownership, and is skeptical of state regulation.
But neoliberalism also variously describes: an existing set of interconnected economic and political institutions; a conscious
ideological offensive that transformed global politics in the 1980s and '90s and the frontiers of acceptable public policy since;
a range of principles that guide elected leaders of both the Right and the liberal center whether they are conscious adherents to
neoliberal philosophy or not; and the near-totalizing reality of life under the pressures and logics of late capitalism.
For some, this is reason enough to abandon, dismiss, or severely limit the application of the term -- in some cases to the point
that it ceases to be a recognized feature of contemporary life. If a set of political ideas can be applied too widely, so this thinking
runs, then continuing to identify or isolate them as a causal force becomes basically pointless. How, after all, can a label applicable
to politicians as distinct as Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama be of any real use?
But we might just as easily draw the opposite conclusion. The ubiquity of a particular phenomenon does not make discrete analysis
of it useless; if anything, such omnipresence makes identifying it a more urgent and critical task. A phenomenon so diffuse that
it seems manifest throughout politics, economics, and culture is hardly a chimera, and the apparent reticence of many commentators
to recognize or even acknowledge its valence as a term can only be viewed as a symptom of neoliberalism's continued stranglehold
on our political, cultural, and intellectual life.
The longer something is a part of your reality, the more it tends to fade from your field of focus. Put another way: the more
pervasive a particular object or phenomenon, the easier it can be to take its presence for granted. After its initially disruptive
incursion in the 1980s, neoliberalism fast became a feature of our collective existence, so indelible many now seem unable to recall
a time before it existed, let alone conceive a future that goes beyond it. An ideology secures hegemony at precisely the point it
ceases to be considered an ideology: its claims transform into axioms; its theories harden into dogma; its abstruse vernacular becomes
the lingua franca; its assumptions are subsumed under "common sense."
That neoliberalism remains so poorly understood in the very political mainstream whose frontiers it now circumscribes is a testament
to both the breathtaking scope of its counterrevolution, and the daunting task facing those of us who desire its overthrow. It is
everywhere and therefore nowhere: at once so diaphanous it seems invisible; so internalized it appears inescapable. Then again, there
may be something altogether more hopeful to be drawn from this strange and often narcotic diffusion. As the late Mark Fisher reminds
us:
The long, dark night of the end of history has to be grasped as an enormous opportunity. The very oppressive pervasiveness
of capitalist realism means that even glimmers of alternative political and economic possibilities can have a disproportionately
great effect. The tiniest event can tear a hole in the grey curtain of reaction which has marked the horizons of possibility under
capitalist realism. From a situation in which nothing can happen, suddenly anything is possible again.
"... At a first approximation, democracy is the alliance of the city dwellers for the power of the city, ignoring tribes and rural aristocrats, carefully contained so the landowners keep their land, and the slaves are kept under control. Or, to update it, the class collaboration of the wealthy (nowadays some sort of capitalist,) the middling strata and the common people for the power of the nation, carefully arranged so the people with great property make the decisions about the economy. ..."
"... As an example, it's only in the last few years I've wakened up to the extraordinary tendency to people to ignore either the progressive content of bourgeois revolutions, such as in pretending that destroying a national secular state in Iraq or Syria and replacing it with a cantonal confederation is a step backward. Or in surreptitiously pretending that democracy has nothing to do with the democratic state needing fighters against other states. Like most people on the internet, i do tend to get a little trendy, and repetitive. But apparently I'm too socially backward to get the memo on the correct trendy, and repetitive. ..."
"... The classic model of course was the Roman Republic. By coincidence I was reading Livy's first five books and the relationship between rights for the plebs and the need for them in war, stands out. Macchiavelli's Discourses on Livy makes this even plainer. In the US much of this was conveyed to the Americans via Algernon Sidney's Discourses on Government as refracted through Cato's Letters. (I hope to live long enough to read Discourses on Davila by John Adams, solely because of the title.) ..."
"... It would seem to me that the answer to the question "what is democracy" is best answered by another question: who gets (and doesn't get) the franchise? ..."
I went to see occasional Timberite Astra Taylor's remarkable film What is
Democracy? last night. It takes us from Siena, Italy to Florida to Athens and from Ancient
Athenian democracy through the renaissance and the beginning of capitalism to the Greek debt
crisis, occupy and the limbo life of people who have fled Syria and now find themselves stuck.
It combines the voices of Plato and Rousseau with those of ordinary voters from left and right,
Greek nationalists and cosmopolitans, ex-prisoners, with trauma surgeons in Miami, Guatemalan
migrants in the US, with lawmakers and academics, and with refugees from Syria and Afghanistan.
All the while it poses the questions of whether democracy is compatible with inequality and
global financial systems and the boundaries of inclusion.
steven t johnson 10.23.19 at 3:05 pm (no link)
At a first approximation, democracy is the alliance of the city dwellers for the power of the
city, ignoring tribes and rural aristocrats, carefully contained so the landowners keep their
land, and the slaves are kept under control. Or, to update it, the class collaboration of the
wealthy (nowadays some sort of capitalist,) the middling strata and the common people for the
power of the nation, carefully arranged so the people with great property make the decisions
about the economy.
It doesn't sound like this is very informative or useful, so I will wait until I have a
cheaper way to see it.
In my opinion, democracy as an actually existing property of a society is only imperfectly
described in terms of institutional arrangements, philosophical constructs, political system
or (as steven t johnson would have it) power relations between social groups. In addition to
all that, but probably prior to all that, democracy relies on principles which are
anthropological in nature, that pertains to the particular way human beings relate to
each other on a given territory.
This means that I absolutely believe in the necessity of a "we" to underlie democracy but
I doubt that this "we" needs to be (or indeed is ever) constitutive, it exists primarily if
not exclusively as a matter of human relations not as a constitutive abstraction. This also
means that I'm not surprised by the general absence of convergence in democratic forms around
the world (much to the bemusement of English-speaking political philosophers, or in the last
20 years, German and Flemish politicians) and that I believe that global citizenship is under
present circumstances a meaningless concept with respect to democracy. Some people understand
this to be arguing for a national, ethnic or cultural definition of democracy, in which only
people with a specific national identity, or a particular ethnicity, or specific cultural
practices or (in the contemporary American libertarian version) specific personality traits
may participate, as a matter of normative or positive judgment, depending on various
proponents of this theory. This seems to me to be a rather ironic analytical error: if indeed
a core property of democracy is rooted in the characteristic ways people relate to each
other, it is highly implausible that this could change under the influence of even a
substantial minority (in one direction or the other).
Incidentally, the idea that democracy is originally native to North-America is somewhat
classical (Voltaire championed it, but as usual with him, it is hard to vouch for his
seriousness). Since then it has resurfaced periodically for instance in William James Sidis
(disturbed) book The Tribes and the States or in the works of Bruce Johansen. Serious
discussions of this question lead, I believe, to the seemingly paradoxical observation that
English and Dutch settlers came to adopt the democratic principles of the Haudenosaunee
because they were themselves rather primitive (temporally speaking), and hence
democratic, in their anthropological values. Suc discussion would also lead to the far more
pessimistic conclusion that beyond their political models, native people in North-America
facilitated the establishment of a political democracy by providing a large neighboring group
to exclude out of humanity.
LFC@10 uses a reason for waiting as an excuse for a rhetorical question meant as a taunt. The
reason I might see it, if it's cheap enough, is because new facts and the (rare) new
perspective, if any, would seep into my thinking. The idea that my thinking doesn't change is
unfounded. It changes, it just doesn't change by conversion experience. The cogent arguments
of the wise on the internet are like Jesus on the road to Damascus, not quite able to be
described consistently, but still irrefutable.
But, try as I may, continual reworking of old ideas by new -- to me -- information
inevitably leads to the change. The process usually goes A Is that really true? B My old
ideas get a parenthesis added. C The parenthesis gets worked into the rest of the paragraph
so that I'm more consisten. D I've always believed that. The step where I abjectly plead for
forgiveness for being a moron is never there, any more than actually being consistent.
As an example, it's only in the last few years I've wakened up to the extraordinary
tendency to people to ignore either the progressive content of bourgeois revolutions, such as
in pretending that destroying a national secular state in Iraq or Syria and replacing it with
a cantonal confederation is a step backward. Or in surreptitiously pretending that democracy
has nothing to do with the democratic state needing fighters against other states. Like most
people on the internet, i do tend to get a little trendy, and repetitive. But apparently I'm
too socially backward to get the memo on the correct trendy, and repetitive.
For a less contentious example, as part of the process I've realized that ancient Sparta
was on the democratic spectrum, not least because of two kings which is definitely not twice
the monarchy. This may seem counter-intuitive, but it is still true, despite authority. But a
true expert who actually cared could revise the elementary insight into a much more
sophisticated, much superior way that might not even seem controversial. It might even seem
just like the answer to the questions: Why did Sparta ever ally with Athens in the first
place? Why did both Athens and Sparta ally (at different times) with Persia?
I will admit to a general prejudice against every historical discovery that a particular
place etc. was the birth of virtue.
steven t johnson 10.24.19 at 3:20 pm (no link)
Re the Haudenosaunee as exemplars of democracy, this is as I recall long known to be true of
Benjamin Franklin, one of the disreputable founders, nearly as disgraced as Tom Paine.
(Indeed, the notion that the revolutionaries weren't the founders, but Philadelphia lawyers'
convention was, is remarkable, though unremarked on.) But, what did Franklin admire about the
Iroquois League? I think it was the power through unity of different "tribes." The league
essentially genocided the Hurons to control the fur trade; launched long distance military
expeditions to drive away many other peoples from large areas in the Ohio valley to free up
hunting grounds; when it was convenient, they sold their rights, lands, there to the US. (The
treaty of Fort Stanwix) was later repudiated, verbally at least, by other.
The classic model of course was the Roman Republic. By coincidence I was reading Livy's
first five books and the relationship between rights for the plebs and the need for them in
war, stands out. Macchiavelli's Discourses on Livy makes this even plainer. In the US much of
this was conveyed to the Americans via Algernon Sidney's Discourses on Government as
refracted through Cato's Letters. (I hope to live long enough to read Discourses on Davila by
John Adams, solely because of the title.)
It would seem to me that the answer to the question "what is democracy" is best answered by
another question: who gets (and doesn't get) the franchise?
Elizabeth Warren Releases $20.5 Trillion Plan to Pay
for 'Medicare for All' https://nyti.ms/2N9lI4F
NYT - Thomas Kaplan, Abby Goodnough
and Margot Sanger-Katz - November 1
WASHINGTON -- Senator Elizabeth Warren on Friday proposed $20.5 trillion in new spending
through huge tax increases on businesses and wealthy Americans to pay for "Medicare for all,"
laying out details for a landmark government expansion that will pose political risks for her
presidential candidacy while also allowing her to say she is not raising taxes on the middle
class to pay for her health care plan.
Ms. Warren, who has risen steadily in the polls with strong support from liberals excited
about her ambitious policy plans, has been under pressure from top rivals like former Vice
President Joseph R. Biden Jr. to release details about paying for her biggest plan, "Medicare
for all." Her new proposal marks a turning point for her campaign, in which she will have to
sell voters on a tax-and-spending plan that rivals the ambitions of the New Deal and the
Great Society while also defending it against both Democratic and Republican criticism.
Under Ms. Warren's plan, employer-sponsored health insurance -- which more than half of
Americans now receive -- would be eliminated and replaced by free government health coverage
for all Americans, a fundamental shift from a market-driven system that has defined health
care in the United States for decades but produced vast inequities in quality, service and
cost.
Ms. Warren would use a mix of sources to pay for the $20.5 trillion in new spending over a
decade, including by requiring employers to pay trillions of dollars to the government,
replacing much of what they currently spend to provide health coverage to workers. She would
create a tax on financial transactions like stock trades, change how investment gains are
taxed for the top 1 percent of households and ramp up her signature wealth tax proposal to be
steeper on billionaires. She also wants to cut $800 billion in military spending.
Ms. Warren's estimate for the cost of Medicare for all relies on an aggressive set of
assumptions about how to lower national health care costs while providing comprehensive
coverage to all Americans. Like Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, she would essentially
eliminate medical costs for individuals, including premiums, deductibles and other
out-of-pocket expenses.
Critically, her new plan would not raise taxes on middle-class Americans, a question she
has been asked over and over but has not answered directly until now. When confronted on the
campaign trail and debate stage, she emphasized instead that her plan would result in higher
overall costs for wealthy people and big corporations but lower costs for middle-class
families. ...
"A key step in winning the public debate over Medicare for all will be explaining what
this plan costs -- and how to pay for it," Ms. Warren wrote in her plan. To do that, she
added, "We don't need to raise taxes on the middle class by one penny."
The issue of health care helped Democrats win control of the House in last year's midterm
elections, after unsuccessful attempts by President Trump and Republicans in Congress to
repeal the Affordable Care Act. It has been a central issue again this year as Ms. Warren and
other Democrats have competed for their party's presidential nomination, highlighting a
divide on policy between the party's moderates and its liberal wing that favors
transformative change. ...
Ms. Warren's proposal shows just how large a reorganization of spending Medicare for all
represents. By eliminating private health insurance and bringing every American into a
federal system, trillions of dollars of spending by households, employers and state
governments would be transferred into the federal budget over the course of a decade.
Her financing plan is based on cost estimates that are on the low side, relative to those
from other serious economists who have assessed the program. Her estimate of $20.5 trillion
over 10 years is based on a recent cost model by the Urban Institute, but with several
different assumptions that lower the cost from Urban's estimate of $34 trillion over the same
period.
Ms. Warren attempts to minimize fiscal disruption by asking the big payers in the current
system to keep paying for health care through new taxes. She would create a new "employer
Medicare contribution" that would effectively redirect what employers are already paying to
health insurers, totaling $8.8 trillion over a decade. Small businesses would be exempt if
they are not currently paying for their employees' health care.
Ms. Warren has also proposed that states pay the federal government much of what they
currently spend to cover state workers and low-income residents under the Medicaid
program.
But she also describes new revenue streams to replace the other big chunk of health
spending: the money spent by households on premiums, deductibles and direct payments for
services like dental care that are not always covered by insurance.
Ms. Warren would raise $3 trillion in total from two proposals to tax the richest
Americans. She has previously said that her wealth tax proposal, another signature of her
campaign, would impose a 3 percent annual tax on net worth over $1 billion; she would now
raise that to 6 percent. She would also change how investment gains are taxed for the top 1
percent of households.
In addition to imposing a tax on financial transactions, she would also make changes to
corporate taxation. She is counting on stronger tax enforcement to bring in $2.3 trillion in
taxes that would otherwise go uncollected. And she is banking on passing an overhaul of
immigration laws -- which itself would be a huge political feat -- and gaining revenue from
taxes paid by newly legal residents.
Ms. Warren's plan would put substantial downward pressure on payments to hospitals,
doctors and pharmaceutical companies. She expects that an aggressive negotiation system could
lower spending on generic medications by 30 percent compared with what Medicare pays now, for
example, and spending on prescription drugs could fall by 70 percent. Payments to hospitals
would be 10 percent higher on average than what Medicare pays now, a rate that would make
some hospitals whole but would lead to big reductions for others. She would reduce doctors'
pay to the prices Medicare pays now, with additional reductions for specialists, and small
increases to doctors who provide primary care. ...
This seems almost uniformly great. I only have two quibbles.
One is that a 6% wealth tax is actually too high, confiscatory even. The reason is that if
expected ROI is about 6%, the tax takes all the expected return. In perpetuity that is
equivalent to taking the entire net worth. Property tax is a pretty good guide here, 1-1.5%
works, perhaps a bit more.
Two is that the slant shows up immediately with this reporter. One example: "Ms. Warren
would use a mix of sources to pay for the $20.5 trillion in new spending over a decade..."
Note the use of "new spending". This may make sense if the subject is limited to government
spending, but we all know the game is to distract from the good lowered-aggregate spending
and emphasize the component spent by the evil government. We may see much more of this
misdirection including by primary opponents.
She is basically proposing to municipalize the entire payment flows for healthcare, much
as proposals now exist for California to municipalize PG&E, both excellent ideas.
Senator Elizabeth Warren on Friday released her proposal to pay for Medicare for All, a
plan to move every American to government-run health insurance that would reshape the US
health care system.
Warren's plan, outlined in a 9,275-word Medium post, included complex ideas for paying for
health care costs after private insurance is ended . It's a lot to digest, so here are five
takeaways.
Much of it is based on the Medicare for All Act
The plan released by Warren on Friday is primarily aimed at answering the question of how to
pay for single-payer health care. When it comes to the nuts and bolts of how her health care
plan would work, Warren points to the existing Medicare for All Act, that "damn bill" Senator
Bernie Sanders colorfully reminded debate viewers that he wrote.
Under the Medicare for All Act, introduced by Sanders in April and cosponsored by Warren,
all US residents would be automatically enrolled in a national health care plan administered
by the federal government. In addition to traditional medical coverage, the Medicare for All
Act includes vision and dental, plus long-term care services.
It relies on a lot of assumptions
At the outset, Warren acknowledges that it's difficult to predict what health care costs
will be in the future, and she notes that current projections about how much Medicare for All
would cost vary widely. Because the Medicare for All Act leaves open questions about how the
single-payer system would work, including major ones like the amount that health care
providers would be compensated, Warren fills in the gaps to arrive at a total cost estimate.
Outside analysts, including two local experts, cited by Warren estimate her plan would result
in overall US health care costs that are slightly lower than what the nation currently
spends.
Arriving at a specific cost allows Warren to figure out how she will pay for it, and there
are some assumptions here, too.
To fund the plan without increasing taxes on the middle class, Warren relies on enacting
seemingly unrelated legislation, including immigration reform. The pathway to citizenship for
millions of people in her immigration proposal would add to the tax base. Warren also wants
to cut defense spending.
There aren't new middle class taxes, but there are hikes for businesses and the
wealthy
Warren announced her Medicare for All plan with a major promise not to increase taxes on
the middle class, but that doesn't mean some taxes won't go up. After accounting for existing
federal spending and health care spending by employers that would be redirected to the
government, there's still a big hole. Warren fills it by levying new taxes and closing
loopholes in ways that target financial firms and large corporations. She also increases her
previously proposed wealth tax.
Some businesses would be hit harder than others. As Vox points out, if Warren asks
businesses to send their existing employee health insurance payments to the government,
businesses that currently provide inadequate insurance, or no insurance at all, fare much
better than those that provide good insurance coverage. That sets up a kind of penalty for
businesses that offer health coverage: They're helping pick up the tab for Medicare for All,
but they no longer have an advantage in attracting top talent with generous benefits.
Under Warren's plan, that situation is temporary as businesses would eventually pay into
the system at the same rate. And Warren says employers ultimately will be better off because
they won't get hit with unpredictable changes in health care costs.
It would be difficult to implement
Moving every single American to a new health care plan is a massive endeavor, so much so
that Warren says she'll release an entirely separate plan that deals with how to handle the
transition.
The transition has become a sticking point in the Democratic primary, with moderates like
former vice president Joe Biden using the lengthy time period (Sanders' plan says it would
take four years) as a reason to oppose it altogether.
And then there's the problem of passing such legislation: During the debate around the
Affordable Care Act in 2010, a proposed public option to allow people to buy into a
government-run health care plan nearly sunk the entire bill, and was stripped out of the
landmark legislation. The episode underscored the difficulty of implementing a government-run
health care program, even one popular with voters.
Warren has a plan for that, though. She wants to get rid of the filibuster, meaning the
Senate would need a simple majority to pass legislation, rather than the 60 votes currently
required to stop debate.
Warren has been reluctant to go on the offensive, but that may be changing
As she rose in the polls, Warren resisted leveling direct attacks against her primary
opponents. Warren's style has been to rail against the concept of big money fueling a
campaign, rather than directly criticizing individual candidates who have taken cash from
high-dollar fund-raisers.
But there are hints that this could be changing. Warren's lengthy Medicare for All plan
includes rebuttals to the criticism she's gotten from the moderate wing of the primary field,
calling on candidates who oppose her plan to explain how they would cover everyone.
"Make no mistake -- any candidate who opposes my long-term goal of Medicare for All and
refuses to answer these questions directly should concede that they have no real strategy for
helping the American people address the crushing costs of health care in this country. We
need plans, not slogans," she wrote.
The corporate health sub system
Intimately involves
the entire corporate system
We are on course toward
20 % of our economic output
Flowing thru our domestic
health services and products sectors
Where is the cost control mechanism
Simply in part
Progressively resourcing
And rechanneling the inflow of funds
Addresses a result not a cause
We have to address costs
We need a cap and trade market system
With a cap sector to GDP ratio that
Slowly squeezes down
the relative costs of the health sector
Public option is the transition
That empowers
people themselves
To spontaneous determine
the timing and pattern of
Their own transitioning
Anything else is political folly
Liz has set a bold end state vision
Bravely out laying where we must go eventually
And drawing in
the major shift in the share of
The total social cost burden
to the wealthy classes
But that's an end a destination
not a path
Urge choice not mandates
as the better path
The present corporate cost
burden share
is a mess
That should self dissolve over time
Now we need an optional public system
And
A means to capture the
Present corporate pay ins
Piecemeal over time as employees opt out of corporate plans into publicnplans one by one
Liz Warren would double her proposed billionaire
wealth tax to help fund 'Medicare for All' https://cnb.cx/332evbX
... Warren's wealth tax proposal would also impose a 2% tax on net worth between $50
million and $1 billion. She has previously said that it would be used to fund her ambitious
climate agenda, a slate of investments in child care and reductions in student loan debt.
But Warren is refusing to tax the middle class. She released an analysis produced by
several respected economists on Friday that suggests she will not have to.
Former IMF Chief Economist Simon Johnson, former Labor Department Chief Economist Betsey
Stevenson, and Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics, wrote that Warren could pay
for her program "without imposing any new taxes on middle-class families."
The economists cite a number of possible revenue and spending options that they found
could generate $20.5 trillion in additional funding. Much of that funding is expected to come
from reallocating employer spending on health care and taxing the increased take-home pay
that employees are expected to receive under her system.
But taxes on the wealthy form a substantial portion. Doubling the billionaire wealth tax
will raise $1 trillion over 10 years, the economists found. They note in their analysis that
the calculation assumes a 15% rate of tax avoidance. ...
The 'they are manipulating Trump' angle is valid I'm sure but it tends to diminish those
other aspects of Trump's 'intuition'. It is stated in the article though. Trump is antiwar in
the sense that he is against useless wars. Give him a clear goal and he doesn't mind war at
all. Looting and pillage is fine. Attacking defenseless enemies is fine. Convince him that
endless wars are actually good business and he'll support those as well. He doesn't require
manipulating for that. The antiwar elements in his thinking are easily used to paper over his
other characteristics as 'being manipulated'.
Another subject is that of Trump's dishonesty. In fact it is more about out of sync
dishonesty: 'normal people' (policy level) use shared schemas for when to lie and when not to
lie. Trump uses a different one. He will lie when others consider it a bad idea and will
speak the truth when others consider it a bad idea.
The Washington Post actually ran a very favorable article
on Gabbard's campaign in Iowa a couple of days ago. Most unusual for them. Only explanation I can
think of is that they realize she has a good chance of winning the Iowa caucuses and don't want
to be caught flatfooted by continuing their noncoverage of her campaign.
The explanation is more likely the opposite, I'm afraid. The Iowa caucuses are now close
enough, and Gabbard polling low enough, that the WashPost feel they can tidy up their record
by publishing something about her, even something favorable. If she were really threatening
the front-runners, minimal and/or hostile coverage would be de rigueur.
Thanks for your reply! IMO, Gabbard was correct to vote Yea for the inquiry as it doesn't
specify the crime(s). On her Twitter , Gabbard
called out Trump for his continuing criminal actions in Syria which constitute a High Crime
and impeachable offense. Furthermore, the orders given were all illegal orders as they're
against international and US Law and should've been refused by every soldier issued them as
it's their duty to do so . Unfortunately, Gabbard didn't make that very important
point.
The whole impeachment show the Democrats launched is a major political mistake.
Right on b, a MAJOR blunder. But they stampeded themselves into that blunder because of
their hysteria over Trump gunning for Biden and all the other carpetbaggers in Ukraine. This
Demoncrat gang of shysters have as much wisdom as a flat rock. They have now lost Biden, must
choose frootloop Warren as they can never have Sanders.
That looks a lot like keeping USA safe for Trump to me.
It is so pathetically obvious and these Demoncrats can't even assemble a package of
legislation with their majority to benefit USA citizens even one small bit. The Demoncrats
'leadership' are owned in their entirety by the oligarchs of MIC, big pharma and big
insurance. The Greens are incapable of breaking through their glass ceiling. What a total
shambles in just about every USA allied country.
I just posted poll results two days ago from New Hampshire showing Gabbard at 5% while
Harris had dropped to 3%. And given the size of the field, 5% is respectable and was clearly
a boost provided by Clinton's outburst. Gabbard was just given space for an op/ed in
The
Wall Street Journal which prompted the WaPost item. Can't read the WSJ item since
it's behind a paywall, but The Washington Times
ran its own piece about her op/ed that provides some insight as to its content, but that
site won't allow copy/paste so I can't provide MoA with the blurb it published.
Here's a WaPost item about Gabbard's Iowa campaign, which as I discovered when using
google is one of many by the WaPost. Despite all the ads, I liked it, but it won't get me to
subscribe.
Just got another fundraiser email from Tulsi's campaign. It ends with:
Tulsi is taking this fight directly to the people -- with a packed schedule of townhalls and
meet and greets, with big ad spends in the early states, with signs and boots on the ground.
The best thing you can do right now to help Tulsi rise above the smear campaigns is to help
her keep speaking truth to power. . . .
From what I read at ZeroHedge, it sounds like it will be "Make my day" time in the Senate,
with GOP senators able to subpoena anyone they want.
Yes, but if the GOP senators stick with their usual grandstanding posing then they can
subpoena whoever they like and it'll be pointless. Actually, it'll be a complete and utter
waste of fucking time because GOP senators have little or no experience of forensic
cross-examination and will spend their time dicking around and asking stupid questions in a
vain vain attempt to look good.. If they really want to stick it to the Democrats they need a
Senate impeachment resolution that allows them to use really experienced outside criminal
lawyers to plan and carry out the questioning. Since most experienced U.S. criminal lawyers
are experts at making deals with prosecutors for their clients rather than going to trial, I
would suggest they should bring in a couple of top-flight British QCs (barristers)with their
teams of juniors.
With Russia and now Ukrainegate, I'm reminded on the Fed dropping interest rates every time
the market has a down week. Yet eventually this shot of adrenaline will not work and the
market falls through the floor.
So now that Ukrainegate has a huge hole in its chest, do the dems have a plan c, or is this
the Big One?
I make this point because there are very many never Trumpers out there, clinging to this
spiel, but eventually even they will wake up and where do they go? Do they finally accept the
whole system really is rigged?
Eventually the ground under the powers that be will turn to quicksand and this really is a
notable earthquake.
"Well, you know, thank God for the 'deep state'," McLaughlin responded, provoking
laughter and applause.
The former intelligence official was speaking at an event hosted by George Mason
University, joined by former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe and former CIA Director John
Brennan -- both of whom have been critical of the president.
"With all of the people who knew what was going on here, it took an intelligence officer
to step forward and say something about it, which was the trigger that then unleashed
everything else," McLaughlin said.
He went on to praise the intelligence community. "This is the institution within the
U.S. government -- that with all of its flaws, and it makes mistakes -- is institutionally
committed to objectivity and telling the truth," he said.
"It is one of the few institutions in Washington that is not in a chain of command that
makes or implements policy. Its whole job is to speak the truth -- it's engraved in marble
in the lobby."
As b stated in a previous post, it is
the Borg who should dictate US foreign policy. It certainly is not one of the three
branches of government (the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary) of the trias
politica model. The Intelligence Community if the Fourth Estate (Vierte Gewalt)
that rules supreme over the three other branches of government.
Since the UN Charter has the same legal status as Acts of Congress under U.S. law, the AUMF
can certainly violate the UN Charter, under U.S. law. The AUMF may violate international law,
but that is another matter.
A friend of mine attended a government meeting under President G.H.W. Bush. I believe the
subject was the kidnapping of General Noriega from Panama. In any case, I was told that at
the meeting William Barr said, "F!!! international law!" And it is well known that (according
to Richard Clark) George W. Bush said in the White House the evening of 9/11, "I don't care
what the international lawyers say, we're going to kick some ass!"
lysias 98 US when it comes to international law has been lawless since 1986.
"The Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America (1986) ICJ 1 is a public
international law case decided by the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The ICJ ruled in
favor of Nicaragua and against the United States and awarded reparations to Nicaragua. The
ICJ held that the U.S. had violated international law by supporting the Contras in their
rebellion against the Nicaraguan government and by mining Nicaragua's harbors. The United
States refused to participate in the proceedings after the Court rejected its argument that
the ICJ lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. The U.S. also blocked enforcement of the
judgment by the United Nations Security Council and thereby prevented Nicaragua from
obtaining any compensation.[2]"
In the last decades, US has used things like R2P and coalitions and so forth, but under
Trump, US is dropping most pretenses.
Pompeo at times is as honest as Trump when it comes to US and what it is.
I linked a video in an earlier comment to Pompeo, but then I realised there was a bit more to
"We lied, we cheated, we stole." The piece that was cut off in the earlier video I linked "
It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment"
The Bushes were a CIA family. William Barr's first jobs after college were with the CIA, and
his father was OSS. This has been the CIA's attitude towards law from the start. They've
largely been running the country since the JFK assassination, and now they're out in the open
trying to topple an elected president.
lysias , Nov 2 2019 2:31 utc |
104Peter AU1 , Nov 2 2019 2:33 utc |
105
The non Trump section of the swamp is not going down without a fight..
That effort was carried out at the request of at least one Ukrainian official, prosecutors
said. Trump ordered the ambassador, Marie Yovanovitch, removed in May."
b said;" The whole impeachment show the Democrats launched is a major political mistake."
Exactly b, and most Dems know it. That's the whole point, find a way to pretend they
want
DJT gone, when in reality, they love what this Admin. is doing. Devolving the Gov. so their
corporate masters can rake in more $ thru deregulation.
Big $ has finally achieved it's goal of of complete and total hegemony in the U$A.
Pelosi & Schumer are sycophants for the uber-wealthy, along with the majority of both
parties.
Known cost of Intel: $80 Billion for 17 Agencies.
Results? No known benefits.
Unknown cost: The damage they do.
Posted by: Don Bacon | Nov 2 2019 3:17 utc | 106
Since the activity is secret, so are the benefits! Actually, as a place for work,
"agencies" offer a number of benefits, especially post-employment opportunities.
On the topic of scholarship and the benefits of war, here's a reminder of what passes for
elite leadership. Tulsi Gabbard wants to end endless wars and the knives are now out for her.
Somebody takes Morris's thesis seriously. The world will be better off with the US the
permanent military leader of the world.
This is blowing up all over Twitter, with Gabbard slapping back, and the HRC loyalists
calling Gabbard an Assad apologist and worse.
According to HRC logic, American third party candidates are necessarily Russian stooges
placed to help the Kremlin's candidate win. The logic is "inescapable" according to HRC. BUT
OF COURSE!!!! Now it ALL MAKES SENSE! 1992 Perot-Clinton, 2000 Nader-Bush, 2016 Jill
Stein-Trump, and, 2020 Gabbard-Trump!!!!
It's all so clear now! The KGB wanted to keep HW Bush out of office as the former Soviet
Union collapsed! That's how she and Bill entered the WH in 1992! Perot was a KGB stooge, and
Bill and Hillary have been lifelong assets of the KGB. Of course!!! That's why Hillary sold
all that uranium to the Russians! Lest, anyone believe the charge of dual-loyalty leveled
against Gabbard is a fiction, check for yourselves.
The above is an actual argument just made by the 2016 candidate for POTUS. Russia controls
US elections by promoting third-party candidates. The best part is that HRC, beneficiary of
"obvious" Russian interference may yet end up running in 2020. Something to look forward to!
Imagine if HRC had won in 2016. Conspiracy theories out the wazoo!
Kind of puts the Morris "scholarship" in perspective, doesn't it? my mother and sister
have. Dipper, probably not)
Hi John, do whatever you want with this interview with Tulsi. It looks like it's on –
big time. Clinton versus Gabbard for the nomination and the chance to run against orange man
bad. On the basis of what I've seen I'd say Tulsi is the only Dem with a message to take
Donald down, and she's not scared to reach out to everyone for support.
I wonder about the Morris book, really. Histories aimed at the popular market are rarely
written in a vacuum. As you know, post-9/11 we saw a bumper crop of mostly crap histories of
the class of civilizations variety. I won't be buying or reading Morris, simply because I
find wide, encompassing arguments generally useless and dull. Anyway, from the sounds of it,
I do think Morris has a constituency among the FP elites.
"... If American society ever radically alters to achieve some degree of sanity in the future it is most likely that Trump will be in the history books as a heroic figure bucking the tide of bat-shit crazy that gripped the nation as its empire died. ..."
That effort was carried out at the request of at least one Ukrainian official, prosecutors
said. Trump ordered the ambassador, Marie Yovanovitch, removed in May."
b said;" The whole impeachment show the Democrats launched is a major political mistake."
Exactly b, and most Dems know it. That's the whole point, find a way to pretend they
want
DJT gone, when in reality, they love what this Admin. is doing. Devolving the Gov. so their
corporate masters can rake in more $ thru deregulation.
Big $ has finally achieved it's goal of of complete and total hegemony in the U$A.
Pelosi & Schumer are sycophants for the uber-wealthy, along with the majority of both
parties.
Known cost of Intel: $80 Billion for 17 Agencies.
Results? No known benefits.
Unknown cost: The damage they do.
Posted by: Don Bacon | Nov 2 2019 3:17 utc | 106
Since the activity is secret, so are the benefits! Actually, as a place for work,
"agencies" offer a number of benefits, especially post-employment opportunities.
The Republicans will be OK with Mike Pence too. But I don't think they want to face the
wrath of Trump supporters at election time. It will be interesting to see what happens. And
if Pelosi's face further cracks. :) This is going to be a race to the finish for Trump &
Pelosi.
That Schiff, Pelosi and Ciaramella should be able to get away with such openly fraudulent and
treasonous conduct in a direct attempt to remove the elected President is incomprehensible.
Can't they be indicted for treason, fraud, perjury and contempt of Congress? (The contempt of
Congress at least would most likely entail a vote of Congress, unlikely to pass until after
the next election). Is there something equivalent to an independent "Inspector General"
responsible for dealing with misconduct of members of the House?
From the Federalist article:
ADAM SCHIFF: Director, do I have your assurance that once you work out the security
clearances for the whistleblower's counsel, that that whistleblower will be able to relate
the full facts within his knowledge that concern wrongdoing by the president or anyone else,
that he or she will not be inhibited in what they can tell our committee, that there will
not be some minder from the White House or elsewhere sitting next to them telling them what
they can answer or not answer?
Oh, erm, what was it I was reading the Republican committee members asked Ciaramella,
whereupon Schiff immediately ordered Ciaramella not to answer? [Oops! I think that was
probably Vindman, I can't see the reference for the moment.)
This man Schiff is a disgrace (always was, but now most obscenely so). He urgently
needs to be removed from his positions as he is bringing such contempt to the Congress. If
this man could be thoroughly and honestly investigated, and all his papers examined, there
would be such a stench of rotting worms the whole of Congress would need to be evacuated.
Trump can be beaten by good policies. Instead of offering any the Democrats try to defeat
him with theater. But Trump is a much better showman than Schiff or any other Democrat. It
nearly looks as if they want Trump to win.
It's not just that Trump is a good showman. It's that the American mass is enthralled with
the craven image of itself reflected back by Trump. He's the ugly American inside them that
they've been crying out to release. Trump is deliverering them from self-restraint, and
inhibition. He's telling them it's okay to embrace hypocrisy, greed, selfish global
domination, material infatuation, ignorance, deception and racist hubris.
Trump is a full-throttle Zionist that appeals to the rapture-longing Evangelicals and the
supremacy-covetous Zionist order and ironically many of you here.
The problem with Democrats is that in many ways they offer no different, especially in
regards to Zionism, and eat their own kind who rebel against Zionism and the neoliberalism
that protects it. They have all the same flaws as the Trump-enamoured mass except that they
cover themselves with a veneer of pseudo-intellectual elitism, political correctness and
hypocritical humanitarianism.
Authentic rebel liberals and libertarians don't stand a chance in Zionist America and
you're contributing to that reality by endorsing Trump while you waste your energy putting
down Democrats 100 different ways without lifting up the few that offer an authentic
difference. Blech. 🙁
What kind of theater is this? If only, perhaps, the theater of the absurd. But everything
that has been happening lately is more and more reminiscent of a circus, in the arena of
which clowns perform.
circe 119 "I've stated repeatedly that I'm for Sanders."
circe 122 "Oh, and one more thing to nitwits who think it's better Trump should go down at
the ballot box. Wrong! Wrong! And Wrong again. Americans are too stupid to vote this goon out
of office. They proved it when they voted for Bush AND Obama TWICE. He needs to go down ASAP.
If Trump's dirt is too well-concealed to take him down, INVENT IT. This is one time when I'd
forego ethics and side with the end justifies the MEANS."
That seems like a contradiction. The Democrats already would prefer to lose to Trump than
win with Sanders. And if somehow Trump were ousted in favor of Pence, that might encourage
the Democrats to think they could actually win with one of their straight-up corporate
candidates. That would further reduce the already negligible chances of Sanders getting the
nomination. Seems to me a Sanders partisan ought to prefer that Trump be running.
all that would happen if trump actually got impeached and booted out is pence would be
president.
oh and the intel community would have even more control. why this would be desirable to
somebody who wants to change the system is unclear.
our host is providing a critical service, so I would appreciate if you would stop coming
in and taking a crap on the rug. I take b at his word when he says he is opposed to many
things Trump is doing.
this portion of your comment is incredibly dangerous:
He needs to go down ASAP. If Trump's dirt is too well-concealed to take him down, INVENT
IT. This is one time when I'd forego ethics and side with the end justifies the MEANS."
your Trump Derangement Syndrome appears to metastasizing to your brain. Trump's dirt isn't
too well-concealed to take him down, nope, the real nasty stuff that could take him down
could delegitimize our entire political system. Think Epstein hanging out on his island while
ALL his accomplices walk free.
if you didn't suffer from TDS you would understand how dangerous this Ukrainegate farce
actually is. the ends DO NOT JUSTIFY THE MEANS.
the ONLY way Trump's removal doesn't end up in some new form of civil war is if Brennan,
Clapper, Comey and the Clintons are also hauled away to the clink.
I for one appreciate how the Trump phenomenon has unmasked the unelected permanent power
structure supposedly aligned against him. if I was forced to choose sides right now in an
impending civil war, it wouldn't be the treasonous DNC/intelligence nexus I would choose to
fight for.
why don't you take a break and go do something more productive, like read a book. if you
read something like John Potash's Drugs As Weapons Against Us you might actually learn
something about the side you are defending in this charade. I for one would certainly
appreciate less hyperventilating from TDS victim. thanks.
If American society ever radically alters to achieve some degree of sanity in the
future it is most likely that Trump will be in the history books as a heroic figure bucking
the tide of bat-shit crazy that gripped the nation as its empire died.
james @113: Thanks for the smoothie, that's good stuff.
If you think that a person who does such research as this "Structural ambiguity in the
Georgian verbal noun" is a serious analyst, I have a bridge to sell. Knowing language is
just a first step in knowing cultures and nations. The idea that some barely 30 years old
kid can have a profound understanding of factors forming geopolitical balance by merely
studying language or working in the Wold Bank is preposterous. It is not even the issue of
IQ-driven so called intelligence metric. I met many people with IQ through the roof and
some of them were one of the most impressive dumbfvcks I ever encountered in my life. The
issue here is deeper--you literally have brainwashed political operatives, most of them not
even book-smart, who are excreted every year from the American "humanities" programs who
have "credentials" but have zero actual serious skills which are imperative for a serious
statesmanship. They simply do not teach this in the US, nor can it be changed because the
whole machine of the US "humanities" education pulsates between two extremes: one is of a
complete deconstruction of the American history and culture into one non-stop genocide by
whites of everyone else or, on the other extreme, utterly delusional exceptionalist shining
city on the hill narrative with latter being as false as the former one. Few common sense
and objective views which exist in between are pure coincidence which are there despite a
totally corrupt educational system in the US when dealing with humanities. If you think
that a person who does such research as this "Structural ambiguity in the Georgian verbal
noun" is a serious analyst, I have a bridge to sell. Knowing language is just a first step
in knowing cultures and nations. The idea that some barely 30 years old kid can have a
profound understanding of factors forming geopolitical balance by merely studying language
or working in the Wold Bank is preposterous. It is not even the issue of IQ-driven so
called intelligence metric. I met many people with IQ through the roof and some of them
were one of the most impressive dumbfvcks I ever encountered in my life. The issue here is
deeper--you literally have brainwashed political operatives, most of them not even
book-smart, who are excreted every year from the American "humanities" programs who have
"credentials" but have zero actual serious skills which are imperative for a serious
statesmanship. They simply do not teach this in the US, nor can it be changed because the
whole machine of the US "humanities" education pulsates between two extremes: one is of a
complete deconstruction of the American history and culture into one non-stop genocide by
whites of everyone else or, on the other extreme, utterly delusional exceptionalist shining
city on the hill narrative with latter being as false as the former one. Few common sense
and objective views which exist in between are pure coincidence which are there despite a
totally corrupt educational system in the US when dealing with humanities.
Impeachment is not a "major mistake" by the Democrats. If we assume that Trump is 4real then
it is the only thing they can do, otherwise the Biden/Ukrainegate thing ( IF it is
really pursued) will see the whole upper tier (and more) of the Democratic and Republican
political bandits in prison (because they have all been carpetbagging in Ukraine). For the
same reason (if this is 4real) then, after the Democratic Congress have impeached Trump, the
Republican Senate will follow suit.
Chomsky's often stated opinion that the Republican Party is "utterly craven" is utterly
meaningless and a point of no meaningful distinction with the Democratic Party.
At this moment in time the US/Western financial system is at it's weakest since the 2008
crash and is far weaker than the circumstances than the period and circumstances that led up
to that crash. If the crash happens during the forthcoming period of the
impeachment/Biden/Ukrainegate interregnum (which it is highly likely to do) then everything
and everyone will forget immediately about impeachment/Biden/Ukrainegate and will be much
more concerned about what happened to their job, pensions, money, etc. while everything they
own becomes worthless and everything they need becomes unaffordable. Americans will need to
be more together then they have ever been; instead they are divided and at eachother's
throats
The US political system is fiddling while it's financial system and institutions are
preparing to collapse.
if the cia were running the country since jfk assassination, there wouldn't have been a
church committee, and they wouldn't have needed an October surprise to take down carter. they
wouldn't need a wurlitzer campaign to take down trump, and they would have whacked george
bush jr when he took down one of their agents. they are trying to run the country, but they
don't yet. the fact is most presidents are on board with their bullshit, and it doesn't take
a threatened assassination to make that happen.
Once a Deep State 'Spook' who has been vetted/trained/conditioned/approved by those
'powers that be' = always a Spook. Unless, he has shown some type of leveling and
de-programming that by some miracle has occurred.
You're parroting the Trump party-line and I cannot respect your views any longer, b. You have
forfeit your claim to objectivity in the face of Trump's blatant authoritarian and
unconstitutional behavior. You cannot invoke the doddering old gatekeeper Chomsky to signal
your leftiness. Ciao.
No, he's not? This blog doesn't have to conform to some pathetic right vs. left Sunday
morning political show contrasted as an American football game, it's a lot more sophisticated
than that with many layers of players, ideologies, whacky faction religions and the yes the
Borg -- LOL. Trump is just the showman.
This man Schiff is a disgrace (always was, but now most obscenely so).
Too true.
He urgently needs to be removed from his positions ..
Nah, he should be left in place to fuck up the impeachment and bring disgrace and contempt on
the Democratic Party. That might be the only way to bring about real change in the Democratic
Party.
.. he is bringing such contempt to the Congress.
Nah, Congress already deserves a shitload of contempt.
From smoothie as quoted by Bemildred @129 and linked by james @113: "...US "humanities"
education pulsates between two extremes: one is of a complete deconstruction of the American
history and culture into one non-stop genocide by whites of everyone else or, on the other
extreme, utterly delusional exceptionalist shining city on the hill narrative..."
It is important to realize that these two extremes run in parallel in the fragmented minds
of the supposedly "educated" in America. Is it any wonder then that such
"educated" layers of the society believe reality to be sufficiently malleable that
fantasy identities can be made real through sufficient wishing and active suppression of
disbelief? "If Trump hasn't done the evil that we want to believe he has done, then it is
OK to just make it up!" is seen as perfectly reasonable to these people with permanent
fugues in their heads.
And those are humanities grads! We are not even talking here about business majors whose
training (like a circus animal) is to be able to generate reams of grammatically
comprehensible yet semantically empty text. This last portion of what passes for America's
intelligentsia don't even have fugues in their heads, only fragments of previous chunks of TV
media they've consumed running in loops.
Now take these properly trained "professionals" out of storage from their cubicles
in Langley and away from their cookie-cutter McMansions in suburban northern Virginia and
drop them in "enemy territory" in the CIA's fortress-like embassy in Havana. Away from
the artificial worlds of manicured lawns and fake-smile neighbors with the insecticide trucks
puffing down the street every week, for the first time in their lives they hear a real
cicada, or the squeaky belt drive of an old fashioned air conditioner. Combine this with the
additional dislocation of regular old culture shock and is it any wonder they they become
convinced that their already atomized minds are under attack by secret Soviet brain rays?
Given that Americans, both faux-left and fake-right, sneer at rigorous hard sciences,
these are what passes for America's "best and brightest" these days. And so American
diplomats are clueless of the cultures they are trying to subvert for their empire, American
"journalists" believe the false narratives that they themselves spun just the day
before, and America's airliners designed to requirements mandated by America's top business
leaders fly themselves into the ground.
This is how empire dies: in delusion and denial of reality.
I completely agree with your assessment. I don't see a viable solution for the very
reasons you state. The problem isn't Trump, it is the true mentality and morals of the
American culture.
Y'allz discussion of legality of orders minded me that officers and enlisted take different
oaths, if memory serves. Look them up and read them...then read the USC and the UN Charter et
al... and a reading of the corpus of the UCMJ will fill in the rest.
And about responsibilities...see "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder".
There Mr B makes specific arguments in Law, which generally apply down the chain of
command right now.
Every killing in this foreign adventure is a consequence of a felony, eg felony murder at
a minimum...and how many? Millions and working toward more.
In my own ROTC days (a very long time ago) my CO and I privately discussed the M16 rounds
then being developed...and that WW2 (and Korea) wounded vet (twice wounded in combat) said
that the .223 round was illegal under the laws of war. That's true...every wound from M16 is
a crime in and of itself.
Seems to me that the US said that the wooden bullets sometimes used by Japan were
criminal...back in th' day...
Karlof1,petri, lysias and others,(@40s) thank you for your details and focus on the U.S.
government's crimes and actions in Ukraine, especially pointing to Obama. His name is left
out of most blogs and discussions and I think is key to a critical need for us to redirect
our future conversations and actions: we need to identify the neoliberal/neocon trojan horses
early and often. I voted for Obama in 08 and was shocked as he immediately began filling his
cabinet with neoliberal/neocons-- Geitner, Hillary, Gates, Summers, etc.
Obama's life and actions are a texbook explanation of how humans develop on the sociopathic
spectrum. Not all sociopaths are evil-looking monsters. Obama, Biden, Buttigieg, Kamala, W...
but their actions always expose them. We, as fellow humans and sentient beings, must develop
filters that trigger deeper probes into their actions over time and their sociopathic-- even
psychopatic actions will emerge.
The US stock market reaches yet new highs as investors hope for a trade deal between China
and the US and the Federal Reserve Bank cuts interest rates again. But US corporate profits
are falling significantly.
Patrick Hill, Editor of The Progressive Ensign, explains this contradiction from data on
corporate profits, rising corporate debt, increased share buybacks and dividends, and
falling international sales.
Cash is the lifeblood of a company, but a company can't borrow money forever without
being a viable profitable entity able to pay back debt.
"Non-financial corporations have taken on record debt at 47% to GDP. The last time
corporations approached this level of debt was during the Great Recession."
"The profit margin squeeze has been happening over the past 4 ½ years, well
before the trade war started. Profits were flat for the past nine years, supported by a
huge corporate tax cut from the Tax Cut Bill of 2018. The contraction in profit margins has
been the longest one on record since WWII. Note how recessions usually follow steep
declines in profit margins at 1 to 4 years."
"profit margins are declining due to declining international sales. It is difficult to
maintain healthy margins when sales are falling due to base spending for sales, support,
and transportation to reach a certain sales threshold of profitability. Major corporations
face increasing trade headwinds."
"The SPX soaring to new heights tells us that stock market complacency is at record
levels in appraising stock valuations versus actual corporate profits. The chart below
shows how wide the gap has become which is about twice the gap size just before the Dotcom
decline into 2002 from a peak in 2000."
The problem is not only that the Dems elite cannot give a viable alternative, but that the
Trumpist elite's strategy is also not working.
Honestly, I can't see a solution for the structural crisis the USA is going through now
except a revolution. But the American people has clearly signalled to the rest of the world
they won't do a revolution. We must prepare for WWIII.
Everywhere you look in the US/West financial system there is unmanageable and increasing
debt and insurmountable, unsolvable and increasing problems; the forthcoming collapse will be
horrendous (worst than 1929; with no resources or strategies of mitigation except war).
"Trump can be beaten by good policies. " - well, that's the problem in a nutshell. The DNC
absolutely refuses to consider "good policies" as an election strategy - preferring continued
neoliberal Wall Street loyal war-mongering mayhem.
Well, some may see this as a bit odd, but... see "They Live, We Sleep: Beware the Growing
Evil in Our Midst" in whatever...an essay by J W Whitehead. I am fairly confidant it's right
on topic...and with Crosstalk's bit with brother Ray (up now) as a buttress...
"For the final hammer of fascism to fall, it will require the most crucial ingredient: the
majority of the people will have to agree that it's not only expedient but necessary."
Huummmdair... It's sorts film review, and about theater itself.
The essay's on several sites, but the informationclearinghouse site has brother Lenard's
"Everybody Knows as a lagniappe fe y'allz' enjoyment (it's fairgud)
Human consciousness is of great interest to the 'powers that be', therefore it doesn't
take a flying leap to say they would like control over that said consciousness programming.
In fact, they've always been interested e.g. Edward Bernays, and our State controlled Media -
having its 'purge' at the moment -- so our brains don't have to think so hard.
I believe it goes beyond the obvious that we should take note of those 'heavily' promoted
and marketed in the Coach/Spiritual Guru field (and "the where the hell do they get their $$$
to promote this kinda stuff?"), Through personal experience I have found that those in the
Shift/Waking Consciousness movement should be viewed just as much with a discerning 'eye' --
as those who are our politicians.
We came out of the "Industrial Age!" decades ago. Plus, with the "mechanisms of truth?",
we should look more closely at what those current 'mechanisms' are in play that are
apparently making the transition/mutation "less traumatic" for us. Any coach, or spiritual
guru that doesn't provide an honest depiction of what the 'digital age' is capable of in the
forms of AI and 'especially' Google's AI consciousness agenda (aligned with the 'powers that
be') that can twist said human consciousness should be taken with a massive bag of salt.
'Impeachment theatre' is an excellent way to describe it! In a system where all parties are
bought and paid for by the oligarchs, there are no true policy differences between them so
the only way to 'campaign' for elections is to make up nonsense like the current impeachment
drama (or the 'the Russians did it' nonsense). The whole 'left'/'right' political divide is
now nonsense...the only divide now is 'us' versus 'them'...
Now take these properly trained "professionals" out of storage from their cubicles in
Langley and away from their cookie-cutter McMansions in suburban northern Virginia and drop
them in "enemy territory" in the CIA's fortress-like embassy in Havana. Away from the
artificial worlds of manicured lawns and fake-smile neighbors with the insecticide trucks
puffing down the street every week, for the first time in their lives they hear a real
cicada, or the squeaky belt drive of an old fashioned air conditioner. Combine this with
the additional dislocation of regular old culture shock and is it any wonder they they
become convinced that their already atomized minds are under attack by secret Soviet brain
rays?
To all those inconvenients in Havana, you must add the unsurmontable humid hot weather
which unables you to remain out in the streets for more than two hours under the sun without
needing to oo into some airconditioned environment/place and take some cold drink to recover
yourself a bit...and conspiracy theories about intents on finishing you is the least you will
start imagining while you, along your brain, well, directly melts...
Then, if US Embassy in Havana would be even a fortress...like El Morro , with its
beautiful views...but, is it more like an ugly iron building like a bunker, in the middle of
a part of long Malecón which does not impress by its urbanization precisely,
and which has in front an explanade now full of empty flag mats that look like spears....
called Tribuna Antiimperialista ...
Jayne @150: Well, you made me go read it more closely.
It's something I'm conscious of all the time, the "falling away of patterns", I think of
it as decadence most of the time, but one can theorize about spooks conditioning us too, and
I don't doubt some of them try with some sort of "success", but by the very fact that they
are trying to do that I think they are too dumb to carry it off very well. Of course
conspiracy theories run rampant in such decadent times too. Another falling away.
Trump is very emblematic of that, and he's an agent of change for sure. I get a little
uncomfortable with Ms Johnstone's theorizing about hidden forces, but I am well aware that
that talky part of my mind is not all that is going on, so what she says there agrees with my
own experience. And I give her a lot of credit for undertaking and writing about such
investigations. Brave stuff.
Lord knows we are surrounded with attempts to "condition" us these days, you just cannot
escape from the yapping when out in public for example, and everything is covered with ads. A
very un-natural environment, you have to admit.
The USA has always been the land of hucksters and grifters, modern media just hyped that
to the max. I quite agree if you want to be saved, you're better off to do it without paid
help.
As for the people who are working at this very moment to turn us all into obedient
suit-droids, it seems clear on the one hand they can do a lot of damage with their follies,
but on the other hand I think they are going to have much bigger problems before long. The
utopian technocratic future they dream of looks very infeasible to me.
The impeachment process may redound to Trump's favor, but only if the charges against him are
limited to Ukrainegate. The list of more serious impeachment-worthy offenses is a long one,
and the inquiry could be dragged out well into the election season. Under such a scenario,
Trump would come out badly damaged, even if he is not removed from office, which most
Americans would see as a politically partisan result. Of course, his hard-core base will
never desert him, but other Republicans and Independents will, and Democratic voters will
come out in force.
Are the Democrats and Adam Schiff up to the task of running a proper impeachment inquiry
and gaining as much political capital as they might? My hopes are not high. Nancy Pelosi does
not have her heart in it, and Schiff is a mad dog grandstander and never-say-die Russiagater.
I cannot trust their judgement on this or almost any other matter.
and it was going on under obama as well..article from 2010 America's Secret Afghan
Prisons .. so maybe trump isn't all that different in maintaining the murder rate of the
us military..
@129 bemildred... you're welcome! smoothie writes good articles generally.. i enjoy his
writing either way!
@130 adkc quote: "The US political system is fiddling while it's financial system and
institutions are preparing to collapse." it looks that way to me as well..
@138 william gruff quote:"This is how empire dies: in delusion and denial of reality." so
true...
ignore the broken records folks.. there are a few of them regularly appearing in the sound
booth!
@pretzelattack #131
Sadly, your knowledge of the Church committee is wrong.
Read the Angelo Codevilla interview on Tablet magazine. He specifically notes that the Church
committee was an internally sponsored affair - not an external one. In particular, that it
was convened to enable the FBI to stop getting sued for eavesdropping activities. And he
would know - he was working in Congress for the US Senator that chaired the Intelligence
committee at that time.
The whole impeachment show the Democrats launched is a major political mistake. ( .) The
process will create a lot of collateral damage. - b
Agree, and I can trust that the Dems. are monumentally stupid (having read the Podesta
e-mails.. a painful exercise to be recommended.) This reasoning is only relevant under the assumption that the Dems. want to win the Prez.
election and are doing 'anything' to boot Trump out of the arena, solidify their base, and
gather new adherents. Perhaps Dems are on the ropes, and know it, failing badly, and are appealing to or making
up any old rubbish to at least keep their base on board. Or the desperate accusations and mucking about are the outcome of the prediction of being
shown up, accused, indicted, pursued (see ADKC 130, yes.)
They might prefer to lose to Trump, or consider it inevitable, likely, whatever. If we see all this as a fight between factions that control the US (deep state,
corporations, heavy-hitting backers, lobbyists, MIC, etc.) which don't correspond to a Dem /
Rep divide (e.g. McCain and Killary were sorta bro-sis clones) or only partly so, the fight
is between Mafia-like, influential, groups, that use all kinds of moves behind the scenes --
what the public sees, and is sollicited to participate in, is Theatre, see b's title.
One might also argue, on a loftier level, that these are the death throes of a political
system (Federation with 'representative' 'democracy', successfully managed by powerful
low-vis groups) that is edging towards implosion.
While all this certainly has the ability to turn into one big distractive sh*t show, it is
possible that it flushes the toilet. I know that some don't believe/trust Gabbard, but her
vote for impeachment was most likely based in forcing the Clinton (via Biden) wing into a
trap (of their own setting), forcing them to call their own bluff.
We'll see what kind of
counter info (info forcing Biden's activities) gets into the open via the House process. IF
it moves to the Senate THEN it'll be open season, and I'll be rooting for Trump and the GOP
to outing Biden et al. Why? Because THEN we'll start the process of purging corruption. First
it'll be the Dems: Pelosi, Schiff, Biden and the folks behind the curtain (Clintons and their
big dollar supporters). Figure this to play out like HRC's stupid attack on Gabbard: TOTAL
backfire! News flash: don't mess with Gabbard. One would hope that the process will show that
the GOP best cleanse itself lest it get run through the same.
I have little doubt that these are thrashings of the neoliberal Dem party going down. I
see Buttigeig as the last great hope for the Corporate/Clinton Dems. The more exposure people
have to him the less they'll be impressed (he's a 100% white Obama): little different than
Harris, though with less of a condescending smug smirk (and with a milder chuckle). Biden
will continue to drop.
Not sure if the Corporate/Clinton Dems are willing to risk a
head-to-head between Warren and Sanders. Sanders' insurance policy is Gabbard. Her mission
has been to ensure that the Corporate/Clinton Dems don't get the nomination. She's been
picking off such candidates one by one and now she is set to pick off the ones in the "top
tier" (after having proven capable by picking off the self-described "top tier" candidate
Kamala Harris). People need to help get her into the next debates. Buttigeig will be her
target. Biden can be left hanging in the wind as he'll eventually dry up (shoot himself out
of the race).
What Trump mouthed when he ran will be EXECUTED by Sanders/Gabbard. The difference is that
there is an actual movement behind Sanders, policies and a plan. Trump's support was never
capable of driving the bus: there was never a plan on how to get "there" (in which case the
usual beneficiaries were able to control things).
nope c1ue. the church committee hampered the cia, but they started working to rectify that
immediately, and by the time they helped install Reagan their comeback was complete.
re: Church Committee 165
I'm afraid that as soon as the Trump era ends, with its severing of military alliances and
lack of war, however it ends, this bull in the China shop (pun intended), including
unfavorable visibility on spook behavior, we will see a comeback to the old ways.
you advocate for inventing dirt if it means getting rid of Trump and I think that is
bonkers. the volume of your comments is tedious and obnoxious. MoA is one of the few places
left that hasn't collectively succumbed to TDS, so when you talk shit on the host of this
space for being some mindless Trump supporter it pisses me off. I've followed b's analysis
for over a decade and I have much more respect for his perspective than yours.
I'm not looking for some long back and forth, so consider this my last comment to you.
adios.
Remember people, there is great russophobia sweeping the nation still. Most of potus' actions as well as Gabbard's vote to impeach has to walk the tight rope
between seeming and being. If the impeachment matters not, as it surely won't, except to
torpedo retard dems, then what is the harm for Gabbard to vote yes?
The angle is is that she distances herself from the charge that she is a russian agent by
looking tough on potus. People, it ain't that complicated.
And re: jackrabbit's insinuation that appointing Mueller helped the deep state
narrative...it is the same logic...POTUS needs to look tough and so why not throw in a
beauracrat that makes them look bad. Larry Johnson at SST has traced Mueller back to his
associations with Trump campaign plants looking for dirt.
Trump knows they got nothing. But the Russophobia was and is strong in this country and
that was their dumb angle. POTUS gives enough rope to hang themselves and meanwhile the
downright nasty Russian-agent angle doesn't pack the punch because it looks like he is not
adverse to allowing the investigation.
Trump is playing 3d chess. It appears Gabbard is too. Which leads to my thesis that without Trump there would be no Gabbard and so another thank
you to the Don.
A commentator up thread asked "what kind of theatre," which I thought an interesting
question. My initial thought was something along the lines of Cabaret , with some
Chicago , Twilight Zone , and Night Gallery added for additional spices
and seasoning. Also popping into my mind was the destruction of a broken William Jennings
Bryan by Clarence Darrow in what's known as the Scopes Monkey Trial in 1925--popular
superstition made road kill by facts. An epilog to it all occurs in 2009 when Obama stabbed
millions of homeowners in the back, refused to do his job as Chief Magistrate, committed
treason by perverting the law and gave the guilty bankers and Wall Street speculators
billions instead of prosecuting them, and yet he was reelected in 2012. When it comes to
treasonous presidents, IMO Obama tops the list; Trump pales in comparison. Gee, does that
qualify as a self-righteous rant?
1 "Remember people, there is great russophobia sweeping the nation still..."
NemesisCalling@170
Is there, though? It seems to me that this is a disease to which only members of the
liberal intelligentsia are generally prone. Most Americans, in my limited experience of them,
are pre-occupied by more practical matters. As to the narrative that Russia was responsible
for Hillary's defeat it is one likely to diminish suspicion of Russia, among ordinary voters
and, the more numerous, nonvoters.
2/"does that qualify as a self-righteous rant?" karlof1@171
Don't trouble yourself: your posts, right or wrong, are of a consistently high quality, which
is remarkable, given that they are so frequent.
jam the political space, distract the society so to keep the curious citizenry from digging
what the Judeo-Zionist crowd, aka.; the Collective Entity is performing since the hit of
9/11.
It seems to me that even the charge against Trump is lacking in merit for impeachment - like
impeaching him for Jay-walking. Biden exposed himself to such consideration. I am relieved to
learn that Trump is asking such questions. I hope he will continue. It is somewhat
entertaining to watch the reactions. The cast of witnesses are being exposed as shady and
corrupt themselves - the agenda of the permanent government is being revealed.
Re. Ms Gabbards vote in support of investigation: I can see why it would be necessary to
support investigation politically, why not. So far it has proven Trump to be nearly a
saint.
Well I thank the dems. I know which way I will vote if Gabbard does not win the
nomination.
The talking point that Trump has not started any wars is bullshit
.
Trump is essentially at war with:
Venezuela
USA and its allies have stolen billions of dollars in Venezuelan State assets and backed a
coup.
Syria
USA has been occupying parts of Syria long past what is reasonable under UN Resolution
2257. And now USA has seized the oil fields.
Yemen
AFAIK USA provides or provided battlefield "targeting" and is Saudi Arabia's chief source
of military supplies.
Iran
How is sanctions against third-parties that trade with Iran not an illegal embargo? And
let's not forget US support for MEK and the US-Israeli Stuxnet virus.
Trump supporters should explain why these simmering conflicts and others will not turn
into shooting wars after Trump gets a second term.
Thanks for your reply! I like that combo, but Sweeny Todd the opera or movie?
Other, literary, works also came to mind, like the theatre dream scene from Hesse's
Steppenwolf and the craziness of Kafka's The Trial . But overall it seems
proper for Rod Serling--in black and white--to preside over the entire affair and deliver the
moral of the story.
bevin @172--
Thanks for your observation. Also related to the theatre aspect are how these events
remind one of two different Star Trek episodes from the 1960s--the world run by
Mafia-like gangsters and the world run by Nazis, both created by violations of the Prime
Directive, IIRC.
I agree in being disappointed in what Trump has accomplished at this point; however, I
think the disruption he brings has revealed the extent and nature of the corruption in our
government - a great improvement over the "go along to get along" type that was Obama.
Also I think that even in his somewhat random agenda it makes apparent the powerful forces
of entrenched, self serving, paid for influences that he (or any president) struggles to
overcome. His tweeting is ridiculous yet has a degree of frankness and honesting that is
never seen from the establishment.
He calls out the press as servants of corrupt and entrenched interests.
As I think Peter AU has pointed out, Trump has started 0 wars, which compares favorably
with his predessesors. He's more bark than bite. Even in some of the military actions he has
authorized I think he has pulled his punches.
There are many issues woefully unaddressed, but not every battle is owned by the president
- seems the US government is an AirMax on auto-pilot.
I don't like much of what he says. But he is speaking at the level of his audience.
I would choose Gabbard in a heartbeat, but would expect to be similarly disappointed in
the results.
Personally, I tend to believe that the only way out of this mess is through the bottom -
it will only get better once we fail utterly and completely. I would advise younger people to
consider other options - it does not feel good to be feeding the Borg that is enslaving and
bombing the world.
Yes Trump attempted "non-violent" over throw of Maduro but again I believe this was an
effort promoted by others that he accepted thinking maybe he would sneak in a quick, low cost
"win". He has not done what I am sure he was asked to do and now with Russia taking the oil
it seems possible there is a positive outcome. And things are looking up on many fronts in S
Amarica.
Trump did not start the wars in Iraq and Syria and seems fairly successful in winding them
down against tough odds.
Trump did not create the special relationship with SA. Is that all you've got, sir?
peak number of troops involved in ground combat under last three presidents
Bush-43 -- 130,000 (Iraq)
Obama -- 100,000 (Afghanistan)
Trump -- 0
So Trump is clearly the winner in that category, plus he has withdrawn most troops from
Afghanistan, and has regularly spoken against troops in combat overseas. Trump has not been
able to do all that he wants to do because the US president is fighting the establishment in
shutting down the people who love war -- there's so much money in it. Presidents are not
dictators able to do whatever they want. Some things, but not all things, so we have some
side-shows going on which get attention but aren't terribly fatal.
Plus Trump has significantly weakened US ties with NATO which is the alliance that has
proven to be so wasteful and dangerous (with a US general in charge).
The clearest sign that Trump's policies aggravate the establishment are that the Intel
establishment is against him, as well as the Dem warmonger neolibs. Trump has neutered the
neocons like Senator Graham, the McCain acolyte.
So plaudits to a president that has accomplished a lot despite his personal shortcomings.
The worst part of life on earth is war, which is unhealthy for men, women and children, and
there are no current wars of any magnitude. That's great.
The film centres on Sam Lowry, a man trying to find a woman who appears in his dreams while
he is working in a mind-numbing job and living in a small apartment, set in a dystopian
world in which there is an over-reliance on poorly maintained (and rather whimsical)
machines. Brazil's satire of bureaucratic, totalitarian government is reminiscent of George
Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four[11][12][13] and has been called Kafkaesque[14] and
absurdist.[13]
Sarah Street's British National Cinema (1997) describes the film as a "fantasy/satire on
bureaucratic society"; and John Scalzi's Rough Guide to Sci-Fi Movies (2005) describes it
as a "dystopian satire".
>I'll be rooting for Trump and the GOP to outing Biden et al.
> Why? Because THEN we'll start the process of purging corruption
> Posted by: Seer | Nov 2 2019 17:12 utc | 164
Politicians are regularly caught with their hands in the cookie jar and go to jail.
Trouble is, for every pol that falls there are ten more shoving and pushing to take their
place at the feeding trough. I don't see how an honest system of any design can be built in a
swamp, even if it's drained first. With so many people ready and willing to participate in
corrupt schemes, I think we're gonna need better people to build new institutions with
foundations of integrity and competence instead of greed and groupthink.
Are you really unaware that USA and it's puppet have essentially taken control of Citco,
plus seized Venezuelan gold and real estate? Why has your hero not reversed these actions if
he was misled? And why does he continue the sanctions against Venezuela?
The more realistic view is that Trump wasn't misled, he was fully on-board.
On Trump and interfering in a sovereign nation's legitimate activities which is a violation
of the peace, international law and the US Constitution. Every sanction levied is a
violation. The escalation of the illegal embargo aimed at Cuba is a violation. The massive
"invasion" into Venezuela's affairs is a major, ongoing crime. The continuance of the illegal
operations within Syria, aggressive missile attacks and illegal sanctions. The illegal
withdrawal from the JCPOA and imposition of illegal sanctions on Iran. Continuance of Death
Squad operations within Afghanistan and smuggling of opium and refined heroin. The personal
aggression waged against Julian Assange. The kidnapping in Canada of a Chinese national.
Falsified charges and imprisonment of Russian nationals. Illegal theft of Russian diplomatic
property. Supplying Daesh and al-Ciada terrorists with arms and munitions. And I'm sure I
could come up with more. Oh, forgot to mention sponsorship of Hong Kong terrorists. Then
there are numerous transgressions of US law, first and foremost being the continued
obstruction of justice related to the crimes committed by Obama, Hillary Clinton and the DNC,
along with a host of lesser fry.
As noted above and many places elsewhere, Obama was a treasonous president and prolific
lawbreaker. Being marginally better than Obama in no way makes Trump a good man or president;
rather, it makes him just a lesser criminal and certainly no patriot. Trump made his choices
and ought to live by their consequences. IMO, the overall failure lies in the refusal to
impeach and convict Bush/Cheney then Obama/Biden and a host of Congresscritters and Executive
staffers, thus meaning the wholesale illegitimacy of the entire federal government (since
when is another question). The government pretends to obey the fundamental law of the land
while constantly breaking it, thus rendering it illegitimate, an ongoing practice since
1945.
>there are no current wars of any magnitude. That's great.
> Posted by: Don Bacon | Nov 2 2019 22:16 utc | 18
If current global conditions can be described as "peace", I fear to think what "war" would
look like.
How many war refugees around the world are currently being herded like cattle and treated
like slaves? Millions? Most of them are a direct result of Uncle Sam's endless wars on
everyone who doesn't obey. Dropping napalm on people is not the only way to kill them.
Cutting off access to the necessities of life is just as effective. Madeleine Albright's
barbaric comments about killing Iraqi children come to mind:
On May 12, 1996, Albright defended UN sanctions against Iraq on a 60 Minutes segment in
which Lesley Stahl asked her, "We have heard that half a million children have died. I
mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?"
and Albright replied, "We think the price is worth it." (from Wikipedia)
Dead is dead whether Uncle Sam uses a bullet or blockades food and medicine.
When Uncle Sam starts shutting down the 600 overseas military bases and stops its
military, financial, political, and economic attacks on everyone who won't obey, then we can
say that things are improving. Until then, claims of "peace" are just ...
Trump is a radically different actor than what the duopoly produces. This is why I think your belief that the tyrannical duopoly is some kind of genius
mastermind steering us all down THEIR path is untrue and gives them waaaaaayyyyyy too much
credit. It all has to do with the teleological end of globalism and America's place in the world
as the vanguard international experiment par excellence.
Trump is a harbinger and the duopoly owned by the globalists is accelerating into
oblivion. See Don Bacon's post and read the tea leaves of the current geopolitical
chessboard.
What does the future hold?
Who knows...but DJT and Putin seemed to be leading us there.
...
On a side note: everyone should please check out Ann Coulter's recent interview on
Frontline PBS. It is 50 mins and Coulter's quirks are amplified but she is never one to not
speak her mind. There is a ton of insight and truth to it.
It leaves one with the impression that Trump was not a true believer wrt
anti-globalization but has forced himself into a role where his words have brought power and
confidence and is now guiding his mission. He said simple things but also intensely powerful
and hence brutally truthful or at least leading one to extrapolate his off the cuff stuff
towards a deep message on globalism and its ill effects in the U.S.
jared @191: Well I'm always up for some Vonnegut. I put him right up there with Orwell and
Huxley. He is one of the writers who first introduced me to the low class of our upper
classes here. That is an old theme in Vonnegut, "God Bless You Mr Rosewater" is a satire on a
similar theme. I think he picked up a bad attitude about the rich and powerful from his time
there in Dresden. He was more accurate than most, Gore Vidal and Lewis Lapham are two others,
both scions of the upper classes themselves, but they didn't give it quite the bite that
Vonnegut did.
The upshot seems to be as b initially stated impeaching Trump solves nothing -- corrupt is
replaced by corrupt at the head of a totally corrupt and rotten to the bone institution
unwilling to obey its own law. From a global vantage point, the disappearance of the Outlaw
US Empire would be a massive boon to the entire planet as the only reason for the building of
most weapon systems is to defend against that Empire's predations. Total focus could then go
to climate mitigation and resilient development as humanity is finally purged of the biggest
threat to its existence. Nice theatre, huh?
"... At a first approximation, democracy is the alliance of the city dwellers for the power of the city, ignoring tribes and rural aristocrats, carefully contained so the landowners keep their land, and the slaves are kept under control. Or, to update it, the class collaboration of the wealthy (nowadays some sort of capitalist,) the middling strata and the common people for the power of the nation, carefully arranged so the people with great property make the decisions about the economy. ..."
"... As an example, it's only in the last few years I've wakened up to the extraordinary tendency to people to ignore either the progressive content of bourgeois revolutions, such as in pretending that destroying a national secular state in Iraq or Syria and replacing it with a cantonal confederation is a step backward. Or in surreptitiously pretending that democracy has nothing to do with the democratic state needing fighters against other states. Like most people on the internet, i do tend to get a little trendy, and repetitive. But apparently I'm too socially backward to get the memo on the correct trendy, and repetitive. ..."
"... The classic model of course was the Roman Republic. By coincidence I was reading Livy's first five books and the relationship between rights for the plebs and the need for them in war, stands out. Macchiavelli's Discourses on Livy makes this even plainer. In the US much of this was conveyed to the Americans via Algernon Sidney's Discourses on Government as refracted through Cato's Letters. (I hope to live long enough to read Discourses on Davila by John Adams, solely because of the title.) ..."
"... It would seem to me that the answer to the question "what is democracy" is best answered by another question: who gets (and doesn't get) the franchise? ..."
I went to see occasional Timberite Astra Taylor's remarkable film What is
Democracy? last night. It takes us from Siena, Italy to Florida to Athens and from Ancient
Athenian democracy through the renaissance and the beginning of capitalism to the Greek debt
crisis, occupy and the limbo life of people who have fled Syria and now find themselves stuck.
It combines the voices of Plato and Rousseau with those of ordinary voters from left and right,
Greek nationalists and cosmopolitans, ex-prisoners, with trauma surgeons in Miami, Guatemalan
migrants in the US, with lawmakers and academics, and with refugees from Syria and Afghanistan.
All the while it poses the questions of whether democracy is compatible with inequality and
global financial systems and the boundaries of inclusion.
steven t johnson 10.23.19 at 3:05 pm (no link)
At a first approximation, democracy is the alliance of the city dwellers for the power of the
city, ignoring tribes and rural aristocrats, carefully contained so the landowners keep their
land, and the slaves are kept under control. Or, to update it, the class collaboration of the
wealthy (nowadays some sort of capitalist,) the middling strata and the common people for the
power of the nation, carefully arranged so the people with great property make the decisions
about the economy.
It doesn't sound like this is very informative or useful, so I will wait until I have a
cheaper way to see it.
In my opinion, democracy as an actually existing property of a society is only imperfectly
described in terms of institutional arrangements, philosophical constructs, political system
or (as steven t johnson would have it) power relations between social groups. In addition to
all that, but probably prior to all that, democracy relies on principles which are
anthropological in nature, that pertains to the particular way human beings relate to
each other on a given territory.
This means that I absolutely believe in the necessity of a "we" to underlie democracy but
I doubt that this "we" needs to be (or indeed is ever) constitutive, it exists primarily if
not exclusively as a matter of human relations not as a constitutive abstraction. This also
means that I'm not surprised by the general absence of convergence in democratic forms around
the world (much to the bemusement of English-speaking political philosophers, or in the last
20 years, German and Flemish politicians) and that I believe that global citizenship is under
present circumstances a meaningless concept with respect to democracy. Some people understand
this to be arguing for a national, ethnic or cultural definition of democracy, in which only
people with a specific national identity, or a particular ethnicity, or specific cultural
practices or (in the contemporary American libertarian version) specific personality traits
may participate, as a matter of normative or positive judgment, depending on various
proponents of this theory. This seems to me to be a rather ironic analytical error: if indeed
a core property of democracy is rooted in the characteristic ways people relate to each
other, it is highly implausible that this could change under the influence of even a
substantial minority (in one direction or the other).
Incidentally, the idea that democracy is originally native to North-America is somewhat
classical (Voltaire championed it, but as usual with him, it is hard to vouch for his
seriousness). Since then it has resurfaced periodically for instance in William James Sidis
(disturbed) book The Tribes and the States or in the works of Bruce Johansen. Serious
discussions of this question lead, I believe, to the seemingly paradoxical observation that
English and Dutch settlers came to adopt the democratic principles of the Haudenosaunee
because they were themselves rather primitive (temporally speaking), and hence
democratic, in their anthropological values. Suc discussion would also lead to the far more
pessimistic conclusion that beyond their political models, native people in North-America
facilitated the establishment of a political democracy by providing a large neighboring group
to exclude out of humanity.
LFC@10 uses a reason for waiting as an excuse for a rhetorical question meant as a taunt. The
reason I might see it, if it's cheap enough, is because new facts and the (rare) new
perspective, if any, would seep into my thinking. The idea that my thinking doesn't change is
unfounded. It changes, it just doesn't change by conversion experience. The cogent arguments
of the wise on the internet are like Jesus on the road to Damascus, not quite able to be
described consistently, but still irrefutable.
But, try as I may, continual reworking of old ideas by new -- to me -- information
inevitably leads to the change. The process usually goes A Is that really true? B My old
ideas get a parenthesis added. C The parenthesis gets worked into the rest of the paragraph
so that I'm more consisten. D I've always believed that. The step where I abjectly plead for
forgiveness for being a moron is never there, any more than actually being consistent.
As an example, it's only in the last few years I've wakened up to the extraordinary
tendency to people to ignore either the progressive content of bourgeois revolutions, such as
in pretending that destroying a national secular state in Iraq or Syria and replacing it with
a cantonal confederation is a step backward. Or in surreptitiously pretending that democracy
has nothing to do with the democratic state needing fighters against other states. Like most
people on the internet, i do tend to get a little trendy, and repetitive. But apparently I'm
too socially backward to get the memo on the correct trendy, and repetitive.
For a less contentious example, as part of the process I've realized that ancient Sparta
was on the democratic spectrum, not least because of two kings which is definitely not twice
the monarchy. This may seem counter-intuitive, but it is still true, despite authority. But a
true expert who actually cared could revise the elementary insight into a much more
sophisticated, much superior way that might not even seem controversial. It might even seem
just like the answer to the questions: Why did Sparta ever ally with Athens in the first
place? Why did both Athens and Sparta ally (at different times) with Persia?
I will admit to a general prejudice against every historical discovery that a particular
place etc. was the birth of virtue.
steven t johnson 10.24.19 at 3:20 pm (no link)
Re the Haudenosaunee as exemplars of democracy, this is as I recall long known to be true of
Benjamin Franklin, one of the disreputable founders, nearly as disgraced as Tom Paine.
(Indeed, the notion that the revolutionaries weren't the founders, but Philadelphia lawyers'
convention was, is remarkable, though unremarked on.) But, what did Franklin admire about the
Iroquois League? I think it was the power through unity of different "tribes." The league
essentially genocided the Hurons to control the fur trade; launched long distance military
expeditions to drive away many other peoples from large areas in the Ohio valley to free up
hunting grounds; when it was convenient, they sold their rights, lands, there to the US. (The
treaty of Fort Stanwix) was later repudiated, verbally at least, by other.
The classic model of course was the Roman Republic. By coincidence I was reading Livy's
first five books and the relationship between rights for the plebs and the need for them in
war, stands out. Macchiavelli's Discourses on Livy makes this even plainer. In the US much of
this was conveyed to the Americans via Algernon Sidney's Discourses on Government as
refracted through Cato's Letters. (I hope to live long enough to read Discourses on Davila by
John Adams, solely because of the title.)
It would seem to me that the answer to the question "what is democracy" is best answered by
another question: who gets (and doesn't get) the franchise?
Posted on
October 23, 2019 by Yves Smith Yves here. The commentariat
had a lively discussion of the first installment of this mini-history of the Roman Republic,
with Michael Hudson in particular taking issue with the framing. I hope this post leads to
further debate.
By Newdealdemocrat. Originally published at
Angry Bear
This is part 2 of my four part look at the Roman Republic and subsequent Empire. In part 1,
I described the structure of the Republic, and its several centuries of stability and success,
as well as the underlying causes of its ultimate downfall.
The hammer-blows that rained down on the Republic from the existential dispute between
Senatorial oligarchs on the one hand, and Roman plebeians and Italian allies on the other, came
in five episodes:
1. The Gracchus brothers – in the 130s and 120s
2. Saturninus – approximately 100 BC
3. Marius and the Italian civil wars 90 BC
4. Marius, Cinna, and Sulla 90-80 BC
5. Pompey the Great and Julius Caesar 50-40 BCIn this part I make a *brief* summary sketch of
the first four of the above five episodes. The fifth will be described in the next part.
As each of the above five episodes occurred, there were further and further deviations from
the "mas maiorem," or customs, that underlay the Republic, and increasing problems with legions
or private "brownshits" giving their allegiance to their military leader rather than to the
Republic itself.
1. The Gracchus Brothers Tiberius Gracchus was the more temperamental and passionate
of the two brothers. Following the passage of the secret ballot in 139 B.C. the Assembly
elected him a Tribune in 134. Violating custom, he did not consult with the Senate before
bringing an Italian land reform bill to redistribute vacant land (much of which was illegally
being farmed by oligarchs including those in the Senate), before the Assembly. A fellow
Tribune, who had been bought off by Senate oligarchs, vetoed the bill. Tiberius than vetoed all
other bills to try to force his fellow Tribune to relent. When that wasn't enough, he
introduced a bill to strip the obstructing Tribune from office – another violation of
norms. Both bills passed when Tiberius packed the Assembly with his supporters.
The Senate, with the power of the purse, voted not to fund the Commission necessary to carry
out Tiberius's land reform. Then, in a twist of fate, a king in Asia Minor passed away without
heir and willed his treasury to Rome. Tiberius proposed another bill that the Assembly could
disperse the moneys in the will, thus funding his Commission.
At this the lead Senator, the "Pontifex Maximus," Publius Nasica, led an armed mob of
Senators to the Assembly and murdered Tiberius and 300 of his supporters. The Senate followed
up by establishing a commission to put Tiberius's supporters to death, despite the fact that
only the Assembly was allowed to impose the death penalty for offenses.
Tiberius's younger brother, Gaius, was more cerebral, thoughtful, and strategic. He was
elected Tribune in 123 BC. He proposed an entire program of reforms, including offering Roman
citizenship to the Italian allies, forbidding the Senate from establishing tribunals unless
allowed by the Assembly, giving the land redistribution commission final say in boundary
disputes, proposing new Italian roads and colonies for settlement, ending the deductions for
expenses from soldiers' pay, a grain dole for Rome's urban plebeians, and replacing Senators
with Equines from the merchant class on juries.
Once again the oligarchs employed another Tribune, Optimus, to veto the entire program. when
Gaius ran for an unprecedented third term as Tribune – another violation of the mas
maiorem – he was deemed defeated. Unwilling to accept defeat, he organized a
demonstration by his followers to intimidate the Assembly. When a follower murdered a Senator's
servant, the Senate gave Optimus dictatorial power to crush the uprising, resulting in 250
killed including Gaius Gracchus.
Two things are important about Gaius Gracchus: (1) the Senate oligarchs refusal to
compromise with his program served to exacerbate the inequalities and radicalize future
reformers; and (2) gave those future reformers a blueprint for how to put together a coalition
of anti-oligarch "populares."
Interlude -- 1.5 Gaius Marius and His Armies
Gaius Marius was a pivotal figure in the demise of the Republic. He was a "novus homo," or
"new man," who came from the rural areas outside Rome, I.e., not a blueblood – think of
Bill Clinton as a modern analog. Despite this, he was a military genius, who won almost all his
battles, and defeated foreign enemies in Gaul and North Africa. In short, he was the kind of
leader the Republic would turn to in a military crisis. In the course of events described
below, he broke yet another tradition by becoming consul for five successive years in the
100s.
Most significantly, in 107 B.C., the Senate made a fateful mistake. As noted previously,
Roman legions typically were raised from farmers who had at least some property. The demise of
so many small farmers since the overseas Greek and Punic wars meant that this particular
resource was nearly exhausted.
There was a revolt in North Africa, the details of which are not important. What *is*
important is that the Senate gave Marius permission to raise an army on his own. He recruited
especially from the urban and rural poor and landless, who saw the chance to enrich themselves
with substantial plunder, and by allying themselves with Marius to have him reward them with
land after the war was over. In other words, this was basically a private army whose primary
allegiance was to their commander and not to the Republic.
And indeed, after Marius's successful North African campaigns, as we will see below, his
veterans formed a potent political bloc, the appeasement of whom could reap rewards for an able
politician.
2. Saturninus and Glaucia
The Roman Republic might well have recovered from the violence associated with the Gracchi
brothers. But the reign of terror by the demagogue Saturninus 20 years later started the true
downward spiral of violence.
Saturninus was similar to Tiberius Gracchus, in that he was a "populare" demagogue, but he
was much more prone to threatening and using physical violence, organizing mobs to intimidate
adversaries and advance his causes. As a Tribune in 103 BC, he arranged for criminal trials of
deposed "optimates," had the Assembly pass a law estalishing a permanent corruption and treason
court, and along with Glaucia, proposed land grants for thousands of successful legionnaires of
Gaius Marius (more on him later), organized a mob to prevent the election of an adversary as
consul.
His ally, Gaius Glaucia, a populare Senator, was elected a praetor in 100 BC. He tried to
revive the coalition of Gaius Gracchus by offering a similar program benefiting the urban
plebaiens, rural farmers and Equestrians, Italians, and legionnaire veterans. Unfortunately for
Saturninus and Glaucia, once Marius's soldiers got their land grants, neither they, nor more
importantly, Marius himself, had no further interest in helping with the rest of the populare
agenda.
Saturninus ultimately organized another mob to try to keep himself from being expelled from
the Senate. The Senate responded in 99 BC by appointing Gaius Marius dictator and authorized
him to restore order. Marius arrested Saturninus, who was ultimately beaten to death himself by
a mob. Glaucia was also dragged from atop his horse and murdered.
3. Marius and the Italian 'Social War'
In 91 BC, consul Marcus Livius Drusus, a Senator, again proposed reforms similar to those of
Gaius Gracchus. This appears to have been an honest attempt at compromise. Equestrians were
offered membership in the Senate if they gave up commerce. He also proposed a new grain dole
for the urban plebeians, and citizenship to the Italian allies. He was opposed by Lucius
Crassus, who had been consul in 95 BC. Although Drusus appeared to have majority support in the
Senate, he was murdered. Afterward Crassus had all of Drusus's proposals repealed. This sparked
a revolt by the Italian city-state allies, as their attempts to obtain citizenship were always
abrogated at the last minute by conservative "optimates" in the Senate, usually by expelling
them from Rome on the eve of elections by the Assembly. (In other words, preventing "illegal
aliens" from voting!).
Once again, the Senate turned to Gaius Marius, who was broadly a "populare," to put down the
rebellion. As noted above, he was called upon by the Senate to crush Saturninus and Graucia. In
98 BC he "retired," but could not restrain himself from continuing to seek the spotlight.
To cut to the chase, Marius (who supported Italian citizenship) came through again,
defeating the Italians in the Social War three years later, in 88 BC, but the Senate had been
sufficiently unnerved that the cost, to bring some of the Italian city-states back onside, was
granting the Italians their long-sought citizenship.
4. Cinna, Marius, and Sulla
The violent convulsions which started in about 100 BC reached a climax in the 80s.
Sulla was an "optimate," and another brilliant military commander who had learned at the
feet of Marius. He was consul in 88 BC and was selected to lead a military expedition to Asia
Minor. Once again, his troops counted on plunder and a post-war reward of land to follow him.
Instead Marius, who had just won the Social Wars, had the Senate strip him of his command. In
this Marius was aided by a wealthy politician named Sulpicius, who raised his own private army
of 3,000 and handed it over to Marius. Fatefully, when Sulla and his legions learned of this,
he called them together and asked them to declare their loyalty to his orders personally. Once
again, with visions of plunder and land distributions from a successful campaign as
inducements, they agreed. Sulla turned his army around, and for the first time in the
Republic's history, marched on Rome itself.
In response, Marius armed slaves to protect the city, and assassinated allies of Sulla.
Despite this, because Sulla had his legions behind him, and Marius had none nearby to command,
Sulla won. He declared 12 men to be "enemies of the State" to be executed on sight, including
Marius, who fled in true Huckleberry Finn style (too long to narrate), winding up in North
Africa. Sulla declared that he sought to restore the "constitution of the elders," including
that the Senate must approve of any bill passed by the Assembly, and voting rights only for
major landowners. To buy off the Equestrians, he added 300 of them to the Senate. Then,
surprisingly, he left Rome and returned to his eastern military expedition.
As soon as this happened, yet another demagogue, Lucius Cinna, was elected consul in 87 BC
and continued through 84 BC. By now, the tradition by which consuls only served for only one
year was shredded.
Sulla had the newly elected consuls, including Cinna, swear an oath not to disturb his
reforms. But as soon as Sulla left Italy, Cinna reneged. He organized his own partisan gangs,
indicted Sulla for the murder of Romans, and proposed a voting gerrymander in the Assemblies
that would give the new Italian citizens overwhelming power.
Needless to say, the urban plebeians who would suddenly find themselves outvoted reacted
with fury and revolted. Cinna was stripped of his consulship (another violation of old norms)
and fled the city. But he then raised his own legions of Italians and launched his own military
attack on Rome, aided by Marius, who had returned to Italy with 6,000 troops of his own. Cinna
was restored by the Senate as consul and had Sulla declared an enemy of the State. He also
proscribed at least 14 prominent Romans, including the murder of 6 former consuls in five
days.
Unfortunately for Cinna, the military genius Marius finally succumbed to age, and as he
prepared an attack on Sulla in the east, he was murdered by a centurion as a tyrant.
The enraged Sulla marched his personally loyal legions on Rome yet again as soon as he
finished his campaign in Asia. This time he proscribed hundreds of Romans, including a young
Julius Caesar, who escaped execution due to the intervention of family friends. Many of those
executed were simply large landowners whose assets were coveted by Sulla's military allies.
Sulla again "refounded" the Republic, most importantly stripping the Tribunes of virtually all
their power, and forbidding them from holding higher office. It seemed that the "optimates" had
finally triumphed. Sulla officially stepped down as consul in 79 BC, but continued to wield
power behind the scenes until he died the next year of natural causes.
By 78 BC the Republic was dead on its feet. Virtually all of its norms of
office-holding had been swept away. Political mobs using violence to get their way had become
chronic. Even worse from a long-term point of view, prominent politicians of wealth were
raising private armies that they themselves paid, and whose loyalty was to them rather than to
the Republic, culminating in 3 separate military marches on Rome in short-lived
dictatorships.
For the next 30 years, however, the Republic had a brief "Indian summer." Plebeian agitation
led to the reinstatement of most of the Tribunes' powers, the continuation of the bread dole,
and the integration of the new Italian citizens into public life. But the problem of
politicians having the ability to raise powerful private legions remained, and Rome remained
militarily defenseless against them, with no home guard with loyalty to the Republic
itself.
The Roman conquests of Carthage, Macedonia and Greece in the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC
altered what was once a luxury and privilege for the ruling elite into the predominant
factor driving both social and economic policies for the Republic as a whole.
The mass influx of slaves during this time period first was a sign of great wealth and
power, but later destabilized an already fragile Roman class system. Farms originally run
by small business families throughout Italy were soon gobbled up and replaced by enormous
slave run plantations owned by the aristocratic elite. Cheap slave labor replaced work for
the average citizen and the rolls of the unemployed masses grew to epidemic
proportions.
These issues had a great destabilizing effect on the social system which had a direct
role in the demise of the Republic. As the rift between Senatorial elite (optimates) and
social reformers (populares) grew, the use of the unemployed, landless, yet citizen mobs
were an overwhelming ploy grinding away at the ability of the Senate to govern.
Though there are many factors involved in the Fall of the Republic, slavery and its
effects rippled throughout every aspect of that turbulent time period.
Also, under what theory of money were they operating at the time? In an example cited, the
ability to go forward with a state funded reform requiring funding is made possible by a
royal gift to the treasury. It would appear that the state was revenue constrained. If
another limiting factor was the availability of certain metals, were mines state owned or the
dispersal of their product regulated to control the amount of money in the system?
The histories of famous names and their minions is all well and good but what's up down in
the dirt among the unwashed masses is also worth a mention.
The Roman establishment used slaves free work to ruin small Roman peasants, the very
hardcore of the army. Consequently, barbarian mercenaries had to be used to defend the empire
instead of the vanished Roman peasants (who by the way lost their plots of land to big
owners).
And guess what? The empire crumbled of its own weight, the establishment being unable to
understand why.
So much for the political acumen of the Roman establishment. Happy are we to have better
establishments!
One other corollary to your observation that the slaves started farming plantations: the
quality of Italian soil deteriorated. Previous Roman (small) farmers were of the permaculture
variety, but the deterioration of the slave-farmed soil meant the Italian peninsula could no
longer feed itself. They then had to rely on North African grown food. When the Visigoths
conquered the Iberian peninsula and North Africa, they cut off that food supply and that was
the end of Rome (See Peter Heather's The Fall of the Roman Empire for a summary of the
latest archaeology, and David R. Montgomery's Dirt: The Erosion of Civilizations )
One other historical observation: the American Civil War was largely fought over whether
the slave plantations could farm the newly opened Western U.S. Slaves are not known for
caring much about the soil they tend, so the pattern in the South was to farm until the soil
played out, then move west. The Civil War was a result of the South's need for new, fertile
land, just as Rome depended on North Africa.
As for the money I've read that Roman coins' value was more than the weight of silver. So
the "theory" of money was that its usefulness in paying taxes and fees was significant in
determining its value. Also: Coins from ancient Rome were discovered as far away as India.
The farther they were from the taxing authority, the more closely their value corresponded to
the weight of silver in the coin.
An excellent description this if sad reading. You read this and you think, gee – the
elites won. They stomped down heard on political change, murdered all their opponents and
enlarged their wealth. The Senatorial Order won the big game. Well, no. It did not work out
that way at all. In the following years there would be mass cullings of Senators through
proscription and new Senators would have to be recruited to take their place. You want to
know what it was like? It was like Game of Thrones where Cersei said "When you play the game
of thrones, you win or you die. There is no middle ground."
The Romans were great organizers but in reading this you can see them come unstuck where
player after player decides to play fast and loose with the rules and try to get away with
murder – literally. And the order of the Republic broke down as a result. I agree where
the author states that 'Roman legions typically were raised from farmers who had at least
some property' and it was quite the occasion when there was a muster held. But not all of
these farmer-soldiers were killed. Lots came back from the Punic wars to discover that their
farm had been incorporated into the elite's estates and that there was nothing that they
could do about it.
When Marius started to recruit these men for the new Legions it was a matter of necessity but
it broke the bond between Rome and her armies. When it became obvious that Senatorial Rome
did not care about these men and their families but that a General would, it did not take
long for the men to decide where their loyalty lay. Imagine an American Army in Afghanistan
loyal not to the Constitution but to a General like Petraeus. Yeah, it would be that bad. A
Roman Trump could recruit an Army and do all sorts of damage to the Republic.
I look forward to the third chapter of this series.
This is already happening. Billionaires have enough money to afford their own private
armies. We see the CEO of Blackwater/Xi/Academi/whatever being courted by various
politicians. Bloomberg thought it was neat that NYC's police force ranked among the world's
largest armies. It won't take long for billionaires to discover to the joy of conquest and
overturn whatever parliamentary decisions they don't like.
Cullen Murphy, in his book Are We Rome? , names privatization as a major factor in
Rome's eventual disintegration as a viable political entity.
One core similarity is almost always overlooked -- it has to do with "privatization,"
which sometimes means "corruption," though it's actually a far broader phenomenon. Rome had
trouble maintaining a distinction between public and private responsibilities -- and
between public and private resources. The line between these is never fixed, anywhere. But
when it becomes too hazy, or fades altogether, central government becomes impossible to
steer. It took a long time to happen, but the fraying connection between imperial will and
concrete action is a big part of What Went Wrong in ancient Rome. America has in recent
years embarked on a privatization binge like no other in its history, putting into private
hands all manner of activities that once were thought to be public tasks -- overseeing the
nation's highways, patrolling its neighborhoods, inspecting its food, protecting its
borders. This may make sense in the short term -- and sometimes, like Rome, we may have no
choice in the matter. But how will the consequences play out over decades, or centuries? In
all likelihood, very badly.
It won't take generals long to figure out MMT and turn on the billionaires.
After a couple wars, the mercenary armies of the Renaissance city states turned on their
Princes and made themselves the government.
The corporate elite and our oligarchs can't see that money derives it's value from
coordinated, collective action. Any good logistics officer would get it pretty quickly.
Thanks, Yves. Other than the then recent experience of the English Civil War I'm not
familiar with the sources Hobbes drew on to argue for absolute sovereignty, but this would
have served. In my reading about Rome it was painfully clear how weak the sources are, e.g.
gauging elite interest in developing agricultural tech hinges on the writings of this or that
patrician, standing in for a century or two. So it's hard to understand what made elites so
tight-fisted/avaricious about landholding. However, if land wealth converted to status and
patronage power which, I suppose it would be of essential importance if conflict was always
threatening to get bloody. But that gets self-reinforcing, fast.
I thought political science gives Hobbes much of the credit for his exposition on the
necessity of an absolute sovereign. Further it's interesting that his proposed relation or
contract between citizen/subject and sovereign provided the opening for Locke and others to
opine on the social contract in a more balanced and equal arrangement.
The foundational republic, with all its faults, was premised on citizen-farmer-soldiers,
capped by the Cincinnatus mythology and its element of truth; by the time that model was
replaced by professional soldiers, huge land holders and slave farmers the Republic's number
was up. Grain and the land to grow it on was always an issue and the cause or impetus of
early expansion but by the end of the republic traders and politicians were importing grain
from places like Sicily and as noted, using it as a patronage tool.
Thanks for this series Yves. One quibble and comment. First, Pontifex Maximus was the head
of the religious college. He oversaw the religious festivals and calendar. The Senate Leader
was known as Princep Senatus.
I actually think this part of the series could have been expanded. This was the period
that truly killed the Republic even if the corpse marched on for awhile. Julius Caesar was
actually related to Marius and cared for him after he had a stroke. He learned as much from
Marius as Sulla did. When Sulla relieved Caesar froM from the job of Flamen Dialis, he is
said to have regretted it and predicted that Caesar was 100 times more dangerous than
Marius.
Most important things to think about in fall of Roman republic are first, the former
distributed nature of the Roman economy in small farms was gradually concentrated and
centralized into ever fewer hands with Rome's imperial success.
Second, was in the last decades the increasing dysfunction of Roman politics and the
overturning of established procedures of governance, especially the addition of violence.
Finally the use of the army as a domestic political tool, which however you want to define
democracy/self-government, once the army's in, it isn't. It is one of the reasons American
founders insisted the executive was Commander in chief.
What's interesting about today is what no one foresaw, the National Security State
bureaucracy has become the tool for usurping an election, I suppose somewhere down our future
path, if no reform, the troops will be brought in too.
The Roman republic fell at the height of it's economic and military power.
I am leaning toward a labor arbitrage theory of collapse as can be inferred from the
article I cite below, in which a lack of a material stake in a society's fortunes breeds
apathy, alienation, and hostility to TPTB among its citizens.
"The Roman conquests of Carthage, Macedonia and Greece in the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC
altered what was once a luxury and privilege for the ruling elite into the predominant factor
driving both social and economic policies for the Republic as a whole.
The mass influx of slaves during this time period first was a sign of great wealth and power,
but later destabilized an already fragile Roman class system. Farms originally run by small
business families throughout Italy were soon gobbled up and replaced by enormous slave run
plantations owned by the aristocratic elite. Cheap slave labor replaced work for the average
citizen and the rolls of the unemployed masses grew to epidemic proportions.
These issues had a great destabilizing effect on the social system which had a direct role in
the demise of the Republic. As the rift between Senatorial elite (optimates) and social
reformers (populares) grew, the use of the unemployed, landless, yet citizen mobs were an
overwhelming ploy grinding away at the ability of the Senate to govern.
Though there are many factors involved in the Fall of the Republic, slavery and its effects
rippled throughout every aspect of that turbulent time period."
Also, under what theory of money were they operating at the time? In an example cited, the
ability to go forward with a state funded reform requiring funding is made possible by a
royal gift to the treasury. It would appear that the state was revenue constrained. If
another limiting factor was the availability of certain metals, were mines state owned or the
dispersal of their product regulated to control the amount of money in the system?
The histories of famous names and their minions is all well and good but what's up down in
the dirt among the unwashed masses is also worth a mention.
As the rift between Senatorial elite (optimates) and social reformers (populares) grew,
the use of the unemployed, landless, yet citizen mobs were an overwhelming ploy grinding
away at the ability of the Senate to govern.
It's hard to parse causality here because the situation is so interactive. But this way of
putting things tends to lose track of how the existence of the landless, who would have
trouble becoming a proletariat because there wasn't much industry to speak of, is what sets
up the need for reform, and thus which sets the stage for their mobilization into mobs, aka
assault forces, to be used by struggling factions who approach the question of landlessness
with widely varying degrees of sincerity. I.e. do they actually get land or just a grain
guarantee? And if they get land, will some landlord faction need to be offed in order to
acquire it, or can they be moved into conquered lands? Gaul, here we come!
I think we need to be careful about who gets included in the slave category. I believe
that from time to time downward mobility for Romans could involve a slave-like status that
supplemented the ranks of the conquered. This may have happened more in the imperial
periphery and it may have gone on more in the later stages of the empire, when slave
acquisition dwindled.
So far so good! This writer is following along with what most historians today believe
about what happened.
I do have a couple of quibbles.
1) It was actually Marius and not Sulla that turned Roman troops against Romans first,
albeit he did it at the behest of the Senate. So, note that it was actually the Roman Senate
that called for using force against its own people and started the precedent of Romans
fighting Romans.
2) The general unhappiness of the people in Rome needs to be emphasized more because that
was the crack that allowed men like Marius and Sulla to gain power; Marius used populism,
Sulla used the traditional power of the elites who by this time were becoming afraid of the
populists. The Roman poor were pitted against the freedmen, all Romans were fearful of their
slaves, Romans were pitted against the Italians who wanted the same citizenship rights as
Romans, the veterans were pitted against the landholders, etc.
Greg Aldrete, a historian at UW at Green Bay asks an essential question in his Great
Course Series on the Rise of Rome: Given that the Roman Republic was weakening, who did more
to ensure its death? Maruis or Sulla?
Marius or Sulla? Tricky.
I suppose Sulla's two marches on Rome would be foremost candidates. Or Marius' multiple
consularships.
What is interesting is the way luck & circumstances operate.
Marius' multiple consulships (7) were constantly renewed for the very good reason that
100,000's of Germans were wandering around Gaul for years. That had already destroyed a
number of Roman armies commanded by blue bloods. Rome was genuinely petrified.
Similar, for Sulla. He marches on Rome, but can not stay to sort things out because
Mithradiates has to be brought to heel. In his absence things go even further off the rails
& demanding he essentially fight his way back to Rome on landing at Brundisium.
(Incidentally the Rome troubles caused Sulla to conclude a hasty treaty -- which allowed
Mithradiates to be a pain in Rome's side for more years)
I'm a bit puzzled at publishing this series on NC.
Most of this history, if not all, was covered by many authors over many years. What is new
with this new Author, and is it relevant to our situation today?
The Cynic in me believes backstabbing is much the same, as are faction, concentrations of
wealth, and use (or misuse) of Power.
Is, perhaps the rational to demonstrate "plus ça change, plus c'est la même
chose?"
"Minatory" is a good word. The Empire uses troops against citizens, for example the
"dispersal" of the Bonus Marchers. Got to love the Wiki thumbnail that characterizes the
Bonus Marchers vs. the IS Army as "Belligerants," as they do e.g. Arab states vs. Israelites
for the entry in the Six Days War.
The Imperial military supposedly is constrained by the Posse Comitatus Act, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act
, barring use of the military to enforce government policies as against the "civitates." But
the military has on its bookshelf an "operational plan" or OPLAN that extends and grows
"Operation Garden Plot" under which military forces can be used to "suppress insurrections"
like the fun and games around the 1968 Democratic Convention and urban outbreaks in Detroit
and Watts and such.
I'm looking forward with trepidation and loathing to the possible reprise of "politics as
a violent contact sport" along the lines described in this article. Not sure how well Pelosi
and McConnell and others would do when the long knives are drawn.
Naw, assassinations and proscriptions could never become a part of America's political
scene. Never.
"Naw, assassinations and proscriptions could never become a part of America's political
scene. Never."
Hah!
My fear is that the current security state will overreact and just start arresting and
killing people en mass if anything like the riots of the 1960s and early 1970s happen again.
Even the peaceful mass protests of those days could cause such a reaction.
Americans being Americans, the United States has had political street violence with
concurrent suppression. Even Senator Joseph McCarthy's McCarthyism or HUAC (the House
Un-American Activities Committee) was not a one time event. However, most of the leadership
during those times had been exposed to traumatic events that gave them a different measure of
what was disastrous and what was not. That gave them a different measure of what was the
appropriate response to any crisis.
What will our wealthy, comfortable, coddled elites responses be to any protests, forget
violent protests, just peaceful ones on the scale of the past? How would they act towards the
Anarchists of the early 1900s or the Weathermen of the 1960s today? We already have a society
cranked up on fear because the elites are using the message of "Fear Everything! Terrorism!
Deplorables! Guns! Something Darn It!" because that is how they can manipulate others
including themselves.
I am truly wondering when the next wave of assassinations, of unfortunate police homicides
will occur again as it in did in the 60s and 70s. Perhaps child porn will be found in Bernie
Sanders' or some other troublesome person's laptop.
Doesn't have to be child porn. Read an article by an activist some time ago who thought
that here laptop was doing some not-normal stuff. She had a computer-minded friend dig into
it and he found buried deep in her files three government documents that were classified as
top secret. If it ever became needful to arrest her at some time, you would be hearing on the
news how so-and-so was arrested and was found to have classified documents on her computer
she had stolen.
I really hope not. Our republic is still somewhat functional and has gone through serious
crises before that could have destroyed it. Unlike the Roman Republic we have managed to slip
through them. We could easily be destroyed by our current march of folly, but there is still
some time left.
The scary part is not knowing just how close we are to midnight. It does make life
interesting does it not?
I'm warming up to this. Today I appreciated Newdealdemo's parenthetical comments. I think
we gave the Romans more credit for being civilized than we should have. They were tribal all
the way. Smart but tribal. I must have missed it, but where did the villa-ensconced elite
come from – were they originally Etruscan? And whence the Etruscans? Or were they
imports from Egypt and the Levant? From Greece after the Siege of Troy. I'm tenuous about the
currents and tides of people and interests. And why some were peaceful and some were
aggressive and looney. And why nascent democracy failed time and again.
IIRC, no one knows just where the Etruscans originally came from. Their language was
something like Basque which is a completely isolated language with no known relation to any
others. It makes research on them difficult. Often something like the Rosetta Stone can be
used as a start to figure out an ancient language, but if you cannot find another one it is
just undecipherable gibberish.
On Basque and Etruscan, I might be unclear. They are not related to each other. They are
just not related to any other known language especially to ones near by.
Much more is known about Basque since people speak it. Not enough remains of Etruscan to
make many comparisons with Basque. The Emperor Claudius wrote a thirteen volume history of
the Etruscan language, but alas, the work did not survive.
While we're at it, I believe the Latin term the author used "mas maiorem" is correctly
spelled "mos maiorum."
lack of economic independence key, that was what Jefferson learned from it and why he
promoted a Yeoman farm republic. He said someone who didn't have economic independence
couldn't have political independence, that is be a citizen – more/less a direct
quote.
The small guys all lost their farms because of constant warring, growing debt, and failing
to farm. But they were all citizens so moved to Rome, where they voted in people in the last
decades who subsidized grain from N. Africa which Rome got with conquering Carthage, but from
other areas too. Also they got subsidized housing, and then of course those who threw a good
party – the circuses etc. The Newt Gingrich, who was supposed to be an historian. used
to say the welfare state had been developed for the first time in last 100 years, hah the
last decades of the Roman republic were a massive welfare state.
The landless citizens who flocked to Rome were the infamous "proletariat", who while far
from a revolutionary class, could certainly be counted on to mix it up and always for the
well timed riot, even burning down the Senate house in the republic's final years.
debt-relief was one of the bills Caesar enacted when he got to power, though much less
than everyone wanted. A great book on the republic's history is Mommsen's History of
Rome , written mid -19th century, very big at time, but disappeared middle of 20th for
some reason.
Mommsen's best quote when asked why he didn't write an account of Imperial Rome, "It's too
depressing."
I also think that one of the reasons for the violence was that the dispossessed did not
necessarily want cheap housing and food. They wanted land or a trade that they could get a
living from. If you, or your parents, had a farm for generations, or a shop or did
blacksmithing, would you be happy being on the dole? How unsatisfying it would be. Being
forced into welfare and then mocked by the very people who did that for doing so could make
some unhappy.
Both the Romans and their successors, the Byzantines, had difficult Governmental
succession processes.
It'd not yet clear that our modern (gamed?) elections are better. Some would like to
believe that our current system is not susceptible to "Roman Rot"
That belief looks shaky, but I suppose the rot is only fully revealed when looking back,
too late to make corrections.
But, the Roman system persisted until the fall of Constantinople in the 1400s, and, even
then one could argue that the Church & Byzantium continued their momentum through the
Holy Roman Empire to the 20th Century empires to their WW1 destruction; and possibly the
"Baton of Empire" then passed to the US -- and may be in the process of being passed to
China.
The Roman Empire did last a long time, but a fantastic amount of resources including lives
were spent insanely; first in stealing it from the majority which increasingly were fellow
citizens after the first century; then in the many, many assassinations, massacres, coups,
and civil wars trying to get or keep the purple.
The Vandals found invading Italy easy because, unlike in the three Punic Wars, almost
nobody wanted to fight them. Sometimes they were interested in joining instead. Most of rural
populations were landless peasants, serfs, or slaves working the vast plantations of the tiny
ultra-rich upper classes. Internal trade was permanently disrupted after the Crisis of the
Third Century. I forget how many emperors were around in one year. Three or four maybe. Then
there were the Byzantines who also similarly crazy although perhaps not as bad as the earlier
regime. Still weaken themselves greatly.
From what I understand, nobody wanted to end the Western Roman Empire. Not even those that
conquered it. The people in charge of the various areas of that empire wanted to keep it
going. They probably wanted to improve it. Perhaps bring it back up to what was. The
Byzantines thought it was still was, or at least should be, part of the whole empire at the
time.
I think that there was not enough left to reconstitute into a viable civilization. There
were still millions of people, even cities, but when you have gotten to were you cannot even
repair something as fundamental as the city of Rome's aqueducts, what's left?
Which, circling back to the problem of succession, and ultimately resource distribution,
is that too much of everything else went into the creating, maintaining, and bribing the
Roman legions; trade, infrastructure, education, everything needed for even a small village,
forget a civilization of fifty million people, was ignored. That is also why you can see the
quality of everything going down the older the empire was.
So at least the Western Roman Empire was just a facade for something called an empire and
still considered just one half of the "Roman Empire" but really was already dead like a
gangrenous limb before the last emperor was deposed.
very interesting. and above too about "too depressing." Escobar today has a piece out
about the neoliberal mess in South America. He quotes David Harvey (?) referring to
neoliberalism as "accumulation by dispossession." A very old story.
Are we gonna let the Asian King just happened to die without an heir so he willed his
everything to the Roman treasury bit..?
Really? That is very convienent.
In place of the America that is described in history books, where Henry Clay forged his
compromises, and Walt Whitman wrote poetry, and Herman Melville contemplated the whale, and
Ida Tarbell did her muckraking, and Thomas Alva Edison invented movies and the light bulb,
and so forth, has arisen something new and vast and yet distinctly un-American that for
lack of a better term is often called the American Empire, which in turn calls to mind the
division of Roman history (and the Roman character) into two parts: the Republican, and the
Imperial.
I think your views of American politics are often a bit "off". For instance, while it is not
uncommon for people on the far left to criticize Sanders for voting for imperialist foreign
policies, you are the only person I have ever seen use this as a defense of more mainstream
Democrats who are far more hawkish than he is.
So I jumped in to point out that Biden's sleaziness has been an often discussed topic going
back for decades. I could have mentioned the plagiarism of Kinnock's speech, but that was so
strange I don't know what to make of it.
Hidari, replace the word "fascism" with "neoliberalism" in that Orwell quote and you might be
onto something. You're always so close, but slightly off
Donald observes (about me):
it is not uncommon for people on the far left to criticize Sanders for voting for
imperialist foreign policies, you are the only person I have ever seen use this as a
defense of more mainstream Democrats who are far more hawkish than he is
So let me give you some reasons why this matters to me, not in any particular order.
1) Obama voted against the Iraq war but it doesn't stop him being derided as a warmonger.
Which leads to two obvious points: past voting is no indication of future performance, and
what is it about Sanders that separates him from Obama on this in the eyes of his
fanboys?
2) In the 2016 election we were constantly told by the US far "left" to ignore lesser-evil
voting (it's bad w were told) and to vote on ideological purity. But now the primary has
rolled around, Sanders is struggling against a known hawk, and we're suddenly told to ignore
his past imperialism, and vote for the lesser evil. Why should I do now what I was
constrained from doing in 2016? What is special about Sanders?
3) Most supporters of Sanders believe that a) the 1994 crime bill increased incarceration
rates and b) the Iraq sanctions killed 1/2 a million children. Sanders voted for both of
these. That makes him a monster to these people, but they claim he is the best person to
decarcerate America and end foreign interventions. What kind of left wing logic is this?
4) Sanders has not got any kind of critique of American imperialism, he just happened
to vote against the dumbest and most self-destructive of the recent adventures. He's an
imperialist through and through. If I have to pick between Imperialists, why should I choose
the incompetent one who's going to have a heart attack in the first year of the job?
Arguably some of the most significant events since the eight-year long war's start have played out in Syria with rapid pace over
just the last month alone, including Turkey's military incursion in the north, the US pullback from the border and into Syria's oil
fields, the Kurdish-led SDF&# deal making with Damascus, and the death of ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. All of this is why a
televised interview with Presiden39;st Bashar Assad was highly anticipated at the end of this week.
Assad's commentary on the latest White House policy to "secure the oil" in Syria, for which US troops have already been redeployed
to some of the largest oil fields in the Deir Ezzor region, was the biggest pressing question. The Syrian president's response was
unexpected and is now driving headlines, given what he said directly about Trump, calling him the "best American president" ever
– because he's the "most transparent."
"When it comes to Trump you may ask me a question and I'll give you an answer which might seem strange. I tell you he's the best
American president," Assad said, according to a
translation provided by NBC.
"Why? Not because his policies are good, but because he is the most transparent president," Assad continued.
"All American presidents commit crimes and end up taking the Nobel Prize and appear as a defender of human rights and the 'unique'
and 'brilliant' American or Western principles. But all they are is a group of criminals who only represent the interests of the
American lobbies of large corporations in weapons, oil and others," he added.
"Trump speaks with the transparency to say 'We want the oil'." Assad's unique approach to an 'enemy' head of state which has just
ordered the seizure of Syrian national resources also comes after in prior years the US president called Assad "our enemy" and an
"animal."
Trump tweeted in April 2018 after
a new chemical attack allegation had surfaced: "If President Obama had crossed his stated Red Line In The Sand, the Syrian disaster
would have ended long ago! Animal Assad would have been history!"
A number of mainstream outlets commenting on Assad's interview falsely presented it as "praise" of Trump or that Assad thinks
"highly" of him; however,
it appears the Syrian leader was merely presenting Trump's policy statements from a 'realist' perspective , contrasting them from
the misleading 'humanitarian' motives typical of Washington's rhetoric about itself.
That is, Damascus sees US actions in the Middle East as motivated fundamentally by naked imperial ambition, a constant prior theme
of Assad's speeches , across administrations, whether US leadership dresses it up as 'democracy promotion' or in humanitarian terms
characteristic of liberal interventionism. As Assad described, Trump seems to skip dressing up his rhetoric in moralistic idealism
altogether, content to just unapologetically admit the ugly reality of US foreign policy.
I see Americans keep calling Assad and Putin a ''dictator'' Hey, jackasses, they were ELECTED in elections far less corrupt than what you have in the USSA
Assad is a very eloquent speaker. Witty, sharp and always calm when speaking with decadent press. Of course the MSM understood
what he DID mean, but they cannot help themselves, but parse anything to try hurting Trump.
If true. It means the Vatican (the oldest most important money there is) like Saudi Arabia and the UAE sure do seem to care
about stuff like purchasing power in their "portfolios" and a "store of value"?...
I see lots of EU participants taking their money to Moscow as well with that Arctic bonanza that says "come hither" if you
want your money to be worth something!!!
It's always been about oil. Spreading Freedumb, Dumbocracy and Western values, is PR spiel. The reality is, the West are scammers,
plunderers and outright thieves. Forget the billions Shell Oil, is holding for the Biafran people/region in Nigeria, which it
won't give to either the Bianfran states in the east, nor the Nigerian government, dating back to the secessionist state of Biafra/Nigerian civil war 1967-70. The west are nothing more than gang-bangers, but on the world stage.
Yet the department for trade and industry is scratching its head, wondering why their are so few takers for a post-Brexit trade
deal with the UK, where the honest UK courts have the final say? lol
Too bad it is political suicide for an American president to try to establish communication with Assad. He seems like a pretty
practical guy and who knows, it might be possible to work out a peaceful settlement with him.
economic warfare on the syrian civlian population through illegal confiscation of vital civilian economic assets, and as conducted
in venezeula, is called ________________
Assad is saying where before the UKK was a masked thief, with Trompas and his egotism alias exceptionalism, has not bothered
withthe mask. He is still a murderer and thief.
Now Assad has some idea why Trump is so popular with his base, they love him for not being politically correct, for "telling
it like it is". He's like the wolf looking at the sheep and telling them he's going to eat them and the sheep cheering because
he's not being a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Unfortunately in the case of Trump's sheeple, they don't even have a clue they're going to be eaten, the Trumptards all think
he's going to eat someone else like the "deep state" or the "dumbocrats". Meanwhile he's chewing away at their health care, their
export markets, piling up record deficits, handing the tax gold to the rich and corporations while they get the shaft, taking
away program after program that aided students, the poor, and the elderly, appointing lobbyists to dismantle or corrupt departments
they used to lobby against, and in general destroying the international good will that it's taken decades to build.
"... Believing herself untouchable and immune from any genuine criticism or objective analysis after having successfully evaded prosecution from the nation's top law enforcement agencies, HRC went off the deep end dragging the Democratic party further into the ditch. ..."
"... She is a favorite of the Russians. That's assuming that Jill Stein will give it up which she might not because she is also a Russian asset." ..."
"... Gabbard's message is relatively simple -that is: Instead of the US destroying countries it should be spending the Military Budget on rebuilding the US. Yes that sounds like an America First type of stance but it has a decent logic about it. ..."
"... The US needs an enemy to justify its massive defence bill and 800 bases worldwide. ..."
"... Stoltenberg would happily stop all social services in order to buy more missiles and gain a few brownie points from Trump. Stoltenberg along with the US Neocons are are sick SOB's. ..."
"... Both Trump and Jabbard are opponents of the CIA – Wall street complex. Nationalists vs Globalists, but some people still believe the former are more dangerous than the latter. ..."
"... The Dems morphed into neocons when her willy-waving husband sold out and destroyed the Democratic Party of LBJ's Great Society. ..."
"... Tulsi has shown a lot of class, truth to the darkest Power, and long may she have this platform.. ..."
As you may have figured out by now, Hillary Clinton, warped by her own self aggrandizement of entitlement, did Tulsi Gabbard and
her Presidential campaign against interventionist wars a huge incidental favor.
While the Democrats continue to splinter and spiral out of control on the eve of what promises to be a transformative national
election, the Grand Inquisitor seized an opportunity to allege that Gabbard (and Jill Stein) are " Russian assets " and " Putin puppets
".
Since Tulsi is a Major in the US Army Reserves and holds the highest security clearance available, the term 'asset,' which is
associated with being an agent of a foreign power, carries a level of national security significance.
Believing herself untouchable and immune from any genuine criticism or objective analysis after having successfully
evaded
prosecution from the nation's top law enforcement agencies, HRC went
off the deep end dragging the Democratic party
further into the
ditch.
She is a favorite of the Russians. That's assuming that Jill Stein will give it up which she might not because she is also
a Russian asset."
Clinton's
historic pronouncement came in the mistaken belief that publicly humiliating Gabbard would intimidate the Aloha Girl to silence
and seek refuge on her surfboard – but that is not how it has played out.
An unexpected bonus proved once again that political strategy has never been Clinton's strong suit as her malicious comments have
brought the anti-war alt left with the libertarian alt-right together in Gabbard's defense. With HRC's injudicious taunts, the glimmer
of an emerging political realignment , one that has
been at odds with both the Dem and Republican establishments, has surfaced – probably not exactly what HRC intended.
In response to having received a burst of unprecedented support, Gabbard is about to assure her place on the November debate stage
and continues to solidify her credibility as a critic of a corrupt bipartisan political establishment and its endless wars.
If they falsely portray me as a traitor, they can do it to anyone. Don't be afraid. Join me in speaking truth to power to take
back the Democrat Party and country from the corrupt elite."
It is noteworthy that HRCs accusation was to the only candidate who stands in direct opposition to the Queen Bee's history for
the war machine and all of its bells and whistles. As if to call attention to the contradiction, the entire fiasco has acknowledged
what was never meant to be acknowledged: that one little known Congresswoman from Hawaii would dare to publicly confront the omnipotent
HRC with her own demons and malfeasance; thereby elevating the one candidacy that represents a threat to the military industrial
complex and its globalist order.
It is no coincidence that the corporate media operates in lockstep as an offensive October 12th
NY Times article was immediately
followed by a CNN
commentary as well as other media sycophants, all tagging Gabbard as a Russian asset.
Contrary to Journalism 101 on how professional media should conduct themselves, there has been no evidence, no facts, no supporting
documentation as they characteristically rely on innuendo and disinformation.
At the last Dem debate and during the kerfuffle with Clinton, Tulsi has stepped up and
showed herself
to be a candidate the country has been waiting for. With a powerful inner grit, she did not hesitate to take the
Times and CNN
publicly to task and then
in response
called HRC out as a warmonger and
dared her to enter the 2020 fray.
There lies a deep truth within
Gabbard's response especially identifying Clinton as the " personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party.
"
During Clinton's term as Secretary of State which is little more than a Glorified Global Hustler for the US military industrial
complex, the Democratic Party lost its soul, morphing as nefarious neocons in pursuit of raw political and economic power that emanates
from a policy of unfettered regime change and interventionist wars.
As Democrats embraced the neocons with no objection to the unrestrained violence, increased military budgets, indiscriminate selling
of weapons to bomb a civilian population, then why should the party's grassroots object to the Tuesday morning assassination list
or drone attacks on civilians or creating war in four countries living in peace in 2008?
As the party faithful allow themselves to dismiss all the suffering, the death and destruction wrought by US-made weapons as if
Amazon and Google toys were an acceptable trade, they lost their conscience and their connection to the basic essence of humanity's
need for peace, love and compassion.
The latest example of the Party's devotion to war is their opposition to the withdrawal of US troops from Syria as they created
the phony debate that the Kurds were worth more American blood or resources. The Dems have always been more pro-war than they have
been given credit for with WWI, WWII, the Korean War and Vietnam all initiated and/or expanded under Democrat Presidents.
With no substantiation from the mindless meanderings of a seriously disoriented woman, it is now clear that Clinton's derangement
syndrome of unresolved guilt and denial led the Democratic party to its irrational embrace of Russiagate as the justification for
her 2016 loss.
In other words, it was Russiagate that protected HRC's fragile self-esteem from the necessary introspection as Americans were
pitted against one another, dividing the nation in a deliberate disruption of civil society in a more acrimonious manner than any
time since the 1860's. The country has paid a bitter, unnecessary price for a divisive strategy due to Clinton's refusal to personally
accept responsibility for her own failings.
HRC's most egregious war crimes as Secretary of State include assigning Victoria Nuland to conduct the
overthrow of a democratically elected
President in Ukraine in 2014 and the ensuing violence and civil war in the Donbass as well as her
joyous rapture cackling at the death of Libyan President Qaddafi in 2011. The now infamous video " We came, we saw, he died "
showed her to be more than just your average war criminal but a Monster who experiences an aberrant thrill at death and destruction.
Since June, TPTB have done their darnedest to deny Tulsi a spot on the debate stage rigging the qualifying requirements as best
they could. Making it near impossible for the polling firms, which rely on campaign season and their economic connection with the
DNC to call the shots in a fair and equitable manner.
As the early primary states loom ahead, the last thing TPTB need is a powerful pro-peace voice resonating with the American public.
The message seems clear: talk of peace is verboten and equates with being a Russia asset and anyone with pacifist tendencies will
be publicly chastised and condemned for being a tool of the Kremlin.
None of that has stopped Tulsi Gabbard.
Renee Parsons has been a member of the ACLU's Florida State Board of Directors and president of the ACLU Treasure Coast
Chapter. She has been an elected public official in Colorado, an environmental lobbyist with Friends of the Earth and staff member
of the US House of Representatives in Washington DC. She can be found on Twitter @reneedove31
Ken Kenn
I am very impressed by Tulsi Gabbard. She's a bit too patriotic for me – but I'm a Brit so for a serving American it's understandable.
It isn't the person that is dangerous- it is the insertion of the idea that Regime Change wars are counterproductive.
Gabbard's message is relatively simple -that is: Instead of the US destroying countries it should be spending the Military
Budget on rebuilding the US. Yes that sounds like an America First type of stance but it has a decent logic about it.
Wasteful wars and the idea that the US should install its version of Democracy across the Middle East has always been a doomed
project and co-operation and an attempt at rebuilding these nations in order to attempt some kind of democracy and future prosperity
is required – not bombing and bullying.
You could be outraged by Clinton's nasty rhetoric but let's face it. Clinton lost to someone she considered to be a Clown.
In actuality the DNC almost promoted Trump as person they could beat hands down.
It bit them on the arse as did the Brexit result in the UK.
Clinton has never got over losing to a chump and she is just covering her backside as to why she lost.
Hell hath no fury like a self appointed Candidate scorned. Like Johnson in the UK Clinton thought she had the right to rule.
She didn't and doesn't. To quote some US Senator; " The people have spoken. The bastards!"
Igor
The objective is not to install American "democracy". Which does not exist anywhere, USA is officially a republic. Unofficially,
it is an oligarchy. Elite super wealthy families and their corporations run the USA. All 45 Presidents have been related to those
families. The President is actually elected by the Electoral College, not the popular vote. This was designed into the Constitution
of USA, Inc.
The aim of regime change is to create chaos in MENA, by which a small ME state can profit without doing any visible dirty work.
The Democrats(oxymoron for il Partito Fascista Americano) are doing this for the simple reason knowing full well that most traditional
old school democrats identify with Bernie Sanders. The whole notion of the WASP notion of left right paradigm is oxymoron in itself.
Any political science follower or student would have to agree. What is the political left mean in the west????????? Has anyone
ever read Marx and Engles ???????????? Social democrat WTF does that mean. Historical revisionist get labelled Nazi sympathisers.
The constant lies and obfuscation with real facts. Like population stats death births . The Classic method being used at the moment
is they no longer due c0up d'etats the good old fascistic way. The popular vote gets discredited by the judicial system. IE the
recent elections of Argentina and Bolivia does not suit the IMF( the International Mafia Fund) henc e the European Union Funded
election monitoring organisations are all openly stating that both elections were not KOSHER.
Look at the people in Venezuela and Bolivia that are demonstrating against the popular elected and voted for Governments. White
upper middle class figli di putane. Plain and simple the western paradigm of fake democrazia and fake economy is dying the plutocratic
and oligarchical class are just creating storms and fires just do deviate from good old fashion bread and butter issues.
Conclusion:
The pax-americana Democrats(RATS) know full well that Bernie will not lead the party Gabbard will not lead the party so here
is there strategy and good old Chuckie Schuemer the anglo-zionist par excellance laid it out in 2015. They are hoping that old
fashion conservative Republicans that are disgusted with the Orange one will vote for them and further reduce the number of voters.
Just think of this. In this day and age with the largest wealth gap exceeding the Gilded age which individual would take a day
off to line up to vote on a bitter grey November day. So these remarkable establishment shills in their great wisdom are running
as Eisenhower Republican and hoping to steal votes from the Republicans and not win any votes from the new ever growing lower
so called middle class.
POST SCRIPTUM: The irony and the complete paradox more war will give us peace and the rich getting richer will give us the
sheeple wealth. Black is white and grey does not exist and left vs right. What a sad state of affairs.
Docius in fundem: The sad reality in our dying western paradigm of pax-americana is never in the history of the modern and
post modern era we have more people graduating from tertiary education but we have created the most ignorant and pliant class
of individuals ever.
Jon
She came, we saw, she lied.
Hugh O'Neill
Russian asset and Putin puppet, Jesus of Nazareth reportedly said: "Blessed are the Peace Makers". As we know, Trump receives
maximum MSM contempt for anything approaching diplomacy and peace, and highest MSM approval when advocating war and destruction.
Likewise, when a Presidential candidate dare breathe the word "Peace" then she is either ignored, ridiculed or accused of treachery
– and that greatest of all crimes, being pro-Russian (ergo anti-American). It is timely perhaps to re-read President Kennedy's
(largely unreported) Commencement Address to American University, 10th June 1963:
" What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons
of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes
life on earth worth living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children–not
merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women–not merely peace in our time but peace for all time".
"I speak of peace because of the new face of war. Total war makes no sense in an age when great powers can maintain large and
relatively invulnerable nuclear forces and refuse to surrender without resort to those forces. It makes no sense in an age when
a single nuclear weapon contains almost ten times the explosive force delivered by all the allied air forces in the Second World
War. It makes no sense in an age when the deadly poisons produced by a nuclear exchange would be carried by wind and water and
soil and seed to the far corners of the globe and to generations yet unborn."
Lest we forget: Lee Harvey Oswald was sheep-dipped as a Russian-loving commie precisely so as to blame Russia for killing that
commie/socialist/pacifist/drug-addled/free-lovin' Jack Kennedy. Somehow, their script didn't really make any sense. Script-writer
Allen Dulles had written a turkey, but the show must go on, and on .
Igor
It won't be allowed. The People have no say in the matter. Politics is pure spectacle, to distract and entertain the masses, and
to make them think that they have a voice. All 45 US Presidents have been interrelated through 200+ super wealth elite intertwined
families. If Tulsi Gabbard is not related, then she is not getting into the White House. If she is related, she will get in and
do nothing different from what the previous actors have always done.
#Resist45 and Trump, Mr. #45, work for the same people. Keeping the nation dazed and confused, since January 2017. Congress
does nothing useful, by design, concentrating on impeachment. The Media has plenty of Trump social media coverage to prevent ever
having space to report on actual events (as if they would).
Chinese Asset?
Please don't make the Republicans look better than they are. Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Ms. Hua Chunying said at a press briefing
that
Pence's speech made Thursday revealed his "sheer arrogance and hypocrisy, and was packed with political prejudice and lies"
So refreshing to hear it from a high level official! Ms Hua also accused Pence of using China as a prop to distract from
the United States' failings. Now we know, the 'Russian asset' accusation is used to distract from the continuous and
never-ending murderous operation of the US regime.
Seamus Padraig
Since Tulsi is a Major in the US Army Reserves and holds the highest security clearance available, the term 'asset,' which
is associated with being an agent of a foreign power, carries a level of national security significance.
Alt-journalist
Caity Johnstone has recently remarked upon how the Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) have started to give the
word 'asset' their own little proprietary meaning:
"Russian 'assets' are not formal relationships in the USIC [US Intelligence Community] sense of the word," CNN analyst and
former FBI agent Asha Rangappa explained via Twitter. "If you are parroting Russian talking points and furthering their interests,
you're a source who is too dumb to know you're being played to ask for money."
"It's important to point out here that a Russian 'asset' is not the same thing as a Russian 'agent'," tweeted virulent establishment
narrative manager Caroline Orr. "An asset can be witting or unwitting; it's any person or org who can be used to advance Russia's
interests. It's pretty clear that Tulsi satisfies that criteria."
"One doesn't have to be on the Kremlin's payroll to be a Russian asset. One doesn't even have to know they are a Russian
asset to be a Russian asset. Have you not heard the term 'useful idiot' before?" tweeted writer Kara Calavera.
At this rate, pretty soon, we'll all have to check with RT first before we open our mouths in public, just to make sure we're
not accidentally agreeing with the Russians!
The Dems have always been more pro-war than they have been given credit for with WWI, WWII, the Korean War and Vietnam all
initiated and/or expanded under Democrat Presidents.
Ha, ha! That takes me back–all the way to 1976, to be exact–to when Bob Dole (then a candidate for Vice-President) described
all the wars of the 20th century as " Democrat wars
".
Igor
"CNN analyst and former FBI agent Asha Rangappa explained via Twitter. "
Says the CNN paid asset.
Hugh O'Neill
Thanks once again to Renee for championing Tulsi. Yesterday my local paper here in NZ (The Otago Daily Times) in its "This Day
in History" column, briefly referred to JFK and the peaceful resolution of the Cuban Missile Crisis. I wrote to the editor my
appreciation:
"Although I am old enough to remember both the 1960 election and the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy, I was
blissfully unaware of the Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962 (when I was almost 7 years old). My thanks to the ODT for marking
this date which is the day in History when the world stepped back from the abyss of nuclear war and ended all life on Earth. Sadly,
too many today live in blissful ignorance of the most dangerous moment in the History of Mankind.
As the old saying goes, those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. Next time around, there may no longer be the politicians
with the courage and intelligence of Kennedy and Khrushchev: both men had to out-manoeuvre their own military hawks, and each
man knew the personal risks he faced in doing so. Khrushchev was replaced within a year and died in ignominy.
JFK's lived another year before his own untimely end. Though we may lament the execution of John F. Kennedy, he had not lived
and died in vain, because we are still here despite the military. I cannot recommend highly enough two books: firstly, Bobby Kennedy's
"13 Days> A Memoir of the Cuban Missile Crisis" and James Doulglass "JFK & The Unspeakable. Why he died & Why it Matters".
Tulsi has been the only candidate in a very long time to speak the unspeakable truth. Do not condemn her for whatever flaws
some commenters below perceive. No-one is absolutely perfect in every way – not even Mary Poppins. But Tulsi is a breath of fresh
air and has immense courage, eloquence, passion, integrity and charisma to bring out the best in people. The real enemy is within
– in every sense.
Thanks, Gwyn. I knew this story already but it is worth rereading. The fact that some dimwitted USN ship started dropping depth
charges without top authority shows that JFKs grip on his own military was tenuous. He had recently read Barbara Tuchman's "The
guns of August" which showed how stupid acts by subordinates could have massive consequences. Once again, this demonstrates the
treachery of the military. Recently, some British General stated publicly that if Corbyn were elected, there would be a coup.
The military mind cannot cope with the concept of Democracy.
Stoltenberg would happily stop all social services in order to buy more missiles and gain a few brownie points from Trump.
Stoltenberg along with the US Neocons are are sick SOB's.
Antonym
Trump doesn't want US taxpayers to fund US mil in Europe, not unreasonable. Both Trump and Jabbard are opponents of the CIA
– Wall street complex. Nationalists vs Globalists, but some people still believe the former are more dangerous than the latter.
Amazon, Google or Apple have more power than North Korea, Iran or Xyz. China cannot be the CIA-Wall street bogey now as they make
too much profit of it: Russia is much smaller fish margin wise (the Clinton's only managed a few dozen million$) so that makes
the perfect fake enemy. On top Russia actually competes with oil and gas, which China can't.
Wilmers31
Someone with more knowledge to the timeline needs to correlate the punishments for Russia (sanctions) to the oil price. I think
they started sanctions when Russian oil and gas deliveries were getting cheaper but US needed 75$+ for the frackers. It was just
eliminating a competitor, especially after they could not purchase the monopoly on Russian gas and oil through the monopoly company
Yukos.
Gary Weglarz
This is something I've been thinking a lot about lately, and this seems like a good post to share it on.
Watching trolls emerge to discredit and attack the lone U.S. candidate who publicly and vocally opposes America's regime change
wars and even dares tell the American people that "we are supporting the terrorists – not fighting them" – is bad enough in MSM,
but a sad and interesting comment on how completely engaged the State has become with attempting to "control" and "shape" discourse
on progressive sites such as this.
My favorite of course is when one State troll debates another State troll in completely "fake" discourse, attempting to amplify
their troll message. The other technique that is endlessly amusing is when a single troll posts something a well informed person
with progressive values can quite agree with one day, followed the next by complete gibberish posing as "sophistication," followed
the next day by talking points right out of the CIA & Pentagon, and then follows all that up with posting something sensible again.
Just a bit "crazy-making" no?
It pays to remember ("The 4 D's: Deny / Disrupt / Degrade / Deceive") that come right out of the trolling manual. It should
be a red-flag if these descriptors characterize someone's posts.
The saying that if it ("looks like a duck, walks like a duck and talks like a duck, well, it just might be a duck") – is one
that is worth applying to our comment's sections discourse. Because if it "posts like a troll"- in the end it doesn't really matter
if it "is" a troll (something we will never know), or is simply an uniformed but opinionated idiot – as that person is "doing
the work of" the State sponsored trolls in either case.
I find it is always worth periodically reviewing what we know about these operations (thank you Edward Snowden) – as it helps
us to better understand and prepares us to better deal with the State sponsored troll operations we now see routinely in all of
our truly progressive comments sections on alternative media sites. What we now deal with here at OffG and elsewhere are daily
routine attempts to take over, shape and control otherwise rational informed sincere discussion by readers. Sadly this is how
some people make their living – existing in a continual state of existential "bad faith."
Anyone who stands for a perception managed 'business as usual' candidacy is authentic: anyone who tries to expose the vicious
hypocrisy is an 'asset' or a 'troll'? Welcome to the postmodern anti-debate.
I'm trying to think of where I have come across a more cynical attempt to distort the truth and apologetically cover ethnic
cleansing and cultural anti-Muslim genocide? And I cannot think of a better example. Anyone who attempts to expose Gabbard for
her cultural links to actual Hindutva supremacism and real live fascism must be a paid state troll? What can I say: I am a peace
troll exposing the Politics of Lies you appear to support. Tulsi Gabbard is a traitor to humanity.
What I laid out below is not trolling: it exposes just how much you have to invert the true values of liberation and freedom
to get a 'peace candidate' from a Zionist fascist supporter. In brief synopsis: Modi tore up the Indian constitution; flooded
Jammu and Kashmir with troops; invoked the 'Riot Act' to eject all journalists and TV crews; in order that his ethnic cleansing
of the valley goes unseen. This is a crime against humanity: which also carries no small risk of nuclear war. Making this apparent
is trolling?
In the perversion of the narrative script you propose: this is called "vocally opposing America's regime change wars". How;
by apologising for not being able to attend the 'Howdy, Modi' because she was pre-commited to be lying somewhere else?
In contrast: Arundhati Roy stands accused as a traitor and having her rights and citizenship stripped for bringing attention
to Modi's war crimes. What does Gabbard do? Pass the caviar and offer more lucrative trade deals for Modi's murderers? That is
the difference between a real world candidate and a fake. Will Gabbard call out Modi; el-Sisi; Netanyahu or Adelson for that matter?
You know the scene that Milosevic likes to post: of Netanyahu being feted by Congress – which looks exactly like the Nuremberg
Rallies Gabbard was there to listen to the ally and friend of the United States – that is the only democracy in the Middle East
– denounce Iran. Afterward, she went on Fox News and glibly agreed Greta Van Susteren that the deal was akin to the infamous Munich
Pact. Blithely nodding her head before engaging in some fantasy talking points about North Korean nukes hitting Hawaii: and the
three month acquisition of the Iranian bomb which comes straight off of one of Nuttyyahoo's empty CD-roms. So can we drop the
pretense please?
Adelson's 'Champion of Freedom' nails her real colours to the mast?
Then you invoke Sartre: did you know he was a communist? Who staid loyal to Stalin's Soviet Union for much longer than he really
should have? What do you think he would have made of a candidate who dines with Hindutva fascist racist supremacists and offers
them more trade on a pro rata basis of carrying out war crimes and crimes against humanity? Bad faith and authenticity: where
do yo think they lie? Gabbard is an authentic candidate only in such a highly perception managed world as we have. Which is why
we have such a highly perception managed world – because we highly perception manage it ourselves. No paid state trolls required:
except in the imagination perhaps? Perhaps only those not suffering the illusion can see who she really is?
The only way to make this real is by censoring the right to criticism the illegitimate candidacy of those who are silent on
Modi's open fascism and very probable silent, unseen ethnic cleansing. If it is silent and unseen then it is not happening. Then
we have our perfect 'peace candidate'. Do you see how it works?
Let us shut down any chance of any open debate on that. Well done Gary. You and all the fawning sycophants on this page have
the perfect peace candidate you deserve. By ignoring valid and authentic critical consciousness and suppressing the voice of freedom.
Gabbard needs to be exposed as a modified war candidate: and friend of the Gods of Money and their pet dictators. It is a cynical
ploy to try and close down such real world exposure as 'trolling'. Trolling for peace maybe? Peace we may never now know.
Gary Weglarz
My comments were not intended to be a defense of Gabbard. Though she is the only candidate I can remember in many years that is
speaking some truth, any truth, about the amoral U.S. war machine, she of course has no chance whatsoever of winning and no one
in their right mind would suggest otherwise. Yet I and others who are quite aware of this obvious reality find the undeniable
fact she is "publicly speaking some truth" about that war machine a rather important addition to the theatre of the absurd political
debate here in the U.S. So strange that support and recognition of this simple fact is so controversial to some.
No, my comments were not some defense of Gabbard as an impure savior, but rather about the trolls and those who perhaps in
their boundless narcissism simply do the work of the government trolls because they routinely "post like trolls." You know, ("The
4 D's: Deny / Disrupt / Degrade / Deceive"). Perhaps you missed that somehow?
I tire of so much smug narcissistic idiocy, and predictable attacks on any who might disagree, posing as – "commentary" or
"discourse." Of course neither you nor Big B have commented a word on that topic- the actual topic of my post. Instead simply
strawman attacks related to Tulsi. How strange. But then again: "You've obviously got it all sewn up :(" – eh Frank?
I really don't give a shit about what the totally corrupt US political system is doing.
They are all scum and vermin, who, in a sane world, would all be swept down the gutter.
In the Middle East we are on the verge of WW3. The Russians and the Chinese are not going to put up with the American Frankenstein
any more. Do Americans realise what this will mean?
I doubt it, because many Americans don't have a brain cell between them (Clue: America will be totally destroyed in a WW3).
nonameforsure
8 elements appeared on a website recently which the author suggested could be used to identify fake, false, or self agenda propaganda..
learn them.. apply them.
Develop an international way to report in some standard way on the elements that appear in articles. Maybe date, time, place presented,
element identified, together with a comment that fits each expression. In my opinion it is important to build the case that the
same false narrative appears in your favorite fake media as well as everyone else's favorite fake media.
You will be able to detect how these 8 elements develop fact that identify processes and activities of those in charge and
how these elements will allow those seeking the truth to build a collaborative means to debunk fake. Example refer to paragraph
7 in a subject article by indicating "place" on "date" @ "time" "time" "title" and element number and then make a comment to explain
why you marked the expression with a element number.
This kind of reference system allows to detect and compare both intra article fake news with inter publication fake news..
so maybe it will be discovered the news outlets and publishers and authors that hawk the same false or misleading propaganda in
time to inform the public, moreover, if you can get the public to understand and to apply the element method of debunking propaganda;
article by article, paragraph by paragraph, just the act of doing it, might wake them up.
1) EN establish the narrative :fake always try to establish the tuth
2) WR They wrong, we right : inconvenient facts are transformed to support the narrative
3) PF Cherry Pick the Facts : only report the facts that support the narrative
4) IS Ignore stuff : never include something that is contrary to the narrative
5) VB Blame the Victim : keep the victim on the defensive
6) MU Make up Stuff: false or non fact claims can be made up to fit the narrative
7) AC Attack and deny any form to all challengers: Persons who ask ?s are conspiracy terrorist.
8) RL Repeat the lies, repeat the lies, repeat the lies. People need help to remember the lie
Capricornia Man
Your eight methods for creating fake news aptly describe the way the 'systemic anti-Semitism in the UK Labour Party' myth was
promoted. Particularly methods 3,4 and 8.
When I complained to a broadcaster about its incompetent and biased 'coverage' of this non-issue, one of its chief defences
was: 'that's what all the other news outlets are saying'.
The MSM wonder why they are regarded as mendacious and contemptible by thinking people who take the trouble to separate the
facts from the spin.
mark
A Brief Summary Of The War In Syria.
2011. The Neocons activate a long standing plan that has been around for 20 years to destroy Syria. Syria is to be destroyed,
like Iraq and Libya before it. Assad will be toppled within a few months and Syria smashed into a thousand pieces.
The Axis of Evil, the US and its NATO satraps, Shady Wahabia, Kosherstan and Sultan Erdogan, flood Syria with the necessary
cannon fodder, hundreds of thousands of head choppers and throat slitters from a hundred countries, with a licence to murder,
burn, rape, loot, steal and enslave to their hearts content. An alphabet soup of takfiri groups is created out of thin air, armed,
trained, paid, transported and orchestrated with tens of billions of western taxpayers money. ISIS is just one of many.
The Syrian state, armed forces and people resist with unexpected courage and determination, and fight the proxy head choppers
to a standstill. But they are under extreme pressure and have to concentrate their forces in the main battles in the west of the
country. This leaves a vacuum that is filled by the phantom ISIS caliphate. This suits the Axis of Evil just fine. There is no
problem with ISIS black flags flying over Damascus provided Syria is destroyed.
By 2015, the outcome is in the balance. Clinton and Sultan Erdogan have agreed to impose a no fly zone to turn the tide in
favor of the head choppers. A series of Gas Attack Hoaxes and false flag atrocity claims are staged over a protracted period of
time to justify Libya style intervention.
All bets are off as Putin overrides his advisors and dispatches Russian forces to intervene and prevent the destruction of
the Syrian state. With the support of Iran and Hezbollah, the situation is transformed. Though the worst of the fighting is yet
to come, the Neocon plot to destroy Syria is a busted flush. Syria is steadily liberated from terrorist occupation.
The main terrorist sponsors try to salvage something from this failure. Sultan Erdogan switches sides and takes the opportunity
to attack the Kurds. Trump seizes the opportunity to scale back US involvement, generating much hysteria from all the Zionist
shills in Washington. The Kurds seek some kind of accommodation with Damascus.
The war is now winding down. It will take some time before all the terrorist areas are liberated and occupying US and Turkish
forces have to withdraw. But the outcome is now inevitable.
Funny you mentioned Arundhati Roy as I almost bought her book today: Capitalism A Ghost Story, in a Left bookshop here, however
ended up getting Culture & Imperialism by Edward Said and a second hand copy of Pedadogy Of The Oppressed which I've, um, never
read. Time to broaden the mind, as have hardly read any books for years except articles on the Internet. Will pick up Arundhati's
book next time. Have a good day
eddie
The Dems morphed into neocons when her willy-waving husband sold out and destroyed the Democratic Party of LBJ's Great Society.
Tulsi being a member of the establishment which she lambasts is quite a paradox, but can be seen from one's own moral perspective.
During the VietNam war era, '63-75, many who opposed the fiasco took a stronger stance: prison as a conscientious objector, moving
to Canada, undesirable discharges, very vocal public protests & arrests. Many lives and futures ruined, my own included, to actively
stop the illegal & profit driven Invasion ..
Tulsi has shown a lot of class, truth to the darkest Power, and long may she have this platform..
Rhys Jaggar
Next they will try saying that because she is not a mother she has no place being President. If I had a vote in the US, I would
vote for any man, woman, black/white/Hisoanic/Asian/any other ethnicity, straight/gay/indeterminate who:
1. Pledged to cut the US military budget in half, sign up to existing OPCW conventions on chemical+biological weapons and demanded
that Israel did likewise.
2. Removed the right for dual citizen US-Israeli zionists to hold public US office (tell em to decide whether they are primarily
aligned to Israel or not) and neutered the election-rigging AIPAC monstrosity at source.
3. Called out the global warming hoax as the biggest scam of the 21st century.
4. Enforced the concept that polluters pay to clean up their polluting, particularly in extractive industries, agriculture, mining
and packaging.
5. Promoted the restoration of mutually owned local finance, particularly in providing mortgages.
6. Confronted the self-serving victim gravy train, in particular making the terms 'man' and 'woman' beyond the rights of anyone
to take legal action.
7. vowed to shut down 25% of US overseas military bases in a first term and a further tranche in a second term.
Despite
scant polling evidence, Joe Biden's continued
lead , and serious
concerns over her viability with the broader electorate, Elizabeth Warren's Democratic
presidential campaign has taken on an air of inevitability.
Just this fall, the emcee of the financial television circuit, Mad Money 's Jim
Cramer, has gone from wailing "She's got to be stopped" to insisting, "I don't think she's
nearly as anti-business" as commonly portrayed. Either way, Cramer continues, "I think there is
such a thing called Congress." The implication is even if the prairie populist by way of
Massachusetts goes the distance, Wall Street's network on Capitol Hill would make mincemeat of
her agenda.
In my interviews with members of Congress, especially Republicans, Warren's nomination is
generally treated as a fait accompli. Perhaps it's projection, Warren is who many partisan
Republicans think the Democrats are: female, lawyerly and anti-capitalist. The contest of
Warren vs. Donald Trump would provide, if nothing else, clarity.
The dynamic extends past Northeast Washington. Where people put their money where their
mouth is -- political gambling sites -- Warren's chances of winning the Democratic nomination
are assessed at nearing 40 percent. On PredicitIt.com, one can buy a Warren share an absurd
thirty-eight cents on the dollar.
Advertisement
The idea of Democrats nominating an aged, gaffe-prone white male popular with industry and
in the Rust Belt seems absurd on the face: "That's our nominee, right?" David Axelrod,
mastermind of Barack Obama's 2008 presidential campaign, earlier this month crowned Warren the
"front-runner."
There's just one problem with this line of thinking: it's not at all clear Warren is going
to be the Democratic nominee for president. Her principal rival, Biden, the former vice
president, still leads in some national polls. Biden is frequently compared to Jeb Bush, the
establishment favorite, paper tiger on the Republican side in the last round.
There are two problems with this analogy. Biden isn't nearly as "establishment" as the
former Florida governor. Bush was the cash-flush son and brother of two presidents, while Biden
is bleeding
dough and has failed to procure the endorsement of the president he served. Conversely,
unlike Bush, whose lead nationally evaporated by Labor Day, Biden has stubbornly stayed more or
less at the top of the heap through all of 2019.
It's Halloween and Democratic voters haven't been spooked enough by the former vice
president's at-times catastrophic performance to dump him. Unlike Bush, Biden has an ace in the
hole: the anchoring constituency of his party, African-American voters. If Bush had commanded
the acclaim of evangelical Christians he might have held on despite his other weaknesses as a
candidate. Biden is also relatively
popular , while the Bush clan is rightly still blamed for the destruction of American
prestige at home and abroad.
Biden frequently, even pathetically presents himself as an "Obama-Biden Democrat."
ButBiden's candidacy remains most similar to a non-Bush 2016 candidate: Donald Trump, the
front-runner the "smart set" claimed was doomed from the start. Like Trump, Biden is
famous . And as Biden has hit campaign troubles, the former veep's raison d'etre can
take on an air of the self-evident: I'm leading the race because I'm leading the race.
Like Trump, who would proudly spend literally hours of his campaign rallies reading off
primary poll results, Biden also seems content to run a campaign based on his own lead. After
weeks of purported political battering, Biden told 60 Minutes Sunday: "I know I'm the
frontrunner."
With almost Trump-like flare, Biden noted: "Find me a national poll with a notable a couple
exceptions." What was true of the last Democratic debate, earlier this month in Ohio, may be
true of the 2020 election as a whole. As Jacob Heilbrunn, editor of The National
Interest , said
: "It was a good night for the old codgers on stage."
Indeed, insistences from career progressives and conservatives that Warren is the true
Democratic standard-bearer can take on a mawkish tone. Surely, in a time of ubiquitous
partisanship, the victors will be most ideological. The Democrats are moving ever left, the
Republicans, ever right. Surely, it is time for a true believer.
But the logic is too clever by half. Templates are incomplete assessments of the world, but
play along: if Trump is Biden's proper analogue, then Warren's candidacy is perhaps most akin
to Ted Cruz's in 2016. Like Cruz, Warren is somewhat
unpopular with her colleagues, which doubles as a badge of honor with many, more
ideological activists.
But party activists perhaps understand the organization they serve less than they think they
do. Isn't it just as possible, indeed maybe even likely, that Warren, like Cruz, is waiting for
a day that will never come? Trump's "implosions" were never reflected at the ballot box. Maybe
so, it will also be with Biden.
Templates aren't perfect, however. While Cruz did well with evangelicals, Warren has failed
to make inroads among African Americans. And unlike Cruz, the establishment has warmed to
Warren's rise -- her campaign doubles as a Harvard satellite campus.
But perhaps Warren's greatest weakness as a candidate, as it was for Cruz, is that she is
not the real voice of her party's discontented. A well placed source told me that in 2012 he
advised Mitt Romney, the Republican nominee, that the person who wins America's big elections
today is the most pessimistic of the two messengers.
Of the 2016 conservatives, Cruz was perhaps most polite to Trump, but in failing to ape the
future president's program, he never emerged as anything more than a poor imitation of the real
estate mogul. Immigration and ennui over America's international role were the orders of the
day, and for a core contingent, no substitutes for Trumpian nationalism would do.
Warren experiences this vulnerability, an intensity gap, not with Biden, but with Bernie
Sanders. Warren, perhaps sensing the establishment's warmth to her, takes pains to emphasize
that she is still a capitalist. Perhaps accordingly, socialist Alexandria Ocascio-Cortez, the
most powerful millennial politician, has thrown in with Sanders, the candidate she volunteered
for four years ago. For the under-forty set, which has been mired in a now-decade of low growth
and the vise-grip of rising housing, education and healthcare costs, Warrenism, like Cruzism,
may come too little, too late.
A well placed source told me that in 2012 he advised Mitt Romney, the Republican
nominee, that the person who wins America's big elections today is the most pessimistic of
the two messengers.
Ummmm... Romney LOST.
For the under-forty set, which has been mired in a now-decade of low growth and the
vice grip of rising housing, education and healthcare costs, Warrenism, like Cruzism, may
come too little, too late.
The article was nearly completely about Biden vs Warren then changed course near the end
by bring Sanders into it. So Warrenism may be "too little, too late" so Dems will go for
less with Biden? Sorry, it really seems incoherent to me.
Yeah, the analogy that makes more sense is Trump:Cruz as Bernie:Warren, except instead of
being a total fraud with no political experience, Bernie has 40 years of experience, with
lots of accomplishments, and is seen as far-and-away the most trustworthy and with the
highest favorability.
As competing right-wing and left-wing versions of the "cool nerd"? I guess so, though the
essence of the "cool nerd" is that most people don't think the "cool nerds" are cool.
Is Biden really less "Establishment" than Jeb Bush?. A lot depends on how you define
Establishment -- and the word is very slippery and hard to define. I'd say they were both
Establishment to something like the same degree. Bush has a waspy pedigree and two
presidents in his family, but 38 years in the Senate made Biden part of the Washington
Establishment to a high degree. Neither of them had much substance. Biden was sort of like
the ottoman in a Washington salon - something you might not notice until you tripped over
it - but still he was a Washington fixture. Jeb Bush had the connections, but so far as
Washington was concerned there was something provincial about him.
It doesn't really matter who wins the Democrat's party nomination or who wins the
Presidential election. The 'Deep State' runs the government and will continue to run the
government no matter which pony is the face on stage. Pick your puppet at the polls. That
is if you want to waste your time voting at all.
True of any candidate except Trump who is the only one not controlled by the Deep State.
Not that he hasn't had limited success so far in going up against them, given their control
of the FBI and CIA and ability to manufacture scandals at will such as the "Russia
Collusion" hoax.
I'll agree that Trump is somewhat outside the 'Deep State's' control. I'll state that I am
not a fan of most of his policies or the man himself and it is my firm opinion that even
though he is not an 'offspring' of the Deep State, his actions and interests are
self-focused just like those that are bred from within. None of them give a rat's behind
about Joe Public; it's the super-elites serving the interests of the super-elites.
The socalled Deep State swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. That oath comes before
their loyalty to Trump.
Trump is president, not dictator. He doesn't just get to do whatever he wants despite
the fact he thinks he can, he thinks he is above the Constitution.
"I have to the right to do whatever I want as president." - Trump
You no doubt nodded in agreement when he said that, but if a Democratic president ever
said that, you'd erupt in outrage completely forgetting how you felt when Trump said
it.
The previous Democratic president ruled largely through executive orders, if you haven't
noticed. Not a dictator, right. While those upholders of the Constitution which are so dear
to you, violated it left and right in everything foreign policy. Try better.
Actually, as Alex stated, rule by Executive Order has become more prevalent with each
successive President regardless of political party. Without going into a long explanation,
I'll just say that the Constitution has been eroded by all Branches of the government -
unfortunately, it's getting to the point where it will be completely ineffectual soon.
Warren (as well as Bernie Sanders) would have been a great candidate for the Democratic
Party to try to win back working-class whites in 2016, but nowadays it seems they are the
Republican base and big Trump supporters and aren't returning back to the fold.
Democrats would do better to find a more center-right figure to win over
neoconservatives, liberatarians, and suburban America, all alienated by Donald Trump and by
what the Republican Party has become, which could potentially get them states like Arizona,
Texas, North Carolina, and the like.
That describes most of the Democratic also-rans, and pretty much Biden, too. And Hilary
Clinton, of course, and look how inspiring she was to the Democratic electorate.
You're pretty much describing Andrew Yang. His base is currently small, but very
passionate, consisting of progressives, disaffected Trump voters, working class whites,
libertarians, etc., basically anyone on the political spectrum.
Warren is who many partisan Republicans think the Democrats are: female, lawyerly and
anti-capitalist.
A few paragraphs down, you said "Warren, perhaps sensing the establishment's warmth to
her, takes pains to emphasize that she is still a capitalist." Did you just assume your
readers would prefer the smear up front and the facts buried near the bottom?
" Franklin Foer : All the investment bankers who have voodoo dolls of you
might be a bit surprised that you recently described yourself as "capitalist to the bone."
What did you mean?
Elizabeth Warren : I believe in markets and the benefits they can produce when
they work. Markets with rules can produce enormous value. So much of the work I have done
-- the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, my hearing-aid bill -- are about making
markets work for people, not making markets work for a handful of companies that scrape all
the value off to themselves. I believe in competition."
Like Cruz, Warren is somewhat unpopular with her colleagues
Wake me up when something actually analogous to Ted Cruz happens, like if Warren calls
the eventual nominee a "narcissist" and "serial liar" for whom "morality doesn't exist" and
then goes on to phone bank for him in the general.
Well, looks like I already have to wake you up. Remember that story with her saying that it
ain't right when a veep's son serves on the board of a foreign company and then immediately
backtracking after having understood what she just said?
Sounds like Warren is thinking of "Capitalism, with fixes from outside capitalism"
I'll admit, even the criticisms make me more interested in her. Though I fear that it's
more of a 'too good to be true' concept. My time in customer service helped me to
understand that sometimes you have to give Hard Messages to people as you really can't have
Everything You Want. Sometimes I feel like I'm seeing Warren as "OMG this is everything I
wanted." Which is one of the red flags I had over Trump.
It's hard though. I know that giving hard messages is basically a death sentence in
campaigns so people don't do that. But Bernie did and he's not dying. BLAH.
In any case, don't go too hard on TAC articles about democratic candidates. It's sort of
like when a US new organization puts an editorial on a foreign culture. It's not a bad
viewpoint to have, but it IS going ot be..well.. different.
It becomes more and more obvious with each day that nominating Biden is incomparably
greater priority to the Democratic Party as an institution than winning the election. Yes,
Warren is no orator (which is an extremely ill omen for a candidate when running against
someone like Trump), but neither Biden is. Warren, with all her faults, at least speaks
like a non-orator with both hemispheres functional. While Biden is simply babbling.
And that's not to mention the fact that Democrats (yet) have a candidate who would
reliably beat any opponent aside from Rand Paul - Tulsi Gabbard. But these... epitomes of
alternative genius keep on trying to drive her away from their party at all costs instead
of holding on to her for dear life.
Trump won because of the number of other Republican candidates who wanted to fight it out
to the bitter end, rather than throw in their lot with a better candidate like Cruz or even
Jeb! Had it come down to two Republican candidates, Trump and one holding more traditional
views, it is likely Trump would have lost the Republican nomination.
The Democrats look the same for 2020. Biden represents the Clinton, Republican-lite wing
of the party. He has the name recognition and the big money backing. Sanders is a true
leftist. And Warren is somewhere in-between. The question is whether or not Sanders and
Warren will fight it out to the bitter end, leaving Biden with just enough of a plurality
to win the nomination. I don't give any of the rest a chance.
I tend to think that Trump would beat Biden. For the same reasons he beat Clinton: he's
a neo-liberal, neo-conservative who could give a rat's a$$ about the pain of the working
and middle-classes. I think Warren could beat Trump. She's really not a leftist
economically, and a lot of independents would see her as a rational, thoughtful person, as
opposed to Trump's Trumpism.
My lawn chair and popcorn favorite would be a Trump/Sanders title fight. Maybe terrible
for the country, but definitely fun to watch.
I think she is probably to the right of either Nixon or Eisenhower. She's certainly not
proposing a 91% marginal income tax rate (Eisenhower) or a fully socialized health care
system (Nixon). The world has shifted so far to the right in modern times that I can
understand that some see her as far left.
The reason that Nominee Warren is unlikely to get black support is that she played a card
that was not hers to [play and doubled down on the matter and continues to play that card
inspite of the cold hard light of day that she wasn't, and is not native american.
There is a huge wave of under current simmering anger because I don't cleave to notions
of some incorrectly underpinnings of "conservatism", that are sacrosanct. I don't put much
stock in identity political machinations online. It is simply a nonfactor or less of a
factor than what is on the page as to some's ideas.
But the hijacking of someone's history that is not your own in any fashion and profiting
from the same -- for people whose history are hog to negative narratives, this simply will
not sit well.
----------------
Senator Cruz's attempts to rig the Colorado primaries violates the principles of fair
play. Making arguments about being pro-country and at the same time manipulating the
immigration arguments to favor undermining US citizens -- don't invite much enthusiasm for
his leadership.
"The reason that Nominee Warren is unlikely to get black support is that she played a card
that was not hers to [play and doubled down on the matter and continues to play that card
inspite of the cold hard light of day that she wasn't, and is not native american."
Why in the world would African Americans care one wilt about Warren claiming she was
Native American?
Af-Ams are big on identity..but the only time I've seen it brought as an issue is when
someone who's not Af-Am claims they are Af-Am.
Republicans have a big issue with her using the term. But it's similar to Democrats
hating Trump's attacks on Latinos: the ones that rage weren't considering her in the first
place.
Warren will win or lose the Black vote by whether she notes their issues and offers
options that will change their current situation, something Hillary failed to do in those
key states. Though first she'll need them win them over from Biden. Possible, though not
easily.
Not really sure why the author thinks warren is somehow outside the democratic norms, she
has worked consistently for the working voters that make up her district by trying to bring
some balance against the large corporations that pretty much control the economy. Even
conservatives, the champions of big business and the haters of unions and all social
programs seem to actually have second thoughts about crushing the life out of the common
man, or at least they write occasional comments that make nice to them while giving the
corporations massive tax cuts and cutting the social programs.
If I was a bit more cynical I would think that they are pretty nervous about an
articulate candidate with a solid slate of actual policy papers and positions that try to
lay out a way to make the economy work for the regular folks. Why they might actually be
trying to claim that she will take the side of the corporations that run conservative
politics..
I think Warren's big problem is how she talks and how she looks.
Ever since TV came into the political process, image has become incredibly important.
Look at Ted Cruz. He just looked...weird.
Warren is frenetic when she talks on the debate stage. Mute your TV during the next
debate and watch. She also talks like a school marm.
Lasty, history does not smile on wonks. People want easy-to-understand programs and
straight talk. Warren constantly dodges how she will pay for her programs. This will not
play well in 2020.
I still think it will be Sanders, with the 1980 and 2016 GOP primaries as the templates,
and the crisis in the Reagan/Thatcher/neo-liberal consensus being the bedrock of his, and
Trump's, appeal.
Trump was such a wild card in 2016 that it's hard to make connections or analogies to any
other presidential election. You don't have to see Joe Biden as some clone of Jeb Bush to
see that they both have real deficiencies as candidates. Cruz also was a lousy candidate
who wouldn't have won the nomination or the general election, but he was blindsided by
Trump, someone new from outside politics.
There's nobody in sight who could blindside Warren like that, and I get the feeling that
the Democratic Party base (the White half of it anyway) is more comfortable with Warren
than the Republican Party base was with Cruz. Even Evangelicals couldn't quite bring
themselves to love Ted. However unpopular Warren is with the electorate as a whole, party
loyalists and activists have no problem with her.
I don't see Buttigieg winning the nomination. Alice Roosevelt Longworth once said that
Tom Dewey looked like the little plastic man at the top of the wedding cake. Now that we
have gay marriage, voters are offered the a candidate who looks like the little plastic man
on top of a gay wedding cake. I suspect they won't go for him.
Had Cruz been the nominee he would have had the same advantage that Trump did: Hillary
Clinton herself. She was a deeply unlikable candidate and 2016 is best described as
"Hillary lost" as opposed to "Trump won." Pretty much any Republican, excepting maybe Bush
with his family baggage, would have bear Hillary, and with a more respectable showing.
Letting their foreign policy being hijacked (or, rather, joyridden) by neolib lunatics, the
twins of neocon wackos. That can hardly be called "competence" and "prudence".
gjohnsit on Wed,
10/30/2019 - 3:11pm The Clinton Dead-Enders aren't very clever or original, but they can
stick to a script.
First Bernie defends Tulsi from baseless smears.
Tulsi Gabbard has put her life on the line to defend this country. People can disagree on
issues, but it is outrageous for anyone to suggest that Tulsi is a foreign asset.
"This idea of purity and you're never compromised and you're always politically woke and all
that stuff, you should get over that quickly," Obama said, to some laughs from the crowd.
"The world is messy. There are ambiguities. People who do really good stuff have flaws." he
continued.
Obama cited college campuses and social media as a breeding ground for wokeness.
"One danger I see among young people particularly on college campuses," he said, "I do get
a sense sometimes now among certain young people, and this is accelerated by social media,
there is this sense sometimes the way of me making change is to be as judgmental as possible
about other people and that's enough."
Obama then directly poked fun at 'woke' keyboard warriors:
"Like if I tweet or hashtag about how you didn't do something right or used the wrong verb
or then, I can sit back and feel good about myself: 'You see how woke I was? I called you
out.'" he mocked.
In a nutshell, Obama is saying we all need a little more aloha spirit -- being
respectful & caring for one another. Not being so quick to judge. Not seeing everything
as black/white. I hope you'll join me in bringing the spirit of aloha to the White House.
https://t.co/tYADx6Dzqs
Obama made some pretty campaign finance promises in the 2008 primary, and then did an
about-face during the general, raking in hundreds of millions of dollars from the usual
suspects. Then he declined to prosecute the bankers. Let's not do that again.
Bernie Sanders on Elizabeth Warren's work for big corporations such as advising Dow
Chemical:
"I'll let the American people make that judgment. I've never worked for a corporation.
I've never carried their baggage in the U.S. Senate." pic.twitter.com/yV9TRw7jPB
People are defending Warbama's helping DOW screw women who had breast cancer out of their
settlement. It's absolutely sickening to see people defending the indefensible. "She needed
the experience." WTAF does that even mean?
Obama made some pretty campaign finance promises in the 2008 primary, and then did
an about-face during the general, raking in hundreds of millions of dollars from the
usual suspects. Then he declined to prosecute the bankers. Let's not do that again.
Bernie Sanders on Elizabeth Warren's work for big corporations such as advising Dow
Chemical:
"I'll let the American people make that judgment. I've never worked for a
corporation. I've never carried their baggage in the U.S. Senate." pic.twitter.com/yV9TRw7jPB
of identity politics is bullshit. He's offended enough by irrationality that he's willing
to comment on that in public--now that he's out of the Presidency and doesn't have to win any
more elections.
However, none of that would stop him (or did stop him) using that kind of identity
politics to the hilt for his own political advantage.
#2 Go
on ahead and mock all you want. Those of us who see you for what you are will never stop
seeing it and calling you out on it. Boohoo mofo.
WASHINGTON -- After realizing there were still judicial appointments that needed to be
filled during a meeting with the conservative think tank, Senate Majority Leader Mitch
McConnell reportedly pointed to a valet in the Heritage Foundation parking lot Thursday and
asked him if he wanted to be a federal judge. "Hey, kid, how'd you like a lifetime appointment
on the Ninth Circuit, huh?" asked McConnell, interrupting the 19-year-old temp worker's
protests that he didn't know anything about the law to tell him that all he needed was "wipe
that dumb look off your face" and he could be delivering rulings by the end of the week.
"You over 18? You got an ID? That'll do. Now just hop in this car with me and we'll head
over to the Capitol right now.
Remember, abortion's bad, corporations are good, and as for everything else, you just
shut the fuck up and do as your told. Got it?"
At press time, after the valet nervously informed McConnell that he was hungover and had
illegal drugs in his system, the laughing Senate leader assured him that wouldn't be an
issue.
Next they will try saying that because she is not a mother she has no place being President.
If I had a vote in the US, I would vote for any man, woman, black/white/Hisoanic/Asian/any
other ethnicity, straight/gay/indeterminate who:
1. Pledged to cut the US military budget in half, sign up to existing OPCW conventions on
chemical+biological weapons and demanded that Israel did likewise.
2. Removed the right for dual citizen US-Israeli zionists to hold public US office (tell em
to decide whether they are primarily aligned to Israel or not) and neutered the
election-rigging AIPAC monstrosity at source.
3. Called out the global warming hoax as the biggest scam of the 21st century.
4. Enforced the concept that polluters pay to clean up their polluting, particularly in
extractive industries, agriculture, mining and packaging.
5. Promoted the restoration of mutually owned local finance, particularly in providing
mortgages.
6. Confronted the self-serving victim gravy train, in particular making the terms 'man' and
'woman' beyond the rights of anyone to take legal action.
7. vowed to shut down 25% of US overseas military bases in a first term and a further tranche
in a second term.
This is something I've been thinking a lot about lately, and this seems like a good post to
share it on.
Watching trolls emerge to discredit and attack the lone U.S. candidate who publicly and
vocally opposes America's regime change wars and even dares tell the American people that "we
are supporting the terrorists – not fighting them" – is bad enough in MSM, but a
sad and interesting comment on how completely engaged the State has become with attempting to
"control" and "shape" discourse on progressive sites such as this.
My favorite of course is when one State troll debates another State troll in completely
"fake" discourse, attempting to amplify their troll message. The other technique that is
endlessly amusing is when a single troll posts something a well informed person with
progressive values can quite agree with one day, followed the next by complete gibberish
posing as "sophistication," followed the next day by talking points right out of the CIA
& Pentagon, and then follows all that up with posting something sensible again. Just a
bit "crazy-making" no?
It pays to remember ("The 4 D's: Deny / Disrupt / Degrade / Deceive") that come right
out of the trolling manual. It should be a red-flag if these descriptors characterize
someone's posts.
The saying that if it ("looks like a duck, walks like a duck and talks like a duck, well,
it just might be a duck") – is one that is worth applying to our comment's sections
discourse. Because if it "posts like a troll"- in the end it doesn't really matter if it "is"
a troll (something we will never know), or is simply an uniformed but opinionated idiot
– as that person is "doing the work of" the State sponsored trolls in either case.
I find it is always worth periodically reviewing what we know about these operations
(thank you Edward Snowden) – as it helps us to better understand and prepares us to
better deal with the State sponsored troll operations we now see routinely in all of our
truly progressive comments sections on alternative media sites. What we now deal with here at
OffG and elsewhere are daily routine attempts to take over, shape and control otherwise
rational informed sincere discussion by readers. Sadly this is how some people make their
living – existing in a continual state of existential "bad faith."
WASHINGTON -- After realizing there were still judicial appointments that needed to be
filled during a meeting with the conservative think tank, Senate Majority Leader Mitch
McConnell reportedly pointed to a valet in the Heritage Foundation parking lot Thursday and
asked him if he wanted to be a federal judge. "Hey, kid, how'd you like a lifetime appointment
on the Ninth Circuit, huh?" asked McConnell, interrupting the 19-year-old temp worker's
protests that he didn't know anything about the law to tell him that all he needed was "wipe
that dumb look off your face" and he could be delivering rulings by the end of the week.
"You over 18? You got an ID? That'll do. Now just hop in this car with me and we'll head
over to the Capitol right now.
Remember, abortion's bad, corporations are good, and as for everything else, you just
shut the fuck up and do as your told. Got it?"
At press time, after the valet nervously informed McConnell that he was hungover and had
illegal drugs in his system, the laughing Senate leader assured him that wouldn't be an
issue.
Eric Ciaramella is connected to Victoria Nuland. IIf this information is true, the entire Impeachment thing is a another phase
of Russiagate. It's the Democrats attempt at a coup d'etat
Ciaramella, who was a Susan Rice protégé and was brought into the White House by H. R. McMaster. Looks like McMaster was a
neocon zealot.
The winners write history. Surviving losers also rewrite history ('Gone with the Wind").
Or, past lives are never written about at all. The problem is that western government has
swirled down the drain into incompetent delusion. Corporations rule. Plutocrats are in combat
over the spoils. Protests won't work until police and mercenaries realized that they aren't
being paid enough to die or to subjugate their own families.
Right now, the problem is two million Californians forced out of their homes or waiting
with no electricity for evacuation orders. The American government is simply incapable
rebuilding Puerto Rico or Northern California . Or handling global plagues such as
African Swine Fever that has already killed a quarter of the global pig population. Simply
put, climate change, overpopulation, and rising inequality assure that revolutions cannot be
orderly.
The 10% Technocrats like Elizabeth Warren will try to keep things running until they can't
anymore.
Renowned author and journalist James Howard Kunstler thinks what has been happening for the
last few years with the mainstream media's coverage of President Trump borders on criminal
activity. Kunstler explains, " What I am waiting for is if and when indictments come down from
Mr. Barr and Mr. Durham ..."
"I am wondering whether the editors and publishers of the Washington Post and New York
Times and the producers at CNN and MSNBC are going to be named as unindicted co-conspirators
in this effort to gaslight the country and really stage a coup to remove the President and to
nullify the 2016 election. I say this as someone who is not necessarily a Trump supporter. I
didn't vote for the guy. I am not a cheerleader for the guy, but basically I think the
behavior of his antagonists has been much worse and much more dangerous for the nation and
the American project as a long term matter. I really need to see some action to hold people
responsible for the acts they have committed...
I am not an attorney, and I have never worked for the Department of Justice, but it seems
to me that by naming the publishers and editors of these companies as unindicted
co-conspirators that allows you to avoid the appearance of trying to shut down the press
because you are not going to put them in jail, but you are going to put them in disrupt. That
may prompt their boards of directors to fire a few people and maybe change the way they do
business at these places."
Kunstler says things look unlike anything we have seen in the past because we are
approaching a day of reckoning in our debt based monetary system. Kunstler says, "Yeah, I think
you can see it happening now..."
"What seems to be resolving is some movement to some sort of a crack up of the banking
system . What we are really stuck in is a situation where we've got too many obligations we
cannot meet and too many debts that will never be repaid. We have been trying to run the
country for the past 15 or 20 years on debt because we can no longer provide the kind of
industrial growth that we have been used to . . . and have this massive consumer spending
industry. So, we have been borrowing from the future to pay our bills today, and we are
running out of our ability to borrow more...
I think we are going to lose the ability to support a lot of activities that we have been
doing. It starts with energy and its relationship to banking and our ability to generate the
kind of growth you need to keep rolling over debt. The reason debt will never be paid and
obligations will never be met is we are not generating that sort of growth. Were just
generating frauds and swindles. Frauds and swindles are fun while you are doing them and they
seem to produce a lot of paper profits, but after a while, they prove to be false. Then you
have to do something else. A great deal about our economy and our way of life is false and is
going to fail . Then we are going to have to make other arrangements for daily life. . . .It
will probably mean we will be organizing our stuff at much more of a local scale."
On the 2020 Presidential Election, Kunstler predicts, "When all is said and done, I am not
convinced there is enough there to convict President Trump of anything..."
"At the same time, there is probably going to be a lot of legal actions brought against
the people who started this coup against him, and that's going to be extremely disturbing to
the Left.
I think one of the possibilities is we may not have a 2020 election. In some way or
another, the country may be so disorderly that we can't hold an election. There may be so
much strife that we cannot handle the legal questions around holding the election, and it may
be suspended. I don't know what that means, but I am very impressed of the disorder that we
are already in. It's more of a kind of mental disorder between the parties, but it could turn
into a lot of kinetic disorder on the ground and a lot of institutional failure ."
Join Greg Hunter as he goes One-on-One with author and journalist James Howard Kunstler.
(You Tube has Demonetized this video – again. This means only long commercials play,
if they play at all. (most skip long commercials) It must have some useful information in it,
so, enjoy it!!)
"It's more of a kind of mental disorder between the parties, but it could turn into a lot
of kinetic disorder on the ground and a lot of institutional failure ."
"...kind of mental disorder between the parties...".
"It's more of a kind of mental disorder between the parties..."
If you were to diagnose those extreme on the left, Borderline or even Histrionic could
easily fit the behaviors. Don't know what they mean?
People with Borderline Personality Disorder have an extreme level of Denial, refusing any
fault or blame, they shift blame to others, willing to jump from idolization to utter
rejection, all or nothing, black or white thinking without normal gray perceptions, prone to
make emotionally compelling but unsupported allegations, etc.
People with Histrionic Personality Disorder have an extreme need to be the center of
attention at whatever the cost, often making extreme allegations of abuse and other negative
behaviors.
With these acting-out disorders the persons most impacted are those closest to them.
In families, it is the spouses who are typically accused and abused. Often family courts
ignore the antics expecting the conflict to fade over time as with reasonably normal
people... but it doesn't.
In politics, well, you see what is happening today. Every person who is trying to be
reasonable and discerning is shaking his/her head at all the chaos in recent years. As some
have commented, now the extremists are doubling down on their behaviors, something reasonably
normal people wouldn't pursue.
it is interesting that this guy kunstler (from wiki) "continues to write for The Atlantic
Monthly, Slate.com , RollingStone, The New
York Times Sunday Magazine, and its op-ed page where he often covers environmental and
economic issues."
and yet he writes "When all is said and done, I am not convinced there is enough there to
convict President Trump of anything..."
"At the same time, there is probably going to be a lot of legal actions brought against
the people who started this coup against him, and that's going to be extremely disturbing to
the Left."
he is not alone as a leftist taking the position that trump, whom they dislike, is
essentially innocent and at least parts of the democratic party, the obama administration,
the doj, fbi and the cia are guilty of great crimes against the state, as well as against
individuals. note glenn greenwald, jimmy dore, aaron mate, matt taibbi, steven f. cohen,
etc.
With Democrats...reality is optional. Hell...they don't even trust what's between their
legs and think it can be solved with surgery then engage in a full blown fantasy and
mythology that the surgery made a difference...you really want your lives run by confused
people who's lives are focused on "fantasy and mythology"??
I predict there will be an election and there will not be any " legal actions brought
against the people who started this coup against him". That would open Pandoras' box and
reveal just how corrupt government is. It will never happen.
You know what they say about karma being a (word that rhymes with "witch"), right?
At the second Democratic presidential primary debate back in July, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (HI)
absolutely torched Sen. Kamala Harris' (CA) criminal justice
reform record during her time as California's attorney general. It was the political shot
heard round the world.
Understandably, Harris was none too pleased about it and let it be known in a post-debate
interview in what Brandon Morse
described at the time as a "childish and elitist"
response :
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN: Did you expect that from Tulsi Gabbard? Had you had interaction
about that in the past? And how do you think it went?
SEN. KAMALA HARRIS: Well, I mean, listen, I -- this is going to sound immodest, but I'm
obviously a top-tier candidate, and so I did expect that I would be on the stage and take
hits tonight because there are a lot of people that are trying to make the stage for the next
debate.
COOPER: For a lot of them it's do or die.
HARRIS: Especially when some people are at zero or 1%, whatever she might be at. So I did
expect that I might take hits tonight.
It was a particularly cheap shot from someone who'd had such a disastrously poor debate
performance. She actually stooped even lower during the same interview with Cooper, calling
Gabbard an "apologist" for Syrian president Bashar al-Assad.
Well, here we are three months later, and the tables have dramatically turned. Not only has
Kamala Harris'
campaign cratered , but in some national and state polls Gabbard is now ahead of her, in
spite of
vicious attacks on the Hawaii congresswoman earlier this month from failed 2016 Democratic
presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.
First up, the CNN/UH state poll out of New Hampshire:
... ... ...
Here's how things have trended in that poll since July:
... ... ...
Next, a national poll from Suffolk University and USA Today:
... ... ...
The trend on that one looks like this:
... ... ...
To be fair, there
are other polls taken recently that show Harris ahead of Gabbard by a few percentage
points, but it's still gotta sting Harris to know that the woman whose numbers she made fun of
back in July is polling ahead of her in select polls now.
Daily Caller's James Hasson calls it for what it is:
... ... ...
To make matters worse for Harris, Gabbard is just one
poll away from qualifying for the November Democratic debate (which is scheduled for
Nov. 20th in Georgia ).
Assuming Gabbard ends up qualifying, one has to wonder if she'll be prepared to use a
rhetorical finishing maneuver on her political foe this time around (assuming the mods
don't run interference ).
-- Based in North Carolina, Sister
Toldjah is a former liberal and a 16+ year veteran of blogging with an emphasis on media
bias, social issues, and the culture wars. Read her Red State archives here . Connect with her on Twitter . –
Democrats haven't been too kind to Hawaii Rep. Tusli Gabbard. Ever since she took down
California's Sen. Kamala Harris, she's had a target on her back, with wild accusations being
thrown her way such as being a "Russian asset."
Recently, as my colleague
Thomas LaDuke covered , Gabbard announced that she won't be seeking reelection for her seat
in congress, and instead, putting all her efforts into running for President.
It's pretty clear, however, that Gabbard isn't going to win the 2020 nomination from the
Democrats, but some Democrats fear that in light of this obvious fact, Gabbard may continue her
campaign under a different banner, and go for a third party run. Despite Gabbard not being
anywhere near the front of the pack, she is somewhat popular, and Democrats fear that her
third-party run would subtract from the total number of Democrat voters.
According to The Hill ,
strategists are expressing their worries:
Some party strategists and operatives fear that a third-party bid by the Hawaii
congresswoman could fracture parts of the electorate and stir chaos in the 2020 contest,
ultimately setting the stage for President Trump 's reelection.
The criticisms are particularly pointed from people in former Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton 's
orbit.
"She has absolutely zero path to becoming the Democratic nominee, so what is she doing?"
said Adam Parkhomenko, a Democratic strategist and former aide to Clinton, the party's 2016
presidential nominee. "To say that she's going to take her campaign all the way to the
convention just suggests that she's trying to create chaos."
Other Democrats have expressed their worries as well according to The Hill:
"I think the possibility of [Gabbard] running as a third party is very, very real and it
should concern all of us," one DNC member said. "Look what Jill Stein did to Hillary Clinton.
She was the difference in three states."
Despite Gabbard's insistence that she has ruled out a third-party campaign, some Democrats
remain skeptical. Sellers said there was still plenty of time for the congresswoman to change
her mind.
"I don't trust anything she says in that regard," Sellers said. "I think we've seen that
before, but I think many of the concerns that Hillary Clinton and myself had about
congresswoman Gabbard are proving to be true and I think that's unfortunate."
This is an echo of things Clinton herself has said previously. The failed 2016 candidate
once indirectly made the wild accusation that Gabbard was being groomed for a third party run.
A spokesperson later confirmed that Clinton was speaking about Gabbard.
"I'm not making any predictions, but I think they've got their eye on somebody who's
currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate," said
Clinton to the Campaign HQ podcast.
Despite their fears, Gabbard herself has made it very clear that she has no intention of
seeking a third-party run, but in the event that she did, Democrats would definitely have a
problem on their hands.
As of right now, Gabbard is polling with an approval average of 12.5 according to
Real Clear Politics . Miniscule in terms of the big picture, but between Gabbard, the Green
Party's Jill Stein, and possibly others who may jump into the race, such as
Dick's Sporting Goods CEO Ed Stack , leftist figures could nickel and dime the Democrats
into another election loss.
As of right now, it's already not looking good for Democrats as is. One more pebble in their
shoe would spell doom, and Gabbard has proven to be a pretty big pebble.
You know what they say about karma being a (word that rhymes with "witch"), right?
At the second Democratic presidential primary debate back in July, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (HI)
absolutely torched Sen. Kamala Harris' (CA) criminal justice
reform record during her time as California's attorney general. It was the political shot
heard round the world.
Understandably, Harris was none too pleased about it and let it be known in a post-debate
interview in what Brandon Morse
described at the time as a "childish and elitist"
response :
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN: Did you expect that from Tulsi Gabbard? Had you had interaction
about that in the past? And how do you think it went?
SEN. KAMALA HARRIS: Well, I mean, listen, I -- this is going to sound immodest, but I'm
obviously a top-tier candidate, and so I did expect that I would be on the stage and take
hits tonight because there are a lot of people that are trying to make the stage for the next
debate.
COOPER: For a lot of them it's do or die.
HARRIS: Especially when some people are at zero or 1%, whatever she might be at. So I did
expect that I might take hits tonight.
It was a particularly cheap shot from someone who'd had such a disastrously poor debate
performance. She actually stooped even lower during the same interview with Cooper, calling
Gabbard an "apologist" for Syrian president Bashar al-Assad.
Well, here we are three months later, and the tables have dramatically turned. Not only has
Kamala Harris'
campaign cratered , but in some national and state polls Gabbard is now ahead of her, in
spite of
vicious attacks on the Hawaii congresswoman earlier this month from failed 2016 Democratic
presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.
First up, the CNN/UH state poll out of New Hampshire:
... ... ...
Here's how things have trended in that poll since July:
... ... ...
Next, a national poll from Suffolk University and USA Today:
... ... ...
The trend on that one looks like this:
... ... ...
To be fair, there
are other polls taken recently that show Harris ahead of Gabbard by a few percentage
points, but it's still gotta sting Harris to know that the woman whose numbers she made fun of
back in July is polling ahead of her in select polls now.
Daily Caller's James Hasson calls it for what it is:
... ... ...
To make matters worse for Harris, Gabbard is just one
poll away from qualifying for the November Democratic debate (which is scheduled for
Nov. 20th in Georgia ).
Assuming Gabbard ends up qualifying, one has to wonder if she'll be prepared to use a
rhetorical finishing maneuver on her political foe this time around (assuming the mods
don't run interference ).
-- Based in North Carolina, Sister
Toldjah is a former liberal and a 16+ year veteran of blogging with an emphasis on media
bias, social issues, and the culture wars. Read her Red State archives here . Connect with her on Twitter . –
If Democrats nominate Elizabeth Warren, there will a chorus of well-funded voices
declaring that her progressivism would destroy the economy. So it's not irrelevant to look at
how that sort of thinking is holding up abroad 1/
Pocketbook Woes Drive an Unlikely Comeback in Argentine Presidential Race
President Mauricio Macri rose to office with a promise that free markets would wrest
Argentina from its boom-and-bust cycle. But with the country in recession, voters may now
turn to an archrival.
5:55 AM - 27 Oct 2019
Macri was the business community's candidate; he was going to bring sound management in
after years of populism, and things were going to be great. But he screwed up the
macroeconomics, borrowing heavily in dollars (!), and presided over recession 2/
Chile has long, as Branko Milanovic says here, been the poster child for neoliberalism. I
remember very well when Bush & co tried to sell Chile's privatized pensions as a
replacement for Social Security. But rampant inequality is now causing mass unrest 3/
Obviously governments of both left and right can mess up. But the persistent belief that
big business and the wealthy know How Things Work and can run the economy best is completely
at odds with experience 4/
RC (Ron) Weakley said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs... ,
a
Without the necessary due diligence in planning both the transition and the aftermath going
into the meme, then Medicare for All is a promise for some, a threat to many more, and a boat
anchor for the Democratic Party. It could be a great plan if adequately executed, but given
the haphazard approach to leaning on buzz words and memes instead of a explanatory framework,
then this plan will be an executioner's block next November, if not just Tuesday week. The
Democratic Party has screwed itself again unless just pure outrage and at Trump and
Republican politicians can rescue the Dembots from their own idiot angels.
"Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard appeared on Fox News' "Hannity" Thursday
evening to criticize the House's impeachment investigation into President Donald Trump.
"I don't know what's going on in those closed doors," Gabbard said. "We as members of
Congress do not have access to the information that's being shared. I think the American
people deserve to know exactly what the facts are, what the evidence is being presented as
this inquiry goes on."
Imagine that! Republicans as the anti-war party. Could happen ... and Democrats have only
themselves to blame for stiffing the large percentage of the population that opposes fighting
pointless and futile wars forever. But hey, if 'defense' contractors got big bucks, you can
bet Democrats will be sniffing up their crotches...
Dan Drezner jumps
to a shaky conclusion on public opinion and foreign policy:
What is striking about arguments like these is the near-complete absence of any discussion
of public opinion polling to buttress their argument. If the Blob's policy preferences are
truly disconnected from those of the American public, that would be a powerful populist
talking point. This has been made in the past with a heavy reliance on polling data. Both
Trumpists and progressives should be trumpeting public opinion surveys from the rooftops that
highlight the disconnect with the Blob.
They are not doing that, however, and I think I know why. It turns out that what the
American people want in foreign policy looks an awful lot like what the Blob wants.
I am neither a Trumpist nor a progressive, but I do advocate for foreign policy restraint,
so it may be worth noting that I have
called attention to public opinion surveys that
show that most Americans want a more restrained foreign policy. These surveys do not
show that most Americans want "what the Blob wants." Quite the contrary. The disconnect with
"the Blob" is hard to miss.
The findings of the Eurasia Group Foundation's survey point to the very
"chasm" between the public and foreign policy experts that Drezner says doesn't really
exist:
A new, national survey commissioned by the Eurasia Group Foundation (EGF) reveals the
American public supports a more restrained approach to international relations and military
interventions. However, this desire for a more focused foreign policy is at odds with the
more expansive role generally favored by foreign policy experts.
A separate study commissioned by the Center for American Progress found
a similar preference for what they call "restrained engagement":
The findings in this survey suggest that American voters are not isolationist. Rather,
voters are more accurately described as supporting "restrained engagement" in international
affairs -- a strategy that favors diplomatic, political, and economic actions over military
action when advancing U.S. interests in the world. American voters want their political
leaders to make more public investments in the American people in order to compete in the
world and to strike the right balance abroad after more than a decade of what they see as
military overextension.
In contrast to much of the debate among political leaders and foreign policy experts
today, voters in this survey express little interest in the processes and tactics of foreign
policy or the workings of international alliances and institutions. They generally support
cooperation and engagement with allies, but these are not top-tier objectives on their
own.
One example of the "chasm" between foreign policy experts and the public from the EGF survey
concerned the appropriate response to atrocities committed by foreign governments:
While there is some support among the surveyed experts for a restrained approach or a
U.N.-led response, a large majority of them favors U.S.-led intervention (61%). The public
leans heavily in the opposite direction with 43% in favor of restraint and 34% that prefer a
U.N.-led response. When it comes to deciding when to initiate interventions and attack other
states, there clearly is a yawning gap between the public and the foreign policy establishment.
The latter is much more open to unilateral or U.S.-led military action in this instance.
The EGF survey found a similar gap when they asked about the prospect of retaliation in the
event of an attack on a NATO ally:
While there is a slight majority in favor of retaliation, the public is much more evenly
divided. The foreign policy experts are almost unanimously in favor. The gap is real and it is
huge. Using Bremmer's categories, we see that expressed again in preferences for the U.S. role
in the world:
Roughly half of the experts prefer America as the "indispensable nation" compared with less
than 10% of the public. The "independent" America that is most closely identified with foreign
policy restraint has the backing of 44% of the public and just 9% of the experts. One can argue
that the experts are right and the public is wrong, or vice versa, but one cannot say that they
all want the same thing.
Drezner cites public opinion on Syria as evidence in favor of the proposition that the
public and "the Blob" are much more closely aligned than critics of "the Blob" allow, but this
is not as compelling as he thinks it is. He finds that opinion at the start of this year was
evenly split between pro- and anti-withdrawal blocs. The Pew
poll he cites breaks down the responses by political affiliation, and there is a clear
partisan split with far more Republicans in favor of withdrawal and most Democrats opposed.
Most of the respondents are reacting to the proposed withdrawal in a partisan fashion:
Democrats opposed it because Trump supposedly wanted it, and Republicans supported it for the
same reason. There is now apparently more opposition to withdrawal, but that is presumably
informed by the arbitrary and incompetent way in which the quasi-withdrawal has been executed.
It may also be influenced by the fact that Trump's so-called withdrawal isn't really a
withdrawal, but just a chaotic redeployment that may end up leaving more U.S.
troops in Syria than before . That is not surprising. The public tends to turn against
policies that are being carried out ineptly, no matter what their other policy preferences
might be. The association with the increasingly unpopular Trump is probably also causing more
people to reject whatever it is they think the president favors.
To understand the gap between foreign policy establishment and the public on Syria, we need
to look at Americans' views over many years. Most Americans have been strongly against U.S.
involvement in Syria over the years. The popular
backlash against the proposed attack on the Syrian government in 2013 was
strong enough that it blocked the intervention from happening. Many people in the foreign
policy establishment have been calling for a more activist and interventionist Syria policy
from the earliest days of the war in Syria, and there has been tremendous resistance
from the public for almost all of this time. Obama caught ten kinds of hell from "the Blob" for
his entire second term because he would not commit the U.S. to the larger role in the Syrian
war that so many of them were demanding. Support for fighting ISIS from the air is the only
thing that has consistently commanded broad
support . When it comes on whether to send U.S. forces into a conflict, the public has
consistently been much more reluctant to support this than the foreign policy establishment,
and that is especially true when there don't appear to be any vital U.S. interests at
stake.
Drezner concludes:
None of this is to say that the Blob or the American people are right about any particular
foreign policy issue. I am
all for serious debates about the future of American foreign policy. But advocates of
restraint need to stop claiming that the Blob is acting in an undemocratic manner. Because it
just ain't so.
Our objection to Syria policy isn't so much that "the Blob" is behaving in an undemocratic
way as it is that the U.S. government has illegally involved itself in a war in Syria for the
last five years without
Congressional authorization or any legal justification whatsoever . U.S. forces were sent
into Syria without the consent of the American people and our representatives, and they have
been kept there all this time without that consent. If that doesn't demonstrate that our
foreign policy today has become far too undemocratic, I don't know what would. If most
Americans now disapprove of the Trump administration's haphazard, clownish management of Syria
policy, that does not mean that they agree with "the Blob" about the larger policy questions.
The divide between the public and "the Blob" is quite large on some of the most important
questions, and if there is occasional agreement on a specific issue that shouldn't cause us to
forget how wide that divide is.
Trump's problem is that his "restraint" is quit selective -- Not Iran, Not Saudi Arabia,
Not Israel -- and where exercised, exaggerated. One need not withhold military aid from
Ukraine in order to avoid a shooting war with Russia over Crimea, or abandon the Kurds to
draw down the commitment in Syria.
In her heart, Warren is more of Eisenhower (or Nixon, if you wish ) republican type then a
real fight against excesses of neoliberalism. that actually makes her chances to win 2020
elections much stronger and changes that she will bring radical chances much weaker.
First, as a general rule, politicians who propose meaningful change should get specific
enough about their idea so that voters can have a good look before they go to the polls. So
Warren is setting a good example on this front and likely raising the bar for other Democratic
party aspirants.
Second, I want to make sure I'm not falling prey to the cognitive bias called the halo
effect, which is a tendency to see people as all good or all bad. So I want to make sure my
reaction to the neoliberal frogs that sometimes hop out of Warren's mouth doesn't taint my
reading of her generally. For instance, her private equity plan is very strong, particularly
her sweeping ideas about how to make private equity firm principals liable when they bankrupt
companies. But as America's top bankruptcy scholar, the core of that plan falls in an area
where she has unparalleled expertise.
But generally, Warren's change programs have a frequent shortcoming: they do a great job of
assessing the challenge but then propose remedies that fall well short of remedying them.
As Matt Yglesias pointed out in January :
If Two-Income Trap were released today, I'd say it suffers from a striking mismatch
between the scale of the problem it identifies and the relatively modest solutions it
proposes. Tougher regulation of consumer lending would be welcome but obviously would not
fundamentally address the underlying stagnation of income.
On top of that, Warren's "I have a plan" mantra sounds an awful lot like a dog whistle to
Clinton voters. And even though I've only given a good look at two of her plans so far ex her
private equity plan, there's a lot not to like in both of them. We
covered her wealth plan earlier, and didn't treat Sanders' at the same time because hers
was sucking up all the media attention even though Sanders had proposed a wealth tax years
before she did. That was a mistake. Sanders' wealth tax plan is better than Warren's.
Even though Sanders plan has the same fundamental problem, that of not recognizing how the
IRS in recent decades has never won a large estate tax case where you have the same valuation
issues with a wealth tax, Sanders proposes a more aggressive beef up of the IRS than Warren
does, so he may have a sense of the severity of the enforcement problem and also provides for
some legal fallbacks regarding valuation. He also realistically does not depict his tax as a
global wealth tax, since there's no way to get the needed information or cooperation on foreign
holdings that aren't in bank or brokerage firms.
But even more important, both Warren and Sanders wealth tax schemes rely on the work of
economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman in devising their taxes and estimating how much
they'd yield. The structure of Sanders' tax hews to their recommendations as to how to maximize
revenues and cut into inequality. Warren's does not. So contrary to popular perceptions,
Sanders' wealth tax plan
should get higher wonk points than Warren's .
So on to the next Warren plan.
Warren's Excess Lobbying Tax
Warren presented her Excessive Lobbying Tax
. The problem it is meant to solve is not just lobbying as currently defined, which is the
petitioning of member of Congress to influence legislation. Warren is out to tackle not just
that but also what she depicts as undue corporate influence in the regulatory process:
But corporate lobbyists don't just swarm Congress. They also target our federal
departments like the Environmental Protection Agency and the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau .
Regulatory agencies are only empowered to implement public interest rules under authority
granted by legislation already passed by Congress. So how is it that lobbyists are able to
kill, weaken, or delay so many important efforts to implement the law?
Often they accomplish this goal by launching an all out assault on the process of writing
new rules -- informally meeting with federal agencies to push for favorable treatment,
burying those agencies in detailed industry comments during the notice-and-comment rulemaking
process, and pressuring members of Congress to join their efforts to lobby against the
rule.
If the rule moves forward anyway, they'll argue to an obscure federal agency tasked with
weighing the costs and benefits of agency rules that the rules are too costly, and if the
regulation somehow survives this onslaught, they'll hire fancy lawyers to challenge it in
court.
Before we get to Warren's remedies, there are some odd things about the problem statement.
One is that she fails to acknowledge that regulatory rulemaking devises more specific policies
in order to implement legislation. That reflects the fact that legislation often isn't detailed
enough to provide a definitive guide to agencies. And the public is entitled to weigh in on
rulemaking. So what she is objecting to is that corporate interests are able to overwhelm the
comment process. Second is that there is a significant abuse that she fails to mention, that
some proposed rule changes, such as regarding net neutrality, where ordinary citizens weighed
in heavily, saw comments on the other side that were submitted by bots, overwhelming the
agency. The bot abuse is specific and important, and it's odd to see Warren leave it by the
wayside.
Warren's plan has three main prongs. First, she would make pretty much anyone who as part of
their employment seeks to influence Federal legislation or regulation register as a lobbyist.
They would be require to make public who they'd been lobbying and what information they
provided (an interesting question here as to what gets reported from in person
discussions).
Second, she would require that "every corporation and trade organization" with over $500,000
per year in lobbying expenditures is subject to an "excess lobbying tax". Spending of $500,000
to $1 million would be taxed at a 35% rate, over $1 million, at a 60% rate, and over $5
million, 75%.
Warren states that her tax would have raised $10 billion in the last ten years and she
intends to use that for the third major leg of her programs, which is various anti-lobbyist
initiatives. She plans to spend the revenues on
A "Lobbying Defense Trust Fund" to bolster "Congressional independence from lobbyists" by
providing more money to Congressional support bodies like the CBO
Extra funding to agencies that are on the receiving of lobbying. When an entity in the
$500,000 or higher lobbying spending bracket, the agency gets a special allocation "to help
it fight back".
An Office of the Public Advocate to help ordinary citizens get better representation in
the lobbying process
She also asserts that her plan will also "shut the revolving door between government and K
Street" but she offers no mechanism to provide for that. So that is a handwave.
The Conceptual Flaws in Warren's Approach
It's hard to know how much of this Warren believes and how much of this was dreamed up by
her staffers (the document is signed "Team Warren).
Taxation is the wrong approach . Even though Warren discusses how much money her tax would
raise, her strident disapproval of lobbying and the punitive tax levels make clear that the
purpose of the tax is to discourage lobbying. But if lobbying is as bad as Warren believes it
is, she should instead be prohibiting abuses, like comments by bots. In the 1970s, economist
Martin Weitzman came up with an approach to determine when taxation was the right way to
discourage problematic behavior, as opposed to barring it.
A summary from the Bank of England's celebrated economist Andrew Haldane :
In making these choices, economists have often drawn on Martin Weitzman's classic public
goods framework from the early 1970s. Under this framework, the optimal amount of pollution
control is found by equating the marginal social benefits of pollution-control and the
marginal private costs of this control. With no uncertainty about either costs or benefits, a
policymaker would be indifferent between taxation and restrictions when striking this
cost/benefit balance.
In the real world, there is considerable uncertainty about both costs and benefits.
Weitzman's framework tells us how to choose between pollution-control instruments in this
setting. If the marginal social benefits foregone of the wrong choice are large, relative to
the private costs incurred, then quantitative restrictions are optimal. Why? Because fixing
quantities to achieve pollution control, while letting prices vary, does not have large
private costs. When the marginal social benefit curve is steeper than the marginal private
cost curve, restrictions dominate.
The results flip when the marginal cost/benefit trade-offs are reversed. If the private
costs of the wrong choice are high, relative to the social benefits foregone, fixing these
costs through taxation is likely to deliver the better welfare outcome. When the marginal
social benefit curve is flatter than the marginal private cost curve, taxation dominates. So
the choice of taxation versus prohibition in controlling pollution is ultimately an empirical
issue.
Moreover, the tax would hit all lobbyists. Who do you think has the better odds of raising
more money to offset the tax and carrying on as before: Public Citizen or the Chamber of
Commerce?
By contrast, one idea of ours that could have helpful chilling effects would be to go much
much further than merely requiring all lobbyists, broadly defined, to register and also require
them to provide reports on what government officials they contacted/met with and what
information they provided them.
We'd also make these lobbyists subject to FOIA and provide stringent standards that apply
only to lobbyists, such as:
Set strict and tight time limits for responses (California requires that an initial
determination be made in 10 days, for instance)
Require judges to award legal fees and costs to parties who successfully sue over FOIAs
where the records were withheld. Provide for awards in cases where the defendant coughs up
records as the result of a suit being filed. Set punitive damages for abuses (such as
excessive delay, bad faith responses). Strictly limit invocation of attorney/client privilege
to demonstrable litigation risks
Letting journalists and members of the public root around in the discussion between various
think tanks and their business allies would regularly unearth material that would be
embarrassing to the parties involved. It would go a long way toward denting the perceived
legitimacy of lobbying, which over time would strengthen the immune systems of the
recipients.
Warren assumes that most people in Congress and at regulators are anti-corporate but are
overwhelmed by lobbyists. First, the piece presents a Manichean world view of evil greedy
corporate interests versus noble underrepresented little people. And while this is very often
true, it's not as absolute as Warren suggests. The companies are often have conflicting
interests, which can allow for public-minded groups to ally with the corporate types who are on
their side on particular matters.
A second part of the Manichean take is the notion that the agencies aren't on board with the
corporate perspective. Unfortunately, reality is vastly more complicated. For instance, banking
regulators are concerned overall with the safety and soundness of the institutions they
oversee. They aren't in the business of consumer advocacy or consumer protection save as
required by legislation. The concern with safety and soundness perversely means that they want
the institutions they oversee to be profitable so as to help assure capital adequacy and to
attract "talent" to make sure the place is run adequately. (We've stated repeatedly we disagree
with this notion; banks are so heavily subsidized that they should not be seen as private
businesses and should be regulated as utilities). For instance, in the late 1980s, McKinsey was
heavily touting the idea of a coming bank profit squeeze. McKinsey partner Lowell Bryan in his
1992 book Bankrupt spoke with pride at how his message was being received, and in particular,
that regulators were embracing deregulation as a way to bolster bank incomes.
Another complicating factor is that in certain key posts, industry expertise and therefore
an insider status is seen as key to performing the job. For instance, it's accepted that the
Treasury Secretary should come from Wall Street so he can talk to Mr. Market. Of all people, GW
Bush defied that practice, appointing corporate CEOs as Treasury Secretary. The position wound
up being a revolving door in his Administration as his appointees flamed out. Finding a modern
Joe Kennedy, someone who knows sharp industry practices and decides to go against incumbents,
is a tall order.
Similarly, agencies have career staffers and political appointees at a senior level. That
included critical roles like the head of enforcement at the SEC. If Republicans or
pro-corporate Democrats control the Administration and the Senate, business-friendly appointees
will go into these critical posts. The optics may be better with the Democrats, but the outcome
isn't that much different. As Lambert likes to say, "Republicans tell you they will knife you
in the face. Democrats tell you they are so much nicer, they only want one kidney. What they
don't tell you is next year they are coming for your other kidney."
So Warren is also implicitly selling the idea of Team Dem as anti-corporate vigilantes, a
fact not in evidence.
And speaking of kidneys a letter from a departing SEC career employee and Goldman
whistleblower, James Kidney, shows how even staffers who want to do the right thing have their
perspective warped over time.
As we said about his missive, which you can read in full :
Two things struck me about Jim Kidney's article below. One is that he still wants to think
well of his former SEC colleagues
Number two, and related, are the class assumptions at work. The SEC does not want to see
securities professionals at anything other than bucket shops as bad people. At SEC
conferences, agency officials are virtually apologetic and regularly say, "We know you are
honest people who want to do the right thing." Please tell me where else in law enforcement
is that the underlying belief.
So it also seems unlikely that there is a cadre of vigorous regulators just waiting to be
unshackled by the likes of Warren and her anti-lobbyist funding. The way institutions change is
by changing the leadership and enough of the worker bees to send the message that the old way
of doing things isn't on any more. That does not happen quickly. And absent a system breakdown
like the Great Depression, staff incumbents know that talks of new sheriffs in town may not
last beyond the next election cycle.
And the experience of Warren's hand picks at her own pet agency shows that they were all too
willing to let corporations set the agenda. Recall that Warren recommended that Richard
Cordray, head of the CFPB when it became clear she would not get the job, and Raj Date, the
first deputy director of the CFPB, was also an ally of hers. From our 2012 post,
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Launches "Make Life Easier for Lobbyists" Tool :
There is more than a little bit of NewSpeak in this idea. "Streamlining regulations" is
generally right wing code for "eliminating/relaxing regulations." Admittedly, Elizabeth
Warren during her brief time as de facto head of the nascent CFPB, proposed and launched a
project to simplify mortgage disclosure forms to combine
two required forms into one and make them easier to understand .
However, this opening of the door by Cordray does not look as likely to produce such happy
outcomes. Maybe this is a means for the CFPB to force lobbyists to provide their input in a
format that makes it easier for CFPB to process. But I can't imagine that Cordray or Raj Date
would say to the American Bankers Association: "We are trying to create a level playing
field, so we won't meet with you. Put it in writing and we'll give it due consideration."
So if this portal is a supplemental channel, who exactly is it intended to serve? The
dropdown menu on the "Tell Us About Yourself" page tells us who it expects to comment: people
from organizations, specifically:
Financial services provider
Trade association
Government agency
Community organization
Other
In other words, it does not contemplate that consumers have the expertise or motivation to
provide input. Citizens are probably assumed to be represented via the CFPB itself or perhaps
also by consumer groups, but even then, they may have specific axes to grind (think the
AARP).
More generally, this is another example of attacking the problem at the wrong level. The
reason there is so much corruption in Washington is that the pay gap between what people can
make at senior levels at regulators versus what they can make in the private sector is so
enormous. And pay matters more than ever given the cost of housing, private schools, and
college. Singapore's approach was designed explicitly to prevent corruption in government: pay
top-level bureaucrats at the same level as top private sector professional (think law firm
partners) and have tough and independent internal audit. We are a long long way from embracing
any system like that, but it's important to recognize what the real issues are.
Lobbyist "tax" walks and quacks like an attack on free speech and the right to petition the
government . Even worse, she makes it easy to attack her program in court with this section and
similar observations in her piece:
In the first four months, the DOL received hundreds of comments on the proposed
[fiducairy] rule, including comments from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Morgan Stanley, Bank
of America, BlackRock, and other powerful financial interests. After a public hearing with
testimony from groups like Fidelity and J.P Morgan, the agency received over 100 more
comments -- including dozens from members of Congress, many of which were heavily slanted
toward industry talking points. Because the law requires agencies to respond to each concern
laid out in the public comments, when corporate interests flood agencies with comments, the
process often becomes so time-consuming and resource-intensive that it can kill or delay
final rules altogether -- and that's exactly what happened.
Warren is depicting the act of making public comments as an abuse. And her clear intent is
to reduce corporate input. This particular bit is very problematic: " .many of which were
heavily slanted toward industry talking points." Was she objecting to the fact that a lot of
the submissions were highly parallel, and therefore redundant, designed to choke the pipeline
or simply that they presented familiar pro-business tropes and were low value added? Not being
well crafted is not a basis for rejecting a public comment.
Warren sets herself for a legal challenge to her idea with this bit: "..if the regulation
somehow survives this onslaught, they'll hire fancy lawyers to challenge it in court," and she
later criticizes opponents of the fiduciary rule:
Today, the Department of Labor is led by Eugene Scalia, the very corporate lawyer and
ex-lobbyist who brought the lawsuit to kill off the proposal.
Was Warren missing in action in civics class when they presented the fact that Presidents
make appointments subject to the advice and consent of the Senate? And what would she do about
future Eugene Scalias? She is intimating that he shouldn't have been allowed to serve, but
that's the call of the Senate, not hers.
But more important, Warren makes it clear that she is so opposed to undue corporate
influence that she objects to judicial review. Help me. Philosophically, the US system allows
even the devil to have the benefit of law. But apparently not former law professor Elizabeth
Warren.
Again, the problem of ordinary people and pro-consumer organizations being outmatched in
court isn't going to be solved by treating use of the legal process as illegitimate. The idea
in her scheme that struck me as the most promising was the idea of an Office of the Public
Advocate. If I were in charge, I'd throw tons of money at it, including for litigation.
The Practical Flaws in Warren's Approach
Since this post is already long, we'll address these issues briefly. The IRS is a weak
agency that loses cases against corporate American all the time. A colleague recently confirmed
that take with an insider story on enforcement matters. The short version is that the IRS was
unable even to pursue issues only of moderate complexity. The problem isn't just expertise but
apparently also poor internal communication and coordination.
Tax avoidance is completely legal. If you don't think some of the targets of Warren's tax
would find ways to restructure their operations so as to greatly reduce their tax burdens, I
have a bridge I'd like to sell you. And they'd probably do it not so much to reduce taxes ("We
need more donations due to meanie Warren" would be a powerful fundraising cry and a lot of the
heavyweight groups and big corporations that lobby directly wouldn't miss a stride) as to avoid
funding her anti-lobbying initiatives.
And who would be least able to reorganize their lives to reduce the tax hit? The smaller
public advocates, natch.
* * *
It could be that I've simply hit upon two of Warren's weakest plans. But I have a sneaking
suspicion not. A contact who is an expert on political spending gave a big thumbs down to her
campaign reform proposal. The spectacle of Warren, whose Congressional staffers would regularly
turn out pointed, well-argued, very well supported requests for information from officials that
showed her to be operating way way above legislative norms, publishing plans that score high on
formatting and saber rattling and low on policy plumbing is a bad sign.
The most charitable interpretation is that Warren has weak people on this part of her
campaign and either doesn't know or doesn't care. But Warren historically has also show herself
to be an accomplished administrator. Is she more over her head than the press has figured
out?
Just an excellent critique. My view of Warren's plans was rather shallow and limited. I
could not find any flaws in your assessment. One might think that a senator would have a
better grasp of how DC works – or at least human nature.
"... Trying to head off redivision of the world into nationalist trade blocks by removing Trump via dubiously democratic upheavals (like color revolutions) with more or less fictional quasi-scandals as pro-Russian treason or anti-Ukrainian treason (which is "Huh?" on the face of it,) is futile. It stems from a desire to keep on "free" trading despite the secular stagnation that has set in, hoping that the sociopolitical nowhere (major at least) doesn't collapse until God or Nature or something restores the supposedly natural order of economic growth without end/crisis. ..."
"... I think efforts to keep the neoliberal international WTO/IMF/World Bank "free" trading system is futile because the lower orders are being ordered to be satisfied with a permanent, rigid class system ..."
"... If the pie is to shrink forever, all the vile masses (the deplorables) are going to hang together in their various ways, clinging to shared identity in race or religion or nationality, which will leave the international capitalists hanging, period. "Greed is good" mantra, and the redistribution of the wealth up at the end proved to be very destructive. Saying "Greed is good," then expecting selflessness from the lowers is not high-minded but self-serving. Redistribution of wealth upward has been terribly destructive to social cohesion, both domestically and in the sense of generosity towards foreigners. ..."
"... The pervasive feeling that "we" are going down and drastic action has to be taken is probably why there hasn't been much traction for impeachment til now. If Biden, shown to be shady in regards to Hunter, is nominated to lead the Democratic Party into four/eight years of Obama-esque promise to continue shrinking the status quo for the lowers, Trump will probably win. Warren might have a better chance to convince voters she means to change things (despite the example of Obama,) but she's not very appealing. And she is almost certainly likely to be manipulated like Trump. ..."
"... I *think* that's more or less what likbez, said, though obviously it's not the way likbez wanted to express it. I disagree strenuously on some details, like Warren's problem being a schoolmarm, rather than being a believer in capitalism who shares Trump's moral values against socialism, no matter what voters say. ..."
The headline will become operative in December, if as expected, the Trump Administration
maintains its refusal to nominate new judges
to the WTO appellate panel . That will render the WTO unable to take on new cases, and
bring about an effective return to the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT) which
preceded the WTO .
An interesting sidelight is that Brexit No-Dealers have been keen on the merits of trading
"on WTO terms", but those terms will probably be unenforceable by the time No Deal happens (if
it does).
likbez 10.27.19 at 11:22 pm
That's another manifestation of the ascendance of "national neoliberalism," which now is
displacing "classic neoliberalism."
Attempts to remove Trump via color revolution mechanisms (Russiagate, Ukrainegate) are
essentially connected with the desire of adherents of classic neoliberalism to return to the
old paradigm and kick the can down the road until the cliff. I think it is impossible because
the neoliberal elite lost popular support (aka support of deplorables) and now is hanging in
the air. "Greed is good" mantra, and the redistribution of the wealth up at the end proved to
be very destructive.
That's why probably previous attempts to remove Trump were unsuccessful. And if corrupt
classic neoliberal Biden wins Neoliberal Dem Party nomination, the USA probably will get the
second term of Trump. Warren might have a chance as "Better Trump then Trump" although she
proved so far to be pretty inept politician, and like "original" Trump probably can be easily
coerced by the establishment, if she wins.
All this weeping and gnashing of teeth by "neoliberal Intelligentsia" does not change the
fact that neoliberalism entered the period of structural crisis demonstrated by "secular
stagnation," and, as such, its survival is far from certain. We probably can argue only about
how long it will take for the "national neoliberalism" to dismantle it and what shape or form
the new social order will take.
That does not mean that replacing the classic neoliberalism the new social order will be
better, or more just. Neoliberalism was actually two steps back in comparison with the New
Deal Capitalism that it replaced. It clearly was a social regress.
John, I am legitimate curious what you find "exactly right" in the comment above. Other than
the obvious bit in the last line about new deal vs neoliberalism, I would say it is
completely wrong, band presenting an amazingly distorted view of both the last few years and
recent history.
Neo-liberalism is not a unified thing. Right wing parties are not following the original
(the value of choice) paradigm of Milton Friedman that won the argument during the 1970s
inflation panic, but have implemented a deceitful bait and switch strategy, followed by
continually shifting the goalposts – claiming – it would of worked but we weren't
pure enough.
But parts of what Milton Friedman said (for instance the danger of bad micro-economic
design of welfare systems creating poverty traps, and the inherent problems of high tariff
rates) had a kernel of truth. (Unfortunately, Friedman's macro-economics was almost all wrong
and has done great damage.)
"In that context it felt free to override national governments on any issue that
might affect international trade, most notably environmental policies."
Not entirely sure about that. The one case where I was informed enough to really know
detail was the China and rare earths WTO case. China claimed that restrictions on exports of
separated but otherwise unprocessed rare earths were being made on environmental grounds.
Rare earth mining is a messy business, especially the way they do it.
Well, OK. And if such exports were being limited on environmental grounds then that would
be WTO compliant. Which is why the claim presumably.
It was gently or not pointed out that exports of things made from those same rare earths
were not limited in any sense. Therefore that environmental justification might not be quite
the real one. Possibly, it was an attempt to suck RE using industry into China by making rare
earths outside in short supply, but the availability for local processing being unrestricted?
Certainly, one customer of mine at the time seriously considered packing up the US factory
and moving it.
China lost the WTO case. Not because environmental reasons aren't a justification for
restrictions on trade but because no one believed that was the reason, rather than the
justification.
I don't know about other cases – shrimp, tuna – but there is at least the
possibility that it's the argument, not the environment, which wasn't sufficient
justification?
Neoliberalism gets used as a generalized term of abuse these days. Not every political and
institutional development of the last 40 years comes down to the worship of the free market.
In the EU, East Asia, and North America, some of what has taken place is the
rationalization of bureaucratic practices and the weakening of archaic localisms. Some of
these developments have been positive.
In this respect, neoliberalism in the blanket sense used by Likbez and many others is like
what the the ancien regime was, a mix of regressive and progressive tendencies. In the
aftermath of the on-going upheaval, it is likely that it will be reassessed and some of its
features will be valued if they manage to persist.
I'm thinking of international trade agreements, transnational scientific organizations,
and confederations like the European Union.
steven t johnson 10.29.19 at 12:29 am
If I may venture to translate @1?
Right-wing populism like Orban, Salvini, the Brexiteers are sweeping the globe and this is
more of the same.
Trying to head off redivision of the world into nationalist trade blocks by removing
Trump via dubiously democratic upheavals (like color revolutions) with more or less fictional
quasi-scandals as pro-Russian treason or anti-Ukrainian treason (which is "Huh?" on the face
of it,) is futile. It stems from a desire to keep on "free" trading despite the secular
stagnation that has set in, hoping that the sociopolitical nowhere (major at least) doesn't
collapse until God or Nature or something restores the supposedly natural order of economic
growth without end/crisis.
I think efforts to keep the neoliberal international WTO/IMF/World Bank "free" trading
system is futile because the lower orders are being ordered to be satisfied with a permanent,
rigid class system .
If the pie is to shrink forever, all the vile masses (the deplorables) are going to
hang together in their various ways, clinging to shared identity in race or religion or
nationality, which will leave the international capitalists hanging, period. "Greed is good"
mantra, and the redistribution of the wealth up at the end proved to be very destructive.
Saying "Greed is good," then expecting selflessness from the lowers is not high-minded but
self-serving. Redistribution of wealth upward has been terribly destructive to social
cohesion, both domestically and in the sense of generosity towards foreigners.
The pervasive feeling that "we" are going down and drastic action has to be taken is
probably why there hasn't been much traction for impeachment til now. If Biden, shown to be
shady in regards to Hunter, is nominated to lead the Democratic Party into four/eight years
of Obama-esque promise to continue shrinking the status quo for the lowers, Trump will
probably win. Warren might have a better chance to convince voters she means to change things
(despite the example of Obama,) but she's not very appealing. And she is almost certainly
likely to be manipulated like Trump.
Again, despite the fury the old internationalism is collapsing under stagnation and
weeping about it is irrelevant. Without any real ideas, we can only react to events as
nationalist predatory capitals fight for their new world.
I'm not saying the new right wing populism is better. The New Deal/Great Society did more
for America than its political successors since Nixon et al. The years since 1968 I think
have been a regression and I see no reason–alas–that it can't get even worse.
I *think* that's more or less what likbez, said, though obviously it's not the way
likbez wanted to express it. I disagree strenuously on some details, like Warren's problem
being a schoolmarm, rather than being a believer in capitalism who shares Trump's moral
values against socialism, no matter what voters say.
It is a particular mutation of the original concept similar to mutation of socialism into
national socialism, when domestic policies are mostly preserved (including rampant
deregulation) and supplemented by repressive measures (total surveillance) , but in foreign
policy "might make right" and unilateralism with the stress on strictly bilateral regulations
of trade (no WTO) somewhat modifies "Washington consensus". In other words, the foreign
financial oligarchy has a demoted status under the "national neoliberalism" regime, while the
national financial oligarchy and manufactures are elevated.
And the slogan of "financial oligarchy of all countries, unite" which is sine qua
non of classic neoliberalism is effectively dead and is replaced by protection racket of
the most political powerful players (look at Biden and Ukrainian oligarchs behavior here
;-)
> I think every sentence in that comment is either completely wrong or at least
debatable. And is likbez actually John Hewson, because that comment reads like one of John
Hewson's commentaries
> Most obviously, to define Warren and Trump as both being neoliberals drains the
term of any meaning
You are way too fast even for a political football forward ;-).
Warren capitalizes on the same discontent and the feeling of the crisis of neoliberalism
that allowed Trump to win. Yes, she is a much better candidate than Trump, and her policy
proposals are better (unless she is coerced by the Deep State like Trump in the first three
months of her Presidency).
Still, unlike Sanders in domestic policy and Tulsi in foreign policy, she is a neoliberal
reformist at heart and a neoliberal warmonger in foreign policy. Most of her policy proposals
are quite shallow, and are just a band-aid.
> Neoliberalism gets used as a generalized term of abuse these days. Not every
political and institutional development of the last 40 years comes down to the worship of
the free market.
This is a typical stance of neoliberal MSM, a popular line of attack on critics of
neoliberalism.
Yes, of course, not everything political and institutional development of the last 40
years comes down to the worship of the "free market." But how can it be otherwise? Notions of
human agency, a complex interaction of politics and economics in human affairs, technological
progress since 1970th, etc., all play a role. But a historian needs to be able to somehow
integrate the mass of evidence into a coherent and truthful story.
And IMHO this story for the last several decades is the ascendance and now decline of
"classic neoliberalism" with its stress on the neoliberal globalization and opening of the
foreign markets for transnational corporations (often via direct or indirect (financial)
pressure, or subversive actions including color revolutions and military intervention) and
replacement of it by "national neoliberalism" -- domestic neoliberalism without (or with a
different type of) neoliberal globalization.
Defining features of national neoliberalism along with the rejection of neoliberal
globalization and, in particular, multiparty treaties like WTO is massive, overwhelming
propaganda including politicized witch hunts (via neoliberal MSM), total surveillance of
citizens by the national security state institutions (three-letter agencies which now
acquired a political role), as well as elements of classic nationalism built-in.
The dominant ideology of the last 30 years was definitely connected with "worshiping of
free markets," a secular religion that displaced alternative views and, for several decades
(say 1976 -2007), dominated the discourse. So worshiping (or pretense of worshiping) of "free
market" (as if such market exists, and is not a theological construct -- a deity of some
sort) is really defining feature here.
On the previous thread, the danger of civil society's demise became a brief topic.
Sanders attempted to link the injustice system to the crisis within civil society, and IMO,
he was 100% correct in trying to do so. Believe me, you don't want to get caught up in its web.
But if you do, you'll soon learn just how despicable the system is and see how it links to the
epidemic of political corruption. The domestic social malaise within the Outlaw US Empire is
holistic in its nature, but Sanders is the only politico that's bringing that fact out into the
light-of-day.
"MSNBC names four renowned female journalists as moderators for November debate" [
NBC ]. "Moderating the Nov. 20 event, which is being co-hosted by MSNBC and The Washington
Post, will be Rachel Maddow, host of "The Rachel Maddow Show" on MSNBC; Andrea Mitchell, host
of "Andrea Mitchell Reports" on MSNBC and NBC News' chief foreign affairs correspondent;
Kristen Welker, NBC News' White House correspondent; and Ashley Parker, a White House reporter
for The Washington Post." • The count of journalists is off by at least one.
No
wonder Democratic Party bosses and mainstream media are trying to bury presidential contender Tulsi
Gabbard.
She is the only candidate, perhaps the only politician in the US, who is telling
the American public exactly what they need to know about what their government and military are
really up to: fighting illegal regime-change wars, and to boot, sponsoring terrorists for that
purpose.
It didn't come much clearer nor more explicit than when Gabbard fired up the Democratic TV
debate this week. It was billed as the biggest televised presidential debate ever, and the Hawaii
Representative
told
some prime-time
home-truths to the nation:
"Donald Trump has blood of the Kurds on his hands, but so do many of the politicians in our
country from both parties who have supported this ongoing regime-change war in Syria that
started in 2011 along with many in the mainstream media who have been championing and
cheer-leading this regime-change war."
The 38-year-old military veteran went on to denounce how the US has sponsored Al Qaeda
terrorists for its objective of overthrowing the government in Damascus.
It was a remarkably damning assessment of US policy in Syria and elsewhere in the Middle East.
And it was by no means the first time that Gabbard has leveled with the American people on the
brutality and criminality of Washington's so-called "interventions".
The other 11 Democratic candidates on the stage during the TV debate looked agog after Gabbard's
devastating and calmly delivered statement. All the others have proffered the false narrative that
US forces are in Syria to "fight terrorism". They deplore Trump's announcement last week to pull
back US troops from northeast Syria because, they say, it will undermine the fight against Islamic
State (IS or ISIS) and other Al Qaeda affiliates. They also condemn Trump for "betraying Kurdish
allies" by his partial troop withdrawal.
President Donald Trump talks about "ending endless wars" and "bringing our troops home".
But he still premises his views on a credulous belief that the US under his watch "defeated ISIS
100 per cent". In that way, he essentially shares the same corny view as the Democrats and media
that America is a force for good, that it is the "good guys wearing white hats riding into the
sunset".
On the other hand, Gabbard stands alone in telling the American people the plain and awful
truth. US policy is the fundamental problem. Ending its regime-change war in Syria and elsewhere
and ending its diabolical collusion with terror groups is the way to bring peace to the Middle East
and to spare ordinary Americans from the economic disaster of spiraling war debts.
American
citizens need to know the truth about the horror their government, military, media and politicians
have inflicted not just on countries in the Middle East, but also from the horrendous boomerang
consequences of this criminal policy on the lives and livelihoods of ordinary Americans,
including millions of veterans destroyed by injuries, trauma, suicide, and drug abuse.
Following the TV debate this week, it seems that Gabbard won the popular vote with her
truth-telling. A major
online poll
by the Drudge Report
found that she stole a march on all the other candidates, winning approval from nearly 40 per cent
of voters. Top ticket candidates Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden were trailing
behind with 7 per cent or less.
Gabbard has clearly struck a deep chord with the US public in her honest depiction of
American wars.
Despite her shattering exposé and seeming appreciation by the public, most mainstream media
tried to bury her after the TV debate. Outlets like Vox and CNN
declared
that
Warren was the winner of the debate, whose talking points were mainly about domestic policy issues.
Like the other candidates, Warren plies the propaganda narrative of US forces "fighting terrorism".
Vox even slated Gabbard as "a loser" in the debate and claimed she had made "blatantly false"
statements about the US' role in Syria.
Other mainstream news outlets chose to ignore reporting on Gabbard's demolishing of the official
propaganda about American wars. Earlier this week, CNN and the New York Times
smeared
her
as a "Russian asset" and an "apologist for Assad", referencing a visit she made to Syria in 2017
when she held talks with President Assad.
The Democratic National Committee is
claiming
that
Gabbard does not have sufficient support in polls it deems worthy for her to qualify for appearing
in the next TV debate in November.
International events, however, are proving the Hawaii Representative right. US troops, as with
other NATO forces, have been occupying Syrian territory illegally. They have no mandate from the
United Nations Security Council. The pullback of US troops by Trump has created a vacuum in
northeast Syria into which the Syrian Arab Army is quickly moving to reclaim the territory which
US-backed Kurdish fighters had de facto annexed for the past five years. Several
reports
show
the local people are joyfully welcoming the arrival of the Syrian army. The scenes are reminiscent
of when Syrian and Russian forces liberated Aleppo and other cities previously besieged by terror
groups.
America's war machine must get out of Syria for the sake of restoring peace to that
war-torn country.
Not because "they have defeated ISIS 100 per cent", as Trump would
conceitedly claim, nor because "we are betraying Kurds in the fight against terrorism", as most
Democrats and US media preposterously claim.
Peace will come to Syria and the Middle East when Washington finally ends its criminal
regime-change wars and its support for terrorist proxies. Tulsi Gabbard seems to be the
only politician with the intelligence and integrity to tell Americans the truth.
Unlike Trump she's against the patriot act and foreign
intervention. Trump hired Bolton, attempted a coup in Venezuela,
has been dropping more bombs on Syria than Obama did, is
escalating a new war with Iran, has sent more troops to Saudi
Arabia and Yeman. He's also for red flag laws to take away guns.
I cannot see her have a shot as DNC candidate. Either she
will end up like a young and liberal version of Ron Paul; get
angry and become a RossPerot-like spoiler type or (least likely)
become another Bernie sellout for a beachhouse.
The way she is being demonized by the Democrat party,
it is clear that she cannot win this battle.
Warren (D)(1): "Warren cutting into Biden's lead in new SC 2020 Democratic poll" [
Post and Courier ]. "Biden's lead in South Carolina, which had hovered around 20 percentage
points since the summer, has shrunk Biden received 30 percent to Warren's 19 percent. Vermont
Sen. Bernie Sanders at 13 percent and California Sen. Kamala Harris at 11 percent are the only
two other candidates with double-digit results in South Carolina . The biggest gains in the
latest poll came from fifth- and sixth-place contenders, South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg
and billionaire hedge fund manager Tom Steyer." • Everybody loves a winner, but the gains
in the third tier show SC is still fluid (though perhaps not a firewall for Biden).
Yet another case where Warren's problem statement isn't commensurate with the proposed
solution .
Impeachment
"Republicans criticize House impeachment process -- while fully participating in probe" [
WaPo ]. "Then the questions begin to fly, largely from the expert staff hired by lawmakers
on the House Intelligence Committee and other panels participating in the probe. Each side gets
an equal amount of questions, as dictated by long-standing House rules guiding these
interviews. 'It starts one hour, one hour,' said Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), explaining how the
questioning moves beyond one-hour blocks for each side. 'Then it goes 45, 45, 45, 45, with
breaks, occasionally, and breaks for lunch.' Meadows, one of Trump's staunchest allies, said
each side has been allowed an unlimited amount of questions they can ask of witnesses.' Those
participating in the closed-door depositions generally say that these interviews are very
professional and that both sides have operated under
rules that were approved in January ." • As I've said, I don't like the policy on
transcripts, and my litmus test for legitimacy is that there's no secret evidence at all. I
don't much like that Republicans can't subpeona witnesses, either.
If Obama was CIA, and GW Bush was CIA (via daddy Bush), and Clinton was CIA (via Arkansas
drug-running and the Presidency), and Bush Sr was CIA ... then what can we conclude about
Trump? 1) he's also CIA, or 2) he's a willing stooge
Trump at first threw down the gauntlet to the spies and proclaimed his autocratic
prerogative when God held off the rain for his inauguration (!) but now he would gladly get
on his knees between Gina Haspel's legs if the CIA would only help him stay in power.
What distinguishes Obama from other presidents is the degree to which he was manufactured.
He made it to the WH without much of a political base. Control of the political context,
media and process, launched Obama to the top. It was fulfillment of the liberal American
dream. It was a great coup. Talk about the "deep state"! It's staring us all in the face.
"MSNBC names four renowned female journalists as moderators for November debate" [
NBC ]. "Moderating the Nov. 20 event, which is being co-hosted by MSNBC and The Washington
Post, will be Rachel Maddow, host of "The Rachel Maddow Show" on MSNBC; Andrea Mitchell, host
of "Andrea Mitchell Reports" on MSNBC and NBC News' chief foreign affairs correspondent;
Kristen Welker, NBC News' White House correspondent; and Ashley Parker, a White House reporter
for The Washington Post." • The count of journalists is off by at least one.
New York - Tel
Aviv - Moscow
Triangle
This section contains the materials
that document the background of Trump - Russia. From the banking houses of
New York, to the Bolshevik Revolution. From the New School to the Neo-Cons.
From the arming of Irgun to the creation of the Zionist state of Israel.
From the fall of the Berlin Wall to the mafia state that rose out of the
USSR. The development of international criminal networks, think tanks,
governments, oligarchy and multinational corporate control of our politics,
interests, technology, freedoms and even our minds.
The Life of an American Jew Living in
Racist Marxist Israel
Jack
Bernstein
The Soviets would institute a pro-Arab policy
solely as a camouflage for its true intention, which was to furnish aid
to the Arabs, but never enough to enable the Arabs to destroy Israel.
The Soviets would open the gates of Soviet
satellite countries to Jewish immigration to Israel. Should this be
insufficient, Soviet Russia then would open its own gates to
immigration.
<strong>The Soviets would absolutely guarantee the
security of Israel.
Both the Soviet Union and Israel would share
intelligence reports.
The latest scientific developments that the US
provides Israel are channeled on to the Soviet Union. The main center
through which this scientific information passes is Israel's Weizman
Institute in the town of Rehoovot about 40 kilometers south of Tel Aviv.
The Controversy Of Zion (Book)
Douglas Reed
This is the text area for this paragraph. To change it, simply click
here and start typing.Once you've added your content, you can customize
the design using different colors, fonts, font sizes and bullets.
Highlight the words you want to design and choose from the various
options in the text editing bar.
All Israeli Prime Ministers linked to
USSR/Russian Empire
Jon Swinn
This infographic details the links each Israeli Prime Minister has to
the USSR/Russian Empire.
TRUMP IS PUPPET OF KISSINGER, CFR AND
ROTHSCHILDS, THE TRUE ARCHITECTS OF RUSSIAN COLLUSION
David
Livingstone
A vital read detailing the history that has led to
the present day situation we face.
NIXON CENTER -- KREMLIN -- TRUMP
Zarina Zabrisky
The Center for the National Interest, former Nixon
Center, a hosting institution for Trump's first foreign policy speech
and the adviser who helped writing the speech have multiple long-term
ties to the Kremlin.
Red Mafiya - How the Russian Mob Has Invaded America
Robert
Friedman
New York -- Moscow -- Tel Aviv Triangle
Fitzpatrick
Israel and the Soviets are ideological allies –
both follow the ideas of Karl Marx, so both are communist/socialist.
Yet, the Soviets supplied military equipment to the Arabs -- Israel's
enemies; and at the same time, the Soviet Union's enemy, the United
States, was arming Israel.
To understand the treachery which Zionist/
Bolshevik Jews are capable and to understand the treachery which took
place before and during the 1973 War, I must explain the New York/
Moscow/Tel Aviv Triangle.
PUTIN DOSSIER
Fitzpatrick
Exposing Russian president Vladimir Putin and his
crypto-Soviet state for the Judeo-masonic, Chabad mafiya collaborators
that they are
THE AMERICAN AWAKENING - NEW YORK - TEL AVIV - MOSCOW AXIS
Michael
Herzog and Brendon O'Connell
Part 1 - 18 June 2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3GpnUF_nwA
Part 2 - 22 June 2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kso1KWHXmNo&t=1688s
Rare Interview with Gordon Thomas author
of Robert Maxwell, Israel's Superspy
Gordon
Thomas
Gordon Thomas is interviewed on TruNews about his
book Robert Maxwell Israel's Superspy.
AT PUTIN'S SIDE, AN ARMY OF JEWISH
BILLIONAIRES
Gil Stern
Watching the group of mega-wealthy interact, one
cannot help but wonder how so many affluent businessmen in the former
Soviet Union are Jewish.
On Multiple Fronts, Russian Jews Reshape
Israel
Phillip
Reeves
"I was [politically] on the left, and I thought it
was possible to reach an agreement with the Arabs. But after 20 years, I
no longer think an accord is possible," he says.
Most of Israel's Russian-speaking community,
including Esterman, is on the right these days. Since they now make up
about 15 percent of Israel's 8 million people, they wield considerable
political clout and have played a significant role in the general
rightward shift of the Israeli electorate.
Russian-speaking immigrants form the base of the
influential right-wing nationalist party Yisrael Beiteinu. The party has
teamed up with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's Likud to form a bloc
that is leading the polls ahead of this month's elections.
Galili argues that immigrants from the former
Soviet Union have made a considerable impact on the politics of the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict -- not least because of their resistance to
the idea of giving up territory.
Russian Immigrants
in Israeli Politics:
The Past, the Recent Elections
and the Near Future
Arkadi
Mazin
Since the beginning of the large-scale immigration
to Israel from the
former
Soviet Union in the 1990s, Israel's community of Russian speakers has
played an dominant role in Israeli politics. Some maintain that it has
tipped the balance and decided the final outcome in all the elections
since then, perhaps with the exception of the most recent ones.
Nevertheless, as will be shown, the
Russian-speaking community's
vote
played a major role in these elections, too.
From this, it may be concluded that the electoral
behavior of the
Russian-speaking
community in Israel differs from that of the majority of the Israeli
population. And indeed, as has been observed in various areas of life,
such as consumer behavior, media and entertainment, as well as from the
political-electoral perspective, the Russian-speaking community in
Israel is commonly viewed as a separate sector, alongside two other
important minority sectors – the ultra-Orthodox and Arab
– and the "general Israeli population."
An Emerging Alliance: Russia and Israel
Robert Zapesochny
The core of this growing alliance is the more than
one million Israeli citizens who were born in the former Soviet Union.
Between 1970 and 1988, only 291,000 Jews, and their non-Jewish
relatives, were allowed to leave the Soviet Union (165,000 went to
Israel, and 126,000 went to the United States).
In 1989, Mikhail Gorbachev ended restrictions on
Jewish emigration, in part for better relations with the United States.
From 1989 to 2006, 1.6 million Soviet Jews, and their family members,
left the former Soviet Union (979,000 went to Israel, 325,000 to the
U.S. and 219,000 to Germany).
Earlier this year, President Putin said, "Russia
and Israel have developed a special relationship primarily because 1.5
million Israeli citizens come from the former Soviet Union, they speak
the Russian language, are the bearers of Russian culture, Russian
mentality. They maintain relations with their relatives and friends in
Russia, and this make the interstate relations very special."
Israel also needs Russia, as well. Israel's
Start-Up Nation has been fueled by one million Russian-speaking
Israelis. For this economic miracle to continue, the Israelis will need
more engineers from the former Soviet Union. The Russian-speaking
Israelis will have plenty of talent to choose from in the former Soviet
Union. According the World Economic Forum, in 2015, Russia graduated
454,000 engineers and Ukraine graduated 130,000 engineers.
THE DEBILITATING BRAIN DRAIN
Shilomo Maital
Israel has gained immensely from the brain gain of
one million immigrants from the former Soviet Union during the years
1990-1999. According to a study by Sarit Cohen of Bar-Ilan University
and Chang-Tai Hsieh from Princeton University, 60 percent of the
Russian-speaking immigrants who arrived in Israel between 1989 and 1990
were college educated, twice the proportion of college-educated
Israelis. From 1990 to 1993, their study notes, "57,000 [Russian
immigrants] had worked as engineers and 12,000 as medical doctors; in
contrast, there were only 30,000 engineers and 15,000 medical doctors in
Israel in 1989."
That brain gain was a one-time stroke of luck.
Many of the brain-gain Russian-speaking engineers and doctors are now
retiring, and many of the educated Israelis who could replace them are
going abroad.
Israel's former Soviet immigrants
transform adopted country
Harriet Sherwood
The million-plus citizens of the former Soviet
Union who migrated to Israel in the past 20 years have not only made new
lives of their own but they have transformed their adopted country. They
have influenced the culture, hi-tech industry, language, education and,
perhaps most significantly, Israeli politics.
Jews in the former Soviet Union were largely
banned from making aliya – migrating to Israel – before the collapse of
the empire. But from 1990 onwards they came in their thousands, and they
now constitute around 15% of Israel's 7.7 million population.
Strictly speaking not all of them are Jewish. In
traditional Judaism only someone whose mother is Jewish or who has
undergone a formal conversion to Judaism is a Jew. But from 1990 anyone
from the former Soviet Union who had a Jewish father or grandparent, or
who was married to someone meeting those criteria, was granted Israeli
citizenship under the country's law of return.
The Million Russians That Changed Israel
to Its Core
Masha Zur Glozman
The authors begin their story toward the end of
the 1980s, after Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir realized that Mikhail
Gorbachev was prepared to release those Jews who longed to leave the
Soviet Union, because he wished to obtain American loan guarantees for
the far-reaching reforms he had planned.
Bronfman and Galili describe the clandestine and
open channels through which the State of Israel acted to advance this
immigration, and the various interests involved, such as the desire to
bolster the "demographic data" (a euphemism for increasing Israel's
Jewish population ).
Yitzhak Shamir, the Prime Minister Who
Spied on Me
Aluf Benn
According to Meridor, Shamir's most important
contribution was convincing the U.S. administration under President
George Bush Sr. to desist from issuing refugee visas to Soviet Jews.
Up to 1989, Jews leaving the USSR could choose to
immigrate either to the United States or to Israel, with many choosing
the U.S. Shamir was opposed to this "defection," as it was termed at the
time. He believed Jews ought to settle in Israel, whether they were from
a Russian gulag or Brooklyn. He persuaded the American government and
U.S. Jewish organizations that the Soviet Jews weren't refugees, that
they had a homeland in Israel. Then the floodgates of the collapsing
Soviet Empire opened wide, and a million Jews along with their relatives
immigrated to Israel. Had Shamir not insisted, today, many of them would
have been living on the shores of the Hudson River.
Shamir Wants U.S. Pressure on Emigrants
The so-called "dropout" rate among Jews who leave
the Soviet Union has reached as high as 80% in recent years. "Dropouts"
are Jews who claim political refugee status from the United States when
they reach Vienna rather than fly to Israel.
How Russia's rich elite spend their
billions in London
Roman
Borisovich
Wealthy [Jewish] oligarchs have become a fixture
of the British landscape during the past 20 years. But what do they
offer to the country's culture?
Rich Russians: The Wealthiest Oligarchs
Who Call London Home
Alisher Usmanov and Roman Abramovich are joined in
the capital by a host of lesser-known wealthy compatriots
Vladimir Putin told me a personal story
in the Kremlin
This video includes excerpts from the speeches of
Russian Chief Rabbi Berel Lazar, Attorney Alan Dershowitz, and footage
of the legendary Chabad Lubavitch "Roll Call" at the 2006 International
Conference of Shluchim.
Putin's Chief Rabbi of Russia Berel Lazar
friend of Nathaniel Rothschild.
"My call to fame is actually being Mr.
Rothschild's friend and it is a pleasure to honour Mr. Rothschild and
David Slager for what they have done here in Oxford for the Oxford
University Chabad Society." -
Chief Rabbi Lazar
The KGB's Middle East Files: 'Illegals'
in Israel
Ronen Bergman
In
1992, Vasili Mitrokhin, a KGB archivist, defected to the West with a
trove of top secret documents from the Soviet intelligence agency, which
helped expose many Russian agents and assets in Israel and elsewhere.
This series of articles explores these documents and brings to light the
secrets they revealed.
Russian Firm to Train Israelis in Hot
Tech Fields
Ruti Levy
Fifty Israeli students – most of them computer
science graduates or veterans of army technology units – will begin a
program in October to learn the ins and outs of some of the hottest
fields in Israeli high-tech, such as data science and machine learning.
he classes will meet at Tel Aviv University, but
no Israeli academic institution is involved. The syllabus was written
and the lecturers hired and paid for by the Russian company Yandex.
The Happy-Go-Lucky Jewish Group That
Connects Trump and Putin
Ben Schreckinger
Chabad of Port Washington, a Jewish community
center on Long Island's Manhasset Bay, sits in a squat brick edifice
across from a Shell gas station and a strip mall. The center is an
unexceptional building on an unexceptional street, save for one thing:
Some of the shortest routes between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin run
straight through it.
Know Your Oligarch: A Guide to the Jewish
Billionaires in the Trump-Russia Probe
Ron Kampeas
Of 10 billionaires with Kremlin ties who funneled
political contributions to Donald Trump and a number of top Republican
leaders, at least five are Jewish
Russia's Chief Rabbi Reportedly Paid
Secret Visit to Iran on Trip Organized by Putin
Russian Chief Rabbi Berel Lazar secretly visited
Iran almost six months ago as part of a diplomatic trip organized by
Russian President Vladimir Putin, Israeli media reported over the
weekend.
The Islamic Republic opposed the rabbi's arrival,
but Putin himself insisted on Lazar's participation in the diplomatic
mission, the website Ynetnews reported. The trip was reportedly headed
by the chairman of Russia's State Duma and included talks in the Iranian
parliament.
Lazar, who heads the Chabad movement in Russia, is
considered close to Putin and is often accused of supporting the
president unconditionally in exchange for his regime's seal of approval
for Chabad.
Israel has argued for months that Iran needs to
withdraw its forces from the war-torn country. In recent weeks, senior
U.S. officials have stated that while both Russia and the U.S. agree
with Israel that Iran needs to exit Syria, it is currently unrealistic
for Russia to force Iran out of the country.
DONALD TRUMP, CHABAD-LUBAVITCH AND THE OLIGARCHS
Despite his alignment with the racist right, Trump
has professed ultra-right views on Israel. His connections with Israel
also extend to his broad ties with the Russian mafia, many of whom hold
dual citizenship in Israel. The Russian mafia is closely associated with
Chabad-Lubavitch, a Hasidic movement that derived originally from
Sabbateanism.
Putin: 'I support the struggle of Israel'
Chaim Lev, Ari Yashar
Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday met
with a delegation of rabbis, led by Sephardic Chief Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef,
former Chief Rabbi Yisrael Meir Lau, Chief Rabbi of Russia Berel Lazar,
and rabbis of the Rabbinical Center of Europe (RCE).
"I follow closely what's going on in Israel," said
Putin during the long meeting, which was held in Moscow.
"I support the struggle of Israel as it attempts
to protect its citizens. I also heard about the shocking murder of the
three youths. It is an act that cannot be allowed, and I ask you to
transmit my condolences to the families," added the Russian president,
in referring to the abduction and murder of three teens in June by Hamas
terrorists.
PUTIN AND NETANYAHU TO STRIKE DEAL ON
LEVIATHAN GAS FIELD
Erica
Mills
Israeli foreign affairs analyst, Ehud Yaari, says
Russian President Vladimir Putin & Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu want to
strike a deal on the Leviathan field
Ronald S. Lauder: Russia's fight against
anti-Semitism isn't just good for Jews – it's good for Russia as well
"At a time when global terrorism singles out Jews
around the world, at a time when we see the impact of intolerance and
hate on every continent, here in Russia, the Jewish community is
thriving. Jewish kindergartens and Jewish schools are filled to
capacity, synagogues are crowded on Shabbat. But Jews in Western Europe
are seriously thinking of leaving," Lauder said.
"President [Vladimir] Putin has made Russia a
country where Jews are welcome. And that's not just a good thing for
Jews. It is good for Russia as well," Lauder said. "It is because of
this unprecedented change that the World Jewish Congress looks to
continue to work with Russia. We want to be able to count on Russia as a
solid friend."
PUTIN TO NETANYAHU: ISRAEL, RUSSIA
'UNCONDITIONAL ALLIES' IN WAR AGAINST TERROR
Israel and Russia agreed to strengthen their regional military
cooperation, when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Russian
President Vladimir Putin met face-to-face in the Kremlin on Tuesday.
The
two leaders agreed to tightened their cooperation in the fight against
terrorism and stressed the importance of ending regional violence such
as in Syria. They also reiterated the importance of Israel ending its
short-term conflict with Turkey and its long-standing one with the
Palestinians.
"We
discussed the continued coordination between our two militaries in the
region, which already works quite well," Netanyahu told reporters at a
joint press conference in the Kremlin with Putin after their meeting.
It
is their fourth meeting in the last year, and their third in Moscow.
The Countless Israeli Connections to
Mueller's Probe of Trump and Russia
Chemi Shalev
The Israeli media usually takes scant interest in
Robert Mueller's investigations. It prefers to dwell on Donald Trump's
supposedly pro-Israeli policies. Last week's report in the New York
Times about the participation of Joel Zamel, the Australian-born
"Israeli specialist in social media manipulation," in an August 3, 2016
meeting at Trump Tower in New York was an exception to the rule. The
FBI, the Times reported, had even come to Israel to search the offices
of Zamel's company. Here was a direct Israeli link to the scandal that
has bewitched much of America since Trump was first elected.
Mueller reveals ANOTHER effort to arrange
a Trump-Putin meeting – this one involving the chief Rabbi of Russia known
as 'Putin's Rabbi' who visited Trump Tower in 2016
Geoff
Earle
Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report sketches
out yet another effort to arrange a meeting between Donald Trump and
Russia's Vladimir Putin – this time from a man touting a connection to
the Chief Rabbi of Russia.
The Trump-Putin meeting never occurred, but Rabbi
Berel Lazar, known as 'Putin's Rabbi,' did attend a Trump Tower meeting
in 2016 with the man who pitched it.
Here are 5 shady ways Trump, Israel and
Russia are colluding on the world stage
Tana Ganeva
In
the latest bizarre twist in the Paul Manafort saga, the Guardian reports
that Manafort may have conspired with an Israeli official to manipulate
members of the Obama administration into supporting Viktor Yanukovych
over Yulia Tymoshenko in Ukraine, and link the latter to anti-Semitism.
Yanukovych was Russia's chosen candidate.
1.
As Bashar al-Assad moves to consolidate power in Syria, the US, Russia
and Israel seem united in their efforts to throw Hezbollah, a proxy of
Iran, out of the conflict. In mid-August, Secretary of State John Bolton
told ABC that the three countries are united in this goal.
3.
During the President's much derided one-on-one talks with Russian
President Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump assured the world that the
security of Israel is a priority for both Russia and the United States.
4.
House of Trump, House of Putin: The Untold Story of Donald Trump and the
Russian Mafia, the writer Craig Unger writes about how up to 59 Russian
oligarchs have been cultivating Donald Trump and his associates for
years, through such means as New York's unregulated real estate
industry.
As
the Times of Israel has pointed out, many of these wealthy Russian
business-people also have ties to Israel.
5.
So far, the President has made good on his promise to prioritize the
interests of the current Israeli government.
It's not a surprise when Trump flouts international norms. But his
decision to move the US embassy to Jerusalem sparked furor around the
world and led to deadly protests by Palestinians.
The
administration dismissed the demonstrations, in which multiple civilians
were killed, as 'unfortunate propaganda'.
Paul Manafort: Trump's ex-campaign chair
agrees to cooperate with Mueller
Jon Swaine
Manafort may have conspired with an Israeli
official to manipulate members of the Obama administration into
supporting Viktor Yanukovych over Yulia Tymoshenko in Ukraine, and link
the latter to anti-Semitism. Yanukovych was Russia's chosen candidate.
Manafort allegedly orchestrated a plan to smear a Yanukovych domestic
rival, Yulia Tymoshenko, by disseminating "with no fingerprints"
allegations that Tymoshenko had paid for the murder of a Ukrainian
official. "My goal is to plant some stink on Tymo," Manafort wrote in a
message.
He also allegedly schemed to have "Obama Jews" exert pressure on Barack
Obama's administration to support Yanukovych and disavow Tymoshenko, and
conspired with an Israeli government official to spread allegations
linking Tymoshenko to antisemitism. Manafort allegedly wrote in one
message to an unidentified associate: "I have someone pushing it on the
NY Post. Bada bing bada boom.
MATIMOP, Skolkovo deepen Israel-Russia
start-up cooperation
Israeli Industry Center for R&D (MATIMOP) and
Russia's Skolkovo Foundation will shortly announce a call for papers for
joint R&D project by Israeli and Russian start-ups to obtain support
from Office of the Chief Scientist in Israel and the Skolkovo
Foundation. Skolkovo Foundation VP Stanislav Naumov said, "The
difference between Russia and Israel's entrepreneurial system required
thinking together to find a formula for cooperation. The formula we
reached enables us to move forward to the stage of extensive
collaboration by ventures of the two countries. The special call for
papers that we are publishing is another important stage in developing
cooperation between Russia and Israel, which began a year ago with the
fostering of innovation and the commercialization of advanced
technologies."
Israel-Skolkovo Center co-managing director
Alexander Zinigrad said, "This is the first time that special binational
collaboration for start-ups has been declared in Israel. This is an
important measure, which gives a great boost to the cooperation that
began in the summer of 2011 between the start-up industry in Israel and
the Skolkovo Foundation. Since the establishment of the Israel-Skolkovo
Center, we have received scores of inquiries from Israeli start-up
companies every month. Within less than a year, we have assisted six
Israeli start-up companies at Skolkovo."
Putin Reveals Who Will Be the Lord of the
World
"Artificial intelligence is not only the future of
Russia, but the future of all mankind. It holds both tremendous
opportunities and is fraught with scarcely predictable dangers. Whoever
takes the lead in this sphere will become Lord of the World," President
Putin told Russian schoolchildren during an open lesson on their first
day of the new school year.
Hillary's Secret Kremlin Connection Is
Quickly Unraveling
John
Schindler
Exactly how Clinton profited off deals with
Skolkovo is something the American public has a right to know before
November 8.
Then there's the matter of what Skolkovo actually
is. In truth, it's nothing like Silicon Valley except in outward
appearance. It's a fully state-driven enterprise -- funded largely by the
Kremlin and acting on its orders. It does the bidding of the Russian
government, and President Putin has taken intense interest in his
high-tech complex, understanding its value to the country's defense and
security sector.
Yandex Partners With Tel Aviv University
to Launch AI Study Program, Scholarships
Amarella
Wenkert
The Russian technology company will launch the
Yandex Machine Learning Initiative, offering courses in artificial
intelligence and financial support to students and faculty
Modeled on Yeshiva University, first
Jewish university to open in Russia
Modeled after Yeshiva University in the United
States, The Jewish University of Moscow is a private institution with a
student body of 200 whose budget comes mostly from donors and the
Federation of Jewish Communities of Russia, dean Alexander Lebedev told
JTA earlier this week.
The university -- whose faculties include
economics, law, humanities and Jewish studies – comprises two existing
Jewish community colleges: Institute XXI century for men and Institute
Machon CHaMeSH for women. Their reconstitution as campuses of a single,
state-recognized university is a first in Russian history, according to
Lebedev.
Russian VC shows the love to Israeli
startups
Abigail Klein Leichman
Titanium Investments unveils its $50 million
venture capital fund geared mainly to Israeli companies such as
Feedvisor, Any.do and MUV Interactive.
US backs Israel's proposal for railway
link to Gulf
The US has expressed support for an
Israeli plan to revive a historic railroad network linking the Jewish
state to Gulf countries.
Jason Greenblatt, US President Donald Trump's
peace envoy, hailed the proposal on Monday as an Israeli minister visits
Oman to present the "Tracks for Regional Peace" project.
How Russia Created a Jewish Museum and
Tolerance Center Even Vladimir Putin Can Tolerate
Olga Gershenson
The museum project was initiated by the Federation
of Jewish Communities of Russia -- the umbrella organization for
Chabad-Lubavitch in Russia -- supported by the Kremlin and financed by a
handful of Russian Jewish oligarchs at a cost of $50 million. The
journey to museum from garage began in 2001, when Moscow City Hall
donated the dilapidated building to the Hasidic Jewish Community Center.
The idea was that the building would house a cultural center, including
an exhibition on Jewish culture and an art gallery. While this site is
neither central nor easily accessible to tourists, it is part of an
entire campus of Jewish religious and cultural organizations that
sprouted in the post-Soviet era in the traditionally Jewish neighborhood
(to the extent that Moscow has Jewish neighborhoods) of Maryina Roshcha.
The museum building shares its territory with a Jewish day school, a
yeshiva, a medical center and several Jewish charity organizations.
Several years of faltering attempts to renovate
the garage building ended in 2007, when Roman Abramovich, a federation
board member, restored it. In 2008 it opened its doors to the public as
the Garage Center for Contemporary Culture, managed by Dasha Zhukova,
Abramovich's girlfriend at the time.
Top Israeli officials were part of KGB
spy ring -- report
Toi Staff
KGB files reportedly revealed the existence of an
extensive Soviet spy ring in Israel, encompassing Knesset members,
senior IDF officers, engineers, members of the Israeli intelligence
community, and others who worked on classified projects.
Top-secret KGB documents reported on by the
Hebrew-language daily Yedioth Ahronoth Wednesday detailed the extent of
the network of agents run by the Soviet secret service.
The documents were copied over a period of 20
years by Vasili Mitrokhin, a senior KGB archivist who defected to the UK
in 1992. His edited notes on various KGB operations were released in
2014 and are stored in Churchill College in Cambridge; his handwritten
notes remain classified by MI5.
Soviet documents 'show Abbas was KGB
agent'; Fatah decries 'smear campaign'
Tamar
Pileggi
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas was
a Soviet spy in Damascus in the 1980s, Israel's Channel 1 television
reported Wednesday, citing information it said was included in an
archive smuggled out of the USSR.
According to Channel 1's foreign news editor Oren
Nahari, the famed Mitrokhin archive, kept by KGB defector Vasily
Mitrokhin, revealed that Abbas was a Soviet mole in Damascus in 1983.
The documents -- obtained by Israeli researchers
Isabella Ginor and Gideon Remez -- purportedly show that Abbas,
code-named Krotov (mole), was involved with the Soviets while Mikhail
Bogdanov, today Vladimir Putin's envoy to the Middle East. was stationed
in Damascus.
KGB Infiltrated Highest Echelons of
Israel's Army, Business, and Political Leadership
Richard
Silverstein
The Israeli military censor compelled Bergman to
suppress the names of the most damaging of the KGB spies working in
Israel in a three-part series published in recent weeks by Ynet. In part
four of his series, Bergman secured the cooperation of an Israeli triple
agent who worked for the CIA, KGB and Shabak. The ex-spy agreed to be
interviewed and for his identity to be exposed. But the IDF censor, Col.
Ariella Ben Avraham, so eviscerated the proposed article that it could
not be published. As a result, it will be some time before we learn this
individual's identity. Given that the former spy agreed to be identified
and the incident presumably occurred decades ago, one wonders what the
censor is protecting except her own power and prerogative to render
secret what should be known in any other democratic society.
Lieberman Appointed Israeli KGB Agent to
Senior Government Role, Then He Disappeared
Richard
Silverstein
Bergman, who is compelled by the military censor
to suppress the names of almost all of the spies, tells (Nana recounts
the story at 3:05 of this news report) of a Soviet Jew born in
south-central Russia in the mid-1950s. He studied engineering and was
considered quite proficient in his field of study. The spy, whose
code-name was Bejan, was recruited to an elite Soviet espionage school,
where he was trained in the field of spycraft. He made aliyah to Israel
and was inducted into the IDF shortly thereafter. He joined the officer
training school and from there rose quickly in the ranks until he was
appointed the chief of one of the army's most critical infrastructure
ventures. He was privy to a multitude of highly secret material
including the location of bases, infrastructure facilities, data on the
order of battle, and preparations for future wars.
After retiring from the IDF, he turned to various
jobs in private industry. Later, he was appointed by Avigdor Lieberman,
who himself has often been rumored to be a Russian intelligence asset,
to a senior post. Then suddenly, Bejan disappeared in 2005. He has not
been heard from since.
He is not the first person in Lieberman's circle
to suffer a strange, mysterious fate. News1 detailed the circumstances
in which several key witnesses in the last Lieberman investigation who
either committed suicide, disappeared, or "forgot" key elements of their
previous testimony. Among them are Michael Falkov, a Lieberman
communications advisor who disappeared in 2014. Yosef Shuldiner was
found shot to death in an Israeli cemetery in 2006. Artium Borovik, a
senior Russian journalist close to the Kremlin, whom Lieberman used to
lobby on behalf of his business ventures, died in a mysterious plane
crash in 2008. Daniella Mourtzi was the corporate accountant for five
Cyprus-based Lieberman companies which were fronts. She was to testify
as part of the government investigation into Lieberman's shady business
dealings about his ownership of the companies. But before her time came
to testify, she suddenly developed amnesia and couldn't recall a thing.
Another witness in Moldova (where Lieberman was born) was interrogated
and shortly afterward had a fatal stroke.
Soviet spies infiltrate Mossad, sources
say
Richard
Sale
Soviet infiltration of Israel's spy agency,
Mossad, is the most serious blow to Israeli intelligence since the 1970s
and U.S. intelligence also was breached as a result, U.S. sources
reveal.
Mossad has been penetrated by 'highly placed'
Soviet moles and a full-scale internal counterintelligence investigation
is under way, the intelligence sources said.
A Justice Department source said U.S.
counterintelligence agents became aware of the Israeli-Soviet espionage
pipeline when data stolen by Jonathan Jay Pollard, a U.S. Navy analyst
convicted of spying for Israel, was 'traced to the Eastern bloc.'
Intelligence sources said data reaching the
Soviets via this route included sensitive U.S. weapons technology and
strategic information about the defense forces of Turkey, Pakistan and
moderate Arab countries, including Saudi Arabia.
U.S. intelligence analysts said the Pollard data
was traded to the Soviets in return for promises to increase emigration
of Soviet Jews to Israel.
One analyst said Israel's 'right-wing' Jews are
involved with spying for the Soviets and called it 'ironic,' noting that
left-wing elements were responsible for similar scandals in the past.
No Love Lost
Yossi
Melman
"There is a paradoxical situation," says the chief rabbi of Moscow. "The
Jews in Russia have power, money and influence, as never before; yet at
the same time the situation of the Jewish community is at an all-time
low." A guide to the wars of the Jewish oligarchs in Russia.
Why Data Science is Booming in Israel
Jacob Maslow
Yandex, the "Google of Russia," is going to expand
into Israel. The tech firm, the largest in Russia, will be launching a
few services in Israel. The firm will be launching Yandex Music in just
a few weeks, and then there are additional plans for Israel.
Times of Israel broke the news that Yandex is
still thinking about opening a taxi venture in Israel and also plans to
offer an eight-month course in data science. Yandex plans to introduce
their Y-Data initiative in Israel, a course that will be very similar to
what is already running in Russia.
Exploring Al Qaeda's Murky Connection To
Russian Intelligence
John
Schindler
[Note: This is an unusually controversial piece, even for my blog, for
reasons that will quickly become obvious. Linkages between Al-Qa'ida and
Russian intelligence have been discussed in hushed tones among spies in
many countries, for years, and this matter has been a "hobby file" of
mine for some time. Here is a think-piece on it, in the hope of spurring
additional discussion and research into this important yet murky matter.
This is particularly necessary given rising tensions between Moscow and
the West at present.
'The USSR Is Our Second Homeland,' Said
One Kibbutznik When Stalin Died
Tom Segev
In
fact, it is of interest to recall - incredible as it may seem - that
Stalin's Soviet Union was once at the center of Israeli identity. In the
first Knesset, the left-wing Mapam (United Workers Party ) was the
second-largest faction, with 19 seats. During the debate over the makeup
of the government that was held in the Knesset on March 10, 1949, one of
Mapam's two leaders, Ya'akov Hazan of Kibbutz Mishmar Ha'emek, said:
"For us, the Soviet Union is the fortress of world socialism, it is our
second homeland, the socialist one." That comment could go down as one
of the 10 most-quoted sentences in the history of Israeli politics.
Jabotinsky's Likud Was Anything but a
Liberal Bastion
Ofri Ilany
While Ze'ev Jabotinsky has in recent years been
lionized as the picture of a faultless liberal standout, there is no
justification for describing Likud as a movement that was once liberal
and has deteriorated into fascism.
David Ben-Gurion visited the Soviet Union in 1923,
and drew inspiration from the Leninist form of organization and use of
power. He described Lenin admiringly as "an iron-willed man who would
not spare human life or the blood of the innocent on behalf of the
revolution." In the wake of that visit, Ben-Gurion built his political
party into a power-centric revolutionary organization that was not
squeamish about using whatever means possible to realize its objectives.
RUSSIANS AND JEWS: THE ODD COUPLE
Jonathan
Adelman
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has in the last
three years gone nine times to a Russia that has promoted dozens of
Russian Jews to become oligarchs in the new Russia.
FROM RUSSIA WITH JEWS
Amiram Barkat and Yossi Melman
Zvi Magen did what few Israelis would dare to do:
He rejected a tempting, well-paying job offer from Arcadi Gaydamak, the
Israeli-Russian oligarch, whom the State Prosecutor's office is
considering putting on trial for money laundering, and who is wanted in
France on suspicion of illegal arms trading with Angola. Gaydamak wanted
Magen to head the Congress of Jewish Religious Communities and
Organizations in Russia (KEROOR). This is an off-the-shelf organization
that came to life about 18 months ago under the aegis of Gaydamak, who
contributes money to it and acts as its president.
Magen received the generous offer a few months
ago, while he was still head of Nativ, but preferred to join the
Interdisciplinary Center, Herzliya as head of a new Euro-Asia institute
that will conduct "studies from the Balkans to Mongolia."
Magen, a lieutenant colonel in the Israel Defense
Forces reserves and a former ambassador to Ukraine and Russia, has
headed Nativ for almost seven years. He concluded his term of office at
the beginning of last month, but his successor has only just been named.
Last week, Naomi Ben Ami, Israel's ambassador to Ukraine, was chosen to
head Nativ. This is the first time in the history of the Israeli
intelligence community that a woman has been named to head one of its
agencies - although Nativ in fact is no longer involved in intelligence.
HOLY RUSSIA SACRED ISRAEL
Dominic
Rubin
Jewish‐Christian Encounters in Russian Religious
Thought
Russia's use of false flag terrorism
facilitating the rise of Putin
'September, 1998: Kremlin Insider Predicts
'Massive Unrest' to Journalist'
March 19, 1999: Bombing in Russian Market Near
Chechnya Kills Fifty.
June 6, 1999: Kremlin False Flag Terror Plot
Rumors Surface in Swedish Newspaper
July 22, 1999: Russian Journalist Alleges
Destabilization Plot by Kremlin Insiders
September 9, 1999: Apartment Blast in Moscow Kills
94; Chechen Rebels Blamed
September 13, 1999: Second Moscow Apartment
Bombing Kills 118; Chechen Rebels Blamed
September 22-24, 1999: FSB Agents Plant Large Bomb
in Ryazan: 'Security Exercise' or Terror Plot?
Henry Kissinger's criminal sale of
nuclear weapons technology to Soviet Russia in 1972
Antony Sutton
Kalmanowich affair shows
KGB-Israeli mafia link
Thierry Lalevee and Joseph Brewda
On Dec. 23, 1987, Israeli businessman Shabtai
Kalmanowich was arrested by Israeli authorities on charges of being "a
spy
for the Soviet Union." Since his emigration from Lithuania in 1971,
Kalmanowich had become a leading figure in the Israeli political and
business establishment, directing a far-flung diamond, gold, gambling,
prostitution, and armstrafficking empire, based in Africa, West Germany,
and New York City. When Israeli authorities announced Kalmanowich's
arrest on Jan. 10, however, they failed to mention the fact that
millionaire Kalmanowich was also an officer in the Israeli foreign
intelligence service, the Mossad. Kalmanowich was something of the late
CIA director Bill Casey's ideal intelligence officer: He made a fortune
as he carried out espionage.
Kalmanowich is certainly not the first Soviet
Jewish
emigre caught as a spy;
there have been four or five over recent years. Analyzing this
phenomenon, a former head of Israeli military intelligence reported on
Israeli television that there are two kinds of spies among the emigres:
those who are blackmailed because their families have remained behind,
and those who are ideologically committed to Soviet communism.
Kalmanowich belonged to the second category.
The Chicago School of Economics
Jon Swinn
This infographic displays the connections and
people known collectively as the 'Chicago School'. The strong links to
the elites are identified.
The neoconservative as well as Thatcherism and the
false opposition libertarian movement find their roots in the 'Chicago
School'.
This is essential background information into
understanding the next infographic 'Rise of the Neo-Cons / Wohlstetter
Network'.
The Rise of the Neo-Cons / Wohlstetter
Network
Jon Swinn
This infographic displays the links between some of the important
players behind the creation of the neoconservative movement, 9/11 and
resulting War on Terror.
[Perle, Feith, Gaffney] Suspected Soviet
Cell Wrote Reagan's Long-Term Strategy
Jeffrey
Steinberg
Jackson - Vanik amendment
Jackson organized the political movement to link
trade and emigration in America's relations with the Soviet Union in
concert with Jewish activists, but he soon took matters into his own
hands. Jackson drafted what would become the Jackson–Vanik amendment in
the summer of 1972 and introduced it to the Ninety-second Congress on
October 4, 1972. Jackson's efforts, rooted in his own domestic political
calculations and ideological distrust of and antipathy toward the Soviet
Union, complicated the Nixon White House's pursuit of Detente, which it
had worked on since 1969. However, three-quarters of the Senate
co-sponsored the amendment, neutralizing opposition from President
Nixon.
Jackson's staffer Richard Perle said in an
interview that the idea belonged to Jackson, who believed that the right
to emigrate was the most powerful among the human rights in certain
respects: "if people could vote with their feet, governments would have
to acknowledge that and governments would have to make for their
citizens a life that would keep them there." While there was some
opposition, the American Jewish establishment on the whole and Soviet
Jewry activists (particularly the Washington Committee for Soviet Jewry
and the National Conference on Soviet Jewry) supported the amendment...
Soviet Union
At first the Jackson–Vanik amendment did little to
help free Soviet Jewry. The number of exit visas declined after the
passing of the amendment. However, in the late 1980s Mikhail Gorbachev
agreed to comply with the protocols of the Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe. Lazin (2005) states that scholars differ on how
effective the amendment was in helping Soviet Jews. Some argue that it
helped bring the plight of Soviet Jews to the world's attention, while
others believe it hindered emigration and decreased America's diplomatic
bargaining power.
Since 1975 more than 500,000 refugees, large
numbers of whom were Jews, evangelical Christians, and Catholics from
the former Soviet Union, have been resettled in the United States. An
estimated one million Soviet Jews have immigrated to Israel in that
time.
Jackson-Vanik also led to great changes within the
Soviet Union. Other ethnic groups subsequently demanded the right to
emigrate, and the ruling Communist Party had to face the fact that there
was widespread dissatisfaction with its governance
Russia
In 2003, Vladimir Putin pursued an economic agenda
for Russia to begin normalized trade relations with the West which
included Russia joining the European Union and the repeal of the
Jackson-Vannik amendment. Putin tried to use his relationships with both
the Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, who was the head of the
European Union's Council in 2003, to gain Russia's membership in the
European Union, and also Hank Greenberg, who was the chairman and CEO of
the American International Group (AIG), to repeal the Jackson-Vannik
provisions in the United States.[20] Putin wished for Greenberg to
support through Greenberg's AIG greater development of the nascent
Russian home-mortgage market.
On November 16, 2012 the U.S. House of
Representatives passed a bill that would repeal the Jackson–Vanik
amendment for Russia and Moldova. After approval by the Senate, the law
repealing the effects of the Jackson–Vanik amendment on Russia and
Moldova was signed together with Magnitsky bill by President Barack
Obama on December 14, 2012.
Excerpt from Robert Friedman's Red Mafiya -
America's gates were opened to Jewish mobsters by
the Jackson-Vanik Amendment, which withheld most-favored-nation status
from Marxist countries that restricted Jewish emigration. According to
Mr. Friedman, the Soviets were happy to oblige during the 1970s by
"emptying their jails of thousands of hard-core criminals, dumping vast
numbers of undesirables" on an unsuspecting United States. More than
40,000 Soviet Jews settled in Brighton Beach which soon became the seat
of the "Organisatsiya," the new Jewish mob. Initially assisted by the
Genovese crime family and the politically astute and well-connected
Jewish rabbi Ronald Greenwald, the Jewish mobsters, some of whom have
Ph.D.s in mathematics, physics and engineering, as well as MBAs, quickly
expanded their operations to include bank fraud, money laundering,
Medicare and insurance fraud, counterfeiting, drug dealing, natural gas
bootlegging - scams which netted billions of dollars. The mob has even
infiltrated the National Hockey League through its intimidation of
Russian and Ukrainian players.
The Soviet mole network running U.S.
counterintelligence
At the very beginning of 1988, a purported
"official CIA
evaluation" of
the Jonathan Jay Pollard spy case surfaced among senior French
intelligence officers. The essential conclusion of the dossier,
according to French officials who directly reviewed it, was that the
Pollard case showed only that "one or two" KGB agents had infiltrated
Israeli intelligence. No higher-level problems were shown to exist
within the Mossad. The purported document went on to say, that while
senior Israeli officials, including Ariel Sharon and Rafael "Dirty Rafi"
Eytan, would be cut off from continued
collaboration with their American counterparts,
there was no
evidence
suggesting that the pair were either Soviet "moles" or involved in any
witting perfidy with Moscow.
Whether or not the document was a bona fide CIA
damage
assessment, the
evaluation, as reported, is a fraud. Not only was Jonathan Jay Pollard
merely one small fish in an extensive Soviet "false flag" espionage ring
run through the highest
levels of Israeli intelligence; the same ring,
operating principally through Israeli and social democratic channels,
has
successfully penetrated the
inner sanctums of the Reagan administration's counterintelligence
apparatus.
The "CIA document" bears mentioning, because it
perhaps provides a clue to the identities of some of the "bigger
fish"-American
and Israeli-who are still in place, attempting to "damage control" the
continuing search for "other Pollards. "
The Israeli spy network that
Jonathan Pollard left behind
Joseph Brewda
Sanhedrin Asks Putin and Trump to Build
Third Temple in Jerusalem
Adam Eliyahu Berkowitz
The Nascent Sanhedrin is calling on Russian
President Vladmir Putin and US president-elect Donald Trump to join
forces and fulfill their Biblically-mandated roles by rebuilding the
Jewish Temple in Jerusalem.
Rabbi Hillel Weiss, spokesman for the Sanhedrin,
contacted Breaking Israel News to announce that the election of Trump,
who has promised to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel,
coupled with Putin's expressed desire for the Temple to be rebuilt,
prompted the Jewish court to send a letter offering the two the
opportunity to act as modern-day Cyrus figures: non-Jewish kings who
recognize the importance of Israel and the Temple.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn: 200 years together - English audiobook
Part 1
Part 2
Grant
Stern
Grant Stern's 10 part series on the Grand Old
Putin Party.
Part 1 - Prologue
Part 2-
Putin's Propagandist Eerily Predicted Trump's Relationship With General
Flynn and Dana Rohrabacher Last Year
Part 3-
Putin's Favorite Congressman Secretly Met With Paul Manafort After The
FBI Warned Russian Agents Were Recruiting Him
Part 4-
The GOP's Favorite Russian Professor Spent Decades Building Conservative
Ties To Moscow
Part 5-
American University In Moscow: Linked To Russian State, But Fake Like
TrumpU
Part 6-
Here's Lozansky Introducing Republicans To The Father Of Russian Foreign
Intelligence -- And Putin's Mentor
Part 7-
Soviet Human Rights Activists Believed Lozansky Worked With Russian
Intelligence
Part 8-
From Orange Revolution To "Stars And Stripes Revolution"
Part 9-
Opinion: Edward Lozansky's Russia Lobby Compromised The Republican Party
Part 10-
Opinion: Without Ed Lozansky, Trump-Russia Could Not Have Happened
Communism Among Jewish Children in Russia
Nov 5, 1924
The Communist Child Movement, according to figures
published here, includes 7,000 organized Jewish children in the Ukraine
and 2,000 in White Russia. The work among the Jewish "pioneers", as they
are called, is conducted exclusively in the Yiddish language. There are
five detachments of Jewish "pioneers" in Witebsk, three in Homel, a
Jewish "pioneer" base in Minsk, and scores of detachments in Odessa and
Kiev. "Pioneer" clubs are attached to the schools, children's homes and
workshops. A proposal is now made for the publication of a special
Yiddish magazine for the Communist Child Movement.
Freiheit Calls on Jews to Desert Zionism, Back Soviets
Nov 9, 1930
Calling upon the Jewish workers to desert the
Zionist cause and to fight for Soviet Russia and Communism, an editorial
in Friday's Freiheit, New York Yiddish Communist organ, enumerates what
it alleges to be Jewish failures in Palestine with regard to land
settlement, and contrasts this with what it regards as the great success
of Jewish land settlement in Russia within recent years.
"During the past five years the Soviet Union has
settled three hundred thousand Jews on the land," says the editorial.
"During the coming five years it will build a large new settlement in
Bira-Bidjan. Wherever Jews live in compact masses the whole governmental
apparatus is conducted in Yiddish. If great Jewish masses will come to
Bira-Bidjan a Soviet Republic will be organized there.
"All this is being done by the Soviet Republic
without noise, without trumpeting; it is part of the general work of
building up the country. The Jews in the Soviet Union have equal rights
together with all citizens. Jewish books and periodicals are being
issued at the expense of the government. Anti-Semitism is being uprooted
with an iron hand.
"In Palestine it is just the opposite. There
during the past fifty years hundreds of millions of dollars have poured
in, nevertheless only about twenty thousand Jews are settled upon the
land. There everything is kept up by philanthropy, and there is no room
for a large Jewish population. There the ruler is the British
imperialistic power which has encouraged pogroms and which now declares
openly that it will give the Jews no governmental power in Palestine.
There Jews are being settled upon alien soil from which the peasants are
being driven off by force, although they have been living there scores
and hundreds of years. There a poisonous hatred on the part of the local
population towards the aliens who come with the bayonet and the dollar
exists, and the masses have already revolted against the alien
oppressors."
"Down with Zionism! Long live the Soviet Union!"
JEWS CREATED COMMUNISM
Dewey
(Buddy) Tucker
THE JEWS AND THE COMMUNIZATION OF RUSSIA
Elizabeth Dilling
Very few people are aware of the extent to which
Jews were responsible for the Communization of Russia, first through
organizing of the unsuccessful revolution of 1905, and then the later
and successful Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. Both were heavily financed
by outside Jewish financial and banking houses, and ultimately resulted
in Jews assuming control of what had become the Russian Soviet
Government. Concurrently, Jewish machinations in the United States,
Germany and elsewhere helped set the stage for the take-over.
The Three Holodomor Genocides
"You must understand. The leading Bolsheviks who
took over Russia were not Russians. They hated Russians. They hated
Christians. Driven by ethnic hatred they tortured and slaughtered
millions of Russians without a shred of human remorse. The October
Revolution was not what you call in America the "Russian Revolution." It
was an invasion and conquest over the Russian people. More of my
countrymen suffered horrific crimes at their bloodstained hands than any
people or nation ever suffered in the entirety of human history. It
cannot be understated. Bolshevism was the greatest human slaughter of
all time. The fact that most of the world is ignorant of this reality is
proof that the global media itself is in the hands of the perpetrators."
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (1918-2008), Nobel-Prize-winning novelist,
historian and victim of Jewish Bolshevism (Marxism).
Woodrow Wilson And The Zionist Network
Infographic highlighting the Zionist influence
surrounding Woodrow Wilson, his rise to power and historical events
during his presidency and the role of the Zionist powers in the creation
of WW1, WW2, creation of the Federal Reserve system, Bolshevik
Revolution, Great Depression etc.
Geneva Versus Peace
Comte de Saint-Aulaire
Comte de Saint-Aulaire, French Ambassador to Great
Britain in the 1920s, discussed his meetings with Kuhn, Loeb, & Co.
financiers. They had discussions regarding why they [the Kuhn, Loeb, &;
Co. bankers] financed the Bolshevik Revolution. One of them said (p.
80):
"You say that Marxism is the very antithesis of
capitalism, which is equally sacred to us. It is precisely for this
reason that they are direct opposites to one another, that they put into
our hands the two poles of this planet and allow us to be its axis.
These two contraries, like Bolshevism and ourselves, find their identity
in the International. These opposites, which are at the antipodes to one
another in society and in their doctrines meet again in the identity of
their purpose and end, the remaking of the world from above by the
control of riches, and from below by revolution.
Our mission consists in promulgating the new law
and in creating a God, that is to say in purifying the idea of God and
realizing it, when the time shall come.
We shall purify the idea by identifying it with
the nation of Israel, which has become its own Messiah. The advent of it
will be facilitated by the final triumph of Israel, which has become
it's own Messiah."
This same financier also said (pp. 83-84):
"our essential dynamism makes use of the forces of
destruction and forces of creation, but uses the first to nourish the
second. Our organization for revolution is evidenced by destructive
Bolshevism and for construction by the League of Nations which is also
our work. Bolshevism is the accelerator and the League is the brake on
the mechanism of which we supply both the motive force and the guiding
power.
What is the end? It is already determined by our
mission. It is formed of elements scattered throughout the whole world,
but cast in the flame of our faith in ourselves. We are a League of
Nations which contains the elements of all others."
Israeli support for anti-Ukrainian
separatists of "Novorussia"
Sean Jobst
Eurasianists and Nazbols link Ukraine with Israel,
ignoring Putin's close alliance with Israel and the central involvement
of hardcore Zionists like Avigdor Eskin in Dugin's networks. They
rewrite this narrative to deceive Western dissidents opposed to Zionism
and Jewish power, into signing off on their own anti-Ukrainian
subversion. Their efforts to enlist support for separatists who openly
proclaim themselves a Communist "People's Republic", include bizarre
claims that have been refuted by no less a figure as Donetsk leader
Denis Pushilin, who openly touts himself as "Chairman of the Soviet"
while his fighters brandish Soviet flags and include many foreign
Communists.
Borscht Belt: Will Israel Spurn America
for Russia?
Lincoln Mitchell
FOR MOST OF LAST YEAR, THE WEST STRUGGLED TO find
an appropriate response to Russia's incursions into Crimea and eastern
and southern Ukraine. Many European and North American governments
strongly condemned Russia and its president, Vladimir Putin, but Israel
has been noticeably silent.
In the past, Israel has been similarly mum on
Russian aggression -- or worse. In 2008, when the Russia-Georgia war began,
Israel cut its previously substantial military support for Georgia and
withdrew its military advisors.
Why has Israel declined to slap Russia? Because
the Jewish state may someday need Russia as a powerful ally if relations
with the U.S. wither -- something that's not an immediate risk but not
necessarily unthinkable .
The Partition Plan, November 29, 1947:
Soviet Support for Establishing Israel in Perspective
Alex Grobman
Given the Soviet Union's avowed hostility to
Zionism, the Soviet vote "came as a great surprise, as a bombshell,"
recounted Moshe Sharett, then head of the Jewish Agency's political
department.
When May Day Was a Major Event in Israel
Armin Rosen
It wasn't just that Stalin's Red Army had
liberated Auschwitz, or that "the Soviets had shipped Czech weapons to
the IDF in 1948" and supported Jewish statehood at a crucial moment,
including in the United Nations partition vote in 1947. The ties went
deeper than any political alliance: For many, Zionism was an avowedly
secular pro-labor movement with the same utopian aims as Communism
itself. As Halevi writes, the logo of the newspaper for the Hashomer
Hatzair Marxist Zionist movement translated to "For Zionism -- For
Socialism -- For the Fraternity of Nations."
May Day was a major event for some Israeli
communities, outranking most of the Jewish holidays in importance.
Stalin's Jews
Sever Plocker
We mustn't forget that some of greatest murderers
of modern times were Jewish
Back in the USSR?
David
Horovitz
Chabad's chief rabbi
The Jewish leader closest to Putin is Chabad's
Berel Lazar, one of Russia's two chief rabbis, a Milan-born, New
York-ordained emissary, who first came here in the late 1980s on several
trips to teach Judaism to refuseniks and was then appointed by the
Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, to help revive and
strengthen the Jewish community as the Soviet Union entered its death
throes in 1990.
A father of 12 aged 49, with a graying beard and
the trademark Chabad warmth -- he immediately invites me for Shabbat
dinner when we meet -- Lazar works from a book-lined sixth-floor office
in the Moscow Jewish Community Center building that houses his
now-thriving Maryina Roshcha District synagogue.
When he arrived, Lazar recalls, there was "an
underground" of people leading a return to Judaism. By 1989 Mikhail
Gorbachev had granted "unofficial permission to open a school and a
yeshiva." And when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, most everyone
whose Judaism was important to them was leaving. "The place was emptying
out. The Israeli embassy was sure there'd be no Jews left," says Lazar.
"They laughed at us as we tried to fix up synagogues. It was a conveyor
belt: come to shul, learn Hebrew, go to Israel. No one thought there'd
be a future here."
Putin Welcomes Kissinger: 'Old Friends'
to Talk Shop
Ellen
Berry
Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin will meet Friday
with former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger to discuss world
affairs, including elections in Russia and the United States, said Mr.
Putin's press secretary, Dmitri S. Peskov.
Mr. Peskov said Mr. Kissinger requested the
meeting in late November or early December. The two men are "old
friends" who have met 8 or 10 times over the years, once dining at Mr.
Kissinger's home in New York, he said. Mr. Peskov said Mr. Putin was
interested in Mr. Kissinger's counsel about domestic politics, among
other subjects.
"He values everyone's point of view, and
especially such a wise man as Henry Kissinger," Mr. Peskov said.
Alexander Dugin - The one Russian linking
Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin and Recep Tayyip Erdogan
Henry Meyer, Onur Ant
Dugin, who's been described as everything from an
occult fascist to a mystical imperialist, lost his prestigious job
running the sociology department at Moscow State University in 2014
after activists accused him of encouraging genocide. Thousands of people
signed a petition calling for his removal after a rant in support of
separatists in Ukraine in which he said, "kill, kill, kill."
What is Duginism and why it matters
Youtube video by Freedom Alternative.
Duginist publication calls Russians and
Jews "chosen peoples"
Sean Jobst
The volume was part of an effort to strengthen
ties between the Eurasianist movement and Chabad and far-right-wing
Zionist movements, approvingly quoting one of Bromberg's contemporaries
(Lev Karsavin, who greeted the Soviet regime) about the "primordial tie
between the Jewish people and Russia". Dugin has praised the predominant
Jewish role in Bolshevism as representing a continued "positive" Jewry,
that can now contribute to "the general struggle against Western
culture" and to the founding of the "Great Eurasian Empire". He extolled
"messianic national-bolshevism" as "the spiritual union of Jewish and
Russian eurasianists".
Rise of the NazBols
MAGA OPUS Bitchute video.
Holocaust Deniers in Russia Now Face Five
Years in Prison
ussian President Vladimir Putin signed a law on
Monday making the denial of Nazi crimes and distortion of the Soviet
Union's role in the World War Two a criminal offence punishable by up to
five years in jail.
The law, described by critics as an attempt to
curb freedom of expression to appease conservative Russians, the ex-KGB
spy's main support base, also criminalises the public desecration of war
memorials.
The Kremlin has used World War Two as a pillar to
unite a society that Putin has said lost its moral bearings following
the 1991 Soviet collapse.
It has become increasingly risky for Russians to
dispute an official line that glorifies the wartime achievements of the
Soviet leadership and plays down its errors.
The new law would ban "wittingly spreading false
information about the activity of the USSR during the years of World War
Two".
LIFE AFTER PUTIN: THE JARED KUSHNER OF
RUSSIA
Fiona Zublin
The putative son-in-law is the son of Nikolay
Shamalov, one of Putin's longtime friends and hockey buddies. "Putin
made Shamalov Jr. a billionaire and effected a transfer of wealth to the
next generation," Dawisha says. Nikolay is also a shareholder in Rossiya
Bank -- described by the BBC as the "personal bank" of Russian oligarchs
-- and was sanctioned by the U.S. and EU after tensions mounted over the
annexation of Crimea in 2014, along with several other Russian banks and
businessmen.
Former Israeli double agent shot dead
near Putin's office
Andrew Osborn in Moscow and Adrian Blomfield in Jerusalem
Shabtai Kalmanovich, a former Israeli double agent who penetrated Golda
Meir's government on behalf of the KGB, has been shot dead in Moscow.
Kalmanovich, who later became a prominent businessman and allegedly had
links with the Russian mafia, died after an unidentified gunman fired at
least 20 shots into his chauffeur-driven Mercedes Benz. Mr Kalmanovich's
driver was seriously wounded in the incident.
"Kalmanovich had practically no chance of surviving," a police official
was quoted as saying by Russia's Interfax news agency. "He died on the
spot from numerous gun wounds." A figure with a colourful if chequered
past, Kalmanovich and his Jewish family immigrated to Israel from
Lithuania in 1971.
After becoming an Israeli citizen, he joined the Israeli Labour Party,
was appointed to a position in the government press office and became a
mole for the KGB.
Robert Maxwell, Israel's Superspy: The
Life and Murder of a Media Mogul
Robert Younes
Was Robert Maxwell a Soviet spy? FBI
files reveal US fears the media mogul was working for Russia
Rob Cooper
Stalin & Secret Diaries: "Soviet
Involvement in the Creation of the State of Israel"
The Maisky Diaries ed by Gabriel
Gorodetsky, review: 'a spectacular find'
Nicholas Shakespeare
n February 1953, two weeks before Stalin's death,
Ivan Maisky, Soviet ambassador to London from 1932 to 1943, was arrested
and accused of being a British spy. Interrogated 36 times in his
Lubyanka cell, the stocky exdiplomat was detained for two years without
books, pen or paper.
Rehabilitated in 1960 and desperate to write his
memoirs, he was granted one year of limited access to his personal
archive, which included the 1,500-page diary Maisky had kept while in
London, when he enjoyed automatic access to the chief personalities of
the day.
Published in the Sixties and written under the
twin clouds of purges and censorship, his memoirs were apologetic,
misleading and selective - and not terribly interesting. Then, in 1993,
the historian Gabriel Gorodetsky discovered Maisky's original diary in
the Russian Foreign Ministry. "Spiced with anecdotes and gossip", this
differed radically from the official version. Its candid depictions of
the British political and social scene reminded Gorodetsky of Samuel
Pepys.
Harry Hopkins, Soviet agent
But there are still many people alive who can
remember when the chief confidant of President Franklin Roosevelt was a
man named Harry Hopkins. And they will be understandably astonished to
learn that in a message dated May 29, 1943, Iskhak Akhmerov, the chief
Soviet "illegal" agent in the United States at the time, referred to an
Agent 19 who had reported on discussions between Roosevelt and Winston
Churchill in Washington at which the agent had been present. Only Harry
Hopkins meets the requirements for this agent's identity. Small wonder
that Akhmerov, in a lecture in Moscow in the early 1960s, identified
Hopkins by name as "the most important of all Soviet wartime agents in
the United States."
It took 50 years to bludgeon Alger Hiss' defenders
into admitting that this suave bureaucrat, who rose to be chief of the
State Department's Office of Special Political Affairs, had actually
been a Soviet agent all along. And it will probably take another 50 to
force Franklin Roosevelt's admirers to concede that their hero's closest
confidant and adviser was yet another Soviet agent.
But the documents and the testimony are now on the
public record, and they make it plain that those of us who sounded the
warning about Soviet espionage and policy subversion 50 years ago didn't
know the half of it.
The Resumption Of Russian-"Israeli" Free
Trade Talks Proves Ties Are Fantastic
Andrew Korybko
No, Russian-"Israeli" ties aren't in a state of
"crisis" after the latter bombed Syria earlier this month, but are
actually enjoying an unprecedented flourishment that won't be offset by
whatever happens in the Arab Republic, and Moscow might even tie Tel
Aviv into the same multilateral free trade area that has recently
expanded to include Iran.
"Israel's" bombing of Syria earlier this month
predictably prompted many in the Alt-Media to declare that this time
Russia will surely 'teach its ally a lesson' by openly turning into the
'anti-Zionist crusader state' that their dogma has indoctrinated them
into imagining that it's been this entire time. They were, as is
becoming the norm, totally wrong, and three specific events prove that
ties between the two sides aren't in a state of "crisis" but are rather
flourishing, with the latest milestone in their relationship being the
resumption of free trade talks.
Israel and Russia are NOT on the verge of
war. They are allies!
Andrew Korybko
The alternative media community, especially its
social media iteration, is experiencing collective psychosis in
hallucinating that "Israel" and Russia are on the verge of war with one
another.
The prevailing narrative is that Israeli "Defense
Minister" Lieberman's threat to destroy Syria's air defense systems is
tantamount to a declaration of war against Russia, with the assumption
being that Moscow is on a crusade against Zionism and has thus become
Tel Aviv's worst enemy.
There's no diplomatic way to say this, but the
presumptions on which such a crazy conclusion has been reached are
absolutely and utterly wrong.
Far from being Israel's hated nemesis like many in
the alternative media community wishfully pretend that it is, Moscow is
one of Tel Aviv's closest allies, and this is entirely due to President
Putin's deliberate policies. Not only does he enjoy a very strong
personal friendship with Netanyahu, but President Putin also sees a lot
of opportunity to advance his country's interests in Israel through the
large Russian diaspora there.
Does anyone still seriously think that
Russia and Israel aren't allies
Andrew Korybko
Russian Oil Giant Rosneft Expands in
Middle East
Russia's state-owned oil company Rosneft has begun
to expand its operations in the Middle East with deals in Libya and
Iraq, Bloomberg News reported Tuesday.
Rosneft, which is run by Putin ally Igor Sechin,
struck a deal to purchase an undisclosed amount of crude oil from the
Libyan National Oil Corp on Monday. The deal will also allow the Russian
company to invest in exploration and production in the volatile North
African country.
The chairman of National Oil Corp welcomed the
deal, saying it would help to stabilize the warring country's economy.
"We need the assistance and investment of major
international oil companies to reach our production goals and stabilize
our economy," NOC Chairman Mustafa Sanalla said in a statement.
Rosneft announced on the same day it had struck a
deal with authorities of the autonomous Kurdish region in northern Iraq
to purchase oil until 2019. The deal with Kurdish authorities will also
allow the Russian company to invest in exploration and production.
REPORT: MAJORITY OF ISRAELI OIL IMPORTED
FROM KURDISTAN
Sharon
Udasin
On Sunday night, The Financial Times reported that
Israel had imported as much as 77 percent of its oil supply from
Kurdistan in recent months, bringing in some 19 million barrels between
the beginning of May and August 11. During that period, more than a
third of all northern Iraqi exports, shipped through Turkey's Ceyhan
port, went to Israel, with transactions amounting to almost $1b., the
report said, citing "shipping data, trading sources and satellite tanker
tracking."
Nonetheless, Dr. Amit Mor, CEO of the Eco Energy
Financial and Strategic Consulting firm, confirmed to The Jerusalem Post
that "for some time, Kurdish oil [has been arriving] to the Ashkelon
petroleum port." In all likelihood, he explained, the oil was being
stored at the Eilat-Ashkelon Pipeline Company facilities for commercial
reasons, by international trading firms and investors. Israel's
refineries may then be purchasing the oil from the international
companies, he added.
Importing Kurdish oil could be beneficial to
Israel from both geostrategic and economic perspectives, according to
Mor.
"Although I don't think the Kurds are having major
difficulties in exporting their oil these days, it is very sensible for
the Israeli refineries to purchase Kurdish oil via Turkey's Ceyhan
petroleum port, as it takes only one day of sailing for oil tankers to
reach the Ashkelon petroleum port. Such is also the case for
[Azerbaijani] oil," he said.
The Truth about Oil and the Iraq War, 15
Years Later
Gary Vogler
The oil agenda I discovered and experienced was to
supply Iraq oil to Israel. The players were the neoconservatives in the
Bush Administration, their favorite Iraqi – Dr Ahmed Chalabi and the
Israeli government. One of the motives was because Israel was paying a
huge premium for its oil imports and this premium had just started in
the late1990s. The agenda called for the reopening of the old Kirkuk to
Haifa pipeline and its significant expansion. When this pipeline plan
became unattainable in the 2nd half of 2003 then Chalabi took other
actions to get inexpensive Iraqi oil to Israel.
A much more credible explanation for intentionally
destroying the Syrian export pipeline than what Secretary Rumsfeld told
the NY Times was found in the British press. The Guardian, a London
newspaper, quoted a retired CIA agent just after the Syria pipeline
attack. "It has long been a dream of a powerful section of the people
now driving the Bush administration and the war in Iraq to safeguard
Israel's energy supply.
Russia is suspected of deploying troops
to Libya, but what's Moscow's play in this muddy conflict?
"Vladimir Putin wants to make the war-torn North
African country 'his new Syria.'" Citing sources in British
intelligence, the tabloid claimed that Russia has already embedded
"dozens" of GRU agents and Spetsnaz troops in eastern Libya, and
established two military bases in the coastal towns of Tobruk and
Benghazi, supposedly using the Wagner private military group as "cover."
Russian Kalibr anti-ship missiles and S-300 air-defense systems are also
reportedly on the ground in Libya. The tabloid's sources claimed that
the Kremlin has sided with the warlord General Khalifa Haftar in an
effort to "seize control of the country's coastline." This would
allegedly give Russia the power to unleash a "fresh tidal wave of
migrants" across the Mediterranean "like a tap."
note -
Khalifa
Belqasim Haftar studied in Egypt and the Soviet Union, also at the M.V.
Frunze Military Academy. He is a fluent Russian speaker. In 1969, Haftar
took part in the coup that brought Muammar Gaddafi to power and
overthrew the monarchy.
9/11 inside job "impossible to conceal," says Vladimir Putin
"Claims that the terror attacks of September 11,
2001 were orchestrated by US intelligence agencies are "complete
nonsense," Prime Minister Vladimir Putin told attendees of a youth
forum"
How the War on Terrorism Did Russia a
Favor
Simon Shuster
"Putin, who had been the first to call Bush with
his sympathy after learning of the 9/11 attacks, graciously offered to
help with the invasion of Afghanistan"
Putin: Russia warned U.S. of Iraq terror
"Russian President Vladimir Putin said his country
warned the United States several times that Saddam Hussein's regime was
planning terror attacks on the United States and its overseas interests"
REPORT: IRAN ACCUSES RUSSIA OF GIVING ISRAEL CODES FOR SYRIAN AIR DEFENSES
Yasser Okbi, Maariv Hashavua
According to the source, Damascus and Tehran "were
shocked" every time the Russian-made air defense system did not work to
defend Syria's airspace, or even give notification that the air space
had been penetrated in order to evacuate outposts prior to the
airstrike. The systems are supposed to identify the takeoff of Israeli
Air Force jets from their bases because of the small distance between
the countries and is even supposed to attempt to target the planes and
any missiles that are fired from them.
According to the source, three weeks ago, during
Iranian military maneuvers, Iranian engineers hacked into the codes of
the S-300, but when the Bavar-373 was not working in conjunction with
the Russian air defense system the experiment was suspended.
The source said further that the Iranian Defense
Ministry sent several engineers to Syria to change the codes of the air
defense system that was under the control of the Syrian army, without
Moscow's knowledge. "They succeeded in changing some of the codes last
month and therefore when the Israel fighter jets took off from their
bases - the air defense system succeeded in identifying them and firing
interceptor missiles at them and at the missiles they had launched."
Russia canceled S-300 deal with Assad,
report says
Ron
Friedman
Despite official statements to the contrary,
Russia will not transfer a shipment of advanced anti-aircraft missiles
to Syria, an unnamed senior Russian official has told London's Sunday
Times.
According to Sunday's report, Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu managed to convince Russian President Vladimir Putin
of the risk such a deal posed to regional stability and Israeli
civilians, during a meeting in the Black Sea resort of Sochi earlier
this month, leading to the cancelation of the planned sale of six S-300
batteries to Bashar Assad's regime.
In their meeting, Netanyahu reportedly warned
Putin that Moscow's sale of the sophisticated missile defense system to
Assad could push the Middle East into war, and argued that the S-300 had
no relevance to Assad's civil-war battles against rebel groups.
Netanyahu visits Moscow in secret to
obstruct Iran missile sale
Rory
McCarthy
Russia and Israel were both facing domestic
embarrassment today after it emerged that the Israeli prime minister,
Binyamin Netanyahu, had taken a secret trip to Moscow to persuade the
Russians not to sell anti-aircraft missiles to Iran.
Officials in Moscow and Jerusalem were left
backtracking after they initially denied media reports that Netanyahu
flew by private jet to Russia to discourage the Kremlin from giving the
Iranians Russia's advanced S-300 system
Israel, Russia to cooperate on foreign
troop exit from Syria - Netanyahu
Putin's Double Game in Syria:
Russian-Israeli Cooperation
Sean Jobst
Assorted Assad groupies and Putin cultists use as
"evidence" of Putin's alleged chess-playing hidden "maneuvering" against
Israel, his support for the Syrian government side in Syria's war. They
simply ignore all evidence to the contrary, not least of which they're
at a complete loss to explain why the Russian air force never engages
with Israeli planes attacking their alleged "allies" in Syria, including
this very week. Why is Putin always silent even in token criticism?
Much can be said about the Kremlin's role in
setting the stage for what later became ISIS, by exporting thousands of
extremists from its occupied territories in the Caucasus in 2013 and
2014, knowing full well they'd go to Syria. The flow of Russian-speaking
fighters has continued to ISIS and other armed Wahhabist groups in
Syria, yet we're supposed to believe this large number couldn't leave
the Russian borders without complicity from the security services?
Senior Russian Rabbi Says Putin's Ouster
Would Endanger Jews
Boroda's Federation is among several Russian
Jewish organizations that credit Putin for facilitating efforts to
re-consolidate Russia's Jewish community of 350,000 after decades of
communist repression.
Under Putin, dozens of synagogues have been
renovated with government support and a massive Jewish museum was opened
in Moscow with state funding.
"In Russia, there is virtually unlimited freedom
of religion and the Jewish community must ensure this situation
continues," Boroda said. "The support for religious institutions is
wider than in the United States and defense of Jews against
manifestations of anti-Semitism is greater than in other European
countries. We do not have the privilege of losing what we have achieved
and the support of the government for the community."
Russia-Israel Relationship
Transformed by Syria Conflict
Lidia Averbukh and Margarete Klein
The American Jews Who Are Proud to Be
Pro-Putin
Lev Stesin
An alarming number of Jews who fled authoritarian
Soviet Russia for America are now admirers of Mr. Putin, a peculiar show
of intellectual sclerosis and utter ethical failure
President Donald Trump is one more factor in these
shifting attitudes. Many Russian-speaking Jews have flocked en masse to
support him. His direct tone and 'toughness' fell on fertile ground.
Many abhor the Democratic Party in general and the radical tendencies of
its extreme left wing in particular. They tend to think of liberalism as
a modern-day reincarnation of Communism, and of Islam as a modern-day
Nazism and the biggest threat facing the world. Grey is not a color they
know: you're either with or against them.
The Democratic Order's Berezovsky Trap
Phil
Butler
It was Litvinenko the UK government and the
mainstream media said was "probably" ordered killed by Vladimir Putin.
But the other side of the story tells of two who were intricately
involved in the steeping criminal activity Boris Yeltsin essentially
resigned over, and the literal theft of the heritage of the Russian
people from the instant of perestroika onward. In a poisonous bit of
irony, a slew of Russian mafia outcasts and New World Order captains
have now fallen into the same game of blackmail and murderous betrayal,
or something my Dutch colleague Holger Eekhof refers to as "The
Berezovsky Trap".
The Berezovsky Trap Revisited: The Israel
Connection
Phil
Butler
The Russian mafia we've seen on TV is also known
as the "Red Octopus", but this organization is really the Jewish mafia
in disguise. The story you are reading comes full circle when you
research how the Jewish mafia has links to Mossad, the Rothschild
family, the Federal Reserve Bank, and to powerful Jewish organizations
such as AIPAC and the ADL. Like I mentioned, the Chuck
Schumer-Komorov-Ivankov association is one clue to how deep and
intricate this organization's "screws" go into the American system.
Laura Radanko, in her book "The Superpower of Crime", gives up the goods
on Russian Jews as instruments for Israeli aims:
"During the detente days of the early 1970s, when
Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev had agreed to allow the limited emigration
of Soviet Jews, thousands of hard-core criminals, many of them released
from Soviet Gulags by the KGB, took advantage of their nominal Jewish
status to swarm into the United States ."
https://journal-neo.org/2017/05/08/the-berezovsky-trap-revisited-the-israel-connection/
RUSSIAN OLIGARCH WANTED TO TURN MY JOKE
INTO REALITY
Jon
Schwartz
"Berezovsky also had another brilliant idea, which
to his regret Putin did not grasp: creating a fake two-party system,
with Putin at the head of a socialist-democrat sort of party and
Berezovsky leading a neoconservative one, or the other way around."
Here are Berezovsky's exact words, in an interview
with Gessen from 2008:
When Putin became president, I was for a long time
in a state of profound naiveté. Well, I went to him I told him:
"Listen, Volodya, what happened: we destroyed the entire political
space. Devoured, not destroyed, but devoured it. We absolutely dominated
Look, I'll suggest that we can not have effective political system, if
there's a tough competition. So I suggest we create an artificial
two-party system. So, let's say, the left and right. A Socially Oriented
party and neo-conservatives liberal party. Choose any. And I'll make
another party. At the same time, my own heart is closer to
neoconservatives, and I think so, you [Putin] are socially oriented. " I
earnestly believed then that he understood it. But I think that even
then he looked at me like I was crazy.
The Hidden Author of Putinism:
How Vladislav Surkov invented the new
Russia
Peter
Pomerantsev
There is no mention of holy wars in Surkov's
vision, none of the cabaret used to provoke and tease the West. But
there is a darkling vision of globalization, in which instead of
everyone rising together, interconnection means multiple contests
between movements and corporations and city-states -- where the old
alliances, the EUs and NATOs and "the West," have all worn out, and
where the Kremlin can play the new, fluctuating lines of loyalty and
interest, the flows of oil and money, splitting Europe from America,
pitting one Western company against another and against both their
governments so no one knows whose interests are what and where they're
headed.
Documentary - HyperNormalisation
Adam
Curtis
We live in a time of great uncertainty and
confusion. Events keep happening that seem inexplicable and out of
control. Donald Trump, Brexit, the War in Syria, the endless migrant
crisis, random bomb attacks. And those who are supposed to be in power
are paralysed - they have no idea what to do.
This film is the epic story of how we got to this
strange place. It explains not only why these chaotic events are
happening - but also why we, and our politicians, cannot understand
them.
It shows that what has happened is that all of us
in the West - not just the politicians and the journalists and the
experts, but we ourselves - have retreated into a simplified, and often
completely fake version of the world. But because it is all around us we
accept it as normal.
But there is another world outside. Forces that
politicians tried to forget and bury forty years ago - that then
festered and mutated - but which are now turning on us with a vengeful
fury. Piercing though the wall of our fake world.
Alternative links
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fh2cDKyFdyU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUiqaFIONPQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thLgkQBFTPw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fny99f8amM
PUTINISM: INTRODUCTION
Zarina Zabrisky
translation of excerpts from a blog Putinism As Is
by a Radio Svoboda analyst and blogger Artem Kruglov. In the light of
Helsinki Summit 2018 and Trump/Putin relationship, it is important to
know these facts of Putin's background.
"The group around Putin today is the same as the
one that brought him to power from St. Petersburg in the 1990s," wrote
celebrated author Karen Dawisha in her book Putin's Kleptocracy. In
today's political climate it is critical for the EU and US analysts,
journalists and general audience to understand the true origin and
background of the Russian mafia state. "In the 90s, gangsters and the
KGB fused into one structure," said Olga Litvinenko... This structure is
what we now call a mafia state. "Putin was never in business and he does
not have 'business associates,'" noted Nikita Kulachenkov, a forensic
accountant and political activist fighting against corruption in the
Russian government, has also served as a principal investigator at the
Anti-Corruption Foundation, a nonprofit organization based in Moscow and
founded by Alexei Navalny. "Russian oligarchs do not own their fortunes.
They can't hide their money. They need the status quo and will fight for
it, using the mafia methods" -- even if it requires taking these mafia
methods to the West.
Read the profiles of Putin's allies. The
incomplete list of their achievements includes cocaine and heroin trade,
illegal arms trafficking, running prostitution rings, using child labor
for diamond mining, smuggling, extortion, assassinations, dismemberment,
blackmail, racketeering, theft, money-laundering and much more.
Is Israel becoming a mafia state?
Simona Weinglass
Some 25% of the revenue of Israel's lauded
high-tech sector comes from shady or fraudulent industries;
three-quarters of MKs are said to be in thrall to special interest
groups.
Israel has become one of the world's leading
exporters of investment scams, stealing an estimated $5 billion to $10
billion per year from victims worldwide.
Despite the fact that Israeli police recently
announced that these investment scams are largely run by organized
crime, which has grown to "monstrous proportions" as a consequence of
little to no law enforcement for years, the Israeli government,
parliament and authorities have to date proved unwilling or unable to
shut them down, in part because these fraudulent industries have a
powerful lobby in the Knesset.
How Russia's mafia is taking over
Israel's underworld
Billions invested in Israel
Former police chief Asaf Hefetz says £2.5bn ($4bn)
of organised crime money from the former Soviet Union has been invested
in Israeli real estate, businesses and banks in the past seven years.
Jewish-American organized crime
The History of the Jews and the Mob
Youtube video featuring Jewish 'tough guy' Myron
Sugerman, the "Last Jewish Gangster," running his mouth for an hour
complaining about antisemitism while bragging about their criminal
history. The deluded Sugerman spills the beans on how the Jewish mob
played in arming Jewish terrorists in the Middle-East.
Israeli Mafia
Out of prison, notorious Russian mobster
yearns to return home
Jake
Pearson
New York's most notorious living Russian (Jewish)
mobster just wants to go back to the motherland.
Once flush from heroin trafficking, tax fraud
schemes and other criminal enterprises, Boris Nayfeld is now 70, fresh
out of prison for the third time, divorced and broke. And he is left
with few job prospects in his adopted country, at least those in line
with his experiences.
"I can't do nothing," Nayfeld griped in a thick
Russian accent between shots of vodka at a restaurant a few blocks north
of Brooklyn's Brighton Beach neighborhood, which has been a haven for
immigrants from the former Soviet Union since the 1970s. "Give me a
chance to start a new life."
Human Trafficking: Russian Mafia and the
Israeli Connection
The illegal trafficking of human beings is a
growing international crime. Criminal groups have developed a brisk
trade selling tens of thousands of women into prostitution. The result
is virtual enslavement, as Attorney General John Ashcroft emphasized in
announcing new regulations for dealing with traffickers and their
victims. Russian mafia, and its connections in Israel, provide an
example of how the trade works.
The newspaper ad is hard to resist: a high paying
job as a waitress or secretary or model, and it helps to be young and
pretty.
For desperate women in the shrunken economies of
Russia, Ukraine, and other states of the former Soviet Union, the offer
from abroad is too good to be true, and of course it is not. But they do
not know that as they make their first contact with the elaborate
traffic in prostitution.
Sharp Increase in Sex Trafficking in
Years Since Israel Lifted Visa Restrictions
Or Kashti
Justice Ministry official says criminals are
bringing in women from Ukraine, Moldova, Belarus, Russia and Georgia on
three-month tourist visas.
Esther
Hertzog and Erella Shadmi
Destination Israel for Sex 'Slaves'
Eric
Silver
"On the third night I was desperate," she says. "I
tried to break out. I shouted for help. But it was no use. Two men, who
spoke Russian with a Georgian accent, carted me off to a massage
parlour. When I refused to work there, they beat me up. They raped me,
punched my body, slapped my face. I agreed."
Israel becoming 'safe haven for
paedophiles' with laws that allow any Jews to legally return, activists
claim
Peter
Walker
14 Israelis suspected of running child
sex trafficking ring in Colombia
Toi Staff
Fourteen Israelis are suspected by Colombian authorities of running a
child sex trafficking ring which marketed tour packages from Israel to
the Latin American country aimed at businessmen and recently discharged
soldiers, according to reports on Monday..
Israeli who headed Colombia child
prostitution ring arrested in Portugal
An ex-Israeli soldier wanted in Colombia for
heading a child prostitution ring and sex trafficking offences has been
arrested in Portugal.
Forty-five-year-old Assi Ben-Mosh – also known as
Assi Moosh – was arrested near the Portuguese capital Lisbon on
Wednesday during an operation by Spain's Guardia Civil police force. The
Guardia Civil said in a statement that Ben-Mosh is thought to have been
hiding on the Spanish island of Ibiza, and then in Barcelona, before
eventually being arrested in Portugal this week. It added that Ben-Mosh
had been using a fake Israeli ID, the Times of Israel reported
yesterday.
Ben-Mosh is wanted by Colombian authorities for
running a child prostitution ring in the small fishing village of
Taganga, located on the South American country's Caribbean coast. He,
along with a group of ex-Israeli soldiers, reportedly turned the luxury
Benjamin Hostel into a "sex and drug den" in which more than 250
underage girls were subjected to sexual exploitation.
The shocking story of Israel's
disappeared babies
Jonathan
Cook
His biological parents - recent immigrants to
Israel from Tunisia - were told their child had died during delivery.
They were sent home without a death certificate and denied the chance to
see their baby's body or a grave.
A Field Guide to Israeli Organized Crime
Assaf Gur
Exploring an underworld of gambling, drug
trafficking, arms dealing, extortion, assassination, and corruption
'Israel's First Oligarch' Grigori Lerner
¦ How a Serial Criminal Got Help From an Israeli Government Minister
Gidi Weitz
and Maya Zinshtein
Immigrant Absorption Minister Sofa Landver pursued
business ties with serial criminal Gregory Lerner. Her former chief of
staff had links to Alexei Zakharenko, a Russian tycoon who disappeared
two years ago. New facts from police files, published here for the first
time.
He also admitted to receiving $37 million
fraudulently from Mostroy, a Russian bank, establishing a series of
straw companies that he controlled, and committing numberless forgeries.
He admitted to having defrauded Semion Mogilevich, who holds Russian and
Israeli citizenship and is high on the FBI's most-wanted list.
Reputed Israeli Ecstasy Dealer Charged in
U.S.
NEW YORK - An Israeli, once reputedly the world's
most active ecstasy dealer, was extradited from Spain and charged in a
U.S. court Wednesday with recruiting women nightclub strippers as
couriers and laundering millions of dollars in cash.
Known as "The Fat Man," Oded Tuito was designated
as a drug kingpin by the U.S. government a year ago. He pleaded not
guilty in a U.S. District Court in Brooklyn to charges of supervising
the trafficking of millions of ecstasy pills to New York from Paris,
Brussels and Frankfurt.
Prosecutors accused Tuito, a 41-year-old Israeli
citizen who lived in New York, California and France before his arrest
in May 2001 in Barcelona of operating the international trafficking
scheme since 1997.
Israeli Organ-trafficking Ring Busted
Ukrainian police have smashed an Israeli-run
organ-trafficking network illegally recruiting organ donors to send
their body parts to Israel.
Ukrainian authorities said on Friday that twelve
people, most of them Israelis, were arrested for taking part in a scheme
to recruit organ donors from Ukraine and other former Soviet countries
via internet and transplant the organs into Israelis who had ordered
them in advance.
The network, which sought mostly kidneys, offered
as much as USD 10,000 per body part and according to Ukraine's interior
ministry most of the organ donors were impoverished young women.
The head of the ministry's department on human
trafficking, Yuriy Kucher, said the transplant surgeries, which cost up
to USD 200,000 an operation, were performed in Kiev, Azerbaijan and
Ecuador.
Israeli Organ Trafficking and Theft: From
Moldova to Palestine
Alison
Weir
The fact is, however, that Israeli organ
harvesting – sometimes with Israeli governmental funding and the
participation of high Israeli officials, prominent Israeli physicians,
and Israeli ministries – has been documented for many years. Among the
victims have been Palestinians.
Nancy Scheper-Hughes is Chancellor's Professor of
Medical Anthropology at the University of California Berkeley, the
founder of Organ Watch, and the author of scholarly books and articles
on organ trafficking. She is the pundit mainstream media call upon when
they need expert commentary on the topic.5
While Scheper-Hughes emphasizes that traffickers
and procurers come from numerous nations and ethnicities, including
Americans and Arabs, she is unflinchingly honest in speaking about the
Israeli connection:
"Israel is at the top," she states. "It has
tentacles reaching out worldwide."
Organ Trafficking: Anatomy of a network.
Israeli nexus #1
Robert Maxwell
Organ Trafficking: Anatomy of a network. Israeli
nexus #1
Israeli organ trafficker walks free in
Cyprus
An
Israeli man convicted of international human organ trafficking walked
free on Tuesday, after Russian authorities failed to challenge a Larnaca
judge who dismissed an extradition request.
Gangsters of the Mediterranean
Seb
Rotella
In hundreds of telephone calls intercepted during
the year before Petrov's arrest in 2008, Spanish investigators listened
as the mob boss chatted with powerful businessmen, notorious criminals
and high-level officials in the government of Vladimir Putin. During one
trip to Russia, Petrov called his son to say he had just met with a man
who turned out to be the Russian defense minister -- and to report that
they had sorted out a land deal, the sale of some airplanes, and a
scheme to invest in Russian energy companies.
Britain's contribution to fighting Russian organised crime is 'less than
negative', says renowned prosecutor
Tom
Embury-Dennis
Britain's contribution to fighting Russian
organised crime is "less than negative", one of Europe's leading
prosecutors has said.
Jose Grinda, hailed as the man who "brought down
the Russian mafia in Spain", condemned the UK's lack of cooperation in a
fight which has gone increasingly global.
"We have a wonderful relationship with the United
States," the Spanish prosecutor told The American Interest magazine.
"However we have a very serious problem in fighting organised crime with
the UK.
The truth behind McMafia: London is 'the
jurisdiction of choice' for Russian crime gangs
Robert Verkaik
"Unfortunately, London has become the global
centre for laundering the money and reputations of Russian organised
criminals. McMafia brings that realisation into the living rooms of
people all over the country. Hopefully, this will actually lead to some
political change and tougher rules in the future."
Russians kill Dublin drugs lord in Spain
Henry
McDonald
Russian mafia hitmen shot dead Dublin gangland
member Paddy Doyle on the Costa del Sol, senior gardai claimed this
weekend
Doyle, the survivor of a vicious criminal turf war
in south Dublin which has claimed at least 10 lives, was gunned down in
Estepona last Monday. Veteran detectives with the Garda Siochana's
'Operation Anvil', the drive against Dublin's crime gangs, said the
27-year-old had beaten up a close relative of a Russian mafia leader
based on the southern Spanish coastline.
'From what our Spanish colleagues have told us,
this was a professional Russian hit. There were 13 shots and we don't
think they wasted a bullet. It has a military-trained assassin written
all over it, possibly ex-special forces,' a senior detective told The
Observer. 'The intelligence coming back from the Costa del Sol is that
Paddy Doyle crossed the Russian mafia, which is something you do there
at your peril.'
Cold blood: Shocking CCTV footage of
Kinahan enforcer's murder
Owen
Conlon and Stephen Breen
THIS is the moment the Kinahans' main enforcer met his end at the hands
of Russian gangsters -- with the blessing of his old boss Christy.
WATCH: RUSSIAN MAFIA LEADER ARRESTED ON
SPAIN'S COSTA DEL SOL WHILE 'PLOTTING GANG RIVAL'S MURDER'
Luke
Madeira
One of the leaders is said to be third-in-command
of the mafia and was arrested as the group held a meeting in which they
were said to be planning the assassination of a rival gang leader.
According to El Correo, the planned assassination
of a rival gang leader was to warn other clans of their strength in
Europe.
The suspects were also thought to have been trying
to restructure the organisation after Policia Nacional arrested 129
members of the clan in June, including seven highly ranked members.
The investigation was then reopened in July after
a former leader of a criminal gang in Lithuania was spotted in Marbella.
Roman Abramovich invests $10m in StoreDot
June 15, 2014 | According to reports by the "Wall
Street Journal" Russian billionaire and Chelsea Football Club owner
Roman Abramovich invested $10 million in StoreDot. StoreDot is an
Israeli startup producing electronics using bio-organic materials and
recently made a splash in the headlines when it revealed a method for
charging a Samsung smartphone in 30 seconds. The investment was carried
out through Abramovich's asset management company Millhouse LLC, making
this is the second investment of the firm in Israel.
Israeli crowd-funding company i-Angels
raises $2.25M from Millhouse Capital.
March 25, 2015 | Israeli crowd-funding company
iAngels has raised $2.25 million in a seed round led by investment firm
Millhouse Capital, which is owned by Russian billionaire Roman
Abramovich. iAngels enables private investments in early-stage startups.
It was founded in 2013 by Mor Assia and Shelly Hod Moyal.
Roman Abramovich invests in AltaIR
October 26, 2015 | Millhouse Capital, the
investment fund owned by Roman Abramovich is investing an undisclosed
amount in AltaIR, the venture capital firm led by Russian-Austrian
investor Igor Ryabenkiy. AltaIR has already invested in almost 80
companies from Israel, the US, Europe and Australia. Among its early
stage investments in Israel are Gbooking, Crowdx, Klear, and Correlor.
Oligarch Roman Abramovich Leads $21m
Investment in Startup AnyClip
Inbal Orpaz
Russian-British billionaire Roman Abramovich is
deepening his presence in Israeli high-tech, leading a $21 million
investment round in the start-up AnyClip Media.
Russian Internet Giant Yandex Acquiring
Israeli Geolocation Startup KitLocate
Inbal
Orpaz
Yandex, a Russian Internet company that operates
the country's most popular search engine, said on Tuesday that it was
acquiring Israel's KitLocate and plans to turn the startup into the
basis a research and development center for an undisclosed price.
Israeli social analytics startup Klear
secures $1.5 million from Altair and TMT
Israeli startup Klear, formerly known as Twtrland,
has raised $1.5 million in new funding from Altair and TMT Investments,
two international venture funds with Russian backers.
The company defines its product as "a social
intelligence platform that helps you do smarter marketing." It has
rebranded to Klear, since the platform now looks at data from Facebook
and Instagram in addition to Twitter, and plans to integrate other
social networks, including Pinterest, Google Plus, and LinkedIn,
TechCrunch notes.
BILLIONAIRE ROMAN ABRAMOVICH REVEALED AS
$30M. TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY DONOR
Greer Fay Cashman
Yandex: Tool of Russian Disinformation
and Cyber Operations in Ukraine
Sergey Sukhankin
The recent decision by Ukrainian President Petro
Poroshenko to ban popular Russian social networks VKontakte (VK) and
Odnoklassniki, on May 15 (see EDM, June 7), provoked serious debate both
inside Ukraine and abroad. Now that the initial anxiety over that ban
has somewhat subsided, it is worth analyzing other, less commented-on
but no less important, elements of the decree.
Aside from social networks, Poroshenko's May 15
decree bans Russian Internet search engine giant Yandex, some
information technology (IT) programs, as well as anti-virus software
(including Kaspersky and Doctor Web) that have allegedly been
undermining Ukrainian information and cyber security. According to
Colonel Oleksandr Tkachuk, from the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU),
approximately 300 of the largest Ukrainian companies and corporations
use Russian IT programs "directly controlled by the Russian Federal
Security Service [FSB]" (Espreso.tv, April 27). Moreover, the Ukrainian
side has suffered huge financial losses as a direct result of using
Russian products. In his interview, the head of the information security
division of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine,
Valentin Petrov, noted that Ukraine annually spends approximately one
billion hryvnas (roughly $39 million) on Russian IT and software
products (Ukrinform.ua, May 17).
Russia's Billionaire Usmanov Among
Investors Of Uber Taxi Service
USM Holdings owned by Russia's business magnate
Alisher Usmanov and his partners is one of investors of the popular Uber
taxi service, a source close to the company told TASS on Sunday.
The official representatives of USM and Uber in
Russia have declined to comment on the reports.
Uber is an international transportation network
company that develops mobile app for requesting trips with personal
drivers. The company provides services in 360 cities in 64 countries of
the world.
In Russia, the company began operations in 2013.
In October 2015, Uber said it planned to launch services in all Russian
million-strong cities this year. The value of the car-booking company is
estimated at $62.5 billion, CNBC reported earlier this month citing
sources.
USM Holdings Ltd. is an international company that
has assets in metals and mining industry, telecommunications, the
Internet and mass media. USM's main shareholders are Alisher Usmanov,
Vladimir Skoch and Farhad Moshiri. Usmanov has earlier invested in
Apple, Facebook, Alibaba, JD.com and other high-technology companies.
VK taken over by the Kremlin claims
founder Pavel Durov.
Durov started VKontakte, later known as VK, in
2006, which was initially influenced by Facebook.[16] During the time
when he and his brother Nikolai built upon the VKontakte website, the
company grew to a value of $3 billion.[5]
In 2011, he was involved in a standoff with police
in St. Petersburg when the government demanded the removal of opposition
politicians' pages after the 2011 election to the Duma; Durov posted a
picture of a dog with his tongue out wearing a hoodie and the police
left after an hour when he did not answer the door.[15][16]
In 2012, Durov publicly posted a picture of
himself extending his middle finger and calling it his official response
to Mail.ru's efforts to buy VK.[15] In December 2013, Durov was
pressured[vague] into selling his 12% of VK stock to Ivan Tavrin, the
owner of the major Russian internet company Mail.ru,[5] who subsequently
sold it to Mail.ru, giving it 52% majority ownership of VK. In 2014,
Mail.ru bought all remaining shares and became the sole owner of
VK.[17][18]
Durov then claimed the company had been
effectively taken over by Vladimir Putin's allies,[23][24] suggesting
his ouster was the result of both his refusal to hand over personal
details of users to federal law enforcement and his refusal to hand over
the personal details of people who were members of a VKontakte group
dedicated to the Euromaidan protest movement.[23][24] Durov then left
Russia and stated that he had "no plans to go back"[24] and that "the
country is incompatible with Internet business at the moment".[3]
Mossad Launches New Social Media Account
on VKontakte to Recruit Russians
Mossad is known for being a very secretive spy
agency responsible for intelligence collection, covert operations and
counterterrorism. Its director reports directly to the Prime Minister.
A new group called "Mossad" has appeared on
Vkontakte. According to information on the group's page anyone who wants
to "say something" should click on the link provided below.
Usmanov's Mail.ru Israeli technology connections.
Israeli mobile video platform secures $2 million from Mail.ru Group
Magisto, an Israeli cloud-based mobile video platform, announced on
Friday a $2 million investment from Mail.Ru Group, the LSE-listed
Russian Internet giant. The investment is designed to fuel further
growth and customer acquisition.
In addition, Magisto has integrated its offering into Odnoklassniki.ru,
a subsidiary of Mail.Ru Group and the second largest social network in
Russia with 33 million daily unique visitors.
Image recognition startup Cortica nabs $1.5M from Russian tech leader
Mail.Ru
Now the startup will have backing from Mail.Ru, which has a major
presence in the Russian-speaking markets. Mail.Ru Group claims that its
sites reach 86 percent of Russian-speaking Internet users every month.
It operates top Russian email service Mail.Ru, two of the largest IM
services (Mail.Ru Agent and ICQ), and two of the three largest Russian
social networking sites (My World and Odnoklassniki.ru). Additionally,
it owns a minority equity stake in top Russian social network Vkontakte.
"We are really excited to work with Mail.Ru Group," Cortica CEO and
co-founder Igal Raichelgauz said in a statement. "Mail.ru shares our
vision for leveraging Image2Text technology for visual search and
contextual advertising and taking users' web surfing experience to a
whole new level."
Cortica was founded in 2007 and has employess in New York City,
Sunnyvale, Calif. and Israel.
https://www.cortica.com/
-
The first AI capable of human-level image understanding.
ARCHIMEDICX Announces Partnership with Mail.Ru Group, Providing
Millions with Access to the Best Medical Care in the World
a big data search engine for specialized medical facilities around the
world, is announcing a partnership with Mail.Ru Group, the largest
internet company in Russia. Mail.Ru Group will integrate ARCHIMEDICX
onto its platform on Health Mail.Ru (the most popular health portal in
Russia), allowing any user who searches for medical problems to use the
ARCHIMEDICX search engine. Together, they will provide millions of users
with vast information about the top treatment facilities in the world.
Billionaire Alisher Usmanov's partnership
with Alibaba reveals his strategy for survival in the era of sanctions
Russian oligarchs are making difficult decisions
in the face of possible new sanctions. Some are trying to do everything
to distance themselves from those in the Kremlin. While others are doing
the exact opposite and getting as close to the authorities as they can.
The best example of the latter is Alisher Usmanov, who -- on his 65th
birthday no less -- announced a deal fully in line with the government's
aim to build economic ties with China. On September 11,
telecommunications giant Megafon (partially owned by Usmanov), internet
group Mail.ru Group (Usmanov owns 15% via Megafon), and the Russian
Direct Investment Fund (RDIF) announced the creation of a joint venture
with Alibaba Group.
Usmanov publicly supports the "digital
transformation" announced by Putin, a key part of the president's
election campaign. Together with state conglomerate Rostec and
Gazprombank, Usmanov in May announced the creation of a new digital
company, MF Technology. Usmanov has also talked about a joint investment
fund. All of this, of course, makes Usmanov very vulnerable to
sanctions. But the billionaire has likely earned what he was probably
fighting for in the first place: the Kremlin's loyalty. On his last
birthday, Usmanov received a personal telegram from Putin.
Kazakh Rakishev is a lead investor of Russian VC who held major stake in
Mobl
i
Rakishev is the lead investor of Fastlane
Ventures, a Russian tech development company, he held a major stake in
the Israeli visual media platform Mobli, and invested in the Russian
bank card and loyalty program company IQcard. Rakishev is Chairman of
Net Element International, a global technology group based in the US
that specializes in value-added transaction services and mobile
payments.
The whole truth about Kenes Rakishev
Rakishev and Imangal Tasmagambetov
It is believed that in part Kenes Rakishev is a
nominal figure. In reality, all the assets and billions that he
allegedly owns belong to the higher elite of Kazakhstan, which uses
Kenes as a screen. It's about the test of Rakishev Imangale
Tasmagambetov,
Timur Kulibayev (the head of Kazakhstan's
Nursultan Nazarbayev), the head of the KNB Karime Massimov. Rakishev
himself categorically denies such statements, assuring himself that he
has achieved everything himself, thanks to his talents. And here is that
he says under oath about his test Tasmagambetov. .
Moshe Hogeg, Singulariteam partners (Rakishev) sued for $50m
"Embezzlement of tens of millions of shekels"
"Forbes Magazine" named Rakishev as one of the 50
most influential people in Kazakhstan, with wealth in excess of $2
billion. According to the statement of claim, Chen, a director in IDC
Holdings, was a consultant in enterprises led by Singulariteam,
including stox.com.
The manager of Singulariteam in 2014 was Adi
Sheleg, a former shares trader who turned state's witness in the IDB
share offering case, in which Nochi Dankner was later convicted of share
manipulation. Singulariteam's chairperson in 2014 was former Prime
Minister Ehud Olmert, who was convicted of accepting a bribe in the
Hazera Genetic case in 2015. Olmert served 18 months in prison in
2016-2017 for this conviction. Singulariteam's current chairperson is
Hogeg.
Lev Leviev claims to have personally
appointed 8 of 18 members of the Knesset.
In this article we give an entertaining
conversation Berezovsky and Roman Abramovich, the current billionaire,
and then "key holder" from the Treasury of WOMEN. Abramovich says that
yesterday, when they were at Chernomyrdin, Polezhaev showed him
(Berezovsky) a letter addressed to Yeltsin. Polezhaev spoke by A.
Korabelshikov, he said that to meet the President now impossible, but
he'll talk to Livshits, who must give this letter. Abramovich asked
whether Berezovsky to deliver the letter to Livshits, he replies in the
affirmative. Abramovich reports that yesterday he met Levayev. Levayev
said that he is great friends with Netanyahu and if it is necessary that
Netanyahu spoke in support of Yeltsin, he (Levayev) can organize.
Levayev also said that of the 18 members of the Israeli government, he
personally appoints 8, including the Minister of energy. So they will
have plans there
Russia oligarch and Pres. of Israeli
Jewish Congress, Vladimir Slutsker is a serious criminal
If analysts immediately suspected in this contract
murder the political underpinnings, the investigation initially
stubbornly clung to only the version of the connection of the crime with
the commercial activities of the retired general. The son of the
murdered, Boris Trofimov, then also suggested that his father's
involvement in the conflict between the owners of the company, Vladimir
Slutsker and Ambartsum Safaryan, who at that time was very tense,
divided.
Criminal list of Mikhail Fridman (Alfa Bank, Genesis Prize, CFR)
"Mikhail Fridman - Friend of Bibi,
Putin and linked to Trump, allegedly. Dual citizen of Israel and
Russia." - Jon Swinn
Part 1 -
https://rucriminal.info/en/material/664?hl=israel
Is Jewish Oligarch the Cyber Link Between
Donald Trump and Russia?
Larry Cohler-Esses
Is a Russian Jewish oligarch with Israeli
citizenship and close ties to both Vladimir Putin and Benjamin Netanyahu
running a secret cyber-communications channel between Donald Trump's
presidential campaign and Russian authorities?
That question, about billionaire Mikhail Fridman,
is at the heart of a new and detailed investigative report by Franklin
Foer, the former editor of The New Republic, published Tuesday on the
news website Slate.
According to a story published in The New York
Times just hours after Foer's report went live, FBI investigators looked
into -- and ultimately came to doubt -- evidence that a mysterious server
registered to the Trump Organization was receiving regular covert email
communiqués from two servers registered to Fridman's Alfa Bank, the
largest commercial bank in Russia.
Tea Pain - Alfa Bank server connection to Trump Tower
Trump Tower's "Stealth Russian Data Machine"
Jared Kushner is currently taking a victory lap, crowin' about his
"Stealth Data Machine" that put Donald Trump over the top in the 2016
race. Let's pry off the lid and peer into the inner-workings of this
"Data Machine."
Major Alfa Bank-Trump Tower Breakthrough!
The funny thing about mysteries is
sometime the answer is starin' you right in the face so intently you
can't see it. A year ago, Tea Pain saw a signal in the noise that got
him lookin' into the mystery of the Trump Tower/Alfa Bank server
scandal.
Trump Tower's "Stealth Russian Data
Machine"
Mikhail Fridman's bank is linked to
financing the installation of nuclear reactors in Iran.
Tara
Palmeri
Fridman's Alfa Bank provided financing
throughout the 2000s to Atomstroyexport, the state-owned Russian nuclear
vendor that installed the reactors at Bushehr, according to reports.
DIAMOND KINGS, LUXURY CONDOS, CORRUPT
COPS AND CHINESE SPIES
Zarina Zabrisky
In 2008, a self-pronounced Putin's friend,
USSR-born Israeli Lev Leviev sold $710 million in Manhattan real estate
to a subsidiary of the infamous 88 Queensway Group.
In 2011, Blackstone bought 51% of one of three
properties, the old New York Times Building. In 2015, Jared Kushner's
company bought the remaining 49%.
The Mueller Report, Alfa Bank, and the
Deep State
Peter Dale
Scott
As the Guardian reported in 2002, Alfa's 1990s
clout in Washington was demonstrated when its oil company, Tyumen,
was loaned $489m in credits by the US
Export-Import Bank after lobbying by Halliburton . The [Clinton] White
House and State Department tried to veto the Russian deal. But after
intense lobbying by Halliburton the objections were overruled on Capitol
Hill [which then was Republican controlled] . The State Department's
concerns were based on the fact that Tyumen was controlled by a holding
conglomerate, the Alfa Group, that had been investigated in Russia for
mafia connections.
Fridman is behind Alfa group
Russia-Israel investments
Netanyahu's 'list of millionaires'
List of potential donors prepared by
then-opposition leader in 2007 provides peek into his fundraising
industry in US. Officials include extreme rightists, people who got in
trouble with law.
Included in the list of prominently Jewish
millionaires and billionaires appears the name 'Donald Trump'.
Genesis Prize: Flattering Oligarchs and
Laundering Their Ill-Gotten Gains
Richard
Silerstein
Among the oligarchs are Mikhail Fridman (net
worth, $18-billion and 46th on Forbes list of the richest people in the
world and second richest Russian) and some of his cronies, Petr Aven
(chairman of Alfa Bank, Russia's largest commercial bank) and Stan
Polovets (who made his billions in Russian energy). Here's a Foreign
Policy article from way back in 2000, detailing how these crooks
stripped assets and stole billions.
" Asset-stripping has also victimized major
international oil companies. In a highly publicized case, [Mikhail]
Fridman's Tyumen Oil Company (TNK) allegedly stole Sidanko's most
valuable assets by manipulatinig the bankruptcy process. According to
defrauded Sidanko shareholders (who include BP Amoco), the theft was
carried out through the corrupt appointment of a TNK-friendly receiver,
the unlawful reduction of the claims of major creditors such as the
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (in which the United
States holds shares), and a rigged bankruptcy "auction" in which only
TNK-affiliated companies could bid."
Psy Group sister company controlled by
Russian billionaire
Scott
Stedman
A month-long investigation into the corporate
structure of the private intelligence company that met with Donald Trump
Jr., Erik Prince, and George Nader in the middle of the 2016 election
campaign has revealed that a sister company of Psy Group is controlled
by a Russian billionaire.
Investigation links Psy Group to
Macedonian Troll Farms
Justin
Hendrix
New Knowledge also looks closely at "Kris
Crawford," another Facebook account PSY-Group used in the pitch material
obtained by the Wall Street Journal.
While he appears to be an American man, Crawford's
URL suggests his Facebook page used to belong to a "Martina Jakimovska."
"Looking through the 'Kris Crawford's' account history it's still
possible to see when Martina updated her profile photo and used Facebook
to check in at a location in Macedonia," New Knowledge notes.
The fake news machine: Inside a town
gearing up for 2020
Veles used to make porcelain for the whole of
Yugoslavia. Now it makes fake news.
This sleepy riverside town in Macedonia is home to
dozens of website operators who churn out bogus stories designed to
attract the attention of Americans. Each click adds cash to their bank
accounts.
The scale is industrial: Over 100 websites were
tracked here during the final weeks of the 2016 U.S. election campaign,
producing fake news that mostly favored Republican candidate for
President Donald Trump.
Meet the shady Putin crony funding
Russia's troll farm and mercenary army
Zack Beauchamp
Yevgeny Prigozhin, the man widely
referred to as "Putin's chef," doesn't actually prepare food. Instead,
he cooks up international plots -- like Russia's campaign to use social
media to undermine Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign and promote Donald
Trump's.
Prigozhin was among the 13 Russian nationals
indicted by special counsel Robert Mueller in February and is by far the
most well-known. His ties to Putin go back to at least 2001: He's worked
on everything from election interference to setting up pro-Putin
newspapers to sending Russian mercenaries to Syria to fight on behalf of
Bashar al-Assad's regime.
A recent Washington Post report says that he
personally approved a Russian mercenary attack on US forces stationed in
eastern Syria in early February; US intelligence, per the Post,
intercepted a conversation where he promoted the idea.
"Putin's chef" would be better described as
Putin's fixer: someone who does the Russian leader's dirty work, while
giving Putin plausible deniability if things go wrong
Deeper Than Blackwater
Jon Swinn
Utkin became the CEO of Concord Management and
Consulting LLC, which belongs to the Concord company group and is
co-owned by Yevgeny Prigozhin.[8]
Prigozhin, or "Putin's chef" as he is also known,
is among the 13 Russian nationals indicted by special counsel Robert
Mueller for his connections to troll farms involved in an operation to
assist U.S. President Donald Trump win the 2016 Presidential election.
According to the indictment , Mueller accuses troll farm company
Internet Research Agency employees of "posing as U.S. persons and
creating false U.S. personas, operating social media pages and groups
designed to attract U.S. audiences."[9]
Prigozhin's Concord Management is directly
involved with the administration of troll farm Internet Research Agency,
according to documents published by hackers from Anonymous
International.[10]
Understanding Krysha
The Putin-Prigozhin relation is great example of
the "Krysha" concept. Krysha means roof and is a slang word for
protection. In exchange for contracts with the Kremlin, oligarchs such
as Prigozhin work on behalf of the Mafiya State.[11]
Internet Research Agency
Kremlin-linked Billionaire, Netanyahu
Friend Donated to Trump's Private Legal Fund
Len Blavatnik, who made his fortune in the former
Soviet Union in the oil business, appears on a legal defense fund list
uncovered by the Wall St. Journal
A Soviet-born billionaire who is considered close to Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu donated to a private legal defense fund for U.S.
President Donald Trump, the Wall Street Journal revealed.
Israel questions PM's billionaire friend
over corruption charges
Israeli police are to fly to London today to
question billionaire businessman Len Blavatnik in relation to corruption
charges facing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, according to
Haaretz.
The Soviet-born media investor will primarily be
questioned as to whether Netanyahu was involved in the sale of a
television channel in 2015 to Arnon Mozes, publisher of Israeli daily
Yedioth Ahronoth, as part of "Case 2000". It is alleged that Netanyahu
tried to negotiate a deal with Mozes, offering legislation that would
impede the activities of Mozes' rival paper, Israel Hayom, in return for
more favourable media coverage of the prime minister and his policies.
Blavatnik's ties to the Bronfmans.
Blavatnik's the Bronfman Buyer! Oil
Tycoon Spills $50 M.-Plus for Townhouse
Every kvetching New Yorker wants more
space. But only a Russian-born, Harvard-trained oil tycoon would want
more legroom than a 14-room Fifth Avenue co-op (bought just this year
for $27.5 million) and an East 63rd Street palace (bought two years ago
for $31.25 million).
Those properties didn't content Len
Blavatnik. According to two sources, he's the buyer for Seagram heir
Edgar Bronfman Jr.'s 31-foot-wide townhouse at 15 East 64th.
Time Inc. Shares Rise After Reported Buyout Bid from Bronfman,
Blavatnik
Edgar Bronfman Jr. and billionaire
investors reportedly offered $18 a share for Time.
Shares of Time Inc. were soaring as
much as 20 percent ahead of the closing bell on Monday after the New
York Post reported that the parent of magazines like People, Sports
Illustrated and Time had turned down an acquisition offer from Edgar
Bronfman Jr., Leonard Blavatnik and Ynon Kreiz.
Billionaire Len Blavatnik Buys Warner Music Group (From Bronfman) For
$3.3 Billion
Mikhail Fridman
The oligarchs behind Alfa-Access-Renova (AAR)
include Fridman.At 47, he has an estimated wealth of $15.1bn, making him
Russia's seventh richest man.
Fridman and Peter Aven founded the Alfa Group
Consortium – a holding company which controls Alfa Bank, Alfa Capital,
Tyumen Oil, several construction material firms and a supermarket chain.
Len Blavatnik
The multibillionaire recently agreed to pay $3.3bn
for Warner Music via his industrial holding company Access Industries.
Blavatnik is a major petrochemicals investor, but has occasionally
bought media assets. Access has a controlling stake in Top Up TV, the
pay-TV business.
Born in the Soviet Union in 1957, he emigrated
with his family to the US in 1978. He lives in New York and London,
where he has a home in Kensington Palace Gardens.
Viktor Vekselberg
Ukraine-born oil and metals baron Vekselberg is
overseeing a turnaround at aluminium giant UC Rusal, which he formed
with fellow billionaire, Oleg Deripaska. Made first million selling
scrap copper from old cables. In the 1990s together with fellow
billionaire Leonard Blavatnik bought aluminum smelters to form a company
called Sual. Consummate dealmaker also has interests in chemicals,
utilities and telecoms.
Owns Fabergé egg collection.
German Khan
A native of Kiev, graduated from the Moscow
Institute of Steel and Alloys in 1988. The next year, with former
classmate Fridman, co-founded Alfa-Eco, a commodities trader and
predecessor of Alfa Group. Heads Alfa Group's oil business as executive
director and board member of oil company TNK-BP. He enjoys hunting and
has a large collection of sporting guns and rifles.
MOSCOW'S SECRET WEAPON: THE ISRAELI
MOSSAD AND THE ZIONIST CULTS
Putin met with the Exxon Mobil CEO,
Jewish organisation leaders in Washington
Russia and Israel's Technion Agree to
Launch Satellite in Joint Venture
Russia and the Technion-Israel Institute of
Technology in Haifa have agreed to a joint venture that will launch a
satellite into space in 1995.
After a five-member delegation arrived here to
finalize details of the venture, the agreement was signed Monday between
the Technion and the Russian STC Complex. The Russian firm was
established in 1991 to convert Soviet military technology into Russian
civilian enterprises.
The Gurwinl-TechSat communications satellite was
designed and built over a period of three years at a cost of $3.5
million. The satellite is scheduled to be launched into space in March,
along with two other satellites from a site about 560 miles from Moscow.
Create your business website with
Website Builder.
Share by:
This is part 3 of my four part look at why the Roman Republic, which was successful and stable for nearly 4 centuries, ultimately
fell into tyranny. In part 1 I described the structure of the Republic and the underlying reasons for its fall. In part 2 I described
the first 4 episodes of civil war that left the Republic dead on its feet in 78 BC. This part describes the final hammerblows.
5. Pompey and Caesar The final blows were administered by the "first triumvirate" of Pompey, Crassus, and Julius Caesar, after
one last "Indian summer" for the Republic between the death of Sulla in 78 BC and 50 BC. Among other things, much of the power of
the Tribunes and the plebeians was restored by 62 BC. But successful generals with privately raised armies whose loyalty was to them
personally, together with the lack of a permanent defensive force near the city of Rome loyal to the Republic finally did it in.
While the Sulla and Marius civil war was playing out, Rome continued military campaigns in North Africa, Spain, Gaul, and Asia
Minor. Pompey the Great emerged as an excellent military leader even though he was only in his young 20s during these campaigns.
Meanwhile Crassus, who became fabulously wealthy as one who used Sulla's proscriptions to expropriate land, had his own legions.
By 70 BC, the tension between the two was so intense that either an ordinary Roman, or several soothsayers, leapt onto the stage
of the Forum between them, and begged them for the good of the Republic not to make war on each other, saying that the god Jupiter
had so commanded in a dream. Surprisingly, the public shaming worked.
Later, in 62 BC, after leading more successful military campaigns in the eastern Mediterranean, Pompey was feted by a succession
of Greek cities as he and his legions made their way back to Italy. Fear that Pompey would march on the city, as Sulla had, gripped
the Senate and city of Rome. Fatefully, in a show of good faith, Pompey disbanded his troops and sent them home as soon as they landed
in southern Italy. For this good deed, the Senate in effect punished him by refusing to award his veterans any land or money bonuses;
and further refused to ratify the political settlements that Pompey had made with the eastern Mediterranean states.
Julius Caesar was the nephew of Marius's wife, and he was married to the daughter of Cinna. Needless to say, he was identified
with the populare cause. As a quaestor in 69 BC, he began the rehabilitation of Marius's memory as part of the funerals of both his
aunt and his first wife, who both died during that year. As aedile in 65 BC, he erected statues in tribute to Marius's military victories.
Julius Caesar was an adept general, but he was a remarkably deft politician. The best modern model for his character would probably
be that of corporate CEO's who are described as "high-functioning sociopaths." He had the ability to maneuver between opposing forces,
and anticipate his opponents' moves in such a way that they made themselves unpopular while making him more popular. Further, he
almost always used the carrot instead of this stick. Where other generals or politicians might have executed a wrongdoer, he offered
magnanimous public forgiveness, which had the effect of making the opponent indebted to him for their very lives.
For example, when Cicero demanded executions without trial of some of the Catilinian conspirators, Caesar opposed the move, which
violated Roman norms, based on the precedent it would set – and indeed the move proved very unpopular while Caesar gained support.
Meanwhile he used his own private wealth to wine and dine clients and potential supporters. In 61 BC, as praetor assigned to Spain,
he provoked a rebellion so that he could crush it and use the ensuing Triumph in Rome to launch a campaign for consulship. When Cato
blocked this, Caesar proposed that Pompey, Crassus, and himself aid one another's careers against those blocking them individually.
Note that this was simply a political alliance. But it also ensured that no one of the three alone could overcome the other two
combined. This ensured that Caesar became consul in 59 BC. During his year in office, he had a land law passed to reward Pompey's
veterans with land purchased with the treasure obtained from his conquests. He also had a law passed to help tax collectors who were
allies of Crassus, who, because the eastern provinces were close to destitute after Pompey's wars, did not have enough wealth to
pay in taxes, a share of which was kept by the collectors. He also passed a law to ratify Pompey's land and tribute settlements in
the east, bringing further tribute into Rome's treasury. When some of their opponents threatened violence, Caesar, Pompey, and Crassus
made counter-threats, causing the opponents to go into hiding. Pompey and Crassus, in turn, made sure Caesar was rewarded with a
generalship in Gaul that was likely to and did prove both glorious and lucrative.
The coalition worked well, until 53 BC when Crassus, who was not a shrewd military leader, was lured into an ambush and executed
while on a campaign in Asia. In 62 BC, once more serving as consul, Pompey had a law passed making it easier to prosecute "brownshirt"
type of political mobs, and he also supported a law, ultimately passed by the Senate, to end Caesar's command in Gaul in 50 BC.
The Senate tried to head off yet another civil war, by asking both Pompey and Caesar to disband their legions simultaneously.
Pompey refused, and after finishing his business in Gaul, Caesar, who was again the paymaster of his own legionnaires, famously crossed
the Rubicon. This should have meant his command ceased, but his legionnaires agreed to remain loyal to him.
Once again Rome was marched upon and occupied. Pompey fled, and died in the ensuing civil war. With no military force left to
oppose him, Julius Caesar had himself declared "dictator for life" -- a capital offense under the law of the Republic, but the only
way to ensure that he remained in power and thus could not be executed by political opponents had he allowed Republican government
to return. He had himself appointed consul for every year, and in 45 BC took away from the Senate and gave to himself complete control
of the empire's finances.
And as we know from our high school drama classes, on the Ides of March in 44 BC, he was assassinated in the Senate. After his
assassination, his grand-nephew Octavian won the ensuing second civil war and had the Senate declare him both consul and Tribune
for life, and "First Citizen." The Republic was officially gone and the Empire had begun. (concluded in part 4)
The Crassus led Asian misadventure being the event of the first Parthian shot, later followed by Anthony's effort complete
with a disaster in a Grand Armee retreat from Moscow style. Roman hawks at least had all of their skin in the game, perhaps except
for the likes of Varus, that is why they were for the most part very good at their jobs.
Antony's funeral oration has always struck me as a standard lesson in demagoguery*. Literary critic Harold Goddard has this
to say:
Antony's speech for all its playing on the passions of the people, and for all its lies, is at bottom an honest speech,
because Antony loved Caesar. . . A sincere harangue by a demagogue is better than the most "classic" oration from a man who
speaks only with his lips.
And this post shows why political expediency is not such a crash hot idea after all as well as playing fast and loose with
the rules. As an example, in 62 BC "Pompey disbanded his troops and sent them home as soon as they landed in southern Italy. For
this good deed, the Senate in effect punished him by refusing to award his veterans any land or money bonuses; and further refused
to ratify the political settlements that Pompey had made with the eastern Mediterranean states." It was only his massive popularity
at the time that stopped any attempt on his life.
I am sure that the Senate was patting themselves on the back about this one but see what happens not that long after. In 50 BC
Pompey and the Senate try to revoke Caesars command of his Legions. The Senate demands that Pompey and Caesar disband their legions
but Caesar has seen how this movie plays out and says "Not this little black duck!" When Caesar went to Rome, he again refused
to obey the Senate to disband his Legions and return to Rome by himself as he had Pompey's unfortunate choice in mind.
There is a reason that laws and customs exist and dismissing them can lead you into all sorts of bad situations. That is why when
George W. Bush was pushing for the worser provisions of the Patriot Act, that it was a big deal when he said: "'Stop throwing
the Constitution in my face,' Bush screamed. 'It's just a goddamned piece of paper!'"
Cicero has only a mention here and not a good one. But I have a soft heart for him. In high school we had a choice of taking
2 or 3 years of Latin. I don't know why I chose 3 years, but I'm glad I did. With 2 years, you ended with Caesar's Gaelic Wars
– and I hated CGW. If I had ended that year I would have hated Latin, too (very adolescent of me). The only good thing that year
was Brenda Oneal translating the opening of CGW: All Gaul is divided in parts of trees.
But in year 3 we read Cicero's Speeches to the Senate. How modern he sounded. How just like our politicians he sounded – but
with real wit. What a relief and a pleasure to enjoy.
I read the first two volumes of Robert Harris's biographical novels about Cicero and experienced with real sadness how corruption
seeps into the brain hidden by righteousness. I couldn't read the third because the foreboding of his final downfall came at the
end of the second book. I couldn't stand to experience the actual end. Harris is too good a writer.
A big thank-you to Newdealdemocrat for composing these articles & Yves for re-posting them here. Much finer detail than the
broad stroke overview presented in history classes I took. (And thanks to the commenters who took the time to fill in a little
more).
I prefer almost any history to military history. Yet most of "history" is just that. Military. That is an enormous statement
on the mindset of us humans. It is also why I find this writing so accessible. Like describing Ceasar as a modern CEO, as a "high
functioning sociopath." A very interesting book would be to take these military histories paragraph by paragraph and juxtapose
them with paragraphs on the opposing page of everything that occurred which advanced civilization – science, good social relations,
art, engineering, etc. It would at least become glaringly apparent that civilization survived in spite of all the military sociopathy.
That civilization has been both ingenious and diverse. And gone somehow completely unrecognized.
I did not have time to comment on the Zuckerburg / Octavian haircut thing & perhaps i will be repeating somebody else, but
that haircut in sculptural form is used for all of the male Julio – Claudian line, including those like Germanicus who never made
it to the top. I read a description once from some Roman poet or commentator who revealed that Octavian didn't match the portraits
in the hair or physique department, but as the sculptures were shipped off to be displayed in forums all over the empire I suppose
that they had to look the part. The best example of ludicrous flattery is a surviving statue of Claudius featuring his head plonked
onto a body of a young athlete.
The fashion changed after the death of Nero & it is noticeable I believe that the quality of Roman portrait sculpture diminished
at the same rate as the empire.
Thanks funnily enough I just checked Caligula for a resemblance to " Z ", & IMO he is a much better match than " Augustus ".
" Little Boot " of course just doesn't have the same ring to it.
"... "What they did was treasonous, OK? It was treasonous," he told author Doug Wead for his upcoming book, " Inside Trump's White House: The Real Story of His Presidency." ..."
President Trump has ratcheted up his claim that the Obama White House spied on his 2016 campaign, charging in a new book that
it was a "treasonous" act by the former Democratic president.
"The interesting thing out of all of this is that we caught them spying on the election. They were spying on my campaign. So you
know? What is that all about?" said Trump.
"I have never ever said this, but truth is, they got caught spying. They were spying," said Trump who then added, "Obama."
In 2017, Trump tweeted that he felt the Obama White House "had my wires tapped" in Trump Tower. He later said he didn't mean it
literally but that he felt his campaign was being spied on.
Attorney General William Barr earlier this year said he was looking into whether "improper surveillance" may have occurred in
2016.
He has tasked a prosecutor to look into Obama officials and other officials who sparked the Russia collusion investigation into
Trump after a report showed no collusion. New reports on that investigation described it as "criminal" in nature.
"It turned out I was right. By the way," Trump told Wead in excerpts provided to Secrets.
"In fact, what I said was peanuts compared to what they did. They were spying on my campaign. They got caught and they said,
'Oh we were not spying. It was actually an investigation.' Can you imagine an administration investigating its political opponents?"
said the president.
In the book, Trump said that the Russia investigation undercut his presidency.
" Anybody else would be unable to function under the kind of pressure and distraction I had. They couldn't get anything done.
No other president should ever have to go through this. But understand, there was no collusion. They would have had to make something
up," he said.
Technically, it was sedition, unless Trump can show that Obama was acting for a foreign power. There definitely were foreign
powers involved, the question is who was in charge?
The attempt to circumvent democracy and ensure Hillary's victory in the elections with falsified Russian collusion allegations
along with a constant communist media bombardment to discredit Trump, absolutely constitutes treason. What you need to understand
is that socialist progressives serve a different god - lucifer - and a different nation - Israel; that they do not have your best
interests at heart is a given.
Everything they do is to undermine traditional morality and the moral fabric that holds civilization together. Ordo Ab Cao.
"... "Soros, of course, will be long gone by the time globalist policies of outsourcing labor and importing noncontributing foreigners bankrupts said "open societies" as waves of debt-laden generations hit retirement age." ..."
"... Soros "job" is to breakup sovereign nations, destroy the bureaucratic institutions and prepare them for inclusion into the One World [Neoliberal] Government... ..."
...George Soros believes that the global surge in nationalism - from Brexit to Trump - is an
aberration, and that globalism will make a resurgence after the 2020 US election.
In a recent interview with the
New York Times (in which he also endorsed Elizabeth
Warren ), the 89-year-old investor opined last week in a collection of essays called "In
Defense of Open Society" that his brand of globalism - which he defines as an integrated, open
society which abides by the law (which is easy to do when allied lawmakers are making them) -
is out of favor. Instead, Trump's "America First" approach, debates over Brexit and trade wars
have taken precedent.
Looking out a window with expansive views of Central Park, Mr. Soros spoke about China,
Mr. Trump and who he thinks will face off against the president in next year's election.
Notably, Mr. Soros is convinced that the arc of history may soon turn back his way, that
Mr. Trump's election and Brexit were the nadir of anti-globalism and that a backlash to that
nationalism is coming .
" Trump is still doing a tremendous amount of damage ," he said, lifting himself up a bit
in his desk chair. "I mean, just the last week what he has done in the Middle East has been
devastating for America's influence in the world," he said, referring to the withdrawal of
American troops from Syria. -
New York Times
Soros says Trump "is an aberration, and he is clearly putting his personal interests ahead
of the national interests," adding "That's a fact."
" I think it will contribute to his demise next year. So I am slightly predicting that
things will turn around ."
Soros, of course, will be long gone by the time globalist policies of outsourcing labor and
importing noncontributing foreigners bankrupts said "open societies" as waves of debt-laden
generations hit retirement age.
"Soros, of course, will be long gone by the time globalist policies of outsourcing labor
and importing noncontributing foreigners bankrupts said "open societies" as waves of
debt-laden generations hit retirement age."
And this wicked meddler has the temerity to lecture us about damage done?
Soros "job" is to breakup sovereign nations, destroy the bureaucratic institutions and prepare them for inclusion into
the One World [Neoliberal] Government...
"... Islamic State, or Isis, didn't emerge out of nowhere. It was entirely a creation of two decades of US interference in the Middle East. ..."
"... No, I'm talking about the fact that in destroying three key Arab states – Iraq, Libya and Syria – that refused to submit to the joint regional hegemony of Saudi Arabia and Israel, Washington's local client states, the US created a giant void of governance at the heart of the Middle East. They knew that that void would be filled soon enough by religious extremists like Islamic State – and they didn't care. ..."
"... The barely veiled aim of the attacks on Iraq, Libya and Syria was to destroy the institutions and structures that held these societies together, however imperfectly. Though no one likes to mention it nowadays, these states – deeply authoritarian though they were – were also secular, and had well-developed welfare states that ensured high rates of literacy and some of the region's finest public health services. ..."
"... After Rove and Cheney had had their fill playing around with reality, nature got on with honouring the maxim that it always abhors a vacuum. Islamic State filled the vacuum Washington's policy had engineered. ..."
"... The clue, after all, was in the name. With the US and Gulf states using oil money to wage a proxy war against Assad, Isis saw its chance to establish a state inspired by a variety of Saudi Arabia's Wahhabist dogma. Isis needed territory for their planned state, and the Saudis and US obliged by destroying Syria. ..."
"... This barbarian army, one that murdered other religious groups as infidels and killed fellow Sunnis who refused to bow before their absolute rule, became the west's chief allies in Syria. Directly and covertly, we gave them money and weapons to begin building their state on parts of Syria. ..."
"... We cannot, of course, forget an assistance this witch had from very GOPiish Senators such as late American hero John McCain and his buddy Lindsey Graham. They played a key role in supporting all kinds of jihadist elements. ..."
"... Let's be accurate: It was US Democrats AND REPUBLICANS who helped cultivate the barbarism of Isis. The mess was started with Bush/Cheney/Powell. McCain was probably the biggest ISIS guy ever. Graham, Romney and friends are the same, and at best marginally better than Hitlery Clinton. ..."
"... The population of Syria increased exponentially right up through 2010, with a doubling time of about 18 years, at which point food ran out and population started trending downwards (not so much due to outright famine, as to poverty, lack of medical care, warfare, and people fleeing the country.). ..."
"... Check out the section in wikipedia on Syria's aquifers and groundwater – the water table had been dropping drastically as far back as 1985. Long before the post-2010 dry spell, Syria's rapid population growth had been consuming more water than fell as rain – EVEN DURING WET YEARS. The low rainfall post-2010 was an early trigger, but the collapse would have come regardless. ..."
"... Tulsi may not win the democratic nomination, but I see her determination to educate the majority of Americans of what our government/deep state/military industrial complex/and later senators who become lobbyists are doing. ..."
"... Worse, I suspect that many weren't too disturbed by this prospect. After all, ISIS and its incredibly vicious terrorist attacks in the West did a great deal to fuel Islamophobia -- and Islamophobia has its uses. ISIS was probably the best thing to happen to Israel since 9/11. ..."
"... I think it is worse than that : ISIS was a creation by the Israel-US- Saudi Arabia-Gulf States-axis. Significantly ISIS never attacked Israeli interests ..."
"... It doesn't matter how many Arabs, Turks, Etruscans or Kurds are killed, as long as Israel's interests are taken care of, the results are "worth it". Its a very deeply cynical, and evil policy that the US has pursued all these years in the Mid-East. ..."
"... Gangster business and slavery are OK so long as our central bank gets our cut. ..."
"... They've re-started the Cold War. Keeps all the warmongers in business. Surely they're not stupid enough to want a hot one are they? ..."
"... It goes without comment that the first act of the US following Nudelman's (Why do these fuckers keep changing their names?) Ukraine coup was to steal its gold. ..."
"... "Pelosi and most of the Democratic leadership don't care about Syria, or its population's welfare. They don't care about Assad, or Isis. They care only about the maintenance and expansion of their own Democratic Party power – for the personal wealth and influence it continues to bestow on them." ..."
There is something profoundly deceitful in the way the Democratic Party and the corporate media are framing Donald Trump's decision
to pull troops out of Syria.
One does not need to defend Trump's actions or ignore the dangers posed to the Kurds, at least in the short term, by the departure
of US forces from northern Syria to understand that the coverage is being crafted in such a way as to entirely overlook the bigger
picture.
The problem is neatly illustrated in this line from a report by the Guardian newspaper of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's meeting
this week with Trump, who is described as having had a "meltdown". Explaining why she and other senior Democrats stormed out, the
paper writes
that "it became clear the president had no plan to deal with a potential revival of Isis in the Middle East".
Hang on a minute! Let's pull back a little, and not pretend – as the media and Democratic party leadership wish us to – that the
last 20 years did not actually happen. Many of us lived through those events. Our memories are not so short.
Islamic State, or Isis, didn't emerge out of nowhere. It was entirely a creation of two decades of US interference in the
Middle East. And I'm not even referring to the mountains
of evidence that US officials backed their Saudi allies in directly funding and arming Isis – just as their predecessors in Washington,
in their enthusiasm to oust the Soviets from the region, assisted the jihadists who went on to become al-Qaeda.
No, I'm talking about the fact that in destroying three key Arab states – Iraq, Libya and Syria – that refused to submit to
the joint regional hegemony of Saudi Arabia and Israel, Washington's local client states, the US created a giant void of governance
at the heart of the Middle East. They knew that that void would be filled soon enough by religious extremists like Islamic State
– and they didn't care.
Overthrow, not regime change
You don't have to be a Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi or Bashar Assad apologist to accept this point. You don't even have to
be concerned that these so-called "humanitarian" wars violated each state's integrity and sovereignty, and are therefore defined
in international law as "the supreme war crime".
The bigger picture – the one no one appears to want us thinking about – is that the US intentionally sought to destroy these states
with no obvious plan for the day after. As I explained in my book
Israel and the Clash of Civilisations
, these haven't so much been regime-change wars as nation-state dismantling operations – what I have termed overthrow wars.
The logic was a horrifying hybrid of two schools of thought that meshed neatly in the psychopathic foreign policy goals embodied
in the ideology of neoconservatism – the so-called "Washington consensus" since 9/11.
The first was Israel's long-standing approach to the Palestinians. By constantly devastating any emerging Palestinian institution
or social structures, Israel produced a divide-and-rule model on steriods, creating a leaderless, ravaged, enfeebled society that
sucked out all the local population's energy. That strategy proved very appealing to the neoconservatives, who saw it as one they
could export to non-compliant states in the region.
The second was the Chicago school's Shock Doctrine, as explained in Naomi Klein's book of that name. The chaotic campaign of destruction,
the psychological trauma and the sense of dislocation created by these overthrow wars were supposed to engender a far more malleable
population that would be ripe for a US-controlled "colour revolution".
The recalcitrant states would be made an example of, broken apart, asset-stripped of their resources and eventually remade as
new dependent markets for US goods. That was what George W Bush, Dick Cheney and Halliburton really meant when they talked about
building a New Middle East and exporting democracy.
Even judged by the vile aims of its proponents, the Shock Doctrine has been a half-century story of
dismal economic failure everywhere it has been attempted
– from Pinochet's Chile to Yeltsin's Russia. But let us not credit the architects of this policy with any kind of acumen for learning
from past errors. As Bush's senior adviser Karl Rove explained to a journalist whom he rebuked for being part of the "reality-based
community": "We're an empire now and, when we act, we create our own reality."
The birth of Islamic State
The barely veiled aim of the attacks on Iraq, Libya and Syria was to destroy the institutions and structures that held these
societies together, however imperfectly. Though no one likes to mention it nowadays, these states – deeply authoritarian though they
were – were also secular, and had well-developed welfare states that ensured high rates of literacy and some of the region's finest
public health services.
Given how closed a society Syria was and is, and how difficult it therefore is to weigh the evidence in ways that are likely to
prove convincing to those not already persuaded, let us set that issue aside too. Anyway, it is irrelevant to the bigger picture
I want to address.
The indisputable fact is that Washington and its Gulf allies wished to exploit this initial unrest as an opportunity to create
a void in Syria – just as they had earlier done in Iraq, where there were no uprisings, nor even the WMDs the US promised would be
found and that served as the pretext for Bush's campaign of Shock and Awe.
The limited uprisings in Syria quickly turned into a much larger and far more vicious war because the Gulf states, with US backing,
flooded the country with proxy fighters and arms in an effort to overthrow Assad and thereby weaken Iranian and Shia influence in
the region. The events in Syria and earlier in Iraq gradually transformed the Sunni religious extremists of al-Qaeda into the even
more barbaric, more nihilistic extremists of Islamic State.
A dark US vanity project
After Rove and Cheney had had their fill playing around with reality, nature got on with honouring the maxim that it always
abhors a vacuum. Islamic State filled the vacuum Washington's policy had engineered.
The clue, after all, was in the name. With the US and Gulf states using oil money to wage a proxy war against Assad, Isis
saw its chance to establish a state inspired by a variety of Saudi Arabia's Wahhabist dogma. Isis needed territory for their planned
state, and the Saudis and US obliged by destroying Syria.
This barbarian army, one that murdered other religious groups as infidels and killed fellow Sunnis who refused to bow before
their absolute rule, became the west's chief allies in Syria. Directly and covertly, we gave them money and weapons to begin building
their state on parts of Syria.
Again, let us ignore the fact that the US, in helping to destroy a sovereign nation, committed the supreme war crime, one that
in a rightly ordered world would ensure every senior Washington official faces their own Nuremberg Trial. Let us ignore too for the
moment that the US, consciously through its actions, brought to life a monster that sowed death and destruction everywhere it went.
The fact is that at the moment Assad called in Russia to help him survive, the battle the US and the Gulf states were waging through
Islamic State and other proxies was lost. It was only a matter of time before Assad would reassert his rule.
From that point onwards, every single person who was killed and every single Syrian made homeless – and there were hundreds of
thousands of them – suffered their terrible fate for no possible gain in US policy goals. A vastly destructive overthrow war became
instead something darker still: a neoconservative vanity project that ravaged countless Syrian lives.
A giant red herring
Trump now appears to be ending part of that policy. He may be doing so for the wrong reasons. But very belatedly – and possibly
only temporarily – he is seeking to close a small chapter in a horrifying story of western-sponsored barbarism in the Middle East,
one intimately tied to Islamic State.
What of the supposed concerns of Pelosi and the Democratic Party under whose watch the barbarism in Syria took place. They should
have no credibility on the matter to begin with.
But their claims that Trump has "no plan to deal with a potential revival of Isis in the Middle East" is a giant red herring they
are viciously slapping us in the face with in the hope the spray of seawater blinds us.
First, Washington sowed the seeds of Islamic State by engineering a vacuum in Syria that Isis – or something very like it – was
inevitably going to fill. Then, it allowed those seeds to flourish by assisting its Gulf allies in showering fighters in Syria with
money and arms that came with only one string attached – a commitment to Sunni jihadist ideology inspired by Saudi Wahhabism.
Isis was made in Washington as much as it was in Riyadh. For that reason, the only certain strategy for preventing the revival
of Islamic State is preventing the US and the Gulf states from interfering in Syria again.
With the Syrian army in charge of Syrian territory, there will be no vacuum for Isis to fill. The jihadists' state-building project
is now unrealisable, at least in Syria. Islamic State will continue to wither, as it would have done years before if the US and its
Gulf allies had not fuelled it in a proxy war they knew could not be won.
Doomed Great Game
The same lesson can be drawn by looking at the experience of the Syrian Kurds. The Rojava fiefdom they managed to carve out in
northern Syria during the war survived till now only because of continuing US military support. With a US departure, and the Kurds
too weak to maintain their improvised statelet, a vacuum was again created that this time has risked sucking in the Turkish army,
which fears a base for Kurdish nationalism on its doorstep.
The Syrian Kurds' predicament is simple: face a takeover by Turkey or seek Assad's protection to foil Turkish ambitions. The best
hope for the Kurds looks to be the Syrian army's return, filling the vacuum and regaining a chance of long-term stability.
That could have been the case for all of Syria many tens of thousands of deaths ago. Whatever the corporate media suggest, those
deaths were lost not in a failed heroic battle for freedom, which, even if it was an early aspiration for some fighters, quickly
became a goal that was impossible for them to realise. No, those deaths were entirely pointless. They were sacrificed by a western
military-industrial complex in a US-Saudi Great Game that dragged on for many years after everyone knew it was doomed.
Nancy Pelosi's purported worries about Isis reviving because of Trump's Syria withdrawal are simply crocodile fears. If she is
really so worried about Islamic State, then why did she and other senior Democrats stand silently by as the US under Barack Obama
spent years spawning, cultivating and financing Isis to destroy Syria, a state that was best placed to serve as a bulwark against
the head-chopping extremists?
Pelosi and the Democratic leadership's bad faith – and that of the corporate media – are revealed in their ongoing efforts to
silence and smear Tulsi Gabbard, the party's only candidate for the presidential nomination who has pointed out the harsh political
realities in Syria, and tried to expose their years of lies.
Pelosi and most of the Democratic leadership don't care about Syria, or its population's welfare. They don't care about Assad,
or Isis. They care only about the maintenance and expansion of American power – and the personal wealth and influence it continues
to bestow on them.
Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His books include "Israel and the Clash of Civilisations:
Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East" (Pluto Press) and "Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair"
(Zed Books). His website is www.jonathan-cook.net .
The problem largely traces back to simple mistakes by prior Saudi administrations.
The Wahhabi were a threat to the royal family. So, the royal family funded them to go elsewhere. Given the craziness of Wahhabism
that made sense at the time. Crazy usually dies out. However, in this case the Crazy came with enough money in hand to establish
credibility. The extremist Muslim Brotherhood is a direct result of these exported extremism.
ISIS is the result of a schism inside the extremist Muslim Brotherhood. A "direct action" group wanted an even more extreme
and immediate solution and broke away.
-- Did the U.S. or Israel attempt to deploy ISIS? This is far-fetched beyond the bounds of reasonability. Violent, ultra-extreme
ISIS fanatics would not follow the commands of infidel heretics. The Saudi royal family by this point realized that the Muslim
Brotherhood was a threat to them just like the original Wahhabi, but they had no good way to undo their prior mistake.
-- Did Turkey attempt to use ISIS to weaken Syria and Iraq? This is far more probable. Turkey's AK party is also a schismatic
offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood. So, there is a great deal of opportunity for the two troops to find common cause. The New
Ottoman Empire needs to absorb Syrian and Iraqi land, so undermining those governments would be step #1.
One does not need outside actors to explain how the hole was dug. Unfortunately, that means there is no good solution. If the
problem was driven by outside forces, those forces could stop it. However, the reality is that there are no outside forces driving
the Craziness. There is no "plug to pull".
The wild savage dogs of ISIS are the Khmer Rouge of Islamic fundamentalism and their rise and violence should be attributed to
the liberal interventionism that has proven to be a disaster not only for the region but those who carried out the intervention.
"One does not need outside actors to explain how the hole was dug. Unfortunately, that means there is no good solution.
If the problem was driven by outside forces, those forces could stop it. However, the reality is that there are no outside
forces driving the Craziness. There is no 'plug to pull'".
Absolute nonsense. And what do you mean by "outside forces." The US and Israel count as outside forces but Turkey does not?
Forces outside of what?
ISIS emerged out of ISI, Zarqawi's Islamic State in Iraq, an affiliate, for a while, of AQ. The US invasion of Iraq created
the political and military space in Iraq for transnational terror groups.
Meanwhile, the US, at Israel's instigation, had been working to weaken Assad in Syria. After the rebellion against him in 2011,
the US, along with Turkey, Saudi, Qatar, Israel and others, began to support various jihadi groups inside Syria with the goal
of eliminating the Assad government, each for his own reasons. Syria began lost control of its border with Iraq and much of eastern
Syria and the Euphrates valley as well. This process allowed ISIS to emerge from an ISI under stress during the so-called "surge"
in 2007-10 and establish itself in Syria. In 2014, ISIS, now a powerful well-armed group went back into Iraq to defeat the incompetent
and unmotivated Iraq Security Forces that the US had established.
While the US moved against ISIS in Iraq after 2014, it left ISIS in Syria alone since it was depriving Assad of control over
most of Syria's oil and much of its arable land.
And yes, of course the US, instigated by Israel, didn't "deploy" ISIS in the sense of directing its operations. But they left
ISIS largely unimpeded to play a role in the overthrow of Assad which was always the primary goal. ISIS, it was thought, could
be dealt with later after Assad was gone.
That plan would probably have worked eventually, but the Russians entered the picture in the second half of 2015 and changed
the situation.
The US had been nominally supporting the usual "freedom fighters" but in effect supplying the more competent and vicious jihadis
who could take the TOW missiles and other weapons the US was providing to the approved sad-sacks and make more effective use of
them. Finally, with Russia and Iran facilitating the roll-back of all the jihadis, and the US threatened with being relegated
to the sidelines, Obama jumped on the SDF (Kurdish) bandwagon and actually started doing what the US had not done previously:
Taking serious action against ISIS so that a Russian/Iranian-backed Syrian reconquest of eastern Syria could be pre-empted.
And of course, the biggest supporter of the Kurds has consistently been Israel, who sees the possibility of creating pro-Israel
statelets or at least enclaves in the midst of a Turkish, Iranian and Arab region that detests the Judenreich.
So in order to eliminate another of Israel's enemies, reduce a unified Syrian state to a handful of even more impotent emirates
and ensure that Bibi would not be pestered with legal questions over the seizure and retention of the Golan, Syria was laid waste
under the guise of "promoting democracy" and then further devastated under the guise of combatting ISIS.
We have done more than enough damage at the behest of Israel and its fifth column in the US. ISIS might well have emerged regardless
of US actions, but it was the Jew-induced insanity of US regime-change/COIN policies that created the geographical, political
and military space in Iraq and Syria for the jihadists and the ensuing physical destruction of so much of those countries.
The best solution would be to facilitate the re-establishment of Syrian sovereignty over all of Syria. But instead of doing
that, Trump has instead facilitated the entry of Turkish forces and allied jihadis in an attempt to mend fences with a thoroughly
alienated Erdogan. We'll see if Putin can mitigate the brutal incompetence of Israel-infected US policy.
@A123 For fuck's sake. Is there any way to stop Hasbara agents from effectively using software to get consistent first posts
on this site?
Their mere presence is annoying. Whatever they have to say, on any topic and no matter what it is, no one here wants to read
it because they are not beginning with any credibility whatsoever. As they are are religiously-avowed enemies of the West (who
they hold to be the continuation of Rome) and the demonstrated fervent enemies of non-Jewish Whites.
Given the craziness of Wahhabism
There is nothing in Sunni Islam that does not have its root in Judaism. To state otherwise is to be a typical Semitic liar.
A very real but completely unadvertised reality of these regime changes was that the publicly owned central bank of the country
– Iraq and Libya – was eliminated and changed to a private central bank. Iraq and Libya both succumbed and Ron Paul related that
the smoke had barely cleared in Libya before the private central bank charter was drafted and implemented. Syria and Iran are
the last two countries that do not have a private central banks. Hence the drive by the neo-cons to destroy those countries and
fully implement the New World (banking) Order.
Not widely discussed but (I think) vitally important to understanding foreign policy.
What of the supposed concerns of Pelosi and the Democratic Party under whose watch the barbarism in Syria took place. They should
have no credibility on the matter to begin with.
But their claims that Trump has "no plan to deal with a potential revival of Isis in the Middle East" is a giant red herring
they are viciously slapping us in the face with in the hope the spray of seawater blinds us.
I love the second para. Getting slapped with a red herring with hope that the salt water blinds us .
My only gripe with Jonathan Cook is that this and all mid-eastern conflicts are engineered by the dual citizens and Israel
isn't called out by him as the chief instigator. The saudis are slave of the west and amount to nothing.
@A123 " Did the U.S. or Israel attempt to deploy ISIS? This is far-fetched beyond the bounds of reasonability"
Perhaps. Except that it did happen in plain daylight, before our eyes, but we should, of course, trust your "reasonability" --
instead of our own lying eyes.
@A123 US President Donald Trump said Monday that a small number of US troops remain in Syria at the request of Israel and
Jordan, with some positioned near the borders with Jordan and Israel and others deployed to secure oil fields.
"The other region where we've been asked by Israel and Jordan to leave a small number of troops is a totally different section
of Syria, near Jordan, and close to Israel," Trump said when asked whether he would leave soldiers in Syria. "So we have a small
group there, and we secured the oil. Other than that, there's no reason for it, in our opinion."
Times of Israel
and J Post 21st oct
It 's all about Israel and for its "royal patsy when not for royal patsy it's for the cannon fodder/ foot solder of Israel.
This mayhem from 2003 hasn't seen the full effects of the blow-back yet .Just starting . Tulsi Gabbard and Trump have knowingly
and sometime unknowingly have told the master that the king never had any clothes even when the king was talking about the decency
of having clothes on .
"The first was Israel's long-standing approach to the Palestinians. By constantly devastating any emerging Palestinian institution
or social structures, Israel produced a divide-and-rule model on steriods, creating a leaderless, ravaged, enfeebled society that
sucked out all the local population's energy. That strategy proved very appealing to the neoconservatives, who saw it as one they
could export to non-compliant states in the region."-
This sums up everything one want to know about certain human clones and the impact of the clones on the humanity.
Who will ever blame the victims for creating a future Hitler among them ?
We cannot, of course, forget an assistance this witch had from very GOPiish Senators such as late American hero John McCain
and his buddy Lindsey Graham. They played a key role in supporting all kinds of jihadist elements.
Let's be accurate: It was US Democrats AND REPUBLICANS who helped cultivate the barbarism of Isis. The mess was started with
Bush/Cheney/Powell. McCain was probably the biggest ISIS guy ever. Graham, Romney and friends are the same, and at best marginally
better than Hitlery Clinton.
Lock them all up, regardless of party affiliation.
Many interesting points here, and I agree with a lot of them. But:
[MORE]
"Or was it driven by something else: as a largely economic protest by an under-class suffering from food shortages as climate
change led to repeated crop failures?"
Syria did run out of water, and it's hard not to see that as a major driver of the chaos that unfolded. But Syria didn't run
out of water because of "climate change," that's false.
The explanation is that the Syrian government deliberately engineered a massive population explosion. Seriously, they made
the sale and possession of contraceptives a crime! (See "Demographic Developments and Population: Policies in Ba'thist Syria (Demographic
Developments and Socioeconomics)", by Onn Winkler).
The population of Syria increased exponentially right up through 2010, with a doubling time of about 18 years, at which
point food ran out and population started trending downwards (not so much due to outright famine, as to poverty, lack of medical
care, warfare, and people fleeing the country.).
Now as far as weather goes, there were a couple of dry years before the collapse, but weather is always like that. Last year
there were record rainfalls. If Syria's population had been stable at 5 or even 10 million, they could have coasted on water stored
in the aquifers until the rains came back. But when the population increases so much that you drain the aquifers even when there
is plenty of rain, then when a temporary drought hits you have no reserve and it all falls apart.
Check out the section in wikipedia on Syria's aquifers and groundwater – the water table had been dropping drastically
as far back as 1985. Long before the post-2010 dry spell, Syria's rapid population growth had been consuming more water than fell
as rain – EVEN DURING WET YEARS. The low rainfall post-2010 was an early trigger, but the collapse would have come regardless.
simple and straightforward journalism that cuts through the "corporate veil." Tulsi may not win the democratic nomination,
but I see her determination to educate the majority of Americans of what our government/deep state/military industrial complex/and
later senators who become lobbyists are doing.
I also feel for our veterans who are indoctrinated to protect freedom, but in the end, when they come home injured and disabled,
or even dead, it was all for naught.
I find some of the rhetoric in this piece irritating and repetitive -- but the analysis is essentially correct.
We created a power vacuum that was almost certain to give rise to something like ISIS.
Worse, I suspect that many weren't too disturbed by this prospect. After all, ISIS and its incredibly vicious terrorist
attacks in the West did a great deal to fuel Islamophobia -- and Islamophobia has its uses. ISIS was probably the best thing to
happen to Israel since 9/11.
"The problem is neatly illustrated in this line from a report by the Guardian newspaper of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's meeting
this week with Trump, who is described as having had a "meltdown". "
That's a poorly written statement. It reads as though Trump was the one having a meltdown. How about: "House Speaker Pelosi's
meltdown during a meeting with Trump." ?
@MarathonMan That is a fact that should be kept foremost in the discussions of "why regime change is necessary". It is the
most basic and obvious reason for all this war in the ME.
"First, Washington sowed the seeds of Islamic State by engineering a vacuum in Syria that Isis – or something very like
it – was inevitably going to fill."
Not quite accurate. The US Government "sowed the seeds of" ISIS by giving them material support before the vacuum was created.
IS is mainly a creature of empire, including the US and older remnants of empire in the UK and Europe which survives mainly in
the existence of (international) banks.
@Christian truth Project "Tulsi is/was a member of the CFR". Aren't all Congressmen members? Doesn't that come with signing
the AIPAC form, getting the secret decoder ring from Adam Schiff, and the free trip to Israel? (maybe Ilhan Omar and Rashida Talib
"don't measure up?")
I believe CFR was the organization Biden was regaling with his story of holding up $one billion in Ukrainian
aid unless the Ukrainians fired the investigator of his son Hunter "who did nothing wrong". Can you imagine if Biden had been
President rather than VP? This would have been a scandal!
@A123 One does not need outside actors, but then there would be a lot of 'dark matter' in the history of the ME over the last
100 years. Personally it's plain state terrorism to me, and the Brits have a good definition!
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/part/I
Pelosi and most of the Democratic leadership don't care about Syria, or its population's welfare. They don't care about
Assad, or Isis. They care only about the maintenance and expansion of American power
Correction: They only care about the maintenance and expansion of Israeli power.
I think it is worse than that : ISIS was a creation by the Israel-US- Saudi Arabia-Gulf States-axis.
Significantly ISIS never attacked Israeli interests, and when it once did so by accident, it apologized to Israel. The destruction
of Syria is part of Israel's notorious Oded Yinon plan, according to which all states in Israel's neighborhood need to be fragmentized.
In Iraq and Libya that was a success, in Syria, thanks to Iran, Hizbollah and Russia, it failed. The US is simply a puppet for
Israel's foreign policy, but nobody in the US, not even Tulsi Gabbard, dares to say so.
@A123 Sorry Bibi, but your beloved Israel played a BIG part in establishing ISIS, then supporting it with shekels, medical
care for their wounded, training and weapons.
WikiLeaks: US, Israel, And Saudi Arabia Planned Overthrow Of Syrian Govt. In 2006
Cables reveal that before the beginning of the Syrian revolt and civil war, the United States hoped to overthrow Assad and
create strife between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.
Let's not forget that when the term ISIS first came out, the Tel Aviv war mongers realized it stood for Israeli Secret Intelligence
Services and changed that to ISIL, which their adoring MSM gladly obliged by parroting that change.
From the Israeli masterminded 9/11 False Flag to the destruction of Syria, there's one common factor, Israel and her American
Jew sayanim who keep pushing America into forever wars so Israel can finish off the Palestinians and steal more land.
Based on the whistleblower's extensive presentation, including internal emails, text exchanges and suppressed draft reports,
we are unanimous in expressing our alarm over unacceptable practices in the investigation of the alleged chemical attack in
Douma, near the Syrian capital of Damascus on 7 April 2018. We became convinced by the testimony that key information about
chemical analyses, toxicology consultations, ballistics studies, and witness testimonies was suppressed, ostensibly to favor
a preordained conclusion.
We have learned of disquieting efforts to exclude some inspectors from the investigation whilst thwarting their attempts
to raise legitimate concerns, highlight irregular practices or even to express their differing observations and assessments
-- a right explicitly conferred on inspectors in the Chemical Weapons Convention, evidently with the intention of ensuring
the independence and authoritativeness of inspection reports.
Fixed "report" of OPCW was necessary to maintain anti-Assad narrative which is now unchallenged even by Gabbard (not to mention
the weak sheep-dog Sanders).
The US does not have to directly support the jihadists. It just has to manage the chaos, for whatever be
the action on the ground and whoever is killed or not killed, as long as there is chaos within their chosen sandbox, the chaos
masters in Israel wins and that is all that counts with all too many Americans. It doesn't matter how many Arabs, Turks, Etruscans
or Kurds are killed, as long as Israel's interests are taken care of, the results are "worth it". Its a very deeply cynical, and
evil policy that the US has pursued all these years in the Mid-East.
But fortunately the Russians have turned things around.
Gangster business and slavery are OK so long as our central bank gets our cut. ME is also about "fragmenting"
neighboring countries so Israel can expand. Yinon Plan.
Oct 18, 2019 Tulsi Gabbard responds to Hillary Clinton: Clinton "knows she can't control me"
Hillary Clinton implied Russians are "grooming" Tulsi Gabbard to run as a third-party candidate to disrupt the election, a
charge which Gabbard denies. In a live interview with CBSN, Gabbard responds to Clinton's claims and says she will not run as
a third-party candidate.
@TG Excellent post. You bring up 2 very important but rarely discussed issues.
Demographics: Population is one of the most easily predictable developments within a country, and you'd think it might be one
of the most publically-discussed, and therefore, best-managed. Au contraire. Assad wasn't the only one who stood on the tracks
watching the headlights approach:
1. The EU is having problems with an aging native population because it earlier encouraged low birth rates, and is now promoting
mass immigration of rapidly-breeding immigrants who threaten to at least overwhelm if not overrun European society. Yet, as Douglas
Murray points out in his book The Strange Death of Europe, openly talking about this problem has been, and still is, verboten.
2. China is now wondering to do with its preponderance of young men, caused very predictably by the Communist Party's one-child
policy.
Climate:
If the rains had been good every single year – which is impossible – it would only have pushed the point of collapse back
a few years, at most.
The Syrian case you cite shows how even relatively minor climate changes can carry events past a tipping point. I do agree
with you that effects of APGW on climactic conditions are greatly exaggerated, yet changes in climate, for good or ill, have often
triggered much larger historical events. The cooling that caused a famine and that preceded the Justinian Plague weakened European
and Sassanian civilizations. These misfortunes paved the way for the Islamic takeover that followed. Contrariwise, Norse exploration
and the Renaissance, to give 2 examples of increasing activity, both occurred during the Medieval Warming Period.
It goes without comment that the first act of the US following Nudelman's (Why do these fuckers keep changing
their names?) Ukraine coup was to steal its gold.
"Pelosi and most of the Democratic leadership don't care about Syria, or its population's welfare. They don't care about Assad,
or Isis. They care only about the maintenance and expansion of their own Democratic Party power – for the personal wealth and
influence it continues to bestow on them."
FTFY
Just as the GOP is precisely and thoroughly corrupt in exactly the same way, focused exclusively on their own craven self-interest,
the country be damned.
@Anonymous Jimmah was the last honest man in American politics. But since he told Americans that gas was going to cost more,
that perhaps they needed to drive a wee bit less, the Americans hated him. They didn't like the "malaise" of having to pay for
their lifestyle.
As for the Israelis, what did Jimmah not to do for them : Got Egypt out of the Arab alliance, arranged the annual tribute to
Israel, started the ball rolling on the Holocaust religion, paid off Egypt and Jordan to stay away from any alliance against the
Israelis. But what did he get in return; branded as anti-Semite merely for mentioning that the Palestinians had rights, were human
beings too. With the Zionist Jews, one is always on probation. No point playing their silly games.
"... Islamic State, or Isis, didn't emerge out of nowhere. It was entirely a creation of two decades of US interference in the Middle East. ..."
"... No, I'm talking about the fact that in destroying three key Arab states – Iraq, Libya and Syria – that refused to submit to the joint regional hegemony of Saudi Arabia and Israel, Washington's local client states, the US created a giant void of governance at the heart of the Middle East. They knew that that void would be filled soon enough by religious extremists like Islamic State – and they didn't care. ..."
"... The barely veiled aim of the attacks on Iraq, Libya and Syria was to destroy the institutions and structures that held these societies together, however imperfectly. Though no one likes to mention it nowadays, these states – deeply authoritarian though they were – were also secular, and had well-developed welfare states that ensured high rates of literacy and some of the region's finest public health services. ..."
"... After Rove and Cheney had had their fill playing around with reality, nature got on with honouring the maxim that it always abhors a vacuum. Islamic State filled the vacuum Washington's policy had engineered. ..."
"... The clue, after all, was in the name. With the US and Gulf states using oil money to wage a proxy war against Assad, Isis saw its chance to establish a state inspired by a variety of Saudi Arabia's Wahhabist dogma. Isis needed territory for their planned state, and the Saudis and US obliged by destroying Syria. ..."
"... This barbarian army, one that murdered other religious groups as infidels and killed fellow Sunnis who refused to bow before their absolute rule, became the west's chief allies in Syria. Directly and covertly, we gave them money and weapons to begin building their state on parts of Syria. ..."
"... We cannot, of course, forget an assistance this witch had from very GOPiish Senators such as late American hero John McCain and his buddy Lindsey Graham. They played a key role in supporting all kinds of jihadist elements. ..."
"... Let's be accurate: It was US Democrats AND REPUBLICANS who helped cultivate the barbarism of Isis. The mess was started with Bush/Cheney/Powell. McCain was probably the biggest ISIS guy ever. Graham, Romney and friends are the same, and at best marginally better than Hitlery Clinton. ..."
"... The population of Syria increased exponentially right up through 2010, with a doubling time of about 18 years, at which point food ran out and population started trending downwards (not so much due to outright famine, as to poverty, lack of medical care, warfare, and people fleeing the country.). ..."
"... Check out the section in wikipedia on Syria's aquifers and groundwater – the water table had been dropping drastically as far back as 1985. Long before the post-2010 dry spell, Syria's rapid population growth had been consuming more water than fell as rain – EVEN DURING WET YEARS. The low rainfall post-2010 was an early trigger, but the collapse would have come regardless. ..."
"... Tulsi may not win the democratic nomination, but I see her determination to educate the majority of Americans of what our government/deep state/military industrial complex/and later senators who become lobbyists are doing. ..."
"... Worse, I suspect that many weren't too disturbed by this prospect. After all, ISIS and its incredibly vicious terrorist attacks in the West did a great deal to fuel Islamophobia -- and Islamophobia has its uses. ISIS was probably the best thing to happen to Israel since 9/11. ..."
"... I think it is worse than that : ISIS was a creation by the Israel-US- Saudi Arabia-Gulf States-axis. Significantly ISIS never attacked Israeli interests ..."
There is something profoundly deceitful in the way the Democratic Party and the corporate media are framing Donald Trump's decision
to pull troops out of Syria.
One does not need to defend Trump's actions or ignore the dangers posed to the Kurds, at least in the short term, by the departure
of US forces from northern Syria to understand that the coverage is being crafted in such a way as to entirely overlook the bigger
picture.
The problem is neatly illustrated in this line from a report by the Guardian newspaper of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's meeting
this week with Trump, who is described as having had a "meltdown". Explaining why she and other senior Democrats stormed out, the
paper writes
that "it became clear the president had no plan to deal with a potential revival of Isis in the Middle East".
Hang on a minute! Let's pull back a little, and not pretend – as the media and Democratic party leadership wish us to – that the
last 20 years did not actually happen. Many of us lived through those events. Our memories are not so short.
Islamic State, or Isis, didn't emerge out of nowhere. It was entirely a creation of two decades of US interference in the
Middle East. And I'm not even referring to the mountains
of evidence that US officials backed their Saudi allies in directly funding and arming Isis – just as their predecessors in Washington,
in their enthusiasm to oust the Soviets from the region, assisted the jihadists who went on to become al-Qaeda.
No, I'm talking about the fact that in destroying three key Arab states – Iraq, Libya and Syria – that refused to submit to
the joint regional hegemony of Saudi Arabia and Israel, Washington's local client states, the US created a giant void of governance
at the heart of the Middle East. They knew that that void would be filled soon enough by religious extremists like Islamic State
– and they didn't care.
Overthrow, not regime change
You don't have to be a Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi or Bashar Assad apologist to accept this point. You don't even have to
be concerned that these so-called "humanitarian" wars violated each state's integrity and sovereignty, and are therefore defined
in international law as "the supreme war crime".
The bigger picture – the one no one appears to want us thinking about – is that the US intentionally sought to destroy these states
with no obvious plan for the day after. As I explained in my book
Israel and the Clash of Civilisations
, these haven't so much been regime-change wars as nation-state dismantling operations – what I have termed overthrow wars.
The logic was a horrifying hybrid of two schools of thought that meshed neatly in the psychopathic foreign policy goals embodied
in the ideology of neoconservatism – the so-called "Washington consensus" since 9/11.
The first was Israel's long-standing approach to the Palestinians. By constantly devastating any emerging Palestinian institution
or social structures, Israel produced a divide-and-rule model on steriods, creating a leaderless, ravaged, enfeebled society that
sucked out all the local population's energy. That strategy proved very appealing to the neoconservatives, who saw it as one they
could export to non-compliant states in the region.
The second was the Chicago school's Shock Doctrine, as explained in Naomi Klein's book of that name. The chaotic campaign of destruction,
the psychological trauma and the sense of dislocation created by these overthrow wars were supposed to engender a far more malleable
population that would be ripe for a US-controlled "colour revolution".
The recalcitrant states would be made an example of, broken apart, asset-stripped of their resources and eventually remade as
new dependent markets for US goods. That was what George W Bush, Dick Cheney and Halliburton really meant when they talked about
building a New Middle East and exporting democracy.
Even judged by the vile aims of its proponents, the Shock Doctrine has been a half-century story of
dismal economic failure everywhere it has been attempted
– from Pinochet's Chile to Yeltsin's Russia. But let us not credit the architects of this policy with any kind of acumen for learning
from past errors. As Bush's senior adviser Karl Rove explained to a journalist whom he rebuked for being part of the "reality-based
community": "We're an empire now and, when we act, we create our own reality."
The birth of Islamic State
The barely veiled aim of the attacks on Iraq, Libya and Syria was to destroy the institutions and structures that held these
societies together, however imperfectly. Though no one likes to mention it nowadays, these states – deeply authoritarian though they
were – were also secular, and had well-developed welfare states that ensured high rates of literacy and some of the region's finest
public health services.
Given how closed a society Syria was and is, and how difficult it therefore is to weigh the evidence in ways that are likely to
prove convincing to those not already persuaded, let us set that issue aside too. Anyway, it is irrelevant to the bigger picture
I want to address.
The indisputable fact is that Washington and its Gulf allies wished to exploit this initial unrest as an opportunity to create
a void in Syria – just as they had earlier done in Iraq, where there were no uprisings, nor even the WMDs the US promised would be
found and that served as the pretext for Bush's campaign of Shock and Awe.
The limited uprisings in Syria quickly turned into a much larger and far more vicious war because the Gulf states, with US backing,
flooded the country with proxy fighters and arms in an effort to overthrow Assad and thereby weaken Iranian and Shia influence in
the region. The events in Syria and earlier in Iraq gradually transformed the Sunni religious extremists of al-Qaeda into the even
more barbaric, more nihilistic extremists of Islamic State.
A dark US vanity project
After Rove and Cheney had had their fill playing around with reality, nature got on with honouring the maxim that it always
abhors a vacuum. Islamic State filled the vacuum Washington's policy had engineered.
The clue, after all, was in the name. With the US and Gulf states using oil money to wage a proxy war against Assad, Isis
saw its chance to establish a state inspired by a variety of Saudi Arabia's Wahhabist dogma. Isis needed territory for their planned
state, and the Saudis and US obliged by destroying Syria.
This barbarian army, one that murdered other religious groups as infidels and killed fellow Sunnis who refused to bow before
their absolute rule, became the west's chief allies in Syria. Directly and covertly, we gave them money and weapons to begin building
their state on parts of Syria.
Again, let us ignore the fact that the US, in helping to destroy a sovereign nation, committed the supreme war crime, one that
in a rightly ordered world would ensure every senior Washington official faces their own Nuremberg Trial. Let us ignore too for the
moment that the US, consciously through its actions, brought to life a monster that sowed death and destruction everywhere it went.
The fact is that at the moment Assad called in Russia to help him survive, the battle the US and the Gulf states were waging through
Islamic State and other proxies was lost. It was only a matter of time before Assad would reassert his rule.
From that point onwards, every single person who was killed and every single Syrian made homeless – and there were hundreds of
thousands of them – suffered their terrible fate for no possible gain in US policy goals. A vastly destructive overthrow war became
instead something darker still: a neoconservative vanity project that ravaged countless Syrian lives.
A giant red herring
Trump now appears to be ending part of that policy. He may be doing so for the wrong reasons. But very belatedly – and possibly
only temporarily – he is seeking to close a small chapter in a horrifying story of western-sponsored barbarism in the Middle East,
one intimately tied to Islamic State.
What of the supposed concerns of Pelosi and the Democratic Party under whose watch the barbarism in Syria took place. They should
have no credibility on the matter to begin with.
But their claims that Trump has "no plan to deal with a potential revival of Isis in the Middle East" is a giant red herring they
are viciously slapping us in the face with in the hope the spray of seawater blinds us.
First, Washington sowed the seeds of Islamic State by engineering a vacuum in Syria that Isis – or something very like it – was
inevitably going to fill. Then, it allowed those seeds to flourish by assisting its Gulf allies in showering fighters in Syria with
money and arms that came with only one string attached – a commitment to Sunni jihadist ideology inspired by Saudi Wahhabism.
Isis was made in Washington as much as it was in Riyadh. For that reason, the only certain strategy for preventing the revival
of Islamic State is preventing the US and the Gulf states from interfering in Syria again.
With the Syrian army in charge of Syrian territory, there will be no vacuum for Isis to fill. The jihadists' state-building project
is now unrealisable, at least in Syria. Islamic State will continue to wither, as it would have done years before if the US and its
Gulf allies had not fuelled it in a proxy war they knew could not be won.
Doomed Great Game
The same lesson can be drawn by looking at the experience of the Syrian Kurds. The Rojava fiefdom they managed to carve out in
northern Syria during the war survived till now only because of continuing US military support. With a US departure, and the Kurds
too weak to maintain their improvised statelet, a vacuum was again created that this time has risked sucking in the Turkish army,
which fears a base for Kurdish nationalism on its doorstep.
The Syrian Kurds' predicament is simple: face a takeover by Turkey or seek Assad's protection to foil Turkish ambitions. The best
hope for the Kurds looks to be the Syrian army's return, filling the vacuum and regaining a chance of long-term stability.
That could have been the case for all of Syria many tens of thousands of deaths ago. Whatever the corporate media suggest, those
deaths were lost not in a failed heroic battle for freedom, which, even if it was an early aspiration for some fighters, quickly
became a goal that was impossible for them to realise. No, those deaths were entirely pointless. They were sacrificed by a western
military-industrial complex in a US-Saudi Great Game that dragged on for many years after everyone knew it was doomed.
Nancy Pelosi's purported worries about Isis reviving because of Trump's Syria withdrawal are simply crocodile fears. If she is
really so worried about Islamic State, then why did she and other senior Democrats stand silently by as the US under Barack Obama
spent years spawning, cultivating and financing Isis to destroy Syria, a state that was best placed to serve as a bulwark against
the head-chopping extremists?
Pelosi and the Democratic leadership's bad faith – and that of the corporate media – are revealed in their ongoing efforts to
silence and smear Tulsi Gabbard, the party's only candidate for the presidential nomination who has pointed out the harsh political
realities in Syria, and tried to expose their years of lies.
Pelosi and most of the Democratic leadership don't care about Syria, or its population's welfare. They don't care about Assad,
or Isis. They care only about the maintenance and expansion of American power – and the personal wealth and influence it continues
to bestow on them.
Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His books include "Israel and the Clash of Civilisations:
Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East" (Pluto Press) and "Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair"
(Zed Books). His website is www.jonathan-cook.net .
The problem largely traces back to simple mistakes by prior Saudi administrations.
The Wahhabi were a threat to the royal family. So, the royal family funded them to go elsewhere. Given the craziness of Wahhabism
that made sense at the time. Crazy usually dies out. However, in this case the Crazy came with enough money in hand to establish
credibility. The extremist Muslim Brotherhood is a direct result of these exported extremism.
ISIS is the result of a schism inside the extremist Muslim Brotherhood. A "direct action" group wanted an even more extreme
and immediate solution and broke away.
-- Did the U.S. or Israel attempt to deploy ISIS? This is far-fetched beyond the bounds of reasonability. Violent, ultra-extreme
ISIS fanatics would not follow the commands of infidel heretics. The Saudi royal family by this point realized that the Muslim
Brotherhood was a threat to them just like the original Wahhabi, but they had no good way to undo their prior mistake.
-- Did Turkey attempt to use ISIS to weaken Syria and Iraq? This is far more probable. Turkey's AK party is also a schismatic
offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood. So, there is a great deal of opportunity for the two troops to find common cause. The New
Ottoman Empire needs to absorb Syrian and Iraqi land, so undermining those governments would be step #1.
One does not need outside actors to explain how the hole was dug. Unfortunately, that means there is no good solution. If the
problem was driven by outside forces, those forces could stop it. However, the reality is that there are no outside forces driving
the Craziness. There is no "plug to pull".
The wild savage dogs of ISIS are the Khmer Rouge of Islamic fundamentalism and their rise and violence should be attributed to
the liberal interventionism that has proven to be a disaster not only for the region but those who carried out the intervention.
"One does not need outside actors to explain how the hole was dug. Unfortunately, that means there is no good solution.
If the problem was driven by outside forces, those forces could stop it. However, the reality is that there are no outside
forces driving the Craziness. There is no 'plug to pull'".
Absolute nonsense. And what do you mean by "outside forces." The US and Israel count as outside forces but Turkey does not?
Forces outside of what?
ISIS emerged out of ISI, Zarqawi's Islamic State in Iraq, an affiliate, for a while, of AQ. The US invasion of Iraq created
the political and military space in Iraq for transnational terror groups.
Meanwhile, the US, at Israel's instigation, had been working to weaken Assad in Syria. After the rebellion against him in 2011,
the US, along with Turkey, Saudi, Qatar, Israel and others, began to support various jihadi groups inside Syria with the goal
of eliminating the Assad government, each for his own reasons. Syria began lost control of its border with Iraq and much of eastern
Syria and the Euphrates valley as well. This process allowed ISIS to emerge from an ISI under stress during the so-called "surge"
in 2007-10 and establish itself in Syria. In 2014, ISIS, now a powerful well-armed group went back into Iraq to defeat the incompetent
and unmotivated Iraq Security Forces that the US had established.
While the US moved against ISIS in Iraq after 2014, it left ISIS in Syria alone since it was depriving Assad of control over
most of Syria's oil and much of its arable land.
And yes, of course the US, instigated by Israel, didn't "deploy" ISIS in the sense of directing its operations. But they left
ISIS largely unimpeded to play a role in the overthrow of Assad which was always the primary goal. ISIS, it was thought, could
be dealt with later after Assad was gone.
That plan would probably have worked eventually, but the Russians entered the picture in the second half of 2015 and changed
the situation.
The US had been nominally supporting the usual "freedom fighters" but in effect supplying the more competent and vicious jihadis
who could take the TOW missiles and other weapons the US was providing to the approved sad-sacks and make more effective use of
them. Finally, with Russia and Iran facilitating the roll-back of all the jihadis, and the US threatened with being relegated
to the sidelines, Obama jumped on the SDF (Kurdish) bandwagon and actually started doing what the US had not done previously:
Taking serious action against ISIS so that a Russian/Iranian-backed Syrian reconquest of eastern Syria could be pre-empted.
And of course, the biggest supporter of the Kurds has consistently been Israel, who sees the possibility of creating pro-Israel
statelets or at least enclaves in the midst of a Turkish, Iranian and Arab region that detests the Judenreich.
So in order to eliminate another of Israel's enemies, reduce a unified Syrian state to a handful of even more impotent emirates
and ensure that Bibi would not be pestered with legal questions over the seizure and retention of the Golan, Syria was laid waste
under the guise of "promoting democracy" and then further devastated under the guise of combatting ISIS.
We have done more than enough damage at the behest of Israel and its fifth column in the US. ISIS might well have emerged regardless
of US actions, but it was the Jew-induced insanity of US regime-change/COIN policies that created the geographical, political
and military space in Iraq and Syria for the jihadists and the ensuing physical destruction of so much of those countries.
The best solution would be to facilitate the re-establishment of Syrian sovereignty over all of Syria. But instead of doing
that, Trump has instead facilitated the entry of Turkish forces and allied jihadis in an attempt to mend fences with a thoroughly
alienated Erdogan. We'll see if Putin can mitigate the brutal incompetence of Israel-infected US policy.
@A123 For fuck's sake. Is there any way to stop Hasbara agents from effectively using software to get consistent first posts
on this site?
Their mere presence is annoying. Whatever they have to say, on any topic and no matter what it is, no one here wants to read
it because they are not beginning with any credibility whatsoever. As they are are religiously-avowed enemies of the West (who
they hold to be the continuation of Rome) and the demonstrated fervent enemies of non-Jewish Whites.
Given the craziness of Wahhabism
There is nothing in Sunni Islam that does not have its root in Judaism. To state otherwise is to be a typical Semitic liar.
A very real but completely unadvertised reality of these regime changes was that the publicly owned central bank of the country
– Iraq and Libya – was eliminated and changed to a private central bank. Iraq and Libya both succumbed and Ron Paul related that
the smoke had barely cleared in Libya before the private central bank charter was drafted and implemented. Syria and Iran are
the last two countries that do not have a private central banks. Hence the drive by the neo-cons to destroy those countries and
fully implement the New World (banking) Order.
Not widely discussed but (I think) vitally important to understanding foreign policy.
What of the supposed concerns of Pelosi and the Democratic Party under whose watch the barbarism in Syria took place. They should
have no credibility on the matter to begin with.
But their claims that Trump has "no plan to deal with a potential revival of Isis in the Middle East" is a giant red herring
they are viciously slapping us in the face with in the hope the spray of seawater blinds us.
I love the second para. Getting slapped with a red herring with hope that the salt water blinds us .
My only gripe with Jonathan Cook is that this and all mid-eastern conflicts are engineered by the dual citizens and Israel
isn't called out by him as the chief instigator. The saudis are slave of the west and amount to nothing.
@A123 " Did the U.S. or Israel attempt to deploy ISIS? This is far-fetched beyond the bounds of reasonability"
Perhaps. Except that it did happen in plain daylight, before our eyes, but we should, of course, trust your "reasonability" --
instead of our own lying eyes.
@A123 US President Donald Trump said Monday that a small number of US troops remain in Syria at the request of Israel and
Jordan, with some positioned near the borders with Jordan and Israel and others deployed to secure oil fields.
"The other region where we've been asked by Israel and Jordan to leave a small number of troops is a totally different section
of Syria, near Jordan, and close to Israel," Trump said when asked whether he would leave soldiers in Syria. "So we have a small
group there, and we secured the oil. Other than that, there's no reason for it, in our opinion."
Times of Israel
and J Post 21st oct
It 's all about Israel and for its "royal patsy when not for royal patsy it's for the cannon fodder/ foot solder of Israel.
This mayhem from 2003 hasn't seen the full effects of the blow-back yet .Just starting . Tulsi Gabbard and Trump have knowingly
and sometime unknowingly have told the master that the king never had any clothes even when the king was talking about the decency
of having clothes on .
"The first was Israel's long-standing approach to the Palestinians. By constantly devastating any emerging Palestinian institution
or social structures, Israel produced a divide-and-rule model on steriods, creating a leaderless, ravaged, enfeebled society that
sucked out all the local population's energy. That strategy proved very appealing to the neoconservatives, who saw it as one they
could export to non-compliant states in the region."-
This sums up everything one want to know about certain human clones and the impact of the clones on the humanity.
Who will ever blame the victims for creating a future Hitler among them ?
We cannot, of course, forget an assistance this witch had from very GOPiish Senators such as late American hero John McCain
and his buddy Lindsey Graham. They played a key role in supporting all kinds of jihadist elements.
Let's be accurate: It was US Democrats AND REPUBLICANS who helped cultivate the barbarism of Isis. The mess was started with
Bush/Cheney/Powell. McCain was probably the biggest ISIS guy ever. Graham, Romney and friends are the same, and at best marginally
better than Hitlery Clinton.
Lock them all up, regardless of party affiliation.
Many interesting points here, and I agree with a lot of them. But:
[MORE]
"Or was it driven by something else: as a largely economic protest by an under-class suffering from food shortages as climate
change led to repeated crop failures?"
Syria did run out of water, and it's hard not to see that as a major driver of the chaos that unfolded. But Syria didn't run
out of water because of "climate change," that's false.
The explanation is that the Syrian government deliberately engineered a massive population explosion. Seriously, they made
the sale and possession of contraceptives a crime! (See "Demographic Developments and Population: Policies in Ba'thist Syria (Demographic
Developments and Socioeconomics)", by Onn Winkler).
The population of Syria increased exponentially right up through 2010, with a doubling time of about 18 years, at which
point food ran out and population started trending downwards (not so much due to outright famine, as to poverty, lack of medical
care, warfare, and people fleeing the country.).
Now as far as weather goes, there were a couple of dry years before the collapse, but weather is always like that. Last year
there were record rainfalls. If Syria's population had been stable at 5 or even 10 million, they could have coasted on water stored
in the aquifers until the rains came back. But when the population increases so much that you drain the aquifers even when there
is plenty of rain, then when a temporary drought hits you have no reserve and it all falls apart.
Check out the section in wikipedia on Syria's aquifers and groundwater – the water table had been dropping drastically
as far back as 1985. Long before the post-2010 dry spell, Syria's rapid population growth had been consuming more water than fell
as rain – EVEN DURING WET YEARS. The low rainfall post-2010 was an early trigger, but the collapse would have come regardless.
simple and straightforward journalism that cuts through the "corporate veil." Tulsi may not win the democratic nomination,
but I see her determination to educate the majority of Americans of what our government/deep state/military industrial complex/and
later senators who become lobbyists are doing.
I also feel for our veterans who are indoctrinated to protect freedom, but in the end, when they come home injured and disabled,
or even dead, it was all for naught.
I find some of the rhetoric in this piece irritating and repetitive -- but the analysis is essentially correct.
We created a power vacuum that was almost certain to give rise to something like ISIS.
Worse, I suspect that many weren't too disturbed by this prospect. After all, ISIS and its incredibly vicious terrorist
attacks in the West did a great deal to fuel Islamophobia -- and Islamophobia has its uses. ISIS was probably the best thing to
happen to Israel since 9/11.
"The problem is neatly illustrated in this line from a report by the Guardian newspaper of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's meeting
this week with Trump, who is described as having had a "meltdown". "
That's a poorly written statement. It reads as though Trump was the one having a meltdown. How about: "House Speaker Pelosi's
meltdown during a meeting with Trump." ?
@MarathonMan That is a fact that should be kept foremost in the discussions of "why regime change is necessary". It is the
most basic and obvious reason for all this war in the ME.
"First, Washington sowed the seeds of Islamic State by engineering a vacuum in Syria that Isis – or something very like
it – was inevitably going to fill."
Not quite accurate. The US Government "sowed the seeds of" ISIS by giving them material support before the vacuum was created.
IS is mainly a creature of empire, including the US and older remnants of empire in the UK and Europe which survives mainly in
the existence of (international) banks.
@Christian truth Project "Tulsi is/was a member of the CFR". Aren't all Congressmen members? Doesn't that come with signing
the AIPAC form, getting the secret decoder ring from Adam Schiff, and the free trip to Israel? (maybe Ilhan Omar and Rashida Talib
"don't measure up?")
I believe CFR was the organization Biden was regaling with his story of holding up $one billion in Ukrainian
aid unless the Ukrainians fired the investigator of his son Hunter "who did nothing wrong". Can you imagine if Biden had been
President rather than VP? This would have been a scandal!
@A123 One does not need outside actors, but then there would be a lot of 'dark matter' in the history of the ME over the last
100 years. Personally it's plain state terrorism to me, and the Brits have a good definition!
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/part/I
Pelosi and most of the Democratic leadership don't care about Syria, or its population's welfare. They don't care about
Assad, or Isis. They care only about the maintenance and expansion of American power
Correction: They only care about the maintenance and expansion of Israeli power.
I think it is worse than that : ISIS was a creation by the Israel-US- Saudi Arabia-Gulf States-axis.
Significantly ISIS never attacked Israeli interests, and when it once did so by accident, it apologized to Israel. The destruction
of Syria is part of Israel's notorious Oded Yinon plan, according to which all states in Israel's neighborhood need to be fragmentized.
In Iraq and Libya that was a success, in Syria, thanks to Iran, Hizbollah and Russia, it failed. The US is simply a puppet for
Israel's foreign policy, but nobody in the US, not even Tulsi Gabbard, dares to say so.
@A123 Sorry Bibi, but your beloved Israel played a BIG part in establishing ISIS, then supporting it with shekels, medical
care for their wounded, training and weapons.
WikiLeaks: US, Israel, And Saudi Arabia Planned Overthrow Of Syrian Govt. In 2006
Cables reveal that before the beginning of the Syrian revolt and civil war, the United States hoped to overthrow Assad and
create strife between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.
Let's not forget that when the term ISIS first came out, the Tel Aviv war mongers realized it stood for Israeli Secret Intelligence
Services and changed that to ISIL, which their adoring MSM gladly obliged by parroting that change.
From the Israeli masterminded 9/11 False Flag to the destruction of Syria, there's one common factor, Israel and her American
Jew sayanim who keep pushing America into forever wars so Israel can finish off the Palestinians and steal more land.
@Digital Samizdat Absolutely. Gabbard is the "Democrat" Trump. A Jew puppet presented as an outsider. They're exactly the
same. Even Obama was presented that way to an extent.
Yet the dumb goyim will fall for it for the third time in a row.
Based on the whistleblower's extensive presentation, including internal emails, text exchanges and suppressed draft reports,
we are unanimous in expressing our alarm over unacceptable practices in the investigation of the alleged chemical attack in
Douma, near the Syrian capital of Damascus on 7 April 2018. We became convinced by the testimony that key information about
chemical analyses, toxicology consultations, ballistics studies, and witness testimonies was suppressed, ostensibly to favor
a preordained conclusion.
We have learned of disquieting efforts to exclude some inspectors from the investigation whilst thwarting their attempts
to raise legitimate concerns, highlight irregular practices or even to express their differing observations and assessments
-- a right explicitly conferred on inspectors in the Chemical Weapons Convention, evidently with the intention of ensuring
the independence and authoritativeness of inspection reports.
Fixed "report" of OPCW was necessary to maintain anti-Assad narrative which is now unchallenged even by Gabbard (not to mention
the weak sheep-dog Sanders).
@Ilyana_Rozumova The US does not have to directly support the jihadists. It just has to manage the chaos, for whatever be
the action on the ground and whoever is killed or not killed, as long as there is chaos within their chosen sandbox, the chaos
masters in Israel wins and that is all that counts with all too many Americans. It doesn't matter how many Arabs, Turks, Etruscans
or Kurds are killed, as long as Israel's interests are taken care of, the results are "worth it". Its a very deeply cynical, and
evil policy that the US has pursued all these years in the Mid-East.
But fortunately the Russians have turned things around.
@MarathonMan Gangster business and slavery are OK so long as our central bank gets our cut. ME is also about "fragmenting"
neighboring countries so Israel can expand. Yinon Plan.
Oct 18, 2019 Tulsi Gabbard responds to Hillary Clinton: Clinton "knows she can't control me"
Hillary Clinton implied Russians are "grooming" Tulsi Gabbard to run as a third-party candidate to disrupt the election, a
charge which Gabbard denies. In a live interview with CBSN, Gabbard responds to Clinton's claims and says she will not run as
a third-party candidate.
And now, according to the latest news, Trump will send tanks into Syria to help the Kurds secure the oil for Israel. It's hard
to understand why the Elders of the Deep State want to impeach Trump. He has done everything they wanted, moved the embassy, gave
Syria's Golan Heights to Israel, never criticizes the illegal settlements in Palestine. What else do they want from him?
What do you mean Pelosi has no credibility? Have you checked her bank balance lately? Nancy, had she not waded into politics,
would have been a pole dancer she had the goods for it.
@TG Excellent post. You bring up 2 very important but rarely discussed issues.
Demographics: Population is one of the most easily predictable developments within a country, and you'd think it might be one
of the most publically-discussed, and therefore, best-managed. Au contraire. Assad wasn't the only one who stood on the tracks
watching the headlights approach:
1. The EU is having problems with an aging native population because it earlier encouraged low birth rates, and is now promoting
mass immigration of rapidly-breeding immigrants who threaten to at least overwhelm if not overrun European society. Yet, as Douglas
Murray points out in his book The Strange Death of Europe, openly talking about this problem has been, and still is, verboten.
2. China is now wondering to do with its preponderance of young men, caused very predictably by the Communist Party's one-child
policy.
Climate:
If the rains had been good every single year – which is impossible – it would only have pushed the point of collapse back
a few years, at most.
The Syrian case you cite shows how even relatively minor climate changes can carry events past a tipping point. I do agree
with you that effects of APGW on climactic conditions are greatly exaggerated, yet changes in climate, for good or ill, have often
triggered much larger historical events. The cooling that caused a famine and that preceded the Justinian Plague weakened European
and Sassanian civilizations. These misfortunes paved the way for the Islamic takeover that followed. Contrariwise, Norse exploration
and the Renaissance, to give 2 examples of increasing activity, both occurred during the Medieval Warming Period.
When it comes to senior American politihoes, no one is ever right. Pelosi may be cultivating the ISIS, but Gabbard is busy blowing
assorted dictators and more closer to the heart, the hindoo nationalist queers, as impotent (I mean that in a literal sexual context,
as their elites don't marry) as they might be.
Tulsi needs to conduct herself with gravitas, because of her age. However, she is helped by the fact that the leader of the progressive
wing is a former bartender, and the leader of the environmental resistance is a high-school sophomore.
@MarathonMan It goes without comment that the first act of the US following Nudelman's (Why do these fuckers keep changing
their names?) Ukraine coup was to steal its gold.
"Pelosi and most of the Democratic leadership don't care about Syria, or its population's welfare. They don't care about Assad,
or Isis. They care only about the maintenance and expansion of their own Democratic Party power – for the personal wealth and
influence it continues to bestow on them."
FTFY
Just as the GOP is precisely and thoroughly corrupt in exactly the same way, focused exclusively on their own craven self-interest,
the country be damned.
There is nothing in Sunni Islam that does not have its root in Judaism. To state otherwise is to be a typical Semitic liar.
Lol! Deceitful lies from some godless/pagan whitrash.
If you are referring to some self-perceived notions of barbarity/deception/etc., within Islam, then you are a deceitful !@#
who is trying to cover up the sheer savagery/psychopathy/deception/hypocrisy/etc., of the Christoo whitrash race.
Again, as far as the roots of Islam being in Judaism, that is laughable. It is Christooism which is clearly having roots in
Judaism (there have been so many here who have quoted from your pagan scriptures about the haloed position of the Jooscum)
and Hindooism .
In-his-image mangods/womangods, Trinity/Trimurthi, the human body is the temple of god the list is long where you all share
your pagan theologies.
Islam utterly rejects all such pagan abominations. The following verses of the Holy Quran amply proves the simplest and purest
form of monotheism, that is Islam;
Say, "He is Allah, [who is] One, Allah, the Eternal Refuge. He neither begets nor is born , Nor is there to Him
any equivalent ."
@A123 "Did the U.S. or Israel attempt to deploy ISIS? This is far-fetched beyond the bounds of reasonability."
Wrong.
The Oded Yinon Plan employs exactly this strategy, and along with the Neocon dominated State Dept with its Regime Change program
(Oded Yinon plan in stealth mode) is the predicate. Meanwhile, once it emerged, Obama & Kerry sought to preserve ISIS as a means
to pressure Assad. Neocon Zionist fifth column in the US, & Israel-behind-the-scenes are the dual agency-behind-the-curtain of
US regime-change wars ***EVERYWHERE*** (because they hate Russia, too.).
@DESERT FOX And rule, finally, over a smoldering wreck of a planet? They already rule most of it, they're at the Endgame of
their long match with the world. Not that they eschew violence and mass murder. Indeed, they got their start thousands years ago
by worshiping a god who told them to genocide all their neighbors and steal all their goods.
@really no shit I'm in the same age cohort as most of these shameless grifters, so I know the end of this run on earth is
drawing near. I know that no one can take whatever they accumulate in this life with them into oblivion or whatever their imagined
version of paradise might be. The loot stays here in this vale of tears.
ALL of these players busy ruining and ending lives, like Pelosi, the Clintons and the Bush family, are multi-millionaires at
the least–and all on the taxpayers' dime. Why do they desperately seek to add ever more cash to their bank accounts by bringing
yet more misery into the world? It won't be very long and either the collection of psychopaths known as the government of the
United States and its ruthless war machine will end up with the proceeds or they will pass down to further generations of these
congenital parasites and deadbeats.
Does Joe ask himself whether it was worthy to spend his wretched life accumulating ill-gotten wealth to pass on to Hunter and
his ilk? Or for Hillary to set up Chelsea and the next generation of Rodham Clinton lampreys? Jimmy Carter seems to have been
the only American president who didn't constantly grasp for money once out of office and the world never heard a peep about Amy
ever again.
[MORE]
[EDITOR'S NOTE: Since publication, this story has been corrected to clarify that the fighters trained in Jordan became members
of the ISIS after their training.]
JERUSALEM – Syrian rebels who would later join the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, or ISIS, were trained in 2012 by U.S.
instructors working at a secret base in Jordan, according to informed Jordanian officials.
The officials said dozens of future ISIS members were trained at the time as part of covert aid to the insurgents targeting
the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in Syria. The officials said the training was not meant to be used for any future
campaign in Iraq.
The Jordanian officials said all ISIS members who received U.S. training to fight in Syria were first vetted for any links to
extremist groups like al-Qaida.
In February 2012, WND was first to report the U.S., Turkey and Jordan were running a training base for the Syrian rebels in
the Jordanian town of Safawi in the country's northern desert region.
That report has since been corroborated by numerous other media accounts.
Last March, the German weekly Der Spiegel reported Americans were training Syrian rebels in Jordan.
Quoting what it said were training participants and organizers, Der Spiegel reported it was not clear whether the Americans
worked for private firms or were with the U.S. Army, but the magazine said some organizers wore uniforms. The training in Jordan
reportedly focused on use of anti-tank weaponry.
The German magazine reported some 200 men received the training over the previous three months amid U.S. plans to train a total
of 1,200 members of the Free Syrian Army in two camps in the south and the east of Jordan.
Britain's Guardian newspaper also reported last March that U.S. trainers were aiding Syrian rebels in Jordan along with British
and French instructors.
Reuters reported a spokesman for the U.S. Defense Department declined immediate comment on the German magazine's report. The
French foreign ministry and Britain's foreign and defense ministries also would not comment to Reuters.
Conservative government watchdog Judicial Watch have published formerly classified documents from the U.S. Department of Defence
which reveals the agencies earlier views on ISIS, namely that they were a desirable presence in Eastern Syria in 2012 and that
they should be "supported" in order to isolate the Syrian regime.
Levantreport.com reports:
Astoundingly, the newly declassified report states that for "THE WEST, GULF COUNTRIES, AND TURKEY [WHO] SUPPORT THE [SYRIAN] OPPOSITION
THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A DECLARED OR UNDECLARED SALAFIST PRINCIPALITY IN EASTERN SYRIA (HASAKA AND DER ZOR),
AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE SUPPORTING POWERS TO THE OPPOSITION WANT, IN ORDER TO ISOLATE THE SYRIAN REGIME ".
The DIA report, formerly classified "SECRET//NOFORN" and dated August 12, 2012, was circulated widely among various government
agencies, including CENTCOM, the CIA, FBI, DHS, NGA, State Dept., and many others.
The document shows that as early as 2012, U.S. intelligence predicted the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant
(ISIL or ISIS), but instead of clearly delineating the group as an enemy, the report envisions the terror group as a U.S. strategic
asset.
Government watchdog Judicial Watch published more than 100 pages of formerly classified documents from the U.S. Department
of Defense and the State Department.
The documents obtained through a federal lawsuit, revealed the agencies earlier views on ISIS, namely that they were a desirable
presence in Eastern Syria in 2012 and that they should be "supported" in order to isolate the Syrian regime.
The U.S. intelligence documents not only confirms suspicions that the United States and some of its coalition allies had actually
facilitated the rise of the ISIS in Syria – as a counterweight to the Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad- but also
that ISIS members were initially trained by members and contractors of the Central Intelligence Agency at facilities in Jordan
in 2012.
@Anonymous Jimmah was the last honest man in American politics. But since he told Americans that gas was going to cost more,
that perhaps they needed to drive a wee bit less, the Americans hated him. They didn't like the "malaise" of having to pay for
their lifestyle.
As for the Israelis, what did Jimmah not to do for them : Got Egypt out of the Arab alliance, arranged the annual tribute to
Israel, started the ball rolling on the Holocaust religion, paid off Egypt and Jordan to stay away from any alliance against the
Israelis. But what did he get in return; branded as anti-Semite merely for mentioning that the Palestinians had rights, were human
beings too. With the Zionist Jews, one is always on probation. No point playing their silly games.
The path of U.S.-Israeli arrogance and domination, with its various dimensions, and with its direct and indirect extensions
and alliances, which is witnessing military defeats and political failures, reflected successive defeats for the American strategies
and plans, one after the other. All this has led [the U.S.] to a state of indecision, retreat, and inability to control the progress
of events in our Arab and Islamic world. There is a broader international context for this – a context that, in its turn, helps
to expose the American crisis, and the decline of the [U.S.] unipolar hegemony, in the face of pluralism, the characteristics
of which are yet to be stabilized.
"The crisis of the arrogant world order is deepened by the collapse of U.S. and international stock markets, and by the confusion
and powerlessness of the American economy. This reflects the height of the structural crisis of the model of capitalist arrogance.
Therefore, it can be said that we are in the midst of historic transformations that foretell the retreat of the USA as a hegemonic
power, the disintegration of the unipolar hegemonic order, and the beginning of the accelerated historic decline of the Zionist
entity.
After World War II, the U.S. has adopted the leading, central hegemonic project. At its hands, this project has witnessed great
development of the means of control and unprecedented subjugation. It has benefited from an accumulation of multi-faceted accomplishments
in science, culture, technology, knowledge, economy, and the military, which was supported by an economic political plan that
views the world as nothing but open markets subject to the laws of [the U.S.].
"The most dangerous aspect of Western logic of hegemony in general, and the American logic of hegemony in particular, is their
basic belief that they own the world, and have the right to hegemony due to their supremacy in several fields. Thus, the Western,
and especially American, expansionist strategy, when coupled with the enterprise of capitalist economy, has become a strategy
of a global nature, whose covetous desires and appetite know no bounds.
The barbaric capitalism has turned globalism into a means to spread disintegration, to sow discord, to destroy identities,
and to impose the most dangerous form of cultural, economic, and social plunder. Globalization reached its most dangerous phase,
when it was transformed into military globalization by the owners of the Western hegemony enterprise, the greatest manifestation
of which was evident in the Middle East, from Afghanistan to Iraq, to Palestine, and to Lebanon.
There is no doubt that American terrorism is the source of all terrorism in the world. The Bush administration has turned the
U.S. into a danger threatening the whole world, on all levels. If a global opinion poll were held today, the United States would
emerge as the most hated country in the world.
The most important goal of American arrogance is to take control of the peoples politically, economically, and culturally,
and to plunder their resources.
– Hassan Nasrallah December 8, 2009
and Trump IS NOT "pulling out" Will Tulsi? One way to find out. Doesn't look good though, unless shes willing to splinter the
C.I.A. into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds, as they say..
Where's the proof that she is CFR member, I see sock puppets parrot this line all the time but offer no proof. Her serving
on the armed & financial services committees and doing a speech for them doesn't make her a member. I'd take her over Trump any
day.
1. CIA, Hillary Clinton, 'Rothschild-Octopus' money power. Altogether, British Israel
(Zionism).
2. Pentagon-NSA, Donald Trump, second tier elites including, for example, Sheldon Adelson.
Altogether, Israel (and the USA) First.
If these are the primary factions vying for control of the New World Order, why did HRC
throw Tulsi such a honkin' big bone by calling her a Russian asset?
Clinton has endorsed Gabbard in the same way Catholicism endorses sin: ergo, there is a
working agreement between all Globalist factions for a final settlement of WW3.
Or is there a better explanation for HRC's non endorsement endorsement of TG?
Should we also mention both are card carrying members of the Council on Foreign
Relations?
Understanding we are ruled by a duopoly of 1st and 2nd tier elites is essential piecing
together who represents whom - and what it means for the vast majority of humanity, which
remains generally ignorant and utterly voiceless.
Class is everything, which is why both Globalizing tiers have agreed to, amongst other
things, pretend we don't exist. Clinton threw Tulsi a bone so that Tulsi could throw us
another, but it all counts for nothing when the bill for elite criminality comes due. Both
factions agree that We the People, the unrepresented Third Estate, will be paying for
everything.
With a great weeping, gnashing of teeth, rending of garments and clutching of pearls, the Democrats have declared that the
decision to withdraw troops from Syria was a
mortal sin .
Joe Biden called it "the most shameful thing that any president has done in modern history in terms of foreign policy." Elizabeth
Warren said Trump "has cut and run on our allies," and "created a bigger-than-ever humanitarian crisis." Kamala Harris announced,
"Yet again Donald Trump [is] selling folks out."
However, it required Mayor Buttigieg to make it a personal
moral imperative .
Meanwhile, soldiers in the field are reporting that for the first time they feel ashamed -- ashamed -- of what their country
has done.
Democrats are totally honest and sincere here. It's not like they would have any
double-standards on this issue.
When Muir asked Buttigieg whether he would stick to his pledge to withdraw all U.S. troops from Afghanistan in his first year
despite warnings from top American commanders, Buttigieg ducked the question and insisted that "we have got to put an end to
endless war." Turning to Biden, Muir cited "concerns about any possible vacuum being created in Afghanistan." But Biden brushed
them off, declaring, "We don't need those troops there. I would bring them home."
What makes these statements so remarkable is that experts warn that if the United States withdraws its troops from Afghanistan
in the absence of a peace agreement, Afghanistan will suffer a fate remarkably similar to what is happening in northern Syria.
It's not like this issue is anything less than black or white.
It's not like we would eventually have
the
choice of supporting either a Kurdish/Arab militia tied however loosely to the PKK, a designated terror group perceived by
Turkey as an existential threat, or
Turkey , a NATO member.
We keep hearing how we "betrayed our allies," but who promised the Kurds that we would fight Turkey on their behalf? It's
a big jump from "Let's both fight ISIS" to "Take that, NATO ally." But our garbage media, and our garbage politicians, sort
of hand wave away the fact that you can't "betray" someone by not doing what you never promised to do, especially when no reasonable
person could ever expect you to do it.
Oh wait. It's exactly like that.
All this virtue-signaling amounts to "I want you to send your sons and daughters to kill and maybe die fighting a long-time ally
because otherwise 'Putin will win'!"
Yes, Putin will get more control over a war-torn country, a ruined economy, with bombed-out cities, and millions of refugees.
Why must we deny him of this again?
And then there is the
lack of an AUMF
for us being in Syria. Which makes our occupation of Syria illegal, both by domestic law, and
international law .
Syria is not our country and U.S. troops were never authorized by its sovereign government to be there. Whether or not Washington
likes Damascus is irrelevant, under international law U.S. troops have no right to be there. Even flights over Syrian airspace
by the U.S. coalition are a violation of international agreements.
Why doesn't Bernie or Gabbard mention that this is an illegal war? People might care.
Also, does anyone remember when putting troops in Syria was something to be avoided?
Does anyone else remember the
16 times Obama said there would be no boots on the ground in Syria?
Since 2013, President Obama has repeatedly vowed that there would be no "boots on the ground" in Syria.
But White House press secretary Josh Earnest said the president's decision Friday to send up to 50 special forces troops
to Syria doesn't change the fundamental strategy: "This is an important thing for the American people to understand. These
forces do not have a combat mission."
We now have a stage full of presidential candidates that say they love Obama, yet ignore this part of his legacy (that he himself
violated).
Finally there is our legacy in Syria. Our legacy of
war crimes .
"The Commission finds that there are reasonable grounds to believe that international coalition forces may not have directed
their attacks at a specific military objective, or failed to do so with the necessary precaution," it said.
"Launching indiscriminate attacks that result in death or injury to civilians amounts to a war crime in cases in which such
attacks are conducted recklessly," it added.
Engaging in an illegal war while committing war crimes is a "full stop" right there. No amount of virtue-signaling can justify
this.
And yet it still gets worse
.
In a now-famous secretly recorded conversation with Syrian opposition activists in New York, Former Secretary of State John
Kerry admitted that the United States was hoping to use ISIS to undermine the Syrian government. To put it bluntly, U.S. foreign
policy was duplicitous and used terrorism as a tool. This, of course, is a well-documented fact.
If we had a real media these candidates would all be crucified.
gjohnsit on Fri, 10/18/2019 - 5:38pm With a great weeping, gnashing of teeth, rending of garments and clutching of pearls,
the Democrats have declared that the decision to withdraw troops from Syria was a
mortal sin .
Joe Biden called it "the most shameful thing that any president has done in modern history in terms of foreign policy." Elizabeth
Warren said Trump "has cut and run on our allies," and "created a bigger-than-ever humanitarian crisis." Kamala Harris announced,
"Yet again Donald Trump [is] selling folks out."
However, it required Mayor Buttigieg to make it a personal
moral imperative .
Meanwhile, soldiers in the field are reporting that for the first time they feel ashamed -- ashamed -- of what their country has
done.
Democrats are totally honest and sincere here. It's not like they would have any
double-standards on this issue.
When Muir asked Buttigieg whether he would stick to his pledge to withdraw all U.S. troops from Afghanistan in his first year
despite warnings from top American commanders, Buttigieg ducked the question and insisted that "we have got to put an end to endless
war." Turning to Biden, Muir cited "concerns about any possible vacuum being created in Afghanistan." But Biden brushed them off,
declaring, "We don't need those troops there. I would bring them home."
What makes these statements so remarkable is that experts warn that if the United States withdraws its troops from Afghanistan
in the absence of a peace agreement, Afghanistan will suffer a fate remarkably similar to what is happening in northern Syria.
It's not like this issue is anything less than black or white.
It's not like we would eventually have
the choice
of supporting either a Kurdish/Arab militia tied however loosely to the PKK, a designated terror group perceived by Turkey as an
existential threat, or
Turkey , a NATO member.
We keep hearing how we "betrayed our allies," but who promised the Kurds that we would fight Turkey on their behalf? It's a
big jump from "Let's both fight ISIS" to "Take that, NATO ally." But our garbage media, and our garbage politicians, sort of hand
wave away the fact that you can't "betray" someone by not doing what you never promised to do, especially when no reasonable person
could ever expect you to do it.
Oh wait. It's exactly like that.
All this virtue-signaling amounts to "I want you to send your sons and daughters to kill and maybe die fighting a long-time ally
because otherwise 'Putin will win'!"
Yes, Putin will get more control over a war-torn country, a ruined economy, with bombed-out cities, and millions of refugees. Why
must we deny him of this again?
And then there is the
lack of an AUMF
for us being in Syria. Which makes our occupation of Syria illegal, both by domestic law, and
international law .
Syria is not our country and U.S. troops were never authorized by its sovereign government to be there. Whether or not Washington
likes Damascus is irrelevant, under international law U.S. troops have no right to be there. Even flights over Syrian airspace
by the U.S. coalition are a violation of international agreements.
Why doesn't Bernie or Gabbard mention that this is an illegal war? People might care.
Also, does anyone remember when putting troops in Syria was something to be avoided?
Does anyone else remember the
16 times Obama said there would be no boots on the ground in Syria?
Since 2013, President Obama has repeatedly vowed that there would be no "boots on the ground" in Syria.
But White House press secretary Josh Earnest said the president's decision Friday to send up to 50 special forces troops to
Syria doesn't change the fundamental strategy: "This is an important thing for the American people to understand. These forces
do not have a combat mission."
We now have a stage full of presidential candidates that say they love Obama, yet ignore this part of his legacy (that he himself
violated).
Finally there is our legacy in Syria. Our legacy of
war crimes .
"The Commission finds that there are reasonable grounds to believe that international coalition forces may not have directed their
attacks at a specific military objective, or failed to do so with the necessary precaution," it said.
"Launching indiscriminate attacks that result in death or injury to civilians amounts to a war crime in cases in which such
attacks are conducted recklessly," it added.
Engaging in an illegal war while committing war crimes is a "full stop" right there. No amount of virtue-signaling can justify
this.
And yet it still gets worse
.
In a now-famous secretly recorded conversation with Syrian opposition activists in New York, Former Secretary of State John Kerry
admitted that the United States was hoping to use ISIS to undermine the Syrian government. To put it bluntly, U.S. foreign policy
was duplicitous and used terrorism as a tool. This, of course, is a well-documented fact.
If we had a real media these candidates would all be crucified.
The UAE is pumping millions of dollars into "vast and influential" lobbying efforts in the US, using a range of public relations
companies to help shape foreign policy issues, a report by a Washington-based non-profit alleged this week.
The report published by the Center for International Policy (CIP) claims that 20 US companies were paid around $20 million
to lobby politicians and other influential institutions on foreign policy issues.
"Though the Emirati's influence operation differs notably from the Saudi's in many ways, both rely heavily on their FARA
registered lobbying and public relations firms to brandish their image in the US, and to keep their transgressions out of the
public consciousness as much as possible," the report reads.
The report is part of CIP's Foreign Influence Transparency Initiative, which aims to elucidate the "half-billion-dollar
foreign influence industry working to shape US foreign policy every single day".
The report added Emirati influence operation targeted legislators, non-profits, media outlets and think-tanks in an attempt
to portray the UAE to the world in a positive light.
The New Arab article quote "public relations firms to brandish their image in the US" has a word usage problem. The correct
word would be burnish, not brandish. You brandish your weapon. You burnish your image.
The UAE is pumping millions of dollars into "vast and influential" lobbying efforts in the US, using a range of public
relations companies to help shape foreign policy issues, a report by a Washington-based non-profit alleged this week.
The report published by the Center for International Policy (CIP) claims that 20 US companies were paid around $20 million
to lobby politicians and other influential institutions on foreign policy issues.
"Though the Emirati's influence operation differs notably from the Saudi's in many ways, both rely heavily on their FARA
registered lobbying and public relations firms to brandish their image in the US, and to keep their transgressions out of
the public consciousness as much as possible," the report reads.
The report is part of CIP's Foreign Influence Transparency Initiative, which aims to elucidate the "half-billion-dollar
foreign influence industry working to shape US foreign policy every single day".
The report added Emirati influence operation targeted legislators, non-profits, media outlets and think-tanks in an attempt
to portray the UAE to the world in a positive light.
a lot of people think it is actually kind of *staged* by an agreement with Russia and Turkey, and if so, it'll force the United
States out of northern Syria, make the US look stupid, but actually give everybody what they want. Check it out:
--Turkey makes some initial attacks in northern Syria, tells the US to get out of the way and abandon the Kurds
--The Kurds are forced to ally with Syrian forces, and they are swept into the Syrian Army ranks (negating their ability to
go independent)
--The Syrian Army moves to the border and starts manning border crossings (already happening in many places), providing a long-term
buffer between Kurds and Turkey
--The Turkish-backed terrorist forces are expended in border confrontations (Turkey really does not want them long-term)
--Once things settle down, Syrian refugees move back into Syria, out of Turkey
--US forces are forced to move out of northeastern Syria and out of the oil fields (or be surrounded and starved out by Syrian/Russian/Kurdish
forces)
--Kurds are not wholesale slaughtered, and Democratic presidential candidates are revealed for their foolishness in the whole
thing
--Trump gets more of what he wants--more US troops out of Syria (against the wishes of the deep state)
--Turkey has a protected border and the incesant attacks from Kurds drops to manageable levels due to the Syrian army border
and the Kurds becoming integrated into Syrian forces.
I give this a 50% of how it will play out. Sure, there are current battles ongoing, but so far, Turkey is not attacking Syrian
forces, who are moving up into place on the border in many areas. The central area is still fluid, but let's see where it dies
down in a couple weeks.
"Democratic presidential candidates are revealed for their foolishness" won't happen. The MSM won't allow it.
a lot of people think it is actually kind of *staged* by an agreement with Russia and Turkey, and if so, it'll force the
United States out of northern Syria, make the US look stupid, but actually give everybody what they want. Check it out:
--Turkey makes some initial attacks in northern Syria, tells the US to get out of the way and abandon the Kurds
--The Kurds are forced to ally with Syrian forces, and they are swept into the Syrian Army ranks (negating their ability
to go independent)
--The Syrian Army moves to the border and starts manning border crossings (already happening in many places), providing
a long-term buffer between Kurds and Turkey
--The Turkish-backed terrorist forces are expended in border confrontations (Turkey really does not want them long-term)
--Once things settle down, Syrian refugees move back into Syria, out of Turkey
--US forces are forced to move out of northeastern Syria and out of the oil fields (or be surrounded and starved out by
Syrian/Russian/Kurdish forces)
--Kurds are not wholesale slaughtered, and Democratic presidential candidates are revealed for their foolishness in the
whole thing
--Trump gets more of what he wants--more US troops out of Syria (against the wishes of the deep state)
--Turkey has a protected border and the incesant attacks from Kurds drops to manageable levels due to the Syrian army border
and the Kurds becoming integrated into Syrian forces.
I give this a 50% of how it will play out. Sure, there are current battles ongoing, but so far, Turkey is not attacking
Syrian forces, who are moving up into place on the border in many areas. The central area is still fluid, but let's see where
it dies down in a couple weeks.
(as Kurdish Syria is sometimes called) is that one
of the Kurd leaders became a follower of Murray Bookchin after spending a bunch of time as a Marxist-Leninist, and so portions
of Kurdish society are an experiment in Bookchinism. Here is a
piece by Bookchin's daughter on the correspondence between him and the Kurds. Hopefully the Kurds will find some protection
in the new Putin-brokered Syria.
Otherwise, yeah, the Kurds are an ally of convenience for the Democratic Party and its apologists on that most disgusting of
propaganda instruments, National Public Radio.
but it should have also been illegal for us to arm the same people that we had declared terrorists. Now those people are killing
the people who fought on our side against the ones now doing the killing.. my head is spinning with all the insane talking points
coming from people who have never met a war they didn't support.
This is a good read.
Former and current US officials have slammed the Turkish mercenary force of "Arab militias" for executing and beheading Kurds
in northern Syria. New data from Turkey reveals that almost all of these militias were armed and trained in the past by the CIA
and Pentagon.
By Max Blumenthal
Left: John McCain with then-FSA chief Salim Idriss (right) in 2013; Right: Salim Idriss (center) in October, announcing the establishment
of the National Front for Liberation, the Turkish mercenary army that has invaded northern Syria.
Hmm..kinda hard to explain that huh? The article talks about Idriss in detail. As well as Obama and Hillary's roles in the
'no boots on the ground' war.
This should embarrass every person who is moaning over Trump's actions in Syria. Turkey was coming in one way or another and
the only way to stop them was for our troops to stand in their way. But what really ticks me off is all of that equipment they
left behind on their bug out. Not just tents , TVs and air conditioners and everything in between, but they left weapons and bombs
there and they just blew them up. This will make the defense companies very happy!
After the ceasefire, US backed
#Kurds are deciding to hand over the north of
#Syria to Turkey rather than the
Syrian army. All trump had to promise them was a stake in
#Syria 's oil fields.
https://t.co/euat8DvIa4
Syrian Girl lives in Syria and has been a good source of information, but I'm not sure if what she is reporting is true. But
wouldn't that shut lots of people up?
Obama kept troops out of Syria until the last minute. Then he took a force small enough to justify his successor's escalation.
So when the Turks tried to genocide the Kurds - like they were certain to do - Trump gets the blame. But it was supposed to be
Hillary. What was in it for her? The joy of another country seeing genocide?
The Kurds were promised land and valuable oil fields in North Eastern Syria by... the US. What's wrong with this picture? Damascus
has I invited the Kurds to be part of the multi-ethnic Syria. The Kurds refused and took America's deal. We armed them to the
teeth with 10s of billions of dollars of weapons. What could go wrong? Well just about everything as the US offer was highly illegal,
they are stealing Syrian oil, and Turkey will not accept any Kurdish permanent enclave on her border. Syria, Russia, Iran, China,
Hezbollah, Iraq and more support the reunification of all of Syria. Why were the Kurds so stupid? Go it? Blind belief in the all
powerful US!
"... It was this curious arrangement that Tulsi Gabbard ran smack into earlier this week. Gabbard, a congresswoman from Hawaii and Democratic presidential candidate, was attacked seemingly out of nowhere by Hillary, who implied that the Russians might somehow be controlling her. "I'm not making any predictions," Clinton intoned on a podcast, "but I think they've got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate." ..."
"... It was a base (and baseless) smear, and it drew a furious response. Gabbard tweeted that Clinton was "queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long." She also dared Clinton to jump into the race, declaring that the primary was now effectively between the two of them. ..."
"... in a more macro sense, she's correct. Of all the dividing lines vivisecting the Democratic Party right now, there's an important and understated one that runs between Clinton World and everything that Gabbard has come to represent. At issue is whether or not one family ought to be able to run the Democratic National Committee like its own LLC, installing loyalists as its leaders, freezing its foreign policy in the past, embarrassing it with self-serving fabrications. ..."
"... Preserve the brand even at the expense of the party : that's what the Clintons have always done. ..."
"... The common denominator in Clinton World is always personal short-term gain; all else, including political reality, is subordinated to that. And even when they lose, they still linger, their business more like a monopoly, having accumulated so much personnel power as to immunize it from market forces. ..."
"... Gabbard, then, isn't Clinton World's most formidable opponent, but right now she looks like its clearest antithesis. Her knight's move has been to take the Clintons off the grounds of personal accomplishment and put them on the harsher terrain of policy accomplishment ..."
"... Hillary is less eager, meanwhile, to discuss her and her husband's writ large policy records, given the current revolt against the liberal internationalism and Third Way centrism they've long regarded as de rigueur . Gabbard not only brings this up, her entire candidacy is a homing missile aimed at the establishment's failed foreign policy, one of its most gaping vulnerabilities. While Clinton World thrashes on the floor screeching at the Russian nanobots in their nose hairs, Gabbard offers up informed critiques of actual events. ..."
"... THANK YOU TULSI GABBARD for opening this debate on the direction our national diplomacy should take in the future, for demanding a reassessment of the old Cold War approach that abandoned the Constitutional requirement that wars be declared by Congress. ..."
"... It doesn't look like she has much of a chance, but I admire Ms. Gabbard's integrity and forthrightness. ..."
"... Well spoken. Indeed, one doesn't have to buy all her policy positions or support her nomination campaign. But Gabbard is worthy of the kind of genuine respect ..."
Is there anything sadder in the year 2019 than to be a hanger-on of the Clintons? It's the one form of communitarianism even we here
at TAC can oppose. Five years back, the New York Times pointed its telescope at what it called
Clinton World, the seemingly endless ecosystem of staffers, clients, strategists, old friends, wonks, flatterers, henchmen, consiglieres,
and hired dog walkers who have latched on to the Clintons over the years. The takeaway for the Times was that such a vast
coterie is difficult to control, a big rig that can only turn so quickly -- but one quote in particular stands out. Said a Clinton
friend of Clinton World: "Some people get eaten up by the charisma and forget that, in the end, it is a business."
And that's just it right there. Has anyone ever fine-tuned the business-ification of politics as have the Clintons? Their conquering
of the Democratic Party over the past 25 years has often felt like a corporate takeover, the absorption of a nationwide political
apparatus into a family syndicate that exists to build and burnish the brand of a single couple.
It was this curious arrangement that Tulsi Gabbard ran smack into earlier this week. Gabbard, a congresswoman from Hawaii
and Democratic presidential candidate, was attacked seemingly out of nowhere by Hillary, who implied that the Russians might somehow
be controlling her. "I'm not making any predictions," Clinton intoned on a podcast, "but I think they've got their eye on somebody
who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate."
It was a base (and baseless) smear, and it drew a furious response. Gabbard tweeted that Clinton was "queen of warmongers,
embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long." She also dared Clinton
to jump into the race, declaring that the primary was now effectively between the two of them.
She's wrong about that, of course, at least in the literal sense. Gabbard, who rarely clears 2 percent in the polls, has little
chance of winning the Democratic nomination. But in a more macro sense, she's correct. Of all the dividing lines vivisecting
the Democratic Party right now, there's an important and understated one that runs between Clinton World and everything that Gabbard
has come to represent. At issue is whether or not one family ought to be able to run the Democratic National Committee like its own
LLC, installing loyalists as its leaders, freezing its foreign policy in the past, embarrassing it with self-serving fabrications.
The reason Clinton slimed Tulsi as a Russian patsy is because Clinton herself is obsessed with Russia. Over and over again, she's
blamed her own loss on their supposed meddling in the 2016 election, even going so far as to call Donald Trump's presidency
"illegitimate."
This is partly understandable -- no one wants to accept fault for difficult failures, least of all when the entire country is
watching -- and partly egotistical. But the belief that maybe Hillary really won, which extends well beyond the candidate
herself and throughout Clinton World, is also good business. However scant the evidence might be that the Russians heave-hoed votes
in Wisconsin, the Clintonian goal is always to guard their own -- "protect the shield," in the nonsensical words of the NFL. Better,
then, to hang around Democrats' neck a nutty conspiracy theory then to admit, even all these years later, that the Clinton product
might not be what it once was.
Preserve the brand even at the expense of the party : that's what the Clintons have always done. It's why Bill dragged
the Democrats into the realm of adolescent word parsing ("the definition of sex") rather than admit to his affair with Monica Lewinsky
from the start. It's why he was willing to triangulate during his presidency, chucking half the party platform off the wagon in order
to ensure he could net legislative victories. It's why Hillary obtusely insisted on running in 2008 and 2016, even though anyone
paying attention knew these would be populist years with her cast in role of Dickens' Monseigneur. The common denominator in
Clinton World is always personal short-term gain; all else, including political reality, is subordinated to that. And even when they
lose, they still linger, their business more like a monopoly, having accumulated so much personnel power as to immunize it from market
forces.
Still, all the bumps and losses have at least somewhat diminished the Clintons. There is little enthusiasm for another Hillary
rev of the engine, no matter how badly she seems to want one. As for Bill, when people say they're nostalgic for the 1990s, they
generally mean boy bands and Legends of the Hidden Temple , not blue dresses. Now enter Tulsi Gabbard. She is both a walking
repudiation of Clinton World and a product of its failures. A former vice chair at the DNC, she
resigned after it became clear the organization intended to slight Bernie Sanders' presidential candidacy in favor of Hillary's.
A political neophyte, she's running a barebones campaign, in contrast to Clinton World's legions. She remains unsullied by the corrupt
Democratic influencers of yore, from Goldman Sachs to Jeffrey Epstein, all of whom the Clintons have rubbed elbows with. And most
importantly, she served as a National Guard medic in Iraq and came away jaded by the very wars Hillary keeps endorsing.
Gabbard, then, isn't Clinton World's most formidable opponent, but right now she looks like its clearest antithesis. Her knight's
move has been to take the Clintons off the grounds of personal accomplishment and put them on the harsher terrain of policy accomplishment.
Hillary loves to tout her (substantial) record of public service as a woman, but Gabbard, a war veteran, can claim that too.
Hillary is less eager, meanwhile, to discuss her and her husband's writ large policy records, given the current revolt against the
liberal internationalism and Third Way centrism they've long regarded as de rigueur . Gabbard not only brings this up, her
entire candidacy is a homing missile aimed at the establishment's failed foreign policy, one of its most gaping vulnerabilities.
While Clinton World thrashes on the floor screeching at the Russian nanobots in their nose hairs, Gabbard offers up informed critiques
of actual events.
The contrast is unavoidable, and it's made Clinton World look one slice short of a (faux New York-style) pizza. (It's always wrong
to say that conspiracy theories are the sole province of "the fringes"; they can afflict the center, too, and they're all the more
embarrassing when they do.) Sure enough, fade to Iowa, where voters are expressing renewed interest in Gabbard. One
told the Associated Press that Hillary's smear
was "divisive and despicable" and said he likes Tulsi's "anti-regime-change message," while another accused Clinton of "sowing division
in the primary." As it turns out, protecting the brand of a couple that hasn't won a nationwide election in 23 years is not
a priority in flyover country.
It may be that this is the year the Democrats are finally ready to cast out the Clintons for good, along with all their attendant
wars and machinations and courtiers. If so, the strongest tonic they could swallow would be the campaign of Tulsi Gabbard. You don't
have to support her candidacy (I don't) to appreciate what she's trying to do here.
Matt Purple is the managing editor of The American Conservative.
Tulsi Gabbard has volunteered twice to serve active duty in the US military, and continues today as a Major in the Army National
Guard...definitely NOT a "Russian asset" but rather a very patriotic American. The worst thing about HRC's slander against Ms.
Gabbard (and the repeats of that slander by other Dem party operatives and even major media publishers of HRC-echoing op-eds)
is that the endless-undeclared-multiple-wars party won't debate the merits of their approach but rather only accuse opponents
of treason.
THANK YOU TULSI GABBARD for opening this debate on the direction our national diplomacy should take in the future,
for demanding a reassessment of the old Cold War approach that abandoned the Constitutional requirement that wars be declared
by Congress. THANK YOU TULSI GABBARD for your military service to our country, for your public service in various elected offices,
and now for your campaign that forces these issues back into the national debate.
It doesn't look like she has much of a chance, but I admire Ms. Gabbard's integrity and forthrightness. She ought to at least
rate a cabinet position if a Democrat becomes president. (SecDef, or State or National Security Advisor, perhaps?). I hope she
keeps hammering away on the foreign policy issue.
Well spoken. Indeed, one doesn't have to buy all her policy positions or support her nomination campaign. But Gabbard is worthy
of the kind of genuine respect that will elude HRC's legacy.
What she coerced in life will be denied her for eternity, methinks.
But Gabbard, however she may fare this time around, has upside. Because she's the real deal.
There is such a hole where our leadership
should be, an enormous surfeit of vacuity in the leadership ranks on both sides of the ball that looks to be the curse of our
time. It wouldn't bother me a bit if she helped fill the void.
Protecting the faded brand indeed. Because it's the sole explanation of a situation when someone starts dividing a party a year
before the election and after an impeachment debacle, aside from idiocy in both colloquial, clinical and ancient Greek meaning.
Russian agents behind Gabbard, Russian agents behind Stein, Russian agents behind Trump, Russian agents behind Clinton's fridge.
And it's not said by a 5-year-old girl. It keeps on being said by a grown-up woman who, basically, rules one of America's two
biggest parties. It starts feeling like some tragifarce already.
Supporting neoliberalism is the key treason of contemporary intellectuals eeho were instrumental in decimating the New Deal capitalism,
to say nothing about neocon, who downgraded themselves into intellectual prostitutes of MIC mad try to destroy post WWII order.
Notable quotes:
"... More and more, intellectuals were abandoning their attachment to the traditional panoply of philosophical and scholarly ideals. One clear sign of the change was the attack on the Enlightenment ideal of universal humanity and the concomitant glorification of various particularisms. ..."
"... "Our age is indeed the age of the intellectual organization of political hatreds ," he wrote near the beginning of the book. "It will be one of its chief claims to notice in the moral history of humanity." There was no need to add that its place in moral history would be as a cautionary tale. In little more than a decade, Benda's prediction that, because of the "great betrayal" of the intellectuals, humanity was "heading for the greatest and most perfect war ever seen in the world," would achieve a terrifying corroboration. ..."
"... In Plato's Gorgias , for instance, the sophist Callicles expresses his contempt for Socrates' devotion to philosophy: "I feel toward philosophers very much as I do toward those who lisp and play the child." Callicles taunts Socrates with the idea that "the more powerful, the better, and the stronger" are simply different words for the same thing. Successfully pursued, he insists, "luxury and intemperance are virtue and happiness, and all the rest is tinsel." How contemporary Callicles sounds! ..."
"... In Benda's formula, this boils down to the conviction that "politics decides morality." To be sure, the cynicism that Callicles espoused is perennial: like the poor, it will be always with us. What Benda found novel was the accreditation of such cynicism by intellectuals. "It is true indeed that these new 'clerks' declare that they do not know what is meant by justice, truth, and other 'metaphysical fogs,' that for them the true is determined by the useful, the just by circumstances," he noted. "All these things were taught by Callicles, but with this difference; he revolted all the important thinkers of his time." ..."
"... In other words, the real treason of the intellectuals was not that they countenanced Callicles but that they championed him. ..."
"... His doctrine of "the will to power," his contempt for the "slave morality" of Christianity, his plea for an ethic "beyond good and evil," his infatuation with violence -- all epitomize the disastrous "pragmatism" that marks the intellectual's "treason." The real problem was not the unattainability but the disintegration of ideals, an event that Nietzsche hailed as the "transvaluation of all values." "Formerly," Benda observed, "leaders of States practiced realism, but did not honor it; With them morality was violated but moral notions remained intact, and that is why, in spite of all their violence, they did not disturb civilization ." ..."
"... From the savage flowering of ethnic hatreds in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union to the mendacious demands for political correctness and multiculturalism on college campuses across America and Europe, the treason of the intellectuals continues to play out its unedifying drama. Benda spoke of "a cataclysm in the moral notions of those who educate the world." That cataclysm is erupting in every corner of cultural life today. ..."
"... Finkielkraut catalogues several prominent strategies that contemporary intellectuals have employed to retreat from the universal. A frequent point of reference is the eighteenth-century German Romantic philosopher Johann Gottfried Herder. "From the beginning, or to be more precise, from the time of Plato until that of Voltaire," he writes, "human diversity had come before the tribunal of universal values; with Herder the eternal values were condemned by the court of diversity." ..."
"... Finkielkraut focuses especially on Herder's definitively anti-Enlightenment idea of the Volksgeist or "national spirit." ..."
"... Nevertheless, the multiculturalists' obsession with "diversity" and ethnic origins is in many ways a contemporary redaction of Herder's elevation of racial particularism over the universalizing mandate of reason ..."
"... In Goethe's words, "A generalized tolerance will be best achieved if we leave undisturbed whatever it is which constitutes the special character of particular individuals and peoples, whilst at the same time we retain the conviction that the distinctive worth of anything with true merit lies in its belonging to all humanity." ..."
"... The geography of intellectual betrayal has changed dramatically in the last sixty-odd years. In 1927, intellectuals still had something definite to betray. In today's "postmodernist" world, the terrain is far mushier: the claims of tradition are much attenuated and betrayal is often only a matter of acquiescence. ..."
"... In the broadest terms, The Undoing of Thought is a brief for the principles of the Enlightenment. Among other things, this means that it is a brief for the idea that mankind is united by a common humanity that transcends ethnic, racial, and sexual divisions ..."
"... Granted, the belief that there is "Jewish thinking" or "Soviet science" or "Aryan art" is no longer as widespread as it once was. But the dispersal of these particular chimeras has provided no inoculation against kindred fabrications: "African knowledge," "female language," "Eurocentric science": these are among today's talismanic fetishes. ..."
"... Then, too, one finds a stunning array of anti-Enlightenment phantasmagoria congregated under the banner of "anti-positivism." The idea that history is a "myth," that the truths of science are merely "fictions" dressed up in forbidding clothes, that reason and language are powerless to discover the truth -- more, that truth itself is a deceitful ideological construct: these and other absurdities are now part of the standard intellectual diet of Western intellectuals. The Frankfurt School Marxists Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno gave an exemplary but by no means uncharacteristic demonstration of one strain of this brand of anti-rational animus in the mid-1940s. ..."
"... Historically, the Enlightenment arose as a deeply anti-clerical and, perforce, anti-traditional movement. Its goal, in Kant's famous phrase, was to release man from his "self-imposed immaturity." ..."
"... The process of disintegration has lately become an explicit attack on culture. This is not simply to say that there are many anti-intellectual elements in society: that has always been the case. "Non-thought," in Finkielkraut's phrase, has always co-existed with the life of the mind. The innovation of contemporary culture is to have obliterated the distinction between the two. ..."
"... There are many sides to this phenomenon. What Finkielkraut has given us is not a systematic dissection but a kind of pathologist's scrapbook. He reminds us, for example, that the multiculturalists' demand for "diversity" requires the eclipse of the individual in favor of the group ..."
"... To a large extent, the abdication of reason demanded by multiculturalism has been the result of what we might call the subjection of culture to anthropology. ..."
"... In describing this process of leveling, Finkielkraut distinguishes between those who wish to obliterate distinctions in the name of politics and those who do so out of a kind of narcissism. The multiculturalists wave the standard of radical politics and say (in the words of a nineteenth-century Russian populist slogan that Finkielkraut quotes): "A pair of boots is worth more than Shakespeare." ..."
"... The upshot is not only that Shakespeare is downgraded, but also that the bootmaker is elevated. "It is not just that high culture must be demystified; sport, fashion and leisure now lay claim to high cultural status." A grotesque fantasy? ..."
"... . Finkielkraut notes that the rhetoric of postmodernism is in some ways similar to the rhetoric of Enlightenment. Both look forward to releasing man from his "self-imposed immaturity." But there is this difference: Enlightenment looks to culture as a repository of values that transcend the self, postmodernism looks to the fleeting desires of the isolated self as the only legitimate source of value ..."
"... The products of culture are valuable only as a source of amusement or distraction. In order to realize the freedom that postmodernism promises, culture must be transformed into a field of arbitrary "options." "The post-modern individual," Finkielkraut writes, "is a free and easy bundle of fleeting and contingent appetites. He has forgotten that liberty involves more than the ability to change one's chains, and that culture itself is more than a satiated whim." ..."
"... "'All cultures are equally legitimate and everything is cultural,' is the common cry of affluent society's spoiled children and of the detractors of the West. ..."
"... There is another, perhaps even darker, result of the undoing of thought. The disintegration of faith in reason and common humanity leads not only to a destruction of standards, but also involves a crisis of courage. ..."
"... As the impassioned proponents of "diversity" meet the postmodern apostles of acquiescence, fanaticism mixes with apathy to challenge the commitment required to preserve freedom. ..."
"... Communism may have been effectively discredited. But "what is dying along with it is not the totalitarian cast of mind, but the idea of a world common to all men." ..."
On the abandonment of Enlightenment intellectualism, and the emergence of a new form of Volksgeist.
When hatred of culture becomes itself a part of culture, the life of the mind loses all meaning. -- Alain Finkielkraut,
The Undoing of Thought
Today we are trying to spread knowledge everywhere. Who knows if in centuries to come there will not be universities
for re-establishing our former ignorance? -- Georg Christoph Lichtenberg (1742-1799)
I n 1927, the French essayist Julien Benda published his famous attack on the intellectual corruption of the age, La Trahison
des clercs. I said "famous," but perhaps "once famous" would have been more accurate. For today, in the United States anyway,
only the title of the book, not its argument, enjoys much currency. "La trahison des clercs": it is one of those memorable phrases
that bristles with hints and associations without stating anything definite. Benda tells us that he uses the term "clerc" in "the
medieval sense," i.e., to mean "scribe," someone we would now call a member of the intelligentsia. Academics and journalists, pundits,
moralists, and pontificators of all varieties are in this sense clercs . The English translation, The Treason of the Intellectuals
,
1 sums it up neatly.
The "treason" in question was the betrayal by the "clerks" of their vocation as intellectuals. From the time of the pre-Socratics,
intellectuals, considered in their role as intellectuals, had been a breed apart. In Benda's terms, they were understood to
be "all those whose activity essentially is not the pursuit of practical aims, all those who seek their joy in the practice
of an art or a science or a metaphysical speculation, in short in the possession of non-material advantages." Thanks to such men,
Benda wrote, "humanity did evil for two thousand years, but honored good. This contradiction was an honor to the human species, and
formed the rift whereby civilization slipped into the world."
According to Benda, however, this situation was changing. More and more, intellectuals were abandoning their attachment to
the traditional panoply of philosophical and scholarly ideals. One clear sign of the change was the attack on the Enlightenment ideal
of universal humanity and the concomitant glorification of various particularisms. The attack on the universal went forward
in social and political life as well as in the refined precincts of epistemology and metaphysics: "Those who for centuries had exhorted
men, at least theoretically, to deaden the feeling of their differences have now come to praise them, according to where the sermon
is given, for their 'fidelity to the French soul,' 'the immutability of their German consciousness,' for the 'fervor of their Italian
hearts.'" In short, intellectuals began to immerse themselves in the unsettlingly practical and material world of political passions:
precisely those passions, Benda observed, "owing to which men rise up against other men, the chief of which are racial passions,
class passions and national passions." The "rift" into which civilization had been wont to slip narrowed and threatened to close
altogether.
Writing at a moment when ethnic and nationalistic hatreds were beginning to tear Europe asunder, Benda's diagnosis assumed the
lineaments of a prophecy -- a prophecy that continues to have deep resonance today. "Our age is indeed the age of the intellectual
organization of political hatreds ," he wrote near the beginning of the book. "It will be one of its chief claims to notice in
the moral history of humanity." There was no need to add that its place in moral history would be as a cautionary tale. In little
more than a decade, Benda's prediction that, because of the "great betrayal" of the intellectuals, humanity was "heading for the
greatest and most perfect war ever seen in the world," would achieve a terrifying corroboration.
J ulien Benda was not so naïve as to believe that intellectuals as a class had ever entirely abstained from political involvement,
or, indeed, from involvement in the realm of practical affairs. Nor did he believe that intellectuals, as citizens, necessarily
should abstain from political commitment or practical affairs. The "treason" or betrayal he sought to publish concerned the
way that intellectuals had lately allowed political commitment to insinuate itself into their understanding of the intellectual vocation
as such. Increasingly, Benda claimed, politics was "mingled with their work as artists, as men of learning, as philosophers." The
ideal of disinterestedness, the universality of truth: such guiding principles were contemptuously deployed as masks when they were
not jettisoned altogether. It was in this sense that he castigated the " desire to abase the values of knowledge before the values
of action ."
In its crassest but perhaps also most powerful form, this desire led to that familiar phenomenon Benda dubbed "the cult of success."
It is summed up, he writes, in "the teaching that says that when a will is successful that fact alone gives it a moral value, whereas
the will which fails is for that reason alone deserving of contempt." In itself, this idea is hardly novel, as history from the Greek
sophists on down reminds us. In Plato's Gorgias , for instance, the sophist Callicles expresses his contempt for Socrates'
devotion to philosophy: "I feel toward philosophers very much as I do toward those who lisp and play the child." Callicles taunts
Socrates with the idea that "the more powerful, the better, and the stronger" are simply different words for the same thing. Successfully
pursued, he insists, "luxury and intemperance are virtue and happiness, and all the rest is tinsel." How contemporary Callicles
sounds!
In Benda's formula, this boils down to the conviction that "politics decides morality." To be sure, the cynicism that Callicles
espoused is perennial: like the poor, it will be always with us. What Benda found novel was the accreditation of such cynicism
by intellectuals. "It is true indeed that these new 'clerks' declare that they do not know what is meant by justice, truth, and other
'metaphysical fogs,' that for them the true is determined by the useful, the just by circumstances," he noted. "All these things
were taught by Callicles, but with this difference; he revolted all the important thinkers of his time."
In other words, the real treason of the intellectuals was not that they countenanced Callicles but that they championed him.
To appreciate the force of Benda's thesis one need only think of that most influential modern Callicles, Friedrich Nietzsche.
His doctrine of "the will to power," his contempt for the "slave morality" of Christianity, his plea for an ethic "beyond good and
evil," his infatuation with violence -- all epitomize the disastrous "pragmatism" that marks the intellectual's "treason." The real
problem was not the unattainability but the disintegration of ideals, an event that Nietzsche hailed as the "transvaluation of all
values." "Formerly," Benda observed, "leaders of States practiced realism, but did not honor it; With them morality was violated
but moral notions remained intact, and that is why, in spite of all their violence, they did not disturb civilization ."
Benda understood that the stakes were high: the treason of the intellectuals signaled not simply the corruption of a bunch of
scribblers but a fundamental betrayal of culture. By embracing the ethic of Callicles, intellectuals had, Benda reckoned, precipitated
"one of the most remarkable turning points in the moral history of the human species. It is impossible," he continued,
to exaggerate the importance of a movement whereby those who for twenty centuries taught Man that the criterion of the morality
of an act is its disinterestedness, that good is a decree of his reason insofar as it is universal, that his will is only moral
if it seeks its law outside its objects, should begin to teach him that the moral act is the act whereby he secures his existence
against an environment which disputes it, that his will is moral insofar as it is a will "to power," that the part of his soul
which determines what is good is its "will to live" wherein it is most "hostile to all reason," that the morality of an act is
measured by its adaptation to its end, and that the only morality is the morality of circumstances. The educators of the human
mind now take sides with Callicles against Socrates, a revolution which I dare to say seems to me more important than all political
upheavals.
The Treason of the Intellectuals is an energetic hodgepodge of a book. The philosopher Jean-François Revel recently
described it as "one of the fussiest pleas on behalf of the necessary independence of intellectuals." Certainly it is rich, quirky,
erudite, digressive, and polemical: more an exclamation than an analysis. Partisan in its claims for disinterestedness, it is ruthless
in its defense of intellectual high-mindedness. Yet given the horrific events that unfolded in the decades following its publication,
Benda's unremitting attack on the politicization of the intellect and ethnic separatism cannot but strike us as prescient. And given
the continuing echo in our own time of the problems he anatomized, the relevance of his observations to our situation can hardly
be doubted. From the savage flowering of ethnic hatreds in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union to the mendacious demands
for political correctness and multiculturalism on college campuses across America and Europe, the treason of the intellectuals continues
to play out its unedifying drama. Benda spoke of "a cataclysm in the moral notions of those who educate the world." That cataclysm
is erupting in every corner of cultural life today.
In 1988, the young French philosopher and cultural critic Alain Finkielkraut took up where Benda left off, producing a brief
but searching inventory of our contemporary cataclysms. Entitled La Défaite de la pensée
2 ("The 'Defeat' or 'Undoing' of Thought"), his essay is in part an updated taxonomy of intellectual betrayals. In this
sense, the book is a trahison des clercs for the post-Communist world, a world dominated as much by the leveling imperatives
of pop culture as by resurgent nationalism and ethnic separatism. Beginning with Benda, Finkielkraut catalogues several prominent
strategies that contemporary intellectuals have employed to retreat from the universal. A frequent point of reference is the eighteenth-century
German Romantic philosopher Johann Gottfried Herder. "From the beginning, or to be more precise, from the time of Plato until that
of Voltaire," he writes, "human diversity had come before the tribunal of universal values; with Herder the eternal values were condemned
by the court of diversity."
Finkielkraut focuses especially on Herder's definitively anti-Enlightenment idea of the Volksgeist or "national spirit."
Quoting the French historian Joseph Renan, he describes the idea as "the most dangerous explosive of modern times." "Nothing," he
writes, "can stop a state that has become prey to the Volksgeist ." It is one of Finkielkraut's leitmotifs that today's multiculturalists
are in many respects Herder's (generally unwitting) heirs.
True, Herder's emphasis on history and language did much to temper the tendency to abstraction that one finds in some expressions
of the Enlightenment. Ernst Cassirer even remarked that "Herder's achievement is one of the greatest intellectual triumphs of the
philosophy of the Enlightenment."
Nevertheless, the multiculturalists' obsession with "diversity" and ethnic origins is in many ways a contemporary redaction
of Herder's elevation of racial particularism over the universalizing mandate of reason. Finkielkraut opposes this just as the
mature Goethe once took issue with Herder's adoration of the Volksgeist. Finkielkraut concedes that we all "relate to a particular
tradition" and are "shaped by our national identity." But, unlike the multiculturalists, he soberly insists that "this reality merit[s]
some recognition, not idolatry."
In Goethe's words, "A generalized tolerance will be best achieved if we leave undisturbed whatever it is which constitutes
the special character of particular individuals and peoples, whilst at the same time we retain the conviction that the distinctive
worth of anything with true merit lies in its belonging to all humanity."
The Undoing of Thought resembles The Treason of the Intellectuals stylistically as well as thematically. Both
books are sometimes breathless congeries of sources and aperçus. And Finkielkraut, like Benda (and, indeed, like Montaigne), tends
to proceed more by collage than by demonstration. But he does not simply recapitulate Benda's argument.
The geography of intellectual betrayal has changed dramatically in the last sixty-odd years. In 1927, intellectuals still
had something definite to betray. In today's "postmodernist" world, the terrain is far mushier: the claims of tradition are much
attenuated and betrayal is often only a matter of acquiescence. Finkielkraut's distinctive contribution is to have taken the
measure of the cultural swamp that surrounds us, to have delineated the links joining the politicization of the intellect and its
current forms of debasement.
In the broadest terms, The Undoing of Thought is a brief for the principles of the Enlightenment. Among other things,
this means that it is a brief for the idea that mankind is united by a common humanity that transcends ethnic, racial, and sexual
divisions.
The humanizing "reason" that Enlightenment champions is a universal reason, sharable, in principle, by all. Such ideals have not
fared well in the twentieth century: Herder's progeny have labored hard to discredit them. Granted, the belief that there is
"Jewish thinking" or "Soviet science" or "Aryan art" is no longer as widespread as it once was. But the dispersal of these particular
chimeras has provided no inoculation against kindred fabrications: "African knowledge," "female language," "Eurocentric science":
these are among today's talismanic fetishes.
Then, too, one finds a stunning array of anti-Enlightenment phantasmagoria congregated under the banner of "anti-positivism."
The idea that history is a "myth," that the truths of science are merely "fictions" dressed up in forbidding clothes, that reason
and language are powerless to discover the truth -- more, that truth itself is a deceitful ideological construct: these and other
absurdities are now part of the standard intellectual diet of Western intellectuals. The Frankfurt School Marxists Max Horkheimer
and Theodor Adorno gave an exemplary but by no means uncharacteristic demonstration of one strain of this brand of anti-rational
animus in the mid-1940s.
Safely ensconced in Los Angeles, these refugees from Hitler's Reich published an influential essay on the concept of Enlightenment.
Among much else, they assured readers that "Enlightenment is totalitarian." Never mind that at that very moment the Nazi war machine
-- what one might be forgiven for calling real totalitarianism -- was busy liquidating millions of people in order to fulfill
another set of anti-Enlightenment fantasies inspired by devotion to the Volksgeist .
The diatribe that Horkheimer and Adorno mounted against the concept of Enlightenment reminds us of an important peculiarity about
the history of Enlightenment: namely, that it is a movement of thought that began as a reaction against tradition and has now emerged
as one of tradition's most important safeguards. Historically, the Enlightenment arose as a deeply anti-clerical and, perforce,
anti-traditional movement. Its goal, in Kant's famous phrase, was to release man from his "self-imposed immaturity."
The chief enemy of Enlightenment was "superstition," an omnibus term that included all manner of religious, philosophical, and
moral ideas. But as the sociologist Edward Shils has noted, although the Enlightenment was in important respects "antithetical to
tradition" in its origins, its success was due in large part "to the fact that it was promulgated and pursued in a society in which
substantive traditions were rather strong." "It was successful against its enemies," Shils notes in his book Tradition (1981),
because the enemies were strong enough to resist its complete victory over them. Living on a soil of substantive traditionality,
the ideas of the Enlightenment advanced without undoing themselves. As long as respect for authority on the one side and self-confidence
in those exercising authority on the other persisted, the Enlightenment's ideal of emancipation through the exercise of reason
went forward. It did not ravage society as it would have done had society lost all legitimacy.
It is this mature form of Enlightenment, championing reason but respectful of tradition, that Finkielkraut holds up as an ideal.
W hat Finkielkraut calls "the undoing of thought" flows from the widespread disintegration of a faith. At the center of that faith
is the assumption that the life of thought is "the higher life" and that culture -- what the Germans call Bildung -- is its
end or goal.
The process of disintegration has lately become an explicit attack on culture. This is not simply to say that there are many
anti-intellectual elements in society: that has always been the case. "Non-thought," in Finkielkraut's phrase, has always co-existed
with the life of the mind. The innovation of contemporary culture is to have obliterated the distinction between the two. "It
is," he writes, "the first time in European history that non-thought has donned the same label and enjoyed the same status as thought
itself, and the first time that those who, in the name of 'high culture,' dare to call this non-thought by its name, are dismissed
as racists and reactionaries." The attack is perpetrated not from outside, by uncomprehending barbarians, but chiefly from inside,
by a new class of barbarians, the self-made barbarians of the intelligentsia. This is the undoing of thought. This is the new "treason
of the intellectuals."
There are many sides to this phenomenon. What Finkielkraut has given us is not a systematic dissection but a kind of pathologist's
scrapbook. He reminds us, for example, that the multiculturalists' demand for "diversity" requires the eclipse of the individual
in favor of the group . "Their most extraordinary feat," he observes, "is to have put forward as the ultimate individual liberty
the unconditional primacy of the collective." Western rationalism and individualism are rejected in the name of a more "authentic"
cult.
One example: Finkielkraut quotes a champion of multiculturalism who maintains that "to help immigrants means first of all respecting
them for what they are, respecting whatever they aspire to in their national life, in their distinctive culture and in their attachment
to their spiritual and religious roots." Would this, Finkielkraut asks, include "respecting" those religious codes which demanded
that the barren woman be cast out and the adulteress be punished with death?
What about those cultures in which the testimony of one man counts for that of two women? In which female circumcision is practiced?
In which slavery flourishes? In which mixed marriages are forbidden and polygamy encouraged? Multiculturalism, as Finkielkraut points
out, requires that we respect such practices. To criticize them is to be dismissed as "racist" and "ethnocentric." In this secular
age, "cultural identity" steps in where the transcendent once was: "Fanaticism is indefensible when it appeals to heaven, but beyond
reproach when it is grounded in antiquity and cultural distinctiveness."
To a large extent, the abdication of reason demanded by multiculturalism has been the result of what we might call the subjection
of culture to anthropology. Finkielkraut speaks in this context of a "cheerful confusion which raises everyday anthropological
practices to the pinnacle of the human race's greatest achievements." This process began in the nineteenth century, but it has been
greatly accelerated in our own age. One thinks, for example, of the tireless campaigning of that great anthropological leveler, Claude
Lévi-Strauss. Lévi-Strauss is assuredly a brilliant writer, but he has also been an extraordinarily baneful influence. Already in
the early 1950s, when he was pontificating for UNESCO , he was urging all and sundry to "fight against ranking cultural differences
hierarchically." In La Pensée sauvage (1961), he warned against the "false antinomy between logical and prelogical mentality"
and was careful in his descriptions of natives to refer to "so-called primitive thought." "So-called" indeed. In a famous article
on race and history, Lévi-Strauss maintained that the barbarian was not the opposite of the civilized man but "first of all the man
who believes there is such a thing as barbarism." That of course is good to know. It helps one to appreciate Lévi-Strauss's claim,
in Tristes Tropiques (1955), that the "true purpose of civilization" is to produce "inertia." As one ruminates on the proposition
that cultures should not be ranked hierarchically, it is also well to consider what Lévi-Strauss coyly refers to as "the positive
forms of cannibalism." For Lévi-Strauss, cannibalism has been unfairly stigmatized in the "so-called" civilized West. In fact, he
explains, cannibalism was "often observed with great discretion, the vital mouthful being made up of a small quantity of organic
matter mixed, on occasion, with other forms of food." What, merely a "vital mouthful"? Not to worry! Only an ignoramus who believed
that there were important distinctions, qualitative distinctions, between the barbarian and the civilized man could possibly
think of objecting.
Of course, the attack on distinctions that Finkielkraut castigates takes place not only among cultures but also within a given
culture. Here again, the anthropological imperative has played a major role. "Under the equalizing eye of social science," he writes,
hierarchies are abolished, and all the criteria of taste are exposed as arbitrary. From now on no rigid division separates masterpieces
from run-of-the mill works. The same fundamental structure, the same general and elemental traits are common to the "great" novels
(whose excellence will henceforth be demystified by the accompanying quotation marks) and plebian types of narrative activity.
F or confirmation of this, one need only glance at the pronouncements of our critics. Whether working in the academy or other
cultural institutions, they bring us the same news: there is "no such thing" as intrinsic merit, "quality" is an only ideological
construction, aesthetic value is a distillation of social power, etc., etc.
In describing this process of leveling, Finkielkraut distinguishes between those who wish to obliterate distinctions in the
name of politics and those who do so out of a kind of narcissism. The multiculturalists wave the standard of radical politics and
say (in the words of a nineteenth-century Russian populist slogan that Finkielkraut quotes): "A pair of boots is worth more than
Shakespeare."
Those whom Finkielkraut calls "postmodernists," waving the standard of radical chic, declare that Shakespeare is no better than
the latest fashion -- no better, say, than the newest item offered by Calvin Klein. The litany that Finkielkraut recites is familiar:
A comic which combines exciting intrigue and some pretty pictures is just as good as a Nabokov novel. What little Lolitas read
is as good as Lolita . An effective publicity slogan counts for as much as a poem by Apollinaire or Francis Ponge . The
footballer and the choreographer, the painter and the couturier, the writer and the ad-man, the musician and the rock-and-roller,
are all the same: creators. We must scrap the prejudice which restricts that title to certain people and regards others as sub-cultural.
The upshot is not only that Shakespeare is downgraded, but also that the bootmaker is elevated. "It is not just that high
culture must be demystified; sport, fashion and leisure now lay claim to high cultural status." A grotesque fantasy? Anyone
who thinks so should take a moment to recall the major exhibition called "High & Low: Modern Art and Popular Culture" that the Museum
of Modern Art mounted a few years ago: it might have been called "Krazy Kat Meets Picasso." Few events can have so consummately summed
up the corrosive trivialization of culture now perpetrated by those entrusted with preserving it. Among other things, that exhibition
demonstrated the extent to which the apotheosis of popular culture undermines the very possibility of appreciating high art on its
own terms.
When the distinction between culture and entertainment is obliterated, high art is orphaned, exiled from the only context in which
its distinctive meaning can manifest itself: Picasso becomes a kind of cartoon. This, more than any elitism or obscurity,
is the real threat to culture today. As Hannah Arendt once observed, "there are many great authors of the past who have survived
centuries of oblivion and neglect, but it is still an open question whether they will be able to survive an entertaining version
of what they have to say."
And this brings us to the question of freedom. Finkielkraut notes that the rhetoric of postmodernism is in some ways similar
to the rhetoric of Enlightenment. Both look forward to releasing man from his "self-imposed immaturity." But there is this difference:
Enlightenment looks to culture as a repository of values that transcend the self, postmodernism looks to the fleeting desires of
the isolated self as the only legitimate source of value.
For the postmodernist, then, "culture is no longer seen as a means of emancipation, but as one of the élitist obstacles to this."
The products of culture are valuable only as a source of amusement or distraction. In order to realize the freedom that postmodernism
promises, culture must be transformed into a field of arbitrary "options." "The post-modern individual," Finkielkraut writes, "is
a free and easy bundle of fleeting and contingent appetites. He has forgotten that liberty involves more than the ability to change
one's chains, and that culture itself is more than a satiated whim."
What Finkielkraut has understood with admirable clarity is that modern attacks on elitism represent not the extension but the
destruction of culture. "Democracy," he writes, "once implied access to culture for everybody. From now on it is going to mean everyone's
right to the culture of his choice." This may sound marvelous -- it is after all the slogan one hears shouted in academic and cultural
institutions across the country -- but the result is precisely the opposite of what was intended.
"'All cultures are equally legitimate and everything is cultural,' is the common cry of affluent society's spoiled children
and of the detractors of the West." The irony, alas, is that by removing standards and declaring that "anything goes," one does
not get more culture, one gets more and more debased imitations of culture. This fraud is the dirty secret that our cultural commissars
refuse to acknowledge.
There is another, perhaps even darker, result of the undoing of thought. The disintegration of faith in reason and common
humanity leads not only to a destruction of standards, but also involves a crisis of courage. "A careless indifference to grand
causes," Finkielkraut warns, "has its counterpart in abdication in the face of force." As the impassioned proponents of "diversity"
meet the postmodern apostles of acquiescence, fanaticism mixes with apathy to challenge the commitment required to preserve freedom.
Communism may have been effectively discredited. But "what is dying along with it is not the totalitarian cast of mind, but
the idea of a world common to all men."
Julien Benda took his epigraph for La Trahison des clercs from the nineteenth-century French philosopher Charles Renouvier:
Le monde souffre du manque de foi en une vérité transcendante : "The world suffers from lack of faith in a transcendent truth."
Without some such faith, we are powerless against the depredations of intellectuals who have embraced the nihilism of Callicles as
their truth.
1The Treason of the Intellectuals, by Julien Benda, translated by Richard Aldington, was first published in 1928.
This translation is still in print from Norton.
2La Défaite de la pensée , by Alain Finkielkraut; Gallimard, 162 pages, 72 FF . It is available in English, in
a translation by Dennis O'Keeffe, as The Undoing of Thought (The Claridge Press [London], 133 pages, £6.95 paper).
Roger Kimball is Editor and Publisher of The New Criterion and President and Publisher of Encounter Books. His latest book
is The Fortunes of Permanence: Culture and Anarchy in an Age of Amnesia (St. Augustine's Press)
"... Yes, about 10 percent of all American workers are making $100,000 or more a year, but most of those high paying jobs are concentrated in the major cities along the east and west coasts. For much of the rest of the country, these are very challenging times as the cost of living soars but their paychecks do not. ..."
The truth is that most American families are deeply struggling, but you hardly ever hear this from the mainstream media.
Yes, about 10 percent of all American workers are making $100,000 or more a year, but most of those high paying jobs are concentrated
in the major cities along the east and west coasts. For much of the rest of the country, these are very challenging times as the
cost of living soars but their paychecks do not.
According to the Social Security Administration
, the median income in the United States last year was just $32,838.05. In other words, 50 percent of American workers made more
than $32,838.05 and 50 percent of American workers made less than $32,838.05 in 2018. Let's be generous and round that number up
to $33,000, and when you break it down on a monthly basis it comes to just $2,750 a month. Of course nobody can support a middle
class lifestyle for a family of four on $2,750 a month before taxes, and so in most families more than one person is working these
days. In fact, in many families today more than one person is working multiple jobs in a desperate attempt to make ends meet, and
it still is often not quite enough.
If you want to look at the Social Security wage statistics for yourself, you can find them
right here . As you will see, I am not making these
numbers up.
These days many would have us feel bad if we are not making at least $100,000 a year, but according to the report only about 10
percent of all American workers make that much money.
Instead, most Americans are in what I would call "the barely getting by" category. Here are some key facts that I pulled out of
the report
-33 percent of all American workers made less than $20,000 last year.
-46 percent of all American workers made less than $30,000 last year.
-58 percent of all American workers made less than $40,000 last year.
-67 percent of all American workers made less than $50,000 last year.
That means that approximately two-thirds of all American workers are making $4,000 or less a month before taxes.
Ouch.
But these numbers help us to understand why survey after survey has shown that most Americans
are living paycheck to paycheck . After paying the bills, there just isn't much money left for most of us.
And for an increasing number of Americans, even paying the bills has become exceedingly difficult. In fact, a brand new report
from UBS says that
44 percent of all U.S. consumers "don't make enough money to cover their expenses"
Low-income consumers are struggling to make ends meet despite the "greatest economy ever," and if a recession strikes or the
employment cycle continues to decelerate -- this could mean the average American with insurmountable debts will likely fall behind
on their debt servicing payments, according to a UBS report, first reported by
Bloomberg .
UBS analyst Matthew Mish wrote in a recent report that 44% of consumers don't make enough money to cover their expenses.
That means that about half the country is flat broke and struggling just to survive financially.
Of course those at the top of the economic food chain often don't have a lot of sympathy for those that are hurting. Many of them
have the attitude that those that are struggling should just go out and get one of the "good jobs" that the mainstream media is endlessly
touting.
But most jobs in the United States are not "good jobs".
Today, the poverty level for a household of four in the United States is $25,750. More than 40 percent of the workers in this
country make less than that each year.
Starting a business is always an option, but that takes money, and thanks to government regulations it is harder than ever to
run a small business successfully.
Just look at what is happening to our dairy farmers. There are few occupations that are more quintessentially "American" than
being a dairy farmer, and since most people drink milk and eat cheese, you would think that it would be a pretty safe profession.
But instead, dairy farms are shutting down at a pace that is absolutely chilling all over the nation. For example, just check
out what has been going on
in Wisconsin
At this rate, the Dairy State could lose 735 dairy farms this year, which would be a decline of 9%. In 2018, the state lost
691 farms, a rate of decline of 7.9%.
Over the last decade the state has lost more than 5,000 farms, or 40% of its licensed dairy farms. To state the obvious, the
current rate of exits is more than double that of the last decade.
"... NATO has become an end run around the UN in legitimizing our dirty little wars. No wonder they are going after Tulsi. ..."
"... War and spooks. It makes it me absolutely disgusted to see intelligent, left-leaning people following obvious traps into xenophobia and fascism. People I love talking about Russian conspiracies, foreign "assets", etc. ..."
What was Hillary Clinton thinking? The 2016 Democratic nominee, for some reason, felt the
need to insert herself into the 2020 race with an attack on Tulsi Gabbard, an oddball
Democratic presidential contender who barely registered in polls. The congresswoman from
Hawaii is a completely discreditable candidate -- more on that in a moment -- but Clinton's
accusation that Gabbard is a tool of the Russians was so blunt and clumsy that it has added
new life to a primary bid that should never have existed in the first place. Within a day,
Gabbard was already fundraising off of it, a development as predictable as a sunrise.
Oh no! The great neo-liberal hope proves herself inept again, and the rest of the spooks get
antsy. Damn it Hillary, you're not supposed to directly say that. You're supposed to
imply it from unverifiable sources. Geez, you're making us all look like amateurs over
here.
Here we are again, watching the people that foiseted Her onto us in the first place,
gnashing their teeth because she can't play even the most elementary of politics.
Moreover, Clinton is also right that both Stein and Gabbard are favorites of the Russian
government, which has rushed social-media bots and state-controlled media to their defense at
various times. Stein even got a seat at a dinner with Vladimir Putin, an honor one might
think is a bit out of the weight class of a super-minor American candidate. The fact that
Stein was sitting at the same table as Putin, along with the retired general, future Donald
Trump appointee, and current felon Michael Flynn, should have raised alarm bells because
Putin never wastes a minute of his day on people who cannot be of use to him. But once Trump
was in the race, Russia focused its efforts on getting him elected, and Stein was left to do
what damage she could as a third-party spoiler.
And this is great! We're just going to repeat everything she said, embellish it, and pretend
like it's common knowledge! Brilliant!
Makes Kamala's answer the other day look especially telling. Well, of course ,
everyone knows that... But god, don't say that out loud!
The Atlantic Council of the United States was established in 1961 by former Secretaries
of State Dean Acheson and Christian Herter to bolster support for NATO. The name is
derivative of North Atlantic Council, the highest governing body of NATO.
+ On April 23, 1999, NATO rocketed the central studio of Radio Televisija Srbije (RTS),
the state-owned broadcasting corporation in Belgrade, destroying the building. Sixteen
civilian employees of RTS were killed and 16 wounded. Amnesty International concluded the
attack was a war crime.
+ In a Feb. 12, 2010 atrocity that was kept secret until March 13, US Special Forces
killed a teenage girl, a pregnant mother of 10, a pregnant mother of 6, a police officer
and his brother, and were accused of then trying to cover-up the killings by digging
bullets out of the victims' bodies, washing the wounds with alcohol and lying to superior
officers.
+ While bombing Libya in March 2011, NATO refused to aid a group of 72 migrants adrift
in the Mediterranean Sea. Only nine people on board survived. The refusal was condemned as
criminal by the Council of Europe.
+ On Nov. 26, 2011, NATO jets bombed and rocketed an allied Pakistani military base for
two hours, killing 26 Pakistani soldiers and wounding dozens more. NATO refuses to
apologize
War and spooks. It makes it me absolutely disgusted to see intelligent, left-leaning
people following obvious traps into xenophobia and fascism. People I love talking about
Russian conspiracies, foreign "assets", etc.
My wife is from Hawaii, and she used to respect Tulsi a great deal. It's heartbreaking for
me to watch her fall for this shit.
@Lookout
I think it's because she actually went to school for Political Science. She was in fact, an
intern in the Clinton administration.
Now, she left politics because she was disgusted by it.... I can only imagine how gross it
is up close and personal. But, I think like many women of her time, and a true feminist,
she's fallen for Hillary's victimization game.
When I told her I made my first political donation yesterday, she was excited. When I told
her it was to Tusi, for what Clinton had said, she became immediately combative. But when, I
in exasperation, yelled "I'M DOING IT TO DEFEND A WOMAN!" I think it finally clicked. I'm
hoping that maybe she can finally see that she is just a nasty, vindictive woman.
#2.1 I think
it's because she actually went to school for Political Science. She was in fact, an
intern in the Clinton administration.
Now, she left politics because she was disgusted by it.... I can only imagine how
gross it is up close and personal. But, I think like many women of her time, and a true
feminist, she's fallen for Hillary's victimization game.
When I told her I made my first political donation yesterday, she was excited. When I
told her it was to Tusi, for what Clinton had said, she became immediately combative. But
when, I in exasperation, yelled "I'M DOING IT TO DEFEND A WOMAN!" I think it finally
clicked. I'm hoping that maybe she can finally see that she is just a nasty, vindictive
woman.
Feminism isn't about saying women are better than men but saying women are as capable as
men.
Exactly right. My wife and I own a company. She's better at sales and customer service
than I am, so she does that. I'm better at marketing and technology issues, so I do that. We
each have strengths and weaknesses. The best policy for us, and I posit for society in
general, is to base decisions on quantifiable facts, not on gender.
#2.1.1 may
consider herself a true feminist, her unrelenting support of women as THE answer to our
problems says to me, in my own opinion, she's really no feminist. Feminism isn't about
saying women are better than men but saying women are as capable as men. To me, the
uttering of women who say, like some twit in the media a couple weeks ago, that "women
aren't corrupt" is actually a highly sexist thing to say. Women with real power in our
corrupt system are indeed as corrupt as any man is and seem fully capable of using their
corruption to get ahead. And there have been many women historically who proved that
capability rather well.
I have a couple of friends who are on the same wavelength in too many ways for me.
Both are younger than I am so some of that might be generational differences in
perception, but I think a lot of it is also the media hype of MeToo, Trump, etc. I get
extremely frustrated with them at times but I have learned lately not to even respond to
the latest outrage and keep reminding them, which both do not really like, that woman or
man, in this world, that choice matters about as much as the one between R and D...
Hillary and her disgusting minions sicken me with their sexism talk. They make an open
mockery of real sexism and they feel absolutely no shame doing it. Anything to get ahead
after all, they do not care how many real women they step on, bomb, and kill to get there
either.
@edg
generally, women just think a little different. It was a woman, accountant, that confronted
Ken Lay and brought down Enron. She had nothing to gain. It was a woman FBI agent that
noticed foreign nationals were taking flying lessons that didn't include landing an aircraft.
Her observations were dismissed. Men say, do this, you will prosper, women say do this, it's
the right thing to do. Because that's what they teach their kids. Yes, women can emulate men,
the glass ceiling omits that those standing on the top rung are standing on the fingers of
those below them. But damn it, we need a different way of thinking.
Feminism isn't about saying women are better than men but saying women are as
capable as men.
Exactly right. My wife and I own a company. She's better at sales and customer service
than I am, so she does that. I'm better at marketing and technology issues, so I do that.
We each have strengths and weaknesses. The best policy for us, and I posit for society in
general, is to base decisions on quantifiable facts, not on gender.
women are not shamed, objectified, exploited, deprived of choice, deprived of freedom,
deprived of opportunity, abused, or killed for being women.
#2.1.1 may
consider herself a true feminist, her unrelenting support of women as THE answer to our
problems says to me, in my own opinion, she's really no feminist. Feminism isn't about
saying women are better than men but saying women are as capable as men. To me, the
uttering of women who say, like some twit in the media a couple weeks ago, that "women
aren't corrupt" is actually a highly sexist thing to say. Women with real power in our
corrupt system are indeed as corrupt as any man is and seem fully capable of using their
corruption to get ahead. And there have been many women historically who proved that
capability rather well.
I have a couple of friends who are on the same wavelength in too many ways for me.
Both are younger than I am so some of that might be generational differences in
perception, but I think a lot of it is also the media hype of MeToo, Trump, etc. I get
extremely frustrated with them at times but I have learned lately not to even respond to
the latest outrage and keep reminding them, which both do not really like, that woman or
man, in this world, that choice matters about as much as the one between R and D...
Hillary and her disgusting minions sicken me with their sexism talk. They make an open
mockery of real sexism and they feel absolutely no shame doing it. Anything to get ahead
after all, they do not care how many real women they step on, bomb, and kill to get there
either.
#2.1.1 may
consider herself a true feminist, her unrelenting support of women as THE answer to our
problems says to me, in my own opinion, she's really no feminist. Feminism isn't about
saying women are better than men but saying women are as capable as men. To me, the
uttering of women who say, like some twit in the media a couple weeks ago, that "women
aren't corrupt" is actually a highly sexist thing to say. Women with real power in our
corrupt system are indeed as corrupt as any man is and seem fully capable of using their
corruption to get ahead. And there have been many women historically who proved that
capability rather well.
I have a couple of friends who are on the same wavelength in too many ways for me.
Both are younger than I am so some of that might be generational differences in
perception, but I think a lot of it is also the media hype of MeToo, Trump, etc. I get
extremely frustrated with them at times but I have learned lately not to even respond to
the latest outrage and keep reminding them, which both do not really like, that woman or
man, in this world, that choice matters about as much as the one between R and D...
Hillary and her disgusting minions sicken me with their sexism talk. They make an open
mockery of real sexism and they feel absolutely no shame doing it. Anything to get ahead
after all, they do not care how many real women they step on, bomb, and kill to get there
either.
Gabbard herself has already ruled out such a challenge, but that is beside the point.
Gabbard has now vowed to take her fight to the convention, where she might argue that the
nominee, whom Clinton will applaud and support, is just another tool of the Democratic,
neoconservative, neoliberal, warmongering, globalist establishment.
I sure hope that Tulsi gets a boost out of this nonsense. No matter what one may think of
her as a candidate, I am all for a bigger group of voices, and I am definitely on my feet
applauding Tulsi's response.
Correct me if this is wrong, but I saw a graphic on Twitter or Reddit last night that may
very well explain why Tulsi Gabbard was targeted by the Great White Failure: every one of the
major candidates were either Clinton state delegates or Clinton superdelegates - with the
exceptions of Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard. Also floating around was the Wikileaks email
from the Clinton Cabal to Tulsi, chastising her for resigning. Suddenly, the vicious and
vindictive swipe makes sense.
There was also lot of speculation online too about whether the Ghoul of Politics Past was
testing the smear job waters to see what would knock Tulsi, with the plan to debut the same
hits against Bernie Sanders. I can believe it.
Just to throw the question out there too: do you think other candidates should be asked
about this? I'm now of two minds. On one hand, I believe it's a fair question, and I
especially want to hear all of them demanding that Clinton provide proof of her pretty
serious allegations. Seems to me that no one has asked for the receipts yet. On the other,
the press shouldn't have time to be asking candidates what they think; they should all be
swarming Hillary Clinton, demanding to see her alleged evidence. A third part of me wonders
why we are still giving this human herpes any attention whatsoever. She should be relegated
to the same heap that Glenn Beck currently occupies, where no one gives a rat's ass about her
or her "opinions."
@Le
Frog
Based on Fmr. Sec. Clinton's libelous statement. The language was more direct and
absolute.
Rep. Gabbard should get a bump but she, and certainly Sen. Sanders, have bigger fish to
fry than jumping up and down every time Her rattles the car keys.
is a Donald Trump asset.
I sure hope that Tulsi gets a boost out of this nonsense. No matter what one may think
of her as a candidate, I am all for a bigger group of voices, and I am definitely on my
feet applauding Tulsi's response.
Correct me if this is wrong, but I saw a graphic on Twitter or Reddit last night that
may very well explain why Tulsi Gabbard was targeted by the Great White Failure: every
one of the major candidates were either Clinton state delegates or Clinton superdelegates
- with the exceptions of Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard. Also floating around was the
Wikileaks email from the Clinton Cabal to Tulsi, chastising her for resigning. Suddenly,
the vicious and vindictive swipe makes sense.
There was also lot of speculation online too about whether the Ghoul of Politics Past
was testing the smear job waters to see what would knock Tulsi, with the plan to debut
the same hits against Bernie Sanders. I can believe it.
Just to throw the question out there too: do you think other candidates should be
asked about this? I'm now of two minds. On one hand, I believe it's a fair question, and
I especially want to hear all of them demanding that Clinton provide proof of her pretty
serious allegations. Seems to me that no one has asked for the receipts yet. On the
other, the press shouldn't have time to be asking candidates what they think; they should
all be swarming Hillary Clinton, demanding to see her alleged evidence. A third part of
me wonders why we are still giving this human herpes any attention whatsoever. She should
be relegated to the same heap that Glenn Beck currently occupies, where no one gives a
rat's ass about her or her "opinions."
@OzoneTom
I would love to see a lawsuit from Jill Stein.
#4
Based on Fmr. Sec. Clinton's libelous statement. The language was more direct and
absolute.
Rep. Gabbard should get a bump but she, and certainly Sen. Sanders, have bigger fish
to fry than jumping up and down every time Her rattles the car keys.
...but it fits this conversation too
https://thegrayzone.com/2019/10/20/max-blumenthal-on-why-hillary-clinton... (22 min)
Max Blumenthal says that Clinton's comments reflect a continued effort by Democratic
neo-liberals to deflect responsibility for their loss to Trump in 2016; marginalize voices
like Gabbard and Stein's who challenge their pro-war, corporatist agenda; and preview their
potential future attacks on Bernie Sanders.
is a Donald Trump asset.
I sure hope that Tulsi gets a boost out of this nonsense. No matter what one may think
of her as a candidate, I am all for a bigger group of voices, and I am definitely on my
feet applauding Tulsi's response.
Correct me if this is wrong, but I saw a graphic on Twitter or Reddit last night that
may very well explain why Tulsi Gabbard was targeted by the Great White Failure: every
one of the major candidates were either Clinton state delegates or Clinton superdelegates
- with the exceptions of Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard. Also floating around was the
Wikileaks email from the Clinton Cabal to Tulsi, chastising her for resigning. Suddenly,
the vicious and vindictive swipe makes sense.
There was also lot of speculation online too about whether the Ghoul of Politics Past
was testing the smear job waters to see what would knock Tulsi, with the plan to debut
the same hits against Bernie Sanders. I can believe it.
Just to throw the question out there too: do you think other candidates should be
asked about this? I'm now of two minds. On one hand, I believe it's a fair question, and
I especially want to hear all of them demanding that Clinton provide proof of her pretty
serious allegations. Seems to me that no one has asked for the receipts yet. On the
other, the press shouldn't have time to be asking candidates what they think; they should
all be swarming Hillary Clinton, demanding to see her alleged evidence. A third part of
me wonders why we are still giving this human herpes any attention whatsoever. She should
be relegated to the same heap that Glenn Beck currently occupies, where no one gives a
rat's ass about her or her "opinions."
Representative Gabbard, We were very disappointed to hear that you would resign your
position with the DNC so you could endorse Bernie Sanders, a man who has never been a
Democrat before. When we met over dinner a couple of years ago I was so impressed by your
intellect, your passion, and commitment to getting things done on behalf of the American
people. For you to endorse a man who has spent almost 40 years in public office with very
few accomplishments, doesn't fall in line with what we previously thought of you. Hillary
Clinton will be our party's nominee and you standing on ceremony to support the sinking
Bernie Sanders ship is disrespectful to Hillary Clinton. A woman who has spent the vast
majority of her life in public service and working on behalf of women, families, and the
underserved. You have called both myself and Michael Kives before about helping your
campaign raise money, we no longer trust your judgement so will not be raising money for
your campaign.
Darnell Strom & Michael Kives
Ooh..bet that hurt.
These are the guys who represent lots of powerful people in government, the media and
Hollywood. If you want to go anywhere then you need them on your side.
is a Donald Trump asset.
I sure hope that Tulsi gets a boost out of this nonsense. No matter what one may think
of her as a candidate, I am all for a bigger group of voices, and I am definitely on my
feet applauding Tulsi's response.
Correct me if this is wrong, but I saw a graphic on Twitter or Reddit last night that
may very well explain why Tulsi Gabbard was targeted by the Great White Failure: every
one of the major candidates were either Clinton state delegates or Clinton superdelegates
- with the exceptions of Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard. Also floating around was the
Wikileaks email from the Clinton Cabal to Tulsi, chastising her for resigning. Suddenly,
the vicious and vindictive swipe makes sense.
There was also lot of speculation online too about whether the Ghoul of Politics Past
was testing the smear job waters to see what would knock Tulsi, with the plan to debut
the same hits against Bernie Sanders. I can believe it.
Just to throw the question out there too: do you think other candidates should be
asked about this? I'm now of two minds. On one hand, I believe it's a fair question, and
I especially want to hear all of them demanding that Clinton provide proof of her pretty
serious allegations. Seems to me that no one has asked for the receipts yet. On the
other, the press shouldn't have time to be asking candidates what they think; they should
all be swarming Hillary Clinton, demanding to see her alleged evidence. A third part of
me wonders why we are still giving this human herpes any attention whatsoever. She should
be relegated to the same heap that Glenn Beck currently occupies, where no one gives a
rat's ass about her or her "opinions."
Thomas M. Nichols
He closes the article with this tidbit -
As a former Republican who will vote for the Democratic nominee again in 2020, I hope
that I never have to talk about Tulsi Gabbard again. I can only hope that enough Democratic
Party leaders can convince Hillary Clinton to feel the same way.
Check out his book! -
The Death of Expertise: The Campaign against Established Knowledge and Why it Matters
(!!!!)
Technology and increasing levels of education have exposed people to more information
than ever before. These societal gains, however, have also helped fuel a surge in
narcissistic and misguided intellectual egalitarianism that has crippled informed debates
on any number of issues. Today, everyone knows everything: with only a quick trip through
WebMD or Wikipedia, average citizens believe themselves to be on an equal intellectual
footing with doctors and diplomats. All voices, even the most ridiculous, demand to be
taken with equal seriousness, and any claim to the contrary is dismissed as undemocratic
elitism. Tom Nichols' The Death of Expertise shows how this rejection of experts has
occurred: the openness of the internet, the emergence of a customer service model in higher
education, and the transformation of the news industry into a 24-hour entertainment
machine, among other reasons. Paradoxically, the increasingly democratic dissemination of
information, rather than producing an educated public, has instead created an army of
ill-informed and angry citizens who denounce intellectual achievement. When ordinary
citizens believe that no one knows more than anyone else, democratic institutions
themselves are in danger of falling either to populism or to technocracy or, in the worst
case, a combination of both.
@konondrum@konondrum
But I can't remember who. The big quote was something like, "In America every shopkeeper is
an expert."
Thomas M. Nichols
He closes the article with this tidbit -
As a former Republican who will vote for the Democratic nominee again in 2020, I
hope that I never have to talk about Tulsi Gabbard again. I can only hope that enough
Democratic Party leaders can convince Hillary Clinton to feel the same way.
Check out his book! -
The Death of Expertise: The Campaign against Established Knowledge and Why it Matters
(!!!!)
Technology and increasing levels of education have exposed people to more
information than ever before. These societal gains, however, have also helped fuel a
surge in narcissistic and misguided intellectual egalitarianism that has crippled
informed debates on any number of issues. Today, everyone knows everything: with only a
quick trip through WebMD or Wikipedia, average citizens believe themselves to be on an
equal intellectual footing with doctors and diplomats. All voices, even the most
ridiculous, demand to be taken with equal seriousness, and any claim to the contrary is
dismissed as undemocratic elitism. Tom Nichols' The Death of Expertise shows how this
rejection of experts has occurred: the openness of the internet, the emergence of a
customer service model in higher education, and the transformation of the news industry
into a 24-hour entertainment machine, among other reasons. Paradoxically, the
increasingly democratic dissemination of information, rather than producing an educated
public, has instead created an army of ill-informed and angry citizens who denounce
intellectual achievement. When ordinary citizens believe that no one knows more than
anyone else, democratic institutions themselves are in danger of falling either to
populism or to technocracy or, in the worst case, a combination of both.
@konondrum
This is just what I need: My worst of all fears confirmed.
It wasn't so long ago that "standing up to experts" was just something crank Texas
dentists got skewered by Stephen Colbert for...but now?
Thomas M. Nichols
He closes the article with this tidbit -
As a former Republican who will vote for the Democratic nominee again in 2020, I
hope that I never have to talk about Tulsi Gabbard again. I can only hope that enough
Democratic Party leaders can convince Hillary Clinton to feel the same way.
Check out his book! -
The Death of Expertise: The Campaign against Established Knowledge and Why it Matters
(!!!!)
Technology and increasing levels of education have exposed people to more
information than ever before. These societal gains, however, have also helped fuel a
surge in narcissistic and misguided intellectual egalitarianism that has crippled
informed debates on any number of issues. Today, everyone knows everything: with only a
quick trip through WebMD or Wikipedia, average citizens believe themselves to be on an
equal intellectual footing with doctors and diplomats. All voices, even the most
ridiculous, demand to be taken with equal seriousness, and any claim to the contrary is
dismissed as undemocratic elitism. Tom Nichols' The Death of Expertise shows how this
rejection of experts has occurred: the openness of the internet, the emergence of a
customer service model in higher education, and the transformation of the news industry
into a 24-hour entertainment machine, among other reasons. Paradoxically, the
increasingly democratic dissemination of information, rather than producing an educated
public, has instead created an army of ill-informed and angry citizens who denounce
intellectual achievement. When ordinary citizens believe that no one knows more than
anyone else, democratic institutions themselves are in danger of falling either to
populism or to technocracy or, in the worst case, a combination of both.
Will any of HER buddies address anything in Tulsi's tweet aside from Russia? I think not.
HER is going to have to take the "rot" comment on the chin because I'm sure they really
really don't want to have that conversation.
So, I am glad Tulsi opened that door and I hope she doesn't let up on it. Russiagate is,
after all, a symptom of the corruption in the party, just like Trump is.
@Lookout
I watched it yesterday and was amazed by his take on it, especially after he had harsh words
for Tulsi regarding her version of Medicare for All. To be sure, Time Black is a big Bernie
supporter, but his latest on Tulsi is excellent.
I was sorta confused about why Hillary did it. Mostly I thought to open door to attack
Bernie. In many ways that door is closed now given the reaction of the masses. I now think
Hillary's comments were meant to sideline not so much the candidate Tulsi but her messages of
anti-war and anti-regime change. I think her constant iteration just like Bernie's
constant iteration of m4a, was reaching people way beyond her poll numbers.
It boils down to this:
Atlantic Council (war mongers) = regime change and war is good. Losing ground.
Tulsi: regime change and war is bad. Winning ground.
Tulsi's influence goes beyond her poll numbers. She is thee most dangerous candidate to
the establishment because she is winning the ideological battle over foreign policy and
war.
@MrWebster
Nothing today should be about Her. It is straight from the Trump playbook. Allowing this
absurd slander to distract us from keeping our eyes on the prize is a win for Her.
Senator Sanders and Representative Gabbard are moving ahead on the front. They are
depending on the rest of us to resist on the flanks.
"Not me, Us!" is not just a slogan...
I was sorta confused about why Hillary did it. Mostly I thought to open door to attack
Bernie. In many ways that door is closed now given the reaction of the masses. I now
think Hillary's comments were meant to sideline not so much the candidate Tulsi but her
messages of anti-war and anti-regime change. I think her constant iteration just like
Bernie's constant iteration of m4a, was reaching people way beyond her poll
numbers.
It boils down to this:
Atlantic Council (war mongers) = regime change and war is good. Losing ground.
Tulsi: regime change and war is bad. Winning ground.
Tulsi's influence goes beyond her poll numbers. She is thee most dangerous candidate
to the establishment because she is winning the ideological battle over foreign policy
and war.
@MrWebster
Excellent comment that reflects my own view of what is going on here.
Just as Bernie's 2016 Presidential campaign has greatly changed the dommestic policy
landscape, the oligarchy and the MIC are seeing that Tulsi Gabbard's 2020 Presidential
campaign is beginning to take hold in changing the political landscape foreign policy wise.
The empire is coming apart and they are lashing back.
I was sorta confused about why Hillary did it. Mostly I thought to open door to attack
Bernie. In many ways that door is closed now given the reaction of the masses. I now
think Hillary's comments were meant to sideline not so much the candidate Tulsi but her
messages of anti-war and anti-regime change. I think her constant iteration just like
Bernie's constant iteration of m4a, was reaching people way beyond her poll
numbers.
It boils down to this:
Atlantic Council (war mongers) = regime change and war is good. Losing ground.
Tulsi: regime change and war is bad. Winning ground.
Tulsi's influence goes beyond her poll numbers. She is thee most dangerous candidate
to the establishment because she is winning the ideological battle over foreign policy
and war.
...something to do with HER server, wasn't it? But what I REALLY think is going on, and I
could be totally wrong, is that Bernie is considering Tulsi as his VP pick, when and if, and
this is to sow enough doubt and deceit about Tulsi that it wounds Bernie. But one thing I
know for sure: that Clinton hag is one evil bitch!
...something to do with HER server, wasn't it? But what I REALLY think is going on,
and I could be totally wrong, is that Bernie is considering Tulsi as his VP pick, when
and if, and this is to sow enough doubt and deceit about Tulsi that it wounds Bernie. But
one thing I know for sure: that Clinton hag is one evil bitch!
Neocons are lobbyists for MIC, the it is MIC that is the center of this this cult. People like Kriston, Kagan and Max Boot are
just well paid prostituttes on MIC, which includes intelligence agencies as a very important part -- the bridge to Wall Street so to
speak.
Being a neoconservative should receive at least as much vitriolic societal rejection as being a Ku Klux Klan member or a child
molester, but neocon pundits are routinely invited on mainstream television outlets to share their depraved perspectives.
Notable quotes:
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Neoconservatism is a psychopathic death cult whose relentless hyper-hawkishness is a greater threat to the survival of our species than anything else in the world right now. These people are traitors to humanity, and their ideology needs to be purged from the face of the earth forever. I'm not advocating violence of any kind here, but let's stop pretending that this is okay. Let's start calling these people the murderous psychopaths that they are whenever they rear their evil heads and stop respecting and legitimizing them. There should be a massive, massive social stigma around what these people do, so we need to create one. They should be marginalized, not leading us. ..."
Glenn Greenwald has just published a very important
article in The Intercept that I would have everyone in America read if I could. Titled "With New D.C. Policy Group,
Dems Continue to Rehabilitate and Unify With Bush-Era Neocons", Greenwald's excellent piece details the frustratingly under-reported
way that the leaders of the neoconservative death cult have been realigning with the Democratic party.
This pivot back to the party of neoconservatism's origin is one of the most significant political events of the new millennium,
but aside from a handful of sharp political analysts like Greenwald it's been going largely undiscussed. This is weird, and we need
to start talking about it. A lot. Their willful alignment with neoconservatism should be the very first thing anyone ever talks about
when discussing the Democratic party.
When you hear someone complaining that the Democratic party has no platform besides being anti-Trump, your response should be,
"Yeah it does. Their platform is the omnicidal death cult of neoconservatism."
It's absolutely insane that neoconservatism is still a thing, let alone still a thing that mainstream America tends to regard
as a perfectly legitimate set of opinions for a human being to have. As what Dr. Paul Craig Roberts rightly
calls "the most dangerous ideology that has ever
existed," neoconservatism has used its nonpartisan bloodlust to work with the Democratic party for the purpose of escalating tensions
with Russia on multiple fronts, bringing our species to the brink of what could very well end up being a
world war with a nuclear superpower and its allies.
This is not okay. Being a neoconservative should receive at least as much vitriolic societal rejection as being a Ku Klux Klan
member or a child molester, but neocon pundits are routinely invited on mainstream television outlets to share their depraved perspectives.
Check out leading neoconservative Bill Kristol's response to the aforementioned Intercept article:
... ... ...
Okay, leaving aside the fact that this bloodthirsty psychopath is saying neocons "won" a Cold War that neocons have deliberately
reignited by fanning the flames of the Russia hysteria and
pushing for more escalations , how insane is it that we live in a society where a public figure can just be like, "Yeah, I'm
a neocon, I advocate for using military aggression to maintain US hegemony and I think it's great," and have that be okay? These
people kill children. Neoconservatism means piles upon piles of child corpses. It means devoting the resources of a nation that won't
even provide its citizens with a real healthcare system to widespread warfare and all the death, destruction, chaos, terrorism, rape
and suffering that necessarily comes with war. The only way that you can possibly regard neoconservatism as just one more set of
political opinions is if you completely compartmentalize away from the reality of everything that it is.
This should not happen. The tensions with Russia that these monsters have worked so hard to escalate could blow up at any moment;
there are too many moving parts, too many things that could go wrong. The last Cold War brought our species
within a hair's
breadth of total annihilation due to our inability to foresee all possible complications which can arise from such a contest,
and these depraved death cultists are trying to drag us back into another one. Nothing is worth that. Nothing is worth risking the
life of every organism on earth, but they're risking it all for geopolitical influence.
... ... ...
I've had a very interesting last 24 hours. My
article about Senator John
McCain (which I titled "Please Just Fucking Die Already" because the title I really wanted to use seemed a bit crass) has received
an amount of attention that I'm not accustomed to, from
CNN to
USA Today to the
Washington Post . I watched Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar
talking about me on The View . They called me a "Bernie
Sanders person." It was a trip. Apparently some very low-level Republican with a few hundred Twitter followers went and retweeted
my article with an approving caption, and that sort of thing is worthy of coast-to-coast mainstream coverage in today's America.
This has of course brought in a deluge of angry comments, mostly from people whose social media pages are full of Russiagate
nonsense , showing
where McCain's current support base comes from. Some call him a war hero, some talk about him like he's a perfectly fine politician,
some defend him as just a normal person whose politics I happen to disagree with.
This is insane. This man has actively and enthusiastically pushed for every single act of military aggression that America has
engaged in, and some that
it hasn't , throughout his entire career. He makes Hillary "We came, we saw, he died" Clinton look like a dove. When you look
at John McCain, the very first thing you see should not be a former presidential candidate, a former POW or an Arizona Senator; the
first thing you see should be the piles of human corpses that he has helped to create. This is not a normal kind of person, and I
still do sincerely hope that he dies of natural causes before he can do any more harm.
Can we change this about ourselves, please? None of us should have to live in a world where pushing for more bombing campaigns
at every opportunity is an acceptable agenda for a public figure to have. Neoconservatism is a psychopathic death cult whose relentless
hyper-hawkishness is a greater threat to the survival of our species than anything else in the world right now. These people are
traitors to humanity, and their ideology needs to be purged from the face of the earth forever. I'm not advocating violence of any
kind here, but let's stop pretending that this is okay. Let's start calling these people the murderous psychopaths that they are
whenever they rear their evil heads and stop respecting and legitimizing them. There should be a massive, massive social stigma around
what these people do, so we need to create one. They should be marginalized, not leading us.
-- -- --
I'm a 100 percent reader-funded journalist so if you enjoyed this, please consider helping me out by sharing it around, liking
me on Facebook , following me on
Twitter , or throwing some money into my hat on
Patreon .
In trying to make up for my ignorance on Rome's history I came across P. A. Brunt's
"Social Conflicts in the Roman Republic." His account of the innovation of the office of the
tribune gave me a good sense of the intensity of those conflicts:
"In 494 a great body of the plebs sat down en masse outside Rome and refused to serve in
the army. Such a 'secession' or strike undoubtedly occurred in 287, and similar revolutionary
action must have been taken now, to account for the concession the patricians were forced to
make: the creation of the tribunate of the plebs. The ten tribunes were plebeians annually
elected by an assembly organized in voting units calle tribes; these were local divisions of
the state, originally four within the city and seventeen in the adjoining countryside. This
assembly was truly democratic at the start, when the tribes were probably more or less equal
in numbers; the rich had no superior voting power.
The original function of the tribunes was to protect humble Romans against oppression by
the magistrates; they did so by literally stepping between them and their intended victims
(intercessio). The magistrates did not dare touch their persons, which were 'sacrosanct';
that meant that the whole plebs were sworn to avenge them by lynching whoever laid hands on
them. But their power was confined to the city; outside the walls, Roman territory was still
too insecure for any restriction to be allowable on the discretion of the magistrates to act
as they thought best for the public safety. This limitation on tribunician power subsisted
throughout the Republic, long after its rationale had disappeared." p.52
In this light, it seems that the obstructionist quality of tribunician power that Yves'
refers to stemmed from the original need to allow plebs to put the kabosh on patrician power
to avoid revolution. Another instance of when peace brought about by a veto power eventually
makes the veto power appear unnecessary.
The limitation on the power of the tribunes in rural areas was relevant to a factor in
Rome's development Brunt places a lot of weight on: the breakdown of plebian farmholding, in
part through loss of land through absence brought about by conscription, but also by
patrician gang violence. In his telling this alienation by dispossession was ongoing to
varying degrees during the Republic.
During the New Deal, the union leaders were effectively tribunes without veto power, but
still considerable influence as they controlled a large number of voters belonging to
respective unions.
Similar short story was with Russian "Soviets" -- worker and peasant consuls until Stalin
centralization of governance. They were kind of power check on Bolshevik party Politburo (a
kind of Senate, the Bolsheviks party nobility )
"... This is when it became clear it wasn't just political operatives pushing fake news about Russian influence, but that "respected" mass media would be leading the charge for them. The rest is pretty much history. MSNBC, CNN, The Washington Post, etc have been spewing outlandish Russiagate nonsense for three years straight, and despite the complete failure of special counsel Robert Mueller to find any evidence of Trump-Russia collusion, these agents of empire refuse to stop. ..."
"... Americans like to sneer at more transparently unfree societies around the world, but when you think about the disturbing implications of former spooks delivering news to the public, one can't help but conclude that mass media in 2019 looks like a gigantic propaganda campaign targeting U.S. citizens. Moreover, as can be seen by the recent attacks by Clinton and her allies in the media on Gabbard, they aren't easing up. ..."
"... Comey was a senior vice president for Lockheed Martin before returning to Washington ..."
"... Excuse me, the voting going on up there for sanctions on Russia for various bogus things has been pretty much unanimous and bipartisan. ..."
The corporate revolution will collapse if we refuse to buy what they are selling – their ideas, their version of history, their
wars, their weapons, their notion of inevitability.
– Arundhati Roy
Last week, Hillary Clinton called Tulsi Gabbard (and Jill Stein) Russian agents on a podcast. More
specifically :
"I'm not making any predictions, but I think they've got their eye on someone who's currently in the Democratic primary and
are grooming her to be the third-party candidate. She's the favorite of the Russians," said Clinton, apparently referring to Rep.
Gabbard, who's been accused of receiving support from Russian bots and the Russian news media. "They have a bunch of sites and
bots and other ways of supporting her so far." She added: "That's assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not because
she's also a Russian asset. Yeah, she's a Russian asset -- I mean, totally. They know they can't win without a third-party candidate.
So I don't know who it's going to be, but I will guarantee you they will have a vigorous third-party challenge in the key states
that they most needed."
Tulsi subsequently responded to this slanderous accusation with a series of devastating blows.
Her tweets set off a firestorm, and even if you're as disillusioned by presidential politics as myself, you couldn't help but
cheer wildly that someone with a major political platform finally stated without any hint of fear or hesitation exactly what so many
Americans across the ideological spectrum feel.
Of course, this has far wider implications than a high profile feud between these two. The "let's blame Russia for Hillary's loss"
epidemic of calculated stupidity driven by Ellen-Democrats and their mouthpieces across corporate mass media began immediately after
the election. I know about it on a personal level because this website was an early target of the neoliberal-led new McCarthyism
courtesy of a ridiculous and libelous smear in the Washington Post over Thanksgiving weekend 2016 (see:
Liberty Blitzkrieg Included on Washington Post Highlighted Hit List of "Russian Propaganda" Websites) .
This is when it became clear it wasn't just political operatives pushing fake news about Russian influence, but that "respected"
mass media would be leading the charge for them. The rest is pretty much history. MSNBC, CNN, The Washington Post, etc have been
spewing outlandish Russiagate nonsense for three years straight, and despite the complete failure of special counsel Robert Mueller
to find any evidence of Trump-Russia collusion, these agents of empire refuse to stop. The whole charade seems more akin to an intelligence
operation than journalism, which shouldn't be surprising given the proliferation of former intelligence agents throughout mass media
in the Trump era.
Former CIA Director
John Brennan
(2013-17) is the latest superspook to be reborn as a TV newsie. He just
cashed in at
NBC News as a "senior national security and intelligence analyst" and served his first expert views on last Sunday's edition of
Meet the Press .
The Brennan acquisition seeks to elevate NBC to spook parity with CNN, which employs former Director of National Intelligence
James Clapper and former CIA Director
Michael Hayden
in a similar capacity.
Other, lesser-known national security veterans thrive under TV's grow lights. Almost too numerous to list, they include
Chuck Rosenberg
, former acting DEA administrator, chief of staff for FBI Director James B. Comey, and
counselor to former FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III;
Frank Figliuzzi , former chief of FBI counterintelligence;
Juan Zarate , deputy national security adviser under Bush, at NBC; and
Fran
Townsend , homeland security adviser under Bush, at CBS News.
CNN's bulging roster also includes former FBI agent Asha Rangappa
; former FBI agent James Gagliano
; Obama's former deputy national security adviser
Tony Blinken ; former House
Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers ; senior
adviser to the National Security Council during the Obama administration
Samantha Vinograd ; retired CIA operations officer
Steven L. Hall; and
Philip Mudd , also retired from the CIA.
Americans like to sneer at more transparently unfree societies around the world, but when you think about the disturbing implications
of former spooks delivering news to the public, one can't help but conclude that mass media in 2019 looks like a gigantic propaganda
campaign targeting U.S. citizens. Moreover, as can be seen by the recent attacks by Clinton and her allies in the media on Gabbard,
they aren't easing up.
Which brings us to the crux of the issue. Why are they doing this? Why is Clinton, with zero evidence whatsoever, falsely calling
a sitting U.S. Congresswoman, a veteran with two tours in Iraq, and someone polling at only 2% in the Democratic primary a "Russian
asset." Why are they so afraid of Tulsi Gabbard?
It's partly personal. Tulsi was one of only a handful of congressional Democrats to set aside fears of the Clintons and their
mafia-like network to endorse Bernie Sanders early in 2016. In fact, she
stepped
down from her position as vice-chairman of the Democratic National Committee to do so. This is the sort of thing a petty narcissist
like Hillary Clinton could never forgive, but it goes further.
Tulsi's mere presence on stage during recent debates has proven devastating for the Ellen Degeneres wing of the Democratic party.
She effectively ended neoliberal darling Kamala Harris' chances by simply telling the truth about her horrible record, something
no one else in the race had the guts to do.
In other words, Tulsi demolished Kamala Harris and put an end to her primary chances by simply telling the truth about her on
national television. This is how powerful the truth can be when somebody's actually willing to stand up and say it. It's why the
agents of empire -- in charge of virtually all major institutions -- go out of their way to ensure the American public is exposed
to as little truth as possible. It's also why they lie and scream "Russia" instead of debating the actual issues.
But this goes well beyond Tulsi Gabbard. Empire requires constant meddling abroad as well as periodic regime change wars to ensure
compliant puppets are firmly in control of any country with any geopolitical significance. The 21st century has been littered with
a series of disastrous U.S. interventions abroad, while the country back home continues to descend deeper into a neo-feudal oligarchy
with a hunger games style economy. As such, an increasing number of Americans have begun to question the entire premise of imperial
foreign policy.
To the agents of empire, dominant throughout mainstream politics, mega corporations, think-tanks and of course mass media, this
sort of thought crime is entirely unacceptable. In case you haven't noticed, empire is a third-rail of U.S. politics. If you dare
touch the issue, you'll be ruthlessly smeared, without any evidence, as a Russian agent or asset. There's nothing logical about this,
but then again there typically isn't much logic when it comes to psychological operations. They depend on manipulation and triggering
specific emotional responses.
There's a reason people like Hillary Clinton and her minions just yell "Russia" whenever an individual with a platform criticizes
empire and endless war. They know they can't win an argument if they debate the actual issues, so a conscious choice was made to
simply avoid debate entirely. As such, they've decided to craft and spread a disingenuous narrative in which anyone critical of establishment
neocon/neoliberal foreign policy is a Russia asset/agent/bot. This is literally all they've got. These people are telling you 2+2=5
and if you don't accept it, you're a traitorous, Putin-loving nazi with a pee pee tape. And these same people call themselves "liberal."
Importantly, it isn't just a few trollish kooks doing this. It's being spread by some of the most powerful people and institutions
in the country, including of course mass media.
This inane verbal vomit is considered "liberal" news in modern America, a word which has now lost all meaning. Above, we witness
a collection of television mannequins questioning the loyalty of a U.S. veteran who continues to serve in both Congress and the national
guard simply because she dared call out America's perpetually failing foreign policy establishment.
To conclude, it's now clear dissent is only permitted so long as it doesn't become too popular. By polling at 2% in the primary,
it appears Gabbard became too popular, but the truth is she's just a vessel. What's really got the agents of empire concerned is
we may be on the verge of a tipping point within the broader U.S. population regarding regime change wars and empire. This is why
debate needs to be shut down and shut down now. A critical mass of citizens openly questioning establishment foreign policy cannot
be permitted. Those on the fence need to be bullied and manipulated into thinking dissent is equivalent to being a traitor. The national
security state doesn't want the public to even think about such topics, let alone debate them.
Ultimately, if you give up your capacity for reason, for free-thought and for the courage to say what you think about issues of
national significance, you've lost everything. This is what these manipulators want you to do. They want you to shut-up, to listen
to the "experts" who destroy everything they touch, and to be a compliant subject as opposed to an active, empowered citizen. The
answer to such a tactic is to be more bold, more informed and more ethical. They fear truth and empowered individuals more than anything
else. Stand up tall and speak your mind. Pandering to bullies never works.
* * *
Liberty Blitzkrieg is now 100% ad free. To make this a successful, sustainable thing consider the following options. You can become
a Patron . You can visit the
Support Page to donate via PayPal, Bitcoin
or send cash/check in the mail.
For those of us who grew up during the Cold War going to Russia is intense. I have never been so scared in my life as when
that plane touched down at Pulkovo 2. And I though Dulles was a shithole.
Russians love art and they have fantastic museums and fantastic architecture. Food is a bit sketchy but you can make do. No
fat women there that I saw. In fact, you will see some of the most beautiful women in the world there. Trust me on that.
Pelosi is smart enough to know that all roads lead to Putin. But is she smart enough to know that're not just American and
its 'allied' Western 'roads', but now its all the roads in the world.
Because the world finally understands that Putin is the only peacemaker on the scene. And that most of the disputes the international
community is saddled with are a direct result of American foreign policy and the excesses of its economy.
The world is tired of being dragged through Hell at the whim of a handful of American neocon devotees of Paul Wolfowitz and
the fallacious Wolfowitz Doctrine which was credited with having won the Cold War for the West and has been in effect ever since.
Except there seems to be some doubt now who actually won the Cold War with America scrambling to get out of Syria, leaving
behind a symbolic force of a couple of thousand troops.
That's the reason for everything that's going on America today. Russia, under Putin, has turned the tables on Congress, the
neocons, the warmongers, and those politicians and elite who want the Middle East and its vast reserves of oil to continue to
be destabilized by intranational, neighborly hatreds, by terrorism and by America's closest ally, Israel to continue to expand
its borders with its policy of settlements. This problematic situation is scrupulously avoided in America and the West's MSM,
and can only be seen in foreign media. Which brings us back to Putin.
Is he following the strategies of Sun Tzu, who advises you to
'appear weak when you are strong and strong when you are weak.'
'all warfare is based on deception'
'victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first then try to win.'
Hillary Clinton is obviously testing the waters for a last-minute, swoop-in candidacy. She sees Biden deflating and realizes
there's nobody to keep the Democratic nomination firmly in corporate hands. She wants them to beg her, though.
Without Russia, ASSAD would be long gone and IRAN would have been bombed to oblivion, and Greater Israhell would have been
fulfilled and ruling over the MidEast.
In other words, Russia bashing by Jewish-controlled politicians and in Jewish-controlled Western media
is simply PAYBACK .
I am a Russian Agent. Well, not formally but act as one. Only in elections though as Russia forbids (after losing 30 million
dead in WW2) any military or violent interference. Agent may be too strong a word as my actions reflect the beauty of Russian
literature, music and philosophy. (qv Kropotkin, Rimsky Korsakoff etc. etc.) Maybe a spokesman?
In this coming election vote for the agent of your choice. Gabbard, Trump, (Cackles, hang on and wait for this one) or Biden
( on whom we await a conversion). This agency stuff is fun. Can't wait.
The quid pro quo for many Deep State bureaucrats comes after they are no longer in office as typified by jobs as "experts"
with the corrupt news networks. Comey was a senior vice president for Lockheed Martin before returning to Washington.
Trump is outing them all and they are out to destroy him.
If the Russians are so bad, why did we give them our Uranium? Hillary and corrupt Washington Swamp dwellers in action. How
many in Congress opposed the deal? We need Trump to be reelected to Make America Great Again.
I remember in the 80's Democrats would mercilessly lampoon and make fun of Conservatives for their (at the time) hard-line
stance against the Soviet Union and how we should just get over it: peace, love and b*llsh*t. My how times have changed.
You need a scorecard to keep track these days. Barry lampooned Mitt for speaking against the Russians, like they were the 'good
guys' (ahem, 'tell Vlad' and Kills power reset button) Make up your ******* minds people.
Thank you for bringing my attention to Russia. Had it not been for your constant denunciations, I probably would never have
investigated that nation to the extent that I have, and that would have been my loss. Allow me to explain.
As a permanent student of human history and culture, I've traveled to, and studied many different nations, from Japan, China
and Thailand, to Europe, Latin America and the Middle East, but somehow I managed to completely miss Russia. Of course I was familiar
with the Western narrative concerning communism and the USSR - I grew up with that - but I never fully understood Russian culture
until, by your actions, you forced me to look into it.
I've since studied their history intently, and have studied their language to the point where I can at least make myself understood.
I've spoken to Russian expats, read numerous books, watched their TV shows, listened to their music, and have kept a close eye
on current events, including the coup in Ukraine and Russia's response to that event. At this point I feel well enough prepared
to travel to Russia and I'm looking forward to my upcoming trip with great anticipation.
I operate on the basic premise that I'm nobody special - that there are thousands of people just like me with a deep interest
in human affairs, who, like myself, have been prompted to investigate a culture that, for various reasons, has been largely overlooked
in the West. So, on my own and their behalf I thank you for providing the impetus to focus our attention in that regard. It's
probably not what you intended, but it is what it is. Thanks to you, many hundreds, if not thousands of people have now undertaken
a study of Russia and her people, and that can only be a good thing, as the more we know about each other, the less we have to
fear, and the less likely we are to come into conflict with one another.
Bravo well written and right on the mark. If Tulsi wasn't a gun grabber and openly supported the 2nd Amendment she would be
a front runner, only a few steps behind Trump. And by the way, don't trust those 2% Polls. We all know the polls are pure ********.
When one Colonel Gary Powers was shot down in his USAF U2 spy plane in 1960 and captured alive he was asked by his then KGB
interrogators what the difference was between the Republican and Democratic parties.......and he admitted to being at a loss to
explain that there was any fundamental difference at all.
Therein lies the root problem with the American political system. All through the process it arrives at the same outcomes and
it doesnt matter who you vote for.
It could be argued that it is in effect a one party system as both are indistinguishable from each other ultimately as they
push the America PLC agenda.
The entire system is held captive by secretive and "invisible" unelected groups who call the shots and if you push too hard
they have you killed one way or another.....all the esoteric secret societies of any significance are represented.
The question therefore is this; Is America any different to China other than the wallpaper coverings?
To paraphrase Mark Twain; If voting really mattered they wouldn't let you do it.
Those on the fence need to be bullied and manipulated into thinking dissent is equivalent to being a traitor
This is true with Trumptards on this comments board. They unquestionably follow lies, manipulative, and hollow Trump doctrine
without thinking.
Just yesterday there was and idiot spewing out that 'Assange was treasonous' before engaging his cerebral matter to realise
you cannot be a traitor against a country that's not yours.
Warren (D)(1): "Elizabeth Warren to put out plan on how to pay for 'Medicare for All'" [
CNN ]. • "Pay for" being both delusional and a question nobody, including Warren,
ever asks about war, and "taxes on the middle class" being, shall we say, a well-worn,
content-free trope.
Warren (D)(2): "Why Criticize Warren?" [Nathan Robinson, Current Affairs ]. "What
will the right's main line of attack against Warren be? I think you can see it already,
actually: They will attempt to portray her as inauthentic and untrustworthy. She will be
painted as a Harvard egghead who has suddenly discovered populism for self-serving reasons, a
slippery elite who isn't telling you the truth about her agenda . What worries me about
Elizabeth Warren is that the criticisms of her as untrustworthy are not easy to wave away.
Warren began her 2020 campaign with a video claiming to be a Native American, even though she
isn't one. She
has now tried to bury the evidence that she did this, by deleting the video and all
accompanying social media posts .
I have tried, so far, to avoid lapsing into the usual discussions of "Bernie Sanders
versus Elizabeth Warren," but here I should note that one reason I think Bernie Sanders is
such a powerful potential candidate against Trump is that he doesn't have these kind of messy
problems of authenticity and honesty.
The thing almost nobody denies about Bernie is that you know where he stands."
As The Big Picture says above. This is a massive takedown, and I've focused on a single,
tactical issue, but this post is a must-read in full. If it's correct, the Warren campaign is
a train-wreck waiting to happen.
(Adding, the Cherokee issue really matters to me, because the Penobscots were enormously
powerful allies in the fight against the landfill (and cf. Standing Rock). It just drives me
bananas that Warren didn't check in with the Cherokees before declaring herself one of them.
I think it's an outrage, and I don't care if I get eye-rolls for it.)
In keeping with professional journalistic ethics, The Times also reached out to
experts on fascism, fascist terrorism, terrorist fascism, fascist-adjacent Assad-apologism,
Hitlerism, horrorism, Russia, and so on, to confirm Gabbard's guilt-by-association with the
people The Times had just associated her with. Brian Levin, Director of the CSU Center
for the Study of Hate and Extremism, confirmed that Gabbard has "the seal of approval" within
goose-stepping, Hitler-loving, neo-Nazi circles. The Alliance for Securing Democracy (yes, the
one from the previous paragraph) conducted an "independent analysis" which confirmed that RT
("the Kremlin-backed news agency") had mentioned Gabbard far more often than the Western
corporate media (which isn't backed by anyone, and is totally unbiased and independent, despite
the fact that most of it is owned by a handful of powerful global corporations, and at least
one CIA-affiliated oligarch). Oh, and Hawaii State Senator Kai Kahele, who is challenging
Gabbard for her seat in Congress, agreed with The Times that Gabbard's support from
Jew-hating, racist Putin-Nazis might be a potential liability.
"Clearly there's something about her and her policies that attracts and appeals to these
type of people who are white nationalists, anti-Semites, and Holocaust deniers."
But it's not just The New York Times , of course. No sooner had Clinton finished
cackling than the corporate media launched into their familiar Goebbelsian piano routine,
banging out story after television segment repeating the words "Gabbard" and "Russian asset."
I've singled out The Times because the smear piece in question was clearly a warm-up for
Hillary Clinton's calculated smear job on Friday night. No, the old gal hasn't lost her mind.
She knew exactly what she was doing, as did the editors of The New York Times , as did
every other establishment news source that breathlessly "reported" her neo-McCarthyite
smears.
As I noted in my previous essay ,
2020 is for all the marbles, and it's not just about who wins the election. No, it's mostly
about crushing the "populist" backlash against the hegemony of global capitalism and its happy,
smiley-faced, conformist ideology. To do that, the neoliberal establishment has to
delegitimize, and lethally stigmatize, not just Trump, but also people like Gabbard, Bernie
Sanders, Jeremy Corbyn and any other popular political figure (left, right, it makes no
difference) deviating from that ideology.
Ask yourself, what do Trump, Sanders, Corbyn, and Gabbard have in common? No, it's not their
Putin-Nazism it's the challenge they represent to global capitalism. Each, in his or her own
way, is a symbol of the growing populist resistance to the privatization and globalization of
everything. And thus, they must be delegitimized, stigmatized, and relentlessly smeared as
"Russian assets," "anti-Semites," "traitors," "white supremacists," "fascists," "communists,"
or some other type of "extremists."
Gabbard, to her credit, understands this, and is focusing attention on the motives
and tactics of the neoliberal establishment and their smear machine. As I noted in
an essay last year , "the only way to effectively counter a smear campaign (whether
large-scale or small-scale) is to resist the temptation to profess your innocence, and,
instead, focus as much attention on the tactics and the motives of the smearers as
possible ." This will not save her, but it is the best she can do, and I applaud her for
having the guts to do it. I hope she continues to give them hell as they finish off her
candidacy and drive her out of office.
... ... ...
Ask them whether their smear machine is working... if you can get them off the phone with
their brokers, or whoever is decorating their summer places in the Hamptons or out on
Martha's
Vineyard .
Or ask the millions of well-off liberals who are still, even after Russiagate was exposed as an
enormous hoax based on absolutely nothing , parroting this paranoid official narrative and
calling people "Russian assets" on Twitter. Or never mind, just pay attention to what happens
over the next twelve months. In terms of ridiculous
official propaganda , spittle-flecked McCarthyite smears, and full-blown psychotic mass
Putin-Nazi hysteria, it's going to make the last three years look like the Propaganda Special
Olympics.
* * *
C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and political satirist
based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play
Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is
published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant Paperbacks. He can be reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org .
She is absolutely in the best position to talk about foreign policy having been there in the
trenches and personally knowing horrors or war. I've seen bits of those Fox videos and she
was admirable there. Being a veteran probably counts for something in small towns where most
Americans live.
I wasn't following her on social media so not sure how she fares there.
Bernie, on the other hand, knows how to campaign and has very good domestic policy and he
used to be popular in swing states, certainly better than Clinton.
So two of them would be my dream ticket. I feel Warren and Biden would be a loss of
another four years or even longer.
While the mainstream liberal media remains firmly in the pocket of the Clintons' propaganda machine, spewing russophobic accusations
at any and every one who dares question the establishment and military-industrial complex line, there are some - on the left - that
are willing to step up and defend Tulsi Gabbard against the latest delusional suggestion from Hillary that she is a 'Russian asset'.
So now Crooked Hillary is at it again! She is calling Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard "a Russian favorite," and Jill Stein "a Russian
asset." As you may have heard, I was called a big Russia lover also (actually, I do like Russian people. I like all people!).
Hillary's gone Crazy!
What the circular firing squad left undone, will be accomplished by infighting between Clintonites and "moderates" ( a too
positive concept). May the Deluge drown you all in 2020.
...Tulsi served two tours of duty in the Middle East, and she continues her service as a Major in the Army National Guard.
Tulsi's 2005 deployment was a 12-month tour at Logistical Support Area Anaconda in Iraq, where she served in a field medical unit
as a specialist with a 29th Support Battalion medical company. She was awarded the Meritorious Service Medal at the end of this
tour.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren are reportedly developing a close
political friendship that might prove pivotal to deciding the Democratic presidential nomination.
Both have kept in touch since Warren announced her decision to seek the Democratic nomination last February, NBC News reported
Saturday.
"Hillary Clinton would absolutely have influence over a number of delegates to this convention," Deb Kozikowski, the vice-chairwoman
of the Massachusetts Democratic Party, told NBC, referring to the possibility that Clinton could help Warren secure delegates
if there is no clear nominee heading into the Democratic National Convention next summer .
One Democratic strategist told NBC that Clinton has been watching and approving of Warren's campaign as the senator has unveiled
a series of increasingly progressive policy proposals.
"... And then there is the Great Hillary Clinton caper. In an interview last week Hillary claimed predictably that Donald Trump is "Vladimir Putin's dream," and then went on to assert that there would be other Russian assets emerging, including nestled in the bosom of her own beloved Democratic Party ..."
"... Tulsi responded courageously and accurately "Great! Thank you @HillaryClinton . ..."
"... Tulsi has in fact been attacked relentless by the Establishment since she announced that she would be running for the Democratic nomination. Shortly before last Tuesday's Democratic candidate debate the New York Times ..."
"... quid pro quos ..."
"... Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is ..."
There was what might be described as an extraordinary amount of nonsense being promoted by
last week's media. Unfortunately, some of it was quite dangerous. Admiral William McRaven, who
commanded the Navy Seals when Osama bin Laden was captured and killed and who has been riding
that horse ever since, announced that if Donald Trump continues to fail to provide the type of
leadership the country needs, he should be replaced by whatever means are necessary. The
op-ed entitled "Our Republic is Under Attack by the President" with the subtitle "If
President Trump doesn't demonstrate the leadership that America needs, then it is time for a
new person in the Oval Office" was featured in the New York Times, suggesting that the Gray
Lady was providing its newspaper of record seal of approval for what might well be regarded as
a call for a military coup.
McRaven's exact words, after some ringing praise for the military and all its glorious deeds
in past wars, were that the soldiers, sailors and marines now must respond because "The America
that they believed in was under attack, not from without, but from within."
McRaven then elaborated that "These men and women, of all political persuasions, have seen
the assaults on our institutions: on the intelligence and law enforcement community, the State
Department and the press. They have seen our leaders stand beside despots and strongmen,
preferring their government narrative to our own. They have seen us abandon our allies and have
heard the shouts of betrayal from the battlefield. As I stood on the parade field at Fort
Bragg, one retired four-star general, grabbed my arm, shook me and shouted, 'I don't like the
Democrats, but Trump is destroying the Republic!'"
It is a call to arms if there ever was one. Too bad Trump can't strip McRaven of his pension
and generous health care benefits for starters and McRaven might also consider that he could be
recalled to active duty by Trump and court martialed under the Uniform Code of Military
Justice. And the good admiral, who up until 2018 headed the state university system in Texas,
might also receive well merited pushback for his assessment of America's role in the world over
the past two decades, in which he was a major player, at least in terms of dealing out
punishment. He wrote ""We are the most powerful nation in the world because we try to be the
good guys. We are the most powerful nation in the world because our ideals of universal freedom
and equality have been backed up by our belief that we were champions of justice, the
protectors of the less fortunate."
Utter bullshit, of course. The United States has been acting as the embodiment of a rogue
nation, lashing out pointlessly and delivering death and destruction. If McRaven truly believes
what he says he is not only violating his oath to defend the constitution while also toying
with treason, he is an idiot and should never have been allowed to run anything more demanding
than a hot dog stand. Washington has been systematically blowing people up worldwide for no
good reasons, killing possibly as many as 4 million mostly Muslims, while systematically
stripping Americans of their Bill of Rights at home. "Good guys" and "champions of justice"
indeed!
And then there is the Great Hillary Clinton caper. In an
interview last week Hillary claimed predictably that Donald Trump is "Vladimir Putin's
dream," and then went on to assert that there would be other Russian assets emerging, including
nestled in the bosom of her own beloved Democratic Party . She said, clearly suggesting
that it would be Tulsi Gabbard, that "They're also going to do third-party again. I'm not
making any predictions, but I think they've got their eye on someone who's currently in the
Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate. She's the favorite of
the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far."
Clinton explained how the third-party designation would work, saying of Jill Stein, who ran
for president in 2016 as a Green Party candidate, "And that's assuming Jill Stein will give it
up, which she might not because she's also a Russian asset. Yeah, she's a Russian asset -- I
mean, totally. They know they can't win without a third-party candidate. So I don't know who
it's going to be, but I will guarantee you they will have a vigorous third-party challenge in
the key states that they most needed."
Tulsi responded courageously and accurately "Great! Thank you @HillaryClinton . You, the queen of warmongers,
embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party
for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain. From the day I announced my
candidacy, there has been a concerted campaign to destroy my reputation. We wondered who was
behind it and why. Now we know -- it was always you, through your proxies and powerful allies
in the corporate media and war machine, afraid of the threat I pose. It's now clear that this
primary is between you and me. Don't cowardly hide behind your proxies. Join the race
directly."
Tulsi has in fact been attacked relentless by the Establishment since she announced that
she would be running for the Democratic nomination. Shortly before last Tuesday's Democratic
candidate debate the New York Timesran an
article suggesting that Gabbard was an isolationist, was being promoted by Russia and was
an apologist for Syria's Bashar al-Assad. In reality, Gabbard is the only candidate willing to
confront America's warfare-national security state.
The Hillary Clinton attack on Gabbard and on the completely respectable Jill Stein is to a
certain extent incomprehensible unless one lives in the gutter that she and Bill have wallowed
in ever since they rose to prominence in Arkansas. Hillary, the creator of the private home
server for classified information as well as author of the catastrophic war against Libya and
the Benghazi debacle has a lot to answer for but will never be held accountable, any more than
her husband Bill for his rapes and molestations. And when it comes to foreign interference,
Gabbard is being pilloried because the Russian media regards her favorably while the Clinton
Foundation has taken
tens of millions of dollars from foreign governments and billionaires seeking quid pro
quos , much of which has gone to line the pockets of Hillary, Bill and Chelsea.
Finally, one comment about the Democratic Party obsession with the Russians. The media was
enthusing last Friday over a photo of Speaker Nancy Pelosi standing up across a table from
President Trump and pointing at him before walking out of the room. The gushing regarding how a
powerful, strong woman was defying the horrible chief executive was both predictable and
ridiculous. By her own admission Pelosi's
last words before departing were "All roads lead to Putin." I will leave it up to the
reader to interpret what that was supposed to mean.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National
Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that
seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is
councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its
email is[email protected]
While Mayor Pete was a little evasive on actually talking down the "Russian asset"
accusation, he did question it, saying that "statements like that ought to be backed by
evidence."
"I don't know what the basis is for that," he said.
"But I consider her to be a competitor. I respect her service. I also have very different
views than she does, especially on foreign policy, and I would prefer to have that argument
in terms of policy which is what we do at debates and what we're doing as we go forward."
Another 2020 presidential hopeful, former Texas Rep. Beto O'Rourke, also dismissed
the Gabbard claim , insisting the focus of the presidential campaign should be on the economy,
climate change and other issues affecting Americans.
"That's not correct. Tulsi is not being groomed by anyone. She is her own person," he told
reporters after delivering a keynote address Saturday at the Alabama Democratic Conference
Semi-Annual Convention in Birmingham.
"Obviously (she) has served this country, continues to serve this country in uniform, in
Congress, as a candidate for presidency so I think those facts speak for themselves."
" Tulsi Gabbard deserves much more respect and thanks than this. She literally just got
back from serving our country abroad."
And now, having been cheated of his chance against Hillary in 2016 - running to her side
like a loyal party comrade after the DNC practically ran him out of the party - a
post-heartattack Bernie Sanders - perhaps with little left to lose - has finally come out
swinging at Clinton.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Elizabeth
Warren are reportedly developing a close political friendship that might prove pivotal to
deciding the Democratic presidential nomination.
Both have kept in touch since Warren announced her decision to seek the Democratic
nomination last February, NBC News reported Saturday.
"Hillary Clinton would absolutely have influence over a number of delegates to this
convention," Deb Kozikowski, the vice-chairwoman of the Massachusetts Democratic Party, told
NBC, referring to the possibility that Clinton could help Warren secure delegates if there is
no clear nominee heading into the Democratic National Convention next summer .
One Democratic strategist told NBC that Clinton has been watching and approving of
Warren's campaign as the senator has unveiled a series of increasingly progressive policy
proposals.
"... "I'm not making any predictions, but I think they've got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate." ..."
"... The Times piece goes on to list an assortment of unsavory, extremist, white supremacist, horrible, neo-Nazi-type persons that Tulsi Gabbard has nothing to do with, but which Hillary Clinton, the Intelligence Community, The Times , and the rest of the corporate media would like you to mentally associate her with. ..."
So, it looks like that's it for America, folks. Putin has gone and done it again. He and his conspiracy of Putin-Nazis have "hacked,"
or "influenced," or "meddled in" our democracy. Unless Admiral Bill McRaven and his special ops cronies can ginny up
a last-minute
military coup , it's four more years of the Trumpian Reich, Russian soldiers patrolling the streets, martial law, concentration
camps, gigantic banners with the faces of Trump and Putin hanging in the football stadiums, mandatory Sieg-heiling in the public
schools, National Vodka-for-Breakfast Day, death's heads, babushkas, the whole nine yards.
We probably should have seen this coming.
That's right, as I'm sure you are aware by now, president-in-exile Hillary Clinton has discovered Putin's diabolical plot to steal
the presidency from Elizabeth Warren, or Biden, or whichever establishment puppet makes it out of the Democratic primaries. Speaking
to former Obama adviser and erstwhile partner at AKPD Message and Media David
Plouffe, Clinton revealed
how the godless Rooskies intend to subvert democracy this time:
"I'm not making any predictions, but I think they've got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary
and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate."
She was referring, of course, to Tulsi Gabbard, sitting Democratic Member of Congress, decorated Major in the Army National Guard,
and long shot 2020 presidential candidate. Apparently, Gabbard (who reliable anonymous sources in the Intelligence Community have
confirmed is a member of some kind of treasonous, Samoan-Hindu, Assad-worshipping cult that wants to force everyone to practice yoga)
has been undergoing Russian "grooming" at a compound in an undisclosed location that is probably in the basement of Mar-a-Lago, or
on Sublevel 168 of Trump Tower.
In any event, wherever Gabbard is being surreptitiously "groomed" (presumably by someone resembling
Lotte Lenya in From Russia With Love ),
the plan (i.e., Putin's plan) is to have her lose in the Democratic primaries, then run as a third-party "spoiler" candidate, stealing
votes from Warren or Biden, exactly as Jill Stein (who, according to Clinton, is also "totally a Russian asset") stole them from
Clinton back in 2016, allowing Putin to install Donald Trump (who, according to Clinton, is still being blackmailed by the FSB with
that "kompromat" pee-tape) in the White House, where she so clearly belongs.
Clinton's comments came on the heels of a preparatory smear-piece in The New York Times ,
What, Exactly, Is Tulsi Gabbard Up To?
, which reported at length on how Gabbard has been "injecting chaos" into the Democratic primaries . Professional "disinformation
experts" supplied The Times with convincing evidence (i.e., unfounded hearsay and innuendo) of "suspicious activity" surrounding
Gabbard's campaign. Former Clinton-aide Laura Rosenberger (who also just happens to be the Director of the
Alliance for Securing Democracy , "a bipartisan transatlantic
national security advocacy group" comprised of former Intelligence Community and U.S. State Department officials, and publisher of
the
Hamilton 68 dashboard) "sees Gabbard as a potentially useful vector for Russian efforts to sow division."
The Times piece goes on to list an assortment of unsavory, extremist, white supremacist, horrible, neo-Nazi-type persons that
Tulsi Gabbard has nothing to do with, but which Hillary Clinton, the Intelligence Community, The Times , and the rest of the corporate
media would like you to mentally associate her with.
Richard Spencer, David Duke, Steve Bannon, Mike Cernovich, Tucker Carlson, and so on. Neo-Nazi sites like the Daily Stormer .
4chan, where, according to The New York Times , neo-Nazis like to "call her Mommy."
In keeping with professional journalistic ethics, The Times also reached out to experts on fascism, fascist terrorism, terrorist
fascism, fascist-adjacent Assad-apologism, Hitlerism, horrorism, Russia, and so on, to confirm Gabbard's guilt-by-association with
the people The Times had just associated her with. Brian Levin, Director of the CSU Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism, confirmed
that Gabbard has "the seal of approval" within goose-stepping, Hitler-loving, neo-Nazi circles. The Alliance for Securing Democracy
(yes, the one from the previous paragraph) conducted an "independent analysis" which confirmed that RT ("the Kremlin-backed news
agency") had mentioned Gabbard far more often than the Western corporate media (which isn't backed by anyone, and is totally unbiased
and independent, despite the fact that most of it is owned by a handful of powerful global corporations, and at least one CIA-affiliated
oligarch). Oh, and Hawaii State Senator Kai Kahele, who is challenging Gabbard for her seat in Congress, agreed with The Times that
Gabbard's support from Jew-hating, racist Putin-Nazis might be a potential liability.
"Clearly there's something about her and her policies that attracts and appeals to these type of people who are white nationalists,
anti-Semites, and Holocaust deniers."
But it's not just The New York Times , of course. No sooner had Clinton finished cackling than the corporate media launched into
their familiar Goebbelsian piano routine, banging out story after television segment repeating the words "Gabbard" and "Russian asset."
I've singled out The Times because the smear piece in question was clearly a warm-up for Hillary Clinton's calculated smear job on
Friday night. No, the old gal hasn't lost her mind. She knew exactly what she was doing, as did the editors of The New York Times
, as did every other establishment news source that breathlessly "reported" her neo-McCarthyite smears.
As I noted in my previous essay
, 2020 is for all the marbles, and it's not just about who wins the election. No, it's mostly about crushing the "populist" backlash
against the hegemony of global capitalism and its happy, smiley-faced, conformist ideology. To do that, the neoliberal establishment
has to delegitimize, and lethally stigmatize, not just Trump, but also people like Gabbard, Bernie Sanders, Jeremy Corbyn and any
other popular political figure (left, right, it makes no difference) deviating from that ideology.
In Trump's case, it's his neo-nationalism.
In Sanders and Corbyn's, it's socialism (or at least some semblance of social democracy).
In Gabbard's, it's her opposition to the Corporatocracy's ongoing efforts to restructure and privatize the Middle East (and
the rest of the entire planet), and their using the U.S. military to do it.
Ask yourself, what do Trump, Sanders, Corbyn, and Gabbard have in common? No, it's not their Putin-Nazism it's the challenge they
represent to global capitalism. Each, in his or her own way, is a symbol of the growing populist resistance to the privatization
and globalization of everything. And thus, they must be delegitimized, stigmatized, and relentlessly smeared as "Russian assets,"
"anti-Semites," "traitors," "white supremacists," "fascists," "communists," or some other type of "extremists."
Gabbard, to her credit, understands this, and is
focusing attention on the motives and tactics
of the neoliberal establishment and their smear machine. As I noted in
an
essay last year , "the only way to effectively counter a smear campaign (whether large-scale or small-scale) is to resist the
temptation to profess your innocence, and, instead, focus as much attention on the tactics and the motives of the smearers as possible
." This will not save her, but it is the best she can do, and I applaud her for having the guts to do it. I hope she continues to
give them hell as they finish off her candidacy and drive her out of office.
Oh, and if you're contemplating sending me an email explaining how these smear campaigns don't work (or you spent the weekend
laughing about how Hillary Clinton lost her mind and made an utter jackass of herself), maybe check in with Julian Assange, who is
about to be extradited to America, tried for exposing U.S. war crimes, and then imprisoned for the remainder of his natural life.
And, if Katharine is on holiday in Antigua or somewhere, or having tea with Hillary in the rooftop bar of the
Hay-Adams
Hotel , you could try Luke Harding (who not only writes and publishes propaganda for The Guardian , but who wrote a whole
New York Times
best-seller based on nothing but lies and smears). Or try Marty Baron, Dean Baquet, Paul Krugman, or even Rachel Maddow, or any
of the other editors and journalists who have been covering the Putin-Nazi "
Attack on America ," and keeping us apprised of who is and isn't a Hitler-loving "Russian asset."
Ask them whether their smear machine is working... if you can get them off the phone with their brokers, or whoever is decorating
their summer places in the Hamptons or out on
Martha's Vineyard
.
Or ask the millions of well-off liberals who are still, even after
Russiagate was exposed as an enormous hoax
based on absolutely nothing , parroting this paranoid official narrative and calling people "Russian assets" on Twitter. Or never
mind, just pay attention to what happens over the next twelve months. In terms of
ridiculous official
propaganda , spittle-flecked McCarthyite smears, and full-blown psychotic mass Putin-Nazi hysteria, it's going to make the last
three years look like the Propaganda Special Olympics.
* * *
C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and political satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published
by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (USA). His debut novel,
ZONE 23 , is published by Snoggsworthy,
Swaine & Cormorant Paperbacks. He can be reached at cjhopkins.com or
consentfactory.org .
This post generated over 2K comment on zero hedge...
Looks like Tulsi masterfully capitalized on Hillary mistake. after Russiagate the change of being Russian agent does not have the
same byte as before and now can even be played to one's advantage as a sign of anti neoliberal establishment orientation. Which is what
Tulsi did.
Tulsi would be a powerful Secretary of State I think, if she did not win the nomination...
Notable quotes:
"... "If you stand up to the rich and powerful elite and the war machine, they will destroy you and discredit your message... ," says Gabbard, who said she's suffered smears " from day one of this campaign. " ..."
"... Great! Thank you Hillary Clinton," Gabbard tweeted late on Friday afternoon. " You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain ." ..."
"... "From the day I announced my candidacy, there has been a concerted campaign to destroy my reputation. We wondered who was behind it and why. Now we know -- it was always you, through your proxies and powerful allies in the corporate media and war machine, afraid of the threat I pose." Gabbard added. ..."
"... And now, Gabbard has capitalized on Hillary's hubris and unchallenged conspiracy theory to fundraise and increase her visibility. ..."
"... For comparison, a real protest looks like Gilet Jaunes. Some people started protesting because they are being disenfranchised by their own government. They were already in real pain long before Macron went backward on all his campaign promises. ..."
"Toe The Line Or Be Destroyed": Tulsi Gabbard Dismantles Establishment 'Hit-Job' In Viral Video by
Tyler Durden Sun, 10/20/2019 - 16:57 0 SHARES
Tulsi Gabbard unleashed her latest counterattack to the establishment hit-job against her, after Hillary Clinton suggested she's
an Russian asset.
"If you stand up to the rich and powerful elite and the war machine, they will destroy you and discredit your message...
," says Gabbard, who said she's suffered smears " from day one of this campaign. "
In a Sunday tweet accompanied by a video which has nearly 450,000 views on Twitter (and 18,000 on YouTube) as of this writing,
Gabbard writes "Hillary & her gang of rich, powerful elite are going after me to send a msg to YOU: "Shut up, toe the line, or be
destroyed." But we, the people, will NOT be silenced."
Hillary & her gang of rich, powerful elite are going after me to send a msg to YOU: "Shut up, toe the line, or be destroyed."
But we, the people, will NOT be silenced. Join me in taking our Democratic Party back & leading a govt of, by & for the people!
http:// tulsi.to/take-it-back
Last week, Clinton told Democratic operative and podcast host David Plouffe that "Russians" were "grooming" a female Democratic candidate
- clearly referring to Gabbard.
"I'm not making any predictions but I think they've got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are
grooming her to be the third-party candidate," Clinton said, in apparent reference to Gabbard, a Hawaii Army National Guard major
who served in Iraq. " She's the favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so
far. "
Great! Thank you Hillary Clinton," Gabbard tweeted late on Friday afternoon. " You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of
corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind
the curtain ."
"From the day I announced my candidacy, there has been a concerted campaign to destroy my reputation. We wondered who was
behind it and why. Now we know -- it was always you, through your proxies and powerful allies in the corporate media and war machine,
afraid of the threat I pose." Gabbard added.
And now, Gabbard has capitalized on Hillary's hubris and unchallenged conspiracy theory to fundraise and increase her visibility.
People are seeing entirely too much into this. Seriously this is nothing but some crazy old crone, extremely jealous of someone
else and wanting revenge, honestly all I see is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrUEjpHbUMM
. No political scam, not grand strategy, just a really jealous vengeful old crone, HRC can see Tulsi Gabbard winning and in infuriates
her, fills her with jealousy fueled rage, Tulsi in every way better than Hillary, smarter, more popular, prettier (never forget
this can really freak out women) and younger (ohh the rage) and HRC blames Tulsi and Jill for HRC's arrogant public failure.
History will think extremely poorly of Hillary Rodham Clinton, extremely poorly.
Consider what is occurring here. Citizen Hillary has started a media circus with 1 of the 12 - or is it 16? - "candidates"
the spy infested DNC is fielding. The C_A MSM mouthpieces are shilling this white noise, blocking out any more important, more
difficult reporting if not analysis of world events they don't want in the news.
World Events like the Clinton, Obama, Biden, Kerry, Pelosi, Feinstein and Schiff scandals in Ukraine and China, how
well things are going in Syria and who the real villains there have been, how well negotiations are going with China, how the
Syrian refugee crisis is being settled in the best way for all concerned and how the C_A plan to start WW3 has been exposed.
The C_A can repeat this op another 11 Times. This is good because they are lazy and stupid, but even so you can expect them
to **** it up in some way every time. Evil has recruiting problems. Remember Hillary laughing about obliterating civilization
in Libya. Remember the corpse of Gadafi being dragged through the street by her mercs. Remember who stole Libya's gold, and Ukraine's
gold.
Consider all these "best" pictures of Gabbard. The method is obvious: Don't listen to the pettiness and low news value of this
PR stunt, just look at the cutie. This fits the media op signature of the Tavistock faggots on loan to Soros. Here are a few more:
BLM: Look at us. We all black! Don't listen to our demands, we still working on them, but whoever you are we coming for your
stuff.
Antifa: Look at us. We all revolutionaries! We like to rumble! Don't listen to our message. We don't have one. We're really
a lot of fun. Come to us, children, or we'll mess you up.
Naked woman protests: We are women! Every day we pretend to be smart but we're really emotionally unbalanced fools! REEEEEE...
Our message is, we need to be taken care of like babies. When you take off your clothes to protest, you've already lost.
For comparison, a real protest looks like Gilet Jaunes. Some people started protesting because they are being disenfranchised
by their own government. They were already in real pain long before Macron went backward on all his campaign promises. The
government of France has been bought and paid for from top to bottom by a few rich Jews and they are destroying civilization just
like Hillary did Libya, only they are in the subversion stage. The bombing is still to come. If you doubt me, dig for stories
about who Macron is meeting with, who he takes orders from. This is a peek into the real criminals behind the current form of
the EU. Thousands of people in the street. A few big protests got the imagination of the world, giving Macron ulcers. Good. They
got solidarity. Then Macron started sending in the thugs and gestapo. Then he sent in EU troops suited up for urban warfare. Both
the optics and the message of this are devastating to the cabal, worldwide.
IMO the best thing to do is to follow this circus and all that follow loosely. If you can't turn it around on them, for instance
pointing out that Gabbard is CFR and her positions are folly, do not give it the clicks (((they))) expect. At least screw up their
stats, make their psychological warfare "experts" lose their jobs or at least work day and night to keep up, until they melt down
in pools of their own saliva.
What this stunt is, is "opening a second media front". They created this meaningless drivel to hide the news that is favorable
to Trump and good for everybody in the world, and bad for the cabal. This is all they got. This is the best they can do. They
have nothing to offer but lies, threats and tyranny. As Hillary said, her policy is to keep them dumb, keep them poor and keep
them hungry. They are all gangsters.
Consider how cheap it is to do an op like this. That is the signature of the DS. They like cheap ops because they can do so
many.
The best we can do is open second fronts right back at them. Expose errors, omissions and lies in their fake news, as well
as what their lies are meant to conceal. It is fun to watch when the first slavos of their campaigns immediately fall apart and
get thrown back at them. Sometime real news gets out.
Tomorrow is the Canadian election. It will be a good message to them if Trudeau gets destroyed.
Brexit deadline is coming up. Pelosi swore that if they Brexit she will do all the crimes she can to obstruct US-UK trade.
Pretty sure she used up whatever stolen credibility she had with that admission of lawless tyranny.
Point is, Brexit will have a significant meaning to Americans and gangsters like her will be in the spotlight. We want good
will and trade with the UK. If this is obstructed, Pelosi has already said she's responsible and obstructing trade will have criminal
consequences on the US side. Learn all you can, keep track and if you get the chance, share any damning facts you find.
Only a few months ago, the Democrats' drive to the White House began with the loftiest of ideals, albeit a hodgepodge from trans
toilet "rights" to a 100 percent makeover of the health care system. It is now all about vengeance, clumsy and grossly partisan at
that, gussied up as "saving democracy." Our media is dominated by angry Hillary refighting 2016 and "joking" about running again,
with Adam Schiff now the face of the party for 2020. The war of noble intentions has devolved into Pelosi's March to the Sea. Any
chance for a Democratic candidate to reach into the dark waters and pull America to where she can draw breath again and heal has
been lost.
Okay, deep breath myself. A couple of times a week, I walk past the
café where Allen Ginsberg, the Beat poet, often wrote.
His most famous poem, Howl , begins, "I saw the best minds of my generation
destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked." The walk is a good leveler, a reminder that madness (Trump Derangement in modern
terminology) is not new in politics.
But Ginsberg wrote in a time when one could joke about coded messages -- before the Internet came into being to push tailored
ticklers straight into people's brains. I'll take my relief in knowing that almost everything Trump and others write, on Twitter
and in the Times , is designed simply to get attention and getting our attention today requires ever louder and crazier stuff.
What will get us to look up anymore? Is that worth playing with fire over?
It is easy to lose one's sense of humor over all this. It is easy to end up like Ginsberg at the end of his poem, muttering
to strangers at what a mess this had all become: "Real holy laughter in the river! They saw it all! the wild eyes! the holy yells!
They bade farewell! They jumped off the roof! To solitude!" But me, I don't think it's funny at all.
"... Just to remind you: the charge against Trump is that he tried to expose a massive rip off of the people of Ukraine, made practical thanks to the US replacing an elected President with a bunch of neo-nazis in uniforms, for political advantage. ..."
"... And that is to put aside the obvious point that nothing could be more advantageous to any Presidential candidate than to have to run against Joe Biden, supported by Hillary Clinton. ..."
"Will he be convicted in the Senate? Who cares so long as he slowly roasts in the court of
public opinion."
Do you not see how unlikely it is that a story which demonstrates the utter corruption,
personally, of Joe Biden and, institutionally, of the Obama regime will, as it unwinds, turn
the people against Trump?
Just to remind you: the charge against Trump is that he tried to expose a massive rip off
of the people of Ukraine, made practical thanks to the US replacing an elected President with
a bunch of neo-nazis in uniforms, for political advantage.
And that is to put aside the obvious point that nothing could be more advantageous to any
Presidential candidate than to have to run against Joe Biden, supported by Hillary
Clinton.
From the days of Franklin Delano Roosevelt onward through to the 1990s, the Democrats had
long been considered the party of the working class. That perception lingered long after the
fact that by the 1990s, they had more accurately become the party of Wall Street and Silicon
Valley, often embracing policies at variance with their traditional blue-collar supporters. As
Thomas Ferguson, Paul Jorgensen, and Jie Chen outline
in a paper sponsored by the Institute for New Economic Thinking : "Within the Democratic
Party, the desires of party leaders who continue to depend on big money from Wall Street,
Silicon Valley, health insurers, and other power centers collides [sic] head on with the needs
of average Americans these leaders claim to defend."
So the Democratic Party, a historically center-left political grouping, has increasingly
embraced a neoliberal market fundamentalist framework over the past 40 years, and thereby
facilitated the growth of financialization (whereby the influence and power of a country's
financial sector become vast relative to the overall economy).
Donald Trump exploited that shift during his 2016 campaign: Not only did
he proclaim his love for "the poorly educated," but he also campaigned as an old Rust Belt
Democrat -- not only by attacking illegal immigration and offshoring, but also coming out
against globalization, free trade, Wall Street, and especially Goldman Sachs.
As president, of course, Trump has proven incapable of "walking the walk," even as he
continued to speak about "draining the swamp" and eliminating business as usual in
Washington.
But there is increasing evidence suggesting that some of the more ambitious and
opportunistic politicians in the GOP are seeking to exploit the material abandonment of
working-class voters by the Democrats. Both Senators Josh Hawley and Marco Rubio are trying to
move the party in a more pro-worker direction, championing a new kind of blue-collar
conservatism that is supportive of unions and policies that emphasizes the "
dignity of work ." Likewise, Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas has recently introduced a tax
rebate for lower-income Americans to offset the tariffs President Trump has proposed on Chinese
goods -- essentially an annual payment from the federal government to citizens to offset any
increased cost in consumer goods that might arise from Trump's proposed tariffs, thus
neutralizing the economic impact, and countering the political argument that the president's
trade war on Chinese goods ultimately represents a tax on American consumers. As Henry Olsen
notes in the Washington Post:
Cotton's approach addresses both the economic and political challenges arising from
Trump's tariffs. Economically, giving the revenue back to average Americans offsets the
expected rise in prices they will face as a result of the tariffs. Consumer spending, which
was feared would decline in response to the price hikes, would now likely stay high: Why cut
back in spending when you're not losing any money? That would keep the economy strong.
In other words, it's a tax-time Universal Basic Income.
Cotton's proposals would augment a little-discussed feature emerging now in the U.S. labor
market, as CNBC's
Jeff Cox writes: for the first time in this cycle (which started in 2009), "the bottom half
of earners are benefiting more than the top half -- in fact, about twice as much, according to
calculations by Goldman Sachs," using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. More recently,
Derek Thompson of the Atlantic cites additional work by labor economist Nick Bunker, who
makes the case that "wage growth is currently strongest for workers in low-wage industries,
such as clothing stores, supermarkets, amusement parks, and casinos. And earnings are growing
most slowly in higher-wage industries, such as medical labs, law firms, and broadcasting and
telecom companies." Absent a significant growth slowdown, these workers might increasingly
identify their economic self-interest with Republicans, not Democrats, particularly given the
increasingly restrictionist stance the GOP is adopting on immigration, which will further
tighten the labor market structurally and enhance the relative bargaining position of American
blue-collar workers.
The one lingering question is whether or not this trend will yet supersede the power and
influence of the GOP's historic corporate constituencies, notably oil, mining and chemical
companies, Big Pharma, tobacco, the arms industry, and civil aviation. On the face of it, this
could well prove to be a tall order.
But it is conceivable if trade policy is ultimately rendered subordinate to national
security concerns, as increasingly appears to be the case today. In the words
of Michael Lind , all it would take is a national developmental industrial strategy
predicated on sustaining U.S. military supremacy: "to identify and promote not specific
companies but key 'dual-use' industries important in both defense and civilian commerce." That
would seem to be a more likely scenario for the GOP, one that would build on Trump's steady
inroads into the Democratic Party's traditional blue-collar constituencies, while
simultaneously catering to the party's strong links to national defense interests.
Although a military-industrial strategy might run counter to some of the interests of the
party's traditional corporate backers (such as Charles Koch), it would likely prove hugely
beneficial to America's manufacturing heartland, particularly the country's disaffected
blue-collar workers. Historically, these workers have been Democrats, but their livelihoods
have been decimated by decades of trade liberalization and other neoliberal policies. As Lind
points
out , a national industrial policy based on the model of Alexander Hamilton but married to
"Cold War 2.0" could, therefore, consolidate the GOP's efforts to become more of a party of the
working class.
And such a policy is not historically anomalous: during the original Cold War, free trade
and globalization were always subject to the constraints of containing the expansion of
Soviet-led communism. A large chunk of the world under the enemy sphere of influence was
off-limits to American trade and capital.
Today, even with the overriding influence of the Koch brothers, and the Mercer family, a
number of Republicans are geopolitical hawks first, and economic libertarians second. They
increasingly see that it makes no sense to go to war against wage earners while claiming to
protect the same wage earners from Chinese competition, especially if Beijing becomes the new
locus of an emerging Cold War 2.0. Furthermore, if they are in safe, rock-solid GOP districts,
they are less vulnerable to a primary attack from corporate interests antithetical to those
positions. As geo-economics is increasingly remarried to geopolitics (as it was during the
original Cold War), "
blue-collar conservativism " will likely gain increasing policy traction in
certain conservative circles , even though Republicans still have a ways to go before they
can fully shift their party's agenda toward a modern-day equivalent of "Bull Moose"
progressivism.
Donald Trump is, first and foremost, a wrecker, as opposed to a builder. Arguably, that is
one of the things that got him elected in the first place. But he has set the stage for a
further political realignment, especially as more educated whites and
elites migrate to the Democratic Party , and traditional Southern populists reside in the
GOP. There are very few Fritz Hollings
types left in the party, whose views on trade, immigration and manufacturing are closer to
the Democrats' historic New Deal constituencies. This theory, though, is not watertight, and
new coalitions are still very much in flux.
But as things stand today, ironically, the Democrats now have trade and open borders
policies that are closer to those of the old Reagan/Bush Republicans and libertarians such as
the Koch brothers, while the GOP policy under Trump is gravitating toward the old positions of
the AFL/CIO on both trade and immigration, a policy combination that makes the embrace of a
kind of blue-collar conservatism even more credible for the GOP.
Furthermore, as trade issues (especially in regard to China) are increasingly conflated with
national security concerns, the GOP may ultimately decide to build on Trump's attempts to
re-domicile key supply chains back to the U.S. From the national security hawk perspective,
this will ensure that strategic industries necessary to sustain American military power remain
on home shores, even if this conflicts with the principles of free trade, limited
non-interventionist government.
Sustaining permanent production on U.S. soil, not just innovation in America and production
elsewhere, would be profoundly favorable to blue-collar workers (hitherto among the biggest
casualties of globalization) and likely consolidate the GOP's efforts to become the future
party of the American working class, unless of course the Democrats suddenly and unexpectedly
reclaim their New Deal legacy.
Surely you meant "white blue-collar conservatism". There's no evidence whatsoever, that
working-class people of color are buying what the GrOPers are selling.
There may be no direct evidence evidence yet of a wholesale move to the GOP, but there is
plenty of evidence (seen particularly in the drop in vote for HRC among non-white voters),
that working class non-whites are no longer a gimme for the Democrats.
For one thing, there is a very large number of relatively poor, socially conservative
Hispanic voters that are probably there for the taking by either party. If the Dems don't let
the likes of AOC make real progress, then they could well move to the Republicans for want of
a real choice.
out here, the hispanic community just didn't vote due to political repression(overt
sheriff) until well into the 90's took a while to get past the habit of oppression.
most of the hispanic people i know who vote are republican, mainly due to culture war stuff,
like abortion. The "blue collar conservative" economic reason has only lately started to
appear, so far just in the white ur-conservative cohort, but it's only a matter of time.
it's very worrisome and is what i've feared since trump came down the escalator, sounding
like a Bizarro World Bernie.
and it gets worse .last spring break, for instance .cousin and the boys and i were taking a
coffee break, flipping through the channels,and i put it on cspan. there was mike dewine
sounding for all the world like a sewer socialist without a hint of irony.
there's even a city councilwoman,here, -- right wing to her bones, who campaigned on a
city/county owned solar farm.
the dems are toast, unless the clintonites get the hell out of the way.
I think so too. The dems seem to be absolutely paralyzed. There's no explanation for it
because everything is crumbling. They must have an unspoken pact about free trade that it
takes a while to get going full speed and they can't tweak it now because they will ruin the
momentum. But they fail to see that that momentum is carrying this country and the world into
a polluted race to the bottom and gross inequality. Did they see that one coming? They saw it
coming in at least one industry – the Medical Industrial Complex. There's nothing
free-market about it – we can't import hospitals or drugs. The dems/congress
intentionally created a perpetual donor monopoly for themselves. The dems are so
ideologically conflicted they've put themselves in a straight jacket. Back under Reagan and
into the early 90s the democrats acted like they had been bought off when it came to the
decimation of US labor. I think they are as quiet about all the important subjects as they
are embarrassed by their own gross miscalculations.
The dems seem to be absolutely paralyzed. There's no explanation for it because
everything is crumbling.
A small side point, the only people that care what has happened to the Democrats are
people over 50 who recall, even if from childhood, good things about the Democratic Party.
Even if only toddlers in the 1960s those of us of that age group had our formative years in
the Great Society, JFK, LBJ decade and were still tied firmly to our parents and grandparents
FDR, WWII, and New Deal remembrances. I'm of the space age but FDR died a mere 15 years
before I was born, the New Deal shaped me and the Great Society baked me in the oven. At the
time and in retrospect was there a whole damn lot of patrician capitalist bs in the party's
motivations? Yes, but a lot of good too. Friends from 40 on down have none of those memories
and bonds, absolutely nothing of the good, they saw only the Neo-liberal destruction of their
home towns, the culture war and racist backlash from Reagan onwards in which the Democrats
participated whole hog, all the while lying through their teeth about their progressive labor
and social platform and the "high ground". When you move the Overtone Window only those then
looking out notice the move, young people see only the new view when they eventually walk up
to the frame. Younger friends only see from Clinton onward, and the Clinton years are their
formative emotional bond to the Democratic Party. For a good part of Americans these days the
DNC isn't a party that fell into the crapper and can still be pulled out in time before
before the flush, it's just simply the crapper not to fall into.
If you ignore the headlines and commentary, and just look at the numbers, it appears that
Donald Trump is polling between 75% and 100% better among African Americans than they voted
in 2016. People may vote differently than they poll, but Trump is presiding over the lowest
African American unemployment rate in history, and that has to have some impact, particularly
among African American men. Unless the Democrats can increase turnout in 2020 over turnout in
2016, I think this shift in support among African Americans means Trump gets four more
years.
Getting more African Americans, and Hispanics, into the workforce is likely to have great
follow-on effects. Americans of all races, creeds and colors value working and that will pay
off in many ways.
1. Earning an income beats collecting unemployment or, these days, being homeless.
2. Working people buy stuff, pay rent or even mortgages. Multiplier effects increase.
3. Household formations rise when people can make money and afford to move in together.
4. Tax revenues increase on incomes and sales, and eventually properties based on 3.
5. Direct and indirect social costs decrease. Less welfare, greater health, lower crime.
Who would not want the above virtuous circle? What are their aims and goals, and how do
they effectuate those? K Street is full of likely suspects, in dubious congress with their
fellow travelers.
Hispanics seem to like Sanders a lot, they support him in larger percentages than any
other ethnicity according to polling. It's probably not purely economic and not that easily
funneled to the fake populism on the right. That fake populism is all a big lie, and I
wouldn't assume minorities can afford to be quite as gullible as some of the white working
class.
Don't know about Trump's support, but of the Dem candidates Sanders has more support among
women and people of color than any other. He also leads among the young of all genders and
races.
Not sure that's true. I've seen some polls indicating that Hispanic support for Trump is
rising (I've seen some polls which indicate that it may be in excess of 40%).
If a "dual-use National Industrial Survival Republican Part does things that cause
bussinesses to create jobs where Clintobama Democrat Free Trade Policies caused businesses to
destroy jobs . . . and if some of the re-created ( re-patriated? re-onshored?) jobs go to
non-White workers; then those newly re-jobbed non-White workers may well be electorally
grateful to a "National Economic Survival" Republican Party for re-jobbing those non-White
workers who were de-jobbed by Clintobama Democratic Free Trade Treason.
Is that what you are really afraid of? Is your comment just an effort to re-assure
yourself that the old Identy Hustle still works?
What working-class, white-collar or blue-collar workers? What unions? Unless Republicans
or Democrats can bring back the productive capital that working-class, white-collar and
blue-collar workers used to make products in this country those voter categories will soon be
extinct. Besides, what do the voters matter to either party as long as the candidates on
offer from both parties represent the interests of the wealthy?
In all the Brexit ho-ha, its been overlooked that this seems exactly the way the
Conservatives in the UK are going too – they seem to be quietly ditching austerity and
focusing on being the protectors of 'core' social services – as opposed to the ones for
immigrants and one legged black lesbians and so forth. There is no question but that there is
a voting block there for the taking, although its questionable whether it would do the Tories
much good given the geographical distribution of that vote (I.e., most of it is in very safe
Labour seats, so they'd be wasted votes).
As Marshall says, there is a long history of Republicans (and other right wing parties
around the world) successfully making a pitch for working class votes – in particular
socially conservative and religious working class and lower middle class voters. Much of the
long term success of Christian Democratic parties in Europe has been by combining a soft
pro-business message with the protection of core services to the working classes such as
pensions. To an extent I think we are seeing a swing away from a political obsession with
suburban educated voters (supposedly the fastest growing bloc in most countries), to more
traditional voting bases. Probably because many of those educated suburban voters find
themselves slipping from the aspiring middle classes to the somewhat desperate working
class.
They will buy what the GOP's selling if their jobs, income, and communities benefit.
Voters are less ideological now, I think, than in the past, they want to know what policies
candidates stand for and demand they deliver on their promises.
After about 70 years of getting the opposite, I think that will be a longshot, but that's
the mood of an electorate with a plurality of independents willing to break shit to do it.
Hell, they might even elect a Sanders to get 'er done, if the democrap party would get the
fuk outta the way.
Um, Is Trump a billionaire Yankee version of Peron without the charismatic wife? Vulgar as
he is, he put stiff tariffs on imports, didn't pull the war trigger several times on
ginned-up foreign "crises" and yanked troops from Syria–MIC and their democrap lapdogs
be damned. He isn't clutching his pearls every time the MSM dials up the suffering
children/brutal dictator/sad eyed puppy "news" either. Even the insincere obama pretended to
be outraged I tell you! on cue every time.
Donald is an illiterate little prick, but he's also a bit of an idiot savant, acting more
like an isolationist, national capitalist each day. Openly calling for an end to globalism,
fer Christ sake. Warts and all he is filling a role–not the way I wish it were–in
the historical moment that jackasses like Jeb and the execrable hillary certainly
couldn't.
Frankly, each day I'm more surprised he's drawing breath and sleeping in the White House.
A secret part of me wants him to prevail, if only to destroy what's left of the two-shits
party system.
PS Richard Nixon started the move towards modern blue collar republicanism, with his
southern strategy and silent majority. The white shoe, country club guys like Mitt have been
hanging on for years but haven't been in the driver's seat since ol' Nelson died in the
saddle.
"A secret part of me wants him to prevail, if only to destroy what's left of the two-shits
party system"
that's how i feel, but it's far too nuanced and 30,000 feet for polite company(who suffer
from TDS)
undoing the empire, in all it's incestuous, sunken cost complexity, was never gonna be
pretty.
i would prefer that we did it with compassion and grace but maybe emperor caught the car will
screw up enough of the aristocracy's gravy trains that something good will ultimately come
from it.
and dammit if the well to do don't like this state of affairs, all they need do is stop
punching Left.
100% agree with everything said in this comment. I'm not suggesting that this realignment
is something to be celebrated, so much as these are increasingly noticeable trends. People
like Thomas Edsall at the NY Times have written about the basis of Trump's support, as have
Professors Kitschelt and Rehm. I think they answer the question "Who?", but don't really the
question "How?" or "Why?". The purpose of this short piece was to answer the latter two
points. I have a longer version of this coming out soon in "American Affairs", where I also
look at this from the Dems' perspective. In truth, I don't think either party really is
aiming to support the working class. It's more a question of what policy mix will bring them
the biggest economic benefit, which is the point that Cripes eloquently made above.
Yeah, I timed out trying to add this point: black voters aren't voting republican, but
they can stay home instead of vote a hillary with the same result. Because they know
devilcrats suck. The hyper loyal civil right era generation that fought for the right to vote
at all will gradually be replaced by their progeny, who I suspect will demand results instead
of being told they have no where else to go by Martha's vineyard seditties..
Trump did do better among black voters than Romney. Republicans likely don't need to win
working class blacks; getting 20 or 25% on a consistent basis would likely hurt Democrat's
long-term prospects in most midwestern states. The GOP will likely have to make some changes
on policy to obtain this, will they? Maybe. Could moving away from free trade and increased
immigration be enough? Probably not, especially if done as haphazardly as Trump has.
Republicans likely have shift on a few other policies as well.
100% agree with everything said in this comment. I'm not suggesting that this realignment
is something to be celebrated, so much as these are increasingly noticeable trends. People
like Thomas Edsall at the NY Times have written about the basis of Trump's support, as have
Professors Kitschelt and Rehm. I think they answer the question "Who?", but don't really the
question "How?" or "Why?". The purpose of this short piece was to answer the latter two
points. I have a longer version of this coming out soon in "American Affairs", where I also
look at this from the Dems' perspective. In truth, I don't think either party really is
aiming to support the working class. It's more a question of what policy mix will bring them
the biggest economic benefit, which is the point that Cripes eloquently made above.
They might find it advantageous to appear to do so, especially since the Ds will
apparently go to any lengths, including losing to Trump again, to prevent a working class
renaissance in the Party.
labor economist Nick Bunker, who makes the case that "wage growth is currently
strongest for workers in low-wage industries, such as clothing stores, supermarkets,
amusement parks, and casinos
I've heard this disingenuous trope a few times lately. ISTM that the laws raising min wage
are most likely the reason, not a sudden come to jesus moment by republicans to garner blue
collar votes. Getting in front of a riot and calling it a parade.
Raising the minimum-wage could be part of it but a lot of it is probably due to the fact
that there is a genuine shortage of workers in the low-wage service sector, so wages are
going up to attract more workers.
There is no "genuine" shortage of workers. I could see there being a mismatch where jobs
are difficult to fill in locations with skyrocketing rents, but that is and tells a different
story.
In lots of places in the upper midwest (WI, MN, Iowa, Dakotas), there are genuine labor
shortages, but no doubt in many dying communities around these parts there aren't.
I think part of it is that (as Frank wrote) Democrats are now the party of the
managers/professionals who interact with working class people only to tell them what to do,
and the nature of the systems that the managers/professionals staff are mostly now so
demeaning and extractive to "clients", that working people have come to loathe and distrust
the managers and anything they advocate.
Instead of previous managers (Republicans mostly) instructing the working classes that
they should adopt mainstream Protestant virtues, the managers are now instructing working
people that they must adopt neoliberal social attitudes. I don't know what impact the old
managers' instructions really had (probably varied a lot by group etc.), but current
managers' instructions are pushing people in the opposite direction in most situations.
To a large extent I agree with Thomas Frank's Listen Liberal , and his analysis of
how the Democratic Party has gotten off track.
A not insignificant number of the Democratic Party professional class have a mentality not
unlike the Republican's "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" mentality–the Democratic
Party version evolves more around education whereas the Republican version evolves more
around work but end result remains basically the same: if you are poor, you are a loser who
isn't trying hard enough.
How many of these types with the Democratic Party will publicly support raising the
minimum-wage while privately regarding low-income workers as losers who are too stupid to get
an education or too lazy to move to "where the jobs are", never-mind the fact that housing
affordability is a major impediment to relocating to major job markets. If comments on the
New York Times and other site are any guide–the number of "pull yourself up by
your bootstraps" types within the Democratic Party is a not insignificant number.
How many of these types with the Democratic Party will publicly support raising the
minimum-wage while privately regarding low-income workers as losers who are too stupid to get
an education or too lazy to move to "where the jobs are"?
Virtually all. On the other hand, they are happy they exist because it means less
competition against their kids for the good jobs.
Instead of previous managers (Republicans mostly) instructing the working classes that
they should adopt mainstream Protestant virtues, the managers are now instructing working
people that they must adopt neoliberal social attitudes.
Cultural Marxism and corporate diversity management are the new bourgeois morality
.
Kinda ironic that during the 216 that Trump was attacking Hillary from the left of all
places. I think that move really undercut her position. The GOP must have taken note of all
this. Like Cripes, I remember Nixon's silent majority of blue-collar workers. I saw a foto
once of Nixon's silent majority and they were all wearing hard hats which was a statement in
itself. If the GOP wants, these same types of voters are ready to be picked up in exchange
for minimal changes to the GOP platform. I mean, its not like the GOP have a cabinet of
Binders full of voters any more.
Impressive? Maybe to you.
That voice over might appeal to 13% of the U.S. population, (minus the 8% of whom voted for
Trump,) but in spite of the cultural appropriation portraits, it will probably alienate more
undecided voters than it will attract.
I support Sanders, but I fear his advisors' minority pandering and rapping common economic
issues in specific cultural junk like that is bordering on political suicide.
In the US today a discussion of the politics of the "blue collar, working class"
should acknowledge whether it refers to that portion of the US working class electorate that
would still be enfranchised as a result of the Republican state and national agenda for voter
suppression, gerrymandering, under-counting Hispanics in the census, the impact of
incarceration policies on the franchise and representation, judicial appointments and
decisions, attacks on naturalization and birth-right citizenship, and death by
coat-hanger.
In a country where governing power is attained by those methods of suppression and
exclusion, whether Rubio's "dignity of work" would somehow result from his proposed
right-to-work unions, deregulation of labor relations, and disallowing of union participation
in politics is also a question.
And then they appoint anti-labor judges to the Supreme Court and lower courts, but yea
real champions of labor they are. If one completely ignores things like that.
When the right becomes the ally of the poor and working class under capitalism–and
liberals or social democrats fail to be–that's when you get fascism.
It´s true that many Black and HIspanic people are conservative, and could easily be
picked up by a non-racist conservative party, but it´s hard for me to see how the
Republican Party could just sort of take a bath and wash off the racism which keeps these
people out of it. Whereas the Democratic Party can still offer conservatives of a sort (for
example, Biden).
8% of blacks voted for Trump. Nearly a third of Hispanics.
But why? I posit economics. Racism is an ideology, not what's in your wallet.
Legal immigrants suffer more from illegals presence than to any other group, except blacks
in competition for jobs and the effects of crime.
Do Illegal Alien Workers Depress Wages and Worsen Working Conditions for Native or Legal
Workers?
"Our qualified answer to the above title question is that illegal workers do, in some cases,
depress wages and worsen working conditions for native or legal workers who directly compete
with them for jobs. Three types of evidence- wage data on illegal workers, wage data on
workers in communities that differed on the presence of international migrants, and case
study data-were used to examine the effects of illegal work- ers on the wages of legal or
native workers; only one type of evidence, case study data, provided information on the
effects of illegal aliens on working conditions for legal or native workers."
pp 16
This was interesting about the Kochs being more free market libertarian than cold war. But
surely they see the writing on the wall when it comes to their oil interests. One way or
another oil is going to be commandeered by the state. There won't be any libertarian choices
left for them. But they'll be OK. Oil will be rationed as long into the future as possible.
(I was wondering how the Kochs and Soros were sharing a think tank – the Quincy
Institute.) A new M.I. economic strategy sounds more Eisenhower than FDR. I'd go for it if it
were primarily a Climate/Green military strategy. Don't know why it can't be. And that would
also give the blue collar crowd more incentive to embrace Green.
And that would also give the blue collar crowd more incentive to embrace Green.
Many people living on the edge, which could include blue collar people depending on how
you define the term "blue collar", are afraid of losing what they have.
How is somebody, more affluent than they are, coming in saying they have to lower their
standard of living, or more pay for gas or something else to fight climate change going give
them an incentive to vote Green?
If anything it's going to have the opposite effect.
Unless the more affluent are prepared to make their share of sacrifices, which is
unlikely, the hypocrisy is going to drive people away from caring about climate change, or
for that matter Green in general.
I just think there could be a synergy here. If we are going to resort to old tactics and
have a new Military Industrial Economy, like Eisenhower did, we can hire up everybody who
needs a job and then some and create an economy that helps the environment, not one that
destroys it. I actually think a green new MIC is a good idea.
Will any party become the representative of the Poor?
This is a fair question.
The Republicans favor the rich, give lip service to the middle-class, and hate the
poor.
The Democrats hate the rich, favor the middle-class, and give lip service to the poor.
I'm generalizing here, as there have been individual candidates who seem to actually want
to help the poor, but on the whole neither party comes close to representing the poor.
I have been wondering what Mary Barra (GM CEO) said to Trump in their private meeting
right before the strike, that persuaded him to keep his mouth shut about the strike,
especially given the giant factory GM closed at Lordstown, Ohio (along with two others). GM
has lots of Mexican manufacturing they could have agreed to move back to U.S. without denting
their profits, but they refused.
From this brief article it sounds like the auto workers have largely lost faith with both
their union and the Democratic party. Given that Trump won Michigan by only 10,000 votes, and
won due to increased turnout among whites (Macomb County) and decreased turnout among blacks
(Detroit), as compared to 2012, will Trump motivate enough of these folks to either turn out
or not turn out? I can't see another neo-liberal Democrat getting more Dems out, but maybe
some of the Trump voters will stay home.
The Democrats really hope to harvest votes from the white working class?
The same Democrats that supported losing foreign wars, higher fuel and other taxes, de-
industrialized America, stress rights for tiny subsets of the population, blame white voters
for their privilege, mock their ancestors nationwide economic achievements and sacrifices
through recidivist lamentations of 80 year old inner city redlining, support handing their
jobs to minorities first, destroy their ability to demand higher wages via high migration and
now, want to spend tax dollars on historically black colleges?
Like wow! Brilliant strategy.
Stick with defunding the Pentagon, M4A, bringing the troops home, taxing billionaires and
running candidates who look like the voters they want to attract and they would get
somewhere.
All true. As one commenter above put it (I don't remember who), only voters over the age
of 50 would have any recollection of a Democratic Party that was different from the one you
are describing here.
Under the Trump administration, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has
systematically rolled back workers' rights to form unions and engage in collective
bargaining with their employers, to the detriment of workers, their communities, and the
economy. The Trump board1 has issued a series of significant decisions weakening worker
protections under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA/Act). Further, the board has
engaged in an unprecedented number of rulemakings aimed at overturning existing worker
protections. Finally, the Trump NLRB general counsel (GC) has advanced policies that leave
fewer workers protected by the NLRA and has advocated for changes in the law that roll back
workers' rights.
The Trump board has faithfully acted on a top-10 corporate-interest wish list published
by the Chamber of Commerce in early 2017 -- taking action on 10 out of 10 items on this
list (See Table 1). And the Trump board has gone beyond the chamber's policy requests and
advanced additional measures that undermine workers' rights.
Ricardo was part of the new capitalist class and the old landowning class were a huge
problem with their rents that had to be paid both directly and through wages.
From Ricardo:
The labourers had before 25
The landlords 25
And the capitalists 50
.. 100
Ricardo looked at how the pie got divided between the three groups.
The UK political system of three parties represents the three groups.
Tory – Landlords / landowners / rentiers / old money
Liberal – Capitalists / employers / new money
Labour – Labourers / workers / employees
The US only has two parties and capitalism has three main groups.
The US political system used to aligned like this:
Republican – Landlords / landowners / rentiers / old money
Democrat – Capitalists / employers / new money
The Republicans are trying to form an old money, aristocracy within the US with their
policies, e.g. cuts in estate taxes.
They are appealing to the groups not catered for by the Democrats to achieve their goals,
e.g. the working class, Christians.
This how it should be.
The wealthy are divided into two groups.
One is for free trade, the capitalists.
One is against free trade, the landlords / landowners.
The capitalists want the Corn Laws repealed.
The landlords / landowners don't want the Corn Laws repealed.
"The interest of the landlords is always opposed to the interest of every other class
in the community" Ricardo 1815 / Classical Economist
Disposable income = wages – (taxes + the cost of living)
Employees get their money from wages and the employer pays via wages.
Employees get less disposable income after the landlords rent has gone.
Employers have to cover the landlord's rents in wages reducing profit.
Ricardo is just talking about housing costs, employees all rented in those days.
Low housing costs and a low cost of living work best for employers and employees.
The US rentiers are filling their boots, making the US less and less competitive in an
open, globalised world.
"Income inequality is not killing capitalism in the United States, but rent-seekers
like the banking and the health-care sectors just might" Angus Deaton, Nobel prize
winner
The US's high cost of living has to be covered by wages, causing off-shoring to where the
capitalists can make a decent profit.
You have the two groups that compromise the wealthy doing well, but this very bad for
America itself.
This is true throughout the West.
We need to remember how capitalism and free trade really work.
I saw some comments about people of color and the GOP. Criminal justice reform is one of
the very shrewd and promising ways that the GOP is building a base among working class folks
of color. I can't be upset about that.
"... "Over 18 years, the United States has spent $4.9 trillion on wars, with only more intractable violence in the Middle East and beyond to show for it," she added. "That's nearly the $300 billion per year over the current system that is estimated to cover Medicare for All (though estimates vary)." ..."
"... cancellation of current plans to develop more nuclear weapons, saving $20 billion a total nuclear weapons ban, saving $43 billion ending military partnerships with private contractors, saving $364 billion production cuts for the F-35 -- a military plane with 900 performance deficiencies, according to the Government Accountability Office -- saving $17.7 billion a shift of $33 billion per year, currently used to provide medical care to veterans, servicemembers, and their families, to Medicare for All's annual budget. ..."
"... "The public rejects the predominant, fear-based framing and policies; instead, they want to see a revamped, demilitarized American foreign policy focused on international cooperation, human rights, and peacebuilding," wrote Data for Progress. ..."
Yves here. For those of you who have friends and colleagues who would go on tilt if you tried educating them about MMT, a simpler
approach to persuade them that Medicare for All is affordable is to sell them on another worthy goal, cutting the military-surveillance
state down to size.
Even then, I still encourage you to set them up for a later conversation about MMT: "Even if you accept the idea that taxes pay
for spending, which actually isn't true for the Federal government, we can still get the money for Medicare for All by ."
Note also that the Pentagon has various black budgets, an "official" one and covert ones.
By Julia Conley, staff writer for Common Dreams. Originally published at
Common Dreams
The Institute for Policy Studies on Thursday shared the results of extensive research into how the $750 billion U.S. military
budget could be significantly slashed, freeing up annual funding to cover the cost of Medicare for All -- calling into question the
notion that the program needs to create any tax burden whatsoever for working families.
Lindsay Koshgarian, director of the National Priorities Project at the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), took aim in a
New York Times op-ed at a "chorus of scolds" from both sides of the aisle who say that raising middle class taxes is the
only way to pay for Medicare for All. The pervasive claim was a primary focus of Tuesday night's debate, while Medicare for All proponents
Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) attempted to focus on the dire need for a universal healthcare program.
At the Democratic presidential primary debate on CNN Tuesday night, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) was
criticized
by some opponents for saying that "costs will go down for hardworking, middle-class families" under Medicare for All, without using
the word "taxes." Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), on the other hand, clearly stated that taxes may go up for some middle class families
but pointed out that the increase would be more than offset by the fact that they'll no longer have to pay monthly premiums, deductibles,
and other medical costs.
"All these ambitious policies of course will come with a hefty price tag," wrote Koshgarian. "Proposals to fund Medicare for All
have focused on raising taxes. But what if we could imagine another way entirely?"
"Over 18 years, the United States has spent $4.9 trillion on wars, with only more intractable violence in the Middle East and
beyond to show for it," she added. "That's nearly the $300 billion per year over the current system that is estimated to cover Medicare
for All (though estimates vary)."
"While we can't un-spend that $4.9 trillion," Koshgarian continued, "imagine if we could make different choices for the next 20
years."
Koshgarian outlined a multitude of areas in which the U.S. government could shift more than $300 billion per year, currently used
for military spending, to pay for a government-run healthcare program. Closing just half of U.S. military bases, for example, would
immediately free up $90 billion.
"What are we doing with that base in Aruba, anyway?" Koshgarian asked.
Other areas where IPS identified savings include:
cancellation of current plans to develop more nuclear weapons, saving $20 billion a total nuclear weapons ban, saving $43 billion
ending military partnerships with private contractors, saving $364 billion production cuts for the F-35 -- a military plane with
900 performance deficiencies, according to the Government Accountability Office -- saving $17.7 billion a shift of $33 billion
per year, currently used to provide medical care to veterans, servicemembers, and their families, to Medicare for All's annual
budget.
"This item takes us well past our goal of saving $300 billion," Koshgarian wrote of the last item.
As Koshgarian published her op-ed in the Times , progressive think tank Data for Progress released
its own report showing that a majority
of Americans support a "progressive foreign policy" far less focused on decades-long on-the-ground wars, establishing military bases
around the world, drone strikes, and arms sales.
"The public rejects the predominant, fear-based framing and policies; instead, they want to see a revamped, demilitarized American
foreign policy focused on international cooperation, human rights, and peacebuilding," wrote Data for Progress.
"Voters want to see U.S. funding go to domestic needs such as healthcare, or to other national security tools like diplomacy,
instead of to the Pentagon and more endless war," according to the report.
Polling more than 1,000 ppl with YouGov, Data for Progress found that 73 percent of Democratic primary voters ranked numerous
issues -- including economic challenges and the climate -- as more important to them than national security and military funding.
Progressive national security proposals proved popular with respondents, including closing Guantanamo Bay, ending arms sales to
Saudi Arabia, and leveraging military aid to Israel to force it to adopt better human rights policies toward Palestinians.
"There is a clear appetite for progressive reforms to U.S. foreign policy," wrote Data for Progress.
In her op-ed, Koshgarian acknowledged that remaking the U.S. military as a truly "defense-based institution, rather than a war
machine and A.T.M. for private contractors, will require major changes."
But, she wrote, "that's no excuse for continuing to spend hundreds of billions in ways that make our world more dangerous and
deny us the ability to seriously invest in things like jobs, healthcare, education, and all that makes our lives better."
I would love to see it, but I strongly doubt this would happen in my lifetime. The Pentagon budget seems to be one of those
political "third rail" issues like Social Security.
Many people are so paranoid that I think it constitutes a mass hysteria; others are propagandized into 24×7 jingoism. I'm not
talking concepts here, I deal with pro-military people almost daily. Its the glorifying and fetishizing of the military that bothers
me.
Most if not all pro-military types are also deeply conservative; bring up *any* social program and they will wonder how to
pay for it.
I don't know, how many "third rail" type taboos has Trump danced on and become more popular because he did? I think the average
voter would be *extremely* receptive to a well-crafted message promoting the redirection of resources away from forever foreign
wars and bases to concrete material benefits for Americans. I don't even think it'd be a hard sell, once the pearls had been gathered
up.
What's so maddening about this question is the fact that we know that the military budget is probably much more than 750 billion
per year, but we can never know how much more, because the government is expressly allowed to hide and even fake spending totals.
What matters is whether the goods and services are there for them to buy with that money, and this is where real wealth lies.
Governments can create all the money they want, but if they create too much you will get inflation, or hyper-inflation if they
type in too many zero's when creating money.
Money has no intrinsic value; its value comes from what it can buy.
Banks create money from loans and that's easy too, just type the numbers in.
They can dash wildly into the latest fad, like the dot.com boom, and finance it with money they create out of nothing.
What could possibly go wrong?
Bankers do need to ensure the vast majority of that money gets paid back, and this is where they keep falling flat on their
faces.
Banking requires prudent lending, that is all there is to it.
If someone can't repay a loan, they need to repossess that asset and sell it to recoup that money. If they use bank loans to
inflate asset prices they get into a world of trouble when those asset prices collapse.
"It's nearly $14 trillion pyramid of super leveraged toxic assets was built on the back of $1.4 trillion of US sub-prime
loans, and dispersed throughout the world" All the Presidents Bankers, Nomi Prins.
When this little lot lost almost all its value overnight, the Western banking system became insolvent. Wall Street can turn
a normal asset price bubble into something that will take out the global economy using leverage.
Bankers create money out of nothing and the monetary system requires that nearly all that money they loaned out gets paid back.
Bank credit is a claim on future prosperity, and when you realise all that debt can't be paid back, a financial black hole
opens up, as it did in 2008.
When governments create too much money you tend to see it in consumer price inflation.
When banks create too much money you tend to see it in asset price inflation.
We see inflation in asset prices as good and consumer price inflation as bad.
The asset price boom will crash the economy, but no one realises while it's happening.
They believed in the markets and neoclassical economics in the 1920s and after 1929 they had to reassess everything. They had
placed their faith in the markets and this had proved to be a catastrophic mistake.
This is why they stopped using the markets to judge the performance of the economy and came up with the GDP measure instead.
In the 1930s, they pondered over where all that wealth had gone to in 1929 and realised inflating asset prices doesn't create
real wealth, they came up with the GDP measure to track real wealth creation in the economy.
The transfer of existing assets, like stocks and real estate, doesn't create real wealth and therefore does not add to GDP.
The real wealth creation in the economy is measured by GDP.
Inflated asset prices aren't real wealth, and this can disappear almost over-night, as it did in 1929 and 2008.
Real wealth creation involves real work, producing new goods and services in the economy.
Banking requires prudent lending, that is all there is to it. Sound of the Suburbs
100% private banks with 100% voluntary depositors means we (the general public) wouldn't have to give a flip if banks lent
prudently or not since we would have an additional but risk-free payment system consisting of debit/checking accounts for all
who want one at the Central Bank (or Treasury) itself.
Moreover without government privileges and without captive depositors and unable to hold the economy hostage via a SINGLE payment
system that must work through them, you can rest assured that banks WOULD lend prudently or go under, like they should, if they
don't.
So what is required is 100% private banks with 100% voluntary depositors and that situation has NEVER before existed in history
so it cannot be said to have failed.
When governments create too much money you tend to see it in consumer price inflation. Sound of the Suburbs
Because the DEMAND for fiat is suppressed in that only depository institutions may use it in the private sector.
Fix that injustice and eliminate all other privileges for banks and then government should be able to create much MORE fiat
for the general welfare since banks would be much LESS able to create deposits for the private welfare of themselves and for the
so-called "worthy" of what is, currently, the public's credit but for private gain.
if they [governments] create too much you will get inflation
Is this true, or is it an economist's assumption? Here's the other thought:
Capitalism embraces borrowing for investment. Real estate development is an example. Borrowing involves an assumption of paying
back more than was borrowed, but at a future date. When that future date arrives, it is in the borrower's best interest if the
face value dollars are wroth less in spending power that the face value of the loan. You stated that, but the link to inflation
is fuzzy. Bank credit is a claim on future prosperity
Rather than the government's causality, and a nebulous prosperity, it may be the borrower's CFO who then decides to raise consumer
prices to keep up with expenses. The borrowed dollars came from a banker-created asset, but the inflation is tied to a direct
result similar to the so-called "wage-price spiral." In this case, the "interest-price spiral" that is not visibly tied to the
supply of money.
I've got a new disconnect. I understand and appreciate how MMT works. It is the only way, imo, for a sovereign country to pay
for the social costs of a good society. And, of course, the government does not charge itself interest, does not expect to be
"paid back" at all. The tradeoff for the government is the betterment of society. So if your neighbor loans you $500 and you tell
him you'll pay him back as soon as your check comes in and with some interest that seems fair bec. you're dealing with two private
budgets. But when a licensed bank loans you money for a new house under the terms that you pay it back over 30 years with interests
that amounts to triple the original cost of the house – then you are not dealing as one private person to another. You are then
dealing with usury. Made legal by the private financial industry. This private industry does not use its own money – it uses the
government's money by a computer click. And the government then lets it profiteer on this tiny transaction of apples and oranges
to the degree that over time the money "earned" by the private bank accumulates and topples the steady state of the economy. At
that point there's no place left to invest that "private" profit and the whole financial system goes haywire in a panic not to
"lose" money. Money that should never have been given to them in the first place. It's an oxymoron – demanding that money be paid
back with interest when it's not your money in the first place and you do nothing to stabilize your profligate profiteering. Nothing.
Just a thought.
Zimbabwe found it all too easy to create so much money they caused hyper-inflation.
Yes, after destroying their Ag Industry, and having no Ag products to export, because Mugabe and his party assumed all the
white farmers just sat around drinking beer while the dark farm workers did all the work.
After Mugabe took the land, there was no collateral for the farmers to get loans for the next planting season.
Who knew that managing the farm was so much work? /s
Inflation in Zimbabwe first came from shortages, especially food, as things looted rhe country of 4x and mismanaged the economy,
like farm price controls under cost of production.
Historically shortages cause high inflation.
"In her op-ed, Koshgarian acknowledged that remaking the U.S. military as a truly 'defense-based institution, rather than a
war machine and A.T.M. for private contractors, will require major changes.'"
Interesting. Beyond cost cutting, what exactly would it take to remake the military into a true defense-based institution ?
How would assets be deployed? What weapons systems would be prioritized and ultimately receive funding? What doctrines would need
to change to flip from an offensive mindset to a defensive mindset? What alliances would we maintain and what alliances would
we discard?
I see that the article offers some examples, but I think crafting a progressive foreign policy would entail answering these
kinds of more fundamental military questions. Cost cutting is a laudable goal but it strikes me that there's much more to it if
real transformation is desired.
As a civil servant working for the Department of Defense, I can tell you that this would be a difficult shift in priorities
for Congress to accept. It all comes down to the defense industry political donations they receive year after year, and the jobs
the defense industry provides their constituents (no matter how meager or sub-optimal). Since defense spending is basically this
nation's sole industrial policy, I think that finding employment for displaced workers (whether defense civil servants or contractors)
is the biggest hurdle to address; a green new deal would solve the problem. We'd also need political campaign reform to force
Congress off of the teet of defense industry political contributions.
Finding employment for displaced defense civil servants or contractors? We've done that before . . . we tell them to train
for the jobs of the future as we did for manufacturing workers and leave it at that. The same goes for the parasites working in
health insurance companies, pharmacy benefit management and healtcare administration when M4A becomes a reality.
I have no sympathy for those people nor care for their well being as they deliberately, and with malice aforethought, make
life meaner for us all.
I remember when the defense/aerospace industry collapsed in Southern California in the early 1970's as the Vietnam war was
winding down.
Tech jobs were scarce.
The political sphere is well aware of potential job loss due to defense cutbacks.
I have mentioned before, the relatively liberal CA Senator Barbara Boxer fought to preserve Mare Island Naval Shipyard, in
Vallejo, CA, when it was slated to be shut down in the 1990's.
One could suggest that Vallejo has not fully recovered.
It is a tragedy of immense proportions, as I believe a future historian will remark that the USA, a nation that in its 200
+ year history had only one large deadly war on its soil (the internal Civil War), re-titled its WWII "War Department" as "Defense
Department" and then consumed tremendous resources in its purported defense for the next 70+ years.
A recent discussion with someone, that I regard as a "Northern California Liberal", about Trump's pullout of Syria further
re-enforced that the resistance to ANY change in the MIC in the USA is formidable.
He was sure that Trump would be deservedly impeached because he was pulling out of Syria and abandoning our allies, the Kurds.
And he is old enough to remember Vietnam.
The USA news media and entertainment industries (big sports/Hollywood) are fully on board with the righteous USA "war is good"
meme.
Given how the USA economy has restructured much employment and lifelihoods in costly sectors (finance, education, medicine,
military) it is difficult for me to see how there would be political will to downsize the military to any extent as "good paying"
jobs of politically powerful people would be lost.
Many of the manufacturing jobs have been moved overseas.
There is some hope for policy redirection in the Administration's recent Turkey-Syria-Kurd action. If there really is a shift
away from foreign nation building and away from endless wars over endless enmities, then that could lead to redirection and reduction
of military budgets. Watching the defenders of those engagements fall all over themselves recently has reconfirmed my notion that
they are not acting in the best interests of their constituents. Meanwhile, the sun rose today.
The current defense spending and growth of national debt
more or less "prove" the validity of MMT. This has supported the channeling of resources and energy into military activity (and
profits for enterprizes). Something similar is happening with healthcare; maybe it's inelastic
demand. (The similar something is ever-increasing costs.)
Healthcare at the moment seems to be outside of
the scope of current uses of MMT. But there are major
cost-control issues with it nonethess.
In what direction will things head if healthcare is
swept under the government MMT umbrella in the form of medicare for all? Will the government negotiate prices
with providers (hospitals, staff, pharma)? Certainly military procurement is no leading light.
While cutting the bloated Pentagon's budget is a very good idea, why is no one talking about the fringe benefit that is employer
provided healthcare? I do believe a sizable fraction of folks on private insurance (maybe 40%?) get their health coverage through
a fringe benefit from their employer. If that coverage is no longer necessary under universal coverage, it seems contractually
that the money spent on the fringe benefit should go to the employees. That money is enough to pay for their insurance under universal
coverage, so the employer pays it to the employee, the government taxes part of that to pay for the universal healthcare and everyone
is better off. The employee, due to savings in the system, ends up with more money in pocket. The employer is out from under the
ever increasing costs of the fringe benefit (plus can now claim to be paying higher salaries), and, well, the insurance companies
are left behind to pick up "expanded coverage" for those wanting to pay for it.
This and "defense" spending cuts could pay for the whole system easily, no?
The relative value of small business based jobs would increase with a functional health care system. There would be an outflow
of employees from jobs with healthcare benefits.
With single payer, looking for a less stressful job becomes an alternative. Big employers know this.
It also means people may retire earlier if they don't need their employer-provided health insurance.
Health insurance becomes a minor consideration in selecting which employer to work for.
Companies and state/local governments that provide health care coverage in retirement should see their liabilities for that
plummet as healthcare costs drop and public insurance improves.
COULD employers give the surplus to employees?
Technically, yes.
WOULD employers give the surplus to employees?
Not in this age of activist stockholders seeking new sources of "revenue." Everywhere. Benefits are simply a "cost." Human Resources
is a "cost center." Defined benefits that averaged out the risk among many have segued to defined contribution that is no more
than a tax-abated savings account. Risk has monetary value, but risk invisibly is shifting more and more to the individual.
After the last Democratic debate, it is safe say anti-war Progressivism is dead. Everyone was frothing at the mouth to prove
how much they care for the Kurds, and our nation's honor, and that we should stay in the ME. Except Tulsi, but her response fell
flat with the audience, and judging by my Left friends/family on Facebook, fell flat with them too. Having the same position as
Trump is a death sentence. My faith in my fellow citizens is at quite a low ebb.
Cheer up. No matter what you used to think of Lindsay Graham, he is setting the pace for a representative to think for him/herself.
Commentators reported surprise that he was "formerly in Trump's corner." Think about how easily we accept that the future is secured
by a majority in either house. The outrageous president is inspiring elected Republicans to analyze issues (imagine!). Even if
it is cold and calculated to influence their own voters, let's begin to applaud and encourage those who seem to think for them/ourselves.
We don't suffer from a lack of ideas in this area; no, we lack the ability (political will) to accomplish it. Thus, another
exercise in mental masturbation.
we lack the ability (political will) to accomplish it. Carl
A Citizen's Dividend would be the camel's nose under the tent since the less wasted by government, the more that could be distributed
to citizens to counter price deflation.
And it's only justice that all fiat creation, beyond that created for government to spend for the general welfare, be in the
form of an equal Citizen's Dividend.
Funny you should mention Europe since an equal Citizen's Dividend for all Euro zone citizens would be a way to eliminate austerity
that even Germany might not object to since Germans would receive it too.
For example, Italy gives the unemployed 500 euros per month and tries to find them any sort of job. I think you're a little
behind. But by all means, keep tilting at windmills.
i was just thinking about that this am while finishing my fence like in alaska.
i figger that after 40+ years of declining or stagnant wages, a majority of us are owed some frelling back-pay.
but "dividend" works just as well.
a majority of us are owed some frelling back-pay. Amfortas the hippie
The Citizen's Dividend would vary as required to counter price deflation but during the period when the banks are progressively
de-privileged, it would have to be quite high to provide for the conversion of bank deposits to fiat deposits at the Central Bank
– with the banks, by necessity, having to borrow the needed fiat from citizens.
Its still the wrong set of arguments. The problem in the US is not that Medicare-for-All would require new taxes that need
funding. The problem is that the US spends twice per capita on healthcare what the average OECD country spends. The US spends
more public tax money on healthcare per capita than Canada does, and Canada insures the entire population.
We can pay for our entire military budget as it exists if we simply drop our per capita healthcare spending to less than what
Switzerland pays. Name one other thing that costs more in the US than in Switzerland.
Americans simply cannot comprehend how exorbitantly expensive and unequal the US healthcare system is compared to the rest
of the developed world.
While I gladly accept the results of these surveys, I question the reasons they seem to have garnered from the public. To most
citizens, lower taxes mean much more than non-aggresive foreign policy and peaceful diplomacy. If the question was phrased in
such a way that respondents were replying to the lower cost AND the concomitant peace-oriented habits that should (would?) come
from it, then it is an issue whether they agreed with both statements. Further, this reorientation of spending would have to be
bully-pulpited quite strongly to educate the US as to its long-term benefits since most of us have been prepped to be anxious
about foreign nations and the paranoia of saving us from the evil dictator "X". Oh, yes, peace should come, but compare the Syria
brou-ha-ha to what would descend upon us when peace broke out. The elites won't disappear.
Bizarre. The question is: How can we afford something that's half as expensive as what we're already paying? I wouldn't expect
that level of insanity from someone in a straitjacket yet it's a commonplace in these discussions.
Even worse: the argument that government is financially constrained. It's not "tax & spend," it can't be. Where would taxpayers
get dollars to pay those taxes if government didn't spend them first?
So it must be "spend first & then ask for some back in taxes." This is how reality works. And what do we call the dollar financial
assets left in the economy, not retrieved by taxes? a) The dollar financial assets of the citizens, i.e. their savings or (same
thing) b) National 'Debt'
National 'Debt' is completely unlike household debt. It's like bank debt. If you have a bank account, that's your asset, but
to the bank, it's a liability. It's the money they owe you. It's their debt.
Now imagine a mob of depositors marching down to the bank to demand it reduce the size of its debt (i.e. make their accounts
smaller) Crazy? Yes, but that's the austerian line of talk.
Finally, the inflationistas: "If you just print money, you'll have [gasp][hyper-]inflation!" This is the finest quality bullshit,
and people spout it practically without prompting. The truth: The Fed extended $16 – $29 trillion in credit to cure the frauds
of the financial sector in 2007-8. I defy anyone to find a measurement of inflation that says there was any then.
Was there central-bank-run-amok inflation in the classical cases (Weimar, Zimbabwe). Nope. Not even there. Yes they did print
lots of Deutchmarks and Zimbabwe currency, but only after a shortage of good occurred that actually caused the inflation.
Just printing money, especially if there's spare capacity, does not cause inflation. You need a bidding war for some commodity
that's become scarce (like oil in the '70s). So Weimar had the burden of war reparations, a balance of payments problem, and when
they delayed sending some telephone poles to France, the French military shut down the German equivalent of Ohio (the Ruhr). Shortages
led to the hyperinflation. Similarly, the Rhodesian colonists left Zimbabwe, which had previously fed itself, and food shortages
led to the hyperinflation.
The Cato study of 56 hyperinflationary episodes in human history also validates the above. In *no* case did a central bank
"run amok" and print too much to kick off the hyperinflation. Always the cost push of a shortage of goods drove it.
Gosh, it's all so simple. We just need to take on the military industrial complex, the medical industrial complex, and our
corrupt political system all at the same time.
Researchers Detail How Slashing the Social Security and Medicare Budgets Could Pay for More Pointless Wars While Creating the
Progressive Wall Street Bailouts Americans Want.
Only a few months ago, the Democrats' drive to the White House began with the loftiest of ideals, albeit a hodgepodge from trans
toilet "rights" to a 100 percent makeover of the health care system. It is now all about vengeance, clumsy and grossly partisan at
that, gussied up as "saving democracy." Our media is dominated by angry Hillary refighting 2016 and "joking" about running again,
with Adam Schiff now the face of the party for 2020. The war of noble intentions has devolved into Pelosi's March to the Sea. Any
chance for a Democratic candidate to reach into the dark waters and pull America to where she can draw breath again and heal has
been lost.
Okay, deep breath myself. A couple of times a week, I walk past the
café where Allen Ginsberg, the Beat poet, often wrote.
His most famous poem, Howl , begins, "I saw the best minds of my generation
destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked." The walk is a good leveler, a reminder that madness (Trump Derangement in modern
terminology) is not new in politics.
But Ginsberg wrote in a time when one could joke about coded messages -- before the Internet came into being to push tailored
ticklers straight into people's brains. I'll take my relief in knowing that almost everything Trump and others write, on Twitter
and in the Times , is designed simply to get attention and getting our attention today requires ever louder and crazier stuff.
What will get us to look up anymore? Is that worth playing with fire over?
It is easy to lose one's sense of humor over all this. It is easy to end up like Ginsberg at the end of his poem, muttering
to strangers at what a mess this had all become: "Real holy laughter in the river! They saw it all! the wild eyes! the holy yells!
They bade farewell! They jumped off the roof! To solitude!" But me, I don't think it's funny at all.
"If minorities prefer Sharia Law, then we advise them to go to those places where that's the
state law.
Russia does not need minorities. Minorities need Russia, and we will not grant them special
privileges, or try to change our laws to fit their desires, no matter how loud they yell
"discrimination"
@Ron
Unz Thanks to Tucker Carlson's show, some folks on the left like Cohen, Mate and
Greenwald, are more likely to get air time on Fox News than MSNBC and CNN.
Great! Thank you @HillaryClinton . You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and
personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally
come out from behind the curtain. From the day I announced my candidacy, there has been a
...
Tulsi Gabbard 1:20 PM - 18 Oct 2019
... concerted campaign to destroy my reputation. We wondered who was behind it and why.
Now we know -- it was always you, through your proxies and ...
Tulsi Gabbard 1:20 PM - 18 Oct 2019
... powerful allies in the corporate media and war machine, afraid of the threat I pose.
It's now clear that this primary is between you and me. Don't cowardly hide behind your
proxies. Join the race directly.
"... I suspect that Gabbard has very little chance of beating Trump because he is also campaigning - quite successfully - against 'endless wars', and Gabbard is too radical for most Americans. ..."
"... This sparks some interesting questions, such as, exactly who are party members, and how do they become members? The actual structure and functioning of political parties in the US is seldom discussed, and I wonder why that is. "Opaque" seems to be a good description ..."
"... The primary voting system is a huge financial subsidy to the two officially approved parties, which are, of course, merely two branches of the Business Party. ..."
"... Good for Tulsi. I love the way she punches. She not only decked Clinton in one, but she got a lot of other important points across at the same time. ..."
"... Whenever she tries to curve her stance close to the establishment, she comes off as someone who is running for Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense; as someone with her eyes on a high status job in the establishement. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton can't be thrown out of the Dem party because she in a sense IS the Dem party as it stands now, a long way from its roots. The Dem party now has been fully integrated into the bureaucracy, the intelligence services and the corporate media similar to how Tony Blair in the UK took the Labour Party to be deeply embedded in the UK establishment. ..."
"... Hillary is still around because she literally owns the Democrat party. Follow the funding: in 2016, almost all of it flowed through HRC. Not just the presidential, but the state and significant part of the local. ..."
Hillary Clinton appeared to suggest that Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) is the "favorite of the Russians" to win the 2020 presidential
election and is being groomed by Moscow to run as a third-party candidate against the eventual Democratic nominee.
...
The Russians already have their "eye on somebody who's currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party
candidate," she said, in an apparent reference to Gabbard.
"She's the favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her, so far," Clinton
told David Plouffe, the podcast's host and the campaign manager for former President Obama's 2008 campaign.
"And that's assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not because she's also a Russian asset," Clinton added, referring
to the 2016 Green Party presidential candidate.
The responses were appropriate:
Tulsi Gabbard @TulsiGabbard - 22:20 UTC
· Oct 18, 2019
Great! Thank you @HillaryClinton. You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that
has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain. From the day I announced my candidacy,
there has been a ...
... concerted campaign to destroy my reputation. We wondered who was behind it and why. Now we know -- it was always you, through
your proxies and ...
... powerful allies in the corporate media and war machine, afraid of the threat I pose.
It's now clear that this primary is between you and me. Don't cowardly hide behind your proxies. Join the race directly.
The Streisand effect of Clinton's shoddy remark will help Tulsi Gabbard with regards to name recognition. It will increase her
poll results. With Joe Biden faltering and Elizabeth Warren increasingly exposed as a phony Clinton copy, Bernie Sanders could become
the Democrats leading candidate. Then the “favorite of the Russians” smear will be applied to him.
Clinton should be suspended from the Democratic Party for damaging it's chances to regain the White House. But the Democratic
establishment would rather sabotage the election than to let one of the more progressive candidates take the lead.
Voters do not like such internal squabble and shenanigans. The phony Ukrainegate 'impeachment inquiry' is already
a gift for Trump. Messing with the candidate field on top
of that will inevitably end with another Trump presidency.
and Suspend her from what? a lamp post? That's a little bit harsh.
Hillary is actually doing something constructive for the first time in her career - by giving a boost to Tulsi Gabbard who
is the only candidate who challenges the military industrial complex, which has probably caused more death and destruction than
anyone else in history.
I suspect that Gabbard has very little chance of beating Trump because he is also campaigning - quite successfully - against
'endless wars', and Gabbard is too radical for most Americans.
But none of the other Democratic candidates stand a chance of beating Trump either. The two front-runners are medically unfit
for any important challenging job - Biden (senility) and Sanders (recent heart attack/stroke?).
Tulsi is urging Hillary to "enter the race" !! Hillary is foaming at the mouth with desire to enter the 2020 race. Is Tulsi
working for Hillary?
Behind the scenes it was decided to make HunterBidenGate the pretext for a Trump impeachment. This, it
was thought, would damage Trump AND Biden and make way for the resurrection of Hillary Clinton. There were so many other pretexts
available but they chose this one.
"Clinton should be suspended from the Democratic Party"
This sparks some interesting questions, such as, exactly who are party members, and how do they become members? The actual
structure and functioning of political parties in the US is seldom discussed, and I wonder why that is. "Opaque" seems to be a
good description. Even a quick review of the Wikipedia entry reveals little.
As best I can tell, a person is a party member by checking the box on the voter registration form. The few times I have registered,
I did not check a box for any party. It is none of the state's business who I associate with or vote for.
It is also not the state's business to supervise and fund the selection of party candidates. But that is what happens in the
US. The primary voting system is a huge financial subsidy to the two officially approved parties, which are, of course, merely
two branches of the Business Party.
"It didn't come much clearer nor more explicit than when Gabbard fired up the Democratic TV debate this week. It was billed
as the biggest televised presidential debate ever, and the Hawaii Representative told some prime-time home-truths to the nation:
"Donald Trump has blood of the Kurds on his hands, but so do many of the politicians in our country from both parties who have
supported this ongoing regime-change war in Syria that started in 2011 along with many in the mainstream media who have been championing
and cheer-leading this regime-change war."
The 38-year-old military veteran went on to denounce how the US has sponsored Al Qaeda terrorists for its objective of overthrowing
the government in Damascus."
Good for Tulsi. I love the way she punches. She not only decked Clinton in one, but she got a lot of other important points
across at the same time. The way she tries to finesse her stances on Iran, India and Israel is disturbing though.
Whenever she tries to curve her stance close to the establishment, she comes off as someone who is running for Secretary
of State or Secretary of Defense; as someone with her eyes on a high status job in the establishement.
When she's forthright, punches hard and says the things that many people are thinking but few dare say - as she did in her
statement on Syria, but didn't in her statement on Iran - she comes off as the first real candidate for President that I've seen
in my lifetime (I don't count the likes of Dennis Kucinich, who never seemed to actually want to win).
If Tulsi is serious about doing the world good, this is the path she needs to take. Speak the truths no one else is willing
to say; punch hard; stick with it. Yeah and be willing to die for it. If they can't stop you, which I don't think they can, they'll
come gunning for you...
Finally, at last, foreign affairs (i.e wars) has made it into a presidential campaign, and by a veteran, with veterans currently
being sanctified in the U.S. The women (Tulsi, Jill and Hillary) are getting down and dirty, too, which is always a good thing
and a feature of politics in time past, as in the Truman era. President Harry Truman: "If you can't stand the heat, get out of
the kitchen. If you cannot handle the pressure, you should not remain in a position where you have to deal with it."
Let's hope that they get into the details of Hillary's failures, including Libya, Somalia, and especially Syria. Let's get
it on! In the last election she never was forced to answer for her specific failures. Now's the time.
Hillary Clinton can't be thrown out of the Dem party because she in a sense IS the Dem party as it stands now, a long way
from its roots. The Dem party now has been fully integrated into the bureaucracy, the intelligence services and the corporate
media similar to how Tony Blair in the UK took the Labour Party to be deeply embedded in the UK establishment.
What Trump has successfully done from the right that Sanders/Gabbard (like Corbyn in the UK) are struggling to do from the
left is to attack the establishment that's in a permanent state of warfare abroad and at home against its "enemies" and unfettered
capitalism at home For a brief moment it was hoped by progressives that Obama - who defeated the faces of the establishment, Clinton
and McCain in 2008 - would really fight the establishment but he ended up becoming more of a celebrity politician like Trudeau
who talked a good game but was unable to effect real change on the ground which of course led to a large number or African Americans
not voting in 2016 and a lot of white blue collar Obama 2008 voters going for Trump.
The corporate media which has been totally corrupted and infiltrated by intelligence agencies - quote openly versus covertly
as in the past - is going to make every effort to shut down not just Gabbard but Sanders and ensure that Warren - a wannabe feel-gooder
like Obama - be completely neutered to effect real change.
Hillary is still around because she literally owns the Democrat party. Follow the funding: in 2016, almost all of it flowed
through HRC. Not just the presidential, but the state and significant part of the local.
"... Clinton's claims, made without the slightest effort at factual substantiation, are an attempt to criminalize the anti-war statements of the two candidates as treasonous. ..."
"... Clinton's attacks on Gabbard and Stein make clear once again that the Democrats' assertions of "Russian meddling" in the 2016 election were primarily aimed not at Trump, but at the anti-war and anti-capitalist sentiments that led millions of people to refuse to vote for her in 2016. They underscore how the Democrats have appropriated the McCarthyite tactics historically associated primarily with the Republican right. ..."
"... As a central part of their anti-Russia campaign, Clinton and the Democrats promoted the media effort to poison public opinion against journalist Julian Assange by slandering him as a "Russian agent," preparing the way for the Trump administration to indict him on bogus sedition charges and secure his imprisonment in London under conditions that threaten his life. ..."
"... "That's assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not, because she's also a Russian asset," Clinton said. "Yes, she's a Russian asset, I mean, totally. They know they can't win without a third-party candidate." ..."
"... Gabbard replied to Clinton's slander on Twitter by declaring, "Thank you @HillaryClinton. You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain." Gabbard's performance in this week's Democratic presidential debate no doubt put her in Clinton's crosshairs. Gabbard vowed, "As president, I will end these regime-change wars," and "would make sure that we stop supporting terrorists like Al Qaeda in Syria, who have been the ground force in this ongoing regime-change war." ..."
"... Gabbard's true statement that the United States -- with Clinton as secretary of state under Obama -- had allied with forces linked to Al Qaeda in the drive to overthrow the Syrian government was passed over in total silence by the rest of the candidates and the CNN and New York Times moderators. It was then blacked out in the post-debate media coverage of the event. ..."
"... In an earlier debate, Gabbard said the greatest geopolitical danger facing the United States was the threat of nuclear war -- another taboo in the broadcast media, which routinely demands that the United States "stand up" to Russia without mentioning what a military confrontation with the nuclear-armed country would look like. ..."
Hillary Clinton, the widely despised former Democratic Party presidential candidate, has
slandered two of her political opponents -- Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard and 2016 Green Party
presidential candidate Dr. Jill Stein -- as traitors and Russian spies.
The World Socialist Web Site has fundamental political differences with both Ms.
Gabbard and Dr. Stein. But Clinton's claims, made without the slightest effort at factual
substantiation, are an attempt to criminalize the anti-war statements of the two candidates as
treasonous.
Clinton's attacks on Gabbard and Stein make clear once again that the Democrats' assertions
of "Russian meddling" in the 2016 election were primarily aimed not at Trump, but at the
anti-war and anti-capitalist sentiments that led millions of people to refuse to vote for her
in 2016. They underscore how the Democrats have appropriated the McCarthyite tactics
historically associated primarily with the Republican right.
As a central part of their anti-Russia campaign, Clinton and the Democrats promoted the
media effort to poison public opinion against journalist Julian Assange by slandering him as a
"Russian agent," preparing the way for the Trump administration to indict him on bogus sedition
charges and secure his imprisonment in London under conditions that threaten his life.
At the same time, in the name of countering the supposed menace of Russian "fake news," the
Democrats pressured Google to slash search traffic to left-wing political websites and insisted
that Facebook and Twitter delete left-wing accounts with millions of followers.
In a podcast interview published Thursday, Clinton told former Obama adviser David Plouffe,
"I think they've got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are
grooming her to be the third-party candidate." Implicitly but clearly referring to Gabbard,
Clinton continued, "She's the favorite of the Russians."
"They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her," Clinton added.
Asked later if the former secretary of state was referring to Gabbard in her comment,
Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill told CNN, "If the nesting doll fits "
Clinton then went on to make her strongest assertion yet that Jill Stein was a "Russian
asset."
"That's assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not, because she's also a
Russian asset," Clinton said. "Yes, she's a Russian asset, I mean, totally. They know they
can't win without a third-party candidate."
Gabbard replied to Clinton's slander on Twitter by declaring, "Thank you @HillaryClinton.
You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has
sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain."
Gabbard's performance in this week's Democratic presidential debate no doubt put her in
Clinton's crosshairs. Gabbard vowed, "As president, I will end these regime-change wars," and
"would make sure that we stop supporting terrorists like Al Qaeda in Syria, who have been the
ground force in this ongoing regime-change war."
Gabbard's true statement that the United States -- with Clinton as secretary of state under
Obama -- had allied with forces linked to Al Qaeda in the drive to overthrow the Syrian
government was passed over in total silence by the rest of the candidates and the CNN and
New York Times moderators. It was then blacked out in the post-debate media coverage of
the event.
In an earlier debate, Gabbard said the greatest geopolitical danger facing the United States
was the threat of nuclear war -- another taboo in the broadcast media, which routinely demands
that the United States "stand up" to Russia without mentioning what a military confrontation
with the nuclear-armed country would look like.
Toward the end of Thursday's interview, Clinton implicitly called for censorship. She
condemned the growth of internet news outlets, which have broadened the number and range of
sources of information available to the population.
"I think it's a lot harder for Americans to know what they're supposed to believe," she
said. In the 1970s, with only three major national newspapers, "It was a much more controllable
environment."
Jill Stein advocates the reform of capitalism and is an opponent of Marxism. She has stated
that she is opposed to "state socialism." Tulsi Gabbard, a veteran of the Iraq war and major in
the Hawaii National Guard, describes herself as a "hawk" in many aspects of US foreign
policy.
Nevertheless, it is clear that the statements they have made in opposition to the wars in
Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria correspond to the sentiments of the overwhelming majority of
the American people, who see these wars of aggression launched on the basis of lies, which have
killed and maimed millions, as a criminal squandering of lives and resources.
Clinton, speaking for a rabidly pro-war faction of the American financial oligarchy and the
military-intelligence establishment, sees these sentiments as treasonous and argues for their
criminalization.
Her statements make clear once again that the working class has no stake in the struggle
between the Trump faction and his opponents in the Democratic Party and intelligence apparatus.
Trump, relying on fascistic appeals to his right-wing base, is seeking to turn the United
States into a personalist dictatorship. But Clinton's faction does not oppose his concentration
camps for immigrants or his pro-corporate agenda. Rather, it opposes Trump on the grounds that
he is "soft" on Russia and insufficiently aggressive in waging America's wars.
Isn't it funny that the Clinton trolls were weaponizing her gender in the last election,
screaming "sexist!" at anyone who criticized her for her actual policies and corrupt
practices, slandering Sanders supporters as "Bernie Bros", and to the point of Albright
claiming there was a special place in hell for women who didn't support her, while the Queen
of Warmongering, who was besties with Trump, married to Bill, took cash from Weinstein, and
flew with Epstein (all serial rapists) gets to baselessly smear women as treasonous spies
without a peep from the liberal feminists, metoo-ers, and media mouthpieces? And, for a
cherry on top, she's on tour for a book called "Gutsy Women"!
Gabbard, after deftly doing a front-stabbing number on Bad Cop Harris, torpedoing Saint
Obomber's "legacy" with his bungled attempt to surf AQ to regime-change in Syria and rightly
ripping the agitprop rags NYT and CNN some fresh axeholes, has indeed now flushed out the
deranged Alien Queen, wildly spitting globs of steaming molecular acid at the one who dared
wound her drones.
She raises some ugly home truths rarely heard from bourgeois politicians at this level
and, having busted the media blackout to get back in the debates, for her troubles is now
receiving what amount to transparent public death threats from a top Mafiosa desperate to
evade any proper scrutiny of her own and the Party's many warcrimes.
Regardless of the rest of her politics, one has to recognise Gabbard's personal bravery in
tackling dangerous predators like this and hope she has an extremely dedicated 24/7 armed
personal protection detail, to ward off the elevated risk of Arkancide.
""I think it's a lot harder for Americans to know what they're supposed to believe," she
said. In the 1970s, with only three major national newspapers, "It was a much more
controllable environment.""
This is a true voice of bourgeois democracy, of course.
" 'That's assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not, because she's also a
Russian asset,' Clinton said. 'Yes, she's a Russian asset, I mean, totally. They know they
can't win without a third-party candidate.' "
"We came, we saw, he died." -- Clinton on Khaddafy
But can you guess who uttered the following quote(hint: it is not the "white nationalist"
Donald Trump, who unlike some public figures is politically apt enough not to say "white
people" aloud):
"Senator Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening
again, and whites in both states who had not completed college are supporting me." *
The capitalist Democratic Party is a loudmouthed, racist buffoon.
* working hard when not hardly working--but maybe it's not just whites
The vile, vindictive nature of Mrs Clinton has reached new lows as her seeming unaccepting
the loss of the '16 election to shift the blame to anyone but her. She is why we have Trump.
She really needs to fade away and quit meddling in our elections.
"Thank you @HillaryClinton. You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and
personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally
come out from behind the curtain." - An Interview with Tulsi Gabbard regarding the role of
HIllary Clinton, the military-industrial complex, and her anti-war stance here. To my
surprise, she makes the clear connection that Clintons claim that she is a 'russian asset' is
aimed also at demonizing all Americans who oppose the war-regime.
https://www.youtube.com/wat...
"... Clearly, Gabbard may have real problems with Donald Trump as president but she's learned very quickly from him that the best way to deal with Hillary and her media quislings is to attack them without mercy. ..."
"... Gabbard throws down the gauntlet here outing Hillary as the mastermind behind the DNC strategy of allowing the current crop of future losers to fall all over themselves to alienate as many centrist voters as possible. ..."
"... She emerged from that debate as the only candidate with any moral compass capable of pointing in a single direction. Warren made a fool of herself responding with bromides about leaving in the 'rightt way' indistinguishable from any other presidential puppet of the last twenty years. ..."
"... The people Gabbard is up against are even more ruthless since Hillary intends to win, whereas the Republicans in 2008 were fighting for the right to lose to her at the time. ..."
"... Gabbard's rise in popularity among Trump voters and centrists is born of the same exhaustion the American people have with endless wars for globalism. She is Trump's Kryptonite. ..."
"... The party she represents is irrelevant. By wrapping herself in the mantle of the front-runner for the nomination is not delusional, it's the most strategic thing she's done to date. ..."
"... Join my Patreon to assist me in helping you expose the frauds and liars whose perversions of truth threaten the fabric of civil society. Install the Brave Browser to make it harder for them to track you and marginalize similar voices. ..."
Clearly, Gabbard may have real problems with Donald Trump as president but she's learned very quickly from him that the
best way to deal with Hillary and her media quislings is to attack them without mercy.
Gabbard throws down the gauntlet here outing Hillary as the mastermind behind the DNC strategy of allowing the
current crop of future losers to fall all over themselves to alienate as many centrist voters as possible.
This paves the way for Hillary to swoop in on her broom, pointed hat in hand, and declare herself the savior of the
Democratic Party's chances to defeat Donald Trump next November.
Remember that leading up to the debate Gabbard was going to boycott the event because it was such a corrupted event
and stage-managed to showcase the chosen 'front-runners' -- Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren.
It makes sense to me that she decided at the last minute to join the debate after the Times piece just to ensure she
got the national platform to openly call out the corruption in the same breath as attacking Trump for his, to this
point, disastrous foreign policy mistakes.
She emerged from that debate as the only candidate with any moral compass capable of pointing in a single direction.
Warren made a fool of herself responding with bromides about leaving in the 'rightt way' indistinguishable from any
other presidential puppet of the last twenty years.
This is two debates in a row where Gabbard came out blazing at the front-runner, claiming a moral and ethical high
ground on foreign policy that, at just over half the age of her rivals, that shows a maturity well beyond her years.
Her calling Hillary the "Queen of Warmongers" is so self-evidently true that it will reverberate far beyond Twitter
into votes.
And it tells Hillary that Gabbard has zero fear of her and her political machine.
You can't cow a person without fear who has nothing to lose.
Bullies like Hillary never learn that lesson until they are humiliated beyond recognition.
Moreover, when you look at this sequence of events it's clear that the DNC, Hillary and everyone else close to the
corridors of power fear Gabbard's rise. If they weren't they wouldn't be putting out smears in the New York Times.
They wouldn't be spending millions on social media trolls to discredit her in the public fora.
The first rule of politics is "You never attack down."
Well, Hillary attacked down. The Times attacked down. The DNC, by gaming the debate rules, attacked down. And that
spells disaster for anyone who does it.
This was the exchange that ended Rudy's political career. 150 seconds of truth-telling that ignited a movement which
culminated in the election of Donald Trump.
Gabbard is following that same course. The difference between her and Dr. Paul is that she's less polite. But as to
their moral clarity there is little difference. And she shouldn't be polite. The stakes are higher today than they were
in 2008.
The people Gabbard is up against are even more ruthless since Hillary intends to win, whereas the Republicans in 2008
were fighting for the right to lose to her at the time.
Gabbard's rise in popularity among Trump voters and centrists is born of the same exhaustion the American people have
with endless wars for globalism. She is Trump's Kryptonite.
The party she represents is irrelevant. By wrapping herself in the mantle of the front-runner for the nomination is
not delusional, it's the most strategic thing she's done to date.
It's also becoming more and more realistic as the days go on.
Because by responding to Hillary's ham-fisted
attempts to position herself as the voice of reason, Gabbard clarifies for everyone just how sick and
bile-filled Hillary is by outing her as the delusional one.
And reminding everyone that Hillary is the architect of the very policies in the Middle East that Trump is
now taking heat for trying to unwind.
Gabbard knows what the plan is. She was there in 2016 when Hillary stole the nomination from Bernie Sanders
and quit her position in the DNC because of it.
Even Trump knows that foreign policy and foreign entanglements will be the big ticket issue for this
election cycle.
Why?
Because Gabbard has single-handedly made it so.
Trump is already running against her by pulling back from Syria, looking for peace options in Afghanistan,
firing John Bolton while using proxies and, yes, Vladimir Putin to assist him in fixing his myriad mistakes of
the first thirty months of his presidency.
Hillary trying to position herself as the one who can save the Middle East from Trump's bumbling is
laughable and Gabbard just laughed in Hillary's face.
Calling everyone who voices any dissent from foreign or domestic policy orthodoxy a Russian agent is a
losing proposition. It belies reality and what people see with their own eyes.
Americans want better relations with Russia now World War III. Trump's popularity has risen since he backed
off on starting a war with Iran.
The media spent four years marginalizing Dr. Paul. The RNC stole the nomination from him just as surely as
the DNC stole the nomination from Bernie. As the people in the U.K. are finding out, their votes don't matter.
Democracy doesn't matter, only the fever dreams of the soulless and the power mad who think they run the
world. Look at what Hillary has become, not what you remember her to be.
She's a tired, sick, fragile woman whose bitterness and evil is literally eating her up from the inside out.
Have you noticed that she hasn't been photographed standing up for months?
She's the epitome of everything wrong with America and, in fact, the world and Tulsi Gabbard just stood up
and laughed at her for still thinking she was the Emperor when in reality she's The Joker.
Join my Patreon
to assist me in helping you expose the frauds and liars whose
perversions of truth threaten the fabric of civil society.
By now this new clown is also a murderer, as he did not stop shelling Donbass, although
so far he has committed fewer crimes than Porky.
Have you noticed that the Republicans, while seeming to defend Trump, never challenge the
specious assertion that delaying arms to Ukraine was a threat to US security? At first I
thought this was oversight. Silly me. Keeping the New Cold War smoldering is more important
to those hawks.
Tulsi Gabbard flipping to support the impeachment enquiry was especially disappointing.
I'm guessing she was under lots of pressure, because she can't possibly believe that arming
the Ukies is good for our security. If I could get to one of her events, I'd ask her direct,
what's up with that. Obama didn't give them arms at all, even made some remarks about not
inflaming the situation. (A small token, after his people managed the coup, spent 8 years
demonizing Putin, and presided over origins of Russiagate to make Trump's [stated] goal of
better relations impossible.)
It is more accurate to call it Russia's reannexation of Crimea, supported by over 90% of the
people there via an election. Russia didn't invade, it had 20,000 troops based there as
Russian troops have been there for over a century.
Jeffery Epstein should have declared that he was running for President, because according
to the logic of many Democrats and their media allies, Trump would be forced to release him
so as not to interfere in the elections.
Remember Joe Biden claimed that he knew nothing about his son's shady business in Ukraine.
Tucker Carlson broke the big story of the week that was ignored by our corporate media to
include Fox News itself:
'Tucker Carlson Tonight' obtains photo of Joe Biden golfing with his son and Ukrainian
business partner
"Clinton should be suspended from the Democratic Party"
This sparks some interesting questions, such as, exactly who are party members, and how do
they become members? The actual structure and functioning of political parties in the US is
seldom discussed, and I wonder why that is. "Opaque" seems to be a good description. Even a
quick review of the Wikipedia entry reveals little.
As best I can tell, a person is a party member by checking the box on the voter
registration form. The few times I have registered, I did not check a box for any party. It
is none of the state's business who I associate with or vote for.
It is also not the state's business to supervise and fund the selection of party
candidates. But that is what happens in the US. The primary voting system is a huge
financial subsidy to the two officially approved parties, which are, of course, merely two
branches of the Business Party.
The electoral college is neither archaic nor unfair. We were and are a union of States. The
electoral college prevented the Executive office from being dominated by voters from heavily
populated urban centers at the expense of the rural population. It is more relevant today
than ever as the country is even more divided in disposition and ideology. If it were
abolished, most of America would be effectively disenfranchised in Presidential elections as
California, New York and a handful of other highly urbanized and ultra-liberal population
centers would always carry the day. There would be no need to vote anymore. Maybe that is the
idea......
@Ron
Unz Thanks to Tucker Carlson's show, some folks on the left like Cohen, Mate and
Greenwald, are more likely to get air time on Fox News than MSNBC and CNN.
Leave aside that Trump should not have been compelled to make the transcript public . .
. .
It's tempting to view Trump's presidency as sui generis. With norms and seemingly
well-settled historical precedents broken, with the liability casually laid at his feet by
most observers, even if not wholly out to destroy him.
Knowing its intent was remove him from office, Trump nevertheless ordered unprecedented
cooperation with the Mueller investigation. A brilliant move in hindsight. I don't recall
very much handwringing about the bad precedent this set for presidential power.
Trump's insight, and in no small part it explains his continued survival, is his refusal
to accept the appearance of his fully possessing his Article II powers. Most especially in
the context of the National Security State.
Utz has written how even Eisenhower was foiled from negotiating to reduce tensions with
the Soviet Union/Krushchev. If they could derail the POTUS then doing so with those that
followed him should have been easy by comparison and, I think, was. The trend since, as the
USG's global power grew, was for president's to ever quickly give way upon after office to
the role of what I call Figurehead/Pitchman. It's a Safe Space, as was palpably obvious
through Obama's two terms.
While Figurehead/Pitchman versus Real POTUS is, of course, a spectrum not a dichotomy,
Trump for reasons I don't need to belabor has effectively constituted a sharp break.
So, decisions of his like the following, facially a diminution of his authority, which
passed without a great deal of notice, struck me as him protecting himself from his
authorizing military actions designed to end his presidency:
The longer Trump survives the further these highest order threats of nuclear war and to
our Constitutional Republic recede. Even if it doesn't seem that way at moments like
this.
It's childish nonsense the idea that any foreign state, including Russia, thought Trump
would win, much less wanted him to do so. It's equally juvenile, especially close to three
years hence, to not understand that foreign adversaries and allies alike awaited a resolution
of this factional war internally within the US, avoiding catastrophe in the meantime.
Thankfully, at least so far, since Trump took the oath, the foreign powers for which a
Hillary presidency would have been a geopolitical gift of historic proportions (e.g. China;
Iran), have largely made their peace with that lost opportunity.
If the coup has less than 70% they have no more than the CNN crowd.
Equating Ukraine to US security is false and not selling the coup. Bashing Trump for going
after his corrupt opponent Biden is not selling!
Crooked media coverage fools 50% of the people all the time, especially when 35% of the
are duped by Pelosi, Schumer and Biden usually they are suffering from Trump Derangement
Syndrome.
Democrats; shady neocons equate not arming the corrupt regime in Ukraine to "security".
Siding with corruption is a huge threat to US security!
Many of us who turn down polls will never again vote for a democrat.
"Equating Ukraine to US security is false and not selling the coup. "
I would say more: calling foreign interference of Ukraine in the US election in case of
Biden is an insult to the intelligence of US voters.
This is the level of chutzpah almost equal to claiming orphan privileges after killing
both parents.
After 2014 Ukraine with its marionette government 'midwifed' by Ms. Nuland (Google
Nulandgate) is a colony for all practical purposes; the country governed directly from the US
embassy ( Washington Obcom as locals sarcastically call it as it performs functions similar
to the CPSU offices in the past).
For all key matters it's Washington who decided that policy Ukraine will pursue. That
decides the issue of interference once and forever. Under Obama Ukraine participated in
anti-Trump coup d'état. How this marionette government can pursue independent policy
as for the USA is beyond my understanding of the situation.
What is funny is that Biden was Obama's viceroy in Ukraine all that time up to election of
Trump. He also was the best friend on Yanukovich and his political mentor (that's probably
why Yanukovich ended his career is such a way; which such friends, who needs the enemies
;-)
The main feature of the democrat coup the foundation of the party is corruption.
This aspect of the party demanded that Clinton run against Trump, rather than on any
policy. Shew hid the neocon militarism, attacking Trump deplorables as isolationists.
The Ukraine connection is money for family members of democrat elites. A most corrupt
regime the image of not supporting the corruption is a democrat defined national security
issue!
The US ust sell Javelin tank busters to Ukraine so they can keep their Russian sectors and
plunder them to pay Biden's (Romney kid, Pelosi kid) son.
This coup is about plunder and it is not Trump whose plunder is at stake!
This New York Times article about @TulsiGabbard is perfect. It belongs in a museum to show
how the NYT & DNC smear anyone who expresses any dissenting views: accuse them of serving
RUSSIA & white nationalists, quote Neera Tanden & Laura McCarthy Rosenberg, etc.
What, Exactly, Is Tulsi Gabbard Up To? - The New York Times
6:56 AM - 12 Oct 2019
[ Radical, unethical Democratic National Committee folks are determined to defame and
destroy an heroic Democratic member of congress, a combat veteran and still serving member of
the armed forces, reelected with a 70% majority in 2018. ]
Astonishing the Democratic leadership calumny of a Democratic member of Congress, a woman, of
Indian and Samoan heritage, a combat veteran and serving member of the armed forces. Such is
self-styled supposed Democratic leadership, steeped in the terrible terrifying tradition of
Joseph McCarthy.
(The price of admission, so as to be
able to read the posts of others, is
for now, posting something, anything.)
What, Exactly, Is Tulsi Gabbard Up To? https://nyti.ms/33s1Aj8
NYT - Lisa Lerer - October 12
WASHINGTON -- Stephen K. Bannon, President Trump's former chief strategist, is impressed
with her political talent. Richard B. Spencer, the white nationalist leader, says he could
vote for her. Former Representative Ron Paul praises her "libertarian instincts," while
Franklin Graham, the influential evangelist, finds her "refreshing."
And far-right conspiracy theorists like Mike Cernovich see a certain MAGA sais quoi.
"She's got a good energy, a good vibe. You feel like this is just a serious person," Mr.
Cernovich said. "She seems very Trumpian." ...
(The price of admission, so as to be
able to read the posts of others, is
for now, posting something, anything.)
What, Exactly, Is Tulsi Gabbard Up To? https://nyti.ms/33s1Aj8
NYT - Lisa Lerer - October 12
WASHINGTON -- Stephen K. Bannon, President Trump's former chief strategist, is impressed
with her political talent. Richard B. Spencer, the white nationalist leader, says he could
vote for her. Former Representative Ron Paul praises her "libertarian instincts," while
Franklin Graham, the influential evangelist, finds her "refreshing."
And far-right conspiracy theorists like Mike Cernovich see a certain MAGA sais quoi.
"She's got a good energy, a good vibe. You feel like this is just a serious person," Mr.
Cernovich said. "She seems very Trumpian." ...
Among her fellow Democrats, Representative Tulsi Gabbard has struggled to make headway as a
presidential candidate, barely cracking the 2 percent mark in the polls needed to qualify for
Tuesday night's debate. She is now injecting a bit of chaos into her own party's primary
race, threatening to boycott that debate to protest what she sees as a "rigging" of the 2020
election. That's left some Democrats wondering what, exactly, she is up to in the race, while
others worry about supportive signs from online bot activity and the Russian news media. ...
On podcasts and online videos, in interviews and Twitter feeds, alt-right internet stars,
white nationalists, libertarian activists and some of the biggest boosters of Mr. Trump heap
praise on Ms. Gabbard. They like the Hawaiian congresswoman's isolationist foreign policy
views. They like her support for drug decriminalization. They like what she sees as
censorship by big technology platforms. ...
Ms. Gabbard has disavowed some of her most hateful supporters, castigating the news media
for giving "any oxygen at all" to the endorsement she won from the white nationalist leader
David Duke. But her frequent appearances on Tucker Carlson's Fox News show have buoyed her
support in right-wing circles.
Both Ms. Gabbard and her campaign refused requests for comment about her support in
right-wing circles or threat to boycott the debate. Even some political strategists who have
worked with her are at a loss to explain her approach to politics.
"She's a very talented person but I'm not sure, I just don't know what to say about the
campaign exactly," said Mark Longabaugh, a Democratic strategist who worked with Ms. Gabbard
when she was campaigning for Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont in 2016. ...
Stephen K. Bannon, President Trump's former chief strategist, is impressed with her political
talent....
-- Lisa Lerer
[ This is a vile article, contemptible for the New York Times to have printed. An heroic
member of congress, a woman, a person of color, a combat veteran, a serving member of the
armed forces, a person who serves others to seek peace, is being contemptibly slandered.
Shame, shame, shame for writing and printing such an article. ]
You and a number of the posters here are horribly naive about the Nixon Rat(bad word
omitted)s. Tulsi has been working with them. This should be automatically disqualifying.
Gabbard is a veteran, very much younger than I, she also is the most opposed to the neocon
permanent war (strong in securing the US' post WW II world order)agenda which seems to be
standard democrat stance.
Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren is paying Facebook Inc. to run false
advertisements that its Chief Executive Officer Mark Zuckerberg is endorsing President Donald
Trump.
Warren's campaign sponsored the posts which were blasted into the feeds of U.S. users of
the social network, as it pushed back against Facebook's policy to exempt politicians' ads
from its third-party fact-checking program.
The ads, which begin with the falsehood, quickly backtracks: "You're probably shocked. And
you might be thinking, 'how could this possibly be true?' Well, it's not." ...
"If Senator Warren wants to say things she knows to be untrue, we believe Facebook should
not be in the position of censoring that speech," Andy Stone, a spokesman for Facebook, said
in a statement to CNN on the ads.
This isn't the first time Warren has used Facebook's own platform to make a political
point. In March, Facebook took down ads from her campaign that called for the company to be
broken up, but later restored them.
This time, Warren's latest ads strike a more forceful tone, calling on users to hold the
Facebook CEO accountable and to back her mission.
"Facebook already helped elect Donald Trump once," the ads read. "Now, they're
deliberately allowing a candidate to intentionally lie to the American people."
Great tactic, and Hilarious at that. I passed it on on my face book account. Great political
humor has been a proven vote winner. Anytime you get a chuckle, the residual resentment gets
same relief.
"
By Dillon Ancheta | October 10, 2019 at 10:13 AM HST - Updated October 10 at 5:54 PM
HONOLULU, Hawaii (HawaiiNewsNow) - Claiming a "rigged" primary process, presidential
candidate Tulsi Gabbard says she's seriously considering boycotting the next Democratic
presidential debate.
Twelve contenders, including Gabbard, have qualified for the Oct. 15 debate in Ohio.
But in a video posted on social media Thursday, Gabbard said she's not sure she'll take
the debate stage because she believes the Democratic National Committee and corporate media
rigged the 2016 primary election against Bernie Sanders and are trying to do it again with
the 2020 primary.
She said the election is being rigged against early voting states.
"There are so many of you who I've met in Iowa and New Hampshire who have expressed to me
how frustrated you are that the DNC and corporate media are essentially trying to usurp your
role as voters in choosing who our Democratic nominee will be," Gabbard said, in the
video.
"In short, the DNC and corporate media are trying to hijack the entire election process,"
she added."
This of course is sheer nonsense, and so hurtful to Dems that she has drawn the admiration
of right wing crazies for her efforts to help trump.
Nonsense in 2016 just like this hurt Dems; ruined the Supreme Court; and damaged the
country. And she is trying to do it again in the midst of a primary in which she never, ever
had a ghost of a chance. And that was because of her total inexperience and a number of
highly questionable actions in the last decade.
At this point, she has managed to remove herself from higher office for the rest of her
life. And deservedly so.
In Hawaii you cannot run for two public offices at once, so this is her plan to run for
the House. Trash the DNC and media for defeating her, despite the fact she never had any
chance to even be a serious player in the primary.
Combine that with her gay conversion stance of a decade ago and her meddling withe asaad
and Modi, and I am starting to question her sanity.
If she loses the House primary, I would fully expect her to be the Rep candidate.
That said, the two parties are clearly not the same. The Democratic Party is content to
charge the wage class far less for the privilege of getting screwed over by corporations and
elites than the Republican Party wants to charge the wage class for that privilege.
FDR gave us a little break for a while. You might want to consider that a lot of GOP family
cash is in Wall Street, not just as passive investors either. I can understand your protest
vote, but you mistake the absence of the rank amateurism that is found among Democratic Party
politicians as the absence of corruption. Republican Party politicians have always just been
better at it than Democratic Party politicians, although there was a time before FDR when
Republicans faced no credible political competition that in their hubris they let their guard
down and their deep corruption became visible and obvious. Generally speaking though as
criminals go, Republican Party politicians have family histories of political corruption that
go as far back as their wealth making them more comfortable and at home in misleading people
for their own personal gain. Democratic Party politicians are rank amateurs in comparison,
clumsy, inexperienced, and unsure of themselves. I concede though that much of what
Democratic Party politicians lack in ability then they do compensate for with the exuberant
quasi-righteousness with which they deceive.
I must admit that there are times when I am not certain whether "the exuberant
quasi-righteousness" of Democratic Party politicians is an act of deception or an act of
stupidity, but in either case it is an act that will lead to misfortune for a lot of people.
Hanlon's razor is an aphorism expressed in various ways, including:
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."[1]
An eponymous law, probably named after a Robert J. Hanlon, it is a philosophical razor which
suggests a way of eliminating unlikely explanations for human behavior.
Origin
Inspired by Occam's razor,[2] the aphorism became known in this form and under this name
by the Jargon File, a glossary of computer programmer slang.[3][1] Later that same year, the
Jargon File editors noted lack of knowledge about the term's derivation and the existence of
a similar epigram by William James.[4] In 1996, the Jargon File entry on Hanlon's Razor noted
the existence of a similar quotation in Robert A. Heinlein's novella Logic of Empire (1941),
with speculation that Hanlon's Razor might be a corruption of "Heinlein's Razor".[5] (The
character "Doc" in Heinlein's story described the "devil theory" fallacy, explaining, "You
have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity.")[6]
In 2001, Quentin Stafford-Fraser published two blog entries citing e-mails from Joseph E.
Bigler[7][8] explaining that the quotation originally came from Robert J. Hanlon of Scranton,
Pennsylvania, as a submission (credited in print) for a book compilation of various jokes
related to Murphy's Law published in Arthur Bloch's Murphy's Law Book Two: More Reasons Why
Things Go Wrong! (1980).[9] Subsequently, in 2002, the Jargon File entry noted the
same.[10]
Earlier attributions to the idea go back to at least the 18th century.[11] First published
in German (1774) Johann Wolfgang von Goethe wrote in The Sorrows of Young Werther (as
translated):[11]
Misunderstandings and neglect occasion more mischief in the world than even malice and
wickedness. At all events, the two latter are of less frequent occurrence.[12]
A more concise expression of the idea comes from Jane West, in her novel The Loyalists
(1812):[11]
Let us not attribute to malice and cruelty what may be referred to less criminal
motives.[13]
A similar quote is also misattributed to Napoleon.[11]
Maybe the fastest way to reduce STDs is to stop promoting homosexuality in our schools.
Since HIV inhibitors were created and HIV virtually cured, the gay community has been in
overdrive on the sexual practices that causes most of the STDs on the report. Just like the
80's the doctors in these studies suggest a massive increase in spending across everyone when
in fact, you can reduce the rate of these diseases massively by targeting this subsector of
society that continues these filthy practices.
"In 2014, gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men accounted for 83% of primary
and secondary syphilis cases where sex of sex partner was known in the United States. Gay,
bisexual, and other men who have sex with men often get other STDs, including chlamydia and
gonorrhea infections. HPV (Human
papillomavirus) , the most common STD in the United States, is also a concern for gay,
bisexual, and other men who have sex with men. Some types of HPV can cause genital and anal
warts and some can lead to the development of anal and oral cancers. Gay, bisexual, and other
men who have sex with men are 17 times more likely to get anal cancer than heterosexual men.
Men who are HIV-positive are even more likely than those who do not have HIV to get anal
cancer."
At its core, exceptionalism places America outside of normal history into a category of its
own. Our initial "escape" from history followed two interrelated tracks: one was the religious
radicalism of the Puritans, the other was the frontier experience. Both paths were the
warpath.
The early settlers believed that they were "chosen" -- blessed by a special relationship to
their God. They viewed their " errand in the wilderness " as
a holy mission destined to bring a new and better way of life to the world. God's judgment on
their progress was revealed in the bounty of a harvest or the outcome of a war.
Exceptionalism was not a free-floating idea but was forged into a lasting culture by the
frontier wars aimed at the elimination or assimilation of native people and the conquest of
land. America's frontier history produced a lasting mythology that popularized empire and white
settler culture while cloaking their many contradictions.
I know it is hard to believe that the Puritans are still camped out in our minds. The old
religious radicalism has taken modern form in the liberal-sounding belief that the US military
is a "force for good (read God) in the world." The double-edged sword of exceptionalism traps
us into repeating history: our high moral standards and special role in the world gives us
license for wars and aggressions. It is the liberal elements of exceptionalism that are most
seductive, most difficult to wrap our heads around, and the most effective at winning our
consent to war.
Exceptionalism Wins Our Consent to War With A One-Two Punch
On the one hand, we have the "hard" exceptionalism like that of the Cold War (New and Old)
and the War on Terrorism. These war stories revolve around a rigid binary of good and evil.
After 9/11, in scores of speeches, George W. Bush repeated the mantra that there were "no gray
areas" in the struggle between good and evil.
On the other hand, "soft" exceptionalism takes a slightly different tack by appealing to the
liberal in us. Stories of rescue, protection, democracy and humanitarian efforts assure us of
our goodness. Obama mastered this narrative by claiming the US had a "duty to protect" the weak
and vulnerable in places like Libya.
These two strains of war stories are the narrative one-two punch, winning our consent to war
and empire.
Here is how war propaganda works: if authority figures in government and media denounce
foreign leaders or countries or immigrants as an evil threat and repeat it thousands of times,
they do not even have to say, "We are the chosen people destined to bring light to the world."
They know that millions of Americans will unconsciously refer to the exceptionalist code by
default because it's so deeply embedded in our culture. Once made brave by our exceptional
character and sense of superiority, the next moves are war, violence and white
supremacy.
Myth Meets the American War in Vietnam
The Vietnam War, and the resistance to it, profoundly challenged all existing war stories.
At the heart of this disruption was the soldier's revolt. Thousands of
US soldiers and veterans came to oppose the very war they fought in . An anti-war movement
inside the military was totally unprecedented in US history. The war-makers have been
scrambling to repair the damage ever since.
Following the defeat of US forces in Vietnam, the elites shifted gears. The idea that the US
could create a new democratic nation -- South Vietnam -- was an utter illusion that no amount
of fire-power could overcome. In truth, the US selected a series of petty tyrants to rule that
could never win the allegiance of the Vietnamese people because they were the transparent
puppets of American interests. The ruling class learned a lesson that forced them to abandon
the liberal veneer of "nation-building."
The Next Generation of War Stories: From "Noble
Cause" to "Humanitarian War."
Ronald Regan tried to repair the damaged narratives by recasting the Vietnam War as a "Noble
Cause." The Noble Cause appealed to people hurt and confused by the US defeat, as well as the
unrepentant war-makers, because it attempted to restore the old good vs. evil narrative of
exceptionalism. For Regan, America needed to rediscover its original mission as a
"city on a hill" -- a shining example to the world. Every single President since has
repeated that faith.
The Noble Cause narrative was reproduced in numerous bad movies and dubious academic studies
that tried to refight the war (and win this time!). Its primary function was to restore
exceptionalism in the minds of the American people. While Regan succeeded to a considerable
degree -- as we can see in the pro-war policy of both corporate parties -- "nation-building"
never recovered its power as a military strategy or war story.
The next facade was Clinton's "humanitarian war." Humanitarian war attempted to relight the
liberal beacon by replacing the problems of nation-building with the paternalistic do-gooding
of a superior culture and country. In effect, the imperialists recycled the 19th Century war
story of "Manifest Destiny" or "White Man's Burden." That "burden" was the supposed duty of
white people to lift lesser people up to the standards of western civilization -- even if that
required a lot of killing.
This kind of racist thinking legitimized the US overseas empire at its birth. Maybe it would
work again in empires' old age?
From the "War on Terrorism" to the "Responsibility to
Protect."
After the shock of 9/11 the narrative shifted again. Bush's "global war on terrorism"
reactivated the good vs. evil framing of the Cold War. The "war on terror" was an incoherent
military or political strategy except for its promise of forever wars.
Just as the Cold War was a "long twilight struggle" against an elusive but ruthless
communist enemy, terrorists might be anywhere and everywhere and do anything. And, like the
fight against communism, the war on terrorism would require the US to wage aggressive wars,
launch preemptive strikes, use covert activities and dodge both international law and the US
Constitution.
9/11 also tapped into deeply-rooted nationalistic and patriotic desires among everyday
people to protect and serve their country. The first attack on US soil in modern memory
powerfully restored the old binary: when faced with unspeakable evil, the US military became a
"force for good in the world." It's easy to forget just how potent the combination is and how
it led us into the War in Iraq. According to
The Washington Post :
Nearing the second anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, seven in 10
Americans continue to believe that Iraq's Saddam Hussein had a role in the attacks, even
though the Bush administration and congressional investigators say they have no evidence of
this.
The mythology is so deep that at first the people, soldiers especially, just had to believe
there was a good reason to attack Iraq. So we fell back on exceptionalism despite the total
absence of evidence. Of course Bush made no attempt to correct this misinformation. The myth
served him too well -- as did the official propaganda campaign claiming Iraq had weapons of
mass destruction.
But in due course, some of the faithful became doubters. A peace movement of global
proportions took shape. But in the US far too much of what appeared as resistance was driven by
narrow partisan
opposition to Republicans rather than principled opposition to war and empire.
But fear not war-makers -- Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton came to the rescue! As they
continued Bush's wars in the Middle East and expanded the war zone to include Libya, Syria and
then all of Africa, they sweetened "humanitarian war" with a heaping dose of cool-coated
"Responsibility to Protect." Once again, American goodness and innocence made the medicine go
down and our wars raged on.
Obama restored legitimacy to the empire so effectively that it took years for the illegal,
immoral, racist and "unwinnable" wars to reveal themselves to the public. I was told by one of
the leaders of About Face: Veterans
Against War that they almost had to close shop after Obama was elected because their donor
base dried up. Obama's hope was our dope. Just as the daze was finally lifting, Trump started
to take the mask off.
Is The Mask Off?
Today's we face an empire with the mask half off. Trump's doctrine -- "We are not
nation-building again, we are killing terrorists." -- is a revealing take on military trends
that began with the first US – Afghan War (1978-1992). US leaders gave up nation-building
and opted for failed states and political chaos instead of the strong states that
nation-building, or its illusion, required. The US military began to rely on
mercenaries and terrorists to replace the American
citizen-soldier. The
soldier revolt of the Vietnam Era already proved that everyday Americans were an unreliable
force to achieve imperial ambitions.
Nothing rips the mask off of the humanitarian justifications better than the actual
experience of combat in a war for oil and power -- so the war managers tried to reduce combat
exposure to a few. And they succeeded. The number of official US troops abroad
reached a 60-year low by 2017 . Even still
a new resistance movement of veterans is gathering steam .
Can
the "Green New Military" Put The Mask Back On?
The recycled imperial justifications of the past are losing their power: Manifest Destiny,
White Mans' Burden, leader of the free world, nation-building, humanitarian war, war against
terrorism, responsibility to protect -- what's next? If only the military could be seen as
saviors once again.
So far the New Cold War against Russia and China has recycled the anti-communist conspiracy
of the old Cold War into the xenophobic conspiracy theory of Russia-gate. Even a trusted tool
like Mueller could not make it work as a coherent narrative but no matter -- the US did not
skip a beat in building up
military bases on Russia's borders .
The media and political attacks on Russia or China or immigrants, or Iran or Syria are
likely to continue because propagandists cannot activate the exceptionalist code without an
evil enemy. Still, it takes more than evil. An effective war story for the US ruling class must
project the liberal ideas of helping, protection, saving and the spread of democracy in order
to engineer mass consent to war. Hence the need for "Humanitarian War," "Duty to Protect" or
maybe the"Green New Military."
Let anyone propose a retreat from any battlefield and the "humanitarian" war cry will rally
the empire's pawns and savior-types. If we practice our exceptionalism religiously -- and
religion it is -- then the US empire will never ever pull back from any war at any time. There
is always someone for the empire to "protect and save:" from the "Noble Savages" and innocent
white settlers of the frontier, to the Vietnamese Catholics, to the women of Afghanistan, to
the Kurds of Syria.
We so want to see our wars as a morality play, just as the Puritans did, but the empire is
all about power and profit.
"War is the Continuation of Politics by Other Means." -- Carl
von Clausewitz
All the Big Brass study Clausewitz because he is the founder of western military science --
but they are so blinded by the dilemmas of empire that they make a mess of his central
teaching: War is politics.
None of the war narratives and none of the wars can solve the most important question of
politics: governance . Who will govern the colonies? The overwhelming verdict of history is
this: colonies cannot be democratically or humanely governed as long as they are colonies.
Until the empire retreats its heavy hand will rule in places like Afghanistan.
The empire is reaching the limits of exceptionalism as both war narrative and national
mythology. This is why our rulers are forced to desperate measures: perpetual war, occupation,
intense propaganda campaigns like Russia-gate, the reliance on mercenaries and terrorists, and
the abuse and betrayal of their own soldiers.
Just as damning to the war machine is the collapse of conventional ideas about victory and
defeat. The US military can no longer "win." The question of victory is important on a deep
cultural level. According to the original mythology, the outcome of wars waged by "the chosen
people" are an indication of God's favor or disfavor. In modern terms, defeat delegitimizes the
state. Endless war is no substitute for "victory."
But it's not military victory we want. Our victory will be in ending war, dismantling the
empire, abolishing the vast militarized penal system and stopping irreparable climate chaos.
Our resistance will create a new narrative but it can only be written when millions of people
become the authors of their own history.
The empire is slipping into decline and chaos – one way or another. Will we be actors
deciding the fate of the American Empire or will it's collapse dictate our fate? But these wars
will, sooner or later, become the graveyard of empire -- or else America is truly exceptional
and we really are God's chosen people.
"... George W. Bush's presidency wasn't just morally bankrupt. In a superior reality, the Hague would be sorting out whether he is guilty of war crimes. Since our international institutions have failed to punish, or even censure him, surely the only moral response from civil society should be to shun him. But here is Ellen DeGeneres hanging out with him at a Cowboys game: ..."
"... This is what we say to children who don't want to sit next to the class misfit at lunch. It is not -- or at least it should not -- be the way we talk about a man who used his immense power to illegally invade another country where we still have troops 16 years later. His feet should bleed wherever he walks and Iraqis should get to throw shoes at him until the end of his days. ..."
"... DeGeneres isn't a role model for civility. Her friendship with Bush simply embodies the grossest form of class solidarity. From a lofty enough vantage point, perhaps Bush's misdeeds really look like minor partisan differences. Perhaps Iraq seems very far away, and so do the poor of New Orleans, when the stage of your show is the closest you get to anyone without power." ..."
"... There is no reason that anyone should treat George Bush with respect. ..."
"Comedian Ellen DeGeneres loves to tell everyone to be kind. It's a loose word, kindness; on her show, DeGeneres customarily
uses it to mean a generic sort of niceness. Don't bully. Befriend people! It's a charming thought, though it has its limits
as a moral ethic. There are people in the world, after all, whom it is better not to befriend. Consider, for example, the person
of George W. Bush. Tens of thousands of people are dead because his administration lied to the American public about the presence
of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and then, based on that lie, launched a war that's now in its 16th year. After Hurricane
Katrina struck and hundreds of people drowned in New Orleans, Bush twiddled his thumbs for days. Rather than fire the officials
responsible for the government's life-threateningly lackluster response to the crisis, he praised them, before flying over
the scene in Air Force One. He opposed basic human rights for LGBT people, and reproductive rights for women, and did more
to empower the American Christian right than any president since Reagan.
George W. Bush's presidency wasn't just morally bankrupt. In a superior reality, the Hague would be sorting out whether
he is guilty of war crimes. Since our international institutions have failed to punish, or even censure him, surely the only
moral response from civil society should be to shun him. But here is Ellen DeGeneres hanging out with him at a Cowboys game:
And here is Ellen DeGeneres explaining why it's good and normal to share laughs, small talk, and nachos with a man who has
many deaths on his conscience:
Here's the money quote from her apologia:
"We're all different. And I think that we've forgotten that that's okay that we're all different," she told her studio
audience. "When I say be kind to one another, I don't mean be kind to the people who think the same way you do. I mean be
kind to everyone."
This is what we say to children who don't want to sit next to the class misfit at lunch. It is not -- or at least it
should not -- be the way we talk about a man who used his immense power to illegally invade another country where we still
have troops 16 years later. His feet should bleed wherever he walks and Iraqis should get to throw shoes at him until the end
of his days.
Nevertheless, many celebrities and politicians have hailed DeGeneres for her radical civility:
There's almost no point to rebutting anything that Chris Cillizza writes. Whatever he says is inevitably dumb and wrong,
and then I get angry while I think about how much money he gets to be dumb and wrong on a professional basis. But on this occasion,
I'll make an exception. The notion that DeGeneres's friendship with Bush is antithetical to Trumpism fundamentally misconstrues
the force that makes Trump possible. Trump isn't a simple playground bully, he's the president. Americans grant our commanders-in-chief
extraordinary deference once they leave office. They become celebrities, members of an apolitical royal class. This tendency
to separate former presidents from the actions of their office, as if they were merely actors in a stage play, or retired athletes
from a rival team, contributes to the atmosphere of impunity that enabled Trump. If Trump's critics want to make sure that
his cruelties are sins the public and political class alike never tolerate again, our reflexive reverence for the presidency
has to die.
DeGeneres isn't a role model for civility. Her friendship with Bush simply embodies the grossest form of class solidarity.
From a lofty enough vantage point, perhaps Bush's misdeeds really look like minor partisan differences. Perhaps Iraq seems
very far away, and so do the poor of New Orleans, when the stage of your show is the closest you get to anyone without power."
...I am all in favor of Tulsi Gabbard's anti-war stance, but this comment shows me she is too childish to hold any power.
Tulsi Gabbard
Verified account @TulsiGabbard
22h22 hours ago
.@TheEllenShow msg of being kind to ALL is so needed right now. Enough with the divisiveness. We can't let politics tear
us apart. There are things we will disagree on strongly, and things we agree on -- let's treat each other with respect, aloha,
& work together for the people.
There is no reason that anyone should treat George Bush with respect.
The term "centrist" is replaced by a more appropriate term "neoliberal oligarchy"
Notable quotes:
"... Furthermore, Donald Trump might well emerge from this national ordeal with his reelection chances enhanced. Such a prospect is belatedly insinuating itself into public discourse. For that reason, certain anti-Trump pundits are already showing signs of going wobbly, suggesting , for instance, that censure rather than outright impeachment might suffice as punishment for the president's various offenses. Yet censuring Trump while allowing him to stay in office would be the equivalent of letting Harvey Weinstein off with a good tongue-lashing so that he can get back to making movies. Censure is for wimps. ..."
"... So if Trump finds himself backed into a corner, Democrats aren't necessarily in a more favorable position. And that aren't the half of it. Let me suggest that, while Trump is being pursued, it's you, my fellow Americans, who are really being played. The unspoken purpose of impeachment is not removal, but restoration. The overarching aim is not to replace Trump with Mike Pence -- the equivalent of exchanging Groucho for Harpo. No, the object of the exercise is to return power to those who created the conditions that enabled Trump to win the White House in the first place. ..."
"... For many of the main participants in this melodrama, the actual but unstated purpose of impeachment is to correct this great wrong and thereby restore history to its anointed path. ..."
"... In a recent column in The Guardian, Professor Samuel Moyn makes the essential point: Removing from office a vulgar, dishonest and utterly incompetent president comes nowhere close to capturing what's going on here. To the elites most intent on ousting Trump, far more important than anything he may say or do is what he signifies. He is a walking, talking repudiation of everything they believe and, by extension, of a future they had come to see as foreordained. ..."
"... Moyn styles these anti-Trump elites as "neoliberal oligarchy", members of the post-Cold War political mainstream that allowed ample room for nominally conservative Bushes and nominally liberal Clintons, while leaving just enough space for Barack Obama's promise of hope-and-(not-too-much) change. ..."
"... These "neoliberal oligarchy" share a common worldview. They believe in the universality of freedom as defined and practiced within the United States. They believe in corporate capitalism operating on a planetary scale. They believe in American primacy, with the United States presiding over a global order as the sole superpower. They believe in "American global leadership," which they define as primarily a military enterprise. And perhaps most of all, while collecting degrees from Georgetown, Harvard, Oxford, Wellesley, the University of Chicago, and Yale, they came to believe in a so-called meritocracy as the preferred mechanism for allocating wealth, power and privilege. All of these together comprise the sacred scripture of contemporary American political elites. And if Donald Trump's antagonists have their way, his removal will restore that sacred scripture to its proper place as the basis of policy. ..."
"... "For all their appeals to enduring moral values," Moyn writes, "the "neoliberal oligarchy" are deploying a transparent strategy to return to power." Destruction of the Trump presidency is a necessary precondition for achieving that goal. ""neoliberal oligarchy" simply want to return to the status quo interrupted by Trump, their reputations laundered by their courageous opposition to his mercurial reign, and their policies restored to credibility." Precisely. ..."
"... how does such misconduct compare to the calamities engineered by the "neoliberal oligarchy" who preceded him? ..."
"... Trump's critics speak with one voice in demanding accountability. Yet virtually no one has been held accountable for the pain, suffering, and loss inflicted by the architects of the Iraq War and the Great Recession. Why is that? As another presidential election approaches, the question not only goes unanswered, but unasked. ..."
"... To win reelection, Trump, a corrupt con man (who jumped ship on his own bankrupt casinos, money in hand, leaving others holding the bag) will cheat and lie. Yet, in the politics of the last half-century, these do not qualify as novelties. (Indeed, apart from being the son of a sitting U.S. vice president, what made Hunter Biden worth $50Gs per month to a gas company owned by a Ukrainian oligarch? I'm curious.) That the president and his associates are engaging in a cover-up is doubtless the case. Yet another cover-up proceeds in broad daylight on a vastly larger scale. "Trump's shambolic presidency somehow seems less unsavory," Moyn writes, when considering the fact that his critics refuse "to admit how massively his election signified the failure of their policies, from endless war to economic inequality." Just so. ..."
"... Exactly. Trump is the result of voter disgust with Bush III vs Clinton II, the presumed match up for a year or more leading up to 2016. Now Democrats want to do it again, thinking they can elect anybody against Trump. That's what Hillary thought too. ..."
"... Trump won for lack of alternatives. Our political class is determined to prevent any alternatives breaking through this time either. They don't want Trump, but even more they want to protect their gravy train of donor money, the huge overspending on medical care (four times the defense budget) and of course all those Forever Wars. ..."
"... Trump could win, for the same reasons as last time, even though the result would be no better than last time. ..."
"... I wish the slick I.D. politics obsessed corporate Dems nothing but the worst, absolute worst. They reap what they sow. If it means another four years of Trump, so be it. It's the price that's going to have to be paid. ..."
"... At a time when a majority of U.S. citizens cannot muster up $500 for an emergency dental bill or car repair without running down to the local "pay day loan" lender shark (now established as legitimate businesses) the corporate Dems, in their infinite wisdom, decide to concoct an impeachment circus to run simultaneously when all the dirt against the execrable Brennan and his intel minions starts to hit the press for their Russiagate hoax. Nice sleight of hand there corporate Dems. ..."
There is blood in the water and frenzied sharks are closing in for the kill. Or so they
think.
From the time of Donald Trump's election, American elites have hungered for this moment. At
long last, they have the 45th president of the United States cornered. In typically ham-handed
fashion, Trump has given his adversaries the very means to destroy him politically. They will
not waste the opportunity. Impeachment now -- finally, some will say -- qualifies as a virtual
certainty.
No doubt many surprises lie ahead. Yet the Democrats controlling the House of
Representatives have passed the point of no return. The time for prudential judgments -- the
Republican-controlled Senate will never convict, so why bother? -- is gone for good. To back
down now would expose the president's pursuers as spineless cowards. TheNew York
Times, The Washington Post, CNN and MSNBC would not soon forgive such craven behavior.
So, as President Woodrow Wilson, speaking in 1919 put it, "The stage is set, the
destiny disclosed. It has come about by no plan of our conceiving, but by the hand of God." Of
course, the issue back then was a notably weighty one: whether to ratify the Versailles Treaty.
That it now concerns a "
Mafia-like shakedown " orchestrated by one of Wilson's successors tells us something about
the trajectory of American politics over the course of the last century and it has not been a
story of ascent.
The effort to boot the president from office is certain to yield a memorable spectacle. The
rancor and contempt that have clogged American politics like a backed-up sewer since the day of
Trump's election will now find release. Watergate will pale by comparison. The uproar triggered
by Bill Clinton's "
sexual relations " will be nothing by comparison. A de facto collaboration between
Trump, those who despise him, and those who despise his critics all but guarantees that this
story will dominate the news, undoubtedly for months to come.
As this process unspools, what politicians like to call "the people's business" will go
essentially unattended. So while Congress considers whether or not to remove Trump from office,
gun-control legislation will languish, the deterioration of the nation's infrastructure will
proceed apace, needed healthcare reforms will be tabled, the military-industrial complex will
waste yet more billions, and the national debt, already at $22 trillion --
larger, that is, than the entire economy -- will continue to surge. The looming threat posed by
climate change, much talked about of late, will proceed all but unchecked. For those of us
preoccupied with America's role in the world, the obsolete assumptions and habits undergirding
what's still called " national
security " will continue to evade examination. Our endless wars will remain endless and
pointless.
By way of compensation, we might wonder what benefits impeachment is likely to yield.
Answering that question requires examining four scenarios that describe the range of
possibilities awaiting the nation.
The first and most to be desired (but least likely) is that Trump will tire of being a
public piñata and just quit. With the thrill of flying in Air Force One having
worn off, being president can't be as much fun these days. Why put up with further grief? How
much more entertaining for Trump to retire to the political sidelines where he can tweet up a
storm and indulge his penchant for name-calling. And think of the "deals" an ex-president could
make in countries like Israel, North Korea, Poland, and Saudi Arabia on which he's bestowed
favors. Cha-ching! As of yet, however, the president shows no signs of taking the easy (and
lucrative) way out.
The second possible outcome sounds almost as good but is no less implausible: a sufficient
number of Republican senators rediscover their moral compass and "do the right thing," joining
with Democrats to create the two-thirds majority needed to convict Trump and send him packing.
In the Washington of that classic 20th-century film director Frank Capra, with Jimmy Stewart
holding
forth on the Senate floor and a moist-eyed Jean Arthur cheering him on from the gallery,
this might have happened. In the real Washington of "Moscow Mitch"
McConnell , think again.
The third somewhat seamier outcome might seem a tad more likely. It postulates that
McConnell and various GOP senators facing reelection in 2020 or 2022 will calculate that
turning on Trump just might offer the best way of saving their own skins. The president's
loyalty to just about anyone, wives included, has always been highly contingent, the people
streaming out of his administration routinely making the point. So why should senatorial
loyalty to the president be any different? At the moment, however, indications that Trump
loyalists out in the hinterlands will reward such turncoats are just about nonexistent. Unless
that base were to flip, don't expect Republican senators to do anything but flop.
That leaves outcome No. 4, easily the most probable: while the House will impeach, the
Senate will decline to convict. Trump will therefore stay right where he is, with the matter of
his fitness for office effectively deferred to the November 2020 elections. Except as a source
of sadomasochistic diversion, the entire agonizing experience will, therefore, prove to be a
colossal waste of time and blather.
Furthermore, Donald Trump might well emerge from this national ordeal with his reelection
chances enhanced. Such a prospect is belatedly insinuating itself into public discourse. For
that reason, certain anti-Trump pundits are already showing signs of going wobbly,
suggesting , for instance, that censure rather than outright impeachment might suffice as
punishment for the president's various offenses. Yet censuring Trump while allowing him to stay
in office would be the equivalent of letting Harvey Weinstein off with a good tongue-lashing so
that he can get back to making movies. Censure is for wimps.
Besides, as Trump campaigns for a second term, he would almost surely wear censure like a
badge of honor. Keep in mind that Congress's
approval ratings are considerably worse than his. To more than a few members of the public,
a black mark awarded by Congress might look like a gold star.
Restoration Not Removal
So if Trump finds himself backed into a corner, Democrats aren't necessarily in a more
favorable position. And that aren't the half of it. Let me suggest that, while Trump is being
pursued, it's you, my fellow Americans, who are really being played. The unspoken purpose of
impeachment is not removal, but restoration. The overarching aim is not to replace Trump with
Mike Pence -- the equivalent of exchanging Groucho for Harpo. No, the object of the exercise is
to return power to those who created the conditions that enabled Trump to win the White House
in the first place.
Just recently, for instance, Hillary Clinton
declared Trump to be an "illegitimate president." Implicit in her charge is the conviction
-- no doubt sincere -- that people like Donald Trump are not supposed to be president.
People like Hillary Clinton -- people possessing credentials
like hers and sharing her values -- should be the chosen ones. Here we glimpse the true
meaning of legitimacy in this context. Whatever the vote in the Electoral College, Trump
doesn't deserve to be president and never did.
For many of the main participants in this melodrama, the actual but unstated purpose of
impeachment is to correct this great wrong and thereby restore history to its anointed
path.
In a
recent column in The Guardian, Professor Samuel Moyn makes the essential point:
Removing from office a vulgar, dishonest and utterly incompetent president comes nowhere close
to capturing what's going on here. To the elites most intent on ousting Trump, far more
important than anything he may say or do is what he signifies. He is a walking, talking
repudiation of everything they believe and, by extension, of a future they had come to see as
foreordained.
Moyn styles these anti-Trump elites as "neoliberal oligarchy", members of the post-Cold War political
mainstream that allowed ample room for nominally conservative Bushes and nominally liberal
Clintons, while leaving just enough space for Barack Obama's promise of hope-and-(not-too-much)
change.
These "neoliberal oligarchy" share a common worldview. They believe in the universality of freedom as
defined and practiced within the United States. They believe in corporate capitalism operating
on a planetary scale. They believe in American primacy, with the United States presiding over a
global order as the sole superpower. They believe in "American global leadership," which they
define as primarily a military enterprise. And perhaps most of all, while collecting degrees
from Georgetown, Harvard, Oxford, Wellesley, the University of Chicago, and Yale, they came to
believe in a so-called meritocracy as the preferred mechanism for allocating wealth, power and
privilege. All of these together comprise the sacred scripture of contemporary American
political elites. And if Donald Trump's antagonists have their way, his removal will restore
that sacred scripture to its proper place as the basis of policy.
"For all their appeals to enduring moral values," Moyn writes, "the "neoliberal oligarchy" are deploying
a transparent strategy to return to power." Destruction of the Trump presidency is a necessary
precondition for achieving that goal. ""neoliberal oligarchy" simply want to return to the status quo
interrupted by Trump, their reputations laundered by their courageous opposition to his
mercurial reign, and their policies restored to credibility." Precisely.
High Crimes and Misdemeanors
The U.S. military's "shock and awe" bombing of Baghdad at the start of the Iraq War, as
broadcast on CNN.
For such a scheme to succeed, however, laundering reputations alone will not suffice.
Equally important will be to bury any recollection of the catastrophes that paved the way for
an über -qualified centrist to lose to an indisputably unqualified and
unprincipled political novice in 2016.
Holding promised security assistance hostage unless a foreign leader agrees to do you
political favors is obviously and indisputably wrong. Trump's antics regarding Ukraine may even
meet some definition of criminal. Still, how does such misconduct compare to the calamities engineered by the "neoliberal
oligarchy" who preceded him? Consider, in particular, the George W. Bush
administration's decision to invade Iraq in 2003 (along with the spin-off wars that followed).
Consider, too, the reckless economic policies that produced the Great Recession of 2007-2008.
As measured by the harm inflicted on the American people (and others), the offenses for which
Trump is being impeached qualify as mere misdemeanors.
Honest people may differ on whether to attribute the Iraq War to outright lies or monumental
hubris. When it comes to tallying up the consequences, however, the intentions of those who
sold the war don't particularly matter. The results include
thousands of Americans killed; tens of thousands wounded, many grievously, or left to
struggle with the effects of PTSD; hundreds of thousands of non-Americans killed or injured ;
millions displaced ;
trillions of dollars expended; radical groups like ISIS empowered (and in its case
even formed
inside a U.S. prison in Iraq); and the Persian Gulf region plunged into turmoil from which it
has yet to recover. How do Trump's crimes stack up against these?
The Great Recession stemmed directly from economic policies implemented during the
administration of President Bill Clinton and continued by his successor. Deregulating the
banking sector was projected to produce a bonanza in which all would share. Yet, as a
direct result of
the ensuing chicanery, nearly 9 million Americans lost their jobs, while overall unemployment
shot up to 10 percent. Roughly 4 million Americans lost their homes to foreclosure. The stock
market cratered and millions saw their life savings evaporate. Again, the question must be
asked: How do these results compare to Trump's dubious dealings with Ukraine?
Trump's critics speak with one voice in demanding accountability. Yet virtually no one has
been held accountable for the pain, suffering, and loss inflicted by the architects of the Iraq
War and the Great Recession. Why is that? As another presidential election approaches, the
question not only goes unanswered, but unasked.
Sen. Carter Glass (D–Va.) and Rep. Henry B. Steagall (D–Ala.-3), the co-sponsors of
the 1932 Glass–Steagall Act separating investment and commercial banking, which was
repealed in 1999. (Wikimedia Commons)
To win reelection, Trump, a corrupt con man (who jumped ship
on his own bankrupt casinos, money in hand, leaving others holding the bag) will cheat and lie.
Yet, in the politics of the last half-century, these do not qualify as novelties. (Indeed,
apart from being the son of a sitting U.S. vice president, what made Hunter Biden
worth $50Gs per month to a gas company owned by a Ukrainian oligarch? I'm curious.) That
the president and his associates are engaging in a cover-up is doubtless the case. Yet another
cover-up proceeds in broad daylight on a vastly larger scale. "Trump's shambolic presidency
somehow seems less unsavory," Moyn writes, when considering the fact that his critics refuse
"to admit how massively his election signified the failure of their policies, from endless war
to economic inequality." Just so.
What are the real crimes? Who are the real criminals? No matter what happens in the coming
months, don't expect the Trump impeachment proceedings to come within a country mile of
addressing such questions.
Exactly. Trump is the result of voter disgust with Bush III vs Clinton II, the presumed
match up for a year or more leading up to 2016. Now Democrats want to do it again, thinking they can elect anybody against Trump. That's
what Hillary thought too.
Now the Republicans who lost their party to Trump think they can take it back with
somebody even more lame than Jeb, if only they could find someone, anyone, to run on that
non-plan.
Trump won for lack of alternatives. Our political class is determined to prevent any
alternatives breaking through this time either. They don't want Trump, but even more they
want to protect their gravy train of donor money, the huge overspending on medical care (four
times the defense budget) and of course all those Forever Wars.
Trump could win, for the same reasons as last time, even though the result would be no
better than last time.
LJ , October 9, 2019 at 17:01
Well, yeah but I recall that what won Trump the Republican Nomination was first and
foremost his stance on Immigration. This issue is what separated him from the herd of
candidates . None of them had the courage or the desire to go against Governmental Groupthink
on Immigration. All he then had to do was get on top of low energy Jeb Bush and the road was
clear. He got the base on his side on this issue and on his repeated statement that he wished
to normalize relations with Russia . He won the nomination easily. The base is still on his
side on these issues but Governmental Groupthink has prevailed in the House, the Senate, the
Intelligence Services and the Federal Courts. Funny how nobody in the Beltway, especially not
in media, is brave enough to admit that the entire Neoconservative scheme has been a disaster
and that of course we should get out of Syria . Nor can anyone recall the corruption and
warmongering that now seem that seems endemic to the Democratic Party. Of course Trump has to
wear goat's horns. "Off with his head".
Drew Hunkins , October 9, 2019 at 16:00
I wish the slick I.D. politics obsessed corporate Dems nothing but the worst, absolute
worst. They reap what they sow. If it means another four years of Trump, so be it. It's the
price that's going to have to be paid.
At a time when a majority of U.S. citizens cannot muster up $500 for an emergency dental
bill or car repair without running down to the local "pay day loan" lender shark (now
established as legitimate businesses) the corporate Dems, in their infinite wisdom, decide to
concoct an impeachment circus to run simultaneously when all the dirt against the execrable
Brennan and his intel minions starts to hit the press for their Russiagate hoax. Nice sleight
of hand there corporate Dems.
Of course, the corporate Dems would rather lose to Trump than win with a
progressive-populist like Bernie. After all, a Bernie win would mean an end to a lot of
careerism and cushy positions within the establishment political scene in Washington and
throughout the country.
Now we even have the destroyer of Libya mulling another run for the presidency.
Forget about having a job the next day and forget about the 25% interest on your credit
card or that half your income is going toward your rent or mortgage, or that you barely see
your kids b/c of the 60 hour work week, just worry about women lawyers being able to make
partner at the firm, and trans people being able to use whatever bathroom they wish and male
athletes being able to compete against women based on genitalia (no, wait, I'm confused
now).
Either class politics and class warfare comes front and center or we witness a burgeoning
neo-fascist movement in our midst. It's that simple, something has got to give!
Hillary Clinton has threatened to enter the 2020 presidential race for president after
President Donald Trump suggested on Twitter that she throw her hat in the ring in an effort to
"steal it away" from Elizabeth Warren. Trump tweeted Tuesday that "Crooked Hillary"
should run for president again to deprive the "Uber Left" Warren of a shot at the White
House, but only on "one condition" to be subpoenaed to "explain all of her high
crimes and misdemeanors."
I think that Crooked Hillary Clinton should enter the race to try and steal it away from
Uber Left Elizabeth Warren. Only one condition. The Crooked one must explain all of her high
crimes and misdemeanors including how & why she deleted 33,000 Emails AFTER getting "C"
Subpoena!
Five hours after Trump's jab, Clinton replied: "Don't tempt me. Do your job."
Reaction to Clinton's warning was mixed, to say the least. While mainstream media outlets
seemed to love the idea, many social media users recoiled in horror at the thought of a 2016
re-run.
"I don't think my heart could take it" if Hillary really runs again, one fan
proclaimed on Twitter.
"The president is dropping by the city on Thursday for one of his periodic angry
wank-fests at the Target Center, which is the venue in which this event will be inflicted
upon the Twin Cities. (And, just as an aside, given the events of the past 10 days, this one
should be a doozy.) Other Minneapolis folk are planning an extensive unwelcoming party
outside the arena, which necessarily would require increased security, which is expensive.
So, realizing that it was dealing with a notorious deadbeat -- in keeping with his customary
business plan, El Caudillo del Mar-a-Lago has stiffed 10 cities this year for bills relating
to security costs that total almost a million bucks -- the company that provides the security
for the Target Center wants the president*'s campaign to shell out more than $500,000.
This has sent the president* into a Twitter tantrum against Frey, who seems not to be that
impressed by it. Right from when the visit was announced, Frey has been jabbing at the
president*'s ego. From the Star-Tribune:
"Our entire city will stand not behind the President, but behind the communities and
people who continue to make our city -- and this country -- great," Frey said. "While there
is no legal mechanism to prevent the president from visiting, his message of hatred will
never be welcome in Minneapolis."
It is a mayor's lot to deal with out-of-state troublemakers. Always has been."
This is not about Trump. This is not even about Ukraine and/or foreign powers influence on
the US election (of which Israel, UK, and Saudi are three primary examples; in this
particular order.)
Russiagate 2.0 (aka Ukrainegate) is the case, textbook example if you wish, of how the
neoliberal elite manipulates the MSM and the narrative for purposes of misdirecting attention
and perception of their true intentions and objectives -- distracting the electorate from
real issues.
An excellent observation by JohnH (October 01, 2019 at 01:47 PM )
"It all depends on which side of the Infowars you find yourself. The facts themselves are
too obscure and byzantine."
There are two competing narratives here:
1. NARRATIVE 1: CIA swamp scum tried to re-launch Russiagate as Russiagate 2.0. This is
CIA coup d'état aided and abetted by CIA-democrats like Pelosi and Schiff. Treason, as
Trump aptly said. This is narrative shared by "anti-Deep Staters" who sometimes are nicknamed
"Trumptards". Please note that the latter derogatory nickname is factually incorrect:
supporters of this narrative often do not support Trump. They just oppose machinations of the
Deep State. And/or neoliberalism personified by Clinton camp, with its rampant
corruption.
2. NARRATIVE 2: Trump tried to derail his opponent using his influence of foreign state
President (via military aid) as leverage and should be impeached for this and previous
crimes. ("Full of Schiff" commenters narrative, neoliberal democrats, or demorats.)
Supporters of this category usually bought Russiagate 1.0 narrative line, hook and sinker.
Some of them are brainwashed, but mostly simply ignorant neoliberal lemmings without even
basic political education.
In any case, while Russiagate 2.0 is probably another World Wrestling Federation style
fight, I think "anti-Deep-staters" are much closer to the truth.
What is missing here is the real problem: the crisis of neoliberalism in the USA (and
elsewhere).
So this circus serves an important purpose (intentionally or unintentionally) -- to disrupt
voters from the problems that are really burning, and are equal to a slow-progressing cancer in the
US society.
And implicitly derail Warren (being a weak politician she does not understand that, and
jumped into Ukrainegate bandwagon )
I am not that competent here, so I will just mention some obvious symptoms:
Loss of legitimacy of the ruling neoliberal elite (which demonstrated itself in 2016
with election of Trump);
Desperation of many working Americans with sliding standard of living; loss of meaningful
jobs due to offshoring of manufacturing and automation (which demonstrated itself in opioids
abuse epidemics; similar to epidemics of alcoholism in the USSR before its dissolution.
Loss of previously available freedoms. Loss of "free press" replaced by the neoliberal
echo chamber in major MSM. The uncontrolled and brutal rule of financial oligarchy and allied
with the intelligence agencies as the third rail of US politics (plus the conversion of the
state after 9/11 into national security state);
Coming within this century end of the "Petroleum Age" and the global crisis that it can
entail;
Rampant militarism, tremendous waist of resources on the arms race, and overstretched
efforts to maintain and expand global, controlled from Washington, neoliberal empire. Efforts
that since 1991 were a primary focus of unhinged after 1991 neocon faction US elite who
totally controls foreign policy establishment ("full-spectrum dominance). They are stealing money from
working people to fund an imperial project, and as part of neoliberal redistribution of wealth up
Most of the commenters here live a comfortable life in the financially secured retirement,
and, as such, are mostly satisfied with the status quo. And almost completely isolated from
the level of financial insecurity of most common Americans (healthcare racket might be the
only exception).
And re-posting of articles which confirm your own worldview (echo chamber posting) is nice
entertainment, I think ;-)
Some of those posters actually sometimes manage to find really valuable info. For which I
am thankful. In other cases, when we have a deluge of abhorrent neoliberal propaganda
postings (the specialty of Fred C. Dobbs) which often generate really insightful comments from the
members of the "anti-Deep State" camp.
Still it would be beneficial if the flow of neoliberal spam is slightly curtailed.
"... This is a profound and sound thesis, i.e., the Power Elites could encourage universal suffrage and not feel it threatened, significantly, their long term interests or direction. The "Masses", that undifferentiated formless and shapeless blob-like gelatinous mass, could simply be "Nudged" and fudged and snockered to vote against their own interests based on generated fantasy, lies. agitprop, propaganda, and easily subverted Christianity-thoroughl made into a double agent. ..."
"... They are a kind of unlanded gentry, or a bankster oligarchy if you will. The "capitalist class" is really a pseudo-capitalist, Cultural Marxist, corruption-dependent, chosen class. ..."
"... YES – Trump is an insufferable jerk – but clearly, they are the ones being dishonest. Russiagate was a hoax – Ukrainegate is a gross exaggeration of a problem. ..."
"... This is as it's going to get before the country breaks apart. Overall, I don't regret voting for Trump, but there is not a lot of swamp draining going on. ..."
Tell me something about liberal hatred and plans I don't know.
Trump is not ridiculous. He looks good for his age. Compare him to that withered crone
actor de Niro.Or the hideous Lyndon Johnson. Or lardass big bellied cucumber nose WC Field
face Bill Clinton. whoever said a president has to be good looking?
NYC has been corrupt since it was a Dutch Colony and pirate's flea market to rival Port
Royal in Jamaica. NYC Real estate? Founding fathers Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr and
others were NYC real estate speculators 230 years ago. Construction may have been reasonably
honest in NYC at some point but that ended when immigrants from 2 countries took over the
construction business long before Trump and his parents were born. Construction and real
estate is a tough business as I know well. The Trumps waded in to the toughest town in the
country fought the good fight and beat the crooks at their own game.
I can't wait till Trump wins again to see the liberals heads totally explode. I was in a
joyous mood all November and December 2016 as I saw the angst and despair of the liberals
The liberals hate me and mine as much as they hate Trump.
I suppose the author is trying to say Trump and the liberals are both bad. Trump used too
much gold in his apartment in Trump tower. Well, I suppose if you're an IKEA person you're
not used to anything else
He'll have to find something other than Trump is a repulsive clown to convince me.
@animalogic
i agree with you .. the oligarchs are just fine.. they have N. Korea wondering what to do
next, the situation in Iraq is Kurds have generated total Chaos in Iraq. the situation in
Syria in Idib has the Terrorist hiding behind the Syrians trapped there, so it is a stand off
for now, and Erdergodan has abandoned the USA as a partner in N. Syria and will move
independently into Syria to establish the 20 mile wide buffer zone in order to separate Kurds
from Turks, Iraq just wiped out the Kurd radio and tv stations, and Sissi in Egypt has been
exposed in corruption so the masses in the streets demanding his demise, the situation in
France is yellow jackets on the rise, the situation in Hong Kong is shoot the protesters,
China has given the high sign and is preparing for war, Israel can't find an honest leader,
Russia and Iran have teamed to avoid the USA dollar Hegemony..and Iran is setting higher and
better than ever and Briton is about to leave the UK and the EU and the USA is infighting to
impeach its President.
but what I see coming is not another American revolution instead I see a worldwide
revolution developing the masses against the corrupt nation state system and all its bankers,
corporatist and politicians. The elites have been using the Nation state system, and
privately owned media, to organize their crimes and to further their corrupt profits and to
deny everyone, everywhere their human rights. and that denial is about to come home to rest.
Americans are far behind the rest of the world in understanding but soon, I believe, they too
will catch up..
I believe we are about to see humanity take on the powers that be. everywhere all at once.
The war cry is going to be no more corruption, no more nation states, no more top down
governance.. and the result is going to be chaos for the bankers, the corporations and the
people that depend on the rule of law and bureaucracies for their protection.. Cause I don't
think there is going to be any protection for them.
@Laurent
Guyénot LOL. Donald Obama Trump belongs to the swamp. Only the zombie voting class
can't see that. Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that the voting class consists of
100% deluded zombies who believe they personally can influence the creatures who own and rule
them.
Doing what is needed to avoid fighting/dying in yet another "bankster's" war is hardly
cowardly, in fact it is the only moral and brave thing to do. Wars for the sake of empires
are not only immoral, they are illegal.
I don't know how old you are but that realization only took place in the population
because of the Vietnam war ..not before it.
The military allowed for pacifist who objected to killing anyone as medics or supply
jobs.
This guy made clear he ran not because he objected to war on a moral basis but because he was
afraid of getting his little self hurt.
There IS a difference.
@French
Pronografer You ain't kidding! Does anyone remember the Don(ald) was hobnobing with the
Clintons? He was writing checks to their reelection campaigns and they had been guests at his
last wedding. The zombies are getting scarier
Many insightful comments to think about, but the most practical one was to be ready when the
"SHTF." (I love that initialism. The precursor to GTFO). Graham Greene wrote that every man's
life has a turning point; but that most men do not recognize it at the time. Societies, I
think, are the same. The challenge is to recognize the SHTF/GTFO/RuralTown point in a timely
fashion.
@Ash
Williams Q: "Do you seriously believe that the people coming out of 'higher education'
today with basket weaving degrees can compete with the Chinese that major in STEM?"
A: "You mean the IP spies they send to the USA? I think that's being addressed."
Regardless of how STEM-educated the Chinese really are, and regardless of whether they
stole or invented their high tech, their high tech manufacturing capabilities appear to have
already outpaced those of the USA. They quickly build giant automated factories making very
sophisticated and high quality gear at low cost, and seem to have few problems finding
employees to operate them. They are quite agile and advanced. I doubt that they have
hindrances like unions, drug-addiction, high labor cost, and stifling regulations on the same
scale that the USA does. Probably about 20% of USA working-age citizens are basically
ineducable.
@RoatanBill
". Do you also attend some religious institution to pray to some space man? "
Hey Bill, l enjoy your comments but you ought to show a little decency towards certain
aspects of this so- called "life" and the faith and INSPIRATIONAL aspects that give some of
us the courage and energy to FIGHT on here on the front lines.. for what is OURS. What WE
built.
To pot shot from the side-lines in Roatan, is kinda dirty pool, eh?
This is a profound and sound thesis, i.e., the Power Elites could encourage universal suffrage
and not feel it threatened, significantly, their long term interests or direction. The
"Masses", that undifferentiated formless and shapeless blob-like gelatinous mass, could
simply be "Nudged" and fudged and snockered to vote against their own interests based on
generated fantasy, lies. agitprop, propaganda, and easily subverted Christianity-thoroughl
made into a double agent.
Hmmm. We are approaching an existence resembling that of The Matrix-which was non-fiction
fiction.
Let me offer you democratarians some succor. The Republic is in good hands, by the
populace, so shall ye know the country:
@SafeNow
When the Dems take over they will do the opposite of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot who forced
people into the countryside. The current elites hate the rural life and those that own small
farms. Absolutely hate them. The Dems will install heavy carbon, meat and ammunition taxes
among others forcing what is left of meth infested rural white America into the cesspools
that are our cities. Really I don't see any way out of this mess we've got ourselves in. You
think people are going to stand up and fight knowing the heavy counter force that will come
their way swiftly and savagely? The time to roll this lunacy back was in the 70s and 80s.
I'm
a YM 1955. Lived through it all my man. By the grace of God the Vietnam war ended the year I
graduated high school and I did not have to face the decision of submitting to a governments
edict that I must "go and do my patriotic chore" or saying f*ck it and disrupting my life up
to that point and knowing it could never, ever be the same.
You keyboard commando's talk shit, because it is cheap. How many of you have ever received
a letter from uncle sugar which started out with the words "Greeting"? By the way, after
5o,000 KIA's and many more WIA's, what was actually achieved by the Vietnam war? My
chonies(google it) are now made in Vietnam. Please tell me why this could not have been hashed
out in a trade deal, without all the death and destruction.
@Stonehands
Congratulations – you're the first person I'm aware of that figured out what my screen
name signifies.
To me, religion and gov't are the two worst inventions of mankind with religion being the
precursor that led to gov't. Once you can convince people of some god, it's not a far stretch
to convince them they absolutely need a leader. Both institutions are anti freedom and
detrimental to the worlds people.
Throne and alter were twins–two vultures from the same egg.
To attack the king was treason; to dispute the priest, blasphemy.
The sword and cross were allies.
Together they attacked the rights of men; they defended each other.
The king owned the bodies of men, the priests the souls.
One lived on taxes collected by force, the other on alms collected by fear.
Both robbers, both beggars.
The king made laws, the priest made creeds.
With bowed backs the people carried the burdens of one, with open-mouthed wonder received the
dogmas of the other.
The king said rags and hovels for you, robes and palaces for me.
The priest said God made you ignorant and immoral; He made me holy and wise; you are the
sheep, I am the shepherd; your fleeces belong to me.
You must not reason, you must not contradict, you must believe.
Robert G. Ingersoll
My only gripe would be referring to the Western power class as "capitalist" (a common, minor
complaint here in the comments section of this article).
Granted, there is a thin veneer of capitalism coating the ugly visage of the globalist power
class, but scratch the surface and you discover something else altogether.
Western elites do not live by the rules & strictures of the free market. They are a kind of unlanded gentry, or a bankster oligarchy if you will.
The "capitalist class" is really a pseudo-capitalist, Cultural Marxist, corruption-dependent,
chosen class.
The homeless & the powerless know capitalism.
The powerful & rich here in the West know only that their financial missteps must be
& will be socialized, & insured by the dwindling wealth of the angry but impotent
masses.
@renfro Now
students, let us go over the history of American warfare.
Revolution;
organized by the wealthiest people in the colonies who borrowed 13 billion in French money
to pay for it all. This included our first gold deposits for our treasury. As per usual, most
of the money stayed in France to pay for armaments soldiers and ships to get it all to
America.
After the war, Hamilton and the rest of the founders decided they weren't going to tax
themselves to pay for the war, build the Capitol and support the new government.
So Hamilton sec treasury decided to tax the frontier hillbillies redneck deplorables who'd
done most of the fighting on their only transportable cash crop whiskey. The deplorables
rebelled. Washington led a bigger army against veterans of the revolutionary war than he ever
did against the British. The leaders of the whiskey rebellion were hanged. By the way, we
never did pay France back
Civil War; 750,000 White men in the prime of life killed so as to leash on the scale of the Black Plague. Side effect
100 years of poverty for the south
Spanish American War;
ostensibly to free Cubans from Spain so they could have a wonderful democracy. Lots of
American men killed and crippled. Real purpose, to grab Manila Harbor and the Philippines for
a forward base to harass east Asia. Side effect, burdened with Puerto Rico and Rican
immigrants.
WW1;
conned into it by Britain that needed our help to destroy its major economic competition
Germany and Jews who wanted to invade Palestine using the British army. Lots of American men
killed and crippled
WW2.;
more of the same. Side effects communists swallowed up China east and Central Europe and
fomented revolution and death all over the world. Jews became supreme rulers of the west due
to their martyrdom during the war.
Korea;
A lot of American men killed and crippled for no good reason. Side effect, best guarded
border in the world. Unlike the borders of America which are essentially unguarded
Vietnam;
Caused by Cold War egomania of Kennedy and Johnson. A lot of American men Killed and
crippled for no good reason. We lost Side effect all S Vietnamese classified as refugees for
admission to America Set a very very very very bad precedent.
Late 1990s Balkan War;
America fought with the bad guys Muslim Albanians and Bosnians against the good guys
Christian Culture Serbs and Croats.
1990 to eternity war;
Killing and bombing Middle East so Israel won't have to fight its own wars. Lots of
American soldiers lots of civilians killed and crippled for no good reason. Side effect
Zionist jews in Pentagon steal billions of dollars and vast amounts of armaments. Loot
presumably sent to Israel.
Oldie but goodie
Q. What's the battle song of the Israeli army?
A. Onward Christian Soldiers
Off topic, that Batman movie with Danny de Vito and Christopher Walken's on TV.
@Ash
Williams Interesting observations about China and Russia. They seems to prefer a
multi-polar world based on co–operation and being "left alone". In my view they would
probably also co-operate with the Anglo-Zionists if they were not such warmongers intent on
global hegemony. I think Trump wants to cooperate with Russia but the MIC globalists will not
let him.
@Anon Sorry
to be a spoil sport and a doom monger. I really wish I could say that there were good guys. I
always used to think of Israel (and the US and UK) as the "good guys" but then I woke up.
There are no good guys. Nations operate out of self-interest. Empires struggle for supremacy.
They have all done bad things. Might is right.
Where does this leave us? We must seek out like minded Christians and like minded people
who will resist the coming evil. We are all asked to repent and to preach about the coming
judgement. If the Apocalypse is anything to go by then "overcoming the world" actually means
resisting until death. I am sorry. Bad times ahead. Keep the faith try and be kind don't back
down from standing up for the truth.
Perhaps the monetary answer to the banksters' usury has been tried before. And because it was
so successful the banksters declared war on this simple yet principled system of monetary
discipline and demonized its leader–unlike any other person before and since
(specifically so this system would not catch on and put the banksters out of usurious
money-lending practices).
What if most of everything we were told–especially about history–was an
outright lie, fabrication, "enhancement", distortion or embellishment? What if you could
investigate for yourselves and confirm this fable was organized? If so, then it must be by
way of reason to have been intentional! We are not talking about pieces here or there, but
wholesale chunks inverted and presented by corrupt "officials" as sacrosanct history based on
"research". No, ladies and gentlemen, these are no more than propaganda talking points made
to keep you in your place: devoid of the truth, distracted from an en-devour thereof, or
coerced into silence or taken out if all else failed.
The awakening is here and now in our lifetimes; what remains is our effort to commit .
time for a reprogramming course indeed .
Hitler, more than an other politician since then, cared more about his people than
imaginable. For example, he used non-inflationary government created and issued Labor
Treasury Certificates to fund Germany from the poorest country in Europe to the richest in
five years. This made the bankers (Judea) declare on Germany. This simple approach to money
(money is not an intrinsic value rather it is a "measure" of value much like a measuring cup
that measures commodities like sugar, flour, grain, etc.) could have caught on in the rest of
Europe and throughout the world putting the end to the banksters and their usury.
"Germany issued debt-free and interest-free money from 1935 on, which accounts for
Germany's startling rise from the depression to a world power in five years. The German
government financed its entire operations from 1935 to 1945 without gold, and without debt.
It took the entire Capitalist and Communist world to destroy the German revolution, and
bring Europe back under the heel of the Bankers."
If you have ever dared or not to watch a video, please make an concerted effort to watch
this one (just about six minutes long but one that needs views and redistribution like none
other) and one that may hold the most retained value from its consumption:
The American attitude has changed dramatically the public majority has lost its innocence
and is not 'trusting' as it was once. Vietnam was the eye opener for the public but not until
it dragged on and on till no one could justify it. People didn't want to believe the
government perfidy.
With good reason we have learned war is politics and the still fooled or patriot believer
young people get sent to war.
A lot of people talking about war have great 'hindsight'.
@RoatanBill
Even the average atheist draws the line whenever someone says that we DO NOT have any degree
of freedom and that moral responsibility is not a reality.
As a die-hard unbeliever, you may
reject the position that moral laws descend from a higher plane unperceived by our senses; as
a tax- paying citizen, however, you still need to live by sublunary standards of civility.
And this can be done only if free will and moral realism are the law of the land.
In the normal course of events both you and l are one in promoting some kind of " operative
morality."
As a guardian of morality, whether you feel this necessary truth is objectively real (
Christianity) or subjectively true (as l presume it is for you)- we could not go on living
and believe that being alive is all right , unless we enact these inferences or postulations.
@Who Cares
Well, my friend, CA is way ahead of you. High gas prices, translating into high
transportation costs. Outrageous vehicle license fees. Everything is more expensive here, and
going up everyday. Insane building codes and exorbitant fees. Background checks every time
you buy a box of ammo. Homeless everywhere, some have been arrested up to 50 times and still
on the street. I've seen bums sleeping on the sidewalk roll over and piss right in front of
everyone. Don't expect any help from the cops, they're too busy chasing car thieves,
stabbings, murders and other mayhem. And if you're stupid enough to take matters into your
own hands?
You'll end up in jail. Meth, opioids, you name it. Oh, and on windy days, they
sometimes cut the power. This is out here in the country, the cities are way worse. The
communists have turned a once great state into a turd world shit hole. I'm not overly fond of
Trump, but the Bolsheviks scare the piss out of me. And they're just getting started. Smile!
It only gets worse. Try the Soylent Green New Meal at McDonald's! Babies. It's what's for
dinner! America the fucking beautiful, my ass.
@Johnny Walker
Read An informative book on Vietnam is, Charlie Company, What Vietnam Did to US, by Peter
Goldman and Tony Fuller, based on interviews of 65 Vietnam veterans.
@Laurent
Guyénot No doubt Trump is fundamentally a non-obedient character which is what
determines the "information" attitude towards him.
No doubt Trump tried to wake up the part of America that the élite lives on the
shoulder of, in the early stage of his political rise: the élite noticed it and found
it, naturally, outrageous. The part of America that is ridden herd on by the élite,
however, didn't notice the wake-up signs.
That's natural too no Trump nor anyone else can revert the natural hiearchy, and order of
things between people, because that's determined by the quality of their minds.
The comments against Trump by people who are on his same team just confirm the above, with
their primary (or secondary) school way of looking at things in here-and-now and
smash-them-to-win ways.
Trump's achievements are severely limited by his team's characteristics, so to speak.
@Cyrano
Great comment But around 99% of Western "nationalists", brought up on a constant brainwashing
diet of socialism-o-phobia, Soviet-o-phobia, Russophobia, and mindless adoration of "Western
capitalism" as patriotism literally since their toddler days, will shy away from recognizing
the truth of this.
@Robert
DolanAnn Coulter has soured on him, but says she feels compelled to defend him
because the
Jmedia lies about him all day long.
Exactly – I find myself in the same boat. It is not just the Dems and the Jew media,
it is also the entrenched security state – the CIA, the FBI leadership, and the
permanent bureaucracy, that are all trying to take Trump down on false premises.
YES – Trump is an insufferable jerk – but clearly, they are the ones being
dishonest. Russiagate was a hoax – Ukrainegate is a gross exaggeration of a
problem.
The "virtue signaling" of his opposition is without question BS! Truly his opposition are
phonies! The truth is they are all ripping off America – using the government to enrich
themselves.
Trump is doing America a favor by exposing Bidden as a crook. (Good god – when Is
Obama going to be a three-figure millionaire?)
The real evil is Bannon, Clapper, and Comey using the security state to attack and nullify
the 2016 election. They are making fools of democracy itself.
Anything that can be construed as actually or potentially presenting a "threat" or a
"challenge" to the untrammeled world domination of the globo-imperialist capitalist
Anglo-Zionist/Western ruling class must be demonized, execrated and slandered – up to
& including their own native population's yearnings for a normal existence and sensible,
nativist ethno-nationalism.
This is as it's going to get before the country breaks apart. Overall, I don't regret voting
for Trump, but there is not a lot of swamp draining going on. Too bad we can't repeal
birthright citizenship and kick more illegals out of the country. Team R wants to give more
greencards out.
"... The intemperate comments of an imperial-minded candidate for the presidency ..."
"... The democrat coup/impeach/coup machine suffers is bi-polar disorder. Every they way fill the military industry complex trough! In their war manic state they supress freedom fighters, and arm their jailers, in their war depress state they support rioters in Hong Kong. If Donbass rebels were in Macao they would get US support, in Dobass the US will suppress freedom. ..."
"... With Ukraine, because the democrat neocons want to surround Russia, US national security arms Ukriane to forcibly put down Donbass as they attempt some form of "self determination". ..."
"... In the case of Hong Kong because US is enemy to the PRC (Red China at Menzie Chinn blog) the US is all for self determination, like Hitler was for pulling Sudetenland out of Czechoslovakia in 1938! ..."
"... This bipolar morality fits with deep state surveillance on Trump in 2016 and in 2019 claiming Trump doing it to Biden so that Trump/DoJ cannot fight corrupt (all) democrats ever! ..."
Is Time for the United States to Stand Up to China in Hong Kong
Tweets aren't enough. Washington must make clear that it expects Beijing to live up to its
commitments -- and it will respond when China does not.
By ELIZABETH WARREN
It Is Time for the United States to Stand Up to China in Hong Kong
Tweets aren't enough. Washington must make clear that it expects Beijing to live up to its
commitments -- and it will respond when China does not.
By ELIZABETH WARREN
[ Shocking and appalling; unethical and immoral; discrediting. The intemperate comments of an imperial-minded candidate for the presidency. ]
The democrat coup/impeach/coup machine suffers is bi-polar disorder. Every they way fill the
military industry complex trough!
In their war manic state they supress freedom fighters, and arm their jailers, in their
war depress state they support rioters in Hong Kong. If Donbass rebels were in Macao they would get US support, in Dobass the US will suppress
freedom.
With Ukraine, because the democrat neocons want to surround Russia, US national security
arms Ukriane to forcibly put down Donbass as they attempt some form of "self
determination".
In the case of Hong Kong because US is enemy to the PRC (Red China at Menzie Chinn blog)
the US is all for self determination, like Hitler was for pulling Sudetenland out of
Czechoslovakia in 1938!
This bipolar morality fits with deep state surveillance on Trump in 2016 and in 2019
claiming Trump doing it to Biden so that Trump/DoJ cannot fight corrupt (all) democrats
ever!
"... Mr. Sanders's status as a presidential candidate may influence his care and possibly lead to his staying in the hospital a bit longer than usual for patients with his ailment. Although doctors say they care for V.I.P.s as they do any other patient, they may deviate from the norm out of caution or if complications occur. A danger in V.I.P. care is a tendency to do too little or too much for a patient. ... ..."
"... Sanders' campaign released a statement from the 78-year-old's Las Vegas doctors that said the senator was stable when he arrived Tuesday at Desert Springs Hospital Medical Center. ..."
"... A blocked artery can cause a heart attack, which just means that an area of the heart is suffering and in danger of damage because it's not getting enough blood or oxygen. An artery-opening procedure like the one Sanders had, and placing stents, which are tiny scaffolds to keep the artery open, restores blood flow and helps prevent future problems. ... ..."
What does Senator Bernie Sanders' hospitalization reveal about his health and his ability
to continue his presidential campaign?
His staff has provided scant details: Sanders experienced chest pains at a campaign event
Tuesday and went to a hospital. Doctors found blockage in an artery and inserted two tiny
metal tubes, called stents, to prop it open. The 78-year-old presidential candidate expects
to leave the hospital "before the end of the weekend," rest for a few days, and resume his
campaign in time to participate in the Oct. 15 debate.
The Sanders' campaign did not respond to the Globe's request for more information. So we
asked three local cardiologists, who are not privy to specifics about Sanders' condition, to
shed light on what the incident may portend based on their experience with other heart
patients. Here's what they said.
Did Sanders have a heart attack?
The campaign has not said whether or not he had a heart attack, which is a sudden blockage
of an artery that causes damage to the heart muscle.
Dr. Jeremy Samuel Faust, an emergency physician at Brigham and Women's Hospital, wrote in
a Slate article that Sanders most likely did suffer a heart attack, based on how quickly the
staff rushed him in for the procedure.
The cardiologists whom the Globe consulted were more circumspect, saying it's possible he
had a small heart attack, but they can't tell based on the information revealed so far.
"It sounds like he had some kind of acute coronary syndrome," in which blood flow to the
heart is blocked, said Dr. Malissa J. Wood, a cardiologist at Massachusetts General Hospital.
"The great thing is he noticed the symptoms and got help immediately, so they were able to
get that artery opened fast."
Dr. Jeffrey J. Popma, an interventional cardiologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical
Center, did not see much significance in the team's decision to swiftly open the blockage.
"How quickly it was done doesn't really mean there was a more urgent or worsened prognosis,"
he said. ...
Bernie Sanders Had a Common Heart Procedure.
So Why the Mystery? https://nyti.ms/2Mbw5TC
NYT - Lawrence K. Altman, M.D. - October 4
WASHINGTON -- "None of us know when a medical emergency will affect us," Senator Bernie
Sanders wrote in a tweet from Desert Springs Hospital Medical Center on Wednesday, hours
after the 78-year-old Democratic candidate for president experienced one.
Mr. Sanders's emergency -- the sudden onset of chest pain known as angina -- is one that
thousands of other Americans experience each year. Mr. Sanders's discomfort occurred at a
campaign event on Tuesday night. Because it signaled acute heart trouble, the senator went to
the hospital where doctors implanted two stents in one of the coronary arteries that nourish
the heart.
Doctors often release patients who undergo such procedures in a day or two. Mr. Sanders
remains in the hospital, and his campaign has closely guarded pertinent details about his
heart condition and treatment, raising questions about the extent of his health issues.
Among other things, Mr. Sanders has not disclosed whether blood and electrocardiogram
tests showed he had a heart attack. The senator and his campaign have not allowed reporters
to interview his doctors, though advisers have said that Mr. Sanders would be able to appear
in the next Democratic debate on Oct. 15. ...
... The health questions hang over Mr. Sanders in part because he would become the nation's
oldest president by far if elected. Also, given that implanting two stents in one coronary
artery is a very common procedure in American hospitals, it is puzzling why he has not
released more details. Mr. Sanders is a private person, no doubt, but most modern-day
presidents and serious candidates for the presidency have put forward details to inform the
electorate after emergency health issues.
Normally, "recovery from stent placement is very quick," and patients usually go home a
day or two after the procedure, said Dr. Jonathan S. Reiner, a cardiologist at George
Washington University Hospital in Washington, D.C. who treated former Vice President Dick
Cheney for serious heart disease for many years before, during and after his two terms of
office. Dr. Reiner is not involved in Mr. Sanders's care.
Older patients and those who experience complications like heart rhythm abnormalities,
heart attacks or heart failure may remain in the hospital longer. A patient's condition
usually determines the length of stay.
In the 2016 presidential campaign, Mr. Sanders's doctor said that the senator was "in
overall very good health." His ailments included gout; a mild elevation of cholesterol; an
inflammation of out-pouches in the bowel known as diverticulitis; and hormone replacement
therapy for an underactive thyroid gland. He had no reported history of heart disease.
Tuesday's episode of angina appears to be his first such incident. Doctors often refer to
such heart issues as new onset, or unstable, angina and usually describe an event like Mr.
Sanders's as acute coronary syndrome.
Mr. Sanders's status as a presidential candidate may influence his care and possibly lead
to his staying in the hospital a bit longer than usual for patients with his ailment.
Although doctors say they care for V.I.P.s as they do any other patient, they may deviate
from the norm out of caution or if complications occur. A danger in V.I.P. care is a tendency
to do too little or too much for a patient. ...
WASHINGTON -- Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders had a heart attack, his
campaign confirmed Friday as the Vermont senator was released from a Nevada hospital.
Sanders' campaign released a statement from the 78-year-old's Las Vegas doctors that said
the senator was stable when he arrived Tuesday at Desert Springs Hospital Medical Center.
The doctors, Arturo Marchand, Jr. and Arjun Gururaj, said Sanders quickly had two stents
placed in a blocked artery in his heart and the rest of his arteries were normal.
Sanders was hospitalized Tuesday after experiencing chest discomfort during a campaign
event.
A blocked artery can cause a heart attack, which just means that an area of the heart is
suffering and in danger of damage because it's not getting enough blood or oxygen. An
artery-opening procedure like the one Sanders had, and placing stents, which are tiny
scaffolds to keep the artery open, restores blood flow and helps prevent future problems.
...
Japan has a shrinking population. Can you explain to me why on the Earth they need
economic growth?
This preoccupation with "growth" (with narrow and false one dimensional and very
questionable measurements via GDP, which includes the FIRE sector) is a fallacy promoted by
neoliberalism.
Neoliberalism proved to be quite sophisticated religions with its own set of True
Believers in Eric Hoffer's terminology.
A lot of current economic statistics suffer from "mathiness".
For example, the narrow definition of unemployment used in U3 is just a classic example of
pseudoscience in full bloom. It can be mentioned only if U6 mentioned first. Otherwise, this
is another "opium for the people" ;-) An attempt to hide the real situation in the neoliberal
"job market" in which has sustained real unemployment rate is always over 10% and which has a
disappearing pool of well-paying middle-class jobs. Which produced current narco-epidemics
(in 2018, 1400 people were shot in half a year in Chicago (
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-met-weekend-shooting-violence-20180709-story.html
); imagine that). While I doubt that people will hang Pelosi on the street post, her
successor might not be so lucky ;-)
Everything is fake in the current neoliberal discourse, be it political or economic, and
it is not that easy to understand how they are deceiving us. Lies that are so sophisticated
that often it is impossible to tell they are actually lies, not facts. The whole neoliberal
society is just big an Empire of Illusions, the kingdom of lies and distortions.
I would call it a new type of theocratic state if you wish.
And probably only one in ten, if not one in a hundred economists deserve to be called
scientists. Most are charlatans pushing fake papers on useless conferences.
It is simply amazing that the neoliberal society, which is based on "universal deception,"
can exist for so long.
1) We don't know for certain what Shokin was investigating and what he wasn't.
2) Ukraine was rife with corruption. But most likely Biden was more concerned with
uprooting pro-Russian elements calling them corrupt as shorthand. Pro-Western corruption was
most likely overlooked.
3) We don't know why Hunter Biden was appointed to the Burisma board along with one of Joe
Biden's big bundlers and the CIA-friendly former President of Poland. We do know that Hunter
was put on the board immediately after the color revolution in Ukraine and that he served a
stint on the National Democratic Institute, which promotes regime change. Much more needs to
be learned about what the Bidens were up to in Ukraine and whether they were carpet baggers
cashing out.
As I have said, I would be delighted if Trump went down and took Joe Biden with him. The
last thing this country needs is a Joe Lieberman with a smiling face serving as President
which is basically what Joe Biden is.
"As I have said, I would be delighted if Trump went down and took Joe Biden with him."
Biden was already destroyed by Ukrainegate, being Pelosi sacrificial pawn (and for such
semi-senile candidate exit now looks the most logical; he can hand around for longer but the
question is why? ), but it is unclear how this will affect Trump.
In any case each accusation of Trump boomerang into Biden. And Biden China story probably
even more interesting then his Ukrainian gate story.
CIA ears over all Ukraine-gate are so visible that it hurts Pelosi case. Schiff is a sad
clown in this circus, and he has zero credibility after his well publicized love story with
Russiagate.
The fact that Warren is now favorite increases previously reluctant Wall Street support
for Trump, who is becoming kind of new Hillary, the establishment candidate.
And if you able to think, trump now looks like establishment candidate, corrupt
interventionist, who is not that far from Hillary in foreign policy and clearly as a "hard
neoliberal" aligns with Hillary "soft neoliberal" stance in domestic policy.
As Warren can pretend that she is better Trump then Trump (and we are talking about
Trump-2016 platform; Trump action were betrayal of his electorate much like was the case with
Obama) she has chances, but let's do not overestimate them.
Pelosi help with Trump re-election can't be underestimated.
Candidates for POTUS who are fundraising off "impeachment" are undermining credibility of
inquiry in eyes of American people, further dividing our already fractured country. Please
stop. We need responsible, patriotic leaders who put the interests of our country before
their own.
On day one of my presidency, I will call a summit between the United States, China, and
Russia to work to end the new Cold War, stop the arms race, and reduce tensions and increase
cooperation going forward.
Bernie Sanders' campaign said Wednesday that the Democratic presidential candidate had a
heart procedure for a blocked artery and was canceling events and appearances "until further
notice."
The 78-year-old Vermont senator experienced chest discomfort during a campaign event Tuesday
and sought medical evaluation. Two stents were "successfully inserted," and Sanders "is
conversing and in good spirits," according to the campaign. He's recovering at a Las Vegas
hospital.
The Democratic field's oldest candidate, Sanders sometimes jokingly refers to his age at
town halls and other events, especially when interacting with younger participants. He is one
of three candidates over age 70 in the Democratic primary, which has spurred debate over
whether the party should rally behind a new generation of political leaders. Sanders'
health issue is certain
to revive that discussion in the weeks before the next presidential debate this month.
Sanders' campaign wouldn't say whether the candidate had suffered a heart attack before the
blockage was opened. But a doctor not involved in the care said, if not, Sanders could expect
to be back to a normal busy schedule in about a week.
"This will give him more energy," said Dr. Ron Waksman, an interventional cardiologist at
MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute in Washington.
Sanders' hospitalization came on a day of celebration for his campaign, which had earlier
announced the Democratic field's strongest quarterly fundraising numbers so far. On a telephone
call with supporters, campaign manager Faiz Shakir said, "The state of our campaign, we feel,
is strong and getting stronger. We've got work to do because our path is the most ambitious
path of any candidate out there." He also touted the first television ad, which the campaign
was scheduled to launch in Iowa.
... ... ...
"Given his recent stalls in the polls, the timing is pretty bad here," Democratic strategist
Jim Manley said of Sanders' heart procedure.
... ... ...
Sanders is not the first candidate to face health issues in recent years while seeking the
presidency. Clinton had to take time off from campaigning in 2016 after being treated for
pneumonia.
In Sanders' case, when doctors insert a stent, they first thread a tiny balloon inside a
blocked artery to widen it. The stent is a small wire mesh tube that then is propped inside to
keep the artery open. The number of stents needed depends on the size of the clog.
The treatment can immediately improve symptoms such as chest pain or shortness of breath.
The stents are threaded into place through blood vessels in the groin or wrist, requiring only
a tiny incision. Most are coated with medication to prevent the targeted artery from reclosing.
That is still a risk, requiring monitoring, and patients also often are prescribed blood
thinners to prevent clots from forming in the stents.
A letter released by Sanders' physician in 2016 cited a history of mildly elevated
cholesterol but no heart disease.
Apparently Bernie Sanders, who is ill, will not be nominated to run for the presidency, but
what needs to be known and remembered is that this ia the first time in our history that
person who is Jewish has been a serious candidate as has been the case for 2 election cycles.
I find Sanders to have been an admirable candidate.
Nice he recovered, but you have to think this is the end of his campaign.
"Sen. Bernie Sanders had emergency procedure to fix a blocked artery after experiencing
chest pain Tuesday night, according to his campaign, and is recovering in Las Vegas, Nevada,
where he was on the presidential campaign trail.
"During a campaign event yesterday evening, Sen. Sanders experienced some chest
discomfort," Jeff Weaver, a senior adviser on the campaign, said in a statement. "Following
medical evaluation and testing he was found to have a blockage in one artery and two stents
were successfully inserted. Sen. Sanders is conversing and in good spirits."
If Krugman is surprised that some Democratic donors will support Trump over Warren, he is not
an analyst.
And Obama was a Wall Street prostitute, much like bill Clinton, no questions about it. Trump
betrayal of his voters actually mirror the Obama betrayal. May suspect that Warren will be
malleable with will fold to Wall Street on the first opportunity, governing like Trump-lite.
Warren Versus the Petty Plutocrats. Why do they hate her? It's mainly about their
egos.
By Paul Krugman
Remember when pundits used to argue that Elizabeth Warren wasn't likable enough to be
president? It was always a lazy take, with a strong element of sexism. And it looks
ridiculous now, watching Warren on the campaign trail. Never mind whether she's someone you'd
like to have a beer with, she's definitely someone thousands of people want to take selfies
with.
But there are some people who really, really dislike Warren: the ultrawealthy, especially
on Wall Street. They dislike her so much that some longtime Democratic donors are reportedly
considering throwing their backing behind Donald Trump, corruption, collusion and all, if
Warren is the Democratic presidential nominee.
And Warren's success is a serious possibility, because Warren's steady rise has made her a
real contender, maybe even the front-runner: While she still trails Joe Biden a bit in the
polls, betting markets currently give her a roughly 50 percent chance of securing the
nomination.
But why does Warren inspire a level of hatred and fear among the very wealthy that I
don't think we've seen directed at a presidential candidate since the days of Franklin Delano
Roosevelt?
On the surface, the answer may seem obvious. She is proposing policies, notably a tax on
fortunes exceeding $50 million, that would make the extremely wealthy a bit less so. But
delve into the question a bit more deeply, and Warren hatred becomes considerably more
puzzling.
For the only people who would be directly affected by her tax proposals are those who more
or less literally have more money than they know what to do with. Having a million or two
less wouldn't crimp their lifestyles; most of them would barely notice the change.
At the same time, even the very wealthy should be very afraid of the prospect of a Trump
re-election. Any doubts you might have had about his authoritarian instincts should have been
put to rest by his reaction to the possibility of impeachment: implicit death threats against
whistle-blowers, warnings of civil war and claims that members of Congress investigating him
are guilty of treason.
And anyone imagining that great wealth would make them safe from an autocrat's wrath
should look at the list of Russian oligarchs who crossed Vladimir Putin -- and are now ruined
or dead. So what would make the very wealthy -- even some Jewish billionaires, who should
have a very good idea of the likely consequences of right-wing dominance -- support Trump
over someone like Warren?
There is, I'd argue, an important clue in the "Obama rage" that swept Wall Street circa
2010. Objectively, the Obama administration was very good to the financial industry, even
though that industry had just led us into the worst economic crisis since the 1930s.
Major financial players were bailed out on lenient terms, and while bankers were subjected to
a long-overdue increase in regulation, the new regulations have proved fairly easy for
reputable firms to deal with.
Yet financial tycoons were furious with President Barack Obama because they felt
disrespected. In truth, Obama's rhetoric was very mild; all he ever did was suggest that some
bankers had behaved badly, which no reasonable person could deny. But with great wealth comes
great pettiness; Obama's gentle rebukes provoked fury -- and a huge swing in financial
industry political contributions toward Republicans.
The point is that many of the superrich aren't satisfied with living like kings, which
they will continue to do no matter who wins next year's election. They also expect to be
treated like kings, lionized as job creators and heroes of prosperity, and consider any
criticism an unforgivable act of lèse-majesté.
And for such people, the prospect of a Warren presidency is a nightmarish threat -- not to
their wallets, but to their egos. They can try to brush off someone like Bernie Sanders as a
rabble-rouser. But when Warren criticizes malefactors of great wealth and proposes reining in
their excesses, her evident policy sophistication -- has any previous candidate managed to
turn wonkiness into a form of charisma? -- makes her critique much harder to dismiss.
If Warren is the nominee, then, a significant number of tycoons will indeed go for Trump;
better to put democracy at risk than to countenance a challenge to their imperial
self-esteem. But will it matter?
Maybe not. These days American presidential elections are so awash in money that both
sides can count on having enough resources to saturate the airwaves.
Indeed, over-the-top attacks from the wealthy can sometimes be a political plus. That was
certainly the case for F.D.R., who reveled in his plutocratic opposition: "They are unanimous
in their hate for me -- and I welcome their hatred."
So far Warren seems to be following the same playbook, tweeting out articles about Wall
Street's hostility as if they were endorsements, which in a sense they are. It's good to have
the right enemies.
I do worry, however, how Wall Streeters will take it if they go all out to defeat Warren
and she wins anyway. Washington can bail out their balance sheets, but who can bail out their
damaged psyches?
"Deductive reasoning" within the media message is mob control.
"It ain't what you know... it's what you know that ain't so"#. Keep reading the mainstream
media!
Given enough time [and strategy wrt 2020 election] we will get to the bottom of Obama's
"criminal influence" on 2016 election.
It takes a lot more to debunk the Biden, Clinton, Nuland, Obama Ukraine drama. To my mind,
Ukraine needs to be clean as driven snow* to "earn" javelins to kill Russian speaking
rebels.
Why do US from Obama+ fund rebels in Syria (Sunni radicals mainly) and want to send tank
killers to suppress rebels where we might get in to the real deal?
# conservatives have been saying that about the 'outrage' started by the MSM for
decades.
Warren might be an improvement over the current situation. Moreover she has some sound ideas about taming the financial
oligarchy
"Best alternative to the above? Get Liz Warren elected, IMO."
True. IMHO Warren might be an improvement over the
current situation. Moreover she has some sound ideas about taming the financial oligarchy.
The idea of taking on
financial oligarchy will find strong support of voters and in some respects she is "a better Trump then Trump" as for
restoring the honor and wellbeing of the working people mercilessly squeezed and marginalized by neoliberalism in the USA.
Her book "The two income trap"(2004) suggests that this is not just a classic "bait and switch" election trick in
best Obama or Trump style.
And I would say she in her 70 is in better shape then Trump in his 73+. He shows isolated
early signs of neurologic damage (some claim sundowning syndrome:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwh6Fu9BcAw slurring speech patterns, repetitions, disorientation, etc), which is
natural for any person in his 70th subjected to his level of stress.
But it is completely unclear to me whether the impeachment favors Warren or Trump. the treat of impeachment already
cemented fractures in Trump base which now, judging from comments in forums, is really outraged.
Some people are
talking about armed resistance, which is, of course, hopeless nonsense in the current national-security state, but does show
the state of their mind.
Also nobody here can even imagine the amount of dirt Obama administration accumulated by
their actions in Ukraine. They really supported a neo-fascist party and cooperated with neo-Nazi (other important players
were Germany, Poland and Sweden). Just to achieve geopolitical victory over Russia. Kind of total reversion of WWII alliance
for me.
That avalanche of dirt can affect Warren indirectly as she proved to be a weak, unsophisticated politician by
supporting Pelosi drive for impeachment instead of pretending of being neutral. Which would be more appropriate and much
safer position.
Neoliberal democrats despite all Pelosi skills ( see https://mediaequalizer.com/martin-walsh/2017/12/gifford-heres-how-pelosi-learned-mob-like-tactics-from-her-father
) really opened a can of worms with this impeachment.
Also it looks like all of them, including Pelosi, are scared of
CIA: https://galacticconnection.com/nancy-pelosi-admits-congress-scared-cia/
== quote == In response to Senator
Dianne Feinstein’s speech last week calling out the CIA for spying on her staffers, Rep. Nancy Pelosi was asked to comment
and gave what might be the most revealing comments to date as to why Congress is so scared of the CIA:
“I salute
Sen. Feinstein,” Pelosi said at her weekly news conference of the chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. “I’ll tell
you, you take on the intelligence community, you’re a person of courage, and she does not do that lightly. Not without
evidence, and when I say evidence, documentation of what it is that she is putting forth.”
Pelosi added that she has
always fought for checks and balances on CIA activity and its interactions with Congress: “You don’t fight it without a price
because they come after you and they don’t always tell the truth. ==end==
I strongly doubt that Trump will ever
risk to drop a bomb by declassifying documents about Obama dirty actions in Ukraine; so to speak go "all in" against
neoliberal Democrats and part of intelligence community (and possibly be JFKed).
But Trump is unpredictable and
extremely vindictive. How he will behave after being put against the wall on fake changes is completely unclear. I wonder if
Pelosi correctly calculated all the risks.
I wrote the other day about Wall Street fear and loathing of Elizabeth Warren, suggesting
that it has more to do with threatened egos than with money per se 1/
Some more thoughts on reports that Wall Street Democrats will back Trump over Warren.
Obviously it's hard to know how big a deal this is -- how many of these guys are there, were
they ever really Dems, and will they back Trump as more revelations emerge 1/
So I remembered a sort of time capsule from the eve of the financial crisis that nicely
illustrated how these guys want to be perceived, and retrospectively explains their fury at
no longer getting to pose as economic heroes 2/
The Richest of the Rich, Proud of a New Gilded Age
The new titans often see themselves as pillars of a similarly prosperous and expansive
age, one in which their successes and their philanthropy have made government less important
than it once was.
The thing is, even at the time the idea that financial deregulation had ushered in a
golden age of prosperity was flatly contradicted by the data 3/
[Graph]
And of course the financial crisis -- which is generally considered to have begun just
three weeks after that article was published! -- made utter nonsense of their boasting 4/
But they want everyone to forget about the hollowness of their claims to glory; and Warren
won't let that happen, which makes her evil in their minds 5/
"... The myth that our present moment is somehow more scandalous than any other is easily dispelled by reading John F. Kennedy's book Profiles in Courage , which details the political bravery of eight largely unsung individuals from congressional history. ..."
"... While previous impeachment efforts had been defeated, on February 24, 1868, the House of Representatives adopted articles of impeachment by a tremendous margin -- every single Republican voted in the affirmative. With that hurdle cleared, the charges moved to the Senate, where they were presided over by the chief justice of the Supreme Court. Ross was a Republican, and was naturally expected to support Johnson's impeachment. ..."
"... Yet there were two elements missing: "the actual cause for which the President was being tried was not fundamental to the welfare of the nation; and the defendant himself was at all times absent." ..."
"... as the trial progressed, it became increasingly apparent that the impatient Republicans did not intend to give the President a fair trial on the formal issues upon which the impeachment was drawn, but intended instead to depose him from the White House on any grounds, real or imagined, for refusing to accept their policies. ..."
"... The mood and tenor in Washington, according to David Miller DeWitt's The Impeachment and Trial of Andrew Johnson , was that of a city under siege. "The dominant part of the nation seemed to occupy the position of public prosecutor, and it was scarcely in the mood to brook delay for trial or to hear the defense." ..."
"... Ross and other doubters were "daily pestered, spied upon, and subjected to every form of pressure. Their residences were carefully watched, their social circles suspiciously scrutinized, and their every move and companions secretly marked in special notebooks. They were warned in the party press, harangued by their constituents, and sent dire warnings threatening political ostracism and even assassination." ..."
"... The morning of the fateful vote, spies followed Ross to breakfast, and 10 minutes before the vote, a colleague from Kansas warned him that support for "acquittal would mean trumped up charges and his political death." ..."
"... "I almost literally looked down into my open grave," writes Ross. "Friendships, position, fortune, everything that makes life desirable to an ambitious man were about to be swept away by the breath of my mouth, perhaps forever. It is not strange that my answer was carried waveringly over the air and failed to reach the limits of the audience, or or that repetition was called for ." ..."
"... Neither Ross nor any of the other six Republicans who voted for Johnson's acquittal were ever reelected to the Senate. When they returned to Kansas, Ross and his family were ostracized, attacked, and impoverished. ..."
When the GOP madly went after President Andrew Johnson, Senator Edward G. Ross ruined his own career to thwart them.
•
March 11, 2019
Senator Edmund G. Ross As Robert Mueller's pending report looms heavily over Washington, many are darkly speculating about a new
era in our history. When have there been so many investigations, such rank partisanship, such indifference to justice and the rule
of law?
Actually we have been here before.
The myth that our present moment is somehow more scandalous than any other is easily dispelled by reading John F. Kennedy's
book Profiles in Courage , which details the political bravery of eight largely unsung individuals from congressional history.
One story in particular stands out as the perfect antidote for our time: that of Edmund G. Ross, senator from Kansas. In 1868,
the United States came perilously close to impeaching its seventeenth president, Andrew Johnson, a Democrat, because the Republican
majority in Congress was at odds with him over how to handle the defeated Southern states. Ross bucked his party, followed his conscience,
and cast a vote against articles of impeachment. He was vilified at the time; decades later, he would be hailed as having saved the
republic.
While previous impeachment efforts had been defeated, on February 24, 1868, the House of Representatives adopted articles
of impeachment by a tremendous margin -- every single Republican voted in the affirmative. With that hurdle cleared, the charges
moved to the Senate, where they were presided over by the chief justice of the Supreme Court. Ross was a Republican, and was naturally
expected to support Johnson's impeachment.
"Public opinion in the nation ran heavily against the President; he had intentionally broken the law and dictatorially thwarted
the will of Congress!" writes Kennedy.
After the president was effectively indicted by the House, the Senate trial proceeded and high drama riveted the nation. "It was
a trial to rank with all the great trials in history -- Charles I before the High Court of Justice, Louis XVI before the French Convention,
and Warren Hastings before the House of Lords," writes Kennedy. Yet there were two elements missing: "the actual cause for which
the President was being tried was not fundamental to the welfare of the nation; and the defendant himself was at all times absent."
The actual causes for impeachment sound somewhat obscure to today's ears, although the tenth article, which alleged that Johnson
had delivered "intemperate, inflammatory, and scandalous harangues against Congress [and] the laws of the United States," sounds
positively Trumpian. The first eight articles concerned the removal of Edwin M. Stanton as secretary of war in supposed violation
of the Tenure of Office Act. The ninth article alleged that Johnson's conversation with a general had violated an Army appropriations
act. The eleventh was something of a catch-all for the rest.
The counsel for the president argued convincingly that the Tenure of Office Act was unconstitutional. And even if there had been
a violation of the law, Stanton would have needed to submit to being dismissed and then sued for his rights in the courts -- something
that had not happened.
From Profiles in Courage :
as the trial progressed, it became increasingly apparent that the impatient Republicans did not intend to give the President
a fair trial on the formal issues upon which the impeachment was drawn, but intended instead to depose him from the White House
on any grounds, real or imagined, for refusing to accept their policies.
Telling evidence in the President's favor was arbitrarily excluded. Prejudgment on the part of most Senators
was brazenly announced. Attempted bribery and other forms of pressure were rampant. The chief interest was not in the trial or
the evidence, but in the tallying of votes necessary for conviction.
At the time, there were 54 members of the Senate, which meant 36 votes were required to secure the two thirds necessary for Johnson's
conviction. There were 12 Democratic senators, so the 42 Republicans could afford only six defections.
The mood and tenor in Washington, according to David Miller DeWitt's The Impeachment and Trial of Andrew Johnson , was that
of a city under siege. "The dominant part of the nation seemed to occupy the position of public prosecutor, and it was scarcely in
the mood to brook delay for trial or to hear the defense."
The city was thronged by the "politically dissatisfied and swarmed with representatives of every state of the Union, demanding
in a practically united voice the deposition of the President," writes Kennedy. "The footsteps of anti-impeaching Republicans were
dogged from the day's beginning to its end and far into the night, with entreaties, considerations, and threats."
Ross and other doubters were "daily pestered, spied upon, and subjected to every form of pressure. Their residences were carefully
watched, their social circles suspiciously scrutinized, and their every move and companions secretly marked in special notebooks.
They were warned in the party press, harangued by their constituents, and sent dire warnings threatening political ostracism and
even assassination."
The New York Tribune reported that Ross in particular was "mercilessly dragged this way and that by both sides, hunted
like a fox night and day and badgered by his own colleagues ."
While both sides publicly claimed Ross as their own, the senator himself kept a careful silence. His brother received a letter
offering $20,000 if he would reveal Ross' mind. The morning of the fateful vote, spies followed Ross to breakfast, and 10 minutes
before the vote, a colleague from Kansas warned him that support for "acquittal would mean trumped up charges and his political death."
That day in the Senate, as Ross would later write, "the galleries were packed. Tickets of admission were at an enormous premium.
The House had adjourned and all of its members were in the Senate chamber. Every chair on the Senate floor was filled ."
The broad eleventh article of impeachment would command the first vote. By the time the call came to Ross, 24 "guilty" votes had
already been pronounced. As Kennedy writes, "Ten more were certain and one other practically certain. Only Ross's vote was needed
to obtain the thirty-six votes necessary to convict the President. But not a single person in the room knew how this young Kansan
would vote."
"I almost literally looked down into my open grave," writes Ross. "Friendships, position, fortune, everything that makes life
desirable to an ambitious man were about to be swept away by the breath of my mouth, perhaps forever. It is not strange that my answer
was carried waveringly over the air and failed to reach the limits of the audience, or or that repetition was called for ."
"Then came the answer again in a voice that could not be misunderstood -- full, final, definite, unhesitating and unmistakeable:
'Not guilty.' The deed was done, the President saved, the trial as good as over and the conviction lost. The remainder of the roll
call was unimportant; conviction had failed by the margin of a single vote and a general rumbling filled the chamber ."
When the second and third articles of impeachment were read 10 days later, Ross also pronounced the president "not guilty."
Neither Ross nor any of the other six Republicans who voted for Johnson's acquittal were ever reelected to the Senate. When
they returned to Kansas, Ross and his family were ostracized, attacked, and impoverished.
Kennedy writes:
Who was Edmund G. Ross? Practically nobody. Not a single public law bears his name, not a single history book includes his
picture, not a single list of Senate "greats" mentions his service. His one heroic deed has been all but forgotten. Ross chose
to throw [his future in politics] away for one act of conscience.
Yet even if he fell into obscurity, history would vindicate Ross. Twenty years after the fateful vote, Congress repealed the Tenure
of Office Act, and the Supreme Court later held that "the extremes of that episode in our government" were unconstitutional.
Prior to Ross's death, the American public realized its errors too, and the same Kansas papers that had once denounced and defamed
Ross declared that his "courage" had "saved" the country "from calamity greater than war, while it consigned him to a political martyrdom,
the most cruel in our history ."
Kennedy does a wonderful job recounting this momentous episode, with the rich suspense and colorful imagery that it deserves.
Ross's words jump from the page as if they were written for our own age, and his bravery in the face of partisan political pressure
has withstood the test of time.
To end with Ross's own words:
In a large sense, the independence of the executive office as a coordinate branch of the government was on trial . If the President
was to step down a disgraced man and a political outcast upon insufficient proofs and from partisan considerations, the office
of President would be degraded, cease to be a coordinate branch of the government, and ever after be subordinated to the legislative
will. If Andrew Johnson were acquitted by a nonpartisan vote America would pass the danger point of partisan rule and that intolerance
which so often characterizes the sway of great majorities and makes them dangerous.
We should bear that in mind today.
Barbara Boland is the former weekend editor of the Washington Examiner . Her work has been featured on Fox News, the
Drudge Report, HotAir.com, RealClearDefense, RealClearPolitics, and elsewhere. She's the author of Patton Uncovered , a book
about General Patton in World War II. Follow her on Twitter @BBatDC
.
When Bill was president Warren met with Hillary and persuaded her to talk Bill into killing
Biden's increased protection for lenders from rapacious borrowers. When Hillary was senator she
supported the Bill. Warren gave an interview on the subject before she was involved in
politics. She was not happy.
Warren was the single female Democratic senator who declined to give Hillary an endorsement
before the primaries started. That's an event of some significance.
During the debates Warren took actions that helped Bernie on several occasions. Someone, I
think Paul Krugman, said Glass Stegall would have done nothing to stop the meltdown because it
didn't deal with shadow banking. Bernie was able to respond that he supported Warren's proposed
Glass Stegall bill, which did have provisions to regulate shadow banking. On another occasion
someone pointed out that Warren's bill did not break up big banks. Warren stated publicly that
the bill didn't propose breaking up too big to fail banks but she supported the idea.
Warren and Sanders both supported Clinton when she had the nomination locked up. It was
Bernie's responsibility to defend his supporters from Team Clinton's smears and insults during
and after the convention.
It wasn't Warren that Clinton invited to the Hamptons to be introduced to a few dozen of her
favorite fundraisers. It was Harris.
It wasn't Warren that Clinton invited to the Hamptons to be introduced to a few dozen of
her favorite fundraisers. It was Harris.
But, even if so, Harris was to be nothing more than a Clinton place-holder to be swept
aside one HER decided to resurrect the same Dimocratic party, which she has still not
successfully destroyed, even with minor assistance from Barack, JoJo and Wild Bill. Nope. My
contention is that Hillary Rodent Clinton will sweep the field of duped pseudo-contenders in
a fixed horse race. HRC -- still with her!~
"... The first casualty of Pelosi's cause is almost certain to be the front-runner for the party nomination. Joe Biden has already, this past week, fallen behind Senator Elizabeth Warren in Iowa, New Hampshire, and California. ..."
"... By making Ukraine the focus of the impeachment drive in the House, Pelosi has also assured that the questionable conduct of Biden and son Hunter will be front and center for the next four months before Iowa votes. ..."
"... What did Joe do? By his own admission, indeed his boast, as vice president, he ordered then-Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko to either fire the prosecutor who was investigating the company that hired Hunter Biden for $50,000 a month or forego a $1 billion U.S. loan guarantee that Kiev needed to stay current on its debts. ..."
"... There is another question raised by Biden's ultimatum to Kiev to fire the corrupt prosecutor or forego the loan guarantee. Why was the U.S. guaranteeing loans to a Kiev regime that had to be threatened with bankruptcy to get it to rid itself of a prosecutor whom all of Europe supposedly knew to be corrupt? ..."
"... This is bad news for the Biden campaign. And the principal beneficiary of Pelosi's decision that put Joe and Hunter Biden at the center of an impeachment inquiry is, again, Warren. ..."
"... Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of ..."
"... . To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at www.creators.com. ..."
"... the Movers and Shakers in the Democrat Party have wanted Warren as their standard bearer on the belief that Biden is "yesterday" and that the rest of the field is either too loony (O'Rourke), nondescript (Booker) or -- potentially -- too corrupt (Harris).. ..."
"... Warren is the most pro-establishment candidate of all the non-establishment candidates, that is true ..."
"... Roughly 37% of Americans love Trump and will never change their mind. On the other side there are 38% who already supported impeachment based on previous investigations. That leaves 25% of Americans who are likely to be swayed one way or the other over this. In any case, those 25% are unlikely to be on this website. ..."
"... It'll be interesting to see what the voter turnout will be in 2020. 2016 --one of the most pivotal and controversial elections in modern times--saw 42% of the electorate stay home. This was a shockingly high numbter, little noted in the press. If you tack on the 6% who voted for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein, that would mean that 48% of the electorate--nearly half--did NOT vote for either Trump or Clinton. ..."
"... Well, given that Trump has already released the transcript and Zelensky has already confirmed there were no pressure in their conversation plus said that Hunter's case is to be investigated by the AG, any impeachment hearings can only be damaging to those who decide to go further with them, because, as it turns out, there is no basis for such hearings and they were started a year before the election, showing what those who started them think regarding their own chances to win. ..."
Even before seeing the transcript of the July 25 call between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky,
Nancy Pelosi threw the door wide open to impeachment.
Though the transcript did not remotely justify the advanced billing of a "quid pro quo," Pelosi set in motion a process that is
already producing a sea change in the politics of 2020.
The great Beltway battle for the balance of this year, and perhaps next, will be over whether the Democrats can effect a coup
against a president many of them have never recognized as legitimate and have sought to bring down since before he took the oath
of office.
Pelosi on Tuesday started this rock rolling down the hill.
She has made impeachment, which did not even come up in the last Democratic debate, the issue of 2020. She has foreclosed bipartisan
compromise on gun control, the cost of prescription drugs, and infrastructure. She has put her and her party's fate and future on
the line.
With Pelosi's assent that she is now open to impeachment, she turned what was becoming a cold case into a blazing issue. If the
Democrats march up impeachment hill, fail, and fall back, or if they vote impeachment only to see the Senate exonerate the president,
that will be the climactic moment of Pelosi's career. She is betting the future of the House, and her party's hopes of capturing
the presidency, on the belief that she and her colleagues can persuade the country to support the indictment of a president for high
crimes.
One wonders: do Democrats, blinded by hatred of Trump, ever wonder how that 40 percent of the nation that sees him as the repository
of their hopes will react if, rather than beat him at the ballot box, they remove him in this way?
The first casualty of Pelosi's cause is almost certain to be the front-runner for the party nomination. Joe Biden has already,
this past week, fallen behind Senator Elizabeth Warren in Iowa, New Hampshire, and California. The Quinnipiac poll has her taking
the lead nationally for the nomination, with Biden dropping into second place for the first time since he announced his candidacy.
By making Ukraine the focus of the impeachment drive in the House, Pelosi has also assured that the questionable conduct of Biden
and son Hunter will be front and center for the next four months before Iowa votes.
What did Joe do? By his own admission, indeed his boast, as vice president, he ordered then-Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko
to either fire the prosecutor who was investigating the company that hired Hunter Biden for $50,000 a month or forego a $1 billion
U.S. loan guarantee that Kiev needed to stay current on its debts.
Biden insists the Ukrainian prosecutor was corrupt, that Hunter had done no wrong, that he himself was unaware of his son's business
ties. All these assertions have been contradicted or challenged.
There is another question raised by Biden's ultimatum to Kiev to fire the corrupt prosecutor or forego the loan guarantee. Why
was the U.S. guaranteeing loans to a Kiev regime that had to be threatened with bankruptcy to get it to rid itself of a prosecutor
whom all of Europe supposedly knew to be corrupt?
Whatever the truth of the charges, the problem here is that any investigation of the potential corruption of Hunter Biden, and
of the role of his father, the former vice president, in facilitating it, will be front and center in presidential politics between
now and New Hampshire.
This is bad news for the Biden campaign. And the principal beneficiary of Pelosi's decision that put Joe and Hunter Biden at the
center of an impeachment inquiry is, again, Warren.
Warren already appears to have emerged victorious in her battle with Bernie Sanders to become the progressives' first choice in
2020. And consider how, as she is rising, her remaining opposition is fast fading.
Senator Kamala Harris has said she is moving her campaign to Iowa for a do-or-die stand in the first battleground state. Senator
Cory Booker has called on donors to raise $1.7 million in 10 days, or he will have to pack it in. As Biden, Sanders, Harris, and
Booker fade, and "Mayor Pete" Buttigieg hovers at 5 or 6 percent in national and state polls, Warren steadily emerges as the probable
nominee.
One measure of how deeply Biden is in trouble, whether he is beginning to be seen as too risky, given the allegations against
him and his son, will be the new endorsements his candidacy receives after this week of charges and countercharges.
If there is a significant falling off, it could be fatal.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided
America Forever . To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit
the Creators website at www.creators.com.
They would be, if it were Sanders to get the nomination. Warren's chances are, obviously, better than Biden's - anyone's, save
for complete fringe wackos, are - but, if they really wanted to win, they would need Sanders. Or, even better, Gabbard. But Sanders
is too independent, dangerously so, and Gabbard is an outright enemy of their totalitarian cult. Hence, they pick Warren, who
might be vaaaaaaaaaaguely considered Sanders-lite. But lite is not enough against someone like Trump. Or, even worse for them,
they resort to all possible and impossible machinations to still get Biden nominated. It'll be a screaming mistake, but it's not
excluded at all, given how easily the've just been lured into a trap.
Happened to tune in to Rush Limbaugh yesterday just as he was saying that Pelosi's motivation to spin the wheels was at least
in part to kill two birds with one stone--Trump AND Biden. Mehhh...maybe, but it's been clear from the beginning that the Movers
and Shakers in the Democrat Party have wanted Warren as their standard bearer on the belief that Biden is "yesterday" and that
the rest of the field is either too loony (O'Rourke), nondescript (Booker) or -- potentially -- too corrupt (Harris)..
Warren is the most pro-establishment candidate of all the non-establishment candidates, that is true . Incrowd-lite.
Bernie of course is the big unknown. Will he prevail over Warren?
If this scandal sinks Biden and Trump together, the Dems will come out ahead because they are not committed to Biden as their
nominee. I think Warren will be the biggest net winner. My prediction is that we see an impeachment with the Senate voting on
party lines to acquit. That could still be very damaging to Trump's election chances, if the portion of the public who dislikes
Trump decide that he abused his power.
Roughly 37% of Americans love Trump and will never change their mind. On the other side there are
38% who already supported impeachment based on previous investigations. That leaves 25% of Americans who are likely to be
swayed one way or the other over this. In any case, those 25% are unlikely to be on this website.
The main question, other than whether there is something damning that shows up, is whether the majority of voters think a quid
pro quo is necessary for corruption to be an impeachable offense. It is required in a criminal bribery conviction, but impeachment
isn't a criminal trial. Is the president using a diplomatic call to pressure a foreign government to dig up dirt on his political
rivals something the 25% will be okay with? If they believe the story of Biden's corruption, will they see that as justification
for using a diplomatic talk to push for an investigation into it? Will moderate voters who have a high opinion of Biden from the
his time as Vice President view this as an unfair attack on him or will they change their view of him to match Trump's narrative?
Biden is in a tough spot, because he will be smeared here whether he is guilty or not. Trump is very good as slinging mud to
distract from his actions. And most Americans are very unlikely to parse through the information overload to figure out whether
the fired prosecutor is corrupt, whether the decision to fire him came from Joe or the state department/UK/EU/local protest, whether
Hunter Biden was qualified for the job with his ivy law degree/experience on corp boards/previous consulting experience, and whether
the investigation into Burisma was actuall ongoing when Shokin was fired. Who has time to read through everything and figure out
which side is manufacturing a controversy?
But if Biden decides to go down a Martyr, it wouldn't be difficult for him to take Trump with him.
It'll be interesting to see what the voter turnout will be in 2020. 2016 --one of the most pivotal and controversial elections
in modern times--saw 42% of the electorate stay home. This was a shockingly high numbter, little noted in the press. If you tack
on the 6% who voted for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein, that would mean that 48% of the electorate--nearly half--did NOT vote for
either Trump or Clinton.
These numbers are ominous and do not bode well for the future of this thing of ours.
Well, given that Trump has already released the transcript and Zelensky has already confirmed there were no pressure in their
conversation plus said that Hunter's case is to be investigated by the AG, any impeachment hearings can only be damaging
to those who decide to go further with them, because, as it turns out, there is no basis for such hearings and they were
started a year before the election, showing what those who started them think regarding their own chances to win. If Democrats
want to cut losses, they should stop it now and, using military terms, regroup immediately, nominating Gabbard who consistently
opposed this stillborn impeachment stupidity. But something makes me think they won't. Their visceral hatred to an anti-war candidate
like her is simply too strong.
I think you are missing that Trump's lawyers can subpoena people and drag up a lot of dirt on the Democrats too. I think it can
go both ways.
Still Warren can be tough for Trump. She is not tainted by Clinton. She is a chameleon; will sound sufficiently WASP in New
England and sufficiently woke in California and new York. If Buttgig becomes her sidekick he can get all the gays on-board.
You're missing one thing about Warren: she's a wonk. And she actually has some good ideas alongside the more crazy ones. Even
Tucker Carlson praised her book.
But Warren is an absolute stiff. Zero charisma. Like Kerry or Gore on their very worst day. And in this day and age, where
the only thing that counts for the overwhelming majority of low information voters are soundbites and how telegenic you come off
in a debate, someone like Trump will chew her up and spit her out for breakfast.
Warren? OK. I don't see how she could be any worse than Trump. Plus, we might not feel like we were snorkeling in a cesspool all
the time, like we do now.
Literally every progressive I know save one is team Warren. I think there might be an age divide. Progressives under thirty are
more likely to be for Sanders, and over thirty for Warren.
I have no idea what will happen with the election. But if Trump wins it after the Dems have done nothing for four years except
impeach him - every day is going to be like Christmas.
I sincerely hope that Trump is right in thinking that Biden is his biggest threat, because this affair is going to ensure Warren
is the nominee. I think a lot of proggy Dems know this as well, which partly explains their enthusiasm for impeachment at this
particular moment (not that they haven't been itching for this since November 8, 2016).
I agree Biden and Bernie are toast but Warren is far from a sure thing. Of all the democratic candidates Tulsi is the most attractive
in more ways than one and I could see Tulsi appealing to the many Trump voters who voted for him because he claimed to be non-interventionist
only to discover he is a war-pig like the rest of them. Imagine Tulsi in a debate with Trump! If not Tulsi I would bet another
high profile Dem will enter the race because Warren is un-electable and I would not be surprised to see Hillary get in the race
at the last minute. American's love re-matches and come-back stories.
In breaking news: Pelosi has just revealed who was behind all this. It's Cardinal Richelieu Russians again.
Does the girl even understand that, by saying so, she's, basically, stating that she's the chief Russian agent out there, because
she was the one who initiated that freak show?
Jesus Harold Christ, what a travelling circus. And this passes for a parliament these days.
Ukrainegate is Watergate in reverse. The farcical impeachment unintentionally acts as a foil, amplifying the significance of the
Ukraine stories in the press (John Solomon, Andrew McCarthy) which reveal a culture of corruption and venality permeating the
Democratic leadership: the Clintons, the Bidens, the DNC, the current Democratic caucus, and the entire deep state remnants of
the obama administration. We haven't seen election interference like this since the Watergate break-in and coverup. This impeachment
is the coup-de-grâce of the Democratic Party not just Biden. The Democrat faithful now have a choice between Scylla and Charybdis
- self-proclaimed socialists with a tenuous hold on reality, or the discredited establishment. As an old-school Democrat, I can
only hope that Trump buries them in 2020, so that the Democrats finally get the message and return to their pre-Clinton roots.
It is insane to pursue impeachment this late in a divisive President's mandate. The Democrats should spend their efforts selecting
a moderate nominee that doesn't show signs of cognitive decline (Only candidate that matches these requirements is Tulsi Gabbard.
) rather than make Trump a "victim" in the eyes of many.
Drama Don is doing a good enough job himself to make sure that the Democrats win in 2020. "Trump fatigue" is going to be the
most used expression next fall if Trump runs. If Trump is pushed out before the election, the Republicans may choose a charismatic
new nominee who actually has a chance to win in 2020. The biggest asset that the Democrats have in 2020 is Trump.
Somebody, somewhere, had decided that Democrats stand little chance with Biden, because he is so old and gaffe prone. So they
have put their money on Warren. Warren will choose Buttigieg as VP candidate, primarily because they want all that gay billionaire
money flowing in. At the same time, they tick the SJW boxes -woman, gay candidates, so the left will love them. The fix is in.
Hence the stupid "impeachment " controversy, which is obviously a sham to knock Biden out.
I voted for Trump, not as a Republican because I despise both political parties. I voted for him based on the need for a nationalist
trade policy, and especially because I was so against the TPP --and President Trump rewarded me for that vote his first week in
office by pulling the US out of TPP negotiations. Also I have great respect for you, Mr. Buchanan, and learned much from the 3
of your books I've read and recommended to others. But it looks like President Trump has been using his office for personal political
gain, so I am sorry to admit I support the impeachment investigation to bring the facts to light and make a judgement of whether
it is true he used the office to solicit a foreign country to help undermine his political opponent. But even before this, I'd
decided I will not vote for him again, mainly because I have become alarmed at the looming climate crisis, and believe we need
urgent policy towards full decarbonization of the global energy economy. But that doesn't motivate me to support the impeachment
inquiry, a path I hate and regret...but it seems there is no other way to demand the President not abuse his office and manipulate
foreign governments to help his political career. That is no patriot, that is corrupt and an embarrassment to our nation.
"...effect a coup against a president many of them have never seen as legitimate and have sought to bring down since before he
took the oath of office."
Every single word of that describes the Republicans in Congress during the eight years Obama was president. Every single syllable.
Remember that birth certificate? And remember that Dick Tracy villain, Pocket-Neck McConnell, an excrescence that still infects
us, standing up and actually saying, with a straight face, "Our ONLY goal is to make Obama a one-term president." Never mind an
economy that was in free-fall, right Mitch? Or a couple of bothersome wars going on?
And what about how, for the very first time in history, Standard and Poor's downgraded America's credit rating, all because
of completely meaningless Republican obstruction about the debt ceiling? And when I say completely meaningless, I mean completely
meaningless. Now, under Trump, the deficit is approaching a trillion, and those very same Republicans couldn't give a hoot.
It's all in the great 2012 book, It's Even Worse Than it Looks, by Ornstein and Mann. We've had partisanship and gridlock before.
But what was new is how the Republicans behaved under Obama: they treated him as completely illegitimate from the word go, and
absolutely refused to work with him under any and all circumstances. The stimulus, which by the way saved the entire world economy
from complete meltdown, didn't get a single Republican vote.
But Republicans can feel proud of one thing: their disgusting, scorched-earth, win-at-all-costs tactics are now business-as-usual
in Washington. Probably for all time. Nice going, guys.
Warren is the best candidate to defeat Trump. She is super smart ,honest and works hard as heck for the non 1% to get more of
a fair shake. If she softens her hard left positions she could be a great candidate
I assume most here are sick of hearing about it further today.
I enjoy speculating on what Speaker Pelosi might do with the results of the Impeachment
Inquiry by the House.
Assumption: The House finds grounds for Impeaching Trump and hands it to Pelosi.
What will she do or rather what can she do?
She can have the full House vote to Impeach and march the Articles over to the Senate.
She can have the House Censure Trump, not vote to Impeach, and go no further at this time.
That brings Trump's crimes to light, but saves the country from a Political Trial in the
Senate, that won't convict Trump.
She can hold the Committee's report for review and not go forward until and unless she
see's the POLITICAL need.
She can, IMO, have the House vote Articles of Impeachment and then HOLD them in the House
waiting to take them to the Senate at a much later date of her choice or never.
The Senate cannot act until the Speaker delivers the Articles of Impeachment. No where
does the Constitution declare WHEN those Articles, once voted, must be delivered, only that
they are to be.
She can set a new precedent if she desires. Who can stop her?
This would allow the Articles to float over Trump's head - and the Re-Election campaign
serving to restrain Trump, like a cudgel over his head - preventing or at least limiting more
of Trump's outrageous unconstitutional and illegal acts in Office until Election 2020.
Simultaneously this would allow The House to continue its multiple investigations of
Trump, including the IRS Whistle Blower complaint, further checking Trump, and even to open
more investigations into Trump's abuse of Office, e.g., his use of AG Barr on Ukraine/Biden
as well as investigations of AG Barr pursuing Ukraine/Biden.
Not to mention other investigations into Trump including NY's pursuit of Trump's Tax
Returns, which could well be as revealing as the Ukraine phone call transcript.
So, while today was interesting in D.C., the future is far more so, imho.
1. Biden is now a zombie and has less then zero changes to beat Trump. Even if nothing
explosive will be revealed by Ukraine-gate, this investigation hangs like albatross around
his neck. Each shot at Trump will ricochet into Biden. Add to this China and the best he can
do is to leave the race and claim unfair play.
2. Trump now probably will be reelected on the wave of indignation toward Corporate Dems
new witch hunt. People stopped believing neoliberal MSM around 2015, so now neolibs no longer
have the leverage they get used to. And by launching Ukraine-gate after Russiagate they
clearly overplayed their hand losing critical mass of independents (who previously were ready
to abandon Trump_
3. If unpleasant facts about neolib/neocon machinations to launch Ukraine-gate leak via
alternative press via disgruntled DNC operatives or some other insiders who are privy to the
relevant discussions in the Inner Party, they will poison/destroy the chances of any Dem
candidate be it Warren or anybody else. Joining this witch hunt greatly damages standing of
Warren exposing her as a mediocre, malleable politician ( unlike Tulsi )
4. Instead of running on policy issues the Democrats again tried to find vague dirt with
which they can tarnish Trump. This is a huge political mistake which exposes them as
political swindlers.
Neolib/neocon in Democratic Party from now on will be viewed as "The Children of
Lieutenant Schmidt" (a fictional society of swindlers from the 1931 classic "The Little
Golden Calf" by Ilf and Petrov).
I would say that Pelosi might now be able to understand better the situation in which
Wasserman-Shultz had found herself in 2016 and resign.
IMHO this is a king of zugzwang for neoliberal Dems. There is no good exit from this
situation.
After two years of falsely accusing Trump to have colluded with Russia they now allege
that he colluded with Ukraine.
In addition to overpaying their hand that makes it more difficult for the Democrats to
hide their critical role in creating and promoting Russiagate.
Here is one post from MA which tries to analyse this situation:
== quote ==
nil , Sep 25 2019 19:37 utc | 24
I think what's going in the brain trust of the DNC is something like this:
i. Biden is a non-starter with the public. He'll be devoured alive by the Republicans, who
only need to bring up his career to expose his mendacity.
ii. Warren might be co-opted, having been a Republican and fiscal conservative up to the
mid-90s, but what if she isn't?
iii. Sanders is a non-starter, but with the "people who matter". Rather than having to
threaten him with the suspicions around his wife, or go for the JFK solution, they'd rather
[make that] he didn't even get past the primaries, much less elected.
iv. As a CNN talking head said weeks ago, it's better for the wealthy people the DNC is
beholden to that their own candidate loses to Trump if that candidate is Sanders.
So better to hedge their bets start impeachment hearings, give Trump ammunition to destroy
Sanders or Warren. That way, the rich win in all scenarios:
a. If Biden wins the nomination, the campaign will be essentially mudslinging from both
sides about who is more corrupt. The rich are fine with whoever wins.
b. If Warren gets the nomination and is co-opted, the media will let the impeachment
hearings die out, or the House themselves will quickly bury it.
c. If Warren gets the nomination and is not co-opted, or if Sanders get it, the
impeachment will suck up all the air of the room, Trump will play the witchhunt card and will
be re-elected.
That's a very good idea to concentrate on your job instead of some fluff, or worse, criminal
activity.
Millions of dollars, millions of manhours of political discourse and newsmedia coverage,
were wasted on Russiagate. That's a typical "control fraud." Control fraud occurs when a
trusted person in a high position of responsibility in a company, corporation, or state
subverts the organization and engages in extensive fraud (in this case a witch hunt) for
personal gain.
Those hours could have been used researching and discussing country foreign policy,
economic policy, healthcare policy, industrial policy, environment policy and other important
for this nation topics.
Instead the Dems chased a ghost (and they knew that this a ghost) for 3 years and now
Pelosi have just signaled that they will spend the next 6 months chasing another ghost --
trying to impeach Trump for his attempt to re-launch (in his trademark clumsy, bulling way)
investigating Joe Biden's family corruption in Ukraine. Action which is in full compliance
with The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 (FCPA)
During the last two years there were actions of Trump that probably deserved launching
impeachment proceeding. For example, attempt of regime change in Venezuela. But neoliberal
Dems were fully on board with that. So the main loss which this bunch of swindlers can't
settle with is the the loss in their ability to defraud the country: I feel that the
neoliberal Democrats' real problem with Trump is that he ended their scheme of defrauding the
country in favor of his own.
Now with this Ukraine-gate scandal the US voters have, in effect, are being defrauded by a
group of the same sophisticated political swindlers that ruled the county during Clinton and
Obama administrations.
"Instead of running on policy issues the Democrats again tried to find vague dirt with
which they can tarnish Trump."
If Warren is nominated she can run on dirt because she does not have the sewage history.
If she runs on policy people will remember that she will fce 20 million families who got a
$500/month Obamacare tax. These are the families that cost Dems four elections. She should
not mention medicare at all, once she has the nomination.
Impeachment is what happens when a President has sex and lies about it. So it has become
meaningless, thanks to Repubs.
If I were Trump, I would take the impeachment and run with it. Trump will claim he got
impeached because he was hunting for Biden sewage, and there is no Biden, thanks to the
impeachment. His team agrees, take the impeachment and run with it.
Who liked Biden? None of the young turks, they want Biden out as badly as they want Trump
out. I just have this feeling, Biden is a gonner, sort of a bipartisan play if you ask
me.
For The First Time, Warren Beats Out Biden For No. 1 Spot In National Poll
--
Biden gone. Harris gone. Pete gone. Beto gone. It is between Bernie and Liz. Both of whom
will be telling 10 million families that health care is free and they will not get hit with a
$500/month tax. Problem is, voters regret on this is lifelong, a ot of voters, right here in
this blog, think Obamacare was deceptive. But these same voters now put the cost on the
federal debt machine, courtesy of Trump, and they prefer that.
Trump wins as long as there is no blue bar and Repubs avoid mass shootings in Florida or
Texas. We, this group and our favorite economists have lost credibility on medical
programs.
As I reported on the previous thread, Sanders endorsed the impeachment proceedings in a
tweet I linked to and cited. Gabbard is apparently the only D-Party candidate that said this
decision is a mistake.
This article about her stance is actually balanced. Citing her recent interview by
FOXNews :
"'I have been consistent in saying that I believe that impeachment in this juncture would
be terribly divisive for our country at a time when we are already extremely divided,'
Gabbard explained. 'Hyper-partisanship is one of the things that's driving our country
apart.'
"'I think it's important to defeat Donald Trump. That's why I'm running for president, but
I think it's the American people who need to make their voices heard, making that decision,'
she said.
"Regardless of how you feel about Gabbard, you have to give her credit on this front.
America is extremely divided today and politicians in Washington play into that. The
impeachment saga is a prime example of their role in this division ." [My Emphasis]
When one digs deeper into the forces Gabbard's attacking, she's the most patriotic one of
the entire bunch, including the Rs. I haven't looked at her election websites recently, but
from what I see of her campaign appearances, her and Sanders seem to be sharing each other's
policy proposals, although they both choose to place more emphasis on some than others. For
Gabbard, its the wonton waste and corruption of the Empire that keeps good things from being
done for all citizens at home, whereas Sanders basically inverts the two.
Sanders is spend force in any case. His endorsement does not matter much. But for Warren this
is a blunder. Tulsi is the only one out of this troika who proved to be capable politician.
As I reported on the previous thread, Sanders endorsed the impeachment proceedings in a
tweet I linked to and cited. Gabbard is apparently the only D-Party candidate that said this
decision is a mistake.
This article about her stance is actually balanced. Citing her recent interview by
FOXNews :
"'I have been consistent in saying that I believe that impeachment in this juncture would
be terribly divisive for our country at a time when we are already extremely divided,'
Gabbard explained. 'Hyper-partisanship is one of the things that's driving our country
apart.'
"'I think it's important to defeat Donald Trump. That's why I'm running for president, but
I think it's the American people who need to make their voices heard, making that decision,'
she said.
"Regardless of how you feel about Gabbard, you have to give her credit on this front.
America is extremely divided today and politicians in Washington play into that. The
impeachment saga is a prime example of their role in this division ." [My Emphasis]
When one digs deeper into the forces Gabbard's attacking, she's the most patriotic one of
the entire bunch, including the Rs. I haven't looked at her election websites recently, but
from what I see of her campaign appearances, her and Sanders seem to be sharing each other's
policy proposals, although they both choose to place more emphasis on some than others. For
Gabbard, its the wonton waste and corruption of the Empire that keeps good things from being
done for all citizens at home, whereas Sanders basically inverts the two.
"... Meanwhile, greed -- once best known for its place on the list of Seven Deadly Sins -- became a point of pride for Wall Street's Masters of the Universe. With a sophisticated smile, the rallying cry of the rich and fashionable became "1 got mine -- the rest of you are on your own." ..."
And yet America's policies were headed in the wrong direction. The big banks kept lobbying Congress to pass a bill that would
gut families' last refuge in the bankruptcy courts -- the same bill we describe in this book. (It went by the awful name Bankruptcy
Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act, but it should have been called the Gut the Safety Net and Pay OIT the Big Banks Act.).
The proposed law would carefully preserve bankruptcy protections for the likes of Donald Trump and his friends, while ordinary families
that had been crushed by debts from medical problems or job losses were thrown under the bus.
When we wrote The Two-Income Trap, it was already pretty clear that the big banks would win this battle. The fight kept going
for two more years, but the tide of blame-the-unlucky combined with relentless lobbying and campaign contributions finally overwhelmed
Congress.
In 2005, the Wall Street banking industry got the changes they wanted, and struggling families lost out. After the law was rewritten,
about 800,000 families a year that once would have turned to bankruptcy to try to get back on their feet were shut out of the system.1
That was 800,000 families -- mostly people who had lost jobs, suffered a medical catastrophe, or gone through a divorce or death
in the family. And now, instead of reorganizing their finances and building some security, they were at the mercy of debt collectors
who called twenty or thirty times a day -- and could keep on calling and calling for as long as they thought they could squeeze another
nickel from a desperate family.
As it turned out, the new law tore a big hole in the last safety net for working families, just in time for the Great Recession.
Meanwhile, the bank regulators kept playing blind and deaf while the housing bubble inflated. Once it burst, the economy collapsed.
The foreclosure problem we flagged back in 2003 rolled into a global economic meltdown by 2008, as millions of people lost their
homes, and millions more lost their jobs, their savings, and their chance at a secure retirement. Overall, the total cost of the
crash was estimated as high as S14 trillion.2
Meanwhile, America's giant banks got bailed out, CEO pay shot up, the stock market roared back, and the investor class got rich
beyond even their own fevered dreams.3
A generation ago, a fortune-teller might have predicted a very different future. With so many mothers headed into the workforce,
Americans might have demanded a much heavier investment in public day care, extended school days, and better family leave policies.
Equal pay for equal work might have become sacrosanct. As wages stagnated, there might have been more urgency for raising the minimum
wage, strengthening unions, and expanding Social Security. And our commitment to affordable college and universal preschool might
have become unshakeable.
But the political landscape was changing even faster than the new economic realities. Government was quickly becoming an object
of ridicule, even to the president of the United States. Instead of staking his prestige on making government more accountable and
efficient, Ronald Reagan repeated his famous barb "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are Tin from the government
and I'm here to help."'8 After generations of faithfulness to the promise of the Constitution to promote general welfare, at the
moment when the economic foundations of the middle class began to tremble, our efforts to strengthen each other and offer a helping
hand had become the butt of a national joke.
Those who continued to believe in what we could do together faced another harsh reality: much of government had been hijacked
by the rich and powerful. Regulators who were supposed to watch out for the public interest shifted their loyalties, smiling benignly
as giant banks jacked up short-term profits by cheating families, looking the other way as giant power companies scam mod customers,
and partying with industry executives as oil companies cut comers on safety and environmental rules. In this book we told one of
those stories, about how a spineless Congress rewrote the bankruptcy laws to enrich a handful of credit card companies.
Meanwhile, greed -- once best known for its place on the list of Seven Deadly Sins -- became a point of pride for Wall Street's
Masters of the Universe. With a sophisticated smile, the rallying cry of the rich and fashionable became "1 got mine -- the rest
of you are on your own."
These shifts played nicely into each other. Every' attack on "big government" meant families lost an ally, and the rules tilted
more and These shifts played nicely into each other. Every attack on "big government" meant families lost an ally, and the rules
tilted more and more in favor of those who could hire armies of lobbyists and lawyers. Lower taxes for the wealthy -- and more money
in the pockets of those who subscribed to the greed-is-good mantra. And if the consequence meant less money for preschools or public
colleges or disability coverage -- the things that would create more security for an overstretched middle class -- then that was
just too bad.
Little by little, as the middle class got deeper and deeper in trouble, government stopped working for the middle class, or at
least it stopped working so hard. The rich paid a little less and kept a little more. Even if they didn't say it in so many words,
they got exactly what they wanted. Remember the 90 percent -- America's middle class, working class, and poor -- the ones who got
70 percent of all income growth from 1935 through 1980?
From 1980-2014, the 90 percent got nothing.9 None. Zero. Zip. Not a penny in income growth. Instead, for an entire generation,
the top 10 percent captured all of the income growth in the entire country. l(X) percent.
It didn't have to be this way. The Two-Income Trap is about families that w'ork hard, but some things go wrong along the way --
illnesses and job losses, and maybe some bad decisions. But this isn't what has put the middle class on the ropes. After all, people
have gotten sick and lost jobs and made less-than-perfect decisions for generations -- and vet, for generations America's middle
class expanded. creating more opportunity to build real economic security and pass on a brighter future to their children.
What would it take to help strengthen the middle class? The problems facing the middle-class family are complex and far-reaching,
and the solutions must be too. We wish there could be a simple silver bullet, but after a generation of relentless assault, there
just isn't. But there is one overriding idea. Together we can. It's time to say it out loud: a generation of I-got-mine policy-making
has failed -- failed miserably, completely, and overwhelmingly. And it's time to change direction before the entire middle class
has been replaced by hundreds of millions of Americans barely hanging on by their fingernails.
Americas middle class was built through investments in education, infrastructure, and research -- and by' making sure we all have
a safety net. We need to strengthen those building blocks: Step up investments in public education. Rein in the cost of college and
cut out- standing student loans. Create universal preschool and affordable child care. Upgrade infrastructure -- mass transit, energy,
communications -- to make it more attractive to build good, middle-class jobs here in America. Recognize that the modem economy can
be perilous, and a strong safety net is needed now more than ever. Strengthen disability coverage, retirement coverage, and paid
sick leave. And for heavens sake, get rid of the awful banker-backed bankruptcy law, so that when things go wrong, families at least
have a chance at a fresh start. We welcome the re-issue of The Two-Income Trap because we see the original book as capturing a critical
moment, those last few minutes in which the explanation of why so many hardworking, plav-by- tho-mlcs people were in so much trouble
was simple: It was their own fault. If only they would just pull up their socks, cinch their belts a little tighter, and stop buying
so much stuff, they -- and our country -- would be just fine. That myth has died. And we say', good riddance.
"... The conservative movement's unwholesome obsession with Israel is not an entirely organic obsession to be sure. There is a whole lot of dark kosher oligarch money lurking behind the neoconservative cause, Christian Zionism, and the Reagan/Zioboomer battalion ..."
"... there is something awfully peculiar, almost disturbing about the old guard's infatuation with Israel. I mean, why are American boomers so concerned about the Jewish state and its survival? How exactly does a tiny apartheidesque ethnostate half-way around the world affect their everyday lives? Are they simply mind-slaves to a mainstream media dominated by powerful Jews and powerful Jewish interest groups? Is this all really about scripture as Christian radio likes to contend? Or is there something else afoot here? Well, in short, there is. ..."
"... White Westerners, white Americans in particular, are a thoroughly vassalized, deracinated people. We aren't allowed to celebrate our own race's host of historic accomplishments anymore. That would be racist. We aren't allowed to put our own people first either, as all other peoples do. That would likewise be racist. White Western peoples aren't even allowed to have nations of our own any longer, nations which exist to advance our interests, and which are populated by and overseen by people like us, who share our interests and our attitudes. That also would be, you guessed it, racist. Our very existence is increasingly little more than an unfortunate, racist obstacle to a brighter, more diverse future, in the eyes of the Cultural Marxist sociopaths who rule the Western World. Needless to say, most white Americans would rather be dead than racist, and so we are naturally, quite literally dying as a result. ..."
"... The white American psyche has been tamed, broken as it were. Ziocucking is a symptom of that psychic injury. ..."
"... White Americans can not, they must not, stake claim to an identity or a future of their own, so they have essentially committed themselves to another people's identity and future instead of their own. ..."
"... Actually, Donald Trump's electoral victory is at least partially attributable to a very similar psychological phenomenon. White Americans, who have largely lost the self-confidence to stand behind their traditions and convictions, still had the gumption to vote for a man who possesses in oodles and cringy oodles, the self-same self-confidence they lack. White Americans are thus engaged in an almost unstated, indirect, vicarious defiance of Cultural Marxism via Trump/Trumpism, a tangible, albeit somewhat incoherent, symbol of open revolt against Western elites. The repressed group will of whites is longing for an authentic medium of civilizational expression, but can only find two-bit demagoguery and Israel worship. The weather is not fair in the white, Western mind. ..."
"... After all, the birthrates of Jews in Israel are at well above replacement level . Israelis are optimistic about the future. As whites in the West fall on their proverbial sword to atone for their racist past, Jews in Israel are thriving. ..."
"... that unwholesome obsession will not dissipate until whites reclaim their own history, rediscover their roots, learn to take their own side, and demand a place in the planet's future (yes, I said demand , ..."
"... Until whites have a story and a spirit of their own, they will only, and can only, live through the identities and triumphs of other races. And perhaps most critically, they will continue to be a ghost people on the march to extinction. ..."
The conservative movement's unwholesome obsession with Israel is not an entirely organic
obsession to be sure. There is a whole lot of dark kosher oligarch money lurking behind the
neoconservative cause, Christian Zionism, and the Reagan/Zioboomer battalion. Nevertheless,
whether organic or not, the boomer generation's excessive regard for Israel is today authentic
and undeniable. A strong fealty to Israel is deeply entrenched amongst boomer-generation
conservatives. Indeed, when it comes to defending Israel and its conduct, many of these types
are like samurais on meth. They don't seem to care at all if their entire state or city should
devolve into a semi-anarchic New Somalia, but god forbid some Somali congresswoman should
lambaste the sacred Jewish state. That simply can't be countenanced here in the land of the
free!
Mind you, this article is not meant to constitute a polemic against Israel, or Jewish
ethnopolitics for that matter. The BDS movement is just as wrongheaded as Ziocuckoldry, in my
humble opinion. Although there is much wrong with Israel, there is plenty right with it as
well. Despite what the modern left may believe, there is nothing inherently illegitimate about
a state like Israel, one rooted in history, in genes, in religion, and in race. States built
around a shared ethnicity or a shared religion (or, as in Israel's case, an ample helping of
both) are generally more stable and successful than diverse societies erected upon propositions
most people and peoples don't really accept, or leftist values that have ideological quicksand
for their foundations.
With that said, there is something awfully peculiar, almost disturbing about the old guard's infatuation with Israel. I
mean, why are American boomers so concerned about the Jewish state and its survival? How exactly does a tiny apartheidesque ethnostate half-way around the world
affect their everyday lives? Are they simply mind-slaves to a mainstream media dominated by
powerful Jews and powerful Jewish interest groups? Is this all really about scripture as
Christian radio likes to contend? Or is there something else afoot here? Well, in short, there
is.
White Westerners, white Americans in particular, are a thoroughly vassalized, deracinated
people. We aren't allowed to celebrate our own race's host of historic accomplishments anymore.
That would be racist. We aren't allowed to put our own people first either, as all other
peoples do. That would likewise be racist. White Western peoples aren't even allowed to have
nations of our own any longer, nations which exist to advance our interests, and which are
populated by and overseen by people like us, who share our interests and our attitudes. That
also would be, you guessed it, racist. Our very existence is increasingly little more than an
unfortunate, racist obstacle to a brighter, more diverse future, in the eyes of the Cultural
Marxist sociopaths who rule the Western World. Needless to say, most white Americans would
rather be dead than racist, and so we are naturally, quite literally dying as a result.
The white American psyche has been tamed, broken as it were. Ziocucking is a symptom of that
psychic injury. Because white boomers possess no group/tribal identity any longer, or
collective will, or sense of race pride, or civilizational prospects, because they have been enserfed by a viciously anti-white Cultural Marxist overclass, they have opted to live
vicariously through another race. White Americans can not, they must not, stake claim to an
identity or a future of their own, so they have essentially committed themselves to another
people's identity and future instead of their own. Indeed, just as the cuckold doesn't
merely permit another man to penetrate his wife, but actually takes a kind of perverse pleasure
in the pleasure of that other man, in large measure by fetishizing his dominance and sexual
prowess, the Ziocuck likewise doesn't merely allow his civilization to be debased, he takes an
equally perverse pleasure in the triumphs of other peoples and nations, and by so doing
imagines, mistakenly of course, that America itself is still as free and proud a nation as
those foreign nations he fetishizes.
Actually, Donald Trump's electoral victory is at least partially attributable to a very
similar psychological phenomenon. White Americans, who have largely lost the self-confidence to
stand behind their traditions and convictions, still had the gumption to vote for a man who
possesses in oodles and cringy oodles, the self-same self-confidence they lack. White Americans
are thus engaged in an almost unstated, indirect, vicarious defiance of Cultural Marxism via
Trump/Trumpism, a tangible, albeit somewhat incoherent, symbol of open revolt against Western
elites. The repressed group will of whites is longing for an authentic medium of civilizational
expression, but can only find two-bit demagoguery and Israel worship. The weather is not fair
in the white, Western mind.
Through this sordid, vicarious identitarianism, threats to Jewish lives become threats to
their own white lives. Jewish interests become tantamount to their own interests. It is a sad
sight to behold anyhow, a people with no sense of dignity or shame, too cowed by political
correctness to stand up for their own group interests, too brainwashed to love themselves, too
reprogrammed to be themselves, idolizing alien peoples. Nevertheless, the need for belonging in
place, time, and history, and for collective purpose, doesn't just go away because Western
elites say being white signifies nothing but "hate". As white civilization aborts and hedonizes
itself into extinction, as whites practice suicidal altruism and absolute racial denialism,
atomized white individuals seek out other histories, other stories, other peoples to attach
themselves to and project themselves onto.
White Americans have thus foolishly come to see their own destiny as inseparable from the
destiny of a people whose destiny they don't really share.
After all, the birthrates of Jews in Israel are at well above replacement level .
Israelis are optimistic
about the future. As whites in the West fall on their proverbial sword to atone for their
racist past, Jews in Israel are thriving.
As whites in America suffer from various epidemics of despair , their fellow white
Americans seem more interested in the imaginary plight of Israelis who can't stop winning
military skirmishes, embarrassing their Arab enemies, and unlawfully acquiring land and
resources in the Levant. The actual, visceral plight of their own people seems almost an
afterthought to most white Americans. The whole affair is frankly bizarre and shameful.
This peculiar psychological phenomenon of vicarious identitarianism is at least partially
responsible for the Zioboomer's undying devotion to Israel. Furthermore, that unwholesome
obsession will not dissipate until whites reclaim their own history, rediscover their roots,
learn to take their own side, and demand a place in the planet's future (yes, I said
demand , since the white race's many enemies have no intention of saving a place for
them or willingly handing them a say in that future). Until whites have a story and a spirit of
their own, they will only, and can only, live through the identities and triumphs of other
races. And perhaps most critically, they will continue to be a ghost people on the march to
extinction.
A related phenomenon is Russia-cucking. White American conservatives who have seen through
Jewish bullshit often seem to conclude that the racial predicament in America is hopeless, so
they switch to Russia-cucking. Being pro-Russia is obviously more sensible than being
pro-Israel, but it's nationalism by proxy all the same.
"... Tulsi is the only Democrat who has her head screwed tight on her shoulders. As for the rest of that clown show---God help us!! ..."
"... Russia Gate 2.0 ..."
"... The Ukrainian gas HoldCo gave Hunter Biden a no-show job that paid $600K a year. They could have hired dozen of Yale Law grads for less. ..."
"... Kind of sad we Americans after two years of Russia gate will be dragged through a new political ploy. Our intelligence community and the DOJ need come clean and quick. ..."
"... The transcript of Trump's call to the Ukrainian president is out. There is absolutely no mention of anything close to a quid pro quo. ..."
"... "Repeat after me: the President should not demand foreign powers investigate his political rivals." How about Senate Democrats, Hillary Clinton, the DNC? Do you have a problem with them soliciting, even paying cash, to foreigners to investigate Trump? How about spying? Do you have a problem with one party using U.S. intelligence to spy on another party's nominee? ..."
"... This time - played into showing an utter electoral weakness by demanding an impeachment with no grounds for such a year before an election they, according to their screams on every corner, are "poised to win". Uncool, bros and sises, uncooool... ..."
"... The only mildly critical observation as to how exactly Trump played the said fiddle is that it would have been a tad better had he taken his time and waited for some days. ..."
"... The Democrats have hitched their train to the impeachment star not with impeachment per se as the goal. ..."
"... Just dragging us through this execrable process will achieve what they want nicely, i.e., disrupting possible Trump progress on his policy initiatives ( such as they are ), and weakening his electoral chances amongst the incorrigibly indecisive segment of American voters at the margin. Fighting corruption with corruption has now become the norm in Washington, D.C. ..."
I agree with Tulsi Gabbard - an impeachment at this time serves no point. It also discounts
the value of voting Democrat. This act may hand the White House to Trump for another 4
years. One can only hope that a Tusi G can arise and become our next president. The rest of
the team are basically knee jerk politicians waiting for the lobbies to instruct.
If Democrats weren't fanatically determined to prevent her from arising at all costs, she
could become the president already in a year. She can realiably beat any Republican aside
from Rand Paul, who isn't much more loved within his party than she within hers. One can
only wonder why the Democratic establishment hates her so much. Not a member of the Cult?
Better losing on and on and on than allowing an anti-war candidate to get the nomination?
Collective political manifestation of Freudian death wish?
"I hope with all of my soul, and with respect for those like Ellsberg, Manning, and
Snowden, that this whistleblower proves worthy to stand next to them. And God help him and
our country if not."
So, Democrats have done just what he wanted them to do - started a miserable (and a doomed,
given that the Senate is in Republican hands) circus instead of actually campaigning with
their voters, while also riling his ones. But thanks, team D, for showing what your
candidates' chances to get elected really are. Has been no secret to me that those chances
are illusory, but thanks for making the thing official anyways. Starting a stillborn
attempt to depose a president, against whom you, in your fantasy world, are "poised to win"
in a year, is the best testimony of how toast you are in the said fantasy world's real
counterpart. Attacongressboys and attacongressgirls. Take some metaphorical cookies from
the metaphorical jar.
The only sad thing is that you're sullying the notion of whistleblower with a clown,
who, most probably, doesn't even exist. The whole thing is actually your petty revenge
against Snowden, who has just released his new book, ain't it? Low.
"Remember, he knows what was said and the Dems demanding impeachment do not."
Exactly and the Dems are setting themselves up for another public disaster thus handing
Trump his reelection. Anyway Biden is history and he should withdraw immediately. Fighting
this losing battle will only invoke the well deserved wrath of justice.
Looks to me that Trump is turning the tables on the democrats and they are in for a
world of hurt when the investigations and indictments start rolling now.
Kind of sad we Americans after two years of Russia gate will be dragged through a new
political ploy. Our intelligence community and the DOJ need come clean and quick.
The transcript of Trump's call to the Ukrainian president is out. There is absolutely no
mention of anything close to a quid pro quo. Trump asks the president to take calls from
Bill Barr and Giuliani to talk about corruption broadly. Biden's son is also included in
what they'll talk about. It is all very high-level, general, surface talk. If Dems want to
try and impeach on this, it is a long shot at best.
https://fm.cnbc.com/applica...
"Repeat after me: the President should not demand foreign powers investigate his political
rivals."
How about Senate Democrats, Hillary Clinton, the DNC? Do you have a problem with them soliciting, even paying cash, to foreigners to
investigate Trump? How about spying? Do you have a problem with one party using U.S. intelligence to spy on
another party's nominee?
I'll repeat after you once you clarify your position on those things. But if you're not
consistent, why should I?
The transcript released has Trump asking for an investigation of Biden and Biden's son
explicitly. Then it emphasizes how "very good" to the Ukraine the U.S. has been and how the
relationship "has not always been reciprocal".
At the time of the call the president was holding back hundreds of millions of dollars
in Ukranian aid. How dumb do you have to be to not interpret this as a gangsta time of quid-pro-quo
attempt?
The whole whistle blower report should be released.
The Demos have no real choice but to start an impeachment query as their voters will
interpret not doing this as clear cowardice and moral spinelessness. They know the
impeachment won't succeed.
So, looks like "some" folks have been played like a fiddle all over again. This time -
played into showing an utter electoral weakness by demanding an impeachment with no grounds
for such a year before an election they, according to their screams on every corner, are
"poised to win". Uncool, bros and sises, uncooool...
The only mildly critical observation as to how exactly Trump played the said fiddle is
that it would have been a tad better had he taken his time and waited for some days.
Nothing practical - the situation served its purpose fairly and squarely - but it would be
such a cute circus, and wailings would be so much louder if everything fell apart just a
little bit later. But maybe he just doesn't like the circus. De gustibus non est
disputandum , though.
Whoa, there cowboys and indigenous peoples! The Democrats have hitched their train to the
impeachment star not with impeachment per se as the goal.
Just dragging us through this
execrable process will achieve what they want nicely, i.e., disrupting possible Trump
progress on his policy initiatives ( such as they are ), and weakening his electoral
chances amongst the incorrigibly indecisive segment of American voters at the margin.
Fighting corruption with corruption has now become the norm in Washington, D.C.
It's sort of the long game, with a hint of the "Hail Mary" pass thrown in for good
measure. They know what they're up to. But, as the author says, it just might backfire.
They may overplay their hand. Or make one of the two classic blunders.
Vizzini: "Ha-ha, you fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders, the most
famous of which is 'Never get involved in a land war in Asia,' but only slightly less well
known is this: 'Never go in against a Sicilian, when death is on the line!'"
Minor quibbles aside -- Warren presumably doesn't derive most of her income from capital
owner-ship, and markets are compatible with socialism -- the
Massachusetts senator is right. She and Sanders draw their lineage from distinct political
traditions.
Warren is a regulator at heart who believes that capitalism works well as long as fair
competition exists; Sanders is a class-conscious tribune who sees capitalism as fundamentally unjust . Warren
frames her most ambitious reforms as bids to make capitalism " accountable
"; Sanders pushes legislation called the "
Stop BEZOS Act " and denounces ceos for exploiting
workers . Warren seeks a harmonious accord between workers and employers; Sanders
encourages workers to fight back.
Foreign policy differences spring from their respective traditions as well. While both are
suspicious of military interventionism, Vermont's junior senator has shown himself much more
willing to criticize the crimes of US empire -- famously proclaiming in
a 2016 debate with Hillary Clinton that "Henry Kissinger is not my friend." Warren, though a
critic of Bush-style adventurism, sees America's role in more conventional terms, arguing in a
Foreign
Affairs essay this year that we should "project American strength and values
throughout the world."
Warren's political tradition is the left edge of middle-class liberalism; Sanders hails from
America's socialist tradition. Or, to put the distinction in more personal terms: Warren is
Louis
Brandeis , Sanders is Eugene Debs .
"... Rudy Drops New Bombs: Slams Obama Cabinet 'Pattern Of Corruption'; Claims China 'Bought' Biden ..."
"... Warren wins the nomination because the issue is Swamp Sewage and she hasn't been around long enough to emit much of it. Biden has a ton of it. Trump has three years of it. ..."
Rudy Drops New Bombs: Slams Obama Cabinet 'Pattern Of Corruption'; Claims China 'Bought'
Biden
---
Rudy on a roll. Go look it up on a safe site.
Warren wins the nomination because the issue is Swamp Sewage and she hasn't been around
long enough to emit much of it. Biden has a ton of it. Trump has three years of it.
"... Warren proved to be a very weak, mediocre politician. By joining the calls to "Impeach Trump" she proved this again. And this is not the first time she made a very bad call. Looks like she is completely malleable candidate. The candidate without spine outside his favorite re-regulation issues. ..."
"... Ukraine-gate impeachment process (aka another attempt to demonize Trump after Russiagate fiasco) is what Trump badly needs now, as it will cement his voting block and might bring back those voters who are appalled by his betrayal of almost all election promises. ..."
"... As Ukraine-gate is based on a false rumor and actually implicates Biden, not Trump (and after Trump decision to open the transcript Dems now need to move goalposts like it was with the inner party member Parteigenosse Mueller witch hunt ). ..."
"... It portrays the Dems as clueless political scum who are ready to resort to dirty tricks in order to protect neoliberal warmonger Biden, and maintain Wall-Street favorable status quo. ..."
The Senate republicans should be forced to block trumps impeachment. This is a good election
issue in deep purple states with a senator up for re election. Plus a good house issue. Let
the people judge both party wagons
Trump and Biden make a perfect pair of party Totem heads
Tulsi is the only talented politician among those who are running on Democratic Platform.
And I applaud her courage to stand against the mob
Warren proved to be a very weak, mediocre politician. By joining the calls to "Impeach
Trump" she proved this again. And this is not the first time she made a very bad call. Looks like she is completely
malleable candidate. The candidate without spine outside his favorite re-regulation issues.
She essentially gave Trump additional ammunition to attack her and poach her supporters. I
would now attack her along the lines:
"Do not believe anything Warren say; she does have spine. Look how easily she was
co-opted to join this witch-hunt. If Warren wins, she will instantly fold and will do what
bought by Wall Street Dems leadership will ask her. I am not perfect but I withstood
Russiagate witch-hunt and that proves that with all my faults I am the only independent
politician in this race, who can go against the flow and deliver what was promised; please
give additional time and I will deliver"
Of course, this is disingenuous projection as Trump did the same, but that's politics
;-)
I still believe that Warren has chances to win against Trump. But with such moves by Dem
leadership this might no longer be true. Why Warren does not attack Trump disastrous domestic
and foreign policy record instead of making such questionable calls is not clear to me. Just
a diagram "Trump promises vs reality" as election advertisement might improve her
chances.
Ukraine-gate impeachment process (aka another attempt to demonize Trump after Russiagate
fiasco) is what Trump badly needs now, as it will cement his voting block and might bring
back those voters who are appalled by his betrayal of almost all election promises.
As Ukraine-gate is based on a false rumor and actually implicates Biden, not Trump (and
after Trump decision to open the transcript Dems now need to move goalposts like it was with
the inner party member Parteigenosse Mueller witch hunt ).
It portrays the Dems as clueless
political scum who are ready to resort to dirty tricks in order to protect neoliberal
warmonger Biden, and maintain Wall-Street favorable status quo.
Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who has supported the nuclear agreement since its
inception, has levied criticism toward the White House. On June 18, in response to a New York
Times report titled, "Trump Adds Troops After Iran Says It Will Breach Nuclear Deal" (a
questionable media framing given that the U.S. had already violated the deal), she
tweeted:
"I hope Iran chooses a different path. But let's be clear: Trump provoked this crisis. He
has no strategy to contain it, he's burned through our friends and allies, and now he's
doubling down on military force. We can't afford another forever war."
While Warren was correct to argue against war, she opens by appearing to place blame
against Iran, neglecting to acknowledge the U.S.'s role in villainizing Iran in the first
place.
On June 20, after reports of the Navy drone were published, Warren elaborated on her
comments, adopting a stronger oppositional stance to the prospect of war with Iran.
"Trump provoked this crisis, and his reckless foreign policy by tweet will only worsen it.
I've co-sponsored legislation to prohibit a war with Iran. We need to de-escalate tensions --
not let the war hawks in this administration drag us into conflict. #NoWarWithIran"
That same day, she followed with
"Donald Trump promised to bring our troops home. Instead he has pulled out of a deal that
was working and instigated another unnecessary conflict. There is no justification for
further escalating this crisis -- we need to step back from the brink of war."
Here, Warren uses stronger language to denounce Trump's actions, but still falls short of
a moral denunciation of U.S. violence or a more incisive analysis of the Iran nuclear deal's
power relations. Meanwhile, Warren's vote for new sanctions against Iran in 2017 weakens her
legislative record. ...
Warren is far more progressive than mainstream Democrats like Joe Biden. She calls for
withdrawing U.S. troops from Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. Warren campaigns for the United
State to rejoin the nuclear accord with Iran and to end trade pacts that hurt workers.
"Warren's foreign policy positions have shifted a fair amount in recent years,
particularly during the past few months," says Stephen Zunes, a professor of politics at the
University of San Francisco, who provides foreign policy advice to the Warren campaign.
The ratcheting up of retaliatory actions between the US and Iran will lead to a war that
will be devastating to the people of both countries. As president I will re-enter the Iran
Nuclear Agreement and end the sanctions against Iran to move us back from the precipice of
war.
Reckless Retaliation Has Us One Spark Away From War
That's to who political power belongs under late capitalism and neoliberalism: financial
oligarchy. He who pays the piper calls the tune: " Do you imagine those who foot those huge
bills are fools? Don't you know that they make sure of getting their money back, with interest,
compound upon compound? "
Notable quotes:
"... Here we all are, piddling around with why Nancy Pelosi won't release the hounds in the House of Representatives, and waiting for some poor bastard in intelligence to come forward with what he really knows, and with a vulgar talking yam still in office. Meanwhile, Bill Weld has cut right to the heel of the hunt. You think you can't scare this guy? Put the gallows in his eyes. I mean, wow." ..."
"... " The greatest single hold of "the interests" is the fact that they are the "campaign contributors" -- the men who supply the money for "keeping the party together," and for "getting out the vote." Did you ever think where the millions for watchers, spellbinders, halls, processions, posters, pamphlets, that are spent in national, state and local campaigns come from? Who pays the big election expenses of your congressman, of the men you send to the legislature to elect senators? ..."
"Well, Bill Weld, former governor of the Commonwealth (God save it!), really shot the moon
to begin the week. Appearing on MSNBC, Weld made it plain. From the Washington Post:
"Talk about pressuring a foreign country to interfere with and control a U.S. election,"
Weld said during an appearance on MSNBC's "Morning Joe."
"It couldn't be clearer, and that's not just undermining democratic institutions. That is
treason. It's treason, pure and simple, and the penalty for treason under the U.S. code is
death. That's the only penalty...The penalty under the Constitution is removal from office,
and that might look like a pretty good alternative to the president if he could work out a
plea deal.""
Well, all right, then.
Here we all are, piddling around with why Nancy Pelosi won't release the hounds in the
House of Representatives, and waiting for some poor bastard in intelligence to come forward
with what he really knows, and with a vulgar talking yam still in office. Meanwhile, Bill
Weld has cut right to the heel of the hunt. You think you can't scare this guy? Put the
gallows in his eyes. I mean, wow."
" The greatest single hold of "the interests" is the fact that they are the "campaign
contributors" -- the men who supply the money for "keeping the party together," and for
"getting out the vote." Did you ever think where the millions for watchers, spellbinders,
halls, processions, posters, pamphlets, that are spent in national, state and local campaigns
come from? Who pays the big election expenses of your congressman, of the men you send to the
legislature to elect senators?
Do you imagine those who foot those huge bills are fools? Don't you know that they make
sure of getting their money back, with interest, compound upon compound? Your candidates get
most of the money for their campaigns from the party committees; and the central party
committee is the national committee with which congressional and state and local committees
are affiliated. The bulk of the money for the "political trust" comes from "the interests."
"The interests" will give only to the "political trust."
Our part as citizens of the republic is plain enough. We must stand our ground. We must
fight the good fight. Heartsick and depressed as we may be at times because of the spread of
graft in high places and its frightfully contaminating influence, we must still hold up our
heads. We must never lose an opportunity to show that as private citizens we are opposed to
public plunderers."
"Warren's rise shakes up Democratic field" [ The
Hill ]. "A new poll showing Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) leading former Vice President
Joe Biden in Iowa has shaken up the Democratic nomination battle -- and insiders across the
party are gaming out what it all means. Warren currently has 22 percent support to Biden's 20
percent, according to the well-respected Des Moines Register–CNN–Mediacom poll,
released Saturday night. The two are well clear of the rest of the field, with Sen. Bernie
Sanders (I-Vt.) in third place with 11 percent support . With more than four months to go, the
experts all agree that it's too early to make solid predictions. But the battle for Iowa is
heating up by the day."
Is there any reason to see what is going on as more than just Biden support bailing to "Plan
C", i.e., the next most establishment-friendly candidate who has any apparent chance of
winning? Sanders' support seems solid. Admittedly, I would much rather see Sanders slowly
eating away at the "pro-establishment" fraction of Dem voters, but there is nothing to suggest
that he is losing support.
The more I see of Warren, the less I like her- and I would not have voted for her to begin
with. I'm getting very tired of moderate Republicans being packaged and sold as
"progressives".
To her credit, Warren does have a theory of change:
After dinner, "Larry leaned back in his chair and offered me some advice," Ms. Warren
writes. "I had a choice. I could be an insider or I could be an outsider. Outsiders can say
whatever they want. But people on the inside don't listen to them. Insiders, however, get
lots of access and a chance to push their ideas. People -- powerful people -- listen to what
they have to say. But insiders also understand one unbreakable rule: They don't criticize
other insiders.
"• I'm not sure I agree. There are many, many, many of those "boutique lobbying or
consulting shops" -- "
And how is Trump's shakedown hotel any different from DNC dialing for dollars? Or would it
be better if he limited himself just renting out the Lincoln Bedroom like the Clintons did?
I want to reiterate the point that Yglesias seems incapable of recognizing* that a network
of small shops could create more damage than one guy, even a titan. Look at health care policy,
for example. It looks like Elizabeth Warren's daughter runs a body-shop for the kind of person
Yglesias regards as harmless. Thread:
Samuel Douglas Retweeted Samuel Douglas
I spent some time looking into Warren Tyagi's consulting firm (Business Talent Group), and I
learned some interesting things 1/
Elizabeth Warren's daughter co-founded HealthAllies, a venture capital-backed health
benefits firm which was later acquired by United Health Group, the second largest health
insurer in the U.S.
NOTE * Incapable of recognizing, because obviously professionals don't have class
interests.
Wow, thanks for this, Lambert. See my link to the story in a reply
above for yet another shady bit about Warren's daughter. I wouldn't normally find myself on
RedState, but searching 'WARren daughter WFP' in the googlygoo brought this up first and after
a read-through, seems pretty straight-up. It even includes reporting from Jordan Chariton in
the meat of the story.
It's time for Warren to drop out. She's way too compromised.
"... Aaron Maté warned, "They're doubling down on failure: a failure to transform after losing 2016; & a failure to bring Trump down w/ the failed Russiagate conspiracy theory." ..."
We've long commented that Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) is certainly the most interesting and
'outside-the-establishment-box' candidate on the Democrat side running for president
--
a
"Ron
Paul of the Left"
of sorts given her outspoken criticism of US regime change wars and standing
against foreign policy adventurism as her central message.
She even once met in 2016 with then President-elect Trump to discuss Syria policy and
non-interventionism at a private meeting at Trump Tower just ahead of his being sworn into office,
after which she said both agreed to resist "the drumbeats of war [on Syria] that neocons have been
beating to drag us into an escalation...".
And now
she's resisting calls for Trump to be impeached,
saying it
would be
"terribly divisive"
. She
told "Fox &
Friends"
on Tuesday that she'll remain consistent to her message that the road to 2020 can only
be found in a clear victory and mandate, saying it's for
"the American people... making
that decision" of who is in the White House,
not impeachment
.
"I believe that impeachment at this juncture would be terribly divisive for the
country at a time when we are already extremely divided. The hyperpartisanship is one of the
main things driving our country apart,"
Gabbard
told
host Brian Kilmeade.
Once again showing herself outside of the establishment and its blindly loyal partisan
narrative, and perhaps more in-tune with the American public, she's further setting herself apart
from her main Democratic rivals and the presidential nominee front-runners on this one.
"I think it's important to beat Donald Trump, that's why I'm running for president," she said.
"But I think it's the American people who need to make their voices heard making that
decision."
Top contender Elizabeth Warren, for example, tweeted
early Tuesday
, "The House must
impeach. It must start today."
A number of commentators pointed out this would likely end in failure as the Democrats double
down on impeachment even after Trump agreed to release the full, unredacted transcript of the
Ukraine call in question.
One progressive journalist and political commentator, Aaron Maté warned, "They're doubling down
on failure: a failure to transform after losing 2016; & a failure to bring Trump down w/ the failed
Russiagate conspiracy theory."
As we noted earlier, Democrats are now scrambling as it seems President Trump's
decision
to release the transcript has spoiled their narrative.
Like the failed Mueller investigation, should this blow up in Democrats' faces
it will
practically guarantee the reelection of Donald Trump
.
And likely for this very reason, Pelosi herself had for months resisted calls to start the
impeachment process, and
yet here we are
, with Pelosi leading the charge.
When the other candidates prove reliably progressive, I'll consider them. So far, Sanders
is the only one to reach that threshold. You may call that "purism"; I call it not supporting
candidates who don't support me.
I contributed to Tulsi Gabbard's campaign (and supported her as a potential VP candidate)
despite having reservations about her, specifically because I wanted her to be on the debate
stage to promote her anti-imperialist foreign policy views. She lost a lot of ground with me
on her vote on the anti-BDS referendum.
Not a Gabbard 'fan', despite donating to her. She was never a serious candidate; her
usefulness was in bringing a genuine anti-war platform into the debate. Now that the
'democratic' Party has cut her out, she doesn't have much point. She's still a drone loving
Zionist, and her continued supporting of literal fascist (or the next closest thing) Modi is
just gross.
Purity suggests politics is about morality. It isn't. It's about who's going to get you
stuff. Only Bernie talks in those terms. And he isn't pure but barely acceptable.
Purity is posturing for those who think politics is about public performance and self
expression. Upper middle class liberals can afford to approach things this way, but most
people are too busy trying to keep their horse out of the ditch. They need stuff.
That's to who political power belongs under late capitalism and neoliberalism: financial
oligarchy. He who pays the piper calls the tune: " Do you imagine those who foot those huge
bills are fools? Don't you know that they make sure of getting their money back, with interest,
compound upon compound? "
Notable quotes:
"... Here we all are, piddling around with why Nancy Pelosi won't release the hounds in the House of Representatives, and waiting for some poor bastard in intelligence to come forward with what he really knows, and with a vulgar talking yam still in office. Meanwhile, Bill Weld has cut right to the heel of the hunt. You think you can't scare this guy? Put the gallows in his eyes. I mean, wow." ..."
"... " The greatest single hold of "the interests" is the fact that they are the "campaign contributors" -- the men who supply the money for "keeping the party together," and for "getting out the vote." Did you ever think where the millions for watchers, spellbinders, halls, processions, posters, pamphlets, that are spent in national, state and local campaigns come from? Who pays the big election expenses of your congressman, of the men you send to the legislature to elect senators? ..."
"Well, Bill Weld, former governor of the Commonwealth (God save it!), really shot the moon
to begin the week. Appearing on MSNBC, Weld made it plain. From the Washington Post:
"Talk about pressuring a foreign country to interfere with and control a U.S. election,"
Weld said during an appearance on MSNBC's "Morning Joe."
"It couldn't be clearer, and that's not just undermining democratic institutions. That is
treason. It's treason, pure and simple, and the penalty for treason under the U.S. code is
death. That's the only penalty...The penalty under the Constitution is removal from office,
and that might look like a pretty good alternative to the president if he could work out a
plea deal.""
Well, all right, then.
Here we all are, piddling around with why Nancy Pelosi won't release the hounds in the
House of Representatives, and waiting for some poor bastard in intelligence to come forward
with what he really knows, and with a vulgar talking yam still in office. Meanwhile, Bill
Weld has cut right to the heel of the hunt. You think you can't scare this guy? Put the
gallows in his eyes. I mean, wow."
" The greatest single hold of "the interests" is the fact that they are the "campaign
contributors" -- the men who supply the money for "keeping the party together," and for
"getting out the vote." Did you ever think where the millions for watchers, spellbinders,
halls, processions, posters, pamphlets, that are spent in national, state and local campaigns
come from? Who pays the big election expenses of your congressman, of the men you send to the
legislature to elect senators?
Do you imagine those who foot those huge bills are fools? Don't you know that they make
sure of getting their money back, with interest, compound upon compound? Your candidates get
most of the money for their campaigns from the party committees; and the central party
committee is the national committee with which congressional and state and local committees
are affiliated. The bulk of the money for the "political trust" comes from "the interests."
"The interests" will give only to the "political trust."
Our part as citizens of the republic is plain enough. We must stand our ground. We must
fight the good fight. Heartsick and depressed as we may be at times because of the spread of
graft in high places and its frightfully contaminating influence, we must still hold up our
heads. We must never lose an opportunity to show that as private citizens we are opposed to
public plunderers."
It's just such a coincidence that the people Google tends to hire would be so high
maintenance. Just one of those weird things I guess. Google should keep hiring the same
people, I'm sure it will turn out different!
On the other hand, as someone over 40 who isn't a dramatic, hysterical weirdo like at
least 30% of those under 35 are, I'm liking my job prospects over the next 15 years as
employers get sick of this shit and notice a pattern. Wonder if they'll make "reverse age
discrimination" a thing.
It's just such a coincidence that the people Google tends to hire would be so high
maintenance. Just one of those weird things I guess. Google should keep hiring the same
people, I'm sure it will turn out different!
I'm no fan of Google (anymore) but to be fair, Google employs 103,459 people as of Q1
2019. 45 people throwing a fit is an acceptable margin considering their overall size.
I agree their is an issue with ageism but I disagree with the idea that it would reduce
the number of people throwing a fit because nutcases come in all ages.
It's just such a coincidence that the people Google tends to hire would be so high
maintenance. Just one of those weird things I guess. Google should keep hiring the same
people, I'm sure it will turn out different!
OTOH, consider that Google has over 100K employees, and in a few months 45 such stories
were collected... and the stories themselves cover a period of a couple of years. I don't
want to minimize the issues suffered by any mistreated employee, but I find it hard to
believe that any company could be so perfectly well-managed as to not have a couple dozen
cases per year where employees were pretty badly treated. Or, as you imply, that a couple
dozen employees might feel mistreated even when they aren't. I prefer to give the benefit of
the doubt to the individuals.
As a Google employee myself I do have some concern about the alleged retaliation against
the organizers of the walkout. That sort of thing could have a chilling effect on future
protests (though I've seen no evidence of it so far), and I think that's a potential problem.
It's important that employees feel free to protest actions by the company if a large enough
percentage of them are bothered by it. Personally, I didn't join the walkout, but some others
on my team did and I supported their action even though I didn't agree with their
complaint.
On the other hand, as someone over 40 who isn't a dramatic, hysterical weirdo like at
least 30% of those under 35 are, I'm liking my job prospects over the next 15 years as
employers get sick of this shit and notice a pattern. Wonder if they'll make "reverse age
discrimination" a thing.
FWIW, in my nearly 10 years with Google I've seen no evidence of age discrimination. A
large percentage of new hires are straight out of college (mostly grad school), which does
skew the employee population young, but I'm in my 50s and I've worked with guys in their 60s
and one in his mid-70s. Of course, my experience is anecdotal.
Please keep doing this. People without a sense of humor are the worst, especially when
they're cunts who report everybody whenever they don't get the job
I'm a straight white guy, and I have worked with a guy who was a never-ending source of
sexual and racist "jokes." I never reported him, but after a couple of months, I wished every
time I worked with him that he'd just shut the fuck up and do his job. Any tactful suggestion
that he do just that was met with more laughing, sneering, "it was only a joke" or "no, you
don't get it." Yes, I got it, man. Your shitty old boomer joke about how you hate your ugly
wife but want to fuck her anyway just wasn't funny. God, it was like a goddamn clown show you
couldn't turn off. It wasn't even so much that I was offended by his shit; it was that he
seemed to genuinely believe he was hilarious, and if you didn't think so, too, you had to
endure his constant, pathetic attempts to make you feel somehow inferior for not appreciating
his humor.
Anyway. People who mistakenly think they have a sense of humor are, indeed, the worst.
No. Consider the words "latino" and "latina." These are gender specific. The fact that
they specify gender is a great harm. A great deal of mental gymnastics are necessary to
perceive that harm, but it is possible.
Yet in the same sentence they mention "female". You can't make this shit up.
While gaslighting does indeed have a useful definition -- one that you can trivially learn
for yourself and I won't repeat here -- that meaning won't be helpful in understanding the
most common use of the word. Gaslighting is a term frequently used to blame someone else for
the difficulty one suffers reconciling reality with the ones own cognitive dissonance.
It's a form of psychological abuse where the abuser acts as if something is true when it
clearly isn't.
It's from a book where a character is driven mad by the people around her claiming the the
gaslights are lit when she can clearly see that they are not. She starts to think that she
must be losing her grip on reality if everyone else can see the gaslights but she can't.
It's not uncommon in abusive relationships, unfortunately.
That's not going to stop a PR disaster unless they do fire them. That's what being a
social justice warrior is all about: Mass shaming.
Point and shame. That's how you destroy careers and the standards of excellence that makes
a nation. No evidence required, don't bother reading the deposition, the personal is the
political, ad hominem attacks from beginning to end for defending someone (Minsky) that
wasn't accused of anything .
With metoo backfiring so that men don't trust being alone in an office with a woman,
feminism is looking a lot like a hate movement with the way they throw accusations of sex
crime around in order to get their hit of indignation to maintain their moral
superiority. Guilt by association, career destroyed, court of opinion adjourned.
Considering what RMS contributed not only to freedom but economic wealth you can see these
people don't care who they destroy and it doesn't matter if you are innocent of all charges
once your reputation is destroyed. Getting even isn't equality.
If they piss off men long enough, they're going to hit back with real patriarchy.
I mean just look at MGTOW... Instead of just being careful when choosing a mate, as they
should have been taught to be anyway, they're just going in the opposite extreme. A
considerable pool of men deciding to be bachelors is neither good for those men
psychologically, nor is it good for the species.
The backlash will be just as dumb as what we're seeing right now. This is a social
equivalent of England and France laying the groundwork for the second world war in
Versailles.
The eradication of accountability is going to come back to haunt us for decades to
come.
Last time I looked more than half the US population is female and President is elected, so
how is that a sign of the patriarchy?
the vast majority of corporate management is male
Studies have shown that men are more willing to put career ahead of family in an effort to
move up the ranks. What is stopping women from doing the same thing?
women are paid less for equal work
This has been debunked in numerous studies. Women are not paid less for equal work but are
paid less in general precisely because they don't do equal work and because during salary
negotiations at hiring time they are, on average, less forceful in demanding a higher
starting salary.
These reports claiming otherwise are looking solely at titles - oh Jane the Jr. Java
Developer makes less than Joe the Jr. Java Developer, obviously the company is paying women
less.
Let's not consider, however, that Jane only works 9-4 so she can be home with her kids,
won't pull weekend duties or be on call late night, whereas Joe is in at 7, leaves at 6,
works on weekends to meet deadlines and carries a pager 1 week out of 4. Also, let's not
consider that when being hired Joe negotiated up from the offered $68k start to a starting
salary of $75k as a base and Jane simply accepted the offered $68k.
Both were given the exact same opportunities, but Joe works harder, more hours and was
willing to negotiate a hgher starting wage.
But let's not let facts get in the way of a good attack narrative shall we?
they cannot be priests
Yes they can in many denominations, maybe not yours but others.
huge percentages of them have been raped
huge is an overstatement, studies show it around 20%. Also if you look at the statistics [wikipedia.org]
not all rapes are against women and not all rapes of women are by men.
If you approach any authority as a man and claim you were raped, not only will they likely
laugh in your face, but probably harass you as well. Women are afraid of not being believed.
Who really cares which gender is raped more often, is it too much to ask that the claims be
taken seriously regardless of gender?
If you want a female president, try nominating a decent female candidate. That criminal
narcissist the Democrats came up with last time couldn't even beat Trump, for fuck's
sake.
"... CIA decided under Dulles that they were the only ones capable of leading this country, mainly because they wanted it ran their way and no other. Don't take my word for it though, read Arthur B. Darling's "THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, AN INSTRUMENT OF GOVERNMENT TO 1950 copy right 1990 Penn State Press. (This work was classified for quite a long while.) ..."
"... So the first thing that works in CIA et al's favor is politicians who have been in DC long enough to be worn down and thoroughly compromised by blackmail of one sort or another and there fore vulnerable. ..."
It has been my contention that Biden's powerful backers from the
military-industrial-intelligence-media complex are fully aware of his mental state, and that
is precisely why they want him to be president. Why? He would only be a figure-head
president. He would be given a suggested running mate as well as a list of candidates for
cabinet and other appointed positions (as Obama was given) and Biden would follow that in
making appointments. Policies of his administration would be consistent with the interests of
the military-industrial-intelligence-media complex.
robert e williamson jr , September 20, 2019 at 15:19
Kids this is exactly what the intelligence community wants, someone who they can claim
needs to be told what to do or be kept discreetly out of the loop, so currently Joe maybe the
chosen one just as Bill Barr is reported to have told Slick Willy.
We end up where we are at the moment because our security state apparatus is ran by the
intelligence community who do not really want a strong intelligent, clear minded president
who can actually think for himself. Ask Barrack Obama!
For years I've used this analogy, crude as it maybe, that when the newly elected president
is called on for his national security briefing it is always a tense encounter because this
"Newby" is about to have a come to Jesus meeting with this most abusive of all government
entities. The intelligence community. He is "shown the way"he will act because if he doesn't
this community who has relieved him of one his go -- -s will come and relieve him of the
other.
This started as a joke on my part, I'm now convinced it reflects reality.
At some point many here will understand that since around the time of the murder of JFK ,
CIA has framed things in this manner.
CIA decided under Dulles that they were the only ones capable of leading this country,
mainly because they wanted it ran their way and no other. Don't take my word for it though,
read Arthur B. Darling's "THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, AN INSTRUMENT OF GOVERNMENT TO
1950 copy right 1990 Penn State Press. (This work was classified for quite a long
while.)
Doing so will help make your mind more flexible , jeesh what a slog to get through it.
So the first thing that works in CIA et al's favor is politicians who have been in DC
long enough to be worn down and thoroughly compromised by blackmail of one sort or another
and there fore vulnerable.
I figured if Caitlin could say "dog balls " which I think was a great analogy I could say
gonads.
Time to sit down Joe.
Thanks again to Consortium News for their great efforts at informing the masses.
FOX NEWS HOST Tucker Carlson was saying nice things about Elizabeth Warren again.
Well, not entirely nice things.
Speaking at a conference of conservative journalists and intellectuals this summer (*), he
took a moment to label the liberal Massachusetts senator and top contender for the Democratic
presidential nomination a "joke" and a "living tragedy."
But he also spoke, in admiring tones and at substantial length, about "The Two-Income
Trap: Why Middle-Class Parents Are Going Broke," the book Warren wrote with her daughter in
2004.
"Elizabeth Warren wrote one of the best books I've ever read on economics," he said.
By that point, he'd already warned his audience about the perils of "monopoly power" and
declared that income inequality, which the right had long been trained to believe is "just a
pure invention of some diabolical French intellectual to destroy America," is actually
"completely real" and "totally bad."
His Bolshevist pronouncements were probably not a surprise to anyone who'd watched
Carlson's show closely in the months leading up to his speech. But Fox, despite its outsize
influence, has a relatively small audience.
And it's not just Carlson's evolution that's escaped notice. It's hard to keep track of
what most of the key players on the right are saying these days, with President Trump soaking
up so much attention.
But while the commander-in-chief thrashes about, something important is taking shape in
his shadow -- the outlines of a new conservatism inspired, or at least elevated, by his rise
to power.
It's a conservatism that tries to wrestle with the post-Cold War, post-industrial angst
that fired his election -- dropping a reflexive fealty to big business that dates back to the
Reagan era and focusing more intently on the struggles of everyday Americans.
"There are many downsides, I will say, to Trump," Carlson said, in his speech this summer.
"But one of the upsides is, the Trump election was so shocking, so unlikely ... that it did
cause some significant percentage of people to say, 'wait a second, if that can happen, what
else is true?' "
The reimagining is playing out not just on Carlson's show or in conservative journals, but
among a small batch of young, ambitious Republicans in Congress led by senators Josh Hawley
of Missouri and Marco Rubio of Florida.
Their populist -- or "nationalist" or "post-liberal" -- prescriptions sometimes smack of
opportunism. And it's still not clear how far they're willing to stray from their party. But
it looks like there are places where the new nationalists could find common cause with an
energized left.
Whether the two sides can actually forge a meaningful alliance in the glare of our
hyperpartisan politics is an open question. But a compact -- even a provisional one -- may
offer the country its best shot at building a meaningful, post-Trump politics.
. . .
CARLSON DELIVERED HIS speech at the National Conservatism Conference -- the first major
gathering aimed at forging a new, right-of-center approach in the age of Trump.
"This is our independence day," said Yoram Hazony, an Israeli political theorist and chief
organizer of the event, in his spirited opening remarks. "We declare independence from
neoconservatism, from libertarianism, from what they call classical liberalism."
"We are national conservatives," he said.
Any effort to build a right-of-center nationalism circa 2019 inevitably runs into
questions about whether it will traffic in bigotry.
And one of the speakers, University of Pennsylvania law professor Amy Wax, seemed to do
just that -- suggesting that "cultural compatibility" should play a role in deciding which
migrants are allowed into the country.
"In effect," she said, this "means taking the position that our country will be better off
with more whites and fewer nonwhites."
But Wax's speech, however discomfiting, stood out because it was so discordant.
Conference organizers took pains to prevent hate-mongers from attending -- ultimately
rejecting six applicants. ...
"Your ideas," he said, "are not welcome here." ...
She did make him look stupid – all he had was a handful of talking points. Occasionally
he did try to talk over her to hammer home his points, but often he sat quietly and let her
finish. When your interviewer lets you speak, he's interested in what you have to say, or if
opposed to you, in letting you hang yourself.
When he talks over you, he's simply trying to do all the talking while offering the
pretense of an interview.
Gabbard's uncompromising honesty and principles on these important foreign policy positions
give her the moral high ground.
Trump can't respond to that without betraying his entire Presidential aura.
She is correct that US citizens who sign up for the military take an oath to protect and
defend the constitution and the people of the United States. They did not take an oath to
protect foreign dictators incapable of basic defense of their most precious and valuable real
estate.
This is especially true when said dictators are the aggressors in a war of conquest against
their neighbors. After more than four years of fighting, using weapons produced by the United
States, with assistance by US military advisers, the Saudi Arabians have completely botched
their war in Yemen, committing dozens, if not hundreds, of despicable attacks on civilian
targets without anything to show for it but animosity and, now, wholly insecure
infrastructure.
That this infrastructure is vital to the global economy should be irrelevant to Trump's
calculus as to where to send US troops and war materiel. That was something Saudi Arabia's
Clown Prince, Mohammed bin Salman should have considered before starting this war back in
2015.
The Houthi rebels in Northern Yemen claimed responsibility for the attack on the Abqaiq gas
processing facility as a direct consequence of Saudi aggression. Of course, they are backed by
Iran and Iranian technology.
It's nearly a week after the event and we still don't know for sure what happened. We have
vague assurances from anonymous sources with the US and Saudi governments but no concrete
details other than what was hit and how.
More questions abound, still, than answers.
That Trump ultimately decided against going to war with Iran over this incident doesn't
negate Gabbard's attack on him. It was cogent given the moment and is principled in how US
troops should be used.
In all of this discussion about a potential war with Iran no one in the Trump administration
or anywhere else have made a credible argument as to what actual threat Iran poses to the
people of the United States.
Vague proclamations by Iranian politicians of "death to America" are, ultimately far less
threatening or interesting than the parade of US Senators and Congresscritters saying that Iran
is a "rogue regime" and it should be wiped off the face of the earth.
Are our sensibilities so fragile that we can't handle a little criticism from people we have
waged war by proxy with for over 70 years?
How is this any different than the average tweet
by Lindsay Graham (R-AIPAC)?
We have senior officials, like the Secretary of State and the erstwhile National Security
Adviser calling Iran 'evil' and we have officially lumped their army in with the same lot of
terrorists as Al-Qaeda and ISIS. We have sanctioned their government and individuals within
it.
Never forget that you reap what you sow in this life. And any animosity Iran and Iranians
bear towards the US and Americans is richly deserved. The reverse, however, is difficult to
make a case for.
Because, little factoid, Iran hasn't attacked anyone in a span of time that is longer than
the US has been a country.
Iran threatens Israel in the same way that Israel threatens it. Saudi Arabia threatens Iran
as an oil competitor and religious one.
And the idea that the President of the United States should entertain even a mere thought of
going to war with Iran over an attack on Saudi oil production should be anathema to anyone with
two brain cells to rub together and make a spark.
Because at the end of the day this is not our fight. This is a fight between enemies made
rich by oil in some cases (Saudi, Iran), political clout in high places in the US and U.K. in
others (Israel) and friends in other high places and cultural integrity (Iran).
This is a cultural and religious conflict we barely understand and cannot change the
dynamics of by blundering in with weapons of mass destruction. It is precisely because we take
sides in this conflict that this conflict never ends.
And it is a conflict that dovetails with prevailing 'wisdom' in the West about how to
maintain control over the planet that dates back more than 150 years. And that is why we do
what we do. But it is time for that worldview to end.
It's time bury Mackinder's ideas alongside his corpse.
To Trump's credit he seems to have realized that this incident was another like the events
which led up to the US Global Hawk drone getting shot down in June. It was designed to get him
to over-commit to a policy which would engulf the world in a war that only a very few powerful
and highly placed want.
Even the tweet that Gabbard called him out on was carefully worded to cool things down and
hint that he wasn't prepared to respond militarily to this incident. As Gabbard climbs in the
polls and is treated worse than Bernie Sanders in 2016 and Ron Paul by the Republicans in 2008
and 2012, she will hold Trump to account on foreign policy with an ever-growing clout and moral
clarity which bodes well for the future of US involvement overseas.
And, like Nigel Farage in the U.K. offering the Tories a non-aggression pact to get a real
Brexit over the finish line, Gabbard should put country before career and applaud Trump when he
doesn't act like Saudi Arabia's "Bitch." That will win her even more votes and more respect
among the silent majority who are not in the throes of Trump Derangement Syndrome on both the
Left and the Right.
Along with this, the likely end of Netanyahu's political career should mark a sea change in
US policy. While AIPAC's pull is still very strong in the US, Israel's commitment to an
aggressive foreign policy with an uncommitted President should falter under a new government
without its Agitator-in-Chief.
And without that animus propelling events along eventually cooler heads will prevail, and
the present dynamic will change.
Trump made an enormous mistake pulling out of the JCPOA. That genie cannot be put back in
the bottle. The question now is does he have the sense and the humility to realize his board
position has materially weakened to the point where the probability of a rout is rising?
2020 for him has to be about making good on his promises to end the Empire building and
improving relations with Russia. With Putin openly trolling him and the Saudis recently over
weapon sales the odds of the latter happening are low.
But he can still make good on the former. Trump has lost so much of his goodwill with the
people he's 'negotiating with' that there is little to no wiggle room left. He has no leverage
and he's got no goodwill.
I saw this coming the day he bombed the Al-Shairat airbase in April 2017. I said then that
it was one of the biggest geopolitical mistakes ever. It set the stage for all the others
because it showed us just how out of his depth Trump was on foreign affairs. It set him back
with both Putin and Chinese Premier Xi and it also showed how easily he could be manipulated by
his staff and their rotten information.
It's a deep hole he's dug for himself. But there are still people who want to help him climb
out of it. Gabbard's 'bitch slap' is an example of the kind of tough love he needs to right his
Presidency's ship.
His base needs to do that a little more often and then maybe, just maybe, we'd get
somewhere
"... "with considerable forethought [TV capitalists] are attempting to create a nation of morons who will faithfully go out and buy this or that product, vote for this or that candidate and faithfully work for their employers for as low a wage as possible." He said TV was America's "drug." On another occasion, he took a 60 Minutes crew to the AP office in Burlington and, in a bit of turnabout, began interrogating their reporters. So perhaps the AP's announcement this week was a bit of long-simmering retribution. ..."
"... In his essential book, Out of Order -- still, 23 years after publication, the best analysis of election coverage -- Harvard political scientist Thomas Patterson said there are only four press narratives in an election campaign: "a candidate is leading, or trailing, or gaining ground or losing ground." And: "The press dumps on losers and those who are losing support, criticizes front-runners and praises those who catch fire -- at least as long as the bandwagon lasts." ..."
"... By placing bets on one candidate over another, the media virtually prevent that disfavored candidate from gaining ground. ..."
"... This may be the first time that social media compelled the MSM to change its narrative -- from losing candidate to gaining candidate, or what Patterson calls the "bandwagon effect." ..."
"... It is now a truism of election coverage that since the coverage often contorts itself to justify them, you follow the polls. Poll numbers are everything. ..."
Last week, even before Hillary Clinton's primary victory in California assured her the Democratic presidential nomination, the
Associated Press had already declared her the presumptive nominee.
Bernie Sanders and his supporters were sore , and they had a right to be.
Although
the AP defended its decision , saying that Clinton's crossing the delegate threshold was news and they had an obligation to report
it when they did (the day before the clinching primaries) the timing and the circumstances were suspicious. It appears that AP had
been hounding superdelegates to reveal their preferences, and blasting that headline just before those primaries threatened either
to depress Sanders' vote or Hillary's or both because the contest was now for all intents and purposes over.
Sanders has never been much of a media fan.
Last October,
Mother Jones reported that way back in 1979, he wrote in Vermont's Vanguard Press , an alternative newspaper, that
"with considerable forethought [TV capitalists] are attempting to create a nation of morons who will faithfully go out and buy
this or that product, vote for this or that candidate and faithfully work for their employers for as low a wage as possible." He
said TV was America's "drug." On another occasion, he took a 60 Minutes crew to the AP office in Burlington and, in a bit
of turnabout, began interrogating their reporters. So perhaps the AP's announcement this week was a bit of long-simmering retribution.
Payback or not, Sanders and his supporters are justified in saying the mainstream media have not been entirely fair to him. But
that isn't because Sanders was anti-establishment or because he has attacked the media's monopolistic practices or because he claimed
to be leading a revolution or even because he was impatient with reporters who asked idiotic questions -- though he had done all
of those things.
Sanders was the victim of something else: the script. The media have a script for elections, and in that script the presumed losers
are always marginalized and even dismissed. The script, then, dictated that Sanders wasn't going to get favorable coverage. Or, put
more starkly, the MSM pick the losers and then vindicate that judgment.
From the moment he announced his candidacy in April 2015, the media treated Sanders as if he were unlikely to win.
In The New
York Times , that announcement was printed on page A-21, calling him a "long shot" but saying that his candidacy could force
Hillary Clinton to address his issues "more deeply." The article ended with a quote from Sanders: "I think people should be a little
bit careful underestimating me," which is exactly what The Times seemed to be doing.
By contrast, Hillary Clinton's announcement two-and-a-half weeks earlier
got prime
real estate in The Times and the judgment that the "announcement effectively began what could be one of the least contested
races, without an incumbent, for the Democratic presidential nomination in recent history." So already the roles had been cast --
though, of course, the perception that Sanders wasn't likely to beat Clinton was all but a self-fulfilling prophecy.
In his essential book, Out of Order -- still, 23 years after publication, the best analysis of election coverage -- Harvard political scientist
Thomas Patterson said there are only four press narratives in an election campaign: "a candidate is leading, or trailing, or gaining
ground or losing ground." And: "The press dumps on losers and those who are losing support, criticizes front-runners and praises
those who catch fire -- at least as long as the bandwagon lasts."
As the presumed loser from the outset, Sanders didn't get negative coverage so much as he got negligible coverage.
An analysis by the TV News
Archive of cable television coverage since January 2015 provides graphs of Clinton's and Sanders' mentions that look alike, save
for one thing: Clinton was getting vastly more coverage than Sanders. How much more? On CNN, Clinton got more than 70,000 of the
Democratic-candidate mentions, while Sanders got just under 42,000. On MSNBC, Clinton got more than 93,000 mentions to Sanders' roughly
51,000. On Fox News, she got more than 71,000 mentions to his more than 28,000. The numbers are similar on the Lexis-Nexis database
of newspapers. In the past 30 days, Clinton received 2,591 mentions, Sanders only 922. By comparison, Trump got 5,568.
The numbers, of course, are constantly being updated. But the ratios remain more or less constant.
I suppose journalists would argue that time and space are inelastic; choices have to be made as to who receives coverage. If we
give it to Bernie Sanders, they might say, why not Martin O'Malley, Jim Webb or even Lincoln Chafee? Putting aside whether there
really is too little time (on cable where the same stories are repeated endlessly?), the decision over whom to cover and whom not
to cover is determinative. By placing bets on one candidate over another, the media virtually prevent that disfavored candidate
from gaining ground.
But in spite of the dearth of MSM coverage, Sanders did gain ground. That may have been due to his very active social media
presence, which assured that the Sanders name and message were being promulgated via the ether if not on the page or on the air.
Though Trump clearly mastered how to turn social media into MSM coverage by tweeting absurdities the press couldn't resist, Sanders
used social media to mobilize support, so that he was able to rustle up a crowd for a rally at a moment's notice, and a whole lot
of money.
This may be the first time that
social media compelled the
MSM to change its narrative -- from losing candidate to gaining candidate, or what Patterson calls the "bandwagon effect."
In turn, Sanders' crowds were huge. His fundraising was large and notable for the number of small donations. And most of all, his
poll numbers began rising.
It is now a truism of election coverage that since the coverage often contorts itself to justify them, you follow the polls.
Poll numbers are everything. As Sanders' numbers climbed, and especially after he trounced Clinton in New Hampshire, the story
was suddenly that
Sanders was leading a movement of young people dissatisfied with the old politics represented by Clinton, and angry with the
system.
Of course, even as the MSM called Sanders "aspirational" and "inspirational" and "idealistic" compared to Clinton, the praise
was then undercut when pundits compared him to another tribune of the disaffected, Donald Trump. "[Sanders] and Trump are peas in
a pod,"
wrote The Washington Post' s Dana Milbank , as late as last April.
None of this reluctant praise was because the press particularly liked Sanders. I think they still thought of themselves as realists
while Sanders was something of a political Don Quixote -- an old crank. But the media are in the drama business, and the story of
Sanders' energized youth army taking on Clinton's tired apparatchiks was a compelling one, and a whole lot better than Clinton marching
over Sanders like Sherman through Georgia. Indeed, nothing stirs the media like a good fight. The amount of Sanders' coverage appreciably
rose.
The problem was, to use the buzzword of this election, the math. No matter how much money Sanders raised, how many caucuses and
primaries he won or how much enthusiasm he stirred, he couldn't beat the delegate math -- which is to say, he was a loser. To the
media, his rise was a plot twist before the narrative wound its way to the inevitable conclusion. And, as Patterson wrote of the
media, "What is said of the candidate must fit the plot." Here the plot was that Sanders was not going to win because he was not
good enough to win.
Sanders' coverage in The New York Times is a case in point, and an important one because The Times drives so much
of the MSM's coverage. It is hardly a secret that The Times has had a jones for Hillary Clinton, but that doesn't excuse its
coverage of Sanders, which even included
an
article criticizing him for not doing more of the baby-kissing and hand-shaking that candidates usually do.
Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone wrote a scathing takedown of The Times' most egregious offense: a March article by
Jennifer Steinhauer on how Sanders functioned as a legislator. Headlined "Bernie Sanders Scored Victories for Years Via Legislative
Side Doors,"
as originally published , the article recounted how effective Sanders was at attaching amendments to pieces of legislation, both
Republican and Democratic, and forging coalitions to achieve his ends. The piece was bandwagon stuff.
But then something happened. The original article, already published, underwent a transformation in which Sanders suddenly wasn't
so effective a legislator. Even the
headline was changed to
"Via Legislative Side Doors, Bernie Sanders Won Modest Victories." And this paragraph was added: "But in his presidential campaign
Mr. Sanders is trying to scale up those kinds of proposals as a national agenda, and there is little to draw from his small-ball
legislative approach to suggest that he could succeed."
Responding to angry Sanders supporters,
The Times' own public editor, Margaret Sullivan , asked why the changes were made and wrote, "Matt Purdy, a deputy executive
editor, said that when senior editors read the piece after it was published online, they thought it needed more perspective about
whether Mr. Sanders would be able to carry out his campaign agenda if he was elected president." Yeah, right.
You might note how short a step it is from losing to deserving to lose. The media always seem willing to take that step, not only
when it comes to Sanders but to any presumed loser. It may also explain why the media were so hard on Sanders' policies, ridiculing
them as pie-in-the-sky. On the other hand, Times columnist Paul Krugman, once a liberal hero, took a lot of flak from Sanders
supporters for criticizing several of the senator's proposals and favoring Clinton's. Sandernistas couldn't accept the possibility
that Krugman, whose liberal bona fides are pretty sound, was backing Clinton because he thought Sanders' proposals didn't
add up -- and not that he thought they didn't add up because he was backing Clinton. Even if Sanders was treated unfairly, he didn't
deserve to escape scrutiny just because he was a maverick.
By the same token, the press's presumption that Sanders was a loser wasn't wrong either. Sanders' claim that the system was somehow
rigged against him because of superdelegates proved not to be true. Sanders received far fewer votes than Clinton, 3.7 million less,
and he would have lost the nomination even if there had been no superdelegates, not to mention that he lost the basic Democratic
constituencies to her. What we will never know is if the race might have been different had the coverage been different -- that is,
if Sanders hadn't been
considered some outlier and preordained loser from the very beginning.
Another thing we will never know is how the coverage would have differed if it hadn't been so poll- or delegate-driven. Candidates
won't arrive at the finish line at the same time, but the media should at least let them begin at the starting line together. And
the voters should be the ones to winnow the field, not the press.
Now that Sanders has played his part juicing up the nominating drama, the media seem as eager to dispose of him as the Democratic
establishment does. They're ready to relegate him to his next role: confirmed sore loser.
A front-page story in Thursday's
edition of The New York Times griped , "Hillary Clinton Made History, but Bernie Sanders Stubbornly Ignored it," opening
with the line, "Revolutions rarely give way to gracious expressions of defeat."
No, they don't, and I don't think it is the business of the press to tell candidates when to or how to concede, much less complain
about it. The article went on to call Sanders' address after Tuesday night's primaries "a speech of striking stubbornness," as if
The Times and its barely pent-up exasperation with Sanders finally broke the dam.
But again, this isn't just what the MSM think of Bernie Sanders. It is what the media think of losers. They don't like them very
much, and they seem determined to make sure that you don't like them either -- unless they beat the press's own odds and become winners.
Neal Gabler is an author of five books
and the recipient of two LA Times Book Prizes, Time magazine's nonfiction book of the year, USA Today's biography of the year and
other awards. He is also a senior fellow at the Lear Center for the Study of Entertainment and Society and is currently writing a
biography of Sen. Edward Kennedy.
[T]here was no such thing as a progressive movement, that is, no organized campaign
uniting all the manifold efforts at political, social, and economic reform. On the contrary,
there were numerous progressive movements operating in different areas simultaneously . [T]he
progressive movement, in its political manifestations, was essentially a revolt of the middle
classes [i]
The Progressive Era is the title traditionally applied to the period from roughly 1900
through 1920 in U.S. history. It is particularly significant because it marks the first time
that our shared, fundamental values -- which collectively we call the American Political
Culture (APC) -- were called into question and, consequently, transformed. Although those two
decades are described by the single term, Progressive Era, there was actually much less
consistency to the period than its now well recognized title implies.
Progressive
Origins: the Populist Movement of the 1890s
For most of the first century of our nation's existence -- until the later decades of the
nineteenth century -- politics was fairly elitist in nature. That is to say, while much has
been written about our democratic heritage in general and about periods such as the "era of
Jacksonian democracy" in particular, in fact the role of ordinary citizens in running the
country was pretty limited. Over time, however, that situation became less and less acceptable
to the ordinary people who were doing the hard work that was moving the country forward but who
didn't have much of a say in deciding how the fruits of those labors got divided up and
distributed among different interests in society. The slowly spreading movement by which
ordinary people began demanding more of a voice in how the political economy was run is what we
call populism . Populism, in simple terms, is a democratic revolt against the ruling
powers of the well-to-do, well-positioned elites.
Common mythology has it that the populist revolts of the 1890s were, by and large, sagebrush
revolutions launched by small, independent farmers. The story holds that farmers in the
upper-midwest regions of the country were being gouged by the newly developed power of the
railroad trust. The monopoly-like power of the big railroads allowed them, according to this
line of analysis, to charge exorbitant rates for farmers to ship their crops to big-city
markets. While there certainly is an element of truth to this rendering of history, there also
is more to the story than that simple approach conveys.
The populist revolts of that period may have had as much to do with land speculation and the
price of real estate as with the relative rates for crops and shipping. The entrepreneurial
spirit for which Americans became so well known apparently was in full swing by the last decade
of the nineteenth century, including among small farmer-landowners in the rural Midwest.
Despite history's tendency (and our political culture's desire) to paint them as small,
independent farmers in the Jeffersonian tradition -- hacking out a new way of life for
themselves and their families in the bounteous but untamed wilderness of the American frontier
-- land speculation was not uncommon among the agricultural set. When, in the throes of the
worldwide economic depression of the 1890s, the bottom fell out of the (international)
agricultural real estate market, thousands of "small farmers" were left holding deeds to
homesteads that were suddenly worth considerably less than they had paid for them. And when the
private market failed, panicked landholders began turning to government to help them save their
real estate holdings.
As those cries for relief mounted, America grew up. Although the myth of the yeoman farmer
would never fade away completely -- indeed, it remains a critical component even in today's
political culture -- subsequently the ideal would be tempered by the new economic reality of
agriculture-as-ever-bigger-business. More important for our purposes, the politics of
the era underwent a fundamental change.
Those seeking to reform the system gravitated from an insurgent (populist/third-party)
political approach to a more traditional pursuit of politics by means of lobbying and pressure
tactics exercised within the existing, two-party system of Republicans and Democrats. The
Populist movement reached its apex with the presidential candidacy in 1896 of William Jennings
Bryan. Thereafter, the Progressives took up the reformist cause.
In a sense, the political unrest that characterized the populist decade was absorbed by a
growing rumble in the nation's cities. Where the landowner-farmers who drove the populist
movement had been narrowly rural in their upset, however, the newer, urban brand of
reform-minded agitator was more broadly national in outlook and more professional/intellectual
in background. In short, Progressivism would be a more complex, but also a more moderate,
tendency than was Populism.
In place of angry farmers and small-town leaders would form a coalition of clergy,
academics, lawyers and small professionals; all united against the growing power of both the
new barons of the industrializing, increasingly concentrated economy and the recently forming
labor unions that supplied a growing share of the manpower for the modern engines of American
growth. At the heart of the Progressives' concerns was the fear that the increasingly
concentrated power of the trusts and the unions would be able to drive prices ever upward.
Progressivism: A Conservative Approach in Liberal Clothing?
Seeking a
Restoration of Values
The Populists had been backward-looking insofar as they saw many of the problems facing
America as arising from the impersonal nature of the modern world, with its emphasis on science
and specialization; from economic concentration and social collectivization; and to a certain
extent from immigration.
Progressives shared some of those concerns, but with different interpretations of the
symptoms characterizing the changing American political economy. In particular, Progressives
didn't so much fear the future as they longed for a kind of idealized past that few of them (as
city-dwellers) had actually experienced. For them, the moral/spiritual purity springing from
the rugged individualism of the small, independent farmer was a loss that needed to be
restored.
Unlike their predecessors, however, Progressives were not unmindful of the benefits of the
newly industrializing economy. Thus, they didn't seek to retard progress entirely (as had at
least some of the populist strains). Instead, the Progressives sought to insure that the
increasing concentration in both economic and political life would not stifle the incentives
for individual attainment; that the economic trusts and political parties would not
interfere with the traditional, American value of individual opportunity via the
acquisition of private property . In that sense, rather than appear as what we would
today call a "liberal" movement, Progressivism can be seen as inherently conservative in
nature, in that it sought a restoration of an imagined, righteous past.
Since the concentrated economic power of the trusts (rail, coal, steel, meat-packing, etc.)
was seen by the Progressives as the major impediment to the realization of a more broadly
virtuous society -- they were aided immeasurably in their quest to preach the Progressive
gospel to the masses by the investigative journalists (as we would call them today) known
alternately as "yellow journalists" Yellow
Journalism or "muckrakers" -- the solution they proposed was to increase the power of
governments (federal, state, and/or local, as need be) so as to put them on a more equal
footing with large corporations.
The underlying goal, then, was to help those whom they saw as the victims of
industrialization -- but to do so in all cases without resorting to the kinds of "radical" or
"socialistic" solutions that were at that time finding considerable sympathy among certain
groups, particularly among the working classes.
The Place of Labor in the Progressive
Universe
In the roughly sixty-year period stretching between the Civil War and the First World War,
approximately thirty million immigrants were absorbed into the United States. The male
breadwinners for an overwhelming number of those newly arrived families became the backbone of
the emerging, organized labor movement in this country.
In their old countries, many of them had become personally familiar with systems of
government and schemes for workplace organization that were far more progressive/socialistic
than were the political and economic institutions that they encountered in their new, American
home. As a result, labor unions in the rapidly industrializing American political economy
became seedbeds for revolution. Proposals for asserting the role of common laborers in the
workplace came to be heard with increasing frequency and growing intensity. Their opposition to
the emerging class of corporate titans might seem to have positioned workers to be the natural
allies of the Progressives, who also sought to curtail (albeit for their own reasons, recall)
the seemingly unbridled power of the business elites.
In fact, however, the largely middle-class reformers who rallied under the Progressive
banner had little sympathy for organized labor -- and, in some respects, actually saw their
concentrated, potential strength as a threat to the restoration of individualistic virtue for
which they longed.
The labor unions, being far weaker than the big businesses and
the [political party] machines, held an ambiguous place in Progressive thinking. The
Progressive sympathized with the problems of labor but was troubled about the lengths to which
union power might go if labor-unionism became the sole counterpoise to the power of business.
The danger of combinations of capital and labor that would squeeze the consuming public and the
small businessman was never entirely out of sight . And wherever labor was genuinely powerful
in politics Progressivism took on a somewhat anti-labor tinge.[ii]
Even without the sometimes overt opposition of the Progressive leadership organized labor
faced problems as it sought to become a central force in the evolving, American political
economy. Although they may have shared concerns about their corporate superiors, workers in
early-twentieth-century United States nevertheless were divided by ethnic, religious, and
racial considerations -- differences that their managers were only too willing to exploit if
they allowed them to maintain control in the workplace by pitting one group of workers against
another.
The labor movement was divided, as well, along professional lines: into a more conservative
class of skilled artisans -- under the banner of the American Federation of Labor (AFL) -- and
a much larger but less prestigious group of by and large common laborers -- under the banner of
the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO). It would be some years before those two groups
would overcome their disagreements and merge into the AFL-CIO.
In the end, then, the American political economic system failed to deliver the kind of
welfare state that was becoming more and more common in Europe. The United States became
"exceptional" among modern, industrialized democracies for that failure. Facing the often
staunch opposition of the business community (led by the National Association of
Manufacturers); led during its period of greatest potential for reform by a President (Woodrow
Wilson) who exhibited no sympathy for the kind of collectivization that might have resulted in
significant increases in social welfare for its most at-risk groups; and with a working class
plagued by internal divisions; the U.S. failed to implement what is perhaps the bottom-line
characteristic of a true "welfare state": that male workers (i.e., "breadwinners") should be
broadly and automatically protected by social insurance as a matter of course, rather than in
only scattershot fashion (as became the case here). In the end, only mothers and their children
(the so-called "deserving poor") were targeted for public assistance. For the rest of the
working class, the rugged individualism that constituted the core of the American political
culture would have to sustain them through economic hard-times.
The obvious question that arises is, given the agitation for change among the working
classes at the time, why did the U.S. not see the formation of a true labor party? In addition
to the cultural explanation provided in the preceding paragraph, we must consider also the
relative prosperity enjoyed by the typical American worker. If not wealthy, the average worker
at least was making steady material progress as the economy which he helped drive grew
dramatically during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. As the economic
historian Warner Sombart has so cleverly put it, "All socialistic utopias come to nothing on
roast beef and apple pie." [iii] With their personal,
financial situations improving regularly, in other words, there was not always an obvious
rationale for workers to get riled up.
But cultural and economic explanations of American "exceptionalism" provide an incomplete
accounting of the situation. It was neither natural nor inevitable, in fact, that workers would
adopt a less threatening posture toward the development of corporate capitalism. Rather, the
ability of workers to band together under a common banner of worker solidarity was
short-circuited -- often deliberately, although not always so -- by the tactics of the
Progressive reformers with whom they vied for control of political economic developments of
that era.
In addition to dealing with the fallout from the corporate trusts that had come to dominate
key sectors of the economy, the Progressives also were determined to weed out the political
corruption that was the lubricant for the political party
"machines that dominated so many major cities in the increasingly urbanized nation. In
seeking to loosen the stranglehold that the party organizations had on politics in
turn-of-the-century, urban American, reformers succeeded in throwing the "baby" of political
organization for the masses out with the "bathwater" of corrupt, one-party politics.
By instituting such reform measures as nonpartisan elections, the secret ballot, and civil
service examinations as a prerequisite for holding government jobs, reformers were able to deny
the machines the tools they needed to sustain their positions of privilege. At the same time,
however, those reforms tended to work against the ability of the working classes to present a
united, political front against the growing alliance between big business and big government.
Political parties were the best hope of the lower classes for securing for themselves a decent
share of the growing "pie" that the American economy was producing. Lacking that institutional
mechanism for realizing their shared interests under a common, partisan banner, the lower
classes were more easily bought off by material rewards or diverted by racial, ethnic, or
religious concerns -- and the first era of significant reform in the American political culture
was more easily steered in a centrist direction that was deemed acceptably safe by the barons
of the new, corporate-capitalist order.
Progressivism: A Precursor of the New Deal?
The Progressive era ended clearly and decisively with the U.S.'s entry into the First World
War. The new internationalism required by that initiative cost Woodrow Wilson dearly, as the
economic sacrifices required by the war effort ushered in a series of Republican presidents
(Harding, Coolidge, Hoover) following the war. With its figurehead in political retirement and
with the postwar prosperity of the "Roaring '20s" distracting Americans' attentions from
pre-war concerns, the reform spirit dwindled and then died.
Although it is possible to cast a retrospectively critical eye on America's first period of
political-cultural reform, we must be careful to acknowledge as well the important changes in
the system that were realized as a result of the Progressive era.
Not only the extent of government intervention, but the manner in which policy was
formulated and executed changed beyond recognition. The main features were the appearance of
regulatory agencies entrusted with wide discretionary powers and a consequent diminution of the
role of both legislatures and courts in the conduct of economic policy.[iv]
Government, in other words, began to take the shape that would come to characterize it in
later decades: a public authority alternately allied with and antagonistic to corporate
capital. Maintained was the traditional, American allegiance to markets -- i.e., to
private authority -- for organizing the political economy. The driving spirit had been
to restore markets, to counter-act the organizational power of the new, corporate giants
that came to dominate the economy. What was different as a result of the Progressive era was
that government would exercise the police power deemed necessary to check the abuses of
the new class of economic plutocrats.
Essentially lost in the political shuffle, however, was the collective fate of millions of
lower- and working-class Americans. Although it was their plight at the hands of an apparently
uncaring, corporate-capitalist order that seemed to have spurred much of the activity during
the Progressive era, in fact the economic fortunes of the poor, the elderly, the working
classes, and racial minorities wound up taking a back seat to the broader, institution-driven
agenda of Progressive reformers. It would fall to the next significant era of
political-cultural change, the New Deal, to address those needs in any significant way.
In an even broader sense, however, what was perhaps the Progressive era's most fundamental
goal proved to be unattainable: for it sought nothing less than the removal of politics
from the decision-making processes that had come to characterize the modern political economy.
What Progressivism succeeded in doing, instead, was substituting one form of politics
(bureaucratic) for another (partisan -- i.e., "machine"). As subsequent eras would demonstrate,
that change made the American political system even more open to influence by special interests
-- an ironic outcome for America's first, major reform era.
Nadler:Corey what time is it? Corey :It's 2pm. Nadler: The clock shows 1:59 . Charge Corey for
lying to Congress! All a gotcha game by a group of angry haters.
Nadler:Corey what time is it? Corey :It's 2pm. Nadler: The clock shows 1:59 . Charge Corey for
lying to Congress! All a gotcha game by a group of angry haters.
An honest and accurate analysis of the 2016 election is not just an academic
exercise. It is very relevant to the current election campaign. Yet over the past two years,
Russiagate has dominated
media and political debate and largely replaced a serious analysis of the factors leading to
Trump's victory. The public has been flooded with the various elements of the story that Russia
intervened and Trump colluded with them. The latter accusation was negated by the Mueller
Report but elements of the Democratic Party and media refuse to move on. Now it's the lofty
but vague accusations of "obstruction of justice" along with renewed dirt digging. To some it
is a "constitutional crisis", but to many it looks like more partisan fighting.
Russiagate has distracted from pressing issues
Russiagate has distracted attention and energy away from crucial and pressing issues such as
income inequality, the housing and homeless crisis, inadequate healthcare, militarized police,
over-priced college education, impossible student loans and deteriorating infrastructure. The
tax structure was changed to benefit wealthy individuals and corporations with little
opposition. The Trump administration has undermined environmental laws, civil rights, national
parks and women's equality while directing ever
more money to military contractors. Working class Americans are struggling with rising
living costs, low wages, student debt, and racism. They constitute the bulk of the military
which is spread all over the world, sustaining continuing occupations in war zones including
Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and parts of Africa. While all this has been going on, the Democratic
establishment and much of the media have been focused on Russiagate, the Mueller Report, and
related issues.
Immediately after the 2016 Election
In the immediate wake of the 2016 election there was some forthright analysis. Bernie
Sanders
said , "What Trump did very effectively is tap the angst and the anger and the hurt and
pain that millions of working class people are feeling. What he said is, ' I Donald Trump am
going to be a champion of the working class... I know you are working longer hours for lower
wages, seeing your jobs going to China, can't afford childcare, can't afford to send your kids
to college. I Donald Trump alone can solve these problems.' ...What you have is a guy who
utilized the media, manipulated the media very well. He is an entertainer, he is a professional
at that. But I will tell you that I think there needs to be a profound change in the way the
Democratic Party does business. It is not good enough to have a liberal elite. I come from the
white working class and I am deeply humiliated that the Democratic Party cannot talk to the
people where I came from. "
Days after the election, the Washington Post published an op-ed titled
"Hillary Clinton Lost. Bernie Sanders could have won. We chose the wrong candidate." The
author analyzed the results saying, "Donald Trump's stunning victory is less surprising when we
remember a simple fact: Hillary Clinton is a deeply unpopular politician." The writer analyzed
why Sanders would have prevailed against Trump and predicted "there will be years of
recriminations."
Russiagate replaced Recrimination
But instead of analysis, the media and Democrats have emphasized foreign interference. There
is an element of self-interest in this narrative. As reported in "Russian Roulette" (p127),
when the Clinton team first learned that Wikileaks was going to release damaging Democratic
National Party emails in June 2016, they "brought in outside consultants to plot a PR strategy
for handling the news of the hack ... the story would advance a narrative that benefited the
Clinton campaign and the Democrats: The Russians were interfering in the US election,
presumably to assist Trump."
After losing the election, Team Clinton doubled down on this PR strategy. As described in
the book "Shattered" (p. 395) the day after the election campaign managers assembled the
communication team " to engineer the case that the election wasn't entirely on the up and up
.... they went over the script they would pitch to the press and the public. Already, Russian
hacking was the centerpiece of the argument. "
This narrative has been remarkably effective in supplanting critical review of the
election.
One Year After the Election
The Center for American Progress (CAP) was founded by John Podesta and is closely aligned
with the Democratic Party. In November 2017 they produced an analysis titled
"Voter Trends in 2016: A Final Examination" . Interestingly, there is not a single
reference to Russia. Key conclusions are that "it is critical for Democrats to attract more
support from the white non-college-educated voting bloc" and "Democrats must go beyond the
'identity politics' versus 'economic populism' debate to create a genuine cross-racial,
cross-class coalition ..." It suggests that Wall Street has the same interests as Main Street
and the working class.
A progressive team produced a very different analysis titled Autopsy: The Democratic Party in
Crisis . They did this because "the (Democratic) party's national leadership has shown
scant interest in addressing many of the key factors that led to electoral disaster." The
report analyzes why the party turnout was less than expected and why traditional Democratic
Party supporters are declining. It includes recommendations to end the party's undemocratic
practices, expand voting rights and counter voter suppression. The report contains details and
specific recommendations lacking in the CAP report. It includes an overall analysis which says
"The Democratic Party should disentangle itself - ideologically and financially - from Wall
Street, the military-industrial complex and other corporate interests that put profits ahead of
public needs."
Two Years After the Election
In October 2018, the progressive team produced a follow-up report titled
"Autopsy: One Year Later" . It says, "The Democratic Party has implemented modest reforms,
but corporate power continues to dominate the party."
In a recent phone interview, the editor of that report, Norman Solomon, said it appears some
in the Democratic Party establishment would rather lose the next election to Republicans than
give up control of the party.
What really happened in 2016?
Beyond the initial critiques and "Autopsy" research, there has been little discussion,
debate or lessons learned about the 2016 election. Politics has been dominated by
Russiagate.
Why did so many working class voters switch from Obama to Trump? A major reason is because
Hillary Clinton is associated with Wall Street and the economic policies of her husband
President Bill Clinton. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), promoted by Bill
Clinton, resulted in huge decline in manufacturing jobs in
swing states such as Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Of course this would influence their
thinking and votes. Hillary Clinton's support for the Trans Pacific Partnership was another
indication of her policies.
What about the low turnout from the African American community? Again, the lack of
enthusiasm is rooted in objective reality. Hillary Clinton is associated with "welfare reform"
promoted by her husband. According to this study from
the University of Michigan, " As of the beginning of 2011, about 1.46 million U.S.
households with about 2.8 million children were surviving on $2 or less in income per person
per day in a given month... The prevalence of extreme poverty rose sharply between 1996 and
2011. This growth has been concentrated among those groups that were most affected by the 1996
welfare reform. "
Over the past several decades there has been a huge increase in prison
incarceration due to increasingly strict punishments and mandatory prison sentences. Since
the poor and working class have been the primary victims of welfare and criminal justice
"reforms" initiated or sustained through the Clinton presidency, it's understandable why they
were not keen on Hillary Clinton. The notion that low turnout was due to African Americans
being unduly influenced by Russian Facebook posts is seen as "bigoted paternalism" by blogger Teodrose
Fikremanian who says, " The corporate recorders at the NY Times would have us believe that
the reason African-Americans did not uniformly vote for Hillary Clinton and the Democrats is
because they were too dimwitted to think for themselves and were subsequently manipulated by
foreign agents. This yellow press drivel is nothing more than propaganda that could have been
written by George Wallace ."
How Clinton became the Nominee
Since the 2016 election there has been little public discussion of the process whereby
Hillary Clinton became the Democratic Party nominee. It's apparent she was pre-ordained by the
Democratic Party elite. As exposed in the DNC emails, there was bias and violations of the
party obligations at the highest levels. On top of that, it should now be clear that the
pundits, pollsters and election experts were out of touch, made poor predictions and
decisions.
Bernie Sanders would have been a much stronger candidate. He would have won the same party
loyalists who voted for Clinton. His message attacking Wall Street would have resonated with
significant sections of the working class and poor who were unenthusiastic (to say the least)
about Clinton. An indication is that in critical swing states such as Wisconsin and
Michigan Bernie
Sanders beat Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary race.
Clinton had no response for Trump's attacks on multinational trade agreements and his false
promises of serving the working class. Sanders would have had vastly more appeal to working
class and minorities. His primary campaign showed his huge appeal to youth and third party
voters. In short, it's likely that Sanders would have trounced Trump. Where is the
accountability for how Clinton ended up as the Democratic Party candidate?
The Relevance of 2016 to 2020
The 2016 election is highly relevant today. Already we see the same pattern of establishment
bias and "horse race" journalism which focuses on fund-raising, polls and elite-biased
"electability" instead of dealing with real issues, who has solutions, who has appeal to which
groups.
Mainstream media and pundits are already promoting Joe Biden. Syndicated columnist EJ
Dionne, a Democratic establishment favorite, is indicative. In his article
"Can Biden be the helmsman who gets us past the storm? " Dionne speaks of the "strength he
(Biden) brings" and the "comfort he creates". In the same vein, Andrew Sullivan pushes Biden in
his article
"Why Joe Biden Might be the Best to Beat Trump" . Sullivan thinks that Biden has appeal in
the working class because he joked about claims he is too 'hands on'. But while Biden may be
tight with AFL-CIO leadership, he is closely associated with highly unpopular neoliberal trade
deals which have resulted in manufacturing decline.
The establishment bias for Biden is matched by the bias against Democratic Party candidates
who directly challenge Wall Street and US foreign policy. On Wall Street, that would be Bernie
Sanders. On foreign policy, that is Tulsi Gabbard. With a military background Tulsi Gabbard has
broad appeal, an inclusive message and a uniquely sharp critique of US "regime change" foreign
policy. She calls
out media pundits like Fareed Zakaria for goading Trump to invade Venezuela. In contrast
with Rachel Maddow taunting
John Bolton and Mike Pompeo to be MORE aggressive, Tulsi Gabbard has been
denouncing Trump's collusion with Saudi Arabia and Israel's Netanyahu, saying it's not in
US interests. Gabbard's anti-interventionist anti-occupation perspective has significant
support from US troops. A
recent poll indicates that military families want complete withdrawal from Afghanistan and
Syria. It seems conservatives have become more anti-war than liberals.
This points to another important yet under-discussed lesson from 2016: a factor in Trump's
victory was that he campaigned as an anti-war candidate against the hawkish Hillary Clinton. As
pointed out
here , " Donald Trump won more votes from communities with high military casualties than
from similar communities which suffered fewer casualties. "
Russiagate has distracted most Democrats from analyzing how they lost in 2016. It has given
them the dubious belief that it was because of foreign interference. They have failed to
analyze or take stock of the consequences of DNC bias, the preference for Wall Street over
working class concerns, and the failure to challenge the military industrial complex and
foreign policy based on 'regime change' interventions.
There needs to be more analysis and lessons learned from the 2016 election to avoid a repeat
of that disaster. As indicated in the
Autopsy , there needs to be a transparent and fair campaign for nominee based on more than
establishment and Wall Street favoritism. There also needs to be consideration of which
candidates reach beyond the partisan divide and can energize and advance the interests of the
majority of Americans rather than the elite. The most crucial issues and especially US military
and foreign policy need to be seriously debated.
Blaming an outside power is a good way to prevent self analysis and positive change. It's
gone on far too long.
"... Committee members Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Vir.) explicitly announced their opposition to war with Iran. And prominent war powers critic Sen. Jeff Markley (D-Ore.) quipped that, "[b]ack when Presidents used to follow the Constitution, they sought consent for military action from Congress, not foreign governments that murder reporters," referring to the assassination of Saudi-American journalist Jamal Khashoggi. ..."
"... "Diplomacy by Twitter has not worked so far and it surely is not working with Iran. The president needs to stop threatening military strikes via social media," said Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Mary.) in response to a question from the National Interest . "The attack on Saudi Arabia is troubling whether it was perpetrated by Houthi rebels or Iran. The U.S. should regain its leadership by working with our allies to isolate Iran for its belligerent actions in the region." ..."
"... "The U.S. should not be looking for any opportunity to start a dangerous and costly war with Iran. Congress has not authorized war against Iran and we've made it crystal clear that Saudi Arabia needs to withdraw from Yemen," he continued. ..."
"... Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) has long been a critic of Saudi Arabia's war in Yemen, proposing a successful bill to cut off U.S. support for the Saudi-led war effort. (He did not have enough votes to override the veto.) After the attacks, he wrote a long Twitter thread explaining how "the Saudis sowed the seeds of this mess" in Yemen. ..."
"... "It's simply amazing how the Saudis call all our shots these days. We don't have a mutual defense alliance with KSA, for good reason. We shouldn't pretend we do," Murphy added. "And frankly, no matter where this latest drone strike was launched from, there is no short or long term upside to the U.S. military getting more deeply involved in the growing regional contest between the Saudis and Iranians." ..."
"... "Having our country act as Saudi Arabia's bitch is not 'America First,'" said Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard, invoking a popular Trump slogan. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ken.), who had invoked Trump's antiwar message in a public feud with Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) over the weekend, took to CNN to warn against striking Iran. ..."
"... "This is a regional conflict, that there's no reason the superpower of the United States needs to be getting into bombing mainland Iran. It would be a needless escalation of this," he told journalist Jake Tapper. "Those who loved the Iraq War, the Cheneys, the Boltons, the Kristols, they all are clamoring and champing at the bit for another war in Iran. But it's not a walk in the park." ..."
"... "In order to have clean ships by the first of January next year, all the world's shipping fleet from about now until the end of the year are busy emptying their tanks of heavy sulphur fuel oil and filling their tanks with low sulphur fuel oil, which is the new standard," Latham explained, claiming that the attack could have taken up to 20 percent of the world's desulphurization capacity out of commission. ..."
"... "This little accident was designed to be maximally disruptive to the world's oil market. It could not have happened at a worse time." "But what is really interesting is in Amsterdam this morning, I saw that for fuel oil -- the sulphurous stuff -- the price went down," Latham continued, speculating that international powers might delay the new environmental regulations by months and inadvertently drive down the price of oil in the long run. ..."
"... On Sunday, Trump tapped into emergency U.S. oil reserves, in order to stabilize prices. It's not clear, however, that the United States has enough oil to cope with wider attacks on energy infrastructure. "If the Iranians did this, they have shown they have pretty immense capabilities clearly," Parsi told the National Interest . "In the case of a full-scale war, imagine what this will do for the global economy. It's not that difficult to imagine what that will do to Trump's re-election prospects. I think that is something Trump understands." ..."
Retired Lt. Col. Daniel L. Davis pointed out that the puncture marks do not actually show
the origin of the attack. "Missiles can fly from almost anywhere. They have the ability to
maneuver! And certainly drones can, too," the Defense Priorities senior fellow told the
National Interest . "There hasn't been the time to do an actual analysis on the
ground, so let's wait and see."
Mark Latham, managing partner at the London-based analysis firm Commodities Intelligence,
told the National Interest that the puncture marks pointed to a cruise missile with no
explosive warhead. Removing the payload would allow the missile to carry more fuel and launch
from farther away from its target.
... ... ...
"Mr. X is a sophisticated fellow. He's sourced some Iranian cruise missiles.
He's removed the explosive payload. He's replaced the explosive payload with fuel," he said.
"So this isn't your twenty dollar Amazon drone. This is a sophisticated military operation."
"The culprit behind the Abqaiq attack is most definitely the Islamic Republic, either
directly or through one of its proxies," argued Varsha Koduvayur, a senior research analyst at
the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.
"The attack fits the pattern of Iran signaling to the Gulf states that if it can't get its
oil out, it will cause their oil exports to become collateral damage," Koduvayur told the National Interest . "It's because of how strong our coercive financial tools are that
Iran is resorting to attacks like this: it's lashing out."
Violating an Obama-era agreement to regulate Iran's nuclear research program, the Trump
administration imposed massive sanctions on Iran's oil industry beginning in May 2018. The goal
of this "maximum pressure" campaign was to force Iran to accept a "better" deal. Since then,
Iranian forces have captured a British oil tanker and allegedly sabotaged tankers from other
countries.
There were some signals that Trump was planning to use the ongoing United Nations General
Assembly in New York to open a new
diplomatic channel with Iran, especially after the
firing of hawkish National Security Advisor John Bolton. But the weekend attack sent Trump
into reverse.
"Remember when Iran shot down a drone, saying knowingly that it was in their 'airspace'
when, in fact, it was nowhere close. They stuck strongly to that story knowing that it was a
very big lie," he said in a Monday morning Twitter post, referring to a June incident
when Iranian and American forces almost went to war. "Now they say that they had nothing to do
with the attack on Saudi Arabia. We'll see?"
He also hinted at a violent U.S. response.
"There is reason to believe that we know the culprit, are locked and loaded depending on
verification, but are waiting to hear from the Kingdom as to who they believe was the cause of
this attack, and under what terms we would proceed!" Trump wrote on Sunday.
"Saudi Arabia is not a formal treaty ally of ours, so there are no international agreements
that obligate us to come to their defense," John Glaser, director of foreign-policy studies at
the CATO Institute, stated. "This does not amount to a clear and present danger to the United
States, so no self-defense justification is relevant. He would therefore need authorization
from Congress."
Members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee had mixed reactions to the attack.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) proposed putting "on the table an attack on Iranian oil
refineries" in order to "break the regime's back." His press office did not respond to a
follow-up question from the National Interest asking whether the president would have
the authority to do so.
Amy Grappone, spokeswoman for Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.), told the National Interest
that the Senator "will support an appropriate and proportionate response" after "studying the
latest intelligence pertaining to Iran's malign activities, including these recent attacks in
Saudi Arabia."
Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), the ranking Democrat on the committee, condemned the attack with
a backhanded insult towards Saudi Arabia. "Despite some ongoing policy differences with the
kingdom, no nation should be subjected to these kinds of attacks on it soil and against its
people," he wrote on Twitter, declining to name Iran as the culprit.
Committee members Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Vir.) explicitly announced
their opposition to war with Iran. And prominent war powers critic Sen.
Jeff Markley (D-Ore.) quipped that, "[b]ack when Presidents used to follow the Constitution,
they sought consent for military action from Congress, not foreign governments that murder
reporters," referring to the assassination of Saudi-American journalist Jamal Khashoggi.
"Diplomacy by Twitter has not worked so far and it surely is not working with Iran. The
president needs to stop threatening military strikes via social media," said Sen. Ben Cardin
(D-Mary.) in response to a question from the National Interest . "The attack on Saudi
Arabia is troubling whether it was perpetrated by Houthi rebels or Iran. The U.S. should regain
its leadership by working with our allies to isolate Iran for its belligerent actions in the
region."
"The U.S. should not be looking for any opportunity to start a dangerous and costly war with
Iran. Congress has not authorized war against Iran and we've made it crystal clear that Saudi
Arabia needs to withdraw from Yemen," he continued.
Asked how he would vote on a declaration of war, the senator told the National
Interest : "Let's hope it does not come to that. Congress has not authorized war against
Iran. The majority voted to engage them diplomatically to slow their nuclear ambitions. The
international community is ready to work with the U.S. again to ease economic pressure on Iran
in exchange for their restraint. We are at a dangerous precipice."
In a statement emailed to the National Interest and posted to Twitter, Sen. Tim
Kaine (D-Va.) was even more direct: "The US should never go to war to protect Saudi oil."
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) has long been a critic of Saudi Arabia's war in Yemen, proposing
a successful bill
to cut off U.S. support for the Saudi-led war effort. (He did not have enough votes to override
the veto.) After the attacks, he wrote a long Twitter thread
explaining how "the Saudis sowed the seeds of this mess" in Yemen.
"It's simply amazing how the Saudis call all our shots these days. We don't have a mutual
defense alliance with KSA, for good reason. We shouldn't pretend we do," Murphy added. "And
frankly, no matter where this latest drone strike was launched from, there is no short or long
term upside to the U.S. military getting more deeply involved in the growing regional contest
between the Saudis and Iranians."
But the reaction did not fall neatly along party lines.
"Iran is one of the most dangerous state sponsors of terrorism. This may well be the thing
that calls for military action against Iran, if that's what the intelligence supports," said
Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) in a Monday interview with Fox News. Others pointed out that
attacking Iran would contradict Trump's own principles.
"Having our country act as Saudi Arabia's bitch is not 'America First,'" said Democratic
presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard, invoking a popular Trump slogan. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ken.),
who had invoked Trump's antiwar message in a public feud
with Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) over the weekend, took to CNN to warn against striking Iran.
"This is a regional conflict, that there's no reason the superpower of the United States
needs to be getting into bombing mainland Iran. It would be a needless escalation of this," he
told journalist Jake Tapper. "Those who loved the Iraq War, the Cheneys, the Boltons, the
Kristols, they all are clamoring and champing at the bit for another war in Iran. But it's not
a walk in the park."
Davis agreed with Paul's assessment. "There's too many people who have lost touch with
understanding what war is all about. They think it's easy," he told the National
Interest . "Just imagine this. What we go ahead and do this, and Iran makes good on their
threats, and American warships get sunk in the Gulf?" "This is not America's fight," he
concluded. "The American armed forces are not on loan as a Saudi defense force."
"There's another claim that the impact on oil markets is sufficient to impact the vital U.S.
interest in the free flow of energy coming out of that region, but that argument quickly
descends into absurdity when we remember that the Trump administration has been trying to
zero-out Iranian oil exports, for a host of spurious reasons," Glaser told the National
Interest . "Washington is also aggressively sanctioning Venezuela, making it harder for
Caracas to bring oil to market, too. If we really cared about the supply of oil, we wouldn't be
doing this."
In any case, the attack may not have affected oil markets in such a straightforward way.
Latham says that the attack struck an oil desulphurization facility. At the moment,
desulphurized fuel is in high demand from the shipping industry, which is rushing to comply
with new international environmental regulations.
"In order to have clean ships by the first of January next year, all the world's shipping
fleet from about now until the end of the year are busy emptying their tanks of heavy sulphur
fuel oil and filling their tanks with low sulphur fuel oil, which is the new standard," Latham
explained, claiming that the attack could have taken up to 20 percent of the world's
desulphurization capacity out of commission.
"This little accident was designed to be maximally
disruptive to the world's oil market. It could not have happened at a worse time." "But what is
really interesting is in Amsterdam this morning, I saw that for fuel oil -- the sulphurous
stuff -- the price went down," Latham continued, speculating that international powers might
delay the new environmental regulations by months and inadvertently drive down the price of oil
in the long run.
On Sunday, Trump tapped into emergency U.S. oil reserves, in order to stabilize prices. It's
not clear, however, that the United States has enough oil to cope with wider attacks on energy
infrastructure. "If the Iranians did this, they have shown they have pretty immense
capabilities clearly," Parsi told the National Interest . "In the case of a full-scale
war, imagine what this will do for the global economy. It's not that difficult to imagine what
that will do to Trump's re-election prospects. I think that is something Trump
understands."
Matthew Petti is a national security reporter at the National Interest.
Nadler:Corey what time is it? Corey :It's 2pm. Nadler: The clock shows 1:59 . Charge Corey for
lying to Congress! All a gotcha game by a group of angry haters.
Nadler:Corey what time is it? Corey :It's 2pm. Nadler: The clock shows 1:59 . Charge Corey for
lying to Congress! All a gotcha game by a group of angry haters.
"... This is no coincidence. The DNC elite, a who's who of Wall Street donors and "party insiders," have chosen Elizabeth Warren as the safest insurance policy to Joe Biden. Warren has positioned herself as the safer version of progressivism in contradistinction to Bernie Sanders' full-fledged New Deal politics. ..."
"... In recent weeks, Elizabeth Warren has been putting smiles on the faces of the Democratic Party establishment. Her performance at the DNC's summer fundraiser in San Francisco in late August received widespread positive coverage from the corporate media. The New York Times , for example, reported that Warren has been sending private messages to Democratic Party insiders to let them know that she is more interested in leading a "revival" of the Democratic Party rather than a revolution. ..."
"... In other words, Elizabeth Warren is saying and doing all the right things to position herself as the DNC's choice for the presidential nomination should the Biden campaign continue to falter. ..."
"... The DNC is looking for a candidate who will oppose Trump but support the neoliberal and foreign policy consensus that exists in Washington. At first, Warren's mimicry of Bernie Sanders' talking points raised a few eyebrows on Wall Street. While some of those eyebrows remain raised, the DNC clearly prefers Warren's "revival" over Sanders' "political revolution." ..."
From forgetting former President Barack Obama's name to having your
wife ask voters to "swallow
a little bit" of his pro-corporate positions on healthcare, the oligarchs in control of the
two-party political system in the United States are well aware of Biden's struggles .
According to the Washington Times , Biden is losing the support from the corporate
media. The editorial
cited a study from Axios which concluded that of 100 media stories about the Biden
campaign that received the most attention on social media, 77 were negative in character. While
Biden consistently leads in the polls, the DNC elite has gone fishing for of an insurance
policy for Biden's flailing campaign.
Enter Elizabeth Warren. At first, the Massachusetts Senator seemed like a dark horse in the
race and a mere thorn in the side of Bernie Sanders. Kamala Harris appeared to be the early DNC
favorite and her campaign has worked overtime to show its commitment to a neoliberal economic
and political agenda. However, Harris was stymied by Hawaiian Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard's
thirty second run
down of her record as Defense Attorney and Attorney General for the state of California
during the second Democratic Party primary debate. Ever since, Harris has seen her stock
decline mightily
in the polls while Elizabeth Warren's polling numbers have increased dramatically.
This is no coincidence. The DNC elite, a who's who of Wall Street donors and "party
insiders," have chosen Elizabeth Warren as the safest insurance policy to Joe Biden. Warren has
positioned herself as the safer version of progressivism in contradistinction to Bernie
Sanders' full-fledged New Deal politics. As far back as late February of 2019, Warren was
deriding corporate "special interests" while signaling that she would not succumb to
"unilateral disarmament" in a general election against Trump by forgoing corporate
donations.
The progressivism of Elizabeth Warren was thus a malleable project with a history of
inconsistency, as evidenced by her constant flip-flopping on issues such as the privatization
of education in Massachusetts.
In recent weeks, Elizabeth Warren has been putting smiles on the faces of the Democratic
Party establishment. Her performance at the DNC's summer fundraiser in San Francisco in late
August received widespread positive coverage from the corporate media. The New York
Times , for example, reported that Warren has been
sending private messages to Democratic Party insiders to let them know that she is more
interested in leading a "revival" of the Democratic Party rather than a revolution.
An article
in The Atlantic provided snippet remarks from people like Don Fowler, described in the
piece as a former DNC-chair and "long-time Clinton-family loyalist," who called Warren "smart
as shit" for her inside-out approach to her political campaign. A more recent editorial in The
New York Times offered a glimpse into Warren's former big donor connections from her
2018 Senate campaign. According to the Times , Warren was able to transfer 10.4
million USD to her presidential campaign effort in part because of the generosity of the
very same corporate elite that she now condemns as holding too much influence over the
Democratic Party. NBC News further revealed that Elizabeth Warren has an open line of
communication with the much maligned but infamous Democratic Party establishment leader,
Hillary Clinton.
In other words, Elizabeth Warren is saying and doing all the right things to position
herself as the DNC's choice for the presidential nomination should the Biden campaign continue
to falter.
Donald Trump is guaranteed the nomination for the Republican Party ticket after
taking over the party in 2016 from defunct establishment figures such as Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush,
and Ted Cruz.
The DNC is looking for a candidate who will oppose Trump but support the
neoliberal and foreign policy consensus that exists in Washington. At first, Warren's mimicry
of Bernie Sanders' talking points raised a few eyebrows on Wall Street. While some of those
eyebrows remain raised, the DNC clearly prefers Warren's "revival" over Sanders' "political
revolution."
That's because Warren's campaign to "revive" the Democratic Party is bereft of political
principle. Whatever Sanders' political limitations as a "left" alternative to the
establishment, the Vermont Senator is by far more progressive than Warren. Warren voted for the
Trump Administration's recent
military budget in 2017 even after tens of billions of dollars were added by Congress to
the original proposal. During Israel's 2014 massacre of the Palestinians in Operation
Protective Edge, Warren claimed Israel had a
right to defend itself. Bernie Sanders offers a clear proposal for Medicare for All already
drafted in the Senate, while Elizabeth Warren believes that Medicare for All can be implemented
in
"many different ways." In CNN's Climate Town Hall, Warren opposed public control of utilities
while Sanders supported it. A deeper look at Elizabeth Warren reveals that she is more aligned
with the establishment than she wants the public to believe.
All of this is to say that the DNC is looking for the best-case scenario for its corporate
masters, which is the worst-case scenario for working people in the United States. The
principle goal of the DNC is to stop Bernie Sanders from getting anywhere near the nomination.
Prior to Warren becoming insurance policy for Joe Biden, the DNC hoped that the Massachusetts
Senator would split supporters of Bernie Sanders down the middle. This would lead either to a
clear path to the nomination for a handpicked candidate (Biden, Harris, fill in the blank) or
to a contested convention where the unelected but very wealthy
"superdelegates" would cast the deciding vote. Should Warren have turned out a lame duck,
the DNC could still rely on over a dozen candidates with careerist ambitions to force a
contested election at the DNC convention in Milwaukee.
Workers in the United States have no insurance policy when it comes to the 2020 presidential
election or any other election for that matter. Austerity, privatization, and super
exploitation is the law of the capitalist land in the USA. Sanders is attractive to many
workers in the U.S. because of his consistent articulation of an anti-austerity platform which
includes living wage employment, a Green New Deal to help provide that employment, and a solid
commitment to Medicare for All. But Sanders remains deeply loyal to the Democratic Party and
has stated firmly on several occasions on the campaign trail that he would support any
Democratic Party candidate should he lose the nomination. Sanders frames Donald Trump as the
most dangerous element in U.S. society even as his own party colludes to prevent him from
having a fair shot at the nomination. Sanders and his supporters must realize that Elizabeth
Warren is not a friend, but an opportunist who is more than willing to profit from their
demise. The best-case scenario for the working class is that wall to wall resistance to Sanders
will lead to a mass exodus from the party and open the door for an independent worker's party
to form amid the collapse of the DNC.
Saudi Arabia oil supply was attacked. There is reason to believe that we know the culprit, are locked and loaded depending
on verification, but are waiting to hear from the Kingdom as to who they believe was the cause of this attack, and under what
terms we would proceed!
in American imperialism and the power imbalance isn't about just oil? How about we elaborate on that. It's not enough to criticize
American military meddling without also calling out the geopolitical and economic meddling. These are intertwined and while I
think Tulsi is very strong and very correct on military "interventions," she can and should go further. (All Americand should,
no arguments here.) I mean, as far as this tweet goes, it's a cheap shot at a total loser who is already an easy target. Is she
tweeting this at the American companies with interests in Saudi oil?
as far as this tweet [by Tulsi] goes, it's a cheap shot at a total loser who is already an easy target. Is she tweeting
this at the American companies with interests in Saudi oil?
The "total loser" is a master politician, surviving a coup attempt , battling hostile MSM 24/7 and with an enlarging voter
base. Include rising favorability ratings, though still less than 50%. His popularity currently equals that of Obomber at a similar
point in first term.
in American imperialism and the power imbalance isn't about just oil? How about we elaborate on that. It's not enough to
criticize American military meddling without also calling out the geopolitical and economic meddling. These are intertwined
and while I think Tulsi is very strong and very correct on military "interventions," she can and should go further. (All Americand
should, no arguments here.) I mean, as far as this tweet goes, it's a cheap shot at a total loser who is already an easy target.
Is she tweeting this at the American companies with interests in Saudi oil?
I'm not trying to be contrary, but I honestly do not get what she's saying here, other than Trump is being KSA's "bitch" because
he's waiting to hear what they say before letting bombs fly at whoever the US "believes" is responsible. Personally I think that's
a big improvement over him immediately ordering an attack on Iran, or wherever.
If her statement criticized the "locked and loaded" part of his statement and she directly said we should not be bombing
anyone on behalf of Saudi Arabia, then I'd agree with her.
But instead she criticized his waiting to hear from the country that was actually bombed, before doing anything or taking unilateral
action. Calling him SKA's bitch, means he's being weak and submissive. Goading him into quicker action ... seems like an odd way
to discourage war and the macho-man thinking that drives it.
I guess I really don't understand at all why people like this rhetoric from her. I personally have a confused, but basically
negative, gut reaction to her comment.
@CS in AZ@CS in AZ
I ran across her statements on youtube. And I don't see how you can interpret what she said as "goading" him.
I'm not trying to be contrary, but I honestly do not get what she's saying here, other than Trump is being KSA's "bitch"
because he's waiting to hear what they say before letting bombs fly at whoever the US "believes" is responsible. Personally
I think that's a big improvement over him immediately ordering an attack on Iran, or wherever.
If her statement criticized the "locked and loaded" part of his statement and she directly said we should not be bombing
anyone on behalf of Saudi Arabia, then I'd agree with her.
But instead she criticized his waiting to hear from the country that was actually bombed, before doing anything or taking
unilateral action. Calling him SKA's bitch, means he's being weak and submissive. Goading him into quicker action ... seems
like an odd way to discourage war and the macho-man thinking that drives it.
I guess I really don't understand at all why people like this rhetoric from her. I personally have a confused, but basically
negative, gut reaction to her comment.
was a country at peace and was suddenly attacked, I could sort of understand your objection to Gabbard criticizing Trump for
waiting to hear from the Saudi princes about what to do next.
But that's not the situation. Saudi Arabia has been targeting school buses, hospitals, weddings, and has starved 85,000 children
to death in Yemen, and we have HELPED! Starving a child to death is torture.
The fact that the civilized world hasn't rained retribution down on the Saudi government for supporting Al Qaeda, for supporting
ISIS and its atrocities, and for using the people of Yemen for target practice just to benefit our defense contractors, is an
abomination. We are not just being USED by the Saudi government. We are being ABUSED, as a nation, as a people, as a culture that's
supposed to have values. We are being transformed into the sucking scum of the earth. For money. For a few contractors.
I'm not trying to be contrary, but I honestly do not get what she's saying here, other than Trump is being KSA's "bitch"
because he's waiting to hear what they say before letting bombs fly at whoever the US "believes" is responsible. Personally
I think that's a big improvement over him immediately ordering an attack on Iran, or wherever.
If her statement criticized the "locked and loaded" part of his statement and she directly said we should not be bombing
anyone on behalf of Saudi Arabia, then I'd agree with her.
But instead she criticized his waiting to hear from the country that was actually bombed, before doing anything or taking
unilateral action. Calling him SKA's bitch, means he's being weak and submissive. Goading him into quicker action ... seems
like an odd way to discourage war and the macho-man thinking that drives it.
I guess I really don't understand at all why people like this rhetoric from her. I personally have a confused, but basically
negative, gut reaction to her comment.
Trump is his own worst enemy. His thoughtless tweets reveal him to be some seriously damaged goods.
Not since the late days of dementia ridden Reagan has a more dangerous finger been on "The Button".
@earthling1@earthling1
Trump's policies are by and larger terrible, neoliberal, disguised as populism. But before considering that Trump is an idiot,
rather than one prone to bad choices in policy, please consider his current POLIICAL status. See my comment above to Monsieur
le Frog.
Trump is his own worst enemy. His thoughtless tweets reveal him to be some seriously damaged goods.
Not since the late days of dementia ridden Reagan has a more dangerous finger been on "The Button".
have not unreasonably read his tweet as saying what it clearly seems to be saying, that the US will wait to see who the Saudis
decide carried out the bombing, and the US will wait for their instructions on how the US should proceed -- deferring to the Saudis
on two counts.
Does seem rather clear, and odd, for a US president to state a foreign power should dictate our actions on their behalf.
I didn't read it at all as a complaint that the US has to wait and cool its heels for the Saudis in order to rush into military
action.
Of course she went on twitter to respond to DT's tweet. Twitter, the short-form of communication, where brief tweets are always
vulnerable to misunderstanding.
This used to be called diplomacy. That's what we (the peace-not-war minded) people) wanted from our government. I still
do, and I'm forced to say I think I actually agree with trump on this one. His tweet was unusually diplomatic and relatively calm.
I was glad he said something reasonable, for perhaps the first time ever.
WE (the US) are not the world dictatorship that should feel free to bomb anyone anywhere anytime, and screw the rest of the
world. Cooperation among governments is not being anyone's bitch. That's the pro war, pro US empire kind of thinking.
America first... see, that's not really what I believe in. So I see now, that must be why I felt so disturbed by her comment.
I just disagree with her basic premise.
have not unreasonably read his tweet as saying what it clearly seems to be saying, that the US will wait to see who the
Saudis decide carried out the bombing, and the US will wait for their instructions on how the US should proceed -- deferring
to the Saudis on two counts.
Does seem rather clear, and odd, for a US president to state a foreign power should dictate our actions on their behalf.
I didn't read it at all as a complaint that the US has to wait and cool its heels for the Saudis in order to rush into military
action.
Of course she went on twitter to respond to DT's tweet. Twitter, the short-form of communication, where brief tweets are
always vulnerable to misunderstanding.
@CS in AZ@CS in AZ
is when two countries engage in discussions to possibly reach a mutual agreement. That seems like an incredibly expansive and
pro-Trump reading of his bizarre tweet.
Twump's tweet, in the clear language of the brief text, was about the US president waiting to hear marching orders from Crown
Prince Mohammed "Ben" Salman as to what the US should do.
Tulsi's tweet and use of the word "bitch" was actually referencing a previous tweet she had made months ago criticizing the
way the US seems to be subservient to the Saudis.
This used to be called diplomacy. That's what we (the peace-not-war minded) people) wanted from our government. I
still do, and I'm forced to say I think I actually agree with trump on this one. His tweet was unusually diplomatic and relatively
calm. I was glad he said something reasonable, for perhaps the first time ever.
WE (the US) are not the world dictatorship that should feel free to bomb anyone anywhere anytime, and screw the rest of
the world. Cooperation among governments is not being anyone's bitch. That's the pro war, pro US empire kind of thinking.
America first... see, that's not really what I believe in. So I see now, that must be why I felt so disturbed by her comment.
I just disagree with her basic premise.
Gabbard Campaign Video Slams Trump For Making US "The Prostitute Of Saudi Arabia"
by Tyler Durden
Wed, 04/17/2019
Democratic presidential candidate for 2020 Rep. Tulsi Gabbard lashed out at Trump on Wednesday after the president vetoed
the Yemen War Powers Resolution this week, which sought to end US support for the Sauid-led war in Yemen.
The Hawaiian congresswomen and outspoken US foreign policy critic asserted the president is turning the nation "into the
prostitute of Saudi Arabia" and further stated he vetoed the bill "to please his Saudi masters" in a minute-and-a-half campaign
video.
"Unlike Donald Trump I will not turn our great country into the prostitute of Saudi Arabia."
#5.1#5.1 is when two countries
engage in discussions to possibly reach a mutual agreement. That seems like an incredibly expansive and pro-Trump reading of
his bizarre tweet.
Twump's tweet, in the clear language of the brief text, was about the US president waiting to hear marching orders from
Crown Prince Mohammed "Ben" Salman as to what the US should do.
Tulsi's tweet and use of the word "bitch" was actually referencing a previous tweet she had made months ago criticizing
the way the US seems to be subservient to the Saudis.
@Linda Wood
which provides the context for Tulsi's latest tweet. In this manner, Tulsi continues to emphasize a theme: no matter the circumstance
(i.e., excuses), Saudi is a barbarous country, executing its detractors with swords rather than nice "surgical" drone strikes
like Obomba and DJT have used.
Gabbard Campaign Video Slams Trump For Making US "The Prostitute Of Saudi Arabia"
by Tyler Durden
Wed, 04/17/2019
Democratic presidential candidate for 2020 Rep. Tulsi Gabbard lashed out at Trump on Wednesday after the president vetoed
the Yemen War Powers Resolution this week, which sought to end US support for the Sauid-led war in Yemen.
The Hawaiian congresswomen and outspoken US foreign policy critic asserted the president is turning the nation "into
the prostitute of Saudi Arabia" and further stated he vetoed the bill "to please his Saudi masters" in a minute-and-a-half
campaign video.
"Unlike Donald Trump I will not turn our great country into the prostitute of Saudi Arabia."
very
convoluted version , Iranian drones were launched from an Iranian affiliated militia base in Iraq in retaliation for Saudi
funded Israeli drone strikes originating from a US/Kurdish base in Syria that struck Iranian/Iraqi bases, weapons depots, and
a convoy in August.
Middle East Eye, a Qatari financed outlet, reported yesterday that the attack was launched from Iraq by Iran aligned forces
in revenge for Israeli attacks in Syria. The author, David Hearst, is known for slandered reporting. The report is based on
a single anonymous Iraqi intelligence source. Qatar, which is struggling with Saudi Arabia and the UAE over its support for
the Muslim Brotherhood, would like to see a larger conflict involving its rivals east and west of the Persian Gulf. The report
should therefore be disregarded.
but with all the various reports it does seem clear that who launched them (drone or planes) look hard to ascertain for certain.
but trump was far more careful than pompeo and lindsey graham who want to bomb bomb bomb iran on speculation, because iran
is evil.
ah, i've been trying to figure out ho to compile a post on possibilities v. blame, and it's getting further and further away
from me. but both KSA and trump (or his generals) may really understand what's at stake. what's bibi saying?
very
convoluted version , Iranian drones were launched from an Iranian affiliated militia base in Iraq in retaliation for Saudi
funded Israeli drone strikes originating from a US/Kurdish base in Syria that struck Iranian/Iraqi bases, weapons depots, and
a convoy in August.
it's clear that Gulf oil installations are vulnerable from a new generation of drones that these players are assembling or
otherwise acquiring themselves. Several years ago, the Iranians were able to hack a Predator drone and bring it down intact, suitable
for reverse engineering. In past war games, the entire US fleet in the Persian Gulf was destroyed in a matter of minutes by swarms
of Iranian missiles. The Yemen war is likely to be over and the possibility of an attack on Iran seems more unlikely now as well.
Middle East Eye, a Qatari financed outlet, reported yesterday that the attack was launched from Iraq by Iran aligned
forces in revenge for Israeli attacks in Syria. The author, David Hearst, is known for slandered reporting. The report is
based on a single anonymous Iraqi intelligence source. Qatar, which is struggling with Saudi Arabia and the UAE over its
support for the Muslim Brotherhood, would like to see a larger conflict involving its rivals east and west of the Persian
Gulf. The report should therefore be disregarded.
but with all the various reports it does seem clear that who launched them (drone or planes) look hard to ascertain for
certain. but trump was far more careful than pompeo and lindsey graham who want to bomb bomb bomb iran on speculation,
because iran is evil.
ah, i've been trying to figure out ho to compile a post on possibilities v. blame, and it's getting further and further
away from me. but both KSA and trump (or his generals) may really understand what's at stake. what's bibi saying?
against such a swarm attack like this (and so accurately targeted), nor does the US, according to b and a few others. iran
probably does have russian missile defense, but clearly: riyadh needs to make peace with the houthis at any cost. there must be
next to nothing left standing there after what, four years?
it's clear that Gulf oil installations are vulnerable from a new generation of drones that these players are assembling
or otherwise acquiring themselves. Several years ago, the Iranians were able to hack a Predator drone and bring it down intact,
suitable for reverse engineering. In past war games, the entire US fleet in the Persian Gulf was destroyed in a matter of minutes
by swarms of Iranian missiles. The Yemen war is likely to be over and the possibility of an attack on Iran seems more unlikely
now as well.
against such a swarm attack like this (and so accurately targeted), nor does the US, according to b and a few others. iran
probably does have russian missile defense, but clearly: riyadh needs to make peace with the houthis at any cost. there must
be next to nothing left standing there after what, four years?
@dystopian
She, as many predicted, is pushing Trump further and further into a non-confrontational foreign policy. There is not one of the
Klown Kontenders with enough guts to call out Trump as forcefully as this--including Bernie.
This is a new tweet from Tulsi this afternoon with a short vid...
The attack marks a turning point in asymmetrical warfare: no longer can a country bomb its neighbor without fearing a significant
attack in return. An that attack won't be tossing a few rockets in the general direction of a targey; instead they'll be precision
strikes taking out key infrastructure.
The concept of an air force has changed and the big powers won't have a monopoly going forward. Mutually assured destruction
lite.
"... Ms. Warren described Washington as utterly compromised by the influence of corporations and the extremely wealthy, and laid out a detailed plan for cleansing it. ..."
"... "Corruption has put our planet at risk, corruption has broken our economy and corruption is breaking our democracy," Ms. Warren said Monday evening. "I know what's broken, I've got a plan to fix it and that's why I'm running for president of the United States." ..."
"... Their version of populism, which Mr. Sanders pioneered but did not bring to fruition when he challenged Hillary Clinton in 2016, is about attacking concentrated wealth and economic power and breaking its influence over government. Ms. Warren and Mr. Sanders, effectively tied for second place in their party's primary, both describe the country's political institutions as rotten and vow to make vast changes to the economy ..."
Warren and Trump Speeches Attack Corruption,
but Two Different Kinds https://nyti.ms/2IaKMVQ
NYT - Alexander Burns - September 17
In New York, Senator Elizabeth Warren described a government compromised by the influence
of the wealthy. President Trump, in New Mexico, denounced a "failed liberal
establishment."
Senator Elizabeth Warren stood beneath a marble arch in New York City, telling a crowd of
thousands that she would lead a movement to purge the government of corruption. Not far from
the site of a historic industrial disaster, Ms. Warren described Washington as utterly
compromised by the influence of corporations and the extremely wealthy, and laid out a
detailed plan for cleansing it.
"Corruption has put our planet at risk, corruption has broken our economy and
corruption is breaking our democracy," Ms. Warren said Monday evening. "I know what's broken,
I've got a plan to fix it and that's why I'm running for president of the United
States."
Only a few hours later, on a stage outside Albuquerque, President Trump took aim at a
different phenomenon that he also described as corruption. Before his own roaring crowd, Mr.
Trump cast himself as a bulwark against the power not of corporations but of a "failed
liberal establishment" that he described as attacking the country's sovereignty and cultural
heritage.
"We're battling against the corrupt establishment of the past," Mr. Trump said, warning in
grim language: "They want to erase American history, crush religious liberty, indoctrinate
our students with left-wing ideology."
The two back-to-back addresses laid out the competing versions of populism that could come
to define the presidential campaign. From the right, there is the strain Mr. Trump brought to
maturity in 2016, combining the longstanding grievances of the white working class with a
newer, darker angst about immigration and cultural change. And on the left, there is a vastly
different populist wave still gaining strength, defined in economic terms by Ms. Warren,
Democrat of Massachusetts, and Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont.
The messages underlined the possibility that the 2020 election could be the first in a
generation to be fought without an ally of either party's centrist establishment on the
ballot. While it is by no means certain that Ms. Warren will emerge as the Democratic
nominee, two of her party's top three candidates -- Ms. Warren and Mr. Sanders -- are
trumpeting themes of economic inequality and promises of sweeping political and social
reform.
Their version of populism, which Mr. Sanders pioneered but did not bring to fruition
when he challenged Hillary Clinton in 2016, is about attacking concentrated wealth and
economic power and breaking its influence over government. Ms. Warren and Mr. Sanders,
effectively tied for second place in their party's primary, both describe the country's
political institutions as rotten and vow to make vast changes to the economy . ...
Let's hope the Sanders campaign does not play this card.
"Senator Professor Warren continues to play error-free baseball in this here presidential
campaign. Not only does she schedule a certified Big Speech in Washington Square Park in New
York on Monday night to talk about the contributions of women to the labor movement not far
from the site of the Triangle Shirtwaist fire, but also, in the afternoon, she scoops an
important endorsement across town. From The New York Times:
'The party endorsed Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont during the last presidential cycle,
at which time he described Working Families as "the closest thing" to "my vision of
democratic socialism." The group's endorsement of Ms. Warren on Monday, one of the few by a
prominent progressive organization this early in the primary, is sure to turn heads among
left-leaning Democrats who are desperate to defeat the current front-runner, Mr. Biden, in a
primary election where their party's ideological future is at stake.
Mr. Mitchell brushed off the possibility that the group's endorsement would be seen as a
sign of a splintering of the progressive left. The vote among "tens of thousands" of party
members resulted in a commanding majority for Ms. Warren, a party spokesman said; she
received more than 60 percent of the votes on the first ballot.'
The Sanders camp is already raising holy hell. They will now position SPW as a tool of her
corporate masters. (That's been going on for a while now among some of the more enthusiastic
adherents of the Sanders campaign. My guess is that it will become more general now.) The WFP
endorsement is an important and clarifying one. If there is a liberal lane, there's some
daylight open now."
"... I do like the author's take on the importance of corporations' fiduciary responsibility to shareholders, though. There WAS a time when a company's first priority was customer satisfaction. The moment they became corporations, however, customers went out the window in favor of the shareholders. ..."
Go to the section of Warren's website entitled
"Plans" and at the time of this writing you'll have a choice between a staggering 43 links.
Many of the plans could hugely impact our economy, but one stands above the rest in its
potential to overhaul our commercia landscape. Warren calls the reforms she envisions to
corporate mandates and governance
"accountable capitalism."
Corporations sometimes do bad things, and Warren's plan might stop some of them.
So just what is accountable capitalism? It was originally a bill proposed by Senator Warren
last year. In a fawning write-up in Vox
, Matthew Yglesias inadvertently exposed the idea's flimsy intellectual foundation:
Warren's plan starts from the premise that corporations that claim the legal rights of
personhood should be legally required to accept the moral obligations of personhood.
... ... ...
Warren's plan requires corporations valued at over $1 billion to obtain a special federal
charter. This charter exposes corporations to regulation from a new Office of United States
Corporations that "tells company directors to consider the interests of all relevant
stakeholders -- shareholders, but also employees, customers, and the community within which the
company operates -- when making decisions."
... ... ...
Warren has spent much of her career crusading against the harmful and unjust cozy
relationships between Wall Street and government, often to her credit. It's curious that
someone with such expertise in the matter doesn't seem at all concerned that this new
"accountability" would multiply the number of meetings, phone calls, and emails between senior
regulators and the titans of the private sector.
These billion-dollar corporations already employ armies of lawyers and accountants to
navigate regulatory minefields and turn them into weapons against their smaller competitors.
Does Warren believe this practice will stop overnight?
If most rent-seeking were a matter of nefarious corporate executives buying off weak or
greedy officials, we could just elect better people. The fact that this problem persists over
decades is indicative of a more subtle process. Rent-seeking is an inevitable systemic feature
in a network with thousands of contact points between business and government.
She had her chance in the '08 credit crash when she took on Wall Street & The
Banksters!
She ended up filling the Banksters & 1%'ers pockets with billions of Tarp funds some
of which were donated to her campaign while enacting competition killing Dodd Frank
compliance laws! No one was ever charged or convicted for the $9Trillion debacle!
I recall Barry the magical ***** had similar plans that disappeared the moment of his
coronation/deification. Campaign plans are like that: fictional lies that vanish like
magic.
I do like the author's take on the importance of corporations' fiduciary
responsibility to shareholders, though. There WAS a time when a company's first priority was
customer satisfaction. The moment they became corporations, however, customers went out the
window in favor of the shareholders.
These days, thanks to algos, things like revenue and performance don't even seem to matter
to stock valuation anymore, only buybacks and options seem to keep prices up.
The problem of corporation lack of empathy is not caused by capitalism, it is caused by
the lack of moral values of the people running the corporation. What is needed is a moral
framework within which to raise our young... Religion? Yes! correct answer.
I think the author is too generous with Warren's intentions. She pretends she cares, and
this is her misguided effort to "help". I don't think that's true.
Look at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. It, too, sounds like it's about
"helping" people. Warren proposed the whole thing, and wrote much of the legislation.
Its real purpose, if you look at its actions (which, I remind you, speak louder than
words) is to extort money from large companies in order to fund left-wing activist groups. In
nearly all its settlements, the CFPB offers companies the option to "donate" money to these
third-party groups in lieu of larger fines and penalties. They've diverted billions of
dollars to activist groups. Controlling the money allows them to control the groups, and
these groups can exert all kinds of pressure, usually in ways that would be illegal, if done
directly by the government.
It's the equivalent of having the government fund paramilitary groups or third party
propaganda.
Warren would establish this new "Office of United States Corporations" to extort even more
money, diverted to third parties to use to destroy people, companies, and anything else she'd
like to target but cannot target directly through government because of our pesky
Constitution.
She's an aspiring totalitarian dictator, using clever language and 21st century tools.
Don't pretend, for a moment, that she's interested in "helping" anyone - she'd happily kill
as many people as Hitler or Stalin ever did, if she had the chance.
"Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) slammed President Donald Trump for turning the nation into
"Saudi Arabia's bitch" after he assured the kingdom that the U.S. is "locked and loaded" as
it waits to hear who may be behind an attack on its oil supply.
"Trump awaits instructions from his Saudi masters," the Democratic presidential candidate
tweeted Sunday. "Having our country act as Saudi Arabia's bitch is not 'America First.'"
Gabbard previously accused Trump of making the U.S. "Saudi Arabia's bitch" last November
for his failure to take action against Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman who, according
to the U.S. intelligence community, directed the killing of Washington Post journalist Jamal
Khashoggi."
"Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) has doubled down attacking President Donald Trump over his
response to the weekend's drone attacks on major oil sites in Saudi Arabia.
Trump assured Saudi Arabia via Twitter that the U.S. is "locked and loaded" and awaiting
its direction following the strikes, which were claimed by Yemen's Houthi rebels but which
Trump claimed were backed by Iran.
The Democratic presidential candidate -- a combat veteran and a major in the Army National
Guard ― called Trump's response "disgraceful" in a new video shared online Monday.
"Mr. President, as you know, I have never engaged in hateful rhetoric against you or your
family and I never will," said Gabbard. "But your offering our military assets to the
dictator of Saudi Arabia to use as he sees fit is a betrayal of my brothers and sisters in
uniform who are ready to give our lives for our country."
Gabbard said Trump's belief he can "pimp out our proud servicemen and women to the prince
of Saudi Arabia is disgraceful and it once again shows that you are unfit to serve as our
commander in chief."
"My fellow service members and I, we are not your prostitutes," she concluded. "You are
not our pimp."
Most of our disagreements here are not on either economic or political principles, but rather
the awarding of style points with considerable confusion regarding the (sometimes remotely)
possible, the plausible, and the actual.
"... Only President Donald Trump, predictably, had something so say in his usual personalized fashion, which was that the report was "hard to believe," that "I don't think the Israelis were spying on us. My relationship with Israel has been great Anything is possible but I don't believe it." ..."
"... So Trump is stupid, a liar and an Israeli sycophant what's the solution? ..."
Just bewildering to read the Left's continuing insistence that Israel is best understood as
'just another outpost of the American empire'. This is probably the most damaging idea in
circulation right now, as its diversionary effect is only matched by its absurdity.
The Left simply cannot 'go there' though, no matter how much factual evidence is stacked up.
(On top of the spying and theft we have 'The Lobby' documentary, the defence pact, party
funding, etc. etc.). They have to avoid the reality, one which can only be explained through
cross border tribal allegiances and religious history going back many centuries. These, of
course, lay outside the Left's purview, and any consideration of them is dogmatically
opposed. It is getting to be a kind of insanity.
Tulsi can allege that Saudi Arabia was behind the 9/11 attacks and that they pull the
strings in Washington, (and many on the Left will applaud) but she cannot point out the
rather more glaring 9/11 connections to Israel and the whole machinery of control that lies
at the centre of American empire.
As she votes against BDS, has there ever been a more ridiculous double standard ?
Only President Donald Trump, predictably, had something so say in his usual
personalized fashion, which was that the report was "hard to believe," that "I don't think
the Israelis were spying on us. My relationship with Israel has been great Anything is
possible but I don't believe it."
So Trump is stupid, a liar and an Israeli sycophant what's the solution?
It's amazing how little coverage this story got. Can you imagine if Russian devices had been
found? It would be on CNN, etc. hour after hour and they'd be interviewing Nancy Pelosi non
stop.
@Cloak And
Dagger I think you are correct there maybe many Americans in the USA.. It may take the
few Americans who have been allowed to see the big picture at the USA
"I've never seen a President -- I don't care who he is -- stand up to them. It just
boggles the mind. They always get what they want. The Israelis know what is going on all
the time. I got to the point where I wasn't writing anything down. If the American people
understood what a grip these people have on our government, they would RISE UP IN ARMS.
Our citizens certainly don't have any idea what goes on." – Admiral Thomas Moorer, head
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, interview, 24 Aug. 1983
Admiral Moorer, "the dirty anti-semite," was one of the few people with influence to call
out Israel for their deliberate attack on the USS Liberty – https://www.erasingtheliberty.com/
The American Legion continues to wet its pants apparently believing that kissing (((ass)))
is more patriotic than standing up for America and members of the Navy.
Whats new about Israeli spying against the zio/US, hell the government is full of zionists in
every facet of the government, they run every department, including and especially the CIA ,
which would be better named the Mossad West, in fact the Mossad is so embedded in the CIA
that the only way to end this would be to as JFK said to scatter it to the winds aka abolish
the Mossad infested CIA.
Steve Peoples and Will Weissert - AP - September 16
NEW YORK -- Elizabeth Warren has released a sweeping anti-government corruption proposal,
providing a detailed policy roadmap for a fight she says is at the core of her presidential
campaign.
The Democratic senator from Massachusetts is announcing the plan Monday in Manhattan's
Washington Square Park, near the site of the Triangle Shirtwaist Co., which caught fire in
1911, killing 140-plus workers. Many of those deaths later were attributed to neglected
safety features, such as doors that were locked inside the factory.
Warren's plan would ban lobbyists from many fundraising activities and serving as
political campaign bundlers, tighten limits on politicians accepting gifts or payment for
government actions and bar senior officials and members of Congress from serving on nonprofit
boards. ...
Senator Elizabeth Warren is blitzing the 2020 Democratic primary field with a series of
ambitious policy proposals covering everything from student loans to the use of federal
lands.
Her proposals have become a signature part of her campaign, solidifying her reputation as
a policy wonk and spurring a new campaign slogan: "I have a plan for that."
Big Tech breakup
Child care
Clean energy
Criminal justice
Economic patriotism
Electoral college
Farmers
Filibuster
Green energy
Gun control
Higher education
Housing
Immigration
Minority entrepreneurship
Native American issues
Opioids
Pentagon ethics
Public lands
Puerto Rico
Racial wage disparities
Reparations
Roe v. Wade
Rural communities
State Department
Tax plans
Trade
Voting rights
Wall Street regulation
Those who control the public forum, as Spengler pointed out, obviously use their control to further their own interests and no
others. Why in the world would an American-hating MSM give Americans an equal voice?
Notable quotes:
"... These educated lemmings believe what they're spoon fed by CNN or Fox News. They cannot possibly accept that they're immune to facts and disproof of their cherished assumptions because they've been emotionally conditioned on a subconscious level, after which facts and reasoning are emotionally reacted to like they were personal attacks. ..."
"... A newly scripted financial crisis will complete transfer of much of America's corporate assets to the government when the $7 trillion in private retirement assets is appropriated in emergency legislation, immediately conceded by the Republicans amid the usual handwringing and crocodile tears. In exchange Americans will receive rapidly deflating gov bonds that will be accepted as the new store of wealth, which it will be for the elites who own American as surely as they do in Venezuela. ..."
Politics in America is a function of those who control the public forum via the msm. Those
who control the public forum, as Spengler pointed out, obviously use their control to further
their own interests and no others. Why in the world would an American-hating msm give
Americans an equal voice?
The msm aren't merely some unfortunate artifact of the First Amendment we have to live.
The msm control the formation of men's minds. As Jacques Ellul points out in his masterpiece
on propaganda, it's those among us who're most educated and most inclined to closely follow
the "news" who are most susceptible to brainwashing. These educated lemmings believe what
they're spoon fed by CNN or Fox News. They cannot possibly accept that they're immune to
facts and disproof of their cherished assumptions because they've been emotionally
conditioned on a subconscious level, after which facts and reasoning are emotionally reacted
to like they were personal attacks.
This explains why college educated white women are the Dems' winning edge, trading empty
moral posturing for condemning their own children and grandchildren to die hounded and
dispossessed in their own land. But there are never any consequences when they insist they
have the best of intentions. These women whose thoughts are authored by their own people's
enemies will probably put a Warren or one of the other Marxists over the top in 2020.
A newly
scripted financial crisis will complete transfer of much of America's corporate assets to the
government when the $7 trillion in private retirement assets is appropriated in emergency
legislation, immediately conceded by the Republicans amid the usual handwringing and
crocodile tears. In exchange Americans will receive rapidly deflating gov bonds that will be
accepted as the new store of wealth, which it will be for the elites who own American as
surely as they do in Venezuela.
"... By that point, he'd already warned his audience about the perils of "monopoly power" and declared that income inequality, which the right had long been trained to believe is "just a pure invention of some diabolical French intellectual to destroy America," is actually "completely real" and "totally bad." ..."
"... The reimagining is playing out not just on Carlson's show or in conservative journals, but among a small batch of young, ambitious Republicans in Congress led by senators Josh Hawley of Missouri and Marco Rubio of Florida. ..."
"... Their populist -- or "nationalist" or "post-liberal" -- prescriptions sometimes smack of opportunism. And it's still not clear how far they're willing to stray from their party. But it looks like there are places where the new nationalists could find common cause with an energized left. ..."
"... And one of the speakers, University of Pennsylvania law professor Amy Wax, seemed to do just that -- suggesting that "cultural compatibility" should play a role in deciding which migrants are allowed into the country. "In effect," she said, this "means taking the position that our country will be better off with more whites and fewer nonwhites." But Wax's speech, however discomfiting, stood out because it was so discordant. Conference organizers took pains to prevent hate-mongers from attending -- ultimately rejecting six applicants. ... "Your ideas," he said, "are not welcome here." ... ..."
...But he also spoke, in admiring tones and at substantial length, about "The Two-Income Trap:
Why Middle-Class Parents Are Going Broke," the book Warren wrote with her daughter in 2004.
"Elizabeth Warren wrote one of the best books I've ever read on economics," he said.
By that point, he'd already warned his audience about the perils of "monopoly power" and
declared that income inequality, which the right had long been trained to believe is "just a
pure invention of some diabolical French intellectual to destroy America," is actually
"completely real" and "totally bad."
His Bolshevist pronouncements were probably not a surprise to anyone who'd watched Carlson's
show closely in the months leading up to his speech. But Fox, despite its outsize influence,
has a relatively small audience.
And it's not just Carlson's evolution that's escaped notice. It's hard to keep track of what
most of the key players on the right are saying these days, with President Trump soaking up so
much attention.
But while the commander-in-chief thrashes about, something important is taking shape in his
shadow -- the outlines of a new conservatism inspired, or at least elevated, by his rise to
power.
It's a conservatism that tries to wrestle with the post-Cold War, post-industrial angst that
fired his election -- dropping a reflexive fealty to big business that dates back to the Reagan
era and focusing more intently on the struggles of everyday Americans.
"There are many downsides, I will say, to Trump," Carlson said, in his speech this summer.
"But one of the upsides is, the Trump election was so shocking, so unlikely ... that it did
cause some significant percentage of people to say, 'wait a second, if that can happen, what
else is true?' "
The reimagining is playing out not just on Carlson's show or in conservative journals, but
among a small batch of young, ambitious Republicans in Congress led by senators Josh Hawley of
Missouri and Marco Rubio of Florida.
Their populist -- or "nationalist" or "post-liberal" -- prescriptions sometimes smack of
opportunism. And it's still not clear how far they're willing to stray from their party. But it
looks like there are places where the new nationalists could find common cause with an
energized left.
Whether the two sides can actually forge a meaningful alliance in the glare of our
hyperpartisan politics is an open question. But a compact -- even a provisional one -- may
offer the country its best shot at building a meaningful, post-Trump politics.
. . .
CARLSON DELIVERED HIS speech at the National Conservatism Conference -- the first major
gathering aimed at forging a new, right-of-center approach in the age of Trump.
"This is our independence day," said Yoram Hazony, an Israeli political theorist and chief
organizer of the event, in his spirited opening remarks. "We declare independence from
neoconservatism, from libertarianism, from what they call classical liberalism." "We are national conservatives," he said. Any effort to build a right-of-center nationalism circa 2019 inevitably runs into questions
about whether it will traffic in bigotry.
And one of the speakers, University of Pennsylvania law professor Amy Wax, seemed to do just
that -- suggesting that "cultural compatibility" should play a role in deciding which migrants
are allowed into the country. "In effect," she said, this "means taking the position that our country will be better off
with more whites and fewer nonwhites." But Wax's speech, however discomfiting, stood out because it was so discordant. Conference organizers took pains to prevent hate-mongers from attending -- ultimately
rejecting six applicants. ... "Your ideas," he said, "are not welcome here." ...
* At the National Conservatism Conference, an 'Intellectual Trumpist' Movement Begins to
Take Shape
DNC is a criminal organization and the fact that Debbie Wasserman
Schultz escaped justice is deeply regreatable.
Notable quotes:
"... The problem facing the Democratic National Committee today remains the same as in 2016: How to block even a moderately left-wing social democrat by picking a candidate guaranteed to lose to Trump, so as to continue the policies that serve banks, the financial markets and military spending for Cold War 2.0. ..."
"... Trump meanwhile has done most everything the Democratic Donor Class wants: He has cut taxes on the wealthy, cut social spending for the population at large, backed Quantitative Easing to inflate the stock and bond markets, and pursued Cold War 2.0. Best of all, his abrasive style has enabled Democrats to blame the Republicans for the giveaway to the rich, as if they would have followed a different policy. ..."
"... The effect has been to make America into a one-party state. Republicans act as the most blatant lobbyists for the Donor Class. But people can vote for a representative of the One Percent and the military-industrial complex in either the Republican or Democratic column. That is why most Americans owe allegiance to no party. ..."
"... I'm just curious about how much longer this log-jam situation can persist before real political realignment takes place. Bernie Sander is ultimately a relic not a representative of new political vigor running through the party, like Trump he would be largely be on his own without much congressional support from his own party. ..."
"... As the 2016 election and Brexit have illuminated, globalisation is a religion for the upper middle classes. ..."
"... They just refuse to understand that political solidarity, key to any such policies is permanently damaged by immigration. ..."
"... If you make people chose between their ethnicity being displaced and class conflict, they'll pick the preservation of their ethnicity and it's territory every time. I ..."
"... My prediction: The elites in the US won't give way, people will simply become demoralised and the Trump/Sanders moment will pass with significant damage done to the legitimacy of American democracy and media but with progressives unable to deal with immigration (Much like the right can't deal with global warming) they will fail to get much done. The general population has become too atomised and detached, beaten-down bystanders to their own politics and society to mount a popular political movement. Immigrants, recent descendants of immigrants and the upper middle classes will continue to instinctually understand globalisation is how they loot America and will not vote for 'extreme' candidates that threaten this. The upper middle class will continue to dominate the overton window and use it to inject utter economic lies to the public. ..."
I hope that the candidate who is clearly the voters' choice, Bernie Sanders, may end up as the party's nominee. If he is, I'm
sure he'll beat Donald Trump handily, as he would have done four years ago. But I fear that the DNC's Donor Class will push Joe Biden,
Kamala Harris or even Pete Buttigieg down the throats of voters. Just as when they backed Hillary the last time around, they hope
that their anointed neoliberal will be viewed as the lesser evil for a program little different from that of the Republicans.
So Thursday's reality TV run-off is about "who's the least evil?" An honest reality show's questions would focus on "What are
you against ?" That would attract a real audience, because people are much clearer about what they're against: the vested
interests, Wall Street, the drug companies and other monopolies, the banks, landlords, corporate raiders and private-equity asset
strippers. But none of this is to be permitted on the magic island of authorized candidates (not including Tulsi Gabbard, who was
purged from further debates for having dared to mention the unmentionable).
Donald Trump as the DNC's nominee
The problem facing the Democratic National Committee today remains the same as in 2016: How to block even a moderately left-wing
social democrat by picking a candidate guaranteed to lose to Trump, so as to continue the policies that serve banks, the financial
markets and military spending for Cold War 2.0.
DNC donors favor Joe Biden, long-time senator from the credit-card and corporate-shell state of Delaware, and opportunistic California
prosecutor Kamala Harris, with a hopey-changey grab bag alternative in smooth-talking small-town Rorschach blot candidate Pete Buttigieg.
These easy victims are presented as "electable" in full knowledge that they will fail against Trump.
Trump meanwhile has done most everything the Democratic Donor Class wants: He has cut taxes on the wealthy, cut social spending
for the population at large, backed Quantitative Easing to inflate the stock and bond markets, and pursued Cold War 2.0. Best of
all, his abrasive style has enabled Democrats to blame the Republicans for the giveaway to the rich, as if they would have followed
a different policy.
The Democratic Party's role is to protect Republicans from attack from the left, steadily following the Republican march rightward.
Claiming that this is at least in the direction of being "centrist," the Democrats present themselves as the lesser evil (which is
still evil, of course), simply as pragmatic in not letting hopes for "the perfect" (meaning moderate social democracy) block the
spirit of compromise with what is attainable, "getting things done" by cooperating across the aisle and winning Republican support.
That is what Joe Biden promises.
The effect has been to make America into a one-party state. Republicans act as the most blatant lobbyists for the Donor Class.
But people can vote for a representative of the One Percent and the military-industrial complex in either the Republican or Democratic
column. That is why most Americans owe allegiance to no party.
The Democratic National Committee worries that voters may disturb this alliance by nominating a left-wing reform candidate. The
DNC easily solved this problem in 2016: When Bernie Sanders intruded into its space, it the threw the election. It scheduled the
party's early defining primaries in Republican states whose voters leaned right, and packed the nominating convention with Donor
Class super-delegates.
After the dust settled, having given many party members political asthma, the DNC pretended that it was all an unfortunate political
error. But of course it was not a mistake at all. The DNC preferred to lose with Hillary than win with Bernie, whom springtime polls
showed would be the easy winner over Trump. Potential voters who didn't buy into the program either stayed home or voted green.
No votes will be cast for months, so I don't know how Mr. Hudson can say that Sanders is "clearly the voters choice." He would
be 79 on election day, well above the age when most men die, which is something that voters should seriously consider. Whoever
his VP is will probably be president before the end of Old Bernie's first term, so I hope he chooses his VP wisely.
In any case I laugh at how the media always reports that Biden, who has obviously lost more than a few brain cells, has such
a commanding lead over this field of second-raters. The voters, having much better things to do, haven't even started to pay attention
yet.
And, how could anyone seriously believe in these polls anyway? Only older people have land lines today. If calling people is
the methodology pollsters are using, then the results would be heavily skewed towards former VP Biden, whose name everyone knows.
I lost all faith in polls when the media was saying, with certainty, that Hillary was a lock to win against the insurgent Trump.
Tulsi Gabbard is the only candidate beside Trump with charisma today. With her cool demeanor, she is certainly the least unlikeable.
She would be Trump's most formidable opponent. But the democrats, like their counterparts, are owned by Wall Street and the Military
Industrial Complex. Sadly, most democrats still believe that the party is working in their best interests, while the republicans
are the party of the rich.
If you watch the debates tonight, which I will not be, you will notice that Tulsi Gabbard won't be on stage. That is by design.
She is a leper. At least the republicans allowed Trump to be onstage in 2016, which makes them more democratic than the democrats.
Plus they didn't have Super Delegates to prevent Trump from achieving the nomination he had rightfully won. Something to think
about since the DNC, not the voters, annointed Hillary last time.
If the YouTube Oligarchs still allow it, I plan on watching the post-debate analysis with characters like Richard Spencer and
Eric Striker. Those guys are most entertaining, and have insights that are not permitted to be uttered in the controlled, mind-numbing
farce of the mainstream media.
Elizabeth Warren seems a more likely nominee than Sanders.
Elizabeth Warren is phony as phuck(PAP). Just like forked tongued Obama she's really just a tool for the neo-liberal establishment,
which does make her more likely.
Here is another question. Can the DNC or RNC really change institutionally fast enough?
I'm just curious about how much longer this log-jam situation can persist before real political realignment takes place.
Bernie Sander is ultimately a relic not a representative of new political vigor running through the party, like Trump he would
be largely be on his own without much congressional support from his own party.
As the 2016 election and Brexit have illuminated, globalisation is a religion for the upper middle classes. Many of
them may be progressives but they refuse to understand the very non-progressive consequences of mass immigration (Or, one should
say over-immigration) or globalisation more generally. The increasing defection of such individuals to the Liberal Democrats in
Britain is a fascinating example. They just refuse to understand that political solidarity, key to any such policies is permanently
damaged by immigration.
It is interesting to see the see-saw effect of UKip and now the Brexit party in the UK (Well, in England). With them first
drawing working class voters from Labour without increasing Conservative performance, bringing about a massive conservative majority
and now threatening to siphon voters from the Tories with the opposite effect.
But UKip and later the Brexit party almost exist through the indispensable leadership of Nigel Farage and a very specific motivating
goal of leaving the EU. I can't see a third party rising to put pressure on the mainstream parties.
If you make people chose between their ethnicity being displaced and class conflict, they'll pick the preservation of their
ethnicity and it's territory every time. I f the centre left refuses to understand this (Something that wouldn't have been
hard for them to understand when they still drew candidates from the working classes) they will continue their slide into oblivion
as they have done across the Western world. (Excluding 2 party systems and Denmark where they do understand this)
My prediction: The elites in the US won't give way, people will simply become demoralised and the Trump/Sanders moment
will pass with significant damage done to the legitimacy of American democracy and media but with progressives unable to deal
with immigration (Much like the right can't deal with global warming) they will fail to get much done. The general population
has become too atomised and detached, beaten-down bystanders to their own politics and society to mount a popular political movement.
Immigrants, recent descendants of immigrants and the upper middle classes will continue to instinctually understand globalisation
is how they loot America and will not vote for 'extreme' candidates that threaten this. The upper middle class will continue to
dominate the overton window and use it to inject utter economic lies to the public.
The novel internet mass media outlets that allowed such unpoliced political discussion to reach mass audiences will be pacified
by whatever means and America will slide into an Italian style trans-generational malaise at a national level for some time.
Here is another question. Can the DNC or RNC really change institutionally fast enough?
Trump is trying to change the RNC away from Globalist elites and towards Christian Populist beliefs and Main Street America.
I am some what hopeful, as the U.S. is not alone in this trajectory. There is a global tail wind that should help the GOP change
quickly enough.
The true test will be the 2024 GOP nomination. A bold choice will have to break through to keep the RNC from backsliding into
the clutches of Globalist failure.
I think Sanders could have beat Trump in 2016. This time around it is not that clear because so many of his supporters in 2016
feel burnt.
Badly burnt. Or Bernt. He threw his support for Hillary, even if it was tepid, and then got a bad case of Russiagateitis which
his base on the left really hated. His left base never bought Russiagate for a minute. We knew it was an internal leak, probably
by Seth Rich, who provided all the information to Assange. He still seems to be a strong Israel supporter even if has stood up
to Netanyahu.
And while it may seem odd, many of his base on the left have grown weary of the global climate change agenda.
He has not advocated nuclear power and there is a growing movement for that on the left, especially by those who think renewables
will not generate the power we need.
But since Sanders does seem to attract the rural and suburban vote more than any other Democrat, Sanders has a chance to chip
away at Trumps' base and win the Electoral College. Another horrible loss to rural and suburban America by the Democrats will
cost them the EC again by a substantial margin, even if they manage to pull off another popular vote win.
the republican party is as globalist as you can find,and I'm sure you will be the first one to inform us when the global
elite including those in America throw in the towel,
Some elite Globalist NeverTrumpers, such as George Will and Bill Kristol, have thrown in the towel on the GOP. This allows
their "neocon" followers to return to their roots in the war mongering Democrat Party. So it *IS* happening.
The real questions are:
-- Can it happen fast enough?
-- Can it be sustained after Donald Trump term limits out?
I'm not bold enough to say it is inevitable. All I will say is, "There are reasons to be at least mildly hopeful."
Has everyone forgot the last time the DNC openly cheated Sanders he said nothing publicly, but then endorsed Clinton? Sanders
knows he is not allowed to become president, his role to prevent the formation of a third party, and to keep the Green Party small.
Otherwise he would jump to the Green Party right now and may beat the DNC and Trump.
Sanders treats progressives like Charlie Brown. Once again, inviting them to run a kick the football, only to pull it away
and watch them fall. He recently backed off his opposition to the open borders crazies, rarely mentions cuts to military spending
to fund things, and has even joined the stupid fake russiagate bandwagon.
Note that he dismisses the third party idea as unworkable, when he already knows the DNC is unworkable. Why not give the Green
party a chance? Cause he don't want to win knowing he'd be killed or impeached for some reason.
@Carlton Meyer The
Stalinist DNC openly cheated Tulsi Gabbard when they left her off the debate stage last night. When asked about it on 'The View'
recently, Sanders said nothing in her defense, or that she deserved to be on the stage. Nice way to stab her in the back for leaving
her DNC position to support you last time, Bernie. Socialist Sanders wants to be president, yet is afraid of the DNC. Nice!
Those polls were rigged against Tulsi, and everyone who is paying attention knows it. But, far from hurting her candidacy by
not making the DNC's arbitrary cut, her exclusion may wind up helping her. Kim Iverson, Michael Tracey, and comedian Jimmy Dore,
anti-war progressive YouTubers with large, loyal followings, have lambasted the out-of touch DNC for its actions. Tucker Carlson
on the anti-war right has also done so.
One hopes that the DNC's stupidity in censoring her message may wind up being the best thing ever for Tulsi's insurgent candidacy.
We shall see. OTOH, who can trust the polls to tell us the truth of where her popularity stands.
@RadicalCenter Do you
forget about Trump's declaration that he wants the largest amount of immigration ever, as long as they come in legally? There
are no good guys in our two sclerotic monopoly parties when it comes to immigration. Since both are terrible on that topic, at
least Tulsi seems to have the anti-war principles that Trump does not.
Democracy is a loaded word. Reasoning about it in a public discussion is thus fraught with
lots of difficulties. This comment is to highlight some crucial factors that are rarely
mentioned.
1. democracy is the particular political outcome of centuries of struggles within the
context of Early-Modernity in Western European societies (14th to 18th centuries). Three
forces were in competition for the control of power: the clergy, the nobility, and the new
rich merchants (those who in France were living in the "bourgs" and were thus called the
bourgeoisie. They were also the one's who were owning the capital). The gradual expansion of
the right to vote, to all adult citizens along the 19th and 20th centuries, was calibrated by
big capital holders to act as a system serving their interests through the manipulation of
the public's opinions. And man how successful the West is at this game
2. the history of the other people, outside of western territories, is rich with their own
experiences. Even if they are largely unknown to Westerners these histories offer viable
alternatives to the Western model of democracy. But Westerners are not interested to learn
about these other models. They firmly believe that their own system is the best and they are
always ready to impose it by force
3. Western political science is relatively young (1 or 2 centuries at best). This compares
with Chinese political science that spans over 3 millennia as a written matter that finds its
origin through oral transmission from earlier times.
_________
The words "Government of the People, by the People, for the People" is an ideological logo
that never materialized on any large scale nor over any long time-span anywhere on earth.
The shift of the center of gravity of the economy-world' to East Asia and more
particularly to China is a 'fait accompli' that still has to register in the West. The longer
it takes the West to come to its senses the more painful the downfall will be and the more
totalitarian the governance system will become
The issue isn't really democracy, and in any event not liberal democracy, which is close
to an oxymoron, given that liberalism creates imbalances of power and wealth inimical to
democracy. And the argument is a bit incoherent : voting rights in most countries were based
on property ownership, not wealth as such, and much of the political conflict of the 19th
century was between traditional landowners and the emerging middle classes, who had the
wealth and wanted the power. Likewise, the move to neoliberalism had begun before the end of
the 1970s' and slower economic growth was a consequence of it, not a cause.
The real issue is that people expect political leaders, whom they elect and pay, to do
things. But modern political leaders have for the last generation or so developed the art of
saying that nothing can be done, or at least nothing that will make life better. So a
political figure who proposes to actually do something that people want is a dangerous and
disruptive force. Irrespective of their precise views and policies, they are a danger to the
current political class, which resolutely refuses to do anything useful.
+1000
The allergy to actually enacting policies that have been proven in the past to be beneficial
to the citizenry of a country is impressive in its almost pathological implementation. No
matter how bad the outcomes of neoliberal economics is, we can't possibly change those
policies. This goes beyond TINA. I look at people like Joe Biden and Jo Swinson and marvel at
their innate ability to defend the worst excesses of policies like bailing out the banks and
austerity and yet still cry crocodile tears for the people.
But if you cannot expect to elect a leader that migth do something this is another way of
saying democracy is in trouble. The result is that democracy is constrained by a dominant
ideology and this undermines democracy. Everything becomes technocratical and obscure,
particularly –but not only– monetary policy. I wonder by how much this already
short room of maneuver has to be reduced to allow claiming democracy is already dead. There
are many candidates that go with the discourse that "I will do the only thing that can be
done" so you know from the very beginning that business will go as usual an nothing will be
done. For instance, Joe Incremental Biden. A very good example in US is Health Care. A good
majority wants H.C. for all, but we migth find again that candidates that promise it are
effectively blocked because "it cannot be done (too expensive etc.)". I really think
democracy is in trouble if this occurs again.
Why should "science" have anything to do with democracy?
As someone from the united states, I live in a republic.
Our founding fathers rejected democracy as a form of government.Some of them, like alexander
hamilton loathed democracy Which is one reason I think he was an ass but that is besides the
point..
Democracy, as an ideal to be promoted in this republic with democratic assumptions . is
just something that stands on its own in the sphere of "civics"
democracy is just a practice of engaging with others. it is a discipline.
science may exemplify practical thinking and action as expressed in the scientific method
.. but democracy isn't just about what is the "most likely to be true" . it is just what
"most people choose" Now education is what lies between what those people know, how they know
it and then their choices as to what they really want . but science is a discipline that is
really to be exalted in a free society . but has no real place in the democratic institution.
IMO
People make democracy not science . and "people" is a tough nut to crack
Hitler was keen on science, to explain his motives his perversions of truth became state
mandated axioms of truth . despite being pure BS..
Under neo-liberalism, the state does little more than maintain the rights of ownership
and internal and external security through criminal justice and armed services –
notwithstanding, the state may bail out financial services if they require public
aid. Kevin Albertson [bold added]
It does more than just bail out financial services, the state PRIVILEGES them beforehand
by failing to provide something so simple, so obvious as, for example, inherently risk-free
debit/checking accounts for all citizens at the Central Bank (or National Treasury)
itself.
The result is nations have a SINGLE* payment system that MUST work through the banks or
not at all – making their economies hostage to what are, in essence,
government-privileged usury cartels.
We can have nations that are for their citizens or ones which privilege banks and other
depository institutions but not both.
*apart from mere physical fiat, paper bills and coins.
The problem may not be so much with democracy as with "representative" democracy. I
believe that it was Harvard that did a study that found that the wishes of the bulk of the
electorate were habitually ignored unless it aligned with the wishes of the wealthier portion
of society. In other words, after the elections were over, voter's wishes were not a factor.
Perhaps more imaginative ideas need to be adopted. We have secret balloting right now so how
about secret ballots in the Senate and the House of reps – on pieces of paper counted
in public under the watch of several parties. No digital crap allowed. No donor would be able
to tell what his purchased politician actually voted in any session. Every vote would then
become a conscience vote. When you think about it, there is nothing to say that how things
are now should also be the way that things always are.
" the promotion of the neo-liberal political economic paradigm need not result from a
conspiracy."
Just because it "need not" doesn't mean it does not. There is a playbook for
privatization:
1) Identify a government function that could provide a profit opportunity.
2) Deprive the dept. that provides that function of the funds needed to adequately do a
proper job of it.*
3) Point out, loudly & publicly, what a crappy job the gov't is doing.
4) Announce that "We have a solution for that" – which, of course, involves
privatization.*
*Note: steps 2 & 4 require co-operation of gov't representatives which is obtained
through lobbying & briber.. er, campaign contributions.
Well, now governments just 'restructure' and pass out contracts to justify laying off
employees. There is no need to starve a department of funds first.
My experience is that the contracted 'service' is oversold and mostly goes to pot, and the
gov will still renew the contracts for the crappy service providers over and over.
In simpler times, democracy was viewed at risk if citizens could vote themselves money.
Now citizens are at risk when pirates can dispense with the voting to get money.
A cruel twist is where those pirates and their paid pols stick the citizens with the
downside.
It seems to me, including all the above comments, underlying all of this is the pursuit of
"economic growth", which ultimately means the pursuit of economic wealth by the most powerful
of the ownership class at the expense of everyone else. And they are the group that buy and
install the politicians to ensure that pursuit remains as unimpeded as possible.
Examples of this off-the-rails philosophical and social justification of "modern"
capitalism are apparent to everyone (I hope); Shareholder Primacy, Intellectual "Property"
Laws, Health Care as a Profit Center replacing health care of citizenry, abstract legal
entities, Corporations, given the same rights (and few responsibilities) as individual
people, the taking over of education systems by this same ownership class, again primarily
for profit and propaganda, increasing for-profit, and control, surveillance, and more rule
the day.
Historically, and unfortunately, the prime reset has often been violent revolution. Mike
Duncan's Revolutions podcast teaches us many examples throughout history and should be
required listening for today's ownership class and politicians everywhere and High School
history classes.
THE MORAL CONSEQUENCES OF ECONOMIC GROWTH by Benjamin Friedman in the HarvardScholar link
was a thought provoking read about the linkages between affective economic growth and
morality– and visa versa.
I believe he was arguing that a cultures adopted values directs the benefits of that cultures
economic growth and applications(without direct outside meddling). And that can become a
reinforcing feedback loop–for both the held values and values had about economic
growth.
Economic Growth is often compiled in numbers in Lamberts Water Cooler at least
weekly–however, like Inflation Stats, often a lot of critical things are not considered
in the compilation(gas price in inflation and happiness in economic growth–as two
simple i.e.)
imo, We need more progress in expanding the term Economic Growth beyond consumption and
production to be pertinent in 2019.
I think this is a really good analysis in that it comes to the conclusion that we need
more democracy; we are not democratically "liberal" at all. We were just hoodwinked for about
the last 50 years. We need to be socially democratic. It will bring an end to the obscene
inequalities we see and stabilize civilization. So the apotheosis of unregulated growth and
the free-range consumer is over. Tsk tsk. That was imposed on society by the mandate for
profits (which they never wanted to admit, but it depended entirely on demand). I guess the
consumer is headed for the bone yard of Idols. We will, by necessity, have something entirely
different. A form of social demand; a cooperative of some sort. Hanging on to old worn out
ideas is all that is left – kind of like nostalgia. Like the Donald pandering to
"business" by gutting the EPA now when manufacturing has been decimated and methods of
mitigating pollution are a market in themselves. Trump is just campaigning like an old fool;
but it's probably working.
Finally, an article on Neolib Capitalism that a 5th-grader can grasp – maybe granny
too. I already shared it with a dozen friends (ironically – most with doctorates as the
choir can never be too big).
Now let's all rise and sing a rousing chorus of Dude Where's My Democracy.
After reading about the failure of the F.D.A. to regulate pharma and protect us, after
witnessing our military going into losing war after losing stalemate, after seeing
homelessness explode, drug use, the failure of schools supposedly controlled by the
Department of Education, an eroding environment, etc.
At what point do citizens stop voluntarily paying taxes and complying with federal
laws?
After the collapse of NHS care, after the oversubsciption of our local schools by a factor
of n, after there being no police in the streets to curb the harassment rowdiness and
burglary, after a complete collapse of democracy following people's vote for liberty from
shackles of giant EU squid, after the horrific waste of local councils monies on sucking up
to the terror of minorities (racial, ethnic, sexual), after our own councils ramming the
extreme numbers of noninvited imported alien population down the throats of hitherto
taxpaying funders of the target occupation environment, and so on, can I have a separate TV
station to tell you, the only thing left for the sitting target taxpayers paying for all this
largesse, abuse, and outright extortion is indeed to abandon any of the previously normal
concepts of tax, duty and bills payments, and let the local and state governments get into
the costly business of corralling each and every hitherto low lying fruit taxpayer, and
forcing monies out of them at a great expense to the target and the enforcer.
Read all the way through and never encountered the names Reagan or Thatcher. As the
principal enablers of the financial / economic disaster called the Washington Consensus,
their names should be right up there. We need an annual festival with bonfires and fireworks
when we can burn the rogues in effigy.
The author is right that prolonged peace allows power to concentrate. He does not indicate
the end result that Rome and Constantinople experienced when deprived citizens declined to
fight for the empire and the Goths / Crusaders were able to take over. We study Greek and
Roman history in school but somehow its relevance to our declining state means nothing to
us.
I've always been a huge fan of the Haynes Guides . A finer series of "how-to" books
has never been published.
Gratified to read the phrase "carrying capacity" in a political discussion. One of the
central drivers of elite power and asset hoarding is the perception of scarcity and the
compulsion to ration (i.e. cut-off supplies of "nice things" to the proles and dusky-hued
people).
Looking forward to the Haynes Guide to Eating the Rich .
https://c.deployads.com/sync?f=html&s=2343&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nakedcapitalism.com%2F2019%2F09%2Fdude-wheres-my-democracy.html
<img src="http://b.scorecardresearch.com/p?c1=2&c2=16807273&cv=2.0&cj=1" />
Legitimate Government
Recently,
Foa & Mounk argued that many citizens in supposed advanced democracies have become
rather disillusioned with the workings of the political system in their nation. There is good
reason to suppose the current political economic paradigm is skewed against the people.
So-called democratic deficits exist in the USA and elsewhere . In
the UK, for example, the electorate disapprove and have disapproved of
four decades of tax and welfare and
privatisation policies – yet are apparently powerless to influence these
policies.
As politicians and the donors who support them become less responsive to voters' wishes it
is hardly surprising many, perhaps the majority, of the populace will
view government as illegitimate . In consequence, voters seem increasingly inclined to
elect (so-called) populist leaders, political outsiders who may change
the rules in favour of the people .
The Left and the Right
Legitimate government, so Abraham Lincoln observes, is that which
does for a community that which the community cannot do (or cannot do so well) for themselves.
With this it is difficult to disagree. However, political theory differs on who might make up
that community.
Broadly speaking, those
on the (so-called) economic "right" argue government should enact policy for the benefit of
those who own the nation, while those (so-called) economic "left" consider policy should
prioritise the interests of citizens. By definition, therefore, capitalist governments will
take up positions on the right – particularly in nations, such as the UK, which are increasingly
owned by foreign interests . Conversely democratically accountable governments must take
positions economically to the left, prioritising the preferences of citizens.
Universal Adult Suffrage
At the dawn of democracy, only the wealthy could vote. Thus, there was less conflict between
the aspirations of the powerful and of voters. Following the extension to the adult population
of the right to vote in the late 19th and early 20th century, politicians became answerable to
a wider range of stakeholders.
In particular, from the middle of the 20th century until the late 1970s, legitimate
democratic governments held markets to account in the interests of the demos. An increasingly
affluent society facilitated profit making opportunities and thus economies grew; the interests
of capital and citizens coincided.
In response, to preserve or increase their own income growth, elites are motivated to argue
for the
"freeing" of markets . Rather than markets being held accountable to citizens through
democratic governance, it was suggested that holding governments (and through them the
citizenry) to account through reliance on market forces would facilitate a
return to economic growth.
The Washington Consensus
The economic paradigm which promotes the small state and reliance on market forces is
generally known as neo-liberalism, or the Washington Consensus . Under
neo-liberalism, the state does little more than maintain the rights of ownership and internal
and external security through criminal justice and armed services – notwithstanding,
the
state may bail out financial services if they require public aid. In the UK and the USA
politicians from both main parties adopted this point of view, often in sincere, if misguided,
belief in its validity. Thus, neo-liberalism maintains the appearance of democracy, in that
citizens may vote for political leaders, but limits the range of policies on offer to those
which are acceptable to markets – or rather, those who command market forces.
Those who control the public forum, as Spengler pointed out, obviously use their control to further their own interests and no
others. Why in the world would an American-hating MSM give Americans an equal voice?
Notable quotes:
"... These educated lemmings believe what they're spoon fed by CNN or Fox News. They cannot possibly accept that they're immune to facts and disproof of their cherished assumptions because they've been emotionally conditioned on a subconscious level, after which facts and reasoning are emotionally reacted to like they were personal attacks. ..."
"... A newly scripted financial crisis will complete transfer of much of America's corporate assets to the government when the $7 trillion in private retirement assets is appropriated in emergency legislation, immediately conceded by the Republicans amid the usual handwringing and crocodile tears. In exchange Americans will receive rapidly deflating gov bonds that will be accepted as the new store of wealth, which it will be for the elites who own American as surely as they do in Venezuela. ..."
Politics in America is a function of those who control the public forum via the msm. Those
who control the public forum, as Spengler pointed out, obviously use their control to further
their own interests and no others. Why in the world would an American-hating msm give
Americans an equal voice?
The msm aren't merely some unfortunate artifact of the First Amendment we have to live.
The msm control the formation of men's minds. As Jacques Ellul points out in his masterpiece
on propaganda, it's those among us who're most educated and most inclined to closely follow
the "news" who are most susceptible to brainwashing. These educated lemmings believe what
they're spoon fed by CNN or Fox News. They cannot possibly accept that they're immune to
facts and disproof of their cherished assumptions because they've been emotionally
conditioned on a subconscious level, after which facts and reasoning are emotionally reacted
to like they were personal attacks.
This explains why college educated white women are the Dems' winning edge, trading empty
moral posturing for condemning their own children and grandchildren to die hounded and
dispossessed in their own land. But there are never any consequences when they insist they
have the best of intentions. These women whose thoughts are authored by their own people's
enemies will probably put a Warren or one of the other Marxists over the top in 2020.
A newly
scripted financial crisis will complete transfer of much of America's corporate assets to the
government when the $7 trillion in private retirement assets is appropriated in emergency
legislation, immediately conceded by the Republicans amid the usual handwringing and
crocodile tears. In exchange Americans will receive rapidly deflating gov bonds that will be
accepted as the new store of wealth, which it will be for the elites who own American as
surely as they do in Venezuela.
@follyofwar
Agreed . she was better off absent from that snore session. They all looked weak and
pathetic. BTW, Tulsi's now gotten her 3rd qualifying poll. She'll surge back much stronger.
And maybe even smarter, if she endorses this:
That means protection against the Republican-Democratic threats to cut back Social
Security to balance the budget in the face of tax cuts for the richest One Percent and
rising Cold War military spending. This means a government strong enough to take on the
vested financial and corporate interests and prosecute Wall Street's financial crime and
corporate monopoly power.
Analogies with late Imperial Rome are by now so cliché that even your average
dullard is familiar with them. But I find that the most fascinating -- and frightening --
parallels are with another empire of more recent vintage: the Empire of Japan.
The above quote brought to my mind the political unrest in Tokyo during the 1930s. Far
from being the work of a cabal of "militarists", as postwar legend would have it, Japan's
various internecine (and often bloody) political feuds and expensive military ventures were
driven by a public heavily invested in these affairs; hoping against hope for an outlet to
vent their increasing rage over dwindling social programs and opportunities at the cost of
propping up a concurrently fattening elite class.
Analyzing events like the Ni-ni-roku jiken (2/26 Incident) can be highly
instructional for Americans seeking some manner of explanation for their present failing
political system. While it is true that this nearly successful insurrection was carried out
by ultra-nationalists, their intention was not to deny the people a voice in the running of
government with their aspiration for direct rule by the Shōwa Emperor (then as now, the
Emperor served in a quasi-religious capacity with little ability to actually govern). Rather,
they felt that parliamentary democracy was a sham that benefitted only the monied and
privileged; and that only the Emperor, as the living incarnation of the Japanese state, could
act and respond according to the sovereign will of its people. What appeared to be a desire
for authoritarianism was, in fact, the radical, ideological inversion of the Marxist concept
of a "dictatorship of the proletariat". The Shōwa Emperor, in other words, was the
instrument of effecting the will of the nation; the "Emperor of the people"
(天皇の國民 Tennō no kokumin ).
I view in a similar vein the fascination and dreams that Trump and other such figures
excite in many: The radical hope that only a leader willing to smash the system, which to all
intents and purposes appears to only serve the few, can paradoxically restore the ability of
the many to express and act. Bogged down as we are by ballooning military debt (and blood),
economic stagnation, and an ever-widening chasm between the "haves" and "have-nots", and it
becomes difficult to ignore the parallels between the US today and Japan in 1936.
This was an interesting article, but I hold no illusions about the future. There will be
no breakup of the two major parties, no viable alternatives. Things will only get worse.
I envy those in their 50s and up today -- they will likely miss out on the momentous
history that people my generation and younger will be bearing reluctant witness to.
1. Sanders votes for all the Military Expenditures (almost 50% of our National
budget).
2. Sanders voted for all the $100s of Billions giveaways to the worst -most racist –
most anti-Semitic, Apartheid, proto-Fascist Government on the planet. He is a Traitor. He
serves another Master, not America.
3. Sanders apparently, had no recorded means of employment for the first 40+ years of his
life.
4. How many times has Sanders been married? What is the significance of this?
5. Sanders said nothing: Who is the Zionist Military Hero General Woman who is blocked
from the debates by the UNDEMOCRATIC DEMOCRAP GANG??? Gabbard? I recall Hollywood (we must
pass the $Bailout) Obomber did not allow former President Carter to address his Democrap
Convention. Not very Democratic – are they?
Memories (I'm humming the lines as I vent).
Once it is understood that the United States is an Occupied Puppet Nation ,...
"... As in every election we're now being bombarded with propaganda about how "your vote makes a difference" and associated nonsense. According to the official version ordinary citizens control the state by voting for candidates in elections. The President and other politicians are supposedly servants of "the people" and the government an instrument of the general populace. This version is a myth. ..."
"... It does not matter who is elected because the way the system is set up all elected representatives must do what big business and the state bureaucracy want, not what "the people" want. Elected representatives are figureheads. ..."
"... Politicians' rhetoric may change depending on who is elected, but they all have to implement the same policies given the same situation. Elections are a scam whose function is to create the illusion that "the people" control the government, not the elite, and to neutralize resistance movements. All voting does is strengthen the state & ruling class, it is not an effective means to change government policy. ..."
"... What a politician says to win an election and what he actually does in office are two very different things; politicians regularly break their promises. This is not just a fluke but the outcome of the way the system is set up. Bush the second said he wouldn't engage in "nation-building" (taking other countries over) during the 2000 election campaign but has done it several times. He also claimed to support a balanced budget, but obviously abandoned that. Clinton advocated universal health care during the 1992 election campaign but there were more people without health insurance when he left office than when he took office. Bush the first said, "read my lips – no new taxes!" while running for office but raised taxes anyway. Reagan promised to shrink government but he drastically expanded the military-industrial complex and ran up huge deficits. Rather than shrinking government, he reoriented it to make it more favorable to the rich. ..."
"... Carter promised to make human rights the "soul of our foreign policy" but funded genocide in East Timor and backed brutal dictators in Argentina, South Korea, Chile, Brazil, Indonesia and elsewhere. During the 1964 elections leftists were encouraged by Democrats to vote for Johnson because Goldwater, his Republican opponent, was a fanatical warmonger who would escalate US involvement in Vietnam. ..."
"... Johnson won, and immediately proceeded to escalate US involvement in Vietnam. FDR promised to maintain a balanced budget and restrain government spending but did the exact opposite. Wilson won reelection in 1916 on the slogan "he kept us out of war" but then lied us into World War One. Hoover pledged to abolish poverty in 1928 but instead saw it skyrocket. ..."
I have no Idea when this article was printed, but it matters
not. This holds true for every election ever held in America.
If voting mattered they
wouldn't let us do it.
As in every election we're now being bombarded with propaganda about how "your vote makes a
difference" and associated nonsense. According to the official version ordinary citizens
control the state by voting for candidates in elections. The President and other politicians
are supposedly servants of "the people" and the government an instrument of the general
populace. This version is a myth.
It does not matter who is elected because the way the system
is set up all elected representatives must do what big business and the state bureaucracy want,
not what "the people" want. Elected representatives are figureheads.
Politicians' rhetoric may
change depending on who is elected, but they all have to implement the same policies given the
same situation. Elections are a scam whose function is to create the illusion that "the people"
control the government, not the elite, and to neutralize resistance movements. All voting does
is strengthen the state & ruling class, it is not an effective means to change government
policy.
From the same article, a list of campaign promises never kept (needs to be updated with
Obama/Trump).
What a politician says to win an election and what he actually does in office are two
very different things; politicians regularly break their promises. This is not just a fluke
but the outcome of the way the system is set up. Bush the second said he wouldn't engage in
"nation-building" (taking other countries over) during the 2000 election campaign but has
done it several times. He also claimed to support a balanced budget, but obviously abandoned
that. Clinton advocated universal health care during the 1992 election campaign but there
were more people without health insurance when he left office than when he took office. Bush
the first said, "read my lips – no new taxes!" while running for office but raised
taxes anyway. Reagan promised to shrink government but he drastically expanded the
military-industrial complex and ran up huge deficits. Rather than shrinking government, he
reoriented it to make it more favorable to the rich.
Carter promised to make human rights the "soul of our foreign policy" but funded
genocide in East Timor and backed brutal dictators in Argentina, South Korea, Chile, Brazil,
Indonesia and elsewhere. During the 1964 elections leftists were encouraged by Democrats to
vote for Johnson because Goldwater, his Republican opponent, was a fanatical warmonger who
would escalate US involvement in Vietnam.
Johnson won, and immediately proceeded to escalate
US involvement in Vietnam. FDR promised to maintain a balanced budget and restrain government
spending but did the exact opposite. Wilson won reelection in 1916 on the slogan "he kept us
out of war" but then lied us into World War One. Hoover pledged to abolish poverty in 1928
but instead saw it skyrocket. https://www.bigeye.com/elections.htm
"... "However," he added, "we must learn the lessons of the past and not be in the business of regime change or supporting coups -- as we have in Chile, Guatemala, Brazil, and the Dominican Republic. The United States has a long history of inappropriately intervening in Latin American countries; we must not go down that road again."" ..."
"... Sanders has been very clear about no regime change in Venezuela. And he is right to call out Maduro. The election was fraudulent. After squeeking out a win in 2013, Maduro moved the elections up from late 2018 to April, and voter turnout was down from 80% to under 50%. This would be like Trump announcing just before Christmas, while the primaries are still in full swing, that the general election will be taking place in April and not November. ..."
For me, Bernie should have been in the loser column last night. His response on Venezuela was following the standard American
Empire line. What kind of socialist (or "democratic socialist") waxes enthusiastic over yet another U.S. regime change war? And
no mention of the people who have died because of the U.S. sanctions.
I have read his some of his proposals, and it makes no sense to me that he would act this way toward a different country. His
proposals and votes on domestic affairs, and his votes against the Pentagon budget, have usually shown a clear support of people
over the moneyed interests. Why can't he see that the neoliberal (/neoconservative) agenda is wreaking havoc not only in the U.S.,
but in other countries as well?
On another note, I am relieved to see that he's sticking to his guns on killing off private health insurance. I just wish it
were possible during a "debate" to explain to the public why it's so important to do that.
""The Maduro government in Venezuela has been waging a violent crackdown on Venezuelan civil society, violated the constitution
by dissolving the National Assembly and was re-elected last year in an election that many observers said was fraudulent," Sanders
said in a statement. "Further, the economy is a disaster and millions are migrating."
Sanders continued by saying the U.S. while "should support the rule of law, fair elections and self-determination for the Venezuelan
people," it must also "condemn the use of violence against unarmed protesters and the suppression of dissent" in the country.
"However," he added, "we must learn the lessons of the past and not be in the business of regime change or supporting coups
-- as we have in Chile, Guatemala, Brazil, and the Dominican Republic. The United States has a long history of inappropriately
intervening in Latin American countries; we must not go down that road again.""
Sanders has been very clear about no regime change in Venezuela. And he is right to call out Maduro. The election was fraudulent.
After squeeking out a win in 2013, Maduro moved the elections up from late 2018 to April, and voter turnout was down from 80%
to under 50%. This would be like Trump announcing just before Christmas, while the primaries are still in full swing, that the
general election will be taking place in April and not November.
"... Yes, people tend to forget that Bolton and all the other neocons are worshipers at the altar of a secular religion imported to the US by members of the Frankfurt School of Trotskyite German professors in the 1930s. These people had attempted get the Nazis to consider them allies in a quest for an ordered world. Alas for them they found that the Nazi scum would not accept them and in fact began preparations to hunt them down. ..."
"... Thus the migration to America and in particular to the University of Chicago where they developed their credo of world revolution under that guidance of a few philosopher kings like Leo Strauss, the Wohlstetters and other academic "geniuses" They also began an enthusiastic campaign of recruitment of enthusiastic graduate students who carefully disguised themselves as whatever was most useful politically. ..."
"Carlson concluded by warning about the many other Boltons in the federal bureaucracy,
saying that "war may be a disaster for America, but for John Bolton and his fellow neocons,
it's always good business."
He went on to slam Trump's special representative for Iran and contender to replace Bolton,
Brian Hook, as an "unapologetic neocon" who "has undisguised contempt for President Trump, and
he particularly dislikes the president's nationalist foreign policy." Iranian Foreign Minister
Mohammad Javad Zarif echoed Carlson hours later in a tweet, arguing that "Thirst for war
– maximum pressure – should go with the warmonger-in-chief." Reuters and
Haaretz
-------------
Yes, people tend to forget that Bolton and all the other neocons are worshipers at the altar
of a secular religion imported to the US by members of the Frankfurt School of Trotskyite
German professors in the 1930s. These people had attempted get the Nazis to consider them
allies in a quest for an ordered world. Alas for them they found that the Nazi scum would not
accept them and in fact began preparations to hunt them down.
Thus the migration to America and in particular to the University of Chicago where they
developed their credo of world revolution under that guidance of a few philosopher kings like
Leo Strauss, the Wohlstetters and other academic "geniuses" They also began an enthusiastic
campaign of recruitment of enthusiastic graduate students who carefully disguised themselves as
whatever was most useful politically.
They are not conservative at all, not one bit. Carlson was absolutely right about that.
They despise nationalism. They despise the idea of countries. In that regard they are like
all groups who aspire to globalist dominion for their particular ideas.
"... After he became vice president in 1940, as Roosevelt was increasingly ill, Wallace promoted a new vision for America's role in the world that suggested that rather than playing catch up with the imperial powers, the United States should work with partners to establish a new world order that eliminated militarism, colonialism and imperialism. ..."
"... In diplomacy, Wallace imagined a multi-polar world founded on the United Nations Charter with a focus on peaceful cooperation. In contrast, in 1941 Henry Luce, publisher of Time Magazine, had called for an 'American century,' suggesting that victory in war would allow the United States to "exert upon the world the full impact of our influence, for such purposes as we see fit and by such means as we see fit." ..."
"... Foreign aid for Wallace was not a tool to foster economic dominance as it was to become, but rather "economic assistance without political conditions to further the independent economic development of the Latin American and Caribbean countries." He held high "the principle of self-determination for the peoples of Africa, Asia, the West Indies, and other colonial areas." He saw the key policy for the United States to be based on "the principles of non-interference in the internal affairs of other nations and acceptance of the right of peoples to choose their own form of government and economic system." ..."
"... The United States should be emulating China, its Belt and Road Initiative and Community of Common Destiny, as a means of revitalizing its political culture and kicking its addiction to a neo-colonial concept of economic development and growth. Rather than relying on militarization and its attendant wars to spark the economy, progressives should demand that the US work in conjunction with nations such as China and Russia in building a sustainable future rather than creating one failed state after another. ..."
This is as good a time as any to point to an alternative vision of foreign policy. One based on the principle of non-interference,
respect for sovereignty, territorial integrity, and, above all, international law. One based on peaceful coexistence and mutual
cooperation. A vision of the world at peace and undivided by arbitrary distinctions. Such a world is possible and even though
there are currently players around the world who are striving in that direction we need look no further than our own history for
inspiration. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you one Henry A. Wallace, for your consideration.
(The following excerpts from an article by Dr. Dennis Etler. Link to the full article provided below.) --
The highest profile figure who articulated an alternative vision for American foreign policy was the politician Henry Wallace,
who served as vice president under Franklin D. Roosevelt from 1940-1944 and ran for president in 1948 as the candidate of the
Progressive Party.
After he became vice president in 1940, as Roosevelt was increasingly ill, Wallace promoted a new vision for America's
role in the world that suggested that rather than playing catch up with the imperial powers, the United States should work with
partners to establish a new world order that eliminated militarism, colonialism and imperialism.
Wallace gave a speech in 1942 that declared a "Century of the Common Man." He described a post-war world that offered "freedom
from want," a new order in which ordinary citizens, rather than the rich and powerful, would play a decisive role in politics.
That speech made direct analogy between the Second World War and the Civil War, suggesting that the Second World War was being
fought to end economic slavery and to create a more equal society. Wallace demanded that the imperialist powers like Britain and
France give up their colonies at the end of the war.
In diplomacy, Wallace imagined a multi-polar world founded on the United Nations Charter with a focus on peaceful cooperation.
In contrast, in 1941 Henry Luce, publisher of Time Magazine, had called for an 'American century,' suggesting that victory in
war would allow the United States to "exert upon the world the full impact of our influence, for such purposes as we see fit and
by such means as we see fit."
Wallace responded to Luce with a demand to create a world in which "no nation will have the God-given right to exploit other
nations. Older nations will have the privilege to help younger nations get started on the path to industrialization, but there
must be neither military nor economic imperialism." Wallace took the New Deal global. His foreign policy was to be based on non-interference
in the internal affairs of other countries and mutual respect for each other's territorial integrity and sovereignty.
Sadly, since then, despite occasional efforts to head in a new direction, the core constituency for US foreign policy has been
corporations, rather than the "common man" either in the United States, or the other nations of the world, and United States foreign
relations have been dominated by interference in the political affairs of other nations. As a result the military was transformed
from an "arsenal for democracy" during the Second World War into a defender of privilege at home and abroad afterwards.
-- - Foreign aid for Wallace was not a tool to foster economic dominance as it was to become, but rather "economic assistance without
political conditions to further the independent economic development of the Latin American and Caribbean countries." He held high
"the principle of self-determination for the peoples of Africa, Asia, the West Indies, and other colonial areas." He saw the key
policy for the United States to be based on "the principles of non-interference in the internal affairs of other nations and acceptance
of the right of peoples to choose their own form of government and economic system."
--
Wallace's legacy suggests that it is possible to put forth a vision of an honest internationalism in US foreign policy that
is in essence American. His approach was proactive not reactive. It would go far beyond anything Democrats propose today, who
can only suggest that the United States should not start an unprovoked war with Iran or North Korea, but who embrace sanctions
and propagandist reports that demonize those countries.
Rather than ridiculing Trump's overtures to North Korea, they should go further to reduce tensions between the North and the
South by pushing for the eventual withdrawal of troops from South Korea and Japan (a position fully in line with Wallace and many
other politicians of that age).
Rather than demonizing and isolating Russia (as a means to score political points against Trump), progressives should call for
a real détente, that recognizes Russia's core interests, proposes that NATO withdraw troops from Russia's borders, ends sanctions
and reintegrates Russia into the greater European economy. They could even call for an end to NATO and the perpetuation of the
dangerous global rift between East and West that it perpetuates.
Rather than attempt to thwart China's rise, and attack Trump for not punishing it enough, progressives should seek to create new
synergies between China and the US economically, politically and socioculturally.
-- -
In contrast to the US policy of perpetual war and "destroying nations in order to save them," China's BRI proposes an open plan
for development that is not grounded in the models of French and British imperialism. It has proposed global infrastructure and
science projects that include participants from nations in Africa, Asia, South and Central America previously ignored by American
and European elites -- much as Wallace proposed an equal engagement with Latin America. When offering developmental aid and investment
China does not demand that free market principles be adopted or that the public sector be privatized and opened up for global
investment banks to ravish.
-- The United States should be emulating China, its Belt and Road Initiative and Community of Common Destiny, as a means of revitalizing
its political culture and kicking its addiction to a neo-colonial concept of economic development and growth. Rather than relying
on militarization and its attendant wars to spark the economy, progressives should demand that the US work in conjunction with
nations such as China and Russia in building a sustainable future rather than creating one failed state after another.
Good catch; you were first with that blockbuster. You know who would be a good replacement?
Tulsi Gabbard. It would please those who moan the government is too partisan, it would remove
the only real non-ideologue from the Democratic slate, and leave them with doddering Uncle
Joe and a bunch of no-ideas bobbleheads. Few would dare question her lack of foreign-policy
experience, given her actual experience of being at the sharp end of it with the military.
The American people claim to be sick of war – although not sick enough of it to do any
real protesting against it – and Gabbard is anti-war. She's easy on the eyes, but if
Trump tried his grab-'er-by-the-pussy move, he would find himself only needing one glove this
winter; her obvious toughness would appeal to feminists. I think she'd take it if asked,
because although she despises Trump and his government, she would not be able to resist the
opportunity to shape America's foreign policy. She would eat news outlets who tried to
portray her as an apologist for terror or Putin or whatever for lunch.
Well, she was not on the short list of names I saw for potential Bolton replacements. I don't
see her making president, though, her support base is just not big enough. But if the
Democrats put all their eggs in the Burnout Joe basket, he will in all probability lose to
Trump. Trump's support has eroded, but not so far that very many people want to see Joe Biden
running the country.
I liked Bernie Sanders back when he was getting shafted by the Clinton juggernaut, but since
then a lot of information on his voting record has come to light – not that it was
ferreted out, it's all public information for anyone who chooses to look for it – and I
have become convinced he is just another lifelong political mouthpiece whose first concern
upon getting elected would be getting re-elected.
So I don't really care much for him now, and I think that if he were president, his
policies would differ little from those of Barack Obama, and he would support any war that
appeared to have enough public backing to get it off the ground. His main concern, obviously
– and it will be for anyone who is elected – is preserving US dominance of global
affairs, and trade relationships which gain the United States significant advantages.
Re-establishing a more cooperative relationship between the United States and its allies
and partners is not on anyone's radar. The USA has made its choice, and it likes the idea of
sitting on the throne and detailing off its minions to do busy stuff. Gabbard might have very
slightly different ideas about polishing America's global image so it is not viewed as quite
so much of a bossy prick and grabby selfish jerk, but if she were elected, America's
corporate elite would waste no time in making sure she understood any president who is not
going to be zealous in standing up for expansion of American business would be a one-termer
at best.
I don't usually find much value at the Atlantic but this article (written before Trump even
fired Bolton) about Trump's FP timeline (and flip flops) and Bolton who was acting like he
was President is very, very good.
It will allow Trump loyalist to more easily support Trump and give everyone else a tad bit of
hope that Trump really won't go bonkers and start any wars.
Since President Trump appears to talk about things and stuff with Tucker Carlson, perhaps he
should ask Tucker Carlson to spend a week thinking . . . and then offer the President some
names and the reasoning for offering those names.
If the President asks the same Establishment who gave him Bolton, he will just be handed
another Bolton. "Establishment" include Pence, who certainly supported Bolton's outlook on
things and would certainly recommend another "Bolton" figure if asked. Let us hope Pence is
not consulted on Bolton's successor.
different clue,
re "Let us hope Pence is not consulted on Bolton's successor."
Understandable point of view but then, Trump still is Trump. He can just by himself and
beyond advice easily find suboptimal solutions of his own.
Today I read that Richard Grenell was mentioned as a potential sucessor.
As far as that goes, go for it. Many people here will be happy when he "who always only
sais what the Whitehouse sais" is finally gone.
And with Trump's biggest military budget in the world he can just continue the arms sale
pitches that are and were such a substantial part of his job as a US ambassador in
Germany.
That said, they were that after blathering a lot about that we should increase our
military budget by 2%, 4%, 6% or 10%, buy US arms, now, and of course the blathering about
Northstream 1 & 2 and "slavedom to russian oil & gas" and rather buy US frack gas of
course.
He could then also take a side job for the fracking industry in that context. And buy
frack gas and arms company stocks. Opportunities, opportunities ...
I don't usually find much value at the Atlantic but this article (written before Trump even
fired Bolton) about Trump's FP timeline (and flip flops) and Bolton who was acting like he
was President is very, very good.
It will allow Trump loyalist to more easily support Trump and give everyone else a tad bit of
hope that Trump really won't go bonkers and start any wars.
Since President Trump appears to talk about things and stuff with Tucker Carlson, perhaps he
should ask Tucker Carlson to spend a week thinking . . . and then offer the President some
names and the reasoning for offering those names.
If the President asks the same Establishment who gave him Bolton, he will just be handed
another Bolton. "Establishment" include Pence, who certainly supported Bolton's outlook on
things and would certainly recommend another "Bolton" figure if asked. Let us hope Pence is
not consulted on Bolton's successor.
different clue,
re "Let us hope Pence is not consulted on Bolton's successor."
Understandable point of view but then, Trump still is Trump. He can just by himself and
beyond advice easily find suboptimal solutions of his own.
Today I read that Richard Grenell was mentioned as a potential sucessor.
As far as that goes, go for it. Many people here will be happy when he "who always only
sais what the Whitehouse sais" is finally gone.
And with Trump's biggest military budget in the world he can just continue the arms sale
pitches that are and were such a substantial part of his job as a US ambassador in
Germany.
That said, they were that after blathering a lot about that we should increase our
military budget by 2%, 4%, 6% or 10%, buy US arms, now, and of course the blathering about
Northstream 1 & 2 and "slavedom to russian oil & gas" and rather buy US frack gas of
course.
He could then also take a side job for the fracking industry in that context. And buy
frack gas and arms company stocks. Opportunities, opportunities ...
"... Any honest Eisenhower Republican would be a lot better than Clinton or Obama (although still capitalist and imperialist). I am worried, however, about the palling around with HRC and it seems to me that she is (willingly or unknowingly) being used as a firebreak to prevent voters from moving to Bernie. ..."
Essentially, Toback argues that Warren's project is to somehow hoodwink us into believing that she is an opponent of neoliberalism
when in reality she is committed to legitimating neoliberalism. For Warren, neoliberalism is simply really 2 legit 2 quit (I'll spare
you the MC Hammer video).
Still, while stark differences between Sanders, Biden and the rest seem obvious to most, when it comes to Elizabeth Warren,
many on the alleged left have taken to collapsing distinctions. They argue that Warren's just as, or even more progressive, equal
but a woman and therefore better, not quite as good but still a fundamental shift to the left, or at the very least, a serious
opponent of neoliberalism. Some have even fantasized that Sanders and Warren function as allies, despite the obvious fact that
they are, you know Running against each other.
All of these claims obscure the fundamental truth that Sanders and Warren are different in kind, not degree. Warren has always
been a market-first neoliberal and nothing she's doing now suggests deviation. Despite her barrage of plans and recent adoption
of left rhetorical shibboleths like "grassroots movements" and "structural change," Warren remains a neoliberal legitimization
machine. Anybody who's serious about amending and expanding the social contract and/or preserving the habitability of the planet
needs to oppose her candidacy now.
Toback nicely weaves together and systematically presents pretty much all the analysis I've seen here at C99%. It's well worth
reading as is the David Harvey interview linked above.
And for some icing on the cake, Toback quotes some lyrics from the splendid Leonard Cohen song 'Democracy':
"It's coming from the sorrow in the street,
the holy places where the races meet;
from the homicidal bitchin'
that goes down in every kitchen
to determine who will serve and who will eat." -- Leonard Cohen
might be someone I could support. She said all the right things. That was all I had to judge by. So I took a wait and see.
I have always been able to see the reality of actions that differ from words. Hers don't match. It's far better that she lacks
Obama's charisma and has shown who she is before she's sitting in Trump's chair.
might be someone I could support. She said all the right things. That was all I had to judge by. So I took a wait and see.
I have always been able to see the reality of actions that differ from words. Hers don't match. It's far better that she lacks
Obama's charisma and has shown who she is before she's sitting in Trump's chair.
@orlbucfan
I can sympathize with being weary of theory, but I think it's important to try to be precise in discerning a politician's ideological
underpinnings. And I think there really is a full, expanding, and even oscillating spectrum of ideologies at play.
It seems to me that fascists would more accurately be characterized as "corporate rightwingers. As fed up as I am with Warren's
phony baloney, I don't think she's a fascist or a corporate rightwinger.
Consider Harvey's portrayal of the liberal/neoliberal divide:
In liberal theory, the role of the state is minimal (a "night-watchman" state with laissez faire policies). In neo-liberalism
it is accepted that the state play an active role in promoting technological changes and endless capital accumulation through
the promotion of commodification and monetisation of everything along with the formation of powerful institutions (such as
Central Banks and the International Monetary Fund) and the rebuilding of mental conceptions of the world in favor of neoliberal
freedoms.
#3
I can sympathize with being weary of theory, but I think it's important to try to be precise in discerning a politician's ideological
underpinnings. And I think there really is a full, expanding, and even oscillating spectrum of ideologies at play.
It seems to me that fascists would more accurately be characterized as "corporate rightwingers. As fed up as I am with Warren's
phony baloney, I don't think she's a fascist or a corporate rightwinger.
Consider Harvey's portrayal of the liberal/neoliberal divide:
In liberal theory, the role of the state is minimal (a "night-watchman" state with laissez faire policies). In neo-liberalism
it is accepted that the state play an active role in promoting technological changes and endless capital accumulation through
the promotion of commodification and monetisation of everything along with the formation of powerful institutions (such
as Central Banks and the International Monetary Fund) and the rebuilding of mental conceptions of the world in favor of
neoliberal freedoms.
#3
I can sympathize with being weary of theory, but I think it's important to try to be precise in discerning a politician's ideological
underpinnings. And I think there really is a full, expanding, and even oscillating spectrum of ideologies at play.
It seems to me that fascists would more accurately be characterized as "corporate rightwingers. As fed up as I am with Warren's
phony baloney, I don't think she's a fascist or a corporate rightwinger.
Consider Harvey's portrayal of the liberal/neoliberal divide:
In liberal theory, the role of the state is minimal (a "night-watchman" state with laissez faire policies). In neo-liberalism
it is accepted that the state play an active role in promoting technological changes and endless capital accumulation through
the promotion of commodification and monetisation of everything along with the formation of powerful institutions (such
as Central Banks and the International Monetary Fund) and the rebuilding of mental conceptions of the world in favor of
neoliberal freedoms.
over toward Obama. I don't think she's to the left of him. Then again, I'm not really sure how much of what she says I believe.
A lot of it seems mushy and ill-defined (what is "access to healthcare?"), and she certainly isn't consistent in her support for
MFA. For that matter, how can you take large donations from the people who put us where we are if you intend to change the system
they created? Does that mean that the multi-millionaires and billionaires don't like the system they created? That they see its
destructiveness and now, finally, want to head it off? That's the only logical way you can put together "I'm going to change the
system" and "I'm going to take large donations from people who built, maintain, and profit from the system." Since I've seen no
evidence that the "smart money," or any other money, is interested in changing the system, I'd have to reject this hypothesis.
So what am I left with? I'm left with guessing that Warren is another one of those "all we need to do is tweak the system a
little" types--but if that's the case, she's not going to solve global warming, the health care crisis, the economic crisis, the
collapse of wages, the destruction of basic human rights, the destruction--or distortion--of the rule of law, or the endless wars.
All those things have been put in place by the people she wants to take lots of money from. And take it in the dark, too. Spiffing.
She was an outspoken opponent of the TPP in 2015 before she could be seen reasonably as posturing for a Presidential run. The
TPP is the essence of neoliberalism.
I have seen her as an Eisenhower Republican and therefore to the left of the Democratic leadership. I think the Consumer Protection
Agency was an attempt at moderating some of the worst effects of unrestrained capitalism.
Any honest Eisenhower Republican would be a lot better than Clinton or Obama (although still capitalist and imperialist).
I am worried, however, about the palling around with HRC and it seems to me that she is (willingly or unknowingly) being used
as a firebreak to prevent voters from moving to Bernie.
slippery...just like Clinton (Bill I mean). And don't get me started on this whole palling around with Hillary crap. I mean
really Liz?
iv> I see the GLOBALIST shills are in full force on this video, trying to artificially
bring down the ratio from probably 99% Positive that such a bad man is gone. Doesn't matter,
the Silent Majority & good people everywhere know that Bolton was a poor candidate for
that job with a catastrophic failure record & everybody is better of with a more
competent person in that position.
John Bolton is owned by foreign powers like many in Washington. They get paid by their
lobby to push the neocon agenda which translates into robbing the US of it's $ to fight wars
that don't benefit the US.
War monger Bolton. How did that Libya thing work out for Europe ? Now after looking back,
I am sure the African invasion into Europe was planned by Obama and his boss Soros.
Tucker while I agree with you on the mess in Iraq and Afghanistan and Libya. But one thing
you left out Tucker. Foxnews hired John Bolton as a Contributer for over a decade. How do you
miss that part.
All the policies in the Middle East are complete and other failures. I'm so sick of neo
cons. You can't get rid of them. You can not get rid of them. It doesn't matter who you vote
for. Constant war. Like every regime couldn't be replaced around the world. Absolutely
ridiculous.
"In Washington, nobody cares what kind of job you did, only that you did the job. Nobody
there learns from mistakes, because mistakes are never even acknowledged. Ever." Yes, Tucker
DOES understand Washington!!!
xt" role="article"> If Bolton becomes a Fox News contributor: I will change the channel
immediately... I already do this when Jeff Epstein's, the child trafficker and rapist, good
buddy Alan Dershowitz comes on as a guest... Do not know why Fox News selects guest
contributors that have their morals/values in the wrong directions...
icle"> Bolton was signatory to PNAC- the project for a new american century, like other
progressives and neo-cons of his generation. They do not view the chaos left by taking out
Ghaddafi and Saddam as problems, rather the creation of failed states was their objective all
along. Members of the GOP went along with these plans where they coincided with their own
political and business objectives- the military industrial complex and the oilmen.
"... But Bolton coupled the Fox and AEI sinecures with gnarlier associations -- for one, the Gatestone Institute, a, let's say Islam-hostile outfit, associated with the secretive, influential Mercer billionaires. ..."
"... Bolton appeared the leading light of a neoconservative revival, of sorts, until he didn't. ..."
"... It doesn't matter whether Bolton's "time is up" or not, because his departure wouldn't change anything. If he goes, Trump will replace him with some equally slimy neocon interventionist. ..."
"... It won't end until we muck out the White House next year. Dumping Trump is Job One. ..."
"... Oh. Yes. You want to get rid of Trump's partially neocon administration, so that you could replace it with your own, entirely neocon one. Wake me up when the DNC starts allowing people like Tulsi Gabbard to get nominated. But they won't. So your party will just repeat its merry salsa on the same set of rakes as in 2016. ..."
No major politician, not even Barack Obama, excoriated the Iraq war more fiercely than did
Trump during the primaries. He did this in front of a scion of the house of Bush and in the
deep red state of South Carolina. He nevertheless went on to win that primary, the Republican
nomination and the presidency on that antiwar message.
And so, to see Bolton ascend to the commanding heights of the Trump White House shocked many
from the time it was first rumored. "I shudder to think what would happen if we had a failed
presidency," Scott McConnell, TAC' s founding editor, said in late 2016 at our foreign
policy conference, held, opportunely, during the presidential transition. "I mean, John
Bolton?"
At the time, Bolton was a candidate for secretary of state, a consideration scuttled in no
small part because of the opposition of Kentucky Republican Senator Rand Paul. As McConnell
wrote in November of that year: "Most of the upper-middle-level officials who plotted the Iraq
War have retreated quietly into private life, but Bolton has kept their flame alive." Bolton
had already been passed over for NSA, losing out early to the doomed Michael Flynn. Rex
Tillerson beat him for secretary of state. Bolton was then passed over for the role of
Tillerson's deputy. When Flynn flamed out of the White House the following February, Trump
chose a general he didn't know at all, H.R. McMaster, to replace him.
Bolton had been trying to make a comeback since late 2006, after failing to hold his job as
U.N. ambassador (he had only been a recess appointment). His landing spots including a Fox News
contributorship and a post at the vaunted American Enterprise Institute. Even in the early days
of the Trump administration, Bolton was around, and accessible. I remember seeing him multiple
times in Washington's Connecticut Avenue corridor, decked out in the seersucker he notoriously
favors during the summer months. Paired with the familiar mustache, the man is the Mark Twain
of regime change.
But Bolton coupled the Fox and AEI sinecures with gnarlier associations -- for one, the
Gatestone Institute, a, let's say Islam-hostile outfit, associated with the secretive,
influential Mercer billionaires. He also struck a ferocious alliance with the Center for
Security Policy, helmed by the infamous Frank Gaffney, and gave paid remarks to the National
Council for the Resistance of Iran, the lynchpin organization of the People's Mujahideen of
Iran, or MEK. The latter two associations have imbued the spirit of this White House, with
Gaffney now one of the most underrated power players in Washington, and the MEK's "peaceful"
regime change mantra all but the official line of the administration.
More than any of these gigs, Bolton benefited from two associations that greased the wheels
for his joining the Trump administration.
The first was Steve Bannon, the former White House chief strategist. If you want to
understand the administration's Iran policy under Bolton to date, look no further than a piece
by the then-retired diplomat in conservative mainstay National Review in August 2017,
days after Bannon's departure from the White House: "How to Get Out of the Iran Deal." Bolton
wrote the piece at Bannon's urging. Even out of the administration, the former Breitbart
honcho was an influential figure.
"We must explain the grave threat to the U.S. and our allies, particularly Israel," said
Bolton. "The [Iran Deal's] vague and ambiguous wording; its manifest imbalance in Iran's
direction; Iran's significant violations; and its continued, indeed, increasingly, unacceptable
conduct at the strategic level internationally demonstrate convincingly that [the Iran deal] is
not in the national-security interests of the United States."
Then Bolton, as I
documented , embarked on a campaign of a media saturation to make a TV-happy president
proud. By May Day the next year, he would have a job, a big one, and one that Senator Paul
couldn't deny him: national security advisor. That wasn't the whole story, of course. Bolton's
ace in the hole was Sheldon Adelson, the billionaire casino magnate who has helped drive
Trump's Israel policy. If Trump finally moves against Bolton, it will likely be because Adelson
failed to strenuously object.
So will Trump finally do it? Other than White House chief of staff, a position Mick Mulvaney
has filled in an acting capacity for the entire calendar year, national security advisor is the
easiest, most senior role to change horses.
A bombshell Washington Post story lays out the dire truth: Bolton is so distrusted on
the president's central prerogatives, for instance Afghanistan, that he's not even allowed to
see sensitive plans unsupervised.
Bolton has also come into conflict with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, according to three
senior State Department officials. Pompeo is the consummate politician. Though an inveterate
hawk, the putative Trump successor does not want to be the Paul Wolfowitz of the Iran war.
Bolton is a bureaucratic arsonist, agnostic on the necessity of two of the institutions he
served in -- Foggy Bottom and the United Nations. Pompeo, say those around him, is keen to be
beloved, or at least tolerated, by career officials in his department, in contrast with Bolton
and even Tillerson.
The real danger Bolton poses is to the twin gambit Trump hopes to pull off ahead of, perhaps
just ahead of, next November -- a detente deal with China to calm the markets and ending
the war in Afghanistan. Over the weekend, the president announced a scuttled meeting with the
Taliban at Camp David, which would have been an historic, stunning summit. Bolton was
reportedly instrumental in quashing the meet. Still, there is a lot of time between now and
next autumn, and the cancellation is likely the latest iteration of the president's showman
diplomacy.
Ending America's longest war would be a welcome rebuttal to Democrats who will, day in and
day out, charge that Trump is a fraud. But to do so, he will likely need a national security
advisor more in sync with the vision. Among them: Tucker Carlson favorite Douglas Macgregor,
Stephen Biegun, the runner-up previously, or the hawkish, but relatively pragmatic retired
General Jack Keane.
Bolton seems to be following the well-worn trajectory of dumped Trump deputies. Jeff
Sessions, a proto-Trump and the first senator to endorse the mogul, became attorney general and
ideological incubator of the new Right's agenda only to become persona non grata in the
administration. The formal execution came later. Bannon followed a less dramatic, but no less
explosive ebb and flow. James Mattis walked on water until he didn't.
And Bolton appeared the leading light of a neoconservative revival, of sorts, until he didn't.
You confuse "politician" and "liar" here, whereas he is "consummate" at neither politics
nor lying. His politicking has been as botched as his diplomacy; his lying has been
prodigious but transparent.
Bolton has been on the way out now for how many months? I will believe this welcome news
when I see his sorry ___ out the door.
I think much of America and the world will feel the same way.
It doesn't matter whether Bolton's "time is up" or not, because his departure wouldn't
change anything. If he goes, Trump will replace him with some equally slimy neocon
interventionist.
It won't end until we muck out the White House next year. Dumping Trump is Job One.
Oh. Yes. You want to get rid of Trump's partially neocon administration, so that you could
replace it with your own, entirely neocon one. Wake me up when the DNC starts allowing
people like Tulsi Gabbard to get nominated. But they won't. So your party will just repeat
its merry salsa on the same set of rakes as in 2016.
Trump whole administration is just a bunch of rabid neocons who will be perfectly at home (and some were) in Bush II
administration. So firing of Bolton while a step in the right direction is too little, too late.
Notable quotes:
"... Whatever the reason for Bolton's departure, this means one less warmongering neocon is left in the DC swamp, and is a prudent and long overdue move by Trump, one which even Trump's liberals enemies will have no choice but to applaud. ..."
"... Ending America's longest war would be a welcome rebuttal to Democrats who will, day in and day out, charge that Trump is a fraud. But to do so, he will likely need a national security advisor more in sync with the vision. Among them: Tucker Carlson favorite Douglas Macgregor, Stephen Biegun, the runner-up previously, or the hawkish, but relatively pragmatic retired General Jack Keane. ..."
While there was some feverish speculation as to what an impromptu presser at 1:30pm with US
Secretary of State Pompeo, Treasury Secretary Mnuchin and National Security Adviser Bolton
would deliver, that was quickly swept aside moments later when Trump unexpectedly announced
that he had effectively fired Bolton as National Security Advisor, tweeting that he informed
John Bolton "last night that his services are no longer needed at the White House" after "
disagreeing strongly with many of his suggestions. "
... ... ...
Whatever the reason for Bolton's departure, this means one less warmongering
neocon is left in the DC swamp, and is a prudent and long overdue move by Trump, one which even
Trump's liberals enemies will have no choice but to applaud.
While we await more details on this strike by Trump against the military-industrial
complex-enabling Deep State, here is a fitting closer from Curt Mills via the American
Conservative:
Ending America's longest war would be a welcome rebuttal to Democrats who will, day in and
day out, charge that Trump is a fraud. But to do so, he will likely need a national security
advisor more in sync with the vision. Among them: Tucker Carlson favorite Douglas Macgregor,
Stephen Biegun, the runner-up previously, or the hawkish, but relatively pragmatic retired
General Jack Keane.
Bolton seems to be following the well-worn trajectory of dumped Trump deputies. Jeff
Sessions, a proto-Trump and the first senator to endorse the mogul, became attorney general
and ideological incubator of the new Right's agenda only to become persona non grata in the
administration. The formal execution came later. Bannon followed a less dramatic, but no less
explosive ebb and flow. James Mattis walked on water until he didn't.
And Bolton appeared the leading light of a neoconservative revival, of sorts, until he
didn't.
"... But Bolton coupled the Fox and AEI sinecures with gnarlier associations -- for one, the Gatestone Institute, a, let's say Islam-hostile outfit, associated with the secretive, influential Mercer billionaires. ..."
"... Bolton appeared the leading light of a neoconservative revival, of sorts, until he didn't. ..."
"... It doesn't matter whether Bolton's "time is up" or not, because his departure wouldn't change anything. If he goes, Trump will replace him with some equally slimy neocon interventionist. ..."
"... It won't end until we muck out the White House next year. Dumping Trump is Job One. ..."
"... Oh. Yes. You want to get rid of Trump's partially neocon administration, so that you could replace it with your own, entirely neocon one. Wake me up when the DNC starts allowing people like Tulsi Gabbard to get nominated. But they won't. So your party will just repeat its merry salsa on the same set of rakes as in 2016. ..."
No major politician, not even Barack Obama, excoriated the Iraq war more fiercely than did
Trump during the primaries. He did this in front of a scion of the house of Bush and in the
deep red state of South Carolina. He nevertheless went on to win that primary, the Republican
nomination and the presidency on that antiwar message.
And so, to see Bolton ascend to the commanding heights of the Trump White House shocked many
from the time it was first rumored. "I shudder to think what would happen if we had a failed
presidency," Scott McConnell, TAC' s founding editor, said in late 2016 at our foreign
policy conference, held, opportunely, during the presidential transition. "I mean, John
Bolton?"
At the time, Bolton was a candidate for secretary of state, a consideration scuttled in no
small part because of the opposition of Kentucky Republican Senator Rand Paul. As McConnell
wrote in November of that year: "Most of the upper-middle-level officials who plotted the Iraq
War have retreated quietly into private life, but Bolton has kept their flame alive." Bolton
had already been passed over for NSA, losing out early to the doomed Michael Flynn. Rex
Tillerson beat him for secretary of state. Bolton was then passed over for the role of
Tillerson's deputy. When Flynn flamed out of the White House the following February, Trump
chose a general he didn't know at all, H.R. McMaster, to replace him.
Bolton had been trying to make a comeback since late 2006, after failing to hold his job as
U.N. ambassador (he had only been a recess appointment). His landing spots including a Fox News
contributorship and a post at the vaunted American Enterprise Institute. Even in the early days
of the Trump administration, Bolton was around, and accessible. I remember seeing him multiple
times in Washington's Connecticut Avenue corridor, decked out in the seersucker he notoriously
favors during the summer months. Paired with the familiar mustache, the man is the Mark Twain
of regime change.
But Bolton coupled the Fox and AEI sinecures with gnarlier associations -- for one, the
Gatestone Institute, a, let's say Islam-hostile outfit, associated with the secretive,
influential Mercer billionaires. He also struck a ferocious alliance with the Center for
Security Policy, helmed by the infamous Frank Gaffney, and gave paid remarks to the National
Council for the Resistance of Iran, the lynchpin organization of the People's Mujahideen of
Iran, or MEK. The latter two associations have imbued the spirit of this White House, with
Gaffney now one of the most underrated power players in Washington, and the MEK's "peaceful"
regime change mantra all but the official line of the administration.
More than any of these gigs, Bolton benefited from two associations that greased the wheels
for his joining the Trump administration.
The first was Steve Bannon, the former White House chief strategist. If you want to
understand the administration's Iran policy under Bolton to date, look no further than a piece
by the then-retired diplomat in conservative mainstay National Review in August 2017,
days after Bannon's departure from the White House: "How to Get Out of the Iran Deal." Bolton
wrote the piece at Bannon's urging. Even out of the administration, the former Breitbart
honcho was an influential figure.
"We must explain the grave threat to the U.S. and our allies, particularly Israel," said
Bolton. "The [Iran Deal's] vague and ambiguous wording; its manifest imbalance in Iran's
direction; Iran's significant violations; and its continued, indeed, increasingly, unacceptable
conduct at the strategic level internationally demonstrate convincingly that [the Iran deal] is
not in the national-security interests of the United States."
Then Bolton, as I
documented , embarked on a campaign of a media saturation to make a TV-happy president
proud. By May Day the next year, he would have a job, a big one, and one that Senator Paul
couldn't deny him: national security advisor. That wasn't the whole story, of course. Bolton's
ace in the hole was Sheldon Adelson, the billionaire casino magnate who has helped drive
Trump's Israel policy. If Trump finally moves against Bolton, it will likely be because Adelson
failed to strenuously object.
So will Trump finally do it? Other than White House chief of staff, a position Mick Mulvaney
has filled in an acting capacity for the entire calendar year, national security advisor is the
easiest, most senior role to change horses.
A bombshell Washington Post story lays out the dire truth: Bolton is so distrusted on
the president's central prerogatives, for instance Afghanistan, that he's not even allowed to
see sensitive plans unsupervised.
Bolton has also come into conflict with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, according to three
senior State Department officials. Pompeo is the consummate politician. Though an inveterate
hawk, the putative Trump successor does not want to be the Paul Wolfowitz of the Iran war.
Bolton is a bureaucratic arsonist, agnostic on the necessity of two of the institutions he
served in -- Foggy Bottom and the United Nations. Pompeo, say those around him, is keen to be
beloved, or at least tolerated, by career officials in his department, in contrast with Bolton
and even Tillerson.
The real danger Bolton poses is to the twin gambit Trump hopes to pull off ahead of, perhaps
just ahead of, next November -- a detente deal with China to calm the markets and ending
the war in Afghanistan. Over the weekend, the president announced a scuttled meeting with the
Taliban at Camp David, which would have been an historic, stunning summit. Bolton was
reportedly instrumental in quashing the meet. Still, there is a lot of time between now and
next autumn, and the cancellation is likely the latest iteration of the president's showman
diplomacy.
Ending America's longest war would be a welcome rebuttal to Democrats who will, day in and
day out, charge that Trump is a fraud. But to do so, he will likely need a national security
advisor more in sync with the vision. Among them: Tucker Carlson favorite Douglas Macgregor,
Stephen Biegun, the runner-up previously, or the hawkish, but relatively pragmatic retired
General Jack Keane.
Bolton seems to be following the well-worn trajectory of dumped Trump deputies. Jeff
Sessions, a proto-Trump and the first senator to endorse the mogul, became attorney general and
ideological incubator of the new Right's agenda only to become persona non grata in the
administration. The formal execution came later. Bannon followed a less dramatic, but no less
explosive ebb and flow. James Mattis walked on water until he didn't.
And Bolton appeared the leading light of a neoconservative revival, of sorts, until he didn't.
You confuse "politician" and "liar" here, whereas he is "consummate" at neither politics
nor lying. His politicking has been as botched as his diplomacy; his lying has been
prodigious but transparent.
Bolton has been on the way out now for how many months? I will believe this welcome news
when I see his sorry ___ out the door.
I think much of America and the world will feel the same way.
It doesn't matter whether Bolton's "time is up" or not, because his departure wouldn't
change anything. If he goes, Trump will replace him with some equally slimy neocon
interventionist.
It won't end until we muck out the White House next year. Dumping Trump is Job One.
Oh. Yes. You want to get rid of Trump's partially neocon administration, so that you could
replace it with your own, entirely neocon one. Wake me up when the DNC starts allowing
people like Tulsi Gabbard to get nominated. But they won't. So your party will just repeat
its merry salsa on the same set of rakes as in 2016.
Trump whole administration is just a bunch of rabid neocons who will be perfectly at home (and some were) in Bush II
administration. So firing of Bolton while a step in the right direction is too little, too late.
Notable quotes:
"... Whatever the reason for Bolton's departure, this means one less warmongering neocon is left in the DC swamp, and is a prudent and long overdue move by Trump, one which even Trump's liberals enemies will have no choice but to applaud. ..."
"... Ending America's longest war would be a welcome rebuttal to Democrats who will, day in and day out, charge that Trump is a fraud. But to do so, he will likely need a national security advisor more in sync with the vision. Among them: Tucker Carlson favorite Douglas Macgregor, Stephen Biegun, the runner-up previously, or the hawkish, but relatively pragmatic retired General Jack Keane. ..."
While there was some feverish speculation as to what an impromptu presser at 1:30pm with US
Secretary of State Pompeo, Treasury Secretary Mnuchin and National Security Adviser Bolton
would deliver, that was quickly swept aside moments later when Trump unexpectedly announced
that he had effectively fired Bolton as National Security Advisor, tweeting that he informed
John Bolton "last night that his services are no longer needed at the White House" after "
disagreeing strongly with many of his suggestions. "
... ... ...
Whatever the reason for Bolton's departure, this means one less warmongering
neocon is left in the DC swamp, and is a prudent and long overdue move by Trump, one which even
Trump's liberals enemies will have no choice but to applaud.
While we await more details on this strike by Trump against the military-industrial
complex-enabling Deep State, here is a fitting closer from Curt Mills via the American
Conservative:
Ending America's longest war would be a welcome rebuttal to Democrats who will, day in and
day out, charge that Trump is a fraud. But to do so, he will likely need a national security
advisor more in sync with the vision. Among them: Tucker Carlson favorite Douglas Macgregor,
Stephen Biegun, the runner-up previously, or the hawkish, but relatively pragmatic retired
General Jack Keane.
Bolton seems to be following the well-worn trajectory of dumped Trump deputies. Jeff
Sessions, a proto-Trump and the first senator to endorse the mogul, became attorney general
and ideological incubator of the new Right's agenda only to become persona non grata in the
administration. The formal execution came later. Bannon followed a less dramatic, but no less
explosive ebb and flow. James Mattis walked on water until he didn't.
And Bolton appeared the leading light of a neoconservative revival, of sorts, until he
didn't.
These idiots don't hire themselves. The problem is Trump. It doesn't matter whether Bolton
(or Pompeo, or Hook, or Abrams) is in or out as long as Trump himself is in the White
House.
That realization has turned my 2016 protest vote for Trump into a 2020 protest vote for
Elizabeth Warren. The underlying principle is be the same, voting yet again for the lesser
of two evils.
Elizabeth Warren Stands Out at New Hampshire Democratic
Party Convention https://nyti.ms/2POixCr
NYT - Katie Glueck - September 7
MANCHESTER, N.H. -- Joseph R. Biden Jr.'s backers roared supportive slogans and banged on
drums as they camped outside Southern New Hampshire University Arena. Backers of Senator
Elizabeth Warren marched as part of a jazz-inflected brass band. A fan of Senator Amy
Klobuchar admonished passers-by to consider electability, and banners associated with Senator
Bernie Sanders that highlighted his own standing in the polls appeared aimed at drawing a
contrast with Mr. Biden.
The New Hampshire Democratic Party State Convention drew 19 of the presidential candidates
and some of the state's most committed party activists -- including more than 1,200 delegates
-- to its gathering here Saturday, offering an early test of campaign organization and
enthusiasm in a contest that is traditionally a must-win for candidates from neighboring
states.
This cycle, that includes Mr. Sanders of Vermont, who won New Hampshire by a wide margin
in 2016, and Ms. Warren of Massachusetts, whose ground game is often regarded as the most
extensive in a contest that party officials describe as still fluid -- though Ms. Warren
received the most enthusiastic reception of the day, with an opening standing ovation that
stretched on for nearly two minutes.
Her supporters wielded inflatable noise makers and she received thunderous applause
throughout her address.
"There is a lot at stake and people are scared," she said. "But we can't choose a
candidate we don't believe in because we're scared."
It's a version of a line that Ms. Warren has deployed before, though it took on new
significance when she deployed it Saturday, days before she faces off against Mr. Biden for
the first time on the debate stage.
While many voters feel warmly toward Mr. Biden, some have also cited the perception that
he is the most electable candidate in the race, rather than displaying outright enthusiasm
for his campaign.
"There's that sense of, we know who Joe is and we trust him," said former State Senator
Sylvia Larsen, the former New Hampshire Senate president. "There's still a little bit of
people still looking around to say, 'Well, O.K., so what else is out there? Where are the
voices? Who else might be a voice?'"
Mr. Biden, the former vice president, was the first of the presidential contenders to
speak, and he received a polite though hardly raucous reception as attendees trickled into
the arena, which was not yet full on Saturday morning.
Mr. Biden has led in most polls here since entering the race -- though the surveys have
been relatively few. He is focused on blue-collar voters, moderates and other Democrats who
believe his more centrist brand offers the most promising path to defeating Mr. Trump, in
contrast to the more progressive coalitions Ms. Warren and Mr. Sanders are working to
build.
On the ground, Mr. Sanders's supporters challenged the notion that Mr. Biden is the only
candidate well positioned to defeat Mr. Trump.
"Bernie beats Trump," read one banner hanging in the arena. Outside, another banner
affixed to a pro-Sanders tent read, "In poll after poll after poll Bernie BEATS Trump."
Mr. Sanders received frequent applause throughout his speech and his supporters -- who
appeared dispersed throughout the arena -- greeted many of his remarks with loud whoops.
"Together, we will make Donald Trump a one-term president," he said. "But frankly,
frankly, it is not enough just to defeat Trump. We must do much, much more. We must finally
create a government and an economy that works for all of us, not just the one percent."
In a sign of organizational strength, Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind., was also a
prominent presence at the convention: He had a large cheering contingent that punctuated his
address with rounds of applause. Flush with a field-leading fund-raising haul, his campaign
has significantly expanded its presence in New Hampshire, and has announced the opening of 12
new offices in the state.
Senator Kamala Harris of California had a visible support section, too -- her fans wore
bright yellow T-shirts -- and she also received applause and cheers.
Yet Ms. Harris's standing in the polls has slipped over the summer, and party leaders here
say she does not have the same footprint in the state as some of the other contenders.
Perhaps reflecting those dynamics -- and a lunchtime-hour speaking slot -- her ability to
excite the room was at times uneven.
"Everybody else and the pundits can ride polls; I'm not on that roller coaster," she told
reporters after her speech. "I am working hard, we are steady, I don't get high with the
polls, I don't go low with the polls."
Senator Cory Booker, too, found himself brushing off the polls when speaking to reporters
after giving an energetic speech that resonated in the room. His candidacy has mystified some
veteran New Hampshire Democrats who note his relatively stagnant poll numbers despite
extensive on-the-ground campaign organization, endorsements and an ability to deliver a fiery
speech.
Certainly, the convention is an imperfect test of the state of the New Hampshire primary.
It's a window into the mood of the most plugged-in activists, but isn't necessarily
representative of the entire electorate that will turn out on Primary Day -- and it also drew
attendees from out of state, from places including Massachusetts, New Jersey and even, in at
least one case, California. ...
'Mental rigidity' at root of intense political partisanship on both left and right, study
finds
People who identify more intensely with a political tribe or ideology share an underlying
psychological trait: low levels of cognitive flexibility, according to a new study.
This "mental rigidity" makes it harder for people to change their ways of thinking or
adapt to new environments, say researchers. Importantly, mental rigidity was found in those
with the most fervent beliefs and affiliations on both the left and right of the political
divide.
The study of over 700 US citizens, conducted by scientists from the University of
Cambridge, is the largest -- and first for over 20 years -- to investigate whether the more
politically "extreme" have a certain "type of mind" through the use of objective
psychological testing.
The findings suggest that the basic mental processes governing our ability to switch
between different concepts and tasks are linked to the intensity with which we attach
ourselves to political doctrines -- regardless of the ideology.
---
A tautology. People with inflexible minds a have inflexible minds.
But they are referring to us, and the mechanism is hysteria. Certain ideas we cannot hold
else we get severe anxiety. It also refers to our favorite economists who teach a 'This time
is different' code only to discover that are the umptenth set of economists to do 'This time
is different'.
Inevitably we end u with voter's regret, a fear that we are easily duped into a fraud.
In comparison with Joe Biden or Kamala Harris, Warren is huge progress even with her warts and all.
Notable quotes:
"... the DNC is already gaming polls, cherry-picking which are "official" for their 2% threshhold. MSNBC and other networks and pundits also cherry-pick. Or even simply outright lie if the poll doesn't match what they want it to. ..."
"... Polling should either be eliminated or held to MUCH more consistent and much more scientific standards. (demographics, prediction analysis, neutral rather than leading questions, standardized formats, etc.) Until then they're simply more and more useless as predictors of the real poll, the primaries or general. ..."
"... The difference no is, that countries like Canada, the U.S., Australia, UK, Poland, Ukraine, Hungary and with the AfD Germany are either as fascist, or more fascist than ever before. Once again, Russia is hyped up to be the eternal arch enemy of 'Western fascist values', 'freedom and democracy'. How much more difficult would it be today to round up resistance against a fascist axis that is hellbent to march again Russia? ..."
"... Sure, Trudeau is nothing but a bag of lukewarm air, but he employs hard core fascists in his cabinet – paid for by the Canadian people. ..."
"... History will look at the Sanders Warren debacle in the same way it must look now at the theft of the nomination of Henry A. Wallace in favor of the person that had no whatsoever second thoughts about dropping two nukes on an enemy that had already succumbed to the Soviet forces. Henry A. Wallace would heve never dropped these nukes. He was a staunch supporter of the 'common man'. All his policies reflected that. He was a presidential nominee for, of and by the people. ..."
"... To all the mindless party members of the Democratic fascist party: if you repeat history by allowing for the second time to install a puppet of the fascist powers in the U.S., you bear the full responsibilty for the dropping of the next nukes. ..."
"... The difference between Sanders and Wallace is a painful one. Wallace fought against the theft of his nomination with all he got. Subsequently, he realized that the 'Democratic' party would never allow for a person with integrity and the well being of the people at heart to win any nomination. He would have won the following presidency as a third party nominee – Trumann however knew how to prevent that. ..."
"... Much of what is sickening about the US as an imperial power today was present well before 1944 – indeed was present during the 19th century when the US made colonies of Hawaii and the Philippines in the 1890s, and occupied Haiti in 1915 (?), not leaving that country until the 1930s. ..."
"... Forgive me for saying so, but is a party of working folks really supposed to be grovelling for favours from billionaires? ..."
"... I think Gabbard is as authentic a new voice as i have ever seen in the DNC. She may well make it as an independent. Would Sanders? ..."
"... I'd say if a Gabbard/Paul grassroots campaign run by the Sanders 'momentum' network got their act together the USA may finally mature into a proper democracy not owned by their neolib con artistes. ..."
"... America where democracy has been extinguished and their increasingly paranoid voters are under the mistaken belief that yet another talking head can return them to a fair and impartial existence. ..."
"... Too late. Money is king and those that have most want more. The sideshow of elections produces the performing clowns such as Trump, Obama, Bush etc.all spouting the same vacuous promises on behalf of their wealthy benefactors. No real choice or change and an illusion of caring for the welfare of their citizenry. Listen carefully to the clowns, it's the sound of money talking. ..."
So: the rise of Elizabeth Warren gives the billionaires a 'progressive' candidate who might either win the
nomination or else at least split progressive voters during the primaries (between Sanders and Warren) and thus give
the nomination to Buttigieg, who is their first choice (especially since both Biden and Harris have been faltering so
badly of late).
I feel like any analysis that even mentions polls is guesswork, because nowadays polls are almost
entirely useless. In that they aren't accurately measuring people who are actually going to go to
open/semi-open or even closed primaries, and caucuses. The cohort of likely voters is different from
the cohort who bothers to pick up a phone call from an unknown (polling) number. Or make it through a
whole poll. Or do any online polls. Or have a reachable phone # at all.
Plus the fact that the DNC is already gaming polls, cherry-picking which are "official" for their
2% threshhold. MSNBC and other networks and pundits also cherry-pick. Or even simply outright lie if
the poll doesn't match what they want it to.
Polling should either be eliminated or held to MUCH more consistent and much more scientific
standards. (demographics, prediction analysis, neutral rather than leading questions, standardized
formats, etc.) Until then they're simply more and more useless as predictors of the real poll, the
primaries or general.
I liked the article other than that though.
mark
"Vote for me, I'm gay!"
"Vote for me, I'm a Red Indian!"
Daniel Rich
Do these 'Democratic Party billionaires ' have names and further affiliations?
Could it be that most of these 'Democratic Party billionaires ' favor the Apartheid State?
Hmmmmm?
George Cornell
David Bradley's The Atlanticmagazine headlined on August 26th, "Elizabeth Warren Manages to Woo the
Democratic Establishment". Wooing in American politics = betraying your principles, cutting deals,
bending to the wishes of the powerful, and all round submissive boot-licking.
Roberto
That would be describing successful politics in any country at any time in history.
An unsuccessful politician would do the inverse of what you list. For those with good memories,
let's try to name some.
George Cornell
Not everyone would agree with that definition of success, but you are quite right.
wardropper
Voice in the "Emperor's New Clothes" story:
"Why don't we just ban all financial support of presidential candidates? – I thought this was supposed
to be about the person best qualified and best suited to run the country "
HEY! Somebody shut that
child up right now, will you!
The significance of Sanders is this: if he wins the nomination he will have done so by leading an
insurrectionary movement, not only within the Democratic Party but in US society itself. He simply
cannot win otherwise. And if he wins the primaries it will have been in spite of the great mass of
money and Establishment influence having been mobilised against him.
In other words he is right to call his supporters a "revolution."
It is of course equally true of the Corbyn movement- any victories are immense defeats for both the
Establishment and its media. That, in itself is important.
And nowhere more than in Canada where the third and fourth parties- the NDP and the Greens- continue
to tack further and further to the right, trying to catch up with the rightward swing of the Liberal
Party -now close to full on neo-naziism- and the ultra right Tories.
Thank You for the link. While I am keenly aware of the untold history of WWII and the fact that
Hitler would have never gotten where he was from 1933-1941 without the propping up by both U.S. and
Zionist interests (mind the redundancy), eager to crush the perceived anti-capitalist behemoth
Soviet Union, I am wondering about the present re-run of the same story unfolding.
The difference
no is, that countries like Canada, the U.S., Australia, UK, Poland, Ukraine, Hungary and with the
AfD Germany are either as fascist, or more fascist than ever before. Once again, Russia is hyped up
to be the eternal arch enemy of 'Western fascist values', 'freedom and democracy'. How much more
difficult would it be today to round up resistance against a fascist axis that is hellbent to march
again Russia?
Sure, Trudeau is nothing but a bag of lukewarm air, but he employs hard core fascists in his
cabinet – paid for by the Canadian people. The rest of the what goes for the 'value West' is more
of a disgrace than at any time before. These are the real dark ages, as I have stated before.
Nothing good can come from these psychopathic puppets in control of countries that ought to deserve
much better. Maybe, just maybe, the people of the countries in question should read Rudi Dutschke's
works about 'Extra Parliamentary Opposition' – for Dummies?
Until Turkey is able to produce S-400 anti-aircraft missile systems – it will buy weapons from Russia.
Turkey intends to buy from Russia additional S-400 air defense systems
While Bernie Sanders is no Henry A. Wallace by a long shot, Elizabeth Warren is the new Harry Trumann.
The Democrats are still the Democratic fascist Party of America and have their party base hypnotized
into believing that it has the well being of its voters on its mind.
That is of course a lie and
pure propaganda. And since the U.S. is the second most vulnerable nation to propaganda and fascism –
with Germany being the number one, in both the past and the present – the people that refuse to leave
the Democratic Fascist Party are remiscent of those people who kept following Hitler, even after it
had become clear that his 'party' would drive Germany into the abyss.
For the brownshirt-like followers of proven war criminals that both lead, or finance the 'party',
absolutely no crime is big enough that would warrant to turn their back on the fascist party.
History
will look at the Sanders Warren debacle in the same way it must look now at
the theft
of the nomination of Henry A. Wallace
in favor of the person that had no whatsoever second
thoughts about dropping two nukes on an enemy that had already succumbed to the Soviet forces. Henry
A. Wallace would heve never dropped these nukes. He was a staunch supporter of the 'common man'. All
his policies reflected that. He was a presidential nominee for, of and by the people.
That did not sit too well with the fascists and they stole the nomination from him. Present day
America has turned into this corrupt cesspool because of this stolen nomination. Everything that is
sickening about the U.S. today, started in 1944. All the surveillance, the mindcontrol, the cold war
and the transformation into a wannabe empire – they are all the result of this infamy by the hands of
the Democratic fascists.
To all the mindless party members of the Democratic fascist party: if you repeat history by
allowing for the second time to install a puppet of the fascist powers in the U.S., you bear the full
responsibilty for the dropping of the next nukes. Suffering from such deep sitting cognitive
dissonance, party members will find all kinds of excuses to prevent the truth from coming out. Just as
there was no war crime by Clinton and Obama sufficient enough to not cheer them like the greatest
baseball team ever. Leave the Democratic fascist party now, or have history piss on your graves.
Norcal
Very convincing argument and link, perfectly done. Thank you nottheonly1.
nottheonly1
Thank You, Norcal. It may be best to download these video clips, since they are all taken down
one after another based on 'copyright issues'.
The difference between Sanders and Wallace is a painful one. Wallace fought against the theft
of his nomination with all he got. Subsequently, he realized that the 'Democratic' party would
never allow for a person with integrity and the well being of the people at heart to win any
nomination. He would have won the following presidency as a third party nominee – Trumann
however knew how to prevent that. As the clip states, the American people only have to be
frightened and you can sell them their own demise on a golden platter. The ridicule and shaming
of those who want a third party can also be traced back to this time.
It is equally very disturbing that the owner class managed to brain wash the people into
accepting the use of 'oligarchs', 'billionaires', or 'donors' when in truth they are the real
fascists Henry Wallace had warned about. This must be reversed by all means available. People
must understand that the concerted use of these euphemisms will make it next to impossible to
accept what these persons really are and what their goals are.
Jen
Much of what is sickening about the US as an imperial power today was present well before 1944 –
indeed was present during the 19th century when the US made colonies of Hawaii and the Philippines
in the 1890s, and occupied Haiti in 1915 (?), not leaving that country until the 1930s. Of course
there was also the genocide of First Nations peoples through the theft of their lands, the wars
waged to force them onto reservations, and the massive slaughter of bison as a way of destroying
many indigenous cultures.
nottheonly1
Yes, but never before was the deliberate change of course towards fascism so blatant than with
the ouster of Wallace. This was the watershed moment that turned the U.S. into the greatest
threat for humanity. When You read about Wallace, You will find out that he generally wanted
reconcile with the Native Indian Nation. He wanted cooperation with the Soviet Union/Russians
for a lasting global peace and prosperity for everyone, not just a few American maggots. Present
day U.S. started at that real day of infamy.
Lysias
Wallace was also a big supporter of establishing Israel.
Seamus Padraig
So, whereas they would be able to deal with Warren, they wouldn't be able to deal with Sanders,
whose policy-record is remarkably progressive in all respects, and not only on domestic U.S.
matters.
Frankly, Bernie could be better on foreign policy. While he
did
vote against the Iraq War–I give him all due credit for that–he hasn't really opposed any of
Washington's other wars, coups and régime-change operations in recent memory. Oh: and Bernie, the
self-described socialist, once referred to Hugo Chavez as a "dead dictator". That being said, he would
still be preferable to the remaining flotsam in the today's Democrap Party.
Rhys Jaggar
Forgive me for saying so, but is a party of working folks really supposed to be grovelling for favours
from billionaires? The Republicans are supposed to be the party for the rich, not the Democrats .
And is not time for billionaires to be bumped off by politicians, not politicians bumped off by
billionaires?
A tad uncritical on Sanders, especially his foreign policies, but otherwise an excellent and closely
argued takedown of the risible but sadly widespread delusion that America is a democracy. Thanks Eric.
Wilmers31
Democracy itself does not say anything about quality of life, it's just a system. US democracy runs
on money. Most thing in life do – pretending it is otherwise, that's where the problem is.
Democracy is just the shell – if you fill it with sh1t it's bad; if you fill it with honey it's
sweet.
Biden is remote-controllable, he'd do as told – so of course big money would prefer him.
I've just the other day written
this piece on democracy
. The immediate context is
the fiasco re the UK Queen granting Boris Johnson's request to prorogue (temporarily dissolve)
parliament, but the issues run deeper and wider.
Dungroanin
I skimmed through and didn't spot one mention of Gabbard!
Seems as if she is being non-personed
and ignored as a viable candidate (much like JC has been over here).
There is a long way to that election yet. (The US, ours is finally within reach, unless some
wildebeast tramples in )
The DNC dirty tricks won't wash this time – perhaps its time to start reading and talking about
the nitty gritty of these leaked mails – if for nothing else for the bravery and ultimate sacrifice
of Seth Rich.
Well I'm already stretched perilous thin, DG, but will give it thought.
Meantime,
this piece from last week
by Katia Novella Miller, first of a two parts with second part to
follow on the same KBNB World News site, gives a precis of what Wikileaks showed the world.
The lack of mention of Gabbard is telling, as is the fact the Billionaire crowd (Rubinites) are
pushing for a candidate I ain't even heard of.
The fact remains, a Sanders – Gabbard ticket
against Trump is the preferable outcome for many observers on the Left.
Just as a reminder, neither Sanders & Gabbard are God like figures, in much the same way
Corbyn ain't, however, they are the best available at this juncture in time if we really want
some change, even if it is incremental.
Dungroanin
I think Gabbard is as authentic a new voice as i have ever seen in the DNC. She may well make
it as an independent. Would Sanders?
I read somewhere that the US electorate were self
identified as third Republican, Democrat and independent.
If they were given an independent ticket- not part of the two billionaire funded main
parties then enough may join the independent third from these.
I'd say if a Gabbard/Paul grassroots campaign run by the Sanders 'momentum' network got
their act together the USA may finally mature into a proper democracy not owned by their
neolib con artistes.
Grafter
America where democracy has been extinguished and their increasingly paranoid voters are under the
mistaken belief that yet another talking head can return them to a fair and impartial existence.
Too
late. Money is king and those that have most want more. The sideshow of elections produces the
performing clowns such as Trump, Obama, Bush etc.all spouting the same vacuous promises on behalf of
their wealthy benefactors. No real choice or change and an illusion of caring for the welfare of their
citizenry. Listen carefully to the clowns, it's the sound of money talking.
She is Hillary style "kick the can down the road" neoliberal. Neoliberal candidates do not
resonate with the USA electorate... This is part of the crisis of neoliberalism in the USA and
the loss of legitimacy of the neoliberal elite. Biden is probably next.
The question is who pushed her into Senate from NY state, which money?
Notable quotes:
"... She's a mean hypocrite---jumping on and off ideological bandwagons like #MeToo only when it's politically convenient. ..."
"... Tucker Carlson characterized her as the "worst candidate to run for any office" on account of her "meanness." This woman of great affluence, in an elegant dress and well-coiffed hair, actually lectured the poor wives of Youngstown, Ohio, factory workers (some of whom may have been unemployed) on the benefits of their "white privilege." ..."
"... What is most offensive about Gillibrand may be less her "meanness" than her blatant hypocrisy and mendacity. Even in a field of dishonest panderers, she stood out as especially obnoxious. And her problems didn't start when she threw her diamonds into the presidential race. ..."
She's a mean hypocrite---jumping on and off ideological bandwagons like #MeToo only when
it's politically convenient.
... Tucker Carlson
characterized her as the "worst candidate to run for any office" on account of her
"meanness." This woman of great affluence, in an elegant dress and well-coiffed hair, actually
lectured the poor wives of Youngstown, Ohio, factory workers (some of whom may have been
unemployed) on the benefits of their "white privilege." Apparently young black men were
being arrested at a much higher rate in Youngstown than these women or their children, a
situation that may be attributed to differential crime rates but certainly not to any
"privilege" that Gillibrand's audience enjoyed.
What is most offensive about Gillibrand may be less her "meanness" than her blatant
hypocrisy and mendacity. Even in a field of dishonest panderers, she stood out as especially
obnoxious. And her problems didn't start when she threw her diamonds into the presidential
race.
For years, Gillibrand served at the beck and call of Bill and Hillary Clinton, and when
Hillary exchanged her senatorial office for a cabinet post in the Obama administration,
Gillibrand was rewarded with her boss's old seat. In all this time, she never expressed any
concerns about Bill's predatory behavior toward women, including his relationship with the
young intern Monica Lewinsky. Yet she was outraged by the sexual predations of Democratic donor
Harvey Weinstein, helping to launch the #MeToo movement with great fanfare.
Since the Clintons were no longer essential to her career , she now dared to suggest that
Bill might have resigned following revelations about his affair with Monica. She turned on her
fellow Democratic senator (and certified liberal) Al Franken of Minnesota for extremely minor (
and recently
revisited ) sexual infractions, forcing his sacrificial resignation. She then predictably
went after Trump as a supposed sexual predator. Her #MeToo movement was turned into a
Democratic wrecking ball against the GOP.
Among Gillibrand's party services as a supposed feminist was to
blast away at Trump's nominee for the Supreme Court, Brett Kavanaugh, in September and
October of last year. This action was taken in response to an entirely unsubstantiated
accusation that in the 1980s Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted a young woman (who had since
become a very engaged Democratic activist). But it wasn't until a second woman came forward to
accuse Democratic Lieutenant Governor Justin Fairfax of sexual assault that Gillibrand called
for his resignation. Not surprisingly, the standard of proof was infinitely higher for
Democrats than for Republicans.
Gillibrand certainly wasn't the only distasteful posturer in the Democratic primary race.
But she was probably the most indigestible of all the hypocrites. Even hardcore feminists and
abortion rights advocates didn't much like her; hence why her poll numbers remained at zero. In her
case, even that may have been overly generous.
Paul Gottfried is Raffensperger Professor of Humanities Emeritus at Elizabethtown
College, where he taught for 25 years. He is a Guggenheim recipient and a Yale Ph.D. He is the
author of 13 books, most recently Fascism:
Career of a Concept and Revisions and Dissents .
I'm a life long New Yorker from Buffalo. Gillibrand is as phony as a set of purple teeth.
It's NYC that keeps putting her in. The rest of the state is more conservative.
The "sexism" argument is so stupid. Ask a liberal woman, who believes people rejected HRC
because of sexism, if she supported Sara Palin. They will look at you with their head tilted
to the side and say "of course not". My reply is always the same: "So you reserve the
privilege to reject a candidate based on ideological grounds to yourself, but you don't
extend that same privilege to other people who don't support your favored candidate"? These
people are so stuck in their ideology that they can't envision how anybody could think
differently about anything and as a consequence they must reach for nonsense reasons, like
sexism. Or they are just massive hypocrites.
This article offers a worthy elaboration on key themes in Matthews's article.
My blog post addressed those same themes several days earlier, but I was more focused on
sexism in Matthews's coverage of Gillibrand. What's amazing about Gillibrand's campaign is
not that it failed -- it's that it lasted as long as it did.
It is not vey clear for whom Epstein used to work. Mossad connection is just one hypothesis.
What sovereign state would allow compromising politician by a foreign intelligence service. This
just does not compute.
But the whole tone of discussion below clearly point to the crisis of legitimacy of
neoliberal elite. And Russiagate had shown that the elite cares about it and tried to patch the
cracks.
As Eric
Rasmusen writes: "Everybody, it seems, in New York society knew by 2000 that Jeffrey
Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell were corrupting teenage girls, but the press wouldn't cover it."
Likewise, everybody in New York society has long known that Larry Silverstein, who bought the
asbestos-riddled white elephant World Trade Center in July 2001 and immediately doubled the
insurance, is a mobbed-up friend of Netanyahu and a confessed participant in the controlled
demolition of Building 7 , from which he earned over 700 million insurance dollars on the
pretext that al-Qaeda had somehow brought it down. But the press won't cover that either.
The New York Times , America's newspaper of record, has the investigative talent and
resources to expose major corruption in New York. Why did the Times spend almost two
decades ignoring the all-too-obvious antics of Epstein and Silverstein? Why is it letting the
absurd tale of Epstein's alleged suicide stand? Why hasn't it used the work of Architects and
Engineers for 9/11 Truth -- including the brand-new University of Alaska study on the controlled
demolition of WTC-7 -- to expose the biggest scandal of the 21 st century, if
not all of American history?
The only conceivable answer is that The New York Times is somehow complicit in these
monstrous crimes. It must be protecting its friends in high places. So who are those friends,
and where are those high places?
One thing Epstein and Silverstein have in common, besides names ending in "-stein," is
alleged involvement in the illicit sex industry. Epstein's antics, or at least some of them,
are by now well-known. Not so for Silverstein, who apparently began his rags-to-9/11-riches
story as a pimp supplying prostitutes and nude dancers to the shadier venues of NYC, alongside
other illicit activities including "the heroin trade, money laundering
and New York Police corruption." All of this was exposed in a mid-1990s lawsuit. But good
luck finding any investigative reports in The New York Times .
Another Epstein-Silverstein connection is their relationships to major American Jewish
organizations. Even while he was allegedly pimping girls and running heroin, Larry Silverstein
served as president for United Jewish Appeal of New York. As for Epstein, he was the boy toy
and protégé of Les Wexner, co-founder of
the Mega Group of Jewish billionaires associated with the World Jewish Congress, the
Anti-Defamation League, and other pro-Israel groups. Indeed, there is no evidence that
"self-made billionaire" Epstein ever earned significant amounts of money; his only investment
"client" was Les Wexner. Epstein, a professional sexual blackmailer, used his supposed
billionaire status as a cover story. In fact, he was just an employee working for Wexner and
associated criminal/intelligence networks.
Which brings us to the third and most important Epstein-Silverstein similarity: They were
both close to the government of Israel. Jeffrey Epstein's handler was Ghislaine Maxwell,
daughter of Mossad super-spy Robert Maxwell; among his friends was Ehud Barak, who is currently
challenging Netanyahu for leadership of Israel. Larry Silverstein, too, has friends in high
Israeli places. According to Haaretz , Silverstein has "close ties with Netanyahu"
(speaking to him on the phone every weekend) as well as with Ehud Barak, "whom Silverstein in
the past offered a job as his representative in Israel" and who called Silverstein immediately
after 9/11.
We may reasonably surmise that both Jeffrey Epstein and Larry Silverstein have been carrying
on very important work on behalf of the state of Israel. And we may also surmise that this is
the reason The New York Times has been covering up the scandals associated with both
Israeli agents for almost two decades. The Times , though it pretends to be America's
newspaper of record, has always been Jewish-owned-and-operated. Its coverage has always been
grotesquely
distorted in favor of Israel . It has no interest in exposing the way Israel controls the
United States by blackmailing its leaders (Epstein) and staging a fake "Arab-Muslim attack on
America" (Silverstein). The awful truth is that The New York Times is part of the same
Jewish-Zionist "
we control America " network as Jeffrey Epstein and Larry Silverstein.
Epstein "Suicide" Illustrates Zionist Control of USA -- and the Decadence and Depravity
of Western Secularism
Since The New York Times and other mainstream media won't go there, let's reflect on
the facts and lessons of the Jeffrey Epstein suicide scandal -- a national disgrace that ought
to shock Americans into rethinking their worldviews in general, and their views on the official
myth of 9/11 in particular.
On Saturday, August 10, 2019, convicted child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein was allegedly
found dead in his cell at Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC) in New York City, one of
America's most corrupt prisons. The authorities claim Epstein hanged himself. But nobody, not
even the presstitutes of America's corporate propaganda media, convincingly pretends to believe
the official story.
Jeffrey Epstein was a pedophile pimp to presidents and potentates. His job was recruiting
young girls for sex, then offering them to powerful men -- in settings outfitted with hidden
video cameras. When police raided his New York townhouse on July 6-7 2019 they found locked
safes full of pornographic pictures of underage girls, along with piles of compact discs
labeled "young (name of girl) + (name of VIP)." Epstein had been openly and brazenly carrying
on such activities for more than two decades, as reported throughout most of that period by
alternative media outlets including my own Truth Jihad Radio and False Flag Weekly News . (Even
before the 2016 elections, my audience knew that both Bill Clinton and Donald Trump were
blackmailed clients of Jeffrey Epstein, that Clinton was a frequent flyer on Epstein's "Lolita
Express" private jet, and that Trump had been credibly accused in a lawsuit of joining Epstein
in the brutal rape of a 13-year-old, to whom Trump then allegedly issued death threats.) It was
only in the summer of 2019 that mainstream media and New York City prosecutors started talking
about what used to be consigned to the world of "conspiracy theories."
So who was Epstein working for? His primary employer was undoubtedly the Israeli Mossad and
its worldwide Zionist crime network. Epstein's handler was Ghislaine Maxwell, daughter of
Mossad super-spy Robert Maxwell. According to sworn depositions, Ghislaine Maxwell recruited
underage girls for Epstein and oversaw his sex trafficking operations. As the New Yorker
reported August 16: "In court papers that were unsealed on August 9th, it was alleged that
Maxwell had been Epstein's central accomplice, first as his girlfriend, and, later, as his
trusted friend and procuress, grooming a steady stream of girls, some as young as fourteen,
coercing them to have sex with Epstein at his various residences around the world, and
occasionally participating in the sexual abuse herself." Alongside Maxwell, Epstein's other
Mossad handler was
Les Wexner, co-founder of the notorious Mega Group of billionaire Israeli spies , who
appears to have originally recruited the penniless Epstein and handed him a phony fortune so
Epstein could pose as a billionaire playboy.
Even after Epstein's shady "suicide" mega-Mossadnik Maxwell continued to flaunt her impunity
from American justice. She no doubt conspired to publicize the August 15 New York Post
photograph of herself smiling and looking "chillingly serene" at In-And-Out-Burger in Los
Angeles, reading The Book of Honor: The Secret Lives and Deaths of C.I.A. Operatives .
That nauseating photo inspired the New
Yorker to accuse her of having "gall" -- a euphemism for the Yiddish chutzpah , a quality
that flourishes in the overlapping Zionist and Kosher Nostra communities.
Maxwell and The New York Post , both Kosher Nostra/Mossad assets, were obviously
sending a message to the CIA: Don't mess with us or we will expose your complicity in these
scandalous crimes. That is the Mossad's standard operating procedure: Infiltrate and compromise
Western intelligence services in order to prevent them from interfering with the Zionists'
over-the-top atrocities. According to French historian
Laurent Guyénot's hypothesis, the CIA's false flag fake assassination attempt on
President John F. Kennedy, designed to be blamed on Cuba, was transformed by Mossad into a real
assassination -- and the CIA couldn't expose it due to its own complicity. (The motive: Stop
JFK from ending Israel's nuclear program.) The same scenario, Guyénot argues, explains
the anomalies of the Mohamed Merah affair
, the Charlie Hebdo killings, and the 9/11 false flag operation. It would not be surprising if
Zionist-infiltrated elements of the CIA were made complicit in Jeffrey Epstein's sexual
blackmail activities, in order to protect Israel in the event Epstein had to be "burned" (which
is apparently what has finally occurred).
So what really happened to Epstein? Perhaps the most likely scenario is that the Kosher
Nostra, which owns New York in general and the mobbed-up MCC prison in particular, allowed the
Mossad to exfiltrate Epstein to Occupied Palestine, where he will be given a facelift, a
pension, a luxury suite overlooking the Mediterranean, and a steady stream of young sex slaves
(Israel is the world's capital of human trafficking, an honor it claimed from the Kosher Nostra
enclaves of Odessa after World War II). Once the media heat wave blows over, Epstein will
undoubtedly enjoy visits from his former Mossad handler Ghislaine Maxwell, his good friend Ehud
Barak, and various other Zionist VIPs. He may even offer fresh sex slaves to visiting American
congressmen.
This is not just a paranoid fantasy scenario. According to Eric
Rasmusen : "The Justice Dept. had better not have let Epstein's body be cremated. And
they'd better give us convincing evidence that it's his body. If I had $100 million to get out
of jail with, acquiring a corpse and bribing a few people to switch fingerprints and DNA
wouldn't be hard. I find it worrying that the government has not released proof that Epstein is
dead or a copy of the autopsy."
But didn't the alleged autopsy reportedly find broken neck bones that are more commonly
associated with strangulation murders than suicides? That controversy may have been scripted to
distract the public from
an insider report on 4chan , first published before the news of Epstein's "suicide" broke,
that Epstein had been "switched out" of MCC. If so, the body with the broken neck bones wasn't
Epstein's.
The Epstein affair (like 9/11) illustrates two critically important truths about Western
secularism: there is no truth, and there are no limits. A society that no longer believes in
God no longer believes in truth, since God is al-haqq, THE truth, without Whom the whole
notion of truth has no metaphysical basis. The postmodern philosophers understand this
perfectly well. They taught a whole generation of Western humanities scholars that truth is
merely a function of power: people accept something as "true" to the extent that they are
forced by power to accept it. So when the most powerful people in the world insist that three
enormous steel-frame skyscrapers were blown to smithereens by relatively modest office fires on
9/11, that absurd assertion becomes the official "truth" as constructed by such Western
institutions as governments, courts, media, and academia. Likewise, the assertion that Jeffrey
Epstein committed suicide under circumstances that render that assertion absurd will probably
become the official "truth" as recorded and promulgated by the West's ruling institutions, even
though nobody will ever really believe it.
Epstein's career as a shameless, openly-operating Mossad sexual blackmailer -- like the
in-your-face 9/11 coup -- also illustrates another core truth of Western secularism: If there
is no God, there are no limits (in this case, to human depravity and what it can get away
with). Or as Dostoevsky famously put it: "If God does not exist, everything is permitted."
Since God alone can establish metaphysically-grounded limits between what is permitted and what
is forbidden, a world without God will feature no such limits; in such a world Aleister
Crowley's satanic motto "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" becomes the one and
only commandment. In today's Godless West, why should men not "do what they wilt" and
indulge their libidos by raping young girls if they can get away with it? After all, all the
other sexual taboos are being broken, one by one. Fornication, adultery, homosexuality,
sadomasochism, gender-bending all of these have been transformed during my lifetime from crimes
and vices to "human rights" enjoyed by the most liberal and fashionable right-thinking Western
secularists. Even bestiality and necrophilia are poised to become normalized "sexual
identities" whose practitioners will soon be proudly marching in "bestiality pride" and
"necrophilia pride" parades. So why not normalize pedophilia and other forms of rape
perpetrated by the strong against the weak? And why not add torture and murder in service to
sexual gratification? After all, the secret bible of the sexual identity movement is the
collected works of the Marquis de Sade, the satanic prophet of sexual liberation, with whom the
liberal progressivist secular West is finally catching up. It will not be surprising if, just a
few years after the Jeffrey Epstein "suicide" is consigned to the memory hole, we will be
witnessing LGBTQBNPR parades, with the BNPR standing for bestiality, necrophilia, pedophilia,
and rape. (It would have been LGBTQBNPRG, with the final G standing for Gropers like President
Trump, except that the G was already taken by the gays.) The P's, pioneers of pedophile pride
parades, will undoubtedly celebrate Jeffrey Epstein as an ahead-of-his-time misunderstood hero
who was unjustly persecuted on the basis of his unusual sexual orientation.
It is getting harder and harder to satirize the decadence and depravity of the secular West,
which insists on parodying itself with ever-increasing outlandishness. When the book on this
once-mighty civilization is written, and the ink is dry, readers will be astounded by the
limitless lies of the drunk-on-chutzpah psychopaths who ran it into the ground.
Correct me if I am wrong but I thought Lucky Larry only leased the WTC buildings rather than
actually purchased them. I think I have read that his investment was in the region of 150
mill for which he has recouped a whopping 4 bill.
Would you please answer a preliminary question before I put finishing this on my busy agenda?
You stake a fair bit of your credit on what you say about Larry Silverstein and insurance. My
present understanding is that the insurance cover for WTC 1 and 2 was increased as a routine
part of the financing deal he had made for a purchase which was only months old. Not true?
Not the full story? Convince us.
As to WTC 7 my understanding is that he had owned the building for some years and had not
recently increased the insurance. Not true? And when did any clause get into his WTC7
insurance contract which might have had some effect on inflating the payout?
“Trump had been credibly accused in a lawsuit of joining Epstein in the brutal rape of
a 13-year-old, to whom Trump then allegedly issued death threats.)”
The “Katie Johnson” case collapsed in 2016 when it was revealed that
“she” was in fact a middle-aged man, a stringer for the Jerry Springer show. Just
another Gloria Allred fraud.
“a society that no longer believes in god no longer believes in the truth, since god is
the truth….blah blah blah”
This is thin gruel indeed…..just silly platitudes from a muzzie convert. There are at
least 100 billion galaxies in the universe with each galaxy containing as many as 100 billion
stars. And there is no telling how many universes there are. Does anyone really believe
Barrett’s preferred deity takes a time out from running this vast empire to service
Barrett’s yearning for “truth”? Just goes to prove that humans will believe
almost any idea as long as it’s sufficiently idiotic.
“The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse
of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that
studied the collapse.”
“It is our conclusion based upon these findings that the collapse of WTC 7 was a
global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of all columns in the building and
not a progressive collapse involving the sequential failure of columns throughout the
building.”
Speaking of the truth v. parody I’d really rather work on the cause of
Epstein’s death –yes I think he’s dead– suicide or
strangulation ?
There are some things the Justice Dept. could do if they wanted to. Why they apparently
didn’t want to expose the corpse in greater detail, let media view the cell, have
correspondent(s) interview the ex- cellmate of Epstein, et.al just leads to suspicions.
This is something they should have to answer for . That includes AG Barr. Trump could make
it happen–like every thing else– if Barr says no. The President won’t.
Dostoyevsky with his “If God does not exist, everything is permitted.”
overlooked the Jewish God who permits much more when it comes to Jewish gentile relations.
The Jewish God is not limited by the Kant’s First Moral Imperative. The Jewish
God’s moral laws are not universal. They are context dependent according to the
Leninist Who, whom rule.
Not so for Silverstein, who apparently began his rags-to-9/11-riches story as a pimp
supplying prostitutes and nude dancers to the shadier venues of NYC, alongside other
illicit activities including “the heroin trade, money laundering and New York
Police corruption.”
I would like to see more about the beginnings of Silverstein’s career.
Good work Kevin, Irrelevant exactly what Silverstein did in way of insurance.The FACT is
that WTC7 DID NOT FALL due to fires. Neither did WTC1 or 2. The 6 million dollar question
is ‘WHO put the ‘bang’ in the building?’ to bring them down, by
what ever means. Im in favour of nukes for 1 and 2.
Answer that! Why isnt Silverstein arrested? I think Kevin provided the answer in the
article..
I just stumbled onto your article from a link on reddit, r/epstein. You make some
convincing arguments. I was thrilled that you brought 9/11 into this – because the
Epstein “suicide” and how it is being covered reminds me so much of how I felt
after 9/11 and the run-up to the war. -But you lost me at the end with the stuff about
Godless secularism. I’ve read the bible and it is not the answer to what’s
wrong with the world.
Why did the Times spend almost two decades ignoring the all-too-obvious antics of
Epstein and Silverstein? Why is it letting the absurd tale of Epstein’s alleged
suicide stand?
One thing cannot be denied : Epstein was arrested, denied bail and jailed awaiting trail
on a Federal indictment for much the same offence he had pleaded guilty to a decade ago,
which did not involve even a single homicide yet made him universally reviled and in as
much trouble with the legal system as a man could be (almost certain never to get out
again). Epstein was in far more trouble that anyone of his financial resources has ever
been, but then that was for paying for sex acts with young teen girls.
What an awesomely impressive testament to the impunity enjoyed by the Jewish
elite Epstein is. It is no wonder that Larry Silverstein was insouciant about the risks of
a Jewish lightning fraud controlled demolition killing thousands of people in a building he
had just bought and increased the insurance coverage of. After all, it wasn’t
anything serious like paying for getting hundreds of handjobs from underage girls. And it
is not like someone like the Pizzagate nut that fired his AR15 into underground child
molestation complex beneath the Dems restaurant/pedophile centre would take all those WTC
deaths seriously enough to shoot at him just because of inevitable internet accusations of
mass murder. Mr Barrett, why don’t you step up and do it, thereby proving you
believe the things you say .
@NoseytheDuke Yes, he leased the World Trade Center buildings one and two from the Port
Authority of New York and New Jersey. He built World Trade Center building seven, having
acquired a ground lease from Port Authority.
I can’t imagine why you ask this question in a public venue. I found the answer in
less than one minute on the internet.
I assume the insurance policies were for the present value of his net profits for the
duration of the leases.
I recall reading about this guy prior to the event. I believe it was USATODAY . He and a
silent partner had bought the complex with a down of 63million and had it insured for
7billion. I thought it odd that the port authority would let go of the property at the
time.
As the building deficiencies became known afterwards,my thoughts were along the line of
insurance fraud.
I came across a copy of the rand Corp “state of the world 2000” which
accurately describes the scenario and resulting culture of terror as “one possible
future “…. funny how it’s taken all these years to discover this
website.
Indeed, there is no evidence that “self-made billionaire” Epstein ever
earned significant amounts of money.
Good thing that Wexner is Jewish so we can discount the possibility that he was telling
the truth the other month when he said that Epstein stole vast amounts of Wexner money
Alongside Maxwell, Epstein’s other Mossad handler was Les Wexner, co-founder of
the notorious Mega Group of billionaire Israeli spies
Wexner and his fellow Mossad spy Maxwell leaving Virginia Roberts alive to repeatedly
sue them, and use the world”s media to accuse them of sexually abusing, trafficking,
pimping her out to VIPs, and fiming the trysts was a brilliant way to keep everything a
secret.
Mossad handler Ghislaine Maxwell, his good friend Ehud Barak, and various other
Zionist VIPs.
Yes, they are the greatest covert operatives ever.
Epstein’s crimes are simple breaches of etiquette when compared to Silverstein. I
believe the term “Silverstein valleys” has been used to describe the melted
granite discovered beneath the former towers, Silverstein grins widely in interviews, while
so many suffered horribly.
One might even consider the 9/11 deaths to be something of a “holocaust”.
Certainly one of the most evil human beings to have walked the Earth.
@Wizard of Oz Silverstein said he gave the okay for wtc 7 to be “pulled”.
The building was on fire at the time. Either someone wired it to be pulled while it was on
fire and already damaged or it was wired for demolition beforehand. The second scenario
seems a lot more likely. In that case all the insurance contract details are largely
irrelevant to the bigger picture.
The idea that the CIA is somehow independent of Mossad and that Mossad would have to warn
the CIA off of the Epstein matter is implausible to me. Guyenot’s hypothesis tends to
give cover to the CIA in the assassination of JFK by claiming that the CIA plot was set in
motion as some sort of attempt to control JFK and that it was hijacked into an actual
assassination by Mossad. That just isn’t credible.
It’s much more accurate to observe that the CIA was erected by the same zionists
who oversaw the creation of Israel and later the forming of Mossad, and that the two
agencies have been joined at the hip ever since.
@WorkingClass Bad cop good cop. NYT is trying to destroy him . Israel says to him
:” send this , do this ,allow us to do this , increase this by this amount , and we
will make sure that in final analysis you don’t get hurt ”
Trump possibly knows that the only people who could hurt him is the Jewish people of power
.
Has NYT ever criticized Trump for relocating embassy , recognizing Golan, for allowing
Israel use Anerican resources to hit Syria or Gaza , for allowing Israel drag US into more
military involvement. for allowing Israel wage war against Gaza ,? Has NYT ever explored
the dynamics behind abrogation of JCPOA and application of more sanctions?
NYT has focused on Russia gate knowing in advance that it has no merit and no public
traction, Is it hurting Trump or itself ?
People with normal IQ would believe that Epstein killed himself, if the following took
place –
Media day and night asking questions about him from 360 degree of inquiries
1 why the surveillance video were not functioning despite the serious nature of the
charges against a man who could rat out a lot in court against powerful people
2 why the coroner initially thought that Epstein was murdered
3 how many guards and how many fell asleep?
4 who and why allowed the spin story around Epstein brilliance and high IQ build up over
the years ?
5 how does Epstein come to get linked to non -Jews people who have absolute loyalty to
Israel
6 how did Epstein get involved with Jewish leaders ?
7 How did Epstein continue to enjoy seat on Harvard and enjoy social celebrity status after
plea deal ?
8 Why did Wexner allow this man so much control over his asset ?
9 Media felt if terrorism were unique Muslim thing , why media is not alluding to the fact
that pedophilia is a unique Jewish thing ?
10 why the angle of Israel being sex slavery capital and Epstein being sex slave pimp not
being connected ?
11 how death in prison in foreign unfriendly countries often become causus celebre by US
media , politicians , NGO and US treasury – why not this death ?
@Fozzy Bear Not true. A respectable civil rights attorney, Lisa Bloom, handled Katie
Johnson’s case. Shortly before the scheduled press conference at which Johnson was to
appear publicly, she received multiple death threats: “Bloom said that her
firm’s website was hacked, that Anonymous had claimed responsibility, and that death
threats and a bomb threat came in afterwards.”
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/3/13501364/trump-rape-13-year-old-lawsuit-katie-johnson-allegation
Johnson folded because she was terrified (and perhaps paid off).
@Twodees Partain In “Body of Secrets” by James Bamford, a newspaper article
from the Truman era is referenced where the OSS, predecessor of the CIA, is described as
“a converted vault in Washington used as an office space for 5 or 6 Jews working to
protect our national secrets” (or similar wording).
Going from memory and gave away my copy of the book….. sorry for the vague
reference, but you can look it up.
@nsa An atheist like “nsa” must concede Dosteovsky’s point from his
novel The Possessed that even for the atheist the concept of God represents the collective
consciousness, highest principles, and ontological aspirations of believers. Given this
sense, “nsa’s” real animus is more than likely an atavistic hatred of
Christians and Muslims, probably for just being alive in his paranoid mind. What imbecility
when this clown cites a multiverse of universes that has no proof and less plausibility for
its existence than the tooth fairy. I’d also bet “nsa” speaks algebra,
too, like the recently deceased mathematical genius, Jeffrey Epstein.
What’s Mr. Wexner’s, Mega’s, and Mossad/CIA’s involvement?
That’s the real question trolls like “nsa” and the Dems and Republicans
alike are crapping in their pants we’ll find out. When evidence starts to cascade out
of their ability to spin or suppress it, things will get interesting. Meanwhile, Fox News
is still doing its best from what I can tell to run cover for 911, now extended to the
suspiciously related perps in the Epstein affair.
“The Epstein affair (like 9/11) illustrates two critically important truths about
Western secularism: there is no truth, and there are no limits. A society that no longer
believes in God no longer believes in truth…..”
“While the Zionists try to make the rest of the World believe that the national
consciousness of the Jew finds its satisfaction in the creation of a Palestinian state,
the Jews again slyly dupe the dumb Goyim. It doesn’t even enter their heads to
build up a Jewish state in Palestine for the purpose of living there; all they want is a
central organisation for their international world swindler, endowed with its own
sovereign rights and removed from the intervention of other states: a haven for convicted
scoundrels and a university for budding crooks.
It is a sign of their rising confidence and sense of security that at a time when one
section is still playing the German, French-man, or Englishman, the other with open
effrontery comes out as the Jewish race.”
More prophetic words were ever spoken or written by any of the statesmen of the
Twentieth Century than these, even though they themselves were insufficient to describe the
horrors that the Zionist state would bring upon the world if left unchecked- and its power
and influence have been unchecked since the 1960’s. The last time that the world
stood up to Zionist power in an appreciable way was during the Suez Crisis.
DOT.. Port loses claim for asbestos removal | Business Insurance https://www.businessinsurance.com › article
› ISSUE01 › port-loses-claim-… May 13, 2001 – The suit sought claim of the Port Authority’s huge cost
of removing asbestos from hundreds of properties ranging from the enormous World Trade
Center complex
DOT…Silverstein knew when he leased WTC 7 that he would have to pay out of pocket
for asbestos abatement removal in WTC 7, multiple millions, which is why the Port Authority
leased it so cheaply.
DOT…In May, 2000, a year before, signing the lease, he already had the design
drawn for a new WTC building. Silverstein had no plans to remove the asbestos as he already
had plans to replace it.
DOT… Larry Silverstein signs the lease just six weeks before the WTC’s twin
towers were brought to the ground by terrorists in the September 11, 2001, attacks.
DOT….After leasing the complex, Silverstein negotiated with 24 insurance
companies for a maximum coverage of $3.55 billion per catastrophic occurrence.
However, the agreements had not been finalized before 9/11.
DOT…..Silverstein tries to sue insurers for double the payout claiming 2
catastrophic occurrences because of 2 planes involved.
DOT….Silver loses that lawsuit but sues the air lines and settles for almost
another billion, $ 750,000,000.
Just another Jew insurance fire folks. He planned on tearing down WTC 7 to begin with.
The only missing DOT is who he hired to set the demolition explosives in WTC 7. Were they
imported from our ME ally?
While people do not agree of detail the main theme is common: government stories explaining
both 9/11 and Epstein death are not credible. And that government tried to create an "artificial
reality" to hide real events and real culprits.
Absence of credible information create fertile ground for creation of myths and rumors,
sometimes absurd. But that'a well known sociaological phenomenon studies by late Tamotsu Shibutani in the
context of WWII rumors ( Improvised News: A Sociological Study of Rumor (1966)).
Now we can interpret famous quote of
William Casey "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American
public believes is false as an admission of the fact that the government can create artificial
reality" much like in film Matrix and due to thick smoke of propaganda people are simply unable
to discern the truth.
A foreign policy of "maximum pressure" and swagger: tawdry bribes, heavy-handed threats,
and complete failure ..now what group does this remind me of?
US State Dept Program Offers $15 Million to Iran Revolutionary Guards September 4,
2019
The US State Department has unveiled a new $15 million "reward program" for anyone who
provides information on the financial inner workings of Iran's Revolutionary Guard, in an
attempt to further disrupt them.
The program comes after the US declared the Revolutionary Guards "terrorists," but remains
very unusual, in as much as it targets an agency of a national government instead of just
some random militant group.
The Financial Times reports on the farce that is our government's Iran policy:
Four days before the US imposed sanctions on an Iranian tanker suspected of shipping oil
to Syria, the vessel's Indian captain received an unusual email from the top Iran official at
the Department of State.
"This is Brian Hook . . . I work for secretary of state Mike
Pompeo and serve as the US Representative for Iran," Mr Hook wrote to Akhilesh Kumar on
August 26, according to several emails seen by the Financial Times. "I am writing with good
news."
The "good news" was that the Trump administration was offering Mr Kumar several million
dollars to pilot the ship -- until recently known as the Grace 1 -- to a country that would
impound the vessel on behalf of the US. To make sure Mr Kumar did not mistake the email for a
scam, it included an official state department phone number.
The administration's Iran obsession has reached a point where they are now trying to bribe
people to act as pirates on their behalf. When the U.S. was blocked by a court in Gibraltar
from taking the ship, they sought to buy the loyalty of the captain in order to steal it.
Failing that, they resorted to their favorite tool of sanctions to punish the captain and his
crew for ignoring their illegitimate demand. The captain didn't respond to the first message,
so Hook persisted with his embarrassing scheme:
"With this money you can have any life you wish and be well-off in old age," Mr Hook wrote in
a second email to Mr Kumar that also included a warning. "If you choose not to take this easy
path, life will be much harder for you."
Many people have already mocked Hook's message for its resemblance to a Nigerian prince
e-mail scam, and I might add that he comes across here sounding like a B-movie gangster.
Hook's contact was not an isolated incident, but part of a series of e-mails and texts that
he has sent to various ships' captains in a vain effort to intimidate them into falling in
line with the administration's economic war. This is what comes of a foreign policy of
"maximum pressure" and swagger: tawdry bribes, heavy-handed threats, and complete
failure.
The Committee of 300 is an evolution of the British East Indies Company Council of 300. The
list personally last seen included many Windsors (Prince Andrew), Rothchilds, other Royals.
Some of the Americans included some now dead and other still living: George HW Bush, Bill
Clinton Tom Steyer, Al Gore, John Kerry, Netanyahu, lots of bankers, Woolsey (ex CIA),
journalists like Michael Bloomberg, Paul Krugman, activists and politians like Tony Blair,
now dead Zbigniew Brzezinski, CEOs Charles and Edgar Bronfman. The list is long and out of
date but these people control much of what goes on whether good or bad. Their hands are
everywhere doing good and maybe some of this bad stuff.
Given the facts a 10 year-old child could see that the official 911 explanation was totally
flawed. Just three of these facts are sufficient, the 'dancing Israelis', Silverstein
admitting to the 'pull (demolish) it' order and the collapse of steel-framed WTC 7 in
freefall despite not being hit. It is not hyperbole to say that America is a failed state
given that the known perpetrators were never even charged. ZOG indeed.
A respectable civil rights attorney, Lisa Bloom, handled Katie Johnson's case.
"Respectable"?
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
You do realize that Lisa Bloom is the daughter of Glora Allred and defender of Harvey
Weinstein do you not?
You people are so desperate to try to link Trump to Epstein it's pathetic.
I suggest you go back to your gatekeeping nonsense of trying to discredit the 9/11 Truth
Movement by spreading misinformation about nukes in the towers.
This article stakes out much important ground of information and interpretation Kevin
Barrett. The essay resonates as a historic statement of some of our current predicaments.
What about the comparisons that might be made concerning the mysteries attending the
disappearing corpses of Osama bin Laden and Jeffrey Epstein. And according to Christopher
Ketcham, the release of the High Fivin' Urban Movers back to Israel was partially negotiated
by Alan Dershowitz who played a big role in defending Epstein over a long period.
@anon The ultimate "nutjob quackery" of 9/11 is Phillip Zelikow's 9/11 Commission Report,
a document that stands as a testimony and marker signifying the USA's descent into a mad
hatter's imperium of lies. legend and illusion.
It is getting harder and harder to satirize the decadence and depravity of the secular
West, which insists on parodying itself with ever-increasing outlandishness. When the book
on this once-mighty civilization is written, and the ink is dry, readers will be astounded
by the limitless lies of the drunk-on-chutzpah psychopaths who ran it into the ground
@Kevin Barrett Adding to Junior's comment, I quit reading after you wrote of "credible
accusations" of Mr. Trump being involved "in the brutal rape of a 13 year old." And feminist
shakedown artist Lisa Bloom, daughter of the even more infamous feminist shakedown artist G.
Allred, is your "credible source?" Bloom has about as much credibility as the sicko democrat
women who tried to derail Judge Kavanaugh.
Regardless of how much one might hate Trump (and I'm no Trump supporter) levelling such
unfounded accusations is journalistic malfeasance. Did we elect the Devil Incarnate? Mr.
Barrett, I'm done reading you.
The special relationship between the CIA and the Mossad was driven partly by the efforts of
CIA officer James Angleton . Philip Weiss in his article in Mondoweiss entitled "The goy and
the golem: James Angleton and the rise of Israel." states that Angleton's " greatest service
to Israel was his willingness no to say a word about the apparent diversion of highly
enriched plutonium from a plant in Western Pennsylvania to Israel's nascent nuclear program "
The same program which JFK tried to curtail which efforts may have led to his assassination .
a confessed participant in the controlled demolition of Building 7,
For the love of God, this is stupid. Larry Silverstein was talking about the Fire
Commander , for fuck's sake. The Fire Commander made the decision to pull the
firefighters out of the building because they could not put the fire out and were in
unnecessary danger. That's all he meant. There is not one word in this that has anything to
do with a controlled demolition whatsoever.
In order to believe what the 9/11 Douchers would have you believe about this comment, you
would have to believe that 1) Building 7 was wired for demolition beforehand; 2) That the NYC
Fire Commander somehow knew about this; 3) That the NYC Fire Commander was perfectly okay
with allowing his men to spend hours inside a burning building in which he knew that
explosive charges had already been rigged to blow; 4) That the NYC Fire Commander had the
authority to decide when the charges should be blown and had access to the master switch that
would blow them all; 5) That after 7 hours of attempting to fight the fire, the NYC Fire
Commander (who by now can be nothing but a full-fledged member of the conspiracy) decides,
after briefly consulting with Larry Silverstein, "Oh, the hell with this! Let's just blow up
the building now!", to which Larry Silverstein agrees; 6) That after spending 7 hours in a
burning building that had fires burning randomly throughout it and that had been struck by
multiple pieces of debris, all of the explosive charges and their detonators were still in
perfect working order; 7) That none of the firefighters extensively searching the building
for survivors happened to notice any of the pre-placed explosive charges nor thought it
necessary to report about such; 8) That the NYC Fire Commander then proceeds to "pull" the
building after presumably giving some other order for the men to evacuate, which order was
never recorded because the "pull" order must have meant "blow up the building"; 9) And that
Larry Silverstein, after being part of a massive conspiracy involving insurance fraud,
murder, and arson which, if exposed, would send him to a federal death sentence, just decides
to casually mention all of this in a television interview for all and sundry to see, but it
is only the 9/11 Douchers who pick up on the significance of it.
Does any of this sound remotely believable? Did anyone subscribing to this nonsense stop
to think about the context in which this conversation took place? Do any of you 9/11 Douchers
even care that you're being completely ridiculous and grasping at nonexistent straws in your
vain attempt to establish some sort of case for controlled demolition? Do you even care that
everybody can see that what you are saying makes no sense at all? It is perfectly
obvious that Larry Silverstein is NOT talking about controlled demolition here. To
believe otherwise would require you to literally be insane, to not understand the plain
meaning of words and to have no awareness of conversational contexts; yet not only have you
swallowed all of this, you have been beating the drum of this insanity for nearly 20
years.
There is no point in reasoning with an insane person. There is, however, the possibility
that you don't really believe what you are saying and are just flogging a hobbyhorse, in
which case it is you who are engaging in mendacious journalism and trafficking in
lies. In either case, you need to be silenced. Neither lies nor insanity have any "right" to
be uttered in the public square. You 9/11 Douchers are really the ones doing everything you
accuse the mainstream media of doing, and worse. You have become a danger to the public weal
and must be stopped. Your conspiratorial nonsense just isn't cute anymore.
The official stories about the Kennedy assassination, Epstein's death, and 9/11 are
clearly suspect. No one with the capacity for critical thinking can seriously deny this.
Which elements of these stories are true and which are false will never be resolved.
Because:
The mainstream media including Fox News have abdicated their mission as fact finders and
truth tellers. They peddle entertainment and sell ad space. Rachel Maddow foaming at the
mouth about Trump's pee tape and Hannity fulminating about FISA abuse are the same product,
simply aimed at different demographics.
Nothing in the above two paragraphs is even remotely novel. It's all been said before
twenty bazillion times.
Being a feminist or Democrat (or nonfeminist or Republican) is irrelevant to a person's
credibility. It's possible that Lisa Bloom was part of a conspiracy to invent a fictitious
Katy Johnson story, in which case Bloom is guilty of criminal fraud as well as civil libel.
That would be quite a risk for her to take, to say the least. It's also possible that she was
somehow duped by others, in which case they would be running the civil and criminal
liabilities, while she would just get disbarred for negligence.
The same is true of Johnson's attorney Thomas Meagher.
It is also possible that Johnson's story is at least roughly accurate. There is supporting
testimony from another Epstein victim.
If you set aside your prejudices about Democrats-Republicans, feminists-antifeminists,
Trump-Hillary, etc., and just look at what's been reported, you'll agree with me that the
allegations are credible (but of course unproven). If you suffer emotional blocks against
thinking such things about a President, as so many did when similar things were reported
about Bill Clinton, I sympathize but also urge you to get psychiatric treatment so you can
learn to face unpleasant facts and then get to work cleaning up this country.
The release of Prof. J. Leroy Hulsey report on the finite element analysis of the WTC7
collapse should be a big news.
But won't be.
Democracy works this way. The ruling elite, via the media, Hollywood, etc., tell the
people what to think, the people then vote according to the way they think.
So the truth of 9/11 will never be known to the majority unless we have a public statement
from George W. Bush acknowledging that he personally lit the fuse that set off the explosions
that brought WTC 7 down at free-fall
speed .
This is fortunate for the intrepid Dr. Hulsey* who would, presumably, otherwise have had
to be dispatched by a sudden heart attack, traffic accident, weight-lifting accident suicide
with a bullet to the back of the head. As it is, hardly anyone will ever know what he will
say or what it means.
* Fortunate also for those who so rashly advocate for truth here and elsewhere on the yet
to be fully controlled Internets.
Nicely done. Article will not be featured on front page NYT & discussed on TV.
There are many highlights in your article. This is one.
Epstein's career as a shameless, openly-operating Mossad sexual blackmailer -- like the
in-your-face 9/11 coup -- also illustrates another core truth of Western secularism: If
there is no God, there are no limits (in this case, to human depravity and what it can get
away with). Or as Dostoevsky famously put it: "If God does not exist, everything is
permitted."
Please consult the following papers about the CIA/Mossad crimes against humanity and their
pimps who pose as 'politicians' of the fake Western 'democracy' where Epstein was their agent
serving their interest as a PIMP.
{from being the work of a single political party, intelligence agency or country, the
power structure revealed by the network connected to Epstein is nothing less than a criminal
enterprise that is willing to use and abuse children in the pursuit of ever more power,
wealth and control.}
After turning into the second war party neoliberal Dems do not need to win the elections to get the loot ; they will be
royally fed by MIC and Wall Street anyway.
" the enduring questions surrounding Biden's age and fitness for office may mean
Democrats will lack the "safe" choice they have had in the past, whether the candidate has
been former Vice President Al Gore in 2000, former U.S. Senator John Kerry in 2004 or
Clinton, the former U.S. senator and secretary of state, in 2008 and 2016."
What do all those "safe" candidates have in common? Oh, that's right- they all lost
.
That and they didn't upset the apple carts of the political consultants and the major
donors.
Funnily I think the author is missing several 'safe' candidates still in the running, all
of whom might secure the nomination on the second ballot depending on who the superdelegate
darling is. All of whom would probably be able to uphold that loss record of the safe
candidate.
I didn't click through to read if it was a joke, but I suspect "safe" for Team Blue types
means "a candidate who most assuredly won't be criticized by the Republicans."
Al Gore would blunt whining about the deficit. John Kerry was for a "stronger America."
Hillary was so qualified and had faced all arrows including machine gun fire in Serbia.
Yep, those moderate Republicans are going to eliminate the need for Team Blue elites to ever
have to worry about the poors again.
The author should use the word "neoliberal" instead of "debauched"
Notable quotes:
"... When talking about politics, we should be careful not to define "debauched" too narrowly. While debauchery is typically associated with over-indulgence of the sensual pleasures, a more fitting political definition is a general loss of self-control. ..."
"... In the political realm, debauchery is less characterized by the sensual vices than by an overzealous desire for power. ..."
"... The ghost of Jeffrey Epstein is all one needs to see that many elites are very debauched as regards social mores. Yet how might a debauched culture be reflected in the realms of domestic and foreign policy? ..."
"... Class warfare tends to resonate most broadly when the wealthy become self-indulgent and unworthy, and dissolute plutocracies are oft times defended by "conservatives." In the terminal phase of a democracy, this can portend domestic revolution. ..."
"... Belligerent intervention is not nationalism! It is Neocon Texas - Harvard Redneckism ..."
"... I'm not sure I agree with the author's thesis: that debauchery or gratuitous political leadership results in immoral foreign policy. Were the highly-disciplined and self-sacrificing Japanese militarists who bombed Pearl Harbor and aligned with the Axis (Hitler, Mussolini) guided by any more virtuous foreign policy than say, "debauched" Churchill and Roosevelt? I doubt it. ..."
"... The article lacks specifics on how America's leaders are debauched and how this debauchery influences foreign policy, other than to say they are "unrestrained". But is non-restraint debauchery? Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was running a gratuitous non-profit institute to shake down foreign rulers in return for promising political favors if elected. She was going to sell the country out. ..."
"... We stole Venezuela's assets in the U.S. and even denied their baseball players the ability to send money back to their families, we really love them. We have an oil embargo on Syria and we are the only reason the Saudis are able to starve Yemen. None of these countries have ever done anything to us but it feels good that we can do this and even get most of the world to support us. ..."
"... It drives me crazy that devout Protestants in govt who believe that human nature is corrupt act as if they are standing in the gap while being belligerent and never questioning their own judgment. ..."
"... The problem is that we are led by sociopaths. ..."
"... This current round of unprovoked aggression against small countries started when Clinton attacked Serbia even though he did not have authorization from the UN. He did it because he could -- Russia had collapsed by then so they were powerless to prevent NATO from attacking their ally. No one had the power to stop the hegemon so it was a short journey from the relative restraint of George W. Bush to going beserk all over the world (of course in the name of stopping genocide, ecocide, insecticide or whatever). Get absolute power, get corrupted. ..."
"... I think people like Epstein are state sponsored to use the warped values of the elites to gain political advantage for their masters. Destroying historic value sets is part of this package. ..."
TAC are no doubt familiar with the truism that "politics is downstream of culture." This maxim, which is undoubtedly true,
should not, however, only be applied to social issues. In fact, culture shapes our public policy very broadly, far more than do dispassionate
"policymakers" exercising careful reason and judgment. The nature of our governance tends to reflect the cultural and philosophical
orientation of our elites, and this orientation is increasingly debauched.
When talking about politics, we should be careful not to define "debauched" too narrowly. While debauchery is typically associated
with over-indulgence of the sensual pleasures, a more fitting political definition is a general loss of self-control.
All the great religious and philosophical traditions understood that there is a part of our nature that can get out of control
and a divine part that can exert control. A culture thus becomes debauched when elites lose the sense that they need to rein themselves
in, that "there is an immortal essence presiding like a king over" their appetites, as Walter Lippmann put it. In the political
realm, debauchery is less characterized by the sensual vices than by an overzealous desire for power.
The ghost of Jeffrey Epstein is all one needs to see that many elites are very debauched as regards social mores. Yet how
might a debauched culture be reflected in the realms of domestic and foreign policy?
Let's start with domestic policy. How would debauched elites govern a democracy at home? One might surmise, for example, that
their lack of self-control might cause them to spend federal money as a means of keeping themselves in power. They might also attempt
to bribe their constituents by promising a variety of domestic programs while also pledging that the programs will be funded out
of the pockets of others. If they were really debauched, they might even borrow money from future generations to pay for these incumbency
protection initiatives. They might run up staggering
debt for the sake of their expedient political needs and promise that "the rich" can provide for it all. In short, the hallmark
domestic policy of a debauched democracy is, and has always been, class warfare.
It should be pointed out that class warfare is not simply a creation of demagogues on the left. Class warfare tends to resonate
most broadly when the wealthy become self-indulgent and unworthy, and dissolute plutocracies are oft times defended by "conservatives."
In the terminal phase of a democracy, this can portend domestic revolution.
While most conservatives might agree about the dangers of class warfare, it is on the foreign policy front where they seem most
debauched themselves. They remain stuck in a vortex of GOP clichés, with standard references to Neville Chamberlain and Winston Churchill,
leaders who were closer in their time to the American Civil War than we are to them now. For many of these "conservatives," every
contemporary authoritarian leader is the progeny of Hitler and any attempt to establish cordial relations is a rerun of Munich 1938.
As with domestic policy, the true sign of a debauched foreign policy is a loss of self-control and an excessive will to power
reflected in attempts to exert dominion over others with no particular nexus to the national interest. A debauched foreign policy
might just look like the decision to invade Iraq -- a war whose supporters offered numerous justifications, including alleged weapons
of mass destruction, democracy promotion, and anti-terrorism. Yet in hindsight, its real cause seems to have been the simple desire
by our leaders to impose their will. In a debauched democracy, class warfare is the paradigmatic domestic policy and profligate war
making is the paradigmatic foreign policy.
Given that self-control and restraint are the hallmarks of a genuinely conservative foreign policy -- because they remain humble
about what human nature can actually achieve -- one should receive the recent conference on
national conservatism with some
skepticism . The
retinue of experts who spoke generally espoused a foreign policy that sought dominion over others -- in other words, a continuation
of the belligerent interventionism that characterized the second Bush administration. This may be nationalism, but it seems not to
be conservatism.
One hopes that the leaders of this new movement will re-consider their foreign policy orientation as they have increasingly formidable
resources to draw upon. The creation of the Quincy Institute and the rise of
an intellectually formidable network of foreign policy "restrainers" provide hope.
Given that culture is king, however, these intellectuals may want to keep top of mind that restraint is not simply a policy option
but a character trait -- a virtue -- that needs to be developed in leaders who are then elevated. Prudent policies are no doubt essential
but the most important challenge in politics is, and always will be, attracting and encouraging the best leaders to rule. Our system
often does the opposite. This is at root a cultural problem.
William S. Smith is research fellow and managing director at the Center for the Study of Statesmanship at the Catholic University
of America, and author of the new book
Democracy and Imperialism .
I'm not sure I agree with the author's thesis: that debauchery or gratuitous political leadership results in immoral foreign policy.
Were the highly-disciplined and self-sacrificing Japanese militarists who bombed Pearl Harbor and aligned with the Axis (Hitler,
Mussolini) guided by any more virtuous foreign policy than say, "debauched" Churchill and Roosevelt? I doubt it.
Moreover, has the author never heard of the concept "reasons of state"?: a purely political reason for action on the part of
a ruler or government, especially where a departure from openness, justice, or honesty is involved (e.g. "the king returned that
he had reasons of state for all he did"). In an existential emergency, would the leader of a nation be justified in using amoral
means to save his nation; but in all other circumstances should rely on conventional Christian morality as the default position?
This is what Pres. Truman apparently did when he dropped a-bombs on two Japanese cities. What Dietrich Bonhoeffer was apparently
involved with in the assassination attempt on Hitler. What Moses was embroiled with when he slayed 3,000 of his "debauched" followers
in the Exodus from Egypt.
The article lacks specifics on how America's leaders are debauched and how this debauchery influences foreign policy, other
than to say they are "unrestrained". But is non-restraint debauchery? Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was running a gratuitous
non-profit institute to shake down foreign rulers in return for promising political favors if elected. She was going to sell the
country out.
The opponent who beat her in the election promised the opposite and pretty much has delivered on his promises. Just
how is the current administration "unrestrained" other than he has not fulfilled pacifist's fantasies of pulling out of every
foreign country and conflict? Such pull outs have to be weighed on a case by case basis to determine the cost to human life and
world order. If the current administration has a policy it is that our allies have to fight and fund their own wars and conflicts
rather than rely on the U.S. to fight their wars for them.
The article is full of inflationary clichés ('politics is downstream of culture', 'class warfare', etc. And just how does the
author connect the dots between pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, who was elected to nothing and held no power over anyone, and our "debauched'
foreign policy? Correlation is not causation but there isn't even a correlation there.
The more one reads opinions of Intellectuals , and as anyone with half a brain knows, to never believe a Politician, I am always
reminded, after considerable research why I personally choose Realism . Realism is certainly not new and has some varied forms.
Realism re-surfaced leading up to and during WW 2.
"...the true sign of a debauched foreign policy is a loss of self-control and an excessive will to power reflected in attempts
to exert dominion over others"
I love this.
We stole Venezuela's assets in the U.S. and even denied their baseball players the ability to send money back to their families,
we really love them. We have an oil embargo on Syria and we are the only reason the Saudis are able to starve Yemen. None of these
countries have ever done anything to us but it feels good that we can do this and even get most of the world to support us.
This reminds me of a Nick Pemberton article when he wrote ...
"We still play the victim. And amazingly we believe it ... We believe we can take whatever we want. We believe that this world
does not contain differences to be negotiated, but foes to be defeated."
I could never get this out of my head.
It drives me crazy that devout Protestants in govt who believe that human nature is corrupt act as if they are standing in the
gap while being belligerent and never questioning their own judgment.
Trump the adulterer was the one who decided against bombing
because he did not have a taste for blood while the pious were eager for it.
"Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the Earth."
-Matthew 5:5
"Meek" is the wrong word/translation. In the original Greek, the word is "preais" and it does not mean docile and submissive.
Rather the word means gentleness blended with restrained strength/power.
The passage should read, "Blessed are those who have swords and know how to use them but keep them sheathed: for they shall
inherit the Earth."
There is a simpler explanation of what has happened to the US. When it comes to human beings, the only thing you need to remember
is Lord Acton's dictum: power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
This current round of unprovoked aggression against small countries started when Clinton attacked Serbia even though he did
not have authorization from the UN. He did it because he could -- Russia had collapsed by then so they were powerless to prevent
NATO from attacking their ally. No one had the power to stop the hegemon so it was a short journey from the relative restraint
of George W. Bush to going beserk all over the world (of course in the name of stopping genocide, ecocide, insecticide or whatever).
Get absolute power, get corrupted.
The same thing is true domestically in the US. A small ethnic minority gave 50% and 25% of the money spent by the Democrats
and Republicans in the last presidential election. That gives them huge influence over the foreign policy of the country. Best
of all, no one else can question what is going on because classic tropes etc. Give a small group absolute power, get the swamp.
I think people like Epstein are state sponsored to use the warped values of the elites to gain political advantage for their masters.
Destroying historic value sets is part of this package.
The destruction of main core Christianity has not helped stem this tide
(subtle Happy Holidays, CE, BCE, etc.) . Brave women and men must arise and sewerize (drain the swamp) this mob of miscreants
defiling our belief system. .They have a right to exist but not dictate by subterfuge and fake news our values as they have been
doing.
Remove the OP pic of the Marines NOW, and fix the rest of your whine later.
This is America, we have no "betters" and our "gov't" has never, and will never, be comprised of anything other than our idiot
ay-whole neighbors who needed a job, whose sole job it is to govern the machinations of gov't and not us, as an un-self-governed
Society is otherwise un-governable.
And [due to human nature and physics (of which neither has or will change in the entire history of humanity)] sometimes you
have to go to war at the slightest of hints of provocation in order to achieve "illimitably sustainable conflict" of "Society"
[J.M. Thomas R., TERMS, 2012] not have to haphazardly fight minute to minute of every day.
“ If when Political objects are unimportant, motives weak, the excitement of forces small, a cautious commander tries
in all kinds of ways, without great crises and bloody solutions, to twist himself skillfully into peace through the characteristic
weakness of his enemy in the field and in the cabinet, we have no right to find fault with him, if the premise on which he
acts are well founded and justified by success;
still we must require him to remember that he only travels on forbidden tracks,
where the God of War may surprise him; that he ought always to keep his eye on the enemy, in order that he may not have to defend
himself with a dress rapier if the enemy takes up a sharp sword ”.
(Clausewitz, “On War” pg. 137)
Loosely paraphrased: " peaceable resolution to conflict is only effective, and should only be sought and relied upon, when
it is certain that the other party will never resort to arms, with the implication that that is never " [J.M.Thomas R., TERMS,
2012 Pg. 80]
Weakness is provocative don't provoke your enemies. Quit whining.
Let’s start with domestic policy. How would debauched elites govern a democracy at home?
Let's see. They'd likely repeatedly cut taxes on the wealthiest and on corporations and skyrocket deficits. They'd likely increase
military spending to insane levels to the benefit of the military industrial complex. They'd likely perform wide scale deregulation
on polluting industries. They'd ignore all inconvenient science, especially that which didn't support the fossil fuel industry.
They'd likely avoid meaningful action on a healthcare system that is more broken and expensive than any other OECD nation. Then
they'd look for targets, the "others", to bash and attack in attempt to hide the real world consequences of what they were doing.
Why would they do this? They do it for campaign contributions, "a means of keeping themselves in power."
I believe we are in the hands of:
The Demons of “Democracy”
The demons of “democracy” speak of “peace”
While their selling of weapons does not cease
Hypocrites from hell who posture on the world stage
When they should be in a gigantic prison cage
Evil reprobates in positions of power Anything that’s good they devour Destroying countries and families too This is the satanic work they do
Fancy titles are given to their names
Such is the state of a system insane
Madness and filth has become “normal”
Nobody speaks or asks: “Is it moral”?
Principals and ethics, they are of them, devoid Speaking of decency and truth has them annoyed Pimping for war is their diabolical expertise Killing and bombing is the forte of this demonic sleaze
Training and supporting terrorists, they do this as well
Will nobody arrest this treacherous crew from hell?
These people are devils and full of hypocrisy
We need to be freed from these, demons of “democracy”...
"... What do all those "safe" candidates have in common? Oh, that's right- they all lost . ..."
"... So the more overtly neoliberal candidates are stalling or bailing, with the more progressive candidates (actually or putatively) -- Sanders and Warren -- sailing along. Is that some kind of surprise? ..."
Warren has the Acela corridor's backing and that has been expressed in some fawning
coverage from the likes of the WaPo and NYT. Krugman has hinted that she's his candidate as
well.
Unless something completely untoward happens, expect her to get great reviews in the next
debate.
I don't see how a classic Massachusetts liberal like Warren (to me she's very close to
Teddy K in her policy views ) motivates enough abstaining voters to beat Trump. Not enough
there, there.
Re the polls: Matt Taibbi recently wrote that if Biden lost ground Sanders would be the
likely gainer, since Bernie is the second choice for most Biden supporters. But it appears
Warren is benefiting as Biden slides.
Too bad. Still, maybe it's just the minority of Biden supporters who pick Warren as their
2nd choice who are bailing on Biden so far. Sanders may still gain if the more hard-core
Bidenites begin to leave.
As for Beto's plan to snatch our AK's and AR's, good for him for being so forthright. It's
a terrible idea, but one can appreciate the flat-out honesty.
" the enduring questions surrounding Biden's age and fitness for office may mean
Democrats will lack the "safe" choice they have had in the past, whether the candidate has
been former Vice President Al Gore in 2000, former U.S. Senator John Kerry in 2004 or
Clinton, the former U.S. senator and secretary of state, in 2008 and 2016."
What do all those "safe" candidates have in common? Oh, that's right- they all lost
.
That and they didn't upset the apple carts of the political consultants and the major
donors.
Funnily I think the author is missing several 'safe' candidates still in the running, all
of whom might secure the nomination on the second ballot depending on who the superdelegate
darling is. All of whom would probably be able to uphold that loss record of the safe
candidate.
I didn't click through to read if it was a joke, but I suspect "safe" for Team Blue types
means "a candidate who most assuredly won't be criticized by the Republicans."
Al Gore would blunt whining about the deficit. John Kerry was for a "stronger America."
Hillary was so qualified and had faced all arrows including machine gun fire in Serbia.
Yep, those moderate Republicans are going to eliminate the need for Team Blue elites to ever
have to worry about the poors again.
Right -- and none of them had the press openly speculating about a lack of cognitive
capacity, as is happening with the current "safe" candidate. That's what passes for "safe"
these days, I guess.
Also: "Biden's appeal wanes," Gillibrand crashes and burns, Harris "hasn't caught fire,"
and Black Lives Matter of South Bend calls for Buttigieg to resign as mayor. (What
language(s) will "Mayor Pete" give his resignation speech in, one wonders.)
So the more
overtly neoliberal candidates are stalling or bailing, with the more progressive candidates
(actually or putatively) -- Sanders and Warren -- sailing along. Is that some kind of
surprise?
After turning into the second war party neoliberal Dems do not need to win the elections to get the loot ; they will be
royally fed by MIC and Wall Street anyway.
" the enduring questions surrounding Biden's age and fitness for office may mean
Democrats will lack the "safe" choice they have had in the past, whether the candidate has
been former Vice President Al Gore in 2000, former U.S. Senator John Kerry in 2004 or
Clinton, the former U.S. senator and secretary of state, in 2008 and 2016."
What do all those "safe" candidates have in common? Oh, that's right- they all lost
.
That and they didn't upset the apple carts of the political consultants and the major
donors.
Funnily I think the author is missing several 'safe' candidates still in the running, all
of whom might secure the nomination on the second ballot depending on who the superdelegate
darling is. All of whom would probably be able to uphold that loss record of the safe
candidate.
I didn't click through to read if it was a joke, but I suspect "safe" for Team Blue types
means "a candidate who most assuredly won't be criticized by the Republicans."
Al Gore would blunt whining about the deficit. John Kerry was for a "stronger America."
Hillary was so qualified and had faced all arrows including machine gun fire in Serbia.
Yep, those moderate Republicans are going to eliminate the need for Team Blue elites to ever
have to worry about the poors again.
I work for a law firm that represents Wall Street banks and I can tell you who they don't
like, and that is Sanders and Warren. They hate that Warren created the CFPB and blew the
whistle on Wells Fargo and all the other games being played by Wall Street banks. Therefore, I
will vote for either of them, Warren preferred.
apenultimate on Fri, 08/30/2019 - 12:39am Even though she will not be included in the
3rd DNC debate, upon her return from Indonesia where she was training with her Hawaii National
Guard unit, Tulsi has indicated that we should not be discouraged and she has given every
indication she will continue to campaign at this point:
While details on Epstein death are not interesting (he ended like a regular pimp) the corruption of high level officials his case
revealed in more troubling.
Notable quotes:
"... Epstein was released, and various lawsuits were filed against him and settled out of court, presumably in exchange for silence. The media was quiet or complimentary as Epstein worked his way back into high society. ..."
"... What would I do if I were Epstein? I'd try to get the President, the Attorney-General, or the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York to shut down the investigation before it went public. I'd have all my friends and all my money try to pressure them. If it failed and I were arrested, it would be time for the backup plan -- the Deal. I'd try to minimize my prison time, and, just as important, to be put in one of the nicer federal prisons where I could associate with financial wizards and drug lords instead of serial killers, black nationalists, and people with bad breath. ..."
"... What about the powerful people Epstein would turn in to get his deal? They aren't as smart as Epstein, but they would know the Deal was coming -- that Epstein would be quite happy to sacrifice them in exchange for a prison with a slightly better golf course. What could they do? There's only one good option -- to kill Epstein, and do it quickly, before he could start giving information samples to the U. S. Attorney. ..."
"... Trying to kill informers is absolutely routine in the mafia, or indeed, for gangs of any kind. ..."
"... Famous politicians, unlike gangsters, don't have full-time professional hit men on their staffs, but that's just common sense -- politicians rarely need hit men, so it makes more sense to hire them on a piecework basis than as full-time employees. How would they find hit men? You or I wouldn't know how to start, but it would be easy for them. Rich powerful people have bodyguards. Bodyguards are for defense, but the guys who do defense know guys who do offense. And Epstein's friends are professional networkers. One reporter said of Ghislaine Maxwell, "Her Rolodex would blow away almost anyone else's I can think of -- probably even Rupert Murdoch's." They know people who know people. Maybe I'm six degrees of separation from a mafia hit man, but not Ghislaine Maxwell. I bet she knows at least one mafioso personally who knows more than one hit man. ..."
"... Or, if you can hire a New York Times reporter for $30,000 ( as Epstein famously did a couple of years ago), you can spend $200,000 on a competent hit man to make double sure. Government incompetence does not lend support to the suicide theory; quite the opposite. ..."
"... Statutory rape is not a federal crime ..."
"... At any time from 2008 to the present, Florida and New York prosecutors could have gone after Epstein and easily convicted him. The federal nonprosecution agreement did not bind them. And, of course, it is not just Epstein who should have been prosecuted. Other culprits such as Prince Andrew are still at large. ..."
"... Why isn't anybody but Ann Coulter talking about Barry Krischer and Ric Bradshaw, the Florida state prosecutor and sheriff who went easy on Epstein, or the New York City police who let him violate the sex offender regulations? ..."
"... Krischer refused to use the evidence the Palm Beach police gave him except to file a no-jail-time prostitution charge (they eventually went to Acosta, the federal prosecutor, instead, who got a guilty plea with an 18-month sentence). Bradshaw let him spend his days at home instead of at jail. ..."
"... In New York State, the county prosecutor, Cyrus Vance, fought to prevent Epstein from being classified as a Level III sex offender. Once he was, the police didn't enforce the rule that required him to check in every 90 days. ..."
"... Trafficking is a federal offense, so it would have to involve commerce across state lines. It also must involve sale and profit, not just personal pleasure. ..."
"... Here, the publicity and investigative lead is what is most important, because these are reputable and rich offenders for whom publicity is a bigger threat than losing in court. They have very good lawyers, and probably aren't guilty of federal crimes anyway, just state crimes, in corrupt states where they can use clout more effectively. Thus, killing potential informants before they tell the public is more important than killing informants to prevent their testimony at trial, a much more leisurely task. ..."
"... Geoffrey Berman, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, is the only government official who is clearly trustworthy, because he could have stopped the 2019 Epstein indictment and he didn't. I don't think Attorney-General Barr could have blocked it, and I don't think President Trump could have except by firing Berman. ..."
"... "It was that heart-wrenching series that caught the attention of Congress. Ben Sasse, the Republican senator from Nebraska, joined with his Democratic colleagues and demanded to know how justice had been so miscarried. ..."
"... President Trump didn't have anything personally to fear from Epstein. He is too canny to have gotten involved with him, and the press has been eagerly at work to find the slightest connection between him and Epstein and have come up dry as far as anything but acquaintanceship. But we must worry about a cover-up anyway, because rich and important people would be willing to pay Trump a lot in money or, more likely, in political support, if he does a cover-up. ..."
"... he sealing was completely illegal, as the appeals court politely but devastatingly noted in 2019, and the documents were released a day or two before Epstein died. Someone should check into Judge Sweet's finance and death. He was an ultra-Establishment figure -- a Yale man, alas, like me, and Taft School -- so he might just have been protecting what he considered good people, but his decision to seal the court records was grossly improper. ..."
"... Did Epstein have any dealings in sex, favors, or investments with any Republican except Wexner? ..."
"... Dershowitz, Mitchell, Clinton, Richardson, Dubin, George Stephanopolous, Lawrence Krauss, Katie Couric, Mortimer Zuckerman, Chelsea Handler, Cyrus Vance, and Woody Allen, are all Democrats. Did Epstein ever make use of Republicans? Don't count Trump, who has not been implicated despite the media's best efforts and was probably not even a Republican back in the 90's. Don't count Ken Starr– he's just one of Epstein's lawyers. Don't count scientists who just took money gifts from him. (By the way, Epstein made very little in the way of political contributions , though that little went mostly to Democrats ( $139,000 vs. $18,000 . I bet he extracted more from politicians than he gave to them. ..."
"... What role did Israeli politician Ehud Barak play in all this? ..."
"... Remember Marc Rich? He was a billionaire who fled the country to avoid a possible 300 years prison term, and was pardoned by Bill Clinton in 2001. Ehud Barak, one of Epstein's friends, was one of the people who asked for Rich to be pardoned . Epstein, his killers, and other rich people know that as a last resort they can flee the country and wait for someone like Clinton to come to office and pardon them. ..."
"... "intelligence" is also the kind of excuse people make up so they don't have to say "political pressure." ..."
"... James Patterson and John Connolly published Filthy Rich: A Powerful Billionaire, the Sex Scandal that Undid Him , and All the Justice that Money Can Buy: The Shocking True Story of Jeffrey Epstein . Conchita Sarnoff published TrafficKing: The Jeffrey Epstein Case. I never heard of these before 2019. Did the media bury them? ..."
"... There seems to have been an orchestrated attempt to divert attention to the issue of suicides in prison. Subtle differences in phrasing might help reveal who's been paid off. National Review had an article, "The Conspiracy Theories about Jeffrey Epstein's Death Don't Make Much Sense." The article contains no evidence or argument to support the headline's assertion, just bluster about "madness" and "conspiracy theories". Who else publishes stuff like this? ..."
"... The New York Times was, to its credit, willing to embarrass other publications by 2019. But the Times itself had been part of the cover-up in previous years . Who else was? ..."
"... Not one question involving Maurene Comey, then? She was one of the SDNY prosecutors assigned to this case, and her name has been significantly played down (if at all visible) in the reportage before or after Epstein's death. That she just "happened" to be on this case at all is quite an eyebrow raiser especially with her father under the ongoing "Spygate" investigation ..."
"... As important as it is to go on asking questions about the life and death of Jeffrey Epstein, I have to admit that personally I'm just not interested. I've always found people of his social class to be vaguely repulsive even without the sordid sex allegations. Just their demanding personalities, just the thought of them hanging around in their terrycloth jogging suits, sneering at the world with their irrefrangible arrogance, is enough to make me shudder. I want nothing of their nightmare world; and when they die, I couldn't care less. ..."
"... We are supposed to have faith in this rubbish? The cameras malfunctioned. He didn't have a cellmate. The guards were tired and forced to work overtime. ..."
"... One tiny mention of Jewish magnate Les Wexner but no mention how he & the Bronfmans founded the 'Mega Group' of ultra-Zionist billionaires regularly meeting as to how they could prop up the Jewish state by any & all means, Wexner being the source of many Epstein millions, the original buyer of the NYC mansion he transferred to Epstein etc the excellent Epstein series by Whitney Webb on Mint Press covering all this https://www.mintpressnews.com/author/whitney-webb/ ..."
"... ex-OSS father Donald Barr had written a 'fantasy novel' on sex slavery with scenes of rape of underage teens, 'Space Relations', written whilst Don Barr was headmaster of the Dalton school, which gave Epstein his first job, teaching teens ..."
The Jeffrey Epstein case is notable for the ups and downs in media coverage it's gotten over the years. Everybody, it seems, in
New York society knew by 2000 that Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell were corrupting teenage girls, but the press wouldn't cover
it. Articles by New York in 2002 and
Vanity Fair in 2003 alluded to it gently,
while probing Epstein's finances more closely. In 2005, the Palm Beach police investigated. The county prosecutor, Democrat Barry
Krischer, wouldn't prosecute for more than prostitution, so they went to the federal prosecutor, Republican Alexander Acosta, and
got the FBI involved. Acosta's office prepared an indictment, but before it was filed, he made a deal: Epstein agreed to plead guilty
to a state law felony and receive a prison term of 18 months. In exchange, the federal interstate sex trafficking charges would not
be prosecuted by Acosta's office. Epstein was officially at the county jail for 13 months, where the county officials under Democratic
Sheriff Ric Bradshaw gave him scandalously
easy treatment , letting him spend his days outside, and letting him serve a year of probation in place of the last 5 months
of his sentence. Acosta's office complained, but it was a county jail, not a federal jail, so he was powerless.
Epstein was released, and various lawsuits were filed against him and settled out of court, presumably in exchange for silence.
The media was quiet or complimentary as Epstein worked his way back into high society. Two books were written about the affair, and
fell flat. The FBI became interested again around 2011 (
a little known fact
) and maybe things were happening behind the scenes, but the next big event was in 2018 when the Miami Herald published a
series of investigative articles rehashing what had happened.
In 2019 federal prosecutors indicted Epstein, he was put in jail, and
he mysteriously died. Now, after much complaining in the press about how awful jails are and how many people commit suicide, things
are quiet again, at least until the Justice Department and
the State of Florida finish their
investigation a few years from now. (For details and more links, see " Investigation: Jeffrey Epstein
"at Medium.com and " Jeffrey Epstein " at Wikipedia
.)
I'm an expert in the field of "game theory", strategic thinking. What would I do if I were Epstein? I'd try to get the President,
the Attorney-General, or the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York to shut down the investigation before it went public.
I'd have all my friends and all my money try to pressure them. If it failed and I were arrested, it would be time for the backup
plan -- the Deal. I'd try to minimize my prison time, and, just as important, to be put in one of the nicer federal prisons where
I could associate with financial wizards and drug lords instead of serial killers, black nationalists, and people with bad breath.
That's what Epstein would do. What about the powerful people Epstein would turn in to get his deal? They aren't as smart as Epstein,
but they would know the Deal was coming -- that Epstein would be quite happy to sacrifice them in exchange for a prison with a slightly
better golf course. What could they do? There's only one good option -- to kill Epstein, and do it quickly, before he could start
giving information samples to the U. S. Attorney.
Trying to kill informers is absolutely routine in the mafia, or indeed, for gangs of any kind. The reason people call such talk
"conspiracy theories" when it comes to Epstein is that his friends are WASPs and Jews, not Italians and Mexicans. But WASPs and Jews
are human too. They want to protect themselves. Famous politicians, unlike gangsters, don't have full-time professional hit men on
their staffs, but that's just common sense -- politicians rarely need hit men, so it makes more sense to hire them on a piecework
basis than as full-time employees. How would they find hit men? You or I wouldn't know how to start, but it would be easy for them.
Rich powerful people have bodyguards. Bodyguards are for defense, but the guys who do defense know guys who do offense. And Epstein's
friends are professional networkers.
One reporter said
of Ghislaine Maxwell, "Her Rolodex would blow away almost anyone else's I can think of -- probably even Rupert Murdoch's." They know
people who know people. Maybe I'm six degrees of separation from a mafia hit man, but not Ghislaine Maxwell. I bet she knows at least
one mafioso personally who knows more than one hit man.
In light of this, it would be very surprising if someone with a spare $50 million to spend to solve the Epstein problem didn't
give it a try. A lot of people can be bribed for $50 million. Thus, we should have expected to see bribery attempts. If none were
detected, it must have been because prison workers are not reporting they'd been approached.
Some
people say that government incompetence is always a better explanation than government malfeasance. That's obviously wrong --
when an undeserving business gets a contract, it's not always because the government official in charge was just not paying attention.
I can well believe that prisons often take prisoners off of suicide watch too soon, have guards who go to sleep and falsify records,
remove cellmates from prisoners at risk of suicide or murder, let the TV cameras watching their most important prisoners go on the
blink, and so forth. But that cuts both ways.
Remember, in the case of Epstein, we'd expect a murder attempt whether the warden of
the most important federal jail in the country is competent or not. If the warden is incompetent, we should expect that murder attempt
to succeed. Murder becomes all the more more plausible. Instead of spending $50 million to bribe 20 guards and the warden, you just
pay some thug $30,000 to walk in past the snoring guards, open the cell door, and strangle the sleeping prisoner, no fancy James
Bond necessary. Or, if you can hire a New York Times reporter for $30,000 (
as Epstein famously did a couple of years ago), you can spend $200,000 on a competent hit man to make double sure. Government
incompetence does not lend support to the suicide theory; quite the opposite.
Now to my questions.
Why is nobody blaming the Florida and New York state prosecutors for not prosecuting Epstein and others for statutory rape?
Statutory rape is not a federal crime, so it is not something the Justice Dept. is supposed to investigate or prosecute. They
are going after things like interstate sex trafficking. Interstate sex trafficking is generally much harder to prove than statutory
rape, which is very easy if the victims will testify.
At any time from 2008 to the present, Florida and New York prosecutors could have gone after Epstein and easily convicted him.
The federal nonprosecution agreement did not bind them. And, of course, it is not just Epstein who should have been prosecuted. Other
culprits such as Prince Andrew are still at large.
Note that if even if the evidence is just the girl's word against Ghislaine Maxwell's or Prince Andrew's, it's still quite possible
to get a jury to convict. After all, who would you believe, in a choice between Maxwell, Andrew, and Anyone Else in the World? For
an example of what can be done if the government is eager to convict, instead of eager to protect important people, see
the 2019 Cardinal
Pell case in Australia. He was convicted by the secret testimony of a former choirboy, the only complainant, who claimed Pell
had committed indecent acts during a chance encounter after Mass before Pell had even unrobed. Naturally, the only cardinal to be
convicted of anything in the Catholic Church scandals is also the one who's done the most to fight corruption. Where there's a will,
there's a way to prosecute. It's even easier to convict someone if he's actually guilty.
Why isn't anybody but Ann Coulter talking about Barry Krischer and Ric Bradshaw, the Florida state prosecutor and sheriff who went
easy on Epstein, or the New York City police who let him violate the sex offender regulations?
Krischer refused to use the evidence the Palm Beach police gave him except to file a no-jail-time prostitution charge (they eventually
went to Acosta, the federal prosecutor, instead, who got a guilty plea with an 18-month sentence). Bradshaw let him spend his days
at home instead of at jail.
In New York State, the county prosecutor, Cyrus Vance, fought to prevent Epstein from being classified
as a Level III sex offender. Once he was, the
police didn't enforce the
rule that required him to check in every 90 days.
How easy would it have been to prove in 2016 or 2019 that Epstein and his people were guilty of federal sex trafficking?
Not easy, I should think. It wouldn't be enough to prove that Epstein debauched teenagers. Trafficking is a federal offense, so
it would have to involve commerce across state lines. It also must involve sale and profit, not just personal pleasure.
The 2019 indictment
is weak on this. The "interstate commerce" looks like it's limited to Epstein making phone calls between Florida and New York. This
is why I am not completely skeptical when former U.S. Attorney Acosta says that the 2008 nonprosecution deal was reasonable. He had
strong evidence the Epstein violated Florida state law -- but that wasn't relevant. He had to prove violations of federal law.
Why didn't Epstein ask the Court, or the Justice Dept., for permission to have an unarmed guard share his cell with him?
Epstein had no chance at bail without bribing the judge, but this request would have been reasonable. That he didn't request a
guard is, I think, the strongest evidence that he wanted to die. If he didn't commit suicide himself, he was sure making it easy
for someone else to kill him.
Could Epstein have used the safeguard of leaving a trove of photos with a friend or lawyer to be published if he died an unnatural
death?
Well, think about it -- Epstein's lawyer was Alan Dershowitz. If he left photos with someone like Dershowitz, that someone could
earn a lot more by using the photos for blackmail himself than by dutifully carrying out his perverted customer's instructions. The
evidence is just too valuable, and Epstein was someone whose friends weren't the kind of people he could trust. Probably not even
his brother.
Who is in danger of dying next?
Prison workers from guard to warden should be told that if they took bribes, their lives are now in danger. Prison guards may
not be bright enough to realize this. Anybody who knows anything important about Epstein should be advised to publicize their information
immediately. That is the best way to stay alive.
This is not like a typical case where witnesses get killed so they won't testify.
It's not like with gangsters. Here, the publicity and investigative lead is what is most important, because these are reputable and
rich offenders for whom publicity is a bigger threat than losing in court. They have very good lawyers, and probably aren't guilty
of federal crimes anyway, just state crimes, in corrupt states where they can use clout more effectively. Thus, killing potential
informants before they tell the public is more important than killing informants to prevent their testimony at trial, a much more
leisurely task.
What happened to Epstein's body?
The Justice Dept. had better not have let Epstein's body be cremated. And they'd better give us convincing evidence that it's
his body. If I had $100 million to get out of jail with, acquiring a corpse and bribing a few people to switch fingerprints and DNA
wouldn't be hard. I find it worrying that the government has not released proof that Epstein is dead or a copy of the autopsy.
"Beyond its isolation, the wing is infested with rodents and cockroaches, and inmates often have to navigate standing water
-- as well as urine and fecal matter -- that spills from faulty plumbing, accounts from former inmates and lawyers said. One lawyer
said mice often eat his clients' papers."
" Often have to navigate standing water"? "Mice often eat his clients' papers?" Really? I'm skeptical. What do the
vermin eat -- do inmates leave Snickers bars open in their cells? Has anyone checked on what the prison conditions really like?
Is it just a coincidence that Epstein made a new will two days before he died?
I can answer this one. Yes, it is coincidence, though it's not a coincidence that he rewrote the will shortly after being denied
bail. The will leaves everything to a trust, and it is the trust document (which is confidential), not the will (which is public),
that determines who gets the money. Probably the only thing that Epstein changed in his will was the listing of assets, and he probably
changed that because he'd just updated his list of assets for the bail hearing anyway, so it was a convenient time to update the
will.
Did Epstein's veiled threat against DOJ officials in his bail filing backfire?
Epstein's lawyers wrote in his bail request,
"If the government is correct that the NPA does not, and never did, preclude a prosecution in this district, then the government
will likely have to explain why it purposefully delayed a prosecution of someone like Mr. Epstein, who registered as a sex offender
10 years ago and was certainly no stranger to law enforcement. There is no legitimate explanation for the delay."
I see this as a veiled threat. The threat is that Epstein would subpoena people and documents from the Justice Department relevant
to the question of why there was a ten-year delay before prosecution, to expose the illegitimate explanation for the delay. Somebody
is to blame for that delay, and court-ordered disclosure is a bigger threat than an internal federal investigation.
Who can we trust?
Geoffrey Berman, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, is the only government official who is clearly trustworthy,
because he could have stopped the 2019 Epstein indictment and he didn't. I don't think Attorney-General Barr could have blocked it,
and I don't think President Trump could have except by firing Berman. I do trust Attorney-General Barr, however, from what I've
heard of him and because he instantly and publicly said he would have not just the FBI but the Justice Dept. Inspector-General investigate
Epstein's death, and he quickly fired the federal prison head honcho. The FBI is untrustworthy, but Inspector-Generals are often
honorable.
Someone else who may be a hero in this is Senator Ben Sasse.
Vicki Ward
writes in the Daily Beast :
"It was that heart-wrenching series that caught the attention of Congress. Ben Sasse, the Republican senator from Nebraska,
joined with his Democratic colleagues and demanded to know how justice had been so miscarried.
Given the political sentiment, it's unsurprising that the FBI should feel newly emboldened to investigate Epstein -- basing
some of their work on Brown's excellent reporting."
Will President Trump Cover Up Epstein's Death in Exchange for Political Leverage?
President Trump didn't have anything personally to fear from Epstein. He is too canny to have gotten involved with him, and the
press has been eagerly at work to find the slightest connection between him and Epstein and have come up dry as far as anything but
acquaintanceship. But we must worry about a cover-up anyway, because rich and important people would be willing to pay Trump a lot
in money or, more likely, in political support, if he does a cover-up.
Why did Judge Sweet order Epstein documents sealed in 2017. Did he die naturally in 2019?
Judge Robert Sweet in 2017 ordered all documents in an Epstein-related case sealed. He died in May 2019 at age 96, at home in
Idaho. The sealing was completely illegal, as the appeals court politely but devastatingly noted in 2019, and the documents were
released a day or two before Epstein died. Someone should check into Judge Sweet's finance and death. He was an ultra-Establishment
figure -- a Yale man, alas, like me, and Taft School -- so he might just have been protecting what he considered good people, but
his decision to seal the court records was grossly improper.
Did Epstein have any dealings in sex, favors, or investments with any Republican except Wexner?
Dershowitz, Mitchell, Clinton, Richardson, Dubin, George Stephanopolous, Lawrence Krauss, Katie Couric, Mortimer Zuckerman,
Chelsea Handler, Cyrus Vance, and Woody Allen, are all Democrats. Did Epstein ever make use of Republicans? Don't count Trump, who
has not been implicated despite the media's best efforts and was probably not even a Republican back in the 90's. Don't count Ken
Starr– he's just one of Epstein's lawyers. Don't count scientists who just took money gifts from him. (By the way, Epstein made very
little in the way of
political contributions
, though that little went mostly to Democrats (
$139,000 vs. $18,000
. I bet he extracted more from politicians than he gave to them.
What role did Israeli politician Ehud Barak play in all this?
Remember Marc Rich? He was a billionaire who fled the country to avoid a possible 300 years prison term, and was pardoned
by Bill Clinton in 2001. Ehud Barak, one of Epstein's friends, was one of the people
who asked for Rich to be pardoned
. Epstein, his killers, and other rich people know that as a last resort they can flee the country and wait for someone like Clinton
to come to office and pardon them.
Acosta said that Washington Bush Administration people told him to go easy on Epstein because he was an intelligence source. That
is plausible. Epstein had info and blackmailing ability with people like Ehud Barak, leader of Israel's Labor Party. But "intelligence"
is also the kind of excuse people make up so they don't have to say "political pressure."
Why did nobody pay attention to the two 2016 books on Epstein?
James Patterson and John Connolly published Filthy Rich: A Powerful Billionaire, the Sex Scandal that Undid Him ,
and All the Justice that Money Can Buy: The Shocking True Story of Jeffrey Epstein . Conchita Sarnoff published TrafficKing:
The Jeffrey Epstein Case. I never heard of these before 2019. Did the media bury them?
Which newspapers reported Epstein's death as "suicide" and which as "apparent suicide"?
More generally, which media outlets seem to be trying to brush Epstein's death under the rug? There seems to have been an
orchestrated attempt to divert attention to the issue of suicides in prison. Subtle differences in phrasing might help reveal who's
been paid off. National Review had an article,
"The Conspiracy
Theories about Jeffrey Epstein's Death Don't Make Much Sense." The article contains no evidence or argument to support the headline's
assertion, just bluster about "madness" and "conspiracy theories". Who else publishes stuff like this?
How much did Epstein corrupt the media from 2008 to 2019?
Even outlets that generally publish good articles must be suspected of corruption. Epstein made an effort to get good publicity.
The New York Times
wrote,
"The effort led to the publication of articles describing him as a selfless and forward-thinking philanthropist with an interest
in science on websites like Forbes, National Review and HuffPost .
All three articles have been removed from their sites in recent days, after inquiries from TheNew York Times .
The National Review piece, from the same year, called him "a smart businessman" with a "passion for cutting-edge science."
Ms. Galbraith was also a publicist for Mr. Epstein, according to several news releases promoting Mr. Epstein's foundations In
the article that appeared on the National Review site, she described him as having "given thoughtfully to countless organizations
that help educate underprivileged children."
"We took down the piece, and regret publishing it," Rich Lowry, the editor of National Review since 1997, said in an email.
He added that the publication had "had a process in place for a while now to weed out such commercially self-interested pieces from
lobbyists and PR flacks.""
Eric Rasmusen is an economist who has held an endowed chair at Indiana University's Kelley School of Business and visiting
positions at Harvard Law School, Yale Law School, the Harvard Economics Department, Chicago's Booth School of Business, Nuffield
College/Oxford, and the University of Tokyo Economics Department. He is best known for his book Games and Information. He has published
extensively in law and economics, including recent articles on the burakumin outcastes in Japan, the use of game theory in jurisprudence,
and quasi-concave functions. The views expressed here are his personal views and are not intended to represent the views of the Kelley
School of Business or Indiana University. His vitae is at http://www.rasmusen.org/vita.htm
.
Not one question involving Maurene Comey, then? She was one of the SDNY prosecutors assigned to this case, and her name has
been significantly played down (if at all visible) in the reportage before or after Epstein's death. That she just "happened"
to be on this case at all is quite an eyebrow raiser especially with her father under the ongoing "Spygate" investigation
Apparently, there will always be many players on the field, and many ways to do damage control.
So the problem was finding a motivated prosecutor in case of Jewish predator with very likely links to intelligence services
of several countries. The motivation was obviously lacking.
Your "expertise" in game theory would be greatly improved if you let yourself consider the Jewish factor.
As important as it is to go on asking questions about the life and death of Jeffrey Epstein, I have to admit that personally
I'm just not interested. I've always found people of his social class to be vaguely repulsive even without the sordid sex allegations.
Just their demanding personalities, just the thought of them hanging around in their terrycloth jogging suits, sneering at the
world with their irrefrangible arrogance, is enough to make me shudder. I want nothing of their nightmare world; and when they
die, I couldn't care less.
More generally, which media outlets seem to be trying to brush Epstein's death under the rug?
Not the National Enquirer:
Jeffrey Epstein Murder Cover-up Exposed!
Death Scene Staged to Look Like Suicide
Billionaire's Screams Ignored by Guards!
Fatal Attack Caught on Jail Cameras!
Autopsy is Hiding the Truth!
I don't hold AG Barr in the high regard this piece does. While I'm not suggesting he had anything to do with Epstein's
death I do think he's corrupt. I doubt he will do anything that leads to the truth. As for him relieving the warden of
his duties, I would hope that was to be expected, wasn't it? I mean he only had two attempts on Epstein's life with the second
being a success. Apparently the first didn't jolt the warden into some kind of action as it appears he was guilty of a number
of sins including 'Sloth.'
As for the publications that don't like conspiracy theories –like the National Review
-- they are a hoot. We are supposed to have faith in this rubbish? The cameras malfunctioned. He didn't have a cellmate. The
guards were tired and forced to work overtime. There was no camera specifically in the cell with Epstein.
In the end I think Epstein probably was allowed to kill himself but I'm not confident in that scenario at all. And yes the media
should pressure Barr to hav e a look in the cell and see exactly how a suicide attempt might have succeeded or if it was a long-shot
at best, given the materiel and conditions.
19. Why is the non-prosecution agreement ambiguous ("globally" binding), when it was written by the best lawyers in the country
for a very wealthy client? Was the ambiguity bargained-for? If so, what are the implications?
20. With "globally" still being unresolved (to the bail judge's first-paragraph astonishment), why commit suicide now?
21. The "it was malfeasance" components are specified. For mere malfeasance to have been the cause, all of the components would
have to be true; it would be a multiplicative function of the several components. Is no one sufficiently quantitative to estimate
the magnitude?
22. What is the best single takeaway phrase that emerges from all of this? My nomination is: "In your face." The brazen, shameless,
unprecedented, turning-point, in-your-faceness of it.
ER the answer is easy to you list of questions .. there is no law in the world when violations are not prosecuted and fair open
for all to see trials are not held and judges do not deliver the appropriate penalties upon convictions. .. in cases involving
the CIA prosecution it is unheard of that a open for all to see trial takes place.
This is why we the governed masses need a parallel government..
such an oversight government would allow to pick out the negligent or wilful misconduct of persons in functional government
and prosecute such persons in the independent people's court.. Without a second government to oversee the first government there
is no democracy; democracy cannot stand and the governed masses will never see the light of a fair day .. unless the masses have
oversight authority on what is to be made into law, and are given without prejudice to their standing in America the right to
charge those associated to government with negligent or wilful misconduct.
There are big questions this article is not asking either
The words 'Mossad' seems not to appear above, and just a brief mention of 'Israel' with Ehud Barak
One tiny mention of Jewish magnate Les Wexner but no mention how he & the Bronfmans founded the 'Mega Group' of ultra-Zionist
billionaires regularly meeting as to how they could prop up the Jewish state by any & all means, Wexner being the source of many
Epstein millions, the original buyer of the NYC mansion he transferred to Epstein etc the excellent Epstein series by Whitney
Webb on Mint Press covering all this https://www.mintpressnews.com/author/whitney-webb/
Was escape to freedom & Israe,l the ultimate payoff for Epstein's decades of work for Mossad, grooming and abusing young teens,
filmed in flagrante delicto with prominent people for political blackmail?
Is it not likely this was a Mossad jailbreak covered by fake 'suicide', with Epstein alive now, with US gov now also in possession
of the assumed Epstein sexual blackmail video tapes?
We have the Epstein 'death in jail' under the US Attorney General Bill Barr, a former CIA officer 1973-77, the CIA supporting
him thru night law school, Bill Barr's later law firm Kirkland Ellis representing Epstein
Whose Jewish-born ex-OSS father Donald Barr had written a 'fantasy novel' on sex slavery with scenes of rape of underage
teens, 'Space Relations', written whilst Don Barr was headmaster of the Dalton school, which gave Epstein his first job, teaching
teens
So would a crypto-Jewish 'former' CIA officer who is now USA Attorney General, possibly help a Mossad political blackmailer
escape to Israel after a fake 'jail suicide'?
An intriguing 4chan post a few hours after Epstein's 'body was discovered', says Epstein was put in a wheelchair and driven
out of the jail in a van, accompanied by a man in a green military uniform – timestamp is USA Pacific on the screencap apparently,
so about 10:44 NYC time Sat.10 Aug
FWIW, drone video of Epstein's Little St James island from Friday 30 August, shows a man who could be Epstein himself, on the
left by one vehicle, talking to a black man sitting on a quad all-terrain unit
Close up of Epstein-like man between vehicles, from video note 'pale finger' match-up to archive photo Epstein
The thing that sticks out for me is that Epstein was caught, charged, and went to jail previously, but he didn't die .
The second time, it appears he was murdered. I strongly suspect that the person who murdered Epstein was someone who only met
Epstein after 2008, or was someone Epstein only procured for after 2008. Otherwise, this person would have killed Epstein
back when Epstein was charged by the cops the first time.
Either that, or the killer is someone who is an opponent of Trump, and this person was genuinely terrified that Trump would
pressure the Feds to avoid any deals and to squeeze all the important names out of Epstein and prosecute them, too.
The author professes himself "expert in the field of "game theory", strategic thinking," but he doesn't say how his 18 questions
were arrived at to the exclusion of hundreds of others. Instead, the column includes several casual assumptions and speculation.
For example:
"Probably the only thing that Epstein changed in his will was the listing of assets, and he probably changed that because
he'd just updated his list of assets for the bail hearing anyway, so it was a convenient time to update the will."
"President Trump didn't have anything personally to fear from Epstein."
"I do trust Attorney-General Barr, however, from what I've heard of him and because he instantly and publicly said he would
have not just the FBI but the Justice Dept. Inspector-General investigate Epstein's death, and he quickly fired the federal
prison head honcho. The FBI is untrustworthy, but Inspector-Generals are often honorable."
As to this last, isn't "quickly [firing] the federal prison head honcho" consistent with a failure-to-prevent-suicide deflection
strategy? And has Mr. Rasmusen not "heard" of the hiring of Mr. Epstein by Mr. Barr's father? Or of the father's own Establishment
background?
I hope to be wrong, but my own hunch is that these investigations, like the parallel investigations of the RussiaGate hoax,
will leave the elite unscathed. I also hope that in the meantime we see more rigorous columns here than this one.
...Also, subsequently, it should have been a top priority to arrest Ghislaine Maxwell but the government, justice and media
lack interest . Apparently, they don't know where she is, and they're not making any special efforts to find out.
"... A new opinion poll released by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal last Sunday shows that 70% of Americans are "angry" because our political system seems to only be working for the insiders with money and power. Both Senator Bernie Sanders and Senator Elizabeth Warren have also reflected on this sentiment during their campaigns. Sanders has said that we live in a "corrupt political system designed to protect the wealthy and the powerful." Warren said it's a "rigged system that props up the rich and powerful and kicks dirt on everyone else." ..."
A new opinion poll released by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal last Sunday shows that 70% of Americans are "angry" because
our political system seems to only be working for the insiders with money and power. Both Senator Bernie Sanders and Senator Elizabeth
Warren have also reflected on this sentiment during their campaigns. Sanders has said that we live in a "corrupt political system
designed to protect the wealthy and the powerful." Warren said it's a "rigged system that props up the rich and powerful and kicks
dirt on everyone else."
A New York Times opinion article written by the political scientist Greg Weiner felt compelled to push back on this message, writing
a column with the title, The Shallow Cynicism of 'Everything Is Rigged'. In his column, Weiner basically makes the argument that
believing everything is corrupt and rigged is a cynical attitude with which it is possible to dismiss political opponents for being
a part of the corruption. In other words, the Sanders and Warren argument is a shortcut, according to Weiner, that avoids real political
debate.
Joining me now to discuss whether it makes sense to think of a political system as rigged and corrupt, and whether the cynical
attitude is justified, is someone who should know a thing or two about corruption: Bill Black. He is a white collar criminologist,
former financial regulator, and associate professor of economics and law at the University of Missouri, Kansas City. He's also the
author of the book, The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One. Thanks for joining us again, Bill.
BILL BLACK: Thank you.
GREG WILPERT: As I mentioned that the outset, it seems that Sanders and Warren are in effect taking an open door, at least when
it comes to the American public. That is, almost everyone already believes that our political and economic system is rigged. Would
you agree with that sentiment that the system is corrupt and rigged for the rich and against pretty much everyone else but especially
the poor? What do you think?
BILL BLACK: One of the principal things I study is elite fraud, corruption and predation. The World Bank sent me to India for
months as an anti-corruption alleged expert type. And as a financial regulator, this is what I dealt with. This is what I researched.
This is a huge chunk of my life. So I wouldn't use the word, if I was being formal in an academic system, "the system." What I would
talk about is specific systems that are rigged, and they most assuredly are rigged.
Let me give you an example. One of the most important things that has transformed the world and made it vastly more criminogenic,
much more corrupt, is modern executive compensation. This is not an unusual position. This is actually the normal position now, even
among very conservative scholars, including the person who was the intellectual godfather of modern executive compensation, Michael
Jensen. He has admitted that he spawned unintentionally a monster because CEOs have rigged the compensation system. How do they do
that? Well, it starts even before you get hired as a CEO. This is amazing stuff. The standard thing you do as a powerful CEO is you
hire this guy, and he specializes in negotiating great deals for CEOs. His first demand, which is almost always given into, is that
the corporation pay his fee, not the CEO. On the other side of the table is somebody that the CEO is going to be the boss of negotiating
the other side. How hard is he going to negotiate against the guy that's going to be his boss? That's totally rigged.
Then the compensation committee hires compensation specialists who–again, even the most conservative economists agree it is a
completely rigged system. Because the only way they get work is if they give this extraordinary compensation. Then, everybody in
economics admits that there's a clear way you should run performance pay. It should be really long term. You get the big bucks only
after like 10 years of success. In reality, they're always incredibly short term. Why? Because it's vastly easier for the CEO to
rig the short-term reported earnings. What's the result of this? Accounting profession, criminology profession, economics profession,
law profession. We've all done studies and all of them say this perverse system of compensation causes CEOs to (a) cheat and (b)
to be extraordinarily short term in their perspective because it's easier to rig the short-term reported results. Even the most conservative
economists agree that's terrible for the economy.
What I've just gone through is a whole bunch of academic literature from over 40-plus years from top scholars in four different
fields. That's not cynicism. That's just plain facts if you understand the system. People like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders,
they didn't, as you say, kick open an open door. They made the open door. It's not like Elizabeth Warren started talking about this
six months ago when she started being a potential candidate. She has been saying this and explaining in detail how individual systems
are rigged in favor of the wealthy for at least 30 years of work. Bernie Sanders has been doing it for 45 years. This is what the
right, including the author of this piece who is an ultra-far right guy, fear the most. It's precisely what they fear, that Bernie
and Elizabeth are good at explaining how particular systems are rigged. They explain it in appropriate detail, but they're also good
in making it human. They talk the way humans talk as opposed to academics.
That's what the right fear is more than anything, that people will basically get woke. In this, it's being woke to how individual
systems have been rigged by the wealthy and powerful to create a sure thing to enrich them, usually at our direct expense.
GREG WILPERT: I think those are some very good examples. They're mostly from the realm of economics. I want to look at one from
the realm of politics, which specifically Weiner makes. He cites Sanders, who says that the rich literally buy elections, and Weiner
counters this by saying that, "It is difficult to identify instances in American history of an electoral majority wanting something
specific that it has not eventually gotten." That's a pretty amazing statement actually, I think, for him to say when you look at
the actual polls of what people want and what people get. He then also adds, "That's not possible to dupe the majority with advertising
all of the time." What's your response to that argument?
BILL BLACK: Well, actually, that's where he's trying to play economist, and he's particularly bad at economics. He was even worse
at economics than he is at political science, where his pitch, by the way is–I'm not overstating this–corruption is good. The real
problem with Senator Sanders and Senator Warren is that they're against corruption.
Can you fool many people? Answer: Yes. We have good statistics from people who actually study this as opposed to write op-eds
of this kind. In the great financial crisis, one of the most notorious of the predators that targeted blacks and Latinos–we actually
have statistics from New Century. And here's a particular scam. The loan broker gets paid more money the worse the deal he gets you,
the customer, and he gets paid by the bank. If he can get you to pay more than the market rate of interest, then he gets a kickback,
a literal kickback. In almost exactly half of the cases, New Century was able to get substantially above market interest rates, again,
targeted at blacks and Latinos.
We know that this kind of predatory approach can succeed, and it can succeed brilliantly. Look at cigarettes. Cigarettes, if you
use them as intended, they make you sick and they kill you. It wasn't that very long ago until a huge effort by pushback that the
tobacco companies, through a whole series of fake science and incredible amounts of ads that basically tried to associate if you
were male, that if you smoked, you'd have a lot of sex type of thing. It was really that crude. It was enormously successful with
people in getting them to do things that almost immediately made them sick and often actually killed them.
He's simply wrong empirically. You can see it in US death rates. You can see it in Hell, I'm overweight considerably. Americans
are enormously overweight because of the way we eat, which has everything to do with how marketing works in the United States, and
it's actually gotten so bad that it's reducing life expectancy in a number of groups in America. That's how incredibly effective
predatory practices are in rigging the system. That's again, two Nobel Laureates in economics have recently written about this. George
Akerlof and Shiller, both Nobel Laureates in economics, have written about this predation in a book for a general audience. It's
called Phishing with a P-H.
GREG WILPERT: I want to turn to the last point that Weiner makes about cynicism. He says that calling the system rigged is actually
a form of cynicism. And that cynicism, the belief that everything and everyone is bad or corrupt avoids real political arguments
because it tires everyone you disagree with as being a part of that corruption. Would you say, is the belief that the system is rigged
a form of cynicism? And if it is, wouldn't Weiner be right that cynicism avoids political debate?
BILL BLACK: He creates a straw man. No one has said that everything and everyone is corrupt. No one has said that if you disagree
with me, you are automatically corrupt. What they have given in considerable detail, like I gave as the first example, was here is
exactly how the system is rigged. Here are the empirical results of that rigging. This produces vast transfers of wealth to the powerful
and wealthy, and it comes at the expense of nearly everybody else. That is factual and that needs to be said. It needs to be said
that politicians that support this, and Weiner explicitly does that, says, we need to go back to a system that is more openly corrupt
and that if we have that system, the world will be better. That has no empirical basis. It's exactly the opposite. Corruption kills.
Corruption ruins economies.
The last thing in the world you want to do is what Weiner calls for, which he says, "We've got to stop applying morality to this
form of crime." In essence, he is channeling the godfather. "Tell the Don it wasn't personal. It was just business." There's nothing
really immoral in his view about bribing people. I'm sorry. I'm a Midwesterner. It wasn't cynicism. It was morality. He says you
can't compromise with corruption. I hope not. Compromising with corruption is precisely why we're in this situation where growth
rates have been cut in half, why wage growth has been cut by four-fifths, why blacks and Latinos during the great financial crisis
lost 60% to 80% of their wealth in college-educated households. That's why 70% of the public is increasingly woke on this subject.
GREG WILPERT: Well, we're going to leave it there. I was speaking to Bill Black, associate professor of economics and law at the
University of Missouri, Kansas City. Thanks again, Bill, for having joined us today.
BILL BLACK: Thank you.
GREG WILPERT: And thank you for joining The Real News Network.
Well, Sanders certainly knows that elections are rigged. But he's not quite right when he says that money does the rigging.
It would be more accurate to say that powerful people are powerful because they're criminals, and they're rich because they're
criminals.
Money is a side effect, not the driver. Specific example: Hillary and Bernie are in the same category of net worth, but Bernie
isn't powerful. The difference is that Bernie ISN'T willing to commit murder and blackmail to gain power.
> Hillary and Bernie are in the same category of net worth
Clinton's net worth (says Google) is $45 million; Sanders $2.5 million. So, an order of magnitude difference. I guess that
puts Sanders in the 1% category, but Clinton is much closer to the 0.1% category than Sanders.
There's also a billion-dollar foundation in the mix.
We had our choice of two New York billionaires in the last presidential election. How is this not accounted for? It's like
the bond market, the sheer weight carries its own momentum.
Very similar to CEO's. I may not own a private jet, but if the company does, and I control the company, I have the benefit
of a private jet. I don't need to own the penthouse to live in it.
"We came, we saw, he died. Tee hee hee!"
"Did it have anything to do with your visit?"
"I'm sure it did."
From a non-legal perspective at least, that makes her an accessory to murder, doesn't it?
Is it fair to say the entire system is rigged when enough interconnected parts of it are rigged that no matter where one turns,
one finds evidence of corruption? Because like it or not, that's where we are as a country.
Yes. And it is also fair to say, and has been said by lots of cynics over the centuries, that both democracy and capitalism
sow the seeds of their own destruction.
Burns me to see yet another "water is not wet" argument being foisted by the NYT, hard to imagine another reason the editorial
board pushed for this line *except* to protect the current corrupt one percenters who call their shots. Once Liz The Marionette
gets appointed we might get some fluff but the rot will persist, eventually rot becomes putrefaction and the polity dies. Gore
Vidal called America and Christianity "death cults".
"Due to technical difficulties, comments are unavailable"
Pisses me off that I gave the propaganda rag of note a click and didn't even get the joy of the comments section. I'm sure
there's some cynical reason why
The other thing is that the NYT runs this pretty indefensible piece by a guy who is a visiting scholar at the American
Enterprise Institute. Just how often does NYT -- whose goal,
according to its
executive editor, "should be to understand different views" -- run a piece from anyone who is leftwing? What's the ratio of pro-establishment,
pro-Washington consensus pieces to those that are not? Glenn Greenwald
points out that the political spectrum at the NYT op-ed page "spans the small gap from establishment centrist Democrats
to establishment centrist Republicans." That, in itself, is consistent with the premise that the system is, indeed, rigged.
I think we have to drill down another level and ask ourselves a more fundamental question "why is cynicism necessarily bad
to begin with?" Black's response of parsing to individual systems as being corrupt is playing into the NYT authors trap, sort
to speak.
This NYT article is another version of the seemingly obligatory attribute of the american character; we must ultimately be
optimistic and have hope. Why is that useful? Or maybe more importantly, to whom is that useful? What is the point?
In my mind (and many a philosopher), cynicism is a very healthy, empowering response to a world whose institutional configuration
is such that it will to fuck you over whenever it is expedient to do so.
Furthermore, the act of voting lends legitimacy to an institution that is clearly not legitimate. The institution is very obviously
very corrupt. If you really want to change the "system" stop giving it legitimacy; i.e. be cynical, don't vote. The whole thing
is a ruse. Boycott it .
Some may say, in a desperate attempt to avoid being cynical, "well, the national level is corrupt but we need to increase engagement
at the community level via local elections ", or something like that. This is nothing more than rearranging the chairs on the
deck of the titanic. And collecting signature isn't going to help anymore than handing out buckets on the titanic would.
So, to answer my own rhetorical question above, "to whom is it useful to not be cynical?" It is useful to those who want things
to continue as they currently are.
So, be cynical. Don't vote. It is an empowering and healthy way to kinda say "fuck you" to the corrupt and not become corrupted
yourself by legitimizing it. The best part about it is that you don't have to do anything.
Viva la paz (Hows that for a non cynical salutation?)
Uh this sounds like the ultimate allowing things to continue as they currently are, do you really imagine the powers that be
are concerned about a low voting rate, and we have one, they don't care, they may even like it that way. Do you really imagine
they care about some phantom like perceived legitimacy? Where is the evidence of that?
Politicians do care about staying in office and will respond on some issues that will cost them enough votes to get booted
from office. But it has to be those particular issues in their own backyard; otherwise, they just kind of limp along with the
lip service collecting their paychecks.
IMO, it is sheer idiocy to not vote. If you are a voter, politicians will pay some attention to you at least. If you don't
vote, you don't even exist to them.
"I don't think it should be legal at ALL to become a corporate lobbyist if you've served in Congress," said Ocasio-Cortez.
"At minimum there should be a long wait period."
"If you are a member of Congress + leave, you shouldn't be allowed to turn right around&leverage your service for a lobbyist check.
I don't think it should be legal at ALL to become a corporate lobbyist if you've served in Congress."
–AOC, as reported by NakedCapitalism on May 31, 2019
I try to be despairing, but I can't keep up.
Attributed to a generation or two after Lily Tomlin's quote about cynicism.
Out of curiosity, would it be cynical to question that political scientist's grant funding or other sources of income? These
days, I feel inclined to look at what I'll call the Sinclair Rule* , added to Betteridge's, Godwin's and all those other, ahem,
modifications to what used to be an expectation that communication was more or less honest.
* Sinclair Rule, where you add a interpretive filter based on Upton's famous quote: It is difficult to get a man to understand
something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.
It's good to look at funding sources. But it's kind of a slander to those who must work for a living when assuming it's paychecks
(which we need to live in this system) that corrupt people.
If it's applied to the average working person, maybe it's often true, maybe it has a tendency to push in that direction, but
if you think there are no workers that realize the industry they are working in might be destructive, that they may be exploited
by such systems but have little choice etc. etc., come now there are working people who are politically aware and do see a larger
picture, they just don't have a lot of power to change it much of the time. Does the average working person's salary depend on
his not understanding though? No, of course not, it merely depends on him obeying. And obeying enough to keep a job, not always
understanding, is what a paycheck buys.
With all the evidence of everyday life (airplanes, drug prices, health insurance, Wall Street, CEO pay, the workforce changes
in the past 20 years if you've been working those years etc) this Greg better be careful as he might be seen as a Witch to be
hanged and burned in Salem, Ma a few hundred years ago.
It's cynical to say it's cynical to believe the system is corrupt.
Greg Weiner is cynic, and his is using his cynicism to dismiss the political arguments of people he disagrees with.
And just this week, I found out I couldn't even buy a car unless I'd be willing to sign a mandatory binding arbitration agreement.
I was ready to pay and sign all the paperwork, and they lay a document in front of me that reserves for the dealer the right to
seek any remedy against me if I harm the dealer (pay with bad check, become delinquent on loan, fail to provide clean title on
my trade); but forces me to accept mandatory binding arbitration, with damages limited to the value of the car, for anything the
dealer might do wrong.
It is not cynical at all when even car dealers now want a permission slip for any harm they might do to me.
Okay, a few more. We are literally facing the possibility of a mass extinction in large part because of dishonesty on the par
of oil companies, politicians, and people paid to make bad arguments.
"Assad (and by implication Assad's forces alone) killed 500,000 Syrians."
"Israel is just defending itself."
I can't squeeze the dishonesty about the war in Yemen into a short slogan, but I know from personal experience that getting
liberals to care when it was Obama's war was virtually impossible. Even under Trump it was hard, until Khashoggi's murder. On
the part of politicians and think tanks this was corruption by Saudi money. With ordinary people it was the usual partisan tribal
hypocrisy.
The motivator is "
Gap Psychology
," the human desire to distance oneself from those below (on any scale), and to come nearer to those above.
The rich are rich because the Gap below them is wide, and the wider the Gap, the richer they are .
And here is the important point: There are two ways the rich widen the Gap: Either gain more for themselves or make sure
those below have less.
That is why the rich promulgate the Big Lie that the federal government (and its agencies, Social Security and Medicare) is
running short of dollars. The rich want to make sure that those below them don't gain more, as that would narrow the Gap.
Negative sum game, where one wins but the other has to lose more so the party of the first part feels even better about winning.
There is an element of sadism, sociopathy and a few other behaviors that the current systems allow to be gamed even more profitably.
If you build it, or lobby to have it built, they will come multiple times.
A successful society should be responsive to both threats and opportunities. Any major problems to that society are assessed
and changes are made, usually begrudgingly, to adapt to the new situation. And this is where corruption comes into it. It short
circuits the signals that a society receives so that it ignores serious threats and elevates ones that are relatively minor but
which benefit a small segment of that society. If you want an example of this at work, back in 2016 you had about 40,000 Americans
dying to opioids each and every year which was considered only a background issue. But a major issue about that time was who gets
to use what toilets. Seriously. If it gets bad enough, a society gets overwhelmed by the problems that were ignored or were deferred
to a later time. And I regret to say that the UK is going to learn this lesson in spades.
'Sanders has said that we live in a "corrupt political system designed to protect the wealthy and the powerful." Warren said
it's a "rigged system that props up the rich and powerful and kicks dirt on everyone else."'
Yet the rest of the article focuses almost entirely on internal US shenanigans. When it comes to protecting wealth and power,
George Kennan hit the nail on the head in 1948, with "we have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3 of its population.
This disparity is particularly great as between ourselves and the peoples of Asia. In this situation, we cannot fail to be the
object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships, which will permit us
to maintain this position of disparity." This, which has underpinned US policy ever since, may not be corrupt in the sense of
illegal, but it certainly seems corrupt in the sense of morally repugnant to me.
About Kennan's comment. That's interesting because no one questioned the word "wealth". Even tho' we had only 6.3% of the world's
population we had 50% of the wealth. The point of that comment had to be that we should "spread the wealth" and we did do just
that. Until we polluted the entire planet. I'd like some MMT person to take a long look at that attitude because it is so simplistic.
And not like George Kennan at all who was sophisticated to the bone. But that's just more proof of a bred-in-the-bone ignorance
about what money really is. In this case Kennan was talking about money, not wealth. He never asked Nepal for advice on gross
national happiness, etc. Nor did he calculate the enormous debt burden we would incur for our unregulated use and abuse of the
environment. That debt most certainly offsets any "wealth" that happened.
Approaching from the opposite direction, if someone were to say "I sincerely believe that the USA has the most open & honest
political system and the fairest economic system in human history" would you not think that person to be incredibly naive (or,
cynically, a liar)?
There has been, for at least the last couple of decades. a determined effort to do away with corruption – by defining it away.
"Citizens United" is perhaps the most glaring example but the effort is ongoing; that Weiner op-ed is a good current example.
What is cynical is everyone's response when point out that the system is corrupt. They all say " always has been, always will be so just deal with it ".
Strawmannirg has got to be the most cynical behavior in the world. Weiner is the cynic. I think Liz's "the system is rigged
" comment invites discussion. It is not a closed door at all. It is a plea for good capitalism. Which most people assume is possible.
It's time to define just what kind of capitalism will work and what it needs to continue to be, or finally become, a useful economic
ideology. High time.
Another thing. Look how irrational the world, which is now awash in money, has become over lack of liquidity. There's a big
push now to achieve an optimum flow of money by speeding up transaction time. The Fed is in the midst of designing a new real-time
digital payments system. A speedy accounting and record of everything. Which sounds like a very good idea.
But the predators are
busy keeping pace – witness the frantic grab by Facebook with Libra. Libra is cynical. To say the least. The whole thing a few
days ago on the design of Libra was frightening because Libra has not slowed down; it has filed it's private corporation papers
in Switzerland and is working toward a goal of becoming a private currency – backed by sovereign money no less! Twisted. So there's
a good discussion begging to be heard: The legitimate Federal Reserve v. Libra. The reason we are not having this discussion is
because the elite are hard-core cynics.
Peter Harris continently forget that the USA is imperial power with expansionist, imperial
goals in the Middle East (Iraq war was about oil) and unrelenting support of Israel. Which in
turn is a destabilizing force in the Middle East. The only state with not no accepted borders
which recently annexed Holland heights.
recenthistory of
engineering the downfall of foreign regimes. Second, the U.S. military's top priority should be
to eliminate terrorist groups such as ISIS and Al Qaeda. From these two premises, a third
foundation of Gabbard's foreign policy can be inferred: that the United States must sometimes
tolerate the existence of brutal foreign governments, especially if they share a common
interest in fighting the same terrorist groups as America.
None of these are radical assumptions about American foreign policy. Indeed, Gabbard's
anti-interventionism is tightly aligned with the prevailing zeitgeist in U.S. politics.
According to polling data, voters today are opposed to U.S. involvement in
Yemen , supportive of a withdrawal from
Afghanistan , and roughly
evenly split on the question of whether the United States should cease operations in Syria.
Military veterans are among those
most critical of the so-called "forever wars" in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere.
Gabbard's insistence that the U.S. military should focus on counterterrorism rather than
regime change is also well within the mainstream of political opinion. In this regard, Gabbard
is
not unlike the last Democratic occupant of the Oval Office. After all, it was Barack Obama
who, as a candidate for the presidency, explicitly coupled his headline promises to end the
Iraq War and shrink America's overall military footprint with a commitment to ramp up the fight
against Al Qaeda and their Taliban enablers in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
... ... ..
Peter Harris is an assistant professor of political science at Colorado State
University. You can follow him on Twitter: @ipeterharris .
I vote for taking Tulsi seriously. Pres Trump should consider her as Sec Defense or
head of the DNI. We've ruined the lives of the Syrian people with our intervention and
who the f decided we have a say? The U.S. needs to stop being interventionist for the
most part and in the event another country invades us, then and only then should be blow
them the F up!
Working with Assad and Russia to rid Syria of the remaining terrorists makes sense. It
would stop the "cleansing" of Idlib from Kurds, Christians and moderate Muslims by Al
Qaeda/ex-ISIS forces supported by Turkey. It would force Turkey to withdraw its forces
from Syria, and isolate Turkey from Russian influence. Iranian proxy militias would no
longer be needed in Syria to fight Al Qaeda. Finally, it would facilitate return of
Syrian refugees. The US should also remove existing sanctions on Syria which are
preventing economic reconstruction of the country.
Tulsi Gabbard is our only chance to beat Trump, and yet the media refuses to print
much about her, or her policies. I don't get it?
Anyway, thank you for this article you posted.
You can find all that on YouTube, where she has posted dozens of her campaign chats.
See also Joe Rogan interviews. The connection between foreign and domestic policy is that
trillions wasted on endless wars make health, education, infrastructure, etc.
unaffordable and therefore pie-in-the-sky until we come to our senses. She seems to offer
more detailed positions and more practical proposals on most of those issues -- and more
-- than the rest of the candidates put together. Is she too good to be true? Perhaps. Is
she a candidate we need in coming debates? Definitely. Could she beat Trump? In debates,
easily and decisively; in November 2020, not sure, but I think she has better odds than
the rest. What sort of president would she be? The wildest of wild cards, possibly one of
the greatest, possibly something else. At the rate things are going, it might be a lot
riskier NOT to take a chance on her.
The US administration shifted its policy to "no boots on the ground" during Pres.
Obama. Russia exploited the opportunity to reinstate its "boots" in the region and even
put a wedge between NATO and Turkey. To me it looks that this policy is detrimental to
the US hegemony in the region. Besides, I scream:'the King is naked' and claim that
people's interest or wellbeing in this region comes last, if at all, in the list of
priorities of all the regional and global superpowers, including the US administration.
Finally, collaborating with thugs like current rulers of Syria, Iran and similar was
proved a wrong policy by their infamous predecessor, 'Mr.' Adolf H., how respectfully Mr.
Chamberlain called him.
Most politicians don't learn from history.
Lots of Historians say that Stalin was as bad as Hitler, arguably even worse, in terms
of body counts. But if Churchill and Roosevelt had not engaged with Stalin, defeating the
Third Reich might have taken the rest of the 20th century. The crucial difference is
between Chamberlain and Churchill. It not how evil our negotiating partners are but how
strong and clear-sighted we are that determines the outcome.
https://www.youtube.com/wat... Until you listen to this by Col Lawrence Wilkerson
whose Truth-Telling is never carried on MSM then you can fall for this Drivel Propaganda
about Assad and him being a brutal dictator who in fact DID NOT Gas his people. This is
all Israeli Likud extremists who have been trying to illegally seize land in Syria, steal
oil, and destabilize it for 65 yrs. The Zionist White Helments are using human shields.
Assad is a sovereign and if you think Iran, Russia, and their other allies are going to
let them fail with US-sponsored Terrorists then you are wrong. Wilkerson says he wishes
he could slap Clinton, Pelosi, and all the hysterical pundits screamin about pulling out
of Syria in the face. He goes on to say there are 50 Air, Naval, & Army bases
surrounding Iran and Syria, the largest on Earth, and that the only solution is Diplomacy
or Nuclear War.
israel shoots up civilians in gaza not a problem, saudis behead homosexuals not a big
deal, assad fights against alqaeda and isis omg he is worst than hitler this cannot be
happening >.<
Wow, just came across two pro-Tulsi articles in a row on my Google feed. What is going
on? Varitas got Google shook, or Dems finally realizing Tulsi the only chance they have
against Trump. No, Dems will never forgive her for defecting to Bernie, they bite their
own nose off first. Must be the Varitas stuff. Things will get back to hate Tulsi normal
soon I'm sure
The worst by far are the Saudis. But they our ally so can't talk about them. They buy
billions worth of US weaponry, keep economy going, yippie. I remember when Saddam was a
rock star, on USA magazine covers, hailed as progressive. Kadahfy too. Kadahfy was a
actually a pretty decent guy. He truly was progressive. It is strange world when you
realize up is down and down is up , 2+2=5
"... It also has Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, front-runners for the presidential nomination, who reject the neoliberal economic policies that the Democratic Party has been championing since the waning days of the Carter administration. ..."
"... In calling them front-runners, I haven't forgotten Joe Biden, still in the lead in most polls. It is just that I think that, after nearly three years of Trump, the candidacy of a doddering Clintonite doofus doesn't – and shouldn't -- merit serious consideration. I trust that this will become increasingly apparent even to the most dull-witted Democratic pundits, and of course to the vast majority of Democratic voters, as the election season unfolds. ..."
"... The better to defeat Trump and Trumpism next year, Sanders or Warren or whichever candidate finally gets the nod, along with the several rays of light in Congress – there are more of them than just the four that Trump would send back to "where they came from" -- will undoubtedly make common cause with corporate Democrats at a tactical level. ..."
With Trump acting out egregiously and mainstream Democrats in the House doing nothing more about it than talking up a storm, it
would be hard to imagine the public mood not shifting in ways that would force a turn for the better.
Thus, despite the best efforts of Democratic National Committee flacks at MSNBC, CNN, and, of course, The New York Times, The
Washington Post, and, worst of all, PBS and NPR, the Democratic Party now has a "squad" with which its Pelosiite-Hoyerite-Schumerian
leadership must contend.
It also has Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, front-runners for the presidential nomination, who reject the neoliberal
economic policies that the Democratic Party has been championing since the waning days of the Carter administration.
In calling them front-runners, I haven't forgotten Joe Biden, still in the lead in most polls. It is just that I think that,
after nearly three years of Trump, the candidacy of a doddering Clintonite doofus doesn't – and shouldn't -- merit serious consideration.
I trust that this will become increasingly apparent even to the most dull-witted Democratic pundits, and of course to the vast majority
of Democratic voters, as the election season unfolds.
The better to defeat Trump and Trumpism next year, Sanders or Warren or whichever candidate finally gets the nod, along with
the several rays of light in Congress – there are more of them than just the four that Trump would send back to "where they came
from" -- will undoubtedly make common cause with corporate Democrats at a tactical level.
This is all to the good. Nevertheless, the time to start working to assure that it goes no deeper than that is already upon
us.
When the dust clears, it will become evident that the squad-like new guys and the leading Democrats of the past are not on the
same path; that the former want to reconstruct the Democratic Party in ways that will make it authentically progressive, while the
latter, wittingly or not, want to restore and bolster the Party that made Trump and Trumpism possible and even inevitable.
... ... ...
Could the Israel lobby be next? As Israeli politics veers ever farther to the right, its lobby's stranglehold over the Democratic
Party, though far from shot, is in plain decline -- as increasingly many American Jews, especially but not only millennials, lose
interest in the ethnocratic settler state, or find themselves embarrassed by it.
... ... ...
ANDREW LEVINE is the author most recently of THE AMERICAN IDEOLOGY (Routledge) and
POLITICAL KEY WORDS (Blackwell)
as well as of many other books and articles in political philosophy. His most recent book is
In Bad Faith: What's Wrong With the
Opium of the People . He was a Professor (philosophy) at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a Research Professor (philosophy)
at the University of Maryland-College Park. He is a contributor to
Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics
of Illusion (AK Press).
Employee rights advocates say this Labor Day's family barbecues and union solidarity picnics
will take place in the shadow of a Trump administration that has quietly stacked the National
Labor Relations Board with anti-labor members. The federal agency is far less well-known than
the IRS or EPA, but its five presidential appointees issue rulings with often far-reaching
consequences for America's working men and women. The NLRB was created in 1935 to oversee
collective bargaining and protect labor standards; the majority of its current board have
worked for years with pro-employer firms or
on behalf of industry.
Under the Trump administration, says Henry Willis , a veteran employment rights attorney at
Schwartz, Steinsapir, Dohrmann & Sommers, "They are rolling back rights as fast as they
can."
Even before Trump was elected president, labor advocates had long lamented an NLRB process
weighted towards employers who have the power of the paycheck and an array of tactics to shut
down union organizing drives. A 2009 study , published by the liberal
Economic Policy Institute think tank, found that during 57 percent of union election processes,
employers threatened to shut down their workplaces; and during 34 percent of those organizing
drives, employers fired workers and used one-on-one meetings with employees to threaten
them.
Study author Kate Bronfenbrenner, director of labor education research and a senior lecturer
at Cornell University's School of Industrial and Labor Relations, says those numbers have
remained steady since 2009.
Moreover, Bronfenbrenner adds, when an administration changes it's not uncommon for boards
to reverse some preceding labor decisions, but that "there's a different tone to this board in
that it is reversing long-held law. Not just changing rules but reversing decisions that had
been agreed upon for a long time."
In other words, the NLRB under Trump represents a tectonic shift in the way the agency has
traditionally operated.
Bronfenbrenner cites a recent decision that allows employers to
stop bargaining and call for a new union election each time a contract approaches
expiration -- in effect, inviting company employees to decertify their union. "[Employers] can
just say, 'I no longer believe the union has support, and then there will be an election," she
says. "Employers can do that every single time a contract expires."
Willis, who litigates on the front lines, ticks off a list illustrating a piece-by-piece
dismantling of employee rights.
"The current board has been attacking Obama board decisions on issues such as [establishing]
who's an independent contractor and who's an employee," he says, referring to a
January 2019 revision of the standard used to determine whether independent contractors are
covered by the National Labor Relations Act, which, the NLRB proclaims on its
website , was passed by Congress in 1935 "to protect the rights of employees and employers,
to encourage collective bargaining, and to curtail certain private sector labor and management
practices, and which can harm the general welfare of workers, businesses and the U.S.
economy."
The January decision makes it less likely that the contractors will be given the same rights
as employees.
"That's a big issue," Willis says. "Especially with the gig economy."
Another 2017 NLRB decision upended the
definition of bargaining units . An employer no longer has to recognize or bargain with
smaller units within a single work location, forcing a union to do large-scale organizing.
Organizing a shoe department, Willis notes, is less daunting than organizing an entire
department store.
The Obama NLRB strove to proactively extend protections to unorganized shops -- where
workers are less likely to know their rights. "The Trump board is taking a reactionary approach
-- pulling back wherever possible," Willis says.
* * *
Currently operating with a vacant seat , the five-member board consists of three Republicans
and Obama appointee Lauren McFerran, and it's set to term out in December. Conservative
interests have urged President Trump to wait until McFerran leaves and then to fill the two
empty seats to lock in a unanimous pro-employer majority.
Also in the works is a restructuring of the NLRB that would centralize decision-making in
Washington and bring decisions now investigated and adjudicated at the regional level under
scrutiny there.
Trump general counsel appointee Peter Robb issued a 2017 memo directing NLRB regional
offices to submit to his Division of Advice for review cases
involving "significant legal issues
.
" In
2018
Robb
announced an intention to reorganize the agency's 26 regional offices into a smaller number
of districts that report directly to Robb -- who could then present the issues to the NLRB in a
way to give cover to the board to reverse local decisions and create precedent.
"The current general counsel has been trying to shift decision-making power from the regions
to D.C. and creating a new layer of administration to give him more control over how the
regions handle unfair labor practice charges," says Willis. "It hasn't been carried out, but
the general counsel certainly has a big foot and brings it down much more frequently these
days."
It's not all bleak news for labor, however. Unions are now organizing and representing
contract workers, including hundreds of thousands of janitors, whether or not the NLRB
designates them as employees, says Bronfenbrenner.
She sees the most vibrant aspects today's labor movement in industries where the majority
are women and men and women of color -- and notes that those constituencies were largely
shunned by organized labor when it was at the height of its strength.
"Organized labor only started getting a move on when their density had gone down below down
to 12 percent and that's a little late. If they had done it when their density was 50 percent
or 45 percent, they could have used their bargaining power."
Strawmannirg has got to be the most cynical behavior in the world. Weiner is the cynic. I
think Liz's "the system is rigged " comment invites discussion. It is not a closed door at
all. It is a plea for good capitalism. Which most people assume is possible. It's time to
define just what kind of capitalism will work and what it needs to continue to be, or finally
become, a useful economic ideology. High time.
Burns me to see yet another "water is not wet" argument being foisted by the NYT, hard to
imagine another reason the editorial board pushed for this line *except* to protect the
current corrupt one percenters who call their shots. Once Liz The Marionette gets appointed
we might get some fluff but the rot will persist, eventually rot becomes putrefaction and the
polity dies. Gore Vidal called America and Christianity "death cults".
Last election, Bernie lost me when he didn't stand up to the DNC for screwing him and his
supporters. Instead he accepted the WH visit with Obama, came out with the deed for a
beachfront mansion in his pocket and a smile on his face. He's no more honest or truthful
than the rest of the carpetbaggers in D.C.
I went with Trump and will vote for him again; MAGA 2020. He's the most solution-based
President we will likely ever have in our lifetimes. Just look at what he's accomplished thus
far despite fighting off a coup de 'tat by his own FBI/DOJ!
"... This is not an unusual position. This is actually the normal position now, even among very conservative scholars, including the person who was the intellectual godfather of modern executive compensation, Michael Jensen. He has admitted that he spawned unintentionally a monster because CEOs have rigged the compensation system. How do they do that? Well, it starts even before you get hired as a CEO. This is amazing stuff. The standard thing you do as a powerful CEO is you hire this guy, and he specializes in negotiating great deals for CEOs. His first demand, which is almost always given into, is that the corporation pay his fee, not the CEO. On the other side of the table is somebody that the CEO is going to be the boss of negotiating the other side. How hard is he going to negotiate against the guy that's going to be his boss? That's totally rigged. ..."
"... Then the compensation committee hires compensation specialists who–again, even the most conservative economists agree it is a completely rigged system. Because the only way they get work is if they give this extraordinary compensation. Then, everybody in economics admits that there's a clear way you should run performance pay. It should be really long term. You get the big bucks only after like 10 years of success. In reality, they're always incredibly short term. Why? Because it's vastly easier for the CEO to rig the short-term reported earnings. What's the result of this? Accounting profession, criminology profession, economics profession, law profession. We've all done studies and all of them say this perverse system of compensation causes CEOs to (a) cheat and (b) to be extraordinarily short term in their perspective because it's easier to rig the short-term reported results. Even the most conservative economists agree that's terrible for the economy. ..."
"... That's what the right fear is more than anything, that people will basically get woke. In this, it's being woke to how individual systems have been rigged by the wealthy and powerful to create a sure thing to enrich them, usually at our direct expense. ..."
BILL BLACK: One of the principal things I study is elite fraud, corruption and predation.
The World Bank sent me to India for months as an anti-corruption alleged expert type. And as a
financial regulator, this is what I dealt with. This is what I researched. This is a huge chunk
of my life. So I wouldn't use the word, if I was being formal in an academic system, "the
system." What I would talk about is specific systems that are rigged, and they most assuredly
are rigged.
Let me give you an example. One of the most important things that has transformed the world
and made it vastly more criminogenic, much more corrupt, is modern executive compensation. This
is not an unusual position. This is actually the normal position now, even among very
conservative scholars, including the person who was the intellectual godfather of modern
executive compensation, Michael Jensen. He has admitted that he spawned unintentionally a
monster because CEOs have rigged the compensation system. How do they do that? Well, it starts
even before you get hired as a CEO. This is amazing stuff. The standard thing you do as a
powerful CEO is you hire this guy, and he specializes in negotiating great deals for CEOs. His
first demand, which is almost always given into, is that the corporation pay his fee, not the
CEO. On the other side of the table is somebody that the CEO is going to be the boss of
negotiating the other side. How hard is he going to negotiate against the guy that's going to
be his boss? That's totally rigged.
Then the compensation committee hires compensation specialists who–again, even the
most conservative economists agree it is a completely rigged system. Because the only way they
get work is if they give this extraordinary compensation. Then, everybody in economics admits
that there's a clear way you should run performance pay. It should be really long term. You get
the big bucks only after like 10 years of success. In reality, they're always incredibly short
term. Why? Because it's vastly easier for the CEO to rig the short-term reported earnings.
What's the result of this? Accounting profession, criminology profession, economics profession,
law profession. We've all done studies and all of them say this perverse system of compensation
causes CEOs to (a) cheat and (b) to be extraordinarily short term in their perspective because
it's easier to rig the short-term reported results. Even the most conservative economists agree
that's terrible for the economy.
What I've just gone through is a whole bunch of academic literature from over 40-plus years
from top scholars in four different fields. That's not cynicism. That's just plain facts if you
understand the system. People like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, they didn't, as you
say, kick open an open door. They made the open door. It's not like Elizabeth Warren started
talking about this six months ago when she started being a potential candidate. She has been
saying this and explaining in detail how individual systems are rigged in favor of the wealthy
for at least 30 years of work. Bernie Sanders has been doing it for 45 years. This is what the
right, including the author of this piece who is an ultra-far right guy, fear the most. It's
precisely what they fear, that Bernie and Elizabeth are good at explaining how particular
systems are rigged. They explain it in appropriate detail, but they're also good in making it
human. They talk the way humans talk as opposed to academics.
That's what the right fear is more than anything, that people will basically get woke. In
this, it's being woke to how individual systems have been rigged by the wealthy and powerful to
create a sure thing to enrich them, usually at our direct expense.
Donald Trump will be remembered as a humorous yet sad 4-year blip in the history of
America, where the People regrettably admit that this "entertainment age" was responsible for
their lack of judgement in 2016, and they learned that they shouldn't play games with
something as important to our country's honor and integrity as the office of the Presidency.
Fool me twice, shame on me.....
https://c.deployads.com/sync?f=html&s=2343&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nakedcapitalism.com%2F2019%2F08%2Freminder-dnc-lawyers-to-court-we-do-not-owe-voters-an-impartial-or-evenhanded-primary-election.html
<img src="http://b.scorecardresearch.com/p?c1=2&c2=16807273&cv=2.0&cj=1" />
Yves here. The DNC position on elections does much to explain the 2016 California primary,
which featured numerous reports by poll workers of dirty practices. Oddly, I saw two separate
videos with many detailed first person accounts of a range of abuses which now seem to be not
findable on Google. Oh, and there were no exit polls. Convenient, that.
As Jimmy Breslin wrote in his blurb, this is the best book ever written about legendary
Democratic Party boss Richard J. Daley, king of the smoke-filled back room deal. (Fun fact:
John Belushi played a character closely based on Royko in an early Lawrence Kasden film,
Continental Divide, that's well worth watching.)
This is your periodic reminder that the "Democratic Party" is not an organization that
Democratic voters belong to or have any right to control. The Democratic Party is instead a
private organization, much like a club, that non-members support by giving it their money,
their time and their votes. (The same is true of the "Republican Party.) All other "rights" and
promises offered by the Party to its supporters, including those obligations described in the
DNC charter, are not obligations at all, but voluntary gifts that can be withdrawn at any
time.
At least, that's how the DNC sees it.
Consider this report
of a 2017 court filing , one that almost no one noticed, in which Sanders supporters sued
the DNC for violating the section of its charter that requires DNC-run elections to be
"impartial" and "evenhanded." The DNC's defense was, in essence, "So what?" (emphasis added
below):
DNC Lawyers Argue DNC Has Right to Pick Candidates in Back Rooms
Attorneys claim the words 'impartial' and 'evenhanded' -- as used in the DNC Charter --
can't be interpreted by a court of law
On April 28 the transcript [pdf] was released
from the most recent
hearing at a federal court in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., on the
lawsuit filed on behalf of Bernie Sanders supporters against the Democratic National
Committee and former DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz for rigging the Democratic primaries
for Hillary Clinton. Throughout the hearing, lawyers representing the DNC
and Debbie Wasserman Schultz double[d] down on arguments confirming the disdain the
Democratic establishment has toward Bernie
Sanders supporters and any entity challenging the party's status quo.
Shortly into the hearing, DNC attorneys claim Article V, Section 4 of the DNC Charter
-- stipulating that the DNC chair and their staff must ensure
neutrality in the Democratic presidential primaries -- is "a discretionary rule that it
didn't need to adopt to begin with." Based on this assumption, DNC
attorneys assert that the court cannot interpret, claim, or rule on anything associated with
whether the DNC remains neutral
in their presidential primaries.
The attorneys representing the
DNC have previously argued that Sanders
supporters knew the primaries were rigged, therefore annulling any potential accountability
the DNC may have . In the latest hearing, they doubled down on this argument: "The Court
would have to find that people who fervently supported Bernie
Sanders and who purportedly didn't know that this favoritism was going on would have not
given to Mr. Sanders, to Senator Sanders
, if they had known that there was this purported favoritism."
"People paid money in reliance on the understanding that the primary elections for the
Democratic nominee -- nominating process in 2016 were fair and impartial," [Jared] Beck [the
attorney representing Sanders supporters in the class action lawsuit] said. "And that's not
just a bedrock assumption that we would assume just by virtue of the fact that we live in a
democracy, and we assume that our elections are run in a fair and impartial manner. But
that's what the Democratic National Committee's own charter says . It says it in black
and white. And they can't deny that." He added, " Not only is it in the charter, but it
was stated over and over again in the media by the Democratic National Committee's
employees , including Congresswoman Wassermann
Schultz , that they were, in fact, acting in compliance with the charter . And
they said it again and again, and we've cited several instances of that in the case."
According to this report, attorneys for the DNC argued that the DNC was not liable to
Sanders supporters if they threw the primary race to Clinton, or tilted it toward her,
because:
(a) Sanders supporters already knew the primary was rigged (did DNC lawyers really
say that?), and
(b) the DNC charter requirement that elections be "impartial" and "evenhanded" is
discretionary and not a requirement.
Shorter DNC lawyers: "We don't have to run an evenhanded primary, even if we say we're going
to."
About the second point , let's look at the court transcript itself. In this section,
the court asks: If Sanders supporters give money to an election run by the DNC, and if the DNC
violates its charter and runs an election that unfairly disadvantages Sanders, do Sanders
supporters have standing to sue?
DNC's response is below. "Mr. Spiva" is Bruce Spiva, one of the DNC's defense lawyers
(emphasis mine):
THE COURT: All right. Let me ask the defense -- we're going to go into the issue of
standing now at this point.
Let me ask counsel. If a person is fraudulently induced to donate to a charitable
organization, does he have standing to sue the person who induced the donation?
MR. SPIVA: I think, your Honor, if the circumstance were such that the [charitable]
organization promised that it was going to abide by some general principle, and the donee --
or donor, rather, ultimately sued, because they said, Well, we don't think you're living up
to that general principle, we don't think you're, you know, serving kids adequately, we think
your program is -- the way you're running your program is not adequate, you know, you're not
doing it well enough, that that -- that they would not have standing in that
circumstance .
[On the other hand] I think if somebody -- a charitable organization were to solicit funds
and say, Hey, we're gonna spend this money on after-school programs for kids, and the
executive director actually put the money in their pocket and went down the street and bought
a Mercedes-Benz, I think in that circumstance, they would have standing.
I think this circumstance is even one step further towards the no standing side of that,
because here we're talking about a political party and political principles and debate. And
that's an area where there's a wealth of doctrine and case law about how that -- just
simply giving money does not give one standing to direct how the party conducts its
affairs, or to complain about the outcomes, or whether or not the party is abiding by its own
internal rules .
And I should say, your Honor, I just want to be clear, because I know it may sometimes
sound like I am somehow suggesting that I think the party did not -- you know, the party's
position is that it has not violated in the least this provision of its charter.
THE COURT: I understand.
MR. SPIVA: So I just want to get that out there. But to even determine -- to make
that determination would require the Court to wade into this political thicket. And -- you
know, which would invade its First Amendment interests, and also, I think, would raise issues
-- standing issues along all three prongs of the standing test.
After a legal discussion of the "three prongs," the court asks this:
THE COURT: And then one other question on the issue of standing for the defense. Is
there a difference between a campaign promise made by a political candidate and a promise
that pertains to the integrity of the primary process itself? In other words, President
George H.W. Bush's --
MR. SPIVA: "Read my lips."
THE COURT: -- promise -- "read my lips, no new taxes," and then he raised taxes.
Well, he could not be sued for raising taxes. But with respect to the DNC charter ,
Article V, Section 4, is there a difference between the two?
MR. SPIVA:Not one -- there's obviously a difference in degree. I think your
Honor -- I'm not gonna -- I don't want to overreach and say that there's no difference. But I
don't think there's a difference that's material in terms of how the Court should decide the
question before it in terms of standing, in that this, again, goes to how the party runs
itself, how it decides who it's going to associate with, how it decides how it's going to
choose its standard bearer ultimately. In case after case, from O'Brien , to
Wymbs , to Wisconsin v. LaFollette , Cousins v. Wigoda , the Supreme
Court and other courts have affirmed the party's right to make that determination. Those
are internal issues that the party gets to decide basically without interference from the
courts .
[ ]
You know, again, if you had a charity where somebody said, Hey, I'm gonna take this money
and use it for a specific purpose, X, and they pocketed it and stole the money, of course
that's different.
But here, where you have a party that's saying, We're gonna, you know, choose our standard
bearer, and we're gonna follow these general rules of the road, which we are voluntarily
deciding, we could have -- and we could have voluntarily decided that, Look, we're gonna
go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way.
That's not the way it was done. But they could have. And that would have also been their
right , and it would drag the Court well into party politics, internal party politics to
answer those questions.
To this day the DNC believes that if it wanted to "go into back rooms" and "pick the
[presidential] candidate," this would "have been their right," and no one outside the
organization would have any right to enforce the DNC charter or interfere in any other way.
Good to know as we watch the 2020 machinations (for example,
this one ) unfold before us.
They actually do not care much about the victory. Being stooges of MIC and thesecond war
party means that they will be well fed anyway. Even without goverment positions.
Notable quotes:
"... Why doesn't the DNC want Gabbard in the debates? Two reasons come to mind. ..."
"... Firstly, her marquee issue is foreign policy. She thinks the US should be less militarily adventurous abroad, and as an army veteran of the post-9/11 round of American military interventions in the Middle East and Central Asia, she's got the credentials to make her points stick. ..."
"... Foreign policy is a weak spot for the increasingly hawkish Democratic establishment in general and the front-runner and current establishment pick, former vice-president Joe Biden, in particular. As a Senator, Biden voted to approve the ill-fated US invasion of Iraq. As vice-president, he supported President Barack Obama's extension of the war in Afghanistan and Obama's ham-handed interventions in Libya, Syria, and other countries where the US had no business meddling. The party's leaders would rather not talk about foreign policy at all and if they have to talk about it they don't want candidates coloring outside simplistic "Russia and China bad" lines. ..."
"... Gabbard damaged -- probably fatally -- the establishment's pre-Biden pick, US Senator Kamala Harris, by pointing out Harris's disgusting authoritarian record as California's attorney general. Gabbard knows how to land a punch, and the DNC doesn't want any more surprises. They're looking for a coronation, not a contest. ..."
President Donald Trump faces an exceedingly narrow path to
re-election in 2020. In order to beat him, the Democratic nominee only needs to pick up 38
electoral votes. With more than 100 electoral votes in play in states that Trump won narrowly
in 2016 -- especially Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Florida -- all the Democrats have
to do is pick a nominee ever so slightly more popular than Hillary Clinton.
That's a low bar that the Democratic National Committee seems determined, once again, to not
get over. As in 2016, the DNC is putting its finger on the scale in favor of "establishment"
candidates, the sentiments of the rank and file be damned.
Last time, the main victim was Bernie Sanders. This time, it's Tulsi Gabbard.
Michael Tracey delivers the gory details in a column at RealClearPolitics. Here's the short
version:
By selectively disqualifying polls in which Gabbard (a US Representative from Hawaii)
performs above the 2% threshold for inclusion in the next round of primary debates, the DNC is
trying to exclude her while including candidates with much lower polling and fundraising
numbers.
Why doesn't the DNC want Gabbard in the debates? Two reasons come to mind.
Firstly, her marquee issue is foreign policy. She thinks the US should be less
militarily adventurous abroad, and as an army veteran of the post-9/11 round of American
military interventions in the Middle East and Central Asia, she's got the credentials to make
her points stick.
Foreign policy is a weak spot for the increasingly hawkish Democratic establishment in
general and the front-runner and current establishment pick, former vice-president Joe Biden,
in particular. As a Senator, Biden voted to approve the ill-fated US invasion of Iraq. As
vice-president, he supported President Barack Obama's extension of the war in Afghanistan and
Obama's ham-handed interventions in Libya, Syria, and other countries where the US had no
business meddling. The party's leaders would rather not talk about foreign policy at all and if
they have to talk about it they don't want candidates coloring outside simplistic "Russia and
China bad" lines.
Secondly, Gabbard damaged -- probably fatally -- the establishment's pre-Biden pick, US
Senator Kamala Harris, by pointing out Harris's disgusting authoritarian record as California's
attorney general. Gabbard knows how to land a punch, and the DNC doesn't want any more
surprises. They're looking for a coronation, not a contest.
If the DNC has its way, next year's primaries will simply ratify the establishment pick,
probably a Joe Biden / Elizabeth Warren ticket, without a bunch of fuss and argument.
And if that happens, the Democratic Party will face the same problem it faced in 2016: The
rank and file may not be very motivated to turn off their televisions and go vote.
Whatever their failings, rank and file Democrats seem to like well, democracy. They want to
pick their party's nominees, not have those nominees picked for them in advance. Can't say I
blame them.
Nor will I blame them for not voting -- or voting Libertarian -- if the DNC ignores them and
limits their choices yet again. Join the debate on
Facebook More articles by: Thomas KnappThomas L. Knapp is
director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy
Journalism ( thegarrisoncenter.org
). He lives and works in north central Florida.
Images removed... See the original with full set of pictures
Notable quotes:
"... Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, who gave up her DNC career to back Bernie Sanders in 2016 is the candidate the establishment most fears. Tulsi has more than met the debate criteria in the number of unique donations and in poll numbers in 26 of the most respected national polls, but the DNC, fearing she will take down another Establishment candidate, is refusing to let Tulsi into the third debate against candidates who have lower polling numbers in most polls and significantly fewer unique contributions than Tulsi has. The problem (or maybe plan) is that the smaller "DNC approved" polls have mostly been avoiding polling over the last month as a block to allowing Tulsi into the third debate. ..."
"... People fed up with the Democratic Party have encouraged both Tulsi and Bernie to run together as independent candidates. Tulsi especially has cross-party appeal for independents. Bernie is popular across the board as well and many view them as an unbeatable ticket, no matter what their political affiliation. Most Americans are independents or third party members by almost a two to one margin over the registrants of either of the major parties. However, because their Congressional seats are considered critical to fighting the military industrial complex and Wall Street, it is doubtful either Tulsi or Bernie will run as an independent. ..."
Tom Perez, Nancy Pelosi and Rusty Hicks
(
Image by Henry Samson) DetailsDMCA
This is the question that was asked by a great many DNC/CDP members last weekend as they
tried to understand the scheduling debacle that pitted the Democratic National Committee
Meeting in San Francisco against the California Democratic Party meeting in San Jose (one to
three hours away, depending on traffic). On the two main days for both events, August 23rd and
24 th , attendees had to choose which to attend and which to miss. It turned out
that the CDP did better on overall attendance than the DNC. When Tom Perez spoke, there were
about a hundred delegates in the DNC ballroom. The crowd significantly increased when Bernie
spoke. At the CDP meeting, the crowd in the general sessions ranged between about 300 and
500.
Empty Seats at DNC during Perez's Speech
(
Image by Henry Samson) DetailsDMCA
As Bernie was about to speak at the DNC Friday afternoon meeting, Kamala Harris's supporters
loudly walked out of the hall and continued to make noise outside in a seeming attempt to drown
out Bernie. One might think this would create disfavor with the DNC. However, most party
leaders said they were supporting a Harris/Warren ticket, leading some progressives to wonder
if this was an officially- -sanctioned affront against Bernie. The DNC was in charge of the
microphone volume and there no lack of security to handle the problem.
Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, who gave up her DNC career to back Bernie Sanders in 2016 is
the candidate the establishment most fears. Tulsi has more than met the debate criteria in the
number of unique donations and in poll numbers in 26 of the most respected national polls, but
the DNC, fearing she will take down another Establishment candidate, is refusing to let Tulsi
into the third debate against candidates who have lower polling numbers in most polls and
significantly fewer unique contributions than Tulsi has. The problem (or maybe plan) is that
the smaller "DNC approved" polls have mostly been avoiding polling over the last month as a
block to allowing Tulsi into the third debate.
Bernie activists who have reportedly learned that the DNC plans to go after him, once Tulsi
was out of the way, chose not to take things lying down. Tulsi is the only candidate with a
history of having Bernie's back. Several activists went to party leaders and asked point blank
whether blocking popular candidates like Tulsi Gabbard and Bernie Sanders from being nominated
would be worth a second term for Donald Trump. To the surprise of the activists, leaders spoken
to were clear that holding Bernie and Tulsi to the contract they were forced to sign before the
first debate was more important than fairness and beating Donald Trump. Some leaders talked
about which candidates they planned run in 2024 if Trump was re-elected. An assistant to one of
the party bosses, who asked not to be identified for fear of losing his job, pointed out that
the DNC actually makes more money as a result of anger about Donald Trump's Presidency than
they would if a popular progressive, such as Bernie Sanders or Tulsi Gabbard, became President.
One person pointed out that a ticket with Warren and Harris would be labeled progressive and
the expected loss would be used to McGovern or kill the progressive movement within the
party.
Tulsi Gabbard on Video at DNC Meeting
( Image
by Henry Samson) DetailsDMCA
Tulsi Gabbard had been re-deployed prior to the DNC meeting and was only able to attend by
pre-recorded video. Interestingly, at the DNC meeting, her table was placed in a corner away
from everyone. The supporters at her table were told to sit there like good little children.
One Tulsi supporter broke the mold and handed out copies of Senator Mike Gravel's endorsement
letter of Tulsi Gabbard inside the DNC meeting. The letter on Gravel's stationary called Tulsi
"the most qualified and prepared candidate." At the CDP event, the Gabbard supporters weren't
sitting in a corner. Everyone who attended the larger CDP meeting received a copy of Gravel's
endorsement letter and other literature in support of Gabbard. It was reported that over one
thousand pieces of Tulsi literature were distributed to Democrats attending the CDP Executive
Board meetings and caucuses. The attendees there were greeted by a giant volunteer-printed
banner at the ballroom door at both general sessions. Top-behind-the-scenes DNC leader Bob
Mulhulland was seen studying Tulsi's military picture on the banner.
Tulsi Banner Outside CDP General Assembly Room
( Image
by Henry Samson) DetailsDMCA
The treatment of the press at the DNC event was rather interesting. The ballroom there was
divided into two sections with the press at the back. DNC members could just walk in and out of
their section of the room but the press section had metal detectors with guards searching bags
and repeatedly running wands over reporters as if they were terrorists. The CDP meetings were
significantly more relaxed. No metal detectors, wands or searches.
Taking considerable floor time at the final CDP floor session was the issue of whether it
was OK for Israelis to detain and torture Palestinian children. The fact that there was an
argument between two sides to this issue on the floor shows how far the Democratic Party has
fallen. At one time, the Democratic Party was seen as the party of peace. Now it is generally
viewed as the party of war, pitting peaceniks Tulsi and Bernie at odds with the Democratic
Establishment
At the CDP meeting, there was a great deal of dissatisfaction. According to past and current
officials, the standing committee membership is less diverse than ever before. To fake
diversity, a single individual fitting multiple categories was treated as multiple people. Most
disabled people were cut from the standing committees. Supporters of one of Chairman Rusty
Hick's opponents were summarily thrown off any committees that could make a difference in the
party's positions on in the election. Five of the supporters of Berniecrat Daraka
Larimore-Hall, who had been long-standing members of the Voter Services Committee, reported
being suddenly removed without explanation. These were the most active Voting Services
Committee members in terms of trying to improve voter integrity and protect the rights of
voters. When questioned about the removals, Committee Chairman Jess Durfee said it was Rusty
who had thrown these Berniecrats off the committee and that there was nothing he could do about
it.
The priorities of the Voters Services Committee have changed as well. Removed from the goals
were diversity and integrity of the vote (as in making sure all registered voters could vote
regular ballots). Removed as a lead subcommittee chairman was a party delegate who had pushed
through a call for expanding voting rights to felon prisoners and ensuring that registered
voters were not disenfranchised due to election oddities. Instead, that subcommittee chairman
was relegated to being a secondary assistant below the subcommittee assistant chairman on the
subcommittee to which he was assigned this year.
There was some talk of a lawsuit over the committee assignment questionnaire. There were two
sex-related questions, one of which demanded to know the sexual orientation of the applicants.
All those who refused to answer on the grounds that it violated their privacy were denied
committee positions. Also denied standing committee positions were all civil rights attorneys
and all criminal defense attorneys.
People fed up with the Democratic Party have encouraged both Tulsi and Bernie to run
together as independent candidates. Tulsi especially has cross-party appeal for independents.
Bernie is popular across the board as well and many view them as an unbeatable ticket, no
matter what their political affiliation. Most Americans are independents or third party members
by almost a two to one margin over the registrants of either of the major parties. However,
because their Congressional seats are considered critical to fighting the military industrial
complex and Wall Street, it is doubtful either Tulsi or Bernie will run as an independent.
Henry Samson has been a professor of political science and legal ethics and an advisor to many successful candidates
for public office. He is currently working on a book about the inequality crisis in America
"... The true third rail of US politics is empire. Any candidate that is publicly against the empire is the enemy of not only the state, it's quislings in the media, the corporations who profit from it and the party machines of both the GOP and the DNC. ..."
"... That is Gabbard's crime. And it's the only crime that matters. ..."
"... When the Empire is on the line, left and right in the US close ranks and unite against the threat. The good news is that all they have is their pathetic Russia bashing and appeals to their authority on foreign policy. ..."
"... One person, a DNC official to be precise, pointed out that: a ticket with Warren and Harris would be labeled progressive and the expected loss would be used to McGovern or kill the progressive movement within the party. ..."
"... So, there we have it. The war mongering neo cons and neo liberals are welcome in the Democratic (sic) Party, but us peace loving, non-imperialist progressives are not. Which explains, among a lot of more important things, why a pushy Dem. operative thinks she can come to my house without notice or invitation and insult me because I don't like her gal Hillary. ..."
I'm sure most people here are no strangers to the realization that the DNC is an abusive,
anti-democratic, tyrannical, Establishment organization that has its head up its own orifice
(that is, when it isn't busy burying its nose way up that of the crooked Clintons ).
Presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard has met and exceeded the stated qualifying
criteria necessary to participate in the 3rd and 4th Democratic Party debates by any
objective measurement -- by having over 165,000 independent donors, and by polling over 2%
in 26 separate polls -- including those in early Primary States such as New Hampshire and
South Carolina.
But according to the DNC there are " qualifying polls " and non-qualifying polls --
to which they, and they alone, are the sole determinant and arbitrator of.
Thus by the authority of the DNC (and not the actual voters themselves) she only has just
two " qualifying polls " (less than the 4 threshold number) -- all those 24 other
independent polls do not count - and no explanation is given (or needed apparently) as to
why.
So they will declare her unfit, and deem her to be excluded from the Debate Stage, as they
seek to drive the only Anti-War, Pro-American, Anti-Globalist, progressive candidate out of the
race (who also attracts support from both the left and the right, and has the distinction of
being the most Google-Searched Democratic candidate following both of the earlier
Democratic Debates).
This outrage tells you everything about how the process of running for President in this
Country is totally controlled like .. i dunno an Iron Curtain . Anti-War, Anti-Establishment
candidates must be made invisible by any means necessary (no matter how much of the entire
process is exposed as a total farce to accomplish that end).
Jimmy Dore helps to illustrate just how totally arbitrary and absurdly unfair this is -- not
just to Tulsi Gabbard, but unfair for the American public trying to evaluate their potential
voting options and take control of their future .
So the question then is, what
should Tulsi Gabbard do now?
Create a new, live Internet Debate Stream that might possibly draw more viewership than
the dying "Fake News" Cable TV shows.
Run as an Independent candidate (but how does she get on the State ballots?)
Sue the DNC?
I'm not sure what the most effective strategy is. This is an open discussion. But this whole
process needs to be publicly discredited and shown for the tyranny and political repression
that it is. The DNC is the enemy of the people.
I don't have that much faith in Bernie anymore. His full-throated support for Hillary
Clinton in 2016, and rejection of Jill Stein -- along with him giving multiple Clinton
corruptions and scandals a complete pass (nothing to see folks), and covering up the
DNC's efforts to defeat his own campaign -- turned him into a hypocrite, and a false
messenger. You can't talk about the need for "Revolution", and then run straight into the
arms of the Establishment -- kissing their feet and protecting them.
Meanwhile Sanders has bought several lavish Lake Houses in Vermont (as his payoff?) while
he complains about the lifestyles of the rich, and has become preoccupied with useless "
Identity Politics " divisiveness, boring, mindless
Racism/White-Supremacist/Homophobe narratives, and the dishonest Russia-gate
fear mongering (created by the Deep State). It is hard to take Sanders seriously anymore.
Tulsi Gabbard was different . She wasn't playing into any of the false
divisions , and the false narratives. She never wasted a moment on "Impeachment", or
chasing phony Deep-State setups. She knows what is real, and what is not real.
But as Jimmy Dore pointed out in the Video, Bernie Sanders now won't even come to the
defense of Tulsi Gabbard, even though she put her neck on the line for him (back in
2016). Instead Sanders covers up for the likes of the crooked Clintons . That tells
you something about Sanders real character. I'm no longer impressed with him.
Tulsi Gabbard or bust for me.
I've long liked Tulsi's courage, contributed a few bucks to get her on the debate
stage, and have faith she will do what's right when the time comes.
Edit/add: Unless she endorses anybody aside from Bernie.
. . . has written some really great articles opposed to identity politics. You might
consider googling them. I don't think Bernie is at all a proponent of the primacy of identity
politics. He is constantly being criticized by IdPol proponents for placing an overriding
emphasis on class.
While his takes on Russia are a bit off kilter, misguided and unwise in my estimation, I
would not call them "fear mongering."
I wound up voting Green in 2016. Bernie lived to run another day by doing what he did.
Most of his supporters have forgiven him or haven't given it a second thought. But if his
endorsing her bothers you that much, it's certainly your right to object to it. For me, his
campaigning alone has made socialism an issue. That's something in and of itself and pretty,
pretty dang good in my estimation.
And whatever will you do if Tulsi endorses Bernie? Consign her to the depths of hell for
evermore? And what if she endorses WARren or Biden et al or gawdforbid Hillary? Aside from
Bernie, I don't think any of the other candidates would want her campaigning for them. If
Bernie gets nominated, I hope she's ensured of a prominent spot in his administration.
She might be able to turn a negative (DNC) into a positive and exploit the situation. She
could do some Internet events, and Tucker Carlson would put her on TV again, and she might be
able to create some public outrage, build some momentum .. and force, by public sentiment, to
allow her back in some later Debates.
And if she supports Bernie, Bernie might just ignore or dismiss it. I don't think he has
any real loyalty to her.
Tulsi is a uniquely courageous person and a wonderful presidential candidate. If there was
ranked voting, she'd definitely be my #2. Aside from Bernie, she's the only presidential
candidate for whom I'd even consider voting.
I'm not going to suggest she drop out but if she does, I hope she endorses Bernie.
If Bernie is the nominee, I'm sure she will endorse him, just as I'm pretty darn sure she
will endorse any other nominee given that she signed off on exactly that to become a
candidate herself.
I'd say I hope you don't give up on her come those circumstances, but if it gets to that
point, I'm giving up on politics period.
Meanwhile Sanders has bought several lavish Lake Houses in Vermont (as his payoff?)
Please provide evidence for this claim.
Bernie and Jane bought one (repeat one ) vacation property situated on the shore of Lake
Champlain. They bought it before 2016, using money Jane inherited from her parents. The
purchase price was around $600K, if I recall, which is pretty darn cheap for a vacation home.
I've seen pictures of it. It's far from "lavish". Looks more like a middle-class vacation
cabin.
You know, there are arguments you could make about Bernie that would be worth discussion.
His dropping out of the race before Philly, for instance. This crap about "Bernie's rich, he
owns a lot of fancy houses and flaunts his ill-gotten wealth" isn't one of them.
Tulsi's in it for the long haul. I don't think she expects to become POTUS this time
around. At present, she seems to be positioning herself, making herself known to the public,
building a base of support, and no doubt exploring alliances. I'm looking forward to seeing
what she does. Warrior Tulsi.
@Centaurea in my humble opinion. There are a couple of things to note here. The main
thing that spurs Tulsi to run is not for being the first anything or for self glorification.
Her campaign is based upon her own strong beliefs against regime change wars, using those
monies here in the US to help the people, and her belief in environmental stewardship.
Whether or not people like or support Tulsi Gabbard, no one can question her courage to go
against the MIC and other powers that be. She is not ready to quit yet. I have felt from the
beginning that Tulsi is running now for the future. My personal belief is that she will be a
great President due to her courage, intelligence and leadership skills. I am hoping that if
Bernie becomes President, he will appoint Tulsi as Secretary of State where her skills will
be very valuable.
Yeah, I can dream, but if you are going to dream, dream big.
Tulsi's in it for the long haul. I don't think she expects to become POTUS this time
around. At present, she seems to be positioning herself, making herself known to the
public, building a base of support, and no doubt exploring alliances. I'm looking forward
to seeing what she does. Warrior Tulsi.
The true third rail of US politics is empire. Any candidate that is publicly against the
empire is the enemy of not only the state, it's quislings in the media, the corporations
who profit from it and the party machines of both the GOP and the DNC.
That is Gabbard's crime. And it's the only crime that matters.
When the Empire is on the line, left and right in the US close ranks and unite against
the threat. The good news is that all they have is their pathetic Russia bashing and
appeals to their authority on foreign policy.
Foreign policy, by the way, that most people in America, frankly, despise.
Every word of that is so true it makes me want to weep. I don't cry easily.
Thanks for posting that link! It will be shared, several times.
that the DNC would rather lose with a "centrist" than win with Bernie or Tulsi:
Bernie activists who have reportedly learned that the DNC plans to go after him, once
Tulsi was out of the way, chose not to take things lying down. Tulsi is the only candidate
with a history of having Bernie's back. Several activists went to party leaders and asked
point blank whether blocking popular candidates like Tulsi Gabbard and Bernie Sanders from
being nominated would be worth a second term for Donald Trump. To the surprise of the
activists, leaders spoken to were clear that holding Bernie and Tulsi to the contract they
were forced to sign before the first debate was more important than fairness and beating
Donald Trump. Some leaders talked about which candidates they planned run in 2024 if Trump
was re-elected. An assistant to one of the party bosses, who asked not to be identified for
fear of losing his job, pointed out that the DNC actually makes more money as a result of
anger about Donald Trump's Presidency than they would if a popular progressive, such as
Bernie Sanders or Tulsi Gabbard, became President. One person pointed out that a ticket with
Warren and Harris would be labeled progressive and the expected loss would be used to
McGovern or kill the progressive movement within the party.
The report is at open democracy.com and is worth reading in its' entirety. It seems that
the Democrats scheduled a meeting of the DNC in SF and meetings of the California Democratic
Party in San Jose (abt. 2-3hrs. away, best is to ride the BART) the same day. Party hack Tom
Perez drew about 100 to his speech at the DNC.
a ticket with Warren and Harris would be labeled progressive and the expected loss would
be used to McGovern or kill the progressive movement within the party
Yet a loss by Hillary isn't blamed on centrists but is, instead, somehow, used to McGovern
or kill....
that the DNC would rather lose with a "centrist" than win with Bernie or Tulsi:
Bernie activists who have reportedly learned that the DNC plans to go after him, once
Tulsi was out of the way, chose not to take things lying down. Tulsi is the only
candidate with a history of having Bernie's back. Several activists went to party leaders
and asked point blank whether blocking popular candidates like Tulsi Gabbard and Bernie
Sanders from being nominated would be worth a second term for Donald Trump. To the
surprise of the activists, leaders spoken to were clear that holding Bernie and Tulsi to
the contract they were forced to sign before the first debate was more important than
fairness and beating Donald Trump. Some leaders talked about which candidates they
planned run in 2024 if Trump was re-elected. An assistant to one of the party bosses, who
asked not to be identified for fear of losing his job, pointed out that the DNC actually
makes more money as a result of anger about Donald Trump's Presidency than they would if
a popular progressive, such as Bernie Sanders or Tulsi Gabbard, became President. One
person pointed out that a ticket with Warren and Harris would be labeled progressive and
the expected loss would be used to McGovern or kill the progressive movement within the
party.
The report is at open democracy.com and is worth reading in its' entirety. It seems
that the Democrats scheduled a meeting of the DNC in SF and meetings of the California
Democratic Party in San Jose (abt. 2-3hrs. away, best is to ride the BART) the same day.
Party hack Tom Perez drew about 100 to his speech at the DNC.
@Nastarana
I went to opendemocracy.net and couldn't find this content.
that the DNC would rather lose with a "centrist" than win with Bernie or Tulsi:
Bernie activists who have reportedly learned that the DNC plans to go after him, once
Tulsi was out of the way, chose not to take things lying down. Tulsi is the only
candidate with a history of having Bernie's back. Several activists went to party leaders
and asked point blank whether blocking popular candidates like Tulsi Gabbard and Bernie
Sanders from being nominated would be worth a second term for Donald Trump. To the
surprise of the activists, leaders spoken to were clear that holding Bernie and Tulsi to
the contract they were forced to sign before the first debate was more important than
fairness and beating Donald Trump. Some leaders talked about which candidates they
planned run in 2024 if Trump was re-elected. An assistant to one of the party bosses, who
asked not to be identified for fear of losing his job, pointed out that the DNC actually
makes more money as a result of anger about Donald Trump's Presidency than they would if
a popular progressive, such as Bernie Sanders or Tulsi Gabbard, became President. One
person pointed out that a ticket with Warren and Harris would be labeled progressive and
the expected loss would be used to McGovern or kill the progressive movement within the
party.
The report is at open democracy.com and is worth reading in its' entirety. It seems
that the Democrats scheduled a meeting of the DNC in SF and meetings of the California
Democratic Party in San Jose (abt. 2-3hrs. away, best is to ride the BART) the same day.
Party hack Tom Perez drew about 100 to his speech at the DNC.
One person, a DNC official to be precise, pointed out that:
a ticket with Warren and Harris would be labeled progressive and the expected loss would
be used to McGovern or kill the progressive movement within the party.
So, there we have it. The war mongering neo cons and neo liberals are welcome in the
Democratic (sic) Party, but us peace loving, non-imperialist progressives are not. Which
explains, among a lot of more important things, why a pushy Dem. operative thinks she can
come to my house without notice or invitation and insult me because I don't like her gal
Hillary.
@Nastarana Harris has been plunging in the polls. I think Tulsi finished her off.
Why would any nominee want to have an unpopular pol on the ticket? Not much of a chance of
that, so no need to worry about any Harris presence on the ticket or threat in any way.
As for the DNC possibly preferring Trump b/c it leads to better fundraising, the RNC is
currently outraising the DNC by 2-to-1. Apparently Ds just aren't that angry. Or are
channeling their anger in other ways.
One person, a DNC official to be precise, pointed out that:
a ticket with Warren and Harris would be labeled progressive and the expected loss
would be used to McGovern or kill the progressive movement within the party.
So, there we have it. The war mongering neo cons and neo liberals are welcome in the
Democratic (sic) Party, but us peace loving, non-imperialist progressives are not. Which
explains, among a lot of more important things, why a pushy Dem. operative thinks she can
come to my house without notice or invitation and insult me because I don't like her gal
Hillary.
Tulsi did finish her off, but the DNC is trying to prop her back up again by removing
Tulsi from the picture.
I don't think Bernie is principled enough, or bold enough (based on his handling of 2016
and the Clintons/DNC) to ever select Tulsi Gabbard as his V.P.
But I do see him selecting someone (corrupt) like K. Harris just to check-off the "woman
box". So Harris may have life after all due to the DNC rigging of things.
#7
Harris has been plunging in the polls. I think Tulsi finished her off.
Why would any nominee want to have an unpopular pol on the ticket? Not much of a
chance of that, so no need to worry about any Harris presence on the ticket or threat in
any way.
As for the DNC possibly preferring Trump b/c it leads to better fundraising, the RNC
is currently outraising the DNC by 2-to-1. Apparently Ds just aren't that angry. Or are
channeling their anger in other ways.
with a link at the very least. So if you have one, please share it.
Some guy said that he heard this and he told someone who told me . . . .
One person, a DNC official to be precise, pointed out that: a ticket with Warren and Harris would be labeled progressive and the expected loss
would be used to McGovern or kill the progressive movement within the party.
So, there we have it. The war mongering neo cons and neo liberals are welcome in the
Democratic (sic) Party, but us peace loving, non-imperialist progressives are not. Which
explains, among a lot of more important things, why a pushy Dem. operative thinks she can
come to my house without notice or invitation and insult me because I don't like her gal
Hillary.
tossed out the suit against the DNC filed by Jared Beck, Elizabeth Beck, and Niko House,
the DNC doesn't have single worry about how they conduct their political business. The
declined prosecution against the DNC established the DNC's legal rights to make whatever
decisions they want in smoke-filled rooms. There should be no doubt the DNC gets what Killary
wants. This is why H. Rodent Clinton enters the race, erupting with all the subtlety of lava
flowing down the slopes of Mauna Loa (or Karatoa, etc.)
7 polls that were supposed to be qualifying have not and are not going to be taken.
Seems to me, the DNC needs to include 7 of the polls that were taken, which would put Tulsi
in.
but they won't. There's a reason they only took 10 of the 17 polls. It's rigged again.
"... I just hope Bernie sees that Russiagate emerged partly as a neoliberal defense against his appeal. Clinton-Obama wing needed an excuse for its loss & a defense against rising progressives. That's why MSNBC et al have used it to taint Bernie's campaign. ..."
"... The ensuing thread accurately mirrors the discussion about Sanders here: Is he playing politics or is he really lame, etc. IMO, Sanders seems like an intelligent man with a good memory to match. He can grasp rather complex issues and boil them down to their essentials. But, for some reason he can't/won't do this with Russiagate. ..."
"... More on Sanders and Russiagate ..."
"... Then there's Sanders woeful stance on Imperial Policy. He reminds me of the song about the walking contradiction, although on the nuts & bolts of this issue as he's framed it, he's mostly correct. Perhaps if he were 100% honest and said: I'm going to put an end to the CIA's Project Mockingbird. ..."
"... One of the reasons why American politics has always been so corrupt is the refusal of honest people to get involved with the crooks. Sanders is a crook, in the sense that he can be deceitful-he backs the F35 for chrissake- but he is the only option in 2020. And the best option there has been since Henry Wallace. Oh, yes and he is politically, about 10,000 times better than either of the Kennedys. ..."
"... He entered the race to "raise issues", not to defeat Hillary, his "friend of 25 years". ..."
Aaron
Mate on Russiagate's continuance as an attack on Sanders and Sanders seeming
unwillingness to deal effectively with it due to his initial gullibility:
"I wish Bernie didn't peddle Russiagate, but he's in a different position than the
rest of us. If he didn't go along w/ it, the media & political class would make life
even more difficult for him than they already do. That's how cynical politics work."
" I just hope Bernie sees that Russiagate emerged partly as a neoliberal defense
against his appeal. Clinton-Obama wing needed an excuse for its loss & a defense
against rising progressives. That's why MSNBC et al have used it to taint Bernie's
campaign. "
The ensuing thread accurately mirrors the discussion about Sanders here: Is he
playing politics or is he really lame, etc. IMO, Sanders seems like an intelligent man with
a good memory to match. He can grasp rather complex issues and boil them down to their
essentials. But, for some reason he can't/won't do this with Russiagate.
Is he actually being honest and thus displaying a great deal of gullibility, or is he
being dishonest, actually understands what's happening, but refuses to speak out on the
issue; or is it some other formula? None of those are trust enhancing and are akin to the
description of Warren I noted above.
Sanders seems like an intelligent man with a good memory to match. He can grasp
rather complex issues and boil them down to their essentials. But, for some reason he
can't/won't do this with Russiagate. Is he actually being honest......
Posted by: karlof1 | Aug 26 2019 21:24 UTC
Well, d'oh!
Insiders, however, get lots of access and a chance to push their ideas. People —
powerful people — listen to what they have to say. But insiders also understand one
unbreakable rule: They don’t criticize other insiders.
Sanders made a significant move in the poker game he is playing with Warren and the
oligarchy. He called for the nationalisation of the energy industry.
Among the points he made were :
1/"Reaching 100 percent renewable energy for electricity and transportation by no later than
2030, and complete decarbonization by 2050 at the latest. Key to this achievement will be
expanding the existing federal Power Marketing Administrations to build new solar, wind, and
geothermal energy sources..."
2/" Ending unemployment by creating 20 million good paying, union jobs in steel and auto
manufacturing, construction, energy efficiency retrofitting, coding and server farms, and
renewable power plants. The plan would also see the creation of millions of jobs in
sustainable agriculture, engineering, a reimagined and expanded Civilian Conservation Corp,
and preserving public lands.
3/"Direct public investment of $16.3 trillion toward these efforts, in line with the
mobilization of resources made during the New Deal and WWII, but with an explicit choice to
include black, indigenous and other minority communities who were systematically excluded in
the past.
4/"A just transition that prioritizes fossil fuel workers, guaranteeing five years at
current salary, housing assistance, job training, health care, pension support, and priority
job placement for any displaced worker, as well as early retirement support for those who
choose it or can no longer work."
In doing this he is defying the Establishment, from the Chambers of Commerce to the
Academy, and throwing the socialist gauntlet down. It remains to be seen whether the American
people will pick it up and change, perhaps save, the world. This is how political change
begins, with the publication of a programme of policies and an objective. Sanders is ensuring
that any "Green New Deal" will include ending unemployment and reversing the dismantling of
the Labour movement.
All he needs now is about a million volunteers to campaign for these things and to ensure
that, for the first time in many years, the electorate have a clear idea of what they are
voting for and what is within their grasp.
Of course he also needs about 400 candidates for the House of Representatives, thousands to
run in State races and a slate of Senators.
Mitch McConnell: You need to explain to the people of Kentucky why you believe that we
should do nothing to stop Russia from interfering with our elections. Stop obstructing
legislation to protect our democracy.
1:49 PM - 25 Aug 2019 from Washington, DC "
More on Sanders and Russiagate as he's certainly a hypocrite to say the
following without also slamming the gross propaganda narrative that's Russiagate :
"We cannot sit by and allow corporations, billionaires, and demagogues to destroy the
Fourth Estate, nor can we allow them to replace serious reporting with infotainment and
propaganda."
And where was this outburst in 2016? Yes, as bevin reports, I see he's made yet another
sensible proposal, but Trump's MAGA was hypothetically sensible too.
Then there's Sanders woeful stance on Imperial Policy. He reminds me of the song about
the walking contradiction, although on the nuts & bolts of this issue as he's framed it,
he's mostly correct. Perhaps if he were 100% honest and said: I'm going to put an end to the
CIA's Project Mockingbird.
Thanks for holding Bernie's feet to the fire, karlof1 - the electorate has to have learned
something from 2016 and all his excellent sounding programs don't make up for the fact that
he did not cast off from clearly dishonest electioneering by the party elites when it
counted. Had he done so I think that many would have gone to support him and things might be
very different today. My own pivot point happened when Jill Stein offered to have him join
her and he totally ignored her. It will take a lot for me to support him now, and some of
that has to include an honest appraisal of what happened in 2016.
"What good does it do us or Sanders for him to denounce BigLie Media while continuing to
give credence/credibility to the #1 BigLie its made continually over the past THREE
years?!"
karlofi @193
Here's an answer. The lie is dead now. It has lost its power to fascinate. It no longer
matters except as an example of the DNC's deceifulness/dishonesty.
But while it was still circulating Sanders had nothing to gain-and, I'm not being
complimentary, he is very shrewd politician, and realised that the DNC wanted him to say-what
every sane person in the world knew- that the charges against Putin and Trump were ludicrous.
And we know what happened to people who said that, don't we? They were drummed to the
margins, called Putinbots and Trump apologists etc. And not allowed to open their mouths
withoutr being accused of working for the Kremlin.
Sanders is clever enough to insist on fighting on his own terms, rather than those that
Podesta and the MSM decide upon.
And that is why, while we were all laughing at Russiagate, Sanders pretended to be taking
it seriously.
And is now fighting the campaign on his terms, as outlined above.
If you look back at William Jennings Bryan, for example, in 1896. Or FDR in 1932/36. You
will find that they were both incredibly compromised and, for the purist, impossible to back.
FDR's mentor in the Party, who organised much of his campaign and was part of the inner
circle, Josephus Daniels was responsible for the long delayed 'redemption' of North Carolina
and for the Wilmington race riots. FDR was backed by some of the least savoury Jim Crow
bosses, the Klan and criminal urban machines. But you had to back him. Just as you had to
back Bryan in 96.
One of the reasons why American politics has always been so corrupt is the refusal of
honest people to get involved with the crooks. Sanders is a crook, in the sense that he can
be deceitful-he backs the F35 for chrissake- but he is the only option in 2020. And the best
option there has been since Henry Wallace. Oh, yes and he is politically, about 10,000 times
better than either of the Kennedys.
Please remember that many people voted for Trump just because they can't vote for warmonger
Hillary and/or to show middle finger to the Washington neoliberal establishment.
Everybody understand that he is just another billionaire with very shady past and
questionable connection in NYC, but some people hoped that like FDR he can be the traitor of his
own class. They were severely disappointed.
Voting is severely screwed in the USA as you are allowed to select out of two usually
pre-selected by the elite candidates (Pepsi-Cola choice) but that all we have.
With all her warts, Tulsi foreign policy agenda is the most realistic and anti-war among all
Democratic Candidates. And that's something to vote for.
Just rewatched your appearance on "CrossTalk on Tulsi Gabbard: Peace Candidate." I've been
somewhat manic about championing her, generally sharing her anti-war message, but
periodically suffering some sucker-punch. Her supporters point to the smear campaign launched
at her by neocons and neolibs as evidence of her threat to the MIC and establishment. There's
a disconnect in that assertion. I wonder if either side realizes how conventional her
positions are in general. Is there any real evidence that her understanding (lack of same) on
Israel or Iran has change since she made this dreadful speech in 2015 to the CUFI conference?
Frightening.
Tulsi Gabbard Speaks to Right-Wing Christians United for Israel Conference 2015
@anon
True, her views on Iran and Syria (even after she visited and met with Bashar al-Assad) are
dreadful and she is careful to say the right things about Israel. But she is at the same time
the only candidate seriously talking about ending all the wars so she deserves support at
least for that message, if only because it might force some others to confront the issue.
Let's face it, our search for a truly acceptable candidate will not find one in either major
party.
All true from both yourself and Paine/Plp except "Hard for the status quo to form a
consensus" which is inherently false based purely on semantics. The status quo must always be
a consensus of sorts or it would not be the status quo regardless of how sordid a sort of
consensus it represents. At the very least our status quo represents the effective majority
consensus of the political elite over matters of governing and simultaneously the effective
consensus of the governed to not overwhelmingly reject the majority consensus of the
political elite. This is not to say that the governed are happy about what they get, but if
they overwhelmingly rejected the political establishment then it would no longer be the
status quo political establishment. Elites learned since the Great Depression that if they
limited their abuse of the common man sufficiently then the combination of general public
apathy regarding politics and the bureaucracy along with the inherent fear of ordinary people
taking action to bring about uncertain change would forever preserve complete elite control
of government apparatus.
"... I have been for Tulsi because of her foreign policy and wanted her to be able to give voice to her position during the primary so as to move Bernie to improve his foreign policy positions and also the public. Tulsi was the one who quit the DNC during the 2016 primary over how Bernie was cheated, so is not afraid to stand up to power - and why they hate her ..."
"... I believe that the Democratic leadership does not want Tulsi in the debates because they do not want her to take out another candidate like she did in the second debate to Harris at -12% at around 5% now - not a top tier candidate now. ..."
"... They have given numerous hit job articles to Bernie, while all of Warrens - including today - are glowing. That should be a clue about Warren. Also in 2016 she sided with Hillary, not Bernie. ..."
Michael Tracey is the one that wrote the RCP article and also has a video on the topic.
He also does a great job calling out the Russiagate BS.
"Tulsi getting screwed by the DNC" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZMMlQNidlQ&t=440s
There is only one more qualifying poll Monmouth ( tomorrow) before the debates and she
needs two more. Even though the she has qualified in numerous polls such as the Boston
Globe that are not allowed by the DNC. Yes they screwed her.
"It's Official--Tulsi to be Screwed Out of 3rd Debate!!" https://caucus99percent.com/content/its-official-tulsi-be-screwed-out-3rd-debate
I have been for Tulsi because of her foreign policy and wanted her to be able to
give voice to her position during the primary so as to move Bernie to improve his foreign
policy positions and also the public. Tulsi was the one who quit the DNC during the 2016
primary over how Bernie was cheated, so is not afraid to stand up to power - and why they
hate her .
I believe that the Democratic leadership does not want Tulsi in the debates because
they do not want her to take out another candidate like she did in the second debate to
Harris at -12% at around 5% now - not a top tier candidate now.
I am loving now how Bernie is taking on the corporate media and their BS to their
faces.
"Bernie Sanders took a well-deserved shot at The Washington Post this week, saying that
the Jeff Bezos-owned paper doesn't like him because he routinely goes after Amazon for the
horrible treatment of their workers. NBC wasn't too happy about this, and claimed that
Bernie was assaulting "the free press," and said his attacks were just like Trump's"
The powers that be really wanted Joe Biden, but it will become obvious in the coming
months that he has serious cognitive issues - ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2Q0E2dzTJw
).
The only other viable candidate against Bernie is Warren , which it appears the elite
are falling in love with. Warren didn't become a Democrat until 2011 or when she was 62. In
the 90's Warren was on the side of Dow Chemical in the breast implant cases, helping to
reduce payouts to the victims. She will be like Obama - Hope and Change during the election
and Neoliberal when president. I read the NYTimes to see what the Oligarchs are up too.
They have given numerous hit job articles to Bernie, while all of Warrens -
including today - are glowing. That should be a clue about Warren. Also in 2016 she sided
with Hillary, not Bernie.
On the Gabbard Story-- Real Clear Politics did an excellent job of explaining the
point-at-issue: the unknown criteria for the polls DNC hasn't told anyone which they are
using or why. RT, in a more condensed article cited
"Andrew Yang, who has since qualified, slammed the DNC in July for excluding one of two NBC
polls he said had reached the 2 percent threshold in, [saying] ' It is frustrating to see
the rules be changed mid-game .' The article also cites "Colorado Senator Michael Bennet
[who] criticized the process in front of DNC Chair Tom Perez on Friday, saying it was
'stifling debate at a time when we need it most.'
These two important critiques when added to the information provided by the RCP article
clearly show DNC manipulating the debate criteria in order to manage who
participates.
I tried to find updated relevant polling data over the past week knowing the deadline was
approaching and its importance to all the candidates, not just Gabbard, but is was very
difficult to find just one poll let alone at least 4.
IMO, if she's excluded from the next round of debates because the DNC favored polls
with tiny sample sizes versus far more relevant polls, then we will again know the Fix is
In--Again--but for whom this time.
Trump does not want a new trade deal with China. He wants to decouple the U.S.
economy from the future enemy.
That may well be what is going on here. Something between total insanity and managed
insanity. The next president will unravel all of this in a year or so of effort. That is what
is so damaging. No business can plan on what is next. No policy is long term.
This is pure Trumpian logic unhinged. Hit them twice as hard as they hit you. I would not
dare to guess who is winding him up and pointing him in this direction. Trump has had one of
his busiest weeks yet.
I see Elisabeth Warren's crowd sizes are getting very large. I will feel better when no
one shows up to a Trump rally. China has time to wait this out and the ability to raise some
chaos on their own to help undermine Trump.
I see Elisabeth Warren's crowd sizes are getting very large. I will feel better when no one
shows up to a Trump rally.
I sympathize, but Elizabeth Warren is terrible on foreign policy. When the IDF was
slaughtering civilians in Gaza in 2014 she pushed to release a few hundred million dollars to
"help" Israel "defend" itself. The MSM loves Warren. She is a neoliberal capitalist, liberal
interventionist and splits Sanders' vote.
"... I've always wondered if the whole MeToo movement was orchestrated by a hidden hand ..."
"... It seemed like the MeToo was weaponized ..."
"... Back then Allyssa Milano and others were telling us that we must believe all women (so now guilty until proven innocent), but those same women have been completely silent when one of Epstein's accusers said she was forced to have sex with Bill Richardson (D) and George Mitchell (D), both of whom denied the allegation ..."
I've always wondered if the whole MeToo movement was orchestrated by a hidden
hand – same for those horrible pussy hats they came out with after Trump was elected.
It seemed like the MeToo was weaponized and ready to go when Kavanaugh was nominated (and
I'm not a fan–he's connected to Bush and the Patriot Act). They brought out Dr. Chrissy
Fraud and Julie Swetnick (who seemed quite mentally unstable with her accusations that
Kavanaugh was connected to gang rape parties).
Back then Allyssa Milano and others were
telling us that we must believe all women (so now guilty until proven innocent), but those
same women have been completely silent when one of Epstein's accusers said she was forced to
have sex with Bill Richardson (D) and George Mitchell (D), both of whom denied the
allegations.
And, of course, such accusations were barely mentioned in the MSM.
In the recent Camp Kotok MMT discussion (recording for the public posted here https://soundcloud.com/user-529956811/mmt-discussion-raw
), two things stood out for me (believe both were stated by Samuel Rines @SamuelRines on
twitter):
– MMT is "inevitable" (although it is arguable whether his definition and understanding
is correct)
– Warren is the assumed democratic nominee (Bernie or anyone else was not mentioned at
all in ~30 min of this recording)
So, sounds like the FIRE sector is looking to get nice and comfortable while nominally
paying tribute to the plebeians (lest they revolt, that was intimated by above mentioned
Sam)
Indeed, being able to arrive at a high degree of solidarity almost allowed the People's
Populist Party to gain the presidency, but it made the strategic mistake of diluting its
solidarity when it fused with that age's D-Party.
They knew their movement was extruding a political party too soon, without having built a
sufficient movement foundation first. But they felt they had no choice because the Farmers'
Alliance co-ops were being strangled by a credit embargo imposed by all the banks, so they
had to try to politically achieve the subtreasury plan right then or die.
And then, like you say, they ended up making all the same miserable deals with the
Deathocrats that so many other "alternative" parties have, and the Dem Party did its usual in
neutralizing the threat to the status quo.
Would co-opted be a better alternative to fused as you used? Both post 1860 parties were
well known for adopting whatever popular political movement might have on offer by
incorporating some semblance into their platforms. [/niggle]
"How in the world was Bernie Sanders supposed to have a fair chance if
Hillary was in full control of "the party's finances, strategy, and all the money raised"?
"
[Side notes: six months after she lost the election Hillary Clinton founded Onward
Together
a fund raising leech that was designed (we are wise to expect) to take over the fund
raising
of emerging progressive groups.]
[Onward Together: "Onward Together is dedicated to advancing the vision that earned
nearly 66 million votes in the 2016 election. By supporting groups that encourage
people to organize, get involved, and run for office,
Onward Together will advance progressive values and work to build a brighter future for
generations to come." https://www.onwardtogether.org/
]
After the 2020 convention there will be much to hold our noses about.
You think 2016 was slimey? You ain't seen nothin yet.
People were very upset about the super-delegate beast in 2016. To placate the outrage
the DNC offered a rule change – the super-delegates cannot be used in the first
ballot.
This appeared like a huge concession as there hasn't been a multiple-ballot convention
since
1952.
"Suprise, surprise." $They$ went out and found twenty candidates in order to assure a
contested convention and thus uncage the super-delegates.
You thought the plethora of candidates was merely a random clump? Feel the burn.
The 2016 Democratic National Convention caused outrage, thank goodness (snark) for
Russiagate,
everyone could forget about the DNC treachery and blame Russia.
But if you think the stink from the 2016 Democratic National Convention was bad,
people are going to go absolutely ballistic after the 2020 Democratic National
Convention.
Will people "fall in line"? Don't give Democratic voters too much credit, I am betting
they will fall in line.
"Faithless elector: A court ruling just changed how we pick our president" [
NBC News ]. "A federal appeals court ruled late Tuesday that presidential electors who cast the actual ballots for president
and vice president are free to vote as they wish and cannot be required to follow the results of the popular vote in their states
. But once the electors are chosen and report in December to cast their votes as members of the Electoral College, they are fulfilling
a federal function, and a state's authority has ended.
'The states' power to appoint electors does not include the power to remove them or nullify their votes,' the court said.
Because the Constitution contains no requirement for electors to follow the wishes of a political party, 'the electors, once appointed,
are free to vote as they choose,' assuming that they cast their vote for a legally qualified candidate."
Readers will recall
this post from December 16, 2016 , where I compared Democrat's scheme of persuading faithless electors to change their (presumed)
voters based on intelligence that would not be shown to the public to the Chilean Constitutional order under Pinochet.
Today, we would use the term "soft coup," but I still think that was a pretty good call.
Yes, is way Warren is a connuation of "Trump tradition" in the USA politics: reling of hate
toward the neoliberalism establishment to get the most votes.
...in a piece
Warren wrote for Medium in which she (rightly) warned of "a precarious economy that is
built on debt -- both household debt and corporate debt." Notably missing was the national
debt, which amounts to around $182,900 per taxpayer and which Warren's policies would only
steepen. How exactly is a government flailing in red ink supposed to make the country solvent?
And what of the fact that some of the economy's woes -- student loan debt, for example -- were
themselves at least in part caused by federal interventions?
Those objections aside, it would be wrong to dismiss Warren as just another statist liberal.
She's deeper than that, first of all, having written extensively about economics, including
her book The Two-Income Trap . But more importantly, she's put her finger on something very
important in the American electorate. It's the same force that helped propel Donald Trump to
victory in 2016: a seething anger against goliath institutions that seem to prize profit and
power over the greater welfare. This is firmly in the tradition of most American populisms,
which have worried less about the size of government and more about gilded influence rendering
it inert.
Warren thus has a real claim to the Bernie Sanders wing of the Democratic Party, which is
deeply skeptical of corporate power. She could even try to out-populist Donald Trump. She's
already released more detailed policy proposals than any of her Democratic rivals, everything
from sledgehammering the rich with new taxes to canceling student debt to wielding antitrust
against big tech companies to subsidizing childcare. All this is chum to at least some of the
Democratic base (old-school sorts rather than the SJWs obsessed with race and gender), and as a
result, she's surged to either second or third place in the primary, depending on what poll you
check. She's even elicited praise from some conservative intellectuals, who view her as an
economic nationalist friendly to the family against the blackhearted forces of big.
America has been in a populist mood since the crash of 2008, yet in every presidential
election since then, there's been at least one distinctly plutocratic candidate in the race. In
2008, it was perennial Washingtonian John McCain. In 2012, it was former Bain Capital magnate
Mitt Romney. (The stupidest explanation for why Romney lost was always that tea party activists
dragged him down. Romney lost because he sounded like an imposter and looked like the guy who
fired your brother from that firm back in 1982.) And in 2016, it was, of course, Hillary
Clinton, whose candidacy is what happens when you feed a stock portfolio and a government
security clearance into a concentrate machine.
If Elizabeth Warren wins the Democratic nomination next year, it will be the first time
since Bear Stearns exploded that both parties' candidates seem to reflect back the national
temperament. It will also pose a test for Warren herself. On one hand, her economic policies,
bad though they might be, stand a real chance of attracting voters, given their digestibility
and focus on relieving high costs of living. On the other hand -- this is where Fauxcahontas
comes back in -- a white woman claiming Indian status in order to teach at Harvard Law is
pretty much everything Americans hate about politically correct identity politics.
The question, then, is which image of Warren will stick: one is a balm to the country's
economic anxiety; the other is unacceptable to its cultural grievances. Right now we can only
speculate, though it seems certain that Trump will try to define her as the latter while much
of the media will intervene in the other direction.
Her entire political theory seems to have been that giant corporations should not be
allowed to utterly screw the common man. That is about it, and for this she is called a
commie radical. I like her, little afraid of foreign policy
Warren was born into a middle class family, Trump wasn't. Trump is playing the populist, he
has no idea what average Americans deal with.
Warren was raised on the family lore of having native ancestry and she does. Not much
but she does and that's all it takes to start family lore. Her Native American ancestor was
from around the time of the American Revolution and it's easy to see how that legend could
be passed down. There is no proof she ever benefited from this, she was just proud to have
Native American ancestry.
Funny how the RW is so outraged by this one thing. Maybe it would be better for her to
con people, lie and make stuff up nonstop like Trump. It seems a never ending blizzard of
lies and falsehoods renders one immune.
Let's remember that our only effective populist, in fact our only effective president, was
a rich patrician. FDR's roots went back to the Mayflower, yet he was able to break the
influence of the banks and give us 50 years of bubble-free prosperity. The only thing that
counts is GETTING THE WORK DONE.
Her economics aren't bad. She herself claims to be a capitalist, she just wants our massive
economy to also benefit regular folks instead of just the elites. And whatever economic
program she proposes is most likely further left than she thinks necessary because that's a
better negotiating position to start from. Remember every proposal has to go through both
branches of Congress to become law, and they will absolutely try to make everything more
pro-corporate because that is their donor base.
"And what of the fact that some of the economy's woes -- student loan debt, for example --
were themselves at least in part caused by federal
interventions?"
Mr. Purple might want to remind himself that 75% of federal student financial aid in the
1970's was in the form of grants, not loans, and that it was only after the intervention of
conservative Republican congressman Gerald "Jerry" Solomon and the Reagan Administration
that the mix of federal student financial aid was changed to be 75% loans and only 25%
grants. I believe the Congressman used to rail against free riding college students, which
is all well and good until one finds that the "free hand of the market" becomes warped by
so many people being in so much debt, and all of them being too small to save.
Democrats might want to ask Joe Biden about this, considering his support for
legislation that made it harder to discharge student debt in bankruptcy proceedings. They
might also ask Senator Warren about this subject.
Warren believed her family story. Trump, on the other hand, knew that his family was not
Swedish, but knowingly continued the lie for decades, including in "The Art of Deal " -
claimin his grandfather came "from Sweden as a child" (rather than dodging the draft in
Bavaria who made his fortune in red light districts of the Yukon territory before trying to
return to the Reich).
Warren made no money from her heritage claims, but the $413 million (in today's dollars)
given to Trump by his daddy was made by lying to Holocaust survivors in Brooklyn and Queens
who, understandably, did not want to rent property from a German.
Vanity Fair asked him in 1990 if he were not in fact of German origin. "Actually, it was
very difficult," Donald replied. "My father was not German; my father's parents were German
Swedish, and really sort of all over Europe and I was even thinking in the second edition
of putting more emphasis on other places because I was getting so many letters from Sweden:
Would I come over and speak to Parliament? Would I come meet with the president?"
This column was pretty much as I expected. It started out by rehashing all of the Fox News
talking points about Warren, without debunking those that were without merit.
After that it touched on Morning Joe's take on her, just to make it 'fair and
balanced'.
Then it acknowledged, briefly, that she has been correct in many areas. No comment on
how the CFPB recovered hundreds of millions of $$ from corporations that abused their power
or broke the law.
Then it mis-characterized the impact of her policies "sledgehammering the rich",
"economic policies, bad though they might be".
Dismiss Warren all you want. She could very well be the nominee, or the VP. She would
eviscerate Trump in a debate. Her knowledge of issues, facts and policies would show Trump
to be what he is. A narcissistic, idiotic, in-over-his-head clueless and dangerous buffoon.
I anticipate Trump would fall back on his favorite tropes. Pocahontas, socialist,
communist, and MAGA.
My opinion is that the average American is getting really tired of Trump's shtick. The
country is looking for somebody with real solutions to real problems. This reality tv star
act is getting pretty old....
Good article. Especially enjoyed this turn of phrase:
"And in 2016, it was, of course, Hillary Clinton, whose candidacy is what happens when
you feed a stock portfolio and a government security clearance into a concentrate
machine."
Really enjoyable.
I don't think anyone is going to care about the pocahontas thing. This election will be
squarely about Trump. I think Warren is by far the best candidate the dems can bring out if
they want to beat him. A Warren/Buttigieg or a Warren/Tulsi ticket would likely be a
winner.
Bernie's a little too far to the left for Joe Lunchbucket, Joe Biden is a crooked
Hillary wannabe, Kamala Harris is unlikeable, and the rest won't rise out of the dust.
The whole business about her supposed Native American ancestry and whatever claims she made
will make no difference to anybody other than folks like Matt Purple who wouldn't support
her under any circumstances anyway.
Consider that the best-known advocate of the "Pocahontas" epithet is of course Donald
Trump, whose entire reputation is built on a foundation of bulls--t and flim-flam.
"Thus in retrospect was it the "Obama" in "Obamacare" that was the primary driver of
opposition from conservatives, only for their concerns over federal intrusion to mostly
disappear once Trump was at the controls."
No. What disappeared was the Individual Mandate. THAT was what rankled me...the
government can do whatever stupid thing they want as long as they don't try to force me
into it.
Backlash to neoliberalism fuels interest in national socialism ideology... and netional
socialist critique of financial oligarchy controlled "democratic states" was often poignant and
up to a point. Which doesn't means that the ideology itself was right.
However, as the people cannot spontaneously make and express their opinion on a mass scale,
the media comes to play a critical role in shaping public opinion: "The decisive question is:
Who enlightens the people? Who educates the people?" The answer is, of course,
the media. In this, Hitler's assessment is an exaggerated version of what Alexis de Tocqueville had
observed a century earlier in his classic work, Democracy in America :
When a large number of press organs manage to march along the same path, their influence
in the long run becomes almost irresistible, and public opinion, always struck upon the same
side, ends up giving way under their blows.
In Western democracies, Hitler claims: "Capital actually rules in these countries, that is,
nothing more than a clique of a few hundred men who possess untold wealth." Furthermore
"freedom" refers primarily to "economic freedom," which means the oligarchs' "freedom
from national control." In a classic self-reinforcing cycle, the rich and powerful get
richer and more powerful through influence over the political process. Today, this has
culminated in the existence of the notorious "1%" so demonized by Occupy Wall Street.
The oligarchs, according to Hitler, establish and control the media:
These capitalists create their own press and then speak of "freedom of the press." In
reality, every newspaper has a master and in every case this master is the capitalist, the
owner. This master, not the editor, is the one who directs the policy of the paper. If the
editor tries to write something other than what suits the master, he is outed the next day.
This press, which is the absolutely submissive and character slave of its owners, molds
public opinions.
Hitler also emphasizes the incestuous relations and purely cosmetic differences between
mainstream democratic political parties:
The difference between these parties is small, as it formerly was in Germany. You know
them of course, the old parties. They were always one and the same. In Britain matters are
usually so arranged so that families are divided up, one member being conservative, another
liberal, and a third belonging to the Labour Party. Actually all three sit together as
members of the family and decide upon their common attitude.
This cliquishness means that "on all essential matters . . . the parties are always in
agreement" and the difference between "Government" and "Opposition" is largely election-time
theatrics. This critique will resonate with those who fault the "Republicrats," the
"Westminster village," or indeed the various pro-EU parties for being largely
indistinguishable. This is often especially the case on foreign policy, Chomsky's area of
predilection.
Hitler goes on, with brutally effective sarcasm, to describe how it was in these democracies
where the people supposedly rule that there was the most inequality: "You might think that in
these countries of freedom and wealth, the people must have an unlimited degree of prosperity.
But no!" Britain not only controlled "one-sixth of the world" and the impoverished millions of
India, but itself had notoriously deep class divisions and suffering working classes. There was
a similar situation in France and the United States: "There is poverty – incredible
poverty – on one side and equally incredible wealth on the other." These democracies had
furthermore been unable to combat unemployment during the Great Depression, in contrast to
Germany's innovative economic policies.
Hitler then goes on to mock the Labour Party, which was participating in the government for
the duration of the war, for promising social welfare and holidays for the poor after the war:
"It is is remarkable that they should at last hit upon the idea that traveling should not be
something for millionaires alone, but for the people too." Hitlerite Germany, along with
Fascist Italy, had long pioneered the organization of mass tourism to the benefit of working
people. (Something which traditionalists like the Italian aristocrat Julius Evola bitterly
criticized them for.)
Ultimately, in the Western democracies "as is shown by their whole economic structure, the
selfishness of a relatively small stratum rules under the mask of democracy; the egoism of a
very small social class." Hitler concludes: "It is self-evident that where this democracy
rules, the people as such are not taken into consideration at all. The only thing that matters
is the existence a few hundred gigantic capitalists who own all the factories and their stock
and, through them, control the people."
... ... ...
In practice, Western liberal regimes' democratic pretensions are exaggerated. Various
studies have found that when elite and majority opinion clash, the American elite is over time
able to impose its policies onto the majority (examples of this include U.S. intervention in
both World Wars and mass Third World immigration since the 1960s, opposed by the people and
promoted by the elite)
... ... ...
In fact, all regimes have different elite factions and bureaucracies competing for power.
All regimes have a limited ideological spectrum of authorized opinion, a limited spectrum of
what can and cannot be discussed, criticized, or politically represented. This isn't to say
that liberal-democratic and openly authoritarian regimes are identical, but the distinction has
been exaggerated. I have known plenty of Westerners who, frothing at the mouth at any mention
of the "authoritarian" Donald Trump or Marine Le Pen, were quite happy to visit, do business,
or work in China, Singapore, the United Arab Emirates, or Israel (the latter being a perfect
Jewish democracy but highly authoritarian towards the Palestinians). Westerners really are sick
in the head.
The liberals' claim to uphold freedom of thought and democracy will ring hollow to many: to
the Trump supporters and academics (such as Charles Murray) who were physically assaulted for
attending public events and to those fired or punished for their scientific beliefs (James
Watson, James Damore, Noah Carl).
What the ideal regime is surely depends on time and place. Jean-Baptiste Duchasseint, a
politician of the French Third Republic, had a point when he said: "I prefer a parliamentary
chamber than the antechamber of a dictator." Liberal-democracies allow for regular changeovers
of power, transparent feedback between society and government, and the cultivation of a habit
of give-and-take between citizens. But it would be equally dishonest to deny
liberal-democracy's leveling tendency, its unconscious (and thereby, dangerous) elitism and
authoritarianism (dangerous because unconscious), its difficulty in enforcing values, its
promotion of division among the citizenry, or, frequently, its failure to act in times of
emergency. The democrats claim they are entitled to undermine and destroy, whether by peaceful
or violent methods, every government on this Earth which they consider "undemocratic." This
strikes me as, at best, unwise and dangerous.
The question is not whether a society "really has" free speech or democracy. In the
absolute, these are impossible. The question is whether the particular spectrum of free
discussion and the particular values promoted by the society are, in fact, salutary for that
society. In China, unlike the West, you are not allowed to attack the government. Yet, I
understand that in China one is freer to discuss issues concerning Jews, race, and eugenics
than in the West. These issues, in fact, may be far more important to promoting a healthy
future for the human race than the superficial and divisive mudslinging of the West's
reality-TV democracies.W
Nice well written & researched thought provoking article by Guillaume Durocher.
Hitler most likely served the Zionist Bankers, as his "Night of the Longknives" –
1934, rid the Nazi movement of its anti-capitalist element.
Hitler did not effectively criticize Zionism or the ruinous financial system. He blamed
the Versailles Treaty for most of Germany's ills.
Noam Chomsky has had more serious political and economic analysis to offer over the
decades, than most any other American. He has authored more than 100 books.
Hitler and his movement led the German people into the trap (perhaps a Zionist trap), of
ruinous (to Europe), Imperialist Conflict, and in that, and in his racialist approach,
resembles Churchill, and the British Royal Family more than he could ever admit.
Strikingly, Hitler does not mention Jewish media ownership or influence at all,
At 3:21 in the archive.org video he refers to "das auserwählte Volk" (the chosen
people) which supposedly controls and directs all parties for its own interests.
Anyway, do you really think it's a good idea for modern nationalists to link themselves to
Hitler and the 3rd Reich (because many of your articles could be interpreted that way, as if
Hitler was some profound thinker who has to be read by every nationalist today)?
Yes, the man wasn't as stupid as is often claimed today, and some elements of Nazism are
certainly attractive if seen in isolation but the fact remains that Hitler, without any
really compelling necessity, initiated one of the most destructive wars in history and then
had his followers commit some of the worst mass murders ever.
The "revisionists" posting on UR may be able to ignore that, but most people won't.
In practice, Western liberal regimes' democratic pretensions are exaggerated. Various
studies have found that when elite and majority opinion clash, the American elite is over
time able to impose its policies onto the majority (examples of this include U.S.
intervention in both World Wars and mass Third World immigration since the 1960s, opposed
by the people and promoted by the elite).
That's it? "Western liberal regimes' democratic pretensions are exaggerated"?
There are differences in _every_ society between different groups, which include different
income levels. In the Western liberal regimes of the 1950s and 1960s, daily life was more or
less left alone, and it was quite possible to over-rule the rich. There was a 90% tax on
income over a fairly modest amount of income! As for the "American elite is over time able to
impose its policies onto the majority" it wasn't the rich who do that back then, nor is it
the rich who do it now. It's the Left, acquiesced to by the rich. The difference is that the
rich now rich with political sufferance, or perhaps because of politics, which was much less
the case back then.
In other words, the article as a deception from start to end. Minerva's owl flies at dusk
(you understand things when they're ending), and the deception becomes more obvious as our
current system fails.
Another one whitewashing Fascism to make it an acceptable ideology to save the white race.
The first edition killed 12 million Germans, twice as many Russians and many more millions of
other Europeans. What for? To make America great, perhaps
The author is unfurling his full colours; maybe grateful for Hitler's mercy on France?
Agree that the article is a very good one. Clever idea to compare Hitler with Chomsky,
"bien étonnés de se trouver ensemble." However, Hitler was certainly not
alone in his lucid criticism of "western democracy," nor is Chomsky the only lucid
post-Hitlerian critic of what is called democracy. Who does not recall Michael Parenti's
wonderful Democracy for the Few, from 1974?
As for Hitler being genuine, or intellectually honest in his criticism, better not even
ask. Like all major politicians, including FDR, the repulsive Churchill, Stalin e tutti
quanti, Hitler was a psychopath and a murderer. Anyone still nurturing romantic thoughts
on Hitler better read Guido Giacomo Preparata, Conjuring Hitler. How Britain and America
Made the Third Reich (2005). Best proof that Preparata was absolutely right with his
richly documented book is the fact that his academic career was abruptly ended: no tenure for
dissidents, especially when they write books containing uncomfortable truths.
The only people allowed to tell "uncomfortable truths" are used-car salesmen and swindlers
such as Al Gore.
Adolf Hitler Speech: Löwenbräukeller Munich November 8 1940
When I came to power, I took over from a nation that was a democracy. Indeed, it is now
sometimes shown to the world as if one would be automatically ready to give everything to
the German nation if it were only a democracy. Yes, the German people was at that time a
democracy before us, and it has been plundered and squeezed dry. No. what does democracy or
authoritarian state mean for these international hyenas! That they are not at all
interested in. They are only interested in one thing: Is anyone willing to let themselves
be plundered? Yes or no? Is anyone stupid enough to keep quiet in the process? Yes or no?
And when a democracy is stupid enough to keep quiet, then it is good. And when an
authoritarian government declares: "You do not plunder our people any longer, neither from
inside nor from outside," then that is bad. If we, as a so-called authoritarian state,
which differs from the democracies by having the masses of the people behind it; if we as
an authoritarian state had also complied with all the sacrifices that the international
plutocrats encumbered us with; if I had said in 1933, "Esteemed Sirs in Geneva" or
"Esteemed Sirs," as far as I am concerned, somewhere else, "what would you have do? Aha, we
will immediately write it on the slate: 6 billion for 1933, 1934, 1935, all right we will
deliver. Is there anything else you would like? Yes, Sir we will also deliver that" Then
they would have said: "At last a sensible regime in Germany."
Western media is not "cooperative", they are owned.
JP Morgan famously bought up controlling interest in major newspapers in 1917 to prevent
significant media opposition to the US entering WWI. The Counsel on Foreign Relations was
created in the early 1920s to maintain control over the national dialog and they have ever
since. The CIA Project Mockingbird tightened control. Every presidential cabinet since is
saturated with CFR members. As a result most Americans are disastrously misinformed about
just about everything. 1984 happened decades before 1984.
@Hans Vogel Parenti's book is one of the few assigned college textbooks I still have on
my shelf. A classic that I rarely hear spoken of; I guess my liberal arts education wasn't
entirely wasted.
Extolling Hitler and/or the Nazis is, apart from anything else, totally counter-productive.
We can argue about the rewriting of history but the simple fact is that any association with
him/them is poisonous to the public mind.
What I took from the piece was that Hitler, despite being an evil bastard, was right about
some things. This shouldn't be surprising and isn't a defense of Nazism (which as a Christian
I have to regard as evil.) The fact that Hitler and Chomsky agree shows this isn't a defense
of Nazism.
@German_reader So called revisionists are bunch of morons. Hitler was, without lapsing
into moralizing, a very specific product of a very specific time, a charismatic leader of a
great humiliated nation during a deep crisis in all Western civilization (this includes
Russia, too).
Now, Europe & Europe-derived peoples face a completely different crisis (or various
crises), so that what Hitler was or wasn't is utterly irrelevant to our contemporary
condition & its challenges.
It does no good to try to defend Hitler, regardless of the many correct observations he made
over the years of his public life. He was as important a commentator as, say, Paul Krugman,
but his opinions will never overcome his actions. Comparing him to Krugman or Chomsky makes
an interesting debating point, but ultimately fails for lack of context.
If you are trying to argue that capitalist democracy, Anglo-American style, has grievous
flaws, you're going to have to show what they are and why they will lead to calamity. I'd say
we need a real discussion on federal budgeting insanity, for one, which threatens the
economic downfall of the West and, probably, of the universe, except maybe for Russia, which
has already suffered through its great downfall. How that connects to Anglo-American
democracy is simple: the British borrowed and made war around the world to its virtual
collapse and then had the great insight to be able, via FDR, to tie the prosperity of the
United States to its failures, until the great engine of prosperity that we once were comes
clanking to pieces.
The fascists weren't wrong on policy during peacetime, but were too optimistic about being
able to take over the world by war.
Both the liberal (Democratic) and conservative (Republican) wings of the U.S.
aristocracy hate and want to conquer Russia's Government. The real question now is whether
that fact will cause the book on this matter to be closed as being unprofitable for both
sides of the U.S. aristocracy; or, alternatively, which of those two sides will succeed in
skewering the other over this matter.
At the present stage, the Republican billionaires seem likelier to win if this internal
battle between the two teams of billionaires' political agents continues on. If they do,
and Trump wins re-election by having exposed the scandal of the Obama Administration's
having manufactured the fake Russiagate-Trump scandal, then Obama himself could end up
being convicted. However, if Trump loses -- as is widely expected -- then Obama is safe,
and Trump will likely be prosecuted on unassociated criminal charges.
To be President of the United States is now exceedingly dangerous. Of course,
assassination is the bigger danger; but, now, there will also be the danger of
imprisonment. A politician's selling out to billionaires in order to reach the top can
become especially risky when billionaires are at war against each other -- and not merely
against some foreign ('enemy') aristocracy. At this stage of American 'democracy', the
public are irrelevant. But the political battle might be even hotter than ever, without the
gloves, than when the public were the gloves.
"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of
acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum -- even encourage the
more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking
going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the
limits put on the range of the debate."
Yes that quotation by Chomsky is exactly correct, and Chomsky is an expert in that
area.
He is a loyal servant of the oligarchs, the MIT intellectual who has devoted his life
to keeping the lid on acceptable debate but is silent on the most important event of the 21st
Century in order to serve his Zionist masters.
Any person who goes beyond that accepted level of debate is either ostracized, imprisoned
or assassinated.
Liberal-democracies allow for regular changeovers of power, transparent feedback between
society and government, and the cultivation of a habit of give-and-take between
citizens.
Except that is not true at all. All major Western countries today, UK, France, USA and
Germany, are ruled by an effective one-party state, stabilized and its agenda multiplied by
its media companies, often state owned, the agenda enforced by apparatschiks, secured by the
police force and internationalized physically with the military and with great propaganda by
the media-entertainment complex – today even effectively monopolized by US companies
like Google/YouTube and Facebook.
Whether you look at BREXIT, votes on an EU constitution, or the Donald Trump presidency:
what the majority of the people want is not important to the permanent ruling and owning
class.
The politicians and sanctioned talking-heads are there to deceive us. Obama und Trump are
two sides of the same coin: carefully crafted advertisement campaigns to secure the interests
and goals of the elite in the long run.
Progressiv interests first with Obama and now reactionary interests have been encorporated
as messages and propaganda to neuter both. Now the left talks about gender neutral toilets,
trans kids and pronouns, instead of stagnant wages for decades and a predatory elite. Just
like the right talks about Trump's tweets, Q and is lost in the media skinner-box and his
personality cult, while Trump himself broke every single point he campaigned on (Except those
that serve the 1% and Israel.) and is owned by the same lobby which produces the artificial
reality Trump cultists bought into.
Political-media theater was and is orchestrated, so the true core of power stays untouched
and stable: the very small capitalist class who owns 90% of the net wealth in the USA (it's
getting increasingly similar in Europe as it is being Americanized in the process of
globalization); the superordinate megacompanies; the military-industrial complex; Wall Street
and (Central) Banking; special interests and lobbies of which the Israeli-Jewish Lobby is the
strongest.
And the cultural totalitarianism of today and its artifical reality is superior to
that of the old physical dictatorships, because in mass-media democracy not only does the
subject believe himself to be free, because the tools of his own enslavement are not visible;
only in it the subject gives his own concession to his own subjugation by his vote. While all
paths to real change, revolution or revolt are as cut off from him as under Stalin or
Mao.
Well, if the idea is to spread the message, any mention or reference to Hitler will be
totally devastating in the public arena. It's like participating in a marathon run and start
off by cutting off your legs.
Just recently I saw some posts on facebook from someone local to me preaching about Nordic
brotherhood. He posted few pictures and all of them had Hitlers face somewhere in the
background. FB shut it down within hours
What's interesting is the same message could have been presented differently without much
effort. Sliding past FB filters for days or even weeks and possibly influenced some people in
the meantime. So I wonder who was actually behind it – my guess is either a complete
idiot or someone eager to vilify nationalism and people concerned with racial issues.
@Exile " . . . [I]f sources as divergent as Hitler and Chomsky agree on the flaws of
capitalism/neo=liberal democracy, it lends credibility to those criticisms . . .".
Exile, that's exactly how I read it.
Our political problems aren't that difficult to understand:
Democrats – Sell-out to crony capitalism and global capitalism. Offers an Identity
Politics Plantation for rent-seekers and legitimacy-seekers as political camouflage.
Republicans – Sell-out to crony capitalism and global capitalism. Offers a Freedom
and Opportunity Plantation as political camouflage.
As far as I can tell, we really don't have an American or Americanist politics that tells
me I ought to give a meaninful damn about my fellow citizens in the 'hood, the gated 'burbs,
and everywhere else because, fuckin' 'ey, they're my fellow Americans.
Durocher's not romanticizing or white-washing here, he's making a serious point: if
sources as divergent as Hitler and Chomsky agree on the flaws of capitalism/neo=liberal
democracy, it lends credibility to those criticisms and makes it harder to refute them by
ad hominem or accusations of bias on the part of the critics.
Lordy. _That_ is your argument? The big loser in WW II and an academic agree that US
society should be reorganized? Add in Pol Pot, Stalin, Marx, Trotsky, Putin, Mussolini, and
BLM, not to mention the Wobblies, if you like. The argument remains unconvincing. Peterson's
"first, demonstrate your competence by cleaning and organizing your room and then your home
and your affairs, _then_ try to re-make the world. None of the above, except perhaps Putin,
could have passed that test.
Q: Is Marxism a science or a philosophy?
A: Philosophy. If it were a science they'd have tried it out on dogs first.
@Miggle And how can there be "checks" when everything is "classified", and when Julian
Assange has to be murdered in a US prison but it will be made to look like suicide?
"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of
acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum -- even encourage the
more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking
going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the
limits put on the range of the debate. – Noam Chomsky"
COMMENT: Chomsky is talking about the Overton window: the range of ideas that "The Powers
That Be" (TPTB) will allow in public discussion.
EXAMPLES:
(1) Tucker Carson recently went outside the Overton window, when he said "white supremacy is
a hoax", then TPTB immediately "vacationed" him for political reeducation, and now he is
safely back within the window, rattling his cage on issues harmless to TPTB.
(2) The Controlled Protest Press (CPP) will often blame economic problems on the
Federal-Reserve making wrong moves, and suggest the right moves the Fed should make instead,
as the correct solution. But the CPP will never suggest that the correct solution is to end
the Fed and the private currency they issue, and to return the currency-issuing power to the
government, as required by the constitution (Article I Section 8). Because that's outside the
Overton window.
(3) The CPP will often complain about the government ignoring warning signs before the
9/11 attack, and botching their response after it happened. But the CPP will never suggest
the whole thing was an inside job to garner public support for bankers oil wars in the middle
east. Because that's outside the Overton window.
when elite and majority opinion clash, the American elite is over time able to impose
its policies onto the majority (examples of this include U.S. intervention in both World
Wars and mass Third World immigration since the 1960s, opposed by the people and promoted
by the elite).
@Professional Stranger CHOMSKY himself always stays within the Overton window, and makes
a show of it:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/ZrEDo9ChSdQ?feature=oembed
Chomsky goes beyond maintaining a strategic silence on 9/11, to inciting smear-campaigns
against skeptics of the official narrative of 9/11. He demeans "truthers": "Their lives are
no good Their lives are collapsing They are people at a loss Nothing makes any sense They
don't understand what an explanation is They think they are experts in physics and civil
engineering on the basis of one hour on the Internet."
I think you should ask the Slavic untermenschen; Poles, Czechs, Serbs, Byelorussians &
Ukranians what their experience of occupation by the Wehrmacht was like. Poland alone lost 5
million civilians with Ukraine losing a similar number.
To be President of the United States is now exceedingly dangerous. Of course,
assassination is the bigger danger; but, now, there will also be the danger of
imprisonment. A politician's selling out to billionaires in order to reach the top can
become especially risky when billionaires are at war against each other -- and not merely
against some foreign ('enemy') aristocracy.
Interesting concept. When the elites go after each other; that is when you know empire is
in rapid decline.
Other powers may just simply wait it out.
@JackOH You summed up very well the nature of the duopoly ruling the US for donkey's
years. Representative democracy is a licence for political power by a small clique over the
people. Obviously, both Fascism (Hitler) and Socialism (Marx) agree on that, but for
different reasons. And so does anyone with some basic understanding of how the political
process works.
But the article goes further than stating the obvious: the intention – in my mind
– is to show that, because Hitler and Chomsky are in agreement about the deception of
"democracy", then Fascism is a reputable ideology, so much so that Chomsky, by association,
gives his imprimatur to that perception. Durocher (a self-declared racist) is just another
purveyor of the Nazis' lies attempting to dress that ideology with respectable robes.
Nothing new there. Afterall Hitler also called his political party "Socialism", the term
stolen from the party he infiltrated for its popular appeal. As soon as he grabbed
dictatorial power he imprisoned the socialists.
@Biff Roman elites started to attack each other in 133 B.C., and the civil wars lasted a
century. The Roman Empire survived several centuries after that.
@Mikemikev Why not stick to discussing the ideas in the essay?
It is pathetic to fall back on the ad hominem "Hitler!" excuse for not engaging with the
ideas.
Perhaps Durocher is wrong in the ideas he attributes to Hitler.
For myself I have always found it interesting that the basic concept of "national"
"socialism" (let's just look at those words separately) seems to bear thinking over: A
socialism that is not a international system but is based on a nation. Obviously how you
define a nation is pretty important.
Interestingly, now the Jews/Zionists have defined themselves as a nation (whether or not
the citizens of this nation actually live in Israel). And the point of this nation certainly
appears to be to confer all of the benefits of citizenship in the nation only on that
nation's citizens and on no others. Many of the benefits of citizenship seem to be of a
socialist nature: quite a few freebies such as education, health care, vacations at the
seashore in special hotels, free housing (on land stolen from the natives), etc. etc. So,
this Jewish nation certainly seems to espouse a version of socialism that is nation-based.
I.e., national socialism.
@The_seventh_shape We'll see. Stalin asked "how many divisions does the Pope have?" The
Chair is still there, the Soviet Union is gone – God works in mysterious ways.
TURTLE in COMMENT 169: There is. or at least was, a professor in the Department of
Materials Science & Engineering at MIT, where Chomsky is Professor Emeritus of
Linguistics, who spoke out publicly regarding certain anomalies found in the debris of the
twin towers (not Building 7). Prof. Chomsky could have simply walked across campus and, no
doubt, gotten an audience with his fellow faculty member, had he chosen to do so.
Ridiculing the public statements of someone with actual expertise in a relevant field by
implying that none who have spoken out are qualified to do so is intellectually dishonest
in the extreme.
Chomsky is a fraud.
STRANGER: Agreed! There are also the 1500 architects and engineers at "Architects &
Engineers for 9/11 Truth" https://www.ae911truth.org/ who have spoken out, and who
are well qualified to do so. Same goes for Pilots for 9/11 Truth http://pilotsfor911truth.org/ .
Fascinating! I'm reminded of Noam Chomsky's Manufactured Consent quite a bit lately
due to the reckless deplatforming. As a "recovering anarchist," I sometimes wonder have I
moved right? Or has the left moved left? Thank you for writing!
Chomsky has valid critiques of US power and its use. He points out the evil done in the name
of the people re: capitalism (which benefits those who live off their capital. These people
travel the world in search of people to screw over and drop like bad habits. See – wood
and coal industries in West Virginia, USA.
That Israel is a ethno state is no coincidence, it is exactly the belonging to the group
which makes for a strong nation. All of "us" against all of "them". That Israel doesn't have
the mass influx of aliens as white European nations must suffer should be instructive. They
learned this from the NDSP as evidenced by the tactics of ghettoization on the Palestinians.
They even have the strange belief that walls work.
Civic nationalism makes a lotta sense, but one must feel connection to the land, the
people and the overarching nation of which they are a part. What multicultural gubbamint has
lasted without friction between its peoples and for how long? Most western nations are the
only ones with the multiculti death wish. Why do people migrate to hideous racist white
nations? Do they can gripe about whatever they want while living high on the hog, of
course!
Why don't people migrate to Israel, Japan, Cape Verde or Burundi? Because they either
don't let many "others" in by defacto law or nobody wants to go because of dejure common
sense.
They are afraid to admin that a color revolution was launched to depose Trump after the
elections of 2016. Essentially a coup d'état by intelligence agencies and Clinton wing of
Democratic Party.
Notable quotes:
"... The 53 House Intel interviews. House Intelligence interviewed many key players in the Russia probe and asked the DNI to declassify those interviews nearly a year ago, after sending the transcripts for review last November. There are several big reveals, I'm told, including the first evidence that a lawyer tied to the Democratic National Committee had Russia-related contacts at the CIA. ..."
"... The Stefan Halper documents. It has been widely reported that European-based American academic Stefan Halper and a young assistant, Azra Turk, worked as FBI sources . ..."
"... Page/Papadopoulos exculpatory statements. Another of Nunes' five buckets, these documents purport to show what the two Trump aides were recorded telling undercover assets or captured in intercepts insisting on their innocence. Papadopoulos told me he told an FBI undercover source in September 2016 that the Trump campaign was not trying to obtain hacked Clinton documents from Russia and considered doing so to be treason. ..."
"... The 'Gang of Eight' briefing materials. These were a series of classified briefings and briefing books the FBI and DOJ provided key leaders in Congress in the summer of 2018 that identify shortcomings in the Russia collusion narrative. ..."
"... The Steele spreadsheet. I wrote recently that the FBI kept a spreadsheet on the accuracy and reliability of every claim in the Steele dossier. According to my sources, it showed as much as 90 percent of the claims could not be corroborated, were debunked or turned out to be open-source internet rumors. ..."
"... The Steele interview. It has been reported, and confirmed, that the DOJ's inspector general (IG) interviewed the former British intelligence operative for as long as 16 hours about his contacts with the FBI while working with Clinton's opposition research firm, Fusion GPS. It is clear from documents already forced into the public view by lawsuits that Steele admitted in the fall of 2016 that he was desperate to defeat Trump ..."
"... The redacted sections of the third FISA renewal application. This was the last of four FISA warrants targeting the Trump campaign; it was renewed in June 2017 after special counsel Robert Mueller 's probe had started, and signed by then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein . It is the one FISA application that House Republicans have repeatedly asked to be released, and I'm told the big reveal in the currently redacted sections of the application is that it contained both misleading information and evidence of intrusive tactics used by the U.S. government to infiltrate Trump's orbit. ..."
"... Records of allies' assistance. Multiple sources have said a handful of U.S. allies overseas – possibly Great Britain, Australia and Italy – were asked to assist FBI efforts to check on Trump connections to Russia. ..."
"... Attorney General Bill Barr's recent comments that "the use of foreign intelligence capabilities and counterintelligence capabilities against an American political campaign, to me, is unprecedented and it's a serious red line that's been crossed." ..."
As the Russiagate circus attempts to quietly disappear over the horizon, with Democrats
preferring to shift the anti-Trump narrative back to "racist", "white supremacist",
"xenophobe", and the mainstream media ready to squawk "recession"; the Trump administration may
have a few more cards up its sleeve before anyone claims the higher ground in this farce we
call an election campaign.
As
The Hill's John Solomon details, in September 2018 that President Trump told my Hill.TV
colleague Buck Sexton and me that he would order the release of all classified documents
showing what the FBI, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and other U.S. intelligence agencies may
have done wrong in the Russia probe.
And while it's been almost a year since then, of feet-dragging and cajoling and
deep-state-fighting, we wonder, given Solomon's revelations below, if the president is getting
ready to play his 'Trump' card.
Here are the documents that
Solomon believes have the greatest chance of rocking Washington, if declassified:
1.) Christopher
Steele 's confidential human source reports at the FBI. These documents, known in bureau
parlance as 1023 reports, show exactly what transpired each time Steele and his FBI handlers
met in the summer and fall of 2016 to discuss his anti-Trump dossier. The big reveal, my
sources say, could be the first evidence that the FBI shared sensitive information with
Steele, such as the existence of the classified
Crossfire Hurricane operation targeting the Trump campaign. It would be a huge discovery
if the FBI fed Trump-Russia intel to Steele in the midst of an election, especially when his
ultimate opposition-research client was Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National
Committee (DNC). The FBI has released only one or two of these reports under FOIA lawsuits
and they were 100 percent redacted. The American public deserves better.
2.) The 53 House Intel interviews. House Intelligence interviewed many key players in
the Russia probe and asked the DNI to declassify those interviews nearly a year ago, after
sending the transcripts for review last November. There are several big reveals, I'm told,
including the first evidence that a lawyer tied to the Democratic National Committee had
Russia-related contacts at the CIA.
3.) The Stefan Halper documents. It has been widely reported that European-based
American academic Stefan Halper and a young assistant, Azra Turk,
worked as FBI sources . We know for sure that one or both had contact with targeted
Trump aides like Carter Page and George Papadopoulos at the end of the
election. My sources tell me there may be other documents showing Halper continued working
his way to the top of Trump's transition and administration, eventually reaching senior
advisers like Peter Navarro inside the White House in summer 2017. These documents would show
what intelligence agencies worked with Halper, who directed his activity, how much he was
paid and how long his contacts with Trump officials were directed by the U.S. government's
Russia probe.
4.) The October 2016 FBI email chain. This is a key document identified by Rep. Nunes and
his investigators. My sources say it will show exactly what concerns the FBI knew about and
discussed with DOJ about using Steele's dossier and other evidence to support a Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant targeting the Trump campaign in October 2016. If
those concerns weren't shared with FISA judges who approved the warrant, there could be major
repercussions.
5.) Page/Papadopoulos exculpatory statements. Another of Nunes' five buckets, these
documents purport to show what the two Trump aides were recorded telling undercover assets or
captured in intercepts insisting on their innocence. Papadopoulos told me he told an FBI
undercover source in September 2016 that the Trump campaign was not trying to obtain hacked
Clinton documents from Russia and considered doing so to be treason. If he made that
statement with the FBI monitoring, and it was not disclosed to the FISA court, it could be
another case of FBI or DOJ misconduct.
6.) The 'Gang of Eight' briefing materials. These were a series of classified
briefings and briefing books the FBI and DOJ provided key leaders in Congress in the summer
of 2018 that identify shortcomings in the Russia collusion narrative. Of all the
documents congressional leaders were shown, this is most frequently cited to me in private as
having changed the minds of lawmakers who weren't initially convinced of FISA abuses or FBI
irregularities.
7.) The Steele spreadsheet. I
wrote recently that the FBI kept a spreadsheet on the accuracy and reliability of every
claim in the Steele dossier. According to my sources, it showed as much as 90 percent of the
claims could not be corroborated, were debunked or turned out to be open-source internet
rumors. Given Steele's own effort to leak intel in his dossier to the media before
Election Day, the public deserves to see the FBI's final analysis of his credibility. A
document
I reviewed recently showed the FBI described Steele's information as only "minimally
corroborated" and the bureau's confidence in him as "medium."
9.) The redacted sections of the third FISA renewal application. This was the last of
four FISA warrants targeting the Trump campaign; it was renewed in June 2017 after special
counsel Robert
Mueller 's probe had started, and signed by then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein . It is the one
FISA application that House Republicans have repeatedly asked to be released, and I'm told
the big reveal in the currently redacted sections of the application is that it contained
both misleading information and evidence of intrusive tactics used by the U.S. government to
infiltrate Trump's orbit.
10.) Records of allies' assistance. Multiple sources have said a handful of U.S.
allies overseas – possibly Great Britain, Australia and Italy – were asked to
assist FBI efforts to check on Trump connections to Russia. Members of Congress have
searched recently for some key contact documents with British intelligence . My sources
say these documents might help explain Attorney General Bill Barr's
recent comments that "the use of foreign intelligence capabilities and
counterintelligence capabilities against an American political campaign, to me, is
unprecedented and it's a serious red line that's been crossed."
These documents, when declassified, would show more completely how a routine
counterintelligence probe was hijacked to turn the most awesome spy powers in America against a
presidential nominee in what was essentially a political dirty trick orchestrated by
Democrats.
I disagree with Solomon. Nothing will "doom" the swamp unless the righteous few are
willing to indict, prosecute and carry out sentencing for the guilty. Exposing the guilty
accomplishes nothing, because anyone paying attention already knows of their crimes. Those
who want to believe lies will still believe them after the truth comes out.
It's ALL A WASTE OF TIME unless we follow through.
Does anyone see a pattern here after the 2009 Tea Party movement began?
2009 - Republicans: "If we win back the House, we can accomplish our agenda."
2011 - Republicans: "If we win back the Senate, we can accomplish our agenda." (NOTE:
After winning back the House)
2012 - Republicans: "If we win back the Senate, we can accomplish our agenda." (NOTE: 2
YEARS After winning back the House)
2013 - Republicans: "If we win back the Presidency, we can accomplish our agenda." (NOTE:
1 YEAR after winning back the House and the Senate)
2014 - Republicans: "If we win back the Presidency, we can accomplish our agenda." (NOTE:
2 YEARS after winning back the House and the Senate)
2015 - Republicans: "If we win back the Presidency, we can accomplish our agenda." (NOTE:
3 YEARS after winning back the House and the Senate)
2016 - Republicans: "If we win back the Presidency, we can accomplish our agenda." (NOTE:
4 YEARS after winning back the House and the Senate)
2017 - Republicans: "Now that we've won back the Presidency, we can accomplish our
agenda." (NOTE: After winning back the House 6 YEARS AGO and the Senate 4 YEARS AGO)
2018 - Republicans: "Now that we've won back the Presidency, we can accomplish our
agenda." (NOTE: After winning back the House 7 YEARS AGO and the Senate 5 YEARS AGO)
2019 - John Solomon - "If Trump Declassifies These 10 Documents, Democrats Are Doomed"
I hate to say it, but I DON'T BELIEVE YOU, JOHN.
ALL WE HAVE HEARD OVER THE COURSE OF THIS DECADE IS "IF THIS HAPPENS...THEN THEY ARE
DOOMED / WE CAN ACCOMPLISH OUR AGENDA / YADDA YADDA YADDA.
WHEN THE FOLLOWING ARE FOUND GUILTY OF TREASON, THEN AND ONLY THEN WILL I BELIEVE YOU:
CLINTONS
OBAMA
BIDEN
KERRY
BRENNAN
CLAPPER
COMEY
MCCABE
MUELLER
WEISSMAN
STRZOK
RICE
POWERS
LYNCH
YATES
ET AL
WHY ARE THESE TREASONOUS, VILE, CORRUPT CRIMINALS NOT INDICTED FOR TREASON?
As if there's any major philosophical difference between the Librtads and Zionist
Cocksuckvatives.
Both sides use the .gov agencies to subvert and ignore the Constitution whenever possible.
Best example is WikiLeaks and how each party wished Assange would just go away when he
revealed damaging information about both sides on multiple occasions.
"... So far, that wager has netted Americans nothing. No money. No deal. No bridges, roads or leadless water pipes. And there's nothing on the horizon since Trump stormed out of the most recent meeting. That was a three-minute session in May with Democratic leaders at which Trump was supposed to discuss the $2 trillion he had proposed earlier to spend on infrastructure. In a press conference immediately afterward, Trump said if the Democrats continued to investigate him, he would refuse to keep his promises to the American people to repair the nation's infrastructure. ..."
"... Candidate Donald Trump knew it was no joke. On the campaign trail, he said U.S. infrastructure was "a mess" and no better than that of a "third-world country. " When an Amtrak train derailed in Philadelphia in 2015, killing eight and injuring about 200 , he tweeted , "Our roads, airports, tunnels, bridges, electric grid -- all falling apart." Later, he tweeted , "The only one to fix the infrastructure of our country is me." ..."
"... Donald Trump promised to make America great again. And that wouldn't be possible if America's rail system, locks, dams and pipelines -- that is, its vital organs -- were "a mess." Trump signed what he described as a contract with American voters to deliver an infrastructure plan within the first 100 days of his administration. ..."
"... He mocked his Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton's proposal to spend $275 billion. "Her number is a fraction of what we're talking about. We need much more money to rebuild our infrastructure," he told Fox News in 2016 . "I would say at least double her numbers, and you're going to really need a lot more than that." ..."
"... In August of 2016, he promised , "We will build the next generation of roads, bridges, railways, tunnels, seaports and airports that our country deserves. American cars will travel the roads, American planes will connect our cities, and American ships will patrol the seas. American steel will send new skyscrapers soaring. We will put new American metal into the spine of this nation." ..."
"... That contract Trump signed with American voters to produce an infrastructure plan in the first 100 days: worthless. It never happened. He gave Americans an Infrastructure Week in June of 2017, though, and at just about the 100-day mark, predicted infrastructure spending would "take off like a rocket ship." Two more Infrastructure Weeks followed in the next two years, but no money. ..."
"... This year, by which time the words Infrastructure Week had become a synonym for promises not kept, Trump met on April 30 with top Democratic leaders and recommended a $2 trillion infrastructure investment. Democrats praised Trump afterward for taking the challenge seriously and for agreeing to find the money. ..."
"... Almost immediately, Trump began complaining that Democrats were trying to hoodwink him into raising taxes to pay for the $2 trillion he had offered to spend. ..."
"... Trump and the Republicans relinquished one way to pay for infrastructure when they passed a tax cut for the rich and corporations in December of 2017. As a result, the rich and corporations pocketed hundreds of billions -- $1 trillion over 10 years -- and Trump doesn't have that money to invest in infrastructure. Corporations spent their tax break money on stock buybacks, further enriching the already rich. They didn't invest in American manufacturing or worker training or wage increases. ..."
"... I have seen this movie before. A State builds a highway, it then leases that highway to a corporation for a bucket of cash which it uses to bribe the electorate to win the next election or two. The corporation shoves brand new toll booths on the highway charging sky high rates which puts a crimp in local economic activity. After the lease is up after twenty years, the State gets to take over the highway again to find that the corporation cut back on maintenance so that the whole highway has to be rebuilt again. Rinse and repeat. ..."
"... Promises by any narcissist mean nothing. You cannot hang your hat on any word that Trump speaks, because it's not about you or anyone else, but about him and only him. ..."
"... Here is a heads up. If any infrastructure is done it will be airports. The elite fly and couldn't give a crap about the suspension and wheel destroying potholes we have to slalom around every day. They also don't care that the great unwashed waste thousands of hours stuck in traffic when a bridge is closed or collapses. ..."
Yves here. In a bit of synchronicity, when a reader was graciously driving me to the Department of Motor Vehicles (a schlepp in
the wilds of Shelby County), she mentioned she'd heard local media reports that trucks had had their weight limits lowered due to
concern that some overpasses might not be able to handle the loads. Of course, a big reason infrastructure spending has plunged in
the US is that it's become an excuse for "public-private partnerships," aka looting, when those deals take longer to get done and
produce bad results so often that locals can sometimes block them.
No problem, though. President Donald Trump promised to fix all this. The great dealmaker, the builder of eponymous buildings,
the star of "The Apprentice," Donald Trump, during his campaign, urged Americans to bet on him because he'd double what his opponent
would spend on infrastructure. Double, he pledged!
So far, that wager has netted Americans nothing. No money. No deal. No bridges, roads or leadless water pipes. And there's
nothing on the horizon since Trump stormed out of the most recent meeting. That was a three-minute session in May with Democratic
leaders at which Trump was supposed to discuss the $2 trillion he had proposed earlier to spend on infrastructure. In a press conference
immediately afterward, Trump said if the Democrats continued to investigate him, he would refuse to keep his promises to the American
people to repair the nation's infrastructure.
The comedian Stephen Colbert described the situation best, saying Trump told the Democrats: "It's my way or no highways."
The situation, however, is no joke. Just ask the New York rail commuters held up for more than 2,000 hours over the past four
years by bridge and tunnel breakdowns. Just ask the
American Society of Civil Engineers , which gave the nation a D+ grade for infrastructure and estimated that if more than $1
trillion is not added to currently anticipated spending on infrastructure, "the economy is expected to lose almost
$4 trillion in GDP , resulting in a loss of 2.5 million jobs in 2025."
Donald Trump promised to make America great again. And that wouldn't be possible if America's rail system, locks, dams and
pipelines -- that is, its vital organs -- were "a mess." Trump signed
what he described as a
contract with American voters to deliver an infrastructure plan within the first 100 days of his administration.
He mocked his Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton's proposal to spend $275 billion. "Her number is a fraction of what we're
talking about. We need much more money to rebuild our infrastructure,"
he told Fox News in 2016 . "I would say at least double her numbers, and you're going to really need a lot more than that."
In August of 2016, he promised
, "We will build the next generation of roads, bridges, railways, tunnels, seaports and airports that our country deserves. American
cars will travel the roads, American planes will connect our cities, and American ships will patrol the seas. American steel will
send new skyscrapers soaring. We will put new American metal into the spine of this nation."
In his victory speech and both of his State of the Union addresses, he pledged again to be the master of infrastructure. "We are
going to fix our inner cities and rebuild our highways, bridges, tunnels, airports, school, hospitals. And we will put millions of
our people to work," he said the night he won.
That sounds excellent. That's exactly what
75 percent of respondents
to a Gallup poll said they wanted. That would create millions of family-supporting jobs making the steel, aluminum, concrete, pipes
and construction vehicles necessary to accomplish infrastructure repair. That would stimulate the economy in ways that benefit the
middle class and those who are struggling.
That contract Trump signed with American voters to produce an infrastructure plan in the first 100 days: worthless. It never
happened. He gave Americans
an Infrastructure Week
in June of 2017, though, and
at just about the 100-day mark, predicted infrastructure spending would "take off like a rocket ship." Two more Infrastructure
Weeks followed in the next two years, but no money.
Trump finally announced
a plan in February of 2018, at a little over the 365-day mark, to spend $1.5 trillion on infrastructure. It went nowhere
because it managed to annoy both Democrats and Republicans.
It was to be funded by only $200 billion in federal dollars -- less than what Hillary Clinton proposed. The rest was to come from
state and local governments and from foreign money interests and the private sector. Basically, the idea was to hand over to hedge
fund managers the roads and bridges and pipelines originally built, owned and maintained by Americans. The fat cats at the hedge
funds would pay for repairs but then toll the assets in perpetuity. Nobody liked it.
That was last year. This year, by which time the words
Infrastructure Week had
become a synonym for promises not kept,
Trump met on April 30 with top Democratic leaders and recommended a $2 trillion infrastructure investment. Democrats praised
Trump afterward for taking the challenge seriously and for agreeing to find the money.
Almost immediately, Trump
began complaining that Democrats were trying to hoodwink him into raising taxes to pay for the $2 trillion he had offered to
spend.
Trump and the Republicans relinquished one way to pay for infrastructure when they passed a tax cut for the rich and corporations
in December of 2017. As a result, the rich and corporations pocketed hundreds of billions --
$1 trillion over 10 years -- and Trump doesn't
have that money to invest in infrastructure. Corporations spent their tax break money on stock buybacks, further enriching the already
rich. They didn't invest in American manufacturing or worker training or wage increases.
Three weeks after the April 30 meeting, Trump snubbed Democrats who returned to the White House hoping the president had found
a way to keep his promise to raise $2 trillion for infrastructure. Trump dismissed them like naughty schoolchildren. He told them
he wouldn't countenance Democrats simultaneously investigating him and bargaining with him -- even though Democrats were investigating
him at the time of the April meeting and one of the investigators -- Neal -- had attended.
Promise not kept again.
Trump's reelection motto, Keep America Great, doesn't work for infrastructure. It's still a mess. It's the third year of his presidency,
and he has done nothing about it. Apparently, he's saving this pledge for his next term.
In May, he promised Louisianans
a new bridge over
Interstate 10 -- only if he is reelected. He said the administration would have it ready to go on "day one, right after the election."
Just like he said he'd produce an infrastructure plan within the first 100 days of his first term.
He's doubling down on the infrastructure promises. His win would mean Americans get nothing again.
The whole thing seems so stupid. The desperate need is there, the people are there to do the work, the money spent into the
infrastructure would give a major boost to the real economy, the completed infrastructure would give the real economy a boost
for years & decades to come – it is win-win right across the board. But the whole thing is stalled because the whole deal can't
be rigged to give a bunch of hedge fund managers control of that infrastructure afterwards. If it did, the constant rents that
Americans would have to pay to use this infrastructure would bleed the economy for decades to come.
I have seen this movie before. A State builds a highway, it then leases that highway to a corporation for a bucket of cash
which it uses to bribe the electorate to win the next election or two. The corporation shoves brand new toll booths on the highway
charging sky high rates which puts a crimp in local economic activity. After the lease is up after twenty years, the State gets
to take over the highway again to find that the corporation cut back on maintenance so that the whole highway has to be rebuilt
again. Rinse and repeat.
When President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the Federal Aid Highway Act in 1956, can you imagine how history would have gone
if they had been handed over to a bunch of corporations who would have built toll booths over the whole network? Would have done
wonders for the American economy I bet.
One of the things discussed at our town hall meeting the other night, was a much needed $481k public bathroom, and that was
the low bid.
It has to be ADA compliant with ramps, etc.
$48,100 seems like it'd be plenty to get 'r done, as you can build a house with a couple of bathrooms, and a few bedrooms,
a kitchen and living room for maybe $200k.
And if toll revenues don't come as high as expected, mother state will come to the rescue of those poor fund managers. I find
it amazing that Trump uses the stupid Russia, Russia, Russia! fixation of democrats as an excuse to do nothing about infrastructure.
Does this work with his electorate?
Promises by any narcissist mean nothing. You cannot hang your hat on any word that Trump speaks, because it's not about
you or anyone else, but about him and only him.
Here is a heads up. If any infrastructure is done it will be airports. The elite fly and couldn't give a crap about the
suspension and wheel destroying potholes we have to slalom around every day. They also don't care that the great unwashed waste
thousands of hours stuck in traffic when a bridge is closed or collapses.
Well, fix the airports and you've still got Boeing, self-destructing as fast as it can. And Airbus can't fill all the orders
no matter how hard it tries. Guess everybody will just have to . stay home.
Are all the coal jobs back? How about the manufacturing? NAFTA been repealed and replaced with something better yet? How's
the wall coming and has Mexico sent the check yet? Soldiers back from Afghanistan/Iraq/Syria yet?
Got that tax cut for rich people and a ton of conservative judges through though, didn't he?
"It couldn't have gone any better," Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard E. Neal, D-Mass., told the Washington Post,
even though Neal was investigating Trump for possible tax fraud.
What a surprise. It's simply "amazing" that the insane status quo jihad that has been waged against Trump since he announced
his candidacy had real consequences for the country. Who would have thought that calling ANY president ignorant, ugly, fat, a
liar, a traitor, a cheater, an agent of Putin, a racist, a misogynist, a xenophobe, a bigot, an isolationist and an illegitimate
occupant of the White House 24/7 since he or she won the election would make actual accomplishment nearly impossible.
The mere mention of his name on college campuses has even been legitimized as a fear-inducing, "safety"-threatening "microagression."
It's just so rich that having determined to prevent Trump from doing absolutely anything he promised during the campaign by
any and all means, regardless of what the promise was or how beneficial it may have been, his numerous, bilious "critics" now
have the gonads to accuse him of not getting anything done.
With all due respect to the author of this piece, the result he laments was exactly the point of this relentless nightmare
of Trump derangement to which the nation has been subjected for three years. I tend to think that the specific promise most targeted
for destruction was his criticism of NATO and "infrastructure" was collateral damage, but that's neither here nor there.
The washington status quo has succeeded in its mission to cripple a president it could not defeat electorally, and now tries
to blame him for their success. Cutting off your nose to spite your face has always been a counterproductive strategy.
"... Gabbard calls out the betrayers; Dems try to forget their heroes Mueller and Biden are among them. ..."
"... The gains of war in Iraq remain elusive, especially considering that the justifications for invasion -- weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein's connection to al-Qaeda, the ambition to create a Western-style democracy at gunpoint -- remain "murky at best." That's a quote from the 9/11 Commission's conclusion on the so-called evidence linking Iraq to Osama bin Laden's group, which actually did carry out the worst terrorist attack in American history. ..."
"... As far as stupid and barbarous decisions are concerned, it is difficult to top the war in Iraq. It is also difficult to match its price tag, which, according to a recent Brown University study, amounts to $1.1 trillion. ..."
"... Gore Vidal once christened his country the "United States of Amnesia," explaining that Americans live in a perpetual state of a hangover: "Every morning we wake up having forgotten what happened the night before." ..."
"... The war in Iraq ended only nine years ago, but it might as well have never taken place, given the curious lack of acknowledgement in our press and political debates. As families mourn their children, babies are born with irreversible deformities, and veterans dread trying to sleep through the night, America's political class, many of whom sold the war to the public, have moved on. When they address Iraq at all, they act as though they have committed a minor error, as though large-scale death and destruction are the equivalent of a poor shot in golf when the course rules allow for mulligans. ..."
"... As the Robert Mueller fiasco smolders out, it is damning that the Democratic Party, in its zest and zeal to welcome any critical assessment of Trump's unethical behavior, has barely mentioned that Mueller, in his previous role as director of the FBI, played a small but significant role in convincing the country to go to war in Iraq. ..."
"... Mueller testified to Congress that "Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program poses a clear threat to our national security." He also warned that Saddam could "supply terrorists with radiological material" for the purposes of devising a nuclear bomb. Leaving aside any speculation about Mueller's intentions and assuming he had only the best of motives, it is quite bizarre, even dangerous, to treat as oracular someone who was wrong on such a life-or-death question. ..."
"... The former vice president now claims that his "only mistake was trusting the Bush administration," implying he was tricked into supporting the war. This line is not as persuasive as he imagines. First, it raises the question -- can't we nominate someone who wasn't tricked? Second, its logic crumbles in the face of Biden's recent decision to hire Nicholas Burns, former U.S. ambassador to NATO, as his campaign's foreign policy advisor. Burns was also a vociferous supporter of the war. An enterprising reporter should ask Biden whether Burns was also tricked. Is the Biden campaign an assembly of rubes? ..."
"... Instead, the press is likelier to interrogate Biden over his holding hands and giving hugs to women at public events. Criticism of Biden's "inappropriate touching" has become so strident that the candidate had to record a video to explain his behavior. The moral standards of America's political culture seem to rate kissing a woman on the back of the head as a graver offense than catastrophic war. ..."
Gabbard calls out the betrayers; Dems try to forget their heroes Mueller and Biden are among them.
Estimates of the number of civilians who died during the war in Iraq range from 151,000 to 655,000. An additional 4,491 American
military personnel perished in the war. Mozhgan Savabieasfahani, toxicologist at the University of Michigan, has organized several
research expeditions to Iraq to measure the contamination and pollution still poisoning the air and water supply from the tons of
munitions dropped during the war. It does not require any expertise to assume what the studies confirm: disease is still widespread
and birth defects are gruesomely common. Back home, it is difficult to measure just how many struggle with critical injuries and
post-traumatic stress disorder.
The gains of war in Iraq remain elusive, especially considering that the justifications for invasion -- weapons of mass destruction,
Saddam Hussein's connection to al-Qaeda, the ambition to create a Western-style democracy at gunpoint -- remain "murky at best."
That's a quote from the 9/11 Commission's conclusion on the so-called evidence linking Iraq to Osama bin Laden's group, which actually
did carry out the worst terrorist attack in American history.
As far as stupid and barbarous decisions are concerned, it is difficult to top the war in Iraq. It is also difficult to match
its price tag, which, according to a recent Brown University study, amounts to $1.1 trillion.
Gore Vidal once christened his country the "United States of Amnesia," explaining that Americans live in a perpetual state
of a hangover: "Every morning we wake up having forgotten what happened the night before."
The war in Iraq ended only nine years ago, but it might as well have never taken place, given the curious lack of acknowledgement
in our press and political debates. As families mourn their children, babies are born with irreversible deformities, and veterans
dread trying to sleep through the night, America's political class, many of whom sold the war to the public, have moved on. When
they address Iraq at all, they act as though they have committed a minor error, as though large-scale death and destruction are the
equivalent of a poor shot in golf when the course rules allow for mulligans.
As the Robert Mueller fiasco smolders out, it is damning that the Democratic Party, in its zest and zeal to welcome any critical
assessment of Trump's unethical behavior, has barely mentioned that Mueller, in his previous role as director of the FBI, played
a small but significant role in convincing the country to go to war in Iraq.
Mueller testified to Congress that "Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program poses a clear threat to our national security."
He also warned that Saddam could "supply terrorists with radiological material" for the purposes of devising a nuclear bomb. Leaving
aside any speculation about Mueller's intentions and assuming he had only the best of motives, it is quite bizarre, even dangerous,
to treat as oracular someone who was wrong on such a life-or-death question.
Far worse than the worship of Mueller is the refusal to scrutinize the abysmal foreign policy record of Joe Biden, currently the
frontrunner in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination. Of the Democrats in the Senate at that time, Biden was the most
enthusiastic of the cheerleaders for war, waving his pompoms and cartwheeling in rhythm to Dick Cheney's music. Biden said repeatedly
that America had "no choice but to eliminate the threat" posed by Saddam Hussein. As chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
his blustering was uniquely influential.
The former vice president now claims that his "only mistake was trusting the Bush administration," implying he was tricked
into supporting the war. This line is not as persuasive as he imagines. First, it raises the question -- can't we nominate someone
who wasn't tricked? Second, its logic crumbles in the face of Biden's recent decision to hire Nicholas Burns, former U.S. ambassador
to NATO, as his campaign's foreign policy advisor. Burns was also a vociferous supporter of the war. An enterprising reporter should
ask Biden whether Burns was also tricked. Is the Biden campaign an assembly of rubes?
Instead, the press is likelier to interrogate Biden over his holding hands and giving hugs to women at public events. Criticism
of Biden's "inappropriate touching" has become so strident that the candidate had to record a video to explain his behavior. The
moral standards of America's political culture seem to rate kissing a woman on the back of the head as a graver offense than catastrophic
war.
Polling well below Biden in the race is the congresswoman from Hawaii, Tulsi Gabbard. She alone on the Democratic stage has made
criticism of American militarism central to her candidacy. A veteran of the Iraq war and a highly decorated major in the Hawaii Army
National Guard, Gabbard offers an intelligent and humane perspective on foreign affairs. She's called the regime change philosophy
"disastrous," advocated for negotiation with hostile foreign powers, and backed a reduction in drone strikes. She pledges if she
becomes president to end American involvement in Afghanistan.
When Chris Matthews asked Gabbard about Biden's support for the Iraq war, she said, "It was the wrong vote. People like myself,
who enlisted after 9/11 because of the terrorist attacks, were lied to. We were betrayed."
Her moral clarity is rare in the political fog of the presidential circus. She cautions against accepting the "guise of humanitarian
justification for war," and notes that rarely does the American government bomb and invade a country to actually advance freedom
or protect human rights.
Gabbard's positions are vastly superior to that of the other young veteran in the race, Pete Buttigieg. The mayor of South Bend
recently told New York that one of his favorite novels is The Quiet American , saying that its author, Graham Greene,
"points out the dangers of well-intentioned interventions."
Buttigieg's chances of winning the nomination seem low, and his prospects of becoming a literary critic appear even lower.
The Quiet American does much more than raise questions about interventions: it is a merciless condemnation of American exceptionalism
and its attendant indifference to Vietnamese suffering.
Americans hoping for peace won't find much comfort in the current White House either. President Trump has made the world more
dangerous by trashing the Iran nuclear deal, and his appointment of John Bolton, a man who makes Donald Rumsfeld look like Mahatma
Gandhi, as national security advisor is certainly alarming.
America's willful ignorance when it comes to the use of its own military exposes the moral bankruptcy at the heart of its political
culture. Even worse, it makes future wars all but inevitable.
If no one can remember a war that ended merely nine years ago, and there's little room for Tulsi Gabbard in the Democratic primary,
how will the country react the next time a president, and the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, declare that they
have no choice but to remove a threat?
Norman Solomon, journalist and founder of the Institute for Public Accuracy, knows the answer to that question. He provides it
in the title of his book on how the media treats American foreign policy decisions: War Made Easy .
Where ae the people who told us that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction? Should they be tried for lying to the American public?
4500 troops killed and over $1.1 TRILLION wasted with no good results .With hundreds of thousands of Iraq's killed. .
Where are they, indeed? They are still running US foreign policy; that's where they are. They are pundits in all the major media;
that's where they are.
I cannot even imagine what historians will say about the uncanny persistence of these charlatans' influence in this era after
a consistent record of disastrous, abysmal misadventures.
You don't have to look too hard to find them. Bolton, Pompeo, and other neocons are hiding in plain sight. The Military Industrial
Complex is embedded in our foreign policy like a tick on a dog.
Because you'd be knocking out a storm trooper instead of the emperor, at least as far as Bush goes. Same for why the focus is
on Bolton rather than simply Trump.
I CAN see an argument that Trump/Bush knew what they were doing when they brought those people in though. f you feel that way
and see it more of an owner of a hostile attack dog then yeah, you'd want to include those two too.
Here stands Tulsi. A woman, who, unlike their conventional troupe, can win this election. They reject her because... what? Moar
war? She's not the member of the Cult? Or it's simply some sort of collective political death wish?
They reject her because she had the temerity to speak truth to power and supported Bernie Sanders in the 2016 race. She stepped
down from her position as Vice Chair of the DNC to endorse Sanders. She has real courage, and earned their wrath. She's not perfect
but she's braver and stronger than almost the entire field. Only Bernie is on par.
And Bernie is the one they also hate, maybe a little bit less openly. Thus they reject those who can win the election. It's either
a self-destructiveness or they think that it's better to keep on losing than to rebuild the party into what it needs to be.
Democrats and the Republican establishment, both, love war. It wasn't a coincidence that Hillary Clinton chose Madeleine Albright
to be a keynote speaker at "her" party convention ("we think the deaths of a half million children are worth it"). Liberals know
that there isn't really any "free" free, and that taxing the rich won't match their dreams -- it is the blood and bones of innocent
foreigners that must pay for their lust. Establishment Republicans are more straightforward: they simply profit off the death
and destruction.
This is why Trump is being destroyed, and why Tulsi is attacked. If only "she" (the one who gloated over Khameni's murder)
had been elected, we'd be in a proxy war with Russia now! A real war with Iran! This is what the American people want, and what
they'll likely get when they vote another chicken-hawk in come 2020.
Tulsi, like Sanders is a 'danger' to everything Israel wants.
So, all...all the main 'news' networks and online sites don't like them and give more coverage to the same old Dem bull peddlers
like ignorant Booker and the lousy opportunist low IQ Kamala Harris and Gillibrand.
Manafort and his ilk can be tried and convicted for their lies. I guess if the lie is big enough we grant a pass on any need for
prosecution. Justice for all? I don't think so.
Max Blumenthal posted a powerful piece at Consortium News (7/31/2019) about Biden's central and south American mis-adventures.
Biden still extols his own policies however disastrous. The hubris of the man is worse than nauseating.
Whether one thinks Gabbard has a shot at the nomination or not, it's important to keep her on the stage in the next round of debates.
Go to Tulsi2020.com
and give her just one dollar (or more if you can)
so she has enough unique contributors to make the next round. And if you get polled,early on give her your vote.
The total US costs related to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are expected to be considerably larger than $1.1 trillion, according
to this study:
https://www.hks.harvard.edu...
Try $4-$6 trillion, according to the author of the study.
Long after I, Andrew Bacevitch and Hillary Clinton have gone to our reward, there will still be thousands of wounded warriors
from these US Middle East adventures dependent on VA benefits for their survival and competing with civilian seniors for government
handouts. A war with Iran would make the US fiscal situation that much worse.
The religious folks who were so anxious to protect family values only a few years ago seem to have their heads in the sand
when it comes to the financial future of today's young Americans.
A few weeks ago, I made a token contribution to Tulsi Gabbard's campaign to help her qualify for the July Democratic debates.
She will need more new contributors to qualify for the next round of debates.
Tulsi hasn't a chance of the nomination, but she's exposing things and maybe more people will get a clue about what's really going
on with American lives and taxes being squandered for the profit of the few who benefit from these atrocities and wars abroad,
done in the name of all Americans.
Being a supporter of Tulsi Gabbard for the very reasons that the author writes, has me agreeing with everything he has promoted
in his piece.
However, to answer his own question as to why Americans are lured into commenting on such innocuous and foolish things in such
an important election such as Biden's touching of women, is answered by the author's own prose.
He states that Americans are only provided such nonsense from the press that is monitoring the election process. What else
can people talk about? And even if many Americans are clearheaded enough to understand the charade of the current Democratic debates,
what or who will actually provide legitimate coverage with the exception of online sites as the American Conservative, among others?
If most Americans were actually thinking individuals, Tulsi Gabbard would be a shoo-in for the presidency in 2020. However,
given the two factors of a highly corrupted mainstream press and too many Americans not studying enough civics to understand what
is going on around them, it is highly unlikely that Tulsi Gabbard will even get close to the possibility of being nominated...
Cheney, mentioned in the article, was pure evil. I voted for GB2 for two reasons. 1) He was a very good Texas governor. He actually
got anti-tax Texas to raise taxes dedicated to support education, in return for stricter standards for teachers. A good trade
since Texas public schools were awful. 2) Dick Cheney. I thought he was the adult in the room that would provide steady and reliable
guidance for Bush.
Boy was I wrong about Cheney. "Deficits don't matter". Just watch the movie Vice. Christian Bale does an incredible job portraying
the pure evil of Cheney and the Military Industrial Complex. The movie is chilling to watch. And it is basically true. Politifact
does a good job of scoring the accuracy of Cheney's role in the Bush administration as portrayed in the movie.
all neocon scum instantly had risen to the surface to defend the neoliberal empire and its wars...
Notable quotes:
"... In the race to determine who will serve as commander in chief of the most powerful military force in the history of civilization, night two of the CNN Democratic presidential debates saw less than six minutes dedicated to discussing U.S. military policy during the 180-minute event. ..."
"... That's six, as in the number before seven. Not 60. Not 16. Six. From the moment Jake Tapper said "I want to turn to foreign policy" to the moment Don Lemon interrupted Rep. Tulsi Gabbard just as she was preparing to correctly explain how President Donald Trump is supporting Al-Qaeda in Idlib , approximately five minutes and 50 seconds had elapsed. The questions then turned toward the Mueller report on Russian interference in the 2016 elections and impeachment proceedings. ..."
"... But the near-absence of foreign policy discussion didn't stop the Hawaii lawmaker from getting in some unauthorized truth-telling anyway. Attacking the authoritarian prosecutorial record of Sen. Kamala Harris to thunderous applause from the audience, Gabbard criticized the way her opponent "put over 1,500 people in jail for marijuana violations and then laughed about it when she was asked if she ever smoked marijuana;" "blocked evidence that would have freed an innocent man from death row until the court's forced her to do so;" "kept people in prisons beyond their sentences to use them as cheap labor for the state of California;" and "fought to keep the cash bail system in place that impacts poor people in the worst kind of way." ..."
"... That was all it took. Harris's press secretary Ian Sams unleashed a string of tweets about Gabbard being an "Assad apologist," which were followed by a deluge of establishment narrative managers who sent the word "Assad" trending on Twitter, at times when Gabbard's name somehow failed to trend despite being the top-searched candidate on Google after the debate. ..."
"... "Somehow I have a hard time believing that 'Assad' is the top trending item in the United States but 'Tulsi' is nowhere to be found," tweeted journalist Michael Tracey. ..."
"... It really is interesting how aggressively the narrative managers thrust this line into mainstream consciousness all at the same time. ..."
"... The Washington Post 's Josh Rogin went on a frantic, lie-filled Twitter storm as soon as he saw an opportunity, claiming with no evidence whatsoever that Gabbard lied when she said she met with Assad for purposes of diplomacy and that she "helped Assad whitewash a mass atrocity," and falsely claiming that " she praised Russian bombing of Syrian civilians ." ..."
"... War is the glue that holds the empire together . A politician can get away with opposing some aspects of the status quo when it comes to healthcare or education, but war as a strategy for maintaining global dominance is strictly off limits. This is how you tell the difference between someone who actually wants to change things and someone who's just going through the motions for show; the real rebels forcefully oppose the actual pillars of empire by calling for an end to military bloodshed, while the performers just stick to the safe subjects. ..."
"... The shrill, hysterical pushback that Gabbard received last night was very encouraging, because it means she's forcing them to fight back. In a media environment where the war propaganda machine normally coasts along almost entirely unhindered in mainstream attention, the fact that someone has positioned themselves to move the needle like this says good things for our future. If our society is to have any chance of ever throwing off the omnicidal, ecocidal power establishment which keeps us in a state of endless war and soul-crushing oppression, the first step is punching a hole in the narrative matrix which keeps us hypnotized into believing that this is all normal and acceptable. ..."
"... Her immediate response to the first question directed to her, regardless of topic, should be prefaced with something like "I would appreciate the media and the opposition please refrain from deliberately misrepresenting my policies and remarks, most notably trying to tar me with more of the fallacious war propaganda they both dispense so freely and without any foundation. ..."
"... Gabbard has any chance to be elected only if she starts vigorously throwing over the tables of the money-lenders in the temple, so to speak. ..."
"... Hide the empire in plain sight, that way no one will notice it. Then someone like Tulsi Gabbard goes and talks about it on national TV. Can't have that, can we? People might begin to see it if we do that ..."
"... Pro war democrats are now using the Russian ruse to go after anti war candidates like Gabbard. It's despicable to even insinuate Gabbard is working for Putin or had any other rationale for going to Syria than seeking peace. This alone proved Harris unfit for the presidency. Her awful record speaks for itself. ..."
"... And she has courage. She quit the DNC to support Bernie and went to Syria to seek the truth and peace. ..."
"... She is unique. The media is trying Ron-Paul-Type-Blackout on her, lest the public catches on to the fact that she is exactly what the country needs. ..."
"... Warmonger candidates had better reconsider their positions if they believe that voters will back their stance. Just ask Hillary Clinton how that worked out for her and her warrior mentality in 2016. ..."
"... she has cross over appeal with republicans who want out of the wars. People like Tucker Carson and Paul Craig Roberts support her. Thats why the DNC hate her.. ..."
"... There's an obvious effort to Jane Fodarize Tulsi before she threatens the favorites. She seems to keep a cool head, so much of it is likely to backfire and bring the narrative back where it belongs. ..."
"... In contrast to Gabbard, a service member with extensive middle east combat experience, Cooper is a chickenhawk and a naif to murder and torture; ..."
"... "Whoever controls the narrative controls the world. Whoever disrupts that narrative control is doing the real work." ..."
"... I read "narrative control" as brainwashing. ..."
Establishment narrative managers distracted attention from a notable antiwar contender, seizing instead the chance to marshal
an old smear against her, writes Caitlin Johnstone.
In the race to determine who will serve as commander in chief of the most powerful military force in the history of civilization,
night two of the CNN Democratic presidential debates saw less than six minutes dedicated to discussing U.S. military policy during
the 180-minute event.
That's six, as in the number before seven. Not 60. Not 16. Six. From
the moment Jake Tapper said "I want to turn to foreign policy"
to the moment Don Lemon interrupted Rep. Tulsi Gabbard just as
she was preparing to correctly explain how President Donald Trump
is supporting Al-Qaeda in
Idlib , approximately five minutes and
50 seconds had elapsed. The questions then turned toward the Mueller report on Russian interference in the 2016 elections and impeachment
proceedings.
Night one of the CNN debates saw almost twice as much time, with
a whole 11 minutes by my count dedicated to questions of war and peace for the leadership of the most warlike nation on the planet.
This discrepancy could very well be due to the fact that night two was the slot allotted to Gabbard, whose campaign largely revolves
around the platform of ending U.S. warmongering.
CNN is a virulent establishment propaganda firm with an extensive history of promoting
lies and
brazen psyops in facilitation of U.S. imperialism, so it would make sense that they would try to avoid a subject which would
inevitably lead to unauthorized truth-telling on the matter.
But the near-absence of foreign policy discussion didn't stop the Hawaii lawmaker from getting in some unauthorized truth-telling
anyway. Attacking the authoritarian prosecutorial record
of Sen. Kamala Harris to thunderous applause from the audience, Gabbard criticized the way her opponent "put over 1,500 people in
jail for marijuana violations and then laughed about it when she was asked if she ever smoked marijuana;" "blocked evidence that
would have freed an innocent man from death row until the court's forced her to do so;" "kept people in prisons beyond their sentences
to use them as cheap labor for the state of California;" and "fought to keep the cash bail system in place that impacts poor people
in the worst kind of way."
Harris Folded Under Pressure
Harris, who it turns out
fights very well
when advancing but folds under pressure, had no answer for Gabbard's attack, preferring to focus on attacking former Vice President
Joe Biden instead.
Later, when she was a nice safe distance out of Gabbard's earshot, she uncorked a
long-debunked but still effective smear that establishment narrative managers have been dying for an excuse to run wild with.
"This, coming from someone who has been an apologist for an individual, Assad, who has murdered the people of his country
like cockroaches," Harris
told Anderson
Cooper after the debate, referring to the president of Syria. "She who has embraced and been an apologist for him in a way
that she refuses to call him a war criminal. I can only take what she says and her opinion so seriously and so I'm prepared to
move on."
That was all it took. Harris's press secretary Ian Sams unleashed
a string of tweets about Gabbard being
an "Assad apologist," which were followed by a deluge of establishment narrative managers who sent the word "Assad" trending on Twitter,
at times when Gabbard's name somehow failed to trend despite being
the
top-searched candidate on Google after the debate.
"Somehow I have a hard time believing that 'Assad' is the top trending item in the United States but 'Tulsi' is nowhere
to be found," tweeted journalist Michael
Tracey.
It really is interesting how aggressively the narrative managers thrust this line into mainstream consciousness all at the
same time.
The Washington Post 's Josh Rogin went on a
frantic, lie-filled Twitter storm as
soon as he saw an opportunity, claiming
with no evidence whatsoever that Gabbard lied when she said she met with Assad for purposes of diplomacy and that she "helped Assad
whitewash a mass atrocity," and falsely claiming that "
she praised Russian bombing of Syrian civilians
."
... ... ...
War is
the glue that
holds the empire together . A politician can get away with opposing some aspects of the status quo when it comes to healthcare
or education, but war as a strategy for maintaining global dominance is strictly off limits. This is how you tell the difference
between someone who actually wants to change things and someone who's just going through the motions for show; the real rebels forcefully
oppose the actual pillars of empire by calling for an end to military bloodshed, while the performers just stick to the safe subjects.
The shrill, hysterical pushback that Gabbard received last night was very encouraging, because it means she's forcing them
to fight back. In a media environment where the war propaganda machine normally coasts along almost entirely unhindered in mainstream
attention, the fact that someone has positioned themselves to move the needle like this says good things for our future. If our society
is to have any chance of ever throwing off the omnicidal, ecocidal power establishment which keeps us in a state of endless war and
soul-crushing oppression, the first step is punching a hole in
the narrative matrix which keeps us hypnotized into believing that this is all normal and acceptable.
Whoever controls the narrative controls the world. Whoever disrupts that narrative control is doing the real work.
I'm going to venture a guess and say that the media fixers for the Deep State's political song and dance show are not going
to allow Tulsi back on that stage for the next installation of "Killer Klowns on Parade." Just as she had the right to skewer
Harris for her sweeping dishonesty and hypocrisy in public office, she has just as much right to proactively respond to the smears
and slanders directed against her by both the party establishment and its media colluders.
Her immediate response to the first question directed to her, regardless of topic, should be prefaced with something like
"I would appreciate the media and the opposition please refrain from deliberately misrepresenting my policies and remarks, most
notably trying to tar me with more of the fallacious war propaganda they both dispense so freely and without any foundation.
It is beneath all dignity to attempt to win elections with lies and deceptions, just as it is to use them as pretexts for wars
of choice that bring no benefit to either America or the countries being attacked. As I've repeatedly made clear, I only want
to stop the wasteful destruction and carnage, but you deceitfully try to imply that I'm aligned with one of the several foreign
governments that our leaders have needlessly and foolishly chosen to make war upon. You've done so on this stage and you've continued
this misrepresentation throughout the American media. Please stop it. Play fair. Confine your remarks only to the truth."
That would raise a kerfuffle, but one that is distinctly called for. Going gently towards exit stage right consequent to their
unanswered lies will accomplish nothing. If the Dems choose to excommunicate her for such effrontery, she should run as a Green,
or an independent. This is a danger the Dem power structure dare not allow to happen. They don't even want the particulars of
the actual history of these wars discussed in public. Thus, they will not even give her the chance to offer a rejoinder such as
I outlined above. They will simply rule that she does not qualify for any further debates based on her polling numbers (which
can be faked) and/or her financial support numbers. That is nominally how they've already decided to winnow down the field to
the few who are acceptable to the Deep State–preferably Harris, Biden or Booker. Someone high profile but owned entirely by the
insider elites. Yes, this rules out Bernie and maybe even Warren unless she secretly signed a blood pact with Wall Street to walk
away from her platform if elected.
Gabbard has any chance to be elected only if she starts vigorously throwing over the tables of the money-lenders in the
temple, so to speak.
Tom Kath , August 2, 2019 at 20:05
There is a big difference between "PRINCIPLES" and "POLICY". Principles should never change, but policy must. This is where
I believe Tulsi can not only make a big difference, but ultimately even win. – Not this time around perhaps, she is young and
this difference will take time to reveal itself.
Hide the empire in plain sight, that way no one will notice it. Then someone like Tulsi Gabbard goes and talks about it
on national TV. Can't have that, can we? People might begin to see it if we do that
What is happening to Tulsi (the extraordinary spate of lies about her relationship with Assad coming from all directions) provides
a good explanation why Bernie and Elizabeth have been smart not to make many comments about foreign policy.
The few Bernie has made indicate to me that he is sympathetic to the Palestinian problem, but smart enough to keep quiet on
the subject until, God willing, he is in a position to actually do something about it. It will be interesting to see if debate
questions force them to be more forthcoming about their opinions.
Pro war democrats are now using the Russian ruse to go after anti war candidates like Gabbard. It's despicable to even
insinuate Gabbard is working for Putin or had any other rationale for going to Syria than seeking peace. This alone proved Harris
unfit for the presidency. Her awful record speaks for itself.
Tulsi is the most original and interesting candidate to come along in many years. She's authentic, something not true of most
of that pack.
And not true of most of the House and Senate with their oh-so-predictable statements on most matters and all those crinkly-faced
servants of plutocracy. She has courage too, a rare quality in Washington where, indeed, cowards often do well. Witness Trump,
Biden, Clinton, Bush, Johnson, et al.
If there's ever going to be any change in a that huge country which has become a force for darkness and fear in much of the
world, it's going to come from the likes of Tulsi. But I'm not holding my breath. It's clear from many signals, the establishment
very much dislikes her. So, the odds are, they'll make sure she doesn't win.
Still, I admire a valiant try. Just as I admire honesty, something almost unheard of in Washington, but she has it, in spades.
Warmonger candidates had better reconsider their positions if they believe that voters will back their stance. Just ask
Hillary Clinton how that worked out for her and her warrior mentality in 2016.
Robert , August 2, 2019 at 14:49
Tulsi is the most promising candidate to successfully run against Trump for 2 reasons. 1. She has a sane, knowledgeable foreign/military
policy promoting peace and non-intervention. 2) She understands the disastrous consequences of the WTO and "free" trade deals
on the US economy. No other Democratic candidate has these 2 policies. Unfortunately, these policies are so dangerous to the real
rulers of the world, her message is already being shut down and distorted.
And she has cross over appeal with republicans who want out of the wars. People like Tucker Carson and Paul Craig Roberts
support her. Thats why the DNC hate her..
Skip Scott , August 2, 2019 at 14:05
I read this article over on Medium this morning. Thanks for re-printing it here. I made the following comment there as well.
I was a somewhat enthusiastic supporter of Tulsi until just recently when she voted for the anti-BDS resolution. I guess "speaking
truth to power" has its limits. What I fear is that the war machine will manipulate her if she ever gets elected. Once you accept
any of the Empire's propaganda narrative, it is a slippery slope to being fully co-opted. Tulsi has said she is a "hawk" when
it comes to fighting terrorists. All the MIC would have to do is another false flag operation, blame it on the "terrorists", and
tell Tulsi it's time to get tough. Just as they manipulated the neo-liberals with the R2P line of bullshit, and Trump with the
"evil Assad gasses his own people" bullshit, Tulsi could be brought to heel as well.
I will probably continue to send small donations to Tulsi just to keep her on the debate stage. But I've taken off the rose
colored glasses.
Well said, Caitlin! There's an obvious effort to Jane Fodarize Tulsi before she threatens the favorites. She seems to keep
a cool head, so much of it is likely to backfire and bring the narrative back where it belongs.
P. Michael Garber , August 2, 2019 at 13:42
Great article! Anderson Cooper in his post-debate interview with Gabbard appeared to be demanding a loyalty oath from her:
"Will you say the words 'Bashar Assad is a murderer and torturer'?" In contrast to Gabbard, a service member with extensive
middle east combat experience, Cooper is a chickenhawk and a naif to murder and torture; in that context his attack was inappropriate
and disrespectful, and as he kept pressing it I thought he appeared unhinged. Gabbard could have done more to call out Cooper's
craven attack (personally I think she could have decked him and been well within her rights), but she handled it with her customary
grace and poise.
hetro , August 2, 2019 at 13:09
Seems to me Caitlin is right on, and her final statement is worth emphasizing: "Whoever controls the narrative controls
the world. Whoever disrupts that narrative control is doing the real work."
I read "narrative control" as brainwashing.
Note also that Caitlin is careful to qualify she does not fully agree with Gabbard, in context with year after year of demonizing
Assad amidst the murk of US supported type militants, emphasis on barrel bombs, etc etc, all in the "controlling the narrative/propaganda"
sphere.
Another interesting piece to consider on the smearing of Gabbard:
"... When Trump was first elected, I tried to calm down friends with advanced TDS, who expected Kristallnacht to be directed at their favorite brunch spots, by saying that "This is what empires in decline look like." ..."
"... In this sordid world, girls/women have absolutely no value ..."
"... Don't forget the young boys who get traded around like fudge recipes. Something quick on the Hollywood angle on bent dicks. It applies almost everywhere in America now: https://news.avclub.com/corey-feldman-made-a-documentary-about-sexual-abuse-he-1834310252 ..."
"... My reinterpretation of your comment would be; In this sordid world, people without power have absolutely no value. ..."
"... Epstein's World was tied in with Hollywood and Wall Street. Both are homoerotic paedophile havens. The world of the Vatican is tied in to Wall Street; it has it's own bank, the Instituto per le Opere de Religioni. ..."
"... As is true with the continued withholding of key documents in the JFK assassination, I believe that if the lousy reporting and official screwups in the Epstein case persist, it will be perfectly fine for the public to conclude and believe the absolute worst and act accordingly. ..."
"... Given the spotiness and inadequacy of reporting on the Epstein affair I wonder if an avenue for exploration might be that of a more direct involvement of media moguls and highly placed media staff in being serviced by Epstein i.e., the decision-makers regarding what gets covered and published are themselves subject to exposure, embarrassment, and other things that befall men caught in such matters. ..."
I can't add much to Yve's excellent post and the follow-up comments, except to say that the events of recent days and weeks
have made Pizzagate (as deranged as it was) into some kind of weird Jungian premonition which is to say, the s&#* is out of control.
When Trump was first elected, I tried to calm down friends with advanced TDS, who expected Kristallnacht to be directed
at their favorite brunch spots, by saying that "This is what empires in decline look like."
In regard to this sordid tale, I'm reminded of Robert Graves' (and the superb BBC TV version of) "I, Claudius."
My reinterpretation of your comment would be; In this sordid world, people without power have absolutely no value.
Otherwise, I'm with you all the way. Abuse is abuse. No other definition is logical.
Epstein's World was tied in with Hollywood and Wall Street. Both are homoerotic paedophile havens. The world of the Vatican
is tied in to Wall Street; it has it's own bank, the Instituto per le Opere de Religioni.
Who knows? Perhaps there will be some Prelates unearthed from the Lolita Express passenger log.
As is true with the continued withholding of key documents in the JFK assassination, I believe that if the lousy reporting
and official screwups in the Epstein case persist, it will be perfectly fine for the public to conclude and believe the absolute
worst and act accordingly.
Given the spotiness and inadequacy of reporting on the Epstein affair I wonder if an avenue for exploration might be that
of a more direct involvement of media moguls and highly placed media staff in being serviced by Epstein i.e., the decision-makers
regarding what gets covered and published are themselves subject to exposure, embarrassment, and other things that befall men
caught in such matters.
Who covers the press and roots out its secret malefactions? Rogue reporters? And who publishes them? Indeed!
Oversized military expenditures (military Keysianism) might still keep the economy afoot for a while.
Notable quotes:
"... For Morgan Stanley Wealth Management's Shalett, the most recent economic reports show "slowing that is far worse than the 2015-2016 minirecession," she writes -- due in large part to "outright contractionary" PMI (an indicator surveying purchasing managers at businesses) data and global new orders. ..."
"... The Fed is criminally unprepared for a recession, after making the fateful decision to rescue the banks and financial markets at the expense of the working class. Washington is criminally unprepared for a recession, after making the fateful decision to invest everything in pointless wars at the expense of infrastructure and the working class. ..."
"... Guess who else is unprepared for a recession? ..."
"... "Warning lights are flashing. Whether it's this year or next year, the odds of another economic downturn are high -- and growing," Warren wrote in a post on the blogging platform Medium. ..."
"... Free market, my ass. End days of run amok capitalism? I sure hope so for the sake of the planet and the people who are at the mercy of this nasty 'world we live in'. ..."
"... Moving from taxing the rich to taxing the proletariat (the poor have no money of their own to buy goods and hence pay tariffs). since the rich invest most of their wealth and workers spend most (or more!) the tax burden shifts downward (by design!) ..."
There is a chance that the recession won't wait until next year to hit, but there is almost no chance that we won't be in a
recession in 2020. A whole list of economic indicators are flashing red, starting with the most accurate recession forecaster
of all -
the yield curve .
The latest eruption in the U.S.-China trade dispute pushed a widely watched Treasury-market recession indicator to the highest
alert since 2007.
Morgan Stanley says Trump's trade war could
cause a recession in 9 month's time, but there is a lot else going on than just a trade war.
The yield curve is just one of four major recession indicators that are
flashing
red .
Since the 1960s, one indicator of a looming recession has been the New York Fed's recession probability index breaking 30%.
The probability of a U.S. recession predicted by the treasury spread hit 32.9% in July -- the highest since 2009, according
to the New York Fed.
... ... ...
Although consumer confidence is still historically high, the most recent June consumer confidence index (released by The
Conference Board every month) dropped to two-year lows, to 121.5.
... ... ...
For Morgan Stanley Wealth Management's Shalett, the most recent economic reports show "slowing that is far worse than
the 2015-2016 minirecession," she writes -- due in large part to "outright contractionary" PMI (an indicator surveying purchasing
managers at businesses) data and global new orders.
...
According to a Reuters report in May, factory activity dropped to near 10-year lows, sparking fresh concern.
The U.S. has seen its
longest
economic expansion in the nation's history - 120 months. The Fed had to know that it would eventually end. Yet the Fed never
came even close to normalizing interest rates and that leaves them with
few options .
The Fed's main recession-fighting tool has long been lowering the benchmark federal funds rate, which governs short-term rates
for things ranging from auto loans to credit card charges. In the past, the average reduction needed to fight a recession was
a whopping 5.5 percentage points. Such a bold step is mathematically impossible now.
The Federal Open Market Committee, or FOMC, its policymaking arm, just decreased the rate a quarter-point to a 2.0% to 2.25%
band, thus not a lot of room exists to cut much more. And if the Fed ends up decreasing the rate another half-point, as many
suspect it will, then the central bank has even less to work with.
"They're out of ammo," said economist Gary Shilling, who owns his own eponymous firm. "Going from 2.25% to zero is not an
awful lot."
... ... ...
What happens if the Fed reverses course and starts purchasing bonds once more? There's a school of thought that this too
will be less effective than in the past. Reason: Banks have so much extra funding these days that they don't know what to do
with all the money. The previous rounds of QE, which finally ended in 2014, stuffed banks with trillions of new dollars, which
they hold in reserve to buffer themselves against economic bad spells and also to make loans. Plus, loan demand is low, even
now in an expansion. Demand will be a lot less in a recession.
The Fed is criminally unprepared for a recession, after making the fateful decision to rescue the banks and financial markets
at the expense of the working class. Washington is criminally unprepared for a recession, after making the fateful decision to
invest everything in pointless wars at the expense of infrastructure and the working class.
Democratic presidential contender Sen. Elizabeth Warren warned on Monday that the next financial crisis is on its way.
"Warning lights are flashing. Whether it's this year or next year, the odds of another economic downturn are high
-- and growing," Warren wrote in a post on the blogging platform Medium.
The Massachusetts Democrat said that increasing household and corporate debt has left the economy on precarious footing.
Citing a top economist, Warren wrote that a failure to raise the debt ceiling in September could be "more catastrophic" than
the 2008 collapse of Lehman Brothers.
She also noted weakness in the manufacturing sector, putting the blame for its recent slowdown on President Donald Trump,
who has tangled with China over trade. Despite Trump's pledge to bring back manufacturing jobs, the sector is now in recession,
she wrote, and wages for the industry lag the national average
A 2020 recession, if it starts no later than summer, would doom Trump's reelection. It would also boost progressives like Bernie
and Liz because people would be less willing to accept incrementalism.
@gjohnsit@gjohnsit in tit for tat
action the moron in chief needs
to win....the currency war ameriKa can't win is upon
us.
Slight summary, tRumpolini put tariffs on China of 10% on what was left to tariff, this happened yesterday. Today China reciprocated
by weakening it's currency causing the stock markit to swan to the tune of 900 points. So thinking me(tRumpolini) lost, he doubles
down by doing this.
I somehow don't buy this. Dodd-Frank? What a joke. Both me and Eric never bought her political shtick. Man she's another ex-Republican.
I just can't believe that this insane global economy will be reformed or resolved by our current, corrupt, fucked up political
electoral system.
There is no way for ordinary people who are not 'invested' to stop this insanity. What are our options when the Demorat's refuse
to clean house or even regulate the disaster global cappies who own and run 'the place'?
Free market, my ass. End days of run amok capitalism? I sure hope so for the sake of the planet and the people who are
at the mercy of this nasty 'world we live in'.
(when we refused to admit that we were actually in a depression) and so far it hasn't happened - officially. Maybe the only
reason capitalism hasn't collapsed is that the rich and powerful refuse to admit that it has and we are all afraid to admit that
they're liars.
@doh1304
but that was nine years ago. Don't you think that after 10 years of record low interest rates things have changed?
Either way, the leading economic indicators are measurable facts.
(when we refused to admit that we were actually in a depression) and so far it hasn't happened - officially. Maybe the only
reason capitalism hasn't collapsed is that the rich and powerful refuse to admit that it has and we are all afraid to admit
that they're liars.
Moving from taxing the rich to taxing the proletariat (the poor have no money of their own to buy goods and hence pay tariffs).
since the rich invest most of their wealth and workers spend most (or more!) the tax burden shifts downward (by design!)
@snoopydawg are so
fake. A deliberate distraction which enables the neoliberal/pigs from both parties to continue with their raping and pillaging
the earth and the humans who live here. For what? Somebody tell me why a fascistic insane demagogue is still in office? Because
he serves their agenda, all of them R's and D's.
Yes they could stop Trump but why would they? He's getting it done and the Dems. can put the blame on Trump and Co. The Demorat's
can then focus on fake social issues and rile up the populace with mayhem and social unrest.
If this is not the case why have they once again taken off the table the legal remedy for lunatics, unfit for office demagogues
of the worst order. What can ordinary people do to prepare for their crashes? Nothing. We're all dependent on this fucked up economy
one way or another.
Yes, a tool all right. Remember when the House Democrats were considering who would be the Speaker of the House, Trump actually
supported her. Some were perplexed by this. I commented at the time that this didn't surprise me in the least, as if Trump didn't
have someone like Pelosi as Speaker, they would have to invent someone identical. They would have, too.
Trump needs a foil in the House, and Pelosi is perfect for the role. It's part of what allows Mega-party team A and
Mega-party team B to achieve the goals their owners have tasked them with.
Our MSM screams and raises hell over it all, but that's part of the act, too. Meanwhile We the People continue to get the shaft.
....that Trump would try to throw the economy into a recession at this time. In fact, he has been dogging the Fed Reserve for
that interest cut just to push the possibility of a recession back and further boost the stock market.
I believe it is common knowledge that the incumbent party almost always wins a second term if the economy does not fail catastrophically.
And Trump is poised to win
according to historian Allan Lichtman, whose system has never failed to accurately predict the outcome of the past nine Presidential
elections. Lichtman tracks the 13 variables that determine the outcomes of Presidential elections going back to the Civil war
-- the health of the short-term and long-term economy being two of them.
Lichtman, a Democrat himself, says there is only one way to trick the situation at this point. Can you guess what it is?
To Michels organizations are the only means for the creation of a collective will and they
work under the Iron Law of Oligarchy. He explicitly points out the indispensability of
oligarchy from the organizations by saying that "It is organization which gives birth to the
domination of the elected over electors, of the mandatanes over the mandators, of the delegates
over delegators, who says organization, says oligarchy" (Michels 1966, p.365).
Oligarchical tendencies in organizations is not related to ideology or ends of the
organizations. Of course, it is evident that any organization which is set up for autocratic
aims , it is oligarchic by nature. To Michels, regardless of any ideological concerns, all
types of organizations have oligarchic tendencies. It was his major question in political
parties that "how can oligarchic tendencies be explained in socialist and democratic parties,
which they declared war against it?"( Michels 1966, pp. 50-51).
When he examines this question throughout in his book: Political Parties, he sees
organization itself particularly bureaucracy, nature of human being and the phenomenon of
leadership as major factors for oligarchical tendencies in organizations. According to Michels'
assessments, the crowd is always subject to suggestion and the masses have an apathy for
guidance of their need. In contrast the leaders have a natural greed of power ( Michels 1966,
pp. 64, 205). To Michels, leadership itself is not compatible with the most essential
postulates of democracy, but leadership is a necessary phenomenon in every form of society. He
says "At the outset, leaders arise spontaneously, their functions are ACCESSORY and GRATUITOUS.
Soon however, they become professional leaders, and in this second stage of development they
are stable and irremovable"(
Michels 1966, p. 364).
Leaders also have personal qualities that make them successful as a ruling class. These
qualities are , the force of will, knowledge, strength of conviction, self sufficiency,
goodness of heart and disinterestedness ( Michels 1966, p. 100 ). Furthermore there is a
reciprocal relationship between leadership functions and the organizational structure. Majority
of leaders abuse organizational opportunities for their personal aims by using their personal
qualities and by creating means, organizational process or principles like party
discipline.
As for as organization itself is considered as a source of oligarchy, Michels says that it
is generally because of "PSYCHOLOGY OF ORGANIZATION ITSELF, that is to say, upon the tactical
and technical necessities which result from the consolidation of every disciplined political
aggregate."( Michels 1966, p. 365). Further as a particular type of organization bureaucracy
and its features require an oligarchic structure.
At the societal level, although development in the democracy, oligarchy still exists. First
of all he says by looking at the state as an organization, which needs a bureaucracy that is
the source of enemy of individual freedom, the state represents a single gigantic oligarchy. An
attempt to destroy this gigantic* oligarchy in fact brings a number of smaller oligarchies in
society but does not eliminate it ( Michels 1966, p. 188,191,202). Secondly he agrees with Jean
Jack Rousseau on the idea that "it is always against the natural order of things that the
majority rule and the minority ruled." (Michels 1965, p. 106). Along with this idea
professional leadership is seen by Michels as an incompatible phenomenon with
democracy, because , although the leaders at once are not more than executive agents off
collective will, as soon as they gain the technical specialization, they emancipate themselves
form the masses and start to use their power against the majority. ( Michels 1966, p.70). In
addition to this, representative political system is not compatible with the ideal democracy,
because to Michels, "a mass which delegates its sovereignty, that is to say transfer its
sovereignty to the hands of the few individuals, abdicates its sovereign function ( Michels
1966, p. 73).
The third factor is related to level of socio-economic development of societies and
experience of democracy in history. To him in this time ideal democracy is impossible due to
socio-economic conditions, that further more he says that," The democracy has an inherent
preference for the authoritarian solution of the important questions" (Michels 1966, p. 51,
342).
As a logical result of his iron law of oligarchy, he admits there are elites in society but
not elite circulation in terms of replacing one another. He does not redefine the concept of
elite, he took Pareto's theory of circulation of elites and modified it. To Michels, there is a
battle between the old and new elites, leaders.
The end of this war is not an absolute replacement of the old elites by the new elites, but
a reunion of elites, a perennial amalgamation. Complete replacement of elites is rare in
history. The old elites attract, absorb and assimilate the new ones, and it is a continuous
process (Michels 1966, p. 182, 343; Michels 1949, p. 63). Because for Michels, first " old
aristocracy does not disappear, does not become proletarian or impoverished ( at least in
absolute sense ), does not make way for new group of rulers , but that always remains at the
head of nations, which it led over the course of centuries...[and second]...the old aristocracy
be it very old rejuvenated, does not exercise the rule alone but is forced to shave it with
some kind of new ruler" (Michels 1965, p. 75-76).
Aristocracy for Michels is not homogenous stratum, and consists of nobility and ruling
class. Nobility represents a small but strong part of aristocracy. In this sense it seems that
nobility represents real oligarchical power in the society. To Michels nobility holds itself at
the helm and does not even dream of disappearing from the stage of history. Though not
coinciding with aristocracy,
To Michels nobility holds itself at the helm and does not even dream of disappearing from
the stage of history. Though not coinciding with aristocracy, and not constituting more than a
part of it, nobility generally takes hold of it and makes itself its master. It pervades,
conquers, and molds, the high middle class according to its own moral and social essence" (
Michels 1949,p. 77, 80 ). In contrast to nobility aristocracy is heterogeneous and a place
where lower classes' members can easily rise and members of aristocracy can be subject to
downward social mobility. For his time, he describes elements of aristocracy (1) aristocrats by
birth (2) aristocracy of government clerks, (3) aristocracy of money (4) aristocracy of
knowledge . All this groups also represent ruling class (Michels 1965, p. 76 ).
Michels does not get in too much special analysis of the relationships between aristocracy,
ruling class and majority. I think he doesn't see that there are much differences in oligarchy
in organization and oligarchy in society at large.
To me these two must be separated because (1) for individuals society in a sense an
unavoidable place to be in contrast to organizations, particularly voluntary organization , (2)
while society represent a more natural entity, organizations are more artificial entities and
(3) organizations are set to realize certain targets in a certain period of time, in contrast
society's targets are relatively unstable, and subject to reconstruction by people. To think of
these questions, does not necessarily reject the existence of oligarchical tendencies in
societies. In fact as Michels pointed out democracy has a legacy to solve important questions
of society, by using oligarchic methods. Furthermore he also points out that at any social
organization there is an intermixture of oligarchic and democratic tendencies. He says that"...
In modem party life, aristocracy gladly present itself in democratic guise, while the substance
of democracy is permeated with aristocratic elements. On the one side we have aristocracy is a
democratic form, and on the other hand democracy with an aristocratic context" (Michels 1966,
p.50).
... ... ...
In terms of replacement of old elites by new ones, there is a distinction between Pareto and
Michels. Michels does not admit replacement of elites, but admits, amalgamation of new and old
elites. In fact historically we can see both of them happened. In short term amalgamation of
old and new elites, and in long terms replacement of old elites by new ones. This time period
depends on changes in society at large. For example, consider socialist revolutions and
aftermath of independent movement in developing countries where these two movements took place,
old elites were wiped out. This type of changes are rarely in history. In short term,
amalgamation of elites takes place and new elites gradually increases its proportion in the
elite strata and ruling class. For example as a result of
industrialization in burope, Hughes observes that at the beginning ...upper class oligarchy
shared power with the old aristocracy-but with each year that passed the balance seemed to
incline more heavily in favor of the former" (Hughes 1965, pp.149-150). It can be concluded
that new elites are bom as a result of socio- economic , political, and historical changes in
society, and then these new elites via upward mobility, and that in the end the new elites take
place the highest position in the society. In this process the adaptation ability of old elites
determine their fates.
On democracy, Pareto always separate ideal democracy and democracy applied, and prefers to
talk about the subjects of democracy rather than democracy itself. Michels is clearly in favor
of democracy, Mosca was previously against democracy but after the experience of Fascism in
Italy, he changed his mind.
How elitist theories affected democracy ? Two answers have given for this question. On the
negative side, it has been said that these anti-democratic theories helped European ruling
classes by restoring their self confidence and by increasing their consciousness about their
privileges; therefore, elite theories become a vehicle for ruling classes (Hughes 1965 (b), p.
149), On the positive side, it has said that elitist theories have helped to enhance democratic
theories, Michels himself believed that research on oligarchies necessary for development of
democracy by saying that "...a serene and frank examination of oligarchical dangers of
democracy will enable us to minimize these dangers,...(Michels 1966, p.370).
It can be said that elitist theories extended and increased awareness of masses and
scientist against governments and ruling classes. As a result, many researches have been
conducted on application of democracy in organizations.
Researches have shown that oligarchical tendencies are dominant in organizations and can not
be eliminated totally. Further more, attempts to reduce oligarchic contrgl in organizations
with very few exception have failed. In general, in voluntary organizations, the functional
requirements of democracy con not be met most of the time (Lipset, Trow, and Coleman 1956,
p.4,6,452).
Is democracy still compatible with elite theories? That has been the question that lead to
redefine, reconceptualize the democracy. Here we must pay attention that Pareto, Mosca, and
Michels worked J.J. Rousseau's definition of democracy: government by the people, but not
government for the people (Burnham 1943, pp.156-7).
New democratic theories like political pluralism, theory of the mass society are compatible
with elitist theories. Schumpeter was one of the earliest thinker that he redefined democracy
considering elitists 1 arguments. To him democracy defined as "...institutional
arrangement for arriving the power to decide by means of competitive struggle for the people's
vote" (Bottomore 1964, p.10).
In contrast to compatibility of elitist theories with democracy, it can not be compatible
with Marxism. Michels pointed out that M [t]he law of circulation of elites destroy
the thesis of the possibility of a society without social levels...[and]... destroy equally the
supposition of a ruling class that remains closed and inaccessible" (Michels 1965, p. 106). In
terms of preference of political systems he clearly says that "the defects inherent in
democracy are obvious. It is none the less true that as a form of social life we must choose
democracy as the least of evils" (Michels 1966, p.370).
VI- CONCLUSIONS
Elitist theorists not only introduced elites but also contributed on better understanding of
social and political life of societies. The key concept is "power" and who has the power she/he
is the leader of society. Heredity, wealth, intellect, organizations are the means to get
power.
I believe that the full and proper name of the psychiatric disorder in question is
Putin-Trump Derangement Syndrome [PTDS].
Symptoms include:
Eager and uncritical ingestion and social-media regurgitation of even the most patently
absurd MSM propaganda. For example, the meme that releasing factual information about actual
election-meddling (as Wikileaks did about the Dem-establishment's rigging of its own
nomination process in 2016) is a grave threat to American Democracy™;
Recent-onset veneration of the intelligence agencies, whose stock in trade is spying on
and lying to the American people, spreading disinformation, election rigging, torture and
assassination and its agents, such as liar and perjurer Clapper and torturer Brennan;
Rehabilitation of horrid unindicted GOP war criminals like G.W. Bush as alleged examples
of "norms-respecting Republican patriots";
Smearing of anyone who dares question the MSM-stoked hysteria as an America-hating
Russian stooge.
Decline of neoliberalism in not a pretty picture. Whom the gods would destroy they first make mad. Greek version of this saying
which appers in Sophocles’ play Antigoneis more
precise: "evil appears as good in the minds of those whom god leads to destruction". Oscar Wilde — 'When the Gods wish to
punish us, they answer our prayers.'
The United States witnessed three mass shootings in one week recently in California, Texas, and Ohio. There have been more than 250
mass shootings so far in 2019, more than one a day. This year in America,
more than 33,000 shooting incidents have killed more than 8,700 people.
America is the richest country in the world, but it has more than half a million homeless and 28 million people without health
insurance – out of a population of around 325 million. The U.S. infant mortality rate places it 33rd out of wealthiest 36 nations.
... ... ...
People from other industrialized countries must think that the United States has simply gone insane. It is a nation of terrible extremes:
grotesque wealth and horrific poverty, brilliant minds and widespread ignorance, high rates of volunteerism and endemic violence.
America seems to be suffering from some kind of bipolar disorder with pockets of manic energy and large areas of deep depression.
It would be tempting to argue that America is only suffering from a bout of temporary insanity. But mass shootings, gross economic
inequality, and corruption didn't begin when Donald Trump became president. He has made matters worse, to be sure. But these trends
are longstanding.
So, why do Americans put up with such violence, economic inequality, and political nonsense?
... ... ...
Moreover, more than half of Americans
have never traveled to another country. One in ten hasn't even
gone outside the state in which he or she was born. Since most of the news about other countries is negative, Americans naturally
believe that life is more dangerous outside their borders. They haven't actually seen what it's like in other countries, so there's
no way for them to compare the craziness of life in America with life anywhere else.
Of course, plenty of countries experience considerable violence, economic inequality, and political corruption. But they are usually
not powerful industrialized nations.
In the 2019 Global Peace Index
, for instance, the United States ranks 128 th in the world, between South Africa and Saudi Arabia. Kosovo, Haiti, and
Bangladesh all rank higher than America. Part of the reason that the United States ranks so poorly is the amount of military violence
that the country inflicts around the world – through war, arms sales, and military bases. But the high homicide rate in the United
States also dragged its score down.
The GINI index measures a country's economic inequality. The United States,
according to OECD figures , is fourth
from the bottom of the wealthiest countries in the world. Only Chile, Turkey, and Mexico have greater income inequality after taxes
and transfers.
On corruption issues, the United States has generally been in the top twenty in terms of transparency. But in 2018, it
dropped six places to number 22 in the Transparency International
rankings. Here, the influence of the Trump administration has been significant. The problem is not ordinary corruption like bribery.
Rather, Trump is challenging the very foundations of the rule of law. He promised to "drain the swamp" of political influence-peddling
in Washington, DC. But he has only made the nation's capital swampier.
Individuals with mental disorders can seek professional help. They can take medications and enter psychotherapy. They can check
themselves into a hospital.
In July 30, the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan reported
that the Afghan government and international military forces, primarily
the United States , caused most of the civilian deaths in Afghanistan during the first six
months of 2019. That's more killings than those perpetrated in the same time period by the
Taliban and ISIS combined.
Aerial operations were responsible for 519 civilian casualties (356 deaths and 156
injuries), including 150 children (89 deaths and 61 injuries). That constitutes a 39 percent
increase in overall civilian casualties from aerial attacks. Eighty-three percent of civilian
casualties from aerial operations were carried out by the international forces.
The targeting of civilians amounts to war crimes under the Rome Statute of the
International Criminal Court (ICC).
... ... ...
Team Trump's deadly actions are a continuation of the Bush and Obama
administrations' commission of the most heinous crimes in Afghanistan. On April 12, the ICC's
Pre-Trial Chamber found a "reasonable basis" to
believe that the parties to the Afghan conflict, including the U.S. military and the CIA,
committed war crimes and crimes against humanity, most of them occurring between 2005 and 2015.
They include "the war crimes of torture and cruel treatment, outrages upon personal dignity,
and rape and other forms of sexual violence pursuant to a policy approved by the U.S.
authorities."
The chamber, however, refused to open a formal investigation into those crimes, as
recommended by ICC prosecutor Fatou Bensouda. In concluding that "an investigation
into the situation in Afghanistan at this stage would not serve the interests of justice," the
chamber questioned the feasibility of such a probe. An investigation would be "very wide in
scope and encompasses a high number of alleged incidents having occurred over a long time
period," the chamber wrote. It noted the extreme difficulty in gauging "the prospects of
securing meaningful cooperation from relevant authorities for the future" and found "the
current circumstances of the situation in Afghanistan are such as to make the prospects for a
successful investigation and prosecution extremely limited."
Marjorie Cohn is professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, former president of
the National Lawyers Guild, deputy secretary general of the International Association of
Democratic Lawyers and a member of the advisory board of Veterans for Peace. Her most recent
book is Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral, and Geopolitical Issues.
STEPHEN COHEN: I'm not aware that Russia attacked Georgia. The European Commission, if you're talking about the 2008 war,
the European Commission, investigating what happened, found that Georgia, which was backed by the United States, fighting with an
American-built army under the control of the, shall we say, slightly unpredictable Georgian president then, Saakashvili, that he
began the war by firing on Russian enclaves. And the Kremlin, which by the way was not occupied by Putin, but by Michael McFaul and
Obama's best friend and reset partner then-president Dmitry Medvedev, did what any Kremlin leader, what any leader in any country
would have had to do: it reacted. It sent troops across the border through the tunnel, and drove the Georgian forces out of what
essentially were kind of Russian protectorate areas of Georgia.
So that- Russia didn't begin that war. And it didn't begin the one in Ukraine, either. We did that by [continents], the overthrow
of the Ukrainian president in [20]14 after President Obama told Putin that he would not permit that to happen. And I think it happened
within 36 hours. The Russians, like them or not, feel that they have been lied to and betrayed. They use this word, predatl'stvo,
betrayal, about American policy toward Russia ever since 1991, when it wasn't just President George Bush, all the documents have
been published by the National Security Archive in Washington, all the leaders of the main Western powers promised the Soviet Union
that under Gorbachev, if Gorbachev would allow a reunited Germany to be NATO, NATO would not, in the famous expression, move two
inches to the east.
Now NATO is sitting on Russia's borders from the Baltic to Ukraine. So Russians aren't fools, and they're good-hearted, but they
become resentful. They're worried about being attacked by the United States. In fact, you read and hear in the Russian media daily,
we are under attack by the United States. And this is a lot more real and meaningful than this crap that is being put out that Russia
somehow attacked us in 2016. I must have been sleeping. I didn't see Pearl Harbor or 9/11 and 2016. This is reckless, dangerous,
warmongering talk. It needs to stop. Russia has a better case for saying they've been attacked by us since 1991. We put our military
alliance on the front door. Maybe it's not an attack, but it looks like one, feels like one. Could be one.
Real politik. Don't bring a knife to a gun fight. Don't start fights in the first place. The idea that American leadership
is any better than mid-Victorian imperialism, is laughable.
AARON MATE: We hear, often, talk of Putin possibly being the richest person in the world as a result of his entanglement
with the very corruption of Russia you're speaking about
Few appear to be aware that Bill Browder is single-handedly responsible for starting, and spreading, the rumor that Putin's
net worth is $200 billion (for those who are unfamiliar with Browder, I highly recommend watching Andrei Nekrasov's documentary
titled " The Magnitsky Act – Behind the Scenes "). Browder
appears to have first
started this rumor early in 2015 , and has repeated it ad nauseam since then, including in
his testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2017 . While Browder has always framed the $200 billion figure as his own
estimate, that subtle qualifier has had little effect on the media's willingness to accept it as fact.
Interestingly, during the press conference at the Helsinki Summit, Putin claimed Browder sent $400 million of ill-gotten gains
to the Clinton campaign. Putin
retracted the statement and claimed to have misspoke a week or so later, however by that time the $400 million figure had
been cited by numerous media outlets around the world. I think it is at least possible that Putin purposely exaggerated the amount
of money in question as a kind of tit-for-tat response to Browder having started the rumor about his net worth being $200 billion.
The stories I saw said there was a mistranslation -- but that the figure should have $400 thousand and not $400 million. Maybe
Putin misspoke, but the $400,000 number is still significant, albeit far more reasonable.
Putin never was on the Forbes list of billionaires, btw, and his campaign finance statement comes to far less. It never seems
to occur to rabid capitalists or crooks that not everyone is like them, placing such importance on vast fortunes, or want to be
dishonest, greedy, or power hungry. Putin is only 'well off' and that seems to satisfy him just fine as he gets on with other
interests, values, and goals.
Yes, $400,000 is the revised/correct figure. My having written that "Putin retracted the statement" was not the best choice
of phrase. Also, the figure was corrected the day after it was made, not "a week or so later" as I wrote in my previous comment.
From the Russia Insider link:
Browder's criminal group used many tax evasion methods, including offshore companies. They siphoned shares and funds from
Russia worth over 1.5 billion dollars. By the way, $400,000 was transferred to the US Democratic Party's accounts from these
funds. The Russian president asked us to correct his statement from yesterday. During the briefing, he said it was $400,000,000,
not $400,000. Either way, it's still a significant amount of money.
There's something weird about the anti-Putin hysteria. Somehow, many, many people have come to believe they must demonstrate
their membership in the tribe by accepting completely unsupported assertions that go against common sense.
In a sane world we the people would be furious with the Clinton campaign, especially the D party but the R's as well, our media
(again), and our intel/police State (again). Holding them all accountable while making sure this tsunami of deception and lies
never happens again.
It's amazing even in time of the internetz those of us who really dig can only come up with a few sane voices. It's much worse
now in terms of the numbers of sane voices than it was in the run up to Iraq 2.
Regardless of broad access to far more information in the digital age, never under estimate the self-preservation instinct
of American exceptionalist mythology. There is an inverse relationship between the decline of US global primacy and increasingly
desperate quest for adventurism. Like any case of addiction, looking outward for blame/salvation is imperative in order to prevent
the mirror of self-reflection/realization from turning back onto ourselves.
we're not to believe we're not supposed to believe we're supposed to believe
Believe whatever you want, however your comment gives the impression that you came to this article because you felt the need
to push back against anything that does not conform to the liberal international order's narrative on Putin and Russia, rather
than "with an eagerness to counterbalance the media's portrayal of Putin". WRT to whataboutism, I like
Greenwald's definition of the term :
"Whataboutism": the term used to bar inquiry into whether someone adheres to the moral and behavioral standards they seek
to impose on everyone else. That's its functional definition.
aye. I've never seen it used by anyone aside from the worst Hill Trolls.
Indeed, when it was first thrown at me, I endeavored to look it up, and found that all references to it were from Hillaryites
attempting to diss apostates and heretics.
The degree of consistency and or lack of hypocrisy based on words and actions separates US from Russia to an astonishing level.
That is Russia's largest threat to US, our deceivers. The propaganda tables have turned and we are deceiving ourselves to points
of collective insanity and warmongering with a great nuclear power while we are at it. Warmongering is who we are and what we
do.
Does Russia have a GITMO, torture Chelsea Manning, openly say they want to kill Snowden and Assange? Is Russia building up
arsenals on our borders while maintaining hundreds of foreign bases and conducting several wars at any given moment while constantly
threatening to foment more wars? Is Russia dropping another trillion on nuclear arsenals? Is Russia forcing us to maintain such
an anti democratic system and an even worse, an entirely hackable electronic voting system?
You ready to destroy the world, including your own, rather than look in the mirror?
You're talking about extending Russian military power into Europe when the military spending of NATO Europe alone exceeds Russia's
by almost 5-1 (more like 12-1 when one includes the US and Canada), have about triple the number of soldiers than Russia has,
and when the Russian ground forces are numerically smaller than they have been in at least 200 years?
" to put their self-interests above those of their constituents and employees, why can't we apply this same lens to Putin and
his oligarchs?"
The oligarchs got their start under Yeltsin and his FreeMarketDemocraticReformers, whose policies were so catastrophic that
deaths were exceeding births by almost a million a year by the late '90s, with no end in sight. Central to Yeltsin's governance
was the corrupt privatization, by which means the Seven Bankers came to control the Russian economy and Russian politics.
Central to Putin's popularity are the measures he took to curb oligarchic predation in 2003-2005. Because of this, Russia's
debt:GDP ratio went from 1.0 to about 0.2, and Russia's demographic recovery began while Western analysis were still predicting
the death of Russia.
So Putin is the anti-oligarch in Russian domestic politics.
I know of many people who sacrifice their own interests for those of their children (over whom they have virtually absolute
power), family member and friends. I know of others who dedicate their lives to justice, peace, the well being of their nation,
the world, and other people -- people who find far greater meaning and satisfaction in this than in accumulating power or money.
Other people have their own goals, such as producing art, inventing interesting things, reading and learning, and don't care two
hoots about power or money as long as their immediate needs are met.
I'm cynical enough about humans without thinking the worst of everyone and every group or culture. Not everyone thinks only
of nails and wants to be hammers, or are sociopaths. There are times when people are more or less forced into taking power, or
getting more money, even if they don't want it, because they want to change things for the better or need to defend themselves.
There are people who get guns and learn how to use them only because they feel a need for defending themselves and family but
who don't like guns and don't want to shoot anyone or anything.
There are many people who do not want to be controlled and bossed around, but neither want to boss around anyone else. The
world is full of such people. If they are threatened and attacked, however, expect defensive reactions. Same as for most animals
which are not predators, and even predators will generally not attack other animals if they are not hungry or threatened -- but
that does not mean they are not competent or can be dangerous.
Capitalism is not only inherently predatory, but is inherently expansive without limits, with unlimited ambition for profits
and control. It's intrinsically very competitive and imperialist. Capitalism is also a thing which was exported to Russia, starting
soon after the Russian Revolution, which was immediately attacked and invaded by the West, and especially after the fall of the
Soviet Union. Soviet Russia had it's own problems, which it met with varying degrees of success, but were quite different from
the aggressive capitalism and imperialism of the US and Europe.
The pro-Putin propaganda is pretty interesting to witness, and of course not everything Cohen says is skewed pro-Putin – that's
what provides credibility. But "Putin kills everybody" is something NOBODY says (except Cohen, twice in one interview) – Putin
is actually pretty selective of those he decides to have killed. But of course, he doesn't kill anyone, personally – therefore
he's an innocent lamb, accidentally running Russia as a dictator.
The most recent dictator in Russian history was Boris Yeltsin, who turned tanks on his legislature while it was in the legal
and constitutional process of impeaching him, and whose policies were so catastrophic for Russians (who were dying off at the
rate of 900k/yr) that he had to steal his re-election because he had a 5% approval rating.
But he did as the US gvt told him, so I guess that makes him a Democrat.
Under Putin Russia recovered from being helpless, bankrupt & dying, but Russia has an independent foreign policy, so that makes
Putin a dictator.
"Does any sane person believe that there will ever be a Putin-signed contract provided as evidence? Does any sane person believe
that Putin actually needs to "approve" a contract rather than signaling to his oligarch/mafia hierarchy that he's unhappy about
a newspaper or journalist's reporting?"
Why do you think Putin even needs, or feels a need, to have journalists killed in the first place? I see no evidence to support
this basic assumption.
The idea of Russia poised to attack Europe is interesting, in light of the fact that they've cut their military spending by
20%. And even before that the budgets of France, Germany, and the UK combined well exceeded that of Russia, to say nothing of
the rest of NATO or the US.
Putin's record speaks for itself. This again points to the absurdity of claiming he's had reporters killed: he doesn't need
to. He has a vast amount of genuine public support because he's salvaged the country and pieced it back together after the pillaging
of the Yeltsin years. That he himself is a corrupt oligarch I have no particular doubt of. But if he just wanted to enrich himself,
he's had a very funny way of going about it. Pray tell, what are these 'other interpretations'?
"The US foreign policy has been disastrous for millions of people since world war 2. But Cohen's arguments that Russia isn't
as bad as the US is just a bunch of whattaboutism."
What countries has the Russian Federation destroyed?
Here is a fascinating essay ["Are We Reading Russia Right?"] by Nicolai N. Petro who currently holds the Silvia-Chandley Professorship
of Peace Studies and Nonviolence at the University of Rhode Island. His books include, Ukraine
in Crisis (Routledge, 2017), Crafting Democracy (Cornell, 2004), The Rebirth of Russian Democracy (Harvard, 1995), and Russian
Foreign Policy, co-authored with Alvin Z. Rubinstein (Longman, 1997). A graduate of the University of Virginia, he is the recipient
of Fulbright awards to Russia and to Ukraine, as well as fellowships from the Foreign Policy Research Institute, the National
Council for Eurasian and East European Research, the Kennan Institute for Advanced Russian Studies in Washington,
D.C., and the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. As a Council on Foreign Relations Fellow, he served as special assistant
for policy toward the Soviet Union in the U.S. Department of State from 1989 to 1990. In addition to scholarly publications
on Russia and Ukraine, he has written for Asia Times, American Interest, Boston Globe, Christian Science Monitor, The Guardian
(UK), The Nation, New York Times, and Wilson Quarterly. His writings have appeared frequently on the web sites of the Carnegie
Council for Ethics in International Affairs and The National Interest.
Thanks for so much for this. Great stuff. Cohen says the emperor has no clothes so naturally the empire doesn't want him on
television. I believe he has been on CNN one or two times and I saw him once on the PBS Newshour where the interviewer asked skeptical
questions with a pained and skeptical look. He seems to be the only prominent person willing to stand up and call bs on the Russia
hate. There are plenty of pundits and commentators who do that but not many Princeton professors.
It has been said in recent years that the greatest failure of American foreign policy was the invasion of Iraq. I think that
they are wrong. The greatest failure, in my opinion, is to push both China and Russia together into a semi-official pact against
American ambitions. In the same way that the US was able to split China from the USSR back in the seventies, the best option was
for America to split Russia from China and help incorporate them into the western system. The waters for that idea have been so
fouled by the Russia hysteria, if not dementia, that that is no longer a possibility. I just wish that the US would stop sowing
dragon's teeth – it never ends well.
The best option, but the "American exceptionalists" went nuts. Also, the usual play book of stoking fears of the "yellow menace"
would have been too on the nose. Americans might not buy it, and there was a whole cottage industry of "the rising China threat"
except the potential consumer market place and slave labor factories stopped that from happening.
Bringing Russia into the West effectively means Europe, and I think that creates a similar dynamic to a Russian/Chinese pact.
The basic problem with the EU is its led by a relatively weak but very German power which makes the EU relatively weak or controllable
as long as the German electorate is relatively sedate. I think they still need the international structures run by the U.S. to
maintain their dominance. What Russia and the pre-Erdogan Turkey (which was never going to be admitted to the EU) presented was
significant upsets to the existing EU order with major balances to Germany which I always believed would make the EU potentially
more dynamic. Every decision wouldn't require a pilgrimage to Berlin. The British were always disinterested. The French had made
arrangements with Germany, and Italy is still Italy. Putting Russia or Turkey (pre-Erdogan) would have disrupted this arrangement.
The Crimea voted to be annexed by Russia by a clear majority. The US overran Hawaii with total disregard for the wishes of
the native population. Your comparison is invalid.
"Putin's finger prints are all over the Balkan fiasco".How is that with Putin only becoming president in 2000 and the Nato
bombing started way beforehand. It's ridiculous to think that Putin had any major influence at that time as govenor or director
of the domestic intelligence service on what was going during the bombing of NATO on Belgrad. Even Gerhard Schroeder, then chancellor
of the Federal Republic of Germany, admitted in an interview in 2014 with a major German Newspaper (Die Zeit) that this invasion
of Nato was a fault and against international law!
Can you concrete what you mean by "fingerprints" or is this just another platitudes?
I believe that the full and proper name of the psychiatric disorder in question is Putin-Trump Derangement Syndrome [PTDS].
Symptoms include:
o Eager and uncritical ingestion and social-media regurgitation of even the most patently absurd MSM propaganda. For example,
the meme that releasing factual information about actual election-meddling (as Wikileaks did about the Dem-establishment's rigging
of its own nomination process in 2016) is a grave threat to American Democracy™;
o Recent-onset veneration of the intelligence agencies, whose stock in trade is spying on and lying to the American people,
spreading disinformation, election rigging, torture and assassination and its agents, such as liar and perjurer Clapper and torturer
Brennan;
o Rehabilitation of horrid unindicted GOP war criminals like G.W. Bush as alleged examples of "norms-respecting Republican
patriots";
o Smearing of anyone who dares question the MSM-stoked hysteria as an America-hating Russian stooge.
I believe that the full and proper name of the psychiatric disorder in question is
Putin-Trump Derangement Syndrome [PTDS].
Symptoms include:
Eager and uncritical ingestion and social-media regurgitation of even the most patently
absurd MSM propaganda. For example, the meme that releasing factual information about actual
election-meddling (as Wikileaks did about the Dem-establishment's rigging of its own
nomination process in 2016) is a grave threat to American Democracy™;
Recent-onset veneration of the intelligence agencies, whose stock in trade is spying on
and lying to the American people, spreading disinformation, election rigging, torture and
assassination and its agents, such as liar and perjurer Clapper and torturer Brennan;
Rehabilitation of horrid unindicted GOP war criminals like G.W. Bush as alleged examples
of "norms-respecting Republican patriots";
Smearing of anyone who dares question the MSM-stoked hysteria as an America-hating
Russian stooge.
Obama didn't lead on race, either. In fact, Obama was largely missing in action: "The Obama
administration's civil rights record has been remarkably thin. In the first four years, the
administration did not file a single major employment discrimination, housing, or education
case, which are three traditional areas of civil rights enforcement. Additionally, in all of
these areas, the number of cases filed appears to be either at the same level as the George
W. Bush administration
In the other area of traditional civil rights enforcement, namely voting rights, the
administration has been active, particularly on the divisive issue of voter identification.
However, this activity all arose during the 2012 presidential campaign and seems quite likely
to have been related to, or motivated by, that campaign. The Obama administration has, in
fact, largely been absent on issues relating to redistricting, a traditional activity that
often implicates the preclearance mandate of the Department of Justice."
https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1016&context=ijlse
The more you peel the onion, the more pathetic the Democratic leadership gets...
"Republican and representative democracy are interchangeable words..... What our big problem
is are the legacies of slavery like the EC, property tax based schools and the 2nd
Amendment..."
[Little "r" republican is a word with a meaning. Representative democracy is the euphemism
of choice by republicans. The US Senate and the related electoral college were concessions
from the larger more populous states to the little states (VT, NH, ME, RI, and DE. In the
1790 census VA had the largest population across the board, free white males of age, under
age free white males, free female, AND slaves. So, VA was making a concession to the
little... ]
[Also the 2nd Amendment was never intended by the Frames to mean anything like what the
NRA says it means. Even the NRA knows better themselves, but their political opposition has a
severe problem with facts and representing facts in a manner that leads to understanding and
consensus.]
"... By and large voters get to ratify one of the two evils carefully vetted by the party campaign apparatus with regular inputs from their paymasters. ..."
EMichael forgets that voters are little more than a necessary evil for political elites,
who are driven more by a need for power and to serve those who fund their campaigns. So, yes,
pols do care about issues, but mostly only those issues of concern to their puppet
masters.
By and large voters get to ratify one of the two evils carefully vetted by the party
campaign apparatus with regular inputs from their paymasters.
Not for nothing, the post you replied to is demonstrably and utterly BS. It is making perfect
the enemy of good. It is making progressivism the enemy of itself.
LOL!!! "The perfect being the enemy of good." Democrats' message is "don't let the promise of
doing something good stand in the way of doing nothing." The latter pretty well summed up
Obama's Republican-lite approach to governance.
We're been watching Democrats' promises for 40 years, and what we've seen is a gradual
erosion o the social safety net, in concert with their Republican ring leaders.
"Not for nothing, the post you replied to is demonstrably and utterly BS. It is making
perfect the enemy of good. It is making progressivism the enemy of itself."
[Whereas your response was an entirely well explained and convincing argument :<) ]
It was pretty self-evident BS. Nobody gets elected without people voting for them. When the
Tea Party was supposedly economic anxiety, sociolgists pointed out that it was really racial
fear and anxiety about immigration. The idea that Obama was somehow Republican lite is beyond
stupid and contrary to reality. He wasn't perfect but he was a very good President who had to
operate with the constraint of also being the first black man in the office - and had to be
careful not to scare white people to much.
I am sure that is what you believe. OTOH, my confirmation bias has much older roots than
yours finding itself emerge into sunshine in 1968 with frequent glimmering rays of hope yet
little light of change since then.
Why public day care in the 60s when 80% of kids got more education playing with their peers
in backyards or playgrounds supervised by parents, mostly moms?
Women for the most part didn't need to work if they had young kids.
Perhaps women married to a banker or engineer. My mom was working throughout my childhood,
pants factory then High's Ice cream store manager in the early fifties, then childcare in our
home in the late fifties in Occoquan because it was too small to have much for jobs, then in
a Peebles department store in the early sixties and back to daycare in our home and school
crossing guard overlapping until dad had her working in his own boat livery and bait shop
business at Lake Orange beginning in 1966. OTOH, most black women had been working throughout
the 20th century which is why they were not covered by FDR's AFDC. Stay at home moms were a
luxury of the post WWII booming middle class that had a very short shelf life. People that
were not beneficiaries of that boom just missed it entirely.
You know that we deliberately segregated America in the 50's-80's and that prior to that
there wasn't nearly as much segregation. It isn't a natural state, it was something that was
done deliberately by the Robert Moses flavor of HUD. Redlining, etc. Levittown had deed
restrictions that would not allow a home to be sold to an african-american. The invention of
Suburbs was fundamentally used to segregate our nation.
There's a lot wrong here -- although Warren is a terrific story teller -- but it's really
too bad that Obama didn't say "accounting control fraud," instead of "predatory lending."
Although it's not clear that Warren would have understood him if he had.
You're damn right there's problems with Warren's Obama story: he does five minutes of
research about her career and focus before she arrives, makes sure to be backlit upon her
entrance, rings what comes across as a transparently canned bell and she swoons!
I get that that most people were taken in by that talented, fraudulent shapeshifter, but
this is painful to watch.
"The Campaign Press: Members of the 10 Percent, Reporting for the One Percent" [Matt
Taibbi,
Rolling Stone ]. "Anyone who's worked in the business (or read Manufacturing Consent)
knows nobody calls editors to red-pencil text.
The pressure comes at the point of hire. If you're the type who thinks Jeff Bezos should
be thrown out of an airplane, or that it's a bad look for a DC newspaper to be owned by a
major intelligence contractor, you won't rise.
Meanwhile, the Post has become terrific at promoting Jennifer Rubins and Max Boots.
Reporters watch as good investigative journalism about serious structural problems dies on
the vine, while mountains of column space are devoted to trivialities like Trump tweets
and/or simplistic partisan storylines.
Nobody needs to pressure anyone. We all know what takes will and will not earn attaboys in
newsrooms. Trump may have accelerated distaste for the press, but he didn't create it. He
sniffed out existing frustrations and used them to rally anger toward 'elites' to his side.
The criticism works because national media are elites, ten-percenters working for
one-percenters.
The longer people in the business try to deny it, the more it will be fodder
for politicians. Sanders wasn't the first, and won't be the last."
• Yep. I'm so glad
Rolling Stone has Matt Taibbi on-board. Until advertisers black-list "the One Percent," I
suppose.
@Hanrahan Notice the
continued exclusion of Representative Gabbard and her criticism of the destructive Empire --
despite focusing on Beltway politics, he hasn't typed her name since June 28. He wants the
"Elizabeth Warren-Bernie Sanders-AOC Democrats" to go even kookier because this website's "Mr.
Paleoconservative" has become a Beltway fixture, cheerleading for Team Red in the next Most
Important Election Ever
"... The election will be waged, like the primaries, around race-baiting. Biden will be the first victim. The other white candidates are running scared & becoming more shrill in their denunciations of whites in general by the hour. ..."
"the Great Arsenal of Democracy was looted by" the military-industrial complex Arsenal &
it's unending wars & nothing short of nuclear annihilation is going to change that. There
is no Democrat who is willing to bet their chance at the presidency on pulling it down.
And the American public, by and large, is put to sleep by lengthy discussions of the
intricacies of trade policy.
The election will be waged, like the primaries, around race-baiting. Biden will be the
first victim. The other white candidates are running scared & becoming more shrill in
their denunciations of whites in general by the hour.
There's no telling where it all may lead but it's becoming clearer day by day that the
hostility will outlast the primaries & the general election will be a very ugly affair.
There's no turning back to the soothing center now, it will be an us-vs.-them type election
& hopefully, Pat Buchanan, still America's shrewdest pundit, will keep us fully
apprised.
Well, it is the polls, that is the data we are using to discuss this stuff and I have not
seen any poll where he is leading all those groups, especially the young. Last time I
checked, Bernie was leading with voters 55 and younger, younger women and there is great
variation among black voters in regards to age. And I have to say, those doing the polls have
not done anything to give me confidence in them. Not just the biases of many of those
conducting the polls, but who they poll. CNN on more than one occassion has cited polls that
essentially ignored voters younger than 50.
All of the pollsters ignore those who don't fit into their narrative.
Trump and Bernie are the only ones who can fill stadiums for their rallies.
Biden and the rest of the clown posse can't even fill a high school auditorium. Even the
sainted hills couldn't even fill an auditorium.
That's why they don't hold rallies, they have town halls in extremely small venues.
But if cnnmsndccbsfoxnbcpbsabc538 tell you every frickin day that sleepy joe is up 2-1 on
everybody, from the first day of his campaign no less, even tho bernie is leading in
individual donors by probably 3-1, it just becomes sort of inevitable that he is the one you
need to vote for. Especially because everyone wants to be on the winning team.
Just like last time it comes down to vote Bernie in June or get goofy don in November.
FTR, am not a berniebro but sweet jesus, I can read the tea leaves.
"Biden and the rest of the clown posse can't even fill a high school auditorium. Even the
sainted hills couldn't even fill an auditorium "
Seen the video of the shill in the gym chanting
"Hill-a-ry!" "Hill-a-ry!" She realizes no one is copying her. She claps and chants again.
Finally gives up when some guy laughs at her.
Sioux City population is 83,000. The Kamaleon was crowing about the fact that her speech
in a hall for 150 had 300 people? That's hardly an enthusiastic turnout for a presidential
candidate.
And all the candidates except Bernie do this: schedule speeches in preposterously small
facilities so that they can claim even a ridiculously low turnout is some sort of smashing
success, merely because it was bigger than the tiny hall they themselves scheduled.
"... The reason the ruler's have decreed 'anybody but Bernie' is that Sanders' (and to a lesser perceived degree, Warren's) campaign proposals challenge the austerity regime that has been relentlessly erected since the 1970s precisely to set American workers and the whole capitalist world on a Race to the Bottom, in which each year brings lower living standards and more insecurity to the population at large. ..."
"... The obscene increases in wealth inequality are the desired result and true essence of austerity. ..."
"... "the top one-tenth of one percent (.1%) of the population -- households making $2.757 million a year -- now number almost 200,000 families, a cohort big enough to create and inhabit a large and coherent social world of its own. ..."
Sanders (D)(1): "Why the Rich Want to Bury Bernie, the Not-Really-Socialist" [Glen Ford,
Black Agenda
Report (CI)]. Really excellent.
Here's "why":
"The reason the ruler's have decreed 'anybody
but Bernie' is that Sanders' (and to a lesser perceived degree, Warren's) campaign proposals
challenge the austerity regime that has been relentlessly erected since the 1970s precisely to
set American workers and the whole capitalist world on a Race to the Bottom, in which each year
brings lower living standards and more insecurity to the population at large.
The obscene
increases in wealth inequality are the desired result and true essence of austerity."
There's
much more, but this on local oligarchies is important: "the top one-tenth of one percent (.1%)
of the population -- households making $2.757 million a year -- now number almost 200,000
families, a cohort big enough to create and inhabit a large and coherent social world of its
own.
From their rich enclaves in every state of the country, this formidable "base" of truly
wealthy folks effectively dictate the politics of their regions for the benefit of themselves
and the oligarchs at the top of the pyramid. "
I don't always agree with Rogan (at all), but he'd done a far better job than the
corporate klowns' sh!tshow (that Kornacki guy!) we've had so far. Driving viewers away seems
to be the goal right now..
Isn't it interesting that the Democrats are only about a third of the country now, but
because they and the other rotten party have rigged our political system so no other parties
can emerge, that they essentially will determine who will go up against Trump? The Democratic
voters are just as lost as the politicians they vote for. Turnout is often low for primaries
within that party, in a party that only a third of the country identifies with, and there is
little chance that anyone will get a majority of voters. So, it is entirely possible that the
person chosen to go against Trump will have support of, what, 4-5% of the US electorate? And
if they are stupid enough to choose Biden, and they are, the general election will be Biden
vs Trump. The USSR at least ended in interesting ways. We're just going to vote in two
corrupt, out of touch and mentally declining frauds to throw hot garbage at each other, and
what is the left supposed to do? There will never be a better argument for a third party if
those two are the options given to us by the duds in the two major parties. I can't even
contemplate who Biden would choose as his VP, and possibly lock us into a decade of hell, and
then the environmental crisis hits.
It is not an issue in regards to difficulty, generally, it is the options people are given
and how often it is that the options people are given are net negatives regardless as to who
wins, and people realizing that what the general public wants is not reflected in policy.
Bernie is an exceptuon, and look at all the nonsense thrown at him, and all the undemocratic
means those in power use to maintain their power. I am not saying that justifies inactivity,
but it does help to explain it. But, lets say Biden or someone similar is chosen by Democrats
in the primaries. What percentage of the electorate, given all I mentioned, will have chosen
him?
If the US electorate allows 4-5% to decide, then they deserve who they get. It’s not
difficult to vote in a primary.
Depends where you live. If you live in most states and you want to vote in a Democratic
Party presidential primary, you have to be registered as a Democrat. Here in AZ I can vote for
every office except president by being a No Party Preference voter registrant. If I want to
vote against Joe Biden, I have to change my voter registration to “D”. Not gonna
happen.
“Here in California, owned and operated by the Democratic Party, voting for someone
other than the approved candidate could quickly get your vote “lost” or
“disqualified” and that is not mentioning the rigging of convention
delegates.”
This ultimately why Bernie is up against it. I think he has a real shot to win and am not
very concerned about the polls, he is doing well despite all that is aligned against him.
Palast showed what that rotten party did in 2016 in the primaries (it is entirely possible that
Bernie won the state or at least came even closer to winning), and you could include tons
since. My favorite was how they used superdelegates at the state level in California to get
Bauman to lead the state party, and he had to resign in shame. He was previously a pharma
lobbyist that was paid to lobby the state against bargaining down the price of drugs. Then
there is stuff like this:
As the DNC has argued in court though, they don’t have to run a fair primary and can
pick whoever those at the top of the party want, right? It would be amazing if someone within
the DNC and the state party here (I live in Southern California) would leak what they are
doing. Not expecting it, but it would be great.
True. However, if one is voting™ for
a non-corporatist candidate, getting
that vote counted has been problematic,
and I expect it to be more so in 2020:
"Judge: Georgia must scrap old voting machines after 2019" [ Associated Press ]. "U.S. District
Judge Amy Totenberg's order on Thursday prohibits the state from using its antiquated paperless
touchscreen machines and election management system beyond this year. She also said the state
must be ready to use hand-marked paper ballots if its new system isn't in place for the March
24 presidential primary election."
'The senator had tough words for one of Joe Biden's signature laws'
by Gideon Resnick, Political Reporter...08.14.19...10:57AM ET
"Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) suggested in an interview Tuesday evening that she would
seek the repeal of the 1994 crime bill -- a historic though highly controversial measure tied
closely to one of her closest competitors for the Democratic presidential nomination.
It "needs to be changed, needs to be rolled back, needs to be repealed." Warren said of
the law, which has become widely bemoaned by criminal justice reform advocates for its
tough-on-crime measures, harsh sentencing guidelines, and general encouragement of the war on
drugs."...
"Biden just 1 point ahead of Warren in new weekly tracking poll"
By Julia Manchester...08/14/19...11:04 AM EDT
"Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) is trailing former Vice President Joe Biden by just 1
point in a new Economist–YouGov weekly tracking poll.
Biden sits at 21 percent support in the survey, while Warren is close behind at 20
percent. The next candidate is Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) at 16 percent support among
voters."...
Pennsylvania voters have very strong -- and mostly negative -- views about President
Donald Trump, and about half say they will vote against him no matter his opponent, according
to a new poll of registered voters across the state.
Over multiple questions and surveys, a clear portrait emerges of an electorate deeply
polarized over the president, with strongly held feelings on either side.
About half of voters had a "strongly unfavorable" opinion of the president, twice the
number who held a "strongly favorable" opinion.
And while the divisions among Democratic voters are real during this primary election,
especially across groups such as age, race, and income, the real divide is between the
parties and ideologies: Most Democrats, regardless of which candidate they support, say they
will vote against Trump no matter what. ...
MONACA, Pa. (AP) -- President Donald Trump sought to take credit Tuesday for the
construction of a major manufacturing facility in western Pennsylvania as he tries to
reinvigorate supporters in the Rust Belt towns who helped send him to the White House in
2016.
Trump visited Shell Oil Co.'s soon-to-be completed Pennsylvania Petrochemicals Complex,
which will turn the area's vast natural gas deposits into plastics. The facility, which
critics claim will become the largest air polluter in western Pennsylvania, is being built in
an area hungry for investment.
Speaking to a crowd of thousands of workers dressed in fluorescent orange-and-yellow
vests, Trump said, "This would have never happened without me and us."
In fact, Shell announced its plans to build the complex in 2012, when President Barack
Obama was in office.
A Shell spokesperson said employees were paid for their time attending Trump's
remarks.
Trump used the official White House event as an opportunity to assail his Democratic
rivals, saying, "I don't think they give a damn about Western Pennsylvania, do you?"
The focus is part of a continued push by the Trump administration to increase the
economy's dependence on fossil fuels in defiance of increasingly urgent warnings about
climate change. And it's an embrace of plastic at a time when much of the world is sounding
alarms over its impact.
"We don't need it from the Middle East anymore," Trump said of oil and natural gas,
calling the employees "the backbone of this country."
Trump's appeals to blue-collar workers helped him win Beaver County, where the plant is
located, by more than 18 percentage points in 2016, only to have voters turn to Democrats in
2018's midterm elections. In one of a series of defeats that led to Republicans' loss of the
House, voters sent Democrat Conor Lamb to Congress after the prosperity promised by Trump's
tax cuts failed to materialize.
Beaver County is still struggling to recover from the shuttering of steel plants in the
1980s that surged the unemployment rate to nearly 30%. Former mill towns like Aliquippa have
seen their populations shrink, while nearby Pittsburgh has lured major tech companies like
Google and Uber, fueling an economic renaissance in a city that reliably votes
Democratic.
Trump claimed that his steel and aluminum tariffs have saved those industries and that
they are now "thriving." a description that exaggerates the recovery of the steel
industry.
Trump also took credit for the addition of 600,000 U.S. manufacturing jobs. Labor
Department figures show that roughly 500,000 factory jobs have been added under his
presidency. ...
(Apparently, workers' pay would be docked if they
did not attend; and they were advised to 'behave'.)
For what it is worth ( Not much), I have spoken to about a dozen people about Epstein's
death. Not one of them believes Epstein committed suicide. I asked a wide range of people
from small town mayors to Realtors to a commercial fisherman.
I have insufficient information to make a judgement, however I do consider it more likely
than not that Epstein was killed. My opinion is based on nothing more than 60 plus years of
paying attention to how things really work, it was a mighty convenient death.
"... This is doomed to dissolve. To a greater and significant degree, the public is finding true justice wanting, and thus holds no trust in Government, at All levels. ..."
Then you get a tame judge assigned (and that's nothing new, even Johnny Carson used to
joke "do you know how bad the economy is these days?" [sidekick] "no, Johnny, just how bad is
the economy?" "it's so bad, organised crime has had to lay off 5 judges this week ") to let
Epstein off with a slap on the wrist, a year at the Four Seasons low security penitentiary
and early release through time served.
Much simpler than any of the other notions and achieves exactly the same result (Epstein
is subject to "the full force of the law" but stays happily alive to tell the tale and keep
his finger off the Dead Mans Switch).
If you were in charge of all this, which solution would you try first? If you've ever
worked in a big, but incompetent, organisation (and if they're big, they're almost certainly
going to be incompetence personified), you wouldn't even need to ask yourself that
question.
This is doomed to dissolve. To a greater and significant degree, the public is finding
true justice wanting, and thus holds no trust in Government, at All levels.
But hey that's just conspiracy theory talk .. right ?
"... This is doomed to dissolve. To a greater and significant degree, the public is finding true justice wanting, and thus holds no trust in Government, at All levels. ..."
Then you get a tame judge assigned (and that's nothing new, even Johnny Carson used to
joke "do you know how bad the economy is these days?" [sidekick] "no, Johnny, just how bad is
the economy?" "it's so bad, organised crime has had to lay off 5 judges this week ") to let
Epstein off with a slap on the wrist, a year at the Four Seasons low security penitentiary
and early release through time served.
Much simpler than any of the other notions and achieves exactly the same result (Epstein
is subject to "the full force of the law" but stays happily alive to tell the tale and keep
his finger off the Dead Mans Switch).
If you were in charge of all this, which solution would you try first? If you've ever
worked in a big, but incompetent, organisation (and if they're big, they're almost certainly
going to be incompetence personified), you wouldn't even need to ask yourself that
question.
This is doomed to dissolve. To a greater and significant degree, the public is finding
true justice wanting, and thus holds no trust in Government, at All levels.
But hey that's just conspiracy theory talk .. right ?
WOLFEBORO, N.H. -- While most Democratic presidential candidates are worried about how
they can build support, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders may face a different task: how to
retain as many supporters as he can from last time.
In 2016, Sanders easily won the New Hampshire primary, defeating the eventual nominee,
Hillary Clinton, with more than 60 percent of the vote. Given the current field of
candidates, the math is clear: If he can convince just half of those voters to stick with him
he could pull off another win.
This might be why attending a Sanders campaign event in 2019 in some ways mimics a Donald
Trump rally: lots of media-bashing, a reprisal of popular topics from his last campaign, and
a lot of preaching to the converted.
On Monday night, Sanders addressed a crowd of 350 here against a scenic backdrop of a
gazebo and Lake Winnipesaukee. Of two dozen attendees who were interviewed by the Globe,
almost all said they have decided to support Sanders in the New Hampshire primary in
February.
Among them were Kyra Dulmage, 33, a middle school teacher from Dover whose cat's name is
Bernie.
"Sanders is the real deal," she said. "He has been consistent in his ideas for decades. I
wanted to come and show support."
Caleb Seymour, a 23-year-old from Concord, said that coming to see Sanders was like seeing
his favorite band in a concert.
"I wanted to see the whole show and cheer him on," said Seymour, a recent college
graduate.
The same was true with Paul Hough, a 69-year-old antique store owner, and his 31-year-old
daughter, who both live in Meredith. They have been on the Sanders e-mail list since the last
campaign, which is how they heard about the event.
"I guess there isn't anything new that I really want to hear, but I want to hear him talk
about Medicare for All," Hough said.
Such longtime supporters, many sporting "Bernie 2016" campaign buttons, represent the
campaign's biggest strength.
A Suffolk University/Boston Globe poll released last week found Sanders in second place,
with 17 percent support, four points behind former vice president Joe Biden at 21
percent.
Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts was close behind, with 14 percent.
Yet Sanders had the largest group of supporters -- 48 percent -- who said their mind is
already made up.
By contrast, two-thirds of those who said they are currently backing Warren said they were
still open to changing their minds.
On a conference call with reporters Monday morning, Sanders senior adviser Jeff Weaver
said that a retention-focused approach would miss voters who just moved to the state or those
who are newly eligible to vote.
"We are not organizing around a strategy of just trying to retain voters," he said. "We
are always looking to grow new voters."
There is evidence of their efforts. In the second fund-raising quarter, the Sanders
campaign said, it received contributions from more than a million people nationwide, 43
percent of whom had never given to Sanders before.
At the same time, the campaign acknowledges that its base of support is critical to
building a strong campaign.
For example, during his two-day swing through New Hampshire Monday and Tuesday, which
includes a pair of town hall meetings, a breakfast meet-and-greet, and an ice cream social,
the campaign is primarily reaching out to those who have been in contact with the campaign
via text or e-mail.
"Part of the thinking is obviously knowing who our people are and connecting with them
again when it comes to events like these," said Carli Stevenson, the campaign's deputy N.H.
director. "It helps to fire them up and maybe convince them to volunteer and with their help,
reach new people."
Word-of-mouth brought Beverly Davis, 70, a retired teacher from Wolfeboro, to hear
Sanders. She backed Clinton last time and is considering Sanders among a long list of other
candidates, including Warren, and South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg.
"Like a lot of Democrats, I am interested in hearing what he has to say," Davis said. "We
don't all have our minds made up."
"... The New York Times has created * an absurd dilemma for Democrats, "how to be tougher on trade than Trump." This framing of the trade issue is utterly bizarre and bears no resemblance to reality. ..."
Why Would the Democrats Want to be "Tough" on Trade, as Opposed to Smart on Trade?
By Dean Baker
The New York Times has created * an absurd dilemma for Democrats, "how to be tougher
on trade than Trump." This framing of the trade issue is utterly bizarre and bears no
resemblance to reality.
While Trump has often framed the trade issue as China, Mexico, and other trading partners
gaining at the expense of the United States because of "stupid" trade negotiators, this has
little to do with trade policy over the last three decades. The United States negotiated
trade deals to benefit U.S. corporations. The point of deals like the North American Free
Trade Agreement was to facilitate outsourcing, so U.S. corporations could take advantage of
lower cost labor in Mexico.
The same was true with admitting China to the World Trade Organization. This both allowed
U.S. corporations to move operations to China and also made it possible for retailers like
Walmart to set up low-cost supply chains to undercut their competitors. The job loss and
trade deficits that resulted from these deals were not accidental outcomes, they were the
point of these deals.
U.S. negotiators have also made longer and stronger patent and related protections (which
are 180 degrees at odds with "free trade") central components of recent trade deals. While
these provisions mean larger profits for drug companies and the software and entertainment
industries, they do not help ordinary workers. In fact, by forcing our trading partners to
pay more money for the products from these sectors, they leave them with less money for other
exports.
Anyhow, given the reality of our trade policy over the last three decades it is hard to
know what being "tough on trade" means. In the Trumpian universe (and apparently at the New
York Times) this could make sense, but not in the real world. The question is whether our
trade policy is designed to help ordinary workers or to increase corporate profits, "tough"
is beside the point.
Rudderless democrats should fear being cast as soft on China....
They are not soft but calling Trump out on trade, with economic argument that only econ
grad students might understand, would expose them to being called soft on China like the dems
tried on Trump with Russia.
On that note maybe....... a plan is to be soft on China trade war.
"How many other millionaires and billionaires were part of the illegal activities that he
was engaged in?" he asked. Even the BBC website has as its heading of a news story today "Jeffrey Epstein: Questions raised over financier's death."
"Tulsi Gabbard to report for active duty in Indonesia for 2 weeks"
by Brian Pascus...CBS News...1 hr ago
"Tulsi Gabbard, Democrat from Hawaii and presidential candidate, will be taking a two-week
absence from her campaign Monday to report for active duty with the Hawaiian Army National
Guard in Indonesia, she said in an interview with CBSN's Caitlin Huey-Burns.
"I'm stepping off of the campaign trail for a couple of weeks and putting on my army
uniform to go on a joint training exercise mission in Indonesia," she said. Gabbard has also
taken two weeks off to report for active service in 2017."...
From backing free college to supporting Medicare for All, reparations, the Green New Deal,
and the decriminalization of illegal border crossings, the 2020 presidential field shows a
party that has moved decidedly to the left in recent years.
But if history is any guide, New Hampshire Democrats won't be interested. In the state's
past first-in-the-nation presidential primaries, their winners have almost always been the
more moderate candidates in the party: Jimmy Carter, Michael Dukakis, Paul Tsongas, Al Gore,
John Kerry, and, in 2008, Hillary Clinton.
The exception? Bernie Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist who defeated Clinton
by a wide margin in 2016. And as the Vermonter returns to the state Monday for a two-day
swing, one of his tasks will be to figure out how to once again defy history -- especially
with several other progressive candidates in the race.
The week ahead in New Hampshire will highlight the challenge in a dramatic way: Elizabeth
Warren, who slightly trails Sanders in Granite State polls as both battle to be the
progressive alternative to front-runner Joe Biden, will hold events in the northern part of
the state one day after Sanders.
"Sanders was able to be the exception to the rule in 2016 because of a unique set of
circumstances in which he could fuse the party's progressive wing with its anti-Clinton and
anti-establishment voters," said Judy Reardon, a longtime Democratic activist in New
Hampshire who backed Clinton in 2016 and has endorsed Kirsten Gillibrand in this primary.
"Obviously there are many more candidates who are competing for different wings of his
previous coalition," she said.
It's not just Warren. Several candidates have adopted planks of Sanders' platform, such as
his support for Medicare for All and increasing the minimum wage, as well as his opposition
to free trade agreements. One of Sanders' most high-profile endorsements of his 2016
campaign, Representative Tulsi Gabbard, is running herself.
Mark MacKenzie, former New Hampshire AFL-CIO head and Sanders campaign steering committee
member, said that while Warren and others have no doubt made the path to victory more
difficult, the candidate's 2016 win was no fluke.
"Bernie really woke up Democrats that what has normally been going on is not working for
them," MacKenzie said. "He has a group of people very committed to that idea, and while we
saw some people looking at other candidates, they are starting to come back." For example,
former state Senator Burt Cohen said last week he will endorse Sanders again after meeting
with other candidates, including hosting a Marianne Williamson house party last month.
A Suffolk University/Boston Globe poll released last week found that Sanders had the most
supporters who have their minds made up.
But the same poll found that, once again, a moderate establishment candidate was leading
in the state: Biden. The former vice president had 21%, and Sanders and Warren had 17% and
14%, respectively.
"What is keeping Biden in the lead is that no one is even competing with him among older
voters, union households, and moderates," said David Paleologos, the director of the Suffolk
poll. "Sanders really needs Warren out of the way and vice versa, but neither appear to be
going away."
The same survey found a split among likely Democratic primary voters in the state: 51%
call themselves moderate, conservative, or very conservative, compared to 45% who say they
are liberal or very liberal. (The poll of 500 likely Democratic primary voters was taken Aug.
1 to 4)
Beyond the presidential race, a moderate Democrat has won every statewide primary for
governor or US Senate in the last 15 years.
"There is no question that there is a moderate establishment running local Democratic
politics in this state that have made it very hard for more progressive candidates to get a
foothold," said Paul McEachern of Portsmouth, who lost the Democratic nomination for governor
to a more moderate candidate, John Lynch, in 2004. (McEachern supported Sanders in 2016, but
he is backing Warren in this race).
McEachern attributed much of this dynamic to his own former campaign manager, current US
Senator Jeanne Shaheen, the state's most senior elected Democrat. If Shaheen, a more moderate
Democrat, endorses a candidate or gives them her approval, the contender is in a much better
position to raise money or recruit talented staff in the state, he said.
As Shaheen and all of the Democratic establishment backed Clinton in 2016, they were
rebuked by Sanders supporters. Shaheen was even booed by Sanders supporters at a large state
party dinner named after her just days before the presidential primary.
By then, polls showed Sanders with an advantage. His victory became a blowout, as he
defeated Clinton by 22 percentage points, catapulting Sanders into a two-person showdown with
the former US secretary of state that lasted for months.
Last year in New Hampshire, the establishment struck back.
More moderate candidates who had the backing of Shaheen, US Senator Maggie Hassan, and
Representative Annie Kuster won both the Democratic nomination for governor and a key
congressional race: In the primary to succeed retiring Representative Carol Shea-Porter, one
of the party's most liberal members, moderate Chris Pappas defeated a number of challengers
who ran as Sanders supporters -- including Sanders' own son, Levi.
Shaheen has said she will not endorse anyone in the 2020 presidential primary, saying she
needs to focus on her own reelection.
And in 2020, according to Peter Burling, a former state senator and former Democratic
National Committeeman, internal party jousts will take a back seat to the greater mission:
New Hampshire Democrats are just looking for a winner.
"The common theme in New Hampshire Democratic politics in the last few decades has been
pragmatism," said Burling, a progressive who backed former Maryland governor Martin O'Malley
in 2016 and is uncommitted so far in this primary.
Burling said that when he talks to local Democrats at his house parties for presidential
candidates, they say defeating Trump remains the top priority.
And in New Hampshire, while voters size up their options, the stakes will be clear in
their backyard. Trump will hold a rally in Manchester on Thursday.
New Hampshire primary winners tend to be moderate,
except for Bernie Sanders.
[ A thoroughly revealing headline, because Senator Sanders is indeed thoroughly moderate.
That Sanders may have differences with a Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden in policy ideas is a
matter of degree. Donald Trump and advisers have radical policy ideas on healthcare or
climate or foreign policy.
To write news articles of Sanders as not being moderate is simply being slanted or
prejudiced. Sanders is a moderate as is Elizabeth Warren. ]
It depends on the spectrum that
voters use to assess his candidacy.
voters long accustomed to a political spectrum oriented around economic ideology might
agree that Sanders, who calls himself a "democratic socialist," is the left-most candidate in
the race.
There are, however, other possibilities. One could analyze U.S. politics in a way that
positions Sanders as a relative moderate. As Damon Linker put it:
'Sanders is that rarest of things in contemporary progressive politics: a candidate for
the presidency who doesn't think in terms of multicultural identity politics. Of course he
strongly supports civil rights for women, people of color, the LGBT community, and every
other group in the Democratic electoral coalition. But he aims for the left to be more than a
conglomeration of intersectional grievance groups clamoring for recognition.'
Roughly 54% of Democrats told Gallup that they want their party to be more moderate. How
many of them would prefer the more inclusive, universalist approach to culture-war issues
that Sanders tends to offer, even though he's further left on marginal tax rates and
government-run health care?
(Bernie has consistently been pro-gun;
perhaps that alone makes him a moderate.)
Overall, Bernie Sanders believes in a middle-ground solution in the national gun debate,
saying in a recent interview:
"Folks who do not like guns [are] fine. But we have millions of people who are gun owners
in this country -- 99.9 percent of those people obey the law. I want to see real, serious
debate and action on guns, but it is not going to take place if we simply have extreme
positions on both sides. I think I can bring us to the middle."
Gun Control: Gun control legislation should ultimately fall on individual states, with the
exception of a federal ban on assault weapons and instant background checks to prevent
firearms from finding their way into the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.
Manufacturer Liability: Gun manufacturers should not be held liable for the misuse of
their products, just as any other industry isn't held accountable for how end-consumers use
their products.
Improve Mental Health: Gun control is not the only solution to curbing the epidemic of gun
violence. There must be other efforts to assist those with mental health issues in order to
prevent suicides by firearms or mass shootings at public places. ...
BTW, the Boston Globe, which favored HRC
last time around (as did yers truly) seems
pretty solidly behind Liz Warren, as a
favorite daughter so to speak. But when
push comes to shove, they will surely back
the Dem candidate, whoever it may be.
(As will I & the majority of
my fellow Bay Staters.)
"... And at no point will there be any of the damage limitation that a trial, requiring and weighing evidence, would have put on the mushrooming of charges, rumours and speculations which has been taking and will continue to take place. ..."
"... In realistic terms the damage to the system of a few outliers, like Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew or Dershowitz being driven, red faced from public life, would be minimal. In fact it could easily be spun as am indication that the system worked and that, in the end, an obscure former masseur could be vindicated against Princes and ex-Presidents. ..."
The Epstein case is very simple: had a trial taken place-and proper trials are increasingly
rare in the USA, as the record of his Florida 'trial' shows- it had the potential of being
extremely embarrassing to a number of prominent and powerful people.
On the other hand, now that he is dead, there can be no limit to the enormous number of
allegations that can be made against him and them.
From the point of view of The Establishment, this death is far from convenient. It will
redound to the advantage of many individuals but in the long run it will contribute to an
increase in popular distrust of the entire system. And at no point will there be any of the
damage limitation that a trial, requiring and weighing evidence, would have put on the
mushrooming of charges, rumours and speculations which has been taking and will continue to
take place.
In realistic terms the damage to the system of a few outliers, like Bill Clinton, Prince
Andrew or Dershowitz being driven, red faced from public life, would be minimal. In fact it
could easily be spun as am indication that the system worked and that, in the end, an obscure
former masseur could be vindicated against Princes and ex-Presidents.
The danger is that this sordid but very routine 'scandal' will blot out real and important
matters that require public debate. How many US Presidents and English princes have not been
involved in the sort of things said to have been facilitated by Epstein? So far as Princes
go, I can think of none. And many of them, including future Kings, have done a lot worse
things than fuck teenage girls, though that has been routine for all who didn't prefer
boys.
It would be interesting to learn what lessons it is thought this affair should teach us?
Should the age of consent laws be revised to ban sexual relations between rich and poor? Or
to legislate against sexual partnerships involving an age differential of more than, say, ten
years?
Or should class society and the capitalist system, which commodifies everything and puts
the poor majority in positions in which they are vulnerable to prostitution, be abolished?
This would involve something a little more substantial than a lynch mob led by unprincipled,
loudmouth demagogues feeding off the obsessions and frustrations of the sexually
disfranchised.
These last we have had in America since the Pilgrim Fathers stumbled ashore, clutching
their Old Testaments angrily and looking for others to blame. And be punished.
As to the nonsense that Epstein has been spirited away, is not really dead and will, like
Merlin, one day return...that way madness lies.
"... I am just now reading David Martin's new book "The Assassination of James Forrestal", about a 1949 murder by the Zionists disguised as suicide. ..."
"... He can sit around with the Skripals and talk over old times. ..."
"... He probably became more of a liability and/or stepped on some toes higher up in the food chain. How many former Israeli prime ministers will attend his funeral? Ghislaine's lawyers will be happy, she was a victim of Epstein too. Poor child. ..."
"... Well said. Indeed, loss of trust in governments is key, and this event utterly destroys the little trust that remained. Other western governments have the same problem also. ..."
Reports are that he was 'found dead' at 7:30 am local time, he was supposedly on suicide
watch, he was a tremendously valuable witness, he could trade his testimony for leniency, a
lot of very important people were worried.
No one will believe that Epstein committed suicide voluntarily, I certainly don't.
Not extraditing. I am just now reading David Martin's new book "The Assassination of James Forrestal",
about a 1949 murder by the Zionists disguised as suicide.
He probably became more of a liability and/or stepped on some toes higher up in the food
chain.
How many former Israeli prime ministers will attend his funeral? Ghislaine's lawyers will be happy, she was a victim of Epstein too. Poor child.
Why would anyone watch House of Cards? The real life soap called American politics is way
more fun and interesting.
Make no mistake, Ghislaine will never be extradited by TPTB, for they are still designating
her a "Madame"; just a very naughty lady who was adept at pleasing her clients and her
"partner". Not a spy, not a slave trader, just an independent and shrewd Mommy of sorts. "
Lady Madame Ghislaine". A glamour girl to the end. And without a doubt she'll get the
same state funeral as her father when her time comes. That is, if Israel is still a state
when she kicks the bucket.
Jeffry Epstein suicided- makes it obvious, that the deep state mafia regime in control was
feeling intense heat, some one(s) important in the deep state decided overt killing a
prisoner in federal prison and trying to defuse the news and public' obvious disbelief in
cause and method, is worth killing him and divert and defuse the mess. For sure the names
that would have become public was going to destabilize the DC regime. In next few days before
the news is buried, we will see how MSM will divert the narrative, away from the names it is
trying to protect. For sure at one time he was "made" and one the "Goodfellas" .
kooshy , Aug 10 2019 14:40 utc |
18Lysander , Aug 10 2019 14:40 utc |
19
The only way his 'suicide' can be considered an actual suicide is if his handlers had so much
leverage over him that they could persuade that he (and any loved ones he might have) would
all be much better off if he did it himself than if he forces them to do it for him.
That's a possibility I suppose. But the idea that he did just because he couldn't handle
life anymore simply doesn't warrant any consideration at all.
I responded to Your last response to me on this thread:
The MoA Week In Review - OT 2019-45
It is the last entry on that thread. Just wanted to let You know.
-----
How convenient that Epstein is no longer in the perpetrator protection program. The
witness protection program was obviously never considered, or applied. Someone wrote that the
Epstein case proved that there are two justice systems in the US: one for the rich and one
for the suckers. Although that is not quite correct, as the one for the suckers must be
called Injustice System.
It also goes to show, that while people desperately attempt to change their 'elected
officials', they have no whatsoever control over the 'unelected officials'. Those decide over
the (In-)Justice system with impunity. How would the 'Supreme' Court look like if The
People would elect its members? Citizen United would have never happened? But that it did
- outside of any say of the population it affected the most - is one reason why the truth
about Epstein's Johns will never surface. How many of the supreme court justices visited
'penetrate-a-minor-girl island?
Correct. No evidence has yet to emerge. Your beliefs notwithstanding.
If I were Epstein I would have a powerful motive to commit suicide. And some may have
powerful motive to murder him. There is nothing yet to suggest her was murdered.
I cite this as an example of the disinformational slippery slope which in other contexts
leads to the election of Trump, for instance, or the passage of Brexit.
IOW, suicide is not the only form of self-inflicted self-harm.
That probably means he was just a really rich pervert whose luck ran out rather than a Mossad
or CIA asset tasked with collecting kompromat on influential people. A pampered twit
like Epstein, used to a life of luxury and leisure, in jail on a sex charge would be eaten
alive and quite possibly killed. I speculated after he was arrested that he would try to kill
himself if he faced a long stretch in jail and it looks like that's what happened. Of course
plenty of people will claim his suicide was faked etc. but unless they have credible evidence
to back that up I will go with 'Occam's razor' on this.
We live in a national security state run by criminals. Expecting justice from the legal
system is like expecting to elect a president who will drain the swamp. It is a democracy
theme park, where the levers and handles are not attached to anything.
Epstein's death - assuming he hasn't been "spirited" away to somewhere welcoming and
unwilling to extradite, ever, (I wonder which "country" that might be) - and its timing is
awfully convenient.
And the fact that he was supposedly on suicide watch after his "apparent" attempt some
days earlier gives one pause. Either the so-called suicide watch is really negligent and
Epstein was given/allowed both the "space" and the means (surely the means would, under
suicide watch, be rendered null?) or his death by *suicide* is questionable.
We forget that there are still other (((predators))) on the loose to include Polanski, Woody
Allen, and a list of others. I will not say that they are all jews because George Bush Sr,
was a known pedophile and he died at a ripe old age of 94 (and some people believe in
karma..yeah right). Of course he was also the head of the CIA and the Warren commission, so
he could afford to do what he did and get away with it. Don't believe me, check into the
Franklin Child Abuse scandal and this Washington Times article. http://www.voxfux.com/features/bush_child_sex_coverup/franklin.htm
Unless "We the People" take these predators down, they will continue to destroy
children.
Since hollywood is so bankrupt for ideas i wonder if someone will do a citizen kane type
story based on epistein, For those who dont know citizen kane was basically an unflattering
biography about a thinly veiled william randolph hurst expry (Hurst did everything possible
to try to kill the film when he heard about it). This might be the only way we get anything
close to even an approximation of what the truth was behind Epistein
div> Can't help but think about Deborah Jeane Palfrey, known as the "D.C.
Madam," was also suicided.
I especially like how his suicide was staged on a Friday evening when people wont be paying
that much attention. That has always been the best time for governments to release bad news
I wonder if they will do an autopsy, or maybe he will get "cremated" right away? If the
former, I'd say maybe he actually did kill himself, if the latter, definitely not. Of course
autopsies don't have to be accurate either. "Who gets the remains?" is another good question.
"Why the heck did he show up to get arrested like that?" is another one.
Wow!! Those suckers at the BBC manage NOT to mention Maxwell or Prince Andrew (ok... they are
mentioned in some of the links they give, but come one!!) https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49306032
Epstein, never married, no acknowledeged children. Odd for someone who wanted to populate the
world with his progeny... someone suggested that now his estate(s) canbe freely searched. We
will see if this all goes away or if some pitbulls in Miami keep after others who have been
implicated. When the DC Madam was murdered/committed suicide every lead went dark and her
little black book disappeared as I recall...
lysias 11
I read that book last month! The official story still stands but the truth is out there. And
it was not surprising to see that any evidence contrary to the official story of a paranoid,
crazy man committing suicide didn't go anywhere.
I expect the Epstein story and its details to fade as well because many in power want it
to. It's been interesting to read of the ties between Bill Browder, Robert Maxwell, and
Jeffrey Epstein. Very shady dealings with so much submerged.
does this require elaboration? I read your linked Daily News article. I have spent some
time behind bars myself (although not for sex crimes I hasten to add) and while not in
possession of as lavish lifestyle as Epstein I would probably have a difficult time
tolerating much of the rest of my life spent in similar conditions.
And I get that Club Fed is a much better living environment than pre-trial holding cells
but only by degrees...and he was going to be held in pre-trial for a long time while
the press and alt media had a field day with his story.
The Clinton conection of course leads to all sorts of rightwing created conspiracy
theorues which Barflies too love to swarm all over like a fresh batch of dogshit on the
sidewalk.
Clinton likes/liked having sex with young, possible underage girls?
They all say they cut ties with Epstein 12 years ago when the charges first surfaced. And
yet, Epstein still got around and hobnobbed with the rich and shameless ever since then.
Epstein by all recent accounts wasn't actually "smart", just pathologically driven and
well-funded. Someone gave him a leg-up very early on; just an undeniable fact if you study
his bio. He would not have any incriminating evidence stored at his properties or in his
personal effects, it would've been funneled to whoever he was working for long ago. Point is,
he trusted his bosses. His brain, Ghislaine's brain; those are the only two places outside of
Tel Aviv that the info was still stored.
If he had prepared a dead man's switch, he would have pulled it years ago.
I find the Pavlovian reactions shown here by quite a number of people very painful to
witness.
Like there can be any doubt Epstein would have more than enough reason to kill himself.
A sexual marauder, a high-roller, the world's no. 1 pimp, probably an "Intelligence" asset
in a class of its own, a guy who knew none of the boundaries us mortals usually face
– confined to a tiny cell and prison life. With the prospect of having your sad and
perverse life dissected in court, of having to explain and justify your actions, of having
to go through harrowing witnesses' statements. Yeah, what's not to look forward to in
there?
Yours is by far the most Pavlovian reaction to this news. Or is it 'news'?
Let me get this straight for your to think about it. The guy has enough money to spend
after he gets out of jail. How any years would he get in a Justice system that was lenient in
the first place? Different folks now in the Justice Department? Let's say he would get five
years, no make it ten. I seriously doubt he wouldn't get parole after some time for exemplary
behavior. And he promised to not continue his crimes. Remember that it suffices to confess to
the public and apologize for what you did - for the evangelical faction to forgive you. Hell,
make that 'Christian faction'. He would sign a confidentiality agreement in exchange for his
life to those who would take it otherwise. Lots of money to use in a corrupted society.
Jeffrey Epstein would know that the average attention span of Americans is as long as the
trail of a shooting star in the night. Another mass shooting and "Who? Epstein? Never heard
of him."
It is you, who fits the findings of Pavlov quite well. However, from personal experience
at the Humane Society, I know that there is no dog that cannot be re-trained, or
re-conditioned to be a friendly doggie.
My first thought. In fact, I had this thought as soon as I heard of the first Epstein
suicide "attempt." I am sure I am not alone. Just when we thought we were going to see whose
names actually were in her little black book, she conveninetly disappears, and the little
black book slides down the memory hole.
Remember it was Reagan who said: Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on
me.
Oh, yes, and Gary Webb supposedly also committed suicide. And a number of the JFK
witnesses who planned to come forward some years/decades after his death---poof! Heart attack
the day before the planned interrogation (see Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable).
Anyone who believes this new (and richly predicted) suicide story is a fool. Gimme an
effing break!
The guy was on "suicide watch"! That can only mean that the people in charge of this supposed
watch were the ones who administered the tiny shot (leaves no trace in the skin) that brought
about heart failure.
How convenient, just after Florida opened its own investigation into the original plea
arraignment that threatened to unseal Epstein's financial records. But just because Epstein's
no more doesn't mean the investigation should end; others in the DoJ broke the law then, not
Epstein. Plus, his operation was what's known as a "ring", a conspiracy, a racketeering
operation involving numerous others, some known, some not. I wonder what his will says?
The flaw in your argument is that Epstein wasn't getting out this time and he knew it.
He may have been killed and he may have killed himself precisely because of what is to
follow.
I believe like Karlof1 that the investigation should definitely continue because of what
is to follow and also now should include whether or not Epstein was "suicided".
And if Clinton or Prince Andrew or wtf is found guilty of sex crimes then he should rot in
jail too.
After all, Bill Cosby, white Amerikkka's favourite black father figure went to jail didn't
he? Although granted he is black and he is also forgotten at this point in the ever rushing
news cycle....but he is still behind bars, isn't he?
willie , Aug 10 2019 16:37 utc |
88DontBelieveEitherPr. , Aug 10 2019 16:41 utc |
89
To those who think "suicide watch" is some magical way to prevent suicide, and that his death
would imply some action by a third party to kill him, maybe i can shed some light on the
procedure, as it is handled in Germany (And very likely at least inspired from US
procedures):
1. The inmate does get a cell with a fellow inmate, so he is not alone, and is observed by
that inmate too.
2. Additionally, to normal security measures, the inmate gets taken away all things with
which he could harm himself
3. Wardens control the inmate visually in a pre determined interval of e.g. 15 minutes, 30
minutes, 60 minutes.
4. In special cases inmates are transferred into special cells with rubber walls and floors,
like one would think in a mental hospital (Gummizelle is the German term).
Now, in consequence:
1. When the other inmate does not look, sleeps or simply does not give a shit, this has no
effect
2. While belts, show laces and sharp things are removed, one can easily improvise a rope from
a piece of bed linen etc. to hand themselves on the water fountain or classically on the
window grille, jump from a double story bed head first breaking ones neck or bleeding
themselves, slitting the wrist to bleed to death (something sharp can always be found or
made, overdosing on drugs the inmate acquired from other inmates...
I myself have witnessed multiple people successfully kill themselves under suicide watch
in the pretty short times i myself was an inmate in a maximum security prison. And i myself
have been at times under suicide watch, and I know myself that if you want to do it, you got
plenty of options.
After some days you know how the system works, and have multiples options if you choose
so.
Plus, guards are always lazy, and cheat on the interval. E.g. checking only once an hour
instead of every 15 minutes.
But even the 15 minutes is plenty of time.
So him being on suice watch and still killing himself IS NO PROOF OF NOTHING.
That said, i dont exclude something like this.
Maybe he had a conscience. Maybe he felt ashamed. Maybe not, and only had not the balls to
face what he did.
Maybe some told him it would be better for him, or that there are actually people he loved
and that he got threatened that those people would be hurt.
Who knows? Not we certainly.
IMHO it is TYPICALL for such people as him to commit suicide.
He may have some smarts concerning the rich and famous, but in a federal jail, he is
FUCKED.
EVERYONE WILL TRY TO GET A PIECE OF HIS ASS AND MONEY!
JUST LIKE EVERY FUCKING PEDO IN EVERY JAIL ON EARTH!
And no solitary confinement (Already gone on suicide watch, where he is at least in a 2 man
cell) can protect him.
Taking a shower, free time, sport, work, visiting waiting cell.. Countless times to get that
mofo, and put a shank to his dick.
A pedo is already done in prison, but a prominent pedo???
He killed himself to not get assfucked till it bleeds, to not have to get abused like he
abused.
He had no future, and he doing himself was realizing he played out.
As chance would have it, AOC appears to have a House of Representatives oversight role
with regard to Epstein's 'suicide' and is loudly demanding answers; she sounds a lot more
sceptical than you!
This is a good opportunity to show if she has substance. Let's see what she does!
One self-proclaimed corrections officer said on Reddit that Epstein's suicide should
never have been possible.
I'm a corrections officer. This should never have been possible. During the intake
process due to the nature of his crimes and being famous he should have already been on
special watch. Then after the first attempt he would have been in a special cell. He
would be in what we call a "pickle suit" it's a green suit that you can't tear or tie to
anything. His blankets would be the same material. He would only get hygiene products
under supervision. Only thing allowed in his cell would be a book and court papers. Then
we would be monitored more closely. This is a huge failing on the jail. I want a massive
investigation on how this was able to happen.
/div> The NYT this morning is reporting that it is not known if Epstein was
on a suicide watch. Clearly, he should have been after the recent incident in which he was
found unconscious and with injury marks around his neck. I think it is not at all unlikely that
he did commit suicide, but also that he was allowed or even aided in doing so.
The NYT this morning is reporting that it is not known if Epstein was on a suicide watch.
Clearly, he should have been after the recent incident in which he was found unconscious and
with injury marks around his neck. I think it is not at all unlikely that he did commit
suicide, but also that he was allowed or even aided in doing so.
It's probably too early to draw the curtains on the Epstein nothing-burger. It's not at all
clear to me that ANY of the under age women were pre-pubescent children. Bonking under age
females with breasts and pubic hair is known as Statutory Rape in most Western countries; the
assumption being that the bonkee is deemed to be too young to give Informed Consent to sex
with an adult male. If there's no allegation or evidence of coercion by the bonker then it's
not a hanging offense.
The mystery surrounding Epstein's rags to riches good fortune has not yet been fully
explained, although if it's true that he had charisma then he was probably capable of
seducing/ charming males as well as females.
IF he was running a honey-trap blackmail scam as a sole trader then he will fade from
History surrounded by a blizzard of "???". If on the other hand he was a "useful idiot"
running the scam on behalf, and for the benefit of, powerful people then one suspects that he
will have left a "dead man's letter" so that he'd have the last laugh.
A dead man's letter is only as good as the entity one trusts to ensure that it's
disseminated. WikiLeaks would be my top pick for a trustworthy publisher and The Swamp is
moving Heaven and Earth to keep Assange incommunicado until he can be suicided.
I think you are missing the fundamental issue regarding the circumstances of Epstein's
death, it is no longer Epstein's crimes and that of his co-conspirators, it is a systemic
loss of Trust in the government and political elites. The allegations against Epstein and his
associates were extremely serious, at the absolute minimum they involved major political and
economic figures involved in sex trafficking and the sexual abuse of minors, the worst
allegations were that foreign individuals or governments had gained compromising information
about these figures and used it subvert the government policies for their benefits. I do not
know if all of these allegations were, but at least some of these allegations involving
sexual abuse were truth (Epstein himself admitted as much when he took the original guilty
plea).
In re-arresting Epstein under new charges, the government itself also asserted that 1)
they believed Epstein committed other crimes and 2) they were reasonably likely to get a
conviction at a trial (prosecutors are not supposed to bring charges against people unless
they think they can get a conviction at trial). Again, I do not know if all of these
allegations were true, but in bring a case the government said that they believed that they
were. Lastly, in refusing to grant bail to Epstein, the government clearly and publicly took
on the responsibility of protecting Epstein from ALL THREATS (including himself, other
inmates, guards, health issues, everything) while he was in their custody.
The fact that Epstein, allegedly, tried to commit suicide a week ago and was then moved to
the highest level of care and security by the government where he then dies after "allegedly"
committing suicide is a huge, public and devastating failure of the government to fulfill
their obligations to society, the courts and even Epstein (that is assuming Epstein really is
dead). This is made all the worst by the fact that many, many people (Zerohedge, moon of
alabama, RT, infowars, the Duran among others) had stated their fears that Epstein would be
murdered in such a way by powerfully forces within the government and political elites, in
the eyes of these people, their concerns have been fully vindicated. By failing to fulfill
their obligations in such a public way, especially after being warned repeatedly by people
concerned about just such a situation unfolding, the US government has hugely discredited
itself and legitimized the believe that the US government and the political elite is deeply,
systematically corrupt.
Now, undoubtedly the US government and society will not be fatally undermined by a single
event such as this. But for the prior 30 years (at least), the US government and society seem
unable to generate successes for anyone except the top 1% and indeed seems openly hostile to
the very idea that government should ever create a benefit for anyone except the 1% or that
the political and economic elite should ever be held accountable for any failure or crimes
they commit (the 2001 tech bubble, the Iraq war, the 2008 financial crisis, Libya, Syria,
Iran, Venezuela and now the Epstein scandal). At some point a critical threshold will be
breeched and people will slowly stop believing in the various government narratives on events
and public policies. Many American already reject the US government's narrative on 9/11, the
Iraq war, Syria now some of them will add the Epstein episode to their list of disbelieved
narratives. Unless the US government reverses course and starts rebuilding it's legitimacy
and trust, this rejection of US government narratives will spread to the most fundamental
government narrative, that the US government is the legitimate government of the people. Once
that narrative is disbelieved by as little as 1/3 of the population, the US (as it currently
exists) is doomed. When will that happen, that's the $64 question although I personally
believe it will be within the next 20 years unless some reforming figure arises
Since he was certainly a spook it makes sense that he knew he had to commit suicide by
himself. Suicided, yes, but by his owners who dropped him. The guy still thought recently he
could be released on bail.
Now what about the many pages missing from the published documents?? and those pages where
she starts talking about some big guys and have a lot of black on the lines??
The details of Trump's only ride on an Epstein plane, from Florida to NY, he 'hitched a
ride' - no girls. It is curious, as Ilargi, no Trump fan, points out the MSM has never
bothered to report this, plus keeps on suggesting that Trump is involved with Epstein,
insinuating guilt by association (sex trafficking, pedophilia, prostitution, abuse,
blackmail, etc.) Publishing that photo of Epstein w. Trump and Maxwell, Melania, over and
over.
Giuffre (> recent doc release) confirms - Trump never flirted with her, she never saw
Trump involved with any girls. (see also dan 77)
The MSM goes so far as to not report court cases, witness testimony, legal conclusions,
etc. from the US judiciary (itself notoriously corrupt!) -> even the minor attempts to
uphold say, the first amendment / some small parts of the rule of law.. are ignored, hidden,
flatly denied..
Circe might accuse me of supporting Trump! - NO, no..no...
Posted by: donkeytale | Aug 10 2019 16:55 utc | 103
You know what, you are right... I can't say 100 percent what exactly happened but this has
to have everybody's BS detector on full alert.
As Posted by: Kadath | Aug 10 2019 17:01 utc | 106
"At some point a critical threshold will be breeched and people will slowly stop believing in
the various government narratives on events and public policies. Many American already reject
the US government's narrative on 9/11, the Iraq war, Syria now some of them will add the
Epstein episode to their list of disbelieved narratives. Unless the US government reverses
course and starts rebuilding it's legitimacy and trust, this rejection of US government
narratives will spread to the most fundamental government narrative, that the US government
is the legitimate government of the people. Once that narrative is disbelieved by as little
as 1/3 of the population, the US (as it currently exists) is doomed. "
The lies haven't got so blatant that the narrative managers are asking to disregard any
logic to believe their stories. This Epstein case I have personally been following since
2015. From all that I read of the guy, suicide doesn't seem like his way. Ratting everyone
else out seemed more his style. Thus I lean more on a hit job more than anything.
I didn't really know Jeffrey. He was like Boo Radley in the corner of the room. After I met
him, he became Jeffrey Epstein, he had no interest in me. He knew right out of the box who
the players were, the people who would stay out all night, people who had interests in
extracurricular objectives, and who the hitters were. That wasn't me." ... The Wall Street
names in the book range from the highly prominent to the obscure, and, for some unknown
reason, a disproportionate number of names of bankers in it worked once upon a time at
Lazard, my old firm.
Cohan dutifully records passing events in the outside world, such as the near-bankruptcy of
New York, which Mr Rohatyn averted, and various mergers and acquisitions. But the
interesting action was taking place in Lazard's allegedly dingy (they never seemed that bad
to me) offices in the Rockefeller Center, where the "great men" who advised big companies
plied their trade.
The emphasis was on the "men". Cohan records that partners from Meyer to Mr David-Weill
and Mr Rohatyn imported a French attitude to extramarital liaisons and the first women who
worked there as bankers were apparently propositioned constantly. One young woman is even
said to have been raped by two junior bankers, and according to Cohan's account the
bankers were eased out to avoid embarrassment.
But just because Epstein's no more doesn't mean the investigation should end
Posted by: karlof1 | Aug 10 2019 16:11 utc | 78
This can't be stressed enough.
The Great US of A are absolutely FUCKEDUP. Remember what's at stake are proven and alleged
public order crimes, that it was not a victim that perished, that sex trafficking, of minors
or otherwise, are criminal organization type crimes. These crimes shall be prosecuted
under the law. Except there is no law to be under anymore.
We can all speculate on suicide vs "suicided" but in my opinion this is several degrees
below the bar, at this point I don't even think it matters that part of the discussion. I'm
slightly disappointed at today's comments, but since I can't myself bring up to par, I extend
it myself.
There isn't any hard evidence that Epstein was murdered, true. But if the death of the sole
named accused in arguably the most high profile case in decades, involving the most
well-connected elites, steeped foreign intelligence connections, in a federal prison, on
suicide watch, alone in a cell wearing a paper suit, with no shoelaces, under 24/7 watch
doesn't arose your suspicions, you are a special kind of obtuse. Suicide watch is designed
specifically to not allow what supposedly happened. At a minimum, it is a scandal in its own
right. But to happen to Epstein now, just as the trail was getting rolling, on Friday - the
day known to 'bury' stories, in a federal facility in Manhattan, is as fishy as fishy gets.
If you want to mock those who point that out, it reflects much more on your naivety than
anyone else's.
He wasn't just "bonking" underage women, he was trafficking them - internationally and on
a large scale. And he threatened them as well. These women were fearful.
If your daughter had been one of those "bonked", trafficked, and threatened at 15 or 16
years old maybe you wouldn't be so cavalier.
Furthermore, it's difficult to believe a wealthy person like Epstein would risk their
wealth and prestige so blatantly without some belief that they were protected. Many believe
that his protection came from Mega/Mossad. So the serial rapist was likely part of a criminal
conspiracy that was aided and abetted by a foreign government.
I used to think you had a functioning moral compass.
My BS detector has been bleeping almost non-stop since the US war on Serbia, as far as I'm
concern when the US makes an assertion they need to provide verifiable evidence to back up
their claims. my personal opinion is that Epstein didn't commit suicide, heck, I'm not even
sure if he's really dead but if he is dead, he was probably murdered.
Kadath @106 Well said. Indeed, loss of trust in governments is key, and this event utterly destroys the
little trust that remained. Other western governments have the same problem also.
Epstein was in custody of someone. Whether Epstien was "suicided" or his death was faked, in a functioning state that
someone would be brought to justice, and that would go up the chain of command until the highest culprit is found. But we live
in a system that is either a Banana Republic or a Mafia State
Had you given thought to: Banana Mafia State Democracy ?
Formerly T-Bear , Aug 11 2019 19:46 utc |
8james , Aug 11 2019 20:04 utc |
9
false choices and a
load of shite.. how is a crony capitalism, banana mafia run country supposed to be a sovereign state?? personally i can't
see it.. pat lang as usual is for the most part, off his rocker..sovereign state my ass..
FWIW New Eastern Outlook is running a story by Gordon Duff on Epstein's murder including citing Bill Richardson and plutonium
theft from USA stockpile. Messad gets a mention.
I put investigative journalism between quotation marks because the editors of the NYT probably already know who killed Epstein.
"Playing along" with the investigative narrative would be the more appropriate term.
Even the New York Times is reporting that 2 guards who were supposed to check on Epstein every 30 minutes since he was in "protective"
custody didn't do their rounds, or not all of their rounds, on Friday night into Saturday morning:
Mr. Epstein was supposed to have been checked by the two guards in the protective housing unit every 30 minutes, but that
procedure was not followed that night, a law-enforcement official with knowledge of his detention said.
Nothing to see here, move along, don't care that the doctors at Parkland said publicly and unambiguously that day that JFK
was shot from the front.
If you look at Epstein, he was a cog in the one of the largest White Slave trade endeavors for a country that begins with I and
ends in an L (or better known as Occupied Palestine). Israel has been noted for years to have one of the largest white slave sex
trade operations in the world. Bringing in young white Estonian, Latvian, and other eastern european white girls for jobs as maids,
nanny's, and other domestic help, until upon arrival their passports are taken and they have to work in brothels for 16 hours
a day to pay off fees the fends impose upon them. I could provide sources from the UN to other bodies but look it up yourself.
Epstein was only doing God's work for the chosenites.
Responding to several questions in the last open thread, I mentioned the fact that Epstein's case reflects the great amount of
corruption prevalent within the Outlaw US Empire, and it's that aspect of the case that might be used as a campaign issue, particularly
since Sanders is going to great lengths to point to the utterly corrupt and immoral nature of "health" insurance and Big Pharma.
That was exactly the line he presented on today's
Face The Nation program, despite the primary fccus being gun control:
"'The American people are sick and tired of powerful corporate interest determining what goes on in Washington,' Sanders said.
'You know that's whether it's the healthcare industry, whether it is the fossil fuel industry, whether it is the NRA.'"
The other important point Sanders made was the divisive nature of Trump's rhetoric--that becoming more divided now isn't in
the nation's best interest:
"He is creating the kind of divisiveness in this nation that is the last thing we should be doing."
Ah, but that's exactly what the Current Oligarchy wants done--create an ever more divisive nation such that solidarity--and
thus Movement Building--becomes ever harder to attain and realize.
Any NYT reporting on Epstein is meant as a distraction -- to cover up the facts.
The NYT is the elites' protector, it punches down instead of up.
The NYT 'revelations' about guards are a) punching down to protect elites and b) a distraction to protect elites.
The NYT is one of the Augean Stables.
IMO, it matters not whether Epstein's alive or dead. What matters is that a person like Epstein was able to become what Epstein
became, which was enabled through the great, vast cesspool of corruption that the global elite inhabit. Epstein ought to become
the Poster Boy for ridding the nation of government and elite corruption that affects every aspect of life here and everywhere.
As many have said, Billionaires ought not to exist--no one individual should have that much wealth and power. The thesis embodied
within
Andrew Carnegie's Gospel of Wealth (PDF) ought to be made into law such that it's ensured that those fortunate enough
to become well-off thanks to the public--directly or indirectly via government--return a great proportion of that wealth to their
benefactors. IMO, had such a law been in force, the corruption that enabled Epstein would have had a more difficult time doing
what it did.
Yes, there are other factors/actors involved that aided Epstein's racket. We have an excellent idea of who and what--China
has the proper solution for such corruption. Ridding the world of those factors/actors ought to be equivalent to the Quest for
The Grail.
At least comfort can come from knowing that the evil within Syria is currently being eradicated, and that additional evil plans
are being thwarted thanks to the Forces of Resistance.
Gabbard (D)(1): "Tulsi Gabbard's daredevil act" [ Politico
]. "Gabbard delivered a piercing, if inaccurate, appraisal of Kamala Harris' law enforcement
record -- then turned it into a misleading, yet effective, online ad push." • That's all
Politico says. I heard what Gabbard said, when she said it, and could have backed up every line
of it with links. Gabbard was even nicer than she could have been, because she left out
Mnuchin. I wish I could say this article was shocking, but it isn't.
"... Joe Biden is both sadly demented and deeply compromised to the Chinese Communist Party through his use of his office as VP to fund his son's investment fund with money from China's government owned and run central bank. His condition and his compromised state will keep him from the WH. ..."
"... Gabbart is the only person that seems rational and slightly honest. Harris traded sex for political advancement I understand why she would be a favorite. No moral or ethical standards willing to do anything for what she wants. Perfect useful idiot. ..."
Tulsi Gabbard is an exception to the subject of my title, but she is not going to be
nominated. I am currently contributing to her campaign as a tribute to a gallant lady.
Joe Biden is both sadly demented and deeply compromised to the Chinese Communist Party
through his use of his office as VP to fund his son's investment fund with money from China's
government owned and run central bank. His condition and his compromised state will keep him
from the WH.
They will both be irrelevant in the 2020 election as will as the Zombie candidates like
Bullock, Delaney, etc. i.e. the "moderates."
The rest of the pastiche of 2020 "Democrat" candidates are essentially Globalist advocates
of reduced US sovereignty as a step toward their "ideal" of a world socialist state in which
they will be part of the new Nomenklatura and will enjoy exemptions from the inevitable
shortages of everything resulting from universal "sharing" with the unfortunate masses who will
be proletarians engaged in slave labor or doing the gardening at the dachas of people like
Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Beto O'Roarke and the like.
The barely hidden opposition by the leftist Democrats to border control is telling. The
leftist Democrats want to take down the SW border of the US until it is nothing but a line on
the map. They want to do that that in order to flood the country with illegals who can be voted
for Democrat majorities in states where they control the state governments. Remember, the
states run federal elections.
California is an example of dirty dealing intended to further rig election outcomes. Gavin
Newsom, the apparent present leader of the Sacramento cabal, has signed into law a statute
seeking to bar Trump from the ballot if he will not surrender his federal tax returns for
public inspection. Was the possibility of illegally voting millions of non-citizens by driver
licensing of illegals and their simultaneous voter-registration at the DMV not enough to ensure
victory? Thank god that a change in the number of presidential electors allotted to California
is not within the capability of the Sacramento cabal.
Americans and other people who will vote in 2020 will have a stark choice. Do you wish to
remain living in a sovereign state or do you wish to become a building bloc in a world
socialist empire?
Unfortunately the only choice available to the US sovereignty side will be Donald Trump, the
real estate hustler from New York City. Weld is not a serious candidate. pl
Both parties seem inclined to bring about "paradise on earth". To understand these
internationalists, I cite Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor conversation with Christ:
..."'So that, in truth, Thou didst Thyself lay the foundation for the destruction of Thy
kingdom, and no one is more to blame for it. Yet what was offered Thee? There are three
powers, three powers alone, able to conquer and to hold captive for ever the conscience of
these impotent rebels for their happiness those forces are miracle, mystery and authority.
Thou hast rejected all three and hast set the example for doing so. When the wise and dread
spirit set Thee on the pinnacle of the temple and said to Thee, "If Thou wouldst know whether
Thou art the Son of God then cast Thyself down, for it is written: the angels shall hold him
up lest he fall and bruise himself, and Thou shalt know then whether Thou art the Son of God
and shalt prove then how great is Thy faith in Thy Father." But Thou didst refuse and wouldst
not cast Thyself down. Oh, of course, Thou didst proudly and well, like God; but the weak,
unruly race of men, are they gods? Oh, Thou didst know then that in taking one step, in
making one movement to cast Thyself down, Thou wouldst be tempting God and have lost all Thy
faith in Him, and wouldst have been dashed to pieces against that earth which Thou didst come
to save. And the wise spirit that tempted Thee would have rejoiced. But I ask again, are
there many like Thee? And couldst Thou believe for one moment that men, too, could face such
a temptation? Is the nature of men such, that they can reject miracle, and at the great
moments of their life, the moments of their deepest, most agonising spiritual difficulties,
cling only to the free verdict of the heart? Oh, Thou didst know that Thy deed would be
recorded in books, would be handed down to remote times and the utmost ends of the earth, and
Thou didst hope that man, following Thee, would cling to God and not ask for a miracle. But
Thou didst not know that when man rejects miracle he rejects God too; for man seeks not so
much God as the miraculous. And as man cannot bear to be without the miraculous, he will
create new miracles of his own for himself, and will worship deeds of sorcery and witchcraft,
though he might be a hundred times over a rebel, heretic and infidel. Thou didst not come
down from the Cross when they shouted to Thee, mocking and reviling Thee, "Come down from the
cross and we will believe that Thou art He." Thou didst not come down, for again Thou wouldst
not enslave man by a miracle, and didst crave faith given freely, not based on miracle. Thou
didst crave for free love and not the base raptures of the slave before the might that has
overawed him for ever. But Thou didst think too highly of men therein, for they are slaves,
of course, though rebellious by nature. Look round and judge; fifteen centuries have passed,
look upon them. Whom hast Thou raised up to Thyself? I swear, man is weaker and baser by
nature than Thou hast believed him! Can he, can he do what Thou didst? By showing him so much
respect, Thou didst, as it were, cease to feel for him, for Thou didst ask far too much from
him- Thou who hast loved him more than Thyself! Respecting him less, Thou wouldst have asked
less of him. That would have been more like love, for his burden would have been lighter. He
is weak and vile. What though he is everywhere now rebelling against our power, and proud of
his rebellion? It is the pride of a child and a schoolboy. They are little children rioting
and barring out the teacher at school. But their childish delight will end; it will cost them
dear. Mankind as a whole has always striven to organise a universal state. There have been
many great nations with great histories, but the more highly they were developed the more
unhappy they were, for they felt more acutely than other people the craving for world-wide
union. The great conquerors, Timours and Ghenghis-Khans, whirled like hurricanes over the
face of the earth striving to subdue its people, and they too were but the unconscious
expression of the same craving for universal unity. Hadst Thou taken the world and Caesar's
purple, Thou wouldst have founded the universal state and have given universal peace. For who
can rule men if not he who holds their conscience and their bread in his hands? We have taken
the sword of Caesar, and in taking it, of course, have rejected Thee and followed him. Oh,
ages are yet to come of the confusion of free thought, of their science and cannibalism. For
having begun to build their tower of Babel without us, they will end, of course, with
cannibalism. But then the beast will crawl to us and lick our feet and spatter them with
tears of blood. And we shall sit upon the beast and raise the cup, and on it will be written,
"Mystery." But then, and only then, the reign of peace and happiness will come for men. Thou
art proud of Thine elect, but Thou hast only the elect, while we give rest to all. And
besides, how many of those elect, those mighty ones who could become elect, have grown weary
waiting for Thee, and have transferred and will transfer the powers of their spirit and the
warmth of their heart to the other camp, and end by raising their free banner against Thee.
Thou didst Thyself lift up that banner. But with us all will be happy and will no more rebel
nor destroy one another as under Thy freedom. Oh, we shall persuade them that they will only
become free when they renounce their freedom to us and submit to us. And shall we be right or
shall we be lying? They will be convinced that we are right, for they will remember the
horrors of slavery and confusion to which Thy freedom brought them. Freedom, free thought,
and science will lead them into such straits and will bring them face to face with such
marvels and insoluble mysteries, that some of them, the fierce and rebellious, will destroy
themselves, others, rebellious but weak, will destroy one another, while the rest, weak and
unhappy, will crawl fawning to our feet and whine to us: "Yes, you were right, you alone
possess His mystery, and we come back to you, save us from ourselves!"
"'Receiving bread from us, they will see clearly that we take the bread made by their
hands from them, to give it to them, without any miracle. They will see that we do not change
the stones to bread, but in truth they will be more thankful for taking it from our hands
than for the bread itself! For they will remember only too well that in old days, without our
help, even the bread they made turned to stones in their hands, while since they have come
back to us, the very stones have turned to bread in their hands. Too, too well will they know
the value of complete submission! And until men know that, they will be unhappy. Who is most
to blame for their not knowing it?-speak! Who scattered the flock and sent it astray on
unknown paths? But the flock will come together again and will submit once more, and then it
will be once for all. Then we shall give them the quiet humble happiness of weak creatures
such as they are by nature. Oh, we shall persuade them at last not to be proud, for Thou
didst lift them up and thereby taught them to be proud. We shall show them that they are
weak, that they are only pitiful children, but that childlike happiness is the sweetest of
all. They will become timid and will look to us and huddle close to us in fear, as chicks to
the hen. They will marvel at us and will be awe-stricken before us, and will be proud at our
being so powerful and clever that we have been able to subdue such a turbulent flock of
thousands of millions. They will tremble impotently before our wrath, their minds will grow
fearful, they will be quick to shed tears like women and children, but they will be just as
ready at a sign from us to pass to laughter and rejoicing, to happy mirth and childish song.
Yes, we shall set them to work, but in their leisure hours we shall make their life like a
child's game, with children's songs and innocent dance. Oh, we shall allow them even sin,
they are weak and helpless, and they will love us like children because we allow them to sin.
We shall tell them that every sin will be expiated, if it is done with our permission, that
we allow them to sin because we love them, and the punishment for these sins we take upon
ourselves. And we shall take it upon ourselves, and they will adore us as their saviours who
have taken on themselves their sins before God. And they will have no secrets from us. We
shall allow or forbid them to live with their wives and mistresses, to have or not to have
children according to whether they have been obedient or disobedient- and they will submit to
us gladly and cheerfully. The most painful secrets of their conscience, all, all they will
bring to us, and we shall have an answer for all. And they will be glad to believe our
answer, for it will save them from the great anxiety and terrible agony they endure at
present in making a free decision for themselves. And all will be happy, all the millions of
creatures except the hundred thousand who rule over them. For only we, we who guard the
mystery, shall be unhappy. There will be thousands of millions of happy babes, and a hundred
thousand sufferers who have taken upon themselves the curse of the knowledge of good and
evil. Peacefully they will die, peacefully they will expire in Thy name, and beyond the grave
they will find nothing but death. But we shall keep the secret, and for their happiness we
shall allure them with the reward of heaven and eternity. Though if there were anything in
the other world, it certainly would not be for such as they. It is prophesied that Thou wilt
come again in victory, Thou wilt come with Thy chosen, the proud and strong, but we will say
that they have only saved themselves, but we have saved all. We are told that the harlot who
sits upon the beast, and holds in her hands the mystery, shall be put to shame, that the weak
will rise up again, and will rend her royal purple and will strip naked her loathsome body.
But then I will stand up and point out to Thee the thousand millions of happy children who
have known no sin. And we who have taken their sins upon us for their happiness will stand up
before Thee and say: "Judge us if Thou canst and darest." Know that I fear Thee not. Know
that I too have been in the wilderness, I too have lived on roots and locusts, I too prized
the freedom with which Thou hast blessed men, and I too was striving to stand among Thy
elect, among the strong and powerful, thirsting "to make up the number." But I awakened and
would not serve madness. I turned back and joined the ranks of those who have corrected Thy
work. I left the proud and went back to the humble, for the happiness of the humble. What I
say to Thee will come to pass, and our dominion will be built up. I repeat, to-morrow Thou
shalt see that obedient flock who at a sign from me will hasten to heap up the hot cinders
about the pile on which I shall burn Thee for coming to hinder us. For if anyone has ever
deserved our fires, it is Thou. To-morrow I shall burn Thee. Dixi.'"*...
Dem candidate clown car is every bit as vile as the Gop clown car in 16.
Gabbart is the only person that seems rational and slightly honest. Harris traded sex for
political advancement I understand why she would be a favorite. No moral or ethical standards
willing to do anything for what she wants. Perfect useful idiot.
"The top voting machine company [Election Systems & Software] in the country insists
that its election systems are never connected to the internet. But researchers found 35 of the
systems have been connected to the internet for months and possibly years, including in some
swing states." • The only reason I can imagine, besides corruption, for election officials
to buy these things is that they want the capability to fix elections, and that goes for both
parties.
Given the overwhelming evidence of Mr. Epstein's connection to powerful US leaders as well
as, quite possibly, a foreign intelligence service, isn't it time for the American People to
demand a hard hitting, "leave no stone unturned" special prosecutor investigation ?
If this does not have all the earmarks of influence peddling in both our democracy and our
policy decisions , I cannot imagine what would.
"... Among the reasons why Biden, Sanders, and Warren will be difficult to topple from the top tier: a significant portion of their supporters say they have made up their minds about the race. ..."
"... This is especially the case with Sanders. Nearly half -- 48 percent -- of his supporters said they would definitely vote for him... ..."
A new poll out Tuesday on the New Hampshire Democratic presidential primary shows the
outcome is anyone's guess between former vice president Joe Biden, Senator Bernie Sanders of
Vermont, and Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts.
Beyond which candidate had what level of support in the first-in-the-nation presidential
primary -- scheduled for February 2020 -- a deeper dive into the Suffolk University/Boston
Globe poll provides a number of other big-picture takeaways.
The top tier is hard to crack
Biden, Sanders, and Warren are the only candidates with support in the double digits (21
percent, 17 percent, and 14 percent, respectively), and a closer read suggests that might not
change anytime soon. Much of this has to do with the fact that a significant portion of their
support is locked down. Nearly half of Sanders' and Biden's supporters in the poll say they
their mind is made up and they aren't looking at supporting anyone else in the field.
Something dramatic could occur, of course, but odds are that the status quo will remain for a
while.
Further, if there are big changes in the race, the poll found that Warren, not someone
else outside of the top three, is in the best position to benefit. Warren was the "second
choice" of 21 percent of respondents. No one else was even close to her in that category.
While Sanders has support locked down now, and Warren has the best potential to
grow , Biden, it appears, has his own lane of supporters that no other candidate is even
contesting. Biden's support is very strong among older voters, moderates, and union members.
For the most part, these voters aren't even looking at other options.
New Hampshire Democrats are moderate
For all the conversation about how far left the Democratic Party has moved in recent
years, the poll shows likely Democratic primary voters have not moved the same way. Yes, a
majority back the Green New Deal concept and Medicare for All, but more than 50 percent
describe themselves as either moderate, conservative, or very conservative. This is compared
with the 45 percent who say they are either liberal or very liberal. While this might seem
like a near tie, consider this survey polled likely Democratic voters -- the party's base --
which is the most liberal. ...
... In fourth place is Senator Kamala Harris of California at 8 percent, followed by South
Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg at 6 percent and Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii at 3
percent.
Among the reasons why Biden, Sanders, and Warren will be difficult to topple from the
top tier: a significant portion of their supporters say they have made up their minds about
the race.
This is especially the case with Sanders. Nearly half -- 48 percent -- of his
supporters said they would definitely vote for him...
"... Ms. Gabbard, a congresswoman from Hawaii, has railed against "regime change wars" and warned of a nuclear arms race ..."
"... Ms. Gabbard has focused on ending what she calls "regime change wars ..."
"... She has introduced legislation in Congress that would prohibit the use of taxpayer dollars for weapons that violate a 1987 nuclear arms-control pact. ..."
Ms. Gabbard, a congresswoman from Hawaii, has railed against "regime change wars" and
warned of a nuclear arms race
Ms. Gabbard has focused on ending what she calls "regime change wars ," the "new
Cold War" and the nuclear arms race.
She has
introduced legislation in Congress that would prohibit the use of taxpayer dollars for
weapons that violate a 1987 nuclear arms-control pact.
And she has spoken out forcefully in opposition to President Trump's Iran strategy and
North
Korean policy , and what she sees as a general culture of warmongering.
"... The Saker also strongly criticized Milosevic for seeking an accommodation with the West after sustaining a brutal 70+ day all-out aerial assault by NATO and ground assault by Albania. He was silent on Russia's cowardly abandonment of Serbia leaving it to face the West utterly alone. ..."
"... The Saker can deliver a good analysis from time to time but can fail spectacularly as well. IIRC, he predicted that no one in Ukraine would lift a finger to stop Western domination (wrong), completely missed Crimea (just about everyone missed that in his defense) and that Russia would never intervene in Syria as it had no compelling national interest to protect (wrong again). He is right just enough to remain interesting. ..."
The Saker is back on his high horse – criticizing Gabbard for not going down in flames
as she tries to navigate the myriad of traps laid out the the US Government and MSM.
The Saker also strongly criticized Milosevic for seeking an accommodation with the West
after sustaining a brutal 70+ day all-out aerial assault by NATO and ground assault by
Albania. He was silent on Russia's cowardly abandonment of Serbia leaving it to face the West
utterly alone.
The Saker can deliver a good analysis from time to time but can fail spectacularly as
well. IIRC, he predicted that no one in Ukraine would lift a finger to stop Western
domination (wrong), completely missed Crimea (just about everyone missed that in his defense)
and that Russia would never intervene in Syria as it had no compelling national interest to
protect (wrong again). He is right just enough to remain interesting.
On September 13, 2018, Hawaii Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard took to the floor of the House
to rebuke the administration, accusing President Trump and Vice President Mike Pence of
protecting "al-Qaeda and other jihadist forces in Syria," all the while "threatening Russia,
Syria, and Iran, with military force if they dare attack these terrorists."
####
In under a minute, Gabbard shredded Harris to pieces for jailing more than 1,500
nonviolent marijuana offenders while admitting in a radio interview that she had smoked
marijuana in college, and for her "tough-on-crime" stances. "She blocked evidence that would
have freed an innocent man from death row she kept people in prison beyond their sentences to
use them as cheap labor and she fought to keep the cash bail system in place," Gabbard
continued, leaving Harris unable to counter.
The MSM is having a difficult time ignoring her. She may have a chance. I will make
another donation to her campaign.
She beat Harris like a red-headed stepchild. Her monotonous reiteration "I'm proud of my
record" reminded me of the Breakfast Moment in Happy Gilmour, when Shooter McGavin mocks
Happy for daring to challenge him in golf.
Shooter: "Oh, you're on. But you're in big trouble, pal. I eat pieces of shit like you for
breakfast."
thern Star
August 2, 2019 at 4:31 am Very cogent..
A lot of the crucial but easily overlooked put on the table.
Never underestimate the significance of the obvious!
Like
Reply
August 2, 2019 at 4:44 pm I think a lot of people DID see that coming, to the extent that the
only behavior acceptable today in the American political milieu is a rehash of that sophomore's
question, "Can you say in one sentence or less what makes America the Greatest Country In The
World?" The American media typically pleats that 'the system is broken', but not during election
season. Then, America is the greatest and running on all cylinders, and the successful candidate
is the one who will convince voters that, rather than fix the whatever system, he/she/ze/zir
(it's only a matter of time) will take a system that is the best in the world and make itr
squeeze out even more happiness and satisfaction for Americans. Anyway, if you go off-message
with that, you are under the soulless influence of the Russians.
Anyway, it looks as if the democrats have gone to the well too often with that Russian
bullshit, and people are starting to get impatient with the cop-out – it's just an excuse
for having no good answer. You can always say, "X is because Russia". I think Harris just bit the
dust, and will lose a lot of support over this and gradually drop out. I got a kick out of the
"Gabbard is a non-issue, and won't even make the second debates" or something to that effect.
Whoever smugly said that was apparently asleep when a Ukrainian comedian who plays a president on
TV won the presidency in a landslide. The incumbent once thought it was safe to laugh politely at
him, because he was a non-issue, too.
I saw this story also on the same site, although it was not necessary to click on it, for
obvious reasons.
"A salute to the bravery of Olga Misik, 17, who during recent bloody protests for free
Moscow elections sat before Putin's armed-to-the-teeth goons and calmly read aloud the Russian
constitution, including Article 31 affirming the right to peaceful political assembly. She was
later arrested and allegedly beaten. "Injustice always concerns everyone," said Olga, who takes
the long view of repression. "Today the Moscow City Duma, tomorrow the governor of the region It
is only a matter of time."
'Bloody protests for free Moscow elections'?? They were bloody? Really? and the issue was free
Moscow elections? Not candidates being allowed to run despite having been disqualified for not
reaching the signatory threshold? The game of coming up with enough signatures to demonstrate a
valid support base is an old one, trawling the obituaries and all manner of dodges to come up
with enough for people who don't really have any support, but want a soapbox from which to squawk
their message and then say they were cheated of victory by the Kremlin. Putin's
armed-to-the-teeth goons? Really? American police called to control demonstrations are unarmed?
Since when? Does arming them make them goons? I can't see their teeth – how does the
reporter know they are armed to the teeth? Olga takes the long view of repression, does she? From
the jaded pinnacle of 17? I'm surprised they did not ask her views on gay sex – she's old
enough. Just.
Embarrassing western hyperbole – a Russian review of the PISA tests that descended to
the same level might read, "A salute to the simple-mindedness of the Amerikantsi 'students', who
must have gone to school at a mental institution, or been taught by the homeless lunatics that
abound in and around Amerikantsi cities. Once again they managed to score so poorly that one
might reasonably wonder if they arrived at the testing institution by accident, thinking instead
that they were being taken to see one of the violence-and-profanity-riddled Amerikantsi movies
that pollute the television and cause the Amerikantsi schoolchildren to shoot each other as if
they lived inside a video game where it is not real blood. It's difficult to imagine a sensible
explanation for such a dismal performance, in which they finished below the OECD average in every
category."
But you won't see anything like that in a Russian newspaper, or hear it on a Russian news
program. Because they don't act like the country is run by hysterical 12-year-olds. However, if
the Americans want to pin their new hopes for Putin's political immolation on some 17-year-old
attention-junkie bint, they should knock themselves out. They are merely hardening Russian
opinion against them, and they may not care but some day they will. And then they will wail, "Why
do they hate us? It must be because of our freedom!"
I was particularly intrigued by the mention of the Democrats getting caught fabricating fake
Russian troll accounts to pretend the Russians were trying to influence some state election or
other, I forget what, supposedly reported in the Times. I didn't see that, and I don't recall
anyone mentioning it here.
Like
ReplyMark Chapman
August 2, 2019 at 3:10 pm A very cogent argument for (a) keeping the debates agenda-free and
independently managed, and (2) a less-insane democratic party.
I would not call this article decent. At best it is half-decent ;-) This is a typical NYT anti-Tulsi propaganda but it does make
several relent observation buried in the sea of anti-Tulsi crapola.
Notable quotes:
"... “We should be coming to other leaders in other countries with respect, building a relationship based on cooperation rather than with, you know, a police baton,” she says. ..."
"... While she is the embodiment of this anti-interventionist message onstage, there is a much larger movement brewing. There is big money in peace. Two billionaire philanthropists from opposite ends of the political spectrum — George Soros and Charles Koch — came together this summer to fund the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, a think tank to argue against American intervention abroad. ..."
Tulsi Gabbard Thinks We're Doomed by Nellie Bowles
Tulsi Gabbard is running for president of a country that she believes has wrought horror on the world, and she wants its
citizens to remember that.
She is from Hawaii, and she spends each morning surfing. But that is not what she talks about in this unlikely campaign.
She talks about the horror.
She lists countries: Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Cuba, Vietnam, Iraq. Failure after failure, she says. To drive the point
home, she wants to meet on a Sioux tribe reservation in North Dakota, where, she explains, the United States government committed
its original atrocity.
“These Indigenous people have been disrespected, mistreated with broken promises and desecrated lands,” Ms. Gabbard says.
... ... ...
But her run, and the unusual cross-section of voters she appeals to — Howard Zinn fans, anti-drug-war libertarians, Russia-gate
skeptics, and conservatives suspicious of Big Tech — signifies just how much both parties have shifted, not just on foreign
policy. It could end up being a sign that President Trump’s isolationism is not the aberration many believed, but rather a
harbinger of a growing national sentiment that America should stand alone.
To Ms. Gabbard, it is the United States that has been the cruel and destabilizing force.
... ... ...
“We should be coming to other leaders in other countries with respect, building a relationship based on cooperation rather
than with, you know, a police baton,” she says.
... ... ...
While she is the embodiment of this anti-interventionist message onstage, there is a much larger movement brewing. There
is big money in peace. Two billionaire philanthropists from opposite ends of the political spectrum — George Soros and Charles
Koch — came together this summer to fund the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, a think tank to argue against American
intervention abroad.
... ... ...
Ms. Gabbard says she is driven by the feeling that death could come at any moment, which she realized at age 10 but which
became more intense in Iraq.
“My first deployment was at the height of the war in 2005. We were 40 miles north of Baghdad. And there was a huge sign
by one of the main gates that just read: ‘Is today the day?’” she says. “It was such a stark reminder that my time could come
at any moment. That any day could be my last.”
She is not sure who put the sign up or why. But it was this message of potentially imminent doom that she wanted to leave
the audience with at the second Democratic debate.
“As we stand here tonight,” she told the crowd. “There are thousands of nuclear missiles pointing right at us, and if we
were to get an attack, we would have 30 minutes, 30 minutes, before we were hit.”
Ms. Gabbard continued.
“There is no shelter. This is the warmonger’s hoax. There is no shelter. It’s all a lie.”
Nellie Bowles covers tech and internet culture. Follow her on Twitter:
@nelliebowles
"A seat or family seat was the principal manor of a medieval lord, which was normally an
elegant country mansion and usually denoted that the family held political and economic
influences in the area. In some cases, the family seat was a manor house."
She is descended from "to the manor born", thus qualified to be POTUS.
Other trivia is that Tulsi was a martial arts instructor in 2002. Similar to Justin
Trudeau's part time drama teacher and ski instructor qualifications to be PM of Canada.
Politics is a drity business. The last think any aspiring politician wants is to
fight on two fronts. For example against forign wars and Isreal lobby. that's creates Doublespeak
situation for candidates like Tulsi...
Notable quotes:
"... But the Empire is taking no chances. The Empire has sicced its Presstitute Battalion on her. Josh Rogin (Washington Post), Joy Reid (MSNBC), Wajahat Ali (New York Times and CNN), and, of course the Twitter trolls paid to slander and misrepresent public figures that the Empire targets. Google added its weight to the obfuscation of Gabbard. ..."
It is unfortunate that Tulsi Gabbard succumbed to the Israel Lobby. The forces of the Empire
saw it as a sign of weakness and have set about destroying her.
The ruling elite see Gabbard as a threat just as they saw Trump as a threat. A threat is an
attractive political candidate who questions the Empire's agenda. Trump questioned the
hostility toward Russia orchestrated by the military/security complex. Gabbard questions the
Empire's wars in the Middle East. This is questioning that encroaches on the agendas of the
military/security complex and Israel Lobby. If fear of Israel is what caused Gabbard to vote
the AIPAC line on the bill forbidding criticism of Israel, she won't be able to stick to her
line against Washington's aggression in the Middle East. Israel is behind that aggression as it
serves Israeli interests.
But the Empire is taking no chances. The Empire has sicced its Presstitute Battalion on
her. Josh Rogin (Washington Post), Joy Reid (MSNBC), Wajahat Ali (New York Times and CNN), and,
of course the Twitter trolls paid to slander and misrepresent public figures that the Empire
targets. Google added its weight to the obfuscation of Gabbard.
Wars in the Middle East against Israel's enemies and preparation for major wars against
Iran, Russia, and China are the bread and butter for the powerful US military/security complex
lobby. All that is important to the military/security complex is their profits, not whether
they get all of us killed. In other words, their propaganda about protecting America is a
lie. They endanger us all in order to have enemies in order to justify their massive budget
and power.
Those of us who actually know, such as myself and Stephen Cohen, have been warning for years
that the orchestrated hostility against Russia is producing a far more dangerous Cold War than
the original one. Indeed, beginning with the criminal George W. Bush regime, the arms control
treaties achieved at great political expense by US and Soviet leaders have been abandoned by
Washington. The lastest treaty to be discarded by Washington in service to the
military/security lobby is the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) negotiated by
President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbechev. This treaty banned missiles that
Washington could place in Europe on Russia's border with which to attack Russia with little or
no reaction time, and Russian missiles that could be used to attack Washington's NATO puppet
states in Europe and UK. The treaty resulted in the elimination of 2,692 missiles and a decade
of verification inspections that satisfied both parties to the agreement. But suddenly
Washington has pulled out of the treaty. The main purpose of pulling out of the treaty is to
enable the military/security complex to develop and produce new missiles at the taxpayers'
expense, but Washington also sees a military advantage in withdrawing from the INF treaty.
Washington, of course, blames the US withdrawal on Russia, just as Washington blames every
country that Washington intends to attack. But it is completely obvious even to a moron that
Russia has no interest whatsoever in abandoning the treaty. Russian intermediate-range
missiles cannot reach the United States. Russia has no reason to attack Europe, which has
no military forces of any consequence. It is the American nuclear missiles on European soil
that are the problem
Washington, however, does gain by tearing up the INF treaty. At Europe's risk, not
America's, Washington's intermediate-range nuclear misslies stationed in Europe on Russia's
borders permit a preemptive nuclear attack on Russia. Because of proximity, the warning time is
only a couple of minutes. Washington's crazed war planners believe that so much of the Russian
retaliatory capacity would be destroyed, that Russia would surrender rather than retaliate with
diminished forces and risk a second attack.
Putin stresses this danger as does the Russian military. US missiles on Russia's border puts
the world on a hair trigger. Aside from the fact that a nuclear attack on Russia is the likely
intent of the criminal neoconservatives, nuclear warning systems are notorious for false
alarms. During Cold War I, both sides worked to build trust, but since the criminal Clinton
regime Washington has worked to destroy all trust between the two dominant nuclear powers. All
that is required to obliterate life on earth, thanks entirely to the crazed fools in
Washington, is one false alarm received by the Russians. Unlike past false alarms, next time
the Russians will have no choice but to believe it.
Intermediate-range nuclear missiles leave no time for a phone call between Putin and Trump.
The Russian leader who has suffered hundreds of diplomatic insults, demonization of his person
and his country, illegal sanctions, endless false accusations, and endless threats cannot
assume that the warning is false.
The idiots in Washington and the presstitutes have programmed the end of the world. When the
alarm goes off, the Russian leader has no choice but to push the button.
Any remaining doubt in the Russian government of Washington's hostile intentions toward
Russia has been dispelled by Trump's National Security Advisor, the neocon warmonger John
Bolton. Bolton recently announced that the last remaining arms control agreement, START, will
not be renewed by Washington in 2021.
Thus, the trust built between the nuclear powers that began with President John F. Kennedy
and reached its greatest success with Reagan and Gorbachev has been erased. It will be lucky if
the world survives the destruction of trust between the two major nuclear powers.
ORDER IT NOW
The American government in Washington has been made so utterly stupid by its arrogant hubris
that it has no comprehension of the dangerous situation that it, and it alone, has created. We
are all at risk every minute of our lives because of the power, of which President Eisenhower
warned us more than a half century ago to no avail, of the US military/security complex, an
organized powerful force determined and able to destroy any American president who would
threaten their budget and power by making peace.
Donald Trump is a strong personality, but he has been cowed by the Israel Lobby and the
military/security complex. As reigning president, Trump sat there Twittering while an attack
orchestrated by the military/security complex and the Democratic Party, with 100% cooperation
from the American media, tried to portray him as a Russian agent as grounds for his
impeachment.
A strong personality in what is allegedly the most powerful office in the world who allows
his entire first term to be wasted by his opponents in an attempt to frame him and drive him
from office is all we need to know about the likely fate of Tulsi Gabbard.
"... it turned out that the very people who were up in arms about "fake news" were the ones propagating their own version of it. WikiLeaks did much to expose their game by publicizing the key role played by the Legacy Media in acting as an extension of the Clinton campaign. However, the real unmasking came after the November election, when the rage of the liberal elites became so manifest that "reporters" who would normally be loath to reveal their politics came out of the closet, so to speak, and started telling us that the old journalistic standard of objectivity no longer applied. The election of Trump, they averred, meant that the old standards must be abandoned and a new, and openly partisan bias must take its place. In honor of this new credo, the Washington Post has adopted a new slogan: " Democracy dies in darkness "! ..."
"... Rep. Gabbard's "crime" was to challenge the US-funded effort to overthrow the regime of Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad as contrary to our interests and the prospects for peace in the region. For that she has been demonized in the media – and, not coincidentally, the very same media that is now an instrument in the hands of our "intelligence community." For ..."
"... And of course it's not just the Washington Post : the entire "mainstream" media is now colluding with the "intelligence community" in an effort to discredit and derail any efforts at a rapprochement with Russia. We haven't seen this kind of hysteria since the frigid winter of the cold war. ..."
"... My longtime readers will not be shocked by any of this: during the run up to the Iraq war, the media was chock full of fake news about Saddam Hussein's fabled weapons of mass destruction, which all the "experts" told us were certainly there and ready to rain death and destruction at any minute. Who can forget the series of articles by Judith Miller that adorned the front page of the New York Times – which were merely Bush administration talking points reiterated by Donald Rumsfeld & Co. on the Sunday talk shows? Miller has now become synonymous with the very concept of fake news – and yet how quickly we forget the lesson we should have learned from that shameful episode in the history of American journalism . ..."
"... Blinded by partisan bias, all too willing to be used as an instrument of the Deep State -- and determined to "control exactly what people think," which is, as Mika Brzezinski put it the other day, " our job " – the English-speaking media has become increasingly unreliable. This has become a big problem for us here at Antiwar.com: we now have to check and re-check everything that they report as fact. Not that we didn't do that anyway, but the difference is that, these days, we have to be more careful than ever before linking to it, or citing it as factual. ..."
"... The day of the "alternative media" has passed. We are simply part of the media, period: the increasingly tiny portion of it that doesn't fall for war propaganda, that doesn't have a partisan agenda, and that harkens back to the "old" journalistic standards of yesteryear – objective reporting of facts. That doesn't mean we don't have opinions, or an agenda – far from it! However, we base those opinions on what, to the best of our ability, we can discern as the facts. ..."
"... And we have a pretty good record in this regard. Back when everyone who was anyone was telling us that those "weapons of mass destruction" were lurking in the Iraqi shadows, we said it was nonsense – and we were right. As the "experts" said that war with Iraq would "solve" the problem of terrorism and bring enlightenment to the Middle East, we said the war would usher in the reign of chaos – and we were right. We warned that NATO expansion would trigger an unnecessary conflict with Russia, and we were proved right about that, too. The Kosovo war was hailed as a "humanitarian" act – and we rightly predicted it would come back to haunt us in the form of a gangster state riven by conflict. ..."
"... There's one way in which we are significantly different from the rest of the media – we depend on our readers for the financial support we need to keep going. The Washington Post has Jeff Bezos, one of the wealthiest men in the world – not to mention a multi-million dollar contract with the "intelligence community." The New York Times has Carlos Slim, another billionaire with seemingly bottomless pockets. We, on the other hand, just have you. ..."
We're not the alternative media – we're the best media you've got!
Posted on
August 06, 2019 August 4, 2019The more things change, the more they stay the same: the
sun comes up in the morning; another Hitler arises in the fantasies of the foreign-policy
establishment; and Josh Rogin writes
another column attacking Tusli Gabbard, the most pro-peace candidate in the Democratic
lineup. Justin blasted Rogin the first time he tried this, back in February of 2017, proving
that the whole story was "fake news". We think it's important to revisit Justin's analysis of
the media-enhanced demand for war. As Justin notes, the only real alternative to this, the only
real "alternative media," are sites like Antiwar. com and WikiLeaks.
If we look at the phrase itself, it seems to mean the media that presents itself as the
alternative to what we call the "corporate media," i.e. the New York Times , the
Washington Post , your local rag – in short, the Legacy Media that predominated in
those bygone days before the Internet. And yet this whole arrangement seems outdated, to say
the least. The Internet has long since been colonized by the corporate giants: BuzzFeed, for
example, is regularly fed huge dollops of cash from its corporate owners. And the Legacy Media
has adapted to the primacy of online media, however reluctantly and ineptly. So the alternative
media isn't defined by how they deliver the news, but rather by 1) what they judge to be news,
and 2) how they report it.
And that's the problem.
There's been much talk of "fake news," a concept first defined by the "mainstream" media
types as an insidious scheme by the Russians and/or supporters of Donald Trump to deny Hillary
Clinton her rightful place in the Oval Office. Or it was
Macedonian teenagers out to fool us into giving them clicks. Or something. Facebook and
Google announced a campaign to eliminate this Dire Threat, and the mandarins of the
"mainstream" reared up in righteous anger, lecturing us that journalistic standards were being
traduced.
Yet it turned out that the very people who were up in arms about "fake news" were the ones propagating
their own version of it.
WikiLeaks did much to expose their game by publicizing the
key role played by the Legacy Media in acting as an
extension of the Clinton campaign. However, the real unmasking came after the November
election, when the rage of the liberal elites became so manifest that "reporters" who would
normally be loath to reveal their politics came out of the closet, so to speak, and started
telling us that the old journalistic standard of objectivity no longer applied. The election of
Trump, they averred, meant that the old standards must be abandoned and a new, and openly
partisan bias
must take its place. In honor of this new credo, the Washington Post has adopted a new slogan:
"
Democracy dies in darkness "!
This from the newspaper that ran a front page story citing the anonymous trolls at
PropOrNot.com as credible sources for an account of alleged
"Russian agents of influence" in the media – a story that slimed Matt Drudge and
Antiwar.com, among others.
This from the newspaper that regularly publishes "news" accounts citing anonymous
"intelligence officials" claiming the Trump administration is rife with Russian "agents."
This from the newspaper that published
a piece by foreign affairs columnist Josh Rogin that falsely claimed Rep. Tulsi Gabbard's
trip to Syria was funded by a group that is "nonexistent" and strongly implied she was in the
pay of the Syrian government or some other foreign entity. Well after the smear circulated far
and wide, the paper posted the following correction:
" An earlier version of this op-ed misspelled the name of AACCESS Ohio and incorrectly
stated that the organization no longer exists. AACCESS Ohio is an independent non-profit
organization that is a member of the ACCESS National Network of Arab American Community
organizations but is currently on probation due to inactivity. The op-ed also incorrectly
stated that Bassam Khawam is Syrian American. He is Lebanese American. This version has been
corrected."
Rep. Gabbard's "crime" was to challenge the US-funded effort to overthrow the regime of
Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad as contrary to our interests and the prospects for peace in
the region. For that she has been demonized in the media – and, not coincidentally, the
very same media that is now an instrument in the hands of our "intelligence community." For it
is these spooks who, for years, have been canoodling with the Saudis in an effort to rid the
region of the last secular obstacle to the Sunni-ization of the Middle East. That they have
Tulsi Gabbard in their sights is no surprise.
And of course it's not just the Washington Post : the entire "mainstream" media is
now colluding with the "intelligence community" in an effort to discredit and derail any
efforts at a rapprochement with Russia. We haven't seen this kind of hysteria since the frigid
winter of the cold war.
My longtime readers will not be shocked by any of this: during the run up to the Iraq war,
the media was chock full of fake news about Saddam Hussein's fabled weapons of mass
destruction, which all the "experts" told us were certainly there and ready to rain death and
destruction at any minute. Who can forget the series of articles by Judith Miller that adorned
the front page of the New York Times – which were merely Bush administration
talking points reiterated by Donald Rumsfeld & Co. on the Sunday talk shows? Miller has now
become synonymous with the very concept of fake news – and yet how quickly we forget the
lesson we should have learned from that shameful episode in the history of American
journalism.
So fake news is nothing new, nor is the concept of the "mainstream" media as a megaphone for
war propaganda. What's different today is that many are waking up to this fact – and
turning to the "alternative." I've been struck by this rising phenomenon over the past year or
so: Matt Drudge gave Antiwar.com a permanent link. Our audience has increased by many
thousands. And I've been getting a steady stream of interview requests. I was quite pleased to
read the following in
a recent piece in The Nation about the media's fit of Russophobia and the key role
played by the journalist I. F. Stone during the 1950s:
"To conclude where I began, think for a moment about I.F. Stone during his haunted 1950s.
While he was well-regarded by a lot of rank-and-file reporters, few would say so openly. He was
PNG [persona non grata] among people such as [ New York Times publisher Arthur]
Sulzberger – an outcast .
"Now think about now.
"A few reporters and commentators advise us that the name of the game these days is to
sink the single most constructive policy the Trump administration has announced. The rest is
subterfuge, rubbish. This isprima faciethe case, though you can read it nowhere
in theTimesor any of the other corporate media. A few have asserted that we may
now be witnessing a coup operation against the Trump White House. This is a possibility, in my
view. We cannot flick it off the table. With the utmost purpose, I post
here one of
these pieces. "A Win for the Deep State" came out just after Flynn was forced from office. It
is by a writer named Justin Raimondo and appeared in a wholly out-of-bounds web publication
called Antiwar.com. I know nothing about either, but it is a thought-provoking piece."
Well, we aren't quite "wholly out of bounds," except in certain circles, but all in all this
is a great compliment – and it's illustrative of author Patrick Lawrence's point, which
is that
"We, readers and viewers, must discriminate among all that is put before us so as to make
the best judgments we can and, not least, protect our minds. The other side of the coin, what
we customarily call 'alternative media,' assumes an important responsibility. They must get
done, as best they can, what better-endowed media now shirk. To put this simply and briefly,
they and we must learn that they are not 'alternative' to anything. In the end there is no such
thing as 'alternative media,' as I often argue. There are only media, and most of ours have
turned irretrievably bad."
We here at Antiwar.com take our responsibility to you, our readers and supporters, very
seriously. We're working day and night, 24/7, to separate fact from fiction, knee-jerk
"analysis" from intelligent critique, partisan bullshit from truth. And we've had to work much
harder lately because the profession of journalism has fallen on hard times.
Blinded by partisan bias, all too willing to be used as an instrument of the Deep State --
and determined to "control exactly what people think," which is, as Mika Brzezinski put it the
other day, " our job " – the
English-speaking media has become increasingly unreliable. This has become a big problem for us
here at Antiwar.com: we now have to check and re-check everything that they report as
fact. Not that we didn't do that anyway, but the difference is that, these days, we have to be
more careful than ever before linking to it, or citing it as factual.
The day of the "alternative media" has passed. We are simply part of the media, period: the
increasingly tiny portion of it that doesn't fall for war propaganda, that doesn't have a
partisan agenda, and that harkens back to the "old" journalistic standards of yesteryear
– objective reporting of facts. That doesn't mean we don't have opinions, or an agenda
– far from it! However, we base those opinions on what, to the best of our ability, we
can discern as the facts.
And we have a pretty good record in this regard. Back when everyone who was anyone was
telling us that those "weapons of mass destruction" were lurking in the Iraqi shadows, we said
it was nonsense – and we were right. As the "experts" said that war with Iraq would
"solve" the problem of terrorism and bring enlightenment to the Middle East, we said the war
would usher in the reign of chaos – and we were right. We warned that NATO expansion
would trigger an unnecessary conflict with Russia, and we were proved right about that, too.
The Kosovo war was hailed as a "humanitarian" act – and we rightly predicted it would
come back to haunt us in the form of a gangster state riven by conflict.
I could spend several paragraphs boasting about how right we were, but you get the idea. Our
record is a good one. And we intend to make it even better. But we can't do it – we
can't do our job – without your help.
There's one way in which we are significantly different from the rest of the media
– we depend on our readers for the financial support we need to keep going. The
Washington Post has Jeff Bezos, one of the wealthiest men in the world – not to
mention a multi-million
dollar contract with the "intelligence community." The New York Times has Carlos
Slim, another billionaire with seemingly bottomless pockets. We, on the other hand, just have
you.
Okay, I'll cut to the chase: we've come to a crucial point in our current fundraising
campaign, and now it's make it or break it time for Antiwar.com.
A group of our most generous supporters has pledged $40,000 in matching funds – but
that pledge is strictly conditional . What this means is that we must match that
amount in the short time left in our campaign in order to get the entire $40,000.
Our policies are to do, mostly, with Republicans.
Our failure to convince voters, in a democracy, that there are alternatives to the gradual
rot of the last two generations -- that is to do, mostly, with Democrats.
Sure, undermining the party after it's made its choice of nominee is stupid and
counterproductive. But strengthening the party and fighting for its message are not mutually
exclusive. That is where we are now; Sarandonism is, for the moment, irrelevant.
I asked you a long time ago if you supported democracy, and you took offense. How then am
I supposed to interpret "blame the American voters"?
If fear of Israel is what caused Gabbard to vote the AIPAC line on the bill forbidding
criticism of Israel, she won't be able to stick to her line against Washington's aggression
in the Middle East. Israel is behind that aggression as it serves Israeli interests.
***
A strong personality .who allows his entire first term to be wasted by his opponents in an
attempt to frame him and drive him from office is all we need to know about the likely fate
of Tulsi Gabbard.
This piece, "Tulsi Gabbard: R.I.P.," is a good example of why I don't normally read PCR.
He blogs for his loyal followers, but says nothing we don't know, with little or no value
added. And then his analysis is weak. Perhaps he thinks this jab will stiffen Tulsi's spine,
(he's been a fan) and improve her platform. But she might just blow off his criticism as
irrelevant, which it may be.
PCR assumes that Tulsi voted against BDS out of fear. I believe that's wrong. She voted
out of idealism. That's what her Aloha movement is about. It may be naïve to think you
can make everybody happy, but if the Israel she supports turns out to be one state of equal
rights, that's fine.
"All we need to know" is one of my least favorite phrases. It's almost never true,
certainly not in this case. Trump's example (and he hasn't been as cowed as his detractors
make him out) doesn't foretell Tulsi's behavior. He's overflowing with bombast. She's calm,
with a core of steel.
PCR assumes that Tulsi voted against BDS out of fear. I believe that’s wrong. She
voted out of idealism. That’s what her Aloha movement is about. It may be naïve
to think you can make everybody happy, but if the Israel she supports turns out to be one
state of equal rights, that’s fine.
RobinG,
There are many good Dems who support the Palestinians. To get into the next debate, Tulsi
is looking for 4 polls who give her 2% support. To gain the support of those good people, she
must show sympathy for the Palestinians.
No empathy for the obvious plight of the Palestinians is a turn off among people of good
heart – something that Gabbard does not need.
Tulsi needs to be explicit concerning Israel/Palestine – it is unbecoming not to
be.
Wow!! Honesty in reporting!! I must applaud Caitlin Johnstone's boldfaced honesty in her
"Propagandists Freak Out Over Gabbard's Destruction of Harris: Establishment narrative
managers distracted attention from a notable antiwar contender, seizing instead the chance to
marshal an old smear against her, writes Caitlin Johnstone."
I stopped reading after this passage and had to come her and post a comment about the most
honest description of CNN I've ever read:
"CNN is a virulent establishment propaganda firm with an extensive history of promoting
lies and brazen psyops in facilitation of U.S. imperialism, so it would make sense that they
would try to avoid a subject which would inevitably lead to unauthorized truth-telling on the
matter."
Johnstone then recites the smearing attacks alluded to @46 but also tells us why:
"Gabbard just publicly eviscerated a charming, ambitious and completely amoral centrist
who would excel at putting a friendly humanitarian face on future wars if elected, and that's
why the narrative managers are flipping out so hard right now."
Harris and Michelle Obama I see as one and the same--both equally putrid. I know I dropped
by unequivocal support for Gabbard, but that doesn't mean I'm 100% against her and her
efforts. I wholeheartedly support Caitlin's conclusion:
"The shrill, hysterical pushback that Gabbard received last night was very encouraging,
because it means she's forcing them to fight back. In a media environment where the war
propaganda machine normally coasts along almost entirely unhindered in mainstream attention,
the fact that someone has positioned themselves to move the needle like this says good things
for our future. If our society is to have any chance of ever throwing off the omnicidal,
ecocidal power establishment which keeps us in a state of endless war and soul-crushing
oppression, the first step is punching a hole in the narrative matrix which keeps us
hypnotized into believing that this is all normal and acceptable.
"Whoever controls the narrative controls the world. Whoever disrupts that narrative
control is doing the real work."
Gabbard must poll 2% or more in at least 4 different polls between 6/28 & 8/28 to
qualify for the 3rd debate; she's received enough donations to qualify. She needs to be on
the podium!
Proven
Propagandist Bellingcat joins D-Party talking-point hit parade attacking Gabbard for
being "Assad Apologist." Interesting how she's getting the similar sort of negative publicity
Trump got quite a lot of at the outset of his campaign, which only serves to increase her
national exposure. Her retorts are forceful and having success; and as Trump proved, smear
campaigns no longer are assured of success. Clearly, the Current Oligarchy and their D-Party
allies are convinced that the massive propaganda smearing of Assad was successful; but, was
it really?
Media: Tulsi is New Darling of 'Russia's Propaganda Machine'
Remember when Red-baiting was considered dogmatic and passé by the left-wing hive?
By
Barbara Boland
•
August 5, 2019
Tulsi Gabbard in Amherst, New Hampshire, July 4, 2019..
( Andrew
Cline/Shutterstock)
What do Hawaii Democratic Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard and billionaire real estate heir Donald J. Trump have in common?
According to MSNBC, Gabbard is part of the Russian scheme that "Moscow used when it interfered in the 2016" election.
The
establishment loathes any candidate
who seeks an end to U.S. military adventurism abroad -- so much so that they are
willing to make the logically incoherent claim that Russian bots elected Trump. Now they're apparently also attempting to
elect his 2020 Democratic rival.
The mind-bending MSNBC
article
resurfaced on social media after Gabbard became the most Googled candidate thanks to several viral moments
during the debates.
Advertisement
NBC News rests its
claim
that "Russia's propaganda machine" has "discovered" Tulsi Gabbard on the fact that "there have been at least 20
Gabbard stories on three major Moscow-based English-language websites affiliated with or supportive of the Russian
government: RT, the Russian-owned TV outlet; Sputnik News, a radio outlet; and Russia Insider, a blog that experts say
closely follows the Kremlin line. The coverage devoted to Gabbard, both in news and commentary, exceeds that afforded to
any of the declared or rumored Democratic candidates despite Gabbard's lack of voter recognition."
Because Russian media reports on Gabbard, that means they're seeking to elect her. How sneaky.
A more obvious explanation for the increased coverage is that as a member of Congress, Gabbard has made many statements
regarding the war in Syria and America's and Russia's involvement, and because as a presidential candidate, she's made
foreign policy the centerpiece of her campaign.
Or it could be because -- Russian bots.
MSNBC says that "negative coverage and fabricated stories about Hillary Clinton" in 2016 were
"amplified by a huge network of fake social media accounts and bots" and that "experts who track inauthentic social media
accounts have already found some extolling Gabbard's positions since she declared."
It continues: "Within a few days of Gabbard announcing her presidential bid,
DisInfo 2018
, part of the
cybersecurity firm New Knowledge, found that three of the top 15 URLs shared by the 800 social media accounts affiliated
with known and
suspected
Russian propaganda operations
directed at U.S. citizens were about Gabbard."
New Knowledge is the company the Senate Intelligence Committee used to track Russian activities
in the 2016 election. Apparently they've told NBC News that they spotted "chatter" about Gabbard "in anonymous online
message boards, including those known for fomenting right-wing troll campaigns. The chatter discussed Gabbard's
usefulness."
Further, "Josh Russell, a researcher and 'troll hunter' known for identifying fake accounts,
similarly told NBC News he recently spotted a few clusters of suspicious accounts that retweeted the same exact text about
Gabbard, mostly neutral or slightly positive headlines."
"A few clusters" of "mostly neutral or slightly positive headlines." Scary stuff.
I'm old enough to remember when Democrats mocked the very idea of Russians being a threat.
Remember Obama's famous
comeback
:
"Governor Romney, I'm glad you recognize that al-Qaeda is a threat, because a couple of months ago when you were asked
what's the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said Russia. And the 1980s are now calling to ask for their
foreign policy back."
Romney is a "Cold War holdover" with an "apparent determination to take U.S.-Russian relations back to the 1950s,"
chided
Joe Biden, Obama's running mate, at an April campaign event.
Romney "acts like he thinks the Cold War is still on, Russia is still our major adversary. I don't know where he has
been," Biden said in an
interview
with Bob Schieffer on
Face the Nation
. "We have disagreements with Russia, but they're united with us. This is
not 1956. He just seems to be uninformed or stuck in a Cold War mentality."
This all feels so long ago. Ever since the Democrats lost the 2016 election to Trump, there's been endless fear
mongering about how Russians are hiding behind every candidate. Now, if a Democratic candidate dares to defy the
establishment line on foreign interventionism, she must be aided by the Russians.
Because that's the only reason someone might
say
,
"I will not apologize to you, or to anyone for doing all that I can to prevent our country from continuing to make these
perpetual wrong decisions that have taken a toll on the lives of my brothers and sisters in uniform. I will continue to do
all that I can to make sure that we end these wasteful regime change wars."
Barbara Boland is
's foreign policy and national security reporter. Follow her on
Twitter
@BBatDC.
Tulsi Gabbard is the
only
-- and I do mean
only
-- Democratic candidate for
President worth taking a serious look at.
Not that a serious look means actually voting for
the candidate of that diseased and corrupt Party. To my mind, in fact, a "D" next to the name
on the ballot is disqualifying.
Still, Tulsi appears to be the only one of the sorry lot deserving of some attention and
respect on the part of intelligent people.
This would account for why the Democratic Party Public Relations Machine (aka: Mainstream
Media) has trained its guns on her as a Russian dupe (or worse).
Seriously, it is to laugh: how this pathetic collection of tools, who spent the entire
Cold War as Soviet apologists, have in a generation converted wholesale to McCarthyite
Russia-bashers. All because Vlad doesn't cotton to gays.
Anyway, one might think that all of them, the lib-Dem-media tools, deserve the nuclear
incineration they're so casually inviting, which would mess up their privileged lives
big-time.
Unfortunately, the rest of us would end up taking the hit with them. Therefore, our only
recourse is to call them out for the witless idiots they are and pray their witless idiocy
does not end in a catastrophe.
Caitlyn Johnstone teaches us that all
anti-imperialists will necessarily be accused of Russian sympathies, solely because Russia,
for its own reasons, is the main opposition to western imperialism.
When this happens, demand to know what kind of war opposition would not be labeled
"Russian". They won't be able to provide a coherent answer.
"The establishment loathes any candidate who seeks an end to U.S. military adventurism
abroad -- so much so that they are willing to make the logically incoherent claim that Russian
bots elected Trump."
How "effective" Russian interference in our elections was in 2016 is a
question that political scientists and statisticians will be arguing about for years if not
decades.
What is logically incoherent is the idea that President Trump opposes US "military
adventurism." Tell that to the Iranians, the North Koreans, the Yemenis. And he certainly
does not oppose Russian "military adventurism" in Crimea and Syria.
More divisive talk, it doesn't matter if it's coming from the left or right. They'll say
whatever they can to deflect attention from our outrageous military budget. Finally we have a
candidate that is capable of uniting Americans across the entire political spectrum under a
single cause...end all of these useless foreign conflicts and redirect that money back into
programs and services that improve the quality of life for all Americans. So it comes as no
surprise to me that this journalist claiming to speak on behalf of American Conservatives
would claim Tulsi Gabbard is the Russian Candidate in an attempt to halt her momentum. 21st
Century McCarthyism won't work on us anymore. Conservatives, moderates, and liberals are
united behind Tulsi.
The mind-bending MSNBC article resurfaced on social media after Gabbard became the most
Googled candidate thanks to several viral moments during the debates.
the MSM hacks have enough stupidity to talk about
Gabbard's lack of voter recognition.
Seriously? I know that the MSM propaganda is oxymoronic to its core, but now I'm not sure
about "oxy".
Josh Russell, a researcher and 'troll hunter'
Really? That's his profession? I've always thought that "troll-hunting" is a form of what
medics may call either paranoid schizophrenia, querulous paranoia or paraphrenia, depending
on further symptoms.
Just give the wacko a fantasy video game, where he can literally hunt trolls.
Oh, and this:
Ever since the Democrats lost the 2016 election to Trump, there's been endless fear
mongering about how Russians are hiding behind every candidate.
Hopefully, they ain't gonna start hiding behind every fridge in a year.
If one is prohibited for religious reasons from blaming the Democratic Party then the only
scapegoat left is the white working class voter. Racism is part and parcel to white working
class anger, but it is not the whole enchilada by a long shot. Perhaps the romanticism
surrounding "The Cause" and related notorious individuals such as formed the James Gang is
inappropriate, but that romanticism owes more to Bacon's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion
than to the landing of the Isabella in Philadelphia in 1684. Not many of the Southern lads
that fought in the Civil War were even able to afford to have slaves. Even more ironically
many of those first slaves on the Isabella were bought by Quakers, later leading advocates of
emancipation after machines had made slaves obsolete for their purposes.
...As for Tulsi Gabbard, her foreign policy views are a clear and present danger to Israel's
and Washington's grand strategy to secure permanent military hegemony in the Middle East. If
the PNAC grand strategy succeeds, there will never be any justice or sovereignty for the
Palestinian people. I think she was being strategic with the BDS vote (as with her defense of
Joe Biden, a head-fake which opened up the opportunity for her to take down Kamala Harris).
Gabbard's mission faces long enough odds without her publicly confirming the worst
paranoid Zionist fears about her. She's already being denounced as an "Assad apologist" and
"Putin puppet" (don't you love the sub literary assonance and alliteration?); she can dispel
the outrageous slanders, but if she were on the record in support of BDS, it would have been
the nail in the coffin of her campaign. Gabbard strikes me as radically pragmatic.
We will need her remarkable leadership skills to avoid civil war as the empire collapses.
Please don't throw in the towel yet or give up on the one hope that remains.
"Harris is the establishment's primary backup candidate after Biden. She was supposed to coast through the primaries while all
the attention was on Handsy Joe. Now she's wounded, and the establishment is royally pissed."
Notable quotes:
"... Not only was she not supposed to attack Kamala Harris, but she most certainly wasn't supposed to have landed such an effective blow and lived to tell about it. ..."
Not only was she not supposed to attack Kamala Harris, but she most certainly wasn't
supposed to have landed such an effective blow and lived to tell about it.
The Nordic nations are capitalist. The problem with social-democracy is that: 1) it is
only possible in some very small countries and 2) even in those countries, it has an expiring
date.
The welfare state is essentially dead. For the Nordic mirage of the 21st Century, see
this .
Social-democracy is utopic essentially for two reasons:
1) its material base is what Marx called "super profit", i.e. when a national economy has
a general profit rate above the global average. This happened in the post-war boom of
1945-1974, essentially because the so-called First World countries -- which make up a tiny
fraction of the world population -- enjoyed overwhelming trade surpluses with the vast
majority of the world population, which comprise the so-called Third World.
2) besides super profit, the country must have an exceptionally well-organized working
class, with the backup of a decisive exterior menace to maximize the danger of a communist
revolution. Western European working classes were blessed in the post-war period by its
neighbor, the Soviet Union. Imagine the negotiations between the main trade unions of the UK
with their bosses: "well, you can deny us that 15% raise, but then all we need to do is ask
for some help of our Soviet friends and topple you". To put it simply, it was very easy for
the unions at the time to, with minimum effort, extract maximum raises and rights.
When it became clear the USSR was not a menace, and the super profits dried up,
social-democracy quickly fell in Western Europe very easily. From the oil crisis of 1974-5 to
the double dip recession of 1980-2, there was nothing left standing up besides some remnants
in the Nordic countries, France and the NHS in the UK (a relic from the welfare state era
which will probably be destroyed now). Welfare State in Germany was finally destroyed in the
2000s, with the Hartz reforms. Italy, the Iberics and the USA never had true welfare states
-- which speaks volumes about its restricted nature.
Kamala Harris (Dem.-AIPAC) goes full-bore Mccarthy after Tulsi Gabbard skewers her in the
debates. After attacking Biden in the first debate with a proven winning argument (Racist!),
Harris and her campaign now employ the other proven winning argument (Assad apologist! Putin
Apologist!) all over the Twittersphere: suddenly #5 trending on Twitter is Assad(!), with MSM
joining the frenzy to attack Gabbard. NPR's approach is to never mention Gabbard's name;
maybe the only lesson they learned from the 2016 election is to not give coverage to a
candidate they despise.
https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2019/08/01/propagandists-are-freaking-out-over-gabbards-destruction-of-harris/
Gabbard needs 130,000 donors ($2 will work) to qualify for the September debates; hope
folks will step up, as she's the strongest voice breaking the MIC/Neocon Narrative. Without
her in the race, I'd predict those issues will disappear from the media and Presidential
campaigns. Of course that's the goal for those forces, but 2020 may be the best chance yet of
bursting open that rotten fruit.
Gabbard needs 130,000 donors ($2 will work) to qualify for the September debates; hope folks
will step up, as she's the strongest voice breaking the MIC/Neocon Narrative. Without her in
the race, I'd predict those issues will disappear from the media and Presidential campaigns.
Of course that's the goal for those forces, but 2020 may be the best chance yet of bursting
open that rotten fruit.
Posted by: kabobyak | Aug 3 2019 1:22 utc | 44
Bow, bow, to the great kabobyak! Bow, bow, to the great kabobyak! (for the correct tune,
check "Miya sama, Mikado", for original tune, check "Miya-san, miya san"). Our after the
kabobyak appeal, Gabbard raised the number of donations above 150,000!
Some commenters had justified objections to Gabbard, but the game here is to shake the
"bipartisan consensus" to inflict "maximum misery" to all perceived opponents of USA. It is
not easy to convey this message to the American majority. And Tulsi has other positive
messages too, she apparently eviscerated Kamala Harris for her past as a cruelly heartless
prosecutor, fighting to keep innocent in prison. Mind you, Hillary, Kamala etc. do those
things out of conviction that it is popular, or that the public is divided as follows: those
who donate to campaigns and those who do not care. Once they are properly scared, politicians
can actually improve. Alas, for decades they were "improperly scared", thus concluding that
to survive on the national (or state-wide) arena they need a psychopathic persona.
BTW, there are websites tabulating donations and industries, and Gabbard is apparently
supported by fitness clubs. Survival of the fittest may be actually a positive social
value.
I guess we don't really know what Gabbard would be. All the Dems and Repubs have bad
connections; almost all have pushed (or are still pushing) the lunatic Russiagate hoax, and
that includes Bernie. OK to sit back and watch the circus, but if Gabbard gets no support for
what she is currently speaking out on, it sends a strong message to anyone else thinking of
carrying the water further on issues of war and peace.
There is plenty not to like about Tulsi Gabbard. Maybe someday I will dislike her as much
as I dislike Kamilla Harris and some of the others. Whoever wins, we will end up with the
same bureaucracy anyway so it will pretty much business as usual.
>> As Caitlin Johnstone writes, the fact that Gabbard is under such attack
>> by war cheerleaders like Lindsey Graham and Josh Rogin shows they
>> view her as a threat to their narrative control.
Yes, it "shows".
The appearance of a fight "shows" they're actually fighting. It "shows" you that the DNC
and American democracy isn't a complete sham. So you found someone (within the establishment
and who votes establishment) you can pour your heart, energy, and money into. And who will,
after the primary, endorse the establishment pick. And another election cycle passes with no
effort for a genuinely independent challenge. Just like every prior cycle that I paid
attention to.
"Maybe someday I will dislike her as much as I dislike Kamilla Harris"
Not a chance in hell--Kamala takes the despicable cake: people don't know the tip of the
iceberg with regard to how genuinely corrupt she is. I'm pretty sure it is a travesty she's
not in prison right now.
Well you don't trust any of them, but you vote for the ones pushing policy you want to see
happen, and you vote for the ones that try to make that happen, and you abandon them
immediately if they renege. In the current rigged system, you can't assume anybody can be
relied on, I mean pressure will be applied, and all kinds of dirty politics is totally the
way we do things here. So when one leader falls you look for the next to pick up the flag,
and follow them now. It's not about the leader. Tulsi is talking the talk, that's all you can
do in a campaign. I'd support her against anybody who is mouthing weasel words. Right now
there are three candidates with something to say: Tulsi, Elizabeth, and Bernie, any will do,
lets see who gets traction when people start to pay attention again.
Anacharsis @88: Well, on the one hand we have slid a long way downhill intellectually here,
can't deny it.
On the other hand among 300-plus-something millions here, I'm sure we could find better,
but they won't run, the system is rigged, and we know it. They rub it in our faces. Once it
collapses of its own fecklessness, maybe then you will see some new faces worthy of respect
here.
Other oligarchies get overthrown, oligarchy seems to be the human norm for humans, they
fail with some regularity in history, it can for sure happen here too.
Tulsi, Elizabeth, and Bernie, any will do, lets see who gets traction when people start to
pay attention again.
Posted by: Bemildred | Aug 3 2019 13:50 utc | 87
"The people" are a bottleneck of the democracy. They have to select representatives to
decide on complex issues that they scant idea about, and their access to information reminds
my "The Library of Babel", a short story by Argentine author and librarian Jorge Luis Borges
(1899–1986). The library contains every possible book, and for any "genuine book",
every possible variation, with truth replaced with something else in every possible pattern
-- the paradoxes of infinity were a major theme in Borges stories.
Creating a message that relates these issues to everyday experience of the people, so
their common sense is switched on, is hard, but not impossible. For example, for all ravages
of "imperial complex", military plus weapon making plus economic impositions and distortions,
the largest loot is collected by business in all aspects of healthcare, be it making drugs
and devices, administering insurance, "providing healthcare" etc. More than a sixth of
American GDP at hugely inflated prices adds to... surely, these are trillions. This rapacity
can be contained by a "single payer" system that can provide more care for more people at
smaller costs (e.g. compare costs and outcomes in USA and Australia). Not so long time ago,
you were a Commie or a Socialist (equally bad) if you were proposing that. Sanders championed
it and failed, but now, it became a mainstream idea with a decent chance of being implemented
in the next decade.
Even now there is unceasing propaganda for "creativity and efficiency of free market" in
healthcare, but the shift in public opinion AND in political programs is clear.
Clarification of Gabbard's vote on H.Res.246 on BDS
Linda Wood on Sat, 08/03/2019 - 1:54pm I have read Tulsi Gabbard's response to
criticism of her Yes vote on H.Res.246 , which opposes BDS but which also affirms the right of
Americans to support BDS. She is quoted here in making that point:
Tulsi Gabbard voted to condemn BDS, but she's become a co-sponsor of Ilhan Omar's boycott
bill
Congresswoman and presidential hopeful Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) has become the fifteenth House
member to cosponsor H.Res.496 , a resolution affirming that Americans have the right to
boycott foreign countries to advance the cause of human rights...
The article then quotes Gabbard on her vote in support of the anti-BDS resolution, H.Res.246
:
... H.Res.246 does not in any way limit or hinder our First Amendment rights. In fact, it
affirms every American's right to exercise free speech for or against U.S. foreign policy, as
well as the right of Israeli and Palestinian people to live in safe and sovereign states free
from fear and violence and with mutual recognition. The right to protest the actions of our
government is essential if America is to truly be a free society.
I support BDS as far as I understand it. And I disagree strongly with the parts of 246 that
establish support for Israel's right to exist because I question the whole premise. But I
understand Gabbard's position.
H.Res.246 - Opposing efforts to delegitimize the State of Israel and the Global Boycott,
Divestment, and Sanctions Movement targeting Israel.
116th Congress (2019-2020)
Resolved, That the House of Representatives --
(1) opposes the Global Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Movement (BDS Movement)
targeting Israel, including efforts to target United States companies that are engaged in
commercial activities that are legal under United States law, and all efforts to delegitimize
the State of Israel;
(2) urges Israelis and Palestinians to return to direct negotiations as the only way to
achieve an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict;
(3) affirms the Constitutional right of United States citizens to free speech, including
the right to protest or criticize the policies of the United States or foreign governments
;
(4) supports the full implementation of the United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act
of 2014 (Public Law 113–296; 128 Stat. 4075) and new efforts to enhance
government-wide, coordinated United States-Israel scientific and technological cooperation in
civilian areas, such as with respect to energy, water, agriculture, alternative fuel
technology, civilian space technology, and security, in order to counter the effects of
actions to boycott, divest from, or sanction Israel; and
(5) reaffirms its strong support for a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict resulting in two states -- a democratic Jewish State of Israel, and a viable,
democratic Palestinian state -- living side-by-side in peace, security, and mutual
recognition.
"... The establishment's "Democracy Works!" propaganda seeks to stifle such Movements, directing attention to establishment candidates voice those concerns. But those candidates invariably prove to be ineffective because they can never get enough support to win and their efforts largely end with the election. ..."
Well you don't trust any of them, but you vote for the ones pushing policy you want to see happen, and you vote for the
ones that try to make that happen, and you abandon them immediately if they renege.
Obama's election and betrayal proved that this strategy doesn't work.
Tulsi is not anti-war', she's anti- dumb wars . Just as Colin Powell was ('Powell Doctrine' LOL). Just as
Obama was ("don't do stupid stuff"). Just as Trump is (amid howls of "isolationist!" LOL).
The fact is, every candidate will salute the flag as soon as the requisite false flag outrage occurs.
Furthermore, even if you ardently support Tulsi because she voices something that appears to be anti-war, you have to contend
with passionate supporters of other candidates: those who want a candidate of color, those who want an older
more experienced candidate, those who want a women candidate; those who want a socialist candidate, etc. In this way the electorate
is played against each other and in the end the establishment's favored candidate emerges naturally as the "democratic choice"
(with the help of establishment money and media support) .
Relying on voting for change is not enough . There has to be independent Movements for each fundamental change:
Democracy, Anti-war; Economic fairness. Like the Yellow Vest Movement.
The establishment's "Democracy Works!" propaganda seeks to stifle such Movements, directing attention to establishment candidates
voice those concerns. But those candidates invariably prove to be ineffective because they can never get enough support to win
and their efforts largely end with the election.
"Harris is the establishment's primary backup candidate after Biden. She was supposed to coast through the primaries while all
the attention was on Handsy Joe. Now she's wounded, and the establishment is royally pissed."
Notable quotes:
"... Not only was she not supposed to attack Kamala Harris, but she most certainly wasn't supposed to have landed such an effective blow and lived to tell about it. ..."
Not only was she not supposed to attack Kamala Harris, but she most certainly wasn't
supposed to have landed such an effective blow and lived to tell about it.
Remember all those lies Krugman, EMike and Kurt said about "Bernie Bros?" Well turns out they
are the out of touch elites, not Sanders supporters. They were projecting. Krugman won't even
go all in for Warren!!!
Sanders and Warren voters have astonishingly little in common
His backers are younger, make less money, have fewer degrees and are less engaged in
politics.
By HOLLY OTTERBEIN
07/12/2019 05:01 AM EDT
PHILADELPHIA -- Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are two of the most ideologically
aligned candidates in the Democratic primary -- both left-wing populists who rail against a
"rigged" economic system.
But the fellow enemies of the 1 percent have surprisingly different bases of support.
In poll after poll, Sanders appeals to lower-income and less-educated people; Warren beats
Sanders among those with postgraduate degrees. Sanders performs better with men, Warren with
women. Younger people who vote less frequently are more often in Sanders' camp; seniors who
follow politics closely generally prefer Warren.
Sanders also has won over more African Americans than Warren: He earns a greater share of
support from black voters than any candidate in the race except for Joe Biden, according to
the latest Morning Consult surveys.
For progressive activists, who are gathering this week in Philadelphia at the annual
Netroots Nation conference, it's both promising and a source of concern that the two leading
left-wingers in the primary attract such distinct fans. It demonstrates that a progressive
economic message can excite different parts of the electorate, but it also means that Sanders
and Warren likely need to expand their bases in order to win the Democratic nomination.
Put another way, if their voters could magically be aligned behind one or the other, it
would vastly increase the odds of a Democratic nominee on the left wing of the ideological
spectrum.
The fact that Warren and Sanders' bases don't perfectly overlap hasn't garnered much
public attention, but it's something very much on the minds of their aides and allies.
"It shows that the media does not base their perceptions on data that is publicly
available," said Ari Rabin-Havt, chief of staff to the Sanders campaign. "I think people
develop overly simplistic views of politics that presume that people who live in the real
world think the same way as elite media in D.C. and New York."
It's not a given that Sanders voters would flock to Warren, or vice versa, if one of them
left the race and endorsed the other. In Morning Consult, Reuters-Ipsos and Washington
Post-ABC News polls, more Sanders supporters name Biden as their second choice than Warren --
and a higher percentage of Warren voters pick Kamala Harris as their No. 2 than Sanders,
according to recent surveys.
Wes Bode, a retired contractor in the first-in-the-nation caucus state of Iowa,
illustrates the point: He said he likes that Sanders has "new ideas," such as free college
tuition, and recently attended one of his town halls in the state. But he's fond of Biden,
too, because he's "for the working man."
It might seem unusual that a voter's top picks for 2020 are the two candidates who best
represent the opposite poles of the Democratic Party. But a person like Bode is actually more
common than someone like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, whose favorites are Sanders and
Warren.
For Sanders, the need to grow his base is a problem that dates back to his 2016 run. He
failed to win the nomination that year in large part because he was unable to win over older
voters, especially older voters of color.
"Two places where Bernie has always struggled with is older voters and women to some
degree," said Mark Longabaugh, a top strategist to Sanders in 2016. "Warren is identifiably a
Democrat and runs as a Democrat, so I think many more establishment Democrats in the party
are more drawn to her -- whereas Bernie very intentionally ran for reelection as an
independent and identifies as an independent, and appeals to those who look inside the
Democratic Party and think it's not their thing."
During the 2020 campaign, Sanders' advisers have acknowledged that he needs to appeal more
to older voters, and he's recently been holding more intimate events in the early states that
tend to attract more senior crowds than his rallies do. His team is also trying hard to
expand the primary electorate by turning out infrequent voters.
Warren, meanwhile, is aggressively working to win African American support. Her allies
argue that her performance at events such as Al Sharpton's National Action Network convention
and the She the People conference show that she has room to grow among black voters.
"If you were looking to buy a rising stock, you would look at future market share and
indicators of strong fundamentals," said Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change
Campaign Committee, which backs Warren. "Elizabeth Warren has consistently connected on a gut
level with black audiences ... getting standing ovations after connecting her inspiring plans
to her personal story of struggle growing up poor in Oklahoma and being a single mom in
Texas."
Several Democratic operatives said they believe Warren has the ability to expand her base
to include black women in particular.
"She impressed 2,000 top women of color activists at [our conference]," said Aimee
Allison, founder of She the People. "Elizabeth Warren has deepened, sharpened and made racial
justice a grounding component of her policies."
A look at their poll numbers shows how distinct the pools of support for Sanders vs.
Warren are.
Twenty-two percent of Democratic primary voters who earn less than $50,000 annually
support Sanders, while 12 percent are for Warren, according to an average of the past four
weeks of Morning Consult polling. Of those without college degrees, 22 percent are behind
Sanders; 10 percent back Warren.
Roughly the same percentage of voters with bachelor's degrees -- 16 percent and 15
percent, respectively -- support Sanders and Warren. But among those with postgraduate
degrees, 12 percent are for Sanders and 19 percent are for Warren.
There's a similar split based on age, gender and interest in politics. Sanders wins more
than one-third of the 18- to 29-year-olds, while Warren gets 11 percent of them. Warren has
the support of 13 percent of those aged 30 to 44, 12 percent of those aged 45 to 54, and 13
percent of those aged both 55 to 64 and 65 and up. Sanders' support goes down as the age of
voters goes up: He is backed by 25 percent of 30- to 44-year-olds, 17 percent of 45- to
54-year-olds, 12 percent of 55- to 64-year-olds, and 8 percent of those 65 and older.
Twenty percent of men support Sanders and 11 percent support Warren; 18 percent of women
are behind Sanders and 14 percent are behind Warren.
Warren also performs best among voters who are "extremely interested" in politics (winning
17 percent of them), while Sanders is strongest among those who are "not at all interested"
(26 percent).
As for black voters, 19 percent are behind Sanders, while 9 percent support Warren.
With Biden still atop most polls, even after a widely panned performance at the first
Democratic debate, some progressives still fear that Warren and Sanders could divide the left
and hand the nomination to the former vice president.
"There's a lot of time left in this campaign," said Sean McElwee, co-founder of the
liberal think tank Data for Progress. "But one thing that's clear is that it's very important
for the left that we ensure that we don't split the field and allow someone like Joe Biden to
be the nominee."
"Elizabeth Warren on student loans: New bill would cancel debt for millions"
By Katie Lobosco, CNN...18 hrs ago
"Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren is introducing a bill Tuesday that would cancel the
student loan debts of tens of millions of Americans, a plan she first proposed on the
campaign trail in April.
The 2020 Democratic presidential candidate is partnering with South Carolina Rep. James
Clyburn, also a Democrat, who will sponsor companion legislation in the House.
The bill would forgive $50,000 in student loans for Americans in households earning less
than $100,000 a year, resulting in immediate relief to more than an estimated 95% of the 45
million Americans with student debt.
For those earning more than $100,000, the bill would offer partial debt relief with the
amount getting gradually smaller until it phases out. Households that make more than $250,000
are not eligible for any debt relief.
Warren's campaign has said that she would pay for the debt relief -- as well as her plan
to make tuition free at public colleges -- with revenue from her proposed wealth tax. It
would assess a 2% tax on wealth above $50 million and a 3% tax on wealth above $1
billion.
The one-time debt cancellation could cost $640 billion, the campaign has said."...
Warren's campaign has said that she would pay for the debt relief -- as well as her plan
to make tuition free at public colleges -- with revenue from her proposed wealth tax. It
would assess a 2% tax on wealth above $50 million and a 3% tax on wealth above $1
billion.
The one-time debt cancellation could cost $640 billion, the campaign has said.
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, another Democratic presidential hopeful, also has a student
debt cancellation proposal. But his goes further and would cancel all $1.6 trillion in
outstanding loan debt. There would be no eligibility limitations and it would be paid for
with a new tax on Wall Street speculation. Sanders has proposed making tuition free at public
colleges, as well.
As proposed, Warren's bill would ensure that the debt canceled would not be taxed as
income. Those borrowers with private loans would be allowed to convert them into federal
loans so that they could be forgiven. ...
When the United States government wants to raise money from individuals, its mode of
choice, for more than a century, has been to tax what people earn -- the income they receive
from work or investments.
But what if instead the government taxed the wealth you had accumulated?
That is the idea behind a policy Senator Elizabeth Warren has embraced in her presidential
campaign. It represents a more substantial rethinking of the federal government's approach to
taxation than anything a major presidential candidate has proposed in recent memory -- a new
wealth tax that would have enormous implications for inequality.
It would shift more of the burden of paying for government toward the families that have
accumulated fortunes in the hundreds of millions or billions of dollars. And over time, such
a tax would make it less likely that such fortunes develop.
What is the Warren plan?
Developed by Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, two University of California, Berkeley,
economists who are leading scholars of inequality, the proposal is to tax a family's wealth
above $50 million at 2 percent a year, with an additional surcharge of 1 percent on wealth
over $1 billion.
Mr. Saez and Mr. Zucman estimate that 75,000 households would owe such a tax, or about one
out of 1,700 American families.
A family worth $60 million would owe the federal government $200,000 in wealth tax, over
and above what they may owe on income from wages, dividends or interest payments.
If the estimates of his net worth are accurate, Mr. Buffett would owe the I.R.S. about
$2.5 billion a year, in addition to income or capital gains taxes. The Waltons would owe
about $1.3 billion each.
The tax would therefore chip away at the net worth of the extremely rich, especially if
they mainly hold investments with low returns, like bonds, or depreciating assets like
yachts.
It would work a little like the property tax that most cities and states impose on real
estate, an annual payment tied to the value of assets rather than income. But instead of
applying just to homes and land, it would apply to everything: fine art collections, yachts
and privately held businesses.
What are the arguments against it?
They are both philosophical and practical.
On the philosophical side, you can argue that people who have earned money, and paid
appropriate income tax on it, are entitled to the wealth they accumulate.
Moreover, the wealth that individual families accumulate under the current system is
arguably likelier to be put to work investing in large-scale projects that make the economy
stronger. They can invest in innovative companies, for example, or huge real estate projects,
in ways that small investors generally can't. ...
2016 was widely recognized as the year of "populism," more adequately described as the year
of revolt against the political Establishment -- in both Parties. The Democratic Primary in
2016 was a battle of progressive forces against the Democratic Establishment, and the battle
lines were clearly drawn. Those lines remain much the same as we approach 2020.
On the Progressive or Populist side were those who opposed the endless wars in the Middle
East, and on the Establishment side those who supported those long and bloody wars. On the
Progressive Side were those who supported badly needed domestic reforms, most notably Medicare
for All, which after all is a reform of almost 20% of the entire economy and a reform that has
to do with life itself. In contrast on the Establishment side were those who supported
ObamaCare, a device for leaving our health care to the tender mercies of the Insurance
behemoths with its ever increasing premiums and ever decreasing coverage.
In 2016 the pundits gave progressives little chance of success. Hillary Clinton was a
shoo-in, we were all assured by a horde of "reliable sources." And given the control that the
Clintonites exercised over the Democratic Party apparatus, there was little prospect of a
successful rebellion and every chance of having one's career badly damaged by opposing Party
elite. Summer soldiers and duplicitous candidates were not interested in challenging the
Establishment.
In 2016 Bernie Sanders was the only politician who was willing to take on the Establishment.
Although not technically a Democrat, he caucused with them and worked with them. And he was a
lifelong, reliable and ardent advocate for Medicare for All and a consistent opponent of the
endless wars. For these things he was prepared to do battle against overwhelming odds on the
chance that he might prevail and because from his grass roots contacts he sensed that a
rebellion was brewing.
In 2016 only one among the current crop of candidates followed Bernie, supported him and
joined him on the campaign trail -- Tulsi Gabbard. At the time she was a two term Congresswoman
and Vice Chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), a career building position, from
which she would have to resign in order to support one of the candidates. Moreover, reports
said she bridled at the internal bias of the DNC in favor of Hillary. To express her
displeasure with the DNC and to support Bernie, she had to defy the Clinton Establishment,
which might even have terminated her political career. But she was a foe of the endless wars,
partly based on her own experience as a National Guard member who had been deployed to Iraq in
a medical unit and saw the ravages of war first hand. So she joined Bernie, introducing him at
many of his rallies and strengthening his antiwar message.
Bernie and Tulsi proved themselves in the defining battle of 2016. They let us know
unequivocally where they stand. And Bernie might well have won the nomination were he not
cheated out of it by the Establishment which continues to control the levers of power in the
Democratic Party to this day.
In 2016 these two stood in stark contrast to the other 2020 Democratic candidates. Let us
take one example of these others, Elizabeth Warren, a darling of the main stream media which
often refers to her as ideologically aligned to Bernie Sanders. Perhaps she is so aligned at
times -- at least in words; she is after all in favor of Medicare for All, although she hastens
to add that she is "open to other approaches." That qualifier is balm to the ears of the
Insurance behemoths. Translation: she has already surrendered before the battle has begun.
In 2016 a critical primary for Bernie was Masschusetts where Senator Warren wields
considerable influence. Clinton defeated Sanders there by a mere 1.5% whereas she had lost to
Obama there by 15% in 2008. Wikipedia has this to say of the
primary:
"Following the primary, Elizabeth Warren, the state's senior US senator, was widely
criticized by Sanders supporters online for her refusal to endorse him prior to the primary.
Supporters of Bernie Sanders have argued that an endorsement from Warren, whose political
positions were similar to that of Sanders's, and who was a frequent critic of Hillary Clinton
in the past, could have handed Massachusetts to him. "
One must conclude that either Warren does not genuinely share the views of Sanders or she is
loath to buck the Establishment and fight for those views. In either event she, and the others
who failed to back Bernie in 2016, are not made of the stuff that can win Medicare for All,
bring an end to the regime change wars and illegal sanctions of the last four or more
administrations, begin serious negotiations to end the existential nuclear peril, and address
the many other problems facing us and all of humanity.
“Bernie walked the walk”
When was that? The time he toured through Baltimore and called it a third world city while
assiduously not discussing how, why, and because of who it became so?
The way he openly sold out to Clinton and ducked into his new third manor house to avoid
being held to task for leaving his base out to dry the very moment they were ready to
seriously break ranks from the neolib political machine?
Is he walking the walk now as he tries to rationalize away his underpaying of his campaign
workers and cuts hours to minimize the costs of the 15 dollar floor price he demanded for
everyone other employer?
The man is a DNC stooge through and through.
And Tulsi being anti-war out of personal squeamishness doesn’t make up for the rest of
her painfully party-line-compliant platform, particularly when the Deep State has multiple
active avenues available to at the very least keep our military presence still existing
military presence trapped and held hostage. All the dove cooing in recorded world history
won’t hold up when, not if, Britain or France or whoever deliberately sinks another
navy vessel and drags her by the hair into another desert scrum.
@Tusk As with the 1960 Presidential Election, Hillary stole that election fair and
square. Had Sanders went full third party, it would’ve destroyed the Democrats
outright. Despite Clinton’s cheating, Bernie went ahead and bent the knee. Strangely
enough, Trump’s victory saved Sanders and his faction. Had Clinton won, she
would’ve purged the Sanders supporters relentlessly.
There is such a thing as a tactical retreat. Now he’s able to play again.
is that our “establishment elite” have failed the United States of
America.
How, you may ask ?
The answer is simple.
By defrauded us into multiple illegal wars of aggression they have bankrupted the entire
nation.
The iron fact is that because our “elites” lied us into illegal war we are now
22.5 trillion dollars in heinous debt.
Why is this okay ?
The answer is simple.
It is not okay, NOT AT ALL .
And it is not enough (anymore) to just demand we “end our wars”, Mr.
Walsh.
The cost in treasure has been too high and the burden on the US taxpayer too obscene.
Without demanding “accountability” from our elites, who lied us into this
catastrophe, our nation is most probably going under.
I say…. make them pay …”every penny”…. for the cost of
the wars they lied us into.
An initiative, like the “War fraud Accountability Act” (retroactive to 2002)
would do just that.
it would replenish the coffers of our nation with all the assets of the larcenous
profiteers who deceived us all….into heinous war debt.
As we witness the rise of China as the new global economic powerhouse, we can see first
hand how a nation can rise to immense wealth and global influence “precisely
because” it was never deceived by its “ruling class” into squandering all
its resources initiating and fighting endless criminal wars.
Just imagine where the USA would be today, had we chosen the same course.
Until Dems are willing to refuse to depend on Haim Saban’s “generous
donation” to the Dem candidate, none of their candidates will deserve to be the the
POTUS candidate. Ditto for the Republicans and their fetish with Shelly Adelson. Candidates
must kowtow to Israel or else there will be no dough for them and they might even be
challenged in their incumbencies next time around by ADL/AIPAC. Until we get rid of Israeli
money and political power, we are toast.
1)Both Sanders and Gabbard are onboard for going to war against Christian Russia over
Crimea..Sanders has gone so far as saying that a Military response against Russia is an
option if all else fails in getting Russia out of Crimea…
2)Both Sanders and Gabbard are waging a war of RACIAL EXTERMINATION against Working Class
Native Born White American Males….And that’s WHITE GENOCIDE!!!!
@Kronos Bernie “bent the knee” once and got to enjoy his lakeside home and
his wife protected from fraud prosecution after she stole money from People’s United
Bank for her college scam.
He is owned.
If Tulsi were a serious threat she would be neutralized one way or another.
“Progressives” are virtue signaling fools–the kleptocracy marches on and
laughs at them.
One has to wonder where Dems like Warren and their identity politics is taking the US.
Will everyone who even slightly disagrees with them be labeled a terrorist?
OK, obviously I need to weigh in on Elizabeth Warren's trade proposal. I've been a huge
fan of her plans so far. This one, not so much, although some of the critiques are overdone
1/
Last month, I released my economic patriotism agenda -- my commitment to fundamentally
changing the government's approach to the economy so that we put the interests of American
workers and families ahead of the interests of multinational corporations. I've already
released my ideas for applying economic patriotism to manufacturing and to Wall Street. This
is my plan for using economic patriotism to overhaul our approach to trade.
8:41 AM - 30 Jul 2019
The truth is that this would have been a bad and destructive plan if implemented in, say,
1980. At this point it's still problematic, but not disastrous (this is going to be a long
tweet storm) 2/
Background: the way we currently do trade negotiations is that professionals negotiate out
of public view, but with input from key business players. Then Congress gets an up or down
vote on the result 3/
This can sound like a process rigged in favor of special interests. But it was created by
FDR, and its actual intent was largely the opposite. It took away the ability of
Congresspeople to stuff trade bills with goodies for their donors and districts 4/
And while business interests certainly got a lot of input, it was set up in a way that set
different groups against each other -- exporters versus import-competing industries -- and
this served the interests of the general public 5/
Without this system we wouldn't have achieved the great opening of world markets after
World War II -- and that opening was a very good thing overall, especially for poor
countries, and helped promote peace 6/
So what has changed? The key point is that the system pretty much achieved its goals;
we're a low-tariff world. And that has had a peculiar consequence: these days "trade
negotiations" aren't mainly about trade, they're about intellectual property and regulation
7/
And it's not at all clear that such deals are actually good for the world, which is why I
was a soft opponent of TPP 8/
Not to keep you in suspense, I'm thumbs down. I don't think the proposal is likely to be
the terrible, worker-destroying pact some progressives assert, but it doesn't look like a
good thing either for the world or for the United States, and you have to wonder why the
Obama administration, in particular, would consider devoting any political capital to getting
this through.
So what Warren proposes is that we partially unravel the system FDR built, making trade
negotiations more transparent and giving Congress a bigger role in shaping the deals. This
sounds more democratic, but that's a bit deceiving 9/
Mainly it would substitute one kind of special interest distortion for another. That would
have been a clearly bad thing when trade deals were actually about trade. Today, I think it's
ambiguous 10/
Warren would also expand the criteria for trade policy to include a number of non-trade
goals, like labor rights and environmental protection. Here again there are arguments on both
sides 11/
On one side, the potential for abuse would be large -- we could be slapping tariffs on
countries for all kinds of reasons, turning trade policy into global power politics, which
would be really bas for smaller, weaker countries 12/
On the other hand, there are some cases where trade policy will almost surely have to be
used to enforce some common action. If we ever do act on climate change, carbon tariffs will
be needed to discipline free riders 13/
"President Obama on Sunday praised the energy bill passed by the House late last week as
an 'extraordinary first step,' but he spoke out against a provision that would impose trade
penalties on countries that do not accept limits on global warming pollution."
And I also think the report gives a false impression of what this is about, making it seem
as if it's nothing but dirty politics...
Overall, this is the weakest Warren plan so far. (Still waiting to hear from her on health
care! Harris has taken point there, and done it well) But it's not bad enough to change the
verdict that she's the strongest contender on policy grounds 14/
He backs Harris's attempt to split difference on health care reform.
The problem with PK and Kurt and EMike is that if you don't deliver better services and
rising living standards - no matter the excuses we don't care about your excuses -
you're going to get more racism, demagogues like Trump and toxic politics.
The Dems's track record for the past 40 years is objectively awful. PK lives in a rich
man's bubble if he believes corporate trade has been good for humanity and peace.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Montana Gov. Steve Bullock (D) sparred Tuesday night
over her proposed "no first use" policy on nuclear weapons during the Democratic debate.
In defending the proposed policy, Warren argued for diplomatic and economic solutions to
conflict, saying "we should not be asking our military to take on jobs that do not have a
military solution."
But Bullock opposed that proposal, saying, "I don't want to turn around and say, 'Well,
Detroit has to be gone before we would ever use that.'"
Warren is the lead sponsor of the Senate version of a bill that would make it U.S. policy
not to use nuclear weapons first.
It has long been the policy of the United States that the country reserves the right to
launch a preemptive nuclear strike.
Former President Obama reportedly weighed changing the policy before leaving office, but
ultimately did not after advisers argued doing so could embolden adversaries.
Backers of a no first use policy argue it would improve U.S. national security by reducing
the risk of miscalculation while still allowing the United States to launch a nuclear strike
in response to an attack.
During the debate, Warren argued such a policy would "make the world safer."
"The United States is not going to use nuclear weapons preemptively, and we need to say so
to the entire world," she said. "It reduces the likelihood that someone miscalculates,
someone misunderstands."
Bullock argued he wouldn't want to take the option off the table, but that there should be
negotiations to eliminate nuclear weapons.
"Never, I hope, certainly in my term or anyone else would we really even get close to
pulling that trigger," he said. "Going from a position of strength, we should be negotiating
down so there aren't nuclear weapons. But drawing those lines in the sand at this point, I
wouldn't do."
Warren shot back that the world is closer to nuclear warfare after Trump's presidency,
which is seeing the end of a landmark arms control agreement with Russia, the development of
a low-yield submarine-launched warhead and the U.S. withdrawal from the Iran nuclear
agreement.
"We don't expand trust around the world by saying, 'you know, we might be the first one to
use a nuclear weapon,'" she said. "We have to have an announced policy that is one the entire
world can live with."
Bullock said he agreed on the need to return to nonproliferation standards but that
unpredictable enemies such as North Korea require keeping first use as an option.
"When so many crazy folks are getting closer to having a nuclear weapon, I don't want them
to think, 'I could strike this country,'" he said. "Part of the strength really is to
deter."
----
Long-standing US policy has been to lump chemical,
biological and nuclear weapons in a single
category. So, our guv'mint implicitly reserves the
right to respond to a chemical attack (say) with
nuclear weapons. This was how the US got het up
about Iraq's supposed 'weapons of mass destruction',
which is how the US lumps them together under
the heading 'CBN' weapons. Iraq certainly
had chemical weapons, possibly biological ones,
and much less plausibly a nuclear weapons program.
It was all about those mysterious 'aluminum tubes',
which supposedly could be used for uranium-enriching centrifuges. (Not these tubes,
apparently.)
But I digress. Suffice it to say, the US has
quite a few self-serving policies.
Now, the real question is, how much longer
do we want to have Mr Trump in control
of the nuclear football, as the nuke-
authorizing gadget is known?
@Wally as this question is being raised again in a few threads: my guess is Tulsi
gives great weight to people who apologize and own up for their mistakes (Joe on his Iraq
vote) and she believes in forgiveness, and 2dly she knows she also has made mistakes in her
public service career.
Besides the above, she might have felt some of the others on the stage were doing a fair
job of going after Joe last night, albeit not on Iraq, and she didn't want to contribute to
the pile-on. She may also have had a strategy of focusing on Harris in this debate.
There will be future debates to go after Joe on Iraq, if she chooses. Perhaps we might
hope for a sponsored debate where the mods spend more than 1% of the air time talking about
FP. Last night, unless I missed something, the few minutes on foreign stuff was only about
trade, not FP as usually understood.
I did find this
July 9, 2019 article in truthdig calling on him to apologize, tho.
And no matter how it's sliced, Biden's still a warmonger.
I sense something is afoot. Pure speculation but crazier things have happened:
Michelle as Biden's VP. Vote for Joe, get Michelle.
#1 as this question is being raised again in a few threads: my guess is Tulsi gives
great weight to people who apologize and own up for their mistakes (Joe on his Iraq vote)
and she believes in forgiveness, and 2dly she knows she also has made mistakes in her
public service career.
Besides the above, she might have felt some of the others on the stage were doing a
fair job of going after Joe last night, albeit not on Iraq, and she didn't want to
contribute to the pile-on. She may also have had a strategy of focusing on Harris in this
debate.
There will be future debates to go after Joe on Iraq, if she chooses. Perhaps we might
hope for a sponsored debate where the mods spend more than 1% of the air time talking
about FP. Last night, unless I missed something, the few minutes on foreign stuff was
only about trade, not FP as usually understood.
@Wally
@Wally sense, what matters to the issue and complaint being discussed is not what you
or I think of Joe and Iraq (we agree) or even what the objective truth is (I did a full 0.5
sec google search, lazy latte-sipping liberal that I am, and couldn't find an explicit use of
the term "apology" from Joe).
What matters is TG's perception or memory of what Joe said about his vote. In the video
linked above, she talks about how Joe has said it was a mistake --
true -- and that "he's apologized for it, many times" (I couldn't find a link proving
that).
Edit: In Tulsi's forgiving world, she might equate or accept the term "mistake" in lieu of
an official, formal expression of regret using the term "apology".
I might be able to give you Tulsi's private # and you could ask her personally, but in the
words of that immortal American Statesman Richard Nixon, That Would Be Wrong.
@wokkamile
. . . when I run for Pope? I can't wait for you to spin my many wrong thoughts;>).
#1.2.1
#1.2.1 sense, what matters to the issue and complaint being discussed is not what you
or I think of Joe and Iraq (we agree) or even what the objective truth is (I did a full
0.5 sec google search, lazy latte-sipping liberal that I am, and couldn't find an
explicit use of the term "apology" from Joe).
What matters is TG's perception or memory of what Joe said about his vote. In the
video linked above, she talks about how Joe has said it was a mistake --
true -- and that "he's apologized for it, many times" (I couldn't find a link proving
that).
Edit: In Tulsi's forgiving world, she might equate or accept the term "mistake" in
lieu of an official, formal expression of regret using the term "apology".
I might be able to give you Tulsi's private # and you could ask her personally, but in
the words of that immortal American Statesman Richard Nixon, That Would Be Wrong.
@wokkamile IMO, this is not a fatal error by Tulsi.
Despite what we are being sold, Biden is a very weak candidate and many others are working
to take him down. No one was willing to take on Harris who was designated as the rising star
in the Hamptons. But Tulsi did, based upon principle. Funny thing is that Tulsi told Harris
that she was coming after her in advance, but Harris was unprepared.
#1 as this question is being raised again in a few threads: my guess is Tulsi gives
great weight to people who apologize and own up for their mistakes (Joe on his Iraq vote)
and she believes in forgiveness, and 2dly she knows she also has made mistakes in her
public service career.
Besides the above, she might have felt some of the others on the stage were doing a
fair job of going after Joe last night, albeit not on Iraq, and she didn't want to
contribute to the pile-on. She may also have had a strategy of focusing on Harris in this
debate.
There will be future debates to go after Joe on Iraq, if she chooses. Perhaps we might
hope for a sponsored debate where the mods spend more than 1% of the air time talking
about FP. Last night, unless I missed something, the few minutes on foreign stuff was
only about trade, not FP as usually understood.
@wokkamile
that this is exactly what Tulsi was doing. It seems to have been effective. For one thing, it
took everyone, including the CNN hosts, off guard.
She may also have had a strategy of focusing on Harris in this debate.
#1 as this question is being raised again in a few threads: my guess is Tulsi gives
great weight to people who apologize and own up for their mistakes (Joe on his Iraq vote)
and she believes in forgiveness, and 2dly she knows she also has made mistakes in her
public service career.
Besides the above, she might have felt some of the others on the stage were doing a
fair job of going after Joe last night, albeit not on Iraq, and she didn't want to
contribute to the pile-on. She may also have had a strategy of focusing on Harris in this
debate.
There will be future debates to go after Joe on Iraq, if she chooses. Perhaps we might
hope for a sponsored debate where the mods spend more than 1% of the air time talking
about FP. Last night, unless I missed something, the few minutes on foreign stuff was
only about trade, not FP as usually understood.
Representative Thomas Massie (R-KY) told Luke Rudkowski of "We Are Change," a libertarian
media organization, that Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard has just signed on
as a co-sponsor of Audit the Fed bill, officially known as H.R.24 The Federal Reserve
Transparency Act of 2019.
Last night Tulsi Gabbard went after Harris on her support of the for profit prison system in
Cali at the expense of human beoings......
soon enough Harris supporters were tweeting that Gabbard is an "Assad apologist".
"Assad apologist is war monger agit prop against anyone who might get in the way of the
profitable forever wars for al Qaeda (in Idlib etc) and the Saudi royals.
im1dc": propagandizing for the war profiteers is not limited to the press it is in the
diverse democrat campaigns pandering for contributions caring nothing for the US or humans in
general. Gabbard being the obvious exception garnering their sound bites.
The Joseph McCarthy-style attack on the Representative by the California Senator and
associates is shocking and dangerous and revealing of "character."
After Democratic 2020 candidate Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) dressed down Sen. Kamala Harris
(D-CA) over her criminal justice record, Harris hit back - suggesting that Gabbard is somehow
'below her' - and an "apologist" for Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad.
In response, Harris thumbed her nose at Gabbard , telling CNN 's Anderson Cooperafter the
debate: "This is going to sound immodest, but obviously I'm a top-tier candidate and so I did
expect that I'd be on the stage and take some hits tonight ... when people are at 0 or 1% or
whatever she might be at , so I did expect to take some hits tonight."
Harris added "Listen, I think that this coming from someone who has been an apologist for an
individual , [Syrian President Bashar al] Assad, who has murdered the people of his country
like cockroaches. She has embraced and been an apologist for him in the way she refuses to call
him a war criminal. I can only take what she says and her opinion so seriously, so I'm prepared
to move on."
Wait a second...
Tulsi wasn't having it. In a Thursday interview with CNN 's Chris Cuomo, Gabbard punched
back - saying "[T]he only response that I've heard her and her campaign give is to push out
smear attacks on me, claim that I am somehow some kind of foreign agent or a traitor to my
country, the country that I love, the country that I put my life on the line to serve , the
country that I still serve today as a soldier in the Army National Guard."
Gabbard also made clear that she believes Assad is " a brutal dictator, just like Saddam
Hussein, just like Gaddafi in Libya ," adding "The reason that I'm so outspoken on this issue
of ending these wasteful regime change wars is because I have seen firsthand this high human
cost of war and the impact that it has on my fellow brothers and sisters in uniform. "
"... When Lindsey Graham tweets about Tulsi Gabbard twice after a debate, when the Washington Post neocons like Josh Rogin are attacking her , you know she's got their panties in a bunch. ..."
"... You expect it from the Harris camp, obviously. But when it comes directly from people like Navid Jamali (double agent, navy intelligence, MSNBC contributor) you know the empire is beginning to get worried. ..."
"... Gabbard is now getting the Ron Paul treatment. It will only intensify from here. They will come after her with everything they have. ..."
"... When the Empire is on the line, left and right in the US close ranks and unite against the threat. The good news is that all they have is their pathetic Russia bashing and appeals to their authority on foreign policy. ..."
"... The colonial masters have been forgetting that more and more people are not benefitting from having like 800 military bases/wars/colonies all over and want them dissolved. Go Gabbard. ..."
"... The longer the US acts like a colonial power, the more painful the dismantling will be. ..."
The second debate among Democratic hopefuls was notable for two things. The lack of common
decency of most of them and Tulsi Gabbard's immense, career-ending attack on Kamala Harris'
(D-Deep State) record as an Attorney General in California.
Harris came out of the first debate the clear winner and Gabbard cut her down to size with
one of the single best minutes of political television since Donald Trump told Hillary Clinton,
"Because you'd be in jail."
Gabbard's takedown of Harris was so spot on and her closing statement about the
irresponsible nature of the Trump Administration's foreign policy was so powerful she had to be
actively suppressed on Twitter. And, within minutes of the debate ending the media and the
political machines moved into overdrive to smear her as a Russian agent, an Assad apologist and
a favorite of the alt-right.
Now, folks, let me tell you something. I write and talk about Gabbard a lot and those to the
right of me are really skeptical of her being some kind of plant for Israel or the
establishment. If she were truly one of those she wouldn't have been polling at 1% going into
that debate.
She would have been promoted as Harris' strongest competition and served up for Harris to
co-opt.
That is not what happened.
No, the fact that Gabbard is being smeared as viciously and baselessly as she is by all the
right people on both the left and the right is all the proof you need that she is 1) the real
deal and 2) they are scared of her.
You expect it from the Harris camp, obviously. But when it comes directly from people like
Navid Jamali (double agent, navy intelligence, MSNBC contributor) you know the empire is
beginning to get worried.
Gabbard is now getting the Ron Paul treatment. It will only intensify from here. They will
come after her with everything they have.
In the past week she's destroyed Kamala Harris on national TV, sued Google for
electioneering and signed onto Thomas Massie's (R-KY) bill to audit the Federal Reserve. What
does she do next week, end the Drug War?
Tulsi Gabbard is admittedly a work in progress. But what I see in her is something that has
the potential to be very special. She's young enough to be both passionately brave and willing
to go where the truth takes her.
And that truth has taken her where Democrats have feared to tread for more than forty years:
the US Empire.
The entire time I was growing up the prevailing wisdom was Social Security was the third
rail of US politics. That, like so many other pearls of wisdom, was nonsense.
The true third rail of US politics is empire. Any candidate that is publicly against the
empire is the enemy of not only the state, it's quislings in the media, the corporations who
profit from it and the party machines of both the GOP and the DNC.
That is Gabbard's crime. And it's the only crime that matters.
When the Empire is on the line, left and right in the US close ranks and unite against the
threat. The good news is that all they have is their pathetic Russia bashing and appeals to
their authority on foreign policy.
Foreign policy, by the way, that most people in America, frankly, despise.
And the response to her performance at the second debate was as predictable as the sun
rising in the east. It's also easily countered. Gabbard will face an uphill battle from here
and we'll find out in the coming weeks just how deep into Trump Derangement Syndrome the
average Democrat voter is.
If she doesn't begin climbing in the polls then the Democrats are lost. They will have
signed onto crazy Progressivism and more Empire in their lust to destroy Donald Trump. But they
will lose because only a principled anti-imperialist like Gabbard can push Trump back to his
days when he was the outsider in the GOP debates, railing against our stupid foreign
policy.
No one else in the field would be remotely credible on this point. It's the area where Trump
is the weakest. He's not weak on women's rights, racism, gay rights or any of the rest of the
idiotic identity politics of the rest of the Democratic field.
He's weakest on the one issue that got him elected in the first place, foreign policy.
Hillary was the candidate of Empire. Trump was not. It's why we saw an international conspiracy
formed to destroy him and his presidency. Now that same apparatus is mobilized against Tulsi
Gabbard.
That's good. As a solider she knows that when you're taking flak you are over your target.
Now let's hope she's capable of sustaining herself to push this election cycle away from the
insanity the elite want to distract us with and make it about the only thing keeping the world
from healing, ending the empire of chaos.
Those who benefit from the US being a Colonial Empire are closing ranks and that is
certainly a huge endorsement for Gabbard.
The colonial masters have been forgetting that more and more people are not benefitting
from having like 800 military bases/wars/colonies all over and want them dissolved. Go
Gabbard.
The longer the US acts like a colonial power, the more painful the dismantling will
be.
Do politicians control the military, especially the strategic arm and weapons of mass
destruction, both here in the US and in Russia? Perhaps only partially, and even that is
doubtful given rapidly unfolding emergency situations. A convincing case could be made that
it's too late, that war is inevitable.
You sound intelligent. Read Herman Kahn's treatise "On Thermonuclear War." It is
mathematical. But Basically nuclear war is out of hands of politicians. But it won't start
from large nuclear powers. If Iran sunk a US Carrier, there would be NO NUCLEAR WAR PERIOD.
But a nuclear war could be caused by an accident of smaller powers but it would be very
limited and not spread.
"The more destructive we [America] look, the less they like us and our program. To the
extent that some in our midst talk and threaten potential world annihilation as a U.S.
defense measure, we focus undeserved attention on ourselves as being dangerous and even
irresponsible -- appearing to be willing to risk uncounted hundreds of millions or billions
of bystanders as to our selfish ambitions and desires." Herman Kahn...
That quote typifies Trump's cavalier yapping about nuclear weapons and his threats in the
last year to expunge North Korea, Iran and most recently Afghanistan. This is the kind of
conversation that most people in the world hate and they hate Trump and the United States for
it. The US is blamed for Trump's loose cannon conduct. So that generates concern and
heightens the potential for a nuclear weapons accident.
As for the world, it would survive a nuclear war. Many people would survive just as the
animals of Chernobyl have survived and thrived even though radioactive. Dumb politicians like
Trump that talk out their *** and sound imbalanced appear flaky. Rest assured the Joint
Chief's would never let Trump near a nuclear weapon.
With nuclear war you also have to mathematically project dud rockets and rockets that land
on your own people or detonate at launch.
Forget Biden, a deadbeat deep state ***. he could never be elected being such a MIC pawn.
Just go Tulsi first (with Rand Paul would be good!) . She'll have to dig deep in the shitheap
to find another honest Dem to play sidekick. But Tulsi stands out above them all as
intelligent and independant. No surprise the Dem and Rep MSM ****-spewers are attacking her.
Go tulsi -the only candidate i would vote for (since they'll nobble her candidacy i guess i
wont be voting).
Liked Trump when he was anti-swamp. But they nobbled him and now he's just a ***-pawn. So
sad he sold his balls.
Tulsi's predicament if of her own doing. She's to the right for today's Dems, but still
too far to the left for the GOP. Her positions on the 2nd Amendment and accusing Trump of
being an Al Qaeda sympathizer have pretty much killed her chances with moderates, too. She's
not really that sane, she just looks that way because the rest of the Dem candidates are
socialist whack jobs.
Newsflash: Trump does support Al Qaeda by virtue his blind support of the Saudi regime
which champions, funds, and spreads Sunni Wahhabism, the violent Jihadist core philosophy of
both Al Qaeda and Isis.
Compare Tulsi Gabbard to Kamala Harris. Harris is a frontrunner for the nomination only
because she is a she and is half black. That is all she has going for her. She owes her
political career to her willingness to **** an old geezer politician from California (Willie
Brown?) As a result, she became state AG. Which shows you just how corrupt politics is at the
state level. Now she's a real candidate for the demorat nomination even though she is a a
total POS, especially compared to someone like Gabbard, who has served her country, talks
straight, and doesn't take **** from the pompous a-holes in the dem establishment. I hope she
stays in the race.
In the race to determine who will serve as Commander in Chief of the most powerful military
force in the history of civilization, night two of the CNN Democratic presidential debates
saw less than six minutes dedicated to discussing US military policy during the 180-minute
event.
That's six, as in the number before seven. Not sixty. Not sixteen. Six. From the moment
Jake Tapper said "I want to turn to foreign policy" to the moment Don Lemon interrupted
Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard just as she was preparing to correctly explain how President
Trump is supporting Al-Qaeda in Idlib, approximately five minutes and fifty seconds had
elapsed.
...
Harris' press secretary Ian Sams unleashed a string of tweets about Gabbard being an "Assad
apologist", which was followed by a deluge of establishment narrative managers who sent the
word "Assad" trending on Twitter, at times when Gabbard's name somehow failed to trend
despite being the top-searched candidate on Google after the debate. As of this writing,
"Assad" is showing on the #5 trending list on the side bar of Twitter's new layout, while
Gabbard's name is nowhere to be seen. This discrepancy has drawn criticism from numerous
Gabbard defenders on the platform.
"Somehow I have a hard time believing that 'Assad' is the top trending item in the United
States but 'Tulsi' is nowhere to be found," tweeted journalist Michael Tracey.
Democracy was the next step, but it only works in small polities.
And for very short periods of time.
Anyway, yours is a key concept that most 'Merkins are completely ignorant of, yet some of
the anti-federalists were aware of it. Here, Brutus questions whether "democracy" is sensible
in a nation of three million !
Now, in a large extended country, it is impossible to have a representation, possessing
the sentiments, and of integrity, to declare the minds of the people, without having it so
numerous and unwieldly, as to be subject in great measure to the inconveniency of a
democratic government.
The territory of the United States is of vast extent; it now contains near three
millions of souls, and is capable of containing much more than ten times that number. Is it
practicable for a country, so large and so numerous as they will soon become, to elect a
representation, that will speak their sentiments, without their becoming so numerous as to
be incapable of transacting public business?
It certainly is not.
Brutus, (Robert Yates), To the Citizens of the State of New-York, October 18, 1787
"In 2008, Obama was touted as a political outsider who will hose away all of the rot and bloody criminality of the Bush years.
He turned out to be a deft move by our ruling class. Though fools still refuse to see it, Obama is a perfect servant of our military
banking complex. Now, Trump is being trumpeted as another political outsider.
A Trump presidency will temporarily appease restless, lower class whites, while serving as a magnet for liberal anger. This
will buy our ruling class time as they continue to wage war abroad while impoverishing Americans back home. Like Obama, Trump
won't fulfill any of his election promises, and this, too, will be blamed on bipartisan politics."
Linh Dinh, "Orlando Shooting Means Trump for President," @ The Unz Review (June 12, 2016).
Note how the 'free press' of the US has been not only complicit in all this every step of the way but is coordinated with it,
staying silent about things in front of its nose and launching propaganda campaigns on cue. Obviously the media is in close cooperation
with elements of the political establishment. Oh, but we have the freest media in the world. I know so because I read it in the
newspaper.
"... This isn't a glitch. It's a pattern. Although Trump is fond of surrounding himself with union members and asserting that they love him, he doesn't really like unions, especially ones that challenge him or dare to question his lies. Remember how he personally attacked Steelworker Chuck Jones who exposed Trump and Pence for claiming to save 1,100 jobs at Carrier when they really preserved only about half that many -- and then only after a grant of $7 million from the taxpayers of Indiana? ..."
"... A president who supported organized labor would oppose freeriders who won't pay their fair share but still want all the benefits of union membership. A president who supported unions would not issue executive orders crippling unions representing federal workers. A president who supported unions would not delay or eliminate health and safety regulations designed to protect workers from sickness and death. ..."
"... That's not Donald Trump. He supported Mark Janus, an Illinois government employee who wanted everything for nothing. Janus was fine with collecting the higher wages that the labor union representing him secured for workers, but Janus didn't want to contribute one red cent for that representation. ..."
"... So with right-wing corporate billionaires picking up the tab for him, Janus took his case to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ordered unions to provide workers like Janus with essentially a free lunch. That is, the court said unions must represent freeloaders like him, but those workers don't have to pay anything for all they get -- no dues, no fees, nothing. ..."
"... And then there are his labor secretary choices. First he wanted Andy Puzder, CEO of the restaurant corporation that owns Hardee's and Carl's Jr., an opponent of raising the minimum wage who said he preferred machines to humans. Puzder withdrew, and Alexander Acosta took over until he was forced to resign last month as a result of the unconscionable plea deal he gave an accused molester a decade ago when Acosta was a federal prosecutor. ..."
"... Now the interim secretary is Patrick Pizzella, who lobbied for years to prevent Congress from extending minimum wage requirements to the Northern Mariana Islands , a commonwealth of the United States, where workers were paid as little as $1 an hour but the corporate bosses got to mark the merchandise produced there as Made in America. I guess that's how you Make America Great Again, huh? ..."
"... Now, Trump has picked Scalia, son of the late, anti-worker Supreme Court justice. This is the guy who killed a proposed ergonomics rule to protect workers against injuries from repetitive motions, denigrating the research as "junk science" and "quackery." ..."
"... This is the guy who stopped the fiduciary rule that would have required brokers to act in clients' best interest rather than brokers' personal financial benefit by forbidding brokers from recommending investments that paid brokers big commissions but provided clients with low returns. This corrupt practice costs workers and retirees about $17 billion a year . ..."
"... Scalia is a corporate shill. And he'd be reporting to Trump, whose slavish support of corporate bosses over working Americans has revealed he's nothing more than a poser in a red MAGA baseball cap. ..."
"... The decline of the unions has been 50 years in the making under Democrats and Republicans. Blaming Trump is a convenient scapegoat and pinata for the left, but just the icing on the cake for decades of bad DC policies. Trump didn't create the Rust Belt or sign NAFTA. ..."
"... The strange thing is that with the Trump administration attacking all of the American friends/allies, no one is willing to step in and help America with curtailing Chinese trade abuses. ..."
"... I think the point they're making is by no means that this started with Trump, or that the Democrats have been all that great. Merely that he's been significantly worse (and many of the examples are egregiously anti-labor actions that would not have been done under a Clinton ((or a Bush or Romney for that matter)) and that the preposterousness of his thin pretence at being a friend of labor is an order of magnitude greater even than Biden's. ..."
By Tom Conway, the international president of the United Steelworkers Union (USW) . Produced by the Independent Media
Institute
Donald Trump: billionaire of the people. When he ran for office,
he said , "The American worker will finally have a president who will protect them and
fight for them."
And how's that working out for the American worker? Not very well, actually, not very well.
When it comes down to picking sides -- standing up for workers' rights or lining the pockets of
CEOs and shareholders -- Trump aligned himself and his policies with the fat cats. This cost
workers money and safety. The truth is that American corporations got a president who protected
them and fought for them.
The proof is in Trump'slegislation, regulation and secretary selections. The most recent
example is Trump's Twitter
appointment of Eugene Scalia as Secretary of Labor. This is the department specifically designated to "foster,
promote, and develop the welfare of wage earners, job seekers, and retirees." Scalia, though,
has made his fortune over decades by fighting to ensure that the big guys -- corporations --
don't, in fact, have to abide by regulations intended to foster, promote, and develop the
welfare of the little guys -- wage earners, job seekers, and retirees.
That is who Trump chose to protect wage earners -- a corporatist so egregious that when
former President George W. Bush wanted Scalia as Labor Department solicitor, Bush had to give
him a recess appointment because
Republicans in the Senate balked at approving him.
This isn't a glitch. It's a pattern. Although Trump is fond of surrounding himself with
union members and asserting that they love him, he doesn't really like unions, especially ones
that challenge him or dare to question his lies. Remember how he
personally attacked Steelworker Chuck Jones who exposed Trump and Pence
for claiming to save 1,100 jobs at Carrier when they really preserved only about half that
many -- and then only after a grant of $7 million from the taxpayers of Indiana?
A president who supported organized labor would oppose freeriders who won't pay their
fair share but still want all the benefits of union membership. A president who supported
unions would not issue executive orders crippling unions representing federal workers. A
president who supported unions would not delay or eliminate health and safety regulations
designed to protect workers from sickness and death.
That's not Donald Trump. He supported Mark Janus, an Illinois government employee who
wanted everything for nothing. Janus was fine with collecting the higher wages that the labor
union representing him secured for workers, but Janus didn't want to contribute one red cent
for that representation.
So with right-wing corporate billionaires picking up the tab for him, Janus took his
case to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ordered unions to provide workers like Janus with
essentially a free lunch. That is, the court said unions must represent freeloaders like him,
but those workers don't have to pay anything for all they get -- no dues, no fees,
nothing.
Of course, there is no such thing as a free lunch. The whole point of Janus' and the
billionaires' court crusade was to bankrupt and try to kill unions. And Trump was on their
side.
If Trump really were the billionaire of the people, he'd have stood with the union. That's
who Trump promised that he would protect, the organization of average people trying to earn an
honest living and standing up to big government and big corporations.
But he didn't.
That was in June of last year.
Just last week , Trump went to court seeking enforcement of his executive orders
restricting unions representing federal workers and enabling him to quickly fire workers. The
unions contend Trump does not have this authority. This is not settled in court yet, but Trump
is asking a judge to let him impose the orders before it is.
That sounds like a president using all of the power of big government to step on the tens of
thousands of little guys who do the grueling work, day after day, to ensure the federal
government serves the American people reasonably well.
There's even more. So much more.
Trump slow-walked implementation of silica
and beryllium
exposure safeguards intended to save workers' lives and
delayed a rule requiring mine operators to identify potential hazards before workers begin
their shifts. He helped
thwart an attempt to extend overtime pay to 4 million
workers. Trump
blocked a rule that would have made it harder for corporations that violate labor laws to
get federal contracts. Trump lifted not one finger to help those crushed by a starvation $7.25
minimum wage not raised
in a decade .
And then there are his labor secretary choices. First he wanted Andy Puzder, CEO of the
restaurant corporation that owns Hardee's and Carl's Jr., an opponent of raising the minimum
wage who said
he preferred machines to humans. Puzder withdrew, and Alexander Acosta took over until he
was forced to resign last month as a result of the unconscionable plea deal he gave an
accused molester a decade ago when Acosta was a federal prosecutor.
Now, Trump has picked Scalia, son of the late, anti-worker Supreme Court justice. This
is the guy who killed a proposed ergonomics rule to protect workers against injuries from
repetitive motions, denigrating the research as "junk
science" and "quackery."
This is the guy who argued that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), an
agency of the Labor Department, had no authority to regulate worker safety at SeaWorld after a
12,300-poundorca that had
killed twice before attacked and drowned a trainer
in front of hundreds of horrified children.
This is the guy
who stopped the fiduciary rule that would have required brokers to act in clients' best
interest rather than brokers' personal financial benefit by forbidding brokers from
recommending investments that paid brokers big commissions but provided clients with low
returns. This corrupt practice costs workers and retirees about $17
billion a year .
This guy is among the lawyers representing a petroleum producers' trade association that is
suing to overturn a California regulation calling for worker participation to improve refinery
safety. The state passed the legislation after a refinery fire in Richmond, California, sent
15,000 nearby residents to hospitals and doctor's offices for treatment, mostly for breathing
problems. The lawsuit was filed in July, just days before an explosion and fire at an Exxon
Mobil refinery in Texas that injured 37 people.
Scalia is a corporate shill. And he'd be reporting to Trump, whose slavish support of
corporate bosses over working Americans has revealed he's nothing more than a poser in a red
MAGA baseball cap.
So this is whats exasperating, if the Democrats actually hammered on these issues the
would have so much support, instead its Russia Russia Russia all the time. "Inauthentic
opposition" its like they don't want to win.
Come on, nobody likes dealing with unions, not even Bernie. I suspect he's been hoist by his
own petard because he's now on the horns of the pay dilemma of private enterprise due to his
campaign workers unionizing and making pay demands.
Dealing with a labor union presents me with a conundrum. While I agree with the philosophy
of a labor union, and for them having a voice because they 'should', I break with them in favor
of management's view of union labor. Why? It's because the union members aren't good team
players.
Sadly – and proving my pay grade doesn't extend high enough to have all the answers
– I also break with one of management practices. This because I feel management are also
poor team players because they pay themselves so darned much it seems unfair.
Basically I feel like one for all and all for one works for Musketeers and teams, the spirit
falls apart with private capital. And that Marx business of, "from each according to their
ability, to each according to their need" is a proven loser.
I theorize each time it's because labor and management aren't really working for one team.
How is Southwest's vaunted employee owned doing? Everybody happy? I doubt it. I almost wish
there were privately held companies where there's an owner and employees, and employee-owned
only. And publicly held must be accountable to government oversight to prevent abuses.
Why? I suspect if 'all' shares of Southwest were owned by the employees 'only' then the
collectively 'they' would be rich in fact because only they owned the means of production
(moving people and cargo via air for lucre).
Anyway, the key part everybody forgets about Marx is he prefaced the above in part with . .
."after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want."
This is an important point being overlooked because it presupposes people 'want' to go to
work. Don't know about you but I don't really know many who want to work. Most would rather sip
margaritas on the beach instead of going into work. Thus, as long as this is the case, the
Marxist dream is just that, a pipe dream because most folks are 'lazy' – or put another
way – don't want to exist only to work. Don't really blame them.
Anyway, if we recognize the truth of this (that many don't especially want to work), then it
follows we also receive less productive work from some vs. others, then paying everybody the
same is inherently unfair. And by extension, setting a minimum pay means everybody at that
level is worth the same, and we know this isn't true!
So if you here are are forced to accept the validity of some of this, e.g. some who will
show up and be a warm body – but – won't be a team player and give their heart to
doing the best job, and others won't show up for a paycheck at all if not forced by want, then
everybody isn't worth the same wage! In fact, is it unreasonable to presuppose some simply
aren't worth a minimum amount of pay? Further to the point, forcing a minimum pay becomes in
some terms, almost immoral and the antithesis of freedom because we don't receive some fair bit
of labor in exchange from some.
Could this be why so many, especially amongst the working poor, are simply against
Socialism/Communism/Marxism even if they can't put the 'why they're against it' into words?
Yes, I know they're not the same but they'll be tarred with the same brush by Capitalist forces
so the answers needs must.
Anyway, circling back, I am delighted with Bernie's newfound union involvement from
management's perspective. Why? It's because I very much look forward to see how his views
evolve.
I think the American neoliberal matrix has shifted social perspectives during its decadal
tenure E.g. there is only the Market where one can become a Kardashian, Entertainment, IT,
YouTube Vloger, et al and Brand Name Commodity for sale . individual needs and wants expressed
in a manner Marx never envisioned.
The financial elites are already on Mars for all intents and purposes .
Oh please, all this team player talk and some people don't deserve a minimum wage do you
have any idea how massively the US employee is exploited and trashed by the "team players" in
management?
Everyone, even those who don't want to work, deserve to live. You have apparently imbibed
the capitalist mantra that work defines moral value so fully that anyone who can't or won't
work should starve.
The fact is our society produces so much surplus value it could (and does) afford to support
a substantial number who don't work for various reasons (mainly disability due to working
physically demanding jobs for decades that ruin their bodies). Work doesn't equal morality. Try
to dig yourself out of the neoliberal mindset, its inhumane and morally hollow.
+1000 even those who don't want to work, deserve to live.
Besides the fact that I suspect there are actually VERY FEW who don't want to do any work.
The beef isn't actually with this tiny minority but that they don't work to some capitalists
definition of optimum (explotation). When a medieval peasant spent less time working than we
do. So maybe they are working like medieval peasants which should actually be MORE THAN
possible, if technology has done anything, but oddly since all the wealth funneled to the top,
it's not.
Anyway, if we recognize the truth of this (that many don't especially want to work),
then it follows we also receive less productive work from some vs. others, then paying
everybody the same is inherently unfair. And by extension, setting a minimum pay means
everybody at that level is worth the same, and we know this isn't true!
No doubt some workers do more and/or better work than others but, for almost all jobs, it is
a myth that there is an economically fair way to pay workers based on their productivity.
Because outside of a few truly solo occupations, all output is collective output – there
is no way to distinguish each individual worker's contribution to that output. So pay is always
a socio-economic outcome, based as much on social convention and bargaining power as any
putative economic contribution. At one time, this was well and truly understood. But economists
have massively obfuscated this common-sense point.
The fairest pay for production workers (regardless of what industry they work in or what
goods or services they produce) is the pay that those workers, via their union, determine to be
most fair. The reason why unions always push for equal pay for the same job is because they
view favoritism as a more serious offense against fairness than someone not as talented getting
the same pay as someone more talented.
Well, defacto, President Trump doesn't actually have a problem with such a recession because
he's on Mars with the rest of the elites. It's 'we the people' who have the problem because
we're the ones who actually suffer in a recession.
" Not very well, actually, not very well. When it comes down to picking sides --
standing up for workers' rights or lining the pockets of CEOs and shareholders -- Trump
aligned himself and his policies with the fat cats . "
Oh, if only Democrats were in complete control of the White House, Senate and House at some
point within the past 10 years!
The decline of the unions has been 50 years in the making under Democrats and
Republicans. Blaming Trump is a convenient scapegoat and pinata for the left, but just the
icing on the cake for decades of bad DC policies. Trump didn't create the Rust Belt or sign
NAFTA.
NAFTA is a big nothing. It helped boost capital flows which capital needs for production. US
growth is running above shrinking supply, which rejects your point.
The post-war era is the only time in is history, workers made such gains. Pretty clear
why.
The USA has had trade surpluses with Canada under NAFTA:
The United States has a $12.5 billion trade surplus with Canada in 2016. Canada has
historically held a trade deficit with the United States in every year since 1985 in net
trade of goods, excluding services. The trade relationship between the two countries crosses
all industries and is vitally important to both nations' success as each country is one of
the largest trade partners of the other.
And yet Trump blackmailed Canada into the USMCA which is far worse than NAFTA for both
countries, and provides more benefits to large multi-national corporations.
Lets hope that the American congress kills USMCA, and leaves NAFTA in place.
The strange thing is that with the Trump administration attacking all of the American
friends/allies, no one is willing to step in and help America with curtailing Chinese trade
abuses.
I think the point they're making is by no means that this started with Trump, or that
the Democrats have been all that great. Merely that he's been significantly worse (and many of
the examples are egregiously anti-labor actions that would not have been done under a Clinton
((or a Bush or Romney for that matter)) and that the preposterousness of his thin pretence at
being a friend of labor is an order of magnitude greater even than Biden's.
Williamson (D)(1): "Marianne Williamson isn't funny. She's scary." [
Vox ]. "In her book A Return to Love, Williamson wrote that "sickness is an illusion and
does not exist," and that "cancer and AIDS and other physical illnesses are physical
manifestations of a psychic scream.'"
apenultimate on Thu, 08/01/2019 - 7:31pm Well, Tulsi for the past couple months had
been averaging around 500 new unique donors per day. Early in the day before her 2nd debate
performance, her campaign announced she had reached 110,000 unique donors. In 1.5 days, she
gained more than 10,000 more.
During the first debate, in the week after the debate Tulsi gained 8,500 donors above her
usual donor gains. Tulsi managed to do 9,500 more than average in less than 2 days this time
around. This time around seems much better.
She needed a debate boost from the second debate of 8,000 donors above her typical daily
donor gain to be ensured to reach the 130,000 unique donor minimum. She has already surpassed
that gain.
But, the polling requirements still need to be met . . .
Tulsi is going on an annual 2-week National Guard training pretty much now. She will not be
able to personally campaign during this time. That's one reason this debate was so crucial.
Let's see if it can elevate her in the coming polls.
A national Economist/YouGov poll had her at 2% through July 30. That one is not qualifying,
but it's a good trend.
I have *heard* (but not confirmed) that only one qualifying poll from each of the first 4
states are allowed for qualifying (but all qualifying national polls count). Tulsi has 1
qualifying poll from New Hampshire. If what I heard above is true, this means no other polls
from New Hampshire count towards the debate requirements. They must be qualifying polls from
Iowa, Nevada, South Carolina, or national polls from here on out.
on Snoopydawg's thread about Tulsi confronting Kamala, but I'd like to repost it here. I
think the American people are responding not just to what Tulsi is saying, but how she is
presenting herself.
Tulsi is a warrior. That's one of the main things she's accomplishing here: letting the
voters see that about her.
She's directly confronting and exposing the old guard and their heirs presumptive. She's
taking on the "powers that be", right to their faces, with strength and confidence.
And she's demonstrating to the American people that she is fully willing and capable of
doing so.
"... Gabbard has been perhaps the most interesting Democrat running for president and Wednesday night could be her last stand. She gets to share the stage with frontrunner Joe Biden, like Hillary Clinton a vote for the Iraq war. There is no guarantee she will get another opportunity: the eligibility criteria for subsequent debates is more stringent and she has yet to qualify. ..."
"... represent our military veterans' sharp turn against forever war, arguably the most important public opinion trend of our time. ..."
"... Tulsi is more experienced and articulate on foreign AND domestic policy than any other Democrat up there (Bernie being an independent). She's also more genuine. ..."
"... being 'woke', as the author failed to point out, is code for having the backing of the still extant Clinton/Obama cartel and hence the idiot US media. ..."
Screenshot
It was already one of the most memorable moments of the Democratic presidential debates
in this young election cycle. "Leaders as disparate as President Obama and President Trump have both said they want to
end U.S. involvement in Afghanistan but it isn't over for America," observed moderator Rachel Maddow. "Why isn't it
over? Why can't presidents of very different parties and very different temperaments get us out of there? And how could
you?"
Representative Tim Ryan of Ohio responded with talking points that could
have been ripped out of a George W. Bush speech circa 2004. "[T]he lesson that I've learned over the years is that you
have to stay engaged in these situations," he said, later adding, "Whether we're talking about Central America, whether
we're talking about Iran, whether we're talking about Afghanistan, we have got to be completely engaged."
Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii was having none of it. "Is that what you will
tell the parents of those two soldiers who were just killed in Afghanistan? Well, we just have to be engaged?" she asked
a sputtering Ryan. "As a soldier, I will tell you that answer is unacceptable. We have to bring our troops home from
Afghanistan." Gabbard noted that she had joined the military to fight those who attacked us on 9/11, not to nation-build
indefinitely in Afghanistan, and pointed out the perfidy of Saudi Arabia.
Some likened Gabbard's rebuke of Ryan to the famous 2007 exchange
between Ron Paul and Rudy Giuliani
. Except Paul, then a relatively unknown
congressman from Texas, was speaking truth to power against "America's Mayor" and the national GOP frontrunner. Gabbard
is polling at 0.8 percent in the national RealClearPolitics average, and was challenging someone at 0.3 percent.
Ryan's asterisk candidacy is unsurprising. But Gabbard has been perhaps the most
interesting Democrat running for president and Wednesday night could be her last stand. She gets to share the stage with
frontrunner Joe Biden, like Hillary Clinton a vote for the Iraq war. There is no guarantee she will get another
opportunity: the eligibility criteria for subsequent debates is more stringent and she has yet to qualify.
The huge Democratic field has been a bust. Of the more than 20 declared presidential
candidates, only seven are polling at 2 percent or more in the national averages. Two more -- Senators Cory Booker and Amy
Klobuchar -- are polling at least that well in Iowa. Only four candidates are consistently polling in the double digits:
Biden, who recovered from his early debate stumbles and remains comfortably in the lead; Senator Bernie Sanders of
Vermont, who has nevertheless mostly failed to recapture his 2016 magic; Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, who
seems ascendant; and Senator Kamala Harris of California, potentially the main threat to Biden's rock-solid black
support.
Low-polling candidates have still managed to have an impact. Some, like former
secretary of housing and urban development Julian Castro, have helped coax contenders likelier to win the nomination to
the left on immigration. We've thus seen Democrats raise their hands in support of decriminalizing illegal border
crossings in the midst of a migrant crisis not entirely of the Trump administration's making, expanding Medicare to
cover everyone even at the expense of private health insurance, and ensuring that "everyone" includes illegal
immigrants. Transgender abortions, also at taxpayer expense, have come up too.
Gabbard has so far been unable to penetrate this madness despite being young (she's
38), attractive, telegenic, a military veteran, a woman of color, and an articulate, passionate opponent of the regime
change wars that have brought our country so much pain. While reliably progressive, she has occasionally reached across
the political divide on issues like religious liberty and Big Tech censorship, a potent combination that could prove
more responsive to Trump voters' concerns than what we've heard from her neocon lite interlocutor from Youngstown.
"None of this seems to matter in a Democratic Party that cares more about wokeness
than war. In fact, Gabbard's conservative fans --
The View
brought up Ann Coulter -- are often held against her, as
is her failure to go all in on Trump-Russia. Ninety-five Democrats stand ready to impeach Trump over mean tweets with
nary a peep over the near-bombing of Iran or the active thwarting of Congress's will on Yemen.
That's not to say that no one else running is sound on foreign policy -- Bernie has
realist advisers and it took real courage for Warren to back Trump's abortive withdrawals from Afghanistan and Syria -- and
it required a Democratic House to advance the bipartisan Yemen resolution. But none of them are basing their campaigns
on it in the same way Gabbard has. Nor do any of them better represent our military veterans'
sharp turn
against forever war, arguably the
most important public opinion trend of our time.
Liberals remain skeptical of Gabbard's turn away from social conservatism (which
admittedly went far beyond sincerely opposing gay marriage while Barack Obama was merely pretending to do so), which she
attributes to "aloha." In meeting with Bashar al-Assad, she hurt her credibility as a foe of the Syria intervention,
failing to realize that doves are held to a higher standard on these matters
than hawks
.
A saner Democratic Party might realize the chances are far greater that their nominee
will be a covert hawk rather than a secret right-winger. Only time will tell if vestiges of that party still exist.
Tulsi is more experienced and articulate on foreign AND domestic policy than any
other Democrat up there (Bernie being an independent). She's also more genuine.
But
being 'woke', as the author failed to point out, is code for having the backing of
the still extant Clinton/Obama cartel and hence the idiot US media. And that she
does not have
Unfortunately foreign policy and the forever war are not an issue that resonates with
voters on either side. Here is an
excerpt from NPR
.
"That is one finding from the latest NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll, which shows that
Americans have limited confidence in its public schools, courts, organized labor and
banks -- and even less confidence in big business, the presidency, the political parties
and the media.
.....
The only institution that Americans have overwhelming faith in is the military -- 87
percent say they have a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in the military. That
is a striking change from the 1970s during and after the Vietnam War."
A military that has been a consistent loser for decades. How depressing
Given that this magazine was partially founded as a reaction to the Iraq War, why
does an article about Tulsi Gabbard, one of the only presidential candidates who
takes a mostly non-interventionist foreign policy stance, surprise you? She is a
progressive, yes, and a Democrat, but her stance on war is very conservative.
You
don't have to be a Republican to be conservative or to hold some conservative views.
Warren is a corporate kiss a** and a perfect example of precisely why the
person you're talking to might as well be listening to a Chipmunks song for
all the ridiculous partisan deflection going on. Literally nothing of value in
any of that and the implication that Dumbocraps are any different than
Republicans in talking a lot and saying and doing nothing is frankly one of
the insults to the intelligence that convinced me very early to reject both
"sides" of this Candyland based majik partisan aisle
I was ready to replace Mike Pompeo with Tulsi Gabbard the day after the first debate. It
would be very unfortunate if she got bumped out. I live in California (an open primary
state), which means I would have voted for her in the primary
It doesn't "hurt" Tulsi's "credibility" that she met with Assad. It's been clear from the
beginning of the Syrian civil war that he was the sole viable protector of Christian and
other religious minorities in the region after the fall of Saddam. The U.S. should never
have armed and trained the country's rebels. But it's again apparent that Democrats have
no interest in saving Christians from Islamic killers.
Foreign policy does not elect American presidents.
I like her, and support her, and
think she's made valuable points. I hope it is heard. However, there was never any chance
that her course would lead to the White House.
Maybe she can get a senior post and shape policy on our endless wars. Or maybe she'll
have a louder voice in Congress. However, the best she could do with this is influence.
They all support Israel w/o condition. Unfortunately. None of them are any better
than her on this issue, and they are much worse than her on most FP and military
issues.
I am fully supporting Gabbard's campaign, but few people are concerned about our senseless
wars. The issue does not make the top ten voter concerns in recent polls.
For whatever reason the President Primary debates tend to avoid most foreign policy
issues. Democrats love getting the gory details of healthcare that sort prove Reagan's
joke "They know too much" but there are few question on Foreign Policy. I think it
reasonable to ask "What would your administration do with Venezuela?" (And Yes I like
really basic Open End questions at debates.)
And yes there are good parts of Tulsi but
she does need to campaign things outside of No Wars as that usually does not win
Primaries.
Forever wars are driven by Wash. through campaign funds coming from the war industry,
foreign states and those in the USA who support other countries over their own. How could
an anti-war candidate get those funds necessary for campaigning? And, as I said before,
Obama and Trump both campaigned to end the wars but didn't. What makes anyone think the
next president, when in office, will do anything different? Plus, one has to take into
consideration the DNC's choice, and all the intrigues surrounding that process. Tulsi
hasn't paid all those dues necessary for a shot at the presidency.
Some people were as stupid as to think that Trump would lose by a landslide in 2016.
Some people were as stupid as to think that Candidate
Five-Year-Old-Girl-in-a-Grown-Up-Woman's-Body, who managed to hijack (or, rather,
joyride) Obama's foreign policy and to start two (or, rather, three, given that
Yemen is also her legacy) foreign wars yet, knowing about the "nice" legacy of
Afghanistan and Iraq, would be any appealing. So
I wonder
how anyone with
both hemispheres functional can believe that discarding Gabbard and Sanders, while
picking any of the political reincarnations of the ingnorant, arrogant and, first of
all, almost childishly self-righteous moron who managed to wreck the country's
entire foreign policy without even being the president can win against the man who
cleaned up that child's (despite her physically being his age-mate) mess in Syria
and, judging by what the Italian press says, is letting others to clean an even
greater mess of hers in Libya.
Looks that on foreign policy Tulsi is the only sane option.
That's exactly why the bipartisan establishment, the corrupt corporate media and the MIC
hate her vehemently.
I am a registered Republican so I can't vote for Tulsi in the MD primaries, but I will
consider donating to her campaign to help her get into the third debate.
I can forgive a
Democrat for supporting universal healthcare so long as they
don't buy into the identity politics garbage.
Although I'm fairly conservative, I will take a Democrat with character over who we
have in the White House today.
Eric, you can change your registration for long enough to vote for someone you
obviously think is worth voting for.
I was a registered Democrat for all of my
voting life, although I often voted for Republicans. As a result of Bush Jr.'s war
against Iraq, I swore never to vote for a Republican again.
But when Ron Paul was on the ballot in the Republican primary, I re-registered,
as a Republican, just so I could vote for him. (In California, the party determines
whether its primary is open or closed.) After 6 weeks, following the primary, I
re-registered again, this time as a no-party-preference voter.
It's not that I liked everything Ron Paul believed in (but I did like the fact
that he was genuine and truthful). But I agreed with him on the really important
issues involving foreign policy.
So you have options, Eric. It won't soil you to change party registration
temporarily if it allows you to vote for someone you might vote for in the general
election. In fact, you might feel good about it. I know I did. Voting for Ron Paul
was the first time in a long time that I felt good about my vote. And this time,
I'll vote for Tulsi Gabbard in the primary even if I have to write her name in.
Tulsi is not running for President. She's running for running mate for either Bernie or
Warren. Both need her foreign policy chops and military cred.
She will bring voters to the ticket, unlike most V.P. picks.
Given Bernie age, should he
pick her, she could end up President after all.
Works for me.
The Democratic Party uber alles types over at Daily Kos are supporting Gabbard's primary
challenger for her Congressional seat, attacking her for her previous stands on abortion
and same sex marriage, and really laying into her for playing footsies with a dictator
like Assad. And while Bernie has some support over there, especially among the readers who
take their polls, there are others who still won't forgive him for not actually joining
the Dems officially (and who buy all of the "he cost Clinton the election" stupidity).
The most tragic thing is not that they simply buy that stupidity. It is that they
still
buy it. After almost three years. Bernie didn't cost Clinton the election.
Clinton
cost Democrats the election. Much like any of her political
reincarnations they are about to pick will.
"... Attacking the authoritarian prosecutorial record of Senator Kamala Harris to thunderous applause from the audience, Gabbard criticized the way her opponent "put over 1,500 people in jail for marijuana violations and then laughed about it when she was asked if she ever smoked marijuana," "blocked evidence that would have freed an innocent man from death row until the court's forced her to do so," "kept people in prisons beyond their sentences to use them as cheap labor for the state of California," and "fought to keep the cash bail system in place that impacts poor people in the worst kind of way." ..."
"... That was all it took. Harris' press secretary Ian Sams unleashed a string of tweets about Gabbard being an "Assad apologist", which was followed by a deluge of establishment narrative managers who sent the word "Assad" trending on Twitter, at times when Gabbard's name somehow failed to trend despite being the top-searched candidate on Google after the debate. As of this writing, "Assad" is showing on the #5 trending list on the side bar of Twitter's new layout, while Gabbard's name is nowhere to be seen. This discrepancy has drawn criticism from numerous Gabbard defenders on the platform . ..."
"... It really is interesting how aggressively the narrative managers thrust this line into mainstream consciousness all at the same time. ..."
"... "Beware the Russian bots and their promotion of Tulsi Gabbard and sowing racial dischord [sic], especially around Kamala Harris," tweeted New York Times and CNN contributor Wajahat Ali. ..."
"... All the usual war cheerleaders from Lindsey Graham to Caroline Orr to Jennifer Rubin piled on, because this feeding frenzy had nothing to do with concern that Gabbard adores Bashar al-Assad and everything to do with wanting more war. Add that to the fact that Gabbard just publicly eviscerated a charming, ambitious and completely amoral centrist who would excel at putting a friendly humanitarian face on future wars if elected, and it's easy to understand why the narrative managers are flipping out so hard right now. ..."
"... War is the glue that holds the empire together . A politician can get away with opposing some aspects of the status quo when it comes to healthcare or education, but war as a strategy for maintaining global dominance is strictly off limits. This is how you tell the difference between someone who actually wants to change things and someone who's just going through the motions for show; the real rebels forcefully oppose the actual pillars of empire by calling for an end to military bloodshed, while the performers just stick to the safe subjects. ..."
"... The shrill, hysterical pushback that Gabbard received last night was very encouraging, because it means she's forcing them to fight back. In a media environment where the war propaganda machine normally coasts along almost entirely unhindered in mainstream attention, the fact that someone has positioned themselves to move the needle like this says good things for our future. If our society is to have any chance of ever throwing off the omnicidal, ecocidal power establishment which keeps us in a state of endless war and soul-crushing oppression, the first step is punching a hole in the narrative matrix which keeps us hypnotized into believing that this is all normal and acceptable. ..."
In the race to determine who will serve as Commander in Chief of the most powerful military
force in the history of civilization, night two of the CNN Democratic presidential debates saw
less than six minutes dedicated to discussing US military policy during the 180-minute
event.
That's six, as in the number before seven. Not sixty. Not sixteen. Six. From the moment Jake Tapper said "I want to
turn to foreign policy" to the
moment Don Lemon interrupted Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard just as she was preparing to
correctly explain how President Trump is supporting Al-Qaeda in
Idlib
, approximately five minutes and fifty seconds had elapsed. The questions then turned toward
the Mueller report and impeachment proceedings.
Night one of the CNN debates saw almost twice as much time, with
a whole eleven minutes by my count dedicated to questions of war and peace for the
leadership of the most warlike nation on the planet. This discrepancy could very well be due to
the fact that night two was the slot allotted to Gabbard, whose campaign largely revolves
around the platform of ending US warmongering. CNN is a virulent establishment propaganda firm
with an extensive history of promoting
lies and
brazen psyops in facilitation of US imperialism , so it would make sense that they would
try to avoid a subject which would inevitably lead to unauthorized truth-telling on the
matter.
But the near-absence of foreign policy discussion didn't stop the Hawaii congresswoman from
getting in some unauthorized truth-telling anyway.
Attacking the
authoritarian prosecutorial record of Senator Kamala Harris to thunderous applause from the
audience, Gabbard criticized the way her opponent "put over 1,500 people in jail for marijuana
violations and then laughed about it when she was asked if she ever smoked marijuana," "blocked
evidence that would have freed an innocent man from death row until the court's forced her to
do so," "kept people in prisons beyond their sentences to use them as cheap labor for the state
of California," and "fought to keep the cash bail system in place that impacts poor people in
the worst kind of way."
Harris, who it turns out fights
very well when advancing but folds under pressure, had no answer for Gabbard's attack,
preferring to focus on attacking Joe Biden instead . Later, when she was a nice safe distance
out of Gabbard's earshot, she uncorked a
long-debunked but still effective smear which establishment narrative managers have been
dying for an excuse to run wild with.
"This, coming from someone who has been an apologist for an individual, Assad, who has
murdered the people of his country like cockroaches," Harris told
Anderson Cooper after the debate.
"She who has embraced and been an apologist for him in a way that she refuses to call him
a war criminal. I can only take what she says and her opinion so seriously and so I'm
prepared to move on."
That was all it took. Harris' press secretary Ian Sams unleashed a string of tweets
about Gabbard being an "Assad apologist", which was followed by a deluge of establishment
narrative managers who sent the word "Assad" trending on Twitter, at times when Gabbard's name
somehow failed to trend despite being
the top-searched candidate on Google after the debate. As of this writing, "Assad" is showing on the #5 trending list
on the side bar of Twitter's new layout, while Gabbard's name is nowhere to be seen. This
discrepancy has drawn
criticism from numerous Gabbard defenders on
the platform .
"Somehow I have a hard time believing that 'Assad' is the top trending item in the United
States but 'Tulsi' is nowhere to be found," tweeted journalist Michael
Tracey.
It really is interesting how aggressively the narrative managers thrust this line into
mainstream consciousness all at the same time.
The Washington Post 's Josh Rogin went on a frantic, lie-filled Twitter
storm as soon as he saw an opportunity, claiming with no evidence
whatsoever that Gabbard lied when she said she met with Assad for purposes of diplomacy and
that she "helped Assad whitewash a mass atrocity", and falsely claiming that " she praised
Russian bombing of Syrian civilians ".
In reality all
Gabbard did was meet with Assad to discuss the possibility of peace, and, more importantly,
she said the US shouldn't be involved in regime change interventionism in Syria. This latter
bit of business is the real reason professional war propagandists like Rogin are targeting her;
not because they honestly believe that a longtime US service member and sitting House
Representative is an "Assad apologist", but because she commits the unforgivable heresy of
resisting the mechanics of America's forever war .
MSNBC's Joy Reid gleefully leapt into the smearing frenzy, falsely claiming that "Gabbard
will not criticize Assad, no matter what." Gabbard has publicly and unequivocally both decried
Assad as a "brutal dictator" and claimed he's guilty of war crimes, much
to the irritation of anti-imperialists like myself who hold a far more skeptical eye to the
war propaganda narratives about what's going on in Syria. At no time has Gabbard ever claimed
that Assad is a nice person or that he isn't a brutal leader; all she's done is say the US
shouldn't get involved in another regime change war there because US regime change
interventionism is consistently and predictably disastrous. That's not being an "Assad
apologist", that's having basic common sense.
"Beware the Russian bots and their promotion of Tulsi Gabbard and sowing racial
dischord [sic], especially around Kamala Harris," tweeted New York Times and
CNN contributor Wajahat Ali.
All the usual war cheerleaders from Lindsey Graham to
Caroline
Orr to Jennifer Rubin piled on,
because this feeding frenzy had nothing to do with concern that Gabbard adores Bashar al-Assad
and everything to do with wanting more war. Add that to the fact that Gabbard just publicly
eviscerated a charming, ambitious and completely amoral centrist who would excel at putting a
friendly humanitarian face on future wars if elected, and it's easy to understand why the
narrative managers are flipping out so hard right now.
War is the
glue that holds the empire together . A politician can get away with opposing some aspects
of the status quo when it comes to healthcare or education, but war as a strategy for
maintaining global dominance is strictly off limits. This is how you tell the difference
between someone who actually wants to change things and someone who's just going through the
motions for show; the real rebels forcefully oppose the actual pillars of empire by calling for
an end to military bloodshed, while the performers just stick to the safe subjects.
The shrill, hysterical pushback that Gabbard received last night was very encouraging,
because it means she's forcing them to fight back. In a media environment where the war
propaganda machine normally coasts along almost entirely unhindered in mainstream attention,
the fact that someone has positioned themselves to move the needle like this says good things
for our future. If our society is to have any chance of ever throwing off the omnicidal,
ecocidal power establishment which keeps us in a state of endless war and soul-crushing
oppression, the first step is punching a hole in
the narrative matrix which keeps us hypnotized into believing that this is all normal and
acceptable.
Whoever controls the narrative controls the world. Whoever disrupts that narrative control
is doing the real work.
* * *
The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish
is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website , which will get you an email notification for
everything I publish. My work is
entirely reader-supported , so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around,
liking me on Facebook
, following my antics on Twitter ,
throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal , purchasing some of my sweet merchandise , buying
my new book Rogue Nation:
Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone , or my previous book
Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers . For more info on who I am, where I stand, and
what I'm trying to do with this platform,
click here . Everyone, racist platforms excluded,
has my permission to republish or use any part of this work (or anything else I've written)
in any way they like free of charge.
"It really is interesting how aggressively the narrative managers thrust this line into
mainstream consciousness all at the same time." - C.J.
I think we see evidence of this sort of thing all the time. "Russian collusion" was thrust
upon MSM consumers in coordinated fashion for many months. Now that it has largely fizzled
out, "racism" has taken its place. "Racism". "Racism". "Racism". It seems as if MSM drones
plug into the Mothership to get their talking points. This sort of behavior was featured in
the 1939 film, "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington", when the Establishment decided Mr. Smith
needed to be crushed.
Harris's deflection of Gabbard's attacks are right in line with the Establishment's
treatment of people who don't tow the line. Harris is trying to dismiss Gabbard as if her
opinion has no weight. Harris is probably wishing hard that Gabbard won't make the next round
of debates.
if Tulsi is nominee, i'll vote for her and vote republican for house/senate etc. her
anti-war policy is what i was hoping Trump would do. in reality if the republicans hold a
chamber in congress then any anti-gun and healthcare bills won't get through. but on day one
Tulsi can start removing our troops from Ukraine, Syria, Afghan, Iraq, Saudi, Turkey, and
wherever the hell else they are
Tulsi Gabbard is no cankles. She is a veteran, she's female, and she has some good
policies. Buyer beware her site mentions nothing about gun control. Liberals always make me
nervous.
As president I'll end the failed war on drugs, legalize marijuana, end cash bail, and
ban private prisons and bring about real criminal justice reform. ( link )
Everyone talks a big game..but Trump's actually delivered on a few good policies. Example
he ended Trans-Pacific partnership. He is renegotiating bad deals with NAFTA and China. He's
able to take the heat form the deep state and criminals all around him. He's kept the stock
market up. I suspect the stock market is the tide lifting all boats. So far Trump's been
pretty good.
The only thing I have against Tulsi Gabbard is that she recently voted for the ridiculous
Democrat sponsored Defense budget that was even more than the Pentagon requested.
Tulsi Gabbard should be the Democratic Nominee. I support Trump, voted for him, but he is
too distracted, too much of an overactive schmoe. He made all of these promises and yes the
attacks have been relentless, but nothing is being accomplished. Trump has deep state clowns
all around him including Bolton and Pompeo. The deficit is going through the roof, the
artificial, superficial manipulated stock market is going to eventually hurt a lot of
people.
I don't agree with many of her policies but Tulsi Gabbard is a sane and a thoughtful
thinker. She will think before reacting. Her Ron Paul approach to our overreach in the world
is absolutely appropriate. Think about this, we spend $850 Billion Dollars on defense so we
can feed the war industry. That is more than all the countries of the world combined
literally!!! If we brought all the troops home, closed up most bases outside the US, and
protected our borders, our deficit would plummet, we could rebuild the infrastructure, we
could figure out the health care B.S. We would get along with the rest of the world instead
of being looked at as an enemy.
Everybody is coming out of the woodwork because she knows, like most, that Assad did not
pepper spray his own people. Cripes, when does this insanity end?
Drawing down the US military to the point you describe will put 1 million American men and
women between the ages of 18 and 40 out of work. Do you not realize in addition to feeding
the MIC the military is one giant jobs program? Those young men and women, the vast majority
of whom do not want to learn to code, would find themselves competing against foreigners and
teenagers for $15 minimum wage jobs.
Meanwhile, the rest of the world would openly laugh at us and secretly plot how to take
advantage of the power vacuum. Evil does not rest when unopposed, it becomes stronger.
When half the world's population (= all Chinese plus all Muslims) wants to destroy your
country, "insanity" is defined as beating your swords into ploughshares.
The enemies of Tulsi Gabbard are not the Zionazis who helped Trump win the elections or
MAGA hat wearing hillbillies who have no clue whats the difference between Hong Kong and King
Kong. It is the liberals who voted for Hillary and went berserk after their beloved mafia
bitch lost who hate Tulsi Gabbard. Because she makes them look like what they are, i.e. scum.
Sure, conservatives will never vote for a intelligent woman. But they are not the
problem.
"Liberals who voted for Hillary" is a false premise. The Democratic National Committee
forced Hillary Clinton on liberals, they fixed the primaries so she would win. Liberals and
progressives wanted Bernie Sanders who would have kicked Trump's ***.
"... On top of the cake Kamala Not-The-Wrestler responded as expected, with a neoMcCarthyite slander, which will only work with Tulsi's haters and make Harris look like a tool to everyone else. ..."
"... @doh1304 ..."
"... Harris' record was both fair game and easy pickings because no one had gone there yet. It gained Tulsi the maximum impact because those who don't follow politics had not heard about any of these issues. ..."
"... Joe is so far down in the actual REAL polls, (not the land line polls as has been exposed), that the oligarchy has given up on him. Tulsi senses Joe is low hanging fruit. The DNC is going to cheat Bernie with either Kamala or Liz. Tulsi just took out Kamala. ..."
Why go after Biden? He's already imploding; she would only look cruel, beating up on a senile
old man for her own aggrandizement. Harris, OTOH, is a clear enemy, perpetrator of obvious
crimes. Exposing her could only make her look like a paladin.
On top of the cake Kamala Not-The-Wrestler responded as expected, with a neoMcCarthyite
slander, which will only work with Tulsi's haters and make Harris look like a tool to everyone
else.
Harris is sort of right, it is a strategy only used by someone trying to come from behind,
but that's because people with Tulsi's integrity are not allowed to start at the "Top-tier". up
14 users have voted. --
@doh1304 Harris' record was both fair game and easy pickings because no one had gone there yet.
It gained Tulsi the maximum impact because those who don't follow politics had not heard
about any of these issues.
Joe is so far down in the actual REAL polls, (not the land line polls as has been
exposed), that the oligarchy has given up on him. Tulsi senses Joe is low hanging fruit. The
DNC is going to cheat Bernie with either Kamala or Liz. Tulsi just took out Kamala.
Don't be surprised if she goes after Pocahontas in the next debates.
The crisis actors are just there to say what the democrats can't do or to derail anyone
who thinks they are going to change the system. Delaney, Bullock, DeBlasio and everyone else
who doesn't stand a chance have all been negative on Warren and Bernie pushing their MFA. Did
Delaney set himself up for Warren to smack him down? The silly ass smile on his face made me
think that. Then he was all over Twitter the next day saying how good he did in the debate.
And after 24 hours he finally had a comeback to Warren's response.
The other reason for so many candidates of course is to split the votes during the first
part so that the super delegates can come in and play.
attitude certainly was smacked down in righteous fashion. Hollywood level
righteous.
Having those extras on stage feature so prominently in the debates certainly was
interesting.
Harris's spokesman explains Tulsi's takedown of Kamala: It was Russia!
gjohnsit on Thu, 08/01/2019 - 11:47am Snoopydawg has got the
takedown covered , so I won't duplicate it.
Instead I'd like to show you how TOP has gone into a full-throated
whine party over it.
On Wednesday night, that meant that Gabbard got to go after Kamala Harris on her actions as
attorney general, using loaded phrases and selected statements to paint Harris as someone who
was ready to throw pot-smokers behind bars for eternity and personally throw the execution
switch for death row inmates after hiding evidence of their innocence.
There's no doubt that Harris will face more kicks about her AG role during this campaign,
and she certainly expected to receive some blows. But Gabbard knew she could square off with
Harris in the certainty that no one, but no one, came into the Wednesday night debate
thinking, "I need to prepare some talking points against Tulsi Gabbard." And even if she had,
CNN gave Harris little time to muster her thoughts before calling in more witnesses to
bolster Gabbard's attacks.
It wasn't just the tools on GOS that Tulsi knocked off balance, it was Harris
herself . Even CNN noticed.
Worse than that -- for Harris -- is the fact that it became crystal clear in the aftermath of
the debate that Gabbard had gotten under her skin. In a post-debate interview, CNN's Anderson
Cooper asked Harris about the moment with Gabbard.
"This is going to sound immodest, but obviously I'm a top-tier candidate and so I did expect
that I'd be on the stage and take some hits tonight," Harris said. "When people are at 0 or
1% or whatever she might be at, so I did expect to take some hits tonight."
Woof.
First of all, if you are running for president and you hear the words, "This is going to
sound immodest" come out of your mouth, it may be best to recalibrate what you are going to
say.
Second, what Harris is actually saying is, basically, this: The dork took a shot at the most
popular kid in school. Big whoop.
That is not a good look. For any candidate. Ever. (And, yes, politics is a LOT like high
school.)
That's gonna leave a mark.
But never fear, because there is a reason for Harris getting taken down by Gabbard -
Russia .
The #KamalaHarrisDestroyed hashtag had disappeared from the list of trending U.S. terms by
9:30 a.m. Thursday.
Harris's spokesman, Ian Sams, responded to the hashtag, noting that at least some of the
accounts promoting it appeared to be bots.
"The Russian propaganda machine that tried to influence the 2016 election is now promoting
the presidential aspirations of a controversial Hawaii Democrat," he said.
Reporters writing their stories with eyes on the modern-day assignment desk of Twitter,
read this:
"The Russian propaganda machine that tried to influence the 2016 election is now promoting
the presidential aspirations of a controversial Hawaii Democrat" https://t.co/2kpKQqW3Ir
Damn! Putin was on the debate stage and no one noticed?
That has got to be the weakest response in recent history.
Here's the thing, the Harris campaign is already guilty of
crying wolf over Russia.
Harris has already been caught misrepresenting alleged Russian propaganda activity. She
claimed in a radio interview on July 12 that she had been subjected to Russian bot attacks on
social media sites like Twitter.
But CNN debunked the claim days later, reporting that Twitter saw no evidence that Russian
bots were targeting Harris.
Not all prayers are answered. The two party system intervened in the US political process to
elect its representation and leadership a long time ago. The two party system is not
constitutional, but it is not unconstitutional either. It just is. The two party system takes
all the air out of the political room. The two party system institutionalizes the capture of
the political process by special interests, dichotomized into two differently armed powers of
equal importance. The first is the moneyed interests of corporate wealth and power which
provide media access and control. The second is the social interests of large voting blocks
that are not in certain conflict with corporate money. To get elected politicians must then
pander for cheap votes and the money to buy them with. How could Russians possibly compete
with that?
Remember that the Bill of Rights was just an afterthought to the US Constitution that was
deemed necessary to obtain ratification without further insurrection by the people. The US
Constitution itself had not blatantly encompassed the creation of the two party system, but
such division of special interests was evident from the participants division of economic
interests. First and foremost, the US Constitution was about the preservation of property
rights despite the division between what was considered valuable property in the North and
what was considered valuable property in the South. A stable, yet plutocratic, republic was
necessary for the preservation of all property rights. The US was founded as an ownership
state, "for the Government of the People, by the People, and for the People," ( John Wycliffe
in 1384 subsequently quote by Abe Lincoln) just not for and by all the people.
Why do I have the larger view here? Well, the Constitution is fairly simple when the two
other branches do their job. The other two branches cannot do their job. Obama couldn't do
his job without losing four elections. The current Congress cannot do its job, for a variety
of reasons. We are in that period when legislation is not working, the money is tied up in
interest payments, and the new generation refuses to pay for all the rolled over losses from
past Congressional failures. We are sort of stuck with an inoperable Constitution.
A two party system is just one step from a one party system. Tight oligopoly instead of
monopoly.
The wealthy have to spread their largesse around a little bit more, but not as much as
they would if they had to buy 4-5 parties. Plus, in a two party system, there are always
stooges in waiting, eager to serve, in case the incumbent stooges go too far off the
rails.
Williamson (D)(1): "Marianne Williamson isn't funny. She's scary." [
Vox ]. "In her book A Return to Love, Williamson wrote that "sickness is an illusion and
does not exist," and that "cancer and AIDS and other physical illnesses are physical
manifestations of a psychic scream.'"
Who gives a monkeys? The real issue is that the selfish, disorientated and cowardly way the
Dems are conducting this race is handing Trump a winning platform for 2020.
After long hard thinking I have come to the sad conclusion that Trump is right and that he is
indeed a genius. He has achieved what he had set out to do. He has polarised the standard
bearer for democracy in the world. He has enriched himself and his family. He has broken
American society, possibly irreversibly. He has brought about change in the worlds economies.
He has also managed to set the debate and the stage to win in 2020. Now some may say he has
been an awful president, but looking at his strategy he has been highly successful. He may
not be what we want but he has certainly been better at feeling the pulse of America and
deciding which medicine to give. A truly evil genius indeed.
Sanders and Warren are the only two with some kind of personality. The others look like they
were created by lobbyists and corporate donors in a lab on a computer like Kelly Lebrock from
Weird Science.
The point about taxes going up is a red herring and a straw man argument. If you get
insurance through your employer, you pay anywhere from $300/month to $1200/month for yourself
and family. Through a Medicare for all plan, that payment would disappear. Yes, you'd pay
more in taxes to cover your health insurance, but it would likely be lower than private
insurance, a net gain, with better coverage, no deductible or co-pays. Even if it was the
same, it's still a wash. You're eliminating an expense for a tax. Plus, you're not paying for
some executive's perks and exorbitant salary.
Personally, I'd feel better paying $50,000-$75,000/year to a government administrator than
$10M-$20M/year + perks to a CEO.
Obama was simply being honest there. By any standard, Obama, both Clinton's, Gore (except for
climate change) and Biden are at best moderate Republicans. Each would qualify as being to
the right of Richard Nixon (leaving aside the issue of integrity).
In the case of Bill Clinton, Americans had not got woken to the fact that, while a little
less by Democrats, the middle class was nontheless being screwed by both parties. Obama's
rhetoric was enough cover to fool the public into thinking he would fight for real change.
Both Gore and especially Hillary showed what the public now thinks of "moderates". Bernie
Sanders and/or Elizabeth Warren are the only chances to beat Trump in 2020.
Reparations for slavery, the elimination of private insurance, free health care for anyone
who overstays a visa or walks over from Mexico, and a crystal lady.
We are in trouble. My nightmare of a Trump re-election is more and more likely.
Warren and Sanders clearly demonstrated that a party wanting to win should nominate one of
them.
They enthralled the audience, and showed they possess a vision for the future that every
other Democratic candidate claims to eventually want, when there's time, maybe, perhaps if
they get a majority someday.
Clearly Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren were the clear winners of the night! They shamed
the listless other candidates, none of whom exhibited a similar energy, excitement &
vision for the future of the country. Despite a definite veneer of displeasure by your
account, both the audience at the event, and those watching at home felt the excitement of
progressive proposals won the day.
When Sanders declared he's in favor of free healthcare and free education for illegal
immigrants there was -at best - muted criticism from the other candidates.
Most Americans are likely outraged by this suggestion and this will play in Trump's
favor.
It's obvious that John Delaney is simply a plant by Big Business (which has both the centrist
Democrats and all of Republicans in its pocket) to troll and derail the candidacy of
progressives Sanders and Warren. His sole function is to throw a monkey wrench in their path
and be a "nattering nabob of negativism" (to quote Agnew) regarding their policies. That's
all he does all day and all night, and the centrist-loving moderators and journalists love
giving him infinite time to do his damage
The answer is obvious: if you want your best shot at 86-ing the orange pestilence, then it
has to be Warren/Sanders or Sanders/Warren. You're not supposed to signal your vice-president
until after you've got the nomination, I know, but surely having Trump as president has
shredded all previous norms? Go now, right now, and say that it'll be you two. You can even
keep it open and say that you don't know who'll head the ticket but it will be Warren and
Sanders. That would crush all opposition and keep churning interesting as a guessing game.
Maybe Warren should head the ticket. I know that Sanders is very sharp and he plays
basketball but if he was president then he'd be asking for a second term and to get sworn in
when he's 83 and being in one's eighties might be too much of a psychological barrier. My
suggestion, though, would be it's Sanders/Warren but on the promise that Sanders will step
aside during his first term, after two years and one day (meaning that Warren could serve out
the rest of the term and still then run for two more terms under her own steam).
That would guarantee the first female president and so quieten down the phoney-baloney
identity politics drones; better, it would mean that the US would get an excellent leader in
Elizabeth Warren, no matter her bodily organs; it would pull together the Crooked H.
adherents and get them on side, if they truly care about getting female in there and if it
doesn't it will expose them as the phonies they are. And it would keep matters on policy,
when Trump is weak, rather than personalities, which is the territory on which Trump wants to
fight.
Delaney is not a moderate, he is a poorly paid actor for the ruling class. He had a miserable
debate performance, like his peers in the second tier set of candidates. That any of the
press is attempting to rehabilitate his performance is a sign of extreme bias, not an
accurate portrayal of the car crash that transpired last night for his campaign.
Post debate analysis is breathtaking in it's unanimity: everyone in the establishment press
is doing what they can to ignore the fact that Sanders and Warren knocked it out of the park.
Contrary to the mandatory company line, this was not a debate between moderates and
progressives; this was a debate between people who want to do something and those who have
been hired to stall progress, and it has never been so apparent as it was in this lively
debate.
I think the corporate media knows this, which is why they are desperately spinning this in
any other way but that Warren and Sanders were the most viable and competent candidates on
the stage.
Without question, their performance killed the candidacy of every other person on the
stage.
Thanks for a serious response (most of the others were just reactions founded on confirmation
bias)
You make a good point. Even the conservatives here are on that socialist spectrum in that
there is extensive state intervention (NHS, welfare, care, regulation etc). That intervention
is to stay irrespective of some of the scare stories for the simple reason no one will get
elected on a platform of doing away with it.
In basic terms terms the key difference between "right" and "left" is how to best pay for
that state intervention. Incentives and a degree of market freedom versus a state controlled
economy and more radical distribution.
So yes the term socialist is often used to scare people by the right - just as the left
use "tories" to scare people ["24 hours to save the NHS" anyone?].
There is a reason why centrism has largely prevailed in the west. Its evolved in a Darwin
like way as being the best balance for peoples views and expectations. I suspect radical
change - left or right - will end up as a major disappointment
Sanders and Warren harp on about medicare for all being "free health care".
Let me make one thing clear: Medicare is not healthcare. It is health insurance.
Medicare administrators never touch a patient, they push paperwork around and oversee
payment for services rendered by medical professionals. Throwing a third of a billion people
onto a system that currently administers care for a hundred million is a recipe for disaster,
especially if providers, unable to make a profit, decide to get out of the business. We
already have a shortage of doctors and nurses and care facilities in many parts of the
country, this is certain to make the problem worse.
What do the candidates propose to do about funding for advanced care if all people are
entitled to free organ transplants? There are new cancer therapies, taylor-made for each
patient, which show astonishing promise, but cost half a million dollars per patient. Medical
care already eats up a sixth of our economy, want to double that? Remember, we also have to
tackle climate change at the same time.
Much of Europe has socialized medicine and most European countries permit private
insurance, usually as a supplement to the public system. Private patients may receive better,
or at least more luxurious, care, but they also take a load off the public system. If the
democrats really wanted to make life better for those on the bottom of the income spectrum,
they might consider government financing of existing urgent care facilities which are popping
up all over the place (there are four in my town of 35,000). Imagine being able to walk in to
a "doc-in-a-box", pay $20 and get diagnosed for your flu, high blood pressure, sutures for a
cut, or an X-ray for that twisted/possibly broke ankle. Currently, many such patients go to
ERs where they receive treatment at many times the $90 walk-in cost of the average urgent
care shop.
Consider delivering minor care at schools. Why do I have to take my kids to a doctor to
get the immunizations required to attend school or sports physicals. The kids are at school,
give 'em their shots and exams there. That way there will be less weaseling out.
This wouldn't be the all encompassing solution that Sanders and Warren are dreaming of,
but it would represent a solid start and might intercept unwell patients before they become
acute or chronic cases.
By the way, Mr Sanders, stop waving your arms about. The WSJ has a photo of you on its
online edition that has you looking like an ape in a cage.
Health care in the US is the most bloated, wasteful and needlessly complex issue facing US
citizens today. As Bernie says it should be a human right for each citizen of the wealthiest
country on earth. Americans need to understand what a socialized health system is, indeed,
they need to understand what socialism is, they conflate it with communism, no one seems to
want to explain the difference which would go a long way to gaining wide spread acceptance.
Education is another monumental waste of resources. Far too many kids go to college who are
not suited to academic endeavor, many take more than four years to graduate an undergraduate
degree if they graduate at all, that is not to say they should not be provided a vocational
option if they wish. A healthy and educated workforce makes social, economic, and political
sense.
"Many Americans love the quality of healthcare they get."
They may love it for now but as drug prices climb, co pays climb and heaven help us ACA
gets repealed then what? At least the dems, particularly the "progressives" are pulling out
of the business as usual model.
Lots of folks decried FDR's New Deal, even hated it - until it put a paycheck in their
hand. They could yell all they wanted about government programs but their children
appreciated not starving.
Neither Warren or Sanders is advocating 'outlawing' private healthcare. That is a
disingenuous term. They are offering what is common to all western democracies, universal
healthcare. Obamacare is a gift to the insurance industry and not a platform for anything
other than increased profit by the insurance industry. It was taken from a plan by the
Heritage Foundation. It is not a legacy worth preserving, Medicare for all is the alternative
and a very good one. Rich people can keep their expensive plans and continue to
pay-out-the-ass, which they can easily afford.
All the blather by the conservative corporate Democrats posing as moderates is, of course,
self-serving and the nonsense about concerns for union healthcare plans is absurd. I was a
Union member, a chief steward, sat on the bargaining committee and was a representative to
the national: universal healthcare or Medicare for all is an excellent idea, as Mr. Sanders
asserts it would allow wage increases ans eliminate the biggest obstacle in contract
negotiations which is the cost of health insurance. The cost of which continually was
increasing by double digits, along with increases in co-pays. In fact, the increased costs
forced the abandonment of what was a superior insurance plan to one that was inferior.
Delaney, is the former CEO of CapitalSource, essentially a loan-sharking operation (a
testament by Forbes), involved in foreclosure scams. HealthCare Financial Partners is another
Delaney entity worth examining for its less than ethical practices, which in the business
world where Delaney dwells, is an unspoken word or determinant.
Delaney bundled together $800,000 for HRC, which bought him the endorsement of Bill Clinton
when Delaney ran for higher office. He is conservative and wedded to the profit motive and
could care less about ordinary citizens. The current businessman inhabiting the presidency is
more than a cautionary tale, which applies to Delaney. He is a conservative Clintonite and
embraces the rather malleable ethics of the Clintons, essentially amoral.
Honestly, only the very dimmest of dimwits would categorize ELIMINATING the $400/month
average middle class families pay for Health Insurance Premiums and replacing it with a
$250/Month Average payment to the government as 'raising taxes' on those people. If you doubt
that, ask yourself why the largest corporations AREN'T screaming about 'raised taxes' if we
go to Medicare for All.... it's because they can do the math, and they know that eliminating
the $750/month average that THEY pay in Premium contributions PER EMPLOYEE will benefit them
much more than the accompanying 'tax increase for M4A...
When the OVERALL COST of the system goes down around 15% (Private Insurance 'overhead'
increases costs 20%+, Medicare is just under 6%), EVERYONE saves in the long run....
The far left wants too much form Tulsi. You can't fight on two fronts when attacking the the neocon foreign policy.
Notable quotes:
"... Israel is the litmus test issue in American politics for a lot of good reasons. It may or may not be the worst regime in the world. There are a lot of bad ones competing for that title, many of whom we support. But Israel is the candidate we not only support but sponsor and champion to the point where it is at times very very hard to tell who is leading and who is following, between Israel and the US. This seems to have a lot to do with the end-times preoccupations that seem to have been at the heart of what passes for American spirituality since the earliest colonial days. ..."
I should always trust my instincts. Attending an event hosted by the Adelsons was disturbing enough, but I trusted people here
instead and brushed off my suspicions.
Israel is the litmus test issue in American politics for a lot of good reasons. It may or may not be the worst regime in the
world. There are a lot of bad ones competing for that title, many of whom we support. But Israel is the candidate we not only
support but sponsor and champion to the point where it is at times very very hard to tell who is leading and who is following,
between Israel and the US. This seems to have a lot to do with the end-times preoccupations that seem to have been at the heart
of what passes for American spirituality since the earliest colonial days.
Gabbard has now broken a lot of hopes. She has jumped the shark spectacularly, shamelessly craving the support of the 'Israel
Lobby'. Her claims to be against the regime change wars when these wars are relentlessly pushed by the Israel Lobby she is now
shamelessly courting?!!!
I suppose we can hope that Tulsi takes a flying leap back over the shark, say by visiting Gaza the way she recently visited
Puerto Rico. If she doesn't now make a huge point of it, in words and actions, that she will NOT be yet another tool of the Israel
Lobby, the neocons, the neolibs, etc., then she must be opposed as the turncoat shill she now seems to be.
No use wasting breath on Gabbard. Trump vs. Biden in 2020 with Trump taking the Midwest and the electoral college like 2016 is
unavoidable. If undermining Gabbard is your deal, I'd wait until 2024.
I took a lot of flak when I pointed out the simple truth that Gabbard is not against war and not against US/NATO imperialism
but simply against "regime change wars" that USA failed to win.
Trump was also against dumb wars and his imperialist detractors called him an isolationist - but that was merely a neat
way to burnish his populist credentials. Trump has acted much like his imperialist predecessors who hedge their peace talk with
exceptionalist morality that requires utmost strength in a "dangerous world". And these faux democratic leaders are all-too-willing
to lead the propaganda effort when called upon to support Deep State objectives.
Gabbard reminds me that the leaders of every nation should be watching re-runs of Mister Roger's Neighborhood and apply its lessons
to the abstract and Alpha-male dominated world of international relations.
I'm only half-joking. In a world of technological parity, real-time communication, and rapid travel the importance of being
a good neighbor has never been more important. At the minimum, that means doing no harm and, at the max, doing nice things with
no expectations.
Alas, we're stuck with countries building walls, using prosperity as a weapon, and thinking that power never waxes and wanes.
Shame that human wisdom hasn't kept up with material progress.
I had an uneasy interest/hope in/for Gabbard. No more after she sold herself to Israeli interests.
Lets face it, nobody worth his/her salt can get close to the Presidency without being backed by one or more factions of the
elite. The unrepresented bottom 90% (non military/vet) simply has no representation, and more than half are too stupid to know
it.
Change for the better will never happen under the present system. The US and the world will continue falling into the abyss.
One day soon the people find out what that means. Thats when the gloves come off. Nowhere to hide then. Serve your masters well
or be disappeared.
Jason @42 is right. Gabbard was never going to make it anyway. She's there because fake democratic choice is the establishment's
way of cementing their control.
As in:
- STFU, you shoulda voted for Tulsi (faux anti-war choice)
- STFU, you shoulda voted for Bernie (faux anti-wealth inequality choice)
- STFU, you shoulda voted for Kamala (faux civil rights choice)
- STFU, you shoulda voted for Biden (faux anti-Trump choice)
- STFU, you shoulda voted for Warren (faux business regulation)
Gabbard: One can either give up participating (definitely an option) or look for the best alternative to doing nothing. As
pointed out by others there is a power structure in America, which cannot be opposed in totality.
On the other hand, politicians are famous for not keeping their promises. There is the possibility of not keeping promises
to Adelson as well. One person can only do so much, even the President. So, we have to keep supporting alternatives, if there
is any chance at all to change direction. Outside forces are definitely going to help here ... Russia and China are busy building
a new 'World Order' which will be very good for America, when we finally give up the Empire.
Environmental fanatics: The two essential factors in preserving Earth's ecosystem are: 1) limit to human population ... I believe
this is happening and human population will reach a peak and begin to decline I think best estimates are ~ 2050 at 10 billion,
2) widespread, near total replacement of fossil energy use by nuclear power, which can easily be made to have virtually zero environmental
impact, while allowing a high standard of living for Earth's entire population.
Jodi Schneider
Senior International Editor
Gabbard says she will "
end these endless regime-change wars
" and use the "trillions of dollars we have
been wasting on these wars and these weapons" on domestic spending.
Photographer: Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images
Warren: "We beat it by being the party of big structural change." The issue is whether
"regulation" is big enough and structural enough.
Sanders: "To stand with the working class* of American that for the last 45 years has been
decimated." Then the Canada bus trip. "We need a mass political movement. Take on the greed
and the corruption of the ruling class of this country." Plugs website.
Sanders was better; working the bus trip in was good.
NOTE *
Guardian paraphrase : "Bernie Sanders pledged to stand by the US middle class , recounting his recent trip to Canada to
emphasize the high price of insulin in America." Lol.
The allergy to the phrase "working class" is not accidental. They want as many Americans
as possible thinking they're just temporarily embarrassed millionaires.
As someone who has spent most of my life in the working class, made it to the middle, got
knocked down again, and made my way back up to the middle again, there is most certainly a
difference.
When was the last time (if ever) that someone said the words "ruling class" in a
presidential debate? (I assume that Eugene Debs was never invited to any presidential
debate.)
Even that Bernie said "working class" won points with me. Typical of the Guardian to change
it to "middle class".
Williamson was impressive.
I liked that Warren showed fire and guts. Her policies would be a real change for the better,
especially if pushed farther. My real question about her is whether she would stand up to the
other side and fight to win.
For me, the biggest difference between Bernie and Warren is that I am starting to hope that
Warren would really fight, but I know Bernie would.
I like Bernie better, but I like Warren too, and I *DO* trust her to fight.
The big tell was when she went to Washington as a Senator and Larry Summers said don't
criticize us in public if you want to be part of the club, and she not only ignored that but
told on him publicly!
Two actually GOOD people! They were my dream team last night.
I agree. I'm highly skeptical of Warren delivering anything (especially a victory), and I
don't really trust her to try very hard to implement her plans. Watching her in this debate
opened a thin crack in my icy wall of distrust. I hope she proves me wrong.
Eh . Warren for all her sociopolitical baggage is a completely different animal to the
Blue Dog Corporatist DNC fundie or the Free Market Conservative slash Goat picked me to
administrate reality for everyone dilemma.
But yeah feel [tm] free [tm] to play curricular firing squad and then wonder why ones head
is sore from the effects of banging on an sacrilegious edifice .
I think a photo finish by Sanders and Warren, Buttigieg in the running followed by
Klobuchar, Beto fading, the centrists losing big, Williamson a dark horse coming up on the
outside.
By one key metric -- Google interest -- Marianne Willamson was the dominant figure of the debate. and that's tells a lot about
debate aorgnizers which are not interested in real political debase. Just interested in the debate as a political show. They
are too interested in promoted identity politics to devide the electorate, to allow discussion of really important for the
nation question such as rampant militarism.
Notable quotes:
"... A lot of liberals will love her for her quip, "I don't understand why anybody goes to all the trouble of running to the president of the United States to talk about what we really can't do and shouldn't fight for." ..."
"... Of course, she's celebrating one of the big problems in our political system -- no presidential candidate wants to acknowledge the limits of the power of the office, the presence of the opposition party, judicial review, the inherent difficulties of enacting sweeping changes through legislation, or the limit of government policy to solve problems in society. ..."
"... One of the reasons Americans are so cynical is that they've seen plenty of politicians come and go, with almost every one of them promising the moon and very few living up to the hype. ..."
A lot of liberals will love her for her quip, "I don't understand why anybody goes to all the trouble of
running to the president of the United States to talk about what we really can't do and shouldn't fight for."
Of course, she's celebrating one of the big problems in our political system -- no presidential
candidate wants to acknowledge the limits of the power of the office, the presence of the opposition party,
judicial review, the inherent difficulties of enacting sweeping changes through legislation, or the limit of
government policy to solve problems in society.
One of the reasons Americans are so cynical is that they've seen plenty of politicians come and go, with
almost every one of them promising the moon and very few living up to the hype.
Advertisement
Warren shamelessly insisted that the government could pay for quality health care for every American -- and
illegal immigrants, too! -- just by raising taxes on billionaires and big corporations. Warren made clear
tonight that she's not going to let a little thing like fiscal reality get in between her and the nomination.
... ... ...
Tonight was another night where you could easily forget Amy Klobuchar was on stage. Back when Klobuchar's campaign was in the
nascent stage, people wondered how "Minnesota nice" would play on a national debate stage. We can now declare it boring,
predictable, and forgettable.
During the hot takes, Axelrod, of Sanders on #MedicareForAll. Basically, this is hard,
Obama wanted a public option and couldn't do it. Then:
He [Sanders] was there, he knows that what he's talking about won't happen any time
soon.
First, Obama was never serious about the public option (itself an unserious
bait-and-switch operation by liberals). He cut a deal with Big Pharma to drop it in exchange
for some now forgotten price breaks -- and kept it secret, so his deluded followers could
pretend it was still on the table.
Second, Sanders extracted several billion dollars for community health centers as his
price for supporting the bill. That was the benefit of Sanders being "there,"
unmentioned by Axelrod. He wasn't a passive observer, he improved the bill.
Third, Sanders does not know #MedicareForAll will "not happen anytime soon."
Axelrod cannot accept Sanders's theory of change, partly because it was destroy his personal
business model, partly because the professional base of the Democrats opposes expanding the
base to working class voters tooth and nail.
Fourth, Axelrod just outright said Sanders is a liar. Hopefully, the campaign calls him
out for that.
This is the David Yepsen School of Reporting. Yepsen was a DM Register political analyst
whose stock question formula was:
"[People whose names I won't mention] say [some horrible thing for which there is no proof
and so legitimate media has been ignoring it] and what is your response to that?"
Yepsen single-handedly laundered countless specious rightwing attacks on Democrats in Iowa
by inserting rumors into interviews and even debate questions, and when the candidates
responded, the rumors became legit "news" stories. He then became the Dean of Iowa Reporters
which meant that every four years, the national press corps kissed his ass for Iowa Caucus
stories.
From my Antipodean seat, I always thought that it a weakness on Bernie's part that he
never says that he stands for traditional American values. Stuff like being able to give your
opinion, the right to vote and have it counted, not to be harassed by a militarized police,
having an opportunity to get a decent paying job and be protected by a union, being able to
earn enough to have a home, to seek education without being subjected to a lifetime of debt
enslavement for your choice. Stuff like that.
Not so much a Norman Rockwell version of America but making America a land of opportunity for
all and not just a wealthy minority. That would grab a lot of people's attention. Maybe he
should come out and say; "Hey, wages in this country have not gone up in forty years. So just
where exactly did all those trillions of dollars go that should have gone into your pockets
over all those years?" Put his opposition on the spot trying to defend the indefensible.
But I wonder if the very important work of educating the public via a reframing of
fundamental concepts is the same work as getting elected and actually leading the country.
Bernie on occasion explains that what he means by socialism is close to FDR's vision, but
that's not how the vast majority of the electorate understands the term. It's unlikely that
there is enough time before the 2020 election to change the typical voter's default
definitions for that and related words.
Map/territory confusion is the root of idolatry. Getting stuck on the word comes off as
stubbornness, or worse. AOC, for example, is much looser when pressed with the typical
neoliberal talking points and quickly shifts to the underlying policies and values.
There are aspects to the M4A disagreements among the Democratic candidates that seem to
revolve around a similar confusion, that between the destination and the path.
... My idea of a "Unity Candidate" is that it will be Hillary again. Hillary channeling
Sisyphus; "Roll away the stone!"
Got another DCCC begging letter today. The title of it was "2019 Official Democratic Unity
Survey."
The fix is in already.
I place no value in this, no matter how well Bernie does. It is theater, and if Bernie
does well, he does well at theater. Maybe it matters, it shouldn't, but it is a horrible
forum to focus on policy and the fact that CNN can host this debate is infuriating. I would
love just one debate to be hosted by the DSA, or at least an actually leftist media outlet.
You know, pretending that the Democrats are on the left and could take questions from
leftists on policy. I know it would never happen, but imagine how the questions would be
framed if it was. Biden would be toast, as he would have no real defense of his horrific
record in office. As it is, some overpaid hack will ask questions framed in a misleading way
and will not give enough time to the candidate to flesh out an answer, especially if the
issue is complex. If the USSR had elections and one party member vs another could take power
if enough people voted in what was clearly a rigged process, would it be radically different
than this? They might have had Pravda moderating it, we have CNN. Is there a huge difference
there too?
You are completely correct. CNN wants to pit the Dems against each other and run the clock
out, drain as much substance possible from the arguments. Delaney and Frackenlooper (along w/
Klobuchar) also have a 100% corporate orientation. "Pravda" redux, you nailed it.
I think that's the story of the debate so far; centrists smacked down. Warren and Sanders
have both had the best lines (besides, I would urge, the best policy).
Adding, Warren, unlike Harris, did not betray Sanders on #MedicareForAll. That speaks well
of her.
"This stage perfectly captures the conflict in our politics today: Scions of wealth and
power teaming up to face down the few true progressives this nation has -- they are fighting
their hardest against progress, we need to hit back ten times harder."
Beware of Mayor Pete. I just saw a clip of him that reinforced my opinion that he's a
smart guy. He does have the one potentially unfavorable demographic attribute, but it's 2019
and a lot of us have moved beyond that. I would pay money to see his first state visit to
Saudi Arabia, and his husband stretching forth his hand to shake with Mohammed bin Bonesaw.
Whatcha gonna do, Mohammed? Allah is watching! Is homosexuality contagious? [If it were,
there would probably be a pickup subculture on this blog]. There's a good lad!
"why the Pelosi is playing the racist card.... there will be none of it (remedies) from the
democrats"
[Not quite half right. There will be no remedies from either Democrats nor Republicans.
Racism has been in the cards from the beginning. They played those cards with 3/5ths of a man
to begin with but after that it was still the de facto corner for a lot of the triangulation,
although unions gave the descendants of slaves a run for their money for a while. But now
unions are effectively a dead end corner of the deck while racism still burns on into the
future. Last time to get a New Deal it took a Great Depression, but now the two party shuffle
is cautious enough to maintain the status quo without inciting substantive rebellion. Don't
be fooled by the smoke and mirrors.]
Political triangulation of the electorate would be impossible if they were all the same.
The purpose of political triangulation of the electorate into effectively equal parts is to
ensure a high probability of reelection in combination with a low requirement for socially
responsible policy. Divide and conquer works. Elites get everything that they really need and
there is always someone else to blame. Perfect!
That is a distinction without difference. Just think in terms of driving between the
coneheads and choosing to veer to either the left or right to knock down the number of
coneheads that you will need.
The electorate comes with perforated seams from the factory. It is just a matter of
choosing where to tear them apart. The important thing though for elites is to never let
anyone tape across those perforated seams and hold the electorate together.
In the immoral words of King Lear "Your old kind father, whose frank heart gave all -- /
O, that way madness lies; let me shun that; / No more of that"
The worst thing that Clinton (Bill) ever did was to embrace southern racists the way he
did with his "tough on crime" and "welfare reform." Those ideas were coded white baby boomer
racism put into policy.
They were certainly among the worst, but I would have to set the Wayback Machine and travel
back with Doctor Peabody to do a bit of research to explicitly agree. Particularly,
evaluating the consequences of trade status (e.g., WTO and PNTR China) and trade agreements
(e.g., NAFTA) are nontrivial exercises. Remember that such status and agreements would not
lead to arbitrage pricing and trade imbalances all else being equal. So, we know that all
else was not equal.
I know as much as I do about politics and civil rights in the 60's as I do because I was
an insider, an embedded observer and to a minor extent an active participant at the ground
level. Trade negotiations and institutions are way outside my home turf. I can read about it
from the available source material and substantiate or nullify by digging through sources to
get to the truth, but that kind of research takes big hours (from a few dozen to a few
hundred to cover all the bases reasonably well) and no one is paying me to do it. So, I can
have no opinion of my own and I have tired of just transferring received wisdom. Paine is the
only commenter on this blog that I know of that has any substantial understanding of the
trade issues, but you might be better off to just stick with Dean Baker and Dan Rodrik if you
want to understand what you are reading. They write in English, rather than in Paine.
Dani and Dean are great, but I still think that all of the issues with trade are pretty
easily solved with a top tax rate that limits oligarchs income, capital controls to prevent
the flight of capital to other places, environmental arbitrage penalties, and a big helping
of helping the third world raise living standards, efficiency and allowing them to become
trading partners rather than trade based vassal states. Also, I don't think that trade
adequately explains the weakness of unions or loss of manufacturing jobs. Right to work,
voter suppression, automation and the white working class going full racist and voting for
their own demise are better explainers.
On politics and race, there is a lot feeding into it; economics, policy blindness of
pseudo-intellectual elites, private corporate news conglomerates, small white dicks, the list
goes on. Don't underestimate the demoralizing effect that the consolidation of corporations
has had both as an enabler of low wages, offshoring, union busting, pension insecurity, and
general antisocial behavior AND as a big brother for big brother running public policy and
the media as wholly owned subsidiaries.
Fair enough - and I should have (and always should) include enforcing the anti-trust laws
against US and offshore based companies. Consolidation also is a bigger culprit than trade
agreements. Failure to enforce anti-trust measures for going on 50 years is a bigger
culprit.
Enforcing anti-trust is a little like busing, a day late and a dollar short. There were
tax incentives before 1954 that prevented most mergers, but still allowed fire sale
acquisitions (where there are more capital losses than capital gains so no or few taxes)
without any adverse consequences. Accomplishing mergers depends upon the attractiveness of
capital gains windfall tax incentives when compared to dividends income potential over
time.
The equity owner tax incentive tables were turned in 1954 towards consolidating US
corporations into giant conglomerates to better compete with the state sponsored monopolies
of Japan. That was under Ike and Republican controlled Congress, but when the Democrats got
back in power then they just let it ride falsely justifying it as a tax increase on the
wealthy.
LOL!!! kurt still hasn't figured out that the essence of 'free' trade was the free flow of
capital. This form of 'free' trade would die a sudden and ignominious death if capital
controls were put in place to prevent the flight of capital to other places.
'Free' trade never really was about the free flow of goods, but about the ability of
banksters and corporations to make secure investments abroad. Only if and when their
investments are protected do investors feel comfortable shipping American jobs overseas to
exploit foreign labor.
Of course, this was not something that Krugman and the 'free' trade zealots wanted to
publicize. Instead they focused on how good 'free' trade would be for America (implying
Americans but really meaning the investor class.) And they chose to lie about how good 'free'
trade would be for labor.
Every post I have made saying "it ain't all trade" has included a call for capital controls.
Your statement here is belied by the fact that I keep asking for what you want.
What's Driving Populism?
If authoritarian populism is rooted in economics, then the appropriate remedy is a populism
of another kind – targeting economic injustice and inclusion, but pluralist in its
politics and not necessarily damaging to democracy. If it is rooted in culture and values,
however, there are fewer options.
By DANI RODRIK ]
"... If authoritarian populism is rooted in economics, then the appropriate remedy is a populism of another kind – targeting economic injustice and inclusion, but pluralist in its politics and not necessarily damaging to democracy. ..."
"... On the other side of the argument, economists have produced a number of studies that link political support for populists to economic shocks ..."
"... Indeed, according to Autor, Dorn, Hanson, and Majlesi, the China trade shock may have been directly responsible for Trump's electoral victory in 2016. Their estimates imply that had import penetration been 50% lower than the actual rate over the 2002-14 period, a Democratic presidential candidate would have won the critical states of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, making Hillary Clinton the winner of the election. ..."
"... Ultimately, the precise parsing of the causes behind the rise of authoritarian populism may be less important than the policy lessons to be drawn from it. There is little debate here. Economic remedies to inequality and insecurity are paramount. ..."
If authoritarian populism is rooted in economics, then the appropriate remedy is a populism of
another kind – targeting economic injustice and inclusion, but pluralist in its politics
and not necessarily damaging to democracy. If it is rooted in culture and values, however,
there are fewer options.
By DANI RODRIK
CAMBRIDGE – Is it culture or economics? That question frames much of the debate about
contemporary populism. Are Donald Trump's presidency, Brexit, and the rise of right-wing
nativist political parties in continental Europe the consequence of a deepening rift in values
between social conservatives and social liberals, with the former having thrown their support
behind xenophobic, ethno-nationalist, authoritarian politicians? Or do they reflect many
voters' economic anxiety and insecurity, fueled by financial crises, austerity, and
globalization?
Much depends on the answer.
If authoritarian populism is rooted in economics, then the
appropriate remedy is a populism of another kind – targeting economic injustice and
inclusion, but pluralist in its politics and not necessarily damaging to democracy. If it is
rooted in culture and values, however, there are fewer options. Liberal democracy may be doomed
by its own internal dynamics and contradictions.1
Some versions of the cultural argument can be dismissed out of hand. For example, many
commentators in the United States have focused on Trump's appeals to racism. But racism in some
form or another has been an enduring feature of US society and cannot tell us, on its own, why
Trump's manipulation of it has proved so popular. A constant cannot explain a change.
Other accounts are more sophisticated. The most thorough and ambitious version of the
cultural backlash argument has been advanced by my Harvard Kennedy School colleague Pippa
Norris and Ronald Inglehart of the University of Michigan. In a recent book, they argue that
authoritarian populism is the consequence of a long-term generational shift in values.
As younger generations have become richer, more educated, and more secure, they have adopted
"post-materialist" values that emphasize secularism, personal autonomy, and diversity at the
expense of religiosity, traditional family structures, and conformity. Older generations have
become alienated – effectively becoming "strangers in their own land." While the
traditionalists are now numerically the smaller group, they vote in greater numbers and are
more politically active.
Will Wilkinson of the Niskanen Center recently made a similar argument, focusing on the role
of urbanization in particular. Wilkinson argues that urbanization is a process of spatial
sorting that divides society in terms not only of economic fortunes, but also of cultural
values. It creates thriving, multicultural, high-density areas where socially liberal values
predominate. And it leaves behind rural areas and smaller urban centers that are increasingly
uniform in terms of social conservatism and aversion to diversity.
This process, moreover, is self-reinforcing: economic success in large cities validates
urban values, while self-selection in migration out of lagging regions increases polarization
further. In Europe and the US alike, homogenous, socially conservative areas constitute the
basis of support for nativist populists.
On the other side of the argument, economists have produced a number of studies that link
political support for populists to economic shocks. In what is perhaps the most famous among
these, David Autor, David Dorn, Gordon Hanson, and Kaveh Majlesi – from MIT, the
University of Zurich, the University of California at San Diego, and Lund University,
respectively – have shown that votes for Trump in the 2016 presidential election across
US communities were strongly correlated with the magnitude of adverse China trade shocks. All
else being equal, the greater the loss of jobs due to rising imports from China, the higher the
support for Trump.
Indeed, according to Autor, Dorn, Hanson, and Majlesi, the China trade shock may have been
directly responsible for Trump's electoral victory in 2016. Their estimates imply that had
import penetration been 50% lower than the actual rate over the 2002-14 period, a Democratic
presidential candidate would have won the critical states of Michigan, Wisconsin, and
Pennsylvania, making Hillary Clinton the winner of the election.
Other empirical studies have produced similar results for Western Europe. Higher penetration
of Chinese imports has been found to be implicated in support for Brexit in Britain and the
rise of far-right nationalist parties in continental Europe. Austerity and broader measures of
economic insecurity have been shown to have played a statistically significant role as well.
And in Sweden, increased labor-market insecurity has been linked empirically to the rise of the
far-right Sweden Democrats.
The cultural and economic arguments may seem to be in tension – if not downright
inconsistent – with each other. But, reading between the lines, one can discern a type of
convergence. Because the cultural trends – such as post-materialism and
urbanization-promoted values – are of a long-term nature, they do not fully account for
the timing of the populist backlash. (Norris and Inglehart posit a tipping point where socially
conservative groups have become a minority but still have disproportionate political power.)
And those who advocate for the primacy of cultural explanations do not in fact dismiss the role
of economic shocks. These shocks, they maintain, aggravated and exacerbated cultural divisions,
giving authoritarian populists the added push they needed.
Norris and Inglehart, for example, argue that "medium-term economic conditions and growth in
social diversity" accelerated the cultural backlash, and show in their empirical work that
economic factors did play a role in support for populist parties. Similarly, Wilkinson
emphasizes that "racial anxiety" and "economic anxiety" are not alternative hypotheses, because
economic shocks have greatly intensified urbanization-led cultural sorting. For their part,
economic determinists should recognize that factors like the China trade shock do not occur in
a vacuum, but in the context of pre-existing societal divisions along socio-cultural
lines.1
Ultimately, the precise parsing of the causes behind the rise of authoritarian populism may
be less important than the policy lessons to be drawn from it. There is little debate here.
Economic remedies to inequality and insecurity are paramount.
Dani Rodrik, Professor of International Political Economy at Harvard University's John F.
Kennedy School of Government.
Is Plutocracy Really the Problem?
After the 2008 financial crisis, economic policymakers in the United States did enough to
avert another Great Depression, but fell far short of what was needed to ensure a strong
recovery. Attributing that failure to the malign influence of the plutocracy is tempting, but
it misses the root of the problem.
By BRADFORD DELONG
BERKELEY – Why did the policy response to the Great Recession only partly reflect
the lessons learned from the Great Depression? Until recently, the smart money was on the
answers given by the Financial Times commentator Martin Wolf and my Berkeley colleague Barry
Eichengreen. Each has argued that while enough was remembered to prevent the 1929-size shock
of 2008 from producing another Great Depression, many lessons were plowed under by a
rightward ideological shift in the years following the crisis. Since then, the fact that the
worst was avoided has served as an alibi for a suboptimal status quo.
Now, Nobel laureate economist Paul Krugman has offered * an alternative explanation:
plutocracy. At the start of the 2010s, the top 0.01% – 30,000 people around the world,
half of them in the United States – cared little about high unemployment, which didn't
seem to affect them, but were greatly alarmed by government debt. They began demanding
austerity, and, as Krugman contends, "the political and media establishment internalized the
preferences of the extremely wealthy."
Would the US economy of the 2010s have been materially different if the share of total
income accruing to the top 0.01% had not quadrupled in recent decades, from 1.3% to 5%?
Krugman certainly thinks so. "While vigilance can mitigate the extent to which the wealthy
get to define the policy agenda," he writes, "in the end big money will find a way –
unless there's less big money to begin with." Hence, curbing plutocracy should be America's
top priority.
In fact, big money does not always find a way, nor does its influence necessarily increase
as the top 0.01% captures a larger share of total income. Whether the average plutocrat has
1,000 or 50,000 times more than the average worker makes little difference in this respect.
More to the point, big money wasn't the primary determinant of whether policymakers heeded or
forgot the lessons of the Great Depression.
For example, one lesson from that earlier episode is that high unemployment is extremely
unhealthy for an economy and society; a depression is not, as the early twentieth-century
economist Joseph Schumpeter once claimed, a "good, cold douche" for the economy. But this
lesson was forgotten only by a lunatic fringe, some of whom suggested that the Great
Recession was needed to shift workers out of bloated sectors such as home construction.
As for lessons that were forgotten, one is that persistent ultra-low interest rates means
the economy is still short of safe, liquid stores of value, and thus in need of further
monetary expansion. During and after the Great Recession, denying this plain truth and
calling for an end to stimulus became a litmus test for any Republican holding or seeking
office. Worse, these politicians were joined by an astonishingly large number of conservative
economists, who conveniently seemed to forget that the short-term safe interest rate is a
good thermometer for the economy.
To be sure, "big finance" did play a role here, by insisting that the Federal Reserve was
trying to push value away from "fundamentals," even though economic fundamentals are
generally whatever the Fed says they are. But an even more obvious culprit was
hyper-partisanship.
Another lesson is that printing or borrowing money to buy stuff is an effective means for
governments to address worryingly high unemployment. After 2009, the Obama administration
effectively rejected this lesson, in favor of the logic of austerity, even though the
unemployment rate was still 9.9%. A related lesson is that high levels of government debt
need not lead to price instability or an inflationary spiral. As John Maynard Keynes argued
in January 1937, "The boom, not the slump, is the right time for austerity at the Treasury."
Unfortunately, in the early 2010s, those of us who recalled this lesson were consigned to the
margins of debate.
Yet, here, big-money influence was a secondary problem compared to the Democratic Party's
broader surrender to neoliberalism, which started under President Bill Clinton, but reached
its apotheosis in the Obama era. After all, the plutocracy itself profits when money is cheap
and lending is dear.
The larger issue, then, is an absence of alternative voices. If the 2010s had been
anything like the 1930s, the National Association of Manufacturers and the Conference Board
would have been aggressively calling for more investment in America, and these arguments
would have commanded the attention of the press. Labor unions would have had a prominent
voice as advocates for a high-pressure economy. Both would have had very powerful voices
inside the political process through their support of candidates.
Did the top 0.01% put something in the water to make the media freeze out such voices
after 2008? Did the ultra-wealthy create our modern campaign-finance system, in which elite
social networks and door-to-door canvassing are less important than a candidate's
fund-raising totals? The problem is not so much that the plutocracy has grown stronger as
that countervailing powers have disappeared. After all, there are wealthy donors and
philanthropists on the left as well as the right, and some billionaires have even started to
demand that they be taxed more.
Of course, the political implications of plutocracy are dangerous and destructive. In the
US, Olin money has captured the judiciary, Koch money has misinformed the public about global
warming, and Murdoch money routinely terrifies retirees about immigrants. But just because
the public sphere is tainted and skewed by plutocratic influence does not mean that more
rational policymaking is doomed. Once we are aware of the problem, we can begin to work
around it.
Krugman admits as much when he warns "centrist politicians and the media not to pull
another 2011, treating the policy preferences of the 0.1% as the Right Thing as opposed to,
well, what a certain small class of people want." For journalists, academics, elected
officials, and concerned citizens generally, the first task is to ask oneself everyday: Whose
voices are getting more attention than they deserve, and who isn't being heard at all?
Ultimately, it is the public that will decide the fate of the public sphere.
"As for lessons that were forgotten, one is that persistent ultra-low interest rates means
the economy is still short of safe, liquid stores of value, and thus in need of further
monetary expansion."
I think this sentence is nonsense. Ultra low interest rates are a consequence of lots of
low velocity money - and that is heavily correlated with income inequality. https://angrybearblog.com/2019/07/long-bond-yields.html
It is not spelled out why he thinks this but I think he is really talking about the yield
curve not interest rates as such. What he is saying is that if short term interest rates are
low then the demand for short bonds is high because they are seen as an alternative to cash
which is in short supply. If there was more cash then people would either invest more or
spend more. But if all the cash is held by the very rich, there is not much evidence they
will have much urgency to either spend it or invest it. Better to give any created money
directly to poorer people so that it circulates.
Ah, yes, the Fed does not have that power faux liberals reason for excusing the Fed from
doing what needs to be done. Of course, they could bail out foreign governments and private
enterprises with very dubious authority.
But who at the Fed or among Democrats is asking for the Fed to have the power to buy state
bonds for infrastructure? [The silence is deafening!}
And kurt is lying about Republicans having had power form most of the last 40 years, as I
have pointed out on multiple occasions. They never had anything close to a filibuster-proof
majority in the Senate.
However, if you include the significant number of Republicans who opportunistically define
themselves as Democrats, many selected by Team Pelosi and Team Schumer, then you can argue
than Republicans have dominated but only with the complicity of the Democratic
leadership.
Are you positing that the Fed should ignore their charter and break the law? Are you positing
that there was a time in the past 40 years where both the Dems having enough power to amend
the Federal Reserve Act and a need to make such an amendment existed? When?
Is kurt so naïve as to believe that the Fed followed the letter of the law during the
financial crisis? From what I saw it followed the letter of the law not when bailing out
corporations and foreign banks but when it consistently refused to help mortgage holders.
The Fed was directed by legislation to do what you describe. Guess who voted for that
legislation and signed it into law? It is really hard to take someone seriously when they
don't know about TARP.
Yes - this is my point. The FED currently doesn't have the powers that some folks want them
to have - and with Rs controlling the Senate for the foreseeable future, I don't see how the
FED could gain that power - nor can I see a point over the last 40 years where those powers
could have been granted - especially in 08-09 when they would have been useful.
The senate is structurally set up to favor rural voters. Throw in some voter suppression and
some psyops from Putin and I don't see how that is going to change anytime soon.
Also, Trump and a number of prominent Republicans are directly attacking democracy. Trump is
an immediate emergency - but retaking the Senate is also vital.
The Fed [and Democrats] have no interest in expanding the Fed's power beyond helping
banksters, corporations, and foreign banksters.
Since when is it illegal for the Fed to advocate for fiscal stimulus and to help the
general public? Of course, it's not. But the last thing that banksters and their Democratic
poodles will advocate is for the Fed to have authority to bail out we, the people.
The Fed already has a few banks of its own--the Wall Street banks that own it.
I'd prefer to have some more banks that didn't have such a massive conflict of interest.
But instead, the Fed shrinks the number of big banks and tightens the banking oligopoly's
grip on the industry every time there's a recession.
Fair enough. I am all in on georgist. But the fact remains that most of housing crisis is
caused by local control of landuse. The value proposition is far, far from indirect.
Otherwise, why would hoppin Palo Alto have wildly different housing values than Monterey or
Pismo Beach. It is simple, because the entire bay area restricts supply via zoning.
I thought immediately of you when I read this on politico:
"When the Obama administration persuaded Sen. Arlen Specter to switch parties in 2009,
helping Democrats briefly hold a 60-vote Senate supermajority, blogger-activists who could
not forgive Specter's conservative past helped Rep. Joe Sestak defeat Specter in the 2010
primary. Specter's willingness to participate in a Netroots Nation primary debate proved
insufficient for the blogosphere. The victory was pyrrhic, as Sestak then lost the general
election to a Republican."
Only the US Congress Senate out of the 50 something legislatures in the US has the
filibuster, and the GOP has controlled the entire legislature in more than half for the past
quarter century, and at least one chamber in as many as 40 quite often.
And defeating everything you advocate merely requires blocking new laws.
Thus, you are defeated easily by the GOP, yet you keep blaming Obama and Pelosi, but never
the GOP who can "veto" everything you want.
With the filibuster, Democrats could also veto any obnoxious Republican issue they want but
they don't. They'd rather let the social safety net be shredded than exercise their veto
power.
Worse, the Democratic leadership is cunning enough to make sure enough Republicans posing
as Democrats in order to get many Republican initiatives passed. You have a current example
in the House, where Pelosi bends over backwards to appease conservative Blue Dogs while
accommodating the huge progressive caucus with great reluctance.
"... Only four candidates are consistently polling in the double digits: Biden, who recovered from his early debate stumbles and remains comfortably in the lead; Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who has nevertheless mostly failed to recapture his 2016 magic; Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, who seems ascendant; and Senator Kamala Harris of California, potentially the main threat to Biden's rock-solid black support. ..."
"... Gabbard has so far been unable to penetrate this madness despite being young (she's 38), attractive, telegenic, a military veteran, a woman of color, and an articulate, passionate opponent of the regime change wars that have brought our country so much pain. While reliably progressive, she has occasionally reached across the political divide on issues like religious liberty and Big Tech censorship, a potent combination that could prove more responsive to Trump voters' concerns than what we've heard from her neocon lite interlocutor from Youngstown. ..."
"... That's not to say that no one else running is sound on foreign policy -- Bernie has realist advisers and it took real courage for Warren to back Trump's abortive withdrawals from Afghanistan and Syria -- and it required a Democratic House to advance the bipartisan Yemen resolution. But none of them are basing their campaigns on it in the same way Gabbard has. Nor do any of them better represent our military veterans' sharp turn against forever war, arguably the most important public opinion trend of our time. ..."
"... Unfortunately foreign policy and the forever war are not an issue that resonates with voters on either side. Here is an excerpt from NPR . ..."
"... The most important public opinion of our time is not the military realizing that forever war is bad, it's that climate change is occurring now. It is the only issue that will matter to our grandchildren and we haven't begun to deal with it. We need to get serious about this. "A stitch in time saves 9" comes to mind. ..."
"... Foreign policy does not elect American presidents. I like her, and support her, and think she's made valuable points. I hope it is heard. However, there was never any chance that her course would lead to the White House. ..."
It was already one of the most memorable moments of the Democratic presidential debates in this young election cycle. "Leaders
as disparate as President Obama and President Trump have both said they want to end U.S. involvement in Afghanistan but it isn't
over for America," observed moderator Rachel Maddow. "Why isn't it over? Why can't presidents of very different parties and very
different temperaments get us out of there? And how could you?"
Representative Tim Ryan of Ohio responded with talking points that could have been ripped out of a George W. Bush speech circa
2004. "[T]he lesson that I've learned over the years is that you have to stay engaged in these situations," he said, later adding,
"Whether we're talking about Central America, whether we're talking about Iran, whether we're talking about Afghanistan, we have
got to be completely engaged."
Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii was having none of it. "Is that what you will tell the parents of those two soldiers who
were just killed in Afghanistan? Well, we just have to be engaged?" she asked a sputtering Ryan. "As a soldier, I will tell you that
answer is unacceptable. We have to bring our troops home from Afghanistan." Gabbard noted that she had joined the military to fight
those who attacked us on 9/11, not to nation-build indefinitely in Afghanistan, and pointed out the perfidy of Saudi Arabia.
Some likened Gabbard's rebuke of Ryan to the famous 2007 exchange
between Ron Paul and Rudy Giuliani
. Except Paul, then a relatively unknown congressman from Texas, was speaking truth to power against "America's Mayor" and the national
GOP frontrunner. Gabbard is polling at 0.8 percent in the national RealClearPolitics average, and was challenging someone at 0.3
percent.
Ryan's asterisk candidacy is unsurprising. But Gabbard has been perhaps the most interesting Democrat running for president and
Wednesday night could be her last stand. She gets to share the stage with frontrunner Joe Biden, like Hillary Clinton a vote for
the Iraq war. There is no guarantee she will get another opportunity: the eligibility criteria for subsequent debates is more stringent
and she has yet to qualify.
The huge Democratic field has been a bust. Of the more than 20 declared presidential candidates, only seven are polling at 2 percent
or more in the national averages. Two more -- Senators Cory Booker and Amy Klobuchar -- are polling at least that well in Iowa.
Only
four candidates are consistently polling in the double digits: Biden, who recovered from his early debate stumbles and remains comfortably
in the lead; Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who has nevertheless mostly failed to recapture his 2016 magic; Senator Elizabeth
Warren of Massachusetts, who seems ascendant; and Senator Kamala Harris of California, potentially the main threat to Biden's rock-solid
black support.
Low-polling candidates have still managed to have an impact. Some, like former secretary of housing and urban development Julian
Castro, have helped coax contenders likelier to win the nomination to the left on immigration. We've thus seen Democrats raise their
hands in support of decriminalizing illegal border crossings in the midst of a migrant crisis not entirely of the Trump administration's
making, expanding Medicare to cover everyone even at the expense of private health insurance, and ensuring that "everyone" includes
illegal immigrants. Transgender abortions, also at taxpayer expense, have come up too.
Gabbard has so far been unable to penetrate this madness despite being young (she's 38), attractive, telegenic, a military veteran,
a woman of color, and an articulate, passionate opponent of the regime change wars that have brought our country so much pain. While
reliably progressive, she has occasionally reached across the political divide on issues like religious liberty and Big Tech censorship,
a potent combination that could prove more responsive to Trump voters' concerns than what we've heard from her neocon lite interlocutor
from Youngstown.
"None of this seems to matter in a Democratic Party that cares more about wokeness than war. In fact, Gabbard's conservative fans
-- The View brought up Ann Coulter -- are often held against her, as is her failure to go all in on Trump-Russia. Ninety-five
Democrats stand ready to impeach Trump over mean tweets with nary a peep over the near-bombing of Iran or the active thwarting of
Congress's will on Yemen.
That's not to say that no one else running is sound on foreign policy -- Bernie has realist advisers and it took real courage
for Warren to back Trump's abortive withdrawals from Afghanistan and Syria -- and it required a Democratic House to advance the bipartisan
Yemen resolution. But none of them are basing their campaigns on it in the same way Gabbard has. Nor do any of them better represent
our military veterans'
sharp turn against forever war, arguably the most important public opinion trend of our time.
Liberals remain skeptical of Gabbard's turn away from social conservatism (which admittedly went far beyond sincerely opposing
gay marriage while Barack Obama was merely pretending to do so), which she attributes to "aloha." In meeting with Bashar al-Assad,
she hurt her credibility as a foe of the Syria intervention, failing to realize that doves are held to a higher standard on these
matters than hawks
.
A saner Democratic Party might realize the chances are far greater that their nominee will be a covert hawk rather than a secret
right-winger. Only time will tell if vestiges of that party still exist.
I generally like Tulsi, but she's a mixed bag for Democrats and an easy mark for her Beltway opponents. She needs more time, but
could be a very effective member of a Democrat's cabinet.
Unfortunately foreign policy and the forever war are not an issue that resonates with voters on either side. Here is an
excerpt from NPR .
"That is one finding from the latest NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll, which shows that Americans have limited confidence in its
public schools, courts, organized labor and banks -- and even less confidence in big business, the presidency, the political
parties and the media.
.....
The only institution that Americans have overwhelming faith in is the military -- 87 percent say they have a great deal or
quite a lot of confidence in the military. That is a striking change from the 1970s during and after the Vietnam War."
A military that has been a consistent loser for decades. How depressing!
I was ready to replace Mike Pompeo with Tulsi Gabbard the day after the first debate. It would be very unfortunate if she got
bumped out. I live in California (an open primary state), which means I would have voted for her in the primary.
Anyone who wants to keep as much focus on foreign policy issues as possible during the Democratic Party primary campaigns should
contribute to Tulsi Gabbard's campaign. It looks like she needs another 20,000 unique contributors in order to qualify for the
third debate in September. Even contributing a dollar or two is sufficient.
Fortunately, she is yet so young. She has many years before her, and, when the old Democratic Party dies, much like its old Republican
counterpart did in 2016, Tulsi and people like her will be able to take over.
Also, covert hawks are either critically endangered or extinct in the wild. They're all open now in both parties.
Tulsi will be the leading progressive / conservative on the stage this evening, looking forward to seeing how she handles being
asked to criticize Bernie. (I'm a Tulsi fan.)
Btw, a saner American Conservative would realize a big field almost always looks like this. Can you name the 20 or so who ran
as Republicans a few years ago?
The most important public opinion of our time is not the military realizing that forever war is bad, it's that climate change
is occurring now. It is the only issue that will matter to our grandchildren and we haven't begun to deal with it. We need to
get serious about this. "A stitch in time saves 9" comes to mind.
What you seem to be missing about the Democratic Party is that the rift between progressives (extremists asking for higher
wages for those who work, etc.) and establishment types (let's fix the ACA) is ultimately more significant than the upcoming Presidential
election.
This is why I tell anyone who askes that I don't have a favorite for the Democratic Presidential nominee yet, but I know exactly
who I want for VP. That person is whoever comes in second. If HRC had chosen Bernie for VP, she would be President today and no
Republican Congress would have dared to impeach her for fear of seating the first Democratic Socialist President in America's
history.
After multiple *change* elections that have failed to deliver, change will once again be on the ballot in 2020. This time,
for the sake of our Nation and our world, let's hope it's real change this time. Tulsi would certainly be part of that, maybe
not as a nominee, but in the Cabinet.
Foreign policy does not elect American presidents.
I like her, and support her, and think she's made valuable points. I hope it is heard. However, there was never any chance
that her course would lead to the White House.
Maybe she can get a senior post and shape policy on our endless wars. Or maybe she'll have a louder voice in Congress. However,
the best she could do with this is influence.
Doug Casey : The PC types say there are supposed to be 30 or 40 or 50 different genders --
it's a fluid number. It shows that wide swathes of the country no longer have a grip on actual
physical, scientific reality. That's more than a sign of decline; it's a sign of mass
psychosis.
There's no question that some males are wired to act like females and some females are wired
to act like males. It's certainly a psychological aberration but probably has some basis in
biology.
The problem is when these people politicize their psychological peculiarities, try to turn
it into law, and force the rest of the society to grant them specially protected status.
Thousands of people every year go to doctors to have themselves mutilated so that they can
become something else. Today they can often get the government or insurers to pay for it.
If you want to self-mutilate, that's fine; that's your business even if it's insane. To make
other people pay for it is criminal. But it's now accepted as normal by most of society.
The acceptance of politically correct values -- "diversity," "inclusiveness" -- trigger
warnings, safe spaces, gender fluidity, multiculturalism, and a whole suite of similar things
that show how degraded society has become. Adversaries of Western civilization like the
Mohammedan world and the Chinese justifiably see it as weak, even contemptible.
As with Rome, collapse really comes from internal rot.
Look at who people are voting for. It's not that Americans elected Obama once -- a mob can
be swayed easily enough into making a mistake -- but they reelected him. It's not that New
Yorkers elected Bill de Blasio once, but they reelected him by a landslide. All of the
Democratic candidates out there are saying things that are actually clinically insane and are
being applauded.
International Man : In fact, in the recent Democratic debate, candidate Julián
Castro even mentioned giving government-funded abortions to transgender women -- biological
men. It received one of the loudest bouts of applause from the audience.
That's not to mention that two other candidates spoke in broken Spanish when responding to
the moderator's questions.
"... Besides preventing social movements from undertaking independent political activity to their left, the Democrats have been adept at killing social movements altogether. They have done – and continue to do – this in four key ways: ..."
"... i) inducing "progressive" movement activists (e.g. Medea Benjamin of Code Pink and the leaders of Moveon.org and United for Peace and Justice today) to focus scarce resources on electing and defending capitalist politicians who are certain to betray peaceful- and populist-sounding campaign promises upon the attainment of power; ..."
"... (ii) pressuring activists to "rein in their movements, thereby undercutting the potential for struggle from below;" ..."
"... (iii) using material and social (status) incentives to buy off social movement leaders; ..."
"... iv) feeding a pervasive sense of futility regarding activity against the dominant social and political order, with its business party duopoly. ..."
"... It is not broken. It is fixed. Against us. ..."
"... The militarization of US economy and society underscores your scenario. By being part of the war coalition, the Democratic party, as now constituted, doesn't have to win any presidential elections. The purpose of the Democratic party is to diffuse public dissent in an orderly fashion. This allows the war machine to grind on and the politicians are paid handsomely for their efforts. ..."
"... By joining the war coalition, the Democrats only have leverage over Republicans if the majority of citizens get "uppity" and start demanding social concessions. Democrats put down the revolt by subterfuge, which is less costly and allows the fiction of American Democracy and freedom to persist for a while longer. Republicans, while preferring more overt methods of repressing the working class, allow the fiction to continue because their support for authoritarian principles can stay hidden in the background. ..."
"... When this political theatre in the US finally reaches its end date, what lies behind the curtain will surely shock most of the population and I have little faith that the citizenry are prepared to deal with the consequences. A society of feckless consumers is little prepared to deal with hard core imperialists who's time has reached its end. ..."
"... This wrath of frustrated Imperialists will be turned upon the citizenry ..."
Mainstream Dems are performing their role very well. Most likely I am preaching to the choir. But anyways, here is a review
of Lance Selfa's book "Democrats: a critical history" by Paul Street :
Besides preventing social movements from undertaking independent political activity to their left, the Democrats have
been adept at killing social movements altogether. They have done – and continue to do – this in four key ways:
i) inducing "progressive" movement activists (e.g. Medea Benjamin of Code Pink and the leaders of Moveon.org and United
for Peace and Justice today) to focus scarce resources on electing and defending capitalist politicians who are certain to
betray peaceful- and populist-sounding campaign promises upon the attainment of power;
(ii) pressuring activists to "rein in their movements, thereby undercutting the potential for struggle from below;"
(iii) using material and social (status) incentives to buy off social movement leaders;
iv) feeding a pervasive sense of futility regarding activity against the dominant social and political order, with its
business party duopoly.
The militarization of US economy and society underscores your scenario. By being part of the war coalition, the Democratic
party, as now constituted, doesn't have to win any presidential elections. The purpose of the Democratic party is to diffuse public
dissent in an orderly fashion. This allows the war machine to grind on and the politicians are paid handsomely for their efforts.
By joining the war coalition, the Democrats only have leverage over Republicans if the majority of citizens get "uppity"
and start demanding social concessions. Democrats put down the revolt by subterfuge, which is less costly and allows the fiction
of American Democracy and freedom to persist for a while longer. Republicans, while preferring more overt methods of repressing
the working class, allow the fiction to continue because their support for authoritarian principles can stay hidden in the background.
I have little faith in my fellow citizens as the majority are too brainwashed to see the danger of this political theatre.
Most ignore politics, while those that do show an interest exercise that effort mainly by supporting whatever faction they belong.
Larger issues and connections between current events remain a mystery to them as a result.
Military defeat seems the only means to break this cycle. Democrats, being the fake peaceniks that they are, will be more than
happy to defer to their more authoritarian Republican counterparts when dealing with issues concerning war and peace. Look no
further than Tulsi Gabbard's treatment in the party. The question is really should the country continue down this Imperialist
path.
In one sense, economic recession will be the least of our problems in the future. When this political theatre in the US
finally reaches its end date, what lies behind the curtain will surely shock most of the population and I have little faith that
the citizenry are prepared to deal with the consequences. A society of feckless consumers is little prepared to deal with hard
core imperialists who's time has reached its end.
This wrath of frustrated Imperialists will be turned upon the citizenry.
"... I like Elizabeth Warren, I would vote for her, . Not fond of some of her foreign policy positions, and I don't like how worked up Trump gets her. Forget about Trump, lets here what you plan on doing with the presidency E. Warren! ..."
"... Biden and Harris are both IMO DNC monsters like Clinton who will get us into nuclear war due to a combination of excessive hubris and flat out neocon/neolib stupidity. ..."
"... Warren's okay but it's hard to get past her support for Hillary in 2016 and not for Sanders whose policies reflect hers. So for me, Sanders is still the best, Warren 2nd. However, Trump will destroy him with Socialist scaremongering. ..."
"... Biden is older and will not want war (with any country) complicating his Presidency, and may choose a VP ready to succeed him if he decides not to run for a second term. He will return to the JCPOA. I don't like Biden's ingratiation with Zionists, but the reality is that Biden and Trump will be the choices, so hold your nose, because it's Biden or war and further regime change ambitions with Trump and maybe even a manipulated Trump 3rd term using war as the excuse to prolong his mandate! ..."
"... Biden has no conception of giving up office. As to war he will be as ready to start wars as he was when he and Obama and Hillary were all part of the same administration. ..."
I like Elizabeth Warren, I would vote for her, . Not fond of some of her foreign policy positions, and I don't like how worked
up Trump gets her. Forget about Trump, lets here what you plan on doing with the presidency E. Warren!
In the primaries I will support Gabbard, I believe she is as real of an anti-war candidate as there is, not perfect, but it
is all relative.
Sanders would get my vote, too, although I do fear he is a bit of a "sheep-dog" but I'd give him a shot.
If not one of those candidates, oddly, I'll vote for Trump. Biden and Harris are both IMO DNC monsters like Clinton who will
get us into nuclear war due to a combination of excessive hubris and flat out neocon/neolib stupidity.
I see a repeat of the 2016 election on the horizon, with the DNC doubling down on idiocy and losing in a similar fashion. They
haven't learnt a thing from 2016 and think hyperventilating while screaming Trump, Trump, Trump is going to win the election.
Warren's okay but it's hard to get past her support for Hillary in 2016 and not for Sanders whose policies reflect hers. So
for me, Sanders is still the best, Warren 2nd. However, Trump will destroy him with Socialist scaremongering.
My bet is that the nominee will be Biden, because Biden can beat Trump in the election and Democrats, at the last minute, will
vote out of fear of running someone who might lose to Trump.
My feeling is that there will be war in Trump's second term. Trump will be much bolder and more fascist after getting another
mandate and having nothing to lose. Trump will be a war President having invested more than any other President on military hardware
and itching to show it off. He hasn't fired his hawks for a reason. He will be more full of himself and his own importance in
history. His Zionist financiers will get their money's worth in spades. His agenda will be more hostile on Iran and China and
he'll finish what he started in Venezuela. He will lose the detente with NK, and after the election, he will no longer give friendly
lip service to Russia especially on Syria and Venezuela and will expect Russia to go along with what he has planned for Iran.
Biden is older and will not want war (with any country) complicating his Presidency, and may choose a VP ready to succeed him
if he decides not to run for a second term. He will return to the JCPOA. I don't like Biden's ingratiation with Zionists, but
the reality is that Biden and Trump will be the choices, so hold your nose, because it's Biden or war and further regime change
ambitions with Trump and maybe even a manipulated Trump 3rd term using war as the excuse to prolong his mandate!
"My bet is that the nominee will be Biden, because Biden can beat Trump in the election and Democrats, at the last minute,
will vote out of fear of running someone who might lose to Trump....."
Biden is Hillary without the feminist support. No way that he could beat Trump.
"Biden is older and will not want war (with any country) complicating his Presidency, and may choose a VP ready to succeed
him if he decides not to run for a second term. .."
Biden has no conception of giving up office. As to war he will be as ready to start wars as he was when he and Obama and Hillary
were all part of the same administration.
There is only one Democrat, among the announced candidates, who can beat Trump and his name is Sanders.
The purpose of the "Clintonized" Democratic Party is to diffuse public dissent to neoliberal rule in an orderly fashion. The
militarization of US economy and society means that by joining the war coalition, the Democratic party doesn't have to win any presidential
elections to remain in power. Because military-industrial complex rules the country.
Yes Clinton neoliberals want to stay in control and derail Sanders, much like they did in 2016. Biden and Harris are Clinton faction
Trojan horses to accomplish that. But times changed and they might have to agree on Warren inread of Biden of Harris.
Notable quotes:
"... Trump fought the swamp, and the swamp won. Trump campaigned on ending our stupid pointless wars and spending that money on ourselves – and it looked at first like he might actually deliver (how RACIST of the man!) but not to worry, he is now surrounded by uber hawks and the defense industry dollars are continuing to flow. Which the Democrats are fine with. ..."
"... Trump campaigned on a populist platform, but once elected the only thing he really pushed for was a big juicy tax cut for himself and his billionaire buddies – which the Democrats are fine with (how come they can easily block attempts to stop the flow of cheap labor across the southern border, but not block massive giveaway tax cuts to the super rich? Because they have their priorities). ..."
"... So yeah, Trump is governing a lot like Hilary Clinton would have. ..."
"... I think it's much more likely that a Sanders victory would see the Clintonistas digging even further into the underbelly of the Democratic Party. There they would covertly and overtly sabotage Sanders, brief against him in the press and weaken, corrupt and hamstring any legislation that he proposes ..."
"... electing Sanders can not be the endgame, only the beginning. I think Nax is completely right that a Sanders win would bring on the full wrath of all its opponents. Then the real battle would begin. ..."
"... The notion that real change could happen in this country by winning an election or two is naive in the extreme. But that doesn't make it impossible. ..."
"... Lots of people hired by the Clintons, Obama, Rahm Emanuel, Cuomo, etc. will have to be defenestrated. Lose their public sector jobs, if not outright charged with crimes. No one must be left in a position to hurt you after the election. Anyone on the "other side" must lose all power or ability to damage you, except those too weak. These people can be turned and used by you; they can be kept in line with fear. But all the leaders must go. ..."
"... In order for Sanders to survive the onslaught that will surely come, he must have a jobs program ready to go on day one of his administration- and competent people committed to his cause ready to cary out the plan. ..."
"... Besides preventing social movements from undertaking independent political activity to their left, the Democrats have been adept at killing social movements altogether. They have done – and continue to do – this in four key ways: ..."
"... i) inducing "progressive" movement activists (e.g. Medea Benjamin of Code Pink and the leaders of Moveon.org and United for Peace and Justice today) to focus scarce resources on electing and defending capitalist politicians who are certain to betray peaceful- and populist-sounding campaign promises upon the attainment of power; ..."
"... (ii) pressuring activists to "rein in their movements, thereby undercutting the potential for struggle from below;" ..."
"... (iii) using material and social (status) incentives to buy off social movement leaders; ..."
"... iv) feeding a pervasive sense of futility regarding activity against the dominant social and political order, with its business party duopoly. ..."
"... It is not broken. It is fixed. Against us. ..."
"... Obama spent tens of trillions of dollars saving Wall Street – at the expense of Main Street – so that nothing got resolved about the problems that caused the crash in the first place. Trump's policies are doubling down on these problems so there is going to be a major disruption coming down the track. A major recession perhaps or maybe even worse. ..."
"... The militarization of US economy and society underscores your scenario. By being part of the war coalition, the Democratic party, as now constituted, doesn't have to win any presidential elections. The purpose of the Democratic party is to diffuse public dissent in an orderly fashion. This allows the war machine to grind on and the politicians are paid handsomely for their efforts. ..."
"... By joining the war coalition, the Democrats only have leverage over Republicans if the majority of citizens get "uppity" and start demanding social concessions. Democrats put down the revolt by subterfuge, which is less costly and allows the fiction of American Democracy and freedom to persist for a while longer. Republicans, while preferring more overt methods of repressing the working class, allow the fiction to continue because their support for authoritarian principles can stay hidden in the background. ..."
"... When this political theatre in the US finally reaches its end date, what lies behind the curtain will surely shock most of the population and I have little faith that the citizenry are prepared to deal with the consequences. A society of feckless consumers is little prepared to deal with hard core imperialists who's time has reached its end. ..."
"... This wrath of frustrated Imperialists will be turned upon the citizenry ..."
"... By owning the means of production, the Oligarchs will be able to produce the machinery of oppression without the resort to 'money.' In revolutionary times, the most valuable commodity would be flying lead. ..."
"... Could that be why "our" three-letter agencies have been stocking up on that substance for awhile, now? ..."
"... " The purpose of the Democratic Party is to diffuse public dissent in an orderly fashion." ..."
"... Yes, this election is starting to remind me of 2004. High-up Dems, believing they're playing the long game, sacrifice the election to maintain standing with big biz donors. ..."
"... Sadly, when Sanders speaks of a "revolution", and when he is referred to as a revolutionary, while at the same time accepting that the Democratic Party is a Party of the top 10%, puts into context just how low the bar is for a political revolution in America. ..."
"... actual democracy is an impediment to those who wield power in today's America, and in that respect the class war continues to be waged, primarily through divisive social issues to divert our attention from the looting being done by and for the rich and the decline in opportunity and economic security for everyone else. ..."
"... the Democratic Party consultant class, I call them leeches, is fighting for its power at the expense of the party and the country. ..."
"... The DLC-type New Democrats (corporatists) have been working to destroy New Deal Democrats and policies as a force in the party. The New Deal Democrats brought in bank regulations, social security, medicare, the voting rights act, restraint on financial predation, and various economic protections for the little-guy and for Main Street businesses. ..."
"... The DLC Dems have brought deregulation of the banks and financial sector, an attempt to cut social security, expansion of prisons, tax cuts for corporations and the billionaires, the return of monopoly power, and the economic squeeze on Main Street businesses forced to compete with monopolies. ..."
That 2020 existential battle, of course, is always cast as between the Democrats and the Republicans.
But there's another existential battle going on, one that will occur before the main event -- the battle for control of the Democratic
Party. In the long run, that battle may turn out to be more important than the one that immediately follows it.
... ... ...
Before mainstream Democrats can begin the "existential battle" with the forces of Trump and Republicanism, they have to win the
existential battle against the force that wants to force change on their own party.
They're engaged in that battle today, and it seems almost all of the "liberal media," sensing the existential nature of the threat,
is helping them win it. Katie Halper, in a second perceptive piece on the media's obvious anti-Sanders bias, "
MSNBC's Anti-Sanders
Bias Is Getting Truly Ridiculous ," writes: "When MSNBC legal analyst Mimi Rocah (
7/21/19 ) said that Bernie Sanders 'made [her] skin crawl,'
though she 'can't even identify for you what exactly it is,' she was just expressing more overtly the
anti-Sanders bias that pervades the network."
... ... ...
MSNBC is clearly acting as a messaging arm of the Democratic Party mainstream in its battle with progressives in general and Sanders
in particular, and Zerlina Maxwell, who's been variously employed by that mainstream, from her work with Clinton to her work on MSNBC,
is an agent in that effort.
Let me repeat what Matt Taibbi wrote: " [Sanders'] election would mean a complete overhaul of the Democratic Party, forcing
everyone who ever worked for a Clinton to look toward the private sector. "
Agreed. Trump fought the swamp, and the swamp won. Trump campaigned on ending our stupid pointless wars and spending that
money on ourselves – and it looked at first like he might actually deliver (how RACIST of the man!) but not to worry, he is now
surrounded by uber hawks and the defense industry dollars are continuing to flow. Which the Democrats are fine with.
Trump campaigned on enforcing the laws against illegal immigration and limiting legal immigration, but he's now pretty much
given up, the southern border is open full "Camp of the Saints" style and he's pushing for more legal 'guest' workers to satisfy
the corporate demands for cheap labor – and the Democrats are for this (though Sanders started to object back in 2015 before he
was beaten down).
Trump campaigned on a populist platform, but once elected the only thing he really pushed for was a big juicy tax cut for
himself and his billionaire buddies – which the Democrats are fine with (how come they can easily block attempts to stop the flow
of cheap labor across the southern border, but not block massive giveaway tax cuts to the super rich? Because they have their
priorities).
Soon I expect that Trump will propose massive regressive tax increases on the working class – which of course the Democrats
will be fine with ('to save the planet').
So yeah, Trump is governing a lot like Hilary Clinton would have.
And elections are pretty much pointless. Even if Sanders does win, he'll get beaten down faster even than Trump was.
I think people have a hard time with real inflection points. Most of life uses more short-term linear decision making. But
at inflection points we have multiple possibilities that turn into rather surprising turns of events, such as Brexit and Trump.
We still have people saying in the UK – "but they wouldn't do that!" The hell "they" won't. Norms are thrown out of the window
and people start realising how wide the options are. This is not positive or negative. Just change or transformation.
That is my philosophical way of agreeing with you! It is easy to point at the hostility of the mainstream media and DNC as
there being no way for Sanders to win. After all in 2004, look what the media and DNC did to Howard Dean. But people weren't dying
then like they are now. The "Great Recession" wasn't on anyone's radar. People felt rich, like everything would be fine. We are
not in that situation – the facts on the ground are so wildly different that the DNC and mainstream media will find it hard to
stay in control.
I think it's much more likely that a Sanders victory would see the Clintonistas digging even further into the underbelly
of the Democratic Party. There they would covertly and overtly sabotage Sanders, brief against him in the press and weaken, corrupt
and hamstring any legislation that he proposes.
If Sanders should win against Trump expect the establishment to go into full revolt. Capital strike, mass layoffs, federal
reserve hiking interest rates to induce a recession, a rotating cast of Democrats siding with Republicans to block legislation,
press comparing him to worse than Carter before he even takes office and vilifying him all day every day.
I wouldn't be shocked to see Israel and the Saudis generate a crisis in, for example, Iran so Sanders either bends the knee
to the neocons or gets to be portrayed as a cowardly failure for abandoning our 'allies' for the rest of his term.
You've just convinced me that the American Experiment is doomed. No one else but Sanders can pull America out of its long slow
death spiral and your litany of the tactics of subversion of his presidency is persuasive that even in the event of his electoral
victory, there will be no changing of the national direction.
I'm reading a series of essays by Morris Berman in his book "Are We There Yet". A lot of critics complain that he is too much
the pessimist, but he presents some good arguments, dark though they may be, that the American Experiment was doomed from the
start due to the inherent flaw of Every Man For Himself and its "get mine and the hell with everybody else" attitude that has
been a part of the experiment from the beginning.
He is absolutely right about one thing, we are a country strongly based on hustling for money as much or more than anything
else, and both Trump and the Clintons are classic examples of this, and why the country often gets the leaders it deserves.
That's why I believe that we need people like Sanders and Gabbard in the Oval Office. It is also why I believe that should
either end up even getting close, Nax is correct. Those with power in this country will not accept the results and will do whatever
is necessary to subvert them, and the Voter will buy that subversion hook, line, and sinker.
No. The point is that electing Sanders can not be the endgame, only the beginning. I think Nax is completely right that
a Sanders win would bring on the full wrath of all its opponents. Then the real battle would begin.
The notion that real change could happen in this country by winning an election or two is naive in the extreme. But that
doesn't make it impossible.
Lots of people hired by the Clintons, Obama, Rahm Emanuel, Cuomo, etc. will have to be defenestrated. Lose their public
sector jobs, if not outright charged with crimes. No one must be left in a position to hurt you after the election. Anyone on
the "other side" must lose all power or ability to damage you, except those too weak. These people can be turned and used by you;
they can be kept in line with fear. But all the leaders must go.
In order for Sanders to survive the onslaught that will surely come, he must have a jobs program ready to go on day one
of his administration- and competent people committed to his cause ready to cary out the plan.
The high ground is being able to express a new vision for the common good, 24/7, and do something to bring it about. You win
even if you suffer losses.
Without that, life in the USA will become very disruptive to say the least.
Mainstream Dems are performing their role very well. Most likely I am preaching to the choir. But anyways, here is a review
of Lance Selfa's book "Democrats: a critical history" by Paul Street :
Besides preventing social movements from undertaking independent political activity to their left, the Democrats have
been adept at killing social movements altogether. They have done – and continue to do – this in four key ways:
i) inducing "progressive" movement activists (e.g. Medea Benjamin of Code Pink and the leaders of Moveon.org and United
for Peace and Justice today) to focus scarce resources on electing and defending capitalist politicians who are certain to
betray peaceful- and populist-sounding campaign promises upon the attainment of power;
(ii) pressuring activists to "rein in their movements, thereby undercutting the potential for struggle from below;"
(iii) using material and social (status) incentives to buy off social movement leaders;
iv) feeding a pervasive sense of futility regarding activity against the dominant social and political order, with its
business party duopoly.
Pretty bad optics on MSNBC's part being unable to do simple numbers and I can fully believe that their motto starts with the
words "This is who we are". Jimmy Dore has put out a few videos on how bad MSNBC has been towards Bernie and Progressives lately
so it is becoming pretty blatant. Just spitballing a loose theory here but perhaps the Democrats have decided on a "poisoned chalice"
strategy and do want not to win in 2020.
After 2008 the whole economy should have had a major re-set but Obama spent tens of trillions of dollars saving Wall Street
– at the expense of Main Street – so that nothing got resolved about the problems that caused the crash in the first place. Trump's
policies are doubling down on these problems so there is going to be a major disruption coming down the track. A major recession
perhaps or maybe even worse.
Point is that perhaps the Democrats have calculated that it would be best for them to leave the Republicans in power to own
this crash which will help them long term. And this explains why most of those democrat candidates look like they have fallen
out of a clown car. The ones capable of going head to head with Trump are sidelined while their weakest candidates are pushed
forward – people like Biden and Harris. Just a theory mind.
The militarization of US economy and society underscores your scenario. By being part of the war coalition, the Democratic
party, as now constituted, doesn't have to win any presidential elections. The purpose of the Democratic party is to diffuse public
dissent in an orderly fashion. This allows the war machine to grind on and the politicians are paid handsomely for their efforts.
By joining the war coalition, the Democrats only have leverage over Republicans if the majority of citizens get "uppity"
and start demanding social concessions. Democrats put down the revolt by subterfuge, which is less costly and allows the fiction
of American Democracy and freedom to persist for a while longer. Republicans, while preferring more overt methods of repressing
the working class, allow the fiction to continue because their support for authoritarian principles can stay hidden in the background.
I have little faith in my fellow citizens as the majority are too brainwashed to see the danger of this political theatre.
Most ignore politics, while those that do show an interest exercise that effort mainly by supporting whatever faction they belong.
Larger issues and connections between current events remain a mystery to them as a result.
Military defeat seems the only means to break this cycle. Democrats, being the fake peaceniks that they are, will be more than
happy to defer to their more authoritarian Republican counterparts when dealing with issues concerning war and peace. Look no
further than Tulsi Gabbard's treatment in the party. The question is really should the country continue down this Imperialist
path.
In one sense, economic recession will be the least of our problems in the future. When this political theatre in the US
finally reaches its end date, what lies behind the curtain will surely shock most of the population and I have little faith that
the citizenry are prepared to deal with the consequences. A society of feckless consumers is little prepared to deal with hard
core imperialists who's time has reached its end.
This wrath of frustrated Imperialists will be turned upon the citizenry.
By owning the means of production, the Oligarchs will be able to produce the machinery of oppression without the resort
to 'money.'
In revolutionary times, the most valuable commodity would be flying lead.
If the nation wishes true deliverance, not just from Trump and Republicans, but from the painful state that got Trump elected
in the first place, it will first have to believe in a savior.
No, no, no, no, no. No oooshy religion, which is part of what got us into this mess. Cities on a hill. The Exceptional Nation(tm).
Obligatory burbling of Amazing Grace. Assumptions that everyone is a Methodist. And after Deliverance, the U S of A will be magically
re-virginated (for the umpteenth time), pure and worthy of Manifest Destiny once again.
If you want to be saved, stick to your own church. Stop dragging it into the public sphere. This absurd and sloppy religious
language is part of the problem. At the very least it is kitsch. At its worst it leads us to bomb Muslim nations and engage in
"Crusades."
Other than that, the article makes some important points. In a year or so, there will be a lot of comments here on whether
or not to vote for the pre-failed Democratic candidate, once the Party dumps Bernie Sanders. There is no requirement of voting
for the Democrats, unless you truly do believe that they will bring the Deliverance (and untarnish your tarnished virtue). Vote
your conscience. Not who Nate Silver indicates.
Yes, this election is starting to remind me of 2004. High-up Dems, believing they're playing the long game, sacrifice the
election to maintain standing with big biz donors. The leading issue of the day (Iraq/GWOT/Patriot Act) was erased from mainstream
US politics and has been since. Don't for a minute think they won't do a similar thing now. Big donors don't particularly fear
Trump, nor a 6-3 conservative supreme court, nor a Bolton state dept, nor a racist DHS/ICE – those are not money issues for them.
Sadly, when Sanders speaks of a "revolution", and when he is referred to as a revolutionary, while at the same time accepting
that the Democratic Party is a Party of the top 10%, puts into context just how low the bar is for a political revolution in America.
The candidate who would fight and would govern for the 90% of Americans is a revolutionary.
The fact that it can be said as a given that neither major Party is being run specifically to serve the vast majority of our
country is itself an admission for that the class war begun by Reagan has been won, in more of a silent coup, and the rich have
control of our nation.
Sadly, actual democracy is an impediment to those who wield power in today's America, and in that respect the class war
continues to be waged, primarily through divisive social issues to divert our attention from the looting being done by and for
the rich and the decline in opportunity and economic security for everyone else.
Sanders is considered a revolutionary merely for stating the obvious, stating the truth. That is what makes him dangerous to
those that run the Democratic Party, and more broadly those who run this nation.
Sanders would do better to cast himself not as a revolutionary, but as a person of the people, with the belief that good government
does not favor the wants of the richest over the needs of our country. That is what makes him a threat. To the rich unseen who
hold power, to the Republican Party, and to some Democrats.
I agree with the thesis here, and confess to being puzzled by comments on LGM (for example) politics threads of the ilk "I'm
with Warren but am good with Buttigieg too," or "I'm with Sanders but am good with Harris, too," etc.
I love reading Taibbi, but in
his article , that quote, " Sanders is the revolutionary. His election would mean a complete overhaul of the Democratic
Party, forcing everyone who ever worked for a Clinton to look toward the private sector ," should be the lede, and its buried
2/3 of the way down.
This primary season is about how the Democratic Party consultant class, I call them leeches, is fighting for its power
at the expense of the party and the country.
Yves writes: it is unfortunate that this struggle is being personified, as in too often treated by the media and political
operatives as being about Sanders.
I agree. Sanders represents the continuing New Deal-type policies. The DLC-type New Democrats (corporatists) have been
working to destroy New Deal Democrats and policies as a force in the party. The New Deal Democrats brought in bank regulations,
social security, medicare, the voting rights act, restraint on financial predation, and various economic protections for the little-guy
and for Main Street businesses.
The DLC Dems have brought deregulation of the banks and financial sector, an attempt to cut social security, expansion
of prisons, tax cuts for corporations and the billionaires, the return of monopoly power, and the economic squeeze on Main Street
businesses forced to compete with monopolies.
The MSM won't talk about any of the programmatic differences between the two sides. The MSM won't recognize the New Deal style
Democratic voters even exist; the New Deal wing voters are quickly labeled 'deplorable' instead voters with competing economic
policies to the current economic policies.
So, we're left with the MSM focusing on personalities to avoid talking about the real policy differences, imo.
When Bernie talks about a revolution, he explains how it must be from the grassroots, from the bottom up. If he manages to
get elected, his supporters have to make sure they get behind the politicians who also support him and, if they don't, get rid
of them.
Without continuing mass protests, nothing is going to happen. Other countries have figured this out but Americans remain clueless.
Warren's plan would overhaul the process by which the U.S. proposes, writes, finalizes and
enforces trade deals while imposing strict standards for any nation seeking or currently in a
free trade deal with the U.S.
ADVERTISEMENT
In a Medium post outlining the
extensive trade proposal, Warren said her approach to trade is centered on using the United
States' immense leverage to protect domestic industries and workers.
Warren argued U.S trade policy has ceded too much power to international corporations,
squandering the country's ability to defend its manufacturers, farmers and laborers.
"As President, I won't hand America's leverage to big corporations to use for their own
narrow purposes," Warren wrote. "We will engage in international trade -- but on our terms and
only when it benefits American families."
Trump has imposed more than $250 billion in tariffs on Chinese goods, foreign steel and
aluminum, solar panels, and washing machines since taking office in 2017. The president has
used import taxes as leverage in trade talks and inducement for companies to produce goods in
the U.S., but manufacturing job gains and activity have faded throughout the year.
U.S. farmers and ranchers have also lost billions of dollars in foreign sales due to
retaliatory tariffs imposed on American agricultural goods.
Warren acknowledged that while tariffs "are an important tool, they are not by themselves a
long-term solution to our failed trade agenda and must be part of a broader strategy that this
Administration clearly lacks."
Warren said she instead would pursue deals and renegotiate current agreement to "force other
countries to raise the bar on everything from labor and environmental standards to
anti-corruption rules to access to medicine to tax enforcement."
To do so, Warren would expand the ability of Congress and noncorporate advocates to see and
shape trade deals as their being negotiated, not after they have been submitted to lawmakers
for approval
Warren proposed staffing trade advisory panels with a majority of representatives from labor
and environmental and consumer advocacy groups. She also called for special advisory panels for
consumers, rural areas and each region of the country, "so that critical voices are at the
table during negotiations."
Under Warren's plan, trade negotiators would be required to submit drafts of pending
agreements to Congress and submit them for public comment through the same process used by
federal regulators to propose and finalize rules.
Warren's plan also raises the bar for entry into a trade deal with the U.S. and seizes more
power for the federal government to enforce agreements.
Warren proposed a list of nine standards required of any country seeking a U.S. trade deal
including several international tax, climate and human rights treaties. She noted that the U.S.
"shamefully" does not comply with some of these standards, but would do so under her
presidency.
The plan also excludes any nation on the Treasury Department's currency manipulation
monitoring list from a potential U.S. trade deal. As of May, that list includes China, Germany,
Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Singapore and Vietnam.
Nations in trade deals with the U.S. would also be required to support subsidies for green
energy, follow U.S. food inspection standards, pay a fee on goods produced using
"carbon-intensive" processes and agree to stricter anti-trust standards.
Money rule in the USA politics. And that was true for a very long time. Candidate who is
hates by big business has tremendous disadvantages even if he/she has all the popular support.
Party apparatus will try to sabotage every their move.
Notable quotes:
"... Nixon: "a radical socialist" or "an unrealistic leftist"! Wow. That says all that needs be said about the slide to the right in our politics and it happened in large part because of inertia and self-satisfaction among the Democrats; they were the majority party after all while the right beginning with Bill Buckley and the National Review and their think tanks and their economists and their money began and continued the counter-revolution against FDR and the New Deal. ..."
"... Take a hypothetical. Biden wins, the House stays Democratic narrowly, the Senate is evenly divided. What exactly is going to change other than the rhetoric. I would not expect Biden to continue the racist and xenophobic pronouncements of Trump, but the finance weenies would still be in charge domestically, the Israelis and the donors would be running foreign policy and any and all billionaires would continue to be treated as demigods. ..."
"... in 1972, the working class was solidly behind the status quo, now, almost fifty years later, the working class has seen the end of the road coming up and is starting to ask the pointed questions they were incapable of even contemplating then. ..."
"... In 1972, it seemed only derelicts died of drug overdoses, and hard-hats were throwing things at hippies, now those people who were so defensive about the American dream, are unemployed and increasingly questioning whether there's an alternative. ..."
"... I turned 21 in 1968. The violence in the streets was coming from the police not the protesters. The local sheriff department in my locale (Isla Vista; UCSB) was deemed "riotous" in its performance during anti-war protests by a subsequent grand jury investigation. ..."
"... "McGovern never had a lead in the polls over Nixon" ..."
"... The Establishment Dems hated McGovern for several reasons. While his anti-war stance enraged the Dem neocons like the Scooper, his commission's reforms that put the most women and minorities ever in the convention hall gave some serious heartburn to party bosses like Daley and labor bosses like Meany. ..."
As soon as McGovern was nominated, party leaders began systematically slurring and
belittling him, while the trade union chieftains refused to endorse him on the pretense
that this mild Mr. Pliant was a being wild and dangerous.
A congressional investigation of Watergate was put off for several months to deprive
McGovern's candidacy of its benefits. As an indiscreet Chicago ward heeler predicted in the
fall of 1972, McGovern is "gonna lose because we're gonna make sure he's gonna lose" So
deftly did party leaders "cut the top of the ticket" that while Richard Nixon won in a
"landslide," the Democrats gained two Senate seats.
Not comparable. McGovern never had a lead in the polls over Nixon, even before his party
undermined him.
Nixon emphasized the strong economy and his success in foreign affairs, while McGovern ran
on a platform calling for an immediate end to the Vietnam War, and the institution of a
guaranteed minimum income. Nixon maintained a large and consistent lead in polling.
Nixon: "a radical socialist" or "an unrealistic leftist"! Wow. That says all that needs
be said about the slide to the right in our politics and it happened in large part because of
inertia and self-satisfaction among the Democrats; they were the majority party after all while
the right beginning with Bill Buckley and the National Review and their think tanks and their
economists and their money began and continued the counter-revolution against FDR and the New
Deal.
This is not news to the politically aware. It could be a starting point for a rebirth of a
real democratic party as opposed to whatever shambles along in the tattered garments of the
old.
Take a hypothetical. Biden wins, the House stays Democratic narrowly, the Senate is
evenly divided. What exactly is going to change other than the rhetoric. I would not expect
Biden to continue the racist and xenophobic pronouncements of Trump, but the finance weenies
would still be in charge domestically, the Israelis and the donors would be running foreign
policy and any and all billionaires would continue to be treated as demigods.
The status quo is destroying the country. The corporoids, the professionals, the suave
sophisticated urbanites do not notice and would not care. The USA needs revolutionary change
just to discover that it really has a soul. Then the hard work of generations could begin.
And in 1972, the working class was solidly behind the status quo, now, almost fifty
years later, the working class has seen the end of the road coming up and is starting to ask
the pointed questions they were incapable of even contemplating then.
In 1972, it seemed only derelicts died of drug overdoses, and hard-hats were throwing
things at hippies, now those people who were so defensive about the American dream, are
unemployed and increasingly questioning whether there's an alternative.
Witness the peaceful 'confrontation' that met Trumps aborted campaign rally in Chicago in
2016, in 1972 there would have been riot police and blood in the streets.
In 2016 the anti-Trump protestors and Trump supporters stood on opposite sides of the street
with a scant force of cops, sans riot gear between them and there was virtually no
violence.
I turned 21 in 1968. The violence in the streets was coming from the police not the
protesters. The local sheriff department in my locale (Isla Vista; UCSB) was deemed "riotous"
in its performance during anti-war protests by a subsequent grand jury investigation.
I do agree that the current general population (working class) now sees itself as the
"protesters".
"McGovern never had a lead in the polls over Nixon"
Very true, but it's important to remember that up until Wallace was wounded by Bremer in
May, another three-way race with Wallace was anticipated. Polling in early May (and this is
from memory) had Nixon and McGovern within the margin of error in a three-way race. There was a
realistic possibility that things would have ended up in the House as they almost did in
'68.
The Establishment Dems hated McGovern for several reasons. While his anti-war stance
enraged the Dem neocons like the Scooper, his commission's reforms that put the most women and
minorities ever in the convention hall gave some serious heartburn to party bosses like Daley
and labor bosses like Meany.
Very shortly after the convention, I went before my border state's Dixiecrat-flavored Dem
county committee to plead for their support in the general. We got nowhere. McGovern's campaign
in my county consisted of some of us young folks and a few dissidents who opened some
storefronts and did some canvassing. The party regulars probably all voted for Nixon.
The New Quincy Institute Seeks Warmongering Monsters to Destroy Andrew Bacevich on his new left-right group, which is
going hammer and tongs against the establishment on foreign policy. By
Kelley Beaucar Vlahos •
July 30, 2019
Andrew J. Bacevich participates in a panel discussion at the U.S. Naval War College in 2016. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication
Specialist 1st Class Christian S. Eskelund/Released) For the last month, the foreign policy establishment has been abuzz over the
new kid on the block: the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft , named
for John Quincy Adams. Adams, along with our first president George Washington,
warned of foreign entanglements and the urge to go
abroad in "search of monsters to destroy," lest America's fundamental policy "insensibly change from liberty to force
. She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit ."
Those in the foreign policy Blob have had different reactions to the "upstart" think tank. These are the preeminent organizations
that stand imperious in size and square footage, but have lacked greatly in wisdom and clarity over the last 20 years. Quincy will
stand apart from them in two significant ways: it is drawing its intellectual and political firepower from both the anti-war Left
and the realist and restraint Right. And it is poised to support a new "responsible statecraft," one that challenges the conditions
of endless war, including persistent American militarism here and abroad, the military industrial complex, and a doctrine that worships
primacy and a liberal world order over peace and the sovereignty of other nations.
Quincy, which is rolling out its statement of principles this
week (its official launch will be in the fall), is the brainchild of Trita Parsi, former head of the National Iranian-American Council,
who saw an opening to bring together Left and Right academics, activists, and media disenchanted by both sides' pro-war proclivities.
Together with Vietnam veteran and former Boston University professor Andrew Bacevich (also a longtime TAC contributor), the
Carnegie Endowment's Suzanne DiMaggio, Columbia University's Stephen Wertheim, and investigative journalist Eli Clifton, the group
wants to serve as a counterweight to both liberal interventionists like the Brookings Institution and Council on Foreign Relations,
and the war hawks and neoconservatives of the Heritage Foundation and Foundation for Defense of Democracies.
They've already taken hits from both sides of the establishment, dismissed brusquely
as naive , or worse,
isolationist (that swipe from neoconservative Bill Kristol, whose now-defunct Weekly Standard once ran a manifesto headlined
"The Case for American Empire"
). The fact that Quincy will be funded by both George Soros on the Left and the Charles Koch Foundation on the Right has brought
some rebuke from unfriendlies and even some friendlies. The former hate on one or the other powerful billionaire, while the latter
are wary of Soros' intentions (he's has long been a financial supporter of
"soft-power"
democracy movements overseas, some of which have encouraged revolution and regime change).
Advertisement
But Quincy's timing couldn't be more perfect. With a president in the White House who has promised to draw down U.S. involvement
overseas (with the exception of his Iran policy, he has so far held to much of that pledge), and national conservatives coming around
to TAC's long-held worldview on realism and restraint (and an increasing willingness to reach across the aisle to work with
like-minded groups and individuals), Quincy appears poised to make some noise in Washington.
According to the group's new statement of principles , "responsible
statecraft" 1) serves the public interest, 2) engages the world, 3) builds a peaceful world, 4) abhors war, and 5) is democratic.
Andrew Bacevich and Trita Parsi expanded on this further in a recent Q&A with TAC.
(Full disclosure: the author is on Quincy's steering committee and TAC also receives funding from the Charles Koch Foundation.)
TAC : Quincy's principles -- and thus it's name -- are rooted in the mission of "responsible statecraft." Can you give
me a sense of what that means in practical terms, and why you settled on this phrasing for the institute?
AB: With the end of the Cold War, policy elites succumbed to an extraordinary bout of hubris, perhaps best expressed in the claim
that history had designated the United States as its "indispensable nation." Hubris bred recklessness and irresponsibility, with
the Iraq war of 2003 as Exhibit A. We see "responsible statecraft" as the necessary antidote. Its abiding qualities are realism,
restraint, prudence, and vigorous engagement. While the QI is not anti-military, we are wary of war except when all other alternatives
have been exhausted. We are acutely conscious of war's tendency to produce unintended consequences and to exact unexpectedly high
costs.
TAC : Quincy is a trans-partisan effort that is bringing together Left and Right for common cause. Is it a challenge?
AB: It seems apparent to us that the myriad foreign policy failures and disappointments of the past couple of decades have induced
among both progressives and at least some conservatives a growing disenchantment with the trajectory of U.S. policy. Out of that
disenchantment comes the potential for a Left-Right coalition to challenge the status quo. The QI hopes to build on that potential.
TAC : Two of the principles take direct aim at the current foreign policy status quo: responsible statecraft abhors war,
and responsible statecraft is democratic (calling out a closed system in which Americans have had little input into the wars waged
in their names). How much of what Quincy aims to do involves upending conventional norms, particularly those bred and defended by
the Washington "Blob"?
AB: In a fundamental sense, the purpose of the QI is to educate the American people and their leaders regarding the Blob's shortcomings,
exposing the deficiencies of old ideas and proposing new ones to take their place.
TAC: That said, how much blowback do you anticipate from the Washington establishment, particularly those think tanks and
individuals whose careers and very existence depend on the wheels of militarism forever turning?
AB : Plenty. Proponents of the status quo are entrenched and well-funded. Breaking old habits -- for example, the practice of
scattering U.S. military bases around the world -- will not come easily.
TAC : There has been much ado about your two primary funders -- Charles Koch and George Soros. What do you say to critics
who suggest you will be tied to/limited by their agendas?
AB: Our funding sources are not confined to Koch and Soros and we will continue to broaden our support base. It's not for me to
speak for Koch or Soros. But my guess is they decided to support the QI because they support our principles. They too believe in
policies based on realism, restraint, prudence, and vigorous engagement.
TAC : Better yet, how did you convince these two men to fund something together?
TP: It is important to recognize that they have collaborated in the past before, for instance on criminal justice reform. This
is, however, the first time they've come together to be founding funders of a new entity. I cannot speak for them, but I think they
both recognize that there currently is a conceptual deficit in our foreign policy. U.S. elite consensus on foreign policy has collapsed
and the void that has been created begs to be filled. But it has to be filled with new ideas, not just a repackaging of old ideas.
And those new ideas cannot simply follow the old political alignments. Transpartisan collaboration is necessary in order to create
a new consensus. Koch and Soros are showing tremendous leadership in that regard.
TAC : The last refuge of a scorned hawk is to call his critics "isolationist." It would seem as though your statement of
principles takes this on directly. How else does Quincy take this often-used invective into account?
AB : We will demonstrate through our own actions that the charge is false.
TAC : Critics (including James Traub,
in his own piece on Quincy
) say that Washington leaders, once in office, are "mugged by reality," suggesting that the idea of rolling back military interventions
and avoiding others sounds good on paper but presidents like Barack Obama had no choice, that this is all about protecting interests
and hard-nosed realism. The alternative is a bit naive. How do you respond?
AB: Choices are available if our leaders have the creativity to recognize them and the gumption to pursue them. Obama's patient
and resolute pursuit of the Iran nuclear deal affirms this possibility. The QI will expose the "we have no choice" argument as false.
We will identify and promote choice, thereby freeing U.S. policy from outmoded habits and stale routines.
Kelley Beaucar Vlahos is e xecutive editor at . Follow her on Twitter
@Vlahos_at_TAC
QI is a welcome change from the endless, whining tirade of the old hawks.
I wish them well in gaining influence in DC.
I hope that they can give voice to the growing numbers of us who do not support illegal invasions, funding dissidents to
foment regime change and our flawed system of selecting key allies (regardless of their human rights records) and protecting
them and their interests at all cost. This has been a drain our economic resources and moral standing.
In this time, when nationalism and disaster capitalism seem to be winning on both sides of the Atlantic, it seems there
is little hope for peace, decency and diplomacy.
QI has a huge challenge to take on the parasitic organism that is the war machine, but any initiative is better than none.
If Quincy is to have any chance of success in its mission, it will have to tackle the issues surrounding Federal election campaign
financing. The current rules give a handful of American billionaires effective control over US Middle East policy. What is
good for donors like Sheldon and Miriam Edelson is not necessarily good for the American public. Donald Trump was elected president
of the US not Prime Minister of Israel.
I did read one of Mr. Basevich's books a few years ago and my take away remains valid today: The US cannot afford to be
the policeman of the world.
Gabbard is more controlled opposition. Remember, she voted for the anti-BDS resolution,
more sanctions and is anti-2nd Amendment. Don't be fooled by her shtick.
She says she is against forever wars yet she voted to pass the monstrosity that is the new
defense bill. She is also a friend to Israhell as she voted for anti BDS.
I don't listen to what politicians say but what they do that falls in line with the most
important elements of empire.
I wish conservatives would stop understating Fusion GPS. "Fusion GPS is the arm of the
Clinton Campaign that colluded with a foreign agent, Christopher Steele, to work with
Russians to obtain opposition research against Trump"
I think Mueller was laying the groundwork for his upcoming trial. His lawyers will use a
defense claiming he's old possible dementia or alzheimer's disease.
Republicans have known for a long time that Mueller was not competent and even they were
shocked at this hearing. Just think how Democrats must be feeling after building him up for
three years as Captain America....LMFAO!
We learned Mueller never interviewed anyone or wrote his report. Who did? And what did he
do for 2 1/2 years besides drink? Also Volume 2 is all speculation of " sources" aka MSM
propaganda. A FAKE report of a FAKE investigation based on a FAKE dossier! 3 years of FAKE
NEWS ON A FAKE CLAIM!!!
Robert Mueller wasn't in charge of his own investigation. He was told who to hire and then
did zero work. He was a figure head. Someone to give credibility to an attempted coup.
Pornography multiplies frequency, duration, angles, positions and sexual partners, an
endless and eternal sexual buffet, except that none of it is really happening. Similarly,
American democracy gives the appearance of boundless participation by all citizens, for they
can't just vote in caucuses and elections, but cheer at conventions, march in protest, write
letters to newspapers, comment on the internet and follow, blow by blow, the serial mud
wrestling between opposing politicians. Pissed, they can freely curse Bush, Obama or Trump
without fearing a midnight knock on the door. Alas, none of their "political activities"
actually matters, for Americans don't influence their government's policies, much less decide
them. It's all an elaborate spectacle to make each chump think he's somehow a player, in on the
action, when he's actually all alone, in the dark, to beat his own meat, yet again.
He has railroaded, premasticated opinions on everything, but without the means to act on any
of it. Only his impotence is real.
"... But Dean Baker, the co-founder of the liberal Centre for Economic and Policy Research, said that the increase in corporate debt has corresponded with higher profits and manageably low interest rates. "The idea that you're going to have this massive cascade of defaults - it's very hard to see," Baker said. ..."
"... Michael Madowitz, an economist at the Centre for American Progress, said that most predictions about recessions were wrong, not just those offered by politicians. ..."
"... But he interpreted Warren's essay as a broader warning about how Trump's efforts to support growth by curbing regulations and attacking government institutions might eventually be destructive ..."
"... With my total lack of understanding of world economics I predict a stock market crash sometime between May 2020 and October 2020 and a recession, including Australia (worse than the unofficial one we have really been in here in Australia for the last 10 years), over following few years. ..."
Elizabeth Warren became a household name thanks to her prescient warning of what became a global financial crisis.
Now she's staking her credentials on another forecast of fiscal trauma ahead. The Democratic presidential candidate published an
online essay this week saying that a rise in consumer and corporate debt is imperilling the longest expansion in US history.
"Whether
it's this year or next year, the odds of another economic downturn are high - and growing," Warren wrote.
Her prediction could help
her win over primary voters by tapping into anxieties about middle-class economic stability despite broad gains over the past decade.
But Warren's opponents could seize on her warning to undermine her credibility should a crash fail to materialise before next year's
election, and some economists sympathetic to her agenda say that - for the moment - her conclusion of a looming recession is overblown.
Recessions are notoriously difficult to forecast. Warren first warned in 2003 about subprime mortgage lending, yet it was roughly
five years later when the US housing market fully collapsed.
And although her dire forecast echoed in style some warnings made by
Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign, Warren hasn't aligned with him in portraying her potential election to the White
House as the only way to avert disaster. "I went through this back in the years before the 2008 crash, and no one wanted to listen.
So, here we are again," Warren said on Capitol Hill last week. "I'm trying to point out where the warning signs are. I hope
our regulators and Congress listen, make changes, and that the economy strengthens."
Even economists who like her prescription are skeptical about her diagnosis. Warren rooted her concerns about
the economy in a Federal Reserve report that found a 6.8 per cent increase in household debt over the past decade, allowing the Massachusetts
senator to write that American families are "taking on more debt than ever before." But that figure is not adjusted for inflation,
nor is it adjusted for population growth - and the number of US households has risen by 9.5 per cent during the same period, meaning
that Fed data also shows debt levels have fallen on a per capita basis.
"I don't see a huge bubble on the other side of household
debt that is going to savage people's assets," said Josh Bivens, director of research at the liberal Economic Policy Institute. At
the moment, families can afford their debt because of low interest rates, and that minimises the risks to the economy. American households
are devoting less than 10 per cent of their disposable income to debt service, down from roughly 13 per cent in 2008, according to
the Fed. This doesn't mean that Warren is wrong to conclude that families are burdened by student debt and childcare costs, just
that data suggests the debt produced by those expenses is unlikely to cause a downturn.
Part of Warren's forecast hinges on a spike
in interest rates that seems unlikely as most benchmark rates have declined since November. Warren has assembled a litany of proposals
aimed at bringing down household debt, through student loan forgiveness and affordable childcare availability as well as a housing
plan designed to lower rent costs. She touted her policy agenda - which has propelled her higher in the polls - as ways to avert
her predicted crash.
Warren's warning of a downturn is a somewhat unique maneuver for a presidential candidate. Past White House hopefuls have waited
for the downturns to start before capitalising on them. Bill Clinton won the presidency in 1992, for example, on a post-recession
message summed up by then-adviser James Carville's edict to focus on "the economy, stupid."
Warren also warned this week that an increase in corporate borrowing could crush the economy.
But Dean Baker, the co-founder of the liberal Centre for Economic and Policy Research, said that the increase in corporate debt
has corresponded with higher profits and manageably low interest rates. "The idea that you're going to have this massive cascade
of defaults - it's very hard to see," Baker said.
While the US economy may not be entering into a recession, many economic forecasters say growth is still slowing because of global
and demographic pressures. Evidence of this has already caused Fed officials to signal that they plan to cut interest rates at their
meeting next week. Trump has repeatedly called for the Fed to make even steeper cuts to improve his economic track record.
Michael Madowitz, an economist at the Centre for American Progress, said that most predictions about recessions were wrong, not
just those offered by politicians.
But he interpreted Warren's essay as a broader warning about how Trump's efforts to support growth by curbing regulations and
attacking government institutions might eventually be destructive. "It's hard to say what a debt-driven problem would look like until
it happens," Madowitz said.
"I think it's also reasonable to elevate concern at the moment given how politicised Trump has made apolitical economic institutions
like the Fed. That's not a free lunch. It creates real risks, so it's more important than usual to think about what happens if things
go bump in the night."
AP Mick 8 hours ago
I really have no idea about economics - seriously the mechanics of world financing, where every country seems
to in debt baffles me. But if you look at the last 40 years or so - my adult life - there seems to be a stock market crash about
each 10 years and a recession in the USA about each 10 years. From memory, stock markets in 1987, 1997, 2008 (I suppose also dot
com stuff in around 1999/2000 as well). Recessions in the US in early 90's, early 2000's, 2009 into 2010's.
With my total lack of understanding of world economics I predict a stock market crash sometime between May 2020 and October 2020
and a recession, including Australia (worse than the unofficial one we have really been in here in Australia for the last 10 years),
over following few years.
I wonder how my predictions will stand up to the experts. Gillespie 8 hours ago No facts seem to be the hallmark of your post.
"Warren first warned in 2003 about subprime mortgage lending" shshus 10 hours ago The incoming economic meltdown in a insanely indebted
global ponzi scheme is a no brainer. Despite Trump's usual bombast, the US economy is hardly growing and manufacturing is already
in recession. The lunatic policies of central banks to offer free money at almost zero interest rates has caused a greed based credit
frenzy that is simply unsustainable. The coming economic collapse will be far worse as the trade wars between US and China and rest
of the world will simply compound the problem. Australia is particularly vulnerable in both economic and strategic terms. Time to
batten the hatches, rather than pile on more consumer debt.
"... Any candidate that is publicly against the empire is the enemy of not only the state, it's quislings in the media, the corporations who profit from it and the party machines of both the GOP and the DNC. That is Gabbard's crime. And it's the only crime that matters. ..."
"... This represents an intervention into her ability to speak to voters and, as such, is a violation of not only her First Amendment rights but also, more critically, campaign finance law. ..."
"... On a day when it became clear to the world that Robert Mueller led an investigation to affect the outcome of the 2018 mid-term elections (and beyond) while attempting to overthrow an elected President, Gabbard attacking the one of the main pillars of the information control system is both welcome and needed. ..."
"... Her filing this lawsuit is making it clear that even a fairly conventional Democrat on most all other issues is to be marginalized if she criticizes the empire. ..."
"... You can disagree with Tulsi on many things but she is absolutely right and the only one who gets the real problem.Military Industrial Complex & The Empire. ..."
Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI)
is suing Google
. It's about time someone did. It's one thing to for conservatives and libertarians to be outraged by their treatment
by the tech giant, it's another for them to go after a female Democrat.
Since Trump's election the campaign to curtail free speech has went into overdrive and we are now far beyond Orwell's dystopian
vision in 1984 in terms of technological infrastructure.
Google makes Big Brother look like George Carlin's the Hippy Dippy Weather Man with the "hippy dippy weather, man." The drive
to stamp out all forms of political division has only one thing animating it, protecting the drive of the elites I call The Davos
Crowd to erect a transnational superstate to herd humanity to their vision of sustainability.
Gabbard is the only person running for the Democratic nomination worth any amount of my time. Her fundamental criticisms of the
U.S. warfare state are spot on. She's sincere about this. It's costing her stature within her own party.
She's a committed anti-imperialist. She's also young, inexperienced and a little bit naive. But that, to me, is part of her charm.
It means she is still malleable. She's smart enough to be outraged about where we are headed and young enough to be flexible about
what the solutions are to stop it from happening.
So, as such, she's the perfect champion for the defenders of free speech and critics of the U.S. empire. A young, attractive,
intelligent woman of mixed-race heritage with a service record who stands athwart the mainstream on the most important issue in politics
today: the U.S. empire.
The entire time I was growing up the prevailing wisdom was Social Security was the third rail of U.S. politics. That, like so
many other pearls of wisdom, was nonsense.
The true third rail of U.S. politics is empire.
Any candidate that is publicly against the empire is the enemy of not only the state, it's quislings in the media, the corporations
who profit from it and the party machines of both the GOP and the DNC. That is Gabbard's crime. And it's the only crime that matters.
For that crime Google acted to blunt interest in her campaign in the critical hours after the first democratic debate. So, Gabbard,
rightly, sued them.
The two main points of her lawsuit are:
1) suspending her Google Ad account for six hours while search traffic for her was spiking and
2) Gmail disproportionately junked her campaign emails.
This represents an intervention into her ability to speak to voters and, as such, is a violation of not only her First Amendment
rights but also, more critically, campaign finance law.
Whether this lawsuit goes anywhere or not is beside the point. Google will ignore it until they can't and then settle with her
before discovery. Gabbard doing this is good PR for her as it sets her on the right side of an incredibly important issue, censorship
and technological bias/de-platforming of political outsiders.
It's also good because if she does pursue this principally, it will lead to potential discovery of Google's internal practices,
lending the DoJ a hand in pursuing all the big tech firms for electioneering.
On a day when it became clear to the world that Robert Mueller led an investigation to affect the outcome of the 2018 mid-term
elections (and beyond) while attempting to overthrow an elected President, Gabbard attacking the one of the main pillars of the information
control system is both welcome and needed.
Her filing this lawsuit is making it clear that even a fairly conventional Democrat on most all other issues is to be marginalized
if she criticizes the empire.
As libertarians and conservatives it is irrelevant if she is conventional in other areas. It doesn't matter that she's been to
a CFR meeting or two or that she's anti-gun. She's not going to be president.
This is not about our virtue-signaling about the purity of essence of our political figures. They are tools to our ends. And on
now two incredibly important issues leading up to the 2020 election Tulsi Gabbard is on the right side of them.
She is someone we can and should reach out to and support while she makes these issues the centerpiece of her campaign. Her timing
is even more excellent than what I've already stated.
Filing this lawsuit is a pre-emptive strike at Google now that she's qualified for the next two Democratic debates. And it may
assist her in breaking out of the bottom tier of the Democratic field, Ron Paul style if she gets her opportunity.
Shedding light on Google's anti-free speech practices is a fundamental good, one we should celebrate. Dare I say, it's double
plus good.
* * *
Join
my Patreon
and
install Brave
if you both hate big tech censorship and the empire in equal
measure.
You can disagree with Tulsi on many things but she is absolutely
right and the only one who gets the real problem.Military
Industrial Complex & The Empire.
If you won't kill this problem
you can virtue signal about your left and right opinions about
your perfect candidate as much as you want without getting
anything done ( Trump). Purism won't help you. It only gets you
distracted and controlled by the elites.
The point of this article is that Gabbard is taking on GOOGLE,
for screwing with her account. See Google demonitizes, deboosts,
deplatforms people without them even knowing it, and diddles their
search algorythms NOT ONLY against conservatives, but for
independent democrats like Gabbard. THAT'S THE POINT, not who or
what Gabbard stands for. The dem party did the same to Gabbard
during the 2016 election, cut her off from financing, because she
supported Bernie Sanders.
This is the sort of **** things dim's do, and progressive
companies like Fakebook, Twatter and Goolag. Now Gabbard may not
have views that we can support, but if she is taking on GOOLAG,
than we should stand like a wall behind her. This is a big threat
to 1st amendment rights.
Good point, chunga. She is already being given the Ron Paul
treatment by MSM (they either slam her as basically a naive
fool, or just ignore her), so no way does she rise to the top
of the **** pile of Blue Team candidates. Would make a good
run as an independent, and maybe wake some people up.
Pornography multiplies frequency, duration, angles, positions and sexual partners, an
endless and eternal sexual buffet, except that none of it is really happening. Similarly,
American democracy gives the appearance of boundless participation by all citizens, for they
can't just vote in caucuses and elections, but cheer at conventions, march in protest, write
letters to newspapers, comment on the internet and follow, blow by blow, the serial mud
wrestling between opposing politicians. Pissed, they can freely curse Bush, Obama or Trump
without fearing a midnight knock on the door. Alas, none of their "political activities"
actually matters, for Americans don't influence their government's policies, much less decide
them. It's all an elaborate spectacle to make each chump think he's somehow a player, in on the
action, when he's actually all alone, in the dark, to beat his own meat, yet again.
He has railroaded, premasticated opinions on everything, but without the means to act on any
of it. Only his impotence is real.
I agree wholeheartedly with Tucker Carlson...This whole stupid Russia hysteria propagated
by most of the media made me, an old timer liberal, agree with Tucker. Well played Democratic
Party... well played.
Tucker's question about what should happen to the people who attempted to reverse the will
of the American people? The answer is very straightforward. Those found guilty of sedition
and treason should by law hanged by the neck until dead. This might discourage further
efforts to undermine the will of the American people.
Representative Thomas Massie (R-KY)
told
Luke Rudkowski of "
We
Are Change
," a libertarian media organization, that Democratic presidential candidate
Tulsi Gabbard has just signed on as a co-sponsor of Audit the Fed bill, officially known as
H.R.24
The Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2019
.
The bill
authorizes the General Accountability Office to perform a full audit of the
Fed's conduct of monetary policy,
including the Fed's mysterious dealings with Wall
Street, central banks and governments.
During the interview, Massie said the latest development in attempting to audit the Federal
Reserve is that Gabbard signed on as co-sponsor.
He believes the topic will "get some
airtime" in the upcoming presidential debates.
He said there are four Democratic co-sponsors and 80 Republican co-sponsors for the
bill;
it was recently passed in the House of Representatives as it heads to the Senate.
Massie said:
"We have passed it in the House but have never passed it in the Senate. Because of a lot of
these people in the House of Representatives who vote for it and support it in the House go to
the Senate and decide it's not such a good idea."
Rudkowski then tells Massie about interesting parallels between some presidential candidates
(Gabbard and Bernie Sanders), who have an anti-interventionists view along with being critical of
the Federal Reserve.
Massie responds by saying,
"Well if you're just trying to sorta tie the anti-war people to
the Federal Reserve. I think the closest connection is
the Federal Reserve enables the
endless Wars that are being funded by controlling the value of our currency and without the massive
borrowing and printing of money and controlling of interest rates - we wouldn't be able to sustain
a permanent state of war.
"
https://www.youtube.com/embed/WQEbGkzy6Sk
Last week, Ron Paul recently wrote that Massie needs to
"expedite passage of their Audit
the Fed legislation should the Federal Reserve decide to disobey the will of its creator – Congress
– by involving itself in real-time payments.
After all, their bipartisan legislation came
just seven votes shy of passing not long ago. With the Fed extending its wings even further and the
president finally making good on his promise to push the bill through, it should be all but certain
of arriving on his Oval Office desk for signing."
With the US infected by a global industrial slowdown, and in President Trump's view a Federal
Reserve-caused economic downturn, support for auditing the Fed will continue to increase among
Americans across all political ideologies.
It's not just Republicans who demand the audit,
but now Gabbard and even Sanders (Democrats).
Auditing the Fed is the first step in changing monetary policy that has created a
debt-and-bubble-based economy; promoted the welfare-warfare state; created the most massive wealth
inequality crisis in history; led to an affordable housing crisis; transferred all the wealth to
the top 1% of America, and could lead to the collapse of the American empire if not corrected in
the next several years.
"... The upcoming Horowitz and Durham reports on their respective probes into "meddling into the meddling" will target many people in the Democratic Party, US intelligence services, and the media. In that order. Can the Dems survive such a thing? It's hard to see. ..."
"... After the opening credits, [Dominic] Cummings rejects an offer in 2015 by UKIP MP Douglas Carswell and political strategist Matthew Elliott to lead the Vote Leave campaign due to his contempt for "Westminster politics", but accepts when Carswell promises Cummings full control. ..."
"... The next sequences show Cummings outlining the core strategy on a whiteboard of narrow disciplined messaging delivered via algorithmic database-driven micro-targeting tools . Cummings rejects an approach by Nigel Farage and Arron Banks of Leave.EU to merge their campaigns, as his data shows Farage is an obstacle to winning an overall majority. ..."
"... [..] In a eureka moment, Cummings refines the core message to "Take Back Control", thus positioning Vote Leave as the historical status quo, and Remain as the "change" option . Cummings meets and hires Canadian Zack Massingham, co-founder of AggregateIQ, who offers to build a database using social media tools of [3 million] voters who are not on the UK electoral register but are inclined to vote to leave. ..."
"... [..] In the final stages, high-profile senior Tory MPs Michael Gove and Boris Johnson join the Vote Leave campaign emphasising the need to "Take Back Control", while Penny Mordaunt is shown on BBC raising concerns over the accession of Turkey. Gove and Johnson are shown as having some reticence over specific Vote Leave claims (e.g. £350 million for NHS, and 70 million potential Turkish emigrants) but are seen to overcome them. ..."
"... And now Cummings is back to finish the job. ..."
"... They were sending targeted personalized messages to individual voters, by the millions. Algorithms. AI. Tailor made. If you're the opposition, and you don't have those tools, then what do you have exactly? ..."
It's a development that has long been evident in continental Europe, and that has now arrived on the shores of the US and UK.
It is the somewhat slow but very certain dissolution of long-existing political parties, organizations and groups. That's what I
was seeing during the Robert Mueller clown horror show on Wednesday.
Mueller was not just the Democratic Party's last hope, he was their identity. He was the anti-Trump. Well, he no longer is, he
is not fit to play that role anymore. And there is nobody to take it over who is not going to be highly contested by at least some
parts of the party. In other words: it's falling apart.
And that's not necessarily a bad thing, it's a natural process, parties change as conditions do and if they don't do it fast enough
they disappear. Look at the candidates the Dems have. Can anyone imagine the party, post-Mueller, uniting behind Joe Biden or Bernie
Sanders or Kamala Harris? And then for one of them to beat Donald Trump in 2020? I was just watching a little clip from Sean Hannity,
doing what Trump did last week, which is going after the Squad. Who he said are anti-Israel socialists and, most importantly, the
de facto leaders of the party, not Nancy Pelosi. That is a follow-up consequence of Mueller's tragic defeat, the right can now go
on the chase. The Squad is the face of the Dems because Trump and Hannity have made them that.
The upcoming Horowitz and Durham reports on their respective probes into "meddling into the meddling" will target many people
in the Democratic Party, US intelligence services, and the media. In that order. Can the Dems survive such a thing? It's hard to
see. The Dems have no Trump. They do have a DNC that will stifle any candidate they don't like (Bernie!), though. Just think
what they would have done if Trump had run as a Democrat (crazy, but not that crazy).
The UK's issues are remarkably similar to those of the US. Only, in their case, the socialists have already taken over the left-wing
party (if you can call the Dems left-wing). This has led to absolute stagnation. Tony Blair had moved Labour so far to the right
(which he and his Blairites call center, because it sounds so much better), that injecting Jeremy Corbyn as leader was just too fast
and furious.
So they labeled Corbyn an anti-semite, the most successful and equally empty smear campaign since Julian Assange was called a
rapist. Corbyn never adequately responded, so he couldn't profile himself and now the Blairites are again calling on him to leave.
Oh, and he never gave a direct answer to the question of Brexit yes or no either. Pity. Corbyn's support among the people is massive,
but not in the party.
Which is why it's now up to Boris Johnson to 'deliver the will of the people'. And apparently the first thing the people want
is 20,000 more policemen. Which were fired by the very party he at the time represented first as first mayor of London and then foreign
minister, for goodness sake. His very own Tories closed 600 police stations since 2010 and will have to re-open many now.
Some survey must have told him it polled well. Just like polling was an essential part of pushing through Brexit. There's a very
revealing TV movie that came out 6 months ago called Brexit: The Uncivil War, that makes this very clear. The extent to which campaigns
these days rely on data gathering and voter targeting will take a while yet to be understood, but they're a future that is already
here. Wikipedia in its description of the film puts it quite well:
After the opening credits, [Dominic] Cummings rejects an offer in 2015 by UKIP MP Douglas Carswell and political strategist
Matthew Elliott to lead the Vote Leave campaign due to his contempt for "Westminster politics", but accepts when Carswell promises
Cummings full control.
The next sequences show Cummings outlining the core strategy on a whiteboard of narrow disciplined messaging delivered
via algorithmic database-driven micro-targeting tools . Cummings rejects an approach by Nigel Farage and Arron Banks of Leave.EU
to merge their campaigns, as his data shows Farage is an obstacle to winning an overall majority.
[..] In a eureka moment, Cummings refines the core message to "Take Back Control", thus positioning Vote Leave as the historical
status quo, and Remain as the "change" option . Cummings meets and hires Canadian Zack Massingham, co-founder of AggregateIQ,
who offers to build a database using social media tools of [3 million] voters who are not on the UK electoral register but are
inclined to vote to leave.
[..] In the final stages, high-profile senior Tory MPs Michael Gove and Boris Johnson join the Vote Leave campaign emphasising
the need to "Take Back Control", while Penny Mordaunt is shown on BBC raising concerns over the accession of Turkey. Gove and
Johnson are shown as having some reticence over specific Vote Leave claims (e.g. £350 million for NHS, and 70 million potential
Turkish emigrants) but are seen to overcome them.
Dominic Cummings, played in the movie by Benedict Cumberbatch, is an independent political adviser who belongs to no party. But
guess what? He was the first adviser Boris Johnson hired after his nomination Wednesday. Cummings didn't want Nigel Farage as the
face of Brexit, because he polled poorly. He wanted Boris, because his numbers were better. Not because he didn't think Boris was
a bumbling fool, he did.
And now Cummings is back to finish the job. Far as I can see, that can only mean one thing: elections, and soon (it's
what Cummings does). A no-deal Brexit was voted down, in the same Parliament Boris Johnson now faces, 3 times, or was it 4? There
is going to be a lot of opposition. Boris wants Brexit on October 31, and has practically bet his career on it. But there is going
to be a lot of opposition.
He can't have elections before September, because of the summer recess. So perhaps end of September?! But he has Dominic Cummings
and his "algorithmic database-driven micro-targeting tools" . Without which Brexit would never have been voted in. So if
you don't want Brexit, you better come prepared.
Cummings and his techies weren't -just- sending out mass mails or that kind of stuff. That's already arcane. They were sending
targeted personalized messages to individual voters, by the millions. Algorithms. AI. Tailor made. If you're the opposition, and
you don't have those tools, then what do you have exactly?
Already thought before it all happened that it was funny that Boris Johnson's ascension and Robert Mueller's downfall were scheduled
for the same day. There must be a pattern somewhere.
You can find the movie at HBO or Channel 4, I'm sure. Try
this link for Channel
4. Seeing that movie, and thinking about the implications of the technology, the whole notion of Russian meddling becomes arcane
as well. We just have no idea.
The Demoncrats have one candidate who could beat Trump, namely Tulsi Gabbard. I disagree with her economics and her 2nd amendment
stance, but enough Chump voters who based their vote on his promise to stop the continuous war on everyone, would switch to Tulsi
if she were nominated, particularly if the Chump plays his Zio directive and starts a war with Iran which will not go well for
anybody. But Tulsi will never have a fair shot at the nominations as the MIC Google has demon-strated in her law suit. **** the
election. The people and their opinions are not a factor. **** the left right hatred division while the Owners just laugh from
the shadows at us for being so easily manipulated.
The upcoming Horowitz and Durham reports on their respective probes into "meddling into the meddling" will target many people
in the Democratic Party, US intelligence services, and the media. In that order. Can the Dems survive such a thing? It's hard
to see.
Can criminals survive a functioning DOJ working under the Law?
In its self-described "pied piper" strategy, the Clinton campaign proposed intentionally cultivating extreme right-wing
presidential candidates, hoping to turn them into the new "mainstream of the Republican Party" in order to try to increase
Clinton's chances of winning.
Trump is using Hillary's Pied Piper strategy against AoC and the Squid.
Elevate the radical leftists...they'll be seen as the face of the Democrat party...then 2020 is a sure Trump win.
Not that I care...I never consented to being governed by anyone.
For decades, the Democratic party has been a joke: a weakly bound coalition of liberals and labor -- two groups with nothing
in common, and a fair degree of hate for each other.
For decades, the Republican party has also been a joke: a weakly bound coalition of religious fundamentalists and fiscal conservatives
-- two groups with nothing in common, and a fair degree of hate for each other.
In European politics, they call a shovel a shovel and work by coalition government. You have smaller parties which actually
represent interest groups, although none are large enough for power themselves. They form and break coalitions -- some long lasting,
some flittering around from election to election -- in order to form a majority ad hoc. It isn't a bad system, and the voters
don't have to hold their noses so much at the polls.
(edit: all this squabbling between "the squad" and the Pelosi leadership makes much more sense when viewed as friction between
the labor and liberal halves of the dems.)
All we're doing is waiting for the fake "prosperity" to crumble, and the resulting
loss of credibility and legitimacy will follow like night follows day.
The citizenry of corrupt regimes ruled by self-serving elites tolerate this
oppressive misrule for one reason and only one reason: increasing prosperity, which
we can define as continual improvement in material well-being and financial security.
The legitimacy of every corrupt regime ruled by self-serving elites hangs on this
single thread: once prosperity fades, the legitimacy of the regime evaporates, as the
citizenry have no reason to tolerate their rapacious, predatory overlords.
A broken, unfair system will be tolerated as long as every participant feels
they're getting a few shreds of improvement. This is why there is such an enormous
push of propaganda touting "growth"; if the citizenry can be conned into believing that
their deteriorating well-being and security are actually "prosperity," then they will
continue to grant the status quo some measure of credibility and legitimacy.
When the gap between the propaganda and reality widens to the breaking point, the
regime loses its credibility and legitimacy. This manifests in a number of ways:
1. Nobody believes anything the state or its agencies reports as "fact": since it
misreported economic well-being and security to benefit the few at the expense of the
many, why believe anything official?
2. Increased lawlessness: since the Ruling Elites get away with virtually everything,
why we should we obey the laws?
3. Opting out: rather than become a target for the state's oppressive organs of
security , the safer path is to opt out : quit supporting a parasitic and
predatory Status Quo of corporations and the state with your labor, slip into the shadows
of the economy, avoid debt like the plague, get by on a fraction of your former
income.
4. Breakdown of Status Quo political parties: since all parties are bands of
self-serving thieves, what's the point of even nominal membership?
5. Increasing reliance on anti-depression and anti-anxiety medications, more
self-medication/drug use, and other manifestations of social stress and breakdown.
6. Those who can move away from crumbling high-tax cities, essentially giving up civic
hope for fair, affordable solutions to rising inequality and social disorder.
7. Increasing defaults and bankruptcies as households and enterprises no longer see
any other way out.
8. Increasing mockery of financial/corporate media parroting the propaganda that
"prosperity" is real and rising-- S&P 500 hits 3,000, we're all getting better in
every way, every day, etc.
Truth is the most essential form of capital, and once it has been squandered to
serve insiders, vested interests and Ruling Elites, the nation is morally, spiritually,
politically and financially bankrupt. All we're doing is waiting for the fake
"prosperity" to crumble, and the resulting loss of credibility and legitimacy will follow
like night follows day.
Looks like Mueller was a figurehead and Weismann or somebody else was the driving force
behind the report. Some legal experts now hope that DOJ will open inqury about who really wrote
Mueller report. Mueller was not aware about basic facts in his report. Compare with Joe diGenova The public got to see
Mueller's incompetence - YouTube
Mueller is NO hero. He's a corrupt, coward, a traitor to the state, bought by the
ideological DEM Globalists. A shame to the USA. He should end in jail!!
"Now, there's one thing you might have noticed I don't complain about: politicians.
Everybody complains about politicians. Everybody says they suck. Well, where do people think
these politicians come from? They don't fall out of the sky. They don't pass through a
membrane from another reality. They come from American parents and American families,
American homes, American schools, American churches, American businesses and American
universities, and they are elected by American citizens. This is the best we can do folks.
This is what we have to offer. It's what our system produces: Garbage in, garbage out. If you
have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're going to get selfish, ignorant leaders. Term limits
ain't going to do any good; you're just going to end up with a brand new bunch of selfish,
ignorant Americans. So, maybe, maybe, maybe, it's not the politicians who suck. Maybe
something else sucks around here like, the public. Yeah, the public sucks. There's a nice
campaign slogan for somebody: 'The Public Sucks. F*ck Hope."
"Now, there's one thing you might have noticed I don't complain about: politicians.
Everybody complains about politicians. Everybody says they suck. Well, where do people think
these politicians come from? They don't fall out of the sky. They don't pass through a
membrane from another reality. They come from American parents and American families,
American homes, American schools, American churches, American businesses and American
universities, and they are elected by American citizens. This is the best we can do folks.
This is what we have to offer. It's what our system produces: Garbage in, garbage out. If you
have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're going to get selfish, ignorant leaders. Term limits
ain't going to do any good; you're just going to end up with a brand new bunch of selfish,
ignorant Americans. So, maybe, maybe, maybe, it's not the politicians who suck. Maybe
something else sucks around here like, the public. Yeah, the public sucks. There's a nice
campaign slogan for somebody: 'The Public Sucks. F*ck Hope."
That bill alone makes Warren a viable candidate again, despite all her previous blunders. She is a courageous woman, that
Warren. And she might wipe the floor with the completely subservant to Israel lobby Trump. Who betrayed his electorate
in all major promises.
Notable quotes:
"... Not only would Warren's legislation prohibit some of the most destructive private equity activities, but it would end their ability to act as traditional asset managers, taking fees and incurring close to no risk if their investments go belly up. The bill takes the explicit and radical view that: ..."
"... Private funds should have a stake in the outcome of their investments, enjoying returns if those investments are successful but ab-1sorbing losses if those investments fail. ..."
"... Critics will say that Warren's bill has no chance of passing, which is currently true but misses the point. ..."
"... firms would share responsibility for the liabilities of companies under their control, including debt, legal judgments, and pension obligations to "better align the incentives of private equity firms and the companies they own." The bill, if enacted, would end the tax subsidy for excessive leverage and closes the carried interest loophole. ..."
"... The bill also seeks to ban dividends to investors for two years after a firm is acquired. Worker pay would be prioritized in the bankruptcy process, with guidelines intended to ensure affected employees are more likely to receive severance pay and pensions. It would also clarify gift cards are consumer deposits, ensuring their priority in bankruptcy proceedings. If enacted, private equity managers will be required to disclose fees, returns, and political expenditures. ..."
"... This is a bold set of proposals that targets abuses that hurt workers and investors. Most readers may not appreciate the significance of the two-year restriction on dividends. One return-goosing strategy that often leaves companies crippled or bankrupt in its wake is the "dividend recap" in which the acquired company takes on yet more debt for the purpose of paying a special dividend to its investors. Another strategy that Appelbaum and Batt have discussed at length is the "op co/prop co." Here the new owners take real estate owned by the company, sell it to a new entity with the former owner leasing it. The leases are typically set high so as to allow for the "prop co" to be sold at a richer price. This strategy is often a direct contributor to the death of businesses, since ones that own their real estate usually do so because they are in cyclical industries, and not having lease payments enables the to ride out bad times. The proceeds of sale of the real estate is usually dividended out to the investors, hence the dividend restriction would also pour cold water on this approach. ..."
"... However, there is precedent in private equity for recognizing joint and several liability of an investment fund for the obligations of its portfolio companies. In a case that winded its way through the federal courts until last year ( Sun Capital Partners III, LP v. New England Teamsters & Trucking Indus. Pension Fund ), the federal court held that Sun Capital Partners III was liable under ERISA, the federal pension law, for the unfunded pension obligations of Scott Brass, a portfolio company of that fund. The court's key finding was that Sun Capital played an active management role in Scott Brass and that its claim of passive investor status therefore should not be respected. ..."
"... Needless to say, private equity firms have worked hard to minimize their exposure to the Sun Capital decision, for example by avoiding purchasing companies with defined benefit pension plans. The Warren bill, however, is so broad in the sweep of liability it imposes that PE firms would be unlikely to be able to structure around it. It is hard to imagine the investors in private equity funds accepting liability for what could be enormous sums of unfunded pension liabilities ultimately flowing onto them. Either they would have to set up shell companies to fund their PE investments that could absorb the potential liability, or they would have to give up on the asset class. Either way, it would mean big changes to the industry and potentially a major contraction of it. ..."
"... I am surprised that Warren sought to make private equity funds responsible for the portfolio company debts by "joint and several liability". You can get to economically pretty much the same end by requiring the general partner and potentially also key employees to guarantee the debt and by preventing them from assigning or buying insurance to protect the guarantor from being liable. There is ample precedent for that for entrepreneurs. Small business corporate credit cards and nearly all small business loans require a personal guarantee. ..."
"... Warren's bill also has strong pro-investor provisions. It takes on the biggest feature of the ongoing investor scamming, which is the failure of PE managers to disclose to the investors all of the fees they receive from portfolio companies. The solution proposed by the bill to this problem is exceedingly straightforward, basically proclaiming, "Oh yeah, now you will have to disclose that." The bill also abolishes the ability of private equity managers to claim long term capital gains treatment on the 20 percent of fund profits that they receive, which is unrelated to the return on any capital that the private equity managers may happen to invest in a fund. ..."
"... We need a reparations movement for all those workers harmed by private equity. Seriously. ..."
"... It's so nice to see someone taking steps to protect the rights and compensation of the people actually doing the work at the companies and putting their interests first in case of bankruptcy. That those who worked hardest to make the company succeed were somehow the ones who took it in the shorts the worst has always struck me as a glaring inequity bordering on cruelty. ..."
Elizabeth Warren's
Stop Wall Street Looting Act , which is co-sponsored by Tammy Baldwin, Sherrod Brown, Mark Pocan and Pramila Jayapal, seeks to
fundamentally alter the way private equity firms operate. While the likely impetus for Warren's bill was the spate of private-equity-induced
retail bankruptcies, with Toys 'R' Us particularly prominent, the bill addresses all the areas targeted by critics of private equity:
how it hurts workers and investors and short-changes the tax man, thus burdening taxpayers generally.
Elections are nothing more than rituals to alleviate the masses and give a false sense of
self determination, while the real power brokers and manipulators are left unfettered.
This at least, in terms of the UK's shameless role as Head Vassal of the US Empire, and it
is the empire which is surely the #1 concern for most barflies.
While Boris Derangement Syndrome picks up pace, in imitation of the hysteria against the
big orange fella in Washington, I can only hope that the left/fake-left opposition to him
remains opposition when he takes us towards the next conflict. Same as the opposition to
Trump has translated into opposition to conflict with Iran. Oh, it hasn't.
Because it doesn't matter who is UK PM, they will take and execute orders from
MI6-Langley-Foggy Bottom and the stenographers in the press will compose shrill
denunciations of the enemy of the day and the majority of the public will sadly receive
little information contrary to that narrative.
There is one narrative though, from the establishment, than many UK citizens have not
swallowed. Contrary to the views of some commenters here, Brexit is not an establishment
plot, but a popular revolt against the orders of the ruling class. That Boris is an
Eton toff does not make him a spokesman of the ruling class - he is an unprincipled
opportunist who has seized a desire for sovereignty among a majority of voters as a vehicle
for his ambition for the top job.
Sovereignty. That principle which anti-imperialists take as central to the importance for
nations not to be dominated by others, is also at the heart of the wishes of so many in the
UK to be able to pass their own laws, spend their own money, and manage their own borders. It
is ironic that Boris has positioned himself at the heart of the campaign to achieve this
while getting his hands on the levers of British Imperialism, but in the grubby world of
political contradictions, not surprising.
Oddly, ISTR he opposed the aggression against Yugoslavia at the time 20 years ago, though
later rescinded his position, most likely with an eye on his career.
Posted by: Ash (London) | Jul 23 2019 22:44 utc | 109
"Sovereignty. That principle which anti-imperialists take as central to the importance
for nations not to be dominated by others, is also at the heart of the wishes of so many in
the UK to be able to pass their own laws, spend their own money, and manage their own
borders. "
Serious question: Then why do you still put up with kings and queens?
@O, 112: well personally I don't wish to put up with kings and queens.
Getting rid of unelected technocrats in the EU should be just the start. Next to go should
be the House of Lords, the Royal Perogative, and the role of judges in political decision
making.
However much I cannot fathom their popularity, the royals still enjoy popular support so
there is currently no demoratic mandate for their defenestration, much as I might wish
it.
I'm not advocating the Romananov Solution. Exile in Canada should do it. ;-)
And while we're on leadership of UK parties, a word about Jeremy Corbyn. Dear Jeremy.
I've seen him held up here and elsewhere as a beacon of hope, and I get that. He is my MP
and I've been happy to vote for him in the last two or three elections that I've lived in his
constituency as he is that most rare of beasts, an anti-imperialist Member of Parliament, as
well as a decent man who has tried to look after his constituents.
Sadly though, and this is critical, his opposition to wars and interventions has no broad
political base. As far as I can see, the much talked-about Corbynistas who have secured his
party leadership, are more interested in posing as Social Justice Warriors than building an
anti-war movement. They seem to be projecting their own agendas onto him rather than taking
his lead on anti-imperialism. For me, their identity politics is a fake-left disaster which
is basically the divide-and-rule strategy of the old ruling class.
The parliamentary Labour Party are Blairite warmongers in alliance with Tories and the
media depicting him as an anti-semite who wants to put Jews on trains to gas chambers.
When stuff comes up like Skripal he puts up a bit of resistance to the narrative before
collapsing under pressure. This illustrates the weakness of his position. And I don't want to
bang on about the EU, but he was a lifeling left-Eurosceptic of the Bennite mold before
abandoning that to secure his job as head of a pro-EU party - which means in this case both
the Blairites and the Corbyinstas. So principles get binned for survival.
So sorry. Don't get your hopes up that he might get elected and reverse the foul, toxic
foreign policies of the British State because even if he wants to he has as much chance of a
stalk of wheat in a huricane.
Removing the westminster system and british establishment you are going to end up with
what, a presidential system like US or France? Both (and others) display imperialistic
tendency, in fact almost all systems do to a degree. I guess you could look to the most
peaceful countries and hope for similar, I like the Swiss system but there must be others,
and I have found some very hierarchical countries more than reasonable in practical terms,
and in terms of freedom, aside from the more absolute restrictions that have to be respected
and while they are functioning normally.
So there is a lot of illusion or allusion involved in how politics and hierarchy work, it
helps to live in different countries to get some truer perspective of the others.
I think anarchy (classical) is a natural state, hierarchy is the organisation of duties,
and those start quite naturaly also in family, but they are not institutionalised. Whenever
people interact an order develops, so for example not everyone speaks at once, and where a
decision must be made on behalf of all you end up with leadership. In real life there is
rarely the time to discuss till unanimity is reached, to do so is disadvantageous, and so you
end up with authority, or majority decision making.
The point is maybe that people are not going to make the world to what it isn't, you can
dream of a perfect reality and destroy everything trying to create it, and it still won't
work. So what we can do is to try to make it or rather allow it, to be the best it can be,
and that starts with understanding moral and respect for others, only after that can a better
society emerge. People being people I suppose it would demand eternal vigilance also.
Tech platforms circumvented the MSM and allowed different voices to be heard. Policing these
platforms are still currently beyond the capabilities of tech companies. Content censorship
is a main focus of AI right now. You can expect an impersonal, Stalinist PC police in every
platform very soon.
We need to be looking at the current situation. History (almost entirely an extremely
unpleasant horror show) is only relevant in that we have to deal with its mostly negative
relics.
Your way of looking at things assumes that everybody has convergent interests. The populists
argument is that those smart guys in power are only looking after their own interests and not
everybody else's.
Fighting ignorance with ignorance? Not a cool move, Comrade.
"[Marx] had few qualms about colonialism as many leftists in the 19th century."
1] Read Marx's stuff on India and Ireland and American Slavery.
2] "Marx didn't say much about culture."
Intro to the Grundrisse? Feuerbach Theses? German Ideology? All of what's been dismissed as
the "Humanist" Marx, meaning almost everything written before Capital?
3] " it is actually right-wingers who have used Gramsci's concept of Cultural Hegemony
with both hands." Read up.
Here's for starters:
Which brings me to the gist:
"Cultural Marxism," also known as Western Marxism, non-Leninist Marxism, etc. etc. Stuff they
can't accuse of being in collusion with Marxist-Leninism, Stalinism, etc. Ranging from late
Engels to Adorno to Benjamin to Sartre and beyond.
""Bannon, Kristol and many other have read him extensively."
About as much as you have, pal.
This is a paradox that clever progressives ought to be able to exploit, if only by
asking non-American rightwing populists to explain their great love for an industry that
even Steve Bannon considers to be "evil".
It doesn't seem to have occurred to the author that the American populist right,
not the European populist right, has the weaker argument, when it comes to Silicon Valley.
I think Big Tech ought to pay higher taxes (and I vehemently oppose the scandalous
subsidies and tax breaks they receive), but I think that's the case with all vastly
wealthy corporate interests, including such sectors as finance, property, bio-pharma, and
energy.
I'm not much of a fan of Facebook, but in general my life's loads more convenient and
affordable because of the likes of Google, Netflix, Amazon, Uber and Airbnb. Plus, you know,
they seem to piss off Trump and Bannon. So that's a plus.
As a Marxist, I would like someone to explain to me the meaning of the expression "cultural
Marxism".
It's cool to be an intellectual onanist or an outright bell-end (like Bolsonaro's minister
who said that global warming was a Marxist plot), but words have meanings and it would be
nice to use words carefully.
The bloody irony of "cultural Marxism" is that even though Marx didn't say much about
culture, LGBTQ(put another letter here) or minorities (he had few qualms about colonialism as
many leftists in the 19th century), it is actually right-wingers who have used Gramsci's
concept of Cultural Hegemony with both hands.
Bannon, Kristol and many other have read him extensively and have the cheek to criticise
others for promoting "cultural Marxism", which is a figment of their imagination.
Cultural Marxism is the Godwin point of intellectual discourse.
The American wing of the movement sees big tech as an attractive target of
attack....
One of those statements that indicates how deep you are wandering in the woods. There is
an onslaught of EU countries and EU councils that have sued big tech in the US. The
investigations don't stop and the threats don't stop.
In 2018, the EU hit Google with a fine of $5 billion in an antitrust verdict with respect
to the Android operating system. In 2017, the EU hit Google with a $2.7 billion judgement
with respect to displaying advertisements.
That is just the recent material with respect to Google.
The biggest pressure faced by Facebook (again) comes from the left. The pressures over
data, the race to take-down opposing viewpoints and the fines for non-compliance. Facebook
has been forced by the left to hire so many "fact-checkers" that it has affected its
profitability. (Recent discoveries reveal that Mark Zuckerberg lied to Congress -- a felony
offense.)
... as bashing it helps to delegitimize the legacy of Obama and Clinton, seen as its
primary enablers.
The Clinton's have amassed a remarkable trail of felony violations in many areas.
Continued pressure against the swamp is slowly removing their layers of protection. Documents
and evidence are also appearing that implicates Obama and some advisers in various illegal
activities in 2016 with respect to the FBI and DOJ.
That process continues to move forward, irregardless of the House.
The Right Wing Christian parties have found the Immigrant hot button with which to field
their arguments. Loosely knitted with finance to hide their real purpose, they are finding
success. I say, unmask them for their actual fears propelled by underlying bigotry and fear.
"Big tech monsters like Google and Facebook have become nothing less than incubators for
far-left liberal ideologies and are doing everything they can to eradicate conservative
ideas and their proponents from the internet."
If only it were true.
No fan of Mussolini, but he did oversee the eradication of malaria in Italy.
And I love free speech, but it's hard to justify the proposition that "conservative ideas"
really constitute a set of ideas, a coherent perspective. They're more accurately
understood as a set of noises, devoid of coherent meaning, made while harming oneself and
others.... They're just more verbose versions of, say, the inarticulate noises made by a
headmaster while whipping a young child for some fabricated misdemeanour. Noises the child
will learn to make while punishing others......
But there's one issue on which there's no agreement between American rightwing populists
and their peers in the rest of the world: what to make of Silicon Valley. On the one hand,
its services and platforms have been a boon to the populists everywhere...
Followed by more strawmen and generalized incoherence. In a recent speech, Macron started
by reminding his audience of Marie-Antoinette and King Louis XVI. The later was decapitated
because of a poor economic performance and wide-spread discontent.
And in 1517, the theologian Martin Luther nailed Thesis 86 to a church door and started
the Protestant Reformation.
In Morozov's scope of history, humanity has never experienced a social eruption,
revolution, or change of direction until Silicon Valley. That is not surprising since the
progressive left's extent of history begins around 1932.
Also, the author's knowledge of Silicon Valley's history is heavily flawed with biases and
fraudulent presentations.
Tech isn't new anymore. Silicon Valley is almost 40 years old in terms of its social impact.
That's equivalent to the 1960s for the US car industry, which is about the time that the
social and political negatives of car ownership began to manifest in public debate. The
novelty of big tech has begun wearing off as its early benefits fade, and the costs to
society linger. It's the rest of the world that is lagging behind the USA in terms of
disillusionment
The far left and the far right have a point about tech. Silicon Valley has always had
lamentable political tendencies: a love of both neoliberalism, a penchance for "Singaporean"
authoritarianism, and an ungainly mix of personal hubris and pseudomessianic claptrap. In the
US big tech is guilty of overselling itself to the public while just proving to be little
better at corporate citizenship than oil companies.
The ambition and business method of all social media is to create a condition of extreme
excitability, reactiveness and strong engagement by users so as to maximize participation and
thereby to drive revenue streams, whether these are advertising or product sales or data
acquisition for future commercial exploitation.
Accordingly, Big Tech relies on the hyper provocation and ultra engagement of the "2
minutes hate" as it is described by some.
It's like throwing out morsels of raw meat to a group of crocodiles or alligators and
watching the feeding frenzy.
The commercial model of Big Tech demands the strong drivers of intense hate, fear, envy
and even hostility.
Negative emotions, acting on the more primitive parts of the brain, subvert our critical
faculties and drive our impulsive and destructive behaviours for the advantage of Big
Tech.
Politically correct and worthy speech will ertainly not optimize the revenues. You need
the fulminating hate merchants, the graders, the nasties and the trolls. That gets other
users highly exercised and strongly engaged.
I know of few social media based outlets which cynically and manipulatively use a few
social provocateurs to throw out incendiary and provocative hate speech so as to get the
punters enraged and engaged.
Alt-right and hard right sells. Hate speech stimulates.
The commercial objective is to get the online dogs salivating out of a Pavlovian reaction
to the trigger bells of hate, discrimination, fear of migrants, provocation over identity
issues, fear of being swamped, loss if he familiar and the rise tinted but deceptive lens of
nostalgia for a wholly fictitious imagined past.
Gd point. The ambition of all social media is to create a condition of extreme excitability,
reactive ness and engagement so as to maximize participation and thereby to drive revenue
streams.
Excellent and apposite reference to Orwell in this context.
Big Tech relies on the hyper privication and engagement of the "2 minutes hate" as you
aptly describe it.
It's like throwing out morsels ofvraw meet to a group of crocodiles or alligators and
watching the feeding frenzy.
The commercial model of Big Tech demands the drivers of hate, fear, envy and even
hostility. Negative emotions, acting on the more primitive parts of the brain, subvert our
critical faculties and drive our impulsive and destructive behaviors.
Politically correct and worthy speech will not optimize the revenues.
I know of few social media based outlets which cynically and manipulatively use a few
social provocateurs to throw out incendiary and provocative hate speech so as to get the
punters engaged.
Alt-right and hard right sells. Hate speech stimulates.
Get the online dogs salivating out of a Pavlovian reaction to the trigger bells.
And as we have seen with Facebook's monthly scandals they are not going to behave better
unless they are forced to. It would be good to have governments that might help: right now
that's the EU alone, China being a special case.
Left wing is not really to do with labour politics anymore
Of course it is though that was simply a vehicle to uplift the whole of society making it
egalitarian. Silicon Valley can only be implicated as left wing as communism for the rich. In
no respect are they looking for equality quite the reverse their celebrated ideal is the
emancipation of the individual to be great wealth creators, if they have a social conscience
their beneficence will be to become philanthropists creating another legacy from their
wealth.
You can see why European fascist like them they were always happy to work with capitalists
in the past. It seems their US counterparts are behind the curve on that.
Big Tech preserves the surface veneer of democracy whilst controlling the prejudices and
direction of the electorates.
Big Tech assimilates us into a hive mind. It is not yet absolute but we are well on the
way to being controlled by those who use Big Tech to direct us.
Only the far right libertarian billionaires can afford to use Big Tech to impose their
wishes.
Democracy is being replaced by a toxic mix of plutocracy, technocracy and a mobbing mass
directed like a murmurstion of starlings.
Read Shoshana Zuboff's book, "Surveillance Capitalism" for an insight.
I consume social media and technology; therefore I am.
"The rhetoric of hatred and divisiveness only has one logical conclusion, which is ultimately
to pit every individual against every other individual. The order in which they do so is not
some kind of universal, it's a complex product of cultural fears and how they can be
exploited."
But ironically the obsession with "identity politics" the erasure of wider communities in
favour of further and further fragmentation- seen as "progressive", is helping to deliver the
same agenda. is it not? It concentrates on what makes us different, not what makes us
similar.
No, they've provided a platform for almost anyone to encourage and amplify their
message, including far-left, far-right, people looking for missing cats etc.
I made this point in my original post.
You seem to be agreeing with me for the sake of disagreement, as a mechanism to get your
point across, in the process omitting and skewing the points I made.
You subtly edited one of my statements to omit the term capital. My full sentence was as
below:
We're in a desperate situation where capital and tech giants have utilised social media
to encourage, amplify and legitimise the very worst human impulses.
The point here is that capital has a tremedous advantage over smaller and grass roots
movements because it can employ companies such as Cambridge Analytica and Aggregate IQ to
mobilise opinion.*
In this arena, as in every arena, money helps people seize and bolster power. The
assertion that left and right can exert the same influence in this domain is a false
equivalence.
Social media isn't a channel through which all views can flow equally. Your claim to this
effect is either disingenuous or naive.
* They're the same company, but that's another discussion.
Here's a sound analysis of the global economy for you, Zhenya: capitalism is an unrecoverable
failure. Wreck it, scrap it, replace it by egalitarian cybernetically centrally-planned
low-competition, moderated-consumption leisure-oriented socialism with a private sector
limited to 30% of GDP or less.
One thing that appears to be missing from this is the recent trend in rightwing populists
being kicked off online payment processes services & fund raising tools, not to mention
twitter and similar social media platforms. It's easy enough to understand the
Alex Jones/Infowars being banned from paypal being one such example, another interesting
one is, again,
paypal and them banning the Proud Boys , the amusing part is they banned Antifa groups as
well for violating the same terms of service.
Throw in social media sites
"Purging political discussions" and it's easy to see how there's going to be hate from
populists. Social media has become a vital tool of political discussion, but it's not... yet
stable, the platform providers are reactionary and inconsistent in their approach to sorting
problems.
I think this can be explained by the American propensity to conflate "conservatism" with
"market liberalism". It's a sleight of hand that really confuses some people.
Left wing is not really to do with labour politics anymore, if it ever was. Arguably it was
only ever a useful grievance to be harnessed that has long been superseded. Harnessed to the
goal of remaking mankind to the favoured plan of upper middle class utopians. I think that at
bottom that is what leftism is in its essence.
The idea that these most ludicrously successful and world-bestriding capitalist enterprises
are founded and staffed by Marxists, or folks who are pretty much indistinguishable from
Marxists, would, one might think, be something that would engender a long and thoughtful
period of reflectio
Big tech are a classic example of those who are "socially liberal but fiscally conservative".
In other words, are happy to have compassion and a conscience...as long as it doesn't cost
them anything.
The assumption among academics was that, should new media democratise our politics it
would, naturally, advantage the left. The people would throw off their shackles and reclaim
authority from capital. The wave would be egalitarian rather than divisive.
Capital has successfully devised an ersatz, designedly harmless (to them) "left" and used
its class/cultural power to squash and demonise the real thing.
How do we begin to fight back? Can we fight back?
Sure. The bourgeoisie's exploitation of our common decency has pretty much exhausted
itself. It's essential that new left currents are exclusively proletarian however.
I don't think either 'side' is necessarily wrong here. The social media giants are
generally made up of left-leaning people; not necessarily surprising given that they're
based in California and are made up of relatively young college graduates.
This is fundamentally untrue.
At best these people have appropriated socially liberal attitudes because it suits their
capitalist instincts.
There's a market for social liberalism. Tech giants and their owners have branded aspects
of their companies accordingly.
If the money flows in the other direction, these same companies and owners will profit
from this stream without compunction. Increasingly that's where the money streams from.
These people are capital. Their ethics stretch no further than their bottom
line.
Zuckerberg et al. sell notions of "hacking the system" only to service a profit
imperative. Indeed, they've "hacked" publishing laws to dodge accountability.
Bannon, while condemning Silicon Valley, is one of the main proponents of the use of its
platforms in propaganda. Indeed, it was central to the 2016 election of Trump and the
campaigns he has overseen in Europe.
What he describes as "evil" are the utopian tech barons, as they are an easy target for
popular hate. This is, of course, rank hypocrisy - as he and his "pro-business" allies are
neither calling for them to be taxed nor brought down to size, and they are quite happy to
use their services.
Therefore, I don't think there is a divide between the US far right or their offshoots
around the world. The paradox at the centre of all these movements is that they are both for
and against powerful elites, when it suits them.
The arab spring was initially viewed by many as an anti US uprising using the freedom of the
internet.
When it didnt deliver honey and unicorns, by many it was retrospectively recast as a US coup
using a US corporation controlled by zionists.
Its not the medium it is the ownership and the bias behind it. TV media today is left wing
biased not just in UK but US and other western countries too. Similarly, we have to look at
the ownership of the big internet companies and their bias today also.
The tech giants don't care about 'left' or 'right', 'conservative' or 'progressive'. They
care about money and they care about enriching their senior executives and shareholders.
It wasn't that long ago that progressives bubbled over with excitement at the role played by
Twitter and Facebook in the Arab Spring. And of course no profession has embraced Twitter
more enthusiastically than journalists. If that was removed half our newspapers would be
blank pages. Ambivalence about the big social media platforms is not unique to populists. If
your ideas get traction on it you like it. If your opponents ideas get traction you don't.
Not entirely unlike traditional media in this respect.
The advent of social media produced an upswell of academic papers and arguments.
As the internet became a growing cultural and political tool, the framing question for
much academic debate was as follows:
Will "new media" democratise our culture and politics, or be co-opted by established
actors to bolster their hegemonic status.
The assumption among academics was that, should new media democratise our politics it
would, naturally, advantage the left. The people would throw off their shackles and reclaim
authority from capital. The wave would be egalitarian rather than divisive.
Post-Brexit and Trump, this assumption has been exposed as deeply flawed.
While Western politics has become increasingly polarised, the beneficiaries have been the
increasingly hard to far right.
We're in a desperate situation where capital and tech giants have utilised social media to
encourage, amplify and legitimise the very worst human impulses.
Isnt this just the modern equivalent of 1950s republicans complaining that new fangled TV
makes JFK seem better looking and more likely to win elections? You cant uninvent TV or the
internet.
Barack Obama was the pioneer of using social media to help win elections but there was zero
outcry about it.
Automation will likely eliminate all jobs eventually. The idea that it's a tool of the
liberal centre to displace the "provincial periphery" is nonsense.
2008 was the pivotal year that trust was lost in the banks, the political class and the
media; all three have been fighting a rearguard action ever since.
The crash saw politicians use public money to bail out the banks while the media were
complicit in subverting this reality, blaming certain groups for causing the melt down (such
as the poor, the feckless, migrants, etc).
In the meantime things have become much worse guaranteeing that the next crash (which is
just round the corner) will be far worse than 2008 because borrowing has reached such
stratospheric proportions, while none of the root causes of 2008 have been addressed - the
likes of the Yellow Vests in France are probably a taste of what is to come.
Most of the arguments around the digital media are driven by a desire to surpress the
nature of previous and coming economic catastrophes in my opinion typified by some of the
groups who are trying to exploit the lack of honesty about why living conditions are under
threat in places like Spain, Greece and the North of England.
So outside of the US, populist see social media as a way out of some sort dictatorship by
people smarter than themselves? That's just perverse. I want the damned country to be run by
people who are smarter than I am. I hope this will actually happen one day.
I tend to think that the Atlanticists are right here - Big Tech represents the liberal centre
who would happily replace the provincial periphery with robots for cultural as well as
economic reasons.
In Continental Europe, the new populism is nascent and so as we saw with the leader-less
Gilets jaunes, folk are still excited about the self-organisation potential of the Net.
I don't think either 'side' is necessarily wrong here. The social media giants are generally
made up of left-leaning people; not necessarily surprising given that they're based in
California and are made up of relatively young college graduates. And yes, they are getting
filthy rich off the backs of some questionable policies and, in some instances, questionable
approaches to taxation.
For all the faults of the left and right populists, and there are many, I think they are
right in thinking that the big tech companies are no angels.
"To reduce a complex argument to its bare bones, since the Depression, the twin forces of
managed democracy and Superpower have opened the way for something new under the sun: 'inverted
totalitarianism,' a form every bit as totalistic as the classical version but one based on
internalized co-optation, the appearance of freedom, political disengagement rather than mass
mobilization, and relying more on "private media" than on public agencies to disseminate
propaganda that reinforces the official version of events.
It is inverted because it does not require the use of coercion, police power and a messianic
ideology as in the Nazi, Fascist and Stalinist versions (although note that the United States
has the highest percentage of its citizens in prison -- 751 per 100,000 people -- of any nation
on Earth). According to Wolin, inverted totalitarianism has 'emerged imperceptibly,
unpremeditatedly, and in seeming unbroken continuity with the nation's political
traditions.'
The main objectives of managed democracy are to increase the profits of large corporations,
dismantle the institutions of social democracy (Social Security, unions, welfare, public health
services, public housing and so forth), and roll back the social and political ideals of the
New Deal. Its primary tool is privatization [and deregulation].
Chalmers Johnson, Inverted Totalitarianism: A New Way of Understanding How the U.S. Is
Controlled
"Thus the elements are in place: a weak legislative body, a legal system that is both
compliant and repressive, a party system in which one (I would in 2019 now say either)
party, whether in opposition or in the majority, is bent upon reconstituting the existing
system so as to permanently favor a ruling class of the wealthy, the well-connected and the
corporate, while leaving the poorer citizens with a sense of helplessness and political
despair, and, at the same time, keeping the middle classes dangling between fear of
unemployment and expectations of fantastic rewards once the new economy recovers.
That scheme is abetted by a sycophantic and increasingly concentrated media; by the
integration of universities with their corporate benefactors; by a propaganda machine
institutionalized in well-funded think tanks and conservative foundations; by the increasingly
closer cooperation between local police and national law enforcement agencies aimed at
identifying terrorists, suspicious aliens and domestic dissidents."
Sheldon Wolin, Inverted Totalitarianism
"The truth is that we were so spiritually and morally bankrupt that we could not even see
some of those lines: we stepped over them blindly. Other times we saw the lines alright, but we
wanted to cross them... It wasn't God who was dead. We were."
Ray A., Practice These Principles
"Oh where is the noble face of modesty, or the strength of virtue, now that blasphemy is in
power and men have put justice behind them, and there is no law but lawlessness, and none act
with fear of the gods?"
Euripides, Iphigenia in Aulis
"Religion used to be the opium of the people. To those suffering humiliation, pain, illness,
and serfdom, religion promised the reward of an after life.
But now we are witnessing a transformation: a true opium of the people is the belief in
nothingness after death, the huge solace, the huge comfort of thinking that for our betrayals,
our greed, our cowardice, our murders, that we are not going to be judged."
That Time Warren Cheered Trump. Well, this was disappointing... Elizabeth Warren stands up
and applauds Trump's promise that "America will never be a socialist country." https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=416898935744430
Add his violations of personal space of women and children and he's a perfect
candidate for a RICO prosecution, not POTUS.
Oh, well, Warren's on deck; and, if she goes down (no pun intended), there are the unsweet
sixteen or so more. Anybody but Bernie, Tulsi or Gravel is no doubt the hope of the
establishment, including the PTB of the Democratic Party.
Is Bernie perfect? God, no. None of them are, including Tulsi. Are Bernie and Tulsi evil? I
don't think so. I think, at worst, Bernie is doing what he thinks he must in order to represent
the people of Vermont and, if he can win, the people of the other forty-nine states, too.
I will not vote for anyone who I believe to be evil, but I will vote for Bernie or Tulsi in
the Democratic primary. If nothing else, that will mean one more vote against the rest of the
pack...
On early June,
Politico
published an
article
which actually unfolded, in plain
sight, the plans of the corporate branch of the Democratic party to stop Bernie Sanders.
As we
wrote
back then:
This is an amazingly straight admission by the establishment apparatus, concerning a
certain strategy as part of the whole anti-Sanders operation. And it is also clear that
Elizabeth Warren is establishment's key player around this strategy.
Perhaps it's not accidental that this article was published right after Elizabeth Warren
signaled to the establishment that she will 'play by the rules' at least on some issues,
through her
neocon-style
statement
on Julian Assange.
Only a couple of weeks later,
Politico
revealed Warren's upgraded role in the
anti-Sanders operation. According to a new
article
, "
Centrists who once said the
senator would lead the party to ruin are coming around to her as an alternative to Bernie
Sanders.
" It seems almost certain that Elizabeth Warren 'passed the exams' and gave
her credentials to the establishment. Consequently, corporate democrats (or liberals,
neoliberals, centrists - call them whatever you like), decided that she is the most
suitable for this special mission.
The article actually identifies the completion of Warren's mutation towards the
establishment positions of the Democratic party, that is, status quo neoliberalism. But
also, her mission to grab votes from the progressive vote tank in order to split the
progressive vote, and therefore, to restrict the power of Bernie Sanders and minimize his
chances to win the Democratic nomination. For example:
"
It's a sign of how the ideological lanes of the 2020 primary have blurred and
overlapped and of the steady progress Warren is making as a candidate. But it's also a
statement on Bernie Sanders, Warren's top rival for progressive votes.
"
and
"
Establishment and moderate Democrats haven't necessarily been won over to Warren's
camp yet -- many still point to former Vice President Joe Biden as their preferred
candidate. But the tensions that once marked Warren's relationship with moderate Democrats
have begun to dissipate as she methodically lays out her agenda and shows a folksier, more
accessible side that wasn't always apparent in her role as a blue-state senator and
progressive icon.
"
The article contains some statements from establishment think tanks, full of typical
neoliberal euphemisms, showing that, indeed, Warren passed 'establishment's tests', and
therefore, the establishment apparatus can trust her.
But all these, weren't 'big news' for many progressives out there. They realized Warren's
role in the whole story quite early. Perhaps the biggest surprise was Bernie's response
(at last) through a tweet, who seems that he can't tolerate another round of sinister
strategies and dirty wars against him.
Bernie wrote:
The cat is out of the bag. The corporate wing of the Democratic Party is
publicly "anybody but Bernie." They know our progressive agenda of Medicare for All,
breaking up big banks, taking on drug companies and raising wages is the real threat to
the billionaire class.
This is the official declaration of war against corporate Democrats by the
progressives. The neoliberal centrists can't hide anymore and voters should realize that
they have nothing to offer. No matter what tricks they will try this time, no matter what
words they will use. Nothing will change if they manage to maintain power in the
Democratic party by beating Bernie again.
Now it's clear. The outcome of this civil war inside the party will determine whether it
will remain in the hands of corporations, or, return (through Bernie) to its traditional
'owners': the American working class.
It was about time. Perhaps Bernie should have done it earlier, but better late than never
...
"... We see a similar trend of elitism when examining the current crop of Democratic candidates vying for the party's presidential nomination. Beto O'Rourke, Kamala Harris, and Joe Biden rank as three of the four wealthiest candidates ( O'Rourke at $9.9 million, and Harris and Biden each at $4 million in net worth), and they are well to the right in their economic policies compared to more progressive candidates like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. ..."
"... Finally, Joe Biden is an arch neoliberal, as demonstrated by his tenure in office as Vice President during an Obama presidency that saw much by way of promises for progressive reform, accompanied by a pro-Wall Street agenda that produced growing inequality. Biden, revealingly, has promised wealthy Americans that "nothing" of any significance "would change" regarding their position of privilege, should he be elected. ..."
"... Sociologist Rachel Sherman documents how the top one percent of earners construct notions of "hard work" and "worthiness" to justify their extreme wealth in an era of growing inequality. ..."
"... Carnes documents the substantive differences between U.S. political leaders with prior white-collar and blue-collar professional backgrounds, and how these differences impact their voting toward progressive-left economic policy proposals. ..."
"... We would do well to heed Carnes' warning about the dangers of elite capture of government in a time of rising inequality, which has occurred amidst rising family stress and work hours, stagnating incomes, and constant cost of living increases for essential goods like health care and education beyond the inflation rate. When Americans find themselves falling further and further behind in the "land of opportunity," electing more elites to the highest office of the land is likely to exacerbate inequality and strengthen the democratic deficit between what the masses expect from government and the policies that it actually produces. ..."
"... the top four candidates as of mid-2019 split between establishment neoliberals on the one hand, and New Dealer-style liberal-progressive reformers on the other ..."
"... Should a neoliberal candidate win the 2020 nomination, there is little reason to expect a reverse in the status quo-elitism of the Democratic Party. ..."
The Democratic primary season is upon us, and the party's candidate list is a useful
starting point for assessing the impact of affluence on American politics. Classic works by
sociologists of decades past, including C.
Wright Mills and G. William
Domhoff , posited that U.S. political institutions were captured by elite economic actors,
who seek to enhance their own material positions at the expense of the many.
It's no accident that affluence is tied to political elitism. Donald Trump is the wealthiest
U.S. President in modern history, and is one of the most pro-business in his policies, pursuing
tax cuts for the wealthy, and pushing environmental and health care policies to benefit health
insurance corporations and the fossil fuel industry, at the expense of access to quality care
and environmental sustainability.
We see a similar trend of elitism when examining the current crop of Democratic candidates
vying for the party's presidential nomination. Beto O'Rourke, Kamala Harris, and Joe Biden rank
as three of the four wealthiest candidates (
O'Rourke at $9.9 million, and
Harris and Biden each at $4 million in net
worth), and they are well to the right in their economic policies compared to more progressive
candidates like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. O'Rourke built his national image in the
Barack Obama vein, via a storied Texas Senate campaign against Ted Cruz that emphasized generic
themes such as national unity, while his presidential campaign thus far has been
thin in terms of laying out a left economic policy agenda. Harris's most prominent
achievement thus far is
lashing out at Joe Biden for his opposition to busing, while herself failing to establish a
vision herself for how to tackle the powder keg of U.S. racial segregation. Harris has
contradicted
herself on health care policy, rhetorically supporting Medicare-for-all, then walking back that
support in favor of privatized care.
Finally, Joe Biden is an arch neoliberal, as demonstrated
by his tenure in office as Vice President during an Obama presidency that saw much by way of
promises for progressive reform, accompanied by a pro-Wall Street agenda that produced growing
inequality. Biden, revealingly, has
promised wealthy Americans that "nothing" of any significance "would change" regarding
their position of privilege, should he be elected.
Numerous social scientists, including Benjamin Page ,
Martin Gilens ,
Nicholas Carnes ,
and others have identified how the top 10 percent of American income earners (and white collar
professionals more generally) dominate the policy process. Sociologist Rachel Sherman
documents how the
top one percent of earners construct notions of "hard work" and "worthiness" to justify their
extreme wealth in an era of growing inequality. But for all its novelty, Sherman's book only
looks at a small number of decadent Americans living in one city: New York. It cannot
generalize about upper-class Americans across the United States. Furthermore, the current
research on the political values of economic elites (the top one percenters) by Page and his
associates (see here
and here ) is
geographically limited to wealthy Americans in the Midwest.
Finding surveys with a large enough sample of upper-class Americans to generalize from has
historically been a great challenge for pollsters. To my knowledge, there has not yet been a
single national study examining the role of upper-class affluence in impacting the political
preferences of the wealthy. So my findings here represent a first effort to address the role of
upper-class elitism on attitude formation. Sadly, they suggest that little is likely to change
in the future in terms of prospects for a "Green New Deal" or the introduction of a progressive
governing regime, so long as wealthy individuals continue to dominate American politics. To
better understand the politics of affluence, I examined national survey data from the 2010s
from Princeton University's Pew Research Center , which queried Americans on their
self-described economic status as "upper," "upper-middle," "middle," "lower-middle," and
"lower-class." Only about
1 percent of Americans self-identify in these surveys as "upper-class" when asked, speaking
to their exclusive economic status. Unsurprisingly, upper-class status is tightly linked with
income, as the majority of those identifying as upper-class (60 percent in 2016) reported making
incomes over $150,000 a year. These upper-class Americans are significantly different from the
rest of the population, particularly when it comes to economic issues in which there is the
potential to adopt stances rejecting the ruling economic order. For all of the survey
questions I
examined, upper-class Americans were from 20 to 30 percentage points more likely than the rest
of the population to embrace conservative values, and to reject progressive ones. Upper-class
Americans were significantly more likely: to embrace the claim that the economy is "fair to
most all Americans"; to disagree that "too much power" exists "in the hands of a few rich
people and large corporations"; to agree with the meritocratic claim that "if you work hard,
you can get ahead" in America; to disagree that the U.S. is "divided" between "haves and
have-nots"; to reject the position that U.S. "financial institutions and banks are a major
threat to society"; to agree that "Wall Street helps the economy more than it hurts"; and to
oppose progressive-left protest groups like Occupy Wall Street, which sought to spotlight
issues such as economic stagnation, corporate greed, and Wall Street political power. One's
upper-class status is a highly significant predictor of economic attitudes, after statistically
accounting for survey respondents' other demographics, including partisanship, education level,
gender, race, ideology, and age.
My findings are significant for the 2020 Democratic Primary race considering recent research
that examines how political officials' affluence impacts how they behave once in office. Carnes
documents the
substantive differences between U.S. political leaders with prior white-collar and blue-collar
professional backgrounds, and how these differences impact their voting toward progressive-left
economic policy proposals. His study shows that the relationship between economic elitism and
conservative policymaking is longstanding, spanning decades in the United States.
We would do
well to heed Carnes' warning about the dangers of elite capture of government in a time of
rising inequality, which has occurred amidst
rising family stress and work hours,
stagnating incomes, and constant cost of living increases for essential goods like
health
care and
education beyond the inflation rate. When Americans find themselves falling further and
further behind in the "land of opportunity," electing more elites to the highest office of the
land is likely to exacerbate inequality and strengthen the democratic deficit between what the
masses expect from government and the policies that it actually produces.
Early polling data suggests that Democratic partisans have continued to elevate
neoliberal "electable" Dems when it comes to the highest office in the land, although
progressive candidates are gaining ground. Polling from mid-July of this year
reveals that Joe Biden leads all candidates, with 32 percent support. Bernie Sanders and
Elizabeth Warren are not far behind, each polling at 19 and 14 percent respectively, while
Kamala Harris stands at 13 percent support.
These results suggest that there is a real struggle among Democratic partisans to determine
the future direction of the party, with the top four candidates as of mid-2019 split between
establishment neoliberals on the one hand, and New Dealer-style liberal-progressive reformers
on the other. Whoever prevails in the primaries, one thing appears clear. Should a neoliberal
candidate win the 2020 nomination, there is little reason to expect a reverse in the status
quo-elitism of the Democratic Party.
Not precisely on topic, but relevant and important:
"Democratic Party Dilemmas -- An Analysis" (20 July 2019) by Professor Lawrence
Davidson
Part I -- On the Domestic Front
The rise to power of Donald Trump destroyed the traditional Republican Party. Most of the
moderate conservatives fled into the ranks of the independents and were replaced by a radical
right amalgamation of racists, misogynists, conspiracy theorists, assorted "tea party" types
and warmongers. In the background also exists support from religious fundamentalists yearning
for Armageddon. If you want to get a snapshot of Trump's new Republicans, just read up on the
200 rightwing social media radicals the president hosted at the White House on Thursday, 11
July 2019. Perhaps their greatest collective desire is to smear Democrats generally and,
specifically, malign progressives. These are Trump's new Republicans. They certainly reflect
a segment of the American population. A crucial question is just how large a segment are
they.
... ... ...
Part II -- On the Foreign Policy Front
It is painfully clear that most Democrats are confused and inconsistent when it comes to
foreign policy. Consider this sequence of events:
-- Back in March of 2019, "Nearly 400 members of Congress, from both chambers -- roughly
75 percent of all federal US lawmakers -- signed an open letter calling on President Trump to
escalate the war in Syria, in the name of countering Iran, Russia, and Lebanese Hezbollah.
Among the signatories are 2020 Democratic presidential candidates Kamala Harris, Kirsten
Gillibrand, and Cory Booker." Also signing the petition was Nancy Pelosi and Chuck
Schumer.
-- Then four months later, in July of 2019, "Lawmakers passed two amendments to the
House's more than $730 billion national defense budget that would restrict Trump's ability to
go to war with Iran without congressional approval, and also put a check on Trump's
relationship with Saudi Arabia, an alliance the administration has been using to escalate
tensions with Iran."
So what happened between these two events? Between March and July the Trump administration
increased its sanctions on Iran and has threatened the Europeans with sanctions if they
fulfill their contractual obligations to Iran under the original nuclear agreement. Then the
president sent a naval and air armada to the Persian Gulf area. This constituted a form of
brinkmanship whereby any small accidental encounter of American and Iranian forces could
escalate into war.
Part III -- Theory and Practice
We can look upon the March petition as a form of theory. Probably drawn up by real
warmongers in the Congress, almost everyone jumped on board. They did so to show -- to show
whom? -- that they were tough on the nation's alleged enemies. At the time, it seemed a
costless show of face. Then, come July, theory looked like it was about to turn into practice
and the ghosts from wars in Vietnam to Iraq and Afghanistan started to appear before the
bipartisan eyes of members of Congress.
While very few lawmakers will admit it publicly, Syria, Iran, and Hezbollah represent
absolutely no threat to the United States. Take the case of Syria. The Syrian government has
all but won its war against rebelling factions and fanatical religious elements. Its
interests and capabilities are limited to consolidating that hard-fought victory. The
continuing violence in the country comes largely from the military activity of the U.S.,
Britain, Israel, and Turkey. At least in the case of the U.S. and Israel, the main reason for
this continued victimization of the people of Syria is to keep the country destabilized and
fragmented.
Specifically, why would the American government want to see Syria destabilized and
fragmented? Is it because Syria constitutes a real threat to the national security of the
United States? That proposition is almost laughable. Is it because Iran, an ally of Syria,
constitutes a real threat to the United States? In no practical terms is this the case,
though it is certainly the case that the U.S. constitutes a real threat to the national
security of Iran.
So why the hostility to Syria, Iran and even Hezbollah? Whom were all those March
petitioners trying to impress? And who would really benefit from continuing turmoil in Syria?
The answer to all these questions is Israel.
The unfortunate truth is that American leaders from President Trump, Vice President Pence,
Secretary of State Pompeo, and National Security Adviser Bolton on down to most
run-of-the-mill congresspersons and senators have no clear and accurate knowledge of what is
going on in the Middle East. They have a large and expensive intelligence apparatus with whom
they get irritated and angry every time their experts tell these politicos what they don't
want to hear. And what is it that they do want to hear? Well, that might depend on ideology,
religion, financial arrangements and other such things that can warp an objective picture of
national interest and security. And who manages to tell them things that seem to satisfy most
of these ideological, religious, and financial considerations? The answer is again
Israel.
Putting aside all the real damage the Zionists actually do -- I really don't want to
sound like a broken record -- there is a an outstanding irony in this present situation. And
that is, from all we know, President Trump does not want war with Iran. It's just that his
abrasive and blusterous personality, which seems never to have outgrown the spoiled bullying
nature of his youth, has literally led him to the habit of a blitzkrieg approach to whatever
passes in his mind for negotiations. In the case of Iran, he has unthinkingly destroyed the
painstakingly wrought nuclear deal of his predecessor (perhaps for no other reason than he
hates everything Barack Obama accomplished), and is now trying to force the Iranians into new
negotiations by economically and militarily threatening them. This is a form of brinkmanship
which is dangerous in the extreme.
Congress suddenly woke up to the reality of this situation -- that is, many in Congress
have gone from petitioners trying to be tough guys, to understanding just how dangerous
Trump's tactics can be. The result is the bipartisan amendments embedded in the House version
of the Defense Appropriations Bill designed to rein in the delinquent in the White House.
Part IV -- Conclusion
... White resentment over the loss of public cultural privilege has festered in the
largely unchanged, segregated private sphere. It has done so in rural regions and white
suburbs alike. Now with Donald Trump, who is little more that an opportunistic demigod, that
resentment has been empowered and our status as a civilized society is in danger.
In the realm of foreign policy the United States has much less to lose for here
national behavior has always been uncivilized. The names of presidents who have lied so as to
manufacture wars, steal other people's lands, and rein havoc and devastation upon innocent
people, rank among many of our most easily recognized leaders.
Yet, for all the horrors our foreign adventures have wrought, the real present danger is
that we will turn on ourselves and destroy our precarious democracy. Under these
circumstances, the Democrats, for all their shortcomings, represent not only the party of
choice, but the potential salvation of the United States. All they have to do is recognize
this fact and, taking a cue from the progressive "squad" in the House, act accordingly.
"The Epstein story touches everywhere, discredits American justice, American media, reaches into the White House, perhaps through
numerous occupants and eventually settles in, a continuing mystery, still protected by a controlled media as it leads us to not
one but 20 billionaires, a secret society tied to Epstein, that represents the power of Israel over the governments of the US,
Britain and Canada."
"What is the real story? First of all, sex with children is nothing new in America. Child sex was the norm when the Pilgrims
landed on Plymouth Rock in 1620 and little changed other than it becoming a convenient tool to smear political opponents.
For two centuries, girls as young as 12 were regularly married off, sometimes forcibly, to men as old as 70 while others were
sold into slavery to work in the mills or join the endless hordes serving in America's brothels."
"... At the center of it all is former President Bill Clinton, listed twenty-six times on the Lolita Express's flight manifest -- though the ex-Prez said last week in a statement that it was only four times. (Consider the source.) ..."
"... A raft of unsealed documents in the matter has been court-ordered to drop any day, and power-players all over the world -- especially in our nation's capital and on Wall Street -- are rumored to be chewing their fingernails down to the nubbins as they wait for it. ..."
... Every candidate in the first Democratic “debate” raised a hand in favor of providing free medical
care to illegal border-jumpers. I wonder how that sits with the Americans who now pay
$12,000 a year for health insurance with a $5,000 deductible.
Of course, this policy of
unfettered illegal immigration does not economically favor the sizable demographic of poor
Americans, many of whom are people-of-color. In theory, the border-jumpers are taking
away an awful lot of jobs. But I think the argument there is that 300 years of slavery gives
bonafide US citizens-of-color a pass on manual labor - so it is not against their interests to
ally with the open border advocates - while both groups have an interest in getting any free stuff
the government may offer.
... ... ...
Finally, there is the walking time-bomb known as Jeffrey Epstein, Democratic Party poohbah
and impresario of an underage sex racket featuring the "Lolita Express" airplane service to his
private "Orgy Island" in the Caribbean, with auxiliary party shacks in New York City and the
New Mexico Desert. Rogue reports have been styling Epstein's doings as an international
blackmailing operation associated with the CIA and other Intel outfits, including the UK's MI6
and Israel's Mossad, for the purpose of keeping international bigshots on a short leash. Who
knows?
At the center of it all is former President Bill Clinton, listed twenty-six times on the
Lolita Express's flight manifest -- though the ex-Prez said last week in a statement that it
was only four times. (Consider the source.)
A raft of unsealed documents in the matter has been court-ordered to drop any day, and
power-players all over the world -- especially in our nation's capital and on Wall Street --
are rumored to be chewing their fingernails down to the nubbins as they wait for it.
What a cargo of wickedness is borne by the garbage barge called the Democratic Party as it
chugs out to sea toward a sickening, slightly radioactive orange sunset for what is looking
like its final voyage.
The real leader of the American Right today is not President Donald Trump. It's Tucker
Carlson.
He's the best communicator in the country, he's talking about the most important issues, and
he has a platform the Left hasn't been able to take away ( yet
). And they're getting desperate, even to the point of
doxxing his home address and
attacking his house .
Tucker is preaching unwanted truths from within Conservatism Inc. I'm sure the top
executives of the nonprofits clustered in Northern Virginia are furious he's on the air.
Certainly, any lowly staffer at any Conservatism Inc. organization who raised his arguments
would be fired.
Perhaps the most revealing exchange of the last year came a few months ago when Carlson
spoke at the Turning Point USA conference [ Betrayal:
American Conservatives and Capitalism, by Gregory Hood, American
Renaissance, January 28, 2019]. While Charlie Kirk desperately tried to convince the young
crowd to support tax cuts for Big Tech, Carlson had them
laughing at conservatism's "inflexible theories ."
Tucker Carlson is sparking the intellectual renaissance the GOP desperately needs.
Could he run for office? Some Leftists are afraid he will --
Jeet Heer suggested he might be the "competent & effective
Trump" that could come after the current president. But Carlson might be stronger where he
is.
Perhaps then Carlson should take his case to the people. [ Tucker Carlson for
president, by Damon Linker, The Week, June 7, 2019] He's certainly a
better spokesperson for Trump than Trump himself.
Tom Cotton wanted to "slash" legal immigration to 700K which is still at race replacement
levels. We need a complete moratorium or the next best thing. Cotton is also as much a
proponent of MIGA, if not more so, than Trump so an asterisk must be placed by his name.
If Trump were really a 4D chessmaster he should have asked Jeff Sessions to stay in the
Senate, where he commanded the respect of both parties, to help shepherd through
restrictionist immigration legislation. Then he should have appointed Kobach to DHS while he
had momentum right after taking office. Instead we got Kirsten Nielsen who was a supporter of
DACA.
Ted Cruz is capable of winning the Republican nomination but he doesn't have the appeal to
win working class white Democrats as Trump did. His religious fundamentalism could annoy some
independents.
incredibly citing smears from the Southern Poverty Law Center. This defamation is
arguably what dissuaded Trump from appointing him.
And we voted for Trump to fight the corrupt establishment and entrenched (((special
interests))). Not shrink from them.
I think Tucker Carlson could probably beat Trump in the Republican primaries. Tucker's
problem is that he thinks if he can keep preaching race blindness and anti-identity politics
every night and that it will eventually resonate with the Jewish led left. It won't and it
never will and identity politics is here to stay so it's time whites start engaging in it.
Tucker is also fine and dandy with the country becoming 90% non-white as long as those
non-whites adhere to race blindness and the Constitution. I'd say the early returns tell us
that they adhere to third world/non-white tribalism.
But at the end of the day none of these men will mount a racial defense of white Americans
as it's either against their religion or their ideology. Whites are being attacked as a race
so must be defended as a race and not simply as "Americans".
The demographic situation will be even worse in 2024, so unless the Republican candidate
can secure at least 65-68% of the white vote (instead of the usual 59-60%) then this is all
an exercise in futility. Then the discussion should turn to secession by any means necessary
to secure a future for white people in North America. The (((status quo))) ensures white
genocide.
Looks like Warren weakness is her inability to distinguish between key issues and periferal
issues.
While her program is good and is the only one that calls for "structural change" (which is
really needed as neoliberalism outlived its usefulness) it mixes apple and oranges. One thing
is to stop neoliberal transformation of the society and the other is restitution for black
slaves. In the latter case why not to Indians ?
I'd argue that Warren's newly tight and coherent story, in which her life's arc tracks the
country's, is contributing to her rise, in part because it protects her against other stories
-- the nasty ones told by her opponents, first, and then echoed by the media doubters
influenced by her opponents. Her big national-stage debut came when she
tangled with Barack Obama's administration over bank bailouts, then set up the powerhouse
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). But she was dismissed as too polarizing, even by
some Democrats, and was passed over to run it. In 2012, Massachusetts's Scott Brown mocked Warren as
"the Professor," a know-it-all Harvard schoolmarm, before she beat him to take his Senate seat.
After that, Donald Trump began
trashing her as "Pocahontas" in the wake of a controversy on the campaign trail about her
mother's rumored Native American roots. And Warren scored an own goal with a video that announced
she had "confirmed" her Native heritage with a DNA test, a claim that ignored the brutal
history of blood-quantum requirements and genetic pseudoscience in the construction of
race.
When she announced her presidential run this year, some national political reporters
raised
questions about her likability
, finding new ways to compare
her to Hillary Clinton, another female candidate widely dismissed as unlikable. A month into
Warren's campaign, it seemed the media was poised to Clintonize her off the primary stage. But
it turned out she had a plan for that, too.
I n the tale that is captivating crowds on the campaign trail, Warren is not a professor or
a political star but a hardscrabble Oklahoma "late-in-life baby" or, as her mother called her,
"the surprise." Her elder brothers had joined the military; she was the last one at home, just
a middle-schooler when her father had the massive heart attack that would cost him his job. "I
remember the day we lost the station wagon," she tells crowds, lowering her voice. "I learned
the words 'mortgage' and 'foreclosure' " listening to her parents talk when they thought
she was asleep, she recalls. One day she walked in on her mother in her bedroom, crying and
saying over and over, " 'We are not going to lose this house.' She was 50 years old,"
Warren adds, "had never worked outside the home, and she was terrified."
RELATED
ARTICLE
This part of the story has been a Warren staple for years: Her mother put on her best dress
and her high heels and walked down to a Sears, where she got a minimum-wage job. Warren got a
private lesson from her mother's sacrifice -- "You do what you have to to take care of those
you love" -- and a political one, too. "That minimum-wage job saved our house, and it saved our
family." In the 1960s, she says, "a minimum-wage job could support a family of three. Now the
minimum wage can't keep a momma and a baby out of poverty."
That's Act I of Warren's story and of the disappearing American middle class whose
collective story her family's arc symbolizes. In Act II, she walks the crowd through her early
career, including some personal choices that turned her path rockier: early marriage, dropping
out of college. But her focus now is on what made it possible for her to rise from the working
class. Warren tells us how she went back to school and got her teaching certificate at a public
university, then went to law school at another public university. Both cost only a few hundred
dollars in tuition a year. She always ends with a crowd-pleaser: "My daddy ended up as a
janitor, but his baby daughter got the opportunity to become a public-school teacher, a law
professor, a US senator, and run for president!"
Warren has honed this story since her 2012 Senate campaign. Remember her "Nobody in this
country got rich on his own" speech ? It was an explanation of how the
elite amassed wealth thanks to government investments in roads, schools, energy, and police
protection, which drew more than 1 million views on YouTube. Over the years, she has become the
best explainer of the way the US government, sometime around 1980, flipped from building the
middle class to protecting the wealthy. Her 2014 book, A Fighting Chance , explains how
Warren (once a Republican, like two of her brothers) saw her own family's struggle in the
stories of those families whose bankruptcies she studied as a lawyer -- families she once
thought might have been slackers. Starting in 1989, with a book she cowrote on bankruptcy and
consumer credit, her writing has charted the way government policies turned against the middle
class and toward corporations. That research got her tapped by then–Senate majority
leader Harry Reid to oversee
the Troubled Assets Relief Program after the 2008 financial crash and made her a
favorite on The Daily Show With Jon Stewart . Starting in the mid-2000s, she
publicly clashed with prominent Democrats,
including Biden , a senator at the time, over bankruptcy reforms, and later with
then–Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner over the bank bailouts.
Sanders, of course, has a story too, about a government that works for the "millionaires and
billionaires." But he has a hard time connecting his family's stories of struggle to his
policies. After his first few campaign events, he ditched the details about growing up poor in
Brooklyn. In early June, he returned to his personal story in a New York Timesop-ed .
W arren preaches the need for "big structural change" so often that a crowd chanted the
phrase back at her during a speech in San Francisco the first weekend in June. Then she gets
specific. In Act III of her stump speech, she lays out her dizzying array of plans. But by then
they're not dizzying, because she has anchored them to her life and the lives of her listeners.
The rapport she develops with her audience, sharing her tragedies and disappointments --
questionable choices and all -- makes her bold policy pitches feel believable. She starts with
her proposed wealth tax: two cents on every dollar of your worth after $50 million, which she
says would raise $2.75 trillion over 10 years. (She has also proposed a 7 percent surtax on
corporate profits above $100 million.)
Warren sells the tax with a vivid, effective comparison. "How many of you own a home?" she
asks. At most of her stops in Iowa, it was roughly half the crowd. "Well, you already pay a
wealth tax on your major asset. You pay a property tax, right?" People start nodding. "I just
want to make sure we're also taxing the diamonds, the Rembrandts, the yachts, and the stock
portfolios." Nobody in those Iowa crowds seemed to have a problem with that.
Then she lays out the shocking fact that
people in the top 1 percent pay roughly 3.2 percent of their wealth in taxes, while the bottom
99 percent pay 7.4 percent.
That "big structural change" would pay for the items on Warren's agenda -- the programs that
would rebuild the opportunity ladder to the middle class -- that have become her signature:
free technical school or two- or four-year public college; at least partial loan forgiveness
for 95 percent of those with student debt; universal child care and prekindergarten, with costs
capped at 7 percent of family income; and a pay hike for child-care workers.
"Big structural change" would also include strengthening unions and giving workers 40
percent of the seats on corporate boards. Warren promises to break up Big Tech and Big Finance.
She calls for a constitutional amendment to protect the right to vote and vows to push to
overturn Citizens United . To those who say it's too much, she ends every public event
the same way: "What do you think they said to the abolitionists? 'Too hard!' To the suffragists
fighting to get women the right to vote? 'Too hard!' To the foot soldiers of the civil-rights
movement, to the activists who wanted equal marriage? 'Give up now!' " But none of them
gave up, she adds, and she won't either. Closing that way, she got a standing ovation at every
event I attended.
R ecently, Warren has incorporated into her pitch the stark differences between what
mid-20th-century government offered to black and white Americans. This wasn't always the case.
After a speech she
delivered at the Roosevelt Institute in 2015, I heard black audience members complain about her
whitewashed version of the era when government built the (white) middle class. Many black
workers were ineligible for Social Security; the GI Bill didn't prohibit racial
discrimination ; and federal loan guarantees systematically excluded black home buyers and
black neighborhoods. "I love Elizabeth, but those stories about the '50s drive me crazy," one
black progressive said.
The critiques must have made their way to Warren. Ta-Nehisi Coates recently
toldThe New Yorker that after his influential Atlanticessay
"The Case for Reparations" appeared five years ago, the Massachusetts senator asked to meet
with him. "She had read it. She was deeply serious, and she had questions." Now, when Warren
talks about the New Deal, she is quick to mention the ways African Americans were shut out. Her
fortunes on the campaign trail brightened after April's She the People forum in Houston, where she joined eight
other candidates in talking to what the group's founder, Aimee Allison, calls "the real
Democratic base": women of color, many from the South. California's Kamala Harris, only the
second African-American woman ever elected to the US Senate, might have had the edge coming in,
but Warren surprised the crowd. "She walked in to polite applause and walked out to a standing
ovation," Allison said, after the candidate impressed the crowd with policies to address black
maternal-health disparities, the black-white wealth gap, pay inequity, and more.
G Jutson says:
July 4, 2019 at 1:00 pm
Well here we are in the circular firing squad Obama warned us about. Sander's fan boys vs.
Warren women. Sanders has been our voice in DC on the issues for a generation. He has changed
the debate. Thank you Bernie. Now a Capitalist that wants to really reform it can be a viable
candidate. Warren is that person. We supported Sanders last time to help us get to this
stage. Time to pass the baton to someone that can beat Trump. After the Sept. debates I
expect The Nation to endorse Warren and to still hear grumbling from those that think moving
on from candidate Bernie somehow means unfaithfulness to his/our message .
Kenneth Viste says: June 27, 2019 at 5:52 am
I would like to hear her talk about free college as an investment in people rather than an
expense. Educated people earn more and therefore pay more taxes than uneducated so it pays to
educate the populous to the highest level possible.
Jim Dickinson says: June 26, 2019 at 7:11 pm
Warren gets it and IMO is probably the best Democratic candidate of the bunch. Biden does
not get it and I get depressed seeing him poll above Warren with his tired corporate ideas
from the past.
I have a different take on her not being progressive enough. Her progressive politics are
grounded in reality and not in the pie in the sky dreams of Sanders, et al. The US is a
massively regressive nation and proposing doing everything at once, including a total revamp
of our healthcare system is simply unrealistic.
That was my problem with Sanders, who's ideas I agree with. There is no way in hell to
make the US into a progressive dream in one election - NONE.
I too dream of a progressive US that most likely goes well beyond what most people
envision. But I also have watched those dreams collapse many, many times in the past when we
reach too far. I hope that we can make important but obtainable changes which might make the
great unwashed masses see who cares about them and who does not.
I hope that she does well because she has a plan for many of the ills of this nation. The
US could certainly use some coherent plans after the chaos and insanity of the Trump years.
Arguing about who was the best Democratic candidate in 2016 helped put this schmuck in office
and I hope that we don't go down that path again.
Caleb Melamed says: June 26, 2019 at 2:13 pm
I had a misunderstanding about one key aspect of Warren's political history. I had always
thought that she was neutral in 2016 between Sanders and Hillary Clinton. On CNN this
morning, a news clip showed that Warren in fact endorsed Hillary Clinton publicly, shouting
"I'm with her," BEFORE Sanders withdrew from the race. This action had the effect of
weakening Sanders' bargaining position vis a vis Clinton once he actually withdrew. Clinton
proceeded to treat Sanders and his movement like a dish rag. I am now less ready to support
Warren in any way.
Robert Andrews says: June 26, 2019 at 12:17 pm
I have three main reasons I do not want Senator Warren nominate which are:
Not going all out for a single payer healthcare system. This is a massive problem with
Warren. With her starting out by moving certain groups to Medicare is sketchy at best. Which
groups would be graced first? I am sure whoever is left behind will be thrilled. Is Warren
going to expand Medicare so that supplemental coverages will not be needed anymore? Crying
about going too far too fast is a losing attitude. You go after the most powerful lobby in
the country full bore if you want any kind of real and lasting changes.
With Warren's positions and actions with foreign policy this statement is striking, "Once
Warren's foreign policy record is scrutinized, her status as a progressive champion starts to
wither. While Warren is not on the far right of Democratic politics on war and peace, she
also is not a progressive -- nor a leader -- and has failed to use her powerful position on
the Senate Armed Services Committee to challenge the status quo" - Sarah Lazare. She is the
web editor at In These Times. She comes from a background in independent journalism for
publications including The Intercept, The Nation, and Tom Dispatch. She tweets at
@sarahlazare.
Lastly, the stench with selling off her integrity with receiving corporate donations again
if nominated is overpowering.
For reference, she was a registered Republican until the mid 1990's.
Joan Walsh, why don't you give congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard any presence with your
articles? Her level of integrity out shines any other female candidate and Gabbard's
positions and actions are progressive. I don't want to hear that she isn't a major player,
because you have included Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. Gabbard's media blackout has been
dramatic, thank you for your contribution with it also.
Robert Andrews says: June 27, 2019 at 8:29 am
I was impressed with Warren on the debate, especially since she finally opened her arms to
a single payer healthcare system.
Caleb Melamed says: June 26, 2019 at 2:35 pm
Gabbard is playing a very important role in this race, whatever her numbers (which are
probably higher than those being reported and are sure to go up after tonight). In some ways,
her position in 2020 resembles that of Sanders in 2016--the progressive outlier, specifically
on issues relating to the U.S. policy of endless war. Gabbard makes Sanders look more
mainstream by comparison on this issue (though their difference is more one of emphasis than
substance), making it much harder for the DNC establishment to demonize and ostracize
Sanders. (Third Way really, really wants to stop Sanders--they have called him an
"existential threat.") Gabbard's important role in this respect is one reason the DNC and its
factotums are expending such effort on sliming her.
By the way, Nation, you have now reprinted my first comment to this article five (5)
times!
Clark Shanahan says: June 26, 2019 at 1:19 pm
Tulsi,
Our most eloquent anti-military-interventionism candidate, hands down.
Richard Phelps says: June 26, 2019 at 1:29 pm
Unfortunately EW doesn't beat Trump past the margin of error in all the polls I have seen.
Bernie does in most. The other scary factor is how so many neoliberals are now talking nice
about her. They want anyone but the true, consistent progressive, Bernie. And her backing
away from putting us on a human path on health care, like so many other countries, is
foreboding of a sellout to the health insurance companies, a group focused on profits over
health care for our citizens. A group with no redeeming social value. 40,000+ people die each
year due to lack of medical care, so the company executives can have their 8 figure salaries
and golden parachutes when they retire. Also don't forget they are adamantly anti union.
Where is Warren's fervor to ride our country of this leach on society? PS I donated $250 to
her last Senate campaign. I like her. She is just not what we need to stop the final stages
of oligarchic take over, where so much of our resources are wasted on the Pentagon and
unnecessary wars and black opps. It is not Bernie or bust, it is Bernie or oligarchy!!!
Walter Pewen says: June 27, 2019 at 10:52 am
Frankly, having family from Oklahoma I'd say Warren IS a progressive. Start reading
backwards and you will find out.
Clark Shanahan says: June 26, 2019 at 1:24 pm
You certainly shall never see her call out AIPAC.
She has since tried to shift her posture.. but, her original take was lamentable.
You really need to give Hillary responsibility for her loss, Andy
Also, to Obama, who sold control of the DNC over to Clinton Inc in Sept, 2015.
I'll vote for Warren, of course.
Sadly, with our endless wars and our rogue state Israel, Ms Warren is way too deferential;
seemingly hopeless.
Walter Pewen says: June 28, 2019 at 11:22 am
I don't want to vote for Biden. And if he gets the nomination I probably won't. And I've
voted the ticket since 1976. I DO NOT like Joe Biden. Contrary to the media mind fuck we are
getting in this era. And I'll wager a LOT of people don't like him. He is a dick.
Karin Eckvall says: June 26, 2019 at 10:50 am
Well-done article Ms. Walsh. Walter, I want to vote for her but can't because although she
has plans to deal with the waste and corruption at the Pentagon, she has not renounced our
endless militarism, our establishment-endorsed mission to police the world and to change
regimes whenever we feel like it.
The extent of Israeli spying directed against the United States is a huge story that is
only rarely addressed in the mainstream media. The Jewish state regularly tops the list for ostensibly friendly countries that
aggressively conduct espionage against the U.S. and Jewish American Jonathan Pollard, who was imprisoned in 1987 for spying for
Israel, is now regarded as the most damaging spy in the history of the United States.
Last week I wrote about how
Israeli spies operating more-or-less freely in the U.S. are rarely interfered with, much less arrested and prosecuted, because there
is an unwillingness on the part of upper echelons of government to do so. I cited the case of Arnon Milchan, a billionaire Hollywood
movie producer who had a secret life that included stealing restricted technology in the United States to enable development of
Israel's nuclear weapons program, something that was very much against U.S. interests. Milchan was involved in a number of other
thefts as well as arms sales on behalf of the Jewish state, so much so that his work as a movie producer was actually reported to
be less lucrative than his work as a spy and black-market arms merchant, for which he operated on a commission basis.
That Milchan has never been arrested by the United States government or even questioned about his illegal activity, which was
well known to the authorities, is just one more manifestation of the effectiveness of Jewish power in Washington, but a far more
compelling case involving possible espionage with major political manifestations has just re-surfaced. I am referring to Jeffrey
Epstein, the billionaire Wall Street "financier" who has been arrested and charged with operating a "vast" network of underage girls
for sex, operating out of his mansions in New York City and Florida as well as his private island in the Caribbean, referred to
by visitors as "Orgy Island." Among other high-value associates, it is claimed that Epstein was particularly close to Bill Clinton,
who flew dozens of times on Epstein's private 727.
Alex Acosta (L) Jeffrey Epstein (R)
Epstein was arrested on July 8th after indictment
by a federal grand jury in New York. It was more than a decade after Alexander Acosta, the top federal prosecutor in Miami, who
is now President Trump's secretary of labor, accepted a plea bargain involving similar allegations regarding
pedophilia
that was not shared with the accusers prior to being finalized in court. There were reportedly hundreds of victims, some 35 of whom
were identified, but Acosta deliberately denied the two actual plaintiffs their day in court to testify before sentencing.
Acosta's intervention meant that Epstein avoided both a public trial and a possible federal prison sentence, instead serving
only 13 months of an 18-month sentence in the almost-no-security Palm Beach County Jail on charges of soliciting prostitution in
Florida. While in custody, he was permitted to leave jail for sixteen hours six days a week to work in his office.
Epstein's crimes were carried out in his $56 million
Manhattan mansion and in his oceanside villa in Palm Beach Florida. Both residences were equipped with hidden cameras and microphones
in the bedrooms, which Epstein reportedly used to record sexual encounters between his high-profile guests and his underage girls,
many of whom came from poor backgrounds, who were recruited by procurers to engage in what was euphemistically described as "massages"
for money. Epstein apparently hardly made any effort to conceal what he was up to: his airplane was called the "Lolita Express."
The Democrats are calling for an investigation of the Epstein affair, as well as the resignation of Acosta, but they might well
wind up regretting their demands. Trump, the real target of the Acosta fury, apparently did not know about the details of the plea
bargain that ended the Epstein court case. Bill and Hillary Clinton were, however, very close associates of Epstein. Bill, who flew
on the "Lolita Express"
at least 26 times , could plausibly be implicated in the pedophilia given his track record and relative lack of conventional
morals. On many of the trips, Bill refused Secret Service escorts, who would have been witnesses of any misbehavior. On
one lengthy trip
to Africa in 2002, Bill and Jeffrey were accompanied by accused pedophile actor Kevin Spacey and a number of young girls, scantily
clad "employees" identified only as "massage." Epstein was also a major contributor to the Clinton Foundation and was present at
the wedding of Chelsea Clinton in 2010.
With an election year coming up, the Democrats would hardly want the public to be reminded of Bill's exploits, but one has to
wonder where and how deep the investigation might go. There is also a possible Donald Trump angle. Though Donald may not have been
a frequent flyer on the "Lolita Express," he certainly moved in the same circles as the Clintons and Epstein in New York and Palm
Beach, plus he is by his own words roughly as amoral as Bill Clinton. In June 2016, one
Katie Johnson filed lawsuit in
New York claiming she had been repeatedly raped by Trump at an Epstein gathering in 1993 when she was 13 years old. In a 2002
New York Magazineinterview
Trump said "I've known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy he's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful
women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it – Jeffrey enjoys his social life."
Selective inquiries into wrongdoing to include intense finger pointing are the name of the game in Washington, and the affaire
Epstein also has all the hallmarks of a major espionage case, possibly tied to Israel. Unless Epstein is an extremely sick pedophile
who enjoys watching films of other men screwing twelve-year-old girls the whole filming procedure smacks of a sophisticated intelligence
service compiling material to blackmail prominent politicians and other public figures. Those blackmailed would undoubtedly in most
cases cooperate with the foreign government involved to avoid a major scandal. It is called recruiting "agents of influence." That
is how intelligence agencies work and it is what they do.
That Epstein was perceived as being intelligence-linked was made clear
in Acosta's comments when being
cleared by the Trump transition team. He was asked "Is the Epstein case going to cause a problem [for confirmation hearings]?" "Acosta
had explained, breezily, apparently, that back in the day he'd had just one meeting on the Epstein case. He'd cut the non-prosecution
deal with one of Epstein's attorneys because he had 'been told' to back off, that Epstein was above his pay grade. 'I was told Epstein
belonged to intelligence and to leave it alone.'"
Questions about Epstein's wealth also suggest a connection with a secretive government agency with deep pockets. The New York
Timesreports that
"Exactly what his money management operation did was cloaked in secrecy, as were most of the names of whomever he did it for. He
claimed to work for a number of billionaires, but the only known major client was Leslie Wexner, the billionaire founder of several
retail chains, including The Limited."
But whose intelligence service? CIA and the Russian FSB services are obvious candidates, but they would have no particular motive
to acquire an agent like Epstein. That leaves Israel, which would have been eager to have a stable of high-level agents of influence
in Europe and the United States. Epstein's contact with the Israeli intelligence service may have plausibly come through his associations
with Ghislaine Maxwell, who allegedly served as his key procurer of young girls. Ghislaine is the
daughter of Robert Maxwell , who
died or possibly was assassinated in mysterious circumstances in 1991. Maxwell was an Anglo-Jewish businessman, very cosmopolitan
in profile, like Epstein, a multi-millionaire who was very controversial with what were regarded as ongoing ties to Mossad. After
his death, he was given a state funeral by Israel in which six serving and former heads of Israeli intelligence listened while Prime
Minister Yitzhak Shamir eulogized
: "He has done more for Israel than can today be said"
Trump (left) with Robert Maxwell (right) at an event
Epstein kept a black
book identifying many of his social contacts, which is now in the hands of investigators. It included fourteen personal phone
numbers belonging to Donald Trump, including ex-wife Ivana, daughter Ivanka and current wife Melania. It also included Prince Bandar
of Saudi Arabia, Tony Blair, Jon Huntsman, Senator Ted Kennedy, Henry Kissinger, David Koch, Ehud Barak, Alan Dershowitz, John Kerry,
George Mitchell, David Rockefeller, Richard Branson, Michael Bloomfield, Dustin Hoffman, Queen Elizabeth, Saudi King Salman and
Edward de Rothschild.
Mossad would have exploited Epstein's contacts, arranging their cooperation by having Epstein wining and dining them while flying
them off to exotic locations, providing them with women and entertainment. If they refused to cooperate, it would be time for blackmail,
photos and videos of the sex with underage women.
It will be very interesting to see just how far and how deep the investigation into Epstein and his activities goes. One can
expect that efforts will be made to protect top politicians like Clinton and Trump and to avoid any examination of a possible Israeli
role. That is the normal practice, witness the 9/11 Report and the Mueller investigation, both of which eschewed any inquiry into
what Israel might have been up to. But this time, if it was indeed an Israeli operation, it might prove difficult to cover up the
story since the pedophile aspect of it has unleashed considerable public anger from all across the political spectrum.
Senator Chuck Schumer , self-described
as Israel's "protector" in the Senate, is loudly calling for the resignation of Acosta. He just might change his tune if it turns
out that Israel is a major part of the story.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational
foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is
councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is[email protected]
aanirfan.blogspot.com in an article entitled " Epstein , Trump, 9/11 ' has identified Epstein's links not only to Mossad
but to his business relationships with CIA controlled airlines and perhaps to the false flag attacks on 9/11 .According to Aangirfan
, Epstein is a member of both the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission. The CIA and Mossad have strong
ties resulting from the efforts , according to the Wall Street Journal no less, of former CIA chiefs William Casey and James
Angleton . As Acosta has confirmed , Epstein has links to "intelligence " .
The presence of Ghislaine Maxwell is proof of Mossad's ownership of Epstein's kompromat operation. Ghislaine's father, Robert
Maxwell, created the Neva network -- a consortium of technology companies, banks, and Russian and Bulgarian organized crime
networks -- for his Mossad masters. Keeping up the family business, Ghislaine was running Epstein for the Israelis.
Speculation or scenario: the highest levels of the CIA and Mossad have been closely allied since the late 1940s (see especially
the role of James Angleton) and are pursuing common strategic objectives.
The New York Post remarked in March 2000:
"Epstein is an enigmatic figure. Rumors abound -- including wild ones about a career in the Mossad and, contrarily, the CIA."
Perhaps Epstein has been sponsored, funded, directed and protected by both agencies working in combination.
"Those blackmailed would undoubtedly in most cases cooperate with the foreign government involved to avoid a major scandal.
It is called recruiting "agents of influence." That is how intelligence agencies work and it is what they do."
But would not a single intelligence agency typically target and trap one isolated person, not a whole set of interconnected
people? That is, this is more like the way the P2 lodge worked in Italy, that is, a society.
With all the mystery surrounding how Epstein obtained such great wealth, I can't help but think it may be a global money
laundering operation connected to the global drug trade.
Books have been written about the CIA's involvement in cocaine and heroin distribution. Whether it's HW Bush and Iran Contra(cocaine)
and Bill Clinton with Mena, AR airport complicity in same or the explosion in poppy (HW's nickname just a coincidence ) production
in Afghanistan since the 2001 invasion, drugs seem to connect all these dots and more.
And, let's not forget the Israeli "Art Student" operation that targeted DEA offices.
A way for Epstein to get out from under this with the CUFI crowd might be to point out Mary, mother of Jesus, was pregnant
out of wedlock at 14 so what's the big deal?
NYT and Bloomberg have been writing about the mysterious source of Epstein's wealth. Epstein's hedge fund is established
offshore and has a hush-hush list of "clients". He was once sued by a guy named Michael Stroll who said he lost all $450k of
his money investing with Epstein, and he told an interviewer that everyone thought Epstein "was some kind of genius, but I never
saw any genius, and I never saw him work. Anyone that wealthy would have to work 26 hours a day, Epstein played 26 hours a day."
Bloomberg estimated that at best his net worth is $77m, which obviously is not enough to support his lavish lifestyle with 12
homes, a private island, private jet, 15 cars.
Epstein was "let go" by Bear Sterns because of his involvement in an insider trading case involving Edgar Bronfman, whose
firm Seagram was in a hostile takeover bid of another firm. Bronfman, former president of World Jewish Congress, and his two
daughters are investors in NXIVM which was recently charged with sex trafficking and other corruptions. Bronfman and Les Wexner,
the single largest investor in Epstein's "hedge fund", were co-founders of the Zionist org. Mega. All these people are in one
way or another connected with Israel.
I suspect Epstein and Bronfman were in fact running an international sex trafficking-racketeering ring on behalf of Mossad.
That would explain his mysterious source of wealth. His little black book is rumored to include 1,500 names of who's who in
politics, business and arts, and includes royalty, several foreign presidents and a famous prime minister.
Acosta needs to show some integrity and resign. But of course, if he had any, he would never have signed that plea bargain
to begin with.
First Mueller, now Epstein, two chances for Barr to turn the Deep State inside out, upside down once and for all. Will he
do it? I have my doubts. William Barr's father, Donald Barr, was the one who recruited Jeffrey Epstein, a two time college dropout,
to be a calculus and physics teacher at the prestigious Dalton School in NYC when he was the headmaster there. Donald Barr,
born Jewish but "converted" to Catholicism, was later ousted by a group of "progressive" parents at Dalton for being too conservative.
But he was the one who gave Epstein the foot in the door. From there he got to teach the son of Bear Stern's CEO Ace Greenberg,
and was recruited by the latter to work at Bear Sterns.
I wouldn't count out the CIA here. It is telling that one of Epstein's havens was overseas, several of them. These are locations
where the CIA could legally operate. After collecting dirt, they could then funnel some of it selectively to the Israelis for
distribution so the CIA could maintain plausible deniability while having a wall of separation between themselves and the Mossad-picked
third party that leaked the info.
In fact, this is the most plausible scenario; it fits with everything we know: 1) "intelligence" reportedly told Acosta to
back off 2) Epstein has been linked to the CIA 3) some of these locations were overseas, giving the CIA a legal justification
for spying 4) these were largely American politicians and American allies 5) the CIA reportedly threatened Trump when he came
into office by implying they would leak stuff on him: the Micheal Wolfe book, Fire and Fury I believe it was, related a story
of Trump being pressured to set up a meeting with the CIA where he'd speak to them and, essentially, pledge loyalty to them
because they would be his enemies otherwise (that's treason, btw); Trump dutifully complied 6) Epstein's mysterious wealth and
property management would have attracted CIA attention long ago, meaning they should have been aware of this unless they helped
set it up, including the guy's fake wealth (a front to get close to the powerful) anyone got a tax return for this guy?
This smells like CIA-Mossad joint op. If it were solely Mossad, the CIA should have stepped in and broken up this guy's little
operation considering his targets. They should have followed up by either eliminating Epstein as a message to Mossad not to
leak any of their dirt or threatened Epstein with punishment if he leaked or continued his activities. Tellingly, they covered
for the guy.
Also, does this sorry state of affairs make it more likely that Trump will "Wag the Dog" on Iran? Would the Epstein arrest
have even happened if Trump had done Bibi's bidding and attacked Iran when the False Flag of the drone shoot down had been teed
up for him like a driver smacking a golf ball. Conspiracy Theories is all we have left in the crumbling Empire of Lust and Greed.
Perhaps I'm just paranoid.
Milchan was involved in a number of other thefts as well as arms sales on behalf of the Jewish state
One of many apparently.
The scum described here was rewarded with becoming the mayor of Jerusalem.
We've been involved in everything we've been asked to do [re Israel].
[Dad] went and he bought all of the equipment from the plant. It ended up being shipped to Israel. Because you know at
that time, there was a complete embargo from the United States, and what little [the Israelis] got– well Most of what
they got were smuggled in.Most of them were illegal, all the arms. That's what Teddy Kollek did. That was his job before
he became a mayor [of Jerusalem]. He was a master smuggler. And he was good. Oh was he good! [laughter]
The honey trap is one of the most powerful (and legitimate) ways to compromise public officials, including heads of state.
Epstein is almost certainly Mossad.
This has been the talk and pretty obvious conclusion now for some time. Of COURSE Epstein was/is a MOSSAD asset if not agent.
What's more his usefullness to them isn't over yet, especially if Trump is one of the names he has.
I think if Trump caves next false flag and has a go at Iran, it will imply that Trump is dirty and Epstein can prove it.
I'm saying MOSSAD could be behind Epstein going down now as it makes his blakmail potential an imperitive. Hopefully Trump is
clean and there are indications he is. If not then he just lost any ability to resist whatever the zippers now want of him.
The sort of influence Zionist "Israel" needs to wield and does requires exactly such an interconnected and multilayered stable
of highly placed assets. Redundancy built in and how else do you think they manage to control so much AND avoid accountability?
They cast a wide net. But you knew that I think.
@Tired
of Not Winning deal with one of Epstein's attorneys because he had "been told" to back off, that Epstein was above his pay
grade. "I was told Epstein 'belonged to intelligence' and to leave it alone," he told his interviewers'
#4 Offshore Tax Schemes / Money Laundering
Deutsche Bank seems to be the Gordian Knot of financial filth and corruption. Epstein was a client of Deutsche Bank's 'special
services department' same as Trump and Kushner ..same Deutsche bank as already fined for money laundering.
Possible Epstein and whoever was behind him engaged in all of these. If congress is going to question Acosta .first question
should be who told him Epstein belonged to intelligence.
That 2002 New York piece Phil mentioned has some great tid-bits:
For more than ten years, he's been linked to Manhattan-London society figure Ghislaine Maxwell, daughter of the mysteriously
deceased media titan Robert Maxwell
He is an enthusiastic member of the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations.
Indicative of globalism, Zionism and Jewish group interest.
those close to him say the reason he quit his board seat at the Rockefeller Institute was that he hated wearing a suit.
Obviously a falsely contrived reason, wonder what the deal was here
"I invest in people – be it politics or science. It's what I do," he has said to friends. And his latest prize addition
is the former president [Bill Clinton].
Certainly suggestive of an intelligence operative mindset.
Before Clinton, Epstein's rare appearances in the gossip columns tended to be speculation as to the true nature of his
relationship with Ghislaine Maxwell. While they are still friends, the English tabloids have postulated that Maxwell has
longed for a more permanent pairing and that for undetermined reasons Epstein has not reciprocated in kind. "It's a mysterious
relationship that they have," says society journalist David Patrick Columbia. "In one way, they are soul mates, yet they
are hardly companions anymore. It's a nice conventional relationship, where they serve each other's purposes."
Friends of the two say that Maxwell, whose social life has always been higher-octane than Epstein's, lent a little pizzazz
to the lower-profile Epstein. Indeed, at a party at Maxwell's house, her friends say, one is just as apt to see Russian
ladies of the night as one is to see Prince Andrew.
Another interpretation is that his combination with Ghislaine was bringing a bit too much public attention to Epstein and
his activities and therefore it was decided to let things die down a bit.
in 1976, he dropped everything and reported to work at Bear Stearns, where he started off as a junior assistant to a
floor trader at the American Stock Exchange. His ascent was rapid.
At the time, options trading was an arcane and dimly understood field, just beginning to take off. To trade options,
one had to value them, and to value them, one needed to be able to master such abstruse mathematical confections as the
Black-Scholes option-pricing model. For Epstein, breaking down such models was pure sport, and within just a few years he
had his own stable of clients. "He was not your conventional broker saying 'Buy IBM' or 'Sell Xerox,' " says Bear Stearns
CEO Jimmy Cayne. "Given his mathematical background, we put him in our special-products division, where he would advise
our wealthier clients on the tax implications of their portfolios. He would recommend certain tax-advantageous transactions.
He is a very smart guy and has become a very important client for the firm as well."
In 1980, Epstein made partner, but he had left the firm by 1981. Working in a bureaucracy was not for him
Obviously, important facts are being left out. He is a talented options analyst but they have him advising clients on investment
structures to save taxes? Why wouldn't they put him on principal trades for Bear if he was such an options whiz?
And why did he leave? Trading firms are notoriously NOT bureaucracies, and anyone with a talent for making money, especially
in the early 80s, would find few fetters. Whole story not given here.
In 1982, according to those who know Epstein, he set up his own shop, J. Epstein and Co., which remains his core business
today. The premise behind it was simple: Epstein would manage the individual and family fortunes of clients with $1 billion
or more. Which is where the mystery deepens. Because according to the lore, Epstein, in 1982, immediately began collecting
clients. There were no road shows, no whiz-bang marketing demos – just this: Jeff Epstein was open for business for those
with $1 billion–plus.
Getting clients in asset management is a cut-throat business. But Epstein did not even have to make a pretense of competing
for business?
His firm would be different, too. He was not here just to offer investment advice; he saw himself as the financial architect
of every aspect of his client's wealth – from investments to philanthropy to tax planning to security to assuaging the guilt
and burdens that large sums of inherited wealth can bring on.
the conditions for investing with Epstein were steep: He would take total control of the billion dollars, charge a flat
fee, and assume power of attorney to do whatever he thought was necessary to advance his client's financial cause. And he
remained true to the $1 billion entry fee. According to people who know him, if you were worth $700 million and felt the
need for the services of Epstein and Co., you would receive a not-so-polite no-thank-you from Epstein.
Minimum $1b invested, no track record by the asset manager, and he claims the clients give him carte blanche? This is not
normal wealth management.
Turning down giant new stakes just because they fall short of $1b? Nonsense. The name of the game on the buy side on Wall
Street is size, because that gives you negotiating power with the sell side.
Epstein runs a lean operation, and those close to him say that his actual staff – based here in Manhattan at the Villard
House (home to Le Cirque); New Albany, Ohio; and St. Thomas, where he reincorporated his company seven years ago (now called
Financial Trust Co.) – numbers around 150 and is purely administrative. When it comes to putting these billions to work
in the markets, it is Epstein himself making all the investment calls – there are no analysts or portfolio managers, just
twenty accountants to keep the wheels greased and a bevy of assistants – many of them conspicuously attractive young women
– to organize his hectic life. So assuming, conservatively, a fee of .5 percent (he takes no commissions or percentages)
on $15 billion, that makes for a management fee of $75 million a year straight into Jeff Epstein's pocket.
Epstein makes all the daily investment decisions on $15b, yet no one on the sell side knows him? In other words Epstein does
not invest in new issues. But new issues are the gravy for making money on the buy side – think IPO discount. This is not normal
asset management.
some have speculated that Wexner is the primary source of Epstein's lavish life – but friends leap to his defense. "Let
me tell you: Jeffrey Epstein has other clients besides Wexner. I know because some of them are my clients," says noted m&a
lawyer Dennis Block of Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft. "I sent him a $500 million client a few years ago and he wouldn't
take him. Said the account was too small. Both the client and I were amazed. But that's Jeffrey."
You can always trust the word of an M&A lawyer. They would never mislead anyone for advantage.
he found himself spending there [in Santa Fe], talking elementary particle physics with his friend Murray Gell-Mann,
a Nobel Prize–winning physicist and co-chair of the science board at the Santa Fe Institute.
his covey of scientists that inspires Epstein's true rapture. Epstein spends $20 million a year on them
Gerald Edelman won the Nobel Prize for physiology and medicine in 1972 and now presides over the Neurosciences Institute
in La Jolla. "Jeff is extraordinary in his ability to pick up on quantitative relations," says Edelman. "He came to see
us recently. He is concerned with this basic question: Is it true that the brain is not a computer? He is very quick."
Stephen Kosslyn, a psychologist at Harvard. Epstein flew up to Kosslyn's laboratory in Cambridge this year to witness
an experiment that Kosslyn was conducting and Epstein was funding. Namely: Is it true that certain Tibetan monks are capable
of holding a distinct mental image in their minds for twenty minutes straight?
Epstein has a particularly close relationship with Martin Nowak, an Austrian biology and mathematics professor who heads
the theoretical-biology program at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton. Nowak is examining how game theory can
be used to answer some of the basic evolutionary questions – e.g., why, in our Darwinian society, does altruistic behavior
exist?
Danny Hillis, an MIT-educated computer scientist whose company, Thinking Machines, was at the forefront of the supercomputing
world in the eighties, and who used to run R&D at Walt Disney Imagineering
An intelligence operative would certainly have no interest in cultivating, buying or blackmailing scientists in the fields
of nuclear physics, controlling human behavior or supercomputers!
And by the way, the need to explain "altruism" in terms of game theory is a tip-off that Epstein and Nowak have no spiritual
life and cannot comprehend of it in other people. No surprise to find "do what thou wilt" as his guiding principle.
Strangely enough, given his scientific obsessions, he is a computer-phobe and does not use e-mail.
Before taking a big position, Epstein will usually fly to the country in question. He recently spent a week in Germany
meeting with various government officials and financial types, and he has a trip to Brazil coming up in the next few weeks.
On all of these trips, he flies alone in his commercial-jet-size 727.
Friends of Epstein say he is horrified at the recent swell of media attention around him
He has never granted a formal interview, and did not offer one to this magazine, nor has his picture appeared in any
publication.
The final straws. If he's not an intelligence operative, he's doing everything he can to give that impression!
He "flies alone." LOL! Poor Jeffrey, he so ronery!
When Bob Maxwell died at sea or disappeared it turned out that he had used or stolen every penny of ALL the pensions of his
employees .which were never recovered. After her father was given a state funeral in Israel (not England where he and his family
lived and worked) there followed a 2 year court case in which his 6 children were finally excused from any responsibility for
these pensions, despite inheriting his money and two of them working in his companies.
And now Ghislaine turns up as a US socialite, multi-decade pedophile procurer and international human trafficker. Nice family
.nice values! ...
Since the Little SAINT James pedo-island
that was allegedly owned by Jeffery Epstein did not have an airport (the closest one being
Curil E King airport in St. Thomas (about ten miles away)) that
means the 'guests' would either have to take a boat trip or a helicopter trip. Since Little SAINT James does have a
clearly marked helicopter landing site at the north central east part of the island (when viewed on google maps in satellite
view) one would suspect that is how these so-called 'guests' arrived at this pedo-island.
Those activities are not mutually exclusive. It could be #5: All of the above. We all know how Mossad operates. Nothing is
beyond them. The end justifies the means.
Acosta is a distraction .and possibly innocent since he did what he was told which was to go easy on an intelligence asset.
Forget the small fry and concentrate on the real criminals please.
Senator Chuck Schumer, self-described as Israel's "protector" in the Senate, is loudly calling for the resignation of
Acosta. He just might change his tune if it turns out that Israel is a major part of the story.
Schumer would already have been tipped of if is was an Israeli operation. It's an anti Trump thing.
The fact that the case has been moved to the Southern District of New York validates your cynicism.
Has the Only Democracy in the Middle East decided to sacrifice Epstein (he can be sprung later, his jig was up anyway) so
that an Epstein circus can replace Russiagate?
From renfro, the following great point:
"If congress is going to question Acosta .first question should be who told him Epstein belonged to intelligence."
, renfro! Thanks & my respect.
Because I have special enthusiasm for renfro's advice to "Congress," such will not fly with "congress."
Quote: "It will be very interesting to see just how far and how deep the investigation into Epstein and his activities goes."
Reply: We'll get a glistening kabuki show, with lots of wailing [walls], thunder and lightening, twists and turns, but, in
the end [as this case will go on and on – Harvey Weinstein, anyone?] people will forget about it.
I fear that this is all rapidly turning into a modified limited hangout. A whole lot of dirt will be inconclusively exposed
and, even though everyone will have a pretty good idea of what happened, there won't be enough will to do anything about it.
The caveat will be when the financial system finally implodes. A horde of jobless and desperate people will rapidly lose
their patience for being governed by a bunch of incompetent pedophile oligarchs, but until then everyone will just go with the
flow.
@Rabbitnexus
ut it looks more like a millionaire club. Intelligence agencies prefer to use secretaries and other less visible people as spies.
I would look for some association of friends of Israel, something that has lots of money, wants lots of power, spies on people,
both enemies and friends, and has some special love for Israel.
I maybe wrong, but this does not seem to me to be a single intelligence agency of any country. It operates in an age old
method of a secret society, like mafia or masons. It is neither mafia nor masons, but some that especially likes to help Israel
and probably created it. I guess there are such friends of Israel organizations, several.
In social science it is often assumed that people are selfish. The attempt to show that altruism contributes positively to
the prospects for survival and reproduction is important in defeating the presumption of underlying selfishness. It's not a
very deep idea. If ten people carry a gene that causes one of them to throw himself on a hand-grenade, thereby saving the other
nine, that gives the gene a better chance of being passed along than if the grenade goes off and most or all of the carriers
are killed. If interested, see the book Evolution of the Social Contract by Brian Skyrms.
First a question: who says the telephone numbers were the sort only an intimate or ultimate insider would have? Queen Elizabeth's
would surely have had to be the Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle, Sandringham or Balmoral switchboard.
Then there is what a sleazy or dangerous guy like Epstein might be expected to do, namely toss in a whole lot of names (with
or without true up to date direct line numbers) to confuse and provide diversion and cover. Cute though isn't that he was supposed
still to be using an old fashioned address book in the 21st Century rather than an encrypted or at least password protected
smartphone.
The Palm Beach mansion Epstein owned was rigged with hidden cameras in some of the guest bedrooms according to an article
I read a couple of years back.
Im glad we have forums like this so the word can get out: honeypot operations are not a thing of just the KGB/Cold War past,
but of the Soros/intel orgs/globalist/Establishment present.
Future politicians and wealthy businesspersons need to be aware of this. The Bible has a great old verse that goes something
like, "Be sure your sins will find you out".
"Pedophilia"? Has anyone accused Epstein of mistreating pre-pubescent girls? I don't think so. If Mr. Giraldi wants to deplore
what Epstein is accused of, fine. But don't try to confuse us by suggesting that he attacked children rather than underage teens.
@follyofwar
even Israel understand this would not be regime change business as usual.
U.S. war gamers for years have been saying there's no way the U.S. could significantly "win" the war. It would surely drive
gas prices way up, and wake up the American public, creating a probably insurmountable political problem for Trump. Israel is
liable to get pelted from all sides -- Hezbollah has promised to attack in the event of war, and there are probably ways of
striking from Syria and Iran. Then there are the wild cards of Russia and China. No one knows for sure what Putin would do if
Iran were attacked, but he could certainly turn Israel into a parking lot very quickly if he wanted to.
Well founded scepticism. Still, now we know the extent of what Bernie Madoff got away with perhaps someone who was clever
and charming and appealed to those who wouldn't have invested with Madoff just might have put together enough billion dollar
portfolios to be able, as long as he managed his tax affairs well to become very rich during the 80s. It would be interesting
to know how he handled the October 1988 melt down.
One aspect of this entire Epstein Talmudic child abuse saga that really p*sses me off is the active participation of the
IRS. It was the same with Madoff and Maxwell. None of these talmudic ponzi's could have gotten off the ground if these gangsters
had been correctly filing all the correct tax forms like all the other goy schmucks.
Since 2012, with the Statute of Limitations retroactively extended 3 years to a total of 6 years backwards to 2006, all undeclared
foreign bank accounts of US persons or green card holders on IRS FBAR forms (Foreign Bank Account Report), and since 2012 form
8948 (Statement of Specified Foreign Financial Assets), which is even more intrusive, face IRS penalties of 50% of the highest
annual balance, and many tax sinners have been forced to pay more in taxes than these bank accounts ever contained. This is
the tip of the iceberg compared to jewish charity and foundation and estate fraud.
Epstein supposedly was "gifted" the NY mansion from his "mentor" at the defunct and fraudulent money changer Bear Stearns
for what must have been more than 50 Million. Rick Wiles drilled down in detail into this gift on
Thursday .
These kinds of shenanigans, like flying "friends" around the world to your various child abuse temples in your private jets,
are taxable gifts. In fact double taxed, taxed first as income and second with the gift tax. The Lolita Express could never
be declared as a business expense either.
The entire rotten affair stinks on every level and it gets more putrid at every layer of talmudic control is peeled bank.
At each level more Jews and Zionists come wiggling out and scurrying off to disappear from social and dinosaur media. But also
as each layer gets peeled bank we get closer to the core, which with ever more certainty is ritual child sacrifice used for
talmudic control.
Forget the small fry and concentrate on the real criminals please.
It's going to be difficult
Maurene Comey, one of the lead prosecutors who is handling the Epstein case, happens to be James Comey's daughter, the ex
FBI boss.
It remains to be seen if she will be giving Bill Clinton special treatment, just like her father gave to Hillary's "lock her
up".
Moreover, Judge Berman who preside the case, happens to be also a Clinton appointee (in 1998).
In 1982, according to those who know Epstein, he set up his own shop, J. Epstein and Co., which remains his core business
today. The premise behind it was simple: Epstein would manage the individual and family fortunes of clients with $1 billion
or more. Which is where the mystery deepens. Because according to the lore, Epstein, in 1982, immediately began collecting
clients. There were no road shows, no whiz-bang marketing demos – just this: Jeff Epstein was open for business for those
with $1 billion–plus.
The fly in the ointment of this carefully cultivated cover story:
"Statistics published in Forbes magazine's annual survey of America's billionaires expose this little known but shocking
reality. In 1982 there were 13 billionaires; in 1983 15″
There's no need for anything so crude as either the head of the CIA or FBI reporting directly to the Mossad when both agencies
are riddled from top to bottom with de facto Israeli espionage agents.
It's a Fool's Errand to think you can solve Epstein like a puzzle. Most, like Giraldi, are engaged in bias confirmation.
That isn't to say his speculations are entirely wrong but that we're all part of the play in one way or another.
In my view timing is rarely if ever coincidental. That seems glaringly obvious here. The Epstein scandal was resurrected
now for a reason. I suspect that like the Academic Admissions scandal the Permanent Government is throwing its weight around.
Warning (once again) that it can inflict casualties if exposing its 2016 malefactions is taken too far.
Weinstein served the same function -- with poor Meryl Streep the Sgt. Schultz headliner.
Put yourself in the mind of the various filth (e.g. Brennan) implicated in attempting to throw the election to Hillary and,
failing that, frame-up and destroy the duly elected POTUS. They think they're entitled to a pass given all they've turned a
blind eye to over the years.
Epstein's arrest strikes me as a shot across the bow in the context of the upcoming IG Report/Durham Investigation. I'm not
picking on Giraldi but all of his fans here should note he's been Mumble Mouth at best on those malefactions. Nor am I saying
that isn't the wise move for him.
The scandal that needs to be buried is that they built a global surveillance (and storage) apparatus, including of the American
people. There was widespread, systematic abuse of it during the Obama Administration ('000s of people). Whatever limitations
there were, effectively Mutually Assured Destruction with the establishment factions keeping an eye on each other, collapsed
as they all united to stop Trump.
Epstein, like Weinstein and the Academic Admissions scandal, is both distraction and a warning to the Governing and Business
Classes -- keep you heads down and mouths shut about these powerful intelligence/national security entities.
I generally think waiting to see how matters fall out is a very good idea. But when I read the information of Mr. Acosta's
interview, I sank a bit. Because it strongly suggested vested interest by the government – not to get to the truth.
That even the circus that usually comes to surround even credible cases will so muddy the waters as to avoid a rendering
of what actually took place.
And given how compromised the collusion matter is was or will continue to be – the stakes may be higher here such that muddying
the waters will be some relief for those involved.
Myth of brilliance has been created to explain origin of his wealth . But even that shit was not enough , more myths had
to be created like capacity of having brilliant discussions with Nobel laureate ( Physics) or with great educators , and with
world renowned economist .
I guess authorities can get away with saying what F lies they can say until it blows up on their faces . Jew thinks goym
are stupid , so tell them whatever come to mind like having a great autonomous brain that doesn't depend on education or training
or publicly visible job to figure out the finances , economy, hard computer , physical and cognitive sciences and earning millions
,
while busy with
1 taking nude picture and storing them in 3-4 different areas
2 ferrying big guns from 3 different continents to Orgy Islsnd
3 Getting their intimate information , charting them connecting them and storing them
4 having parties with semi nude girls but attended by celebrities
5 holding message parkour parties from girls procured from shanty , trailer park ,
6 having serial girl friends
– there are more .
Oh yeah!!! No wonder people under pressure , lack of information , from removal of connecting dots , undue respect for glory
money power , fear for being seen as ' naysayer ' or pessimist or low IQ uninformed , and fear of public ridicule can believe
or can feign to believe the wildest whoopers / lies/ plaint shit dished out by the upper echelon of the society .
( then we wonder why people believe in UFO , big foot ,
, personal angels , apparitions, or America is a force for good )
Epstein in my opinion is a mossad officer whose agenda is to compromise zio/US politicians for the benefit of Israel and
in this he is just one of many in the zio/US and in fact the zio/US gov is infested with dual Israeli citizens whose first and
only loyalty is to Israel.
Read the book Blood in the Water by Joan Mellen about the attack on the USS Liberty by Israel and the US government to see
how intertwined the mossad and the CIA are and remember the joint Israeli and zio/US gov attack on the WTC on 911, the zionists
rule America!
"CIA and the Russian FSB services are obvious candidates, but they would have no particular motive to acquire an agent like
Epstein."
This is an assertion with nothing to back it up. The CIA, in particular, has every reason to use an 'Epstein' for its nefarious
purposes as it IS the deep state or at least a major part of it.
The CIA owns the drug trade in Afghanistan and Mena, Arkansas can easily be connected to CIA activities along with gun running
in Mexico. The CIA is the official criminal organization within the US gov't and it went rogue decades ago. It can afford to
have multiple 'Epstein' clones running around to make sure it can control the US political class to not investigate its activities
too closely.
The CIA and Israel are indistinguishable from each other. Israel runs US foreign policy via the CIA and their own Mossad.
Come on, Phil Giraldi. Do you believe in an independent American justice system? What a joke. It's corrupt to the bone. Weinstein,
Epstein, Maxwell, Adelson, Saban, Koch you name it, have America in their pocket like Sharon used to say. During a furious beef
between Sharon and Shimon Peres, Sharon turned toward Peres, saying "every time we do something you tell me Americans will do
this and will do that. I want to tell you something obvious, don't worry about American pressure on Israel, we, the Jewish people,
control America, and the Americans know it."
Could anyone but an intelligence agency get away with all of the following: 1) harassing witnesses (forcing their cars off
the road public highways), 2) searching the trash of police officers in an attempt to find dirt on the officers and 3) obtaining
a sweet heart plea bargain when the police had dozens of victims (who didn't even know each other) telling the exact same story
and ready to testify – as well as photos of nude adolescents seized in a search.
Who could have done such things and got away with it.
Epstein must have been an operative. The only question is: for whom did he work?
Gasp!!! Are you suggesting sweet, innocent Monica was blowing Slick Willie for reasons other than his taking advantage
of her?
In his book Gideon's Spies the late Welsh author Gordon Thomas claimed Mossad had tapes of the same for blackmail
reasons. However, this has never been confirmed.
Epstein will "cop a plea" and avoid a trial. That is certain.
A couple of things I'd like to ask the brilliant Epstein: Why did you engage in your nefarious sexual activity in New York
State and Florida? The "age of consent" in both states is 18. In New Jersey, PA and other states, it's 16. Now US federal law
prohibits sex between people 12 to 16 if one of the participants is 4 years or more older than the other. The law says "between"
not inclusive of 16. So 16 might be OK. That's young enough.
Also Jeffrey, why didn't you take your "Lolita Express" to Tel Aviv? It's legal in Israel and no one checks up of the actual
ages of the "working girls." And most are the tall blond/blue and slim types from Eastern Europe.
"Pedophile" is incorrect, as a commenter noted. The age cutoff is 13 for pedophilia. DSM-5. These escapades comprise different
serious felonies. However, the Epstein colleagues can rest easy, if Rush's instinct about prosecuting Hillary is correct. Rush
has said that prosecuting Hillary will not happen, because it would "roil" the nation. Same here. I expect to see a lot of MSM
passive voice, and intransitive verbs, but no roiling. "The car drove off the side of the bridge."
Asimov's father once wrote a book called "The Sensuous Dirty Old Man." Hmm .
More seriously, did it ever occur to you that someone might want to know your source before accepting your claim that Mueller
"supposedly classified Epstein as an informant"? Supposed by whom?? Eh????
believes Epstein allegedly preyed on Araoz when she was 14 because she was vulnerable.
"She had just transferred to a new school and didn't know anybody," attorney Kimberly Lerner said in an interview. "She
didn't have a father. Her mother was very poor. She was from a single-parent home. She was really struggling, and she wanted
to be a model and an actress. He absolutely preyed upon the most vulnerable."
@Lou123
n Ring' which supposedly was providing child prostitutes to high level US politicians who in turn were then being blackmailed
by the existence of surreptitious recordings having been made of these incidents by US intelligence agencies.
The below newspaper article explains what ultimately happened to the lead investigator of the case. Gary Caradori had been
hired by the Nebraska state legislature to find out what had actually transpired regarding the alleged Nebraska based ring.
Needless to say his investigation was unexpectedly 'cut short'.
What if .Acostoa is just a stooge, In fact he probably insisted on SOME jail time here. Otherwise the rest of the US "justice"
system could care less. Even NYC is complicit. It's a snow job of theater, this democracy is. It's a joke. It only looks like
a democracy on tv.
Mossad, CIA, FBI, MI5, who cares? All of these are criminal enterprises, just like the governments providing them cover and
"legitimacy".
Really interesting aspect of any elite in-fighting is that it exposes an "uncomfortable truth" that there is only one elite
running the show. That there is only Republicratic party, which regularly organizes (for the benefit of sheeple still believing
in "democracy") puppet shows called elections, where ostensibly Democrats battle Republicans. In fact, both are just two hands
of the same puppet master. That's why the same criminals are prominent at all "Republican" and "Democratic" functions.
The other thing that the story of that Epstein character clearly shows is that all those "respectable people" are nothing
more than rich criminals, and the only reason they aren't in jail is that they have enough money to get away with any crime.
@Talha
refully scripted to identify girls who could be vulnerable to manipulation, have a chaotic family life, need money, need social
connections for career advancement . The female procurer would report to Epstein and receive instructions to abandon or continue
to recruit the "candidate". A female procurer is used as she will not arouse suspicion in a young girl. These are simple techniques
that have been used for centuries worldwide. A father must cultivate a close relationship with his daughter, know when she is
OK or not OK, and most importantly be an example of a quality man that his daughter will compare to every man she meets(being
overprotective merely makes her more vulnerable).
Meh. Get ready for a tidal wave of MSM articles talking about how the deranged, alt-right internet conspiracy theorists are
having a field day with the Epstein case, after which your average American moron will be programmed to just smirk and roll
his eyes whenever the facts touched on in this article are brought up.
Ms. Aroaz's father was deceased before she met the female procurer
Well, then I take back what I said – obviously can't blame a dead man for not being there.
A father must cultivate a close relationship with his daughter, know when she is OK or not OK, and most importantly be
an example of a quality man that his daughter will compare to every man she meets
I don't know if Giraldi is a plant or not. However, the first law of understanding "intelligence agents" or ex spooks is
to always be suspicious of everyone. The group he belongs too seems legitimate enough but we have been set up before. I've be
reading Giraldi a long time and he has a similar "theme" in every piece but he also leaves small things out that should be in
his articles. The Devil is in the Details and man with his experience should be "Detailed Oriented."
He should know about Epstein and Muller and a few other things since this is the stock and trade of all intelligence agencies.
The interesting thing about this case is, the left wants it exposed because they think it'll take down Trump, the right wants
it exposed because they think it'll take down Bill Clinton. My guess is, more Dems will go down than Republicans. Trump was
a Democrat and a big supporter of Clintons and Chuck Schumer before he decided to run as a GOP in 2016. He could've gone either
way.
Sex scandals tend to plague the left, especially sexual perversions like porn, prostitution, child sex or gay sex. It's coz
the left is dominated by Jews who are prone to sexual perversion, and also because liberals believe feelings and passion trump
all, anything you do is not your fault as long as you are just following your feelings.
One reason Trump is so pro-Israel and hell bent on attacking Iran could be because the Jews have something on him, which
is not too hard since he's been in business with them for a lifetime and is as unctuous and unscrupulous as any of them. They
might be getting impatient with him on Iran and wants someone who can get the job done like Mike Pence to take over. Epstein
could take down both Clinton and Trump, Clinton has outlived his usefulness to them since Hillary didn't win, he'll be the sacrificial
lamb while they take out Trump for Pence.
Republic asked the following critical question which should not be cast away:
"If Epstein worked for Mossad, why wasn't he tipped off in Paris not to return to the US?"
! Mossad deception is sophisticated & patterns of telling a lie upon another improved lie ar characteristic.
Also, Mossad's implemented practices/techniques are adaptable to circumstances which seem supportive of what dumb goyim consider
"justice served," but they actually benefit Israel.
A thought. I figure Epstein knew what fate awaited him prior to landing at Teterboro Airport tarmac.
Well, Giraldi did work there and would have heard people complaining about the presence and influence of Israeli spies. Colonel
Kiatowoski's book about the presence of Israeli spies in the Pentagon made it clear Pentagon personnel resented the Israeli
spies but could do nothing about it.
@Talha
ing to a recently divorced man whose x-wife hates him (nothing new), and who has two teenage daughters. The x has poisoned the
daughters against him, (nothing new), and because he was trying to be strident with his elder daughter vis-a-vis drugs, (nothing
new), he now is not allowed to have any contact with them via the skewed courts, (nothing new).
They're doing a Weimar regime redux. That was the apex of their heyday, when the children of Germany were their playthings,
and Berlin was a giant brothel- girls and boys for sale, especially the ones whose fathers had died in their holocaust
that was WWI.
@j2
has maybe 10 Israeli immigrants or American Jews who work for him. Each has 10-15 American Jews who can be called upon. So it's
a wide network.
You're right that clerks secretaries accountants have great access to information. But the Israeli system is widespread.
Plus, the information needn't always come from Jews.
It really does exist. There's an Israeli who hosts sabbath dinners in Los Angeles. He invites American Jews to be briefed
on what's going on in Israel. I'm positive he also recruits agents in place he spots at those dinners. Guests who have no access
to anything useful at least get to feel they're participating in the cause.
@AnonFromTN
he only reason they aren't in jail is that they have enough money to get away with any crime.
True. And this Epstein coverage is bringing out more nooks and crannies of how the really rich control systems for their
own benefit.
Like why was Epsteins tax rate on his NY mansion only 0.6% .why is Bill de Blasio tax rate on his mansion only 0.2% ..when
other NY'ers taxrate is 12%.
@ChuckOrloski
howed the original twelve members in indecent poses . At the entrance to the abbey, there was an inscription which read Fay
ce que voudras – do what thou wilt – a term which Aleister Crowley borrowed nearly 200 years later. "
Ben Franklin likely would have been a prominent visitor to Little St. James, just as he was to
West Wycombe in his day.
Thomas Paine too.
There is regular sex and "deviation", pornography, pedophilia
There is drugs, illegal and legal, hard and soft
Then there is finance, always pimping, always on exploitation, abuse of minors, as young as not yet born, globally, and to
be comitted legally. Pedophilia and drugs are soft core, barely leveling at the sock suspenders of our financiers.
A few hundred of the top tier Wall Street-ers belong in jail, as rats eating their own tail, they only can be administered
there. Starting with Mnuchin. Epstein should be let alone, so he can decoy a little longer, and await his turn, pecking order
obliges. Ah, the public sector, the ones with faces, real fungi are minding the dark.
Linked on this same site today, Michael Hudson, seems to attribute Empire and financial capitalism, debt, the demise of the
dollar, to Trump. ?. Of all men, another scripted clown gets the blame. The shredding is spoiling the carpet.
If unz.com is so willingly pointing out the third liners, as Maya sacrifices to the deities in the shades, then there you
have one more reason the rag is impervious to censorship.
Gardner's and retail store clerks have personal phone numbers of the rich and famous. For instance, clerks at high
end retail clothing stores are supposed to cultivate shoppers on a personal level so they can call them up with the great news
of items they'd like to buy.
Actors producers directors numbers and home addresses can be obtained from people who work at their agents accountants PR
and attorney offices
Police departments have access to all phone numbers. Most of the Find a Number websites don't have the private number of
celebrities. But there are plenty of people who can access all the cell phone records.
How to get away with blackmailing without blackmailing.
First, you need to recruit people in. Have lots of massive parties at your spacious home for wealthy men. Have lots of women
mostly teens and under aged.
Sooner or later there will be some mingling going on. Some billionaire will get handsy and end up in a room with a girl ..and
hidden cameras.
Epstein informs him later the girl was really 15, but offers him a nice, neat way to buy silence: a large allocation to his
hedge fund, which charges 5% ..with power of attorney for himself.
To ease the pain for the black mailee Epstein puts the money in something as safe as treasury notes or money market fund.
Then Epstein collects his 'fees' ..x millions on the interest from treasury notes or etc..
Soooo no traceable blackmail payoff checks or wire transfers from his fellow pedos.
Epstein may also try this on other important political figures, mayors, prosecutors, etc. He doesnt blackmail them to 'invest'
in his fund but has them in his pocket.
The evidence would probably be in a deposit box in his offshore Caribbean bank.
One reason Trump is so pro-Israel and hell bent on attacking Iran could be because the Jews have something on him, which
is not too hard since he's been in business with them for a lifetime and is as unctuous and unscrupulous as any of them.
They might be getting impatient with him on Iran and wants someone who can get the job done like Mike Pence to take over.
Epstein could take down both Clinton and Trump, Clinton has outlived his usefulness to them since Hillary didn't win, he'll
be the sacrificial lamb while they take out Trump for Pence.
Just what I was going to write, but you got there first.
Thank you very much. pedophilia stops at the victims 13th birthday. Then it's various degrees of molestation of a minor .
It's usually 13 and 14, then 15. Then 16 and 17. In some states the age of consent is 16. Epstein's activities weren't just
molestation of minors. They were procuring for prostitution as well.
I have been meaning to ask this for a while, Dr. Giraldi, let’s say stuff you write about Israel is all true, you are ex-CIA,
then can we assume there are many like you or is that not the case? If that’s the case, then why none of them stand up and oppose?
Or are they too afraid of standing up for their country?
There are at least nine factions in the CIA concerning Israeli politics:
1. anti-Israel for emotional reasons (instinctive hostile feelings towards Jews, Judeophobia)
2. anti-Israel for ideological reasons (reasoned opposition towards Judaism and Zionism as doctrines)
3. anti-Israel for strategic reasons (bad for long-term American interests)
4. pro-Israel for emotional reasons (warm feelings towards Jews)
5. pro-Israel for ideological reasons (for instance, Christian Zionists)
6. pro-Israel for occult reasons (the world’s most powerful secret society mandates support as part of a grand mystical scheme)
7. pro-Israel for reasons of personal self-interest (issues concerning bribery, blackmail, careerism, etc.)
8. pro-Israel for strategic reasons (good for long-term American strategic interests)
9. pro-Israel for strategic reasons AND hostile to Jews (Jewish nationalists provide a counterweight to Jewish leftists in
the Diaspora, divide and conquer tactics)
Since the late 1940s, the pro-Israel factions in the CIA have easily dominated the anti-Israel (or Israel-skeptical) factions.
By the way, most CIA employees, including many high level employees, don't have a full understanding of what is going on
in the CIA, including knowledge of the most influential players and operations and their connections.
+ 64% of veterans said the Iraq War
wasn't worth fighting , considering the costs versus the benefit to the U.S., and more than
50% think the same about the war in Afghanistan I wonder what percentage of them got "woke" to
this before Tulsi Gabbard?
You can bet that the likes of Rachel Maddow will never change their tune on the subject
of Russiagate.
However, with the election season heating up, it might seem wise for them to
start singing a different tune altogether, such as Sanders and Warren are too radical to have
any chance of defeating Trump.
The saddest thing of all is that the Dems' fixation on Russia
and Putin is now coming back to bite them in the ass. Trump could not have asked for a better
gift.
This debauchery is a part of the crisis of neoliberalism. It does increases the level of de-legitimization of neoliberal elite.
As one commenter pointed out: we need the names of scum, wealthy perverts from the United States who travelled to Epstein
island-sized rape dungeon off the coast of Saint Thomas.
Notable quotes:
"... This appears to be something of a pattern. "What is so amazing to me is how his entire social circle knew about this and just blithely overlooked it," Ward says of Epstein's pederasty. "While praising his charm, brilliance and generous donations to Harvard, those [I] spoke to all mentioned the girls as an aside." ..."
"... The Epstein case is first and foremost about the casual victimization of vulnerable girls. But it is also a political scandal, if not a partisan one. It reveals a deep corruption among mostly male elites across parties, and the way the very rich can often purchase impunity for even the most loathsome of crimes ..."
"... our elites still love Epstein, even if he does rape little girls ..."
"... This is how America is. This is how our ruling class works: Democrat, Republican, whatever. As the inimitable Matthew Walther points out , there's a reason people believe in Pizzagate. The Hellfire Club is real. And for decades, we've emboldened them considerably. ..."
"... Surely I'm not the only one who noticed that the Epstein sex abuse timeline is nearly identical to the Catholic Church sex abuse timeline. Both investigations were initiated in the early 2000s. Both revealed that the exploitation of children was an open secret in the highest echelons of power. Both investigations were closed a few years later, though not resolved. We assumed justice would take its course, and slowly began to forget. And then within two years of each other, both scandals emerged again, more sordid than ever. And on both occasions, we realized that nothing had changed. ..."
"... Of course, we know where that leads us. For two centuries, conservatives have tried to dampen the passions that led France to cannibalize herself circa 1789. ..."
"... Yes: those passions are legitimate. We should feel contempt for our leaders when we discover that two presidents cavorted with Epstein, almost certainly aware that he preyed on minors. We should feel disgust at the mere possibility that Pope Francis rehabilitated Theodore McCarrick. And we should be furious that these injustices haven't even come close to being properly redressed. ..."
"... This isn't about politics. This is about common decency and respect for the most vulnerable. Clinton? Trump? Who cares? If--and that's a big "if"--it comes to pass that either or both were involved in the Epstein festivities then either or both are scum and should be punished accordingly --along with the rest of their playmates at the Epstein playground. ..."
"... Does the author have some evidence to prove that President Trump is a pedophile, as he suggests in this article? Are all persons who may have been friends with Epstein perverts and criminals? ..."
"... If our decadent elite falls at all, it will be from imperial over-reach and losing a major foreign war, not from pedophilia, which is rapidly being normalized along with the rest of LGBTQWERTYUIOP. ..."
"... The so called elites seem above reproach. Our morality has been skewed through the soul. ..."
"... I applaud the courageous outliers like Ryan Dawson and Phil Giraldi that have considerably more guts than me. Blessings ..."
"... I don't think there is going to be a revolution, whether in UK or US, at most people would be outraged for couple of weeks and then forget. ..."
"... Excellent article. But off the mark on one key point. The corruption of the elites and Ruling Class -- and they are sickeningly corrupt -- is only a reflection of, or if you will a leading indicator, of a related corruption of the body politic. ..."
"... So Trump simply makes a comment, has no record of any flights, attendance or participation and this article would have you believe that it equates as despicable as a frequent flyer on the Lolita Express? This author is no different than the fake news. ..."
"... Trump did allegedly make one flight on the plane, from the NY area to Florida. No records show him flying to the "orgy island". ..."
"... Actually, the logs don't show that he was on the plane. Epstein's brother CLAIMS he was on the plane...the most anybody else has said to support that is that Trump looked at the plane on the ground. ..."
"... It's a Trump problem insofar as he continues to defend Acosta. This is the Sec of Labor who effectively let Epstein walk and who now oversees anti-human trafficking efforts (which he has repeatedly tried to gut the funding for). ..."
"... Did you see Acosta's press conference? The local State DA wanted to let Epstein walk - on a lesser state charge through a Grand Jury. Acosta's US Attorney office stepped in to get the charges increased as much as they could so that Epstein would do SOME jail time and - more importantly - have to register as a sex offender. ..."
"... I agree. As much as I detest Trump, I don't think that he was involved with Epstein's debauchery. However, I do believe the women that claim being assaulted, because he is on tape claiming to do what they describe. And there is so many of them. And he has had multiple documented affairs while married to every one of his wives. But no evidence yet of him with underage girls. ..."
"... Right, because those Kavanaugh accusers were so credible, right? No evidence, decades later? Nope. Unlike Kavanaugh, Trump was on a big stage for decades and was a pretty easy target with the tabloids looking for dirt...but none of them came forward. ..."
"... Trump owes America an apology, reading his comments it is obvious he was aware of, and disapproved of, Epstien proclivities, but didn't have the guts to stand up. (I do not believe the stories of Trump being involved, but if it turns out I am wrong on that, fry him ) ..."
Our elites cavorted with a pedophile, almost certainly aware of what he was up to. This is how revolutions begin.
Bill Clinton (Wikipedia Commons); Jeffrey Epstein mugshot (public domain) and Donald Trump
(Gabe Skidmore /Flickr)
For once, I'm with New York Times writer Michelle Goldberg: Jeffrey Epstein is the ultimate symbol of plutocratic rot.
In her
latest column , Goldberg interviews Vicky Ward, who covered the 2003 revelations of Epstein's sex abuse for Vanity Fair
. Ward's editor, Graydon Carter, allegedly ran interference for the high-flying pervert, nixing her discussion with two women
who claimed to have been assaulted by Epstein. "He's sensitive about the young women," Carter explained to Ward.
This appears to be something of a pattern. "What is so amazing to me is how his entire social circle knew about this and
just blithely overlooked it," Ward says of Epstein's pederasty. "While praising his charm, brilliance and generous donations to
Harvard, those [I] spoke to all mentioned the girls as an aside."
Back to Goldberg:
The Epstein case is first and foremost about the casual victimization of vulnerable girls. But it is also a political
scandal, if not a partisan one. It reveals a deep corruption among mostly male elites across parties, and the way the very rich
can often purchase impunity for even the most loathsome of crimes. If it were fiction, it would be both too sordid and
too on-the-nose to be believable, like a season of "True Detective" penned by a doctrinaire Marxist.
Of course, Goldberg -- being a Democrat -- doesn't want us to think of this as a partisan scandal. Yet Nancy Pelosi's daughter
conspicuously tweeted that it's "quite likely
that some of our faves are implicated." We all know by now that President Bill Clinton was a
frequent flyer on the Lolita Express, Epstein's
private jet, which ferried wealthy perverts from the United States to his island-sized rape dungeon off the coast of Saint Thomas.
Still, a few Republicans will almost certainly be implicated, too. Now, look: I voted for President Donald Trump in 2016. If
I don't vote for him in 2020, it will be because I've lost faith in the whole democratic process and have moved to a hole in the
ground to live as a hobbit. Having said that, Trump is definitely tainted by Epstein. In a 2002 interview with New York Magazine
, the president called him a "terrific guy." "It
is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do," Trump said, "and many of them are on the younger side."
Don't pretend that's an innocent remark. It's like when Uncle Steve passes out face-down on the kitchen floor at the family Christmas
party and Uncle Bill says, "I guess that one likes to drink." We still love Uncle Steve, even if he does overdo it on the
fire water. And our elites still love Epstein, even if he does rape little girls. None of us is perfect, after all.
This is how America is. This is how our ruling class works: Democrat, Republican, whatever. As the inimitable Matthew Walther
points out ,
there's a reason people believe in Pizzagate. The Hellfire Club is real. And for decades, we've emboldened them considerably.
Remember how Democrats and centrist Republicans mocked conservatives for making such a stink about Monica Lewinsky's blue dress?
The media elite competed to see who could appear the most unfazed by the fact that our sax-playing president was getting a bit on
the side. "I mean, heh heh, I love my wife, but, heh, the 1950s called, man! They want their morality police back."
Well, look where that got us. Two confirmed adulterers have occupied the White House in living memory; both are now under fire
for cavorting with a child sex slaver on Orgy Island. Go ahead and act surprised, Renault.
♦♦♦
Surely I'm not the only one who noticed that the Epstein sex abuse timeline is nearly identical to the Catholic Church sex abuse
timeline. Both investigations were initiated in the early 2000s. Both revealed that the exploitation of children was an open secret
in the highest echelons of power. Both investigations were closed a few years later, though not resolved. We assumed justice would
take its course, and slowly began to forget. And then within two years of each other, both scandals emerged again, more sordid than
ever. And on both occasions, we realized that nothing had changed.
Whew. Now I get why people become communists. Not the new-wave, gender-fluid, pink-haired Trots, of course. Nor the new far Left,
which condemns child predators like Epstein out one side of its mouth while
demanding
sympathy for pedophiles out the other.
No: I mean the old-fashioned, blue-collar, square-jawed Stalinists. I mean the guy with eight fingers and 12 kids who saw photos
of the annual Manhattan debutantes' ball, felt the rumble in his stomach, and figured he may as well eat the rich.
Of course, we know where that leads us. For two centuries, conservatives have tried to dampen the passions that led France to
cannibalize herself circa 1789.
Nevertheless, those passions weren't illegitimate -- they were just misdirected. Only an Englishman like Edmund Burke could have
referred to the reign of Louis XIV as "the age of chivalry." Joseph de Maistre spoke for real French conservatives when he said
the decadent, feckless aristocracy deserved to be guillotined. The problem is, Maistre argued, there was no one more suitable to
succeed them.
Yes: those passions are legitimate. We should feel contempt for our leaders when we discover that two presidents cavorted
with Epstein, almost certainly aware that he preyed on minors. We should feel disgust at the
mere
possibility that Pope Francis rehabilitated Theodore McCarrick. And we should be furious that these injustices haven't even
come close to being properly redressed.
"Us Democrats"??? This isn't about politics. This is about common decency and respect for the most vulnerable. Clinton? Trump?
Who cares? If--and that's a big "if"--it comes to pass that either or both were involved in the Epstein festivities then either
or both are scum and should be punished accordingly --along with the rest of their playmates at the Epstein playground.
The only question is whether or not those who participated in this apparent debauch will ever be brought to justice--so,
on that note--let the dissembling begin!
Does the author have some evidence to prove that President Trump is a pedophile, as he suggests in this article? Are all
persons who may have been friends with Epstein perverts and criminals?
You are as my grandfather told me repeatedly: "You are your associates & colleagues, their morality or lack thereof, will
in time infect you as well, despite all protests to the contrary; choose wisely."
If our decadent elite falls at all, it will be from imperial over-reach and losing a major foreign war, not from pedophilia,
which is rapidly being normalized along with the rest of LGBTQWERTYUIOP.
In France, the generation of aristocrats and especially
the royal family who were guillotined were relatively conservative in their sexual habits compared to the bloodthirsty sexual
revolutionaries who murdered them. And the libertine aristocrats of Great Britain (I believe that's where the actual hellfire
club was from) led the war against Napoleon and the temporary victory of the old order which followed his defeat.
The so called elites seem above reproach. Our morality has been skewed through the soul. Tribalism is alive and well. Wars,
diversity, erasing of our most cherished values, and a mainstream media that is in lockstep the rulers and those who see fit
to erase Freedom of Speech and make arbitrarily decisions as to what we can and cannot say. It is like living a bad dream.
I
applaud the courageous outliers like Ryan Dawson and Phil Giraldi that have considerably more guts than me. Blessings
It's the mainstream media that forced this into the light. The elites and the justice system did all they could to cover
it up, same as with the Catholic Church.
As for "our most cherished virtues", this has all been going on forever. Kings and courtiers, masters and slaves, the son
of the manor and the serving girls. Give me a break.
The only thing that is changing it is a shift in power to women.
"Paederasty" is better reserved for relationships between patrician
men, and boys, in which there was an expectation that the boy would
eventually approximate the social rank of his lover. Not to be applied
to a man running a little-girl brothel.
In UK thousands of girls were raped and nobody lost their job over it. Well, correction, people who tried to bring attention
to the horrific crimes happening lost their jobs or were prosecuted. After the scandal could no longer be contained and arrests
were finally made, there was no reckoning. No people marching in the streets, demanding heads of the goverment. I don't think
there is going to be a revolution, whether in UK or US, at most people would be outraged for couple of weeks and then forget.
Or might possibly be that upon examination, it became abundantly clear that the allegations were highly exaggerated as is
typically the case in these matters.
It might be a good idea to keep a clear head and hope that evidence "actual evidence" will determine events as opposed to
the salacious hysetria that usually surrounds these cases.
"...the decadent, feckless aristocracy deserve to be guillotined. The problem is...there is no one suitable to replace them."
100%. And I work as a psychiatric RN in a busy Emergency Room. Believe me, depravity in this country is not in the least
bit confined to 'elites'. They just make convenient scapegoats. I can tell you hundreds of stories. But conservatively, I would
estimate that anywhere from 50% to 75% of the women I care for were abused as children. And I have cared for literally thousands
of women over the years.
"This is how revolutions are born."
Not so fast. The French peasants were rioting over bread, not aristocratic decadence. In 21st Century America, no one is
starving. The poor in this country are obese, for Chr-sakes! And half the country is implicated in so-called 'aristocratic decadence',
through online porn.
And like John Lennon once wrote, "You say you want a revolution?" Be careful what you wish for...
Prosecutors will tiptoe around anything that puts them in an awkward position vis-a-vis the rich and powerful.
These are people that prosecutors want to owe you favors, and these are also people that can ruin the lives and career prospects
of law enforcement.
This explains why, to give instance, Comey engaged in comically tortured legal reasoning to justify not bringing charges
against HRC for servergate, when she would be cooling her heels in a SuperMax if she were a normie. According to conventional
wisdom, HRC was going to be the next president, already anointed practically, and that meant that she was someone that would
be in a position to do Comey big favors, and at the same time, someone that you did not want to make an enemy of.
Excellent article. But off the mark on one key point. The corruption of the elites and Ruling Class -- and they are sickeningly
corrupt -- is only a reflection of, or if you will a leading indicator, of a related corruption of the body politic.
The Clintons, for example, have been getting away with sordid and even criminal behavior for a long time. It didn't stop
a major political party from putting one of them at the top of its presidential ticket only a few years ago nor a majority of
voters from pulling the lever for her.
In fact, going back to the Lewinsky saga, it was not only the elites who pooh-poohed the whole thing; it was also the citizenry.
Check the record. Yeah, the Clintons are Exhibit A of the Real Problem. Anyway, there ain't gonna be a revolution, at least
not the kind that Michael Warren Davis warns of.
"In fact, going back to the Lewinsky saga, it was not only the elites who pooh-poohed the whole thing; it was also the citizenry.
Check the record. "
The equivalent today would have been if Mueller's replacement spent a few more years 'investigating' Trump, only to set him
up with a perjury trap over whether or not he committed adultery.
This piece at the very least is not well researched hit piece on Trump but seems more to be a rabble rousing class warfare
type click bait filler. James Patterson reports that Trump kicked Epstein out of Maro-a-Lago 15 years ago after there were complaints
that he was abusive to women and more recently has said he is not a fan of Epstein. I've seen no evidence that Trump participated
in the abuse of underage girls with Epstein. Trump is no saint but sensationalizing this story and implicating Trump to sell
your copy is not journalism.
So Trump simply makes a comment, has no record of any flights, attendance or participation and this article would have you
believe that it equates as despicable as a frequent flyer on the Lolita Express? This author is no different than the fake news.
And it was a comment made three years before the first known report to police about Epstein's behavior.
I read Trump's comment as Trump being Trump. Unless he is responding to a personal attack, Trump tends to layer on the compliments
and tries to speak positive about people.
Trump did allegedly make one flight on the plane, from the NY area to Florida. No records show him flying to the "orgy island".
Actually, the logs don't show that he was on the plane. Epstein's brother CLAIMS he was on the plane...the most anybody else
has said to support that is that Trump looked at the plane on the ground.
The author throws around "revolution" so casually... The guillotine definitely needs a resurgence; unfortunately, it's not just the aristocracy that needs it; moreover, there
are still none better suited to take over after they chopping has stopped.
And throws without not even a thought but also without care to learn or now.
It is funny that American journo is now invoking Stalin's ghost, but.... Stalinists were COUNTER-revolutionaries.
And he says he is sure he knows who they felt?
.
Inflation, words means nothing today for journos, being merely a click-bait
It's a Trump problem insofar as he continues to defend Acosta. This is the Sec of Labor who effectively let Epstein walk
and who now oversees anti-human trafficking efforts (which he has repeatedly tried to gut the funding for).
Also, Trump supposedly told a campaign aide that he barred Epstein. Perhaps that's true. Hard to know with this inveterate
liar.
Did you see Acosta's press conference? The local State DA wanted to let Epstein walk - on a lesser state charge through a
Grand Jury. Acosta's US Attorney office stepped in to get the charges increased as much as they could so that Epstein would
do SOME jail time and - more importantly - have to register as a sex offender.
Now, should the Feds have interfered in a State case is a matter for another discussion. But Actosta's office did MORE than
what they should and everything they could with the evidence at the time.
As to Trump banning Epstein - it isn't "Trump told some aide", it is in the court records of the trial. Trump was subpoenaed
and talked voluntarily to the attorney for the girls. The attorney for the girls researched it and he says, and it is in the
court record, that Trump banned Epstein.
This is not a "Trump problem" as the media is trying to make it...this is a Dem problem.
I agree. As much as I detest Trump, I don't think that he was involved with Epstein's debauchery. However, I do believe the
women that claim being assaulted, because he is on tape claiming to do what they describe. And there is so many of them. And
he has had multiple documented affairs while married to every one of his wives. But no evidence yet of him with underage girls.
Right, because those Kavanaugh accusers were so credible, right? No evidence, decades later? Nope. Unlike Kavanaugh, Trump
was on a big stage for decades and was a pretty easy target with the tabloids looking for dirt...but none of them came forward.
THAT is your biggest clue that their claims are, as the judge recently said in dismissing one of these laughable cases, ""As
currently stated, the Complaint presents a political lawsuit, not a tort and wages lawsuit,"
Then, of course, the Trump lawyers just released a video of what happened that shows he gave her a peck on the cheek during
a conversation as he was leaving. She lied.
I think some conservative, maybe Rubio, needs to stand up and simply state they are going to lead on this, and then do so.
Simply go after anyone that is involved and make the casual nature of peoples knowledge of this kind of behavior into a something
that has to be repented of.
Trump owes America an apology, reading his comments it is obvious he was aware of, and disapproved of, Epstien proclivities,
but didn't have the guts to stand up. (I do not believe the stories of Trump being involved, but if it turns out I am wrong
on that, fry him )
For a republican leader to stand up as I am suggesting, would force the left to make a decision. Either abandon their current
attitudes towards sexual permissiveness, or defend them. Either way conservatives win.
That comment was from three years before Epstein was charged. But YOUNG does not mean TOO young, always, and Trump was obviously
speaking of what OTHERS say, not what he knew for a fact.
Davis--and many TAC readers--voted for Trump even though the then-candidate sexually assaulted women and got caught bragging
about it.
While I welcome conservatives to the #metoo era, it must be acknowledged that their "outrage" didn't come to life until they
could attach the dirty deeds to Bill Clinton and other "elites" (whatever that overused term means).
No, it came with Weinstein...who proved what Trump ACTUALLY said on the bus to be true. Not that HE, Trump, HAD grabbed women,
but that young women seeking fame would LET the rich and famous grab them. Shortly after we found out that this was true when
we found out about Weinstein and what those young starlets allowed. What people knew, all good Hollywood liberals and Dems,
and LET continue while accepting Weinstein's political contributions and working with him professionally.
Essentially Epstein run a brothel for influential politicians and other stars. Girls were paid so they were hired prostitutes.
That fact that he did it with impunity for so long suggest state sponsorship.
Notable quotes:
"... In fact, the case against Epstein seems so overwhelming that it's already been reported , albeit not confirmed, that his lawyers are seeking a plea bargain. Yet even if Epstein doesn't "flip," it's a cinch that many luminaries -- in politics, business, and entertainment -- will at least be named, if not outright inculpated. ..."
"... Yet perhaps the most aching parallel to Epstein is the NXIUM sex slave case, which has already led to guilty pleas and entangled not only Hollywood stars but also heirs to one of North America's great fortunes, the Bronfmans. ..."
"... In 1944, film legend Charlie Chaplin, too, found himself busted on a Mann Act rap. Chaplin was accused of transporting a young "actress" across state lines; he was acquitted after a sensational trial, but not before it was learned that he had financed his lover's two abortions. Chaplin's career in Hollywood was effectively over. ..."
"... In fact, if one takes all these horrible cases in their totality -- Varsity Blues, NXIUM, Epstein -- one might fairly conclude that the problem is larger than just a few rich and twisted nogoodniks. ..."
"... Hardly. It merely puts it into historical perspective. Epstein is but one of a long line of serial sexual predators through the ages. ..."
"... Biological parentage is no guarantee of virtue towards children. Predatory behaviour towards children is most likely to come from within the family. ..."
"... Bill Clinton had at least 26 international trips on Epstein's private plane, including 18 to Epstein's private Caribbean island, which was reportedly staffed with dozens of underage women, mostly from Latin America. It was referred to as "Orgy Island" or "Pedo Island" by the locals. ..."
"... I disagree show me where the Progressives have any morals after all look at Clinton. Even the so called fake republicans are guilty. Our country is in the toilet . The schools are hotbeds of moral decay teaching kids LGBT sex education etc. ..."
"... Marx himself understood, capitalism is a fundamentally chaotic, disruptive, even revolutionary force that destroys everything that conservatives value the most (and want to "conserve.") The free-market fundamentalism that so many conservatives accept as gospel truth really is nothing more than a "false consciousness." ..."
"... If ever a situation called for rendition, this is it. I've been following this since 2007, and my intuition tells many more important people are involved than those we know. ..."
"... Be very skeptical. Why is DOJ suddenly resurrecting a case that was settled 10 years ago? I can't help to wonder if this isn't yet another part of the coup attempt. ..."
"... Trump also gave other evidence and information he had gleaned to prosecutors during the first Epstien trial. ..."
"... We should point this out as often as possible because liberal media is trying to smear Trump by including his name next to Epstien in every article. ..."
Jeffrey Epstein's trial may do what no other could: Bring populists and progressives together against predatory elites.
By JAMES P. PINKERTON •
July 10, 2019
Jeffrey Epstein mugshot (public domain)
The legal proceedings against financier Jeffrey Epstein are going to be spectacular. The sober-minded New York Times is
already running
headlines such as "Raid on Epstein's Mansion Uncovered Nude Photos of Girls," describing the victims as "minors, some as young
as 14." So, yes, this story is going to be, well, lit .
Epstein is the pluperfect "Great White Defendant," to borrow the phrase from Tom Wolfe's 1987 novel The Bonfire of the Vanities.
In Epstein's case, even the left, normally indulgent on crime, is going to be chanting: lock him up.
In fact, the case against Epstein seems so overwhelming that it's already been
reported , albeit not confirmed, that
his lawyers are seeking a plea bargain. Yet even if Epstein doesn't "flip," it's a cinch that many luminaries -- in politics, business,
and entertainment -- will at least be named, if not outright inculpated.
Which is to say, the Epstein case is shaping up as yet another lurid look at the lifestyles of the rich, famous, and powerful,
sure to boil the blood of populists on the right and class warriors on the left. In this same vein, one also thinks of the "Varsity
Blues" college admissions scandal, as well as the post-Harvey Weinstein #MeToo movement.
Yet perhaps the most aching parallel to Epstein is the
NXIUM sex slave case, which has already led to guilty pleas and entangled not only Hollywood stars but also heirs to one of
North America's great fortunes, the Bronfmans.
In that NXIUM case, it's hard not to notice the similarity between "NXIUM" and "Nexum," which was the ancient Roman word for
personal debt bondage -- that is, a form of slavery.
The Romans, of course, were big on conquest and enslavement, and such aggression always had a sexual dimension, as has been the
case, of course, for all empires, everywhere. Thus we come to a consistent theme across human history, namely the importation of
pretty young things from the provinces for the lecherous benefit of the rich and powerful.
It's believed that Saint Gregory the Great, the pope in the late sixth and early seventh centuries, gazed upon English boys at
a Roman slave market and remarked, non Angli, sed angeli, si forent Christiani ; that is, "They are not Angles, but angels,
if they were Christian." Gregory's point was that such lovely beings needed to be converted to Christianity, although, of course,
others had, and would continue to have, other intentions.
If we fast-forward a thousand years or so, we see another kind of enslavement, resulting, at least in part, from profound economic
inequality. William Hogarth's famous prints , "A
Harlot's Progress," follow the brief life of the fictive yet fetching Moll Hackabout, who comes from the provinces to London seeking
employment as a seamstress -- only to end up as a kept woman, then as a prostitute, before dying of syphilis.
Interestingly, a traditional song about descent into earthly hell, "House of the Rising Sun,"
made popular again in the '60s , also makes reference
to past honest work in the garment trade -- "my mother was a tailor."
If we step back and survey civilization's sad saga of exploitation, we see that it occurs under all manner of political and economic
systems, from feudalism to capitalism to, yes, communism. As for ravenous reds, there's the notorious case of Stalinist apparatchik
Lavrenti Beria, whom one chronicler
says enjoyed "a Draculean sex life that combined love, rape, and perversity in almost equal measure."
In the face of such a distressing litany, it's no wonder that there have been periodic reactions, some of them violent and extreme,
such as the original "bonfire of the vanities" back in the 15th century, led by the zealously puritanical cleric, Savonarola.
Yet for most of us, it's more cheering to think that prudential reform can succeed. One landmark of American reform was the
White-Slave Traffic Act , signed into law in 1910
("white slavery," we might note, is known today as "sex trafficking"). That law, aimed at preventing not only prostitution but also
"debauchery," is known as the Mann Act in honor of its principal author, Representative James R. Mann, Republican of Illinois, who
served in Congress from 1897 to 1922.
Mann's career mostly coincided with the presidential tenures of two great reformers, Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. And
it's hard to overstate just how central to progressive thinking was the combatting of "vice." After all, if the goal was to create
a just society, it also had to be a wholesome society; otherwise no justice could be sustainable. Thus when Roosevelt served
as police commissioner of New York City in the mid-1890s, he focused on fighting vice, rackets, and corruption.
Of course, Mann, Roosevelt, and Wilson had much more on their minds than just cleaning up depravity. They saw themselves as reformers
across the board; that is, they were eager to improve economic conditions as well as social ones.
So it was that Mann also co-authored the Mann-Elkins
Act , further regulating the railroads; he also spearheaded the
Pure Food and Drug Act
, creating the FDA. It's interesting that when Mann died in 1922, The New York Times ran an entirely admiring
obituary , recalling him as "a dominating figure in the House [a] leader in dozens of parliamentary battles." In other words,
back then, the Times was fully onboard with full-spectrum cleanup, on the Right as well as the Left.
To be sure, the Mann Act hardly eradicated the problem of sex-trafficking, just as Mann's other legislative efforts did not put
an end to abuses in transportation and in foods and drugs. However, we can say that Mann made things better .
Of course, the Mann Act has long been controversial. Back in 1913, the African-American boxer Jack Johnson was convicted according
to its provisions. (Intriguingly, in 2018, Johnson was posthumously
pardoned
by President Trump.)
In 1944, film legend Charlie Chaplin, too, found himself busted on a Mann Act rap. Chaplin was accused of transporting a
young "actress" across state lines; he was acquitted after a sensational trial, but not before it was learned that he had financed
his lover's two abortions. Chaplin's career in Hollywood was effectively over.
Cases such as these made the Mann Act distinctly unpopular in "sophisticated" circles. Of course, criticism from the smart set
is not the same as proof that the law is not still valuable. That's why, more than a century after its passage, the Mann Act is
still on the books, albeit much amended. Lawmakers agree that it's still necessary, because, after all, there's always a need to
protect women
from wolves .
Now back to Epstein. If we learn that he was actually running something called the "Lolita Express," that would be a signal that
prosecutors have a lot of work to do, rounding up the pedophile joyriders. So it was interesting on July 6 to see Christine Pelosi,
daughter of the House speaker, posting a stern
tweet : "This Epstein case is horrific and the young women deserve justice. It is quite likely that some of our faves are implicated
but we must follow the facts and let the chips fall where they may -- whether on Republicans or Democrats."
So we can see: the younger Pelosi wants one standard -- a standard that applies to all.
In fact, if one takes all these horrible cases in their totality -- Varsity Blues, NXIUM, Epstein -- one might fairly conclude
that the problem is larger than just a few rich and twisted nogoodniks.
That is, the underlying issues of regional and social inequality -- measured in power as well as wealth -- must be addressed.
To put the matter another way, we need a bourgeoisie that is sturdier economically and more sure of itself culturally. Only then
will we have Legions of Decency and other
Schlafly-esque activist groups to function as counterweights to a corrosive and exploitative culture.
Of course, as TR and company knew, if we seek a better and more protective American equilibrium, a lot will have to change --
and not just in the culture.
Most likely, a true solution will have "conservative" elements, as in social and cultural norming, and "liberal" elements, as
in higher taxes on city slickers coupled with conscious economic development for the proletarians and for the heartland. Only with
these economic and governmental changes can we be sure that it's possible to have a nice life in Anytown, safely far away from beguiling
pleasuredomes.
To be sure, we can't expect ever to solve all the troubles of human nature -- including the rage for fame that drives some youths
from the boondocks. But we can at least bolster the bourgeois alternative to predatory Hefnerism.
In the meantime, unless we can achieve such structural changes, rich and powerful potentates will continue to pull innocent angels
into their gilded dens of iniquity.
James P. Pinkerton is an author and contributing editor at . He served as a White House policy aide to both Presidents
Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.
"Most likely, a true solution will have "conservative" elements, as in social and cultural norming, and "liberal" elements,
as in higher taxes on city slickers coupled with conscious economic development for the proletarians and for the heartland."
Neither of which will happen with the blue megacities having political control.
"(T)here's always a need to protect women from wolves." It should be noted that boys who are sex-trafficked also fall under
the Mann Act. This may not be clear from Wikipedia.
Wow! What a wonderful article! The compassion for the young victims just jumps off the screen along with the disgust at the
corruption that has allowed this predator to damage so many lives over at least three decades.
No, the fact is that your dispassionate, detached, political assessment objectifies and dehumanizes the girls that
were abused by Epstein and by the stupidly named "justice system" and reflects the obnoxious rot at the root of our society
when it comes to the abuse of women and children.
When it comes right down to it, this doesn't really matter to you, it is just another political amusement.
"Most likely, a true solution will have "conservative" elements, as in social and cultural norming, and "liberal" elements,
as in higher taxes on city slickers coupled with conscious economic development for the proletarians and for the heartland.
Only with these economic and governmental changes can we be sure that it's possible to have a nice life in Anytown, safely far
away from beguiling pleasuredomes."
Liberal "social and cultural norming" (as in feminism, consent, discussion of sexual matters (gasp!) in the public sphere,
#MeToo, etc.) is what is making a difference more because such things are encouraging victims and giving them support. The (cough)
"justice" system needs reform so that rape kits get processed, victims are listened to instead of shamed, cases are actually
investigated, rapists aren't let off because "he comes from a good family" etc. The Nevada Legislature with it's recent legislation
is leading the way, because it has a female majority. THAT is what will change things FINALLY.
His "historical perspective" is just more of the same sh*t we have heard for millennia as are his prescriptions for solutions.
A key conclusion of the article is that Epstein and other recent scandals about the abuse of power mean "issues of regional
and social inequality -- measured in power as well as wealth -- must be addressed."
So if all regions and all social classes were equal, this would go away? First, gifts have always been and will always be
distributed unequally, so this egalitarian utopia will never be obtained -- leading to the indefinite justification "we have
more work to do" to force people and society into an unattainable intellectual ideal, and justifying endless injustices in the
process. Second, the article itself points out that the Soviets who ostensibly pursued an egalitarian state had a famous abuser
among the ranks of their political bosses (and likely had others we don't known about).
Ultimately, kids are best cared for and defended in family with their biological parents -- the very unit of society that's
been under unceasing attack for decades. Support the family and support small business which is responsible for something like
80% of new jobs created in the US. Then vigorously enforce the laws that are already on the books. A key problem with Epstein
was the law was for years or decades not enforced against him, I strongly suspect because he had very highly placed political
connections, probably several of which were sexually abusing young girls (and/or boys?) Epstein "introduced" them to. What amount
of social engineering or experimentation is going to eliminate that kind of political corruption? I highly doubt any will. Once
it's discovered, everyone involved should be prosecuted and exposed -- and any other cases of sex slavery rings discovered in
the process likewise have all their members prosecuted & exposed.
Lavrenti Beria as the prescient symbol of Soviet Babbitry v. worldwide immorality! So was Ernst Rohm! Thank god for the KGB
and SS as harbingers of true moral concern over sex abuse!
"Ultimately, kids are best cared for and defended in family with their biological parents "
LMAO. Historically the family and biologoical parents were part and parcel in many of the deals involved with these trades.
Biological parentage is no guarantee of virtue towards children. Predatory behaviour towards children is most likely
to come from within the family. I can't remember the family name but there was a family that made a big thing of their
"Proper Christian Family" even while one son was abusing his younger sister/s and the Parents protected and shielded him.
"In Epstein's case, even the left, normally indulgent on crime, is going to be chanting: lock him up." - You almost lost
me on that one. The Left is not normally 'indulgent on crime'. However, The Left is resistant to making 'immorality' (pot smoking,
sodomy, gambling, gay marriage, etc) criminal, given how driving 'vice' underground and making it illegal has unintended consequences
(such as creating the mafia and Latin American drug cartels) that are worse than 'the crime', but I decided to read on.
"That is, the underlying issues of regional and social inequality -- measured in power as well as wealth -- must be addressed."
- All in for that one. Glad to see your 'wokeness'. Please send a check to Bernie.
"In the meantime, unless we can achieve such structural changes, rich and powerful potentates will continue to pull innocent
angels into their gilded dens of iniquity" - Like Donald Trump, Roger Ailes, Roy Moore, David Vitter, Dennis Hastert, Chris
Collins, Duncan Hunter, Michael Grimm, and on and on.
The Democrats have shown they are more than willing to ostracize members of their own team (Al Franken) for alleged and actual
wrongdoing. The Republicans, not so much, since they usually overlook all kinds of deviance if a politically expedient. Such
as Tim Murphy from PA and Scott DesJarlais from TN, both married 'anti-abortion' zealots caught urging their mistresses to have
abortions.
"The Democrats have shown they are more than willing to ostracize members of their own team (Al Franken) for alleged
and actual wrongdoing."
Like Bill Clinton. The same Team D Wokemon champions who insisted that any form of sexual or romantic contact between a male
supervisor and a female subordinate was by definition sexual harassment suddenly changed their tune when Bill Clinton was the
supervisor.
Not only that, but they came up with the most hilarious tortured redefinitions of "perjury" in order to justify their hero.
For the record: I am not a Team R fan either, but I am not so naive as to think the problem is limited to one team.
It is not. Bill Clinton was a cad. No doubt. But I find it very interesting that Juanita Broaddick recanted her allegations
against Clinton when Ken Starr put her under oath.
The only outrage Democrats will actually express over Epstein is to again tar and feather Trump in the usual fashion: Nibble
at the toes of hapless political operatives and bureaucrats like Acosta, and then accuse the President of colluding in his own
purported ignorance and self-enrichment.
There is an elephant in the room I think many conservatives are ignoring right now. A real big one...
"President Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein, the 66-year-old hedge fund manager charged this week with sex trafficking and
conspiracy to commit sex trafficking, were the only other attendees to a party that consisted of roughly two dozen women at
his Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida, according to a New York Times report."
"In 1992, the women were reportedly flown in for a "calendar girl" competition that was requested by Trump, The Times said.
"At the very first party, I said, 'Who's coming tonight? I have 28 girls coming,'" former Trump associate George Houraney
reportedly said. "It was him and Epstein."
"I said, 'Donald, this is supposed to be a party with VIPs. You're telling me it's you and Epstein," he recalled saying."
"Houraney claimed to have warned Trump about Epstein's behavior and said the real estate tycoon did not heed his notice.
Houraney, a businessman, reportedly said Trump "didn't care" about how he had to ban Epstein from his events."
This is an old elephant. It raised its head during the campaign and did not make much in the way of waves. Will it come back
to bite the president today -- one hopes that its all rumor hearsay and gossip.
I am willing to grant that the president may have been a "masher" in his day. Whether that means relations with children
is another matter.
Bill Clinton had at least 26 international trips on Epstein's private plane, including 18 to Epstein's private Caribbean
island, which was reportedly staffed with dozens of underage women, mostly from Latin America. It was referred to as "Orgy Island"
or "Pedo Island" by the locals.
One is a retired politician. The other is the current POTUS. If Bill is guilty, lock him up. If Trump is guilty - we need
to know ASAP and he can no longer be the president.
If Jeffery Epstein is such a monster then what is one to make of a man who has been quoted as saying "You can do what ever
you want, grab them by the *****." and then during a presidential debate shamelessly state "I have great respect for women.
Nobody has more respect for women than I do."?
Laughing good grief --- First I have to get passed the suggestion that guys bragging nonsensically about their female conquests
is the same hiring teens to for relations.
Good grief . . . these types of issues are ripe for hysterics.
excuse my politically incorrect suggestion of making the categorical distinctions
I disagree show me where the Progressives have any morals after all look at Clinton. Even the so called fake republicans
are guilty. Our country is in the toilet . The schools are hotbeds of moral decay teaching kids LGBT sex education etc.
Cultural Marxism is at play and next they will soften up and normalize pedophile. As far as the women's movement they are bitter
progressives who on there Facebook moaning about how they make less money then men. Who is taking of the kids? There are no
real men any more they have become boys!! Sex is every where and no one cares they all going along with the new world order!
You forgot to mention our current thrice divorced President who cheats on his wife with porn stars and pays them to stay
quiet. Strong moral leadership....
If this happened, my faith in the "rule of law" and in prosecutors and law enforcement treating everyone equally might be
restored. But, alas, we all know this is not going to happen.
"...the younger Pelosi wants one standard -- a standard that applies to all."
Don't we all. But if history teaches us anything it teaches that the higher up the socioeconomic food chain we go, the more
"flexible" that standard becomes.
So we'll see about Epstein--and all the other big shots who were in on this debauch.
"...the younger Pelosi wants one standard -- a standard that applies to all."
Does she want that single standard to apply to people that flaunt our laws by having, say, a clandestine and illegal email
server that was used for classified correspondence?
Mr. Pinkerton apparently (like many) needs to learn what the definition of pedophile is (hint: It's doesn't mean any and
all sex under he legal age of consent). However illegal (to say nothing of distasteful and immoral) Epstein's actions may have
been, based on the claims I've seen, he is not a pedophile.
I also find it hard to believe that Clinton and others didn't know. Rumours of Epstein's proclivities, and his plane being
called "Lolita Express," have been around for along-time, but Epstein has been protected by his connections and wealth. Clinton
flew nearly 30 times on Epstein's private jet. Is he the only person in the world who never heard the stories about him? What
did he know and when did he know it?
If you're asking that question about Clinton- a 90s has-been politician whose own party has moved on past him, then I hope
you're also asking it about the current president who was also a bosom buddy to Epstein.
According to flight manifests, Trump flew one time, from New York to Palm Beach, on Epstein's plane. Clinton took at least
26 international trips on the Lolita Express, including 18 trips to Epstein's private Caribbean island, where he supposedly
had dozens of underage women from Latin America kept. The locals referred to it at 'Orgy Island" and "Pedo Island". We're not
exactly comparing apples to apples here, are we?
Compare the Mueller soap opera. The characters in that story were sleazy international fixers and blackmailers who worked
for everyone. Same type as Epstein. They worked for KGB, CIA, Clinton, Trump, Mossad, Saudi. Despite the universality of the
crimes, Mueller meticulously "saw" only the crimes that involved Trump and Russia. FBI always works that way. Any accusation
or evidence that doesn't fit the predefined story disappears.
Muller had a specific investigatory mission. He was not empowered to look into every government scandal since Alexander Hamilton
was blackmailed by Maria Reynolds.
Part of what doomed the post-WWII "Right" was the "fusionism" between conservatism and capitalism. While the latter got real
policy results, the former was merely pandered to during elections but otherwise ignored. As a result, leftists and centrists
mistakenly came to believe that being "right-wing" means being a corporate shill lobbying to cut taxes for the rich and pay
for it by cutting programs for the poor.
At the same time,
as Marx himself understood, capitalism is a fundamentally chaotic, disruptive, even revolutionary force that destroys
everything that conservatives value the most (and want to "conserve.") The free-market fundamentalism that so many conservatives
accept as gospel truth really is nothing more than a "false consciousness."
Many traditionalists (such as Russell Kirk) resisted fusionism for placing too much emphasis on markets and not enough on
the conservative commitment "to religious belief, to national loyalty, to established rights in society, and to the wisdom
of our ancestors." And many libertarians (such as F.A. Hayek) explicitly rejected conservatism for being too nationalistic
and hostile toward open systems.
If conservatives want any political future in this country, then they're going to have to "de-fuse," so to speak, with capitalism,
which has been exploiting their support in order to advance policies against their own interests and values. If
"Woke Capitalism" isn't the final straw, then what will it take? Conservatives could learn a lot from the Progressive Movement
of the 1890s-1920s, which despite its name was far more conservative than the David-Frenchist National Review is nowadays.
Indeed, the Progressives' reformist playbook (which recognized that the rapid changes brought by industrialization, immigration,
and urbanization had caused corruption, poverty, and vice) could and should be dusted off for today.
As far as Epstein goes, I'm rather pessimistic that he'll ever be punished and that the public will ever learn the full extent
of his crimes. While Nancy Pelosi's daughter may be principled (and good for her), the fact that so many wealthy and powerful
people may be incriminated is precisely why he'll be let off easy and the evidence will be covered up, just like last time.
I have zero confidence in our justice system, particularly in the hyper-politicized SDNY.
If ever a situation called for rendition, this is it. I've been following this since 2007, and my intuition tells many
more important people are involved than those we know. Anyone involved would be terrified; they'll have to break someone
to get the facts. As someone who was almost abducted at age 9, I say get on it.
Be very skeptical. Why is DOJ suddenly resurrecting a case that was settled 10 years ago? I can't help to wonder if this
isn't yet another part of the coup attempt.
Twisted sisters will do what they do with or without social disparities. All you can do is bury them when you catch them.
If the rich and famous get caught up, no ones fault but their own.
The Mann Act mainly served to enforce Roman Catholic ideas about marriage's being somehow special. The Bible offers no such
thing as an example of a religious marriage, whether Muslim, Catholic or Protestant, unless it be that of Job.
You expect a free pass for this term paper theory that downright American types are going to unite to stop sexual predation,
and their brains will swirl with reminiscences of St. Gregory and Sen. Mann?
I am unaware that Chaplin's career was "effectively over" after his sex trial. Chaplin made "Monsieur Verdoux" in 1947 in
good time after the modern Bluebeard of France, Marcel Petiot made headlines (this predator swindled Jews of safe passage money
out of France, poisoned them, and burned their bodies in his home. No time of reckoning for France or Francophiles here). Five
years later he released "Limelight", which could be called a loving tribute to vaudeville and silent film at the same time (Buster
Keaton appeared, and it is said that many omitted segments were his finest hour in the sound era. Note that financially and
at box office, Keaton was as ruined and burned out as countless others, but was in the end a hard working trouper who even made
it to Samuel Beckett!). Chaplin flagged thereafter, but made films at exactly the pace he wished, as characterized by the slow
linger from "Modern Times" to "The Great Dictator".
Errol Flynn on the other hand was boosted by his sex scandal as alleged with a 15 year old. His release "They Died With Their
Boots On" made reference to the allegation that Flynn was naked except for a pair of boots. And remember the original Hollywood
Confidential scandal that rounded up dozens of celebrities including Lizbeth Scott in a prostitution ring? All forgotten.
So if your going to make big analogies between Hollywood, celebrity, and yet another paroxysm of soon to evaporate Puritan
righteousness, at least know what you're talking about.
For the record, I believe that if Epstein punched 8 years above his weight in his choice of femmes, he might never have been
caught.
The article is way to long and I read the first paragraph and after the words "The sober-minded New York Times" I jumped
to the comments. The headline was enough for me...I agree, Lock Him Up.
"... Bear Stearns -- the bank that had given Mr. Epstein his start -- was still among his investments when the crisis hit. According to a lawsuit he later filed against the bank, Mr. Epstein controlled about 176,000 shares of Bear Stearns, worth nearly $18 million, in August 2007. ..."
"... Mr. Epstein sold 56,000 shares at $101 each that month. He sold the remaining 120,000 shares in March 2008 as the firm was collapsing -- 20,000 at $35 and the rest at $3.04, losing big. He also lost about $50 million in one of Bear's hedge funds. ..."
"... By the time Bear Stearns came apart, Mr. Epstein was at the center of his first abuse case. He pleaded guilty to prostitution charges in 2008, receiving a jail sentence that allowed him to work at home during the day but also required him to register as a sex offender ..."
"... The court document alleges: "Epstein also sexually trafficked the then-minor Jane Doe (a name used in US legal proceedings for people with anonymity), making her available for sex to politically connected and financially powerful people. ..."
"... "Epstein's purposes in 'lending' Jane Doe (along with other young girls) to such powerful people were to ingratiate himself with them for business, personal, political, and financial gain, as well as to obtain potential blackmail information. ..."
"... Journalist George Webb, watch his Youtube channel, has been following Epstein 'activities' for decades, connecting him all the way back to the Bush Sr. and Jr. Boys Town White House peadophile ring. Epstein was the 'go to guy' for rat line trafficking missions, into Kosovo, Sudan, Somalia, Ethiopia, every war zone across the world one can think of, to move dark ops in and out of, closely linked to DynCorp, which core business is 'aviation security services' and infamous for enabling and promoting underage transgressions of all of its personnel in Yugoslavia where Bill Clinton has murdered many thousands unbeknownst to the gullible and rather retarded Americuh public ..."
Jeffrey Epstein's wealth has long been a topic of discussion since becoming known as a 'billionaire pedophile' and other similar
monickers. Described by prosecuitors this week as a "man of nearly infinite means," a
2011 SEC filing has
provided a window into the registered sex offender's elite Wall Street links, according to the
Financial Times .
Epstein, who caught a lucky break tutoring the son of Bear Stearns chairman Alan Greenberg before joining the firm, left the
investment bank in 1981 to set up his own financial firm. While he reportedly managed money for billionaires for decades, most of
Epstein's dealings have been done in the shadows.
A 2011 SEC filing reveals that Epstein's privately held firm, the Financial Trust Company , took a 6.1% stake in Pennsylvania-based
catalytic converter maker Environmental Solutions Worldwide (ESW) backed by Leon Black, the billionaire founder of Apollo Global
Management .
ESW itself has a checkered past. In 2002, its then-chairman Bengt Odner was accused by the SEC of participating with others in
a $15 million "pump and dump" scheme with ESW stock. The case was settled a year later according to FT , with Odner ordered to pay
a $25,000 civil penalty. Of note, ESW accepted Epstein's investment several years after he had registered as a sex offender in a
controversial 2008 plea deal in Florida.
Epstein's connection to Black doesn't stop there - as the financier served as a director on the Leon Black Family Foundation
for over a decade until 2012 according to IRS filings. A spokeswoman for the foundation claims that Epstein had resigned in July
2007, and that his name continued to appear on the IRS filings "due to a recording error" for five years. A 2015 document signed
by Epstein provided to the Financial Times appears to confirm this.
Epstein also built his wealth with Steven J. Hoffenberg and Leslie H. Wexner, the former of whom was convicted of running a giant
Ponzi scheme, and the latter a clothing magnate.
Mr. Epstein's wealth may have depended less on his math acumen than his connections to two men -- Steven J. Hoffenberg, a
onetime owner of The New York Post and a notorious fraudster later convicted of running
a $460 million Ponzi scheme , and Leslie H. Wexner, the billionaire founder of retail chains including The Limited and the
chief executive of the company that owns Victoria's Secret.
Mr. Hoffenberg was Mr. Epstein's partner in two ill-fated takeover bids in the 1980 s, including one of Pan American World
Airways, and would later claim that Mr. Epstein had been part of the scheme that landed him in jail -- although Mr. Epstein
was never charged. With Mr. Wexner, Mr. Epstein formed a financial and personal bond that baffled longtime associates of the
wealthy retail magnate, who was his only publicly disclosed investor. -
New York Times
"I think we both possess the skill of seeing patterns," Wexner told Vanity Fair in 2003. "But Jeffrey sees patterns in politics
and financial markets, and I see patterns in lifestyle and fashion trends."
Those around Wexner were mystified over Wexner's affinity for Epstein.
" Everyone was mystified as to what his appeal was ," said Robert Morosky, a former vice chairman of The Limited. "I checked
around and found out he was a private high school math teacher, and that was all I could find out. There was just nothing there."
As the New York Times
noted on Wednesday, Epstein's "infinite means" may be a mirage, as while he is undoubtedly extremely rich, there is "little
evidence that Mr. Epstein is a billionaire."
While Epstein told potential clients he only accepted investments of $1 billion or more, his investment firm reported having
$88 million in capital from his shareholders, and 20 employees according to a 2002 court filing - far fewer than figures being reported
at the time.
And while most of Epstein's dealings are unknown, his Financial Trust Company also had a $121 million investment in DB Zwirn
& Co, which shuttered its doors in 2008, and had a stake in Bear Stearns's failed High-Grade Structured Credit Strategies Enhanced
Leverage Fund - the collapse of which helped spark the global financial crisis.
Epstein was hit hard by the financial crisis a decade ago, while allegations of sexual abuse of teenage girls caused many associates
- such as Wexner - to sever ties with him.
Bear Stearns -- the bank that had given Mr. Epstein his start -- was still among his investments when the crisis hit.
According to a lawsuit he later filed against the bank, Mr. Epstein controlled about 176,000 shares of Bear Stearns, worth nearly
$18 million, in August 2007.
Mr. Epstein sold 56,000 shares at $101 each that month. He sold the remaining 120,000 shares in March 2008 as the firm was
collapsing -- 20,000 at $35 and the rest at $3.04, losing big. He also lost about $50 million in one of Bear's hedge funds.
By the time Bear Stearns came apart, Mr. Epstein was at the center of his first abuse case. He pleaded guilty to prostitution
charges in 2008, receiving a jail sentence that allowed him to work at home during the day but also required him to register
as a sex offender. -
New York Times
In trying to determine what Epstein is actually worth, Bloomberg notes that " So little is known about Epstein's current business
or clients that the only things that can be valued with any certainty are his properties. The Manhattan mansion is estimated to
be worth at least $ 77 million , according to a federal document submitted in advance of his bail hearing."
He also has properties in New Mexico, Paris and the U.S. Virgin Islands, where he has a private island, and a Palm Beach
estate with an assessed value of more than $12 million . He shuttles between them by private jet and has at least 15 cars, including
seven Chevrolet Suburbans, according to federal authorities. -
Bloomberg
Deutsche Bank, meanwhile,
severed ties with Epstein earlier this year - right as federal prosecutors were preparing to charge him with operating a sex-trafficking
ring of underage girls out of his sprawling homes in Manhattan and Palm Beach, according to Bloomberg , citing a person familiar
with the situation. It is unknown how much money was involved or how long Epstein had been a client.
3 play_arrow 1
FKTHEGVNMNT , 1 hour ago
That black book is still missing, it is actually a meticulous journal. His butler who died at 60 due to mesothelioma kept
it as insurance, those snippets was just him saying " I got the goods.
Dr.Strangelove , 1 hour ago
The Feds should do what they did with Al Capone, and put him in the slammer on tax evasion charges. I'm sure Epstein has
reported all of his ill gotten billions to the IRS tax man.....NOT.
CheapBastard , 43 minutes ago
I wonder how many human assets, aka, slave girls, he owns? I guess they could value the slave child based on how much revenue
they brought in.
FKTHEGVNMNT , 2 hours ago
The court document alleges: "Epstein also sexually trafficked the then-minor Jane Doe (a name used in US legal proceedings
for people with anonymity), making her available for sex to politically connected and financially powerful people.
"Epstein's purposes in 'lending' Jane Doe (along with other young girls) to such powerful people were to ingratiate himself
with them for business, personal, political, and financial gain, as well as to obtain potential blackmail information.
I wonder if Prince Andrew has deleted him from Facebook
marcel tjoeng , 3 hours ago
Journalist George Webb, watch his Youtube channel, has been following Epstein 'activities' for decades, connecting him
all the way back to the Bush Sr. and Jr. Boys Town White House peadophile ring. Epstein was the 'go to guy' for rat line
trafficking missions, into Kosovo, Sudan, Somalia, Ethiopia, every war zone across the world one can think of, to move dark
ops in and out of, closely linked to DynCorp, which core business is 'aviation security services' and infamous for enabling
and promoting underage transgressions of all of its personnel in Yugoslavia where Bill Clinton has murdered many thousands unbeknownst
to the gullible and rather retarded Americuh public.
Trafficking underage girls from Ukraine back and forth to the USA to pimp out to every diplomat from every country that bought
and sold state secrets, flying underage girls to the Middle East to peddle to oil sheiks, involved with obtaining and exchanging
state secrets of for instance American DARPA, the top secret military research giant, to any 'diplomat' connected to the secretive
network of an 'Illuminati' type deep state collusion, the power brokers of war and sex.
The Irgun of Menachem Begin, the Mossad of Moshe Dayan were infamous for their poolside parties where all the jewish female
'pretty' Israeli agents were used and trained to be honey pot sex objects, with mandatory sex orgies that lasted for days, the
worst of a James Bond type environment but without the glitter.
on the contrary, the secret world of parasites that practice and trade in massive scale rape, war, torture, sex aberrations,
***********, blackmail, extortion, paedophilia, child trafficking, international orphan trafficking, drugs, trafficking underage
sex slaves to be used as dolls and much much worse,
that is who is Jeffrey Epstein is.
The front cover of rape, murder and mayhem international Inc., the go-to-boy of sick Wall Street, Washington DC, the CIA,
NSA, Dyncorp, the power brokers within the DNC and the GOP,
all the usual sick subjects whose code mantra is 'we have unlimited funding', which means the FED, Wall Street, the BIS,
the whole of the Central Bank System that originated in Europe in Venice, and then spread to Amsterdam, the Dutch House of Orange,
London, New York, the British paedophile Empire,
Epstein lives in what is reputed to be the largest private dwelling in New Mexico, on an $18 million, 7,500-acre ranch
which he named Zorro.
Jeffrey Epstein's palatial New Mexico home is relatively near to a top military base. The Epstein home is in Stanley
in New Mexico.
Albuquerque now has a variety of Jewish synagogues and a Chabad house.
Mossad sex party, according to former Mossad case officer Victor Ostrovsky
There were about 25 people in and around the pool and none of them had a stitch of clothing on.
The second-in-command of the Mossad -- today, he is the head -- was there.
Hessner. Various secretaries. It was incredible. Some of the men were not a pretty sight, but most of the girls were
quite impressive. I must say they looked much better than they did in uniform! Most of them were female soldiers assigned
to the office, and were only 18 or 20 years old.
Some of the partiers were in the water playing, some were dancing, others were on blankets to the left and the right
having a fine old time vigorously screwing each other right there...
It was the top brass all right, and they were swapping partners. It really shook me. That's sure not what you expect.
You look at these people as heroes, you look up to them, and then you see them having a sex party by the pool.
-- Ostrovsky, Victor, By Way of Deception, (1990), pg. 96
ReflectoMatic , 2 hours ago
Because what George Webb is saying is so important in expanding the scope of understanding what is going on:
George Webb on youtube
JSBach1 , 3 hours ago
Researcher Wayne Madsen: Trump's Connection to Epstein Needs to Be Exposed
I like Miles' work a lot, but I don't always agree with the results of his studies. There are a great many fabricated events.
Events like those are cover for other very real events. The clowns will fake (or real) blow up townships just to prevent a case
from going to trial or getting news feed, OKC comes to mind. And there's always more than one reason for it behind the BS cover
story. It's tactical. Ep is just another arm of the octopus: Ep is definitely a middle man, a bag man, a front man, an intel
asset (for several agancies no doubt) and he got his cover job as a "financier" along with a client that got rich selling women's
underwear and kids clothes as whitewash. A guy who wrote a paper on how America perceives Israel and how to influence that perception.
That is the definition of magic and it's intel.
Ep definitely uses his own product... He had to be sure he could bounce those children off his clients, for one. Years of
grooming, investing in an asset, categorizing each one. It's an industry, for sure. I don't think the numbers are fabricated.
I don't think his black book was fabricated. Bloomberg was in there, btw, along with Bronfman, and Murdoch. The remoteness of
7500 acres in New Mexico, an Island, the planes, all neon signs that say "SECRET". But, you have to recruit from large population
areas to find suitable victims, er, individuals. I think it's more likely that this is real world and not a manufactured event.
Look: there are theories. I collect theories. Miles is a great researcher and he makes distinctions and observations that
are all very good. Reading him, I throw a lot of theories and music and vomit in the trash after. But when you peel back all
the fake events... the "Kansas"... One day Kansas is gone. Once and for all. What's left is this: there's some very real ****
on the down-low going on that has, until now, been permitted and some people who liked it that way are gonna be on the news
for it. Pelosi's kid tweeted it. What about, say, what might a sheriff of a certain New Mexico county know? Santa Fe is totally
compromised because it's an "Art" hub, for one. The unincorporated location is called "Stanley" which ought to ring bells. Right
by a military base, Kirtland and Los Alamos Demo Army base, god knows what else. It's the perfect M.O. of the fake events Miles
writes about. Miles sees patterns.
There is everything that is not real, and then there is everything that is real. For me it comes down to the Cartesian Brain
in a Vat theory, that, indeed, is "the Matrix" pop culture go-to of today, err, 20 years ago. Red pilled means you can't go
back. Get blue pilled you Get woke and go broke. It doesn't mean that everything is fake, but for all I know 2012 was real and
we live on this timeline now and maybe I am a brain in a vat. So cogito ergo sum. And that is kind of a statement of faith or
belief. It's the deep irony of philosophy. It's the glitch.
Ep is not the psyop. He's the guy you do the psyop to cover up. It's a better question to ask what generation MK Ultra are
we on? What subset? What might Cathy O'Brien have to say about it? Don't flame the victims, or make Miles look stupid because
you think it's all fake. Andrew Breitbart didn't think this **** was fake and he's dead. God bless him.
Theosebes Goodfellow , 3 hours ago
~Those around Wexner were mystified over Wexner's affinity for Epstein.~
Apparently those around Wexner were not familiar with the term "fourteen year-old spinner".
Lumberjack , 3 hours ago
...
Dershowitz was one of several heavy-hitters on Epstein's first legal defense team. Epstein's lead attorney in the Florida
case was Jack Goldberger, who now represents New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft. His legal team also included Roy Black,
Jay Lefkowitz, Gerald Lefcourt, former U.S. Attorney Guy Lewis and Kenneth Starr, the special prosecutor who investigated Bill
Clinton's sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky.
Asked why he took Epstein as a client, given the unsavory nature of his alleged crimes, Dershowitz stated bluntly, "That's
what I do."
"I take controversial cases and I will continue to do so," he told Sinclair Broadcast Group in a Tuesday interview. "I defended
Jeff Epstein for the same reason John Adams defended the people accused of the Boston Massacre
On that note, Schumer said he'll give the money he received to help children and women.
I'd bet twice that amount it goes to Israeli causes. Not to real victims and the kahkzucker gets another nice write off.
Epstein's intel connections must be brought forth. My guess is when Kraft got busted that there were really big names that
are still being hidden. A long time and VERY TRUSTED ZH member that I know a bit and collaborated a bit with on the Linda Green
fiasco caught on and commented about it including providing solid evidence.
Maybe they should stop blaming Iran and Russia and look at Linda herself.
"... As Congress arrives back into town and the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees prepare to question ex-Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller on July 17, partisan lines are being drawn even more sharply, as Russias-gate blossoms into Deep-State-gate. On Sunday, a top Republican legislator, Rep. Peter King (R-NY) took the gloves off in an unusually acerbic public attack on former leaders of the FBI and CIA. ..."
"... "The media went along with this – actually, keeping this farcical, ridiculous thought going that the President of the United States was somehow involved in a conspiracy with Russia against his own country." ..."
"... Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. No fan of the current President, Ray has been trained to follow and analyze the facts, wherever they may lead. He spent 27 years as a CIA analyst, and prepared the President's Daily Brief for three presidents. In retirement he co-founded Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). ..."
"... Mr. McGovern you are right in your analysis. Obama is in this up to his neck, however there will be a limited investigation at best because the Jews and Israel don't want this. They are involved and a real investigation would show what control they have over the FBI and CIA. ..."
"... The world is controlled by the Corporate Fascist Military-Intelligence Police State in which governments are nothing more than Proxies with Intelligence Agencies who work against the average citizen and for the Corporations. Politicians like Trump are nothing more than figureheads who must "Toe the Line" or else. ..."
As Congress arrives back into town and the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees
prepare to question ex-Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller on July 17, partisan lines are being
drawn even more sharply, as Russias-gate blossoms into Deep-State-gate. On Sunday, a top
Republican legislator, Rep. Peter King (R-NY) took the gloves off in an unusually acerbic
public attack on former leaders of the FBI and CIA.
"There is no doubt to me there was severe, serious abuses that were carried out in the FBI
and, I believe, top levels of the CIA against the President of the United States or, at that
time, presidential candidate Donald Trump," according to The Hill.
King (image on the right), a senior congressman specializing in national security, twice
chaired the House Homeland Security Committee and currently heads its Subcommittee on
Counterterrorism and Intelligence. He also served for several years on the House Intelligence
Committee.
He asserted:
"There was no legal basis at all for them to begin this investigation of his campaign
– and the way they carried it forward, and the way information was leaked. All of this
is going to come out. It's going to show the bias. It's going to show the baselessness of the
investigation and I would say the same thing if this were done to Hillary Clinton or Bernie
Sanders It's just wrong."
The Long Island Republican added a well aimed swipe at what passes for the media today:
"The media went along with this – actually, keeping this farcical, ridiculous
thought going that the President of the United States was somehow involved in a conspiracy
with Russia against his own country."
According to King, the Justice Department's review, ordered by Attorney General William Barr
, would prove that former officials acted improperly. He was alluding to the investigation led
by John Durham , U.S. Attorney in Connecticut. Sounds nice. But waiting for Durham to complete
his investigation at a typically lawyerly pace would, I fear, be much like the experience of
waiting for Mueller to finish his; that is, like waiting for Godot. What about now?
So Where is the IG Report on FISA?
That's the big one. If Horowitz is able to speak freely about what he has learned, his
report could lead to indictments of former CIA Director John Brennan , former FBI Director
James Comey , former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe , former Deputy Attorneys General Sally
Yates and Rod Rosenstein , and Dana Boente -- Boente being the only signer of the relevant FISA
applications still in office. (No, he has not been demoted to file clerk in the FBI library; at
last report, he is FBI General Counsel!).
The DOJ inspector General's investigation, launched in March 2018, has centered on whether
the FBI and DOJ filing of four FISA applications and renewals beginning in October 2016 to
surveil former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page amounted to abuse of the FISA process.
(Fortunately for the IG, Obama's top intelligence and law enforcement officials were so sure
that Hillary Clinton would win that they did not do much to hide their tracks.)
The Washington Examiner
reported last Tuesday, "The Justice Department inspector general's investigation of
potential abuse of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is complete, a Republican
congressman said, though a report on its findings might not be released for a month." The
report continued:
"House Judiciary Committee member John Ratcliffe (R, Texas) said Monday he'd met with DOJ
watchdog Michael Horowitz last week about his FISA abuse report. In a media interview,
Ratcliffe said they'd discussed the timing, but not the content of his report and Horowitz
'related that his team's investigative work is complete and they're now in the process of
drafting that report. Ratcliffe said he was doubtful that Horowitz's report would be made
available to the public or the Congress anytime soon. 'He [Horowitz] did relay that as much
as 20% of his report is going to include classified information, so that draft report will
have to undergo a classification review at the FBI and at the Department of Justice,'
Ratcliffe said. 'So, while I'm hopeful that we members of Congress might see it before the
August recess, I'm not too certain about that.'"
Earlier, Horowitz had predicted that his report would be ready in May or June but there may,
in fact, be good reason for some delay. Fox News reported Friday that "key
witnesses sought for questioning by Justice Department Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz
(image on the left) early in his investigation into alleged government surveillance abuse have
come forward at the 11th hour." According to Fox's sources, at least one witness outside the
Justice Department and FBI has started cooperating -- a breakthrough that came after Durham was
assigned to lead a separate investigation into the origins of the FBI's 2016 Russia case that
led to Special Counsel Robert Mueller's probe.
"Classification," however, has been one of the Deep State's favorite tactics to stymie
investigations -- especially when the material in question yields serious embarrassment or
reveals crimes. And the stakes this time are huge.
Judging by past precedent, Deep State intelligence and law enforcement officials will do all
they can to use the "but-it's-classified" excuse to avoid putting themselves and their former
colleagues in legal jeopardy. (Though this would violate Obama's executive order 13526 ,
prohibiting classification of embarrassing or criminal information).
It is far from clear that DOJ IG Horowitz and Attorney General Barr will prevail in the end,
even though President Trump has given Barr nominal authority to declassify as necessary. Why
are the the stakes so extraordinarily high?
What Did Obama Know, and When Did He Know It?
Recall that in a Sept. 2, 2016 text message to the FBI's then-deputy chief of
counterintelligence Peter Strzok, his girlfriend and then-top legal adviser to Deputy FBI
Director McCabe, Lisa Page , wrote that she was preparing talking points because the president
"wants to know everything we're doing." [Emphasis added.] It does not seem likely that
the Director of National Intelligence, DOJ, FBI, and CIA all kept President Obama in the dark
about their FISA and other machinations -- although it is possible they did so out of a desire
to provide him with "plausible denial."
It seems more likely that Obama's closest intelligence confidant, Brennan, told him about
the shenanigans with FISA, that Obama gave him approval (perhaps just tacit approval), and that
Brennan used that to harness top intelligence and law enforcement officials behind the effort
to defeat Trump and, later, to emasculate and, if possible, remove him.
Moreover, one should not rule out seeing in the coming months an "Obama-made-us-do-it"
defense -- whether grounded in fact or not -- by Brennan and perhaps the rest of the gang.
Brennan may even have a piece of paper recording the President's "approval" for this or that --
or could readily have his former subordinates prepare one that appears authentic.
Reining in Devin Nunes
That the Deep State retains formidable power can be seen in the repeated
Lucy-holding-then-withdrawing-the-football-for-Charlie Brown treatment experienced by House
Intelligence Committee Ranking Member, Devin Nunes (R-CA, image on the right). On April 5,
2019, in the apparent belief he had a green light to go on the offensive, Nunes
wrote that committee Republicans "will soon be submitting criminal referrals on numerous
individuals involved in the abuse of intelligence for political purposes. These people must be
held to account to prevent similar abuses from occurring in the future."
On April 7, Nunes was even more specific, telling Fox News that he was preparing to send
eight criminal referrals to the Department of Justice "this week," concerning alleged
misconduct during the Trump-Russia investigation, including leaks of "highly classified
material" and conspiracies to lie to Congress and the FISA court. It seemed to be
no-holds-barred for Nunes, who had begun to
talk publicly about prison time for those who might be brought to trial.
Except for Fox, the corporate media ignored Nunes's explosive comments. The media seemed
smugly convinced that Nunes's talk of "referrals" could be safely ignored -- even though a new
sheriff, Barr, had come to town. And sure enough, now, three months later, where are the
criminal referrals?
There is ample evidence that President Trump is afraid to run afoul of the Deep State
functionaries he inherited. And the Deep State almost always wins. But if Attorney General Barr
leans hard on the president to unfetter Nunes, IG Horowitz, Durham and like-minded
investigators, all hell may break lose, because the evidence against those who took serious
liberties with the law is staring them all in the face.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the
Saviour in inner-city Washington. No fan of the current President, Ray has been trained to
follow and analyze the facts, wherever they may lead. He spent 27 years as a CIA analyst, and
prepared the President's Daily Brief for three presidents. In retirement he co-founded Veteran
Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).
Mr. McGovern you are right in your analysis. Obama is in this up to his neck, however
there will be a limited investigation at best because the Jews and Israel don't want this.
They are involved and a real investigation would show what control they have over the FBI and
CIA.
Trump by now realizes these agencies can make anything up and the Jewish owned and
controlled media will do their bidding. I have to assume that Trump has come to the
conclusion that he wasn't suppose to win and that the NWO wasn't happy with that because he
stands in their way especially on World Trade and Immigration.
The world is controlled by the Corporate Fascist Military-Intelligence Police State in
which governments are nothing more than Proxies with Intelligence Agencies who work against
the average citizen and for the Corporations. Politicians like Trump are nothing more than
figureheads who must "Toe the Line" or else.
I believe Trump knows he could be assassinated at any time. Obama the "God King" did his
part for NWO and that's why he gets a King's Ransom for his speeches for reading a
teleprompter and banging on his chest and saying, "I did that." What he is really saying is I
did that for you -- now where's my check!
Gabbard is NOT a member of the CFR. She has by her own admission, attended some meetings
as an invited guest. According to her, it was to engage members and find out what their
inside game is. I don't know if Gabbard is for real. I voted for Trump because I perceived
him to be the anti-war and anti-intervention candidate. Period. So, as I said, I don't know
what to think about the lady. I do now understand however, why some individuals in olden
times became hermits.
This is a blatant UK and US intelligence hit job aimed at influencing the 2020
election:
- "UK hijacks oil tanker": Message="UK is prepared to take action against Iran, why is
Trump so war shy"
- "Trump asks Iran before bombing": Message=ditto the above.
- "Diplomatic cables released "accidentally" by UK Foreign Office": Message="Even the UK
is getting tired of confused Trump"
Come on folks, stop analysing it with endless "what if"'s and see it for what it is.
Prepare for much more of this: The UK's Skripal affair lured Trump into expelling
diplomats, later making him look too trigger happy. Now they are trying to make him look
indecisive, stupid and reluctant to stand with his closest allies: notice how Bolton has
receded into the background to avoid the flak?
In addition, I am sure the UK's intelligence would never do any of this without the OK
from US intelligence.
Gabbard is NOT a member of the CFR. She has by her own admission, attended some meetings
as an invited guest. According to her, it was to engage members and find out what their
inside game is. I don't know if Gabbard is for real. I voted for Trump because I perceived
him to be the anti-war and anti-intervention candidate. Period. So, as I said, I don't know
what to think about the lady. I do now understand however, why some individuals in olden
times became hermits.
beemasters , 22 hours ago
Epstein's arrest tells me he's now out for blood.
Dotard has no control over what Epstein will say. Mossad does and it is the one out for
blood.
Justapleb , 22 hours ago
Mike Cernovich got records unsealed that prove Epstein got away with serial raping and
pimping for elites that were then blackmailed.
It is not because Trump is out for blood. It is because nothing could stop the criminal
conduct of prosecutors being exposed.
The #Metoo crowd knew Clinton was a violent rapist, and sent uniformed, armed officers out
to retrieve interns for sex whie governor. Smoking a cigar while having his cigar smoked by
Monica Lewinsky, while talking to a Chinese official on the phone.
So no, this won't do anything but continue proving how the #Metoo movement are just
leftist hypocrites.
ZD1 , 22 hours ago
"The news is speculative about whether Epstein was being protected by Robert Mueller's
special counsel's office, and why the Department of Justice acted now, given that he's been
problematic for years. There's also his role as a bigfoot Democrat donor, same as Ed Buck and
other perverts who've financed the Democrats. But one thing's pretty clear, based on a tweet
by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's daughter Christine: Democrats knew.
All kinds of Democrats are going to be found in Epstein's little black book of clients,
not just Bill Clinton.
President Trump, by contrast, banned the pervert from his Mar-a-Lago club years ago. So
much for pinning the scandal on Trump as Democrats had hoped."
The photo provides further proof of Epstein and his associates' close ties to the Clinton
dynasty.
Epstein's pimp Maxwell, whose social circle includes members of the UK royal family, has
been named in several lawsuits as the woman who helped procure and transport underage girls
which provided the billionaire massages and ultimately sexual favors.
The Miami Herald has
more on Maxwell's connections to Epstein:
Lawyers for Epstein's victims, in court filings, have often likened Epstein's sex
operation to an organized crime family, with Epstein and Maxwell at the top, and below them,
others who worked as schedulers, recruiters, pilots and bookkeepers.
For her part, Maxwell, whose social circle included such friends as Bill and Hillary
Clinton and members of the British Royal family, has been described as using recruiters
positioned throughout the world to lure women by promising them modeling assignments,
educational opportunities and fashion careers. The pitch was really a ruse to groom them into
sex trafficking, it is alleged in court records.
At least one woman, Sarah Ransome, claimed in a lawsuit that Maxwell and Epstein
threatened to physically harm her or destroy any chance she would have of a fashion career if
she didn't have sex with them and others.
Maxwell has thus far managed to escape charges, but a lawyer for one of the women suing
Epstein predicts she'll eventually be swept up in the sex trafficking litigation.
"The one person most likely in jeopardy is Maxwell because the records that are going to
be unsealed have so much evidence against her," said David Boies, the attorney for Epstein
accuser Virginia Roberts Giuffre. "She is in a particularly vulnerable position and will have
an interest in cooperating, even though she may have missed that opportunity."
Those 26 trips by Billy Boy on the Lolita Express are only the ones in the log book. How
many were there that were not logged? Isn't it amazing that the mainline press never picked
up on this. It just shows how corrupt and fraudulent they are. I hope there is a deal and
Epstein furnishes the names of his associated scum with proof. I wonder how many congressmen,
senators, Judges, etc. There are.
And Hillary went to the sex slave island at least six times .
my new username , 21 hours ago
Wikileaks had a Hillary email about Chelsea bringing a young Haitian girl into the USA,
past immigration, on one of those CGI/State Department/Haiti Earthquake flights from Port au
Prince.
8iron , 21 hours ago
so Trump is now deciding who to prosecute AND tell the SDNY to do it? This author is as
retarded as the Left.
Epstein's case is being unsealed. SDNY knew this was coming so as to not look like idiots,
they found some "new" victims. This guy makes most the ***-pedo-sex perverts (but I repeat
myself) look like Rabbi's and he needs his d*ck connected to 'ol sparky but WTF?
Something else is going on...clearly nothing being reported or guessed (like above)
Spectorman , 22 hours ago
There are so many ways for these mutually guilty power rapists to cut deals with each
other and avoid the real rap. Some patsys might get snipped, but thinking this will be the
stake in the heart seems wishful thinking. These guys are busy raping America with an
information/internet/media chokehold and a money printing press. That's probably bigger than
child rape, and it will take more than a federal prosecutor to stop it.
beemasters , 22 hours ago
The author's theory doesn't make sense at all. They are all Lolita Island visitors. They
are friends. Dotard would have implicated himself if he was the one taking Epstein route to
get to Killary. Killary is much more vicious and vindictive and will drag him down along with
Epstein. Dotard wouldn't dare!
There is already enough evidence to throw the Clintons in jail by the private-server case
alone.... if Dotard wanted them them in jail. He really doesn't.
Buck Johnson , 23 hours ago
So true, it's hard to justify ******* and having sex with 14 year old girls. That is why
no one is defending this piece of **** and when he starts to sing it's going to take down
alot of people (ALAN DERSHOWITZ, hate the ******).
I totally agree that this guy has blackmail material on everyone, everyone. A man like
this that was able to do what he was doing for years and still get the president, Alan and
alot of others to go to his private island knowing what he did.
Nope, this man is a dirt bag that thought he had the fix in and he went ham in having sex
with these girls. Not realizing that someone else in power could go after him and force him
to rat out any and everyone.
With this so public there is no way that the fed is going to give him anything light, he's
going away for decades unless he could out people to help his case.
Mr. Barr said he is recused because he once worked for one of the law firms that
represented Epstein "long ago," the report said. He did not name the law firm.
bobcatz , 23 hours ago
Tom Luongo is filtering this event through a deep-seated hope that Trump the Potus is not
too far from Trump the candidate he voted for.
Hate to tell you, Tom, you just got played. Nothing of your estimation will occur. If
anyone goes down, it'll be some insignificant nobodies.
CNN reported this morning that Epstein's arrest ropes in Trump's Labor Secretary,
Alexander Acosta, who evidently was Epstein's Florida attorney who let Epstein walk.
swmnguy , 23 hours ago
No, Acosta was the US Attorney in Florida during the GW Bush Administration, who let
Epstein walk over the full-throated objections of every attorney on his staff. Acosta went
around behind their back, behind the court's back, to give Epstein a sweetheart deal that
raised eyebrows throughout the legal community at the time, in early 2008.
Epstein's actual attorney was somebody else, who wrote Acosta a very grateful letter
thanking Acosta for going beyond even what Epstein's own attorney was hoping for in terms of
clemency.
There's a reason Acosta did that; beyond the insipid excuses Acosta has gotten away with
until now. Just as there's a reason Attorney General William Barr just recused himself on all
matters Epstein; above and beyond the stupid and unconvincing reasons Barr just gave.
SummerSausage , 23 hours ago
Acosta worked for the DOJ and the way Epstein's case was handled is almost identical to
the way they handled Hillary a few years later.
Only difference is Mueller was head of FBI for the Epstein investigation.
Acosta didn't have the authority to give the deal on his own. It had to come from higher
up
j0nx , 22 hours ago
Agreed. US attorneys don't do **** unless the AG tells them to. It's preposterous to think
the SDNY is some rogue agency running around prosecuting who they want. If Bill Barr says no
then they say yes sir. Of course all of this comes from up high. It's either that or Bill
Barr like Jeff Sessions has lost all control of his department.
June 12 1776 , 23 hours ago
A pathetic useless attempt to appease status quo uniCRIME, uniPARTY chimp army.
"But something had to be done to keep our faith in our political and social
institutions intact. Because otherwise that way leads to only chaos and collapse."
Wrong, through out all human history, all criminal, unconstitutional outlaw, political and
social institutions natural law and faith of nature is COLLAPSE AND DESTRUCTION, one way or
another.
bobcatz , 23 hours ago
Tom Luongo is filtering this event through a deep-seated hope that Trump the Potus is not
too far from Trump the candidate he voted for.
Hate to tell you, Tom, you just got suckered. Nothing of your estimation will occur. If
anyone goes down, it'll be some insignificant nobodies.
SirBarksAlot , 23 hours ago
Maybe.
But I think this is the big payback for their failed attempt to impeach him via a
fabricated "dossier." This is the first chance he has been out from under the shadow of that
witch hunt that was supposed to prevent this investigation into the Satanists from going
forward.
He's just playing Bolton and his buddies by keeping them by his side. Letting them think
they're running the show, like they did under Bush, then deciding not to invade Iran at the
last minute. Where is Bolton now? Mongolia? He gives a little with the space program, then
takes away from the expensive, endless wars to nowhere.
That's why the British tanker is stuck at the mouth of the Strait of Hormuz instead of
running right though it. Britain royally fucked up.
Solio , 1 day ago
George Washington: "If the laws are to be trampled upon with impunity and a minority is to
dictate to the majority, there is an end put at one stroke to republican government."
September 9, 1774 at the beginning of the Whiskey Rebellion in Western Pennsylvania, from Ron
Chernow's book "Alexander Hamilton," 2004, p. 473
Nunyadambizness , 1 day ago
I most certainly hope that the author is correct, and this vile corrupt sewer in DC gets
weeded out--forcefully if necessary.
We the People have allowed unelected bureaucrats to ru(i)n our lives for far too long,
protected by those who lust for power and who will do anything for it--yes Cankles, I'm
speaking of you AND your former boss Barry Obozo, among dozens (if not hundreds) of others in
the sewer. Protected by a wink-and-a-nod to those in power, they've done whatever they wanted
knowing that they were untouchable. Here's hoping that this is just the first of dozens of
arrests and ultimately convictions of these scumbags and their kin.
Drain the SEWER. FLUSH DC STARTING AT THE TOP.
SummerSausage , 1 day ago
Just a reminder - Mueller was head of the FBI during the Epstein investigation. If Trump
had been involved in any way Mueller would have found a way to put it in the Mueller
report.
turbojarhead , 23 hours ago
I think Kunstler is exactly right-this is the Trump faction counterstrike.
Conservative Treehouse actually caught something I did not in the indictment:
While these items were only seized this weekend and are still being reviewed, some of the
nude or partially-nude photographs appear to be of underage girls, including at least one
girl who, according to her counsel, was underage at the time the relevant photographs were
taken. Additionally, some of the photographs referenced herein were discovered in a locked
safe, in which law enforcement officers also found compact discs with hand-written labels
including the following:
The defendant, a registered sex offender, is not reformed, he is not chastened, he is not
repentant;6 rather, he is a continuing danger to the community and an individual who faces
devastating evidence supporting deeply serious charges." ( cloud
– pdf link )
Notice the young Name + NAME------gee, you think that NAME might be the creeps Epstein was
blackmailing? Hahahahhh
SummerSausage , 23 hours ago
That info didn't come from the indictment I don't think. It came from the letter to the
judge about bail.
The indictment was drawn up to arrest Epstein. The search of his home took place at the
same time as the arrest or just after.
Reportedly, Epstein had quite a few surveillance cameras in his homes. It will be
interesting to know what's on the CD's. Hard to believe he didn't have some "insurance"
tucked away for a rainy day.
SummerSausage , 23 hours ago
Acosta wasn't Epstein's lawyer. He was US Attorney for S Fl.
The Epstein treatment reads like a dress rehearsal for the Hillary FBI/DOJ whitewash -
except instead of just the associates getting of scot-free Hillary did, too. (read the Miami
Herald series from Nov https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/article220097825.html
Since Trump hasn't fired him but this story has been circulating for more than 6 months,
Acosta was probably ordered to follow the deal cut at the highest levels of Mueller's FBI and
the DOJ bureaucracy.
Acosta may well know where the bodies are buried.
NumberNone , 1 day ago
The people in the 'deviant' circles got comfortable after the Obama election. They put the
people they wanted in power and the Evil Queen Hillary was guaranteed to be President to
reside over 8 years of destroying their enemies. Life was going to be good. There was no
reason to hide or be afraid.
Look at Epstein, the guy got off with a handslap and was so fearless rather than destroy
his kiddie-****...he still kept in the open.
Now they are in a panic and throwing everything they can at Trump. If you are facing the
death sentence, nothing is off-limits to save yourself.
If you are right or left in your political beliefs and think that this sort of absolute
evil needs to be weeded out then please shut the hell up about Trump or Clinton and simply
demand that no stone be unturned in the pursuit of justice. A golden opportunity has been
placed in front of all of us to purge this scum.
Occams_Razor_Trader_Part_Deux , 1 day ago
Pelosi's daughter:
Christine Pelosi warns it's 'quite likely that some of our faves are implicated' in
'horrific' Epstein case.
What does it say when some of your "faves" are pedophiles?
jutah , 1 day ago
BullFuckinShit. He's had 3 years as President and many years prior to that where he was
aware of exactly what was going on and did and said nothing . Oh, correction, he did say
something when he praised Epstein; ""I've known Jeff (Epstein) for fifteen years. Terrific
guy. He's a lot of fun to be with . It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as
I do, and many of them are on the younger side."
It's too late for that ****. That ship has sailed. These traitors should have been
executed on day 1. All the evidence of criminal activities was well documented before you
even became president. You are a sorry sack of **** coward to let this continue for so long
and in my book an accomplice to it- you and ever other neo-zio-con who went along with it.
Now, youre all worried about your re-election campaign, image and being indicted yourself.
**** off you Orange Clown. Go ahead and bomb Iran as a distraction as your masters order you
to do
Kafir Goyim , 1 day ago
There's video of Trump saying Clinton would have trouble because of his frequent and
suspicious (no Secret Service) associations with Epstein. There is a record of Trump helping
prosecutors going after Epstein. There is record of Trump barring Epstein from Mar a
Lago.
I think you are a little confused ... or engaged in purposeful disinformation, which is
more likely.
Next time, don't quote Fusion GPS. The article that quote came from was a puff piece about
Epstein from 2002. It extolled his brilliance and philanthropy with quotes from the Dem Sen
Leader, Harvard scientists and just about everyone they could find.
At the time, Epstein served on the board of the Trilateral Commission with Kissinger,
Summers and a dozen CEO's of Fortune 50 companies, the Rockefeller Foundation and
Harvard.
SirBarksAlot , 23 hours ago
No kidding!
He really does have a blackmail racket going on there!!!!!!!
WhackoWarner , 22 hours ago
Let's not disregard Prince Andy. (old article from Guardian but still...)
Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell were running a Mossad blackmail operation.
Rahm Emmanuel was kicked out of the Clinton WH by the FBI. They had a file on him
"Security Risk"...then he got back in with Obama ?
Trump is too smart for the blackmail ****. Roy Cohn taught him that.
BUT Jared Kushner is Trumps Achilles heel. Kushner's father spent two years in prison for
blackmail/extorsion.
ZD1 , 1 day ago
Epstein hung with Democrats and donated to them.
No doubt Epstein found what the commie muzzie *** from Kenya craved?
Kevin Spacey, Chris Tucker, Katie Couric, George Stephanopoulos, and Woody Allen are some
of the celebrities who reportedly traveled and partied with Epstein in the past.
Even Stephen Hawking made a visit to Epstein's island.
Props to Michael Cernovich, and then there's the make-up Queen Shep Smith who show's
Epstein and Trump together, Trump banned this Fukk Epstein from his club and the Clinton's
had enough frequent flyer on Epstein's plane to Lolita Island for 2 round trip tickets to
Paris. Shepp & the golden sperm seed piss punks of Murdoch must share something in common
wonder what it is?
JBLight , 1 day ago
As this continues to pour out, I look forward to seeing the faces of the people I know who
voted for Hillary. They voted for child trafficking.
John Law Lives , 1 day ago
This article sounds like speculation, but I am ready to see privileged scumbags get their
due. This has been a long time coming (imo).
BandGap , 1 day ago
This is the opening of the portal to hell for a lot of kids' agonies, even deaths.
Watch the names of the rich and famous tumble out. If you read previous articles you know
that they also seized tapes Epstein was holding of young girls with older men. This is what
fuels the blackmail, and hence the corruption.
The Weiner laptop is also in play with the NXVIUM convictions.
The Clintons remain free and Trump keeps elitists like Ross, Pompeo and Bolton in the
White House. Comey's daughter is one of the prosecutors for Epstein and Epstein is already
claiming immunity. He might go to jail again, he might not. But nothing is going to happen
with the Epstein thing as far as the fall of the banksters. Nothing.
pmc , 1 day ago
I don't think Trump is behind his arrest. I think it's the head NY prosecutor trying to
make a name for himself in order to run for president at a late time! We'll see where this
all goes but my money is on the procecutor!
onewayticket2 , 1 day ago
Trump should be "out for blood" but it's the SDNY...and we KNOW they are "out for
blood"....trump's. So my read is the opposite. The SDNY is never going to do something that
will harm the clintons. The ONLY goal is keeping Trump out of office for these guys. all
roads lead to trump at the SDNY...it's job 1.
evoila , 1 day ago
It's ahead of muellers testimony for a reason.
yaright , 1 day ago
Agree, timing is everything
Snípéir_Ag_Obair , 1 day ago
Pedosadist Elites Panic: Congress Bill Wants To End Child **** In Pentagon Networks;
Epstein Arrested, Files To Be Unsealed On Powerful Clients
America is receiving a hell of a Christmas in July present – a bill in Congress is
being pushed to end child **** sharing in Pentagon networks, and Jeffrey Epstein was
arrested for child trafficking. Additionally, an appeal court ordered that all files
pertaining to Epstein's case of wealthy powerful clients will be released to the press and
public.
Congress is aiming to halt child **** distribution within Pentagon networks according to
a bipartisan bill (The End
Network Abuse Act) that was introduced by Reps. Abigail Spanberger (D-VA) and Mark
Meadows (R-N.C.)
The National Criminal Justice Training Center, one of the groups that has thrown its
weight behind the bill, reported in 2018 that DOD's network was ranked 19th out of almost
3,000 nationwide networks on the amount of peer-to-peer child *********** sharing.
Spanberger described the issues of child sexual exploitation and abuse as "horrific
crimes."
"The notion that the Department of Defense's network and Pentagon-issued computers may
be used to view, create, or circulate such horrifying images is a shameful disgrace, and
one we must fight head on," Spanberger said in statement. (Source:
The Hill )
So... if I send child **** to anyone the entire law enforcement apparatus on planet Earth
descends upon my location with the full weight of every alphabet agency. Yet, when child ****
is trafficked within a government agency we need to pass a bill thru Congress in order to
stop it. WTF.
Nekoti , 22 hours ago
Rules for thee, not for me.
chunga , 1 day ago
That's some pretty wild speculation there, but I hear angels singing just the same.
caconhma , 1 day ago
<Epstein's Arrest Tells Me Trump Is Now Out For Blood> Wrong.
Trump and Bill Clinton were willing participants in these crimes.
Don't be surprised when Trump's name will appear in all legal documents. Remember, the
lead prosecutor is from Demo New York and Epstein will behave no different from Trump's loyal
lawyer Cohen. After all, this case was not resurrected from dead to promote justice in
Americ
Friedrich not Salma , 1 day ago
Do a Youtube search for * Trump BBC 1998 * and jump 5 minutes into the vid. You will
realize Trump will be out for blood. He waits until the right time.
BBC: "You talk in your book about getting even. The importance of getting even. Is revenge
sweet?"
Trump: "I believe strongly in getting even. If someone has hurt you. If someone's gone out
of their way to hurt you. I think that if you have the opportunity, you should certainly go
out of your way to do a number on them."
I didn't believe in the "the indictments are coming from Jeff Sessions" lines, but I do
believe Trump will nail these people when the time presents itself and that time is coming up
fast.
"... A reading of "A History of Venice" by John J. Norris would be appropriate here. The most serene republic lasted for essentially 1,000 years from roughly 800 to not quite 1800, first as a democracy, later as an oligarchy. ..."
"... Much like us, including having the most feared secret service in Europe at the time, Venice kept its power through trade but at least we don't hoist the new president up on a chair so that he can throw golden Ducats to the crowd on Wall Street the way that a new Doge would. ..."
Thank you, Ray. Forgive my cynicism but the US government is so corrupt, has wielded
illegitimate power for so long, and has covered the tracks of countless functionaries who
have not upheld the constitution that I doubt this will go anywhere.
I have been quoting Ben Franklin for some time "you have a republic, if you can keep it."
I don't think we can.
A reading of "A History of Venice" by John J. Norris would be appropriate here. The
most serene republic lasted for essentially 1,000 years from roughly 800 to not quite 1800,
first as a democracy, later as an oligarchy.
Much like us, including having the most feared secret service in Europe at the time,
Venice kept its power through trade but at least we don't hoist the new president up on a
chair so that he can throw golden Ducats to the crowd on Wall Street the way that a new Doge
would.
Conservative commentator Ann Coulter says that sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein had a "state sponsor" backing him and that his
operation was a way to blackmail powerful men.
During an appearance on 790 KABC, Coulter suggested that Epstein is merely the front man for a far more powerful network.
"Epstein according to both the girls accounts, he wanted them to have sex with powerful men, come back to him and report on it,
describe what they wanted what their fetishes were and he had cameras throughout the house so this is obviously for blackmailing
purposes," said Coulter.
"It just seems to me something much bigger is behind this -- perhaps a state sponsor -- powerful enough people it just seems
to me there's something a very powerful force behind what's going on here and I am still nervous about this not coming to a conclusion,
somehow this getting compromised," she added.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/eNbK-hkZMLY
Coulter said that it remained a mystery as to how Epstein became a billionaire and that the source of his money should be investigated.
Former President Bill Clinton attempted to distance himself from Epstein last night, claiming he only flew on the infamous 'Lolita
Express' private jet four times despite flight logs showing at least 26 trips.
As we
reported yesterday, speculation is swirling that Epstein may give up names of influential people who used his network in order
to secure a maximum prison sentence of no more than five years.
Until you fix the problem with, according to a poll, 56% of American parents not wanting Arabic numerals taught to their
children. I suspect that an equal number would not be able to find any of the mentioned places on a map.
Where those with crystal balls find certainty, I find something much less.
We do know that containment polices can work very well, but any involvement in the world's longest contested area is not
worth the cost, nor the risk.
The US has already spent a fortune, with very little to show for it.
"... Yes, there is strong reason to believe that, during Tulsi's response to a question on Iran in the first debate, MSNBC technicians digitally implanted a pimple on Tulsi's chin. The "pimple" subsequently vanished. ..."
"... While placing a pimple on her chin is a childish prank, it is a childish prank played by one of the largest information company on the planet. It's not really a childish prank at that scale. ..."
"... Mics being turned off is another trick, not so childish, but still played out by a multibillion dollar institution. This is happening in a public policy event hosted by a news organization. ..."
Yes, there is strong reason to believe that, during Tulsi's response to a question on Iran
in the first debate, MSNBC technicians digitally implanted a pimple on Tulsi's chin. The
"pimple" subsequently vanished.
This bizarre behavior by MSNBC lends additional credence to claims by Andrew Yang and
Marianne Williamson that their mikes were turned off during portions of the debate.
Those responsible for this must be identified, fired, and, if feasible, prosecuted. Until
MSNBC cooperates in these regards, it should be treated like a pariah. Complaints to the
regulatory authorities are in order, and the public should be fully apprised of this. If this
strategy of digital manipulation is not nipped in the bud NOW, who knows what dangerous frauds
might await us in the future?
While placing a pimple on her chin is a childish prank, it is a childish prank played by one
of the largest information company on the planet. It's not really a childish prank at that
scale.
Mics being turned off is another trick, not so childish, but still played out by a
multibillion dollar institution. This is happening in a public policy event hosted by a news
organization.
It's rather ugly, IMO. And while I get the "distraction" angle, it's beyond that: it's a
trial balloon. When it comes to psyops; we ain't seen nothin' yet.
@mimi
I did an eyeroll when I first heard about it too. But then I started to understand. Tulsi is a
beautiful woman, inside and out from what I've seen. I'm quite sure that her outer beauty is
one thing that made lots of people google her.
Some people really are that superficial.
How
would you go about trying to make her less beautiful without being overtly obvious? Did that
pimple stop people from wanting to know who she is?
I really hope not. Personally, I think
she's beautiful with or without a zit on her chin, but her message is what makes her shine so
bright. They can't put a pimple on that.
"... I am an angry white male, and I am not a misogynist, as this paper would have it. I am fully aware of the appalling nature of Donald Trump. ..."
"... On the other hand, I fully understand the bureaucratic nature of the Democrat Party, the embedded interests of Wall Street and the military-industrial complex in that bureaucracy, the dirty tricks that that bureaucratic machinery got up to in order to extinguish Bernie Sander's campaign ..."
"... And I am aware of how Hillary was so keen to service this reality and American image of itself. And to go beyond that, and bomb Libya for 6 months, killing thousands of civilians (Middle eastern unpeople) and, may I suggest, doing nothing whatsoever for the women of Libya. Quite the opposite! ..."
"... Michael Moore, in a talk in which he predicted the victory of Trump before the election, notes how Trump went into an American car factory and told the executives of that company that if they relocated to Mexico, he would put a huge tax on their cars coming into America. Not all was misogyny in the vote for Trump. Whether he delivers on his threat or not, unlike the democrat bureaucratic machinery, he showed he was actually listening to working class Americans and that he was ;prepared to face up to company executives. ..."
"... However, the right wing have very skilfully redirected the anger that SHOULD be directed at what Naomi cleverly calls the "Davos class" onto a very small "immigration" issue that we have in the UK today. ..."
"... It is not going to happen. The holier than thou, supremacist arrogance of the illiberal class, means they can never admit they were wrong. ..."
"... It's all about jobs, really, isn't it? There is a natural fear of 'the other', but if times are good and jobs (proper jobs, not ZHC) are plentiful, it feels less important. On the face of it, it seems odd that the most fear of immigration is in places where there isn't much immigration, but they're often places where there isn't much work either. ..."
"... Rights are important, but identity politics contain too much whimsy and focus on the self. ..."
"... Yes, but they're politically and economically cheap, don't require much thought, and you get to hang out with pop-stars. ..."
That ship has sailed. Bernie was the opportunity and it wasn't grasped. The moment for a 'left' alternative has been lost
for a long time. The whole globalised liberal paradigm - allied to the metropolitan elite's obsession with identity politics
at the expense of bottom-line issues - has been broken up by people who now realise centre-left politicians (Clinton/Obama)
have presided over whole communities being gutted in the name of 'free' trade (for 'free' trade read labour arbitrage). I felt
it in my bones that Trump would be elected - 55% of US households are worse off than they were in 2000, how on earth could anyone
possibly think that that would result or a vote for the status quo.
I am an angry white male, and I am not a misogynist, as this paper would have it.
I am fully aware of the appalling nature of Donald Trump.
On the other hand, I fully understand the bureaucratic nature of the Democrat Party, the embedded interests of Wall Street
and the military-industrial complex in that bureaucracy, the dirty tricks that that bureaucratic machinery got up to in order
to extinguish Bernie Sander's campaign.
I am aware of how that machinery has been ramping up a situation of global conflict, shamelessly recreating an aggressive
Cold war Mk II situation with Russia and China, which is simply cover for the US racist colonial assumption that the world and
its resources belongs to it in its sense of itself as an exceptional entity fulfilling its manifest destiny upon a global stage
that belongs to its exceptional, wealthy and powerful elites.
And I am aware of how Hillary was so keen to service this reality and American image of itself. And to go beyond that, and
bomb Libya for 6 months, killing thousands of civilians (Middle eastern unpeople) and, may I suggest, doing nothing whatsoever
for the women of Libya. Quite the opposite!
Michael Moore, in a talk in which he predicted the victory of Trump before the election, notes how Trump went into an American
car factory and told the executives of that company that if they relocated to Mexico, he would put a huge tax on their cars
coming into America. Not all was misogyny in the vote for Trump. Whether he delivers on his threat or not, unlike the democrat
bureaucratic machinery, he showed he was actually listening to working class Americans and that he was ;prepared to face up
to company executives.
What has this paper got to say about Hillary and the Democrat Party's class bigotry – its demonstrable contempt for 10s of
millions of Americans whose lives are worse now than in 1973, while productivity and wealth overall has skyrocketed over those
43 years.
What has this paper got to say about the lives of African American women, which have been devastated by Republican/Democrat
bipartisan policy over the last 43 years?
What has Hadley Freeman got to say about Hillary's comment that President Mubarek of Egypt was "one of the family? A president
whose security forces used physical and sexualised abuse of female demonstrators in the Arab Spring?
A feminist would need more than a peg on their nose to vote for Hillary – a feminist would need all the scented oils of Arabia.
Perhaps Wahhabi funded Hillary can buy them up.
Great article. I think there needs to be a lot of soul searching in certain sections of the media and amongst the left wing
political parties too. They don't have the correct approach to a rapidly changing ground swell of opinion. They are fast becoming
out of touch - leaving a huge void for more conservative rhetoric (euphemism) to take over.
The failure to tackle immigration
concerns across the west is the greatest example of comfy left wing elites being so far away from general consensus imo. The
assumption that if you are concerned about immigration then you are a racist, xenophobic half wit appears rife amongst elites
and the highly educated.
I agree that this is a great article. And I agree that there is a coming migration crisis that we need to be very worried
about, as the refugees from the Middle East try desperately for a better life away from conflict zones and poverty. However,
the right wing have very skilfully redirected the anger that SHOULD be directed at what Naomi cleverly calls the "Davos class"
onto a very small "immigration" issue that we have in the UK today.
The evidence for this is that in the EU referendum, the
areas that were most strongly Leave were generally speaking those with few or no immigrants. I campaigned for Remain here in
Stockport where there are very few immigrants and I also campaign regularly against privatisation in the NHS and over and over
again, I am told that immigrants are the problem in an area which has virtually none. I don't think that people are concerned
about immigration are half wits, but I think they've been manipulated.
"Fear the stranger" is an evolutionary response buried
deep in our brains that we need to control with rationality and it's such an easy button for the right wing to push. I grew
up in Northern Ireland so I saw this at first hand. My grandfather was a highly intelligent technocrat, but he was also an Orangeman.
He did not seem able to understand that the Catholics he knew and were his friends were the same "them" that he demonised. All
progressive people need now to find a way, as Naomi's article says, to repoint this anger to where it belongs. Sorry if this
makes me a comfy left wing elite!
It is not going to happen. The holier than thou, supremacist arrogance of the illiberal class, means they can never admit
they were wrong. Look at the past year here ATL and then BTL. Witness the absolute, unchanging and frankly extreme editorial
line, in the face of massive discourse and well argued opposition BTL. Even now there are no alarm bells ringing in the back
of their minds, they are right and everyone else is wrong. No attempt to understand, such is their unwavering belief in the
echo chamber. You will only find an attempted programme of re-education in these pages. They will be still be doing it as Europe
falls into the hands of the far-right.
I campaigned for Remain here in Stockport where there are very few immigrants and I also campaign regularly against privatisation
in the NHS and over and over again, I am told that immigrants are the problem in an area which has virtually none. I don't
think that people are concerned about immigration are half wits, but I think they've been manipulated. "Fear the stranger"
is an evolutionary response buried deep in our brains that we need to control with rationality and it's such an easy button
for the right wing to push.
It's all about jobs, really, isn't it? There is a natural fear of 'the other', but if times are good and jobs (proper jobs,
not ZHC) are plentiful, it feels less important. On the face of it, it seems odd that the most fear of immigration is in places
where there isn't much immigration, but they're often places where there isn't much work either.
Here is what we need to understand: a hell of a lot of people are in pain. Under neoliberal policies of deregulation,
privatisation, austerity and corporate trade, their living standards have declined precipitously. They have lost jobs. They
have lost pensions. They have lost much of the safety net that used to make these losses less frightening. They see a future
for their kids even worse than their precarious present.
Yes. But, in the meantime, the system has become so right-wing that it only permits a right-wing outburst - a Social-Democratic
one is instantly discredited by the totalitarian media outlets.
There is no way to articulate an effective response to this attack within the system.
This article is spot on except that both Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren jumped on the Clinton neoliberal train for reasons
of political expediency. From now on, anything either of them say should be critically examined before being supported.
"... government for the centre ground has been about management- the days when the US New Deal funded by taxing the rich and which built the wealth Americans now miss, and the Labour post war government that built the NHS [and taxed the rich] is part of history. Instead we have no new innovation but a little bit of tweaking with banks and global business. ..."
"... In return the gutted communities become less smart and given bread and circuses but their privilege and lack of mobility means they don't travel to pick fruit elsewhere- yet they still demand food on the table and the only ones prepared to travel and work hard are the even greater poor. ..."
It wasn't just free trade that the white working class voters of the rust belt states were
angry about, it was also high immigration. Naomi doesn't mention this, probably because fluid
borders is one policy which the Davos class and left-liberals like herself agree on.
Such a[n intersection left] coalition is possible. In Canada, we have begun to cobble it
together under the banner of a people's agenda called The Leap Manifesto, endorsed by more
than 220 organisations from Greenpeace Canada to Black Lives Matter Toronto, and some of
our largest trade unions.
And if such a coalition of the usual suspects got off the ground in the USA it would just
about seal a second term for Donald.
government for the centre ground has been about management- the days when the US New Deal
funded by taxing the rich and which built the wealth Americans now miss, and the Labour post
war government that built the NHS [and taxed the rich] is part of history. Instead we have no
new innovation but a little bit of tweaking with banks and global business.
No government wants to upset the powers that run the economy- so a multinational can move
its workforce to a country with lower pay, lower environmental regulation- it can use the
inequality to move not only manufacturing but people.
In return the gutted communities become less smart and given bread and circuses but their
privilege and lack of mobility means they don't travel to pick fruit elsewhere- yet they
still demand food on the table and the only ones prepared to travel and work hard are the
even greater poor.
And the right simply blames the immigrants, the others and you believe them.
don't stop at 2011, the precedent started in 1934 in Nuremberg Germany. Trump used the
same how to manual written by Goebbels, he got the idea from the Romans.
"... In an inspiring op-ed on the 4th of July, the now-former Republican Congressman Justin Amash took to destroying the idea of identity politics, notably the two-party system, which he says is destroying the country. ..."
"... Amash declared that he is no longer going to identify with a party and declared himself an independent. ..."
July 4, 2019 Brave Congressman Blasts 2-Party System as 'Existential Threat to America' then
Quits His Party
In an inspiring op-ed on the 4th of July, the now-former Republican Congressman Justin Amash
took to destroying the idea of identity politics, notably the two-party system, which he says
is destroying the country.
Amash declared that he is no longer going to identify with a party
and declared himself an independent.
"... you cannot fight the establishment with the establishment and Trump -who is a billionaire FFS- is another one who represents that. If he didn't he would not have been allowed to run. ..."
"... It is strange and telling that the discourse within the American public over the last 40 years or so allowed themselves to discuss and tackle to various levels of success issues like sexism, racism, institutional racism, misogyny, xenophobia, even sexuality and yes, even gun laws but one thing that is an absolute no-no in discourse is the economical and subsequentially political system. ..."
"... As long as people believe the American Dream is within reach to them, just like they believe it was for individuals like Trump, the economic system will remain its status quo and that is: riches for a few, struggles for many. ..."
"... You correctly state that you cannot fight the establishment with Trump. But I suggest he is the best choice. You assume a choice has been made to get that single person to help them. I suggest a choice has been made to plant a suicide bomber in the establishment. ..."
"... With Trump in that position, the entire credibility of the establishment has been destroyed. Trump is a clown. An idiot. Every time he spouting something misogynistic or racist he became a better weapon for the public to use to against the establishments structures. No better place for him than to have him as the Icon of the establishment. The (now) unacceptable face. ..."
"... As you say, the power is with the people. But they first must be angry and disgusted at the establishment. Clinton was not distasteful enough to rally the lefts anger. Trump is perfect. ..."
"... Trump will not stop the wars. All anyone had to do was look at the voting records of the republicans in office( that were reelected) that voted for more war equipment. They also wanted TTIP. Until the public realizes we have to change our state representatives nothing will change. ..."
This election will spawn losers all over the place; the most tragic losers will be those
that voted a supposed maverick into the high office in order to fight the 'liberal' or
whatever establishment hoping to bring jobs back to the people.
However, you cannot fight the
establishment with the establishment and Trump -who is a billionaire FFS- is another one who
represents that. If he didn't he would not have been allowed to run.
Just for the same reason
that Bernie was squeezed out, not that I think he is a real socialist but one who would have
come too close to do some real change. To quote Rosa Luxemburg: If an election would mean
real change it would have been abolished
It is strange and telling that the discourse within the American public over the last 40
years or so allowed themselves to discuss and tackle to various levels of success issues like
sexism, racism, institutional racism, misogyny, xenophobia, even sexuality and yes, even gun
laws but one thing that
is an absolute no-no in discourse is the economical and subsequentially political system.
As
long as people believe the American Dream is within reach to them, just like they believe it
was for individuals like Trump, the economic system will remain its status quo and that is:
riches for a few, struggles for many.
The establishment will see for that and always find ways to maintain. One thing that has
always worked perfectly fine is to find scapegoats like foreigners, immigrants, people on
welfare, coloured people , minorities and so on. Can't even say this is typically American,
it has worked most recently in the UK within the brexit discussion and in Germany and other
places.
The power is with people, I remain optimistic; an election, though, will not change
anything
You correctly state that you cannot fight the establishment with Trump. But I suggest he
is the best choice. You assume a choice has been made to get that single person to help them.
I suggest a choice has been made to plant a suicide bomber in the establishment.
The problem has been that Obama has put an empathetic, intelligent and articulate face on
the front of a deeply corrupted system. To attack the system one appears to be attacking him
and that can be awkward.
With Trump in that position, the entire credibility of the establishment has been
destroyed. Trump is a clown. An idiot. Every time he spouting something misogynistic or
racist he became a better weapon for the public to use to against the establishments
structures. No better place for him than to have him as the Icon of the establishment. The
(now) unacceptable face.
As you say, the power is with the people. But they first must be angry and disgusted at
the establishment. Clinton was not distasteful enough to rally the lefts anger. Trump is perfect.
One thing particular about Killery: I believe she was meant to deliver more war for her
Davos employers. I've had enough of 'Mericuh's wars for profit, and to protect the Bankers
fortunes. At this point I'm ready to vote for Idi Amin, if it stops the banker wars being
waged for them by their proxy the United States.
Trump will not stop the wars. All anyone had to do was look at the voting records of the
republicans in office( that were reelected) that voted for more war equipment. They also
wanted TTIP. Until the public realizes we have to change our state representatives nothing
will change.
"... Just like Dubya. Just like Obomber. Just like the Orange Baboon. Whilst simultaneously begging for shekels from Adelson, Saban, Singer, Marcus. ..."
Same old, same old, same old, same old. Prospective candidates spewing out the same tired
old hot air about how, this time, it really, really, really, really will be different.
There won't be any more crazy multitrillion wars for Israel. Honest.
Just like Dubya. Just like Obomber. Just like the Orange Baboon. Whilst simultaneously
begging for shekels from Adelson, Saban, Singer, Marcus.
"... Why are state owned industries bad things? When one debates it the way the argument has been framed - Left vs Right - it is hard to defend, ending in a "commie vs. fascist" diatribe. ..."
"... If it's framed by "Why should profit be made from essential services, water, electricity, telephone, rail, health services, especially when there's only one delivery mechanism, a pipe, a rail, a cable, a hospital?" (and one paid for and put in by the Government) then that's a different debate. ..."
"... Is Amazon a force for change? Yes. Should it have been allowed to part fund its growth by arbitraging tax savings between one US state and another? No. ..."
"... Should Uber be able to set up a taxi business? Yes. If there is an existing business in place, with infrastructure and investment, should new entrants be forced to adhere to the same rules and regulations that supported that existing business, and taxed to allow the established businesses to evolve, with taxes paying for the re-training of people, paying for investments, supporting infrastructure? I think so. ..."
"... When we have autonomous vans replacing delivery drivers, should we tax companies that use them to offset the social cost of laying off millions of people in the transportation sector to pay for re-training and infrastructure investments, or should we simply allow offshore companies to export jobs and money? ..."
"... We need to ditch the neoliberal policies that created free market capitalism and not replace it with socialism, but replace it with logical, pragmatic, socially-focused capitalism ..."
Why are state owned industries bad things? When one debates it the way the argument has
been framed - Left vs Right - it is hard to defend, ending in a "commie vs. fascist"
diatribe.
If it's framed by "Why should profit be made from essential services, water,
electricity, telephone, rail, health services, especially when there's only one delivery
mechanism, a pipe, a rail, a cable, a hospital?" (and one paid for and put in by the
Government) then that's a different debate.
Then the debate moves to "Govt's can't run
companies". Only then can we frame the debate about fixing the right problem. Get Govt's to
run essential services effectively, not giving up that they can't and allowing corporations
to profit from essential services – that profit is your taxes.
To win this argument the debate needs to not be the ideological argument of Left vs Right.
We need a new approach for the 21st Century that embraces change, technology and dynamism and
overlays it with pragmatism, social caring and a drive for growth.
Is Amazon a force for change? Yes. Should it have been allowed to part fund its growth by
arbitraging tax savings between one US state and another? No.
Should Uber be able to set up a
taxi business? Yes. If there is an existing business in place, with infrastructure and
investment, should new entrants be forced to adhere to the same rules and regulations that
supported that existing business, and taxed to allow the established businesses to evolve,
with taxes paying for the re-training of people, paying for investments, supporting
infrastructure? I think so.
When we have autonomous vans replacing delivery drivers, should
we tax companies that use them to offset the social cost of laying off millions of people in
the transportation sector to pay for re-training and infrastructure investments, or should we
simply allow offshore companies to export jobs and money?
I suggest we need a new approach. Not Left or Right. We need to ditch the neoliberal
policies that created free market capitalism and not replace it with socialism, but replace
it with logical, pragmatic, socially-focused capitalism. So long as our choice is left or
right, you get Trumped. I hope someone can find a new way.
You can be one of those who finds a better way. So can I, so can every one of
us, if we're willing to take on the responsibility of participating in the process at the
local level, as I said in my earlier post. I'm an old man now, but I've always been involved
in the political process. We haven't always achieved what we wanted, that's a fact of life.
But my country, Australia, is a better place today than it was 1n 1937 when I was born. The
USA has suffered a setback this week, more reason for the young people to get into the
process at the coalface, and build better parties that reflect their values.
I think there's a lot of truth to this; over hear we could say that many Trump voters are
the equivalent of the miners and steel workers who lost out under Thatcherism, and whom
Labour used to at least try to represent.
But the other horn of the dilemma in which such people find themselves is cultural. A
cultural revolution has taken place over the past fifty years which has weakened, and
threatens to destroy, the culture that many of these people feel comfortable with, and people
like Clinton tell them to be happy about that, or be called bigots. Working people whose
lodestars are faith, flag and family are derided, and dismissed as relics.
A party which combined a more Left-wing populist economic policy with a socially
conservative cultural position would absolutely clean up, and would help a great many poor
people. But the Left is too infatuated with racial, sexual, moral and social revolution to
care. The "rust-belt" poor look to the Democrats for aid, are are given transgender
lavatories. It's an insult.
You took a great many words to say what you actually mean: "Hilary Clinton is a corrupt
lifelong politician totally in bed with the bankers, world financiers, and rich elites,
whilst peddling a enough rubbish to attract the SJWs. She's been found out and that's why she
lost".
Nothing in the article directs hate at voters or groups of voters. It is, arguably,
disgusted with the Trump and Brexit campaigns but is full of sympathy for the plights of many
who voted for them.
Secondly, voting for Trump just to rebel against 'highly paid know-it-alls with vain moral
superiority' is just crazy. It might not be racist or misogynistic but it is stupid. Voting
to 'p..s' someone off is treating your vote, democratic right and responsibility with
distain.
The craziest part of all of this is that the highly paid people who you are rebelling
against will get a tax cut from Trump. It is the poor that will bear the brunt of his
presidency.
"Neo-fascist responses"
"Trump-style extremism"
"they answer it by bashing immigrants and people of colour, vilifying Muslims, and degrading
women"
You call my right to vote the way I choose "stupid".
You just don't get it. Millions of Americans voted exactly this way. A big middle finger to
the establishment, media, Wall Street, "experts", and yes moral posturing know-it-alls is a
great way to use your vote.
You completely misunderstand Trump. He is far more for the working man than Clinton. The
poor voted for him in droves. And for good reason.
There has been no real recovery for working people or most people in the west since the
great recession. White working class people in both countries are angry. They are angry that
they are no longer given a significantly preferential seat at the dinner table (or at least
compared to yesteryear), angry that they have to compete equally with everyone else.
In the UK apparently we must now concentrate on white working class people concerning
education. They are not discriminated against and on the contrary still are free from many
prejudices that non whites experience yet they under perform.
And why should they receive preferential treatment? Are we to be judged on the past
exploits of generations before us? Perhaps their forebearers served for the country... well
my son's great grandfather served the UK during WWII even though he was from another country
and what did they give him in return... sweet f*** all; a one way ticket home with a pat on
the back and a "good luck" with dealing with his wounds and rehabilitation. Neither did it
benefit his ancestors the slightest so why should it be taken into account for Britons
today?
In order to justify the unjustifiable (a corporate elite exploiting the world as their own
private estate), they constructed an artificial equivalence to make it seem that their
self-interested economic system was part and parcel of a package of 'democracy',
'multi-racial tolerance', 'LGBT tolerance' etc, so that people would be fooled into thinking
that rejecting the economics meant rejecting all the other things too.
George Soros' "Open
Society Foundation'" is a key offender here. The false consciousness thus engendered does
indeed set the scene for fascism, but a genuine left opposition can and needs to be built and
we can only hope that we can succeed in so doing.
Pretty superficial article, but some points are interesting. Especially the fact that the collapse of neoliberalism
like collapse of Bolshevism is connected with its inability to raise the standard of living of population in major Western
countries, despite looting of the USSR and Middle eastern countries since 1991. Spoils of victory in the Cold War never got to
common people. All was appropriated by greedy "New Class" of neoliberal oligarchs.
The same was true with Bolshevism in the USSR. The communist ideology was dead after WWII when it became clear that
"proletariat" is not a new class destined to take over and the "iron law of oligarchy" was discovered. Collapse happened
in 45 years since the end of WWII. Neoliberal ideology was dead in 2008. It would be interesting to see if neoliberalism
as a social system survives past 2050.
The level of degeneration of the USA elite probably exceeds the level of degeneration of Nomenklatura even now.
Notable quotes:
"... A big reason why liberal democracies in Europe have remained relatively stable since WWII is that most Europeans have had hope that their lives will improve. A big reason why the radical vote has recently been on the rise in several European countries is that part of the electorate has lost this hope. People are increasingly worried that not only their own lives but also the lives of their children will not improve and that the playing field is not level. ..."
"... As a result, the traditional liberal package of external liberalisation and internal redistribution has lost its appeal with the electorate, conceding ground to the alternative package of the radical right that consists of external protectionism and internal liberalisation ..."
"... Mr Mody said the bottom half of German society has not seen any increase in real incomes in a generation. ..."
"... The reforms pushed seven million people into part-time 'mini-jobs' paying €450 (£399) a month. It lead to corrosive "pauperisation". This remains the case even though the economy is humming and surging exports have pushed the current account surplus to 8.5pc of GDP." ..."
"... "British referendum on EU membership can be explained to a remarkable extent as a vote against globalisation much more than immigration " ..."
"... As an FYI to the author immigration is just the flip side of the same coin. Why were immigrants migrating? Often it's because they can no longer make a living where they left. Why? Often globalization impacts. ..."
"... The laws of biology and physics and whatever else say that the host that is being parasitised upon, cannot support the endless growth of the parasites attached upon it. The unfortunate host will eventually die. ..."
"... "negative effects of globalisation: foreign competition, factory closures, persistent unemployment, stagnating purchasing power, deteriorating infrastructures and public services" ..."
"... he ruling elites have broken away from the people. The obvious problem is the gap between the interests of the elites and the overwhelming majority of the people. ..."
"... One of the things we must do in Russia is never to forget that the purpose of the operation and existence of any government is to create a stable, normal, safe and predictable life for the people and to work towards a better future. ..."
"... "If you're not willing to kill everybody who has a different idea than yourself, you cannot have Frederick Hayek's free market. You cannot have Alan Greenspan or the Chicago School, you cannot have the economic freedom that is freedom for the rentiers and the FIRE (finance, insurance, real estate) sector to reduce the rest of the economy to serfdom." ~ Michael Hudson ..."
"... I'm surprised more people don't vote for neo-fascist parties like the Golden Dawn. Ordinary liberal politics has completely failed them. ..."
The more a local economy has been negatively affected by the two shocks, the more its
electors have shifted towards the radical right and its policy packages. These packages
typically combine the retrenchment against international openness and the liberalisation of the
internal market and more convincingly address the demand for protection by an electorate that,
after the austerity following the Crisis, no longer trusts alternatives based on more liberal
stances on foreign relations and the parallel promise of a stronger welfare state.
A big reason why liberal democracies in Europe have remained relatively stable since WWII is
that most Europeans have had hope that their lives will improve. A big reason why the radical
vote has recently been on the rise in several European countries is that part of the electorate
has lost this hope. People are increasingly worried that not only their own lives but also the
lives of their children will not improve and that the playing field is not level.
On the one hand, despite some progress in curtailing 'tax havens' in recent years, there has
never been as much wealth in tax havens as there is today (Zucman 2015). This is seen as unfair
because, if public goods and services (including those required to help the transition to a
'green economy') have to be provided in the regions where such hidden wealth comes from, lost
tax revenues have to be compensated for by higher taxes on law-abiding households.
On the other hand, fairness is also undermined by dwindling social mobility. In the last
decades, social mobility has slowed down across large parts of the industrialised world (OECD
2018), both within and between generations. Social mobility varies greatly across regions
within countries, correlates positively with economic activity, education, and social capital,
and negatively with inequality (Güell at al. 2018). Renewed migration from the South to
the North of Europe after the Crisis (Van Mol and de Valk 2016) is a testimony of the widening
relative lack of opportunities in the places that have suffered the most from competition from
low-wage countries.
Concluding Remarks
Globalisation has come accompanied by the Great Convergence between countries around the
world but also the Great Divergence between regions within several industrialised countries.
The same holds within the EU. In recent years, redistributive policies have had only a very
limited impact in terms of reversing growing regional inequality.
As a result, the traditional
liberal package of external liberalisation and internal redistribution has lost its appeal with
the electorate, conceding ground to the alternative package of the radical right that consists
of external protectionism and internal liberalisation.
This is both inefficient and unlikely to
lead to more regional convergence. What the political and policy debate in Europe is arguably
missing is a clearer focus on two of the main underlying causes of peoples' growing distrust in
national and international institutions: fiscal fairness and social mobility.
Right. It would be better to say "the traditional New Deal liberal package " has not lost
its appeal, it was killed off bit by bit starting with NAFTA. From a 2016 Thomas Frank essay
in Salon:
That appeal to [educated credentialed] class unity gives a hint of what Clintonism was
all about. To owners and shareholders, who would see labor costs go down as they took
advantage of unorganized Mexican labor and lax Mexican environmental enforcement, NAFTA held
fantastic promise. To American workers, it threatened to send their power, and hence their
wages, straight down the chute. To the mass of the professional-managerial class, people who
weren't directly threatened by the treaty, holding an opinion on NAFTA was a matter of
deferring to the correct experts -- economists in this case, 283 of whom had signed a
statement declaring the treaty "will be a net positive for the United States, both in terms
of employment creation and overall economic growth."
The predictions of people who opposed the agreement turned out to be far closer to what
eventually came to pass than did the rosy scenarios of those 283 economists and the
victorious President Clinton. NAFTA was supposed to encourage U.S. exports to Mexico; the
opposite is what happened, and in a huge way. NAFTA was supposed to increase employment in
the U.S.; a study from 2010 counts almost 700,000 jobs lost in America thanks to the treaty.
And, as feared, the agreement gave one class in America enormous leverage over the other:
employers now routinely threaten to move their operations to Mexico if their workers
organize. A surprisingly large number of them -- far more than in the pre-NAFTA days -- have
actually made good on the threat.
Twenty years later, the broader class divide over the subject persists as well.
According to a 2014 survey of attitudes toward NAFTA after two decades, public opinion
remains split. But among people with professional degrees -- which is to say, the liberal
class -- the positive view remains the default. Knowing that free-trade treaties are always
for the best -- even when they empirically are not -- seems to have become for the
well-graduated a badge of belonging.
The only internal redistribution that's happened in the past 25 – 30 yearsis from
the bottom 80% to the top 10% and especially to the top 1/10th of 1 %.
Not hard to imagine why the current internal redistribution model has lost its appeal with
the electorate.
I think there are two different globalizations that people are responding to.
1. Their jobs go away to somewhere in the globe that has lower wages, lower labor
protections, and lower environmental protections. So their community largely stays the same
but with dwindling job prospects and people slowly moving away.
2. The world comes to their community where they see immigrants (legal, illegal, refugees)
coming in and are willing to work harder for less, as well as having different appearance,
languages, religion, and customs. North America has always had this as we are built on
immigration. Europe is much more focused on terroire. If somebody or something has only been
there for a century, they are new.
If you combine both in a community, you have lit a stick of dynamite as the locals feel
trapped with no way out. Then you get Brexit and Trump. In the US, many jobs were sent
overseas and so new people coming in are viewed as competitors and agents of change instead
of just new hired help. The same happened in Britain. In mainland Europe with less inequality
and more job protection, it is more of just being overwhelmed by the sheer quantity of
newcomers in a society that does not prize that at all.
I saw the warning signs when Golden Dawn appeared in Greece
The liberals said it was just a one off, as they always do, until it isn't.
How did successful Germany turn into a country where extremism would flourish?
The Hartz IV reforms created the economic hardship that causes extremism to flourish.
"Germany is turning to soft nationalism. People on low incomes are voting against authority
because the consensus on equality and justice has broken down. It is the same pattern across
Europe," said Ashoka Mody, a former bail-out chief for the International Monetary Fund in
Europe.
Mr Mody said the bottom half of German society has not seen any increase in real
incomes in a generation. The Hartz IV reforms in 2003 and 2004 made it easier to fire
workers, leading to wage compression as companies threatened to move plants to Eastern
Europe.
The reforms pushed seven million people into part-time 'mini-jobs' paying €450
(£399) a month. It lead to corrosive "pauperisation". This remains the case even though
the economy is humming and surging exports have pushed the current account surplus to 8.5pc
of GDP."
This is a successful European country, imagine what the others look like.
"British referendum on EU membership can be explained to a remarkable extent as a vote
against globalisation much more than immigration "
As an FYI to the author immigration is just the flip side of the same coin. Why were
immigrants migrating? Often it's because they can no longer make a living where they left.
Why? Often globalization impacts.
Another recap about that really just mourns the lack of trust in the establishment, with
no answers. More "I can't believe people are sick to death of experts of dubious skills but
networking "
What it is just admitted that a system that can only work great for 20% of any given
population if they are born in the right region with the right last name just simply not work
except as an exercise in extraction?
And about the EU as if it could never be taken over by bigger authoritatians than the ones
already populating it.
Then see how much those who think it is some forever bastion of liberalism over sovereignity
likes it .
"Another recap about that really just mourns the lack of trust in the establishment,
with no answers."
Usually it involves replacing the establishment or creating an internal threat to
reinstate compliance in the establish (Strauss and Howe).
Strategies for initiate the former may be impossible in this era where the deep state can
read your thoughts through digital media so you would like it would trend to the latter.
Mmmmm, yes, migration, globalisation and such like.
But, unregulated migration into an established environment, say a country, say, UK, on one
hand furthers profits to those benefiting from low labour wages (mainly, friends of people
working for governments), but on the other leads to creation of parallel societies, where the
incoming population brings along the society they strived to escape from. The Don calls these
sh***hole societies. Why bring the f***ing thing here, why not leave it where you escaped
from.
But the real betrayal of the native population happens when all those unregulated migrants
are afforded immediate right to social security, full access to NHS and other aspects of
state support, services that they have not paid one penny in support before accessing that
particular government funded trough. And then the parasitic growth of their "family and
extended family" comes along under the banner of "human rights".
This is the damnation of the whole of Western Civilisation which had been hollowed out
from within by the most devious layer of parasitic growth, the government apparatus. The
people we pay for under the auspices that they are doing some work for us, are enforcing
things that treat the income generators, the tax paying society as serfs whose primary
function in life is to support the parasites (immigrants) and parasite enablers
(government).
The laws of biology and physics and whatever else say that the host that is being
parasitised upon, cannot support the endless growth of the parasites attached upon it. The
unfortunate host will eventually die.
Understanding of this concept is most certainly within mental capabilities of all those
employed as the "governing classes " that we are paying for through our taxes.
Until such time when legislation is enacted that each and every individual member of
"government classes " is made to pay, on an indemnity basis, through financial damages,
forced labour, organs stripping or custodial penalties, for every penny (or cent, sorry,
yanks), of damage they inflict on us taxpayers, we are all just barking.
This piece does an admirable job conflating globalisation and the ills caused by the
neoliberal capture of social democratic parties/leaders. Did people just happen to lose hope,
or were they actively betrayed? We are left to guess.
"negative effects of globalisation: foreign competition, factory closures, persistent
unemployment, stagnating purchasing power, deteriorating infrastructures and public
services"
Note that these ills could also be laid at the feet of the austerity movement, and the
elimination/privatisation of National Industrial Policy, both cornerstones of the neoliberal
infestation.
Not only is globalization not new, all of the issues that come with it are old news.
All of it.
Part of the problem is that the global economic order is still in service to the same old
same old. They have to rebrand every so often to keep the comfortable even more comfortable.
Those tasked with keeping the comfortable more comfortable have to present this crap as "new
ideas" for their own careerism or actually do not realize they haven't espoused a new idea in
500 years.
Putin's recent interview with Financial Times editor offers a clear-eyed perspective on
our changing global structure:
"What is happening in the West? What is the reason for the Trump phenomenon, as you said,
in the US? What is happening in Europe as well? The ruling elites have broken away from the
people. The obvious problem is the gap between the interests of the elites and the
overwhelming majority of the people.
Of course, we must always bear this in mind. One of the things we must do in Russia is
never to forget that the purpose of the operation and existence of any government is to
create a stable, normal, safe and predictable life for the people and to work towards a
better future.
You know, it seems to me that purely liberal or purely traditional ideas have never
existed. Probably, they did once exist in the history of humankind, but everything very
quickly ends in a deadlock if there is no diversity. Everything starts to become extreme one
way or another.
Various ideas and various opinions should have a chance to exist and manifest themselves,
but at the same time interests of the general public, those millions of people and their
lives, should never be forgotten. This is something that should not be overlooked.
Then, it seems to me, we would be able to avoid major political upheavals and troubles.
This applies to the liberal idea as well. It does not mean (I think, this is ceasing to be a
dominating factor) that it must be immediately destroyed. This point of view, this position
should also be treated with respect.
They cannot simply dictate anything to anyone just like they have been attempting to do
over the recent decades. Diktat can be seen everywhere: both in the media and in real life.
It is deemed unbecoming even to mention some topics. But why?
For this reason, I am not a fan of quickly shutting, tying, closing, disbanding
everything, arresting everybody or dispersing everybody. Of course, not. The liberal idea
cannot be destroyed either; it has the right to exist and it should even be supported in some
things. But you should not think that it has the right to be the absolute dominating factor.
That is the point. Please." ~ Vladmir Putin
He's talking about the end of neoliberalism, the economic fascism that has gripped the
world for over 40 years:
"If you're not willing to kill everybody who has a different idea than yourself, you
cannot have Frederick Hayek's free market. You cannot have Alan Greenspan or the Chicago
School, you cannot have the economic freedom that is freedom for the rentiers and the FIRE
(finance, insurance, real estate) sector to reduce the rest of the economy to serfdom." ~
Michael Hudson
Let's get back to using fiscal policy for public purpose again, to granting nations their
right to self-determination and stopping the latest desperate neoliberal attempt to change
international norms by installing fascist dictators (while pretending they are different) in
order to move the world backwards to a time when "efforts to institutionalize standards of
human and civil rights were seen as impingements on sovereignty, back to the days when no one
gave a second thought to oppressed peoples."
Very interesting article, and even more interesting conversation! There is a type of
argument that very accurately points out some ills that need addressing, and then goes on to
spout venom on the only system that might be able to address those ills.
It may be that the
governing classes are making life easy for themselves. How to address that is the hard and
difficult issue. Most of the protection of the small people comes from government.
Healthcare, schools, roads, water etc.(I'm in scandinavia).
If the government crumbles, the
small people have to leave. The most dreadful tyranny is better than a failed state with
warring factions.
The only viable way forward is to somehow improve the system while it is
(still) running. But this discussion I do not see anywhere.
If the discussion does not
happen, there will not be any suggestions for improvement, so everything stays the same.
Change is inevitable – it what state it will catch us is the important thing. A cashier
at a Catalonian family vineyard told me the future is local and global: the next level from
Catalonia will be EU. What are the steps needed to go there?
Same old, Same old. Government is self-corrupting and is loath to change. People had
enough July fourth 1776.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty
and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted
among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever
any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to
alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such
principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to
effect their Safety and Happiness."
FWIW: The fireworks we watch every Fourth of July holiday are symbolic!!!!
The cashier seems to be envisioning a neoliberal paradise where the nation-state no longer
exists. But who, then, collects the taxes that will pay for infrastructure, healthcare,
education, public housing, and unemployment insurance? The European Parliament?
Will Germans
and Finns be willing to pay high taxes in order to pay for those services for Greeks and
Spaniards?
Look at the unemployment rate in Greece the Germans would simply say that the
Greeks are lazy parasites and don't want to work (rather than understand that the economic
conditions don't allow for job creation), and they would vote for MEPs that vote to cut taxes
and welfare programs.
But maybe this was the plan all along you create this neoliberal paradise, and slowly but
surely, people will dismantle all but the bare bones of the welfare state.
I believe that one of the fundamental flaws in the logic behind the EU is this assumption
of mobility. Proponents of the EU imagine society to be how it is described in economics
textbooks: a bunch of individual actors seeking to maximize their incomes that don't seem to
exist in any geographic context. The reality is that people are born into families and
communities that speak a language. Most of them probably don't want to just pack up all of
their things, relocate, and leave their family and home behind every time they get a new job.
People throughout history have always had a very strong connection to the land on which they
were raised and the society into which they were brought up; more accurately, for most of
human history, this formed the entire existence, the entire universe, of most people
(excluding certain oppressed groups, such as slaves or the conquered).
Human beings are not able to move as freely as capital. While euros in Greece can be sent
to and used instantly in Germany, it is not so easy for a Greek person to leave the society
that their ancestors have lived in for thousands of years and move to a new country with a
new culture and language. For privileged people that get to travel, this doesn't sound so
bad, but for someone whose family has lived in the same place for centuries and never learned
to speak another language, this experience would be extremely difficult. For many people over
the age of 25, it might not even be a life worth living.
In the past, economic difficulties would lead to a depreciation of a nation's currency and
inflation. But within the current structure of the Eurozone, it results in deflation as euros
escape to the core countries (mainly Germany) and unemployment. Southern Europeans are
expected to leave everything they have ever known behind and move to the countries where
there is work, like Germany or Holland. Maybe for a well-educated worldly 18 year old, that's
not so bad, but what about a newly laid-off working class 35 year-old with a wife and kids
and no college degree? He's supposed to just pick up his family and leave his parents and
relatives behind, learn German, and spend the rest of his life and Germany? His kids now have
to be German? Would he even be able to get a job there, anyway? Doing what? And how is he
supposed to stop this from happening, how is he supposed to organize politically to keep jobs
at home? The Greek government can hardly do anything because the IMF, ECB, and European
Commission (all unelected officials) call the shots and don't give them any fiscal breathing
room (and we saw what happened the last time voters tried to assert their autonomy in the
bailout deal referendum), and the European Parliament doesn't have a serious budget to
actually do anything.
I'm surprised more people don't vote for neo-fascist parties like the
Golden Dawn. Ordinary liberal politics has completely failed them.
"... “‘Populism’ is the label that political elites attach to policies supported by ordinary citizens that they don’t like.” Populism is a movement against the status quo. It represents the beginnings of something new, though it is generally much clearer about what it is against than what it is for. It can be progressive or reactionary, but more usually both. ..."
The neoliberal era is being undermined from two directions. First, if its record of economic
growth has never been particularly strong, it is now dismal. Europe is barely larger than it
was on the eve of the financial crisis in 2007; the United States has done better but even its
growth has been anaemic. Economists such as Larry Summers believe that the prospect for the
future is most likely one of secular stagnation .
Worse, because the recovery has been so weak and fragile, there is a widespread belief that
another financial crisis may well beckon. In other words, the neoliberal era has delivered the
west back into the kind of crisis-ridden world that we last experienced in the 1930s. With this
background, it is hardly surprising that a majority in the west now believe their children will
be worse off than they were. Second, those who have lost out in the neoliberal era are no
longer prepared to acquiesce in their fate – they are increasingly in open revolt. We are
witnessing the end of the neoliberal era. It is not dead, but it is in its early death throes,
just as the social-democratic era was during the 1970s.
A sure sign of the declining influence of neoliberalism is the rising chorus of intellectual
voices raised against it. From the mid-70s through the 80s, the economic debate was
increasingly dominated by monetarists and free marketeers. But since the western financial
crisis, the centre of gravity of the intellectual debate has shifted profoundly. This is most
obvious in the United States, with economists such as Joseph Stiglitz, Paul Krugman, Dani
Rodrik and Jeffrey Sachs becoming increasingly influential. Thomas Piketty's Capital in the
Twenty-First Century has been a massive seller. His work and that of Tony
Atkinson and Angus Deaton have pushed the question of the inequality to the top of the
political agenda. In the UK, Ha-Joon Chang , for long isolated within
the economics profession, has gained a following far greater than those who think economics is
a branch of mathematics.
Meanwhile, some of those who were previously strong advocates of a neoliberal approach, such
as Larry Summers and the Financial Times 's Martin Wolf, have become extremely critical.
The wind is in the sails of the critics of neoliberalism; the neoliberals and monetarists are
in retreat. In the UK, the media and political worlds are well behind the curve. Few recognise
that we are at the end of an era. Old attitudes and assumptions still predominate, whether on
the BBC's Today programme, in the rightwing press or the parliamentary Labour party.
As Thomas
Piketty has shown, in the absence of countervailing pressures, capitalism naturally gravitates towards increasing
inequality. In the period between 1945 and the late 70s, Cold War competition was arguably the biggest such constraint. Since
the collapse of the Soviet Union, there have been none. As the popular backlash grows increasingly irresistible, however, such a
winner-takes-all regime becomes politically unsustainable.
Large sections of the population in both the US and the UK are now in revolt against their lot, as graphically illustrated by
the support for Trump and Sanders in the US and the Brexit vote in the UK. This popular revolt is often described, in a somewhat
denigratory and dismissive fashion, as populism. Or, as Francis Fukuyama writes in a recent excellent essay
in
Foreign Affairs: “‘Populism’ is the label that political elites attach to policies supported by ordinary citizens that
they don’t like.” Populism is a movement against the status quo. It represents the beginnings of something new, though it is
generally much clearer about what it is against than what it is for. It can be progressive or reactionary, but more usually
both.
Until you fix the problem with, according to a poll, 56% of American parents not wanting Arabic numerals taught to their
children. I suspect that an equal number would not be able to find any of the mentioned places on a map.
Where those with crystal balls find certainty, I find something much less.
We do know that containment polices can work very well, but any involvement in the world's longest contested area is not
worth the cost, nor the risk.
The US has already spent a fortune, with very little to show for it.
"... "Each successor generation is less likely than the previous to prioritize maintaining superior military power worldwide as a goal of U.S. foreign policy, to see U.S. military superiority as a very effective way of achieving U.S. foreign policy goals, and to support expanding defense spending. At the same time, support for international cooperation and free trade remains high across the generations. In fact, younger Americans are more inclined to support cooperative approaches to U.S. foreign policy and more likely to feel favorably towards trade and globalization." ..."
"... Last year, for the first time since the height of the Iraq war 13 years ago, the Army fell thousands of troops short of its recruiting goals. That trend was emphasized in a 2017 Department of Defense poll that found only 14 percent of respondents ages 16 to 24 said it was likely they'd serve in the military in the coming years. This has the Army so worried that it has been refocusing its recruitment efforts on creating an entirely new strategy aimed specifically at Generation Z. ..."
"... These days, significant numbers of young veterans have been returning disillusioned and ready to lobby Congress against wars they once, however unknowingly, bought into. Look no further than a new left-right alliance between two influential veterans groups, VoteVets and Concerned Veterans for America, to stop those forever wars. Their campaign, aimed specifically at getting Congress to weigh in on issues of war and peace, is emblematic of what may be a diverse potential movement coming together to oppose America's conflicts. Another veterans group, Common Defense, is similarly asking politicians to sign a pledge to end those wars. In just a couple of months, they've gotten on board 10 congressional sponsors, including freshmen heavyweights in the House of Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar. ..."
"... In February 2018, Sanders also became the first senator to risk introducing a war powers resolution to end American support for the brutal Saudi-led war in Yemen. In April 2019, with the sponsorship of other senators added to his, the bill ultimately passed the House and the Senate in an extremely rare showing of bipartisanship, only to be vetoed by President Trump. That such a bill might pass the House, no less a still-Republican Senate, even if not by a veto-proof majority, would have been unthinkable in 2016. So much has changed since the last election that support for the Yemen resolution has now become what Tara Golshan at Vox termed "a litmus test of the Democratic Party's progressive shift on foreign policy." ..."
"... And for the first time ever, three veterans of America's post-9/11 wars -- Seth Moulton and Tulsi Gabbard of the House of Representatives, and South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg -- are running for president, bringing their skepticism about American interventionism with them. The very inclusion of such viewpoints in the presidential race is bound to change the conversation, putting a spotlight on America's wars in the months to come. ..."
"... In May, for instance, Omar tweeted , "We have to recognize that foreign policy IS domestic policy. We can't invest in health care, climate resilience, or education if we continue to spend more than half of discretionary spending on endless wars and Pentagon contracts. When I say we need something equivalent to the Green New Deal for foreign policy, it's this." ..."
"... It is little recognized how hard American troops fought from 1965 to 1968. Our air mobile troops in particular made a great slaughter of NVA and VC while also taking heavy casualties. ..."
"... We were having such success that no one in the military thought the enemy could keep up the fight. Then, the Tet offensive with the beaten enemy attacking every city in the South. ..."
"... Perhaps there is no open anti-war movement because the Democratic party is now pro-war. ..."
"... President Obama, the Nobel peace prize winner, started a war with Libya, which had neither attacked nor threatened the US and which, by many accounts, was trying to improve relations with the US. GW Bush unnecessarily attacked Iraq and Clinton destroyed Haiti and bombed Yugoslavia, among other actions. ..."
Peace activism is rising, but that isn't translating into huge street demonstrations, writes Allegra Harpootlian.
W hen Donald Trump entered the Oval Office in January 2017, Americans took to the streets all across the country to protest their
instantly endangered rights. Conspicuously absent from the newfound civic engagement, despite more than a decade and a half of this
country's fruitless, destructive wars across the Greater Middle East and northern Africa, was antiwar sentiment, much less an actual
movement.
Those like me working against America's seemingly
endless
wars wondered why the subject merited so little discussion, attention, or protest. Was it because the still-spreading war on
terror remained shrouded in government secrecy? Was the lack of media coverage about what America was doing overseas to blame? Or
was it simply that most Americans didn't care about what was happening past the water's edge? If you had asked me two years ago,
I would have chosen "all of the above." Now, I'm not so sure.
After the enormous demonstrations
against the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the antiwar movement disappeared almost as suddenly as it began, with some even openly
declaring it dead. Critics
noted the long-term absence of significant protests against those wars, a lack of political will in Congress to deal with them,
and ultimately,
apathy on matters of war and peace when compared to issues like health care, gun control, or recently even
climate
change .
The pessimists have been right to point out that none of the plethora of marches on Washington since Donald Trump was elected
have had even a secondary focus on America's fruitless wars. They're certainly right to question why Congress, with the constitutional
duty to declare war, has until recently allowed both presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump to wage war as they wished without
even consulting them. They're right to feel nervous when a national
poll shows that more Americans think we're fighting a war in Iran (we're not) than a war in Somalia (
we are ).
But here's what I've been wondering recently: What if there's an antiwar movement growing right under our noses and we just haven't
noticed? What if we don't see it, in part, because it doesn't look like any antiwar movement we've even imagined?
If a movement is only a movement when people fill the streets, then maybe the critics are right. It might also be fair to say,
however, that protest marches do not always a movement make. Movements are
defined by their ability to challenge the status
quo and, right now, that's what might be beginning to happen when it comes to America's wars.
What if it's Parkland students
condemning American imperialism or groups fighting the
Muslim Ban that are
also fighting the war on terror? It's veterans not only trying to take on the wars they fought in, but putting themselves on
the front lines of the
gun control
,
climate change , and police brutality debates. It's
Congress
passing the first War Powers Resolution in almost 50 years. It's Democratic presidential candidates
signing a pledge to end America's endless wars.
For the last decade and a half, Americans -- and their elected representatives -- looked at our endless wars and essentially
shrugged. In 2019, however, an antiwar movement seems to be brewing. It just doesn't look like the ones that some remember from
the Vietnam era and others from the pre-invasion-of-Iraq moment. Instead, it's a movement that's being woven into just about every
other issue that Americans are fighting for right now -- which is exactly why it might actually work.
An estimated 100,000 people protested the war in Iraq in Washington, D.C., on Sept. 15, 2007 (Ragesoss, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia
Commons)
A Veteran's Antiwar Movement in the Making?
During the Vietnam War of the 1960s
and early 1970s, protests began with religious groups and peace organizations morally opposed to war. As that conflict intensified,
however, students began to join the movement, then civil rights leaders such as
Martin Luther King, Jr. got involved,
then war veterans who had witnessed the horror firsthand stepped in -- until, with a seemingly constant storm of protest in the
streets, Washington eventually withdrew from Indochina.
You might look at the lack of public outrage now, or perhaps the
exhaustion of having been outraged
and nothing changing, and think an antiwar movement doesn't exist. Certainly, there's nothing like the active one that fought against
America's involvement in Vietnam for so long and so persistently. Yet it's important to notice that, among some of the very same
groups (like veterans, students, and even politicians) that fought against that war, a healthy
skepticism about America's 21st century wars, the Pentagon, the military industrial complex, and even the very idea of American
exceptionalism is finally on the rise -- or so the
polls tell us.
"Arlington West of Santa Monica," a project of Veterans for Peace, puts reminders of the costs of war on the beach in Santa Monica,
California. (Lorie Shaull via Flickr)
Right after the midterms last year, an organization named Foundation for Liberty and American Greatness
reported mournfully that younger Americans were "turning on the country and forgetting its ideals," with nearly half believing
that this country isn't "great" and many eyeing the U.S. flag as "a sign of intolerance and hatred." With millennials and Generation
Z rapidly becoming the
largest voting bloc in America for the next 20 years, their priorities are taking center stage. When it comes to foreign policy
and war, as it happens, they're quite different from the generations that preceded them. According to the
Chicago Council of Global Affairs ,
"Each successor generation is less likely than the previous to prioritize maintaining superior military power worldwide as a
goal of U.S. foreign policy, to see U.S. military superiority as a very effective way of achieving U.S. foreign policy goals, and
to support expanding defense spending. At the same time, support for international cooperation and free trade remains high across
the generations. In fact, younger Americans are more inclined to support cooperative approaches to U.S. foreign policy and more
likely to feel favorably towards trade and globalization."
Although marches are the most public way to protest, another striking but understated way is simply not to engage with the systems
one doesn't agree with. For instance, the vast majority of today's teenagers aren't at all interested in joining the all-volunteer
military. Last year, for the first time since the height of the Iraq war 13 years ago, the Army
fell thousands of troops short
of its recruiting goals. That trend was emphasized in a 2017
Department of Defense poll that
found only 14 percent of respondents ages 16 to 24 said it was likely they'd serve in the military in the coming years. This has
the Army so worried that it has been refocusing its recruitment efforts on
creating an entirely new strategy aimed specifically at Generation Z.
In addition, we're finally seeing what happens when soldiers from America's post-9/11 wars come home infused with a sense of
hopelessness in relation to those conflicts. These days, significant numbers of young veterans have been returning
disillusioned and ready to lobby Congress
against wars they once, however unknowingly, bought into. Look no further than a new left-right
alliance between two
influential veterans groups, VoteVets and Concerned Veterans for America, to stop those forever wars. Their campaign, aimed specifically
at getting Congress to weigh in on issues of war and peace, is emblematic of what may be a diverse potential movement coming together
to oppose America's conflicts. Another veterans group, Common Defense, is similarly asking politicians to sign a
pledge to end those wars. In just a couple of months,
they've gotten on board 10 congressional sponsors, including freshmen heavyweights in the House of Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
and Ilhan Omar.
And this may just be the tip of a growing antiwar iceberg. A misconception about movement-building is that everyone is there
for the same reason, however broadly defined. That's often not the case and sometimes it's possible that you're in a movement and
don't even know it. If, for instance, I asked a room full of climate-change activists whether they also considered themselves part
of an antiwar movement, I can imagine the denials I'd get. And yet, whether they know it or not, sooner or later fighting climate
change will mean taking on the Pentagon's global footprint, too.
Think about it: not only is the U.S. military the world's
largest
institutional consumer of fossil fuels but, according to a
new report from Brown University's Costs of War Project, between 2001 and 2017, it released more than 1.2 billion metric tons
of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere (400 million of which were related to the war on terror). That's equivalent to the emissions
of 257 million passenger cars, more than double the number currently on the road in the U.S.
A Growing Antiwar Movement in Congress
One way to sense the growth of antiwar sentiment in this country is to look not at the empty streets or even at veterans organizations
or recruitment polls, but at Congress. After all, one
indicator of a successful movement, however
incipient, is its power to influence and change those making the decisions in Washington. Since Donald Trump was elected, the most
visible evidence of growing antiwar sentiment is the way America's congressional policymakers have increasingly become engaged with
issues of war and peace. Politicians, after all, tend to follow the voters and, right now, growing numbers of them seem to be following
rising antiwar sentiment back home into an expanding set of debates about war and peace in the age of Trump.
In campaign season 2016, in an op-ed in The Washington Post , political scientist Elizabeth Saunders wondered whether foreign policy would play a significant role
in the presidential election. "Not likely," she concluded. "Voters do not pay much attention to foreign policy." And at the time,
she was on to something. For instance, Sen. Bernie Sanders, then competing for the Democratic presidential nomination against Hillary
Clinton, didn't
even prepare stock answers to basic national security questions, choosing instead, if asked at all, to quickly pivot back to
more familiar topics. In a debate with Clinton, for instance, he was asked whether he would keep troops in Afghanistan to deal with
the growing success of the Taliban. In his answer, he skipped Afghanistan entirely, while warning only vaguely against a "quagmire"
in Iraq and Syria.
Heading for 2020, Sanders is once again competing for the nomination, but instead of shying away from foreign policy, starting
in 2017, he became the face of what could be a
new American
way of thinking when it comes to how we see our role in the world.
In February 2018, Sanders also became the first senator to risk
introducing a war powers resolution to end American support for the
brutal Saudi-led war in Yemen. In April 2019, with the sponsorship of other senators added to his, the bill
ultimately passed
the House and the Senate in an extremely rare showing of bipartisanship, only to be
vetoed by President Trump. That
such a bill might pass the House, no less a still-Republican Senate, even if not by a veto-proof majority, would have been unthinkable
in 2016. So much has changed since the last election that support for the Yemen resolution has now become what Tara Golshan at
Vox termed "a litmus test of the Democratic Party's progressive shift on foreign policy."
Nor, strikingly enough, is Sanders the only Democratic presidential candidate now running on what is essentially an antiwar platform.
One of the main aspects of Elizabeth
Warren's foreign policy plan, for instance, is to "seriously review the country's military commitments overseas, and that includes
bringing U.S. troops home from Afghanistan and Iraq." Entrepreneur Andrew Yang and former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel have
joined Sanders and Warren in signing a pledge to end America's forever wars if elected.
Beto O'Rourke has called for the repeal
of Congress's 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force that presidents have cited ever since whenever they've sent American forces
into battle. Marianne Williamson , one of the
many (unlikely) Democratic candidates seeking the nomination, has even proposed a plan to transform America's "wartime economy into
a peace-time economy, repurposing the tremendous talents and infrastructure of [America's] military industrial complex to the work
of promoting life instead of death."
And for the first time ever, three veterans of America's post-9/11 wars -- Seth Moulton and Tulsi Gabbard of the House of Representatives,
and South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg -- are running for president, bringing their
skepticism about American interventionism with them. The very inclusion of such viewpoints in the presidential race is bound
to change the conversation, putting a spotlight on America's wars in the months to come.
Get on Board or Get Out of the Way
When trying to create a movement, there are three likely
outcomes : you will
be accepted by the establishment, or rejected for your efforts, or the establishment will be replaced, in part or in whole, by those
who agree with you. That last point is exactly what we've been seeing, at least among Democrats, in the Trump years. While 2020
Democratic candidates for president, some of whom have been in the political arena for decades, are gradually hopping on the end-the-endless-wars
bandwagon, the real antiwar momentum in Washington has begun to come from new members of Congress like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
(AOC) and Ilhan Omar who are unwilling to accept business as usual when it comes to either the Pentagon or the country's forever
wars. In doing so, moreover, they are responding to what their constituents actually want.
As far back as 2014, when a
University of Texas-Austin Energy Poll asked people where the U.S. government should spend their tax dollars, only 7 percent
of respondents under 35 said it should go toward military and defense spending. Instead, in a "pretty significant political shift"
at the time, they overwhelmingly opted for their tax dollars to go toward job creation and education. Such a trend has only become
more apparent as those
calling
for free public college, Medicare-for-all, or a Green New Deal have come to
realize that they could pay for such ideas if America would stop pouring
trillions of dollars into wars that never should have been launched.
The new members of the House of Representatives, in particular, part of the youngest, most diverse crew
to date , have begun to replace the old guard and are increasingly signalling their readiness to throw out policies that don't
work for the American people, especially those reinforcing the American war machine. They understand that by ending the wars and
beginning to scale back the military-industrial complex, this country could once again have the resources it needs to fix so many
other problems.
In May, for instance, Omar tweeted , "We
have to recognize that foreign policy IS domestic policy. We can't invest in health care, climate resilience, or education if we
continue to spend more than half of discretionary spending on endless wars and Pentagon contracts. When I say we need something
equivalent to the Green New Deal for foreign policy, it's this."
A few days before that, at a House Committee on Oversight and Reform hearing, Ocasio-Cortez
confronted executives from military contractor TransDigm about the way they were price-gouging the American taxpayer by selling
a $32 "non-vehicular clutch disc" to the Department of Defense for $1,443 per disc. "A pair of jeans can cost $32; imagine paying
over $1,000 for that," she said. "Are you aware of how many doses of insulin we could get for that margin? I could've gotten over
1,500 people insulin for the cost of the margin of your price gouging for these vehicular discs alone."
And while such ridiculous waste
isn't news to those of us who follow Pentagon spending closely, this was undoubtedly something many of her millions of supporters
hadn't thought about before. After the hearing,
Teen Vogue
created a list of the "5 most ridiculous things the United States military has spent money on," comedian
Sarah Silverman tweeted out the AOC
hearing clip to her 12.6 million followers, Will and Grace actress
Debra Messing publicly expressed her gratitude
to AOC, and according to Crowdtangle, a social media analytics tool, the
NowThis clip of her in that congressional
hearing garnered more than 20 million impressions.
Ocasio-Cortez calling out costs charged by military contractor TransDigm. (YouTube)
Not only are members of Congress beginning to call attention to such undercovered issues, but perhaps they're even starting to
accomplish something. Just two weeks after that contentious hearing, TransDigm
agreed to return $16.1 million
in excess profits to the Department of Defense. "We saved more money today for the American people than our committee's entire budget
for the year," said House Oversight Committee Chair Elijah Cummings.
Of course, antiwar demonstrators have yet to pour into the streets, even though the wars we're already involved in continue to
drag on and a possible new one with Iran looms on the horizon. Still, there seems to be a notable trend in antiwar opinion and activism.
Somewhere just under the surface of American life lurks a genuine, diverse antiwar movement that appears to be coalescing around
a common goal: getting Washington politicians to believe that antiwar policies are supportable, even potentially popular. Call me
an eternal optimist, but someday I can imagine such a movement helping end those disastrous wars.
Allegra Harpootlian is a media associate at
ReThink Media , where she works with leading experts
and organizations at the intersection of national security, politics, and the media. She principally focuses on U.S. drone policies
and related use-of-force issues. She is also a political partner with the
Truman National Security Project . Find her on Twitter
@ally_harp .
"How Obama demobilized the antiwar movement"
By Brad Plumer
August 29, 2013
Washington Post
"Reihan Salam points to a 2011 paper by sociologists Michael T. Heaney and Fabio Rojas, who find that antiwar protests shrunk
very quickly after Obama took office in 2008 -- mainly because Democrats were less likely to show up:
Drawing upon 5,398 surveys of demonstrators at antiwar protests, interviews with movement leaders, and ethnographic observation,
this article argues that the antiwar movement demobilized as Democrats, who had been motivated to participate by anti-Republican
sentiments, withdrew from antiwar protests when the Democratic Party achieved electoral success, if not policy success in ending
the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Heaney and Rojas begin by puzzling over a paradox. Obama ran as an antiwar candidate, but his first few years in office were
rather different: "As president, Obama maintained the occupation of Iraq and escalated the war in Afghanistan. The antiwar movement
should have been furious at Obama's 'betrayal' and reinvigorated its protest activity. Instead, attendance at antiwar rallies
declined precipitously and financial resources available to the movement dissipated.""
Rob , July 4, 2019 at 14:20
The author may be too young to realize that the overwhelming driving force in the anti-Vietnam War movement was hundreds
of thousands of young men who were at risk of being drafted and sent to fight, die and kill in that godforsaken war. As the
movement grew, it gathered in millions of others as well. Absent the military draft today, most of America's youth don't seem
to give half a damn about the current crimes of the U.S. military. As the saying goes: They have no skin in the game.
bardamu , July 3, 2019 at 20:21
There has again been some shift in Sanders' public positions, while Tulsi Gabbard occupies a position that was not represented
in '16, and HR Clinton was more openly bent on war than anyone currently at the table, though perhaps because that much of her
position had become so difficult to deny over the years.
That said, Clinton lost to Obama in '08 because she could not as effectively deny her militarism. There was at the time within
the Democratic Party more and clearer movement against the wars than there is now. One might remember the run for candidacy
of Dennis Kucinich, for example. The 8 years of the Obama regime were a consistent frustration and disappointment to any antiwar
or anticorporate voice within the Democratic Party, but complaints were muted because many would not speak against a Blue or
a Black president. More than at any prior time, corporate media spokespersons could endorse radically pro-corporate positions
and imply or accuse their opposition of racism.
That leaves it unclear, however, what any antiwar voices have to do with the Democratic Party itself, particularly if we
take "the party" to mean the political organization itself as opposed to the people whom it claims to represent. The Party and
the DNC were major engines in the rigging of the 2016 Democratic nomination–and also, lest we forget, contributors to the Donald
Trump nomination campaign.
It should not escape us, as we search for souls and soulfulness among these remnants of Democratic Parties Past, that any
turn of the party against war is surely due to Hillary Clinton's loss to presumed patsy candidate Donald Trump in 2016–the least
and second-least popular major presidential contenders in history, clearly, in whichever order one wishes to put them.
There is some value in realism, then. So as much as one hates to criticize a Bernie Sanders in anything like the present
field that he runs in, his is not a consistently antiwar position: he has gone back and forth. Tulsi Gabbard is the closest
thing to an antiwar candidate within the Party. And under even under the most favorable circumstances, 2020 is at best not her
year.
Most big money says war. scorched earth, steep hierarchy, and small constitution. Any who don't like it had best speak up
and act up.
I am for Tulsi, a Senator from Hawaii not a rep as this article says. Folk Music was in when the peace movement was strong
and building, the same for Folk Rock who songs also had words you could get without Google.
So my way of "hoping" for an Anti-War/Peace Movement is to have a Folk Revival in my mind.
Nathan Mulcahy , July 3, 2019 at 14:11
The answer to the question why anti war movement is dead is so simple and obvious but apparently invisible to most Dems/libs/progressives
(excuse my inability to discern the distinctions between labels). The answer points to our onetime "peace" president Obama.
As far as foreign interventions go (and domestic spying, among other things) Obama had continued Baby Bush's policy. Even worse,
Obama had given a bipartisan seal of approval (and legality) to most of Baby Bush's crimes. In other words, for 8 years, meaning
during the "peace" president's reign, the loyal "lefty" sheeple have held their mouth when it came to war and peace.
Obama and the Dems have very effectively killed the ant war movement
The establishment will always be pro-war because there's so much money in it. Street demonstrations will never change that,
as we recently learned with Iraq. The only strategy that has a chance of working is anti-enlistment. If they don't have the
troops they can't invade anywhere, and recruitment is already a problem. It needs to be a bigger problem.
Anonymot , July 3, 2019 at 11:51
Sorry, ALL of these Democrat wannabes save one is ignorant of foreign affairs, foreign policy and its destruction of what
they blather on about – domestic vote-getting sky pies. Oh yes, free everything: schools, health care, social justices and services.
It's as though the MIC has not stolen the money from the public's pockets to get rich by sending cheap fodder out there to get
killed and wounded, amputated physically and mentally.
Hillary signed the papers and talked the brainless idiocy that set the entire Middle East on fire, because she couldn't stand
the sight of a man with no shirt on and sitting on the Russian equivalent of a Harley. She hates men, because she drew a bad
one. Huma was better company. Since she didn't know anything beyond the superficial, she did whatever the "experts" whispered
in her ears: War! Obama was in the same boat. The target, via gaining total control of oil from Libya to Syria and Iran was
her Putin hate. So her experts set up the Ukraine. The "experts" are the MIC/CIA and our fearless, brainless, corrupt military.
They have whispered the same psychotic message since the Gulf of Tonkin. We've lost to everyone with whom we've crossed swords
and left them devastated and America diminished save for the few.
So I was a Sanders supporter until he backed the warrior woman and I, like millions of others backed off of her party. It's
still her party. Everyone just loves every victim of every kind. They all spout minor variations on the same themes while Trump
and his neocons quietly install their right wing empire. Except for one who I spotted when she had the independence to go look
for herself in Syria.
Tulsi Gabbard is the only candidate to be the candidate who has a balance of well thought through, realistic foreign policy
as well as the domestic non-extremist one. She has the hurdle of being a too-pretty woman, of being from the remotest state,
and not being a screamer. Even this article, written about peace by a woman fails to talk about her.
Tulsi has the registered voter count and a respectable budget, but the New York Times which is policy-controlled by a few
of Hillary's billionaire friends has consistently shut her out, because Tulsi left the corrupt Hillary-owned DNC to back Sanders
and Hillary never forgave her.
If you want to know who is against Trump and war, take 5 minutes and listen to what she really said during the 1st debate
where the CBS folks gave her little room to talk. It will change your outlook on what really is possible.
Hi Anonymot; I also exited my Sanders support after over 100 cash donations and over a years painful effort. I will never
call him Bernie again; now it is Sanders, since Bernie makes him sound cute and cute was not the word that came into my mind
as Mr. Sanders missed his world moment at the democratic election and backed Hillary Clinton (I can not vote for EVIL). Sanders
then proceeded to give part of my money to the DNC & to EVIL Hillary Clinton.
So then what now? Easy as Pie; NO MORE DEMOCRATS EVER. The DNC & DCCC used Election Fraud & Election Crimes blatantly to
beat Bernie Sanders. Right out in the open. The DNC & DCCC are War Mongering more then the Republicans which is saying allot.
The mass media and major Internet Plateforms like Goggle & Facebook are all owned by Evil Oligarchs that profit from WAR and
blatantly are today suppressing all dissenting opinions (anti Free Speech).
I stopped making cash donation to Tulsi Gabbard upon the realization that the Democrats were not at all a force for Life
or Good and instead were a criminal organization. The voting for the lessor of two EVILs is 100% STUPID.
I told Tim Canova I could not support any Democrat ever again as I told Tulsi Gabbard. Tulsi is still running as a criminal
democrat. If she would run independent of the DNC then I would start to donate cash to her again. End of my story about Tulsi.
I do like her antiwar dialog, but there is no; so called changing, the DNC from the inside. The Oligarchs own the DNC and are
not supportive of "We The People" or the Constitution, or the American Republic.
The end of Tim Canova's effort was he was overtly CHEATED AGAIN by the DNC's Election Fraud & Election Crimes in his 2018
run for congress against Hillary Clinton's 100% corrupt campaign manager; who congress seated even over Tim's asking them not
to seat her until his law suites on her election crimes against him were assessed. Election crimes and rigged voting machines
in Florida are a way of life now and have been for decades and decades.
All elections must be publicly funded. All votes must be on paper ballots and accessible for recounts and that is just the
very minimums needed to start changing the 100% corrupted election system we Americans have been railroaded into.
The supreme Court has recently ruled that gerrymandering is OK. The supreme court has proven to be a political organization
with their Bush Gore decision and now are just political hacks and as such need to be ELECTED not appointed. Their rulings that
Money is Free Speech & that Corporations are People has disenfranchised "We the People". That makes the Supreme Court a tool
to be used by the world money elite to overturn the constitution of the United States of America.
No More War. No More War. No More War.
DW Bartoo , July 3, 2019 at 16:40
Absolutely spot-on, superb comment, P .Brooks.
DW
Nathan Mulcahy , July 3, 2019 at 18:08
I saw the light (with what the Dems are really about) after Kucinich's candidacy. That made me one of the very few lefties
in my circle not to have voted for Obama even the first time around. I hear a lot of talk about trying to reform the party from
inside. Utter bu** sh**. "You cannot reform Mafia".
Ever since Kucinich, I have been voting Green. No, this is not a waste of my vote. Besides, I cannot be complicit to war
crimes – that's what it makes anyone who votes for either of the two parties.
Steven , July 3, 2019 at 13:56
Wow you said a mouthful. It's worse than that its a cottage industry that includes gun running, drug running and human trafficking
netting Trillions to the MIC, CIA and other alphabet agencies you can't fight the mark of the beast.
Seer , July 3, 2019 at 14:01
I fully back/endorse Gabbard, but
The battering of Bernie is not fair. He is NOT a Democrat, therefore him being able to get "inside" that party to run AS
a Dem put him in a tenuous situation. He really had no option other than to support HRC lest his movement, everyone's movement,
would get extra hammering by the neocons and status quo powers. He wouldn't be running, again, had he not done this. Yeah, it's
a bad taste, I get it, but had he disavowed HRC would the outcome -Trump- been any different? The BLAME goes fully on the DNC
and the Clintons. Full stop.
I do not see AOC as a full progressive. She is only doing enough to make it appear so. The Green New Deal is stolen from
the Green Party and is watered down. Think of this as "Obama Care" for the planet. As you should know, Gabbard's Off Fossil
Fuels Act (OFF) actually has real teeth in it: and is closer to the Green Party's positions.
I support movements and positions. PRIMARY is peace. Gabbard, though not a pacifist, has the right path on all of this: I've
been around long enough to understand exactly how she's approaching all of this. She is, however, taking on EVERYONE. As powerful
a person as she is (she has more fortitude than the entire lot of combined POTUS candidates put together) going to require MASSIVE
support; sadly, -to this point- this article doesn't help by implying that people aren't interested in foreign policy (it perpetuates
the blockout of it- people have to be reeducated on its importance- not something that the MIC wants), people aren't yet able
to see the connections. The education will occur will it happen in a timely way such that people would elect Gabbard? (things
can turn on a dime, history has shown this; she has the makeup that suggests that she's going to have a big role in making history).
I did not support Bernie (and so far have not- he's got ample support; if it comes down to it he WILL get my vote- and I've
held off voting for many years because there's been no real "peace" candidate on the plate). Gabbard, however, has my support
now, and likely till the day I die: I've been around long enough to know what constitutes a great leader, and not since the
late 60s have we had anyone like her. If Bernie gets the nomination it is my prediction that he will have Gabbard high on his
staff, if not as VP: a sure fire way to win is to have Gabbard as VP.
I'm going to leave this for folks to contemplate as to whether Gabbard is real or not:
In a context in which Rio de Janeiro's evangelical churches have been accused of laundering money for the drug trafficking
gangs, all elements of Afro-Brazilian culture including caipoeira, Jango drumming, and participation in Carnaval parades, have
been banned by the traffickers in many favelas.
[end excerpt]
"caipoeria," is something that Gabbard has practiced:
"I trained in different martial arts since I was a kid including Capoeira -- an amazing art created by slaves in Brazil who
were training to fight and resist against their slave masters, disguising their training with music, acrobatics, and dance.
Yesterday I joined my friends Mestre Kinha and others at Capoeira Besouro Hawai'i for their batizado ceremony and some fun!
" – Tulsi Gabbard December 9, 2018
The GOAL is to get her into the upper halls of governing power. If the people cannot see fit to it then I'll support Sanders
(in the end) so that he can do it.
Harpootlian claims to see what's going on, but, unfortunately, she's not able to look close enough.
Anonymot, thank you for leading out here with Gabbard and her message.
michael , July 4, 2019 at 08:10
If Gabbard had the MSM coverage Buttigieg has received she probably be leading in the polls. It is surprising(?) that this
supposedly anti-war author mentions corporatist Mayor Pete but not Gabbard.
David , July 4, 2019 at 19:55
She DOES (briefly)mention Gabbard, but she missed the fact that Gabbard is the most strongly anti-war candidate. She gets
it entirely wrong about Buttigieg, who is strikingly pro-war, and supports getting in to a war with Iran.
And sadly, Ms. Gabbard is mired at the 1% mark in the polls, even after having performed so well in the debate.
This seems to me an indication of the public's lack of caring about our foreign wars.
antonio Costa , July 3, 2019 at 19:06
The reason she's "mired" is because a number of polls don't include her!! However they include, Marianne Williamson.
How's that for inverse totalitarianism par excellence .
Skip Scott , July 4, 2019 at 07:05
I did see one poll that had her at 2%. And given the reputation of many polling outfits, I take any professed results with
a grain of salt. Tulsi's press coverage (what little she gets) has been mostly defamatory to the point of being libelous. If
her strong performance continues in the primary debates despite all efforts to sabotage her, I think she could make a strong
showing. That said, at some point she will have to renounce the DNC controlled democratic party and run as an Independent if
she wants to make the General Election debates for 2020.
"Hillary signed the papers and talked the brainless idiocy that set the entire Middle East on fire, because she couldn't
stand the sight of a man with no shirt on and sitting on the Russian equivalent of a Harley. She hates men "
If I were to psychologize, I would conjecture more un-gendered stereotype, namely that of a good student. He/she diligently
learns in all classes from the prescribed textbooks and reading materials, and, alas, American education on foreign affairs
is dominated by retirees from CIA and other armchair warriors. Of course, nothing wrong about good students in general, but
I mean the type that is obedient, devoid of originality and independent thinking. When admonished, he/she remembers the pain
for life and strives hard not to repeat it. E.g. as First Lady, Hillary kissed Arafat's wife to emulate Middle East custom,
and NY tabloids had a feast for months.
Concerning Tulsi, no Hillary-related conspiracy is needed to explain the behavior of the mass media. Tulsi is a heretic to
the establishment, and their idea is to be arbiters of what and who belongs to the "mainstream", and what is radical, marginal
etc. Tulsi richly deserves her treatment. Confronted with taunts like "so you would prefer X to stay in power" (Assad, Maduro
etc.) she replies that it should not be up to USA to decide who stays in power, especially if no better scenario is in sight.
The gall, the cheek!
Strangely enough, Tulsi gets this treatment in places like The Nation and Counterpunch. As the hitherto "radical left" got
a whiff of being admitted to the hallowed mainstream from time to time, they try to be "responsible".
Mary Jones-Giampalo , July 4, 2019 at 00:39
Yes! Thank You I was gritting my teeth reading this article #Tulsi2020
Eddie , July 3, 2019 at 11:42
The end of the anti-war movement expired when the snake-oil pitchman with the toothy smile and dark skin brought his chains
we could beleive in to the White House. The so-called progressives simply went to sleep while they never criticized Barack Obama
for escalating W. Bush's wars and tax cuts for the rich.
The fake left wing in the US remained silent when Obama dumped trillions of dollars into the vaults of his bankster pals
as he stole the very homes from the people who voted him into office. Then along came the next hope and change miracle worker
Bernie Sanders. Only instead of working miracles for the working class, Sanders showed his true colors when he fcuked his constituents
to support the hated Hillary Clinton.
Let's start facing reality. The two-party dictatorship does not care about you unless you can pony up the big bucks like
their masters in the oligarchy and the soulless corporations do. Unless and until workers end to the criminal stranglehold that
the big-business parties and the money class have on the government, things will continue to slide into the abyss.
DW Bartoo , July 3, 2019 at 11:33
An informed awareness of imperialism must also include an analysis of how "technology" is used and abused, from the use of
"superior" weaponry against people who do not have such weapons, from blunderbuss and sailing ships, to B-52s and napalm, up
to and including technology that may be "weaponized" against civilian populations WiTHIN a society, be it 24/7 surveillance
or robotics and AI that could permit elites to dispense with any "need", on the part of the elites, to tolerate the very existence
of a laborung class, or ANY who earn their wealth through actual work, from maids to surgeons, from machine operators to professors.
Any assumption, that any who "work", even lawyers or military officers, can consider their occupation or profession as "safe",
is to assume that the scapegoating will stop with those the highly paid regard as "losers", such comfortable assumption may
very well prove as illusory and ephemeral as an early morning mist before the hot and merciless Sun rises.
The very notions of unfettered greed and limitless power, resulting in total control, must be recognized as the prime drivers
of endless war and shock-doctrine capitalism which, combined, ARE imperialism, unhinged and insane.
michael , July 3, 2019 at 11:06
This article is weak. Anyone who could equate Mayor Pete or the eleven Democrat "ex"-military and CIA analysts who gained
seats in Congress in 2018 as anti-war is clueless. Tulsi Gabbard is anti-regime change war, but is in favor of fighting "terrorists"
(created mostly by our CIA and Israel with Saudi funding). Mike Gravel is the only true totally anti-war 'candidate' and he
supports Gabbard as the only anti-War of the Democrats.
In WWI, 90% of Americans who served were drafted, in WWII over 60% of Americans who served were drafted. The Vietnam War "peace
demonstrations" were more about the Draft, and skin-in-the-game, than about War. Nixon and Kissinger abolished the Draft (which
stopped most anti-war protests), but continued carpet bombing Vietnam and neighboring countries (Operations Menu, Freedom Deal,
Patio, etc), and Vietnamized the War which was already lost, although the killing continued through 1973. The abolition of the
Draft largely gutted the anti-war movement. Sporadic protests against Bush/ Cheney over Afghanistan and Iraq essentially disappeared
under Obama/ Hillary in Afghanistan and Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Sudan. Since their National Emergency proclamations
no longer ever end, we are in a position to attack Venezuela (Obama), Ukraine (Obama), South Sudan (Obama), Iran (Carter, Clinton),
Libya (Obama), Somalia (Obama), Yemen (Obama), Nicaragua (Trump) and even Burundi (Obama) and the Central African Republic (Obama).
The continuing support of death squads in Honduras and other Latin American countries ("stability is more important than democracy")
has contributed to the immigration crises over the last five years.
As Pelosi noted about Democratic progressives "there are like five of them". Obama not only failed to reverse any of the police
state and warmongering of Bush/Cheney, he expanded both police state (arresting and prosecuting Chelsea Manning for exposing
war crimes, as well as more whistleblowers than anyone in history), and wars in seven Arab Muslim countries. Black Americans,
who had always been an anti-War bloc prior to Obama, converted to the new America. The Congressional Democrats joined with Republicans
to give more to the military budget than requested by Trump. (Clinton squandered the Peace Dividend when the Soviet Union fell,
and Lee Camp has exposed the $21 TRILLION "lost" by the Pentagon.)
The young author see anti-war improvements that are not there. The US is more pro-war in its foreign policies than at any time
in its history. When there was a Draft, the public would not tolerate decades of war (lest their young men died). Sanctions
are now the first attack (usually by National Emergencies!); the 500,000 Iraqi children killed by Clinton's sanctions (Madeline
Albright: "we think it was worth it!") is just sadism and psychopathy at the top, which is necessary for War.
DW Bartoo , July 3, 2019 at 11:38
Superb comment, michael, very much agreed with and appreciated.
DW
Anonymot , July 3, 2019 at 12:06
You are absolutely right. Obama and Hillary were the brilliant ideas of the MIC/CIA when they realized that NO ONE the Republicans
put up after Bush baby's 2nd round. They chose 2 "victims" black & woman) who would do what they were told to do in order to
promote their causes (blacks & get-filthy rich.) The first loser would get the next round. And that's exactly what happened
until Hillary proved to be so unacceptable that she was rejected. We traded no new war for an administration leading us into
a neo-nazi dictatorship.
Seer , July 3, 2019 at 14:04
Thank you for this comment!
Mickey , July 3, 2019 at 10:47
Tulsi Gabbard is the only peace candidate in the Democratic Party
Many current crises have the potential to escalate into a major confrontation between the nuclear powers, similar to the
Cuban missile crisis, though there is no comparable sense of alarm. Then, tensions were at boiling point, when a small military
exchange could have led to nuclear annihilation. Today there are many more such flashpoint – Syria, the South China Sea, Iran,
Ukraine to name a few. Since the end of the Cold War there has been a gradual movement towards third world war. Condemnation
of an attack on Iran must include, foremost, the warning that it could lead the US into a confrontation with a Sino-Russian
alliance. The warning from history is states go to war over interests, but ultimately – and blindly – end up getting the very
war they need to avoid: even nuclear war, where the current trend is going. https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
DW Bartoo , July 3, 2019 at 10:36
Many truly superb, well-informed, and very enlightening comments on this thread.
My very great appreciation to this site, to its authors, and to its exceptionally thoughtful and articulate commenters.
DW
DW Bartoo , July 3, 2019 at 10:20
I appreciate this author's perspective, research, and optimism.
Clearly, the young ARE far more open to embracing a future less warlike and hegemonic, while far too many of my generation
are wedded to childish myth and fantasy around U$ driven mayhem.
However, I would suggest that vision be broadened beyond opposition to war, which opposition, while important, must be expanded
to opposition to the larger issue of imperialism, itself.
Imperialism is not merely war, it includes economic warfare, both sanctions, internationally, and predatory debt loads, domestically,
in very many nations of the world, as well as privatization of the commons (which must be understood to include all resources
necessary to human existence).
Perpetual war, which profits only the few, is driven by precisely the same aims as pitting workers against each other, worldwide,
in a "game" of "race to the bottom", creating "credit" rather than raising wages, thus creating life-long indebtedness of the
many, which only benefits monopolized corporate interests, as does corporate ownership of such necessities as water, food production,
and most channels of communication, which permits corporations to easily shape public perception toward whatever ends suit corporate
purposes while also ensuring that deeper awareness of what is actually occurring is effectively stifled, deplatformed, or smeared
as dangerous foreign fake news or as hidden, or even as blatant, racial or religious hatred.
Above all, it is critically important that all these interrelated aspects of deliberate domination, control, and diminishment,
ARE talked about, openly, that we all may have better grasp of who really aligns with creating serious systemic change, especially
as traditionally assumed "tendencies" are shifting, quickly and even profoundly.
For example, as many here point out, the Democrats are now as much a war party as the Republicans, "traditionally" have been,
even as there is clear evidence that the Republican "base" is becoming less willing to go to war than are the Democratic "base",
as CNN and MSNBC media outlets strive to incite a new Cold War and champion and applaud aggression in Syria, Iran, and North
Korea.
It is the elite Democratic "leadership" and most Democratic Presidential hopefuls who now preach or excuse war and aggression,
with few actual exceptions, and none of them, including Tulsi Gabbard, have come anywhere near openly discussing or embracing,
the end of U$ imperialism.
Both neoliberal and neocon philosophies are absolutely dedicated to imperialism in all its destructive, even terminal, manifestations.
Seer , July 3, 2019 at 14:16
Exactly!
Gabbard has spoken out against sanctions. She understands that they're just another form of war.
The younger generations won't be able to financially support imperialist activities. And, they won't be, as the statements
to their enlistment numbers suggest, able to "man the guns." I'm thinking that TPTB are aware of this (which is why a lot of
drone and other automation of war machinery has been stepped up).
The recent alliance of Soros and Charles Koch, the Quincy Institute, is, I believe, a KEY turning point. Pretty much everything
Gabbard is saying/calling for is this institute's mission statement: and people ought to note that Gabbard has been in Charles
Koch's circle- might very well be that Gabbard has already influenced things in a positive way.
I also believe that all the great independent journalists, publishers (Assange taking the title here) and whistleblowers
(Manning taking the title here) have made a HUGE impact. Bless them all.
The US government consistently uses psychological operations on its own citizens to manufacture consent to kill anyone and
everyone. Meaningless propaganda phrases such as "Support Our Troops" and "National Security" and "War on Terror" are thrown
around to justify genocides and sieges and distract us from murder. There is no left wing or in American politics and there
has not been one since the inauguration of Ronald Reagan. All we have is neoconservatives and neoliberals representing the business
party for four decades. Killing is our business and business is good. Men are as monkeys with guns when it comes to politics
and religion.
One might be hard-pressed to find more outright perversions of reality in a mere two pages of text. Congratulations Congress,
you have indeed surpassed yourself.
So it's those dastardly Russians and Iranians who are responsible for the destabilization of the Middle East, "complicating
Israel's ability to defend itself from hostile action emanating from Syria." And apparently, it's the "ungoverned space" in
Syria that has "allowed" for the rise of terrorist factions in Syria, that (we must be reminded) are ever poised to attack "Western
targets, our allies and partners, and the U.S. homeland."
Good grief.
Bob Van Noy , July 3, 2019 at 08:29
Thank you Joe Lauria and Consortiumnews.
There is much wisdom and a good deal of personal experience being expressed on these pages. I especially want to thank IvyMike
and Dao Gen. Ivy Mike you're so right about our troops in Vietnam from 1965 to 1968, draftees and volunteers, they fought what
was clearly an internal civil war fought valiantly, beyond that point, Vietnam was a political mess for all involved. And Dao
Gen all of your points are accurate.
As for our legislators, please read the linked Foreign Affairs press release signed by over 400 leglislators On May 20th.,
2019 that address "threats to Syria" including the Russia threat. Clearly it will take action by the People and Peace candidates
to end this travesty of a foreign policy.
Vietnam a war triggered by the prevention of a mandated election by the USA which Ho Chi Minh was likely to win, who had
already recently been Premier of a unified Vietnam.
Sorry, being courageous in a vicious cause is not honorable.
Speaking a true history and responsibility is honorable.
Bob Van Noy , July 3, 2019 at 11:07
No need to be sorry James Clooney. I did not mention honor in my comment, I mentioned valiant (courage and determination).
American troupes ultimately fight honorably for each other not necessarily for country. This was the message and evaluation
of Captain Hal Moore To General Westmorland And Robert McNamera after the initial engagement of US troops and NVA and can be
viewed as a special feature of the largely inaccurate DVD "We Were Soldiers And Young).
The veterans group About Face is doing remarkable work against the imperial militarization that threatens to consume our
country and possibly the world. This threat includes militarization of US police, a growing nuclear arms race, and so-called
humanitarian wars. About Face is also working to train ordinary people as medics to take these skills into their communities
whose members are on the front lines of police brutality.
Tulsi Gabbard is the only candidate with a strong, enlightened understanding of the costs of our many imperial wars Costs to
ourselves in the US and costs to the people we invade in order to "save" them. I voted for McGovern in 1972. I would vote for
Tuldi's Gabbard in 2020 if given the chance.
Seer , July 3, 2019 at 14:35
Vote for her now by supporting her*! One cannot wait until the DNC (or other party) picks the candidate FOR us. Anyone serious
about peace ought to support her, and do it now and far into the future. I have always supported candidates who are champions
for peace, no matter their "party" or whatever: I did not, though I wish that I had, support Walter Jones -of Freedom Fries
fame- after he did a 180 (Gabbard knew Jones, and respected him); it took a lot of guts for him to do this, but his honest (like
Ron Paul proved) was proven and his voters accepted him (and likely shifted their views along with him).
* Yeah, one has to register giving money, but for a lousy $1 She has yet to qualify for the third debate (need 130k unique
donations): and yet Yang has! (nothing against him, but come on, he is not "Commander in Chief" material [and at this time it
is, as Gabbard repeats, the single most important part of being president]).
Mary Jones-Giampalo , July 4, 2019 at 00:43
Strongly agree Only Tulsi
triekc , July 3, 2019 at 07:14
Not surprising there was little or no antiwar sentiment in the newfound civic engagement after Trump's election, since the
majority of those participating were supporters of the war criminals Obama, Clinton, and their corporate, war mongering DEM
party. Those same people today, support Obama-chaperone Biden, or one of the other vetted corporate DEMs, including socialist-in-name-only
Sanders, who signed the DEM loyalty oath promising to continue austerity for the poor, socialism for rich, deregulation, militarism,
and global war hegemony. The only party with an antiwar blank was the Green Party, which captured >2% of the ~130 million votes
in the rigged election- even though Stein is as competent as Clinton, certainly more competent than Trump, and the Green platform,
unlike Sanders', explained how to pay for social and environmental programs by ending illegal wars in at least 7 countries,
closing 1000 military command posts located all over earth, removing air craft carrier task forces from every ocean, cutting
defense spending.
I believe the CIA operation "CARWASH" was under Obama, which gave us Ultra fascism in one of the largest economies in the
world, Brazil.
DW Bartoo , July 3, 2019 at 12:02
Superb comment, trieke, and I especially appreciate your mention of Jill Stein and the Green Party.
It is unfortunate that the the Green New Deal, championed by AOC is such a pale and intentionally pusillanimous copy of the
Green New Deal articulated by Stein, which pointedly made clear that blind and blythe economic expansion must cease, that realistic
natural constraints and carrying capacity be accepted and profligate energy squandering come to an end.
That a sane, humane, and sustainable economic system, wholly compatible with ecological responsibility can provide neaningful
endeavor, justly compensated, for all, as was coherently addressed and explained to any who cared to examine the substance of
that, actual, and realistic, original, GND.
Such a vision must be part of successfully challenging, and ending, U$ imperialism.
Seer , July 3, 2019 at 14:53
And Trump likely signed a GOP pledge. It's all superficial crap, nothing that is really written in stone.
I LOVE Stein. But for the sake of the planet we have little time to wait on getting the Green Party up to speed (to the clasp
the levers of power). Unless Gabbard comes out on top (well, the ultimate, and my favorite, long-shot would be Gravel, but reality
is something that I have to accept) it can only really be Sanders. I see a Sanders nomination as being the next best thing (and,
really, the last hope as it all falls WAY off the cliff after that). He would most certainly have Gabbard along (if not as VP,
which is the best strategy for winning, then as some other high-ranking, and meaningful cabinet member). Also, there are a lot
of folks that would be coming in on his coattails. It is THESE people that will make the most difference: although he's got
his flaws, Ro Kana would be a good top official. And, there are all the supporters who would help push. Sanders is WAY better
than HRC (Obama and, of course, Trump). He isn't my favorite, but he has enough lean in him to allow others to help him push
the door open: I'll accept him if that's what it take to get Gabbard into all of this.
Sometimes you DO have to infiltrate. Sanders is an infiltrator (not a Dem), though he treads lightly. Gabbard has already
proven her intentions: directly confronted the DNC and the HRC machine (and her direct attack on the MIC is made very clear);
and, she is indirectly endorsed by some of the best people out there who have run for POTUS: Jill Stein; Ron Paul; Mike Gravel.
We cannot wait for the Dems (and the MIC) to disarm. We need to get inside "the building" and disarm. IF Sanders or Gabbard
(and no Gravel) don't get the nomination THEN it is time to open up direct "warfare" and attack from the "outside" (at this
time there should be enough big defectors to start swinging the tide).
Eddie S , July 3, 2019 at 23:34
Yes trieke, I voted for Stein in 2016, and I plan on voting Green Party again in 2020. I see too many fellow progressives/liberals/leftists
(whatever the hell we want to call ourselves) agonizing about which compromised Democrat to vote-for, trying to weigh their
different liabilities, etc. I've come to believe that my duty as a voter is to vote for the POTUS candidate/party whose stances/platform
are closest to my views, and that's unequivocally the Green Party. My duty as a voter does NOT entail 'voting for a winner',
that's just part of the two-party-con that the Dems & Reps run.
jmg , July 3, 2019 at 07:06
The big difference is that, during the Vietnam years, people could *see* the war. People talked a lot about "photographs
that ended the Vietnam war", such as the napalm girl, etc.
The government noticed this. There were enormous pressures on the press, even a ban on returning coffin photos. Now, since
the two Iraq wars, people *don't see* the reality of war. The TV and press don't show Afghanistan, don't show Yemen, didn't
show the real Iraq excepting for Chelsea Manning and Julian Assange, who are in prison because of this.
And the wars go on:
"The US government and military are preventing the public from seeing photographs that depict the true horror of the Iraq
war."
For example, we all know that mainstream media is war propaganda now, itself at war on truth and, apart from some convenient
false flags to justify attacks, they very rarely let the very people suffering wars be heard to wake viewers up, and don't often
even show this uncensored reality of war anymore, not like the true images of this old, powerful video:
Happy Xmas (War Is Over! If You Want It)
So this is Xmas
And what have you done
-- John Lennon
mbob -- thank you -- has already put this very well, but it is above all the Dems, especially Obama and the Clintons, who
killed the antiwar movement. Obama was a fake, and his foreign policy became even more hawkish after Hillary resigned as SoS.
His reduction of Libya, the richest state in Africa, to a feudal chaotic zone in which slavery is once more prominent and his
attempt to demonize Syria, which has more semi-democracy and women's rights than any of the Islamic kingdoms the US supports
as its allies, and turn Syria into a jihadi terrorist hell, as well as Obama's bombing of other nations and his sanctions on
still other nations such as Venezuela, injured and killed at least as many people as did GW Bush's invasion of Iraq. Yet where
was the antiwar movement? In the 21st century the US antiwar movement has gained most of its strength from anti-Repub hatred.
The current uptick of antiwar feeling is probably due mostly to hatred of Trump. Yet Trump is the first president since Carter
not to invade or make a major attack on a foreign country. As a businessman, his policy is to use economic warfare instead of
military warfare.
I am not a Trump supporter, and strong sanctions are a war crime, and Trump is also slow to reduce some of Obama's overseas
bombing and other campaigns, yet ironically he is surely closer to being a "peace president" than Obama. Moreover, a major reason
Trump won in 2016 was that Hillary was regarded as the war and foreign intervention candidate, and in fact if Hillary had won,
she probably would have invaded Syria to set up her infamous "no-fly zone" there, and she might have bombed Iran by now. We
might even be in a war with Russia now. At the same time, under Trump the Dem leadership and the Dem-leaning MSM have pursued
an unabashedly neocon policy of attacking from the right Trumps attempts at detente with Russia and scorning his attempts to
negotiate a treaty with N Korea and to withdraw from Syria and Afghanistan. The main reason why Trump chose dangerous neocons
like Bolton and Pompeo as advisors was probably to shield himself a little from the incessant and sometimes xenophobic attacks
from the Dem leadership and the MSM. The Dem leadership seems motivated not only by hatred of Trump but also, and probably more
importantly, by a desire to get donations from the military-industrial complex and a desire to ingratiate itself with the Intel
Community and the surveillance state in order to get various favors. Look, for example, at Adam Schiff, cheerleader-in-chief
for the IC. The system of massive collusion between the Dem party elite and the US deep state was not as advanced during the
Vietnam War era as it is now. 2003 changed a lot of things.
The only Dem presidential candidates who are philosophically and securely antiwar are Gabbard and Gravel. Even Bernie (and
even more so, Warren) can't be trusted to stand up to the deep state if elected, and anyway, Bernie's support for the Russiagate
hoax by itself disqualifies him as an antiwar politician, while the Yemen bill he sponsored had a fatal loophole in it, as Bernie
well knew. I love Bernie, but he is neither antiwar nor anti-empire. As for Seth Moulton, mentioned in the article, he is my
Rep, and he makes some mild criticisms of the military, but he is a rabid hawk on Syria and Iran, and he recently voted for
a Repub amendment that would have punished Americans who donate to BDS organizations. And as for the younger generation of Dems,
they are not as antiwar as the article suggests. For every AOC among the newly elected Dems in 2018, there were almost two new
Dems who are military vets or who formerly worked for intel agencies. This does not bode well. As long at the deep state, the
Dem elite, and the MSM are tightly intertwined, there will be no major peace movement in the near future, even if a Dem becomes
president. In fact, a Dem president might hinder the formation of a true antiwar movement. Perhaps when China becomes more powerful
in ten or twenty years, the unipolar US empire and permanent war state will no longer look like a very good idea to a large
number of Americans, and the idea of a peace movement will once again become realistic. The media have a major role to play
in spreading truthful news about how the current US empire is hurting domestic living standards. Rather than hopey-hope wish
lists, no-holds-barred reporting will surely play a big role.
DW Bartoo , July 3, 2019 at 12:05
Absolutely superb comment, Dao Gen.
DW
Seer , July 3, 2019 at 15:07
Another fine example of why I think there is hope! (some very sharp commentators!)
A strong leader can make all the difference. The example gets set from the top: not that this is my preference, just that
it's the reality we have today. MLK Jr. was such a leader, though it was MANY great people that were in his movement/orbit that
were the primary architects. I suppose you could say it's a "rally around the flag" kind of deal. Just as Trump stunned the
System, I believe that it can be stunned from the "left" (the ultimate stunning would be from a Gravel win, but I'm thinking
that Gabbard would be the one that has what it takes to slip past).
I really wish that people would start asking candidates who they think have been good cabinet members for various positions.
This could help give an idea of the most important facet of an administration: who the POTUS selects as key cabinet members
tells pretty much everything you need to know. Sadly, Trump had a shot at selecting Gabbard and passed on her: as much as I
detest Trump, I gave him room in which to work away from the noecon/neolib death squads (to his credit he's mostly just stalemated
them- for a rookie politician you could say that this has been an impressive feat; he's tried to instigate new wars but has,
so far, "failed" [by design?]).
geeyp , July 3, 2019 at 01:19
"We saved more money today for the American people ." – Elijah Cummings. Yea? Well then, give it to us!! You owe us a return
of our money that you have wasted for years.
mark , July 3, 2019 at 00:17
Same old, same old, same old, same old.
Prospective candidates spewing out the same tired old hot air about how, this time, it really, really, really, really will be
different.
There won't be any more crazy multitrillion wars for Israel.
Honest.
Just like Dubya.
Just like Obomber.
Just like the Orange Baboon.
Whilst simultaneously begging for shekels from Adelson, Saban, Singer, Marcus.
And this is the "new anti war movement."
Yeah.
Tom Kath , July 3, 2019 at 00:04
Every extreme elicits an extreme response. Our current western pacifist obsession is no exception. By prohibiting argument,
disagreement, verbal conflict, and the occasional playground "dust up" on a personal level, you seem to make the seemingly less
personal war inevitable.
Life on earth is simply not possible without "a bit of biff".
An aware person may not react extremely to a extreme. USA slaughtered 5 to 10 million Vietnamese for no apparent reason other
than projection of power yet the Vietnamese trade with the USA today.
Who prohibits argument? Certainly not those with little power; it's the militarily and politically powerful that crush dissent,
(Tinamen Square , Occupy Wall Street). How much dissent does the military allow? Why is Assange being persecuted?
I believe even the most militant pacifist would welcome a lively debate on murder, death and genocide, as a channel for education
and edification.
Antonio Costa , July 2, 2019 at 20:53
Weak essay. AOC hops from cause to cause. She rarely/ever says anything about US regime change wars, and the bombing of children.
She's demonstrated no anti-war bona fides.
Only Tulsi Gabbard has forthright called for an end to regime change wars, the warmongers and reduction in our military.
The power is with the powerful. We'll not see an end to war, nor Medicare for All or much of anything regarding student debt.
These are deep systemic problems calling for systemic solutions beginning with how we live on the planet(GND is a red herring),
the GDP must become null and void if we are to behave as if plundering the planet is part of "progress". It needs to be replaced
to some that focuses on quality of life as the key to prosperity. The geopolitics of the world have to simply STOP IT. It's
not about coalitions between Russia and China and India to off-set the US imperialists. That's an old game for an empty planet.
The planet is full and exceeding it capacity and is on fire. Our geopolitics must end!
Not one of these candidates come close to focusing on the systemic problem(s) except Gabbard's focus on war because it attacks
the heart of the American Imperial Empire.
Maxime , July 3, 2019 at 09:24
I agree with you that you americans will probably not see the end of your system and the end of your problems any time soon.
BUT I disagree on that you seems to think it's inevitable. I'm not american, I'm french, and reading you saying you think
medicare for all, no student debt and end to endless wars are systemic problems linked to GDP and the current economic system
is well, amusing. We have medicare for all, in fact even better than your medicare, we have no student cost for our educating
system, and still in both cases often better results than yours, even if we are behind some of our northern neighbors, but they
don't pay for these either. And we don't wage endless wars, even if we have ourselves our own big war problems, after all we
were in Lybia, we are in Syria, we are in Mali and other parts of Africa.
We also have a big militaro-industrial complex, in fact very alike the american one. But we made clear since much longer
than we would not accept as much wars, in part because the lesson we got from WW2 and Cold War was to learn to live together
with our hated neighbor. You know, the one the other side of the Rhine. Today France is a diplomatic superpower, often the head
of the european spear onthe subject, we got feared elite military, and we are proud of that, but we would not even accept more
money (in proportion) given to our military complex.
And you know the best news (for the americans)? we have an history of warmongering going back millenias. We learn to love
Caesar and the "Guerre des Gaules", his invasion of Gauls. We learn how Franks invaded their neighbors and built the first post-roman
Empire. We learn how crusaders were called Franks, how we built our nation and his pride on ashes of european continental english
hopes and german holy empire aspirations. We learn how Napolean nearly achieved to built a new continental Empire, how we never
let them passed at Verdun, and how we rose in the face of a tyran in 1944.
All of this is still in our history books, and we're still proud of it. But today, if most of us were to be asked what we
were proud about recent wars France got into, it would be how our president vetoed USA when they tried to got UN into Irak and
forced them to invade illegally, and without us.
I think my country's revelation was Algeria's independance war. One bloody and largely filled with war crimes and crimes against
humanity. We're ashamed of it, and I think we, as a nation, learned from it that stopping wars on our soil wasn't enough. I
still don't understand how americans can still wage wars after Vietnam, but I am not american. Still, even the most warmongering
nation can learn. Let's hope you will be quicker than us, because we got millennias of bloody history before even the birth
of USA.
Eddie S , July 3, 2019 at 23:15
Thanks Maxime for a foreign perspective! I'm often curious what people in foreign countries think of our current politics
in the US,especially when I read analysis/commentaries by US writers (even ones I respect) who say "Oh most of our allies think
this or that" -- - maybe they're right or maybe they're wrong or somewhere in-between, but it's interesting getting a DIRECT
opinion from a fellow left-of-center citizen from a foreign state.
I agree with your points that European countries like France almost all have their own bloody history including an imperial
period, but the two big World Wars that killed SO many people and destroyed so many cities in Europe were so tragic and wasteful
that I suspect they DO continue to act as a significant deterrent to the saber-rattling that the US war mongers are able to
engage-in. For too many US citizens 'war' is just something that's mentioned & sometimes displayed on a screen, just like a
movie/TV program/video-game, and there's a non-reality to it because it's so far away and seldom directly affects them. Geography
has famously isolated us from the major death & destruction of war and enables too many armchair warriors to talk boldly and
vote for politicians who pander to those conceits. In a not-so-subtle way, the US IS the younger offspring of Europe, where
Europe has grown-up due to some hard lessons, while the US is going through its own destructive stage of 'lesson-learning'.
Hopefully this learning stage will be over soon and won't involve a world war.
DW Bartoo , July 3, 2019 at 12:48
Tulsi Gabbard is, indeed,pointing at part of a major organ of imperialism, Antonio Costa, yet habeas corpus, having the whole
body of imperialism produced is necessary for the considered judgement of a people long terrorized by fictitious "monsters"
and "demons", if they are to understand that shooting warfate is but one part of the heart, while the other is economic warfare.
Both brutally destructive, even if the second is hidden from public awareness or dismissed as "a price worth paying". Imperialism
pays no price (except "blow-back", which is merely "religious extremism" as explained by a fully complicit MSM).
And the "brain" behind it all?
That is corporate/military/political/deep state/media greed – and their desperate need/ambition for total, and absolute,
control.
Only seeing the whole body may reveal the true size of the threat and the vicious nature of the real danger.
Some may argue that it is "too soon", "too early", or "too costly", politically, for Gabbard, even if she, herself, might
see imperialism as the real monster and demon, to dare describe the whole beast.
Frankly, this time, Tulsi's candidacy, her "run" for President, is not likely to see her become the Dem nominee, most likely
that will be Kamala Harris (who will happily do the bidding of brute power), rather, it is to lay the firm and solid foundation
of actual difference, of rational perspective, and thoughtful, diplomatic international behavior.
To expose the whole, especially the role of the MSM, in furthering all the rest of the lumbering body of Zombie imperialism,
would be far more effective in creating an substantial "opening" for alternative possibilities, even a new political party,
next time.
Seer , July 3, 2019 at 15:31
I'm figuring that Warren and Harris will take one another out. Climbing to the top requires this. But, Gabbard doesn't stop
fighting, and if there's a fighter out there it is her: mentally and physically she is the total package.
Sanders' 2016 campaign was ignored, he wasn't supposed to go anywhere, but if not for the DNC's meddling he would be POTUS
right now (I have zero doubt over that). So too was Obama's climb from nowhere: of course, Obama was pushed up by the System,
the System that is NOT behind Gabbard. And then there's the clown at the helm (Trump). I refuse to ignore this history.
Gababard is by no means out. Let's not speak of such things, especially when her campaign, and message, is just starting
to burst out: the MSM is the last to admit the state of things unfavorable to the wealthy, but out on the Internet Gabbard is
very much alive. She is the best candidate (with the best platform of visibility) for peace. She has all the pieces. One comment
I read out on the internet (someone, I believe, not in the US) was that Gabbard was a gift to the Americans. Yes, I believe
this to be the case: if you really look closely you'll see exactly how this is correct. I believe that we cannot afford to treat
this gift with other than the utmost appreciation. Her sincerity when she says that she was/is willing to die for her fellow
soldiers (in reference to LBGT folks, though ALL apply) is total. She is totally committed to this battle: as a warrior in politics
she's proven herself with her support, the loyalty, for Sanders (at risk to her political career- and now look, she's running
for POTUS, she continues to come out on top!).
IvyMike , July 2, 2019 at 20:14
I burned my draft card, grew my hair out, and smoked pot and was anti war as heck. But the peace demonstrations (and riots)
in the 60's and 70's did not have much effect on how the U.S. Government prosecuted the Vietnam War. It is little recognized
how hard American troops fought from 1965 to 1968. Our air mobile troops in particular made a great slaughter of NVA and VC
while also taking heavy casualties.
We were having such success that no one in the military thought the enemy could keep up the fight. Then, the Tet offensive
with the beaten enemy attacking every city in the South.
Then the politicians and Generals knew, given the super power politics surrounding the war, that we had lost. We had failed
to recognize that we had not intervened in a Civil War, in truth Vietnam as a whole was fighting for freedom from Imperialism
and we had no friends in the South, just a corrupt puppet government. Instead of getting out, Nixon made the unforgivable choice
to slowly wind the war down until he could get out without losing, Peace With Honor the ultimate triumph of ego over humanity.
Americans had a chance to choose a peace candidate in 1972, instead Nixon won with a big majority.
The military has never been able to admit they were defeated on the battlefield by North Vietnam, blaming it instead on the
Liberal Media and the Anti War movement. Believing that lie they continue to fight unwinnable wars in which we have no national
interest at stake. The media and the people no longer fight against war, but it never really made a difference when we did.
Realist , July 3, 2019 at 05:17
I too hoped for a miracle and voted for George. But then I always voted for the loser in whatever state I happened to be
living in at the particular time. I think Carter was a rare winning pick by me but only once. I got disgusted with voting and
sat out the Clinton campaigns, only returning to vote against the Bush juggernaut. In retrospect, Perot should have won to make
a real difference. I sided with the winner in Obama, but the loser turned out to be America getting saddled with that two-faced
hypocrite. Nobel Peace Prize winner indeed! (What did he spend the money on?) When you listen to their campaign promises be
aware they are telegraphing how they plan to betray you.
triekc , July 3, 2019 at 07:45
American people in mass need to hit reset button. A yellow vest-like movement made up of tens of millions of woke people,
who understand the democrats and republicans are the left and right wing of the oligarch party,
US elections have been and continue to be rigged, and the US constitution was written to protect the property (such
as slaves) of oligarchs from the people, the founding oligarchs feared real democracy, evident by all the safeguards they built
into our government to protect against it, that remain in tact today.
We need a new 21st century constitution. Global capitalism needs to be greatly curtailed, or ended out right, replaced by
ecosocialism, conservation, restoration of earth focussed society
Seer , July 3, 2019 at 15:38
And just think that back then there was also Mike Gravel. The CIA did their work in the 60s to kill the anti-war movement:
killing all the great social leaders.
Why wars are "lost" is because hardly is there a time when there's an actual "mission statement" on what the end of a given
war will look like. Tulsi Gabbard has made it clear that she would NOT engage in any wars unless there was a clear objective,
a clear outcome lined out, and, of course, it was authorized by THE PEOPLE (Congress).
All wars are about resources. We cannot, however, admit this: the ruling capitalists won't allow that to be known/understood
lest they lose their power.
Realist , July 3, 2019 at 04:59
Ya got all that right, especially the part about the analysts essentially declaring the war lost after Tet. I remember that
offered a lot of hope on the campuses that the war would soon end (even though we lost), especially to those of us near graduation
and facing loss of that precious 2S deferment. Yet the big fool marched on, getting my generation needlessly slaughtered for
four or five more years.
And, yes, the 2 or 3 million dead Vietnamese did matter, to those with a conscience. Such a price to keep Vietnam out of
Russia's and China's orbit. Meanwhile they set an independent course after kicking us out of their land and even fought a war
with China. We should still be paying reparations for the levels of death and destruction we brought to a country half a world
away with absolutely no means or desire to threaten the United States. All our wars of choice, starting with Korea, have been
similar crimes against humanity. Turkey shoots against third world societies with no way to do us any harm. But every one of
them fought ferociously to the death to defend their land and their people. Inevitably, every occupier is sent packing as their
empire crumbles. Obviously, Americans have been too thick to learn this from mere history books. We will only learn from our
tragic mistakes. I see a lot of lessons on the upcoming schedule.
USA did not "intervene" in a civil war. USA paid France to continue it's imperial war and then took over when France fled
defeated. USA prevented a mandated election Ho Chi Minh would win and then continued western imperial warfare against the Vietnamese
( even though Vietnamese was/is bulwark against China's territorial expansion).
mauisurfer , July 2, 2019 at 20:12
The Watson study says: "Indeed, the DOD is the world's largest institutional user of petroleum and correspondingly,
the single largest producer of greenhouse gases (GHG) in the world.4"
This is a gross UNDERcount of emissions. It includes ONLY petroleum burned.
It does NOT count explosions from bombs, missiles, rockets, rifles, etc.
Perhaps someone could provide an estimate of this contribution to greenhouse gases???
Don't worry, Elizabeth Warren has a plan to operate the military on renewables! (she can continue to make sure her constituency,
which is Raytheon, is well served)
Raytheon, one of the biggest employers in Warren's state, where it's headquartered, "has a positive relationship with Sen.
Warren, and we interact with her and her staff regularly," Michael Doble, a spokesman for the company, said.
jo6pac , July 2, 2019 at 20:12
This awful news for the merchants of death and I'm sure they're working overtime to stop silliness;-). I do hope this isn't
killed by those that love the endless wars.
Thanks AH
mbob , July 2, 2019 at 20:10
Perhaps there is no open anti-war movement because the Democratic party is now pro-war. Rather than support President
Trump's efforts to end the Korean War, to reduce our involvement in the Middle East and to pursue a more peaceful path with
Russia, the Democratic party (with very, very few exceptions) is opposed to all these things.
The Democratic party places its hatred for Trump above its professed love of peace.
President Obama, the Nobel peace prize winner, started a war with Libya, which had neither attacked nor threatened the
US and which, by many accounts, was trying to improve relations with the US. GW Bush unnecessarily attacked Iraq and Clinton
destroyed Haiti and bombed Yugoslavia, among other actions.
From a peace perspective, Trump looks comparatively great (provided he doesn't attack Iraq or invade Venezuela). But, since
it's impossible to recognize Trump for anything positive, or to support him in any way, it's now impossible for Democrats to
promote peace. Doing so might help Trump. It would, of necessity, require acknowledging Trump's uniqueness among recent US Presidents
in not starting new wars.
Realist , July 3, 2019 at 03:28
I agree. mbob makes perfect sense in his analysis.
The Democrats must be brought back to reality with a sound repudiation by the voters, otherwise they are of no use to America
and will have no long-term future.
Obama escalated Afghanistan when he had a popular mandate to withdraw. He facilitated the the Syrian rebellion in conjunction
with ISIS funding Saudi Arabia and Qatar. He instigated the Zalaya (primarily Hillary) and the Ukraine rebellion.
Trump supports the Yemeni genocide.
But yes citizens have been directed to hate Trump the man/symptom rather than the enduring Imperial predatory capitalistic
system.
Opps sorry; so many interventions and invasions, under Obama, special forces trained Malian general overthrew the democratically
elected president of Mali, result, more war,death and destruction.
Robert , July 3, 2019 at 10:48
You are correct in your analysis. Allegra Harpootlian is searching for the peace lobby among Democrat supporters, where it
no longer resides.
As a result of corporate-controlled mainstream media and their support for Democrat elites, Democrat supporters have largely
been brainwashed into hatred for Donald Trump and everything he stands for. This hatred blinds them to the far more important
issue of peace.
Strangely, there is huge US support to remove troops from the ME, but this support resides with the overwhelming majority
of Donald Trump voters. Unfortunately, these are not individuals who typically go to peace demonstrations, but they are sincere
in bringing all US troops home from the ME. Donald Trump himself lobbied on this, and with the exceptions of his anti-Iranian
/ pro-Israel / pro-Saudi Arabia stance and withdrawal from JCPOA, he has not only backed down from military adventurism, but
is the first President since Eisenhower to raise the issue of the influence of the military-industrial complex.
In the face of strong opposition, he is the first President ever to enter North Korea and meet with Kim Jong Un to discuss
nuclear weapons. Mainstream media continues its war-mongering rhetoric, attacking Trump for his "weakness" in not retaliating
against Iran, or in meeting "secretly" with Putin.
Opposition to Trump's peace efforts are not limited to MSM, however, but are entrenched in Democrat and Republican elites,
who attack any orders he gives to withdraw from the ME. It was not Trump, but Democrat and Republican elites who invited NATO's
Stoltenberg to speak to Congress in an attempt to spite Trump.
In essence, you have President Trump and most of his supporters trying to withdraw from military engagements, with
active opposition from Democrats like Adam Schiff, and Republican elites, actively promoting war and military spending.
DJT is like a less-likeable Inspector Clouseau. Sometimes ineptitude is a blessing. You also have a few Republicans, like
journalist Tucker Carlson of Fox News, and Democrats, like Tulsi Gabbard, actively pushing the message of peace.
Erelis , July 3, 2019 at 20:45
I think you got it. The author is right in the sense that there is an anti-war movement, but that movement is in many ways
hidden. As bizarre as it may seen counter to CW wisdom, and in some way ironically crazy, one of the biggest segments of anti-war
sentiment are Trump supporters. After Trump's decision not to attack Iran, I went to various right wing commentators who attacked
Trump, and the reaction against these major right wing war mongers was to support Trump. And with right wing commentators who
supported Trump, absolute agreement. These is of course based on my objective reading reading and totally subjective. But I
believe I am right.
This made me realize there is an untapped anti-war sentiment on the right which is being totally missed. And a lack of imagination
and Trump derangment syndrome which blocks many on the anti-war Left to see it and use it for an anti-war movement. There was
an article in The Intercept that looked research on the correlation between military deaths and voting preference. Here is the
article:
And the thing is that Trump was in many ways the anti-war candidate. And those areas that had high military death rates voted
for Trump. I understand the tribal nature of political affiliation, but it seems what I have read and this article, there may
be indeed an untapped anti-war stance with Trump supporters.
And it really just challenges my own beliefs that the major obstacle to the war mongers are Trump supporters.
mbob – I couldn't have said it better myself. Except to add that in addition to destroying Libya, the Nobel Peace Prize winner
Obama, ably assisted by Hillary Clinton, also destroyed Honduras and the Ukraine.
Anarcissie , July 3, 2019 at 11:55
Historically, the Democratic Party has been pro-war and pro-imperialism at least since Wilson. The hatred for Trump on their
part seems to be based entirely on cultural issues -- he is not subservient enough to their gods.
But as for antiwar demonstrations, it's been proved in the streets that they don't accomplish anything. There were huge demonstrations
against the war in Vietnam, but it ground on until conservatives got tired of it. At least half a million people demonstrated
against the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and no one important cared. Evidently more fundamental issues than the war of the moment
are involved and I think that is where a lot of people are turning now. The ruling class will find this a lot harder to deal
with because it's decentralized and widely distributed. Hence the panic about Trump and the seething hatred of Sanders.
mbob , July 3, 2019 at 18:15
I attempted to make three points in my post. First, Democrats are now pro-war. Second, solely regarding peace, Trump looks
better than all other recent Presidents because he hasn't started any new wars. Third, the inability of Democrats (or the public
as a whole) to give Trump the benefit of a doubt, or to support him in any way, is contrary to the cause of peace.
Democrats should, without reservation, support Trump's effort to end the Korean War. They should support Trump's desire to
improve relations with Russia. They don't do either of those things. Why? Because it might hurt them politically.
Your comment does not challenge the first two points and reinforces the third.
As for Yemen, yes, Trump is wrong. Democrats rightly oppose him on Yemen -- but remarkably tepidly. Trump is wrong about
a lot of things. I don't like him. I didn't vote for him. But I will vote for him if Democrats nominate someone worse than him,
which they seem inclined to do. (Gabbard is better than Trump. Sanders probably. Maybe Warren. Of the three, only Warren receives
positive press. That makes me skeptical of her.)
Trump stood up to his advisors, Bolton and Pompeo, regarding both Iran and Venezuela. Obama, on the other hand, did not.
He followed the advice of his advisors, with disastrous consequences.
>>In addition to Tuesday's sanctions, the Treasury Department issued an advisory to maritime shipping companies, warning
them off transporting oil to Syria or risking their property and money seized if kept with financial institutions that follow
U.S. sanctions law.
"The United States will aggressively seek to impose sanctions against any party involved in shipping oil to Syria, or seeking
to evade our sanctions on Iranian oil," said Sigal Mandelker, the Treasury undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence,
in a release. "Shipping companies, insurers, vessel owners, managers, and operators should all be aware of the grave consequences
of engaging in sanctionable conduct involving Iranian oil shipments."<<
Today British marines seized a tanker near Gibraltar for the crime of transporting oil to Syria. And Trumpian peaceful military
seized Syrian oil fields. Traditional war is increasingly augmented by piracy, which is less bloody, but trades outright carnage
for deprivation of civilians. Giving "measured praise" for that makes me barf.
The problem here is that the US population is too brainwashing with jingoism and Exceptionalism to value Tulsi message. The
US army is mercenary army and unlike situation with the draft people generally do not care much when mercenaries die. That makes
any anti-war candidate vulnerable to "Russiagate" smear.
He/she need to have a strong domestic program to appeal to voters, So far Warren is in better position in this area then
Tulsi.
Notable quotes:
"... The Drudge Report website had its poll running while the debate was going on and it registered overwhelmingly in favor of Hawaiian Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard. Likewise, the Washington Examiner , a right-wing paper, opined that Gabbard had won by a knockout based on its own polling. Google's search engine reportedly saw a surge in searches linked to Tulsi Gabbard both during and after the debate. ..."
"... On the following day traditional conservative Pat Buchanan produced an article entitled "Memo for Trump: Trade Bolton for Tulsi," similar to a comment made by Republican consultant Frank Luntz "She's a long-shot to win the presidency, but Tulsi Gabbard is sounding like a prime candidate for Secretary of Defense." ..."
"... In response to a comment by neoliberal Congressman Tim Ryan who said that the U.S. has to remain "engaged" in places like Afghanistan, she referred to two American soldiers who had been killed that very day, saying "Is that what you will tell the parents of those two soldiers who were just killed in Afghanistan? Well, we just have to be engaged? As a soldier, I will tell you that answer is unacceptable." ..."
"... Tulsi also declared war on the Washington Establishment, saying that "For too long our leaders have failed us, taking us into one regime change war after the next, leading us into a new Cold War and arms race, costing us trillions of our hard-earned tax payer dollars and countless lives. This insanity must end." ..."
"... Blunt words, but it was a statement that few Americans whose livelihoods are not linked to "defense" or to the shamelessly corrupt U.S. Congress and media could disagree with, as it is clear that Washington is at the bottom of a deep hole and persists in digging ..."
"... In the collective judgment of America's Establishment, Tulsi Gabbard and anyone like her must be destroyed. She would not be the first victim of the political process shutting out undesirable opinions. One can go all the way back to Eugene McCarthy and his opposition to the Vietnam War back in 1968. ..."
"... And the beat goes on. In 2016, Debbie Wasserman Shultz, head of the Democratic National Committee, fixed the nomination process so that Bernie Sanders, a peace candidate, would be marginalized and super hawk Hillary Clinton would be selected. Fortunately, the odor emanating from anything having to do with the Clintons kept her from being elected or we would already be at war with Russia and possibly also with China. ..."
"... Tulsi Gabbard has let the genie of "end the forever wars" out of the bottle and it will be difficult to force it back in. She just might shake up the Democratic Party's priorities, leading to more questions about just what has been wrong with U.S. foreign policy over the past twenty years. ..."
"... Yes, to some critics, Tulsi Gabbard is not a perfect candidate . On most domestic issues she appears to be a typical liberal Democrat and is also conventional in terms of her accommodation with Jewish power, but she also breaks with the Democratic Party establishment with her pledge to pardon Chelsea Manning, Julian Assange and Edward Snowden. ..."
"... She also has more of a moral compass than Elizabeth Warren, who cleverly evades the whole issue of Middle East policy, or a Joe Biden who would kiss Benjamin Netanyahu's ass without any hesitation at all. Gabbard has openly criticized Netanyahu and she has also condemned Israel's killing of "unarmed civilians" in Gaza. As a Hindu, her view of Muslims is somewhat complicated based on the historical interaction of the two groups, but she has moderated her views recently. ..."
"... To be sure, Americans have heard much of the same before, much of it from out of the mouth of a gentleman named Donald Trump, but Tulsi Gabbard could well be the only genuine antiwar candidate that might truly be electable in the past fifty years. ..."
Last Wednesday’s debate among half of the announced Democratic Party candidates to become their party’s nominee for
president in 2020 was notable for its lack of drama. Many of those called on to speak had little to say apart from the usual
liberal bromides about health care, jobs, education and how the United States is a country of immigrants. On the following
day the mainstream media anointed Elizabeth Warren as the winner based on the coherency of her message even though she said
little that differed from what was being presented by most of the others on the stage. She just said it better, more
articulately.
The New York Times’
coverage was typical, praising Warren for her grasp of the issues and her ability to present the same
clearly and concisely, and citing a comment "They could teach
classes in how Warren talks about a problem and weaves in answers into a story. She's not just
wonk and stats." It then went on to lump most of the other candidates together, describing
their performances as "ha[ving] one or two strong answers, but none of them had the electric,
campaign-launching moment they were hoping for."
Inevitably, however, there was some disagreement on who had actually done best based on
viewer reactions as well as the perceptions of some of the media that might not exactly be
described as mainstream. The Drudge Report website
had
its poll running while the debate was going on and it registered overwhelmingly in favor of
Hawaiian Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard. Likewise, the Washington Examiner , a right-wing
paper, opined that Gabbard had won by a knockout based on its own polling. Google's search
engine reportedly saw a surge in searches linked to Tulsi Gabbard both during and after the
debate.
On the following day traditional conservative Pat Buchanan produced
an
article entitled "Memo for Trump: Trade Bolton for Tulsi," similar to a comment made by
Republican consultant Frank Luntz "She's a long-shot
to win the presidency, but Tulsi Gabbard is sounding like a prime candidate for Secretary of
Defense."
Tulsi, campaigning on her anti-war credentials, was indeed not like the other candidates,
confronting directly the issue of war and peace which the other potential candidates studiously
avoided. In response to a comment by neoliberal Congressman Tim Ryan who said that the U.S. has
to remain "engaged" in places like Afghanistan, she referred to two American soldiers who had
been killed that very day, saying "Is that what you will tell the parents of those two soldiers
who were just killed in Afghanistan? Well, we just have to be engaged? As a soldier, I will
tell you that answer is unacceptable."
At another point she expanded on her thinking about America's wars, saying "Let's deal with
the situation where we are, where this president and his chickenhawk cabinet have led us to the
brink of war with Iran. I served in the war in Iraq at the height of the war in 2005, a war
that took over 4,000 of my brothers and sisters in uniforms' lives. The American people need to
understand that this war with Iran would be far more devastating, far more costly than anything
that we ever saw in Iraq. It would take many more lives. It would exacerbate the refugee
crisis. And it wouldn't be just contained within Iran. This would turn into a regional war.
This is why it's so important that every one of us, every single American, stand up and say no
war with Iran."
Tulsi also declared war on the Washington Establishment,
saying
that "For too long our leaders have failed us, taking us into one regime change war after
the next, leading us into a new Cold War and arms race, costing us trillions of our hard-earned
tax payer dollars and countless lives. This insanity must end."
Blunt words, but it was a statement that few Americans whose livelihoods are not linked to
"defense" or to the shamelessly corrupt U.S. Congress and media could disagree with, as it is
clear that Washington is at the bottom of a deep hole and persists in digging. So why was there
such a difference between what ordinary Americans and the Establishment punditry were seeing on
their television screens? The difference was not so much in perception as in the desire to see
a certain outcome. Anti-war takes away a lot of people's rice bowls, be they directly employed
on "defense" or part of the vast army of lobbyists and think tank parasites that keep the money
flowing out of the taxpayers' pockets and into the pockets of Raytheon, General Dynamics,
Boeing and Lockheed Martin like a perpetual motion machine.
In the collective judgment of America's Establishment, Tulsi Gabbard and anyone like her
must be destroyed. She would not be the first victim of the political process shutting out
undesirable opinions. One can go all the way back to Eugene McCarthy and his opposition to the
Vietnam War back in 1968. McCarthy was right and Lyndon Johnson and the rest of the Democratic
Party were wrong. More recently, Congressman Ron Paul tried twice to bring some sanity to the
Republican Party. He too was marginalized deliberately by the GOP party apparatus working
hand-in-hand with the media, to include the final insult of his being denied any opportunity to
speak or have his delegates recognized at the 2012 nominating convention.
And the beat goes on. In 2016, Debbie Wasserman Shultz, head of the Democratic National
Committee, fixed the nomination process so that Bernie Sanders, a peace candidate, would be
marginalized and super hawk Hillary Clinton would be selected. Fortunately, the odor emanating
from anything having to do with the Clintons kept her from being elected or we would already be
at war with Russia and possibly also with China.
Tulsi Gabbard has let the genie of "end the forever wars" out of the bottle and it will be
difficult to force it back in. She just might shake up the Democratic Party's priorities,
leading to more questions about just what has been wrong with U.S. foreign policy over the past
twenty years. To qualify for the second round of debates she has to gain a couple of points in
her approval rating or bring in more donations, either of which is definitely possible based on
her performance. It is to be hoped that that will occur and that there will be no Debbie
Wasserman Schultz hiding somewhere in the process who will finagle the polling results.
Yes, to some critics, Tulsi Gabbard is
not a perfect candidate . On most domestic issues she appears to be a typical liberal
Democrat and is also conventional in terms of her accommodation with Jewish power, but she also
breaks with the Democratic Party establishment with her pledge to pardon Chelsea Manning,
Julian Assange and Edward Snowden.
She also has more of a moral compass than Elizabeth Warren,
who cleverly evades the whole issue of Middle East policy, or a Joe Biden who would kiss
Benjamin Netanyahu's ass without any hesitation at all. Gabbard has openly criticized Netanyahu
and she has also condemned Israel's killing of "unarmed civilians" in Gaza. As a Hindu, her
view of Muslims is somewhat complicated based on the historical interaction of the two groups,
but she has moderated her views recently.
To be sure, Americans have heard much of the same before, much of it from out of the
mouth of a gentleman named Donald Trump, but Tulsi Gabbard could well be the only genuine
antiwar candidate that might truly be electable in the past fifty years. It is essential
that we Americans who are concerned about the future of our country should listen to what she
has to say very carefully and to respond accordingly.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a
501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more
interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is
councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its
email is [email protected]
"... Brand's fast-talking, plain-speaking criticism of the existing political order, calling it discredited, unaccountable and unrepresentative, was greeted with smirking condescension by the political and media establishment. Nonetheless, in an era before Donald Trump had become president of the United States, the British media were happy to indulge Brand for a while, seemingly believing he or his ideas might prove a ratings winner with younger audiences. ..."
"... Then he overstepped the mark. ..."
"... Instead of simply criticising the political system, Brand argued that it was in fact so rigged by the powerful, by corporate interests, that western democracy had become a charade. Elections were pointless . Our votes were simply a fig-leaf, concealing the fact that our political leaders were there to represent not us but the interests of globe-spanning corporations. Political and media elites had been captured by unshored corporate money. Our voices had become irrelevant. ..."
"... But just as Brand's rejection of the old politics began to articulate a wider mood, it was stopped in its tracks. ..."
"... These "New Labour" MPs were there, just as Brand had noted, to represent the interests of a corporate class, not ordinary people. ..."
"... It wasn't that Corbyn's election had shown Britain's political system was representative and accountable. It was simply evidence that corporate power had made itself vulnerable to a potential accident by preferring to work out of sight, in the shadows, to maintain the illusion of democracy. Corbyn was that accident. ..."
"... The system was still in place and it still had a chokehold on the political and media establishments that exist to uphold its interests. Which is why it has been mobilising these forces endlessly to damage Corbyn and avert the risk of a further, even more disastrous "accident", such as his becoming prime minister. ..."
"... Listing the ways the state-corporate media have sought to undermine Corbyn would sound preposterous to anyone not deeply immersed in these media-constructed narratives. But almost all of us have been exposed to this kind of " brainwashing under freedom " since birth. ..."
"... The initial attacks on Corbyn were for being poorly dressed, sexist, unstatesmanlike, a national security threat, a Communist spy – relentless, unsubstantiated smears the like of which no other party leader had ever faced. But over time the allegations became even more outrageously propagandistic as the campaign to undermine him not only failed but backfired – not least, because Labour membership rocketed under Corbyn to make the party the largest in Europe. ..."
"... As the establishment's need to keep him away from power has grown more urgent and desperate so has the nature of the attacks. ..."
In the preceding two years, it was hard to avoid on TV the figure of Russell Brand, a
comedian and minor film star who had reinvented himself, after years of battling addiction, as
a spiritual guru-cum-political revolutionary.
Brand's fast-talking, plain-speaking criticism of the existing political order, calling it
discredited, unaccountable and unrepresentative, was greeted with smirking condescension by the
political and media establishment. Nonetheless, in an era before Donald Trump had become
president of the United States, the British media were happy to indulge Brand for a while,
seemingly believing he or his ideas might prove a ratings winner with younger audiences.
But Brand started to look rather more impressive than anyone could have imagined. He took on
supposed media heavyweights like the BBC's Jeremy
Paxman and Channel 4's Jon
Snow and charmed and shamed them into submission – both with his compassion and his
thoughtful radicalism. Even in the gladiatorial-style battle of wits so beloved of modern TV,
he made these titans of the political interview look mediocre, shallow and out of touch. Videos
of these head-to-heads went viral, and Brand won hundreds of thousands of new followers.
Then he overstepped the mark.
Democracy as charade
Instead of simply criticising the political system, Brand argued that it was in fact so
rigged by the powerful, by corporate interests, that western democracy had become a charade.
Elections were pointless
. Our votes were simply a fig-leaf, concealing the fact that our political leaders were there
to represent not us but the interests of globe-spanning corporations. Political and media
elites had been captured by unshored corporate money. Our voices had become irrelevant.
Brand didn't just talk the talk. He started committing to direct action. He shamed our do-nothing
politicians and corporate media – the devastating Grenfell Tower fire had yet to happen
– by helping to gain attention for a group of poor tenants in London who were taking on
the might of a corporation that had become their landlord and wanted to evict them to develop
their homes for a much richer clientele. Brand's revolutionary words had turned into
revolutionary action.
But just as Brand's rejection of the old politics began to articulate a wider mood, it was
stopped in its tracks. After Corbyn was unexpectedly elected Labour leader, offering for the
first time in living memory a politics that listened to people before money, Brand's style of
rejectionism looked a little too cynical, or at least premature.
While Corbyn's victory marked a sea-change, it is worth recalling, however, that it occurred
only because of a mistake. Or perhaps two.
The Corbyn accident
First, a handful of Labour MPs agreed to nominate Corbyn for the leadership contest,
scraping him past the threshold needed to get on the ballot paper. Most backed him only because
they wanted to give the impression of an election that was fair and open. After his victory,
some loudly regretted having assisted him. None had
thought a representative of the tiny and besieged left wing of the parliamentary party stood a
chance of winning – not after Tony Blair and his acolytes had spent more than two decades
remaking Labour, using their own version of entryism to eradicate any vestiges of socialism in
the party. These "New Labour" MPs were there, just as Brand had noted, to represent the
interests of a corporate class, not ordinary people.
Corbyn had very different ideas from most of his colleagues. Over the years he had broken
with the consensus of the dominant Blairite faction time and again in parliamentary votes,
consistently taking a minority view that later proved to be on the
right side of history . He alone among the leadership contenders spoke unequivocally
against austerity, regarding it as a way to leech away more public money to enrich the
corporations and banks that had already pocketed vast sums from the public coffers – so
much so that by 2008 they had nearly bankrupted the entire western economic system.
And second, Corbyn won because of a recent change in the party's rulebook – one now
much regretted by party managers. A new internal balloting system gave more weight to the votes
of ordinary members than the parliamentary party. The members, unlike the party machine, wanted
Corbyn.
Corbyn's success didn't really prove Brand wrong. Even the best designed systems have flaws,
especially when the maintenance of the system's image as benevolent is considered vitally
important. It wasn't that Corbyn's election had shown Britain's political system was
representative and accountable. It was simply evidence that corporate power had made itself
vulnerable to a potential accident by preferring to work out of sight, in the shadows, to
maintain the illusion of democracy. Corbyn was that accident.
'Brainwashing under freedom'
Corbyn's success also wasn't evidence that the power structure he challenged had weakened.
The system was still in place and it still had a chokehold on the political and media
establishments that exist to uphold its interests. Which is why it has been mobilising these
forces endlessly to damage Corbyn and avert the risk of a further, even more disastrous
"accident", such as his becoming prime minister.
Listing the ways the state-corporate media have sought to undermine Corbyn would sound
preposterous to anyone not deeply immersed in these media-constructed narratives. But almost
all of us have been exposed to this kind of " brainwashing under freedom
" since birth.
The initial attacks on Corbyn were for being poorly dressed, sexist, unstatesmanlike, a
national security threat, a Communist spy – relentless, unsubstantiated smears the like
of which no other party leader had ever faced. But over time the allegations became even more
outrageously propagandistic as the campaign to undermine him not only failed but backfired
– not least, because Labour membership rocketed under Corbyn to make the party the
largest in Europe.
As the establishment's need to keep him away from power has grown more urgent and desperate
so has the nature of the attacks.
There were no Jews anywhere around most native Britons. And yet the Empire was banked most
importantly by Jews back to at least the post-Glorious Revolution closing the 17th century,
and that pattern of Jewish bankers being indispensable to the UK and the Brit WASP Empire
goes back to Oliver Cromwell.
You guys don't need a peace candidate you need a War Consigliere like the Godfather had! You
people are being attacked from all angles and you are evaluating which Dem or Rep is going to
fix the problems you face. Remember Bush Senior, (Iraq, Granada, Panama and CIA drug
trafficking), Clinton, (Oklahoma City, Waco, Yugoslavia, Mena, AR Drug Money Laundering), Bush
Junior, (9-11, Iraq, Afghanistan), Obama (Syria, Libya and Fast & Furious), Trump (Yet to
be seen).
What does that tell you people? They are all the same! ...
They tell you what they are going to do, (conspiracy theories, movies and fake news). They
bet on you do nothing and dependent on the fake elections.
Tulsi was the only participant who said something sensible. Which means that she won't be
a presidential candidate from any of the two main parties. Deep State won't let it
happen.
Was LBJ the same as JFK? Was Nixon the same as Carter? Was Bush II the same as Reagan? Was
Bush I the same as Gerald Ford?
No.
Why did Obama go through all the trouble of the JCPOA with Iran only to have orange clown
trash it?
Why didn't Obama deliver Javelin anti-tank missiles to Ukraine? Why didn't the Jerusalem Boys
Choir sing praises to Obama?
I'll tell you why: Because they're NOT all the same. And as we get closer and closer to
planetary extinction, those differences become very significant.
"... In the classroom, students are exposed to the teachings of Christ regarding the Gospel imperative – the care of the poor. Theology students are inspired to work for equality and social justice in their local and global communities. ..."
"... Even Pope Francis was not a fan although as Father Bergoglio he said, ..."
"... "The option for the poor comes from the first centuries of Christianity. It's the Gospel itself. If you were to read one of the sermons of the first fathers of the Church, from the second or third centuries, about how you should treat the poor, you'd say it was Maoist or Trotskyist. The Church has always had the honor of this preferential option for the poor." ..."
"... Another hero of mine, the great Oxford and Cambridge analytic philosopher, Elizabeth Anscombe -- a staunch Catholic (convert) -- condemned Truman and said he was a war criminal. ..."
"... to me, the central core of Christianity is the Sermon on the Mount and if you live by it, you will be a better person. ..."
"... looking after those in need makes good economic sense. The alternative is barbed wire, walls, security systems, guns, guards, prisons and gallows. Guess which approach is cheaper. ..."
"... A close friend of mine, now passed away, had a brother who became a Jesuit priest in his middle age after spending many years as an Air Force officer. I was amazed when I first met and talked with him, could not understand why he would do such a thing. But maybe I kind of understood later. He had left the AF and started in a seminary in the 80s not long after the murder of several Jesuits in El Salvador. ..."
"... De Oppresso Liber not only affected him but some other non-Jesuit Catholic religious orders also. Over 50 priests, nuns, and lay leaders were murdered by death squads in El Salvador. Many were not Jesuits, but they had been slandered as being reds because of their work with the poor. That included the now canonized Oscar Romero who was gunned down while saying mass. ..."
"... My wife's uncle was a Jesuit, taught at 3 Jesuit Universities and served as a Chaplain in the USN during WW-II; my father had 8 years of Jesuit education, as did I and one of my brothers; another of my brothers had 4. The pre-Arrupe and the post Arrupe Jesuits are two different religious orders bound by a common name. Flirtation with an ideology that solved the problems of humanity by impoverishing everyone but the commissars and burying the 100 million or so recalcitrants undermined the mission of the Church,; it lent legitimacy to corrupt political regimes; and it spread poverty to include ever more people even as the numbers of priests willing to labor in the fields were drying up. There is a reason that John Paul II sent a representative to attend Arrupe's funeral. ..."
A while back we were discussing the merits of a liberal arts education and the sad state of our current education system. As
part of that discussion, I looked at the current curriculum of my old prep school to see if it changed much from when I was there.
To my surprise and joy, it changed very little. Students are still required to take four years of theology good Jesuit theology.
I was struck by the entry for the current theology department at Fairfield Prep and now present it below.
In light of the current discussion about the rise of the new bolsheviki in the Democratic Party, I thought I'd share my thoughts
on the Ignatian approach to Roman Catholicism. I'm pretty sure many of you will consider the black robes to be quite red. I, on
the other hand, find the teachings and example of Saint Ignatius of Loyola to be far more profound and worthy of emulation than
anything Marx or Lenin ever dreamed of.
-- -- -- -- -- --
What is theology? Fundamentally, it's about conversation.
The Greek word Theós (God) combined with logos (word, or reason) describes what happens in theology classes at Fairfield Prep.
Talking about God, discovering God in the person of Jesus Christ, asking questions, having discussions and debates, and exploring
the truths of other world religions are some of the many things that happen in theology. Through exegetical analysis of Scripture,
learning the philosophies of the Saints (in particular, St. Ignatius of Loyola), contemplation, and reflection, theology students
at Fairfield Prep are drawn to a more intimate experience of the Divine in their own lives.
In the classroom, students are exposed to the teachings of Christ regarding the Gospel imperative – the care of the poor.
Theology students are inspired to work for equality and social justice in their local and global communities.
In the spirit of Christ, through Ignatian practices, students are encouraged to grow spiritually and religiously by orienting
themselves towards others. Practically speaking, students are called to "Find God in All Things." By recognizing the presence of
the Divine within others and the universe we live in, students may be inspired to develop a deeper appreciation and love for Creation
– in particular, care for our environment.
Morality, ethics, philosophy, history, science – they are all present within discussions of theology. Regardless of faith
background (or lack thereof) all students are encouraged to express their beliefs and share their life experiences in their own
ways. In theology, we are constantly working towards discovering Truth in our lives. Through science, history, literature, Scripture,
and the Sacraments, we understand that God can be found in all things and in all ways here at Fairfield Prep. Join us as we continue
the discussions, the questions, the reflections, and the actions that will make this world a more loving place for all.
- Mr. Corey J. Milazzo
Chair of the Theology Department
-- -- -- -- -- --
It's still there, the call to find God in all things and to be a man for others. I graduated a few years before Father Pedro
Arrupe presented his dissertation and made his presentation which became known as his "Men for Others" thesis. But his ideas already
ran through the halls and faculty of Fairfield Prep by the end of the 60s. Community service was an integral part of the curriculum
back then as were frequent retreats based on the Ignatian spiritual exercises. They still are. The Jesuits molded us into men
for others, social justice warriors, but with a keen sense of self-examination (the examen). When we graduated in the rose garden
of Bellarmine Hall under a beautiful June sun, we were charged with the familiar Jesuit call "ite inflammate omnia" (go forth and
set the world on fire).
That phrase in itself is provocative. It goes back to Saint Ignatius of Loyola himself. It may go back much further, back to
Saint Catherine of Siena. One of her most repeated quotes is "Be who God meant you to be and you will set the world on fire." Setting
the world on fire must have a different meaning back then. It sounds down right revolutionary these days.
In more recent times, Jesuits participated in the development of liberation theology, a blending of the Church's professed preference
for the poor and Marxism that is unsettling to many both in and outside the Church. This expression of strident social justice was
never supported by the Vatican, especially when liberation theologists aligned themselves with armed Marxist revolutions. Even
Pope Francis was not a fan although as Father Bergoglio he said,
"The option for the poor comes from the first centuries of Christianity. It's the Gospel itself. If you were to read
one of the sermons of the first fathers of the Church, from the second or third centuries, about how you should treat the poor,
you'd say it was Maoist or Trotskyist. The Church has always had the honor of this preferential option for the poor."
Pope Francis seeks reconciliation with rather than expulsion of the liberation theologists. This doesn't surprise me considering
the Jesuits' firmly held faith in the primacy of conscience, the belief that an informed conscience is the ultimate and final authority
on what is morally permissible, and it is the obligation of the individual to follow their conscience even if it contradicts or
acts against Church teaching.
I believe that, but I also believe the liberation theologists could benefit from a more rigorous examen to reach a higher sense
of discernment and a truly informed conscience.
I think the 1986 film "The Mission" captured some of these ideas and struggles very well with the interplay of Father Gabriel,
Roderigo Mendoza and both the secular and religious authorities of that time. As a product of a Jesuit and Special Forces education,
this film resonated with me.
I have long been fascinated by Liberation Theology. I don't actually know much about it - but what I perceive to be the polarity
between the "church hierarchy" which has a reputation of being complicit with the wealthy and with authoritarian regimes, vs
the renegade priests who embraced Liberation Theology has long interested me.
A friend from Mexico recommended the film 'The Crime of Father Amaro' to me - and told me that it depicted the reality of
Mexico better than any other film I might see. I enjoyed the film very much, and was even more sympathetic to Liberation Theology
after seeing it.
When I despair at humanity being able to save itself in its present crazy lust for self destruction, I still have faith in
the Catholic Church and its ability to save us. After the Chinese state, the world's oldest institution. It has a tradition,
especially an intellectual tradition, which is both immensely practical in this world and built for eternity.
Several people I most admire on the Left in Britain started life wanting to be Catholic Priests - one could be our next Chancellor
of the Exchequer, the feisty John McDonnel.
Because we live in a dogmatically secular, not to say aetheistical society, it is often easy to miss the continuing impact
of Catholicism and Catholic themes in our culture - especially in our most influential cultural tradition - cinema. The 20th
Centuy's greatest film-makers were all Catholics and used deeply Catholic themes in their work - John Ford, Alfred Hitchcock,
Fritz Lang and Louis Bunuel. Today I greatly admire the work of the McDonagh brothers - working class Irish Catholics from South
London - who made variously (they do not work together) - Calvary, In Bruges, and Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri.
Also the various Mexican mystical Catholics directing in Hollywood at the moment.
The vivid visual pagaentry and story telling of Catholicism continues to find rich realisation in film.
I am much taken by the work of Michael Hudson on the nature of Jesus' teaching and its economic component. "Forgive them
their sins" is one of his books.
See the full title above. His book and thesis is about debt. The translation of the Lord's Prayer is often given as "debts"
or "trespasses" and "debtors" or "those who trespass against us."
Steve Keen's review makes the same mistake in his gloss: "Michael Hudson reveals the real meaning of "Forgive us our sins."
It has far more to do with throwing the moneylenders out of the Temple than today's moneylenders would like you to know."
The conflation of debt and guilt (or sin) derives, I believe, from the root of both in some Germanic languages. This figures
prominently in _A Doll's House_ and differing attitudes to debt deriving from them.
I vaguely remember that sunny day back in the 60's, we were all aligned in formation and stood firmly to listen to Padre
Arrupe addressing us all. It was supposed to be a special event, but being almost a child at the time I was not aware of how
important and special that person and event were. With time I learned that Padre Arrupe was in Hiroshima, he was a doctor and
as such treated the survivors.
Every institution and group of people is far from homogenous, thanks to nature, that's the way it should be, but at the time
the option for the poor was not a unitary position of the Jesuits, in countries where inequality was and today is even more
rampant. And probably because of that we were not told that our most distinguished visitor was in Japan, and witnessed that
greatest of horrors.
That is why sometimes I smile when I read the Colonel distrust and disdain for bolsheviks and trotskyists. They are a lot closer
to your Jesuit education that what you think. In any case, I was very fortunate to be educated by that excellent group of people,
most of them from the Basque country, our first English teacher whom I shall never forget, a north American Maryknoll nun, not
a single mosquito would move in that class, discipline, and Beatles songs translated, we were allowed to do anything in class,
like frying an egg, but it had to be in English.
Unfortunately the countries where the Jesuits taught not only did not eliminate inequality, it only grew to disastrous levels.
A few of them joined the guerrillas, others were assassinated, AMDG.
The priest who married my wife and me gave us a framed quote from Fr. Arrupe on love. I read up on Fr. Arrupe and he has
been one of my heroes ever since. Another of my heroes is Fulton Sheen who believed the dropping of the atom bomb was immoral
and inaugurated the culture of death. Another hero of mine, the great Oxford and Cambridge analytic philosopher, Elizabeth Anscombe
-- a staunch Catholic (convert) -- condemned Truman and said he was a war criminal.
And while I respect all the aforementioned
my 93-year old father and all of his children and grandchildren are most likely alive today because of the dropping of the atom
bomb. My dad was in the U.S. Army 77th in Battle of Okinawa and afterwards was in training for the invasion when the Japanese
surrendered.
Had the Japanese not surrendered there most likely would have been much more devastation of the Japanese military
and civilian population. The numbers might have been orders of magnitude higher than those of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Here is Fr. Wilson Miscamble, C.S.C., a professor of history at the University of Notre Dame succinctly explaining why the
dropping of the atom bomb was the most reasonable and best option: https://youtu.be/BmIBbcxseXM
I am essentially an agnostic, with a devout Episcopalian wife and a best friend who is a retired professor of religion, so
I can't claim that they are wrong. But to me, the central core of Christianity is the Sermon on the Mount and if you live by
it, you will be a better person.
I am glad to see that the school is still debating what will make you a better person and I am sure many students will prosper
from it. When I was in Junior Highschool, in what was then a rather socialistic Sweden, we had 3 years of Christian education.
I still remember a lot of it.
This was very though-provoking TTG, thanks for your confession.
As I see it, the primacy of conscience and the obligation of the individual to follow their own is exactly right.
Our education system (both religious and secular) must teach a set of ethics and a code of civil conduct consistent with the
society which we wish to build. But thereafter the state must respect our right to live largely as we choose.
Yes, individuals should be encouraged to set the world alight. The problem comes when social justice is moved from the domain
of voluntary, individual choice to the imposition of obligatory, collective adherence, by the state. The Jesuit doctrine you
describe sounds a lot like "live and let live" - i.e. the humility to avoid judging others by your own standards. Political
SJW's have totally abandoned this critically important aspect of the doctrine. Their mission is to force us all to conform to
a collective set of norms far and away beyond what is necessary for a civil & free society. This makes them indistinguishable
from Bolshevik tyrants.
You were very fortunate to have received such an excellent education and it is encouraging that it still exists in some places.
It shouldn't be impossible to rebuild it elsewhere, but one aspect will be key; the teaching of real tolerance for others. This
is very different from the faux tolerance of Liberalism, which holds that you can be of any color, faith, gender etc - just
so long as you think the same way I do. A process of de-snowflakization will be necessary; teaching people that feeling offense
is a normal emotion, not something to be avoided at all costs. After all, the Bill of Rights does not enshrine the right to
not be offended.
I'll mention a judge who demanded the 10 commandments be placed in his court and disobeyed order to remove them. This disease
is certainly not limited to one side. Capital L liberals and capital C conservatives share the affliction, a misappropriation
of religion or doctrine, which stripped of humility (all the worthy ones have a bit), become "...oneself with a thunderbolt".
IMO in a free society citizens can volunteer to aid the poor all they want to. However, it is not the government's job to
take on the task and to force others to "give" in ways that they would not do so on their own. That's the philosophical
difference between the Bolshies and free people.
Additionally, I am convinced that free markets create more wealth so that people can volunteer to help those in need.
With the Bolshies, minimal wealth is created and everyone loses and suffers. History has shown us that and theory says it
must be that way. There is no way to "get socialism right". The global poverty rate has been in steep decline as more of the
world develops into free market economies and older free market societies donate wealth and other aid to societies in need.
I attended a secular prep school K-12, but the message was the same, "Take your talents, maximize them and light the
world on fire". Sundays at home were dedicated to religious discussions and readings - all day until dinner.
looking after those in need makes good economic sense. The alternative is barbed wire, walls, security systems, guns, guards,
prisons and gallows. Guess which approach is cheaper.
To put that another way, visit historic parts of Europe. Those high walls, barred windows and spiked iron fences were. not
there for fake decorations when originally built.
Immigration business is big business and plenty of autocrats are quite happy to saddle the gullible with their nation's dissidents
rather than deal with "the good economic sense" of looking after those in need. Castro comes to mind and all those well off
tourists from Europe and Canada who've been going there for decades have only been subsidizing oppression while they get a sunny
dog-and-pony show vacation amongst the ruins of Havana.
A close friend of mine, now passed away, had a brother who became a Jesuit priest in his middle age after spending many years
as an Air Force officer. I was amazed when I first met and talked with him, could not understand why he would do such a thing.
But maybe I kind of understood later. He had left the AF and started in a seminary in the 80s not long after the murder of several
Jesuits in El Salvador.
De Oppresso Liber not only affected him but some other non-Jesuit Catholic religious orders also. Over 50 priests,
nuns, and lay leaders were murdered by death squads in El Salvador. Many were not Jesuits, but they had been slandered as being
reds because of their work with the poor. That included the now canonized Oscar Romero who was gunned down while saying mass.
Would MS-13 be as extensive as they are today if those priests had not been murdered and their efforts to end the civil war
peacefully had been realized?
Totally off topic --
A week or so ago I was in Greenwich, CT for the Boys & Girls Club annual Golf tournament/benefit. It was held at a golf club
on the border of New York State, on land sandwiched between the massive holdings of the Brunswick School (the Winkelvoss brothers
graduated from Brunswick), and also Sacred Heart academy for Girls.
That's just the name-dropping part.
Here's my question: driving to and around Greenwich one cannot help but be impressed by the orderliness of the place, and
also of the stones. It seems to be carved into a very large mountain of stone. Further, there are constructed walls of dressed
stone surrounding very many of the institutions and homes in the area.
This morning I heard yet another recitation of the complaint, "We _ _ _ _ _'s built the United States that you white people
are getting rich on."
So I wondered: Who built those stone walls in Greenwich, CT?
Who tamed that stone mountain that characterizes so much of the state?
The person I visited in CT grew up in western and central Maryland, where his German (and Mennonite) farmer ancestors plowed
fields around and through acres of stone. If they could not grow a crop on the stony fields, they gathered them in and built
their houses, barns and hedge-walls, so many of which are still standing, solid as the day they were built. Western Maryland's
agricultural landscape is still neat as a pin, carefully and intelligently husbanded to produce apples, peaches, etc.
I hope this is not as far off-topic as it appears on the surface: the Jesuits have one tradition, but the Benedictines made
an equally important contribution to the advancement of civilization: Ora et Labora: Pray and work. As I grew up in Catholic
institutions, I learned and practiced that work IS prayer (and prayer is work). The medieval cathedrals were work and prayer
made manifest in stone.
Off topic, but an interesting observation of yours, artemesia. Those stone walls were built by colonial and early American
farm families. The soil of all of New England and Connecticut in particular was gifted with countless rocks and stones when
the last glacier retreated from North America. You cannot till a piece of land without removing most of the rocks from the soil.
The farm families removed the rocks and used them to build the stone walls you saw in Greenwich. I've moved tons of rocks doing
just that as a youth and as a farm hand. Building a proper dry stone wall to withstand the winter frost heaves is an art known
by many New Englanders. Living in Virginia, I am astounded by the lack of rocks for building such walls. I cannot bring myself
to buy them by the pallet as is the practice here. Paying for rocks is not something a New Englander can easily stomach.
If you have the opportunity to travel West take a side trip to Walnut Grove, Minnesota. Home of (one of) the Laura Ingells
Wilder Museum. They even have a recreated sod home (real sod) just like the one that familiy lived in more than 100 years ago.
There is some interesting background on the settling of the forntier as it moved ever westward. On the other hand, if you go
South, visit Lincoln's birthplace in Kentucky. The actual log cabin is within a nathional monument outside Hodgenville Kentucky
and one of his family's farm's where he spent part of his boyhood is a few miles away. In Trappist, just outside Bardstown,
about 45 miles away, is the Abbey of Gethsemani, which opened in 1848. None of these are much celebrated in our modern and diverse
school systems but all were important parts in the growth of the Republic.
My wife's uncle was a Jesuit, taught at 3 Jesuit Universities and served as a Chaplain in the USN during WW-II; my father
had 8 years of Jesuit education, as did I and one of my brothers; another of my brothers had 4. The pre-Arrupe and the post
Arrupe Jesuits are two different religious orders bound by a common name. Flirtation with an ideology that solved the problems
of humanity by impoverishing everyone but the commissars and burying the 100 million or so recalcitrants undermined the mission
of the Church,; it lent legitimacy to corrupt political regimes; and it spread poverty to include ever more people even as the
numbers of priests willing to labor in the fields were drying up. There is a reason that John Paul II sent a representative
to attend Arrupe's funeral.
In the end, the Jesuits foray into practical politics under ambiguous slogans such as "preferential option for the poor" led
to the Robert Drinans and the waffling Catholic prelates and politicians who find ways to justify or look past any behavior
contrary to the established doctrine of the Church so long as they can present themselves as being hard at work on behalf of
the poor. There are too many examples to enumerate.
And I will note in passing that while the religious implications of the work with the poor will vary with the individual, the
work will remain steady: the poor we will have always with us.
To all those here who claim that the only thing communist and socialist systems spread is poverty, i would like you to show
some data/statististics, instead of just your own claims.
I use to frequent a Twitter account where many photos of life under the former GDR are shared, and does not seem that they
were doing absolutely so bad, on the contrary, what really happened is that after joining FDR, which implied the dismantling
of the whole GDR industry for FDR holdings´beneffit, increasing poverty rates started to spread along what at all lights seemed
a prosperous and free nation.
Then you have the Chinese, who have taken out of poverty more people than anybody else in the world in the least time ( about
these, yes there are statistics...), and all that even with their mixed but still communist system...
I do not swallow the mythical, by Western propaganda standards, ruin of the USSR, since at the heights of 1985, economic
indicators were there better than in many Western nations on productiveness and progress at all levels.
The USSR was imploded from outside and within by the inestimable help of a bunch of traitors to the will of the people, whom
even in the last referendum expressed clearly their will to conserve the Soviet system, will which was betrayed by Yeltsin and
his minions who usurped the popular will by coup d´etat.
Yeltsin didn't stage the coup d'etat. It was hard line CPSU and KGB. Yeltsin stumbled into his spot in the collapse of the
coup attempt. Although I will grant you that Russia/Soviet Union and China made great economic strides considering where they
started.
I believe that, but I also believe the liberation theologists could benefit from a more rigorous examen to reach a higher
sense of discernment and a truly informed conscience.
I detect here an implied critic to the liberation theologists.... Since you are in a sincerity exercise, could you expnad
a bit on what you are trying to mean by this?
I would be interested.
Also, and since you seem to have been educated by US Jesuits at prep-school, do you consider that due the background of the
US, the genuine Ignatian message and character has been fully developed and then conserved there? I mean, do you thing is this
possible, in such an anti-communist country by definition, which promotes a society based on "winners and losers" not finding
in this binary distribution more cause than own ability to prospere within the system, whatever the means?
Finally, and if this is not asking already too much, what do you mean by DOL-AMDG?
Elsi, I know of no country where the Ignatian message has been fully developed and conserved. As for the liberation theologists,
I believe many of them got too caught up in the Marxist call for totally changing society often through violent means. While
the Church and the Marxist revolutionaries may often work towards the same goal of giving preference to the poor, the ultimate
reasons for working towards that goal is not at all the same. I reject the idea of a vanguard party be it Marxist or autocratic
priesthood.
"i would like you to show some data/statistics, instead of just your own claims." Statistics lie. Everyone has their own
including your communist government. You do not make demands here. You are an enemy and merely tolerated here for the moment.
The problem I see with monotheism is that it confuses the absolute with the ideal. Logically a spiritual absolute would be
that essence of sentience, from which we rise, not an ideal of wisdom and judgment, from which we fell. More the new born, than
the wise old man. Consciousness seeking knowledge, than any form or brand of it. The light shining through the film than the
images on it. So what we do with this gift is not pre-ordained.
Good and bad are not a cosmic dual between the forces of righteousness and evil, but the basic biological binary of beneficial
and detrimental. So society and the moral codes it requires are a constant dynamic of the raw organic and emotional energies
rising up, as civil and cultural forms coalesce in. Liberal and conservative, youth and age.
It is that we have this linear idealist monism, that we don't see the dynamic as two sides of a larger cycle and so each side
sees themselves on the road to nirvana and the other side as misbegotten fools.
It really is more of the yin and yang, than God Almighty.
You were blessed with such an education. Saldy for the Republic and many of her citizens far too many educated by the puclic
school system have been provided nothing like this as religion has been expelled from primary and seconday education; it and
American history are denigrated daily, to our nation's detriment. College graduates moving into the teaching field in the '40s-60s
had the benefit of being taught by early true believers in Marxism who had not yet seen the realities of what evil that ideology
was doing to people in the USSR and eventually the nations of the Warsaw Pact and China. The number of unrepentent marxists
has only increased as new generations have come of age. They have all found it far easier to deconstruct than to build. They
were certainly not about to follow in the footsteps of men such as yourself or our host.
"an informed conscience is the ultimate and final authority on what is morally permissible"
There is always an historical grievance to point to that will serve as a foundation of victimhood, especially when coupled
with a rejection of religious principles. "I live, therefore I deserve" is about all the doctrine one is taught today. You can
tear down a lot of civilizations with that ideological starting point.
"... That distrust of the establishment has had highly visible political consequences: Farage, Trump, and Le Pen on the right; but also in new parties on the left ..."
In the years that followed, the crash, the crisis of the eurozone and the worldwide drop in
the price of oil and other commodities combined to put a huge dent in global trade. Since 2012,
the IMF reported in its World Economic Outlook for October 2016
, trade was growing at 3% a year – less than half the average of the previous three
decades. That month, Martin Wolf argued in a column that globalisation had "lost dynamism", due
to a slackening of the world economy, the "exhaustion" of new markets to exploit and a rise in
protectionist policies around the world. In an interview earlier this year, Wolf suggested
to me that, though he remained convinced globalisation had not been the decisive factor in
rising inequality, he had nonetheless not fully foreseen when he was writing Why Globalization
Works how "radical the implications" of worsening inequality "might be for the US, and
therefore the world".
Among these implications appears to be a rising distrust of the establishment that is blamed
for the inequality. "We have a very big political problem in many of our countries," he said.
"The elites – the policymaking business and financial elites – are
increasingly disliked . You need to make policy which brings people to think again that
their societies are run in a decent and civilised way."
That distrust of the establishment has had highly visible political consequences: Farage,
Trump, and Le Pen on the right; but also in new parties on the left, such as Spain's Podemos,
and curious populist hybrids, such as Italy's
Five Star Movement . As in 1997, but to an even greater degree, the volatile political
scene reflects public anxiety over "the process that has come to be called
'globalisation'".
If the critics of globalisation could be dismissed before because of their lack of economics
training, or ignored because they were in distant countries, or kept out of sight by a wall of
police, their sudden political ascendancy in the rich countries of the west cannot be so easily
discounted today.
"... Her courage and convictions were hardened in the burning cauldron of an unjust war. Call it burning resentment if you prefer. It's real and it's what makes her tick. ..."
"... by Al Qaeda. For that unrecanted heresy she was vilified by Republicans and Democrats alike. ..."
"... In the Democratic Party debates, she cut that posturing hypocrite Tim Ryan off at the knees in a matter of seconds. A few home truths about U.S. soldiers dying for no good reason was all it took to dispatch him and his mealy-mouthed platitudes. ..."
"... Watch her do the same to DJT if she gets the nomination and he continues to pander to the neocons. ..."
Yes, to some critics, Tulsi Gabbard is not a perfect candidate.
Tulsi is a candidate for political office, not sainthood. Much like Trump in 2016, being
patently less cynical than her rivals makes her the obvious choice.
the only genuine antiwar candidate that might truly be electable
Operative word in the above sentence: "genuine."
Her courage and convictions were hardened in the burning cauldron of an unjust war. Call it
burning resentment if you prefer. It's real and it's what makes her tick.
She went to Syria and proclaimed that rule by Assad was better for Syrians than rule by Al
Qaeda. For that unrecanted heresy she was vilified by Republicans and Democrats alike.
In the Democratic Party debates, she cut that posturing hypocrite Tim Ryan off at the knees
in a matter of seconds. A few home truths about U.S. soldiers dying for no good reason was all
it took to dispatch him and his mealy-mouthed platitudes.
What was Ryan going to do? Tell Tulsi she didn't know what she was talking about?
Watch her do the same to DJT if she gets the nomination and he continues to pander to the
neocons.
Gabbard did well but if I had to vote tomorrow it would be for Elizabeth Warren ..she's
got the real intelligence firepower combined with some old fashioned common sense. None of
them are going to directly attack the jew lobby during the campaign .why bring on
smear jobs and fake stories when it doesnt matter what they say, only what they do when
elected.
Would never vote for Joe "I am Zionist" Biden, he's just a paler shade of Trump .or to be
even clearer Biden is the DC establishment whereas Trump is the NJ Mafia,
The moderator-filtered t "debate" showed viewers the level of selective-issue political
control. The fact that Tulsi was able to overcome this control and discuss the issue of
neoliberal wars for the
How many Americans aren't so thoroughly disgusted with our entire D.N.C. by now , they have
to pin their nose (to avoid the stink) while sitting through one more . Establishment Elite,
corporate " con job " debate ?
How many , Phil ?
Like just about EVERYBODY .
How many Americans aren't so thoroughly disgusted with NBC . and all its LIES . that even if
the broadcasters PAID them, tomorrow , they would STILL refuse to watch their network ?.
Like just about EVERYBODY .
Tulsi is not simply the ONLY candidate who MATTERS .she is the only candidate, alive, who
has a shot in rescuing our country from its descent into corporatist "warmongering" hell .
@Brabantian lectorate
has been fooled so many times before, no big harm in getting fooled again, although not very
smart (as Einstein once remarked about repeating same same while expecting a different
result).
Hopefully by a "peace" or pseudo-peace candidate to at least keep that narrative going in
the general population even if once elected the new president turns around and betrays the
pre-election promises. Now if there were some way to make those politicians pay for
dishonouring their word.
But as I may have asked in another comment, could the electorate be as cynical and
hypocritical as these politicians they cast votes for?
Bingo! For a smart dude, PG should know (and I am sure he does) that the problem is
systemic. No candidate, if s/he expects to get anywhere, is going to call out Aipac or bring
up the issue of Jewish influence and power.
On Tucker Carlson, Tulsi named Netanyahu and Saudi Arabia as the main pushers for war with
Iran. No, she isn't perfect. No American politician dare say more. But she's the best we have
and deserves our support. If she does gain a large following, as Bernie Sanders did, and is
cheated out of the nomination, as Bernie was, I hope she has the guts, as Bernie didn't, to
form a third, Peace Party, and run on it. So she splits the Democrats and they lose? So what!
What difference does it make what Democrat or Republican Zio-whore becomes President?
Trump was a roaring lion for America First, right up until his inauguration. President
Tulsi will also "see the light" about how Israel is our most important ally. Ever see the
photo of the 10 rabbis flanking Trump's desk in the Oval office? It could just as easily been
a scene out of The Sopranos, with the family forcing some schmuck to "legally" sign over his
business.
As Giraldi wrote, there is no such thing as a perfect candidate. But who can compare with
her in this moribund democrat field? Politics is the art of the possible. When Trump first
announced in 2015, no pundit outside of Ann Coulter said he had a chance. And look how he
demolished that republican field consisting of 16 brain dead neocons. If given half a chance,
Tulsi could do the same. And the fact that she is a veteran works in her favor. Just because
she was in Iraq, does not mean that she supported the US aggression. Like thousands of other
vets, she obviously did not.
@Commentator Mike ou're
right but consider the obstacles she has to overcome – her desperate need to bypass the
hostile media in order to make her point to the American masses who will care little or
nothing about a few hundreds of thousands of dead foreigners but, when it comes to American
dead, they are rather more receptive.
Same thing is true on Israel – if she is to have any chance she has to grit her
teeth and stay pretty mum on that topic. They already know where she stands after her remarks
about Netanyahu; her meeting with Assad and her wish for better relations with Russia –
they will do everything in their power to destroy her.
My Congressman, Tim Ryan, was up there. He's a likeable guy, and he plays ball, probably
because he has to after succeeding Jim Traficant, who was expelled from Congress. He's
criticized locally for not bringing back more pork, and his local cliche-ridden talks sound
as though they were scripted by the Democrat Central Committee. I'll give him credit for
avoiding misconduct that could lead to indictment, no small achievement in this
preternaturally corrupt area. I think he's reasonably honest, but just not a firebrand.
There's unsubstantiated speculation here he's been positioning himself for hire as a
lobbyist.
If she does gain a large following, as Bernie Sanders did, and is cheated out of the
nomination, as Bernie was, I hope she has the guts, as Bernie didn't, to form a third,
Peace Party, and run on it.
Yes. My question, when to start preparing for an outside run? If she's making steady
progress, she won't move until after the convention. Would threatening an independent run
help or hurt her before then?
to TKK:
I've never had a female boss so I can't comment on your question. No, Tulsi can't win the
Presidency, it'd be a miracle if she did, but I'm saying that if she does get a huge
following, gets cheated out of the nomination, and has the guts to form a Third Party, she'd
shake up the rotten rigged system and give us some hope.
"... why can't Tulsi Gabbard pretend to be "one of them" (e.g., by taking money from Raytheon, being a member of the CFR, claiming that al-Qaeda did 9/11, etc.) but then actually oppose the self-destructive wars and risky provocations? ..."
"... If orange clown can be honest about his feelings of animosity toward Iran during his campaign, why can't Tulsi Gabbard be honest about her feelings about pointless and self-destructive wars? ..."
"... If Ed Snowden and Chelsea Manning can betray the "deep state" why can't Tulsi Gabbard? ..."
"... somebody is going to be president anyway, whether we like it or not, and the wars – especially the looming WW3 – is the biggest threat ..."
If orange clown can pretend to be one of "us" and then immediately turn around and
enthusiastically stab "us" in the back, why can't Tulsi Gabbard pretend to be "one of them"
(e.g., by taking money from Raytheon, being a member of the CFR, claiming that al-Qaeda did
9/11, etc.) but then actually oppose the self-destructive wars and risky provocations?
If orange clown can be honest about his feelings of animosity toward Iran during his
campaign, why can't Tulsi Gabbard be honest about her feelings about pointless and
self-destructive wars?
If Ed Snowden and Chelsea Manning can betray the "deep state" why can't Tulsi Gabbard?
The cynicism I see in some of the comments here disparaging Gabbard is "over the top" IMO; somebody is going to be
president anyway, whether we like it or not, and the wars – especially the looming WW3 – is the biggest threat. So why not support someone who
appears to be genuinely opposed to the wars?
To mis-paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, you go to war with the candidate you don't
have.
Unless Ms. Gabbard can figure out some way to raise and cycle a billion dollars through
media ads in the MSM, they're going to largely ignore her or even demonise her, because it is
the Praetorian Media who now decide who will be the the American President.
Presidential elections are a joke. It's best to vote for 3rd candidate to express your
opposition to the Status quo: I won't be voting Trump again and fall for that sting. Will
vote Tulsi whether she's on ballot or not.
She will never make it as she is too honest about foreign policy and the USA lies.
"... He supported the attacks on Serbia, Libya and Afghanistan. He signed Rubio's letter denouncing the BDS movement. He called for regime change in Syria. ..."
Bernie Sanders a "peace candidate?" Hardly. His opposition to the Iraq invasion was just a
hiccup, and he voted several times to continue funding the Iraq occupation.
He supported the
attacks on Serbia, Libya and Afghanistan. He signed Rubio's letter denouncing the BDS movement.
He called for regime change in Syria.
I heard this on the Anti-Zionist Christian station TruNews, which may not be the most
reliable source. But their correspondent, who just returned from the G-20, is reporting that
there is some scuttlebutt afoot that Tucker Carlson may replace John Bolton as Trump's NSA.
This may have arisen as Bolton was dispatched to Mongolia while Trump was meeting Kim Jong-un
at the DPRK border, with Tucker on hand to view it all up close. Then Tucker had a cordial
interview with Trump which is appearing in installments on his show. It's no secret that Trump
has about had it with Bolton's constant war mongering.
It was further reported that Carlson has ambitions to run for the presidency in 2024. Tucker
knows that he is on a short leash at Fox, and must pull his punches somewhat if he wants to
keep his job. Only his high ratings may be saving him. I would not rule out that he may be
looking for new worlds to conquer. It's nice to see Mr. Trump apparently throwing war hawk
Hannity under the bus in favor of Tucker. If nothing else, Trump is a master at keeping
everyone guessing.
With all due respect Mr. Smith things have really gone down hill after Bush Sr. I'm talking
about direct attacks on the rights of American citizens. Bush Sr. (R) with his CIA drug dealing
with the help of Noriega. He purchased weapons with the proceeds to arm terrorist guerrilla
groups in Nicaragua. Bill Clinton (D) helped Bush Sr. as governor of Arkansas by covering up
any investigation targeting the operation and laundering their money through a state owned
bank. Bush Jr. (R) secured lands in Afghanistan in order to restart athe heroine trade by
growing poppy fields to process and ship back to the US. Obama (R) made sure the Mexican drug
cartels were well armed in order to launch a drug war that supported the Merida Initiative,
which allowed armed DEA, CIA and Mercenaries into Mexican territory. Trump (R) will be the
clean up hitter that will usher in the dollar collapse.
Mr. Smith do you really believe it is a coincidence that Rep 8 yrs, Dem 8yrs, Rep 8yrs, Dem
8yrs, Rep 3 yrs are voted in? Please sir, don't fool yourself because in the next election I
will bet money the orange fool will be president for another 4 years unless the owners don't
want him there. But we can safely say that history tells us he will. All I'm saying that people
like you, waiting for someone to throw you a rope because you've fallen into deep water are
waiting on a rescue boat that doesn't care if you drown.
Your best bet for change was thrown away when Dr. Ron Paul failed to be nominated. Us dumb
asses in Mexico didn't need another election fraud this time around! The people started YouTube
channels that reported the "real" news (Chapucero – Quesadillas de Verdades –
Charro Politico – Sin Censura, etc.). Those channels made a big difference, countering
the negative reporting by Mexican and US MSM that the Presidential Candidate for MORENA as
"Leftist", "Communist", "Socialist", "Like Hugo Chavez", "Dangerous", etc.
With all of the US propaganda, Mexican propaganda, the negative MSM and Elite financing,
Mexicans knew they had to get out and vote in record numbers and they did! Otherwise a close
election was seen as another loss and the end of Mexico as a country. People were ready to
fight and die if necessary. They had seen the Energy Reforms forced down our throat by the
corrupt PRI/PAN parties (Mex version o DEM/REP), with the help of Hillary Clinton and the US
State Department. They drafting the changes needed to the Mexican Constitution to allow a vote.
Totally against the Law in Mexico and I'm sure the laws of the US.
There is a saying that goes something like, "If you're not ready to die for Freedom, take it
out of your Vocabulary"!
Wars are necessary for the maintaining and expanding the US controlled neoliberal empire. Wars is the health of military
industrial complex.
The Deep State will bury any candidate who will try to change the USA forign policy. Looks
what happened to Trump. He got Russiagate just for vey modest proposal of detente with Russia
(of course not only for that, but still...)
Notable quotes:
"... The first is "The War Fraud Accountability Act of 2020″ Retroactive to 2002, it states that any and all individuals who conspired to defraud the United States into illegal war of aggression should be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law. Moreover, any and all assets owned by these individuals shall be made forfeit . to pay down the cost of the wars they lied us into. ..."
Those are interesting proposals but wishful thinking: wars are necessary for Electing Tulsi Gabbard as our next Commander in Chief will not solve our biggest problems
alone.
Her candidacy, I believe , must be augmented by two new laws which should be demanded by the
taxpayer and enforced by her administration on "day one".
The first is "The War Fraud Accountability Act of 2020″ Retroactive to 2002, it states
that any and all individuals who conspired to defraud the United States into illegal war of
aggression should be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law. Moreover, any and all
assets owned by these individuals shall be made forfeit . to pay down the cost of the wars they
lied us into.
If they lied us into war .they pay for it NOT the US taxpayer.
The second is " The Terror Fraud Accountability Act of 2020″ also retroactive to 2001,
it states that any and all individuals found to have engaged in plotting, planning, or staging
"false terror events" will be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law. Moreover, any
and all of the assets owned by these individuals shall be made forfeit to pay down the cost of
our War on Terror.
Americans should not have to sacrifice one cent of their tax dollars to pay for their own
defrauding by "staged" or "phony" terror events.
I believe that were Tulsi to be elected, she should set up two new task forces designed
especially for these reasons, Try to think of them as the " Office of Special Plans" IN
REVERSO.!.
Moreover she should hold weekly press briefings to notify the taxpayer of her progress, and
also how much of our 23 trillion in losses , FROM THEIR LIES, she has been able to recoup.
Getting these two initiatives up and running is the most potent force the taxpayers have in
cleaning out the fraud and larceny in DC, .ending our illegal wars overseas .. and
(finally)holding our "establishment elite " accountable for "LYING US INTO THEM"
It is way overdue for the American Taxpayer to take back control of our government from
those who ALMOST BANKRUPTED OUR ENTIRE NATION BY LYING US INTO ILLEGAL WARS.
It is not enough any more just to complain or "kvetch" about our problems .put on your
thinking caps .and start coming up with solutions and initiatives .start fighting for your
freedom, your finances and your future.
Elect the leaders YOU WANT and tell them exactly what you want them to do!
Tulsi has promised us all "SERVICE OVER SELF"
There you go !
I say that means not only ENDING our ILLEGAL, CRIMINAL WARS .but GETTING AS MUCH OF OUR
MONEY BACK from those who lied us into them !
ACCOUNTABILITY FOR WAR FRAUD it is $23,000,000,000,000.00. in "heinous debt" .overdue!
"... So, the two biggest issues in US politics--Forever Wars and the utter strangulation of politics by Big Money are what she wants to take on. And on those two issues alone, I've decided to work for her campaign! ..."
Doing Due Diligence on Tulsi Gabbard by watching the 1:20 long interview by Jimmy Dore of which
the first 20 minutes are excellent. At the 21 minute mark, Dore asks how can we end these
endless wars. Paraphrasing Gabbard: Failure is not an option: We must end these
interventionist wars as they suck the life blood out of doing the positive things that
must be done to benefit Americans.
Prior to the above, Dore as an aside mentions that Howard Dean, the Podestas, Clintons,
and others are all about keeping the flow of Big Money into politics at the expense of
everything else--that's their absolute #1 concern, to which you'll hear Gabbard agree!
So, the two biggest issues in US politics--Forever Wars and the utter strangulation of
politics by Big Money are what she wants to take on. And on those two issues alone, I've
decided to work for her campaign!
@74 karlof1 - " I've decided to work for [Tulsi Gabbard's] campaign"
This is excellent. As someone who has never had any national experience in politics, I
would be interested to know how one offers this kind of support - if you ever have time to
say, but don't break a leg over it.
One sees in politics how good moral character gets compromised by involvement in the
system. But we also know that one's own contribution to universal sanity can never be known
or measured - or discounted! Therefore, we do what we can. Who knows, perhaps your
involvement is the final butterfly-wing stroke that keeps her honest and upright and making a
difference.
Well done. And thank you.
~~
ps..please don't worry that people are not taking up your links or comments, just because
you don't see feedback here. Keep it all coming as well as you can, but please don't limit
your contributions to feedback. Many of the pieces you post are so friggin' long that it
takes the rest of the night to absorb them all ;)
I'm glad you donate the time of your retirement to offer all the things you do. I still
work, and it's a struggle to keep up with things. Your reading list overlaps mine very
nicely, and I ride on your coat-tails a lot - you along with many commenters here save me a
lot of time in pinpointing articles of value.
In fact, beyond b's superlative work - which he keeps producing even though we all
appreciate it so intently that we usually forget to praise him for it - I'd say the offering
of links from the top analysts and journalists, combined with the gems from the left field,
are a signature mark of this forum.
So please keep the summaries coming, and never lose heart or doubt that people are reading
them and placing value on them.
"... Kamala Harris is multi-cultural, East Indian and Jamaican, globalist educated in the USA and Canada. To be elected and earn rewards she identifies herself as an African-American. ..."
Kamala
Harris's Hillaryesque tweet re Trump meeting Kim at DMZ:
"This President should take the North Korean nuclear threat and its crimes against
humanity seriously. This is not a photo-op. Our security and our values are at stake."
Comments on the thread are telling, and she's not fooling anyone.
Thank goodness that there is one place where Globalism, Boeing, and Kamala Harris can be
discussed. From the bottom, looking up, they are intertwined. Corporate media strictly
ignores the restoration of the robber baron aristocracy, the supremacy of trade treaties, the
endless wars for profit, the free flow of capital, and corrupted governments. The sole
purpose is to make the rich richer at the expense of everyone else.
There are many tell-tale signs that this is an apt description of the world. With
deregulation and outsourcing, there is no incentive to design and build safe airplanes. That
costs money. Two 737 Max(s) crash killing 346. Workplaces are toxic. The life expectancy in
the UK and USA is declining. The US dollar is used as a military weapon. Monopolies buy up
innovation. Corporate law breaking is punished by fines which are added to the cost of doing
business. There is no jail time for chief executives. The cost of storm damage is increasing.
Families are migrating to survive. Nationalist and globalist oligarchs are fighting over the
spoils. Last week the global economy was 10 minutes away from collapse by an American air
attack on Iran.
Kamala Harris is multi-cultural, East Indian and Jamaican, globalist educated in the
USA and Canada. To be elected and earn rewards she identifies herself as an
African-American. Neo-Populism and France's Yellow Vests are the direct response to
global capitalism that is supported by Corporate Democrats, New Labour Party, and Emmanuel
Macron. The rise of Donald Trump and Boris Johnson in response is no coincidence.
especially read this by Helen Hanna in the comments section:
kamala looked aside while wells fargo bank established 3 million fraudulent accounts while
she was attorney general of california. she did nothing to punish them. she might as well be
wearing a hillary mask. as someone who lived in the bay area for 31 years, i remember her on
the 'matier and ross' interview program--her performance was juvenile and silly--- and i
remember her being willing to join the parade of willie brown's cocaine addicted mistresses,.
as number 21 and as a woman of color, she was a relief---not white, not skanky, no silver
cocaine spoon around her neck while pretending to eat dinner at chez michel with willie, but
why on earth would you want to join this parade and go out with this sleazy man whose kiton
suits do not improve his image one bit, a politician who offended the san francisco public by
his obnoxious habit of publicly flaunting his many skanky female hangers on, and reveling in
their 'whiteness.' what a bad choice kamala made. remember that pelosi and feinstein wouldn't
let willie brown anywhere near the inauguration podium of barack obama because these women
did not want willie's offensive background to sully obama. willie had had an illegitimate
child while 'serving as' mayor of san francisco, a city of 500 churches, mostly catholic. the
catholic church continued to retain him in the role --'of counsel.' that was astounding to
me, absolutely astounding.... willie also laundered drug money in a sutter street garage with
his haberdasher, wilkes bashford, but dianne feinstein prevented him from being jailed. i can
just see the sisterhood at temple emanuel where dianne feinstein worships--i can just see
them admonishing her for even suggesting one of serial adulterer willie's former mistresses
be the first woman president....is that why senator feinstein is keeping such a low profile
lately? what i don't understand is why pelosi and feinstein keep bringing us these
puppet-like women----hillary will always be bill's puppet and kamala will be willie's puppet.
you cannot possibly choose two more sleazy, obnoxious men to be your superior.
Just in time for the 2020 presidential election, the Democrats have discovered that there is
real economic inequality in the United States. But they have not yet fully addressed the role
that the Democratic party and its leaders have played in creating this vast inequality that led
to the election of President Donald Trump in 2016.
The presidential candidates have been slow to fully recognize the role that former President
Bill Clinton's globalization policies (NAFTA and WTO) played in the outsourcing of American
jobs or the lowering of wages for workers.
As the Democratic presidential debates have shown, Vice President Biden is having a hard
time defending his long public record, especially as an opponent of federally mandated "forced"
busing to integrate our public schools decades after the Supreme Court's overturning of racial
segregation in Brown v. Board of Education (1954). As a Senator Joe Biden was a free
trade advocate as well.
But Senator Biden played a large role in creating inequality in two additional realms. He
was a strong backer of a 2005 bankruptcy "reform" law that made it harder for people to file
personal bankruptcy and to wipe out all of their debts. Given that perhaps as many as fifty
percent of all personal bankruptcies in America are caused by debt incurred from health care
not covered by insurance, this was an especially cruel blow to those seeking relief from their
heavy debt loads.
In "'
Lock the S.O.B.s Up: Joe Biden and the Era of Mass Incarceration ," The New York
Times documents his decades-long support of tough on criminals legislation, culminating in
the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. This bill, signed into law by President
Clinton, has been blamed for the jailing of high numbers of African Americans and other
minorities, in particular.
Unlike the Republicans whose goal is to increase inequality by lowering taxes on the
wealthy, at least the Democrats seem sincere about reducing it. To do this, they have fallen
all over themselves to offer free college tuition and to reduce student loan debt. Sen. Bernie
Sanders recently proposed to
eliminate all student loans entirely .
Why have Democrats focused on college as a means of solving economic inequality? Statistics
have shown that in general the more education you have, the higher your lifetime earnings will
be. For example, men with bachelor's degrees earn nearly a million more
dollars in median lifetime earnings than high school graduates.
People who run "debates" are the same people (the DNC and the MSM and the USA MIC who controls both) who have charged
that our "democracy" was compromised by Russian interference via Facebook posts and the publishing of DNC documents that no one
has disputed the validity thereof.
As pathetic as Dems "debate" format is, it does give people an actual look at the candidates,
in many cases for the first time. It does change some minds and move the numbers. After all, Tulsi was the person who introduced
Bernie at the DNC convention in 2016. She's the person who left the DNC because she saw what scumbags they were.
For a candidate speaking out about the endless wars but the MSM and associates are performing their marginalization
magic.
More exposure for Gabbard can only help her. She did a fine job in her debate, I'm sure her
numbers will climb a bit.
election is a mighty high bar. she needs about 750 new donors a day, every day, if indeed
the cutoff date is 60ish days from now.
i wonder how many will make it? for that matter, i wonder how many already have? Biden,
O'Rourke, Sanders, Warren, Harris, Buttigieg for sure. Booker, Castro, Gillibrand probably.
Klobuchar maybe?
most of the rest are just taking up space, as far as I can tell -- they're contributing
nothing to the debate at all, and they have no hope of winning substantial support.
meanwhile, i wouldn't be surprised if both Biden and O'Rourke are done and out before the
next debate, destroyed by their own negatives. on the other hand, ego is a powerful thing,
and even the ones whose stars are declining may insist on sticking it out through New
Hampshire at least, in which case there could be a dozen or more still in the race come
September, hopefully including TG.
This is WSWS with their outdated dreams of "working class dictatorship" but some points and observation are very apt and
to the point.
Notable quotes:
"... The fraud of a "progressive" Democratic Party and presidential candidate was summed up in the near-universal declaration of the media that Senator Kamala Harris had emerged as the clear winner, part of a coordinated effort to promote her candidacy ..."
"... Harris climbed to the Senate by serving for years in the Bay Area of California as a law-and-order district attorney and state attorney general, defending police killers and bankers engaged in foreclosure fraud, including Trump's current treasury secretary, Steven Mnuchin. A member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, she has been among the most rabid of Democrats in attacking Trump as a stooge of Russian President Putin. In Thursday's debate, her main foray into foreign policy was to denounce Trump for being soft on Putin and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. ..."
"... She is being promoted most enthusiastically by those sections of the ruling class, whose views are promoted by the New York Times ..."
"... The Obama administration also deported more immigrants than any other, a fact that was raised in a question to Vice President Biden, who confined himself to empty declarations of sympathy for the victims of Trump's persecution, while denying any comparison between Trump and Obama. ..."
"... If these ladies and gentlemen decide not to engage on foreign policy, the reason is clear: the Democrats know that the American people are adamantly opposed to new military interventions. They therefore seek to conceal the preparations of American imperialism for major wars, whether regional conflicts with Iran, North Korea or Venezuela, or conflicts with nuclear-armed global rivals like China and Russia. ..."
"... On the first night, Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, asked to name the greatest global security threat, replied, "The greatest threat that we face is the fact we are at a greater risk of nuclear war today than ever before in history." This remarkable declaration was passed over in silence by the moderators and the other candidates, and the subject was not raised on the second night at all, including by Bernie Sanders. ..."
Four hours of nationally televised debates Wednesday and Thursday among 20 Democratic
presidential candidates demonstrated the gigantic disconnect between the claims of this
pro-war, pro-corporate party to be driven by concerns for the well-being of working people
and the reality of poverty and oppression in America, for which the Democratic Party is no
less responsible than the Republicans.
The stage-managed spectacle mounted by NBC marked the formal beginning of an electoral
process dominated by big money and thoroughly manipulated by the corporate-controlled
media.
The attempt to contain the growing left-wing opposition in the working class and channel
it behind the second oldest capitalist party in the world necessarily assumed the form of
lies and demagogy. For the most part, the vying politicians, all of them in the top 10
percent on the income ladder, made promises to provide healthcare, jobs, decent schools,
tuition-free college and a clean environment for all, knowing full well they had no intention
of carrying them out.
No one -- neither the millionaire media talking heads asking the questions nor the
candidates -- dared to mention the fact that that Democratic Party has just voted to give
Trump an additional $4.9 billion to round up, detain and torture hundreds of thousands of
immigrants, including children, in the growing network of concentration camps being set up
within the US. Facts, as they say, are stubborn things, and this one demonstrates the
complicity of the Democratic Party in the fascistic policies of the Trump administration.
The second night of the debate featured the front-runners, former Vice President Joe Biden
and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. Biden has a long record of reactionary politics,
including in the Obama administration. Sanders is continuing in this election his role in
2016 of channeling growing support for socialism into the framework of a right-wing
party.
The fraud of a "progressive" Democratic Party and presidential candidate was summed up in
the near-universal declaration of the media that Senator Kamala Harris had emerged as the
clear winner, part of a coordinated effort to promote her candidacy. The African-American
senator was lauded for attacking Biden for statements boasting of his ability in the past to
collaborate with segregationist senators and his past opposition to busing for school
integration.
It was Harris who adopted the most transparently bogus posture of left-radicalism in
Thursday night's debate, repeatedly declaring her agreement with Bernie Sanders and raising
her hand, along with Sanders, to support the abolition of private health insurance in favor
of a single-payer system. By Friday morning, however, she had reversed that stand, claiming
she had "misheard" the question and declaring her support for the continuation of private
insurance.
Harris climbed to the Senate by serving for years in the Bay Area of California as a
law-and-order district attorney and state attorney general, defending police killers and
bankers engaged in foreclosure fraud, including Trump's current treasury secretary, Steven
Mnuchin. A member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, she has been among the most rabid of
Democrats in attacking Trump as a stooge of Russian President Putin. In Thursday's debate,
her main foray into foreign policy was to denounce Trump for being soft on Putin and North
Korean leader Kim Jong-un.
She is being promoted most enthusiastically by those sections of the ruling class,
whose views are promoted by the New York Times , who want the Democratic campaign to
be dominated by racial and gender politics so as to mobilize the party's wealthy upper-middle
class base and divert and divide the mass working class anger over social
inequality.
Many of the candidates fondly recalled the Obama administration. But those eight years saw
the greatest transfer of wealth from working people to the super-rich in American history.
The pace was set by the initial $700 billion bailout of Wall Street, which was expanded to
uncounted trillions in the course of 2009, combined with the bailout of the auto companies at
the expense of the autoworkers, who suffered massive cuts in benefits and a 50 percent cut in
pay for new hires, rubber-stamped by the United Auto Workers.
The Obama administration also deported more immigrants than any other, a fact that was
raised in a question to Vice President Biden, who confined himself to empty declarations of
sympathy for the victims of Trump's persecution, while denying any comparison between Trump
and Obama.
Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado attacked Biden for claiming credit for a bipartisan
budget deal in 2011 with Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell. Far from a genuine
compromise, he said, the deal "was a complete victory for the Tea Party. It extended the Bush
tax cuts permanently," as well as putting in place major cuts in social spending which
continue to this day. Bennet neglected to mention that he had voted for the deal himself when
it passed the Senate by a huge majority.
It was remarkable, under conditions where President Trump himself declared that the United
States was only 10 minutes away from launching a major assault on Iran earlier this month,
that the 20 Democratic candidates spent almost no time discussing foreign policy.
In the course of four hours, there were only a few minutes devoted to the world outside
the United States. The silence on the rest of the world cannot be dismissed as mere
parochialism.
Many of the Democratic presidential candidates are deeply implicated in either the
policy-making or combat operations of US imperialism. The 20 candidates include two who were
deployed as military officers to Iraq and Afghanistan, Buttigieg and Tulsi Gabbard; Biden,
vice president for eight years and the former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee; and five senators who are members of high-profile national security committees:
Harris and Bennet on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Elizabeth Warren and Kirsten
Gillibrand on the Armed Services Committee, and Cory Booker on the Foreign Relations
Committee.
If these ladies and gentlemen decide not to engage on foreign policy, the reason is
clear: the Democrats know that the American people are adamantly opposed to new military
interventions. They therefore seek to conceal the preparations of American imperialism for
major wars, whether regional conflicts with Iran, North Korea or Venezuela, or conflicts with
nuclear-armed global rivals like China and Russia.
In the handful of comments that were made on foreign policy, the Democratic candidates
struck a belligerent note. On Wednesday, four of the ten candidates declared the main global
threat to the United States to be China, while New York Mayor Bill de Blasio opted for
Russia. Many candidates referred to the need to combat Russian interference in the US
election -- recycling the phony claims that Russian "meddling" helped Trump into the White
House in 2016.
On the first night, Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, asked to name the greatest
global security threat, replied, "The greatest threat that we face is the fact we are at a
greater risk of nuclear war today than ever before in history." This remarkable declaration
was passed over in silence by the moderators and the other candidates, and the subject was
not raised on the second night at all, including by Bernie Sanders.
"... If her trend of seriously closing the favorability gap with Joe Biden is any indication, if her broad but incomplete acceptability to the Clinton and the Sanders wings of the Democratic party is any indication, we would have to answer that question with a fairly emphatic, "yes, she can." ..."
On the first night of the first Democratic debates, Elizabeth Warren gave a master class in
when to speak and when to keep one's mouth shut. This is a lesson former Vice President Joe
Biden could learn a ton from.
When Waren did speak, it was clear, passionate, on point, and richly factual. On health
care, she even surprised a bit by committing to eliminating private insurance where she has
previously hedged her betting.
... ... ...
Can Warren beat Biden? If her trend of seriously closing the favorability gap
with Joe Biden is any indication, if her broad but incomplete acceptability to the Clinton and
the Sanders wings of the Democratic party is any indication, we would have to answer that
question with a fairly emphatic, "yes, she can."
Whether she will depends on a number of factors, some within, some beyond her control. In my
view, the most critical tasks within her control are finding a way to a coherent foreign policy
position and pivoting to an efficient answer on the DNA testing question that simultaneously
educates regarding and firmly rejects blood quantum theories of race.
"... Sanders and Warren are not what they claim to be. They are both updating Roosevelt's New Deal and more closely resemble the Social Democrats that have governed western European democracies for years, delivering higher standards of living than that experienced by Americans. ..."
"... In May 2009, the moderate Senator from Illinois, Dick Durbin, said: "The banks – hard to believe when we're facing a banking crisis that many of the banks created – are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place." ..."
"... In the new book, Banking on the People , by Ellen Brown, readers can get an idea of the way large banks, insurers, and the giant shadow banking system – money market funds, hedge funds, mortgage brokers, and other unregulated financial intermediaries – speculate and shift deep risk and their failures onto Uncle Sam. These corporate predators gouge customers, and, remarkably, show a deep aversion for productive investment as if people matter. ..."
"... Control of our political economy is not a conservative/liberal or red state/blue state issue. When confronted with the specifics of the corporate state or corporate socialism, people from all political persuasions will recognize the potential perils to our democracy. No one wants to lose essential freedoms or to continue to pay the price of this runaway crony capitalism. ..."
"... The gigantic corporations have been built with the thralldom of deep debt – corporate debt to fund stock buybacks (while reporting record profits), consumer debt, student loan debt, and, of course, government debt caused by drastic corporate and super-rich tax cuts. Many trillions of dollars have been stolen from future generations. ..."
Trump Invites Debates over Omnivorous Crony Capitalism
Donald J. Trump's 2020 election strategy is to connect
his potential Democratic opponents with "socialism." Trump plans to use this attack on the
Democrats even if Senator Bernie Sanders, who proudly calls himself a "democratic socialist,"
doesn't become the presidential nominee (Sanders has been decisively re-elected in Vermont).
Senator Elizabeth Warren is distancing herself from the socialist "label." She went so far
as to
tell the New England Council "I am a capitalist to my bones."
Sanders and Warren are not what they claim to be. They are both updating Roosevelt's New
Deal and more closely resemble the Social Democrats that have governed western European
democracies for years, delivering higher standards of living than that experienced by
Americans.
The original doctrine of socialism meant government ownership of the means of production
– heavy industries, railroads, banks, and the like. Nobody in national politics today is
suggesting such a takeover. As one quipster put it, "How can Washington take ownership of the
banks when the banks own Washington?"
Confronting Trump on the "socialism" taboo can open up a great debate about the value of
government intervention for the good of the public. Sanders can effectively argue that people
must choose either democratic socialism or the current failing system of corporate socialism.
That choice is not difficult. Such an American democratic socialism could provide almost all of
the long overdue solutions this country needs: full more efficient Medicare for all;
tuition-free education; living wages; stronger unions; a tax system that works for the people;
investments in infrastructure and public works; reforms for a massive, runaway military budget;
the end of most corporate welfare; government promotion of renewable energies; and the end of
subsidies for fossil fuels and nuclear power.
In my presidential campaigns I tried to make corporate socialism – also called
corporate welfare or crony capitalism – a major issue. Small business is capitalism
– free to go bankrupt – while corporate capitalism – free to get bailouts
from Washington – is really a form of corporate socialism. This point about a corporate
government was documented many years ago in books such as America, Inc. (1971) by Morton
Mintz and Jerry Cohen.
Now, it is even easier to make the case that our political economy is largely controlled by
giant corporations and their political toadies. Today the concentration of power and wealth is
staggering. Just six capitalist men have wealth to equal the wealth of half of the world's
population.
The Wall Street collapse of 2008-2009 destroyed eight million jobs, lost trillions of
dollars in pension and mutual funds, and pushed millions of families to lose their homes.
Against this backdrop, the U.S. government used trillions of taxpayer dollars to bail out, in
various ways, the greedy, financial giants, whose reckless speculating caused the collapse.
In May 2009, the moderate Senator from Illinois, Dick Durbin, said: "The banks – hard
to believe when we're facing a banking crisis that many of the banks created – are still
the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place."
Is there a single federal government agency or department that can say its most powerful
outside influence is NOT corporate? Even the Labor Department and the National Labor Relations
Board are under more corporate power than union power.
Who better than Trump, on an anti-socialist fantasy campaign kick, can call attention to the
reality that Big Business controls the government and by extension controls the people? In
September 2000, a Business Week poll found over 70 percent of people agreeing that big
business has too much control over their lives (this was before the horrific corporate
crimes and scandals of the past two decades). Maybe that is why support in polls for
"socialism" against "capitalism" in the U.S. is at a 60 year high.
People have long experienced American-style "socialism." For example, the publicly owned
water and electric utilities, public parks and forests, the Postal Service, public libraries,
FDIC guarantees of bank deposits (now up to $250,000), Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid,
etc.
What the public is not sufficiently alert to is that Big Business has been profitably taking
over control, if not outright ownership, of these public assets.
In the new book, Banking on the
People , by Ellen Brown, readers can get an idea of the way large banks, insurers, and
the giant shadow banking system – money market funds, hedge funds, mortgage brokers, and
other unregulated financial intermediaries – speculate and shift deep risk and their
failures onto Uncle Sam. These corporate predators gouge customers, and, remarkably, show a
deep aversion for productive investment as if people matter.
Moreover, they just keep developing new, ever riskier, multi-tiered instruments (eg.
derivatives) to make money from money through evermore complex, abstract, secret,
reckless, entangled, globally destabilizing, networks. Gambling with other people's money is a
relentless Wall Street tradition.
The crashes that inevitably emerge end up impoverishing ordinary people who pay the price
with their livelihoods.
Will the Democrats and other engaged people take Trump on if he tries to make "socialism"
the big scare in 2020? Control of our political economy is not a conservative/liberal or red
state/blue state issue. When confronted with the specifics of the corporate state or corporate
socialism, people from all political persuasions will recognize the potential perils to our
democracy. No one wants to lose essential freedoms or to continue to pay the price of this
runaway crony capitalism.
The gigantic corporations have been built with the thralldom of deep debt – corporate
debt to fund stock buybacks (while reporting record profits), consumer debt, student loan debt,
and, of course, government debt caused by drastic corporate and super-rich tax cuts. Many
trillions of dollars have been stolen from future generations.
No wonder a small group of billionaires, including George Soros,
Eli Broad , and Nick Hanauer, have just publicly urged a modest tax on the super wealthy.
As Hanauer, a history buff and advocate of higher minimum wages, says – "the pitchforks
are coming."
"... Connected to Trump as the 'winner', it was Tulsi Gabbard who stood out from the rest of the candidates. Interestingly, reliable polling data just out from the Drudge Report shows that Gabbard emerged as the winner of the debate on ideas and policies overall. She won some 40% of the vote, and when compared to the candidates whom the other 60% was divided, it was a landslide. ..."
"... Before anyone dismisses Gabbard, it's critical to understand that mainstream media lost most of its credibility over the lat election. This is the age of underdogs and dark horses ..."
"... When the subject moved to Afghanistan and occupation, Gabbard was on confident and really on fire. This is significant because while historically Gabbard's anti-imperialist line on occupation would be associated with (normally later broken) Democratic Party talking points, it was here that Trump defeated Clinton at the polls, when Trump won the anti-war vote in 2016. ..."
"... Gabbard destroyed Ryan on Afghanistan, and Booker's attempt to attack Gabbard fell tremendously short and felt very artificial, saying that Gabbard's position on LGBTQ 'isn't enough', but then switching incoherently to the subject of African Americans, Jim Crow, and lynchings – a misfire and very much off-topic. ..."
"... Trump's hardline on Cuba and Venezuela is appealing to the Florida wing of the Latino constituency (to the extent we can speak of a single constituency), and this is where the Democratic Party understands it needs to fight in order to win Florida. ..."
"... There hasn't been a Republican candidate to win the Presidency without winning Florida in many generations, and the Republican victory of Rick Scott in the state's most expensive senatorial race against Democrat incumbent Bill Nelson in 2018 shows that Republicans are aiming to win Florida in 2020. The Democratic Party concern is palpable and well founded. ..."
"... At face value, Trump and Democrats seem to be 6's and 7's over immigration. But when we really look at what the real deal is, we find yet another alignment of the Democrat's position to that of Trump's. How can this be? ..."
"... To understand this is to understand the overall trajectory now that the US empire is all but finished. Its historical aim now is to be able to disentangle from the Mid-East, a prominent Trump position which used to be Obama's until it wasn't, and on the Democratic side today is only being carried forward by Tulsi Gabbard. The so-called neo-isolationism of the US isn't so much that, as it is a return to the Monroe Doctrine. This author has written about this several years before Trump took office, in the article ' From Pax Americana to Pan Americana '. Here this author argued that the US must transform from a Sea Power into a Land Power. This isn't isolationism, but a right-sized regional hegemon, a regional hegemon for the Americas. ..."
"... Trump's rhetoric on the immigration question and Mexico has never failed to mention that the mid-to-long term solution is not only that Mexico enforces its own borders to its south, but that the Mexican economy grows – and this requires investment. ..."
"... While Trump is nominally strict on immigration, it was under Obama that the US deported the most migrants in history. This is a fact that Democrats ignore in their talking points and attacks on Trump's 'inhuman policy' that tears families apart. And so in a strange departure from what might otherwise occur to us, it was Obama's policy that was worse by the numbers for pro-migration advocates, and it's been Trump who has openly called for investment into Latin America with a named reason being to stem the migration 'crisis'. ..."
"... But this Marshall Plan for Latin America was already introduced by none other than Mexican President AMLO himself, in talks with Trump. ..."
"... What Tulsi Gabbard, the clear winner of the debate, will do next is to appropriate Julian Castro's 'Marshall Plan' line on Mexico and Central America. It dog-whistles numerous Trump talking points in relation to Mexico, as well as taking a 'less migration is good migration' approach to what is no doubt a real problem, without engaging in reactionary attacks on the migrants themselves. To get 'to the source' of the problem, as Castro explains, requires investment into Latin America. ..."
"... Gabbard is the dark horse, and along with Yang (in the second night's debate) will no doubt pull ahead of the conventionally pre-selected winners that were supposed to be Booker, Sanders, Warren and especially Biden. We will see much more focus on Gabbard now in virtual spaces, even while the mainstream media will continue to wrongly focus on Biden and Booker. Booker played his left-most game in the debate, but as prospective voters sort him on questions as far and ranging as Palestine, war, and labor (economy) – they will find him sorely lacking. ..."
"... With 60% of American generally supporting Trump's approach to the economy, these are his highest approval ratings, and ones which Americans care about and highly prioritize. Gabbard would be wise to approach the question of distribution, winners and losers of the economic boom, and focus on the 1% vs. the 99%. Doing so will help her move beyond her initial base of support as the anti-war candidate. ..."
The single truth that many mainstream Democrats will have a very difficult time
acknowledging coming out of the June 26 th Democratic Party Presidential Debate, is
that Donald Trump's positions on China and Latin America have become a Democratic Party line.
Is this is a mere matter of pandering to the polling data on questions like Latin America and
China? Even if just that, it would be a Trump success in and of itself.
But it also raises whether Trump has indeed accomplished more – a tectonic shift, a
sea-change in elite policy formation focus from Russia and the Mid-east over to China and Latin
America. The ties between the DNC and China still appear too strong, and so the reality would
seem to tend to rotate around a pandering to the polling data.
From China to solving the migration problem through a 'Marshall Plan' for Latin America and
more, Trump's nominal views on these questions found expression as dominating themes in the
debate.
In the war of positions, this is a victory for Trump.
The June 26th Democratic Party Presidential Debate was astounding in its representation of a
major paradigm shift in the United States.
Before anyone dismisses Gabbard, it's critical to understand that mainstream media lost most
of its credibility over the lat election. This is the age of underdogs and dark horses
When the subject moved to Afghanistan and occupation, Gabbard was on confident and really on
fire. This is significant because while historically Gabbard's anti-imperialist line on
occupation would be associated with (normally later broken) Democratic Party talking points, it
was here that Trump defeated Clinton at the polls, when Trump won the anti-war vote in
2016.
Worth noting as well as that in the aftermath of the debate last night, Gabbard's new social
media campaign on Twitter features her name scrolling across the bottom of the screen in
undeniable Trump 2016 campaign font. Coincidence? Nothing in politics is coincidental –
nothing.
Gabbard destroyed Ryan on Afghanistan, and Booker's attempt to attack Gabbard fell
tremendously short and felt very artificial, saying that Gabbard's position on LGBTQ 'isn't
enough', but then switching incoherently to the subject of African Americans, Jim Crow, and
lynchings – a misfire and very much off-topic.
CHINA
Of the ten candidates debating, four responded that China was the primary threat to the US
– but this was the single-most consistent answer. Delaney, Klobuchar, Castro, and Ryan
all answered this way.
This was a win for Trump's entire line for the last thirty something years.
De Blasio stood out as the lone Russiagater, definitely representing the mindset of his New
York City electorate and the coastal media establishment.
Gabbard, meanwhile, was wise to name ecological threats as this helped her maintain her
position as an anti-war candidate.
The pivot to a focus on China is much less dangerous than the focus on Russia. TheUS does
not really believe it can challenge China in a military sense, and their anti-Chinese rhetoric,
while full of sword rattling and imperial bravado, amounts to noise and little more. There is
some hope in American quarters about curtailing China's economic strength, but the focus on
China appears more as a question of a state requiring the spectre of an anthropomorphized
threat in the abstract, in order to justify the existence of a state and a military budget, and
to make a foreigner responsible for matters of wealth disparity and a lack of employment
opportunities in the US – a prominent tactic and talking point in market-driven societies
based in private property norms.
But the pivot to a focus on China was tremendous and not expected, given the relationship
historically between China and the Democratic Party – a friendly one.
Until now, it's been just the conservative corners of the alt-light in the US-centric
internet who view the 'rising Chinese threat' as a serious concern for the US. This trope was
primarily focused on the twin threat of Chinese rising military prowess and its population
size, along with the US practice of outsourcing American jobs to China – a policy that
saw short term consumer savings, and mid-to-long term slashes to US wages and employment. It
created a trade imbalance which the US can only resolving by defaulting on and then drawing its
guns to force a new deal.
Taken all together, this means that whoever Trump gets into the big race with, it will not
be a question of 'whether' China is a threat, but how to 'best contain' the Chinese threat.
This is a victory from 'go' for Trump.
LATIN AMERICA
Here is another major subject where Trump's influence on the entire discourse has prevailed,
though it's a little less obvious and requires a minor bifurcation to reveal.
We are of course obliged to mention that the location of the debate in Miami Florida was
strategic given its representation of Latinos in the US – traditionally Cuban and more
recently Venezuelan Republicans as hardline anti-communists and cold-warriors, who see their
children increasingly becoming more 'center-left' as they have Americanized and become
'Latinos' in the US. They are still at odds geopolitically with Latinos, primarily
Mexican-Americans from the American southwest, who tend to be friendlier to socialist ideas and
have represented the far-left of the Democratic Party on economic issues as well as
anti-imperialism, even if sharing with Cuban-Americans some more socially conservative values.
This communitarian axis of Latinos in the US, however, has grown and become a real force of its
own.
Trump's hardline on Cuba and Venezuela is appealing to the Florida wing of the Latino
constituency (to the extent we can speak of a single constituency), and this is where the
Democratic Party understands it needs to fight in order to win Florida.
There hasn't been a Republican candidate to win the Presidency without winning Florida in
many generations, and
the Republican victory of Rick Scott in the state's most expensive senatorial race against
Democrat incumbent Bill Nelson in 2018 shows that Republicans are aiming to win Florida in
2020. The Democratic Party concern is palpable and well founded.
So we find the extraordinary focus on Latinos was represented in the ultimately surprising
display of whole Spanish language answers from both Beto O'Rourke and Cory Booker, and a few
questions wholly or partly in Spanish from the moderators. The entire debate was brought to
viewers not just by NBC but also by Spanish language network Telemundo.
At face value, Trump and Democrats seem to be 6's and 7's over immigration. But when we
really look at what the real deal is, we find yet another alignment of the Democrat's position
to that of Trump's. How can this be?
To understand this is to understand the overall trajectory now that the US empire is all but
finished. Its historical aim now is to be able to disentangle from the Mid-East, a prominent
Trump position which used to be Obama's until it wasn't, and on the Democratic side today is
only being carried forward by Tulsi Gabbard. The so-called neo-isolationism of the US isn't so
much that, as it is a return to the Monroe Doctrine. This author has written about this several
years before Trump took office, in the article ' From Pax Americana to
Pan Americana '. Here this author argued that the US must transform from a Sea Power
into a Land Power. This isn't isolationism, but a right-sized regional hegemon, a regional
hegemon for the Americas.
Trump's rhetoric on the immigration question and Mexico has never failed to mention that the
mid-to-long term solution is not only that Mexico enforces its own borders to its south, but
that the Mexican economy grows – and this requires investment.
The trade-offs are several fold. For one, the US goes back to its China position, and wants
Latin American countries to agree to reduce the
Chinese influence in exchange for real industrial capital investments from the United
States into Latin America.
This is not to say that the Democratic Party has ignored Latin America to date, far from it.
It was under Obama's two terms that the US worked the most to reverse the Pink Tide in Latin
America, and this came with a few 'own goals' when the ultimate consequence of the
regime-change operation in Honduras was to stoke a human wave migration crisis. This was, in
short, the American version of the Libya scenario.
While Trump is nominally strict on immigration, it was under Obama that the US deported the
most migrants in history. This is a fact that Democrats ignore in their talking points and
attacks on Trump's 'inhuman policy' that tears families apart. And so in a strange departure
from what might otherwise occur to us, it was Obama's policy that was worse by the numbers for
pro-migration advocates, and it's been Trump who has openly called for investment into Latin
America with a named reason being to stem the migration 'crisis'.
And it's this exact talking point that numerous Democratic Party candidates picked up on,
and a very telling term was introduced by Julian Castro – a Marshall Plan for Latin
America. Cory Booker stood beside and nodded in apparent agreement, and that the words came
from the token Latino (no, not Beto), Castro was both intentional and symbolically telling.
While Bolton and Pompeo have operated under the 'Monroe Doctrine' term, this is so entirely
distasteful for all of Latin America that it offends anyone and everyone, even the US's own
lackeys, puppets, and proxies in the region.
"Why it matters: AMLO has worked energetically since taking office to sell the White
House on a "Marshall Plan" of support to address the region's growing migrant crisis. The US
commitment is a preliminary sign that he's at least being heard
While he campaigned as a compassionate voice on immigration, Mexico's new left-wing
leader spied the need for a grand solution. The US funding will contribute to a $30 billion
aid package envisioned by AMLO
AMLO even dangled the prospect of Chinese investment to bring Trump to the table,
according to the NY Times -- reasoning that the US might be more willing to pay up if it
feared that China might try to expand its influence in the region by opening its
wallet."
Since them, numerous articles have popped up describing Trump's potential 'Marshall Plan'
for Central America.
WHAT NEXT? CONCLUDING THOUGHTS
What Tulsi Gabbard, the clear winner of the debate, will do next is to appropriate Julian
Castro's 'Marshall Plan' line on Mexico and Central America. It dog-whistles numerous Trump
talking points in relation to Mexico, as well as taking a 'less migration is good migration'
approach to what is no doubt a real problem, without engaging in reactionary attacks on the
migrants themselves. To get 'to the source' of the problem, as Castro explains, requires
investment into Latin America.
Gabbard will be well positioned to nominally attack Trump's policy implementation along
human rights grounds, while not being specific on anything except getting 'to the source of the
problem'.
Gabbard is the dark horse, and along with Yang (in the second night's debate) will no doubt
pull ahead of the conventionally pre-selected winners that were supposed to be Booker, Sanders,
Warren and especially Biden. We will see much more focus on Gabbard now in virtual spaces, even
while the mainstream media will continue to wrongly focus on Biden and Booker. Booker played
his left-most game in the debate, but as prospective voters sort him on questions as far and
ranging as Palestine, war, and labor (economy) – they will find him sorely lacking.
With 60% of American generally supporting Trump's approach to the economy, these are his
highest approval ratings, and ones which Americans care about and highly prioritize. Gabbard
would be wise to approach the question of distribution, winners and losers of the economic
boom, and focus on the 1% vs. the 99%. Doing so will help her move beyond her initial base of
support as the anti-war candidate.
This will angle the populist line, and position her well not only against all other
Democrats, but even against Trump himself should she win the nomination. It's a long shot, but
remember indeed: this is the age of underdogs and dark horses.
You have probably seen the bumper sticker that says: "Shit Happens." Some people are just
lucky, I suppose, and odd coincidences mark their lives.
When he was just out of Columbia College and working for a reputed CIA front company,
Business International Corporation, Barack Obama had a chance encounter with a young woman,
Genevieve Cook, with whom he had a 1-2 year relationship.
Like Obama and at about the same
time, Cook just happened to have lived in Indonesia with her father, Michael Cook, who just
happened to become Australia's top spook, the director-general of the Office of National
Assessments, and also the Ambassador to Washington.
Of course, Obama's mother, as is well-known, just happened to be living in Indonesia with
Barack and Obama's step-father, Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian military officer, who had been
called back to Indonesia by the CIA supported General Suharto three months before the CIA coup
against President Sukarno. Suharto subsequently slaughtered over a million Indonesian
Communists and Indonesian-Chinese.
As is also well-known, it just so happened that Obama's
mother, Ann Dunham, trained in the Russian language, after teaching English in the US Embassy
in Jakarta that housed one of the largest CIA stations in Asia, did her "anthropological" work
in Indonesia and Southeast Asia financed by the well-known CIA conduits, USAID and the Ford
Foundation.
Then there is Cook's stepfather, Philip C. Jessup, who just happened to be in
Indonesia at the same time, doing nickel-mining deals with the genocidal Suharto
government.
Anyway, "shit happens." You never know whom you might meet along the way of life.
"... More importantly, Ryan's campaign using the word "isolationism" to describe the simple common sense impulse to withdraw from a costly, deadly military occupation which isn't accomplishing anything highlights an increasingly common tactic of tarring anything other than endless military expansionism as strange and aberrant instead of normal and good. ..."
"... Under our current Orwellian doublespeak paradigm where forever war is the new normal, the opposite of war is no longer peace, but isolationism. This removal of a desirable opposite of war from the establishment-authorised lexicon causes war to always be the desirable option. ..."
"... A few months after Bush's address, Antiwar 's Rich Rubino wrote an article titled " Non-Interventionism is Not Isolationism ", explaining the difference between a nation which withdraws entirely from the world and a nation which simply resists the temptation to use military aggression except in self defense. ..."
"... "Isolationism dictates that a country should have no relations with the rest of the world," Rubino explained. "In its purest form this would mean that ambassadors would not be shared with other nations, communications with foreign governments would be mainly perfunctory, and commercial relations would be non-existent." ..."
"... "A non-interventionist supports commercial relations," Rubino contrasted. "In fact, in terms of trade, many non-interventionists share libertarian proclivities and would unilaterally obliterate all tariffs and custom duties, and would be open to trade with all willing nations. In addition, non-interventionists welcome cultural exchanges and the exchange of ambassadors with all willing nations." ..."
"... "A non-interventionist believes that the U.S. should not intercede in conflicts between other nations or conflicts within nations," wrote Rubino. "In recent history, non-interventionists have proved prophetic in warning of the dangers of the U.S. entangling itself in alliances. The U.S. has suffered deleterious effects and effectuated enmity among other governments, citizenries, and non-state actors as a result of its overseas interventions. The U.S. interventions in both Iran and Iraq have led to cataclysmic consequences." ..."
"... Calling an aversion to endless military violence "isolationism" is the same as calling an aversion to mugging people "agoraphobia". ..."
"... Another dishonest label you'll get thrown at you when debating the forever war is "pacifism". "Some wars are bad, but I'm not a pacifist; sometimes war is necessary," supporters of a given interventionist military action will tell you. They'll say this while defending Trump's potentially catastrophic Iran warmongering or promoting a moronic regime change invasion of Syria, or defending disastrous US military interventions in the past like Iraq. ..."
"... All Wars Are Evil. Period. "Military men are just dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy." – Henry Kissinger ..."
"... Can you imagine Jesus firing a machine gun at a group of people? Can you picture Jesus in an F-16 lobbing missiles at innocents? ..."
"... instead of getting us out of Syria, Trump got us further in. Trump is driving us to ww3. ..."
"... funny how people, fresh from the broken promises "build that wall" etc, quickly forget all that and begin IMMEDIATELY projecting trustworthiness on yet ANOTHER candidate. I'Il vote for Tulsi when she says no more Israeli wars for America. ..."
"... if there's even a small chance Tulsi can get us out of the forever wars i will be compelled to vote for her, as Trump clearly has no intention on doing so. yes, it is that important ..."
"... As for this next election? Is Ron Paul running as an independent? No? Well then, 'fool me once...' Don't get me wrong: I hope Gabbard is genuine and she's absolutely right to push non-interventionism...but the rest of her platform sucks. There's also the fact that she's a CFR member ..."
"... Just as they did with Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, and Pat Buchanan, the MSM and the swamp have already effectively buried Gabbard. It's unlikely that she'll make the next debate cut as the DNC and MSM will toss her out. ..."
"... All the MSM is talking about post-debates, even on Faux Noise, is Harris's race-baiting of old senile Biden. ..."
After getting curb stomped on the debate
stage by Tulsi Gabbard, the campaign for Tim "Who the fuck is Tim Ryan?" Ryan
posted a statement decrying the Hawaii congresswoman's
desire to end a pointless 18-year military occupation as "isolationism".
"While making a point as to why America can't cede its international leadership and retreat from around the world, Tim was
interrupted by Rep. Tulsi Gabbard," the statement reads.
"When he tried to answer her, she contorted a factual point Tim was making -- about the Taliban being complicit in the 9/11
attacks by providing training, bases and refuge for Al Qaeda and its leaders. The characterization that Tim Ryan doesn't know
who is responsible for the attacks on 9/11 is simply unfair reporting. Further, we continue to reject Gabbard's isolationism and
her misguided beliefs on foreign policy . We refuse to be lectured by someone who thinks it's ok to dine with murderous dictators
like Syria's Bashar Al-Assad who used chemical weapons on his own people."
Ryan's campaign is lying. During an exchange that was explicitly about the Taliban in Afghanistan, Ryan plainly said "When we
weren't in there, they started flying planes into our buildings." At best, Ryan can argue that when he said "they" he had suddenly
shifted from talking about the Taliban to talking about Al Qaeda without bothering to say so, in which case he obviously can't legitimately
claim that Gabbard "contorted" anything he had said. At worst, he was simply unaware at the time of the very clear distinction between
the Afghan military and political body called the Taliban and the multinational extremist organization called Al Qaeda.
More importantly, Ryan's campaign using the word "isolationism" to describe the simple common sense impulse to withdraw from a
costly, deadly military occupation which isn't accomplishing anything highlights an increasingly common tactic of tarring anything
other than endless military expansionism as strange and aberrant instead of normal and good.
Under our current Orwellian doublespeak
paradigm where forever war is the new normal, the opposite of war is no longer peace, but isolationism. This removal of a desirable
opposite of war from the establishment-authorised lexicon causes war to always be the desirable option.
This is entirely by design. This bit of word magic has been employed for a long time to tar any idea which deviates from the neoconservative
agenda of total global unipolarity via violent imperialism as something freakish and dangerous. In
his farewell address to the nation , war criminal George W Bush said the following:
"In the face of threats from abroad, it can be tempting to seek comfort by turning inward. But we must reject isolationism
and its companion, protectionism. Retreating behind our borders would only invite danger. In the 21st century, security and prosperity
at home depend on the expansion of liberty abroad. If America does not lead the cause of freedom, that cause will not be led."
A few months after Bush's address, Antiwar 's Rich Rubino wrote an article titled "
Non-Interventionism
is Not Isolationism ", explaining the difference between a nation which withdraws entirely from the world and a nation which
simply resists the temptation to use military aggression except in self defense.
"Isolationism dictates that a country should have no relations with the rest of the world," Rubino explained. "In its purest
form this would mean that ambassadors would not be shared with other nations, communications with foreign governments would be
mainly perfunctory, and commercial relations would be non-existent."
"A non-interventionist supports commercial relations," Rubino contrasted. "In fact, in terms of trade, many non-interventionists
share libertarian proclivities and would unilaterally obliterate all tariffs and custom duties, and would be open to trade with
all willing nations. In addition, non-interventionists welcome cultural exchanges and the exchange of ambassadors with all willing
nations."
"A non-interventionist believes that the U.S. should not intercede in conflicts between other nations or conflicts within
nations," wrote Rubino. "In recent history, non-interventionists have proved prophetic in warning of the dangers of the U.S. entangling
itself in alliances. The U.S. has suffered deleterious effects and effectuated enmity among other governments, citizenries, and
non-state actors as a result of its overseas interventions. The U.S. interventions in both Iran and Iraq have led to cataclysmic
consequences."
Calling an aversion to endless military violence "isolationism" is the same as calling an aversion to mugging people "agoraphobia".
Yet you'll see this ridiculous label applied to both Gabbard and Trump, neither of whom are isolationists by any stretch of the imagination,
or even proper non-interventionists. Gabbard supports most US military alliances and continues to voice full support for the bogus
"war on terror" implemented by the Bush administration which serves no purpose other than to facilitate endless military expansionism;
Trump is openly pushing regime change interventionism in both Venezuela and Iran while declining to make good on his promises to
withdraw the US military from Syria and Afghanistan.
Another dishonest label you'll get thrown at you when debating the forever war is "pacifism". "Some wars are bad, but I'm
not a pacifist; sometimes war is necessary," supporters of a given interventionist military action will tell you. They'll say this
while defending Trump's potentially catastrophic Iran warmongering or promoting a moronic regime change invasion of Syria, or defending
disastrous US military interventions in the past like Iraq.
This is bullshit for a couple of reasons. Firstly, virtually no one is a pure pacifist who opposes war under any and all possible
circumstances; anyone who claims that they can't imagine any possible scenario in which they'd support using some kind of coordinated
violence either hasn't imagined very hard or is fooling themselves. If your loved ones were going to be raped, tortured and killed
by hostile forces unless an opposing group took up arms to defend them, for example, you would support that. Hell, you would probably
join in. Secondly, equating opposition to US-led regime change interventionism, which is literally always disastrous and literally
never helpful, is not even a tiny bit remotely like opposing all war under any possible circumstance.
Another common distortion you'll see is the specious argument that a given opponent of US interventionism "isn't anti-war" because
they don't oppose all war under any and all circumstances.
This tweet by The Intercept 's Mehdi Hasan
is a perfect example, claiming that Gabbard is not anti-war because she supports Syria's sovereign right to defend itself with the
help of its allies from the violent extremist factions which overran the country with western backing. Again, virtually no one is
opposed to all war under any and all circumstances; if a coalition of foreign governments had helped flood Hasan's own country of
Britain with extremist militias who'd been murdering their way across the UK with the ultimate goal of toppling London, both Tulsi
Gabbard and Hasan would support fighting back against those militias.
The label "anti-war" can for these reasons be a little misleading. The term anti-interventionist or non-interventionist comes
closest to describing the value system of most people who oppose the warmongering of the western empire, because they understand
that calls for military interventionism which go mainstream in today's environment are almost universally based on imperialist agendas
grabbing at power, profit, and global hegemony. The label "isolationist" comes nowhere close.
It all comes down to sovereignty. An anti-interventionist believes that a country has the right to defend itself, but it doesn't
have the right to conquer, capture, infiltrate or overthrow other nations whether covertly or overtly. At the "end" of colonialism
we all agreed we were done with that, except that the nationless manipulators have found far trickier ways to seize a country's will
and resources without actually planting a flag there. We need to get clearer on these distinctions and get louder about defending
them as the only sane, coherent way to run foreign policy.
* * *
The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing
list for my website , which will get you an email notification for everything
I publish. My work is
entirely
reader-supported , so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on
Facebook , following my antics on
Twitter , throwing some money into my hat on
Patreon or
Paypal , purchasing some of my
sweet merchandise , buying my new book
Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone ,
or my previous book
Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers . For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I'm trying to do with this platform,
click
here . Everyone, racist platforms excluded,
has my permission to republish or use any part of this work (or anything else I've written) in any way they like free of charge.
"If America does not lead the cause of freedom, that cause will not be led."
Fascinating belief, has he been to Libya lately, perhaps attended an open air slave Market in a country that was very developed
before the US decided to 'free' it.
When we weren't there, they flew planes into our buildings?
Excuse me mutant, but I believe we paid Israel our jewtax that year like all the others and they still flew planes into our
buildings. And then danced in the streets about it. Sick people.
All Wars Are Evil. Period. "Military men are just dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy." –
Henry Kissinger
Picture if you will Jesus. Seriously? Can you imagine Jesus firing a machine gun at a group of people? Can
you picture Jesus in an F-16 lobbing missiles at innocents?
Do you see Jesus piloting a drone and killing Muslims, other non-believers, or anyone for that matter? Can you picture Jesus
as a sniper?
Soooo,,, If my favorite evening activity, is to sit on the front porch steps, while the dog and the cats run around, with my
shotgun leaning up next to me,,, Is that Isolationist, or Protectionist,,,
instead of getting us out of Syria, Trump got us further in. Trump is driving us to ww3. we can't do **** if we're
glazed over in a nuclear holocaust. maybe Tulsi is lying through her teeth, but i am so pissed Trump went full neocon
funny how people, fresh from the broken promises "build that wall" etc, quickly forget all that and begin IMMEDIATELY
projecting trustworthiness on yet ANOTHER candidate. I'Il vote for Tulsi when she says no more Israeli wars for America.
If you read her positions on various issues, a quick survey shows that she supports the New Green Deal, more gun control (ban
on assault rifles, etc.), Medicare for all. Stopped reading at that point.
We refuse to be lectured by someone who thinks it's ok to dine with murderous dictators like Syria's Bashar Al-Assad
who used chemical weapons on his own people.
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only
for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus
becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the
lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State. ~ Joseph Goebbels
The better educated among us know exactly as to who Goebblels was referring to. Even a dullard should be able to figure out
who benefits from all of our Middle East adventures.
"Under our current Orwellian doublespeak paradigm where forever war is the new normal, the opposite of war is no longer
peace, but isolationism. "
Under military might WAS the old world order... Under the new world order the strength is in cyber warfare .
If under technology the profiteers can control the masses through crowd control ( which they can-" Department of Defense has
developed a non-lethal crowd control device called the
Active Denial System (ADS) . The ADS works by firing a high-powered beam of 95 GHz waves at a target that is, millimeter wavelengths.
Anyone caught in the beam will feel like their skin is burning.) your spending power ( they can through e- commetce and digital
banking) and isolation cells called homes ( they can through directed microwaves from GWEN stations).... We already are isolated
and exposed at the same time.
That war is an exceptable means of engagement as a solution to world power is a confirmation of the psychological warfare imposed
on us since the creation of our Nation.
Either we reel it in and back now or we destroy ourselves from within.
"
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
if there's even a small chance Tulsi can get us out of the forever wars i will be compelled to vote for her, as Trump clearly
has no intention on doing so. yes, it is that important
Idiot, Tulsi is a sovereign nationalist on the left. You have just never seen one before. If you were truly anti-globalist
you'd would realize left and right are invented to divide us. The politics are global and national, so wake the **** up
""War Is the U.S. Racket!"" They are not good at it, there "great at it". My entire life 63yrs,they been fighting someone or
something. When times where rough in the 1800s,Hell! they fought themselves(Civil War. As I said b4 No one seems to ask, Where
does the gold go of the vanquished foe? Truly Is A Well Practiced Racket.
Good article with several salient points, thought I would ask "what's wrong with a little isolationism?" Peace through internal
strength is desirable, but good fences make good neighbors and charity begins at home!
The gradual twisting of language really is one of most insidious tactics employed by the NWO Luciferians. I think we'd all
like to see the traitorous Neocons gone for good. Better yet, strip them of their American citizenship and ill-gotten wealth and
banish them to Israel. Let them earn their citizenship serving in a front-line IDF rifle company.
As for this next election? Is Ron Paul running as an independent? No? Well then, 'fool me once...' Don't get me wrong:
I hope Gabbard is genuine and she's absolutely right to push non-interventionism...but the rest of her platform sucks. There's
also the fact that she's a CFR member and avowed gun-grabber, to boot. Two HUGE red flags!
She almost strikes me as a half-assed 'Manchurian Candidate.' So, if she's elected (a big 'if' at this point) I ask
myself 'what happens after the next (probably nuclear) false flag?' How quickly will she disavow her present stance on non-interventionism?
How quickly and viciously will the 2nd Amendment be raped? Besides, I'm not foolish enough to believe that one person can turn
the SS Deep State away from it's final disastrous course.
These word games were already in use looong ago. Tulsi Gabbard is using Obama's line about fighting the wrong war. She
would have taken out Al Qaeda, captured Bin Laden, and put a dog leash on him. So that she could make a green economy, a
new century of virtue signalling tyranny. No thanks.
Just as they did with Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, and Pat Buchanan, the MSM and the swamp have already effectively buried
Gabbard. It's unlikely that she'll make the next debate cut as the DNC and MSM will toss her out.
All the MSM is talking about post-debates, even on Faux Noise, is Harris's race-baiting of old senile Biden.
I went to some of the so-called liberal websites and blogs and the only mention of Gabbard is in the context of her being a
Putin stooge. This combined with the fact that virtually all establishment Republicans are eager to fight any war for Israel clearly
shows that it will take something other than the ballot box to end Uncle Scam's endless wars.
Miss Gabbard just served two tours in the ME, one as enlisted in the HI National Guard.
Brave Mr. Bolton kept the dirty communists from endangering the US supply of Chesapeake
crab while serving in the Maryland Guard. Rumor also has it that he helped Tompall Glaser
write the song Streets of Baltimore. Some say they saw Mr. Bolton single handily defending
Memorial Stadium from a combined VC/NVA attack during an Orioles game. The Cubans would have
conquered the Pimlico Race Course if not for the combat skill of PFC Bolton.
For 2024 let's just have cage fights, contestants show up naked with their names and
policy positions tattooed on their bodies, each gets a bucket of slime to smear on their
opponent to try and cover them up. Then Sergei Brin's computer chooses the winner
Let's see if they can keep Bernie in the same cage they put Tulsi in. I can't imagine
they'll be helpful or even polite to him. I expect "debate" questions such as:
Senator Sanders, are you current in your communist party dues?
Bernie, when did you last speak to Vladimir Putin?
How often are you wrong about FDR?
Is your wife still laundering money for beach houses through small liberal arts colleges?
Do you know how to pay for anything, or do you regularly leave restaurants without paying
your bill?
Bonus question: explain why anyone should continue to pay attention to you when your views
are shared by everyone on stage?
Miss Gabbard just served two tours in the ME, one as enlisted in the HI National Guard.
Brave Mr. Bolton kept the dirty communists from endangering the US supply of Chesapeake
crab while serving in the Maryland Guard. Rumor also has it that he helped Tompall Glaser
write the song Streets of Baltimore. Some say they saw Mr. Bolton single handily defending
Memorial Stadium from a combined VC/NVA attack during an Orioles game. The Cubans would have
conquered the Pimlico Race Course if not for the combat skill of PFC Bolton.
We’ll see how neoliberal MSM will spin this, but I would say Sanders emerged unscathed, Harris attacked and "wounded" Biden, Biden
sounded like a lightweight, Gillibrand seems to be a very unpleasant person although different form Harris...
Notable quotes:
"... as if polling on donald trump and stuff is just so interesting ..."
"... Kamala Harris got more floor time than anyone else. Harris ended Biden's campaign. The debate is rigged against Bernie Sanders. ..."
"... Did Harris get the debate questions in advance? ..."
"... Her manner of speaking is like someone who doesn’t care, doesn’t take the whole thing seriously. It’s like someone who is cheaply casually condescending on the whole thing, on her having to be there. That’s what I perceived. It is deeply disqualifying from any leadership position. “Food fight”? We at that level now? That makes her cool? My god, what garbage. ..."
"... Harris will alienate The Deplorables, the military, the White Working Class or even black people, who know her as Kamala The Cop. ..."
Pathetic, the whole scene is pathetic. What a way to run a putative democracy, bring back the league of women voters to run
the debates and that idiot with the graphs during commercial breaks while watching this online, I want to break his freaking head
sorry.
I had the idea that your sensibilities were rather more refined than that, knowing anything about or not.
Her manner of speaking is like someone who doesn’t care, doesn’t take the whole thing seriously. It’s like someone who
is cheaply casually condescending on the whole thing, on her having to be there. That’s what I perceived. It is deeply disqualifying
from any leadership position. “Food fight”? We at that level now? That makes her cool? My god, what garbage.
FWIW, Boot Edge Edge’s prehensile sincerity was masterful in my view – shows some real talent.
I’m just observing this out of academic interest and hope we’ll all have a chance to vote for Bernie in the general. But from
tonight, Boot Edge Edge to me stood out as a talent – and everyone else (besides Bernie who was reliably on message and will keep
going more or less the same after this) was garbage or unnecessary (Biden is a disgrace), and the first debate was better.
Cal2, June 27, 2019 at 11:19 pm
In that case, Donald Trump gets our votes, as well as keeping all the potential crossovers, who had supported Trump last time,
and would have voted for Sanders-Gabbard.
Harris will alienate The Deplorables, the military, the White Working Class or even black people, who know her as Kamala
The Cop.
Sanders-Harris would be political suicide for the Democrats.
"... She is the only candidate who has made ending the wars a centerpiece of her campaign, which will likely lead to her undoing ..."
"... The only bright spot in the second debate was Senator Bernie Sanders's single mention of the word Yemen -- specifically ending U.S. support for that war and shifting war powers back where they belong -- with Congress. Still, most of the candidates had just about nothing to say on this or other war-related topics. Their silence was instructive. ..."
"... Ironically, then, two more American soldiers were killed in another meaningless firefight in the long meaningless war in Afghanistan on the day of the first Democratic presidential primary debate. Indeed, were it not for this horrendous event -- the deaths of the 3,550th and 3,551st coalition troops in an 18-year-old war -- Afghanistan might not have ever made it onto Rachel Maddow's debate questions list. ..."
"... Maddow's question on the first night was one of precious few posed on the subject of foreign policy at all. Moreover, it spurred the most interesting, engaging, and enlightening exchange of either evening -- between Gabbard and Ohio Representative Tim Ryan. ..."
"... Is that what you will tell the parents of those two soldiers who were just killed in Afghanistan? Well, we just have to be engaged? As a soldier, I will tell you that answer is unacceptable. We have to bring our troops home from Afghanistan We have spent so much money. Money that's coming out of every one of our pockets We are no better off in Afghanistan today than we were when this war began. This is why it is so important to have a president -- commander in chief who knows the cost of war and is ready to do the job on day one. ..."
"... In a few tight sentences, Gabbard distilled decades' worth of antiwar critique and summarized what I've been writing for years -- only I've killed many trees composing more than 20,000 words on the topic. The brevity of her terse comment, coupled with her unique platform as a veteran, only added to its power. Bravo, Tulsi, bravo! ..."
"... Gabbard, shamefully, is the only one among an absurdly large field of candidates who has put foreign policy, specifically ending the forever wars, at the top of her presidential campaign agenda. Well, unlike just about all of her opponents, she did fight in those very conflicts. The pity is that with an electorate so utterly apathetic about war, her priorities, while noble, might just doom her campaign before it even really starts. That's instructive, if pitiful. ..."
She is the only candidate who has made ending the wars a centerpiece
of her campaign, which will likely lead to her undoing
Tim Ryan and Tulsi Gabbard during the first night of the the Democratic debate. (YouTube/NBC News/screenshot) Democrats, liberals,
progressives -- call them what you will -- don't really do foreign policy. Sure, if cornered, they'll spout a few choice talking
points, and probably find a way to make them all about bashing President Donald Trump -- ignoring the uncomfortable fact that their
very own Barack Obama led and expanded America's countless wars for eight long years.
This was ever so apparent in the first two nights of Democratic primary debates this week. Foreign policy hardly registered for
these candidates with one noteworthy exception: Hawaii Representative Tulsi Gabbard -- herself an (anti-war) combat veteran and army
officer.
Now primary debates are more show than substance; this has long been the case. Still, to watch the first night's Democratic primary
debates, it was possible to forget that the United States remains mired in several air and ground wars from West Africa to Central
Asia. In a two-hour long debate, with 10 would-be nominees plus the moderators, the word Afghanistan was
uttered just nine
times -- you know, once for every two years American troops have been killing and dying there. Iraq was uttered just twice -- both
times by Gabbard. Syria, where Americans have died and still fight, was mentioned not once. Yemen, the world's worst humanitarian
disaster, courtesy of a U.S.-supported Saudi terror campaign didn't get mentioned a single time, either.
Night two was mostly worse! Afghanistan was uttered just three times, and there was no question specifically related to the war.
Biden did say, in passing, that he doesn't think there should be "combat troops" in Afghanistan -- but notice the qualifier "combat."
That's a cop-out that allows him to keep advisers and "support" troops in the country indefinitely. These are the games most Democrats
play. And by the way, all those supposedly non-combat troops, well, they can and do get killed too.
The only bright spot in the second debate was Senator Bernie Sanders's single mention of the word Yemen -- specifically ending
U.S. support for that war and shifting war powers back where they belong -- with Congress. Still, most of the candidates had just
about nothing to say on this or other war-related topics. Their silence was instructive.
Ironically, then, two more American soldiers were
killed in another meaningless firefight in the long meaningless war in Afghanistan on the day of the first Democratic presidential
primary debate. Indeed, were it not for this horrendous event -- the deaths of the 3,550th and 3,551st coalition troops in an 18-year-old
war -- Afghanistan might not have ever made it onto Rachel Maddow's debate questions list.
I mourn each and every service-member's death in that unwinnable war; to say nothing of the far more numerous Afghan civilian
fatalities. Still, in a macabre sort of way, I was glad the topic came up, even under such dismal circumstances. After all, Maddow's
question on the first night was one of precious few posed on the subject of foreign policy at all. Moreover, it spurred the most
interesting, engaging, and enlightening
exchange of either evening -- between Gabbard and Ohio Representative Tim Ryan.
Reminding the audience of the recent troop deaths in the country, Maddow asked Ryan, "Why isn't [the Afghanistan war] over? Why
can't presidents of very different parties and very different temperaments get us out of there? And how could you?" Ryan had a ready,
if wholly conventional and obtuse, answer: "The lesson" of these many years of wars is clear, he opined; the United States must stay
"engaged," "completely engaged," in fact, even if "no one likes" it and it's "tedious." I heard this, vomited a bit into my mouth,
and thought "spare me!"
Ryan's platitudes didn't answer the question, for starters, and hardly engaged with American goals, interests, exit strategies,
or a basic cost-benefit analysis in the war. In the space of a single sentence, Ryan proved himself just another neoliberal militarist,
you know, the "reluctant" Democratic imperialist type. He made it clear he's Hilary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Chuck Schumer rolled
into one, except instead of cynically voting for the 2003 Iraq war, he was defending an off-the-rails Afghanistan war in its 18th
year.
Gabbard pounced, and delivered the finest foreign policy screed of the night. And more power to her. Interrupting Ryan, she poignantly
asked:
Is that what you will tell the parents of those two soldiers who were just killed in Afghanistan? Well, we just have to be
engaged? As a soldier, I will tell you that answer is unacceptable. We have to bring our troops home from Afghanistan We have
spent so much money. Money that's coming out of every one of our pockets We are no better off in Afghanistan today than we were
when this war began. This is why it is so important to have a president -- commander in chief who knows the cost of war and is
ready to do the job on day one.
In a few tight sentences, Gabbard distilled decades' worth of antiwar critique and summarized what I've been
writing for years -- only I've killed many trees composing more than 20,000 words on the topic. The brevity of her terse comment,
coupled with her unique platform as a veteran, only added to its power. Bravo, Tulsi, bravo!
Ryan was visibly shaken and felt compelled to retort with a standard series of worn out tropes. And Gabbard was ready for each
one, almost as though she'd heard them all before (and probably has). The U.S. military has to stay, Ryan pleaded, because: "if the
United States isn't engaged the Taliban will grow and they will have bigger, bolder terrorist acts." Gabbard cut him right off. "The
Taliban was there long before we came in. They'll be there long [after] we leave," she thundered.
But because we didn't "squash them," before 9/11 Ryan complained, "they started flying planes into our buildings." This,
of course, is the recycled and easily refuted
safe haven myth -- the notion
that the Taliban would again host transnational terrorists the moment our paltry 14,500 troops head back to Milwaukee. It's ridiculous.
There's no evidence to support this desperate claim and it fails to explain why the United States doesn't station several thousand
troops in the dozens of global locales with a more serious al-Qaeda or ISIS presence than Afghanistan does. Gabbard would
have none of it. "The Taliban didn't attack us on 9/11," she reminded Ryan, "al-Qaeda did." It's an important distinction, lost on
mainstream interventionist Democrats and Republicans alike.
Ryan couldn't possibly open his mind to such complexity, nuance, and, ultimately, realism. He clearly worships at the temple of
war inertia; his worldview hostage to the absurd notion that the U.S. military has little choice but to fight everywhere, anywhere,
because, well, that's what it's always done. Which leads us to what should be an obvious conclusion: Ryan, and all who think
like him, should be immediately disqualified by true progressives and libertarians alike. His time has past. Ryan and his ilk have
left a scorched region and a shaken American republic for the rest of us.
Still, there was one more interesting query for the first night's candidates. What is the greatest geopolitical threat to the
United States today, asked Maddow. All 10 Democratic hopefuls took a crack at it, though almost none followed directions and kept
their answers to a single word or phrase. For the most part, the answers were ridiculous, outdated, or elementary, spanning Russia,
China, even Trump. But none of the debaters listed terrorism as the biggest threat -- a huge sea change from answers that candidates
undoubtedly would have given just four or eight years ago.
Which begs the question: why, if terrorism isn't the priority, do far too many of these presidential aspirants seem willing to
continue America's fruitless, forever fight for the Greater Middle East? It's a mystery, partly explained by the overwhelming power
of the America's military-industrial-congressional-media complex. Good old President Dwight D. Eisenhower is rolling in his grave,
I assure you.
Gabbard, shamefully, is the only one among an absurdly large field of candidates who has put foreign policy, specifically
ending the forever wars, at the top of her presidential campaign agenda. Well, unlike just about all of her opponents, she did
fight in those very conflicts. The pity is that with an electorate so utterly apathetic about war, her priorities, while noble,
might just doom her campaign before it even really starts. That's instructive, if pitiful.
I, too, served in a series of unwinnable, unnecessary, unethical wars. Like her, I've chosen to publicly dissent in not just strategic,
but in moral, language. I join her in her rejection of U.S. militarism, imperialism, and the flimsy justifications for the Afghanistan
war -- America's longest war in its history.
As for the other candidates, when one of them (likely) wins, let's hope they are prepared the question Tulsi so powerfully posed
to Ryan: what will they tell the parents of the next soldier that dies in America's hopeless Afghanistan war?
Danny Sjursen is a retired U.S. Army Major and regular contributor to The American Conservative. His work has also appeared
in Harper's, the Los Angeles Times, The Nation , Tom Dispatch, The Huffington Post, Truthdig and The Hill .
He served combat tours with reconnaissance units in Iraq and Afghanistan and later taught history at his alma mater, West Point.
He is the author of a memoir and critical analysis of the Iraq War, Ghostriders of Baghdad: Soldiers,
Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge . He co-hosts the progressive veterans' podcast " Fortress on a Hill ." Follow him on Twitter at @SkepticalVet .
It wasn't surprising that Hawaii's Representative Tulsi Gabbard, an outspoken advocate of
realism in foreign policy, exploited every opportunity to highlight her opposition to what she
considers America's promiscuous warmaking policies of recent decades. She decried the country
"going from one regime-change war to the next. This insanity must end." But other Democrats
also echoed that sentiment, particularly with regard to the growing tensions between the Trump
administration and Iran. Bill de Blasio said he would oppose another Mideast war unless it is
authorized by Congress. He added, "We learned a lesson in Vietnam that we seem to have
forgotten." Sanders also decried the possible drift to war with Iran as well as America's
involvement in the civil war in Yemen. He expressed pride in his opposition to the Iraq war and
chided Biden for supporting that 2003 invasion.
Three candidates -- Klobuchar, New Jersey Senator Cory Booker, and Gabbard -- criticized
Trump for getting out of the Iran nuclear deal. "I would sign back on," said Gabbard, saying a
war with Iran would quickly ignite the entire region and would be "far more devastating and
costly" than the Iraq war. When Ryan suggested we must remain engaged in the Middle East,
Gabbard called that "unacceptable" and added the United States has nothing to show for its
18-year mililtary campaign in Afghanistan. At the conclusion of the debate, Gabbard became the
most searched candidate on Google, according to a report on Fox News that cited Google Trends
data. Could this mean a gap persists between the foreign policy sentiments of many Americans
and the foreign policy activities of their government in Washington?
Tulsi Gabbard being interviewed by Tucker Carlson after the debate. During the debate, Tulsi
made clear she was against war with Iran and getting back to the JCPOA deal. In the interview
with Carlson, she makes clear that she opposes the sanctions on Iran.
The reason why is simple: the party is not about politics, nor is it about the will of the
people or anything else. It is about power and money. It is about keeping the donors happy.
It is ethically bankrupt. That is what their true purpose is. Sanders and Gabbard rock the
boat and the party establishment will never forgive them for that.
Gillebrand:
Capitalism is Okey-Dokey, but greed is bad?
Keynes:
"Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives
will somehow work together for the benefit of all."
Will neoliberal MSM "Ron Paul" Tulsi ? "Merchants of death" control Washington and they will fiercely attack
anybody who attempt to change the current neocon policies even one bit. Looks at color revolution launched against Trump
despite the fact that he folded three month after inauguration.
Notable quotes:
"... Nope. That denunciation of John Bolton interventionism came from Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii during Wednesday night's Democratic debate. At 38, she was the youngest candidate on stage. ..."
"... Gabbard proceeded to rip both the "president and his chickenhawk cabinet (who) have led us to the brink of war with Iran." ..."
"... "The Taliban didn't attack us on 9/11," Gabbard replied, "Al-Qaida attacked us on 9/11. That's why I and so many other people joined the military, to go after al-Qaida, not the Taliban." ..."
"... By debate's end, Gabbard was the runaway winner in both the Drudge Report and Washington Examiner polls and was far in front among all the Democratic candidates whose names were being searched on Google. ..."
"... If she can rise a few points above her 1-2% in the polls, she could be assured a spot in the second round of debates. ..."
"... If she makes it into the second round, Gabbard could become the catalyst for the kind of globalist vs. nationalist debate that broke out between Trump and Bush Republicans in 2016, a debate that contributed to Trump's victory at the Cleveland convention and in November. ..."
"... Given more airtime, she will present problems for the GOP as well. For the foreign policy Tulsi Gabbard is calling for is not far off from the foreign policy Donald Trump promised in 2016 but has since failed to deliver. ..."
"... Rather than engaging Russia as Trump promised, we have been sanctioning Russia, arming Ukraine, sending warships into the Black Sea, beefing up NATO in the Baltic and trashing arms control treaties Ronald Reagan and other presidents negotiated in the Cold War ..."
"... At the end of the Cold War, we were the lone superpower. Who forfeited our preeminence? Who bled us of 7,000 U.S. lives and $6 trillion in endless Middle East wars? Who got us into this Cold War II? ..."
"... They're already trying to 'Ron Paul' her, which means we should support her, CFR, and Zionist associations notwithstanding. She's the only one saying 'Enough!' to the insanity of Eternal War, as America's infrastructure crumbles, and our progeny are enslaved to trillions of un-payable debt. ..."
"... Does Pat Buchanan know? During a radio interview he assured me that his friend Dick Cheney wouldn't do something like that. I asked Pat's friend Paul Craig Roberts what he thought. Craig said Pat just can't go there or he'll never appear in the MSM again. Then Pat got purged anyway. https://www.veteranstodayarchives.com/2012/02/20/pat-buchanan-avoids-911-truth-gets-fired-anyway/ ..."
"... Hi Kevin. I am a big fan of yours but I think that you should market your beliefs about Israel's role in 911 a bit more modestly. While the evidence is compelling, it is not air-tight. ..."
"... This also applies to the Zio-Judaic role in the assassinations of John and Robert Kennedy. You posit (in your otherwise excellent article on the Raptors' proposed visit Israel) that the Zions basically killed both Kennedys. While this position may be correct, it is an allegation that, at present, cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Your confidence therefore seems excessive. This weakness might therefore turn off average folks to your otherwise astute insights. ..."
"... The media is so terrified of Tulsi that they digitally added a zit to her face during the debate while she was discussing foreign policy to try to subliminally turn people off to her anti-war message. Here's an article on it showing videos of it happening: ..."
"... Tulsi Gabbard's foreign policy ideas are anathema to the war-prone Washington establishment and the media class, not to speak of the Israel firster. The anti-Gabbard slur is already underway. ..."
"For too long our leaders have failed us, taking us into one regime change war after the
next, leading us into a new Cold War and arms race, costing us trillions of our hard-earned tax
payer dollars and countless lives. This insanity must end."
Donald Trump, circa 2016?
Nope. That denunciation of John Bolton interventionism came from Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard
of Hawaii during Wednesday night's Democratic debate. At 38, she was the youngest candidate on
stage.
Gabbard proceeded to rip both the "president and his chickenhawk cabinet (who) have led us
to the brink of war with Iran."
In a fiery exchange, Congressman Tim Ryan of Ohio countered that America cannot disengage
from Afghanistan: "When we weren't in there they started flying planes into our buildings."
"The Taliban didn't attack us on 9/11," Gabbard replied, "Al-Qaida attacked us on 9/11.
That's why I and so many other people joined the military, to go after al-Qaida, not the
Taliban."
When Ryan insisted we must stay engaged, Gabbard shot back:
"Is that what you will tell the parents of those two soldiers who were just killed in
Afghanistan? 'Well, we just have to be engaged.' As a solider, I will tell you, that answer is
unacceptable. We are no better off in Afghanistan that we were when this war began."
By debate's end, Gabbard was the runaway winner in both the Drudge Report and Washington
Examiner polls and was far in front among all the Democratic candidates whose names were being
searched on Google.
Though given less than seven minutes of speaking time in a two-hour debate, she could not
have used that time more effectively. And her performance may shake up the Democratic race.
If she can rise a few points above her 1-2% in the polls, she could be assured a spot in the
second round of debates.
If she is, moderators will now go to her with questions of foreign policy issues that would
not have been raised without her presence, and these questions will expose the hidden divisions
in the Democratic Party.
Leading Democratic candidates could be asked to declare what U.S. policy should be -- not
only toward Afghanistan but Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Jared Kushner's "Deal of
the Century," and Trump's seeming rejection of the two-state solution.
If she makes it into the second round, Gabbard could become the catalyst for the kind of
globalist vs. nationalist debate that broke out between Trump and Bush Republicans in 2016, a
debate that contributed to Trump's victory at the Cleveland convention and in November.
The problem Gabbard presents for Democrats is that, as was shown in the joust with Ryan, she
takes positions that split her party, while her rivals prefer to talk about what unites the
party, like the terribleness of Trump, free college tuition and soaking the rich.
Given more airtime, she will present problems for the GOP as well. For the foreign policy
Tulsi Gabbard is calling for is not far off from the foreign policy Donald Trump promised in
2016 but has since failed to deliver.
We still have 2,000 troops in Syria, 5,000 in Iraq, 14,000 in Afghanistan. We just moved an
aircraft carrier task force, B-52s and 1,000 troops to the Persian Gulf to confront Iran. We
are about to impose sanctions on the Iranian foreign minister with whom we would need to
negotiate to avoid a war.
Jared Kushner is talking up a U.S.-led consortium to raise $50 billion for the Palestinians
in return for their forfeiture of sovereignty and an end to their dream of a nation-state on
the West Bank and Gaza with Jerusalem as its capital.
John Bolton is talking of regime change in Caracas and confronting the "troika of tyranny"
in Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela.
Rather than engaging Russia as Trump promised, we have been sanctioning Russia, arming
Ukraine, sending warships into the Black Sea, beefing up NATO in the Baltic and trashing arms
control treaties Ronald Reagan and other presidents negotiated in the Cold War
U.S. policy has managed to push our great adversaries, Russia and China, together as they
have not been since the first Stalin-Mao decade of the Cold War.
This June, Vladimir Putin traveled to Beijing where he and Xi Jinping met in the Great Hall
of the People to warn that in this time of "growing global instability and uncertainty," Russia
and China will "deepen their consultations on strategic stability issues."
Xi presented Putin with China's new Friendship Medal. Putin responded: "Cooperation with
China is one of Russia's top priorities and it has reached an unprecedented level."
At the end of the Cold War, we were the lone superpower. Who forfeited our preeminence? Who
bled us of 7,000 U.S. lives and $6 trillion in endless Middle East wars? Who got us into this
Cold War II?
Was all this the doing of those damnable isolationists again?
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made
and Broke a President and Divided America Forever."
They're already trying to 'Ron Paul' her, which means we should support her, CFR, and Zionist
associations notwithstanding. She's the only one saying 'Enough!' to the insanity of Eternal War, as America's
infrastructure crumbles, and our progeny are enslaved to trillions of un-payable debt.
Perhaps there's no way we can dislodge the Zionist fiend slurping from America's jugular,
but at least we can use our voice to say 'no' to it. And support the only person who's
willing to strike at the root, the Eternal Wars for Israel.
By debate's end, Gabbard was the runaway winner in both the Drudge Report and Washington
Examiner polls and was far in front among all the Democratic candidates whose names were
being searched on Google.
Which got the MIC to paint a giant target on her. The Atlantic Council is not going to be
happy with this kind of anti war shtick entering the debates, and their patrons own the
media.
Does Tulsi know she's lying when she says "al-Qaeda attacked us on 9/11"? I suspect she does,
and that her disgust with the big lie behind the 9/11-wars-for-Israel has something to do
with her anti-interventionism.
I would hope Gabbard has more sense than to accept any position in Trumps administration.
Trump is the kiss of death for any decent person who works for or with him.
Hi Kevin. I am a big fan of yours but I think that you should market your beliefs
about Israel's role in 911 a bit more modestly. While the evidence is compelling, it is not
air-tight.
This also applies to the Zio-Judaic role in the assassinations of John and Robert Kennedy.
You posit (in your otherwise excellent article on the Raptors' proposed visit Israel) that
the Zions basically killed both Kennedys. While this position may be correct, it is an
allegation that, at present, cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Your confidence
therefore seems excessive. This weakness might therefore turn off average folks to your
otherwise astute insights.
As for Tulsi Gabbard, who you suggest is "lying" about her belief in what/who caused 911,
I bet that she (like myself) rejects the Official 911 report but is unsure of what/who did
exactly what on Sept. 11, 2001. Mysteries remain. The puzzle is incomplete.
Allow me to respectfully advise you to stick with what you know for certain, as you do it
quite well.
As for the mysteries concerning 911 and Israel's role, it may be more fruitful to concede
that the evidence has not only been partially destroyed but that a coverup has occurred. And
yes, there's overwhelming evidence pointing to Israeli involvement. And no honest person can
deny that.
The media is so terrified of Tulsi that they digitally added a zit to her face during the
debate while she was discussing foreign policy to try to subliminally turn people off to her
anti-war message.
Here's an article on it showing videos of it happening:
@Robert
Dolan As if Hillary 'War with Russia' Clinton would have been different.
Trumps foreign policies in obedience to 'that shitty little country' are disgusting, no
doubt, but we would still have all of that and much worse under Hillary.
It's a charming idea; Pat Buchanan is ventilating. Tulsi Gabbard as Trump's national security
adviser; what a treat! But poor Tulsi, she wouldn't survive very long in the Zionist
environment, which dominates Trump's White House.
Tulsi Gabbard's foreign policy ideas are
anathema to the war-prone Washington establishment and the media class, not to speak of the
Israel firster. The anti-Gabbard slur is already underway.
Tulsi Gabbard was half right by saying that the Taliban didn't do 9/11, but Al-Qaida did,
which is false. None of them committed the murderous attack. Everybody with a clear mind can
see of the web of lies and inconsistencies that the 9/11 Commission Report has solidified.
The American people have to come to grips with the fact that it was an inside job, and those
responsible are still all alive and kicking. The problem with the whole truth is that nobody
can afford to tell it, because it would be his or her political death.
So, Tulsi Gabbard was wise sticking to the half-truth.
@Kevin
Barrett 'Does Tulsi know she's lying when she says "al-Qaeda attacked us on 9/11"?'
She has been showing signs of hedging since her campaign began. I can't make up my mind
how bad that is. If she went on telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth
– such as that Mr Assad has done little or nothing to deserve the abuse heaped on him
– she might simply be ruling herself out as a candidate.
On the other hand, once a candidate starts telling herself, "Oh, it's worth one or two
little white lies to get myself elected, because I can do so much good then", it's the start
of a long slippery slope.
That specific statement can be justified, to my mind, with a little Jesuitical
equivocation. Because no one has ever really pinned down who or what "Al Qaeda" is – or
even whether such an organization exists at all.
If she said, "No one can be certain who was responsible for 9/11, but it's time we had a
really thorough, impartial investigation", she would alienate a huge section of the
voters.
There's almost always something like this tucked into Mr. Buchanan's columns. The other
day, he was still celebrating Uncle Sam's rescue of medical students from the "Marxist thugs"
in Grenada. That little "our" is the key. Pronoun propaganda is one of the ways that this
website's "Mr. Paleoconservative" helps to keep Americans identifying with Uncle Sam.
Another fundamental way that Mr. Buchanan actually supports the Establishment is by
channeling and harmlessly blowing off dissent through "Red v Blue" politics. Enjoy columns
like this one in the meantime, but keep in mind that he's also going to tell you to believe
the puppet show and vote (almost certainly GOP) in November 2020. Even if someone who says
things like Ms. Gabbard is elected, there will be ample drama in and about Washington to
excuse the lack of meaningful change and fire people up for the next Most Important Election
Ever in 2022.
And note this:
"For the foreign policy Tulsi Gabbard is calling for is not far off from the foreign
policy Donald Trump promised in 2016 but has since failed to deliver."
Oh, a mere logistical problem due to people like John Bolton, Mike Pompeo, and Elliot
Abrams somehow crashing the MAGA party? Mr. Buchanan should have written "the foreign policy
Donald Trump lied about in 2016." But that might lead people to doubt the system.
If she can rise a few points above her 1-2% in the polls, she could be assured a spot in
the second round of debates.
Oi Vey! If Tulsi starts to rise in the polls then then (((they'll))) create a new dossier
and claim she's colluding with Russia or the Taliban to steal the 2020 election. I wouldn't
be surprised if elements of Trump's administration did the very same things to Tulsi as
Obongo's did to Trump.
Was all this the doing of those damnable isolationists again?
Pat knows (((who))) but has lost the will to say it. But we know. The goyim know.
@mark
green We, we all have our opinions. I think you're most charitable to Mr. Barrett's
fictions. Zio-terrorists (I'm not using the word Zionist, since I am Zionist – sort of
-because I support the idea of Jewish nation-state as a democratic country) may have
contributed (just freely associating), say, max 30% to 9/11, while the possibility of their
involvement in the assassination of JFK is way below 5%.
"... We need to restore the vision of people like FDR, who proposed the Four Freedoms. If that was conceivable then, it should be more conceivable now. ..."
Sanders performance in the first two Democratic Candidates Debate
was better than all the others in both debates by a mile.
Sanders absolutely nailed it, that unless we have the guts to take on the insurance
companies, oil companies, drug companies, etc, nothing will change.*
In the first debate, Warren was the winner, though Tulsi Gabbard made the best foreign
policy points against considerable pressure, and Tulsi is still my preferred candidate of the
two for her anti war positions. Despite not raising her hand regarding Insurance companies, a
big mistake IMO, Tulsi has a longer history of endoring Medicare for All than Warren. But it
was indicative of the slight hedging that weakened Tulsi's performance, leading me to declare
Warren the debate winner. Still, Warren lacked the force, still sounding a bit wonkish
(though--it was her best performance in that regards ever) rather than recognizing the identity
and strength of the forces arrayed against truly progressive proposals.
*Sanders has also been clear that he alone could not do this. But he has been committed to
fighting the corporations since the beginning of his career decades ago. In this regards, he is
by far the most trustworthy of all candidates. People who fear a Democratic Socialist
becoming President should grow beyond the McCarthy era, and realize the best of this country
was built by socialism, but socialism nowadays isn't democratic socialism, it's socialism for
the corporate elite.
We need to restore the vision of people like FDR, who proposed the Four Freedoms. If that
was conceivable then, it should be more conceivable now.
Sanders is the only one who comes close to showing the vison, the grit, and the
incorruptability of FDR, that made the first New Deal possible. And perhaps Sanders seems even
more knowledgable, experienced, and capable of helping us get the rest of the job started.
Also they never read Veblen. The rich have no desire to "mingle with the poors" ;-)
If state colleges and unis became free, I'm pretty sure the wealthy would literally build a
new elite set of tertiary education institutions to satisfy their need to differentiate
themselves from the proles
Those emotions erupted in the Thursday debate when Kamala Harris took on Biden for his earlier
remarks about the old days of the Senate when he could work collaboratively with Southern
segregationists such as Alabama's James Eastland. Harris said it was "very hurtful" to hear
Biden "talk about the reputations of two United States senators who built their reputation and
career on the segregation of race in this country." She scored Biden also for working with such
senators in opposition to busing for racial balance in schools during the 1970s.
"Do you agree today, do you agree today that you were wrong to oppose busing in America
then? Do you agree?" she asked with considerable emotion in her voice. She added it was a
personal matter with her given that she had benefited from busing policies as a young girl.
Biden retorted: "A mischaracterization of my position across the board. I did not praise
racists." He added that he never opposed busing as a local policy arrived at through local
politics, but didn't think it should be imposed by the federal government. "That's what I
opposed," he said.
The exchange accentuated the extent to which racial issues are gaining intensity in America
and roiling the nation's politics to a greater extent than in the recent past. Biden's point,
as he sought to explain, was that there was a day when senators of all stripes could work
together on matters of common concern even when they disliked and opposed each other's
fundamental political outlook. That kind of approach could point the way, he implied, to a
greater cooperative spirit in Washington and to breaking the current political deadlock
suffused with such stark animosities. But that merely stirred further animosities, raising
questions about whether today's political rancor in Washington can be easily or soon
ameliorated.
Looks like they really want Trump to be re-elected...
Notable quotes:
"... In the first debate, on Wednesday, only Ryan and Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar expressed concerns about eliminating criminal statutes for illegal entry. On Thursday, when NBC moderators asked for a show of hands of those who wanted to "decriminalize" unauthorized crossings, only Colorado Senator Michael Bennet kept his hand down. ..."
"... Also on Thursday, several candidates decried the idea of deporting illegal immigrants who hadn't committed crimes in the United States, while no one expressed misgivings about such a policy. When it was pointed out by one NBC moderator that Obama had deported 3 million illegals during his presidency, California Senator Kamala Harris responded, "I disagreed with Obama on that." ..."
For years the effort to manage the issue centered on an elusive compromise concept that
included serious border security and a path to legality or citizenship for current illegals.
The problem for immgration restrictionists was that the last time such a compromise was struck,
in 1986, it didn't work. Amnesty was granted to illegals then in the country, but no serious
border security ensued. Instead the number of undocumented residents shot up to 11 million or
more.
The debates revealed that serious border security is not something most Democrats consider
worth mentioning. Instead, most railed against the fact that crossing the U.S. border illegally
is a criminal offense. They argued it should be merely a civil matter. "Don't criminalize
desperation," said Julian Castro, U.S. secretary of housing and urban development under Obama.
"What kind of country are we running here?" asked Ohio Representative Tim Ryan, with a
president stoking "hate and fear."
In the first debate, on Wednesday, only Ryan and Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar
expressed concerns about eliminating criminal statutes for illegal entry. On Thursday, when NBC
moderators asked for a show of hands of those who wanted to "decriminalize" unauthorized
crossings, only Colorado Senator Michael Bennet kept his hand down.
Also on Thursday, several candidates decried the idea of deporting illegal immigrants
who hadn't committed crimes in the United States, while no one expressed misgivings about such
a policy. When it was pointed out by one NBC moderator that Obama had deported 3 million
illegals during his presidency, California Senator Kamala Harris responded, "I disagreed with
Obama on that."
And when the Thursday candidates were asked if they would provide health care for illegal
immigrants, all said they would. Also, no one at either debate expressed a concern about U.S.
border facilities being overwhelmed by asylum seekers traveling as families and entering the
United States illegally -- some 332,000 since October. Instead they railed against U.S.
officials struggling with the task of processing these people without adequate personnel or
facilities.
In short, judged by the debates, the New Democratic Party has abandoned the old compromise
concept of border security in exchange for a pathway to citizenship for current illegals. These
candidates made clear that they continue to insist on a citizenship pathway but don't care much
about border security.
Let's see if they can keep Bernie in the same cage they put Tulsi in. I can't imagine
they'll be helpful or even polite to him. I expect "debate" questions such as:
Senator Sanders, are you current in your communist party dues?
Bernie, when did you last speak to Vladimir Putin?
How often are you wrong about FDR?
Is your wife still laundering money for beach houses through small liberal arts colleges?
Do you know how to pay for anything, or do you regularly leave restaurants without paying
your bill?
Bonus question: explain why anyone should continue to pay attention to you when your views
are shared by everyone on stage?
For 2024 let's just have cage fights, contestants show up naked with their names and
policy positions tattooed on their bodies, each gets a bucket of slime to smear on their
opponent to try and cover them up. Then Sergei Brin's computer chooses the winner
I don't know either. But it's been the main stream party line for a while now. "Bernie
should drop out because he's old, white, male, and his opinions are not unique. He's not even
a real Democrat. And he doesn't support the party. So why is he running for president as a
Democrat and picking fights with Biden/Warren/Beto?"
The one that gets me is Bernie the Bomber. Somehow when the pundit class talks about
Bernie and Tulsi, it's only to mention how they coddle dictators.
Coddle (the wrong) dictators. Real Dems coddle our CIA approved dictators. Bernie and
Tulsi coddle those filthy democratically elected "dictators" that want to retain natural
resources for the benefit of their own nations and not for the enrichment of multinationals.
They're monsters!
Seriously though, only the Dems would have a superstar like Bernie and put all their
efforts into sabotaging him. Even the RNC and right wing media was willing to suck it up and
get behind Trump when it was clear he was going to win and had a huge base of support. But,
as is said often now, "the Dems would rather lose to a Republican than win with a
progressive".
Is the CIA's purpose to protect national security or financial security? They seem
confused at times on their purpose and if they were disbanded would the country notice?
Doesn't the Defense Intelligence Agency do most of the heavy security lifting?
Looking at the CIA actions from the Dulles Brothers onwards, I would say that it is to
protect and support all members of the Oligarchy of Money from the 1% to Big Oil to Big
Finance from that pesky Democratic Government and the troublesome Rule of Law.
Actually protecting the United States and never mind Americans themselves is like #47 on
its to-do list.
Did you notice the shift in Bernie's message tonight? He said they needed to have the guts
to take on Wall Street, the Military Industrial Complex, and Big Pharma. I didn't hear him
complain about big banks. I think he's been compromised!
"... Glenn Greenwald called out journalists and columnists pushing for a war with Iran and lamented that people who have been continually wrong are often hailed as the voice of authority and reason in an interview with FNC's Tucker Carlson on Friday. ..."
Glenn Greenwald called out journalists and columnists pushing for a war with Iran and
lamented that people who have been continually wrong are often hailed as the voice of authority
and reason in an interview with FNC's Tucker Carlson on Friday.
Greenwald specifically took aim at Jeffrey Goldberg of 'The Atlantic' who he said got a
promotion for being wrong about the war in Iraq.
VIDEO
Posted by: John Smith | Jun 27, 2019 1:05:43 AM |
113
This dude (Trump) has spent more than two years, and a ton of money, trying to pull the
undercurrent of dissent in the American population into his camp and under his wing.
In all of his 'fighting with the establishment' he has managed to change exactly nothing
and bring exactly nobody to justice. He has gathered the entirety of the Bush/Rumsfeld
faction directly into his tent, while miraculously failing to so much as arrest a single
member of the Clinton faction. And to top it off he just ordered an armed attack on an
independent nation (which failed in spectacular fashion as thr first targeting drone was
vaporized while he was watching the livestream). Come on dude.
Elsewhere, British military intelligence ... erm, sorry, its mouthpiece The Fraudian
attacks Tulsi Gabbard over her supposed overlap with the Republican Party and her level of
wokeness which, not surprisingly, The Fraudian finds low and therefore starts worrying like a
dried-up dog mummy with teeth bites already all over it.
Bernie Sanders did well in the debate. Closing statement was by far the most effective.
Joe Biden not wanting to pass the torch was not a good look.
Kamala Harris did well and may have ended Jo Biden chance of being the candidate. Kamala's statement "I do not think you are
a racist" seemed to mean the exact opposite.
Joe Biden was shaken by Kamala Harris and didn't really recover.
Andrew Yang lost people, didn't do well.
Marianne Williamson came over as flakey.
Pete Buttigieg relied too much on his personal story.
"... "[We need] a Commander in Chief [who will stop] these failed interventionist wars of regime change that have cost our country so much in human lives, untold suffering, and trillions of dollars." ..."
"... "Trump Nikki Haley...Mike Pompeo... The people around John Bolton. These people are advocating for strengthening our economy, and if the only way they can do that is by building that economy based on building and selling weapons to countries that are using them to slaughter and murder innocent people, then we need new leaders in this country. The American people deserve better than that." ..."
"Sadly, the system in this country is rigged in favor of wealthy elites who have purchased
tremendous influence in our government."
"We have to put an end to the culture of selfishness and corruption that allows greedy
Wall Street banks and executives to rip off working people without any consequences."
"[We need] a Commander in Chief [who will stop] these failed interventionist wars of
regime change that have cost our country so much in human lives, untold suffering, and
trillions of dollars."
"Will you stand for the humanity of the Yemeni people? Will you stand against Saudi
Arabia's genocidal war? Or will you continue to support this war that has caused 22 million
Yemeni people to be in desperate need of humanitarian aid? To cause these 85,000 children to
have died from starvation, to have caused the dropping of U.S.-made bombs on innocent
civilians, killing tens of thousands of people. This is such an urgent action that must be
taken by the United States Congress to assert its authority and end United States support for
this genocidal war in Yemen."
"Trump Nikki Haley...Mike Pompeo... The people around John Bolton. These people are
advocating for strengthening our economy, and if the only way they can do that is by building
that economy based on building and selling weapons to countries that are using them to
slaughter and murder innocent people, then we need new leaders in this country. The American
people deserve better than that."
"I don't smoke marijuana. I never have... But I believe firmly in every person's freedom
to make their own choices, and that people should not be thrown in jail and incarcerated or
made into criminals for choosing to smoke marijuana whether it be for medicinal and
non-medicinal purposes.
There's no question that this overall war on drugs has not only been a failure, it has
created and exacerbated a number of other problems that continue to afflict people in this
country..."
Quoted in: For Tulsi Gabbard, Marijuana Sits At Nexus Of Good Policy And Smart Politics,
Forbes, nu Tom Angell (7 March 2019)
"We are in a situation today where we, here in the United States and the world, are at a
greater risk of nuclear catastrophe than ever before in history. My commitment in fighting to end these counterproductive regime change wars is based on
these experiences and my understanding [of] the cost of war and who pays the price.
Yes, it is our service members. It is our troops. It is our military families. It is the
people in these countries, where these wars are waged, whose suffering ends up far worse
after we launch these regime change wars... The skepticism, and the questions that I
raised, were very specific around incidents that the Trump administration was trying to use
as an excuse to launch a U.S. military attack in Syria.
I served in a war in Iraq, a war that was launched based on lies and a war that was
launched without evidence. And so the American people were duped... As a soldier, as an
American, as a member of Congress, it is my duty and my responsibility to exercise
skepticism any time anyone tries to send our service members into harm's way or use our
military to go in and start a new war."
Quoted by Kevin Gosztola in CNN Foreign Policy Gatekeepers Vilify Tulsi Gabbard for Her
Anti-Intervention Dissent, Mintpress News (13 March 2019)
"... Thanks for the posting b about how manipulated the public is by the MSM. ..."
"... Bravo Tulsi ! The msm will hit hard on you, as they will be forced to take the numbers into account. Consider it as stripes... ..."
"... It is interesting how the NYTimes has now gone full in for Warren. They had at least three positive opinion columns for her yesterday, plus a front page spread that could have been written by the Warren campaign itself. This while having many negative Biden pieces, the last few days. The neoliberals really wanted Biden, but see he is unelectable so have gotten behind the next Obama. Looks like Wall Street is expecting a crash and want to make sure they are bailed out and not put in jail again. ..."
"... What do you expect from the Warshington Post. ..."
"... Tulsi served in the Anbar province. She understands the difference between Sunni and Shia which is why she is against war with Iran, Syria, and Libya. She also understands the corrupt nature of the US relationship with Saudi Arabia and speaks out against it. ..."
"... This is a big big NO NO in DC. Saudi Arabia is seen as part of the empire. Al Qaeda and ISIS serve their purpose as shock troops for the US empire. ..."
"... Richard Shultz, a professor of international politics at Tufts who's long been a key national security state intellectual, wrote in 2004 that "A very senior [Special Operations Forces] officer who had served on the Joint Staff in the 1990s told me that more than once he heard terrorist strikes characterized as 'a small price to pay for being a superpower.'" ..."
"... It is pretty clear to me that Tulsi doesn't believe this. This is why she is so hated by the MSM. She is former military and largely believes in military spending and fighting Sunni extremists including distancing the US from their sponsor Saudi Arabia and throwing out the US traitors who also support them. I don't believe in US military spending myself but Tulsi is the only honest person running. The rest of them are all completely corrupt. I do believe she would change US foreign policy for the better. Of course this is why she won't be allowed in office. ..."
"... I forget the exact details, but I remember that in the last election, a TV network was asked why it did not give more coverage to Bernie Sanders. The reply was that Sanders was not a real contender because he had almost no chance of winning. Well that's a self-fulfilling prophecy if it's made by those in control of the media (let's forget for a moment that his own party also conspired against him). ..."
"... It will be interesting to see if Tulsi Gabbard can attract enough support that she cannot be dismissed that easily. Funnily enough, by blocking the more centrist candidates like Sanders, the Democrat leadership has made room for Gabbard who is much more radical (by American standards). ..."
"... her first point was that we are spending enormous amounts of our tax dollars on unnecessary wars. Of course the media wanted instead to hear about what new boondoggle programs they might propose, not something as mundane (and unprofitable for some) as reducing military budget to reduce taxation and free up money for other programs. ..."
"... This morning I saw the clip of Gabbard taking apart Ryan and felt that she did pretty well overall. I'm hopeful that interest in her will grow as I think she is one of very few in Washington who are trustworthy. ..."
"... I am sickened by the neocon chicken hawks, laptop bombardiers, armchair generals and admirals who thank war veterans for their service while glorifying legalized murder and mayhem at the same time. ..."
"... I will eagerly vote for the first candidate to observe that U.S. lawmaking and U.S. elections are hopelessly corrupt and worthless, and can't be used to fix themsleves or any other issue. ..."
"... Maybe you should have a look at Tulsi Gabbards voting record. She is literally one of the very few who constantly votes against military funding. ..."
"... "Tulsi believes the United States would be far better off spending the trillions of dollars wasted in interventionist wars on more pressing domestic issues in America, like infrastructure, college debt, healthcare, etc." ..."
"... When Gabbard is forthright and hits hard with well-informed, well-thought out positions; delivered calmly and with composure; regardless of how far from the mainstream they fall; she scores. This is a boxer who can win. But Gabbard has to resist the temptation to fall in line with political weaseling. ..."
"... I have been watching Gabbard for a long time now. As you mentioned there is no perfect candidate. But she is the lesser evil at this point. The elephant in the room is as usual Israel. Did she sign that pledge when she got into office? How much money has she received from AIPAC. Being a CFR member is a problem as well. Where does she stand with respect to the Palestinians? ..."
"... While I agree with those who state that it is all a sham and that she doesn't have a chance, I still think that she is a test to show the extent to which the yankee populace has been suborned into the structure's propaganda bullshit. ..."
The mainstream media seem to judge the Democratic primary debate last night quite
differently than the general public.
Quartz cites multiple polls which show that Tulsi Gabbard won
the debate :
[T]wo candidates seemed to pique a lot of interest among US voters, at least when judged by
who Americans searched for on Google: New Jersey senator Cory Booker and Hawaii
Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard.
Gabbard was lost for much of the debate. That may not have been her fault -- she wasn't asked
many questions -- ....
Duh!
The New York Timesmain piece
about the debate mentions Gabbard only once - in paragraph 32 of the 45 paragraphs long piece.
It does not reveal anything about her actual political position:
There was little discussion of foreign policy until near the end of the debate when two
little-known House lawmakers, Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii and Tim Ryan of Ohio, clashed over how
aggressively to target the Taliban.
The New York Times also has some 'experts' discussing
winners and losers. Gabbard is only mentioned at the very end, and by a Republican pollster, as
a potential candidate for Secretary of Defense.
NBC News
ranks the candidates' performance. It puts Gabbard on place 8 and inserts a snide:
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii: Seized an opportunity to highlight her military experience in
Afghanistan and her signature anti-intervention foreign policy views, without being tainted
by her past sympathetic comments on Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad.
Most of the above media have long avoided to mention Gabbard and to discuss her political
positions. It is quite evident that the mainstream media do not like her anti-regime-change
views and are afraid of even writing about them.
Tulsi Gabbard's campaign posted a video of her parts of the
debate. She received some good applause.
Posted by b on June 27, 2019 at 11:19 AM |
Permalink
She humiliated Tim Ryan when he asserted that the Taliban attacked the U.S. on 9/11, pointing
out that it was Al Qaeda. Ryan responded that the Taliban protected Al Qaeda. Gabbard then
said something to the effect, "Try Saudi Arabia."
I thought it was hypocritical that none of the other candidates thanked Gabbard for her
service because you know if it had been some guy who is a Major in the National Guard with a
bunch of commendations people would be elbowing each other out of the way to lick his
boots.
Tulsi - "You know who is protecting al-Qaeda right now? It's Saudi Arabia"
MSNBC time given to each candidate:
#1 Booker: 9.68 minutes
#3 Warren: 8.35 minutes
#7 Gabbard: 5.35 minutes
Tulsi was the only candidate to get a negative question directed at her, though she
handled it very well.
MSDNC also framed a trick question who is for the elimination of ALL private healthcare.
Tulsi didn't raise her hand because she is for private insurance for supplemental surgery
such as plastic surgery, like Bernie. Tulsi and Bernie are the only ones for true Medicare
for All. Warren raised her hand but previously has stated she would be for something like
combining a public option and medicare for all, so she is now for cosmetic elective plastic
surgery being covered under Medicare for All?
It is interesting how the NYTimes has now gone full in for Warren. They had at least three
positive opinion columns for her yesterday, plus a front page spread that could have been
written by the Warren campaign itself. This while having many negative Biden pieces, the last
few days. The neoliberals really wanted Biden, but see he is unelectable so have gotten
behind the next Obama. Looks like Wall Street is expecting a crash and want to make sure they
are bailed out and not put in jail again.
--
Tulsi served two tours of duty in the Middle East (Iraq / Kuwait)
In France main newspaper le Figaro, their Washington correspondent said it was Warren who won
the debate, and he only mentiones Tulsi Gabbard once, she stood out because of her red vest, he
wrote, nothing about content. So there you are.
Tulsi is against "regime change war" which she defines as essentially wars that USA lose.
If Tulsi were a serious anti-war candidate, she would be talking about significant
reductions in the military budget. She's not.
Tulsi has drunk the Kool-Aid about Russian interference in US elections. Her nominally
anti-war stance helps her to "sell" neo-McCarthyism to those that think her anti-regime
change war is "courageous".
Furthermore, she is very passive and "reasonable" about her views, making it easy for MSM
to ignore her because every candidate will say that they are for peace and against dumb
wars.
<> <> <> <> <>
Anyone looking to any duopoly candidate for salvation is deluded.
Tulsi Gabbard is allowed some brief MSM exposure.
To demonstrate that plurality of opinion is alive and well and going strong - toot toot!
rah rah! - in the Dem party. A show, a charade. She may be quite genuine and believe what she states, which seems like common sense, ok.
And she is good at it. Her opinions - tagged with Xtreme hopiness - will be shown to be
inconguent with the majority, etc.
In any case she can't win the nomination, she is an 'actor extra' on the fringes. From her promo site:
In this new century, everyone has clean water to drink, clean air to breathe and access
to nourishing food; everyone receives the medical care they need, has a roof over their head,
receives the education they need and is able to find good paying, fulfilling work. People
have financial security and don't have to worry about making ends meet in their old
age.
Our children, and children for generations to come, never worry again about nuclear war
and no parent has to wonder where they will hide their children when the missiles strike. Our
economy is not dependent on war, but is driven instead by innovation, green technology and
renewable industries.
Tulsi served in the Anbar province. She understands the difference between Sunni and Shia
which is why she is against war with Iran, Syria, and Libya. She also understands the corrupt
nature of the US relationship with Saudi Arabia and speaks out against it.
This is a big big
NO NO in DC. Saudi Arabia is seen as part of the empire. Al Qaeda and ISIS serve their
purpose as shock troops for the US empire.
If a few buildings have to come down and a few
thousand people killed that is a small price to pay for the US being a global hegemonic
empire... from counterpunch... Richard Shultz, a professor of international politics at Tufts
who's long been a key national security state intellectual, wrote in 2004 that "A very senior
[Special Operations Forces] officer who had served on the Joint Staff in the 1990s told me
that more than once he heard terrorist strikes characterized as 'a small price to pay for
being a superpower.'"
It is pretty clear to me that Tulsi doesn't believe this. This is why she is so hated by the
MSM. She is former military and largely believes in military spending and fighting Sunni
extremists including distancing the US from their sponsor Saudi Arabia and throwing out the
US traitors who also support them. I don't believe in US military spending myself but Tulsi
is the only honest person running. The rest of them are all completely corrupt. I do believe
she would change US foreign policy for the better. Of course this is why she won't be allowed
in office.
I forget the exact details, but I remember that in the last election, a TV network was asked
why it did not give more coverage to Bernie Sanders. The reply was that Sanders was not a
real contender because he had almost no chance of winning.
Well that's a self-fulfilling prophecy if it's made by those in control of the media
(let's forget for a moment that his own party also conspired against him).
It will be interesting to see if Tulsi Gabbard can attract enough support that she cannot
be dismissed that easily. Funnily enough, by blocking the more centrist candidates like
Sanders, the Democrat leadership has made room for Gabbard who is much more radical (by
American standards).
I cringed when Tulsi launched into patriotic spiel about her service and could not bear to
watch as they went on to over-look her.
But then I realized that she had carefully considered the possibility that she may only be
asked one question and that that if there was one point to make that that was it - she unlike
most of the others has been willing to put herself at risk do do what she thought was the
right thing, serving her country at disadvantage to herself (though there may have been some
politics in it, but never mind) as opposed to say "pocahontes" lady for example. She's pretty
sharp and would represent us well I think.
@Posted by: Zachary Smith | Jun 27, 2019 1:01:12 PM | 15
Excellent point Zachary. In the first question they asked her about what she might do to
improve the economy for the benefit of the un-rich, her first point was that we are spending
enormous amounts of our tax dollars on unnecessary wars. Of course the media wanted instead
to hear about what new boondoggle programs they might propose, not something as mundane (and
unprofitable for some) as reducing military budget to reduce taxation and free up money for
other programs.
We're not allowed to consider candidates who would endeavor to make things better for the
majority at the expense of the minority, which is why Tulsi Gabbard will never be allowed to
the the nominee, regardless of how much her policy positions would resonate with voters were
they to actually be exposed to them.
The democrats are as as polluted as the republicans.
They refuse to see that Warren is far too hysterical to have any chance in a face to face
with Trump while Tulsi Gabbard will knock him Trump off.
The dems have been stupid enough to support Clinton that everybody disliked, now they will
redo the same mistake and lose again
If Tulsi were a serious anti-war candidate, she would be talking about significant
reductions in the military budget. She's not.
This is absurd. The things she talks about ALL THE TIME is how we're spending trillions on
regime change wars and how that money could be better used paying for health care, education,
the environment, etc. That is the entire focus of her campaign. And, by the way, she is the
*only* candidate to speak out against sanctions on Venezuela (and one of maybe two or three
to speak out against the US coup), saying that Venezuelans should determine their own future
without outside interference.
My first take on Tulsi's performance (the first hour) was not positive. I thought her early
spiel sounded too pro "soldier" and thus pro military, I was wishing she or someone would dig
deeper into the "border crisis" and explain the U.S. role in central America especially in
the 1980s, naming names (Abrams, North, etc)and telling the American people that most of the
refugees are coming from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras, not Mexico. This morning I saw the clip of Gabbard taking apart Ryan and felt that she did pretty well
overall. I'm hopeful that interest in her will grow as I think she is one of very few in
Washington who are trustworthy.
Gabbard knows the primary race is rigged yet she stays in it and is remarkably measured as
she is both attacked and shunned by the "popular people". If the primary race bogs and she
stays in she could gain. I hope she is talking to Sanders.
As a Vietnam war veteran I found Tulsi Gabbard's antiwar war stance on target and thoroughly
refreshing. The only thing I am dismayed over was the short time she was given to make her
point.
I am sickened by the neocon chicken hawks, laptop bombardiers, armchair generals and
admirals who thank war veterans for their service while glorifying legalized murder and
mayhem at the same time.
There is a nauseating stench about war that cannot be dismissed nor
forgotten by anyone who has seen it and experienced it up close. Gabbard knows this from her
own tours of duty in Iraq and Kuwait. Nations do not become great by filling up their
cemeteries with the corpses of its potentially best and brightest.
I will eagerly vote for the first candidate to observe that U.S. lawmaking and U.S. elections
are hopelessly corrupt and worthless, and can't be used to fix themsleves or any other issue.
Unfortunately Tulsi Gabbard isn't that person, but she could not be ignored by the
Democrat oligarchs if she kept traveling and talking to foreign leaders, especially 'enemy'
ones. I hope she realizes that her 'Evil Assad lover' meeting is a gift that keeps on giving
to her. I doubt if I would even recognize her name today if that had never happened.
Can you imagine the heads that would explode if she went to China or Russia? Or went to
North and South Korea? And [sigh] Iran, Saudi Arabia and Israel? Venezuela? She doesn't have
to do ANYTHING there. Just have a nice cup of tea with the leader and/or evil dictator and
listen for about half-an-hour, and then leave. Then come back and tell the NYT and WaPo that
she had a MOST interesting conversation with the leader but she would prefer not to discuss
details with the press. She would get instant 24x7 hate coverage by the MSM. Even
Trump would have to tweet about her.
Sometimes you just have to go guerilla in order to take on the 800 lb. swamp gorilla.
How would a media owned by munitions manufacturers behave any differently to someone whose
position threatens them making money off death and destruction? The 'national' media is owned
by the war industry, nothing more, nothing less.
Julian Castro, repeal of the federal law that makes "illegal entry"
Amy Klobuchar bashed Trump for saying he would bring down drug prices, something she said
the president has yet to do. "That's what we call at home all foam and no beer," Klobuchar
said.
Tulsi Gabbard, During a heated exchanged with Ryan, Gabbard pointed out that the Taliban
did not attack the World Trade Center on 9/11. "That's why I and other people joined the
military," she continued, "to go after Al Qaeda. Not the Taliban."
...and the losers, as:
Elizabeth Warren, seemed to disappear in the second half of the debate.
Tim Ryan, ran into Tulsi Gabbard
Beto O'Rourke, lacked substance in his answers.
----
Listened to the debate, too many issues that just allowed posturing without needing a real
policy response.
I like the part where Tulsi said that we can't say to the parents of the two US
service-men that had just been killed by the Taliban that we should just stay engaged, we
need to bring the troops home and, instead, spend the money on building up America.
-----
What is the biggest geo-politic threat facing America (framed as a specific foreign policy
question):
Delaney = China & Nuclear Weapons (no cheer)
Inslee = Donald Trump (biggest cheer)
Gabbard = Greatest risk of Nuclear War than ever before (no cheer)
Klobuchar = China & Iran (no cheer)
O'Rourke = Climate Change (modest cheer)
Warren = Climate Change (no cheer)
Booker = Nuclear proliferation & Climate Change (no cheer)
Castro = China & Climate Change (no cheer)
Ryan = China (half-hearted attempted applause)
De Blasio = Russia (2nd biggest cheer)
I think, Klobuchar noticed the response De Basio got and started to bash Russia later in
the debate.
-----
Closing statements:
Delaney (a bit spacey, wasn't paying attention, aspirational, American dream)
De Blasio (heart & soul of the party, track record, health care, working people first,
slogan = it matters)
Inslee (climate crisis, the only candidate to make this the top priority)
Ryan (oh, dear I won't even try)
Gabbard (against the rich & powerful, this must end, every single person gets the
health care they need, environment, well-paying jobs, justice for all)
Castro (immigrant story, health, jobs, slogan = adios to Donald Trump)
Klubacher (listens and acts, always wins, can beat Trump, not the establishment candidate,
not funded by corporate interests, slogan = govern for you)
Booker (rising to our best, he will beat Trump, best of who we are)
O'Rourke (emosh, for the children, new kind of politics)
Warren (emosh, great honour, modest background, American dream, we can make the country
work)
-----
I think Delaney and Ryan are toast. Unfortunately, De Blasio could go far on the anti-Russia dog whistle.
-----
Jackrabbit has a point about what can you expect from a single person being elected.
But he is wrong about Tulsi Gabbard's policy on military spending:
"Tulsi believes the United States would be far better off spending the trillions of
dollars wasted in interventionist wars on more pressing domestic issues in America, like
infrastructure, college debt, healthcare, etc."
The US is engaged in more conflicts than at any time since the end of WWII, at the same
time its military is beginning to fail, and its economy is on a precipice. There is no real
political movement anywhere in the US that is effectively addressing these issues.
I don't see Americans organising to take control of their government, to stop the wars or
anything like that.
The only hope that American's have is to send a message that the wars have got to stop, to
vote for a candidate that is committed and best able to stop those wars, and for those voters
to hold that candidate to account.
The only candidate that fits that bill is Tulsi Gabbard.
If you wish to opt-out, then organise, rise up and take control.....ehh, what's that?....I
thought not!
If all you are going to do is watch the TV, eat chips, drink beer and moan, then the very
least thing that you can do is vote for Tulsi Gabbard!
Tulsi Gabbard volunteered to go kill brown people on the other side of the world. If she
renounces her service to the Empire and regrets her part in mass murder, that would get my
attention.
But it doesn't matter. If she doesn't play ball she will get the Dennis Kucinich
treatment. Anybody remember him, or has he fallen down the memory hole? He loudly opposed
Uncle Sam's foreign policy and even introduced an impeachment bill against W Bush after the
2003 invasion of Iraq.
The Empire struck back by re-drawing congressional districts. That forced him to run
against another Dummycrat congressional incumbent in the primary, and he lost. All
politicians are required to get with the program; they are either co-opted or shoved out.
The only exception I can think of is Eleanor Holmes Norton, the non-voting delegate in
Congress who represents the District of Columbia. The establishment can afford to ignore her
because her vote doesn't count, just like all the other D.C. residents.
The thirty-odd reactions here to Tulsi Gabbard are a perfect example of how & why the
left is so hopelessly fragmented.
People, for the umptieth time, it is impossible to ever find 100 point zero zero zero
percent overlap or coverage with any candidate for any office, ever.
But that fact does not justify throwing them all at the stake.
You are burning to ashes your own chances of ever seeing a society that even remotely
resembles your ideals.
Gotta love living in a Dollar Democracy where one dollar = one vote. Voting only legitimizes
an illegitimate regime. "None of the above" would be an interesting ballot option, and about
as realistic as retiring at age 55, which we were promised decades ago.
Hey, Trailer Trash. She was a medic. She did not volunteer to go kill people. Also, to the claim that she has no policy positions: good grief, are you capable of
navigating a site? She has tons of clearly worded policy positions.
Finally, the VoteSmart site is clearly compromised if that's what it is saying about
Gabbard. Her positions are vastly different from those stated.
>She was a medic. She did not volunteer to go kill people.
> Posted by: Linda Hagge | Jun 27, 2019 3:14:41 PM | 48
The entire purpose of US War Department is to kill people and break things when vassals
refuse to obey. Everybody who signs up understands and accepts that basic fact. My nephew
actually stated to me that he signed up for the Marines so he could kill people legally.
People who want to patch up the sick and wounded sign up for Médecins Sans
Frontières or similar, not Uncle Sam's mass murder machine.
@Virgile (21) If you think that Sen. Warren is "hysterical" and would not have a chance
facing off against Trump, then I can only assume that you have not seen her in action. She is
incredibly well-informed, quick on her feet and unflappable. She would make Trump look like
the clown that he is.
I recommend that all Americans actually visit a party caucus at the county of district
level to see how the party bosses "select" their presidential candidate. It is a sobering but
depressing experience.
As for those who are waiting for the perfect leader - remember that such a leader would
likely be murdered by those who have money in the game.
When Gabbard is forthright and hits hard with well-informed, well-thought out positions;
delivered calmly and with composure; regardless of how far from the mainstream they fall; she
scores. This is a boxer who can win. But Gabbard has to resist the temptation to fall in line
with political weaseling.
Politicians are told that they must go where the voters' are,
triangulating so as not to offend, trying to cover all the bases, trying to confirm voters'
biases (heavily propagandized and managed biases, via media, etc., so that it becomes an easy
game for those in on the game): a real leader speaks to where he or she knows that the people
need to go, relying on the people to catch up, relying on some kind of faith to keep going
when that takes a while to happen.
The forthright and courageous Tulsi Gabbard wins minds and hearts.
I would without doubt prefer Tulsi over any of the other candidates on that stage, but I
still don't know how seriously to take her. Sure, she talks a good game about ending
régime-change wars, but she also seems to think that the 'War on Terra' (as Pepe
Escobar used to call it) is an actual thing, when in fact, it's just a big psy-op . We
all know that 9/11 was a false-flag that was staged to justify the serial destruction of all
the mid-east countries that refuse to bow down before Tel Aviv and Washington; and that 'Al
Qaeda' is really just a Saudi-funded, CIA-trained dupe-group used either to justify our
presence in the ME, or else to directly attack countries like Syria.
Does Tulsi really not know this? If she doesn't, then she's stupid. And if she does and
she's choosing to keep quiet about it for some reason, then who's she fooling? The neocons?
Or us?
So that's what bothers me about Tulsi. Still, I think she'd be preferable to four more
years of Zion Don (though I realize that isn't saying much).
I have been watching Gabbard for a long time now. As you mentioned there is no perfect
candidate. But she is the lesser evil at this point. The elephant in the room is as usual Israel. Did she sign that pledge when she got into
office? How much money has she received from AIPAC. Being a CFR member is a problem as well.
Where does she stand with respect to the Palestinians?
Once she repeats the line of "Israel has a right to defend itself" nonsense, it's all
downhill from there. You cannot make a new foreign policy direction once you signed that
pledge. You have to continue with the master plan. Obama was told that, so was Trump. That
has been proven and it's not up for debate.
Sadly, I still believe this is all a show for the masses. Nothing will change. The country
is doomed and the Empire will take its direction either good or bad, without any inputs from
the rest of us.
Several years ago, we placed on the ballot a referendum to stop Big Timber from
indiscriminately using helicopters or other contrivances to spray insecticides onto us, all
we own and our natural surround. Big Timber outspent us @10,000:1 and employed the usual
campaign of corporate lies to get us to vote against our health and other interests, which
included editorials in favor of Big Timber by the leading Oregon newspapers. At least we had
the opportunity to vote on the issue. When living in Santa Clara County, California during
the 1970s, we had no choice and got sprayed daily with Malathion insecticide to try and
destroy drosophila--the common fruit fly--which we all knew was an impossible task and would
have lost if put to a vote. We won at the ballot box and preserved our health and that of our
communities and the visitors we need to attract to survive in our tourism heavy economy.
The bottom line is voting matters! Arguments to the contrary only serve the interests
of the Current Oligarchy. And I grow oh so weary of reading that crap on this site, which
makes the people writing such tripe to have the appearance of Trolls!
sorry, I see my links are a b repeat -- but hey she deserves the headlines
exiled off mainstree , Jun 27, 2019 6:43:32 PM |
83
While I agree with those who state that it is all a sham and that she doesn't have a chance,
I still think that she is a test to show the extent to which the yankee populace has been suborned into the structure's
propaganda bullshit.
I think that if they do sideline her she
should stand as a third party candidate. I also suspect that the more people actually see her
and that the more intelligent element will support her. The better she does, the more
difficult it will be for the structure to maintain absolute power. After all there is little
significant difference between corporate democrats and corporate republicans.
I wanted Tulsi to be genuine but in doing some research I am sharing just a little of what I found: she is a current member of
the Counsel on Foreign Relations ...
If you want to know about and understand US foreign policy or have any hope of influencing
that policy you need to take an interest in the Council of Foreign Affairs.
I have frequently read and sought out articles on their journal, I would imagine b and
many commentators here have done so.
If you want a President that can deal with foreign affairs then they have to engage with
the foreign affairs establishment and do it before you become President otherwise you don't
stand a chance.
"She stressed that she co-sponsored a House resolution reaffirming US commitment to "a
negotiated settlement leading to a sustainable two-state solution that re-affirms Israel's
right to exist as a democratic, Jewish state and establishes a demilitarized democratic
Palestinian state living side-by-side in peace and security."
That resolution also reaffirmed the US commitment to Israel and the US policy of vetoing
one-sided or anti-Israel UN Security Council resolutions, and condemned boycott and
divestment campaigns that target Israel."
Although she has condemned settlement activity, but sponsoring a bill to condemn BDS is a
nonstarter in my book. Too bad.
"... I thought she would stand out from the field as she is the only candidate who seems to GENUINELY think our "interventionist" foreign policy is madness, and beyond counterproductive. ..."
"... Now Ron Paul once stood out from the field in presidential debates, and also won all of these Drudge Report polls. At some point, the Powers that Be decided enough with that and succeeded in re-labeling him a kook, racist, pacifist, Russia lover, isolationist and traitor. ..."
"Of all the candidates who are running for president, I'm the one who is most qualified to
fulfill that responsibility to walk into the Oval Office and serve as commander-in-chief.
And
I think you heard tonight some of the reasons why those who lack the experience, lack the
understanding, and conviction would, unfortunately, put our country in a place where we'd end
up waging more wars, costing us more lives and tax-payer dollars .
This is why I'm running
for president, to be that person, to be that change in our foreign policy and those
regime-change wars, new cold wars nuclear arms races and invest our precious dollars into
serving the needs of our people. "
I thought she would stand out from the field as she is the only candidate who seems to
GENUINELY think our "interventionist" foreign policy is madness, and beyond
counterproductive.
She also seems to not be backing down from her positions and appears capable of defending
her position in easy-to-understand and grasp sentences.
Now Ron Paul once stood out from the field in presidential debates, and also won all of
these Drudge Report polls. At some point, the Powers that Be decided enough with that and
succeeded in re-labeling him a kook, racist, pacifist, Russia lover, isolationist and
traitor.
The Most Qualified to be Prezzy would be the first of these cockbags to admit that
Obobo weaponized the government against his opponents. But none of them will. And by ignoring
the 800 pound gorilla in the room, they ALL prove that none of them are even close to
"qualified" to lead anything.
As they
take the stage for the first Democratic debates of the 2020 presidential campaign, the 20
participating candidates should be ready for one frequently asked question: How will you pay
for it? Democrats often pledge to finance their most ambitious plans -- Medicare for All,
debt-free college, a Green New Deal -- with tax increases on the wealthy and corporations.
That is both sensible and fair. But candidates hoping to distinguish themselves in the
limited time they will be allotted should also consider taking a stand against the United
States' bloated defense budget.
This month, the House Armed Services Committee
advanced a $733 billion defense budget on a mostly party-line vote. According to
Defense News , the lack of Republican support for the bill
illustrated "the stark divide in defense policy between the two parties." Yet that divide
is far narrower than you might think. The bill's price tag is just $17 billion less than the
$750 billion that
President Trump requested ; it still was, as Representative Adam Smith (D-WA) boasted,
the "largest" defense budget in history. There remains a near-universal commitment in both
parties to massive defense spending -- a case of Washington bipartisanship that the country
would be better off without.
A timely new
report from the Center for International Policy's Sustainable Defense Task Force offers
an alternative path forward. In the report, "A Sustainable Defense: More Security, Less
Spending," the nonpartisan group of military and budget experts outlines a strategy that it
says would save $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years without harming national-security
interests. In fact, through a sober reassessment of the biggest threats to the United States
in the 21st century, including climate change and cyberattacks, the proposal would keep the
country safer than an outdated approach that relies on perpetual spending increases.
One more century of warfare like the 20th century, and the USA might be bankrupt
Notable quotes:
"... So her sell point of getting rid USA from useless wars off shore seems on pint but we all know that ain't gonna realized except takes a hike in her time, if she got a chance of course ..."
"... She can talk to her heart's content, but American forces won't go home as long as dollar is the world's favourite currency. ..."
"... If Gabbard can stay with the brain-dead false narrative that 'Crazed Arabs' took down the towers and building 7 in perfect free fall without taking months to plant and wire the bombs, then maybe the Zio-Cons may let her live. ..."
While it would appear that the mainstream media has crowned Senator Elizabeth Warren the winner of
last night's first Democratic primary debate, on a more quantitative and objective level, it would
seem there was another female candidate that stood out to the American audience.
Before the debate, Warren was indeed the 'most-searched' Democratic candidate on Google...
But as the debate began and the clown-show escalated, one candidate dominated the search...
As Fox News reports,
Tulsi Gabbard, an Army National Guard veteran who served
in Iraq, grabbed the attention of the viewers every time she spoke about foreign policy and the
military.
During the debate, she called for scaling back of U.S. military presence abroad and accused
"this president and his chicken hawk cabinet have led us to the brink of war with Iran."
Gabbard's military experience gave her authority in a harsh exchange with Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan,
who said the U.S. must maintain forces in Afghanistan to ensure the Taliban is kept in check.
"When we weren't in there, they started flying planes into our buildings," Ryan said.
"The Taliban didn't attack us on 9/11, Al Qaeda attacked us on 9/11," Gabbard replied.
The data show that
the moment that generated the most search traffic for Gabbard was
when she was making her closing argument
.
"Assuming the Google "trend" isn't a manifestation of their algorithms then it
appears that most adults are interested in a calm, stoic, but non-clown like candidate"
Tulsi got some agenda correct 90% others 10% among 99 problems,
you can't compromise one after another nor give away your gun
right for some hotchpotch noises
They promise big and bigger
in campaign times yes?
So her sell point of getting rid USA from useless wars off
shore seems on pint but we all know that ain't gonna realized
except takes a hike in her time, if she got a chance of course
If Gabbard can stay with the brain-dead false narrative that
'Crazed Arabs' took down the towers and building 7 in perfect free
fall without taking months to plant and wire the bombs, then maybe
the Zio-Cons may let her live.
Her mentioning the Saudis, (Israels
secret partner) however, was a little risky, unless the Zionists
are getting ready to throw the Saudis under the bus?
While I fully agree with the idea, heck, FACT, that it wasn't a
bunch of Bedouins in street clothes that took down the towers
it also has to be taken into account that the CIA uses proxies
all the time. I upvoted you, though. The 9/11 story is a
truly fascinating one.
the CIA uses proxies all the time' ....... agree, but
nothing hit building '7' the 47 story Solomon building , so
who were the proxies for that free fall controlled demo?
That's good line of attack on Trump. People do not want yet another war and they are against
overinflated military expenditures. and Trump essentially behaves like a rabid subservant to
Israel neocon in those area. So he might share the Hillary destiny in 2020
The Dem debaters want the failed JCPOA back, except one wants a more punitive one. So it's
Obama/Trump redux with all of them, worthless people. We're less safe with Iranians . .
.under the bed!
McClatchy
Klobuchar said that Trump's strategy on Iran had "made us less safe," after debate
moderators took note of increased military tensions in the Strait of Hormuz last week.
Washington has accused Iran of targeting shipping vessels, and Tehran acknowledged it shot
down an unmanned U.S. drone on Thursday, nearly prompting Trump to order a retaliatory
military strike. The 2015 nuclear deal "was imperfect, but it was a good deal for that
moment," Klobuchar stated, characterizing the agreement's "sunset periods" – caps on
Iran's enrichment and stockpiling of fissile material set to expire five to 10 years from
the next inauguration– as a potential point of renegotiation.
The Democratic field has roundly criticized Trump for his approach to Iran. Many of the
leading candidates said last week's military confrontation spawned from a crisis of the
president's own making, precipitated by his withdrawal from that landmark accord.
But up until now, the Democratic candidates have not specified how they would salvage a
deal that continues to fray – and that may collapse completely under the weight of
steadily broadening U.S. sanctions by the time a new president could be sworn in.
Few Democrats had thus far hedged over adopting the agreement entirely should they win
the presidency even if the deal survives that long. Leading candidates have characterized
the nuclear agreement as "imperfect" and in need of "strengthening," suggesting subtle
distinctions within the field over the potential conditions of U.S. re-entry into a pact. .
. here
I've got a deal for them to salvage, get off your GD pedestals and say hello to the real
world! . . .There, I feel better now.
This dude (Trump) has spent more than two years, and a ton of money, trying to pull the
undercurrent of dissent in the American population into his camp and under his wing.
In all of his 'fighting with the establishment' he has managed to change exactly nothing
and bring exactly nobody to justice. He has gathered the entirety of the Bush/Rumsfeld
faction directly into his tent, while miraculously failing to so much as arrest a single
member of the Clinton faction. And to top it off he just ordered an armed attack on an
independent nation (which failed in spectacular fashion as thr first targeting drone was
vaporized while he was watching the livestream). Come on dude.
"... Glenn Greenwald called out journalists and columnists pushing for a war with Iran and lamented that people who have been continually wrong are often hailed as the voice of authority and reason in an interview with FNC's Tucker Carlson on Friday. ..."
Glenn Greenwald called out journalists and columnists pushing for a war with Iran and
lamented that people who have been continually wrong are often hailed as the voice of authority
and reason in an interview with FNC's Tucker Carlson on Friday.
Greenwald specifically took aim at Jeffrey Goldberg of 'The Atlantic' who he said got a
promotion for being wrong about the war in Iraq.
VIDEO
Posted by: John Smith | Jun 27, 2019 1:05:43 AM |
113
"... UPDATED: VIPS says its direct experience with Mike Pompeo leaves them with strong doubt regarding his trustworthiness on issues of consequence to the President and the nation. ..."
"... As for Pompeo himself, there is no sign he followed up by pursuing Binney's stark observation with anyone, including his own CIA cyber sleuths. Pompeo had been around intelligence long enough to realize the risks entailed in asking intrusive questions of intelligence officers -- in this case, subordinates in the Directorate of Digital Innovation, which was created by CIA Director John Brennan in 2015. ..."
"... CIA malware and hacking tools are built by the Engineering Development Group, part of that relatively new Directorate. (It is a safe guess that offensive cybertool specialists from that Directorate were among those involved in the reported placing of "implants" or software code into the Russian grid, about which The New York Times claims you were not informed.) ..."
"... The question is whose agenda Pompeo was pursuing -- yours or his own. Binney had the impression Pompeo was simply going through the motions -- and disingenuously, at that. If he "really wanted to know about Russian hacking," he would have acquainted himself with the conclusions that VIPS, with Binney in the lead, had reached in mid-2017, and which apparently caught your eye. ..."
"... For the Steering Groups of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity: ..."
UPDATED: VIPS says its direct experience with Mike Pompeo leaves them with strong doubt
regarding his trustworthiness on issues of consequence to the President and the
nation.
DATE: June 21, 2019
MEMORANDUM FOR : The President.
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
SUBJECT: Is Pompeo's Iran Agenda the Same As Yours?
A fter the close call yesterday when you called off the planned military strike on Iran, we
remain concerned that you are about to be mousetrapped into war with Iran. You have said you do
not want such a war (no sane person would), and our comments below are based on that premise.
There are troubling signs that Secretary Pompeo is not likely to jettison his more warlike
approach, More importantly, we know from personal experience with Pompeo's dismissive attitude
to instructions from you that his agenda can deviate from yours on issues of major
consequence.
Pompeo's behavior betrays a strong desire to resort to military action -- perhaps even
without your approval -- to Iranian provocations (real or imagined), with no discernible
strategic goal other than to advance the interests of Israel, Saudi Arabia and the UAE. He is a
neophyte compared to his anti-Iran partner John Bolton, whose dilettante approach to
interpreting intelligence, strong advocacy of the misbegotten war on Iraq (and continued pride
in his role in promoting it), and fierce pursuit of his own aggressive agenda are a matter of a
decades-long record. You may not be fully aware of our experience with Pompeo, who has now
taken the lead on Iran.
That experience leaves us with strong doubt regarding his trustworthiness on issues of
consequence to you and the country, including the contentious issue of alleged Russian hacking
into the DNC. The sketchy "evidence" behind that story has now crumbled, thanks to some unusual
candor from the Department of Justice. We refer to the
extraordinary revelation in a recent Department of Justice court filing that former FBI
Director James Comey never required a final forensic report from the DNC-hired cybersecurity
company, CrowdStrike.
Comey, of course, has admitted to the fact that, amid accusations from the late Sen. John
McCain and others that the Russians had committed "an act of war," the FBI did not follow best
practices and insist on direct access to the DNC computers, preferring to rely on CrowdStrike
reporting. What was not known until the DOJ revelation is that CrowdStrike never gave Comey a
final report on its forensic findings regarding alleged "Russian hacking." Mainstream media
have suppressed this story so far; we
reported it several days ago.
The point here is that Pompeo could have exposed the lies about Russian hacking of the DNC,
had he done what you asked him to do almost two years ago when he was director of the CIA.
In our Memorandum
to you of July 24, 2017 entitled "Was the 'Russian Hack' an Inside Job?," we suggested:
"You may wish to ask CIA Director Mike Pompeo what he knows about this.["This" being the
evidence-deprived allegation that "a shadowy entity with the moniker 'Guccifer 2.0' hacked
the DNC on behalf of Russian intelligence and gave DNC emails to WikiLeaks ."] Our
own lengthy intelligence community experience suggests that it is possible that neither
former CIA Director John Brennan, nor the cyber-warriors who worked for him, have been
completely candid with their new director regarding how this all went down."
Three months later, Director Pompeo invited William Binney, one of VIPS' two former NSA
technical directors (and a co-author of our July 24, 2017 Memorandum), to CIA headquarters to
discuss our findings. Pompeo began an hour-long meeting with Binney on October 24, 2017 by
explaining the genesis of the unusual invitation: "You are here because the President told me
that if I really wanted to know about Russian hacking I needed to talk to you."
But Did Pompeo 'Really Want to Know'?
Apparently not. Binney, a widely respected, plain-spoken scientist with more than three
decades of experience at NSA , began by telling Pompeo that his (CIA) people were lying to him
about Russian hacking and that he (Binney) could prove it. As we explained in our most recent
Memorandum to you, Pompeo reacted with disbelief and -- now get this -- tried to put the
burden on Binney to pursue the matter with the FBI and NSA.
As for Pompeo himself, there is no sign he followed up by pursuing Binney's stark
observation with anyone, including his own CIA cyber sleuths. Pompeo had been around
intelligence long enough to realize the risks entailed in asking intrusive questions of
intelligence officers -- in this case, subordinates in the Directorate of Digital Innovation,
which was created by CIA Director John Brennan in 2015.
CIA malware and hacking tools are built
by the Engineering Development Group, part of that relatively new Directorate. (It is a safe
guess that offensive cybertool specialists from that Directorate were among those involved in
the reported placing of "implants" or software code into the Russian grid, about which The
New York Times claims you were not informed.)
If Pompeo failed to report back to you on the conversation you instructed him to have with
Binney, you might ask him about it now (even though the flimsy evidence of Russia hacking the
DNC has now evaporated, with Binney vindicated). There were two note-takers present at the
October 24, 2017 meeting at CIA headquarters. There is also a good chance the session was also
recorded. You might ask Pompeo about that.
Whose Agenda?
The question is whose agenda Pompeo was pursuing -- yours or his own. Binney had the
impression Pompeo was simply going through the motions -- and disingenuously, at that. If he
"really wanted to know about Russian hacking," he would have acquainted himself with the
conclusions that VIPS, with Binney in the lead, had reached in mid-2017, and which apparently
caught your eye.
Had he pursued the matter seriously with Binney, we might not have had to wait until the
Justice Department itself put nails in the coffin of Russiagate, CrowdStrike, and Comey. In
sum, Pompeo could have prevented two additional years of "everyone knows that the Russians
hacked into the DNC." Why did he not?
Pompeo is said to be a bright fellow -- Bolton, too–with impeccable academic
credentials. The history of the past six decades , though, shows that an Ivy League pedigree
can spell disaster in affairs of state. Think, for example, of President Lyndon Johnson's
national security adviser, former Harvard Dean McGeorge Bundy, for example, who sold the Tonkin
Gulf Resolution to Congress to authorize the Vietnam war based on what he knew was a lie.
Millions dead.
Bundy was to LBJ as John Bolton is to you, and it is a bit tiresome watching Bolton brandish
his Yale senior ring at every podium. Think, too, of Princeton's own Donald Rumsfeld concocting
and pushing the fraud about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to "justify" war on Iraq,
assuring us all the while that "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Millions
dead.
Rumsfeld's dictum is anathema to William Binney, who has shown uncommon patience answering a
thousand evidence-free "What if's" over the past three years. Binney's shtick? The principles
of physics, applied mathematics, and the scientific method. He is widely recognized for his
uncanny ability to use these to excellent advantage in separating the chaff from wheat. No Ivy
pedigree wanted or needed.
Binney describes himself as a "country boy" from western Pennsylvania. He studied at Penn
State and became a world renowned mathematician/cryptologist as well as a technical director at
NSA. Binney's accomplishments are featured in a documentary on YouTube, "A Good American."
You may wish to talk to him person-to-person.
Cooked Intelligence
Some of us served as long ago as the Vietnam War. We are painfully aware of how Gen. William
Westmoreland and other top military officers lied about the "progress" the Army was making, and
succeeded in forcing their superiors in Washington to suppress our conclusions as all-source
analysts that the war was a fool's errand and one we would inevitably lose. Millions dead.
Four decades later, on February 5, 2003, six weeks before the attack on Iraq, we warned
President Bush that there was no reliable intelligence to justify war on Iraq.
Five years later, the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, releasing the
bipartisan conclusions of the committee's investigation, said
this :
" In making the case for war, the Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact
when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent. As a result, the
American people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually
existed."
Intelligence on the Middle East has still been spotty -- and sometimes "fixed" for political
purposes. Four years ago, a U.S. congressional report said Central Command painted
too rosy a picture of the fight against Islamic State in 2014 and 2015 compared with the
reality on the ground and grimmer assessments by other analysts.
Intelligence analysts at CENTCOM claimed their commanders imposed a "false narrative" on
analysts, intentionally rewrote and suppressed intelligence products, and engaged in "delay
tactics" to undermine intelligence provided by the Defense Intelligence Agency. In July 2015,
fifty CENTCOM analysts signed a complaint to the Pentagon's Inspector General that their
intelligence reports were being manipulated by their superiors. The CENTCOM analysts were
joined by intelligence analysts working for the Defense Intelligence Agency.
We offer this as a caution. As difficult as this is for us to say, the intelligence you get
from CENTCOM should not be accepted reflexively as gospel truth, especially in periods of high
tension. The experience of the Tonkin Gulf alone should give us caution. Unclear and
misinterpreted intelligence can be as much a problem as politicization in key conflict
areas.
Frequent problems with intelligence and Cheney-style hyperbole help explain why CENTCOM
commander Admiral William Fallon in early 2007 blurted out that "an attack on Iran " will not
happen on my watch," as Bush kept sending additional carrier groups into the Persian Gulf.
Hillary Mann, the administration's former National Security Council director for Iran and
Persian Gulf Affairs, warned at the time that some Bush advisers secretly wanted an excuse to
attack Iran. "They intend to be as provocative as possible and make the Iranians do something
[America] would be forced to retaliate for," she told Newsweek. Deja vu. A National
Intelligence Estimate issued in November 2007 concluded unanimously that Iran had stopped
working on a nuclear weapon in 2003 and had not resumed such work.
We believe your final decision yesterday was the right one -- given the so-called "fog of
war" and against the background of a long list of intelligence mistakes, not to mention
"cooking" shenanigans. We seldom quote media commentators, but we think Tucker Carlson had it
right yesterday evening: "The very people -- in some cases, literally the same people who lured
us into the Iraq quagmire 16 years ago -- are demanding a new war -- this one with Iran.
Carlson described you as "skeptical." We believe ample skepticism is warranted.
We are at your disposal, should you wish to discuss any of this with us.
For the Steering Groups of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity:
William Binney , former Technical Director, World Geopolitical & Military
Analysis, NSA; co-founder, SIGINT Automation Research Center (ret.)
Marshall Carter-Tripp , Foreign Service Officer & former Division Director in the
State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research (ret.)
Bogdan Dzakovic , former Team Leader of Federal Air Marshals and Red Team, FAA
Security (ret.) (associate VIPS)
Philip Giraldi, CIA, Operations Officer (ret.)
Mike Gravel, former Adjutant, top secret control officer, Communications Intelligence
Service; special agent of the Counter Intelligence Corps and former United States Senator
James George Jatras , former U.S. diplomat and former foreign policy adviser to Senate
leadership (Associate VIPS)
Michael S. Kearns, Captain, USAF (ret.); ex-Master SERE Instructor for Strategic
Reconnaissance Operations (NSA/DIA) and Special Mission Units (JSOC)
John Kiriakou, former CIA Counterterrorism Officer and former Senior Investigator,
Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Karen Kwiatkowski, former Lt. Col., US Air Force (ret.), at Office of Secretary of
Defense watching the manufacture of lies on Iraq, 2001-2003
Clement J. Laniewski, LTC, U.S. Army (ret.) (associate VIPS)
Linda Lewis, WMD preparedness policy analyst, USDA (ret.) (associate VIPS)
Edward Loomis, NSA Cryptologic Computer Scientist (ret.)
Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA presidential
briefer (ret.)
Elizabeth Murray, former Deputy National Intelligence Officer for the Near East &
CIA political analyst (ret.)
Todd E. Pierce, MAJ, US Army Judge Advocate (ret.)
Sarah Wilton , Commander, U.S. Naval Reserve (ret.) and Defense Intelligence Agency
(ret.)
Ann Wright, U.S. Army Reserve Colonel (ret) and former U.S. Diplomat who resigned in
2003 in opposition to the Iraq War
"... Warren's announcement of her presidential candidacy made clear that she considers Trump to be merely a symptom of this larger problem – the detritus of a crumbling democracy. Just cleaning up the garbage is not going to solve the systemic problem of plutocracy from which he emerged. If not systemically fixed today with more than cosmetics, Warren understands, the corrupt plutocracy is capable of generating even more toxic products tomorrow. ..."
Sanders, by contrast, was not a troublemaker at all. He talked about his blue-sky political
ideals as something he believed in passionately, but he separated that idealism from his
practical legislative work, which was grounded in vote counts." In other words Warren put
principles over party in the interest of advancing the issues she cared about, like a true
progressive. Sanders' messaging "revolution" was all talk and bluster but no show. Warren has
been praised
for "picking strategic battles she won with a specific set of political skills. 'I would say
she's the best progressive Democratic politician I've seen since Bobby Kennedy,'" reports the
political writer Robert Kuttner. Before she went into electoral politics Warren had already
received credit from Obama and others for establishing the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
(CFPB) a progressive half-billion dollar New Deal-type agency. Can another person be named who
has been responsible for establishing a comparable key regulatory agency in recent decades? By
contrast the not easily dismissed explanation about
Sanders' lack of such accomplishments is "in a business where personal relations count, Sanders
is viewed as a brusque and inflexible loner."
Which then is the true WaPo "Revolutionary?" The tame lion who talks a good game or the
principled brinkswoman who plays a good game? It is Warren who complained to the NYT: " Democrats have been unwilling to get out there and fight." Warren did fight during
her campaign for and service in the Senate, even acquiring a reputation
(among
males , at least) for "stridency" as she was learning the ropes for coping with a
systemically corrupt political order. We should doubt anyone within such a system who is not as
strident or angry as Warren. That stance tended to enhance her power to change the system, at
least until she decided to campaign for president as a way to acquire more power to reform it.
She then appropriately revealed
"a folksier, more accessible side that wasn't always apparent in her role" in the Senate.
Former congressman Barney Frank, always a sharp observer of such matters, said of Warren,
after she had barely completed two years of her brand new "strident" career in electoral
politics: "Right now, she's as powerful a spokesperson on public policy as you could be in the
minority . She has an absolute veto over certain public-policy issues, because Democrats are
not going to cross her . Democrats are afraid of Elizabeth Warren." Can anything remotely
similar be said of Sanders after his 30 years in Washington? Indeed, Frank expressed what
Politico reported as a consensus view
that "[Sanders'] legislative record was to state the ideological position he took on the left,
but with the exception of a few small things, he never got anything done . He has always talked
about revolution, but on Dodd-Frank and Obamacare, he left the pitchfork at home and joined the
Democrats."
Warren acquired power to make change. After two more years she was so powerful that the
Clinton establishment unsuccessfully pressured her to endorse Clinton in the primaries, and
Sanders' acolytes would blame her for not making Sanders the victor by performing as his
unsolicited super-endorser. It takes exceptional strategic and other political skills, focus
and commitment to gain such power in such a short time. Unlike Sanders, even Warren's enemies
do not claim she is ineffective.
Warren, no less than Sanders, has clearly stated that the reason for her candidacy is to
fight "against a small group that holds far too much power, not just in our economy, but also
in our democracy." She says her purpose is not "to just tinker around the edges --
a tax credit here, a regulation there. Our fight is for big, structural change" of
plutocracy, "a rigged system that props up the rich and the powerful and kicks dirt on everyone
else." WaPo must have missed these parts of Warren's presidential
announcement speech which promised this challenge to the power of the systemically corrupt
plutocracy. It is the central motif of her campaign. And of course, "she has a plan for that"
– her first plan. It is her
bill S.3357. 15 th Cong. – the "Anti-Corruption and Public Integrity
Act."
Warren's announcement of her presidential candidacy made clear that she considers Trump to
be merely a symptom of this larger problem – the detritus of a crumbling democracy. Just
cleaning up the garbage is not going to solve the systemic problem of plutocracy from which he
emerged. If not systemically fixed today with more than cosmetics, Warren understands, the
corrupt plutocracy is capable of generating even more toxic products tomorrow.
Therefore, from the very start of her highly effective campaign Warren positioned herself in
opposition not just to Trump but to the economically "rich and powerful [who] have rigged our
political system as well. They've bought off or bullied politicians in both parties to
make sure Washington is always on their side." Like Sanders at his best , she calls this system by its proper name. "When
government works only for the wealthy and well-connected, that is corruption --
plain and simple. Corruption is a cancer on our democracy. And we will get rid of it
only with strong medicine -- with real, structural reform. Our fight is to
change the rules so that our government, our economy, and our democracy work for
everyone." She emphasized to Emily Bazelon, writing for the NYT: " It's structural change that interests me." She
toldTIME "If we want to make real change in this country, it's got to be systemic
change."
Ignoring the fetid distraction of Trump to focus her advocacy instead on the necessary
systemic reforms is a winning progressive strategy. Establishment Democrats will again
predictably
ignore this strategy, as they did in 2016, at their peril. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has already
accurately
predicted the result of sending what Naomi Klein calls ,
"tepid centrists carrying the baggage of decades of neoliberal suffering" to battle against
mobilized totalitarians: "We have a very real risk of losing the presidency to Donald Trump if
we don't have a presidential candidate that's fighting for true transformational change in
lives of working people in the United States."
Warren has taken on the task of defeating, not appeasing, the corrupt establishment which is
willing in 2020 as it was in 2016 to take just that risk in order to preclude a progressive
revival. Warren's plan is, "First: We need to change the rules to clean up Washington. End the
corruption." This is not an opportunistic aspersion by a political con-artist, like Trump's
totally phony "drain the swamp" slogan, soon belied by his own most corrupt administration in
recent history. With Trump second to none in pandering to plutocrats, even a broad section of
his own base has abandoned the remaining mere 23% of
Americans who think he has made any progress on this central campaign promise. In Warren's
case, according to a New Yorkerprofile , "her agenda
of reversing income inequality and beating back the influence of corporate power in politics .
are issues that Warren has pursued for three decades." Her mission has nothing to do with
political calculation. It constitutes hard-earned strategic wisdom about priorities.
Once the systemic corruption is ended all the other crises from climate change and energy to
health and food policy and much more can finally all respond to currently disempowered
majorities. Systemic anti-corruption reform sustains itself first through the watchdog agencies
it creates; solutions for these other issues are not similarly sustainable once the corrupt
plutocracy refocuses its purchased influence on any modest measures that may filter through its
defenses in singular and usually highly constricted moments of reform. For example Obama's
singular unambiguous reform – the Iran nuclear deal – and other more modest Obama
reforms have been killed or wounded by Trump, because Obama left the MIC, Big
Pharma, Wall Street and the other components of the corrupt plutocracy with even
more power than he found them. Through his strategic malfeasance, for motives that
historians will need to pick over, Obama's 8 years were therefore not just unproductive, but
counterproductive for democracy and social justice.
For Warren this issue of the corrupt plutocracy is not just a majoritarian favorite adopted
to boost a political campaign. Obama campaigned
as one "tired of business as usual in Washington" who would "overcome all the big money and
influence" there and get the "lobbyists [who] dominate our government system in Washington" and
their "undue influence" out of "our way." But he woke up president not so "tired of business as
usual in Washington"after all. Refreshed by record-setting campaign cash from the Wall Street
plutocracy he did the opposite
of what many thought to be his central campaign promise. Roger D. Hodge, Mendacity of Hope:
Barack Obama and the Betrayal of American Liberalism (2010) ( Obama
"the best friend Wall Street could hope for").
Warren does not seem to be just another mendacious politician on this priority issue of the
day. It is one for which Warren's prior expertise and activism drew her into politics. This is
uniquely her
own issue, emergent from a highly successful academic and policy career which brought her
into contact with the corruption which then shaped her views about its centrality. It is less
that Warren needs to be president in the mode of the usual megalomaniacal career politician
than that this paramount issue calls her to bring to the presidency her unique skills acquired
during an extraordinarily successful career outside of electoral politics. Warren herself
confides : "I know why I'm here. I have ideas for how we bring systemic change to this
country. And we're running out of time." As a University of Chicago economist told the
NYT ,
"Wall Street and its allies are more afraid of her than Bernie because when she says she'll
change the rules, she's the one who knows how to do it." Such knowledge is a relevant strategic
distinction, unlike WaPo's "Revolution versus Reform" nonsense, for the very reason that
progressive failure has for two generations been driven by lack of competent strategy not lack
of motivational ideology.
Zach Carter's
argument quoted above can be interpreted to suggest another answer than WaPo's misguided
theory for this key question of the difference between Sanders and Warren. Some claim their
differences are merely symbolic, "differences of temperament, style," " and
world views," much in the same manner as the other candidates who are mining the plutocratic
wing's war-chest of symbolic and diversionary identity politics, and single issue politics,
while at the same time they raise
money from plutocrats to seed and foster those divide and conquer divisions and strategic
errors among progressives. That argument goes that these are just different flavors of
progressivism, wholly unrelated to strategic success. But to deny the existence of objectively
important – indeed decisive strategic – differences between the two progressives in
the race would also be just as wrong as the ridiculous and disputable subjectivity of the
"Revolution versus Reform" distraction marketed by WaPo and others. It invites progressives to
distribute themselves randomly according to the subjective appeal of various styles and smiles
rather than be guided by disciplined thoughtful strategic choice which has become the decisive
factor for recovering democracy.
In the face of such distracting theories of difference, it is important for progressives to
debate and answer this question for themselves, well before the primaries, so as not to
squander their resources of time, finances and conviviality fighting
among themselves over largely subjective triggers during the important lead-up to the primary
elections. For the primaries they must be strategically united in order to win against a
plutocracy which rarely finds itself strategically impaired. I have argued at length
elsewhere that the contemporary uniquely extended failure of democracy in America since
Buckley – which can be quantified by the metric of rising economic inequality
– is fundamentally due to the failure of progressives over two generations to unite
behind effective strategy to fight the corrupt plutocracy as their priority. At those times of
similarly profound crises in the past, progressives have successfully formulated and united
behind effective strategy. In the United States, due to its own systemic cultural legacy of
racist slavery, genocide, and imperialism, joined by more universally shared issues of
patriarchy and plutocracy, there will always be fertile soil for the emergence of latent
anti-democratic elements into a totalitarian mobilization when an authentic and competent
opposition is laking. This was understood from early days, such as Franklin's famous
qualification "if you can keep it."
Trump is the direct and predictable product of the progressive failure to have forged an
effective opposition to corrupt plutocracy by the time of that strategic moment when popular
trust has been lost in the plutocratic "
center ." Lack of a unifying progressive strategy meant that volatile and highly
manipulable proto-totalitarian element would look elsewhere. As Slavoj Zizek, Trouble in
Paradise (2014) 115, posits: "The rise of Fascism is not only the Left's failure, but also
proof that there was a revolutionary potential, a dissatisfaction, which the Left was not able
to mobilize." Proto-totalitarian Trumpism is what arises when progressives are unable to unite
strategically.
The Plutocracy and its propagandists take a keen and well-financed interest in prolonging
this division among progressives. They now back Biden, or Trump. Recent reliable polling shows
Biden 30% – Sanders 19% – Warren 15%. This current data shows that supporters of
the two progressives, if united, would defeat the
plutocracy 's
status quo candidate. As the progressive choice between Sanders and Warren lingers through
the summer of 2019 in a mere contest of subjective tastes it will aggravate yet another in a
series of historical failures by progressives to unite strategically and competently at a time
when the stakes are now the highest. Continued progressive failure to act strategically for
decisively wresting control of the Democratic Party from its corrupt plutocratic establishment
will only move the country further in the direction of totalitarianism. Sanders failed at this
task in 2016 though progressives provided him resources and support to do the job. Yet another
progressive failure to organize strategically behind a competent progressive in the 2020
primaries could be terminal. The likes of WaPo will not do it for them. The necessary exercise
of their own strategic judgment in this choice needed to prevail in 2020 will be a useful
exercise of an unexercised muscle by progressives. To elect a strategist progressives must
master the strategy.
The purpose of this article is to discuss four issues for which there is evidence of an
objectively salient strategic difference between these two leading alternatives to Biden beyond
those already discussed. Though the " eminently
beatable" Biden currently leads the plutocracy's large stable of compromised candidates, it is
difficult to imagine Biden not tripping fatally over his own serial, legendarily tone-deaf and
unrepented gaffes. The plutocracy may need to draw on its deep bench in later innings.
Progressives need be prepared. The objective evidence below can assist progressives in making
the necessary early strategic choice between the two progressives for opposing the plutocracy's
eventual candidate which will help them to resist predictable distractions. The alternative to
such a strategic decision is bickering over subjective, standard-free, factually contested
assertions that too often seem to belie unattractive motivations if not actual bot
provocateurs.
Some might object that 2019 is too early for progressives to rely on polls or even to make
such a choice. My own experience in authoring a long 2015 Huffington Post article strongly
supporting Sanders is that discerning use of early polling data can provide a reliable guide to
what will remain as the decisive factors through to the end of the campaign cycle, and even
beyond. The present piece is offered in the same spirit as my 2015
article which remains relevant as an example of how early the disastrous outcome of the
establishment Democrats' 2016 status quo approach could be predicted. Since the decisive
factors are now discernible there is no advantage and great risk in delaying the inevitable
choice that progressives will make.
I disclose my personal views at the outset, if they are not already clear. Though I
supported Sanders extensively through advocacy and as a state delegate for Sanders in 2016,
lending a good deal of my time and even some money to the effort, my experience produced high
regard for self-organizing Sanders supporters but quite the opposite for the man himself.
Certainly by the time of his craven speech
at the Democratic Convention in July, if
notearlier , I had
concluded he was an incompetent
betrayer of the important role and opportunity he had been granted by his supporters, which
he wasted at a crucial moment in American history. When he is compared to Elizabeth Warren, I
now find Sanders to be
unreliable , inauthentic, and wrongly motivated as a career politician with no other
relevant skill base. This perspective has been elaborated at greater length by Jeffrey St.
Clair (2016), as referenced below.
Sanders is concededly good at expounding majoritarian policies and his nominal independence
allows him rhetorical distance from the plutocratic wing of the Democrats, which creates guilt
by association and a fat target
for the proto-totalitarian (also called "populist") right-wing. I do not deny the sincerity of
his progressive views. He has a role. That role is not a leadership role. The problem with
Sanders is execution. Chris Smith
makes a similar point in Vanity Fair when he observes that Sanders "is very good at
raising money .what Sanders was less good at in 2016 was spending his large pile of money to
win votes. Particularly the crucial Democratic primary votes of women and African-Americans.
Sanders is showing little sign that he's going to get it right this time around." Marketing
strategy is not political strategy. Sanders ran a both lucrative and wasteful 2016 campaign in
these respects and also in his failure to elaborate detailed strategy to support his big
themes, which also drew justifiable criticism of his competence.
If Bernie Sanders has not, Elizabeth Warren clearly has learned each of these lessons from
Sanders' flawed campaign. She has been generating detailed policy at such a fast pace it is
difficult to see anyone catching up to her, though Sanders has tried by feebly issuing a less
nuanced version of Wilson's college debt plan. Warren has demonstrated her ability to run a
highly effective campaign on limited funds. Spending money effectively is a strategic skill.
There do not seem to be any third-string cronies around her siphoning off funds into useless
sideshows. One imagines that if Warren possessed Sanders' 2016 mostly wasted pile of loot she
would already have reorganized the Inauthentic Opposition party – as Sheldon Wolin described the Democrats
in 2008 – into a true opposition party that it was designed by Martin Van Buren
to be at its inception.
As for Sanders' problem with reaching African-Americans, according to Rev. Al
Sharpton his progressive rival has no such problem. Of course, "Kamala [Harris] connects
with black-church audiences. Cory Booker, too," says Sharpton. "And I'll tell you who surprised
me: Liz Warren. She rocked my organization's convention like she was taking Baptist preacher
lessons." Warren thus readily solves the biggest demographic problem Sanders had and still has:
black women, particularly in the south. And this Oklahoma woman might also surprise with her
ability to use "
southern charm " to flip the script for white women still living under the South's
unreconstructed patriarchy. Her primary-election campaign strategy has been preparing her with
the experience to play an unprecedented role in American political history in the 2020 general
election.
An establishment Democratic Congressman offered
a similar observation about Warren's potential: "If she can make the leap to being a candidate
that played in the rural Midwest it could be really interesting to watch." By comparison
Sanders, used to "giving the same stump speech at event after event, numb to the hunger of the
beast he had awakened," St. Clair (2016) 8, brings a known and dated turn to the stage, which
like Biden's has little potential to surprise on its up side potential among new demographics
in this manner. The sooner Warren becomes the acknowledged front runner in the party, the
sooner she can use her proven networking skills within the party to bring some order to the
crowded primary field for purposes of deploying them effectively to reach various such
disaffected demographics. She is the person most capable of turning the lemon of an overcrowded
field of contenders into lemonade. Organizing such cooperation is something foreign to Sanders'
experience, which was demonstrated in his shutting out potential allies from his campaign. Yet
it is a significant potential strategic factor that Warren can uniquely bring for the essential
redefinition of the Democratic Party in 2020.
We already know Sanders capitulated to the plutocracy in 2016 for no
reason that he could credibly
explain . After promising his supporters to carry the fight to the Convention floor he
folded long prior to the Convention. What exactly is to be gained by progressives in trusting
Sanders not to do the same thing again? We now have the alternative of Warren who gives us no
reason to doubt and some reason to trust that she will " persist " with strategic intelligence rather
than capitulate under similar circumstances. She combines the unique qualities of a true policy
expert with the ability to communicate. But most important she is someone who has not been a
career politician, and therefore is not, like Sanders, "year after year: a politician who
promises one thing and delivers, time and again, something else entirely." St. Clair (2016) 18.
In 2016 this habit, in the form of deference to the plutocracy he campaigned against, delivered
Trump.
Having disclosed this general point of view toward the two progressives, I try to remove
these subjective understandings largely derived from my involvement in 2016 on behalf of
Sanders' effort from the analysis below of four objective factors that distinguish Sanders'
from Warren based on opinion polling of their supporters. Those with a different experience
than mine can nevertheless use these objective factors to make a strategic progressive choice.
The issue raised here is not so much about the contested fact-based considerations above, but
about the necessity for progressives to made a strategic decision based on uncontested
objective facts. The argument is that there is no reason to delay making that strategic
choice.
... ... ...
If it is true that Warren is attracting support on her merits and not for her
gender, the men who are supporting Sanders in excess numbers and at the same time prioritized a
progressive victory in 2020 should make a primary choice only after they a) get better informed
about Warren, b) read the writing of polling trendlines on the wall, c) not be fooled by
Sanders' "socialism" gambit, and d) eschew even the appearance of gender bias by immediately
unifying progressive support behind Warren.
2016 was then, 2020 is already now. Warren is not remotely a Clinton.*
* This article is based in part on the author's book, "Strategy for Democracy: From
Systemic Corruption to Proto-Totalitarianism in the Second Gilded Age Plutocracy, and
Progressive Responses" which is currently available as a free ebook .
Rob Hager is a public interest litigator who filed an amicus brief
in the Montana sequel to Citizens United and has worked as an international consultant on
anti-corruption policy and legislation.
"... Trump plays politics by trying to appease two camps, the AngloZionists, as well as Americans that bought into his 'Middle East' wars were a mistake. ..."
"... There has never been a war won by air power alone, If Trump bombs Iran, they will fight back and it will take a ground invasion to subdue them. While that war will compete with Bush’s invasion of Iraq as being America’s stupidest war ever, it will be much more costly in American blood and treasure and could easily turn into WWIII. ..."
"... Yeah, sorry Trump, I support you but you are not going to sell me on war with Iran....HORRIBLE idea. HORRIBLE. One of the worst things you could do as president. ..."
"... Fix the potholes first. ..."
"... Sorry I voted for Trumpster. He Flip-Flopped on almost everything he campaigned on. Now he is DEEP STATE. SA sponsors most the terrorism but gets a pass. ..."
Trump basically acknowledges Bolton as warmonger on NBC, that has hawks and doves in his
administration 'likes to hear both sides'.
So here Trump plays politics by trying to appease two camps, the AngloZionists, as well as
Americans that bought into his 'Middle East' wars were a mistake.
Trump has become pure politician no longer the outsider, he's dancing on both sides when
he needs to like now in a re-election mode.
There has never been a war won by air power alone, If Trump bombs Iran, they will fight
back and it will take a ground invasion to subdue them. While that war will compete with
Bush’s invasion of Iraq as being America’s stupidest war ever, it will be much
more costly in American blood and treasure and could easily turn into WWIII.
Instead of starting a war no one wants over Iran merely acting like a sovereign nation, we
should remove all the sanctions and just leave them alone. Our meddling everywhere needs to
stop.
Yeah, sorry Trump, I support you but you are not going to sell me on war with
Iran....HORRIBLE idea. HORRIBLE. One of the worst things you could do as president.
Sorry I voted for Trumpster. He Flip-Flopped on almost everything he campaigned on. Now he
is DEEP STATE. SA sponsors most the terrorism but gets a pass.
"In 1944, FDR proposed an economic bill of rights but died a year later and was never able
to fulfill that vision. Our job, 75 years later," Sanders said, "is to complete what Roosevelt
started."
He then set forth his vision of a 21st Century Economic Bill of Rights, which would
recognize that all Americans should have:
The right to a decent job that pays a living wage
The right to quality health care The right to a complete education The right to affordable
housing The right to a clean environment The right to a secure retirement
Sanders listed Democratic presidents vilified by the oligarchs of their time for their
programs of alleged "socialism." Lyndon Johnson was attacked for Medicare, Harry Truman's
proposed national health care program was dubbed "socialized medicine," and Newt Gingrich
called Bill Clinton's health care plan "centralized bureaucratic socialism."
Although none of the other leading 2020 Democratic presidential candidates has embraced
socialism, the party's base has. Candidate John Hickenlooper, former governor of Colorado, was
roundly
booed at the California Democratic convention earlier this month when he said, "If we want
to beat Donald Trump and achieve big progressive goals, socialism is not the answer."
Thomas Piketty, author of " Capital in the Twenty-First
Century ," argues, "Without a strong egalitarian-internationalist platform, it is difficult
to unite low-education, low-income voters from all origins within the same coalition and to
deliver a reduction in inequality."
Keith A. Spencer, writing at Salon ,
cites Piketty for the proposition that "nominating centrist Democrats who don't speak to
class issues will result in a great swathe of voters simply not voting."
Moreover, a 2018 Gallup
poll determined that a majority of young Americans have a positive opinion of socialism.
According to a
recent Axios poll , 55 percent of women between the ages of 18 and 54 would prefer to live
in a socialist country.
Sanders said the U.S. and the rest of the world face two different political paths. "On one
hand," he noted, "there is a growing movement towards oligarchy and authoritarianism in which a
small number of incredibly wealthy and powerful billionaires own and control a significant part
of the economy and exert enormous influence over the political life of our country. On the
other hand, in opposition to oligarchy, there is a movement of working people and young people
who, in ever increasing numbers, are fighting for justice."
Marjorie Cohn is professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, former president of
the National Lawyers Guild, deputy secretary general of the International Association of
Democratic Lawyers and a member of the advisory board of Veterans for Peace. Her most recent
book is
"Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral, and Geopolitical Issues ."
"... The Democratic Party, thanks largely to the Clintons and their DLC nonsense, has certainly moved to the right. So far right that I haven't been able to call it the Democratic Party. ..."
"... Every Democrat should sign on to FDR's 1944 Economic Bill of Rights speech. It is hardly radical, but rather the foundation of the modern Democratic Party, or at least was before being abrogated by the "new Democrats." Any Dem not supporting it is at best one of the "Republican-lights" who led the Dem party into the wilderness. It would also behoove the party to resurrect FDR's Veep Henry Wallace's NY Times articles about the nature of big businesses and fascism, also from '44. Now that was a party of the people. 7 Replies ..."
In its most recent analysis, Gallup
found that from 1994 to 2018, the percentage of all Democrats who call themselves liberal more
than doubled from 25 percent to 51 percent.
Over the same period, the percentage of Democratic moderates and conservatives fell
steadily, with the share of moderates dropping from 48 to 34 percent, and of conservatives
dropping from 25 to 13 percent. These trends began to accelerate during the administration of
George W. Bush and have continued unabated during the Obama and Trump presidencies.
... ... ...
The anti-establishment faction contributed significantly to the large turnout increases in
Democratic primaries last year.
Pew found that from 2014 to 2018, turnout in House primaries rose from 13.7 to 19.6 percent
of all registered Democrats, in Senate primaries from 16.6 to 22.2 percent and in governor
primaries from 17.1 to 24.5 percent.
... ... ...
The extensive support among prospective Democratic presidential candidates for
Medicare for All , government-guaranteed jobs and a higher minimum wage reflects the
widespread desire in the electorate for greater
protection from the vicissitudes of market capitalism -- in response to "increasingly
incomplete risk protection in an era of dramatic social change," as the political scientist
Jacob Hacker put it in "
Privatizing Risk without Privatizing the Welfare State: The Hidden Politics of Social Policy
Retrenchment in the United States ." Support for such protections is showing signs of
becoming a litmus test for candidates running in the 2020 Democratic presidential
primaries.
... ... ...
Sawhill looks at the ideological shifts in the Democratic electorate less from a historical
perspective and more as a response to contemporary economic and social dislocation. Among both
conservatives and liberals, Sawhill argued, there is "an intellectual awakening about the flaws
of modern capitalism" -- a recognition of the failings of "neoliberalism, the idea that a
market economy with a few light guardrails is the best way to organize a society." This
intellectual climate may result in greater receptivity among voters to more radical
proposals.
These "big, bold leftist ideas" pose a strategic problem for liberals and the Democratic
Party," (sigh). Here we go again. I am an older guy (Caucasian). I attended Texas A&M
University from 1978 to 1982. My tuition payments during that entire time was $4 per credit
hour. Same for every Texas resident during that time. Roughly $128 per year. Had Texas
A&M not offered education at this modest entry point financially, I would still be
working in the Holiday Inn kitchen washing dishes. Like I was in high school. So, I don't
understand why older guys who went to school on the cheap, like me, and probably like Mr.
Edsall, are writing articles about "radical" proposals like "free" or at least "affordable"
education for Americans. We could achieve this very easily if America refocused on domestic
growth and health and pulled itself out of its continuous wars. America has spent $6 Trillion
dollars on war since 2001. For what? Nothing. Imagine how much college tuition we could have
paid instead. Imagine how that would change America. What is radical is killing people of
color in other countries for no goal and no reason. Let's refocus on domestic USA issues that
are important. Like how to get folks educated so they/we can participate in the US economy.
Mr. Edsall, what did you pay to
go to school per year? Was that "radically" cheap? For me, it was not radical to pay $128 per year. It was a blessing.
Bruce Rozenblit Kansas City, MO
Jan. 23 Times Pick
To the conservative, liberal means socialist. Unfortunately, they don't know what socialism
is. They think socialism is doing nothing and getting paid for it, a freeloader society.
Socialism is government interference in the free market, interference in production.
Ethanol
is socialism. Oil and gas subsidies are socialism. Agricultural price supports are socialism.
Tax breaks and subsidies are socialism. The defence industry is socialism. All of these
socialist policies greatly benefit big business. What liberals want is socialism of a similar
nature that benefits people. This would include healthcare, education, public transportation,
retirement, and childcare. Currently, people work their tails off to generate the profits
that pay for corporate socialism and get next to nothing in return. Daycare costs as much as
many jobs pay.
Kids graduate from college $50,000 in debt. Get sick and immediately go
bankrupt. They have to work past 70. Pursuing these policies is not some far out leftist
agenda. They are the norm in most industrialized nations.
It's hard to live free or die if
you don't have anything to eat. It's easy to be a libertarian if you make a million bucks a
year. Liberals are not advocating getting paid for doing nothing. They want people to have
something to do and get paid for it. That is the message that should be pushed. Sounds pretty
American to me. 27 Replies
This old white (liberal) man regrets that I was born too late for the FDR New Deal era and
too early to be part of this younger generation taking us back to our roots. I lived in
America when we had a strong middle class and I have lived through the Republican
deconstruction of the middle class, I much preferred the former.
Economic Security and FDR's second bill of rights is a very
good place for this new generation to pick up the baton and start running. 4 Replies
Are these really moves to the left, or only in comparison to the lurch further right by the republicans. What is wrong with
affordable education, health care, maternal and paternal leave, and a host of other programs that benefit all people? Why
shouldn't we have more progressive tax rates? These are not radical ideas. 6 Replies
As a senior, who has been a healthcare provider for decades, I hope that people will not be
afraid if they get sick, that people will not fear going bankrupt if they get sick, that they
do not have to fear they will die needlessly if they get sick, because they did not have
proper access to haeathcare treatment. If a 29 year old woman from Queens, Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez, can fulfill my hopes and dreams, and alleviate these fears, just to get humane
healthcare - then I say "You Go Girl!" What a wonderful world that would be..... 9 Replies
Moving to the left??? I'm 64 years old. I started out on the left and haven't moved leftward
in all these years. I'm just as far left now as when I registered to vote as a Democrat when
I was 18. We called it being liberal and the Democratic Party reflected my beliefs.
The
Democratic Party, thanks largely to the Clintons and their DLC nonsense, has certainly moved
to the right. So far right that I haven't been able to call it the Democratic Party. So far
right that I have seriously considered changing my party affiliation. Right now, the only
think keeping me in the party is this influx of vibrant new faces. One thing that will make
me leave is any ascendancy of the corporate lapdog "New Democrat Coalition" attempting to
keep my party in thrall to the Republicans. No. The electorate has not shifted sharply
leftward. We've been here all along. Our party went down a wrong path. It had better get back
on track or become a footnote. 12 Replies
I work with young adults in a university setting. The university I work for used to be really
inexpensive. It is still relatively inexpensive and still a bargain. Most of the students
have student loans. They can not make enough money in the summer or during the term to pay
for tuition, fees, housing, and food. They need jobs that will pay enough to pay for those
loans. They also need portable health care. As the employer based health insurance gets
worse, that portable health care becomes a necessity so they can move to where the jobs are.
So if a livable wage and universal health care are far left ideas then so be it. I am a
leftist. 1 Reply
Every Democrat should sign on to FDR's 1944 Economic Bill of Rights speech. It is hardly
radical, but rather the foundation of the modern Democratic Party, or at least was before
being abrogated by the "new Democrats." Any Dem not supporting it is at best one of the
"Republican-lights" who led the Dem party into the wilderness. It would also behoove the
party to resurrect FDR's Veep Henry Wallace's NY Times articles about the nature of big
businesses and fascism, also from '44. Now that was a party of the people. 7 Replies
@Michael. Pell grants and cheap tuition allowed me to obtain a degree in aerospace
engineering in 1985. I'd like to think that that benefited our country, not radicalized it.
I don't think that's entirely accurate, and even if true, leaving students to
the predations of private lenders isn't the answer. Although I'm willing to entertain your
thesis, soaring tuition has also been the way to make up for the underfunding of state
universities by state legislatures.
At the same time, there's been an increase since the 70s
in de luxe facilities and bloated administrator salaries. When administrators make budget
cuts, it isn't for recreational facilities and their own salaries -- it's the classics and
history departments, and it's to faculty, with poorly paid part-time adjuncts teaching an
unconscionable share of courses. So universities have been exacerbating the same unequal
division between the people who actually do the work (faculty) and the people who allocate
salaries (administrators) -- so too as in the business world, as you say.
I have a friend who lives on the West Coast and is constantly posting on social media about
"white privilege" and how we all need to embrace far left policies to "even the playing
field" for minorities. I always bristle at this, not because I don't support these policies,
but because this person chooses to live in a city with actually very few minorities. She also
lives in a state that's thriving, with new jobs, new residents and skyrocketing real estate
values. I, by contrast, live in a state that's declining....steadily losing jobs, businesses
and residents....leaving many people feeling uneasy and afraid. I also live in a city with a
VERY high minority crime rate, which also makes people uneasy and afraid. Coastal liberals
like my friend will instantly consider anyone who mentions this a racist, and hypocritically
suggest that our (assumed) racism is what's driving our politics. But when I look around here
and see so many Trump supporters (myself NOT included), I don't see racists desperately
trying to retain their white privilege in a changing world. I see human beings living in a
time and place of great uncertainty and they're scared! If Dems fail to notice this, and fail
to create an inclusive message that addresses the fears of EVERYBODY in the working/middle
class, regardless of their skin color, they do so at their own peril. Especially in parts of
the country like mine that hold the key to regaining the WH. Preaching as my friend does is
exactly how to lose. 5 Replies
A majority of Americans, including independent voters and some Republicans favor Medicare for
all, a Green New Deal, and higher taxes on the rich. While Trump has polarized voters around
race, Ocasio-Cortez is polarizing around class -- the three-fourths of Americans working
paycheck to paycheck against the 1 percenters and their minions in both parties. Reading the
tea leaves of polls and current Democratic Party factions as Edsall does, is like obsessing
about Herbert Hoover's contradictory policies that worsened the Depression. If Ocasio-Cortez
becomes bolder and calls for raising the business taxes and closing tax incentives,
infrastructure expansion, and federal jobs guarantee, she'll transform the American political
debate from the racist wall meme to the redistribution of wealth and power America needs. 1
Reply
Labels such as 'liberal" fail to characterize the political agenda articulated by Bernie
Sanders. By style and substance, Sanders represented a departure from the hum-drum norm. Is
something wrong about aspiring to free college education in an era when student debt totals
$1.5 trilliion? His mantle falls to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her followers. One hundred
years ago, American progressivism was spawned by Robert La Follette. As governor and senator
from Wisconsin, and as failed third party candidate for president, La Follette called for
laws to protect youth from horrendous labor practices. He called for laws to protect civil
rights. In time, many of La Follette's positions became mainstream. Will history repeated
itself? Maybe. The rise of "liberalism" in the Democratic Party is therapeutic, as evidenced
by youthful audiences who attended the Sander's rallies. Increasing voter turnout will take
back government from a minority that undermines the essence of a democratic system. A
Democratic counterbalance to the Republican "Freedom Caucus" may appear divisive to some. To
others, it offers a path to the future. 4 Replies
Ok, from the perspective of a rural white midwest retiree independent with post graduate
education, the issues weren't the democrats moving to the left, it was the Republican party
turning right (and they show no signs of stopping). Who is against an equal opportunity for
an equal quality education for everyone? My college costs years ago could be met with a
barely minimum wage job and low cost health insurance provided by the school and I could
graduate without debt even from graduate school. Seeing what years of Republican rule did to
our college and university systems with a raise in tuition almost every year while
legislative support declined every year, who is happy with that? Unions that used to provide
a majority of the apprenticeships in good jobs in the skilled were killed by a thousand tiny
cuts passed by Republicans over the years. The social safety net that used to be a hand up
became an ever diminishing hand out. What happened is those that had made it even to the
middle class pulled the ladder up behind them, taking away the self same advantages they had
in the past and denying future generations the opportunity. The young democrats and
independents coming along see this all too clearly. 1 Reply
These so-called liberal and progressive ideas aren't new. They work now in other countries
and have so for many, many years, but the rich keep screaming capitalism good, socialism bad
all the while slapping tariffs on products and subsidizing farmers who get to pretend that
this is somehow still a free market. It's fun to watch my neighbors do mental gymnastics to
justify why subsidizing soy bean farmers to offset the tariffs is a strong free market, but
that subsidizing solar panels and healthcare is socialism AKA the devil's work. All of this
underscores the reality that, much like geography, Americans are terrible with economics.
The tensions between progressive and moderate positions, liberal and conservative positions
in the Democratic Party and in independents, flow from and vary based on information on and
an understanding of the issues. What seems to one, at first glance, radically
progressive/liberal becomes more mainstream when one is better informed. Take just one issue,
Medicare for all, a progressive/liberal objective. At first glance people object based on two
main points: costs and nefarious socialism. How do you pay for Medicare for all? Will it add
to the debt? Will socialism replace our capitalist economy? People who have private medical
insurance pay thousands in premiums, deductibles, co-pays each year. The private insurance is
for profit, paying CEO's million dollar salaries and returns to stockholders. People paying
these private insurance premiums would pay less for Medicare and have more in their own
pockets. Medicare for all is no more nefariously socialistic than social security. Has social
security ended capitalism and made America a socialist country? I think not. Is social
security or Medicare adding to the national debt? Only if Congress will continue to play
their tribal political games. These programs are currently solvent but definitely need
tweaking to avoid near term shortfalls. A bipartisan commission could solve the long term
solvency issues. The more we know and understand about progressive/liberal ideas, the less
radical they become. The solution is education. 17 Replies
@Bruce Rozenblit Absolutely correct. According to the Bible of Saint Reagan, Socialism for
corporations and the rich: Good. Socialism for the poor and working class: bad.
@Michael - cheaper tuition starts with getting the Federal Govt out of the student loan
business, it's as simple as that. Virtually unlimited tuition dollars is what drove up
tuition rates. Higher Ed is a business, make no mistake.
@Bruce, have you ever considered creating a new "reality" network where the truth about
things could be told? You're quite good at articulating and defining how the world works,
without all the usual nonsense. I really appreciate your comments.
Can we please, please stop talking about AOC? Sure, she's young and energetic and is worthy
of note, but what has she accomplished? It's easy to go to a rooftop- or a twitter account-
and yell "health care and education for all!' But please, AOC, tell us how you are going to
not only pay for these ideas but actually get them through Congress and the Senate? It's just
noise, until then, and worse, you're creating a great target for the right that will NOT move
with you and certainly can label these ideas as leftist nutism- which would be fine, if we
weren't trying to get Trump out of office ASAP.. Dreams are great. Ideals are great. But
people who can get stuff actually done move the needle...less rhetoric, more actual plans
please.. 10 Replies
Its ok for a far right bigoted clown to be elected to the president and a tax cut crazy party
that wants to have a full scale assault against the environment and force more medical
related bankruptcies to be in charge? The safe candidate protected by 800 superdelegates in
2016 was met with a crushing defeat. The Democratic establishment wants a safe neo con
corporatist democrat. Fair taxation and redistribution of wealth is not some far out kooky
idea. The idea that the wealthiest Americans getaway with paying tax at 15%, if at all, is
ruinous to the country. Especially since there is an insane compulsion to spend outlandish
trillions on "national security". Universal health care would save the country billions of
dollars. Medicare controls costs much more effectively than private insurers. As with defense
the US spends billions more on health care than other countries and has worse medical
outcomes. Gentrification has opened fissures in the Democrats. The wealthy price out other
established communities. The problems of San Francisco and Seattle and other places with
gentrification need to be addressed before an open fissure develops in the party. 2 Replies
@Midwest Josh It's time for higher education to stop being a business. Likewise it's time to
stop electing leaders who are businessmen/women. 38 Replies
One could argue that many of these ideas are not that far left - rather it's a result of more
and more Americans realizing that WE are not the problem. Clean water and air, affordable
health care and affordable education are not that radical.
@Midwest Josh Hmmm, how old are you Midwest Josh? There were student loans back in the 1970s
when college cost me about $400 a year. Maybe something happened when that failed Hollywood
actor spouted slogans like "Government is not the solution, government is the problem" (and,
no, it was not taken out of context, he most definitely DID mean that government is the
problem - look it up) www.remember-to-breathe.org 38 Replies
You are studying this like it represents some kind of wave but in fact it is just a few
districts out of 435. These young women seem extraordinarily simply because the liberal media
says they are extraordinary. If the media attention on these new representatives were to
cease, no one except their families, their staff, and maybe Stephen Colbert would notice. 9
Replies
Finally, the left came out of its hibernation. We have spent the last decade or more either
sleeping or hiding, while at the same time, the Tea Party, the Freedom Caucus, Trump, and his
minions were taking over our government---It is such a breath of fresh air to finally listen
to airwaves filled with outrage over CEO's making millions of dollars an hour, of companies
that have become monopolies, of tax plans that bring back the middle class---it took us a
while, but we are back. 2 Replies
For so long (40+ years) the political spectrum has been pulled wildly and radically to the
right across so many issues. The Democratic party has for the most part ''triangulated''
their stances accordingly to essentially go along with republicans and corporate interests
for a bargain of even more tax/corporate giveaways to hold the line on social issues or
programs. It has now gotten to the point that continuous war has been waged for two (2)
decades and all the exorbitant costs that go along with that. There has been cut, after cut
after cut whereas some people and businesses are not paying any taxes at all now.
Infrastructure, social spending and education are all suffering because the cupboard is now
bare in the greatest and most richest country in the world. It just came out the other day
that ONLY (26) people have as much wealth as the bottom half of the entire world's
population. That amount of wealth in relation to dwindling resources of our planet and
crushing poverty for billions is abjectly obscene on so many levels. Coupled with all of the
above, is the continued erosion of human rights. (especially for women and dominion over
their own bodies) People are realizing that the founding fathers had a vision of a secular
and Progressive nation and are looking for answers and people that are going to give it to
them. They are realizing that the Democratic party is the only party that will stand up for
them and be consistent for all.
Democrats just don't like to win presidential elections. Go ahead. Move left. But remember,
you are not taking the rest of the country with you. As a NeverTrump Republican, I'll vote
for a moderate Democrat in 2020. No lefties. Sorry. Don't give the country a reason to give
Trump four more years. Win the electoral college vote instead of complaining about it. The
anti-Trump is a moderate. 5 Replies
"These "big, bold leftist ideas" pose a strategic problem." No they don't. The Real Problem
is the non-thinking non-Liberal 40% of Democrats and their simpatico Republicans who are
programmed to scream, "How will we pay for all that?" Don't they know all that money will
just be stolen? They were silent when that money was stolen by the 0.1% for the Tax Giveaway
(they're now working on tax giveaway 2.0) and by the military-industrial complex (to whom
Trump gave an extra $200,000,000,000 last year), various boondoggle theft-schemes like the
Wall, the popular forever Wars (17 years of Iraq/Afghanistan has cost $2,400,000,000,000 (or
7 times WW2)), and the Wall Street bailouts. Don't those so-called Democrats realize whose
money that was? First of all, it's our money. And second, our money "spent" on the People is
a highly positive investment with a positive ROI. Compare that to money thrown into the usual
money pits which has no return at all - except more terrorists for the military, more income
inequality for the Rich, and Average incomes of $422,000 for Wall Street. When the People's
money is continually stolen, how can anyone continue to believe that we're living in a
democracy?
Bruce, a succinct summary of your post is this: What we have now is socialism for the wealthy
and corporations (who, as SCOTUS has made clear, are people, too) and rugged individualism
for the rest of us. What we're asking for is nothing more than a level playing field for all.
And I hope that within my lifetime SCOTUS will have an epiphany and conclude that, gosh,
maybe corporations aren't people after all. We can only hope. 27 Replies
Edsall writes with his normal studious care, and makes some good points. Still, I am growing
weary of these "Democrats should be careful and move back to the center" opinions. Trump
showed us that the old 'left-right-center' way of thinking is no longer applicable. These
progressive policies appeal to a broad majority of Americans not because of their ideological
position, but because so many are suffering and are ready to give power to representatives
who will finally fight for working families. Policies like medicare for all are broadly
popular because the health insurance system is broken and most people are fed up and ready to
throw the greedy bums out. We've been trying the technocratic incrementalism strategy for too
long, with too little to show for it. Bold integrity is exactly what we need. 1 Reply
@Bruce Rozenblit Thank you; as others have commented already, this is so well said. To build
on your point: just yesterday, a commenter on a NYT article described AOC as a communist.
Incredible. The extent to which decent, pragmatic and, in a bygone era, mainstream, ideas are
now painted as dangerous, extreme, and anti-American is both absurd and disturbing. 27
Replies
If Hillary were President, there would never have been a shutdown. That is the lesson that
Mrs. Pelosi, AOC and Democrats should carry forward to 2020. 5 Replies
@LTJ No one is promoting ''free stuff'' - what is being proposed is that people/corporations
pay into a system Progressively upwards (especially on incomes above 10,000,000 dollars per
year) that allowed them and gave them the infrastructure to get rich in the first place. I am
sure you would agree that people having multiple homes, cars, and luxury items while children
go hungry in the richest nation in the world is obscene on its face. Aye ?
@Ronny Respectfully, President Clinton had a role in the deconstruction of the middle class.
My point is many of the folks in the news today were in congress that far back. Say what you
will about President Trump and Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez,I believe they both have exposed
the left,the right,the press for what they are. Please choose your own example. I don't agree
with all of her positions, but I can't express how I enjoy her making the folks that under
their watch led us to where we find ourselves today squirm and try to hide their anger for
doing what she does so well. I've been waiting 55 years for this. Thank you AOC.
@Bruce Rozenblit Bruce, spot on. The point of the New Deal was not to replace capitalism with
socialism, but to save capitalism from itself by achieving the balance that would preserve a
capitalist economic system but one in which the concerns of the many in terms of freedom from
want and freedom from fear were addressed. In other words, the rich get to continue to be
rich, but not without paying the price of not being hung in the public square - by funding an
expanding middle class. A middle class that by becoming consumers, made the rich even richer.
But then greed took over and their messiah Saint Reagan convinced this large middle class
that they too could be rich and so cutting taxes for the wealthy (and in the process
redistributing the wealth from the expanding middle class to the wealthy) would one day
benefit them - when they were wealthy. Drunk on the promise of future wealth, and working
harder than ever, the middle class failed to notice whose ox was being gored and voted
Republican. And now finally, the pendulum swings. Amen. 27 Replies
@Socrates I'm reminded of a poll I saw several years ago that presented positions on issues
without attaching them to any individual politician or affixing labels of party or ideology.
The pol aimed to express the issue in neutral language without dog whistles or buzzwords.
When the pollsters had the data, they looked for the member of Congress whose positions best
reflected the view of the majority of respondents. It was Dennis Kucinich, the scary liberal
socialist bogeyman of his day.
I lived in Europe for a long time. Not even most right wing parties there wish to abolish
universal healthcare, replace low or tuition-free colleges with college debt, etc. The US has
politically drifted far to the right when the center Democrats were in charge. Now Trump is
lurching the country to extreme raw capitalism at the cost of national debt, even our
environment and climate, Democrats need to stop incrementalism. Simple as that. 1 Reply
@Michael Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was opposed to the eternal triumvirate axis of inhumane
evil aka capitalism, militarism and racism. King was a left-wing socialist community
organizer. In the mode of Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela. And the Nazarene of Matthew 25:
31- 46. America's military and prison industrial complexes are the antithesis of America' s
proclaimed interests and values. America is number one in arms, money and prisoners. MAGA? 38
Replies
Bernie and AOC don't seem all that radical to me for the reason this op-ed points out -- I
grew up in a New Deal Democratic family. My Grampa was an electrician supervisor for the City
of Chicago and my Granma was a legal secretary. They wanted universal health care and free
education and jobs for all. Those things made sense then, and they make sense now. They
provide solutions to the deep problems of our society, so who wouldn't want them? We've had a
lab test -- other than actual jobs for all Northern Europe has these things and we don't.
Neo-liberalism, its Pay-Go formula for government, and its benefits for the rich fails on
most counts except producing massive inequality and concentrated wealth. Bernie voters want
solutions to inequality and climate change, and they are readily available if government can
be wrested from the hands of Republicans like Trump and neo-liberals.
@Michael To me, the key sentence in your excellent post is that American needs to "refocus on
domestic growth and health and pull itself out of its continuous wars." All policiticians
hoping for our votes in the future need to make clear where they stand on this. As to those
who say that making all those weapons creates jobs, is there any reason that we couldn't
instead start producing other quality goods in the U.S. again? 38 Replies
@chele Me too! I am 72 y/o, retired, college educated at a rather tough school in which to
gain entrance. Lived below my means for over 40 years. Parents are both WW2 Marine Corps
officers(not career), who voted Republican and were active in local elections. They would be
shocked and disgusted at what that "party" represents now.
I think you look at all this in a vacuum. Democrats veered left because there was a need to
counterbalance what was happening on the right. They see Republicans aggressively trying to
undo all the gains the left had achieved the previous several decades. Civil rights, Womens'
rights, anti-poverty efforts, and so on all not just being pushed to the right, but forced to
the right with a bulldozer. It got to a tipping point where Democrats could clearly see the
forest for the trees. A great deal of this was a result of Republicans inability to candy
coat their agenda. Universal healthcare....not being replaced by affordable alternatives, but
by nothing. Tax cuts that were supposed to help the middle class, but, as evidenced by the
government shutdown, giving them no economic breathing room. And, in fact, making their tax
cut temporary, something nearly impossible to reverse with such a high deficit. Attacking
immigrants with no plan on who, actually, would do the work immigrants do. The list goes on
and on. In the past, many social programs were put in place not so much to alleviate
suffering as to silence the masses. Now Republicans feel the time has come to take it all
back, offering easily seen through false promises as replacements. That the left should see
the big picture here and say "Not so fast" should come as absolutely no surprise. All they
need now is a leader eloquent enough to rally the masses.
I think the Democratic Party is finally returning to its roots. We are now engaging in the
same politics which gave us control of the House for about fifty years. I went to my first
International Union convention is 1972 at which Ted Kennedy was one of the featured speakers.
One of the themes of the convention was healthcare for all. Now it treated as some sort of
radical proposal from the left. I am not certain why clean air and water, affordable health
care and housing, combating climate change, raising wages, taxing the highest income
brackets, updating our infrastructure, solving the immigration issue, and providing aid not
weapons to other nations, are considered liberal or socialistic. I think it represents the
thinking of a progressive society looking to the future rather than living in the past. 1
Reply
@David G. I would also say that many people think a cooperative economic enterprise, such as
a worker owned factory, is Socialism. But this is blatantly wrong and is pushed by the rich
business and stock owners to denigrate these types of businesses. Cooperatives have often
proven themselves quite successful in navigating a free market system, while simultaneously
focussing on workers rights and ownership. We need more if this in North America. 27 Replies
@Samuel She's been in office less than a month. You want to shut down the conversation that
is finally bringing real hope & passion to average people, & is bringing a new set of
goals (& more integrity) to the Democratic Party? Paying for single-payer has been
rehashed many times; just look at all the other 'civilized' countries who have it. For once,
try putting the savings from ending co-pays, deductibles, & premiums into the equation.
Think about the savings from large-group bids, & negotiations for drug prices, & the
savings from preventative medicine heading off more expensive advanced treatment. Bernie
Sanders has been explaining all this for years now. 'Less rhetoric'? The conversation is
(finally) just now getting started! You start by explaining what is possible. When enough
people understand it, the needle will start to move. Watch.
@JBC, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez was voted into congress and then the media took notice. It wasn't
the other way around. My only hope is that she stays the course.
@Bruce Rozenblit And don't forget the biggest socialist project of our time - the wall! And
withholding 800k employee checks to do so? That's socialism at gun point. 27 Replies
There are two points left out of all of the analysis of both Pressley's and Ocasio-Cortez's
campaigns. First of all, both women did old fashioned retail politics, knocking on doors,
sending out postcards, gathering as many volunteers as they could and talking about the
issues with voters face to face. They took nothing for granted. This is precisely what
Crowley and Capuano did not do. Second, they actually listened to the voters regarding what
they needed and wanted in Congressional representation. What both of the stand for is neither
Liberal or Conservative. What they stand for human values. This is not to say that Capuano
and Crowley did not stand for these same values, but they took the voter for granted. That is
how you lose elections. The Democrats are going back to their roots. They have found that the
Mid-terms proved that issues of Health Care, minimum wages, good educations for all despite
economic circumstances, and how important immigration is to this country really matter to the
voters. They need to be braver in getting this across before the next election And the press
might want to start calling the candidates Humane, period. 1 Reply
@MIMA Yes, absolutely. I'm retired from the healthcare field after practicing 38 years. It is
unconscionable that we question the access of healthcare to everyone. The complaint usually
heard from the right is about "the takers." Data I've seen indicates that the majority on
"the dole" are workers, who can't make ends meet in the gig economy or the disabled. That
some lazy grubbers are in the system is unavoidable; perfection is the enemy of the good.
@Stu Sutin I agree, "Liberal" is too broad a term, as so-called liberals do not agree on
everything, especially the degree. We can be socially liberal, while economically
moderate--or vice versa. Some believe in John Maynard Keynes economics, but appose abortion.
Some want free college tuition, while others support public schools but do not support the
public paying for higher education. Our foreign policy beliefs often differ greatly. What
joins us is a belief in a bottom up economy, not top down--and a greater belief in civil
liberties and a greater distribution of wealth. Beyond that, our religious and cultural
beliefs often differ.
I think the Internet has provided an influx of new understanding for the American left.
They've learned that things considered radical here are considered unexceptional in the rest
of the developed world. There is a realization that the only reason these are not normal here
is because of a lack of political will to enact them. That will is building as the ongoing
inequities are splashed across the front pages and the twitter feeds. It is the beginning of
the end for American exceptionalism (a term coined by Stalin as America resisted the wave of
socialism spreading around the world in the early 20th century). Unbridled capitalism lasted
longer than communism but only because its costs were hidden longer. We need to find the
sustainable middle path that allows for entrepreneurship along with a strong social safety
net (and environmental protection). This new crop of progressive Democrats (with strong
electoral backing) might lead the way.
at 63, I was there. I don't want second Trump administration either, but the route to a
Democratic victory is not cozying up to the corporations and the wealthy, but by stating
clearly, like FDR, "they are unanimous in their hate for me, and I welcome their hatred." We
need people who are willing to say that the rich deserve to be taxed at a higher rate,
because they have benefited more from our society, that no income deserves to be taxed at a
lower rate than the wages paid to working people, and that vast wealth needs to be earned,
not inherited. Emmanuel Saez makes persuasive arguments, but they need to be made in the
language of the working people. 12 Replies
@Michael Your $128 a year would be more like $414 or so in today's dollars. Still . . . I
went to Brooklyn College, part of the tuition-free City University of New York from
1969-1973. We paid a $53 general fee at the start of every semester ($24 for a summer
semester), and that was it. Wealthy or poor, everyone paid the same amount (about $334 in
today's dollars). 38 Replies
@JRS Democratic party leaders have been in favor of more border security and an overhauled
immigration system for as long as I've been alive. The suggestion (clearly this comment's
intention) that Democrats favor "open" borders, ports, etc., is a myth propagated by an ever
more influential right wing. And it's working: it's been repeated so often that it's now
virtually an assumption that Democrats favor open borders, despite that fact that any
critical thought on the subjection indicates the opposite is true.
I'm a very moderate Democrat -liberal on social issues and very supportive of free global
trade- who would vote for any of the current Democrats over Trump, but would leave the party
if AOC's ideas became the norm. I don't have a problem in principle with a 70% top marginal
tax rate or AOC's Green New Deal- Meaning, these aren't moral issues for me per se. I just
believe they would bankrupt the economy and push us into a chaos far worse than what we're
seeing under Trump. 5 Replies
@Michael The increase in fees for education to include the books along with the lowering of
standards for the classes taken is part and parcel of the reagan revolution to remake
American society. One of the most problematic things for those seeking to undo what FDR did
was the plethora of well educated and well read people American had managed to create. How
were they going to be able to overcome this? You can deduce whatever methods you may know but
I saw them tank the economy on purpose and prey on the fear that it created with more and
more radical propaganda. Once they got into office they removed the best and brightest of our
Civil Service and began making legal the crimes they wanted to commit and changing laws and
procedures for how things were done so that people would eventually come to think of this as
the "right" way when it was in fact purpose designed to deny them their due. 38 Replies
Younger candidates, like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, appeal to younger voters. John Kennedy
appealed to WWII veterans, most of whom were in their 30s when they elected him. One of the
reasons for Barack Obama's support in 2008 among younger voters is that he was a younger
candidate and they identified with a younger candidate. That appeal to a younger electorate
will play a larger role in future elections. Don't focus too strongly on issues. Democrats
will win by a landslide in 2020 if they nominate a younger candidate that can inspire younger
voters. November 3, 2020. 1 Reply
@Samuel Actually, running a campaign and getting elected is a significant accomplishment.
Before anyone decides about what bills to promote and means of paying for them, we need a
momentum of discourse, and promoting that discourse is another major accomplishment. You and
many millions of others, also, have good reasons to be frustrated. Let's just try to actually
"work" at talking the talking and walking the walk, and maybe we will--or maybe we
won't--arrive some place where we can see some improvement.
The interesting part of this piece is the statement about politicians moving unwillingly. So
some Democratic Congressmen and Congresswomen are allowing their personal beliefs to be
compromised for the glory of being elected or re-elected? Sounds like someone I would not
care to support. 2 Replies
A great essay! The wild card in all this analysis, of course, is what happens when these
(now) young voters, age, eventually partner, and have kids. As every generation has shown,
the needs of a voter changes as they age. I'm surrounded by many new neighbors with little
kids who moved out of Brooklyn and Jersey City who suddenly find themselves concerned about
rising property taxes- they now see the balance between taxes and services. Not something
they worried about a few years ago. 2 Replies
@Tracy Rupp I am a senior citizen heterosexual white male. I do not apologize for my race,
gender, etc. In fact, I am proud of our accomplishments. I do apologize for my personal
wrongs, and strive to improve myself.
"This will be difficult, given the fact that what is being proposed is a much larger role for
government, and that those who are most in need of government support are in the bottom half
of the income distribution and disproportionately minority -- in a country with a long racist
history." True enough, but if progressives want actual people in that bottom half to lead
happier lives, the focus of any programs should not be to employ armies in left-leaning and
self-perpetuating "agencies," but rather to devise policies to help people develop the
self-discipline to: A) finish high school, B) postpone the bearing of children until marriage
(not as a religious construct but as a practical expression of commitment to the child's
future), and; C) Find and get a regular job. These are supported by what objective, empirical
data we have. These have not struck me as objectives of the rising left in the Democratic
party. Mostly, I see endless moral preening, and a tribal demonizing of the "other," just
exactly as they accuse the "other." In this case the "other" is we insufficiently "woke" but
entirely moderate white folks who still comprise a plurality of Americans. I see success on
the left as based primarily on an ability to express performative outrage. But remember, you
build a house one brick at a time, which can be pretty boring, and delivers no jolt of
dopamine as would manning the barricades, but which results in a warm, dry, comfortable place
to live. 4 Replies
@Concerned Citizen For your information, Holiday Inns typically had a restaurant in the hotel
in the days Michael is talking about so... whatever! 38 Replies
My father fought in Germany during WWII, then came home and went to college on the GI bill.
Both my parents received federal assistance for a loan on their first house. Later, during
retirement, they were taken care of by Medicare and given an income by Social Security. They
worked hard, kept their values, lived modestly, and voted for Democrats. Apparently, they
were wild-eyed, leftist-socialist radicals, and I never knew it.
@Bruce Shigeura AOC in some ways is doing what Bernie was doing -- mobilizing people around
class as you say -- but the difference is that AOC doesn't shy away from issues of racial
justice. Bernie seemed to want to unite people by ignoring issues of race, as if he was
afraid that mentioning race too much might drive Whites away. AOC seems able to hold whites
on the class issue while still speaking to the racial justice issues that are important to
non-Whites. She's an extraordinary phenomenon: smart, engaging, articulate and with personal
connections to both the White and Non-White worlds, so she threatens neither and appeals to
both.
@Stu Sutin "Is something wrong about aspiring to free college education in an era when
student debt totals $1.5 trilliion?" Yes. If you're the Congressperson who gets his/her
funding from the lenders.
A O-C has yet to open a district office. A O-C is more interested in "national" issues and
exposure than those of her district. What A O-C may have forgotten is that it is her district
and constituents that have to re-elect her in less than 2 tears (or not): "Would you rather
have a Congress member with an amazing local services office, or one that leads nationally on
issues?" she queried her 1.9 million followers on Instagram -- a number that is well over
twice the population of her district. The results strongly favored national issues."
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/22/nyregion/aoc-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-district-office.html
As Mr. Edsall points out, her district is not necessarily progressive and liberal and while
there may be national issues, at the bottom line, many of her instagram groupies are not her
constituents. Democrats like to constantly point out that Ms. Clinton won the popular vote,
and she was the non-liberal-progressive Democrat. I am sure that the Republicans pray for the
success of the Democratic left. They seek to give voice to that left. That will bring the
swing votes right back to or over to the Republicans, without, but possibly even with Mr.
Trump (if the Democrats cross a left-wing tipping point). Bottom line, instagram is fine and
likes are great, twitter is good for snappy answers, but representatives to the House have to
deliver to their district and constituents. A O-C leads, but to the salvation of the
Republican party. 6 Replies
@Joshua Schwartz M. Ocasio-Cortez explained on The Late Show the other night that the reason
she has not opened her district office is due to the Government Shutdown. The people charged
with setting up the office are on furlough, the money for the office is being held up and she
staff or furnish the office.
Isn't this somehow the natural swing of things? Years of heavy-handed politics benefitting
small minorities on the right have taken their toll, so now new ideas are up at bat. By the
way, these ideas aren't really that bold at all - many countries have living minimum wages or
mandatory healthcare, and are thriving, with a much happier population. Only in the context
of decades-long, almost brainwash-like pounding of these ideas as 'Un-American' or
'socialist' can they be seen as 'bold'. American exeptionalism has led to a seriously
unbalanced and dangerously threatened social contract. Tell me again, Republicans: why is a
diverse, healthy and productive population living under inspiration instead of constant fear
so bad?
The "experts" offering advice here seem to have forgotten that Hillary Clinton listened to
them in 2016: the party decided that appealing to suburban Republicans and Jeb Bush voters
was more important than exciting the Democratic party base. The other hazard of calculated
politics is that the candidate is revealed to be a phony, believing in nothing but power or
that it's simply "her turn" -- an uncompelling program for a voter. 1 Reply
They will all face primary challengers in 2020. Tlaib and Omar didn't even win a majority of
the primary vote. There were so many candidates running in those primaries, they only managed
a plurality. And let's be honest about the demographic changes in the districts Pressley and
Ocasio Cortez won. They went from primarily ethnic White to minority majority. Both women
explicitly campaigned on the premise that their identity made them more representative of the
district than an old White male incumbent. Let's not sugarcoat what happened: they ran
explicitly racist campaigns. They won with tribalism, not liberal values. Democrats actually
need more candidates like Lucy McBath, Antonio Delgado, and Kendra Horn if they want to
retain Congressional control and change policy. And many minorities and immigrants aren't
interested in the far left faction. We don't have a problem with Obama and a moderate
approach to social democracy.
@JABarry - Some data: Canada has a program like Medicare for All, and its bottom line health
care statistics are better than ours in spite of a worse climate. We paid $9506.20 per person
for health care in 2016. In Canada, they paid $4643.70. If our system we as efficient as
Canada's, we would save over $1.5 TRILLION each and every year. This is money that can be
used for better purposes. If one uses the bottom line statistics, we see that both Canada and
the UK (real socialized medicine) do better than we do: Life expectancy at birth (OECD):
Canada- 81.9, UK - 81.1, US - 78.8 Infant Mortality (OECD)(Deaths per 1,000): Canada - 4.7,
UK - 3.8, US - 6.0 Maternal Mortality (WHO): Canada - 7, UK - 9, US - 14 Instead of worrying
how we would pay for it, we will have the problem of how to spend all the money we would
save. BTW can you point to a period where too high federal debt hurt the economy? In 1837 the
federal debt as a percentage of GDP was 0%; it was 16% in October of 1929. Both were followed
horrendous depression. It was 121% in 1946 followed by 27 years of Great Prosperity.
Best comment in some time. I work and live too much in the'big flat'. I am a very hard core
Chicago Democratic Liberal from birth, but the distressed towns and small cities are facing
extinction. then what?
@In the know I'm formerly Republican, and female. I'm on the ACA, and while premiums were
going up slowly, they've exploded in the past two years due to Republican sabatoge. They are
certainly no reason to vote for Trump.
@Midwest Then the rich will only be eligible for college. Give me government intervention any
time. I am retired military . Off base in Lewes De a mans hair cut is now 20.00 plus tips.
Just a plain cut. On base with gov intervention it 12.00 . Capitalism you support is only for
the 1 percent the 99 percent never gets ahead. 38 Replies
She has a massive throng of twitter followers, is completely unconcerned with facts, uses
publicity to gain power and seems unwilling to negotiate on her positions. Remind you of
anyone else? 3 Replies
The establishment is trying so hard to spin the progressives push on the issues of Medicare
for All, free state college and university tuition, a livable wage of $15/hr as ponies and
fairy dust and an extreme "socialist" makeover/takeover of America. But from all the polls
that I've seen, these policies are actually quite popular even with a majority of
Republicans. Yes, a majority of Republicans. A Medicare for All would cover everybody,
eliminate health insurance premiums for individuals and businesses ( which by the way are
competing with businesses in other countries that have a single-payer system) and would save
$2 trillion over ten years (Koch bothers funded study). The result would be a healthy and
educated populace. But how to pay for this? Well, we spend over $700 billion on our military
while Russia spends $20 billion and China spends $146 billion, so there seems to be plenty of
money that is already being spent to be redirected back to us without compromising national
security. A Medicare for All system supports a private healthcare system just as it is now,
except instead of giving some insurance company our premium who then skims off a big chunk
for their profit, we pay it to our government who then administers the payments to the
healthcare provider(s). The system is in place and has been for people 65 years and older and
works very well with high satisfaction rates. Just expand it to all. 2 Replies
@Midwest Josh Wrong!!! Tuition's have skyrocketed because for past 35 years States have
slashed support for public universities. The Federal Government took over student loan
business from predatory banks which was a very good thing but unfortunately have kept
interest rates high ... Student loans is a profit center for Federal Government 38 Replies
@Concerned Citizen Go ahead and check the holiday inn in Palestine Texas. It had a small
restaurant in 1978. I was their dishwasher. There was no ford plant nearby. 38 Replies
@Bruce Rozenblit Well put. As Martin Luther King Jr. said: "We all too often have socialism
for the rich and rugged free market capitalism for the poor." 27 Replies
@stuart They used to call it the "Democratic wing of the Democratic party". I was glad when
Thomas Edsall finally got around, in this piece, to mentioning that what is often thought of
as a radical leftist turn today, due to just how far to the right our general political
discussions had gone, was actually pretty much mainstream Democratic policy for much of the
middle 20th century.
@Len Charlap Quite simply Canada's healthcare quality is ranked 16th in the world, while ours
is lower ranked at 23rd. And we pay twice as much. That indicates some funny business going
on.
It is remarkable that "big, bold leftist ideas" include - preserving the historical
relationship between the minimum wage and the cost of living - lowering the cost of college
to something in line with what obtained for most public colleges and universities in the 50s,
60s and 70s and exist in the rest of the Western world today - adapting our existing Medicare
system to deliver universal coverage of the kind generally supported across the political
spectrum in Canada and the UK Democrats should reject the "leftist" label for these ideas and
explain that it is opposition to these mainstream ideas that is, in fact, ideological and
extreme. 2 Replies
@Marc Except that's outright false. Offices are open. All the other new Congress members from
New York are setup and taking care of people. She doesn't care about constituent service. She
revels in the media attention, but isn't getting anything done even in the background. NY has
three Congress members (Lowey, Serrano, Meng) whose under-appreciated work on the
appropriations committee actually helps ensure our region's needs and liberal priorities are
reflected in federal spending. Meanwhile Ocasio Cortez is working on unseating Democrats
incumbents she deems insufficiently leftist e.g. Cuellar, Jeffries. Who needs Republicans
when you have Socialists trying to destroy the Democratic Party.
The NYT should consider getting some columnists who reflect the new (FDR? new?) trends in the
country and in the Democratic party. The old Clinton/Biden/Edsall Republican lite approach --
all in for Wall Street -- is dying. Good riddens. BTW I'm a 65 year old electrical engineer.
1 Reply
You're missing something big here, sir. Capuano was a Clinton superdelegate in 2016 who
declared well before the primaries (like all other Mass superdelegates, save for Warren who
waited until well after the primaries.) Thereby in effect telling constituents that their
vote was irrelevant, as they were willing to override it. Somerville went for Sanders 57% to
42%. Putting party over voters maybe isn't a great idea when 51% of voters in Massachusetts
are registered Unenrolled (Independent) and can vote in primaries. Bit rich to signal that
our votes don't matter, but then expect it later as it maybe actually does matter after all.
Pressley was all in for Clinton, which is of course suspect. But like me, she had only one
vote.
@C Wolfe Wow. Funky Irishman has been, for many months, writing about and presenting
excellent data showing that the US is actually a center-left (if not strongly progressive)
country. I used to present this evidence to Richard Luettgen (where has he gone??) who kept
insisting we are center-right (but never, as was his custom, presented any evidence for
this). your example is the best I've ever seen. I'm a member of a 4000-strong Facebook group,
the "Rational Republicans" (seriously - a local attorney with a decidedly liberal bent
started it and almost beat regressive Patrick McHenry here in Asheville). I've been making
this point on the FB page for the past year and people are stunned when they see the numbers.
I'm going to post your example as well. Excellent!
It's funny to watch people shocked when she makes her proposal. Her ideas are very old and
have worked in the past in various cultures. But the point that she can voice them is because
she can. Her people put her there because she said those things with their approval. She
reflects her community ideals. Just like Steve King.
I'm already tired of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and I'm a liberal and Hispanic...its constant
overkill, everybody falling over her, total overexposure. The news media has found their
darling for the moment. Let's see what she accomplishes, what bills she proposes and passes
that is the work to be done not being in the news 24/7.
Until the left figures out that every single one of their most desired Policy Implementations
are only feasible with controlled immigration and secured borders doesn't matter who the
messenger is. Want Single Payer Healthcare? Can't have it and Open Borders too. Want free
College? Can't have it and Open Borders too. Want Guaranteed Basic Income? Cannot have it in
any form without absolutely controlling the Border. So, either you want that influx of new
voters to win elections or you want to see new policy changes that will benefit all
Americans. Pick one and fight for it. You seem to have chosen the new voters. 3 Replies
@Matt Williams But they are extraordinary, relative to their bought and paid for colleagues.
That came first and the media is reporting it. Their authenticity is naive, but it shouldn't
be, and that's the story. It's a glimmer of hope for democracy that may be extinguished -
let's celebrate this light in the darkness, while it lasts.
@Bruce Rozenblit This is. Spot. On. The socialism of: Privatize the profits, socialize the
losses. It's defined American economic and social policy for the last 30+ years and we can
see the results today. 27 Replies
@shstl I agree and as a moderate Democrat, I already feel like an outsider, so imagine what
independents are thinking. AOC stated that she wants to primary Hakeem Jeffries, who is a
moderate. With statements like these, made before spending a day in congress, who needs the
GOP to tear apart the Democratic party? Sanders didn't even win the primary and his
supporters claim the primary was stolen. We lost the house and senate all by ourselves. I
already have AOC fatigue and my rejoice for the blue wave is still there but fading.
The Democratic party was shoved to the right with Bill Clinton's Third Way ideology that made
its focus the same wealthy donor class as the Republicans, while breaking promises to its
former base, the middle and working class. This led to the unchecked capitalism that produced
the Crash of '08, and the subsequent bail out to Wall St. The powers running the DNC - all
Third Way disciples, like Hilary - refused to take up any of these "socialist" causes because
their wealthy donors didn't want to have their escalating wealth diminished. Meanwhile these
Democrats In Republican Clothing were banking on continued support from those they had
abandoned. And they got it for years...until now. Now, finally, we're getting candidates who
represent those abandoned, and who are refusing to hew to the poobah's Third Way agenda. But
the Old Guard is trying to retain their power by labeling these candidates as "socialists",
and "far left". Well, if that's true, then FDR was a "socialist" too. Funny though how all
those "socialists" who voted for FDR, Truman, JFK, and LBJ enjoyed such capitalistic benefits
like good paying jobs, benefits, home ownership, good education, and the fruits of Big
Guv'mint like the Interstate Highway system, electricity, schools, the Space Program and all
the benefits that produced. It was only when we turned our backs on that success and relied
on unchecked capitalism that most of America began their slide backwards. We need to go left
to go forward.
Why is the media lionizing this ignorant, undisciplined child? She should shut up, sit down,
learn how to listen and learn from her elders in government. She is acting like a college
student, who has no one to hold her accountable for her reckless, stupid behavior. Why does
the media seem to be enamored of her?????
@Michael Lucky for you. I went to the University of Michigan at roughly the same time and it
was no where near that cheap--not even close. And housing? Don't get me started on that. Even
then it took my breath away. 38 Replies
@chele That which you are pleased to call the DLC nonsense originated not with the Clintons,
but with one of the worst presidential defeats the Democratic party ever suffered: the 1972
campaign of George McGovern. That debacle resulted in a second Nixon administration and I
hope that the current trends within the Democratic party do not result in a second Trump
administration.
It is exceeding strange to me that "Conservatives" in the US consider Medicare for all and
universal access to higher education as being radical, pie-in-the-sky, proposals. Here in
Canada we have had universal medicare for a half a century and it has proven itself to be
relatively effective and efficient and has not driven us into penury. As for free access to
education beyond high school, I remember learning a while ago that the US government
discovered that it had earned a return of 700% on the money spent on the GI Bill after WWII
which allowed returning GIs to go to colleges and universities. The problem with American
conservatives is that they see investments in the health, welfare and education of the
citizenry as wasteful expenditures, and wasteful expenditures such as the resources going to
an already bloated military, and of course tax cuts for themselves as investments.
@chele Amen to you! I too am old guy (79) and think Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a savior of
the Democratic Party! She is young and has great ideas. I agree with you about the Clintons,
they led the party down a sinkhole. I agree with just about everything I have heard
Alexandria espouse. She is refreshing. Glad she is kicking the butts of those old guard
Democrats that have fossilized in place--they are dinosaurs. 12 Replies
@Tracy Rupp The problem with blaming a group based on demographics, rather than behavior or
ideology, is that you are likely to be disappointed. There are a lot of people who are not
old white men who are just as seduced by money, power, and local privilege as was the old
guard. Feminists writing letters to condemn a male student who made charges of being sexually
harassed by his female professor; African American activists who refuse to reject the
antisemitism of charismatic cult leaders. Human beings in charge will be flawed, regardless
of their race, gender identity, or sexual orientation. As the balance of power changes hands,
corruption too will become more diverse. 6 Replies
Money is the mother's milk of politics, so let me comment on "many of whom did not want the
Democrats to nominate a candidate with deep ties to party regulars and to the major donor
community." Include me. Because the major donor community is Charles E Schumer, Leader
Democrats, House Top Contributors, 1989 - 2018 1 Goldman Sachs 2 Citigroup Inc 3 Paul, Weiss
et al 4 JPMorgan Chase & Co 5 Credit Suisse Group That is Wall Street Nancy Pelosi,
leader Democrats, House Top Contributors, 2017 - 2018 1 Facebook Inc 2 Alphabet Inc (Google)
2 Salesforce.com 4 University of California 5 Intel Corp $13,035 That is Silicon Valley . The
U of CA should spent its money on students What is the interest of these donors ? For Wall
Street, it is maximizing profits by suppressing wages, outsourcing to of enterprises it owns
to low wage countries, and immigration of people willing to work for less For Silicon Valley
it is Mining your data, violating your privacy, and immigration of people willing to work for
less via H1B To win general (not primary) elections you need large amounts of money. At in
return for this money, you need to take care of your donors, lest you find you without money
in the next election Until the Democratic Party frees itself of this system, it will spout
liberal rhetoric, but do little to help average Americans As Sanders showed, it can do so,
running on small donations. DNC, eye on frightened donors, killed his attempt. 1 Reply
"The most active wing of the Democratic Party -- the roughly 20 percent of the party's
electorate that votes in primaries and wields disproportionate influence over which issues
get prioritized -- has moved decisively to the left." Yet it seems that you feel that the
party should ignore them and move to the center right in order to capture suburban Republican
women, who will revert back to the Republican party as soon as (and if) it regains something
resembling sanity. Do you seriously think that its worth jettisoning what you describe as
"the most active wing of the party" for that? 2 Replies
@David G. See Norway, Denmark, Germany, England and Finland. Citizens have jobs and health
care; education is affordable and subsidized. Not all young people attend universities; many
go to vocational schools which prepare them for good jobs. We could do the same. 27 Replies
@Midwest Josh That is so NOT true Midwest Josh. The unattainable loans and interest problems
are because the private sector has been allowed into the student loan game. The government
should be the underwriter for all student loan programs unless individual schools offer
specialized lending programs. Whenever the government privatizes anything the real abuse
starts and the little guy gets hurt. 38 Replies
@Bruce Rozenblit, at the end of a long line of commenters, I add my congratulations for a
well-articulated overview of our political dilemma. Both "trickle-down"economics and
"neo-liberalism" have brought us to this pass, giving both Democrats and Republicans a way of
rewarding their corporate masters. I believe both Cinton and Obama believed they could find a
balance between the corporate agenda and a secure society. We see with hindsight how this has
hailed to materialize, and are rightly seeking a more equitable system – one that
addresses the common sense needs of all of us. I, for one, am overjoyed that the younger
generation has found its voice, and has a cause to support. My recollection of demonstrating
against the Viet Nam war (and the draft), marching for civil rights, and even trying to
promote the (then largely inchoate) women's rights movement, still evokes a passionate
nostalgia. We have witnessed an entire generation that lacked passion for any cause beyond
their individual desires. It's good to have young men and women reminding us of our values,
our aspirations, and our power as citizens. As the bumper sticker says, "If you think
education is expensive – try ignorance." Thanks again for a fine post. 27 Replies
@Quiet Waiting That was FIFTY YEARS AGO. People who fought in the Spanish-American War were
still casting ballots, for heaven's sake. McGovern has been used by Third Way apologists as a
cautionary tale to provide cover for doing what they clearly wanted to do anyway. The other
reality is that the McGovern/Nixon race took place in a time when there was broad consensus
that many of the social programs Republicans are now salivating over privatizing weren't
going anywhere. 12 Replies
Abolishing ICE is tantamount to having open borders. No modern country can allow all people
who are able to get to its borders to just move in, and take advantage of its government
services. If a country were to start offering Medicare for All, no or reduced college
tuition, a universal jobs guarantee, a $15 minimum wage, and wage subsidies to the entire
bottom half through an expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit, paid maternity/paternity
leave, and free child care, it would need tax-payers to support these plans. It could not
afford to support all of the poor, uneducated migrants who have been illegally crossing our
borders, let alone all of those who would run here if ICE were to be abolished. Look at
Canada which has more of a social safety net than is offered in our country. It has
practically no illegal immigrants. (A long term illegal immigrant had to sue for the
government to pay for her extensive medical care, and the court decisions appear to have
limited government payment of her medical bills just to her and not to other illegal
migrants.) It picks the vast majority of its legal immigrants on a merit system that
prioritizes those who would contribute a special needed skill to the Canadian economy, who
are fluent in English and/or French, and who could easily assimilate. Thus, most of Canada's
immigrants start paying hefty taxes as soon as they move to Canada, helping to support the
country's social safety net. 1 Reply
@Samuel To pay for universal health care you capture all the money currently being spent for
the health care system. That includes all the employer insurance premiums, VA medical care
costs, military medical costs, all out-of-pocket expenses, everything. That provides plenty
of money for our health care needs as exemplified by the costs in other advanced countries
with better systems. Also re-activate parts of the ACA that were designed to control and
reduce costs but that have gone unfunded. Reduce hospital and hospital administration costs,
which are exorbitant and provide little real health care benefit. There will be plenty of
funds for actual provider salaries (physicians, nurses, technicians, pharmacists, etc). 10
Replies
You have to accept some of this polling data with a grain of salt. Most of the population has
no idea what "moderate," "slightly liberal," or extremely liberal mean. These tend to be
labels that signify how closely people feel attached to other people on the left side of the
ideological spectrum. The same is true, btw, of people on the right. The odd thing is that if
you ask Trump voters about the economic policies they favor, they generally agree that social
security ought to be expanded, that the government has an obligation to see that everyone has
medical care, that taxes on the rich should be higher and that we ought to be spending more
money, not less on education. Where you see a divergence is on issues tightly aligned with
Trump and on matters that touch on racial resentment. Trump voters do not favor cuts in
spending on the poor, though they do support cuts in "welfare." The moral of the story is
that a strategic Democratic politician who can speak to these Trump voters on a policy level
or at the level of values -- I'm thinking Sharrod Brown -- may be able to win in 2020 with a
landslide.
I saw AOC on the Colbert Show recently and one of her first statements was in regards to
wearing red nail polish. I turned it off. Enough of the red lipstick as well. Please. Next
she'll discuss large hoop earrings. 1 Reply
O'Cortez is a "Fantasy Socialist. She says the stupidest and most outlandish things so the
media puts a microphone in front of her face. She hates when folks fact check her because
nothing she is saying adds up. O'Cortez has all of the same "spread the wealth" tendencies as
the previous president who was much more cunning and clever at hiding his true Socialist
self.
@chele Right on. I expect there is a very large contingent of us. It is disheartening to be
associated by age and ethnicity with the corporatist financial elite power mongers who
control both parties and the media. But we can still continue vote the right way and spread
the word to fight corruption and corporatism. Eschew New Democrats like ORourke. The first
commitment to find out about is the commitment to restore democracy and cut off the power of
the financial elite in politics. All the other liberal sounding stuff is a lie if that first
commitment is not there. Because none of it will happen while the financial elite are
controlling votes. There will always be enough defectors against, for example, the mainstream
support for medicare for all national health care to keep it from happening if New Democrats
aren't understood as the republican lite fifth column corrupters they really are. 12 Replies
Chock full of very interesting data, but we tend to to believe Zeitz's conclusion that Dems
are just returning to their roots, following the spectacular 2008 failures that saw no
prosecutions - in starkest contrast to the S&L failure and boatload of bankers charged:
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/04/magazine/only-one-top-banker-jail-financial-crisis.html
To the extent this primary voter data is replicated across the country in Dem primaries, and
not just the AOC and Ayana Pressley races, we could be convinced some massive swing is
occurring in Dem primary results. Until then, we tend to believe that the cycle of 30-50
House seats which swing back and forth as Dem or GOP from time to time (not the exact same
30-50 districts each cycle, but about 30-50 in total per election cycle or two) is a
continuation of a long-term voting trend. Unpacking the egregious GOP'er gerrymandering, as
is the goal of Eric Holder and Barack Obama: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/02/us/politics/voting-gerrymander-elections.html
which has blunted Dem voter effects, will be of far more consequence - get ready !
@Michael Gig'em dude. Class of '88, and I feel the same way. And as far as I can tell, the
increase has been almost totally because state support has fallen in order to fund tax cuts
for the people, like us, who got the free education. Who says you can't have your cake and
eat it too? You just have to raid everyone else's plate. 38 Replies
I understand the Andy Warhol concept of everyone having 15 minutes of fame. But it's absurd
that AOC's 15 minutes of fame coincide with her first 15 minutes in office.
Ocasio-Cortez and the rest haven't been in Congress a month. Get back to me when anyone of
them even gets a bill passed naming a Post Office. Until the, maybe you ought to learn your
jobs?
@In the know, Your party invented the fundamental ACA program. It was the brainchild of the
Heritage Foundation that started this fiasco that you'd like to blame on Dems. Also, you
simply cannot argue that the Republicans attempted to implement the program in good faith.
They have done everything they can to sabotage it. In the end, Republicans don't want people
to have affordable health care. It doesn't fit their "family-unfriendly" philosophy.
Furthermore, the only real business-friendly ideas Republicans embrace are a) eliminate
taxes, b) remove regulations, c) pay employees nothing. If you as a woman believe these are
notions that strengthen you or your family, I'm at a total loss in understanding your
reasoning.
@Matt Williams - You are ignoring the many statistics in the article that apply to the
Democratic party as a whole. For example: "From 2008 to 2018, the percentage of Democrats who
said the government should create "a way for immigrants already here illegally to become
citizens if the meet certain requirements" grew from 29 to 51 percent, while the share who
said "there should be better border security and stronger enforcement of immigration laws"
fell from 21 to 5 percent." There are many others.
"...as millennials and minorities become an ever-larger proportion of the party, it will have
a natural constituency..." I would counter that as they start to actually pay taxes then the
millennials will adopt the standard liberal plaint, 'raise the taxes on everybody except me'
@D I Shaw I think the precise point is that would much easier to do A,B, and C if there were
universal health care, job guarantees, and clean water to drink. It is much easier to make
good long-term decisions when you aren't kept in a state of perpetual desperation.
These 'new' ideas are not new, nor are they 'progressive democrats'', nor are they even the
democratic party's per se. More importantly, the 'issue', for which no one has come up with a
solution, is the same -- how are we going to pay for this all? The GAO reported in '16 that
Sander's proposal for payment was completely unsustainable. Similarly, Cortez's plan for a
tax rate of 70% of earnings (not capital gains) over $10mm per annum does not come close to
funding 'medicare for all', 'free collage/trade school', and 'the New Green Deal'. Our
military is a 'jobs program' rooted in certain state's economy -- it is going to be very
difficult to substantially reduce those expenditures any time soon. The purpose of government
is governance -- what politician is going to have the integrity and cujones to tell the
American people that we need these 'liberal' policies, but that every single one of us is
going to have to contribute, even those at the far lower income strata? Are we all willing to
work longer in life and live in much smaller houses/apartments to do what is necessary? If
the answer is yes, then and only then can any of us claim the moral high ground. Until then,
it's just empty rhetoric for political gain and personal Aggrandizement of so-called
progressives. 5 Replies
@chele I'm an "elder millennial" in my 30s. The first US election I really paid attention to
was in 2000. Remember how all of the Democrats would gripe about, "oh I really *like* Nader,
but the Green Party candidate is never going to win..." It's a party in dire straights when
the ideological base doesn't even particularly love its candidates on the issues. Repeat in
2004 with Kerry. Obama managed to win based on charisma and the nation's collective disgust
with the neocons, but then we did it again with Hillary. 12 Replies
Sorry libs, but with the exception of the Left Coast, and Manhattan, there is not alot of
attention given AOC and her silly class warfare 70% tax nonsense, that goes with the Dem/Lib
territory--nothing new or exciting with her. Being a certain ethnicity or gender is not
exciting or inherently "good" as Progressives attempt to convince others. Identity politics
is nonsense. When she does something of merit, not simply engage in publicity stunts and
class warfare nonsense then maybe she will get some attention outside of Lib/Wacko world.
"With all the attention that is being paid to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ayanna Pressley,
Rashida Tlaib" Other than these opinion pages and the Lib coasts, not so much. 2 Replies
Since Reagan there has been a steady drumbeat to the right and far-right policies. We've
lived so long in this bubble that we've normalized these For-the-Rich policies as centrist.
So I don't accept the writer's premise that the Democratic party is moving to a radical left.
The Democratic party is simply embracing pro middle class policies that were once the norm
between 1935-1979. And I welcome the shift of the pendulum. 1 Reply
@Giacomo That's right, this country can afford trillions for the Pentagon system--the
military-industrial complex, to coin a phrase--and foolishly criminal wars, but it can't
afford national health insurance, something that some industrialized countries have had since
the late 19th century. Anybody who thinks these ideas are "radical" or "leftist" clearly
understands nothing about politics.
The shift claimed by Mr. Edsall among democratic voters who claim to be liberal or
progressive is more illusion than reality. With President Obama more democrats are willing
and indeed proud that our party represents the cutting edge principle that we protect the
needs and interests of those struggling to find a place in our society. For a long time
Democrats bought into the notion that the word liberal was some how shameful. But now with
the machinations of a McConnell and Trump it becomes obvious that Democratic principles of
justice for all and fighting for economic equality are not outside ideas, but actually
central to the growth of our country. No longer will we kow tow to a false stilted opinion,
but stand up proudly for what we believe and fight for.
AOC behaves like a sanctimonious know-it-all teenager....entertaining for about 5 minutes,
then just plain annoying and tiresome. Does not bode well for the Democratic Party,...
Actually, people like AOC or Bernie aren't that far left at all. Internationally, they'd be
considered pretty centrist. They're simply seen as "far left" because the Overton window in
DC is far to the right. Even domestically, policies like universal healthcare and a living
wage enjoy solid majority support, so they're perfectly mainstream
I understand what you are saying, but please remember- half of this country thinks- rightly
or wrongly- that AOC and many of her ideals are unobtainable and socialist. Whether they are
or are not is NOT the point. We need ideas that are palatable to the mainstream, average
American- not just those of us on the liberal wings. And I AM one of those. Since you bring
up Bernie- how well did that work out? The country isn't ready for those ideas. And rightly
or wrongly, pursuing them at all cost will end up winning Trump the next election.
@Jose Pieste Well here in Australia its 10 minute waits for appointments made on the same
day. I have MS and see my specialist without a problem. And the government through the PBS
prescription benefit scheme pays $78 of my $80 daily tablets. We are not as phenomenally
wealthy a country as the USA and we mange it with universal health care. I pay about $30
Australian for each doctor's visit and sometimes with bulk billing that is free too. You
reflect a uniquely American attitude about social services that is not reflective of what is
done in other modern democracies. I really do feel for you my friend and for all Americans
who have been comprehensively hoodwinked by the "can't afford it" myth. You can pay for
trillion dollar tax cuts for people who don't need it. Honestly mate - you have been conned.
@Samuel Rep. Ocasio-Cortez has sponsored or co-sponsored 18 bills in the House, including
original co-sponsor with Rep. Pressley of H.R.678 -- 116th Congress (2019-2020) To provide
back pay to low-wage contractor employees, and for other purposes. 10 Replies
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, as is well documented here and throughout world media, prefers spotlights
and baffling interviews to opening her district office and serving her electorate. As with
every other media creation, the shiny star that it has made of Ms. Ocasio-Cortez will fade
soon. The arc of her House career will as well. 4 Replies
"What pundits today decry as a radical turn in Democratic policy and politics actually finds
its antecedents in 1944." This quote in the article should have been the lede. Instead, it
appears 66 paragraphs into the article. What is now being called "left" used to be called
"center." It used to be called the values and the core of the Democratic party.
@Derek Flint There was a reason for the DLC's decision to be more center left. The Democrats
were losing and this gave them a chance to win, which they did with Clinton, almost Gore, and
Obama. 12 Replies
@Jason A. Representatives should represent their constituents. For example, if most of the
voters one represents want Medicare, perhaps that's a sign that one should reconsider their
anti-Medicare views. And think about why constituents want Medicare.
The leftward swing of the Democrats is in direct proportion to the rightward swing of the
Republicans and a gut reaction to the GOP's failure to do anything constructive while in
power -- i.e. failure to replace Obamacare with Trump's promise of "cheaper and better;"
failure to repair our crumbling infrastructure, and yet another failed attempt at
trickle-down economics by robbing the U.S. Treasury with a massive tax cut for the rich that
provided absolutely no benefits for the middle class and the poor. As always, what the
Republicans destroy the Democrats will have to fix.
@Quiet Waiting, the DLC was officially formed after Mondale's loss, in '85. the DLC's main
position is that economic populism is not politically feasible. But I don't recall either
McGovern or Mondale's losses being attributed to being too pro-worker, too pro-regulation of
capitalism, or making tax rates progressive again. Further, the idea that economic populism
has no political value was just disproved by a demagogue took advantage of it to get elected.
The RP's mid-term losses and other data points show that people in the middle are realizing
Trump's not really a populist. Those economic Trump voters, some of whom voted for Obama
twice, are up for grabs. Why would you be afraid that the DP's shift to raising taxes on the
wealthy and being pro-worker will result in a Trump victory? 12 Replies
@Michael The cost of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security has increased as a fraction of
tax receipts. Twice the as many people go to college as when you went, so the subsidies are
spread more thinly. Colleges have more bureaucrats than professors because of multiple
mandates regarding sex, race, income, sexual preference, etc. People have not been willing to
see taxes raised, so things like college subsidies get squeezed. The US decided in the 1940s
that the only way to avoid a repeat of WW1 and WW2 was to provide a security blanket for
Western Europe and Japan (and really, the world), and prevent military buildups in either
region while encouraging economic development. The world is as a result more peaceful,
prosperous, and free than ever in human history, despite "its continuous wars" as you put it.
For the US to pull back would endanger the stability that gave us this peace and prosperity,
but Trump is with you all the way on that one, so it must be a good idea. Liberal reforms
will mean tax increases, especially Medicare for all, but also more college subsidies, which
largely benefit the middle class and up. Liberal reformers need to convince the public to
send more money to the IRS, for which there is no evident support. Let's not confuse
opposition to Trump with a liberal groundswell. 38 Replies
Why do Political Commentators and Analysts keep operating under the delusion that people vote
their skin colour ? People vote their economic interests. I am all in favour of National
Health Care Letting Immigrants who have not committed a crime stay and become citizens. But I
am also in favour of stricter Border Control as I feel our duty is to the poor citizens of
America. Send Economic aid to poorer countries, help them establish just governments. As for
Ocasio-Cortez, she is aiming too high and has too many lies about her past to go much higher.
The meanings of these labels--liberal, left, center, conservative--, and of the spectrum
along which they supposedly lie, changes year to year, and most pundits and politicians seem
to use them to suit their own purposes. When you realize that a significant group of people
voted for Obama and then for Trump, you realize how radically the politics of the moment can
redefine the terms. The Democrats could create a narrative that unites the interests of all
economically disadvantaged people, including white people. Doing so would create a broad
majority and win elections, but it would arouse the fury of the oligarchs, who will demonize
them as "socialists." But as Obamacare proved, if actually you do something that helps people
across the board even the Republicans and the media will have a hard time convincing people
that they are oppressed, for example, by access to health insurance. For the oligarchs, as
for the Republicans, success depends on creating a narrative that pits the middle class
against the poor. In its current, most vulgar form, this includes pitting disadvantaged white
people against all the rest, but the Republicans have an advantage in that their party is
united behind the narrative. Democratic politicians may be united against Trump, but that
means nothing. The challenge will be uniting the politicians who run on economic justice with
the establishment Democrats who have succeeded by hiding their economic conservativism behind
identity politics.
I applaude AOC. I am 72 white male. I have been waiting for someone like AOC to emerge. I
wish her the best and will work for her positions and re-elections and ultimate ambitions.
She is a great leader, teacher, learner, whip smart, and should not be taken likely. Go for
it AOC! Realize your full potential.
Someone as thoroughly imbedded in the establishment as this Op-Ed writer is necessarily going
to need to be educated on what the political center of gravity really is. The Democrats have
shifted RIGHT over the past few decades. Under Bill Clinton and Pelosi, Schumer, Feinstein
and Obama. They are not left, not center-left, not center, but instead center-right. They
have pursued a center-right agenda that does not engage with the rigged economy or widening
inequality, or inadequate pay, or monopolist abuse of power, or adequate regulation and
punishment of corporate crime. They have enthusiastically embraced our deeply stupid wars of
choice, and wasted trillions that could have been put to productive use at home. The new
generation of progressive Democrats seek to move the debate BACK TO THE CENTER or Center-Left
if you will. Not the Left or Far-Left. They want to address the issues the current Democrat
Establishment have ignored or exacerbated, because they are in essence, the same rarified
rich as the lobbyists and donors they mingle with. The issues that affect MOST of us, but not
the FEW of them. The endgame of this shift is that Obama engineered a pseudo-recovery that
saw the very rich recover their gains, but the poor become MORE impoverished. Such is the
rigged economy, 21st Century style. Things have to change, the old guard have to be neutered.
Too much wealth and power is concentrated in too few hands, and it's too detrimental to our
pseudo-democracy.
This is the difference between R & D's. OAC may get her support from well-to-do, educated
whites, but her platform focuses on those left behind. Even her green revolution will provide
jobs for those less well off. R's, on the other hand, vote only for candidates that further
their selfish interests.
Rep. Ocasio-Cortez and her legislative cohorts are a much needed breath of fresh, progressive
air for the U.S. Congress. And I say that as someone going on age 70 who was raised and
educated in the conservative Deep South. Go left, young people!
@Bruce Rozenblit Unfortunately, the hot button on fox is the word socialism. so undo the
negative press there and have a chance of implementing fairer policies. 27 Replies
@Samuel "It's easy to go to a rooftop- or a twitter account- and yell "health care and
education for all!'" Its not easy to get anyone to listen. The moral impetus precedes the
"actual plans," which come out of the legislative process, Why would you be against this
getting attention?Unless, of course, you oppose health care and education for all. 10 Replies
The further the Democrats go Left with all the cultural politics including white people
bashing and calling Men toxic, the further I am heading towards the right. I personally can't
stand what the Democratic Party has turned into. We'll see who wins in 2020. I think a lot of
people forget what happens in mid term elections. People vote for change and then, after
seeing what they wrought, switch back.
I am a old white male geezer and lifelong liberal living in complete voter disenfranchisement
in Florida due to gerrymandering, voter suppression and rigged election machines (how else
does one explain over 30,000 votes in Broward County that failed to register a preference for
the Senate or Governor in a race where the Republican squeaked in by recount?). I am pleased
to finally see the party moving away from corporatist and quisling centrists to take on
issues of critical import for the economy, the environment and the literal health of the
nation. As "moderate" Republicans come to a cognitive realization that they too are victims
of the fascist oligarch billionaire agenda to end democracy; they too will move to the left.
So, I for one am not going to worry an iota about this hand-wringing over something akin to
revolution and instead welome what amounts to the return of my fellow New Deal Democrats.
Too much attention here to this new cohort of self important attention seekers presenting as
civil servants. Not one of them has had any legislative experience in their lives how can
they do all they say they want. They have no grasp of policy economics and politics. Are they
too good to recall the wise words of Sam Rayburn - "Those who go along get along" or is that
too quaint outdated and patriarchal for them? Why dont journalists and other pols call them
out. Example, AOC calls for 70% marginal tax rate - saying we had it before, ha ha. Yes but
only when defense spending as percent of gdp was 20-40 percent, in the depth of WW2 and the
cold war, life and death struggles - it is now 5%, no one has the stomach for those rates
now, and no need for them to boot. Free school, free healthcare, viva la stat! yeah ok who
will pay for it? Lots of ideas no plans, flash in the pan is what it is, it will die down
then settle in for a long winter.
There is a difference between posturing as a leader and actually leading. So, there is
another, and very direct, way for real Americans to end the shutdown: Recall petitions. With
very little money, why not target Mitch McConnell. Laid off federal workers could go
door-to-door in Kentucky. The message, not just to the Senate majority leader, would be
powerful. And this need not be limited. There are some easy targets among GOP senators.
Perhaps Ms. Ocasio-Cortez can achieve greater national standing with a clipboard and pen down
on the hustings.
All this fuss over a bright young person who stopped complaining and ran for office. She has
a platform. Time will tell how effective she will be. Right now, she's connecting to those
young and old who believe we can do better. If you had a choice who would you rather share a
beer with?A Trump supporter who has no interest beyond building an ineffective wall or an
Ocasio-Cortez supporter, full of ideas, some fanciful, some interesting but most off all
energy and light versus fear and hate?
I'm a liberal Democrat and I remain very skeptical regarding the platforms of these new
members of Congress. Youthful exuberance is admirable, but it's not sufficient to address
complicated issues related to fairness. Fairness does not always mean equity of wealth. Some
people have more because they have worked more, worked longer, or took more risks with their
money. Should the nurse who worked three jobs to make $150,000/year be made to sacrifice a
significant portion for those who chose to work less? Such an anecdotal question may seem
naive, but these are the kinds of questions asked by regular Americans who often value social
programs, but also value fairness. The claim that only some tiny fraction of the 1% will bear
the cost of new programs and will alone suffer increased taxation is simply untrue, and those
who are making this claim know it. This tiny group of wealthy knows how to hide its money
off-shore and in other ways, as documented in the Times last year. Everyone knows the
low-lying fruit for increased taxation is the upper middle class: Those who work hard and
save hard and are nowhere near the top of the wealth pyramid. It's that nurse with the three
jobs, or the small business owner who now clears $200,000 a year, or the pair of teachers
who, after 25 years of teaching, now bring home $150,000 combined. Those are the targets of
the proposed "new" taxes. Don't believe the hype. I'm a liberal, and I know what's up with
these people. 4 Replies
Ocasio-Cortez represents the success of a progressive in ousting a white liberal in a safely
Democratic district. While interesting, that doesn't provide much of a blueprint for winning
in 2020 in districts and states that voted for Trump. As noted elsewhere in this newspaper,
of the roughly 60 new Democrats in Congress elected in 2018, two-thirds, were pragmatic
moderates that flipped Republican seats. Progressives were notably less successful in
flipping Republican seats.
Just keep in mind that what the author deems "radical" ideas are considered mainstream in the
rest of the developed world. We are an extreme outlier in lacking some form of universal
health care, for example. Also, while the NYT clearly saw Bernie's 2016 campaign as
shockingly radical, the very people Edsall says we must court were wild about Bernie. His
message about income inequality resonates with anyone living paycheck to paycheck and the
only thing "radical" about it is that he said the truth out loud about the effects of
unbridled capitalism. The neoliberal types that the NYT embraces are the milquetoast people
who attract a rather small group of voters, so, I am not too eager to accept his analysis. I
fully expect the Times to back Gillibrand and Biden, maybe even that other corporatist,
Booker. They don't scare the moneyed class.
The Dems have been drifting to the right for decades, egged on by pundits who keep telling
them to move to the center. Do the math: moving to the center just moves the center to the
right. Frankly, Nixon was more liberal than most of today's Dems. A move to the left is long
overdue.
The rumblings in the Democratic party may represent a realization that WE THE PEOPLE deserve
a bigger slice of the pie. Democrats such as Sanders, Warren and AOC are tapping into a
reservoir of voters who have been excluded from the American Dream by design. The new message
seems to be "fairness". I think that translates into government which does the most good for
the greatest number of people. Candidates who embody that principle will be the new leaders.
Ignore at your peril.
@Quiet Waiting: if voters believe republicans are helping them economically then follow them
off the cliff. Hopefully enough voters will try a more humane form of capitalism. 12 Replies
Ms Ocasio Cortez is a partial illustration of Reagan's dictum that "The trouble with our
liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so". In
the case of AOC she is not only very ignorant but she believes many things that are actually
not true. For her to actually believe that the "world will end in 12 years" and
simultaneously believe that, even if true, Congress could change this awful fact is so
breathtakingly ignorant one hardly knows where to start.
Maybe it's worth considering that a lot of those spooky millennials, the stuff of campfire
scare stories, themselves grew up in the suburbs. They are the children of privilege who have
matured into a world that is far less secure and promising than that of their swing-voter
soccer moms. Health care, student debt, secure retirement, and the ability to support a
family are serious concerns for them. And don't even get me started on climate change and the
fossil fuel world's stranglehold on our polity.
@dudley thompson, if you are one of those elite moderate liberals against the "lefties"
concern about college and medical costs, protections for workers and the environment, and
progressive taxation, then in the end getting your vote isn't worth sacrificing the votes of
all the other people who do care about those things. Your "moderate" way may calm those swing
voters who fear change, and allow them to vote for the Democrat, but it also demoralizes and
disappoints the much larger group of potential Democratic voters that craves change.
@Jessica Summerfield ..."article described AOC as a communist." And I saw an article describe
Ross Douthat as a "columnist"... equally misleading. Will the calumny never cease? 27 Replies
Thomas, this "left" used to be known as the middle. A commitment to housing instead of an
acceptance of homelessness. Dignity. A tax system designed to tax wealthy people, not, as we
have now, a tax system designed to tax the middle class and poor. Can we all just take a look
at what is being promoted -- look at what AOC is proposing compared to Eisenhower era tax
rates. We have lurched right so that event center-right is now considered left.
Rage is the political fuel that fires up the Left. Rage also is the source of some very bad
ideas. Having bad ideas is the reason people don't vote for a political party in a
presidential election. The democrats are now the party of socialism, open borders, very high
taxes, anti-religious bigotry, abolishment of free speech, rewriting the constitution,
stuffing the Supreme Court, impeachment of the President, and being intolerance of other
views. They have also alienated 64 million Americans by calling them deplorables, racist and
a host of other derogatory terms. Not a good strategy to win over voters in swing states.
They also have attacked all men and white men in particular. They think masculinity is toxic
and that gender is not biological but what a person believes themselves to be (noticed that I
used the plural pronoun?). So far a long list of bad ideas. Let's see how it plays out in
2020. 1 Reply
We need to be careful what we refer to as left. Is the concept that we have access to
affordable housing, healthcare, and decent jobs really a position of the far left? Not
really. The 1944 progressives saw access to basic life as a right of all people. This is why
young educated progressives support policies that encourage success within the unregulated
capitalist economy that has been created over the last 40 years. The evidence illustrates
that federal and state governments need to help people survive, otherwise we are looking at
massive amounts of inequality that affect the economy and ultimately affect the very people,
the extremely rich, who support deregulation.
@Bruce Rozenblit The Republicans great skill has been selling lies to the socially
conservative to get their greedy financial agenda through. They have never cared about their
voters other than how best to spin their rhetoric. 27 Replies
Moving left takes a twitter account, a quixotic mentality and the word free. Its sedition
arousing rhetoric is blinkered by the lack of a viable strategy to support and move it
forward. Liberals thrive on the free media attention which feeds their rancor and aplomb.
Liberals are the infants of the Democratic Party. They're young, cute and full of amusing
antics. They have an idyllic view of what the world can be but without efficacy. When they
are challenged, or don't get enough attention, they revert to petulance. As all mammals do,
most liberals eventually grow up to join the Democratic median. Those that don't become the
party regalers brought out when the base needs energized. They grow old and fade away,
remembered only for their flamboyance and dystopian view of the world. The Democratic Party
has never been more fractured since its inception. With close to thirty potential candidates
for President, it is going to take a coalition within their party in order to put forth a
viable nominee. Then the party infighting will commence which will lead the party into
defeat. Democrats must focus on a untied party platform which is viable and will produce
results for the American people. Enough of the loquacious hyperbole and misandrous language;
it's time to stop reacting and start leading.
If it looks like the Democrats are moving strongly to the left, it's because they have
stopped chasing the GOP over the cliff in a vain effort to meet them in some mythical middle.
That's why the gap is widening; Republicans have not slowed in their headlong rush to
disaster. In truth it is the Republican Party and its messaging machine that has been doing
its best to drag America to the extreme right by controlling the narrative and broadcasting
talking points picked up and amplified by the Mainstream Media. The Mainstream Media has its
own issues. Increasingly consolidated under corporate ownership into fewer and fewer hands,
it has developed a reflex aversion to anything that looks too 'left' and a suspicion of
anything that looks progressive. The desperate battle for eyeballs in a fragmenting market
has also taken a toll; deep journalism or reporting that risks alienating any part of the
shrinking audience for traditional news is anathema to the bean counters who have
financialized everything. Deliberate intimidation by the right has also taken a toll.
Republicans have no answers; Democrats do - and that's the gist of it. The real challenge is
to prevail against a party that has embraced disinformation, the politics of resentment and
destruction - and the Mainstream Media that has failed to call them out on it.
We are looking at a future Speaker of the House. Watch out Republicans, this woman is not
afraid of you white, stodgy, misogynistic and racist haters. Your party, once a viable and
caring party, is dead.
The Republican Party used to be a moderate political party that was fully capable of
governing. Over the years, the right wing of the party assumed control and they became a
radically conservative party that basically hated government and did nothing for the benefit
of average Americans. As a result, many voters came to believe that a more liberal stance was
preferred to what the Republicans had become. Basically, the Republican Party veered sharply
to the right and went off and left a lot of their earlier supporters, like me.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is the perfect foil to the Trump twitter fest we've been subjected
to for the past 2 years. However, enough of the tit for tat -- I would still like to see the
freshman representative put forth some legislation for a vote.
In terms of policies, this "sharp shift to the left" represents a return to the New Deal and
the Great Society and a renewed commitment to civil rights. It is a return to things we never
should have turned away from.
@Tracy Rupp Don't be so quick to condemn. The really old white men of today defeated Germany
and Japan. Then those same old white men went into Korea and then Vietnam. Ok so maybe you
have a point.
Shifted to the LEFT? After decades of movement to the Right, by the GOP and even assisted by
Dems such as the Clintons, etc., this political movement is merely a correction, not a
radical shift as your article contends.
Just as the reader comments from yesterday's opinion piece on the Covington School story by
David Brooks reveal rampant confirmation bias, the comments here reveal an equally relevant
truth: nobody, but nobody, eats their own like the left. The "Down With Us" culture in full
effect.
I am confused about what message, what issues resonate with the "moderate" people who are
disaffected from the liberal message of the Democrats on the left. What policies would bring
them to vote Democratic, what is it about health care for all, a living wage and opening the
voting process to all people are they opposed to. Is it policy or message that has them
wavering?
@dudley thompson Do you consider Eisenhower leftist? (highest tax rates ever). How about
Nixon? (established the EPA). We have lurched so far right in this country that the middle
looks left. I'm sick of the labels -- listen to what these leaders are actually proposing. If
you don't understand how the marginal tax rate works, look it up. If you don't realize we
once didn't accept mass homelessness and mass incarceration as a fact of life in America,
learn some history. We're living in a myopic, distorted not-so-fun-house where up is down and
center is left. We need to look with fresh eyes and ask what our communal values are and what
America stands for. 5 Replies
Here is a thought I would like to share with the New York Times: Thomas Edsall's article is
excellent. The corollary I draw from it that the paper that projects itself as the voice of
the liberals in this county has to understand that it has fallen behind times. If the
statistics and commentary accompanying it is a criteria to consider, The Times should move to
a more progressive editorial platform. The sooner, the better! The support given by this
paper to Hillary Rodham Clinton over Bernie Sanders in 2016 is unforgivable. The attitude
exhibited towards Elizabeth Warren is hardy different. This has to change if you want to keep
your relevance unless you believe publishing Edsall's essay is just part of your "diversity"
policy. What the followers of AOC and other progressives are clamoring for are very basic
human needs that have been delivered in affluent (and not so affluent) societies all over the
globe. No need to name those countries, by now the list is well known. What do we need
delivered: Universal Healthcare, Free Public Education K through College, No Citizens United,
Total Campaign Finance Reform, Regulation of Wall Street, Regulation of Pharma, Regulation of
Big Tech, Gender Equality, 21st Century Infrastructure. All paid for by cutting the Military
and Defense Budget Waste (cf Charlie Grassley, a buddy of Karl Marx) and taxing the top
percent at levels AOC cites and Professors Suez and Zucman concur with in their Times OpEd.
Democrats need to win elections first. Progressive ideas may have support on the coasts and
cities but fall flat in red states where there is still widespread dislike for immigrants and
minorities and strong opposition to "having my hard-earned tax money supporting free stuff
for the undeserving who can't/won't take care of themselves." Because the Electoral College
gives red states disproportionate representation the Democrats must win some red states to
win a presidential election. Running on a strong progressive platform won't work in those
Republican-majority states. What Democrats need is a "Trojan Horse" candidate. Someone who
can win with a moderate message that has broad appeal across the entire country but who will
support and enact a strong progressive agenda once he/she is elected. And on a local election
level, Democrats need to field candidates whose message is appropriate for their local
constituency -- progressive in liberal states, more moderate in conservative areas. Winning
elections comes first. Let's do what it takes to win and not let our progressive wish list
blind us to the importance of winning elections.
@Westchester Guy: Leftists want amnesty and, eventually, open borders. This is utterly and
totally incompatible with their push for "free" college, universal health care, and so forth.
The fiscal infeasibility is so obvious that one could only believe in these coexisting
policies if they were blinded by something, like Trump hatred, or just plain dishonest. The
"leftist" label for the new Democrat party is entirely appropriate. You also have your own
bigots to counter Trump. The difference is that their bigotry is sanctioned by most of the
mainstream media.
Has AOC or any other liberal offered any feasible policy to improve the lives of the people
they claim to help? Just take a good hard look at NYC where AOC is from which for many years
the Public Housing Authority cannot even provide adequate heat in the building the city owns.
So while AOC dreams of taxing the wealthy 70% perhaps she needs to slow down and catch up to
reality to realize what she offers is only building towards another Venezuela.
This article is half poison pill. By reading it, you learn a lot about Democratic Party
voting patterns, but you also have to endure a number of false ideas, the worst of which is
Edsall's warning that radical Democrats will foment internal chaos leading to electoral loss.
The fact is, it is the corporate democrats, who in the last 40 years abandoned the base of
working, blue collar democrats in favor of their Wall Street overlords. It is the corporate
democrats who created the billionaire class by reducing corporate tax rates. It is the
corporate Democrats who by reducing marginal tax rates created the plutocracy. It is the
corporate democrats who gave *Trillions of Dollars* to Bush and Obama's perpetual wars and
$70 Billion more than the defense department asks. This impoverishing the citizenry with debt
is their legacy as much as the Republicans. This shoveling of money to the 1% who abandoned
the middle class has been a train ridden by Corporate Democrats. It is the Corporate
Democrats who caused all this friction by letting the middle class fall off the edge of the
economic cliff -- all the while proclaiming how much they care. They show up on MLK day and
read flowing speeches from the podium when what we really need is activism and changes in
marginal tax rates, defense spending and the Medical Insurance and care oligopoly. So now
there is revolution brewing in response to the Corporate Democrats' appeasement of the
Oligarchy? Good. Bring it on.
Honestly, it is the centrist, neoliberal wing of the Democratic party that gave up on talking
to the Midwest and focused on the coasts. That was the Clinton strategy and it didn't work.
Although AOC comes from an urban area, her message is broad: she is for the struggling,
working person. Edsall underestimates AOC's basis in economic thinking and her appeal to
flyover country. She speaks carefully and justly to social issues, but she also speaks to the
"kitchen table" issues that middle America is concerned with--in a much more real way than
the neoliberal Dems have figured out how to.
Please end you outsized coverage of AOC. I really don't know how you justify all the news
coverage. She is one of 435 representatives, and a new one at that. No accomplishments, just
a large Instagram following.
@John Patt Everybody over the age of 50 should apologize for giving our young people
catastrophic climate change, endless wars, broken healthcare, crumbling infrastructure, ever
widening income and wealth disparates, unaffordable post-secondary education, rampant gun
violence, no voice for labor. We over 50 didn't care enough to vote and to make enough
political noise to keep these things from happening. We over 50 all have personal
responsibilities for this messed up world we're leaving the young. 6 Replies
@Zor The answer is no. Remember Schumer saying that for every urban vote Democrats lost by
running Hillary, they would gain 2 suburban votes. It didn't turn out that way. The centrist,
corporatist Democrats (including Hillary and Biden) have no clue how to reach the working
class of any race. The working class focus of AOC is the Democratic Party's best chance at a
future. But of course the establishment, centrist, corporatist Democrats are still focused on
helping their big money donors. Here's another question: Just how are establishment,
centrist, corporatist Democrats different from Republicans?
Here's my thing- though I'm a deeply liberal person who shares a lot of political beliefs
with Ocasio-Cortez, I'm am not the least bit interested in her. Why? Because she's one
representative of a district all the way across the country from where I live. I care about
about my newly flipped district in Sherman Oaks. I care about my solidly Democratic district
in Santa Rosa. Just because one charismatic representative from Brooklyn has a good Twitter
feed doesn't mean that I have to care or that she deserves a highly-placed role on an
important committee. She's a freshman. Let her learn. And then, go ahead and tell me she
deserves a seat.
There really is not a far left in America. You guys have this weird aversion to moderate
sensible socialism that -as the saying goes- is only in America. Our conservative government
in Australia accepts it as a given the things AOC is fighting for. There is nothing weird
about universal health care in modern advanced countries. The conservatives have a magic word
in the USA that they us as a bogeyman and the word is socialism. Ironically they don't mind
Trump snuggling up to extreme left dictators like Kim and ex KGB Soviet operatives like Don's
supervisor Vlad Putin who by definition had to be a card carrying communist to get to his
position. But moderate socialism is all over northern Europe, NZ, UK and Australia. You
people are oppressed by conservatives playing the "that's socialism" card at every turn. We
never ask where does the money come from? here. The money seems to be there in all the
countries that take care of the health of their citizens. America is a wonderful country with
fantastic people- I love visiting... but to use an Aussie word - crikey I wouldn't want to
live there. 1 Reply
A.O.C. Alexandria "Overexposure" Cortez. This young woman is talented but should pace herself
a bit. It's not a marathon but it's not a sprint either. Let's call it "middle distance" in
track terms. You need to save some breath for when it's really needed. Pace for long term
influence on policy. Or be a "one hit wonder".
@Matt Williams Exactly. I'm a Democratic in a conservative area, and all my Democrat friends
think this woman is nuts. Our Senator Jon Tester is wonderful. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez? Hard
pass. 9 Replies
@Cass You may self-identify as a moderate but you sound like a conservative. Please go join
the other party of no ideas if AOC strikes you as radical. The majority of Democrats don't
agree with you.
Ideology fails when it meets reality. Trump and McConnell are busy teaching the American
middle class what it is to be reduced to poverty - health care they can't afford, rising
taxes on those who have had some economic success, elimination of well paying jobs, and on
and on. Those voters are understandably interested in pocket book issues, the resurgence of
progressive candidates meets this newly emphasized need. In addition, look at the population
demographics. The baby boomers were a "bump" in population, they in turn have produced a new
bump in their children, who are now adults. The boomers were quite left, their children have
inherited some of this belief system - equal rights and protection and support of those with
less opportunity. The voters in general are also completely fed up with politicians lying to
them and taking away their benefits. They generally have a mistrust both of the right wing
destruction of our norms, and the Democrats failure to fight back (Garland should have been
appointed even in the face of McConnell's calumny). The new face of the Democratic party
feeds pocketbook issues, a belief that America is, in fact, a melting pot, and the need for
restoration of our Democracy. This pretty much covers all the bases, the Democrats just need
to get better at educating the populace.
By and large, the majority of 2600+ counties that Trump carried are not economically well
off. However, they are socially very traditional. Do the Democrats have a message that will
resonate with millions of these traditional white middle/lower middle class voters in the
hinterland? 1 Reply
have you listened to her interviews? she doesn't say much of anything. all political about
all these socialist ideas with no means or method of how to get there. and thank goodness she
has no clue how to get there
I used to be friends with a very high-achieving guy I met as a 15-year-old on a teen summer
tour in Israel, run by the national Reform synagogue movement, in 1985. In the course of our
frienship spanning the final years of high school through the beginning of college, gradually
fading to an email or 2 once every couple years; our different paths & outlooks became
very stark, though we'd both call ourselves liberals. My friend left no stone unturned in his
unambivalent achievement orientation, embracing w/religious fervor the absolute virtue of
success, the unimpeachable morality & integrity of our meritocracy, & meritocratic
ideals/ethos. Naturally, he wound up at Harvard, majoring in government, followed by Harvard
Law. What struck me throughout was the unvarnished "empiricism" of his outlook: rarefied,
lofty principles or romantic ideals seemed alien: the nitty gritty of practical &
procedural realities were the whole picture. The one time we explicitly discussed comparative
politics, he only gravitated toward the topic of Harold Washington's coalition-building
prowess. He was an ardent Zionist ("Jewish homeland!"), with little apparent interest in
theology or spirituality for that matter. Eventually he went into corporate law, negotiating
executive compensation. I think he epitomized the Clinton Democrat: A "Social justice," equal
opportunity for all, meritocracy "synthesis." In a word, that peculiarly "practical,"
pragmatic liberalism was *ultimately conservative*.
Let us all remember that since Reagan the "center" has moved decidedly right. So when we talk
about a move left, we are moving back to where we were in the 1950s-1970's. For example take
AOC's tax proposal. Right out of that time period. Look at the GOP platform in the 1950's. It
reads like a progressive platform today. So let's put this in perspective. Everything is
relative and we have adjusted to right wing dominant politics today.
Edsall looks at the fact the Democrats (and, indeed, the whole country) are moving in a
progressive direction. He does not look at the question of why. I maintain that with an
increase in educated voters, the country is moving towards policies that work, that are good
for the country as a whole, not just for a minority. The other wealthy countries, all with a
universal government health care system such as an improved Medicare for all, get BETTER
health care as measured by all 16 of the bottom line public health statistics for ALL of
their people at a cost of less than HALF per person as we pay. High inequality has been bad
for the economy and governance of this country. Look at what happened in 1929 and 2008 both
preceded by periods of high inequality. Compare that with the long period of low inequality
after WWII of Great Prosperity. Today as a result of terrible SCOTUS decisions, the Super
Rich pushing the country towards oligarchy. The situation at our borders was actually better
before 2003 when ICE was created. It has perpetrated so many atrocities, rightly garnered
such a terrible reputation, why isn't it time to abolish the thing and start over with a new
more humane organization. After all, the Germans did not keep the Gestapo after the war. I
running out of space, but let me end by saying we are now getting more progressive voters
that say that 2 + 3 = 5, and fewer conservative ones who say 2 + 3 = 23 and fewer moderates
who want to compromise on 2 + 3 = 14.
@Concerned Citizen, likewise, public education is funded largely by property taxes, even on
those who do not have children in school, or whose children are out of school. This is not
"someone else's" money! It is all our money, and this is the way we choose to employ it
– to educate all our children, realizing, I hope, that educated children are a major
asset of a developed country. 38 Replies
Until AOC starts to achieve some actual LEGISTATIVE VICTORIES, I'm not prepared to follow her
ANYWHERE. I'm willing to listen to what she has to say, some of which I agree with and some I
question. I lean Left on most issues but I'm not a fanatic, and fanatics exist on BOTH sides
of the political spectrum. I believe that one must PROVE themselves before being beatified.
In substance, I'm open to the "new wing" of the Democratic party which I am, officially, a
member of. Let me add that I will NEVER cast a vote for anyone calling themselves a
Republican because that very label is forever tainted in my book. But I don't much care for
the 'tit for tat' Tweeting from AOC either, writing about Joe Lieberman (whom I do not like)
"who dat"? What is "dat", Miss AOC?
The insane part of this never gets addressed. Why should Americans political interests and
aspirations be controlled by two monopolistic parties? 1 Reply
The country may be in a need of a more social agenda, but this agenda must perceptible help
the depressed white rural folk first. Nothing will work what make those, who are already
falling behind feel like a "basket of deplorables". I hope AOC will find a way not just to
become a poster star of the progressive urban left, but also understand the ailing of the
depressed rural right.
The Democratic Party needs to do a very good job of educating an electorate (and possibly
some of its own members) that has for more than 30 years drunk the kool-aid of the "lower our
taxes," small government, and deregulation gurus. We have such a predatory capitalism now,
with government failing over and over again to reign in huge corporations headed by those who
think they should be determining everything from economic to housing to health to foreign
policy. Enough already. Most of the young members of Congress need a lot more experience and
more immersion in the nitty gritty of creating legislation before they can take the reins,
but they can educate their constituents. And maybe they can convince others that everyone
gains through a more level playing field.
Calling these ideas left is a joke. AOC and Bernie Sanders would practically be conservatives
in Canada and Europe. What we have are 3 unofficial parties: 1. The party of people with good
ideas who aren't afraid to speak about them because they aren't beholden to big donors 2. The
party of watered down, unpopular ideas that are vetted by 20 pollsters and donors before
seeing the light of day 3. The party that gets into office by tapping into people's primal
fears, and avoids policy altogether Republicans have been moving the goalposts for decades
now, how can you even tell left from right anymore?
@A. Stanton Since 1990, there have been funding gaps, shutdowns or serious threats of
shutdowns almost every year. The have become routine tactics in the effort of each party to
drive a hard bargain.
Running up the Democratic vote in Blue states by pandering to left leaning views will not
unseat DJT in 2020. Winning the popular vote by 3 or 3 million yields the same results.
Unless or until we adopt the Nation Popular Vote Intrastate Compact or reapportion the House
more equitably, Republicans will continue to exploit the Electoral College's
antimajoritarianism. Courting the minority of lefties mimics DJT's courting of his base; last
November proved that elections are won in the middle. Appealing to moderates in purple states
is the only path to 270. If you have any doubt, ask private citizen HRC how much good the
Democratic over-vote did for her.
@Bruce Rozenblit What is exceedingly strange to me is that those who rail against socialism
completely misread socialism at it's very roots; Family. 27 Replies
Yes, because all these pundits got 2016 so right. They are people with their own opinions,
just like everyone else, except the punditry has a vested interest in maintaining the status
quo that has been so good to them for so long. Enough already! Times, you're as much to blame
as these pundits for 2016!
When progressive solutions are proposed, the opposition yells "socialism" while others bring
up the cost of progressive solutions. No one talks about the significant portion of our
nation's wealth spent on the military. We don't audit the Pentagon or do due diligence on the
efficiency of huge projects undertaken by the military nor do we question the profits of the
industrial-military complex. Meanwhile, Russia manipulated our latest presidential race,
underscoring the worry over cyber attacks. Climate events in the country mean our citizens
experience life changing events not brought on by terrorists or immigrants. A medical event
in a family can initiate bankruptcy; we all live on that edge. Our infrastructure projects
have been delayed for so long that America looks like a second rate country. Income
inequality is ongoing with no sign of lessening. Suicide is on the increase while death by
drugs is an epidemic. An education for students can mean large debt; efforts to train the
workforce for the technological world are inconsistent. For many of us, the hate and fear
promoted in this country is repulsive. Because our society works for an ever smaller number
of us, Americans are increasingly understanding that a sustainable, just society works for
all it's citizens. We are exhausted by the stalemate in Washington leaving us caring very
little about the labels of progressive, moderate, or conservative. We just know what needs to
change.
Edall's final point that thsese are Democrats returning to Democratic roots and not a wave of
radicalism. I along with a lot of other older voters was infected with a kind of gradualism.
I voted for Hilary, much now to my dismay. AOC among others is stating what she, and what
many of us want. The old Democratic party was a mirror image of Republicans, with taking the
same money, voting for the same wars, and within it all a kind of shame,liberal as a kind of
curse, where we were afraid to make our own agenda, make our own plan for America. taking the
burden, in health care, college education, immigration, is an investment in the future
The New Democratic approach in essence is taking wealth and redistributing it, along with
promising free goods and services. Is that high-minded or simply a Brave New World. The
underlying assumption seems to be the rest of America will not find that worrisome, and that
what happened in MA and NY represents a nationwide trend. 3 Replies
These voters are not moving to the left. They are correcting a trend to the right that
accelerated with Reagan: the rise of corporate dominance and societal control; the loss of
worker rights, healthcare and protections through destruction of our unions; and the mass
incarceration of our nation's young African American men for minor drug offenses, thus
destroying their futures and communities. These "left" liberals are fighting to bring back
democratic norms and values that were once taken for granted among those of all political
stripes.
I have always voted in every primary. I have always voted for the most "leftist" available.
So did my whole family, and all the people with whom I discussed our voting. The issue was
always "most leftist available." That often was not very leftist at all. That is what has
changed. Now the option is there. It isn't because we vote for it. We vote for it now because
now we can, now the choice is there. What has changed is not so much the voters as the
invisible primary before anyone asks us voters. What changed is the Overton Window of
potential choices allowed to us. I think voters would have done this a long time ago, if
they'd had the opportunity. So why now? Abject failure of our politics to solve our problems
has been true for decades, so it isn't mere failure. I'd like to think it was voter
rebellion. We just wouldn't vote for their sell outs. Here, that meant Bernie won our
primary, and then we did not turn out for Her. We finally forced it. The money men could not
get away with it anymore.
It is strange that Mr Edsall frames Medicare 4 All , Free College , and higher taxes on
wealthy as RADICAL leftist ideas .. when it fact each of these proposals have the majority of
support from Americans.. The most current poll shows 70% support for Medicare 4 All.. so you
are only radical if you DON'T support.
Unless the progressives start addressing the concerns of the middle class, they will drive
the Democratic Party right off the cliff. You remember us, don't you? People who have tried
to do things right and work hard. Granted, our cares and concerns aren't that sexy or
tweetable so it's easy for you newly elected firebrands to overlook us. Don't forget, we are
the ones who will ultimately foot the bills for your giveaways.
The notion that democrats are moving leftward is borne on revisionist history. There's
nothing new or bold being proposed; Zeitz is right on the money.
"Medicare for All, government-guaranteed jobs and a higher minimum wage" I have a question to
all the "progressive" Democratic voices in Congress - how are you going to pay for such an
agenda? Money doesn't just grow on trees. Either you will have to cut funds from another
program, or raise taxes. Most of these progressive people favor raising taxes on the wealthy.
But what is your definition of "wealthy"? $10 million in annual income? $1 million in annual
income? $500k? $200k? Almost all the proposals I have seen coming from progressives involves
increasing tax rates for families making more than $200k, either through higher rates, phased
out deductions, or ineligibility for certain programs. A professional couple where both are
software engineers could easily surpass this threshold, but they are not rich. They struggle
to pay the mortgage, save for the future, pay taxes, and provide for their children. Why
should they be forced to pay more in taxes percentage-wise than a family earning $100k or
$60k? It is for these reasons that I as an independent will never support progressive
candidates. These candidates lack basic math abilities and a basic notion of fairness. So if
the Democratic party starts to embrace some of the policies espoused by these progressives,
they are on a path to lose elections in the future. 1 Reply
@AutumnLeaf Mitch McConnell blocked Obama at every turn; he denied him the appointment of a
moderate respected Judge to the SC, a Judge the GOP had voted for on the Superior Court.
Congress wasted time with 40 attempts to declare the ACA unconstitutional; the Plan was
modeled on a Romney Plan in MA. Scalia's Citizens United Decision declared that corporations
are people; Scalia knew that he was using a Superior Ct. Decision with a transcription error:
word spoken: corporation; word transcribed: individual. Scalia spent a lot of time at
corporate lodges, "hunting"; mainly eating until he finally ate himself to death. McConnell
spends his time with mine owners. Trump spends his time with lobbyists for Israel and Saudi
Arabia. 9 Replies
I think this article underscores the incredible opportunity available to the left if they
pick a radical democratic socialist candidate. If they are already winning the college
educated crowd that is gentrifying these major urban areas and losing the poorer minority
crowd that is voting for people like the Clinton's over Sanders or Crowley over AOC; we are
getting the people whom one would think would be less incentivized to vote for our platform
and we can gain the people who would benefit more from our platform.Therefore, it is really
just a question of exposure and talking to these people. Reaching out to minorities; talking
about mass-incarceration, how it disproportinately affects precisely these minority voters
that we have to gain; and how the moderate democrats have been benefiting economically and
politically from the chaos and inequities in these communities for years. It is a question of
messaging. Minorities are our natural allies. They are disproportinately affected by the
inequality; and as soon as we can reach them; tell them that there brothers, husbands, sons
are coming home, and that we have a job for them to support their family when they do, that
is a huge % of voters that will swing our way, and accelerate the pace of our revolution--and
what critics will come to remember as the end of their decadence and control over all facets
of society, to the detriment of everyone else. The end is coming--and a new, better society
is on the verge of being reborn 1 Reply
Of all of those quoted in this article, the only one who really gets it right is Joshua
Zeitz. FDR's 1944 State of the Union address should be required reading for every Democrat,
and every Establishment talking head who warns against alienating suburban voters by
advocating for a New Deal social safety net. I share the sentiments of many on who have
responded by noting that it was, and is, the leadership of the Democratic Party that has
moved right rather than the Democratic electorate that shifted left. Don't believe me? Go
back through the sixteen years of the Clinton and Obama presidencies and see how many times
each referenced Ronald Reagan versus even mentioning Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, or
Lyndon Johnson.
Medicare for all? Get ready for 6-week waits for a 10 minute appointment (and that will be
just for primary care). After that, expect to wait 6-12 months to see a specialist. 1 Reply
@José Franco I will not dig out social security trustees' projections of future
funding requirements or the possible solutions bandied about by politicians (google them),
but one single tweak would eliminate any projected shortfalls. Currently the FICA
contribution is limited to earnings of $132,900. Those who earn over that amount pay no FICA
tax on the earnings above that level. The person earning a million dollars in 2019 will stop
paying FICA on his earnings by mid-February. Applying FICA to all earnings of all earners
would keep social security solvent. No raise in retirement age, no reduction in benefits, no
insolvency. As to Medicare's solvency and public benefits, see the excellent comments of Len
Charlap. 17 Replies
There are several issues upon which I and my like-minded moderate family members will cast
our votes in 2020: - Border security and the end to the brazen exploitation of our citizenry
by the millions of foreign migrants who illegally, and with an attitude of entitlement,
trespass into our sovereign country year after year...costing our taxpayers billions. -
Reckless proposals to increase government benefit programs that aren't affordable without
raising taxes, threatening our already stressed social security safety net. - The rise of
Antisemitism and the mendacious obsession with Israel amongst leftists within Congress, as
well as within the ranks of their constituents. Democrats will need to address these issues
to our satisfaction if they want our votes. 2 Replies
Ed, it's time to retire. If you spent time looking at the actual data, Democratic primary
voters, particularly those in overly restrictive closed primary states like New York, are
older, wealthier, "socially liberal" and "fiscally conservative." They are what we would have
called moderate/Rockefeller Republicans 40 years ago, but they vote Democratic because that's
who their parents voted for. Most progressive voters today, the ones who support Medicare for
all, investment in public higher education, taxation on wealth (you know, those pesky issues
that mainstream Democrats used to support 30-40 years ago) are younger and more likely to be
unaffiliated with any political party. This is why Bernie did much better in states with open
primaries, and Hillary did better in closed primary states like NY AOC won in spite of NY's
restrictive primary system. She was able to achieve this because many of the older Democratic
establishment voters who would have voted for Crowley stayed home, and she was able to
motivate enough first-time young voters in her district to register as a Dem and vote for
her. (First time voters in NY can register with party 30 days prior to primary election)
Let's be clear though: your premise that Dem primary voters are driving the party's shift to
the left couldn't be further from the truth--the progressive shift in the body politic you
describe is coming from younger, independent, working class voters and is redefining the
American left.
From the NYT , Edsall April 19, 2018 The Democrats' Gentrification Problem "Conversely, in
the struggling Syracuse metropolitan area (Clinton 53.9 percent, Trump 40.1 percent),
families moving in between 2005 and 2016 had median household incomes of $35,219 -- $7,229
less than the median income of the families moving out of the region, $42,448." Syracuse, a
democratic City in one of the most democratic States in the US, so assuredly democratic that
Democratic Presidential candidates rarely show up has been left by the Democrats and the
Democratic Governor ,Cuomo, in a death spiral of getting poorer by the day That in a State,
that includes NYC, the international capital of the global billionaire elite. Exactly, what
have the Democrats done to help ?
"Sawhill argues that if the goal of Democrats is victory, as opposed to ideological purity,
they must focus on general election swing voters who are not die-hard Democrats." Wow, what
an original argument! I have been hearing the exact same thing since I registered to vote at
age 18 in 1977. Democrats are always urged to support the "sensible, centrist" candidates who
keep on losing elections to Republicans who drag their party, and the whole country by
default, even further to the right. JFK was called a communist and worse by pundits like this
and he would have won by a landslide in 1964. How about if Democrats for once push for
policies that are backed by 90 percent of Americans, like Medicare For All, the higher
minimum wage, universal college education, renewable energy and the rest of the Green New
Deal and higher marginal tax rates for the rich. I would love to see just one presidential
candidate run on this platform before I die so I can fill out my ballot without holding my
nose. 1 Reply
Kind of make sense considering how far to the right the Republican Party has gone with the
Donald. And he's a guy who was a Democrat at one point. He's a dangerous mr nobody. Let's
counter going far to the left so we can come back to some middle ground.
@Len Charlap Canada can also more easily afford universal healthcare and a stronger social
safety net because it doesn't have the outsized military budget that we do. 17 Replies
@Ronny I agree with you - have a subsidized education - (rather I prefer to say equal access
to education) as well as health care guarantees to a greater extent equality of opportunity -
which is what all democratic societies should strive for. It's not equality of outcome but
equality of opportunity. Children should not be punished for have parents of lesser means or
being born on the wrong side of the tracks...
Until I see well-crafted legislation that is initiated by her that will help improve the
lives of many she's just another politician with sound bite platitudes. She doesn't even have
a district office in the Bronx yet to the chagrin of many of the constituents.
@Midwest Josh Perhaps student loans made by the FED at the rates they charge the big banks in
their heist of the American economy achieved back in 1913. 38 Replies
AOC is a liberal darling who's stated (on 60 Minutes) that unemployment rates are low because
everyone is working two jobs; I might add, that has nothing to do with how unemployment rates
are figured and come on, "everyone?" And recently she's stated that the world will end in 12
years if we don't do something about climate change. Come on, this is silliness, ignorance
and borderline stupidity. If she's the poster child for the Democrats, then she's the gift
that will keep on giving to the GOP.
I grew up during the Vietnam War, and over the years came to admire the American people who
ultimately forced their government to withdraw from an immoral (and disastrous) military
adventure. This is rare in human history. Rare in American history too, as the follies in
Iraq drag on and on to remind us. Perhaps the American people are becoming themselves again.
I wouldn't call it drifting left at all.
Thomas Edsall's column is yet another conservative spin on Democrats from The New York Times.
Where are the voices of progressive Democrats, who form the overwhelming majority of New York
City residents? Of New York state residents? Who form the core of the Democratic Party's
support. The Times insists that these conservative voices are the only ones deserving of
publication here. Where in the world did the notion come from that The Times was a "liberal"
publication?
@Chris Young, It seems you aonly approve of departments that teach what you consider
"productive." If schools become an adjuct to the marketplace, then only the material,
quantifiable results will be the metric by which the value of education is measured. This
will leave us, as in some ways we are already becoming, a population that emulates robots,
and has no use for critical thinking, ethics, or art. The profit in education is in the
quality of the students it turns out into the world, not on a corporate balance sheet. 38
Replies
It's all good but important to expand the focus on the entirety of the Democrats in Congress
- and the amazing age range and gender mix. The opportunities are vast - an intergenerational
government of forward thinking, principled women and men. Please media pundits - avoid focus
on only 1 or 2. There are brilliant ideas pouring forth - let the ideas from every corner
flow! Remember that the intense media focus on Trump, liberal as well as conservative,
contributed significantly to what happened in election 2016.
If by liberal you mean the circular firing squad of the politics of aggrievement, no. My
politics fall in line with FDR's Second Bill of Rights. Here he describes them in 1944
https://youtu.be/3EZ5bx9AyI4
"...true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security & independence.
"Necessitous men are not free men." People who are hungry & out of a job are the stuff of
which dictatorships are made... We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under
which a new basis of security & prosperity can be established for all -- regardless of
station, race, or creed. Among these are: The right to a useful and remunerative job...; The
right to earn enough to provide adequate food & clothing & recreation; The right of
every farmer to raise & sell his products at a return which will give him & his
family a decent living; The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an
atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition & domination by monopolies at home or
abroad; The right of every family to a decent home; The right to adequate medical care &
the opportunity to achieve & enjoy good health; The right to adequate protection from the
economic fears of old age, sickness, accident & unemployment; The right to a good
education." That is where Democrats used to be. Then came the Corporate Democrats, the DLC
and the Clintons.
This piece misses more than it hits. Where it misses particularly is in it's insistence that
the Class interest of working class Democrats pulls the Party right, rather than left, and
that the insurgents are mostly young, white gentrifying liberals. This is not altogether
false, but misses that many of the gentrifiers are not middle class themselves, but lower
middle class young people with huge college debt who could never dream of living in upper
middle class enclaves like most of the opinion writers in the Time for example. So they move
into the inner city, make it safe for professionals, and then yes, Brooklyn goes white.
Harlem goes white. Berkeley loses its working class majority. Etc. The big problem for the
left of the Democratic Party is not that its mostly young, white and middle class; it is that
the very term "liberal" is now widely understood by working class people as meaning
"establishment." And they are against the "establishment". As it happens, so are the young
insurgents. This then is the task for the left of the Democrats; to unite the culturally
conservative working class with the emerging multi-racial, multi-ethnic youth vote to take
down both the reactionary Right and the Liberal establishment. And the only reason such a
sentiment seems crazy is that the New York Times, far from being a bastion of the resistance
to Trump is actually a bulwark of that Liberal Establishment. Stats are stats but the future
is unwritten.
AOC is pretty interesting. She's charismatic, fearless....and I'm trying to think of
something else. OH, she's personally attractive. If the government gig falls apart she can
probably get TV work. But as an intellectual light or a rational political leader -- she is
clearly lacking. OF course that may not matter as the earth will come to an end in 12 years.
Which is even more ludicrous than saying the earth is only 6000 years old. She is simply
spouting far left talking points which are driven by emotion, not rational thought. And she
keeps making unforced errors in her public speaking engagements. She really doesn't appear to
understand what she's talking about and can't respond to reasonable questions about her
policy positions. But then, that's not too unlike much of the left. So maybe she's a perfect
fit for a fact free faction which is beginning to run the dem party. 1 Reply
One commenter gave a really insightful look at socialism for corporations and the rich here,
otherwise known to most of us as corporate welfare, including subsidies to oil companies, who
seem rich enough, but nevertheless, extend their "impoverished" bank accounts for more of our
dollars. Successful corporations, will reward investors, CEO's, hedge fund managers, all
those at the top, but the worker, not too much for that drone, who was part of the reason of
the success of that corporation. Socialism has been tainted by countries with autocratic
rulers , uneducated masses, and ofttimes, as in Latin America, religious masses. But,
Scandinavia, has shown us a socialism to envy. It's confident citizens know that much of what
makes life livable has been achieved. Finland rates as one of the happiest countries in the
world. Taxes are high, but one isn't bankrupted because of illness, one doesn't lose a home
because of a catastrophic illness, education is encouraged, and one doesn't have to pay the
debt off for 30 years or more. The infrastructure is a priority, war is not. It just seems
like it's a secure way to live. This is socialism I wish we could duplicate. Does anyone
consider that socialism also includes our police, libraries, fire stations, roads, and so
much more? Used for the good of society, it's a boon for all, rather than unregulated
capitalism which enriches the few at the expense of most of us. 3 Replies
@Reilly Diefenbach "Democratic socialism" isn't a thing, but implies two contradictory
ideals. Social democracy is thing, a good thing, and in line with what Nordic nations have.
38 Replies
Never has someone gotta so much for doing so little. None of this means anything if it
doesn't become law. As a life long Liberal Democrat (there, I said it) myself, I find it
infuriating when Liberal/Progressive politicians get out-sized credit for their good
intentions while those same good intentions threaten party unity. The Progressive idea of
party unity seems to be limited to getting what they want or they'll walk away. They just
know better, so there's no need for compromise. Never mind that they have no way of enacting
any of this legislation -- and more often than not Progressives lose at the polls. These
"kids" need to wake up and realize that there are no moral victories in politics. The ONLY
goal of any Democrat has to be unseating Trump and McConnell, everything else is a noise, and
a dangerous distraction.
I support universal health care, free college for students who meet enhanced entrance
requirements and raising marginal tax rates to 70% on wealthy Americans. Yet I do not support
an expansion of the EITC, ending immigration enforcement or putting workers on boards of
directors. So where do I stand? All my life I've voted Democratic. But there has been a
seismic shift in politics. And after the shift I will most likely vote Republican or for a
third party. The issue that causes my change in affiliation is the Me Too movement. I find it
repugnant that feminists seem to argue that the media rather than the courts should determine
guilt or innocence in sexual assault cases. Bill Cosby had an agreement with Andrea Constand
in their case. But feminists weren't happy with the outcome. So they resorted to extra-legal
means to get Cosby convicted. This included a media campaign in which the NY Times and the
New Yorker wrote stories highlighting accusations of 60 women for which statutes of
limitations had elapsed. But statutes of limitations are there for a reason. This became
clear in the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh which degenerated into a trial for rape. Nobody
except maybe the accuser could remember in any detail events at the party in which the rape
had presumably occurred. So the confirmation became one of character assassination in which
Kavanaugh was convicted of drinking beer. I will NEVER vote for any politician who supports
the Me Too movement.
"... protection from the vicissitudes of market capitalism"? People want protection from
monopoly capitalism. The left-right frame is a fallacy. If you put the actual policies on the
table, the great majority want single payer, clean elections, action on climate change, etc.
Pitting Left v. Right only redounds to tribalism. It ends up with a President who shuts down
the business of which he himself is the CEO. That's not great.
"... "The goal for America is both simpler and more elusive than mere prosperity," Carlson told his audience. "Dignity. Purpose. Self-control. Independence. Above all, deep relationships with other people." ..."
"... Our leaders don't care. We are ruled by mercenaries who feel no long-term obligation to the people they rule. They're day traders. Substitute teachers. They're just passing through. They have no skin in this game, and it shows. They can't solve our problems. They don't even bother to understand our problems. ..."
"... The idea that families are being crushed by market forces seems never to occur to them. They refuse to consider it. Questioning markets feels like apostasy. Both sides miss the obvious point: Culture and economics are inseparably intertwined. Certain economic systems allow families to thrive. Thriving families make market economies possible. ..."
"... You'd think our ruling class would be interested in knowing the answer. But mostly they're not. They don't have to be interested. It's easier to import foreign labor to take the place of native-born Americans who are slipping behind. ..."
"... The project of fashioning an ethnoreligious American identity has always been in conflict with a dominant and defining American impulse: to get rich. The United States has always been a distinctly commercial republic with expansionary, imperial impulses. ..."
"... rapid cultural change can make a truly common national identity hard to come by, if not impossible. It's not clear to me how important it is to have one. But it does seem that a badly bifurcated cultural self-understanding can have very dramatic and potentially dangerous political consequences. David Cameron imperiled the integrity of the entire European Union by fundamentally misunderstanding the facts about the evolution of British national identity and putting it up for a vote. Donald Trump, you may have noticed, has called for a referendum on American national identity, and he's getting one. ..."
"... Worker solidarity has been on the downturn for many years. In many businesses & industries through the 1960s the possibility existed to be hired without a college degree or advanced training & to rise in responsibility & income through on the job training or by attending night school. ..."
"... What ideas does he have for addressing the negative consequences of capitalism? If not regulation or a functioning welfare state, then what? ..."
"... Condemning the ruling class and then directing all the anger at immigrants, the poor, and minorities is an old political tool. Carlson argues our problems are caused by the most powerless and poorest among us. The richest and most powerful are simply criticized for letting it happen, not designing and ruling the system. ..."
His populist
attacks on the priorities of the "ruling class" have
set off a maelstrom.
Competing notions
of American national identity are coming to
dominate American politics.
On Jan. 2, a
searing
Tucker Carlson monologue
on Fox News
resonated across every corner of the
conservative movement.
"The goal for
America is both simpler and more elusive than
mere prosperity," Carlson told his audience.
"Dignity. Purpose. Self-control. Independence.
Above all, deep relationships with other
people."
Our leaders
don't care. We are ruled by mercenaries who
feel no long-term obligation to the people
they rule. They're day traders. Substitute
teachers. They're just passing through. They
have no skin in this game, and it shows.
They can't solve our problems. They don't
even bother to understand our problems.
The idea that
families are being crushed by market forces
seems never to occur to them. They refuse to
consider it. Questioning markets feels like
apostasy. Both sides miss the obvious point:
Culture and economics are inseparably
intertwined. Certain economic systems allow
families to thrive. Thriving families make
market economies possible.
Carlson pointed
specifically to problems faced by rural white
America, the crucial base of Republican voters:
"Stunning out of wedlock birthrates. High male
unemployment. A terrifying drug epidemic." How,
Carlson asked, "did this happen?"
You'd think
our ruling class would be interested in
knowing the answer. But mostly they're not.
They don't have to be interested. It's
easier to import foreign labor to take the
place of native-born Americans who are
slipping behind.
Despite this
failing of conservatism, Carlson contended that
only the Republican Party can lead the country
back to salvation:
There's no
option at this point. But first, Republican
leaders will have to acknowledge that market
capitalism is not a religion. Market
capitalism is a tool, like a staple gun or a
toaster. You'd have to be a fool to worship
it. Our system was created by human beings
for the benefit of human beings. We do not
exist to serve markets. Just the opposite.
Any economic system that weakens and
destroys families is not worth having. A
system like that is the enemy of a healthy
society.
... ... ...
In addition to
Carlson, one of the
most engaged critics
of the Republican
establishment is
Oren Cass
, a
senior fellow at the
Manhattan Institute
and the author of "
The
Once and Future
Worker
."
In his book, Cass
faults both parties,
but his condemnation
of the Democratic
Party is far harsher
than his critique of
the Republican
Party:
Republicans have
generally
trusted that
free markets
will benefit all
participants,
prized the
higher output
associated with
an 'efficient'
outcome, and
expressed
skepticism that
political actors
could identify
and pursue
better outcomes,
even if any
existed. Their
labor-market
policy could
best be
described as one
of benign
neglect.
Democrats, in
contrast,
can sound
committed to a
more
worker-centric
model of growth,
but rather than
trusting the
market too much,
they trample it.
The party's
actual agenda
centers on the
interests
advanced by its
coalition of
labor unions,
environmentalists,
and identity
groups. Its
policies rely on
an expectation
that government
mandates and
programs will
deliver what the
market does not.
This agenda
inserts
countless
regulatory
wedges that aim
to improve the
conditions of
employment but
in the process
raise its cost,
driving apart
the players that
the market is
attempting to
connect.
In a
Salon review
of "The Once and Future
Worker,"
Samuel Hammond
, director of welfare policy
at the libertarian Niskanen Center -- a
Washington a think tank I
described
last week -- writes:
Indeed, far
from the usual conservative manifesto, 'The
Once and Future Worker,' is a scathing
critique of globalization, open immigration,
and the commoditization of labor -- forces
which Cass believes have ransacked working
class fortunes across three decades of
neoliberal hegemony.
Cass is eager to
place himself at the disposal of both parties.
He was one of 13 ideologically ambidextrous
authors of a joint Brookings-American Enterprise
Institute report, "
Work,
Skills, Community: Restoring Opportunity for the
Working Class
." The November 2018 study
pointed to areas of concord between segments of
the right and the left.
The 13 authors
found common ground on a set of proposals that
call for both more spending and tougher work
requirements. These proposals include expanding
the earned-income tax credit to cover childless
workers, including experimenting with a new wage
subsidy; getting recipients of government
subsidies back to work, including beneficiaries
of means-tested government programs; and
enlarging eligibility for the child and
dependent care tax credit.
While it is
possible, in theory, that Carlson and Cass could
support Democratic candidates, they sharply
disagree with the Democratic Party on the highly
salient issue of immigration.
The United
States should limit increases in its supply
of unskilled immigrant labor. This new
approach would require first and foremost
that criteria for allowing entrance into the
country emphasize education level --
attainment of a college degree, in
particular.
In the case of
undocumented immigrants, Cass's policy would be
to "require unskilled illegal immigrants to
leave."
Carlson is more
extreme. On Dec. 4, Carlson
told viewers
that "a
new analysis of census
data shows that
sixty-three percent of noncitizens in the U.S.
receive some kind of welfare benefits," before
adding:
Every night,
hundreds of thousands of our citizens,
Americans, sleep outdoors on the street,
they're homeless. The country's middle class
is shrinking and dying younger. The third
year in a row. Again, these are American
citizens. Some of them probably think they
should have first dibs on help from the
government, but they're not getting it.
Later that month,
Carlson escalated his claim that immigration was
too costly for Americans:
It's
indefensible, so nobody even tries to defend
it. Instead, our leaders demand that you
shut up and accept this. We have a moral
obligation to admit the world's poor, they
tell us, even if it makes our own country
poor and dirtier and more divided.
... ... ...
In addition to
the discrete conservative factions Cass and
Carlson represent, there is another dissident
wing of conservatism, represented by the
Niskanen Center
, which attempts to
appeal
to
moderates and centrists
of both parties.
"Working within
the broad and diverse intellectual tradition of
liberalism, we are fashioning a new synthesis
that closes the rift within that tradition that
emerged over the question of socialism,"
Brink Lindsey
, the center's vice president
for policy, wrote
in an essay
seeking to explain the broad
goals of the organization.
Lindsey, in
contrast to Cass, is far more critical of the
contemporary right than of the left.
Over the
course of the 21st century, the conservative
movement, and with it the Republican Party,
has fallen ever more deeply under the sway
of an illiberal and nihilistic populism --
illiberal in its crude exploitation of
religious, racial, and cultural divisions;
nihilistic in its blithe indifference to
governance and the established norms and
institutions of representative
self-government. This malignant development
made possible the nomination and election of
Donald Trump, whose two years in power have
only accelerated conservatism's and the
GOP's descent into the intellectual and
moral gutter.
Despite his
severe view of the Republican Party, Lindsey
contends that the goal of the Niskanen think
tank is the "reimagining of the center-right":
It is our
goal to make the case for a principled
center-right in American politics today that
is distinctly different from either movement
conservatism or its degenerate, populist
offshoot.
One question, of
course is, what kind of policy options a
center-right think tank can offer to disaffected
voters on matters involving race and
immigration, subjects that help drive the very
polarization they regret.
One of Tucker
Carlson's own primary concerns is immigration --
and, as a likely subtext, race.
Carlson argues
that capitalism is "not a religion but a tool
like a toaster or staple gun." He is focusing
attention, in fact, on the
godless capitalism
that Will Wilkinson of
the Niskanen Center, described in "How
Godless
Capitalism Made America
Multicultural" -- a problem that Wilkinson
correctly points out affects "all wealthy,
liberal-democratic countries."
Wilkinson
explains:
The project
of fashioning an ethnoreligious American
identity has always been in conflict with a
dominant and defining American impulse: to
get rich. The United States has always been
a distinctly commercial republic with
expansionary, imperial impulses. High demand
for workers and settlers led early on to a
variegated population that encouraged the
idea, largely traceable to Tom Paine, that
American national identity is civic and
ideological rather than racial and ethnic.
Contemporary
political polarization reflects the
intensification of the endless struggle to
integrate America and, more recently, to
assimilate millions of newcomers, some legal,
some not.
Wilkinson
addresses this conundrum:
Assimilation
is an issue not because it isn't happening,
but because it is. The issue is that the
post-1968 immigrants and their progeny are
here at all. And their successful
assimilation means that American culture,
and American national identity, has already
been updated and transformed.
This process can
be very hard for some people, especially white
voters over 50 (a strong Trump constituency) to
accept:
Swift and
dramatic cultural changes can leave us with
the baffled feeling that the soil in which
we laid down roots has somehow become
foreign. Older people who have largely lost
the capacity to easily assimilate to a new
culture can feel that the rug has been
pulled out from under them.
The result,
according to Wilkinson, to whom I will give the
last word, is that
rapid
cultural change can make a truly common
national identity hard to come by, if not
impossible. It's not clear to me
how
important it is to have one. But it does
seem that a badly bifurcated cultural
self-understanding can have very dramatic
and potentially dangerous political
consequences. David Cameron imperiled the
integrity of the entire European Union by
fundamentally misunderstanding the facts
about the evolution of British national
identity and putting it up for a vote.
Donald Trump, you may have noticed, has
called for a referendum on American national
identity, and he's getting one.
Worker solidarity has
been on the downturn for
many years. In many
businesses & industries
through the 1960s the
possibility existed to
be hired without a
college degree or
advanced training & to
rise in responsibility &
income through on the
job training or by
attending night school.
It was not uncommon for
department heads to have
started at the bottom.
The acceleration of
disparity & the
breakdown in employee
cooperation happened
during the yuppie
explosion beginning in
the Reagan era.
Disparagement of those
in the rank & file by
phalanxes of greedy,
arrogant Geckos, always
present previously, but
now greatly expanded,
led to dissolution of an
egalitarian structure
based on strong labor
unions. Today with
outsourcing, automation
& largely unrestricted
immigration leading a
race to the economic
bottom, the service
sector will be the only
place for millions of
Americans. With every
passing year, however,
memories will cease of
better times & the young
will have no reference
other than the
historical record of
another way.
Carlson is absolutely
right about capitalism.
But his rejection of
liberal ideas is just a
way to pivot the focus
onto his usual
xenophobia. What ideas
does he have for
addressing the negative
consequences of
capitalism? If not
regulation or a
functioning welfare
state, then what? All
he's doing is setting up
an argument for
intensifying an
anti-immigrant ethos
that inevitably turns
its crosshairs on the
usual domestic
scapegoats. If he has no
ideas except to insist
Democrats can't be
trusted, then he's just
going to reignite the
old racism. I agree with
him on capitalism but I
am not buying what he's
selling.
Corporate America has
spent millions warning
people against the evils
of socialism and 'big
brother government'.
Their goal is for the
citizens to remove the
shackles of the above
mentioned suppressors of
human dignity and
initiatives. Accept,
instead, the caring,
benevolent dictates of
corporate rule. They,
and only they, know what
is good for you.
Condemning the ruling
class and then directing
all the anger at
immigrants, the poor,
and minorities is an old
political tool. Carlson
argues our problems are
caused by the most
powerless and poorest
among us. The richest
and most powerful are
simply criticized for
letting it happen, not
designing and ruling the
system.
Carlson's
solution to inequality
and powerlessness is to
let poor whites become
farm workers, maids, and
hotel service workers.
He wants people to fight
over welfare crumbs
rather than
reestablishing a healthy
social safety net.
Blaming the rich while
attacking the poor and
minorities is how
fascism came to power.
Tucker ,,,, you are kind of restoring what little faith i had left of the mainstream press
with this upload its not mutch and it has a long long way to go , but it is a start thank the
guy in the sky
I just upvoted a Tucker Carlson video. I am baffled. BTW, Jimmy Dore said TC's more
deserving of a Noble peace prize then Obama, who, of course, never should have had one in the
first place. They should be able to take them back, though it means that most of them should
be returned.
I just upvoted a Tucker Carlson video. I am baffled. BTW, Jimmy Dore said TC's more
deserving of a Noble peace prize then Obama, who, of course, never should have had one in the
first place. They should be able to take them back, though it means that most of them should
be returned.
Tucker i disagreed with u in past on many things but i genuinely am impressed with your
stance and your moral compass on wars and learning from the past.. kudos to u on this
one...it shows we can disagree on many policies yet still respect and support one another on
humanity. Glad u worked on Trump on that one.
Looks like Bolton is dyed-in-the-wool imperialist. He believes the United States can do what wants without regard to
international law, treaties or the роlitical commitments of previous administrations.
Notable quotes:
"... Israel is an Anglo American aircraft carrier to control the Eastern Mediterranean ..."
...Zionists know what they want, are willing to work together towards their goals, and put their money where their mouth
is. In contrast, for a few pennies the goyim will renounce any principle they pretend to cherish, and go on happily proclaiming
the opposite even if a short while down the road it'll get their own children killed.
The real sad part about this notion of the goy as a mere beast in human form is maybe not that it got codified for eternity
in the Talmud, but rather that there may be some truth to it? Another way of saying this is raising the question whether the goyim
deserve better, given what we see around us.
Israel is an Anglo American aircraft carrier to control the Eastern Mediterranean and prevent a Turko Egyptian and possibly Persian
invasion of Greece & the West
Looks like Bolton is dyed-in-the-wool imperialist. He believes the United States can do what wants without regard to
international law, treaties or the роlitical commitments of previous administrations.
Notable quotes:
"... Israel is an Anglo American aircraft carrier to control the Eastern Mediterranean ..."
...Zionists know what they want, are willing to work together towards their goals, and put their money where their mouth
is. In contrast, for a few pennies the goyim will renounce any principle they pretend to cherish, and go on happily proclaiming
the opposite even if a short while down the road it'll get their own children killed.
The real sad part about this notion of the goy as a mere beast in human form is maybe not that it got codified for eternity
in the Talmud, but rather that there may be some truth to it? Another way of saying this is raising the question whether the goyim
deserve better, given what we see around us.
Israel is an Anglo American aircraft carrier to control the Eastern Mediterranean and prevent a Turko Egyptian and possibly Persian
invasion of Greece & the West
We must not let President Trump, John Bolton or any member of the State Department pull us
into war with Iran. Now, I've introduced a bill called the "No More Presidential Wars
Act" to stop Trump -- and all Presidents, Democrats and Republicans alike -- from pulling
us into a war without approval from Congress.
"... Every interview Bernie does is a minefield of loaded questions and false dichotomies. No other candidate faces interrogation like Bernie does. ..."
"... If you are planning to vote for a centrist in the democratic primary, it means that you are unable or unwilling to learn from past mistakes. ..."
"... Compare this to other Democratic Face the Nation low ball interviews. You can see who the MSM really hates ..."
Margaret Brennan sat down with 2020 presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders on the
campaign trail in Columbia, South Carolina.
... ... ...
---
"Face the Nation" is America's premier Sunday morning public affairs program. The broadcast is
one of the longest-running news programs in the history of television, having debuted November
7, 1954 on CBS. Every Sunday, "Face the Nation" moderator and CBS News senior foreign affairs
correspondent Margaret Brennan welcomes leaders, newsmakers, and experts to a lively round
table discussion of current events and the latest news.
Bernie always gets grilled harder than any other candidate during these interviews. They
always give Bernie the tough questions about policy and just lob softball questions at people
like Biden and Kamala.
Bernie Sanders suggested that the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq was "the worst foreign policy
blunder in the history of the country." Bernie you ain't seen nothing yet, if those slavering
imbeciles have anything to do with it. The costs [including long term costs] of the
Iraq/Afghan wars [still ongoing] are estimated at 6 Trillion dollars. Here is what just one
Trillion dollars looks like http://www.pagetutor.com/trillion/index.html
"Yet the nation's longest and most expensive war is the one that is still going on. In
addition to nearly 7,000 troops killed, the 16-year conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan will
cost an estimated US$6 trillion due to its prolonged length, rapidly increasing veterans
health care and disability costs and interest on war borrowing. On this Memorial Day, we
should begin to confront the staggering cost and the challenge of paying for this war".
Looks like Bolton is dyed-in-the-wool imperialist. He believes the United States can do what wants without regard to
international law, treaties or the роlitical commitments of previous administrations.
Notable quotes:
"... Israel is an Anglo American aircraft carrier to control the Eastern Mediterranean ..."
...Zionists know what they want, are willing to work together towards their goals, and put their money where their mouth
is. In contrast, for a few pennies the goyim will renounce any principle they pretend to cherish, and go on happily proclaiming
the opposite even if a short while down the road it'll get their own children killed.
The real sad part about this notion of the goy as a mere beast in human form is maybe not that it got codified for eternity
in the Talmud, but rather that there may be some truth to it? Another way of saying this is raising the question whether the goyim
deserve better, given what we see around us.
Israel is an Anglo American aircraft carrier to control the Eastern Mediterranean and prevent a Turko Egyptian and possibly Persian
invasion of Greece & the West
Tucker! You are a hero of the American Conservative movement. Perhaps the President saw
your show when he cancelled those attacks. You need to target the snakes around Trump:
Bolton, Pompeo and CIA Gina.
That does not change the fact that Trump foreign policy is a continuation of Obama fogirn policy. It is neocon forign policy directed
on "full spectrum dominance". Trump just added to this bulling to the mix.
Notable quotes:
"... When pressed on the dangers of having such an uber-hawk neo-conservative who remains an unapologetic cheerleader of the 2003 Iraq War, and who laid the ground work for it as a member of Bush's National Security Council, Trump followed with, "That doesn't matter because I want both sides." ..."
"... I was against going into Iraq... I was against going into the Middle East . Chuck we've spent 7 trillion dollars in the Middle East right now. ..."
"... Bolton has never kept his career-long goal of seeing regime change in Tehran a secret - repeating his position publicly every chance he got, especially in the years prior to tenure at the Trump White House. ..."
"... Bolton! So much winning! And there's also Perry: Rick Perry, Trump's energy secretary, was flagged for describing Trumpism as a "toxic mix of demagoguery, mean-spiritedness, and nonsense that will lead the Republican Party to perdition." ..."
"... Trump National Security Advisor John Bolton was one of the architects of the Iraq War under George W. Bush, and now he's itching to start a war with Iran -- an even bigger country with almost three times the population. ..."
In a stunningly frank moment during a Sunday
Meet the Press interview focused on President Trump's decision-making on Iran, especially last week's "brink of war" moment which
saw Trump draw down readied military forces in what he said was a "common sense" move, the commander in chief threw his own national
security advisor under the bus in spectacular fashion .
Though it's not Trump's first tongue-in-cheek denigration of Bolton's notorious hawkishness, it's certainly the most brutal and
blunt take down yet, and frankly just plain enjoyable to watch. When host Chuck Todd asked the president if he was "being pushed
into military action against Iran" by his advisers in what was clearly a question focused on Bolton first and foremost, Trump responded:
"John Bolton is absolutely a hawk. If it was up to him he'd take on the whole world at one time, okay?"
Trump began by explaining, "I have two groups of people. I have doves and I have hawks," before leading into this sure to be classic
line that is one for the history books: "If it was up to him he'd take on the whole world at one time, okay?"
During this section of comments focused on US policy in the Middle East, the president reiterated his preference that he hear
from "both sides" on an issue, but that he was ultimately the one making the decisions.
When pressed on the dangers of having such an uber-hawk neo-conservative who remains an unapologetic cheerleader of the 2003 Iraq
War, and who laid the ground work for it as a member of Bush's National Security Council, Trump followed with, "That doesn't matter
because I want both sides."
And in another clear indicator that Trump wants to stay true to his non-interventionist instincts voiced on the 2016 campaign
trail, he explained to Todd that:
I was against going into Iraq... I was against going into the Middle East . Chuck we've spent 7 trillion dollars in the Middle
East right now.
It was the second time this weekend that Trump was forced to defend his choice of Bolton as the nation's most influential foreign
policy thinker and adviser. When peppered with questions at the White House Saturday following Thursday night's dramatic "almost
war" with Iran, Trump said that he "disagrees" with Bolton "very much" but that ultimately he's "doing a very good job".
Bolton has never kept his career-long goal of seeing regime change in Tehran a secret - repeating his position publicly every
chance he got, especially in the years prior to tenure at the Trump White House.
But Bolton hasn't had a good past week: not only had Trump on Thursday night shut the door on Bolton's dream of overseeing a major
US military strike on Iran, but he's been pummeled in the media.
Even a Fox prime time show (who else but Tucker of course) colorfully described him as a "bureaucratic tapeworm" which periodically
reemerges to cause pain and suffering.
It's great that the biggest war mongers are the ones that not only never served but in the case of Bolton, purposely avoided
serving. They should send that ****** to Iran so we can see just how supportive he is when he's actually in danger.
This guy is a worthless piece of **** and Trump's an idiot for hiring him.
Being a cheerleader for the Iraq war is as ridiculous as that ******* mustache. He's just letting neocons have a front row
seat to power. That's how he's keeping them from jumping ship to become democrats. They have no principles. They're just power
worshippers.
Do ya all remember when Trump took office? Losers use military strategy that is overwhelming bombardment b4 land attack. I
thought that Donnie can not survive this pressure. Looks like now he is riding horse with banner in hands. Thumb up, MJT
I was against going into the Middle East...$7 Trillion? So why is Jared trying to give away $50 Billion more? People thought
they voted for MAGA, but they got Jared...MMEGA.
How about MJANYA?...Make Jared a New Yorker Again. Send Jared and Ivanka back to New York before it's $10 Trillion.
Bolton! So much winning! And there's also Perry: Rick Perry, Trump's energy secretary, was flagged for describing Trumpism
as a "toxic mix of demagoguery, mean-spiritedness, and nonsense that will lead the Republican Party to perdition."
Trump "unleashes"? For those who think, he also said Bolton is doing a good job. Crap headline. I think Solomon said, "In a
multitude of counselors there is victory".
What kind of unprofessional dingus talks openly about employee issues? That's not how you run a organization. That's how you
run a reality television show.
Sides? I could hire Hobo Joe, the bum that huffs paint and drinks scotch out of plastic bottle while yelling at traffic by
the intersection, as my advisor. He'd probably tell me to do some whacky stuff. But why would I do that?
There is no side to hear. Bomb everyone. That is John Bolton's side. It isn't worth hearing. The man shouldn't be drawing a
paycheck. He shouldn't be drawing breath. He should be pushing up daisies. He the same as ISIS.
Reading is fundamental....and certainly not needed to spout opinions. In fact, reading, combined with critical thinking, logic
and reason, just gets in the way of forming opinions. Or should I say "repeating" other's opinions.
"Chuck we've spent 7 trillion dollars in the Middle East right now."....Yes, just like your *** bosses wanted and needed and
you dumb ******* sheep still think voting matters.
Trump National Security Advisor John Bolton was one of the architects of the Iraq War under George W. Bush, and now he's
itching to start a war with Iran -- an even bigger country with almost three times the population.
Democrats in Congress have the power to pull us back from the brink , but they need to act now. Once bombs start falling and
troops are on the ground, there will be massive political pressure to rally around the flag.
That does not change the fact that Trump foreign policy is a continuation of Obama fogirn policy. It is neocon forign policy directed
on "full spectrum dominance". Trump just added to this bulling to the mix.
Notable quotes:
"... When pressed on the dangers of having such an uber-hawk neo-conservative who remains an unapologetic cheerleader of the 2003 Iraq War, and who laid the ground work for it as a member of Bush's National Security Council, Trump followed with, "That doesn't matter because I want both sides." ..."
"... I was against going into Iraq... I was against going into the Middle East . Chuck we've spent 7 trillion dollars in the Middle East right now. ..."
"... Bolton has never kept his career-long goal of seeing regime change in Tehran a secret - repeating his position publicly every chance he got, especially in the years prior to tenure at the Trump White House. ..."
"... Bolton! So much winning! And there's also Perry: Rick Perry, Trump's energy secretary, was flagged for describing Trumpism as a "toxic mix of demagoguery, mean-spiritedness, and nonsense that will lead the Republican Party to perdition." ..."
"... Trump National Security Advisor John Bolton was one of the architects of the Iraq War under George W. Bush, and now he's itching to start a war with Iran -- an even bigger country with almost three times the population. ..."
In a stunningly frank moment during a Sunday
Meet the Press interview focused on President Trump's decision-making on Iran, especially last week's "brink of war" moment which
saw Trump draw down readied military forces in what he said was a "common sense" move, the commander in chief threw his own national
security advisor under the bus in spectacular fashion .
Though it's not Trump's first tongue-in-cheek denigration of Bolton's notorious hawkishness, it's certainly the most brutal and
blunt take down yet, and frankly just plain enjoyable to watch. When host Chuck Todd asked the president if he was "being pushed
into military action against Iran" by his advisers in what was clearly a question focused on Bolton first and foremost, Trump responded:
"John Bolton is absolutely a hawk. If it was up to him he'd take on the whole world at one time, okay?"
Trump began by explaining, "I have two groups of people. I have doves and I have hawks," before leading into this sure to be classic
line that is one for the history books: "If it was up to him he'd take on the whole world at one time, okay?"
During this section of comments focused on US policy in the Middle East, the president reiterated his preference that he hear
from "both sides" on an issue, but that he was ultimately the one making the decisions.
When pressed on the dangers of having such an uber-hawk neo-conservative who remains an unapologetic cheerleader of the 2003 Iraq
War, and who laid the ground work for it as a member of Bush's National Security Council, Trump followed with, "That doesn't matter
because I want both sides."
And in another clear indicator that Trump wants to stay true to his non-interventionist instincts voiced on the 2016 campaign
trail, he explained to Todd that:
I was against going into Iraq... I was against going into the Middle East . Chuck we've spent 7 trillion dollars in the Middle
East right now.
It was the second time this weekend that Trump was forced to defend his choice of Bolton as the nation's most influential foreign
policy thinker and adviser. When peppered with questions at the White House Saturday following Thursday night's dramatic "almost
war" with Iran, Trump said that he "disagrees" with Bolton "very much" but that ultimately he's "doing a very good job".
Bolton has never kept his career-long goal of seeing regime change in Tehran a secret - repeating his position publicly every
chance he got, especially in the years prior to tenure at the Trump White House.
But Bolton hasn't had a good past week: not only had Trump on Thursday night shut the door on Bolton's dream of overseeing a major
US military strike on Iran, but he's been pummeled in the media.
Even a Fox prime time show (who else but Tucker of course) colorfully described him as a "bureaucratic tapeworm" which periodically
reemerges to cause pain and suffering.
It's great that the biggest war mongers are the ones that not only never served but in the case of Bolton, purposely avoided
serving. They should send that ****** to Iran so we can see just how supportive he is when he's actually in danger.
This guy is a worthless piece of **** and Trump's an idiot for hiring him.
Being a cheerleader for the Iraq war is as ridiculous as that ******* mustache. He's just letting neocons have a front row
seat to power. That's how he's keeping them from jumping ship to become democrats. They have no principles. They're just power
worshippers.
Do ya all remember when Trump took office? Losers use military strategy that is overwhelming bombardment b4 land attack. I
thought that Donnie can not survive this pressure. Looks like now he is riding horse with banner in hands. Thumb up, MJT
I was against going into the Middle East...$7 Trillion? So why is Jared trying to give away $50 Billion more? People thought
they voted for MAGA, but they got Jared...MMEGA.
How about MJANYA?...Make Jared a New Yorker Again. Send Jared and Ivanka back to New York before it's $10 Trillion.
Bolton! So much winning! And there's also Perry: Rick Perry, Trump's energy secretary, was flagged for describing Trumpism
as a "toxic mix of demagoguery, mean-spiritedness, and nonsense that will lead the Republican Party to perdition."
Trump "unleashes"? For those who think, he also said Bolton is doing a good job. Crap headline. I think Solomon said, "In a
multitude of counselors there is victory".
What kind of unprofessional dingus talks openly about employee issues? That's not how you run a organization. That's how you
run a reality television show.
Sides? I could hire Hobo Joe, the bum that huffs paint and drinks scotch out of plastic bottle while yelling at traffic by
the intersection, as my advisor. He'd probably tell me to do some whacky stuff. But why would I do that?
There is no side to hear. Bomb everyone. That is John Bolton's side. It isn't worth hearing. The man shouldn't be drawing a
paycheck. He shouldn't be drawing breath. He should be pushing up daisies. He the same as ISIS.
Reading is fundamental....and certainly not needed to spout opinions. In fact, reading, combined with critical thinking, logic
and reason, just gets in the way of forming opinions. Or should I say "repeating" other's opinions.
"Chuck we've spent 7 trillion dollars in the Middle East right now."....Yes, just like your *** bosses wanted and needed and
you dumb ******* sheep still think voting matters.
Trump National Security Advisor John Bolton was one of the architects of the Iraq War under George W. Bush, and now he's
itching to start a war with Iran -- an even bigger country with almost three times the population.
Democrats in Congress have the power to pull us back from the brink , but they need to act now. Once bombs start falling and
troops are on the ground, there will be massive political pressure to rally around the flag.
"... Oh, just a limited strike- well, I'm sorry. I just didn't know that it's okay to simply attack another country with bombs just a limited strike- that's an act of warfare. ..."
MARGARET BRENNAN: I want to ask you about Iran. Was President Trump's decision this week
to call off that strike the right one?
SEN. SANDERS: See, it's like somebody setting a fire to a basket full of paper and then
putting it out. He helped create the crisis and then he stopped the attacks. The idea that
we're looking at the president of the United States who number one, thinks that a war., with
Iran is something that might be good for this country.
MARGARET BRENNAN: He was just doing a limited strike of just a limited strike.
SEN. SANDERS:Oh, just a limited strike- well, I'm sorry. I just didn't know that it's
okay to simply attack another country with bombs just a limited strike- that's an act of
warfare.
So two points. That will set off a conflagration all over the Middle East. If you
think the war is either- the war in Iraq, Margaret was a disaster I believe from the bottom
of my heart that the war- a war with Iran would be even worse, more loss of life never ending
war in that region, massive instability. We're talking about, we have been in Afghanistan now
for eighteen years. This thing will never end. So I will do everything I can number one to
stop a war with Iran. And number two here's an important point. Let's remember what we
learned in civics when we were kids. It is the United States Congress, under our
Constitution, that has warmaking authority not the president of the United States. If he
attacks Iran in my view that would be unconstitutional.
Sanders is wrong, Trump has already attacked Iran -- the sanctions are illegal as was his
violation of JCPOA. Unfortunately, those facts are difficult to explain to a
nation--particularly BigLie Media mavens--who've allowed the Outlaw US Empire's illegal
unilateralism to go unchallenged since 1945. That the USA continuously breaks the law has
never surfaced as a--MAINSTREAM-- political issue, although historians like the late William
Blum, myself, Chomsky, Zinn, and a host of others do and have quite often.
IMO, the #1 problem with every POTUS wannabe is their inability to attack and call-out
that longstanding historic fact, although Gabbard's come close--I wrote her team and
explained the entire historical background to the current state-of-affairs.
Sanders speaks of what the Constitution says. But he ignores or is illiterate regarding
the Supremacy Clause and how it alters/adds to/amends what it says--in this case, what the UN
Charter did to legally/constitutionally curtail traditional US behavior of Unilateralism -- it
cannot be done any longer: PERIOD! Rouhani was 1000000000% absolutely correct in pinning the
tail on the US Donkey, just as I've done continuously since I figured it out in the 1980s
while I was still in the US Army Reserves and trying to determine what constituted an illegal
order.
My argument's not with you, Stever; it's with Sanders and the entire Federal Government.
But at least Sanders is articulating a small part of the overall argument, which has waited
too long to be done.
"... The massive student-debt jubilee would be financed with a tax on Wall Street: Specifically, a 0.5% tax on stock trades, a 0.1% tax on bond trades and a .005% tax on derivatives trades. ..."
"... By introducing the student-debt plan, Sanders has outmaneuvered Elizabeth "I have a plan for that" Warren ..."
In his latest attempt to one-up Elizabeth Warren and establish his brand of "democratic
socialism" as something entirely different from the progressive capitalism practiced by some of
his peers, Bernie Sanders is preparing to unveil a new plan that would involve cancelling all
of the country's outstanding $1.6 trillion in student debt.
The massive student-debt jubilee would be financed with a tax on Wall Street:
Specifically, a 0.5% tax on stock trades, a 0.1% tax on bond trades and a .005% tax on
derivatives trades.
Additionally, Sanders' plan would also provide states with $48 billion to eliminate tuition
and fees at public colleges and universities. Thanks to the market effect, private schools
would almost certainly be forced to cut prices to draw talented students who could simply
attend a state school for free.
Reps Ilhan Omar of Minnesota and Pramila Jayapal of Washington have already signed on to
introduce Sanders' legislation in the House on Monday.
The timing of this latest in a series of bold socialist policy proposals from Sanders -
let's not forget, Bernie is largely responsible for making Medicare for All a mainstream issue
in the Democratic Party - comes just ahead of the first Democratic primary debate, where
Sanders will face off directly against his No. 1 rival: Vice President Joe Biden, who has
marketed his candidacy as a return to the 'sensible centrism' of the Democratic Party of
yesteryear.
By introducing the student-debt plan, Sanders has outmaneuvered Elizabeth "I have a plan
for that" Warren and established himself as the most far-left candidate in the crowded
Democratic Primary field. Hopefully, this can help stall Warren's recent advance in the polls.
The plan should help Sanders highlight how Biden's domestic platform includes little in the way
of welfare expansion during the upcoming debate.
My federal student loan monthly statement says I don't have to make a payment. I don't
qualify for any forgiveness because I'm responsible. Nonetheless, I pay the loan every month.
The balance goes down but every month it's still the same story.
I have to imagine the provider prefers students to see that it says zero dollars owed this
month with the hope that they don't pay because it says 0 dollars owed, default, and rack up
a bunch of fees and interest that the student doesn't see in the fine print.
The provider can then get paid by the taxpayer no questions asked. Much more profit and
payment is significantly faster.
Education costs are in the stratosphere 'because' of conversion of univeristires into
neoliberal institution. Which mean that the costs will skyrocket even more.
Somebody once said: If the neoliberal government took over management of the Sahara
desert, in five years, there would be a shortage of sand.
The only way to rein in neoliberals in government is to stop giving them so damned much
money...
The guaranteed student loan program created a mechanism that increases the price of
education. Before the program, graduates could expect 10 times the cost of a years' tuition.
Now, they'de lucky to get one year. The Americans were pushed out of this business and the
UN-Americans replaced them. This goes on for decades until the marks realized that they've
been screwed. ... The victims are in full support since they've been systematically dumbed
down that it seems like a good idea. It's not. This is a bailout of a failed neoliberal
institution.
"... a cosmetic surgeon in Baltimore is purportedly offering to lop off women's breasts -- including the breasts of teenage girls -- at a discount, to celebrate Pride month: ..."
"... Discount breast-lopping to celebrate a holiday -- is that not the most American thing ever? And you used to think two-for-one radial tire sales for Washington's Birthday were trashy! Can't you just feel the pride? ..."
"... A "pride month" sale on plastic surgery to mutilate children's breasts is the most "snapshot of America in 2019" story imaginable. ..."
I long thought the sexualization of little girls in beauty pageants had become gross, and until recently there seemed to be
a growing consensus about that. Now the sexualization of little boys dressed as girls is a cause of great celebration. Count me
out. https://t.co/j7nVQkRJEX
Meanwhile, a cosmetic surgeon in Baltimore is purportedly offering to lop off women's breasts -- including the breasts of teenage
girls -- at a discount, to celebrate Pride month:
1. Latest leak from our source in the affirming parents Facebook group: Dr. Beverly Fischer in Baltimore, MD is offering a
$750 discount on double mastectomies if booked during Pride month, according to this mother.
pic.twitter.com/Od9w0TFXPp
Discount breast-lopping to celebrate a holiday -- is that not the most American thing ever? And you used to think two-for-one
radial tire sales for Washington's Birthday were trashy! Can't you just feel the pride?
We are a sick civilization that deserves to be punished.
A "pride month" sale on plastic surgery to mutilate children's breasts is the most "snapshot of America in 2019" story imaginable.
Welcome to the brave new world, where the neoliberal obsession with consumerism (and the reduction of all human experience to
markets) meets prog-left social chaos. What an unholy union.
Establishment comedian Bill Maher warned that if 2020 Democrats run "a campaign based on reparations and concentration camps"
it will be "very hard to win the election" against President Trump.
Listen, in the computer age, I can find FACTS in seconds. Here are some FACTS ! ------------------------------------------ Trump says he will create 25 million jobs,--REALLY ??? -5 GOP presidents have NOT created 25 million jobs in 57 YEARS ! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Clinton created almost as many jobs as 5 GOP presidents. Let's cut to the chase. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, here are the net increases
in private-sector employment under each president, chronologically by party since 1961-- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Republicans---
Richard Nixon: Increase of 7.1 million jobs Gerald Ford: Increase of 1.3 million jobs Ronald Reagan: Increase of 14.7 million jobs George H.W. Bush: Increase of 1.5 million jobs George W. Bush: Decline of 646,000 jobs ---Total:-------------- Increase of 23.9 million jobs under Republican presidents
-Democrats---
John F. Kennedy: Increase of 2.7 million jobs Lyndon B. Johnson: Increase of 9.5 million jobs Jimmy Carter: Increase of 9.0 million jobs Bill Clinton: Increase of 20.8 million jobs Barack Obama: Increase of 14,332,000 jobs
--- Total: Increase of 56.3 million jobs. --
------------------------------------------------------ It is a fact of history that nine of the ten economic recessions since 1953, when Dwight D.
Eisenhower became President, have come under Republican Presidents as follows:
July 1953 to May 1954–Eisenhower
August 1957 to April 1958–Eisenhower
April 1960 to February 1961–Eisenhower
December 1969 to November 1970–Nixon
November 1973 to March 1975–Nixon/Ford
January 1980 to July 1980–Carter (Democrat)
July 1981-November 1982–Reagan
July 1990-March 1991 -- HW Bush
March 2001-November 2001–W Bush
December 2007-June 2009–W Bush/Obama–last five months under Democrat
----
The longest recessions were under W Bush and Obama; Reagan; and Nixon/Ford, with the
unemployment rate reaching 10 percent, 10.8 percent, and 9 percent respectively in those
recessions. The shortest recession was under Jimmy Carter, six months in 1980, but the only
Democrat to have a recession begin while in office, and suffered at the polls partially on that
fact, that it was in an election year!
Eisenhower had three recession periods, while Nixon had two, and W. Bush had two. ----------- http://www.theprogressiveprofessor.com/?p=26206 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
When conservatives/neoliberals/GOP are in charge the economy and jobs GO TO SHIT -- !!!
Warren reintroduced the Refund Equality Act, a bill that would allow same-sex couples to
amend past tax returns and receive refunds from the IRS.
"The federal government forced legally married same-sex couples in Massachusetts to file
as individuals and pay more in taxes for almost a decade," Warren said in a statement.
"We need to call out that discrimination and to make it right - Congress should pass the
Refund Equality Act immediately."
"... "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy" - Alexis de Toqueville ..."
The problem is that as De Toqueville realises (his quote below) most of the people
commenting here are simply living a parasitic existence benefiting from state largesse -
sucking the teat of a bloated and overburdened state caring not whether their sustenance is
remotely sustainable and just voting for ever more
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the
voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that
moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the
public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy" -
Alexis de Toqueville
"... Sanders supported Clinton too in the general election. He also actively campaigned for her. ..."
"... apples and oranges, Thomas and Herr, Would you care to defend her "posture" on NATO? Ditto, for her contributing to the "Evil Vlad" narrative? Israel?? Wiki: Warren states she supports a two state solution, but she believes Palestinian application for membership in the UN isn't helpful.[63] ..."
"... "Warren lied about her ancestry to circumvent diversity quotas. Why should anyone believe anything she has to say?" You are going to be told this a million times before 11/20 but that's bullshit. It's been well established that she didn't get any job because of that. ..."
"... "In the most exhaustive review undertaken of Elizabeth Warren's professional history, the Globe found clear evidence, in documents and interviews, that her claim to Native American ethnicity was never considered by the Harvard Law faculty, which voted resoundingly to hire her, or by those who hired her to four prior positions at other law schools. At every step of her remarkable rise in the legal profession, the people responsible for hiring her saw her as a white woman." ..."
"... With Warren and Sanders talking complete sense about our oligarchy, the electorate's expectations are going to improve. Nothing could be better. We've been asked to settle for Republican-lite servants of mammon for too long in the Democratic Party and that's going to change. ..."
"... Hell, if we're going to fine them for data breaches, do we start with the DNC? ..."
"... In a poll last week of 2,312 registered voters in South Carolina, Warren gained nine points to reach 17% compared to Biden's 37%. Among 18-34 year olds, Warren is leading 24% to Sanders' 19% and Biden's 17%. ..."
"... I keep hearing from the mainstream media that Biden is leading in the polls. But we ought to note that Biden's up against a group including Warren, Sanders, Harris etc who are pushing a progressive policies, and if you take their percentages together, Biden cannot compete. Once one of these progressive takes the lead in the group, and hires all the others as running mate, cabinet members etc, he or she will be unbeatable against both Biden and Trump. ..."
"... The latest of that polling features Sanders and Biden nearly neck and neck as far as approval goes. Funny you don't hear about that on CNN or MSNBC. ..."
"... American voters have spent so long being treated like idiots by politicians and to an even greater extent the press that Warren comes across as something new and interesting by comparison. ..."
"... This election won't be decided by defecting Trump voters. ..."
"... Those who would be swayed by Trump using "Pocahontas" as a slur or would even pay attention to it wouldn't vote for Warren anyway. He's not going to change any minds with it, just rile up his existing sheep. ..."
"... That's a very narrow view of her position on Israel. She also supported the Iran treaty, boycotting Netanyahu's speech to the Senate, called on Israel to stop colonizing the West Bank and to recognize the right of Palestinians in Gaza to peaceful protest – her comments about aggression toward Gaza were about Israeli response to missiles fired by Hamas. I don't mind her having a nuanced response to what is in fact a very complex situation. ..."
"... Nerd used to be just an insult, aimed at anyone more intelligent, thoughtful or better-informed than the speaker. But I think now, like 'queer' and other words, it has been reclaimed and repurposed in a much more positive light. ..."
Clinton said vote for me because I am a woman, Warren says vote for me because I am a potential leader who happens to be a woman.
Good luck to her and the US
Don't get me wrong. I would certainly vote for her, if needed. I believe she's quite green behind the ears on foreign policy and
how inequality is a global issue. Her backing of our entitled neoliberal wife of an ex-president & neocon dismayed me.
Sanders gets the bigger picture on poverty, race, and war/ neocolonialism:
if you wish: MLK Jr's take on "The Three Evils".
apples and oranges, Thomas and Herr, Would you care to defend her "posture" on NATO? Ditto, for her contributing to the "Evil
Vlad" narrative? Israel?? Wiki: Warren states she supports a two state solution, but she believes Palestinian application
for membership in the UN isn't helpful.[63]
In a town hall meeting in August 2014, Warren defended Israel's shelling of
schools and hospitals during that summer's Israel–Gaza conflict, stating that "when Hamas puts its rocket launchers next to hospitals,
next to schools, they're using their civilian population to protect their military assets. And I believe Israel has a right, at
that point, to defend itself". She also questioned whether future US aid to Israel should be contingent on the halting of Israeli
settlements in the West Bank.[64] In addition she defended her vote in favor of granting Israel $225 million to fund the Iron
Dome air defence system.[65]
While the 2020 election feels critical, the 2024 election will decide the future. Like Trump himself, his base is filled with
old people who are still loyal to Ronald Reagan's Republican Party. Old people watch FoxNews, old people vote, old people love
Trump and in 2016, old people decided the election.
Younger people do NOT vote. The younger someone is, the less likely they are to vote. However, young people voted for Obama,
twice, but when Hillary came along, they stayed home and let the old people choose the president.
And then, in 2018 the young voted again and we learned the next generation plans to take this country into the future. If the
young vote in 2020, Trump is toast. If the young stay home, Trump will see a second term.
However, by 2024 the young will assume their rightful place in history and the age of old white men running the country, and
the world will come to an end.
You are making assumptions that old people are idiots. Making assumptions that middle aged people do not exist or are small in
numbers. Trump gets 200 or so electoral votes. He loses. I don't see any case he wins. He is past his 'used by date' even for
Republicans. You loose Tx to the Ds its game over, add PA and OH to the list. It doesn't even matter what crazy FL man thinks.
Don't forget modern geriatric medicine, by which the dinosaurs in the senate and elsewhere in the hardening arteries of the US
body politic will live - and hold ofice - for even longer than Strom Thurmond. They can afford the private medical insurance to
pay for it.
By the way, MeRaffey , I hope you meant to omit to punctuate in your last phrase so that it would read: ... the age
of old white men running the country and the world will come to an end . Your comma has me worried.
Warren/Harris, said it before but it makes sense. I would've preferred Biden to Clinton but I can't see him getting the same turnout
as Warren. Opinions on Trump are now fixed, it's a red herring to worry about "firing up" Trump supporters, they are already as
fired up as they can get. Swing voters are probably going to vote by where the economy is which is out of our control. Ideally
Democrats will be just as fired up as Trumpists, the investigations will suppress their enthusiasm somewhat (though they wouldn't
care if he killed someone so...) and the coming Trump recession will be brought on by his trade wars and the blame will therefore
fall where it should.
Warren lied about her ancestry to circumvent diversity quotas. Why should anyone believe anything she has to say? Furthermore,
What exactly is she promising that is any different then any of the other radical leftists running right now? It's all "Free Stuff"
that she's going to make the rich pay for. Um..yeah, that always works out doesn't it? Who needs real math when fuzzy math makes
us believe the combined wealth of the richest Americans will finance all this "free" stuff to say nothing about why so many Americans
feel entitled to the earnings of others. Remember folks, if a politician says 2+2=6 then it must be true.
"Warren lied about her ancestry to circumvent diversity quotas. Why should anyone believe anything she has to say?" You are
going to be told this a million times before 11/20 but that's bullshit. It's been well established that she didn't get any job
because of that.
She claimed Native American ancestry on her application to Harvard, a job she got and it wasn't the first time she played this
card either. But hey, in a political party that loves to change races and genders and expects everyone else to go along with the
charade by all means go ahead and believe what you want to believe.
A lie, see Snopes, see any link you've been given each time you post this lie. She got it on merit.
"In the most exhaustive review undertaken of Elizabeth Warren's professional history, the Globe found clear evidence, in
documents and interviews, that her claim to Native American ethnicity was never considered by the Harvard Law faculty, which voted
resoundingly to hire her, or by those who hired her to four prior positions at other law schools. At every step of her remarkable
rise in the legal profession, the people responsible for hiring her saw her as a white woman."
With Warren and Sanders talking complete sense about our oligarchy, the electorate's expectations are going to improve. Nothing
could be better. We've been asked to settle for Republican-lite servants of mammon for too long in the Democratic Party and that's
going to change.
The danger, of course, is that in this transition period Biden gets nominated. However much centrists will clamor for voters
to hold their nose and vote for him, that's not an electoral strategy. Trump's best chance of winning is that Biden gets nominated
and the progressive base of the Democratic Party is totally demoralized and lacking energy by late 2020.
After the US public allowed themselves to be hypnotized by Trump's campaign of fatuous lies, empty promises and racist dog whistles,
I doubted the electorate possessed the wit to understand actual policies. Maybe they've finally woken up - time will tell.
Do you understand how elections work? The US public were hypnotized? He lost the popular vote. The fault lies with the Republican
establishment for letting him put the R after his name. Perot ran on essentially the same ticket back in 92 as a third party candidate.
He got 18% of the vote. Had he run as a Republican he could well have won.
Oh dear. The question is, do you know how US elections work? The popular vote is irrelevant. He's the 5th POTUS who lost
the popular vote. Almost 63 million hypnotized dolts voted for him, and he won - that's why he currently resides in the WH
Or neither "hypnotized" nor "dolts." The people I knew who voted for him in North Carolina thought he was an asshole. But they
wanted a conservative Supreme Court for the next two decades and he has delivered that for them. Why do you assume that people
on the right are idiots who don't know what they want? That essential presumption by the left is one of the reasons the left lost
last time.
As one who used to be a Warren supporter, I think she is both patronizing voters and pandering to them. These policies have some
detail, sure, but they don't deal with the consequences that Warren knows very well lurk in the wings and as a result they don't
necessarily make sense.
Her proposal for free college is one example – sounds great, while in reality it would benefit the better-off middle class
at the expense of the most vulnerable students and create a cascade of problems that she has no plans to fix.
Again, fining companies for data breaches? Surely we should fine them *if* they don't immediately report data breaches to their
customers– or maybe if they haven't maintained appropriate data security, although I'd love to see proving that one to a court.
Hell, if we're going to fine them for data breaches, do we start with the DNC?
PS To be clear, I'd still take her in a second over Fat Nixon, I just wish she would pander less and keep her plans to the sensible
and achievable, like her consumer protection bureau, which was a fantastic idea.
Yes, (politely) do you? The fines for HIPAA violation have to do with noncompliance with the act, not with an uncontrollable data
breach. The fines increase on a sliding scale if "willful neglect" has been found (the data were not properly secured) or if the
company delays in reporting a data breach/violation.
Yep - No more old white guys - just being disgusted by Trump is not enough - people want new ideas. EW all the way - with AOC
by her side as well hopefully.
There is nothing Trump fears more than the stigma of being a one term pres - his ego would implode.
Oh, I think he fears going to prison more. Michael Cohen was right – the minute Trump is no longer protected by the presidency
he is going to be facing charges, on tax evasion if nothing else. He will do anything to keep his protection for more years. He's
probably hoping to die in office. (I'd add something to that, but I don't want the Secret Service visiting me!)
The DNC is again placing it's foot on the scale in favor of Biden. I believe that they know Bernie is less likely to win because
of America's irrational fear of the word, "socialism." That's why they put Biden and Sanders on the stage together and pushed
out Elizabeth Warren to the other debate with lesser known and less popular candidates. They do not what her, with her solid plans,
to confront Biden, which would give her a greater boost in the polls and more recognition across the nation.
And who was watching the drawing? Who set up the drawing? Are you saying that there was independent oversight on its setup? Or
do you just take the DNC's word for it?
An inability to believe in coincidence will take you to some strange places. If Sanders and Warren drawn the same night you could
make an argument that Biden was getting set up to look good against the lightweight opponents. Or had Sanders drawn the undercard
that he was being marginalized. Warren will do fine either way. She's a great candidate. Biden isn't.
Biden rides high on President Obama's very long coat tails and Wall Street money even without detailed plans that actually help
the working class and the poor. Bernie is riding high on his honest fight for the working class and the poor.
Elizabeth Warren is rising fast because she not only agrees with Bernie on fighting for the working class and the poor,
but she has detailed plans that are holding up to independent economic scrutiny.
Both Warren and Sanders are honest in their fight for economic justice for all and recognize that the root cause of poverty
and lower middle class' struggle is corporate and wealthy-individual money in politics. They aim to stop it.
Biden claims he can negotiate with McConnell. Obama reached out to McConnell his entire term and drew back a nub. The same
will be true of Biden. For the Republicans and Trumpians, it's all about making Democrats fail no matter how much it hurts the
working class and the poor. Their propaganda network will always assist and sustain them by appealing to the emotions and prejudices
of millions of Americans.
Biden claims he can negotiate with McConnell. Obama reached out to McConnell his entire term and drew back a nub. The same
will be true of Biden.
The same will be true of any Democrat though. There is no way around it except by expanding the powers of the office
of the President, which is what has given Trump such a wide ability to repeal Obama-era policies.
Any Democrat coming up against a Republican Senate will have the same thing happen to them, although I can imagine the Republicans
will hate Biden marginally less than Obama given that he's not black.
There is no way around it except by expanding the powers of the office of the President, which is what has given Trump such
a wide ability to repeal Obama-era policies.
Not the first year of his presidency. His Republican Party controlled Congress and they mostly hated Obama as well. As long
as there was full control of congress, it was easy. It was not easy to remove the ACA because so many Americans liked it.
Now remember that the reasons Trump was appointed to office by the EC, was that enough far-right people voted, together with
the "conservative" media adding to Russia's concentration of propaganda in the key states (stats provided to the Russians by the
Trump campaign) and lifted him just enough to overcome the votes of ~3 million voters. Far more voters are now counting on voting
against him and for the best Democratic candidate.
Progressives do not want to expand the powers of the Oval Office. That is the wrong thing to do. True change for the better
can only come through the ballet box and by educating the voters to exactly why our government is dysfunctional and is replete
with corruption.
I think the most popular message to all voters (from farmers to all others in the working class) is that corporate and private
money in politics is the root cause of government corruption and dysfunction and why the collective wealth of the working class
is steadily redistributing to the uber-wealthy.
The only candidates who what to change the economy to a DEMAND-side economy is are those who actually and loudly advocate it.
But just voting for a progressive president while putting the "conservative" obstructionists (those who maintain the high capacity
money pipeline that runs from Wall Street to their pockets) back into Congress will mean the corruption and dysfunction will continue.
Voters must be replaced by a super-majority liberal/progressive Congress, and with that, Elizabeth Warren will make that change.
I think she also knows that she should've and easily could've been president right now. That strange piece yesterday, talking
about Biden and Sanders standing in front of good female candidates of today: leaving aside a keen Biden getting bullied out of
2016 by Clinton already having things sewn up, Sanders was notoriously late jumping into 2016 because he was waiting on Warren.
If Warren was going to run against the wretched Clinton, he wouldn't. Warren choked so Sanders had to do it himself. Warren must
know that she would have dismantled Crooked H and, seeing as Clinton was the only person who could've lost to el diablo naranja,
Warren would've hammered Trump too. Hence, Warren's got some making up to do and seems very determined.
She's always been my tip. If I was an American, I would vote for Tulsi Gabbard in a second but Warren is a strong candidate
and I always thought that her announcing on the last day of last year was going to give her licence to say to other candidates:
"I've been running since 2018!". Warren is the candidate that liars for Clinton tried to pretend that Clinton was. A note of caution,
though: someone posted a Republican survey of exactly four years ago yesterday. Bush was on 22%, Trump was polling 1%. Long time
to go yet.
In a poll last week of 2,312 registered voters in South Carolina, Warren gained nine points to reach 17% compared to
Biden's 37%. Among 18-34 year olds, Warren is leading 24% to Sanders' 19% and Biden's 17%.
I keep hearing from the mainstream media that Biden is leading in the polls. But we ought to note that Biden's up against
a group including Warren, Sanders, Harris etc who are pushing a progressive policies, and if you take their percentages together,
Biden cannot compete. Once one of these progressive takes the lead in the group, and hires all the others as running mate, cabinet
members etc, he or she will be unbeatable against both Biden and Trump.
There is no sure way of knowing how that would play out. You may be interested in looking at the Morning Consult Poll, which comes
out weekly. If you scroll down to Second Choices... it gives possible outcomes for where votes may fall. According to MC poll
the 2nd choice for Sanders voters is Biden, 2nd for Biden is Sanders, 2nd for Warren is Harris, 2nd for Buttigieg is Biden, and
2nd for Harris is Biden. The poll also shows results for early primary states, if you click on "Early Primary States". https://morningconsult.com/2020-democratic-primary
/
Only one question: are these the same polls that were running in ninth 2016? And if they are why do we give a crap what any of
them say since we know they are all horribly wrong?
The latest of that polling features Sanders and Biden nearly neck and neck as far as approval goes. Funny you don't hear about
that on CNN or MSNBC.
It's clear to me that the US public want action, and that means progressive policies. They were conned last time into thinking
Trump represented change. But a Hillary Mark II candidate such as Biden will lead to another Trump victory.
American voters have spent so long being treated like idiots by politicians and to an even greater extent the press that Warren
comes across as something new and interesting by comparison.
There is no doubt that Warren is the best policy brain in the Democratic Party. She also has some good ideas, and some not so
good ones.
Were I American, I would be tempted to vote for her. But her candidacy is hopeless. It may be unfair, but the Pocahontas issue
will kill her bid stone dead in the general election. Trump would be licking his chops over a Warren run.
Those who would be swayed by Trump using "Pocahontas" as a slur or would even pay attention to it wouldn't vote for Warren
anyway. He's not going to change any minds with it, just rile up his existing sheep.
That's a very narrow view of her position on Israel. She also supported the Iran treaty, boycotting Netanyahu's speech to
the Senate, called on Israel to stop colonizing the West Bank and to recognize the right of Palestinians in Gaza to peaceful protest
– her comments about aggression toward Gaza were about Israeli response to missiles fired by Hamas. I don't mind her having a
nuanced response to what is in fact a very complex situation.
Warren has treated voters as adults, smart enough to handle her wonky style of campaigning. Instead of spoon-feeding prospective
voters soundbites, Warren is giving them heaps to digest – and her polling surge shows that voters appreciate the nerdy policy
talk.
If talking sense and enunciating real policies is regarded as "wonky"and "nerdy"in the USA then Warren doesn't have a hope and
Trump is a shoe-in.
Nerd used to be just an insult, aimed at anyone more intelligent, thoughtful or better-informed than the speaker. But I think
now, like 'queer' and other words, it has been reclaimed and repurposed in a much more positive light.
Andrew Bacevich
recalls Madeleine
Albright's infamous statement about American indispensability, and notes how poorly it has held up over the last twenty-one years:
Back then, it was Albright's claim to American indispensability that stuck in my craw. Yet as a testimony to ruling class
hubris, the assertion of indispensability pales in comparison to Albright's insistence that "we see further into the future."
In fact, from February 1998 down to the present, events have time and again caught Albright's "we" napping.
Albright's statement is even more damning for her and her fellow interventionists when we consider that the context of her remarks
was a discussion of the supposed threat from Iraq. The full sentence went like this: "We stand tall and we see further than other
countries into the future, and we see the danger here to all of us." Albright was making a general claim about our supposed superiority
to other nations when it came to looking into the future, but she was also specifically warning against a "danger" from Iraq that
she claimed threatened "all of us." She answered
one of Matt Lauer's questions with this assertion:
I think that we know what we have to do, and that is help enforce the UN Security Council resolutions, which demand that Saddam
Hussein abide by those resolutions, and get rid of his weapons of mass destruction, and allow the inspectors to have unfettered
and unconditional access.
Albright's rhetoric from 1998 is a grim reminder that policymakers from both parties accepted the existence of Iraq's "weapons
of mass destruction" as a given and never seriously questioned a policy aimed at eliminating something that did not exist. American
hawks couldn't see further in the future. They weren't even perceiving the present correctly, and tens of thousands of Americans
and millions of Iraqis would suffer because they insisted that they saw something that wasn't there.
A little more than five years after she uttered these words, the same wild threat inflation that Albright was engaged in led
to the invasion of Iraq, the greatest blunder and one of the worst crimes in the history of modern U.S. foreign policy . Not
only did Albright and other later war supporters not see what was coming, but their deluded belief in being able to anticipate future
threats caused them to buy into and promote a bogus case for a war that was completely unnecessary and should never have been fought.
It is a very lightly written article but it touches on a very sensitive nerve rather hard. I liked the entire premise of this
story and have ome to agree with the writer that Americans hardly care who dies wherever as long as they can find themselves shoping
goods they dont need with the money they don't have and stuffing their mouth with food they don't deserve.
"... "Try as you might, you can't expel him. He seems to live forever in the bowels of the federal agencies, periodically reemerging to cause pain and suffering -- but somehow never suffering himself." ..."
Someone whose confidence Bolton does not enjoy is Carlson, a rival for Trump's ear. Carlson,
a true
believer, took to the airwaves to savage the ambassador Friday night. "John Bolton is a
kind of bureaucratic tapeworm," Carlson said.
"Try as you might, you can't expel him. He
seems to live forever in the bowels of the federal agencies, periodically reemerging to cause
pain and suffering -- but somehow never suffering himself."
It is a very lightly written article but it touches on a very sensitive nerve rather hard. I liked the entire premise of this
story and have ome to agree with the writer that Americans hardly care who dies wherever as long as they can find themselves shoping
goods they dont need with the money they don't have and stuffing their mouth with food they don't deserve.
"... "Try as you might, you can't expel him. He seems to live forever in the bowels of the federal agencies, periodically reemerging to cause pain and suffering -- but somehow never suffering himself." ..."
Someone whose confidence Bolton does not enjoy is Carlson, a rival for Trump's ear. Carlson,
a true
believer, took to the airwaves to savage the ambassador Friday night. "John Bolton is a
kind of bureaucratic tapeworm," Carlson said.
"Try as you might, you can't expel him. He
seems to live forever in the bowels of the federal agencies, periodically reemerging to cause
pain and suffering -- but somehow never suffering himself."
Mr. Biden had
support from 32% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents - in line with his 33%
support from last month.
Ms.
Warren , meanwhile, is now at 15% - up 5 points from last month - and Mr. Sanders was at 14%
support.
... ... ...
The Monmouth survey of 306 registered voters who identified themselves as Democrats or
Democratic leaners was taken from June 12-17 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 5.6
percentage points.
... ... ...
And a new survey from the firm Avalanche Strategy
found that when the notion of "electability" was taken off the table, Ms. Warren was the top choice of
Democratic voters at 21%, followed by Mr. Biden and Mr. Sanders at 19% apiece.
Andrew Bacevich
recalls Madeleine
Albright's infamous statement about American indispensability, and notes how poorly it has held up over the last twenty-one years:
Back then, it was Albright's claim to American indispensability that stuck in my craw. Yet as a testimony to ruling class
hubris, the assertion of indispensability pales in comparison to Albright's insistence that "we see further into the future."
In fact, from February 1998 down to the present, events have time and again caught Albright's "we" napping.
Albright's statement is even more damning for her and her fellow interventionists when we consider that the context of her remarks
was a discussion of the supposed threat from Iraq. The full sentence went like this: "We stand tall and we see further than other
countries into the future, and we see the danger here to all of us." Albright was making a general claim about our supposed superiority
to other nations when it came to looking into the future, but she was also specifically warning against a "danger" from Iraq that
she claimed threatened "all of us." She answered
one of Matt Lauer's questions with this assertion:
I think that we know what we have to do, and that is help enforce the UN Security Council resolutions, which demand that Saddam
Hussein abide by those resolutions, and get rid of his weapons of mass destruction, and allow the inspectors to have unfettered
and unconditional access.
Albright's rhetoric from 1998 is a grim reminder that policymakers from both parties accepted the existence of Iraq's "weapons
of mass destruction" as a given and never seriously questioned a policy aimed at eliminating something that did not exist. American
hawks couldn't see further in the future. They weren't even perceiving the present correctly, and tens of thousands of Americans
and millions of Iraqis would suffer because they insisted that they saw something that wasn't there.
A little more than five years after she uttered these words, the same wild threat inflation that Albright was engaged in led
to the invasion of Iraq, the greatest blunder and one of the worst crimes in the history of modern U.S. foreign policy . Not
only did Albright and other later war supporters not see what was coming, but their deluded belief in being able to anticipate future
threats caused them to buy into and promote a bogus case for a war that was completely unnecessary and should never have been fought.
Douglas Macgregor is right -- Trump have surrounded himself with neocons and now put himself against the wall. Wars destroy
presidency -- George Bush II is not viewed favorable by the US people now, not is Obama with his Libya adventure.
With the amount of derivatives in the US financial system the rise of the price of oil above $100 can produce some interesting
and unanticipated effects.
Notable quotes:
"... PRESIDENT TRUMP don't let them sucker you. ..."
"... The true American people, do never believe what this congress, house, and senate want they are cramming down your throats... ..."
"... There's a simple reason for Warren's sudden rise in the polls : the public has an appetite for policy. Of all the Democratic candidates, Warren's campaign has been by far the most ideas-driven and ambitious in its policy proposals. And voters love it. ..."
"... Week in and week out, she has been crisscrossing the country to tell receptive voters her ideas for an ultra-millionaire tax, student debt cancellation and breaking up big tech. She has also weighed in on reproductive rights, vaccines, the opioid crisis and algorithmic discrimination in automated loans. Her bevy of white papers demonstrates that there isn't a policy area Warren won't touch and she isn't worried about repelling anyone with hard-hitting proposals. ..."
"... Better than any other candidate, Warren has articulated a connection between her personal and professional struggles and her ideas, lending an air of authenticity to her campaign. Her backstory – teacher turned reluctant stay-at-home mom turned Harvard Law School professor – clearly resonates with voters in important states such as Iowa and South Carolina. ..."
"... Rule of thumb that is true for all politicians regardless of party. Most of what they promise they will do will never happen and much of does happen does not occur in the way they promised when they campaigned. ..."
n Friday, the Massachusetts senator
Elizabeth Warren co-sponsored a bill to impose mandatory fines on companies that have data
breaches. It was the kind of consumer welfare legislation that in the past would have been
unremarkable. But in an era when Congress has consistently shirked its duty to shield
consumers, the bill stood out.
The legislation capped a week in which Warren surged in the polls. Less than eight months
before the Iowa caucus, Warren is making strides in 2020 primary polls. According to an
NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey of 1,000 adults, 64% of Democratic primary voters in
June were enthusiastic or comfortable with Warren, compared with 57% in March. Fewer of these
voters were enthusiastic or comfortable with Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders, who have
lost 11 and six points, respectively, since March.
There's more. In a poll last week of 2,312 registered voters in South Carolina, Warren
gained nine points to reach 17% compared to Biden's 37%. Among 18-34 year olds, Warren is
leading 24% to Sanders' 19% and Biden's 17%.
There's a simple reason for Warren's sudden rise in the polls: the public has an appetite
for policy
There's a simple reason for
Warren's sudden rise in the polls : the public has an appetite for policy. Of all the
Democratic candidates, Warren's campaign has been by far the most ideas-driven and ambitious in
its policy proposals. And voters love it.
Rather than condescend to voters, like most politicians, Warren has treated voters as
adults, smart enough to handle her wonky style of campaigning. Instead of spoon-feeding
prospective voters soundbites, Warren is giving them heaps to digest – and her polling
surge shows that voters appreciate the nerdy policy talk.
Indeed, since Warren declared her candidacy for president, she has been offering policy
prescriptions for our country's most pressing ailments – and she hasn't been
brainstorming in a bubble.
Week in and week out, she has been crisscrossing the country to tell receptive voters her
ideas for an ultra-millionaire tax, student debt cancellation and breaking up big tech. She has
also weighed in on reproductive rights, vaccines, the opioid crisis and algorithmic
discrimination in automated loans. Her bevy of white papers demonstrates that there isn't a
policy area Warren won't touch and she isn't worried about repelling anyone with hard-hitting
proposals.
Better than any other candidate, Warren has articulated a connection between her personal
and professional struggles and her ideas, lending an air of authenticity to her campaign. Her
backstory – teacher turned reluctant stay-at-home mom turned Harvard Law School professor
– clearly resonates with voters in important states such as Iowa and South Carolina.
That sense of reciprocity has turned Warren into a populist rock star. Instead of appealing
to the lowest common denominator among the voting public, she's listening to and learning from
voters in an ideas-driven campaign that doesn't take voters for granted.
The strategy is paying off – and proving wrong the outdated political wisdom that
Americans don't care about the intricacies of government.
In May, Warren traveled to Kermit, West Virginia, the heart of Trump country, to pitch a
$2.7bn-a-year plan to combat opioid addiction.
"Her stance is decisive and bold," Nathan Casian-Lakes
told CBS News . "She has research and resources to back her ideas."
Jill Priluck's reporting and analysis has appeared in
the New Yorker, Slate, Reuters and elsewhere
I've decided that I want to see Warren as President. She is honest and has many good ideas
about the economy and offering a leg up to minorities and the poor. Her integrity is
unimpeachable. I have donated small sums to her campaign. Bernie has not spoken in detail the
way Warren has although his democratic socialism goes in a positive direction. There are many
voters who feel that he is too old. I hope that he will approve Warren as the best candidate
in the running. Biden's moment is long gone. For now I believe that another recession lurks
in the near future and Warren, as a wonk, is the best person to deal with it.
She also does not take a dime of PAC money, which helps keep her mind cleared of hidden
agendas. Because of that, she is the first candidate who campaign I've donated to.
Rule of thumb that is true for all politicians regardless of party. Most of what they promise
they will do will never happen and much of does happen does not occur in the way they
promised when they campaigned.
In the case of Sen Warren she talks a lot of wonderful stuff,
paid by rich people. Expect the same results. The courts will probably shoot down the wealth
tax as described by Warren anyway which means everything she promises just dies.
Technocratic, neoliberal, Clinton Democrat ideas which have already proven to fail.
She's for the working class, so long as that working class wears a white collar.
but she declared that she will take "the money" in the general election if she wins the nomination. Do you expect that money
to come with no strings attached. Clearly this video
implied that she knows differently.
This video shows that as a member of Congress she is cognizant of the "as Senator Clinton, the pressures are very different"
Warren knows EXACTLY what she is doing when she says she will take the money in the general if nominated.
Okay, Warren made a mistake in claiming Native American heritage, which enabled her to
advance professionally as a "diversity" candidate. But that would have to count as a venial
not mortal sin. She is doing considerable good on the campaign trail, and I believe that she
means to try to follow through on her detailed promises.
"... 780 billion per year on defense without a enemy in sight, and no nation spending a tenth that, seems to be a place one could get a dollar or two. ..."
"... As Chomsky notes in 'manufacturing consent', the mass media that is not 'Right' is 'Centrist' and will support a centrist candidate over one advocating more radical change. ..."
"... Here's an idea. If Warren was a true progressive she wouldn't have been a registered Republican for 5 years, and she would have endorsed Bernie over Hillary in the 2016 primaries. ..."
Her backstory – teacher turned reluctant stay-at-home mom turned Harvard Law
School professor – clearly resonates with voters in important states such as Iowa and
South Carolina.
Working people who are struggling in Iowa and South Carolina say: "She's just like
us!"
Please expand upon the "Constitutional issues of a wealth tax".
Looks pretty clear to me.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes,
Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general
Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout
the United States.
"Please expand upon the "Constitutional issues of a wealth tax".
"Looks pretty clear to me."
The point is that the question would go to a Republican Supreme Court which could indeed
find a wealth tax unconstitutional. If you want to know why, do a search. There's lots
written on it.
I don't know. Seems a lot more substance this go round than the last, near as I can tell.
Last go round climate change got one question and 45 seconds in response, by both candidates
in the general. The media certainly wants and will allow that to happen, but any dem who does
would be a idiot.
Seems last go round gender preference was a main thing. Warren will I think not fall into
that trap. White male midwestern industrial voters are at large, what lost HRC key states,
she took for granted. White male voters and usually their spouses, will not have a part of a
program that seems to leave them out of things.
Substance is the name of the game for warren, but to counter Trump one needs to throw out the barbs as well, as she did in
her twitter post on not being on his propaganda outlet Fox.
"I won't do a town hall with Fox News because I won't invite millions of Democratic primary
voters to tune in, inflate ratings, and help sell ads for an outlet that profits from racism
and hate. If you agree, sign our petition.
Yes that is Elizabeth Warren calling them racists and haters. A guy like Trump calls names
and it is par for the course. A woman who conducts herself as your local librarian or grade
school teacher, and you have to take pause and listen, is there substance to this? Seems
there is.
This new Elizabeth Warren, name calling and all, I find must more to my liking than that
before. Which is the why to her newfound popularity. Substance and calling a pig a pig not a
dog or some other thing.
I think you made a good case. she isn't my favorite but still acceptable.
In no particular order, for me it is Gabbard, Sanders, Williamson, Warren or Yang. the other
18 would be like voting for the GOP with some protection against the conservative slant on
social issues.
The right wingers that post here won't debate me because I'll expose them. They know how
the system works and they use it to their advantage. Socialism is about getting free stuff
but the issue here is who gets the free stuff. Supply side econ says that the rich are
entitled to the free stuff and the less fortunate aren't entitled to it. this is killing
upward mobility.
Iceland, Denmark and Sweden repealed their wealth taxes because they don't work. The
Scandinavian countries pay for their safety net by embracing capitalism and taxing the hell
out of everyone. Maybe we should embrace that model? Or does Warren's base simply all of the
benefits of that system without paying for it?
They're not similar countries to the USA, at all. US citizens are taxed no matter where they
choose to live on earth. This is not the case in most countries.
The Scandinavian countries pay for their safety net by embracing capitalism and taxing
the hell out of everyone. Maybe we should embrace that model?
It would be a hell of a lot better than the government acting as the paymaster for large
corporations - paying their workers with food stamps because the corporations don't pay them
sufficiently to live on.
You do know that is how the US works, right? Corporations don't pay their workers enough, so
the government (i.e. taxpayers) pick up the tab.
To add the average family of four, assuming one stays with the kids so they do not pay day
care costs, at Walmart earning a average salary , is eligible for federal food assistance and
in most states, Medicaid.
California for several decades paid for most of kids college education and even today, New
Mexico does the same. New Mexico is indeed one of the poorest states, and if they figured out
how to do that(under a republican governor years ago), most places could. The tax rate here
is about on average, no higher than most.
780 billion per year on defense without a enemy in sight, and no nation spending a tenth
that, seems to be a place one could get a dollar or two.
Smart and lucid. All the right ideas, without using the " S " word that people in the
USA do not really understand, and have a big fear of
I'd extent that from "The USA" to "The USA & the editorial staff of most papers in
England", and include some writers for this paper in that catchall.
'Socialist' Sanders and 'Left Wing' Labour as personified by Corbyn are all very well as
useful poles to beat the Right with in polemics, but when it looks like they might actually
gain access to the corridors of power, suddenly they become villains that have to be defeated
so that sensible 'moderates' can retain power....
Warren was receiving more support from this particular paper even before she announced her
candidacy than Sanders has or I suspect will even if he gains the nomination.
As Chomsky notes in 'manufacturing consent', the mass media that is not 'Right' is
'Centrist' and will support a centrist candidate over one advocating more radical change.
Those labels are totally irrelevant in the USA. Calling someone 'right' or 'left' or
'socialist' in the USA has nothing to do with dictionary definitions. They all mean to say
one thing: I disagree with them because they're wrong.
On Friday, the Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren co-sponsored a bill to impose
mandatory fines on companies that have data breaches.
Warren is the politician who operates like a blind-folded person desperately trying to hit
a pinata. In her political realm, such companies simply twist in the wind and make easy
targets. Her policy is equivalent to any store or home being burglarized and then being fined by
government for being a victim of crime. Complete mindlessness describes the policy.
Yes. Of course every politician should simply lie down and let the corporations get away with
every damn thing. I mean, that's worked really well for most Americans since Reagan.
Agreed that is a stupid policy.
If the company suffers a data breach owing to poor security or conceals or unduly delays
disclosure of the data breach, then it would make sense to fine the company or to hold the
company civilly liable to those injured by the data breach. But a blanket fine for any company that suffers a data breach is dumb.
The Labor party in Australia surprised me with the boldness and coherency of their plans and
it was a great thing to see a party running a campaign on ideas and principles.
They lost the election.
Here's an idea. If Warren was a true progressive she wouldn't have been a registered
Republican for 5 years, and she would have endorsed Bernie over Hillary in the 2016
primaries.
What a really stupid thing to write and think. Do you have any inkling of the history of the
Republican and Democratic parties? I was born in a Republican household (progressive) and it
took me living overseas for 20 years to realize what a nasty little insurgency had taken the
Republicans from what Teddy Roosevelt championed to what he described as swine; the
Dixiecrats. Ignorance is not bliss no matter how hard you try to pretend.
One thing that needs to be done involves an honest discussion about the costs of Warren's
proposals and the fact that the US already has a $22 TRILLION national debt with more than $1
TRILLION being added each year at a minimum. A former US Comptroller General stated in 2015
that even the official National Debt figure is a misrepresentation and that taking into
account an honest understanding of the nation's actual legal obligations the figure was
actually $65 TRILLION.
If anyone wants to see it even worse just look at economist Lawrence Kotlikoff's infinite horizon estimates that placed future already promised commitments at
$220 TRILLION. My point is that Warren and everyone else in the DC political establishment,
is "blowing smoke" and that the US is bankrupt and needs a serious strategy to mitigate that
fact rather than reckless proposals aimed to attract votes.
That is not going to happen and
the country is in a fundamental financial crisis.
Its repinlicans who increase your deficits. Reagan believed deficits don't matter.
The bush tax cuts...and now Trumps tax cuts and QE. He's expanding credit, which looks like
real growth, but is it? Only the US can do this, because it runs the global dollar. We should
have had the Bankor. But the yanks ensured that did not happen.
Nobody expects Congress to deliver on a president's campaign promises. That's not how
the system works.
True. We use to call it "obstructionist" when the other party in congress
unreasonably opposed a president's proposals. We no longer use that term, though. Now we call
it "resistance". I'm sure there are at least a few republicans who see being part of the
"resistance" exciting if Warren wins the White House.
At first I thought she must be mad, running for president. Then I started listening to her
ideas and looking at how they were being received.
There are millions of young people, youngish people, and parents whose lives would actually
be changed by her college loan plan. Even conservatives admit that "her math is correct" and
"it's doable."
Then I started watching her in town halls and found her to be VERY different from that
awkward lady in the kitchen having a beer. She's warm, direct, funny, casually
self-deprecating, and easily able to translate complex ideas into readily understood ones.
Free college and health care, and the rich pay. Who wouldn't get on board with that?
Well, since you asked. I don't have any student debt and I don't need any more
health care. If we are buying votes with "free" stuff, what do I get for free?
I do like a good brisket. Can we carve out some of that tax on those nasty millionaires
for my grocery fund?
Well, as a rock ribbed Republican, you only one choice.
Not applicable since I'm not a republican. I did vote for Trump, after voting
for Obama twice. I'm an independent, and we outnumber either republicans or democrats.
For me it's a toss-up between Warren and Sanders. When it comes to who will actually get to
run against Trump, if a dining room set and 4 chairs gets the Democratic nomination, they get
my vote in the general election.
The fix is already in I think. Your table and chairs name is Sleepy Joe Biden.
Of course, it's still a long time to the election and mortality rates may kick in.
Warren is rising fast because A) she stands for something and B) she does an excellent job of
explaining how America can make the journey from where it is (including rampant inequality)
to where it needs to be to offer a future to all its people, not just to those who are white,
rich and privileged! Plus, she is super smart & sassy!
"... The recent attacks against US forces in Iraq could very well have been orchestrated by US "allies" trying to force the US into a war with Iran. ..."
"... Trump's inability to stand up to Bibi is going to have catastrophic consequence for the US. ..."
"... Trump wants the focus of his re election to be the economy and the support to Israel only ( thus ensuring the financial support of the Jewish lobby), anything else will wait. ..."
"... If Bolton and Pompeo continue provoking Iran into retaliations, thus risking to disrupt the focus of his re-election, he will get rid of them. ..."
The domestic political result of the increased saberrattling over Iran unfortunately will
be to boost Biden since he supposedly possesses "Serious Foreign Policy Credentials" while
Bernie and Warren are thought to have obtained theirs from a box of Crackerjacks.
Bernie and Warren could use this moment to their advantage in fact to tie Biden
into the same neocon foreign policy establishment Trump is bastardising in his own unique
(ie, FUBAR) way and set themselves farther apart from the establishment. Trump is providing
that opening for them now as he turns his back on his own anti-establishment alt-right allies
towards the old fashioned GOP neocons.
Trump's surrounded himself with fools. The entire tension with Iran was/is totally
avoidable if Trump has the balls to tell Bibi/AIPAC/Saudis/UAE to go f*ck themselves.
Instead, he's exposed the US to all kinds of attacks - even from his own "allies".
The recent attacks against US forces in Iraq could very well have been orchestrated by US
"allies" trying to force the US into a war with Iran.
Essentially all those involved in the maximum pressure on Iran plot are now caught up in
their own sh*t. They're all attacking each other and blaming it on Iran.
Hopefully sane heads in the Pentagon/CIA will advice Trump to tone the f*ck down and stfu
coz every time he says something, his "allies" use it as endorsement/green-light to do
something stupid.
Trump's inability to stand up to Bibi is going to have catastrophic consequence for the
US.
After North Korea's fiasco, Venezuela's fiasco, all due to his neocons team's absurd
arrogance, Trump faces another one in Iran. One wonders how many foreign policies fiascos he
needs to deal with in order to finally fire Bolton and Pompeo.
Now that the polls have turned in his favor he has to stand still and minimize any
"provocation" from Iran in order not to compromise his re election. He will not listen
anymore to the neocons who were arguing that a war in Iran will bring the polls up.. It id up
now because of the economy.
Trump wants the focus of his re election to be the economy and the support to Israel only
( thus ensuring the financial support of the Jewish lobby), anything else will wait.
If Bolton and Pompeo continue provoking Iran into retaliations, thus risking to disrupt
the focus of his re-election, he will get rid of them.
"... Early in any psychology course, students are taught to be very cautious about accepting people's reports. A simple trick is to stage some sort of interruption to the lecture by confederates, and later ask the students to write down what they witnessed. Typically, they will misremember the events, sequences and even the number of people who staged the tableaux. Don't trust witnesses, is the message. ..."
"... The three assumptions -- lack of rationality, stubbornness, and costs -- imply that there is slim chance that people can ever learn or be educated out of their biases; ..."
"... So, are we as hopeless as some psychologists claim we are? In fact, probably not. Not all the initial claims have been substantiated. For example, it seems we are not as loss averse as previously claimed. Does our susceptibility to printed visual illusions show that we lack judgement in real life? ..."
"... Well the sad fact is that there's nobody in the position to protect "governments" from their own biases, and "scientists" from theirs ..."
"... Long ago a lawyer acquaintance, referring to a specific judge, told me that the judge seemed to "make shit up as he was going along". I have long held psychiatry fits that statement very well. ..."
"... Here we have a real scientist fighting the nonsense spreading from (neoclassical) economics into other realms of science/academia. ..."
"... Behavioral economics is a sideline by-product of neoclassical micro-economic theory. It tries to cope with experimental data that is inconsistent with that theory. ..."
"... Everything in neoclassical economics is a travesty. "Rational choice theory" and its application in "micro economics" is false from the ground up. It basically assumes that people are gobbling up resources without plan, meaning or relevant circumstances. Neoclassical micro economic theory is so false and illogical that I would not know where to start in a comment, so I should like to refer to a whole book about it: Keen, Steve: "Debunking economics". ..."
"... As the theory is totally wrong it is really not surprising that countless experiments show that people do not behave the way neoclassical theory predicts. How do economists react to this? Of course they assume that people are "irrational" because they do not behave according to their studied theory. (Why would you ever change your basic theory because of some tedious facts?) ..."
"... The title of the 1st ed. of Keen's book was "Debunking Economics: The Naked Emperor of the Social Sciences" which was simply a perfect title. ..."
Early in any psychology course, students are taught to be very cautious about accepting people's reports. A simple trick is
to stage some sort of interruption to the lecture by confederates, and later ask the students to write down what they witnessed.
Typically, they will misremember the events, sequences and even the number of people who staged the tableaux. Don't trust witnesses,
is the message.
Another approach is to show visual illusions, such as getting estimates of line lengths in the Muller-Lyer illusion, or studying
simple line lengths under social pressure, as in the Asch experiment, or trying to solve the Peter Wason logic problems, or the puzzles
set by Kahneman and Tversky. All these appear to show severe limitations of human judgment. Psychology is full of cautionary tales
about the foibles of common folk.
As a consequence of this softening up, psychology students come to regard themselves and most people as fallible, malleable, unreliable,
biased and generally irrational. No wonder psychologists feel superior to the average citizen, since they understand human limitations
and, with their superior training, hope to rise above such lowly superstitions.
However, society still functions, people overcome errors and many things work well most of the time. Have psychologists, for one
reason or another, misunderstood people, and been too quick to assume that they are incapable of rational thought?
He is particularly interested in the economic consequences of apparent irrationality, and whether our presumed biases really result
in us making bad economic decisions. If so, some argue we need a benign force, say a government, to protect us from our lack of capacity.
Perhaps we need a tattoo on our forehead: Diminished Responsibility.
The argument leading from cognitive biases to governmental paternalism -- in short, the irrationality argument -- consists
of three assumptions and one conclusion:
1. Lack of rationality. Experiments have shown that people's intuitions are systematically biased.
2. Stubbornness. Like visual illusions, biases are persistent and hardly corrigible by education.
3. Substantial costs. Biases may incur substantial welfare-relevant costs such as lower wealth, health, or happiness.
4. Biases justify governmental paternalism. To protect people from theirbiases, governments should "nudge" the public
toward better behavior.
The three assumptions -- lack of rationality, stubbornness, and costs -- imply that there is slim chance that people can ever
learn or be educated out of their biases; instead governments need to step in with a policy called libertarian paternalism (Thaler
and Sunstein, 2003).
So, are we as hopeless as some psychologists claim we are? In fact, probably not. Not all the initial claims have been substantiated.
For example, it seems we are not as loss averse as previously claimed. Does our susceptibility to printed visual illusions show that
we lack judgement in real life?
In Shepard's (1990) words, "to fool a visual system that has a full binocular and freely mobile view of a well-illuminated scene
is next to impossible" (p. 122). Thus, in psychology, the visual system is seen more as a genius than a fool in making intelligent
inferences, and inferences, after all, are necessary for making sense of the images on the retina.
Most crucially, can people make probability judgements? Let us see. Try solving this one:
A disease has a base rate of .1, and a test is performed that has a hit rate of .9 (the conditional probability of a positive
test given disease) and a false positive rate of .1 (the conditional probability of a positive test given no disease). What is
the probability that a random person with a positive test result actually has the disease?
Most people fail this test, including 79% of gynaecologists giving breast screening tests. Some researchers have drawn the conclusion
that people are fundamentally unable to deal with conditional probabilities. On the contrary, there is a way of laying out the problem
such that most people have no difficulty with it. Watch what it looks like when presented as natural frequencies:
Among every 100 people, 10 are expected to have a disease. Among those 10, nine are expected to correctly test positive. Among
the 90 people without the disease, nine are expected to falsely test positive. What proportion of those who test positive actually
have the disease?
In this format the positive test result gives us 9 people with the disease and 9 people without the disease, so the chance that
a positive test result shows a real disease is 50/50. Only 13% of gynaecologists fail this presentation.
Summing up the virtues of natural frequencies, Gigerenzer says:
When college students were given a 2-hour course in natural frequencies, the number of correct Bayesian inferences increased
from 10% to 90%; most important, this 90% rate was maintained 3 months after training (Sedlmeier and Gigerenzer, 2001). Meta-analyses
have also documented the "de-biasing" effect, and natural frequencies are now a technical term in evidence-based medicine (Akiet
al., 2011; McDowell and Jacobs, 2017). These results are consistent with a long literature on techniques for successfully teaching
statistical reasoning (e.g., Fonget al., 1986). In sum, humans can learn Bayesian inference quickly if the information is presented
in natural frequencies.
If the problem is set out in a simple format, almost all of us can all do conditional probabilities.
I taught my medical students about the base rate screening problem in the late 1970s, based on: Robyn Dawes (1962) "A note on
base rates and psychometric efficiency". Decades later, alarmed by the positive scan detection of an unexplained mass, I confided
my fears to a psychiatrist friend. He did a quick differential diagnosis on bowel cancer, showing I had no relevant symptoms, and
reminded me I had lectured him as a student on base rates decades before, so I ought to relax. Indeed, it was false positive.
Here are the relevant figures, set out in terms of natural frequencies
Every test has a false positive rate (every step is being taken to reduce these), and when screening is used for entire populations
many patients have to undergo further investigations, sometimes including surgery.
Setting out frequencies in a logical sequence can often prevent misunderstandings. Say a man on trial for having murdered his
spouse has previously physically abused her. Should his previous history of abuse not be raised in Court because only 1 woman in
2500 cases of abuse is murdered by her abuser? Of course, whatever a defence lawyer may argue and a Court may accept, this is back
to front. OJ Simpson was not on trial for spousal abuse, but for the murder of his former partner. The relevant question is: what
is the probability that a man murdered his partner, given that she has been murdered and that he previously battered her.
Accepting the figures used by the defence lawyer, if 1 in 2500 women are murdered every year by their abusive male partners, how
many women are murdered by men who did not previously abuse them? Using government figures that 5 women in 100,000 are murdered every
year then putting everything onto the same 100,000 population, the frequencies look like this:
So, 40 to 5, it is 8 times more probable that abused women are murdered by their abuser. A relevant issue to raise in Court about
the past history of an accused man.
Are people's presumed biases costly, in the sense of making them vulnerable to exploitation, such that they can be turned into
a money pump, or is it a case of "once bitten, twice shy"? In fact, there is no evidence that these apparently persistent logical
errors actually result in people continually making costly errors. That presumption turns out to be a bias bias.
Gigerenzer goes on to show that people are in fact correct in their understanding of the randomness of short sequences of coin
tosses, and Kahneman and Tversky wrong. Elegantly, he also shows that the "hot hand" of successful players in basketball is a real
phenomenon, and not a stubborn illusion as claimed.
With equal elegance he disposes of a result I had depended upon since Slovic (1982), which is that people over-estimate the frequency
of rare risks and under-estimate the frequency of common risks. This finding has led to the belief that people are no good at estimating
risk. Who could doubt that a TV series about Chernobyl will lead citizens to have an exaggerated fear of nuclear power stations?
The original Slovic study was based on 39 college students, not exactly a fair sample of humanity. The conceit of psychologists
knows no bounds. Gigerenzer looks at the data and shows that it is yet another example of regression to the mean. This is an apparent
effect which arises whenever the predictor is less than perfect (the most common case), an unsystematic error effect, which is already
evident when you calculate the correlation coefficient. Parental height and their children's heights are positively but not perfectly
correlated at about r = 0.5. Predictions made in either direction will under-predict in either direction, simply because they are
not perfect, and do not capture all the variation. Try drawing out the correlation as an ellipse to see the effect of regression,
compared to the perfect case of the straight line of r= 1.0
What diminishes in the presence of noise is the variability of the estimates, both the estimates of the height of the sons based
on that of their fathers, and vice versa. Regression toward the mean is a result of unsystematic, not systematic error (Stigler,1999).
Gigerenzer also looks at the supposed finding that people are over-confidence in predictions, and finds that it is another regression
to the mean problem.
Gigerenzer then goes on to consider that old favourite, that most people think they are better than average, which supposedly
cannot be the case, because average people are average.
Consider the finding that most drivers think they drive better than average. If better driving is interpreted as meaning fewer
accidents, then most drivers' beliefs are actually true. The number of accidents per person has a skewed distribution, and an
analysis of U.S. accident statistics showed that some 80% of drivers have fewer accidents than the average number of accidents
(Mousavi and Gigerenzer, 2011)
Then he looks at the classical demonstration of framing, that is to say, the way people appear to be easily swayed by how the
same facts are "framed" or presented to the person who has to make a decision.
A patient suffering from a serious heart disease considers high-risk surgery and asks a doctor about its prospects.
The doctor can frame the answer in two ways:
Positive Frame: Five years after surgery, 90% of patients are alive.
Negative Frame: Five years after surgery, 10% of patients are dead.
Should the patient listen to how the doctor frames the answer? Behavioral economists say no because both frames are logically
equivalent (Kahneman, 2011). Nevertheless, people do listen. More are willing to agree to a medical procedure if the doctor uses
positive framing (90% alive) than if negative framing is used (10% dead) (Moxeyet al., 2003). Framing effects challenge the assumption
of stable preferences, leading to preference reversals. Thaler and Sunstein (2008) who presented the above surgery problem, concluded
that "framing works because people tend to be somewhat mindless, passive decisionmakers" (p. 40)
Gigerenzer points out that in this particular example, subjects are having to make their judgements without knowing a key fact:
how many survive without surgery. If you know that you have a datum which is more influential. These are the sorts of questions patients
will often ask about, and discuss with other patients, or with several doctors. Furthermore, you don't have to spin a statistic.
You could simply say: "Five years after surgery, 90% of patients are alive and 10% are dead".
Gigerenzer gives an explanation which is very relevant to current discussions about the meaning of intelligence, and about the
power of intelligence tests:
In sum, the principle of logical equivalence or "description invariance" is a poor guide to understanding how human intelligence
deals with an uncertain world where not everything is stated explicitly. It misses the very nature of intelligence, the ability
to go beyond the information given (Bruner, 1973)
The key is to take uncertainty seriously, take heuristics seriously, and beware of the bias bias.
One important conclusion I draw from this entire paper is that the logical puzzles enjoyed by Kahneman, Tversky, Stanovich and
others are rightly rejected by psychometricians as usually being poor indicators of real ability. They fail because they are designed
to lead people up the garden path, and depend on idiosyncratic interpretations.
Critics of examinations of either intellectual ability or scholastic attainment are fond of claiming that the items are "arbitrary".
Not really. Scholastic tests have to be close to the curriculum in question, but still need to a have question forms which are simple
to understand so that the stress lies in how students formulate the answer, not in how they decipher the structure of the question.
Intellectual tests have to avoid particular curricula and restrict themselves to the common ground of what most people in a community
understand. Questions have to be super-simple, so that the correct answer follows easily from the question, with minimal ambiguity.
Furthermore, in the case of national scholastic tests, and particularly in the case of intelligence tests, legal authorities will
pore over the test, looking at each item for suspected biases of a sexual, racial or socio-economic nature. Designing an intelligence
test is a difficult and expensive matter. Many putative new tests of intelligence never even get to the legal hurdle, because they
flounder on matters of reliability and validity, and reveal themselves to be little better than the current range of assessments.
In conclusion, both in psychology and behavioural economics, some researchers have probably been too keen to allege bias in cases
where there are unsystematic errors, or no errors at all. The corrective is to learn about base rates, and to use natural frequencies
as a guide to good decision-making.
Don't bother boosting your IQ. Boost your understanding of natural frequencies.
Good concrete advice. Perhaps even more useful for those who need to explain things like this to others than for those seeking
to understand for themselves.
"intelligence deals with an uncertain world where not everything is stated explicitly. It misses the very nature of intelligence,
the ability to go beyond the information given (Bruner, 1973)"
"The key is to take uncertainty seriously, take heuristics seriously, and beware of the bias bias."
Actually I think this is an example of an increasingly common genre of malapropism, where the writer gropes for the right word,
finds one that is similar, and settles for that. The worst of it is that readers intuitively understand what was intended, and
then adopt the marginally incorrect usage themselves. That's perhaps how the world and his dog came to say "literally" when they
mean "figuratively". Maybe a topic for a future article?
In 2009 Google finished engineering a reverse search engine to find out what kind of searches people did most often. Seth Davidowitz
and Steven Pinker wrote a very fascinating/entertaining book using the tool called Everybody Lies
Everybody Lies offers fascinating, surprising, and sometimes laugh-out-loud insights into everything from economics to ethics
to sports to race to sex, gender, and more, all drawn from the world of big data. What percentage of white voters didn't vote
for Barack Obama because he's black? Does where you go to school effect how successful you are in life? Do parents secretly
favor boy children over girls? Do violent films affect the crime rate? Can you beat the stock market? How regularly do we lie
about our sex lives, and who's more self-conscious about sex, men or women?
Investigating these questions and a host of others, Seth Stephens-Davidowitz offers revelations that can help us understand
ourselves and our lives better. Drawing on studies and experiments on how we really live and think, he demonstrates in fascinating
and often funny ways the extent to which all the world is indeed a lab. With conclusions ranging from strange-but-true to thought-provoking
to disturbing, he explores the power of this digital truth serum and its deeper potential – revealing biases deeply embedded
within us, information we can use to change our culture, and the questions we're afraid to ask that might be essential to our
health – both emotional and physical. All of us are touched by big data every day, and its influence is multiplying. Everybody
Lies challenges us to think differently about how we see it and the world.
I shall treat this posting (for which many thanks, doc) as an invitation to sing a much-loved song: everybody should read Gigerenzer's
Reckoning with Risk. With great clarity it teaches what everyone ought to know about probability.
(It could also serve as a model for writing in English about technical subjects. Americans and Britons should study the English
of this German – he knows how, you know.)
Inspired by "The original Slovic study was based on 39 college students" I shall also sing another favorite song. Much of Psychology
is based on what small numbers of American undergraduates report they think they think.
" Gigerenzer points out that in this particular example, subjects are having to make their judgements without knowing a key fact:
how many survive without surgery. "
This one reminds of the false dichotomy. The patient has additional options! Like changing diet, and behaviours such as exercise,
elimination of occupational stress , etc.
The statistical outcomes for a person change when the person changes their circumstances/conditions.
@Tom
Welsh A disposition (conveyance) of an awkwardly shaped chunk out of a vast estate contained reference to "the slither of
ground bounded on or towards the north east and extending two hundred and twenty four meters or thereby along a chain link fence "
Not poor clients (either side) nor cheap lawyers. And who never erred?
Better than deliberately inserting "errors" to guarantee a stream of tidy up work (not unknown in the "professional" world)
in future.
Good article. 79% of gynaecologists fail a simple conditional probability test?! Many if not most medical research papers use
advanced statistics. Medical doctors must read these papers to fully understand their field. So, if medical doctors don't fully
understand them, they are not properly doing their job. Those papers use mathematical expressions, not English. Converting them
to another form of English, instead of using the mathematical expressions isn't a solution.
Regarding witnesses: When that jet crashed into Rockaway several years ago, a high percentage of witnesses said that they saw
smoke before the crash. But there was actually no smoke. The witnesses were adjusting what they saw to conform to their past experience
of seeing movie and newsreel footage of planes smoking in the air before a crash. Children actually make very good witnesses.
Regarding the chart. Missing, up there in the vicinity of cancer and heart disease. The third-leading cause of death. 250,000
per year, according to a 2016 Hopkins study. Medical negligence.
1. Lack of rationality. Experiments have shown that people's intuitions are systematically biased.
2. Stubbornness. Like visual illusions, biases are persistent and hardly corrigible by education.
3. Substantial costs. Biases may incur substantial welfare-relevant costs such as lower wealth, health, or happiness.
4. Biases justify governmental paternalism. To protect people from theirbiases, governments should "nudge" the public toward
better behavior.
Well the sad fact is that there's nobody in the position to protect "governments" from their own biases, and "scientists"
from theirs.
So, behind the smoke of all words and rationalisations, the law is unchanged: everyone strives to gain and exert as much power
as possible over as many others as possible. Most do that without writing papers to say it is right, others write papers,
others books. Anyway, the fundamental law would stay as it is even if all this writing labour was spared, wouldn't it?
But then another fundamental law, the law of framing all one's drives as moral and beneffective comes into play the papers
and the books are useful, after all.
An interesting article. However, I think that the only thing we have to know about how illogical psychiatry is this:
In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) asked all members attending its convention to vote on whether they believed
homosexuality to be a mental disorder. 5,854 psychiatrists voted to remove homosexuality from the DSM, and 3,810 to retain
it.
The APA then compromised, removing homosexuality from the DSM but replacing it, in effect, with "sexual orientation disturbance"
for people "in conflict with" their sexual orientation. Not until 1987 did homosexuality completely fall out of the DSM.
The article makes no mention of the fact that no "new science" was brought to support the resolution.
It appears that the psychiatrists were voting based on feelings rather than science. Since that time, the now 50+ genders have
been accepted as "normal" by the APA. My family has had members in multiple generations suffering from mental illness. None were
"cured". I know others with the same circumstances.
How does one conclude that being repulsed by the prime directive of every
living organism – reproduce yourself – is "normal"? That is not to say these people are horrible or evil, just not normal. How
can someone, who thinks (s)he is a cat be mentally ill, but a grown man thinking he is a female child is not?
Long ago a lawyer acquaintance, referring to a specific judge, told me that the judge seemed to "make shit up as he was going
along". I have long held psychiatry fits that statement very well.
Thank you for this article. I find the information about the interpretation of statistical data very interesting. My take on the
background of the article is this:
Here we have a real scientist fighting the nonsense spreading from (neoclassical) economics into other realms of science/academia.
Behavioral economics is a sideline by-product of neoclassical micro-economic theory. It tries to cope with experimental
data that is inconsistent with that theory.
Everything in neoclassical economics is a travesty. "Rational choice theory" and its application in "micro economics" is
false from the ground up. It basically assumes that people are gobbling up resources without plan, meaning or relevant circumstances.
Neoclassical micro economic theory is so false and illogical that I would not know where to start in a comment, so I should like
to refer to a whole book about it:
Keen, Steve: "Debunking economics".
As the theory is totally wrong it is really not surprising that countless experiments show that people do not behave the
way neoclassical theory predicts. How do economists react to this? Of course they assume that people are "irrational" because
they do not behave according to their studied theory. (Why would you ever change your basic theory because of some tedious facts?)
We live in a strange world in which such people have control over university faculties, journals, famous prizes. But at least
we have some scientists who defend their area of knowledge against the spreading nonsense produced by economists.
The title of the 1st ed. of Keen's book was "Debunking Economics: The Naked Emperor of the Social Sciences" which was simply
a perfect title.
Zero Hedge commenters are most libertarians (anarcho-capitalists -- unwitting supporters of neoliberalism) , but still
changes after 2016 are noticeable.
Notable quotes:
"... Today I am proposing we complete the unfinished work of Franklin Roosevelt and the Democratic Party by putting forth a 21st century economic bill of rights. ..."
"... Operación Cóndor, also known as Plan Cóndor ; Portuguese : Operação Condor) was a United States –backed campaign of political repression and state terror involving intelligence operations and assassination of opponents, officially and formally implemented in November 1975 by the right-wing dictatorships of the Southern Cone of South America. ..."
"... The program, nominally intended to eradicate communist or Soviet influence and ideas, was created to suppress active or potential opposition movements against the participating governments' neoliberal economic policies, which sought to reverse the economic policies of the previous era. [6] [7] ..."
"... Due to its clandestine nature, the precise number of deaths directly attributable to Operation Condor is highly disputed. Some estimates are that at least 60,000 deaths can be attributed to Condor, roughly 30,000 of these in Argentina, [8] [9] and the so-called " Archives of Terror " list 50,000 killed, 30,000 disappeared and 400,000 imprisoned. [5] [10] American political scientist J. Patrice McSherry gives a figure of at least 402 killed in operations which crossed national borders in a 2002 source, [11] and mentions in a 2009 source that of those who "had gone into exile" and were "kidnapped, tortured and killed in allied countries or illegally transferred to their home countries to be executed . . . hundreds, or thousands, of such persons -- the number still has not been finally determined -- were abducted, tortured, and murdered in Condor operations." [1] Victims included dissidents and leftists, union and peasant leaders, priests and nuns, students and teachers, intellectuals and suspected guerillas. [11] Although it was described by the CIA as "a cooperative effort by the intelligence/security services of several South American countries to combat terrorism and subversion," [12] guerrillas were used as an excuse, as they were never substantial enough to control territory, gain material support by any foreign power, or otherwise threaten national security. [13] [14] [15] Condor's key members were the governments in Argentina , Chile , Uruguay , Paraguay , Bolivia and Brazil . Ecuador and Peru later joined the operation in more peripheral roles. [16] [17] ..."
"... The United States government provided planning, coordinating, training on torture [18] , technical support and supplied military aid to the Juntas during the Johnson , Nixon , Ford , Carter , and the Reagan administrations. [2] Such support was frequently routed through the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). ..."
Despite being probably robbed of the Democratic Party's nomination by the Clinton political
machine, the success of the Bernie Sanders' 2016 campaign with his advocacy of "democratic
socialism" was an ominous sign of things to come and, in some sense, more telling of the
political climate than Donald Trump's improbable victory in November, 2016. The millions of
votes garnered by Sanders in the Democratic primaries has emboldened other socialists to seek
political office while socialist ideas are openly spoken of with little fear of political
recriminations.
Sanders has doubled down on his advocacy of democratic socialism in a recent speech at
George Washington University, calling for the completion of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New
Deal of the 1930s:
Today I am proposing we complete the unfinished work of Franklin Roosevelt and the
Democratic Party by putting forth a 21st century economic bill of rights.
Even supposedly "moderate" Democrats are trying to tout their "progressive" credentials,
such as creepy Joe Biden who recently said:
I'm told I get criticized by the New Left. I have the most progressive record of anybody
running for... anybody who would run.
While Sanders' chance of becoming the Democratic nominee in 2020 is still uncertain,
President Trump has already indicated what is going to be a centerpiece of his election
strategy: oppose socialism. The first hint of the strategy came at this year's State of the
Union address when the President declared:
America will never be a socialist country.
While President Trump will espouse his supposed accomplishments (tax cuts, deregulation,
trade) as a contrast to democratic socialism, his emphasis will also deflect attention away
from his most solemn campaign pledge which has not been achieved – a border wall and a
crack down and deportation of illegal immigrants.
Whether this is a winning formula remains to be seen. If the Democrats are led by Bernie
Sanders in 2020, they will probably lose, unless the economy falls off a cliff (very possible)
or the Donald follows the suicidal advice of the war-mongering team of Messrs Bolton and Pompeo
and start a war with Iran.
While the Trump campaign narrative for 2020 may convince the masses who may still not be
ready to vote for outright socialism, the country, like most of the Western world, has long ago
imbibed and adopted many of the philosophy's tenets.
Frank Chodorov, one of the most perceptive and courageous writers of what was affectionately
known as the "Old Right," pointed out over a half century ago that America had enacted many of
the ideas which were enumerated in Marx and Engels' Communist Manifesto . Chodorov constantly
chided the Cold War warriors of his time, such as William Buckley, that communism had come to
America without one shot being fired by the Soviets.
Frank Chodorov, 1887-1966
In one of his most penetrating essays, "How Communism Came to America," Chodorov incisively
pointed out the "long-term objectives of communism:"
Among them are government ownership of land, a heavy progressive income tax, abolition of
inheritance rights, a national bank, government ownership or control of communication and
transportation facilities, state-owned factories, a government program for soil conservation,
government schools, free education.
He trenchantly asked:
" How many of these planks of the Communist Manifesto do you support? Federal Reserve
Bank? Interstate Commerce Commission? Federal Communications Commission? Tennessee Valley
Authority? The Sixteenth (income tax) Amendment? The inheritance tax? Government schools with
compulsory attendance and support?"
Further in his piece, Chodorov describes how the American economy, even at the time, had
taken on many features of state capitalism: deficit financing, insurance of bank deposits,
guaranteed mortgages, control of bank credits, regulation of installment buying, price
controls, farm price supports, agricultural credits, RFC loans to business, social security,
government housing, public works, tariffs, foreign loans.
He again asked: "How many of these measures . . . do you oppose?"
The next financial downturn, which is staring America in the face, will be far more
devastating than the last since nothing has been resolved financially while the cause of the
Great Recession – the Federal Reserve – continues to operate with impunity. As
things continue to deteriorate, there will be even greater calls and support for more
socialism. The free market will be blamed.
Ever notice that no real socialist ever proposes killing lots of people? On the other
hand, our capitalist ruling-class is always looking to do lots of killing.
--------------
Trump's Military Drops a Bomb Every 12 Minutes, and No One Is Talking About It
Do you know what you never heard Bernie Sanders say and never will hear him say?
The most famous Karl Marx quote of all time, "Workers of the world, unite!" Why do you
suppose that is?
---------------
Bernie Sanders: A right-wing capitalist posing as a socialist
By Tom Hall
18 June 2019
Last Wednesday, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders gave a speech on "democratic socialism" at
George Washington University. The main function of the speech was to define his supposed
"socialism" as entirely in conformity with the politics of the Democratic Party -- that is, a
"socialism" devoid any opposition to capitalism and war.
Sanders' speech comes within the context of a ruling class that is increasingly fearful of
the growing popularity of socialism. Donald Trump has presented himself over the last several
months as a bulwark against a "socialist takeover" in America. This theme has also been taken
up by many in the Democratic Party, who insist that any reference to socialism in the party's
primaries is impermissible.
Sanders' speech attempts to accomplish the same ends through different means. It exposes
Sanders' effort to combine populist and "socialist" rhetoric with a defense of American
capitalism and the Democratic Party.
Three basic elements of Sanders' speech demonstrate this political fraud. First is
Sanders' dishonest presentation of Franklin Roosevelt and the history of the Democratic
Party.
In a speech billed as defining his conception of "democratic socialism," Sanders
explicitly placed his own politics within the tradition of the Democratic Party, particularly
the liberal New Deal reforms of President Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930s.
"Over eighty years ago Franklin Delano Roosevelt helped create a government that made
transformative progress in protecting the needs of working families. Today, in the second
decade of the 21st century, we must take up the unfinished business of the New Deal and carry
it to completion," Sanders said. "This is the unfinished business of the Democratic Party and
the vision we must accomplish."
Sanders quoted the "Economic Bill of Rights" proposed by Roosevelt, but never seriously
pursued, in his 1944 State of the Union speech. The centerpiece of Sanders' speech was his
call for a "21st Century Economic Bill of Rights" guaranteeing the right to a high-quality
standard of living.
Sanders portrays Roosevelt as the leader of a popular revolt involving "organized labor,
leaders in the African American community and progressives inside and outside the Party," and
which "led a transformation of the American government and the American economy."
He declared, "Despite [the opposition of the rich], by rallying the American people, FDR
and his progressive coalition created the New Deal, won four terms, and created an economy
that worked for all and not just the few," Sanders claimed.
Sanders' glowing references to Roosevelt are designed to obscure the fact that the
Democratic Party was, and is, a party of the ruling class. Roosevelt was not the political
representative of popular struggles, much less a "democratic socialist," but a particularly
astute representative of the capitalist class, who understood that concessions had to be made
in order to preserve the capitalist system, which was in a state of collapse and widely
discredited, and prevent the danger of socialist revolution.
The gains that were won during this period came not from the political establishment, but
through the mass, insurrectionary struggles of the working class, which Roosevelt and the
Democratic Party sought to contain. Moreover, poverty and unemployment remained endemic
throughout the United States even after the New Deal. The gap between rich and poor, while
lower than before, remained massive. In the South, which remained mired in rural
backwardness, African-Americans continued to face segregation and lynch mob terror.
The New Deal reforms also proved unable to lift the United States out of economic crisis.
This came through World War Two and its destruction of much of the European and world
economy, and at least 60 million lives. Under Roosevelt's leadership, the United States
entered World War II in December 1941.
Prior to and during the war, the "progressive" Roosevelt cracked down on democratic
rights, jailing leaders of the
Trotskyist movement, the most class conscious representatives of the working class, enforcing
a ban on strikes with the assistance of the union bureaucracy and imprisoning hundreds of
thousands of Japanese-Americans in concentration camps.
Roosevelt's "Economic Bill of Rights," proposed but never acted upon towards the end of
the war, was a left-feint that reflected his fear that, if the end of the war brought with it
a return to Depression-era conditions, world capitalism would face even more serious
revolutionary convulsions than in the 1930s. One year after the speech, Roosevelt replaced
his vice president, Henry Wallace, with Harry Truman -- a concession to the right-wing of the
Democratic Party.
After the war, Roosevelt's program of liberal reforms, now coupled with Cold War
anticommunism, was continued only as long as it could be financed out of rising productivity
made possible by the emergence of the United States as world superpower. But the "Economic
Bill of Rights," even during the zenith of American capitalism, remained a dead letter. By
the end of the 1960s, with the end of the postwar boom and the beginning of the long-term
decline of American hegemony, the Democrats abandoned these programs and moved sharply to the
right.
But this is precisely the point at which Sanders' historical excursion stops. This enables
him to suppress the fact that the Democratic Party long ago repudiated these reforms and is
now a full partner in undermining and dismantling the very social programs whose further
development Sanders presents as the "unfinished business" of the Democratic Party. In fact,
as far the Democratic Party is concerned, their "unfinished business" is destroying every
gain won by the working class in a century of struggle.
The second element of Sanders' speech is the complete absence of any reference to foreign
policy or war. Events outside of the United States are barely mentioned at all. This guilty
silence, which Sanders has long maintained in speeches meant for a broader audience, is aimed
at covering for Sanders' support for imperialist war
and American nationalism.
Sanders gives indirect signals to the ruling class of his support for war at points
throughout his speech. When Sanders lists off a series of "authoritarian rulers" throughout
the world, he tops off the list with Vladimir Putin in Russia and Xi Jinping in China, a sign
of support for both his party's demands for confrontation with Russia and
Trump's trade war measures against China .
Significantly, Sanders manages to avoid even mentioning World War II in a speech
supposedly centered on the political legacy of Franklin Roosevelt. He also favorably cites
former presidents Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson, without referencing the fact that both
were widely reviled as warmongers and mass murderers: Truman for his dropping of the atomic
bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and for the Korean War, and Johnson for his massive
escalation of the Vietnam War.
The reference to Johnson is particularly significant. Johnson's Great Society programs
foundered against the massive costs of the war in Vietnam, signaling the end of the whole
period of liberal reform. By the late 1960s, the Democratic Party could no longer balance
within itself welfare programs aimed at securing the support of working class with the needs
of American imperialism.
As Sanders knows well, having begun his political career as a student protester in the
1960s, this pushed a whole generation of students and working-class youth to the left towards
anti-capitalist and radical politics, among whom Johnson's name became virtually an epithet.
A popular slogan during the protests against the Vietnam War was "Hey, Hey, LBJ, How many
kids did you kill today?"
By glossing over this and presenting Johnson in a favorable, even "democratic socialist"
light, Sanders is not only rehabilitating Johnson, he is promoting a more basic falsehood --
that an imperialist and militaristic foreign policy is compatible with democracy and social
equality at home, a lie which forms the center of Sanders' own politics.
The third element of Sanders' speech is that he does not explain how it is possible to
guarantee a high standard of living for everyone without a frontal assault on the capitalist
system, especially under conditions where the ruling class considers even a modest increase
in the share of income going to workers impermissible. In Sanders' "socialism," there is no
there there He proposes a whole series of "rights," without any suggestion that they would
require a fundamental change in social relations.
Moreover, the turn towards authoritarian forms of rule, a fact which Sanders himself is
obliged to note, demonstrates that the levels of social inequality are no longer compatible
with democratic rights. This is not only expressed in Trump, as Sanders implies, but also
within the Democratic Party itself, which is engaged in palace coup methods in its
internecine struggle against Trump.
If an "Economic Bill of Rights" was unachievable during the high point of American
economic and political power, then it is all the more impossible today, when American
capitalism is mired in a terminal decline. There can be no doubt that Sanders, were he
elected president, would jettison this proposal even more rapidly than Roosevelt.
Indeed, while Roosevelt was prepared to take on powerful elements within the political
establishment in order to force through his program of reforms, Sanders has already
demonstrated his political spinelessness. The defining moment of Sanders' political career
remains his groveling capitulation to Hillary Clinton in 2016 after an election campaign
marred by corruption and fraud.
A genuine fight for the social rights of the working class, including the right to a job,
a secure retirement, high quality healthcare and education, requires an uncompromising
struggle of the working class against the capitalist system. This means the establishment of
a workers government, in the United States and internationally, to massively redistribute
wealth and transform the giant banks and corporations into publicly-owned utilities,
democratically controlled by the working class.
This requires a persistent struggle against the influence of all forms of bourgeois
ideology within the working class, above all "left" variants such as that promoted by
Sanders.
Gotta love the Trumptards and Trailer Park Rednecks touting Capitalism. They've, never
experienced real Capitalism or they'd be crying like babies, begging for mercy. Since FDR's
New Deal in the 1930s the US has been partly (badly) Socialist.
So let's go Full Capitalist, tough guys: no minimum wage, line up each morning and bid
lowest for a job; no health care at all, get sick, go die; food stamps, ha!, eat grass; no
pension, work till you drop, then pauper's grave; no unions, every man for himself against
the bosses. Like it so far?
Denmark is Socialist, cradle-to-grave health care, free education, minimum wage $43/hr.
Oh, it's expensive but everyone's healthy, active and pretty friendly. No ********
billionaires like the Trumpster, Soros, Gates, people who wouldn't throw a starving man a
crust. No American Dream, only Danish reality.
But no Walmart AR15 to shoot your neighbors. Right. America's better.
Capitalist Barack Obama gave rich capitalists trillions of dollars in free-stuff bailouts
and free-stuff military spending and free-stuff imperialist wars. Capitalist Donald Trump
then came along and gave those raping, looting, murderous capitalists $1.5 trillion in
free-stuff tax cuts.
Definitions
Socialism: Trillions of dollars of free stuff for the 99%, paid for by their labor
Capitalism: Trillions of dollars of free stuff for the super-rich 1%, paid for by the
labor of the 99%.
Ever notice that your beloved ruling-class capitalists whose great wealth gives them the
power to set all the laws and determine all the policy never make any attempt to stop crony
capitalism?
Capitalism is inherently cronyism. The cronyism cannot be separated out and no rich
capitalist would have any interest in doing so even if it could.
Your support of a death cult ideology is duly noted and capitalism has lifted more people
out of poverty than any other ism. Marx was a lunatic who never worked a day in his vile
useless life. His writings inspired Stalin and Mao to murder millions.
The government on both sides of the fence subsidize corporations at the expense of the
masses, so your solution is to give the government total control and ownership? You're a
fuckwit if you believe the elites won't have an even better time under socialism. They would
have nothing in their way. The only solution is to privatize everything if you actually
wanted a better life for the ones getting screwed, but I won't even waste my time. Carry on
with your idiotic thoughts.
That government you right-wingers have all experienced in America and all despise is a
capitalist government.
The battle between socialism and capitalism is the battle between the workers who produce
the wealth and the parasites who take that wealth from the workers. That's why capitalism
tells you that socialism is government. They can't tell you that socialism is society run by
the producers of wealth rather than the parasites. Capitalists like to leave the
working-class completely out of the equation. That's because they're scared shitless that the
99% might realize that they are actually all socialists.
Capitalism has nothing to do with the offenses you describe. You're simply gullible enough
to believe politicians when they blame capitalism for their ill gotten gains, grease and
dirt. When they have the rest of the masses as dumb as you, then socialism will make their
job even easier.
RIGHT-WING MORONS: We trust our lying, cheating, stealing, warmongering, murderous,
corrupt, criminal capitalist elite to tell us everything we need to know about socialism.
They would never lie to us about socialism. They would never just define the working-class
masses completely out of the equation even as Karl Marx specifically wrote, "Workers of the
world, unite!"
The program, nominally intended to eradicate communist or Soviet influence and ideas,
was created to suppress active or potential opposition movements against the participating
governments' neoliberal economic policies, which sought
to reverse the economic policies of the previous era. [6][7]
Due to its clandestine nature, the precise number of deaths directly attributable to
Operation Condor is highly disputed. Some estimates are that at least 60,000 deaths can be
attributed to Condor, roughly 30,000 of these in Argentina, [8][9] and the so-called
" Archives of
Terror " list 50,000 killed, 30,000 disappeared and 400,000 imprisoned.
[5][10]
American political scientist J. Patrice McSherry gives a figure of
at least 402 killed in operations which crossed national borders in a 2002 source,
[11] and
mentions in a 2009 source that of those who "had gone into exile" and were "kidnapped,
tortured and killed in allied countries or illegally transferred to their home countries to
be executed . . . hundreds, or thousands, of such persons -- the number still has not been
finally determined -- were abducted, tortured, and murdered in Condor operations."
[1]
Victims included dissidents and leftists, union and peasant leaders, priests and nuns,
students and teachers, intellectuals and suspected guerillas. [11]
Although it was described by the CIA as "a cooperative effort by the intelligence/security
services of several South American countries to combat terrorism and subversion,"
[12]guerrillas were used as an excuse, as they were never substantial enough to control
territory, gain material support by any foreign power, or otherwise threaten national
security. [13][14][15] Condor's key
members were the governments in Argentina , Chile , Uruguay , Paraguay , Bolivia and Brazil . Ecuador and Peru later joined the operation in more peripheral
roles. [16][17]
The United States government provided planning, coordinating, training on torture
[18] , technical
support and supplied military aid to the Juntas during the Johnson , Nixon ,
Ford ,
Carter
, and the Reagan administrations.
[2]
Such support was frequently routed through the Central Intelligence Agency
(CIA).
You've never read Marx. He never advocated overthrowing Capitalism; rather he predicted
its demise due to its inherent chaos, waste and selfishness. It cannot exist in civilized
society. Just look at America, and see he was right.
"... The actual Deep State are always the aristocrats, themselves, the people who run the revolving door between 'the private sector' (the aristocracy's corporations) and the government. ..."
"... All of the well-financed candidates for the top offices are actually the Deep State's representatives, and virtually none are the representatives of the public, because the voters have been deceived, and were given choices between two or more candidates, none of whom will represent the public if and when elected. ..."
"... Is that Democratic Party initiative anything else than insincere political theater, lying to their own gullible voters, just being phonies who manipulate voters to vote for them instead of who are actually serving them? ..."
"... Is that what democracy is, now: insincere political theater? Is that "democracy"? America's voters are trapped, by liars, so it's instead mere 'democracy'. It's just the new form of dictatorship. But it's actually as ancient as is any empire. ..."
"... Trump's Democratic predecessor, Barack Obama, was just as evil, and just as insincere, as Trump, but only a far more skillful liar, who deceived his voters to think that he would fight corruption , work to improve relations with Russia , provide a public option in his health-insurance plan , and otherwise work to reduce economic inequality , to improve the economic situation for disadvantaged Americans , and to prosecute banksters . ..."
"... If the UK elect Jeremy Corbyn all bets are off, he will expose ALL corrupt politicians media and foreign powers. Why do you think there is such a concerted effort to prevent him gaining office, even Pompeo has said "the US will prevent him becoming PM" ..."
"... But they won't LET you decentralize, Annie. It doesn't suit them. Millions of others do indeed share your concern, but merely imagining a better system doesn't make it happen. It doesn't get through the layers and layers of entrenched investment in the current system, or through the layers and layers of ruthless militarism protecting it. Our enemy will never step aside and voluntarily make way for something worthy of the name, "society". ..."
"... By all measures: capitalism is due another crisis Taleb's Black Swan is in clear view we can expect the unexpected. No one can predict the timing or severity: but the debt hangover from GFC 1 makes GFC 2 look potentially worse. ..."
"... Trumps promises before the election about the trillions wasted in futile wars, and promising to redirect those trillions into US infrastructure etc, turned out to be outrageous lies. Here are some quotes from HL Mencken which in my opinion sum up the passengers in the out of control US clown car, Trump, Bolton, Pence and Pompeo. ..."
"... The men the American people admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth. ..."
Every empire is a dictatorship. No nation can be a democracy that's either heading an empire, or a vassal-state of one. Obviously,
in order to be a vassal-state within an empire, that nation is dictated-to by the nation of which it is a colony.
By contrast, 'enemy' nations are ones that the imperial power has placed onto its priority-list of nations that are yet to
become conquered. There are two main reasons to conquer a nation. One is in order to be enabled to extract, from the colony,
oil, or gold, or some other valuable commodity. The other is in order to control it so as to be enabled to use that land as a passageway
for exporting, from a vassal-nation, to other nations, that vassal-nation's products.
International trade is the basis for any empire, and the billionaires who own controlling blocs of stock in a nation's international
corporations are the actual rulers of it, the beneficiaries of empire, the recipients of the wealth that is being extracted from
the colonies and from the domestic subjects. The idea of an empire is that the imperial nation's rulers, its aristocracy, extract
from the colonies their products, and they impose upon their domestic subjects the financial and military burdens of imposing their
international dictatorship upon the foreign subjects.
Some authors say that there is a "Deep State" and that it consists of (some undefined elements within) the intelligence services,
and of the military, and of the diplomatic corps, of any given dictatorship; but, actually, those employees of the State are merely
employees, not the actual governing authority, over that dictatorship.
The actual Deep State are always the aristocrats, themselves, the people who run the revolving door between 'the private sector'
(the aristocracy's corporations) and the government. In former times, many of the aristocrats were themselves governing officials
(the titled 'nobility'), but this is no longer common. Nowadays, the aristocracy are the individuals who own controlling blocs of
stock in international corporations (especially weapons-making firms such as Lockheed Martin and BAE, because the only markets for
those corporations are the corporation's own government and its vassal states or 'allies'); and such individuals are usually the
nation's billionaires, and, perhaps, a few of the mere centi-millionaires.
A small number, typically less than 100, of these extremely wealthy individuals, are the biggest donors to politicians, and to
think tanks, and to other non-profits (these latter being also tax-write-offs to their donors, and so are tax-drains to the general
public) that are involved in the formation of the national government's policies.
Of course, they also are owners of and/or advertisers in the propaganda-media, which sell the aristocracy's core or most-essential
viewpoints to the nation's subjects in order to persuade those voters to vote only for the aristocracy's selected candidates and
not for any who oppose the aristocracy. These few, mainly billionaires, are the actual Deep State -- the bosses over the dictatorship,
the ultimate beneficiaries in any empire. In order to maintain this system, of international dictatorship or empire, the most essential
tool is deceit, of the electorate, by the aristocracy. The method of control is: the bought agents of the Deep State lie to the public
about what their polices will be if they win, in order to be able to win power; and, then, once they have won power, they do the
opposite, which is what they have always been paid by the Deep State (the aristocracy) to help them to do. Thereby, elections aren't
"democratic" but 'democratic': they are mere formalities of democracy, without the substance of democracy.
All of the well-financed candidates for the top offices are actually the Deep State's representatives, and virtually none
are the representatives of the public, because the voters have been deceived, and were given choices between two or more candidates,
none of whom will represent the public if and when elected. Here are some recent examples of this system -- the imperial system,
international dictatorship, in action: During Donald Trump's Presidential campaign,
he said :
The approach of fighting Assad and ISIS simultaneously was madness, and idiocy. They're fighting each other and yet we're fighting
both of them. You know, we were fighting both of them. I think that our far bigger problem than Assad is ISIS, I've always felt
that. Assad is, you know I'm not saying Assad is a good man, 'cause he's not, but our far greater problem is not Assad, it's ISIS.
I think, you can't be fighting two people that are fighting each other, and fighting them together. You have to pick one or the
other."
Assad is allied with Russia against the Saudis (who are the chief ally of the U.S. aristocracy), so the U.S. (in accord with a policy
that
George Herbert Walker Bush had initiated on 24 February 1990 and which has been carried out by all subsequent U.S. Presidents)
was determined to overthrow Assad, but Trump said that he was strongly opposed to that policy. Months before that,
Trump had said :
I think Assad is a bad guy, a very bad guy, all right? Lots of people killed. I think we are backing people we have no idea who
they are. The rebels, we call them the rebels, the patriotic rebels. We have no idea. A lot of people think, Hugh, that they are
ISIS. We have to do one thing at a time. We can't be fighting ISIS and fighting Assad. Assad is fighting ISIS. He is fighting
ISIS. Russia is fighting now ISIS. And Iran is fighting ISIS. We have to do one thing at a time. We can't go -- and I watched
Lindsey Graham, he said, I have been here for 10 years fighting. Well, he will be there with that thinking for another 50 years.
He won't be able to solve the problem. We have to get rid of ISIS first. After we get rid of ISIS, we'll start thinking about
it. But we can't be fighting Assad. And when you're fighting Assad, you are fighting Russia, you're fighting -- you're fighting
a lot of different groups. But we can't be fighting everybody at one time."
In that same debate (15 December 2015) he also said:
In my opinion, we've spent $4 trillion trying to topple various people that frankly, if they were there and if we could've spent
that $4 trillion in the United States to fix our roads, our bridges, and all of the other problems; our airports and all of the
other problems we've had, we would've been a lot better off. I can tell you that right now. We have done a tremendous disservice,
not only to Middle East, we've done a tremendous disservice to humanity. The people that have been killed, the people that have
wiped away, and for what? It's not like we had victory. It's a mess. The Middle East is totally destabilized. A total and complete
mess. I wish we had the $4 trillion or $5 trillion. I wish it were spent right here in the United States, on our schools, hospitals,
roads, airports, and everything else that are all falling apart."
Did he do that? No. Did he instead intensify what Obama had been trying to do in Syria -- overthrow Assad -- yes.
As the U.S. President, after having won the 2016 Presidential campaign, has Trump followed through on his criticism there, against
the super-hawk, neoconservative, Republican U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham? No. Did he instead encircle himself with precisely such
super-hawks, such neoconservatives? Yes.
Did he intensify the overthrow-Assad effort as Graham and those others had advocated? Yes.
Did America's war against Syria succeed? No.
Did he constantly lie to the voters? Yes, without a doubt.
Should that be grounds for impeaching him? A prior question to that one is actually: Would a President Mike Pence be any different
or maybe even worse than Trump? Yes.
So: what, then, would be achieved by removing Trump from office? Maybe it would actually make things a lot worse. But how likely
would the U.S. Senate be to remove Trump from office if the House did impeach Trump?
Two-thirds of the U.S. Senate would need to vote to remove the President in order for a President to be removed after being impeached
by the House. A majority of U.S. Senators, 53, are Republicans. If just 33 of them vote not to convict the President, then Trump
won't be removed. In order to remove him, not only would all 47 of the Democrats and Independents have to vote to convict, but 20
of the 53 Republicans would need to join them. That's nearly 40% of the Republican Senators.
How likely is that? Almost impossible.
What would their voters who had elected them back home think of their doing such a thing? How likely would such Senators face
successful re-election challenges that would remove those Senators from office? Would 20 of the 53 be likely to take that personal
risk?
Why, then, are so many Democrats in the House pressing for Trump's impeachment, since Trump's being forced out of the White House
this way is practically impossible and would only install a President Pence, even if it could succeed? Is that Democratic Party
initiative anything else than insincere political theater, lying to their own gullible voters, just being phonies who manipulate
voters to vote for them instead of who are actually serving them?
Is that what democracy is, now: insincere political theater? Is that "democracy"? America's voters are trapped, by liars,
so it's instead mere 'democracy'. It's just the new form of dictatorship. But it's actually as ancient as is any empire.
There's nothing new about this -- except one thing: the U.S. regime is aiming to be the ultimate, the last, the final, empire,
the ruler over the entire world; so, it is trying especially hard, 'to defend freedom, democracy and human rights throughout the
world', as Big Brother might say.
He abandoned each one of those stated objectives as soon as he won against John McCain, on 4 November 2008, and then yet more
when he defeated Mitt Romney in 2012.
And aren't some of those promises the same ones that candidate Trump had also advocated and then abandoned as soon as he too was
(s)elected ? THE THREAT
TO THE EMPIRE The heroic fighters for the freedom of everyone in the world are the whistleblowers, who report to the public the
corruption and evil that they see perpetrated by their superiors, their bosses, and perpetrated by people who are on the public payroll
or otherwise obtaining increased income by virtue of being selected by the government to become government contractors to serve an
allegedly public function.
All liars with power hate whistleblowers and want to make special examples of any part of the press that publishes their truths,
their facts, their stolen documents. These documents are stolen because that's the only way for them to become public and thereby
known to the voters so that the voters can vote on the basis of truths as in a democracy, instead of be deceived as in a dictatorship.
Even if the truth is stolen from the liars, instead of being kept private ("Confidential") for them, are the whistleblowers doing
wrong to steal the truth from the liars? Or, instead, are the whistleblowers heroes: are they the authentic guardians of democracy
and the precariously thin wall that separates democracy from dictatorship?
They are the latter: they are the heroes. Unfortunately, the vast majority of such heroes are also martyrs -- martyrs for truth,
against lies. Every dictatorship seeks to destroy its whistleblowers. That's because any whistleblower constitutes a threat to The
System -- the system of control. In all of U.S. history, the two Presidents who pursued whistleblowers and their publishers the most
relentlessly have been Trump and Obama.
The public are fooled to think that this is being done for 'national security' reasons instead of to hide the government's crimes
and criminality. However, not a single one of the Democratic Party's many U.S. Presidential candidates is bringing this issue, of
the U.S. government's many crimes and constant lying, forward as being the central thing that must be criminalized above all else,
as constituting "treason."
None of them is proposing legislation saying that it is treason, against the public -- against the nation. Every aristocracy tries
to deceive its public in order to control its public; and every aristocracy uses divide-and-rule in order to do this. But it's not
only to divide the public against each other (such as between Republicans versus Democrats, both of which are actually controlled
by the aristocracy), but also to divide between nations, such as between 'allies' versus 'enemies' -- even when a given 'enemy' (such
as Iraq in 2003) has never threatened, nor invaded, the United States (or whatever the given imperial 'us' may happen to be), and
thus clearly this was aggressive war and an international war-crime, though unpunished as such.
The public need to fear and hate some 'enemy' which is the 'other' or 'alien', in order not to fear and loathe the aristocracy
itself -- the actual source of (and winner from) the systemic exploitation, of the public, by the aristocracy.
The pinnacle of the U.S. regime's totalitarianism is its ceaseless assault against Julian Assange, who is the uber-whistleblower,
the strongest protector for whistleblowers, the safest publisher for the evidence that they steal from their employers and from their
employers' government. He hides the identity of the whistleblowers even at the risk of his own continued existence.
... ... ...
On 20 May 2019, former British Ambassador Craig Murray (who had quit so that he could blow the whistle) headlined
"The Missing Step" and argued that
the only chance that Assange now has is if Sweden refuses to extradite Assange to the US in the event that Britain honors the Swedish
request to extradite him to Sweden instead of to the US (The decision on that will now probably be made by the
US agent Boris Johnson instead of by the regular Tory Theresa
May.)
How can it reasonably be denied that the US is, in fact (though not nominally) a
dictatorship ?
All of its allies are thus vassal-nations in its empire. This means acquiescence (if not joining) in some of the US regime's frequent
foreign coups and invasions; and this means their assisting in the spread of the US regime's control beyond themselves, to include
additional other countries.
It reduces the freedom, and the democracy, throughout the world; it spreads the US dictatorship internationally. That is what
is evil about what in America is called "neoconservatism" and in other countries is called simply "imperialism." Under American reign,
it is now a spreading curse, a political plague, to peoples throughout the world. Even an American whistleblower
about Ukraine who lives in the
former Ukraine is being targeted by
the US regime .
This is how the freedom of everyone is severely threatened, by the US empire -- the most deceitful empire that the world has ever
experienced. The martyrs to its lies are the canaries in its coal mine. They are the first to be eliminated.
Looking again at that rank-ordered list of 23 countries, one sees the US and eight of its main allies (or vassal-nations), in
order: US, UK, Canada, Poland, Belgium, Saudi Arabia, Japan, France, Indonesia. These are countries where the subjects are already
well-controlled by the empire. They already are vassals, and so are ordained as being 'allies'.
At the opposite end, starting with the most anti-US-regime, are: S. Africa, India, Russia, Spain, Argentina, Mexico, S. Korea,
Turkey. These are countries where the subjects are not yet well-controlled by the empire, even though the current government in some
of them is trying to change its subjects' minds so that the country will accept US rule.
Wherever the subjects reject US rule, there exists a strong possibility that the nation will become placed on the US regime's
list of 'enemies'. Consequently, wherever the residents are the most opposed to US rule, the likelihood of an American coup or invasion
is real. The
first step
toward a coup or invasion is the imposition of sanctions against the nation. Any such nation that is already subject to them
is therefore already in danger.
Any such nation that refuses to cooperate with the US regime's existing sanctions -- such as against trading with Russia, China,
Iran, or Venezuela -- is in danger of becoming itself a US-sanctioned nation, and therefore officially an 'enemy'. And this is why
freedom and democracy are ending. Unless and until the US regime itself becomes conquered -- either domestically by a second successful
American Revolution (this one to eliminate the domestic aristocracy instead of to eliminate a foreign one), or else by a World War
III in which the US regime becomes destroyed even worse than the opposing alliance will -- the existing insatiable empire will continue
to be on the war-path to impose its dictatorship to everyone on this planet.
ANDREW CLEMENTS
This should be taught in schools'
I will get my coat
Ramdan
"Our only hope is to organize the overthrow of the corporate state that vomited up Trump. Our democratic institutions, including
the legislative bodies, the courts and the media, are hostage to corporate power. They are no longer democratic. We must, like
liberation movements of the past, engage in acts of sustained mass civil disobedience and non-cooperation. By turning our ire
on the corporate state, we name the true sources of power and abuse. We expose the absurdity of blaming our demise on demonized
groups such as undocumented workers, Muslims, African-Americans, Latinos, liberals, feminists, gays and others. We give people
an alternative to a Democratic Party that refuses to confront the corporate forces of oppression and cannot be rehabilitated.
We make possible the restoration of an open society. If we fail to embrace this militancy, which alone has the ability to destroy
cult leaders, we will continue the march toward tyranny." Chris Hedges
Andrew Paul
Surely, as well as some billionaires and centi-millionaires, there are other perhaps more institutionalised individuals with power
to dispose of much even more clandestine wealth hidden in black budgets operated by and for the interests of unaccountable military
and intelligence services in the putative empire, and there is also 'organised crime' and there are wealthy religious organisations,
and these too can strongly influence politicians and the public opinion-forming 'narrative' shaping this false 'democracy' in
the name of an elitist, highly hierarchical, socially as well as environmentally destructive global empire under full spectrum
dominance.
At the global level the most viable alternative to this, I suggest, and barring destructive world war (but perhaps following
a US and even a UK civil war, unfortunately), will be a world federation or confederation with a high council at which all cultures
and social interest-groups, great and small, of this world are properly, and preferably directly democratically, represented.
Many thanks for the food for thought here.
Yarkob
"So: what, then, would be achieved by removing Trump from office? Maybe it would actually make things a lot worse."
See: Saddam Hussein
mark
We could get President Pocahontas or President Buttplug instead.
ANDREW CLEMENTS
President silence of the pestilent
Wilmers31
We see a merger today between Raytheon and United Technologies. Here one para from 0hedge:
"Of course, there is a simpler way to boost profit margins that avoids cutting costs – just boost revenue, which of course
would require war. Luckily, the Trump admin's neocon hawks are doing everything in their power to make sure that that's precisely
what happens as the stock of the combined company will continue its relentless levitation."
Don't let them use you – don't enlist. Freedom might still be ended, but less profitable for them.
mark
As another man at another time asked, "What is to be done?"
The power of the billionaires, their bought and paid for politicians, and their servile media need to be broken.
In living memory, tax rates in the UK and US reached 98% and 91% respectively. There's no need to go back anywhere near those
confiscatory levels, just ensure those people do actually pay SOME taxes. Last year, Amazon and Netflix should have paid over
$16 billion in taxes. They paid nothing – they were actually given rebates of over $4 billion. Boeing hasn't paid a cent in taxes
for 15 years. The same applies to a rogues' gallery of all the big boys, Google, Starbucks, General Electric, Boots, to name but
a few. Profits are made to disappear and turned into losses by financial sleight of hand. An inflated level of debt is incurred
to finance share buy backs instead of R&D, reinvestment and training. Trillions are salted away illegally in tax havens. The working
and middle classes, 99.9% of the population, endure decades of austerity, declining wages, salaries and benefits, disappearing
pensions, endemic insecurity. Rocketing house prices, £500,000 for a crappy one bed London flat. Children unable to leave home.
Education and health privatised or becoming so. All public services or formerly public services declining to third world standards.
A level of inequality not seen since Dickensian times. A financialised, spiv and shyster economy. A parasitic financial elite
bleeding productive businesses dry, committing crime with impunity, and looting the public Treasury of untold trillions. Criminal
wars of aggression abroad, taking the lives and destroying the future of tens of millions.
All this and much more needs to be changed.
But how?
Easier said than done. But is it?
We have seen what happens when anger and outrage are mobilised into an irresistible force.
This can happen surprisingly easily.
Things like the MPs expenses scandal, the Gilets Jaunes in France, Brexit in the UK, Trump in the US, political chaos in the EU.
whatever you think of those developments, one way or another. The elites have a very tenuous grip on power, which can be broken
quite easily.
All of the above characteristics of our present system can be changed by public pressure. It can be done.
Tax avoidance and tax havens can be closed down. If the big boys can't see which way the wind is blowing, they will do after a
few of them are jailed. Anything that works against the public interest targeted for radical change. Public utilities and rail
companies that fail to clean up their act properly regulated and if necessary nationalised. Housing and health treated as human
needs and human rights. The NHS and a massive post war social housing programme went ahead though the country was completely bankrupt.
It is a question of will and priorities. All this can be done. It is doable. All it needs is the mobilisation of sufficient outrage.
And there are many recent examples of this.
Frank Poster
"The elites have a very tenuous grip on power, which can be broken quite easily.
All of the above characteristics of our present system can be changed by public pressure. It can be done."
Easily? Sorry Mark, I agree with your sentiments but there's nothing easy about it whatsoever, and you must be living on a
different planet to me, sorry to say – let's examine each of your examples –
MPs expenses scandal : minimal effect, the buggers carry on, and with a self-appointed overseer.
Gilets Jaunes : smashed, sadly.
Brexit : this is not democracy, it's a US / neocon hijack of Britain.
Trump : Enriching the rich even more.
Political chaos in the EU : it's a US tactic to "shake the tree" and knock the confidence in the EU, it became too strong
a competitor for the US. Divide and conquer is their game with the EU. Tariffs will follow, and they are doing exactly the same
to China, and indeed Russia.
It's sad that the most common social purpose in European modern history is being attacked not only by the right wing nutters,
but also the blinkered Trotskyists on the left.
mark
You're right about some of the outcomes. The point I was trying to make is that it's not possible to paper over the cracks any
more. People realise that they have been lied to and the system does not work for them, if it ever did. This may sound nebulous,
but it has an effect. The credibility and influence of the MSM has been shredded by its own mendacity and lack of integrity. This
has far reaching consequences which may not be readily apparent on a day to day basis. But it is important. The same applies to
all the institutions and organs of the state. The world is becoming increasingly turbulent and unstable, and support for elites
and the systems they represent is dwindling rapidly. The whole economic and financial system is like a house of cards. At such
times, change that had previously been inconceivable becomes inevitable. Of course, there is no guarantee that these changes will
be positive, like Russia in 1917 or Germany in 1933.
Frank Poster
Pfff, what happened to the new OffG function to be able to edit one's posts, it's disappeared!
OffG
It vanished during our DoS attack – we haven't managed to get it back yet. Infuriating, I know.
Clearly explained analysis of the deep shit we're all in. Unfortunately tho I don't see a second American revolution breaking
out anytime soon. I think the large majority have been too crushed by the system; many working 2 or 3 jobs just to survive, many
a couple paychecks away from being homeless, many living in cars or under bridges, and sadly, the large large majority lap up
the propaganda spewed out by the stenographers. And believe it. Which leaves us with the next option for stopping this evil blood
drenched Empire. And that is probably where we're heading. Scary times Eric.
mark
You may be right, GP. When I lived in America I was quite shocked by the low standard of living of very many people. Working 2
or 3 jobs, unable to run a car, health care completely out of their reach, living in houses like wooden shacks. Even buying food
a problem. Completely ignorant of the outside world.
Half a million are now homeless, with third world shanty towns next to the gated developments of the rich, the streets covered
with human faeces, TB, typhoid and tapeworm becoming major problems.
What I see is this becoming worse and forming a critical mass, when it can no longer be ignored. As such, there are grounds
for optimism. Things becoming so bad that they can no longer be tolerated. Perhaps that is unrealistic, I don't know.
George
"Working 2 or 3 jobs, unable to run a car, health care completely out of their reach, living in houses like wooden shacks. Even
buying food a problem. Completely ignorant of the outside world."
Appreciate both your comments Mark, and yes, the Gilets Jaunes are probably the best current example of people fighting back against
the system and saying Enough. I've never been to the UK so can't really judge from first hand experience, know the situation in
United States by a fair bit of reading on the levels of poverty and precariousness state many live in, tho here in Australia the
levels of cognitive dissonance, apathy and groupthink (derived from mainstream media) seem very high, and I speak to lots of people
while out selling The Big Issue mag. About the angriest people get here is griping about Aussie politicians. I don't get any sense
of anger or disgust at the Actual economic system.
wardropper
"Things becoming so bad that they can no longer be tolerated" ?
Nothing a couple more wars couldn't fix, Mark
mark
You may be right, but the outcome of any wars that are currently being threatened, Iran, Venezuela, DPRK, Russia, China, would
be the final nail in the coffin of the AngloZionist Empire.
wardropper
My greatest worry is that this AngloZionist Empire doesn't care about anything at all – not even the nails in their own coffin.
They fondly imagine some kind of capitalistic "rapture" is going to whisk them off to "Money Heaven" and we will be left with
their crap and their puke all over our planet.
I no longer think it's exaggerated to talk of demonic beings here, and if they are not demonic, then why are they acting
as if they were?
nwwoods
FWIW, Tulsi Gabbard uttered a full-throated defense of both Assange and Manning.
Steve
It has to be remembered that Assange is an Australian and Manning was born in West Wales to a UK mother. These countries must
stand up for their citizens.
nwwoods
Given the recent federal police raids on Australian journalists, it seems unlikely that Australia will be coming to the aid of
Julian Assange any time soon.
Yes this is true. Tulsi Gabbard is the real deal and a bellwether of the current corrupt system and its stupefying echo chambers.
She has no chance at the moment, but that's not the point. She exposes the corruption of the aristocracies and their corrupt system
and shills.
As we are here. Take the Fruadian Tulsi ticks all their supposed PC boxes and yet their is no mention of her anywhere. But
"Creepy Joe" Biden who epitomises the corrupt entitlement the system offers is reported on add nauseum.
As the Fraud, can't attack her it appears they can't report on her either. So her good campaign work is reported on the alt
media, you know where the fake stuff is!
So there you have it, a perfect example of a faux feedback loop
Oh, and excellent article by Eric as well.
Frank Poster
She won't last long then, unfortunately.
nwwoods
No, I am hoping that the DNC doesn't change the rules in order to block her from at least the first round of televised debate.
But I'm not holding my breath.
BTW, I read somewhere that DNC intends to split the first (D) debate into two groups, ostensibly because of the ridiculous
number of candidates, which stands at 24, last I looked.
DNC is going to make certain that only centrist liberals are on the same debate stage with Joe Biden, "the only real progressive
in the race" (in his own words).
Bernie and Tulsi will probably be dining at the kids table, if at all.
Of course, they also are owners of and/or advertisers in the propaganda-media, which sell the aristocracy's core or most-essential
viewpoints to the nation's subjects in order to persuade those voters to vote only for the aristocracy's selected candidates
and not for any who oppose the aristocracy.
These few, mainly billionaires, are the actual Deep State -- the bosses over the dictatorship, the ultimate beneficiaries
in any empire.
the rest of Assange is a lie
What Mr. Mossange did in these media which promoted him? Who he worked for? for Arab Springs? for Rothschilds? What he did
on tea in The Economics, Guardian, NYT, The Bild etc.? What?
Einstein
Excellent piece.
DunGroanin
JA is a thorn in their side.
JC is a stake through their heart.
The v'empires fear is palpable.
Neither the throwing of the book or the kitchen sinks full of shit at their nemesises is working, as these polls demonstrate.
Hillarious. Bring on the much delayed GE.
wardropper
Sorry to be a wet blanket, but, frankly, it's been a long time since a GE fixed anything
Elections, as I think George Carlin said, are only there to make us think we have a voice.
Steve
If the UK elect Jeremy Corbyn all bets are off, he will expose ALL corrupt politicians media and foreign powers. Why do you
think there is such a concerted effort to prevent him gaining office, even Pompeo has said "the US will prevent him becoming PM"
wardropper
I think there is a misunderstanding here, Steve. I couldn't agree with you more, especially about the concerted efforts (which
I noticed a long time ago) to prevent Corbyn from gaining office.
My "wet-blanket" point is really only connected with your last quote from Pompeo, "The US will prevent him becoming PM". Surely
no one today is under any illusions as to whether Pompeo means what he says, much as I would love to throw a spanner in his works.
Nothing would please me more, either, than to learn that I had been overly pessimistic. But I still have no doubts that Pompeo
could and would fix any election that suited him. He has already admitted, in another context, to lying, cheating, stealing and
killing.
Rhisiart Gwilym
Pompous Hippo, TIGW – The Insane Geriatric Walrus, Donny Les Tweets, Elliott Demon, Veryfew Pence and the rest of the delusional
criminal inadequates of the DCSwamp may be against JC and wish to stop him, but – judging by their steadily-increasing ineffectualness
on the world stage (how're those regime changes in Syria and Venezuela going? how's the bankrupting-Russia-with-sanctions going?)
– they may not be too effective at preventing his entry to Downing Street.
wardropper
I pray you're right. Those dull-witted thugs may indeed be increasingly ineffectual, but the fact that they are still committed
to their insane agenda continues to cost the world a great deal of suffering.
different frank
People will be the good sheeple that the establishment want them to be.
They will vote who they are told to vote for.
Hate who they are told to hate.
Fear who they are told to fear.
Devoid of all independent thought. Forever sleeping. Always conforming. Always consuming. The sheeple serve their establishment
masters well. maybe a crumb will fall from the big table. They can fight each other for that. good sheep. baaa
kevin morris
We're all sheeple!
wardropper
Assange isn't.
Annie Besant
I will first quote the final passage from your tract which reads "Unless and until the US regime itself becomes conquered -- either
domestically by a second successful American Revolution (this one to eliminate the domestic aristocracy instead of to eliminate
a foreign one), or else by a World War III in which the US regime becomes destroyed even worse than the opposing alliance will
-- the existing insatiable empire will continue to be on the war-path to impose its dictatorship to everyone on this planet."
Whist it has not yet sunk in to the heads of the faceless perpetrators within the Hegemon, it is true to say that a much greater
proportion, the greater percentage of humanity are now enlightened to the truth that should a global nuclear conflict break out,
either by accident or design, there would be no living person remaining to gloat over the spoils.
This is where "American Exceptionalism" meets its nemesis, for at that moment all their power, influence, wealth, and vanity
would evanesce as the towers of Mammon are reduced to rubble. Even their nuclear bunkers would provide no safe haven and there
would be even less time for them to come to their senses, for we are contemplating the total extinction of the human species here.
Even in the face of an almost overwhelming resignation to fate, I am well aware that I am not alone in the belief that our
planet will survive until that time when our sun ceases to exist. Perhaps we can share Mr Zuess's suggestion that the key to our
survival here is by "domestic revolution" whereby within national limits, any country can create a groundswell of solidarity working
to find a humane fix for the broken socio-economic system which thrives on the incompetence of dysfunctional leaders. This can
be brought about by de-centralisation in matters of how our citizens are governed, rather than the current situation where our
citizens are controlled and monitored, both in public and in private.
Localised government, informed by local people, can address all the issues in respect of which there are many who currently
feel disempowered and thereby render themselves vulnerable to the general apathy and malaise that is fertile ground for the mischief
of authority. This is a matter of systemic transformation and it is taking place right now with innumerable (largely unreported)
peace, education, economic and apolitical bodies. Working together on a global basis, realising the interconnectedness of our
lives, we will replicate the chain reaction of an atomic device. However, in our case it will be the gradual acceleration of our
energies, all directed towards the betterment of all our mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters on this planet who ask for one
thing, and one thing only – that being an end to all this narcissism, cowardice, arrogance and greed, that are the dramatic personae
for this litany of misery which has been inflicted by devilish forces upon the masses of humanity over centuries. No matter how
small or insignificant my personal effort is here, I am now convinced that there are millions of others who feel the same. This
is why the movement is growing at such a pace. When all our creative, and positively directed energies eventually coalesce we
will approach the point of critical mass. At that time we will see the brainwashed troops of the military hegemon suddenly attain
enlightenment and throw down their weapons – and the cowards who have previously been in control will flee to exile on some nice
sunny beach. This is going to happen because I have already seen it.
wardropper
But they won't LET you decentralize, Annie. It doesn't suit them. Millions of others do indeed share your concern, but
merely imagining a better system doesn't make it happen. It doesn't get through the layers and layers of entrenched investment
in the current system, or through the layers and layers of ruthless militarism protecting it. Our enemy will never step
aside and voluntarily make way for something worthy of the name, "society".
Somebody, somewhere, sometime, is going to have to insist.
BigB
Annie is absolutely right: I think we need to start looking ahead. Neoliberal capitalism is dead: it cannot be revived because
there are neither the mineral or energy primary resource assets left for permanent expansionism. Monetizing debt is short term
firefighting – fighting fire with fire, debt with debt. We need to stop thinking like capitalists: assessing consciousness and
wellbeing against fake GDP and monetized debt prosperity and start thinking as humanists. Like Annie.
By all measures: capitalism is due another crisis Taleb's Black Swan is in clear view we can expect the unexpected. No
one can predict the timing or severity: but the debt hangover from GFC 1 makes GFC 2 look potentially worse.
Then capitalism has one more shot of adrenaline (more easing; ZIRPS; savings 'haircuts'; going cashless; potentially a change
in reserve) then what? Fascism or socialism. Angry people make for fascism. Peaceful people make for socialism. Materialism won't
be that much of an option: apart from the grotesque levels of conspicuous ersatz wealth that will build up in the meantime.
Capitalism is time-limited and finite: humanism is time-independent and limitless. We chose to measure our wealth and happiness
in terms of finite resources that were bound to run short. Perhaps now we can turn to the one non-finite resource we have overlooked
– ourselves?
wardropper
Philosophically, I'm with you 100%, BigB.
But it's also the crux of your own matter as to where the mechanisms for choosing either fascism or socialism really are in
our current system.
Many of us here want to know what to DO, rather than merely pass judgment on what is wrong.
For example, by nature, I am very inclined to follow Annie's path, but we have to know exactly what is the nature of the colossal
resistance we will definitely encounter. Will we be stuck in jail, or even "permanently disappeared", because we can think for
ourselves?
Or will the media simply keep up their current assault on our intelligence and education until, after a decade or two, nobody
is left who could rub two coherent sentences together?
harry law
Trumps promises before the election about the trillions wasted in futile wars, and promising to redirect those trillions into
US infrastructure etc, turned out to be outrageous lies. Here are some quotes from HL Mencken which in my opinion sum up the passengers
in the out of control US clown car, Trump, Bolton, Pence and Pompeo.
The men the American people admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars; the men they detest most violently
are those who try to tell them the truth.
The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it.
The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the
prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest,
insane, and intolerable.
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.
The US was always the way Orlov describes its future. It only ever belonged to those who
could keep their heads above water. You go under, and you're gone forever, and very quickly
forgotten. I don't recommend it as a social system, but that's the system.
But the people, within that system. the people are great people, with remarkable moral
fiber, in situations they understand. Those who are breathing air and not water can
rightfully enjoy the company of these others, even though many of those others might lately
be breathing an air-water mixture – and perhaps even oneself.
It's a poignant thing, these United States. The people are as good as anywhere, but only
as trained as their culture tells them to be. Perhaps the future holds some spark of
brightness for the people. They were always a transcendent bunch, actually, in a culture
founded on spiritual independence – despite all the overlay of consumerist crap.
Somehow they uniquely evolved the means of ignoring that crap – playing the TV in the
background, for example, while reading college studies – in order to live decent
lives.
It's possible this long-remote karma of spiritual longing might still hold some embers.
Perhaps the people of the US might rediscover the power of sincere prayer? The power of
sincerity? Time alone will tell.
The establishment is reluctant to return to paper votes or paper trail as paper ballots increases accountability.
While that danger of tampering is IMHO overblown (machines themselves are not connected to Internet) there is a point here. For
example in NJ voting machines are just counting devices. Which definitely allows machinations with votes by election officials. So
manning the booth by representatives of two opposing parties will help.
Caitlin Johnstone is wrong: for Sunders it was not propagandas which derailed him: it was criminal machinations of DNC
Notable quotes:
"... We are already seeing this same pattern repeated today, arguably in an even more egregious way. A recent article by Matt Taibbi for Rolling Stone titled " We've Hit a New Low in Campaign Hit Pieces " documents some jaw-droppingly obnoxious smears leveled against the two Democratic candidates who are taking the most flack from the mass media, Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard. The Daily Beast added to the growing mountain of MSM Gabbard smears with an article titled "Tulsi Gabbard's Campaign Is Being Boosted by Putin Apologists", claiming on essentially zero evidence that the Hawaii congresswoman has a suspicious amount of support from Kremlin loyalists, a smear which was elevated into mainstream consciousness by ABC and CNN. Sanders was smeared by the New York Times for his previous opposition to US interventionism in Nicaragua. ..."
"... It is therefore an indisputable fact that the very wealthy therefore have an immensely disproportionate influence over the way that people think and vote, which means the plutocratic class has the fully legal ability to practice election interference. Both the plutocratic media and the US government have already tacitly admitted that this is true in the frantic, hysterical way they've been talking about Russian Facebook memes as election interference, despite the fact that those social media posts are a microscopic drop in the barrel of the billions and billions of dollars that goes into mass media election coverage. If the Internet Research Agency of St Petersburg was election meddling, then the plutocratic class which consistently manipulates public narratives to its favor certainly is as well, to an extent that is greater by orders of magnitude. ..."
"After the Mueller report was released, our president called Vladimir
Putin, spent an hour on the phone with him,"
Democratic presidential
candidate Beto O'Rourke
said
on
CBS's
Face The Nation
yesterday. "Described the report as a hoax, giving Putin
a green light to further interfere in our democracy."
"Russia interfered in the 2016 election,"
tweeted
presidential
candidate Kamala Harris the other day. "If we don't do anything to upgrade our election
infrastructure, we will leave our nation vulnerable to future attacks."
We've been seeing
many
such hysterical warnings
about Russian interference in the upcoming 2020 elections, and
as the election gets nearer we are 100 percent guaranteed to see a lot more.
Another concern people have been voicing, which has far more legitimacy, is the
fear of election tampering from domestic actors.
An
article
published the other day by
Roll Call
reports that experts are warning
America's 2020 elections "will be held on voting machines that are woefully outdated and
that any tampering by adversaries could lead to disputed results." An
article
published last month
by the
Guardian
warns that new voting machines aren't
necessarily an improvement.
"The purchases replace machines from the turn of the century that raise serious
security concerns," the
Guardian
reports. "But the same companies that made and
sold those machines are behind the new generation of technology, and a history of
distrust between election security advocates and voting machine vendors has led to a
bitter debate over the viability of the new voting equipment -- leaving some campaigners
wondering if America's election system in 2020 might still be just as vulnerable to
attack."
Initiatives are sprouting up to bring more election security and reliability to
the United States, which is currently
ranked
dead last
in election integrity among all western democracies.
Support for
paper ballots is picking up steam with
support
from Senate Democrats
and multiple presidential candidates, and rightly so; hand-counted
paper ballots is considered
the
gold standard
for election integrity, and every nation should want that for their voting
systems.
But neither foreign interference nor domestic vote tampering will be the most
egregious form of election meddling that we will see in America's 2020 presidential
elections.
We are already seeing this same pattern repeated today, arguably in an even more
egregious way.
A recent article by Matt Taibbi for
Rolling Stone
titled "
We've
Hit a New Low in Campaign Hit Pieces
" documents some jaw-droppingly obnoxious smears
leveled against the two Democratic candidates who are taking the most flack from the mass
media, Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard. The
Daily Beast
added to the
growing
mountain of MSM Gabbard smears
with an article titled "Tulsi Gabbard's Campaign Is Being
Boosted by Putin Apologists", claiming on essentially zero evidence that the Hawaii
congresswoman has a suspicious amount of support from Kremlin loyalists, a smear which was
elevated into mainstream consciousness by ABC and CNN. Sanders was smeared by the
New
York Times
for his previous opposition to US interventionism in Nicaragua.
We're not even halfway through 2019 and there are already far too many of such
mass media hit pieces for me to list in this article.
These plutocrat-owned outlets
are doing everything they can to make sure that Trump will be running against a more polite
version of himself come November 2020. Hell,
Fortune Magazine
just published an
article titled "
Why Joe Biden
Is the Only True Progressive Candidate
", which attempts to argue exactly what the
headline promises. Once the primaries are over, this manipulation will shift toward
whoever's the oligarchic favorite for the general election.
As soon as you see someone become extremely wealthy, you immediately see them
start buying up public narrative control.
They buy and invest in media outlets,
they pour money into influential think tanks, they send lobbyists into government offices to
persuade politicians to think a certain way about a given subject. Ordinary people can't
afford to do these things, so they have relatively little control over the dominant
narratives about what's going on in our society and our world.
It is therefore an indisputable fact that the very wealthy therefore have an immensely
disproportionate influence over the way that people think and vote, which means the
plutocratic class has the fully legal ability to practice election interference. Both the
plutocratic media and the US government have already tacitly admitted that this is true in
the frantic, hysterical way they've been talking about Russian Facebook memes as election
interference, despite the fact that those social media posts are a
microscopic
drop in the barrel
of the
billions
and billions of dollars
that goes into mass media election coverage. If the Internet
Research Agency of St Petersburg was election meddling, then the plutocratic class which
consistently manipulates public narratives to its favor certainly is as well, to an extent
that is greater by orders of magnitude.
Of course it's good that people are pushing for paper ballots, and it's not a bad idea to
take precautions against foreign interference as well, but we must become aware that the
greatest share of election interference happens before anyone sets foot in a polling booth.
The way the American psyche is pummeled with mass media narratives designed to
manufacture
consent
for war, economic injustice, ecocide, Orwellian government intrusiveness, and
the politicians who promote these things will influence far more votes in 2020 than any
other election tampering, foreign or domestic.
Mass media propaganda is the single most overlooked and under-appreciated aspect
of our society.
The ability of an elite class to control the way a supermajority of
the population thinks, acts and votes has
shaped our entire world in the favor of a
few sociopaths driven by an insatiable lust for money and power
who got to where
they are because they were willing to do anything to get ahead. If we can't find a way to
get a handle on that, then it won't matter how pristine your elections are, how ethical the
DNC primary process becomes, or what the Russians are up to this year.
Do you want to live in a world which is
built around the selfish desires of
powerful, amoral manipulators and hoarders?
No? Then you're going to have to start
doing what you can to oppose such a system, and to convince as many of your brothers and
sisters as possible to join you.
Presence of two opposing parties during counting of votes and communicating the results up is the necessary prerequsite. Paper
ballots should be mandatory. Internet translation of voting like they do in Russia is helpful. So voting can easily be
improved and make tampering proof.
The real problem is the selection of candidates for which you votes (two in two-party system). Here we have a real problem
because this process is controlled by ruing oligarchy.
Notable quotes:
"... The ruling elite have no interest in making sure our voices are heard ..."
"... If they sought to have our voices heard, we would have paper ballots, ranked choice voting, real exit polls and a president who doesn't look and act like an over-cooked ham-and-cheese sandwich. ..."
"... It's time to demand real elections. ..."
"... Paper ballots should be mandatory, in triplicate, with the voter depositing copy A in the ballot box, mailing copy B to one of any approved secondary processing centers, chosen by the voters, retaining copy C for ones records and online verification that copies A and B remain true. ..."
Election forensics analyst
Jonathan Simon said , "The great irony, and tragedy, here is that we could easily go the
opposite direction and quickly solve all the problems of election security if we got the
computers out of the process and were willing to invest the modicum of effort needed for humans
to count votes observably in public as they once did."
Jonathan Simon, god bless him, has used 55 words to say 11: We could easily fix our
fraudulent election system, but we won't.
The answer is not to hand it over to Microsoft and the Pentagon and the ass clowns who make
robotic death machines. The Pentagon can't keep track of $21 TRILLION
DOLLARS over the past 20 years -- what makes us think they can keep track of hundreds of
millions of votes?
The ruling elite have no interest in making sure our voices are heard. They want that as
much as they want nunchucks to the balls. If they sought to have our voices heard, we would
have paper ballots, ranked choice voting, real exit polls and a president who doesn't look and
act like an over-cooked ham-and-cheese sandwich.
Now with Microsoft providing the lib-genda software...what could go wrong?
All this whiz bang gadgetry for unimportant things, like elections but when the Gov really
wants info it's "fill this out in triplicate Mr Smith"!
Paper ballots should be mandatory, in triplicate, with the voter depositing copy A in the
ballot box, mailing copy B to one of any approved secondary processing centers, chosen by the
voters, retaining copy C for ones records and online verification that copies A and B remain
true.
I see no reason why states couldn't swap ballots, allowing state 2 to "grade state 1's
homework". At the end of the day, the state 1 opens a lottery drawn code telling them who
will be grading their papers. For Example, at poll close, CA opens the supersecret envelope
(reminiscient of Karnac the Great on Johnny Carson), revealing that TX will be in charge of
processing CAs validation count. If it's off by a statistical significance...no fed money for
the offending state until corrected)
There has to be a better way, and Microsoft/Soros/DARPA isn't going to enstill the
confidence this country needs to survive. A #2 pencil, a few black dots and independent
verification with (voter retained) proof is so simple it just may work. If the voter isn't
intelligent enough to color the circle, they shouldn't be voting.
Ballot box computers should be reserved for researching the candidates, not for harboring
the only copy of your choices...
Here's hoping Brenda Snipes isn't in charge of counting your 2020 Trump vote!
Technology is destroying most if not all of western civilization's institutions, and
replacing them with nothing but mobocracy. The feedback effect means that every 3-4 years the
power of the loudest and most popular -- and hence the lowest common denominator -- gets
amped up another few degrees. It is not abating. The phones are everywhere, everywhere , in
public. Necks bent over everywhere. When they can get these things synced up to eye movement
on a headset or pair of glasses for mass consumption (meaning, really, really easy to
use), look out. Silence, baby. Human race goes under.
If you were raised in an oddball environment before computers -- and then smartphones --
infested every corner of the human imagination, it's obvious what's happened. 40 years ago
people didn't behave this way. They had tons of problems, sure, and those were fucked up
times, but at least there was still some fight left in them. I just see a bitter, aggrieved,
very small-minded set of people out there now, absorbed in themselves, their
genitalia/identity/skin color, who have nothing to offer this planet except destruction. I
have come to believe they will succeed. I could walk away from all this tech tomorrow and
wouldn't blink an eye. But I realize that for many, that would be an event akin to becoming a
quadruple amputee.
We've always been cynical about how much a single vote can mean, but for the most part,
people have believed that their vote showed up somewhere, numerically, in a digit in a column
in a newspaper every other November. If nothing else. Once that belief goes out the window,
forget it. What, then, will tie you to the land or the people around you? The law? Ha. Only
force, and that means outright tyranny. Which is what democracy, Socrates argued in The
Republic, always leads to.
And all to serve these ******* computers instead of ourselves.
In UK we have paper ballot papers and postal voting, both have been abused recently by the
Labour Party.
One man boasted on Twitter than he burnt over 1,000 votes for the Brexit Party, so
effectively they would have won the election had this crime against democracy not been
committed.
Police Investigating Mystery Man Who Claims He 'BURNED' Brexit Party Votes
Why bother hijacking an election, when the deep state choose both candidates? And just
because you use paper ballots doesn't mean it still can't be rigged. We use paper ballots in
the UK, but elections can be rigged through the postal voting system amoungst other
things.
Why do we need an answer? Well, our election system is... how do you say... a
festering rancid corrupt needlessly complex rigged rotten infected putrid pus-covered
diseased dog pile of stinking, dying cockroach-filled rat **** smelling like Mitch
McConnell under a vat of pig farts. And that's a quote from The Lancet medical journal
(I think).
But have no fear: The most trustworthy of corporations recently announced it is going to
selflessly and patriotically secure our elections. It's a small company run by vegans and
powered by love. It goes by the name "Microsoft." (You're forgiven for never having heard
of it.)
😊
Also - unless these voting machines are Faraday caged AND have Mu metal layers, they could
be monitored or interfered with in real time, even if air gapped.
Know the basics of this and you're already a 1 in 100,000 tech red piller ;)
Passport ID, Paper system with a duplicate receipt ... ironically like Venezuela's system
(the one thing they got right it seems) and monitoring of voting areas and counting streamed
to the net of every polling station (ironically like the newish Russian system) make it close
to foolproof and certainly verifiable if questioned and accountable.
Auditable paper ballots for voters with verifiable identity - preferably
with receipts - and dye-marking the hands of the voters.
We are a long way from secure elections. Our (((oligarchy))) wouldn't have it any
other way!
Remember the old refrains: "If voting could change anything it'd be illegal." -- Emma
Goldman, and "The people who cast the votes don't decide an election, the people who count
the votes do." -- Joseph Stalin
Wow. Dude just climbed out from under his favourite rock and met the reality gnome. Good
for him.
I'm good with technology. I wasted whole moments of my life pondering electronic
elections. Here's the thing. There is NO manner of electronic election process that does not
forfeit one, or more, mandatory elements required of a free and fair election process. None.
At all. Can't be done.
This article is nuts and full of BS! The Pentagon could care less who is president, since
they only have to worry about congress funding them. Also, Microsoft is more worried about
profits than people. Just ask anyone who works there.
The hijacking of American elections has been going on for 165 years. That is why almost
every state has Ballot Access Laws, and why practically every district in the U.S. are
gerrymandered by the two parties. And, you never had any truly free elections either, since
the parties chose the candidates for you in the primaries, and all you do is ratify their
selections. Your vote is rather meaningless.
I went to bed after having voted for BREXIT and through all the propaganda thought BREMAIN
had won. I woke up the next morning and BREXIT had won. Those in tears were all BREMAIN as
they thought they would win because the propaganda was so complete against the people.
SO NOW THEY ARE GOING TO FIX THE RESULT TO MAKE THE VOTES REFLECT THE PROPAGANDA.
One more step put in place the next step has to be to close down all channels of objection
or certainly throttle it back to prevent people discussing it - the scrutiny of those being
fit for public office removed.
For her entire career, Warren's singular focus has been the growing fragility of America's
middle class. She made the unusual choice as a law professor to concentrate relentlessly on
data, and the data that alarms her shows corporate profits creeping up over the last 40 years
while employees' share of the pie shrinks. This shift occurred, Warren argues, because in the
1980s, politicians began reworking the rules for the market to the specifications of
corporations that effectively owned the politicians. In Warren's view of history, "The constant
tension in a democracy is that those with money will try to capture the government to turn it
to their own purposes." Over the last four decades, people with money have been winning, in a
million ways, many cleverly hidden from view. That's why economists have estimated that the
wealthiest top 0.1 percent of Americans now own nearly as much as the bottom 90 percent.
As a presidential candidate, Warren has rolled out proposal after proposal to rewrite the
rules again, this time on behalf of a majority of American families. On the trail, she says "I
have a plan for that" so often that it has turned into a T-shirt slogan. Warren has plans
(about 20 so far, detailed and multipart) for making housing and child care affordable,
forgiving college-loan debt, tackling the opioid crisis, protecting public lands, manufacturing
green products, cracking down on lobbying in Washington and giving workers a voice in selecting
corporate board members. Her grand overarching ambition is to end America's second Gilded
Age.
"Ask me who my favorite president is," Warren said. When I paused, she said, "Teddy
Roosevelt." Warren admires Roosevelt for his efforts to break up the giant corporations of his
day -- Standard Oil and railroad holding companies -- in the name of increasing competition.
She thinks that today that model would increase hiring and productivity. Warren, who has called
herself "a capitalist to my bones," appreciated Roosevelt's argument that trustbusting was
helpful, not hostile, to the functioning of the market and the government. She brought up his
warning that monopolies can use their wealth and power to strangle democracy. "If you go back
and read his stuff, it's not only about the economic dominance; it's the political influence,"
she said.
What's crucial, Roosevelt believed, is to make the market serve "the public good." Warren
puts it like this: "It's structural change that interests me. And when I say structural, the
point is to say if you get the structures right, then the markets start to work to produce
value across the board, not just sucking it all up to the top."
"... Well I saw/heard Tulsi on Joe Rogan too and was very impressed, her heart is in the right place and she is anti war. However what worries me most is that Israel is only waiting for one more surgical strike on it's enemies per Israel's shopping list revealed by Gen. Wesley Clark and we all know that is Iran. The US will probably have to sacrifice a warship to Mossad in October to kick this one off. ..."
Well I saw/heard Tulsi on Joe Rogan too and was very impressed, her heart is in the right
place and she is anti war. However what worries me most is that Israel is only waiting for
one more surgical strike on it's enemies per Israel's shopping list revealed by Gen. Wesley
Clark and we all know that is Iran. The US will probably have to sacrifice a warship to
Mossad in October to kick this one off.
Tulsi in all liklihood will be swept away by events and I have a sneaky suspicion she is
the 'wildcard candidate' insurance for the 'kingmakers' after all she has kissed the AIPAC
arse is member of CFR etc – she was after all on the fast track before she cried
'foul'.
She is far more honest than most but sadly is still compromised and there is no getting
around that one. She owes them and they never forget. My 'outside choice' is the formidably
'loose cannon' Robert David Steele and his partnering with Cynthia McKinney.
The Zionists are in open war with them both. If they can wake up the black voters en masse
to who runs America now it could cause the biggest shock to the US system since the McCarthy
purge. Steele is appealing to 'Truthers', independents, and Alt Right Constitutionalists and
McKinney to the working class and Black vote.
Trump is trying to exploit the same groups but next time around they will be wiser. The
problem now is the Evangelist 'Christian Zionist' rump. Kushner/Trump and Netanyahu have got
them all at fever pitch for the 2nd coming.
"... If Bernie happens to survive the collusion going on to tank his campaign, Trump and the GOP will "socialist" him to death from sun up to sun down. The clown car of establishment Democrats will also take more than a shot or two. His speech was simply his attempt to embrace and frame this dirty word into something Americans can relate to. For that, he gets mocked by the media and butchered by neolibs, libertarians, right-wingers, corporatists, and pompous lefties. ..."
"... He referenced MLK, FDR, and Marx trying to name a just few socialists that people can compare, contrast and relate to. ..."
"... The day after Bernie's speech, Trump came out with a plan to subsidize farmers, aka big ag, to make up for losses from his tariffs. No one asked "how will you pay for it". No hue or cry anywhere. ..."
"... I think it is highly probable that Bernie's ship, our ship, sailed in 2016; and he missed the boat by remaining in a system so vile and so corrupt that it can only be reformed by rising from the ashes. ..."
"... Warren hid in 2016, and she is sabotaging 2020. She is the real sheepdog that so many here, me on occasion too, accuse Bernie of being. She talks like a progressive and votes like a Republican. She is Obama 2.0, 2020's Trojan Horse. ..."
dkmich on Fri, 06/14/2019 - 12:36pm By all means, speak your piece.
But will someone please explain to me how in the hell everyone turned Bernie from social
democrat into fucking Marx? Never once have I heard Bernie say that capitalism should not exist
in the United States.
If Bernie happens to survive the collusion going on to tank his campaign, Trump and the
GOP will "socialist" him to death from sun up to sun down. The clown car of establishment
Democrats will also take more than a shot or two. His speech was simply his attempt to embrace
and frame this dirty word into something Americans can relate to. For that, he gets mocked by
the media and butchered by neolibs, libertarians, right-wingers, corporatists, and pompous
lefties.
He referenced MLK, FDR, and Marx trying to name a just few socialists that people can
compare, contrast and relate to.
Oh there are many, and of course we must define what qualifies someone to be a
'socialist'. For example, Bernie Sanders is largely considered a social democrat although
many 'true' or 'hardcore' socialists will adamantly say he is not a true socialist because he
doesn't advocated for the means of production to be controlled democratically by the
workers.
For argument's sake we'll only use people who advocated or had a philosophy of altering
the current system of economy to that of a traditionally socialist one. For this reason also,
it will include Marxists whom were types of socialists too (until the term socialist was
later used to differentiate itself from authoritarian communism).
Without further ado, I shall take you through the fascinating (and sometimes violent)
world of socialism.
Albert Einstein
Che Guevara
Rosa Luxemburg
Emma Goldman
George Orwell
Oscar Wilde
Nelson Mandela
V. I. Lenin
Mao Zedong
Malcolm X
Martin Luther King Jr. - Yep, he was a democratic socialist. History tends to gloss
over the fact that many human rights activists and movements were actually linked to
socialism and even communism. I like to call it 'capitalist whitewashing'
Leon Trotsky
Bertrand Russell
John Lennon
Pete Seeger
The point being, pick your choose. I bet people can argue over this list for days. It
doesn't change the fact that Bernie was absolutely right. The government provides billionaires
and corporations with cash and safety nets no questions asked. Privatize the profits and
socialize the losses to use that word again.
The day after Bernie's speech, Trump came out with a plan to subsidize farmers, aka big
ag, to make up for losses from his tariffs. No one asked "how will you pay for it". No hue or
cry anywhere.
Jamie Dimon took his government handout and a bonus for committing fraud that no one ever
went to jail for. He didn't even have to pass a drug test to get it.
Roads, firemen, cops, school are paid for with our public dollars. That means we own them
and their means of production/service: fire halls, police stations, cop cars, school buildings,
and wages. Why do you think privatization so outrageous and pisses so many people off? Because
capitalists are taking our assets for pennies on the dollar so they can then charge us to use
what we own. Again, privatizing the profits and socializing the losses.
I think it is highly probable that Bernie's ship, our ship, sailed in 2016; and he missed
the boat by remaining in a system so vile and so corrupt that it can only be reformed by rising
from the ashes. The party is manufacturing candidates faster than Bezos makes a billion
hoping one of them will stick. At worst, they'll dilute the first round of voting enough for
the superdelegates to step in and tell us kids where to sit.
Warren hid in 2016, and she is sabotaging 2020. She is the real sheepdog that so many
here, me on occasion too, accuse Bernie of being. She talks like a progressive and votes like a
Republican. She is Obama 2.0, 2020's Trojan Horse.
Here is the debate schedule. Since Warren is tied with Bernie for second place in CA, does
it look like they set this up to protect her? Who at the kiddies table is going to lay a glove
on her? Helping to assure people tune in for the warm up debate, they put it on night one.
Wednesday:
Booker
Castro
de Blasio
Delaney
Gabbard
Inslee
Klobuchar
O'Rourke
Warren
Thursday:
Biden
Bennet
Buttigieg
Gillibrand
Harris
Hickenlooper
Sanders
Swalwell
Williamson
Yang
"... This is why it wouldn't matter even if we got Sanders/Gabbard by some miracle. If we got a Sanders/Gabbard presidency, you can be sure congress would start doing everything they can to make sure absolutely nothing happened to change the status quo. It would be like what the Rs did to Obama, but it would be both Ds and Rs pushing back and nothing would change. ..."
The Democrats engineered another win for Trump. Now why is that?
The why is because the democrats are not really against the things he is doing. Oh sure they
will give some speeches about how they don't like what he is doing, but so far enough democrats
have voted with republicans on almost every bill that has come up. The only one that they
didn't vote for was to rescind the ACA. Deregulation of the banks? Yup. More unconstitutional
spying on us? Yup. The military budget? Yup. Confirming his horrible cabinet picks? Yup again
except for DeVos. Warren voted for Ben Carson. Why? She said that she was afraid that Trump
would pick someone worse. How about just keep voting no until he chose someone qualified? His
horrible right wing judges? Yup. Schumer continues to make deals with McConnell to get them
done. DiFi and of course Manchin and other blue dawgs are right there voting with them. I don't
remember which democrat told McConnell that he should have let all of congress in on the tax
bill because he could have gotten 70 or more votes on it.
This after McConnell refused to let Obama's judges get a vote and then there's Garland and
the kabuki confirmation hearing for Kavanaugh.
Democrats are passing bills to keep Trump from pulling the troops out of Afghanistan and
Syria and we saw what happened when he tried to pull them out of Syria. And made nice with Kim
and Vlad.
So yeah if ByeDone or Warren doesn't get the nod then they will be just fine with Trump
again. And since ByeDone's latest gaffes they are now pushing Warren as coming from behind. I
think Harris was supposed to be the nominee, but she isn't going anywhere.
This is their world, after all. They're fighting for the future, and they have more of
it to fight for.
At the same time, I've noticed a flurry of anti-centrist and Biden-warning articles
coming from all directions.
What I know for sure, is that at this point Trump is set to win in 2020 and the backlash
from the Russia Hoax is just getting started. I don't think it matters which way Barr
decides to play it. The establishment is going to take the hit. There is an army of
potential voters out there who will not vote for more of the same, and that includes Trump.
Nor will they waste their votes on the established third party slush pile. Only a bold
vision from an uncompromising candidate will bring this army forward, and many voters will
join them. There are only a few candidates who can bring it. But they all pretended to fall
for the Russia Hoax. Or, maybe they are just that dumb.
There are enough Millennial votes to carry the win, and the Left will provide back-up.
Who knows with the so-called Progressives? In Congress, they'll vote for anything with a
back-end pay-off that keeps them in DC. On the street, they may be genuine and will vote
with the uncompromised. Tulsi Gabbard can carry this off. She is the first Millennial
presidential candidate -- if she can get past the media black-out.
Bottom line: The Democrats engineered another win for Trump. Now why is that?
up 32 users have voted. --
America is a pathetic nation; a fascist state fueled by the greed, malice, and stupidity
of her own people.
- strife delivery
Democrats are passing bills to keep Trump from pulling the troops out of Afghanistan and
Syria and we saw what happened when he tried to pull them out of Syria.
This is why it wouldn't matter even if we got Sanders/Gabbard by some miracle. If we got a
Sanders/Gabbard presidency, you can be sure congress would start doing everything they can to
make sure absolutely nothing happened to change the status quo. It would be like what the Rs
did to Obama, but it would be both Ds and Rs pushing back and nothing would change.
I give her and the Left a pass on that grey area. Tulsi has never embraced the Russia Hoax
to the extent that Sanders and Warren have -- and still do. One thing I don't need is a
purity pledge from members of the Left who try to climb on the political stage with the
American duopoly, who in turn throw every lie and ugly smear they can at them.
The Russia Hoax is falling apart on its own. The Democrats have been deeply stained by it.
Americans grow increasingly shocked and disgusted with the media monopolies. They have all
lost the trust of the American people. The candidates are trying to evolve as fast as they
can on this issue. It will come up in the debates. Answer wrong and watch out, but that will
change week by week as the public begins to realize what happened in 2016.
bringing the evidence, but my stars, the hundreds of subtweeters gave her an education.
okay, it's a grey area for you, as likely is her voting to sanction russia for stealing
crimea, sanctioning north korea for...whatever.
@Pluto's Republic Russiagate from early on, Prof Stephen Cohen, is a backer and
contributor to Tulsi Gabbard. If she's good enough for the Prof on this issue, she's good
enough for me.
She might be alone among candidates in calling for a substantial pullback in the hostility
directed at Russia by the US, a thawing of the new cold war. And how many of the Ds running
for prez have explicitly called out the undue influence of the MIC?
I see her overall as a young pol, still in her 30s, evolving in the right direction in a
number of areas. I wish she had been perfect on this issue from the get go, but I must take
my candidate with all her flaws.
"... They lie. They lie to pour money to military contractors. They lie to enforce American hegemony. They lie to send children to the slaughter. They lie for their relection campaign. They lie, they lie, they lie. https:// twitter.com/thedailybeast/ status/1139481358139559936 ..."
"... This campaign is just heating up and with the looming threat of war with Iran, a new cold war with China, and the terrifying emptiness that is Joe Biden's candidacy, we need Mike on stage more than ever to speak truth to power. ..."
"... The elite class of this country has no qualms about shipping you off to Afghanistan or watching your house submerged in order to make sure their investments aren't taxed and they can still buy a third home. Don't believe them when they tell you they care. They don't. ..."
"... For so many, opposition to Trump is centered on a dislike of his aesthetic. Obviously Trump is gauche and tasteless. But who cares? Care about his policies, his racism, his appointees. You're not going to sway anyone, or save any lives, by pointing out his typos. ..."
"... The elite class has no loyalty to common people -- they're only interested in "justice" so long as it doesn't affect their pocketbooks. It's either win this idiot's money or earn the votes of the poor and voiceless. https:// twitter.com/IbrahimAS97/st atus/1137145949606879232 ..."
"... Joe Biden's a bum. A right-wing chauvinist, good time prick, arrogant bastard creep who thinks that because he's got a $3,000 suit and the cachet of a lifetime sinecure in the Senate we should bow down to his beaming smile. A real racist piece of work. https:// twitter.com/WalkerBragman/ status/1125121786021019654 ..."
"... The most consistent through line of Biden's career is his lack of respect for a woman's autonomy. Not only does he pet and paw at women publicly, but he refuses to work to make abortion easier by supporting the monstrous Hyde Amendment. https:// twitter.com/NARAL/status/1 136272132231577606 ..."
"... Why is it that after Democrats' experiment with centrism -- which gave us mass incarceration, financial deregulation, and the destruction of our working class -- so many candidates are eager to return to the halcyon days of Bill Clinton's triangulations? It's all about the Benjamins. ..."
"... If international law was applied as written, George W. Bush and Donald Trump would be charged with crimes against humanity. Let's build a world where they have to. http:// bit.ly/Gravelanche ..."
"... Joe Biden voted to send your kids to Iraq and Afghanistan, to let the big banks grow bigger, to let the credit card companies squeeze you, to ship your job overseas. What makes you think he's in your corner now? ..."
"... Mike Gravel: "It hurts to be part of the leadership of a nation and a citizen of a nation that is killing innocent human beings. That hurts so much we should all cry over it." Joe Biden: "I voted to go into Iraq, and I'd vote to do it again." ..."
"... The strategy of those who own the world and want to keep it is simple, captured well in a memo on Cuba written by the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs in 1960: 1) Starve them out. 2) Feign concern. 3) Make war. 4) Make MONEY. https:// buff.ly/2EGKtAq pic.twitter.com/qZqv0tNSn8 ..."
"... American money and arms have supported bloodshed everywhere from Angola to Yemen. We've propped up dictators, instigated civil wars, and funded death squads. Isn't it time we just gave peace a chance? http:// bit.ly/Gravelanche ..."
"... On this Memorial Day, we should remember not only the fallen American soldiers but indeed the fallen of every side in every war. War is the most destructive force known to man, and Memorial Day should serve as a reminder: we must say "never again" to its death and destruction. ..."
"... The essential moral crisis of this country is this: we spend billions in Afghanistan and then act like we can't afford a good education for our children or decent healthcare for all. Our leaders are lying to us, and they know it. ..."
"... When Republicans are in power, Democrats call them warmongers. When Democrats are in power, Republicans call them warmongers. The truth is: they're both right. Send someone to the debate stage to speak that truth. http:// bit.ly/Gravelanche ..."
Though we didn't qualify for June (we didn't expect to) we're more than on track to
qualify for the July debates. Donations are surging and we expect to hit 65,000 by the end of
the month or earlier. Our strategy will be shared with supporters soon! Find the press
release here. pic.twitter.com/KEMt2qFfuN
Sen. Mike Gravel 8:55 AM - 14 Jun 2019
We're going to be doing a tour of the Midwest (Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois,
Michigan) later this month. Mike is probably going to do a speech in Iowa as well. Do you
have ideas for what we should do? Are you willing to host an event? Email us at
[email protected]!
They lie. They lie to pour money to military contractors. They lie to enforce American
hegemony. They lie to send children to the slaughter. They lie for their relection campaign.
They lie, they lie, they lie. https://
twitter.com/thedailybeast/ status/1139481358139559936
This campaign is just heating up and with the looming threat of war with Iran, a new cold
war with China, and the terrifying emptiness that is Joe Biden's candidacy, we need Mike on
stage more than ever to speak truth to power. Your dollar gets him there. https:// secure.actblue.com/donate/mikegra
vel2020?refcode=campaignupdate&amount=1
Sen. Mike Gravel 11:56 AM - 13 Jun 2019
No war with Iran!
Sen. Mike Gravel 7:30 AM - 13 Jun 2019
Campaign HQ: [story about John Bolton on the news] Mike: [chanting] hague, hague- Teens:
hague, HAGUE Twitter: [shaking their fists] HAGUE, HAGUE, HAGUE!
We're facing a global wave of right-wing authoritarianism, bankrolled by legions of elites
desperate to retain their wealth and power. If your answer to this threat is "the power of
hope" instead of transformative policy, you're a worthless shill named Beto O'Rourke.
If you live in Virginia House of Delegates District 50 make sure to get out today to vote!
National fights matter but more important than that is supporting progressive candidates like
@carterforva at
every level of our government, the people taking politics into our hands. https:// twitter.com/carterforva/st
atus/1138378422634369024
You can't recognize Pride Month and also support sending tens of billions of dollars in
weapons to a kingdom that beheads gay people.
Sen. Mike Gravel 3:20 PM - 10 Jun 2019
Wall Street didn't welcome the New Deal, it didn't welcome the Great Society, it didn't
welcome Obamacare. Of course shills will tell you the logical next steps forward -- like
Medicare for All -- are "impractical" or "political suicide." They'll fight you every inch of
the way.
Sen. Mike Gravel 12:40 PM - 10 Jun 2019
The elite class of this country has no qualms about shipping you off to Afghanistan or
watching your house submerged in order to make sure their investments aren't taxed and they
can still buy a third home. Don't believe them when they tell you they care. They don't.
Sen. Mike Gravel 10:45 AM - 10 Jun 2019
Just as you can't control whether one is born rich or poor, you can't control whether
you're strong or intelligent. A comfortable life shouldn't depend on that. As Rawls wrote:
having a certain trait doesn't entitle you to live well. EVERYONE has a right to live
well.
Sen. Mike Gravel 5:20 AM - 10 Jun 2019
For so many, opposition to Trump is centered on a dislike of his aesthetic. Obviously
Trump is gauche and tasteless. But who cares? Care about his policies, his racism, his
appointees. You're not going to sway anyone, or save any lives, by pointing out his
typos.
Sen. Mike Gravel 5:00 AM - 10 Jun 2019
We're currently preparing our Pentagon Rolling Papers for shipping! Our apologies for the
wait. Picture below! pic.twitter.com/TnKv6TjbpJ
In a time when the global fight is between progressivism and fascism, history will not
look kindly on those who declared themselves "moderates."
Sen. Mike Gravel 8:14 AM - 9 Jun 2019
The elite class has no loyalty to common people -- they're only interested in "justice" so
long as it doesn't affect their pocketbooks. It's either win this idiot's money or earn the
votes of the poor and voiceless. https://
twitter.com/IbrahimAS97/st atus/1137145949606879232
Marianne Williamson 6:33 AM - 8 Jun 2019
The DNC should be helping all the candidates to get our word out to the voters, not just
its handpicked choices. We shouldn't have to fight our way in. Yang and I got into the
debates; now let's help Gravel. https://
twitter.com/tipping6103746 8/status/1137350407339032576
Sen. Mike Gravel 2:10 PM - 7 Jun 2019
Millions of Americans are living day to day scared to death they'll get sick and be robbed
blind by heartless crooks like these. It makes ME sick. It's an abomination. https:// twitter.com/Gizmodo/status
/1136585123900604416
Joe Biden's a bum. A right-wing chauvinist, good time prick, arrogant bastard creep who
thinks that because he's got a $3,000 suit and the cachet of a lifetime sinecure in the
Senate we should bow down to his beaming smile. A real racist piece of work. https:// twitter.com/WalkerBragman/
status/1125121786021019654
Sen. Mike Gravel 2:52 PM - 5 Jun 2019
The legacy of U.S. imperialism is dictatorship, massacres, and genocide. We need to face
up to our legacy abroad -- and that means reparations for the Global South and worldwide
military withdrawal. The U.S. must become a moral international actor. Anything else is
suicide. https://
twitter.com/means_tv/statu s/1125717447380803584
Sen. Mike Gravel 1:45 PM - 5 Jun 2019
The most consistent through line of Biden's career is his lack of respect for a woman's
autonomy. Not only does he pet and paw at women publicly, but he refuses to work to make
abortion easier by supporting the monstrous Hyde Amendment. https:// twitter.com/NARAL/status/1 136272132231577606
Sen. Mike Gravel 8:40 AM - 5 Jun 2019
Why is it that after Democrats' experiment with centrism -- which gave us mass
incarceration, financial deregulation, and the destruction of our working class -- so many
candidates are eager to return to the halcyon days of Bill Clinton's triangulations? It's all
about the Benjamins.
Sen. Mike Gravel 7:20 AM - 5 Jun 2019
Savage capitalism has devastated our communities, treating social relations as commodities
and reducing everything to an item to be bartered and sold. We need politicians willing to
admit that, to constrain the market and restore decimated towns riven by opioids and
joblessness.
Sen. Mike Gravel 5:30 AM - 5 Jun 2019
The idea that America doesn't have a radical history is a lie forced on us by a dishonest
and venal establishment -- erasing figures like Hubert Harrison, pretending the American
Dream always meant radical individualism. The truth: Americans have always strived for
radical equality.
Sen. Mike Gravel 4:00 PM - 4 Jun 2019
Mike will not be on Fox News tonight. Don't worry, they canceled to cover something
something very newsworthy and vital: Trump's pomp & circumstance state visit to the Queen
in jolly old England. Chip in a buck to help get Mike on the debate stage! https:// buff.ly/2KF3mcd
Sen. Mike Gravel 1:32 PM - 4 Jun 2019
Lee Zeldin is a disgrace who spends his time harassing his female Muslim colleagues and
once defended Trump by calling President Obama a racist. Teaming up with him is one rung
above teaming up with Steve King, and @DWStweets and @RepLawrence should be ashamed.
https:// twitter.com/AJCGlobal/stat
us/1135637608283934720
Sen. Mike Gravel 11:14 AM - 4 Jun 2019
But all of that lies in the future. Today, we wish American Muslims and Muslims around the
world a day of peace and tranquility. #EidMubarak
Sen. Mike Gravel 11:14 AM - 4 Jun 2019
We need a foreign policy that sees Jews and Muslims as equal citizens in Israel, and is
willing to find a path to peace without condoning land grabs by Netanyahu. We need to stop
funding the slaughter of Muslims in Yemen. And we need to end FBI domestic surveillance of
Muslims.
Sen. Mike Gravel 11:14 AM - 4 Jun 2019
We need to protect the right to free speech by refusing to discriminate against those who
support BDS. We need to end Trump's Muslim and refugee bans. And we need a national office in
the White House to address the surge in hate crimes, especially against Muslims.
Sen. Mike Gravel 11:14 AM - 4 Jun 2019
Sen. Gravel wants to wish every Muslim a wonderful Eid al-Fitr. American Muslims ought to
be valued members of our American community: but for too long we have pursued an Islamophobic
path here and abroad. We need to build a nation that embraces all who live within it.
Sen. Mike Gravel 4:30 AM - 4 Jun 2019
Our authoritarian policies are self-perpetuating: they create problems that justify more
authoritarian policies. If we hadn't deposed Central American leaders, worked with drug
cartels, and supported the Contras, Central Americans wouldn't need to come to America.
Sen. Mike Gravel 12:44 PM - 3 Jun 2019
ICE, the American Gestapo, should be dismantled and abolished on Day 1 of any Democratic
presidency. It has done nothing but fill immigrants' lives with terror and, when it does
detain immigrants, treat them so poorly that some die. A criminal investigation is needed.
https:// twitter.com/kenklippenstei
n/status/1135579639617851394
Sen. Mike Gravel 11:20 AM - 3 Jun 2019
No matter who the Democrats nominate, Republicans will attack them as radical and
socialist. That's a given. The only real choice Democrats have is whether or not to inspire
people in the process with policies that improve people's lives.
Sen. Mike Gravel 10:16 AM - 3 Jun 2019
The idea of apolitical institutions within politics, like the Supreme Court, is a fantasy
that Republicans use to dupe Democrats. Appointing "apolitical justices" (as if any
constitutional question can be apolitical), as Buttigieg suggests, is idiotic.
Our punitive, militaristic approach to drugs has destabilized Latin America, criminalized
our own neighborhoods, and enabled the police to grossly abuse their power. It has done
nothing but harm to our communities. The War on Drugs must end immediately.
Sen. Mike Gravel 8:08 PM - 1 Jun 2019
While the GOP stole one Supreme Court seat, placed a rapist on another, rigged the Census,
implemented power-grabs in WI and NC, and passed voter ID laws, Democratic "opposition" has
meant Pelosi asking Melania and Pence to step in. It's pathetic. Take the fight to Trump.
Sen. Mike Gravel 11:15 AM - 1 Jun 2019
A bit late on this, but we're proud to announce that we've exceeded 40,000 donors! We need
just 25,000 more to qualify for the July debates. Help Mike climb the mountain by getting
your loved one to donate! Just $1 will do (though $4.20 is preferred)! http:// bit.ly/Gravelanchepic.twitter.com/OCjOEXk5ea
Sen. Mike Gravel 5:00 PM - 31 May 2019
Our condolences to @ericswalwell , @SenGillibrand , @sethmoulton , and @amyklobuchar (all fake
progressives and stooges for corporate power) for polling below us in the new Harvard/Harris
poll. There's always next time!
Sen. Mike Gravel 2:20 PM - 31 May 2019
If international law was applied as written, George W. Bush and Donald Trump would be
charged with crimes against humanity. Let's build a world where they have to. http:// bit.ly/Gravelanche
Sen. Mike Gravel 10:34 AM - 31 May 2019
U.S. out of Afghanistan. U.S. out of Iraq. U.S. out of Berlin. U.S. out of Okinawa. U.S.
out of Niger. U.S. out of Syria. U.S. out of Cameroon. U.S. out of South Korea. This list
isn't close to complete. Get Mike in the debates. Get the U.S. out. https:// buff.ly/2KF3mcd
Sen. Mike Gravel 10:20 AM - 31 May 2019
Joe Biden voted to send your kids to Iraq and Afghanistan, to let the big banks grow
bigger, to let the credit card companies squeeze you, to ship your job overseas. What makes
you think he's in your corner now?
Sen. Mike Gravel 9:10 AM - 31 May 2019
Mike Gravel: "It hurts to be part of the leadership of a nation and a citizen of a nation
that is killing innocent human beings. That hurts so much we should all cry over it." Joe
Biden: "I voted to go into Iraq, and I'd vote to do it again."
Sen. Mike Gravel 6:30 AM - 31 May 2019
Ours is a country led by hollow men like Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg, "leaders" who think
of nothing but their own egos, who will do nothing as we're drowned by floods, starved by
drought, choked by poisoned air. That is the way the world ends.
Sen. Mike Gravel 10:41 AM - 30 May 2019
Jacobin Magazine has an excellent, comprehensive piece on Mike's political history. From
highs to lows, this piece is an exhaustive look at his time in the Senate: the courageous
stands he took and the compromises he made. And the conclusion is clear: help get Mike on the
stage. https:// twitter.com/jacobinmag/sta
tus/1133931536082882560
Sen. Mike Gravel 8:47 AM - 30 May 2019
We're proud to be endorsed by the inimitable Mick Wallace, Teachta Dála for Wexford
and (most likely) an MEP-elect for Ireland South. Mick is a proud fighter against imperialism
and for progressive causes, and we're honored to have his support. https:// twitter.com/wallacemick/st
atus/1133989813772857345
Sen. Mike Gravel 5:33 AM - 30 May 2019
Dick Cheney should spend the rest of his life in prison.
Sen. Mike Gravel 2:11 PM - 29 May 2019
The strategy of those who own the world and want to keep it is simple, captured well in a
memo on Cuba written by the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs in
1960: 1) Starve them out. 2) Feign concern. 3) Make war. 4) Make MONEY. https:// buff.ly/2EGKtAqpic.twitter.com/qZqv0tNSn8
Sen. Mike Gravel 2:10 PM - 29 May 2019
The embargo against Cuba has always had one goal: to cripple vital sectors of its economy
and then step back to claim their system cannot work. It's an ideological project, the
consequences for ordinary people, Cuban and American, be damned. https:// buff.ly/30SBzsX
Sen. Mike Gravel 10:34 AM - 29 May 2019
Russian internet trolls aren't the reason we have a racist authoritarian as president.
Blaming other countries for our own diseased national consciousness is straight from our
foreign policy playbook -- a posture that has materialized into drone strikes, sanctions, and
invasions.
Sen. Mike Gravel 10:00 AM - 29 May 2019
When was the last time nominating a boring establishment candidate with no enthusiastic
support, a huge amount of baggage, and several past scandals backfired for the Democratic
Party?
Sen. Mike Gravel 8:30 AM - 29 May 2019
Joe Biden Donald Trump
creepy around women racist history "tough on crime" brash no policies authoritarian
Sen. Mike Gravel 7:20 AM - 29 May 2019
So much of the reason people like Joe Biden is because he "acts like a normal president."
What have normal presidents given us? A country in such turmoil that nearly half of voters
supported Donald Trump. It's insane to try the same thing and expect better results.
Sen. Mike Gravel 5:20 AM - 29 May 2019
Not only is Joe Biden's creepiness around young girls not something to be dismissed
lightly, his refusal to fully apologize and change his ways is indicative of how little he
cares about sexual assault. We deserve a meaningful improvement over Donald Trump: Joe ain't
it.
Our wars abroad have only made us less safe: they've killed foreign civilians, diminished
the perception of America in the world, and tightened the stranglehold of the
military-industrial complex. Donate so Mike can say that on the debate stage. http:// bit.ly/Gravelanche
Sen. Mike Gravel 9:14 AM - 28 May 2019
if you want a vision of the future under Cory Booker, imagine a boot stamping on a human
face - forever. and every once in a while it stops for an inspirational lecture on how we
should never stop dreaming
Sen. Mike Gravel 7:12 AM - 28 May 2019
There's no Hail Mary pass that saves the day from fascism - it doesn't turn around at the
last second. The world is walking down a path it has trodden before; the result last time was
war and the death of a hundred million. Waiting around isn't going to stop it, action
will.
Sen. Mike Gravel 7:00 PM - 27 May 2019
American money and arms have supported bloodshed everywhere from Angola to Yemen. We've
propped up dictators, instigated civil wars, and funded death squads. Isn't it time we just
gave peace a chance? http://
bit.ly/Gravelanche
Sen. Mike Gravel 5:30 PM - 27 May 2019
McDonald's workers, like workers all over the world, are tired of being paid less they
produce and being harassed. I urge everyone to join them in their struggle and remind you to
never cross a picket line. Raise the minimum wage, end workplace harassment at work.
#fightfor15
Sen. Mike Gravel 4:30 PM - 27 May 2019
How can there be justice in a country where Bill Kristol has a net worth of $5 million
while 20 percent of people have less than nothing?
Sen. Mike Gravel 3:00 PM - 27 May 2019
On this Memorial Day, we should remember not only the fallen American soldiers but indeed
the fallen of every side in every war. War is the most destructive force known to man, and
Memorial Day should serve as a reminder: we must say "never again" to its death and
destruction.
Sen. Mike Gravel 1:30 PM - 27 May 2019
The essential moral crisis of this country is this: we spend billions in Afghanistan and
then act like we can't afford a good education for our children or decent healthcare for all.
Our leaders are lying to us, and they know it.
Sen. Mike Gravel 11:00 AM - 27 May 2019
Six migrant children have died under the custody of the U.S. Border Patrol since December.
This growing trail of death is caused by our authoritarian, racist border policy, and the
blame lies with Donald Trump, Stephen Miller, and other racists. Humane immigration reform
now!
Sen. Mike Gravel 8:30 AM - 27 May 2019
When Republicans are in power, Democrats call them warmongers. When Democrats are in
power, Republicans call them warmongers. The truth is: they're both right. Send someone to
the debate stage to speak that truth. http:// bit.ly/Gravelanche
Sen. Mike Gravel 7:00 AM - 27 May 2019
Congratulations on a wonderful victory yesterday for a few allies in Europe, like
@catarina_mart
and @mmatias_ . The
results show that the fascist tide is being beaten back and left-wing populism is on the rise
-- a welcome development.
Warren (D)(1): "Elizabeth Warren to introduce bill cancelling up to $50,000 in student debt
for most borrowers" [
MarketWatch ]. "The Democratic Senator of Massachusetts plans to introduce legislation in
the coming weeks that mirrors her presidential campaign proposal
Under the proposal
Warren released as part of her presidential campaign in April, borrowers with a household
income of less than $100,000 would have $50,000 of their student debt cancelled and borrowers
with an income between $100,000 and $250,000 would be eligible for some student debt
cancellation -- though not the full $50,000. Borrowers earning $250,000 or more would receive
no debt cancellation.
Her campaign estimated the plan would cost $640 billion, which would be paid through a tax
on the ultra-wealthy." • I don't think it makes sense to introduce free college without
giving relief to those who, because they chose to be born at the wrong time, are subject to a
lifetime of debt, so kudos to Warren.
That said, note the complex eligibility requirements; Warren just can't help herself. Also,
of course, you can drown in an inch of water, so pragmatically, even $50,000 might not mean all
that much, especially since servicers gotta servicer.
Warren (D)(2): "Elizabeth Warren's plan to pass her plans" (interview) [Ezra Klein,
Vox ]. Klein: "Do you think that there's a way to sequence your agenda such that you're
building momentum as opposed to losing it?" Warren: "Here's my theory: It starts now. That's
what true grassroots building is about. Green New Deal. More and more people are in that fight
and say that matters to me. Medicare-for-all, that fight that matters to me [No, it doesn't.
–lambert]. As those issues over the next year and a quarter get clearer, sharper, they're
issues worth fighting for, and issues where we truly have leadership on it, have people out
there knocking doors over it . You asked me about my theory about this. This is the importance
of engaging everyone. The importance not just of talking to other senators and representatives
but the importance of engaging people across this country." • This language seems awfully
vague, to me. For example, when Sanders says "Not me, us," I know there's a campaign structured
to back the words up. I don't get that sense with Warren. I also know that Sanders knows who
his enemies are ("the billionaires"). Here again, Warren feels gauzy to me ("the wealthy"). And
then there's this. Warren: "I believe in markets But markets without rules are theft." This is
silly. Markets with rules can be theft too! That's what
phishing equilibria are all about! (And the Bearded One would would argue that labor
markets under capitalism are theft , by definition.) But I'd very much
like to hear the views of readers less jaundiced than I am. Clearly Warren has a complex piece
of policy in her head, and so she and Klein are soul-mates.
Bernie to give a speech on democratic socialism. Clearly sets him apart from others and
has huge implications in regards to policy, organizing, and strategy:
yes, he directly quoted fdr in the context of that historical moment, got a standing o,
then smiled and said something like "that does seem to apply to our era, doesn't it?"
it seemed a little like he'd planned on getting applause
makes me wonder, does someone over there visit nc regularly?
He's definitely bringing the heat! If you thought he might shy away from Republican cries
of 'socialism', banish those thoughts.
It's a little slow for the 1st 25 min or so. But he really gets going in the latter part
of it. Talks a lot about "freedom" around the 40 minute mark.
Pitches a 21st Century 'Economic Bill of Rights'.
– right to a job
– paid living wage
– right to health care
– right to education
– right to affordable housing
– right to clean environment
Too many imponderables with this analogy. Such as, can you hear the Neo saying under
his/her breath: "The Finance is strong with this one!" Or, an endless montage of ghostly
voices whispering in political ears, "Run XXX, run!" And finally, where is the young and
innocent farm toiler who will redeem the New Deal? Chelsea? She might fit the bill. She's the
'hidden' scion of powerful and 'connected' Nouveaux Aristocrats.
I think the livestream is over now. It was being broadcast on C-span. I called my mother
to see if she was watching, and she was, but it was "interrupted"
The oligarchy has two choices, Trump or Bernie. Which do you think they will pick?
Will the former pick cause the general strike?
Where's my popcorn?
Will youtube ban this video for inappropriate content?
Exciting times, in the 6th, happening "faster than expected".
They won't need to talk about Gabbard after the first debates, unless she can get polling
over 2% there will be no more for her. Like all the other 20 she will get her maybe broken 10
minutes of fame in the first debate, it won't be enough to really make a rational case for
anything probably. The Dems aren't generous like R's in having second tier debates, they cull
fast. Sanders yea he'll be around.
The problem with Warren's definition of capitalism, is when she describes herself as
capitalist, she pretends she literally has no idea what capitalism is. The ingenue! In her
description: it's about individuals trading, or corporations trading, or individuals trading
with corporations. When back in the world we live in it's about power and raw power
relations. Her definition of capitalism IS WAY WAY WAY more inaccurate than any definition
Bernie has of socialism which does approach some definitions of socialism. It's just zero
correspondence with reality for Warren.
Tucker Carlson asked whether someone can be elected if Google and Facebook don't want them
to be. His answer was No.
I think a similar question can be asked: "Can someone be elected if the DNC don't want
them to be?". Unfortunately for this election cycle I think the answer will also be No.
But it will set the stage for something bigger, and worse (from the PTB point of view).
Those who make gradual change impossible make revolutionary change inevitable" JFK
So if we haven't all been Raptured Up, 2024 is Year Zero for our New Thermidor.
Indeed she does. That New York Mag article was quite an accomplished hit-piece; now Tulsi
is possibly a Manchurian candidate from a twisted Krishna cult! Aside from the accurate quote
on the Blob cited by Lambert, this is perhaps the most disgusting piece of s**t on Gabbard
I've read yet -- and that's saying something. The reason is that it is so detailed and
skilled; it really demonstrates your point that they want to destroy her. The article
*pretends* to be sympathetic to her anti-interventionist stance in places (thus the Blob
quote), but the author actually draws selectively from her life -- mainly from past
acquaintances and relatives (who seem antagonistic) and almost nothing from Gabbard herself
-- to paint a picture of a strange and perhaps unstable character unknown to the general
public. Some of the questions raised might be legitimate, but that was not the purpose here.
Rather, bits and pieces of her life were selected to construct a finely crafted narrative
designed to destroy whatever credibility her anti-war position might have had among educated
liberal readers.
For those who want to know about Gabbard, watch the Joe Rogan interviews. For those who
want to deconstruct a first-rate character assassination, I highly recommend this article.
You are right, John. The nomenklatura are pulling out all the stops.
I agree, this article had "hit job" written all over it. The author spent as much time
discussing her father's guru as it did her from what I could tell. A piss-poor, and obvious,
attempt at Guilt By Association.
I actually went into "skim mode" after this leading paragraph statement,
Here are the details: Bashar al-Assad is a depraved dictator best known for his
willingness to murder his own people, including many children, with chemical weapons.
It was pretty obvious to me that the rest of the article would carry as much lie as this
statement so clearly did. It's too unfortunate that too many will fall for all this
tripe.
Gabbard (D)(1): "Tulsi Gabbard Had a Very Strange Childhood" [ New York
Magazine ]. " A Hindu veteran and millennial congresswoman of Samoan descent hailing from
Hawaii, [Gabbard] brings together disparate constituencies: most noticeably, Bernie Sanders
fans who love that she resigned from the Democratic National Committee to endorse him in 2016,
but also libertarians who appreciate her noninterventionism, Indian-Americans taken by her
professed Hinduism, veterans attracted to her credibility on issues of war and peace, and
racists who interpret various statements she has made to be promising indications of
Islamophobia.
That she is polling at one percent, sandwiched between Andrew Yang and Amy Klobuchar,
suggests that bringing together these constituencies is not nearly enough, but the intensity of
emotion she provokes on all sides sets her apart. When FiveThirtyEight asked 60 Democratic
Party activists whom they didn't want to win, Tulsi Gabbard came in first out of 17
candidates." • Also, Gabbard is a self-described introvert (a plus in my book). And then
there's this:
The most obvious obstacle between any noninterventionist candidate and mainstream success
is D.C.'s foreign-policy Establishment -- the think-tankers and politicians and media
personalities and intelligence professionals and defense-company contractors and, very often,
intelligence professionals turned defense-company contractors who determine the bounds of
acceptable thinking on war and peace. In parts of D.C., this Establishment is called "the
Blob," and to stray beyond its edges is to risk being deemed "unserious," which as a woman
candidate one must be very careful not to be.
The Blob may in 2019 acknowledge that past American wars of regime change for which it
enthusiastically advocated have been disastrous, but it somehow maintains faith in the
tantalizing possibilities presented by new ones.
The Blob loves to "stand for" things, especially "leadership" and "democracy." The Blob
loves to assign moral blame, loves signaling virtue while failing to follow up on civilian
deaths, and definitely needs you to be clear on "who the enemy is" -- a kind of obsessive
deontological approach in which naming things is more important than cataloguing the effects
of any particular policy.
It's fair to say that whoever The Blob is for -- ***cough*** Hillary Clinton ***cough*** --
should be approached with a hermaneutic of suspicion.
Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard took the media to task for what she called
biased and misleading coverage of her campaign, arguing the facts no longer matter to some
outlets. Speaking at an event in New York recently, Tulsi said the press had given up on any
semblance of balanced or accurate reporting, replacing news coverage with panels of jabbering
pundits.
Instead of factual reporting, she said: "We see opinions, we see panels of people on all
the news channels – I don't care which one you watch – sharing their
opinions."
tulsi mocking george stephanopoulos is one of the greatest things you'll hear from any
of the candidates pic.twitter.com/aIBxWyZ5t1
The 2020 hopeful also described what she said were intentional smear efforts against her
campaign in the media.
"Me and my campaign have been on the receiving end of very intentional smear efforts
trying to undermine our campaign coming through, you know, NBC News quoting articles that are
completely baseless," Gabbard said.
She referred to a recent interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos, wherein the pundit
echoed the suggestion that Gabbard's campaign was boosted by "Putin apologists."
"Well, you know, this article in the Daily Beast says Putin supports your campaign,"
she said, imitating Stephanopolous's question in the interview.
An article "based on what?" she asked the audience in New York rhetorically.
"Nothing. Really, nothing."
The story in question intimated that Gabbard's presidential bid was backed by "Kremlin
sympathizers," such as the Nation magazine's Stephen F. Cohen, an expert in international
relations who argues for better ties between the US and Russia.
Gabbard has come under fire for her foreign policy positions, such as her call for detente
between the US and other nuclear-armed states like Russia. Tulsi's opposition to US regime
change policies have also made her a target in some quarters. After refusing to endorse
American efforts to topple the Syrian government, she was branded as an 'apologist' for Syria's
President Bashar Assad.
Warren (D)(1): [Team Warren, Medium ]. "The
rising cost of rent reflects a basic supply-and-demand problem. There aren't enough places to
rent that are affordable to lower-income families. That's because developers can usually turn
bigger profits by building fancier new units targeted at higher-income families rather than
units targeted at lower-income families. The result is a huge hole in the marketplace."
•
I'm not a housing maven by any stretch of the imagination, but I think a story that doesn't
consider the role of private equity in snapping up distressed housing after the Crash is likely
to be a fairy tale.
Warren (D)(2): "The Memo: Warren's rise is threat to Sanders" [
The Hill ]. "'She certainly does seem to be taking votes away from him,' said Democratic
strategist Julie Roginsky. 'It seems as if, as she is rising, he is falling.'" • The
national averages don't show that.
"... As it is, it seems that the corporate Democrats and Clintonites new strategy is to promote Warren and then start leaning on
her heavily in an effort to convert Warren to the neoliberal "dark side" or have her not be a problem for them. ..."
"... Her stance on single payer is troubling and telling, and her foreign policy positions and worldview are absolutely atrocious.
She has good policy ideas (not great political instincts), but none of the ideas at the present time have movements behind them and
would need those movements to push them through. ..."
"... As for Warren, I believe she could have value in a narrowly defined (finance-related) role in a Sanders administration. I will
not vote for her for president. Her foreign policy is atrocious, she doesn't support single payer, and she has proven herself to be
a garden variety neoliberal on all but her own niche issues. ..."
As it is, it seems that the corporate Democrats and Clintonites new strategy is to promote Warren and then start leaning
on her heavily in an effort to convert Warren to the neoliberal "dark side" or have her not be a problem for them.
Warren has unfortunately shown just how easy it is to get her to back down under pressure and there is also the fact that she
has been willing to carry water for the Clintonites before to advance her own political career like she did in the 2016 election.
At this point, I would seriously consider Yang to be my third choice after Sanders and Gabbard if it came down to it. Warren
would probably be either incapable or unwilling to face any serious political opposition either from Trump or neoliberal Democrats
and would probably cave.
Her stance on single payer is troubling and telling, and her foreign policy positions and worldview are absolutely atrocious.
She has good policy ideas (not great political instincts), but none of the ideas at the present time have movements behind them
and would need those movements to push them through.
Is she the person to lead movements and to help them grow? I can't see anyone making that case. She has had an impact on issues,
with the CFPB, which is good, but that was her work within academia. Different animal than actual movement building. Here, we
have single payer and she has backtracked.
So, changes that may happen down the road, great. At least provides some alternatives and possibly a path from here to there.
But, the fights we could win in the shorter term? Waffles. No thanks. I think she can play a great role in her current position
or if Bernie were to win, in his administration, but I think she would be very problematic as a general election nominee. Just
my opinion. I like her more than Biden and a number of others running but that says more about them than her.
The first thought that entered my mind when I saw that quote from Biden was that he really is suffering from cognitive decline.
As for Warren, I believe she could have value in a narrowly defined (finance-related) role in a Sanders administration.
I will not vote for her for president. Her foreign policy is atrocious, she doesn't support single payer, and she has proven herself
to be a garden variety neoliberal on all but her own niche issues.
The only candidates besides Sanders I would vote for (Gabbard and Gravel) have less chance of getting the nomination than he
does. If Sanders is not the Democratic nominee, I will once again be voting Green.
This just in from the Big Island. The natives seem restless.
"Imagine if you will, in a few short years, that information on current events will only be available from a narrow band of sources
sanctioned by the government/corporate media. And this Orwellian future will be embraced by the majority of people because it
provides security, both ideological and emotional.
Any dissension, criticism, whistle-blowing, anti-exceptionalism coming from critical voices will be labeled extremist. And
this has been embraced by the two monopoly political parties.
I just received a questionnaire from the Democrats posing the question, "What's the most important issue in the upcoming
election?"
The very first multiple choice answer to pick from was - "Russian aggression and increasing global influence" Russia, a country with a small population and an economy that is a fraction of the US or Europe is our dire threat? Let's
just ignore the expansion of NATO onto Russia's borders, or that the US State Dept. spent 5 billion dollar to change the politics
of Ukraine.
Second most important issue asked on the questionnaire, "Protecting America from foreign cyber attacks" Let's ignore
the fact that the NSA is spying on all Internet traffic, that the CIA has misinformation programs like, "Operation Mockingbird"
and many other covert activities to influence perceptions domestically.
The third Democratic Party priority question is "China's increasing economic and military strength" China's state controlled
mercantile success lies directly on the twin shoulders of the US Government and it's multi-national corporations. The US granted
China, Most Favored Nation status in 1979, which gave it exposure to US markets with low tariffs. Almost immediately, corporations
went to China and invested in factories because of the cheap Chinese labor while abandoning the US worker. And in May 2000 Bill
Clinton backed a bipartisan effort to grant China permanent normal trade relations, effectively backing its bid to join the WTO.
We live in a country whereby the US Government has made it possible for corporations to pay little or no taxes, to be deregulated
from government laws designed to protect the public, and allow corporate crimes to go unpunished while maintaining vast influence
over the political system through campaign contributions and corporate ownership of the mass media.
This US Government/corporate partnership smells a lot like Fascism. Instead of Mussolini we have Trumpolini. And so our time's
brand of corporatism has descended over the eroding infrastructure of America."
that's a real insult. Madcow is probably the worst person to sk any question you can imagine... she is kind of female McCarthy
re-incarnation -- crazy Russiagater...
Why have any moderators? They should have an auctioneer instead. He'll
quickly determine who is willing to offer us the biggest bribes with our own money, in exchange
for a vote.
And we'll learn how many different ways can one say "FREE! FREE! FREE!" 5 hours ago
XXX:
"The questions will be available for a small fee?" DJT
So Russiagater was not fired. Madcow was promoted to more freely spead her "Madcow desease"
(Neo-McCarthysim actually) into unsuspecting public ...
Notable quotes:
"... Almost none of the "celebrity" tv journalists have earned one sniff of their regard by having a sufficient amount of smarts, insight, and humility it requires to deliver the news. Especially in trying times like these. ..."
"... She's a borderline conspiracy theorist and more of a star than a newswoman. ..."
"... In what alternate universe does Maddow even have a hint of non-bias? She is not a journalist. ..."
"... maddow is all about opinion, hers, and the one given out to msm by the dem party everyday. aka : the meme of the day. maddow is an partisan idiot. always was, always will be ..."
On Tuesday, NBC announced that its lineup of moderators will include Rachel Maddow of
MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show , Lester Holt of NBC Nightly News and Dateline
NBC, José Diaz-Balart of Noticias Telemundo and NBC Nightly News
Saturday , Savannah Guthrie of Today , and Chuck Todd of Meet the Press .
... ... ...
UltraViolet Action co-founder and executive director Shaunna Thomas praised the moderator
decision to the Cut. "NBC's decision to ensure that four out of the five moderators for the
first Democratic presidential primary debate are women or people of color is a huge win for
representation at the debates and a welcome change from the status quo," Thomas said in a
statement. She also stated that she hopes other networks follow suit.
Cags
Almost none of the "celebrity" tv journalists have earned one sniff of their regard by having
a sufficient amount of smarts, insight, and humility it requires to deliver the news.
Especially in trying times like these.
joaniesausquoi, 3 hours ago
Whattya got against Rachel, Cags?
Cags, 2 hours ago
She's a borderline conspiracy theorist and more of a star than a newswoman.
Daxter , 6 hours ago (Edited)
In what alternate universe does Maddow even have a hint of non-bias? She is not a
journalist.
Having Rachel Maddow moderate is like having Sean Hannity moderate.
indigo710, 5 hours ago
maddow is all about opinion, hers, and the one given out to msm by the dem party
everyday. aka : the meme of the day. maddow is an partisan idiot. always was, always will
be . "lawer" is spelled "lawyer".
"... "When the modern corporation acquires power over markets, power in the community, power over the state and power over belief, it is a political instrument, different in degree but not in kind from the state itself. To hold otherwise -- to deny the political character of the modern corporation -- is not merely to avoid the reality. It is to disguise the reality. The victims of that disguise are those we instruct in error." ..."
"There
was time when average Americans could be counted upon to know correctly whether the country was going up or down, because in those
days when America prospered, the American people prospered as well. These days things are different.
Let's look at it in a statistical sense. If you look at it from the middle of the 1930's (the Depression) up until the year
1980, the lower 90 percent of the population of this country, what you might call the American people, that group took home 70
percent of the growth in the country's income. If you look at the same numbers from 1997 up until now, from the height of the
great Dot Com bubble up to the present, you will find that this same group, the American people, pocketed none of this country's
income growth at all.
Our share of these great good times was zero, folks. The upper ten percent of the population, by which we mean our country's
financiers and managers and professionals, consumed the entire thing. To be a young person in America these days is to understand
instinctively the downward slope that so many of us are on."
Thomas Frank, Kansas City Missouri, 6 April 2017
"When the modern corporation acquires power over markets, power in the community, power over the state and power over belief,
it is a political instrument, different in degree but not in kind from the state itself. To hold otherwise -- to deny the political
character of the modern corporation -- is not merely to avoid the reality. It is to disguise the reality. The victims of that
disguise are those we instruct in error."
John Kenneth Galbraith
One of the older male anchors on financial TV today noted, in a very condescending tone, that for some reason Elizabeth Warren
'has an attitude' when it comes to corporations.
I hope she and some of her like minded fellows get their opportunity to extend the hand of equal justice to these smug serial
felons, pampered polecats, and corporatist clowns. It has been a long time coming.
that's a real insult. Madcow is probably the worst person to sk any question you can imagine... she is kind of female McCarthy
re-incarnation -- crazy Russiagater...
Why have any moderators? They should have an auctioneer instead. He'll
quickly determine who is willing to offer us the biggest bribes with our own money, in exchange
for a vote.
And we'll learn how many different ways can one say "FREE! FREE! FREE!" 5 hours ago
XXX:
"The questions will be available for a small fee?" DJT
What one side believes is preserving the God-given right to life for the unborn, the other
regards as an assault on the rights of women.
The clash raises questions that go beyond our culture war to what America should stand for
in the world.
"American interests and American values are inseparable," Pete Buttigieg told Rachel
Maddow.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told the Claremont Institute:
"We have had too little courage to confront regimes squarely opposed to our interests and
our values."
Are Pompeo and Mayor Pete talking about the same values?
The mayor is proudly gay and in a same-sex marriage. Yet the right to same-sex marriage did
not even exist in this country until the Supreme Court discovered it a few years ago.
In a 2011 speech to the U.N., Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, "Gay rights are human
rights," and she approved of U.S. embassies flying the rainbow flag during Pride Month.
This year, Mike Pompeo told the U.S. embassy in Brazil not to fly the rainbow flag. He
explained his concept of his moral duty to the Christian Broadcasting Network, "The task I have
is informed by my understanding of my faith, my belief in Jesus Christ as the Savior."
The Christian values Pompeo espouses on abortion and gay rights are in conflict with what
progressives now call human rights.
And the world mirrors the American divide.
There are gay pride parades in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, but none in Riyadh and Mecca. In
Brunei, homosexuality can get you killed.
To many Americans, diversity -- racial, ethnic, cultural, religious -- is our greatest
strength.
Yet Poland and Hungary are proudly ethnonationalist. South Korea and Japan fiercely resist
the racial and ethnic diversity immigration would bring. Catalans and Scots in this century,
like Quebecois in the last, seek to secede from nations to which they have belonged for
centuries.
Are ethnonationalist nations less righteous than diverse nations likes ours? And if
diversity is an American value, is it really a universal value?
Consider the treasured rights of our First Amendment -- freedom of speech, religion and the
press.
Saudi Arabia does not permit Christian preachers. In Afghanistan and Pakistan, converts to
Christianity face savage reprisals. In Buddhist Myanmar, Muslims are ethnically cleansed.
These nations reject an equality of all faiths, believing instead in the primacy of their
own majority faith. They reject our wall of separation between religion and state. Our values
and their values conflict.
What makes ours right and theirs wrong? Why should our views and values prevail in what are,
after all, their countries?
Under our Constitution, many practices are protected - abortion, blasphemy, pornography,
flag-burning, trashing religious beliefs - that other nations regard as symptoms of a
disintegrating society.
When Hillary Clinton said half of all Trump supporters could be put into a "basket of
deplorables" for being "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic," she was
conceding that many Trump's supporters detest many progressive values.
True, but in the era of Trump, why should her liberal values be the values America champions
abroad?
With secularism's triumph, we Americans have no common religion, no common faith, no common
font of moral truth. We disagree on what is right and wrong, moral and immoral. Without an
agreed-upon higher authority, values become matters of opinion. And ours are in conflict and
irreconcilable.
Understood. But how, then, do we remain one nation and one people?
How about Tulsi on the top of that ticket? I like all her positions. Unfortunately RT and
Sputnik are recommending her, which will kill her chances of getting the Democratic
nomination.
No way will I vote for Donald again. His kissing of Prince bin Salman's ring, doing
Netanyahoo's bidding, and starting trade wars are a disaster IMHO. I'm voting for Billy Weld.
Too bad he won't get anywhere close in the primary.
Phil Csttar - I don't quite get your points. Yes, Warren's particular distribution of genes
might result in her overwhelmingly Anglo looking face being perhaps more Anglo looking than
her siblings, if any. You know the bit about the tall peas and the small peas, but it is
unlikely that she would look this Anglo with a significant amount of Indian DNA.
If she did have some Indian blood it would have to be a hell of a long way back. In any
case it is her dishonesty and identity profiteering that matters. Nobody gives a damn about
her ancestry.
Concerning the Maltese, what's your point? Is it that there are Christian Arabs? Don't we
all know that here? I just think his name is funny. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maltese_language
She does have quite high cheek bones (tongue firmly in cheek). I read somewhere that her
native ancestry was 1/64 or about 1.5%. That is roughly the same as one grandparents,
grandparents, grandparent. Or put another way, her grandmothers, grandmother's grandmother
was a native.
My point Colonel is that she does not appear to have any significant amount of American
Indian dna in her.The democrats have a problem.Their ticket must have a female on it.It also
needs a "person of color"preferably black on it.The black vote was down in the last election
and probably cost Hillary a win.A winning ticket for the democrats could well be a
Warren/Booker ticket.He is very ambitious, and young enough to be the vice president for the
almost 70 year old Warren, and then run for president.He also has executive and legislature
experience.He is also black enough ..Kamela Harris who refers to herself as "person of color"
is half Asian ,her Jamacian born father is a college professor and she is married to very
rich, very white businessman.I am not a fan of either Warren or Booker but I can see them
helping the democrats carrying states like NC,PA,MI and maybe even FL.These all went for
Trump.Hillary's VP selection did NOTHING for her ticket in 2016,IMHO... ...
What is especially interesting to me is Peter Buttigieg's father, Joseph A. Buttigieg. He
grew up on the Island of Malta, and went to college there and in Britain, and received his
PhD doctorate at the State University of New York at Binghamton. He got a job teaching at
Notre Dame University in 1980. Now brace yourself, because his main academic interest was
Antonio Gramsci, a member of the Italian Socialist Party who was also said to be a
contributor to Marxist theory!
Buttigieg the father is the primary editor and translator of Gramsci's "Prison Notebooks",
which is a three-book set--
It appears that Joseph Buttigieg did not just look at Gramsci as an academic interest. He
was one of the founders of the International Gramsci Society, and was its president until he
passed away in January 2019--
Notre Dame published an article about him at the time of his death this year. It includes
a description of Buttigieg's interest in Gramsci--
"He is also the editor and translator of the multi-volume complete critical edition of
'Antonio Gramsci's Prison Notebooks,' a project that has been supported by a major grant from
the National Endowment for the Humanities. Several of his articles on Gramsci, the Italian
philosopher, writer and politician, have been translated into Italian, German, Spanish,
Portuguese and Japanese. He was a founding member of the International Gramsci Society, of
which he was president, and the Italian minister of culture appointed him to a commission of
experts to oversee the preparation of the "edizione nazionale" (national edition/complete
works) of Gramsci's writings."
Since Peter Buttigieg is an announced candidate in the Democratic Party for president of
the United States, a reasonable issue for consideration and investigation is to what extent
his father passed on the ideas of Antonio Gramsci about socialism and Marxism to young Peter,
and what the candidate knows about Gramsci and what he thinks about all of it.
The New York Times newspaper published lengthy articles focusing on the entrepreneurial
Fred Trump, father of Donald Trump. Will such diligent journalistic digging be done as to
Joseph Buttigieg as the campaign progresses?
But, it could be, being keen on Gramsci ideas, in case Buttigieg the son would have inherited
this along with whatever else his father could have left him, an impediment to take office as
POTUS?
Anyway, attacking the man from that flank, could result a bit muddy.. Not so rarely
happens that offspring takes the opposite, or simply different, views from those of their
parents...
Although, Gramsci, had really a bunch of good ideas, to the extent that the judge who
condemned him said, "it is necessary to avoid that brain to continue working" ...
While undoubtedly worthy of scholarly interest, notice the GLARING OMISSION of either of the
adjectives Marxist or communist in reference to Antonio Gramsci in Mr.
Buttigieg's Notre Dame obituary. One could be excused for suspecting the university didn't
want to draw attention to the politics of its professor's main area of expertise.
Gramsci is important, in the history of marxism, because he is the first who stressed the
major role of "cultural hegemony" in the power-taking processus. Especially in USA.
They're going to sandbag her at the debates, but she has 1 chance to stand tall and she'll
need to put away her soft-spoken approach and comes out swinging.
She is specifically being opposed by the Democratic establishment, who are less interested in
winning than maintaining their donation stream. At the debates she will hopefully connect to
the larger public beyond the DNC gatekeepers.
"... "I feel duped," said the voter, Renee Elliott, who was laid off from her job at the Indianapolis Carrier plant. "I don't have a lot of faith in political candidates much anymore. They make promises. They make them and break them." ..."
"... Warren rose to her feet. "The thing is, you can't just wave your arms," the she said, gesturing energetically. "You've really got to have a plan – and I do have a plan." ..."
"... But despite the burst of momentum, Warren's path to the nomination has two major roadblocks: Sanders and Biden. Her success will depend on whether she can deliver a one-two punch: replacing Sanders as the progressive standard bearer while building a coalition broad enough to rival Biden. ..."
"... "She sounds like Donald Trump at his best," conservative Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson told his largely Republican audience as he read from Warren's proposal during the opening monologue of his show this week. The plan calls for "aggressive intervention on behalf of American workers" to boost the economy and create new jobs, including a $2tn investment in federal funding in clean energy programs. ..."
"... His praise was all the more surprising because Warren has vowed not to participate in town halls on Fox News, calling the network a "hate-for-profit racket that gives a megaphone to racists and conspiracists" ..."
The senator's 'I have a plan' mantra has become a rallying cry as she edges her way to the
top – but is it enough to get past the roadblocks of Biden and Sanders?
Elizabeth Warren at a campaign rally in Fairfax, Virginia, on 16 May. Photograph: Cliff
Owen/AP Plan by plan, Elizabeth Warren is making inroads
and gaining on her rivals in the 2020 Democratic race to take on Donald Trump.
This week a Morning Consult poll saw Warren break
into the double digits at 10%, putting her in third place behind Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden.
A recent
Economist/YouGov poll found Warren was making gains among liberal voters, with Democrats
considering the Massachusetts senator for the Democratic presidential nomination in nearly
equal measure with Sanders.
Her intense campaigning on a vast swathe of specific issues has achieved viral moments on
the internet – even including one woman whom
Warren advised on her love life – as well as playing well during recent television
events.
At a televised town hall in Indiana this week, Warren listened intently as a woman who voted
for Trump in 2016 described her disillusionment – not only with a president who failed to
bring back manufacturing jobs as he said he promised but with an entire political system
stymied by dysfunction.
"I feel duped," said the voter, Renee Elliott, who was laid off from her job at the
Indianapolis Carrier plant. "I don't have a lot of faith in political candidates much anymore.
They make promises. They make them and break them."
Warren rose to her feet. "The thing is, you can't just wave your arms," the she said,
gesturing energetically. "You've really got to have a plan – and I do have a plan."
That mantra – a nod to the steady churn of policy blueprints Warren's campaign has
released – has become a rallying cry for Warren as she edges her way to the top of the
crowded Democratic presidential primary field.
But despite the burst of momentum, Warren's path to the nomination has two major roadblocks:
Sanders and Biden. Her success will depend on whether she can deliver a one-two punch:
replacing Sanders as the progressive standard bearer while building a coalition broad enough to
rival Biden.
Warren began that work this week with a multi-stop tour of the midwest designed to show her
strength among working class voters who supported Trump. Ahead of the visit, Warren unveiled a
plan she described as "economic patriotism", which earned startling praise from one of Trump's
most loyal supporters.
"She sounds like Donald Trump at his best," conservative Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson
told his largely Republican audience as he read from Warren's proposal during the opening
monologue of his show this week. The plan calls for "aggressive intervention on behalf of
American workers" to boost the economy and create new jobs, including a $2tn investment in
federal funding in clean energy programs.
His praise was all the more surprising because Warren has vowed not to participate in town
halls on Fox News, calling the network a "hate-for-profit racket that gives a megaphone to
racists and conspiracists".
The debate over whether
Democrats should appear on Fox News for a town hall has divided the field. Sanders, whose
televised Fox News town hall generated the highest viewership of any such event, argued
that it is important to speak to the network's massive and heavily Republican audience.
As Warren courts working-class voters in the midwest, she continues to focus heavily on the
early states of Iowa and New Hampshire. After jumping into the race on New Year's Eve 2018,
Warren
immediately set to work , scooping up talent and building a massive
operation in Iowa. Her campaign is betting a strong showing in the first in the nation
caucuses will propel her in New Hampshire, which neighbors Massachusetts, and then boost her in
Nevada and South Carolina.
But as Warren gains momentum, moderate candidates are becoming more vocal about their
concern that choosing a nominee from the party's populist wing will hand Trump the
election.
"If we want to beat Donald Trump and achieve big progressive goals, socialism is not the
answer," former Colorado governor John Hickenlooper told Democrats in California last weekend.
Though his comments were met with boos and jeers among the convention's liberal crowd, his
warning is at the heart of the debate over who should be the Democratic presidential
nominee.
Warren has pointedly distinguished herself as a capitalist as opposed to a socialist or a
democratic socialist, but she has not backed away from a populist platform that embraces
sweeping economic reforms.
In her address to the California Democratic party, Warren rejected appeals for
moderation.
"Some say if we all calm down, the Republicans will come to their senses," she said. "But
our country is in a time of crisis. The time for small ideas is over."
"... The one glaring example of how the media can deep six a political candidate is the story of Ron Paul's presidential run in 2012. After tying for first place in the Iowa Straw Poll with Michelle Bachman he was disappeared from the media completely . His name was never mention again, and the RNC stole his delegates. He became persona non grata. This is probably Tulsi's future. ..."
"... Moreover,our Neocon Warmongers eighteen year assault on the federal balance sheet , has been so massive, so larcenous and so protracted it has all but eviscerated the credit worthiness of the Nation. They have QUADRUPLED our ENTIRE NATIONAL DEBT in a mere 18 years. IT IS BEYOND BELIEF. ..."
"... All while he sends more troops to the ME but not to our border. As a wag on ZeroHedge observed, Trump has spent more time at the Wailing Wall than on our southern border. ..."
"... Tulsi is my preferred candidate. That said, I'm disappointed that she "served" in Iraq, a country which we invaded and devastated on a total lie that it had nukes. Also, I believe now she has distanced herself from ring-wing US Hindu groups who are strong supporters of the genocidal Indian prime minster Modi. ..."
"... That said, I admire Tulsi for going against the grain of our Zionist-run Congress and our crypto Jewish prez. ..."
"... The war party has many tentacles. The mainstream media and cable are fundamentally just their propaganda service. Fellow corporatists supporting each other's revenue stream. Then RT comes along, and does journalism -- demonstrates some journalistic integrity -- and the world is turned upside down. All of a sudden the truth -- mostly -- is declared Russian propaganda. ..."
"... Not just Trump and O, but Clinton and Bush II as well. I recall Bush II's tag line of a "more humble foreign policy." How'd that work out? ..."
"... I remember in 2011, I believe it was, he was leading in the polls and I heard a radio talking head opining: "I think we can all stipulate that Ron Paul is not a viable candidate for the nomination, but " For a moment there I wondered why we could all stipulate that, and then it occurred to me to notice the commentator's last name. He was using the royal we, as in we the Chosen. RP not an Israel lickspittle? End of story. ..."
"... However, Sanders had always been anti-immigration until he started running against Hillary in 2016. He was both anti illegal immigration and anti H1b. The problem is, DNC candidates have to pander to the far left to win nomination ..."
"... Tucker said he supports Elizabeth Warren's national economic plan of bringing back manufacturing jobs to save the heartland, as Trump is trying to do. Warren also wants maximum legal immigration like Trump. What good are bringing back these jobs if we are just going to import more foreign workers to work in them? ..."
"... "Both Obama and Trump were elected as anti-war candidates, and look what happened?" ..."
"... As for Trump, war in fact has not "happened". Beside the silly nothing attack on an essentially unstaffed Syrian runway that was warned ahead of time, Trump has attacked no one. He talks a lot to placate Jews, but talk is not action. Obama? A true war monger who bombed & bombed, & bombed. ..."
Probably the only honest Democrat out there. OK Demo-dunces, when Dem primary comes around,
here is a candidate you can vote for without normal people saying What? Are you nuts? Dems
are honestly going to push for Feelsy Weelsy Biden, unless the Hildabeast thinks she can give
it another try.
Tulsi Gabbard needs to add one more thing to her campaign and she will win: promise a drastic
cut on immigration in favor of American workers.
America is hungry for a candidate who will actually deliver on the no-more-wars and
no-more-immigration pledge. Trump campaigned on that but has turned out to be a total fraud
who failed on both counts.
We need Tulsi to step into the void. Not only will she win over a lot of Trump voters, but
she will also win over a lot of those on the left who are sick of wars and not particularly
pro immigration.
Hilariously, the MSM trumpeted the message last time around that we simply MUST have a female
president, that it was long past time a woman was in charge, and that anyone reluctant to
vote for Hillary was an evil misogynist. Before that, we were told that we simply HAD to have
a noble Person of Color in the White House, that it was everyone's duty to vote for Obama and
not some old white guy.
Despite Gabbard ticking off both those boxes, wouldn't you know It? Suddenly the
importance of having a non-White or female President mysteriously vanishes! Suddenly it's our
duty to have the lecherous, creepy old white dude in office! Suddenly the importance of
Diversity ("diversity is our strength" don't you know?) vanishes into the ether when Tulsi
comes up.
I think she should use this to her advantage. Not resort to identity politics or faux
feminism, but simply point out the hypocrisy, draw attention to the inconsistency and get the
general public asking themselves why all this diversity / Girl Power shit suddenly gets
memory holed by the media when it's Tulsi, or any anti establishment figure, in the
spotlight.
I mat switch party registration just so I can vote for her in a primary. I wonder, however,
if once in office, she could implement her program against the Deep State
After Gabbard announced her (2020) campaign, the Russian government owned RT, Sputnik
News and Russia Insider together ran about 20 stories favorable to her. NBC News reported
that these websites were the same that were involved in Russian interference in the 2016
elections. Matt Taibbi, in Rolling Stone, called the report by NBC a "transparent hit
piece". In The Intercept, Glenn Greenwald wrote that what he found "particularly unethical
about the NBC report is that it tries to bolster the credentials of this group [New
Knowledge] while concealing from its audience the fraud that this firm's CEO just got
caught perpetrating on the public on behalf of the Democratic Party."
@Tired of Not Winning Totally agree. To those who saw it, that's what Tucker's monologue
was all about last night. Anti-war with America-first anti-immigration is the winning ticket.
Unfortunately, from what I've been able to gather, take away her principled anti-war stance
and Tulsi's just another bleeding-heart liberal democrat. She did back Sanders after all.
Maybe Tucker, who has often had her on his show, can straighten Tulsi out.
Gabbard should switch parties and challenge Trump. I would vote for her. She has no chance at
all as a Democrat. Obviously she cannot be allowed to participate in the Democratic debates.
But her reasons for running probably do not include winning the nomination. I wish her
well. But I will never support a Democrat. Not even one I respect. I'm a white man. It's not
about the POC. My fear and loathing pertains to the white liberals.
@Diversity Heretic That's the $64,000 question, isn't it? Both Obama and Trump were
elected as anti-war candidates, and look what happened? The Deep State, i.e. the Permanent
Government, is probably more powerful than any elected president, who will be there for at
most 8 years. But who else out there beside Tulsi has the guts to take on the Hegemon? I
think she means what she says, while Obama and Trump did not.
We'll know she's being taken serious when, like Donald Trump in 2016, AIPAC summons her to
appear before the Learned Elders of Zion to pledge fealty to Israel and the holohoax.
● 'Immigration is a tremendous economic benefit for Hawai'i and our country as a
whole.'
● 'Trump's comments on immigrants fly in the face of aloha spirit, American
values.'
She has no chance and isn't going to go against immigration.
It doesn't really matter what they say anyway, because it's just lies to get elected.
Once elected they do what the nose tells them to do.
If she's CFR, she's an open borders globalist.
Trump was adamantly anti-war during his campaign, and then the nose stepped in and fixed
it.
I read that everything Trump said, all of those lies, all of those promises, were the
result of analytics.
I was dubious at first, but now I think it's true. He quite literally just mouthed what we
wanted to hear, and then did what the nose told him to do.
Obama got the peace prize and did more drone strikes than Bush.
Tulsi would be anti-war right up to her inauguration, then the reality that the nose OWNS
her entire party would sink in and she'd realize who's the boss.
Giraldi and his fans here are cool with mass Third World migration to the USA if it means
finally electing out and proud anti-Israel politicians like Ilhan Omar and the other
Congressmuslima.
Despite Gabbard ticking off both those boxes, wouldn't you know It? Suddenly the
importance of having a non-White or female President mysteriously vanishes! Suddenly it's
our duty to have the lecherous, creepy old white dude in office! Suddenly the importance of
Diversity ("diversity is our strength" don't you know?) vanishes into the ether when Tulsi
comes up.
But I will never support a Democrat. Not even one I respect. I'm a white man. It's not
about the POC. My fear and loathing pertains to the white liberals.
I like Tulsi a lot. We've almost forgotten what a serious person looks like, and she is one
of the 3 or 4 in Washington.
Her Democrat satanic baggage poisons the well, but she is still an inspiring figure, in my
view.
The one glaring example of how the media can deep six a political candidate is the story of
Ron Paul's presidential run in 2012. After tying for first place in the Iowa Straw Poll with
Michelle Bachman he was disappeared from the media completely . His name was never
mention again, and the RNC stole his delegates. He became persona non grata. This is probably Tulsi's future.
Right now, Tulsi is the only candidate who matters.
I hope she wins the nomination by a landslide.
The United States, due to the abysmal stewardship of our neocon oligarchs , is in a wholly
unprecedented and catastrophic situation.
They know it, I know it, and the majority of Americans are fast waking up to it.
Never before in US history, has so much taxpayer solvency been squandered through acts of
wanton criminal war.
The utter decimation being wrought upon countries around the world . which never attacked
us, AT ALL, is beyond human imagination.
Moreover,our Neocon Warmongers eighteen year assault on the federal balance sheet , has
been so massive, so larcenous and so protracted it has all but eviscerated the credit
worthiness of the Nation. They have QUADRUPLED our ENTIRE NATIONAL DEBT in a mere 18 years. IT IS BEYOND BELIEF.
Even as I write this, steps are being taken by all the major world powers to eject the US
dollar as the worlds reserve currency.
If this happens, nobody will continue to buy our currency ..or our bonds.
The heinous 22 trillion dollar debt, created by our neocon warmongers, will not be
underwritten anymore, anywhere.
The US will have to turn "inward" to deal with this fiscal abomination , and dare I say
that when this happens a "solvency holocaust" will truly be upon us.
The greatest nation on earth, turned belly up, in a mere twenty years .all due to
pernicious .. Neocon ..War Fraud.
@Tired of Not Winning Total fraud is correct. He refuses to characterize the illegals as
invaders and to anchor any action in response in his responsibility under Art. IV, Sect. 4 to
repel invasion. He insists on pretending that his authority to act is founded in legislation
pertaining to "emergencies" of which we possess an infinite supply.
All while he sends more troops to the ME but not to our border. As a wag on ZeroHedge
observed, Trump has spent more time at the Wailing Wall than on our southern border.
And while every month 100,000 invaders are released into the interior of the US.
Tulsi is my preferred candidate. That said, I'm disappointed that she
"served" in Iraq, a country which we invaded and devastated on a total lie that it had nukes.
Also, I believe now she has distanced herself from ring-wing US Hindu groups who are strong
supporters of the genocidal Indian prime minster Modi.
That said, I admire Tulsi for going against the grain of our Zionist-run Congress and our
crypto Jewish prez.
@Lot So what's wrong with Ilhan Omar? Is that she's Muslim? Two people in Congress I
admire are AOC (who's to young of run for prez) and Omar. Both have cojones.
@anonymous India is a polluted shit-hole run by a genocidal, Hindu nationalist PM, with
almost half of parliament members under some kind of criminal charge.
The war party has many tentacles. The mainstream media and cable are
fundamentally just their propaganda service. Fellow corporatists supporting each other's
revenue stream. Then RT comes along, and does journalism -- demonstrates some journalistic
integrity -- and the world is turned upside down. All of a sudden the truth -- mostly -- is
declared Russian propaganda.
Awakening from the bad dream of neoliberal servitude will cause cognitive dissonance,
confusion, and distress. Learning the truth, even a little bit of Truth, is almost like
poison when, for a lifetime, you've been fed nothing but lies.
@Tired of Not Winning Agree, but . . . even if elected, she would run into the same AIPAC
and pro-cheap labor lobbies that have stymied Trump (assuming Trump wanted to do anything
about these issues). Even if she wanted to do something about War and Immigrants, she would
up against a united establishment from both parties. Having a D after her name would not
count for much.
@c matt You've already been destroyed. Omar and AOC had both the brains and the balls to
identify your real enemy. Your ass is owned buddy, lock, stock and barrel ..and it took two
women to say it .not a sign of a man with any balls in congress.
Florida's Governor just signed a bill that will censor criticism of Israel throughout
the state's public schools
News
Michael Arria on June 6, 2019 23 Comments
U.S. Congressman Ron DeSantis of Florida speaking at the 2017 Conservative Political
Action Conference (CPAC) in National Harbor, Maryland. (Photo: Gage Skidmore)
[MORE]
On May 31, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed a bill that prohibits anti-Semitism in public
schools and universities throughout the state. However, the legislation also equates
criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism, effectively censoring the advocacy of Palestinian
rights.
Two days before DeSantis officially signed HB 741 into law in Florida, he carried out a
symbolic signing during a ceremonial state cabinet meeting in Israel. The session featured a
variety of Israeli speakers and culminated with Florida lawmakers issuing a declaration of
support for the country. "Since we're in Jerusalem, we may actually get some interest in our
Cabinet meetings for a change, which would be great," joked DeSantis during the meeting. A
number of news organizations filed a lawsuit against the state's government, claiming that
the meeting violated Florida's transparency law, as it took place in a foreign country and
wasn't made publicly accessible to journalists. Although they weren't officially listed as
members of DeSantis' delegation, he was accompanied by pro-Israel megadonors Sheldon and
Miriam Adelson.
HB 741 states that, "A public K-20 educational institution must treat discrimination by
students or employees or resulting from institutional policies motivated by anti-Semitic
intent in an identical manner to discrimination motivated by race." The bill identifies
anti-Semitism as calls for violence against Jews, Holocaust denial, or the promotion of
conspiracy theories that target Jewish people, but it also contains an entire section that
equates Israel critcism with the prohibited anti-Semitism. This includes, "applying a double
standard to Israel by requiring behavior of Israel that is not expected or demanded of any
other democratic nation." According to the bill's text, criticism of Israel is always
anti-Semitic unless it is "similar to criticism toward any other country."
"We know what could happen in Florida from the chilling effects we've already seen elsewhere:
human rights defenders will be smeared as antisemites, investigated by schools, and in some
cases punished. Events will be cancelled, or censored via bureaucratic harassment. Theses
will not be written. Debates in class will not take place. And many activists will
self-censor out of pure exhaustion," Palestine Legal's senior staff attorney Meera Shah told
Mondoweiss, "All of this profoundly diminishes Florida's ability to educate students to be
leaders in a global economy."
The House version of HB 741 was sponsored by State Representative Randy Fine, a rabidly
pro-Israel lawmaker who has held office since 2016. In April, after Sen. Audrey Gibson voted
against HB 741's companion bill and called it "divisive", Fine denounced the Senate
Democratic Leader and called on Democrats to "hold her accountable." "It is sad that in the
world propagated by Washington Democrats like Congresswomen Ihlan Omar and Rashida Tlaib and
Tallahassee Democrats like Audrey Gibson, fighting anti-Semitism is 'divisive', said Fine,
"In this time of rising anti-Semitism around both the country and globe, it is unconscionable
that the most powerful Democrat in the Florida Senate would vote against banning
discrimination based on anti-Semitism."
That same month, Fine made headlines for referring to a Jewish constituent as "Judenrat", a
term used to describe Jews who collaborated with the Nazis during World War 2. Fine used the
word in reference to Paul Halpern, a Palm Bay resident who organized a panel discussion
regarding the Israel/Palestine conflict. Fine took to Facebook to criticize the panel for
being anti-Semitic. "First, there is no 'Palestine,'" Fine wrote, "Second, having a bunch of
speakers who advocate for the destruction of Israel but promise that this one time they
won't, is a joke. We should not engage these bigots. We crush them." After Halpern pushed
back on this assertion and pointed out that the majority of the panelists were Jewish, Fine
responded, ″#JudenratDontCount..I know that Judenrat liked to keep tabs on all the Jews
in order to report back to the Nazis back in that time, but no one is making you continue
that tradition today."
"In my mind, Judenrat is the worst thing that you can call a Jewish person," Halpern told the
Huffington Post, "He's despicable as a representative and a person."
Governor DeSantis is a close ally of the President and some believe that the Israel trip
could help deliver Florida for Trump in 2020. "For a lot of Jewish voters, this trip puts an
exclamation point on the Republican Party's commitment to Israel and to Jewish people," the
Republican Jewish Coalition's Neil Strauss recently proclaimed, "We saw a nice rise in
support for Gov. DeSantis and we want to keep that going. Florida is the best example of
where if Republicans gain Jewish voters, it can make a real difference."
I remember in 2011, I believe it was, he was leading in the polls and I heard a
radio talking head opining: "I think we can all stipulate that Ron Paul is not a viable
candidate for the nomination, but " For a moment there I wondered why we could all stipulate
that, and then it occurred to me to notice the commentator's last name. He was using the
royal we, as in we the Chosen. RP not an Israel lickspittle? End of story.
Well a lot of the comments here are ridiculous it's like the guy who has cancer and somebody
comes along with a cure, but he says 'fuck it' because it doesn't involve ice cream
Yet these same morons support Trump who has only done things for Israel's benefit so far
and even though Trump supports legal immigration
Speaking of which why don't all these immigration zealots take up the issue with the real
bosses on the matter corporate America ?
It's the plutocracy that WANTS immigration at any and all cost because it creates a
surplus labor pool and drives wages down while driving shareholder profits up the same reason
is why industry is offshored, along with the jobs that go with it it's called labor
arbitrage
In other words this is what CAPITALISM is about yet here these monkeys are screaming about
'leftist' Tulsi because she wants Medicare for all, instead of a ripoff system that enriches
a few corporate parasites while we foot the bill
How much do the endless, unnecessary wars cost the taxpayer ? [they don't cost the
billionaire class anything because they don't pay taxes ]
How much does corporate welfare cost the taxpayer ? ask King Bezos how many billions he's
been gifted in 'tax holidays' and other such freebies
Tulsi's entire approach is a major win-win for ordinary folks right up to and including
high earning professionals
Anybody with half a brain would be overjoyed that we even have such a person in our midst
as if we don't have enough completely briandead zombies that are going to vote for Gore or
that gay guy, or that fake 'socialist' Bernie
@Sako Sako, yours is one of the best posts ever on this site. I am tempted to volunteer
for Tulsi's campaign on the basis of her anti-war position alone. I did about fourteen years
of active duty in the Army, and when I hear her refer to soldiers as her "brothers and
sisters," I actually get teary-eyed. I have to restrain myself from adoring her completely.
Excellent expose by Philip Giraldi, for one of our best candidates Tulsi Gabbard.
Indeed the enemy is "the band of oligarchs and traitors that run the United States."
@Tired of Not Winning Like me. Hopefully she is still in it when super Tuesday gets here.
I'm sick of the alt right (and their tangerine leader) and sicker of blm/reparations/open
borders. I now know why non voters don't vote.
Tulsi is a Hawaii democrat, a very corrupt group. Tell her to comment on the kealohas, the
police chief of Honolulu and his wife are being tried for corruption and drug dealing by the
feds. She and all the other dems here will not comment. She likes to rock the boat about war
at the federal level but no comment on her state evolving into a third world dump.
I think the local dems want her out, Mufi wants revenge.
@follyofwar Yep, it is a big if. She is pretty far to the left on immigration, which is
unfortunate. But I appreciate her being honest. We don't need another lying scum like Trump.
However, Sanders had always been anti-immigration until he started running against Hillary
in 2016. He was both anti illegal immigration and anti H1b. The problem is, DNC candidates
have to pander to the far left to win nomination. I'm holding out hope that he would revert
back to those pre 2016 immigration positions after winning nomination. He recently came out
and railed against the border invasion.
A Sanders-Gabbard ticket might be the winning ticket.
(assuming Trump wanted to do anything about these issues).
That's just the problem. I don't think Trump ever really wanted to reduce legal
immigration. He has said more than once that he wants to let "the largest number ever" of
immigrants come in because "we" need these workers as we have "all these jobs coming back",
i.e. employers need their cheap labor, except instead of keeping the cheap labor offshore, he
wants to bring millions of them to the US like the tech sector.
Tucker said he supports Elizabeth Warren's national economic plan of bringing back
manufacturing jobs to save the heartland, as Trump is trying to do. Warren also wants maximum
legal immigration like Trump. What good are bringing back these jobs if we are just going to
import more foreign workers to work in them?
In the end the rich will just get richer, while the rest of us have to put up with even
more immigration, more congestion, overcrowded schools, crime, poverty, unemployment,
underemployment, failed schools I say no thank you! Let's just send all the immigrants
packing. We already have plenty of jobs in America, they are just all going to
foreigners.
The only job program we need is one that calls for drastic cuts in immigration. Anything
else is bullshit.
"Both Obama and Trump were elected as anti-war candidates, and look what
happened?"
As for Trump, war in fact has not "happened". Beside the silly nothing attack on an essentially unstaffed Syrian runway that was warned
ahead of time, Trump has attacked no one.
He talks a lot to placate Jews, but talk is not action. Obama?
A true war monger who bombed & bombed, & bombed.
yet here these monkeys are screaming about 'leftist' Tulsi because she wants Medicare
for all, instead of a ripoff system that enriches a few corporate parasites while we foot
the bill
Sorry, I haven't seen anyone on this thread complain about Medicare-for-all. You must have
this website confused with Conservative Treehouse or something.
@Tired of Not Winning Tulsi Gabbard won't because She is waging Democratic Party race war
against the Historic Native Born White American Working Class Majority .Tulsi Gabbard would
massively increase the H1b L1b Visa Program .she is already courting the Hindu "American"
Democratic Party Voting Bloc ..
@Robert Dolan I believe you've summed it up well. I haven't voted in a "national"
election since W's first term because the ballot-box is a non-answer to the dilemma.
@Johnny Rottenborough Her positions on immigration disqualify her from consideration
regardless of how strong her foreing policy might be at this stage. Plus, she's made woke
statements on other social issues so in a lot of ways she's perhaps only slightly to the
right of Barack Obama with a non-interventionist foreign policy.
Democratic
presidential candidate Bernie Sanders took a swipe at neoconservative Bill Kristol for his
"foolish advocacy of the Iraq war," and questioned whether he had apologized to the country for
it yet. Sanders was responding to a tweet Kristol sent that said, "#Never Sanders," and
linked to a New York Times article about the longtime Vermont senator's opposition to war.
"Have you apologized to the nation for your foolish advocacy of the Iraq war?"
Sanders tweeted , adding he makes
"no apologies for opposing it."
Sanders' record of opposing wars like Vietnam and Iraq, and US meddling in Nicaragua, has
recently been highlighted by the media as the 2020 presidential primaries approach.
-- Meghan McCain's Tears™
(@Smedley_Butler) May 25,
2019
NBC's Meet the Press came under fire last week for tweeting , "Sanders
said he won't apologize for supporting anti-Vietnam War efforts and voting against the war in
Iraq," which sparked ridicule among social media users and inspired Sanders to release a
video in which he stood by his anti-war stance and promised to do everything to prevent a war
with Iran.
I was right about Vietnam.
I was right about Iraq.
I will do everything in my power to prevent a war with Iran.
Kristol tweeted his 'never Sanders' diss after the former Burlington mayor introduced a
petition to prevent "military action against Iran without congressional approval,"
something that likely upset Kristol, who has been calling for regime change in Iran for over 13
years.
Kristol refused to apologize over his comments, instead calling on Sanders to engage in a
"real debate on US foreign policy."
Nope. I dislike quasi-Stalinist demands for apologies. I've defended and will defend my
views on Iraq, and Syria, and Milosevic, and the Soviet Union, and more, as you defend
yours. How about a real debate on U.S. foreign policy--I'll ask for no apologies!--on a
campus this fall? https://t.co/AdC0CelINz
A co-founder of the neoconservative think tank the Project for the New American Century
(PNAC), Kristol called for regime change in Iraq in 1998 in a series of articles and a letter
to then-President Bill Clinton. Following 9/11, PNAC encouraged the George W. Bush
administration to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Kristol ardently supported the war in Iraq, which
he claimed would be a "two-month war" and repeatedly argued for sending more troops
there to rectify the failing invasion.
During the 2006 Lebanon war, Kristol suggested the US take the opportunity to strike Iran's
nuclear facilities, asking, "Why wait?"
Citizens can be appalled by outside of rare moment of social upheaval that does not matter:
iron law of oligarchy suggests that the state in ruled in the interests of oligarchy not common
citizens. It was as true fro the USSR as is the USA now.
Notable quotes:
"... We are appalled by these actions of the military and government officials. You are being unfair, totally inaccurate and perpetuating a false notion, as to how the great majority of citizens feel about all that is happening around the world, with those who are involved with the pathos that is being experienced by other human beings. ..."
You are very wrong when you assert that most American citizens want this and are as blood
lust as these agencies and other government and military leaders.
We are appalled by these actions of the military and government officials. You are being
unfair, totally inaccurate and perpetuating a false notion, as to how the great majority of
citizens feel about all that is happening around the world, with those who are involved with
the pathos that is being experienced by other human beings.
It is a constant never ending source of pain, frustration, rage and disbelief that our
nations leaders are acting the way that we are now all very aware of, thanks to those who
have exposed the travesty.
What in God's name do you expect from the citizens who are also suffering extremely dire
circumstances because of how the greedy criminals have left many homeless, hungry and dying
because of not having enough money for healthcare. We are also being abused, abandoned, and
marginalized into oblivion.
Many who are well off enough, are trying to appeal to the government to take control of
their part of any global and national crises. It is all everyone is capable of doing to bring
about change.
We are not " them, " so stop making such reprehensible comments about an entire
nation of mostly good people who care very deeply, and are effected very grievously.
"... A sincere question: who is running the CIA and on whose behalf? ..."
"... They consider us the people, their enemy. We are the 'enemy within', because as we become increasingly aware of our politicians' criminality any action we take may threaten the status quo. ..."
"... Just because Americans don't tend to care about anything that happens beyond their own borders doesn't mean the rest of the world can live with the same blissful ignorance. ..."
"... The NSA scandal has made us realize that the US regards us as second-rated citizens who are nondeserving of the 'special protections' that Anglo-speaking countries do. ..."
"... This is extremely telling about Obama's continued failure to discern good character in his aides and cabinet. His administration has been a shambles largely due to his inability to surround himself with good people. ..."
"... I guess so, as we all know that the CIA always tried to silent war opponents. This had been largely documented about Vietnam opponents to the War on US soil. ..."
"... The CIA is now a discredited organization run by proven liars. When will Congress do something about it? Answer -- never. They are all being blackmailed. ..."
"... The CIA is completely out of control. This begs the question, as to why do, or should, American citizen vote for candidates when those candidates are effectively being 'managed' and spied on by people in the CIA. Senators in both houses are not making 'decisions' the CIA is. ..."
"... Yes and the only politician who has called for the abolition of the CIA is Ron Paul. ..."
"... The NSA isn't hindering your movements as you are not a danger to the status quo. You can keep getting blasted at your BBQ's and coming online to defend the indefensible, you're not a threat. But it's not about you. It's about the people who are in a position to challenge the system. This can include anti-war activists, judges, politicians and journalists. ..."
They consider us the people, their enemy. We are the 'enemy within', because as we become increasingly aware of our politicians'
criminality any action we take may threaten the status quo.
leaders haven't been voted into office for a while now - they're rigged into office - from the lowly dog catcher to the president
- and its happening all over the world.
If you take the easy way now, you will take the easy way in the future. This not a sandlot baseball game here. These are high-
powered people , who are responsible for matters extremely operant to the people of our country, and it must be admitted, the
world.
To simply brush off these serious breaches of Government procedure (law) would serve to perpetuate the Executive Branch intrusions
into the business of the Legislative Branch.
Separation of the powers is a time-honored method of setting up a government that has kept us 'moving along' for quite
awhile now. Most of its problems stem from the populace placing too much trust in their elected officials .
It is everyone's responsibility to collectively maintain our government. It was never the intention of our founders that our
leaders become reclusive despots: from today's vantage point, we can see this. It is a short walk to realize where the blame should
be laid. Up and on your way to no future.
Just because Americans don't tend to care about anything that happens beyond their own borders doesn't mean the rest of the
world can live with the same blissful ignorance.
The NSA scandal has made us realize that the US regards us as second-rated citizens who are nondeserving of the 'special
protections' that Anglo-speaking countries do.
I find it absolutely shocking that this guy's dismissal is still debatable. Should be a no-brainer is any democracy
In the UK and USA these spooks backed by politicians and civil servants are getting way out of hand. Having the technology to
do things doesn't provide the need or right to do such things. They are getting to the point where they are "protecting" us from
the very people and system they have become.
although the White House indicated its support for a man who has been one of Barack Obama's most trusted security aides.
This is extremely telling about Obama's continued failure to discern good character in his aides and cabinet. His administration
has been a shambles largely due to his inability to surround himself with good people.
I guess so, as we all know that the CIA always tried to silent war opponents. This had been largely documented about Vietnam
opponents to the War on US soil.
They're all fuc@#$g rogue. Power corrupts but absolute power corrupts absolutely. Who polices the police? No one apparently. They
and all their UK counterparts will walk away from this unscathed. If the heat gets a little too warm just play your joker, 'Terrorism'.
The CIA is now a discredited organization run by proven liars. When will Congress do something about it? Answer -- never.
They are all being blackmailed.
Your state can imprison anyone it wants, for as long as it wants, without having to justify it in any way... hell they are not
even required to let relatives know. That is a police state. The US is operating what effectively are concentration camps all
over the place, Guantanamo being the flagship.
The CIA is completely out of control. This begs the question, as to why do, or should, American citizen vote for candidates when
those candidates are effectively being 'managed' and spied on by people in the CIA. Senators in both houses are not making 'decisions'
the CIA is.
Quite how the CIA, White House or any other government body think that they have any credibility regarding any matter, is amazing.
I JUST PUT A LIST OF QUESTIONS ON MY TIME LINE THIS SHOULD KEEP THE SPY NETWORK BUSY FOR A WHILE ! BUT THEY NEVER DO ANYTHING
THAT MAKES SENSE ANYWAY ; THEY ONLY HAVE A 30 BILLION DOLLAR BUDGET ; BUT CANNOT TELL US WHAT HAPPENED TO MH370 MALAYSIAN AIRPLANE
! WOW ! SOME SPY NETWORK ! IT 'S EASY FOR THEM TO SCREW WITH US ; BECAUSE WE ARE EVERYDAY MARKS !
If the United States government doesn't even govern by popular mandate, it certainly won't give a fuck about anyone's respect,
dear fellow internet commentator.
The penalties for lying under oath are quite strict and can include up to 5 years of prison time. But nobody is willing to go
after these guys, they have too much information on too many people. The day the US congress voted for the patriot act was the
last day of their democracy.
What exactly does a CIA member have to do to get arrested, prosecuted and convicted for an action inside the USA?
It is not spying on Congress. It it spying on the Supreme court, or killing a Senator? Do they walk away free after assassinating
their own president? Do they need to do more?
The NSA isn't hindering your movements as you are not a danger to the status quo. You can keep getting blasted at your BBQ's and
coming online to defend the indefensible, you're not a threat. But it's not about you. It's about the people who are in a position
to challenge the system. This can include anti-war activists, judges, politicians and journalists.
Everyone who matters can be
kept inline with blackmail and for public figures it can be the smallest thing. Recently, during a primary, a candidate lost as
questions were raised about the fact he had checked in the a mental care facility. He probably had a breakdown and needed to be
observed for a couple of days. This piece of information would be easy to pick up with the various NSA programmes.
If this candidate
had the same views as you, this little fact would not have been released but I believe he was a defender of your constitution
and that could cause problems for the criminal regime you now live under.
Snooping is poison in a democracy. Your system was built so that it had self correction and could hence adapt to new situations
and constantly improve. This served Americans well for many years, but it has ended.
Feinstein and the word "hope" do not belong in one and the same sentence. She along with her fellow conspirators in the intelligence
committee are the ones that have been green-lighting this fascism for years. It's like expecting John McCain to repeal the Patriot
Act.
People like Feinstein are chosen to oversee mass surveillance for the simple reason that they are old, completely technologically
illiterates who can be easily fooled or if need be blackmailed through their extensive business empires
.
TUCKER CARLSON, FOX NEWS: Good evening and welcome to Tucker Carlson Tonight. Let's begin
tonight with a thought experiment: What if the Republican leadership here in Washington had
bothered to learn the lessons of the 2016 election? What if they'd cared enough to do that.
What if they'd understood, and embraced, the economic nationalism that was at the heart of
Donald Trump's presidential campaign? What would the world look like now, two and a half years
later? For starters, Republicans in congress would regularly be saying things like this.
Quote:
"I'm deeply grateful for the opportunities America has given me. But the giant 'American'
corporations who control our economy don't seem to feel the same way. They certainly don't act
like it. Sure, these companies wave the flag -- but they have no loyalty or
allegiance to America. Levi's is an iconic American brand, but the company operates only 2% of
its factories here. Dixon Ticonderoga -- maker of the famous №2
pencil -- has 'moved almost all of its pencil production to Mexico and China.'
And General Electric recently shut down an industrial engine factory in Wisconsin and shipped
the jobs to Canada. The list goes on and on. These 'American' companies show only one real
loyalty: to the short-term interests of their shareholders, a third of whom are foreign
investors. If they can close up an American factory and ship jobs overseas to save a nickel,
that's exactly what they will do -- abandoning loyal American workers and
hollowing out American cities along the way. Politicians love to say they care about American
jobs. But for decades, those same politicians have cited 'free market principles' and refused
to intervene in markets on behalf of American workers. And of course, they ignore those same
supposed principles and intervene regularly to protect the interests of multinational
corporations and international capital. The result? Millions of good jobs lost overseas and a
generation of stagnant wages, growing inequality, and sluggish economic growth. If Washington
wants to put a stop to this, it can. If we want faster growth, stronger American industry, and
more good American jobs, then our government should do what other leading nations do and act
aggressively to achieve those goals instead of catering to the financial interests of companies
with no particular allegiance to America.... The truth is that Washington policies --
not unstoppable market forces -- are a key driver of the problems American
workers face. From our trade agreements to our tax code, we have encouraged companies to invest
abroad, ship jobs overseas, and keep wages low. All in the interest of serving multinational
companies and international capital with no particular loyalty to the United States....It's
becoming easier and easier to shift capital and jobs from one country to another. That's why
our government has to care more about defending and creating American jobs than ever
before -- not less. We can navigate the changes ahead if we embrace economic
patriotism and make American workers our highest priority, rather than continuing to cater to
the interests of companies and people with no allegiance to America."
End quote. Now let's say you regularly vote Republican. Ask yourself: what part of that
statement did you disagree with? Was there a single word that seemed wrong? Probably not.
Here's the depressing part: Nobody you voted for said that, or would ever say it. Republicans
in congress can't promise to protect American industries. They wouldn't dare. It might violate
some principle of Austrian economics. It might make the Koch brothers angry. It might alienate
the libertarian ideologues who, to this day, fund most Republican campaigns. So, no, a
Republican did not say that. Sadly.
Instead, the words you just heard are from, and brace yourself here, Senator Elizabeth
Warren of Massachusetts. Yesterday, Warren released what she's calling her "plan for economic
patriotism." Amazingly, that's pretty much exactly what it is: economic patriotism. There's not
a word about identity politics in the document. There are no hysterics about gun control or
climate change. There's no lecture about the plight of transgender illegal immigrants. It's
just pure old fashioned economics: how to preserve good-paying American jobs. Even more
remarkable: Many of Warren's policy prescriptions make obvious sense: she says the US
government should buy American products when it can. Of course it should. She says we need more
workplace apprenticeship programs, because four-year degrees aren't right for everyone. That's
true. She says taxpayers ought to benefit from the research and development they fund. And yet,
she writes, "we often see American companies take that researchand use it to manufacture
products overseas, like Apple did with the iPhone. The companies get rich, and American
taxpayers have subsidized the creation of low-wage foreign jobs." And so on. She sounds like
Donald Trump at his best. Who is this Elizabeth Warren, you ask? Not the race hustling, gun
grabbing, abortion extremist you thought you knew. Unfortunately Elizabeth Warren is still all
of those things too. And that is exactly the problem, not just with Warren, but with American
politics. In Washington, almost nobody speaks for the majority of voters. You're either a
libertarian zealot controlled by the banks, yammering on about entrepreneurship and how we need
to cut entitlements. That's one side of the aisle. Or, worse, you're some decadent trust fund
socialist who wants to ban passenger cars and give Medicaid to illegal aliens. That's the other
side. There isn't a caucus that represents where most Americans actually are: nationalist on
economics, fairly traditional on the social issues. Imagine a politician who wanted to make
your healthcare cheaper, but wasn't ghoulishly excited about partial birth abortion. Imagine
someone who genuinely respected the nuclear family, and sympathized with the culture of rural
America, but at the same time was willing to take your side against rapacious credit card
companies bleeding you dry at 35 percent interest. Would you vote for someone like that? My
gosh. Of course. Who wouldn't? That candidate would be elected in a landslide. Every single
time. Yet that candidate is the opposite of pretty much everyone currently serving in congress.
Our leadership class remains resolutely libertarian: committed to the rhetoric of markets when
it serves them; utterly libertine on questions of culture. Republicans will lecture you about
how payday loan scams are a critical part of a market economy. Then they'll work to make it
easier for your kids to smoke weed because, hey, freedom. Democrats will nod in total
agreement. They're on the same page.
Just last week, the Trump administration announced an innovative new way to protect American
workers from the ever-cascading tidal wave of cheap third-world labor flooding this country.
Until the Mexican government stops pushing illegal aliens north over our border, we will impose
tariffs on all Mexican goods we import. That's the kind of thing you'd do to protect your
country if you cared about your people. The Democrats, of course, opposed it. They don't even
pretend to care about America anymore. Here's what the Republicans said:
MITCH MCCONNELL: Look, I think it's safe to say – you've talked to all of our
members and we're not fans of tariffs. We're still hoping this can be avoided.
"We're not fans of tariffs." Imagine a more supercilious, out of touch, infuriating
response. You can't, because there isn't one. In other words, says Mitch McConnell, the idea
may work in practice. But we're against it, because it doesn't work in theory. That's the
Republican Party, 2019. No wonder they keep losing. They deserve it. Will they ever change?
Trump betrayed anti-war votes. So he will not get the same voting blocks that he got in 2016.
Notable quotes:
"... Tulsi's own military experience notwithstanding, she gives every indication of being honestly anti-war. In the speech announcing her candidacy she pledged "focus on the issue of war and peace" to "end the regime-change wars that have taken far too many lives and undermined our security by strengthening terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda." She referred to the danger posed by blundering into a possible nuclear war and indicated her dismay over what appears to be a re-emergence of the Cold War. ..."
"... In a recent interview with Fox News's Tucker Carlson, Gabbard doubled down on her anti-war credentials, telling the host that war with Iran would be "devastating, " adding that "I know where this path leads us and I'm concerned because the American people don't seem to be prepared for how devastating and costly such a war would be So, what we are facing is, essentially, a war that has no frontlines, total chaos, engulfs the whole region, is not contained within Iran or Iraq but would extend to Syria and Lebanon and Israel across the region, setting us up in a situation where, in Iraq, we lost over 4,000 of my brothers and sisters in uniform. A war with Iran would take far more American lives, it would cost more civilian lives across the region Not to speak of the fact that this would cost trillions of taxpayer dollars coming out of our pockets to go and pay for this endless war that begs the question as a soldier, what are we fighting for? What does victory look like? What is the mission?" ..."
"... Gabbard, and also Carlson, did not hesitate to name names among those pushing for war, one of which begins with B-O-L-T-O-N. She then asked "How does a war with Iran serve the best interest of the American people of the United States? And the fact is it does not," Gabbard said. "It better serves the interest of people like [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Bibi Netanyahu and Saudi Arabia who are trying to push us into this war with Iran." ..."
"... In 2015, Gabbard supported President Barack Obama's nuclear agreement with Iran and in 2016 she backed Bernie Sanders' antiwar candidacy. More recently, she has criticized President Donald Trump's withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal. Last May, she criticized Israel for shooting "unarmed protesters" in Gaza, a very bold step indeed given the power of the Israel Lobby. ..."
"... Tulsi Gabbard could well be the only genuine antiwar candidate that might truly be electable in the past fifty years, and that is why the war party is out to get her. Two weeks ago, the Daily Beast displayed a headline : "Tulsi Gabbard's Campaign Is Being Boosted by Putin Apologists." The article also had a sub-headline: "The Hawaii congresswoman is quickly becoming the top candidate for Democrats who think the Russian leader is misunderstood." ..."
"... Tulsi responded "Stephanopoulos shamelessly implied that because I oppose going to war with Russia, I'm not a loyal American, but a Putin puppet. It just shows what absurd lengths warmongers in the media will go, to try to destroy the reputation of anyone who dares oppose their warmongering." ..."
"... ASD was set up in 2017 by the usual neocon crowd with funding from The Atlanticist and anti-Russian German Marshall Fund. It is loaded with a full complement of Zionists and interventionists/globalists, to include Michael Chertoff, Michael McFaul, Michael Morell, Kori Schake and Bill Kristol. It claims, innocently, to be a bipartisan transatlantic national security advocacy group that seeks to identify and counter efforts by Russia to undermine democracies in the United States and Europe but it is actually itself a major source of disinformation. ..."
"... for the moment, she seems to be the "real thing," a genuine anti-war candidate who is determined to run on that platform. It might just resonate with the majority of Americans who have grown tired of perpetual warfare to "spread democracy" and other related frauds perpetrated by the band of oligarchs and traitors that run the United States ..."
Voters looking ahead to 2020 are being bombarded with soundbites from the twenty plus Democratic would-be candidates. That Joe
Biden is apparently leading the pack according to opinion polls should come as no surprise as he stands for nothing apart from being
the Establishment favorite who will tirelessly work to support the status quo.
The most interesting candidate is undoubtedly Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, who is a fourth term Congresswoman from Hawaii, where
she was born and raised. She is also the real deal on national security, having been-there and done-it through service as an officer
with the Hawaiian National Guard on a combat deployment in Iraq. Though in Congress full time, she still performs her Guard duty.
Tulsi's own military experience notwithstanding, she gives every indication of being honestly anti-war. In
the speech announcing her candidacy she pledged "focus
on the issue of war and peace" to "end the regime-change wars that have taken far too many lives and undermined our security by strengthening
terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda." She referred to the danger posed by blundering into a possible nuclear war and indicated her dismay
over what appears to be a re-emergence of the Cold War.
In a recent interview with Fox News's Tucker Carlson, Gabbard doubled down on her anti-war credentials, telling the host that
war with Iran
would
be "devastating, " adding that "I know where this path leads us and I'm concerned because the American people don't seem to be
prepared for how devastating and costly such a war would be So, what we are facing is, essentially, a war that has no frontlines,
total chaos, engulfs the whole region, is not contained within Iran or Iraq but would extend to Syria and Lebanon and Israel across
the region, setting us up in a situation where, in Iraq, we lost over 4,000 of my brothers and sisters in uniform. A war with Iran
would take far more American lives, it would cost more civilian lives across the region Not to speak of the fact that this would
cost trillions of taxpayer dollars coming out of our pockets to go and pay for this endless war that begs the question as a soldier,
what are we fighting for? What does victory look like? What is the mission?"
Gabbard, and also Carlson, did not hesitate to name names among those pushing for war, one of which begins with B-O-L-T-O-N.
She then asked "How does a war with Iran serve the best interest of the American people of the United States? And the fact is it
does not," Gabbard said. "It better serves the interest of people like [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Bibi Netanyahu and Saudi
Arabia who are trying to push us into this war with Iran."
Clearly not afraid to challenge the full gamut establishment politics,
Tulsi Gabbard had previously called for an end to the "illegal war to overthrow the Syrian government," also observing that "the
war to overthrow Assad is counter-productive because it actually helps ISIS and other Islamic extremists achieve their goal of overthrowing
the Syrian government of Assad and taking control of all of Syria – which will simply increase human suffering in the region, exacerbate
the refugee crisis, and pose a greater threat to the world." She then backed up her words with action by secretly arranging for a
personal trip to Damascus in 2017 to meet with President Bashar al-Assad, saying it was important to meet adversaries "if you are
serious about pursuing peace." She made her own assessment of the situation in Syria and now favors pulling US troops out of the
country as well as ending American interventions for "regime change" in the region.
In 2015, Gabbard supported President Barack Obama's nuclear agreement with Iran and in 2016 she backed Bernie Sanders' antiwar
candidacy. More recently, she has criticized President Donald Trump's withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal. Last May, she criticized
Israel for shooting "unarmed protesters" in Gaza, a very bold step indeed given the power of the Israel Lobby.
Tulsi Gabbard could well be the only genuine antiwar candidate that might truly be electable in the past fifty years, and
that is why the war party is out to get her. Two weeks ago, the Daily Beast
displayed a headline
: "Tulsi Gabbard's Campaign Is Being Boosted by Putin Apologists." The article also had a sub-headline: "The Hawaii congresswoman
is quickly becoming the top candidate for Democrats who think the Russian leader is misunderstood."
The obvious smear job was picked by ABC's George Stephanopoulos, television's best known Hillary Clinton clone, who
brought it up in an interview with Gabbard shortly thereafter. He asked whether Gabbard was "softer" on Putin than were some
of the other candidates. Gabbard answered: "It's unfortunate that you're citing that article, George, because it's a whole lot of
fake news." Politico the reported the exchange and wrote: "'Fake news' is a favorite phrase of President Donald Trump ," putting
the ball back in Tulsi's court rather than criticizing Stephanopoulos's pointless question. Soon thereafter CNN produced
its own version of Tulsi
the Russophile , observing that Gabbard was using a Trump expression to "attack the credibility of negative coverage."
Tulsi
responded "Stephanopoulos shamelessly implied that because I oppose going to war with Russia, I'm not a loyal American, but a
Putin puppet. It just shows what absurd lengths warmongers in the media will go, to try to destroy the reputation of anyone who dares
oppose their warmongering."
Tulsi Gabbard had attracted other enemies prior to the Stephanopoulos attack. Glenn Greenwald at The Intercept
described how NBC news published a
widely distributed story on February 1 st , claiming that "experts who track websites and social media linked to Russia
have seen stirrings of a possible campaign of support for Hawaii Democrat Tulsi Gabbard."
But the expert cited by NBC turned out to be a firm New Knowledge,
which was exposed by no less
than The New York Times for falsifying Russian troll accounts for the Democratic Party in the Alabama Senate race to suggest
that the Kremlin was interfering in that election. According to Greenwald, the group ultimately behind
this attack on Gabbard is The Alliance for Securing Democracy (ASD), which sponsors a tool called
Hamilton 68 , a news "intelligence net checker" that
claims to track Russian efforts to disseminate disinformation. The ASD
website advises that "Securing Democracy is a Global Necessity."
ASD was set up in 2017 by the usual neocon crowd with funding from The Atlanticist and anti-Russian German Marshall Fund.
It is loaded with a full complement
of Zionists and interventionists/globalists, to include Michael Chertoff, Michael McFaul, Michael Morell, Kori Schake and Bill Kristol.
It claims, innocently, to be a bipartisan transatlantic national security advocacy group that seeks to identify and counter efforts
by Russia to undermine democracies in the United States and Europe but it is actually itself a major source of disinformation.
No doubt stories headlined "Tulsi Gabbard Communist Stooge" are in the works somewhere in the mainstream media. The Establishment
politicians and their media component have difficulty in understanding just how much they are despised for their mendacity and unwillingness
to support policies that would truly benefit the American people but they are well able to dominate press coverage.
Given the flood of contrived negativity towards her campaign, it is not clear if Tulsi Gabbard will ever be able to get her message
across.
But, for the moment, she seems to be the "real thing," a genuine anti-war candidate who is determined to run on that platform.
It might just resonate with the majority of Americans who have grown tired of perpetual warfare to "spread democracy" and other related
frauds perpetrated by the band of oligarchs and traitors that run the United States
If Barr represent different faction of CIA then Brennan, Brannan might pay with his head for his artistic inventions in
fomenting Russiagate color revolution and Steele dossier. Not very likely, though...
They spied on Trump because they thought it was a guaranteed win and Hillary could cover
it up. They started the witch hunt to make it look like it was a legit investigation.
"Surveillance". Would you buy a used car from Jim Comey?. Time for issuing a number of
orange jumpsuits and for the ones at the top?. A sharp drop and a sudden stop.
They spied on Trump because they thought it was a guaranteed win and Hillary could cover
it up. They started the witch hunt to make it look like it was a legit investigation.
"Surveillance". Would you buy a used car from Jim Comey?. Time for issuing a number of
orange jumpsuits and for the ones at the top?. A sharp drop and a sudden stop.
Spying Work for a government or other organization by secretly collecting information
about enemies or competitors. investigating Carry out a systematic or formal inquiry to
discover and examine the facts of (an incident, allegation, etc.) so as to establish the
truth. What a bunch of idiots
If you have to make up reasons to investigate, it becomes spying. With this logic, we can
investigate anyone! As long as we make sure to cover our tracks in lies! Perfect!
That's Judicial Watch's definition of the Deep State! It's not just a few politicians and
judges, it's almost all of Washington and many in government around the country. The Deep
State will just take its time, put it off, forget about it, make mistakes implementing it,
and so on and so forth.
"... Here's the problem: it doesn't matter if you'd support Biden if he were to get the nomination, the Democratic base will simply not back another corporatist shill, ..."
"... No matter how much you think people should hold their nose and vote for the lesser of two evils, they're not going to get out of bed to go vote for someone they don't trust. The base is driving this election cycle, there is no way around it, if we don't hold the base we lose. ..."
"... Biden is a standard Joke in both parties known as an Obama lackey ..."
"... His first campaign fundraiser after his announcement was hosted by the CEO of Comcast. That is wholly out of touch with the middle class. ..."
"... She has passed Sanders in his relatively much more limited agenda, trumping him on policies castrating Wall St---Sanders has not much evolved beyond positions he's held since the 1970s, including understanding how to address the two largest parts of the Democratic base, women and blacks. ..."
"... Biden is not centre. If you think mainstream Democrats are centre, you're already to the right of people like the National Front (both UK and French). You're already a rabid extremist. Even someone like Sanders would be considered fairly firmly centrist in the rest of the free world. State funded health and education is accepted practice here, not a novel socialist/communist fantasy that will turn you into a Soviet drone. It's what we pay taxes for, not for a war machine to enforce business profit. ..."
"... Democrats are extreme right, Sanders is centrist...you don't actually have a left at all. ..."
"... That argument [ Elections are about preventing bad things from happening] is a double-edged sword. Many voters acted on that precept in 2016 which accounts for the creature that now squats in the White House. ..."
"... Are people who say this generally clueless or just unaware of the make up of Congress since January 2017? What change could Sanders have brought? What bills were the Republicans going to pass that Sanders would have signed? Do they not remember what Mitch McConnell said when Obama took office? Do they imagine that McConnell would shift his focus from stymieing any chance of enacting policies the president promoted with Sanders instead of Obama? ..."
"... Did you watching Bernie's townhall at Fox News? He seemed like he was in his 60s and handled many tough questions well. He seemed to be winning over some of the independents and conservatives in that crowd ..."
"... Finally the Guardian gets something right. We don't need these Clinton Era holdovers ..."
Here's the problem: it doesn't matter if you'd support Biden if he were to get the
nomination, the Democratic base will simply not back another corporatist shill, especially
after getting stabbed in the ankle in 2016.
No matter how much you think people should hold
their nose and vote for the lesser of two evils, they're not going to get out of bed to go
vote for someone they don't trust. The base is driving this election cycle, there is no way
around it, if we don't hold the base we lose.
The writers and readers of the Guardian (aka the Fox of the Left) who believe that the
American electorate has somehow shifted leftward remind me a delightful roommate that I had
back in Pleistocene. He came home one day convinced that George McGovern would win. "How did
you come up with that?" I asked. "I don't know a single person who is voting for Nixon."
It's
that level of bubble-driven stridency that will keep many of you at home on election day and
had another 4 years to the worst piece of crap to occupy the White House. Sure, there are
many people preferable to Biden, but a piece of burnt toast is preferable to Trump.
The Dems
won the midterms not on ideological grounds but by the pragmatic turnaround of middle class
white suburban women. Clinton did not lose in '16 because she was a "zombie centrist" but
because of her campaign's severe hubris, a lesson not learned from '08. Unless you prefer
ranting [and lefties often seem to prefer being in opposition to actually doing the heavy
lifting of compromise and governing], you will have to get rid of Trump by going with your
n-th choice, not your first one.
Sorry, that's the way it works outside of Berkeley, Austin,
Madison, Eugene, Brooklyn, Cambridge, and Asheville.
You're missing something. Plenty of people who support the actual left WILL be happy if we
get Biden, if it means we no longer have Trump.
The US system is built on compromise. Biden is a compromise, for sure. But would YOU
rather have Trump again? Really?
I don't want Biden. But last time I figured the left couldn't lose to a fucking moron I
was proven wrong.
Literally all the polling conducted in the 2016 election showed Bernie annihilating Trump by
a far higher margin than Clinton, who was losing in many polls. Biden is virtually a carbon
copy of Clinton. He is an establishment shill with the same voting record and the same
vulnerabilities that sank Clinton.
Like Hillary he shits on the most popular policies in the
country, and he shits on the base pushing those policies, and has shown zero signs of
learning from the 2016 catastrophe. He launched his campaign on a message of returning to the
same empty neoliberal politics that delivered us Donald Trump. Meanwhile Bernie is in fact
running on the most popular policies in the country. 70% of the American people, even a
majority 52% of Republicans, support Medicare For All. 82% of Americans support raising the
minimum wage. 76% of Americans support raising taxes on the rich. 60% of Americans support
free college tuition. 70% of Americans want stricter laws on assault weapons. 94% of
Americans support universal background checks. 58% of Americans support abortion rights in
all or most cases. 62% of Americans support legalizing marijuana. 78% of Americans support
stricter Wall Street regulation. 61% of Americans support ending the Afghanistan war. 72% of
Americans support expanding Social Security. 80% of Americans support the Green New Deal.
Literally all the data shows Bernie would be a far stronger candidate than a center right
corporate Democrat like Biden.
Biden is a standard Joke in both parties known as an Obama lackey and dim witted apologist
who will be blown out of the hunt by a female Dark Horse candidate yet to rise up out of the
dung pile of Democrat wannabes. The only real hope for the Democrats, guess who?
The somewhat grating and professorial Warren, as if lecturing to kindergartners, is becoming
the third choice in the polls behind Biden and Sanders due to her galaxy of hard-nosed, fully
fleshed-out policies the public is embracing.
She has passed Sanders in his relatively much
more limited agenda, trumping him on policies castrating Wall St---Sanders has not much
evolved beyond positions he's held since the 1970s, including understanding how to address
the two largest parts of the Democratic base, women and blacks.
I have no doubt Warren will
be an important member of the cabinet where she can implement her policies, which is why she
will be in Biden's cabinet. Biden has touched on gutting Wall St greed, signalling the rise
of her influence. For all his centrist corruption he grasps the desires of the base,
understanding his popularity would suffer if he didn't.
"The Democrats are the ones who were supposed to save us. It was their failure in this duty
that allowed the catastrophes to pile up."
It's not just the failure. It is cynical collaboration to placate the financially
powerful. The Republican project for at least the last 40 years has been to resurrect "Robber
Baron" era neo-feudalism with Republican leadership lining up for their share of the take.
Witness the breathless fawning of the likes of Scott Walker when he thought the prankster he
was talking to was a Koch. Mainstream media long accepted that political outcomes can be
bought, that lavishly funded lobbies can block popular initiatives and railroad publicly
distasteful ones, and feature fundraising scorecards as a measure of electability. As a
matter of fact, what does that say about our democratic process and equality under law? Back
in the 1980s Business Week featured a discussion of how manufactures and retailers were
backing away from a "middle class" centered focus to a "Tffany-Wallmart" strategy? Does such
a move support E Pluribus Unum or feudalistic social bifurcation?
Sadly, the Clinton, Obama, Biden school is way to focused on go along to get along, while
equity of opportunity and wealth, and equal protection under law has steadily diminished.
Obama, who campaigned on "change you can believe in" and "the audacity to hope" was less than
audacious when it came to the strangle-hold of too big to fail on the economy, and made them
even bigger. Yes, he was far more socially responsible than his predecessor but hob nobbed
with the "Great Recession's" architects and turned over redress for Mainstreet to the banks,
with predictable results. Many who voted for Trump were seeking any kind of change over more
of the same.
Better yet: progressive Democrats have realized a few key points:
* Medicare for all polls really damned well. Amazing well.
* Raising minimum wage polls really well. Hugely well.
* American progressive liberal policies, when not framed as such, poll really well. Americans
want these things. These issues are winners.
* Turnout. Turnout. Turnout. It is not about getting people who always vote Democratic at
every election to consider you. It is about getting people who do not regularly vote to
turnout at the polls. (Look at Spain where the threat of Vox encouraged huge numbers of women
to vote and the socialists and the left came out as winners.)
Biden is not on solid ground with issues supported by the electorate and catering to the
center is going g to repress turnout. (Which could have ugly down ticket implications.)
Biden is not centre. If you think mainstream Democrats are centre, you're already to the
right of people like the National Front (both UK and French). You're already a rabid
extremist. Even someone like Sanders would be considered fairly firmly centrist in the rest
of the free world. State funded health and education is accepted practice here, not a novel
socialist/communist fantasy that will turn you into a Soviet drone. It's what we pay taxes
for, not for a war machine to enforce business profit.
GOP is fascistic, Democrats are extreme right, Sanders is centrist...you don't actually
have a left at all.
"Elections are about preventing bad things from happening...:"
-- -- -- -- - That argument [ Elections are about preventing bad things from happening] is a double-edged sword. Many voters acted on that precept in 2016 which
accounts for the creature that now squats in the White House.
Saunders would have beaten Trump and brought real change
Are people who say this generally clueless or just unaware of the make up of Congress since
January 2017? What change could Sanders have brought? What bills were the Republicans going to pass that
Sanders would have signed? Do they not remember what Mitch McConnell said when Obama took
office? Do they imagine that McConnell would shift his focus from stymieing any chance of
enacting policies the president promoted with Sanders instead of Obama?
It's just about the most ridiculous claim a person could make about American politics.
Did you watching Bernie's townhall at Fox News? He seemed like he was in his 60s and handled
many tough questions well. He seemed to be winning over some of the independents and
conservatives in that crowd
Finally the Guardian gets something right. We don't need these Clinton Era holdovers and we don't need anymore Geriatrics in the White House.
There are some great new younger candidates who understand the modern economy, the corrupt
foreign policy and have good things to say. Try Yang and Gabbard. Get with the times
people.
"... In reality intelligence agencies control the nomination. ..."
"... Russiagate and the DNC hacking scandal were the attempts to reverse the presidential election. Essentially Russiagate was created to tame Trump, although I am not sure that such drastic measures were needed and I might be wrong. He betrayed his election promises with such an ease that Russiagate now looks like a paranoid overreaction of the USA intelligence agencies (and former FBI director Mueller of 9/11 and anthrax investigation fame) Which figuratively speaking moved tanks to capture the unnamed native village. ..."
"... Due to the nature of intelligence agencies work and the aura of secrecy control of intelligence agencies in democratic societies is a difficult undertaking as the entity you want to control is in many ways more politically powerful and more ruthless in keeping its privileges then controllers. And if the society preaches militarism it is outright impossible: any politician deviation from militaristic policies will be met with the counterattack of intelligence agencies which are intimately interested in maintaining the status quo. ..."
In reality intelligence agencies control the nomination.
Pics or it didn't happen.
I am very sorry and sincerely apologize. Please view this as a plausible hypothesis ;-)
Some considerations (neoliberals and neocons usually interpret those facts differently so this is a view from paleoconservative
universe; you are warned):
1. Exoneration of Hillary deprived Sanders of chances to lead Democratic ticket in 2016. This is as close to the proven fact as
we can get.
2. Russiagate and the DNC hacking scandal were the attempts to reverse the presidential election. Essentially Russiagate was created
to tame Trump, although I am not sure that such drastic measures were needed and I might be wrong. He betrayed his election promises
with such an ease that Russiagate now looks like a paranoid overreaction of the USA intelligence agencies (and former FBI director
Mueller of 9/11 and anthrax investigation fame) Which figuratively speaking moved tanks to capture the unnamed native village.
3. JFK and then Robert Kennedy assassination. The key role of the CIA in the JFK assassination now is broadly accepted in the
USA.
3. Obama connection to CIA was subject of many articles, especially in the alt-right press. He definitely was raised in a family
of CIA operatives.
4. Brennan spied on Congress and was not fired, which means that the CIA hieratically is above the Congress. Proven fact.
In short, nothing in the power structure of democratic societies prevents intelligence agencies from becoming key political actors,
the Pretorian guard which selects the Presidents by keeping dirt on politicians and controls the press (see Church commission). They
have both motivation (preservation and enhancement of their status as any large bureaucracy), means (weakly controlled, oversized
budget; access to shadow funds from arms and narcotics trading) and skills (covert operations, disinformation, sabotage. This triad
is inherent in their status as the legalized mafia which operates above the law. As Pompeo recently said in a recent speech at Texas
A&M University CIA operatives lie and cheat and steal.
When intelligence agencies control MSM that alone gives them considerable power to influence the political process. For example,
in the case of Russiagate, we saw well organized and timed series of leaks. So, in fact, they can be viewed as the "Inner Party"
in terms of Orwell dystopia 1984.
And the fact of media control is a proven fact. And not only via Church commission. Dr. Ulfkotte went on public television stating
that he was forced to publish the works of intelligence agents under his own name, also adding that noncompliance with these orders
would result in him losing his job.
Due to the nature of intelligence agencies work and the aura of secrecy control of intelligence agencies in democratic societies
is a difficult undertaking as the entity you want to control is in many ways more politically powerful and more ruthless in keeping
its privileges then controllers. And if the society preaches militarism it is outright impossible: any politician deviation from
militaristic policies will be met with the counterattack of intelligence agencies which are intimately interested in maintaining
the status quo.
In any case, the problem of "the tail wagging the dog" is a problem for any country, not only for the USA. The fact that both
Brennan and Clapper become 'talking heads' after retirement tells something about the trend. Such things would be impossible 20 years
ago.
Some insights into the problem can be obtained by reading the article about the politicization of intelligence agencies in other
countries. For example:
Ultimately, making the intelligence agencies accountable amounts to a broader reevaluation of the larger framework of civil-military
relations. As a result, not only is intelligence reform an almost intractable political issue, but it also requires a complete
change of mentality for the actors involved. Reigning in the intelligence agencies is a problem of a deeper political culture,
one that requires a systemic change in the psychology of the organizations.
the lack of civilian oversight of intelligence agencies is a byproduct of the political imbalance between civilian and military
actors, a power structure that favors the latter.
As long as the military can get its way through seemingly constitutional means, the importance of the intelligence agencies
will remain relatively limited. Their role, however, becomes essential whenever the military meets some resistance
the military's domestic political power "has always derived from [its] ability to mediate confrontations among feuding political
leaders, parties or state institutions, invariably presented as threats to the political order and stability. The military [is]
of course the only institution empowered to judge whether such threats existed based on the assumption that a polity in turmoil
cannot sustain a professional military" (Rizvi 1998: 100). Yet whenever necessary, the military has not hesitated to generate
problems itself if it believes its institutional interests would be better served by a weak and divided polity. This is where
the intelligence agencies come into play.
the link between journalists and the intelligence agencies is a complex one, and cannot be reduced to a simple power dynamic
in which the journalists are merely the victim. Journalists need information, and thus have an interest in maintaining a good
relationship with intelligence agencies. In return, journalists are often asked to provide information themselves to intelligence
agencies.
"... Within America, the alphabet agencies from NSA to CIA to FBI had betrayed their country as obviously as Figuera did, though they didn't run away, yet. Our colleagues Mike Whitney and Philip Giraldi described the conspiracy organised by John Brennan of CIA with active participation of FBI's James Comey, to regime-change the US. ..."
"... The CIA spies in England and passes the results to the British Intelligence. MI6 spies in the US and passes the results to CIA. They became integrated to unbelievable extent in the worldwide network of spies. ..."
"... It is not the Deep State anymore; it is world spooks who had united against their legitimate masters. Instead of staying loyal to their country, the spooks betrayed their countries. They are not only strictly-for-cash – they think they know better what is good for you. In a way, they are a new incarnation of the Cecil Rhodes Society . Democratically-elected politicians and statesmen have to obey them or meet their displeasure, as Corbyn and Trump did. ..."
"... Everywhere, in the US, the UK, and Russia, the spooks became too powerful to handle. The CIA stood behind assassination of JFK and tried to take down Trump. The British Intelligence undermined Jeremy Corbyn, after assisting the CIA in pushing for the Iraq war. They created the Steele Dossier, invented the Skripal hoax and had brought Russia and the West to the brink of nuclear war. ..."
"... In the Ukraine, the heads of their state security, SBU had plotted against the last legitimate president Mr Victor Yanukovych. They helped to organise and run the Maidan 2014 manifestations and misled their President, until he was forced to escape abroad. The Maidan manifestations could be compared with the Yellow Vests movement; however, Macron, an appointee of the Network, had support of his spies, and stayed in power, while Yanukovych had been betrayed and overthrown. ..."
"... You'd ask me, were they so stupid that they believed their own propaganda of inevitable Clinton's victory? Yes, they were and are stupid. They are no sages, evil or benevolent. My main objection to the conspiracy theorists is that they usually view the plotters as omniscient and all-powerful. They are too greedy to be all-powerful, and they are too silly to be omniscient. ..."
"... Now, however, the secret services' cohesion and integration increased to the next level, making it difficult to deal with them. ..."
"... People are fickle and not always know what is good for them; there are many demagogues to mislead the crowd. And still, elected legitimate officials should have precedence in governing, while non-elected ones should obey – and it means the Network spooks and media men should know their place. ..."
"... How did John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Christopher Steele and other Spygate principals manage to rise to the top of the intelligence bureaucracy? ..."
"... These characters have indulged in an orgy of highly conspicuous partisan political meddling and ranting that has created the strong public impression that they engaged in an attempted coup to overthrow a sitting American president on the basis of a frame-up that was largely fueled by Russian disinformation. ..."
"... Brennan in particular: can you imagine any previous CIA director comporting himself in this manner? Throwing all caution to the winds? Inconceivable. Brennan, Comey and Clapper have inflicted serious damage on the reputation of the CIA, FBI and ODNI. ..."
"... It's not just illegal surveillance and blackmail that gives the spies power, it's impunity for even the gravest crimes. If you don't get the message of blackmail you can be tortured or shot, with a bullet like JFK and RFK and Reagan, or with illegal biological weapons like Daschel and Leahy. Institutionalized impunity stares us in the face from US state papers. ..."
"... It's not that CIA and other neo-Gestapos escaped control. They were designed from inception for totalitarian control. The one poor bastard in Congress who pointed that out, Tydings, had McCarthy sicced on him for his cheek. CIA is not out of control; it's firmly IN control. ..."
"... It was funny during the Cold war (the original one) – whenever each side unveiled that a spy from the other side has defected to them – they would say it was because of ideology – i.e. the spy defected to them because he "believed" in "democracy" or socialism – depending on the case. ..."
"... And in order to discredit their own spies when they defected to the other side – they would say that they did it for money, because they were greedy and that they betrayed "democracy" or socialism ..."
"... The other crucial role that spies usually play is that they allow the adversaries to keep technological balance via industrial espionage. By transferring top military secrets, they don't allow any side to gain crucial strategic advantage that might encourage them to do something foolish – like start a nuclear war. Prime example of this were probably the Rosenbergs – who helped USSR close the nuclear weapons gap with US and kept the world in a shaky nuclear arms balance. ..."
"... Profound analysis by Mr. Shamir. It confirms that one of the important reasons for the decline of freemasonry is the monopolization of political conspiracy by the intelligence services. Who needs the lodge when you have the CIA. ..."
"... Spooks are everywhere, from secretaries "losing" important communications to CNN news anchors roleplaying with crisis actors, but they are at their most powerful when they are appointed to powerful positions. President Trump's National Security Advisor is a spook and he does what he wants. ..."
"... John le Carre described it perfectly in "A Perfect Spy". The spooks form their own country. They are only loyal to themselves. ..."
"... A global supra-powerful, organized and united, privately directed, publicly backed society of high technology robin hood_mercenary_spooks who conduct sub-legal "scratch-my-back-I'll-scratch-your-back [in the nation of the other] routines"; who ignore duty to country, its constitutions, its laws and human rights. The are evil, global acting, high technology nomads with a monopoly on extortion and terror. ..."
"... Your statement "spooks and ex-spooks feel more proximity to their enemies and colleagues in other countries than to their fellow citizens" fails makes clear the importance of containment-of-citizen access to information. Nation states are armed, rule making structures that invent propaganda and control access to information. Information containment and filtering is the essence of the political and economic power of a national leader and it is more import to the evil your article addresses. ..."
"... Control of the media is 50 times more important than control of the government? Nearly all actions of consequence are intended to drain the governed masses and such efforts can only be successful if the lobbying, false-misleading mind controlling privately owned (92% own by just 6 entities) centrally directed media can effectively control the all information environments. ..."
"... While understanding the mechanics is helpful don't neglect the purpose. Why is more important than how. The why is control. They don't care what you believe, but only what you do. You can be on the left, right, mainstream, or fringe and they won't care as long as you eat what they serve. Take a minute to think about what they want you to do and strongly consider not doing it. ..."
Conspiratorially-minded writers envisaged the Shadow World Government as a board of evil sages surrounded by the financiers and
cinema moguls. That would be bad enough; in infinitely worse reality, our world is run by the Junior Ganymede that went berserk.
It is not a government, but a network, like freemasonry of old, and it consists chiefly of treacherous spies and pens-for-hire, two
kinds of service personnel, that collected a lot of data and tools of influence, and instead of serving their masters loyally, had
decided to lead the world in the direction they prefer.
German Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, the last head of the Abwehr, Hitler's Military Intelligence, had been such a spy with political
ambitions. He supported Hitler as the mighty enemy of Communism; on a certain stage he came to conclusion that the US will do the
job better and switched to the Anglo-American side. He was uncovered and executed for treason. His colleague General Reinhard Gehlen
also betrayed his Führer and had switched to the American side. After the war, he continued his war against Soviet Russia, this time
for CIA instead of Abwehr.
The spies are treacherous by their nature. They contact people who betrayed their countries; they work under cover, pretending
to be somebody else; for them the switch of loyalty is as usual and normal as the gender change operation for a Moroccan doctor who
is doing that 8 to 5 every day. They mix with foreign spies, they kill people with impunity; they break every law, human or divine.
They are extremely dangerous if they do it for their own country. They are infinitely more dangerous if they work for themselves
and still keep their institutional capabilities and international network.
Recently we had a painful reminding of their treacherous nature. Venezuela's top spy, the former director of the Bolivarian National
Intelligence Service (Sebin), Manuel Cristopher Figuera , had switched sides during the last coup attempt and escaped abroad
as the coup failed. He discovered that his membership on the Junior Ganymede of the spooks is more important for him than his duty
to his country and its constitution.
Within America, the alphabet agencies from NSA to CIA to FBI had betrayed their country as obviously as Figuera did, though
they didn't run away, yet. Our colleagues Mike
Whitney and Philip Giraldi described
the conspiracy organised by John Brennan of CIA with active participation of FBI's James Comey, to regime-change the US. In
the conspiracy, foreign intelligence agencies, primarily the British GCHQ, played an important role. As by law, these spies aren't
allowed to operate on their home ground, they go into you-scratch-my-back-I'll-scratch-your-back routine. The CIA spies in England
and passes the results to the British Intelligence. MI6 spies in the US and passes the results to CIA. They became integrated to
unbelievable extent in the worldwide network of spies.
It is not the Deep State anymore; it is world spooks who had united against their legitimate masters. Instead of staying loyal
to their country, the spooks betrayed their countries. They are not only strictly-for-cash – they think they know better what is
good for you. In a way, they are a new incarnation of the
Cecil Rhodes Society . Democratically-elected politicians
and statesmen have to obey them or meet their displeasure, as Corbyn and Trump did.
Everywhere, in the US, the UK, and Russia, the spooks became too powerful to handle. The CIA stood behind assassination of
JFK and tried to take down Trump. The British Intelligence undermined Jeremy Corbyn, after assisting the CIA in pushing for the Iraq
war. They created the Steele Dossier, invented the Skripal hoax and had brought Russia and the West to the brink of nuclear war.
Russian spooks are in a special relations mode with the global network – for many years. In Russia, persistent rumours claim the
perilous Perestroika of Mikhail Gorbachev had been designed and initiated by the KGB chief (1967 – 1982)
Yuri Andropov . He and his appointees
dismantled the socialist state and prepared the takeover of 1991 in the interests of the One World project.
Andropov (who had stepped into Brezhnev's shoes in 1982 and died in 1984) had advanced Gorbachev and his architect of glasnost,
Alexander Yakovlev . Andropov
also promoted the arch-traitor KGB General Oleg Kalugin
to head its counter-intelligence. Later, Kalugin betrayed his country, escaped to the US and delivered all Russian spies he knew
of to the FBI hands.
In late 1980s-early 1990s, the KGB, originally the guarding dog of the Russian working class, had betrayed its Communist masters
and switched to work for the Network. But for their betrayal, Gorbachev would not be able to destroy his country so fast: the KGB
neutralised or misinformed the Communist leadership.
They allowed Chernobyl to explode; they permitted a German pilot to land on the Red Square – this was used by Gorbachev as an
excuse to sack the whole lot of patriotic generals. The KGB people were active in subverting other socialist states, too. They executed
the Romanian leader Ceausescu and his wife; they brought down the GDR, the socialist Germany; they plotted with Yeltsin against Gorbachev
and with Gorbachev against Romanov. As the result of their plotting, the USSR fell apart.
The KGB plotters of 1991 had thought that post-Communist Russia would be treated by the West like the prodigal son, with a fattened
calf being slaughtered for the welcome feast. To their disappointment, the stupid bastards discovered that their country was to play
the part of the fattened calf at the feast, and they were turned from unseen rulers into billionaires' bodyguards. Years later, Vladimir
Putin came to power in Russia with the blessing of the world spooks and bankers, but being too independent a man to submit, he took
his country into its present nationalist course, trying to regain some lost ground. The dissatisfied spooks supported him.
Only recently Putin began to trim the wild growth of his own intelligence service, the FSB. It is possible the cautious president
had been alerted by the surprising insistence of the Western media that the alleged attempt on Skripal and other visible cases had
been attributed to the GRU, the relatively small Russian Military Intelligence, while the much bigger FSB had been forgotten. The
head of
FSB cybercrime department had been arrested and sentenced for lengthy term of imprisonment, and two FSB colonels had been arrested
as the search of their premises revealed immense
amounts of cash , both Russian and foreign currency. Such piles of roubles and dollars could be assembled only for an attempt
to change the regime, as it was demanded by the Network.
In the Ukraine, the heads of their state security, SBU had plotted against the last legitimate president Mr Victor Yanukovych.
They helped to organise and run the Maidan 2014 manifestations and misled their President, until he was forced to escape abroad.
The Maidan manifestations could be compared with the Yellow Vests movement; however, Macron, an appointee of the Network, had support
of his spies, and stayed in power, while Yanukovych had been betrayed and overthrown.
In the US, the spooks allowed Donald Trump to become the leading Republican candidate, for they thought he would certainly lose
to Mme Clinton. Surprisingly, he had won, and since then, this man who was advanced as an easy prey, as a buffoon, had been hunted
by the spooks-and-scribes freemasonry.
You'd ask me, were they so stupid that they believed their own propaganda of inevitable Clinton's victory? Yes, they were
and are stupid. They are no sages, evil or benevolent. My main objection to the conspiracy theorists is that they usually view the
plotters as omniscient and all-powerful. They are too greedy to be all-powerful, and they are too silly to be omniscient.
Their knowledge of official leaders' faults gives them their feeling of power, but this knowledge can be translated into actual
control only for weak-minded men. Strong leaders do not submit easily. Putin has had his quota of imprudent or outright criminal
acts in his past, but he never allowed the blackmailers to dictate him their agenda. Netanyahu, another strong man of modern politics,
also had managed to survive blackmail. Meanwhile, Trump defeated all attempts to unseat him, though his enemies had used his alleged
lack of delicacy in relation to women, blacks and Jews to its utmost. He waded through the deep pond of Russiagate like Gulliver.
But he has to purge the alphabet agencies to reach safety.
In Russia, the problem is acute. Many Russian spooks and ex-spooks feel more proximity to their enemies and colleagues in other
countries than to their fellow citizens. There is a freemasonic quality in their camaraderie. Such a quality could be commendable
in soldiers after the war is over, but here the war is going on. Russian spooks are particularly besotted with their declared enemies;
apparently it is the Christian quality of the Russian soul, but a very annoying one.
When Snowden reached Moscow after his daring escape from Hong Kong, the Russian TV screened a discussion that I participated in,
among journalists, members of parliament and ex-spies. The Russian spooks said that Snowden is a traitor; a person who betrayed his
agency can't be trusted and should be sent to the US in shackles. They felt they belong to the Spy World, with its inner bond, while
their loyalty to Russia was a distant second.
During recent visit of Mike Pompeo to Sochi, the head of SVR, the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service, Mr Sergey Naryshkin
proposed the State Secretary Mike Pompeo, the ex-CIA director,
to expand contacts between Russian and US special services at a higher level. He clarified that he actively interacted with Pompeo
during the period when he was the head of the CIA. Why would he need contacts with his adversary? It would be much better to avoid
contacts altogether.
Even president Putin, who is first of all a Russian nationalist (or a patriot, as they say), who has granted Snowden asylum in
Moscow at a high price of seriously worsening relations with Obama's administration, even Putin has told Stone that Snowden shouldn't
have leaked the documents the way he did. "If he didn't like anything at his work he should have simply resigned, but he went further",
a response proving he didn't completely freed himself from the spooks' freemasonry.
While the spooks plot, the scribes justify their plots. Media is also a weapon, and a mighty one. In Richard Wagner's opera
Lohengrin , the protagonist is defeated by the smear campaign in the media. Despite his miraculous arrival, despite his glorious
victory, the evil witch succeeds to poison minds of the hero's wife and of the court. The pen can counter the sword. When the two
are integrated, as in the union of spooks and scribes, it is too dangerous tool to leave intact.
In many countries of Europe, editorial international policies had been outsourced to the spooky Atlantic Council, the Washington-based
think tank. The Atlantic Council is strongly connected with NATO alliance and with Brussels bureaucracy, the tools of control over
Europe. Another tool is
The
Integrity Initiative , where the difference between spies and journalists is
blurred
. And so is the difference between the left and the right. The left and the right-wing media use different arguments, surprisingly
leading to the same bottom line, because both are tools of warfare for the same Network.
In 1930s, they were divided. The German and the British agents pulled and pushed in the opposite directions. The Russian military
became so friendly with the Germans, that at a certain time, Hitler believed the Russian generals would side with him against their
own leader. The Russian spooks were befriended by the Brits, and had tried to push Russia to confront Hitler. The cautious Marshal
Stalin had purged the Red Army's pro-German Generals, and the NKVD's pro-British spooks, and delayed the outbreak of hostilities
as much as he could. Now, however, the secret services' cohesion and integration increased to the next level, making it difficult
to deal with them.
If they are so powerful, integrated and united, shouldn't we throw a towel in the ring and surrender? Hell, no! Their success
is their undoing. They plot, but Allah is the best plotter, – our Muslim friends say. Indeed, when they succeed to suborn a party,
the people vote with their feet. The Brexit is the case to consider. The Network wanted to undermine the Brexit; so they neutralised
Corbyn by the antisemitism pursuit while May had made all she could to sabotage the Brexit while calling for it in public. Awfully
clever of them – but the British voter responded with dropping both established parties. So their clever plot misfired.
People are fickle and not always know what is good for them; there are many demagogues to mislead the crowd. And still, elected
legitimate officials should have precedence in governing, while non-elected ones should obey – and it means the Network spooks and
media men should know their place.
How did John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Christopher Steele and other Spygate principals manage
to rise to the top of the intelligence bureaucracy?
Spymasters are usually renowned for their inscrutability and for playing their cards close to their vests.
These characters have indulged in an orgy of highly conspicuous partisan political meddling and ranting that has created
the strong public impression that they engaged in an attempted coup to overthrow a sitting American president on the basis of
a frame-up that was largely fueled by Russian disinformation.
Brennan in particular: can you imagine any previous CIA director comporting himself in this manner? Throwing all caution
to the winds? Inconceivable. Brennan, Comey and Clapper have inflicted serious damage on the reputation of the CIA, FBI and ODNI.
Forthcoming books will no doubt get into all the remarkable and bizarre details.
Donald Trump has demonstrated the ability to troll and goad many of his opponents into a state of imbecility. It's a negotiating
tactic -- knock them off balance, provoke them to lose control. No matter how smart they are, some people take the bait.
I am sitting here pointing to my nose. Spies run the world – contemporary history in a nutshell. A few provisos:
– It's not just illegal surveillance and blackmail that gives the spies power, it's impunity for even the gravest crimes.
If you don't get the message of blackmail you can be tortured or shot, with a bullet like JFK and RFK and Reagan, or with illegal
biological weapons like Daschel and Leahy. Institutionalized impunity stares us in the face from US state papers.
– It's not that CIA and other neo-Gestapos escaped control. They were designed from inception for totalitarian control.
The one poor bastard in Congress who pointed that out, Tydings, had McCarthy sicced on him for his cheek. CIA is not out of control;
it's firmly IN control.
– There is a crucial difference between US and Russian spies. Russians can go over the head of their government to the world.
That's the only effective check on state criminal enterprise like CIA. Article 17 of the Russian Constitution says "in the Russian
Federation rights and freedoms of person and citizen are recognized and guaranteed pursuant to the generally recognized principles
and norms of international law and in accordance with this Constitution." Article 18 states that rights and freedoms of the person
and citizen are directly applicable, which prevents the kind of bad-faith tricks the USA pulls, like declaring "non-self executing"
treaties, or making legally void reservations, declarations, understandings, and provisos to screw you out of your rights. Article
46(3) guarantees citizens a constitutional right to appeal to inter-State bodies for the protection of human rights and freedoms
if internal legal redress has been exhausted. Ratified international treaties including the ICCPR supersede any domestic legislation
stipulating otherwise.
Isn't it just collusion that holds certain elite groups together, including in some businesses where a lot of chicanery goes on.
The most important thing is to be in on it as one of them, not as a person who can be trusted not to say anything, but as one
of the gang. It's exactly how absenteeism-friendly offices full of crony parents with crony-parent managers work.
The only problem for the guy at the tippy top is what would happen if such a tight group turned on him / her? Maybe, some leaders
see the value in protecting a few brave individuals, like Snowden, letting any coup-stirring spooks know that some people are
watching the Establishment's rights violators, too. Those with technical knowledge have more capacity than most to do it or, at
least, to understand how it works.
In a country founded on individual liberties, including Fourth Amendment privacy rights that were protected by less greedy
generations, the US should have elected leaders that put the US Constitution first, but that is too much to ask in an era when
the top dogs in business & government are all colluding for money.
In Russia, persistent rumours claim the perilous Perestroika of Mikhail Gorbachev had been designed and initiated by the
KGB chief (1967 – 1982) Yuri Andropov.
FWIW, I have heard the exact same thing from Russian commenters myself. Some have insisted that, if Andropov had lived long
enough, he would have carried glasnost and perestroika himself.
Spies are loathsome bunch, with questionable loyalties and personal integrity. But I believe that overall they play a positive
role. They play a positive role because they help adversaries gain insight into their adversary's activities.
If it wasn't for the spies, paranoia about what the other side is doing can get out of hand and cause wrong actions to take
place. The problem with the spies is also that no one knows how much they can be trusted and on whose side they are really on.
It was funny during the Cold war (the original one) – whenever each side unveiled that a spy from the other side has defected
to them – they would say it was because of ideology – i.e. the spy defected to them because he "believed" in "democracy" or socialism
– depending on the case.
And in order to discredit their own spies when they defected to the other side – they would say that they did it for money,
because they were greedy and that they betrayed "democracy" or socialism.
The other crucial role that spies usually play is that they allow the adversaries to keep technological balance via industrial
espionage. By transferring top military secrets, they don't allow any side to gain crucial strategic advantage that might encourage
them to do something foolish – like start a nuclear war. Prime example of this were probably the Rosenbergs – who helped USSR
close the nuclear weapons gap with US and kept the world in a shaky nuclear arms balance.
Profound analysis by Mr. Shamir. It confirms that one of the important reasons for the decline of freemasonry is the monopolization
of political conspiracy by the intelligence services. Who needs the lodge when you have the CIA.
An aspect of the rule of spies that Mr. Shamir does not touch on is the legitimization of this rule through popular culture.
This started with the James Bond novels and movies and by now has become ubiquitous. Spies and assassins are the heroes of the
masses. While secrecy is still needed for tactical reasons in the case of specific operations, overall secrecy is not needed nor
even desirable. So you have thugs like Pompeo actually boasting of their villainy before audiences of college students at Texas
A&M and you have the Mossad supporting the publication of the book Rise and Kill First which is an extensive account of their
world-wide assassination policy. They have the power; now they want the perks that go with it, including being treated like rock
stars.
dear mr Shamir, the criminals are not only stupid but also utterly wicked. they will be stricken down in the twinkling of the
eye and will cry out why God? all the righteous will shout for joy and give thanks to the Almighty for judging Babylon. woe unto
them! they will have no place to hide or run to.
Ezekiel 9 (NKJV)
The Wicked Are Slain
9 Then He called out in my hearing with a loud voice, saying, "Let those who have charge over the city draw near, each with a
deadly weapon in his hand." 2 And suddenly six men came from the direction of the upper gate, which faces north, each with his
battle-ax in his hand. One man among them was clothed with linen and had a writer's inkhorn at his side. They went in and stood
beside the bronze altar.
3 Now the glory of the God of Israel had gone up from the cherub, where it had been, to the threshold of the temple. And He
called to the man clothed with linen, who had the writer's inkhorn at his side; 4 and the Lord said to him, "Go through the midst
of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and put a mark on the foreheads of the men who sigh and cry over all the abominations
that are done within it."
5 To the others He said in my hearing, "Go after him through the city and kill; do not let your eye spare, nor have any pity.
6 Utterly slay old and young men, maidens and little children and women; but do not come near anyone on whom is the mark; and
begin at My sanctuary." So they began with the elders who were before the temple. 7 Then He said to them, "Defile the temple,
and fill the courts with the slain. Go out!" And they went out and killed in the city.
8 So it was, that while they were killing them, I was left alone; and I fell on my face and cried out, and said, "Ah, Lord
God! Will You destroy all the remnant of Israel in pouring out Your fury on Jerusalem?"
9 Then He said to me, "The iniquity of the house of Israel and Judah is exceedingly great, and the land is full of bloodshed,
and the city full of perversity; for they say, 'The Lord has forsaken the land, and the Lord does not see!' 10 And as for Me also,
My eye will neither spare, nor will I have pity, but I will recompense their deeds on their own head."
11 Just then, the man clothed with linen, who had the inkhorn at his side, reported back and said, "I have done as You commanded
me."
E Michael Jones was just warning President Trump about the possibility of this in the Straits of Hormuz.
https://youtu.be/iIm3WuJAVEE?t=272
Spooks are everywhere, from secretaries "losing" important communications to CNN news anchors roleplaying with crisis actors,
but they are at their most powerful when they are appointed to powerful positions. President Trump's National Security Advisor
is a spook and he does what he wants.
John le Carre described it perfectly in "A Perfect Spy". The spooks form their own country. They are only loyal to themselves.
@Antares that's because the Mossad
isn't like "our" spy agencies. it's closer to the old paradigm of the hashishim or true assassins. Mossad "agents" don't gad around
wearing dark glasses and tapping phones; they run proper deep cover operations. "sleepers" is a term used in the USA. they have
jobs. they look "normal". They integrate
Do spies run the world? No not really, bankers run the world.
Bankers constitute most of the deep state in the US/UK in particular and most of Europe. It is the bankers/deep state which
control the intelligence agencies. The ethnicity of a hefty proportion of said bankers is plain to see for anyone with functioning
critical faculties. How else can a tiny country in the middle east have such influence in the US? How else do we explain why 2/3
of the UK parliament are "friends of Israel" How come financial institutions can commit felonies and no one does jail time? why
is Israel allowed to commit war crimes and break international law with total impunity? who got bailed out of their gambling debts
at the expense of inflicting "austerity" on most of the western world?
How did John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Christopher Steele and other Spygate principals manage
to rise to the top of the intelligence bureaucracy?
A global supra-powerful, organized and united, privately directed, publicly backed society of high technology robin hood_mercenary_spooks
who conduct sub-legal "scratch-my-back-I'll-scratch-your-back [in the nation of the other] routines"; who ignore duty to country,
its constitutions, its laws and human rights. The are evil, global acting, high technology nomads with a monopoly on extortion
and terror.
Since winning, Trump has been hunted by the spooks-and-scribes freemasonry. <fallacy is that Trump could have gained the assistence
of every American, had Trump just used his powers to declassify all secret information and make it available to the public, instead
he chases Assange, and continues to conduct the affairs of his office in secret.
Propaganda preys on belief.. it is more powerful than an atomic weapon.. when the facts are hidden or when the facts are changed,
distorted or destroyed.
Your statement "spooks and ex-spooks feel more proximity to their enemies and colleagues in other countries than to their
fellow citizens" fails makes clear the importance of containment-of-citizen access to information. Nation states are armed, rule
making structures that invent propaganda and control access to information. Information containment and filtering is the essence
of the political and economic power of a national leader and it is more import to the evil your article addresses.
https://theintercept.com/2019/05/08/josh-gottheimer-democrats-yemen/
<i wrote IRT to the article, that contents appearing in private media supported monopoly powered corporations and distributed
to the public, direct the use of military and the willingness of soldiers of 22 different countries.
Control of the media is 50 times more important than control of the government? Nearly all actions of consequence are intended
to drain the governed masses and such efforts can only be successful if the lobbying, false-misleading mind controlling privately
owned (92% own by just 6 entities) centrally directed media can effectively control the all information environments.
I am bothered by you article because it looks to be Trumped weighted and failes to make clear it is these secret apolitical,
human rights abusers, that direct the contents of the media distributed articles that appear in the privately owmed, media distributed
to the public. Also not explained is how the cost of advertising is shared by the monopoly powered corporations, and it is that
advertising that is the source of support that keeps the fake news in business, the nation state propaganda in line, and the support
of robin -hood terror.
Monopoly powered global corporation advertising funds the fake and misleading private media, that is why the open internet
has been shut in tight. In order for the evil, global acting, high technology nomads to continue their extortion and terror activities
they need the media, its their only real weapon. I have never meet a member of any of the twenty two agencies that was not a trained,
certified mental case terrorist.
I think the interplay between the spooks and scribes warrants a deeper explanation. Covert action refers to anything in which
the author can disclaim his responsibility, ie it looks like someone else or something else. The handler in a political operation
cannot abuse his agent because the agent is the actor. The handler in an intelligence gathering operation can abuse his agent
because the agent merely enables action.
The political operations in this case are propaganda. The Congress of Cultural Freedom is the most clearly described one to
date. Propaganda is necessary in any mass society to ensure that voters care about the right issues, the right way, at the right
time. Propaganda can be true, false, or a mix of the two. Black propaganda deals in falsehoods, ie the Steele Dossier. Black propaganda
works best when it enables a pre-planned operation, but it pollutes the intelligence gathering process with disinformation.
Intelligence gathering is colloquially called investigative reporting. If anyone knows about Gary Webb, Alan Frankovich, or
Michael Hastings they know you can't really do that job well for very long. So how do the old timers last so long? It's a back
and forth. The reporter brings all of his information on a subject to his intelligence source (handler). The source then says,
"print this, print that, sit on that, and since you've been a good boy here's a little something you didn't know." The true role
of the investigative reporter is to conduct counterintelligence and package it as a limited hangout.
While understanding the mechanics is helpful don't neglect the purpose. Why is more important than how. The why is control.
They don't care what you believe, but only what you do. You can be on the left, right, mainstream, or fringe and they won't care
as long as you eat what they serve. Take a minute to think about what they want you to do and strongly consider not doing it.
@Sean McBride And now Trump should
have then all rounded up and hung from the trees in the front of the Whitehouse. Anything less should be seen as encouragement.
The worst among us rule over the rest of us. As Plato said, this needs to change. How to do that? We don't know, but we desperately
need to find out ..
Obama was a very effective promoter of what might be called the "globalist" agenda. He of course didn't invent it but did appoint
those three.
Wayne Madsen gave a convincing account in his speculation that both Obama's parent's were CIA operatives. So it's "all
the family" and in the details one might conclude with the author that indeed "spies run the world."
"... This book covers our current inability to allow all voices to be heard. Key words like "racism " and "?-phobia" (add your preference) can and do end conversations before they begin ..."
"... Hate speech is now any speech about an idea that you disagree with. As we go down the road of drowning out some speech eventually no speech will be allowed. Finger pointers should think about the future, the future when they will be silenced. It's never wrong to listen to different point of view. That's called learning. ..."
"... A very clear and balanced portrait of the current political landscape where a "minority of one" can be supposedly damaged as a result of being exposed to "offensive" ideas. ..."
"... A well documented journey of the transformation from a time when people had vehement arguments into Orwell-Land where the damage one supposedly "suffers" simply from having to "hear" offensive words, allows this shrieking minority to not only silence those voices, but to destroy the lives of the people who have the gall to utter them. ..."
This book covers our current inability to allow all voices to be heard. Key words like "racism " and "?-phobia" (add your preference)
can and do end conversations before they begin .
Hate speech is now any speech about an idea that you disagree with. As we go
down the road of drowning out some speech eventually no speech will be allowed. Finger pointers should think about the future,
the future when they will be silenced. It's never wrong to listen to different point of view. That's called learning.
I became interested in this book after watching Megyn Kelly's interview with Benson (Google it), where he gave his thoughts
on the SCOTUS decision to legalize same-sex marriage in all 50 states. He made a heartfelt and reasoned plea for tolerance and
grace on BOTH sides. He hit it out of the park with this and set himself apart from some of his gay peers who are determined that
tolerance is NOT a two-way street.
We are seeing a vindictive campaign of lawsuits and intimidation against Christian business
people who choose not to provide flowers and cakes for same-sex weddings. The First Amendment says that Congress shall make no
law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Thumbing your nose at this core American freedom should alarm us all. Personally,
I'm for traditional marriage and I think the better solution would be to give civil unions the same legal rights and obligations
as marriage, but that's another discussion.
So what about the book? It exceeded my expectations. Ham and Benson are smart and articulate. Their ideas are clearly presented,
supported by hard evidence and they are fair and balanced. The book is a pleasure to read - - unless you are a die-hard Lefty.
In that case, it may anger you, but anger can be the first step to enlightenment.
A very clear and balanced portrait of the current political landscape where a "minority of one" can be supposedly damaged as
a result of being exposed to "offensive" ideas.
A well documented journey of the transformation from a time when people had vehement
arguments into Orwell-Land where the damage one supposedly "suffers" simply from having to "hear" offensive words, allows this
shrieking minority to not only silence those voices, but to destroy the lives of the people who have the gall to utter them.
The
Left lays claim to being the "party of tolerance", unless you happen to "think outside THEIR box", which, to the Left is INtolerable
and must not only be silenced, but exterminated... A great book!
Bernie Sanders showed up uninvited to a Walmart shareholders meeting Wednesday, blasting
what he called the retail giant's "starvation wages" and imploring it to pay people at
least $15 an hour.
But if you read further down
Sanders was invited to speak as a proxy for Walmart worker Cat Davis, a leader of the
pro-worker group United for Respect. It was Davis' proposal that Sanders pitched.
So was he invited or uninvited? Why is the lede contradicted by the 5th paragraph in?
Surely intentional, designed to make him look like a butt-in-ski rather than a proxy for a
WMT employee.
One of the most obvious and pervasive symptoms of our Empire's rapid decline and the
crapification of literally everything is the absolute dearth of copy editors worth a
damn.
Everyday when I do my Google News view I see at least one or sometimes two pure propaganda
hit pieces from the MSM trashing Sanders.
The one at below link is especially egregious in sandwiching a photo of Sanders with the
Russian flag on one side and Venezuela on the other. This is just a day or two after a story
showing a photo of him with a picture of two houses and a bag of money.
The Politico article about unions and the Green New Deal discusses the disconnect between unions and elected Democrats
while glossing over earlier policies that contributed to it. Unstated in the article is the years and decades that Democrats,
once elected, enact policies (NAFTA, allowing China in the WTO, etc.) that hurt unions. Democrats occasionally pass
legislation that tempers the decline of unions, but are always weak and less central than the party’s attempts to align with
business and Wall Street. The unions have justifiable fear that Democrats won’t help them when the time comes. And I don’t
think environmentalists are doing themselves any favors when using phrases like “just transition,” or emphasizing investments
in new technologies. These sound similar to what unions heard about the impact of the trade deals, which haven’t worked out
for union members.
Proponents of the Green New Deal should differentiate themselves from the Democratic proponents of free trade and similar
policies if they are to gain the support of unions. One aspect that I keep getting to is mandating that the construction and
operation of facilities must be done by unionized workers if it is to get government funding (including tax credits) or be
used to meet any mandates. I’m not sold on this idea, but at the very least it is something tangible for unions.
It is weird that Mayor Pete gets his facts wrong. George W Bush (43rd President) was very
much a Veteran; it is just that he flew F-102s for the Texas National Guard. He was the one
who was born on third base and thought that he hit a homerun. It was fairly well documented
that he slacked off his last year or so but Dan Rather screwed up his reporting and got
himself fired from CBS News. Karl Rove earned his money getting this all muddied up.
It is swift-boating to disparage anyone who has served in a combat zone. But, unlike Tulsi
Gabbard, Pete Buttigieg seems to be fine with the endless wars. Anyone who has served, at
least, knows that killing the enemy before they kill you is job #1. The problem is that a
cohort of 70 year old fogies are the last of the draftees that once included all able bodied
males. The endless wars have been going on so long now that the volunteers are showing up as
Mayors and Congress Persons. Except, 7 in 10 youths today would fail to qualify for military
service according to the Pentagon.
Warren (D)(1): "Elizabeth Warren's latest big idea is 'economic patriotism'" [
Vox ].
"The specific Warren proposal on this score has three parts, a Green Apollo
Program, a Green Marshall Plan, and a Green Industrial Mobilization. The Apollo Program is a
ten-fold increase in clean energy R&D funding, the Marshall Plan is a $100 billion
program to help foreign countries buy American-made clean technology, and the Industrial
Mobilization (which it would perhaps be more natural to call a 'Green New Deal,' were that
name not already taken) proposes a massive $1.5 trillion federal procurement initiative over
10 years to buy 'American-made clean, renewable, and emission free products for federal,
state, and local use and for export.'
That's roughly the scale of federal spending on defense
acquisition and would of course turn the federal government into a huge player in this
market."
• I bet Warren's policy shop didn't copy and paste from other proposals
either
Readers here are brainwashed. Industrial policy is based on a partnership between
manufacturing, banks and finance, government, and workers. All of these relationships are
built on trust and all the members stand to profit. This is the secret of Germany's and
Scandinavia's over 200 years of success. It is called stakeholder capitalism. It includes all
members of society. Germany is the world's largest exporter for a reason. It has
approximately 1,500 banks, 70% of them are non-profit and restricted to lending for loans
that are productive - create jobs and add value.
The English/American model of capitalism is called shareholder capitalism. Shareholder
because the owners are absentee landlords. The financial markets rule, all other members
serve. The communities are shells - people are distrustful of each other and of the social
institutions. Shareholders don't live in the communities that add the value. They are the
elites, and are spread throughout the world.
Readers here might not like Elizabeth Warren, and that's ok. I don't really like her. But
her ideas are good. No Republican or corporate Democrat would ever embrace her ideas.
The irony is that Trump campaigned on similar ideas as Warren's. Why do you people think
Trump is engaging in all the trade war rhetoric? It's for the same ends as Warren's ideas,
except her ideas are more complete. Trump doesn't bring enough to the table. He needs to
include labor, banks, manufacturers, and government. He hasn't because his ideas are not
developed.
All the blabber mouths on Zero Hedge complaining about how full of **** academia is and
now is your chance to actually stand for something. Do you think industrial policy is built
on "snowflake" studies in Harvard?
No, it's in vocational schools and mentoring. Apprenticeships, and so forth.
Un-*******-believable. Zero Hedge is no different from Rush Limbaugh, a big fat closeted
queen.
What ever happened to states rights? Ever increasing central governmental control is not
the answer, and was never intended to be. The Democrats spout about "Democracy!!!". This is
nothing of the sort. They are perfectly happy to tell someone in Nebraska what to do, even if
they have no idea corn grows in dirt. Narcissistic sociopaths is what they are. It's time to
neuter them.
Unfortunately, a fair number of people are listening to her. The article below warns that
her push towards socialism as many progressives, liberals, or those simply left of center are
proposing, would be a grave mistake. Socialism is not the answer to combating inequality.
Well, down here in Australia we had a Federal election a couple of weeks ago, and the
opposition party, the Labor Party(ie the equivalent of your Democrats) was soundly defeated
partially because of their radical "climate change" policies.
Quite obviously the left cannot grasp the fact that not everybody buys into the climate
change hoax/industry. After the election many "journalists" who work for our national
broadcaster, the ABC, which is funded by the Feds, came out on social media describing the
result as a catastrophe for the climate and branded Australians as stupid. Sound familiar,
just like a certain someone who labeled half of America as deplorables.
Australians are not stupid, and realised that the changes Labor were proposing were too
radical. Their plan called for a 45 percent reduction in emissions by 2030. It should be
noted that despite rhetoric to the contrary by Labor, it is a well established fact that
Australia is far exceeding it's Kyoto & Paris targets.
Yet, the Labor party wanted to take these steps.
Labor, a party which is supposed to be in support of the workers, had they have won
governmengt, would have no doubt done everything in their power to prevent the Adani coal
mine in Queensland going ahead!
FFS, what sort of a world are we living in where coal mining is viewed by the left as a
criminal activity?
The result of Labor's insanity, they did not win back a single seat in Qld, and in the
Hunter Valley in NSW, a massive coal mining town, one particular seat there has been held by
Labor for 25 years with a healthy margin. The local Labor candidate, Joel Fitzgibbon, managed
to still hold onto the seat despite a 20 percent swing against him!
The fact is, as I am sure you are all aware being intelligent people on ZH, is you cannot
take radical steps like what was proposed by Labor & in the process destroy the economy.
These changes, if they are to be implemented, need to happen over the course of decades,
four, five, maybe six, I don't know.
But more importantly, there needs to be serious discussion as to whether man made "climate
change" is real because it does not seem to be, and obviously the vast majority of people are
not buying into it. much to the chagrin of the left.
In Australia, and I am sure the same happens in America, the only people buying the
climate change ******** are the cafe latte/upper class inner city snobs.
The other thing that escapes the minds of the left in Australia is simple mathematics. We
are a population of 24 million in a world of 7.5 billion, that makes us 0.33 of 1 percent of
the world population. Even if Australia cut it's emissions to zero tomorrow, it will make no
difference to the world when we have China & India building coal fired power
stations.
Ironically, the high priest of climate change, Al Gore, is down here at the moment, in
Queensland of all places where voters told the left where to get off, on a $300,000 taxpayer
funded love-in. From memory, didn't Al Gore state in his doco in 2006 that within 10 years
the Earth would be facing a climate catastrophe? lol
You go girl.... Lynn Rothschild will back you once she counts con-tracts and loans
filtered back into her " All Inclusive Capitalism" banking system... She's got your back. She
was was only kiddig about rewrting an ecconomic plan for Hillary and ditching yours....xoxo
Lynn
"on Tuesday Elizabeth Warren proposed
spending $2 trillion on a new "green manufacturing" program that would invest in research
and exporting American clean energy technology."
"In my administration, we will stop making excuses. We will pursue aggressive new
government policies to support American workers."
"In my administration, we will NOT stop making excuses. We will pursue aggressive new
government TOTALITARIAN policies to support American Stalinist ideals ."
In a recent "off the record" conversation with Page Six's Cindy Adams, Clinton sounded off on
the sprawling field of Democrat presidential candidates. According to Adams, Clinton has "no
good words for Sanders, writing that the Obama-era secretary of state believes "Anyone
overtaking him in a district considered his, he'll burn the place down."
Clinton has blamed her own election loss to President Trump on former President Barack
Obama, fired FBI Director James Comey, the Democrat National Committee (DNC), and the nation
of Russia. She has also blamed Sanders, who begrudgingly endorsed her, declaring at the time
that she "will make an outstanding president."
span ed by The Voice In th... on Mon, 06/03/2019 - 6:04pm
@The Voice In the
Wilderness
As in "the Democratic elite are entitled to your vote."
"the Democratic elite are entitled to the party nomination."
"the Democratic elite are entitled to praise and worship from the progressives that they
betray."
OK. Maybe this
rules change isn't aimed directly at Tulsi Gabbard, but it certainly looks like she's in
danger of being it's biggest victim.
Presidential candidates looking to participate in the Democratic National Committee's
sanctioned primary debates initially had to meet one of two thresholds to be eligible:
achieving at least 1% in three separate DNC approved polls or obtaining at least 65,000
donations with minimum of 200 donors from at least 20 states. ... To appear at the recently-announced third set of debates in September, candidates must
achieve 2% in at least four DNC-approved polls and double the minimum of number of donors to
130,000. That quickly became a death sentence for candidates who for months have not even
cracked the first donor threshold.
To make this clear, the requirements for the
THIRD
debate went from "at least 1% in three separate DNC approved polls or obtaining at
least 65,000 donations" to " 2% support in four national or early voting state polls AND
130,000 unique donors to their campaign, including 400 unique donors from at least 20
states". For most of the candidates, unless they really score in the first two debates, they won't be in
any more debates.
To help put this into context, consider what the DNC has been up to recently. They chose
Chris Korge as the new finance chair of the Democratic National Committee. Democratic National Committee Chair Tom Perez went on a hair-on-fire
rant about Russiagate.
"We are at war right now with the Russians -- it is a cyber war -- [and] our
commander-in-chief is compromised," Perez said. "We should be able to rely on the federal
government for help from this. ... It is unconscionable that this administration has paid
such little attention to what Mueller acknowledged today, [which is] Russian interference. "
Yes, the DNC is busy looking out for what is important to you.
The problem is more complex than just CIA. The Deep state encompass more players and it replaced elected officials (surface
state) while elections now provide mostly function of legitimizing the rule of the Deep State
Notable quotes:
"... The truth is as the world's economy becomes free of the US and its think-tanks, the world gets richer but those of us in the USA who make our living by working and getting paid will become poorer. Our money will not be able to cover for a good lifestyle. ..."
"... Its sad to see the disastrous policies of the CIA's economic unit has to be paid by the hard working US citizens who only want a good life like everyone else. We did not ask for the CIA, the CIA imposed itself on us, making the decisions without our consent. Now we pay for their disastrous policies by becoming a third world country. ..."
The growth of the USA is going to depend on the ability of the people in government to
disband the Central Intelligence Agency which has become a bottleneck in the progress of the
USA. The USA cannot grow as long as you have such a powerful bottleneck similar to a dictator
with absolute power.
The truth is as the world's economy becomes free of the US and its think-tanks, the world
gets richer but those of us in the USA who make our living by working and getting paid will
become poorer. Our money will not be able to cover for a good lifestyle.
Its sad to see the disastrous policies of the CIA's economic unit has to be paid by the
hard working US citizens who only want a good life like everyone else. We did not ask for the
CIA, the CIA imposed itself on us, making the decisions without our consent. Now we pay for
their disastrous policies by becoming a third world country.
We are being left behind .... China is going to keep growing... there is nothing the USA
can do to stop her now. If war is used, the USA will lose, if economics of scale is compared
the USA loses. China is a giant with an almost monolithic population of over one billion. Can
you imagine what an educated country with over one billion people can do???
The USA has a lot of blacks, hispanics, asians, Arabs etc, we are not a single group of
people. While diversity is a good thing when you have a lot of money to keep everyone happy,
poverty will be the enermy of diversity. People will be at each other's jugulars fighting for
the little scraps of wealth left behind after the big and powerful grab all they can.
We are into a very hard future in the USA.... no thanks to the silly Central Intelligence
Agency. For heavens sake, cant the CIA learn from Chinese or Russian intelligence???? How do
the intelligence agencies of the Chinese or Russians operate? Learn instead of sitting on the
silly high horse thinking US intelligence is anything but primitive and third rate!
Now the entire USA has to pay for the silly inteliigence agencies which keep expanding
with acronyms like rats!
"... Tulsi: "While I agree that Russia is both directly and indirectly responsible for this downed plane shot down by the separatists, we've got to look at this in the bigger picture. We've got to look at Russia's incursion into Ukraine, Ukraine's sovereignty " ..."
"... "Not a single anti-aircraft missile system of the Russian Armed Forces has ever crossed the Russian-Ukrainian border," ..."
"... "the determination of the Dutch-led investigation to justifying its conclusions by solely using images from social networks that have been expertly altered with computer graphic editing tools." ..."
"... had been previously displayed by the infamous British online investigative activist group, Bellingcat. ..."
"... "the 53rd Anti-aircraft Missile Brigade based in Kursk in Russia". ..."
"... "the Dutch investigators completely ignore and reject the testimony of eyewitnesses from the nearby Ukrainian communities", according to the Defense Ministry. The testimonies, however, provided essential information "indicating the launch of a missile was carried out from a territory controlled by the Ukrainian Armed Forces." ..."
"... "comprehensive" ..."
"... "clearly indicate the involvement of the Ukrainian Buk anti-aircraft system units" ..."
Who Shot Down Flight MH17 over Eastern Ukraine in 2014?
span ted by wendy davis on Sun, 06/02/2019 - 11:19am
Well of course it was the Evil Russians! Didn't Russians also shoot Roger Rabbit? We'd been discussing this 2014 interview with
Tulsi Gabbard on my post ' analyses of the leaked 'Deal of the Century'
I/P peace plan '
that I'd found that day and posted in comments, mainly wanting to feature her anti-Palestinian Hasbara. As I remember it, this 'blame'
started the horrific sanctions on Russia.
Tulsi: "While I agree that Russia is both directly and indirectly responsible for this downed plane shot down by the separatists,
we've got to look at this in the bigger picture. We've got to look at Russia's incursion into Ukraine, Ukraine's sovereignty "
TravelerXXX had bookmarked this Eric Zuesse exposé that I'd vaguely recalled and brought it in:
'MH17 Turnabout: Ukraine's Guilt Now Proven', December 31,
2018,
strategic-culture.org
It's about nine yards long with zillions of hyperlinks, so long I don't even guess I'd ever finished it, which makes it hard
to figure out what, if any, nuggets to feature, but he did link to this:
'MH-17: the untold story', 22
Oct,
2014, RT.com, including a 27-minute video documentary.
"Three months after Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 was brought down over Ukraine, there are still no definitive answers about
what caused the tragedy. Civil conflict in the area prevented international experts from conducting a full and thorough investigation.
The wreckage should have been collected and scrupulously re-assembled to identify all the damage, but this standard investigative
procedure was never carried out. Until that's done, evidence can only be gleaned from pictures of the debris, the flight recorders
(black boxes) and eye-witnesses testimonies. This may be enough to help build a picture of what really happened to the aircraft,
whether a rocket fired from the ground or a military jet fired on the doomed plane."
I'd later added to that thread, including some photos of a beaming Netanyahu holding a map of the Golan Heights that Herr Trump
had signed with his approval (indicating the leaked plan just may be The Real Deal) when Up Jumped the Devil:
'Where
is the evidence?' Malaysian PM says attempts to pin MH17 downing on Russia lack proof', 30 May,
2019, RT.com
"Malaysia has accepted the Dutch report that a 'Russian-made' missile shot down its civilian airliner MH17 over eastern Ukraine
in 2014, but has yet to see evidence it was fired by Russia, said Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad.
"They are accusing Russia but where is the evidence?" Mahathir told reporters at the Japanese Foreign Correspondents Club (FCCJ)
in Tokyo on Thursday.
"You need strong evidence to show it was fired by the Russians," the prime minister went on, according to the Malaysian state
news agency Bernama. "It could be by the rebels in Ukraine; it could be Ukrainian government because they too have the same missile."
"Mahathir was skeptical that anyone involved with the Russian military could have launched the missile that struck the plane,
however, arguing that it would have been clear to professionals that the target was a civilian airliner.
"I don't think a very highly disciplined party is responsible for launching the missile," he said.
The Dutch-led Joint Investigation Team (JIT), whose report last year blamed Moscow for shooting down MH17, barred Russia from
participating in the investigation, but involved the government of Ukraine. Although Malaysia is also a member of JIT,Mahathir
revealed that his country's officials have been blocked from examining the plane's flight recorders.
"For some reason, Malaysia was not allowed to check the black box to see what happened," he said. "We
don't know why we are excluded from the examination but from the very beginning, we see too much politics in it."
"This is not a neutral kind of examination," Mahathir added.
Rejecting the JIT accusations, Russia made public the evidence the Dutch-led researchers refused to look into, including the
serial number of the missile that allegedly struck MH17, showing that it was manufactured in the Soviet Union in 1986 and was in
the arsenal of the Ukrainian army at the time of the tragedy."
b of Moon of Alabama offered this whopping 55 minute press conference video with Malaysian PM Mahathir on Twitter
on May 31.
But aha! RT had later provided on the left sidebar:
May 24,
2018: 'No
Russian missile system ever crossed into Ukraine: MoD rejects Dutch MH17 claims', RT.com
"The Russian Defense Ministry has rejected new claims that flight MH17 over Ukraine was downed by a missile from a Russian unit,
urging the Dutch-led probe to focus on studying hard facts instead of social media images.
"Not a single anti-aircraft missile system of the Russian Armed Forces has ever crossed the Russian-Ukrainian border,"
the defense ministry said in statement.
The Russian military raised eyebrows over "the determination of the Dutch-led investigation to justifying its conclusions
by solely using images from social networks that have been expertly altered with computer graphic editing tools."
The ministry pointed out that
the images used in the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) press conference on Thursday were provided by the Ukrainian special
services and had been previously displayed by the infamous British online investigative activist group,
Bellingcat.
The Dutch-led probe announced that the missile that downed Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 in July 2014 came from a Russian military
Buk system that crossed into Ukraine and then returned to its base in western Russia.
Investigators claim the missile system involved came from "the 53rd Anti-aircraft Missile Brigade based in Kursk in Russia".
The JIT essentially just repeated the conclusion made by Bellingcat a year ago.
The alarming part in the JIT probe is that "the Dutch investigators completely ignore and reject the
testimony of eyewitnesses from the nearby Ukrainian communities", according to the Defense Ministry. The testimonies, however,
provided essential information "indicating the launch of a missile was carried out from a territory controlled by the Ukrainian
Armed Forces."
The Russian side said that it provided the international probe with "comprehensive"evidence, including field tests,
which "clearly indicate the involvement of the Ukrainian Buk anti-aircraft system units" in the destruction of the plane
with 283 passengers and 15 crew members onboard."
This video that Eric Zuesse had up may be part of the referenced eye witness testimony.
The brilliant American physicist, Nobel prize winner, Richard Feynham was also descended
from LIthuanian Jews.He had no time for any religion, and refused all aspects of Jewishness.
He was a brilliant mant who contributed much to American Science.
Don't make generalisations based on race.
Every race has demons and devil, and brilliant angels, and all points in between.
Impeachment indeed would be a mistake. The Dems have been denigrating trump from the
beginning and what has that got them?
Also, remember Trey Gowdy and his endless investigations? Adam Shiff is nearly as
repugnant and should turn to other work in Congress.
Yes, SharonM, Tulsi is charismatic, as well as calm and collected. So far, though, she is
being ignored by the D.C. pundits. We should keep an eye on her positioning with respect to
the new DNC debate thresholds.
Donald J. Trump
Verified account
@realDonaldTrump
May 23
More
"Today, at the request and recommendation of the Attorney General of the United States, President Donald J. Trump directed the
intelligence community to quickly and fully cooperate with the Attorney General's investigation into surveillance
activities....
....during the 2016 Presidential election. The Attorney General has also been delegated full and complete authority to
declassify information pertaining to this investigation, in accordance with the long-established standards for handling
classified information....
....Today's action will help ensure that all Americans learn the truth about the events that occurred, and the actions that
were taken, during the last Presidential election and will restore confidence in our public institutions."
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1131716322369392646
Yes, Trump's all of that, but he differs little from his predecessors as I enumerated, and Pence is even worse than Trump.
Clearly, your hatred is clouding your judgment. And your obvious bias destroys any chance you have at convincing a skeptic.
You must learn how to control your hate and channel that energy into productive pursuits. Right now, you're acting like
Rambo in the Police Station, blasting away at everything in sight with an M-60. Keep your cool and fight smart!
DO NOT WASTE TIME visiting emptywheel. That is a totally stupid site. A wheel with no spokes... empty! and could not go
round if you kicked it. Marcy Wheeler is as bad as HA Goodman when it comes to predicting the demise of Trump or Clinton.
They are time wasters.
The trouble with impeachment and the Dems chasing after the Trump for dirty money deals is that Biden will be outed for the
same offense. Biden got grubby nobbling a judge in Ukraine to protect his son's million$. And that is the most prominent of
his willingness to "prostitute' himself for ca$h.
They all have dirt to hide and at the moment, none are game to start a war of attrition.
Trump makes a threat by declassifying some documents from the Mueller investigation and Mueller comes back with his move, but
so far no heads have rolled and perhaps never will.
Absolutely brothers, you nailed it. There is a high probability that we could see two
hulks (Dems and Repugs) bashing it out in the ring. The spectacle could totally trash the
leadership of both and leave the field open for a leader. If only it were easier to have a
new third party for the Presidential race. AFAIK establishing a third party to run takes
years and can only be registered after immense hurdles are crossed.
And no, I am not advocating the Greens for Bernie or Tulsi. That way is suicide.
I am sure there are many reasons why democrats want to impeach trump but to me it comes down
to this, they are hot about impeachment because they are so afraid they won't be able to
defeat him in the next election. get it. this is really simple.
there are two ways to get him out of power, so they think - either successful impeachment
(highly doubtful both on the actual charges, and convincing 67 senators to go along with the
house), or actually defeating him in 2020..... how they gonna do that? what are the great
issues that the democrats are going to taken on, again, to defeat this wanker - bad trump bad
bad bad! you know, that worked really well the last time didn't it?
the man is a menace both to the country and to the world, and should be defeated. who's
gonna take hi s place, another neo-liberal and war monger, like biden. don't make me
laugh.
but how are the corporate hacks that run the democratic party going to do it? the core
economic and social issues are waiting to be taken up (again) by a progressive candidate - it
infuriates me what the DNC and clinton did to Sanders, because he would be sitting in the
white house right now if they hadn't pulled their dirty tricks.
and no, identity politics is not going to defeat this fucker. nor is screaming russia
russia russia
Trump is just a bloody clown and maybe the American people deserve hold.
The American people are 'exceptional' in there delusional degenerate greed.
Here is a clip from the speaker of the U.K. House of Commons (a Tory)
If Trump is impeached then this will just confirm the false-fact of Russian interference in
the US elections. While the fuss about Venezuela was going on, US mercenaries appear to have
been involved in massacres and putting down an insurrection/revolution in Haiti.
The US have (this week) encouraged Kosovo special forces to conduct operations in Serbian
held areas in violation of UN agreements and have assaulted and arrested UN officers (who are
Russian) - The US is seeking to provoke the nightmare of Balkan conflict and drag Russia into
open conflict by provoking a war between Kosovo and Serbia.
The US have (today) accused Russia of conducting Nuclear Tests when there is absolutely no
evidence of this (Nuclear explosions would have been detected).
The US is maneuvering towards war. Only the American people can stop this. The Trump
psycho-drama is a major distraction which is obscuring US actions from its own people.
This next US election looks like it's going to be a major joke. American's are going to
get a lot more comments like that of Lowdown @92 unless you start getting control of what
your Nation (on your behalf) is doing to the world.
Circe wrote: "The reason Pelosi is against impeachment is because her Zionist financiers want
Trump or Biden to win, and if Trump is impeached this will favor Sanders. Sanders would be
higher in the polls if Dems weren't so scared of Trump labelling him a radical socialist."
I can think of two reasons for Pelosi to be against impeachment - Trump will continue cry
"witch hunt!" and the media will help him with plenty of coverage, and he and the GOP will
point out that the House is wasting time with investigations instead of helping "hard working
Americans". They may even revive the old "Do nothing Congress" tag.
Trump's crimes such as they are have yet to be revealed. The federal courts in New York state
will be the venue and it is inconceivable based on any objective reading of the US Criminal
Justice System that an investigation into Trump's businesses for the prior 10-20 years will
not result crimes being uncovered.
The other objective reading that will apply is whether Trump by virtue of his now extreme
elitism will be let off the hook. I'm thinking the answer is yes he will be let off the
hook.
Anyone stuck on "Russiagate" is simply evading Trump's true legal exposure.
Trump is tooting Boris and Nigel's horn. Notice how this Zio ass kisser doesn't even give
Corbyn the time of day, but instead is slobbering all over Netanyahoo calling his win
resounding and now what is happening to BibiYahoo so unfair. Then you expect me to show
restraint where Trump is concerned?
The best thing that can happen is Sanders getting Pence as a campaign opponent! Trump
would be way more dirty with Sanders. Anyone against impeachment is in the Zionist camp!
PERIOD, end of sentence.
It utterly amazes me how you neo liberals still don't get why people voted for Trump. It will
be the same reasons why he isn't going to win again.
He won by just barely flipping three rust belt states. Has he stopped any income
depressing immigration? Nope, its accelerating. How about ending those pesky international
entanglements, and getting along? Unless your an Israel firster, the answer is a big zero.
PA, Wisconsin, Michigan all have Democrat governors now. Woohoo...more dead and illegals
voting Democrat. Make matters worse you have the impending agriculture and financial
collapse. My guess is the Donald will pull out of the election at the most inopportune time,
and not even bother with it.
By the way Trump ain't the problem. The bankers and their central bank are the problem.
The deep state was created to serve them. Guess for some as long as (D) is in back of our
politicians name, all will be good. Sad.
Re "An impeachment will be anyway be unsuccessful because the Republicans own the Senate and
will vote down any impeachment indictment that might pass the House."
Respectfully, MofA, please stick to your excellent, insightful, and informative analyses
in the international arena and stay away from US domestic politics.
The Dems are not at all sure about winning in 2020, not least because of the pathetic
gaggle of so-called candidates they've go to offer. Their main goal in pursuing impeachment
will not be to weaken Trump for 2020, it's – still – to get him out of the White
House.
As was the case in 2016, Trump's the only GOP candidate who has a shot at winning, though
it's not a sure thing. The Dems want a sure thing.
Do they have the goods to get rid of him yet? No. That's while they'll keep digging.
Taxes. Business skullduggery in NY. Babes. They hope that sooner or later they'll uncover
something that will give enough Republicans in the Senate an excuse to give Trump the
heave-ho.
A Republican Senate will "vote down any impeachment"? Ha. Compare Clinton and Nixon.
Clinton literally could have raped Juanita Broaddrick in the middle of Fifth Avenue and the
Dems still would have circled the wagons to defend him, as they in fact did, without a single
Dem vote to convict.
Nixon, however, was done in by his own party when Senate GOP leaders told Tricky Dick
(loathed by most of his party, as Trump is) that he had to resign or they would vote to
remove him. Depending on what the Dems dig up, Republicans can be counted on to see scary
editorials in the Washington Post and New York Times and run in panic. "I've always been
supportive of the president, but I can't defend that. So I have no choice but to ") Add the
fact that between a quarter and a third of GOP Senators would jump at the chance to put a
knife in Trump's back if they got the opportunity, with sanctimonious warmonger Mitt Romney
at the front of the line.
I am not predicting that Trump will be removed: the Dems might come up empty on the needed
dirt; they may fall short of the number of Republicans they need to give him the "Nixon
talk"; even if he is given an ultimatum, he may decide to fight and actually win. But don't
take it as a given that impeachment is a futile exercise undertaken only to weaken Trump for
reelection and likely to backfire. It might succeed.
If it doesn't, Trump's chances of winning reelection are better than even, though the
landscape has become less favorable. His base remains strong (most of his Deplorables think
he's actually delivering on his promises, because he says so in tweets and at his rallies.
Look at that big, beautiful invisible nonexistent Wall! Winning!). On the other hand, failure
to control our border means the demographic shift against Republicans continues, coupled with
zero efforts to police voting by non-citizens and (notably in Florida) letting felons vote.
If Trump loses either Florida or Pennsylvania, it's probably all over even with a lousy
Democratic opponent. That's aside from whatever economic hiccup occurs between now and next
fall. Or if Trump gets in a war somewhere.
Finally, I dispute the suggestion it's desirable to elect more Dems to Congress. Let's
agree Republicans are horrible. But even if you like the Dems on domestic grounds (I don't)
let's not ignore the fact that on the warmongering front the Dems are at least as bad as the
GOP and in most cases worse, especially when it comes to Russia. Note how Mueller began and
ended his swan song by emphasizing the Russian "attack" on the US in 2016. That's will
continue to be the core dogma of the Democratic Party, with most of the GOP joining them in
making sure Trump shows no sign of heresy. More Democrats means even more of a straitjacket
on whatever off-script impulses Trump occasionally displays with regard to Korea, Syria, and
Russia. Even Iran, where he has disavowed regime change (somebody tell President
Bolton!).
"... Even with impeachment and a nomination challenger Trump would likely still win the election. ..."
"... There is no charismatic Democratic challenger in sight. Currently leading in the primary polls are Biden, Sanders and Warren. Neither of them can compete with the Trump's popularity. Despite Russiagate he still has a 41% approval rating which is quite high for a midterm presidency. ..."
"... Trump is also a master at playing the media. He would surely find ways to turn an impeachment circus to his advantage. ..."
"... The Democrats can only win the 2020 election if they have a real strong policy issue that is supported by a large majority of the population. 'Medicare for all' is such a winner . Health care is THE top issue for U.S. voters. Some two thirds of them support a universal government run health insurance that would cover the basic health issues and catastrophic cases. Private insurance for more cosmetic issues could be bought on top of that. ..."
"... But significant parts of the Democratic party leadership are against such a system. They fear for the large donations and other bribes the pharma and health industry throws at them. ..."
"... "If we have confidence the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so." ..."
"... Here essentially is Mueller's spin job: "Russians hacked Hillary & I didn't find Trump didn't collude with them, I just came up short on proof, and I never said he didn't obstruct my probe, just that I wasn't allowed to charge it. However,Congress can charge him thru impeachment" Mueller is likely to have his day in court along with the rest of the conspirators. How will those public hangings affect Lichtman's 13 keys? ..."
"... Impeachment PROCEEDINGS will divert attention away from Trump being an Israeli stooge. Trump is too valuable for Israeli interests to be removed from office. ..."
"... I voted for Trump based on 3 issues; Immigration, trade policy and ending futile foreign wars. As far as I am concerned, he's failed on all three and I don't care if he is removed from office. ..."
"... In addition to electing a MAGA nationalist, CIA/MI6/Mossad used the election to initiate a new McCarthyism, to smear Wikileaks, and to settle scores with Michael Flynn (who had angered them with his admission that the Obama Administration had made a "willful decision" to support ISIS) . ..."
"... At the heart of the issue are limits on the powers of the special counsel. Many legal scholars believe a sitting president can't be criminally indicted, meaning that if Mueller finds evidence of crimes by Trump, his strongest recourse might well be to make a referral to Congress for potential impeachment proceedings. But some of those experts tell TPM that under the regulation governing the special counsel's office, Mueller lacks the authority to make that referral without approval from Justice Department officials overseeing his investigation. ..."
"... After Kenneth Starr's pursuit of Bill Clinton, Congress changed the laws governing special investigations in 1999: No longer could a three-judge panel appoint an "independent counsel" acting with no direct DOJ oversight. Instead, the decision to appoint a "special counsel" had to be made by the attorney general. In Mueller's case, Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself, because of meetings he had held with the Russian ambassador, leaving Rosenstein to appoint and manage Mueller and his probe. ..."
"... "Those regulations don't explicitly give the special counsel authority to make a referral," William Yeomans, a 26-year DOJ veteran who has served as an acting assistant attorney general and is now a fellow at the Alliance for Justice, told TPM. "If there is a referral, it's going to have to go through Rosenstein ..."
"... The new US "justice" system- -- "If we have confidence the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so." So sorry about that pal, you must be guilty because you can't prove you're innocent. ..."
"... Some think the CIA has been running the show since the Kennedy assassination. But with the rise of the neocons and the end of the Cold War, it became more apparent. ..."
"... IMO it also became more apparent when the Deep State f*cked up by no bringing Russia on-side after the end of the Cold War while continuing to assist China's "peaceful rise". That caused the dislocation known as Trump. There's gonna be some turbulence when you turn a massive entity like USA. ..."
"... Last thing that as become 'apparent' is this: the vast majority of people in the West (including many smart people in alt-media) can't dislodge their thinking from the MSM narratives. Despite being skeptical of MSM and USA, they just can't bring themselves to see the degree of manipulation that leads to the logical conclusion: "CIA is running the USA". ..."
"... May 9 - surprise medical bills will be outlawed ..."
"... The purpose of Russiagate was to 1) prevent any foreign policy initiative which featured rapprochement with Russia. 2) prevent or forestall any honest appraisal of why Clinton lost. ..."
"... It is obvious that the Democratic Party establishment is hostile to progressive initiatives, including a Single Payer medical system which absolutely would be a winning platform in America. Therefore the impeachment circus will continue as it keeps the Dem base focussed on the supposed national emergency which is Trump. Trump's election was probably the biggest opening for non-mainstream politics in decades in America, and its been mostly squandered by deliberate misdirection. ..."
"... Impeachment is not a conviction, it just shoves a trial over to the Senate where the Democrats are sure to lose. Its poor strategy to proceed with more nonsense. The whole Russian maneuver is going to end badly for them. They are turning Trump from a sure loser to a possible winner. ..."
"... What do you expect from the master of coverup himself? He basically said in so many words "Russians hacked Hillary & I didn't find Trump didn't collude with them, I just came up short on proof, and I never said he didn't obstruct my probe, just that I wasn't allowed to charge it. However,Congress can charge him thru impeachment" ..."
"... Except for the Russian involvement thats the truth. But the Russian spin is the key to maintaining Russia as a fake enemy and using their fake involvement in the election to get support to suppress alt media and censor social media. This is a bipartisan agenda. Impeachment just serves to divide and distract, exactly what they want. ..."
"... In any case, my view is that Bernie Sanders is the biggest factor, not Trump. Even without H. Rodham running, the DNC will do everything it can to not let Bernie be the Progressive or Liberal representative in the Presidential race - even to the point of losing again to Trump. That's what really matters in 2020. ..."
"... Clearly we see it in a similar way... everything else is the cult of political personality - trump, pelosi, clinton, mueller, brennan, barr and etc etc - sideshow to keep the kiddies entertained.. meanwhile the fox continues to run the chicken house.. ..."
"... the Constitution's provision that Congress has not only the power, but the duty, to oversee the Executive Branch ..."
"... The relevant provision you are looking for would be Article 1 / Section 8 of the US Constitution. ..."
"... Congressional oversight is implied in the US Constitution rather than stated explicitly. ..."
"... Further information and elaboration of Congress's powers of oversight are at this link. ..."
The Special counsel Robert Mueller today closed
his investigation into alleged collusion of the Trump campaign with alleged Russian interference with the 2016 election.Mueller said
nothing that goes beyond his already published report. But he
empathized that his report did not absolve Trump of obstructing his investigation. Mueller said:
"If we have confidence the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so."
and
"Charging the President with a crime was [..] not an option we could consider."
It is the long standing legal opinion of the Justice Department that it -- as part of the executive branch -- can not indict a
sitting president for a crime. The only entity which can do that is Congress through the impeachment process. Mueller had to follow
that opinion. He now punted the issue to Congress.
Even before Mueller's statement some Democrats strongly argued that such an impeachment process is warranted. Mueller's statement
today will be seen as support for that demand.
The leader of the Democratic party in the House Nancy Pelosi so far rejected to make that move. She
fears
that an impeachment process will only help Trump during the upcoming campaign season. He would certainly try to block the process.
He would play the victim and demonize the Democrats over it. The media noise during a running impeachment process would also drown
out any other policy issues the Democrats might want to highlight. Russiagate already did that throughout the last two and a half
years. It didn't help the party.
But there are also arguments that an impeachment process could damage Trump and increase the chance that he loses the 2020 election.
Professor Alan Lichtman, who correctly predicted all presidential election since 1984,
uses 13 true/false
statements to judge if the candidate of the incumbent party will get elected. His current prediction:
"Trump wins again in 2020 unless six of 13 key factors turn against him. I have no final verdict yet because much could change
during the next year. Currently, the President is down only three keys: Republican losses in the midterm elections, the lack of
a foreign policy success, and the president's limited appeal to voters."
One of Lichtman's key factors is 9. Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.
Lichtman thinks that an impeachment process would be negative for Trump:
"Democrats are fundamentally wrong about the politics of impeachment and their prospects for victory in 2020. An impeachment and
subsequent trial would cost the president a crucial fourth key -- the scandal key -- just as it cost Democrats that key in 2000.
The indictment and trial would also expose him to dropping another key by encouraging a serious challenge to his re-nomination.
Other potential negative keys include the emergence of a charismatic Democratic challenger, a significant third-party challenge,
a foreign policy disaster, or an election-year recession. Without impeachment, however, Democratic prospects are grim."
I disagree with that take. Even with impeachment and a nomination challenger Trump would likely still win the election.
There is no charismatic Democratic challenger in sight. Currently leading in the primary polls are Biden, Sanders and Warren.
Neither of them can compete with the Trump's popularity. Despite Russiagate he still
has a 41% approval rating which is quite
high for a midterm presidency.
Trump is also a master at playing the media. He would surely find ways to turn an impeachment circus to his advantage.
His arguments would be very simply:
If I, as your all powerful president, had really wanted to obstruct the investigation, I would have succeeded.
or
Why would I have obstructed an investigation that I was sure would find me innocent - which it clearly did.
Trump would turn the impeachment process from a scandal about him into a scandal that the Democrats are to blame for.
With or without impeachment the Democrats have little chance to win the presidency. They should concentrate on keeping their House
majority and on fetching more Senate seats. An impeachment will be anyway be unsuccessful because the Republicans own the Senate
and will vote down any impeachment indictment that might pass the House.
The Democrats can only win the 2020 election if they have a real strong policy issue that is supported by a large majority
of the population. 'Medicare for all'
is such a winner
. Health care is THE top issue for U.S. voters. Some two thirds of them
support a universal government run health insurance that would cover the basic health issues and catastrophic cases. Private
insurance for more cosmetic issues could be bought on top of that.
But significant parts of the Democratic party leadership are against such a system. They fear for the large donations and
other bribes the pharma and health industry throws at them.
During the midterm election Gallup
asked voters
about their main policy issues. Despite two years of loud media noise Russiagate was the issue they named least. An impeachment process
would likewise create lots of media attention, but would have little relevance for the real problems the voters care about. It would
drown out the policy messages the Democrats need to send.
To hype Russiagate was already a mistake. The voters did not care about it. To go for impeachment over murky obstruction charges
would likely be worse.
Posted by b on May 29, 2019 at 01:57 PM |
Permalink
"If we have confidence the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so."
_____________________________________________
Mueller's statements constitute reprehensible innuendo. As B. notes, both this oblique negative "clarification" and Mueller's
implication that his hands were tied by DOJ regulations amounts to a reprehensible attempt to signal that the institutional anti-Trump
"Resistance" should vigorously pursue stitching up Trump despite Mueller's own inability to do so.
It's like a tag-team marathon lynching, and the odious Mueller is handing off the baton to his teammates in malfeasance.
It's not exactly a selfless act on Mueller's part, either. If Trump is prematurely removed from office, or sufficiently slandered
to a point that renders him unelectable, Mueller and his corrupt associates will claim vindication.
Impeachment would be another distraction that would go nowhere positive for either party so it won't happen.
Trump has as much dirt on the Dems as they do on him......it would be an ugly cat fight and the public would win....we can't
have that
I like the last paragraph of Catlin Johnstone's latest
"
All political analysis which favors either the Democratic Party or the Republican Party is inherently worthless, because both
parties are made of swamp and exist in service of the swamp. If you can't see that the entire system is one unified block of corruption
and that ordinary people need to come together and unite against it, then you really don't understand what you're looking at.
"
Here essentially is Mueller's spin job: "Russians hacked Hillary & I didn't find Trump didn't collude with them, I just
came up short on proof, and I never said he didn't obstruct my probe, just that I wasn't allowed to charge it. However,Congress
can charge him thru impeachment" Mueller is likely to have his day in court along with the rest of the conspirators. How will
those public hangings affect Lichtman's 13 keys?
Impeachment PROCEEDINGS will divert attention away from Trump being an Israeli stooge. Trump is too valuable for Israeli interests
to be removed from office.
I voted for Trump based on 3 issues; Immigration, trade policy and ending futile foreign wars. As far as I am concerned,
he's failed on all three and I don't care if he is removed from office.
The investigation should have been about Israel and Saudi Arabias collusion with US Presidents, of which Trump has just managed
to take the mask off for all to see. Since Nixon the US has guaranteed Saudi Arabias safety due to the Petro-dollar. The US to
stay in the Saudis good graces has based our foreign policy on their objectives, even willing to join them as being the largest
financiers of terrorists (such as al Qaeda) in the world and with the genocide in Yemen. The Saudi objectives also align with
Israels, as outline in their "Clean Break" policy in 1996 and thus ours.
The job of the Democratic Party is to take out progressives in the primary, for a corporate shill favorable to their donors.
Impeachment would just divert their efforts. The Democratic establishments working hard to take down Bernie and Tulsi. They would
rather have Trump than a true progressive.
The utter falsity underlying the entire Russiagate hoax makes for big D Party problems. Current R Party Senate majority would
likely negate an Impeachment Conviction; and do we really want Pence to become POTUS?! The better political move is to remove
Trump via the 2020 election. Sanders would have won handily in 2016 and will do so if given the opportunity in 2020, particularly
if it's Sanders/Gabbard. More could be said, and likely will later.
Nothing matters except results. Another dem/rep talking head lying and making promises they'll never keep. Sorry, all done with
that. My government is now something to be endured. The time is now to create our own solutions to our common problems. Enough
is enough.
Sadly Trump was only the beginning. Most people have a blind belief in our system of government and once they lose that trust
they are going to be electing people who make Trump look like the the best thing since sliced cheese. Go read the text of the
Abortion law in Kentucky. Sick stuff.
Basically I can agree with b, thou for my part, I've seen nothing from the dems in years !! They play this centralist game as
if one damn republican will ever side with anything they say ?? Also, the dems are just as to blame for this current mess, ie,
Obama's that's look forward and not backward, failure to haul all the criminal bankers to court, not to mention they never forfeited
a dollar, but make even more !! Then there is this crappy bailout of insurance companies along with the bankers and all others
that benefited from this bailout !!! Also thanks to the great Bill and paving the way for the 2008 crisis, yes Bill, we know,
you just didn't think it would turn out that way !! Straight from the liar that brings forth an even bold lair in Trump !!
All that said, I agree with the statement offered by Psychohistorian which offers the truth of Caitlin Johnstone's last paragraph
!!! In other words we're screwed !!!
Trump is not a master at playing the media. This I think is an outright falsification designed to further nonsense about Trump
the stable genius. Trump is favored by the rich people who buy advertising. If they had wanted, the TV news would have covered
Trump's business career the same way they covered Clinton's email/Benghazi/Clinton Foundation. And they would have given Sanders
the same free publicity they gave Trump in the primaries too.
Trump impeachment for emoluments clause, Trump impeachment for relations with Saudi, Trump impeachment over illegal transfer
of funds (Nixon called it impounding) Trump impeachment over yes executive privilege do indeed offer enormous opportunities to
Democrats. Impeachment over treason with Russia doesn't, but then, equally stupid nonsense about Clinton treason got endless play,
didn't it?
The Clinton impeachment did not help the Republican in the Senate, though, as near as I can tell, actually pinning a Senator
to their vote in the trial makes a difference.
Licthman is not as big a fool as many political scientists seem to be, but predicting the EC winner is not really what he's
predicting. He predicted that Trump would win. I think at this moment Trump would lose the election again, but win the EC again.
And I would say his really strong moves are in gerrymanders and vote suppression.
The economic factor does not strongly favor Trump, no more than it strongly favored Clinton. The official statistics are not
very reliable in measure the welfare of the citizens (not least because the government doesn't care.)
If Hillary and Pelosi are against impeachment, how can any progressive not be FOR impeachment?
The timeline here is telling:
1) In December 2018 - before the vote for the Speaker of the House - Trump invited Pelosi and Schumer to the oval office to
discuss the Wall. This helped Pelosi to win the vote for Speaker of the House.
4) On April 23rd, as Democrats continued to push for impeachment, Hillary came out of retirement to support Pelosi who was
beset with demands from Democrats to impeach Trump. Hillary urged caution and said that the Senate would not convict so impeachment
was essentially useless (not so!).
<> <> <> <> <> <>
The reluctance to impeach Trump is in sharp contrast to the 'Deep State' horror during the 2016 election at the prospect of
a Trump presidency and the (supposed) continuing anger at Trump since.
But it supports what I've said for at least a year now:
The 'Deep State' was shocked by Russia's determined action against their plans in Syria (2013) and Ukraine (2014).
They decided that the next President should be MAGA nationalist and overt militarist (as indicated by Kissingers WSJ
Op-Ed of August 2014) and the fact that Trump was the only MAGA nationalist candidate in the Republican Primary
(out of a field of 19!).
Hillary ran a terrible campaign that raises serious doubts that she wanted to win. Her deliberate loss is highly likely
as she is a member of the 'Deep State' that wanted a MAGA nationalist. (Other likely 'Deep State' members: Bush, McCain, Brennan,
Mueller)
In addition to electing a MAGA nationalist, CIA/MI6/Mossad used the election to initiate a new McCarthyism, to smear
Wikileaks, and to settle scores with Michael Flynn (who had angered them with his admission that the Obama Administration had
made a "willful decision" to support ISIS) .
thanks b... i pretty much agree with you and many of the comments -and tend to agree with @13 steven johnsons comments which run
counter to some of it here as well... i don't think trump is this brilliant media manipulator... israel / ksa and a few other
obvious suspects are determined to keep trump in power.. meanwhile the cia/dem russiagate story is a complete distraction that
many are not completely buying - fortunately...
no matter impeachment or not - the cia seems to be running the usa at this point, which is likely how israel/ military / financial
complex like it too... trump is the perfect fit! until the dems come up with a different strategy, trump will continue to muddle
along with all his trump fans in tow... the guy is a complete jackass - perfect alibi for those who are really running the show
here..
for an example of otherwise intelligent people getting completely distracted by russiagate, visit emptywheel.. the can see the
trees so well, they are unable to see the forest they are living in..
At the heart of the issue are limits on the powers of the special counsel. Many legal scholars believe a sitting president
can't be criminally indicted, meaning that if Mueller finds evidence of crimes by Trump, his strongest recourse might well
be to make a referral to Congress for potential impeachment proceedings. But some of those experts tell TPM that under the
regulation governing the special counsel's office, Mueller lacks the authority to make that referral without approval from
Justice Department officials overseeing his investigation.
After Kenneth Starr's pursuit of Bill Clinton, Congress changed the laws governing special investigations in 1999: No
longer could a three-judge panel appoint an "independent counsel" acting with no direct DOJ oversight. Instead, the decision
to appoint a "special counsel" had to be made by the attorney general. In Mueller's case, Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused
himself, because of meetings he had held with the Russian ambassador, leaving Rosenstein to appoint and manage Mueller and
his probe.
[ Jeff Sessions and Rosenstein have left DOJ. William Barr replaced Sesssions and, AFAIK, has no reason to recuse himself
so later references to Rosenstein's authority should apply to Barr instead. ]
"Those regulations don't explicitly give the special counsel authority to make a referral," William Yeomans, a 26-year
DOJ veteran who has served as an acting assistant attorney general and is now a fellow at the Alliance for Justice, told TPM.
"If there is a referral, it's going to have to go through Rosenstein [ Barr ] . Ultimately,
it's probably his decision."
Susan Low Bloch, professor of constitutional law at Georgetown Law School, agreed. " Rosenstein [ Barr ] decides what to
do, and if he sees an impeachable offense I would say that he should send it to Congress," she said in a phone interview on
Monday. "But if he chooses not to, I don't think you can do anything."
The new US "justice" system- -- "If we have confidence the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so."
So sorry about that pal, you must be guilty because you can't prove you're innocent.
And you, over there, snickering in the corner -- I have no proof of your innocence either! . . .Get the cuffs.
I don't think impeachment will be pursued as long as Pelosi is Speaker of the House. How likely are Democrats to pursue it? They
don't have the guts or the honor to carry it off. They were complicit in the Iraq War, joining the Republicans, and brought no
impeachment against G.W. Bush for his crimes against humanity, for implementing torture as policy, and even upholding as legal
such unspeakable acts. Along the arc of the government's vile history it's clear that the Democrats have surrendered and made
accommodations for crimes as they occurred. Pelosi and her leadership surrendered at each step to the creeping fascism and the
surveillance state. They are as eager to see Assange destroyed, Venezuela invaded, and to look blithely upon a dystopian, Big
Brother state. They are quite as infamous as the republicans.
Impeachment talk is now just a way to fill time before next summer's Democratic nomination. I think B is exactly right, the resulting
circus in the Senate would give Trump 2-3 extra points in the polls, which would bring his odds up (my intuitive guess) from 1:4
now to 1:1.
A Biden candidacy would make it really hard to make anything other than "I am not Trump" to be the message. Anyway there are
other things going on.
The economy and China seem to be the wild card.
On a popular level, basic and unsophisticated hostility toward China might actually be a positive for Trump's audience, I really
don't know.
The agricultural-export states currently eating the consequences of the trade war so far will vote Republican either way, they're
irrelevant.
For Boeing to hit a pain point via China would be very significant. But their response would be to just tell the Trump admin
what to do, rather than bother changing the election.
Natural gas industry would be electorally significant, because it is centered on the most pivotal state, PA. But global natgas
flows and pricing take years to change, so the timing may prevent it from being a relevant issue in the election. (Japan's re-nuclearization,
hence reduction of LNG imports, may be a closely related subject to watch, with Trump there just now)
There is bipartisan support for Trump's targets of choice - China, Iran, Venezuela, but the mob parts ways on Russia. Trump and
the smaller faction behind him recognise that Russia needs to become a neutral if not an ally US to give the US a chance at taking
down China.
The larger part of the mob think they can take down any combination of target countries as they are the exceptional nation.
Over the last few weeks China seem to have decided that what Trump kicked off will be continuing with increasing intensity
and now going into war mode. Russia came to this point shortly after MH17. I don't think Trump would have succeeded in separating
Russia from China, but Russiagate is ensuring that Russia and China form a solid war mode alliance against the US.
The last guns and butter President was LBJ, and it ruined his presidency. Social programs like Medicare for All (single payer),
tuition free college and infrastructure are not possible with continued high military expenditures and foreign wars. Tulsi Gabbard
states this clearly and it's resonating when she's allowed to be heard. In addition, Trump has made himself vulnerable to a
real antiwar candidate with the Venezuela fiasco, delaying the withdrawal from Syria and vetoing the Yemen bill. But only
a real antiwar candidate can win unless Trump actually starts a war. I'm disappointed Bernard doesn't even mention Tulsi
as a charismatic candidate who could defeat Trump if given a fair shot at the nomination.
Unfortunately, as Jimmy Dore says, "Democrats would rather lose to a Republican than win with a progressive." Their strategy
of flooding the field with just enough "favorite son" candidates to keep anyone from winning on the first ballot will work, allowing
super delegates to nominate Biden as a "compromise," who will lose hands down to Trump unless Trump actually starts a war.
Perhaps the best outcome would be for the House to start impeachment proceedings at the same time Barr indicts both Orrs, Page,
Strzok, Comey, Brennan, Clapper, Rice (Susan), Clinton, Obama and perhaps even Mueller himself. Clean out both wings of the stable
at the same time.
Copeland @ 20, well said, couldn't agree more, there's no there when it comes to the dems, a complete sellout of the people they're
supposed to or say they represent !!
I don't know for sure that b understands this country, not having grown up here. What is to oppose this juggernaut of hypocrisy,
and how much more moral accommodation will the traffic bear? It is far more than the case of justice delayed is justice denied.
The repackaging and the makeover of lies will be unendurable for another election cycle, merely going through the motions, just
sticking our nostrils into the stink of corruption one more time.
The objective of this political circus is noise, its prime manipulation is to discourage real dialogue, its methods are demagogic.
If any honor could be summoned; it would have as its objective an impeachment proceeding in which there was a determination to
talk about reality, to examine this nation's real problems. It will be easier to accept the counterfeit proceedings of the 2020
campaign.
Imagineering and propaganda are leading us straight to hell. One more season of politics where the candidates of the unreal
appear willing to bamboozle the country, on the altar of power, will put an end to us. One more wretched ambassador of the empire.
One more glad-handing sport to tell us how great we are. One more oligarch or oligarch's man/woman will be the final stroke.
Wow what a disgraced person he really is, instead of correcting that his witch hunt didnt find any collusion nor obvious obstruction,
he just doubles down before retire:
Pulling a Comey: How Mueller dog-whistled Democrats into impeachment of Trump https://on.rt.com/9vdv
US is so finished politcally, new voices, parties needs to be created.
Mueller put a great deal of emphasis on Russian interference with the election, which is being both parroted and universally interpreted
as a Russian hack of the DNC server - a hack which could not possibly have taken place.
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/07/24/intel-vets-challenge-russia-hack-evidence/
The "Russian interference" issue was ancillary to Mueller's investigation, yet it is a focal point of his comments. Why was it
so important that it merited that degree of relative emphasis? If it was a download and not a hack, the only suspect is the late
Seth Rich. The only person (I assume) who can unequivocally prove where those materials came from is Julian Assange. After years,
suddenly asylum is revoked, and suddenly the US is prosecuting for espionage. After years of disparagement, mainstream media is
suddenly rallying to Assange's case - yet truth be told nobody at CNN will ever face even administrative sanction for the same
sort of activity as Assange's. SOS Pompeo met with FM Lavrov, came back to the US and said he had warned Lavrov about interfering
with US elections...and Lavrov and Russian press reported those statements were never made. Apparently someone corrected Pompeo's
errant failure, and at the next meeting he did in fact warn Lavrov about such interference. Obviously it was a big deal - to someone
that was sufficiently powerful to tell the SOS what to do with great specificity - that this official condemnation was publicly
registered. It certainly was not Trump. Lavrov responded with not only denial, but as Aaron Mate pointed out and was noted here,
Lavrov said he had a file on it and was prepared to discuss it. Pompeo was not prepared to discuss whatever was in that file.
Although it is patently obvious the Russians did not hack the DNC server, and that the materials in question - which relate to
HRC - were downloaded, it is apparently an imperative of a very large number of powerful people to maintain the official narrative
of a Russian hack of the DNC computer. While that suits other narratives, it also buries any questions as to who might have downloaded
the materials (and someone did). Which ends any inquiry as to what might have happened from that moment in time, just as inquiry
into Whitewater ended with Vince Foster's demise and an incredibly "irregular" forensic inquiry. Boxes of documents were removed
from Foster's office that same evening - by HRC personally. Recall she wanted to drone strike Assange. All of this is happening
on the heels of the revelation that the Mueller investigation was not going to take down Trump and end all potential for inquiry
into any untoward DNC related activity. Thank you in advance to any comments in response to this comment.
After reading numerous articles on "Russia gate," the 2016 presidential election and the rise of Generalissimo Bone Spur and President
Chief Kaiser to the US presidency, Donald Trump, the 19th century British political historian and thinker Lord Acton summed it
all up best; namely "never underestimate the influence of stupidity on history." What else is there to say?
@ Bruce # 29 with the Seth Rich questions about the DNC
You are correct in pointing out that the Mueller investigation is hiding DNC and Clinton II crimes which is why I said above
that the impeachment will not proceed. Somewhere I read that Hillary is on tape having said that she/they were screwed if Trump
won.
The bottom line is that none of those folks are working in my best interest and are committing crime after crime to stay in
power.
Impeachment indeed would be a mistake. The Dems have been denigrating trump from the beginning and what has that got them?
Also, remember Trey Gowdy and his endless investigations? Adam Shiff is nearly as repugnant and should turn to other work in
Congress.
Yes, SharonM, Tulsi is charismatic, as well as calm and collected. So far, though, she is being ignored by the D.C. pundits.
We should keep an eye on her positioning with respect to the new DNC debate thresholds.
It won't take a masterful performance given the news that keeps spilling over the transom. Meanwhile Mueller plays his criminal
hand of innuendo until the end. Were he ever to submit to questions in a Congressional setting, Mueller would be out-Giancana-ing
Sam on taking the Fifth. The Special Counsel format is at this stage a superseded footnote. The ball's now in Barr/Durham's court
now and the theme is Hunt for Red Predicates.
Breaking news. The Russia Collusion time-zero may in fact lead to Rome as all roads are wont to do. Italy is not a Five Eyes member.
However that did not prevent Obama and Brennan from treating it like one. Both spent a lot of time there at opportune moments.
As it turns out the oft-cited, oft-profaned Steele Dossier was the barest of predicates that was always meant to be hopped
over anyway. The Mother of all Predicates was a a failed effort on the the part of Italian intelligence and the FBI to frame Trump
in a stolen (Clinton) email scandal. How did the Italians get hold of these emails and who thwarted the frame-up attempt? Hmm.
Just when you think the transnational plot is thick enough, it gets thickerer, and if Obama's Milan itinerary's any indication,
it may well reach the tippy-top.
Nine Days in May (2017) is where 90% of the action is.
@29 bruce... everyone here at moa is saying much the same which is why some of us are saying the cia is running the usa at this
point.. that and a confluence of other interests... mueller - ex cia... so, basically the mueller investigation was more cover
up and b.s. for the masses... it seems to have worked to a limited degree..
Some think the CIA has been running the show since the Kennedy assassination. But with the rise of the neocons and the
end of the Cold War, it became more apparent.
IMO it also became more apparent when the Deep State f*cked up by no bringing Russia on-side after the end of the Cold
War while continuing to assist China's "peaceful rise". That caused the dislocation known as Trump. There's gonna be some turbulence
when you turn a massive entity like USA.
Last thing that as become 'apparent' is this: the vast majority of people in the West (including many smart people in alt-media)
can't dislodge their thinking from the MSM narratives. Despite being skeptical of MSM and USA, they just can't bring themselves
to see the degree of manipulation that leads to the logical conclusion: "CIA is running the USA".
Regarding a candidate addressing a really important domestic issue in USA, Pres. Trump has drawn the teeth (to an extent) on that
one, and put the Democratic party in the position of either supporting the Republican initiative, or throwing sand in the wheels
of a measure which will be very popular with the American public:
May 9 - surprise medical bills will be outlawed
"...Today I'm announcing principles that should guide Congress in developing bipartisan legislation to end surprise medical
billing...we have bipartisan support, which is rather shocking..."
Whatever you may think of Trump, the people who set out to 'get him' are the scum of the Earth. I recommend listening to the two-part
interview of George Papadopoulos with Mark Steyn, where he describes the convoluted plot to use him to bring down Trump.
What they did to this guy is truly disgusting. Brennan belongs in a prison cell, and he should be sharing it with Mueller.
Papadopoulos also has written a book about his experiences called 'Deep State Target, How I got caught in the crosshairs of the
plot to bring down President Trump.
And, a final comment. Hillary Clinton proved beyond all doubt that she and not Trump was not fit to be President. To engage
in this scheme and then to raise tensions through the roof with a nuclear superpower, which can destroy this country, is about
as low and selfish as it is possible to be.
the democrats don't really have squat as far as real impeachment charges are concerned. I lived through Watergate and everyone
in college at that time enjoyed that circus daily, and there was real evidence which continued to grow as the hearings went on.....
please recall only one of the charges against nixon related at all to the war, if I recall, about the 'secret' bombings of Cambodia
- there's nothing in foreign policy they can or would indict this guy on (sad to say), without involving their own complicity
in all the wars and war crimes in Yemen, Syria, Iraq and so on... Same goes for their incredible Surveillance State. they are
all guilty.
This business against trump would be pure showmanship, and the democrats have lost nearly every single time they tried to show
up trump, who is admittedly a sorry rotten ass it's true but a more clever showman and bullshitter than any of them.
how can the Democrats win on anything other than bread and butter issues? but they haven't been strongly in favor of the working
and middle classes in 30-40 years and are a corporate party more now than ever. they fucked up so bad in 2016 and have been totally
distracting with this 'Russiagate' nonsense. nobody that makes a real living in the country gives a shit about that, it's health
care, wages, standard of living, climate catastrophe and other real things that concern people.
maybe the Russiagates make a lot of noise, but so far Pelosi and Schumer know better than to fall into that trap
As long as the US and world economy don't tank (which I believe is a very real possibility - like what gave Obama his win against
McCain in sept-nov 2008), then alas, I believe Trump will very likely win. but well over 17 months to election is a long long
time in politics and many things can happen.
b is correct in stating that the Democrats' hyping of Russiagate was a mistake, but he is wrong in believing that impeaching Trump
would be a similar mistake. That is because Trump, in rejecting Congress's efforts to investigate his administration, has gone
beyond mere obstruction of justice. He has declared that Congress has not the power to investigate his office, which is a direct
violation of the Constitution's provision that Congress has not only the power, but the duty, to oversee the Executive Branch.
If the Democrats accept such a declaration, then the United States will have officially crossed the line into authoritarianism
and fascism. Whether Trump's chances of re-election are helped or hurt is almost besides the point. The nation cannot meekly bow
to the will of a tyrant who holds himself unaccountable and above the law.
The Democrats presumably had the option of taking the high road against Trump and trying to legislate around him, but chose
the low road instead. Now find themselves spinning their wheels in the muck, with no other options on the table.
As they continue down this road, it will only show how useless the whole charade is becoming. The assumption being There Is
No Alternative. The underlying intention being true oligarchy, as this equivalent of a national home loan eventually comes due
and those with the biggest piles of treasuries intending to trade them for the remaining public assets, facilitated by those bureaucrats
who understand they are already working for their future employers.
Yet the only tool of control they will have, as all hope dies, is fear. Then the reset will start, as the scab becomes ever
more separate from the wound. The nations of the Eurasian continent will eventually thank the US for forcing them to work together,
while we and those most attached, such as England, slowly come to realize that it is all about something far deeper and more important,
than the Benjamins. We need public finance, like we needed public government and usurped monarchies. The bankers are having their
'Let them eat cake' moment and it is getting messy. They may as well wallow in the swamp.
The purpose of Russiagate was to 1) prevent any foreign policy initiative which featured rapprochement with Russia. 2) prevent
or forestall any honest appraisal of why Clinton lost.
It is obvious that the Democratic Party establishment is hostile to progressive initiatives, including a Single Payer medical
system which absolutely would be a winning platform in America. Therefore the impeachment circus will continue as it keeps the
Dem base focussed on the supposed national emergency which is Trump. Trump's election was probably the biggest opening for non-mainstream
politics in decades in America, and its been mostly squandered by deliberate misdirection.
Impeachment is not a conviction, it just shoves a trial over to the Senate where the Democrats are sure to lose. Its poor
strategy to proceed with more nonsense. The whole Russian maneuver is going to end badly for them. They are turning Trump from
a sure loser to a possible winner.
There is some talk of kicking Pence off the ticket and adding Nicky Haley if there is a sense of trouble in Trumps reelection.
They promised us a 100 years war. 4 more years of Trump and 8 years of Haley would add another 12. Probably we will have those
12 more years of war no matter who is in the office. The socialist opposition is absent of war party opposition.
Someone mentioned the economy and that could end it all for the Trump ticket. Things look lousy.
The relevant provision you are looking for would be
Article 1 / Section 8 of the US
Constitution. Congressional oversight is implied in the US Constitution rather than stated explicitly. Further information and
elaboration of Congress's powers of oversight
are at this link.
What do you expect from the master of coverup himself? He basically said in so many words "Russians hacked Hillary &
I didn't find Trump didn't collude with them, I just came up short on proof, and I never said he didn't obstruct my probe, just
that I wasn't allowed to charge it. However,Congress can charge him thru impeachment"
Except for the Russian involvement
thats the truth. But the Russian spin is the key to maintaining Russia as a fake enemy and using their fake involvement in the
election to get support to suppress alt media and censor social media. This is a bipartisan agenda. Impeachment just serves to
divide and distract, exactly what they want.
Russia like China is a fake enemy. Fake conflict with the US serves them just as well as it does with the US. The people must
have an enemy lest they focus attention on the government. So they all play along.
No wonder hollywood is producing crap now and messed up GOT finale. All the good writers are engaged in scripting our reality
under the guidance of the Deep State. Trumps nothing more than an actor following a script.
An Impeachment attempt would guarantee an already likely Trump re-election win. If there is an attempt to impeach him, he'll beat
his breast all the way back into the White House saying he is being "witch hunted". What is also interesting is how other commenters
talked about disappointment in Trump's trade policy.
Isn't free trade an ongoing gift to the multinationals and oligarchy? And
while a trade war will certainly hurt the common man - the common man doesn't vote based on the absolute cost of goods in Wal
Mart. They vote based on whether they think their interests are at least being listened to. Underestimating the anger at offshored
jobs and production is exactly the mistake the DNC and mainline Democrats have been making.
In any case, my view is that Bernie Sanders is the biggest factor, not Trump. Even without H. Rodham running, the DNC will
do everything it can to not let Bernie be the Progressive or Liberal representative in the Presidential race - even to the point
of losing again to Trump. That's what really matters in 2020.
@jackrabbit.. Clearly we see it in a similar way... everything else is the cult of political personality - trump, pelosi,
clinton, mueller, brennan, barr and etc etc - sideshow to keep the kiddies entertained.. meanwhile the fox continues to run the
chicken house..
don't get me wrong.. whether one votes for scuzball trump, or scuzball whoever from the dems - it will be business as
usual - war, war, and more war with an ongoing sideshow of political personality to keep everyone distracted.. both the repubs
and the dems have shown their true colour and it has nothing to do with small people getting a leg up.. maga my ass and all the
rest of the politically subservient tripe..
"Democrats would rather lose to a Republican than win with a progressive." Their strategy of flooding the field with just enough
"favorite son" candidates to keep anyone from winning on the first ballot will work, allowing super delegates to nominate Biden
as a "compromise," who will lose hands down to Trump unless Trump actually starts a war.
The first parts I agree with entirely, and on that account I must retreat from my earlier declaration Sanders would win. As
things stand now, I believe he has no chance to get the nomination.
The second part is where we disagree. I have a visceral feeling Trump will not be President in 2021 unless some extra-legal
things happen, for any of the Democrats in the race will defeat him - badly. Even the horrid Biden. Biden or one of the other
Hillary clones will most likely take office in 2021. I'd prefer Warren, Sanders or Gabbard, but the Democratic Big Brass aren't
likely to allow any of these.
@ Jen 49
re: Rob 44 -- the Constitution's provision that Congress has not only the power, but the duty, to oversee the Executive Branch
> The relevant provision you are looking for would be Article 1 / Section 8 of the US Constitution.
No, it isn't there.
> Congressional oversight is implied in the US Constitution rather than stated explicitly.
Implication? Come on. Rob 44's cmt is above -- "Constitution's provision..."
> Further information and elaboration of Congress's powers of oversight are at this link.
Requested Page Not Found (404).
Wow! Is it me or is the room getting a tad bit louder discussing impeachment? Do you know what it means? It means the the impeachment
distraction is working perfectly! Also, just in time to rescue the Demoncrats, the Republitards are passing anti-abortion bills
that are bad enough to increase Demoncrat voter turnout. Accordingly, for the regular voter, the wars, coups, and trade will remain
out of sight, out of mind. Congratulations, Amerikan regime! You guys are awesome!
GCHQ has dismissed fresh allegations that it spied on Donald Trump's presidential campaign -
describing the claims as "utterly ridiculous".
Larry Johnson, a former CIA analyst, has accused the British intelligence agency of helping
Barack Obama by spying on the billionaire businessman during the 2016 race.
The US president tweeted about the rumours on Wednesday after they were highlighted in a
report on the right-wing One America News Network.
Mr Trump wrote: "'Former CIA analyst Larry Johnson accuses United Kingdom Intelligence of
helping Obama Administration Spy on the 2016 Trump Presidential Campaign.' @OANN WOW!
"It is now just a question of time before the truth comes out, and when it does, it will be
a beauty!"
"... Muller has been and is a partisan hack. His job is to clearly state if President colluded or obstructed justice. If he did show collusion or obstruction, and then declined to indict due to Justice Department restrictions then it will be up to the Congress to impeach. He did no such thing but wrote a clumsy report & held a clumsy press conference. Time to drop this charade. ..."
"... There is no evidence that the state of Russia officially did anything. Only a couple of private people and Ukraine (Fancy Bear is Ukrainian). The worst thing the deep state does is continue to promote that the Russians did anything. Hillary's gang did do something is the only story. ..."
"... It is very depressing to see the Dems abandoning government and the future direction of the country, to go full time witch-hunt. ..."
Muller has been and is a partisan hack. His job is to clearly state if President colluded or obstructed justice. If he did
show collusion or obstruction, and then declined to indict due to Justice Department restrictions then it will be up to the Congress
to impeach. He did no such thing but wrote a clumsy report & held a clumsy press conference. Time to drop this charade.
There is no evidence that the state of Russia officially did anything. Only a couple of private people and Ukraine (Fancy Bear
is Ukrainian). The worst thing the deep state does is continue to promote that the Russians did anything. Hillary's gang did do
something is the only story.
Wikileaks got their information from a thumb drive given to them by a disgusted Democratic Party worker. Trumps best friends
are those that are being smeared: Russia, China, Assange. When Trump believes trash talk against the innocent by the guilty, he
works against himself.
OMG. Don't you "get it?" At the very top levels, those above Trump and government officials, Trump was given exoneration
with major players, who control the leadership of their party, opposing any further action on the exoneration, and they got Assange.
Happened at the same exact time. When all of a sudden, Trump "didn't know WikiLeaks."
Fine..... time to release all documents related to Uranium One, the Clinton Foundation, Benghazi, the FISA courts, the political
spying by the Obola Administration....
The Dems want nuklear political warfare? Give them nuklear criminal and judicial warfare?
But they better be aware there won't be any Democrats around to run for 2020 'cause they will all be dealing with their own
criminal proceedings.
GCHQ has dismissed fresh allegations that it spied on Donald Trump's presidential campaign -
describing the claims as "utterly ridiculous".
Larry Johnson, a former CIA analyst, has accused the British intelligence agency of helping
Barack Obama by spying on the billionaire businessman during the 2016 race.
The US president tweeted about the rumours on Wednesday after they were highlighted in a
report on the right-wing One America News Network.
Mr Trump wrote: "'Former CIA analyst Larry Johnson accuses United Kingdom Intelligence of
helping Obama Administration Spy on the 2016 Trump Presidential Campaign.' @OANN WOW!
"It is now just a question of time before the truth comes out, and when it does, it will be
a beauty!"
Propaganda works until it does not. Neoliberal propaganda lost power to pusvade the USA voters after 2008. that's why Trump was
elected. And that is the problem that forced neoliberal elite to invent Russiagate.
Caitlin Johnstone is wrong: for Sunders it was not propagandas which derailed him: it was criminal machinations of DNC
Kamala Harris again demonstrated that she is an establishment candidature uncapable of independent thinking. She bought
Russiagate narrative "hook, line, and sinker"
Notable quotes:
"... Another concern people have been voicing, which has far more legitimacy, is the fear of election tampering from domestic actors. ..."
"... Initiatives are sprouting up to bring more election security and reliability to the United States, which is currently ranked dead last in election integrity among all western democracies. Support for paper ballots is picking up steam with support from Senate Democrats and multiple presidential candidates, and rightly so; hand-counted paper ballots is considered the gold standard for election integrity, and every nation should want that for their voting systems. ..."
"After the Mueller report was released, our president called Vladimir
Putin, spent an hour on the phone with him,"
Democratic presidential
candidate Beto O'Rourke
said
on
CBS's
Face The Nation
yesterday. "Described the report as a hoax, giving Putin
a green light to further interfere in our democracy."
"Russia interfered in the 2016 election,"
tweeted
presidential
candidate Kamala Harris the other day. "If we don't do anything to upgrade our election
infrastructure, we will leave our nation vulnerable to future attacks."
We've been seeing
many
such hysterical warnings
about Russian interference in the upcoming 2020 elections, and
as the election gets nearer we are 100 percent guaranteed to see a lot more.
Another concern people have been voicing, which has far more legitimacy, is the
fear of election tampering from domestic actors.
An
article
published the other day by
Roll Call
reports that experts are warning
America's 2020 elections "will be held on voting machines that are woefully outdated and
that any tampering by adversaries could lead to disputed results." An
article
published last month
by the
Guardian
warns that new voting machines aren't
necessarily an improvement.
"The purchases replace machines from the turn of the century that raise serious
security concerns," the
Guardian
reports. "But the same companies that made and
sold those machines are behind the new generation of technology, and a history of
distrust between election security advocates and voting machine vendors has led to a
bitter debate over the viability of the new voting equipment -- leaving some campaigners
wondering if America's election system in 2020 might still be just as vulnerable to
attack."
Initiatives are sprouting up to bring more election security and reliability to
the United States, which is currently
ranked
dead last
in election integrity among all western democracies.
Support for
paper ballots is picking up steam with
support
from Senate Democrats
and multiple presidential candidates, and rightly so; hand-counted
paper ballots is considered
the
gold standard
for election integrity, and every nation should want that for their voting
systems.
But neither foreign interference nor domestic vote tampering will be the most
egregious form of election meddling that we will see in America's 2020 presidential
elections.
A scholar and intellectual of high standards and impeccable integrity, Lukacs was completely
content to teach at these modest Catholic colleges. He always despised the empty plumage of
academe, its titles and honors and pecking orders. He lamented that most of his colleagues
had abandoned historical scholarship for what he called "historianship" (i.e., careerism).
But it wasn't just academic culture: Lukacs had a combative relationship with intellectual
conventions and conformities of all sorts. Courtly though he could be with students (and with
priests and nuns), he had the temperament of a rebel. His iconoclasm expressed itself
variously
... ... ...
In his feisty autobiography Confessions of
an Original Sinner (1980), Lukacs declared himself a pious Catholic believer, and it is
this firm commitment to a traditional, indeed pre–Vatican II Catholicism, that prompted
many observers to consider him a conservative. His bracing independence of mind, unequivocal
contempt for ideological sects, and hyper-vigilant avoidance of intellectual coteries endeared
him to his most loyal readers. But it certainly curtailed and complicated (and probably
confused) his reputation in some quarters. For example, Lukacs never subscribed to the
standard anti-Communist view of the Cold War, shared by both liberals and conservatives. He
regarded Senator Joseph McCarthy as an opportunistic thug. Dwight Eisenhower and John Foster
Dulles were stupid nationalists who missed an opportunity to end the Cold War after Stalin
died.
Even worse were Lyndon B. Johnson and the Establishment liberals who launched the Vietnam
War. But Lukacs also despised the New Left and the counterculture of the 1960s, with its
decadent contempt for tradition and proud ignorance of history. (He was proudly, defiantly
bourgeois.)
He considered Ronald Reagan bumptious and was both amused and outraged by the neocon
con-artists of the George W. Bush era. He credited Pope John Paul II -- not Reagan or George
H.W. Bush or Mikhail Gorbachev -- with ending the Cold War. In his view, the populist
enthusiasm for Reagan reached its height, or nadir, with the administration of President Donald
Trump , whose vulgar populism represented for the nonagenarian Lukacs the accelerating
decline of the West. In his last months, he worried that the "America First" follies of this
Pied Piper of Populism were leading both America and Europe toward a nationalism reminiscent of
Mussolini in Europe and Huey Long in the United States.
Lukacs's capacity to execute the grand projects he envisioned was legendary. Self-inoculated
against intellectual fashions, he was willing to take on battles for the sake of ideas he
believed in. I suspect that this temperamental capacity to "go it alone" was reinforced by his
wartime experience and family losses, leaving him with a belief that he could not rely on
anyone or anything but himself. Having reached maturity in a war-shattered Eastern Europe, he
grew a tough shell. This indomitable Old World émigré was also, from another
point of view, a classic rugged individualist in the nineteenth-century American style.
At the age of ninety-three, he published We at the Center of the
Universe (2017), an essay collection ranging widely from epistemological (and
historiographical) reflections on "our place in the universe" to Flaubert's Madame
Bovary to reconsiderations of Churchill and Stalin. Unstoppable even in the throes of the
congestive heart failure that eventually killed him, he was still writing until almost the end.
In 2017, in the last substantial essay he ever wrote, his literary life came full circle when
the title " John Lukacs on World War II "
graced the cover of Commonweal.
Although he resented those academic historians who dismissed his writings as literary
oddities or too "popular" to be scholarly, Lukacs took the long view. History -- not
historianship -- would vindicate him. But we don't have to wait for history. It is not too soon
to celebrate him for his contributions to the intellectual life of this country, and for his
defense of a Christian humanism that ideologues of both the left and right did their best to
bury. He will be missed.
Dems only need few select states to campaign in and they will win elections all the time.
Everybody is playing the racists card when they do not like what is said or done!!
"... There are differences between the parties, but they are mainly centered around social issues and disputes with little or no consequence to the long-term path of the country. The real ruling oligarchs essentially allow controlled opposition within each party to make it appear you have a legitimate choice at the ballot box. Nothing could be further from the truth. ..."
"... There has been an unwritten agreement between the parties for decades where the Democrats pretend to be against war and the Republicans pretend to be against welfare. Meanwhile, spending on war and welfare relentlessly grows into the trillions, with no effort whatsoever from either party to even slow the rate of growth, let alone cut spending. The proliferation of the military industrial complex like a poisonous weed has been inexorable, as the corporate arms dealers place their facilities of death in the congressional districts of Democrats and Republicans. In addition, these corporate manufacturers of murder dole out "legal" payoffs to corrupt politicians of both parties in the form of political contributions. The Deep State knows bribes and well-paying jobs ensure no spineless congressman will ever vote against a defense spending increase. ..."
"... Of course, the warfare/welfare state couldn't grow to its immense size without financing from the Wall Street cabal and their feckless academic puppets at the Federal Reserve. The Too Big to Trust Wall Street banks, whose willful control fraud nearly wrecked the global economy in 2008, were rewarded by their Deep State patrons by getting bigger and more powerful as people on Main Street and senior citizen savers were thrown under the bus. ..."
"... When these criminal bankers have their reckless bets blow up in their faces they are bailed out by the American taxpayers, but when the Fed rigs the system so they are guaranteed billions in risk free profits, they reward themselves with massive bonuses and lobby for a huge tax cut used to buy back their stock. With bank branches in every congressional district in every state, and bankers spreading protection money to greedy politicians across the land, no legislation damaging to the banking cartel is ever passed. ..."
"... I voted for Trump because he wasn't Hillary. ..."
"... If the Chinese refuse to yield for fear of losing face, and the tariff war accelerates, a global recession is a certainty. ..."
"... These sociopaths are not liberal or conservative. They are not Democrats or Republicans. They are not beholden to a country or community. They care not for their fellow man. They don't care about future generations. They care about their own power, wealth and control over others. They have no conscience. They have no empathy. Right and wrong are meaningless in their unquenchable thirst for more. They will lie, steal and kill to achieve their goal of controlling everything and everyone in this world. This precisely describes virtually every politician in Washington DC, Wall Street banker, mega-corporation CEO, government agency head, MSM talking head, church leader, billionaire activist, and blood sucking advisor to the president. ..."
"... The problem is we have gone too far. The "American Dream" has become a grotesque nightmare because people by the millions sit around and dream about being a Kardashian. Makes me want to puke. ..."
"I'll show you politics in America. Here it is, right here. "I think the puppet on the
right shares my beliefs." "I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking." "Hey, wait a
minute, there's one guy holding out both puppets!"" – Bill Hicks
Anyone who frequents Twitter, Facebook, political blogs, economic blogs, or fake-news
mainstream media channels knows our world is driven by the "Us versus Them" narrative. It's
almost as if "they" are forcing us to choose sides and believe the other side is evil. Bill
Hicks died in 1994, but his above quote is truer today then it was then. As the American Empire
continues its long-term decline, the proles are manipulated through Bernaysian propaganda
techniques, honed over the course of decades by the ruling oligarchs, to root for their
assigned puppets.
Most people can't discern they are being manipulated and duped by the Deep State
controllers. The most terrifying outcome for these Deep State controllers would be for the
masses to realize it is us versus them. But they don't believe there is a chance in hell of
this happening. Their arrogance is palatable.
Their hubris has reached astronomical levels as they blew up the world economy in 2008 and
successfully managed to have the innocent victims bail them out to the tune of $700 billion,
pillaged the wealth of the nation through their capture of the Federal Reserve (QE, ZIRP),
rigged the financial markets in their favor through collusion, used the hundreds of billions in
corporate tax cuts to buy back their stock and further pump the stock market, all while their
corporate media mouthpieces mislead and misinform the proles.
There are differences between the parties, but they are mainly centered around social
issues and disputes with little or no consequence to the long-term path of the country. The
real ruling oligarchs essentially allow controlled opposition within each party to make it
appear you have a legitimate choice at the ballot box. Nothing could be further from the
truth.
There has been an unwritten agreement between the parties for decades where the
Democrats pretend to be against war and the Republicans pretend to be against welfare.
Meanwhile, spending on war and welfare relentlessly grows into the trillions, with no effort
whatsoever from either party to even slow the rate of growth, let alone cut spending. The
proliferation of the military industrial complex like a poisonous weed has been inexorable, as
the corporate arms dealers place their facilities of death in the congressional districts of
Democrats and Republicans. In addition, these corporate manufacturers of murder dole out
"legal" payoffs to corrupt politicians of both parties in the form of political contributions.
The Deep State knows bribes and well-paying jobs ensure no spineless congressman will ever vote
against a defense spending increase.
Of course, the warfare/welfare state couldn't grow to its immense size without financing
from the Wall Street cabal and their feckless academic puppets at the Federal Reserve. The Too
Big to Trust Wall Street banks, whose willful control fraud nearly wrecked the global economy
in 2008, were rewarded by their Deep State patrons by getting bigger and more powerful as
people on Main Street and senior citizen savers were thrown under the bus.
When these criminal bankers have their reckless bets blow up in their faces they are
bailed out by the American taxpayers, but when the Fed rigs the system so they are guaranteed
billions in risk free profits, they reward themselves with massive bonuses and lobby for a huge
tax cut used to buy back their stock. With bank branches in every congressional district in
every state, and bankers spreading protection money to greedy politicians across the land, no
legislation damaging to the banking cartel is ever passed.
I've never been big on joining a group. I tend to believe Groucho Marx and his cynical line,
"I don't care to belong to any club that will have me as a member". The "Us vs. Them" narrative
doesn't connect with my view of the world. As a realistic libertarian I know libertarian ideals
will never proliferate in a society of government dependency, willful ignorance of the masses,
thousands of laws, and a weak-kneed populace afraid of freedom and liberty. The only true
libertarian politician, Ron Paul, was only able to connect with about 5% of the voting public.
There is no chance a candidate with a libertarian platform will ever win a national election.
This country cannot be fixed through the ballot box. Bill Hicks somewhat foreshadowed the last
election by referencing another famous cynic.
"I ascribe to Mark Twain's theory that the last person who should be President is the one
who wants it the most. The one who should be picked is the one who should be dragged kicking
and screaming into the White House." ― Bill Hicks
Hillary Clinton wanted to be president so badly, she colluded with Barack Obama, Jim Comey,
John Brennan, James Clapper, Loretta Lynch and numerous other Deep State sycophants to ensure
her victory, by attempting to entrap Donald Trump in a concocted Russian collusion plot and
subsequent post-election coup to cover for their traitorous plot. I wouldn't say Donald Trump
was dragged kicking and screaming into the White House, but when he ascended on the escalator
at Trump Tower in June of 2015, I'm not convinced he believed he could win the presidency.
As the greatest self-promoter of our time, I think he believed a presidential run would be
good for his brand, more revenue for his properties and more interest in his reality TV
ventures. He was despised by the establishment within the Republican and Democrat parties. The
vested interests controlling the media and levers of power in society scorned and ridiculed
this brash uncouth outsider. In an upset for the ages, Trump tapped into a vein of rage and
disgruntlement in flyover country and pockets within swing states, to win the presidency over
Crooked Hillary and her Deep State backers.
I voted for Trump because he wasn't Hillary. I hadn't voted for a Republican since
2000, casting protest votes for Libertarian and Constitutional Party candidates along the way.
I despise the establishment, so their hatred of Trump made me vote for him. His campaign
stances against foreign wars and Federal Reserve reckless bubble blowing appealed to me. I
don't worship at the altar of the cult of personality. I judge men by their actions and not
their words.
Trump's first two years have been endlessly entertaining as he waged war against fake news
CNN, establishment Republicans, the Deep State coup attempt, and Obama loving globalists. The
Twitter in Chief has bypassed the fake news media and tweets relentlessly to his followers. He
provokes outrage in his enemies and enthralls his worshipers. With millions in each camp it is
difficult to find an unbiased assessment of narrative versus real accomplishments.
I'm happy he has been able to stop the relentless leftward progression of our Federal
judiciary. Cutting regulations and rolling back environmental mandates has been a positive.
Exiting the Paris Climate Agreement and TPP, forcing NATO members to pay their fair share, and
renegotiating NAFTA were all needed. Ending the war on coal and approving pipelines will keep
energy costs lower. His attempts to vet Muslims entering the country have been the right thing
to do. Building a wall on our southern border is the right thing to do, but he should have
gotten it done when he controlled both houses.
The use of tariffs to force China to renegotiate one sided trade deals as a negotiating
tactic is a high-risk, high reward gamble. If his game of chicken is successful and he gets
better terms from the Chicoms, while reversing the tariffs, it would be a huge win. If the
Chinese refuse to yield for fear of losing face, and the tariff war accelerates, a global
recession is a certainty. Who has the upper hand? Xi is essentially a dictator for life
and doesn't have to worry about elections or popularity polls. Dissent is crushed. A global
recession and stock market crash would make Trump's re-election in 2020 problematic.
I'm a big supporter of lower taxes. The Trump tax cuts were sold as beneficial to the middle
class. That is a false narrative. The vast majority of the tax cut benefits went to
mega-corporations and rich people. Middle class home owning families with children received
little or no tax relief, as exemptions were eliminated and tax deductions capped. In many
cases, taxes rose for working class Americans.
With corporate profits at all time highs, massive tax cuts put billions more into their
coffers. They didn't repatriate their overseas profits to a great extent. They didn't go on a
massive hiring spree. They didn't invest in new facilities. They did buy back their own stock
to help drive the stock market to stratospheric heights. So corporate executives gave
themselves billions in bonuses, which were taxed at a much lower rate. This is considered
winning in present day America.
The "Us vs. Them" issue rears its ugly head whenever Trump is held accountable for promises
unkept, blatant failures, and his own version of fake news. Holding Trump to the same standards
as Obama is considered traitorous by those who only root for their home team. Their standard
response is that you are a Hillary sycophant or a turncoat to the home team. If you agree with
a particular viewpoint or position of a liberal then you are a bad person and accused of being
a lefty by Trump fanboys. Facts don't matter to cheerleaders. Competing narratives rule the
day. Truthfulness not required.
The refusal to distinguish between positive actions and negative actions when assessing the
performance of what passes for our political leadership by the masses is why cynicism has
become my standard response to everything I see, hear or he read. The incessant level of lies
permeating our society and its acceptance as the norm has led to moral decay and rampant
criminality from the White House, to the halls of Congress, to corporate boardrooms, to
corporate newsrooms, to government run classrooms, to the Vatican, and to households across the
land. It's interesting that one of our founding fathers reflected upon this detestable human
trait over two hundred years ago.
"It is impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that mental
lying has produced in society. When a man has so far corrupted and prostituted the chastity
of his mind as to subscribe his professional belief to things he does not believe, he has
prepared himself for the commission of every other crime." – Thomas Paine
Thomas Paine's description of how moral mischief can ruin a society was written when less
than 3 million people inhabited America. Consider his accurate assessment of humanity when over
300 million occupy these lands. The staggering number of corrupt prostituted sociopaths
occupying positions of power within the government, corporations, media, military, churches,
and academia has created a morally bankrupt empire of debt.
These sociopaths are not liberal or conservative. They are not Democrats or Republicans.
They are not beholden to a country or community. They care not for their fellow man. They don't
care about future generations. They care about their own power, wealth and control over others.
They have no conscience. They have no empathy. Right and wrong are meaningless in their
unquenchable thirst for more. They will lie, steal and kill to achieve their goal of
controlling everything and everyone in this world. This precisely describes virtually every
politician in Washington DC, Wall Street banker, mega-corporation CEO, government agency head,
MSM talking head, church leader, billionaire activist, and blood sucking advisor to the
president.
The question pondered every day on blogs, social media, news channels, and in households
around the country is whether Trump is one of Us or one of Them. The answer to that question
will strongly impact the direction and intensity of the climactic years of this Fourth Turning.
What I've noticed is the shunning of those who don't take an all or nothing position regarding
Trump. If you disagree with a decision, policy, or hiring decision by the man, you are accused
by the pro-Trump team of being one of them (aka liberals, lefties, Hillary lovers).
If you don't agree with everything Trump does or says, you are dead to the Trumpeteers. I
don't want to be Us or Them. I just want to be me. I will judge everyone by their actions and
their results. I can agree with Trump on many issues, while also agreeing with Tulsi Gabbard,
Rand Paul, Glenn Greenwald or Matt Taibbi on other issues. I don't prescribe to the cult of
personality school of thought. I didn't believe the false narratives during the Bush or Obama
years, and I won't worship at the altar of the Trump narrative now.
In Part II of this article I'll assess Trump's progress thus far and try to determine
whether he can defeat the Deep State.
"The scientific and industrial revolution of modern times represents the next giant
step in the mastery over nature; and here, too, an enormous increase in man's power over
nature is followed by an apocalyptic drive to subjugate man and reduce human nature to the
status of nature. Even where enslavement is employed in a mighty effort to tame nature, one
has the feeling that the effort is but a tactic to legitimize total subjugation. Thus,
despite its spectacular achievements in science and technology, the twentieth century will
probably be seen in retrospect as a century mainly preoccupied with the mastery and
manipulation of men. Nationalism, socialism, communism, fascism, and militarism,
cartelization and unionization, propaganda and advertising are all aspects of a general
relentless drive to manipulate men and neutralize the unpredictability of human nature. Here,
too, the atmosphere is heavy-laden with coercion and magic." --Eric Hoffer
If you don't agree with everything Trump does or says, you are dead to the
Trumpeteers
That's not true. When Trump kisses Israeli ***, most "Trumpeteers" are outraged. That does
not mean they're going to vote for Joe "I'm a Zionist" Biden, or Honest Hillary because of
it, but they're still pissed.
These predators (((them))) need to fear the Victims, us! That is what the 2ND Amendment is
for. It's coming, slowly for now, but eventually it speeds up.
Any piece like this better be littered with footnotes and cited sources before I'm
swallowing it.
I'll say it again: this is the internet, people. There's no "shortage of column space" to
include links back to primary sources for your assertions. Otherwise, how am I supposed to
distinguish you from another "psy op" or "paid opposition hit piece"?
"The question pondered every day on blogs, social media, news channels, and in households
around the country is whether Trump is one of Us or one of Them."
If you still ponder this question, then you are pretty frickin' thick. It is obvious at
this point, that he betrayed everything he campaigned on. You don't do that and call yourself
one of "us".......damn sure aren't one of "me".
If I couldn't keep my word and wouldn't do what it takes to do what is right.....then I
would resign. But I would not go on playing politics in a world that needs some real
leadership and not another political hack.
The real battle is between Truth and Lie. No matter the name of your "team" or the "side"
you support. Truth is truth and lies are lies. We don't stand for political parties, we stand
for truth. We don't stand for national pride, we take pride in a nation that is truthful and
trustworthy. The minute a "side" or "team" starts lying.....and justifying it.....that is the
minute they become them and not one of us.
Any thinking person in this country today knows we are being lied to by the entire
complex. Until someone starts telling the truth.....we are on our own. But I be damned before
I am going to support any of these lying sons of bitches......and that includes Trump.
Dark comedy. All the elections have been **** choices until the last one. Take a look at
Arkancide.com and start counting the
bodies.
Anyone remember the news telling us how North Korea promised to turn the US into a sea of
fire?? Trump absolutely went to bat for every single American to de-escalate that
situation.
Don't tell me about Arkancide or the Clintons. I grew up in Arkansas with that sack of
**** as my governor for 12 years.
NK was never a real threat to anyone. Trump didn't do ****. NK is back to building and
shooting off missiles and will be teaming up with the Russians and Chinese. You are a duped
bafoon.
I don't think anybody thought NK was an existential threat to the US. It has still been
nice making progress on bringing them back into the world and making them less of a threat to
Japan and S. Korea. Trump did that.
Dennis Rodman did that, or that is to say, Trump an extension thereof ..
Great theater..
Look, i thought it was great that Trump went Kim Unning. I mean after all, i had talked
with a few elderly folks that get their news directly from the mainstream of mainstream,
vanilla news reportage. Propaganda central casting. I remember them being extremely
concerned, outright petrified about that evil menace, kim gonna launch nukes any minute now.
If the news would have been announced a major troop mobilization, bombing campaigns, to begin
immediately they would have been completely onboard, waving the flag.
Frankly, it is only a matter of time, and folks can speculate on the country of interest,
but it is coming soon to a theater near you. So many being in the crosshairs. Iran i suspect
.. that's the big prize, that makes these sociopaths cream in their panties.
Probably. In the second term .. and so far, if ones honestly evaluates the "brain trust" /
current crop of dimwit opposition, and in light of their past 2 plus years of moronic
posturing with their hair on fire, trump will get his second term ..
Until the last one? You are retarded, the last election was a masterpiece of Rothschilds
Productions. The Illuminati was watching you at their private cinema when you were voting for
Trump and they were laughing their asses off.
The author does not realize that everyone in America, except Native American Indians, were
immigrants drawn towards the false promise of hope that is the American Dream, turned
nightmare..
Owning your own home, car, & raising a family in this country is so damn expensive
& risky, that you'd have be on drugs or an idiot to even fall for the lies.
I don't see an us vs them, I see the #FakeMoney printers monetized every facet of life,
own everything, & it truly is RENT-A-LIFE USSA, complete with bills galore, taxes galore,
laws galore, jails & prisons galore, & the worst fkn country anyone would want to
live in poverty & homelessness in.
At least in many 3rd world nations there is land to live off of & joblessness does not
= a financial death sentence.
Sure. Lets all go back to living in huts.....off the land....no cars.....no
electricity.....no running water......no roads....
There is a price to pay for things and it is not always in the form of money. We have
given up some of our freedom for the ease and conveniences we want.
The problem is we have gone too far. The "American Dream" has become a grotesque nightmare
because people by the millions sit around and dream about being a Kardashian. Makes me want
to puke.
There is a balance. Don't take the other extreme or we never find balance.
This article is moronic. One can easily prove that Trump is not like all the others in the
poster. Has this author been living under a rock for the last 2.5 yrs? The past 5 presidents
represent a group that has been literally trying to assassinate Trump, ruin his family, his
reputation, his buisness and his future, for the audacity to be an ousider to the power
network and steal (win) the presidency from under their noses. He's kept us OUT of war. He's
dissolved the treachery that was keeping us in the middle east through gaslighitng and a
proxy fake war that is ISIS, the globalists' / nato / fiveys / uk's fake mercenary army
The greatest threat to the USA is its own dumbed down drugged up citizens who cannot
compete with anyone. America is a big military powerhouse but that doens't make successful
countries
Notice how modern narrative is getting manipulated. What is being reported and referenced
is completely different from how things are. And knowing that we can assume that the entire
history is a fabricated lie, written by the ruling class to support its status in the minds
of obedient citizens.
This article is garbage propaganda that proves that they think we aren't keeping score or
paying attention. The gaslighting won't work when it relies on so much counterthink, willful
ignorance, counterfacts and weaponized omissions
The reality is the de-escalation of wars, the stability of our currency and our economy,
and the moral re-grounding of our culture does not occur until we do what over 100 countries
have done over the centuries, beginning in Carthage in 250AD.
The congress are statusquotarians. If they solved the problems they say they would,they'd
be out of a job. and that job is sitting there acting like a naddler or toxic post turtle
leprechaun with a charisma and skill level of zero. Their staff do all the work, half of them
barely read, though they probably can
I still think 1st and 2nd ammedment is predicated on which party rules the house. If a Dem
gets into the WH, we're fucked. Kiss those Iast two dying amendments goodbye for good.
If we rely on any party to preserve the 1st or 2nd Amendments, we are already fucked. What
should preserve the 1st and 2nd Amendments is the absolute fear of anyone in government even
mentioning suppressing or removing them. When the very thought of doing anything to lessen
the rights advocated in these two amendments, causes a politician to piss in their pants,
liberty will be preserved. As it is now citizens fear the government, and as a result tyranny
continues to grow and fester as a cancer.
You may very well be right. I still hold out hope, but upon seeing what our society is
quickly morphing into, that hope seems to fade more each and every day.
If you think the 1st and 2nd amendments are reliant on who is in office, then you are
already done. Why don't you try growing a pair and being an American for once in your
life.
I will always have a 1st and 2nd "amendment" for as long as I live. Life is meaningless
without them.....as far as I am concerned. Good thing the founders didn't wait for king
George to give them what they "felt" was theirs.....by the laws of Nature and Nature's
God.
I hope the democrats get the power......and I hope they come for the guns......maybe then
pussies like you will finally have to **** or get off the pot......for once in your life.
There are worse things than dying.
This country cannot be fixed through the ballot box. Unless we get rid of *** influencing
from abroad and domestically. Getting rid of English King few hundred years ago was a joke!
this would be a challenge because dual-citizens masquerading as locals.
Last revolution (1776) we targeted the WRONG ENEMY.
We targeted King George III instead of the private bankers who owned of the Bank of
England and the issued of the British-pound currency.
George III was himself up to his ears in debt to them by 1776, when the bankers installed
George Washington to replace George III as their middleman in the American colonies, by way
of the phony revolution.
Phony because ownership of the central bank and currency (Federal-Reserve Banks,
Federal-Reserve notes) we use, remains in the same banking families' hands to this day. The
same parasite remains within our government.
It is this strangely incomplete calculus that creates the shifting Loser world of
rifts and alliances. By operating with a more complete calculus, Sociopaths are able to
manipulate this world through the divide-and-conquer mechanisms. The result is that the
Losers end up blaming each other for their losses, seek collective emotional resolution,
and fail to adequately address the balance sheet of material rewards and losses.
To succeed, this strategy requires that Losers not look too closely at the non-emotional
books. This is why, as we saw last time, divide-and-conquer is the most effective means for
dealing with them, since it naturally creates emotional drama that keeps them busy while
they are being manipulated.
"... Well spoken, knowledgeable, measured, and intelligent. She's got no chance in American politics. ..."
"... Yup 2.5 hours with joe for each candidate. Screw CNN and FOX. ..."
"... Gabbard nails it with her mention of the Congressional/Military/Industrial Complex ..."
"... Bernie claims he's progressive, but a very calculated politician too. He should have run as an Independant after what the DNC did to him in 2016. Plus he said he would "sheepdog" his supporters if he loses to whoever. So i support Tulsi, and I think she's gonna snowball after the debates. Tulsi 2020 ..."
"... Wow. First candidate I have ever thought about contributing money to their campaign. Brilliant woman. She just swayed this libertarian. ..."
Tulsi Gabbard is a 2020 Presidential Candidate of the Democratic Party and is currently
serving as the U.S. Representative for Hawaii's 2nd congressional district since 2013.
https://www.tulsi2020.com/
For me, Tulsi radiates peace and comfort in times of chaos and destruction. Her strength
and bravery give me hope. We the People, who keep up on things, give me hope.
As a conservative I would love if she won the democratic vote. I feel like she is
reasonable enough that I wouldn't have to fear the consequences if she did win the
presidency. We may not agree but she is rational and seems reasonable
iv> Is Tulsi gonna kill it on the debate stage or what? She is soooo presidential in my
opinion,and yes a risk taker for the American people.
Tulsi is a vet of over 12 years
deployed twice to the middle east. Quit the DNC to back Bernie in 2016 and basically put her
own career on hold. The only Democrat at Standing Rock standing with the water protectors.
Went to Syria to learn the truth about that country, and yes meet with Syrian Pres. She is
progressive, and Mike Gravel is a progressive.
Bernie claims he's progressive, but a very
calculated politician too. He should have run as an Independant after what the DNC did to him
in 2016. Plus he said he would "sheepdog" his supporters if he loses to whoever. So i support
Tulsi, and I think she's gonna snowball after the debates. Tulsi 2020
Ugh this is so much better than anything cable news does at any point during the election
cycle. It's not even close. More gets accomplished in a single Rogan podcast than in the
entire two or so years the news spends "covering" candidates. No spin, no going for gotcha
sound bytes, just an unedited, lengthy conversation.
On this episode of Going Underground, we speak to Democratic Presidential candidate Mike
Gravel who discusses why he is joining the race to pull the debate to the left, the nature of
his contenders such as Joe Biden, Tulsi Gabbard and Bernie Sanders, US regime change attempts
in Venezuela and escalating tension with Iran, Julian Assange's imprisonment in the UK and the
US' extradition request. Next we speak to Chris Williamson MP, in his first international
interview since being suspended by the Labour Party.
He discusses NHS privatisation by stealth with the new GP contracts due to be signed next
week, Israeli oppression of Palestinians, Trump's escalation against Iran and Julian Assange's
on-going imprisonment in Belmarsh Prison.
Love Mike gravel, honest, good, genuine person with pure heart and soul! Donate dollar to
get him on the debates! Love Chris Williamson also a great men we need more people like
these! This channel should have way more subs and views, great show!
The proven oil reserves in Venezuela are recognized as the largest in the world, totaling
297 billion barrels . They are going to be INVADED by the real world terrorists, the
USA,BRITAIN, and their puppet allies !!!! Need I say more?
Trump promised to get the US out of "stupid wars." But now he and John Bolton are on the
brink of launching us into a very stupid and costly war with Iran. Join me in sending a strong
message to President Trump: The US must NOT go to war with Iran.
I think she could be a perfect President at given times for usa. She would save a lot of
American lives and will leave the white house a lot cleaner when she leaves.
It's a tragedy that Tulsi Gabbert is not number one in the polls right now. She's the only
one consistently right on all the issues. I can't wait for the debates.
NO More Wars! Give Peace a chance. Support Representative Tulsi Gabbard for President. A
True American Patriot and Veteran, fighting for Peace.
Tulsi2020.com
"... After that interview, Tulsi's Instagram account gained 11,000 new followers and her Twitter account gained 30,000 new followers. The more people watching her on a regular basis, the better! ..."
"... Ever since the Rogan interview, the number of times her name appears in a mainstream media (MSM) headline has seen a jump. Before the interview, she was getting a maximum of 1, sometimes rarely 2 headlines per day--often zero. Since the interview she has been in the 4 or 5 per day range. Today (May 19), she is ranked number 5 for all Democratic candidate name mentions in MSM headlines. ..."
"... the embedded video are very powerful as to why Tulsi is different from every other candidate of either party. ..."
"... she's a primary target of the DNC and establishment Democrats, possibly even more so than Bernie this time. Or maybe they're tied as targets? ..."
"... She called out the DNC's unfairness to Bernie well before wikileaks showed us exactly how correct she was. ..."
"... Oliver Stone and Stephen Cohen are of course two independent types who are most concerned about our deteriorated relations with Russia, based on fake news and Russophobic media hysteria. Cohen has largely been blackballed from the MSM, with the exception of Tucker Carlson's show and the semi-sane radio conservative John Batchelor. ..."
"... It was because of the latest McCarthyite smear piece on Tulsi Gabbard in the Daily Beast that I again donated to her campaign. Unlike Bernie, she is longer than a long shot to get the nomination, but it's important that her voice on FP be heard. While I also favor Bernie and Andrew Yang, their comments on FP, sadly, are merely occasional carefully crafted footnotes designed not to attract much attention or controversy. ..."
Tulsi's 2.5 hour interview with Joe
Rogan 6 days ago resulted in a solid attention bump.
The YouTube version of the video has so far garnered more than 1.6 million views, and on
average his podcast downloads are about double that number.
After that interview, Tulsi's Instagram account gained 11,000 new followers and her Twitter
account gained 30,000 new followers. The more people watching her on a regular basis, the
better!
Ever since the Rogan interview, the number of times her name appears in a mainstream media
(MSM) headline has seen a jump. Before the interview, she was getting a maximum of 1, sometimes
rarely 2 headlines per day--often zero. Since the interview she has been in the 4 or 5 per day
range. Today (May 19), she is ranked number 5 for all Democratic candidate name mentions in MSM
headlines.
Finally, Oliver Stone has sent out a Tweet, essentially endorsing Tulsi.
the embedded video are very powerful as to why Tulsi is different from every other
candidate of either party.
Since I was young, I knew I wanted to use my life to serve others. It's why I chose to
serve as a soldier & in politics. I've never had any ambition to "be president" -- it's
always been about doing my best to be of service and how I can make a greater positive
impact. pic.twitter.com/NfTSUhbFXX
...as I post this comment, but I do know--from a professional/political media
standpoint--that this commercial about the Iran situation is, by far and away, the best piece
of political media I've seen since Bernie's "America" commercial in 2016 .
If
she wants to punch through the crowd, right now (for the moment, because the Iran situation
will change, one way or another, and maybe rapidly, going forward), she should push this spot
early and often, as much as possible (as her campaign can afford it, and then maybe even a
little more than it thinks it can afford, too).
She has become my favorite candidate on policies, but being favored by Gravel and Stone
doesn't hurt, either, to say the least. Of the passengers in the Democratic clown car, I like
her and Bernie most. How I will vote may depend upon what polls in my state tell me just
before primary day about her and Bernie. Or, I may go ahead and vote for Tulsi, no matter
what. In that respect, I am undecided at this time.
Just checked my former message board. They are attacking her right and right (sic). (Not
"left and right:" Barely a leftist still posts on that board; and those who still do must
watch themselves.) So, she's a primary target of the DNC and establishment Democrats,
possibly even more so than Bernie this time. Or maybe they're tied as targets?
And, why not? She called out the DNC's unfairness to Bernie well before wikileaks showed
us exactly how correct she was.
a worthy podcaster who often has on interesting, independent thinkers and public figures
who go against the establishment grain. (see e.g. his several interviews with author Graham
Hancock) Not perfect or quite as good as I'd prefer, but far better than most.
Oliver Stone and Stephen Cohen are of course two independent types who are most concerned
about our deteriorated relations with Russia, based on fake news and Russophobic media
hysteria. Cohen has largely been blackballed from the MSM, with the exception of Tucker
Carlson's show and the semi-sane radio conservative John Batchelor.
It was because of the latest McCarthyite smear piece on Tulsi Gabbard in the Daily Beast
that I again donated to her campaign. Unlike Bernie, she is longer than a long shot to get
the nomination, but it's important that her voice on FP be heard. While I also favor Bernie
and Andrew Yang, their comments on FP, sadly, are merely occasional carefully crafted
footnotes designed not to attract much attention or controversy.
"... What he said is, 'I Donald Trump am going to be a champion of the working class I know you are working longer hours for lower wages, seeing your jobs going to China, can't afford childcare, can't afford to send your kids to college. I Donald Trump alone can solve these problems.' What you have is a guy who utilized the media, manipulated the media very well. He is an entertainer, he is a professional at that. But I will tell you that I think there needs to be a profound change in the way the Democratic Party does business. It is not good enough to have a liberal elite. I come from the white working class and I am deeply humiliated that the Democratic Party cannot talk to the people where I came from." ..."
"... when the Clinton team first learned that Wikileaks was going to release damaging Democratic National Party emails in June 2016, they "brought in outside consultants to plot a PR strategy for handling the news of the hack the story would advance a narrative that benefited the Clinton campaign and the Democrats: The Russians were interfering in the US election, presumably to assist Trump." ..."
"... After losing the election, Team Clinton doubled down on this PR strategy. As described in the book Shattered (p. 395) the day after the election campaign managers assembled the communication team "to engineer the case that the election wasn't entirely on the up and up . they went over the script they would pitch to the press and the public. Already, Russian hacking was the centerpiece of the argument." ..."
"... A progressive team produced a very different analysis titled Autopsy: The Democratic Party in Crisis . They did this because "the (Democratic) party's national leadership has shown scant interest in addressing many of the key factors that led to electoral disaster." The report analyzes why the party turnout was less than expected and why traditional Democratic Party supporters are declining. ..."
"... Since the 2016 election there has been little public discussion of the process whereby Hillary Clinton became the Democratic Party nominee. It's apparent she was pre-ordained by the Democratic Party elite. As exposed in the DNC emails, there was bias and violations of the party obligations at the highest levels. On top of that, it should now be clear that the pundits, pollsters and election experts were out of touch, made poor predictions and decisions. ..."
"... The 2016 election is highly relevant today. Already we see the same pattern of establishment bias and "horse race" journalism which focuses on fund-raising, polls and elite-biased "electability" instead of dealing with real issues, who has solutions, who has appeal to which groups. ..."
"... The establishment bias for Biden is matched by the bias against Democratic Party candidates who directly challenge Wall Street and US foreign policy. On Wall Street, that would be Bernie Sanders. On foreign policy, that is Tulsi Gabbard. With a military background Tulsi Gabbard has broad appeal, an inclusive message and a uniquely sharp critique of US "regime change" foreign policy. ..."
"... Blaming an outside power is a good way to prevent self analysis and positive change. It's gone on far too long. ..."
An
honest and accurate analysis of the 2016 election is not just an academic exercise. It is very
relevant to the current election campaign. Yet over the past two years, Russiagate has
dominated media and political debate and largely replaced a serious analysis of the factors
leading to Trump's victory. The public has been flooded with the various elements of the story
that Russia intervened and Trump colluded with them. The latter accusation was negated by the
Mueller Report but elements of the Democratic Party and media refuse to move on. Now it's the
lofty but vague accusations of "obstruction of justice" along with renewed dirt digging. To
some it is a "constitutional crisis", but to many it looks like more partisan fighting.
Russiagate has distracted from pressing issues
Russiagate has distracted attention and energy away from crucial and pressing issues such as
income inequality, the housing and homeless crisis, inadequate healthcare, militarized police,
over-priced college education, impossible student loans and deteriorating infrastructure. The
tax structure was changed to benefit wealthy individuals and corporations with little
opposition. The Trump administration has undermined environmental laws, civil rights, national
parks and women's equality while directing ever
more money to military contractors. Working class Americans are struggling with rising
living costs, low wages, student debt, and racism. They constitute the bulk of the military
which is spread all over the world, sustaining continuing occupations in war zones including
Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and parts of Africa. While all this has been going on, the Democratic
establishment and much of the media have been focused on Russiagate, the Mueller Report, and
related issues.
Immediately after the 2016 Election
In the immediate wake of the 2016 election there was some forthright analysis. Bernie
Sanders
said , "What Trump did very effectively is tap the angst and the anger and the hurt and
pain that millions of working class people are feeling. What he said is, 'I Donald Trump am
going to be a champion of the working class I know you are working longer hours for lower
wages, seeing your jobs going to China, can't afford childcare, can't afford to send your kids
to college. I Donald Trump alone can solve these problems.' What you have is a guy who utilized
the media, manipulated the media very well. He is an entertainer, he is a professional at that.
But I will tell you that I think there needs to be a profound change in the way the Democratic
Party does business. It is not good enough to have a liberal elite. I come from the white
working class and I am deeply humiliated that the Democratic Party cannot talk to the people
where I came from."
Days after the election, the Washington Post published an op-ed titled "
Hillary Clinton Lost. Bernie Sanders could have won. We chose the wrong candidate ." The
author analyzed the results saying , "Donald Trump's stunning victory is less surprising
when we remember a simple fact: Hillary Clinton is a deeply unpopular politician." The
writer analyzed why Sanders would have prevailed against Trump and predicted "there will be
years of recriminations."
Russiagate replaced Recrimination
But instead of analysis, the media and Democrats have emphasized foreign interference. There
is an element of self-interest in this narrative. As reported in "Russian Roulette" (p127),
when the Clinton team first learned that Wikileaks was going to release damaging Democratic
National Party emails in June 2016, they "brought in outside consultants to plot a PR
strategy for handling the news of the hack the story would advance a narrative that benefited
the Clinton campaign and the Democrats: The Russians were interfering in the US election,
presumably to assist Trump."
After losing the election, Team Clinton doubled down on this PR strategy. As described in
the book Shattered (p. 395) the day after the election campaign managers assembled the
communication team "to engineer the case that the election wasn't entirely on the up and up
. they went over the script they would pitch to the press and the public. Already, Russian
hacking was the centerpiece of the argument."
This narrative has been remarkably effective in supplanting critical review of the
election.
One Year After the Election
The Center for American Progress (CAP) was founded by John Podesta and is closely aligned
with the Democratic Party. In November 2017 they produced an analysis titled "
Voter Trends in 2016: A Final Examination ". Interestingly, there is not a single reference
to Russia. Key conclusions are that "it is critical for Democrats to attract more support from
the white non-college-educated voting bloc" and "Democrats must go beyond the 'identity
politics' versus 'economic populism' debate to create a genuine cross-racial, cross-class
coalition " It suggests that Wall Street has the same interests as Main Street and the working
class.
A progressive team produced a very different analysis titled Autopsy: The Democratic Party in
Crisis . They did this because "the (Democratic) party's national leadership has shown scant interest in addressing many of
the key factors that led to electoral disaster." The report analyzes why the party turnout was less than expected and why
traditional Democratic Party supporters are declining. It includes recommendations to end the party's undemocratic
practices, expand voting rights and counter voter suppression. The report contains details and specific recommendations lacking
in the CAP report. It includes an overall analysis which says "The Democratic Party should disentangle itself – ideologically
and financially – from Wall Street, the military-industrial complex and other corporate interests that put profits ahead of
public needs."
Two Years After the Election
In October 2018, the progressive team produced a follow-up report titled "
Autopsy: One Year Later ". It says, "The Democratic Party has implemented modest reforms,
but corporate power continues to dominate the party."
In a recent phone interview, the editor of that report, Norman Solomon, said it appears some
in the Democratic Party establishment would rather lose the next election to Republicans than
give up control of the party.
What really happened in 2016?
Beyond the initial critiques and "Autopsy" research, there has been little discussion,
debate or lessons learned about the 2016 election. Politics has been dominated by
Russiagate.
Why did so many working class voters switch from Obama to Trump? A major reason is because
Hillary Clinton is associated with Wall Street and the economic policies of her husband
President Bill Clinton. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), promoted by Bill
Clinton, resulted in huge decline in manufacturing jobs in
swing states such as Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Of course, this would influence their
thinking and votes. Hillary Clinton's support for the Trans Pacific Partnership was another
indication of her policies.
What about the low turnout from the African American community? Again, the lack of
enthusiasm is rooted in objective reality. Hillary Clinton is associated with "welfare reform"
promoted by her husband. According to this study from
the University of Michigan, "As of the beginning of 2011, about 1.46 million U.S. households
with about 2.8 million children were surviving on $2 or less in income per person per day in a
given month The prevalence of extreme poverty rose sharply between 1996 and 2011. This growth
has been concentrated among those groups that were most affected by the 1996 welfare
reform. "
Over the past several decades there has been a huge increase in prison
incarceration due to increasingly strict punishments and mandatory prison sentences. Since
the poor and working class have been the primary victims of welfare and criminal justice
"reforms" initiated or sustained through the Clinton presidency, it's understandable why they
were not keen on Hillary Clinton. The notion that low turnout was due to African Americans
being unduly influenced by Russian Facebook posts is seen as "bigoted paternalism" by blogger Teodrose
Fikremanian who says, "The corporate recorders at the NY Times would have us believe that
the reason African-Americans did not uniformly vote for Hillary Clinton and the Democrats is
because they were too dimwitted to think for themselves and were subsequently manipulated by
foreign agents. This yellow press drivel is nothing more than propaganda that could have been
written by George Wallace."
How Clinton became the Nominee
Since the 2016 election there has been little public discussion of the process whereby
Hillary Clinton became the Democratic Party nominee. It's apparent she was pre-ordained by the
Democratic Party elite. As exposed in the DNC emails, there was bias and violations of the
party obligations at the highest levels. On top of that, it should now be clear that the
pundits, pollsters and election experts were out of touch, made poor predictions and
decisions.
Bernie Sanders would have been a much stronger candidate. He would have won the same party
loyalists who voted for Clinton. His message attacking Wall Street would have resonated with
significant sections of the working class and poor who were unenthusiastic (to say the least)
about Clinton. An indication is that in critical swing states such as Wisconsin and
Michigan Bernie
Sanders beat Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary race.
Clinton had no response for Trump's attacks on multinational trade agreements and his false
promises of serving the working class. Sanders would have had vastly more appeal to working
class and minorities. His primary campaign showed his huge appeal to youth and third party
voters. In short, it's likely that Sanders would have trounced Trump. Where is the
accountability for how Clinton ended up as the Democratic Party candidate?
The Relevance of 2016 to 2020
The 2016 election is highly relevant today. Already we see the same pattern of establishment
bias and "horse race" journalism which focuses on fund-raising, polls and elite-biased
"electability" instead of dealing with real issues, who has solutions, who has appeal to which
groups.
Mainstream media and pundits are already promoting Joe Biden. Syndicated columnist EJ
Dionne, a Democratic establishment favorite, is indicative. In his article "
Can Biden be the helmsman who gets us past the storm? " Dionne speaks of the "strength he
(Biden) brings" and the "comfort he creates". In the same vein, Andrew Sullivan pushes Biden in
his article "
Why Joe Biden Might be the Best to Beat Trump ". Sullivan thinks that Biden has appeal in
the working class because he joked about claims he is too 'hands on'. But while Biden may be
tight with AFL-CIO leadership, he is closely associated with highly unpopular neoliberal trade
deals which have resulted in manufacturing decline.
The establishment bias for Biden is matched by the bias against Democratic Party candidates
who directly challenge Wall Street and US foreign policy. On Wall Street, that would be Bernie
Sanders. On foreign policy, that is Tulsi Gabbard. With a military background Tulsi Gabbard has
broad appeal, an inclusive message and a uniquely sharp critique of US "regime change" foreign
policy. She calls
out media pundits like Fareed Zakaria for goading Trump to invade Venezuela. In contrast
with Rachel Maddow taunting
John Bolton and Mike Pompeo to be MORE aggressive, Tulsi Gabbard has been
denouncing Trump's collusion with Saudi Arabia and Israel's Netanyahu, saying it's not in
US interests. Gabbard's anti-interventionist anti-occupation perspective has significant
support from US troops. A
recent poll indicates that military families want complete withdrawal from Afghanistan and
Syria. It seems conservatives have become more anti-war than liberals.
This points to another important yet under-discussed lesson from 2016: a factor in Trump's
victory was that he campaigned as an anti-war candidate against the hawkish Hillary Clinton. As
pointed out
here, "Donald Trump won more votes from communities with high military casualties than
from similar communities which suffered fewer casualties."
Russiagate has distracted most Democrats from analyzing how they lost in 2016. It has given
them the dubious belief that it was because of foreign interference. They have failed to
analyze or take stock of the consequences of DNC bias, the preference for Wall Street over
working class concerns, and the failure to challenge the military industrial complex and
foreign policy based on 'regime change' interventions.
There needs to be more analysis and lessons learned from the 2016 election to avoid a repeat
of that disaster. As indicated in the
Autopsy , there needs to be a transparent and fair campaign for nominee based on more than
establishment and Wall Street favoritism. There also needs to be consideration of which
candidates reach beyond the partisan divide and can energize and advance the interests of the
majority of Americans rather than the elite. The most crucial issues and especially US military
and foreign policy need to be seriously debated.
Blaming an outside power is a good way to prevent self analysis and positive change. It's
gone on far too long.
Rick Sterling is an investigative journalist who grew up in Canada but currently lives in
the San Francisco Bay Area of California. He can be reached at [email protected] . Read other articles by Rick .
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) said on Sunday that reports claiming pro-putin Russophiles giving
her 2020 presidential campaign a boost is
"fake news,"
though she added that
conflict with the Kremlin is not productive.
Speaking to
ABC'
s George Stephanopoulos, Gabbard said that deteriorating relationships
with nuclear-armed countries such as Russia and China "has brought us to a very dangerous point,"
reports
The Hill
. She added that, if elected, she would "end these counterproductive and
wasteful regime change wars
," and would "
work to end this new Cold War and
nuclear arms race.
"
On Friday, the
Daily
Beast
published a story claiming that Gabbard "is quickly becoming the top candidate for
Democrats who think the Russian leader is misunderstood," based on people who had donated to her
campaign. (We somehow missed the
Daily Beast
article on
Hillary's alleged Saudi donors
in 2016, but we digress).
Donors to her campaign in the first quarter of the year included: Stephen F. Cohen, a Russian
studies professor at New York University and prominent Kremlin sympathizer; Sharon Tennison, a
vocal Putin supporter who nonetheless found herself detained by Russian authorities in 2016; and
an employee of the Kremlin-backed broadcaster RT, who appears to have donated under the alias
"Goofy Grapes." -
Daily
Beast
On Sunday, Stephanopoulos asked Gabbard about the
Beast
article, and noted that she met
with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, as well as her defense of Russia's military presence in
Syria, and her comments suggesting that Russian election interference was on par with American
election meddling around the world.
"Is Putin a threat to national security?" he asked.
"You now it's unfortunately you're citing that article, George, because
it's a whole lot
of fake news
. What I'm focused on is what's in the best interest of the American people?
What's in the best interest of national security? Keeping American people safe," said Gabbard. "And
what I'm pointing out consistently,
time and time again, is our continued wasteful regime
change wars have been counterproductive to the interests of the American people and the approach
this administration has taken in essentially choosing conflict ... has been counterproductive
I continue to support her for that same reason. If there are
like minded people here on ZH consider donating just $1 as that
donation will help get her on stage where her anti-war thoughts
can be heard.
ditto. Trump said in the debates that "I want to be friends
with everyone, including Russia." The rest is history. The USA
wehrmacht is going after Tulsi now. We cannot have peace.
Have an idea for you on how to show true leadership
and finish what the Orange "six-sided star" liar said he would
pick up (
https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/11/14/trump-im-reopening-911-investigation/
)
when he began his presidency and then... well...
lied
to
become a treasonous bag of **** just like the ones that preceded
him!...
Even Vlad Putin and the rest of the Russian Federation refuse
to "touch it". And if you did. You would be the only
representative in the U.S. House and Senate let alone the U.S.
Federal, State and local government(s) for that matter to do so.
All you would have to say is "we need an understanding why 2
planes demolished 3 building(s) at "Ground Zero" more then 18
years ago, and why the 9/11 Commission never mentioned the Solomon
Brothers Building 7 in it's official report?... I (Congresswoman
Tulsi Gabbard) certainly want to know!... Especially wearing the
uniform for what I believed was the reason I was given for
invading Afghanistan and Iraq and murdering over 3 million
people?... And I want to tell the American people ultimately "why"
Building 7 was omitted along with too many other details that
Robert Mueller famously dismissed by saying only that "
mistakes
were made
" ...
I've written to you several times about showing the courage to
be the only politician since Senator Wellstone to pick up where he
left off and support the 13 year endeavors of this organization (
https://www.ae911truth.org/
)
to demand an investigation of the fact(s) now that has the backing
of a Grand Jury by signing it's petition!...
But you won't. Because you are like every other "200lbs of
****" in a 100lbs bag that walks the halls of the Longworth
carrying the water for the "Tribe"!
Keep telling yourself surfer **** that the job will get both
easier and better by lying about that day and what it's done in
it's wake to every institution and business in the United States
of America let alone the laws of the land just like your mentor
the Langley Bath House "boy"!...
Yes, Putin knows that an island of sanity and decency in a
cesspit of bigotry and firearms is bound to be blown to pieces
before she has a chance to deliver. I fear for Tulsi even now.
Yes, the Russia nonsense is FAKE NEWS. So why is Trump allowing
the Israelis, a country that hates the United States, and which
has attacked us at least twice (USS Liberty, 9/11/2001), to
dictate our foreign policy? Israel is the real enemy!!
Let's
look at a quote from one of the former employees of the Mossad
front operation "Urban Moving Systems" (likely also the same
people who planted the explosives at WTC) had to say about his
time there:
In addition to the strange nature of some of the Israelis'
possessions in the van and on their person, the company that
employed them -- Urban Moving Systems -- was of special interest
to the FBI, which concluded that the company was likely a
"fraudulent operation." Upon a search of the company's
premises, the FBI noted that "little evidence of a legitimate
business operation was found." The FBI report also noted that
there were an "unusually large number of computers relative to
the number of employees for such a fairly small business" and
that "further investigation identified several pseudo-names or
aliases associated with Urban Moving Systems and its
operations."
The FBI presence at the Urban Moving Systems search site
drew the attention of the local media and was later reported on
both television and in the local press. A former Urban Moving
Systems employee later contacted the Newark Division with
information indicating that he had quit his employment with
Urban Moving Systems as a result of the
high amount of
anti-American sentiment
present among Urban's employees.
The former employee stated that an Israeli employee of Urban
had even once remarked, "Give us twenty years and we'll take
over your media and destroy your country"
(page 37 of
the
FBI report
).
This kind of thing makes one kind of hope for a war in which
Israel is bombed back to the stone age, which is clearly where
these evil, psychopathic Zionist filth belong!
This is a long article, but read it all the way through. It's
proof that Israel was indeed behind 9/11 and that they had
numerous operatives in the country who were gleeful about it,
having set up video cameras and celebrated the day before by
taking a photo of one of the operatives holding a lit cigarette
lighter up to the horizon....right in front of the still-standing
WTC twin towers.
And look at this. You won't see this in the MSM any time soon:
In addition to Urban Moving Systems, another moving
company, Classic International Movers, became of interest in
connection with the investigation into the "Dancing
Israelis," which led to the arrest and detention of four
Israeli nationals who worked for this separate moving
company.
The FBI's Miami Division had alerted the Newark
Division that Classic International Movers was believed to
have been used by one of the 19 alleged 9/11 hijackers
before the attack, and one of the "Dancing Israelis" had the
number for Classic International Movers written in a
notebook that was seized at the time of his arrest.
The
report further states that one of the Israelis of Classic
International Movers who was arrested "was visibly disturbed
by the Agents' questioning regarding his personal email
account."
lysias: A president doesn't have to obey the orders of the powers that be ...
Well, that's why they select the President beforehand to ensure there are no inconvenient
difficulties with a new President.
In fact, our President's have generally had a connection to CIA: Bush Sr. was CIA,
Clinton is said to allowed their flights into Arkansas, GW Bush was son of CIA, Obama is said
to have come from a CIA family (grandfather and probably mother) , and some have pointed to
Trump's first casino deal as a possible CIA tie (related to money laundering of CIA drug
money)
Pretending otherwise furthers the democracy works! narrative. Isn't it already
clear that the West is feudal and Empire First (aka globalist) - despite Trump's
faux populist pretense? US foreign policy has been remarkably consistent for over 20
years. US congressmen takes oaths to Israel. Western propaganda sing the Deep State tune.
Let it not be left unsaid that Johnny Freedom McCain was the U.S. Senator who encouraged
Saakashvili to attack in South Ossetia (which led to Russian intervention on behalf of
resident Russian ethnic/nationals) all the while saying "We got your back"and blaming Russia.
His two amigos Lieberman and Graham of course were all aboard in that precursor to his
further next act in Ukraine where Little Amy Klobuchar took Lieberman's place in the trio in
inciting Poroshenko and his troops to "ATTACK!, ATTACK!, ATTACK!" a few years back.
Lil' Amy was sharpening her Hillary chops for having drawn blood for her ludicrous
Presidential run this year, of course.
"The extent of McCain's involvement in the military conflict in Georgia appears remarkable
among presidential candidates, who traditionally have kept some distance from unfolding
crises out of deference to whoever is occupying the White House. The episode also follows
months of sustained GOP criticism of Democratic Sen. Barack Obama, who was accused of acting
too presidential for, among other things, briefly adopting a campaign seal and taking a trip
abroad that included a huge rally in Berlin.
"We talk about how there's only one president at a time, so the idea that you would send
your own emissaries and really interfere with the process is remarkable," said Lawrence Korb,
a Reagan Defense Department official who now acts as an informal adviser to the Obama
campaign. "It's very risky and can send mixed messages to foreign governments. . . . They
accused Obama of being presumptuous, but he didn't do anything close to this."
Great plan! From your mouth to Tulsi's ears! She needs to make a dramatic exit from the
Dems, preferably on national TV, with the message "stop the senseless regime change wars!"
That alone would make her a contender.
Rob Roy , May 16, 2019 at 17:09
Skip, notice that Tulsi scares the hell out of the MSM. Therefore, she will be vilified,
lied about, left out of poll line-ups, shoved to the side in debates, accused of being
Putin's or Assad's puppet and God knows what else by the major newspapers, MSNBC, ABC, CBS,
NBC, PBS, CNN etc., and this will spread even overseas. You can't be against war, corruption
and US Monroe Doctrine as our foreign policy and expect to get fair coverage. Personally, I
will counter the propaganda wherever I can.
Skip Scott , May 17, 2019 at 08:22
I had a "back and forth" with dailykos about not listing Tulsi on their straw polls with
her being the only candidate against "regime change" wars. I shamed them a bit by calling
them a bunch of latte-sippers who reek of the arrogance of privilege while our MIC goes all
around the planet killing poor people. Maybe I am giving myself too much credit, but they did
in fact include her name on the last poll.
John on Kauai , May 17, 2019 at 13:53
I can't reply to skip about his argument with KOS so it's here.
There is nothing to be gained by arguing with KOS other than to be banned from their website
as I was.
They are supporting a National Guard pilot to run against her in the 2020 HI-2 election.
I would not be surprised to find that they were instrumental in producing tulsigabbard.guru,
a site that has been recently taken down but which repeated (and I think originated) many
slurs against Tulsi that have now been picked up by the media.
I encourage you and everyone to publicize tulsigabbard.org which goes into great detail on
her positions on almost anything. Also, the Jimmy Dore and Joe Rogan interviews with Tulsi
that are available on YouTube.
Tulsi is my congresswoman. She is wildly popular here.
The HSTA (hawaii state teachers association) hates her. When challenged they repeat the lies that are on the .guru site
that was taken down. When you point out that they are lies, they cover their ears and chant "nah, nah, nah".
b.grand , May 17, 2019 at 16:29
Skip. this is re. to your re. to Rob Roy.
WaPo confirmed today that Tulsi is one of the 11 guaranteed a debate spot. She's making
solid progress, including major bumps from the Joe Rogan interviews. If she has hopes of
actually getting the Dem nomination, of course there will be no dramatic exit until that's
been decided. OTOH, an outside call for her to run as an Indy would be authentic, but also a
threat to the Dems, give her fair play OR ELSE !
So, maybe the movement for an independent run has to start at the bottom? I'd like to
bounce this off people who know more about politics than I do. There's also the implied
question, how could an Independent function if elected. Would there be support in Congress?
Would new ["Coalition"] candidates arise?
People talk about the populist movement in Mexico as represented by MORENA, however the
coalition was actually Juntos Haremos Historia ("Together We'll Make History"), which
included right wing evangelicals as well as leftists. Pretty remarkable, but a similar
cooperation has arisen in Unity4J (for Julian Assange) where journalists with radically
different ideologies focus on a single unifying principle.
Any thoughts?
John Zwiebel , May 17, 2019 at 18:19
Ask Nick Branna. He says "yes"
b.grand , May 17, 2019 at 21:10
John Z. –
Are you already familiar with Branna and the People's Party? Are they backing specific
candidates? What do you think I should ask him? Would he and the PP join a coalition? Or do I
misunderstand your suggestion?
All of the endorsers are leftists. The platform is all about wages and healthcare, but war
isn't mentioned. Maybe it's there, but it's not on the front page.
Here's what they say: "Together we're building a coalition of working people, unions, and
progressive groups for a nationally viable people's party."
Also, "We are working to build a coalition of groups on the left in order to create a new
party for working people."
This just seems like typical 'Progressives' who are fed up with Dems. Some of the
endorsers – Sheehan, Hedges, Martin and others – are known to be anti-war, but
it's concerning that peace and FP aren't prominent. Besides, we need to build bigger bridges
than "groups on the left." There are many – surprisingly many – on the right who
oppose constant militarism. And what about the center? There's a vast untapped demographic,
whether apathetic or genuinely discouraged by evidence that it makes no difference who you
vote for, the Deep State wins. Why approach them from a left-only perspective? Would you like
to clarify?
Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard's campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination is being underwritten by
some of the nation's leading Russophiles.
Donors to her campaign in the first quarter of the year included: Stephen F. Cohen, a Russian studies
professor at New York University and prominent Kremlin sympathizer; Sharon Tennison, a vocal Putin supporter
who nonetheless found herself detained by Russian authorities in 2016; and an employee of the Kremlin-backed
broadcaster RT, who appears to have donated under the alias "Goofy Grapes."
Gabbard is one of her party's more Russia-friendly voices in an era of deep Democratic suspicion of the
country over its efforts to tip the 2016 election in favor of President Donald Trump. Her financial support
from prominent pro-Russian voices in the U.S. is a small portion of the total she's raised. But it still
illustrates the degree to which she deviates from her party's mainstream on such a contentious and
high-profile issue.
Data on Gabbard's financial supporters only covers the first three months of the year. In that time, her
campaign received just over $1,000 from Cohen, arguably the nation's
leading intellectual apologist
for Russian president Vladimir Putin.
Tennison donated to Gabbard no fewer than five times, eventually reaching the per-cycle individual
contribution limit in mid-March. Tennison and her group, the Center for Citizen Initiatives, have long
worked to improve U.S.-Russia relations, in part by organizing junkets to the nation both before and after
the fall of the Soviet Union. She's also been an outspoken Putin supporter, dubbing him a "straightforward,
reliable and exceptionally inventive man" in a column last year. Tennison wrote that column in spite of her
detention in Russia
two years earlier, when she was accused of attempting to covertly advance U.S.
foreign policy interests in the country.
Gabbard also got a $1,000 contribution from "Goofy Grapes," who listed his or her occupation as
"comedian" and employer as Redacted Tonight, a current events comedy show on Russian state-backed
broadcaster RT. That show's host, comedian Lee Camp, told The Daily Beast that the person who made the
donation "is no longer an active member of Redacted Tonight. And separately, it is company policy to not
donate to political campaigns."
Camp, for his part, routinely promotes the Russian government line on major world affairs, most
notably the invasion of Ukraine, political unrest in Venezuela, and the Syrian civil war.
To the extent that those donors toe the Kremlin line on issues such as Syria, they're more squarely in
line with Gabbard's own views than those of any other Democratic presidential candidate. As a member of
Congress, she has
personally met
with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and
cast doubt
on widely accepted reports that he deployed nerve gas weapons against his own people.
Gabbard has also been one of the few prominent Democrats in the country to downplay the findings of
Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russia's meddling in the 2016 election. The report found
no evidence of a conspiracy by the Trump campaign to support that meddling. But it did provide extensive
details of that malicious influence campaign, and of the Trump administration's efforts to impede the
special counsel's investigation.
But while her House colleagues ramp up their own investigations, in part based on those findings, Gabbard
has called for the country -- and her party -- to move on. "The conclusion that came from that Mueller report was
that no collusion took place," she told Fox News last month. "Now is the time for us to come together as a
country to put the issues and the interests and the concerns that the American people have at the forefront,
to take action to bring about real solutions for them."
That reflects the attitude of a small set of the American left wing, a non-interventionist faction that
eyed collusion allegations with suspicion. And that's very much the school of thought from which Cohen and
other Gabbard donors hail.
But the list of controversial donors to Gabbard, as detailed by her filings with the Federal Election
Committee, doesn't end there.
Susan Sarandon, the famous actress who earned the enduring wrath of Democrats for her support of Green
Party candidate Jill Stein in the 2016 election, gave Gabbard $500.
Ali Amin, the president of Primex International, wrote two checks of $2,800 to Gabbard's campaign. Amin,
who runs the international food distribution company, pleaded guilty in 2015
to charges that
he'd transferred more than $17 million between Iran and the United States as part of an
unlicensed business transaction.
After being asked about those donations, Cullen Tiernan, a spokesperson for Gabbard, said the campaign
would be returning them. Tiernan also noted that Amin had given to fellow 2020 contender Sen. Kamala Harris'
(D-CA) Senate campaign in 2018. Ian Sams, a spokesman for Harris, said the Senator refunded Amin's donation
in July 2018.
Gabbard's campaign did not return a request for comment. Her election effort raised nearly $4.5 million
in the first quarter of 2019, but that included hefty transfers from her House campaign committee. She has
used that money to mount a rather unorthodox bid for the Democratic nomination. Gabbard had only one paid
staffer during that same three month period, choosing instead to hire consultants for key posts on her
campaign -- a staffing decision that seemed likely done to avoid making hefty payments for things like health
care coverage and payroll taxes.
Gabbard's media strategy has also been counterintuitive for a national Democrat. She has made several
appearances on The Joe Rogan Experience podcast, which, while being one of the most popular platforms on
that medium, is a haven for Trump-supporting guests. Gabbard also is among the few Democrats who has a
captive audience on Fox News, owed largely to her willingness to criticize Barack Obama, as well as her
party's planks on both Russia and foreign policy in general. Tucker Carlson, a primetime host on that
network, has publicly defended her.
Though she has not courted their support, some prominent figures in the white nationalist community have
flocked in Gabbard's direction. David Duke, the former KKK leader, has heaped praise on her. And on several
occasions, Richard Spencer, the avowed white supremacist, has tweeted favorably about her, including once
again this week.
It's sad to know that Tulsi bought Russiagate nonsense hook line and sinker. In a sense, she is also a compromise candidate as
her domestic platform is weak and inconsistent. She shines in foreign policy issues only.
But this compromise might still make sense. At least she is much better then Trump.
Notable quotes:
"... A consumer rights champion in name only, she did nothing to oversee predatory banking practices responsibly, nothing to urge prosecution of Wall Street crooks as Obama's interim Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (BCFP) head. ..."
"... "If you or I gave money, weapons or support to al-Qaeda or ISIS, we would be thrown in jail. Yet the US government has been violating this law for years, quietly supporting allies and partners of al-Qaeda, ISIL, Jabhat Fateh al Sham and other terrorist groups with money, weapons, and intelligence support, in their fight to overthrow the Syrian government." ..."
"... "The CIA has also been funneling weapons and money through Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar and others who provide direct and indirect support to groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda." ..."
"... She may be the only congressional member boldly stating the above remarks publicly to her credit. ..."
"... She considers US wars not authorized by Congress impeachable high crimes. ..."
"... The Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CATSA) illegally imposed sanctions on Russia, Iran and North Korea. It passed the House and Senate near-unanimously – shameful legislation demanding opposition, not support. ..."
"... Hold the cheers on Gabbard and all other Republican and Dem presidential aspirants with a chance to be party standard bearers. The bottom line on them all is simple, no exceptions. If nominated and elected, either go along with the dirty system or be replaced by someone else who will – by impeachment or something more sinister. ..."
"... No matter who's elected president and to key congressional posts, dirty business as usual always wins. ..."
( stephenlendman.org – Home – Stephen Lendman ) Tulsi 2020 is the official
website of her candidacy for US president – so far with no information other than saying:
"When we stand united, motivated by our love for each other and for our country, there is no
challenge we cannot overcome. Will you stand with me?" On Friday, she said "I have decided to
run and will be making a formal announcement within the next week," adding:
"There are a lot of reasons for me to make this decision. There are a lot of challenges
that are facing the American people that I'm concerned about and that I want to help
solve."
Besides access to healthcare for all Americans, criminal justice reform, and
climate change, (t)here is one main issue that is central to the rest, and that is the issue of
war and peace," she stressed. More on this below.
"I look forward to being able to get into this and to talk about it in depth when we make
our announcement."
Gabbard's record is mixed at best, things to like, others of concern, including
her Dem affiliation. She formerly served as DNC vice chair, resigning in February 2016 to
support Russophobe undemocratic Dem Bernie Sanders over Hillary. Throughout his political
career, he's been progressive in name only, his rhetoric and voting record most often at odds
with each other. He'll likely run again in 2020. After Hillary used dirty tricks in primary
elections to steal the Dem nomination, Gabbard supported her candidacy – a figure I
called the most ruthlessly dangerous presidential aspirant in US history, backing it up with
cold, hard facts about her deplorable record as first lady, US senator and secretary of state.
Elizabeth Warren already announced her 2020 candidacy. She's con man Sanders clone with a
gender difference.
A consumer rights champion in name only, she did nothing to oversee
predatory banking practices responsibly, nothing to urge prosecution of Wall Street crooks as
Obama's interim Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (BCFP) head.
She failed to criticize
his wars on humanity at home and abroad, terror-bombing seven countries in eight years,
force-feeding neoliberal harshness on America's most disadvantaged, letting protracted main
street Depression conditions fester – supporting what demanded condemnation. She
one-sidedly supports Israel, failing to denounce its apartheid ruthlessness, its Gaza wars on
defenseless civilians.
Like Sanders and other undemocratic Dems, she considers naked aggression
humanitarian intervention and democracy building. Her agenda is all about perpetuating dirty
business as usual – based on going along with the imperial, neoliberal GOP and Dem
agenda, supported by the vast majority of officials in Washington.
Gore Vidal explained how the
dirty system works, saying no one gets to be presidential material unless they've "been bought
over 10 times." The same goes for top congressional posts. Gabbard is suspect for similar
reasons, voting along party lines too often since elected to represent Hawaii's 2nd
congressional district in November 2012.
After the Obama regime's coup in Ukraine, replacing
democratic governance with fascist tyranny, she supported supplying the illegitimate,
Nazi-infested, putschist regime with military assistance, shamefully saying America can't stand
"idly by while Russia continues to degrade the territorial integrity of Ukraine." No "Russian
aggression" existed then or now. Yet Gabbard disgracefully claimed otherwise, urging "more
painful economic sanctions" on Moscow, pretending the regime in Kiev is a "peaceful, sovereign
neighbor." In July 2017, she unjustifiably supported legislation imposing illegal unilateral US
sanctions on Russia, Iran and North Korea. She's for US phony war on terrorism, the scourge
Republicans and most Dems support while claiming otherwise.
She's against what she called
"counterproductive wars of regime change," including in Syria. She earlier said targeting Bashar al-Assad for regime change was "a thinly veiled attempt to use the rationale of
'humanitarianism' as a justification to escalate our illegal, counterproductive war," adding:
"Under US law, it is illegal for any American to provide money or assistance to al-Qaeda, ISIS
or other terrorist groups."
"If you or I gave money, weapons or support to al-Qaeda or ISIS, we
would be thrown in jail. Yet the US government has been violating this law for years, quietly
supporting allies and partners of al-Qaeda, ISIL, Jabhat Fateh al Sham and other terrorist
groups with money, weapons, and intelligence support, in their fight to overthrow the Syrian
government."
"The CIA has also been funneling weapons and money through Saudi Arabia, Turkey,
Qatar and others who provide direct and indirect support to groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda."
She
may be the only congressional member boldly stating the above remarks publicly to her credit.
In January 2017, she met with Assad in Damascus, toured parts of Syria, seeing firsthand how US
aggression harmed millions of civilians. She called all anti-government forces terrorists,
saying so-called moderate rebels don't exist, stressing "(t)hat is a fact," on return home
expressing "even greater resolve to end our illegal war to overthrow the Syrian government."
She considers US wars not authorized by Congress impeachable high crimes. She should have
explained that only Security Council members may authorize war by one or more countries on
other sovereign states – not US presidents, Congress or the courts. That's the law of the
land under the Constitution's Supremacy Clause (Article 6, Clause 2). All treaties,
conventions, and other international agreements to which the US is a signatory automatically
become binding US law.
To her credit in October 2017, Gabbard opposed reimposing sanctions on
Iran, at the time saying the Islamic Republic is fully complying with JCPOA provisions. At the
same time, she co-sponsored legislation opposing Iran's legitimate ballistic missile program,
imposing illegal sanctions on the country,
In 2015, she supported legislation endorsing extreme
vetting of Syrian and Iraqi war refugees, designed to deny them refugee status. The measure
failed to get enough Senate support for passage.
She opposed the National Defense Authorization
Act for FY 2019, 2018, and earlier, opposed reforming US border security and immigration,
opposed a proposed constitutional balanced budget amendment, opposed the GOP great tax cut
heist, supported CATSA.
The Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CATSA)
illegally imposed sanctions on Russia, Iran and North Korea. It passed the House and Senate
near-unanimously – shameful legislation demanding opposition, not support.
Hold the
cheers on Gabbard and all other Republican and Dem presidential aspirants with a chance to be
party standard bearers. The bottom line on them all is simple, no exceptions. If nominated and
elected, either go along with the dirty system or be replaced by someone else who will –
by impeachment or something more sinister.
Washington's deeply corrupted system is too
debauched to fix. The only solution is popular revolution, voting a waste of time.
No matter
who's elected president and to key congressional posts, dirty business as usual always wins.
Stephen
Lendman was born in 1934 in Boston, MA. In 1956, he received a BA from Harvard University.
Two years of US Army service followed, then an MBA from the Wharton School at the University
of Pennsylvania in 1960. After working seven years as a marketing research analyst, he joined
the Lendman Group family business in 1967. He remained there until retiring at year end 1999.
Writing on major world and national issues began in summer 2005. In early 2007, radio hosting
followed.
Lendman now hosts the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network
three times weekly. Distinguished guests are featured. Listen live or archived. Major world
and national issues are discussed. Lendman is a 2008 Project Censored winner and 2011 Mexican
Journalists Club international journalism award recipient.
Neoliberal "International for financial oligarchy" start showing cracks. Davos crowd no
longer can control ordinary people. Both Trump and Brexit are just symptoms of the large problem
-- the crisis of neoliberalism.
Notable quotes:
"... Tulsi Gabbard will collect a lot of voters sick to death of our foreign policy destroying the lives of millions, draining our spirit and emptying our pockets. ..."
"... As long as the political class maintains 1) the illusion of choice as to who are leaders are and 2) keep things running smoothly a small minority of us will complain, simmer and stew but we won't be able to convince anyone else it's worth upsetting the status quo. ..."
"... We'll stay below critical mass, until we don't. ..."
"... The original Brexit vote was that opportunity for the power elite to get it through their thick skulls that Britons didn't want to go where the EU was headed. ..."
"... Theresa May, Dominic Grieve and the rest of those in the Westminster bubble refused to accept that they no longer had control over the situation. Theresa May like an autistic monkey keeps putting forth vote after vote to get her Withdrawal Treaty past a parliament that has no business still presiding over the country ..."
"... French Poodle Emmanuel Macron cannot get control of the Yellow Vest Protests in France. And the EU itself cannot get control over Matteo Salvini in Italy. ..."
"... Trump is compromised because of his vanity and his weakness. There is not much hope going into 2020 unless Tulsi Gabbard catches fire soon and begins taking out contenders one by one. ..."
"... More likely she is, like Ron Paul, setting the table for 2024 and a post-Trump world. I fear however it will be far too late for the U.S. by then. Both she and Farage, along with Salvini and many others across Europe, represent the push towards authenticity that will change the political landscape across the west for decades to come. ..."
"... Polyarchy (state capitalism) it is a system where small group actually rules on behalf of capital, and majority’s decision making is confined to choosing among selective number of elites within tightly controlled elective process. It is a form of consensual domination made possible by the structural domination of the global capital which allowed concentration of political powers. ..."
There is a realignment coming in electoral politics. It began with Ron Paul in 2008 and has
been building for more than a decade. We know this story well.
That realignment will be about restoring not just national sovereignty but also personal
autonomy in a world the rulers of which are desperate to clamp down their control over.
The thing is I don't think we've quite come to terms with the rapidity with which change
comes. It builds slowly, simmering below the surface and then one day just explodes into a
maelstrom of chaos.
This is where things stand in Britain with the betrayal of Brexit. It is also where things
stand with Trump's daily betrayal of his pledge to end the needless wars and regime change
operations.
Tulsi Gabbard will collect a lot of voters sick to death of our foreign policy
destroying the lives of millions, draining our spirit and emptying our pockets.
You can see it happening, slowly and then all at once.
The signs of the chaos as we approach next week's European Parliamentary elections were
there if we were willing to look closely. More often than not, our being distracted or, worse,
our normalcy bias keeps us ignorant of what's happening.
Raising goats I've unfortunately witnessed this first hand and in a devastating way. Their
entire digestive tracts are simply big fermentation vessels, chocked full of different bacteria
working on what they've eaten.
When they're healthy, it's all good. The good bacteria digests the food, they absorb it and
they are vibrant, alert and annoying.
But, if one of those other bacteria begin to get out of control, they can go from healthy to
frothing at the mouth and dying overnight. The goat is the Taoist symbol for 'strong on the
outside, fragile on the inside.' Our political system is definitely a goat at this point.
Which brings me back to politics.
As long as the political class maintains 1) the illusion of choice as to who are leaders
are and 2) keep things running smoothly a small minority of us will complain, simmer and stew
but we won't be able to convince anyone else it's worth upsetting the status quo.
We'll stay below critical mass, until we don't. And the important point here is
that, like my goats, they can can act and vote perfectly normally one day and then in open
revolt the next and you have a very small window of time to make the right decisions to save
the situation.
The original Brexit vote was that opportunity for the power elite to get it through
their thick skulls that Britons didn't want to go where the EU was headed.
Theresa May, Dominic Grieve and the rest of those in the Westminster bubble refused to
accept that they no longer had control over the situation. Theresa May like an autistic monkey
keeps putting forth vote after vote to get her Withdrawal Treaty past a parliament that has no
business still presiding over the country .
She hopes by making her treaty legal it will stop Farage's revolution. I have news for her
and the technocrats in Brussels. If Farage wins the next General Election he will nullify her
treaty under
Article 62 of the Vienna Conventions on the Laws of Treaties.
French Poodle Emmanuel Macron cannot get control of the Yellow Vest Protests in France.
And the EU itself cannot get control over Matteo Salvini in Italy.
And they will only get it through their heads after Nigel Farage and the Brexit party unite
the left and the right to throw them all out in the EP elections but also the General one as
well.
The same thing happened in 2016 here in the U.S., both on the left and the right.
Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump were the vessels for our deep dissatisfaction with the D.C.
corruption. The realignment was staring us in the face in 2016.
The Davos Crowd haven't gotten the message. And they won't listen until we force them
to.
Trump is compromised because of his vanity and his weakness. There is not much hope
going into 2020 unless Tulsi Gabbard catches fire soon and begins taking out contenders one by
one.
More likely she is, like Ron Paul, setting the table for 2024 and a post-Trump world. I
fear however it will be far too late for the U.S. by then. Both she and Farage, along with
Salvini and many others across Europe, represent the push towards authenticity that will change
the political landscape across the west for decades to come.
And that is what the great realignment I see happening is. It isn't about party or even
principles. It is about coming together to fix the broken political system first and then
working on solutions to specific problems later.
Here's hoping Trump doesn't destroy the world by mistake first.
Trump has been limited by the Deep State bogus Russia collusion investigations aided by
MSM propaganda. If this author thinks Bernie or Tulsi Gabbard will not face special
prosecutors if they try and Rock the boat then he is naive.
Bernie rolled over and supported Hillary after it was proven she rigged the nomination
process, so to believe he could take on the swamp to any degree is laughable.
And Tulsi doesn't have the deep pockets like Trump to hire the lawyers needed to wage war
against The Swamp.
Voting for a woman because "it's time" or because she's a woman etc., has become a thing.
Those reasons seem stupid but that's the "logic." I see a lot of dem women jumping on the
bandwagon, trying to get lucky.
Tulsi to me is like Ron Paul was in 08. A sane voice pointing out the stupidity of US
foreign policy.
She aint no Ron Paul for sure but is at least the only one this cycle who supports as her
main position getting the US out of foreign entanglements.
She is never going to win just like rp coud never win. But Im sending her a few bucks
every month just to keep the message going.
xxx, 1 hour ago
"Tulsi Gabbard will collect a lot of voters sick to death of our foreign policy destroying the lives of millions, draining our
spirit and emptying our pockets."
Uh, no, Tom, she won't be collecting a lot of voters, well, at least not near enough. Biden
has already been "chosen" like Hillary was over Bernie last time. You should know by now Tom, we don't select our candidates, they're
chosen for us for our own good.
yyy,
2 hours ago
This is going to take a long time. You just can't turn this ship around overnight.
US Political System:
United States is neither a Republic and even less Socialistic. US, in the technical literature, is called a Polyarchy (state capitalism).
Polyarchy (state capitalism) idea is old, it goes back to James Madison and the foundation of the US Constitution. A Polyarchy is
a system in which power resides in the hands of those who Madison called the wealth of the nation. The educated and responsible class
of men. The rest of the population is to be fragmented and distracted. They are allowed to participate every couple of years by voting.
That’s it. The population have little choice among the educated and responsible men they are voting for.
This is not an accident. America was founded on the principle, explained by the Founding Father that the primary goal of government
is to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. That is how the US Constitution was designed sort of ensuring that
there will be a lot of struggle. US is not as the same as it were two centuries ago but that remains the elites ideal.
Polyarchy (state capitalism) it is a system where small group actually rules on behalf of capital, and majority’s decision making
is confined to choosing among selective number of elites within tightly controlled elective process. It is a form of consensual domination
made possible by the structural domination of the global capital which allowed concentration of political powers.
A republic is SUBORDINATE to democracy. Polyarchy can’t be subordinated to any form of Democracy.
zzz,
2 hours ago
Is the author, to use an English term, daft? Tulsi Gabbard won't get out of the primaries, much less defeat Sanders or Biden. Farage
achieved his goal (Brexit), then found out (SHOCK!) that the will of the people doesn't mean anything anymore.
If Luongo had wanted
to talk about the people's uprising, he should've mentioned the Tea Party.
bbb,
3 hours ago
Gabbard appears to have some moral fibre and half a backbone, at least for a politician, regardless of their views, Farage is a slimy
charlatan opportunistic populist shill
ccc,
3 hours ago (Edited)
I like Tulsi Gabbard on MIC stuff (and as a surfer in my youth - still dream about that almost endless pipeline at Jeffreys Bay in
August), but...
On everything else?
She votes along party lines no matter what bollocks legislation the Democrats put in front of Congress. And anyone standing full-square
behind Saunders on his socialist/marxist agenda?
Do me a favour.
ddd,
1 hour ago (Edited)
Farage left because he saw what UKIP was becoming...a zionazi party.
Also Gabbard is a CFR member.
eee,
3 hours ago
Gold, Goats and Guns? Certainly not guns under President Gabbard! Here's her idea of "common sense gun control:"
I'm totally against warmongering, but I have to ask - what good is it to stop foreign warmongering, only to turn around and incite
civil war here by further raping the 2nd Amendment? The CFR ties are disturbing as hell, too. And to compare Gabbard to Ron Paul?
No, just...no!
fff,
3 hours ago
Always been a fan of Bernie, but I hope Gabbard becomes president. The world would breathe a huge sigh of relief (before
the assassination).
ggg, 4 hours ago
By this time in his 1st term, Obama had started the US Wars in Syria and Libya and has restarted the Iraq War.
Thus far Trump has
ended the War in Syria, pledged not to get us dragged into Libya’s civil wars and started a peace process with North Korea.
Venezuela and Iran look scary. We don’t know what Gabbard would actually do when faced with the same events. Obama talked peace
too.
So in the past she was Obama style warmonger. Interesting... She is not stupid enough not to understand that this was a US
sponsored color revolution.
Does this mean that she is a fake like Obama was?
Notable quotes:
"... "We cannot stand by while Russia unilaterally degrades Ukraine's territorial integrity. We must offer direct military assistance -- defensive weapons, military supplies and training -- to ensure Ukraine has adequate resources to respond to Russia's aggressions and defend themselves. We cannot view Ukraine as an isolated incident. If we do not take seriously the threat of thinly veiled Russian aggression, and commit to aiding the people of Ukraine immediately, we will find ourselves in a more dangerous, expensive and disastrous situation in the future." ..."
Press Release Calls for U.S. to offer weapons, military training
assistance
Washington, DC – Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard (HI-02) today released the following
statement after the President's announcement of expanded sanctions against Russian
officials:
"Russia has violated the sovereignty and independence of the Ukrainian people, in direct
contravention of its own treaty obligations and international law," said Congresswoman Tulsi
Gabbard, an Army combat veteran and member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. "I support
the sanctions announced today, and I strongly urge the President to go further and consider a
broader range of consequences. If Russia is allowed to continue its aggressive push for control
in Ukraine, there will be long-term, serious, and costly security risks for the United States
and Europe. Russia must face serious consequences for their actions; the U.S. must consider
options that truly isolate Russia economically and diplomatically -- not just sanction a
handful of oligarchs -- and send a message of unity and strength from the international
community.
"We cannot stand by while Russia unilaterally degrades Ukraine's territorial integrity. We
must offer direct military assistance -- defensive weapons, military supplies and training --
to ensure Ukraine has adequate resources to respond to Russia's aggressions and defend
themselves. We cannot view Ukraine as an isolated incident. If we do not take seriously the
threat of thinly veiled Russian aggression, and commit to aiding the people of Ukraine
immediately, we will find ourselves in a more dangerous, expensive and disastrous situation in
the future."
In a House Foreign Affairs Committee mark-up of H.Res. 499 recently, the congresswoman
gained unanimous approval on including amendments on anti-corruption, and protection of civil
and political rights throughout Ukraine. She also supported the House passage of H.R. 4152,
which authorized loan guarantees for Ukraine.
Warren (D)(1): "Trump backers applaud Warren in heart of MAGA country" [
Politico ].
West Virginia: "It was a startling spectacle in the heart of Trump country: At least a dozen
supporters of the president -- some wearing MAGA stickers -- nodding their heads, at times
even clapping, for liberal firebrand Elizabeth Warren . LeeAnn Blankenship, a 38-year-old
coach and supervisor at a home visitation company who grew up in Kermit and wore a sharp pink
suit, said she may now support Warren in 2020 after voting for Trump in 2016.
'She's a good ol' country girl like anyone else,' she said of Warren, who grew up in Oklahoma. 'She's
earned where she is, it wasn't given to her. I respect that.'"
Also: "The 63-year-old fire
chief, Wilburn 'Tommy' Preece, warned Warren and her team beforehand that the area was 'Trump
country' and to not necessarily expect a friendly reception. But he also told her that the town would welcome anyone, of any party, who wanted to address the opioid
crisis ." ( More on West
Virginia in 2018 .
Best part is a WaPo headline: "Bernie Sanders Supporter Attends Every
DNC Rule Change Meeting. DNC Member Calls Her a Russian Plant." • Lol. I've been saying
"lol" a lot, lately.)
Warren (D)(2): "Our military can help lead the fight in combating climate change"
[Elizabeth Warren,
Medium ]. "In short, climate change is real, it is worsening by the day, and it is
undermining our military readiness. And instead of meeting this threat head-on, Washington is
ignoring it -- and making it worse . That's why today I am introducing my
Defense Climate Resiliency and Readiness Act to harden the U.S. military against the threat
posed by climate change, and to leverage its huge energy footprint as part of our climate
solution.
It starts with an ambitious goal: consistent with the objectives of the Green New
Deal, the Pentagon should achieve net zero carbon emissions for all its non-combat bases and
infrastructure by 2030 .. We don't have to choose between a green military and an effective
one . Together, we can work with our military to fight climate change -- and
win." • On the one hand, the Pentagon's energy footprint is huge, and it's a good idea
to do something about that. On the other, putting solar panels on every tank that went into
Iraq Well, there are larger questions to be asked. A lot of dunking on Warren about this. It
might play in the heartland, though.
"... I have high respect for Dr Paul especially on his foreign policies and I'm so glad that he has recognized Tulsi stances on ending these regime change wars and over stepping our bounds constitutional overseas. Please keep spreading the word on Tulsi our Republic depends on it. ..."
"... It doesn't surprise me in the least that Ron Paul feels well about Tulsi Gabbard - mostly in regards to her foreign policy. Tulsi can expect considerable support from Libertarians. ..."
I have high respect for Dr Paul especially on his foreign policies and I'm so glad that he
has recognized Tulsi stances on ending these regime change wars and over stepping our bounds
constitutional overseas. Please keep spreading the word on Tulsi our Republic depends on
it.
It doesn't surprise me in the least that Ron Paul feels well about Tulsi Gabbard - mostly
in regards to her foreign policy. Tulsi can expect considerable support from
Libertarians.
CBS News (2/4/19) briefly interviewed Honolulu Civil Beats reporter Nick Grube regarding
Gabbard's campaign announcement. The anchors had clearly never encountered the term
anti-interventionism before, struggling to even pronounce the word, then laughing and
saying it "doesn't roll off the tongue."
"... MSNBC is also that bastion of journalistic integrity that hired an exposed CIA mole, Ken Dilanian, to feed its viewers propaganda about "national security ..."
"... Now, the parties truly "meddling in America's democracy" should be very clear, although I can only scratch the surface here concerning the long history of media corruption and outright lies broadcast all the time. ..."
"... The criminal behaviour continues unabated. Lies and fraud abound. American behaviour worldwide is an embarrassment to any free thinking individual. They are a danger to all of us. ..."
"... Organisations like the BBC and all the rest of the corporate media are a greater threat to democracy than any foreign army or terrorist organisation. ..."
CNN rigged a poll to censor out nearly everyone under 45 years of age. Based on this nonsensical false sampling they claim Biden
is now in the lead.
MSNBC was caught making up false numbers to report, increasing Biden from an actual 25% approval to a magical 28%, just enough
to edge out Bernie Sanders. But this is a fraud, deliberate journalistic malfeasance at the highest levels. How could such a thing
happen?
MSNBC is also that bastion of journalistic integrity that hired an exposed CIA mole, Ken Dilanian, to feed its viewers propaganda
about "national security."
MSNBC also made hysterical, highly dangerous, and false claims about the Russians' ability and intention to shut down America's
electrical grid, a completely false story that was retracted as soon as it went out by the Washington Post. This kind of unhinged
war propaganda could lead the world straight to Armageddon.
Now, the parties truly "meddling in America's democracy" should be very clear, although I can only scratch the surface here
concerning the long history of media corruption and outright lies broadcast all the time.
Grafter
The criminal behaviour continues unabated. Lies and fraud abound. American behaviour worldwide is an embarrassment to any
free thinking individual. They are a danger to all of us. We can start by removing them from Europe along with their so called
"allies". Here in the disunited UK T.May and her little gang of Tory millionaires should be top priority for political oblivion.
People worldwide urgently need to wake up to the sick joke that goes under the name of "American democracy".
mark
Organisations like the BBC and all the rest of the corporate media are a greater threat to democracy than any foreign army
or terrorist organisation.
They need to be constantly exposed for what they are rather than actually suppressed or controlled. They can be safely left
to wither on the vine and decline into irrelevance. Social media and sites like this are a powerful antidote.
Joe Biden was a part of this Obama mafia who was trying to take down Trump ...
Graham still buying Russiagate nonsense, so it is only half-right.
Notable quotes:
"... Who are the idiots now? Will, since this report has been revealed, like the Democrats screamed about, saying it that would expose Trump. It actually exposes Hillary and several others....and now is heading Obama's way. Put them behind Barrs! ..."
Who are the idiots now? Will, since this report has been revealed, like the Democrats
screamed about, saying it that would expose Trump. It actually exposes Hillary and several
others....and now is heading Obama's way. Put them behind Barrs!
No Senator Graham, you're not going to find out that Russia provided the
dossier. You are going to find out that Nellie Ohr (who is a CIA agent, one of Brennan's
corrupt crew), and Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS, constructed the dossier.
They then took it
and washed it through the Ohr's buddy Christopher Steele. That was to give it a cache of
foreign provenance. And then they got other willing participants like John McCain, and the
lying media to do their part in forwarding the pretense that the dossier had some sort of
legitimacy and the corrupt FBI leadership put it in front of a FISA judge to deceive them
into granting the FISA warrant which allowed the FBI to spy all through the entire Trump
campaign, and even to keep spying on Trump when he was seated in the Oval Office.
They
participated in sedition and treason. ALL OF THEM should be hanged for this crime against the
American people.
Bob Mueller is an Establishment STOOGE who, Along with James Comey, have been covering up
for the Deep State and Shadow Government (SES) Cronies for over 20 years!!!
Joann Tague, 2 weeks ago
The man that bleached the computers and the lady that physically destroyed 2 computers with a hammier needed to be
arrested......That is a start! Hillary Clinton is guilty of all the charges Trump was investigated for. President Trump is
totally innocent.
So it's back to the Clinton Emails to start. Lets see how the news media reports that. The democrats are truly evil and
dishonest.
darlingUSA, 12 weeks ago
Strzok and Page - those two people are your typical Clinton and Obama supporters. What does that say about her supporters.
Only those two knew that as POTUS, Trump was going to do what was best for the People, not pay for play and not cover tracks
of corrupt politicians. That's what they hated. That and the People of the U.S.A.
Jen X, 2 weeks ago
Dems want Barr to resign because he didn't give them the results they wanted. If Mueller and Barr found collusion, the
Dems would say they did their job, and they did a fine job, and would say that we should accept it and move on.
kens 616, 1 week ago (edited)
Obama their coming after you.. This Russian hoax did not start at the bottom...it came from the top. You OBAMA..
Stop calling it the "Democratic" party - it's the "Democrat" party... "Democrat" is a NAME
. "Democratic" is a description; and doesn't describe them at all
Days before Trump's escalation of his illegal war in Syria, Congresswoman & war veteran
Tulsi Gabbard confronts Defense Secretary James Mattis on the unconstitutionality of such
missile strikes!
This Woman, whent against Hillary-establishement, Dems, She is smart & strong, I want
her running for Presidency, even some Republicans, would support Her, Right?? :-)
A brilliant statement by Tulsi Gabbard. Beto O'Rourke appears bored, unconcerned and
vaguely gormless when he rocks back and forth, bites his nails and extends his lower
lip.
"... Tulsi continues to stack up very reputable endorsements. This time from a three time Presidential Candidate. ..."
"... Tulsi's momentum is going for critical mass, Its time for a true maverick! #Rogue2020 ..."
"... Ron Paul's endorsement is surprising and interesting, in that it seems sincere. Most repubs give bad-faith assessments of the dem candidates. ..."
"... It really should be seen as a general election endorsement if it came down to a run between Tulsi and Trump, why the hell there was not a follow up question asking Dr Paul who he would endorse Tulsi and Trump I am sure Paul would endorse Tulsi. ..."
I am as unlikely to vote republican as anybody but I admired Ron Paul's honesty when he
ran for the presidency. Admired enough that I actually voted for him although his economic
policies and gold standard kept me asking more questions than getting answers. I am stoked
that my favorite republican voice gives his support to Tulsi. It is yet another confirmation
of my choice for 2020.
It really should be seen as a general election endorsement if it came down to a run
between Tulsi and Trump, why the hell there was not a follow up question asking Dr Paul who
he would endorse Tulsi and Trump I am sure Paul would endorse Tulsi. At any rate this is a
big deal a lot of people respect Dr Paul and this endorsement will help Tulsi.
I hope that might be interesting to Tulsi supporters.
In this interesting speech "Fascism in the Age of Trump" Chris Hedges predicts 20 years to the US empire. So somewhere
around 2040 or when the age of "cheap oil" approximately ends and/or come under considerable stress.
He does not understands neoliberal social system well and does not use the term "neoliberarism" in his speak (which is
detrimental to its value) , but he manages to provide a set of interesting arguments, although the speech is full of exaggerations
and inconsistencies.
It also can explains the current Trump stance toward China as "Hail Mary" attempt top preserve the global hegemony by
suppressing China even at considerable cost for the USA population.
I really feel for Chris Hedges on a personal level. Unlike say Blyth, or Chomsky, whom
seem to revel in being intellectual bad boys, Hedges seems to be at heart a very conservative
man in the true sense of the word, driven to the extremes by the rabid greed and sociopathic
nature of mainstream politics. The corruption of it seems to visibly torture him. It takes a
special kind of courage to take an unpopular stand like he does.
President Eisenhower stated that the largest threat to our Democracy was/is the Military
Industrial Complex. He quickly terminated the Korean War that he inherited then kept us out
of foreign conflict. He believed in a strong Middle Class and promoted our economy with a
massive highway system. He kept the highest progressive tax rate at 90% discouraging CEO's
from massively overpaying themselves.
"... Fox News contributor Ralph Peters suggested Tucker was like a Nazi sympathizer for wondering whether Russia and the US should work together against ISIS. Another critic mostly agrees with Peters - and Tucker takes him on ..."
"... Max Boot is an example of someone who takes himself so seriously that they become a joke. ..."
"... Max Boot is never right! He had so many idiotic opinions! A man who wants to intervene in every part of the world and sod the consequences! He's a real neo con extremist! Dangerous! ..."
Fox News contributor Ralph Peters suggested Tucker was like a Nazi sympathizer for wondering
whether Russia and the US should work together against ISIS. Another critic mostly agrees with
Peters - and Tucker takes him on
Max Boot is never right! He had so many idiotic opinions! A man who wants to intervene in
every part of the world and sod the consequences! He's a real neo con extremist!
Dangerous!
Her call for impeachment procedures is a blunder. She is trying to play the dominant mood of the Dems crowd, not
understanding that in this case Biden will be the winner.
Notable quotes:
"... Beto O'Rourke, the rich-kid airhead who declared shortly before the Mueller report was released that Trump, "beyond the shadow of a doubt, sought to collude with the Russian government," will not fare much better. ..."
"... Sen. Elizabeth Warren meanwhile seems to be tripping over her own two feet as she predicts one moment that Trump is heading to jail , declares the next that voters don't care about the Mueller report because they're too concerned with bread-and-butter issues, and then calls for dragging Congress into the impeachment morass regardless. ..."
Besides Fox News – whose ratings have soared while Russia-obsessed CNN’s have plummeted – the chief beneficiary is Trump.
Post-Mueller, the man has the wind in his sails. Come 2020, Sen. Bernie Sanders could cut through his phony populism with ease.
But if Jeff Bezos’s Washington Post succeeds in tarring him with Russia the same way it tried to tar Trump, then the Democratic
nominee will be a bland centrist whom the incumbent will happily bludgeon.
Former Vice President Joe Biden – the John McCain-loving, speech-slurring, child-fondler who was for a wall along the Mexican
border before he was against it – will end up as a bug splat on the Orange One’s windshield.
Beto O'Rourke, the rich-kid airhead who
declared shortly before the Mueller report was released that Trump, "beyond the shadow of a
doubt, sought to collude with the Russian government," will not fare much better.
Sen.
Elizabeth Warren meanwhile seems to be tripping over her own two feet as she predicts one
moment that Trump is
heading to jail , declares the next that voters
don't care about the Mueller report because they're too concerned with bread-and-butter
issues, and then calls for dragging Congress into the
impeachment morass regardless.
Such "logic" is lost on voters, so it seems to be a safe bet that enough will stay home next
Election Day to allow the rough beast to slouch towards Bethlehem yet again.
"... You know the ones: articles predicting whatever the news of the day will be The End of Democracy. Alongside The New York Times and The Washington Post , whose op-ed pages are pretty much a daily End of Days, practitioners include Chicken Little regulars Rachel Maddow , Lawrence Tribe, Malcolm Nance, David Corn, Benjamin Wittes, Charles Pierce, Bob Cesca, and Marcy Wheeler. ..."
"... We've gone from thinking the president is literally a Russian agent (since 1987, the last year your mom and dad dated!) to worrying the attorney general is trying to obstruct a House committee from investigating a completed investigation into obstruction by writing a summary not everyone liked of a report already released. But the actual content is irrelevant. What matters is there is another crisis to write about! The op-ed industry can't keep up with all the Republic-ending stuff Trump and his henchworld are up to. ..."
"... All persons with Russian-sounding names are Kremlin Agents(tm) *except* the alleged sources for The Dossier(tm). Those anonymous Russians can be trusted implicitly. ..."
"... Matt Tiabbi has a book out on hate, Hate Inc, and has done an excellent interview with Chris Hedges on RT. ..."
"... Rep. Eric Swalwell (D, California), who sits on the House Intelligence Committee, before Mueller finished his investigation, on Hardball on MSNBC, Jan. 2019: ..."
"... Matthews: "Do you believe the president, right now, has been an agent of the Russians?" Swalwell: "Yes, I think there's more evidence that he is-" Matthews: "Agent?" Swalwell: "Yes. and I think all the arrows point in that direction, and I haven't seen a single piece of evidence that he's not." Matthews: "An agent like in the 1940s where you had people who were 'reds,' to use an old term, like that? In other words, working for a foreign power?" Swalwell: "He's working on behalf of the Russians, yes." ..."
"... One of the best things to come from Trump's election has been the lengths some of his opponents will go to discredit themselves in the court of public opinion: Brennan, Clapper, Clinton, Comey, McCabe, the list goes on and on, often merely to make a buck. Even Watergate figures like Carl Bernstein and John Dean have demolished their own reputations, or what was left of them to begin with. If they only knew, or cared, how badly they look in hindsight. ..."
"... @MM: >>One of the best things to come from Trump's election has been the lengths some of his opponents will go to discredit themselves in the court of public opinion << ..."
"... These people don't care about "public opinion." They operate inside a circle-jerk echo chamber whose membership includes the powers dominating the culture, the media (both mainstream and social), the government, and, increasingly, the major corporations. In short, the bulk of what some call the Ruling Class. ..."
"... Facts, evidence, and truth have nothing to do with it. So an investigation, rigged though it was, nonetheless clears Trump of conspiring with Moscow, but the story becomes how Trump is guilty anyway. Orwell, a man well ahead of his time, had the whole thing figured out long ago. ..."
"... "Now tell me again it's all 'sound and fury, signifying nothing.'" On the issue of Trump/Russia collusion, it is, and always was, because we now know it started with the Clinton campaign and a now-discredited dossier. ..."
"... These are the people who we elect to "govern" us. If one looks back upon the 230 years or so during which this thing of ours has been in existence, the overwhelming majority of our elected officials (federal, state and local) have probably been, to one degree or another, narcissistic, mendacious and just generally dishonest incompetents. ..."
"... Lynch, Holder, Obama as silent as church mice. i:e who gave Comey his marching orders ? ..."
"... What "illegal things" were revealed in the Mueller report? Trump was trying to obstruct an INJUSTICE, i.e. the "soft coup" done by the anti-American, lawless leftist Dems. ..."
"... On the Big Ugly Lie*, what's their excuse? * Trump colluded with Russia to steal the election, an attack on par with Pearl Harbor and 9/11. ..."
You know the ones: articles predicting whatever the news of the day will be The End of
Democracy. Alongside TheNew York Times and TheWashington Post ,
whose op-ed pages are pretty much a daily End of Days, practitioners include Chicken Little
regulars Rachel
Maddow , Lawrence Tribe, Malcolm Nance, David Corn, Benjamin Wittes, Charles Pierce, Bob
Cesca, and Marcy Wheeler.
You'd have thought after almost three years of wrong predictions (no new wars, no economic
collapse, no Russiagate) this industry would have slam shut faster than a Rust Belt union hall.
You would have especially thought these kinds of articles would have tapered off with the
release of the Mueller Report. It turned out to be the opposite -- while Mueller found no
conspiracy and charged no obstruction, the dang report turns out to be chock-a-block with
hidden messages, secret road maps, and voices speaking in tongues (albeit only to Democrats)
about obstruction.
We've gone from thinking the president is literally a Russian agent (since 1987, the last
year your mom and dad dated!) to worrying the attorney general is trying to obstruct a House
committee from investigating a completed investigation into obstruction by writing a summary
not everyone liked of a report already released. But the actual content is irrelevant. What
matters is there is another crisis to write about! The op-ed industry can't keep up with
all the Republic-ending stuff Trump and his henchworld are up to.
Help has arrived. Now anyone can write their own fear-mongering article, using this handy
tool, the op-ed-o-Matic. The GoFundMe for the AI-driven app version will be up soon, but for
now, simply follow these simple steps to punditry!
Start with a terrifying cliche. Here are some to choose from: There is a clear and
present danger; Dark clouds gather, the center cannot hold; It is unclear the Republic will
survive; Democracy itself is under attack; We face a profound/unique/existential
threat/crisis/turning point/test. Also, that "First they came for "
poem is good. Be creative; The Washington Post
calls the present state of things "constitutional nihilism." Snappy!
Be philosophical and slightly weary in tone,
such as "I am in despair as I have never been before about the future of our experiment in
self-rule." Say you're
sad for the state of the nation. Claim time is short, but there just may be a chance to
stop this. Add " by any means necessary."
Then choose a follow-on quote to reinforce the danger, maybe from: The Federalist Papers,
especially Madison on tyranny; Lincoln, pretty much anything about "the people, government,
test for our great nation, blah blah;" the Jack Nicholson character about not being able to
handle the truth; something from the neocons like Bill Kristol or Max Boot who now hate Trump.
Start with "even" as in " even arch conservative Jennifer Rubin now says "
After all that to get the blood up, explain the current bad thing Trump did. Label it "a
high crime or misdemeanor if there ever was one." Use some legalese, such as proffer, colorable
argument, inter alia, sinecure, duly-authorized, perjurious, and that little law book squiggly
thingy (18 USC § 1513.) Be sure to say "no one is above the law," then a dramatic hyphen,
then "even the president." Law school is overrated; you and Google know as much as anyone about
emoluments, perjury, campaign finance regulations, contempt, tax law, subpoenas, obstruction,
or whatever the day's thing is, and it changes a lot. But whatever, the bastard is obviously
guilty. Your standard is
tabloid-level , so just make it too good to be true.
Next, find an old Trump tweet where he criticized someone for doing just what he is doing.
That never gets old! Reference burning the Reichstag. If the crisis you're writing about deals
with immigration or white supremacy (meh, basically the same thing, right?), refer to
Kristallnacht.
Include every bad thing Trump ever did as examples of why whatever you're talking about must
be true. Swing for the fence with lines like "seeks to destroy decades of LGBTQIXYZ progress"
or "built concentration camps to murder children." Cite Trump accepting Putin's word over the
findings of "our" intelligence community, his "very fine people" support for Nazi cosplayers,
the magic list of 10,000 lies, how Trump has blood on his hands for endangering the press as
the enemy of the people, and how Trump caused the hurricane in Puerto Rico.
And Nixon. Always bring up Nixon. The context or details don't matter. In case Wikipedia is
down, he was one of the presidents before Trump your grandpa liked for awhile and then didn't
like after Robert Redford showed he was a clear and present danger to Saturday Night Live, or
the Saturday Night Massacre, it doesn't matter, we all agree Nixon.
Focus on the villain, who must be unhinged, off the rails, over the edge, diseased, out of
control, a danger to himself and others, straight-up diagnosed
mentally ill , or under Trump/Putin's spell. Barr is currently the Vader-du-jour. The
New York Timescharacterized him as
"The transformation of William Barr from respected establishment lawyer to evil genius
outplaying and undermining his old friend Robert Mueller is a Grand Guignol spectacle." James
Comey went as far as
describing Trump people as having had their souls eaten by the president. That's not
hyperbole, it's journalism!
But also hold out for a hero, the Neo one inside Trumpworld who will rise, flip, or leak to
save us. Forget past nominees like the pee tape, Comey, Clapper, Flynn, Page, Papadopoulos,
Manafort, Cohen, Mattis, Kelly, Barr, Linda Sarsour (replace with Ilhan Omar,) Avenatti, and
Omarosa to focus on McGahn. He's gonna be the one!
Then call for everyone else bad to resign, be impeached, go to jail, have their old statues
torn down, delete their accounts, be referred to the SDNY, be smited by the 25th Amendment, or
have their last election delegitimized by the Night King. Draw your rationale from either the
most obscure corner of the Founding Founders' work ("the rough draft, subsection IIXX of the
Articles of Confederation addendum, Spanish language edition, makes clear Trump is unfit for
office") or go broad as in "his oath requires him to uphold the Constitution, which he clearly
is not doing." Like Nancy Pelosi, mention how Trump seems unlikely to voluntarily cede power if
he loses in 2020.
Cultural references are important. Out of fashion: Godfather memes especially about
who is going to be Fredo, 'bots, weaponize, Pussy Hats, the Parkland Kids, Putin homophobe
themes, incest "jokes" about Ivanka, the phrases the walls are closing in, tick tock, take to
the streets, adult in the room, just wait for Mueller Time, and let that sink in.
Things you can still use: abyss, grifter, crime family, not who we are, follow the money.
Also you may make breaking news out of Twitter typos. Stylistically anyone with a
Russian-sounding name must be either an oligarch, friend of Putin, or have ties to the Kremlin.
Same for anyone who has done business with Trump or used the ATM in the Deutsche Bank lobby in
New York. Mention Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez somewhere because every article has to mention AOC
somewhere now.
Finally, your op-ed should end either with this House Judiciary Committee chair Jerry Nadler
faux Kennedy-esque
quote, "The choice is simple: We can stand up to this president in defense of the country
and the Constitution and the liberty we love, or we can let the moment pass us by. History will
judge us for how we face this challenge" or, if you want to go old school, this one from
Hillary Clinton
saying, "I really believe that we are in a crisis, a constitutional crisis. We are in a
crisis of confidence and a crisis over the rule of law and the institutions that have weathered
a lot of problems over so many years. And it is something that, regardless of where you stand
in the political spectrum, should give real heartburn to everybody. Because this is a test for
our country."
Crisis. Test. Judgment of history. Readers love that stuff, because it equates Trump's dumb
tweets with Lincoln pulling the Union together after a literal civil war that killed millions
of Americans in brother-to-brother conflict. As long as the rubes believe the world is coming
to an end, you might as well make a buck writing about it.
Liberal journalists seem to think that Trump is either an ignorant oaf or an evil genius.
These views are oppositional, but many liberal journalists seem to hold both of them.
I pretty much lost all respect for the Washington Post during the last election. Each WaPo
anti-Trump op ed became increasingly apocalyptic until you imagined that the universe would
implode should he be elected. It was that silly.
But other media promote "end of the world as we know it "scenarios also. TAC included.
Seriously, if I read one more article about how flyover America is a drug infested,
impoverished wasteland inhabited by those not intelligent or ambitious enough to move to the
coasts.
Drama draws readers and online traffic.
I guess it's up to the reader to sift through the competing narratives for the truth.
On the one hand, I agree that it's laughable and ridiculous -- this flood of apocalyptic
predictions and articles, wherein Trump, a juvenile buffoon who in fact does not even control
the government he nominally heads, is depicted as some kind of unprecedented threat to
democracy and Everything We Hold Dear.
I mean, OK, the judgment of the libs and neocons writing this stuff is clearly addled by
their irrational and rabid hatred for Trump. Still, are they really that stupid or is it just
that they are hopelessly dishonest? I lean toward the latter explanation.
That said, the abiding irony is that there is in fact a deepening crisis in this country.
It's about an increasingly dysfunctional democracy, a bitterly alienated and divided
citizenry, a set of ruling elites who despise a large percentage of their countrymen and have
contrived an economic and political system that enriches themselves while consigning the
despised percentage to permanent struggling status, a cultural establishment that rejects the
traditional Judeo-Christian values that built Western civilization and, Jacobin-style, is
busily overturning and replacing those values with their own would-be New Moral Order.
And so forth.
So yeah, there most definitely is a crisis and it might even be apocalyptic in dimension
and character. (Heck, it put Trump in the White House.) But the actual crisis is not the one
the fools are writing about. In fact, not only are they not writing about it -- they're in
large part responsible for it.
Like I said: an abiding irony. One for the history books.
All persons with Russian-sounding names are Kremlin Agents(tm) *except* the alleged sources
for The Dossier(tm). Those anonymous Russians can be trusted implicitly.
Van Buren has apparently chosen to forget the apocalyptic rants from the right during the
Obama administration. As for today's alarmists, as I write this the Dow is down over 700
points due to Trump's foolish trade war, his administration is ignoring two centuries of
tradition by stonewalling Congress' legitimate oversight authority and John Bolton is trying
to provoke a war with Iran. Now tell me again it's all "sound and fury, signifying nothing."
Rep. Eric Swalwell (D, California), who sits on the House Intelligence Committee, before
Mueller finished his investigation, on Hardball on MSNBC, Jan. 2019:
Matthews: "Do you believe the president, right now, has been an agent of the
Russians?"
Swalwell: "Yes, I think there's more evidence that he is-"
Matthews: "Agent?"
Swalwell: "Yes. and I think all the arrows point in that direction, and I haven't seen a
single piece of evidence that he's not."
Matthews: "An agent like in the 1940s where you had people who were 'reds,' to use an old
term, like that? In other words, working for a foreign power?"
Swalwell: "He's working on behalf of the Russians, yes."
The same congressman, who makes Joseph McCarthy look moderate, after Mueller completed his
investigation, on Fox News, Mar. 2019:
Cavuto: "Would you say the president is not a Russian agent?"
Swalwell: "The president acts on Russia's behalf, I don't need to see the Mueller report for
that."
And this month, after he had annouced his presidential bid, on Face the Nation:
Brennan: "But I know you have been talking because you are also in an intelligence role on
that House committee saying a number of things that I want to quote back to you. Up until
this point you said when you were asked in January, 'do you believe the president right now
has been an agent of the Russians?' You said, 'yes,' you were asked again at the end of that
month by a questioner, 'I'm still not hearing any evidence that he's an agent of Russia.' And
you said, 'Yeah I think it's pretty clear it's almost hiding in plain sight.' The Mueller
report did not substantiate any conspiracy or coordination with Russia. Do you regret
prejudging the outcome?"
Swalwell: "No, actually I- I- I think I should have been louder."
And people say Denin Nunes politicized the House Intelligence Committee?
One of the best things to come from Trump's election has been the lengths some of his
opponents will go to discredit themselves in the court of public opinion: Brennan, Clapper,
Clinton, Comey, McCabe, the list goes on and on, often merely to make a buck. Even Watergate
figures like Carl Bernstein and John Dean have demolished their own reputations, or what was
left of them to begin with. If they only knew, or cared, how badly they look in
hindsight.
"Liberal journalists seem to think that Trump is either an ignorant oaf or an evil
genius."
You're missing the point, it's Trump's ignorance, his extreme sense of entitlement and
limitless ego that are a danger to our democracy. He doesn't understand the norms of
democracy, otherwise known as American principles. All he understands is what he wants and
his notion of American greatness, which has nothing to do with true American principles.
@MM: >>One of the best things to come from Trump's election has been the lengths some
of his opponents will go to discredit themselves in the court of public opinion <<
These people don't care about "public opinion." They operate inside a circle-jerk echo
chamber whose membership includes the powers dominating the culture, the media (both
mainstream and social), the government, and, increasingly, the major corporations. In short,
the bulk of what some call the Ruling Class.
In their minds, public opinion can be suppressed or at least controlled by their near
monopoly on major media. The stories they want told will get told. The stories they don't
want told will not get told. Except at more or less isolated right-wing websites and such
whose audience and reach are limited.
Facts, evidence, and truth have nothing to do with it. So an investigation, rigged though
it was, nonetheless clears Trump of conspiring with Moscow, but the story becomes how Trump
is guilty anyway. Orwell, a man well ahead of his time, had the whole thing figured out long
ago.
jhawk: "As I write this the Dow is down over 700 points."
This is the same Dow Jones that, even with today's drop is still 40% higher than it was
right before the 2016 election, correct?
"Now tell me again it's all 'sound and fury, signifying nothing.'" On the issue of Trump/Russia collusion, it is, and always was, because we now know it
started with the Clinton campaign and a now-discredited dossier.
These are the people who we elect to "govern" us. If one looks back upon the 230 years or
so during which this thing of ours has been in existence, the overwhelming majority of our
elected officials (federal, state and local) have probably been, to one degree or another,
narcissistic, mendacious and just generally dishonest incompetents. It seems that it's only
when we hit rock bottom and the country's very survival is at stake that the cream rises to
the top and the very best step to the plate, so given what we have in Washington now, maybe
we haven't reached that point–at least not yet.
This is a hoot. Little Pettie strikes again! Projecting his own myopia as always! His Greater
Leader, The Trumpster, and the sycophants who worship him daily (for a fee, of course) daily
tweets or shouts from a podium the impending doom of our nations due to hoards of the "other"
spreading disease and violence nationwide while supported by the great love of Evangelical
"Christians" who faith not merely predicts but yearns for the end of the world!!!
Can't quite tell. It is hypocrisy or grand delusions blooming brightly at TAC!
CT Farmer: "If one looks back upon the 230 years or so during which this thing of ours has
been in existence, the overwhelming majority of our elected officials have probably been, to
one degree or another, narcissistic, mendacious and just generally dishonest incompetents."
No doubt, I only picked on him because he represents the crappiest district in the Bay
Area, which I have personal experience on, and he's running for president on the "Trump is a
Russian agent" platform, which even Joseph McCarthy was too timid to attempt.
That's either saying something, or it's nothing. I could've quoted another presidential candidate who's claimed that law enforcement and
criminal justice in America is racist from top to bottom and front to back. Or I could've quoted a different presidential candidate who's stated unequivocally that
every human being, not just American citizen, is entitled to free education and health care,
without regard to cost or need.
Just a few thoughts about comments above: Who "yearns for the end of the world"?? Give names
please, stop slandering. What "illegal things" were revealed in the Mueller report? Trump was
trying to obstruct an INJUSTICE, i.e. the "soft coup" done by the anti-American, lawless
leftist Dems. The fact is that we are a nation of laws and illegals (no matter where they are
from, Mars, Supitor; whether they are green, purple, whatever color) are a threat to our
country. I heard report that about a third of the crimes in the USA are done by illegals, at
a cost of billions. Well, more crap from brain washed boobs above, but I'm done trying to
point them out ..
" you know, we're all at it, breathing apocalyptic fire and brimstone, left and right. No
point throwing stones at each other on this subject."
**************
My thoughts, too. It's difficult to sift through the hype on all sides & find anything
solid. Outrage generates traffic, thoughtful discussion-not so much. So we end up with
clickbait & tabloids.
Maybe the Dems and their supporters should spend more time trying to understand why they lost
and less time complaining about it. But then that's not nearly as much fun.
Thanks for the voice of reason. A couple of complaints on Trump: he hasn't accomplished much
on the border; budgets continue to bleed red ink. He at least could have vetoed the budgets.
Isn't it a bit rich to suggest that the outrage media started in 2016? How long have
Limbaugh, Coulter, Ingraham, Levin, Hannity, .. been milking the Republican multiverse.
Sean: "Isn't it a bit rich to suggest that the outrage media started in 2016?"
That's a bit like saying because my neighbor ran over my dog, I'll then bulldoze his
house. Besides, the left and the press are supposed to be superior to the right and the unwashed
masses. They always fact-based, logical, reasonable, non-ideological, and consistent.
On the Big Ugly Lie*, what's their excuse?
* Trump colluded with Russia to steal the election, an attack on par with Pearl Harbor and
9/11.
Good domestic policy suggestions and debate skills. Horrible understanding of foreign policy
(he completely subscribes to the Russiagate hoax)
His capitulation to Hillary in 2016 still linger behind his back despite all bravado. he
betrayed his followers, many of who put money of this while being far from rich. he betrayed them
all. As such he does not deserve to run.
Warren and Tulsi are definitely better options then Sanders for 2020.
Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., became a household name in 2016 when he ran a progressive
campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination -- and came close to securing it. He's back
in the 2020 race, but this time up against more than 20 other candidates. Sanders sits down
with Judy Woodruff to discuss trade with China, health care, student debt, Russian election
interference and more.
Gene McCarthy back in the 60s said the media was like a flock of blackbirds -- when one lands on the line they all do, and
when one leaves the line they all leave. They arrived and left for Beto, and now Bootajudge is probably going to experience the
same thing.
What might actually happen is that DNC will declare that "no one" got enough votes and summarily pick whoever they want as
candidate possibly ByeDone (Biden-Harris combination is also in the cards). In any case DNC has history of dirty games and
that will persist.
Remember Beto? The guy who managed to
lose to Ted Cruz - a senator that even Republicans don't like? Did he ever feel like a
manufactured candidate to you?
Then you'll like the
New And Improved Beto .
Beto O'Rourke is reportedly planning to relaunch his 2020 presidential bid less than two
months after his record-breaking campaign launch.
In an acknowledgement that his campaign is stalling, the former Texas congressman is said to
be planning a "reintroduction" ahead of next month's Democratic presidential debate.
Nothing says "forgettable" like "reintroduction".
Speaking of forgettable, people have already
forgotten that they once supported him.
You can see O'Rourke's struggles most clearly in the polls. In an average of national polls
taken since Biden entered the race, O'Rourke has fallen to just below 5% support. That's the
lowest he has been since at least December.
But it's not just that O'Rourke has seen his numbers decline nationally -- it's that his
polls look even worse in the early caucus and primary states. I could not find a single poll
in Iowa, New Hampshire or South Carolina conducted after Biden entered in which O'Rourke
polled above 3%. These, of course, are the states that O'Rourke has been visiting over and
over again throughout the last few months. It apparently hasn't done any good.
Another flavor-of-the-day candidate is Mayor Pete Buttigieg.
Mayor Pete came along months after Beto, so he is still in the getting-to-know-you stage for
most of the country.
However, people in
Indiana are already familiar with him.
Though Buttigieg is viewed favorably among voters in his party, the poll says former Vice
President Joe Biden "would cruise to a comfortable victory in Indiana." One-third of the
self-identifying Democrats who indicated they'd vote in next year's Democratic primary for
president said they'd vote for Biden, compared to 23% for Sanders and 20% for Buttigieg. An
additional 15% are undecided.
The margin of error for the entire poll was 3.46 percentage points. A spokesman for the
Buttigieg campaign declined to comment Thursday on the poll.
Coming in 3rd in your home state isn't very impressive.
Pete Buttigieg is
polling at 0% among black voters in South Carolina.
The third centrist on my list is Kamala Harris.
Her numbers might be the worst of
all .
Recent polls show Harris has dropped several points since her strong start to the race
earlier this year. Her support among nonwhite voters is relatively low at 4%, according to a
late April CNN poll, after former Vice President Joe Biden's entrance into the race late last
month. The CNN poll found Biden has 50% support among nonwhite voters.
When a woman-of-color can't get the support of women-of-color, she is sunk.
Gov. Gavin Newsom appears to have already jumped ship .
Newsom endorsed Harris on a Friday night in February. Most politicians dump bad news on
Friday nights. The two share the same political advisers, but Newsom delivered his nod
unceremoniously during an MSNBC interview. Now, he's cozying up to her rivals.
Why the hedging? For one thing, Newsom's an experienced politician. He knows it's smart to
keep a wide network of options. But Newsom's outburst of public praise for Harris' rivals
also reflects the fact that her White House campaign has encountered serious turbulence.
By the time the debates come around they may no longer be candidates anymore.
CBS News (2/4/19) briefly interviewed Honolulu Civil Beats reporter Nick Grube regarding
Gabbard's campaign announcement. The anchors had clearly never encountered the term
anti-interventionism before, struggling to even pronounce the word, then laughing and
saying it "doesn't roll off the tongue."
In the midst of an interesting and wide-ranging discussion on the Joe Rogan Experience , Democratic
congresswoman and presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard said that if elected president she would
drop all charges against NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden and WikiLeaks founder Julian
Assange.
"What would you do about Julian Assange? What would you do about Edward Snowden?"
Rogan asked in the latter
part of the episode.
"As far as dropping the charges?" Gabbard asked.
"If you're president of the world right now, what do you do?"
Rogan noted that Sweden's preliminary investigation of rape allegations
has just been re-opened , saying the US government can't stop that, and Gabbard said as
president she'd drop the US charges leveled against Assange by the Trump administration.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/fNuZWQgkgc4
"Yeah," Gabbard said when asked to clarify if she was also saying that she'd give Edward
Snowden a presidential pardon, adding,
"And I think we've got to address why he did things the way that he did them. And you hear
the same thing from Chelsea Manning, how there is not an actual channel for whistleblowers
like them to bring forward information that exposes egregious abuses of our constitutional
rights and liberties. Period. There was not a channel for that to happen in a real way, and
that's why they ended up taking the path that they did, and suffering the consequences."
This came at the end of a lengthy
discussion about WikiLeaks and the dangerous legal precedent that the Trump administration
is setting for press freedoms by prosecuting Assange, as well as the revelations about NSA
surveillance and what can be done to roll back those unchecked surveillance powers.
https://www.dianomi.com/smartads.epl?id=4855
"What happened with [Assange's] arrest and all the stuff that just went down I think poses
a great threat to our freedom of the press and to our freedom of speech," Gabbard said.
"We look at what happened under the previous administration, under Obama. You know, they
were trying to find ways to go after Assange and WikiLeaks, but ultimately they chose not to
seek to extradite him or charge him, because they recognized what a slippery slope that
begins when you have a government in a position to levy criminal charges and consequences
against someone who's publishing information or saying things that the government doesn't
want you to say , and sharing information the government doesn't want you to share. And so
the fact that the Trump administration has chosen to ignore that fact, to ignore how
important it is that we uphold our freedoms, freedom of the press and freedom of speech, and
go after him, it has a very chilling effect on both journalists and publishers. And you can
look to those in traditional media and also those in new media, and also every one of us as
Americans. It was a kind of a warning call, saying Look what happened to this guy. It could
happen to you. It could happen to any one of us."
Gabbard discussed Mike Pompeo's arbitrary designation of WikiLeaks as a hostile non-state
intelligence service, the fact that James Clapper lied to Congress about NSA surveillance as
Director of National Intelligence yet suffered no consequences and remains a respected TV
pundit, and the opaque and unaccountable nature of FISA warrants.
Some other noteworthy parts of Gabbard's JRE appearance for people who don't have time to
watch the whole thing, with hyperlinks to the times in the video:
Rogan gets Gabbard talking
in depth about what Bashar al-Assad was actually like when she met him and what he said
to her, which I don't think I've ever seen anyone bother to do before.
The two discuss
Eisenhower's famous speech warning of the dangers of the military-industrial complex, and
actually pause their dialogue to watch a good portion of it. Gabbard points out that in the
original draft of the speech, Eisenhower had intended to call it the
"congressional-military-industrial complex".
Rogan asks Gabbard what
she thinks happens to US presidents that causes them to fail to enact their campaign promises
and capitulate to the will of the warmongering establishment, and what as president she'll do
to avoid the same fate. All presidential candidates should have to answer this question.
Rogan asks Gabbard how
she'll stand against the billionaires for the American people without getting assassinated.
All presidential candidates should have to answer this question as well.
I honestly think the entire American political system would be better off if the phoney
debate stage format were completely abandoned and presidential candidates just talked
one-on-one with Joe Rogan for two and a half hours instead. Cut through all the vapid posturing
and the fake questions about nonsense nobody cares about and get them to go deep with a normal
human being who smokes pot and curses and does sports commentary for cage fighting. Rogan asked
Gabbard a bunch of questions that real people are interested in, in a format where she was
encouraged to relax out of her standard politician's posture and discuss significant ideas
sincerely and spontaneously. It was a good discussion with an interesting political figure and
I'm glad it's already racked up hundreds of thousands of views.
* * *
Everyone has my
unconditional permission to republish or use any part of this work (or anything else I've
written) in any way they like free of charge. My work is
entirely reader-supported , so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around,
liking me on Facebook
, following my antics on Twitter ,
throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal , purchasing some of my sweet merchandise , buying
my new book Rogue Nation:
Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone , or my previous book
Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers . The best way to get around the internet censors
and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website , which will get you an email
notification for everything I publish. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I'm
trying to do with this platform,
click here .
Here's a summary of the day thus far: Donald Trump praised attorney
general William Barr for opening what appears to be a broad investigation of the Russia
counterespionage investigation that swept up the Trump campaign. Barr appointed a US attorney
to lead the inquiry and reportedly has got the CIA and DNI involved.
Senator Elizabeth Warren took a "hard pass" on an offer to do a Fox News town hall event,
calling the network "hate-for-profit".
"... China loses the sale. This is why Beijing, which runs $350 billion to $400 billion in annual trade surpluses at our expense is howling loudest. Should Donald Trump impose that 25% tariff on all $500 billion in Chinese exports to the USA, it would cripple China's economy. Factories seeking assured access to the U.S. market would flee in panic from the Middle Kingdom. ..."
"... The Fordney-McCumber Tariff gave Presidents Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge the revenue to offset the slashing of Wilson's income taxes, igniting that most dynamic of decades -- the Roaring '20s. ..."
"... Once a nation is hooked on the cheap goods that are the narcotic free trade provides, it is rarely able to break free. The loss of its economic independence is followed by the loss of its political independence, the loss of its greatness and, ultimately, the loss of its national identity. ..."
As his limo carried him to work at the White House Monday, Larry Kudlow could not have been pleased with the headline in The Washington
Post: "Kudlow Contradicts Trump on Tariffs."
The story began: "National Economic Council Director Lawrence Kudlow acknowledged Sunday that American consumers end up paying
for the administration's tariffs on Chinese imports, contradicting President Trump's repeated inaccurate claim that the Chinese foot
the bill."
A free trade evangelical, Kudlow had conceded on Fox News that consumers pay the tariffs on products made abroad that they purchase
here in the U.S. Yet that is by no means the whole story.
A tariff may be described as a sales or consumption tax the consumer pays, but tariffs are also a discretionary and an optional
tax.
If you choose not to purchase Chinese goods and instead buy comparable goods made in other nations or the USA, then you do not
pay the tariff.
China loses the sale. This is why Beijing, which runs $350 billion to $400 billion in annual trade surpluses at our expense is
howling loudest. Should Donald Trump impose that 25% tariff on all $500 billion in Chinese exports to the USA, it would cripple China's
economy. Factories seeking assured access to the U.S. market would flee in panic from the Middle Kingdom.
Tariffs were the taxes that made America great. They were the taxes relied upon by the first and greatest of our early statesmen,
before the coming of the globalists Woodrow Wilson and FDR.
Tariffs, to protect manufacturers and jobs, were the Republican Party's path to power and prosperity in the 19th and 20th centuries
, before the rise of the Rockefeller Eastern liberal establishment and its embrace of the British-bred heresy of unfettered free
trade.
The Tariff Act of 1789 was enacted with the declared purpose, "the encouragement and protection of manufactures." It was the second
act passed by the first Congress led by Speaker James Madison. It was crafted by Alexander Hamilton and signed by President Washington.
After the War of 1812, President Madison, backed by Henry Clay and John Calhoun and ex-Presidents Jefferson and Adams, enacted
the Tariff of 1816 to price British textiles out of competition, so Americans would build the new factories and capture the booming
U.S. market. It worked.
Tariffs financed Mr. Lincoln's War. The Tariff of 1890 bears the name of Ohio Congressman and future President William McKinley,
who said that a foreign manufacturer "has no right or claim to equality with our own. He pays no taxes. He performs no civil duties."
That is economic patriotism, putting America and Americans first.
The Fordney-McCumber Tariff gave Presidents Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge the revenue to offset the slashing of Wilson's
income taxes, igniting that most dynamic of decades -- the Roaring '20s.
That the Smoot-Hawley Tariff caused the Depression of the 1930s is a New Deal myth in which America's schoolchildren have been
indoctrinated for decades.
The Depression began with the crash of the stock market in 1929, nine months before Smoot-Hawley became law. The real villain:
The Federal Reserve, which failed to replenish that third of the money supply that had been wiped out by thousands of bank failures.
Milton Friedman taught us that.
A tariff is a tax, but its purpose is not just to raise revenue but to make a nation economically independent of others, and to
bring its citizens to rely upon each other rather than foreign entities.
The principle involved in a tariff is the same as that used by U.S. colleges and universities that charge foreign students higher
tuition than their American counterparts.
What patriot would consign the economic independence of his country to the "invisible hand" of Adam Smith in a system crafted
by intellectuals whose allegiance is to an ideology, not a people?
What great nation did free traders ever build?
Free trade is the policy of fading and failing powers, past their prime. In the half-century following passage of the Corn Laws,
the British showed the folly of free trade.
They began the second half of the 19th century with an economy twice that of the USA and ended it with an economy half of ours,
and equaled by a Germany, which had, under Bismarck, adopted what was known as the American System.
Of the nations that have risen to economic preeminence in recent centuries -- the British before 1850, the United States between
1789 and 1914, post-war Japan, China in recent decades -- how many did so through free trade? None. All practiced economic nationalism.
The problem for President Trump?
Once a nation is hooked on the cheap goods that are the narcotic free trade provides, it is rarely able to break free. The
loss of its economic independence is followed by the loss of its political independence, the loss of its greatness and, ultimately,
the loss of its national identity.
Brexit was the strangled cry of a British people that had lost its independence and desperately wanted it back.
Important interview with Tucker (this video contain a large fragment) and an interesting discussions.
Notable quotes:
"... Left or Right, you cannot question Gabbard's patriotism and intelligence and in-depth knowledge on war issues. Great candidate. ..."
"... She is an amazing diplomat - I support her 100% ..."
"... The way she conducts herself is an inspiration. I really like her. ..."
"... Just donated to Tulsi. We need her anti-imperialism on the mainstream debate stage. ..."
"... Tulsi Gabbard is the only one I have seen who isn't an overly hyberbolic shill. She embodies the concept of "speak softly and carry a big stick". ..."
"... Holly shit, I've never seen anyone on Fox News let their guest talk as much this? Especially Tucker being so calm, this makes me feel good. It must be Tulsi's vibe, someone as diplomatic and disciplined as her must be running the White House. ..."
Wow!! The sound of the voice of common sense & truth, for a change. I don't care if
she is Democrat or Republican ... this lady is voicing what the majority of people actually
think & believe.
Holly shit, I've never seen anyone on Fox News let their guest talk as much this?
Especially Tucker being so calm, this makes me feel good. It must be Tulsi's vibe, someone as
diplomatic and disciplined as her must be running the White House.
Warren definitely have the courage to put forward those important proposals. Lobbyists like
Cory Booker of course attack them.
Notable quotes:
"... It's called Anti-Trust laws not her "opinions"... ..."
"... Let's be honest, Booker isn't fit to shine Warren's shoes! I wonder if Cory's ass is jealous of all the shit that just came out of his mouth!! SMDH ..."
"... CB bought and paid for by drug companies. Of course he doesn't like Warren. But ask him about Americans right to free speech and he puts after the needs of any foriegn country ..."
"... He who looks like a slick bouncer for the big money monopolies, is looking to get a piece of it ..."
Cory- .Most Americans will NOT think you are Presidential Caliber.Where's the MONEY coming
from? Small donor contributions? I don't even think you'll get the Black & hispanic
vote.Why do this?
You are stealing the votes from way more qualified candidates. Bad idea if
you want to have Democratic POTUS in 2020
CB bought and paid for by drug companies. Of course he doesn't like Warren. But ask him
about Americans right to free speech and he puts after the needs of any foriegn
country
After that Trump remark, Cory can bite my butt. Whatever disagreements I may have with
Warren, she has some very daring, intelligent, and discussion-worthy policies. We need her in
the next administration, whether as potus or in the cabinet. Sheesh, Cory, burn your bridges,
sir.
"... Historians will study this period when there was a convergence in the objectives of the US intelligence agencies, the leaders of the Hillary Clinton wing of the Democratic Party, the majority of Republican politicians and the anti-Trump media. That common objective was stopping any entente between Moscow and Washington. ..."
"... Each group had its own motive. The intelligence community and elements in the Pentagon feared a rapprochement between Trump and Putin would deprive them of a 'presentable' enemy once ISIS's military power was destroyed. The Clinton camp was keen to ascribe an unexpected defeat to a cause other than the candidate and her inept campaign; Moscow's alleged hacking of Democratic Party emails fitted the bill. And the neocons, who 'promoted the Iraq war, detest Putin and consider Israel's security non-negotiable' ( 8 ), hated Trump's neo-isolationist instincts. ..."
"... This is why the Democratic Party data hack, which the US intelligence services allege is the work of the Russians, obsesses the party, and the press. It strikes two targets: delegitimising Trump's election and stopping his promotion of a thaw with Russia. Has Washington's aggrieved reaction to a foreign power's interference in a state's domestic affairs, and its elections, struck no one as odd? Why do just a handful of people point out that, not long ago, Angela Merkel's phone was tapped not by the Kremlin but by the Obama administration? ..."
"... Now the Times is in the vanguard of those preparing psychologically for conflict with Russia. There is almost no remaining resistance to its line. On the right, as the Wall Street Journal called for the US to arm Ukraine on 3 August, Vice-President Mike Pence spoke on a visit to Estonia about 'the spectre of [Russian] aggression', encouraged Georgia to join NATO, and paid tribute to Montenegro, NATO's newest member. ..."
"... At this stage, it doesn't matter any more what Trump thinks. He is no longer able to get his way on the issue. Moscow has noted this and is drawing its own conclusions. ..."
Trump was after a good deal from Russia. A new partnership would have reversed deteriorating relations between the powers by encouraging
their alliance against ISIS and recognising the importance of Ukraine to Russia's security. Current US paranoia about everything
Kremlin-related has encouraged amnesia about what President Barack Obama said in 2016, after the annexation of the Crimea and Russia's
direct intervention in Syria. He too put the danger posed by President Vladimir Putin into perspective: the interventions in Ukraine
and the Middle East were, Obama said, improvised 'in response to a client state that was about to slip out of his grasp' (
5 ).
Obama went on: 'The Russians can't change us or significantly weaken us. They are a smaller country, they are a weaker country,
their economy doesn't produce anything that anybody wants to buy, except oil and gas and arms.' What he feared most about Putin was
the sympathy he inspired in Trump and his supporters: '37% of Republican voters approve of Putin, the former head of the KGB. Ronald
Reagan would roll over in his grave' ( 6 ).
By January 2017, Reagan's eternal rest was no longer threatened. 'Presidents come and go but the policy never changes,' Putin
concluded ( 7 ). Historians will study
this period when there was a convergence in the objectives of the US intelligence agencies, the leaders of the Hillary Clinton wing
of the Democratic Party, the majority of Republican politicians and the anti-Trump media. That common objective was stopping any
entente between Moscow and Washington.
Each group had its own motive. The intelligence community and elements in the Pentagon feared a rapprochement between Trump
and Putin would deprive them of a 'presentable' enemy once ISIS's military power was destroyed. The Clinton camp was keen to ascribe
an unexpected defeat to a cause other than the candidate and her inept campaign; Moscow's alleged hacking of Democratic Party emails
fitted the bill. And the neocons, who 'promoted the Iraq war, detest Putin and consider Israel's security non-negotiable' (
8 ), hated Trump's neo-isolationist instincts.
The media, especially the New York Times and Washington Post, eagerly sought a new Watergate scandal and knew their
middle-class, urban, educated readers loathe Trump for his vulgarity, affection for the far right, violence and lack of culture (
9 ). So they were searching for any information
or rumour that could cause his removal or force a resignation. As in Agatha Christie's Murder on the Orient Express, everyone
had his particular motive for striking the same victim.
The intrigue developed quickly as these four areas have fairly porous boundaries. The understanding between Republican hawks such
as John McCain, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and the military-industrial complex was a given. The architects
of recent US imperial adventures, especially Iraq, had not enjoyed the 2016 campaign or Trump's jibes about their expertise. During
the campaign, some 50 intellectuals and officials announced that, despite being Republicans, they would not support Trump because
he 'would put at risk our country's national security and wellbeing.' Some went so far as to vote for Clinton (
10 ).
Ambitions of a 'deep state'?
The press feared that Trump's incompetence would threaten the US-dominated international order. It had no problem with military
crusades, especially when emblazoned with grand humanitarian, internationalist or progressive principles. According to the press
criteria, Putin and his predilection for rightwing nationalists were obvious culprits. But so were Saudi Arabia or Israel, though
that did not prevent the Saudis being able to count on the ferociously anti-Russian Wall Street Journal, or Israel enjoying
the support of almost all US media, despite having a far-right element in its government.
Just over a week before Trump took office, journalist Glenn Greenwald, who broke the Edward Snowden story that revealed the mass
surveillance programmes run by the National Security Agency, warned of the direction of travel. He observed that the US media had
become the intelligence services' 'most valuable instrument, much of which reflexively reveres, serves, believes, and sides with
hidden intelligence officials.' This at a time when 'Democrats, still reeling from their unexpected and traumatic election loss as
well as a systemic collapse of their party, seemingly divorced further and further from reason with each passing day, are willing
-- eager -- to embrace any claim, cheer any tactic, align with any villain, regardless of how unsupported, tawdry and damaging
those behaviours might be' ( 11 ).
The anti-Russian coalition hadn't then achieved all its objectives, but Greenwald already discerned the ambitions of a 'deep state'.
'There really is, at this point,' he said 'obvious open warfare between this unelected but very powerful faction that resides in
Washington and sees presidents come and go, on the one hand, and the person that the American democracy elected to be the president
on the other.' One suspicion, fed by the intelligence services, galvanised all Trump's enemies: Moscow had compromising secrets about
Trump -- financial, electoral, sexual -- capable of paralysing him should a crisis between the two countries occur (
12 ).
Covert opposition to Trump
The suspicion of such a murky understanding, summed up by the pro-Clinton economist Paul Krugman as a 'Trump-Putin ticket', has
transformed the anti-Russian activity into a domestic political weapon against a president increasingly hated outside the ultraconservative
bloc. It is no longer unusual to hear leftwing activists turn FBI or CIA apologists, since these agencies became a home for a covert
opposition to Trump and the source of many leaks.
This is why the Democratic Party data hack, which the US intelligence services allege is the work of the Russians, obsesses
the party, and the press. It strikes two targets: delegitimising Trump's election and stopping his promotion of a thaw with Russia.
Has Washington's aggrieved reaction to a foreign power's interference in a state's domestic affairs, and its elections, struck no
one as odd? Why do just a handful of people point out that, not long ago, Angela Merkel's phone was tapped not by the Kremlin but
by the Obama administration?
The silence was once broken when the Republican representative for North Carolina, Tom Tillis, questioned former CIA director
James Clapper in January: 'The United States has been involved in one way or another in 81 different elections since World War II.
That doesn't include coups or the regime changes, some tangible evidence where we have tried to affect an outcome to our purpose.
Russia has done it some 36 times.' This perspective rarely disturbs the New York Times 's fulminations against Moscow's trickery.
The Times also failed to inform younger readers that Russia's president Boris Yeltsin, who picked Putin as his successor
in 1999, had been re-elected in 1996, though seriously ill and often drunk, in a fraudulent election conducted with the assistance
of US advisers and the overt support of President Bill Clinton. The Times hailed the result as 'a victory for Russian democracy'
and declared that 'the forces of democracy and reform won a vital but not definitive victory in Russia yesterday For the first time
in history, a free Russia has freely chosen its leader.'
Now the Times is in the vanguard of those preparing psychologically for conflict with Russia. There is almost no remaining
resistance to its line. On the right, as the Wall Street Journal called for the US to arm Ukraine on 3 August, Vice-President
Mike Pence spoke on a visit to Estonia about 'the spectre of [Russian] aggression', encouraged Georgia to join NATO, and paid tribute
to Montenegro, NATO's newest member.
No longer getting his way
But the Times, far from worrying about these provocative gestures coinciding with heightened tensions between great powers
(trade sanctions against Russia, Moscow's expulsion of US diplomats), poured oil on the fire. On 2 August it praised the reaffirmation
of 'America's commitment to defend democratic nations against those countries that would undermine them' and regretted that Mike
Pence's views 'aren't as eagerly embraced and celebrated by the man he works for back in the White House.'
At this stage, it doesn't
matter any more what Trump thinks. He is no longer able to get his way on the issue. Moscow has noted this and is drawing its own
conclusions.
Bolton power over Trump is connected to Adelson power over Trump. To think about Bolton as pure advisor is to seriously
underestimate his role and influence.
Notable quotes:
"... But I always figured you needed to keep the blowhards under cover so they wouldn't stick their feet in their mouths and that the public position jobs should go to the smoothies..You, know, diplomats who were capable of some measure of subtlety. ..."
"... A clod like Bolton should be put aside and assigned the job of preparing position papers and a lout Like Pompeo should be a football coach at RoosterPoot U. ..."
"... "Once he's committed to a war in the Mideast, he's just screwed," ..."
"... Not only Trump, at the same time the swamp creatures risk losing control over the Democrat primaries, too. With a new major war in the Mideast, Tulsi Gabbard's core message of non-interventionism will resonate a lot more, and that will lower the chances of the corporate DNC picks. A dangerous gamble. ..."
"... The other day I was thinking to myself that if Trump decides to dismiss Bolton or Pompeo, especially given how terrible Venezuela, NKorea, and Iran policies have turned out (clearly at odds with his non-interventionist campaign platform), who would he appoint as State Sec and NS adviser? and since Bolton was personally pushed to Trump by Adelson in exchange for campaign donation, would there be a backlash from the Jewish Republican donors and the loss of support? I think in both cases Trump is facing with big dilemmas. ..."
"... Tulsi for Sec of State 2020... ..."
"... Keeping Bolton and Pompeo on board is consistent with Trump's negotiating style. He is full of bluster and demands to put the other side in a defensive position. I guess it was a successful strategy for him so he continues it. Many years ago I was across the table from Trump negotiating the sale of the land under the Empire State Building which at the time was owned by Prudential even though Trump already had locked up the actual building. I just sat there, impassively, while Trump went on with his fire and fury. When I did not budge, he turned to his Japanese financial partner and said "take care of this" and walked out of the room. Then we were able to talk and negotiate in a logical manner and consumate a deal that was double Trump's negotiating bid. I learned later he was furious with his Japanese partner for failing to "win". ..."
"... You can still these same traits in the way that Trump thinks about other countries - they can be cajoled or pushed into doing what Trump wants. If the other countries just wait Trump out they can usually get a much better deal. Bolton and Pompeo, as Blusterers, are useful in pursuing the same negotiation style, for better or worse, Trump has used for probably for the last 50 years. ..."
"... I have seen this style of negotiations work on occasion. The most important lesson I've learned is the willingness to walk. I'm not sure that Trump's personal style matters that much in complex negotiations among states. There's too many people and far too many details. ..."
"... Having the neocons front & center on his foreign policy team I believe has negative consequences for him politically. IMO, he won support from the anti-interventionists due to his strong campaign stance. While they may be a small segment in America in a tight race they could matter. ..."
"... Additionally as Col. Lang notes the neocons could start a shooting match due to their hubris and that can always escalate and go awry. We can only hope that he's smart enough to recognize that. I remain convinced that our fawning allegiance to Bibi is central to many of our poor strategic decision making. ..."
"... I agree that this is Trump's style but what he does not seem to understand is that in using jugheads like these guys on the international scene he may precipitate a war when he really does not want one. ..."
"... "Perhaps the biggest lie the mainstream media have tried to get over on the American public is the idea that it is conservatives, that start wars. That's total nonsense of course. Almost all of America's wars in the 20th century were stared by liberal Democrats." ..."
"... So what exactly is Pussy John, then, just a Yosemite Sam-type bureaucrat with no actual portfolio, so to speak? I defer to your vastly greater knowledge of these matters, but at times it sure seems like they are pursuing a rear-guard action as the US Empire shrinks ..."
"... If were Lavrov, what would I think to myself were I to find myself on the other side of a phone call from PJ or the Malignant Manatee? ..."
It's time for Trump to stop John Bolton and Mike Pompeo from
sabotaging his foreign policy | Mulshine
"I put that question to another military vet, former Vietnam Green Beret Pat Lang.
"Once he's committed to a war in the Mideast, he's just screwed," said Lang of Trump.
But Lang, who later spent more than a decade in the Mideast, noted that Bolton has no direct
control over the military.
"Bolton has a problem," he said. "If he can just get the generals to obey him, he can start
all the wars he wants. But they don't obey him."
They obey the commander-in-chief. And Trump has a history of hiring war-crazed advisors who
end up losing their jobs when they get a bit too bellicose. Former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley
comes to mind."
" In Lang's view, anyone who sees Trump as some sort of ideologue is missing the point.
"He's an entrepreneurial businessman who hires consultants for their advice and then gets
rid of them when he doesn't want that advice," he said.
So far that advice hasn't been very helpful, at least in the case of Bolton. His big mouth
seems to have deep-sixed Trump's chance of a summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. And
that failed coup in Venezuela has brought up comparisons to the failed Bay of Pigs invasion
during the Kennedy administration." Mulshine
--------------
Well, pilgrims, I worked exclusively on the subject of the Islamic culture continent for the
USG from 1972 to 1994 and then in business from 1994 to 2006. I suppose I am still working on
the subject. pl
I don't get it I suppose. I'd always thought that maybe you wanted highly opinionated Type A
personalities in the role of privy council, etc. You know, people who could forcefully
advocate positions in closed session meetings and weren't afraid of taking contrary
positions. But I always figured you needed to keep the blowhards under cover so they wouldn't
stick their feet in their mouths and that the public position jobs should go to the smoothies..You, know, diplomats who were capable of some measure of subtlety.
But these days it's the loudmouths who get these jobs, to our detriment. When will senior
govt. leaders understand that just because a person is a success in running for Congress
doesn't mean he/she should be sent forth to mingle with the many different personalities and
cultures running the rest of the world?
A clod like Bolton should be put aside and assigned
the job of preparing position papers and a lout Like Pompeo should be a football coach at RoosterPoot U.
No. I would like to see highly opinionated Type B personalities like me hold those jobs. Type
B does not mean you are passive. It means you are not obsessively competitive.
"Once he's committed to a war in the Mideast, he's just screwed,"
Not only Trump, at the same time the swamp creatures risk losing control over the Democrat
primaries, too. With a new major war in the Mideast, Tulsi Gabbard's core message of
non-interventionism will resonate a lot more, and that will lower the chances of the
corporate DNC picks. A dangerous gamble.
Interesting post, thank you sir. Prior to this recent post I had never heard of Paul
Mulshine. In fact I went through some of his earlier posts on Trump's foreign policy and I
found a fair amount of common sense in them. He strikes me as a paleocon, like Pat Buchanan,
Paul Craig Roberts, Michael Scheuer, Doug Bandow, Tucker Carlson and others in that mold.
The other day I was thinking to myself that if Trump decides to dismiss Bolton or Pompeo,
especially given how terrible Venezuela, NKorea, and Iran policies have turned out (clearly
at odds with his non-interventionist campaign platform), who would he appoint as State Sec
and NS adviser? and since Bolton was personally pushed to Trump by Adelson in exchange for
campaign donation, would there be a backlash from the Jewish Republican donors and the loss
of support? I think in both cases Trump is facing with big dilemmas.
My best hope is that
Trump teams up with libertarians and maybe even paleocons to run his foreign policy. So far
Trump has not succeeded in draining the Swamp. Bolton, Pompeo and their respective staff
"are" indeed the Swamp creatures and they run their own policies that run against Trump's
America First policy. Any thoughts?
Keeping Bolton and Pompeo on board is consistent with Trump's negotiating style. He is full
of bluster and demands to put the other side in a defensive position. I guess it was a
successful strategy for him so he continues it. Many years ago I was across the table from
Trump negotiating the sale of the land under the Empire State Building which at the time was
owned by Prudential even though Trump already had locked up the actual building. I just sat
there, impassively, while Trump went on with his fire and fury. When I did not budge, he
turned to his Japanese financial partner and said "take care of this" and walked out of the
room. Then we were able to talk and negotiate in a logical manner and consumate a deal that
was double Trump's negotiating bid. I learned later he was furious with his Japanese partner
for failing to "win".
You can still these same traits in the way that Trump thinks about other countries - they
can be cajoled or pushed into doing what Trump wants. If the other countries just wait Trump
out they can usually get a much better deal. Bolton and Pompeo, as Blusterers, are useful in
pursuing the same negotiation style, for better or worse, Trump has used for probably for the
last 50 years.
I have seen this style of negotiations work on occasion. The most important lesson I've learned is the willingness to
walk. I'm not sure that Trump's personal style matters that much in complex negotiations among states. There's too many people
and far too many details. I see he and his trade team not buckling to the Chinese at least not yet despite the intense
pressure from Wall St and the big corporations.
Having the neocons front & center on his foreign policy team I believe has negative
consequences for him politically. IMO, he won support from the anti-interventionists due to
his strong campaign stance. While they may be a small segment in America in a tight race they
could matter.
Additionally as Col. Lang notes the neocons could start a shooting match due to
their hubris and that can always escalate and go awry. We can only hope that he's smart
enough to recognize that. I remain convinced that our fawning allegiance to Bibi is central
to many of our poor strategic decision making.
Just out of curiosity: Did the deal go through in the end, despite Trump's ire? Or was
Trump so furious with the negotiating result of his Japanese partner that he tore up the
draft once it was presented to him?
I agree that this is Trump's style but what he does not seem to understand is that in
using jugheads like these guys on the international scene he may precipitate a war when he
really does not want one.
Mulshine's article has some good points, but he does include some hilariously ignorant bits
which undermine his credibility.
"Jose Gomez Rivera is a Jersey guy who served in the State Department in Venezuela at the
time of the coup that brought the current socialist regime to power."
Wrong. Maduro was elected and international observers seem to agree the election was
fair.
"Perhaps the biggest lie the mainstream media have tried to get over on the American
public is the idea that it is conservatives, that start wars. That's total nonsense of
course. Almost all of America's wars in the 20th century were stared by liberal Democrats."
So what exactly is Pussy John, then, just a Yosemite Sam-type bureaucrat with no actual
portfolio, so to speak? I defer to your vastly greater knowledge of these matters, but at
times it sure seems like they are pursuing a rear-guard action as the US Empire shrinks and
shudders in its death throes underneath them, and at others it seems like they really have no
idea what to do, other than engage in juvenile antics, snort some glue from a paper bag and
set fires in the dumpsters behind the Taco Bell before going out into a darkened field
somewhere to violate farm animals.
If were Lavrov, what would I think to myself were I to
find myself on the other side of a phone call from PJ or the Malignant Manatee?
Bolton power over Trump is connected to Adelson power over Trump. To think about Bolton as pure advisor is to seriously
underestimate his role and influence.
Notable quotes:
"... But I always figured you needed to keep the blowhards under cover so they wouldn't stick their feet in their mouths and that the public position jobs should go to the smoothies..You, know, diplomats who were capable of some measure of subtlety. ..."
"... A clod like Bolton should be put aside and assigned the job of preparing position papers and a lout Like Pompeo should be a football coach at RoosterPoot U. ..."
"... "Once he's committed to a war in the Mideast, he's just screwed," ..."
"... Not only Trump, at the same time the swamp creatures risk losing control over the Democrat primaries, too. With a new major war in the Mideast, Tulsi Gabbard's core message of non-interventionism will resonate a lot more, and that will lower the chances of the corporate DNC picks. A dangerous gamble. ..."
"... The other day I was thinking to myself that if Trump decides to dismiss Bolton or Pompeo, especially given how terrible Venezuela, NKorea, and Iran policies have turned out (clearly at odds with his non-interventionist campaign platform), who would he appoint as State Sec and NS adviser? and since Bolton was personally pushed to Trump by Adelson in exchange for campaign donation, would there be a backlash from the Jewish Republican donors and the loss of support? I think in both cases Trump is facing with big dilemmas. ..."
"... Tulsi for Sec of State 2020... ..."
"... Keeping Bolton and Pompeo on board is consistent with Trump's negotiating style. He is full of bluster and demands to put the other side in a defensive position. I guess it was a successful strategy for him so he continues it. Many years ago I was across the table from Trump negotiating the sale of the land under the Empire State Building which at the time was owned by Prudential even though Trump already had locked up the actual building. I just sat there, impassively, while Trump went on with his fire and fury. When I did not budge, he turned to his Japanese financial partner and said "take care of this" and walked out of the room. Then we were able to talk and negotiate in a logical manner and consumate a deal that was double Trump's negotiating bid. I learned later he was furious with his Japanese partner for failing to "win". ..."
"... You can still these same traits in the way that Trump thinks about other countries - they can be cajoled or pushed into doing what Trump wants. If the other countries just wait Trump out they can usually get a much better deal. Bolton and Pompeo, as Blusterers, are useful in pursuing the same negotiation style, for better or worse, Trump has used for probably for the last 50 years. ..."
"... I have seen this style of negotiations work on occasion. The most important lesson I've learned is the willingness to walk. I'm not sure that Trump's personal style matters that much in complex negotiations among states. There's too many people and far too many details. ..."
"... Having the neocons front & center on his foreign policy team I believe has negative consequences for him politically. IMO, he won support from the anti-interventionists due to his strong campaign stance. While they may be a small segment in America in a tight race they could matter. ..."
"... Additionally as Col. Lang notes the neocons could start a shooting match due to their hubris and that can always escalate and go awry. We can only hope that he's smart enough to recognize that. I remain convinced that our fawning allegiance to Bibi is central to many of our poor strategic decision making. ..."
"... I agree that this is Trump's style but what he does not seem to understand is that in using jugheads like these guys on the international scene he may precipitate a war when he really does not want one. ..."
"... "Perhaps the biggest lie the mainstream media have tried to get over on the American public is the idea that it is conservatives, that start wars. That's total nonsense of course. Almost all of America's wars in the 20th century were stared by liberal Democrats." ..."
"... So what exactly is Pussy John, then, just a Yosemite Sam-type bureaucrat with no actual portfolio, so to speak? I defer to your vastly greater knowledge of these matters, but at times it sure seems like they are pursuing a rear-guard action as the US Empire shrinks ..."
"... If were Lavrov, what would I think to myself were I to find myself on the other side of a phone call from PJ or the Malignant Manatee? ..."
It's time for Trump to stop John Bolton and Mike Pompeo from
sabotaging his foreign policy | Mulshine
"I put that question to another military vet, former Vietnam Green Beret Pat Lang.
"Once he's committed to a war in the Mideast, he's just screwed," said Lang of Trump.
But Lang, who later spent more than a decade in the Mideast, noted that Bolton has no direct
control over the military.
"Bolton has a problem," he said. "If he can just get the generals to obey him, he can start
all the wars he wants. But they don't obey him."
They obey the commander-in-chief. And Trump has a history of hiring war-crazed advisors who
end up losing their jobs when they get a bit too bellicose. Former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley
comes to mind."
" In Lang's view, anyone who sees Trump as some sort of ideologue is missing the point.
"He's an entrepreneurial businessman who hires consultants for their advice and then gets
rid of them when he doesn't want that advice," he said.
So far that advice hasn't been very helpful, at least in the case of Bolton. His big mouth
seems to have deep-sixed Trump's chance of a summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. And
that failed coup in Venezuela has brought up comparisons to the failed Bay of Pigs invasion
during the Kennedy administration." Mulshine
--------------
Well, pilgrims, I worked exclusively on the subject of the Islamic culture continent for the
USG from 1972 to 1994 and then in business from 1994 to 2006. I suppose I am still working on
the subject. pl
I don't get it I suppose. I'd always thought that maybe you wanted highly opinionated Type A
personalities in the role of privy council, etc. You know, people who could forcefully
advocate positions in closed session meetings and weren't afraid of taking contrary
positions. But I always figured you needed to keep the blowhards under cover so they wouldn't
stick their feet in their mouths and that the public position jobs should go to the smoothies..You, know, diplomats who were capable of some measure of subtlety.
But these days it's the loudmouths who get these jobs, to our detriment. When will senior
govt. leaders understand that just because a person is a success in running for Congress
doesn't mean he/she should be sent forth to mingle with the many different personalities and
cultures running the rest of the world?
A clod like Bolton should be put aside and assigned
the job of preparing position papers and a lout Like Pompeo should be a football coach at RoosterPoot U.
No. I would like to see highly opinionated Type B personalities like me hold those jobs. Type
B does not mean you are passive. It means you are not obsessively competitive.
"Once he's committed to a war in the Mideast, he's just screwed,"
Not only Trump, at the same time the swamp creatures risk losing control over the Democrat
primaries, too. With a new major war in the Mideast, Tulsi Gabbard's core message of
non-interventionism will resonate a lot more, and that will lower the chances of the
corporate DNC picks. A dangerous gamble.
Interesting post, thank you sir. Prior to this recent post I had never heard of Paul
Mulshine. In fact I went through some of his earlier posts on Trump's foreign policy and I
found a fair amount of common sense in them. He strikes me as a paleocon, like Pat Buchanan,
Paul Craig Roberts, Michael Scheuer, Doug Bandow, Tucker Carlson and others in that mold.
The other day I was thinking to myself that if Trump decides to dismiss Bolton or Pompeo,
especially given how terrible Venezuela, NKorea, and Iran policies have turned out (clearly
at odds with his non-interventionist campaign platform), who would he appoint as State Sec
and NS adviser? and since Bolton was personally pushed to Trump by Adelson in exchange for
campaign donation, would there be a backlash from the Jewish Republican donors and the loss
of support? I think in both cases Trump is facing with big dilemmas.
My best hope is that
Trump teams up with libertarians and maybe even paleocons to run his foreign policy. So far
Trump has not succeeded in draining the Swamp. Bolton, Pompeo and their respective staff
"are" indeed the Swamp creatures and they run their own policies that run against Trump's
America First policy. Any thoughts?
Keeping Bolton and Pompeo on board is consistent with Trump's negotiating style. He is full
of bluster and demands to put the other side in a defensive position. I guess it was a
successful strategy for him so he continues it. Many years ago I was across the table from
Trump negotiating the sale of the land under the Empire State Building which at the time was
owned by Prudential even though Trump already had locked up the actual building. I just sat
there, impassively, while Trump went on with his fire and fury. When I did not budge, he
turned to his Japanese financial partner and said "take care of this" and walked out of the
room. Then we were able to talk and negotiate in a logical manner and consumate a deal that
was double Trump's negotiating bid. I learned later he was furious with his Japanese partner
for failing to "win".
You can still these same traits in the way that Trump thinks about other countries - they
can be cajoled or pushed into doing what Trump wants. If the other countries just wait Trump
out they can usually get a much better deal. Bolton and Pompeo, as Blusterers, are useful in
pursuing the same negotiation style, for better or worse, Trump has used for probably for the
last 50 years.
I have seen this style of negotiations work on occasion. The most important lesson I've learned is the willingness to
walk. I'm not sure that Trump's personal style matters that much in complex negotiations among states. There's too many people
and far too many details. I see he and his trade team not buckling to the Chinese at least not yet despite the intense
pressure from Wall St and the big corporations.
Having the neocons front & center on his foreign policy team I believe has negative
consequences for him politically. IMO, he won support from the anti-interventionists due to
his strong campaign stance. While they may be a small segment in America in a tight race they
could matter.
Additionally as Col. Lang notes the neocons could start a shooting match due to
their hubris and that can always escalate and go awry. We can only hope that he's smart
enough to recognize that. I remain convinced that our fawning allegiance to Bibi is central
to many of our poor strategic decision making.
Just out of curiosity: Did the deal go through in the end, despite Trump's ire? Or was
Trump so furious with the negotiating result of his Japanese partner that he tore up the
draft once it was presented to him?
I agree that this is Trump's style but what he does not seem to understand is that in
using jugheads like these guys on the international scene he may precipitate a war when he
really does not want one.
Mulshine's article has some good points, but he does include some hilariously ignorant bits
which undermine his credibility.
"Jose Gomez Rivera is a Jersey guy who served in the State Department in Venezuela at the
time of the coup that brought the current socialist regime to power."
Wrong. Maduro was elected and international observers seem to agree the election was
fair.
"Perhaps the biggest lie the mainstream media have tried to get over on the American
public is the idea that it is conservatives, that start wars. That's total nonsense of
course. Almost all of America's wars in the 20th century were stared by liberal Democrats."
So what exactly is Pussy John, then, just a Yosemite Sam-type bureaucrat with no actual
portfolio, so to speak? I defer to your vastly greater knowledge of these matters, but at
times it sure seems like they are pursuing a rear-guard action as the US Empire shrinks and
shudders in its death throes underneath them, and at others it seems like they really have no
idea what to do, other than engage in juvenile antics, snort some glue from a paper bag and
set fires in the dumpsters behind the Taco Bell before going out into a darkened field
somewhere to violate farm animals.
If were Lavrov, what would I think to myself were I to
find myself on the other side of a phone call from PJ or the Malignant Manatee?
Tulsi found an interesting way to stress he foreign policy credential -- The US President is
the Commander in Chief of the Nation.
Notable quotes:
"... Gabbard's transformation from cherished party asset to party critic and outcast was rapid, and was due almost entirely to her insistence on following her own belief system and evolving ideology rather than party dogma and the long-standing rules for Washington advancement. ..."
"... I'm a 70+ veteran who has never voted for a Democrat in my life. Tulsi Gabbard is the best, most qualified, most eloquent and thoughtful presidential candidate of my lifetime. She will catch on, and the MSM which hates her (they all get tons of money and support from war industry, Big Pharma, Big Ag, etc.), will try to ignore her or smear her, but in the end they will fail. She makes sense, and they don't. Regime change wars must end. Tulsi will be the shining light that makes it happen. ..."
Ever since Tulsi Gabbard was first elected to Congress in 2012, she has been assertively
independent, heterodox, unpredictable, and polarizing. Viewed at first as a loyal Democrat and
guaranteed future star by party leaders -- due to her status as an Iraq War veteran, a
telegenic and dynamic young woman, and the first Hindu and Samoan American ever elected to
Congress -- she has instead become a thorn in the side, and frequent critic, of those same
party leaders that quickly anointed her as the future face of the party.
Gabbard's transformation from cherished party asset to party critic and outcast was rapid,
and was due almost entirely to her insistence on following her own belief system and evolving
ideology rather than party dogma and the long-standing rules for Washington advancement.
Glenn Greenwald sat down with Rep. Tulsi Gabbard to discuss a wide range of issues,
including the reasons she is running for president, her views on Trump's electoral appeal and
what is necessary to defeat it, the rise of right-wing populism internationally, the
Trump/Russia investigation, criticisms she has received regarding her views of Islam and
certain repressive leaders, and her unique foreign policy viewpoints.
This interview is intended to be the first in a series of in-depth interviews with
influential and interesting U.S. political figures, including but not limited to 2020
presidential candidates, designed to enable deeper examinations than the standard cable or
network news format permits.
I am Norwegian. I want to interfere in the next american presidential election. I want
Tulsi Gabbard as the next president of the USA. Love from Norway!
I'm a 70+ veteran who has never voted for a Democrat in my life. Tulsi Gabbard is the
best, most qualified, most eloquent and thoughtful presidential candidate of my lifetime. She
will catch on, and the MSM which hates her (they all get tons of money and support from war
industry, Big Pharma, Big Ag, etc.), will try to ignore her or smear her, but in the end they
will fail. She makes sense, and they don't. Regime change wars must end. Tulsi will be the
shining light that makes it happen.
How many presidential candidates have the guts to sit down for an interview with Glenn
Greenwald? Only one. Tulsi Gabbard. Excellent (and very challenging) questions from Greenwald
-- great responses from Gabbard.
Any candidate the Intercept finds worth interviewing is worth my time to look into. Still
a bit nervous about her glorification of military service but overall...
Great interview! Asked many questions I wanted to hear answers to. Gives a great sense of
Tulsi and where she stands on many issues with emphasis on foreign policy that seems to be
ignored everywhere else. Thank you Glenn.
Thank you for asking the tough questions Glenn. I really like Tulsi but the Modi questions
had been long in the waiting. I'm glad she answered them the way she did.
Tulsi is one in a generation natural born diplomat !!! She found an interesting way to stress the value of her foreign policy
credentials (which in general are not valued much by the US voters, who concentrate on internal problems) -- The US
President is the Commander in Chief of the Nation.
For the majority of Americans Tulsi stands out. There's no one coming even close. Bernie is a good talker, but totally
untrustworthy against DNC (folded in 2016 without a fight) as well as Israel's military aid and wars in ME.
Tulsi represents profiles in courage. She makes establishment candidate like Kamala look wanting. Of course the have support
of neoliberal MSM, while Tulsi is ignored. Even Democratic establishment (read neocons) are hostile toward Tulsi. Implicitly they
behave like "we don't want her muddying the waters".
Unfortunately there is a strong possibility that Tulsi will not be given a fair chance, the DNC under chairman Perez will
stick to party hierarchy even if he claims otherwise....
Notable quotes:
"... Tulsi is the only candidate in my lifetime who has had an actual demeanor worthy of global leadership. ..."
"... I LOVE her demeanor. She handles herself so well. She is calm & wise & fair. She will run circles @ the debates & not break a sweat! ..."
"... i am 76 and have never seen a politician of her caliber! ..."
"... So much capital was wasted on RussiaGate, but a totally legit SaudiGate scandal went ignored. 😔 ..."
"... TuIsi is in a league of her own. We are blessed. ..."
Democrats don't want auditable elections because they're in on election fraud in the
districts of the party elites. Wasserman-Schultz is the queen of the sleazes.
Niko- I have a line of questions I'm hoping you will address with Kulinski tomorrow &
if it doesn't align with your perspective I respect that it's not something you want to ask
& I'd be interested in hearing from you directly why you view it differently: I'm
increasingly concerned over the weak opposition by many Sanders supporters over many of his
positions these last few years.
It appears to me that Medicare for All has taken precedent
over fighting the military industrial complex & the millions of lives abroad affected by
it. This is not a trade-off for voters like me. It is true that he is better than most &
he has a strong background but he used to push for 3rd parties. This has changed along with
many other issues & I think anyone being honest with themselves know this to be true.
Beyond the excuses for his endorsement of Kissinger's proTPP Clinton, he has whitewashed
Bush/Cheney, called Mad Dog Mattis "the adult in the room", gone along with Russiagate &
even suggested some of his followers on Facebook were Russian trolls, given lipservice to the
Venezuelan "humanitarian aid", been silent on Assange, & repeatedly ignored his base on
all of the above. My questions are: How can progressives like this honestly trust Sanders to
fight for truth on these fronts?
Why is getting Medicare for All more important than fighting
against endless war? Is it possible that progressive media has done a disservice to electoral
progress by framing it as Sanders being cheated in 2016 & not emphasizing that it was a
greater betrayal of the VOTERS who were cheated? Saying that they will continue to push back
on him in these areas where he is wrong strikes me as completely baseless given their
inability to sway him these last few years. I'm tired of excuses & hoping for better
answers than "it's his turn", "he had to tow the line", or "that's for Tulsi as VP/Secretary
of State to do". Please & thank you!
Do a 1 to 2 minute setup, show the main piece/clip, then pontificate/summarize. I got so
bored I left the PC, made coffee, came back and you still hadn't got to the point of the
video 5 mins in. If you're doing a long-form stream then go with whatever. For these shorter
topical videos you need a shorter intro or need to cut out the filler in the edit process.
The long setup and unnecessary dramatic effect pauses will only irritate people that just
want the important part of what you're presenting.
I think support for Tulsi and Bernie can (and should) be congruent, especially since
ideally for me, they are both on that ticket. Not gonna lie, I want him on the helm of it,
but that's because then she gets a shot at a 10-year presidency. We need them both in that
admin ASAP. Their policies are complimentary, not juxtaposed. They only make each other
stronger. It's not a binary. I would be emphatic to vote for either one of them.
If she is
still competitive on super Tuesday, she has my vote. Otherwise, I think if she does not carry
the torch to the end, we need to be prepared to aggressively throw our weight behind Bernie
Sanders in a stronger way than 2016. (I also like Marianne Williamson, but I don't think
that's gonna happen.She got my dollar.)
We cannot roll over again. If they nominate Beto or
Kamala or Booker, we have to walk. In droves. Bearing in mind 4 more years of Trump is better
than 40 more years of being exploited by the democratic party for votes while not being
heard. It's effectively (and literally) taxation without representation. It's aristocracy.
It's bullshit. And if they nominate a moderate, we're gonna know they didn't fucking get it
before.
Commentators like Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson appeal to people who don't have the
intellectual capacity to know that they're being lied to by pseudo-intellectuals. I knew
Jordan Peterson was one of these, when I first heard his analysis of Dostoevsky's "Notes From
Underground," one of my favorite novels.
I love your show brother. I found #Tulsi2020 because of Bari
smearing her on jre. That led me to your show. Thanks for the help! Keep up the hard work.
#Tulsi2020
John
Doe1 day ago
What a true patriotic compassionate leader. Easily has my vote
111 112
View 15 replies Hide replies John Doe1 day
ago She can show the world how to lead. Tulsi 2020!!!!
58 59
View reply Hide replies Merwin ARTist1 day
ago Tulsi is awesome .. appreciate what she has to say about stopping these foolish regime
change wars! Respect!!! Tulsi2020
63 64
View reply Hide replies Fellow Citizen1
day ago They are terrified of Tulsi because they know that if people hear her they will
automatically vote for her. Tulsi: "...honour, respect, and integrity..." "Journalists":
"[clears throat at the prospect of competing on a fair playing-field]"
75 76
View 10 replies Hide replies Freedom Tribe1 day
ago Time is running out. We need this woman to lead us into the next epoch.
38 39
View reply Hide replies MR BOSTON1 day
ago I voted for trump but I would vote for her in a heart beat
57 58
View 6 replies Hide replies MoMo Bronx1 day
ago You just don't get more real than Tulsi I hope she win,the world need real
Leadership
31 32 Peace Harmony1 day
ago Tulsi is one of the few Democrats who isn't too scared to go on FOX News. And she is a
great candidate! A true patriot.
View 13 replies Hide replies Kedaar Iyer1 day
ago Make sure to get her to 100,000 individual donors so that she can be on the debate
stage!
www.tulsi2020.com
25 26
View 2 replies Hide replies lendallpitts1 day
ago Tulsi Gabbard is the most presidential of all of the candidates.
11 12 John Doe1 day ago
(edited) I love the compassion in the comments. That's what we're talking about. Service to
others, learn to love thy neighbor
12 13 Kostas K1 day
ago Honour Integrity and respect, qualities that the White House has never experienced so
far in it's history.
14 15 OTR
Trucker1 day ago
(edited) Thanks for running Tulsi. If we look at history it's Presidents without a military
background that get us into the biggest disasters. Veterans still get us into wars sometimes
but they are wars that are limited in scope and "winnable". Every open ended catastrophe we've
been in was from a non vet.
32 33
View 4 replies Hide replies Jeremy Chase1 day
ago I was speaking with an older couple yesterday. They obviously had a lot of MSM on the
brain. The woman said, I would like to see a woman in The White House. I said, Tulsi Gabbard is
your woman! Don't let the media lie to you about her. They just want their senseless wars. You
go, Tulsi! ✌
16 17
View reply Hide replies Michael Dob1 day
ago What a concept. Serve American interest instead of corporations and foreign
governments.
This was true about Iraq war. This is true about Venezuela and Syria.
Notable quotes:
"... In a rather odd article in the London Review of Books , Perry Anderson argued that there wasn't, and wondered aloud why the U.S. war on Iraq had excited such unprecedented worldwide opposition - even, in all places, within the U.S. - when earlier episodes of imperial violence hadn't. ..."
"... Lots of people, in the U.S. and abroad, recognize that and are alarmed. And lots also recognize that the Bush regime represents an intensification of imperial ambition. ..."
"... Why? The answers aren't self-evident. Certainly the war on Iraq had little to do with its public justifications. Iraq was clearly a threat to no one, and the weapons of mass destruction have proved elusive. The war did nothing for the fight against terrorism. Only ideologues believe that Baghdad had anything to do with al Qaeda - and if the Bush administration were really worried about "homeland security," it'd be funding the defense of ports, nuclear reactors, and chemical plants rather than starting imperial wars and alienating people by the billions. Sure, Saddam's regime was monstrous - which is one of the reasons Washington supported it up until the invasion of Kuwait. The Ba'ath Party loved to kill Communists - as many as 150,000 according to some estimates - and the CIA's relationship with Saddam goes back to 1959 . ..."
"... Iraq has lots of oil , and there's little doubt that that's why it was at the first pole of the axis of evil to get hit. (Iran does too, but it's a much tougher nut to crack - four times as big, and not weakened by war and sanctions.) ..."
Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small c rappy little country and
throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business.
- Michael
Ledeen , holder of the Freedom Chair at the American Enterprise Institute
Actually, the U.S. had been beating Iraq's head against the wall for a dozen years, with
sanctions and bombing. The
sanctions alone killed over a million Iraqis, far more than have been done in by weapons of
mass destruction throughout history. But Ledeen's indiscreet remark, delivered at an AEI
conference and reported by Jonah Goldberg in National Review Online , does capture some
of what the war on Iraq is about.
And what is this "business" Ledeen says we mean? Oil, of course, of which more in a bit.
Ditto construction contracts for Bechtel. But it's more than that - nothing less than the
desire, often expressed with little shame nor euphemism, to run the world. Is there anything
new about that?
The answer is, of course, yes and no. In a rather odd article in the London Review of Books ,
Perry Anderson argued that there wasn't, and wondered aloud why the U.S. war on Iraq had
excited such unprecedented worldwide opposition - even, in all places, within the U.S. - when
earlier episodes of imperial violence hadn't. Anderson, who's edited New Left Review for years, but who has almost no
connection to actual politics attributed this strange explosion not to a popular outburst of
anti-imperialism, but to a cultural antipathy to the Bush administration.
Presumably that antipathy belongs to the realm of the " merely cultural ," and is of no great
political significance to Anderson. But it should be. U.S. culture has long been afflicted with
a brutally reactionary and self-righteous version of Christian fundamentalism, but it's never
had such influence over the state. The president thinks himself on a mission from God, the
Attorney General opens the business day with a prayer meeting, and the Pentagon's idea of a
Good Friday service is to invite Franklin Graham , who's pronounced Islam a "wicked and
evil religion," to deliver the homily, in which he promised that Jesus was returning soon. For
the hard core, the Iraq war is a sign of the end times, and the hard core
are in power.
Lots of people, in the U.S. and abroad, recognize that and are alarmed. And lots also
recognize that the Bush regime represents an intensification of imperial ambition. Though the
administration has been discreet, many of its private sector intellectuals
have been using the words "imperialism" and " empire " openly and with
glee. Not everyone of the millions who marched against the war in the months before it started
was a conscious anti-imperialist, but they all sensed the intensification, and were further
alarmed.
While itself avoiding the difficult word "empire," the Bush administration has been rather
clear about its long-term aims. According to their official national security strategy and the
documents published by the Project
for a New American Century (which served as an administration-in-waiting during the Clinton
years) their goal is to assure U.S. dominance and prevent the emergence of any rival powers.
First step in that agenda is the remaking of the Middle East - and they're quite open
about this as well. We all know the countries that are on the list; the only remaining issues
are sequence and strategy. But that's not the whole of the agenda. They're essentially
promising a permanent state of war, some overt, some covert, but one that could take
decades.
Imperial returns?
Why? The answers aren't self-evident. Certainly the war on Iraq had little to do with its
public justifications. Iraq was clearly a threat to no one, and the weapons of mass destruction
have proved elusive. The war did nothing for the fight against terrorism. Only ideologues
believe that Baghdad had anything to do with al Qaeda - and if the Bush administration were
really worried about "homeland security," it'd be funding the defense of ports, nuclear
reactors, and chemical plants rather than starting imperial wars and alienating people by the
billions. Sure, Saddam's regime was monstrous - which is one of the reasons Washington
supported it up until the invasion of Kuwait. The Ba'ath Party loved to kill Communists - as
many as 150,000 according to some estimates - and the CIA's relationship with Saddam goes back
to 1959
.
Iraq has lots of oil , and there's little doubt that that's why
it was at the first pole of the axis of evil to get hit. (Iran does too, but it's a much
tougher nut to crack - four times as big, and not weakened by war and sanctions.)
It now looks
fairly certain that the U.S. will, in some form, claim some large piece of Iraq's oil. The
details need to be worked out; clarifying the legal situation could be very complicated, given
the rampantly illegal nature of the regime change. Rebuilding Iraq's oil industry will be very
expensive and could take years. There could be some nice profits down the line for big oil
companies - billions a year - but the broader economic benefits for the U.S. aren't so clear. A
U.S.-dominated Iraq could pump heavily and undermine OPEC, but too low an oil price would wreck
the domestic U.S. oil industry, something the Bush gang presumably cares
about. Mexico would be driven into penury, which could mean another debt crisis and lots of
human traffic heading north over the Rio Grande. Lower oil prices would be a boon to most
industrial economies, but they'd give the U.S. no special advantage over its principal economic
rivals.
It's
sometimes said that U.S. dominance of the Middle East gives Washington a chokehold over oil
supplies to Europe and Japan. But how might that work? Deep production cutbacks and price
spikes would hurt everyone. Targeted sales restrictions would be the equivalent of acts of war,
and if the U.S. is willing to take that route, a blockade would be a lot more efficient. The
world oil market is gigantic and complex, and it's not clear how a tap could be turned in
Kirkuk that would shut down the gas pumps in Kyoto or Milan.
Writers like David Harvey argue
that the U.S. is trying to compensate for its eroding economic power by asserting its military
dominance. Maybe. It's certainly fascinating that Bush's unilateralism has to be financed by
gobs of foreign money - and he gets his tax cuts, he'll have to order up even bigger gobs. But
it's hard to see what rival threatens the U.S. economically; neither the EU nor Japan is
thriving. Nor is there any evidence that the Bush administration is thinking seriously about
economic policy, domestic or international, or even thinking at all. The economic staff is
mostly dim and marginal. What really seems to excite this gang of supposed conservatives is the
exercise of raw state power.
Jealous rivals
And while the Bushies want to prevent the emergence of imperial rivals , they may only be encouraging that. Sure, the EU
is badly divided within itself; it has a hard enough time picking a top central banker , let alone deciding on a common
foreign policy. German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder is already semi-apologizing to Bush for
his intemperate language in criticizing the war - not that Bush has started taking his calls.
But over the longer term, some kind of political unification is Europe's only hope for acting
like a remotely credible world power. It's tempting to read French and German objections to the
Iraq war as emerging not from principle, but from the wounded narcissism of former imperial
powers rendered marginal by American might. Separately, they'll surely hang. But a politically
united Europe could, with time, come to challenge U.S. power, just as the euro is beginning to look like a credible rival to the dollar.
(Speaking of the euro, there's a theory circulating on the net that the U.S. went to war
because Iraq wanted to price its oil in euros, not dollars. That's grossly overheated
speculation. More on this and related issues when LBO begins an investigation of the
political economy of oil in the next issue.)
An even more interesting rivalry scenario would involve an alliance of the EU and Russia.
Russia is no longer the wreck it was for most of the 1990s. The economy has been growing and
the mildly authoritarian Putin has imposed political stability. Russia, which has substantial
oil interests in Iraq that are threatened by U.S. control, strongly opposed the war, and at
least factions within the Russian intelligence agency were reportedly feeding information
unfriendly to the U.S. to the website Iraqwar.ru . There's a lot recommending an EU-Russia
alliance; Europe could supply technology and finance, and Russia could supply energy, and
together they could constitute at least an embryonic counterweight to U.S. power.
So the U.S. may not get out of Iraq what the Bush administration is hoping for. It certainly
can't want democracy in Iraq or the rest of the region, since free votes could well lead to
nationalist and Islamist governments who don't view ExxonMobil as the divine agent that Bush seems to. A
New York Times piece celebrated the outbreak of democracy in Basra, while conceding that
the mayor is a former Iraqi admiral appointed by the British. The lead writers of the new
constitution are likely to be American law professors; Iraqis, of course, aren't up to the task
themselves.
Certainly the appointment of Lt. Gen. Jay M. Garner (Ret.) - one of the
few superannuated brass not to have enjoyed a consulting contract with a major TV network - to
be the top civilian official guiding the postwar reconstruction of Iraq speaks volumes. A
retired general is barely a civilian, and Garner's most recent job was as president of
SY Technology , a military
contractor that worked with Israeli security in developing the Arrow antimissile system. He
loves antimissile systems; after the first Gulf War, he enthused about the Patriot's
performance with claims that turned out to be nonsense. He's on record as having praised
Israel's handling of the intifada. If that's his model of how to handle restive subject
populations, there's lots of trouble ahead.
lightness
In the early days of the war, when things weren't going so well for the "coalition,"
it was said that the force was too light. But after the sandstorm cleared and the snipers
were mowed down, that alleged lightness became a widely praised virtue. But that force
was light only by American standards: 300,000 troops; an endless rain of Tomahawks,
JDAMs, and MOABs; thousands of vehicles, from Humvees to Abrams tanks; hundreds of
aircraft, from Apaches to B-1s; several flotillas of naval support - and enormous
quantities of expensive petroleum products. It takes five gallons of fuel just to start
an Abrams tank, and after that it gets a mile per gallon. And filling one up is no
bargain. Though the military buys fuel at a wholesale price of 84¢ a gallon, after
all the expenses of getting it to the front lines are added in, the final cost is about
$150 a gallon. That's a steal compared to Afghanistan, where fuel is helicoptered in,
pushing the cost to $600/gallon. Rummy's "lightness" is of the sort that only a $10
trillion economy can afford.
The Bush gang doesn't even try to keep up appearances, handing out contracts for Iraq's
reconstruction to U.S. firms even before the shooting stopped, and guarding only the oil and
interior ministries against looters. If Washington gets its way, Iraq will be rebuilt according
to the fondest dreams of the Heritage Foundation staff, with the educational system reworked by
an American contractor, the TV programmed by the Pentagon, the ports run by a rabidly antiunion
firm, the police run by the Texas-based military contractor Dyncorp , and the oil taken out of
state hands and appropriately privatized.
That's the way they'd like it to be. But the sailing may not be so smooth. It looks like
Iraqis are viewing the Americans as occupiers, not liberators. It's going to be hard enough to
remake Iraq that taking on Syria or Iran may be a bit premature. But that doesn't mean they
won't try. It's a cliché of trade negotiations that liberalization is like riding a
bicycle - you have to keep riding forward or else you'll fall over. The same could be said of
an imperial agenda: if you want to remake the world, or a big chunk of it, there's little time
to pause and catch your breath, since doubt or opposition could gain the upper hand. Which
makes stoking that opposition more
urgent than ever.
Losing it all
There's a feeling around that Bush is now politically invulnerable . Certainly the atmosphere
is one of almost coercive patriotism. That mood was nicely illustrated by an incident in
Houston in mid-March. A teenager attending a rodeo failed to stand along with the rest of the
crowd during a playing of Lee Greenwood's "Proud to be an American," a dreadful country song
that has become a kind of private-sector national anthem for the yahoo demographic, thanks to
its truculent unthinking jingoism. A patriot standing behind the defiantly seated teen started
taunting him, tugging on his ear as an additional provocation. The two ended up in a fight, and
then under arrest.
There's a lot of that going around, for sure. Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins get disinvited
from events, websites nominate
traitors for trial by military tribunal, and talk radio hosts organize CD-smashings. But things
aren't hopeless. A close analysis of Greenwood's text might suggest why. The song's core
argument is contained in its two most famous lines: "I'm proud to be an American/where at least
I know I'm free." But the oft-overlooked opening reads: "If tomorrow all the things were
gone/I'd worked for all my life," the singer would still be a grateful patriot. That's
precisely the condition lots of Americans find themselves in. More than two million jobs have
disappeared in the last two years. Millions of Americans have seen their retirement savings
wiped out by the bear market, and over a million filed for bankruptcy last year. Most states and
cities are experiencing their worst fiscal crises since the 1930s, with massive service cuts
and layoffs imminent. In the song, such loss doesn't matter, but reality is often less
accommodating than a song.
As the nearby graphs show, W's ratings are much lower than his father's at the end of Gulf
War I, and his disapproval ratings much higher. Their theocratic and repressive agenda is
deeply unpopular with large parts of the U.S. population. Spending scores of billions on
destroying and rebuilding Iraq while at home health clinics are closing and teachers working
without pay is potentially incendiary. Foreign adventures have never been popular with the
American public (much to the distress of the ruling elite). An peace movement that could draw
the links among warmongering, austerity, and repression has great political potential. Just a
month or two ago, hundreds of thousands were marching in American streets to protest the
imminent war. Though that movement now looks a bit dispirited and demobilized, it's unlikely
that that kind of energy will just disappear into the ether.
Bolton power over Trump is connected to Adelson power over Trump. To think about Bolton as pure advisor is to seriously
underestimate his role and influence.
Notable quotes:
"... But I always figured you needed to keep the blowhards under cover so they wouldn't stick their feet in their mouths and that the public position jobs should go to the smoothies..You, know, diplomats who were capable of some measure of subtlety. ..."
"... A clod like Bolton should be put aside and assigned the job of preparing position papers and a lout Like Pompeo should be a football coach at RoosterPoot U. ..."
"... "Once he's committed to a war in the Mideast, he's just screwed," ..."
"... Not only Trump, at the same time the swamp creatures risk losing control over the Democrat primaries, too. With a new major war in the Mideast, Tulsi Gabbard's core message of non-interventionism will resonate a lot more, and that will lower the chances of the corporate DNC picks. A dangerous gamble. ..."
"... The other day I was thinking to myself that if Trump decides to dismiss Bolton or Pompeo, especially given how terrible Venezuela, NKorea, and Iran policies have turned out (clearly at odds with his non-interventionist campaign platform), who would he appoint as State Sec and NS adviser? and since Bolton was personally pushed to Trump by Adelson in exchange for campaign donation, would there be a backlash from the Jewish Republican donors and the loss of support? I think in both cases Trump is facing with big dilemmas. ..."
"... Tulsi for Sec of State 2020... ..."
"... Keeping Bolton and Pompeo on board is consistent with Trump's negotiating style. He is full of bluster and demands to put the other side in a defensive position. I guess it was a successful strategy for him so he continues it. Many years ago I was across the table from Trump negotiating the sale of the land under the Empire State Building which at the time was owned by Prudential even though Trump already had locked up the actual building. I just sat there, impassively, while Trump went on with his fire and fury. When I did not budge, he turned to his Japanese financial partner and said "take care of this" and walked out of the room. Then we were able to talk and negotiate in a logical manner and consumate a deal that was double Trump's negotiating bid. I learned later he was furious with his Japanese partner for failing to "win". ..."
"... You can still these same traits in the way that Trump thinks about other countries - they can be cajoled or pushed into doing what Trump wants. If the other countries just wait Trump out they can usually get a much better deal. Bolton and Pompeo, as Blusterers, are useful in pursuing the same negotiation style, for better or worse, Trump has used for probably for the last 50 years. ..."
"... I have seen this style of negotiations work on occasion. The most important lesson I've learned is the willingness to walk. I'm not sure that Trump's personal style matters that much in complex negotiations among states. There's too many people and far too many details. ..."
"... Having the neocons front & center on his foreign policy team I believe has negative consequences for him politically. IMO, he won support from the anti-interventionists due to his strong campaign stance. While they may be a small segment in America in a tight race they could matter. ..."
"... Additionally as Col. Lang notes the neocons could start a shooting match due to their hubris and that can always escalate and go awry. We can only hope that he's smart enough to recognize that. I remain convinced that our fawning allegiance to Bibi is central to many of our poor strategic decision making. ..."
"... I agree that this is Trump's style but what he does not seem to understand is that in using jugheads like these guys on the international scene he may precipitate a war when he really does not want one. ..."
"... "Perhaps the biggest lie the mainstream media have tried to get over on the American public is the idea that it is conservatives, that start wars. That's total nonsense of course. Almost all of America's wars in the 20th century were stared by liberal Democrats." ..."
"... So what exactly is Pussy John, then, just a Yosemite Sam-type bureaucrat with no actual portfolio, so to speak? I defer to your vastly greater knowledge of these matters, but at times it sure seems like they are pursuing a rear-guard action as the US Empire shrinks ..."
"... If were Lavrov, what would I think to myself were I to find myself on the other side of a phone call from PJ or the Malignant Manatee? ..."
It's time for Trump to stop John Bolton and Mike Pompeo from
sabotaging his foreign policy | Mulshine
"I put that question to another military vet, former Vietnam Green Beret Pat Lang.
"Once he's committed to a war in the Mideast, he's just screwed," said Lang of Trump.
But Lang, who later spent more than a decade in the Mideast, noted that Bolton has no direct
control over the military.
"Bolton has a problem," he said. "If he can just get the generals to obey him, he can start
all the wars he wants. But they don't obey him."
They obey the commander-in-chief. And Trump has a history of hiring war-crazed advisors who
end up losing their jobs when they get a bit too bellicose. Former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley
comes to mind."
" In Lang's view, anyone who sees Trump as some sort of ideologue is missing the point.
"He's an entrepreneurial businessman who hires consultants for their advice and then gets
rid of them when he doesn't want that advice," he said.
So far that advice hasn't been very helpful, at least in the case of Bolton. His big mouth
seems to have deep-sixed Trump's chance of a summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. And
that failed coup in Venezuela has brought up comparisons to the failed Bay of Pigs invasion
during the Kennedy administration." Mulshine
--------------
Well, pilgrims, I worked exclusively on the subject of the Islamic culture continent for the
USG from 1972 to 1994 and then in business from 1994 to 2006. I suppose I am still working on
the subject. pl
I don't get it I suppose. I'd always thought that maybe you wanted highly opinionated Type A
personalities in the role of privy council, etc. You know, people who could forcefully
advocate positions in closed session meetings and weren't afraid of taking contrary
positions. But I always figured you needed to keep the blowhards under cover so they wouldn't
stick their feet in their mouths and that the public position jobs should go to the smoothies..You, know, diplomats who were capable of some measure of subtlety.
But these days it's the loudmouths who get these jobs, to our detriment. When will senior
govt. leaders understand that just because a person is a success in running for Congress
doesn't mean he/she should be sent forth to mingle with the many different personalities and
cultures running the rest of the world?
A clod like Bolton should be put aside and assigned
the job of preparing position papers and a lout Like Pompeo should be a football coach at RoosterPoot U.
No. I would like to see highly opinionated Type B personalities like me hold those jobs. Type
B does not mean you are passive. It means you are not obsessively competitive.
"Once he's committed to a war in the Mideast, he's just screwed,"
Not only Trump, at the same time the swamp creatures risk losing control over the Democrat
primaries, too. With a new major war in the Mideast, Tulsi Gabbard's core message of
non-interventionism will resonate a lot more, and that will lower the chances of the
corporate DNC picks. A dangerous gamble.
Interesting post, thank you sir. Prior to this recent post I had never heard of Paul
Mulshine. In fact I went through some of his earlier posts on Trump's foreign policy and I
found a fair amount of common sense in them. He strikes me as a paleocon, like Pat Buchanan,
Paul Craig Roberts, Michael Scheuer, Doug Bandow, Tucker Carlson and others in that mold.
The other day I was thinking to myself that if Trump decides to dismiss Bolton or Pompeo,
especially given how terrible Venezuela, NKorea, and Iran policies have turned out (clearly
at odds with his non-interventionist campaign platform), who would he appoint as State Sec
and NS adviser? and since Bolton was personally pushed to Trump by Adelson in exchange for
campaign donation, would there be a backlash from the Jewish Republican donors and the loss
of support? I think in both cases Trump is facing with big dilemmas.
My best hope is that
Trump teams up with libertarians and maybe even paleocons to run his foreign policy. So far
Trump has not succeeded in draining the Swamp. Bolton, Pompeo and their respective staff
"are" indeed the Swamp creatures and they run their own policies that run against Trump's
America First policy. Any thoughts?
Keeping Bolton and Pompeo on board is consistent with Trump's negotiating style. He is full
of bluster and demands to put the other side in a defensive position. I guess it was a
successful strategy for him so he continues it. Many years ago I was across the table from
Trump negotiating the sale of the land under the Empire State Building which at the time was
owned by Prudential even though Trump already had locked up the actual building. I just sat
there, impassively, while Trump went on with his fire and fury. When I did not budge, he
turned to his Japanese financial partner and said "take care of this" and walked out of the
room. Then we were able to talk and negotiate in a logical manner and consumate a deal that
was double Trump's negotiating bid. I learned later he was furious with his Japanese partner
for failing to "win".
You can still these same traits in the way that Trump thinks about other countries - they
can be cajoled or pushed into doing what Trump wants. If the other countries just wait Trump
out they can usually get a much better deal. Bolton and Pompeo, as Blusterers, are useful in
pursuing the same negotiation style, for better or worse, Trump has used for probably for the
last 50 years.
I have seen this style of negotiations work on occasion. The most important lesson I've learned is the willingness to
walk. I'm not sure that Trump's personal style matters that much in complex negotiations among states. There's too many people
and far too many details. I see he and his trade team not buckling to the Chinese at least not yet despite the intense
pressure from Wall St and the big corporations.
Having the neocons front & center on his foreign policy team I believe has negative
consequences for him politically. IMO, he won support from the anti-interventionists due to
his strong campaign stance. While they may be a small segment in America in a tight race they
could matter.
Additionally as Col. Lang notes the neocons could start a shooting match due to
their hubris and that can always escalate and go awry. We can only hope that he's smart
enough to recognize that. I remain convinced that our fawning allegiance to Bibi is central
to many of our poor strategic decision making.
Just out of curiosity: Did the deal go through in the end, despite Trump's ire? Or was
Trump so furious with the negotiating result of his Japanese partner that he tore up the
draft once it was presented to him?
I agree that this is Trump's style but what he does not seem to understand is that in
using jugheads like these guys on the international scene he may precipitate a war when he
really does not want one.
Mulshine's article has some good points, but he does include some hilariously ignorant bits
which undermine his credibility.
"Jose Gomez Rivera is a Jersey guy who served in the State Department in Venezuela at the
time of the coup that brought the current socialist regime to power."
Wrong. Maduro was elected and international observers seem to agree the election was
fair.
"Perhaps the biggest lie the mainstream media have tried to get over on the American
public is the idea that it is conservatives, that start wars. That's total nonsense of
course. Almost all of America's wars in the 20th century were stared by liberal Democrats."
So what exactly is Pussy John, then, just a Yosemite Sam-type bureaucrat with no actual
portfolio, so to speak? I defer to your vastly greater knowledge of these matters, but at
times it sure seems like they are pursuing a rear-guard action as the US Empire shrinks and
shudders in its death throes underneath them, and at others it seems like they really have no
idea what to do, other than engage in juvenile antics, snort some glue from a paper bag and
set fires in the dumpsters behind the Taco Bell before going out into a darkened field
somewhere to violate farm animals.
If were Lavrov, what would I think to myself were I to
find myself on the other side of a phone call from PJ or the Malignant Manatee?
Good info. Very interesting. I was aware of Mike Rogers role but I discounted it
because:
1) It came too late (October 2016) and got little real media attention before the election.
2) Although NSA discovered irregularities in the Spring, they didn't get aired until
October? Maybe because he reports to the President?
3) It is said that Rogers informed Trump. Yet Trump didn't little if anything as a
result.
In the end, "Russiagate" continued despite Rogers info. Almost as though the Deep State
consensus was to initiate a new McCarthyism - which has been my operating theory for months.
<> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Will anyone be prosecuted for "Russiagate"? I doubt it. Everyone involve will say they
were doing their jobs. Their "intent" based on patriotic duty.
@ Laquerre 60 My impression was that the intellectual class (my contacts) still hate the Islamic regime
as much as they ever did. Iran is a divided country.
Is that unusual, for people to be divided and for some to hate their government?
I think not.
The US is certainly divided currently. France too, and others.
According to the Real Clear Politics US polls:
--President Trump job approval 45%
--Direction of country wrong track 54-50% here
Also, 42% of US the voting-eligible population did not vote in the 2016 election
Bottom line: The US with its many domestic problems including historic racism and
mysoginism should keep its nose out if others peoples' domestic affairs.
A really interesting discussion. the problem with discussion on new direction of the USA foreign policy is that forces that
control the current forign policy will not allow any changes. Russiagate was in part a paranoid reaction of the Deep State to the
possibility of detente with Russia and also questioning "neoliberal sacred truth" like who did 9/11 (to suggest that Bush is
guilty was a clear "Red Flag") and critical attribute to forrign wars which feed so many Imperial servants.
BTW Trump completely disappointed his supporters in the foreign policy is continuing to accelerate that direction
Here is how you chart a Progressive foreign policy stop treating the US intelligence
agencies of the CIA and FBI as orgs of integrity. Ban all foreign lobbying so no foreign
government can influence foreign policy.
Disband the Veto powers that the US holds over the UN
security council. Prosecute former Presidents and Government officials for the illegal regime
change wars.
Connect with other progressive politicians around the world such as Jeremy Corbyn,
Jean Luc Melenchon and Moon Jae In. End the arms race and begin a peaceful space race to
colonize the moon diverting funds from the military industrial complex into something
fulfilling.
What BULL while world under the fog of Berlin wall down, USA VP Bush attacks
Panama 8000 Marines kills 3500 panamanians , gives the banks to CIA, therefore Panama papers.
Another coup in Latin America. When V.P. Bush "we had to get over the Vietnam Syndrome". So
Killing 3500 people , to get over the loser spirit, suicidal influence from Vietnam. SHAME USA
more hate for Americans. And Now Venezuela, more Shame and Hate for Americans. Yankee go home,
Gringo stay home is chanted once more.
The audio is a little off especially for a couple speakers but this discussion is
great. Trump ran on a non-interventionist platform, but in his typical dishonest fashion, he
appointed people who are developing usable nukes like characters out of Dr. Strangelove.
Nuclear weapons and climate change are both existential threats that all the world needs to act
together to address.
17 plus years later some people are finally starting to talk about the $6
trillion wars and the $750 billion annual Defense Department Budget.... Please consider giving
Tulsi Gabbard at least a $1 contribution so she can be part of the debate between Democratic
presidential candidates. She has made ending the wars on terrorism and regime change the
primary issue of her candidacy. She is an Iraq vet and currently in the National Guard. Her
rank is Colonel. She needs $62,500 and contributions from 200 people in each of 20 states.
Thanks for anything you can do.
Jim R2 months ago
President Eisenhower's farewell address warned us of the very thing that is happening today with the industrial military
complex and the power and influence that that entity weilds.
chickendinner2012, 2 months ago
End the wars, no more imperialism, instead have fair trade prioritizing countries that have a living wage and aren't
waging war etc. No more supporting massive human rights abusers like Saudi Arabia, Israel, UAE etc. and we need to get three
of the most aggressive countries the F UK US coalition that constantly invades and bombs everyone they want to steal from to
stop doing war, stop coups, stop covert sabotage, stop sanctions.
asbeautifulasasunset, 2 months ago
17 plus years later some people are finally starting to talk about the $6 trillion wars and the $750 billion annual
Defense Department Budget.... Please consider giving Tulsi Gabbard at least a $1 contribution so she can be part of the
debate between Democratic presidential candidates. She has made ending the wars on terrorism and regime change the primary
issue of her candidacy. She is an Iraq vet and currently in the National Guard. Her rank is Colonel. She needs $62,500 and
contributions from 200 people in each of 20 states. Thanks for anything you can do.
carol wagner sudol2 months ago
Israel today has become a nazi like state. period. That says it all. This is heart-breaking. Gaza is simply a
concentration camp.
Tom Hall, 2 months ago
All our post WWII foreign policy has been about securing maintaining and enhancing corporate commercial interests. What
would seem to progressives as catastrophic failures are in fact monumental achievements of wealth creation and concentration.
The billions spent on think tanks to develop policy are mostly about how to develop grand narratives that conceal the true
beneficiaries of US foreign policy and create fear, uncertainty and insecurity at home and abroad.
The real story behind this or any other presidency is Who could stand up to the deep
state/neocons?
Trump is an outsider who is up against powerful, entrenched forces who apparently do
whatever they want to do. (and they would be the same had Bernie won the presidency).
Bernie seems to lack the spine. Tulsi on the other hand is a tough cookie--but could she
ever find adequate military and DOJ support?
A foreign intelligence asset was used to justify surveillance of Trump[ and some of his associates
Notable quotes:
"... What is clear from the new records is that Christopher Steele, a foreign intelligence officer, had frequent and extensive contacts with the FBI. Who was his FBI Case Agent? ..."
"... The main thing I want to know is WHEN was the decision made to tar Trump with Russia - both at the FBI (and likely CIA) and at the DNC (over the leak) - and WHO was the deciding entity - Comey, Brennan, Clinton, Obama or someone else? And perhaps who came up with the idea in the first place (at the DNC, it was very likely Alexandra Chalupa, the Ukrainian-American DNC "consultant"). ..."
"... The bad thing is that our MSM is so reverent of our Intel agencies that I see them encouraged to increasingly put their hand on the scale. ..."
"... Recently, I saw arm flailing by a Congressman, Dan Coats, and Mueller about how the Russians are still at it. They are trying to disrupt or influence the 2018. Really, then I demand to get a list of the pro-Kremlin candidates. How long before the mere threat of being outed as a Kremlin agent is used to punish elected officials if they are not sufficiently hawkish or don't support certain programs. Unchallenged claims by Intel agencies gives them a lot of political power. ..."
"... I am skeptical. Russia has a lot of fish to fry, why would they expend resources on midterm elections. Now everyone in the U.S. hates them, both traditional hawk Republicans and born again uber-hawk Democrats. There is a tiger behind both doors. ..."
"... if Steele had been a CHS since at least February of 2016, what was the purpose of passing the Dossier to the FBI through Fusion GPS? Why not just going to his FBI handler? Was Steele collaboration with Fusion even in compliance with FBI regulations? Did the FBI know? ..."
"... Because part of the plan was to leak the information in order to damage Trump. FBI could not do that. Would have exposed them to some real legal jeopardy. This was a dual track strategy. Diabolical almost. ..."
"... Don't forget the Nellie Ohr (Fusion GPS) -> Bruce Ohr (DOJ) back channel. The husband & wife tag team. Yes, the same Nellie that was investigating using ham radio to communicate to avoid NSA mass surveillance. ..."
"... From the very beginning that information about all this was slowly leaking from the Congressional investigation, this whole thing smelled very fishy. Then add intense effort at DOJ & FBI to obstruct and obfuscate. And the unhinged tweets and interviews by Brennan, Clapper & Comey. ..."
"... He was working with FBI and GPS at the same time. GPS was in the dark supposedly about his work with the FBI and Steele got their approval to hand over what he had delivered to GPS to the FBI as a cover for his work with the FBI. ..."
"... its also likely FBI had some input into the content of what was delivered to GPS, and more importantly what was not delivered. ..."
"... Re the 'standing agreement to not recruit each other's intelligence personnel for clandestine activities.' As Steele was not by this time a current employee of MI6, was the FBI in technical violation of this? ..."
"... A central question in regard to Steele, as with quite a number of former intelligence/law enforcement/military people who have started at least ostensibly private sector operations, is how far these are being used as 'cover' for activities conducted on behalf of either the state agencies for which they used to work, or other state agencies. ..."
"... It is at least possible that one advantage of such arrangements may be that they make it possible to evade the letter of agreements between intelligence agencies in different countries ..."
"... If, as seems likely, both current and former top FBI and DOJ people – very likely Mueller as well as Comey, Strzok and many others – were intimately involved in the conspiracy to subvert the constitution, then a means of making it possible for Steele to combine feeding information to the FBI while also engaging in 'StratCom' via the MSM could have been necessary. ..."
"... An obvious means of 'squaring the circle' would have been to issue a formal 'termination' to Steele, while creating 'back channels' to those who were officially supposed not to be talking to him ..."
"... A report yesterday by John Solomon in 'The Hill' quotes from messages exchanged between Steele and Bruce Ohr after the supposed termination ..."
"... 'In all, Ohr's notes, emails and texts identify more than 60 contacts with Steele and/or Simpson, some dating to 2002 in London. But the vast majority occurred during the 2016-2017 timeframe that gave birth to one of the most controversial counterintelligence probes in American history.' ..."
"... I have just finished taking a fresh look at Sir Robert Owen's travesty of a report into the death of Litvinenko. In large measure, this develops claims originally made in Christopher Steele's first attempt to provide a convincing account of why figures close to Putin might have thought it made sense to assassinate that figure, and to do so with polonium. The sheer volume of fabrication which has been deployed in an attempt to defend the patently indefensible almost beggars belief. ..."
"... Just as a question arises as to whether Steele is essentially acting on behalf of MI6, a question also arises as to whether the FBI leadership were knowledgeable about, and possibly involved with, the various shenanigans in which Shvets and Levinson were involved. Given that claims about Mogilevich have turned out to be central to 'Russiagate', that seems a rather important issue, and I am curious as to whether Ohr's communications with Steele may cast any light on it. ..."
"... Apparently the FBI got Deripaksa to fund the rescue of Levinson from Iran. Furthermore apparently FBI personnel maybe including McCabe visited with Deripaksa and showed him the Steele dossier. He supposedly had a nice guffaw and dismissed it as nonsense. So on the one hand while they make Russia out to be the most evil they play footsie with Russian oligarchs. ..."
"... Thinking about "Christopher Steele was terminated as a Confidential Human Source for cause.", something that doesn't seem to have gotten as much attention is that Peter Strzok failed his poly: ..."
"... Steele's relationship with the FBI extends far further back than February 2016. Shortly after he left MI6, he contracted with the Football Association to investigate possible FIFA corruption. Once he realized the massiveness of this corruption he contacted his old friends at the FBI Eurasian Crimes Task Force in 2011. Thus began his association with the FBI as a CHS. That investigation culminated in the 2015 FIFA corruption indictments and convictions. ..."
"... One thing I don't understand...we have the anti-Trumpers saying that Donald Junior meeting with a Russian national to get 'dirt' on Hillary is illegal...due to some law about candidates collaborating with foreigners or something like that...[obviously I'm foggy on the technical details]... Yet we know that the Hillary campaign worked with a foreign national, Steele, to get dirt on Trump...how is this not the same...? ..."
"... What role did Stefan Halper and Mifsud play as Confidential Human Sources in all this? ..."
"... Why was British Intelligence allegedly collecting and passing along info about Donald Trump in the first place? Or could this have been a pretext created to give cover and/or support to the agenda here in the US to insure his defeat? Could a foreign intelligence source such as this trigger/facilitate/justify the US counterintelligence investigation of Trump, or give cover to a covert investigation that may have already begun? ..."
"... British intelligence was collecting / passing on info about Trump because of his campaign stance on NATO (he said it was obsolete), his desire to end regime change wars (he castigated the fiasco in Iraq, took Bush to task over it etc.), and his often stated desire to get along with Russia (and China). Trump also talked of ending certain economic policies (NAFTA, TPP, etc.) and reenacting others (Glass-Steagall, the American System of Economics i.e. Hamilton, Carey, Clay), If Trump had acted on those, which he has not so far, he would changed the entire world system, a system in place since the end of WW II, or earlier. That was a risk too big to take without some kind of insurance policy - I believe Christopher Steele was that insurance policy. ..."
"... British Intelligence is verifiably the foreign source with the most extensive and effective meddling in the 2016 election. Perfidious Albion. ..."
"... Or, GSHQ was hovering up signint on Trump campaign early-on (using domestics US resources and databases via their 5-Eyes "sharing agreement" with NSA) cuz Brennan asked them to do it? ..."
"... Trump announced his run for President in 2015. I'm pretty sure that every intel service on the planet was watching him, they would be derelict not to. GCHQ may have been collecting intel on all the candidates, ..."
"... Trump announced his run for President in 2015. I'm pretty sure that every intel service on the planet was watching him, they would be derelict not to. GCHQ may have been collecting intel on all the candidates, ..."
"... I've heard that the Echelon system is used by the Five Eyes IC to do something similar. The Brits spy on US, and give the NSA the data so the NSA can evade US laws prohibiting spying on us, and we return the favor to help them evade what (few) laws they have that prohibits spying on their people. ..."
"... still wonder why the US would need to rely so much on British intelligence sources ..."
"... I've read that Steele's cover was blown 20 years ago and he hasn't even been to Russia since, so I wonder why he was considered such a reliable source by both the US and UK? In my opinion as an absolute naif about such things, Steele seems like he may be a has-been when it comes to Russia. ..."
"... Here is a simple explanation from someone who knows almost nothing about how any of the people in power work: Most of them are not as clever and smart as they think they are. And most of the regular people who are just citizens are smarter than these people think they are. ..."
"... It's simply that their arrogant assessment of their own superiority caused them to do really stupid things ..."
The revelations from US Government records about the FBI/Intel Community plot to take out Donald Trump continue to flow thanks
to the dogged efforts of Judicial Watch. The latest nugget came last Friday with the release of FBI records detailing their recruitment
and management of Britain's ostensibly retired Intelligence Officer, Christopher Steele. He was an officially recruited FBI source
and received at least 11 payments during the 9 month period that he was signed up as a Confidential Human Source.
You may find it strange that we can glean so much information from
a document dump that is almost
entirely redacted . The key is to look at the report forms; there are three types--FD-1023 (Source Reports), FD-209a (Contact
Reports) and FD-794b (Payment Requests). There are 15 different 1023s, 13 209a reports and 11 794b payment requests covering the
period from 2 February 2016 thru 1 November 2016. That is a total of nine months.
These reports totally destroy the existing meme that Steele only came into contact with the FBI sometime in July 2016. It is important
for you to understand that a 1023 Source Report is filled out each time that the FBI source handler has contact with the source.
This can be an in person meeting or a phone call. Each report lists the name of the Case Agent; the date, time and location of the
meeting; any other people attending the meeting; and a summary of what was discussed.
What is clear from the new records is that Christopher Steele, a foreign intelligence officer, had frequent and extensive
contacts with the FBI. Who was his FBI Case Agent?
The main thing I want to know is WHEN was the decision made to tar Trump with Russia - both at the FBI (and likely CIA)
and at the DNC (over the leak) - and WHO was the deciding entity - Comey, Brennan, Clinton, Obama or someone else? And perhaps
who came up with the idea in the first place (at the DNC, it was very likely Alexandra Chalupa, the Ukrainian-American DNC "consultant").
We can be pretty sure this predates any alleged Russian "hacking" (unless it occurred as a result of alleged Russian hacking
of the DNC in 2015).
This needs to be pinned down if anyone is to be successfully prosecuted for creating this treasonous hoax.
A very closely related topic, Victor Davis Hanson is onto something but it is darker than he suggests,
https://www.nationalreview.... Paraphrasing, he gives the typical, rally around the flag we must stop the Russians intro but
then documents how govt flaks abused their power to influence our elections and then makes the point, 'this is why the public
is skeptical of their claims'.
The bad thing is that our MSM is so reverent of our Intel agencies that I see them encouraged to increasingly put their
hand on the scale.
Recently, I saw arm flailing by a Congressman, Dan Coats, and Mueller about how the Russians are still at it. They are
trying to disrupt or influence the 2018. Really, then I demand to get a list of the pro-Kremlin candidates. How long before the
mere threat of being outed as a Kremlin agent is used to punish elected officials if they are not sufficiently hawkish or don't
support certain programs. Unchallenged claims by Intel agencies gives them a lot of political power.
I am skeptical. Russia has a lot of fish to fry, why would they expend resources on midterm elections. Now everyone in
the U.S. hates them, both traditional hawk Republicans and born again uber-hawk Democrats. There is a tiger behind both doors.
What I can't figure out is: if Steele had been a CHS since at least February of 2016, what was the purpose of passing the
Dossier to the FBI through Fusion GPS? Why not just going to his FBI handler? Was Steele collaboration with Fusion even in compliance
with FBI regulations? Did the FBI know?
Because part of the plan was to leak the information in order to damage Trump. FBI could not do that. Would have exposed them
to some real legal jeopardy. This was a dual track strategy. Diabolical almost.
Don't forget the Nellie Ohr (Fusion GPS) -> Bruce Ohr (DOJ) back channel. The husband & wife tag team. Yes, the same Nellie
that was investigating using ham radio to communicate to avoid NSA mass surveillance.
From the very beginning that information about all this was slowly leaking from the Congressional investigation, this whole
thing smelled very fishy. Then add intense effort at DOJ & FBI to obstruct and obfuscate. And the unhinged tweets and interviews
by Brennan, Clapper & Comey. And of course the media narrative that Rep. Nunes, Goodlatte and others were endangering "national
security" by casting aspersions on the "patriotic" law enforcement and intelligence agencies.
He was working with FBI and GPS at the same time. GPS was in the dark supposedly about his work with the FBI and Steele got
their approval to hand over what he had delivered to GPS to the FBI as a cover for his work with the FBI.
Of course, he had most likely already done so and its also likely FBI had some input into the content of what was delivered
to GPS, and more importantly what was not delivered.
Re the 'standing agreement to not recruit each other's intelligence personnel for clandestine activities.' As Steele was
not by this time a current employee of MI6, was the FBI in technical violation of this?
The point is not merely a quibble. A central question in regard to Steele, as with quite a number of former intelligence/law
enforcement/military people who have started at least ostensibly private sector operations, is how far these are being used as
'cover' for activities conducted on behalf of either the state agencies for which they used to work, or other state agencies.
It is at least possible that one advantage of such arrangements may be that they make it possible to evade the letter of
agreements between intelligence agencies in different countries.
Another related matter has to do with the termination of Steele as a 'Confidential Human Source.'
It has long seemed to me that it was more than possible that this was not to be taken at face value. If, as seems likely,
both current and former top FBI and DOJ people – very likely Mueller as well as Comey, Strzok and many others – were intimately
involved in the conspiracy to subvert the constitution, then a means of making it possible for Steele to combine feeding information
to the FBI while also engaging in 'StratCom' via the MSM could have been necessary.
An obvious means of 'squaring the circle' would have been to issue a formal 'termination' to Steele, while creating 'back
channels' to those who were officially supposed not to be talking to him.
A report yesterday by John Solomon in 'The Hill' quotes from messages exchanged between Steele and Bruce Ohr after the
supposed termination.
When on 31 January 2017 – well after the publication of the dossier by BuzzFeed – Ohr provided reassurance that he could continue
to help feed information to the FBI, Steele texted back:
"If you end up out though, I really need another (bureau?) contact point/number who is briefed. We can't allow our guy to be
forced to go back home. It would be disastrous."
At that point, Solomon tells us that 'Investigators are trying to determine who Steele was referring to.' This seems to me
a rather important question. It would seem likely, although not certain, that he is talking about another Brit. If he is, would
it have been someone else employed by Orbis? Or someone currently working for British intelligence? What is the precise significance
of 'forced to go back home', and why would this have been 'disastrous'?
Another crucial paragraph:
'In all, Ohr's notes, emails and texts identify more than 60 contacts with Steele and/or Simpson, some dating to 2002 in
London. But the vast majority occurred during the 2016-2017 timeframe that gave birth to one of the most controversial counterintelligence
probes in American history.'
The earlier contacts may be of little interest, but there again they may not be.
As it happens, it was following Berezovsky's arrival in London in October 2001 that the 'information operations' network he
created began to move into high gear. It is moreover clear that this was always a transatlantic operation, and also fragments
of evidence suggest that the FBI may have had some involvement from early on.
I have just finished taking a fresh look at Sir Robert Owen's travesty of a report into the death of Litvinenko. In large
measure, this develops claims originally made in Christopher Steele's first attempt to provide a convincing account of why figures
close to Putin might have thought it made sense to assassinate that figure, and to do so with polonium. The sheer volume of fabrication
which has been deployed in an attempt to defend the patently indefensible almost beggars belief.
The original attempt came in a radio programme broadcast by the BBC – which was to become known to some of us as the 'Berezovsky
Broadcasting Corporation' – on 16 December 2006, presented by Tom Mangold, a familiar 'trusty' for the intelligence services.
(A transcript sent out from the Cabinet Office at the time is available on the archived 'Evidence' page for the Inquiry, at
http://webarchive.nationala... , as HMG000513. There is an interesting and rather important question as to whether those who
sent it out, and those who received it, knew that it was more or less BS from start to finish.)
The programme was wholly devoted to claims made by the former KGB operative Yuri Shvets, who was presented as an independent
'due diligence' expert, without any mention of the rather major role he had played in the original 'Orange Revolution.'
Back-up was provided by his supposed collaborator in 'due diligence', the former FBI operative Robert 'Bobby' Levinson. No
mention was made of the fact that he had been, in the 'Nineties, a, if not the lead FBI investigator into the notorious Ukrainian
Jewish mobster Semyon Mogilevich.
The following March Levinson would disappear on the Iranian island of Kish, on what we now know was a covert mission on behalf
of elements in the CIA.
Just as a question arises as to whether Steele is essentially acting on behalf of MI6, a question also arises as to whether
the FBI leadership were knowledgeable about, and possibly involved with, the various shenanigans in which Shvets and Levinson
were involved. Given that claims about Mogilevich have turned out to be central to 'Russiagate', that seems a rather important
issue, and I am curious as to whether Ohr's communications with Steele may cast any light on it.
Apparently the FBI got Deripaksa to fund the rescue of Levinson from Iran. Furthermore apparently FBI personnel maybe including
McCabe visited with Deripaksa and showed him the Steele dossier. He supposedly had a nice guffaw and dismissed it as nonsense.
So on the one hand while they make Russia out to be the most evil they play footsie with Russian oligarchs.
Thinking about "Christopher Steele was terminated as a Confidential Human Source for cause.", something that doesn't seem
to have gotten as much attention is that Peter Strzok failed his poly:
Steele's relationship with the FBI extends far further back than February 2016. Shortly after he left MI6, he contracted with
the Football Association to investigate possible FIFA corruption. Once he realized the massiveness of this corruption he contacted
his old friends at the FBI Eurasian Crimes Task Force in 2011. Thus began his association with the FBI as a CHS. That investigation
culminated in the 2015 FIFA corruption indictments and convictions. His initial contact with old friends at the FBI Eurasian
Crime Task Force is awfully similar to his contacting these same friends in 2016 after deciding his initial Trump research was
potentially bigger than mere opposition research.
One thing I don't understand...we have the anti-Trumpers saying that Donald Junior meeting with a Russian national to get
'dirt' on Hillary is illegal...due to some law about candidates collaborating with foreigners or something like that...[obviously
I'm foggy on the technical details]... Yet we know that the Hillary campaign worked with a foreign national, Steele, to get dirt
on Trump...how is this not the same...?
Even worse is that the FBI was using this same foreign agent that a presidential
candidate had hired to get dirt on an opponent... Even knowing nothing about legalities this just doesn't look very good...
Stupid question? As the Col. has explained, the President can declassify any document he pleases. So, why doesn't Donaldo unredact
the redacted portions of these bullcrap docs? What is he afraid of? That the Intel community will get mad and be out to get him?
Isn't time for him to show some cojones?
Why was British Intelligence allegedly collecting and passing along info about Donald Trump in the first place? Or could this
have been a pretext created to give cover and/or support to the agenda here in the US to insure his defeat? Could a foreign intelligence
source such as this trigger/facilitate/justify the US counterintelligence investigation of Trump, or give cover to a covert investigation
that may have already begun?
British intelligence was collecting / passing on info about Trump because of his campaign stance on NATO (he said it was obsolete),
his desire to end regime change wars (he castigated the fiasco in Iraq, took Bush to task over it etc.), and his often stated
desire to get along with Russia (and China). Trump also talked of ending certain economic policies (NAFTA, TPP, etc.) and reenacting
others (Glass-Steagall, the American System of Economics i.e. Hamilton, Carey, Clay), If Trump had acted on those, which he has
not so far, he would changed the entire world system, a system in place since the end of WW II, or earlier. That was a risk too
big to take without some kind of insurance policy - I believe Christopher Steele was that insurance policy.
Or, GSHQ was hovering up signint on Trump campaign early-on (using domestics US resources and databases via their 5-Eyes "sharing
agreement" with NSA) cuz Brennan asked them to do it? And therefore without having to mess about with any formal FISA warrant
thingy's ... But, then use what might be found (or plausibly alleged) to try to get a proper FISA warrant later on (July 2016)?
'Parallel Discovery' of sorts; with Fusion GPS also a leaky cut-out: channelling media reports to be used as confirmation of Steele's
"raw intelligence" in the formal FISA application(s)?
Trump announced his run for President in 2015. I'm pretty sure that every intel service on the planet was watching him, they
would be derelict not to. GCHQ may have been collecting intel on all the candidates,
" Trump announced his run for President in 2015. I'm pretty sure that every intel service on the planet was watching
him, they would be derelict not to. GCHQ may have been collecting intel on all the candidates, "
That's a good question, could it legally enable an end run around the FISC until enough evidence was gathered for a FISC surveillance
authorization?.
I've heard that the Echelon system is used by the Five Eyes IC to do something similar. The Brits spy on US, and give the
NSA the data so the NSA can evade US laws prohibiting spying on us, and we return the favor to help them evade what (few) laws
they have that prohibits spying on their people.
Only a matter of time until someone figured out the same method could be used to "meddle" in national affairs.
I understand, but still wonder why the US would need to rely so much on British intelligence sources such as Steele about
a very high profile American citizen and businessman -- aren't our intelligence services competent enough to have known and discovered
as much if not more about Trump than other countries' intelligence services? I've read that Steele's cover was blown 20 years
ago and he hasn't even been to Russia since, so I wonder why he was considered such a reliable source by both the US and UK? In
my opinion as an absolute naif about such things, Steele seems like he may be a has-been when it comes to Russia.
Here is a simple explanation from someone who knows almost nothing about how any of the people in power work: Most of them
are not as clever and smart as they think they are. And most of the regular people who are just citizens are smarter than these
people think they are.
It's simply that their arrogant assessment of their own superiority caused them to do really stupid things.
"... It's not obvious to me that universal access to college education is a progressive goal. ..."
"... I think it is extremely important to understand where Warren is coming from on this. Warren initially became active in politics because she recognized the pernicious nature of debt and the impact it had on well-being. I ..."
"... Warren's emphasis in this particular initiative, it seems to me, is to alleviate debt so that individuals can pursue more advanced functionings/capabilities. ..."
"... The more a college degree is the norm, the worse things are for people without one. Making it easier to get a college degree increases the degree to which its the norm, and will almost inevitably have the same impact on the value of a college degree as the growth in high-school attendance (noted by Sam Tobin-Hochstadt above) had on the value of a high school degree. ..."
"... The debate on this subject strikes me as misguided because it says nothing about what students learn. A good high school education should be enough to prepare young people for most kinds of work. In most jobs, even those allegedly requiring college degrees, the way people learn most of what they need to know is through on the job training. Many high school graduates have not received a good education, though, and go to college as, in effect, remedial high school. ..."
by Harry on May 6, 2019 Ganesh Sitaraman argues in
the Garun that, contrary to appearances, and contrary to the criticism that it has earned,
Elizabeth Warren's college plan really is progressive, because it is funded by taxation that
comes exclusively from a wealth tax on those with more than $50 million in assets. Its
progressive, he says, because it redistributes down. In some technical sense perhaps he's
right.
But this, quite odd, argument caught my eye:
But the critics at times also suggest that if any significant amount of benefits go to
middle-class or upper-middle class people, then the plan is also not progressive. This is
where things get confusing. The critics can't mean this in a specific sense because the plan
is, as I have said, extremely progressive in the distribution of costs. They must mean that
for any policy to be progressive that it must benefit the poor and working class more than it
benefits the middle and upper classes. T his is a bizarre and, I think, fundamentally
incorrect use of the term progressive .
The logic of the critics' position is that public investments in programs that help
everyone, including middle- and upper-class people, aren't progressive. This means that the
critics would have to oppose public parks and public K-12 education, public swimming pools
and public basketball courts, even public libraries. These are all public options that offer
universal access at a low (or free) price to everyone.
But the problem isn't that the wealthy get to benefit from tuition free college. I don't
think anyone objects to that. Rather, the more affluent someone is, on average, the more they
benefit from the plan. This is a general feature of tuition-free college plans and it is built
into the design.
Sandy Baum and Sarah Turner explain:
But in general, the plans make up the difference between financial aid -- such as the Pell
Grant and need-based aid provided by states -- and the published price of public colleges.
This means the largest rewards go to students who do not qualify for financial aid. In plans
that include four-year colleges, the largest benefits go to students at the most expensive
four-year institutions. Such schools enroll a greater proportion of well-heeled students, who
have had better opportunities at the K-12 level than their peers at either two-year colleges
or less-selective four-year schools. (Flagship institutions have more resources per student,
too.) .
For a clearer picture of how regressive these policies are, consider how net tuition --
again, that's what most free-tuition plans cover -- varies among students at different income
levels at four-year institutions. For those with incomes less than $35,000, average net
tuition was $2,300 in 2015-16; for students from families with incomes between $35,000 and
$70,000, it was $4,800; for those between $70,000 and $120,000, it was $8,100; and finally,
for families with incomes higher than $120,000, it was more than $11,000. (These figures
don't include living expenses.)
Many low-income students receive enough aid from sources like the Pell Grant to cover
their tuition and fees. At community colleges nationally, for example, among students from
families with incomes less than $35,000, 81 percent already pay no net tuition after
accounting for federal, state and institutional grant aid, according to survey data for
2015-16. At four-year publics, almost 60 percent of these low-income students pay
nothing.
If you take progressivism to mean "improvement of society by reform", Warren's plan is
clearly progressive. It reduces the pie going to the rich, greatly improves the lot of
students who are less than rich, and doesn't harm the poor.
Who cares – as long as this plan -(and hopefully an even more extended plan) puts an
end to a big part of the insanity of the (stupid and greedy) US education system?
In other words – let's call it "conservative" that might help to have it passed!
The difficulty with the plan as proposed is not whether it is progressive or not but that it
targets the wrong behavior – borrowing for education. If the goal is to make education
more accessible – subsidize the university directly to either facilitate point of
admission grants in the first place or simply bring down tuition cost to all attendees.
Under this proposal (assuming one thinks Warren would win and it could get passed) the
maximizing strategy is to borrow as much as one possibly can with the hope/expectation that
it would ultimately be forgiven. If that's the "right" strategy, then it would benefit those
with the greatest borrowing capacity which most certainly is not students from low income
families but is in fact families which could probably pay most of the cost themselves but
would choose not to in order to capture a benefit they couldn't access directly by virtue of
being 'too rich' for grants or other direct aid.
"Rather, the more affluent someone is, on average, the more they benefit from the plan. "
This doesn't seem like a fair description of what's going on. If Starbucks gives a free muffin to everyone who buys a latte, it's theoretically helping
the rich more than the poor under this way of looking at things. The rich can afford the
muffin; the poor can't. So the rich will get more free muffins. But the rich don't give a
crap. They can easily just buy the damn muffin in the first place. They're not really being
helped, because the whole damn system helps them already. They're just about as well off with
or without the free muffin.
Same here. My kid's going to Stanford. I'm effin rich and I don't give a crap about
financial aid. If it was free I'd have an extra 75k a year, but how many Tesla's do I need
really? How many houses in Hawaii do I need? But when I was a kid I was lower middle class. I
didn't even apply to Stanford because it was just too much. Yeah, I could have gone rotc or
gotten aid, but my parents just couldn't bust out their contribution. Stanford just wasn't in
the cards. And Stanford's a terrible example, it had needs blind admissions and can afford
to just give money away if it wants.
I don't understand the fear, in certain areas of what's apparently the left, of giving
benefits to people in the middle of the income/wealth curve.
The expansion of the term "middle class" doesn't help with this, nor does the expansion of
education. These debates often sound as if some of the participants think of "middle class"
as the children of physicians and attorneys, who moreover are compensated the way they were
in the 1950s.
The ability to switch between "it's reasonable to have 100% college attendance within 5
years from now" and "of course college is only for the elite classes" is not reassuring to
the average more or less educated observer (who may or may not be satisfied, depending on
temperament and so on, with the answer that of course such matters are above her head).
The actual plan is for free tuition at public colleges. So not "the most expensive
four-year institutions" that Baum and Turner discuss. [HB: they're referring to the most
expensive 4-year public institutions]
There's also expanded support for non-tuition expenses, means-tested debt cancellation,
and a fund for historically black universities, all of which make the plan more progressive.
And beyond that, I could argue that, for lower-income students on the margin of being able to
attend and complete school, we should count not only the direct financial aid granted, but
also the lifetime benefits of the education the aid enables. But suffice it to say, I think
you're attacking a caricature.
the college plan does not actually offer 'universal access'
Given that something like one third of Americans gets a college degree, Warren's plan
seems good enough. It's not obvious to me that universal access to college education is a
progressive goal.
I think it is extremely important to understand where Warren is coming from on this. Warren
initially became active in politics because she recognized the pernicious nature of debt and
the impact it had on well-being. If you are trying to get out from under the burden of debt
your capabilities for flourishing are severely restricted, and these restrictions can easily
become generational. One of the more difficult debts that people are facing are student
debts. This was made especially difficult by the 2005 bankruptcy bill which made it close to
impossible for individuals to get out from under student debt by entering in to Chapter 7
bankruptcy.
Warren's emphasis in this particular initiative, it seems to me, is to alleviate debt so
that individuals can pursue more advanced functionings/capabilities. So if you think that the
definition of progressive is creating situations where more individuals in a society are
given greater opportunities for flourishing then the plan does strike me as progressive (an
Aristotelian interpretation of Dewey such as promoted by Nussbaum might fall in this
direction). There is another issue however that might be closer to the idea of helping those
from lowest social strata, something that is not being discussed near enough. Internet
technologies helped to promote online for profit universities which has (and I suppose
continues to) prey and those most desperate to escape poverty with limited resources. The
largest part of their organizations are administrators who help students to secure loans with
promises of high paying jobs once they complete their degrees. These places really do prey on
the most vulnerable (homeless youth for instance) and they bait individuals with hope in to
incurring extremely high debt. The loan companies are fine with this I am guess because of
the bankruptcy act (they can follow them for life). This is also not regulated (I think you
can thank Kaplan/Washington Post for that). Warren's initiative would help them get out from
under debt immediately and kick start their life.
I agree k-12 is more important, but it is also far more complicated. This plan is like a
shot of adrenaline into the social blood stream and it might not even be necessary in a few
years. I think it dangerous to make the good the enemy or the perfect, or the perfect the
critic of the good.
– and how cynical does one have to be – to redefine a plan canceling the vast
majority of outstanding student loan debt – as some kind of ("NON-progressive") present
for "the rich"?
But even apart from that, the argument of the post seems like it would suggest that many
things that we currently fund publicly are not progressive in a problematic way. Everything
from arts to national parks to math research "benefits" the rich more than the poor. There's
possibly a case that public provision of these goods is problematic when we as a society
could spend that money on those who are more disadvantaged. But that's a very strong claim
and implicates far more than free college.
Finally, it's worth comparing the previous major expansion of education in the US. The
point at which high school attendance was as widespread as college attendance is now (about
70% of high school graduates enroll in college of some form right away) was around 1930, well
after universal free high school was available. I think moving to universal free college is
an important step to raise those rates, just as free high school was.
It strikes me that the argument made here against a universal program of tuition free college
is not all that different than an argument made against social security -- that the benefits
go disproportionately to middle class and professional class individuals. Since in the case
of Social Security, one has to be in gainfully employed to participate and one's benefits
are, up to a cap, based on one's contributions, middle class and professional class
individuals receive greater benefits. Poor individuals, including those who have not been
employed for long periods of time, receive less benefits. (There are quirks in this 10 second
summary, such as disability benefits, but not so much as to alter this basic functioning.)
Every now and again, there are proposals to "means test" social security, using this
functioning as the reasoning. A couple of points are worth considering.
First, it is the universality of social security that makes it a political 'third rail,'
such that no matter how it would like to do away with such a 'socialist' program, the GOP
never acts on proposals to privatize it, even when they have the Presidency and the
majorities that would allow it to get through Congress. The universality thus provides a
vital security to the benefits that poor and working people receive from the program, since
it makes it politically impossible to take it away. Since social security is often the only
pension that many poor and working people get (unlike middle class and professional class
individuals who have other sources of retirement income), the loss of it would be far more
devastating to them. There is an important way, therefore, that they are served by the
current configuration of the system, even given its skewing.
Second, and following from the above, it is important to recognize that the great bulk of
proposals to "means test" Social Security come from the libertarian right, not the left, and
that they are designed to undercut the support for Social Security, in order to make its
privatization politically viable.
Most colleges and universities "means test" financial aid for their students, which is one
of the reasons why it is generally inadequate and heavily weighted toward loans as opposed to
grants. I think it is a fair generalization of American social welfare experience history to
say that "means tested" programs are both more vulnerable politically (think of the Reagan
'welfare queen' narrative) and more poorly funded than universal programs.
There are additional argument about the skewing of Social Security benefits, such as the
fact that they go disproportionately to the elderly, while those currently living in poverty
are disproportionately children. This argument mistakes the positive effects of the program
-- before Social Security and Medicare the elderly were the most impoverished -- for an
inegalitarian design element.
The solution to the fact that children bear the brunt of poverty in the US is not to
undermine the program that has lifted the elderly out of poverty but to institute programs
that address the problem of childhood poverty. Universal quality day care, for example,
provides the greatest immediate economic benefits to middle class and professional class
families who are now paying for such services, but it provides poor and working class kids
with an education 'head start' that would otherwise go only to the children of those families
that could afford to pay for it. And insofar as day care is provided, it makes it easier for
poor and working class parents (often in one parent households) to obtain decent
employment.
So the failings of universal programs are best addressed, I would argue, by filling in the
gaps with more universal programs, not 'means testing' them.
To the extent that Warren's 'free tuition' proposal addresses only some of the financial
disadvantages of poor and working people obtaining a college education, the response should
not be "oh, this is not progressive," but what do we do to address the other issues, such as
living expenses. It is not as if there are no models on how to do this. All we need to do is
look at Nordic countries that provide post-secondary students both free tuition and living
expenses.
Having grown up and gone to university in Germany it is simply incomprehensible to me that
there is tuition supporters on the political left in the U.S. It's true that free college
isn't universal in the same sense free K-12 education is. But neither are libraries (they
exclude those who are functionally illiterate completely, and their services surely go mostly
to upper middle class people who have opportunity and education to read regularly), for
example. Neither are roads – the poor overwhelmingly live in inner cities, often take
public transport – it's middle class suburbanites that mostly profit. Speaking of
public transport, I assume Henry opposes rail; it is very middle class, the poor use buses.
(The last argument actually has considerable traction in Los Angeles, it's not completely far
fetched.)
I agree that Warren's free college and debt forgiveness plans would not be very progressive,
but I'd propose that I think the dynamic mechanism built in would make it worse than a static
analysis shows.
(Note that most of my siblings and in-laws do not have college degrees; this perspective
is based on my own observations.)
The more a college degree is the norm, the worse things are for people without one. Making
it easier to get a college degree increases the degree to which its the norm, and will almost
inevitably have the same impact on the value of a college degree as the growth in high-school
attendance (noted by Sam Tobin-Hochstadt above) had on the value of a high school degree.
(We're already seeing this: many positions that used to require a college degree now require
a specific degree, or a masters degree.) This will increase age discrimination, and further
worsen the position of the people for whom college is unattractive for reasons other than
money.
To give a particular example of a mechanism (idiosyncratic, but one I know specifically).
Until a couple decades ago, getting a KY electrician's license required 4 years experience
under a licensed electrician, and passing the code test. Then the system changed; now it
requires a 2-year degree and 2 years experience, OR 8 years experience. This was great for
colleges. The working electricians don't think the new electricians are better prepared as
they used to be, but all of a sudden people who don't find sitting in a classroom for an
additional 2 years attractive are hugely disadvantaged. Another example would be nursing
licenses; talk to any older LPN and you'll get an earful about how LPN's are devalued as RNs
and BSNs have become the norm.
I suspect tuition reform will be complex, difficult and subject to gaming. Being simple
minded I offer an inadequate but simple palliative. Make student loan debt dischargeable in
bankruptcy. You can max out your credit cards on cars, clothes, booze or whatever and be able
to discharge these debts but not for higher education.
The inability to even threaten bankruptcy gives all the power to collection companies.
Students have no leverage at all. The threat of bankruptcy would allow for negotiated
reductions in principal as well as payments.
Bankruptcy does carry a lot of negative consequences so it would offset the likely
objections about moral hazards, blah, blah. I would also favor an additional method of
discharging student debt. If your debt is to a for-profit school that can't meet some minimum
standards for student employment in their field of study then total discharge without the
need for bankruptcy. For-profit vocational schools intensively target low income and minority
students without providing significant value for money.
Progressivity looks much better if the program sticks to free community college, at least
until there is universal access to 4-year schools. That's what Tennessee did (IIRC the only
example that is actually operational).
Harry: it doesn't seem as if you responded to my comment. I'll try again.
1. A policy is progressive if it is redistributive.
2. Warren's plan is redistributive.
3. Thus, Warren's plan is progressive.
Comments about how effective the redistribution is are fine, but to claim a non-ideal
distribution framework invalidates the program's claims to being progressive seems spurious.
And I don't think this definition of progressive is somehow wildly ideosyncratic.
To whine that free college is somehow not progressive because not everyone will go to college
is a ridiculous argument, one of those supposedly-left-but-actually-right arguments that I
get so tired of. To assume that the class makeup of matriculators will be unchanged with free
college is to discount knock-on effects. This is a weird, weird post. I guess I'm going back to ignoring this site.
The debate on this subject strikes me as misguided because it says nothing about what
students learn. A good high school education should be enough to prepare young people for
most kinds of work. In most jobs, even those allegedly requiring college degrees, the way
people learn most of what they need to know is through on the job training. Many high school
graduates have not received a good education, though, and go to college as, in effect,
remedial high school.
Readers who attended an average American high school, as I did long ago, will know that
there are certain students, especially boys, who are itching to be done with school. It is
far more productive to give them a decent high school education and have them start working
than to tell them they need another two to four years of what to them is pointless
rigamarole.
Rather than extending the years of education, I would reduce the high school graduation
age to 17 and reduce summer vacations by four weeks, so that a 17 year old would graduate
with as many weeks of schooling as an 18 year old now. (Teachers would get correspondingly
higher pay, which should make them happy.)
Harry Truman never went to college. John Major became a banker and later prime minister of
Britain without doing so. Neither performed noticeably worse than their college-educated
peers. If a college education is not necessary to rise to the highest office in the land, why
is it necessary for lesser employment except in a few specialized areas?
An experiment that I would like to see tried is to bring back the federal civil service
exam, allowing applicants without college degrees who score high enough to enter U.S.
government jobs currently reserved for those with college degrees.
"... DOJ National Security Division (NSD) head John Carlin filed the government's proposed 2016 Section 702 certifications on Sept. 26, 2016. Carlin knew the general status of compliance review by Rogers. The NSD was part of the review. Carlin failed to disclose a critical Jan. 7, 2016, report by the Office of the Inspector General and associated FISA abuse to the FISA Court in his 2016 certification. Carlin also failed to disclose Rogers's ongoing Section 702 compliance review. ..."
"... The following day, on Sept. 27, 2016, Carlin announced his resignation, effective Oct. 15, 2016. ..."
"... After receiving a briefing by the NSA compliance officer on Oct. 20, 2016, detailing numerous "about query" violations from the 702 NSA compliance audit, Rogers shut down all "about query" activity the next day and reported his findings to the DOJ. "About queries" are searches based on communications containing a reference "about" a surveillance target but that are not "to" or "from" the target. ..."
"... On Oct. 24, 2016, Rogers verbally informed the FISA Court of his findings. On Oct. 26, 2016, Rogers appeared formally before the FISA Court and presented the written findings of his audit. ..."
"... Carlin didn't disclose his knowledge of FISA abuse in the annual Section 702 certifications in order to avoid raising suspicions at the FISA Court ahead of receiving the Page FISA warrant. ..."
"... The FBI and the NSD were literally racing against Rogers's investigation in order to obtain a FISA warrant on Carter Page. ..."
"... While all this was transpiring, DNI James Clapper and Defense Secretary Ash Carter submitted a recommendation that Rogers be removed from his post as NSA director. ..."
Admiral Mike Rogers, while director of the NSA, was personally responsible for
uncovering an unprecedented level of FISA abuse that would later be documented in a 99-page
unsealed FISA
court ruling . As the FISA court noted in the April 26, 2017, ruling, the abuses had been occurring since at least November 2015:
"The FBI had disclosed raw FISA information, including but not limited to Section 702-acquired information, to private contractors.
"Private contractors had access to raw FISA information on FBI storage systems.
"Contractors had access to raw FISA information that went well beyond what was necessary to respond to the FBI's requests."
The FISA Court report is particularly focused on the FBI:
"The Court is concerned about the FBI's apparent disregard of minimization rules and whether the FBI may be engaging in similar
disclosures of raw Section 702 information that have not been reported."
The FISA Court
disclosed that illegal NSA database searches were endemic. Private contractors, employed by the FBI, were given full access to
the NSA database. Once in the contractors' possession, the data couldn't be traced.
In April 2016, after Rogers became aware of
improper
contractor access to raw FISA data on March 9, 2016, he
directed the NSA's Office
of Compliance to conduct a "fundamental baseline review of compliance associated with 702."
On April 18, 2016, Rogers shut down all outside contractor access to raw FISA information -- specifically outside contractors
working for the FBI.
DOJ National Security Division (NSD) head John Carlin filed the government's proposed
2016 Section 702 certifications on Sept. 26, 2016. Carlin knew the general status of compliance review by Rogers. The NSD was
part of the review. Carlin failed to disclose a critical Jan. 7, 2016,
report by the Office
of the Inspector General and associated FISA abuse to the FISA Court in his 2016 certification. Carlin also failed to disclose
Rogers's ongoing Section 702 compliance review.
The following day, on Sept. 27, 2016, Carlin
announced his resignation, effective Oct. 15, 2016.
After receiving a briefing by the NSA compliance officer on Oct. 20, 2016, detailing
numerous "about query"
violations from the 702 NSA compliance audit, Rogers shut down all "about query" activity the next day and
reported his findings
to the DOJ. "About queries" are searches based on communications containing a reference "about" a surveillance target but that are
not "to" or "from" the target.
On Oct. 21, 2016, the DOJ and the FBI sought and received a Title I FISA probable-cause order authorizing electronic surveillance
on Carter Page from the FISA Court.
At this point, the FISA Court was still unaware of the Section 702 violations.
On Oct. 24, 2016, Rogers verbally
informed
the FISA Court of his findings. On Oct. 26, 2016, Rogers appeared formally before the FISA Court and presented the written findings
of his audit.
The FISA Court had been unaware of the query violations until they were presented to the court by Rogers.
Carlin didn't disclose his knowledge of FISA abuse in the annual Section 702 certifications in order to avoid raising suspicions
at the FISA Court ahead of receiving the Page FISA warrant.
The FBI and the NSD were literally racing against Rogers's investigation in order to obtain a FISA warrant on Carter Page.
While all this was transpiring, DNI James Clapper and Defense Secretary Ash Carter submitted a
recommendation that Rogers be removed from his post as NSA director.
The move to fire Rogers, which ultimately failed, originated sometime in mid-October 2016 -- exactly when Rogers was preparing
to present his findings to the FISA Court.
Jeff Carlson is a regular contributor to The Epoch Times. He also runs the website TheMarketsWork.com and can be followed
on Twitter @themarketswork.
Look how Tulsi deal with really hostile interviewers. A real nasty attack dog.
Notable quotes:
"... That was absolutely disgusting. He didn't say should we "pull our forces out around the world." He said should we "take our boot off their necks." Warmongering imperialist. ..."
"... So rude he won't let her talk, Tulsi is awesome this guy is a joke he doesn't know history. ..."
That was absolutely disgusting. He didn't say should we "pull our forces out around the
world." He said should we "take our boot off their necks." Warmongering imperialist.
Damn, Tulsi totally smashed him. Now, his supporters gonna have a second thought as they
got a short taste of truth/facts on Saudi. Tulsi can easily defeat Trump.
Ordinary Human, 2 weeks ago
Intelligent, calm, speaks clearly qualities you look for in a leader.
Timothy Lavoie, 2 weeks ago
So rude he won't let her talk, Tulsi is awesome this guy is a joke he doesn't know history.
America's revolution to a socialist, government-planned society complete with reserve currency helicopter money also known as
"MMT", may or may not be successful but it certainly will be attempted, and every moment will be not only televised but also tweeted.
On Thursday morning, Visa and MasterCard tumbled after the democratic party's "progressive" socialist wing consisting of Bernie
Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, announced they would introduce legislation on Thursday to cap credit card interest rates at
15%, a sharp drop from current levels . The proposal follows not long after AOC also proposed the "Green New Deal" - which among
its various policy proposals urged to give a generous and recurring cash handout to any and every American, regardless if they work
or not, and which according to analysts would cost the US as much as $100 trillion over the next several years.
In addition to a 15% federal cap on interest rates, states could establish their own lower limits, under the legislation.
Sanders, the socialist Vermont senator running for the Democratic nomination for president, told the WaPo in an interview that
a decade after taxpayers bailed out big banks, the industry is taking advantage of the public by charging exorbitant rates. " Wall
Street today makes tens of billions from people at outrageous interest rates," he said.
Ocasio-Cortez, the socialist New York representative who is expected to run for the Democratic nomination for president as soon
as she is eligible, will introduce the House version of the bill.
According to some, the proposal is quite timely, and comes just as credit card rates recently hit an all time high despite artificially
low interest rates, according to Creditcards.com, which has been tracking the data since 2007 and compiles data from 100 popular
cards. The median interest rate was 21.36% last week compared with 20.24% about a year ago and 12.62% about a decade ago, according
to the website.
Rates have been rising fastest for those with the lowest credit scores , said Ted Rossman, an industry analyst for Creditcards.com.
"Issuers are taking an opportunity to charge people with lesser credit a bit more," he said.
https://www.dianomi.com/smartads.epl?id=4855
For borrowers with high credit scores the average rate was 17.73 percent last week compared with 16.71 percent a year ago. For
those with poor credit scores, the average is now about 24.99 percent compared with 23.77 percent a year ago. The difference in the
increase is about 20 basis points higher for customers with a low credit score. A basis point is a common way to measure changes
in percentages.
"It may not sound like that much, but that is just in one year," Rossman said. And even small increases in rates can be crippling
to a cash strapped borrower, he said. "It is the ultimate slap in the face when you're already down."
That may well be, but we wonder what Sanders and AOC will do when the bulk of their supporters, those with the lowest credit rating
and by implication paying the highest interest rates - are de-carded as credit card companies tighten standards "just enough" to
eliminate all those who would be in the 15%+ interest universe anyway . Will they then force credit card companies to issue cheap
(or free) debt to anyone? Inquiring minds want to know...
Meanwhile, considering that in a time of inverted yield curves banks are scrambling for every dollar in interest income, the proposal
is expected to meet stern resistance from the banking industry, which brought in $113 billion in interest and fees from credit cards
last year, up 35 percent since 2012, according to S&P Global Market Intelligence. It also has zero chance of passing the Senate for
at least the next two years, where Republicans hold the majority.
"I am sure it will be criticized," Sanders said of the legislation. "I have a radical idea: Maybe Congress should stand up for
ordinary people."
Quoted
by the WaPo , the 15 percent cap would be the same as the one Congress imposed on credit unions in 1980, Sanders said. (The National
Credit Union Administration, the industry's regulator, raised that cap to 18 percent in 1987 and has repeatedly renewed it at that
higher level.)
Subprime consumers would discover their credit lines would be eliminated overnight. Could create a wave of bankruptcies in
short order. If they really want to crack down they need to start tinkering with the rates these payday loan companies charge.
Interest rate reflects that credit card debt is unsecured. If you cap it, most people will simply not have access to credit
cards as the banks won't take the risk. Next, there will be a bill that ensures everyone has a credit card. Going into debt is
an American past time, right?
Sure, lowering the interest rates banks can charge on credit cards is a good idea - at first glance - but, in reality, it is
simply another "gatekeeper" move. That means addressing a symptom of an issue, rather than it's real causative reason for existing.
The central banking system, and the banks it controls internationally, including the Fed and headquartered in Basil, Switzerland
- is a criminal enterprise designed to transfer the wealth of sovereign nations into the pockets of a tiny minority of fiends,
and in the process, handing over all power to govern victim nations - through the influence of money in politics. This tiny group
of very sick people are behind 90% of the misery and death in this world - including all wars and profits derived therein. Since
they also control the media they have also foisted an incredibly successful mind control program on their victims. Here in the
US, people run around after whatever the latest "big story" is purported to be - always making sure to box themselves into their
manufactured personalities, repeating what they have been programmed to say. Everyone is watching the giant circus, and misses
the machinations of profound evil - resulting in horrific consequences for all life on Earth.
The Fed and the banks need to exposed for what they are and destroyed, and the fiends behind them exposed, stripped of all
assets, and sentenced to hard labor. Unfortunately, the US government and it's various branches of "justice" is owned by said
fiends and would have to be overthrown to do what needs to be done.
America's revolution to a socialist, government-planned society complete with reserve currency
helicopter money also known as "MMT", may or may not be successful but it certainly will be
attempted, and every moment will be not only televised but also tweeted.
On Thursday morning,
Visa and MasterCard tumbled after the democratic party's "progressive" socialist wing consisting of
Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, announced they would
introduce legislation on
Thursday to cap credit card interest rates at 15%, a sharp drop from current levels
. The
proposal follows not long after AOC also proposed the "Green New Deal" - which among its various
policy proposals urged to give a generous and recurring cash handout to any and every American,
regardless if they work or not, and which according to analysts would cost the US as much as $100
trillion over the next several years.
In addition to a 15% federal cap on interest rates, states could establish their own lower
limits, under the legislation.
Sanders, the socialist Vermont senator running for the Democratic nomination for president, told
the WaPo in an interview that a decade after taxpayers bailed out big banks, the industry is taking
advantage of the public by charging exorbitant rates. "
Wall Street today makes tens of
billions from people at outrageous interest rates," he said.
Ocasio-Cortez, the socialist New York representative who is expected to run for the Democratic
nomination for president as soon as she is eligible, will introduce the House version of the bill.
According to some, the proposal is quite timely, and comes just as credit card rates recently
hit an all time high despite artificially low interest rates, according to Creditcards.com, which
has been tracking the data since 2007 and compiles data from 100 popular cards. The median interest
rate was 21.36% last week compared with 20.24% about a year ago and 12.62% about a decade ago,
according to the website.
Rates have been rising fastest for those with the lowest credit scores
, said
Ted Rossman, an industry analyst for Creditcards.com. "Issuers are taking an opportunity to
charge people with lesser credit a bit more," he said.
https://www.dianomi.com/smartads.epl?id=4855
For borrowers with high credit scores the average rate was 17.73 percent last week compared with
16.71 percent a year ago. For those with poor credit scores, the average is now about 24.99 percent
compared with 23.77 percent a year ago. The difference in the increase is about 20 basis points
higher for customers with a low credit score. A basis point is a common way to measure changes in
percentages.
"It may not sound like that much, but that is just in one year," Rossman said. And even small
increases in rates can be crippling to a cash strapped borrower, he said. "It is the ultimate slap
in the face when you're already down."
That may well be, but
we wonder what Sanders and AOC will do when the bulk of their
supporters, those with the lowest credit rating and by implication paying the highest interest
rates - are
de-carded
as credit card companies tighten standards "just enough" to
eliminate all those who would be in the 15%+ interest universe anyway
. Will they then
force credit card companies to issue cheap (or free) debt to anyone? Inquiring minds want to
know...
Meanwhile, considering that in a time of inverted yield curves banks are scrambling for every
dollar in interest income, the proposal is expected to meet stern resistance from the banking
industry, which brought in $113 billion in interest and fees from credit cards last year, up 35
percent since 2012, according to S&P Global Market Intelligence. It also has zero chance of passing
the Senate for at least the next two years, where Republicans hold the majority.
"I am sure it will be criticized," Sanders said of the legislation. "I have a radical idea:
Maybe Congress should stand up for ordinary people."
Quoted
by the WaPo
, the 15 percent cap would be the same as the one Congress imposed on credit unions
in 1980, Sanders said. (The National Credit Union Administration, the industry's regulator, raised
that cap to 18 percent in 1987 and has repeatedly renewed it at that higher level.)
Subprime consumers would discover their credit lines would be
eliminated overnight. Could create a wave of bankruptcies in
short order. If they really want to crack down they need to start
tinkering with the rates these payday loan companies charge.
Interest rate reflects that credit card debt is unsecured. If you
cap it, most people will simply not have access to credit cards as
the banks won't take the risk. Next, there will be a bill that
ensures everyone has a credit card. Going into debt is an American
past time, right?
Sure, lowering the interest rates banks can charge on credit cards
is a good idea - at first glance - but, in reality, it is simply
another "gatekeeper" move. That means addressing a symptom of an
issue, rather than it's real causative reason for existing. The
central banking system, and the banks it controls internationally,
including the Fed and headquartered in Basil, Switzerland - is a
criminal enterprise designed to transfer the wealth of sovereign
nations into the pockets of a tiny minority of fiends, and in the
process, handing over all power to govern victim nations - through
the influence of money in politics. This tiny group of very sick
people are behind 90% of the misery and death in this world -
including all wars and profits derived therein. Since they also
control the media they have also foisted an incredibly successful
mind control program on their victims. Here in the US, people run
around after whatever the latest "big story" is purported to be -
always making sure to box themselves into their manufactured
personalities, repeating what they have been programmed to say.
Everyone is watching the giant circus, and misses the machinations
of profound evil - resulting in horrific consequences for all life
on Earth.
The Fed and the banks need to exposed for what they
are and destroyed, and the fiends behind them exposed, stripped of
all assets, and sentenced to hard labor. Unfortunately, the US
government and it's various branches of "justice" is owned by said
fiends and would have to be overthrown to do what needs to be
done.
I would love to have a social conservative who was as red-hot on the abuse of corporate
power as she is. Of course there's no way she would ever win the Democratic nomination if she
were a social conservative, nor would she be a US Senator from Massachusetts.
Back in 2011, when she announced for the Massachusetts Senate race on an anti-big business
platform, I wrote in this space that she was "a
Democrat I could vote for." In 2014, observing how far gone she is on cultural leftism, I
lamented that
I wanted so bad for her to be good -- but hey, you can't always get what you want.
Warren's vision of human flourishing is fundamentally a conservative one -- or at least it
would be if the family were still at the center of the conservative conception of politics.
What she argues for is the right of families to thrive, not be the slave of financial
interests, corporate power, housing monopolies, the educational establishment, or any other
external force. She believes, radically, alas, in 2018, that we all have a right to food,
water, housing, education, and medical care. The idea that hard-working Americans should be
able to raise their children in comfort and with a sense of dignity is not, or at least
should not be, the exclusive purview of any one politician or party. The fact that Warren
very frequently does seem to be among the only elected officials in this country who both
affirms these things and has taken the trouble to think carefully about them is a reminder
that the centrism rejected by her and fellow travelers on the left and the right alike is not
only noxious but omnipresent.
Warren's economic vision of human flourishing -- that is, the economic conditions she
believes must be in place for people to flourish -- is fundamentally conservative, in an older,
more organic sense. Old-fashioned Catholic reactionaries understand exactly what she's talking
about, and so would the kind of Christian conservatives who read Wendell Berry and
Crunchy Cons (which, alas, came out about 13 years too early).
Elizabeth Warren said that out loud. Nobody seemed to mind. She'd never say that today.
It's not allowed like so much else that is true and important. She can't talk about the
things that she believed 10 years ago. No modern Democrat can.
If anyone had suggested to me five years ago that the most incisive public critic of
capitalism in the United States would be Tucker Carlson, I would have smiled blandly and
mentioned an imaginary appointment I was late for. But that is exactly what the Fox News host
revealed himself to be last week with an extraordinary monologue about the state of American
conservative thinking. In 15 minutes he denounced the obsession with GDP, the tolerance of
payday lending and other financial pathologies, the fetishization of technology, the
guru-like worship of CEOs, and the indifference to the anxieties and pathologies of the poor
and the vulnerable characteristic of both of our major political parties. It was a
masterpiece of political rhetoric. He ended by calling upon the GOP to re-examine its
attitude towards the free market.
Carlson's monologue is valuable because unlike so many progressive critics of our social
and economic order he has gone beyond the question of the inequitable distribution of wealth
to the more important one about the nature of late capitalist consumer culture and the
inherently degrading effects it has had on our society. The GOP's blinkered inability to see
beyond the specifications of the new iPhone or the latest video game or the infinite variety
of streaming entertainment and Chinese plastic to the spiritual poverty of suicide and drug
abuse is shared with the Democratic Socialists of America, whose vision of authentic human
flourishing seems to be a boutique eco-friendly version of our present consumer society. This
is lipstick on a pig.
And:
It is difficult for me to understand exactly why conservatives have come around to their
present uncritical attitude toward unbridled capitalism. It cannot be for electoral reasons.
Survey after survey reveals that a vast majority of the American people hold views that would
be described as socially conservative and economically moderate to progressive. A
presidential candidate who spoke capably to both of these sets of concerns would be the
greatest political force in three generations.
The answer is that for conservatives the market has become a cult. No book better explains
the appeal of classical liberal economics than The Golden Bough , Sir James Frazer's
history of magic. Frazer identified certain immutable principles that have governed magical
thinking throughout the ages. Among these is the imitative principle according to which a
favorable outcome is obtained by mimicry -- the endless chants of entrepreneurship, vague
nonsense about charter schools, calls for tax cuts for people who don't make enough money to
benefit from them. There also is taboo, the primitive assumption that by not speaking the
name of a thing, the thing itself will be thereby be exorcised. This is one reason that any
attempt to criticize the current consensus is met with whingeing about "socialism." This
catch-all talisman is meant to protect against everything from the Cultural Revolution to
modest restrictions on overdraft fees imposed at the behest of consultants.
"In the real world you are going to have to keep companies from getting too powerful if you
want a free(ish) market."
"So, is it possible that in this everything-can-be-bought-and-sold culture that the
massive corporations made the very rational choice to buy themselves a government?"
Noah makes an excellent point about the differences between public- and private-sector unions
and collective bargaining units. I would personally add that public-sector unions would never
have been necessary if governments were not run under the same philosophy as private-sector
employers: minimize the cost of employees by any means possible. I've always held that
regardless of any definition of necessity, public-sector unionization was and remains a bad
idea.
I also don't know of a better alternative. Sometimes it's the evil you must handle, rather
than the lesser of two evils.
As for the shifts in the socio-economic realities, there's a necessary categorization
necessary when discussing women in the workforce. I offer these broad categories which are
likely arguable. It's a starting point, not a line in the sand.
Families at or below the poverty line: when you control for the benefits of a stay-at-home
parent, these families only ever had one option to get above the poverty line enough to no
longer need public assistance, and that was a second income. The entire motivation for
minimum wage, stable work hours and such was an attempt to mitigate the need for a second
income. It gets politicized and complicated from there, partially for good reasons, but
unless you look at a given family's income limitations before criticizing the woman's working
instead of being at home, you are ignoring the consequences of poverty, which cannot be
mitigated by parenting.
The woman has a higher income potential: it started well before the employment argument,
as in decades previous women were "permitted" to attain higher education in skill and content
areas beyond nursing and teaching. One reaction to that, an analysis conclusion I arrive at
personally, was to routinely discriminate against female employees in both compensation and
promotion. The prevailing "wisdom" (again, my personal POV) was that women are going to get
pregnant anyway, why encourage them away from that? If the only disparity in compensation was
for unpaid leave due to pregnancy and childbirth, you might have avoided a large part of the
feminist revolution.
The broad mix of "women belong in " arguments based on some moral construct (religious or
other): this is where the feminist revolution was inevitable. It comes down to personal
agency and choice. I have an Orthodox Jewish relative whose wife fully, happily and
creatively embraces her religiously mandated role. She's very intelligent, an erudite writer
and speaker, and is as much a pillar of her community as any male in it. We should avoid
extreme examples like Rahaf Mohammed Alqunun, but her plight without fatal consequences is
precisely what many women face, and want to escape. Feminism simply states that such women
have the right to make that different choice, and the power the men of their community have
over them is a denial of a human right.
I'm sure other broad categories need to be described. I'll leave this before it gets
beyond being too long.
@kgasmart "I defy Elizabeth Warren, or any other prominent lefty, to publicly restate her
thesis that the entry of women into the workforce has ultimately harmed the family.
Imagine the furious tweetstorms. How dare she suggests it's been anything but wonderful
for women themselves – and thus, for society as a whole. Evidence to the contrary be
damned as 'hateful,' of course."
You don't understand the left. And no, having once been in favor of SSM doesn't mean you
understand the left. I and many others will happily say the following: "Society was not
prepared for the mass entry of women into the workplace. Childcare suffered, work-life
balance suffered, male-female relations suffered."
The problem here is that we follow that up with: "The problem was not women having basic
aspirations to the dignity and relative economic security work offers. The problem was a
government captured by the rich who don't understand what policy for families that can't
afford nannies would look like. The problem was also a social structure which valued families
less than it valued proscribed gender roles. Time to chart a different course."
Trust me, feminists talk all the time about how much harder it is to have a family these
days. We just don't think the problem exists because women selfishly wanted basic economic
security.
Warren is a smart, informed academic with some solid views on economic issues.
On the other hand, she is a terrible politician, and not suited for high executive office.
She lacks gravitas and has no intuition for the optics of what she does, going from gaffe to
gaffe. She'd be chewed up and spit out before she became a contender.
While I think HRC had terrible ideas, I never questioned her capacity to project authority
and credibility, that is, "act presidential". In contrast, Obama's dork factor got him in
trouble on a number of occasions (although his "communist salute" stands out), and Warren is
many times more a dork than Obama.
"I confess I have never understood her appeal. She is the very model of a useless New England
scold, constantly seeking to regulate just about everything. There is almost no problem that
more government, more regulation – usually with no oversight – cannot fix. No,
thank you."
This sounds like someone who has not researched Warren's writings and positions
and just does not like her style (i.e. New England Scold). I think her style, which would
be fine in a man (e.g. who is a scold if not Bernie) will primary her out.
The market is not a Platonic deity, floating in the sky and imposing goodness and
prosperity from on high. It is the creation of our choices, our laws, and our democratic
process. We know, for instance, that pornography has radically altered how young boys
perceive their relationships with women and sex, and that the pornography industry has
acquired a lot of wealth in the process of creating and distributing that content. Just last
month, we learned that a Chinese entity created the first gene-edited baby, using a
technology developed in the United States. Some company, here or there, will eventually
create a lot of prosperity by using this gene-editing technology (called CRISPR) in an
unethical way, quite literally playing God with the most sacred power in the universe -- the
creation of human life. In the past few years, it has become abundantly clear that Apple --
despite self-righteously refusing to cooperate with American security officials -- has
willingly complied with the requirements of the Chinese surveillance state, even as China
builds concentration camps for dissidents and religious minorities. And, as Carlson
mentioned, there are marijuana companies pushing for legalization, though we know from the
Colorado experience that legalization increases use, and from other studies that use is
concentrated among the lower class, causing a host of social problems in the process.
I'm an anti-capitalist so of course I'd agree with JD Vance that there's no good reason to
trust the free market or the owners of capitalist enterprises. Nonetheless, I can't join him
in his specific criticisms of free markets here, and I think this kind of underscores the
difficulties there may be in building bridges between social conservatives and social
liberals. Bridges can certainly be built, for sure, but it will take some work and some
painful compromises, and this is a good example of why: several of the things that JD Vance
points to as examples of free markets gone wrong, are things that I'd say are good
things, not bad ones.
I'm not going to defend pornography (although I'm not particularly going to criticize it
that much either: while I distrust conservative / orthodox Christian sexual ethics, I don't
really care about pornography per se and would be happy if the more violent / weird /
disturbing stuff was banned). Gene editing of humans though strikes me as a clearly good
thing: why wouldn't we want our species to be more peaceful, better looking, more pro-social
and more healthy? And why wouldn't we, at the margins, want to raise people who might
otherwise be born with serious physical or mental handicaps to be 'fixed'? I have a lot of
fears for the future of the world, but the idea that gene editing of our species might become
commonplace is one of the things that makes me hopeful. I also think it's a good thing that
tech companies are cooperating with the Chinese state: not because I like China and its
government, particularly, but because I believe strongly in the sovereign nation state and in
the right of national governments to decide how foreign companies are going to behave on
their territory. I'd much rather a world in which companies in China are constrained by the
Chinese state than one in which they're constrained by no rules at all other than their own
will. Finally, the legalization of marijuana and other soft drugs seems to me to be a good
thing as well.
I'm sure that JD Vance and I can come to lots of agreement over other issues, but I did
want to point out there may be stumbling blocks over social issues as well- precisely because
these issues do matter. They don't matter as much as the economic issues, but they do matter
somewhat.
"We believe that family, local communities, and voluntary associations are the first
guarantors of human dignity, and cultivate mutual care. National institutions and policies
should support, not supplant them."
Quite seriously, the entire party could have been invented by Rod, and I mean that as the
highest endorsement.
"You think creating a power vacuum will prevent big businesses from imposing their will on
the population? Go back and look at your beloved 19th century and tell me that absent
government intervention corporations won't crush peoples lives for a few extra cents."
Absolutely. Absent government help, businesses can't do anything except offer people goods
or services, or offer to purchase their labor or goods or services, on terms the individuals
may or may not find advantageous compared to the status quo. When Big Business ran roughshod
over people in the 19th Century, it was because government helped them (e.g., court cases
letting businesses off the hook for their liabilities because of the supposed need for
"progress").
Tulsi Gabbard does have guts. I saw her in a recent interview with Shannon Bream. She said
the US basically needs to let Venezuelans handle their own internal political affairs. I
agree. She appears to be firmly opposed to US military intervention there.
Too often caught between Randian individualism on one hand and big-government collectivism
on the other, America's working-class parents need a champion.
They might well have had one in Elizabeth Warren, whose 2003 book, The Two-Income Trap , co-authored with her daughter Amelia
Warren Tyagi, was unafraid to skewer sacred cows. Long a samizdat favorite among socially
conservative writers, the book recently got a new dose of attention after being spotlighted on
the Right by Fox News's
Tucker Carlson and on the Left by Vox's
Matthew Yglesias .
The book's main takeaway was that two-earner families in the early 2000s seemed to be less,
rather than more, financially stable than one-earner families in the 1970s. Whereas
stay-at-home moms used to provide families with an implicit safety net, able to enter the
workforce if circumstances required, the dramatic rise of the two-earner family had effectively
bid up the cost of everyday life. Rather than the additional income giving families more
breathing room, they argue, "Mom's paycheck has been pumped directly into the basic costs of
keeping the children in the middle class."
Warren and Warren Tyagi report that as recently as the late 1970s, a married mother was
roughly twice as likely to stay at home with her children than work full-time. But by 2000,
those figures had almost reversed. Both parents had been pressed into the workforce to
maintain adequate standards of living for their families -- the "two-income trap" of the book's
title. Advertisement
What caused the trap to be sprung? Cornell University economist Francine Blau has helpfully
drawn a picture of women's changing responsiveness to
labor market wages during the 20th century. In her work with Laurence Kahn, Blau found that
women's wage elasticities -- how responsive their work decisions were to changes in their
potential wages -- used to be far more heavily driven by their husband's earning potential or
lack thereof (what economists call cross-wage elasticity). Over time, Blau and Kahn found,
women's responsiveness to wages -- their own or their husbands -- began to fall, and their
labor force participation choices began to more closely resemble men's, providing empirical
backing to the story Warren and Warren Tyagi tell.
Increasing opportunity and education were certainly one driver of this trend. In 1960, just
5.8
percent of all women over age 25 had a bachelor's degree or higher. Today, 41.7 percent of
mothers aged 25 and over have a college degree. Many of these women entered careers in which
they found fulfillment and meaning, and the opportunity costs, both financially and
professionally, of staying home might have been quite high.
But what about the plurality of middle- and working-class moms who weren't necessarily
looking for a career with a path up the corporate ladder? What was pushing them into full-time
work for pay, despite consistently
telling pollsters they wished they could work less?
The essential point, stressed by Warren and Warren Tyagi, was the extent to which this
massive shift was driven by a desire to provide for one's children. The American Dream has as
many interpretations as it does adherents, but a baseline definition would surely include
giving your children a better life. Many women in America's working and middle classes entered
the labor force purely to provide the best possible option for their families.
Warren's academic work and cheeky refusal to fold under pressure when her nomination as
Obama's consumer ('home ec.'?) finance czar was stymied by the GOP are worthy of respect. I'd
like to see her make a strong run at the dem nomination, but am put off by her recent
tendency to adopt silly far-left talking points and sentiments (her Native DNA, advocating
for reparations, etc.). Nice try, Liz, but I'm still leaning Bernie's direction.
As far as the details of the economic analysis related above, though, I am unqualified to
make any judgment – haven't read the book. But one enormously significant economic
development in the early 70s wasn't mentioned at all, so I assume she and her daughter passed
it over as well. In his first term R. Milhouse Nixon untethered, once & for all, the
value of the dollar from traditional hard currency. The economy has been coming along nicely
ever since, except for one problematic aspect: with a floating currency we are all now living
in an economic environment dominated by the vicissitudes of supplies and demands, are we not?
It took awhile to effect the housing market, but signs of the difference it made began to
emerge fairly quickly, and accelerated sharply when the tides of globalism washed lots of
third world lucre up on our western shores. Now, as clearly implied by both Warren and the
author of this article, young Americans whose parents may not have even been born back then
– the early 70s – are probably permanently priced out of the housing market in
places that used to have only a marginally higher cost of entry – i.e. urban
California, where I have lived and worked for most of my nearly 60 years. In places like this
even a 3-earner income may not suffice! Maybe we should bring back the gold standard, because
it seems to me that as long as unfettered competition coupled to supply/demand and (EZ credit
$) is the underlying dynamic of the American economy we're headed for the New Feudalism. Of
course, nothing could be more conservative than that, right? What say you, TAColytes?
"Funny that policy makers never want to help families by taking a little chunk out of hedge
funds and shareholders and vulture capitalists and sharing it with American workers."
Funny that Warren HAS brought up raising taxes on the rich.
What is interesting is that Senator Schumer, who is essentially the senator from pro-Israel
lobby insists on continuation of witch hunt despite the fact that Trump is essentially a Zionist
President. So he belong to "FullOfSchiff" faction of Democratic Party.
Fifteen percent of respondents to an
Ipsos/Reuters survey conducted in April said the Mueller report had changed their minds
about the Trump campaign and/or Russia's involvement in the presidential race, while 70 percent
said that the Muller report did not change their mind.
"I think what it shows, more than anything, is the deep political and tribal splits right
now," Newall added.
Both parties have continued to spar over the implications of Mueller's investigation even
after its completion. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Tuesday that he
considered the matter closed and ruled out further hearings on Trump and Russian
interference.
Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-NY) objected strongly,
accusing McConnell of trying to "whitewash" the investigation.
We speak to political commentator Jimmy Dore on the Mueller report's summary showing no collusion between the Trump campaign and
Russia, he says the media has no credibility and is bought by the people they're supposed to be investigating, says the failure of
the American
With the new CNN poll showing Joe Biden representing the fossil wing of the Democratic party
with a 39% favorable rating as Bernie drops to 15%, it is eerily reminiscent of overstated
polls for HRC in 2016. Thanks to CNN, additional White House contenders have qualified for the
debate via the % option including former Colorado Gov John Hickenlooper who might take the
opportunity to inform the public why he attended the Bilderberg meeting in
2018 .
Given her almost totally hostile reception by every MSM outlet who deigned to interview her,
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard has experienced, as an opponent of regime change wars, more bad manners and
outright personal antagonism than any other candidate. While Gabbard easily qualified for the
debates via the $65,000 requirement and continues to attract SRO audiences in NH, Iowa,
California and elsewhere, yet until the newest CNN poll, she failed to register any % of public
support.
Something here does not compute given the 'favored' polls past history of favoritism. If the
Dems continue to put a brick wall around her, Jill Stein has already opened the Green Party
door as a more welcoming venue for a Tulsi candidacy. The Dems, who tend to be unprincipled and
vindictive, better be careful what they wish for.
Renee Parsons has been a member of the ACLU's Florida State Board of Directors and
president of the ACLU Treasure Coast Chapter. She has been an elected public official in
Colorado, an environmental lobbyist for Friends of the Earth and staff member of the US House
of Representatives in Washington DC. She can be found on Twitter
@reneedove31
Dimly Glimpsed
The Democrat establishment hates Tulsi with a passion. There appear to be several factors:
1) she opposes all the neocon wars, and opposes intervention in Venezuela.
2) She refuses to kowtow to the bipartisan establish sacred cows (an apt metaphor for Tulsi), such as blind support for
Saudi Arabia and Israel;
3) She gave the DNC and Hillary the back of her hand when she resigned as a vice-chair of the DNC in 2016, citing the
reason as unethical bias by the DNC during the primaries. In other words, she resigned because the DNC was not neutral during
the primaries, and colluded with Hillary to cheat Bernie;
4) Tulsi is very progressive, favoring single payer health care, student debt relief, the Green New Deal, etc.
For an establishment democrat, those policies are like garlic to a vampire.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) called on Thursday for Congress to continue an investigation
into Russia's role in the 2016 presidential election and whether President Trump sought to
obstruct a law enforcement probe into the matter.
The military sucks up 54% of
discretionary federal spending. Pentagon bloat has a huge effect on domestic priorities; the
nearly $1
trillion a year that goes to exploiting, oppressing, torturing, maiming and murdering
foreigners could go to building schools, college scholarships, curing diseases, poetry slams,
whatever. Anything, even tax cuts for the rich, would be better than bombs. But as then GOP
presidential candidate Mike Huckabee said in 2015, "The military is not a social experiment.
The purpose of the military is to
kill people and break things ." If you're like me, you want as little killing and breaking
as possible.
Unfortunately, no major Democratic presidential candidate favors substantial cuts to
Pentagon appropriations.
Current frontrunner Joe Biden (
33% in the polls) doesn't talk
much about defense spending. He reminds us that his son served in Iraq (so he cares about
the military) and that we shouldn't prioritize defense over domestic programs. Vague. Though
specific programs might get trimmed, Lockheed Martin could rest easy under a President
Biden.
"Since he arrived in Congress, [runner-up] Bernie Sanders [19%] has been a fierce
crusader against Pentagon spending , calling for defense cuts that few Democrats have been
willing to support," The Hill reported in 2016. "As late as 2002, he supported a 50 percent cut
for the Pentagon." Bernie is
still a Pentagon critic but he won't commit to a specific amount to cut. He wouldn't
slash and Bern. He'd trim.
Elizabeth Warren (8%) wants "to identify which programs actually benefit American security
in the 21st century, and which programs merely line the pockets of defense contractors -- then
pull out a sharp knife and make some
cuts ."
... ... ...
Kamala Harris (5%) has not weighed
in on military spending. She has received substantial campaign contributions from the
defense industry, though.
The Democrats on Wars for Fun
As senator, Biden voted for the optional wars against
Afghanistan and
Iraq . He
lied about his votes so maybe he felt bad about them. He similarly seems to regret
his ro le in
destroying Libya.
Sanders voted to invade Afghanistan . His
comment at the time reads as hopelessly naïve about the bloodthirsty Bush-Cheney regime:
"The use of force is one tool that we have at our disposal to fight against the horror of
terrorism and mass murder it is something that must be used wisely and with great discretion."
Sanders voted against
invading Iraq , favored regime change in Libya (
albeit nonviolently ) and voted to bomb Syria .
There have been no major new wars since 2013, when Warren joined the Senate so her antiwar
bona fides have not been tested. Like many of her colleagues, she wants an end to the "forever
war" against Afghanistan. She also wants us out of
Syria .
Democrats on NSA Spying Against Americans
... ... ...
Joe Biden, though to the right on other foreign-policy issues, was a critic of NSA spying
for years, going
back at least to 2006. Under Obama, however, he
backtracked . Even worse, Biden
called the president of Ecuador in 2013 to request that he deny asylum to NSA whistleblower
Edward Snowden.
"... Railing against Trump only sets up the next smooth-talking stooge who will start a fresh new con. ..."
"... Dore traces the problem primarily to Democratic Party's turning to identity politics instead of representing the working class. They sold us out. Clinton and Obama are just "Republican light" aka "Centrist" "Third Way" Democrats. "Centrist" = establishment-serving con artists. ..."
"... "Managed democracy" or "guided democracy" : is a formally democratic government that functions as a de facto autocracy. Such governments are legitimized by elections that are free and fair, but do not change the state's policies, motives, and goals. ..."
Dore makes the same point I have: "Trump is a Symptom of 40 years of NeoLiberalism and
the Corporate Capture of the U.S. government."Railing against Trump only sets up the
next smooth-talking stooge who will start a fresh new con.
Dore traces the problem primarily to Democratic Party's turning to identity politics
instead of representing the working class. They sold us out. Clinton and Obama are just
"Republican light" aka "Centrist" "Third Way" Democrats. "Centrist" = establishment-serving
con artists.
"Managed
democracy" or "guided democracy" : is a formally democratic government that functions as a de facto autocracy. Such
governments are legitimized by elections that are free and fair, but do not change the
state's policies, motives, and goals.
In other words, the government controls elections so that the people can exercise all
their rights without truly changing public policy. While they follow basic democratic
principles, there can be major deviations towards authoritarianism. Under managed
democracy, the state's continuous use of propaganda techniques prevents the electorate from
having a significant impact on policy.
The concept of a "guided democracy" was developed in the 20th century by Walter
Lippmann in his seminal work Public Opinion (1922) and by Edward Bernays in his work
Crystallizing Public Opinion.
<> <> <> <> <> <> <>
RT has a good video on Yellow Vest protestors (on rt.com homepage). It's kind long for the
info that it provides. I suggest skipping some parts.
Re: my above link (you're welcome those of you who have problems with long URLs!):
Contrast Maddow's "Trump is making John Bolton act too nice" monologue with a recent
segment on Fox News' Tucker Carlson Tonight, conducted in the aftermath of last week's
attempt at a military coup by opposition leader Juan Guaido. Journalist Anya Parampil
appeared on the show and delivered a scathing criticism of the Trump administration's
heinous actions in Venezuela based on her findings during her recent visit to that country.
She was allowed to speak uninhibited and without attack, even bringing up the Center for
Economic and Policy Research study which found Trump administration sanctions responsible
for the deaths of over 40,000 Venezuelans, a story that has gone completely ignored by
western mainstream media.
Carlson introduced the interview with a clip from an earlier talk he'd had with Florida
Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart, who supports direct military action to overthrow Maduro and
whose arguments Carlson had attacked on the basis that it would cost American lives and
cause a refugee crisis. Parampil said the media is lying about what's happening in
Venezuela and compared Guaido's coup attempt to a scenario in which Hillary Clinton had
refused to cede the election, banded together 24 US soldiers and attempted to take the
White House by force.
"I was there for a month earlier this year," Parampil said. "The opposition has no
popular support. Juan Guaido proved today, once again, that he will only ride in to power
on the back of a US tank. And what's more, we hear about a humanitarian crisis there,
Tucker, but what we never hear is that is the intended result of US sanctions that have
targeted Venezuelans since 2015, sanctions which according to a report that was released
just last week by the Center for Economic and Policy Research has led to the deaths of
40,000 Venezuelans, and will lead to the death of thousands more if these sanctions aren't
overturned. President Trump, if he truly cared for the Venezuelan people, and the American
people for that matter, he would end this disastrous policy. He would end the sanctions,
and he would look into John Bolton's eyes, into Elliott Abrams' eyes, into Mike Pompeo's
eyes, and say you are fired. You are leading me down a disastrous path, another war for
oil. Something the president said–he was celebrated by the American people when he
said Iraq was a mistake, and now he's willing to do it again."
"I believe in an open debate," Carlson responded. "And I'm not sure I agree with
everything you've said, but I'm glad that you could say it here. And you were just there,
and I don't think you'd be allowed on any other show to say that."
"No I certainly don't," Parampil replied. "And I really appreciate you giving me the
opportunity, because
President Trump promised to drain the swamp, and he flooded his national security team
with that exact swamp
Maddow is the MSM version of a liberal. She's a DNC warmonger's warmonger - the blue flavor
warmonger to counter the red flavor warmonger. This became apparent 10 years ago. She is the
MSM version of a lefty. Not leftist really, just a 1969 Nixon to put up against all the late
model Bush Clinton Obama Trump lunatics.
I get paranoid real fast when unexpected URL difficulties arise. I cut/pasted your first
link, then one I found myself into a word processor, and both of them had a string of numbers
at the end. Different numbers! Finally learned those numbers were unnecessary and I had
something which worked.
I can sometimes navigate the internet, but I'm aware there are people out there who can
tie it in knots. Corporate meddling is becoming an issue as well. Yesterday or day before my
Firefox browser suddenly had all the addons disabled. The Mozilla company must have gotten an
earful, so they've half-fixed it. Now the addons are working again, but have a big warning
label on each and every one of them.
Back to Maddow. There are people who adore her, and I believe I've mentioned being taken
to task by one of them. Seems I hang out at "weird" sites like this one when I could be
getting ALL my news from Maddow - just as this person bragged about doing.
That's all there is to it. No corporate trackers (such as FB or IG adding crap onto the
end). That's as simple as they get, unfortunately, but still long enough to prompt me to
shorten it for Circe and those who apparently have major issues with links.
Multiculturalism means that you confer political privileges on many an individual whose
illiberal practices run counter to, even undermine, the American political tradition.
Radical leaders across the U.S. quite seriously consider Illegal immigrants as candidates
for the vote -- and for every other financial benefit that comes from the work of American
citizens.
The rights of all able-bodied idle individuals to an income derived from labor not their
own: That, too, is a debate that has arisen in democracy, where the demos rules like a
despot.
But then moral degeneracy is inherent in raw democracy. The best political thinkers,
including America's constitution-makers, warned a long time ago that mass, egalitarian society
would thus degenerate.
What Bernie Sanders prescribes for the country -- unconditional voting -- is but an
extension of "mass franchise," which was feared by the greatest thinkers on Democracy. Prime
Minister George Canning of Britain, for instance.
Canning, whose thought is distilled in Russell Kirk's magnificent exegesis, "The
Conservative Mind," thought that "the franchise should be accorded to persons and classes
insofar as they possess the qualifications for right judgment and are worthy members of their
particular corporations."
By "corporations," Canning (1770-1827) meant something quite different to our contemporary,
community-killing multinationals.
"Corporations," in the nomenclature of the times, meant very plainly in "the spirit of
cooperation, based upon the idea of a neighborhood. [C]ities, parishes, townships, professions,
and trades are all the corporate bodies that constitute the state."
To the extent that an individual citizen is a decent member of these " little
platoons " (Edmund Burke's iridescent term), he may be considered, as Canning saw it, for
political participation.
"If voting becomes a universal and arbitrary right," cautioned Canning, "citizens become
mere political atoms, rather than members of venerable corporations; and in time this anonymous
mass of voters will degenerate into pure democracy," which, in reality is "the enthronement of
demagoguery and mediocrity." ("The Conservative Mind," p. 131.)
That's us. Demagoguery and mediocrity are king in contemporary democracies, where the
organic, enduring, merit-based communities extolled by Canning, no longer exists and are no
longer valued.
This is the point at which America finds itself and against which William Lecky, another
brilliant British political philosopher and politician, argued.
The author of "Democracy and Liberty" (1896) predicted that "the continual degradation of
the suffrage" through "mass franchise" would end in "a new despotism."
Then as today, radical, nascent egalitarians, who championed the universal vote abhorred by
Lecky, attacked "institution after institution," harbored "systematic hostility" toward "owners
of landed property" and private property and insisted that "representative institutions" and
the franchise be extended to all irrespective of "circumstance and character."
The franchise should be granted by whom? You're forgetting the 800 pound gorilla and where he
sits when he enters the room. Franchises and every other grant are granted by those who have
the power to grant them.
Canning's "organic, enduring, merit-based communities" will emerge, in ghastly form, as
the solipsistic constituencies of identity politics. Why do people like Omar laugh at America
and Americans? "Here's a people so stupid as to clasp the adder to its breast. You're
clasping? I'm biting."
Bernie is utopian. Utopians do terrible things if and when they have the power to do them.
But you can't fault him for insincerity.
The younger Tsarnaev who hid out near my home town was doing what his older brother told
him to do assuming that the bombing wasn't a false flag. Not an excuse. Only to say the kid
had no political convictions and probably wouldn't bother to vote if he could.
Sanders is just a wine and cheese socialist, totally an armchair theorist. He has no
background in actually doing anything besides being involved in politics which has provided a
living for him. It's doubtful he could run a couple of Walmarts. This is his last go-around
and he's out to see how much in contributions he can garner. Pushing the edge, theoretically
of course, keeps him in the conversation. He's worthless but such is the state of politics
where characters like him, Biden, and the rest of the Dem lineup could be taken seriously.
Just one big clown show.
@Jim
Bob Lassiter Yes, but, his wife could steal money from a collapsing college to serve her
daughter. Corruption must run in the family as Bernie has been conspicuously silent on this
subject. He must feel the Burn!
Sure. Let's invade Venezuela. Another jolly little war. It's full of commies and has a sea
of oil. The only thing those Cuban-loving Venezuelans lack are weapons of mass destruction.
... ... ...
Venezuela is in a huge economic mess thanks to the crackpot economic policies of the Chavez
and Maduro governments – and US economic sabotage. But my first law of international
affairs is: 'Every nation has the absolute god-given right to mismanage its own affairs and
elect its own crooks or idiots.'
Sure. Let's invade Venezuela. Another jolly little war. It's full of commies and has a sea
of oil. The only thing those Cuban-loving Venezuelans lack are weapons of mass destruction.
... ... ...
Venezuela is in a huge economic mess thanks to the crackpot economic policies of the Chavez
and Maduro governments – and US economic sabotage. But my first law of international
affairs is: 'Every nation has the absolute god-given right to mismanage its own affairs and
elect its own crooks or idiots.'
Neuroticism is characterized by "feeling negative feelings strongly," with the opposite of
Neuroticism being "Emotional Stability." Such "Negative Feelings" include sadness, anger and
jealousy. But females score particularly strongly on "anxiety" -- possibly because, in
prehistory, the children of anxious, protective mothers were less likely to get seriously
injured. But the key point is that the stereotype is correct.
And people are also correct to think that women -- that is, those who, on average, score
higher in Neuroticism -- will be less able to cope in the brutal world of power-politics.
Successful politicians -- the ones who get into their country's legislature but don't make
it to the very top -- score significantly lower than the general public in Neuroticism,
according to research published in the leading psychology journal Personality and Individual
Differences . [ The personalities of
politicians: A big five survey of American legislators , by Richard Hanania ,
2017]
And this research reveals something very interesting indeed. These "successful politicians,"
while being more emotionally stable than most voters, score higher in the personality
traits Extraversion ("feeling positive feelings strongly"), Conscientiousness ("rule-following
and impulse control") and Agreeableness ("altruism and empathy").
But this does not tend to be true of those who reach the very top of politics -- and
especially not of those who are perceived as great, world-changing statesmen. They tend to be
highly intelligent but above average on quite the opposite personality traits –
psychopathology and Narcissism [ Creativity and psychopathology , by F. Post British
Journal of Psychiatry, 1994]. However, high Agreeableness, Conscientiousness and
Extraversion are true of successful politicians in general.
In much the same way, run-of-the-mill scientists are above average in Agreeableness and
Conscientiousness but genius
scientists combine being relatively low in these traits with stratospheric
intelligence. This gives them creativity, drive and fearless to be original. [ At Our Wits'
End , by Edward Dutton and Michael Woodley of Menie, 2018, Ch. 6]
This is important, because these are typically female traits: women score higher than
men in Agreeableness, Consciousness and Extraversion. This means that, in general, we would
expect the relatively few females who do reach high political office to be fairly atypical
women: low in mental instability and certainly moderately low in altruism, empathy or both --
think
Margaret Thatcher , who according to Keith Patching in his 2006 book Leadership,
Character and Strategy, was organizing her impending Bar Finals from her hospital bed
having just had twins; or even Theresa May. Neither of these British Prime Ministers have (or
had) neither of whom have particularly "feminine" personalities, though they may reflect (or
have reflected) very pronounced Conscientiousness, a trait associated with social conservatism.
[
Resolving the "Conscientiousness Paradox" , by Scott A. McGreal, Psychology
Today , July 27, 2015]
But, sometimes, a female politician's typically anxiety will apparently be " compensated " for
i.e. overwhelmed by her having massively high Agreeableness and Conscientiousness. This likely
occurred in the case of Jacinda Ardern, who suffers from
intense anxiety to the point of having being hospitalized.
This will become a problem in a time of crisis when, as happened with Ardern, such a
politician will become over-emotional. This, combined with very high empathy, would seem to
partly explain Ardern's self-identification with New Zealand's Muslims to the extent of donning
a head scarf and breaking down in public.
But it also explains why females, on average, tend to be more left-wing than males and more
open to refugees. They feel empathy and even sadness for the plight of the refugees more
strongly than do men [ Young
women are more left wing than men, study reveals, by Rosalind Shorrocks, The
Conversation, May 3, 2018
This means that there will be a tendency for females to push politics Leftwards and make it
more about empathy and other such "feelings." It also means that, in a serious crisis, they may
well even empathize with the enemy.
In that gay men are generally feminized males, this problem help would to explain why people
are skeptical of the suitability of homosexual men for supposedly "masculine" professions (such
as politics) [ The
extreme male brain theory of autism, by Simon Baron-Cohen, Trends in Cognitive
Sciences, 2002], sometimes including political office. [ The Hidden Psychology
of Voting, by Zaria Gorvett, BBC News , May 6, 2015]
What about Science and Technology? Are they suited for that? Maybe science could use a little
more wisdom and conscientiousness.
J Robert Oppenheimer, the genius Physics professor, was known to be "temperamental" and
not suited for high stress assignment. So, along with several other genius's, some who came
over from Germany, he presided over the making of the A-bomb. Hallelujah just kidding.
There's an excellent book that covers J Robert Oppenheimer and the making of the A-bomb
called "American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J Robert Oppenheimer".
The guy was totally volatile and emotionally unstable. While in school he left a knife in an
apple on his teacher's desk that he did not like.
After the bomb was dropped on JAPAN, in a documentary much later, he is shown with tears
in his eyes quoting the Bhagavad Gita: "Now I am become death, destroyer of worlds".
A couple decades or so later there were interviews of some of these guys who were part of
the project and they were crying. They had the GENIUS to build such a monstrosity, but seemed
to have failed to understand the impact it would make on the world; breaking down in tears
when talking about it. They had no clue or ability of Foreknowledge. What would have happened
if more women were on the team? Would we all be annihilated by now? Or maybe no a-bomb would
have been made? Who knows .
Interesting. And I appreciate the citations to sources. But I find that interpretation of
psychiatric traits is a bit like reading tea leaves: there is a temptation to cherry-pick
one's preferred quotes and conclusions. For me, this article would have been stronger if it
had followed a recognized authority's path through the Big Five personality traits.
It seems rather unfair to pick a moron like Jacinda Ardern to represent all female
politicians. And even though when it comes to foreign policy, I'll take a Tulsi Gabbard over
any male politician like Rubio, Graham, Schumer, Pence, Trump, Pompeo, Bolton any day, I will
have to say, in general, you're right, the crop of female politicians we've seen today do not
inspire confidence in women as politicians, not just in the US but Merkel, May yikes. But
women had been good heads of states in the past, like Margaret Thatcher and Queen Victoria.
But they were the exceptions rather than the rule.
Also agree that gays make for bad politicians. Even though their moral degeneracy and
drama queen antics make politics look like a natural fit, their extreme narcissism means they
will always get sidetracked and can't stay focused. The only thing any gay man cares about is
his gayness. Plus no one outside the western world will ever give them an ounce of respect.
Picture Buttplug showing up in a muslim country as POTUS, with his husband! Either they'll
get stoned to death which will get us into war or the US will be the laughing stock of the
world. And then of course he'd have to go bomb some country just to prove his manhood,
getting us into more unnecessary wars. No gays for politics, ever.
There has been a very successful effort to paint Oppenheimer as a secular saint. But
Princeton's John Archibald Wheeler stated that he never trusted Oppenheimer. So what? Because
JAW was notorious for otherwise saying nice things about almost everyone else, especially his
academic rivals. Also JAW happily and productively worked on the US H-bomb project which was
embargoed by Oppenheimer and his many disciples.
I agree with the point made above, that, in our nuclear age, behavior in a crisis is the most
important personality trait. I think that men's crisis-calmness can suffer from macho/ego,
and with women, from anxiety and panic. Democratic candidate Amy K reportedly throws things
when angry, and to me, this is disqualifying. Assuming no nuclear destruction, the analysis
is this: We have devolved into a gigantic banana republic/soft dictatorship; whose
personality constellation is best suited to politics in a banana republic?
No female leader of any country, ever, has been particularly good, except one.
And that one was only because she was fortunate enough to be the PM of the UK at the same
time as Ronald Reagan was President of the US. He was handholding every single decision of
hers. Reagan was effectively running two countries (the #1 and #4 largest GDPs in the world
at that time). At least she was smart enough to let him tell her exactly what to do.
Given this dataset, no, women are not suitable for very high political office.
Is Ardern still wearing that hijab in order to cynically manipulate her insipid voters?
Anyway
I have come to realize that women, on the whole, tend to be poorly suited to many
traditionally male-doninated activities. Politics, for sure. Very few good, dependable female
politicians come to mind. But the list at my immediate recall that are emotional, vapid,
destructive slobs -- Angela Merkel, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, Eva Perón,
Michelle Bachelet, Isabel Allende Bussi, Annie Lööf, Anne Hidalgo, Ursula von der
Leyen, Maxine Waters, Nancy Pelosi, Rashida Tlaïb, Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, et al --
seems practically limitless. Not only is the fairer sex not adept at political leadership,
but they are ill-suited to even vote rationally. The weakness of Anglo-American men's resolve
against the suffragettes was the beginning of the end.
Preeminent excellence seems to elude the grasp of women in a number of other careers. For
whatever reason, there are few women writers of prose fiction that can equal the heights men
have reached in that field. This despite the fact that the contemporary literary industry is
overwhelmingly dominated by women. True, there are the rare instances of female literary
transcendence in the guise of a Clarice Lispector, Hilda Hilst, Okamoto Kanoko, Murasaki
Shikibu, Unica Zürn, and so on. But they tend to be the exceptions that prove the rule.
(On the other hand, women seem naturally gifted at lyric expression, with great female poets
existing since at least Sappho.)
Orchestral conducting, too, is a field wherein women cannot produce an equal or better of,
say, a Furtwängler, Mengelberg, or Beecham. There are plenty of them around today -- all
lousy. (To be fair, though, nearly all living conductors today -- male or female --
are lousy.)
I'm a university degree holding woman, of the traditional type with XX chromosomes, and since
I was a teen some forty years ago, I've thought that men are better suited for politics. Not
that a few women can't do it successfully (Thatcher and British Queens for examples) but that
it's a profession far more suited to men, being as many are more naturally mentally strong,
steady and rational, and not as given to bursts of emotion and utopian fancies as women can
often be. In fact, I'd be delighted if only U.S. born citizen male property owners over the
age of 25 were allowed to vote. How's that for being a Dissident?
"... Remember, historically The Washington Post is the preferred outlet for the CIA and Intelligence Community within Deep State to dump their "leaks" and stories. The State Department "leaks" to CNN for the same purposes. ..."
Did NSA Admiral Mike Rogers Warn Trump On
November 17th, 2016?
Sometimes the utilization of Timelines means you have to look at the new information with
a keen awareness of specific events. In hindsight, NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers may
have notified Team Trump of Obama's Intelligence Community (James Clapper and John
Brennan) spying on their activity.
As you look at the FISA request dates below, it's important to note that NSA Director
Admiral Mike Rogers would be keenly aware of both the June request – Denied, and the
October request – Granted. Pay specific attention to the October request.
"October"!
.
June 2016: FISA request.
The Obama administration
files a request
with the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) to monitor communications involving Donald Trump
and several advisers. The request, uncharacteristically, is denied.
October 2016: FISA request.
The
Obama administration submits a new, narrow request to the FISA court, now focused on a
computer server in Trump Tower suspected of links to Russian banks. No evidence is found --
but the wiretaps continue, ostensibly for national security reasons, Andrew McCarthy at
National
Review
later
notes
.
The
Obama administration is now monitoring an opposing presidential campaign using the
high-tech surveillance powers of the federal intelligence services.
♦
On Tuesday November 8th, 2016 the election was held. Results announced Wednesday November
9th, 2016.
♦
On Thursday November 17th, 2016, NSA Director Mike Rogers traveled to New York and met
with President-Elect Donald Trump.
♦
On Friday November 18th
The Washington Post reported
on a
recommendation in "October"
that Mike Rogers be removed from his NSA position:
The heads of the Pentagon and the nation's intelligence community have recommended to
President Obama that the director of the National Security Agency, Adm. Michael S. Rogers,
be removed.
The recommendation, delivered to the White House
last month
, was made by Defense
Secretary Ashton B. Carter and Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr.,
according to several U.S. officials familiar with the matter.
[ ]
In a move apparently unprecedented for a military officer,
Rogers, without
notifying superiors, traveled to New York to meet with Trump on Thursday at Trump Tower
.
That caused consternation at senior levels of the administration, according to the
officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal personnel matters.
(
link
)
Remember, historically The Washington Post is the preferred outlet for the CIA and
Intelligence Community
within Deep State
to dump their "leaks"
and stories. The State Department "leaks" to CNN for the same purposes.
On Saturday November 19th
Reuters reported
on the WaPo Story and
additional pressure by Defense Secretary Ash Carter and DNI James Clapper to fire Mike
Rogers.
[ ]
The Washington Post reported that a decision by Rogers to travel to New York to meet
with Trump on Thursday without notifying superiors caused consternation at senior levels
of the administration, but the recommendation to remove him predated his visit. (
link
)
The Intelligence Community -at the direction of President Obama- made a request to
a FISA court for the NSA to spy on Donald Trump in June 2016. It was denied.
In October the Intelligence Community (NSA) -at the direction of President Obama-
made a second request to the FISA court for the NSA to spy on Donald Trump. It was
approved.
At around the same time (October), as the second request to FISA, (Def Sec) Ash
Carter and (DNI) James Clapper tell President Obama to dump NSA Director Mike Rogers.
A week after the election, Mike Rogers makes a trip to Trump Tower without telling
his superior, James Clapper; which brings about new calls (November media leaks to WaPo)
for President Obama to dump Mike Rogers.
Occam's Razor
.
NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers didn't want to participate in the spying scheme (Clapper,
Brennan, Etc.), which was the baseline for President Obama's post presidency efforts to
undermine Donald Trump and keep Trump from digging into the Obama labyrinth underlying his
remaining loyalists. After the October spying operation went into effect, Rogers unknown
loyalty was a risk to the Obama objective. 10 Days after the election Rogers travels to
President-Elect Trump without notifying those who were involved in the intel scheme.
Did NSA Director Mike Rogers wait for a SCIF (Sensitive Compartmented Information
Facility) to be set up in Trump Tower, and then notify the President-elect he was being
monitored by President Obama?
.Seems likely.
"... Well. There you have Andrew McCabe calling Rod Rosenstein a liar. Can't wait for the Inspector General's report. Apparently some doo-doo is hitting the fan. ..."
"... The FBI has history of sedition, how do you J. Edgar Hoover stayed in charge for long? The FBI (Deepthroat, Deputy Director Mark Felt) brought down Nixon by leaking to the Washing Post. This stuff going on now is part of a long standing tradition at the FBI. ..."
"... McCabe and Rosenstein are enemies within! ..."
"... When law enforcement is involved in politics that is just like banana republics and communist countries. If these people can plan to remove a Republican President they can do it to a democrat president. THAT should alarm CNN and all the democrats, but it won't. These FBI folks were acting under the orders of Obama and probably through Hillary. The FBI big-shots only work under orders they don't think on their own. ..."
"... Mccabe is a weasel beyond a doubt, and the FBI is complicit in there doing nothing about it until the fool admits to it on primetime TV for the whole world to see!! He tarnished your agency along with comey, strozk, and the other traitors. Own it FBI he is one of yours. ..."
"... The bureaunazis are so protected in their deep state they have no fear of admitting their collusion efforts against Trump. A special counsel needs to investigate the FBI and DOJ connections to Russia and Democrats. Nothing changes if no one goes to jail. These bureaunazis watch too much Game of Thrones and House of Cards. ..."
"... Mueller, while FBI Director, turned the FBI into an intelligence agency from that of a crime fighting agency. Which was then used by the political class to support their positions of power. ..."
"... Deep State poster boy. Full of hubris and entitlement. Power corrupts. ..."
"... McCabe has totally self admited for a deep state coup attempt against a duly elected president. ..."
"... So McCabe appointed himself the FBI, Pratorian Guard, to protect us against Russia? ..."
Kevin Brock, former FBI assistant director for intelligence, and Terry Turchie, former
deputy assistant director of the counterterrorism division, fire back at former FBI Director
Andrew McCabe.
Well. There you have Andrew McCabe calling Rod Rosenstein a liar. Can't wait for the
Inspector General's report. Apparently some doo-doo is hitting the fan.
The FBI has history of sedition, how do you J. Edgar Hoover stayed in charge for long?
The FBI (Deepthroat, Deputy Director Mark Felt) brought down Nixon by leaking to the Washing
Post. This stuff going on now is part of a long standing tradition at the
FBI.
When law enforcement is involved in politics that is just like banana republics and
communist countries. If these people can plan to remove a Republican President they can do it
to a democrat president. THAT should alarm CNN and all the democrats, but it won't. These FBI
folks were acting under the orders of Obama and probably through Hillary. The FBI big-shots
only work under orders they don't think on their own.
Mccabe is a weasel beyond a doubt, and the FBI is complicit in there doing nothing
about it until the fool admits to it on primetime TV for the whole world to see!! He
tarnished your agency along with comey, strozk, and the other traitors. Own it FBI he is one
of yours.
The fix was in. The bureaunazis are so protected in their deep state they have no fear of
admitting their collusion efforts against Trump. A special counsel needs to investigate the
FBI and DOJ connections to Russia and Democrats. Nothing changes if no one goes to jail.
These bureaunazis watch too much Game of Thrones and House of Cards.
Mueller, while FBI Director, turned the FBI into an intelligence agency from that of a
crime fighting agency. Which was then used by the political class to support their positions
of power. Mr Trump upset their world with his electoral victory. President Trump is hated by
the political class because he has come as the destroyer of their world.
McCabe has totally self admited for a deep state coup attempt against a duly elected
president. He should be behind bars rather than selling his book on TV. Lock up McCabe,
Rosenstein and the rest of the Deep State coup gang and DRAIN-THE-SWAMP.
Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe discussed his career, the FBI, and his firing from
the Bureau. He was interviewed by New York Times reporter Adam Goldman.
This is why "reparations bills" are introduced and supported by many Democratic
candidates...
Notable quotes:
"... The main message on identity to come out is that whites, esp. white males are the main cause of every ill since the dawn of time, even if they don't know it. Whites are not the majority anymore, and the factions outnumber them. There are the votes. ..."
R and D are different sides of the same coin. Democrats have developed the "unite the
factions" strategy with targeted campaigns to wronged and victimized groups. The main
message on identity to come out is that whites, esp. white males are the main cause of every
ill since the dawn of time, even if they don't know it. Whites are not the majority anymore,
and the factions outnumber them. There are the votes.
If you lean towards the left and are white you are encountering a mixed message of duty and
guilt. Your identity is being painted on you. And much of that paint is colored by the
projection of white nationalism on even the left leaning whites.
It can be said that that's what whites, in their arrogance, do to everyone else. It might be
true. From my observation I don't see that most people think about their identity in relation
to other identities, but there are a few that stick out that you mostly don't want to know.
This is where the republicans are filling a vacuum, a space that didn't need to be filled. A
space where whites HAVE to choose identity, according to the r's. If you don't feel you fit on
one side anymore, then there's the other side. Many shades of white nationalism. Much of it is
about feelings. It's where passion lies.
The law used to be the embodiment of justice and fairness. We knew what good law was, in
it's fairness, and bad law. This has been replaced by fear,emotion, taunts and anger.
And so, it's one side or the other, or turn your back and take no side.
@edg rabidly anti-Muslim, pro-war in the Middle East (against Muslims) and sicially conservative
in general. They are roughly 50% Republican, 50% DNC Democrats. They LOVED Hillary.
"... As much as Trump has proven to be a disaster with his appointments of Bolton/Pompeo/E Abrams, things could still be worse. We could have wound up with Little Marco, the John McCain of his generation. All praise to Tucker for having the guts to go against the grain. ..."
"... The answer here is simple. When the President of of the US stated that he believed Russia under the instructions of Pres. Putin attempted to sabotage the democratic process, and from the mouths many of our leadership -- was successful he made a major power on the world stage a targeted enemy of the US. When that same president accused Pres. Putin of plotting the same in Europe and ordered the murders inside those sovereign states -- ..."
"... He essentially stated that our global strategic interests include challenging the Russian influence anywhere and everywhere on the planet as they are active enemies of the US and our European allies. What ever democratic global strategic ambitions previous to the least election were stifled until that moment. ..."
"... Sanctions and blockades are acts of war. Try doing it to Washington or one of its vassals, and watch the guns come out. ..."
"... Historically, sanctions are not an alternative to war; they are a prelude to it. Sanctions are how Uncle Scam generally softens up foreign countries in preparation for an invasion or some sort of 'régime-change' operation. ..."
"... All of this is smoke in mirrors. The real story is that Washington is headed for default on it's 22 trillion dollar debt and the Beltway Elites are losing it. They are desperate to start a conflict anywhere, but especially with an oil rich nation like Venezuela or Iran install their own puppets and keep this petro-dollar scam running a little while longer. ..."
"... Syria, Iraq and Libya were not destroyed for oil. Oil provided cover for the real reason. In fact, oil companies opposed war for oil. It doesn't benefit the US or those companies. Those three countries were and are Israel's primary enemies and neighbors and that is why they were destroyed. Only if you stick your head in the sand and ignore the enormous power of Israel and their Jewish supporters which is constantly on full display constantly can someone not see that. ..."
"... Venezuela has one of the highest murder rates in the world. I'm pretty sure there are still lots of guns around. They're not using rocks to kill one another. The U.S. military richly deserves to get itself trapped in a Gaza type situation of house to house fighting in the favellas above Caracas. ..."
"... Trump is a Trojan horse under zionist control who had 5 draft deferments but now is the zionists war lord sending Americans to fight and die in the mideast for Israel just like obama and bush jr. , same bullshit different puppet! ..."
"... America is Oceania , war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength and I would add to what Orwell said, war in the zio/US is perpetual for our zionist overlords. ..."
"... Imperialists always see themselves as spreading good things to people who will benefit from them. And imperialists necessarily always dilute their own culture. ..."
"... If the imperialist culture is already rootless cosmopolitan, it will see no downside to the above. If the Elites of a culture have become cosmopolitans divorced from any meaningful contact with their own people (i.e. those of their own blood and history), then they will lead their people into ever more cultural pollution and perversion. ..."
"... Remember. The choice was between Trump and Clinton. Not Trump and Jesus. ..."
"... The funny thing is, the Alt-Right or the 2.0 movement is united to a man on opposing the Trump administration's military interventions in Syria, Iran and Venezuela, but has failed at articulating its own ardent opposition to imperialism and its commitment to humanity and international peace. No one in American politics is more opposed to destructive regime change wars. ..."
"... I'm not sure what "Alt-Right" or "2.0 movement" really means in the current shills-vs-people wars but all the best and the brightest in our ranks are clearly against the globalists. ..."
Venezuela illustrates why a 3.0 movement is necessary.
The funny thing is, the Alt-Right or the 2.0 movement is united to a man on opposing the
Trump administration's military interventions in Syria, Iran and Venezuela, but has failed at
articulating its own ardent opposition to imperialism and its commitment to humanity and
international peace. No one in American politics is more opposed to destructive regime change
wars.
The Trump administration's interventions in Syria and Venezuela are victimizing mainly poor
brown people in Third World countries. And yet, the Alt-Right or the 2.0 movement is extremely
animated and stirred up in a rage at the neocons who are currently running Blompf's foreign
policy. Similarly, it has cheered on the peace talks between North Korea and South Korea.
Isn't it the supreme irony that the "racists" in American politics are the real
humanitarians
while the so-called "humanitarians" like Sen. Marco Rubio and Bill Kristol are less adverse
to bloodshed and destructive wars in which hundreds of thousands of people die than the
"racists"?
It is ironic. There is also the issue of economic-based US interventionism, particularly in
the oil-gifted nations mentioned. It's their oil. Since the US economy is oil-dependent --
and since fracking is a short-lived "miracle" of unprofitable companies that have already
extracted the easy pickings -- it is the role of US leaders to make sure that we can buy oil
from nations like Venezuela, keeping relations as good as possible for those means. But US
leaders have no business telling them who should rule their country, much less stirring up
trouble that can end up in bloodshed.
There's a comment on here about US forces and the Kurds in Syria, helping themselves to
oil, while Syrians wait in long lines for gas in a country that is an oil fountain. I have no
idea whether or not it is true, and since the US press would rather gossip than report, we'll
probably never know. But since oil prices have gone up recently in the USA, it might be true,
especially since politicians always want to pacify the serfs facing other unaffordable
expenses, like rent. If true you can see how that would make the people in an oil-rich
country mad.
Isn't it the supreme irony that the "racists" in American politics are the real
humanitarians while the so-called "humanitarians" like Sen. Marco Rubio and Bill Kristol
are less adverse to bloodshed and destructive wars in which hundreds of thousands of people
die than the "racists"?
There is nothing ironic about your simple statement of fact. The humanitarians you mention
are about as much interested in human rights as John Wayne Gacy. There is gold in them there
hills, and their "friends" no longer control that gold. So we must go to war.
Rubio is running neck and neck in my mind as one of the most disgusting political whores
of all time.
As much as Trump has proven to be a disaster with his appointments of Bolton/Pompeo/E Abrams,
things could still be worse. We could have wound up with Little Marco, the John McCain of his
generation. All praise to Tucker for having the guts to go against the grain.
How is that working out now?
Those are rocks those guys are throwing..right?
Why not let THEM do the fighting and keep the guys from Ohio and Alabama here?
The funny thing is, the Alt-Right or the 2.0 movement is united to a man on opposing the
Trump administration's military interventions in Syria, Iran and Venezuela
What Trump administration military intervention? Number of Boots on the ground:
Syria -- Reduced vs. Obama, at most a few thousand
Iran -- ZERO
Venezuela -- Again ZERO
It is quite amazing that Trump Derangement Syndrome [TDS] can take ZERO troops and falsely
portray that as military intervention. In the real, non-deranged world -- Rational thought
shows ZERO troops as the absence of military intervention.
Trying to use non-military sanctions to convince nations to behave better is indeed the
exact opposite of military intervention. If the NeoConDem Hillary Clinton was President. Would the U.S. have boots on the ground in
Iran And Venezuela?
Why is the Trump Derangement Syndrome [TDS] crowd so willing to go to war for Hillary
while misrepresenting TRUMP's non-intervention?
Those who pathologicially hate Trump are simply not rational.
The answer here is simple.
When the President of of the US stated that he believed Russia under the instructions of
Pres. Putin attempted to sabotage the democratic process, and from the mouths many of our
leadership -- was successful he made a major power on the world stage a targeted enemy of the
US. When that same president accused Pres. Putin of plotting the same in Europe and ordered
the murders inside those sovereign states --
He essentially stated that our global strategic interests include challenging the Russian
influence anywhere and everywhere on the planet as they are active enemies of the US and our
European allies. What ever democratic global strategic ambitions previous to the least
election were stifled until that moment.
Until that moment foreign policy could have been shifted, but after that moment
Don't forget the genocide in Yemen. Wanting to exclude Yemenis from the USA means you're an
evil racist, but turning a blind eye to mass murder is A-OK.
Gold, Black Gold and Pirates : all about wealth and people getting in the way of the 21st
Century Privateers who will stop at nothing including overthrowing governments in Syria,
Libya, Iraq and elsewhere.
@A123Historically, sanctions are not an alternative to war; they are a prelude to it.
Sanctions are how Uncle Scam generally softens up foreign countries in preparation for an
invasion or some sort of 'régime-change' operation.
I appreciate the fact that Team Trump has not actually sent in the tanks yet, whereas
Hellary probably would have by now. Believe me, that is probably one of the very few good
arguments in favor of Trump at this point. But if we want to make sure that he never does
attack, then now is the time to make some noise– before the war starts.
All of this is smoke in mirrors. The real story is that Washington is headed for default on
it's 22 trillion dollar debt and the Beltway Elites are losing it. They are desperate to
start a conflict anywhere, but especially with an oil rich nation like Venezuela or Iran
install their own puppets and keep this petro-dollar scam running a little while longer.
If we weren't on the brink of economic collapse I could never see the Washington Elites
risking it all with a game of nuclear chicken with Russia and China over Ukraine and
Taiwan.
This commentator lost me when he decided Guaido was as socialist as Maduro. Nope. He would
not have US backing were that the case.
I checked out Telesur on Youtube on April 30 – its continued functioning was one sign
the coup attempt had failed. The comments section was full of Guaido supporters ranting about
how much they hated Chavistas and socialists and some were asking where Maduro was, probably
trying to sustain the myth that he had fled.
"When was the last time we successfully meddled in the political life of another country" The
answer to that, Tucker, depends on who you ask. While Syria, Iraq and Libya were "failures"
because we were told we would bring peace and prosperity to those countries, that was not the
goal of the architects of those wars, neither was it oil. The primary goal was to pacify
these countries and neuter them so they would not stand up to their neighbor and enemy
Israel. And if they had to be destroyed to accomplish that, that's fine. Minus Egypt, those
three countries were Israel's primary enemies in the three Arab-Israeli wars. Venezuela is
not "another" war for oil, but it might be the first.
Syria, Iraq and Libya were not destroyed for oil. Oil provided cover for the
real reason. In fact, oil companies opposed war for oil. It doesn't benefit the US or those
companies. Those three countries were and are Israel's primary enemies and neighbors and that
is why they were destroyed. Only if you stick your head in the sand and ignore the enormous
power of Israel and their Jewish supporters which is constantly on full display constantly
can someone not see that.
@EliteCommInc.
The russians are not the ennemies of the europeans , the russians are europeans , the yankees
are nor european .
If the yankees were the allies of the europeans , why they should need hundreds of
military occupation bases in Europe ? why they should impose on europeans self defeating
trade sanctions against Russia ? , strange " allies " .
@conatus
you are late conatus , the russians are building in Venezuela a factory of Kalasnikov rifles
, and Maduro is traing a militia of two million men , to help the army .
@conatusVenezuela has one of the highest murder rates in the world. I'm pretty sure there are still
lots of guns around. They're not using rocks to kill one another.
The U.S. military richly deserves to get itself trapped in a Gaza type situation of house
to house fighting in the favellas above Caracas.
@War
for Blair Mountain{If JFK were alive ..and POTUS in 2019 he would give the order to
overthrow the Maduro Goverment .}
JFK was alive way back then, when he gave the order to overthrow Castro and the result was
the Bay of Pigs disaster. And – for better or worse – Cubans are still running
their own country, not some foreign installed puppet.
'The order to overthrow Maduro' today would have the same disasterous end.
It should be obvious by now, that despite all the hardships, majority of Venezuelans don't
want a foreign installed puppet.
Carlson is right on Venezuela but was wrong on 911 truthers which he said back in September
2017, that 911 truthers were nuts! 911 which was done by Israel and the zionist controlled
deep state lead to the destruction of the mideast for Israel and the zionist NWO!
Trump is a Trojan horse under zionist control who had 5 draft deferments but now is the
zionists war lord sending Americans to fight and die in the mideast for Israel just like
obama and bush jr. , same bullshit different puppet!
America is Oceania , war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength and I would
add to what Orwell said, war in the zio/US is perpetual for our zionist overlords.
One more thing, if Venezuela did not have oil the zio/US would not give a damn about
it!
Imperialists always see themselves as spreading good things to people who will benefit from
them. And imperialists necessarily always dilute their own culture.
If the imperialist culture is already rootless cosmopolitan, it will see no downside to
the above. If the Elites of a culture have become cosmopolitans divorced from any meaningful
contact with their own people (i.e. those of their own blood and history), then they will
lead their people into ever more cultural pollution and perversion.
Jews are a people who fit the opening sentence of the preceding paragraph. The WASP Elites
fit the second sentence.
If "no one is more opposed to destructive regime-change wars than the Alt-Right", it means
that the Alt-Right are traditional conservatives, paleo-(as opposed to neo)conservatives.
Real conservatives have always opposed getting into foreign wars that posed no threat to the
U.S. They opposed Wilson lying us into WW1, Roosevelt lying us into WW2. When the
neo-conservatives (American Jews loyal to Israel) got Washington under their thumb, we
started our decades of disastrous regime-change wars based on lies, starting with the
invasion of Iraq. Those neocon mf ers are still in charge.
An Alt Right 2.0 concept that is compassionate with the damage done by US war and economic
exploitation against the poorest people of the world who are mostly brown people is an
interesting concept.
But I think it will ultimately fail, since so many of the white people who make up the Alt
Right are angry with minorities and see them as a lower race. And these white people are more
interested in playing the victim card anyways.
@A123
You speak truth and cite facts, these loons go bananas.
Thank God they have no real power.
Hopefully they don't even own a hamster . probably would make the little fella read Mien
Kempf.
Because a hamster reading is just as cogent and linear as their arguments.
They are frustrated they cannot find a way to blame the Jews! for Maduro being a greedy
murdering sweathog who lets zoo animals starve while he looks like animated male
cellulite.
Funny- in their prostrations to dictators ( these retards actually defend and admire
Jong-Un) they conveniently have omitted Putin is cutting Russia from the WWW- the
Internet.
They will have a Russia intranet.
Pointing out to the obtuse daily commenters that under the tyrants that practically
fellate- they would be arrested and tortured for their Unz hissy fits and word diarrhea
Nationwide radio talk show? Wow! What's the station name, number and air time?
If you listen to people with actual media shows, they don't call people TROLL just because
they have a different opinion. They don't engage in female hysterical ranting because someone
has a different idea about the mechanics of the world.
Who are your sponsors? I can't imagine you would not want the free publicity .
I agree, there is irony in labels, in trying to tell who is more disposed towards 'bloodshed
and destructive wars in which hundreds of thousands of people die'. Why do we fight? It is
for power. Power (manifested as interest) has been present in every conflict of the past
– no exception. It is the underlying motivation for war. Other cultural factors might
change, but not power. Interest cuts across all apparently unifying principles: family, kin,
nation, religion, ideology, politics – everything. We unite with the enemies of our
principles, because that is what serves our interest. It is power, not any of the above
concepts, that is the cause of war. And that is what is leading the world to nuclear
Armageddon. https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
@TKK
My sponsors are truth and America first. All Zionist hucksters are on my hit list. Again, I
suggest you and yours consider "making aliyah". https://www.nbn.org.il/
Number of Boots on the ground:
-- Syria -- Reduced vs. Obama, at most a few thousand
-- Iran -- ZERO
-- Venezuela -- Again ZERO
We will see in the future. Trump has to stir the pot. The foaming at the mouth media and his political opposition, in
both parties, need something to blather on about. Jus like rasslin'. Remember. The choice was between Trump and Clinton. Not Trump and Jesus.
@TKK
Oh, I see a point there, and it's an interesting one – openly Christian presidents
discredit their Christianity by engaging in non-righteous wars. After contemplating the
point, I don't think the foreign policy of W or Trump is anywhere close to being the primary
factor in the decline in church attendance. After all, the Catholic Church and other
denominations are mired in myriad sex scandals, the internet pulls people from God with
private depravity, science offers compelling hows if not whys, entertainment options abound,
and so on. Nonetheless, an orthodox and faithful Christian president committed to peace and
not fighting for oil or foreign interests would be a thing to behold. With caveats relating
to perceived sanity, that person would get my vote.
"The russians are not the ennemies of the europeans , the russians are europeans , the
yankees are nor european . "
These comments don't make any sense to me based on what I wrote. My comments have no
bearing on whether the Russians are an actual threat or not. I see them as competitors with
whom there are some places to come to some agreements. They doesn't mean I truth them.
Furthermore, my comments have no bearing on the territorial nature of Russian ethos.
That's not the point. Europeans have been at each other since there were Europeans. From the
Vikings and before to Serbia and Georgian conflicts. But none of that has anything to do with
my comments.
You might want to read them for what they do say as opposed to what you would like them to
say.
Jul 26, 2017 CIA director hints US is working to topple Venezuela's elected government
CIA Director Mike Pompeo indirectly admitted that the US is pushing for a new government
in Venezuela, in collaboration with Colombia and Mexico.
Feb 22, 2019 An Ocean of Lies on Venezuela: Abby Martin & UN Rapporteur Expose
Coup
On the eve of another US war for oil, Abby Martin debunks the most repeated myths about
Venezuela and uncovers how US sanctions are crimes against humanity with UN investigator and
human rights Rapporteur Alfred De Zayas.
"After all, the Catholic Church and other denominations are mired in myriad sex scandals . .
."
Not even to the tune of 4%, and I am being generous. The liberals have managed to make the
Church look a den of NAMBLA worshipers -- hardly. In the west the Churches are under pressure
from the same sex practitioners to reject scriptural teachings on the behavior, but elsewhere
around the world, Catholic institutions, such as in Africa -- reject the notion.
@TKK
Thanks. Ignoring mindless trolls is a necessary skill for the site.
____
Given the end of the Mueller exoneration, both Trump and Putin are looking to strengthen
ties. Thus it is:
-- Unlikely that Putin is heavily committed to helping Maduro. The numbers are too small
for that. Also, what would Putin do with Maduro? The last thing Putin needs is a spoiler to
the developing detente.
-- Much more likely the troops have a straightforward purpose. Brazilian
military/aerospace technology would jump ahead 20 years if they could grab an intact S-300
system. Russia doesn't want a competitor in that market, so they have a deep interest in
reclaiming or destroying S-300 equipment as Maduro goes down.
@EliteCommInc.
You are certainly right. I have no doubt that the vast majority of priests are good men
innocent of these charges, and that there are more public school sex scandals (by both raw
numbers and percentage) then similar Church scandals. The scandals do have public currency
and legs, though, and are one reason often cited as to why the pews are empty. I am at fault
for helping to keep this ruinous perception alive with my online rhetoric, and thank you for
pointing it out.
' It's the oil ' canard has always been the excuse cultivated for suckers, and boy
do suckers fall for it.
US oil companies have not received the big oil deals in countries where the US, at the
behest of "that shitty little country", have interfered militarily. However, Russia, China,
& to a limited degree, a few European companies have.
@PeterMX
Bibi's biggest enemy, his main prize, has always been Iran. He is afraid that, if Trump
refuses to do his bidding now, it may well be too late in an election year. One way or
another Bolton and Pompeo are going to convince their token boss to green light a massive
bombing campaign, especially if Iran attempts to shut down the Straits of Hormuz. It will
happen this year if Trump fails to come to his senses.
@Scalper
In the first place, your bizarre partisan rant is a little out of place. There aren't too
many QAnons here at Unz, and there are probably a fair number of regulars here who wouldn't
even identify as Republicans or 'conservatives' (whatever that term means today).
Secondly, some of your talking points aren't even accurate:
Trump administration will declare Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organisation,
increasing the animosity from Arab countries in the ME to unbelievable levels. This
includes non Arab country Turkey also, a traditional ally until neocon Trump took
power.
If Trump were truly to declare the Brotherhood to be a terrorist organization, a lot of
Arab rulers would actually thank him. You see, the Brotherhood is actually illegal in
most Arab countries today, precisely because it has a history of collaborating with foreign
intelligence services such as MI6, the CIA and Mossad. More recently, it was strongly
associated with failed régime-change projects in countries like Egypt and Syria; so
with a few exceptions (like Qatar), the Brotherhood is not well liked by Arab rulers.
Immigration restrictionism is a traditional pro working class, leftist policy.
Traditionally leftist? Sure up until the Hart-Celler Act of 1965! The sad fact is,
we don't an anti-immigration party in the US at all today. Neither the Republicans nor the
Democrats have any interest whatsoever in halting–or even just slowing
down–immigration.
@PeterMX
It's obvious that FOX is giving Tucker a lot of latitude. They continued to support him when
advertisers left, and when accusations of racism emerged from a radio interview he'd done
years ago with a shock jock. They dare not fire him as he has the largest and most fervent
base of supporters on cable news. But Tucker knows that there is one big issue, the Elephant
in the room, of which he dare not speak. It's that shitty little country calling the shots,
whose name begins with an I.
@Anonymous
I think there may be more alt-righters opposed to foreign wars and exploitative 'free' trade
treaties than you assume. Most of the alt-righters I know oppose the current régime's
"invade the world, invite the world" policies (to borrow a phrase from our own Steve Sailer).
But unlike the anti-imperialist left (with whom they often do ally), they usually argue
against such policies based on popular self-interest rather than abstract universal morality.
They usually choose to argue that being a mighty world empire has worked to the
detriment of the majority of people in America; that the whole thing is just a scam to
enrich and empower a small, corrupt élite.
what goes unremarked here and elsewhere is the ethnic composition of Venezuela. From a few
searches, Whites are only about one-third of V.
The Tipping Point for chaos is clear. Brazil is half White, Argentina is near 100 % White,
ditto Chile.
(Argentina ca. 1900 exterminated a large number its "Indigenous." )
The most stable of Latin America is Costa Rica, which is apparently about three quarters
White.
Meanwhile the jewyorktimes reports the narco-traffickers in the Maduro administration.
Hopeless. Any Brown or Black Country is doomed. Brazil works cuz Whites know how to
control the 45% mulattos and 5 % Blacks. For now anyway. Mexico is a narco-state with the
only 9% Whites able to control the half breeds and Indigenous thru co-option. Wait for Mexico
to blow up.
The funny thing is, the Alt-Right or the 2.0 movement is united to a man on opposing the
Trump administration's military interventions in Syria, Iran and Venezuela, but has failed
at articulating its own ardent opposition to imperialism and its commitment to humanity and
international peace. No one in American politics is more opposed to destructive regime
change wars.
That's an amazing point. I'm not sure what "Alt-Right" or "2.0 movement" really means in the current
shills-vs-people wars but all the best and the brightest in our ranks are clearly against the
globalists.
@Avery
The Deep state/CIA did the Bay of Pigs. JFK was not informed about it before it happened. JFK
was fighting the CIA and deep state throughout his presidency. He wanted to shatter the CIA
into a million pieces. Read "JFK and the Unspeakable" by James W. Douglass. His peace speech
on June 10, 1963 was too much for our deep state. That speech was the biggest triggers that
set the motion for his assassination.
Whatever anyone thinks about the Alt-Right it did expose a lot of things about our current
era, our history, our politics, and power paradigms that once seen can not be unseen.
And what are you going to do about it? What can anyone really do, honestly?
Not too much at least in America. Eastern Europe still has a good chance.
In America, the trajectory and machinations of power have been set for a long time and
revolutionary romanticism tends to work better for the Left than the Right. A quick look at
the data easily reveals this.
So what do you do when you realize how so much of everything that's presented as real and
true isn't real or true? And there are so many truly bad human beings with major power over
our culture, politics, and society?
Well, when has that not been the case in human history? At some point, acknowledging all
the black pills is sort of like accepting your human limits, your finitude, your genetics,
the unanswered mysteries of existence, the nothingness of Earth in the grand scheme, and just
basic gravity.
You could become a courageous online revolutionary and eventually trigger some unstable
person to get things shut down and deplatformed.
Or you could organize with socially and psychologically healthy and mature adults who try
to prioritize attainable and realistic goals and gain some moralizing victories that can
buffer against the demoralizing defeats.
Luckily, out of the winter of our discontent have emerged many healthy tendrils of new
growth.
@Republic
Tucker's viewpoints are those of the unbought wing of the conservative movement. Those, led
by the likes of Pat Buchanan, who question our slavish alegiance to that Satanic/anti Christ
creation in Palestine. They won't put it in those terms, but I do. (Wry grin)
"... That report is going to be a bombshell. It is going to open up the investigation on a very high note, and there are going to be criminal referrals in it. ..."
"... The FISA court abuse is the center of this entire abuse of governmental power, and the chief judge in that court has already ruled that the FBI broke the law and that the people at the head of the justice department, Sally Yates, John Carlin, the assistant attorney general for national security all knew about it and lied to the FISA court about it... ..."
"... He [Rogers] discovered the illegal spying. He went personally to the FISA court and briefed the Chief Judge and worked with her for months to uncover the people who did it. The FISA court has already told the Justice Department who lied to that court and that has been given to [Attorney General] Bill Barr already. ..."
It is about the rule of law and privacy. The Obama administration for more than four years
before the 2016 election allowed four contractors working for the FBI to illegally surveil
American citizens -- illegally. The FISA court has already found that. There is the Horowitz
report coming out in May or possibly early June. There's another report that everyone has
forgotten about involving James Comey alone. That will be out in two weeks. That report is
going to be a bombshell. It is going to open up the investigation on a very high note, and
there are going to be criminal referrals in it.
The FISA court abuse is the center of this entire abuse of governmental power, and the chief
judge in that court has already ruled that the FBI broke the law and that the people at the
head of the justice department, Sally Yates, John Carlin, the assistant attorney general for
national security all knew about it and lied to the FISA court about it...
There's a hero in this story and it is not a lawyer. There is a hero. His name is Admiral
Mike Rogers. He was the head of the National Security Agency.
He [Rogers] discovered the illegal spying. He went personally to the FISA court and briefed
the Chief Judge and worked with her for months to uncover the people who did it. The FISA court
has already told the Justice Department who lied to that court and that has been given to
[Attorney General] Bill Barr already.
"... Will the overthrow of disputed President Nicolas Maduro make Venezuela a more stable and prosperous country? More to the point, would it be good for the United States? Lots of people claim to know the answer to that, but they don't. They have no idea. If recent history is any guide, nothing will turn out as expected. Few things ever do. ..."
"... Are we prepared for the refugees a Venezuelan war would inevitably produce? A study by the Brookings Institution found that the collapse of the Venezuelan government could force eight million people to leave the country. Many of them would come here. Lawmakers in this country propose giving them temporary protected status that would let even illegal arrivals live and work here, in effect, permanently, as many have before, with no fear of deportation. Are we prepared for that? ..."
TUCKER CARLSON: There is much we don't know about the situation in Venezuela. What we do
know is that Venezuela's current government has done a poor job of providing for its own
people. Venezuela has the world's largest oil reserves, yet it remains one of the most
impoverished and the most dangerous places on the planet. That is beyond dispute.
Everything else is up for debate. Will the overthrow of disputed President Nicolas Maduro
make Venezuela a more stable and prosperous country? More to the point, would it be good for
the United States? Lots of people claim to know the answer to that, but they don't. They have
no idea. If recent history is any guide, nothing will turn out as expected. Few things ever
do.
But that has not stopped the geniuses in Washington. It has not even slowed them down. On
Tuesday afternoon, on a bipartisan basis, they agreed that the United States ought to jump
immediately, face-first, into the Venezuelan mess. When asked whether U.S. presence in
Venezuela would make any difference, Sen. Rick Scott of Florida told Neil Cavuto the following:
"Absolutely. I was down at the Venezuelan border last Wednesday. This is just pure genocide.
Maduro is killing his own citizens."
When asked whether Venezuela was worth risking American troops' lives, Scott said, "Here is
what is going to happen. We are in the process, if we don't win today, we are going to have
Syria in this hemisphere. So, we can make sure something happens now, or we can deal with this
for decades to come. If we care about families, if we care about the human race, if we care
about fellow worldwide citizens, then we've got to step up and stop this genocide."
All right, I just want to make sure that it is clear. If you care about families and you
care about the human race -- if you want to stop genocide -- you will send your children to
Venezuela to fight right now, without even thinking about it, without even weighing the
consequences. You will just do it. Assuming you are a good person, of course.
If you don't care about families or the human race -- if for some reason you despise human
happiness and support genocide -- then you will want to join Satan's team and embrace
isolationism, the single most immoral of all worldviews. That is what they're telling you. That
is what they are demanding you believe.
Message received. We've heard it before. But before the bombers take off, let's just answer
a few quick questions, starting with the most obvious: When was the last time we successfully
meddled in the political life of another country? Has it ever worked? How are the democracies
we set up in Iraq, in Libya, in Syria, and Afghanistan right now? How would Venezuela be
different? Please explain -- and take your time.
Are we prepared for the refugees a Venezuelan war would inevitably produce? A study by the
Brookings Institution found that the collapse of the Venezuelan government could force eight
million people to leave the country. Many of them would come here. Lawmakers in this country
propose giving them temporary protected status that would let even illegal arrivals live and
work here, in effect, permanently, as many have before, with no fear of deportation. Are we
prepared for that?
Are we prepared to absorb millions of new Venezuelan migrants? All of them great people, no
question, But many would have little education or skills or would not speak English.
Finally, how, exactly, is any of this good for the United States? Our sanctions on Venezuela
have already spiked our gas prices. That hurts our struggling middle class more than virtually
anything we could do. So what's is the point of doing that? So our lawmakers can feel like good
people?
And if they are, indeed, good people, why do they care more about Venezuela than they care
about this country, the one that they run? They are happy to send our military to South America
at the first sign of chaos. But send U.S. troops to our own border to stem the tide of a
hundred thousand uninvited arrivals a month? "No way," they tell us. "That is crazy talk!"
Careful, you don't facilitate this power by self-censorship.
Just as people who own guns don't want their rights restricted by someone who gets a crazy notion, people who value the truth
don't want their right to express it restricted either by same person with a crazy notion.
span y davidgmillsatty on Mon, 04/29/2019 - 7:26pm
@lotlizard
Well being a hippie myself and a staunchly anti-war advocate since the late sixties, I could
finesse this and say that I got my skepticism from that era. However, truth be told it was 35
years of practicing law and all the skepticism a law practice engenders that makes me have this
opinion.
Years ago I was determined to be an educated voter, only to discover that no one wants
voters to know the truth.
When it comes to matters of war, the government just does not want you to know. Period. No
matter how diligent you are, the government has no intention of letting the citizens know what
is going on about matters of war. And it is pretty much the same about anything that is
important.
Lawyers are privy to a lot more government information than other citizens. And I was always
frustrated trying to figure out what the government was up to.
So I think it is an exercise in self delusion when people think they can become educated
voters or citizens. It is not happening.
Direct Democracy, like Term Limits, assumes that politics is easy and anyone can do it
without training, which is not true of lawyers, doctors, teachers, soldiers, salesmen,
mechanics, even screw machine operators. Some things are easier to learn than others. Some
take innate talent.
One of the demands of XR (extinction rebellion) are citizen assemblies.
The system is no longer functional...bought and paid for by the very corporations
which threaten our ecosystem and promote (nuclear) war. We have to do an end around. What
if we just started citizen councils? If nothing else than to combat the mass distortion
and misinformation and begin a demand for change. XR sure did well last week. https://rebellion.earth/2019/04/25/update-7-to-parliament-and-beyond/
I find myself on the other side of the river from the main stream flow...so real democracy
isn't real for me. In other words people are brainwashed and don't make good decisions.
People don't have assess to accurate information and don't reach rational conclusions.
However I don't see our system capable of dealing with the emergency. If survival is an
option, we will be forced to act without and beyond the government IMO.
As to direct democracy...I saw through WMD and russiagate....took me a while to recognize
the the Obummer con. Awoke me with the peace prize speech arguing war is peace. Most people
want M4all, $15/hr, get out of war, etc. I think we would vote for those things if that was
an option instead of R or D? Now getting there is the rub.
#4
grabbing the wheel of a car careening out of control?
Direct Democracy, like Term Limits, assumes that politics is easy and anyone can do it
without training, which is not true of lawyers, doctors, teachers, soldiers, salesmen,
mechanics, even screw machine operators. Some things are easier to learn than others.
Some take innate talent.
span y The Voice In th... on Sun, 04/28/2019 - 8:38pm
I find myself on the other side of the river from the main stream flow...so real
democracy isn't real for me. In other words people are brainwashed and don't make good
decisions. People don't have assess to accurate information and don't reach rational
conclusions. However I don't see our system capable of dealing with the emergency. If
survival is an option, we will be forced to act without and beyond the government
IMO.
As to direct democracy...I saw through WMD and russiagate....took me a while to
recognize the the Obummer con. Awoke me with the peace prize speech arguing war is peace.
Most people want M4all, $15/hr, get out of war, etc. I think we would vote for those
things if that was an option instead of R or D? Now getting there is the rub.
It was established to protect the non-majority, too, and to give the non-majority a voice
in what was going on.
Small or non-populous states would have no voice at all had the system been direct.
And I am glad, even with today's gridlock, that this exists. I don't want a direct
democracy given the mob-like people who have no knowledge of concepts like due process,
innocent until proven guilty, habeas corpus, or notions related to corruption of the blood
and guilt by association.
We have already had two great examples (Kavanaugh, Trump)of how horribly the mob would
rule, had they enough power. We already know how the mob would suppress freedom of speech,
now that states are having to pass laws forcing universities to allow conservative
speakers.
#4
grabbing the wheel of a car careening out of control?
Direct Democracy, like Term Limits, assumes that politics is easy and anyone can do it
without training, which is not true of lawyers, doctors, teachers, soldiers, salesmen,
mechanics, even screw machine operators. Some things are easier to learn than others.
Some take innate talent.
Whether a system is bicameral (as in two houses of Congress) or unicameral (one house)
doesn't seem to me to be the issue when the discussion is about direct democracy versus
representative democracy. If we have direct democracy, we need zero houses.
Claiming the minority have no voice at all in a popular vote is untrue. One person, one
vote. Everyone has exactly the same amount of "voice" in a popular vote, whether they live in
a sparsely-populated state or a populous states. Unpopular views , however, do get
voted down, but not states and not people.
Absent unanimity, which is a pipe dream, rule by a majority of the people is the fairest,
even if extraordinary majorities are sometimes required.
As long as allegedly elected alleged representatives to govern us, the golden rule will
not change: He, she or it with most of the gold will make all of the rules for the rest of
us. A few wealthy people decide everything, thanks to our bought and paid for legislators;
and a vast majority of Americans have no say at all. That is the reality and it sucks
scissors. Anything that gives a tiny minority of people power over the vast majority of the
people is not democracy or fair or anything good.
Moreover, a state is a political unit, best known to most of us as some lines within a map
of the United States. I am fine with people in both heavily-populated states and sparsely-
populated states having 100% of political power, and lines on a map having zero political
power. However, less populous states do have power, no matter what. States have the power in
the electoral college (just ask Hillary, the popular vote President) and in ratification of
Constitutional amendments. IMO, that is more than enough power for lines on a map.
I don't give a rat's tail how the wealthy Framers felt about it in 1789. (In those days,
it was the slave states with their huge plantations that were the more sparsely-populated
ones. Gee, I wonder why they feared the popular vote, what with John Adams and other
Northerners recommending that the new nation be founded without slavery.)
As far you, me, Caucus99percenters and the rest of our fellow citizens being "the mob,
James Madison, is that you? You and your fellow citizens are a mob? As opposed to what? The
corrupt, deceitful war mongers in BOTH houses of Congress who sell their souls-- and
ours --to the very rich? I'd love to know why that out-of- touch, pampered, corrupt
crappy, soul-less lot should have more power over our lives and the lives of our kids and
grandkids than we and our fellow citizens do.
#4.2 the reason the
founding fathers established a bi-cameral legislature.
It was established to protect the non-majority, too, and to give the non-majority a
voice in what was going on.
Small or non-populous states would have no voice at all had the system been
direct.
And I am glad, even with today's gridlock, that this exists. I don't want a direct
democracy given the mob-like people who have no knowledge of concepts like due process,
innocent until proven guilty, habeas corpus, or notions related to corruption of the
blood and guilt by association.
We have already had two great examples (Kavanaugh, Trump)of how horribly the mob would
rule, had they enough power. We already know how the mob would suppress freedom of
speech, now that states are having to pass laws forcing universities to allow
conservative speakers.
@HenryAWallace
As you probably know, the house was set up to be representative by population. The senate was
set up to have 2 senators.
You've never heard the concept of tyranny of the majority?
You fault our past, bringing up the usual slavery issue. Do you forget that it was our
system that finally gave full rights to blacks, that the US finally passed laws against
various isms? Do you forget that it was our system that gave women the right to vote? Do you
forget that our system allowed for the passage of laws to protect various classes of people?
Do you realize that most of these changes came without ruinous violence (compared to the rest
of the world), and most of the time, issues get talked about and resolved via elections? You
lose, you live with the consequences until you win.
Frankly, I can do without the constant violent changes in governments and constant warring
among peoples. Do you wish to be like the Tutsis and Hutu? Or the Serbs and Bosnia? What
about the Sunnis and Shiites?
There is a reason that the US does not have similar murderous uprisings between whatever
groupings of people that might exist. It is because our political system flexes and it is
designed to flex.
Currently, I have no doubt that a huge group of democrats would imprison people based on
speech, wearing a MAGA hat, religion, and baseless evidence-free accusations if they had the
power to do so, or that they would try to overthrow elected officials on a whim. Our current
system has held, for now, against these types of actions.
People are unhappy with the electoral college. Good luck trying to pass a constitutional
amendment that does away with it; certainly the smaller and mid-size states would never pass
such an amendment, and there are probably blue states that wouldn't like the idea of being
run by California and New York.
Whether a system is bicameral (as in two houses of Congress) or unicameral (one house)
doesn't seem to me to be the issue when the discussion is about direct democracy versus
representative democracy. If we have direct democracy, we need zero houses.
Claiming the minority have no voice at all in a popular vote is untrue. One person,
one vote. Everyone has exactly the same amount of "voice" in a popular vote, whether they
live in a sparsely-populated state or a populous states. Unpopular views ,
however, do get voted down, but not states and not people.
Absent unanimity, which is a pipe dream, rule by a majority of the people is the
fairest, even if extraordinary majorities are sometimes required.
As long as allegedly elected alleged representatives to govern us, the golden rule
will not change: He, she or it with most of the gold will make all of the rules for the
rest of us. A few wealthy people decide everything, thanks to our bought and paid for
legislators; and a vast majority of Americans have no say at all. That is the reality and
it sucks scissors. Anything that gives a tiny minority of people power over the vast
majority of the people is not democracy or fair or anything good.
Moreover, a state is a political unit, best known to most of us as some lines within a
map of the United States. I am fine with people in both heavily-populated states and
sparsely- populated states having 100% of political power, and lines on a map having zero
political power. However, less populous states do have power, no matter what. States have
the power in the electoral college (just ask Hillary, the popular vote President) and in
ratification of Constitutional amendments. IMO, that is more than enough power for lines
on a map.
I don't give a rat's tail how the wealthy Framers felt about it in 1789. (In those
days, it was the slave states with their huge plantations that were the more
sparsely-populated ones. Gee, I wonder why they feared the popular vote, what with John
Adams and other Northerners recommending that the new nation be founded without
slavery.)
As far you, me, Caucus99percenters and the rest of our fellow citizens being "the
mob,
James Madison, is that you? You and your fellow citizens are a mob? As opposed to what?
The corrupt, deceitful war mongers in BOTH houses of Congress who sell their souls--
and ours --to the very rich? I'd love to know why that out-of- touch, pampered,
corrupt crappy, soul-less lot should have more power over our lives and the lives of our
kids and grandkids than we and our fellow citizens do.
As you probably know, the house was set up to be representative by population. The
senate was set up to have 2 senators.
Of course. Everyone knows that. My point was that unicameral vs. bicameral is not the
issue when discussing direct democracy vs. representative democracy. In a direct democracy,
no houses are necessary. In a representative democracy, you can have an infinite number of
houses or only one.
You've never heard the concept of tyranny of the majority?
Yes, of course. Mostly from rightists, though. I've also heard of the tyranny of the
minority.
You fault our past,
Actually, that not what I did.
bringing up the usual slavery issue.
The "usual slavery issue?" That seems unduly dismissive. In any event, I referenced the
colonies whose economies involved slaves, not out of the blue, but because they were directly
relevant to the reason the Framers gave sparsely-populated states undue power.
Do you forget that it was our system that finally gave full rights to blacks, that the
US finally passed laws against various isms? Do you forget that it was our system that gave
women the right to vote? Do you forget that our system allowed for the passage of laws to
protect various classes of people? Do you realize that most of these changes came without
ruinous violence (compared to the rest of the world), and most of the time, issues get
talked about and resolved via elections? You lose, you live with the consequences until you
win.
Frankly, I can do without the constant violent changes in governments and constant
warring among peoples. Do you wish to be like the Tutsis and Hutu? Or the Serbs and Bosnia?
What about the Sunnis and Shiites?
And, in your estimation, these things happened because a minority of people was allowed a
veto over the majority of people Because states, lines on a map, were given power over
people? If so, I strongly disagree. If anything, allowing minority rule delayed many positive
changes. If that is not the reason you're bringing up these historical events, I am not
understanding why you are bringing them up. And, btw, many nations effect change without
either violence or giving undue power to lines on a map.
There is a reason that the US does not have similar murderous uprisings between whatever
groupings of people that might exist. It is because our political system flexes and it is
designed to flex.
I think you are vastly oversimplifying the reasons for uprisings, which are often against
murderous, tyrannical regimes. Second, again, it's not allowing the minority to override the
majority that makes our system either fair or flexible.
People are unhappy with the electoral college. Good luck trying to pass a constitutional
amendment that does away with it. Good luck trying to pass any constitutional amendment.
However, my prior post said nothing about abolishing it. I simply cited it as one example
of states--political units, lines on a map--getting to override the will of a majority of
human Americans.
#4.2.2.1 As you
probably know, the house was set up to be representative by population. The senate was
set up to have 2 senators.
You've never heard the concept of tyranny of the majority?
You fault our past, bringing up the usual slavery issue. Do you forget that it was our
system that finally gave full rights to blacks, that the US finally passed laws against
various isms? Do you forget that it was our system that gave women the right to vote? Do
you forget that our system allowed for the passage of laws to protect various classes of
people? Do you realize that most of these changes came without ruinous violence (compared
to the rest of the world), and most of the time, issues get talked about and resolved via
elections? You lose, you live with the consequences until you win.
Frankly, I can do without the constant violent changes in governments and constant
warring among peoples. Do you wish to be like the Tutsis and Hutu? Or the Serbs and
Bosnia? What about the Sunnis and Shiites?
There is a reason that the US does not have similar murderous uprisings between
whatever groupings of people that might exist. It is because our political system flexes
and it is designed to flex.
Currently, I have no doubt that a huge group of democrats would imprison people based
on speech, wearing a MAGA hat, religion, and baseless evidence-free accusations if they
had the power to do so, or that they would try to overthrow elected officials on a whim.
Our current system has held, for now, against these types of actions.
People are unhappy with the electoral college. Good luck trying to pass a
constitutional amendment that does away with it; certainly the smaller and mid-size
states would never pass such an amendment, and there are probably blue states that
wouldn't like the idea of being run by California and New York.
Democracy in America was written in the mid 1800's.
Why am I dismissive toward people who knock the constitution vis-à-vis slavery and
bigotry issues? Because slavery and bigotry have been around forever, amongst numerous
peoples, yet our system allowed for its correction and continuous improvement. There are
still countries where religious and racial bigotry are the norm (Israel, China anyone?).
Instead, the US has ultimately decided against isms, as evidenced by regulations and Supreme
Court decisions.
"And, in your estimation, these things happened because a minority of people was allowed a
veto over the majority of people Because states, lines on a map, were given power over
people?"
I have no idea where you reached that conclusion. People won a war of ideas and effected
change.
I just find it amusing the number of people who knock a system without even understanding
how or why it arose, talking like it was a horror from which all must be destroyed. The fact
is, our system adjusted, and continues to adjust, to the needs and wants of its people. And
the changes are being done with pens, not violence.
I suppose a member of one of the many aggrieved groups could have acted violently
throughout the US instead of waiting for cases to wind through courts and waiting for
legislation to pass. I guess MLK could have taken up arms and shot as many whites as
possible. I guess women could have taken up arms and killed whole legislative bodies. Maybe
gays should have bombed all of the capitols in the US instead of pushing for legislation.
As you probably know, the house was set up to be representative by population. The
senate was set up to have 2 senators.
Of course. Everyone knows that. My point was that unicameral vs. bicameral is not the
issue when discussing direct democracy vs. representative democracy. In a direct
democracy, no houses are necessary. In a representative democracy, you can have an
infinite number of houses or only one.
You've never heard the concept of tyranny of the majority?
Yes, of course. Mostly from rightists, though. I've also heard of the tyranny of the
minority.
You fault our past,
Actually, that not what I did.
bringing up the usual slavery issue.
The "usual slavery issue?" That seems unduly dismissive. In any event, I referenced
the colonies whose economies involved slaves, not out of the blue, but because they were
directly relevant to the reason the Framers gave sparsely-populated states undue
power.
Do you forget that it was our system that finally gave full rights to blacks, that
the US finally passed laws against various isms? Do you forget that it was our system
that gave women the right to vote? Do you forget that our system allowed for the
passage of laws to protect various classes of people? Do you realize that most of these
changes came without ruinous violence (compared to the rest of the world), and most of
the time, issues get talked about and resolved via elections? You lose, you live with
the consequences until you win.
Frankly, I can do without the constant violent changes in governments and constant
warring among peoples. Do you wish to be like the Tutsis and Hutu? Or the Serbs and
Bosnia? What about the Sunnis and Shiites?
And, in your estimation, these things happened because a minority of people was
allowed a veto over the majority of people Because states, lines on a map, were given
power over people? If so, I strongly disagree. If anything, allowing minority rule
delayed many positive changes. If that is not the reason you're bringing up these
historical events, I am not understanding why you are bringing them up. And, btw, many
nations effect change without either violence or giving undue power to lines on a
map.
There is a reason that the US does not have similar murderous uprisings between
whatever groupings of people that might exist. It is because our political system
flexes and it is designed to flex.
I think you are vastly oversimplifying the reasons for uprisings, which are often
against murderous, tyrannical regimes. Second, again, it's not allowing the minority to
override the majority that makes our system either fair or flexible.
People are unhappy with the electoral college. Good luck trying to pass a
constitutional amendment that does away with it. Good luck trying to pass any
constitutional amendment. However, my prior post said nothing about abolishing it. I
simply cited it as one example of states--political units, lines on a map--getting to
override the will of a majority of human Americans.
@dfarrah
y
some people have just difficulties to accept majorities. But imho majorities elected in a
direct democratic vote are the most honest representation of what the population wants. I am
rather abused by a majority than by a minority. At least it deson't make sense to me why I
would accept a minority to enforce their will over a majority.
#4.2.2.1 As you
probably know, the house was set up to be representative by population. The senate was
set up to have 2 senators.
You've never heard the concept of tyranny of the majority?
You fault our past, bringing up the usual slavery issue. Do you forget that it was our
system that finally gave full rights to blacks, that the US finally passed laws against
various isms? Do you forget that it was our system that gave women the right to vote? Do
you forget that our system allowed for the passage of laws to protect various classes of
people? Do you realize that most of these changes came without ruinous violence (compared
to the rest of the world), and most of the time, issues get talked about and resolved via
elections? You lose, you live with the consequences until you win.
Frankly, I can do without the constant violent changes in governments and constant
warring among peoples. Do you wish to be like the Tutsis and Hutu? Or the Serbs and
Bosnia? What about the Sunnis and Shiites?
There is a reason that the US does not have similar murderous uprisings between
whatever groupings of people that might exist. It is because our political system flexes
and it is designed to flex.
Currently, I have no doubt that a huge group of democrats would imprison people based
on speech, wearing a MAGA hat, religion, and baseless evidence-free accusations if they
had the power to do so, or that they would try to overthrow elected officials on a whim.
Our current system has held, for now, against these types of actions.
People are unhappy with the electoral college. Good luck trying to pass a
constitutional amendment that does away with it; certainly the smaller and mid-size
states would never pass such an amendment, and there are probably blue states that
wouldn't like the idea of being run by California and New York.
@HenryAWallace
I am as mystified as anyone else why we keep electing people who support the mess you
described.
IMO, the choices are culled at local levels, so the locals in power, supported by the
rich, need to be overpowered.
Mobs to me means the women who were banging on the SC door, the people who have been
mobbing repubs at dinner/movies at Maxine Waters' (Booker's, Holder's)behest, people who
attack people for wearing Maga hats, people who have been mobbing conservative speakers at
universities and at tables promoting conservatives or Trump.
It is astounding to me that my side has behaved so badly and irrationally.
Whether a system is bicameral (as in two houses of Congress) or unicameral (one house)
doesn't seem to me to be the issue when the discussion is about direct democracy versus
representative democracy. If we have direct democracy, we need zero houses.
Claiming the minority have no voice at all in a popular vote is untrue. One person,
one vote. Everyone has exactly the same amount of "voice" in a popular vote, whether they
live in a sparsely-populated state or a populous states. Unpopular views ,
however, do get voted down, but not states and not people.
Absent unanimity, which is a pipe dream, rule by a majority of the people is the
fairest, even if extraordinary majorities are sometimes required.
As long as allegedly elected alleged representatives to govern us, the golden rule
will not change: He, she or it with most of the gold will make all of the rules for the
rest of us. A few wealthy people decide everything, thanks to our bought and paid for
legislators; and a vast majority of Americans have no say at all. That is the reality and
it sucks scissors. Anything that gives a tiny minority of people power over the vast
majority of the people is not democracy or fair or anything good.
Moreover, a state is a political unit, best known to most of us as some lines within a
map of the United States. I am fine with people in both heavily-populated states and
sparsely- populated states having 100% of political power, and lines on a map having zero
political power. However, less populous states do have power, no matter what. States have
the power in the electoral college (just ask Hillary, the popular vote President) and in
ratification of Constitutional amendments. IMO, that is more than enough power for lines
on a map.
I don't give a rat's tail how the wealthy Framers felt about it in 1789. (In those
days, it was the slave states with their huge plantations that were the more
sparsely-populated ones. Gee, I wonder why they feared the popular vote, what with John
Adams and other Northerners recommending that the new nation be founded without
slavery.)
As far you, me, Caucus99percenters and the rest of our fellow citizens being "the
mob,
James Madison, is that you? You and your fellow citizens are a mob? As opposed to what?
The corrupt, deceitful war mongers in BOTH houses of Congress who sell their souls--
and ours --to the very rich? I'd love to know why that out-of- touch, pampered,
corrupt crappy, soul-less lot should have more power over our lives and the lives of our
kids and grandkids than we and our fellow citizens do.
I am as mystified as anyone else why we keep electing people who support the mess you
described.
Because the rich have always had power here, from the East India Company and George III
and his colonial governors to the Koch brothers and Soros.
IMO, the choices are culled at local levels, so the locals in power, supported by the
rich, need to be overpowered.
Of course they do. But, the system is rigged in their favor and always has been.
Mobs to me means the women who were banging on the SC door, the people who have been
mobbing repubs at dinner/movies at Maxine Waters' (Booker's, Holder's)behest, people who
attack people for wearing Maga hats, people who have been mobbing conservative speakers at
universities and at tables promoting conservatives or Trump.
That is not how your prior post read. However, of course, some unruly activity exists in
the US and elsewhere that is not extremely despotic. But, in a population of about 300
million, they people whom you describe constitute a miniscule minority. Your point in your
prior post, however, seemed to be that direct democracy as a form of government-all citizens
voting on matters like war, taxes, etc. would be mob rule. And my response was that I'd
rather be governed by a majority of my fellow citizen than by "our" corrupt, deceitful,
insulated, etc. selected (sic) unrepresentatives (sic).
#4.2.2.1 I am as
mystified as anyone else why we keep electing people who support the mess you
described.
IMO, the choices are culled at local levels, so the locals in power, supported by the
rich, need to be overpowered.
Mobs to me means the women who were banging on the SC door, the people who have been
mobbing repubs at dinner/movies at Maxine Waters' (Booker's, Holder's)behest, people who
attack people for wearing Maga hats, people who have been mobbing conservative speakers
at universities and at tables promoting conservatives or Trump.
It is astounding to me that my side has behaved so badly and irrationally.
span y The Voice In th... on Sun, 04/28/2019 - 8:53pm
@HenryAWallace
Sometimes the many seize power. But they always lose it because they don't know how to hold
it because they are not power drunk fanatics. The rich, the ultra-rich are psychotics that
need to have more so that someone else has less. To the ordinary man having lots of money
means spending it on pleasurable things. To the rich it means power and ego-enhancment. What
sane man wouldn't be content with having a billion dollars and not be consumed with envy
because a dozen or so men in the world have more. Who wouldn't enjoy life and have fun and
help others? But just look at the world's richest men. They spend long hours consumed with
envy that there is someone who has more, to become the first trillionaire. Truly obsessive
sickness to cause misery and poverty to the men and women working for you just to add some
meaningless zeros to your net worth. Net "worth", I hate that phrase. Gandhi and Mother
Teresa had more worth than these sick deranged people.
I am as mystified as anyone else why we keep electing people who support the mess
you described.
Because the rich have always had power here, from the East India Company and George
III and his colonial governors to the Koch brothers and Soros.
IMO, the choices are culled at local levels, so the locals in power, supported by
the rich, need to be overpowered.
Of course they do. But, the system is rigged in their favor and always has been.
Mobs to me means the women who were banging on the SC door, the people who have been
mobbing repubs at dinner/movies at Maxine Waters' (Booker's, Holder's)behest, people
who attack people for wearing Maga hats, people who have been mobbing conservative
speakers at universities and at tables promoting conservatives or Trump.
That is not how your prior post read. However, of course, some unruly activity exists
in the US and elsewhere that is not extremely despotic. But, in a population of about 300
million, they people whom you describe constitute a miniscule minority. Your point in
your prior post, however, seemed to be that direct democracy as a form of government-all
citizens voting on matters like war, taxes, etc. would be mob rule. And my response was
that I'd rather be governed by a majority of my fellow citizen than by "our" corrupt,
deceitful, insulated, etc. selected (sic) unrepresentatives (sic).
If you don't agree with them, why refer to them as "my side?"
#4.2.2.1 I am as
mystified as anyone else why we keep electing people who support the mess you
described.
IMO, the choices are culled at local levels, so the locals in power, supported by the
rich, need to be overpowered.
Mobs to me means the women who were banging on the SC door, the people who have been
mobbing repubs at dinner/movies at Maxine Waters' (Booker's, Holder's)behest, people who
attack people for wearing Maga hats, people who have been mobbing conservative speakers
at universities and at tables promoting conservatives or Trump.
It is astounding to me that my side has behaved so badly and irrationally.
span y The Voice In th... on Sun, 04/28/2019 - 8:56pm
Whether a system is bicameral (as in two houses of Congress) or unicameral (one house)
doesn't seem to me to be the issue when the discussion is about direct democracy versus
representative democracy. If we have direct democracy, we need zero houses.
Claiming the minority have no voice at all in a popular vote is untrue. One person,
one vote. Everyone has exactly the same amount of "voice" in a popular vote, whether they
live in a sparsely-populated state or a populous states. Unpopular views ,
however, do get voted down, but not states and not people.
Absent unanimity, which is a pipe dream, rule by a majority of the people is the
fairest, even if extraordinary majorities are sometimes required.
As long as allegedly elected alleged representatives to govern us, the golden rule
will not change: He, she or it with most of the gold will make all of the rules for the
rest of us. A few wealthy people decide everything, thanks to our bought and paid for
legislators; and a vast majority of Americans have no say at all. That is the reality and
it sucks scissors. Anything that gives a tiny minority of people power over the vast
majority of the people is not democracy or fair or anything good.
Moreover, a state is a political unit, best known to most of us as some lines within a
map of the United States. I am fine with people in both heavily-populated states and
sparsely- populated states having 100% of political power, and lines on a map having zero
political power. However, less populous states do have power, no matter what. States have
the power in the electoral college (just ask Hillary, the popular vote President) and in
ratification of Constitutional amendments. IMO, that is more than enough power for lines
on a map.
I don't give a rat's tail how the wealthy Framers felt about it in 1789. (In those
days, it was the slave states with their huge plantations that were the more
sparsely-populated ones. Gee, I wonder why they feared the popular vote, what with John
Adams and other Northerners recommending that the new nation be founded without
slavery.)
As far you, me, Caucus99percenters and the rest of our fellow citizens being "the
mob,
James Madison, is that you? You and your fellow citizens are a mob? As opposed to what?
The corrupt, deceitful war mongers in BOTH houses of Congress who sell their souls--
and ours --to the very rich? I'd love to know why that out-of- touch, pampered,
corrupt crappy, soul-less lot should have more power over our lives and the lives of our
kids and grandkids than we and our fellow citizens do.
have the means to change, using "means" to encompass the funding and other things. The
Constitution and everything that preceded and followed it was geared to the group we now
refer to as the elites. And they've had literally centuries and billions of dollars over that
time to insulate themselves from us.
One of the demands of XR (extinction rebellion) are citizen assemblies.
The system is no longer functional...bought and paid for by the very corporations
which threaten our ecosystem and promote (nuclear) war. We have to do an end around. What
if we just started citizen councils? If nothing else than to combat the mass distortion
and misinformation and begin a demand for change. XR sure did well last week. https://rebellion.earth/2019/04/25/update-7-to-parliament-and-beyond/
have the means to change, using "means" to encompass the funding and other things. The
Constitution and everything that preceded and followed it was geared to the group we now
refer to as the elites. And they've had literally centuries and billions of dollars over
that time to insulate themselves from us.
We liberals and progressives have to shoulder at least some of the blame for this. To
ensure our progeny experienced few bumps in life, we cocooned them in classrooms where
learning was secondary to political correctness, we let them participate in sports where
nobody loses, and we downgraded working hard for your grades to a system of grading everyone
high on the curve.
I'm embarrassed by the ignorance of our successor generations regarding simple math
(making change without a cash register telling them what to do), basic grammar and spelling
skills, and fundamental knowledge of history.
We failed our children and grandchildren.
span y thanatokephaloides on Sat, 04/27/2019 - 6:21pm
We liberals and progressives have to shoulder at least some of the blame for this. To
ensure our progeny experienced few bumps in life, we cocooned them in classrooms where
learning was secondary to political correctness, we let them participate in sports where
nobody loses, and we downgraded working hard for your grades to a system of grading
everyone high on the curve.
I'm embarrassed by the ignorance of our successor generations regarding simple math
(making change without a cash register telling them what to do), basic grammar and
spelling skills, and fundamental knowledge of history.
Doesn't matter, though. Whether we have children or not, we still interact with and are
affected by the actions and misdeeds of other people's children.
So, yes, we agree there, though honestly I'm at a loss to figure out why we are focusing
on "bad Presidents" here. They've all been bad, starting with Reagan, and Carter brought the
trend in by promising to be bad in his losing 1980 reelection campaign. This is by
design.
It seems to me that if we want to focus upon this contingency, we ought to be promoting an
activist "Plan B." What if the Democrats screw Bernie again, and set up
useful idiot Joe Biden to win the convention with the help of the superdelegates? Bernie
endorses Joe, and hope is once again replaced by despair. Such a contingency would be one
possible fruit of the "elect a better President" strategy which appears as the first option
for activism in America. What then? Perhaps we ought to be planning for this possibility?
So, yes, we agree there, though honestly I'm at a loss to figure out why we are
focusing on "bad Presidents" here. They've all been bad, starting with Reagan, and Carter
brought the trend in by promising to be bad in his losing 1980 reelection campaign. This
is by design.
It seems to me that if we want to focus upon this contingency, we ought to be
promoting an activist "Plan B." What if the Democrats screw Bernie again, and set up
useful idiot Joe Biden to win the convention with the help of the superdelegates?
Bernie endorses Joe, and hope is once again replaced by despair. Such a contingency would
be one possible fruit of the "elect a better President" strategy which appears as the
first option for activism in America. What then? Perhaps we ought to be planning for this
possibility?
So, yes, we agree there, though honestly I'm at a loss to figure out why we are
focusing on "bad Presidents" here. They've all been bad, starting with Reagan, and Carter
brought the trend in by promising to be bad in his losing 1980 reelection campaign. This
is by design.
It seems to me that if we want to focus upon this contingency, we ought to be
promoting an activist "Plan B." What if the Democrats screw Bernie again, and set up
useful idiot Joe Biden to win the convention with the help of the superdelegates?
Bernie endorses Joe, and hope is once again replaced by despair. Such a contingency would
be one possible fruit of the "elect a better President" strategy which appears as the
first option for activism in America. What then? Perhaps we ought to be planning for this
possibility?
@Cassiodorus
as I wrote in a comment the other day, Reagan ran on a platform to govern almost identically
to what the Carter administration had been doing: increase defense spending, decrease
regulation, reduce deficits.
not much doubt that he's been one of the bestest ex-presidents of all time, though.
So, yes, we agree there, though honestly I'm at a loss to figure out why we are
focusing on "bad Presidents" here. They've all been bad, starting with Reagan, and Carter
brought the trend in by promising to be bad in his losing 1980 reelection campaign. This
is by design.
It seems to me that if we want to focus upon this contingency, we ought to be
promoting an activist "Plan B." What if the Democrats screw Bernie again, and set up
useful idiot Joe Biden to win the convention with the help of the superdelegates?
Bernie endorses Joe, and hope is once again replaced by despair. Such a contingency would
be one possible fruit of the "elect a better President" strategy which appears as the
first option for activism in America. What then? Perhaps we ought to be planning for this
possibility?
@Cassiodorus
Hunter. Like father, like son. Will Trump smite the upper echelons of his enemies such as
Killary and the empty suit?
So, yes, we agree there, though honestly I'm at a loss to figure out why we are
focusing on "bad Presidents" here. They've all been bad, starting with Reagan, and Carter
brought the trend in by promising to be bad in his losing 1980 reelection campaign. This
is by design.
It seems to me that if we want to focus upon this contingency, we ought to be
promoting an activist "Plan B." What if the Democrats screw Bernie again, and set up
useful idiot Joe Biden to win the convention with the help of the superdelegates?
Bernie endorses Joe, and hope is once again replaced by despair. Such a contingency would
be one possible fruit of the "elect a better President" strategy which appears as the
first option for activism in America. What then? Perhaps we ought to be planning for this
possibility?
...They've all been bad, starting with Reagan, and Carter brought the trend in by
promising to be bad in his losing 1980 reelection campaign. This is by design...
(I'm particularly interested in your comments on Carter.)
So, yes, we agree there, though honestly I'm at a loss to figure out why we are
focusing on "bad Presidents" here. They've all been bad, starting with Reagan, and Carter
brought the trend in by promising to be bad in his losing 1980 reelection campaign. This
is by design.
It seems to me that if we want to focus upon this contingency, we ought to be
promoting an activist "Plan B." What if the Democrats screw Bernie again, and set up
useful idiot Joe Biden to win the convention with the help of the superdelegates?
Bernie endorses Joe, and hope is once again replaced by despair. Such a contingency would
be one possible fruit of the "elect a better President" strategy which appears as the
first option for activism in America. What then? Perhaps we ought to be planning for this
possibility?
...They've all been bad, starting with Reagan, and Carter brought the trend in by
promising to be bad in his losing 1980 reelection campaign. This is by design...
(I'm particularly interested in your comments on Carter.)
span y The Voice In th... on Sat, 04/27/2019 - 9:11pm
@Cassiodorus
Perhaps his having been a Naval officer had something to do with it. I do know that his old
boss, Admiral Rickover had a big influence on him.
...position. And, while it doesn't mention it in the
commentary, below , the fact of the matter is that Carter did more to bring peace to the
mideast than any president, perhaps, since the formal independence of the State of Israel, in
1948. From the link, earlier in this paragraph...
Jimmy Carter - Military policy
Carter had inherited a wide variety of tough problems in international affairs, and in
dealing with them, he was hampered by confusion and uncertainty in Congress and the nation
concerning the role the nation should play in the world. A similar state of mind prevailed
in the closely related area of military policy, and that state of mind affected the
administration. At the beginning of his presidency, Carter pardoned Vietnam War draft
evaders and announced that American troops would be withdrawn from South Korea. He also
decided against construction of the B-1 bomber as a replacement for the aging B-52,
regarding the proposed airplane as costly and obsolete, and also decided to cut back on the
navy's shipbuilding program. Champions of military power protested, charging that he was
not sufficiently sensitive to the threat of the Soviet Union.
In recent years, the Soviets had strengthened their forces and influence, expanding the
army, developing a large navy, and increasing their arms and technicians in the Third
World. As Carter's concern about these developments mounted, he alarmed critics of military
spending by calling for a significant increase in the military budget for fiscal 1979, a
substantial strengthening of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) forces, and the
development and deployment of a new weapon, the neutron bomb. Next, he dismayed advocates
of greater military strength by first deciding that the bomb would not be built and then
announcing that production would be postponed while the nation waited to see how the
Soviets behaved.
In both diplomatic and military matters, the president often found it difficult to stick
with his original intentions. He made concessions to demands for more military spending and
more activity in Africa and became less critical of American arms sales. He both responded
to criticism of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and sought to restore its
effectiveness, regarding it as an essential instrument that had been misused.
Critics, including Henry Kissinger, Henry Jackson, and many Republican senators, found
him weak and ineffective, confusing and confused. They suggested that his administration
had "seen that its neat theories about the world do not fit the difficult realities" and
that "it must now come to grips with the world as it is." One close observer, Meg
Greenfield of Newsweek magazine, wrote in 1978 that while "many of our politicians, more
traumatized than instructed by that miserable war [Vietnam], tend to see Vietnams
everywhere," more and more congressmen "seem . . . to be getting bored with their own
post-Vietnam bemusement," and "under great provocation from abroad, Carter himself is
beginning to move."
@bobswern
Unfortunately, he was more or less a true believer in neo-liberalism, before that formulation
even existed. Perhaps he just had too much faith in people. I don't know. I do know that, as
I've said in my other comments here, Reagan ran against him by promising to do everything
that Carter was already doing -- plus tax cuts.
Indeed, Reagan himself believed in working towards a peaceable end to the cold war, at
least at some point. Years ago, I saw an astonishing clip from Firing Line, with Reagan and a
couple of other Republicans. The other guys were belching a super-hard line on relations with
the USSR. Reagan, speaking coherently and intelligently -- as I say, it was
astonishing -- stated that the right had no business asking for people to vote for
them, if they had nothing to offer but inevitable nuclear war.
...position. And, while it doesn't mention it in the
commentary, below , the fact of the matter is that Carter did more to bring peace to
the mideast than any president, perhaps, since the formal independence of the State of
Israel, in 1948. From the link, earlier in this paragraph...
Jimmy Carter - Military policy
Carter had inherited a wide variety of tough problems in international affairs, and
in dealing with them, he was hampered by confusion and uncertainty in Congress and the
nation concerning the role the nation should play in the world. A similar state of mind
prevailed in the closely related area of military policy, and that state of mind
affected the administration. At the beginning of his presidency, Carter pardoned
Vietnam War draft evaders and announced that American troops would be withdrawn from
South Korea. He also decided against construction of the B-1 bomber as a replacement
for the aging B-52, regarding the proposed airplane as costly and obsolete, and also
decided to cut back on the navy's shipbuilding program. Champions of military power
protested, charging that he was not sufficiently sensitive to the threat of the Soviet
Union.
In recent years, the Soviets had strengthened their forces and influence, expanding
the army, developing a large navy, and increasing their arms and technicians in the
Third World. As Carter's concern about these developments mounted, he alarmed critics
of military spending by calling for a significant increase in the military budget for
fiscal 1979, a substantial strengthening of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)
forces, and the development and deployment of a new weapon, the neutron bomb. Next, he
dismayed advocates of greater military strength by first deciding that the bomb would
not be built and then announcing that production would be postponed while the nation
waited to see how the Soviets behaved.
In both diplomatic and military matters, the president often found it difficult to
stick with his original intentions. He made concessions to demands for more military
spending and more activity in Africa and became less critical of American arms sales.
He both responded to criticism of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and sought to
restore its effectiveness, regarding it as an essential instrument that had been
misused.
Critics, including Henry Kissinger, Henry Jackson, and many Republican senators,
found him weak and ineffective, confusing and confused. They suggested that his
administration had "seen that its neat theories about the world do not fit the
difficult realities" and that "it must now come to grips with the world as it is." One
close observer, Meg Greenfield of Newsweek magazine, wrote in 1978 that while "many of
our politicians, more traumatized than instructed by that miserable war [Vietnam], tend
to see Vietnams everywhere," more and more congressmen "seem . . . to be getting bored
with their own post-Vietnam bemusement," and "under great provocation from abroad,
Carter himself is beginning to move."
@UntimelyRippd
into inevitable nuclear war in his first term. The admin's bellicose rhetoric directed at the
Sov Union, including his FEMA director stating that we could win in a nuke exchange if people
would only build enough fallout shelters in their back yard, brought the two countries to a
very perilous position by 1983.
That anti-nuke movie which Ronnie saw in the WH, The Day After, began to undermine his
narrow and reckless attitude. Then the world lucked out when the reasonable, reform-minded
and détente focused Gorbachov came to power in 85. Gorby wanted a complete elimination
of nukes on both sides, and almost got RR to agree, but the DeepState boys intervened to
block it.
I do think Jimmy the C was very inconsistent in FP, one day listening more to his SoS Sigh
Vance, mostly a moderate-liberal non-interventionist type, and his nat'l security advisor
Zbig Brzezinski, a hawk's hawk who saw evil Soviet designs everywhere. JC was like a
ping-pong ball being batted back and forth.
But at least JC didn't get the US involved in any new wars during his term, and was
totally screwed by the Reagan-Bush team of crooks and liars and traitors who illegally
sabotaged Carter's 1980 efforts to get the hostages released. Poppy and Bill Casey, at the
least, should have ended up behind bars.
But for that October Surprise, and maybe the Carter team's failure before the one debate
to get their hands on Reagan's 1962 vinyl record showing how staunchly anti-Medicare he was,
Jimmy would have won another term.
#6.5.1.2
Unfortunately, he was more or less a true believer in neo-liberalism, before that
formulation even existed. Perhaps he just had too much faith in people. I don't know. I
do know that, as I've said in my other comments here, Reagan ran against him by promising
to do everything that Carter was already doing -- plus tax cuts.
Indeed, Reagan himself believed in working towards a peaceable end to the cold war, at
least at some point. Years ago, I saw an astonishing clip from Firing Line, with Reagan
and a couple of other Republicans. The other guys were belching a super-hard line on
relations with the USSR. Reagan, speaking coherently and intelligently -- as I say, it
was astonishing -- stated that the right had no business asking for people to vote
for them, if they had nothing to offer but inevitable nuclear war.
@wokkamile
Reagan's team defined Carter (and his administration) as big-spending, big-guvmint, and
weak-on-defense, in complete contradiction to Carter's actual record, and the Carter campaign
failed to communicate any meaningful correction.
Remember, Kennedy challenged Carter from the left.
#6.5.1.2.1 into
inevitable nuclear war in his first term. The admin's bellicose rhetoric directed at the
Sov Union, including his FEMA director stating that we could win in a nuke exchange if
people would only build enough fallout shelters in their back yard, brought the two
countries to a very perilous position by 1983.
That anti-nuke movie which Ronnie saw in the WH, The Day After, began to undermine his
narrow and reckless attitude. Then the world lucked out when the reasonable,
reform-minded and détente focused Gorbachov came to power in 85. Gorby wanted a
complete elimination of nukes on both sides, and almost got RR to agree, but the
DeepState boys intervened to block it.
I do think Jimmy the C was very inconsistent in FP, one day listening more to his SoS
Sigh Vance, mostly a moderate-liberal non-interventionist type, and his nat'l security
advisor Zbig Brzezinski, a hawk's hawk who saw evil Soviet designs everywhere. JC was
like a ping-pong ball being batted back and forth.
But at least JC didn't get the US involved in any new wars during his term, and was
totally screwed by the Reagan-Bush team of crooks and liars and traitors who illegally
sabotaged Carter's 1980 efforts to get the hostages released. Poppy and Bill Casey, at
the least, should have ended up behind bars.
But for that October Surprise, and maybe the Carter team's failure before the one
debate to get their hands on Reagan's 1962 vinyl record showing how staunchly
anti-Medicare he was, Jimmy would have won another term.
didn't help jimmy's campaign. I often wonder where we would be now had we stayed on
Jimmy's path of energy independence. The establishment dims worked against him too tip
O'Neil...and didn't Ted Kennedy try to primary him? Maybe it was Kennedy in law Shriver.
Plus RR had several years on the big and little screen much like Trump the unreality
star.
#6.5.1.2.1.1
Reagan's team defined Carter (and his administration) as big-spending, big-guvmint, and
weak-on-defense, in complete contradiction to Carter's actual record, and the Carter
campaign failed to communicate any meaningful correction.
Remember, Kennedy challenged Carter from the left.
@Lookout
primaried Carter in 1980 even as many in his inner circle advised against it. Sargent Shriver
ran as McGovern's VP in 1972 after George dumped his first pick Eagleton. Shriver ran for
prez in 76, in a large field loaded with liberals who tended to dilute each other's
votes.
didn't help jimmy's campaign. I often wonder where we would be now had we stayed on
Jimmy's path of energy independence. The establishment dims worked against him too tip
O'Neil...and didn't Ted Kennedy try to primary him? Maybe it was Kennedy in law
Shriver.
Plus RR had several years on the big and little screen much like Trump the unreality
star.
@UntimelyRippd
insulted Ted personally early on, even before taking office, when after his victory Jimmy was
really feeling his oats, thinking it was his own greatness alone that got him elected. Ted
did not forget or forgive. And on policy, he was greatly dismayed at Carter's unwillingness
to work for major health care reform, and a few other matters where JC was taking a
center-right position. But the policy differences probably were far less important than the
personal in deciding to challenge Carter.
Jimmy also unnecessarily aggravated and insulted House Speaker Tip O'Neil early on and
repeatedly, until after getting a personal ultimatum of sorts from Tip, Jimmy finally got the
message. That's just stupid, insulting the two most powerful Dems in Congress. You don't need
to have a PhD in Politics from Harvard in order to understand not to do that.
The Carter admin also did lousy messaging and PR, too much on the defensive, not often
enough out there effectively promoting their (definitely mixed-bag) policies. The MSM went
after him consistently as of 1978 and I don't think the Carter admin was prepared to deal
with it or adequate to the task. The in-bred Beltway Press treated Carter and his people from
Georgia like backwoods hicks and mostly were successful in painting the portrait of a weak,
incompetent presidency.
#6.5.1.2.1.1
Reagan's team defined Carter (and his administration) as big-spending, big-guvmint, and
weak-on-defense, in complete contradiction to Carter's actual record, and the Carter
campaign failed to communicate any meaningful correction.
Remember, Kennedy challenged Carter from the left.
@wokkamile
to heel. mobil was posting the largest profits of any corporation in american history, while
people couldn't afford gasoline. an attack on Mobil was built into Kennedy's stump
speech).
#6.5.1.2.1.1.1 insulted
Ted personally early on, even before taking office, when after his victory Jimmy was
really feeling his oats, thinking it was his own greatness alone that got him elected.
Ted did not forget or forgive. And on policy, he was greatly dismayed at Carter's
unwillingness to work for major health care reform, and a few other matters where JC was
taking a center-right position. But the policy differences probably were far less
important than the personal in deciding to challenge Carter.
Jimmy also unnecessarily aggravated and insulted House Speaker Tip O'Neil early on and
repeatedly, until after getting a personal ultimatum of sorts from Tip, Jimmy finally got
the message. That's just stupid, insulting the two most powerful Dems in Congress. You
don't need to have a PhD in Politics from Harvard in order to understand not to do
that.
The Carter admin also did lousy messaging and PR, too much on the defensive, not often
enough out there effectively promoting their (definitely mixed-bag) policies. The MSM
went after him consistently as of 1978 and I don't think the Carter admin was prepared to
deal with it or adequate to the task. The in-bred Beltway Press treated Carter and his
people from Georgia like backwoods hicks and mostly were successful in painting the
portrait of a weak, incompetent presidency.
#6.5.1.2.1.1.1 insulted
Ted personally early on, even before taking office, when after his victory Jimmy was
really feeling his oats, thinking it was his own greatness alone that got him elected.
Ted did not forget or forgive. And on policy, he was greatly dismayed at Carter's
unwillingness to work for major health care reform, and a few other matters where JC was
taking a center-right position. But the policy differences probably were far less
important than the personal in deciding to challenge Carter.
Jimmy also unnecessarily aggravated and insulted House Speaker Tip O'Neil early on and
repeatedly, until after getting a personal ultimatum of sorts from Tip, Jimmy finally got
the message. That's just stupid, insulting the two most powerful Dems in Congress. You
don't need to have a PhD in Politics from Harvard in order to understand not to do
that.
The Carter admin also did lousy messaging and PR, too much on the defensive, not often
enough out there effectively promoting their (definitely mixed-bag) policies. The MSM
went after him consistently as of 1978 and I don't think the Carter admin was prepared to
deal with it or adequate to the task. The in-bred Beltway Press treated Carter and his
people from Georgia like backwoods hicks and mostly were successful in painting the
portrait of a weak, incompetent presidency.
@HenryAWallace
I wasn't aware you had previously written extensively on the health care subject. But looking
at the cites I didn't see something which definitely nailed the story on Carter v TK on
health care reform, just 2 people who detested each other with differing views, and a
statement supposedly from Ted, which again I didn't see a cite for, admitting fault in the
Carter proposal. (I have not read his book of memoirs.) If the latter assertion is true, then
it is a bit of a puzzle why Carter would blame a then-deceased TK on 60Minutes over blocking
his health care proposal, when all he had to do was cite Ted's supposed confession of guilt
in his memoirs. (will now go to review the video of this interview, which I've not yet
seen.)
According to this HNN article from a 3d party academic on
the Carter proposal, it was indeed a weak one and only a partial and perhaps badly flawed
first step, which Kennedy may well have been right to oppose as Carter didn't commit,
according to the author, on specifics for a followup comprehensive plan other than Carter
would propose keeping the private insurance system intact, no public option. Jimmy just
offered hospital care cost cutting and continuation of private insurance.
On the earlier Nixon proposal, Kennedy, as I recall from the literature, was opposed as
the health care major reform backers linked to the AFL-CIO and other Big Labor thought Ted
should wait until a better proposal came along from a Dem president, as surely they would get
a good one in the 76 election in the wake of Watergate. But it might also be true that TK
regretted this move and had second thoughts about not taking the bird in hand and waiting for
the two in the bush. As it turned out, he got only a third of a bird by waiting with
Carter.
@wokkamile
I forgot he was a Democrat. He was Reagan's big enabler.
#6.5.1.2.1.1.1 insulted
Ted personally early on, even before taking office, when after his victory Jimmy was
really feeling his oats, thinking it was his own greatness alone that got him elected.
Ted did not forget or forgive. And on policy, he was greatly dismayed at Carter's
unwillingness to work for major health care reform, and a few other matters where JC was
taking a center-right position. But the policy differences probably were far less
important than the personal in deciding to challenge Carter.
Jimmy also unnecessarily aggravated and insulted House Speaker Tip O'Neil early on and
repeatedly, until after getting a personal ultimatum of sorts from Tip, Jimmy finally got
the message. That's just stupid, insulting the two most powerful Dems in Congress. You
don't need to have a PhD in Politics from Harvard in order to understand not to do
that.
The Carter admin also did lousy messaging and PR, too much on the defensive, not often
enough out there effectively promoting their (definitely mixed-bag) policies. The MSM
went after him consistently as of 1978 and I don't think the Carter admin was prepared to
deal with it or adequate to the task. The in-bred Beltway Press treated Carter and his
people from Georgia like backwoods hicks and mostly were successful in painting the
portrait of a weak, incompetent presidency.
Who betrayed the Russians when the US said it wouldn't tighten its military circle around
Russia? Was it Obama or Bush II that broke that promise?
#6.5.1.2
Unfortunately, he was more or less a true believer in neo-liberalism, before that
formulation even existed. Perhaps he just had too much faith in people. I don't know. I
do know that, as I've said in my other comments here, Reagan ran against him by promising
to do everything that Carter was already doing -- plus tax cuts.
Indeed, Reagan himself believed in working towards a peaceable end to the cold war, at
least at some point. Years ago, I saw an astonishing clip from Firing Line, with Reagan
and a couple of other Republicans. The other guys were belching a super-hard line on
relations with the USSR. Reagan, speaking coherently and intelligently -- as I say, it
was astonishing -- stated that the right had no business asking for people to vote
for them, if they had nothing to offer but inevitable nuclear war.
@dfarrah
to Gorby not to move NATO one inch eastward towards Russia, in return for the Sov Union
agreeing to a reuniting of Germany, began under Bush I, Poppy, or at least the anti-Russia
attitude began then, after the verbal agreement was made, and continued with all presidents
thru Obama and Trump.
#6.5.1.2.1.2 to Gorby
not to move NATO one inch eastward towards Russia, in return for the Sov Union agreeing
to a reuniting of Germany, began under Bush I, Poppy, or at least the anti-Russia
attitude began then, after the verbal agreement was made, and continued with all
presidents thru Obama and Trump.
armscontrol.com, but part of the gist was
that he hadn't wanted to seem 'like a wimp' while running against bob dole. i'm agnostic on
that, but what a fucked up cold war 2.0 organization that it. now, you might be right about
dubya creating one evil stepchild of nato, and he did create the neo-colonizing africom. it's
motto is (or was) 'we fight chaos in african nations', while forgetting that they also use
CIA agents and such to...create the chaos, then help install U-friendly puppet gummints.
on later edit : it gets worse, if more honest. i was on black alliance for peace's twit
account for my own current diary, they were protesting against africom, and one tweet led to
an article on africom with these lines:
"When AFRICOM was established in the months before Barack Obama assumed office as the
first Black President of the United States, a majority of African nations -- led by the
Pan-Africanist government of Libya -- rejected AFRICOM, forcing the new command to instead
work out of Europe.
But with the U.S. and NATO attack on Libya that led to the destruction of that country
and the murder of its leader Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, corrupt African leaders began to
allow AFRICOM forces to operate in their countries and establish military-to-military
relations with the United States. Today, those efforts have resulted in 46 various forms of
U.S. bases as well as military-to-military relations between 53 out of the 54 African
countries and the United States. U.S. Special Forces troops now operate in more than a
dozen African nations.
Vice Admiral Robert Moeller, first and former deputy of AFRICOM, declared in 2008,
"Protecting the free flow of natural resources from Africa to the global market is one of
AFRICOM's guiding principles."
We say AFRICOM is the flip side of the domestic war being waged by the same repressive
state structure against Black and poor people in the United States. In the U.S. Out of
Africa!: Shut Down AFRICOM campaign, we link police violence and the domestic war waged on
Black people to U.S. interventionism and militarism abroad.
#6.5.1.2.1.2 to Gorby
not to move NATO one inch eastward towards Russia, in return for the Sov Union agreeing
to a reuniting of Germany, began under Bush I, Poppy, or at least the anti-Russia
attitude began then, after the verbal agreement was made, and continued with all
presidents thru Obama and Trump.
span y thanatokephaloides on Sat, 04/27/2019 - 8:42pm
It seems to me that if we want to focus upon this contingency, we ought to be promoting
an activist "Plan B." What if the Democrats screw Bernie again, and set up useful idiot Joe
Biden to win the convention with the help of the superdelegates? Bernie endorses Joe, and
hope is once again replaced by despair. Such a contingency would be one possible fruit of
the "elect a better President" strategy which appears as the first option for activism in
America. What then? Perhaps we ought to be planning for this possibility?
It seems to me that if we want to focus upon this contingency, we ought to be
promoting an activist "Plan B." What if the Democrats screw Bernie again, and set up
useful idiot Joe Biden to win the convention with the help of the superdelegates?
Bernie endorses Joe, and hope is once again replaced by despair. Such a contingency
would be one possible fruit of the "elect a better President" strategy which appears as
the first option for activism in America. What then? Perhaps we ought to be planning
for this possibility?
But voting for people who have never held office in their lives just seems pointless. It
would be nice if a green actually got elected somewhere before he or she decided to run for
President.
I live in a red state, so my vote doesn't matter. I could vote for Mickey Mouse and do as
much good. Maybe that is why I am so cynical about presidential elections now.
My gut tells me that Sanders can't beat Trump in 2020 when he could have in 2016. Sanders
let so many people down in 2016, that there will not be the enthusiasm this time. And Trump
will have lots of never-Trumpers on board in 2020.
#6.6
Heads I vote Green again
Tails I go get drunk on election day instead
span y The Voice In th... on Sun, 04/28/2019 - 10:52pm
But voting for people who have never held office in their lives just seems pointless.
It would be nice if a green actually got elected somewhere before he or she decided to
run for President.
I live in a red state, so my vote doesn't matter. I could vote for Mickey Mouse and do
as much good. Maybe that is why I am so cynical about presidential elections now.
My gut tells me that Sanders can't beat Trump in 2020 when he could have in 2016.
Sanders let so many people down in 2016, that there will not be the enthusiasm this time.
And Trump will have lots of never-Trumpers on board in 2020.
World peace is possible and with real leadership, America could usher it into being.
You sound really like an American President. Are you running? Sigh. I have to say
considering what is going on in the world, I find that sentence pretty unconvincing, if not
an attempt of misleading the sheeps.
What matters in a Congressman and Senator, might be more important to know.
No offense meant, it's just that the times are over when these nice words would still
work.
@mimi I
know what you mean, Mimi. I realize how unlikely it seems given the horrifying present, yet I
insist that, at least in theory, it doesn't have to be this way and that with sufficient will
we could reverse the hate and war. I may well be wrong, but I believe it. If we wanted peace
as badly as we wanted to go to the moon or build the atomic bomb, we'd stand a good chance of
getting there.
World peace is possible and with real leadership, America could usher it into
being.
You sound really like an American President. Are you running? Sigh. I have to say
considering what is going on in the world, I find that sentence pretty unconvincing, if
not an attempt of misleading the sheeps.
What matters in a Congressman and Senator, might be more important to know.
No offense meant, it's just that the times are over when these nice words would still
work.
Perhaps with f@ck Bill Clinton and his media consolidation - tip
of the iceberg.
Next up has to be Jane Fonda. "I guess the lesson is we shouldn't be fooled by
good-looking liberals no matter how well-spoken they are."
And following behind, this is one hell of a good question.
Now, having seen the wreckage a horrible president can wreak on a helpless nation, I'm
starting to re-question why none of the 'good' presidents ever had much impact. They had
the same power to do good as he has to do evil. I'm starting to think they didn't want to
change anything. Or were paid not to. (Shocking, I know.)
I think every person running for office should have to pass a lie detector test in order
to declare his/her candidacy. Questions to be written by his/her enemies. Next up, every
voter must pass a current events test in order to vote. If you have no clue, you should have
no vote. I'm tired of having our country's fate determined by crooks and people who don't
know better and could care less.
@dkmich
Unfortunately, most of the sheeples don't realize that "honest politician" is an
oxymoron.
Perhaps with f@ck Bill Clinton and his media consolidation -
tip of the iceberg.
Next up has to be Jane Fonda. "I guess the lesson is we shouldn't be fooled by
good-looking liberals no matter how well-spoken they are."
And following behind, this is one hell of a good question.
Now, having seen the wreckage a horrible president can wreak on a helpless nation,
I'm starting to re-question why none of the 'good' presidents ever had much impact.
They had the same power to do good as he has to do evil. I'm starting to think they
didn't want to change anything. Or were paid not to. (Shocking, I know.)
I think every person running for office should have to pass a lie detector test in
order to declare his/her candidacy. Questions to be written by his/her enemies. Next up,
every voter must pass a current events test in order to vote. If you have no clue, you
should have no vote. I'm tired of having our country's fate determined by crooks and
people who don't know better and could care less.
span y davidgmillsatty on Sun, 04/28/2019 - 9:23pm
*If* a president of this nation can bring peace about, the epic barriers to third party
candidates need to be reversed (especially toward the Greens), but they won't be. the only
potential peace candidate would need to both anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist (not just
claim to be anti-war for some™, imo. in the duopoly, there simply isn't one, although
many will claim that tulsi gabbard is.
You're always "spot-on." But, this time, you hit it out of the park!
Wanted to turn you on to some new music...
1.) Irish singer-songwriter Hozier , just came out with his new album "Wasteland,
Baby!" (easily, one of the best, politically-oriented songwriters of the current
generation):
You're always "spot-on." But, this time, you hit it out of the park!
Wanted to turn you on to some new music...
1.) Irish singer-songwriter Hozier , just came out with his new album "Wasteland,
Baby!" (easily, one of the best, politically-oriented songwriters of the current
generation):
During my high school World History class, several of us approached our instructor to
change some of the elements of the class. We were tired of memorizing dates of wars and
battles. Her response was: "The history of the world is the history of war." I hope I live to
see this instructor proven wrong.
It is, unfortunately. Solving systemic corruption is always a complex and difficult
task.
But if we can find not only someone who we believe in but someone who also believes in
us, then why can we not progress?
Because those whose continued ill-gotten gains depend on us not progressing anywhere apply
their money power to make sure we do not progress.
Exhibit A: Bernie Sanders in 2016. The moneyed power brokers wanted Hillary Clinton. And,
the desire of us hoi polloi to the contrary notwithstanding, she's what we got.
And Donald Trump bought his way into the Presidency.
Who are these other entities?
The ultra-wealthy, whose continued un-earned profits depend on no change occurring. The
forever war industry, whose continued un-earned profits depend on no peace occurring,
ever. The fossil-fuel industry, whose continued un-earned profits depend on no change
occurring to how we power our lives. The mega-banks and the Wall Street Casino, which depend
on all the above and others like them.
After all, there are more of us, than there are of them
Not where it counts (dollars under single-individual control).
So chins up!
If Nike says 'Just do it' then so should we!
Do please describe how we are supposed to "just do it". I would be most interested in how
you suppose we should proceed here. But I must ask a favor: please don't suggest anything
which has already been tried to exhaustion. Thank you.
#12
But if we can find not only someone who we believe in but someone who also believes in
us, then why can we not progress?
Who are these other entities?
After all, there are more of us, than there are of them
What I see as the problem is the deep state stopping any person in the Oval Office from
accomplishing progressive goals. These war-mongers have a vice grip on our government. If the
person elected would have the courage to stand up for the people instead of the deep state,
then I think we have a chance.
This day will come, but it might be until the 2024 or 2028 election.
World peace is possible and with real leadership, America could usher it into being.
Forget America, it will never happen. We have not had a single world class president in my
lifetime. Democracy does no such thing as guarantee a better outcome, it only provides more
legitimacy. Our congress critters are a bunch of spineless cheerleaders for some odd concept
of patriotism in America. They would vote to nuke Cuba if they thought that it would advance
their careers. The deep-state's goal is more and better lethality of the military on an ever
ballooning budget. The ultra-rich and the corporations and banks control everything. What
path do you see to peace and justice? The American people vote these bastards into office.
This is what they want. The only good outcome I see is if the world learns to get along
without the US, and sanctions the US to the bone. I have no idea where these abstract
concepts of a greater purpose for the American Hegemon ever came from. They have no
relationship to reality. The best that we could do is to try to return the nation to the
belief in isolationism as was popular between the two world wars.
span y thanatokephaloides on Sun, 04/28/2019 - 5:16pm
The ultra-rich and the corporations and banks control everything. What path do you see
to peace and justice? The American people vote these bastards into office.
False.
The selection of non-choice (or Hobson's Choice) candidates is locked-in ages before any
of us hoi polloi get to vote on anything.
World peace is possible and with real leadership, America could usher it into
being.
Forget America, it will never happen. We have not had a single world class president
in my lifetime. Democracy does no such thing as guarantee a better outcome, it only
provides more legitimacy. Our congress critters are a bunch of spineless cheerleaders for
some odd concept of patriotism in America. They would vote to nuke Cuba if they thought
that it would advance their careers. The deep-state's goal is more and better lethality
of the military on an ever ballooning budget. The ultra-rich and the corporations and
banks control everything. What path do you see to peace and justice? The American people
vote these bastards into office. This is what they want. The only good outcome I see is
if the world learns to get along without the US, and sanctions the US to the bone. I have
no idea where these abstract concepts of a greater purpose for the American Hegemon ever
came from. They have no relationship to reality. The best that we could do is to try to
return the nation to the belief in isolationism as was popular between the two world
wars.
The ultra-rich and the corporations and banks control everything. What path do you
see to peace and justice? The American people vote these bastards into office.
False.
The selection of non-choice (or Hobson's Choice) candidates is locked-in ages before
any of us hoi polloi get to vote on anything.
@TheOtherMaven
"I have no advice for others in this election. Are you voting Democratic? Well and good; all
I ask is why? Are you voting for Eisenhower and his smooth team of bright ghost writers?
Again, why? Will your helpless vote either way support or restore democracy to America?
Is the refusal to vote in this phony election a counsel of despair? No, it is dogged hope. It
is hope that if twenty-five million voters refrain from voting in 1956 because of their own
accord and not because of a sly wink from Khrushchev, this might make the American people ask
how much longer this dumb farce can proceed without even a whimper of protest."
It is hope that if twenty-five million voters refrain from voting in 1956 because of
their own accord and not because of a sly wink from Khrushchev, this might make the American
people ask how much longer this dumb farce can proceed without even a whimper of
protest."
More than that stayed home last election and yet here we are again getting ready to do the
voting process again over a half century since Dubois said that. The funniest thing about
that Russia allegation of interfering with the election is that the GOP have gerrymandered
the hell out of so many states, the democrats have let them do it and democrats not only
refuse to put enough voting machines in districts with heavy turnout they don't insist on
using paper ballots.
During the last primary in New York alone thousands of people were kicked off the voting
rolls and had their party affiliation changed and even after the person who did that admitted
it nothing was done. Next up was Brenda Snipes in Florida who destroyed lots and lots of
ballots and she not only wasn't punished for doing it, she got to retire with her full
pension.
DuBois condemns both Democrats and Republicans for their indifferent positions on the
influence of corporate wealth, racial inequality, arms proliferation and unaffordable health
care.
1956
I've been bitchin about what Trump is doing with the regulatory agencies and once again I
found out how badly Obama was before him... I shouldn't have been surprised huh?
#15.1.1 "I have no
advice for others in this election. Are you voting Democratic? Well and good; all I ask
is why? Are you voting for Eisenhower and his smooth team of bright ghost writers? Again,
why? Will your helpless vote either way support or restore democracy to America?
Is the refusal to vote in this phony election a counsel of despair? No, it is dogged
hope. It is hope that if twenty-five million voters refrain from voting in 1956 because
of their own accord and not because of a sly wink from Khrushchev, this might make the
American people ask how much longer this dumb farce can proceed without even a whimper of
protest."
@Big
Al
and if it would be a direct democratic vote like in a parliamentary system, I think it would
be worth voting.
Voting in the US seems to be worthless these days.
#15.1.1 "I have no
advice for others in this election. Are you voting Democratic? Well and good; all I ask
is why? Are you voting for Eisenhower and his smooth team of bright ghost writers? Again,
why? Will your helpless vote either way support or restore democracy to America?
Is the refusal to vote in this phony election a counsel of despair? No, it is dogged
hope. It is hope that if twenty-five million voters refrain from voting in 1956 because
of their own accord and not because of a sly wink from Khrushchev, this might make the
American people ask how much longer this dumb farce can proceed without even a whimper of
protest."
"... In fact, Trump gave the Democrats his theme for peace by 2020 ..."
"... If Sanders emerged as the nominee, we would have an election with a Democrat running with the catchphrase “no more wars” that Trump had promoted in 2016. Thus, Trump would be defending the bombing of Yemeni rebels and civilians by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia. ..."
"... None of the main candidates for the 2020 Democratic nomination — Joe Biden, Sanders, Kamala Harris, Beto O’Rourke, Pete Buttigieg, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker– seems as aggressive as Trump has become. ..."
"... Trump pulled the United States out of the nuclear agreement with Iran, negotiated by Secretary of State John Kerry, and re-imposed severe sanctions against the Iranians. He declared the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps of Iran a terrorist organization, to which Tehran responded with the same action against the U.S. Central Command. ..."
"... Trump has recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, moved the U.S. embassy there, closed the consulate that was in charge of Palestinian affairs, cut off aid to Palestinians, recognized the annexation by Israel of the Golan Heights snatched from Syria in 1967 and kept silent about Netanyahu’s threat to annex the Jewish settlements in the West Bank. ..."
"The president has said he doesn't want to see this country wrapped up in endless wars and I agree with that," Bernie Sanders
said to the Fox News audience last week at Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. Then, looking directly at the camera, he added: "Mr. President,
tonight you have the opportunity to do something extraordinary: sign that resolution. Saudi Arabia must not determine the military
or foreign policy of this country."
Sanders was talking about a resolution on the War Powers Act that would put an end to U.S. involvement in the 5-year civil war
in Yemen. This war has created one of the biggest humanitarian crises in the world of our time, with thousands of children dead in
the middle of a cholera epidemic and famine.
Supported by a Democratic Party united in Congress, and an anti-interventionist faction of the Republican Party headed by Senators
Rand Paul and Mike Lee of Utah, the War Powers resolution had passed both houses of Congress.
But 24 hours after Sanders urged the President to sign it, Trump vetoed the resolution, describing it as a "dangerous attempt
to undermine my constitutional authority."
According to journalist Buchanan J. Buchanan, “with enough Republican votes in both chambers to resist Trump’s veto, this could
have been the end of the matter; but it wasn’t. In fact, Trump gave the Democrats his theme for peace by 2020.”
If Sanders emerged as the nominee, we would have an election with a Democrat running with the catchphrase “no more wars” that
Trump had promoted in 2016. Thus, Trump would be defending the bombing of Yemeni rebels and civilians by Crown Prince Mohammed bin
Salman of Saudi Arabia.
In 2008, John McCain, hawk leader in the Senate, was defeated by the progressive Illinois Senator Barack Obama, who had won his
nomination by defeating the bellicose Hillary Clinton who had voted for authorizing the war in Iraq. In 2012, the Republican candidate, Mitt Romney, who was much more aggressive than Obama in his approach to Russia lost.
However, in 2016, Trump presented himself as a different kind of Republican, an opponent of the Iraq war, an anti-interventionist,
and promising to get along with Russian Vladimir Putin and getting out of the Middle East wars.
None of the main candidates for the 2020 Democratic nomination — Joe Biden, Sanders, Kamala Harris, Beto O’Rourke, Pete Buttigieg,
Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker– seems as aggressive as Trump has become.
Trump pulled the United States out of the nuclear agreement with Iran, negotiated by Secretary of State John Kerry, and re-imposed
severe sanctions against the Iranians. He declared the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps of Iran a terrorist organization, to which
Tehran responded with the same action against the U.S. Central Command.
Trump has recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, moved the U.S. embassy there, closed the consulate that was in charge
of Palestinian affairs, cut off aid to Palestinians, recognized the annexation by Israel of the Golan Heights snatched from Syria
in 1967 and kept silent about Netanyahu’s threat to annex the Jewish settlements in the West Bank.
Trump has spoken of getting all U.S. troops out of Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. However, they are still there.
Although Sanders supports Israel, he says he is looking for a two-state solution, and criticizes Netanyahu’s regime.
Trump came to power promising to get along with Moscow, but he sent Javelin anti-tank missiles to Ukraine and announced the US
withdrawal of the 1987 Treaty of Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) subscribed by Ronald Reagan, who banned all ground-based
nuclear intermediate range missiles.
When Putin sent a hundred Russian soldiers to Venezuela to repair the S-400 anti-aircraft and anti-missile system that was damaged
in the recent blackouts, Trump provocatively ordered the Russians to “get out” of the Bolivarian and Chavista country. According
to Buchanan, the gravity center of U.S. policy is shifting towards Trump’s position in 2016. And the anti-interventionist wing of
the Republican Party is growing.
The anti-interventionist wing of the Republican Party together with the anti-war wing of the Democratic Party in Congress are
capable — as they were War Powers Act resolution on Yemen– to produce a new bipartisan majority.
Buchanan predicts that in the 2020 primaries, foreign policy will be in the center and the Democratic Party would have captured
the ground with the catchphrase “no more wars” that candidate Donald Trump exploited in 2016.
Bernie Sanders kicked off his campaign just about two months ago in Brooklyn, New York
opening with a speech saying, "we are going to defeat the most
dangerous president in modern history." He urged for "an economy which works for all, not
just the 1%." In the first sentences of his speech he remarked that "the underlying principles
of our government will not be greed, hatred and lies. It will not be racism, sexism,
xenophobia, homophobia and religious bigotry." The tone and approach of the speech sounded like
a new and improved Bernie Sanders ready to tackle "identity" issues and oppression head on.
This however did not stop the Democratic establishment from staying on their
anti-progressive message. Zerlina
Maxwell , a paid Clinton operative and "MSNBC analyst" lamented that "twenty-three minutes
in, Bernie finally mentioned race and gender." For Democrats that watch MSNBC and didn't hear
Sanders's Brooklyn speech, it reinforced what they already thought about him and 2016. The only
problem is that Maxwell's assertion was demonstrably false and the Sander's team should have
been quick to correct the misinformation. In any event, the well-disciplined
MSNBC panel sat silent after Zerlina Maxwell's untrue remarks just like the Sanders
team.
Since his opening speech, Sanders has been ineffective in answering certain questions or has
been beaten to the punch, on what too many white social democrats call, "identity politics."
Sanders was in fact, one of two white elected officials that supported one of the most
progressive political platforms in memory,
Jesse Jackson's 1984 bid. For his Brooklyn speech, he was introduced by three prominent
African-Americans, most notably, former Ohio state Senator
Nina Turner .
Sanders discussed the current state of inequality as it relates to both the carceral state
and xenophobic impulses. This was an enormous step for him and an incredibly important point of
distinction from his previous run, but for some reason these points were nonexistent at his
recent She the People Forum
appearance. Sanders should avoid reading his press and needs to stop giving canned answers on
race.
Why Sanders continues to stumble on the trail and has much more difficulty than he indicated
in his speech is confounding. Why DSA rushed an endorsement vote when some Afro-Socialists
Caucus members wanted to wait is also troubling. Few, if any, assume he himself lacks
sincerity or principle on these matters. In his opening speech, he pointed to the GOP that
actually 'weaponizes' "by color, origin, gender, religion, and sexual orientation." Also in his
kickoff speech
Sanders referenced his own family that "escaped widespread anti-Semitism."
He addressed these issues openly and repeatedly and incorporated them with a message about
progressive foreign policy, single payer healthcare, housing, rent control, labor, and a living
wage, to better "address the racial disparities of wealth and income," while reminding his
base, "we are going to root out institutional racism wherever it
exists." For many, all of these sentiments were indications that his 2020 run would be new and
improved.
Update 10: Though she isn't in the room today, Sen. Elizabeth Warren felt she needed to
communicate a very important message to Barr: That she would like him to resign.
AG Barr is a disgrace, and his alarming efforts to suppress the Mueller report show that
he's not a credible head of federal law enforcement. He should resign -- and based on the
actual facts in the Mueller report, Congress should begin impeachment proceedings against the
President.
This is
the second in two recent
Real News Network interviews with Bill Black, white collar criminologist and frequent Naked
Capitalism contributor. Bill is author of The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One and teaches
economics and law at the University of Missouri Kansas City (UMKC).
Bill argues that the problem isn't deficient laws, which is Warren's focus. He says
instead:
It's far better to focus on using the existing criminal laws but changing the things in
the system that are so criminogenic and changing institutionally the regulators, the F.B.I.,
and the prosecutors, so that you go back to systems that we've always known how to make work.
The simple example is task forces. What produced the huge success in the savings and loan,
the Commercial Bank, and the Enron era fraud prosecutions? It was these task forces where we
brought everyone together to actually bring prosecutions. They killed those criminal task
forces, both under the Bush administration and under the Obama administration.
I think this is cause for optimism. For it means we don't have to go through the long and
torturous process of passing new laws to get somewhere with fixing a deeply broken system. The
Dodd-Frank Act wasn't passed until July 2010, despite the huge clamor to do something about the
banks that created the Great Financial Crisis. And then it took many years for all affected
agencies to finish rule-makings necessary to administer and enforce the law. Imagine if we had
to do that again to get somewhere with the necessary clean-up.
Instead, we merely have to elect politicians who will appoint necessary personnel to
confront the prevailing criminogenic environment. I know, I know – that's a big ask too.
But believe me, it would be even bigger if we must also take the preliminary step of passing
new legislation as well.
MARC STEINER Welcome to The Real News Network. I'm Mark Steiner. Always good to have you
with us. Now if you were watching the previous segment and you saw what Bill Black and I were
talking about, you saw that we were kind of diving into the history of this. Why it's so
difficult to prosecute or maybe it's not, and we're finding out why. But what we didn't jump
into was about Elizabeth Warren's proposal. Do they make sense? If they passed, will they
actually make a difference. What is it that we do we need, more laws like that or do we need
more regulation? What would solve the crisis that we seem to constantly be falling into? And
we're still here with Bill Black as always, which is great. So Bill, let me just jump right
into this. Her proposals -- do they meet muster? Do they actually make a difference? Some
people say she's piddling around the edges. What do you think?
BILL BLACK So for example, the proposed bill on Too Big to Jail would largely recreate the
entities that we had during the great financial crisis, which led to virtually no prosecutions. So yes, we need more resources, but bringing back SIGTARP, the special inspector general for
the Treasury, would have next to no effects.
The criminal referrals have to come from the
banking regulatory agencies. They have essentially been terminated. You need new leadership at
those entities that were actually going to make criminal referrals. The second part -- would it
change things to be able to prosecute simply by showing negligence? Well yes, but it would
still be a massive battle to show negligence in those circumstances and at the end of the day,
the judge could just give probation. And judges are going to be very hostile to it,
particularly after Trump gets all these judicial appointees.
You would just see a wave, if you
used a simple negligence standard of conservative judges who didn't think it was fair to make
it that easy to prosecute folks. They would give people probation. Prosecutors wouldn't want to
go through a huge fight just to get probation and such. And so, it would be immensely
ineffective, and it would break.
There'd be maybe some progressive judges that would actually
give the maximum term, but that's only one year under her proposal. So you're not going to get
significant deterrence through those mechanisms. It's far better to focus on using the existing
criminal laws but changing the things in the system that are so criminogenic and changing
institutionally the regulators, the F.B.I., and the prosecutors, so that you go back to systems
that we've always known how to make work. The simple example is task forces.
What produced the
huge success in the savings and loan, the Commercial Bank, and the Enron era fraud
prosecutions? It was these task forces where we brought everyone together to actually bring
prosecutions. They killed those criminal task forces, both under the Bush administration and
under the Obama administration. So we don't have to reinvent the bike. We don't have to design
a new vehicle. We have a vehicle that works for successful prosecutions. We actually need to
use it and to do that, we need people in charge who have the will to prosecute elite
white-collar criminals.
MARC STEINER So you do agree with a critique of these bills, saying what we need is just to
have greater regulation and enforce regulations we have? We don't need new prosecutorial tools?
Is that what you're saying?
BILL BLACK No I completely reject that view in Slate that is by two folks who have really
extreme views. One thinks that we prosecute and sentence elite white-collar criminals way too
much and much too heavily. And the other, for example, has written an article saying, we
shouldn't make wage theft which is theft, a crime.
Even though it's Walmart's dominant strategy
and it makes it impossible for more honest merchants to compete against Walmart, that is an
insane view. And of course, it will never happen because you're going to put the same people in
charge who don't believe. If they don't believe in prosecuting, you think seriously they
believe in regulating the big banks?
MARC STEINER What I'm asking you though Bill, to critique that, what do you think? Are the
bills that Elizabeth Warren is suggesting unnecessary, other than maybe putting more money into
regulatory agencies to oversee all of this? Are you saying that we have enough prosecutorial
tools?
BILL BLACK They're unnecessary. The specifics in the bills are unnecessary. But that doesn't
mean that regulation is the answer to it, although it's part of the issue.
MARC STEINER I got you. Right.
BILL BLACK What you need is leaders who will use the tools we know work, to do the
prosecutions. And they made absolutely sure -- that's Lanny Breuer who you talked about in the
first episode of this thing, that actually said to a nationwide audience on video that he was
kept awake and fearing not what the bank criminals were doing but fearing that somebody might
lose their job in banks because of it.
You know he doesn't represent the American people at
that point. If you put Lanny Breuer in, you could put 10,000 F.B.I. agents and you would still
get no prosecutions, because Lanny Breuer simply isn't going to prosecute just like Eric Holder
simply wasn't going to prosecute.
It's not just the US, but the UK, too. Readers may be aware that the British government is seeking a successor to Mark Carney at
the Bank of England, which has resumed most, but not all, of its former supervisory
responsibilities this decade.
One of the candidates, Andrew Bailey, a former Bank official and currently head of the
conduct risk regulator, is desperate for the Bank job and publicly and privately speaking
about lightening the regulatory load. Not only that, Bailey is also reluctant to take action
against the well connected and have anything going on that will have an impact on his
application, vide the current London Capital Finance scandal.
At a recent address to asset managers, Bailey said that not on Brexit + day 1, but soon
after the red pen would be applied to the UK rule book. He implied that prosecutions would be
a rarity. It was very much a plea to firms to stay after Brexit and to lobby for his
candidacy.
I am old enough remember clearly the Blue Arrow case in the 1980's ( easily looked up )
but essentially a share rigging operation. The smokescreen advanced by the establishment in
these cases had always been the same; that company fraud is far to complicated for ordinary
mortals to understand . But in the Blue Arrow case they ( the jury ) did understand it, which
terrified the establishment, and word came down from on high that no such prosecutions should
ever happen again . And then we had ' light touch regulation '. And then we had the Great
Financial Crash.
I do indeed Colonel. Both scandals seem almost quaint in the light of the scale of the
manipulation and fraud in the years leading up to the GFC and subsequently; and the
unwillingness of both the UK and US government to even attempt to bring about prosecutions.
The intertwining of politics and big business ( ' the revolving door ' ) has played a large
part in this and IMHO distressed the wider public to such an extent that when they had the
opportunity to show their displeasure they did so and voted for Brexit and Trump.
Those regulators and their ilk need trips to the Old Bailey, although that is not likely
to happen in the foreseeable future. Too much is riding on the Brexit preparations, until the
next panic, and then the following panic. All of those militate against any action that would
harm the fabric of, ahem, pay packets.
If you put Lanny Breuer in, you could put 10,000 F.B.I. agents and you would still get
no prosecutions, because Lanny Breuer simply isn't going to prosecute just like Eric Holder
simply wasn't going to prosecute.
IMHO, you could put Bill Black in, many, if not most of those 10,000 F.B.I. agents would
passively resist, and you would still get no prosecutions.
We're seeing, with Trump, what passive resistance looks like, the same will be done to
Bernie if elected.
The massive momentum of neo-liberal rule is baked in, and has been quite successful at
making sure Trump doesn't screw any of their plans up, in fact Trump derangement syndrome
seems to be working better than they could ever have dreamed to cover the really nasty stuff
that's going on while the people are treated to Russia, Russia, Russia! 24/7.
Bernie would face the same, but probably worse, more intense resistance from what would be
a unified, bi-partisan resistance, the 10%, with forty years worth of Washington Consensus
training under their belts, all either chanting in unison against the evils of socialism, or
sticking their fingers in their ears and chanting Na, Na, Na, Na!
After 9/11, the FBI pulled thousands of agents off white collar crime and switched them to
fighting terrorism, in hindsight, this seems closer to evidence of a plan than an accident of
history.
By now, most, if not all those agents have decided that for the sake of their careers,
they had better forget about what they used to think was important.
It would probably take all of Bernie's first term to bring the public up to speed, and in
alignment with the effort to prosecute the banksters, and that's being optimistic.
Right now, half the electorate believes that dead-beat borrowers crashed the economy in
2008.
You don't need the FBI to prosecute bank crimes. In his book version of Inside Job,
Charles Ferguson laid out the evidence for WaMu (and IIRC another bank) that was sufficient
to be able to indict executives. There was plenty of evidence in the public domain.
Yes, and what is it we are discussing, the reasons why no indictments were made, and what
is to be done about it?
My point is that changes in leadership, IMO are insufficient to prompt those indictments
into being in the near term because in the period since 2008, everything possible has been
done to load the federal bureaucracy with politically reliable persons dedicated to helping
defend the status quo.
I might add that ' The Resistance' has, IMO, been focused almost exclusively on
making sure Trump is not reelected, thereby protecting democratic rice bowls, and sadly, not
so much on preventing his destroying regulatory systems, the courts, and every remnant of the
New Deal.
The situation we're facing is the Augean Stables, except that it's been 40 years, not 30,
that the filth has been building up without a proper cleaning.
So, being wildly optimistic, we elect Bernie Sanders, and if we're lucky, start a
generation long process against a strong head wind.
That said, I remain wildly optimistic that that is what will happen, I just can't help
myself.
I'm not a legal expert but what about going after banks, most of which do business in NY
state, by using the existing Martin Act like Eliot Spitzer. According to
this older article :
"Spitzer's big gun was New York's Martin Act. The law allowed him to subpoena virtually
any document from anyone doing business in the state. Because the law permits prosecutors to
pursue either civil or criminal penalties, Spitzer could refuse to tell suspects which one he
was seeking. Spitzer's willingness to wield the considerable powers permitted by the Martin
Act turned the New York AG's office from a backwater into a rainmaker and made the SEC, which
could impose only puny civil penalties, look like a peashooter.
Spitzer used the Martin Act
to drag angry and unwilling corporate executives into his office for questioning. Then he'd
subpoena huge company files.
Dedicated staff combed through them and, almost inevitably,
found a smoking gun: secretive after-hours trading between mutual funds and hedge funds;
alleged bid rigging at Marsh; and emails from Wall Street analyst Jack Grubman bragging to
his mistress about how he'd recommended a shoddy company in a three-way deal to help his
boss, Citigroup chairman Sandy Weill, humiliate a corporate foe.
Spitzer would then wave "the
bloody shirt," as journalist Roger Donway puts it, in front of the cameras, show off the
worst offenses he had uncovered and use them to tar and feather an entire industry."
"... it was Russia that attacked Iraq on the basis of lies? ..."
"... It must have been Russia that turned Libya into a failed state, complete with slave markets? ..."
"... Instead of spinning fantasies about Maduro going into exile or being overthrown by some kind of joint (and illegal) Latin American task force, how's about we consider the very reasonable idea of Guaidó being arrested and tried for treason? ..."
Please refrain in using the term "democracy" so easily. US is a republic with the surface of
elected representative system, and we know exactly how that works. See the election of Truman
as VP instead of Wallace in 1944 or so or very recently the election of Hillary Clinton as
democratic representative.
A true democracy is done via a sortition system that selects randomly from the roster of
eligible citizens to represent the will of the people.
Imagine that in the Second Amendment instead of "A well regulated Militia, being necessary
to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed" we would have: "A well educated Citizenry, being necessary to the security and
well-being of a free, moral, and ethically sound State, the right of the people to get a
sound Education in Philosophy, Ethics, Civics, Logic, Finance, and Health, shall not be
infringed".
it was Russia that attacked Iraq on the basis of lies?
It is China that is gleefully assisting the Saudi tyrants to commit genocide?
It must have been Russia that turned Libya into a failed state, complete with slave
markets?
Is China now that is frantically threatening war on Iran?
Russia must have been responsible for supporting jihadists to turn Syria into another failed
state, right?
For that matter, is it Russia and China that are threatening war on the elected and UN
recognized government of Venezuela?
Seriously, after America's long and bloody track record of failed and bloody
interventions, it baffles me that anyone could say something so ridiculous.
" fearmongering about the "Yankee" empire to the north."
What, this isn't justified?
Instead of spinning fantasies about Maduro going into exile or being overthrown by some
kind of joint (and illegal) Latin American task force, how's about we consider the very
reasonable idea of Guaidó being arrested and tried for treason?
An honest politician is a biological phantasm, such as minotaurs. Wish as much as you
might, you cannot will either minotaurs or honest politicians into being. Alas, I must
include Tulsi into that concept (though she is certainly the best of the bunch).
We've had honest politicians before. They're not chaemeras, but they are rare.
Many, such as Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt, were Republican. And the most honest
of Democratic Presidents, also named Roosevelt, was as honest as he was in large part because
he admired and emulated his kinsman Theodore.
They can be cultured. But the first step in culturing them is for We The People as a
whole to completely quarantine themselves from ever voting for bullshit. Give the likes of
Tulsi Gabbard an opportunity to stay honest, and she will. But she needs that opportunity. Can
we give it to her?
I my early days, before I really indulged in the swamp, known as politics, my thoughts
were identical to yours.
Presumably, everyone wants a composed, well spoken president, one that can conduct him
or herself with a trace of grace, some modicum of decorum, one who won't embarrass us
every time they speak or try to close an umbrella. Being nice looking also matters since
we have to look at this person a great deal more than we really want. A good smile, nice
teeth, real hair; all of that matters – to some extent. Just not all that much. An
attractive appearance and a suave command of the language actually guarantees very
little. If anything such characteristics have the potential to conceal deep flaws and
questionable actions and policies. Glib good-looking people get away with a lot of
crap.
A perfect exemplar of good teeth, glib words and a smile is Bubba, known as Mr. HRC
these days. What a walking piece of excrement.
I propose a biological comparison of looking for Mr. Goodbar president. This
is the process of birth. Despite genetics, we all to some degree get molded by the
transpelvic experience of our own births. The only exception is Caesarean section, which
involves a vicious intact on mother's anatomy. Can one exit unscathed from such a
beginning. Do all who aspire to speak for others always have at least some degree of
self-aggrandizement? Not necessarily money, but always power over others. It takes enormous
self-belief to imagine any individual capable of making life/death decisions for millions
with adopting the associated power that comes from so doing.
My faith in man/woman is reinforced by such as Chelsea Manning and Julian Assange.
Disregarding for the moment their mutual imprisonment, neither of those would be interested
in holding political office.
An honest politician is a biological phantasm, such as minotaurs. Wish as much as you
might, you cannot will either minotaurs or honest politicians into being. Alas, I must
include Tulsi into that concept (though she is certainly the best of the bunch).
up 11 users have voted. --
"I say enough! If Israel wants to be the only superpower in the Middle East then they can
put their own asses on the line and do it themselves. I want to continue to eat." -- snoopydawg
@thanatokephaloides
that was easy. I'm not sure the word honest would be among the first descriptives about FDR.
Skillful politician, successful president, flexible attitude, good intelligence, concern for
his country's less well off come to mind. I wouldn't apply "honest" to Pearl Harbor or FDR's
seeming unconcern about the Jews of Europe.
Honest also isn't sufficient. Jimmy Carter was one of the most honest presidents. He too
was intelligent, so even that isn't enough. What FDR was very good at was applying his
personal abilities and the media tools of the time to sell the people on his programs. He was
also skillful at keeping his awkward Dem coalition together. Honest Jimmy not so good in
either category.
An honest politician is a biological phantasm, such as minotaurs. Wish as much as
you might, you cannot will either minotaurs or honest politicians into being. Alas, I
must include Tulsi into that concept (though she is certainly the best of the
bunch).
We've had honest politicians before. They're not chaemeras, but they are rare.
Many, such as Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt, were Republican. And the most
honest of Democratic Presidents, also named Roosevelt, was as honest as he was in large
part because he admired and emulated his kinsman Theodore.
They can be cultured. But the first step in culturing them is for We The People
as a whole to completely quarantine themselves from ever voting for bullshit. Give the
likes of Tulsi Gabbard an opportunity to stay honest, and she will. But she needs that
opportunity. Can we give it to her?
@wokkamile
Jimmy Carter, I think his actions in Afghanistan supported the growth of terrorism, and his
efforts to deregulate led to the monopolies we're stuck with now.
#3.2 that was easy. I'm
not sure the word honest would be among the first descriptives about FDR. Skillful
politician, successful president, flexible attitude, good intelligence, concern for his
country's less well off come to mind. I wouldn't apply "honest" to Pearl Harbor or FDR's
seeming unconcern about the Jews of Europe.
Honest also isn't sufficient. Jimmy Carter was one of the most honest presidents. He
too was intelligent, so even that isn't enough. What FDR was very good at was applying
his personal abilities and the media tools of the time to sell the people on his
programs. He was also skillful at keeping his awkward Dem coalition together. Honest
Jimmy not so good in either category.
#3.2.1 Jimmy Carter, I
think his actions in Afghanistan supported the growth of terrorism, and his efforts to
deregulate led to the monopolies we're stuck with now.
@thanatokephaloides
make the case that lincoln was honest. his speeches were carefully tailored to his particular
audiences. he said so many contradictory things that we'll never know for certain what he
thought about slavery and racial equality.
span y OPOL on Sat, 04/27/2019 - 2:52pm While it may be foolish to look to our
political system for solutions to our problems, it is arguable that who is president at any
given time matters. I used to be less certain about this. I had come to the view that any
president was basically a spokes-model for the 1%, and hence the military industrial complex,
Wall Street, the establishment, the oligarchy, etc. I had become inured to the notion that even
'good' presidents could do very little to change the god-awful trajectory of a nation driven
mad by greed. Now, having seen the wreckage a horrible president can wreak on a helpless
nation, I'm starting to re-question why none of the 'good' presidents ever had much impact.
They had the same power to do good as he has to do evil. I'm starting to think they didn't want
to change anything. Or were paid not to. (Shocking, I know.)
Yeah, I'm starting to think they all bamboozled us, promising change and justice, but with
forked tongues as they blithely went about the business of the 1% and the great American war
machine. Our government has been for many years a playground for lobbyists and profiteers, who
often write their own laws. The government may seem dysfunctional, but it's just serving a
purpose other than the well-being of the American people - and certainly not the well-being of
the rest of the world.
I'm beginning to think it does matter who's president – you know, assuming we could
ever have one who wasn't a turn-key functionary of the 1%. Even if they could get no
support or cooperation from congress, four years of a true anti-Trump in the bully pulpit
couldn't hurt. We need much more of course, but that alone would be manna from heaven at this
point.
So assuming the presidency matters, I am endlessly perplexed by the criteria by which people
decide which candidates to support. I am especially agog at how many people are single issue
voters – people who vote for someone because of their race, ethnicity, gender, religion,
geographic origin, appearance or a better-than-average ability to speak the language. If you
vote for a presidential candidate for dumb reasons, you may well end up with a dumb president.
Res ipsa loquitur.
Presumably, everyone wants a composed, well spoken president, one that can conduct him or
herself with a trace of grace, some modicum of decorum, one who won't embarrass us every time
they speak or try to close an umbrella. Being nice looking also matters since we have to look
at this person a great deal more than we really want. A good smile, nice teeth, real hair; all
of that matters – to some extent. Just not all that much. An attractive appearance and a
suave command of the language actually guarantees very little. If anything such characteristics
have the potential to conceal deep flaws and questionable actions and policies. Glib
good-looking people get away with a lot of crap.
I'm often struck by how little people question these things. Or just how incurious they can
be. Many people seem to be on some kind of weird cultural auto-pilot, cruising through daily
life, checking all the boxes, meeting expectations, not questioning anything too rigorously,
settling for simplistic propaganda because the truth these days seems so hard. I mean who has
the time to go rooting about?
I sympathize really. It can be the devil to find untainted news. And the world is awash in
corporate bullshit.
One of the few things the American people agree on is that the mainstream media is
woefully inadequate. According to a 2016 Gallup poll, only about 20 percent of Americans have
confidence in the television news and in newspapers. Donald Trump effectively harnessed this
distrust during his campaign, and still attacks the media before his fans when he wants to
prompt applause.
Americans recognize that the media does not represent their views, and media consolidation
is largely to blame. It depends how you count, but, today, about six corporations control
around 90 percent of our broadcast and print news -- down from 50 corporations in the early
1980s
Six giant, billionaire-owned corporations control 90 percent of the information that gets
disseminated. They decide what merits attention and what doesn't, and they decide how it is
framed and spun. That amounts to a massive domination of the public conversation and a
dastardly manipulation of the public mind.
So little is actually what it seems, especially in the present environment, that
intellectual caution and a certain minimum rigor would seem well advised. It's important to be
skeptical. It can be astonishing how quick people are to jump to conclusions. It's baffling how
dead certain so many people are – even on the most complex and nuanced subjects. As a
society, we perhaps failed to teach people how to think things through, how to be rigorously
critical, how to respect logic and reason, how to appreciate nuance and complexity.
The dumbing down of society has had some alarming consequences. The buy-in of the public to
the national mythology is a fait accompli and it's hard to get anyone to question it. It's as
if they sense that picking at the threads could unravel the whole thing, then where would we
be?
Decades of Madison Avenue social programming have led to a culture where it is commonly
believed (generalizing of course) that: as much as possible, everything should be easy,
convenient and affordable (preferably on sale); for every problem there is a solution available
at Amazon; for every ill a pill; for every need an instant fix.
It's as if we are meant to snuggle up to our TV-land dream world, consume mindlessly and be
milked dry by capitalist predators at every step of the way through both life and death –
as opposed to thinking hard about what we're doing: to the planet; to each other; to the future
of humanity. All in the interest of those few who profit as long as nothing changes.
People don't want to admit how horrible the status quo is. It's too horrific to face. So we
buy into the bullshit. We're heroes fighting for democracy and so on. In truth we are
aggressors occupying and exploiting foreign lands. We fight not for democracy or liberty but
for Halliburton, Teledyne and Exxon-Mobil. If we are ever going to change, this is a truth we
have to face. This is what we will have to undo.
We will have to reimagine a world at peace going forward. We have to fundamentally change
who we are and how we relate to the rest of the world. We need to go from swords to plowshares.
This whole living off of death thing is a nightmare from which we need to awaken. Making war in
the nuclear and biological age is irresponsible, morally reprehensible and eminently
unsustainable, as are so many of our other practices (e.g. rainforest depletion, fossil fuel
extraction, ocean pollution, etc). Humanity deserves better.
If you objectively and consistently observe the mainstream media and its interpretation of
global events, its omissive and deceptive character soon becomes abundantly clear. This could
hardly be called incompetence. The coverage, which is popularly called "news," is in fact
nothing but a propaganda mechanism, designed to persistently shape public opinion in favor of
war.
For the presidency, we need the person most likely to create substantial change -- in all
the right directions, which is an important caveat. We need the person whose policies make the
most sense at the present moment, someone with policies that acknowledge and confront climate
change and sustainable living. And preferably someone with capability and integrity to burn.
Even if we can find all of this, will it be enough? We can't know, we have to try.
We need someone who will rock the boat but be smart about it. We need a change agent devoted
to changing what any honest broker must brand a dishonest and hostile society into something
better for us all. It is a matter of existential survival for us to remake ourselves into the
wise, supporting and nurturing society we all deserve – and often claim to be.
If humans are to last, we must make these deep changes to align our best ideas and values
with our actual day-to-day realities. It's time to be the peace-loving nation we claim to be
and to prove it by leading the rest of the world to peace. We could do this if we chose to. We
could be pushing peace instead of war. All those bomb makers could be doing something else for
a living. We need a president who will get us there and help us undertake the great changes
that we must.
Whoever that might be.
Don't vote for hair, teeth, gender, race or pretty words. This is much more serious than
that.
Why boil something as complex and weighty as a choice of national/international leadership
at this critical juncture of history down to something so simplistic as to be absurd? She's
nice, he's good looking, she's well spoken, he's part Irish. Well, who would want to miss the
chance to vote for someone who's part Irish?
If there is one thing this country needs, it's a deep and profound systemic change in the
way we conduct ourselves in the world and here at home. We need to become the humanitarians we
claim to be. We need to live up to our lofty ideals – that all people are created equal
and are equally deserving of decent treatment. We need a society based on peace, love and
compassion; not war, hate and fear.
We need to uncouple from our single-minded focus on war and profiteering, and focus on
planetary survival and the well-being of the human family. Because if we don't, simply put, we
are done.
We've got to stop doing what we've always done. Not an easy thing. Maybe not even a possible
thing. But we have got to try. We've got to learn to live in a world without violence and
aggression, fossil fuels, reckless pollution and the thoughtless exploitation of resources and
people. We need to become cooperative when it comes to the overall well-being of the planet and
all of its inhabitants. It's going to take all of humanity working together to manage the
future that's coming at us.
If we cannot overcome our violent and brutish ways, if we can't become smart about our
collective behavior, if we can't all pull together, it doesn't bode well for posterity.
We can keep the peace if we are determined to do so. We do it in our everyday lives
(mostly). If we can do it in our neighborhoods, why can't we do it in the world?
The answer is we can. World peace is possible and with real leadership, America could usher
it into being.
With world peace, humanity will be so much better off. We'll invest our treasure in our
people and make this world a better place in a million ways.
A passionate pursuit of world peace is the only rational, caring, decent thing to do...and
probably the only way to ensure a reasonable future for our species. I mean we all want to do
that, right?
"... Trump's apparent popularity isn't hard to understand at all. Many Americans felt let down and left behind by big government, saw their jobs and factories move to Mexico, see a large illegal immigration problem, and felt, with a large measure of justification, that traditional politicians were really only in it for themselves. ..."
"... They saw the US involved in wars and conflicts in places they had never even seen on a map, the banking robber barons take everyone for a sub-prime ride, and Wall Street largely get a pass from Obama. ..."
"... Trump may not be the answer. He's a skilled Vegas shyster selling them something they don't really need - the lie that America has failed and needs to be made "great again". ..."
"Just another rich white guy". With Obama you even managed to get a black guy who was just
another rich white guy. He continued the wars, backed rich megabillionaires who run the
country as a means only to making more billions, and had almost no social conscience...if he
did, he certainly didn't act on it.
You have democrats who are what anyone else in the West outside of Israel consider hawkish
right wingers, almost extreme. Your Republicans are not rightwing...they're one iota short of
being out and out fascists. You have a complete establishment who seem to think government is
not about governing (you know...things like running education, healthcare, social setups,
transport, infrastructure....that kind of thing ).
I can't think of any mainstream right wing politics in any
European/Australasian/democratic Asian countries where Democrats wouldn't be considered to
far right to be called mainstream. Your Democrats have created wars, backed Republican wars,
enabled business to stop the formation of any kind of social government. They support profit
being the driver for everything. They take business bribes the same way Republicans do, only
it's called "lobbying".
Clinton didn't lose because she was a woman, she lost because she was in business's pocket
and was an avid backer of every war she could think of. Even Republicans were heartily sick
of their own corrupt warmongering extremists...otherwise why do you think they voted for
Trump? Unfortunately they were too stupid to realise Trump was exactly the same under a
different marketing brand.
Should Biden be the nominee, it would be manna from heaven for Republicans. His record is
such that the GOP can spend the entire campaign on the offensive (in more ways than one),
correctly painting Biden as the darling of the Deep State, "The Swamp!", the M$M, and Wall
Street (while the Mango Messiah of the MAGAT-Hats reprises his 'working class hero' role from
'16), while the seamier side of the internet goes after Joe's shady brothers, James and Beau,
and his even shadier son (if you're unfamiliar with the accusations, wait five minutes; the
RNC is preparing the talking points as you read).
As the nominee, Sanders puts the GOP on the defensive until election day because 1) Sanders
is on the right side of the practical issues that have been driving elections--and election
results--since 2017 and particularly in '18; and 2) mud doesn't stick to Sanders the way it's
naturally adhesive to Clinton or Biden...and Trump. And he also has one advantage over Trump
that no other DP candidate (with the possible exception of Warren) has: a direct, no-nonsense
personality of the sort Dear Leader finds admirable in sycophants, and utterly intimidating
in opponents.
If Biden is the nominee, he'll get the same plurality of the popular vote as Clinton, and
still be vulnerable in the electoral college. The Senate will remain a GOP-controlled bastion
of obstructionism. The DP's House majority will be eroded (though probably not lost). And the
legislatures up for grabs will mostly remain Republican, just in time to continue in 2021 the
gerrymandering they did in 2011. If anyone is voting for Biden out of Obama nostalgia you're
going to get it in the form of divided government.
If Sanders is the nominee, the DP can take back the Senate, hold on to, or expand, its House
majority, and pick up a few red state governors and legislatures. He also makes more red
states competitive, forcing the GOP to devote far more time, resources and money into holding
on to what they already have, and leaving less to contest elsewhere, while Biden does the
opposite, making blue states competitive for Republicans without affecting red states.
I think that it's noteworthy that nobody here is talking about Biden's speech in Pittsburgh.
Lots of talk about policy, lots of gutter sniping, but no awareness of what's going on on the
ground.
Biden intends to revive the Democrat/Labor coalition that has become increasingly tenuous
since Bill Clinton - a badly frayed relationship that Trump took full advantage of in 2016.
This is a big deal, and Biden can do it. He would have made a very good labor organizer. He
knows what to say, and how to say it. He is going to get the support of every union in
America.
We can be assured that Trump and his people, who already recognize Biden as the front
runner, are paying plenty of attention to the speech. Shortly before, Trump sent Tweets that
try to drive a wedge between union leaders and union members. This is not going to work.
Indeed, I think that it will backfire. A revived Democrat/Labor coalition is a genuine threat
to Trump in what will be key states in 2020, not least Pennsylvania.
The new CNN poll, done before Pittsburgh, has Biden leading Democrats at 39%, and he is
already leading Trump. I believe that his numbers will go up in post-Pittsburgh polls.
Democrats who can see past their noses will watch the speech, which The Guardian and
others have up on YouTube, regardless of which candidate they support. No matter who is the
eventual nominee, that person has to build on what Biden is doing.
This is good news for the Democratic Party, and for all who want to defeat Trump in
2020.
Trump's apparent popularity isn't hard to understand at all. Many Americans felt let down and
left behind by big government, saw their jobs and factories move to Mexico, see a large
illegal immigration problem, and felt, with a large measure of justification, that
traditional politicians were really only in it for themselves.
They saw the US involved in
wars and conflicts in places they had never even seen on a map, the banking robber barons
take everyone for a sub-prime ride, and Wall Street largely get a pass from Obama.
Trump may not be the answer. He's a skilled Vegas shyster selling them something they
don't really need - the lie that America has failed and needs to be made "great again".
But
the Democrats need to get their act together quickly. Over 2 years down, and realistically
only months away from the beginning of a new election campaign, we really should be hearing
about new and hopeful rising stars. People with vision and energy, who can get beyond the
navel-gazing self indulgence of why Hillary lost, or whether they should have gone for Bernie
instead. And it's definitely not Biden. That's all history now. If they don't reenergise,
reinvigorate, and refresh, Trump will sail into a second term of spin, swamp draining and
salesmanship.
Senator Elizabeth Warren's Q&A at the March 7, 2013 Banking Committee hearing entitled
"Patterns of Abuse: Assessing Bank Secrecy Act Compliance and Enforcement." Witnesses were:
David Cohen, Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, United States Department
of the Treasury; Thomas Curry, Comptroller, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency; and
Jerome H. Powell, Governor, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
HSBC has a long history dealing in illicit, immoral drugs. In fact, the bank was
established to facilitate such. "After the British established Hong Kong as a colony in the
aftermath of the First Opium War, local merchants felt the need for a bank to finance the
growing trade between China and Europe (with traded products including opium). They
established the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Company Limited in Hong Kong (March 1865) and
Shanghai (one month later)." ~ Wikipedia Another good source is the book "Dope, Inc." RESIST
!!!
Obviously nobody wants to take responsibilities. They would not even consider what is
morally wrong or acceptable. These are the people we pay salaries to protect us, 316 million
Americans? So we still pay a hefty salary to Senator Powell and David Cohn in Treasury
department? Are these people in cahoots with those who laundered money at J P Morgan ? Do
they make money from both sides? Peel off the tax payers and get bribes from the banks which
launder the money ? I assume this is just a game. Banksters on Wall Street who suck our blood
are still outside on the prowl. They did it in 2008 and are looking for the next move
soon.
What gets me is these banks are part of the illicit drug trade with no chance of jail
time, but if one of the peasants gets busted with a single joint.Prosecution,jail, fines, you
name it, it's throw the book time.We need more people like Warren in government.
Elizabeth Warren may have smart policies. But Bernie Sanders has mass politics.
Last week I wrote
an article
praising Elizabeth Warren for advancing the student debt conversation. While I think her proposal falls short of what we
deserve -- a full-on student debt jubilee, no means-testing or exceptions -- I'm impressed by how seriously it takes the
problem of student debt, leaving Obama-style "refinancing" behind in favor of large-scale debt forgiveness, commensurate
with the gravity of the crisis.
The student debt proposal was one of many recent plans released by Warren in recent
months, ramping up in the last few weeks. Some are better than others. Her
Ultra-Millionaire Tax
is a winner, as is her
Real
Corporate Profits Tax
. Warren's universal childcare plan is promising overall, though it retains
unnecessary
fees
for users. Her
affordable
housing plan
is one-sidedly market-based: its central proposal is to incentivize local governments to remove zoning
restrictions. That needs to be complemented by heavy investments in social housing, a policy
recently
floated
by the People's Policy Project.
But criticisms aside, Warren's proposals trend in a
positive direction. At the very least, they demonstrate a willingness to tackle working people's real problems
with debt, housing, health, and childcare. If they were to materialize, many of these proposals would
significantly improve life for working people -- maybe not as much as we'd like, but enough to be considered a
positive development, especially after decades of Democratic disinterest in policies that threaten corporate
profits or meaningfully redistribute wealth.
So it's understandable why many on the Left have reacted to
Warren's policy blitz with delight. But let's not get ahead of ourselves. The proposals she's pumping out are
exciting, but more to the point, they are a strategy for raising her campaign's profile.
It's not standard in presidential politics to bust out
of the gate with a constant stream of detailed policy ideas. The other candidates aren't
behind
on
releasing policy proposals -- Warren is way ahead, doing something unusual. Bernie Sanders doesn't even have
his policy team fully assembled yet, nor do the others. We need to ask why Warren feels compelled to adopt
this early traction-gaining strategy to begin with.
In my view, Warren's policy blitz is a bid to
distinguish herself in light of her difficulty thus far in cohering an organic base. Put bluntly, Warren is
turning her campaign into a policy factory because she's had trouble inspiring people with a broad-strokes
political vision the way her closest ideological competitor, Bernie Sanders, has.
This strategy may work to boost her campaign prospects, but it's a bad omen for any presidential
administration seriously committed to taking on the ruling elite. If you can't impart to millions of working
people the sense that they are carrying out a historic mission during your campaign -- a "
political
revolution
" driven by "
Not
Me, Us
" -- you won't be able to mobilize them to exert pressure on the state to challenge the interests
of capital when it really counts, during your presidency.
Part of Warren's trouble in the area of mass politics can be traced to the fact that she's neither an
establishment plaything nor an opponent of capitalism. To her credit, Warren won't take corporate money (at
least
during the primary
), and she evades the regular donor circuit. That means that to make her campaign
viable, she needs masses of ordinary people to believe in her project strongly enough to donate their own
hard-earned money to her campaign. Unlike Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Pete Buttigieg, or certainly Joe
Biden, she can't
paper
over
her lackluster popular support with fat checks from elites.
So far, those masses have failed to materialize. That's largely because Warren's temperate political
ideology makes it hard for her to say the things necessary to get their attention. She's great at diagnosing
the worst problems of capitalism and has plans to address them, but her rhetoric doesn't polarize along
class lines. She therefore struggles to define her constituency and identify who exactly that constituency
is up against.
Warren hates egregious inequality, but
fundamentally believes
in the superior rationality of markets. She has unwavering faith in capitalism,
calling herself
"a capitalist to my bones" -- her primary concern is that it has been led astray. At a
time when socialism is
becoming synonymous
with efforts to put people over profit, Warren disavows it. When Donald Trump
declared that "America will never be a socialist country" a couple of months ago, Sanders stayed slouched in
his chair, while Warren
rose to
her feet
in applause.
This means that while Warren knows down to the last detail what she'd like better regulations to look
like, she's not quite solid on the antagonists and protagonists, i.e. which broader social forces need to be
arranged against which other forces to make change.
Sanders's vision of social conflict is quite clear, and is summed up by the name of his
town hall
last year:
CEOs vs. Workers. To make favorable policy materialize and to protect it from reversal, the forces of
workers need to be arranged against the forces of CEOs. Nearly everything Sanders says and does leads back
to this core belief in the power of ordinary working people to take on capitalist elites themselves. As he
puts it
, "Real change never takes place from the top on down. It always takes place from the bottom on
up."
In Warren's case, where oppositional rhetoric appears at all, the contest more often comes across as
"Smart Progressive Policymakers vs. Bad Rules." Not only is there no room in that rivalry for ordinary
people, but the enemy is also faceless. The enemy is incorrect policy, and it must be corrected by expert
policy correctors. Elect Warren, on the basis of her demonstrated expertise, and she will deftly set about
changing the rules so that capitalism doesn't produce so many awful externalities.
Sanders may as well have been winking at Warren when he said, in a
video
screened recently to thousands of self-organized groups of Bernie supporters in every congressional
district:
No president, not the best intentioned, not the most honest person in the world, no one person can do
it alone. Now why is that? Because this is what is not talked about in the media, not talked about in
Congress: the power structure of America is such that a small number of wealthy individuals and large
corporate entities have so much influence over the economic and political life of this country that no
one person can do it.
You think we're gonna pass Medicare for All tomorrow because the president of the United States says
that's what we should do? You think we're gonna take on the fossil fuel industry and effectively and
aggressively combat climate change change because the president of the United States thinks we should do
that? A lot of presidents say, "Gee I have a great idea. I woke up yesterday and I think health care
for all's a good idea." That's not the way it happens. It happens when millions of people stand up and
demand it.
It's unsurprising that Bernie's broad vision of social conflict is more inspiring than Warren's. After
decades of skyrocketing living costs and stagnating wages, many working people are spoiling for a fight.
That nascent fighting spirit can be seen in the popular protest movements that began in 2011, the
unprecedented popularity of Sanders's dark-horse candidacy in 2016, and the teachers strike wave that kicked
off last year.
Unencumbered by an awkward mixture of admiration for capitalism and disapproval of its ugliest excesses,
Bernie Sanders is uniquely capable of picking that fight -- and making ordinary working people feel like
they're at the center of it, that it's theirs to win.
It's the trouble Warren has had breaking through in this way that explains why she has turned to cranking
out hyper-detailed proposals. She's making up with wonkery what she lacks in big-picture political clarity.
In the process, she's successfully grabbing headlines and winning the hearts of left technocrats with
prominent platforms. That might translate into some boost in popular support. But it's not obvious that such
support will ever rival that of a
candidate who tells workers
, "This is class warfare, and we're going to stand up and fight."
We are right to admire many of the ideas coming out of the Warren campaign. Best-case scenario, they will
spur a progressive policy arms race, which would be to the benefit of all.
But we shouldn't see her policy blitz purely as a sign of strength. It may actually be an SOS message, a
panicked response to her campaign's shortcomings in the field of mass politics. And of course, mass politics
are necessary for creating durable and militant constituencies that can
self-organize
outside the state, which is in turn necessary to win and preserve a progressive policy
agenda against the interests of capitalists -- an agenda that Warren and Sanders largely share.
Warren's policy blitz strategy may pay off in the short term. But in the long term, there's no substitute
for naming the sides, picking a side, and building up your side to fight the other side. And that's Bernie's
game.
She rips the Obama White House for its allegiance to Citibank. But she does nto understadn that the problem is not with
Citibank, but with the neoliberalism as the social system. Sad...
Democrats and Republicans are just two sides of the same coin as for neoliberalism. Which presuppose protecting banks, like
Citigroup, and other big corporations. The USA political system is not a Democracy, we have become an Oligarchy with a two Party
twist (Poliarchy) in whihc ordinary voters are just statists who have No voice for anyone except approving one of the two
preselected by big money candidates. It's time we put a stop to this nonsense or we'll all go down with ship.
Anyway, on a positive note
"Each time a person stands up for an ideal to improve the lot of others, they send forth a current that can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistence." RFK
This budget deal is absolutely disgusting. More financial deregulation, the potential for
a second TARP, cuts to pensions, and cuts to funding for Pell Grants to help out students.
Once again, the people lose.
So tough, so strong, and so right. And I love that she's not afraid to rip into Democrats
and the White House for their complicity in selling out our country and tax dollars to the
big banks. We need more strong politicians on both sides of the aisle like this.
It's not party specific, though the Republicans are the worst. Both parties are to be
blame. The biggest blame goes to the Americans who do not vote and those who have no clue who
or what they are voting for. The government is the way it is, it's because of the attitude of
Americans towards politics. Majority do not give a shit and hence you have that pile up in
Washington and states legislature.
Elizabeth Warren is like a fictional do gooder character from Hollywood. No one take her
seriously.
Blame all the politicians you want, you Americans voting or not voting are the lousiest
employers in the world, because you hire a bunch of corruptors into your government. These
corruptors in fact control your lives.
They abuse your money, spending every penny on everything but on you. You would not hand
over your wallet or bank accounts to a strangers, yet are precisely doing that by putting
these corruptors in the government.
This speech encapsulates and exposes all that is wrong with America in general and with
our governance in particular. Taking the heinous provision out of the bill would be a great
first baby step toward cleaning up our politics, economy and collective spirit as a nation.
All the "smart money" says that Warren is engaged in a Quixotic attempt to do something good
in a system that is irredeemably corrupted by money and the lust for power. The cynics may be
right, perhaps America is doomed to be consumed by the parasites to the last drop of
blood...but maybe not. Maybe this ugly indefensibly corrupt malevolent move to put the
taxpayers back on the hook for the next trillion dollar bail out theft will be sufficient to
wake up hundreds of millions of us. When the people wake up and turn on the lights, the
crooks and the legally corrupt will slither away back into their hole...and many may just
wind up in prison, where they belong. But so long as corrupt dirty dastardly interests can
keepAmerica deceived and asleep, they will continue to drain our nation's life's blood dry.
Please share this video widely. If half as many folks watch this speech as watched the Miley
Cyrus "Wrecking Ball" YouTube, the provision to which Warren is objecting will be taken out
very quickly indeed.
As George Carlin said a decade ago,who are we going to replace these politicians with?
They did not fall out of the sky or come from a distant planet. They are US. You can vote all
you want and replace every last one of them but nothing will change. It is human nature.
Besides the road from being on the local town council, to the mayor,Gov then into the Capital
is littered with test to weed out anyone who might really pose a danger to the system. The
occasional odd one that does make it to power is castrated or there simply to give the
illusion that elections matter. Unless you can eliminate the attraction of greed,ego and
power nothing will ever change. Just a quick look back at history tells you what is happening
now and what will be going on in our future. The only difference is there are more zeros.
"... Although the causal relationships are difficult to untangle, there are solid grounds for believing that the rise in monopoly power has played a role in exacerbating income inequality, weakening workers' bargaining power, and slowing the rate of innovation. ..."
"... The debate about how to regulate the sector is eerily reminiscent of the debate over financial regulation in the early 2000s. Proponents of a light regulatory touch argued that finance was too complicated for regulators to keep up with innovation, and that derivatives trading allows banks to make wholesale changes to their risk profile in the blink of an eye. And the financial industry put its money where its mouth was, paying salaries so much higher than those in the public sector that any research assistant the Federal Reserve System trained to work on financial issues would be enticed with offers exceeding what their boss's boss was earning. ..."
"... It is a problem that cannot be overcome without addressing fundamental questions about the role of the state, privacy, and how US firms can compete globally against China, where the government is using domestic tech companies to collect data on its citizens at an exponential pace. And yet many would prefer to avoid them. ..."
"... At this point, ideas for regulating Big Tech are just sketches, and of course more serious analysis is warranted. An open, informed discussion that is not squelched by lobbying dollars is a national imperative. ..."
The debate about how to regulate
the tech sector is eerily reminiscent of the debate over financial regulation in the early 2000s. Fortunately, one US politician
has mustered the courage to call for a total rethink of America's exceptionally permissive merger and acquisition policy over the
past four decades.
CAMBRIDGE – Displaying a degree of courage and clarity that is difficult to overstate, US senator and presidential candidate Elizabeth
Warren has taken on Big Tech, including Facebook, Google, Amazon, and Apple. Warren's proposals amount to a
total rethink of the
United States' exceptionally permissive merger and acquisition policy over the past four decades. Indeed, Big Tech is only the poster
child for a significant increase
in monopoly and oligopoly power across a broad swath of the American economy. Although the best approach is still far from clear,
I
could not agree more that something needs to done, especially when it comes to Big Tech's ability to buy out potential competitors
and use their platform dominance to move into other lines of business.
Warren is courageous because Big Tech is big money for most leading Democratic candidates, particularly progressives, for whom
California is a veritable campaign-financing ATM. And although one can certainly object, Warren is not alone in thinking that the
tech giants have gained excessive market dominance; in fact, it is one of the few issues in Washington on which there is some semblance
of agreement . Other
candidates, most notably Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, have also taken
principled stands
Although the causal relationships are difficult to untangle, there are solid grounds for believing that the rise in monopoly power
has
played a role in exacerbating income inequality, weakening workers' bargaining power, and slowing the rate of innovation. And,
perhaps outside of China, it is a global problem, because US tech monopolies have often achieved market dominance before local regulators
and politicians know what has happened. The European Union, in particular, has been trying to steer its own course on
technology regulation . Recently,
the United Kingdom commissioned an expert group, chaired by former President Barack Obama's chief economist (and now my colleague)
Jason Furman , that produced a
very useful report on approaches to the tech sector.
The debate about how to regulate the sector is eerily reminiscent of the debate over financial regulation in the early 2000s.
Proponents of a light regulatory touch argued that finance was too complicated for regulators to keep up with innovation, and that
derivatives trading allows banks to make wholesale changes to their risk profile in the blink of an eye. And the financial industry
put its money where its mouth was, paying salaries so much higher than those in the public sector that any research assistant the
Federal Reserve System trained to work on financial issues would be enticed with offers exceeding what their boss's boss was earning.
There will be similar problems staffing tech regulatory offices and antitrust legal divisions if the push for tighter regulation
gains traction. To succeed, political leaders need to be focused and determined, and not easily bought. One only has to recall the
2008 financial crisis and its painful aftermath to comprehend what can happen when a sector becomes too politically influential.
And the US and world economy are, if anything, even more vulnerable to Big Tech than to the financial sector, owing both to cyber
aggression and vulnerabilities in social media that can pervert political debate.
Another parallel with the financial sector is the outsize role of US regulators. As with US foreign policy, when they sneeze,
the entire world can catch a cold. The 2008 financial crisis was sparked by vulnerabilities in the US and the United Kingdom, but
quickly went global. A US-based cyber crisis could easily do the same. This creates an "externality," or global commons problem,
because US regulators allow risks to build up in the system without adequately considering international implications.
It is a problem that cannot be overcome without addressing fundamental questions about the role of the state, privacy, and how
US firms can compete globally against China, where the government is using domestic tech companies to collect data on its citizens
at an exponential pace. And yet many would prefer to avoid them.
That's why there has been
fierce pushback against Warren for daring to suggest that even if many services seem to be provided for free, there might still
be something wrong. There was the same kind of pushback from the financial sector fifteen years ago, and from the railroads back
in the late 1800s. Writing in the March 1881 issue of The Atlantic , the progressive activist Henry Demarest Lloyd
warned that,
"Our treatment of 'the railroad problem' will show the quality and caliber of our political sense. It will go far in foreshadowing
the future lines of our social and political growth. It may indicate whether the American democracy, like all the democratic experiments
which have preceded it, is to become extinct because the people had not wit enough or virtue enough to make the common good supreme."
Lloyd's words still ring true today. At this point, ideas for regulating Big Tech are just sketches, and of course more serious
analysis is warranted. An open, informed discussion that is not squelched by lobbying dollars is a national imperative.
The debate
that Warren has joined is not about whether to establish socialism. It is about making capitalist competition fairer and, ultimately,
stronger.
Kenneth Rogoff, Professor of Economics and Public Policy at Harvard University
and recipient of the 2011 Deutsche Bank Prize in Financial Economics, was the chief economist of the International Monetary Fund
from 2001 to 2003. The co-author of This Time is Different:
Eight Centuries of Financial Folly , his new book, The Curse of Cash , was released in August 2016.
Consortium News' Record on Russiagate -- How CN Covered the 'Scandal': No. 7: 'Russiagate
Is No Watergate or Iran-Contra' April 26, 2019 • 108
Comments
Save
Many comparisons have been made between Russiagate and the earlier scandals of Watergate and
Iran-Contra, but the similarities are at best superficial, explained Robert Parry on June 28,
2017.
On CNN last week Carl Bernstein astonishingly said that the Mueller report uncovered a
scandal bigger than Watergate. No one died in either Watergate or Russiagate. But they did in
Iran-Contra, when the Reagan White House skirted Congress'decisionto cut off
funding for the Contras, which led to many more deaths in Nicaragua. It was a scandal uncovered
by CN's founder Bob Parry for the Associated Press. Parry, who was ahead of thepackin debunking Russiagate, filed this report for CN on June 28, 2017.
The bugged phone from the Watergate office of Democratic Party official Spencer Oliver.
Placed on the phone during a May 1972 break-in, the bug was the only device that worked. A
second break-in on June 17. 1972, led to the capture of Richard Nixon's Watergate burglars.
Yet what is perhaps most remarkable about those two Twentieth Century scandals is how little
Official Washington really understands them – and how these earlier scandals
significantly contrast, rather than compare, with what is unfolding now.
Although the historical record is still incomplete on Watergate and Iran-Contra, the
available evidence indicates that both scandals originated in schemes by Republicans to draw
foreign leaders into plots to undermine sitting Democratic presidents and thus pave the way for
the elections of Richard Nixon in 1968 and Ronald Reagan in 1980.
As for Russia-gate, even if you accept that the Russian government hacked into Democratic
emails and publicized them via WikiLeaks, there is still no evidence that Donald Trump or his
campaign colluded with the Kremlin to do so. By contrast, in the origins of Watergate and
Iran-Contra, it appears the Nixon and Reagan campaigns, respectively, were the instigators of
schemes to enlist foreign governments in blocking a Vietnam peace deal in 1968 and negotiations
to free 52 American hostages in Iran in 1980.
Though Watergate is associated directly with the 1972 campaign – when Nixon's team of
burglars was caught inside the Democratic National Committee offices in the Watergate building
– Nixon's formation of that team, known as the Plumbers, was driven by his fear that he
could be exposed for sabotaging President
Lyndon Johnson's Vietnam peace talks in 1968 in order to secure the White House that
year.
After Nixon's narrow victory over Vice President Hubert Humphrey in the 1968 election, FBI
Director J. Edgar Hoover informed Nixon that Johnson had a secret file, complete with
wiretapped phone calls, detailing the Nixon campaign's backchannel messages to South Vietnamese
officials convincing them to boycott Johnson's Paris peace talks. Later, Nixon learned that
this incriminating file had disappeared from the White House.
So, in 1971, after the leaking of the Pentagon Papers, which recounted the lies that had
been used to justify the Vietnam War through 1967, Nixon fretted that the missing file about
his peace-talk gambit in 1968 might surface, too, and would destroy him politically. Thus, he
organized the Plumbers to find the file, even contemplating fire-bombing the Brookings
Institution to enable a search of its safe where some aides thought the missing file might be
found.
In other words, Watergate wasn't simply a break-in at the Democratic National Committee on
June 17, 1972, in pursuit of useful political intelligence and Nixon's ensuing cover-up;
the scandal had its
origins in a far worse scandal , the derailing of peace talks that could have ended the
Vietnam War years earlier and saved the lives of tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers and
possibly more than 1 million Vietnamese.
Iran-Contra Parallels
Similarly, the Iran-Contra scandal exploded in 1986 with revelations that President Reagan
had authorized secret arms sales to Iran with some of the profits going to fund the Nicaraguan
Contra rebels, but the evidence now indicates that the connections between Reagan's team and
Iran's revolutionary regime traced back to 1980 when emissaries from Reagan's campaign worked
to stymie President Jimmy Carter's negotiations to free 52 American hostages then held in
Iran.
PBS Frontline's 1991 documentary, entitled "The Election Held Hostage," co-written by Robert
Parry
According to multiple witnesses, including former Assistant Secretary of State for Middle
Eastern Affairs Nicholas Veliotes, the pre-election contacts led to the opening of a weapons
pipeline to Iran (via Israel), after Reagan was sworn in on Jan. 20, 1981, which was the
precise moment when Iran finally released the American hostages after 444 days.
Some key players in the 1980 Reagan-Iran contacts reappeared four years later at the start
of direct (again secret) U.S. arms shipments to Iran in 1985, which also involved Israeli
middlemen. These key players included Iranian CIA operative Cyrus Hashemi, former CIA
clandestine services chief Theodore Shackley, Reagan's campaign chief and then-CIA Director
William Casey, and former CIA Director and then-Vice President George H.W. Bush.
In other words, the Iran-Contra weapons shipments of 1985-86 appear to have been an
outgrowth of the earlier shipments dating back to 1980 and continuing under Israeli auspices
until the supply line was taken over more directly by the Reagan administration in 1985-86.
Honor the Legacy of Bob Parry with a
Donation to Our Spring Fund Drive.
Thus, both the Watergate scandal in 1972 and the Iran-Contra Affair in 1986 could be viewed
as "sequels" to the earlier machinations driven by Republican hunger to seize the enormous
powers of the U.S. presidency. However, for decades, Official Washington has been hostile to
these underlying explanations of how Watergate and Iran-Contra began.
For instance, The New York Times, the so-called "newspaper of record," treated the
accumulation of evidence regarding Nixon's 1968 peace-talk gambit as nothing more than a
"rumor" until earlier this year when a scholar, John A.
Farrell, uncovered cryptic notes taken by Nixon's aide H.R. Haldeman, which added another
piece to the mosaic and left the Times little choice but to pronounce the historical reality
finally real.
Grasping the Watergate Narrative
Still, the Times and other major news outlets have failed to factor this belated admission
into the larger Watergate narrative. If you understand that Nixon did sabotage President
Johnson's Vietnam War peace talks and that Nixon was aware that Johnson's file on what LBJ
called Nixon's "treason" had disappeared from the White House, the early "Watergate tapes" from
1971 suddenly make sense.
President Richard Nixon with his then-National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger in 1972.
Nixon ordered White House chief of staff H.R. "Bob" Haldeman and National Security Adviser
Henry Kissinger to locate the missing file but their search came up empty. Yet, some Nixon
aides thought the file might be hidden at the Brookings Institution, a liberal think tank in
Washington. So, in his desperate pursuit of the file, Nixon called for a break-in at Brookings,
possibly even fire-bombing the building as a cover for his team of burglars to slip in amid the
confusion and rifle the safe.
The old explanation that Nixon simply wanted to find some file related to Johnson's 1968
pre-election Vietnam bombing halt never made sense given the extreme steps that Nixon was
prepared to take.
The relevant portions of Nixon's White House tapes include an entry on June 17, 1971,
coincidentally one year to the day before the Watergate burglars were caught. Nixon summoned
Haldeman and Kissinger to the Oval Office and pleaded with them again to locate the file.
"Do we have it?" Nixon asked Haldeman. "I've asked for it. You said you didn't have it."
Haldeman: "We can't find it."
Kissinger: "We have nothing here, Mr. President."
Nixon: "Well, damn-it, I asked for that because I need it."
Kissinger: "But Bob and I have been trying to put the damn thing together."
Haldeman: "We have a basic history in constructing our own, but there is a file on it."
Nixon: "Where?"
Haldeman: "[Presidential aide Tom Charles] Huston swears to God that there's a file on it
and it's at Brookings."
Nixon: "Bob? Bob? Now do you remember Huston's plan [for White House-sponsored break-ins as
part of domestic counter-intelligence operations]? Implement it."
Kissinger: "Now Brookings has no right to have classified documents."
Nixon: "I want it implemented. Goddamn-it, get in and get those files. Blow the safe and get
it."
Haldeman: "They may very well have cleaned them by now, but this thing, you need to "
Kissinger: "I wouldn't be surprised if Brookings had the files."
Haldeman: "My point is Johnson knows that those files are around. He doesn't know for sure
that we don't have them around."
But Johnson did know that the file was no longer at the White House because he had ordered
his national security adviser, Walt Rostow, to remove it in the final days of Johnson's
presidency.
Forming the Burglars
On June 30, 1971, Nixon again berated Haldeman about the need to break into Brookings and
"take it [the file] out." Nixon suggested using former CIA officer E. Howard Hunt to conduct
the Brookings break-in.
"You talk to Hunt," Nixon told Haldeman. "I want the break-in. Hell, they do that. You're to
break into the place, rifle the files, and bring them in. Just go in and take it. Go in around
8:00 or 9:00 o'clock."
Haldeman: "Make an inspection of the safe."
Nixon: "That's right. You go in to inspect the safe. I mean, clean it up ."
For reasons that remain unclear, it appears that the Brookings break-in never took place
(nor did the fire-bombing), but Nixon's desperation to locate Johnson's peace-talk file was an
important link in the chain of events that led to the creation of Nixon's burglary unit under
Hunt's supervision. Hunt later oversaw the two Watergate break-ins in May and June of 1972.
While it's possible that Nixon was still searching for the file about his Vietnam-peace
sabotage when the ill-fated Watergate break-ins occurred a year later, it's generally believed
that the burglary was more broadly focused, seeking any information that might have an impact
on Nixon's re-election, either defensively or offensively.
However, if you think back on 1971 when the Vietnam War was tearing the country apart and
massive antiwar demonstrations were descending on Washington, Nixon's desperation to locate the
missing file suddenly doesn't seem quite so crazy. There would have been hell to pay if the
public learned that Nixon had kept the war going to gain a political advantage in
1968.
Through 1972 – and the early days of the Watergate scandal – former President
Johnson had stayed silent about Nixon's sabotage of the Paris peace talks. But the ex-President
became livid when – after Nixon's reelection in 1972 – Nixon's men sought to
pressure Johnson into helping them shut down the Watergate investigation, in part, by noting
that Johnson, too, had deployed wiretaps against Nixon's 1968 campaign to obtain evidence about
the peace-talk sabotage.
While it's not clear whether Johnson would have finally spoken out, that threat to Nixon
ended two days after Nixon's second inaugural when on Jan. 22, 1973, Johnson died of a heart
attack. However, unbeknownst to Nixon, Johnson had left the missing file, called "The
X-Envelope," in the care of Rostow, who – after Johnson's death – gave the file to
the LBJ presidential library in Austin, Texas, with instructions that it be kept under wraps
for at least 50 years. (Rostow's instructions were overturned in the 1990s, and I found the now
largely declassified file at the library in 2012.)
So, with the "The X-Envelope" squirreled away for more than two decades at the LBJ library
and with the big newspapers treating the early sketchy reports of Nixon's peace-talk sabotage
as only "rumors," Watergate remained a scandal limited to the 1972 campaign.
Still, Nixon's cover-up of his campaign's role in the Watergate break-in produced enough
clear-cut evidence of obstruction of justice and other offenses that Nixon was forced to resign
on Aug. 9, 1974.
A Failed Investigation
The 1979-81 hostage confrontation with Iran was not nearly as devastating a crisis as the
Vietnam War but America's humiliation during the 444-day-long ordeal became a focus of the 1980
election, too, with the first anniversary of Iran's seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran
coincidentally falling on Election Day 1980.
Carter signing Camp David peace agreement with Egypt's Anwar Sadat and Israel's Menachem
Begin.
President Carter's failure to gain freedom for the 52 embassy personnel turned what had been
a close race into a landslide for Ronald Reagan, with Republicans also gaining control of the
U.S. Senate and ousting some of the most influential Democratic senators.
In 1984, Reagan won reelection in another landslide, but two years later ran afoul of the
Iran-Contra scandal. Reagan's secret arms sales to Iran and diversion of profits to the Contras
"broke" in November 1986 but focused only on Reagan's 1985-1986 arms sales and the diversion.
Still, the scandal's crimes included violations of the Arms Export Control Act and the
so-called Boland Act's prohibitions on arming the Contras as well as perjury and obstruction of
justice. So there was the prospect of Reagan's impeachment.
But – from the start of Iran-Contra – there was a strong pushback from
Republicans who didn't want to see another GOP president driven from office. There was also
resistance to the scandal from many mainstream media executives who personally liked Reagan and
feared a public backlash if the press played an aggressive role similar to Watergate.
And, moderate Democrats, such as Rep. Lee Hamilton of Indiana who co-chaired the
congressional investigation, sought to tamp down the Iran-Contra fires and set up firebreaks to
prevent the investigation from spreading to related crimes such as the Reagan administration's
protection of Contra
cocaine traffickers .
"Ask about the cocaine," pleaded one protester who was dragged from the Iran-Contra hearing
room, as the congressional investigators averted their eyes from such unseemly matters,
focusing instead on stilted lectures about the Congress's constitutional prerogatives.
It was not until 1990-91 that it became clear that secret U.S.-approved arms shipments to
Iran did not start in 1985 as the Iran-Contra narrative claimed but traced back to 1981 with
Reagan's approval of arms sales to Iran through Israel.
Reagan's politically risky move of secretly arming Iran immediately after his inauguration
and the hostage release was nearly exposed when one of the Israeli flights strayed into Soviet
airspace on July 18, 1981, and crashed or was shot down.
In a PBS interview nearly a decade later, Nicholas Veliotes, Reagan's assistant secretary of
state for the Middle East, said he looked into the incident by talking to top administration
officials.
"It was clear to me after my conversations with people on high that indeed we had agreed
that the Israelis could transship to Iran some American-origin military equipment," Veliotes
said.
In checking out the Israeli flight, Veliotes came to believe that the Reagan camp's dealings
with Iran dated back to before the 1980 election. "It seems to have started in earnest in the
period probably prior to the election of 1980, as the Israelis had identified who would become
the new players in the national security area in the Reagan administration," Veliotes said.
"And I understand some contacts were made at that time."
"... Trump also seems to think he stands a better chance in a straight fight against Bernie (lobbyist vs grass roots) than a mixed bout against Biden (lobbyist vs lobbyist), so he's looking to take down the Clinton's, Obamas, and the whole motley crew to give Bernie an easier ride to the general. ..."
Trump apparently thinks a Bernie primary victory along with another year of
counter-Russiagate investigations will break the corporate Dems, and give DC lobbyists no
place to lay their campaign cash but at his feet. Instead of draining the swamp, Trump wants
to monopolize it.
Trump also seems to think he stands a better chance in a straight fight against Bernie
(lobbyist vs grass roots) than a mixed bout against Biden (lobbyist vs lobbyist), so he's
looking to take down the Clinton's, Obamas, and the whole motley crew to give Bernie an
easier ride to the general.
Never interrupt your opponent when he's making a mistake, and especially when he's making
that mistake against your other opponent. If Trump is so deluded as to think Biden is a more
dangerous opponent than Bernie, then I say let him keep riling up Dem party insurgents and
reminding Dem Exiters and indies why they want to vote for Bernie.
Because that hornet's nest he's poking today will be coming for him tomorrow.
Still, since some political observers and journalists haven't wrapped their head around the
reality that he could be more than a spoiler who kneecaps the party en route to a complicated
convention and maybe another loss to Donald Trump, Sanders has been able to do this without the
attention or scrutiny that anyone else with his poll numbers, fundraising, and crowds would
face.
"There's a three-out-of-four chance we are not the nominee," Faiz Shakir, Sanders's current
campaign manager, says he tells the senator, "but that one-in-four chance is better than anyone
else in the field."
... ... ...
So he's eagerly gotten into fights, like one over the weekend with the Center for American
Progress about a video produced by an affiliated website that speciously accused him of
profiting off his 2016 run. And then he's fundraised by citing the fights as evidence of
resistance to the revolution he's promising.
span y gjohnsit on Mon, 04/29/2019 - 11:53am Donald Trump The Liar is no fan of
Bernie Sanders, so any advice he gives is totally self-serving. Nevertheless, he can
occasionally tell the truth, if only by accident.
....for the more traditional, but not very bright, Sleepy Joe Biden. Here we go again
Bernie, but this time please show a little more anger and indignation when you get
screwed!
Trump only cares about this primary rigging because it
makes the Dems look bad, but that doesn't mean that he's wrong.
In related news, the dark
money is rolling into the Democratic Party.
A group of Democratic operatives are launching a $60 million political group with plans to
reclaim values-laden terms like "freedom" and "opportunity" for their party ahead of the 2020
election.
..."It's no great secret that the presidential race will be won or lost in Pennsylvania,
Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio -- if we can win back the narrative that the word 'Democrat' equals
people who are fighting for folks who work hard every day, we can continue to win elections,"
Riddle said. "If [Democrats] get defined as being about socialism and these other words
people can hear about out of Washington, then I worry."
Future Majority has enlisted advisers including Dan Sena, who was executive director of
the DCCC for the last election, and Julianna Smoot, a deputy campaign manager on Barack
Obama's 2012 reelection effort. Two major Democratic donors are co-chairing the group: Philip
Munger, son of Berkshire Hathaway billionaire Charles Munger, and Dan Tierney, founder of
high-speed trading company GETGO. Keith Mestrich, president and CEO of Amalgamated Bank, is
also helping fund the group.
Ah, yes. CEOs and billionaires "fighting for folks who work hard every day". I guess the
question here is who are "folks"?
During the 2018 midterm election, Future Majority briefed the DCCC on matters including
strategies for talking to voters about the economy and how swing voters viewed the Democratic
and Republican parties. Future Majority helped the DCCC "round out a narrative" that spoke to
a broader swath of voters, Sena said, particularly when it came to discussing the economy.
Gee, lemme guess what that narrative about the economy sounded like. Speaking of narratives, this
has got to be my favorite spin so far because it is so damn elitist.
Rather than a politics financed by special interests, Sanders is drawing funds from an army
of local activists, whose commitment to the cause induces them to chip in $20 here or $40
there.
... Call me a contrarian, but I have my doubts about this mode of financing, too. Again,
stipulating that donors have access or influence that average voters do not possess, is it
really better for activists to be the main source of finance? Corporate lobbyists are going
to invest in politics for their stockholders' interests, but activists have a wide array of
ideological views that are often out of step with the rest of society. The Sanders voters in
particular are far to the left of the average American -- and probably the average Democrat,
too.
We complain so much about political polarization these days, and I think with good reason.
But to what extent does the polarization in the last generation lead back to this revolution
in campaign finance? Are grassroots extremists pulling candidates to the ideological fringes
by increments of $20 apiece? It's very possible.
All of this speaks to some inconvenient truths that Americans have failed to fully grok:
Politics is very expensive, somebody has to pay for it, and whoever does is going to get
special access. Who do we want those persons to be? Special interests, activists, somebody
else? We collectively don't know, as we tend not to think much at all about campaign finance.
Maybe if a socialist captures the Democratic nomination this cycle, we'll think a little more
clearly about whether we want our local hippies bankrolling politics.
He even manages to punch some hippies. He should get extra points for that.
"... The truth is, that a foreign government did indeed meddle in the American Presidential election, in a failed attempt to fix the outcome, but it was not Russia. It was the City of London, and the Five Eyes imperial intelligence services of the British Commonwealth, along with treasonous, "Tory" American elements. If that admission is forced to the surface, through the vigorous actions of all that oppose the presently dominant Big Lie tyranny, that revelation will shock and liberate people all over the world. The mental stranglehold of "fake news" media outlets can be permanently broken. That is the task of the next days and weeks. ..."
"... Apart from documenting the presence of "former" British intelligence agent Christopher Steele, former MI6 head Sir Richard Dearlove, and former GCHQ head Robert Hannigan at the center of the Russiagate campaign against President Trump for the past several years, we must, in order to expose this successfully, identify not only what was actually done and who was doing it, but the deeper policy motivation: why it was done. ..."
"... President Donald Trump has no vested interest in protecting the British "special relationship." From his second day in office, Trump declared that he would clean out the intelligence agencies. If Trump were to do that, however, the real, tragic history of America's last 50 years would be exhumed from that swamp. Shining a light into that darkness would illuminate the world. The American people would stop playing Othello to the City of London's Iago. They would denounce the British "special relationship," never again to fight imperial wars for the greater glory of the British Empire. They would learn the true story of Vietnam, of Iraq 1991 and Iraq 2003, of Libya 2011, and many other conflicts, special operations, and assassinations. The American people would know the truth, and the truth would set them free. ..."
"... The current insurrection against the United States Presidency is part of a global strategic battle: will a conspiracy of republican forces overcome the modern day British imperial system, centered in the hot money centers of the City of London and Wall Street, or will the oligarchical system once again triumph, immiserating all but the very wealthy? That is the real issue of the insurrection against the maverick American president being conducted by the London and NATO-centered enforcers of the old world. To paraphrase the American Declaration of Independence, ..."
"... According to CIA Director John Brennan's Congressional testimony, the British began complaining loudly about candidate Trump and Russia in late 2015. Brennan's statements were echoed in articles in The Guardian . According to Brennan, intelligence leads about Trump and Russia had been forwarded to Brennan from both British intelligence and from Estonia. ..."
"... This task force targeted Trump campaign volunteers Carter Page and George Papadopoulos in entrapment operations on British soil, using British agents, during the spring and summer of 2016. ..."
"... Hannigan abruptly resigned from GCHQ shortly after the election, sparking widespread speculation that the British were making an attempt at damage control. ..."
"... In 2016, the Manafort investigation migrated to the Democratic National Committee with direct assistance provided by Ukrainian state intelligence. This effort was led by Alexandra Chalupa, an admirer of Stepan Bandera and other heroes of Nazi history in Ukraine. Chalupa also had deep connections to British-oriented networks at the U.S. State Department. ..."
"... The final nail in this case has been provided by The Hill 's John Solomon. He says that Steele told former Associate Attorney General Bruce Ohr about the sources for the dirty dossier. According to Solomon, Ohr's notes reveal one main source, a former senior Russian intelligence official living in the United States. But, as anyone familiar with the territory would know, there is no such retired senior Russian intelligence official living in the United States whose entire life is not controlled by the CIA. ..."
"... As a result of Congressional investigations of Russiagate, it has become abundantly clear that the British operation against Trump was aided and abetted by the Obama White House, the State Department, the CIA, the FBI, and personalities associated with the National Endowment for Democracy. ..."
"... Out of the Ukraine coup, an entire military-centered propaganda apparatus arose, first through NATO, and then out from there to military units and diplomatic centers in the U.S., Europe, and Britain, to run low intensity operations, and black propaganda, against Russia. ..."
"... The British end of the operation includes the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, and NATO's Strategic Communications Center. In the United States, the Integrity Initiative has been integrated into the Global Engagement Center at the U.S. State Department. Most certainly, this operation is poised again to intervene in the U.S. elections; the British House of Lords have stated explicitly, in their December 2018 report, British Foreign Policy in a Shifting World Order, that Donald Trump must not be re-elected. ..."
"... This is why the British are yelping that under no circumstances can the classified documents concerning their role in the attempted coup against Donald Trump be declassified. It would end their leverage over the United States and much of Europe. That is why these documents must indeed be declassified, and parallel investigations by citizens and government officials concerned with ending the imperial system, otherwise known as the current "war party," must begin in earnest. ..."
"... Why did the DNC not allow the FBI to investigate the so-called" Russian hacked" emails? Rather, they hire CrowdStrike did you know: ..."
"... War with Afghanistan was Obama's payoff to the MIC, just as Russia is now Trump's payoff. ..."
"... The important truth about the emails is in their authenticity and in the contents. No one has even attempted to claim that they are not authentic or that the contents we've seen are other than the actual contents of the authentic messages. ..."
"... That is what i think. People should not concentrate on how, who and where. This is just a smokescreen to avoid talking about the content of the emails and Hillary Clinton's disgusting actions. She is a criminal and a murderess just like Obama and Tony Blair are lyers and mass murderers. ..."
The British Role in 'Russiagate' Is About to Be Fully Exposed April 8, 2019
20190408-russiagate-exposed-brits.pdf
The "fake news" media has now dropped its pretense of having ever had any intention of allowing the truth -- as documented in
U.S. Attorney General Barr's summary of Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller's report, exonerating President Donald Trump of having
"conspired or coordinated with the Russian government" -- to thoroughly refute the Russiagate "Big Lie." Soon, however, it is certain
that the deliberate, British Intelligence-originated, military-grade disinformation campaign carried out against the United States,
including to this day, will be exposed.
The truth is, that a foreign government did indeed meddle in the American Presidential election, in a failed attempt to fix
the outcome, but it was not Russia. It was the City of London, and the Five Eyes imperial intelligence services of the British Commonwealth,
along with treasonous, "Tory" American elements. If that admission is forced to the surface, through the vigorous actions of all
that oppose the presently dominant Big Lie tyranny, that revelation will shock and liberate people all over the world. The mental
stranglehold of "fake news" media outlets can be permanently broken. That is the task of the next days and weeks.
"It's hard to find a black cat in a dark room, especially if there is no cat," says the Chinese proverb. Yet, although the Mueller
report was called a "nothing burger," it was not: it still presented the potentially lethal lie that twelve Russian gremlins, code-named
Guccifer 2.0, hacked the DNC. Sundry media meatheads thus continue to blog and broadcast about "what else is really there."
The false Russian hack story, still being repeated, marches on, undeterred, like the emperor without any clothes. One lame-brained
variation, promoted in order to cover up the British role, states that Hillary Clinton, rather than Trump, colluded with the Russians.
It is being repeated by Republicans and Democrats alike, some of them malicious, some of them confused, and all of them completely
wrong. The media, such as the failed New York Times and various electronic media, must be forced to either admit the truth,
or be even more thoroughly discredited than they already have been. They must stop their constant repetition of this Joseph Goebbels-like
Big Lie. There must be a vigorous dissemination of the truth by all those journalists, politicians, activists and citizens that love
truth more than their own assumptions, including about President Trump, or other dearly-held systems of false belief.
Apart from documenting the presence of "former" British intelligence agent Christopher Steele, former MI6 head Sir Richard
Dearlove, and former GCHQ head Robert Hannigan at the center of the Russiagate campaign against President Trump for the past several
years, we must, in order to expose this successfully, identify not only what was actually done and who was doing it, but the deeper
policy motivation: why it was done.
A New Cultural Paradigm
The world is actually on the verge of ending the military conflicts among the major world powers, such as Russia, China, the United
States, and India. These four powers, and not the City of London, are the key fulcrum around which a new era in humanity's future
will be decided. A new monetary and credit system brought into being through these four powers would foster the greatest physical
economic growth in the history of humanity. In addition, discussions involving Italy working with China on the industrialization
of the African continent (discussions which could soon also involve the United States) show that sections of Europe want to join
China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and leave the dying trans-Atlantic financial empire behind.
The recent announcement of a United States commitment to return to the Moon by 2024 can, in particular, become the basis for a
proposal to other nations -- for example, China, Russia, and India, all of whom are space powers of demonstrated capability -- to
resolve their differences on Earth in a higher, joint mission. As Russia's Roscosmos Director Dmitry Rogozin said in a recent interview:
"I am a fierce proponent of international cooperation, including with Americans, because their country is big and technologically
advanced, and they can make good partners Especially since personal and professional relations between Roscosmos and NASA at the
working level are great."
There is also the possibility of ending the danger of thermonuclear war. President Trump, speaking on April 4 of the prospects
for world peace, stated:
"Between Russia, China, and us, we're all making hundreds of billions of dollars worth of weapons, including nuclear, which is
ridiculous. I think it's much better if we all got together and didn't make these weapons those three countries I think can come
together and stop the spending and spend on things that are more productive toward long-term peace."
This is a statement of real importance. Such an outlook is a rejection of the "perpetual crisis/perpetual war" outlook of the
Bush-Obama Administration, a four-term "war presidency" which was abruptly, unexpectedly ended in 2016. The British were not amused.
It is to stop this new cultural paradigm, pivoted on the Pacific and the potential Four Powers alliance, that British imperial
forces have deployed. The 2016 election of President Trump, and his personal friendship with President Xi Jinping and desire to work
with President Putin, are an intolerable strategic threat to the eighteenth-century geopolitics of the British empire. They have
repeatedly used Russiagate to disrupt the process of deliberation among Presidents Xi, Trump, and Putin, thus increasing the danger
of war. Russiagate, in the interest of international security, must be ended by exposing it for the utter fraud that it is.
The Truth Set Free
President Donald Trump has no vested interest in protecting the British "special relationship." From his second day in office,
Trump declared that he would clean out the intelligence agencies. If Trump were to do that, however, the real, tragic history of
America's last 50 years would be exhumed from that swamp. Shining a light into that darkness would illuminate the world. The American
people would stop playing Othello to the City of London's Iago. They would denounce the British "special relationship," never again
to fight imperial wars for the greater glory of the British Empire. They would learn the true story of Vietnam, of Iraq 1991 and
Iraq 2003, of Libya 2011, and many other conflicts, special operations, and assassinations. The American people would know the truth,
and the truth would set them free.
The current insurrection against the United States Presidency is part of a global strategic battle: will a conspiracy of republican
forces overcome the modern day British imperial system, centered in the hot money centers of the City of London and Wall Street,
or will the oligarchical system once again triumph, immiserating all but the very wealthy? That is the real issue of the insurrection
against the maverick American president being conducted by the London and NATO-centered enforcers of the old world. To paraphrase
the American Declaration of Independence,
"The history of the present Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the
undermining of the United States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world."
DOCUMENTATION
While Robert Mueller found that there was "no collusion" between Donald Trump or the Trump Campaign and Russia, he also filed
two indictments regarding alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election. The first alleges that 12 members of Russian Military
Intelligence hacked the DNC and John Podesta and delivered the purloined files to WikiLeaks for strategic publication before the
July 2016 Democratic National Convention and in October 2016, one month before the election. The second indictment charges the Internet
Research Agency, a Russian internet merchandising and marketing firm, with running social media campaigns in the U.S. in 2016 designed
to impact the election. When the fuller version of the Mueller report becomes public, it is certain to recharge the claims of Russian
interference based on the so-called background "evidence" supporting these indictments.
The good news, however, is that investigations in the United States and Britain, have unearthed significant contrary evidence
exposing British Intelligence, NATO, and, to a lesser extent, Ukraine, as the actual foreign actors in the 2016 U.S. presidential
election. We provide a short summary of the main aspects of that evidence to spark further investigations of the British intelligence
networks, entities, and methods at issue, internationally. More detailed accounts concerning specific aspects of what we recite here
can be found on our website.
The Russian Hack That Wasn't
The Veterans Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, an association of former U.S. intelligence officials, have demonstrated that
the Russian hack of the DNC alleged by Robert Mueller, was more likely an internal leak,
rather than a hack conducted
over the internet. William Binney, who conducted the main investigations for the VIPS, spent 30 years at the National Security Agency,
becoming Technical Director. He designed the sorts of NSA programs that would detect a Russian hack if one occurred. Binney conducted
an actual forensic examination of the DNC files released by WikiLeaks, and the related files circulated by the persona Guccifer 2.0,
who Robert Mueller claims is a GRU creation. Binney has demonstrated that the calculated transfer speeds and metadata characteristics
of these files are consistent with downloading to a thumb drive or storage device rather than an internet-based hack. This supports
the account by WikiLeaks of how it obtained the files. According to WikiLeaks and former Ambassador Craig Murray, they were obtained
from a person who was not a Russian state actor of any kind, in Washington, D.C. WikiLeaks offered to tell the Justice Department
all about this, and actual negotiations to this effect were proceeding in early 2017, when Senator Mark Warner and FBI Director James
Comey acted to sabotage and end the negotiations.
Further, as opposed to the hyperbole in the media and in Robert Mueller's indictment, analysis of the Internet Research Agency's
alleged "weaponization" of Facebook in 2016 involved
a paltry total of $46,000 in Facebook
ads and $4,700 spent on Google platforms . In an election in which the major campaigns spend tens of thousands of dollars every
day on these platforms, whatever the IRA thought it was doing in its amateurish and juvenile memes and tropes was like throwing a
stone in the ocean. Most of these activities occurred after the election and never mentioned either candidate. The interpretation
that these ads were designed to draw clicks and website traffic, rather than influence the election, must be considered.
The "evidence" for Mueller's GRU hacking indictment was provided, in part, by CrowdStrike, the DNC vendor that originated the
claims that the Russians had hacked that entity. CrowdStrike is closely associated with the Atlantic Council's Digital Research Lab
(DRL), an operation jointly funded by NATO's Strategic Communications Center and the U.S. State Department, to counter Russian "hybrid
warfare." CrowdStrike has been caught more than once falsely attributing hacks to the Russians and the Atlantic Council's DRL is
a font of anti-Russian intelligence operations.
The British Target Trump
According to CIA Director John Brennan's Congressional testimony, the British began complaining loudly about candidate Trump
and Russia in late 2015. Brennan's statements were echoed in articles in The Guardian . According to Brennan, intelligence
leads about Trump and Russia had been forwarded to Brennan from both British intelligence and from Estonia. The former head
of the Russia Desk for MI6 and protégé of Sir Richard Dearlove, Christopher Steele, fresh from working for British Intelligence,
the FBI, and U.S. State Department in the 2014 Ukraine coup, assembled in 2016 a phony dossier called Operation Charlemagne, claiming
widespread Russian interference in European elections, including in the Brexit vote. By the spring of 2016, Steele was contributing
to a British/U.S. intelligence task force on the Trump Campaign which had been convened at CIA headquarters under John Brennan's
direction.
This task force targeted Trump campaign volunteers Carter Page and George Papadopoulos in entrapment operations on British
soil, using British agents, during the spring and summer of 2016. The personnel employed in these operations all had multiple
connections to the British firm Hakluyt, to Steele's firm Orbis, and to the British military's Integrity Initiative. Sometime in
the summer of 2016, Robert Hannigan, then head of GCHQ, flew to Washington to brief John Brennan personally. Hannigan abruptly
resigned from GCHQ shortly after the election, sparking widespread speculation that the British were making an attempt at damage
control.
Michael Flynn and Paul Manafort were already on the radar and under investigation by the same British, Dearlove-centered intelligence
network and by Christopher Steele specifically. Flynn had been defamed by Dearlove and Stefan Halper, as a possible Russian agent
way back in 2014 because he spoke to Russian researcher Svetlana Lokhova at a dinner sponsored by Dearlove's Cambridge Security Forum.
Or, at least that was the pretext for the targeting of Flynn, who otherwise defied British intelligence by exposing Western support
for terrorist operations in Syria and sought a collaborative relationship with Russia to counter ISIS. Manafort was under FBI investigation
throughout 2014 and 2015, largely in retaliation for his role in steering the Party of the Regions to political power in Ukraine.
In 2016, the Manafort investigation migrated to the Democratic National Committee with direct assistance provided by Ukrainian
state intelligence. This effort was led by Alexandra Chalupa, an admirer of Stepan Bandera and other heroes of Nazi history in Ukraine.
Chalupa also had deep connections to British-oriented networks at the U.S. State Department.
In or around June 2016, Christopher Steele began writing his dirty and bogus dossier about Trump and Russia. This is the dossier
which claimed that Trump was compromised by Putin and that Putin was coordinating with Trump in the 2016 election. The main "legend"
of this full-spectrum information warfare operation run from Britain, was that Donald Trump was receiving "dirt" on Hillary Clinton
from Russia. The operations targeting Page and Papadopoulos consisted of multiple attempts to plant fabricated evidence on them which
would reflect what Steele himself was fabricating in the dirty dossier. At the very same time, the infamous June 2016 meeting at
Trump Tower was being set up. That meeting involved the Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya, who, it was alleged in a series of
bizarre emails written by British publicist Ron Goldstone to set up the meeting, could deliver "dirt" on Hillary Clinton direct from
the Russian government. Veselnitskaya didn't deliver any such dirt. But the entire operation was being monitored by State Department
intelligence agent Kyle Parker, an expert on Russia. Parker's emails reveal deep ties to the highest levels of British intelligence
and much chatter between them about Trump and Russia.
A now-changed version of the website for Christopher Steele's firm, Orbis, trumpeted an expertise in information warfare operations,
and the networks in which Steele runs are deeply integrated into the British military's Integrity Initiative. The Integrity Initiative
is a rapid response propaganda operation using major journalists in the United States and Europe to carry out targeted defamation
campaigns. Its central charge, according to documents posted by the hacking group Anonymous, is selling the United States and Western
Europe on the immediate need for regime change in Russia, even if that involves war.
Much has been made by Republicans and other lunkheads in the U.S. Congress of Steele's contacts with Russians for his dossier.
They claim that such contacts resulted in a Russian disinformation operation being run through the duped Christopher Steele. Nothing
could be further from the truth.
MI6's Dirty Dossier on Donald Trump: Full-Spectrum Information Warfare
On its face, Steele's dossier would immediately be recognized as a complete fabrication by any competent intelligence analyst.
He cites some 32 sources inside the Russian government for his fabricated claims about Trump. What they allegedly told him is specific
enough in time and content to identify them. To believe that the dossier is true or that actual Russians contributed to it, you must
also believe that that the British government was willing to roll up this entire network, exposing them, since the intention was
for the dossier's wild claims to be published as widely as possible. By all accounts, Britain and the United States together do not
have 32 highly placed sources inside the Russian government, nor would they ever make them public in this way or with this very sloppy
tradecraft. Steele's fabrication also uses aspects of readily available public information, such as the sale of 19% of the energy
company Rosneft, (the alleged bribe offered to Carter Page for lifting sanctions) to concoct a fictional narrative of high crimes
and misdemeanors.
Other claims in the dossier were published, publicly, in various Ukrainian publications. The famous claim that Trump directed
prostitutes to urinate on a bed once slept upon by Barack Obama seems to be plagiarized from similarly fake 2009 British propaganda
stories about Silvio Berlusconi spending the night with a prostitute in a hotel room in Rome, "defiling" Putin's bed. According to
various sources in the United States, this outrageous claim was made by Sergei Millian. George Papadopoulos has stated that he believes
Millian is an FBI informant, recounting in his book how a friend of Millian's blurted this out when Millian, Papadopoulos and the
friend were having coffee.
The final nail in this case has been provided by The Hill 's John Solomon. He says that Steele told former Associate
Attorney General Bruce Ohr about the sources for the dirty dossier. According to Solomon, Ohr's notes reveal one main source, a former
senior Russian intelligence official living in the United States. But, as anyone familiar with the territory would know, there is
no such retired senior Russian intelligence official living in the United States whose entire life is not controlled by the CIA.
Despite its obvious fake pedigree, Steele's dossier was laundered into the Justice Department repeatedly, by the CIA and State
Department and the Obama White House. It was used to obtain FISA surveillance warrants turning key members of the Trump Campaign
into walking microphones. It was circulated endlessly by the Clinton Campaign to a network of reporters in the U.S. known to serve
as scribes for the intelligence community. John Brennan used it to conduct a special emergency briefing of the leading members of
the U.S. Congress charged with intelligence responsibilities in August of 2016 and to brief Harry Reid, who was Senate Majority Leader
at the time. All of this activity meant that the salacious accusation that Trump was a Putin pawn and the FBI was investigating the
matter, leaked out and was used by the Clinton Campaign to defame Trump for its electoral advantage. When Trump won, Steele's nonsense
received the stamp of the U.S. intelligence community and official currency in the campaign to take out the President.
As a result of Congressional investigations of Russiagate, it has become abundantly clear that the British operation against
Trump was aided and abetted by the Obama White House, the State Department, the CIA, the FBI, and personalities associated with the
National Endowment for Democracy. The individuals involved might be named Veterans of the 2014 Ukrainian Coup, since all of
them also worked on this operation. It is no accident that Victoria Nuland, the case agent for the Ukraine coup, played a major role
in bolstering Steele's credentials for the purpose of selling his dirty dossier to the media and to the Justice Department. This
went so far as Steele giving a full scale briefing on his fabricated dossier at the State Department in October 2016.
Out of the Ukraine coup, an entire military-centered propaganda apparatus arose, first through NATO, and then out from there
to military units and diplomatic centers in the U.S., Europe, and Britain, to run low intensity operations, and black propaganda,
against Russia.
The British end of the operation includes the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, and NATO's Strategic Communications
Center. In the United States, the Integrity Initiative has been integrated into the Global Engagement Center at the U.S. State Department.
Most certainly, this operation is poised again to intervene in the U.S. elections; the British House of Lords have stated explicitly,
in their December 2018 report, British Foreign Policy in a Shifting World Order, that Donald Trump must not be re-elected.
This is why the British are yelping that under no circumstances can the classified documents concerning their role in the
attempted coup against Donald Trump be declassified. It would end their leverage over the United States and much of Europe. That
is why these documents must indeed be declassified, and parallel investigations by citizens and government officials concerned with
ending the imperial system, otherwise known as the current "war party," must begin in earnest.
"in a post-Iraq invasion world, only herd-minded human livestock believe"
Perhaps add mainstream media to the list of such sincere believers, they will fire their own real journalists.
David Walters , April 24, 2019 at 13:14
"This doesn't mean that Russia would never use hackers to interfere in world political affairs or that Vladimir Putin is some
sort of virtuous girl scout, it just means that in a post-Iraq invasion world, only herd-minded human livestock believe the unsubstantiated
assertions of opaque and unaccountable government agencies about governments who are oppositional to those same agencies."
Absolutely correct.
Anyone who still believes what the IC says if a moron. As Pompeo recently said to the student body of Texas A&M University,
my alma matta, the CIA's job is to lie, cheat and steel. He went on the explain that the CIA has courses to teach their agent
that dark "art".
Right, David Walters, and see Pompous Pompeo now. The only truths he's told was to a student body of Texas A&M University –
his own alma mater – the CIA's job is to lie, cheat and steal.
Even though he's left his post as CIA Director and assumed his current post of Secretary of State. Pompous Pompeo continues his
CIA traits of lying, cheating, and stealing. It's in a way similar to a phrase, "A leopard never changes its spots". This is why
the DPRK govt issued a Persona Non Grata on Pompous Pompeo – that he isn't a bona fide diplomat, but a CIA official.
CWG , April 22, 2019 at 17:15
Here's my take on the 'Russian Collusion Deep State LIE.
There was NO Russian Collusion at all to get Trump in the White House. Most probably, Putin would have favored Clinton, since
she could be bought. Trump can't.
What did happen was illegal spying on the Trump campaign. That started late 2015, WITHOUT a FISA warrant. They only obtained
that in 2016, through lying to the FISA Court. The basis for that first warrant was the Fusion GPS Steele Dossier.
Ever since Trump won the election, they real conspirators knew they had a problem. That was apparent ever after Devin Nunes
did the right thing by informing Trump they were spying on him.
Since they obtained those FISA warrant through lying to the FISA Court (which is treason) they needed to cover that up as quickly
as possible.
So what did they do? Instead of admitting they lied to the FISA Court they kept on lying till this very day. The same lie through
which they obtained the FISA warrants to spy on the Trump campaign was being pushed openly.
The lie is and was 'Trump colluded with the Russians in order to win the Presidential Election'.
They knew from day one Trump didn't do anything wrong. They did know they spied on Trump through lying to the FISA Court, which
again, is treason. According to the Constitution, lying to the FISA court= Treason.
In order to avoid being indicted and prosecuted, they somehow needed to 'take down' the Attorney General. At all costs, they
needed to try and hide what really happened.
So there they went. 'Trump colluded with the Russians. Not just Trump, but the entire Trump campaign!'.
'Sessions should recuse himself', the propaganda MSM said in unison. 'Recuse, recuse'.
Sessions, naively recused himself. Back then, even he probably didn't know the entire story. It was only later on that Sarah
Carter and Jon Solomon found out it had been Hillary who ordered and paid the Steele Dossier.
The real conspirators hoped that through the Special Counsel rat Mueller they might be able to achieve three main objectives.
1: Convince the American people Russia indeed was meddling in the Presidential Election.
2: Find any sort of dirt on Trump and/or people who helped him win the Election in order to 'take them down'.
Many people were indicted, some were prosecuted. Yet NONE of them were convicted for a crime that had ANYTHING to with with
the elections. NONE.
They stretched it out as long as possible. 'The longer you repeat a lie, the more people are willing to believe the lie'.
So that is what they did. They still do it. Mueller took TWO years to brainwash as many people as possible. 'Russian Collusion,
Russian Collusion. Russia. Russia. Russia. Russia. Rusiaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhh ..
Why did they want to make sure they could keep telling that lie as long as possible?
Because they FEAR people will learn the truth. There was NEVER any Russian Collusion with the Trump campaign.
There was spying on the Trump campaign by Obama in order to try and make Hillary win the Presidential Election.
That is the actual COLLUSION between the Clinton Campaign and a weaponized Obama regime!!
So what did 'Herr Mueller' do?
He took YEARS to come up with the conclusion that the Trump campaign did NOT collude with Russia.
The MSM tried to make us all believe it was about that. Yet it was NOT.
His conclusive report is all about the question 'did or didn't the Trump campaign collude with the Russians'.
Trump exonerated, and the MSM only talks about that. Trump, Trump, Trump.
They still want us all to believe that was what the Mueller 'investigation' was all about. Yet it was not.
The most important objective of the Mueller 'investigation' was not to 'investigate'.
It was to 'instigate' that HUGE lie.
The same lie which they used to obtain the FISA warrant on the Trump campaign.
"Russia'.
So what has 'Herr Mueller' done?
A: He finds ZERO evidence at all which proves the Trump campaign colluded with ANY Russians.
And now the huge lie, which after all was the main objective right from the get go. (A was only a distraction)
B: Russians hacked the DNC.
That is what they wants us all to believe. That Russia somehow did bad stuff.
Now it was not Russia who did bad stuff.
It was Obama working together with the Clinton campaign. Obama weaponized his entire regime in order to let Clinton win the
Presidency.
That is the REAL collusion. The real CRIME. Treason!
In order to create a 'cover up' Mueller NEEDED to instigate that Russia somehow did bad things.
That's what the Mueller Dossier is ALL about. They now have 'black on white' 'evidence' that Russia somehow did bad things.
Because if Russia didn't do anything like that, it would make us all ask the fair question 'why did Obama spy on the Trump
Campaign'.
Let's go a bit deeper still.
Here's a trap Mueller created. What if Trump would openly doubt the LIE they still push? The HUGE lie that Russia did bad things?
After all, they NEED that LIE in order to COVER UP their own crime.
If Trump would say 'I do not believe Russia did anything to influence the elections, I think Mueller wrote that to COVER UP
the real crime', what would happen?
They would say 'GOTCHA now, see Trump is colluding with Russia? He even refuses to accept Russia hacked the DNC, this ultimately
proofs Trump indeed is a Russian asset'.
They believe that trap will work. They needed that trap, since if Russia wasn't doing anything wrong, it would show us all
THEY were the criminals.
They NEED that lie, in order to COVER UP.
That is the 'Insurance Policy' Stzrok and Page texted about. Even Sarah Carter and Jon Solomon still don't seem to see all
that.
They should have attacked the HUGE lie that Russia was somehow hacking the DNC. That is simply not true. It's a Mueller created
LIE.
That LIE = the Insurance Policy.
What did they need an Insurance Policy for? They want us all to believe that was about preventing Trump from being elected.
Although true, that is only A.
They NEEDED an Insurance Policy in the unlikely case Trump would become President and would find out they were illegally spying
on him!
The REAL crime is Obama weaponized the American Government to spy on even a duly elected President.
What's the punishment for Treason?
About Assange and Seth Rich.
Days after Mueller finishes his 'mission' (Establish the LIE Russia did bad things) which seems to be succesfull, the Deep
State arrest the ONLY source who could undermine that lie.
Assange Since he knows who is (Seth Rich?) and who isn't (Russia) the source.
If Assange could testify under oath the emails did not come from Russia, the LIE would be exposed.
No coincidences here. I fear Assange will never testify under oath. I actually fear for his life.
Deniz , April 23, 2019 at 13:48
While I wholeheartedly agree with you that Obama and Clinton are criminals, the far less convincing part of your argument is
that Trump is not now beholden to the same MIC interests. Bolton, Abrahams, Pompeo, Pence his relationship with Netanyahu, the
overthrow of Madura are all glaring examples that contradict the Rights narrative that he is some type of hero. Trump may not
have colluded with Russia, but he does seem to be colluding with Saudia Arabia, Israel, Big Oil and the MIC.
Whether one is on the Right or Left, the house is still made of glass.
boxerwars , April 22, 2019 at 17:13
RE: "A Russian Agent Smear"
:::
Was Pat Tillman Murdered?
JUL 30, 2007
I don't know, but it seems increasingly conceivable. Just absorb these facts:
O'Neal said Tillman, a corporal, threw a smoke grenade to identify themselves to fellow soldiers who were firing at them. Tillman
was waving his arms shouting "Cease fire, friendlies, I am Pat [expletive] Tillman, damn it!" again and again when he was killed,
O'Neal said
In the same testimony, medical examiners said the bullet holes in Tillman's head were so close together that it appeared the
Army Ranger was cut down by an M-16 fired from a mere 10 yards or so away.
The motive? I don't know. It's still likeliest it was an accident. But there's some mysterious testimony in the SI report about
nameless snipers. A reader suggests the following interpretation:
News this weekend said that there were "snipers" present and the witnesses didn't remember their names. I believe that's code
in the Army–these guys were Delta. In the Tillman incident, these snipers weren't part of the unit and they were never mentioned
publicly before. That's a key indicator that they weren't supposed to be acknowledged.
If you've ever read Blackhawk Down, Mark Bowden explains how he grew frustrated because interviewed Rangers kept referring
to "soldiers from another unit" while claiming they didn't know the unit ID or the soldiers' names. It took him months to crack
the unit ID and find people from Delta who were present at the fight.
Randy Shugart and Gary Gordon, the Delta operators who earned Medals of Honor in Mogadishu, have always been identified as
snipers, too.
If my theory is correct, the Delta guys could have fired the shots – a three-round burst to the forehead from 50 yards is impossible
for normal soldiers and Rangers, but is probably an easy shot for those guys. But because Delta doesn't officially exist and Tillman
was a hero, nobody in the Army would want to have to explain exactly how the event went down. Easier just to claim hostile fire
until the family forced them to do otherwise.
This makes some sense to me, although we shouldn't dismiss the chance he was murdered. Tillman was a star and might have aroused
jealousy or resentment. He also opposed the Iraq war and was a proud atheist. In Bush's increasingly sectarian military, that
might have stirred hostility. I don't know. But I know enough to want a deeper investigation. My atheist readers will no doubt
admire the way Tillman left this world, according to the man who was with him:
As bullets flew above their heads, the young soldier at Pat Tillman's side started praying. "I thought I was praying to myself,
but I guess he heard me," Sgt. Bryan O'Neal recalled in an interview Saturday with The Associated Press. "He said something like,
'Hey, O'Neal, why are you praying? God can't help us now."'
(Maybe the Congress can )
////// The USA is aghast with "smears" and "internal investigations" and promised but never produced "White Papers" 'as the
world turns' and circles continents Dominated by American Military Power / Predominantly Barbarous / Uncivilized Use of Force
/ and Arrogantly Effective in it's use of Dominating Military Power.
\\\\ The Poorer Peoples of the World accept their lots-in-life with some acceptance of reality vis-a-vis the "lot-in-life"
they've been alleged/assigned.
/// But How Do We Accept The Fact that our Self-Sacrificiing Hero,Pat Tillman, was slaughtered in Afghanistan,
(WITH POSITIVE PROOF) – by his own Fellow American soldiers – ???
!!!! What i'm say'n is, if Tillman represents the Life Surrendering "American Hero"
WHY DID HIS FELLOW "AMERICAN SOLDIERS" ASSASSINATE & MURDER HIM ???????
AND WHY IS THIS STORY BURIED ALONG WITH MANY OTHER SMEAR Stories
that provide prophylactic protection for all the Trump pianist prophylaxis cover
Up for the Right Wing theft of American Democracy under FDR
In favor of Ayn Rand's prevalent OBJECTIVISM under Trump.
"Capitalism and Altruism
are incompatible
capitalism and altruism
cannot coexist in man,
or in the same society".
President Trump represents
Stark & Total Capitalism
Just as "Conservative Party"
Core is in The Confederacy
AKA; The RIGHT WING
The Right Wing of US Gov't
Is All About PRESERVING
Confederate States' Laws
Written by Thomas Jefferson
Prior to The Constitution, which
became the Received/Judicial
Constitutional Law of the Land in
The Republic of the "United States"
It's not enough that Trump is clearly a classic narcissist whose behavior will continue to deteriorate the more his actions
and statements are attacked and countered? You know what happens when narcissists are driven into a corner by people tearing them
down? They get weapons and start killing people.
There is already more than ample evidence to remove Donald Trump from office, not the least being he's clearly mentally unfit.
Yet the Democrats, some of whom ran for office on a promise to impeach, are suddenly reticent to act without "more investigation".
Nancy Pelosi stated on the record prior to release of the Mueller report impeachment wasn't on the agenda "for now". She's now
making noises in the opposite direction, but that's all they are: noise.
The bottom line is the Clintonite New Democrats currently running the party have only one issue to run on next year: getting
rid of Donald Trump. They still operate under the delusion they will be able to use him to draw off moderate Republican voters,
the same ones they were positive would come out for Hillary Clinton in '16. Their multitude of candidates pay lip service to progressive
policy then carefully walk back to the standard centrist positions once the donations start coming, but the common underlying
theme was and continues to be "Donald Trump is evil, and we need to elect a Democrat."
In short, without Donald Trump in the Oval Office, the Democrat Party has no platform. They need him there as a target, because
Mike Pence would be impossible for them to beat. They are under orders, according to various writers who've addressed the Clinton
campaign, to block Bernie Sanders and his platform at all costs; and they will allow the country to crash and burn before they
disobey those orders. That means keeping Donald Trump right where he is through next November.
Eddie S , April 24, 2019 at 21:14
Exactly right, EKB -- - you can't ballroom dance without a partner! Also reminds me of the couples you occasionally run into
where one partner repeatedly runs-down the other, and you get the feeling that the critical partner doesn't have much going on
in his/her life so they deflect that by focusing on the other partner
Johnny Ryan S , April 22, 2019 at 13:38
Why did the DNC not allow the FBI to investigate the so-called" Russian hacked" emails? Rather, they hire CrowdStrike did
you know:
1)Obama Appoints CrowdStrike Officer To Admin Post Two Months Before June 2016 Report On Russia Hacking DNC
2) CrowdStrike Co-Founder Is Fellow On Russia Hawk Group, Has Connections To George Soros, Ukrainian Billionaire
3) DNC stayed that the FBI never asked to investigate the servers – that is a lie.
4) CrowdStrike received $100 million in investments led by Google Capital (since re-branded as CapitalG) in 2015. CapitalG is
owned by Alphabet, and Eric Schmidt, Alphabet's chairman, was a supporter of Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election. More than just
supporting Clinton, leaked emails from Wikileaks in November 2016 showed that in 2014 he wanted to have an active role in the
campaign.
-daily caller and dan bongino have been bringing these points up since 2016.
Deniz , April 22, 2019 at 12:36
The Right is currently salivating over the tough law enforcement rhetoric coming out of Barr and Trump.
It reminds me of when Obama was running for office in 2008 when everyone, including myself, was in awe of him. What kept slipping
into his soaring anti-intervention speeches, was a commitment to the good war in Afghanistan, which seemed totally out of place
with the rest of his rhetoric. The fine print was far more reflective of his administration actions as the rest of it his communications
turned out to be just telling people what they wanted to hear.
War with Afghanistan was Obama's payoff to the MIC, just as Russia is now Trump's payoff.
The argument about not inserting Rich and the download is a good one as a defense strategy but doesn't help with finding the
truth about the emails. We can only hope that pursuing the truth and producing it will have a cumulative effect and the illusory
truth effect will include this truth.
Red Douglas , April 22, 2019 at 16:00
>>> ". . . doesn't help with finding the truth about the emails."
The important truth about the emails is in their authenticity and in the contents. No one has even attempted to claim that
they are not authentic or that the contents we've seen are other than the actual contents of the authentic messages.
Why should we much care how they were acquired and provided to the publisher?
Lily , April 22, 2019 at 17:55
That is what i think. People should not concentrate on how, who and where. This is just a smokescreen to avoid talking about
the content of the emails and Hillary Clinton's disgusting actions. She is a criminal and a murderess just like Obama and Tony
Blair are lyers and mass murderers.
All three of them are free, earning millions with their publicity whereas two brave persons who were telling the truth have
been tortured and are still in jail. Reality has become like the most horrible nightmare. Everything simply seems to have turned
upside down. No writer would invent such a primitive plot. And yet it is the unbelievable reality.
Dump Pelousy , April 23, 2019 at 13:21
I totally agree with you, and in fact believe that this whole 22month expensive and mind numbing circus has been played out
JUST to keep the public from knowing what the emails actually said. Can you imagine Madcow focusing with such ferocity on John
Pedesta as she has on Putin, by discussing what he wrote during a presidential campaign to "influence the election" ? We'd be
a different country now, not fighting our way thru the McCarthite Swamp she helped create.
Democratic party candidate Biden has huge, exploitable weakness in relation Ukraine (1). Given that Biden is the most beatable
name to come forward so far Trump and his administration will do nothing major to involve the U.S. with the internal affairs of
Ukraine.
Macron and Merkel may wish to do something, but given personal unpopularity in their countries it is unclear what they can
deliver.
For the next 12+ months nothing of any significance will happen. If the Dems are foolish enough to nominate Biden, it could
become an issue next year. Trump and Putin would have aligned interests in stopping the Biden family's exploitation of Ukrainian
resources.
"... That Trump's only chance in 2020 is if the Democratic candidate is Hillary (again) - or possibly Biden - has made me wonder about all the bafflegab of him working to get a huge war chest for his 2020 campaign. A link I saw today gives me a clue as to what may be happening. ..."
The key word in that link is "Fox". Sanders wasn't at some leftie flower-sniffing
place, but went right into the lion's den. And the the other thing is that Trump was watching.
(Fox!) Reports are that he was just a little bit impressed.
It was like somebody had thrown a
small thimble full of cool water at him. The man truly does believe he is some kind of
superhero and doesn't have a clue Hillary was probably the only person on the planet he could
have defeated in 2016.
That Trump's only chance in 2020 is if the Democratic candidate is Hillary (again) - or
possibly Biden - has made me wonder about all the bafflegab of him working to get a huge war
chest for his 2020 campaign. A link I saw today gives me a clue as to what may be
happening.
President Trump on Saturday said over Twitter that the Democratic National Committee (DNC) is
"again working its magic
in its quest to destroy Crazy Bernie Sanders,"
in favor
of "Sleepy" Joe Biden. Trump then wrote "Here we go again Bernie, but
this time please show
a little more anger and indignation when you get screwed!
"
Thanks to WikiLeaks and admissions by former DNC chair-turned-
Fox News contributor
Donna Brazile, we know that the DNC coordinated with the Clinton Campaign during the 2016
primaries to give Obama's former Secretary of State an unfair advantage over Sanders.
Not only did Brazile give Clinton's team
CNN debate questions
ahead of time - as
revealed by WikiLeaks
, the DNC cut
off Sanders' access to a critical voter database in what
Bernie suggested was a setup.
The Democratic National Committee (DNC) had hired an outside software partner, "NGP VAN," to
manage its voter database. Founded by
Nathaniel Pearlman
- chief technology officer for Hillary Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign
- NGP's 'VoteBuilder' software was designed for Democratic candidates (Bernie, Hillary, etc.) to
track and analyze highly detailed information on voters for the purposes of 'microtargeting'
specific demographics.
On December 16th, 2015, NGP VAN updated the Votebuilder with a patch that contained a bug
- allowing the Sanders and the Clinton campaigns to temporarily access each other's proprietary
voter information for around 40 minutes. Lo and behold, the Sanders campaign National Data
Director,
Josh Uretsky
, was found to have accessed Clinton's information and was
promptly fired.
Uretsky's excuse
was that he was simply grabbing Clinton's data during the window of
vulnerability to prove that the breach was real.
Bernie cried false flag!
Sanders claimed that Uretsky was a DNC plant - "
recommended by the DNC's National Data
Director
along with NGP's Pearlman. Sanders sued the DNC in December 2015, only to drop
the case four months later after a DNC investigation concluded that the wrongdoing did not go
beyond Uretsky and three staffers under his command.
More DNC plotting - exposed by WikiLeaks and Donna Brazile:
In her
2017 book
, Brazile said that she had discovered a 2015 deal between the Clinton campaign,
Clinton's joint fundraising committee, and the DNC - which would allow Clinton's campaign to
"control the party's finances, strategy, and all the money raised." Brazile said that while the
deal "looked unethical," she found "no evidence" that the 2016 primary was rigged.
Meanwhile, in an
email from early May
,
DNC CFO Brad Marshall wrote about a plot to question Sanders's religio
n. While not
naming the Vermont senator directly, it talks about a man of "Jewish heritage" Marshall believes to
be an atheist. It makes reference to voters in Kentucky and West Virginia, two states that were
holding upcoming primary elections.
"It might may no difference, but for KY and WVA can we get someone to ask his belief. Does he
believe in a God. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an
atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps.
My Southern Baptist
peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist,"
the email says.
"AMEN," DNC Chief Executive Officer Amy K. Dacey replied.
Marshall did not respond to a request for comment. But he did tell
The
Intercept
, which first noticed the email, "I do not recall this. I can say it would not have
been Sanders. It would probably be about a surrogate."
DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz
, meanwhile had written Bernie off
completely - noting in a May 21 email (while there were still nine primary debates to go): "This is
a silly story," adding "
He isn't going to
be president.
" Of course, Sanders told
CNN
's Jake Tapper that if he was elected
president,
Wasserman Schultz would be out at the DNC
.
And what did Bernie do after he lost the primaries, knowing Clinton and the DNC conspired
against him?
He ran to Hillary's side like a lapdog and gave her his full-throated
support.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/v_6BevfMygM
And no wonder DNC chair Tom Perez has urged Republicans
not to use
"stolen
private data"
during the 2020 campaign - since Wikileaks emails contiain massive
evidence of the DNC's collusion against Sanders.
MARC STEINER Welcome to The Real News Network. I'm Mark Steiner. Great to have you all with
us. Senator Elizabeth Warren is attempting to make waves with her bold pronouncements during
her bid for this presidency. She's introduced two bills into the Senate. The first is called
the Corporate Executive Accountability Act, which will hold corporate executives of
million-dollar corporations criminally liable for negligence with potential prison time. The
other is called The Too Big to Jail Act, creating a corporate crime strike force. In the wake
of the 2008 meltdown, where there were no criminal prosecutions of note despite ruining
millions of lives in our country, it's led to a roiling discontent in America. Why has it been
so difficult to prosecute bankers and corporate leaders and executives in our country? Why has
the government been so reluctant to do so? And in the unlikely circumstance that Warren's bills
will get passed in the Senate, what would be the result and complications if they did? Joining
us once again to sort through all of this is a man who knows a thing or two about white-collar
crime. Bill Black -- Associate Professor of Economics and Law at the University of
Missouri-Kansas City, white- collar criminologist, former financial regulator, the author of
the book The Best Way to Rob a Bank Is to Own One, and a regular contributor here at The Real
News. Bill, welcome back. Good to have you with us. Thank you. So this has obviously been
building since 2008. People have been wanting some answer, but I think most folks don't know
really what that means. I've been reading a lot of pieces that are pro and con about what
Elizabeth Warren is suggesting. Let's go through what she's suggesting and get your initial
read and analysis of that.
BILL BLACK Okay. So as you said, there are two different acts. She just rolled one of them
out a couple of days ago and they fit together. One is addressed more directly to the financial
crisis and the other one is prompted by the financial crisis, but broader than it. That second
one would propose to change the requirement to get a guilty verdict to a demonstration of
negligence on the part of officers when they commit the really serious crimes. The other act
would basically provide more resources to go after elite, white-collar criminals.
MARC STEINER In the New York Times, there was a quote from Lanny Breuer who is a Justice
Department, Criminal Division official former head. He said on Frontline, "when we can't prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a criminal intent, then we have a constitutional duty
not to bring those cases." And Attorney General Eric Holder told the Senate committee that some
banks would become "too big," that prosecuting them would have negatively affected the economy.
In other words, they've become too big to jail. And then, in Britain there it was said that if
you start prosecuting these people, then it threatens the very foundations of the free
enterprise system. So Bill, what's the problem here?
BILL BLACK So the problem is the people at the top in both the United States and the United
Kingdom. For example, Prime Minister Blair complained at a time when the Financial Supervisory
Authority -- which is referred to over there as the Fundamentally Supine Authority [laughter]
-- was absolutely not regulating anything, that it was outrageous overregulation, and how dare
they treat bankers as potential criminals. We have the combination of Breuer and Holder where
the only issue is, which of them was more moronic on this subject, and it was a dead tie.
MARC STEINER So tell me why do you use the word "moronic?"
BILL BLACK Because it's a family show.
MARC STEINER [laughter]
BILL BLACK So seriously, to go through these things, let's recall that in much more
difficult cases in the savings and loan debacle, we oriented the prosecutions entirely towards
the most elite defendants. And here's the first thing: There is never a problem to the
financial system from prosecuting individual criminals. It is not good for a financial system
to be run by criminals. You strengthen the financial system when you convict and remove
criminals from running the largest bank. [laugher]
MARC STEINER Let me just ask you a question about that. But is the nature of the competition
among banks and the competition to make as much money as humanly possible -- like the scandal
that happened in 2008 that tanked our economy for a while and put millions of people into huge
financial jeopardy -- that seems to me to be the daily workings of those institutions. And the
issue
BILL BLACK No, no.
MARC STEINER Go ahead. Tell me why you say no.
BILL BLACK Banks don't do anything.
MARC STEINER The people in them do, though.
BILL BLACK The bankers do things and bankers shape the institutions, so institutions matter
enormously. And that's the first big thing in a critique of Senator Warren. If anybody is close
to Senator Warren, please send her this link. [laughter] We can really help. She's got exactly
the right ideas, but she isn't an expert in criminology. She wasn't part of the efforts to
prosecute folks successfully that I'm about to describe. We can really, really help her be
effective and we're willing to help any candidate be effective on these issues. Two enormous
institutional changes have made the world vastly more criminogenic. Those changes are: we got
rid of true partnerships where you had joint and several liability. Therefore, it really paid
to make sure that you didn't make a partner, someone who was super sleazy, because then they
could sue you -- not them, not the sleazy partner, but you and it was absolutely no defense
that you had nothing to do with it. Your entire net worth could be taken. That's what a true
partnership was. We got rid of true partnerships throughout the financial world. The second
thing is modern executive compensation. Modern executive compensation not only creates the
incentives to defraud, because you can be made wealthy. It provides the means to defraud. This
allows you to convert corporate assets to your own personal wealth in a way that has very
little risk of prosecution and it allowed you to suborn the controls but also [allowed] the
lower officers and employees to actually commit the fraudulent acts, which are usually
accounting for you in a way that you'd have plausible deniability. We can change both and we
must change both of those incredibly perverse incentives if we want to deal with fraud
successfully. So that's the missing part of her plan and I think she would agree with
everything I've said. Now we have a detailed plan -- we being the bank whistleblowers united --
that we put out two years ago in the election, two and a half years ago. We'll put this on the
website, or at least the links to it for folks who want to know the kind of institutional steps
you need to start changing this. But even with what I've said about this much more criminogenic
environment, it remains true that we could have prosecuted successfully elite officers and
every one of the major participants that committed these frauds. Indeed in many ways it would
have been easier than during the savings and loan debacle, because unlike the savings and loan
debacle, we have superb whistleblowers -- literally hundreds of whistleblowers who can say
explicitly that these frauds occurred. And then we do it the old-fashioned way. That would give
us the ability to prosecute midlevel officials and we can take it up the food chain by flipping
them so that they give us information on the more senior folks. In some cases, our
whistleblowers were right there in the C-suite and that would have included for example, a dead
to rights prosecution against Robert Rubin. That's as senior as you can get at city, a dead to
right prosecution of Mozilo at Countrywide. And we have other institutions like Wells Fargo
where the following happened, so it's easy to look at liar's loans. Liar's loans again had a
fraud incidence of 90 percent -- nine-zero. So the only entities doing liar's loans as a
significant product are fraudulent. Similarly, if they're doing appraisal fraud, extorting
appraisers to inflate appraisals, that only occurs at fraudulent shops. So Wells actually
checked and it's easy to check and that's an important point. The fact that the Department of
Justice never did this, and the banking agencies never did this, is a demonstration that they
didn't want to actually conduct investigations. Here's how you check: so in a liar's loan, you
don't verify the borrower's income, but the borrower signs at the same time a permission that
says you can check this against my I.R.S. forms. And here's a hint: none of us deliberately
inflate our income on our income tax returns because we'd have to pay more taxes. [laughter] So
in the case of both Countrywide and Wells Fargo, we know that senior management who was given
the results said, these kinds of loans, liar's loans, are majority frauds. And we know that
senior management in both cases said, you know what we should do? Many, many more of those.
That is a great criminal case. At J.P. Morgan, we have a great criminal case.
MARC STEINER Let me just interrupt you for a second, Bill. I want people to understand this
because everything you're reading in the press right now, almost every article, whether they
seem to like what Elizabeth Warren is suggesting, or oppose it, have questions about it. Almost
everybody to a person I've read has said, it's almost impossible to prosecute these cases. We
don't have a law to do it, that prosecuting somebody for, as she's suggesting, for negligence
would not get the job done even if her bill ever passed. And so, talk a bit about that though.
I'm very curious since clearly, you're going against the common wisdom that most people would
have and anything they read -- whether it's The New York Times or anywhere else -- that we
don't have the laws to make prosecutions work, which is one of the reasons why we're not
prosecuting people.
BILL BLACK Okay so everybody you've read, has never been involved in these successful
prosecutions.
MARC STEINER No, but if they're journalists and they've studied it, they should know what
they're talking about.
BILL BLACK Seriously? [laughter]
MARC STEINER You would think, right? Well I would hope so. Anyway, but go ahead.
[laughter].
BILL BLACK No, I would not think so. I don't think that at all because otherwise, they would
have talked to people like us who actually did it. So let's go back. Under the same laws in the
savings and loan debacle, we were able to hyper-prioritized prosecutions against the most elite
folks. So we're going after folks in the C-Suite -- the C.E.O.s, the chief operating officers,
the boards of directors, and such. We got over a thousand convictions in these cases, just the
ones designated as major. We did over 600 prosecutions of the most elite of the elite, against
the best criminal defense lawyers in the world with the same laws, and we got over a ninety
percent conviction rate. So can it be done? Of course it can be done. We've shown that it can
be done. Maybe our cases were just simple because it was just savings and loans and these are
big banks. Actually, the prosecutions in many of these cases were easier. The loans in the
savings and loan debacle, were actually much more complicated than home loans. They were
commercial construction loans, $80-90 million dollars at-a-pop often. That's far more complex
to explain to a jury, than a home loan and something as easy as a liar's loan and extorting an
appraiser. In addition, there are massively more whistleblowers. I cannot remember the name of
a significant whistleblower in the savings and loan debacle that was critical to prosecutions.
I'm sure there were a couple, but again we have literally hundreds of whistleblowers who came
forward in this crisis. This crisis occurred because first the Bush administration and then the
Obama administration, were unwilling to investigate, unwilling to prosecute. And here's again
the key. There are about two F.B.I. white-collar specialists per industry in the United States
-- not per firm, per industry. So that means they don't have expertise in individual industries
and they don't walk a beat, or they'd never find it. They only come when there's a criminal
referral. Our agency, our much tinier agency back in the savings and loan debacle, made over
thirty thousand criminal referrals. All of the federal banking regulatory agencies, much bigger
in the great financial crisis, made fewer than a dozen criminal referrals, 30,000 to under a
dozen. That means that the banking regulatory agencies basically ceased functioning in terms of
criminal referrals. And why? That's the third big change and the third big change is
ideological. What you saw is, both under the Republicans and under Bill Clinton -- the
Democratic Party, the due Democrats, the Wall Street wing of the party -- they were simply
unwilling to even think of bankers as criminals. I got out of the regulatory ranks when under
Bill Clinton we were ordered, and I witnessed personally, to refer to the industry as our
customers. Not the American people as our customers, the industry as our customers. Well do you
make criminal referrals on your customers?
MARC STEINER So we're here talking to Bill Black and we've been covering some of the history
of this. What we are going to do is we're going to take a break here and come back with another
segment shortly and really probe into what Elizabeth Warren has said she wants to make into
law. Would that make a difference? Does it fall short and it could lead to more prosecutions?
We're going to come back to that. So you want to hit the next segment with Bill Black and Marc
Steiner. Bill, thank you once again for being with The Real News. It's always a pleasure to
have you with us.
BILL BLACK Thank you.
MARC STEINER And I'm Mark Steiner here for The Real News Network. Take care.
My reading is that the core psychological principle of neoliberalism, that life is an accumulation of moments of utility
and disutility, is alive and well within certain sectors of the "left". A speech (or email or comment at a meeting) should be
evaluated by how it makes us feel, and no one should have the right to make us feel bad.
Not sure about this "utility/disutility" dichotomy (probably you mean market fundamentalism -- belief that market ( and market
mechanisms) is a self regulating, supernaturally predictive force that will guide human beings to the neoliberal Heavens), but, yes,
neoliberalism infected the "left" and, especially, Democratic Party which was converted by Clinton into greedy and corrupt "DemoRats'
subservient to Wall Street and antagonistic to the trade unions. And into the second War Party, which in certain areas is even more
jingoistic and aggressive then Republicans (Obama color revolution in Ukraine is one example; Hillary Libya destruction is another;
both were instrumental in unleashing the civil war on Syria and importing and arming Muslim fundamentalists to fight it).
It might make sense to view neoliberalism as a new secular religion which displaced Marxism on the world arena (and collapse of
the USSR was in part the result of the collapse of Marxism as an ideology under onslaught of neoliberalism; although bribes of USSR
functionaries and mismanagement of the economy due to over centralization -- country as a single gigantic corporation -- also greatly
helped) .
Neoliberalism demonstrates the same level of intolerance (and actually series of wars somewhat similar to Crusades) as any monotheistic
religion in early stages of its development. Because at this stage any adept knows the truth and to believe in this truth is to be
saved; everything else is eternal damnation (aka living under "authoritarian regime" ;-) .
And so far there is nothing that will force the neoliberal/neocon Torquemadas to abandon their loaded with bombs jets as the tool
of enlightenment of pagan states ;-)
Simplifying, neoliberalism can be viewed an a masterfully crafted, internally consistent amalgam of myths and pseudo theories
(partially borrowed from Trotskyism) that justifies the rule of financial oligarchy and high level inequality in the society (redistribution
of the wealth up). Kind of Trotskyism for the rich with the same idea of Permanent Revolution until global victory of neoliberalism.
That's why neoliberals charlatans like Hayek and Friedman were dusted off, given Nobel Prizes and promoted to the top in economics:
they were very helpful and pretty skillful in forging neoliberal myths. Especially Hayek. A second rate economist who proved to be
the first class theologian .
Promoting "neoliberal salvation" was critical for the achieving the political victory of neoliberalism in late 1979th and discrediting
and destroying the remnants of the New Deal capitalism (already undermined at this time by the oil crisis)
Neoliberalism has led to the rise of corporate (especially financial oligarchy) power and an open war on labor. New Deal policies
aimed at full employment and job security have been replaced with ones that aim at flexibility in the form of unstable employment,
job loss and rising inequality.
This hypotheses helps to explain why neoliberalism as a social system survived after its ideology collapsed in 2008 -- it just
entered zombie stage like Bolshevism after WWII when it became clear that it can't achieve higher standard of living for the population
then capitalism.
Latest mutation of classic neoliberalism into "national neoliberalism" under Trump shows that it has great ability to adapt to
the changing conditions. And neoliberalism survived in Russia under Putin and Medvedev as well, despite economic rape that Western
neoliberals performed on Russia under Yeltsin with the help of Harvard mafia.
That's why despite widespread criticism, neoliberalism remains the dominant politico-economic theory amongst policy-makers both
in the USA and internationally. All key global neoliberal global institutions, such as the G20, European Union, IMF, World bank,
and WTO still survived intact and subscribe to neoliberalism. .
Neoliberalism has led to the rise of corporate (especially financial oligarchy) power and an open war on labor. New Deal policies
aimed at full employment and job security have been replaced with ones that aim at flexibility in the form of unstable employment,
job loss and rising inequality.
This hypotheses helps to explain why neoliberalism as a social system survived after its ideology collapsed in 2008 -- it just
entered zombie stage like Bolshevism after WWII when it became clear that it can't achieve higher standard of living for the population
then capitalism.
Latest mutation of classic neoliberalism into "national neoliberalism" under Trump shows that it has great ability to adapt to
the changing conditions.
that's why despite widespread criticism, neoliberalism remains the dominant politico-economic theory amongst policy-makers both
in the USA and internationally. All key global neoliberal global institutions, such as the G20, European Union, IMF, World bank,
and WTO still survived intact and subscribe to neoliberalism. .
"... The marketing of American political aspirants has become more sophisticated from the time when strategizing his son John's campaign for the White House, Joe Kennedy Snr. said "we're going to sell Jack like soap flakes" ..."
"... it also entails brokering deals with the establishment who have ensured that whoever is elected as the latest saviour of the nation is nonetheless a captive of their overarching policies. No objective observer, for instance, can fail to note the fundamental continuum by Donald Trump of a foreign policy followed by Barack Obama who carried on from where George W. Bush left off. ..."
"... To get straight to the point: 'Mayor Pete' is a creature of the oligarchs; a so-called 'progressive' who is really a hardline conservative on many issues. A man who is being moulded and sold to America by a number of the people who were behind the meteoric rise of a certain senator named Barack Obama. ..."
I think that I have something of a head-start over others, including many Americans, so
far as the Democratic presidential aspirant Pete Buttigieg is concerned. As one who takes note
of a wide range of figures on what is termed the 'alternative media', I am quite familiar with
the philosophy and the views of E. Michael Jones , a Catholic conservative, who is a long-term
resident of South Bend Indiana, which is Buttigeig's hometown.
Jones has been absolutely scathing about Buttigieg's persona, as well as his record as
mayor. And even if one removes the fact that Buttigieg's homosexuality is a central reason for
Jones' hostility, there is a coalescence of analysis between the right-wing Jones and the
left-wing humourist Jimmy Dore, who is an astute commentator on America's domestic politics as
well as on geopolitical issues.
To Dore, Buttigieg's image of a down-to-earth, sleeves-rolled-up operator is one sign of a
guy who is "trying too hard". In fact, noted Dore in a recent episode of his youtube show,
"he's trying too hard to make it look like he's not trying." But while Dore's analysis is based
on what he can garner from Buttigieg's performance in the media now that he is in the national
spotlight, Jones has over the last few years incessantly spoken in detail about Buttegieg's
record as mayor, during which time he has succeeded in alienating large sections of the
population of South Bend.
Buttigieg's formula of "practical leadership guided by progressive values" has been
subjected to devastating criticism by those familiar with his 9-year mayoral record in South
Bend.
One example relates to Buttigieg's decision to phase out the city's trash collecting regime
for cost-cutting purposes. Previously, a two-man team would drive down residential alleys to
retrieve refuse bins, but the new design trucks cannot fit through most alleys which means that
residents have to put out their garbage in the front of their homes, a situation which has led
to bouts of odour infestation and a 'rough' looking appearance on collection days. Buttigieg's
decision was not a practical one, given the lack of diligence in researching the replacement
trucks. And although more modern in appearance and facility, the laying off of many refuse
collectors -many of whom were from minority backgrounds- added to the city's unemployment
figures.
Buttigieg's decision to sack South Bend's popular black police chief Darryl
Boykins , is also viewed as a disastrous move. It was a move which he has admitted was his
"first serious mistake as mayor". His claims to have been "troubled" by Barack Obama's clemency
for Chelsea (nee Bradley) Manning, who exposed US war crimes, as well as his praise of Israeli
security measures as being "moving" and "clear-eyed", despite the fact that he was on a visit
to the country last May when Israeli Defence Force snipers were shooting unarmed Palestinian
protesters, do little to convince observers that he can genuinely be called a progressive.
Indeed, there is little of the vocabulary or deeds associated with progressive politics in
Buttigieg such as relates to social justice and employee rights.
Buttigeig has also been called out for his tendency to narcissism. A measure of his
self-obsessed persona can be garnered from the fact that his book Shortest Way Home
devoted more words to his recollection of his playing piano on "Rhapsody in Blue" with the
South Bend Symphony Orchestra than on the issue of social poverty.
The marketing of American political aspirants has become more sophisticated from the time
when strategizing his son John's campaign for the White House, Joe Kennedy Snr. said "we're
going to sell Jack like soap flakes". Becoming president not only involves utilising the modern
innovations of Madison Avenue, it also entails brokering deals with the establishment who have
ensured that whoever is elected as the latest saviour of the nation is nonetheless a captive of
their overarching policies. No objective observer, for instance, can fail to note the
fundamental continuum by Donald Trump of a foreign policy followed by Barack Obama who carried
on from where George W. Bush left off.
To get straight to the point: 'Mayor Pete' is a creature of the oligarchs; a so-called
'progressive' who is really a hardline conservative on many issues. A man who is being moulded
and sold to America by a number of the people who were behind the meteoric rise of a certain
senator named Barack Obama.
It will be useful to bear this in mind were Pete Buttigieg to defy the odds by becoming
president of the United States.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email
lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
This article was originally published on the author's blog site: Adeyinka
Makinde .
Adeyinka Makinde is a writer based in London, England.
An attempt at a Venn diagram of the Republican party should be attempted.
It should show factions such as White Christians, the pro-Netanyahu* whispering gallery,
Might-Makes-Right, Asset inflation complements Wage repression, selective free speech*
movement, . . . and on it goes
-- with completion (Union) in the Republican Party.
*see Greenwald today in The Intercept
(now have a comfort chocolate)
"... How is it that the Deep State made it possible for Trump to win when it did almost everything it could to derail his chances, including the use of Obama, FBI, CIA, MI6, NSA, etc? ..."
"... Regardless one's feelings about Trump, what was done as Whitney points out is a massive danger to the fundamental aspects of the democratic process, and that's not being shown the light-of-day by BigLie Media. ..."
Mike Whitney
writes about one aspect of Russiagate that several of us have noted--the use of the FBI
and CIA to meddle in the 2016 campaign in an attempt to aid Clinton--an aspect that blows up
some of the hypotheses floated here. He begins thusly:
"Did the FBI spy on the Trump campaign?-- Yes
"Did the FBI place spies in the Trump campaign?-- Yes
"Do we know the names of the spies and how they operated?-- Yes
"Were the spies trying to entrap Trump campaign assistants in order to gather information
on Trump?-- Yes
"Did the spies try to elicit information from Trump campaign assistants in order to
justify a wider investigation and more extensive surveillance?-- Yes
"Were the spies placed in the Trump campaign based on improperly obtained FISA warrants?--
Yes
"Did the FBI agents procure these warrants based on false or misleading information?--
Yes
"Could the FBI establish 'probable cause' that Trump had committed a crime or 'colluded'
with Russia?-- No
"So the 'spying' was illegal?-- Yes
"Have many of the people who authorized the spying, already been identified in criminal
referrals presented to the Department of Justice?-- Yes
"Have the media explained the importance of these criminal referrals or the impact that
spying has on free elections?-- No
"Is the DOJ's Inspector General currently investigating whether senior-level agents in the
FBI committed crimes by improperly obtaining warrants to spy on members of the Trump team?--
Yes
"Did the FBI spy on the Trump campaign to give Hillary Clinton an unfair advantage in the
presidential race?-- Yes
"Did the FBI spy on the Trump campaign to gather incriminating information on Trump that
could be used to blackmail, intimidate or impeach him in the future?-- Yes
"Does spying pose a threat to our elections and to our democracy?-- Yes
"Do many people know that there were spies placed in the Trump campaign?-- Yes
"Have these people effectively used that information to their advantage?-- No
"Have they launched any type of public relations offensive that would draw more attention
to the critical issue of spying on a political campaign?-- No
"Have they saturated the airwaves with the truth about 'spying' the same way their rivals
have spread their disinformation about 'collusion'?-- No" [Emphasis in Original]
That's a little more than half of what Whitney lists that's quite damning as we must
admit. That it's not being discussed anywhere outside of a few social media accounts means
Trump could use the "precedent" set by Obama to do the same in 2020. Shouldn't we be
concerned about that possibility? How is it that the Deep State made it possible for Trump to
win when it did almost everything it could to derail his chances, including the use of Obama,
FBI, CIA, MI6, NSA, etc?
Regardless one's feelings about Trump, what was done as Whitney points out is a massive
danger to the fundamental aspects of the democratic process, and that's not being shown the
light-of-day by BigLie Media. And we can also see why Pelosi and Clinton don't want
Impeachment proceedings to occur as the above information would finally become far more
overt/public than it is currently.
Re Bernie, this is a zerohedge post that beautifully sums him up:
Tomsk on July 26, 2018 · at 12:08 pm EST/EDT
It is amazing how many people actually believe that Bernie Saunders is some kind of
decent guy posing an "alternative" to the other 2 contenders when his sole purpose was to
round up "dissenters" and funnel them into the Hillary camp.
As Alexander Azadgan points out –
1. He voted in favor of use of force (euphemism for bombing) 12 sovereign nations that
never represented a threat to the U.S.:
1) Afghanistan.
2) Lebanon.
3) Libya.
4) Palestine.
5) Somalia
6) Syria.
7) Yemen.
8) Yugoslavia
9) Haiti
10) Liberia
11) Zaire (Congo)
12) Sudan
2. He has accepted campaign money from Defense contractor Raytheon, a defense
contractor, he continues his undying support of the $1.5 trillion F-35 industry and said
that predator drones "have done some very good things". Sanders has always voted in favor
of awarding more corporate welfare for the military industrial complex – and even if
he says he's against a particular war he ends up voting in favor of funding it.
3. He routinely backs appropriations for imperial wars, the corporate scam of Obamacare,
wholesale surveillance and bloated defense budgets. He loves to bluster about corporate
welfare and big banks but he voted for funding the Commodity Futures "Modernization" Act
which deregulated commercial banks and created an "unregulated market in derivatives and
swaps" which was the major contributor to the 2007 economic crisis.
4. Regardless of calling himself an "independent", Sanders is a member of the Democratic
caucus and votes 98% of the time with the Democrats and votes in the exact same way as war
criminal Hillary Clinton 93% of the time. Sanders campaigned for Bill Clinton in the 1992
presidential race and again in 1996 -- after Clinton had rammed through the North American
Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), vastly expanded the system of mass incarceration and
destroyed welfare.
5. The sheepdog is a card the Democratic Party plays when there's no White House
Democrat running for re-election. The sheepdog is a presidential candidate running
ostensibly to the left of the establishment Democrat to whom the billionaires will award
the nomination. Sheepdogs are herders, . charged with herding activists and voters back
into the Democratic fold who might otherwise drift leftward and outside of the Democratic
Party, either staying home. In 2004 he called on Ralph Nader to abandon his presidential
campaign.
The Democratic Party has played this "sheep dog" card at least 7-8 times in the past
utilizing collaborators such as Eugene McCarthy in 1968, Jesse Jackson in 1984 and 1988,
Jerry Brown in 1992, Al Sharpton in 2000, Howard Dean in 2004, Dennis Kucinich in 2008 and
in 2016 was Bernie Sanders' turn.
6. Regardless of calling himself a "socialist" he labeled the late Hugo Chávez,
architect of the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela responsible for lifting millions of
lives out of poverty "a dead communist dictator." Then he saddled up for a photo op with
Evo Morales at the Vatican and also voted to extradite former Black Panther member, Assata
Shakur.
7. He refers to ISIS' godfather and warmonger extraordinaire John McCain as "my friend
and a very, very decent person."
8. He routinely parrots the DNC lines: "the Russians hacked our elections" despite there
is no evidence of such hacking, but lowered his head and tucked tail when the DNC actually
rigged the primary elections against him, proving he is more loyal to the Democratic (war)
Party than to the millions of people who supported him and donated to his fraudulent
campaign.
9. He expressed staunch support for the aid of violently right-wing separatist forces
such as the self-styled Kosovo Liberation Army, whose members were trained as Mujahideen,
during Clinton's 100-day bombing of Yugoslavia and Kosovo in 1999. He has an extensive
record of supporting jihadist proxies for the overthrow of sovereign governments in
Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria.
10. He supported Bill Clinton's sanctions against Iraq, sanctions that prohibited
medicines for infants and children more than 500,000 innocents killed for no other reason
than that they were Iraqi.
11. He said yes in a voice vote to the Clinton-era crime Bill, the Violent Crime Control
& Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which expanded the death penalty to cover 60 offenses.
So he is obviously pro-death penalty.
Befitting of his status as a former VP and the leader in most national polls, Biden managed
to beat out Bernie Sander's day-one haul of $5.9 million, despite the still-simmering
controversy over 'gropegate' and the backlash over his treatment of Anita Hill, a young black
female lawyer who accused Supreme Court nominee (now Justice) Clarence Thomas of sexual
harassment. Hill rejected a personal apology from Biden earlier this week, even as Biden
clarified during an interview on ABC's "the View" that he wasn't apologizing for his personal
behavior, but rather for the treatment she was subjected to during a hearing of the Senate
Judiciary Committee, which he led at the time.
Biden's day-one haul also beat out the $6.1 million raised by Texas Congressman Beto
O'Rourke during his first day, though recent polls show that enthusiasm for O'Rourke among
Democrats has waned as South Bend mayor Pete Buttigieg has benefited from a media blitz of
fawning coverage.
After all the manipulated outrage, the electoral choices will most likely still be between
about whom it can essentially be said "meet the old boss, same as the old boss." Underneath
the thin layers of standard rhetorical ******** the same strings connect the puppets to the
puppet masters.
In case anyone is wondering what kind of thug Kolomoisky (Hunter biden's sponsor at
burisma), here is a run down of the murder of Russians in Odessa on 2 May 2014 and
kolomosky's close involvement.
What I read was "Biden is a typical American politician." All the career politicians
depend on big checks from the rich and corporate elites who greatly appreciate their services
rendered. America is pay to play. It has been for a long time.
Looks like she is incompetent beyond her narrow specialty and financial issues. This way she
deprive herself of votes that otherwise belong to her. And what she is trying to achieve ?
President Pence? Come on !
The most aggressive response to the full Mueller report has, naturally, come from the most
liberal wings of the Democratic Party. Last month, I sketched out six chief
Democratic blocs (from most liberal to most moderate): the Super Progressives, the Very
Progressives, the Progressive New Guard, the Progressive Old Guard, the Moderates and
Conservative Democrats. Many of the party's Super Progressives , including U.S. Reps.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York,
Ilhan Omar of Minnesota and
Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, are already talking about impeachment, as is a key voice in the
party's Very Progressive bloc, Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts.
"... foreign policy scarcely moves the needle in the US electorate at large so that won't necessarily help Trump nor hinder Bernie except on the outer fringes. Americans are tired of endless wars so the Demotards should generally be favoured on this issue whether or not warranted so long as they play their cards right. ..."
"... US Presidential elections definitely turn on the economy. A slowdown or recession before 11/2020 and Trump is toast. Also, the conversation has clearly moved left on economic inequality and healthcare. Bernie owns these issues and to the extent he can make his way through the primaries he will stand a great chance of unseating Trump. ..."
"... Warren does too but as you stated she is not telegenic nor peronable. Her .01% Native American schtick really hurt her credibility. That was a dumb move. ..."
"... Gabbard is certainly telegenic and hasn't been blackballed as much as she is simply not well-known. She's in the field at the moment. Her chances appear more real farther down the road so running now could be seen as a first step in the eventual process. I doubt Bernie will choose her as VP but who knows? ..."
Russiagate will scarcely matter to most voters by election time 2020. Trump has already
received whatever positives he will receive courtesy of Barr's whitewashing. It is clear
among
a majourity of Americans that Trump obstructed justice and the drip drip of continued
information, hearings, etc will not improve his standing. May not hurt him but definitely
will not help him gain voters at the margins.
Likewise, foreign policy scarcely moves the needle in the US electorate at large so that
won't necessarily help Trump nor hinder Bernie except on the outer fringes. Americans are
tired of endless wars so the Demotards should generally be favoured on this issue whether or
not warranted so long as they play their cards right.
Trump may gain an advantage among more conservative-tinged independent voters if he
continues to work in concert with Russia and Israel on Middle East issues in the sense that
many may see these alliances as promoting strength and peace (whether warranted or not). The
coming deal with China on trade will benefit Trump too...as long as the economy keeps humming
along.
US Presidential elections definitely turn on the economy. A slowdown or recession before
11/2020 and Trump is toast. Also, the conversation has clearly moved left on economic
inequality and healthcare. Bernie owns these issues and to the extent he can make his way
through the primaries he will stand a great chance of unseating Trump.
Warren does too but as you stated she is not telegenic nor peronable. Her .01% Native
American schtick really hurt her credibility. That was a dumb move. Are some of her problems
related to gender bias? Without a doubt. However, as I have long said, the first American
female president will not come from the baby boom. The first American female president will
more likely be a millenial.
Gabbard is certainly telegenic and hasn't been blackballed as
much as she is simply not well-known. She's in the field at the moment. Her chances appear
more real farther down the road so running now could be seen as a first step in the eventual
process. I doubt Bernie will choose her as VP but who knows?
"... I see Biden as just another one of the people assigned to gather delegates so as to attain such a number Sanders can be denied the nomination. Of course Uncle Joe sees it differently. With an ego at least the equal of Trump's, the man imagines he can take the White House. Should it come to that, I'd imagine voters won't risk trading down. Since we're already at Trump Level, who could blame them? ..."
"... 2. If, in the first round, a single candidate receives at least 51% of the vote, then the superdelegates do not come into play in subsequent rounds. ..."
"... 3. If no single candidate receives 51% of the vote, Party controlled superdelegates participate in subsequent rounds. ..."
"... 4. D-Party Solution: Flood the field of candidates so that it becomes much less likely that a single candidate will achieve 51% in the first round. Thus allowing the Party controlled superdelegates to be used to nominate the Party's chosen corporate loyalist. ..."
"... ... our findings indicate, the majority does not rule -- at least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes. When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites or with organized interests, they generally lose. ..."
"... Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the U.S. political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favor policy change, they generally do not get it. ..."
"... The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie. " ..."
"... Sorry Jackrabbit, managed democracy, duopoly, money-based electoral system and lapdog media is the way it is set up. There is no movement that is outside duopoly politics that can win within the constitutional sytem. ..."
Sanders/Gabbard would be the one and only ticket that would come close to beating Trump. But the Dems have hobbled themselves
with Russiagate. The only hope they have is to go strong on the progressive agenda,The corporatist 'center' won't have a bar of
it. It's going to be an interesting election...or maybe not, depending on who runs. Pure theater, anyway.
Never Mind the Bollocks , Apr 25, 2019 2:19:50 PM |
link
b, don't you go along with Dmitry Orlov's assertion that it doesn't matter who gets to be POTUS, because all of them are necessarily
- and probably by now unavoidably - creatures of the true power-wielders of the deep state? They either toe the line of the real
power-wielders' diktats, as Trump has been whipped into doing, or they get overthrown - sometimes by assassination. (My paraphrase
of Dmitry...)
thanks b... i don't hold out much chance for any change, regardless of who gets in.. the war party is in full control of the usa
and i can't see that changing any time soon.. my response is a bit like @3 rhisiart.
There are many of these essays listing in detail Biden's awfulness, so linking the latest seems the easiest thing to do. So
far as I know, the man has no virtues worthy of mention, yet a rap sheet as long as the string of coupons you get at a CVS store.
Until convincing evidence to the contrary is stuck in front of my face, I see Biden as just another one of the people assigned
to gather delegates so as to attain such a number Sanders can be denied the nomination. Of course Uncle Joe sees it differently.
With an ego at least the equal of Trump's, the man imagines he can take the White House. Should it come to that, I'd imagine voters
won't risk trading down. Since we're already at Trump Level, who could blame them?
Seriously, the Primaries next year are going to have to be closely watched, for vote fraud in them will be far more serious
than in the general election. Like, does anyone suppose the Billionaires or Big Bankers or Holy Israel gives a hoot whether it's
President Trump or President Biden?
The intent of the "Democratic" National Committee, DNC, is to crowd the field with so many candidates that no one can win on the
first ballot, allowing the Superdelegates the option to vote their "conscience" (their puppet masters choice) on the second, and
thus installing another empty suit.
Either Sanders, or similar progressive, gets it on the first ballot, or it's the same old same old. You will notice that very
few candidates are proposing progressive platforms.
IMO Americans are so insular and uninformed about foreign affairs, you will never see a foreign affairs candidate that can
get any traction. Additionally, a foreign affairs candidate that went against the Deep State will be crushed, as is happening
to Gabbert.
Also, it's important to note the last President that went against the CIA was assassinated in 1963.
Agreed. It's all about bringing the Party controlled superdelegates into play.
Like you said, the D-Party's plan appears to be to flood the primary with a sufficient number of candidates to fragment first
round primary voting enough so that no single candidate reaches the required 51% needed to exclude superdelegates from subsequent
rounds of voting.
For anyone not familiar with this, here's the scam in brief:
1. New DNC rules state that superdelegates can not vote in the first round.
2. If, in the first round, a single candidate receives at least 51% of the vote, then the superdelegates do not come into
play in subsequent rounds.
3. If no single candidate receives 51% of the vote, Party controlled superdelegates participate in subsequent rounds.
4. D-Party Solution: Flood the field of candidates so that it becomes much less likely that a single candidate will achieve
51% in the first round. Thus allowing the Party controlled superdelegates to be used to nominate the Party's chosen corporate
loyalist.
A simple plan.
PS +1 for Gabbard
PPS For more detail on this subject, see:
Nothing is to be revealed in US politics unless the political conversation gets elevated
Yes, let's elevate it.
Sander's failure to be a real candidate in the 2016 election, is just one example of the corrupt "managed democracy" produced
by our money-driven duopoly and Deep State. Obama was another example. He was a faux populist that served the establishment,
not the people.
... our findings indicate, the majority does not rule -- at least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy
outcomes. When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites or with organized interests, they generally lose.
Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the U.S. political system, even when fairly large majorities
of Americans favor policy change, they generally do not get it.
And this study used data from 1980-2002 - it's only gotten worse after that!
The question we should be asking ourselves isn't what establishment stooge should we choose? but how do we ensure that
the establishment can't continue to play us?
In that light, we should not tolerate the continued participation of ANYONE that's already participated in the establishment's
"illusion of democracy" game.
Furthermore, the reason we are having this conversation a full 18-months before the election is that the establishment doesn't
want us to explore alternatives. They want your mind engaged with their con. They employ shills like donkey to ensure that you
are so engaged.
= = =
no one has the right to circumscribe the meaning or the moral content of the person (even a politician) who is seen evolving
for the better
Bernie Sanders is nearly 80 years old, I think he's "evolved" as much as he's going to evolve. The only thing Sanders had going
for him was his "moral content" yet he used that to help Hillary in 2016. IMO, "truth-tellers" should tell the truth and whose
who claim to have principles should live by them. By that standard, Sanders failed us.
Lastly, the same appeal that you make could be made for other egregious acts. And would you make the same argument for a child
molester or serial killer? Don't be so quick to say it's not the same. The AZ Empire has the blood of tens of thousands of people
on its hands.
IMO accountability is at the core of any democratic system.
Jackrabbit and Circe, and all who talk of "deep state":
Karl Marx and Frederick Engels wrote in 1848 that " The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the
common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie. "
This sentence in the Communist Manifesto is as true today as it was then. There is no "deep state", there is only the state.
It is the (only) executive committee of the ruling capitalist class.
The democratic constitutions of these states are rigged to maintain the status quo. Do the masters want Trump, Circe? Is he
untouchable? No, the masters will use whoever they get.
Sorry Jackrabbit, managed democracy, duopoly, money-based electoral system and lapdog media is the way it is set up. There
is no movement that is outside duopoly politics that can win within the constitutional sytem.
Unless you are suggesting Organs of People's Power, Dual Power and destruction of the bourgeois parliamentary system, in the
manner of Lenin's "The State and Revolution"? Are you suggesting that? Then say so.
Sanders will rally the FSA but that will go nowhere in general election.
Gabbard is serious person. The fact that DNC does approve is one of her strengths. Of
course Wasserman will attempt a Tanya Harding but Tulsi can take her.
I hope she would not team with Biden.
I thing two good women might be powerful:
Behold: Gabbard/Omar.
Sanders is already hip deep in the Deep State, and there is no denying it. In absolute
terms he is an unacceptable candidate . But then a person recalls a famous Winston
Churchill quote:
"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others."
After stating the obvious fact Sanders just isn't much good, you have to ask, compared
to what?
This election cycle it looks as if the Palestinians will be screwed yet again. But I can
imagine that while Sanders will be extremely protective of the Holy Cesspool, he will stop
the practice of kissing Netanyahu's ass to the point of inflammation.
As you say, if we get President Sanders we'd better not also be presented with Vice
President Neocon. In that event I'd expect something or other to happen so as to suddenly
have President Neocon.
Sadly, I think b is caught in a mental framework, like many socialist-leaning Europeans,
that prevents him from thinking critically about Sanders.
All the more strange because everyone can see how Obama and Trump failed to live up to
their rhetoric, how powerful monied interests and the Deep State conduct "managed democracy"
and give us the illusion of democracy . Yet some cling to the notion that democracy
works! making it possible that a socialist hero can be elected.
Until democracy itself is made an issue (akin to the Yellow Vest protests) , we
will continue to be played.
Bernie Sanders may well have the best chance to beat Trump on domestic policies. But he is
no progressive on foreign policy issues.
He has gotten better on this recently but he doesn't have the strength left in him to
properly challenge the lobby, particularly being Jewish his extended family/social circle is
a weakness they'll attack like with Goldstone.
Presumably he calculated that the infamously spiteful man won't be in office come January
2021 and that he can join in the scape-goating of Netanyahu as the unique 'bad-man' whose
policies vis-a-vis the Palestinians and other neighbours wasn't highly popular and endorsed
by Israeli society and we can all forget about it when somebody more presentable takes over
despite engaging in the same policies.
Bernie Sanders has been around in Washington. He knows that his domestic plans are
unaffordable in the Red Scare climate which he's been pushing himself , since all
money will go to the Deep State and the Armies of Mordor. The evidence is he's OK with that.
Anyway, why spend time on this old geezer; he's already lost and in the time since
then, he's exposed himself as a phony and liar.
Z Smith isnt it crystal clear by now...Jack Rabbit is working...very hard it seems...for the
re-election of Donald Trump.
The germane question: why? Is he falling back on the "same ol same ol" purity of the 3rd
party gambit (the same one that has never worked throughout US history and surely has even
less chance of success than ever in 2020)?
Is he ignoring or even against the plain fact that Democrats are trending leftier, less
white and more female thanks in large part to so-called "sheepdog" Bernie's 2016 campaign and
"movement"? Bernie far from being a sheepdog in fact played his hand rather intelligently and
with self-discipline in 2016 rather than lashing out angrily at being fucked over by the
party apparatus and reacting in a manner of which JR would surely approve...such as self
marginalising himself into yet another in an endless string of 3rd party losers who are now
footnotes in history at best.
There
is evidence that Bernie voters stayed home or voted Trump in 2016 in those MW states with
the slimmest margins for Trump. So the evidence indicates more that he fucked Hillary instead
of being her sheepdog... and of course had she won Bernie would not be in the 2020 game,
Obamacare would be solidified with the insurance companies, hospitals, physicians and drug
companies, DLC centrist politics would rule the land and we would not be talking so loudly
today about taxing the rich or advcating Medicare for all.
In several key states -- Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan -- the number of Sanders to
Trump defectors were greater than Trump's margin of victory, according to new numbers
released Wednesday by UMass professor Brian Schaffner.
Does JR simply believe electoral politics is a totally failed bit? I can grok that and
agree...to a point. Problem is he offers exactly nothing as a defined alternative
except...more of the same...vote 3rd party (like in, yawn, 2000, 2008, 2012, 2016) or join a
"movement".
think the doom and gloomers in here decrying Sanders/Gabbard chances as securing the nom are
not being very sensible.
There is no doubt in my mind that Sanders will be the nom. Whether he picks Gabbard or not
will be telling.
Gabbard, so far, has been the straight-up most respectable, classy, and well-spoken
candidate hitting the media circuit. Whispers abound about her legitimacy and should not be
discounted.
And they already denied Sanders once. That was their free pass and you only get one of
those. Ask the Syria-interventionists and they will say the same: "We already burned through
the pass in Iraq and Afghanistan. Otherwise, Assad would have been publicly strung up and
hung on MSNBC by now."
There will be hell to pay if they deny Sanders again.
But this is all contingent on the fact that you don't already think that TPTB are setting
the table specifically for Sanders because he is already an owned man.
Here we go again with the same ol' question for the office of POTUS: "WHO ARE YOU?"
As long as Hunter Biden is still a director
of Burisma Holdings (which includes at least one other unpleasant individual on
the Board of Directors), there is always a chance that elements within or connected to the
Ukrainian government (even under Volodymyr Zelenskiy's Presidency, when he has his back
turned on his fellow politicians), the previous Poroshenko government or Poroshenko himself,
and / or the Maidan Revolution - Crowdstrike, Dmitri Alperovich and Chalupa sisters, we're
looking at all of you - might try to derail any or all of the Democratic Party presidential
candidates in attempts to have Joe Biden declared the official Democrat presidential
contender in 2020. The only question is how openly brazen these people are going to be in
order to save their pet project in Kiev before Ukraine erupts in civil war (and it won't be
civil war in the Donbass area) and the entire country goes down in flames.
As for the rest of the 20 candidates, I would prefer Tulsi Gabbard out of the lot. In this
respect India's general elections, already under way, are going to be important. Gabbard
needs to let go of Narendra Modi and his Hindutva BJP party - her friendship with Modi and
his association with Hindutva are sure to come under scrutiny as will also any connections
she and her office staff have with
The Science of Identity Foundation organisation.
I donated to Tulsi Gabbard's campaign so there would be one anti-war candidate in the
Presidential debates. Having served in the first one, the restart of the Cold War is gut
wrenching. Today it is far more dangerous than 40 years ago. "Détente" is archaic,
Inequality in the West has reached the Gilded Age levels. The USA occupies East Syria even
though its regime change campaign failed. With the estrangement of Western Allies, trade wars
and economic sanctions against Russia and Iran, plus Joe Biden's trench war in Ukraine, the
slightest misstep and the global economy will crash. If a conflict breaks out with Russia or
China, the Trump Administration is too incompetent and arrogant to back down to avoid a
nuclear war. The 2020 election may well be the last chance to save the earth.
The accountability that is on offer in the upcoming election is to alter the structure of
the Democratic Party. The deck was stacked against the progressive challenge in the last
presidential election. Only a candidate who has genuine "fire-in-the-belly" has a chance to
beat Trump. Bernie Sanders, Tulsi Gabbard, and Elizabeth Warren are the only ones I see who
are holding these credentials. I think you are wrong when you say that Sanders is finished
evolving, --and despite his age-- he is the most dynamic, among the older people Americans
seem to prefer to be president. It would do him some good and improve his chance of success,
if he chose for his running mate someone whose passion was equally sincere.
Political sour grapes and fatalism offer us no hope of coming through the next few years
intact.
Sanders is NOT anti-estblishment. He's just good at hiding his support for the establishment
so that he can be used as foil / sheepdog / spoiler.
"Enough with the emails" - Bernie refused to raise "character issues" about Hillary despite
the fact that she would face those same issues in the general election;
faux populist sell-out Obama campaigned for Bernie;
Bernie admitted that Hillary "a friend of 25 years" ;
Schumer refused to fund any Democratic Party candidate that would run against Sanders in
Vermont;
Sanders votes with the Democrats >95% of the time.
<> <> <> <> <> <> <>
We can debate the merits of each establishment stooge until we're blue in the face but
establishment plans for gaming the race are likely to have already made. It's be another good
show that millions of American's tune in to watch.
My best guess: gay Mayor Pete gets most of the primary media coverage which focuses on his
oh-so-sensible agenda, Obama-like likeability, and "historic" (did I mention that he's gay?)
run for the Presidency. But Pete and his running mate Biden fail to unseat Trump.
2024: Mayor Pete loses Democratic nomination to a women (Chelsea Clinton? she'll be 44)
and she wins the Presidency.
Unless, that is, Americans wake up and demand a real democracy.
'Bernie Sanders may well have the best chance to beat Trump on domestic policies. But he is
no progressive on foreign policy issues'
He campaigned against the Vietnam war before he got elected, he later opposed the Iraq
invasion, and recently led the Senate to oppose US involvement in Yemen. What is your
standard for calling him a progressive? Does he have to be to the Left of Noam Chomsky (who,
incidentally, says Sanders has the best policies out of any candidate)?
Those who cheer Sanders are ignoring both the hidden-in-plain-sight evidence for
"managed democracy" (e.g. duopoly, money-based electoral system; lapdog media; and Imperial
Deep State) and in-your-face lived history: Obama and Trump have both sweet-talked
their 'base' but ruled as servants of the establishment and a member of the Deep State.
What's needed for real change is a Movement that is outside duopoly politics. That is what
the establishment really fears. And that's why we are being pressed to get emotionally
engaged in this sh*t show 18-months before the election. Because they don't want people to
think of alternatives. You enslave yourselves.
Both Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders are clowns. They do not have a chance to win against Pres.
Trump, who will be the bankrupcy president. No one else would be able to handle it and the
oligarchs know it. Democracy ? It stopped being a joke.
As for the rest of the 20 candidates, I would prefer Tulsi Gabbard out of the lot. In this
respect India's general elections, already under way, are going to be important. Gabbard
needs to let go of Narendra Modi and his Hindutva BJP party - her friendship with Modi and
his association with Hindutva are sure to come under scrutiny as will also any connections
she and her office staff have with The Science of Identity Foundation organisation.
Posted by: Jen | Apr 25, 2019 7:22:22 PM | 55
I checked out Jen's link regarding the Science of Identity Foundation - it is a very
skillfully written Republican hit job, complete with multiple references to Gabbard's
"support for foreign dictators" Putin and Assad, to her criticism of US fake allegations of
Assad chemical attacks, to her alleged Islamaphobia for arguing that genuine muslims be
differentiated from islamic terrorists, and her criticism of Obama for not bombing ISIS and
al-Qaida. In Part 1 the ultirior motives are relatively well hidden, but the start coming
into view in Parts 2 and 3, especially in her answers to comments in Part 3.
Interesting quote from Part 2 about Gabbard's guru Butler: "His father, the late Dr.
Willis Butler, was well-known locally for his far-left political activism and his staunch
opposition to U.S. involvement in foreign regime change wars, which he considered
counterproductive. Dr. Butler was particularly concerned about U.S. funding of groups in
Central America that he viewed as terrorists. " - sounds like at least Butler's father
had his head screwed on the right way round. If that is the origin in part of Gabbard's
opposition to regime change wars and US funding of terrorists then that at least was a
positive influence (although implicitly painted as negative in the article!)
Having said that, the article raises a number of important questions and is in that
respect an eye opener - it's just that the misleading and tainted manner in which the article
is written is dangerous without verifying the information - classic fake news.
I agree with Jen about the dangers of her support for Modi. I can't help suspecting she
sees the US (far-right) Indian-American elite as an important source of political funding for
her seat, and that I see as problematic.
That's a blunder, but it does not matter as much as her blunder with "reparations"
Warren is not telegenic nor personable. Her .01% Native
American schtick really hurt her credibility.
Notable quotes:
"... On facebook in May 2017, "We know that the Russians hacked into American systems to try to influence our election." ..."
"... Warren is crap. There are only two genuine leading candidates, Tulsi Gabbard and Bernie Sanders that offer some serious prospect of change and either could get there. ..."
re Warren, she is also a "Russia! Russia! Russia!" type.
On facebook in May 2017, "We know that the Russians hacked into American systems to try to
influence our election."
The other day on CNN she said, re the Mueller report, "Three things just totally jump off
the page. The first is that a hostile foreign government attacked our 2016 election in order
to help Donald Trump. The evidence is just there. Read it, footnote after footnote, page
after page documentation. ..."
Not saying that most other candidates aren't the same.
Thank you spudski #26, Warren is crap. There are only two genuine leading candidates, Tulsi
Gabbard and Bernie Sanders that offer some serious prospect of change and either could get
there. Any change away from the Belligerant faction would be welcome. But it needs a Congress
and a Senate to combine with the change agenda to make a concrete, durable new direction.
That is a daunting task but achievable in these times.
It will be interesting to watch Creepy Joe Biden eat shit but he is just the bait, I look
forward to the switch being revealed. Nothing will surprise me.
Donald Trump
has apparently accused the UK of conspiring to help the Obama administration spy on his presidential
campaign, saying "when the truth comes out, it will be a beauty!".
The US president promoted the conspiracy
theory on Twitter by quoting a right-wing US news organisation's headline, which according to Mr Trump read: "Former
CIA analyst Larry Johnson accuses United Kingdom Intelligence of helping Obama Administration Spy on the 2016 Trump
Presidential Campaign."
Mr Trump added: "WOW! It is now just a question of time before the truth comes out, and when it does, it will be a
beauty!"
GCHQ, the UK government's chief digital spying organisation, branded the allegation "utterly ridiculous".
"As we have previously stated, the allegations that GCHQ was asked to conduct 'wire tapping' against the then
President Elect are nonsense. They are utterly ridiculous and should be ignored," the agency told Reuters.
The claim appears to stem from Mr Johnson, a former CIA analyst who is a longtime critic of US intelligence and a
defender of Russia.
Mr Johnson has previously claimed without providing evidence the CIA, and not Moscow, may have been behind
the hacking of the Democratic National Committee, and has frequently appeared on Russian state media to reject US
intelligence conclusions of Russian interference in the 2016 election.
The Guardian
reported in 2017 Britain's intelligence agencies had alerted their US counterparts to
suspicious "interaction" between figures connected to the Trump campaign and Russian agents, but that it was part of
a "routine exchange" of information and that CGHQ never carried out a targeted operation against Mr Trump or his
team. There is no evidence the Obama administration conducted a spying operation against the Trump campaign.
Mr Trump's tweet followed one last month in which he suggested Britain had
invented Russian election interference
in order to "bait" the US into taking a hard line against Moscow.
It comes two years after GCHQ was
forced to deny it "wire tapped" Trump Tower
in 2016, after the White House promoted a Fox News pundit's
allegation Barack Obama bypassed US intelligence by using the UK's spy centre to obtain details of Mr Trump's
conversations.
"They are utterly ridiculous and should be ignored," GCHQ said at the time.
The president, who has access to information provided by the world's most powerful intelligence agencies, later
told reporters "you should be talking to Fox" when asked about the claim.
Mr Trump's tweet comes just 40 days before he is due in the UK on a state visit.
. The New York Times reports how 40 years later Robert Caro tracked down Luis Salas,
'the election judge who, under oath, had certified 200 disputed votes for Johnson in the
notorious Ballot Box 13.' As the Timessays
:
He [Caro] knocked on the door of a mobile home near Houston, and the frail old man of 84
who answered was only too pleased to fish out from a trunk a 94-page history titled "Box 13,"
which described how he had switched votes from Stevenson to Johnson. He was proud of
deceiving everyone. "We put L. B. Johnson as senator for Texas, and this position opened the
road to reach the presidency."
Never again would Caro have to equivocate, "No one will ever be sure if Lyndon Johnson
stole it." Now, in [his book] "Working," he writes yet another definitive sentence: He
stole it.
Electoral corruption takes rather different forms nowadays. Corporate lobbying,
gerrymandering, voter suppression, and the like are far more common than ballot stuffing
LBJ-style. But regardless of the form these abuses take, the idea that we have some type of
pristine process which is pure and 'democratic' until defiled by 'foreign meddling' is rather
naïve. That doesn't mean, of course, that we shouldn't be doing all we can to make matters
better, or that we shouldn't be wary of things which might make them worse. But in doing the
latter, we need to keep a sense of proportion and not to over-idealize existing systems or
over-exaggerate the scale of the dangers.
The likes of Timothy Snyder would have us believe that democracy is on the verge of
collapsing into tyranny. In reality, the choices are between various forms of democratic
imperfection. Some are better than others, but all are inevitably flawed. A little bit more
imperfection here and there isn't the end of the world.
For anyone of a social democratic (or lefter) persuasion, and/or see war as something that
should only be used as an absolute last resort (due to it invariably being a moral horror),
then the Democrats have indeed been the lesser of two evils, and Republican-lite.
Take Obama for instance. He ran a cleverly ambiguous campaign where he sounded to many as
being progessive and left, a breath of fresh air, something finally that would put a stop to
limitless capitalism and unwind the Bush era. But in fact he's a 'centrist', which really means
thoroughly neoliberal. He's prepared to file some of the sharp edges off capitalism, but he
neither promised nor offered a genuine alternative to a lightly regulated free market.
I mean, look at his most famous legacy: the health care reforms. This is a thoroughly
market-based solution that leaves the marketplace largely as it was. Nationalization was
nowhere in sight. And the policy was based on one his elecotoral opponent enacted when he was
governing Massachusetts! It is literally the case that voting in Democrats at the national
level gets you the policy of Republican presidential candidates.
Also, he's quite happy to unilaterally blow up stuff, including innocent people, in other
countries, in order to crush his enemies and to look good domestically. We have no problems in
calling this 'evil' when our enemies do anything like this.
Brian 04.21.19 at 2:43 pm (no link)
I think the real question is not whether Trump is successful or not. That question is a red
herring in American politics today. The real question is whether or not the Democratic
"leadership" can allow nomination of a candidate that the Democrat rank and file want. Bernie
Sanders should have won the nomination last time. But the superdelegate system gives a
literal handful of mandarins the ability to fake the primary process. (I say that as someone
who has significant issues with some of Sanders positions.)
Trump won because Hillary was a horrific candidate. Voters stayed home, disgusted. Trump
won because the Obama administration didn't deliver hope nor change. He delivered a
government of the corporate criminal bankers for them. Middle and working class America got
screwed. Black people got screwed worst. Trump won because the utter corruption at the heart
of the DNC was exposed for all to see in the emails. Trump win because of the Obama
administration making a trade deal top secret classified and trying to force a vote through
congress. Not seeing any point in voting, Democrats didnt.
All the evidence since shows the DNC leadership didn't learn anything. They are just as
contemptuous of voters, just as manipulative with their window dressing as ever. The
Democratic party is the party of endless war even more than the Republicans. It's a party
that stopped every effort by Trump to wind down or end war posture with Russia and North
Korea. There's now 2 parties in Netanyahu's pocket implementing Likuds insane middle east
ideas.
Put some solar energy and LGBTQ butter on it with a side of women's rights bullshit and
it's "Democrat". But the politicians are just as venal. The legislature just as wildly right
wing war mongering.
The 1960's is long over. The Democratic party hasn't seen a new idea since and has
converted to govern to the right of Nixon. Way to Nixon's right. The Democratic party is the
tool of the Uber-ization of not just America, but the whole world. Flour and break the law to
pauperize the working class, and suck money to a few in the SF Bay Area. That's policy
now.
You can see it already. Sanders is ahead. But Buttigieg is being anointed. He's the
perfect candidate. He's gay! He's out of the closet! And he's a corporate tool who can talk
smoothly without speaking a clear word. Best of all, he has ZERO foreign policy experience or
positions. So he'll be putty in the hands of the corporations that want endless war for
profits. Wall Street wants him. And the street owns the Democratic party. Will he give a
flying f*@k about the middle and working class? Will he be anything but another neo-liberal
who can be differentiated from a neo-conservative only by mild difference in racism? (Overt
vs.covert)
At least Buttigieg isn't Beto O'Rourke, the most completely empty skin in Congress.
There's that.
All the evidence I see is no. The Democrat "leadership" don't understand. I predict a
Trump win, or else a squeaker election that barely scrapes by with a win.
No matter what, the idiot Democrats won't get it. Pelosi will do her best to cast the
Republicans anti-tax anti-government (federal) government culture war in concrete with
balanced budget horse manure. The Democrats will continue to force a new cold war on Russia.
They will keep backing companies that steal from the middle and working class. (Yes, Uber and
Lyft are massive theft operations. They implemented taxi service without licenses. Those
licenses cost a lot of money to those who bought them. They put the public at risk causing
multiple deaths and assaults from unlicensed taxi drivers.)
Trump's appeal is that he at least talks a game of "f*@k you". Domestically it's all lies
on all sides. He lies to everyone. But at least he doesn't lie smoothly like the "good
Democrat" candidates do.
Let's
start by looking at the
classic and very basic definition of populism as proposed by political scientist Cas Muddle :
" Populism is a thin-centred ideology that divides society into two homogeneous and
antagonistic groups: "the pure people" on the one side and "the corrupt elite" on the
other. "
Cas Muddle notes that there is no single definition of populism that will describe all
populists and that populism is not about being rich or poor, rather, it is cultural as shown in
this quote about Donald Trump:
" His connection to the people is actually cultural, not through money -- it is through
eating at McDonald's and putting ketchup on your steak and not being interested in high
culture. That is how he says, "I am one of you". Sure, I am way richer than you, but that's
irrelevant, because populism is not about money, it is about values . " (my
bold)
According to the Guardian , the populist movement in Europe has been consistently on the
rise; in 1998, populist political parties were a marginal force that accounted for only 7
percent of votes cast across Europe. In 2018, 27 percent of votes were cast for populist
parties in the last parliamentary election with far-right populists accounting for 14 percent
of votes, far-left populists accounting for 6 percent of votes and other populists accounting
for 7 percent of votes. A prime European example of populism is found in the wake of the Brexit
vote. As you well know, the populist movement in the United States is largely what resulted in
the Trump victory over Hillary Clinton in 2016 as tens of millions of voters have grown
increasingly disgusted with business as usual in Washington.
One of the reasons I voted for DJT was because I wanted to know if the unelected elites (who
control the Deep State) would ever voluntarily surrender the reigns of power in DC without
bloodshed. Now I unequivocally know the answer to that question. There is no democracy, there
is no Republic and any Constitutional Rights us American citizens have left hang by a thread
(think 1st and 2nd Amendments).
At this point Trump is either a hostage of the Deep State or he has joined them.
PAUL JAY Can I–Can I just intervene for just a sec? The problem here is both on
Venezuela and Iran the Democratic Party foreign policy establishment is on the same page as
Trump. Netanyahu is on the same page as Trump. The Saudis are on the same page as Trump. When
Trump throws this missile, missiles into Syria after the supposed gas attack, Chuck Schumer
says finally Trump's acting president -- is a president. The problem is is that as much as
these guys vilify and are dangerous -- these guys meaning the Democrats and that whole
establishment are dangerous on Russia-
STEPHEN COHEN I don't disagree.
PAUL JAY They'll converge with Trump on some very dangerous stuff in Iran.
STEPHEN COHEN I don't disagree. But that brings me to my final point, I guess, because we
are at the time we are in. We now have, I think, at last count 19 or 20 Democratic would be
contenders for the presidential nomination; 19 or 20. We need to ask ourselves which, if any,
of these people see these dangers clearly, and ask them. But I have a feeling that the
mainstream media will not ask them, because these are uncomfortable issues for them. I also
think that the one candidate who has embraced a position similar to my own, Tulsi Gabbard, was
immediately attacked by NBC, as you know. Scurrilously.
That it's a question of what kind of discussion–because according to our democracy
these existential issues that you and I have discussed are discussed during presidential
campaigns. This is when we clarify and make our choices. It seems to me this is unlikely to
happen, partly because the mainstream media doesn't permit voices like mine any longer. Though
they used to welcome me. I used to work for them. It would be interesting to see how they treat
Tulsi Gabbard, who's the closest to this kind of anxiety about the new Cold War with Russia,
has taken positions on this. There may be others, but I haven't–I haven't noted that.
We'll see how they're–if there's an attempt to suppress her view, or to give her a fair
time. Now, she'll have to do well in a primary somewhere to get that. But it's a little
discouraging that of 19 or 20 Democrats, only one thus far has spoken with some clarity about
this, what I consider to be the number one existential issue; the danger of war with
Russia.
I think the real question is not whether Trump is successful or
not. That question is a red herring in American politics today. The real question is whether or
not the Democratic "leadership" can allow nomination of a candidate that the Democrat rank and
file want. Bernie Sanders should have won the nomination last time. But the superdelegate
system gives a literal handful of mandarins the ability to fake the primary process. (I say
that as someone who has significant issues with some of Sanders positions.)
Trump won because Hillary was a horrific candidate. Voters stayed home, disgusted. Trump won
because the Obama administration didn't deliver hope nor change. He delivered a government of
the corporate criminal bankers for them. Middle and working class America got screwed. Black
people got screwed worst. Trump won because the utter corruption at the heart of the DNC was
exposed for all to see in the emails. Trump win because of the Obama administration making a
trade deal top secret classified and trying to force a vote through congress. Not seeing any
point in voting, Democrats didnt.
All the evidence since shows the DNC leadership didn't learn anything. They are just as
contemptuous of voters, just as manipulative with their window dressing as ever. The Democratic
party is the party of endless war even more than the Republicans. It's a party that stopped
every effort by Trump to wind down or end war posture with Russia and North Korea. There's now
2 parties in Netanyahu's pocket implementing Likuds insane middle east ideas. Put some solar
energy and LGBTQ butter on it with a side of women's rights bullshit and it's "Democrat". But
the politicians are just as venal. The legislature just as wildly right wing war mongering.
The 1960's is long over. The Democratic party hasn't seen a new idea since and has converted
to govern to the right of Nixon. Way to Nixon's right. The Democratic party is the tool of the
Uber-ization of not just America, but the whole world. Flour and break the law to pauperize the
working class, and suck money to a few in the SF Bay Area. That's policy now.
You can see it already. Sanders is ahead. But Buttigieg is being anointed. He's the perfect
candidate. He's gay! He's out of the closet! And he's a corporate tool who can talk smoothly
without speaking a clear word. Best of all, he has ZERO foreign policy experience or positions.
So he'll be putty in the hands of the corporations that want endless war for profits. Wall
Street wants him. And the street owns the Democratic party. Will he give a flying f*@k about
the middle and working class? Will he be anything but another neo-liberal who can be
differentiated from a neo-conservative only by mild difference in racism? (Overt vs.covert)
At least Buttigieg isn't Beto O'Rourke, the most completely empty skin in Congress. There's
that.
All the evidence I see is no. The Democrat "leadership" don't understand. I predict a Trump
win, or else a squeaker election that barely scrapes by with a win.
No matter what, the idiot Democrats won't get it. Pelosi will do her best to cast the
Republicans anti-tax anti-government (federal) government culture war in concrete with balanced
budget horse manure. The Democrats will continue to force a new cold war on Russia. They will
keep backing companies that steal from the middle and working class. (Yes, Uber and Lyft are
massive theft operations. They implemented taxi service without licenses. Those licenses cost a
lot of money to those who bought them. They put the public at risk causing multiple deaths and
assaults from unlicensed taxi drivers.)
Trump's appeal is that he at least talks a game of "f*@k you". Domestically it's all lies on
all sides. He lies to everyone. But at least he doesn't lie smoothly like the "good Democrat"
candidates do.
Obviously everybody's motives are mixed. The same guys who are calculating the economic
advantages of supporting Trump are likely to be cultural nativists too. That said, I think a
lot of the traditional Republicans who have come around to heartfelt Trumpism supported him
once he got the nomination for rational (zweckrational) reasons. A moderate Democrat like
Clinton might not seem like much of a threat, but the era of triangulation is coming to an
end no matter who's in charge. The imperative problems of the times -- drastic inequality,
economic stagnation, a train wreck of a health care system, climate change -- will have to be
faced with measures deeply threatening to the existing order of things, especially since
sheer demography is undermining the white Christian base of right-wing politics. Under the
circumstances, the only way to defend privilege is to embrace some kind of craziness. The
incompetence of the administration and the decline of American power and prestige that goes
with it are a trade-off. In any case, though Trump may be worse than necessary, any
conservative government will necessarily oversee the debasement of the country in the name of
race and religion. As Molly Bloom once murmured, "as well him as another."
jim harrison #24: "Under the circumstances, the only way to defend privilege is to embrace
some kind of craziness. The incompetence of the administration and the decline of American
power and prestige that goes with it are a trade-off."
I think you've put it in a nutshell. But the recognition of this particular thought is
prevented in the minds of conservatives, both upper and lower class, by an opposing thought.
The conservative logic is that defending privilege is scientifically proper. It is to defend
the material hierarchy in which you, yourself, may ascend on your own merits as a productive
successful individual. Privilege is not simply "I got mine, so you get yours": it is
conservatives' presumed key to capitalism's overall success, thus to defend privilege is to
defend the US's status as the world's strongest, most vibrant economy.
There are several reasons why this law of the jungle may no longer remain operational in
the US, and they started before Trump 's hastening of US decline. If these reasons ever dawn
upon the lower-class conservatives, that awakening may not come yet for 10 or 20 years as the
unavoidable bills become due and global financial markets begin to divest from the US as if
it were a money-loser. In the meantime the upper class will have taken its money offshore, as
foreign economies grow and liberalize investment. Thus it is that neoliberals (in Quinn
Slobodian's particular description, of a free-floating globalized financial class that
manipulates local national policies) can cut themselves free of the US as it descends further
into stratified poverty and brutality. The elites, simply by following the financial markets,
will gut the US.
Your quote describes a trade-off that is a vicious circle. It looks impossible to break
unless there is a generally agreed-upon rewrite of political economy. I repeat "generally
agreed-upon", because the real need is to change a big social preference, and as economists
say,"preferences are exogenous", meaning they are prior to the application of the toolkit of
modern economics. The US was the first large advanced capitalist country, and it may become
the first large advanced democratic socialist country if it is to avoid fascism.
Uncle Jeffy 04.22.19 at 2:05 pm (no link)
Happy Charles Krauthammer Day!
In Memoriam, of course. But his brilliant insight (that there were WMDs in Iraq, and all
we needed was a little more time to find them) will live on forever ..
Jay 04.22.19 at 11:43 pm (no link)
or maybe they weren't eager for World War 3 with Russia over Syria or the Ukraine?
I voted for Trump after previously voting for Ralph Nader. And Obama proved beyond a doubt
that Nader was right. Meanwhile Trump has done exactly what I hoped he would do; he has shown
that our entire election system is rigged by the CIA (obviously not very thoroughly rigged).
Like or hate Trump, only a traitor would not be concerned that the CIA is giving marching
order to the media and colluding to derail candidates it does not approve of.
Unless a "democrat" stands up who is willing to talk about unconstitutional wars,
unconstitutional bailouts, unconstitutional surveillance and unconstitutional rigging of the
two major parties, Trump is far better because he is forcing the public to see how corrupt DC
is. We have been in a constitutional crisis since at least the 1990's. Of course if you are
too weak and stupid to handle any of that discussion, just bury your head and pretend that
"racism" is the only reason Trump won.
bruce wilder 04.23.19 at 12:21 am (no link)
Reading the post and comments, I can help but feel the entire agenda is about feeling good
about one's own political fecklessness. The abject moral and economic failures of
left-neoliberalism / lesser evilism Democratic Party politics are staring at you. And, you
are projecting that outward as if Trump is a failure of the Republican Party and its
politics!
Trump has done exactly what I hoped he would do; he has shown that our entire election
system is rigged by the CIA (obviously not very thoroughly rigged).
If you mean that (as a result of Trump's election) most people in the US now believe that
that your entire election system is rigged by the CIA, then you're wrong: most people in the
US do not believe that your entire election system is rigged by the CIA. On the other hand,
you can't mean that as a result of Trump's election you now believe that to be true, because
(on your own say-so) you already believed it to be true before Trump's election.
If you mean that as a result of Trump's election you feel justified in priding yourself on
having superior insight to the poor dupes who still believe in the system, then I would
believe that's how you feel; but perhaps that's not what you mean. I hope that's not what you
mean.
Trump is far better because he is forcing the public to see how corrupt DC is
No, the number of people who did not believe that DC was corrupt before Trump but who have
come to believe that it is corrupt because of Trump is so small as to be insignificant.
likbez 04.23.19 at 5:58 am (no link)
@Brian 04.21.19 at 2:43 pm ( 18)
First of all thank you for your post. You insights are much appreciated. Some
comments:
The real question is whether or not the Democratic "leadership" can allow nomination of
a candidate that the Democrat rank and file want.
In reality intelligence agencies control the nomination. And Democratic leadership mainly
consists of "CIA-democrats"
Trump won because Hillary was a horrific candidate. Voters stayed home, disgusted. Trump
won because the Obama administration didn't deliver hope nor change. He delivered a
government of the corporate criminal bankers for them. Middle and working class America got
screwed. Black people got screwed worst. Trump won because the utter corruption at the
heart of the DNC was exposed for all to see in the emails.
This is a very apt description of reasons for which Trump had won, but anti-war sentiments
played also important role and probably should be added to the list. People with neocon
foreign policy platform might face hard wing in 2020 as well too. That does not means that
voters will not be betrayed again like in case of Trump and Obama, but still
The Democratic party is the party of endless war even more than the Republicans. It's a
party that stopped every effort by Trump to wind down or end war posture with Russia and
North Korea. There's now 2 parties in Netanyahu's pocket implementing Likuds insane middle
east ideas. Put some solar energy and LGBTQ butter on it with a side of women's rights
bullshit and it's "Democrat". But the politicians are just as venal. The legislature just
as wildly right wing war mongering.
True. But in 2020 that might be their undoing. That's why this corrupt gang is more afraid
of Tulsi more then of Trump.
In general the level of crisis of neoliberalism will play important role in 2002
elections, especially if the economy slows down in 2020. Wheels might start coming off the
neoliberal cart in 2020; that's why Russiagate hysteria serves as an "insurance policy". It
helps to cement the cracks in the neoliberal façade, or at least to attribute them to
the chosen scapegoat.
One good thing that Trump has done (beside criminal justice reform) is that he helped to
discredit neoliberal media. That effort should be applauded. He really turned the Twitter
into a razor to slash neoliberal MSMs.
"... Al Gore is worth half a billion from a net worth of 2.5 million when he left office. The Clintons control a $2.5 billion fortune much of it protected by the paper thin veneer of a "foundation" from the tax man. ..."
"... Because when they ran on higher taxes on the rich, they meant thee, not themselves. It's going to take awhile to figure out how Paul Ryan was bought off, but bought off he was. In some ways, the biggest tragedy of 9/11 was that flight 93 couldn't find Congress. ..."
"... The reality is most people in this world, regardless of political belief, are worker bees. As it should be. This doesn't mean they are unthinking automatons. Too many Chiefs and not enough Indians makes for a bad organization. ..."
We don't really have a two party system in this country. There's only the party of incumbency, then wealthy retirement as "lobbyist"
or "consultant". We see Obama on billionaires' yachts and don't blink an eye.
Al Gore is worth half a billion from a net worth of 2.5 million when he left office. The Clintons control a $2.5 billion fortune
much of it protected by the paper thin veneer of a "foundation" from the tax man.
Because when they ran on higher taxes on the rich, they meant thee, not themselves. It's going to take awhile to figure out
how Paul Ryan was bought off, but bought off he was. In some ways, the biggest tragedy of 9/11 was that flight 93 couldn't find Congress.
Shuffling the deck might have been the best thing for the country. Politicians aren't our friends
On 4/10/2019 at 1:16 AM,
Ward Smith
said: We don't really have a two party system in this country. There's only the party of incumbency, then wealthy retirement
as "lobbyist" or "consultant". We see Obama on billionaires' yachts and don't blink an eye. Al Gore is worth half a billion
from a net worth of 2.5 million when he left office. The Clintons control a $2.5 billion fortune much of it protected by the
paper thin veneer of a "foundation" from the tax man. Because when they ran on higher taxes on the rich, they meant thee, not
themselves. It's going to take awhile to figure out how Paul Ryan was bought off, but bought off he was. In some ways, the
biggest tragedy of 9/11 was that flight 93 couldn't find Congress. Shuffling the deck might have been the best thing for the
country. Politicians aren't our friends
You are correct. This is what I meant but I was not very clear. Unfortunately most people think there are 2 parties in the
US but there is really just one and they cooperate to enrich themselves, their families, and their friends at the expense of everyone
else.
I think the public gets confused because their rhetoric can be different but the way they behave once in office is very different.
On 4/9/2019 at 9:49 PM,
shadowkin
said: The irony of the Mueller investigation that was demanded by Democrats because they thought it would show Trump colluded
with Russia to win the Presidency is that it has blown up in their faces by exposing in greater detail how Obama and the Deep
State attempted first, to throw an election in favor of one candidate, Hillary Clinton, and second, attempted a coup once Trump
was elected via investigations and false claims.
Once Trump won the election, the Deep State used their accomplices in the msm to convince the American public that Donald
J Trump stole the election with the collaboration of the Russians. In this way they sought to remove him by impeachment.
It turns out the Deep State were the ones who were acting as agents of Russia seeking to tear America apart.
Consider:
John Brennan, Obama's CIA director, by his own admission, played a key role in instigating the investigation of Trump before
the election. In the aftermath of the election Brennan has repeatedly called Trump a traitor on social media and old media.
We now know in August 2016 Brennan gave a private briefing to Sen. Harry Reid. Subsequently, Reid sent a letter to the FBI
which included info that clearly came from the now infamous dossier, manufactured by ex-British spy Christopher Steele and
Fusion GPS contractor. This dossier would later be included in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant application
that was used to justify investigations into Trump, his campaign, and his family. It now appears very likely Brennan later
lied under oath that he did not know who commissioned the dossier.
This dossier was originally funded by none other than Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party.
Since the conclusion of the Mueller report has come out Brennan, probably fearing an investigation into his actions pre/post
election, now says he had "bad information". A more accurate description might be that he was willfully spreading disinformation
to bring down a President.
James Comey himself described this dossier as "salacious" and "unverified" yet he did not bother to have the FBI attempt
to verify the contents of the dossier.
This didn't stop Comey from lying 4 times to the FISA court that ex-British spy Steele was the source of an article by "journalist"
Isikoff, which was used to corroborate claims in his own dossier.
So Comey, in essence, told the FISA court that the Steele dossier had been corroborated by Steele.
Some background: Steele also worked for Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska. So the only person who had any verifiable evidence
of working with the Russians in any capacity is an ex-British spy, contracted to manufacture a false dossier on behalf of Hillary
Clinton to smear Trump and later weaponized to impeach Trump after he won the election.
Comey lied to the FISA court so he could obtain, as he did, a warrant to spy on Carter Page (Trump staffer) and the Trump
family during the election.
Moreover, in addition to Comey, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, former Deputy Director of the FBI Andrew McCabe,
and former Attorney General Sally Yates were required to sign off on the FISA warrant application. They are either incompetent
or were engaged in a conspiracy but regardless, this was a fraud on the FISA court.
Bruce Ohr, a senior official at the time at the Justice Department, acted as a middleman between the FBI and Steele. He
passed along information from his wife Nellie Ohr, also a Fusion GPS contractor like Steele , with, presumably, unverified
and false info regarding Trump and his campaign.
The FBI later terminated Steele's relationship as a confidential informant with them after he revealed this relationship
to the press. However, for up to 1.5 years after, Bruce Ohr continued to act as middleman between Steele and the FBI, even
after Mueller took over the investigation .
Americans should be marching in the streets at this attempted coup but we are so doped with mindless entertainment that
we no longer care. We are becoming a system where as long as you don't challenge the 2 party system you are allowed your freedom
to make money and to say whatever you want so long as it doesn't have consequences.
Any more details of Mueller's report due to be released by AG Barr are likely to reveal more of the rotted core of the Deep
State and their machinations and not, as Democrats think, damaging info about Trump.
In my opinion, Russiagate was a fraud and a hoax. However, I do not view "the Deep State" is a monolithic entity. I believe
there are various factions and interests, some more in common with others, and it's never clear in the shadowy netherworld of
intelligence and intrigue. What we see on the media are the figureheads and cartoon cutouts - the Ted Lieus, the Adam Schiffs,
the Muellers, the Maddows, etc.
In my opinion, the Trump election reflects a slight conflict precisely within the 'Deep State' factions. The neoliberal establishment
that has long since reigned does not like Trump for various reasons, including likely his geopolitical opinions. The Russiagate
narrative served to vilify Russia has the number enemy. Unfortunately, most in the American ruling class were and still are asleep
to the fact that the greatest geopolitical rival and threat to the U.S. actually comes from China, not Russia. Former candidates
like Mitt Romney are completely oblivious to the geopolitical tectonic shifts that are currently underway that will determine
the fate of the 21st century.
Russiagate did a whole lot of nothing, but the lasting effect of Russiagate has been online censorship of mostly right-leaning
personalities who dare questioned the official media narrative. Social media sites have largely silenced or banned those who did
not necessarily tow the main line. Russiagate will soon be in the public memoryhole, but you can bet the censorship tactics of
most of the social media corporations will remain intact.
Although I do not agree with Trump on most items, he was correct to see China as the true geopolitical rival to the U.S. and
his (at least) verbal overtures to woo Russia could be viewed as an attempt to mend ties with Russia. If the U.S. has any hope
of trying to stay relevant not just as a superpower but as a country, it will need to realize the reality and court proper alliances
on the grand chessboard, especially Russia.
We need a grassroots, bipartisan groundswell for term limits. Otherwise, in my opinion, we are doomed. The Swamp controls everything.
Unfortunately, half the population has Trump Derangement Syndrome, and aren't willing to focus on anything else.
On 4/10/2019 at 10:07 PM,
AncientEyes
said: In my opinion, Russiagate was a fraud and a hoax. However, I do not view "the Deep State" is a monolithic entity.
I believe there are various factions and interests, some more in common with others, and it's never clear in the shadowy netherworld
of intelligence and intrigue. What we see on the media are the figureheads and cartoon cutouts - the Ted Lieus, the Adam Schiffs,
the Muellers, the Maddows, etc.
In my opinion, the Trump election reflects a slight conflict precisely within the 'Deep State' factions. The neoliberal
establishment that has long since reigned does not like Trump for various reasons, including likely his geopolitical opinions.
The Russiagate narrative served to vilify Russia has the number enemy. Unfortunately, most in the American ruling class were
and still are asleep to the fact that the greatest geopolitical rival and threat to the U.S. actually comes from China, not
Russia. Former candidates like Mitt Romney are completely oblivious to the geopolitical tectonic shifts that are currently
underway that will determine the fate of the 21st century.
Russiagate did a whole lot of nothing, but the lasting effect of Russiagate has been online censorship of mostly right-leaning
personalities who dare questioned the official media narrative. Social media sites have largely silenced or banned those who
did not necessarily tow the main line. Russiagate will soon be in the public memoryhole, but you can bet the censorship tactics
of most of the social media corporations will remain intact.
Although I do not agree with Trump on most items, he was correct to see China as the true geopolitical rival to the U.S.
and his (at least) verbal overtures to woo Russia could be viewed as an attempt to mend ties with Russia. If the U.S. has any
hope of trying to stay relevant not just as a superpower but as a country, it will need to realize the reality and court proper
alliances on the grand chessboard, especially Russia.
Agree about China and censorship.
I also agree the Deep State isn't monolithic which is true of just about every large bureaucracy. There are definitely government
officials sympathetic to Trump.
But based on the high-level government officials involved and the intelligence agencies they represented I think what was done
to Trump can only be described as an attempted coup.
Further, I think we've crossed the Rubicon in terms of American democracy; what it means and where it goes from here.
The rabbit hole goes deep. They never thought Hillary would lose. Here's just one of the many reasons why I use
DuckDuckGo for my research searches rather than Google:
On Monday, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) released
a wide-ranging plan to fix the U.S. college system, with proposals including making two-year
and four-year public college free and expanding the size and scope of the federal Pell Grant
program. And one particularly radical idea is sure to grab the attention of young people around
the country: wiping out student loan debt for the vast majority of American borrowers. "The
time for half-measures is over," Warren, one of many politicians and public figures hoping to
secure the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, wrote in a post published Monday on Medium.
"My broad cancellation plan is a real solution to our student debt crisis. It helps millions of
families and removes a weight that's holding back our economy." Last year, outstanding student
debt in the U.S. topped $1.5
trillion , a growing financial burden that Warren argues is "crushing millions of families
and acting as an anchor on our economy." "It's reducing home ownership rates," she wrote. "It's
leading fewer people to start businesses. It's forcing students to drop out of school before
getting a degree. It's a problem for all of us." To address the problem, Warren is suggesting
what she calls a "truly transformational" approach: wiping out $50,000 in student loan debt for
anyone with a household income below $100,000. People with student loans and a household income
between $100,000 and $250,000 would receive substantial relief as well. At that point, "the
$50,000 cancellation amount phases out by $1 for every $3 in income above $100,000," Warren
wrote.
Bernie Sanders and the Myth of the 1 Percent
The very rich are richer than people imagine.
By Paul Krugman
A peculiar chapter in the 2020 presidential race ended Monday, when Bernie Sanders, after
months of foot-dragging, finally released his tax returns. The odd thing was that the returns
appear to be perfectly innocuous. So what was all that about?
The answer seems to be that Sanders got a lot of book royalties after the 2016 campaign,
and was afraid that revealing this fact would produce headlines mocking him for now being
part of the 1 Percent. Indeed, some journalists did try to make his income an issue.
This line of attack is, however, deeply stupid. Politicians who support policies that
would raise their own taxes and strengthen a social safety net they're unlikely to need
aren't being hypocrites; if anything, they're demonstrating their civic virtue.
But failure to understand what hypocrisy means isn't the only way our discourse about
politics and inequality goes off the rails. The catchphrase "the 1 Percent" has also become a
problem, obscuring the nature of class in 21st-century America.
Focusing on the top percentile of the income distribution was originally intended as a
corrective to the comforting but false notion that growing inequality was mainly about a
rising payoff to education. The reality is that over the past few decades the typical college
graduate has seen only modest gains, with the big money going to a small group at the top.
Talking about "the 1 Percent" was shorthand for acknowledging this reality, and tying that
reality to readily available data.
But putting Bernie Sanders and the Koch brothers in the same class is obviously getting
things wrong in a different way.
True, there's a huge difference between being affluent enough that you don't have to worry
much about money and living with the financial insecurity that afflicts many Americans who
consider themselves middle class. According to the Federal Reserve, 40 percent of U.S. adults
don't have enough cash to meet a $400 emergency expense; a much larger number of Americans
would be severely strained by the kinds of costs that routinely arise when, say, illness
strikes, even for those who have health insurance.
So if you have an income high enough that you can easily afford health care and good
housing, have plenty of liquid assets and find it hard to imagine ever needing food stamps,
you're part of a privileged minority.
But there's also a big difference between being affluent, even very affluent, and having
the kind of wealth that puts you in a completely separate social universe. It's a difference
summed up three decades ago in the movie "Wall Street," when Gordon Gekko mocks the limited
ambitions of someone who just wants to be "a $400,000-a-year working Wall Street stiff flying
first class and being comfortable."
Even now, most Americans don't seem to realize just how rich today's rich are. At a recent
event, my CUNY colleague Janet Gornick was greeted with disbelief when she mentioned in
passing that the top 25 hedge fund managers make an average of $850 million a year. But her
number was correct.
One survey found that Americans, on average, think that corporate C.E.O.s are paid about
30 times as much as ordinary workers, which hasn't been true since the 1970s. These days the
ratio is more like 300 to 1.
Why should we care about the very rich? It's not about envy, it's about oligarchy.
With great wealth comes both great power and a separation from the concerns of ordinary
citizens. What the very rich want, they often get; but what they want is often harmful to the
rest of the nation. There are some public-spirited billionaires, some very wealthy liberals.
But they aren't typical of their class.
The very rich don't need Medicare or Social Security; they don't use public education or
public transit; they may not even be that reliant on public roads (there are helicopters,
after all). Meanwhile, they don't want to pay taxes.
Sure enough, and contrary to popular belief, billionaires mostly (although often
stealthily) wield their political power on behalf of tax cuts at the top, a weaker safety net
and deregulation. And financial support from the very rich is the most important force
sustaining the extremist right-wing politics that now dominates the Republican Party.
That's why it's important to understand who we mean when we talk about the very rich. It's
not doctors, lawyers or, yes, authors, some of whom make it into "the 1 Percent." It's a much
more rarefied social stratum.
None of this means that the merely affluent should be exempt from the burden of creating a
more decent society. The Affordable Care Act was paid for in part by taxes on incomes in
excess of $200,000, so 400K-a-year working stiffs did pay some of the cost. That's O.K.: They
(we) can afford it. And whining that $200,000 a year isn't really rich is unseemly.
But we should be able to understand both that the affluent in general should be paying
more in taxes, and that the very rich are different from you and me -- and Bernie
Sanders. The class divide that lies at the root of our political polarization is much
starker, much more extreme than most people seem to realize.
The usual media suspects, the Trump-Putin conspiracy crowd, ignored this: Bernie was a
smashing success on FoxNews Bethlehem, Pa townhall.
veryone agrees: Bernie Sanders' Fox News appearance was a major success.
"Sanders takes on Fox -- and emerges triumphant," proclaimed Politico. Vice judged
Bernie's appearance "victorious." The Washington Post opined that Bernie's stellar
performance "suggest[s] that [Trump] can, indeed, be beaten." The Atlantic, usually eager to
declare that Bernie has blundered, conceded that "it paid off."
But most coverage restricts its analysis to Sanders' 2020 election prospects, overlooking
the true significance of the event. It's not just that he's willing to make a pitch to Fox's
viewership and thus stands a better chance at winning the presidency -- it's that the Right
could lose some of the working-class support it doesn't deserve, a process that could easily
snowball out of their control." https://jacobinmag.com/2019/04/berni-sanders-town-hall-fox-news
And when Bernie asked the crowd if they would exchange their company health care plan for
M4A, the crowd went nuts.
Of course, Krugman, Pelosi, and the corrupt, centrist Democratic establishment will
continue to assure us that 'people are happy with their corporate coverage." BS!!!
The 'no, we can't' crowd here will undoubtedly assure us that 'sure, they'd love universal
coverage, but it's not politically feasible.' They need to watch the Fox Town Hall. If it's
not feasible, then it's because Democrats don't want it (in deference to insurance
companies,) not because it's not feasible.
No surprise there. In geopolitics, one bad deed deserves another...US constantly interfering
in others' politics, too. Sadly, Democrats will seize on this to push for confrontation with
Russia. Question is, what do they want, nuclear war?
What's sickly ironic to me is that Democrats could care less about the security of the
voting system, even after the stolen elections of 2000 and 2004.. Why is it OK for
billionaires and corporation to rig electronic voting machines against Democrats? Where was a
Mueller Commission back then?
Personally, I think that billionaires' election theft is much more effective and
consequenctial than any Russian meddling, which was probably not that effective anyway.
Sanders has clearly demonstrated what resonates with progressive voters...and even with many
Fox viewers.
But Pelosi and the corrupt Democratic establishment ignore that...and can't even come up
with any coherent message or an appealing agenda at all. Instead, they insist on continuously
replaying Hillary's sour grapes. What is the point? How many votes will Hillary's bitterness
get for Democrats?
That's a third Warren blunder after reparations blunder and Indian heritage blunder. She
might be out of the race soon...
Does not she understand that impeachment of Trump means President Pence? What is idiotic
statement. She is definitely no diplomat and as such does not belong to WH.
Senator Elizabeth Warren on Friday called for lawmakers to start impeachment proceedings
against President Trump, saying he obstructed Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation
into Russian meddling in the 2016 election.
Warren became the first of the Democratic presidential candidates to unambiguously call
for impeachment proceedings. Most senior Democrats in Congress have stopped far short of it
following the delivery of Mueller's 448-page report.
"The severity of this misconduct demands that elected officials in both parties set aside
political considerations and do their constitutional duty,'' the Massachusetts Democrat said
on Twitter. "That means the House should initiate impeachment proceedings against the
President of the United States."
Also Friday, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee issued a subpoena for an
unredacted version of Mueller's report as Congress escalates its investigation. Trump and
other Republicans dismissed the report's findings.
The redacted version of Mueller's report details multiple efforts Trump made to curtail a
Russia probe he feared would cripple his administration. While Mueller declined to recommend
that Trump be prosecuted for obstruction of justice, he did not exonerate the president, all
but leaving the question to Congress.
The report stated, "If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that
the President did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state."
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said she doesn't support impeachment without bipartisan
backing because it would be too divisive for the nation She signaled she wanted the House to
continue to fulfill its constitutional oversight role.
''We believe that the first article -- Article 1, the legislative branch -- has the
responsibility of oversight of our democracy, and we will exercise that,'' she said in
Belfast on Friday.
Representative Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat who chairs the Judiciary Committee,
said, ''It now falls to Congress to determine the full scope of that alleged misconduct and
to decide what steps we must take going forward.'' He expects the Justice Department to
comply by May 1.
On Twitter Friday, Warren said the report "lays out facts showing that a hostile foreign
government attacked our 2016 election to help Donald Trump and Donald Trump welcomed that
help. Once elected, Donald Trump obstructed the investigation into that attack."
She said Mueller "put the next step in the hands of Congress," adding in another tweet
that "[t]o ignore a President's repeated efforts to obstruct an investigation into his own
disloyal behavior would inflict great and lasting damage on this country, and it would
suggest that both the current and future Presidents would be free to abuse their power in
similar ways."
According to a Warren aide, the senator started to read the Mueller report Thursday during
a plane ride back to Boston following campaign stops in Colorado and Utah.
Warren, according to the aide, felt it was her duty to say what she thought after reading
the report but does not plan to emphasize impeachment on the campaign trail.
Mary Anne Marsh, a Boston-based Democratic strategist who is not connected to any
presidential campaign, said Warren has been the first Democratic candidate to stake out
numerous policy stances during the campaign. Her impeachment statement will force everyone
else running for president to take a position, Marsh said.
"More often than not the field is reacting to her positions," she said.
Warren's call for impeachment proceedings, Marsh said, "shows she's willing to lead."
"She's willing to make the hard calls," Marsh said.
After the Mueller report's release, Trump pronounced it ''a good day'' and tweeted ''Game
Over.'' Top Republicans in Congress saw vindication in the report as well. On Friday, Trump
was even more blunt, referring to some statements about him in the report as "total
bullshit."
House minority leader Kevin McCarthy said it was time to move on and said Democrats were
attempting to ''vilify a political opponent.'' The California lawmaker said the report failed
to deliver the ''imaginary evidence'' incriminating Trump that Democrats had sought. ...
Now, liberals are pressing the House to begin impeachment hearings, and the issue is
cropping up on the presidential campaign trail.
South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg, a Democrat who is running for president, was asked
Friday if Trump should be impeached as he made an appearance at a Stop & Shop union
picket line in Malden .
"I think that Congress needs to make that decision," he said. "I think he may well deserve
it, but my focus, since I'm not part of Congress, but I am part of 2020, is to give him a
decisive defeat at the ballot box, if he is the Republican nominee in 2020."
On Friday, Julián Castro, a former housing secretary running for the Democratic
nomination, said he thought "it would be perfectly reasonable'' for Congress to open
impeachment proceedings.
Senator Kamala Harris, a California Democrat who is running for president, told MSNBC on
Thursday that she also thinks Mueller should testify. When asked about impeachment
proceedings, she told that outlet, "I think that there's definitely a conversation to be had
on that subject, but first I want to hear from Bob Mueller."
Cory Booker, the New Jersey senator running for president, was asked about impeachment
during a campaign trip to Nevada. Specifically in regard to impeachment, he said, ''There's a
lot more investigation that should go on before Congress comes to any conclusions like
that.''
In the House, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York is now signed on to an
impeachment resolution from fellow Democratic Representative Rashida Tlaib of Michigan.
But senior leaders remain cool to the idea.
Representative Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the number two in the House Democratic leadership,
told CNN on Thursday, "Based on what we have seen to date, going forward on impeachment is
not worthwhile at this point." However, Hoyer quickly revised his comments, saying "all
options are on the table."
Trump is the chosen representative of the Oligopoly & elite top ten per cent of the
wealth transferring opportunist class that make their financial gains from participation
within the cartel & concomitant rigged system.
If P.T. Barnum II cannot manage to drum up the requisite market volatility in an
across-the-board Secular Stagnation global market the United States of America will fall prey
to competition from the alternative superpowers that are currently poised to interlope on
previously controlled territories that the USA has traditionally held as their own. T
he GFC ushered in an about face for USD hegemony & USA exceptionalism [read manifest
destiny] that needs to be reassessed in light of dwindling market share & trade
deficits.
The Duck has been placed in office for purposes of churn for markets because of the
deflationary pressures brought about from uncertainty on the finance side of America's
balance sheets & finance ledgers.
P.T. Barnum II would only be turfed from office if Wall Street started to implode the dark
pool derivatives universe again as they did in 08 when Obama was ushered into office as an
apologist for the incompetency of his peers on Wall Street & the Republican Party. The
banking sector knew full well that the default government of Obama was guaranteed in light of
the market crash that ended the Bush era totalitarianism.
RW I agree with a lot of what you say. But I would say that Hillary was the chosen rep,
the problem being that she lost the election. So, while Trump may not have been the number
one pick, the opportunist class, as you call them, will make do. So far, and especially with
the corporate tax cut, I think he's been ok for them and as a further example I point to his
arguing for lower interest rates to keep the Wall Street party going.
As to deflationary pressures, I presume you're talking about downward pressure on asset
prices.
I can't imagine that the banking sector was disappointed by Obama's policies w.r.t. QE,
suppression of interest rates, and especially his policy of "too-big-to-jail". And his
appointment of Mary Jo White. In my view appointing Mary Jo was as laughable as appointing a
mafia lawyer or consigliere as a big city police commissioner.
And, yes, we knew Obama was just another slick operator, installed as "cover". The average
voter never took the time to wonder, "Where TF did *he* come from?", or bothered to check who
was stuffing his war chest with filthy lucre.
Hornswoggled again!
The fine trick is never to give the voters anyone to vote for; this way the status quo is
maintained and the public is kept at each others throats.
We should probably be concerned that the end of Empathy Road crumbles into a vast, cold
waste that stretches endlessly away. Those who tread there are no longer human. At the rate
we're approaching that waste, there will be no need for plunging off of any cliff.
HRC was the chosenite before she slipped & fell helplessly in front of cameras owned
by publishers intent on getting a scoop presidential race ending snapshot of the Democratic
frontrunner ending her whole career in one fell swoop on international news networks all over
the world.
When the networks ran the newsreels on Hillary falling into the arms of campaign personnel
that was a game over moment in history. Hillary just did not have the health to be a
presidential candidate and The Duck was still waddling on duck's feet at that juncture on the
clock.
Heck, even the bookies knew that HRC was too lame to run after she was conspicuously
hospitalized with an infection that was immediately treated by her physician. Americans don't
want presidential candidates that are not healthy enough to run the gauntlet of elections.
She lost on the basis of her poor health and national news reels that showed her incapable of
even walking to a parked waiting van. 'Mericans don't vote for raggedy Ann or Andy. To be
presidential is to be able to stand on one's own two feet at all times. Hillary could not
pass the standing on her own two feet clause in the tacit agreement that she was attempting
to make with the American voter at that time in history.
The irony of all these arguments is so obvious to those of us who have been around long
enough to witness or be involved in the Cold War. Russia was an archenemy because they were a
socialist state opposed to private ownership capitalism. We had just fought a war against two
totalitarian states.
The irony is that the Russian Federation has become privatized over the last two decades
and the US more socialized. Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren et al are very close to
converting this country to a Communist State. That will be the end result if the Left's coup
is successful in 2020.
The reaction of the Red States to the control by the Deep State will be interesting.
On this big picture, Trump is unimportant. Try to picture a post Trump America after a
coup, Pence will be the next target, think Buttigieg, until the capitalist basis of the
country is destroyed.
The real problem is that the Liberals will just keep coming, being financed by the
globalists, and coming and coming until they have their way. We are currently witnessing it.
What can be done to stop them, permanently.
The irony again is that the Left has convinced a large part of America that Trump and the
Deplorables are responsible for the Russian "takeover", yet the real source of the takeover
is the result of the Leftist campaigns.
The last attempted overthrow of the US basic tenets created the civil war and history
shows what it took to stop the Confederacy.
The American public's stupidity cannot be overestimated. I know this, but still find it
hard to believe that it would elect the likes of Bernie, Liz and Buttplug (BLB).
Keep in mind, the only elected Massachusetts politician in the past 100 years was JFK, but
he was a phenomenon and might have lost in 1964. Coolidge never ran, Dukakis lost and so did
Kerry. We've never elected a self-described socialist, either. Buttplug is too weird for the
typical American. AOC is too young.
No, we'll probably have a mainstream, same old-same old president.
I can't agree with this theory of candidate change .
Obama, and then Trump is all the evidence you need that the carbon dioxide expelled by
American voters is reaching toxic levels. The old Milankovitch cycles of American political
economy are long gone.
A fellow related today that he thought Boot-edge-edge would be rejected for being too gay.
Sentiments like this have front-run historical campaigns for the last 12 years.
At some point even the morbidly obese have to push away from the buffet table. Expect the
candidate change.
I asked the Captain the same thing. He doesn't know or doesn't want to know. Or he knows
and doesn't know at the same time, depending on which helps him stay the same and in denial.
Double think as Orwell put it.
>>> The end of the the Mueller probe doesn't in the least mean that it's
over.
Oh we never expected collusionist Dems to go gentle into that good night. I mean did the
birthers ever accede to reality?
But all Dems can do now is spin while the rest of the nation moves on. And you better hope
they move on. The alternative is that Team Trump starts
going after the conspirators of this soft coup.
Here we need to look at the candidate political history, their actions before the election. "Trump scam" like "Obama
scam" was based on the fact that they do not have political history, they were what Romans called "Tabula
rasa". A "clean state" politician into which
voters can project their wishes about domestic and foreign policy. That was a dirty. but very effective trick.
But the most important factor in Trump win was the he was competing against despicable warmonger Hillary Clinton, the
establishment candidate who wanted to kick the neoliberal globalization can down the road. So the "lesser evilism" card was
also in play consciously or unconscionably as well. So with Hillary as the opposition candidate it was a kind of
implementation of the USSR style elections on a new level. but with the same with zero choice. Effectively the US
electorate was disenfranchised when FBI has thrown Sander under the bus by exonerating Hillary. In a way FBI was the
kingmaker in 2016 elections.
And please note that the Deep State launched a color revolution against Trump to keep him in check. Only later it became
evident that he from the very beginning was a pro-Israel neoconservative, probably fully controlled by pro-Israel forces. That Trump
electorate bought MIGA instead of MAGA from the day one.
Notable quotes:
"... The question is even if we got a candidate against the War Party & the Party of Davos, would it matter? Trump, the candidate who campaigned on the wasteful expenditures in our endless wars has surrounded himself with neocons and continues to do Bibi's bidding ratcheting up tensions in Latin America, Middle East and with Russia. What's changed even with a candidate that the Swamp disliked and attempted to take down? ..."
In a recent call from Trump requesting his opinion on China, Jimmy Carter noted that China
has not spent a dime on war since 1979, whereas we've spent trillions & continue to spend
even more.
China invested trillions in their infrastructure while ours crumbles. They've invested in
building the world's manufacturing capacity while we dismantled ours. We spend twice per
capita on healthcare compared to any other western country, yet chronic diseases like
diabetes keeps growing. We spend more on our military than the next 10 countries combined yet
how superior is our weaponry compared to the Russians who spend one-tenth of what we spend?
We've financialized our economy and socialized speculative losses of Wall St mavens but when
some politicians talk about spending on the commons then socialism is labeled bad.
The question is even if we got a candidate against the War Party & the Party of Davos,
would it matter? Trump, the candidate who campaigned on the wasteful expenditures in our
endless wars has surrounded himself with neocons and continues to do Bibi's bidding
ratcheting up tensions in Latin America, Middle East and with Russia. What's changed even
with a candidate that the Swamp disliked and attempted to take down?
If our leaders & media want to protect our elections, not just score political pts,
first & most important thing we must do is institute b/up paper ballots by passing my
Securing America's Elections Act so no one can manipulate our votes & hack our
elections
apenultimate on Sat, 04/20/2019 - 2:45pm Hello All,
First, in response to others saying Leftists should support Bernie unless they have an
adversity to winning elections, I propose a couple of thoughts. The first is this link showing
Jimmy Carter's status in the Democratic primary race through June of 1975--he's almost exactly
where Tulsi is right now in polling, and guess what? He won against the giants of his time.
At this point, my advice is to support who you think is best, not who someone tells you is
the only realistic choice.
Here is another factoid for the caucuses/primaries--candidates who do not get at least 15%
of the votes do not get any delegates. Think of the strategic ramificaitons of that for a few
minutes. Assuming Biden enters the race, many of the Harris, Booker, O'Rourke, Buttigieg level
of candidates do not poll above 15% in many (or any) states, but if they remain in the race, it
depresses Biden's results. There are a lot of potential various outcomes there depending on how
things play out, and Tulsi staying in the race is not a major factor at this point.
In the past week, Tusli has made 8 stops in Iowa and 4 stops (including 1 today) in New
Hampshire on the campaign trail. Good to see her get out and stumping in the early states.
Some very good media things going on. Tulsi was on FOX News with Brett Baier, and she
handled it really well. As he tried to talk over her and twist her words, she essentially just
talked over him:
Finally, Tulsi will be on Jimmy Dore today (if she has not been already). Look for that
interview on YouTube in the upcoming week.
In two recent national polls--Emerson and Morning Consult--Tulsi is polling at 1%. This is
important as a second potential placement for the televised Democratic debates (needing to poll
at 1% or greater in at least 3 national or early primary state polls). If there end up being
more than 20 candidates with 65,000 unique donors or polling at least 1% in 3 polls, they will
allow only candidates that met both criteria. Tulsi seems to be there at this point--including
the 2 national polls above, and getting 2% in the last Nevada poll.
I think the ancestry scandal is about as important as wearing white pants after Labor
day.
You are far too partisan, you ignore the creation of the CPA and all the benefits it give
the public when Republicans at this very moment are looking to loosen the Pay Day Loan
lending rules.
I guess a 1400% interest rate is just not enough, do you support the loan sharks and rip
off banks? Yes or No.
What does Alcoholics Anonymous have to do with Elizabeth Warren?
By AA he meant Affirmative Action, not Alcoholics Anonymous. Although people with lots of
Native American DNA often have drinking problems. prudence would dictate "don't sell whiskey
and guns to Elizabeth Warren."
Look at the spin machine in action. She used the benefits of lying about her American
Indian ancestry to further her career and derive perks. We all know it. AA is a joke and
utter reverse racism in action.
No, she kept pushing it even to the point of claiming that her genetic result of 1/1024
Indian proved her claim. The lack of judgement -- both technical and political -- is simply
astounding. Then she apologized to the Cherokee for pretending to be one of them since she
doesn't meet the tribal criterion. To my knowledge she has never back off her claim beyond
that -- and never apologized to Whites for trying to get out of OUR Tribe, the one she was
born into.
I always try to look at the big picture, the whole episode was foolish but she harmed no
one and gained nothing.
Has she pushed the anti Russian crap? That would bother me as we have been the aggressor
with Russia and that is really dangerous.
As we speak nuclear armed bombers are flying daily close the the Russian borders and
Russia has to scramble jets to ward them off. One pissed off Russian fighter pilot and there
goes the world!
She is pushing for criminalizing White Nationalism -- as if We aren't persecuted enough
already. Foolishness to the nth degree. Whites have been amazing passive as their Nation has
been stolen from them. And those who make peaceful change impossible ..
"... Much like Brexit, an antiwar/anit interventionist in the USA has nowhere to go. Both parties have substantial hawkish wings. Any move to peace/antiintervention by the party in power is immediately attacked by the party out of power. MSDNC is practically howling for war with Russia. ..."
"... Of course Trump wants to take the war side. Saudi wants war. Israel wants war. Nothing else counts. ..."
"... Tulsi won't surrender. But she obviously won't win the nomination either. ..."
"... Trump may have said 'no more wars' but he never acted on it. So, someone else came along and picked up the discarded slogan. It's not stealing ..."
"... I wish Tulsi could get more traction. I voted trump believing his anti war statements. Hate his veto of Yemen resolution ..."
"... don't underestimate the perpetual war power's grip on the Democrat party. Pro war liberals like the NYtimes aren't going away in fact they are getting louder. ..."
"... It is remarkable that neither Buchanan nor Khanna would ever consider the necessity to impeach Presidents like Bush, Obama, and Trump for their unconstitutional and criminal acts of aggressive war – or the responsibility of The People to replace the Congress of incumbents with representatives that have not already repeatedly and persistently broken their oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution. ..."
"... Instead, Buchanan delivers yet another installment of the Incompetence Dodge: if only the Czar wasn't a sociopathic criminal! If only he listened to us, his loyal supporters! ..."
"... Sanders never "stole" anything, Buchanan. What you're (slowly, dimly) realizing is that your boy Trump never cared a speck for a more sane, less bellicose U.S. foreign policy. ..."
"... I will never understand why Trump cultists ever believed he did. A clown who's big complaint about the Iraq war is that "we didn't take the oil" is an unlikely peace advocate. But to be a member of the Trump cult you have to engage in massive psychological projection, daily. ..."
"The president has said that he does not want to see
this country involved in endless wars . I agree with that," Bernie Sanders told the Fox News
audience at Monday's town hall meeting in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.
Then, turning and staring straight into the camera, Bernie added: "Mister President, tonight
you have the opportunity to do something extraordinary: sign that resolution. Saudi Arabia
should not be determining the military or foreign policy of this country." Sanders was talking about a War Powers Act resolution that would have ended U.S. involvement
in the five-year civil war in Yemen that has created one of the great humanitarian crises of
our time, with thousands of dead children amidst an epidemic of cholera and a famine.
Supported by a united Democratic Party on the Hill, and an anti-interventionist faction of
the GOP led by Senators Rand Paul and Mike Lee of Utah, the War Powers resolution had passed
both houses of Congress. But 24 hours after Sanders urged him to sign it, Trump, heeding the hawks in his Cabinet and
National Security Council, vetoed S.J.Res.7, calling it a "dangerous attempt to weaken my
constitutional authorities." With sufficient Republican votes in both houses to sustain Trump's veto, that should have
been the end of the matter.
It is not: Trump may have just ceded the peace issue in 2020 to the Democrats. If Sanders
emerges as the nominee, we will have an election with a Democrat running on the "no-more-wars"
theme Trump touted in 2016. And Trump will be left defending the bombing of Yemeni rebels and
civilians by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia. Does Trump really want to go into 2020 as a war party president? Does he want to go into 2020 with Democrats denouncing "Trump's endless wars" in the Middle
East? Because that is where he is headed.
In 2008, John McCain, leading hawk in the Senate, was routed by a left-wing first-term
senator from Illinois, Barack Obama, who had won his nomination by defeating the more hawkish
Hillary Clinton, who had voted to authorize the war in Iraq. In 2012, the Republican nominee Mitt Romney, who was far more hawkish than Obama on Russia,
lost. Yet in 2016, Trump ran as a different kind of Republican, an opponent of the Iraq war and an
anti-interventionist who wanted to get along with Russia's Vladimir Putin and get out of these
Middle East wars. Looking closely at the front-running candidates for the Democratic nomination of 2020 -- Joe
Biden, Sanders, Kamala Harris, Beto O'Rourke, Pete Buttigieg, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker --
not one appears to be as hawkish as Trump has become. Trump pulled us out of the nuclear deal with Iran negotiated by Secretary of State John
Kerry and reimposed severe sanctions.
He declared Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization, to which
Tehran has responded by declaring U.S. Central Command a terrorist organization. Ominously, the
IRGC and its trained Shiite militias in Iraq are in close proximity to U.S. troops.
Trump has recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital, moved the U.S. embassy there, closed the
consulate that dealt with Palestinian affairs, cut off aid to the Palestinians, recognized
Israel's annexation of the Golan Heights seized from Syria in 1967, and gone silent on Bibi
Netanyahu's threat to annex Jewish settlements on the West Bank.
Sanders, however, though he stands by Israel, is supporting a two-state solution and
castigating the "right-wing" Netanyahu regime. Trump has talked of pulling all U.S. troops out of Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Yet the
troops are still there. Though Trump came into office promising to get along with the Russians, he sent Javelin
anti-tank missiles to Ukraine and announced a pullout from Ronald Reagan's 1987 INF treaty that
outlawed all land-based intermediate-range nuclear missiles. When Putin provocatively sent 100 Russian troops to Venezuela -- ostensibly to repair the
S-400 anti-aircraft and anti-missile system that was damaged in recent blackouts -- Trump,
drawing a red line, ordered the Russians to "get out."
Biden is expected to announce next week. If the stands he takes on Russia, China, Israel,
and the Middle East are more hawkish than the rest of the field, he will be challenged by the
left wing of his party and by Sanders, who voted "no" on the Iraq war that Biden supported. The center of gravity of U.S. politics is shifting towards the Trump position of 2016. And
the anti-interventionist wing of the GOP is growing. And when added to the anti-interventionist and anti-war wing of the Democratic Party on the
Hill, together, they are able, as on the Yemen War Powers resolution, to produce a new
bipartisan majority.
Prediction: by the primaries of 2020, foreign policy will be front and center, and the
Democratic Party will have captured the "no more wars" political high ground that candidate
Donald Trump occupied in 2016.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made
and Broke a President and Divided America Forever. To find out more about Patrick Buchanan
and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at
www.creators.com.
By the way, Pat, do you know that Jimmy Carter did NOT get the US into any war, nor any
"intervention"? Have you showed him any appretiation for it? Or it was a time when you were
all for it as long as it was against Commies?
Prediction: by the primaries of 2020, foreign policy will be front and center, and the Democratic Party will have
captured the "no more wars" political high ground that candidate Donald Trump occupied in 2016.
Agree. But don't worry. On the second ballot, the super delegates will override the
obvious preference of voters for a "no more wars" candidate and give it to Biden. Who will
lose.
Much like Brexit, an antiwar/anit interventionist in the USA has nowhere to go. Both parties
have substantial hawkish wings. Any move to peace/antiintervention by the party in power is
immediately attacked by the party out of power. MSDNC is practically howling for war with
Russia.
No one to blame but himself. The anti-Russia insanity made it hard for him to stick to that
part of his program, but there is a lot more he could have done, starting by not surrounding
himself with war-mongering idiots like Pompeo and Bolton.
I mean, can we actually be honest here? The Neocons simply do not see Sanders as a genuine
threat. He has an unfair advantage. He can, for instance, criticize American foreign policy
without being accused of anti-semitism.
Those who wish Trump had maintained a more maverick
stance of foreign policy should ask themselves if they supported him energetically enough.
He's a survivor first and foremost. If you aren't working to offer him a legit life
preserver, this is all on you.
>>When Putin provocatively sent 100 Russian troops to Venezuela<<<
And this is why Trump is going to win on the 'national security' issue. As long as U.S.
troops don't actually fight and die in foreign countries the voters love U.S. 'being tough
with its enemies'.
As long as Trump confines his actions to tormenting 3rd world countries, like Venezuela,
Cuba, Nicaragua, Syria, and Yemen with sanctions and military assistance to other
belligerents any opposition will be portrayed as 'hating or apologizing for America the force
for good'.
Being objective, what is more provocative, sending a small number of specialists to
prevent cyber sabotage for the standing govt, or trying to install a new President, seizing
their assets and preventing their oil trade. We are the bullies and the day when we finally
squander our wealth we will find out that we have no friends despite being an alleged force
for good.
I thought that we determined a long time ago that taking something out of another persons
trash can was not stealing.
Trump may have said 'no more wars' but he never acted on it. So, someone else came along
and picked up the discarded slogan. It's not stealing
I wish Tulsi could get more traction. I voted trump believing his anti war statements. Hate
his veto of Yemen resolution. I still defend trump from unfair attacks but am not a supporter
any more.
Pat – good analysis. But don't underestimate the perpetual war power's grip on the
Democrat party. Pro war liberals like the NYtimes aren't going away in fact they are getting
louder.
Adriana "By the way, Pat, do you know that Jimmy Carter did NOT get the US into any war, nor
any 'intervention'? Have you showed him any appretiation [sic] for it? Or it was a time when
you were all for it as long as it was against Commies?"
No, but he did initiate funding for the Mujahideen in Afghanistan BEFORE the Soviet
"invasion," specifically to incite the Soviets to invade and get caught in their own Vietnam
War-like quagmire. President Carter succeeded in that effort, but the world has suffered the
unintended consequences of US funding for jihadist militants ever since.
Oh, and the Carter Administration also continued to recognize the Khmer Rouge as the
"legitimate" government of Cambodia after the Vietnamese Stalinists drove them from power in
1978. I'm sure this was partly done with Cold War calculations in mind – US ally
Communist China was an enemy to both the Soviet Union and its Vietnamese client state, and
the Khmer Rouge were clients of China – but I do not doubt that sticking it to the
Vietnamese who had so recently embarrassed the US played a part in that policy decision,
too.
The Reagan Administration maintained both policies, by the way, by continuing to fund the
Mujahideen and to uphold the fiction that the Khmer Rouge was still Cambodia's legitimate
government (kind of like the fiction that Juan Guaidó is Venezuela's "legitimate"
president).
You are right, if I had just more energetically supported Trump he wouldn't be giving Israel
and Saudi Arabia everything they want and trying to start a war with Iran. That poor guy.
Would just saying nice things about him have been enough or should I have completely drank
the koolade, MAGA hat and all?
Regarding Pat's argument as usual there is some truth here, but he keeps acting like this
is a complete surprise and that Trump has "become" a hawk. Yes some of the campaign promises
mentioned are accurate but he was talking about blowing up Iranian ships and tearing up the
nuclear agreement on the campaign trail. He was never an anti-war candidate, he was just
anti-whatever the previous presidents did candidate. Besides one statement about being
even-handed there was every indication he was going to be at least as reflexively pro-Israel
as any previous president and unsurprisingly he is more. Paul was the only
anti-interventionist candidate and anyone who thinks otherwise was either willfully ignorant
or not paying attention.
It is remarkable that Buchanan considers Trump's veto to be constitutional, but then, so
does Khanna. It is remarkable that neither Buchanan nor Khanna would ever consider the
necessity to impeach Presidents like Bush, Obama, and Trump for their unconstitutional and
criminal acts of aggressive war – or the responsibility of The People to replace the
Congress of incumbents with representatives that have not already repeatedly and persistently
broken their oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution.
Instead, Buchanan delivers yet another installment of the Incompetence Dodge: if only the
Czar wasn't a sociopathic criminal! If only he listened to us, his loyal supporters!
It is difficult to decide which kind of unprincipled opportunist is worse – the kind
that successfully profits from Trump, like McConnell, or the kind that hopes in vain for
their paleolithic cause to benefit.
Besides breaking his "no more wars" campaign promises, Trump has not built a wall, jailed
Hillary, capped the deficit, re-instated Glass-Steagall, overturned Obamacare, controlled the
cost of prescription drugs, de-funded Planned Parenthood,
nor pushed legislation for the infrastructure of the country. The potential "peace president"
in 2016 is nothing more than another "perpetual war president".
Sanders never "stole" anything, Buchanan. What you're (slowly, dimly) realizing is that your
boy Trump never cared a speck for a more sane, less bellicose U.S. foreign policy.
I will never understand why Trump cultists ever believed he did. A clown who's big
complaint about the Iraq war is that "we didn't take the oil" is an unlikely peace advocate.
But to be a member of the Trump cult you have to engage in massive psychological projection,
daily.
Of course in Buchanan's case there's another excuse: He's been so dazzled by Trump's
relentless bigotry that everything else, every lie, every cheat, is simply a second- or
third-tier concern, something to explain away. How many pathetic exercises in blame-shifting
has The American Con published under Buchanan's byline since 2016? And all signs are that
they'll keep right on with it until the happy day when Trump is finally gone.
The country was divided before Mueller Report. Now it is even more divided.
Notable quotes:
"... We wouldn't know that a Clinton-linked operative, Joseph Mifsud, seeded Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos with the rumor that Russia had 'Dirt' on Hillary Clinton - which would later be coaxed out of Papadopoulos by a Clinton-linked Australian ambassador, Alexander Downer, and that this apparent 'setup' would be the genesis of the FBI's " operation crossfire hurricane " operation against the Trump campaign. ..."
"... We wouldn't know about the role of Fusion GPS - the opposition research firm hired by Hillary Clinton's campaign to commission the Steele dossier. Fusion is also linked to the infamous Trump Tower meeting , and hired Nellie Ohr - the CIA-linked wife of the DOJ's then-#4 employee, Bruce Ohr. Nellie fed her husband Bruce intelligence she had gathered against Trump while working for Fusion , according to transcripts of her closed-door Congressional testimony. ..."
"... Now the dossier -- financed by Hillary Clinton's campaign and the Democratic National Committee , and compiled by the former British intelligence agent Christopher Steele -- is likely to face new, possibly harsh scrutiny from multiple inquiries . - NYT ..."
"... The report was debunked after internet sleuths traced the IP address to a marketing server located outside Philadelphia, leading Alfa Bank executives to file a lawsuit against Fusion GPS in October 2017, claiming their reputations were harmed by the Steele Dossier. ..."
"... And who placed the Trump-Alfa theory with various media outlets? None other than former FBI counterintelligence officer and Dianne Feinstein aide Dan Jones - who is currently working with Fusion GPS and Steele to continue their Trump-Russia investigation funded in part by George Soros . ..."
"... Of course, when one stops painting with broad brush strokes, it's clear that the dossier was fabricated bullshit. ..."
"... after a nearly two-year investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller and roughly 40 FBI agents and other specialists, no evidence was found to support the dossier's wild claims of "DNC moles, Romanian hackers, Russian pensioners, or years of Trump-Putin intelligence trading ," as the Times puts it. ..."
"... As there was spying, there must necessarily also have been channels to get the information thus gathered back to its original buyer - the Clinton campaign. Who passed the information back to Clinton, and what got passed? ..."
"... the NYTt prints all the news a scumbag would. remember Judith Miller, the Zionazi reporter the NYT ..."
"... There was no 'hack.' That is the big, anti-Russia, pro-MIC lie which all the other lies serve. ..."
"... Seth Rich had the means and the motive. So did Imran Awan, but it would make no sense for Awan to turn anything over to wikileaks . . .he would have kept them as insurance. ..."
"... Until the real criminals are processed and the media can be restored you don't have a United States. This corruption is beyond comprehension. You had the (((media)) providing kickbacks to the FBI for leaked information. These bribes are how CNN was on site during Roger Stones invasion. ..."
"... So now the narrative is, "We were wrong about Russian collusion, and that's Russia's fault"?! ..."
As we now shift from the "witch hunt" against Trump to 'investigating the investigators' who spied on him - remember this; Donald
Trump was supposed to lose the 2016 election by almost all accounts. And had Hillary won, as expected, none of this would have seen
the light of day .
We wouldn't know that a Clinton-linked operative, Joseph Mifsud,
seeded Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos with the rumor that Russia had 'Dirt' on Hillary Clinton - which would later be
coaxed out of Papadopoulos by a Clinton-linked Australian ambassador, Alexander Downer, and that this apparent 'setup' would be the
genesis of the FBI's "
operation crossfire hurricane " operation against the Trump campaign.
We wouldn't know about the role of Fusion GPS - the opposition research firm hired by Hillary Clinton's campaign to commission
the Steele dossier. Fusion is also linked to the infamous
Trump Tower meeting , and hired
Nellie Ohr - the CIA-linked wife of the DOJ's then-#4 employee, Bruce Ohr. Nellie fed her husband Bruce intelligence she had
gathered against Trump while working for Fusion ,
according to transcripts of her closed-door Congressional testimony.
And if not for reporting by the Daily
Caller 's Chuck Ross and others, we wouldn't know that the FBI sent a longtime spook, Stefan Halper, to infiltrate and spy on
the Trump campaign - after the Obama DOJ paid him over $400,000
right before the 2016 US election (out of more than $1 million he received while Obama was president).
According to the New
York Times , the tables are turning, starting with the Steele Dossier.
[T]he release on Thursday of
the report
by the special counsel , Robert S. Mueller III, underscored what had grown clearer for months -- that while many Trump aides
had welcomed contacts with the Russians, some of the most sensational claims in the dossier appeared to be false, and others were
impossible to prove . Mr. Mueller's report contained over a dozen passing references to the document's claims but no overall assessment
of why so much did not check out.
While Congressional Republicans have vowed to investigate, the DOJ's Inspector General is considering whether the FBI improperly
relied on the dossier when they used it to apply for a surveillance warrant on Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. The IG also wants
to know about Steele's sources and whether the FBI disclosed any doubts as to the veracity of the dossier .
Attorney General Barr, meanwhile, said he will review the FBI's conduct in the Russia investigation after saying the agency
spied on the Trump
campaign .
Doubts over the dossier
The FBI's scramble to vet the dossier's claims are well known. According to an April, 2017
NYT report , the FBI agreed
to pay Steele $50,000 for "solid corroboration" of his claims . Steele was apparently unable to produce satisfactory evidence - and
was ultimately not paid for his efforts:
Mr. Steele met his F.B.I. contact in Rome in early October, bringing a stack of new intelligence reports. One, dated Sept.
14, said that Mr. Putin was facing "fallout" over his apparent involvement in the D.N.C. hack and was receiving "conflicting advice"
on what to do.
The agent said that if Mr. Steele could get solid corroboration of his reports, the F.B.I. would pay him $50,000 for his efforts,
according to two people familiar with the offer. Ultimately, he was not paid . -
NYT
Still, the FBI used the dossier to obtain the FISA warrant on Page - while the document itself was heavily shopped around to various
media outlets . The late Sen. John McCain provided a copy to Former FBI Director James Comey, who already had a version, and briefed
President Trump on the salacious document. Comey's briefing to Trump was then used by CNN and BuzzFeed to justify reporting on and
publishing the dossier following the election.
Let's not forget that in October, 2016, both Hillary Clinton and her campaign chairman John Podesta promoted the conspiracy theory
that a secret Russian server was communicating with Trump Tower.
The report was debunked after internet sleuths traced the IP address to a marketing server located outside Philadelphia, leading
Alfa Bank executives to file a lawsuit against Fusion GPS in October 2017, claiming their reputations were harmed by the Steele Dossier.
And who placed the Trump-Alfa theory with various media outlets? None other than former FBI counterintelligence officer and Dianne
Feinstein aide Dan Jones - who is currently working with Fusion GPS and Steele to continue their Trump-Russia investigation funded
in part by
George Soros .
Russian tricks? The Times notes that Steele "has not ruled out" that he may have been fed Russian disinformation while assembling his dossier.
That would mean that in addition to carrying out an effective attack on the Clinton campaign, Russian spymasters hedged their
bets and placed a few land mines under Mr. Trump's presidency as well.
Oleg D. Kalugin, a former K.G.B. general who now lives outside Washington, saw that as plausible. "Russia has huge experience
in spreading false information," he said. -
NYT
In short, Steele is being given an 'out' with this admission.
A lawyer for Fusion GPS, Joshua Levy, says that the Mueller report substantiated the "core reporting" in the Steele memos - namely
that "Trump campaign figures were secretly meeting Kremlin figures," and that Russia's president, Vladimir V. Putin, had directed
"a covert operation to elect Donald J. Trump."
Of course, when one stops painting with broad brush strokes, it's clear that the dossier was fabricated bullshit.
The dossier tantalized Mr. Trump's opponents with a worst-case account of the president's conduct. And for those trying to
make sense of the Trump-Russia saga, the dossier infused the quest for understanding with urgency.
In blunt prose, it suggested that a foreign power had fully compromised the man who would become the next president of the
United States.
The Russians, it asserted, had tried winning over Mr. Trump with real estate deals in Moscow -- which he had not taken up --
and set him up with prostitutes in a Moscow hotel in 2013, filming the proceedings for future exploitation. A handful of aides
were described as conspiring with the Russians at every turn.
Mr. Trump, it said, had moles inside the D.N.C. The memos claimed that he and the Kremlin had been exchanging intelligence
for eight years and were using Romanian hackers against the Democrats , and that Russian pensioners in the United States were
running a covert communications network . -
NYT
And after a nearly two-year investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller and roughly 40 FBI agents and other specialists, no
evidence was found to support the dossier's wild claims of "DNC moles, Romanian hackers, Russian pensioners, or years of Trump-Putin
intelligence trading ," as the Times puts it.
Now that the shoe is on the other foot, and key Democrats backing away from talks of impeachment, let's see if lady justice will
follow the rest of us down the rabbit hole.
This is why the whole FISA court is a joke. What is their remedy if their power is abused? What happens. Well,... the FISA
courts was lied to and found out about it in the early 2000's. Mueller was FBI chief. So they got a strongly worded dressing-down,
a mark in their permanent record from high school, and NO ONE was fired... no one was sanctioned, no agent was transferred to
Alaska.
Fast forward 10 or 12 years and the FBI is doing this **** again. Lying to the court... you know the court where there are
no Democrat judges or Republican judges.. they are all super awesome.... and what is the remedy when the FISA court is told they've
been lied to by the FBI and used in a intel operation with MI6, inserting assets, into a freaking domestic Presidential campaign!!!
and then they WON. Good god.
And what do we hear from our court? Nadda. Do we hear of some Federal Judges hauling FBI and DOJ folks in front of them and
throwing them in jail? Nope. It appears from here... that our Federal Justices are corrupt and have no problem letting illegal
police-state actions go on with ZERO accountability or recourse. They could care less evidently. It's all secret you know... trust
us they say.. Why aren't these judges publicly making loud noises about how the judiciary is complicit , with the press, in wholesale
spying and leaking for political reasons AND a coup attempt when the wrong guy won.???
Where is awesome Justice Roberts? Why isn't he throwing down some truth on just how compromised the rule of law in his courts
clearly are in the last 10 years? The FISA court is his baby. It does no good for them to assure us they are concerned too, and
they've taken action and sent strongly worded letters. Pisses me off. ? Right? heck of rant...
When did Russians interfere in our elections?? 2016. Who was president when Russians interfered with elections?? oobama. Who
was head of the CIA?? Brennan. Who was National Intelligence director?? Clapper. Who was head of the FBI when the Russians interfered
in our elections?? Comey. The pattern is obvious. When Trump was a private citizen the oobama and all his cabinet appointees and
Intel Managers had their hands on all the levers and instruments of Government..and did nothing . Your oobama is guilty of treason
and failing his Oath Of Office...everybody knows this.
This article is still a roundabout gambit to blame Russia.
Fair enough, where's Bill Browder? In England. Browder's allegations were utilized to try and damage Russia, even though Russia
(not the USSR), is about the most reliable friend America has.
Russia helped Lincoln, and were it not for that crucial help, there'd be no America to sanction Russia today. The Tsar paid
for that help with his dynasty, when Nicholas II was murdered, and dethroned.
Americans are truly ungrateful brutes..
Now, sanctions, opprobrium, and hatred are heaped on Russia, most cogently by chauvinistic racists, who look down their noses
at Rus (Russ) and yet, cannot sacrifice 25 millions of their own people, for the sake of others.
Russians are considered subhuman, and yet, the divine spark of humanity resides solely in their breasts. The zionists claim
a false figure of 6 million for a faux holocaust, and yet, nobody pays attention to the true holocaust of 25 millions, or the
many millions before that disastrous instigated war.
That the Russians are childlike, believing others to be like them, loyal, self sacrificing, and generous, has now brought the
world to the brink of armageddon, and still, they bear the burden of proof, though their accusers, who ought provide the evidence,
are bereft of any..
Thomas Jefferson it was, who observing whatever he observed, exclaimed in cogent agitation, that "I fear for my countrymen,
when I remember that God is Just, and His Justice does not repose forever".
Investigate Jared and Ivanka Kushner, along with Charles Kushner, and much ought be clear, no cheers...
I don't buy that "Few bad apples at the top", "Good rank and file" Argument. I have never seen one. We should assume everyone
from the top to the bottom of FBI, DOJ, and State, just to get started, probably every other three better agency is bad. At least
incompotent, at worst treasonous.
As there was spying, there must necessarily also have been channels to get the information thus gathered back to its original
buyer - the Clinton campaign. Who passed the information back to Clinton, and what got passed?
the NYTt prints all the news a scumbag would. remember Judith Miller, the Zionazi reporter the NYT used to push
the Iraq war with all sorts of ********? after the war was determined to be started under a false premise and became common knowledge
there were no wmds in iraq the nyt came forward and reported the war was ******** as if they were reporting breaking news.
they have done the same thing here. they pushed the russiagate story with both barrels even though the informed populace knew
it was ******** before trump was sworn in as potus. now that the all the holes in the story are readily apparent the nyt comes
forward with breaking revelation that something is wrong with the story.
The Seth Rich investigation; where is it now? Murder of a campaign staffer; tampering with or influencing an election, is it
not? Hmmm... When nine hundred years old you become, look this good you will not.
Once upon a time there was a Bernie supporter. And his name was Seth Rich. Then there was a "botched robbery", which evidence
that was concluded on, I have no idea. Do you? Anyhow, The End.
Seth Rich had the means and the motive. So did Imran Awan, but it would make no sense for Awan to turn anything over to
wikileaks . . .he would have kept them as insurance.
Why wouldn't Assange name the source for the DNC emails? Is this a future bargaining chip? And what if he did name Seth Rich?
He would have to prove it. Could he?
They've got Assange now...Maybe they should ask him if it was Seth Rich who gave him the emails?
Maybe even do it under oath and on national television. I don't think it's still considered "burning a source" if your source
has already been murdered....
Until the real criminals are processed and the media can be restored you don't have a United States. This corruption is
beyond comprehension. You had the (((media)) providing kickbacks to the FBI for leaked information. These bribes are how CNN was
on site during Roger Stones invasion.
Treason and Sedition is rampant in America and all SPY roads lead to Clapper, Brennan and Obama...This needs attention.
The media is abusive and narrating attacks on a dully elected president
Oleg D. Kalugin, a former K.G.B. general who now lives outside Washington, saw that as plausible. "Russia has huge experience
in spreading false information," he said. -
NYT
You have got to be ******* kidding me. So now the narrative is, "We were wrong about Russian collusion, and that's
Russia's fault"?!
"... "I have never felt more uncomfortable than I do today," warns former CIA Director Jack Devine, saying that, with "frankly uncivilized" ISIS, there is a greater risk of violence worldwide than ever before. ..."
"... Devine argued that dismantling ISIS's command structure is crucial for minimizing the danger it presents, much like al Qaeda before them. "We killed three-fourths of their leadership," he said of al Qaeda. "We have to do the same thing with ISIS. "We have to destroy their refuge over there. When they start to lose, their recruiting numbers start to fall." ..."
"... My guess is that Iran have done a deal with Putin in that once ISIS is swept away Iran gets to build a gas pipeline through Iraq (which it controls) and through Syria into Europe. Russia is allowing Iran into the European gas market because Bandar threatened Sochi, and Putin wants to end the House of Saud in retaliation. Two weeks from now the world is going to make laws that pushes countries towards natural gas and away from coal and oil. ..."
"... I would say that's accurate, since the U.S. put ISIS there to block the Iran - Iraq - Syria pipeline. When Russia destroys ISIS, the previously planned pipeline can proceed. It has nothing to do with Russian 'permission' - Putin expects someone to eventually be sending gas up from the Middle East once the slaughter stops. He doesn't care who it is or how much. It's not going to displace more than a fraction of the Russian supply to Europe. Syria rejected the Qatari pipeline for its own reasons - probably because Qatar was planning on killing Assad and replacing him with a Western stooge well before the Qatari-Turkey pipeline was announced. In fact, the announcement was pretty much an insult to Syria. Qatar quite arrogantly announced that they WOULD be building the pipeline through Syria without bothering to ask them. ..."
"... Putin negotiates with everyone. He was even talking with Israel about helping them with the Leviathan pipeline. The U.S. seems to favor 'regime change' as the preferred strategy to expand its oil interests where it has no business doing so. ..."
"... The CIA serves no master, it is the fucking master. It does deals that are anti American, and they don't care, because America is just a sugar daddy to them. We are the chumps who pay their bills, while they put half of all honest Americans on their enemies list. ..."
"... CIA is international, not American. They are the hit men for the biggest corporations on earth, and most especially the biggest energy firms. Oil and CIA go together, and there is the Saudi connection. ..."
"... CIA is the lead agent if world Islamic extremism, they don't fight it, they nurture it! Their long term goal is to use mass Islamic terror armies to do what the CIA and Corporate masters want done. Need a police state in America? Do a hit on America 9/11. Need to eliminate Russia? Create ISIS and direct them against Russia's allies. And you can take it from there. It will continue on as before. Nobody left has the power to take down the CIA terror rings. ..."
"... No shit, sherlock, and it's because of you and the most vile mass murderer of all time, the CIA (and DIA, and NSA, and FBI, etc.), but predominantly the CIA and the Pentagon, that ISIS and such exists today! Whether it was Allen Dulles coordinating the escape of endless number of mass murderering Nazis, who would end up in CIA-overthrown countries, aiding and abetting their secret police (Example: Walter Rauff, who was responsible for at least 200,000 deaths, ending up as an advisor to Augusto Pinochet's secret police or DINA) or the grandson of the first chairman of the Bank for International Settlements, Richard Helms and his MKULTRA, you devils are to blame. ..."
"I have never felt more uncomfortable than I do today," warns former CIA Director Jack Devine, saying that, with
"frankly uncivilized" ISIS, there is a greater risk of violence worldwide than ever before.
"I think this is the most dangerous time in terms of sustained violence," he said on "The Cats Roundtable"
in an interview airing Sunday on New York's AM-970.
"I have never felt more uncomfortable than I do today," he told host John Catsimatidis. "Some percentage of the world today
is always either unbalanced or radicalized. When you have a small group of people who are willing to lose their lives and kill
anyone they can, we're all vulnerable."
Devine cited the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) as an unprecedented threat in terms of its wanton disregard for human
life...
"I dealt with terrorists in South America in the 1970s, but they never attacked innocent women and children indiscriminately,"
he said.
"You have a group in ISIS today that is frankly uncivilized. These folks could get stronger and stronger.
We basically have to destroy ISIS over there," Devine said.
Devine argued that dismantling ISIS's command structure is crucial for minimizing the danger it presents, much like al
Qaeda before them. "We killed three-fourths of their leadership," he said of al Qaeda. "We have to do the same thing with ISIS.
"We have to destroy their refuge over there. When they start to lose, their recruiting numbers start to fall."
Devine, who mainly served during the Cold War, said ISIS is a scourge without parallel because it has no concern for self-preservation.
"There is nothing that can be compared with nuclear weapons and their use," he said of tensions between the U.S. and the former
Soviet Union.
"[But] people felt safe in the sense there was countervailing balance," he added. "Early in our contest with
the Russians, it was clear we had checks and balances."
Finally Devine admits...
"If there's blame to be put, it's on our failure to have done that by this point."
Selected Skeptical Comments
i_call_you_my_base
"I dealt with terrorists in South America in the 1970s..."
"And by dealt I mean trained and funded."
Looney
John Kerry to the MSM:
Do not use "Al Qaeda" or "Al Nustra" - just call them "Allies" (pronounced Al Lies). ;-)
Looney
Vatican_cameo
"I have never felt more uncomfortable than I do today," he told host John Catsimatidis. "Some percentage of the world today
is always either unbalanced or radicalized. When you have a small group of people who are willing to lose their lives and kill
anyone they can, we're all vulnerable."
By small group he means CIA, Right? I thought he would have been a little clearer.
Occident Mortal
My guess is that Iran have done a deal with Putin in that once ISIS is swept away Iran gets to build a gas pipeline through
Iraq (which it controls) and through Syria into Europe. Russia is allowing Iran into the European gas market because Bandar threatened
Sochi, and Putin wants to end the House of Saud in retaliation. Two weeks from now the world is going to make laws that pushes
countries towards natural gas and away from coal and oil.
Paveway IV
"...once ISIS is swept away Iran gets to build a gas pipeline through Iraq (which it controls) and through Syria into Europe..."
I would say that's accurate, since the U.S. put ISIS there to block the Iran - Iraq - Syria pipeline. When Russia destroys
ISIS, the previously planned pipeline can proceed. It has nothing to do with Russian 'permission' - Putin expects someone to eventually
be sending gas up from the Middle East once the slaughter stops. He doesn't care who it is or how much. It's not going to displace
more than a fraction of the Russian supply to Europe. Syria rejected the Qatari pipeline for its own reasons - probably because
Qatar was planning on killing Assad and replacing him with a Western stooge well before the Qatari-Turkey pipeline was announced.
In fact, the announcement was pretty much an insult to Syria. Qatar quite arrogantly announced that they WOULD be building the
pipeline through Syria without bothering to ask them.
The U.S. blocked the first Iran pipeline (called the Persian Pipeline) FROM IRAN to Iraq in 2010 by forcing the Swiss company
that partnered with Iran to back out due to Israeli - ooops, 'Western' sanctions on Iran. The second Iran-sourced NG pipeline
from Iran through Iraq and Syria - called the Friendship Pipeline - was agreed to in 2012 by the countries involved. That's when
the U.S. launched it's failed coup attempt in Syria and let its ISIS mad-dogs loose in Iraq. Tyler usually refers to this by the
derogatory label of "Islamic Pipeline" - a snide label that Kagan-PNAC and Western oil companies used. Tyler never refers to the
Western-backed Qatari pipeline as the Jihadi Pipeline, nor does he refer to the Kirkuk-Haifa oil pipeline as the Jewish Pipeline.
I'm not sure about the inconsistency - maybe he's trying to make some point.
Putin negotiates with everyone. He was even talking with Israel about helping them with the Leviathan pipeline. The U.S.
seems to favor 'regime change' as the preferred strategy to expand its oil interests where it has no business doing so.
goldhedge
The CIA guy doesn't mention the House of Saud.
Pfft.
Jack Burton
Good catch! And there never do.
CIA and House of Saud have done a long term deal to look out for each other in this world. The CIA serves no master, it
is the fucking master. It does deals that are anti American, and they don't care, because America is just a sugar daddy to them.
We are the chumps who pay their bills, while they put half of all honest Americans on their enemies list.
CIA is international, not American. They are the hit men for the biggest corporations on earth, and most especially the
biggest energy firms. Oil and CIA go together, and there is the Saudi connection.
CIA is the lead agent if world Islamic extremism, they don't fight it, they nurture it! Their long term goal is to use
mass Islamic terror armies to do what the CIA and Corporate masters want done. Need a police state in America? Do a hit on America
9/11. Need to eliminate Russia? Create ISIS and direct them against Russia's allies. And you can take it from there. It will continue
on as before. Nobody left has the power to take down the CIA terror rings.
"I dealt with terrorists in South America in the 1970s, but they never attacked innocent women and children indiscriminately,"
he said.
No shit, sherlock, and it's because of you and the most vile mass murderer of all time, the CIA (and DIA, and NSA, and
FBI, etc.), but predominantly the CIA and the Pentagon, that ISIS and such exists today!
Whether it was Allen Dulles coordinating the escape of endless number of mass murderering Nazis, who would end up in CIA-overthrown
countries, aiding and abetting their secret police (Example: Walter Rauff, who was responsible for at least 200,000 deaths, ending
up as an advisor to Augusto Pinochet's secret police or DINA) or the grandson of the first chairman of the Bank for International
Settlements, Richard Helms and his MKULTRA, you devils are to blame.
Recommended reading (to better understand why the USA is known as the Great Satan):
Funny how these fucks can come out and say this kind of shit and get away with it. The fucker's basically pleading guilty to murder,
FFS.
Ms No
They didn't kill anybody in South America my ass.... The school of Americas, Operation Condor, Chile, Uruguay, Paraguay, Bolivia,
Nicaragua, Guatamala, El Salvador .... who the hell are they kidding? The CIA has always been covered and nobody ever cared.
Perimetr
"If there's blame to be put. . ."
It's on the CIA for running its global terrorist operations, funded by the $1 trillion dollars a year coming from its Afghanistan
heroin operation.
sirs and madams,
.
"Christmas celebration this year is going to be a charade because the whole world is at war. We are close to Christmas. There
will be lights, there will be parties, bright trees, even Nativity scenes – all decked out – while the world continues to wage
war.
It's all a charade. The world has not understood the way of peace. The whole world is at war. A war can be justified, so to
speak, with many, many reasons, but when all the world as it is today, at war, piecemeal though that war may be-a little here,
a little there-there is no justification.
What shall remain in the wake of this war, in the midst of which we are living now? What shall remain? Ruins, thousands of
children without education, so many innocent victims, and lots of money in the pockets of arms dealers."
The discovery of America by Europe had to happen. The savages had to be eliminated and The Revolutionary War had to happen.
Slavery had to begin, and after it, segregation had to begin, but, what must be, will be, slavery and segregation had to end.
Old School colonization of poor nations had to happen. The Boer War had to happen. The Spanish American War had to happen. The
Main had to be sunk. WWI had to happen. Calvary charges had to end. Totalitarian Communism had to happen. Germany's 20's depression
had to happen, reactionary jingoism had to happen, and Kristallnacht and the Reichstag fire had to happen. The Allies had to win
WWII, Hiroshima and Nagasaki had to be publicity stunts, and the Cold War had to begin. JFK had to be wacked, the Vietnam War
had to happen, the FED still was happening. Civil Rights laws had to be passed. Recognition of China had to happen, going off
the gold standard had to happen, and Nixon had to be kicked out of office. Corporate Globalization had to begin. After Carter
an actor had to be President. Unions had to be stifled. Perestroika and glasnost had to happen. The Berlin Wall had to come down.
The MIC had to find another enemy, and suddenly 9/11 had to happen.
Over population has to happen, poisoning the environment has to happen, and the NWO has to happen.
Ladies and gentlemen, the NWO is here, and there is nothing you can do, and nothing you could have done to stop it.
Edit. I see none of our supposed enemies 'truth bombing' 9/11, 7/7, and the 13th Paris attacks. I see no trade embagoes, I
see no arguments in the Security Council over the illegality of US/Nato bombing in Syria.
blindman
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/jimmy-carter-is-correct-t_b_79...
Jimmy Carter Is Correct That the U.S. Is No Longer a Democracy
Posted: 08/03/2015 11:48 am EDT
.
On July 28, Thom Hartmann interviewed former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, and, at the very end of his show (as if this massive
question were merely an afterthought), asked him his opinion of the 2010 Citizens United decision and the 2014 McCutcheon decision,
both decisions by the five Republican judges on the U.S. Supreme Court. These two historic decisions enable unlimited secret money
(including foreign money) now to pour into U.S. political and judicial campaigns. Carter answered:
It violates the essence of what made America a great country in its political system. Now it's just an oligarchy with unlimited
political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or being elected president. And the same thing applies
to governors, and U.S. Senators and congress members. So, now we've just seen a subversion of our political system as a payoff
to major contributors, who want and expect, and sometimes get, favors for themselves after the election is over. ... At the present
time the incumbents, Democrats and Republicans, look upon this unlimited money as a great benefit to themselves. Somebody that
is already in Congress has a great deal more to sell." ...
.
it is the money "system", man.
blindman
corporations and hoodwink powers ride on the indifference of the damned, the silence of the dead and doomed.
Dinero D. Profit
The Satus Quo can rely upon the loyalty of their employees, Congress, the military, the military industrial contractors, their
workers and family members, the crime control establishment, all Uniersity professors and employees, and every employee of all
publically traded companies, and every person employed by the MSM.
The dead and doomed are irrelevant. If you have an establishment job, you'll obey and ask no vital questions.
Dick Buttkiss
Sunnis and Shiites hate each other far more than they hate Christians, Jews, or anyone else. If it weren't for oil, the USG wouldn't
give a flyiing fuck if they anihilated each other. Instead, it conspires with them in ways far beyond its ability to comprehend,
much less navigate. Thus is the US ship of state heading for the shoals of its destruction, the only question being how much of
the country and the outside world it takes down with it.
ross81
thats bullshit Western propaganda that Shiites hate Sunnis and vice versa. In the same way that the Brits stirred up Protestant
hatred of Catholics in Ulster for centuries, the US/Israel/Saudi does the same with Sunnis vs Shiites on a much bigger scale in
the Middle East. Divide and Conquer.
geno-econ
This is getting scary in that one or two more attacks will result in travel freezes, flow of Middle East oil and result in huge
increase in military as well as Homeland security costs. A depression or economic collapse a real possibility Perhaps time for
a Peace Conference of all interested parties. The US started this shit and should be the first to call for a Peace Conference.
Macho talk will only make things worse.
moonmac
We can print trillions out of thin air at the drop of a hat but we can't kill a small group of terrorists. Got it!
sgt_doom
Or, we pour billions of dollars every year into the CIA, NSA, and DIA, and only a poor old fart such as myself can figure out
that Bilal Erdogan is the ISIS connection to oil trading (Turkish president, Erdogan's son) and Erdogan's daughter is with ISIS?
GRDguy
Ex-CIA boss gets it wrong, again.
"When you have a small group of people who are willing to lose their lives and kill anyone they can, we're all vulnerable."
should be:
"When you have a small group of financial sociopaths willing to lie-to, steal-from and kill anyone they can, we're all vulnerable."
and you'll probably be punished, jailed or shot for tryin' to protect yourself and your family.
Ban KKiller
War profiteer. That is it. Along wth James Comey, James Clapper, Jack Welch and the list is almost endless...
BarnacleBill
"When you have a small group of people who are willing to lose their lives and kill anyone they can, we're all vulnerable."
Simply take out the word "their", and the description perfectly fits the CIA, MI6 and their like. For them, it's all a business
deal, nothing more - a massive slum-clearance project. Destroy people's houses, provide accommodation and food, ship them somewhere
else; do it again and again until the money-printing machine conks out. It's money for old rope.
And, yes, we're all vulnerable. The man got that right.
Duc888
"You get the politicians you deserve."
CIA types are appointed, not elected.
Duc888
I do not know if there are any Catherine Austin Fitts fans on this web site but this is definitely worth the time. The FEDGOV
came after her non stop for 6 years when she worked for HUD under Bush Sr. If nothing else this lady is tenacious. In this presentation
she uncorks exactly HOW the deep black budgets are paid for...and it ain't your tax dollars. What she uncovered while at HUD was
simply amazing..... and she made an excellent point. At the top... it's NOT "fraud" because that's how it was all deigned right
from the get go after wwII. It brings to mind the funny computer saying....."it's a feature, not a bug".
She digs right into how the CIA was funded... Truly amazing stuff. ...of course the dick head brigade will come along here
and deride her because of the conference she is speaking at.... well, who the fuck cares, her presentation is excellent and filled
with facts.
Yes it is 1 hour 20 minutes long but imho it is well worth the watch...
And, how far back should politicians go? Should descendants of the Visigoths have to give
money to Italians for the sack of Rome in 410?
Should the US government make reparation payments for killing countless Filipino civilians
in the early 1900s during the armed occupation of the Philippines?
Or to descendants of Japanese-Americans who died in internment camps during World War
II?
"... The Clinton camp has demonstrated an almost monomaniacal focus on 'winning' to the exclusion of all else. ..."
"... If Sanders splits the Democrat Party, he will be handing Trump a second term, but laying the groundwork for a reformed and restored Democrat Party in later campaigns. If Sanders toes the line and supports Clinton for a second run, he will also be basically handing Trump a second term. (Unless something catastrophic happens between now and the election. Those Black Swans will pop up out of nowhere, as is their wont.) ..."
"... The Clinton phenomenon shows up a basic flaw in politics. Concentration of political power, no matter how effected, will end up in ruin. What is so sad is that the Clintons are not unique, but exemplars of a perennial trend; corruption, both personal and public. ..."
"... While I certainly don't doubt that the Clintonistas are banking on that strategy, it's dependent on all the not-Bernie candidates happily playing along being cannon fodder to stop Bernie. ..."
"... The present top predator class's basic mistake is a common one. After a string of success's, no group seriously considers the fact that nothing is permanent. That would bring the groups self identity as being "Exceptional" into doubt. Hopefully, this present apex predator class will suffer the same malign fate as have all others who have gone before. ..."
"... The Sanders staff and supporters and well-wishers should think about how to re-engineer Trump's "fake news" schtick as much or as little to be able to use it for the Sanders' Campaigns own self-defense and protection. ..."
"... Where is the congressional investigation of the role the press played in "the disinformation campaign against the American people and their presidential election of 2016?" now THAT would be news worthy. ..."
"... Some us remember that WaPo published 16 negative pieces on Bernie in 16 hours during the run up to the last election. By those standards, "our famously free press" is only getting warmed up but the electorate is ready this time. ..."
But let's
start with a national problem in the 2016 election -- the role of the press in trying to make
sure, to the extent it could, that Bernie Sanders would lose to Hillary Clinton. One of the
best sources of information for this is Thomas Frank's long-form examination " Swat Team: The media's
extermination of Bernie Sanders, and real reform ," written for the November 2016 issue of
Harper's Magazine . (Unless you're a Harper's subscriber, the article is
paywalled. An archived version can
be found here .)
Frank states his goal: "My project in the pages that follow is to review the media's
attitude toward yet a third politician, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who ran for the
Democratic presidential nomination earlier this year. By examining this recent history, much of
it already forgotten, I hope to rescue a number of worthwhile facts about the press's attitude
toward Sanders. Just as crucially, however, I intend to raise some larger questions about the
politics of the media in this time of difficulty and transition (or, depending on your panic
threshold, industry-wide apocalypse) for newspapers."
His examination of the "press's attitude toward Sanders" produces a striking discovery:
I have never before seen the press take sides like they did this year, openly and even
gleefully bad-mouthing candidates who did not meet with their approval.
This shocked me when I first noticed it. It felt like the news stories went out of their
way to mock Sanders or to twist his words, while the op-ed pages, which of course don't
pretend to be balanced, seemed to be of one voice in denouncing my candidate. A New York
Times article greeted the Sanders campaign in December by announcing that the public had
moved away from his signature issue of the crumbling middle class. "Americans are more
anxious about terrorism than income inequality," the paper declared -- nice try, liberal, and
thanks for playing. In March, the Times was caught making a number of post-publication
tweaks to a news story about the senator, changing what had been a sunny tale of his
legislative victories into a darker account of his outrageous proposals. When Sanders was
finally defeated in June, the same paper waved him goodbye with a bedtime-for-Grandpa
headline, HILLARY CLINTON MADE HISTORY, BUT BERNIE SANDERS STUBBORNLY IGNORED IT.
Frank marshalls much data to support his claims. I'll leave you to examine those details for
yourself.
"Defining Sanders Out"
Frank then turns to the question of why this occurred (emphasis mine below):
I think that what befell the Vermont senator at the hands of the Post should be of
interest to all of us. For starters, what I describe here represents a challenge to the
standard theory of liberal bias. Sanders was, obviously, well to the left of Hillary Clinton,
and yet that did not protect him from the scorn of the Post -- a paper that
media-hating conservatives regard as a sort of liberal death squad. Nor was Sanders undone by
some seedy journalistic obsession with scandal or pseudoscandal. On the contrary, his record
seemed remarkably free of public falsehoods, security-compromising email screwups,
suspiciously large paychecks for pedestrian speeches, escapades with a comely staffer, or any
of that stuff.
An alternative hypothesis is required for what happened to Sanders, and I want to propose
one that takes into account who the media are in these rapidly changing times. As we shall
see, for the sort of people who write and edit the opinion pages of the Post ,
there was something deeply threatening about Sanders and his political views . He
seems to have represented something horrifying, something that could not be spoken of
directly but that clearly needed to be suppressed.
That threat was to their own status as insider Ivy League–educated
friends-of-people-with-power, especially Democratic Party power, which had aligned itself with
the upper 10%, the professional class, against the lower 90%, the great unwashed.
In Bernie Sanders and his "political revolution" I believe these same people saw
something kind of horrifying: a throwback to the low-rent Democratic politics of many decades
ago . Sanders may refer to himself as a progressive, but to the affluent white-collar
class, what he represented was atavism, a regression to a time when demagogues in rumpled
jackets pandered to vulgar public prejudices against banks and capitalists and foreign
factory owners. Ugh.
Choosing Clinton over Sanders was, I think, a no-brainer for this group. They understand
modern economics, they know not to fear Wall Street or free trade. And they addressed
themselves to the Sanders campaign by doing what professionals always do: defining the
boundaries of legitimacy, by which I mean, defining Sanders out.
And it wasn't just bias in the way the news was written; the editorials and op-eds
were also brutal. As Frank points out, "the Post's pundit platoon just seemed to despise Bernie
Sanders."
Four Year Later
It's been four years since 2015, when the upstart first reared his head and showed himself a
viable threat. The forces arrayed against him have had time to reflect, as have the forces on
his side.
Will the the leaders of the present Party do all they can to extinguish the threat of
Sanders' "political revolution"? It's clear they've
already started . Will the press do their part to stem the tide? The jury's out so far.
Some coverage has been remarkably
bad (also
here ), while other coverage is
surprisingly fair . We'll see.
In those four years the voters have also had time to reflect. Many took note of the 2016
sabotage, as they would call it, and many are ready, their remembered anger just waiting to be
rekindled. Party leaders are aware of this. As a former vice-chair of the DNC
said recently , "if we even have anybody raising an eyebrow of 'I'm not happy about this,'
we're going to lose [the general election] and they'll have this loss on their hands," meaning
the DNC.
It won't take much to make a martyr of Sanders in the eyes of his supporters, especially
after 2016. The only questions are:
• Is the fear of Sanders and his political revolution, which would send many of them
scrambling for other work and start to cut Party ties to the donor class, enough to make their
opposition turn to obviously illegal means?
• If Sanders is indeed made "a martyr," as the party official quoted above fears, what
will be the response of the independent voters who swell those stadium appearances?
The stakes were high in 2016. Given our greater nearness to looming catastrophes, climate
being just one of them, the stakes are exponentially higher today. We do indeed live in
interesting times .
Putting on my Bespoke Tinfoil Hat, I'll posit that the "dirty tricks" are already
happening. As Magister Strether declared, the Clintonistas also have had two years to plan
for combating a strong Sanders campaign.
To the extent this is about politics, it is about institutional politics, not public policy
politics. The Clinton camp has demonstrated an almost monomaniacal focus on 'winning' to the
exclusion of all else.
So, I expect a crowded field of Democrat primary candidates to drown
out Sanders as much as possible and to, most importantly, deny Sanders a first round win at
the convention. Then, the "olde guard" comes into play and the Superdelegates can swing the
nomination to H Clinton as a "Unity Candidate."
That is when Sanders will face his most
difficult decision. Will he abandon the Democrat Party as a bad job? Sanders seems to be
leaving a Third Party run option open with his development of a parallel structure to the
Party apparatus.
If Sanders splits the Democrat Party, he will be handing Trump a second term, but laying the
groundwork for a reformed and restored Democrat Party in later campaigns. If Sanders toes the
line and supports Clinton for a second run, he will also be basically handing Trump a second
term. (Unless something catastrophic happens between now and the election. Those Black Swans
will pop up out of nowhere, as is their wont.)
The interesting problem here is whether or not any party can govern the nation with only ten
or fifteen percent of the population's support. To manage such would, presumably, involve the
full on imposition of an authoritarian state.
Our cousins to the South have much to teach us about how extremes of inequality play out "on
the ground." Oligarchies will sail along without a care in the world until a major opposition
rises up to contest for supremacy. Usually, as the Southern experience shows, those contests
will end up in fire and bloodshed, over and over again, down the years.
The Clinton phenomenon shows up a basic flaw in politics. Concentration of political power,
no matter how effected, will end up in ruin. What is so sad is that the Clintons are not
unique, but exemplars of a perennial trend; corruption, both personal and public.
America was supposed to bring the "blessings of democracy" to the "less well off" of the
southlands. The opposite is happening today.
While I certainly don't doubt that the Clintonistas are banking on that strategy, it's
dependent on all the not-Bernie candidates happily playing along being cannon fodder to stop
Bernie.
Problem is, the establishment isn't as unified as it was in 2016, and many of them
would have no problem poking the rest of the establishment in the eye if they thought it
would increase their chances of winning. A split convention with ~9 candidates coming in with
delegates isn't just a threat to Bernie's chance, it's a threat to all but one candidate.
There's a strong motivation for them, even stronger than for Bernie quite frankly, to thin
the herd out as fast as possible, and I think we're going to see some ugly politics done with
that goal in mind. The establishment in-fighting is going to be nastier than the
Bernie-establishment fighting.
Of course, if it does work out and they superdelegate Biden in even though Bernie had the
most overall votes but shy of an outright majority, they'll be dooming themselves to not just
giving Trump another term but relegating the Democrats to second place status in US politics
for a generation. But clearly they're willing to pay that price to keep their country club in
control of the party.
I think the crowd of establishment neoliberals is going to backfire on the DNC. They will fragment
their loyalists while uniting the Sanders voters, who saw through the same shtick in 2016,
and arguably in 2012.
In typical DNC fashion, their scheme to rig the election by bringing in superdelegates for
the second round will be sabotaged by their arrogance and opportunistic minions all running
for their own [x] slots, and diluting the strength of their donor owners.
The other side is not understanding HRC's support either. Her voters weren't all
neoliberals. Between the certainty of her victory, the narratives of a secret "liberal" HRC,
and her importance to an older generation, these are not transferrable to other candidates
because Terry MacAuliffe or any celebrity says so.
Obama vowed to take it personally if African Americans don't show 2014 Democrats the same
support he received in 2012. Cult like attention doesn't necessarily transfer.
True. And, if you wish to draw parallels, the demise of social-democratic parties in
Europe, especially the British, German, and French, shows this is a global pattern being
juiced by, and carried out by, a global elite of which the US is part and a leading
member.
Bernie wants to have a rebuilt, renewed Democratic Party that reflects social-democratic
norms as they have historically been in Europe. The problem? Soc-Dem parties have mostly
surrendered to the neo-liberal agenda just as the Dems here have. Sweden, Denmark, the
Netherlands – all have shifted mightily to the Right.It is no mistake or error on their
part. Their class interests demand they take sides. All these parties are outgrowths of
professional upper middle-class elements who have taken these parties from the working class.
In doing so, they dragged the "liberal" press with them to become propaganda mouthpieces for
their true "brothers". The causes and particular results within each party could take volumes
to describe – suffice it to say they wee all enemies of elites in their origin, and
were treated as such, spied upon, infiltrated, and whatever else it took to tame them.
All of that seemingly coordinated effort would appear to tin-foil-hatters and many others
to be evidence of some conspiring, if not RICOesque activity. Given the thrust of
those noted anti-Sanders media efforts, the century-old Upton Sinclair quote may be
repurposed.
It is difficult to get a man to understand report on something, when his salary
(and social standing, and access to the best parties, tables, schools, et cetera) depends
on his not understanding acknowledging it.
Freedom of the press keeps getting attacked from ever more clever enemies, thereby
reinforcing its utter necessity.
Sinclair's Quote (TM) is famous exactly because it is applicable across all timelines, all
classes of person, and all types of organization.
Human nature doesn't seem to have changed over the last hundred millennia or so.
Going back over the recent past several thousand years of human history, it becomes clear
that the present assault on press freedom is but another evolution of the perpetual war on
the individual's right to think independently.
The present top predator class's basic mistake is a common one. After a string of success's,
no group seriously considers the fact that nothing is permanent. That would bring the groups
self identity as being "Exceptional" into doubt. Hopefully, this present apex predator class
will suffer the same malign fate as have all others who have gone before.
Happy Good Friday to all the religious out there. For the rest, enjoy a weekday without the
stock market to worry about.
They could also come out and vote for one of the little Vanity Third Parties. If the
DemParty ticket is not some combination of Sanders Warren Gabbard . . . . and several-to-many
million Bitter Berners vote for a Third Party, and the Dem Ticket loses, and the numbers of
Dem voters + the numbers of Third Party voters would add up to having been a victory for the
Dems; then a message will have been sent about the cruciality of the Bitter Berner vote and
how it can not be safely ignored if "winning the election" really is the goal.
I think its incumbent to remember its not Sanders per se that is causing orthodoxy to act
out . its what he represents e.g. something that can throw a spanner in the good works of
neoliberalism.
Sanders crimes are for enabling the unwashed an opportunity to consider options outside
that dominate narrative.
Challenging the the foundational cornerstone of methodological individualism and all the
aspects bolted on too it – seems a critical point to advance. Lots of time and energy
is spent on questioning the bolt-ons, yet for every one refuted the core can spit out more,
dog chasing tail experience.
Even to the point of forwarding nationalism in one breath and bespoke individualism in the
other – our nationalism protects my squillions . and the consequences of that is
"Natural" [tm].
One of Sander's main 'crimes' is to offer the "unwashed" potentially 'real' Hope. The
Obama-bot offered Hope in bad faith. Thus, both sides of the Classical Greeks' ambiguous view
of 'Hope' are on display. Hope came last out of Pandora's box. The Chorus is still out on the
verdict.
With Obama's false hope, you'd be lucky to receive a dry sip from the water bag as you
continue to grasp, with bloodied and blistered hands, that trireme oar, knowing in the back
of your mind that you'll Never truly escape the chains holding you down to that hot, burning
deck of death !
The Sanders staff and supporters and well-wishers should think about how to re-engineer
Trump's "fake news" schtick as much or as little to be able to use it for the Sanders'
Campaigns own self-defense and protection.
Whenever the media run a dishonest news article, the Sanders Campaign could call it Fake
News. Whenever the media run a dishonest editorial, the Sanders Campaign could call it Fake
Views. The Sanders Campaign could speak of Fake News and Views from the Rich Corporate
MSM.
the "liberal", "progressive" upper class and most of the upper middle class democrats did
well by trump's tax giveaway.
noam chomsky calls them moderate republicans. they stand for identity issues but not
financial ones, nothing that would involve taxing them to give to the rest of the
country.
when it comes down to it most of them will prefer to give trump four more years and hope for
the best and taking back the white house with one of their own later than supporting a
socialist. they're hoping not to face that prospect (in the mirror as well as otherwise) by
defeating bernie – and probably warren, who isn't seen as a big threat now – in
the primaries. if the bernie supporters sit the election out then trump is on them goes the
view.
If biden falters early I see bloomberg coming in as a democrat. if bernie wins anyway i see
schultz coming in as an independent.
it will take a near miracle
I want to see a Sanders vs. Trump election not least because it I think the choice it
forces will put the neoliberal, entitled 10% -- the same neoliberal Clinton supporters who
derided and mocked those Sanders supporters who wouldn't or couldn't get on board with HRC --
in an a similar but reversed position.
Will they follow their own self-righteous admonitions
from four years ago and vote for their hated primary opponent to remove Trump as they
hectored Sanders supporters to do? Will they sit out the election, unable to hold their noses
and vote a Sanders ticket likely to raise their taxes? Exactly the way many Sanders
supporters did with HRC and were viciously excoriated by that same 10% for doing? Or will
they go full "evil"/self-loathing and secretly vote for the Satan Trump to keep the country
out of socialist hands and prevent having their taxes raised?
I can't wait to hear the
neoliberal chattering classes trying to publicly reason it out. Many exploding heads, rank
hypocrisy, and much cognitive dissonance will be on full public view.
The article mentions that some media seems reasonably fair this time around maybe some
thinking sanders can't be stopped, or the lack of somebody obviously about to be
coronated.
If Biden doesn't take off more media will become fair institutions want to be on the winning
side.
Anti-Sanders press? Oh come on. The Anti-Clinton press was in full bloom as well. Sanders
has been a mess so far. SJW politics, health care reform and free college ..basically the
Clinton 2016 playbook. It didn't build the enthusiasm to make her campaign electoral proof
against the Trump Russian supporters hack, bots and fake news campaigns to ship up her
likeability issues.
Then Biden comes out with what one union rep called kitchen table issues. Major corporate
welfare for domestic manufacturers, multi trillion dollar infrastructure program, stuff Obama
campaign ed on in 2008 but pivoted away from by September 2009 which in Biden's opinion, hurt
his Presidency.
Bernie much like AOC live so much in esoteric fantasy, much like Hillary
Clinton .which made him such a nice foil to her. The problem is this time, he is going to go
against a bunch of other candidates that are bullshitters, reality manipulators and salesmen,
he gets drowned. Well beyond Biden as well, there is going to be 15+ sniping away.
Bernie needs to pivot imo by fall of the union vote is going to turn on him
You seem confused. The press was anti Sanders and very much pro Clinton during the
primaries.
The anti Clinton press played some role in the general election, but for the most part by
noticing her actual flaws. There was also an enormous amount of anti Trump press, again based
on his actual flaws, but he also received massive free publicity during the whole year and it
turned out his voters simply didn't care about his flaws.
Bernie is using the Clinton playbook? I don't think so. And as for the unions endorsing
Biden, it's been at least 40 years since the rank-and-file voted with the union bosses.
If I say something enough times, especially if I have a big media outlet, it is true. Up
is down; an orange is the city of Houston; DNC slicksters who would sell your grandmother for
cat food are just reg'lar folks fighting for all of us
wow, you don't think the press was aligned against bernie, that is stunning. What color is
the sky in your world? Have you ever been to earth?
So bernie was using hillary's playbook? Hillary clinton?
I'm guessing you think you can just "say stuff", and it will be taken seriously. Fat chance
with that drivel . time to get a clue
even the most casual observer would remember the hit squad on bernie in every aspect of the
media . but for those who don't have the ability to discern reality, the secret is to " bang
the rocks together" . so dude.. watch your fingers.
This is the most incoherent post I have seen on this site. I truly mean that. How in the
world could anyone think that Bernie is copying Clinton of all people? SHE was the one
leading on policy? What bubble do you live in?
"Bernie much like AOC live so much in esoteric fantasy"
Based on what? What policies that he supports are unpopular and would not work? When he
goes to West Virginia and meets with a room full of Trump supporters, goes on Fox and
connects with people there, are you claiming that most other candidates, especially left of
center, could do the same? How could anyone, especially after the leaks, claim that the press
wasn't fully on the side of the Clinton campaign, often openly colluding with the
campaign?
You seem confused about who kept playing the SJW cards as well. I think I remember in the
first Sanders-Clinton debate a point where Sanders called for re-breaking-up, re-Glassing and
re-Steagalling the banks. And Clinton said " breaking up the banks won't do a THING about
racism." And it is the anti-Sanders Neera Tandecrats seeking the nomination who are
presenting themselves as a live action multi-choice menu of SJW Housekeeping Seal of Approval
Identy choices.
Sanders was here yesterday and as requested by Lambert I'll have something to say about it
during Water Cooler. But I will say that the crowd was very enthusiastic and the press
coverage fair. 2020 may not in fact be a replay of 2016. This time Trump including TDS is the
spectre that hangs over the entire process.
Remember when Bernie had pulled even, if not ahead of Hillarity, just prior to the 2016
Dim convention? And he had the Speech of His Life in either AZ or NV?
And Trump was set to speak at the identical time?
And the media focused on Trump's empty podium, mysteriously empty for 1.5 hours
And the media did not cover Bernies speech-of-the-year, not one whit?
Never, ever forget -- and treat the media with the derision and suspicion they have so
justly earned
Yes the Dem press will be flinging poo at Sanders. But take a gander at Faux News and
their town hall with Bernie – and Tucker Carlson's amazing mention of Dem Party
cheating of Sanders in the primary. Just as the "liberal" press gave Trump tons of free
publicity, so too the reactionary press seems to be giving free coverage to Sanders.
It will be nice to see Sanders wipe the floor with Biden. And if the Dems cheat again and
nominate Biden or some other obedient and photogenic bought and paid for candidate, watch
Trump wipe the floor with them.
Will the Dems fall on their swords again to keep Sanders out? They will try, helped by
their pals in the propaganda apparatus.
It's kinda like how we used to tease our Nazi 'bagger, Republican friends, about
Re-antimating Zombie Reagan to run, since they had nobody that wasn't a pathetic, waddling
stereotype to vote for? Maybe, simply run Dead Kennedys. Meanwhile, perhaps a holographic
Fred Rodgers, Sally Struthers' disembodied whine or comforting Dr Seuss character? Liberals
all like Gandalf, right?
The people here have more time than money. And they ( we) have invested our time in
finding out enough things to where the spenders of fire hose-loads of money find us resistant
to their propaganda.
So since the money will not be taken out of politics until the people who engineer the money
into politics have been driven out of public life, the rest of us will have to fight on
various un-monetized battlefields.
Time isn't money. Time is life itself.
A British-India Indian is once supposed to have said ( to the West in general . . .) " You
have all the watches. But we have all the time."
After a couple of years of " the press" yammering on with stories of "Russians" subverting
our elections, when will we see the real "deplorable's" be shamed. The press, and their snide
comments,their acts of omission,their down right lying, their assault on the hearts and minds
of the voting population. The press is probably the most valuable group in the election of
Donald trump. They are the ones who champion the lie and the smear, they are the ones who
make the news "fake", so the supporters of trump have something to latch onto.
Where is the congressional investigation of the role the press played in "the
disinformation campaign against the American people and their presidential election of
2016?"
now THAT would be news worthy.
Thanks for taking on this, Yves! I look forward to future installments!
IMO, it has become increasingly difficult for mainstream media (MSM) to de-legitimatize
Bernie this time around. My take is that I see #TeamSanders taking steps to make sure the
signal-to-noise ratio remains in Sanders' favor. MSM attempts this time around take on
more of a mindless screeching tone, and thus far, given the Senator's now nationwide
popularity, it appears that far less people are being moved by these attempts (see latest
nationwide poll). But it's all going to play on repeat from 2015/2016. Krugman has already
begun his insufferable tone policing and
disqualifying .
Some us remember that WaPo published 16 negative pieces on
Bernie in 16 hours during the run up to the last election. By those standards, "our
famously free press" is only getting warmed up but the electorate is ready this time.
Here in Massachusetts, almost all the Our Revolution chapters are in affluent
municipalities (if you've studied American history you've heard of them: Concord, Cambridge,
Lexington, Amherst), with a couple that are supposedly forming in less affluent communities.
The events that have been advertised have all been in these more affluent communities so I
imagine that's where the real action is. I emailed the one chapter I saw for a more working
class community like my hometown and got no response.
In the Our Revolution MA Facebook group, there are some wonderful people, but there has
been almost no discussion of the housing crisis, which is the biggest progressive issue
facing the state right now. The resolution to the housing crisis will require precisely
overcoming opposition to new housing in those affluent municipalities.
So, how do your organize a real progressive movement when the people who call themselves
progressives are overwhelmingly deeply embedded in the top 10%?
This is unfortunately Putnam's decline of bowling leagues. There isn't an easy answer. One
of the points of The 50 State Strategy was the recognition of this problem and the need for
support and even the ability to access space for the purposes of meeting places. Obama used
his celebrity to stamp out much of these efforts. People can't do it forever, so in a sense
everyone is starting over with an openly hostile DNC under Perez. Obviously, the decade of
additional economic decline for most Americans is a problem.
One problem is the sympathetic among the 10% need to understand the "moderate suburban
Republicans" have polished jackboots ready to go and have no interest in good government
despite their seemingly "polite" nature. The DSA's brake light clinic is probably the model
that needs to be followed, just expanded. Something like "free tax filing" assistance in
January. Obviously, CPAs have to earn a living, but taxes don't need to be done in April.
Maybe they could be paid.
If the establishment rigs the process once again and Sanders doesn't get the nomination, I
will not vote for the anointed Democratic candidate. I forced myself to vote for Hillary
Clinton and I will never do that again. I also will do everything in my power to burn down
the Democratic party. I wonder if the establishment has a clue as to how furious most people
are? Are they paying attention to what's happening throughout Europe–and I wonder how
long it will be before you see weekly protests here? P.S. I'm ordering my yellow vest now
.
And, how far back should politicians go? Should descendants of the Visigoths have to give
money to Italians for the sack of Rome in 410?
Should the US government make reparation payments for killing countless Filipino civilians
in the early 1900s during the armed occupation of the Philippines?
Or to descendants of Japanese-Americans who died in internment camps during World War
II?
"People get into a lot of conversations about political strategies I might get in trouble for saying this, but what does
it matter if we beat Donald Trump, if we end up with someone who will perpetuate the very same crony capitalist policies, corporate
policies, and waging more of these costly wars?"
And just to drive home this point, quote:
"This is not a joke. This is not about me. This about all of us. This is about our future. About making sure we have
one."
Tulsi did get in to trouble. A day after the video posted on Twitter, it had been deleted by Twitter without explanation
Mark Dierking , April 18, 2019 at 15:53
Thanks to you any everyone that has responded for the thoughtful comments. If you are able to edit yours, a more accessible
link for the Safari browser is:
911 is a monument to American ignorance. The only thing we know for certain about 911 is
that we don't know what happened on 911.
OlyaPola , April 19, 2019 at 04:31
"911 is a monument to American ignorance."
One way to deflect and mask ignorance is to build a monument of commemoration.
There are many monuments in the misnamed "The United States of America" one of which is
the Vietnam monument.
Given their tendency to double down on ignorance perhaps Mr. Trump and his associates'
activities in wall building will include, but not necessarily be limited to, extending the
Vietnam monument.
"People get into a lot of conversations about political strategies I might get in trouble
for saying this, but what does it matter if we beat Donald Trump, if we end up with someone
who will perpetuate the very same crony capitalist policies, corporate policies, and waging
more of these costly wars?"
And just to drive home this point, quote:
"This is not a joke. This is not about me. This about all of us. This is about our future.
About making sure we have one."
Tulsi did get in to trouble. A day after the video posted on Twitter, it had been deleted
by Twitter without explanation
The version with the white board is hard to find. All the msm versions cut the white board out because a picture is worth a
thousand words, and they didn't want Dimon to look as stupid as he did.
Hell, I can come up with a way to fix the problem. Raise the pay of his employees. See? Easy Peasy. But then his salary would
go down by a couple million. Just how many millions people need to live on? Bezos will never come close to spending his over $150
billion. At the start of Trump's presidency Bezos was only worth $100 billion. I'd sure love to know what it is now.
@Centaurea what
Porter is asking him about. He has never had a face to face with a renter. (Not renters of a Swiss chalet, etc...)He has had no
personal relationship with anybody who buys food and clothing only when it goes on sale. He has never shopped at any store, other
than some designer clothing store, although he likely always had tailors come to his home.
He doesn't talk to taxi drivers. He goes in limos.
He is as far from the existence of the 99%ers as an astronaut born and raised on the moon, a Duke of Earl behind a wall, travelling
in a gilded carriage.
I call him ignorant. He has absolutely to knowledge, no education, no exposure to us.
Every day he makes decisions that affect all of us. Yet he has no desire to recognize and understand the consequences of his
actions on his fellow human beings.
His ignorance is willful, and he no doubt believes it's justified. He's proud of himself.
That takes him beyond mere ignorance into sociopathy.
Aye, but considering how fat his own salary is and those at the top who have given themselves so much of the payroll pie over
the decades, as they cut back on the workers wh0o help them get their fatty paychecks,,,Makes me think they are greedy and stupid.
I think we all need a raise but I also think there is a real housing crisis. Rent is too high for our wages because rental
supply is too low. So how do we get more rental buildings? I know Chicago back in the 1950s worked with developers increasing
density by razing smaller dwellings and building the four-plus-one apartments. NYC in the 1920s and 30s had a big (huge) density
push in Brooklyn and the dense development of farmland in The Bronx. Why can't we do something like that today? I don't know.
I would say link that up with the infrastructure rebuild everyone is talking about on the Left. Cities hooking up with banks and
developers to get it done.
@p cook@p cook
So,
here's a story about Steven Schwarzman, CEO of Blackstone, acknowledging the existence of a broad "income insufficiency" problem,
and advocating among other things a much higher minimum wage.
Schwarzman's plan would eliminate taxes for teachers, introduce a higher minimum wage and more technical training for people
who don't go to college.
What Schwarzman did not mention is that the company he runs
was singled
out by a UN report for actively making housing less affordable. During the economic collapse Blackstone slurped up enormous
holdings at bargain-basement prices from banks and liquidators who did what they always do when liquidating during a market crisis:
Package up the assets into large blocs that cannot be purchased by individuals, and auction them off to their pals, while letting
the government eat the banks' losses. Schwarzman big concern is not that folks can't afford to pay rent -- it's that they can't
afford to pay the rent that Blackstone wants to collect on properties it acquired for dimes on the dollar.
I haven't seen the numbers, but I'd guess that this particular event -- the foreclosure and subsequent fire-sale of those owner-occupied
homes, transforming them into rental stock owned by a very small number of Blackstone equity holders -- was one of the largest
transfers of wealth in the history of history, ranking up there with Henry VIII seizing church assets, the Bolsheviks seizing
aristocratic assets, the Russian oligarchs grabbing the people's assets, and the Europeans grabbing the Americas and Africa.
more Katie Porter and AOC types. Smart, to the point, no nonsense, hold their feet to the fire reps.
First time I've heard of KP -- apparently she reps part of Orange County, formerly all GOP. Doubly good.
My other takeaway is that this isn't such a great argument for concentrating too much on raising the minimum wage to a supposed
"living wage" as the wages cited left that hypothetical person still in the red. But it might be a good argument for Andrew Yang's
Freedom Dividend -- everyone over 18 gets $1,000/mo. Would take care of much of the high rent issue too.
Trump betrayed anti-war republicans. As the result he lost any support of anti-war
Republicans. That can't be revered as he proved to be a marionette of Israel lobby. How that will
influence outcome of 2020 elections remains to be seen.
"The president has said that he does not want to see this country involved in endless wars .
I agree with that," Bernie Sanders told the Fox News audience at Monday's town hall meeting in
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.
Then, turning and staring straight into the camera, Bernie added: "Mister President, tonight
you have the opportunity to do something extraordinary: sign that resolution. Saudi Arabia
should not be determining the military or foreign policy of this country."
Sanders was talking about a War Powers Act resolution that would have ended U.S. involvement
in the five-year civil war in Yemen that has created one of the great humanitarian crises of
our time, with thousands of dead children amidst an epidemic of cholera and a famine.
Supported by a united Democratic Party on the Hill, and an anti-interventionist faction of
the GOP led by Senators Rand Paul and Mike Lee of Utah, the War Powers resolution had passed
both houses of Congress.
But 24 hours after Sanders urged him to sign it, Trump, heeding the hawks in his Cabinet and
National Security Council, vetoed S.J.Res.7, calling it a "dangerous attempt to weaken my
constitutional authorities."
With sufficient Republican votes in both houses to sustain Trump's veto, that should have
been the end of the matter.
It is not: Trump may have just ceded the peace issue in 2020 to the Democrats. If Sanders
emerges as the nominee, we will have an election with a Democrat running on the "no-more-wars"
theme Trump touted in 2016. And Trump will be left defending the bombing of Yemeni rebels and
civilians by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia.
Does Trump really want to go into 2020 as a war party president? Does he want to go into
2020 with Democrats denouncing "Trump's endless wars" in the Middle East? Because that is where
he is headed.
In 2008, John McCain, leading hawk in the Senate, was routed by a left-wing first-term
senator from Illinois, Barack Obama, who had won his nomination by defeating the more hawkish
Hillary Clinton, who had voted to authorize the war in Iraq.
In 2012, the Republican nominee Mitt Romney, who was far more hawkish than Obama on Russia,
lost.
Yet in 2016, Trump ran as a different kind of Republican, an opponent of the Iraq war and
an anti-interventionist who wanted to get along with Russia's Vladimir Putin and get out of
these Middle East wars.
Looking closely at the front-running candidates for the Democratic nomination of 2020 -- Joe
Biden, Sanders, Kamala Harris, Beto O'Rourke, Pete Buttigieg, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker --
not one appears to be as hawkish as Trump has become.
Trump pulled us out of the nuclear deal with Iran negotiated by Secretary of State John
Kerry and re-imposed severe sanctions.
He declared Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization, to which
Tehran has responded by declaring U.S. Central Command a terrorist organization. Ominously, the
IRGC and its trained Shiite militias in Iraq are in close proximity to U.S. troops.
Trump has recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital, moved the U.S. embassy there, closed the
consulate that dealt with Palestinian affairs, cut off aid to the Palestinians, recognized
Israel's annexation of the Golan Heights seized from Syria in 1967, and gone silent on Bibi
Netanyahu's threat to annex Jewish settlements on the West Bank.
Sanders, however, though he stands by Israel, is supporting a two-state solution and
castigating the "right-wing" Netanyahu regime.
Trump has talked of pulling all U.S. troops out of Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Yet the
troops are still there.
Though Trump came into office promising to get along with the Russians, he sent Javelin
anti-tank missiles to Ukraine and announced a pullout from Ronald Reagan's 1987 INF treaty that
outlawed all land-based intermediate-range nuclear missiles.
When Putin provocatively sent 100 Russian troops to Venezuela -- ostensibly to repair the
S-400 anti-aircraft and anti-missile system that was damaged in recent blackouts -- Trump,
drawing a red line, ordered the Russians to "get out."
Biden is expected to announce next week. If the stands he takes on Russia, China, Israel,
and the Middle East are more hawkish than the rest of the field, he will be challenged by the
left wing of his party and by Sanders, who voted "no" on the Iraq war that Biden supported.
The center of gravity of U.S. politics is shifting towards the Trump position of 2016. And
the anti-interventionist wing of the GOP is growing.
And when added to the anti-interventionist and anti-war wing of the Democratic Party on the
Hill, together, they are able, as on the Yemen War Powers resolution, to produce a new
bipartisan majority.
Prediction: by the primaries of 2020, foreign policy will be front and center, and the
Democratic Party will have captured the "no more wars" political high ground that candidate
Donald Trump occupied in 2016.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made
and Broke a President and Divided America Forever. To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and
read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at
www.creators.com.
"Here is what we now know, per intelligence gleaned form federal law enforcement sources with insider knowledge of what amounts
to a plot by U.S. intelligence agencies to secure back door and illegal wiretaps of President Trump's associates:
Six U.S. agencies created a stealth task force, spearhead by CIA’s Brennan, to run domestic surveillance on Trump associates and
possibly Trump himself. To feign ignorance and to seemingly operate within U.S. laws, the agencies freelanced the wiretapping of
Trump associates to the British spy agency GCHQ. The decision to insert GCHQ as a back door to eavesdrop was sparked by the denial
of two FISA Court warrant applications filed by the FBI to seek wiretaps of Trump associates. GCHQ did not work from London or the
UK. In fact the spy agency worked from NSA’s headquarters in Fort Meade, MD with direct NSA supervision and guidance to conduct sweeping
surveillance on Trump associates. The illegal wiretaps were initiated months before the controversial Trump dossier compiled by former
British spy Christopher Steele. The Justice Department and FBI set up the meeting at Trump Tower between Trump Jr., Manafort and
Kushner with controversial Russian officials to make Trump’s associates appear compromised. Following the Trump Tower sit down, GCHQ
began digitally wiretapping Manafort, Trump Jr., and Kushner. After the concocted meeting by the Deep State, the British spy agency
could officially justify wiretapping Trump associates as an intelligence front for NSA because the Russian lawyer at the meeting
Natalia Veselnitskaya was considered an international security risk and prior to the June sit down was not even allowed entry into
the United States or the UK, federal sources said. By using GCHQ, the NSA and its intelligence partners had carved out a loophole
to wiretap Trump without a warrant. While it is illegal for U.S. agencies to monitor phones and emails of U.S. citizens inside the
United States absent a warrant, it is not illegal for British intelligence to do so. Even if the GCHQ was tapping Trump on U.S. soil
at Fort Meade. The wiretaps, secured through illicit scheming, have been used by U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe of alleged
Russian collusion in the 2016 election, even though the evidence is considered “poisoned fruit.”
-----------.
Someone left this link in a comment to LJ, but as ringmaster of this circus, I choose to publish this as the best summary of all
the threads of the supposed conspiracy that I have seen thus far. pl
Wikipedia page on Paul Manafort says that the FBI began a criminal investigation into him in 2014, associated with his previous
dealings in Ukraine. He could have been a target of surveillance and wiretapping since then.
I therefore think Manafort was the key the intelligence agencies used to get to into Trump's organisation. It may have been
initially incidental to their ongoing, and much earlier surveillance of Manafort.
Robert Poling said...
Thank-you for this summary. If confirmed, Brennan (and others in the group he formed to spy on Trump and Trump's campaign)
should go to jail. Congress specifically forbid American spy agencies spying on American citizens in the U.S. Since that Congressional
action, the CIA and NSA have gotten around it by having foreign partners among the 'five eyes' do the collecting and then passing
the information back to us.
The spying on Trump was done at the behest of Obama and his minions. I'm reminded of an American president who was hounded
from office by the mainstream press for sending minions to spy and collect dirt at the opposition's political headquarters. He
had to resign and leave office. Several involved in the burglary went to jail and lost their livelihoods. Why is this situation
today any different and why is there a delay in prosecuting them? It's because the major media is bought out and controlled by
Trump's political opponents and not demanding justice, indeed is providing cover and excuses for them
Intelligence agencies, once created, has their own development dynamics and tend to escape from the control of
civilians and in turn control them. Such an interesting dynamics. In any case, the intelligence agencies and first of all top
brass of those agencies constitute the the core of the "deep state". Unlike civiliant emplorres they are protected by the veil of
secrecy and has access to large funds. Bush the elder was probably the first deep state creature who became the president of the
USA, but "special relationship" of Obama and Brennan is also not a secret.
Another problem is that secrecy and access to surveillance, Which gives intelligence agencies the ability to blackmail politicians.
Availability of unaccounted financial
resources make them real kingmakers. In a sense, as soon as such agencies were created the tail started waging the dog.
Notable quotes:
"... Serving under nine presidents, from Calvin Coolidge to Richard Nixon, the FBI was turned into a "Gestapo by Hoover whose modus operandi was blackmail". That's how President Harry Truman (1943-53) reportedly characterized Hoover's bureau. How else do you think he survived for so long – five decades – as the nation's top law enforcer? ..."
"... One of Hoover's mainstay sources is strongly believed to be Mafia crime bosses who had lots of dirt on politicians, from bribe-taking to vote-rigging, to illicit sexual affairs. It is suspected that the Mafia had their own dossier of images on Hoover in a compromising homosexual tryst which, in turn, kept him under their thumb. ..."
"... JFK was particularly wide open to blackmail owing to his rampant promiscuity and extra-marital liaisons, including with screen idol Marilyn Monroe. Kennedy more than once confided to his aides that "the bastards" had him nailed. It was for this reason that he made the thuggish Texan Senator Lyndon B Johnson his vice president even though he detested LBJ. Hoover and Johnson were longtime associates and the former no doubt pulled a favor to get LBJ into the White House. ..."
"... However, Hoover's blackmail on JFK was not enough to curtail his defiance of rabidly anti-communist Cold War politics. Against the hostility of the Pentagon, CIA and FBI, Kennedy pursued a courageous policy of detente with the Soviet Union and Cuba. Such a policy no doubt led to his assassination by the Deep State in Dallas on November 22, 1963. There is ample evidence that Hoover and Johnson, who became the new president, then colluded with the Deep State assassins to cover up the assassination as the act of lone nut Lee Harvey Oswald – a cover-up that persists to this day. ..."
"... But Hoover and Johnson got their revenge by subsequently letting Nixon know that there was classified information on him – thanks to FBI wiretaps. The specter of incrimination is possibly a factor in Nixon becoming increasingly paranoid during this presidency, culminating in the ignominy of the Watergate scandal that ended his career. ..."
"... Hoover certainly was the devious architect of a malign Deep State machine. But he was not alone. He instilled a culture and legacy that pervades the top echelons of the bureau. And not just the FBI. The early Cold War years saw the formation of the CIA and the NSA under the Machiavellian guidance of men like Allen Dulles and Richard Helms and a host of others ..."
No other individual in modern US history has a more sinister legacy than John Edgar Hoover,
the founder and lifetime director of the FBI. He founded the bureau in 1924 and was its
director until his death in 1972 at the age of 77.
Serving under nine presidents, from Calvin Coolidge to Richard Nixon, the FBI was turned
into a "Gestapo by Hoover whose modus operandi was blackmail". That's how President Harry
Truman (1943-53) reportedly
characterized Hoover's bureau. How else do you think he survived for so long – five
decades – as the nation's top law enforcer?
J Edgar Hoover and his henchmen kept files on thousands of politicians, judges, journalists
and other public figures, according to
biographer Anthony Summers. Hoover ruthlessly used those files on the secret and often sordid
private lives of senior public figures to control their career conduct and official decisions
so as to serve his interests.
And Hoover's interests were of a rightwing, anti-communist, racist bigot.
Ironically, his own suppressed homosexuality also manifested in witch-hunts against
homosexuals in public life.
It was Hoover's secret files that largely informed the McCarthyite anti-communist
inquisitions of the 1950s, whose baleful legacy on American democracy, foreign policy and
freedom of expression continues to this day.
One of Hoover's mainstay sources is strongly believed to be Mafia crime bosses who had lots
of dirt on politicians, from bribe-taking to vote-rigging, to illicit sexual affairs. It is
suspected that the Mafia had their own dossier of images on Hoover in a compromising homosexual
tryst which, in turn, kept him under their thumb.
Absurdly, the FBI chief maintained that there was "no such thing as the Mafia" in public
statements.
Two notorious cases of how FBI wiretapping worked under Hoover can be seen in the
presidencies of John F Kennedy (1961-63) and Richard Nixon (1969-74).
As recounted by Laurent Guyénot in his 2013 book , 'JFK to 9/11: 50
Years of Deep State', Hoover made a point of letting each new president know of compromising
information he had on them. It wouldn't be brandished overtly as blackmail; the president would
be briefed subtly, "Sir, if someone were to have copies of this it would be damaging to your
career". Enough said.
JFK was particularly wide open to blackmail owing to his rampant promiscuity and
extra-marital liaisons, including with screen idol Marilyn Monroe. Kennedy more than once
confided to his aides that "the bastards" had him nailed. It was for this reason that he made
the thuggish Texan Senator Lyndon B Johnson his vice president even though he detested LBJ.
Hoover and Johnson were longtime associates and the former no doubt pulled a favor to get LBJ
into the White House.
However, Hoover's blackmail on JFK was not enough to curtail his defiance of rabidly
anti-communist Cold War politics. Against the hostility of the Pentagon, CIA and FBI, Kennedy
pursued a courageous policy of detente with the Soviet Union and Cuba. Such a policy no doubt
led to his assassination by the Deep State in Dallas on November 22, 1963. There is ample
evidence that Hoover and Johnson, who became the new president, then colluded with the Deep
State assassins to cover up the assassination as the act of lone nut Lee Harvey Oswald –
a cover-up that persists to this day.
As for Richard Nixon, it is believed that "Tricky Dicky" engaged in secret communications
with the US-backed South Vietnamese regime on the cusp of the presidential elections in 1968.
Nixon promised the South Vietnamese stronger military support if they held off entering peace
talks with communist North Vietnam, which incumbent President Johnson was trying to organize.
LBJ wanted to claim a peace process was underway in order to boost the election chances of his
vice president Hubert Humphrey.
Nixon's scheming prevailed. The Vietnam peace gambit was scuttled, the Vietnam war raged on,
and so the Democrat candidate lost. Nixon finally got into the White House, which he had long
coveted from the time he lost out to JFK back in 1960.
But Hoover and Johnson got their revenge by subsequently letting Nixon know that there was
classified information on him – thanks to FBI wiretaps. The specter of incrimination is
possibly a factor in Nixon becoming increasingly paranoid during this presidency, culminating
in the ignominy of the Watergate scandal that ended his career.
These are but only two examples of how Deep State politics works in controlling and
subverting American democracy. The notion that lawmakers and presidents are free to serve the
people is a quaintly naive one. For the US media to pretend otherwise, and to hail the FBI as
some kind of benign bastion of justice, while also deprecating claims of "Deep State" intrusion
as "conspiracy theory", is either impossibly ignorant of history – or a sign of the
media's own compromised complicity.
Nonetheless, to blame this culture of institutionalized blackmail and corruption on one
individual – J Edgar Hoover – is not fair either.
Hoover certainly was the devious architect of a malign Deep State machine. But he was not
alone. He instilled a culture and legacy that pervades the top echelons of the bureau. And not
just the FBI. The early Cold War years saw the formation of the CIA and the NSA under the
Machiavellian guidance of men like Allen Dulles and Richard Helms and a host of others.
Once formed, the Deep State – as an alternate, unaccountable, unelected government
– does not surrender its immense power willingly. It has learnt to hold on to its power
through blackmail, media control, incitement of wars, and, even ultimately, assassination of
American dissenters.
The illegal tapping of private communications is an oxygen supply for the depredations of
the American Deep State.
Thinking that such agencies are not actively warping and working the electoral system to fix
the figurehead in the White House is a dangerous delusion.
So too are claims that American democracy is being "influenced" by malign Russian enemies,
as the US intelligence chiefs once again
chorused in front of the Senate this past week. The consummate irony of it!
The real "influence campaigns" corrupting American democracy are those of the "All-American"
agencies who claim to be law enforcers and defenders of national security.
US citizens would do well to refresh on the untold history of their country to appreciate
how they are being manipulated.
We might even surmise that a good number of citizens are already aware, if only vaguely, of
the elite corruption – and that is why Washington DC is viewed with increasing contempt
by the people.
It is normal that others see weakness in the U.S. before we do. The notion in the United
States is that what we want to be true is true. Fantasy is a comforting mechanism but it sure
is painful when everything falls apart. Our reality gap has not slammed shut but it will.
Disappointing but not surprising. I do hope at some point his mind will be changed. Give
full credit to the 16 Republicans in the House and 7 Republican Senators for supporting this
resolution.
"... Therefore, both individuals were both an admission that the change in the system is needed and that the ruling regime is into life-extension by means of "whatever it takes". Once the "change" potential is exhausted, repression must take over as the principal life extension mechanism; clearly, these methods do not have a sharp start-over points in time - they overlap. ..."
"... It is an interesting connection of dots that Bloody Gina is Brennan's protégée and thus that Trump has truly stacked up his administration with former i.e. current enemies, But this only shows that Trump works for the same masters as his political enemies. Again, nothing new. ..."
Trump is like a voodoo doll into which every sh**bag sticks pins. Firstly, it is
irrelevant whether he was a swamp creature before election or was coopted into it after.
Secondly, Trump was transparently chosen to be the "agent of change" for the other half of
the US population, just as Obama before.
Therefore, both individuals were both an admission that the change in the system is needed
and that the ruling regime is into life-extension by means of "whatever it takes". Once the
"change" potential is exhausted, repression must take over as the principal life extension
mechanism; clearly, these methods do not have a sharp start-over points in time - they
overlap.
This is where we are now, Assange was the most prominent member of the real
opposition to the regime, where they try to confuse with plenty of faux opposition.
Therefore, the Assange's head had to be chopped off publicly and his slowly rotting corpse
will now be on display through "courts of justice" for the next couple of years as a warning
to the consumers of alternative media. Go back to reading the approved "journalism" or ... To
understand better one just needs to read/re-read Solzhenitsyn.
The other major ongoing life-extension activity, overlapping with repression, is the
confiscation of guns from the last remaining armed Western population (lots of leftist oxen
pulling that cart). Having too many guns amongst the population is bad for resolving personal
conflicts peacefully, but it is even worse for the abusive, exploitative regime. Thus, taking
the guns away is doing the right thing for a totally wrong reason.
It is an interesting connection of dots that Bloody Gina is Brennan's
protégée and thus that Trump has truly stacked up his administration with
former i.e. current enemies, But this only shows that Trump works for the same masters as his
political enemies. Again, nothing new.
Therefore, where is a Western Solzhenitsyn to document artistically what transpires in a
society deeply in debt and in social & moral decline?
"... Great description of the kind of panic I'm sure the network heads were feeling. Would love to hear the anxious chatter in the board rooms of how to disseminate it, how to selectively cut and edit clips for their own narrative, how to twist his words to tarnish him, etc (hope the Bernie folks only agreed under the direction that they'd get the whole video also). ..."
"... The campaign website, Pete for America, doesn't feature a policy section, something that has caught the attention of critics who say Buttigieg is an empty suit ..."
"... From the New York Times today: 'Stop Sanders' Democrats Are Agonizing Over His Momentum ..."
Fox News Crowd CHEERING LOUDLY at Bernie's Town Hall, For Gov't-Run Healthcare, Taxing
the Rich, Protecting SS, etc.
Mark from Queens on Mon, 04/15/2019 - 8:11pm I ain't got much to say here.
Just perusing Twitter and #BernieTownHall is trending, though obviously being overshadowed by
the Notre Dame fire.
And while I don't believe much in electoral politics the message here, the
evidence that the divide and conquer bullshit isn't as effective as we've been led to
believe, the fact that when asked people on the Right do want many of the same
things we want - are all something to behold.
We all know that here. But to actually witness that is always a good reminder, and goes a
long way to dissolving the manufactured divisions that the corporate media manipulates.
Here's some clips and commentary about Bernie's Fox town hall tonight:
Should we raise the minimum wage to a living wage? Yes!
Should we rebuild our crumbling infrastructure? Yes!
Should we ensure veterans get health care they earned? Yes!
Should we protect Social Security and Medicare? Yes!
If you think Bernie isn't doing WORK converting some right leaning fence sitters watching
this Fox News town hall you're delusional. Even if it's just 5% of the audience at home it's
worth it. This is why you engage instead of shame! #BernieTownHall
When propaganda spectacularly blows up in the face of the propagandists it is something
hopeful, at the very least.
Imagine being the CEO of United Healthcare or BlueCross and watching all the money you
spent trying to scare people away from Medicare for All blow up this spectacularly
#BernieTownHall
. pic.twitter.com/gOmmKAXzt0
. . . who emphasize Bernie has less than 30% of the votes in polls (less than the 50% + 1
delegate required to get the nomination) that delegates are awarded by states via primaries
(different formulas), not by total US % vote. So, he can possibly even pull it off on the
first ballot, before the superdelegates' votes kick in.
There really is a chance to pull it off this time! Especially if Bernie does well in the
early primaries and on the newly early Super Tuesday, March 3, 2020.
And for those emphasizing that it's still early. . . the debates start in June, only about
two months away.
When propaganda spectacularly blows up in the face of the propagandists it is
something hopeful, at the very least.
Imagine being the CEO of United Healthcare or BlueCross and watching all the money
you spent trying to scare people away from Medicare for All blow up this spectacularly
#BernieTownHall
. pic.twitter.com/gOmmKAXzt0
I enjoyed these snippets, and particularly how Bret constantly looked like he was debating
pulling a fire alarm to break up this cheerfest or to just run and leave the cohost to deal
with it.
Great description of the kind of panic I'm sure the network heads were feeling. Would love to
hear the anxious chatter in the board rooms of how to disseminate it, how to selectively cut
and edit clips for their own narrative, how to twist his words to tarnish him, etc (hope the
Bernie folks only agreed under the direction that they'd get the whole video also).
This kind of thing blows their whole Us vs. Them cover. They'll probably not be doing this
again.
@Le Frog
"Someone interrupt the cheering, for Gawd Sakes! Change the subject! Cut to commercial!
Anything!"
The UnitedHealth employee who leaked The Post this video says: "I felt Americans needed
to know exactly who it is that's fighting against the idea that healthcare is a right, not
a privilege." https://t.co/fQAXmVTmdf
The campaign website, Pete for America, doesn't feature a policy section, something that
has caught the attention of critics who say Buttigieg is an empty suit -- or, in his case,
empty dress pants plus a white or blue shirt with the sleeves rolled up (tie, but no
blazer). Buttigieg talks in specifics about the Electoral College (he wants to get rid of
it) and the Supreme Court (he imagines an extreme reconfiguration, with 15 judges instead
of nine, five of them confirmed by unanimous vote of the other ten, a way of ensuring
nonpartisanship, he says). On other matters, he is less detailed. "I'm very specific on
policy. I just think that we need to talk about values first. You can't just expect people
to be able to derive your values by looking at the minutiae of your policy proposals," he
told me.
So what are Pete Buttigieg's proposed policies? I gather he's trying to get a toehold on
the "surprise me" vote. Oh, and policy is "minutiae," not the life-or-death matter for
millions which it in fact is.
@Mark from Queens
It's too bad Bernie will probably never get live time on Fox again, and that the DNC idiots
refused to have a debate on Fox. We all had stories of Republicans who liked Bernie in 2016,
even those who would have voted for him over Trump. Democrats just cannot bring themselves to
admit that the reason 2016 played out the way it did wasn't Vladimir Putin's fault, it was
Hillary Clinton's.
Moron Beltway gasbags think that winning over Republican votes requires a conservative or
a racist. No, it requires somebody with authenticity who wants to help average voters.
Trump's scam has been played, and a lot of his 2016 voters won't fall for it again. As in
2016, Dems will lose if they run a milquetoast corporate poser. And as in 2016, they'll try
their damnedest to do just that.
There is no question that Fox News hates Bernie Sanders. Without a doubt Fox News hates the
idea of Medicare For All. So when Bernie has a Town Hall on Fox, you can bet that they wanted
to make him look bad. If you read
Fox's review of the Town Hall that is exactly what happened.
Except that isn't what happened.
What actually happened is that Fox moderator Bret Baier made the unforgivable mistake of
asking the audience - a Fox News audience - what they thought of Medicare For All, and
the reaction
was poetry.
Medicare for All May Be Cheaper For Employers, But They Still Don't Like It
This is HUUUGE!
Medicare For All wouldn't just be great for the working class, it would probably be great for
small businesses. Why haven't I heard more about this? It would immediately bump the approval
rating for MFA by 10%-15%-20% in red states.
which
you can find here , I learned that the crowd was booing the Fox News host for some of
their questions, one being a slimy insinuation that Bernie wanted to let felons vote
because it would help him . They also chanted Bernie's name after his closing remarks
(reminiscent of the NY debate).
I hope FOX seizes the opportunity to, at least in part, reinvent itself under the radar
and appeal to a broader demographic. FOX could carve out a new market niche occupying
pro-Bernie populist territory, where other networks fear to tread.
A lot of FOX viewers are probably economically hard-pressed. It ain't a Bloomberg or CNBC
audience we're talking about here.
#8
Boy, all those centrist assholes were right, it was totally a bad move for Sanders to go
on Fox News for a townhall. What an embarrassing look for him, right?
having Bernie do that town hall. Meanwhile, things at CNN are disgusting. The blatant
anti-Bernie agenda is burning like a thousand suns over there. The bias is so obvious but
it's so strange to watch unfold. I just watched FOX host Bernie Sanders, with a FOX-curated
audience chanting BERNIE! BERNIE! while CNN trashes him. I'm not saying CNN is a bastion of
fair coverage and a beacon of the left, but this is madness in real time.
Last night I was writing about this huge swathe of people across the nation -- the
unrepresented and silenced Left -- who are stepping out into the light once more to show
their strength and support for humane and intelligent national policies that benefit all of
the people equally. They are out there and they know what they want.
Outrageous criminal greed among the ruling class is what is fueling the rise of the
American Left. The Intelligence Cartel thinks an intense round of anti-communist fear and
propaganda blasted across the general population will shut the Left down. The think the
brainwashed centrists and corporate media will chase them back into their marginalized
existence. It's always worked before.
The Democrat leaders, standing the ruins of their shattered Hoax, are not so sure this
time. That's why they pushed a crowd of Democratic contenders into the race to dilute the
focus on inconvenient issues. Fifteen years ago, these new candidates would have all looked
promising -- but the betrayal of the neoliberals who screwed and exploited and abandoned the
working class changed all that. Now, people want their share of government protection against
the terrible economic downturns that the corruption of Wall Street and War Street have dumped
on them -- and their families. They want their human right to a safe and healthy life, for
starters. They want food for their hungry children and a roof over their heads, no matter
what.
@Pluto's Republic but in a lot of ways protection from government. The conservatives
have built their creds on the horror of "I'm from the government, I'm here to help" but in
the end no matter who's in control the real horror has been "I'm from the government". It's
why most people see no difference between the r's and d's. Neither will do them any good and
both misread the support from their "base". The r's and d's serve their masters and it's why
elections have devolved into the farce it is.
@gulfgal98 his potential cross appeal. And it was in his favor that he didn't go
after Biden on the progressive question. Bernie is better off running an issues-only campaign
in his competition with the other Ds; let the people decide who is truly progressive by their
policies and their record.
He also did well in not running from the socialism tag, not that he has much choice. He
will need to continue doing this as this country has been conditioned for decades to
associate it with the hammer and sickle. Continued de-conditioning will be needed.
Also a positive was his feisty, fighting spirit in calling out some of the low-blow
questions, esp the cheap shot from the female moderator about Bernie wanting rapists and
murderers to be able to vote for him. My sense is this sort of tough, punch-back approach is
going to resonate better with voters than the soft, polite, confrontation-averse types which
the DP has so many of.
So overall a very good showing by the Bernmeister, a needed small victory for the D side,
and for the moment that other issue, which didn't come up last night, is on the back
burner.
@gulfgal98 but people were once FDR Democrats. They strongly support social security
and decent wages. They are damned mad that their jobs have been shipped out of the country,
and that their children's prospects are worse than theirs. They will never be corporate
friendly. The Democratic Party left them, but they are not corporate Republicans.
There is the Bernie that I love.
I did not realize how much I needed to see that until I was watching it with tears running
down my face.
I will admit that I was having serious doubts because of how he jumped in the Russiagate boat
and how he seemed to be on the wrong side of the Venezuela issue.
I don't have those doubts anymore.
When talking about the MIC, more than once he said "we have to have a strong defense". I
totally agree, but that's it - just defense. Cut that budget in half (or more) and there's
still plenty for defense - just not enough to set up a base in every country that they are
able to so.
When he mentioned the 12 year deadline is when the tears really started to flow. Have any of
the other candidates even acknowledged that deadline?
I have never voted in my life. If Bernie is not cheated again and he gets on the ballot, I
will register and I will cast my first vote ever. I bet I'm not the only one.
"There's a growing realization that Sanders could end up winning this thing, or
certainly that he stays in so long that he damages the actual winner," said David Brock,
the liberal organizer,
From the New York Times today: 'Stop Sanders' Democrats Are Agonizing Over His
Momentum
@MrWebster
That is what I was thinking. Fox certainly knows how to stack an event like this. How could
they possibly have failed to vet the audience members? On the other hand we saw an interview
a couple of weeks ago with an "average Joe" in a greasy spoon somewhere in the rust belt who
was all on board for (I think it was) Medicare for All.
Maybe their screens are faulty. They are making the mistake of screening for labels (are you
a Republican? are you a conservative? did you vote for Trump?) and are themselves so
ideologically blinded that they don't realize that even people who self-describe with all
those labels still want New Deal policies?
Maybe they have an agenda. Visibly TRY but clearly FAIL to discredit Sanders, to set Sanders
up as the Democratic candidate with the idea that Trump will easily beat him.
Stupid or evil? That's always the question.
In this case I'm coming up with "stupid or stupid".
One of my biggest concerns about the 2016 Sanders campaign was that, at least at the
beginning, it was too easily forced to apologize for attacks on supposed "allies of
progressives" in the Democratic ecosystem -- because "unity."
The prime example of that occurred when Sanders accused the Planned Parenthood Action Fund
-- not Planned Parenthood the health care organization, Planned Parenthood AF, the highly
Clintonist political action committee, which had early-endorsed Clinton despite Sanders'
excellent record on women's issues -- of being "part of the establishment."
He was immediately accused by the rest of the establishment, falsely, of attacking Planned
Parenthood clinics. And he backed down, unwisely in my view. (For more on that episode, read
the first few
paragraphs of this piece .)
Well, the highly Clintonist, highly corporate establishment is at it again, in the form of
the corrupt
Center for American Progress (CAP) and its online publication ThinkProgress . (For more
on their corruption, see also
here and here .)
ThinkProgress published a video critical of Sanders, as Lee Fang (who also delves into
their corruption) explains here:
In response to that video Sanders sent CAP a letter
, saying in part:
Center for American Progress leader Neera Tanden repeatedly calls for unity while
simultaneously maligning my staff and supporters and belittling progressive ideas. I worry
that the corporate money CAP is receiving is inordinately and inappropriately influencing the
role it is playing in the progressive movement . (emphasis mine)
Team Sanders then went a whole lot further than that in a public fundraising letter, parts
of which are reproduced below. Note the expansion of the "corporate money" point from the CAP
letter, and also the directness (emphasis mine throughout):
"We are under attack"
Sisters, Brothers, and Friends –
Just like that, our campaign is under attack from the corporate establishment .
This week, an organization that is the epitome of the political establishment --
the Center for American Progress (CAP) -- unleashed and promoted an online attack video
against Bernie.
And behind the scenes on the day Bernie introduced his Medicare for All bill, they held a
conference call with reporters attacking the bill.
That is the Center for American Progress' real goal. Trying to stop Medicare for All
and our progressive agenda .
CAP's leadership has been pretty upfront about their disdain for Bernie -- and for all of
us. They see our political revolution as a threat to their privilege and influence
.
The Center for American Progress is an organization whose massive annual budget is
bankrolled by billionaires and corporate executives that profit from finance,
pharmaceutical companies, fossil fuels, and sending American jobs overseas.
Last year alone, they took funding from financial giants like Bank of America and
Blackstone, whose CEO was chair of Trump's business council and is a leading
Republican donor.
Before that, they cashed checks from companies like BlueCross Blue Shield, Pfizer,
WalMart , and defense contractors like General Dynamics and BAE Systems .
They also took hundreds of thousands of dollars from the fossil fuel pumping United
Arab Emirates while the country was bombing innocent civilians in Yemen – a war
Bernie has led the fight to end.
The Center for American Progress has deep connections to the economic and political
elites who have done so much damage to working families in every zip code. And what we
must do today is send a message that we are prepared to fight back against those who are
working day and night to defeat our movement .
In solidarity,
Team Bernie
That's powerful stuff, no-holds-barred truth-telling. Note the many bells it
rings:
"corporate establishment" "epitome of the political establishment" "real goal stop
Medicare for All and our progressive agenda" "threat to their privilege and influence" "massive
annual budget is bankrolled by billionaires" "deep connections to the economic and political
elites who have done so much damage to working families" "working day and night to defeat our
movement"
The letter also names a few of the companies and countries that bankroll CAP -- Walmart,
Bank of America, Blue Cross, Blackstone, the UAE. He could have listed a great many more. There
are countless stories emerging from former ThinkProgress writers about CAP leadership
squelching aggressive reporting because their reports were negatively affecting CAP
fundraising. Read this twitter thread by former
ThinkProgress reporter Zaid Jilani to see some of those. There are others as well
.
Bernie Sanders is not backing down this time. Unlike 2016, this will be a battle with the
enemy named out loud and its deeds detailed. Looks like the fight, the one our country has been
avoiding for years, is finally on.
I commented about this on another thread to the effect that this is the beginning of a
"Night of the Long Knives" quality power struggle in the Democrat Party.
Glad to see the Sanders campaign being proactive about the dirty dealing that is being used to
try and stop them.
Now for Sanders to start framing the struggle as being between "Their" Democrat Party and "Our"
Democrat Party. Sanders really needs to pull off what Trump managed to do in the Republican
Party; a hostile takeover.
Exactly right. Unlike Trump, however, Bernie will have to do it with the entire corporate
and political establishments against him. And not even a "left" Fox News in his corner. It will
truly be us against (all of) them.
If any democrat wants to be real, they have to attack other democrats, because the democrats
suck.
As a political party, they are so pathetic, they lost to donald trump.
The republicans are vile , and mornic.that is how they appeal to their base ..
So if anything is to be done to try and break the stalemate, it must be the debate of ideas.
Not the battle of personalities , we have now.
The republicans have no real ideas, just worn out tropes. The democratic leadership, go around
"saying", they are progressives ( pelosi interview),but really they are as tired in their way
of thinking as the republicans .
Both groups are not worth a thing.
when pelosi pointed out AOC had a group of five she was being dismissive saying she was
steering a bigger ship democrats of all stripes. even the republicans who won seats as
democrats . but really her and her band of good for nothing democrats, doesn't count for
anything near the five new democrats who are out spoken, and have the good character to be on
the right side of history..
I for one, would vote for anyone who battles the democratic blob of a machine. and anyone who
doesn't have a problem with the democratic party, is un-electable.
Pelosi needs to go.
So sanders should fight the democratic corporatists in the senate, if he is trying to be real.
It is about time he needs that "audacity of hope" thingy.
Bernie is definitely in it to win this time. Last night he crushed it on Fox News. He had
the Fox Town Hall audience cheering and applauding. Yes, Fox News.
It's exactly what both sides of the broken political duopoly feared. Trump's tweet on the
subject bears testament to the latter . The pre #BernieFoxTownHall agita from
pearl-clutching Dem cultists online serves as evidence of the former .
Sanders is staying away from some issues, such as Assange arrest and Venezuela, which has
caused some complaints from the Left. Personally, I think he is being tactical and smart in
that he is attempting to reach the largest portion of the electorate. I doubt that he or his
staff is ignorant on these type issues, but he is set on a goal and does not want to let issues
that might divert his direction toward that goal. Or am I being unduly naïve? I am pretty
skeptical of all politicians, but his consistent history gives me some confidence that he will
be straight on these issues if elected/.
Saying something about two radically different people doesn't logically lead to the same
thing. Obama was great at giving speeches, was a historic candidate and did try to (in a vague
way) make it sound as if he wanted to change the system. He didn't. He pretended to want to
re-negotiate NAFTA, but when the Canadians freaked a bit, his campaign assured them that it was
just talk, cause it was. It was obvious before he took office, to anyone paying attention, that
Obama was a neoliberal that wouldn't change much of anything. But Obama in 2008 is not Bernie
then or now. Obama in 2008 is Beto or mayor Pete now. Empty platitudes, totally cut off from
the struggles of working people, paid to not structurally change what needs to structurally
change by people that benefit from the system as is. Obama was just much better at being that
empty slate than the 2020 version of him. I can almost smell the mayor Pete book deal though,
and I am sure he can too.
Thanks for this comment. I tried to read yesterday's New York piece
on the Democrats' Folksiest Heartland Hope, but between that
mcPhoto at the top, and the conversational, we're-all-in-this
together tone of the writer, stopped after a couple of paras.
The #resistance are all so tired; do they not realize that?
Regarding Mister Obama's speeches, to me they reeked of
hollowness. He had the gestures and cadences down, though.
I think you are not being unduly naive. Watch some of Bernie's videos from the 80ies. He is
very clear eyed about what he's dealing with – and has always said the same thing. He is
being realistic, tactical and smart – raising powerful issues where there is clear daily
pain for the common person that can bring a powerful response – is anyone really
surprised about the Fox audience reaction? (Im only surprised they didnt stack the room with
fakes who would boo him ).
The foreign policy issues are not so clear cut for the common working class person (please
understand that!) and would muddle the message. He finally sees an opening and he is going for
it. He knows what he's doing.
The other thing about Fox is that the owner Murdochs are amoral and apolitical. They go
where the money is. Totally neoliberal. That is all they care about. They know the money train
is coming to a very complex junction and are setting up to go with the money, whether corporate
or little people's.
I think this touches on what could be the most important aspect of a Sanders presidency
– it's not so much the policies (they are important), but the people that would be
brought into government. This letter is an indication that the usual suspects will not be
running the show. In that regard, it could be similar to Reagan's time in office, except way,
way better.
Just got another email from Bernie's campaign. Here it is:
Subject: A serious threat to our campaign
The New York Times has an article today with the headline "'Stop Sanders' Democrats
Are Agonizing Over His Momentum."
"From canapé-filled fund-raisers on the coasts to the cloakrooms of Washington,
mainstream Democrats are increasingly worried " the article begins.
"The Bernie question comes up in every fundraising meeting I do," said one fundraiser.
"It has gone from being a low hum to a rumble," said an operative.
"He did us a disservice in the last election," said another.
"You can see him reading the headlines now," Mr. [David] Brock mused: "'Rich people don't
like me.'"
Mr. Brock -- who smeared Anita Hill and who led an effort to stop our political revolution
four years ago -- is almost correct. They don't just hate Bernie Sanders. They hate everything
our political revolution embodies. They hate Medicare for All, the Green New Deal, breaking up
big banks, free public college for all.
That is why, in the next 48 hours, we are launching a fundraising drive that I hope will
send an unmistakable message to the political establishment about the strength of our political
revolution.
That's why I'm asking you today:
[Link to donation site] Make a $27 contribution to our campaign as part of our emergency
48-hour fundraising drive to fight back against the "anti-Sanders" campaign being hatched by
the financial elite of this country. [End link]
They may have "canapé-filled fundraisers." We have each other.
Well, just moments after reading the NYT article in question, which is quite a doozy, this
popped up in my in box:
"The New York Times has an article today with the headline "'Stop Sanders' Democrats Are
Agonizing Over His Momentum."
"From canapé-filled fund-raisers on the coasts to the cloakrooms of Washington,
mainstream Democrats are increasingly worried " the article begins.
"The Bernie question comes up in every fundraising meeting I do," said one fundraiser.
"It has gone from being a low hum to a rumble," said an operative.
"He did us a disservice in the last election," said another.
"You can see him reading the headlines now," Mr. [David] Brock mused: "'Rich people don't like
me.'"
Mr. Brock -- who smeared Anita Hill and who led an effort to stop our political revolution four
years ago -- is almost correct. They don't just hate Bernie Sanders. They hate everything our
political revolution embodies. They hate Medicare for All, the Green New Deal, breaking up big
banks, free public college for all.
That is why, in the next 48 hours, we are launching a fundraising drive that I hope will send
an unmistakable message to the political establishment about the strength of our political
revolution.
That's why I'm asking you today:
Make a contribution to our campaign as part of our emergency 48-hour fundraising drive to fight
back against the "anti-Sanders" campaign being hatched by the financial elite of this
country.
They may have "canapé-filled fundraisers." We have each other.
In solidarity,
Faiz Shakir
Campaign Manager
Forgetting nothing, learning nothing. One of the true, primal joys of Bernie's 2016 campaign
was hitting the donate button every time the dollar dems dumped on him.
Likewise. I'm giving every time they dump on him, and again every time he hits back. At this
pace, $27 may get to be too expensive. A good problem to have I'd say.
@The
Alarmist Trump doesn't strike me as someone with principles or opinions of his own. He
will say and do whatever his base of "deplorables" likes to hear and whatever helps him get
what he wants.
Please note that unz.com used be forum of stalwart Trump supporters. Times change.
Notable quotes:
"... This will at least wake up those morons at places like Breitbart that Trump is nothing more than a neocon swine. I mean how much more evidence do they need to see that he is invite the world, invade the world. ..."
"... One doesn't have to be stupid to support Trump but it helps. The same can be said for his prominent enemies though. To unconditionally and faithfully support Trump, Hillary Clinton, or Nancy Pelosi, one would have to be stupid or totally controlled by one's emotions. ..."
"... You and I are voting right now just by publicly engaging in politics. Voting on election day is worth it in the same way posting comments online is worth it. ..."
"... Wouldn't a smart person recognize that falling for a grifter who cares not about Heritage America and who dances to Bibi's tune is never a good option? ..."
"... Yes. But during the election, Trump was the least bad option who sometimes seemed like a good option. That's still true today. ..."
This will at least wake up those morons at places like Breitbart that Trump is nothing more
than a neocon swine. I mean how much more evidence do they need to see that he is invite the
world, invade the world.
On top of that mass censorship being unleashed under Trump, how can anyone still be conned
into supporting him.
@Colin
Wright For one, its not reposing any confidence, faith, and trust in DJT. He is a
charlatan who appeals to low IQ whites.
Why do so many intelligent people delude themselves into rationalizing their support and
vote for Trump upon the basis of the lesser of two evils loser mindset?
Look at the labor participation numbers. Worse under Trump than under the Kenyan
mulatto.
Look at the rate the debt is increasing. Look at the total increase in the debt since the
serial adulterer took office.
Look at the surge in immigration under this congenital prevaricator.
One doesn't
have to be stupid to support Trump but it helps. The same can be said for his prominent
enemies though. To unconditionally and faithfully support Trump, Hillary Clinton, or Nancy
Pelosi, one would have to be stupid or totally controlled by one's emotions.
That being said, a smart person could still support Trump. A smart person could recognize
Trump finishing his term as the least bad option. In 2020, this same smart person might
recognize that, amazingly, a Trump second term had become the least bad option. People can
scream and throw around insults or they can present an alternative to Trump.
Wouldn't a smart person recognize that his vote does not matter?
Wouldn't a smart person recognize that Stalin's maxim, "its not who votes that counts, its
who counts the votes" controls?
Wouldn't a smart person recognize that falling for a grifter who cares not about Heritage
America and who dances to Bibi's tune is never a good option?
@Liberty MikeWouldn't
a smart person recognize that his vote does not matter?
You and I are voting right now just by publicly engaging in politics. Voting on election
day is worth it in the same way posting comments online is worth it.
Wouldn't a smart person recognize that falling for a grifter who cares not about Heritage
America and who dances to Bibi's tune is never a good option?
Yes. But during the election, Trump was the least bad option who sometimes seemed like a good
option. That's still true today.
Tears came to my eyes - happy tears - when you were elected! A seemingly impossible feat was accomplished that day in November.
I understood when you faced tremendous resistance in your first 200 days from Demorats. It seemed you were unphased and determined
- all was good.
You called the stock market a bubble when you were campaigning, but just a few months after you won the election you called
the stock market a great accomplishment of your administration. What changed? I got confused. Worse, you cursed when the Fed
raised interest rates to 2.5% and the market started to crash. That doesn't sound like an awesome economy. It sounds like a
highly manipulated one by central actors.
You lobbed some Tomahawks into Syrian sand - that worried me.
Then you lobbed a hundred or so more after a couple of Wahhabists wearing white hats, funded by Britain and the CIA, staged
a fakenews chemical attack and put it on social media. Dear Donald, were these missiles close to their expiry date? Were you
playing 4D chess? Some of those failed missiles flew near a major Russian base, were you at all concerned that one or two of
them might malfunction and accidentally bomb the Russians? I guess not. The Russians however were concerned -- which
is why they prepared to attack your fleet, along with the French and Canadian boats - just in case. But I guess it was just
another day at the Oval Office.
You said Hillary should be in jail. It is nearly three years since you said that. She's not in jail. Instead, several patriots
were dragged through the mud by Mueller and/or the Democrats - all you've had to say is that it was terrible! You can't even
seem to properly handle retarded people like Maxine and Nancy.
You claimed you were winning, but you lost the lower House to the Dems in the midterms.
You said America is leaving Syria for others to deal with -- which probably was a reference to Saudi Wahhabists and Israeli
Zionists. Why are you still there protecting Al Q'aida?
You seem to be eager to wreak havoc against Iran - was that part of the deal to bring home our troops?
You brought NK and the rest of the world to the brink of nuclear war. Luckily NK started packing-up their nuke program.
It wont be for long though. You've done nothing since, except appoint John Bolton. If I were the leader of NK I wouldn't really
trust you.
You campaigned on bringing home troops from all the useless wars. Now you're thinking of attacking Venezuela. What gives?
I'm more confused.
You said working with Russia would be a good thing - you've hit Russia fairly hard with sanctions and diplomatic retribution.
Maybe we can blame the fakenews MSM and the Dems and forgive you for playing into their whims.
You offered tax credits for corporations, they fraudulently bought back their own stocks. You offered tax credits to the
people, they used most of it to pay down their overdue credit cards. Some apparently used the money as a down-payment on a
new pickup that they'll either have to sell soon or risk repo - nothing changed in the long-run.
You promised a wall paid for by Mexico....
Why does the American military require three-quarters of a trillion dollars per year? Yet you're willing to pay even more.
Most of all, you kept referring to Wikileaks, and its publication of the HRC emails, as proof of a corrupt DNC. Two years
later, you jailed its editor. It doesn't end there. It really does look like you want to drag this Australian/Ecuadorian to
America to imprison, torture, and possibly execute, someone who hasn't committed any crime (except skipping bail on a highly
questionable extradition to Sweden in response to a 'she said / he said' accusation that the complainants and the Swedish prosecutors
dropped, much like those lobbed at your SCOTUS pick that you vehemently and rightly criticized).
Mr. President, if that's how you treat your allies and friends, I'd rather be your enemy. At least your enemies so far
seem to get away with everything and anything. your friends on the other hand get fired or jailed or both.
Mr. President, sir if you are a populist, you sure don't act like one surrounding yourself with the Deep State...
"Bernie Sanders Accuses Liberal Think Tank of Smearing Progressive Candidates"
The "liberal" outfit under discussion is the Center For American Progress. This outfit is
against "single payer" health care. It was in favor of Obama's escalation in Afghanistan.
Funding comes from billionaires like Soros and corporations like Wal-Mart.
The blogger complaining about Sander's awful behavior is a Biden fan, I generally don't
link to stupid sites, and all the connected ones in this case qualify.
Oh please: this is just a more-elaborate replay of what the DNC did to Bernie in '16 and what
it does to anyone not espousing the idiocy of the party's corporately enshrined majority.
Hence, what's actually happening is the [over]flooding of the field with corporate centrist
neoliberals like Harris, Booker, Biden, Hickenlooper et al., enough of a deluge to draw
attention & support from the more-progressive candidates, including Bernie, Warren, and
Tulsi (particularly vehement for her open criticism of the war economy)
We're not talking about "Change for changes sake" here. We're talking about Elizabeth
Warren vs. Donald Trump. We're talking about a smart, educated woman and proven capable
leader and US senator, vs. a vulgar, lazy, Reality TV host and failed businessman. We're
talking a calm, rational human being vs. a bloviating jackass.
Not if you add up those things. USA is only ~ 60% white. Depending on how you define
middle class, I think more of the US is working class than middle class these days. Straight?
Maybe, but I think you could just as easily say "most of the US is *not* a straight white
male middle class, and frankly is fed up with the default identity being straight white, male
and middle class.
My guess is that you are well to do, and enjoying your tax cut. Most of the rest of us are
not. The economy is not synonymous with the stock market, which is up because of stock
buy-backs. Do you understand how this works? Do you know how many workers have been laid off
in the last 3 months? How many companies have moved out of the country, after receiving their
tRump bribes? How many more companies paid NO TAX last year--or how many more got REBATES
(out of my pocket?) You are soon to be horribly surprised.
-You blame her for being good at her job and for having married someone who is good at his
job, or for having policies that would distribute wealth? Rich people can be left wing. Find
me any politician who isn't loaded.
She didn't list herself as such when applying for jobs, she volunteered a recipe for a
cookbook. Everything else you're repeating is just Fox News propaganda.
"In 2012 she was criticized for having listed herself as a minority in a directory for
Harvard Law School. Some critics alleged that she falsified her heritage to advance her
career through minority quotas. Warren denied that, and several colleagues and employers
(including Harvard) have said her reported ethnic status played no role in her hiring. An
investigation by The Boston Globe in 2018 found "clear evidence, in documents and interviews,
that her claim to Native American ethnicity was never considered by the Harvard Law faculty,
which voted resoundingly to hire her, or by those who hired her to four prior positions at
other law schools". PolitiFact noted: "Before this controversy arose in 2012, there is no
account that Warren spoke publicly of having Native American roots, although she called
herself Cherokee in a local Oklahoma cookbook in 1984."
And there is no Democrat who is going to take votes from Trump's base.
I've told this story before but I guess it still bears repeating:
In November of 2016, my wife won a seat in the New Hampshire State House as a Democrat. As
she campaigned, she knocked on hundreds and hundreds of doors, the doors of Democrat,
Republican, and "Undeclared" households. And many times, she spoke to Republicans who stated
that they could easily have seen themselves voting for Bernie Sanders over Trump but they'd
BE DAMNED if they were ever going to vote for Hillary Clinton.
My wife didn't argue this point with them. After all, it was her job to get herself
elected, not to get Hillary elected. In New Hampshire, the Democrats who DID
argue for Clinton (including two more women in our election ward) went down to defeat; my
wife won.*
Hillary was absolutely poison for the Democrats nationwide but Bernie would have 1) won
and 2) had yuuuuge coat-tails. When they did him in, the Democrats did themselves
in.
* Hillary narrowly won New Hampshire's Electoral votes and Democrats narrowly won our U.S.
Senate race and both Congressional districts but Democrats lost the Governor's race, three of
five Executive Council races, the State House, and the State Senate. That is, Democrats got
wiped out within New Hampshire just like they got wiped out nationally.
By electing Trump the American people were rejecting middle-of-the-road politics-as-usual.
Warren is the much needed change in the democratic party.
Instead, they're going to push Biden or Beto and try to serve the "safe" more of the same
crap that people don't want anymore. We're all fed up to death with the neo-liberal
corporate-owned politicians. We need real change for the everyday working people, who
have seen their quality of life decline and cost of living incline for decades now.
Elizabeth Warren has a tremendous academic background in economics, economic history, finance
and bankruptcy law; she also is an experienced bankruptcy lawyer.
She was in the forefront during the 2008 economic crisis and raising the alarm about the
corrupt banking practices of trillions of risky sub prime lending loans and credit default
swaps.
Her current campaign is floundering for many reasons. She is fuzzy on many issues and
other issues may be repulsive to most of the electorate such as reparations for the horrible
institution of slavery. Two wrongs do not make a right.
The only candidate that rings the bell and frames the hot button issues in a brilliant and
articulate manner is Mayor Pete. His only negative is the repulsion of many voters to gay
people who in reality are just people who happen to be different than the majority.
The right has moved sooo far right, that reasonable, popular positions may seem "radical."
After all, who in the world would vote for health care for themselves? Positively far left,
eh? I would like to know: HOW are we going to pay for a $1.9 TRILLION tax cut for the filthy
rich, or $730 BILLION for defense? WHERE will we get the money for those "basic needs?"
She didn't -- the bar application does not have a section for race. What she did was fill in
an optional area on race to indicate her interest in organizations or societies centered
around ethnicity. Not uncommon in academia
Her own argument, that she actually believed that she was far more Native American than
she was and was interested in meeting other women with a similar background, matches up well
with that. It was not in any way part of deciding to admit her to the bar. Think about it
– that would be illegal anyway.
The majority of Americans do not back packing the courts and reparations.They will be losing
issues for those candidates that give those issues strong support.
It's a shame she didn't run last time, instead of Hilary Clinton - things might have been
different. That was her chance, and it's gone now. She will be put in the same bracket as
Hilary now by too many voters, and it'll be the kiss of death for her chances. That silly
comment about her ancestry aside, she is a very smart woman who wuld have made a decent
POTUS, but she's missed her chance at it. Or the party missed its chance with her. Somehow it
was deemed to be Hilary's "turn" last time round. If there's anything positive to come out of
Trump's election, it might be to wake politicians up to the fact the the old way of doing
things must go, though unfortunately the Democrats don;t seem to have really grasped this.
The people have voted in some fresh faces, but the party is still stuck in the past....
Bernie Sanders, ffs. God help us.
Daubish--Don't hold your breath. Remember who, and what, is "leading" the party. It's an
"organization" I intend to quit immediately following next year's closed primary. Remember
the words of Mark Twain: "I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat."
Warren and Sanders are the only clear thinkers in the group. I support Bernie, but I am also
sending money to Warren to keep her in the race. She represents the thinking of the majority
of Americans. She's right on the money! Backward, corporate,conservative Nancy Pelosi be
damned.
Although I live outside the US, it is important for the rest of the world to have a
competent, decent, ethical and honourable person to be elected as the next president,
especially after this disastrous term with Trump. I personally would love to see Elizabeth
Warren as the next president, having read a lot about her over the years and her performance
after the financial crises when she to the Wall street bankers to task was marvelous. She is
the sort of person that would be very beneficial for the US and the world, I think the rest
of the world would start to have respect for the US again, as it is definitely on the nose
now.
There is no doubt that Warren has smarts. Her competition policy around the tech giants is
actually quite nuanced and sensible, despite presenting some challenges.
But she is not a good presidential candidate. She has wrecked her chances with her
'Pocahontas' antics and - mystifyingly - doubled down on her alleged Indian ancestry before
the election. (This is despite the fact that Native American identity is generally not based
on DNA alone. Mystifying stuff.)
Meanwhile, ideas like scrapping the electoral college are just bizarre and naive. I had
not been aware that this was a 'policy' of Warren's. It does not show her in a good
light.
Even Donald Trump had experience running an international business empire.
Some would say international crime syndicate, but never mind that.
Running anything as an authoritarian CEO in a private institution of any kind, with no
shareholders and no accountability, is not a useful background in the context of a
presidency, as we have been finding out on a daily basis since that assrocket took
office.
Being a mayor of any kind of city is better preparation by far, because you have to fine ways
for people who are not natural allies to pull in the same direction.
They have decided they are more interested in fighting themselves than fighting Trump,
with different wings of the party saying they will boycott other wings' candidates if
they win the nomination instead
. I think that's bollocks. Present your evidence. Sure, it's going to be a hard
fought fight, but the chances that Dems supporting a candidate who does not win the primary
would boycott the election and put Trump back in the White House are vanishingly small
this time around.
Most of America is white, straight and struggling middle class, I'm afraid. A unity
candidate like Obama is needed to build bridges between different demographics, but what
did we hear from a prominent Democrat activist last week? An attack on Obama as being the
worst thing to happen to the Democrat Party in a generation.
Obama campaigned on the theme of progressive change, and won, twice, then once
in office governed as a milquetoast centrist trying to seek consensus with an adversary
committed to destroying both him and any remnants of the New Deal.
His lackluster performance in this regard and the Dem party establishment's commitment to
corporate fealty by thumbing the scale to ensure the confirmation of Clinton's focus-group
corporate windsockery so infuriated the traditional working class midwestern party roots that
we now have Trump.
The mewling of the remnants of that party establishment can be ignored. There's a new
energy now, unleashed by Sanders' remarkable insurgency in the 2016 cycle, and there's no
putting the cork back in that bottle.
Trump isn't smiling. Trump has never smiled in his life. He smirks a lot, but that's not
the same thing, and over the next year or so he's about to suffer the death of a thousand
cuts if the newly empowered House investigative committees do an even halfway competent job
of revealing what a corrupt and vindictive scumbag he really is.
Warren was my early favorite in the Dems primaries, but abolishing the Electoral College,
packing the Supreme Court, and paying reparations make her unacceptable to me.
I'd like her to win the nomination, but she won't.
That won't necessarily be a bad thing, however, because the chances of the Democrats
winning the election are looking pretty slim right now. They have decided they are more
interested in fighting themselves than fighting Trump, with different wings of the party
saying they will boycott other wings' candidates if they win the nomination instead.
Most of these activists are either New Yorkers or Californians or people who think like
New Yorkers and Californians. New York and California will vote Democrat whoever wins the
nomination. The next election, like the last, will be won or lost in Michigan, Pennsylvania
and Florida.
It will annoy people on the Guardian website to hear, but people in those states are
typically not as interested in what might be called 'identity politics' as people on the
seaboards. 2016 should have taught Democrats that. Instead they have doubled down on fighting
a little civil war between demographics who claim only their candidate should be
President.
Most of America is white, straight and struggling middle class, I'm afraid. A unity
candidate like Obama is needed to build bridges between different demographics, but what did
we hear from a prominent Democrat activist last week? An attack on Obama as being the worst
thing to happen to the Democrat Party in a generation.
The fact that she lied about her ethnicity in the past in hopes of gaining a leg up will
backfire spectacularly if she's the DNC nominee for POTUS. Conservatives will beat this point
over and over and over.
Is the Left secretly trying to put Trump in the WH for another term? It sure looks like
it.
the chances that Dems supporting a candidate who does not win the primary would boycott
the election and put Trump back in the White House are vanishingly small this time
around
They were warned that that would happen last time, and they still let it happen. The
"Bernie bros" are back out in force, and not only have they not learnt their lesson, they
feel validated by Clinton's defeat to the extent where they are even more determined that
their old man should be the candidate and nobody else. These are people who abandoned the
Democrats for Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate who managed to make Sarah Palin look
intelligent. They will do it again because they are largely white, male and think just
because they read liberal newspapers that means they don't have a sense of entitlement.
Both Michigan and Pennsylvania would have gone to Clinton if only 20% of Green voters
hadn't lodged protest votes. These people don't want Elizabeth Warren, they don't want Kamala
Harris, they don't want Beto O'Rourke, they don't want Pete Buttigieg. They want Bernie. If
Bernie isn't the Democrat, they won't vote Democrat.
You can dismiss this as much as you like, but I placed a bet on Trump winning the
Republican nomination when he was the joke candidate and when he won the nomination I bet on
him winning the presidency. I think that would be an even safer bet this time round.
That's just funny. She's been behind some of the major legislation that enacted the things
that Bernie Sanders talks about. And Wall Street is scared crapless of her -- why do you
think they're going after her so hard?
This conjecture is entirely fiction at best but centrist neo libeberal bollocks as a
certainty. Warren was and is a republican. She is a corporate bootlicker, a thrall of Hillary
and has no serious attachment to truth. I regret to admit that I am a US citizen, 68 years of
age. I have wittnessed Warren's shameless plagirising of Bernie Sanders' arguments and am
sickened to see her lionized by people who, if honest, should know better.
The columnist is right about Warren's intellectual stature and influence, and anyone who's
looked at what she's accomplished for Massachusetts (or for that matter watched her takedown
of the sleazy head of Wells Fargo during the Senate hearings) knows she's tough. She also has
a *workable* vision of what the Democrats could offer Americans. From affordable childcare to
making college tuition affordable again to helping out working-class people like the
fisherman in Massachusetts, while reigning in the banks and making sure we don't have another
crash – it's the blueprint.
There's something hysterically funny about all the people who have signed in here, clearly
skipped the article, just to yell "squirrel!" – or in this case -- "oh no she filled
out the optional ethnicity box and it turns out her family stories were mistaken!"
What they're missing, what Warren is laying out and the article is pointing out, is what
the GOP will really be up against in the future.
I don't like this argument: she may not win the primary, but it's her ideas that will
dominate the conversation.
It worked for Bernie supporters to console themselves.
If we elect someone, it needs to be the person who will be passionate about that idea (as
opposed to lukewarm like Pelosi is on Green New Deal). We need someone who knows what it will
take to get it done. What will get in the way. How to get around it.
Warren not only had the idea for CFPB. She actually set it up. Then Obama lacked the moral
courage and political spine to have her lead the agency - just because Wall Street had
pressured the Democrats against it.
Warren is the right candidate for the right time. She has ideas to fix the country and
doesn't just rail against people. That's why even Steve Bannon is scared of her policy
positions that they could be theirs.
Democrats need to stop playing pundits and go with their heart. If they vote for someone
they like less but because he (why is it always a 'he' who is electable?) can win - we will
end up with a candidate no one really cares about and how is that a winning strategy?
Democrat primary voters need to recognise that defeating Trump is going to be very difficult.
Since WW II, only Jimmy Carter and George Bush Sr. have failed to win re-election, in both
cases to superb campaigners who captured the public's imagination and, critically, swing
voters.
Which of the potential Democrat challengers is a Ronald Reagan or a Bill Clinton? Or,
indeed, a Barack Obama?
For a dose of reality, Democrats could do worse than read Mike Bloomberg's piece on his
decision to stay out of the race:
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-03-05/our-highest-office-my-deepest-obligation
Warren rules -- her policy ideas are creative, intelligent and moral, and the world would be
an indescribably better place if people like her were ever allowed into positions of
authority. That anyone on the planet would prefer to be represented by someone like Biden,
never mind Trump, is utterly depressing.
Sadly, FOX News has already issued their proscribed talking points on Sen.Warren. You will
find them listed and repeated anywhere Elizabeth's Warren's candidacy is discussed (including
here). Most of it will be lies or exaggerations, claims that she received jobs and promotions
based on her claims of Native American ancestry, claims that she received scholarships or
some kind of preferential treatment by calling herself an "Indian". They will insist that
this is an obvious character flaw, that she's a liar and some sort of cultural thief.
Sadly, too many American's still imagine FOX News and it's ilk are purveyors of fact. They
imagine the propaganda they are being fed about Elizabeth Warren is a truth the "mainstream
media" won't mention. We saw all of this with Hillary Clinton. 30% of Republican voters still
think Sec. Clinton ran a pedophile ring out of a DC pizza parlor.
If Sen.Warren, or any other rational candidate has a fair chance at running for President,
if all the lies and propaganda of the right-wing media establishment are to be countered, the
left and the center of US politics needs an effective counter to right-wing narrative.
A presidential campaign is not about specific, detailed policy proposals. It's about a vision
for the country. A vision that must be consistent with voters' feelings and expectations; and
must be communicated in a clear, energetic way by an effective messenger. That's the way
Reagan, Clinton, Obama and Trump won.
Does anybody remember Trump's healthcare policy?
People don't vote for policy manifestos. People vote for candidates that inspire and
convince.
If Warren is the 'intellectual powerhouse' of the Democratic party, then god help them. Not a
word about 1 trillion dollar budget deficits and rising (under Trump)-but remember Obama was
little better; in 15 years time the US state pension system will be bankrupt, various other
states' pension schemes are also effectively bankrupt (see Illinois, Tennessee) as are
various cities (Chicago), and all Warren and Trump can think of is more debt, and nor will
MMT help (we know this is just deficit spending on steroids). None of these people are
'progressive' - by not tacking the key problem of runaway debt it just robs everyone by
forcing a default - not an 'honest' one, but rather the route taken by all politicians,
namely rapid devaluation of the currency; something that robs all people, and destroys
savings. Instead all we get are jam today, and bankruptcy tomorrow.
She changed her ethnicity from white to Native American at the University of Pennsylvania Law
School. Also, a large majority of Americans have Native American DNA....and EW has less than
the average American (which is 5%)...she has 0.20. She abused a privilege and got called out.
She's too damn smart, is the problem. Along with all her qualifications she has also a lot of
very solid wins that she brought home for the people of Massachusetts as a senator, from
helping fisherman to low-income students suffering from college debt -- emphasizing that
she's actually helped working class people and people in student debt should be a no brainer.
And yet she seems not to have a savvy political operator advising her – she sure as
hell hasn't gotten out ahead of the Native American thing, and I don't know why no one is
doing that for her.
"Elizabeth Warren is the intellectual powerhouse of the Democratic party"
Then they really are in trouble.....
Just take 1 point....
"She has called for abolishing the electoral college, the unfair institution the US used
to elect executives "
Well that requires a constitutional amendment, that requires a two thirds majority in both
houses and then ratification by three quarters of the States. The ERA was proposed in 1923
didn't get through Congress until 1972 and is still short of the 38 State ratifications to
adopt it. That's an issue of direct concern to at least half the population. The idea that a
procedural change to the constitution for partisan benefit is getting through the process is
blatantly laughable. Particularly as there appear to be about 27 states that have enhanced
importance under the current system ( http://theconversation.com/whose-votes-count-the-least-in-the-electoral-college-74280
) and only 13 are needed to kill it.
Warren has the same foreign policy as all the others, invade, sanction, destroy. Steal oil,
gold and assets. The US has become a deluded neurotic police state rife with addiction and so
addled it is no longer a force for good in any sphere.
In short it is now a part of the
problem and no longer a part of any workable solution. Who becomes POTUS is therefore
irrelevant.
Warren is flawed ideologically and personally, US citizens need to wake up and recognise that the POTUS is an irrelevant position with no authority and that until you
tackle the neocon ridden nature of US politics nothing will ever change.
There is no hope in
systems, only hope in people. Politics has become irrelevant in the face of our impending
extinction.
"... Posturing as a would-be American native and supporting racial retributions is as far from qualifying as an intellectual powerhouse as it gets. She would be better than Trump, obviously, but then anybody would. ..."
It may well not be Warren who wins the Democratic nomination, but whoever does will be
campaigning on her ideas
since her initial announcement in December, Warren's campaign has rolled out a series of
detailed policy proposals in quick succession, outlining structural changes to major
industries, government functions, and regulatory procedures that would facilitate more
equitable representation in the federal government and overhaul the economy in favor of the
working class. These policy proposals have made Warren the Democratic party's new intellectual
center of gravity, a formidable influence who is steadily pushing the presidential primary
field to the left and forcing all of her primary challengers to define their political
positions against hers.
Warren has become the Democratic party's new intellectual center of gravity
Warren herself is an anti-trust nerd, having come to the Senate from a career as an academic
studying corporate and banking law. On the stump, she's most detailed in the same areas where
she is most passionate, like when she talks about about breaking
up huge tech companies such as Amazon and Google, and implementing a 21st-century --
version of the Glass-Steagall act that would separate commercial and investment banking (she
has also called for prosecuting and
jailing bank executives who break the law). But her policy agenda is broader than that,
taking on pocketbook issues that have resonance with working families.
Warren outlined a huge overhaul of the childcare system that would revolutionize the
quality, cost and curriculum of early childhood education, with subsidies for families and a
living wage for caregivers. It's a proposal that she talks about in the context of her own
career when, as a young mother and fledgling legal mind, she almost had to give up a job as a
law professor because childcare for her young son was too expensive.
Warren has also proposed a housing plan
that would limit huge investors' abilities to buy up homes, give incentives for localities to
adopt renters' protections, and build new public housing. Crucially, and uniquely, her housing
plan would also provide home
ownership grants to buyers in minority communities that have historically been "redlined",
a term for the racist federal housing policies that denied federally backed mortgages to black
families. The provision, aimed to help black and brown families buy their first homes, is a
crucial step toward amending the racial wealth gap, and it has helped sparked a broader
conversation within the party about the need to
pay reparations to the descendants of slaves -- a concept that Warren has also
endorsed.
Taking her cues from pro-democracy and voting rights advocates such as Stacey Abrams, Warren
has also taken on anti-majoritarian constitutional provisions, aiming to make American
democracy more representative and less structurally hostile to a progressive agenda. She has
called for abolishing the
electoral college , the unfair institution the US uses to elect chief executives that makes
a vote in New York count less than a vote in Wyoming, and which has resulted in two disastrous
Republican presidencies in the past two decades. She has advocated eliminating the filibuster
, an archaic procedural quirk of the Senate that would keep the Democrats from ever passing
their agenda if they were to regain control of that body. And she has signaled a willingness to
pack the
courts , another move that will be necessary to implement leftist policies such as Medicare
for All -- because even if the next Democratic president can pass her agenda through Congress,
she will not be able to protect it from the malfeasance of a federal bench filled with
conservative Trump appointees eager to strike it down.
When other candidates campaign, Warren's strong policy positions force them to define
themselves against her
Warren has been the first to propose all of these policies, and it is not difficult to see
other candidates falling in line behind her, issuing belated and imitative policy proposals, or
being forced to position themselves to her right. Warren has promised not to go negative
against other Democrats , but her campaign's intellectual
project also serves a political purpose: when other candidates campaign, her strong policy
positions force them to define themselves against her.
After Warren announced her childcare overhaul, senators Kirsten Gillibrand and Kamala Harris
rolled out plans similarly designed to combat gendered economic injustice, calling for
guaranteed family leave and
better teacher
pay , respectively. After Warren rolled out her pro-democracy agenda of eliminating the
electoral college, abolishing the filibuster and packing the courts, her ideological rival
Bernie Sanders was forced to come out against
both eliminating the filibuster and
packing the courts , damaging his reputation with a party base who knew that without these
interventions, a progressive agenda will probably never be enacted. The pressure eventually
forced Sanders to cave to Warren's vision and concede that he would be open to eliminating the
filibuster in order to pass Medicare for All.
There's still a long time before the first contests, and it's possible that Warren will
succumb to the flaws that her critics see in her campaign. In particular, she might not be able
to raise enough money. She's decided not to take any Pac money and not to fundraise with
wealthy donors, a position that may be as much practical as it is principled: the super-rich
are not likely to donate to Warren anyway, since she has such a detailed plan, called the
Ultra Millionaire Tax , to redistribute their money. She may fall victim to the seemingly
unshakable controversy over her old claims of Native American ancestry, and she seems doomed to
be smeared and underestimated for her sex, called
cold and unlikable for her intellect and then, as with other female candidates, derided as
pandering when she tries to seem more relatable.
But it would be a mistake to write Warren off as a virtuous also-ran, the kind of candidate
whose intellectual and moral commitments doom her in a race dominated by the deep divisions in
the electorate and the craven demagoguery of the incumbent. Elizabeth Warren does not seem to
be running for president to make a point, or to position herself for a different job. Instead,
she is making bold interventions in the political imagination of the party. It may well not be
Warren who wins the Democratic nomination, but whoever does will be campaigning on her
ideas.
Thanks Ken and Thomas. I couldn't have said it better myself. Are we going to pare down the
list of Democratic candidates on the basis of one or two stupid missteps? Looking through the
Bible, I note that Jesus lost his temper at the money-changers and put down the hard-working
Martha. So, he's out too.
Not only the USA, with everyone becoming wealthier, the need for education has declined,
across the western world, being liberal or educated has become a swear word. Social media and
lazy journalists are doing the rest, its all propaganda now, and permanent contradictory
stories means only simple messages cut through the noise, hatred, immigrants, islamophobia,
anti-semitism, etc. are classic messages that get through and stir people's emotions.
Intellect doesn't win elections with a gullible electorate
It was a mistake and it was self-interested and it was unethical. And it was a different time
before tribal groups in the US developed and enforced laws regarding membership status. Had
Trump not shown disdain for her and all native Americans by calling her Pocahontas as though
it were a racial slur, few would have made a big deal from this mistake.
Warren did confess without need to do so that she had purchased distressed mortgages to turn
a profit as a young lawyer like so many of her ethically misguided law colleagues.
If you are
or intimately know more than two attorneys you know this was and in some towns and cities
still is common practice for building wealth among lawyers who have first notice when these
“deals” are posted at the local Court House. Find me a “clean” lawyer
anywhere if you can and I doubt you can — they write law and protect themselves and
wealthy constituents mightily in doing so.
If you can help remove most of them from political
office and replace them with people working professions of greater merit I stand with you.
Congress needs intellectual strength and diversity
of backgrounds.
Unfortunately she opposes wars of choice from the position of an impressive service record
in Iraq so she gets ignored in favour of the ridiculous Elizabeth Warren here and in other
places. Warren's window was last time anyway when she was coming off the back of viral public
speeches about inequality.
Posturing as a would-be American native and supporting racial retributions is as far from
qualifying as an intellectual powerhouse as it gets.
She would be better than Trump, obviously, but then anybody would.
While I'd prefer the genders reversed, I think she would be an ideal running mate for the
front-runner among the declared candidates.
Sanders has much more assiduously defined the moral center that any candidate for
president must have: unapologetic confrontation with the oligarchy. Warren is the
intellectual weapon such an administration could deploy on the specifics of banking and
anti-trust.
This is all the more practical given that Warren has failed to tie race, social justice
and criminal justice issues all together in her values-based worldview -- certainly not to
the extent that Sanders has, his being well beyond any other candidate's efforts.
Because Obama was a canny corporate move to place someone that offered such qualities as
intelligence and grammar in sharp relief to GW Bush while remaining closely controlled by the
oligarchy.
Do you include her fraudulent and offensive claims to Native American heritage in that?
As CNN has reported, as far back as 1986 she was falsely claiming "American Indian" heritage
on official documents.
Despite repeated calls by the leaders of the Tribal Nations, she has still failed to
apologise. That's some intellectual powerhouse..
@Thomm
That's so true that it's almost incredible, Andrew Anglin of the daily stormer has been
campaigning for Tulsi Gabbard & Andrew Yang for well over a month
He could be said to be instrumental in putting Yang on the democratic primaries and
possibly Tulsi as well all the while using his weaponized memes against Trump!! I'm in
disbelief.
Gabbard: Assange arrest is a threat to journalists
By Rachel Frazin – 04/11/19 06:10 PM EDT
Democratic presidential hopeful Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) condemned the arrest of
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on Thursday, calling the arrest a threat to
journalists.
"The arrest of #JulianAssange is meant to send a message to all Americans and
journalists: be quiet, behave, toe the line. Or you will pay the price," Gabbard
tweeted.
The Democrat's remark came hours after police in London arrested Assange, citing charges
he is facing in the U.S.
Assange is accused of conspiring to hack into computers in connection with WikiLeaks's
release of classified documents from former Army private and intelligence analyst Chelsea
Manning.
At least 60 companies reported an effective federal tax rate of zero, meaning they owe
nothing in federal taxes for 2018, and that tax burden then falls on the rest of us. Senator
Elizabeth Warren has a plan to fix that. She joins Stephanie Ruhle in her first interview since
unveiling her proposal.
60 years ago every job offered health insurance, retirement plans, paid vacation, and all
sorts of other benefits. It's time to have them pay a share of our societies costs, they use
the same roads, breathe the same air, and drink the same water...
Warren has consistently amazed me with her proposals... I hope she will make it to the
debates, since everyone's fawning over Bernie and Beto for their fundraising capabilities, I
hope they are not trying to sink her...
Warren Buffet, who saved 28 or so million on his, himself said trumps tax deal was
foolish..but he also said he wouldn't turn it down, which i don't blame him on that..
Senator Warren makes some excellent points (as usual): "market" implies a competitive
environment, so when huge corps squeeze out competitors, it's no longer a "market".
Corporations/rich individuals always say they made their profits themselves (independently of
others or of any social structure systems). Really? If you were living/doing business on a
mountaintop, disconnected from everyone else and any infrastructure support, you would have
done just as well? That's a load of crap, and if they had any responsibility at all (as
opposed to just pure greed), they'd be willing to give back a bit and contribute to the
system(s) they build their wealth on.
The fact is that the wealthy all over the world do not want their position of privilege to
be challenged. This is why Bernie Sanders has been saying (for several DECADES) that the only
way to move our society forward is to build from the bottom up... not the top down. And he is
100% correct.
Odd thing, but suddenly I remember how John McCain came out of nowhere back in 2008.
Polling in single digits, suddenly the man is hyped like hell and becomes the candidate.
Perfect foil for Obama, I suppose.
Somehow reminds me of 2016, but then Obama was an unknown, not the most hated politician
in the US.
^^^
As for "why now" on the arrest of Assange, it diverts attention from a lot of other
topics. Some of those will probably never re-surface.
"... Attorney General Barr stated the obvious--law enforcement and intelligence agencies spied on Donald Trump's campaign ..."
"... I had learned in December 2016 from friends inside the intelligence community that there was collaboration with the Brits to collect and disseminate intel on persons on the Trump campaign. With Trump's tweet making news, I was invited by RT (i.e., Russia Today) to come on one of their news programs and discuss the matter that same afternoon. ..."
"... I then shared what I had learned about British intelligence ops to intercept U.S. communications on people affiliated with the Trump campagin with members of VIPS—i.e., Veteran Intelligence Professionals. One of these colleagues shared my analysis without my knowledge with Judge Andrew Napolitano. ..."
"... The Brits reportedly initiated collection on their own. The “collection” from those intercepted conversations and emails were shared with the Obama Administration through normal intelligence channels—i.e., principally the NSA. It is important to note that the Brits targeting and collecting on Americans is not illegal. We are foreigners as far as they are concerned. They can collect anything. ..."
"... The Independent ..."
"... I felt sorry for the Judge and knew he was being railroaded. But I did not expect a phone call from him, asking for my help. He called and asked me to help. Prior to the phone call on Thursday, March 16, 2017, I had never spoken to the Judge. We were not even casual acquaintances. ..."
"... Grynbaum is a classic example of what is wrong with the journalism today. For starters, he manufactured the “Frederick Forsyth” quote. I said no such thing. Besides fabricating a quote, he refused to address the substance of my information regarding the activities and conduct of British GCHQ. Instead, he went for the “Whitey” smear. ..."
"... This was a dark period for me. People I thought I could rely on abandoned me. I was on my own. But not for long. Rescue came via Judge Napolitano and an unlikely source, The Guardian—a left leaning British newspaper. The Judge was brought back on air at Fox on March 29, 2017 and stood his ground: ..."
"... On Wednesday morning, Napolitano returned to the network, making an appearance on “Fox & Friends.” His first order of business? Doubling down on the claims that got him suspended in the first place. (From the Washington Post, 29 March 2017, Amy Wang). ..."
"... Two weeks later, on April 13 th , The Guardian not only confirmed what I had said about GCHQ (note, in some of my on air interviews I stupidly and mistakenly called the British spy agence GHCQ) but identified other countries as well who were collecting intelligence, i.e., intercepting communications : ..."
"... There is a simple bottomline—My information was accurate and reliable. Also, I had the story before anyone else. Journalists and pundits were unwilling to listen. ..."
"... Former national security adviser Susan Rice privately told House investigators that she unmasked the identities of senior Trump officials to understand why the crown prince of the United Arab Emirates was in New York late last year, multiple sources told CNN. ..."
"... Do you understand what this means? If you have never had a clearance and had access to NSA material then you probably fail to understand how profound this is. Let me explain. There were multiple intelligence reports released by the NSA. I am pretty certain all were classified as Top Secret. Some of these may have been generated by NSA, but most, according to the Guardian piece I mentioned above, were from foreign liaison. The names of the American citizens were initially obscured--e.g., Subject 1 or Subject 2. Hence the "request" to unmask. In other words, identify the nameless person by name. That, boys and girls, is known as spying. ..."
"... Bill Barr is now getting the Larry Johnson treatment for daring to speak a simple, self-evident truth. One big difference. Barr can set in motion the legal process to indict and prosecute those American traitors in the law enforcement and intelligence community who violated their oath to uphold the Constitution and used their positions to launch a political witch-hunt. Stay tuned. ..."
"... Thank you for this clarifying account. I used to read NoQuarter back in the day, and had been mystified when it was taken down. Now I understand, and am glad that Col. Lang has facilitated your return to blogging. ..."
Attorney General Barr stated the obvious--law enforcement and intelligence agencies spied on Donald Trump's campaign -- and touched
off an incredible display of stupidity and obtuseness among the Trump haters. Me? I was cheering because Bill Barr confirmed what
I said two years ago. Unfortunately, for daring to speak a simple truth in the spring of 2017 I immediately was a target of the hate
Trump media mob.
I was attacked for telling the public the truth that foreign intelligence--the British to be precise--were spying on the Trump
campaign and passing this info along to US intelligence. But the Brits were not acting unilaterally. There was full cooperation and
activity by U.S. intelligence agencies and the FBI. Another word for this is "COLLUSION."
My speaking out brought about a furious counter attack by the media. People inside the Department of Justice reached out to my
business partner and denounced me as a crank and conspiracy theorist. Because of that backlash I took down my blog, NoQuarter, and
"retired" from blogging. Thanks to generosity of Colonel Lang, I eventually climbed back onto the blogging saddle.
Let me take you back to the events that unfolded after Donald Trump tweeted on March 4, 2017 that he was being wiretapped by the
FBI. The media establishment erupted in laughter and saw this as just one more piece of evidence proving Trump's mental instability.
But I had a different take.
I had learned in December 2016 from friends inside the intelligence community that there was collaboration with the Brits to collect
and disseminate intel on persons on the Trump campaign. With Trump's tweet making news, I was invited by RT (i.e., Russia Today)
to come on one of their news programs and discuss the matter that same afternoon.
Worth noting that my appearance on RT made no waves and generated no pushback. That tells you everything you need to know about
RT’s alleged influence over public and punditry opinion as an alleged arm of Russian propaganda.
I then shared what I had learned about British intelligence ops to intercept U.S. communications on people affiliated with the
Trump campagin with members of VIPS—i.e., Veteran Intelligence Professionals. One of these colleagues shared my analysis without
my knowledge with Judge Andrew Napolitano.
Napolitano went on Fox on Monday, March 13, 2017 and declared:
On Monday, Fox News Channel judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano alleged that three intelligence sources
had confirmed to him that the Obama administration used GCHQ (Britain's NSA) to spy on President Trump during the 2016 election so
that there would be no paper trail.
"Three intelligence sources have informed Fox News that President Obama went outside the 'chain of command' to conduct the surveillance
on Trump," he said. "Obama didn’t use the NSA, he didn’t use the CIA, he didn’t use the FBI, and he didn’t use the Department of
Justice."
"What happened to the guy who ordered this? Resigned three days after Trump took office," he added.
The Judge got some key nuances wrong. Obama, to my knowledge, did not ask the Brits/GCHQ to do anything on his behalf. The Brits
reportedly initiated collection on their own. The “collection” from those intercepted conversations and emails were shared with the
Obama Administration through normal intelligence channels—i.e., principally the NSA. It is important to note that the Brits targeting
and collecting on Americans is not illegal. We are foreigners as far as they are concerned. They can collect anything.
The Judge’s comments set off a firestorm. In a matter of hours, Fox News Corporation, responding to pressure from the British
Government, took Napolitano off the air.
The Independent, a British newspaper, reported as follows:
A legal analyst who claimed British intelligence could have helped spy on
Donald Trump during his bid to become US president has been taken off
the air.
The Independent understands that Mr Napolitano is not expected to appear on the Fox News
Channel anytime in the near future.
The analyst's claim that GCHQ had helped former
president Barack Obama bug Trump Tower was cited last week by White
House press secretary Sean Spicer, sparking a diplomatic incident.
I felt sorry for the Judge and knew he was being railroaded. But I did not expect a phone call from him, asking for my help. He
called and asked me to help. Prior to the phone call on Thursday, March 16, 2017, I had never spoken to the Judge. We were not even
casual acquaintances.
Judge Napolitano, clearly smarting over the public lashing he was receiving, asked if I would be willing to speak to a New York
Times reporter, Michael Grynbaum, about the matter. I agreed to do so. That was a mistake. Here is how Grynbaum reported
what I did not say:
Mr. Napolitano also has a taste for conspiracy theories, which led him to Larry C. Johnson, a former
intelligence officer best known for spreading a hoax about Michelle Obama. . . .
But Mr. Johnson, who was himself once a Fox News contributor, said in a telephone interview that Mr.
Napolitano called him on Friday and requested that he speak to The New York Times. Mr. Johnson said he was one of the sources for
Mr. Napolitano’s claim about British intelligence.
Mr. Johnson became infamous in political circles after he spread false rumors in 2008 that Michelle
Obama had been videotaped using a slur against Caucasians. In the interview on Friday, Mr. Johnson acknowledged his notoriety, but
said that his knowledge of surveillance of Mr. Trump came from sources in the American intelligence community. Mr. Napolitano, he
said, heard about his information through an intermediary.
“It sounds like a Frederick Forsyth novel,” Mr. Johnson said.
Grynbaum is a classic example of what is wrong with the journalism today. For starters, he manufactured the “Frederick Forsyth”
quote. I said no such thing. Besides fabricating a quote, he refused to address the substance of my information regarding the activities
and conduct of British GCHQ. Instead, he went for the “Whitey” smear.
If you are not familiar with that episode, permit me to refresh your memory or create a new one for you. It is a simple story—I
allowed myself to be used by Clinton campaign, Sid Blumenthal in particular, to spread a rumor that turned out to be untrue.
I was an ardent supporter of Hillary in 2007 and 2008. I had previously briefed her in 2007 on the war in Iraq and found her,
at least in a one-on-one setting, to be very intelligent and very well informed. But that was then. Her subsequent conduct as the
Secretary of State, especially how she mishandled the Benghazi incident, ended any chance that I would ever support her for any role
in which the lives of American military, diplomats or intelligence officers are on the line.
After that briefing, I found myself as an unofficial member of the Clinton for President team via my friendship with Sid Blumenthal.
I had enormous respect for Sid and his wife. I thought they were good people. The only thing I now know for certain is that they
are fiercely loyal to the Clintons.
As the contest between Hillary and Barach Obama heated up, Sid would call me from time to time with suggestions of articles I
could write or pieces that could be run on my now defunct blog--NoQuarterUSa.net. I was more than happy to help. I believed then
(and have been vindicated by the passage of time) that Barack Obama was just a pretty face with no significant experience and he
would be a terrible President.
Then came the fateful phone call from Sid Blumenthal in late May 2008. He told me he had learned of a tape that was circulating
in restricted circles that featured Michelle Obama using the derogatory phrase, “whitey.” Armed with that tidbit of gossip I turned
to an old friend in the media community and he too confirmed he had heard the same thing (stupidly, I never considered the possibility
that Sid was spreading this far and wide and that I was getting blowback).
When I mentioned the possible existence of this tape to a Republican friend of mine and former CIA colleague in California, I
was shocked when he said, “I have a friend who has seen and heard the tape. That was enough for me. Based on these two sources, I
wrote the story up at NoQuarterUSA.net.
It went viral. But nothing surfaced. I became uneasy. So I went back to Sid and pressed him for more information. He in turn sent
me to David Brock of Media Matters. (I had met Brock previously at the Blumenthal home watching election returns in 2006.) Brock
told me that the information came from female friend who insisted she had seen and heard the slur by Michelle Obama.
The matter became more confused when the Obama campaign sent out an email to their campaign workers claiming that Michelle said
“WHY DID HE” rather than the pejorative, “WHITEY.” That led me to believe there was substance to the Blumenthal/Brock rumor.
Ultimately the story died out. No tape surfaced, but I bore the blame as the “Whitey” guy. With the benefit of hindsight I now
understand that I was an unwitting but willing tool in a David Brock dirty trick. No such tape ever surfaced. I can only conclude
that the desperation of the Clinton campaign to win was so extreme that they would stoop to use a racist meme to smear Obama.
I regret what I did in writing the story up. But it did not originate with me. It started with David Brock. Which brings me back
to the Napolitano affair.
After Grynbaun identified me as one of Judge Napolitano’s sources, it was open season on me. Not one of the media outlets—except
for CNN and the Politico — even took the time to reach out to me and ask me to tell my side of the story. Instead, they recirculated
talking points from Media Matters.
Here is what I told Brian Stelter during this period:
Talk about Chutzpah. David Brock started the Whitey rumor (I will happily take a polygraph on that point) and then has the audacity
to attack me and dismiss my information (via Media Matters) simply because I had passed on rumors where he was the original source:
Media Matters first traced Napolitano's wiretapping conspiracy back to an interview on the state-sponsored Russian television
network RT with the former CIA analyst and discredited conspiracy theorist Larry C. Johnson, who previously promoted false claims
that Michelle Obama used a racial slur against Caucasian people.
This was a dark period for me. People I thought I could rely on abandoned me. I was on my own. But not for long. Rescue came via
Judge Napolitano and an unlikely source, The Guardian—a left leaning British newspaper. The Judge was brought back on air at Fox
on March 29, 2017 and stood his ground:
On Wednesday morning, Napolitano returned to the network, making an appearance on “Fox & Friends.”
His first order of business? Doubling down on the claims that got him suspended in the first place. (From the Washington Post, 29
March 2017, Amy Wang).
Two weeks later, on April 13th, The Guardian not only confirmed what I had said about GCHQ (note, in some of my on
air interviews I stupidly and mistakenly called the British spy agence GHCQ) but identified other countries as well who were collecting
intelligence, i.e.,
intercepting communications:
Britain’s spy agencies played a crucial role in alerting their counterparts in Washington to contacts
between members of Donald Trump’s campaign team and Russian intelligence operatives, the Guardian has been told.
GCHQ first became aware in late 2015 of suspicious
“interactions” between figures connected to Trump and known or suspected Russian agents, a source close to UK intelligence said.
This intelligence was passed to the US as part of a routine exchange of information, they added.
Over the next six months, until summer 2016, a number of western agencies shared further information
on contacts between Trump’s inner circle and Russians, sources said.
There is a simple bottomline—My information was accurate and reliable. Also, I had the story before anyone else. Journalists and
pundits were unwilling to listen.
We know a lot more today then we did in the Spring of 2017. George Papadopoulos was targeted by a MI-6 covert action designed
to portray him as a lackey of Russia and promoting Russia to the Trump campaign. Carter Page was spied upon under four separate FISA
warrants that were based on the fictitious Steel Dossier. And a CIA "contractor", Stefan Halper, played the role of an agitator trying
to lure Papadopoulos into implicating himself in a Russian plot.
Former national security adviser Susan Rice privately told House
investigators that she unmasked the identities of senior Trump officials to understand why the crown prince of the United Arab Emirates
was in New York late last year, multiple sources told CNN.
The New York meeting preceded a separate effort by the UAE to facilitate a back-channel communication between Russia and the incoming
Trump White House.
Do you understand what this means? If you have never had a clearance and had access to NSA material then you probably fail to understand
how profound this is. Let me explain. There were multiple intelligence reports released by the NSA. I am pretty certain all were
classified as Top Secret. Some of these may have been generated by NSA, but most, according to the Guardian piece I mentioned above,
were from foreign liaison. The names of the American citizens were initially obscured--e.g., Subject 1 or Subject 2. Hence the "request"
to unmask. In other words, identify the nameless person by name. That, boys and girls, is known as spying.
Bill Barr is now getting the Larry Johnson treatment for daring to speak a simple, self-evident truth. One big difference. Barr can
set in motion the legal process to indict and prosecute those American traitors in the law enforcement and intelligence community
who violated their oath to uphold the Constitution and used their positions to launch a political witch-hunt. Stay tuned.
Thank you for this clarifying account. I used to read NoQuarter back in the day, and had been mystified when it was taken down.
Now I understand, and am glad that Col. Lang has facilitated your return to blogging.
And just in time to see some of your tormentors - and unsurprisingly the very same tormentors of our constitutional republic
- be (hopefully) called to account for their actions.
The Lame Stream Media have much for which to answer concerning their part in all of this; they have abrogated their role as
even-handed watchdogs through their open-eyed and monolithic dissemination of hyper-partisan, cultural marxist agitprop, much
of it focused on character assassination of those who did not share their beliefs, and yet more noxiously by throttling the expression
of contrary argumentation across the board.
But the genuine opprobium should be reserved for those officers and officials, sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution,
who determinedly worked to instead disregard and undermine the Constitution, and the constitutional republic which it undergirds.
Unfortunately, the near totality of this country's populace is effectively illiterate
and poorly equipped to think critically and independently, preferring to accept the
verdicts of their oleaginous talking heads at face value without ever troubling themselves
to examine why.
(The dubious products of the glorified diploma mills we call "higher education" are
often the most gullible and dim-witted.)
Someday, when we all have multiple degrees from prestigious institutions of exalted
learning, our collective I.Q. will be substantially higher than it is today, and we will
understand everything.
span y apenultimate on Wed, 04/10/2019 - 7:09pm She did it, an hour ago!
Tulsi Gabbard now has enough individual donors to make it into the televised Democratic
debates! Thanks to those of you who helped, either by becoming a donor, or in spirit!
The main way big corporations corrupt the movement is by lobbing for tax preferential regime.
Neoliberalism included "voodoo" supply side economics thory that speculates that lower taxes
increase employment, while in reality they mostly increase the wealth of capital owners. This
theory is brainwashed itno people minds by relentless neoliberal propaganda machine -- all major
MSM are controlled by neoliberals. Common people have no say in this gbig game.
But tax regime is the battlefield were big capital fights labor and big capital since 1970
won all major battles.
Notable quotes:
"... "Because of relentless lobbying, our corporate income tax rules are filled with so many loopholes and exemptions and deductions that even companies that tell shareholders they have made more than a billion dollars in profits can end up paying no corporate income taxes," Warren wrote in a Medium post unveiling the plan. "Let's bring in the revenue we need to invest in opportunity for all Americans. And let's make this year the last year any company with massive profits pays zero federal taxes." ..."
"... Warren's plan is aimed at large corporations -- ones that have generally paid lower tax rates than smaller companies in recent years. The GOP tax cut law nearly doubled the number of publicly held companies that paid no federal taxes from 30 to 60 in the last year alone, according to a recent study from the left-leaning Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. ..."
"... This is the latest significant tax proposal the Massachusetts senator has unveiled as part of her campaign platform, which also includes a two percent surtax on people with more than $50 million in assets and a three percent surtax on those who have $1 billion. ..."
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) unveiled a major plank in her
platform to tax the rich on Thursday, introducing plans for a new tax on all corporations that
clear $100 million in annual profits.
Warren's "real corporate profits tax" is aimed at large corporations like Amazon that have
generated huge profits in recent years while almost entirely avoiding federal taxes through a
series of loopholes and credits.
"Because of relentless lobbying, our corporate income tax rules are filled with so many
loopholes and exemptions and deductions that even companies that tell shareholders they have
made more than a billion dollars in profits can end up paying no corporate income taxes,"
Warren
wrote in a Medium post unveiling the plan. "Let's bring in the revenue we need to invest in
opportunity for all Americans. And let's make this year the last year any company with massive
profits pays zero federal taxes."
The plan would institute a seven percent tax on profits over $100 million in addition to
current taxes. An economic analysis released by Warren's campaign estimated that at least 1,200
companies would be forced to pay new taxes under the plan, generating a net revenue boost of at
least $1 trillion for the government.
Warren's plan is aimed at large corporations -- ones that have generally paid lower tax
rates than smaller companies in recent years. The GOP tax cut law nearly doubled the number of
publicly held companies that paid no federal taxes from 30 to 60 in the last year alone,
according to a recent study from the left-leaning Institute on Taxation and Economic
Policy.
This is the latest significant tax proposal the Massachusetts senator has unveiled as part
of her campaign platform, which also includes a two percent surtax on people with more than $50
million in assets and a three percent surtax on those who have $1 billion.
The plans have earned her plaudits on the left and drawn concern from some more
business-friendly moderate Democrats.
But so far, they haven't proven a game-changer in the presidential race. Warren continues to
struggle to siphon off a significant chunk of voters who backed Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) last
election, her natural base of support. She's regularly polled in the mid- to upper-single
digits in recent state and national polls, in the second tier of candidates.
And she
raised just $6 million in her first quarter in the campaign, her team announced yesterday.
That's not a terrible haul in a crowded field, especially since she's sworn off big donors, but
it's nothing compared to the huge sums she pulled in as a Senate candidate -- and trailed even
upstart South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg (D).
She also spent almost all of that money, having
built out a large staff in the early primary states with a high payroll.
And Sanders isn't giving her much room on her left: He reintroduced a
sweeping Medicare for all plan on Wednesday, which she cosponsored, a move that puts
pressure on Warren and other Democrats to keep up as they try to woo the progressive wing of
the party base.
"... He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague ..."
A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from
within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner
openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling
through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself.
For the traitor appears
not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and
their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men.
He rots
the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of
the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to
fear. The traitor is the plague."
Trump betrayed white workers because he knows he can get away with it. For the last thirty years of the 20th century millions of
white families were wrenched out of the middle class without a squeak out of any major news outlet or national level politician. Trump
himself stiffed his workers in those days and got away with it.
Notable quotes:
"... “In 2008, Obama was touted as a political outsider who will hose away all of the rot and bloody criminality of the Bush years. He turned out to be a deft move by our ruling class. Though fools still refuse to see it, Obama is a perfect servant of our military banking complex. Now, Trump is being trumpeted as another political outsider. ..."
"... A Trump presidency will temporarily appease restless, lower class whites, while serving as a magnet for liberal anger. This will buy our ruling class time as they continue to wage war abroad while impoverishing Americans back home. Like Obama, Trump won’t fulfill any of his election promises, and this, too, will be blamed on bipartisan politics.” ..."
"... Yes, it would have been worse with the Cackling Hyena, but what does that tell ya? ..."
I'm not sure why the author of this article seems to be surprised by the actions of Trump and his administration. The collective
image of him as a blood-thirsty racist whose hatred of all peoples queer 'n' colored runs marrow and generations-deep -- think
of a cross between a street corner John Galt and Ian Smith, daubed with vague overtones of Archie Bunker mingling with Clint Eastwood
-- is purely an invention of the media, the left as well as that of the right.
Why or how he became the impromptu pope of white nationalism escapes me. Anyone with ears to listen and eyes to see could find
for themselves that he never so much as intimated even muted sympathy for that movement, not during his campaign and certainly
not as head of state, media accusations of "dog whistles" and the like notwithstanding.
But a demoralized white working and middle class were willing to believe in anything, deluding themselves into reading between
the barren eruptions of his blowzy proclamations. They elevated him to messianic heights, ironically fashioning him into that
which he publicly claims to despise: an Obama, a Barry in negative image, "hope and change" for the OxyContin and Breitbart set.
Like his predecessor, Trump never really says anything at all. There are grand pronouncements, bilious screeds targeting
perceived enemies, glib generalities, but rarely are any concrete, definitive ideas and policies ever articulated. Trump, like
Obama, is merely a cipher, an empty suit upon which the dreams (or nightmares) of the beholder can effortlessly be projected,
a polarizing figurehead who wields mostly ceremonial powers while others ostensibly beneath him busy themselves with the actual
running of the republic.
To observe this requires no great research or expenditure of effort -- he lays it all out there for anybody to hear or read.
Unfortunately, the near totality of this country's populace is effectively illiterate and poorly equipped to think critically
and independently, preferring to accept the verdicts of their oleaginous talking heads at face value without ever troubling themselves
to examine why. (The dubious products of the glorified diploma mills we call "higher education" are often the most gullible and
dim-witted.) Trump is the dark magus of racism and bigotry -- boo! Trump is the man of sorrows who will carry aloft Western Civilization
resurgent -- yay!
Just as the hysterical left was quickly shattered by the mediocrity that was Barack Obama, so too does the hysterical right
now ululate the sting of Donald Trump's supposed betrayal. As with their ideological antipodes, they got what they deserved. Pity
that the rest of us have to be carted along for the ride.
Politics, at least at the national level, is a puppet show to channel and periodically blow off dissent.
“In 2008, Obama was touted as a political outsider who will hose away all of the rot and bloody criminality of the Bush
years. He turned out to be a deft move by our ruling class. Though fools still refuse to see it, Obama is a perfect servant of
our military banking complex. Now, Trump is being trumpeted as another political outsider.
A Trump presidency will temporarily appease restless, lower class whites, while serving as a magnet for liberal anger.
This will buy our ruling class time as they continue to wage war abroad while impoverishing Americans back home. Like Obama, Trump
won’t fulfill any of his election promises, and this, too, will be blamed on bipartisan politics.”
Linh Dinh, “Orlando Shooting Means Trump for President,” published at The Unz Review, June 12, 2016.
who are those idiots who still keep showing up at his rallies?
See the SteveSailerism "Low-information voters."
If one is a regular reader of the Unz Review , one is almost by definition
not among this class of people. Regulars at sites like this are mainly all off towards
the right tail of the low-to-high 'information' distribution curve. It's easy to forget that
most of our fellow people are somewhere near the center of the curve, or in the left half.
And there is your answer.
Nothing gets my liberal friends gnashing their teeth harder than when I point out(with
facts) how Trump is just like Hillary – and that was before the election.
Yep. Trump's a lying POS pond scum like the rest of the DC swamp that he said he was going to
drain, turns out he is one of them all along. We elected America's first Jewish president,
nothing more. He needs to change his campaign slogan to MIGA, Make Israel Great Again, that
was the plan of his handlers all along.
What I want to know is, who are those idiots who still keep showing up at his rallies? Are
they really that dumb?
Even Sanders came out and said we can't have open borders. I've also heard him said back
in 2015 that the H1b visa program is a replacement program for American workers. If he grows
a pair and reverts back to that stance, teams up with Tulsi Gabbard, I'll vote for them 2020.
Fuck Trump! Time for him and his whole treasonous rat family to move to Israel where they
belong.
"... Then, flayed and pillaged by these gentry as they never were by the old-time professionals, they go back in despair to the latter, and are flayed and pillaged again." ..."
Reed was wrong here. The American voter, for the most part, still doesn't realize any of
this.
In June 1922 the Zionist halter was firmly reaffixed
round the neck of American State policy, and though American voter only slowly
realized this, it became immaterial to him which party prevailed at elections.
"First the poor taxpayers, robbed by the politicians of one great party and then by
those of the other, turn to a group of free-lance rogues in the middle ground --
non-partisan candidates, Liberals, reformers, or what not: the name is unimportant.
Then, flayed and pillaged by these gentry as they never were by the old-time
professionals, they go back in despair to the latter, and are flayed and pillaged
again."
Trump is attacked relentlessly by Israel firsters (both left and right) prior to, and after
his investiture as POTUS. How does he respond? How has he responded to relentless attacks on
his base? The man has no spine, and no sense of gratitude or morality.
'Not worth feeding' my late grandfather would have said. Although he has made a lot of
wealthy petulant people (who despise him and laugh behind his back) even wealthier.
What is needed is a billionaire who has genuine sense of noblesse oblige. Hopeless!
Of course Trump was a gamble. I clearly remember him saying he wanted to get out of Syria,
put an end to the endless wars, and he declared himself neutral on the Israel/Palestine
issue–those were the biggest reasons I voted for him. Turns out he lied big time.
Now what? Looking at the clown car of presidential candidates just induces political
nausea. No matter who gets elected it will be a government of, by, and for
Jewish/Israeli/Zionist interests.
In the meantime I see no real progress on putting the brakes on illegals flooding the
country. I see no economic miracles in spite of all the spin. Actual unemployment in the US
was at 21.2% in March, really not much better than it has been since the 2008 crash (
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts
), and record numbers of people are behind on mortgages and car payments, suicide and drug
casualties have been skyrocketing.
Our political system is not going to bring any solutions, it has been far too corrupt for
far too long.
"... Brookfield Asset Management has agreed to lease the troubled office tower for 99 years and is paying for the lease up front, rather than in the typical yearly ground rent, the Wall Street Journal reports. The financial terms of the deal were not made public, but the New York Times reports that Brookfield is paying $1.1B. ..."
"... Thanks b and you are wise to be sceptical. The up front payment to the Kusher kleptocracy by Brookfield Partners (Asset Management) is not just unusual but more like extraordinary! One test will be how this deal compares to other deals. Was Kushner avoiding taxes by doing a lease? Is this a common practice? ..."
"... It is an old story. From February 12, Bess Levin, Vanity Fair: Qatar Shocked, Shocked to Learn It Accidentally Bailed Out Jared Kushner ..."
"... In 2015, Kushner and his family business, Kushner Cos., bought a portion of the New York Times building on West 43rd Street from Russian /Israeli real estate billionaire Lev Leviev for $295M, where $285M was borrowed from Deutsche Bank to complete the transaction, despite the 666 albatross hanging over Kushners head ..."
"... Qatar paid over a billion dollars to build and expand the US base in Qatar and charges no rent for that base. This allows Qatar to easily brush aside any question of loyalty that may be posed by USA and makes the US/US military reluctant to pressure Qatar. But Israel would have no qualms about apply pressure. The "Jared bailout" allows for a narrative of Qatari leadership as weak and corrupt - much like the ridiculous claims that Putin is pro-Israel. ..."
Kushner Extorted Qatar - Or Did He?DG , Mar 30, 2019 5:37:23 PM |
link
The Hillreporter just published a very juicy story about Jared Kushner, the son in law and senior advisor of President
Trump.
It says that Kushner, with the help of the Saudi clown prince Mohammad bin Salman, extorted Qatar for $1 billion to save his families
real estate business in New York.
While the story sounds plausible and fits the public known timeline of other events, there is so far no evidence that supports
it.
Ward first talked through the story on yesterday's KrassenCast
, a podcast by the anti-Trump and
somewhat shady Krassenstein
brothers who also run the Hillreporter .
In 2007, at the hight of the real estate bubble, the Kushner family bought the 666 5th Avenue building in New York City for $1.8
billion. Ten years later the Kushners were in real trouble. Plans to replace the building with a new one found no financing. The
property was losing lots of money and a huge mortgage payment was due in January 2019. The family had to look for a bail out.
In early 2017 the Kushner family had several meetings with Qatari officials to discuss a deal. The Intercept
reported :
Joshua Kushner, a venture capitalist and the younger brother of White House adviser Jared Kushner, met with Qatari Finance Minister
Ali Sharif Al Emadi the same week as his father, Charles Kushner, did in April 2017, in an independent effort to discuss potential
investments from the Qatari government. Both meetings took place at Al Emadi's St. Regis Hotel suite in Manhattan.
This revelation comes after Charles Kushner, in an interview with the Washington Post this week, confirmed for the first time
that his meeting with Al Emadi had indeed taken place on the subject of financing for the underwater Kushner property at 666 Fifth
Avenue.
"What I have learned is that in the ensuing month [May 2017] before the US visit to Riyadh, Jared Kushner got on a plane and flew
to Doha, the Qatari capital, and he reamed the Qatari ruling family, the al-Thanis, for not doing the deal with his father They
began to feel that he was indirectly threatening their sovereignty. The next thing they know, when they show up to the summit
in Riyadh, the Emir, the ruler of Qatar, arrives with an entourage, but his entourage is suddenly cut off from him, and not allowed
into the summit at the same time by the Saudis, which he felt was a move to deliberately make him look weak. You have to remember
during this summit, Jared and Ivanka go off for a cozy secret unmonitored dinner with [Saudi Crown Prince] MBS. Nobody knows what
they talked about."
Fifteen days later the Saudis and the UAE blockade Qatar and send troops to its border. Trump supports the Saudi blockade against
the advice of his Secretary of State Tillerson and his Defense Secretary Mattis and despite the fact the the biggest U.S. base in
the area is in Qatar.
Nine months later, a Canadian company, Brookfield Partners, who the Qatari Investment Authority owns a $1.8 billion or 9% stake
in, bailed out Kushner Properties, with a 99-year lease agreement for 666 5th Ave.
...
Around this same time, President Trump publicly shifts course, no longer supporting the blockade, as Secretary of State Mike Pompeo
tells Saudi Arabia to stop the embargo.
If the blockade of Qatar originates in a Kushner extortion scheme, as the story insinuates, it would have serious political consequences.
But is that true?
Charles Kushner, head of the Kushner Companies, is in advanced talks with Brookfield Asset Management over a partnership to take
control of the 41-story aluminum-clad tower in Midtown Manhattan, 666 Fifth Avenue, according to two real estate executives who
have been briefed on the pending deal but were not authorized to discuss it.
The deal only
closed in August 2018 on terms that had changed from the first report and were unusual:
Brookfield Asset Management has agreed to lease the troubled office tower for 99 years and is paying for the lease up front,
rather than in the typical yearly ground rent, the Wall Street Journal reports. The financial terms of the deal were not made
public, but the New York Times reports that Brookfield is paying $1.1B.
What was the real sequencing here? Was the property deal agreed upon before the Trump administration changed its stand on the
Qatar blockade or after that happened? Was it related to it or not? We don't know. There is no public record of the alleged Jared
Kushner flight to Qatar. There is so far no other evidence that would support the story. The tale fits the publicly known timeline,
but that is not enough to believe it. Its authors may have used the public timeline to then fit a story onto it.
It is possible that the Kushner property deal and the Qatar blockade are intimately intertwined but there is, so far, no proof
for it. That idea that Kushner played the Saudis is dubious. The other way around is more likely.
Saudi Arabia and the UAE had plenty of reason to blockade Qatar. Both countries fear the Qatari support for the Muslim Brotherhood.
They hate Qatar's Al Jazeerah TV because it often publicly opposes their policies. The Saudis need money and annexing the very rich
Qatar would solve all their problems. Brookfield Properties denies that Qatar or the Qatari investment agency had any involvement
in 666 5th Ave. deal.
Even if Qatar, through Brookfield, made a deal with the Kushner family, it does not mean that it was extorted. The Qatari rulers
might simply have hoped that the deal would help them. It did not. The blockade still continues despite the real estate deal. Trump
had his own reasons to support the Saudis Qatar blockade. He wanted them to buy as many U.S. weapon system as possible, if only to
beat out Obama, who sold the Saudis all sorts of military trash for a record amount of money.
During the Mueller Russia investigation lots of smoke seemed to show that there was a 'collusion' fire burning somewhere under
the hundreds of facts and figures. There wasn't.
The story about the Kushner 'extortion of Qatar' might create a similar '
the walls are closing in ' (vid) farce only to end up with
nothing. It is interesting that the Vicky Ward story was published on March 29, a day after Jared Kushner
was interviewed
behind closed door by the Senate Intelligence Commission:
President Donald Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner returned to the Senate Intelligence Committee for a closed door interview Thursday
as part of the committee's Russia investigation.
...
The first time Kushner appeared before the panel in 2017, he was interviewed by committee staff. The committee has wanted to re-interview
witnesses central to the investigation. On Thursday, senators were sitting in on the interview.
Russiagate is really finished
. The Republican's rule the Senate. Why would they continue to interview Kushner and why would senators sit in on it? Might the 'Kushner
extorted Qatar' be a planned sequel to Russiagate or why else was it launched right now?
Posted by b on March 30, 2019 at 05:28 PM |
Permalink
One has to wonder whether Kushner's influence was involved in this deal which would have seen the geopolitical balance in the
Middle East tilt into Saudi Arabia's favour.
Thanks b and you are wise to be sceptical. The up front payment to the Kusher kleptocracy by Brookfield Partners (Asset Management)
is not just unusual but more like extraordinary! One test will be how this deal compares to other deals. Was Kushner avoiding
taxes by doing a lease? Is this a common practice?
I did like the reference to Trump outdoing Obummer in arms deals and had a good laugh at Trumps childish racism in that game.
He sure hates Obummer but he sure won't go after him in any way. Trump wont even go after $hillary and her global empire shakedown
Foundation. Sometimes I think he is now a sitting duck but then I am an optimist.
In addition to likely having had the chance to hear about the deal through Brookfield directly or read about it in the paper
of record, one would imagine the Qataris were keeping tabs on all things Kushner on account of Jared's father, Charles Kushner,
taking a meeting with Qatar's finance minister, Ali Sharif Al Emadi in April 2017. (Kushner the Elder later said he accepted
the invite purely "out of respect" for the Qataris to tell them there was no way "we could do business.")
Of course Trump throwing the full weight of the US behind Saudi Arabia and UAE was a de facto shake down of Qatar. And of course,
Saudi and UAE were actively lobbying for it.
thanks b.. it will be interesting to see how much traction vicky wards reporting gets and whether any of it gets substantiated..
i do believe the usa is crazy enough to do another witch hunt, so anything is possible here... she works for the huffpost..
that is grounds to discredit here right there in my books..
More theatrics as diversion, while the crooks in D.C. dismantle the agencies that keep the wealthy oligarchs at bay, as they rewrite
the rules to allow greed and avarice to become virtues.
"Rules and regulations never changed a man's heart, but they can restrain the heartless."
Meanwhile, propaganda organs in America won't publicize real Donald Trump scandals like the case of ''Maria'' a Waterbury 12-year
old alleged child rape victim of Donald Trump and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The crimes allegedly occurred at a midtown
Manhattan mansion owned by Epstein's friend Les Wexner.
Donald Trump recently named as his Secretary of Labor, Alex Acosta, former U.S. Attorney for South Florida, the federal official
directly overseeing sweetheart future immunity deal for Grifter in Chief acolytes like Jeffrey Epstein... As Labor Secretary,
Acosta is charged with overseeing federal laws designed to combat domestic and international sex trafficking.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York is currently deciding whether to unseal the documents from a 2017
lawsuit involving one of Epstein's sex trafficking victims and Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein's assistant.
Other possible corrupt practices involving stable genius center around China's decision to grant Ivanka Trump 38 new trademarks
in the middle of a trade war dispute... Part of current trade war negotiations are EB-5 investment visas. Jared Kushner and Trump
stand to benefit from EB-5 visas designed to attract Chinese investment in the United States in return for permanent residency.
Curiously an EB-5 visa scam was being run out of an office in Jupiter, Florida, located across the street from the Orchids
of Asia massage parlor raided by police where Trump billionaire friend Kraft was caught in a possible Chinese Honey Trap.
Russiagate may be done but thats because it was defined improperly. Sometimes it helps to look back to get a big picture perspective
Starting in 1999, Putin enlisted two oligarchs Lev Leviev and Roman Abramovich, who would go on to become Chabad's biggest
patrons worldwide, to create the Federation of Jewish Communities of Russia under the leadership of Chabad rabbi Berel Lazar,
who would come to be known as "Putin's rabbi."
Roman Abramovich is the owner of the Chelsea Football Club of the English Premier League. He was a victor (along with Paul
Manafort's patron Oleg Deripaska) in the aluminum wars of the 1990s and reportedly the person who convinced Boris Yeltsin that
Putin would be a proper successor.
Ivanka Trump is very close friends with Abramovich's wife , Dasha Zhukova. Zhukova reportedly attended the inauguration as
Ivanka's personal guest. Leviev is the one with the closest links to the Trumps and Israel
It starts with Bayrock . This is the company that Donald Trump teamed up with to build his Trump Soho project. There were three
main actors . One was convicted mob associate and FBI informant Felix Sater. Another was Tevfik Arif, a likely Russian intelligence
connection who was once was arrested by the Turks . The third was the late Tamir Sapir, another man with ties to Russian intelligence.
The late billionaire Tamir Sapir, was born in the Soviet state of Georgia. Trump has called Sapir "a great friend." In December
2007, he hosted the wedding of Sapir's daughter, Zina, at Mar-a-Lago. The groom, Rotem Rosen, was the CEO of the American branch
of Africa Israel, the Putin oligarch Leviev's holding company, and known as Leviev's right hand man.
As mentioned Leviev was one of two oligarch's who Putin had establish the "Federation of Jewish Communities of Russia" under
the leadership of Chabad rabbi Berel Lazar, who would come to be known as 'Putin's rabbi.'" Sater, Sapier, Jared, Ivanka are all
Chabad members and/or donors
Trump had business discussions in Moscow in 2013 about Moscow real estate projects with Agalarovs, Alex Sapir (son of Tamir
Sapir, brother of Zina, and brother-in-law of Rotem Rosen.) and Rotem Rosen, a pair of New York-based Russian . This may also
have been discussed during the June 2016 meeting in Trump Tower that was attended by Kushner, Manafort and Donald Trump Jr and
a Russian lawyer associated with Fusion GPS (Steele dossier) and the Leviev linked Prevezon
Agalarov is a Moscow-based property developer who had won major contracts from Putin's government. He hosted Trump's 2013 Miss
Universe contest at his concert hall in Moscow. He orchestrated the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting and formed a new American shell
company a month beforehand with the help of the Russian lawyer who attended the meeting.
In 2015, Kushner and his family business, Kushner Cos., bought a portion of the New York Times building on West 43rd Street
from Russian /Israeli real estate billionaire Lev Leviev for $295M, where $285M was borrowed from Deutsche Bank to complete the
transaction, despite the 666 albatross hanging over Kushners head
Deutsche Bank and two companies tied to Leviev, Africa Israel Investments and Prevezon, have all recently been the subject
of money laundering investigations. A laundering case against Prevezon was settled two months after Trump fired Bharara, with
a $6M slap on the wrist settlement that raised some eyebrows.
As for 666, Kushner gets bailed out by Brookfield who has Qatar as its 2nd largest investor. But consider that at the same
time they did this deal they also acquired Westinghouse Electric, a nuclear power company. Now members of the Trump administration
propose selling nuclear power plants to Saudi Arabia. Interesting.
Can't seem to find a Putin/Russian oligarch connection although that's probably due to the fact you cant use anonymous shell
companies to buy property in NYC any longer due to new rules by FinCEN
But so many conflict of interests here, Israel, China, Saudis, Russian oligarchs, etc and virtually no oversight or transparency.
With twitter being used to manipulate markets one has to imagine rampant insider trading as well (hey guys, my tweets going out
at 3 pm, get your trades in and remember my 5%).
@7 savvy globalist somebody wants us to know that there's nothing to see here!
But the Vanity Fair article he links to, written by Bess L-evin, makes this unsubstantiated(!) point:
So why is Doha taking pains to insist it accidentally bailed out the First-in-Laws on their no good, very bad investment
now?
1) Actually, the Reuters article that she refers to explicitly states that Qatar has a minority position and no board representation
! It is a known in the financial world as a "passive investment".
2) L-evin's wording is extremely disingenuous: the Qataris never said they bailed out anyone, accidentally or otherwise!!
Interestingly, Vicky Ward used to work at Vanity Fair, and is currently an editor at HuffPost (a Democratic rag). And media that
broke/promoted this story (Leevin and Krasseenstein) could (naturally) rise some suspicions of a connection to Israel's conflict
with Iran. Qatar shares a huge gas field with Iran so Qatar has been reluctant to join KSA and Israel against Iran.
Qatar paid over a billion dollars to build and expand the US base in Qatar and charges no rent for that base. This allows
Qatar to easily brush aside any question of loyalty that may be posed by USA and makes the US/US military reluctant to pressure
Qatar. But Israel would have no qualms about apply pressure. The "Jared bailout" allows for a narrative of Qatari leadership as
weak and corrupt - much like the ridiculous claims that Putin is pro-Israel.
1) Documentation is scarce and the few that exist don't fit the journalist's story chronology (even though, in the concrete
case, you could argue for expediency/bureacratic delay, so this criterium alone doesn't bust the journalist's chronology)
2) The whole narrative simply doesn't have social cohesion. It simply doesn't make any sense for Trump to risk be impeached
in such polarized scenario just to rescue his son-in-law. It makes even less sense for the Arab royalties to submit to a much
weaker political player such as Kushner. And, as b mentions, Trump had many more powerful reasons to sanction Qatar.
@11 &12
Corruption abounds, but any of it that touches Zionists, the Clinton's, or the royal family (Epstein, Prince Andrew) is off limits.
They are untouchable to the MSM.
people like Brennan & Clapper are feeding the "trump really, really, no really hearts putin" narrative to the msdnc crowd, and
this of an administration being helmed by CIA men like Pompeo.
like the fbi's manufacture wholesale of "islamo-terrorist" non-events
in part to distract from the presence of the actual threat of rising fascism & racism (a la Nazism, as in NZ) from the usual suspects,
much beloved of the fibbies, it's convenient for all, incl trump, to be painted as bff's with Vlad.
if the goal was to stop or in any way impede the trump admin (not just trump himself, who is a know-nothing shit golem animated
by the glad-handing he receives from the people actually in charge, who just feed his narcissistic fantasies), there are other,
more practical & achievable ways to do it. in-fighting among the herd who have not yet jumped off the Gadarene cliffs is not the
same thing as opposition, not among the Legion possessed swine in D.C. they are just grunting & snorting at each other, occasionally,
very occasionally & deliberately, trampling one of their own, as they plummet over the edge.
it's pretty clear that funny things like such pigs' full-throated support of Zionism is more important to Pelosi & Schumer
than resisting the Trump admin *in any way,* no matter how much they personally despise trump. and mainly they despise him for
helping to reveal what some POTUS would have sooner or later: the pointlessness of Congress; that the "unitary executive", as
the titular head of the corporate security state, is already fully in charge; that "dyarchy," dual rule by legislative & executive,
is non-existent.
President Trump campaigned against regime change wars when he ran for President, but now he
bows to the wishes of the neocons who surround him, clamoring for the regime change wars that
he claimed to oppose--this time in Venezuela and Iran.
These powerful politicians dishonor the sacrifices made by every one of my brothers and
sisters in uniform, their families - as they are the ones who pay the price for these wars.
In fact, every American pays the price for these wars that have cost us trillions of dollars
since 9/11.
Every dollar that we spend on regime change wars or on the new cold war and this nuclear
arms race is a dollar coming out of our pockets dollars that should be used to address the very
real, urgent needs of our people and our communities right here at home.
Netanyahu and Saudi Arabia want to drag the United States into war with Iran, and Trump is
submitting to their wishes. The cost in money and lives will be catastrophic.
NEW YORK -- Senator Elizabeth Warren lobbed another policy grenade into the Democratic
primary Friday, announcing she supports drastically changing the Senate by eliminating its
legendary filibuster to give her party a better chance of implementing its ambitious
agenda.
The move puts her campaign rivals on the spot to explain how they would pass their own
ambitious legislative priorities if the Senate keeps its rule in place requiring a 60-vote
supermajority to advance most bills.
Warren's announcement allows her to swerve to the left of Senator Bernie Sanders of
Vermont in a meaningful way at a time when she's straggling far behind him in early polls and
grass-roots fund-raising.
Sanders, who popularized proposals like free college and Medicare for All among Democrats
during his 2016 run for president, has been reluctant to support scrapping the filibuster.
That raises questions about how he would be able to pass his sweeping proposals into law
should he become president, given Democrats are extremely unlikely to have 60 seats in the
Senate.
"I'm not running for president just to talk about making real, structural change," Warren
told a group of activists at a conference organized by the Rev. Al Sharpton, where she
announced her opposition to the filibuster. "I'm serious about getting it done. And part of
getting it done means waking up to the reality of the United States Senate."
The appearance in New York caps off a three-week run that has seen Warren call for making
it easier to send executives to jail for corporate crimes, unveil a proposal to break up farm
monopolies, endorse forming a commission to study reparations for the descendants of slaves,
and say she would like to abolish the Electoral College so presidents are elected by popular
vote.
"Bernie Sanders, nobody's to his left on policy, but there's lots of running room on his
left on procedural changes that would be necessary to enact those policies," said Brian
Fallon, a former top Hillary Clinton aide and the founder of the liberal advocacy group
Demand Justice.
Sanders said he's not "crazy about" the idea of getting rid of the filibuster in an
interview in February, but said in a later statement that he is open to reform.
Getting rid of the Senate filibuster, which has been around since the mid-1800s, was once
seen as a radical proposal that would undermine the chamber's ability to take a deliberative
approach to major issues. But Democratic and Republican majorities have chipped away at it in
recent years, jettisoning filibusters for Cabinet and Supreme Court nominees.
Just this week, Senate Republicans infuriated Democrats by unilaterally reducing the
amount of debate time for other executive branch and judicial nominees before a filibuster
could be ended.
The move to ditch the filibuster has gained currency among liberals frustrated that the
Senate is more Republican than the general public because of liberals clustering on the
coasts and the constitutional requirement that all states get two senators regardless of
population.
President Trump and Barack Obama have complained about the filibuster, with Obama saying
last year that it made it "almost impossible" to govern.
Though probably too wonky a proposal to reach the average voter, the debate over the
Senate filibuster animates the Democratic activists who are watching the primary the most
closely and whose support the candidates are vying to win. Those activists are unmoved by
candidates who say they'll be able to persuade Republicans to sign onto their ambitious
liberal legislation.
"The idea that you can win people over by inviting them over for drinks on the Truman
Balcony -- that is completely out of vogue," Fallon said.
Other candidates have also called for getting rid of the filibuster, including Governor
J*a*y Inslee of Washington and Representative Seth Moulton of Massachusetts, who is pondering
a run. However, Warren is the first sitting senator in the race to do so. Senator Kamala
Harris of California, who signed a letter in 2017 affirming the filibuster, now says she's
conflicted about it.
The filibuster's defenders say it protects the rights of the minority party, and forces
the majority to compromise. Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey, who also signed the 2017
letter, has said he is concerned that getting rid of the filibuster would mean Republicans
would be able to more easily pass legislation in the future over Democrats' objections.
In her speech to the National Action Network's activists, a largely black crowd, Warren
framed the filibuster as a tool of "racists" who used it for decades to block civil rights
legislation, including a bill to make lynching a federal crime that was first introduced in
the early 1900s. The legislation finally passed this year.
"We can't sit around for 100 years while climate change destroys our planet, while
corruption pervades every nook and cranny of Washington, and while too much of a child's fate
in life still rests on the color of their skin," she said.
After her speech, Warren told reporters that she is concerned about the bills Republicans
would be able to pass without the filibuster, but that getting rid of it is worth it for
Democrats. "Of course I'm worried. But I'm also worried about a minority that blocks real
change that we need to make in this country," she said.
The calls to eliminate the filibuster are part of a larger debate among Democrats about
reforming US democracy after they lost the 2000 and 2016 presidential elections despite
winning the popular vote. Warren, along with several other Democrats, has also called to
abolish the Electoral College. Warren, Harris, and former representative Beto O'Rourke of
Texas are also open to the idea of the next president expanding the number of seats on the
Supreme Court to offset its conservative majority.
Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist who pushes a host of liberal policies, has
been more conservative on these proposals than many of his presidential campaign rivals. He
is against expanding the court, arguing it would be a slippery slope that Republicans could
also take advantage of, and is still on the fence about ditching the filibuster and
abolishing the Electoral College.
Warren declined to call out her Senate colleagues when asked whether she was surprised
they had not endorsed the idea of ending the filibuster. "All I can do is keep running the
campaign I'm running and talking about these ideas," she said.
But we need to understand the Mueller expedition was witch hunt form the beginning to the end, and the fact that Mueller
backed off means that some pressure was exerted on him to stay within civilized discourse, or...
I doubt that Mueller of his anthrax investigation fame would have any problems to implicate Trump in non-existent crimes. That
would means the false assumption that he has some integrity, which his 9/11 behavioud fully contradict of.
In this sense lawyers from Mueller team complain about Mueller betrayal: he carefully selected the most Trump hating lawyers
and brought them for a witch hunt, but at the end he backed off. Ma be under pressure from Israel lobby.
Notable quotes:
"... The legal system isn't supposed to "damage" people, it is supposed to find them innocent or guilty. Shame on Mueller for appointing such disgraceful and unprofessional people. ..."
Greenwald is a consistent voice of sanity from the political left. Need more such sane
voices to restart cultural debate. Because as we all know, politics is downstream from
culture.
He is right tribalism is wrong. What Covington and all the fake stories should teach us it
to make sure that we look at the facts. The hard part is finding the good journalists so you
can support them.
. Gee.....I wonder why the big media firms are having to layoff huge numbers of their
workforce? Could it be that they have destroyed their own credibility and the revenue is no
longer there to support the bloated staffs they once had, because people are going elsewhere
for their information?
The legal system isn't supposed to "damage" people, it is supposed to find them innocent
or guilty. Shame on Mueller for appointing such disgraceful and unprofessional people.
Do people really want the the Trump administration, the Department of Justice and the
F.D.A. involved here? Bit fuzzy on the details but wasn't there a time about a decade ago
when the States were getting together to sue banks for fraudulently marketing mortgages but
that Obama got ahead of this movement and basically short-circuited the whole process? And
the banks got a tap on the wrist as they were busy seizing homes by the millions?
If the Trump administration got involved, I would expect that Big Pharma would have to pay a
few billion dollars restitution (which they, like the banks previously, could claim back on
their taxes), that there would be no criminal sentences, that nobody would be convicted of a
crime or have it on their record, and that Big Pharma would promise to behave better in
future – starting February 30th.
Meanwhile, another thousand Americans would be dying
each and every week from what Big Pharma has created. Hopefully the States will create an
almighty stink with their law suits.
Who will Trump's Kamala Harris be?
(Mortgage fraud by banks versus Pharmafraud)
Kamala did squat in the mortgage settlement as California attorney general. What little
she did get was handed to Jerry Brown to resuscitate the general fund of the state, not to
homeowners cheated out of their homes.
She could have done what Scott Pruitt did in Oklahoma, which was to NOT accept the
nationwide settlement. Oklahoma received 6x the national average in mortgage settlements
because of that. "Chain of Title" by David Dayen.
like Corey Booker's pharma payoff, she got a nice donation for her next campaign for her
probank activities, from Trump's man Mnuchin himself.
Hey cut Kamala a break. My AG Schneiderman joined Obama's sideswipe, got pennies for NY
and didn't end up in the Senate. She got more for CA, the bigger political payoff and even a
run for president.
And unfortunately Justice for those abused by the corporations who benefitted is not
really in our political mainstream calculations.
Tulsi is a really great polemist with a very sharp mind and ability to find weak points in the opponent platform/argumentation
and withstand pressure. In the debate she will probably will wipe the floor with Trump. IMHO he stands no chances against her in the
open debate
Notable quotes:
"... Trump is for socialism when it comes to taxpayers underwriting military contractors and arms manufacturers. The same money would create more jobs used for rebuilding our country's infrastructure and green economy, and it would be better for humanity. ..."
"... While the paper hailed the fact that the Pentagon's budget increase allowed local workers to keep their jobs and encouraged a skilled workforce to move to a small town in rural Ohio, Gabbard apparently hinted that the whole story in fact described what amounted to re-distribution of money from taxpayers to a de-facto depressed area to save some jobs – a social-democratic if not outright socialist move indeed. ..."
"... In her post, Gabbard also added that the US might have had a better use for a $160 billion boost in defense spending over two years. “The same money would create more jobs used for rebuilding our country’s infrastructure and green economy, and it would be better for humanity,” she wrote. ..."
US President Donald Trump, who has been relentlessly bashing everything linked to what he sees as 'socialism,' is himself no stranger
to using socialist principles to support the US arms industry, Tulsi Gabbard has claimed. One could hardly suspect Trump of being
a socialist in disguise.
After all, the US president has emerged as one of the most ardent critics of the leftist ideological platform.
Just recently, he announced he would "go into the war with some socialists," while apparently referring to his political opponents
from the Democratic Party.
But the president also seems to be quite keen on borrowing some socialist ideas when it fits his agenda, at least, according to
the congresswoman from Hawaii and Democratic presidential candidate, Tulsi Gabbard, who recently wrote in a tweet that "Trump
is for socialism when it comes to taxpayers underwriting military contractors and arms manufacturers."
Trump is for socialism when it comes to taxpayers underwriting military contractors and arms manufacturers. The same money
would create more jobs used for rebuilding our country's infrastructure and green economy, and it would be better for humanity.https://t.co/tcNqsNQVbN
She was referring to a
piece in The Los Angeles Times, which cheerfully reported that Trump's whopping military budget helps to breathe some new life
into a Pentagon-owned tank manufacturing plant somewhere in northwestern Ohio that was once on the verge of a shutdown.
While the paper hailed the fact that the Pentagon's budget increase allowed local workers to keep their jobs and encouraged a
skilled workforce to move to a small town in rural Ohio, Gabbard apparently hinted that the whole story in fact described what amounted
to re-distribution of money from taxpayers to a de-facto depressed area to save some jobs – a social-democratic if not outright socialist
move indeed.
It is very much unclear if Trump had this Ohio plant or any other factories like it in mind when he supported the record Pentagon
budget. After all, redistributing large sums of public money in favor of the booming US military industrial complex does not look
very much like socialism.
In her post, Gabbard also added that the US might have had a better use for a $160 billion
boost in defense
spending over two years. “The same money would create more jobs used for rebuilding our country’s infrastructure and green economy,
and it would be better for humanity,” she wrote.
Trump, meanwhile, seems to be pretty confident that his policies indeed “make America great again” while it is those
pesky socialists that threaten to ruin everything he has achieved. “I love the idea of 'Keep America Great' because you know
what it says is we've made it great now we're going to keep it great because the socialists will destroy it,” he told an audience
of Republican congress members this week, while talking about the forthcoming presidential campaign.
Too often caught between Randian individualism on one hand and big-government collectivism
on the other, America's working-class parents need a champion.
They might well have had one in Elizabeth Warren, whose 2003 book, The Two-Income Trap , co-authored with her daughter Amelia
Warren Tyagi, was unafraid to skewer sacred cows. Long a samizdat favorite among socially
conservative writers, the book recently got a new dose of attention after being spotlighted on
the Right by Fox News's
Tucker Carlson and on the Left by Vox's
Matthew Yglesias .
The book's main takeaway was that two-earner families in the early 2000s seemed to be less,
rather than more, financially stable than one-earner families in the 1970s. Whereas
stay-at-home moms used to provide families with an implicit safety net, able to enter the
workforce if circumstances required, the dramatic rise of the two-earner family had effectively
bid up the cost of everyday life. Rather than the additional income giving families more
breathing room, they argue, "Mom's paycheck has been pumped directly into the basic costs of
keeping the children in the middle class."
Warren and Warren Tyagi report that as recently as the late 1970s, a married mother was
roughly twice as likely to stay at home with her children than work full-time. But by 2000,
those figures had almost reversed. Both parents had been pressed into the workforce to maintain
adequate standards of living for their families -- the "two-income trap" of the book's
title.
Advertisement
What caused the trap to be sprung? Cornell University economist Francine Blau has helpfully
drawn a picture of women's changing responsiveness to
labor market wages during the 20th century. In her work with Laurence Kahn, Blau found that
women's wage elasticities -- how responsive their work decisions were to changes in their
potential wages -- used to be far more heavily driven by their husband's earning potential or
lack thereof (what economists call cross-wage elasticity). Over time, Blau and Kahn found,
women's responsiveness to wages -- their own or their husbands -- began to fall, and their
labor force participation choices began to more closely resemble men's, providing empirical
backing to the story Warren and Warren Tyagi tell.
Increasing opportunity and education were certainly one driver of this trend. In 1960, just
5.8
percent of all women over age 25 had a bachelor's degree or higher. Today, 41.7 percent of
mothers aged 25 and over have a college degree. Many of these women entered careers in which
they found fulfillment and meaning, and the opportunity costs, both financially and
professionally, of staying home might have been quite high.
But what about the plurality of middle- and working-class moms who weren't necessarily
looking for a career with a path up the corporate ladder? What was pushing them into full-time
work for pay, despite consistently
telling pollsters they wished they could work less?
The essential point, stressed by Warren and Warren Tyagi, was the extent to which this
massive shift was driven by a desire to provide for one's children. The American Dream has as
many interpretations as it does adherents, but a baseline definition would surely include
giving your children a better life. Many women in America's working and middle classes entered
the labor force purely to provide the best possible option for their families.
In the search for good neighborhoods and good schools, a bidding war quickly became an arms
race. There were "two words so powerful the families would pursue them to the brink of
bankruptcy: safety and education ." The authors underplay the extent to which
policy had explicitly sought to preserve home values, driven by their use as investment
vehicles and retirement accounts, a dynamic covered expertly by William Fischel's The Homevoter Hypothesis . But their broader
point is accurate -- rising house prices, aided and abetted by policy choices around land use,
have made it harder for families to afford the cost of living in 21st-century America.
Another factor in the springing of the trap? Divorce. In her 2000 book about how feminism had failed women, Danielle
Crittenden writes about how fear of dependency, especially in an era of no-fault divorce, had
caused women to rank financial independence highly.
These two factors, along with others Warren and Warren Tyagi explore, made it difficult for
families to unilaterally disarm without losing their place in the middle class. "Today's
middle-class mother is trapped," they write. "She can't afford to work, and she can't afford to
quit."
A quiet armistice may have been declared in the so-called "mommy wars," but the underlying
pressures haven't gone away since The Two-Income Trap was published. If anything,
they've gotten worse.
Warren and Warren Tyagi propose severing the link between housing and school districts
through a "well-designed voucher program," calling the public education system "the heart of
the problem." They correctly note that "schools in middle-class neighborhoods may be labeled
'public,'" but that parents effectively pay tuition by purchasing a home within a carefully
selected school district. Breaking the cartel that ties educational outcomes to zip codes would
increase choices for families and open the door to further educational pluralism.
Warren and Warren Tyagi are also unafraid to tell unpopular truths about the futility of
additional funding for colleges (identifying "faith in the power of higher education [as] the
new secular religion"), housing affordability ("direct subsidies are likely to add more
ammunition to the already ruinous bidding wars, ultimately driving home prices even higher"),
universal child care (which "would create yet another comparative disadvantage for
single-income families trying to compete in the marketplace"), and usurious credit (Warren's
long work on bankruptcy requires deeper treatment than this space allows, but their questioning
of our over-reliance on consumer debt deserves a fuller hearing).
Warren's presidential campaign contains elements of this attempt to make life easier for
families, but the shades of her vision of a pro-family economic policy seem paler than they
were a decade and a half ago.
Her universal child
care plan , for example, seemingly contradicts her prior stated worries about
disadvantaging stay-at-home parents. While she explicitly -- and wisely -- steers clear of a
subsidy-based approach, her attempt to "create a network of child care options" does less to
directly support families who aren't looking for formal care. In a sense, Warren would
replicate the public school experience for the under-five crowd -- if you don't want to
participate, that's fine, but you'll bear the cost on your own. A true pro-family populism
would seek to increase the choice set for all families, regardless of their work-life
situations.
Warren's housing plan has
similarly good intentions, seeking to increase the supply of affordable housing rather than
simply trying to subsidize demand. Her competitive education grant would reward municipalities
for relaxing restrictive zoning requirements. But while her campaign has yet to release a plan
on education, it seems unlikely we'll see the kind of bold approach to educational choice she
espoused in 2003. Populist sympathizers of all ideological stripes should hope I'm proven
wrong.
Warren's attempt at pro-family progressive populism seems honest. If not for certain
infamous biographical missteps, her personal story would be one of how America is still a land
of opportunity -- the daughter of a Oklahoma department store salesman who worked her way to a
law degree, a professorship, and a Senate seat. There's a congruence in her positioning of
economic security as a family values issue and the resurgent interest in a pro-worker,
pro-family conservative agenda. And unlike so many politicians, her personal experience seems
to have instilled an understanding of why so many dual-earner families see work as a means to
the end of providing a better life for their children rather than an end in itself.
A politician willing to question the sacred cows of double-income families, more money
for schools, and easy credit is the kind of politician this populist moment requires. A
candidate willing to call into question an economic model that prioritizes GDP growth over all
else would boldly position himself or herself as being on the side of families whose vision of
the American Dream involves a better life for their children, yet who are exhausted and hemmed
in by costs.
How Warren needs to position her platform to navigate the vicissitudes of a Democratic Party
primary will likely not be the best way to address the needs of the modern American family. But
in a crowded field, an uncompromising vision of increased choice for families across all
dimensions -- not just within the public school system, for example, but among all options of
education -- would be an impressive accomplishment and a way of distinguishing herself from the
pack. An explicit defense of parenthood as a social good would be unconventional but
welcome.
Still, a marker of how far the conversation around families has shifted from the early 2000s
is the extent to which Warren's and Warren Tyagi's view of parenthood as something more than an
individual "lifestyle choice" would now be viewed as radical, particularly on the Left. "That
may be true from the perspective of an individual choosing whether or not to have a child,"
they write, "but it isn't true for society at large. What happens to a nation that rewards the
childless and penalizes the parents?"
What indeed. Paging the Elizabeth Warren of 2003 -- your country needs you.
Patrick T. Brown ( @PTBwrites ) is a master's of public affairs student at
Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.
Doe anyone think the middle and especially upper middle class would be in favor of a school
choice plan that would cause their housing values to take hit? And there's another big
roadblock with a school choice program: the need for transportation. Two years ago my next
door neighbors who were able to place their young son in a good school across town sold their
house and moved to be closer to the school since the daily cross-town commute at rush hour
was just too much.
They might well have had one in Elizabeth Warren, whose 2003 book, The Two-Income Trap,
co-authored with her daughter Amelia Warren Tyagi, was unafraid to skewer sacred cows.
It's more recent than that. The first edition was 2003, but a second edition came out in
2016, by which time Mom probably knew she might be running for president. It's got a new
introduction by the authors, so obviously it was done with their cooperation.
I haven't read either edition, so I don't know what's been changed in the new one.
I am struck again and again, by the unbelievable power of the forces in the political
arena pushing everyone who is a Democrat because they are fiscally liberal* to ALSO become
socially liberal,* and everyone who is a Republican because they are socially conservative*
to ALSO become fiscally conservative.*
The net result of the laws of motion seem to systematically take the ideological space of
"socially conservative, fiscally liberal" (the old New Deal) and push everyone in it either
out to the usual left "fiscally liberal, socially liberal" or the usual right "socially
conservative, fiscally conservative" quadrants.
This article shows how it's happening with Elizabeth Warren in one direction, and it's
happened constantly with socially conservative Republicans who get yanked back to the proper
quadrant anytime they try to move to a direction of economic policy that doesn't involve tax
cuts for the rich and actually help their constituents.
One can have all the opinions on better ways to do things for the good of society, but if
those ideas are not politically viable, it creates a change in directions. Warren probably by
now .realizes how complicated all of these policy issues are and the unintended consequence
of these policies are always a factor and a risk. Elizabeth Warren seems to have a good grasp
of complicated issues, but that never get her the support she would need to prevail in this
campaign. We currently live in the age of "Fantasyland" spewed by both the Trump RINOs and
the Lunatic Left. Warren is a thinker. That is not helpful these days.
What happened is that Warren wants the Team D nomination, and Team D, like Team R, could not
care less about the 99.9% of Americans who are not non-campaign bundlers or big contributors.
In fact, Team D (again, just like Team R) is actively hostile to any proposal that might
take money out of the pockets of the .1%, or otherwise affect the way the the economic pie is
sliced.
If this was the 1970s Warren would probably have supported busing. Pocahontas – leave
my safe neighborhood, my children's schools, and my home equity alone. Because these well
meaning social engineering schemes seldom work out as planned. As a middle class American I
will probably get the short end of the stick.
Funny that policy makers never want to help families by taking a little chunk out of hedge
funds and shareholders and vulture capitalists and sharing it with American workers. Talk
about "the heart of the problem."
My wife and I did a sort of calculation. In our state child care would be about 11,000 per
child per year. Also, you can't drop them off if they are sick, so you have to use your sick
days for them. Oh, and if you don't use the child care if you're on vacation, you still need
to pay to hold the slot. With two kids and taxes, she has to clear well over 30k per year to
about break even.
Add in the fact you'll be missing out on their childhood, spending maybe three or so hours
per day with them, is it really worth it?
The more I see the 'big tech' developments, they are basically things your pay for to let
you work so you can afford to work. TaskRabbit, Fivrer, DoorDash, etc basically give you free
time so you can work more.
"What happens to a nation that rewards the childless and penalizes the parents?"
Laughing.
They become liberals, democrats, anarchists, socialists, communists . . . supporters of
murdering children in the womb, efficiency advocates by way of eugenics . . . and other
assorted malcontents against ordered society.
But in my view, what has damaged economic sociology has been the shift in practice without
any assessment what it would do to the traditional family dynamic between husbands and wives
in family construction. That simply demanding that space be made for women and millions of
women would seriously tighten the job market for all and disrupt the pillars upon which our
nation was built, despite its problems.
Power dynamic, chivalry outran practical realities and that remains the case in
increasingly stratifying civil demands.
And while I sympathetic to the complaint about bussing, that had a very little impact on
the employment numbers which government and businesses and edication raced to fill the
discrimination expectations with women, and primarily white women.
tired comment, but accurate nonetheless, so instead of hiring men in response to
discrimination, those men were instead replaced by women, most of whom already had access via
the cultural dynamics of the majority.
Warren and Warren Tyagi propose severing the link between housing and school districts
through a "well-designed voucher program," calling the public education system "the heart of
the problem." [ ]
In my opinion, Warner's education voucher proposal by guaranteeing voucher dollar
enrollment in the affluent zip codes ignores the heart of the education problem. Affluent zip
codes do not ensure a child's academic success via 'better' teachers and educational
materials. Public schools in the big cities are filled with teachers who have their masters
and Ph.D's along with continuing education requirements.
Student success is fundamentally based upon parental commitment and community involvement.
Are the parents committed to their children's academic success? Does the parent(s) provide a
conducive and safe home environment? Does the child have a quiet space to study, do their
homework and prepare for school? Does the parent(s) sit down and teach? Review the child's
homework? Do the parents volunteer at the school? Are they involved with school events? Is
education a top priority? Or is school a babysitting service to drop off and pick up?
Those affluent zip codes are more than a number. For the most part, they are a supportive
community of families.
A child's academic success is assuredly tethered to the parental guiding hands. Simply, a
child's success begins at home with parents who care about their children's future.
Probably, every conservative will agree, that the basic flaw is materialism. Thus, with
materialism, personal values that cannot be sold or bought for money, are neglected in favour
of the gross domestic product per capita philosophy. Such personal values are, for instance,
family values, that is, children need both a mother, especially when they are below teenage,
and a father, especially when they are teenagers, and perhaps most important, a father and a
mother need one another. All this family thing does, however, not enter into the money
economy of big government. Whence, on the side of families, those need to take quite brave
choices, to choose morals above money. And on the side of the government, this needs to tax
the rich and help the poor. In fact, according to the World Bank, economic growth is
stimulated best, if governments help the poor directly, rather than with obscure subsidies to
the economic system. However, there is also the difficulty with difficult access to regular
jobs. By no doubt, abortion genosuicide decreases demand on the most simple of goods and
services, causing unemployment for the poor, and driving up costs of raising children.
Society then goes into socialism, with genosuicide instead of economic growth, while the
money flows into pension funds of the upper middle class. Governments must simply help the
poor. Humankind has always been able to produce twice the amount of good food that it needs,
but bureaucratic governments keep the poor enslaved, to fill them with lie.
Warren's academic work and cheeky refusal to fold under pressure when her nomination as
Obama's consumer ('home ec.'?) finance czar was stymied by the GOP are worthy of respect. I'd
like to see her make a strong run at the dem nomination, but am put off by her recent
tendency to adopt silly far-left talking points and sentiments (her Native DNA, advocating
for reparations, etc.). Nice try, Liz, but I'm still leaning Bernie's direction.
As far as the details of the economic analysis related above, though, I am unqualified to
make any judgment – haven't read the book. But one enormously significant economic
development in the early 70s wasn't mentioned at all, so I assume she and her daughter passed
it over as well. In his first term R. Milhouse Nixon untethered, once & for all, the
value of the dollar from traditional hard currency. The economy has been coming along nicely
ever since, except for one problematic aspect: with a floating currency we are all now living
in an economic environment dominated by the vicissitudes of supplies and demands, are we not?
It took awhile to effect the housing market, but signs of the difference it made began to
emerge fairly quickly, and accelerated sharply when the tides of globalism washed lots of
third world lucre up on our western shores. Now, as clearly implied by both Warren and the
author of this article, young Americans whose parents may not have even been born back then
– the early 70s – are probably permanently priced out of the housing market in
places that used to have only a marginally higher cost of entry – i.e. urban
California, where I have lived and worked for most of my nearly 60 years. In places like this
even a 3-earner income may not suffice! Maybe we should bring back the gold standard, because
it seems to me that as long as unfettered competition coupled to supply/demand and (EZ credit
$) is the underlying dynamic of the American economy we're headed for the New Feudalism. Of
course, nothing could be more conservative than that, right? What say you, TAColytes?
"Maybe we should bring back the gold standard, because it seems to me that as long as
unfettered competition coupled to supply/demand and (EZ credit $) is the underlying dynamic
of the American economy we're headed for the New Feudalism."
I take it you think the old one has departed.
It was in the area of how businesses and government were reciprocating unhealthy and
unfair business practices is where I think her advocacy was most accurate. But she has
abandoned all of that.
"Funny that policy makers never want to help families by taking a little chunk out of hedge
funds and shareholders and vulture capitalists and sharing it with American workers."
Funny that Warren HAS brought up raising taxes on the rich.
"... "I'm not running for president just to talk about making real, structural change. I'm serious about getting it done," the speech reads. "And part of getting it done means waking up to the reality of the United States Senate." ..."
"... Advocates including Warren also say the end of the filibuster would make it easier for the Senate to pass meaningful legislation to combat the climate crisis and to further other progressive causes. ..."
"... "We can't sit around for 100 years while the rich and powerful get richer and more powerful and everyone else falls further and further behind," Warren's speech reads. "We can't sit around for 100 years while climate change destroys our planet, while corruption pervades every nook and cranny of Washington, and while too much of a child's fate in life still rests on the color of their skin. Enough with that." ..."
"We can't sit around for 100 years while the rich and powerful get richer and more powerful
and everyone else falls further and further behind."
The 2020 presidential candidate is expected to endorse the proposal in a speech
at the National Action Network Convention in New York Friday morning.
"When Democrats next have power, we should be bold and clear: We're done with two sets of
rules -- one for the Republicans and one for the Democrats," Warren is expected to say. "And
that means when Democrats have the White House again, if Mitch McConnell tries to do what he
did to President Obama and puts small-minded partisanship ahead of solving the massive problems
facing this country, then we should get rid of the filibuster."
"I'm not running for president just to talk about making real, structural change. I'm
serious about getting it done," the speech reads. "And part of getting it done means waking up
to the reality of the United States Senate."
Getting rid of the filibuster -- the Senate procedure which allows a minority party to delay
a vote by drawing out debate and block legislation from passing by requiring a "supermajority"
of 60 senators to approve it -- would be a key step toward passing progressive measures,
advocates say.
At the NAN Convention, Warren is expected to note that the filibuster has stopped the Senate
from passing radical justice legislation for decades, including an
anti-lynching bill which was first introduced a century ago but didn't pass until December
2018.
"It nearly became the law back then. It passed the House in 1922. But it got killed in the
Senate -- by a filibuster. And then it got killed again. And again. And again," Warren plans to
say. "More than 200 times. An entire century of obstruction because a small group of racists
stopped the entire nation from doing what was right."
Advocates including Warren also say the end of the filibuster would make it easier for the
Senate to pass meaningful legislation to combat the climate crisis and to further other
progressive causes.
"We can't sit around for 100 years while the rich and powerful get richer and more powerful
and everyone else falls further and further behind," Warren's speech reads. "We can't sit
around for 100 years while climate change destroys our planet, while corruption pervades every
nook and cranny of Washington, and while too much of a child's fate in life still rests on the
color of their skin. Enough with that."
Warren joins
fellow 2020 Democratic hopefuls Pete Buttigieg and Washington Gov. Jay Inslee in endorsing the
end of the filibuster. Her speech Friday will represent her latest push for "structural change"
that she says would have far-reaching positive effects on the lives of working Americans. Since
announcing her candidacy in January she has called for a tax on the wealth of the
richest Americans to combat economic inequality and fund progressive programs, a
universal childcare plan, and a breakup
of powerful tech giants , among other proposals.
span y arendt on Tue, 04/02/2019 - 7:31pm The old politics is dead. Citizens United
granted unlimited, anonymous political bribery to the transnational billionaire class. The
legacy media has been conglomerated down to six companies, while the platform media companies
(Google, Facebook, Twitter) have instituted censorship and banning. Sock puppets, trolls,
doxers, and other slime have demolished the promise of honest intellectual internet debate.
"... Tulsi didn't join in the standing ovation for NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg during his warmongering speech to the US Congress on Weds. Good for her. ..."
"... Tracey has allowed Tulsi to explain the nuances of her foreign policy stands concerning regime change, war, and fighting terrorism. I do not believe any other interviewer has been able to bring out those distinctions. ..."
"... I hope people will take the time to listen to Tracey's interview. It is posted on YouTube, but it is an audio interview only. Tracey does a nice introduction to both parts of the interview which was conducted over two days. ..."
The Tulsi2020 campaign continues to gain unique donors, closing in on the
magic number. As of tonight, Tulsi has 61,029 of them, and needs only 3,971 more to get into the Democratic debates. That's only
97 new donors per day through May 14.
Tulsi didn't join in the standing ovation for NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg during his warmongering speech to the US Congress
on Weds. Good for her.
with Tulsi Gabbard so far. Tracey has allowed Tulsi to explain the nuances of her foreign policy stands concerning regime change,
war, and fighting terrorism. I do not believe any other interviewer has been able to bring out those distinctions.
I hope people will take the time to listen to Tracey's interview. It is posted on YouTube, but it is an audio interview only.
Tracey does a nice introduction to both parts of the interview which was conducted over two days.
RobinG
says: April 2, 2019
at 11:35 pm GMT 100 Words @Cloak And
Dagger What do they say about Tulsi? Please note in this interview when Cenk asks her
directly if she opposes the Occupation, she says Yes! A true Zio supporter (as some here have
accused her!) would object to even using the word. And she addresses the Adelson question. On
the conflict, her answer is pretty pablum, but probably as far as she can go strategically.
Cenk has been castigated from both sides, either as too harsh or too easy with her. IMO it's
a very good interview. Can you picture for a moment, Tulsi in a debate with Trump? What are her
boosters doing to prepare her for that? She's handling all the animosity with equanimity, and
she'll arrive at the final contest battle-hardened.
Cenk has been castigated from both sides, either as too harsh or too easy with her.
It is a good interview and she handles herself very well and her positions are well
articulated. I remain wary of her, however, but I will keep an open mind and watch her in the
months ahead to see where her funding comes from.
@Cassander There is no democracy in US. There is civil war between two dysfunctional
parties. How come you did not notice? Or you just came from enchanted kingdom?
This is from 2015 and it certainly characterize Krugman as a despicable political hack...
Notable quotes:
"... The big story he won't write about is that the Republicans wouldn't be such a threat if Team D was worth a damn. ..."
"... The spectacle of 2009-2010 cured me of any lingering desire to vote Democrat ever again – or to waste my time reading Krugman. ..."
"... Krugman is a collaborator. His wealth and prestige is built on his capacity for perpetuating falsehoods that have had vast and deadly consequences (Obama care, for instance). ..."
"... Not to mention he was a huge advocate of NAFTA. Something he never mentions. ..."
"... Krugman's defense of Obama care either indicates a lack of intellect, or in my view the more probable possibility, the inability to accept that the system is thoroughly corrupt, including most dems and economists ..."
"... It's no excuse for someone who actually thinks and writes about public policy, but could it be that Krugman is like my fellow guests and just never had to think about the cost of his health insurance simply because he could always afford it. So, I mean, he's never done the math. He's just done the "responsible thing" and carried insurance his whole life. ..."
Used to be an avid Krugman reader. But I get bored reading about how bad the Republicans are.
Tell me something I don't know. The big story he won't write about is that the Republicans
wouldn't be such a threat if Team D was worth a damn.
It's like they got the ball in 2009 with the field wide open for a touchdown. But since the
game was fixed Team D just danced around their own 20-yard line looking for the feeble Republican
defense to block them. Every time they have an opening for a good play they panic over the prospect
of scoring big and contrive to fumble the ball. The most they ever want is field goals and to
prevent the Republicans from running away with the game too much.
That's why Krugman can write about how scary the Republicans are. But so what? Everyone knows
that. Why are they in such a position? That's the interesting story.
Barmitt O'Bamney
Indeed, and seconded: Kruggers is irrelevant. However correct his critique may be, as far as
it goes, it never goes far enough since he has chosen to mutilate himself into playing the role
of partisan hack. There is a beam in the Republicans' eye? Well, there is a beam in his eye, too.
The spectacle of 2009-2010 cured me of any lingering desire to vote Democrat ever again
– or to waste my time reading Krugman. If my choice is between voting against my own interests
on the one hand, and voting against my interests on the other, I'll just stay home or else make
my vote a protest against the party that assumes it has an unconditional right to my vote. Reading
about how the Republicans are always wrong, with nary a mention of how Democrats are right there
with them in the latrine of wrongness isn't worth a minute more of my time – and my time isn't
even very valuable.
Benedict@Large
The problem (that leads to the boredom) with reading Krugman is not that he's always talking
about how bad the Republicans are. That after all is true. The problem with reading Krugman is
that he's always picking on the lowest hanging fruit; the easy cases that require no special nuance
or understanding. Krugman is a smart man, and he is better than this. We have all too many of
us capable of picking apart the 4th grade thinking and analysis that is so common in the GOP.
To add Krugman to that list is a waste of (his and our) time.
tongorad
Krugman is a smart man, and he is better than this.
Evidence, please.
Krugman is a collaborator. His wealth and prestige is built on his capacity for perpetuating
falsehoods that have had vast and deadly consequences (Obama care, for instance).
hidflect
Not to mention he was a huge advocate of NAFTA. Something he never mentions.
fresno dan
Krugman's defense of Obama care either indicates a lack of intellect, or in my view the
more probable possibility, the inability to accept that the system is thoroughly corrupt, including
most dems and economists
Ulysses
I think the most serious problem that Paul Krugman has, in accepting that the system is thoroughly
corrupt, is his internalization of the meritocratic myth. The syllogism runs as follows:
1) I have "merit"
2)The system has lavished wealth and renown on me
3)Therefore, those who claim that our system "isn't really meritocratic"
must themselves lack "merit," or be deluded from too much sentimentality, or too much attention
to "exceptions that prove the rule."
Tom Allen
He's also prone to defending politicians and economists with whom he's personal friends - and
there are a lot of them. That's human nature, but it tends to make one skeptical of his objectivity
when, for example, Larry Summers or Ben Bernanke is involved.
NotTimothyGeithner
He's also preaching to the choir. Who is Krugthullu's audience? Outside of New Yorkers, it's
largely people who fantasize about finishing the Sunday crossword despite not actually trying
and love to have a simplified "liberal" world view reinforced. Given how Obots use to swarm, would
he have survived not towing the company line? Without his column, Krugthullu is just another economics
professor without the backing of a billionaire who keeps him around as a pet. Maybe Warren Buffet
would put up a nice fence to keep Krugthullu in his yard, but he would likely have to spend time
in Omaha.
The flip side is Krugthullu has likely burned too many bridges to regain his 2009 status. The
Obots can't handle criticism, and it's rather late to join the Obama anonymous support group.
jrs
I mostly think they keep Krug around to justify "trade" agreements. That the little battles
don't matter so much compared to "trade" agreements (and in fact they don't, on the issue of healthcare,
"trade" agreements are a serious threat to even those countries with better medical systems. "Trade"
agreements can override other political battles, even those where Krugs position might be decent).
jo6pac
Thanks for LOL, so true.
GlobalMisanthrope
Yeah, I am completely mystified by his defense of the ACA. My employers think of themselves
as good liberals (although they do not provide health insurance but rather a health stipend to
a handful of top managers that we can apply toward our purchase of insurance on the exchange)
and have trotted out Krugman on occasion when I have argued against the Act.
I was at a dinner party before Christmas with a diverse group of professionals hosted by a
friend who is a wine maker. There were several people from the food and beverage industry, a university
professor and her law school administrator spouse, an obstetrical surgeon, a rancher and three
others I never got a chance to learn anything about. The subject of "Obamacare" came up. I was
truly astonished by the completely fact-free conversation that ensued. So much so that I stayed
silent for a long time, really not knowing what to say.
My friend, the host, noticed my expression and asked me what I thought about Obamacare. So
I described it as the boondoggle that it is and went into some detail debunking many of the claims
made by the other guests. Honestly, I mean they were more or less polite, but they didn't think
I knew what I was talking about. What can account for this?
Well, one of the things that came out was that I was, by some distance, the lowest paid person
at the table.
It's no excuse for someone who actually thinks and writes about public policy, but could it
be that Krugman is like my fellow guests and just never had to think about the cost of his health
insurance simply because he could always afford it. So, I mean, he's never done the math. He's
just done the "responsible thing" and carried insurance his whole life.
Anyway, it was a cold shower to realize how intractable their belief in the system is. As I
find myself saying a lot lately, I was not heartened.
flora
The whole ACA thing reminds me of the urban renewal projects of the 50s and 60s. Those were
supposedly progressive projects to replace blighted areas with modern housing. In fact it was
political snake oil that didn't help the poor so much as help large cities fill their coffers.
It replaced poor dwellings with middle class dwellings that increased the cities' tax revenues.
The poor were left to fend for themselves as their poor but stable neighborhoods were destroyed.
The designers of the projects thought they were doing good.
I wonder how many people sitting around the table with you tried to buy their mandated insurance
on the ACA web portal or on the open market? ACA sounds good in theory.
Lexington
It's no excuse for someone who actually thinks and writes about public policy, but could
it be that Krugman is like my fellow guests and just never had to think about the cost of his
health insurance simply because he could always afford it. So, I mean, he's never done the
math. He's just done the "responsible thing" and carried insurance his whole life.
Yup.
I have my frustrations with Krugman too, but I think progressives need to cut the guy some
slack: he's a professor at Princeton, a Nobel laureate, and has a trophy case full of professional
honours and twenty books plus a couple of hundred articles under his belt. He's in the sanctum
sanctorum of the elite.
If he never penned another op ed or blog post or participated in another public debate it wouldn't
make the slightest difference to his legacy. Yet there he is, the very model of a public intellectual,
actually inviting non specialists to engage in a discussion about economics and public
policy, and fighting the good fight for liberalism. You can be sure he isn't doing it to win plaudits
from his peers. ...
"... When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy. ..."
When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are
controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule,
near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.
"... Because of the immediate arrival of the collusion theory, neither Wolf Blitzer nor any politician ever had to look into the camera and say, "I guess people hated us so much they were even willing to vote for Donald Trump ." ..."
"... I can see is that the elite seem to be fighting amongst themselves or (IMO) providing cover for ongoing elite power/control efforts. It might not be about private/public finance in a bigger picture but I can't see anything else that makes sense ..."
" Russiagate became a convenient replacement explanation absolving an incompetent political establishment for its
complicity in what happened in 2016, and not just the failure to see it coming. Because of the immediate arrival of the
collusion theory, neither Wolf Blitzer nor any politician ever had to look into the camera and say, "I guess people hated us
so much they were even willing to vote for Donald Trump ."
... I can see is that the elite seem to be fighting amongst themselves or
(IMO) providing cover for ongoing elite power/control efforts. It might not be about
private/public finance in a bigger picture but I can't see anything else that makes sense
Yes, "Trump was selling himself as a traitor to a corrupt class, someone who knew how soulless and greedy the ruling elite was because
he was one of them. " But he turned to be a fake, a marionette who is controlled by neocons like hapless Bush II.
Notable quotes:
"... Last weekend, I published a book chapter criticizing the Russiagate narrative, claiming it was a years-long press error on the scale of the WMD affair heading into the Iraq war. ..."
"... The overwhelming theme of that race, long before anyone even thought about Russia, was voter rage at the entire political system. ..."
"... The anger wasn't just on the Republican side, where Trump humiliated the Republicans' chosen $150 million contender , Jeb Bush (who got three delegates, or $50 million per delegate ). It was also evident on the Democratic side, where a self-proclaimed "Democratic Socialist" with little money and close to no institutional support became a surprise contender . ..."
"... Trump was gunning for votes in both parties. The core story he told on the stump was one of system-wide corruption, in which there was little difference between Republicans and Democrats. ..."
"... Perhaps just by luck, Trump was tuned in to the fact that the triumvirate of ruling political powers in America – the two parties, the big donors and the press – were so unpopular with large parts of the population that he could win in the long haul by attracting their ire, even if he was losing battles on the way. ..."
"... The subtext was always: I may be crude, but these people are phonies, pretending to be upset when they're making money off my bullshit . ..."
"... Trump was selling himself as a traitor to a corrupt class, someone who knew how soulless and greedy the ruling elite was because he was one of them. ..."
Faulty coverage of Donald Trump's 2016 campaign later made foreign espionage a more plausible explanation for his ascent to power
Last weekend, I published a book chapter criticizing the Russiagate
narrative, claiming it was a years-long press error on the scale of the WMD affair heading into the Iraq war.
Obviously (and I said this in detail), the WMD fiasco had a far greater real-world impact, with hundreds of thousands of lives
lost and trillions in treasure wasted. Still, I thought Russiagate would do more to damage the reputation of the national news media
in the end.
A day after publishing that excerpt, a
Attorney General
William Barr sent his summary of the report to Congress, containing a quote filed by Special Counsel
Robert Mueller : "[T]he investigation did not establish
that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."
Suddenly, news articles appeared arguing people like myself and Glenn Greenwald of the Intercept were
rushing to judgment
, calling us bullies whose writings were intended to leave reporters "cowed" and likely to "
back down from aggressive coverage of Trump ."
This was baffling. One of the most common criticisms of people like Greenwald, Michael Tracey, Aaron Mate, Rania Khalek, Max Blumenthal,
Jordan Chariton and many others is that Russiagate "skeptics" - I hate that term, because it implies skepticism isn't normal and
healthy in this job - were really secret Trump partisans, part of a "horseshoe" pact between far left and far right to focus attention
on the minor foibles of the center instead of Trump's more serious misdeeds. Even I received this label, and I once wrote a book
about Trump called Insane Clown President .
A typical social media complaint:
@mtaibbi and all his deplorable followers. The truth will come out
and your premature celebrations are embarrassing.
It's irritating that I even have to address this, because my personal political views shouldn't have anything to do with how I
cover anything. But just to get it out of the way: I'm no fan of
Donald Trump .
I had a well-developed opinion about him long before the 2016 race started. I once interned for Trump's nemesis-biographer, the
late, great muckraker Wayne Barrett
. The birther campaign
of 2011 was all I ever needed to make a voting decision about the man.
I started covering the last presidential race in 2015 just as I was finishing up a book about the death of Eric Garner called
I Can't Breathe . Noting that
a birther campaign started by "peripheral political curiosity and reality TV star Donald Trump" led to 41 percent of respondents
in one poll believing Barack Obama was "not even American," I wrote:
If anyone could communicate the frustration black Americans felt over Stop-and-Frisk and other neo-vagrancy laws that made
black people feel like they could be arrested anywhere, it should have been Barack Obama. He'd made it all the way to the White
House and was still considered to be literally trespassing by a huge plurality of the population.
So I had no illusions about Trump. The Russia story bothered
me for other reasons, mostly having to do with a general sense of the public being misled, and not even about Russia.
The problem lay with the precursor tale to Russiagate, i.e. how Trump even got to be president in the first place.
The 2016 campaign season brought to the surface awesome levels of political discontent. After the election, instead of wondering
where that anger came from, most of the press quickly pivoted to a new tale about a Russian plot to attack our Democracy. This conveyed
the impression that the election season we'd just lived through had been an aberration, thrown off the rails by an extraordinary
espionage conspiracy between Trump and a cabal of evil foreigners.
This narrative contradicted everything I'd seen traveling across America in my two years of covering the campaign. The overwhelming
theme of that race, long before anyone even thought about Russia, was voter rage at the entire political system.
The anger wasn't just on the Republican side, where Trump humiliated the Republicans' chosen
$150 million
contender , Jeb Bush (who got three delegates, or
$50 million per delegate ). It was also evident on the Democratic side, where a self-proclaimed "Democratic Socialist" with little
money and close to no institutional support became
a surprise contender
.
Because of a series of press misdiagnoses before the Russiagate stories even began, much of the American public was unprepared
for news of a Trump win. A cloak-and-dagger election-fixing conspiracy therefore seemed more likely than it might have otherwise
to large parts of the domestic news audience, because they hadn't been prepared for anything else that would make sense.
This was particularly true of upscale, urban, blue-leaning news consumers, who were not told to take the possibility of a Trump
White House seriously.
Priority number-one of the political class after a vulgar, out-of-work game-show host conquered the White House should have been
a long period of ruthless self-examination. This story delayed that for at least two years.
It wasn't even clear Trump whether or not wanted to win. Watching him on the trail, Trump at times went beyond seeming disinterested.
There were periods where it looked like South Park's "
Did I offend you? " thesis was true, and he was
actively trying to lose, only the polls just wouldn't let him.
Forget about the gift the end of Russiagate might give Trump by allowing him to spend 2020 peeing from a great height on the national
press corps. The more serious issue has to be the failure to face the reality of why he won last time, because we still haven't done
that.
... ... ...
Trump, the billionaire, denounced us as the elitists in the room. He'd call us "bloodsuckers," "dishonest," and in one line that
produced laughs considering who was saying it, "
highly-paid ."
He also did something that I immediately recognized as brilliant (or diabolical, depending on how you look at it). He dared cameramen
to turn their cameras to show the size of his crowds.
They usually wouldn't – hey, we don't work for the guy – which thrilled Trump, who would then say something to the effect of,
"See! They're
very dishonest people ." Audiences would turn toward us, and boo and hiss, and even throw little bits of paper and other things
our way. This was unpleasant, but it was hard not to see its effectiveness: he'd re-imagined the lifeless, poll-tested format of
the stump speech, turning it into menacing, personal, WWE-style theater.
Trump was gunning for votes in both parties. The core story he told on the stump was one of system-wide corruption, in which there
was little difference between Republicans and Democrats.
...
Perhaps just by luck, Trump was tuned in to the fact that the triumvirate of ruling political powers in America – the two parties,
the big donors and the press – were so unpopular with large parts of the population that he could win in the long haul by attracting
their ire, even if he was losing battles on the way.
...
The subtext was always: I may be crude, but these people are phonies, pretending to be upset when they're making money off my
bullshit .
I thought this was all nuts and couldn't believe it was happening in a real presidential campaign. But, a job is a job. My first
feature on candidate Trump was called "
How
America Made Donald Trump Unstoppable ." The key section read:
In person, you can't miss it: The same way Sarah Palin can see Russia from her house, Donald on the stump can see his future.
The pundits don't want to admit it, but it's sitting there in plain view, 12 moves ahead, like a chess game already won:
President Donald Trump
It turns out we let our electoral process devolve into something so fake and dysfunctional that any half-bright con man with
the stones to try it could walk right through the front door and tear it to shreds on the first go.
And Trump is no half-bright con man, either. He's way better than average.
Traditional Democratic audiences appeared thrilled by the piece and shared it widely. I was invited on scads of cable shows to
discuss ad nauseum the "con man" line. This made me nervous, because it probably meant these people hadn't read the piece, which among other things posited the failures
of America's current ruling class meant Trump's insane tactics could actually work.
Trump was selling himself as a traitor to a corrupt class, someone who knew how soulless and greedy the ruling elite was because
he was one of them.
...
The only reason most blue-state media audiences had been given for Trump's poll numbers all along was racism, which was surely
part of the story but not the whole picture. A lack of any other explanation meant Democratic audiences, after the shock of election
night, were ready to reach for any other data point that might better explain what just happened.
Russiagate became a convenient replacement explanation absolving an incompetent political establishment for its complicity in
what happened in 2016, and not just the failure to see it coming. Because of the immediate arrival of the collusion theory, neither
Wolf Blitzer nor any politician ever had to look into the camera and say, "I guess people hated us so much they were even willing
to vote for Donald Trump."
Post-election, Russiagate made it all worse. People could turn on their TVs at any hour of the day and see anyone from Rachel
Maddow to Chris Cuomo openly reveling in Trump's troubles. This is what Fox looks like to liberal audiences.
Worse, the "walls are closing in" theme -- two years old now -- was just a continuation of the campaign mistake, reporters confusing
what they wanted to happen with what was happening . The story was always more complicated than was being represented.
I think Trump completely discredited himself in foreign policy due to appointment of Bush II team of neocon which drive it.
So the only chance for him to win is if US voters do not care about foreign policy. Demagogy will not work like in 2016 as
he now have a dismal record including attempt in regime change in Venezuela.
Notable quotes:
"... the vast majority of Americans don't give a hoot about issues of war, peace, and international diplomacy. Why should they care? It's not as though anything is asked of them as citizens. By cynically ditching the draft, Tricky Dick Nixon took the wind out of the sails of current and future antiwar movements, and permanently cleaved a gap between the U.S. people and their military ..."
"... Mothers no longer lose sleep over their teenage sons serving their country and they – along with the rest of the family – quit caring about foreign policy. Such it is, and so it will be, that the 2020 presidential election is likely to be decided by "kitchen-table" affairs like healthcare, immigration, race, and taxes. ..."
"... In 2016, he (correctly) made Hillary"regime change" Clinton out to be the true hawk in the race. Trump, on the other hand, combined tough guy bravado (he'd "bomb the shit" out of ISIS) with earthy good sense (there'd be no more "stupid" Iraq invasions. And it worked. ..."
"... Mark my words: if the DNC – which apparently picks the party's candidates – backs a conventional neoliberal foreign policy nominee, Trump will wipe the floor with him or her. ..."
"... If they want to stand a chance in 2020, the Dems had better back a nominee with a clear, alternative progressive foreign policy or get one the domestic-focused candidates up to speed and fast. ..."
"... So here's how my mental math works: a progressive candidate needs to win over libertarian-minded Republicans and Independents (think Rand Paul-types) by force of their commonsense alternative to Trump's foreign policy. ..."
"... Still, there's more than a little reason for concern . Look at how "Nasty" Nancy Pelosi and the establishment Dems came down on Ilhan Omar for that representative's essentially accurate tweets criticizing the Israel Lobby. ..."
"... Tulsi Gabbard, though she still looks the long shot, remains intriguing given here genuine antiwar (and combat veteran) credentials. ..."
"... Then again, even Bernie has his foreign affairs flaws – such as reflexively denouncing the BDS movement and occasionally calling for regime change in Syria. Nevertheless, both Bernie and Tulsi demonstrate that there's some promise for fresh opposition foreign policy. ..."
The 2020 election will not turn on global issues – and more's the pity. After all, thanks to decades upon decades of accumulating
executive power in an increasingly
imperial presidency,
it is in foreign affairs that the commander-in-chief possesses near dictatorial power. Conversely, in domestic policy, a hostile
Congress can – just ask Barry Obama – effectively block most of a president's agenda.
Still, the vast majority of Americans don't give a hoot about issues of war, peace, and international diplomacy. Why should
they care? It's not as though anything is asked of them as citizens. By cynically
ditching the
draft, Tricky Dick Nixon took the wind out of the sails of current and future antiwar movements, and permanently cleaved a gap between
the U.S. people and their military.
Mothers no longer lose sleep over their teenage sons serving their country and they – along with the rest of the family –
quit caring about foreign policy. Such it is, and so it will be, that the 2020 presidential election is likely to be decided by "kitchen-table"
affairs like healthcare, immigration, race, and taxes.
Be that as it may, serious observers should pay plenty of attention to international strategy.
First, because the occupant of the Oval Office makes policy almost unilaterally – including the decision of whether or not
to end the human race with America's suicidal nuclear button.
Second, because 2020 is likely to be another close contest, turning on the votes of a few hundred thousand swing state voters.
As such, Trump's opponent will need to win every vote on every issue – including foreign affairs. What's more, there are still
some folks who genuinely care about a potential commander-in-chief's international bonafides.
So, while Dems can't win the White House with foreign policy alone, they can lose it by ignoring these issues or – oh so typically
– presenting a muddled overseas strategy.
This is serious.
Just in case there are any out there still underestimating Trump – I, for one, predict he'll win in 2020 – make no mistake, he's
no pushover on foreign policy. Sure he doesn't know much – but neither does the average voter. Nonetheless, Trump is no dope. He's
got the pulse of (white) voters across this country and senses that the populace is tired of spending blood and cash (but mostly
its cash) on Mideast forever wars. In 2016, he (correctly) made Hillary"regime change" Clinton out to be the true hawk in the
race. Trump, on the other hand, combined tough guy bravado (he'd
"bomb the shit"
out of ISIS) with earthy good sense (there'd be no more
"stupid" Iraq invasions. And it worked.
So, with 2020 in mind, whether you're a progressive, a libertarian, or just a Trump-hater, its vital that the opposition (most
likely the Dems) nominate a candidate who can hang with Trump in foreign affairs.
Mark my words: if the DNC – which apparently
picks the party's
candidates – backs a conventional neoliberal foreign policy nominee, Trump will wipe the floor with him or her. And, if the
Dems national security platform reads like a jumbled, jargon-filled sheet full of boring (like it usually does) than Joe the proverbial
plumber is going to back The Donald.
That's what has me worried. As one candidate after another enters an already crowded field, this author is left wondering whether
any of them are commander-in-chief material. So far I see a huge crew (Liz, Kirsten, Kamala, Beto) that live and die by domestic
policy; two potentially conventional foreign policy guys (Biden and Booker); and two other wildcards (Bernie and Tulsi). That's not
a comprehensive list, but you get the point. If they want to stand a chance in 2020, the Dems had better back a nominee with
a clear, alternative progressive foreign policy or get one the domestic-focused candidates up to speed and fast.
So here's how my mental math works: a progressive candidate needs to win over libertarian-minded Republicans and Independents
(think Rand Paul-types) by force of their commonsense alternative to Trump's foreign policy. That means getting the troops out
of the Mideast, pulling the plug from other mindless interventions and cutting runaway defense spending. Then, and only then, can
the two sides begin arguing about what to do with the resultant cash surplus. That's an argument for another day, sure, but here
and now our imaginary Democratic (or Third Party?) nominee needs to end the wars and curtail the excesses of empire. I know many
libertarians – some still nominally Republican – who could get behind that agenda pretty quickly!
Still, there's more than a little reason for concern . Look at how "Nasty" Nancy Pelosi and the establishment Dems came
down on Ilhan
Omar for that representative's essentially accurate tweets criticizing the Israel Lobby. Then there's Joe Biden. Look, he's
definitely running. He's also definitely been wrong time and again on foreign policy – like how he was
for the
Iraq War before he was against it (how'd that turn out for John Kerry in 2004?). And, for all the talk of a progressive "blue wave"
in the party ranks, Biden still polls as the
top choice for
Democratic primary voters. Yikes.
Behind him, thankfully, is old Bernie – who sometimes shows potential in foreign affairs – the only candidate who has both
backed Omar and
been consistent in a career of generally antiwar votes. Still, Bernie won his household name with domestic policy one-liners – trashing
Wall Street and pushing populist economic tropes. Whether he can transform into a more balanced candidate, one that can confidently
compose and deliver a strong alternative foreign policy remains to be seen.
Tulsi Gabbard, though she still looks the long shot, remains intriguing given here genuine antiwar (and combat veteran) credentials.
Still, she'll have her hands full overcoming
problematic skeletons
in her own closet: ties to Indian Hindu nationalists, opposition to the Iran deal, and sometime backing of authoritarians and Islamophobes.
Then again, even Bernie has his foreign affairs
flaws
– such as reflexively denouncing the BDS movement and occasionally calling for regime change in Syria. Nevertheless, both Bernie
and Tulsi demonstrate that there's some promise for fresh opposition foreign policy.
Here's (some) of what that would look like:
speedily withdraw all U.S. troops from the (at least)
seven shooting wars
in the Greater Middle East;
choke off excessive arms deals and expensive military handouts to Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and other frenemies;
quit bombing or
enabling
the bombing of impoverished civilians in places like Yemen and Gaza; begin dismantling America's
"empire
of bases" overseas;
seek firm détente rather than conflict with Russia and China;
and cut defense and war-related spending down to size.
Our imaginary candidate would need to convey this commonsense course to a war-weary American people as plainly and coherently
as Trump can. No jargon, no Clintonian wonky crap – simple and to the point. Imagine it: a commonsense course for a clear-eyed country!
Less war and more investment at home. Less war and more middle-class tax cuts. Whatever. That fight will come and the progressives
and independents/libertarians will fight it out. For now, though, what's essential is checking the war machine and military-industrial
behemoth before its too late (it may be already!).
None of this will be easy or likely, of course. But count on this much: the establishment Democrats, media-mogul "left," and centrist
DC think tanks won't save us from the imperial monster or deliver a Trump-defeating strategy in foreign affairs. The Mueller-will-save-us,
Mattis-was-a-hero, reflexively anti-Trump, born-again
hawks like Rachel Maddow and the other disappointing chumps at MSNBC or CNN aren't on our side. Worse yet, they're born losers
when it comes to delivering elections.
All of this may be far-fetched, but is not impossible. Neither libertarians nor progressives can countenance Trump. Nor should
they. One of their only true hopes for compromise rest on foreign policy and a genuine antiwar message. It can be done.
Look, on a personal note, even America's beloved and over-adulated soldiers are reachable on this issue – that's how you know
the foreign policy alliance has potential! For every rah-rah war-fever cheerleader in uniform, there's an exhausted foot soldier
on his Nth tour in the Mideast. There's also a huge chunk (
40%! ) who are racial minorities – usually a reliably anti-Trump demographic. Finally, among the white men and women in uniform
I've personally met a solid core of libertarians. And the
data backs up my anecdotal observation – Ron Paul was highly popular among active-duty military members and their families. A
progressive foreign policy alliance with the libertarian wing of Republicans and Independents would sell better with these such voters
both in and out of uniform. You know the type: sick of war but just as sick of stereotypical liberal snowflakes.
So here's a plea to the "opposition" such at it is: avoid the usual mistakes – don't cede foreign affairs to the Trump and the
Republicans; don't nominate anyone remotely resembling Joe Biden; don't alienate libertarians and independents with wonky or muddled
international policy.
Try something new. Like winning
* * *
Danny Sjursen is a retired U.S. Army officer and regular contributor to antiwar.com
. He served combat tours with reconnaissance units in Iraq and Afghanistan and later taught history at his alma mater, West Point.
He is the author of a memoir and critical analysis of the Iraq War,
Ghostriders of Baghdad: Soldiers,
Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge . Follow him on Twitter at @SkepticalVet
.
OMG! How far the mighty MSM doyen The Washington Post has fallen. Those halcyon days of
Woodward and Bernstein are now but a distant memory. The shinning victory of driving the
hated President Richard Nixon from high office ... a ... myth ... morons ... We the people
...
At CNN's town hall
event on Monday, the American people saw something we'd been told was impossible: Elizabeth
Warren winning over a crowd.
The Massachusetts senator took aim at a variety of subjects: the Electoral College,
Mississippi's racist state flag, the rise of
white nationalism . Always, she was met with thunderous applause. Even a simple Bible verse
-- from Matthew 25:35–40, about moral obligation to the poor and hungry -- prompted
cheers so loud and prolonged that Warren had to pause and repeat herself in order to make her
voice heard over the noise. Yet this was the same woman the media routinely frames as too
wonky, too nerdy, too socially stunted. But then, Warren has always been an exceptionally
charismatic candidate. We just forget that fact when she's campaigning -- due, in large part,
to our deep and lingering distrust for female intelligence.
Warren is bursting with what we might call "charisma" in male candidates: She has the folksy
demeanor of Joe Biden, the ferocious conviction of Bernie Sanders, the deep intelligence of
fellow law professor Barack Obama. But Warren is not a man, and so those traits are framed as
liabilities, rather than strengths. According to the media, Warren is an uptight schoolmarm, a
" wonky
professor ," a scold, a wimpy Dukakis, a wooden John Kerry, or (worse) a nerdier Al
Gore.
The criticism has hit her from the left and right. The far-right Daily Caller accused
her of looking
weird when she drank beer ; on social media, conservatives spread vicious (and viciously
ableist) rumors that Warren took antipsychotic drugs that treated "irritability caused by
autism ." On the other end
of the spectrum, Amber A'Lee Frost, the lone female co-host of the socialist podcast Chapo
Trap House , wrote for The Baffler (and, when The Baffler retracted her
article, for Jacobin) that Warren was "
weak " and "
not charismatic ." Frost deplored the "Type-A Tracy Flicks" who dared support "this Lisa
Simpson of a dark-horse candidate."
Casting Warren as a sheltered, Ivory Tower type is odd, given that her politics and diction
are not exactly elitist. Yet none of this is new; the same stereotypes were levied against
Warren in 2011, during her Senate campaign.
Strangely, the first nerdification of Warren was a purely local phenomenon -- one which
happened even as national media was falling in love with her. Jon Stewart publicly
adored her , and her ingenuity in proposing the creation of the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau a few years prior earned her respect among the rising populist wing of the
party. Her fame was further catapulted when a speech -- a video of Warren speaking, seemingly
off-the-cuff , in a constituent's living room -- went viral. "Nobody in this country got
rich on his own, nobody," Warren proclaimed, pointing up the ways entrepreneurs benefit from
publicly funded services like roads and schools and fire departments.
"First-time candidates don't usually articulate a progressive economic message quite this
well," the Washington
Monthly declared . The New Yorker called it " the most important political
speech of this campaign season. " That enthusiasm continued throughout Warren's first
Senate bid. Writing for the New York Times , Rebecca Traister noted
that "the early devotion to Warren recalls the ardor once felt by many for Obama." (Obama
himself famously echoed
Warren's message -- "you didn't build that" -- on the 2012 campaign trail.)
Locally, Warren prompted a much different discussion, with scores of Massachusetts analysts
describing her as stiff and unlikable. Boston-based Democratic analyst Dan Payne bemoaned her
"know-it-all style" and wished aloud she would " be more authentic I want her to
just sound like a human being, not read the script that makes her sound like some angry,
hectoring schoolmarm." In a long profile for Boston magazine, reporter Janelle Nanos
quoted Thomas Whalen, a political historian at Boston University, who called Warren a "flawed
candidate," someone who was " desperately
trying to find a message that's going to resonate. " In that same article, Nanos asked
Warren point-blank about her "likability problem." Warren's response seemed to stem from deep
frustration: "People tell me everywhere I go why they care that I got in this race," she said.
"I can't answer the question because I literally haven't experienced what you're talking
about."
By demanding that Warren disguise her exceptional talents, we are asking her to lose.
Thankfully, she's not listening.
There's an element of gaslighting here: It only takes a reporter a few sources -- and an
op-ed columnist a single, fleeting judgment -- to declare a candidate "unlikable." After that
label has been applied, any effort the candidate makes to win people over can be cast as
"inauthentic." Likability is in this way a self-reinforcing accusation, one which is amplified
every time the candidate tries to tackle it. (Recall Hillary Clinton, who was asked about her
"likability" at seemingly
every debate or
town hall for eight straight years -- then furiously accused of pandering every time she
made an effort to seem more "approachable.")
It's significant that the "
I hate you; please respond" line of political sabotage only ever seems to be aimed at
women. It's also revealing that, when all these men talked about how Warren could win them
over, their "campaign" advice sounded suspiciously close to makeover tips. In his article,
Payne advised Warren to "lose the
granny glasses," "soften the hair," and employ a professional voice coach to "deepen her voice,
which grates on some." Payne seemed to suggest that Elizabeth Warren look like a model and
sound like a
man -- anything to disguise the grisly reality of a smart woman making her case.
Warren won her Senate race, and the "schoolmarm" stereotype largely vanished as her national
profile grew. By 2014, grassroots activists were begging her to run for president; by mid-2016,
CNN had named her " Donald Trump's chief antagonist ." She's
since given a stream of incendiary interviews and handed the contemporary women's movement its
most popular
meme . All this should be enough to prove any candidate's "charisma." Yet, now that she's
thrown her hat into the presidential ring, the firebrand has become a Poindexter once
again.
The digs at Warren's "professorial" style hurt her because, on some level, they're true.
Warren really is an intellectual, a scholar; moreover, she really is running an exceptionally
ideas-focused campaign, regularly turning out detailed and exhaustive policy proposals at a
point when most of the other candidates don't even have policy sections on their websites.
What's galling is the suggestion that this is a bad thing.
Yes, male candidates have suffered from being too smart -- just ask Gore, who ran on climate
change 20 years before it was trendy. But just as often, their intelligence helps them. Obama's
sophistication and
public reading lists endeared him to liberals. And just a few days ago, Indiana Mayor Pete
Buttigieg was widely praised for learning
Norwegian in order to read an author's untranslated works. Yet, Warren is dorky, a teacher's
pet, a try-hard Tracy Flick, or Lisa Simpson. A "know-it-all."
The "schoolmarm" stereotype now applied to Warren has always been used to demean educated
women. In the Victorian era, we called them "bluestockings" -- unmarried, unattractive women
who had dared to prioritize intellectual development over finding a man. They are, in the words
of one contemporary writer, "
frumpy and frowly in the extreme, with no social talents ." Educators say that 21st century
girls are still afraid to talk in class because of "sexist bullying" which sends the message
that smart girls are unfeminine: "For girls, peers tell them 'if you are swotty and clever and
answer too many questions, you are not attractive ,'" claims Mary
Bousted, joint general-secretary of the U.K.'s National Education Union. Female academics still
report being made to feel " unsexual, unattractive, unwomanly, and
unnatural. " We can deplore all this as antiquated thinking, but even now, grown men are
still demanding that Warren ditch her glasses or "soften" her hair -- to work on being prettier
so as to make her intelligence less threatening.
Warren is cast as a bloodless intellectual when she focuses on policy, a scolding lecturer
when she leans into her skills as a rabble-rouser; either way, her intelligence is always too
much and out of place. Her eloquence is framed, not as inspiring, but as "angry" and
"hectoring." Being an effective orator makes her "strident." It's not solely confined to the
media, but reporters seem anxious to signal-boost anyone who complains: Anonymous male
colleagues call her "irritating," telling Vanity Fair that "she projects a 'holier than
thou' attitude" and that "
she has a moralizing to her. " That same quality in male candidates is hailed as moral
clarity.
Warren is accused, in plain language, of being uppity -- a woman who has the bad grace to be
smarter than the men around her, without downplaying it to assuage their egos. But running in a
presidential race is all about proving that you are smarter than the other guy. By demanding
that Warren disguise her exceptional talents, we are asking her to lose. Thankfully, she's not
listening. She is a smart woman, after all.
"... Professor Weinstein is an avowed liberal with a long history of progressive thinking. As a young man, he was the center of another controversy when he blew the whistle regarding the exploitation of black strippers by a college fraternity. Regardless, his refusal to participate in what can be described as a "no-white-people-day" ironically earned him the brand "racist" by the student body. He was essentially removed from the campus on the threat of physical harm. ..."
"... Bret Weinstein is on the left, politically, but the leftist students and administration attacked him for not being left enough . Imagine now, how the college may have treated a person who leaned right. As it turns out, there are quite a few examples. ..."
"... Dr. Peterson is a psychology professor, clinician, and best-selling author. He is also, perhaps, today's most controversial academic. He burst into the public consciousness after he opposed bill C-16 in Canada. The bill added gender expression and gender identity to the various protections covered by the Canadian Human Rights Act. ..."
"... One example comes from Queens University. While Dr. Peterson gave a lecture, student protestors broke windows, tried to drown him out with noisemakers and drums, and one protestor told others to burn down the building with Dr. Peterson and the attendees locked inside. ..."
In March 2017, young people armed with baseball
bats prowled the parking lots of Evergreen State College. They hoped to find Bret Weinstein, a biology professor, and presumably
bash his brains in. Bret had caught the ire of the student body after he refused to participate in an unofficial "Day of Absence,"
in which white students and faculty were told to stay home, away from the campus, while teachers and students of color attended as
they normally would. In prior years, people of color voluntarily absented themselves to highlight their presence and importance on
campus. In 2017, the event's organizers decided to flip the event, and white people were pressured to stay away from the school.
In a letter to the school's administration, Bret explained why he opposed
the idea:
There is a huge difference between a group or coalition deciding to voluntarily absent themselves from a shared space in order
to highlight their vital and under-appreciated roles and a group or coalition encouraging another group to go away. The first
is a forceful call to consciousness which is, of course, crippling to the logic of oppression. The second is a show of force,
and an act of oppression in and of itself
On a college campus, one's right to speak -- or to be -- must never be based on skin color.
When word of Professor Weinstein's objection got out, enraged student activists began a hostile takeover of the school, and the
college president ordered the campus police force not to intervene. Professor Weinstein was told, in essence, that nobody would protect
him from young people with baseball bats. The police warned Professor Weinstein that their hands were tied and that he should stay
off campus for his own safety.
Professor Weinstein is an avowed liberal
with a long history of progressive thinking. As a young man, he was the center of another controversy when he
blew the whistle regarding the exploitation of black
strippers by a college fraternity. Regardless, his refusal to participate in what can be described as a "no-white-people-day" ironically
earned him the brand "racist" by the student body. He was essentially removed from the campus on the threat of physical harm.
And its core, the story of Bret Weinstein and Evergreen State College is about a college's descent into total chaos after someone
presented mild resistance to a political demonstration.
Bret Weinstein is on the left, politically, but the leftist students and administration attacked him for not being left enough
. Imagine now, how the college may have treated a person who leaned right. As it turns out, there are quite a few examples.
Before discussing what the Wilfrid Laurier University did to a woman named Lindsay Shepherd, it's important to know about Jordan
Peterson.
Dr. Peterson is a psychology professor, clinician, and best-selling author. He is also, perhaps, today's most controversial academic.
He burst into the public consciousness after he opposed bill C-16 in Canada. The bill added gender expression and gender identity
to the various protections covered by the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Dr. Peterson objected to the bill because it set a new precedent -- requiring citizens to use certain pronouns to address people
with non-traditional gender identities. Dr. Peterson calls transexual
people by whatever gender they project , as long as he feels like they're asking him to do so in good faith, but he's wary of
people playing power games with him, and he saw something dangerous about the government mandating which words he must use. He believed
that under C-16, misgendering a person could be classified as hate speech, even it was just an accident.
Having spent much of his life considering the dangers that exist at the furthest ends of the political spectrum -- Nazi Germany
on the far right, the Soviet Union on the far left -- Dr. Peterson has developed a tendency to see things in apocalyptic terms.
In bill C-16, he saw what he considered the seeds of a serious threat to the freedom of expression -- a list of government-approved
words -- and decided it was a hill worth dying on.
He's controversial, verbose, discursive, sometimes grouchy, and almost incapable of speaking the language of television sound-bites.
He makes it easy for critics to attack and misrepresent him -- and ever since he took a stance against C-16, he's been subjected
to student protests and journalistic hit-pieces.
One example comes from Queens University. While Dr. Peterson gave a lecture, student protestors broke windows, tried to drown
him out with noisemakers and drums, and one protestor told others to burn down the building with Dr. Peterson and the attendees locked
inside.
Regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with his opinions, Dr. Peterson should have the right to express them without other
people suggesting that he be murdered with fire. Furthermore, people should be able to talk about what he says.
Enter the case of Lindsay Shepherd.
While working as a teacher's aid at Wilfrid Laurier University, Lindsay Shepherd showed students two clips from public access
television featuring Jordan Peterson debating someone over bill C-16. After showing the clips, she asked her students to share their
thoughts.
Days later, the school called her into a meeting with a panel of three superiors. They said that they had gotten a number of complaints
from students. Lindsay asked how many complaints they had received, and was told that the number was confidential.
The panel claimed that she had created a toxic environment by showing the clips and facilitating a discussion without taking a
side against Dr. Peterson's view. They said it was as if she had been completely neutral while showing one of Hitler's speeches.
The panel thought the clip probably violated the Human Rights Code, and they demanded Shepherd to submit all of her future lesson
plans ahead of time so that they could be vetted.
Although one student expressed some concern about the class, the number of formal complaints that the administrators had received
was actually zero.
During their discussion, Lindsay said:
The thing is, can you shield people from those ideas? Am I supposed to comfort them and make sure that they are insulated away
from this? Is that what the point of this is? Because to me that is against what a university is about.
Lindsay found herself at the mercy of school administrators whose brittle spirits couldn't bear to present students with opinions
that they might have found offensive. She had believed that universities were places where people could explore ideas. On that day,
the panel showed her just how wrong she'd been.
And she caught it all on tape.
Over the past few years, the news has become littered with stories of schools overrun by children while hand-wringing professors
and administrators do everything possible to placate them. Recently, a group called "The Diaspora Coalition"
staged a sit-in at Sarah Lawrence.
Their demands
included, among other things, that they get free fabric-softener. The origin of their grievance was an
op-ed published in the
New York Times about the imbalance between left-leaning and right-leaning school administrators.
Jonathan Haidt, social psychologist and Professor of Ethical Leadership at New York University's Stern School of Business,
sums the phenomenon up tidily :
You get kids who are much more anxious and fragile, much more depressed, coming onto campus at a time of much greater political
activism -- and now these grievance studies ideas about, 'America's a matrix of oppression,' and, 'look at the world in terms
of good versus evil.' it's much more appealing to them, and it's that minority of students, they're the ones who are initiating
a lot of the movements
Every day, or at least every week, I get an email from a professor saying, 'you know, I used a metaphor
in class and somebody reported me.' and once this happens to you, you pull back. You change your teaching style
What we're seeing
on campus is a spectacular collapse of trust between students and professors. And once we can't trust each other, we can't do
our job.
We can't risk being provocative, raising uncomfortable ideas. We have to play it safe, and then everybody suffers.
To understate it, President Donald Trump is a deeply troubling human being. However, he may have done a good thing on Thursday,
March 21st, when he signed an
executive order that requires public schools to "foster environments that promote open, intellectually engaging, and diverse
debate."
Schools that don't comply may lose government-funded research grants.
In theory, the order will compel colleges to prevent scenes like those at Evergreen State and Sarah Lawrence. Schools will have
serious financial incentives to protect their professors from mobs of unruly children. If all goes well, students will learn to engage
with controversial opinions without resorting to baseball bats or demanding Snuggle Plus fabric softener.
One would be remiss if they didn't consider the hidden or unintended consequences of the new policy, though. The executive order
is vague, and it gives no criteria for judging whether an institution complies with its requirements. Instead, the specific implementation
is left for structures lower on the hierarchy to decide. Hopefully, nobody decides that Young Earth theories must be taught alongside
evolution.
The policy could very well become a tool by which the dominant political party punishes schools that lean in the opposite direction.
Since there is a 12-to-1 imbalance between liberals and conservative college administrators right now, it would be a Republican administration
punishing liberal colleges.
This is hardly a perfect solution -- but at least it's an effort to address the problem. The stability of our society depends
on an endless balancing act between the left and the right. The political landscape of academia has tilted too far left, and it's
clearly becoming insular and unstable. Now it's necessary to push things back toward the center.
Hopefully, this recent executive order does more good than harm.
Postscript
After the events at Evergreen State College, the school was forced to settle with Bret Weinstein and his wife, who was also a
professor there. The college paid the couple $500,000. Enrollment at the college is said to have dropped "catastrophically."
After the events at Wilfrid Laurier University, the school released several letters of apology. It is being sued for millions
of dollars by Lindsay Shepherd and Jordan Peterson.
Forty professors endorsed the demands made by the Diaspora Coalition at Sarah Lawrence, and several others endorsed challenging
Samuel Abrams's tenure -- Abrams being the person who wrote the op-ed that appeared in the New York Times.
"... All of these people who are in or have passed through leadership positions in America are entirely valid representatives of Americans in general. You may imagine they are faking cluelessness to avoid acknowledging responsibility for their crimes, but the cluelessness is quite real and extends to the entire population. ..."
"... Decades ago while in a leftist organization debate was raised as to how to find valid information to inform ourselves with. It was well understood that the vast majority of the western corporate mass media was a brainwashing operation to keep the masses clueless and supporting imperialist war but, we reasoned, the ruling class itself would need to be kept informed with quality information in order to feel confident that they were making good decisions. ..."
"... But things change. Note how the Russiagate skeptics in the US were attacked by the desperately faithful: If you focused attention on flaws in the Russiagate conspiracy theory then the general consensus was that you were defending Trump. ..."
"... This condition has arisen from literally generations of propaganda instilling as reality in American media consumers the myth of "American Exceptionalism" . The current crop of American adults have been raised by parents who themselves have been thoroughly indoctrinated in this alter reality. The disease is literally universal across the nation, from lowliest and most oppressed Black transvestites to the CEOs of the biggest corporations. ..."
"... The Washington Post used to be one of the journals that the elites looked to in order to help inform their decisions, but now in the post-truth, or relative truth, world these information sources have increasingly sought to align their information products with the "proper" relative truths that reinforce the myth of "American Exceptionalism" , even if that is in conflict with objective and empirical reality. ..."
"... In short, Washington Bezos Post writers are not moronic or drunk. They are delusional . They are in the grips of a delusion that afflicts the entire United States, and portions of the rest of the world as well ..."
"... WashingtonBezos Post writers are moronic or
drunk."
What ails them is far more complicated and vastly more sinister.
One often hears people say of other countries "It isn't the people of Elbonia whom I
hate, it is their government." It may be difficult for some in Europe, where there
remains a vestige of an imperative to foster a worldview based upon objective reality, to
come to grips with the fact that the problem with America has metastasized and spread to the
level of the individual citizens... all of them, to one degree or another. You don't
like Trump? Bolton? Clinton?
All of these people who are in or have passed through leadership positions in America are
entirely valid representatives of Americans in general. You may imagine they are faking
cluelessness to avoid acknowledging responsibility for their crimes, but the cluelessness is
quite real and extends to the entire population.
How did this happen to America?
Decades ago while in a leftist organization debate was raised as to how to find valid
information to inform ourselves with. It was well understood that the vast majority of the
western corporate mass media was a brainwashing operation to keep the masses clueless and
supporting imperialist war but, we reasoned, the ruling class itself would need to be kept
informed with quality information in order to feel confident that they were making good
decisions.
With this in mind we identified journals and sources that the capitalist elites
themselves relied upon to inform their decisions.
Things like the CIA World Factbook,
for instance, even though created by an organization devoted to disinformation, could be
trusted back then to be relatively dependable.
But things change. Note how the Russiagate skeptics in the US were attacked by the
desperately faithful: If you focused attention on flaws in the Russiagate conspiracy theory
then the general consensus was that you were defending Trump. The possibility that you could
be defending reason and truth is still dismissed out of hand. Why is that? Because in America
(it's a mind disease spreading to Europe, apparently) truth is relative and reason has become
just whatever justifies what you wish to be the truth; therefore, those who propose a
"truth" that conflicts with what people want to believe are agents of some enemy.
This condition has arisen from literally generations of propaganda instilling as reality
in American media consumers the myth of "American Exceptionalism" . The current crop
of American adults have been raised by parents who themselves have been thoroughly
indoctrinated in this alter reality. The disease is literally universal across the nation,
from lowliest and most oppressed Black transvestites to the CEOs of the biggest corporations.
As prior generations of the ruling elites from the post WWII era who still retained some
sense for the importance of objective reality have died off they have been replaced by the
newer generation for whom reality is entirely subjective. If they want to believe their
gender is mountain panda then that's their right as Americans! Likewise if they want to
believe that America's bombing is humanitarian and god's gift to the species, then anyone who
suggests otherwise is obviously a KGB troll.
The Washington Post used to be one of the journals that the elites looked to in order to
help inform their decisions, but now in the post-truth, or relative truth, world these
information sources have increasingly sought to align their information products with the
"proper" relative truths that reinforce the myth of "American Exceptionalism" ,
even if that is in conflict with objective and empirical reality.
To do otherwise would be to
aid and give comfort to America's "enemies" (do keep in mind that America is a nation
at war - has been for decades - and that workers in the corporate mass media are very much
conscious of their roles in that ongoing war effort, to the point that they see themselves as
information warriors fighting shadowy enemies that only exist in their own relative reality
bubbles).
In short, WashingtonBezos Post writers are not moronic or drunk.
They are delusional . They are in the grips of a delusion that afflicts the
entire United States, and portions of the rest of the world as well.
Some Americans have
broken free from this Matrix-like delusion, but the numbers remain somewhat small...
certainly less than one or two percent of the population, and those who have broken free of
the delusion will never be given a soapbox to speak to the rest of the population from by the
corporate elites.
I think you have wildly underestimated the number of Americans who are very aware of what is
going on with our country and the world. More than 40% of eligible voters elect not to
participate in elections realizing the futility of it, and withholding their consent to this
regime. It's a feature of propaganda to engender feelings of hopelessness, helplessness, and
feelings of isolation by falsely portraying a consensus among the population for the policies
of the regime. Resist!
"... I suspect that the cool aid is not working effectively these days and that far too many people see through the charades and lies. An interesting story lurks behind this and the entire 'hate Russia' and 'monkey Mueller' episode. ..."
"... The attitudes of the masses are spinning out of the manipulative hands of the deep state and the oligarchs ..."
"... Russiagate became a convenient replacement explanation absolving an incompetent political establishment for its complicity in what happened in 2016, and not just the failure to see it coming. ..."
"... Because of the immediate arrival of the collusion theory, neither Wolf Blitzer nor any politician ever had to look into the camera and say, "I guess people hated us so much they were even willing to vote for Donald Trump ..."
"... the elite seem to be fighting amongst themselves or (IMO) providing cover for ongoing elite power/control efforts. It might not be about private/public finance in a bigger picture but I can't see anything else that makes sense ..."
"... Most of those reporters were going to slant their stories the way their bosses wanted. Their jobs are just too nice to do otherwise. Getting Trump as Hillary's opponent had to have been a goal for the majority of them. He was the patsy who would become squished roadkill in the treads of The Most Experienced Presidential Candidate In History. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton is a knowledgeable, well-prepared, reasonable, experienced, even-tempered, hardworking candidate, while her opponent is a stubbornly uninformed demagogue who has been proven again and again to be a liar on matters big and small. There is no objective basis on which to equate Hillary Clinton to her opponent. ..."
"... The author had it half right. Turns out the voters knew quite a bit about Trump, and still preferred him to the Butcher of Libya. ..."
Thaks b, now that is a delightful question to pose on the eve of April fool's day.
My suggestion is that Cambridge Analytica and others backing Trump and the yankee imperial
machine have been taking measurements of USA citizens opinions and are staggered by the
results. They are panicked!
I suspect that the cool aid is not working effectively these days and that far too many
people see through the charades and lies. An interesting story lurks behind this and the
entire 'hate Russia' and 'monkey Mueller' episode.
The attitudes of the masses are spinning out of the manipulative hands of the deep state
and the oligarchs. Do any of our comrades have a handle on this type of research and the
implication for voter attitudes?
" Russiagate became a convenient replacement explanation absolving an incompetent
political establishment for its complicity in what happened in 2016, and not just the failure
to see it coming.
Because of the immediate arrival of the collusion theory, neither Wolf
Blitzer nor any politician ever had to look into the camera and say, "I guess people hated us
so much they were even willing to vote for Donald Trump ."
As a peedupon all I can see is that the elite seem to be fighting amongst themselves or
(IMO) providing cover for ongoing elite power/control efforts. It might not be about
private/public finance in a bigger picture but I can't see anything else that makes sense
Thanks for the Taibbi link. I hadn't seen it, and found him to be in good form. I do think
he ought to have spoken more about how bad Trump's Primary opponents were.
Most of those reporters were going to slant their stories the way their bosses wanted.
Their jobs are just too nice to do otherwise. Getting Trump as Hillary's opponent had to have
been a goal for the majority of them. He was the patsy who would become squished roadkill in
the treads of The Most Experienced Presidential Candidate In History. More on that for people
with strong stomachs:
Hillary Clinton is a knowledgeable, well-prepared, reasonable, experienced, even-tempered,
hardworking candidate, while her opponent is a stubbornly uninformed demagogue who has been
proven again and again to be a liar on matters big and small. There is no objective basis
on which to equate Hillary Clinton to her opponent.
The author had it half right. Turns out the voters knew quite a bit about Trump,
and still preferred him to the Butcher of Libya.
Donald Trump's unorthodox US presidential transition continued on Monday when he held talks with one of the most prominent supporters
of leftwing Democrat Bernie Sanders.
The president-elect's first meeting of the day at Trump Tower in New York was with Tulsi Gabbard, a Democratic maverick who endorsed
the socialist Sanders during his unsuccessful primary battle with Hillary Clinton.
... ... ...
At first glance Gabbard, who is from Hawaii and is the first Hindu member of the US Congress, seems an unlikely counsellor. She
resigned from the Democratic National Committee to back Vermont senator Sanders and formally nominated him for president at the party
convention in July, crediting him with starting a "movement of love and compassion", although by then Clinton's victory was certain.
But the Iraq war veteran has also expressed views that might appeal to Trump, criticising Obama, condemning interventionist wars
in Iraq and Libya and taking a hard line on immigration. In 2014, she called for a rollback of the visa waiver programme for Britain
and other European countries with what she called "Islamic extremist" populations.
In October last year she tweeted: "Al-Qaeda attacked us on 9/11 and must be defeated. Obama won't bomb them in Syria. Putin did.
#neverforget911." She was then among 47 Democrats who joined Republicans to pass a bill mandating a stronger screening process for
refugees from Iraq and Syria coming to the US.
Warren supported Hillary that the;s a huge black spot on her credentials. She also king of a hawk in forign policy diligitly repeated
stupid Depart of State talking points and making herself a fool. I especially like here blabbing about authoritarian regimes. From former
Harvard professor we should expect better that this.
To a certain extent he message about rigged system is authentic as She drive this horse for a long time. But that does
not means that she can't betray here electorate like Trump or Obama. She perfectly can. And is quite possible. Several details of her
biography suggest that she is a female careerist -- using dirty tricks to be promoted and paying her gender as an offensive weapon
(looks also at her use of Cherokee heritage claim)
But there is no ideal people and among establishment candidates she is the most electable despite all flows of her foreign
policy positions.
Notable quotes:
"... Comparing Elizabeth Warren to Trump is disingenuous. Trump is just ranting and defensive, without any evidence to back up his claims. What Elizabeth Warren is saying is just a matter of paying attention. ..."
"... This analysis completely ignores the outrageous, overarching influence of money and financial privilege over American politics. Equating Bill Clinton's dalliance with Trump's disrespect for all norms of decency and the truth? Please. Warren is right. Just look at the legislative obscenity of the recent tax bill and then try and equivocate they left and the right. I am not buying this false equivalency. ..."
"... Please, Elizabeth Warren is nothing like Trump. She's a brilliant, honest, tireless fighter for ordinary Americans. She wants a fair shake for them, just as FDR wanted a fair shake -- a "New Deal" -- for our Country. ..."
"... The so-called "left" in America (moderates anywhere else on the globe) have never varied from saying that money = power. They still say that today, and raise money like crazy for candidates thereby proving their own point. ..."
"... Conservatives in America (far-right extremists anywhere else on the globe) are much quieter about the influence of dough, but raise money like crazy for candidates thereby proving the "left's" point. ..."
The president and the senator both want you to know that our system is "rigged."
... ... ...
For decades, the left sought to dethrone the idea of truth. Truth was not an absolute. It was a matter of power. Of perspective.
Of narrative. "Truth is a thing of this world," wrote Michel Foucault. "Each society has its regime of truth, its 'general politics'
of truth: that is, the types of discourse which it accepts and makes function as true."
Then Kellyanne Conway gave us "alternative facts" and Rudy Giuliani said, "
Truth isn't truth"
-- and progressives rushed to defend the inviolability of facts and truth.
For decades, the left sought to dethrone reverence for the Constitution. "The Constitution," wrote progressive historian Howard
Zinn, "serves the interests of a wealthy elite" and enables "the elite to keep control with a minimum of coercion, a maximum of law
-- all made palatable by the fanfare of patriotism and unity."
Then
Donald Trump attacked freedom of the press and birthright citizenship, and flouted the emoluments clause, and assailed the impartiality
of the judiciary. And progressives rediscovered the treasure that is our Constitutional inheritance.
... ... ...
To an audience of nearly 500 new graduates and their families at the historically black college, the Massachusetts senator laid
out a bleak vision of America. "The rules are rigged because the rich and powerful have bought and paid for too many politicians,"
she said. "The rich and powerful want us pointing fingers at each other so we won't notice they are getting richer and more powerful,"
she said. "Two sets of rules: one for the wealthy and the well-connected. And one for everybody else," she said.
"That's how a rigged system works," she said.
It was a curious vision coming from a person whose life story, like that of tens millions of Americans who have risen far above
their small beginnings, refutes her own thesis. It was curious, also, coming from someone who presumably believes that various forms
of rigging are required to un-rig past rigging. Affirmative action in college admissions and aggressive minority recruitment
in corporations are also forms of "rigging."
But however one feels about various types of rigging, the echo of Trump was unmistakable. "It's being proven we have a rigged
system," the president said
at
one of his rallies last year . "Doesn't happen so easy. But this system -- gonna be a lot of changes. This is a rigged system."
Trump's claim that the system is rigged represents yet another instance of his ideological pickpocketing of progressives. From
C. Wright Mills ("The Power Elite") to Noam Chomsky ("Manufacturing Consent"), the animating belief of the far left has been, as
Tom Hayden put it, that we live in a "false
democracy," controlled by an unaccountable, deceitful and shadowy elite. Trump has names for it: the globalists; the deep state;
the fake news. Orange, it turns out, is the new red.
Of course, Warren and Trump have very different ideas as to just who the malefactors of great wealth really are. Is it Sheldon
Adelson or George Soros? The Koch brothers or the Ford Foundation? Posterity will be forgiven if it loses track of which alleged
conspiracy to rig the system was of the far-right and which was of the far left.
What it will remember is that here was another era in which a president and one of his leading opponents abandoned the prouder
traditions of American politics in favor of paranoid ones. Compare Warren's grim message to Bill Clinton's sunny one from his first
inaugural: "There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America."
At some point, it will be worth asking Senator Warren: Rigged compared to when? A generation ago a black president would have
been unthinkable. Two generations ago, a woman on the Supreme Court. And rigged compared to what? Electoral politics in Japan, which
have been dominated by a single party for decades? The class system in Brazil, dominated by a single race for centuries?
Bret L. Stephens has been an Opinion columnist with The Times since April 2017. He won a Pulitzer Prize for commentary at
The Wall Street Journal in 2013 and was previously editor in chief of The Jerusalem Post.
Warren is saying the system is rigged to suppress the middle class and poor in favor of the wealthy, which is easy to substantiate.
Trump is saying the system is rigged to suppress the white right, which is easy to refute. One statement is an economic fact,
the other is a racist trope. There is no equivalence here. ScottW Chapel Hill, NC Dec. 20, 2018
Sen. Warren supports Medicare for All, meaningful banking/financial regulations, regulations that benefit consumers, a living
wage, etc. Trump supports none of these policies--not a one. Trying to equate Trump with Warren is just stupid.
Comparing Elizabeth Warren to Trump is disingenuous. Trump is just ranting and defensive, without any evidence to back up his
claims. What Elizabeth Warren is saying is just a matter of paying attention. I don't need to list all the ways in which money
buys everything in politics. It's always a matter of following the money. Bret Stephens conveniently avoids looking at economics.
His supposed counterexamples are at best irrelevant to the issue: We've had a black President. We have women on the Supreme Court.
How are those examples proof that the system isn't rigged in favor of the wealthy and corporations? No doubt he thinks Plutocracy
is part of the natural order of things. He should go back to the Wall Street Journal where his myopia is more appropriate. MarnS
Nevada Dec. 20, 2018 Times Pick
Unfortunately Bret there are no "optimists" in the GOP, including yourself being one who has bounced back and forth in your
positions regarding the Trump presidency. Though you have found your way on CNN or MSNBC spouting your disappointments about the
state of the nation, the fact remains is that your a hardened, right wing opinion writer who may have less of an ideal when it
comes to America being a democratic nation. No, you can conveniently ignore the actions of your conservative party in there gerrymandering,
in their changing the rules for governors of the Democrat persuasion, or gross deliberate voter suppression that has placed your
party in power positions by, in effect, stealing elections. You are a writer with a forked tongue trying, at times in a passive
manner, to separate yourself from Trump, and the evilness of the current GOP Party without understanding that the definition of
"conservative" has changed to the radical. And that is documented by your writings in the WSJ. Yet, you cannot even dream about
truly being on the left side of an argument other than beating your breast with the fact that the GOP has disappeared, as we have
known it, in the hands of radicalism (which prior to Trump you participated in the escalation of radical conservatism), and your
party can never be revived as it once was...and we all pray it never will be so.
This analysis completely ignores the outrageous, overarching influence of money and financial privilege over American politics.
Equating Bill Clinton's dalliance with Trump's disrespect for all norms of decency and the truth? Please. Warren is right. Just
look at the legislative obscenity of the recent tax bill and then try and equivocate they left and the right. I am not buying
this false equivalency.
FYI, Foucault was offering critiques of "regimes of truth," not of truth itself. That's very different. Like most historians,
he spent an impressive amount of time in archives where he collected evidence in order to write books that give truthful accounts
of the past. You make a caricature of Foucault, and then of the entire left.
Rich Casagrande Slingerlands, NY Dec. 20, 2018 Times Pick
Please, Elizabeth Warren is nothing like Trump. She's a brilliant, honest, tireless fighter for ordinary Americans. She wants
a fair shake for them, just as FDR wanted a fair shake -- a "New Deal" -- for our Country. While much of the rest of the world was
turning to communism or fascism, FDR saved American capitalism by shaking it up. Oh how we could use a large dose of that today.
Whoa! Line by line, Mr Stephens offers statements that are way off base and should be refuted. Are you saying you disagree
with Warren? Do you think the "system" in America for the last 400 years has not been generally "rigged" against African-Americans?
But the gist of his column, and the main argument of conservatives these days, is that the left and the right are equally out
of line; that what the right says and does may be bad, but the left does the same sort of thing and is just as bad. This is not
true Bret, and you know it. The left desperately tries to find the high road, and anyone who supports Trump these days or believes
in most of his policies is either someone who has abandoned morality or is a fool. And that is the truth, Bret.
Calling out our system as "rigged" is nothing new for Sen. Warren. She's been stating that publicly since being a regular Bill
Moyer's guest on his PBS program 20 years ago -- and clearly already on a "prep for national politics" stump. What undercuts her
own integrity regarding "rigged" is that she chose, after much wait & anticipation, to throw her support to Hillary Clinton in
the summer of 2016. Not Bernie Sanders. She knew HRC had little integrity. And it's highly likely she knew the DNC primary was
rigged in favor of Clinton -- as it's widely been proven.
My point here highlights one of several reasons why Sen. Warren is unelectable
in the 2020 presidential general election. This is not to compare her in any way to Trump -- he's a venal, disturbed & dangerous
traitor to our country. However, if winning the WH in 2020 is the goal, Elizabeth Warren ain't got the goods to get the necessary
votes across our Republic.
There's a good case to be made that the far left exists in two separate dimensions. I offer myself in evidence. Among the policies
and social changes I advocate: Medicare for all Aggressively progressive taxation.
I don't recognize any freedom to corner as much wealth as one can while other people must labor at two or three jobs just to
feed their families on peanut butter.
I do think there's a bit of rigging afoot. Restrictions on the ownership of firearms comparable to those in Japan.
A society free from all forms of identity discrimination or prejudice. I'm bitterly opposed to racism, anti-Semitism, sexism,
homophobia; any example you care to give, including those without short handles, such as prejudice against Muslims or transgender
people.
Yes, I know I have this in common with decent conservatives, but I'm thinking of partisan realities in the US today. I should
add that I don't mind the prospect of WASPS like me becoming just another minority.
But-- I can't picture myself as a socialist -- hair combed straight back, and all that.
The rigorously progressive personality type rubs me the wrong way. Leftist cant grates on every fiber of my being. Che Guevara
T-shirts make the lip curl. When my knee jerks, it jerks against things like that old leftist conceit that truth is what you make
it. I look at the far-left agenda and see a lot to like. I look at the far-left milieu and see didactic arrogance, frigidity,
and pat attitudes. I'm a Democrat in disarray.
The so-called "left" in America (moderates anywhere else on the globe) have never varied from saying that money = power. They
still say that today, and raise money like crazy for candidates thereby proving their own point.
Conservatives in America (far-right
extremists anywhere else on the globe) are much quieter about the influence of dough, but raise money like crazy for candidates
thereby proving the "left's" point.
Reality? Money in America is everything. Period. Just try to run for office, influence policy,
and/or change the direction of the country as a sole, intelligent, concerned poor person and see how far you get.
This should be the end of the
Democratic party. This dismal state of affairs is their fault, from the content of the leaked emails to their handling of it.
They have had choices on the way to clean up their act but, they have blankly refused at every juncture. Not one thing has
changed since the emails revealed that the DNC rigs its primaries, and yet here we are in the middle of another fake primary
with everyone going along with it like it's a real thing. It's weird. In a healthy democratic republic the party would be dead
already, and a new one would've taken its place fueled by fresh energy and enthusiasm but the donor-class corruption is so
deeply entrenched that that possibility has seemed like a fantasy.
Gregory Herr , March 27, 2019 at 19:30
As an old-fashioned labor-lefty who used to call himself a Democrat, I'd say the
alienation continues unabated.
No illusions about who and what the party represents. Bad enough at home, but shit, they also
drop bombs like no tomorrow and spout lines from Langley and Likud like the back of their
hand.
As an armchair goof playing early guessing games, I'd say Sanders will pull at least the
weight he did last time as the uninspiring field of corporatists will split Hillary's wing
and the wild card Gabbard may draw support widely.
SteveK9 , March 28, 2019 at 10:03
Lifelong Democrat here that saw the writing on the wall, one year into Obama's first term (gave up on MSM during the runup
to the Iraq invasion). Although, I could hardly have imagined how low the Democratic leadership would sink with Russia-gate.
Gabbard is inspiring, but they are already starting to wear her down. I can't see anyone winning against imperial propaganda
at this point, but I will support her as much as I can.
Gregory Herr , March 28, 2019 at 18:40
I'm sending a small donation to help her get into the Dem debates.
"... Unfortunately, in every way that matters, RussiaGate has been a complete success. ..."
"... Though Trump says he is a Nationalist, his every move in foreign policy shows him to be toeing the line for the interests of the PNACers, and whenever he bucks their interests, he has shown that he can be brought to heel as long as they don't trample his ego. ..."
"... Tell them how utterly abhorrent and degenerate this war of terrorism against the Syrian people has been... ..."
"... I think there will be a major smear campaign against Bernie and Tulsi. Wikileaks has shown that the DNC had plans to smear Bernie as an atheist in 2016, among other things ..."
"... They will say that Socialism will bankrupt the Nation, and if we don't keep bombing everyone the "terrorists" will win. Divide and conquer is the game plan. ..."
"... They have retained the superdelegates for the second ballot, and they are running so many candidates that they are purposely aiming for a second ballot, where the oligarchs will once again decide for the people. ..."
"... Next step for the MSM propaganda machine? Probably assisting the CIA in whipping up war fever against Venezuela. ..."
"... They've pounded "Putin evil!" into the heads of their party fanatics long enough that shouting "Putin plus Maduro!" at them will have the most ardent Democrat voter screaming to massacre all of Caracas. ..."
I posted this on Medium when this article first came out.
Unfortunately, in every way that matters, RussiaGate has been a complete success. When
Donald Trump said "wouldn't it be great to get along with Russia" RussiaGate was born. The
thought of detente was his cardinal sin. That possibility has been completely demolished.
The
MIC and its trillions of wasted dollars are safe. The Evil Empire's Forever War continues
unabated, and even has new horizons in places such as Iran and Venezuela. Nuclear
brinksmanship keeps the R&D money flowing to Lockheed Martin and the other death dealers.
Though Trump says he is a Nationalist, his every move in foreign policy shows him to be
toeing the line for the interests of the PNACers, and whenever he bucks their interests, he
has shown that he can be brought to heel as long as they don't trample his ego.
The DNC/RNC theater will go on, and the MSM will seek to ensure that our choice for 2020
will be corporate sponsored warmonger from column A or B.
... ... ...
The young people of today spend more time on the internet than they do watching network
television, and 42 percent of registered voters didn't bother to cast a ballot in 2016.
Therein lies our hope.
Gregory Herr , March 26, 2019 at 20:30
The time is ripe for leaving the Democrats, Skip. I think Tulsi should take your advice.
But I've a funny feeling she'll throw the support she builds to Bernie towards a VP slot on
the ticket.
Tulsi Gabbard is saying things fairly directly that Americans aren't used to hearing from
their politicians. I love hearing it. But I have to say I'm bothered by her handling of the
"Assad question". She could simply relate some of her experience in Syria, including her time
with Assad. She could, in point of fact, refer to Assad as the President of Syria.
She could
say that Syria's culture and political system are their own and that we would all do better
to seek understanding of that culture before we set about trying to destroy it by arming
terrorists.
She did say the CIA armed terrorists in Syria, didn't she? Come on Tulsi. Just part of the
truth isn't enough truth. Tell them they ought to go to Syria themselves. Tell them the
reporters aren't doing their jobs.
Tell them how utterly abhorrent and degenerate this war of terrorism against the Syrian
people has been...
Skip Scott , March 28, 2019 at 08:13
I think there will be a major smear campaign against Bernie and Tulsi. Wikileaks has shown
that the DNC had plans to smear Bernie as an atheist in 2016, among other things. They have
Bob Parry's "Mighty Wurlitzer" and a vast toolkit.
They will say that the progressives are
splintering the party, and that getting rid of Trump is all that matters, so you need to hold
you nose and choose warmonger from column B.
They will say that Socialism will bankrupt the
Nation, and if we don't keep bombing everyone the "terrorists" will win. Divide and conquer
is the game plan.
They have retained the superdelegates for the second ballot, and they are
running so many candidates that they are purposely aiming for a second ballot, where the
oligarchs will once again decide for the people.
That's why a real progressive needs to split
from the Dems in a dramatic fashion , go third party, and shoot for the 15% to make the
debates. In the end, that's the only venue that matters.
AelfredRex , March 26, 2019 at 06:31
Next step for the MSM propaganda machine? Probably assisting the CIA in whipping up war
fever against Venezuela.
They've pounded "Putin evil!" into the heads of their party fanatics
long enough that shouting "Putin plus Maduro!" at them will have the most ardent Democrat
voter screaming to massacre all of Caracas.
Zhu , March 26, 2019 at 01:44
US elections are like those in the Roman Empire: prestigious but meaningless.
Zhu , March 26, 2019 at 01:47
America. We are definitely a genocidal nation. In all ways we are to blame for your own
problems.
Carlson is saying Trump's not "capable" of sustained focus on the sausage-making of right-wing policy.
The clickbait (out of context) headline makes it sound like a more general diss. I'm not supporting Trump here [standard disclaimer],
but these gotcha headlines are tiresome.
King of Faustian bargain of a US politician. Bernie showed his colors in the 2016 primaries. He can't be trusted...
What Bernie is doing is eliminating chances for Tulsi...
Notable quotes:
"... Thank you Jimi, for calling out even Bernie when he buys the corporate bullshit ..."
"... Seriously, if you still support this clown, you are part of the problem. ..."
"... There's nothing progressive about silence, tepidness, or even support for destructive policies abroad by the same forces -- & for the same interests -- that we claim to oppose at home. ..."
"... this is the bargain Bernie made to run as a Democrat ..."
"... Bernie lost credibility when he endorsed Hilary in 2016... Tulsi is the one for 2020... ..."
Aaron Maté tweets -- Do we need a new category for progressives whose progressive values stop at the US border?
There's nothing progressive about silence, tepidness, or even support for destructive policies abroad by the same forces --
& for the same interests -- that we claim to oppose at home.
Bernie lost credibility when he endorsed Hilary in 2016... Tulsi is the one for 2020...
pandastratton. 23 hours ago
Donate to Tulsi to get her on the debate stage!!!!
Dionysos, 19 hours ago
Jimmy I know Tulsi is the best candidate in terms of foreign policy, but Bernie is our only chance at getting a real progressive
in the White House!
People are suffering economically and that is the issue where the vast majority of support lies. If stuff like this splits
the progressive support and allows someone like Kamala to win in the primaries, things will get really bad.
Robert Rowland23 hours ago
Jimmy (God love ya), the Military Industrial Complex is the single most gut-wrenchingly ruthless, most awesome entity on the
planet. It has the ability to kill pretty much anyone they want without repercussion. No domestic political movement, even one
that holds the Whitehouse, is capable of bringing them down or even reining them in. They will eventually meet their demise through
bad management in combination with a series of misfortunes resulting in defeat in all-out global war. Until then, and while we
as a nation are still able, the best we common folks can hope for is this juggernaut (the true boss) to give us some measure of
these desperately needed social reforms. In other words, Bernie is just being realistic.
Meanwhile, Tulsi, The Real Deal Gabbard (God bless her soul), if successful, will be on a course to join the ranks of JFK,
RFK, and MLK.
Our much-vaunted democracy is a sham and our freedom isn't actually what it is represented as being. May I suggest you watch this
video and view it as a metaphor. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vb8Rj5xkDPk
"... Bernie Sanders said he on Wednesday, "felt compelled to address Russian interference during the US election. Sunday.... he was not aware and believes Russian bot promoting him and went as far to said WikiLeaks published Hillary's email stolen by the Russia....." ..."
"... Can you really trust that lying bastard? I'm probably one of the few MoA refused to believe and trust Bernie Sanders and the fuckup Democrats . ..."
Bernie Sanders said he on Wednesday, "felt compelled to address Russian interference
during the US election. Sunday.... he was not aware and believes Russian bot promoting
him and went as far to said WikiLeaks published Hillary's email stolen by the
Russia....."
Can you really trust that lying bastard? I'm probably one of the few MoA refused to
believe and trust Bernie Sanders and the fuckup Democrats .
I am a former Trump supporter, hardcore Trump supporter but I got off the Trump train 2
years ago after he bombed Syria. I got fooled once but I will not be fooled a second time.
This country needs a real leader with real sincerity with a real heart for the American
people and that's Tulsi Gabbard!!!
The main stream media and pollsters are ignoring Tulsi. That means she is doing a lot
better than they are letting on. They will not be able to ignore her forever.
i love tulsi. something ive noticed a lot is her bipartisan support. both sensible
thoughtful republicans and sensible thoughtful democrats (yes they both exist) seem to be for
her. either way her anti war stance is something that i hope gets more coverage and people
see through the blantant mainstream media smear attempts. whether you vote for her or not,
it's refreshing and compelling to hear an iraq veteran take a strong stance against endless
regime change war.
Thanks for your thoughtful analysis. I agree that Tulsi would indeed be THE most
formidable opponent against "The Donald". She offers the greatest contrast to him and in
that, gives the electorate a clear defined choice. As a woman with a multi-cultural and
strong religious upbringing, a Gen Xer and a veteran, she has all the qualities that "The
Donald" lacks. In addition, her life long commitment to public service, as well as her
well-defined policy platform, puts the icing on the cake as the best "Anti-Donald"
candidate.
Some Democrats have been taking a lot of heat at town halls because they refuse to get
behind a 'Medicare For All' system. And it's not just that they're getting booed; their
constituents are literally calling for them to retire. Dianne Feinstein has been one of the
recipients of this outrage. Tulsi Gabbard, however, had overwhelming support from enthusiastic
constituents at her town hall because she actually pledged to support a 'Medicare For All'
system. In this segment, we juxtapose Feinstein's town halls with Gabbard's to illustrate
EXACTLY how you talk with your constituents about healthcare.
************************
The Humanist Report (THR) is a progressive political podcast that discusses and analyzes
current news events and pressing political issues. Our analyses are guided by humanism and
political progressivism. Each news story we cover is supplemented with thought-provoking,
fact-based commentary that aims for the highest level of objectivity.
Is Medicare "government take over of health care"? Hell no. People on Medicare visit the
doctor of their choice, and the doctors are private entrepreneurs - unlike the doctors in the
VA, they aren't paid a salary by the govt. Time to retire, Dianne!
Ecuador is a small country without the resources we have. They have single payer system.
In this country my medication, Xeralto, costs $300 a month. In Ecuador the cost is $90 a
month. I practiced medicine in Canada for two years. It is the way to go. It is less
expensive and provides better care.
Watching this old fartbag talk and STILL have a seat in the senate really boils my blood,
I can't watch this without my blood pressure rising which I'd get checked out if Medicare for
all was a thing lol
Tulsi will be the Bernie of the 2020 election. The problem is, the same corrupt sellouts
are still in control of the DNC. So unless something changes she will be shut down in favour
of people like Corey Booker, Elizabeth Warren and Adam Schiff.
I'm happy to say that my rep, Tim Ryan, was an early co-sponsor of HR676 and is a real
blue color progressive. However, I'm still calling and emailing others. Don't stop at your
own rep, folks. Please contact as many corporate dems as you have time for and let them know
that their job is on the line. The pressure must be turned up to 100!
Great 31 min presentation on Tulsi. Outstanding analysis of Tulsi as a candidate. Bravo
!!!
The idea the contrast between Trump and Tulsi will help Tulsi looks plausible. Trump is dumb,
corrupt, very rich and old chickenhawk. There can't be greater contract. She is almost 100%
opposite of Donald Trump.
In additional picking up voters disappointed with Trump she also will pick up large fraction
of voters that voted for Hillary.
The complication is the Bernie Sanders also runs and will attacks the same category of
voters.
True left was always anti-war, so Tulsi is the natural candidate of "true left"
In this video, I argue that Tulsi Gabbard could potentially make a very strong run in 2020
and that everyone who tries to dismiss her is vastly underestimating her potential.
Tulsi is my first choice, by a mile, for all the reasons you've mentioned. The #1
liability she has, only because of the fact that half of the American populace are ignorant
intolerant lunkheads, is her faith. She's a Hindu (which easily translates as being a Krishna
devotee.)
Only one correction. Assad isn't a dictator, he's been elected president of Syria in
democratic elections. And if you want to argue that the elections in Syria are rigged or that
the opposition candidates don't get impartial coverage in the press Well then I'd say that's
the same case of the USA and many other democracies around the world!
Tulsi Gabbard stands alone, she should form an independent party by asking the people to
donate to her cause. Bernie Sanders is a deferential failed candidate that is too worried
about the democratic party than winning for the people. It is too late to reform the 2
parties in charge since they are part of the cancer created by the Kakistocracy. Eventually
the masses will wake up, unfortunately they are in a catatonic state allowing the current
situation.
Surprised you didn't mention her religion: Hinduism. The left doesn't care, but you
mentioned that the right will have a hard time hitting her on traditional stuff... I think
that's wrong in one instance, religion. If she gets the nomination, the right wing
establishment will absolutely hit her on her religion, no question. I think you shoulda
mentioned that in your analysis.
I think your analysis is outstanding, many thanks! I haven't yet watched your other videos
but it's my intention. I agree with you almost 100% about Tulsi but am not yet convinced
Trump will be defeatable in 2020. I've been watching a lot of coverage from the conservative
right and he is way more popular than people on the left understand.
Michael Tracey (@mtracey) interviewed Democratic presidential candidate and Hawaii
Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard (@TulsiGabbard) in New Hampshire on March 23 and 24, 2019. They
discussed topics ranging from the farce of the Trump/Russia saga, her views on identity
politics, her religious background, her relationship with Bernie Sanders, and much more.
She is a real gifted politician. The question was very tricky. "Will you be able to pledge to
return any continuation of people who also donated to AIPAC"
Tulsi needs around 20000 more donors to be eligible for the Democratic debates. Please
donate a dollar to her campaign and tell your friends and family to do the same!
She will be dragged through so much mud by the establishment in the coming days, we saw a
glimpse of it in Colbert show, her training will help her a lot though
Rod, you just gained this subscriber excellent pointing this out! Once again Tulsi is
demonstrating she is on the right side of history and will even stand up to AIPEC like ilhan
Omar did sure would be nice to see Bernie make a similar stand!
Donate to Tulsi Gabbard campaign to help her get into the debates by donating to
tulsi2020.com you can donate more than once and they'll each count as a unique donation
even $1 at a time
AIPAC is a foreign terrorist organization that needs to be outlawed and any American that
takes their bribe money to do their bidding should be arrested for treason.
The more I hear Tulsi Gabbard speak the more I want her to win, and I am Irish living in
Dublin,
Ireland.You can tell by the reaction of the people there, what it means to them not to
have foreign government dictate their foreign policy
Trump is just looking for s big war, I think he reallys believe America can't be touched.
Meaning what he did with the golden Heights. Like really that's so wrong and you did it in
the open like it's not a bad thing. He's pissing off many countries and Russia is one of
them. Putin isn't happy ab the golden height thing.
Is there a website that list where candidates stand as far as the numbers they have and in
what states? I find it hard to believe that Tulsi hasn't reached the number yet, while other
less known candidates who entered after her have already blown past the needed 65K mark. If
this is something that is kept hidden, who's to know if more lying and cheating is going
on?
Tulsi Gabbard on AIPAC: "Our opportunity is to challenge leaders to see where we stand and
the policies we are pushing forward; and the kinds of debates and discussions we need to have
about our foreign policy and where our tax-payer dollars are going." My understanding: FP =
The US position on Israel 's policy vis a vis settlements and military entanglements.
Tax-Payer $$ = The money spent by the government in supporting the above.
This is, in my opinion, a very sane way to open the door to a healthy discussion about
such an important issue which up to now has been lopsided towards the Establishment's
position with little opportunity for the people to have a say in the matter.
The Daily Kos has made it their personal mission to make sure Tulsi has no success - or so
they said in an email just a couple of days after she announced. However, that didn't stop one
of the "Kosters" from putting out a more objective poll on Kos's website. 20k people voted in
this poll, and the results bode well for Tulsi.
Amazing level of polemic and diplomatic skills. That's really high class my fiends. Rare for
any US politician: most are suckers that can answer only prepared questions. MSNBC presstitutes
should be ashamed, but they have not shame. amasing !!!
In this segment, we look at Tulsi's savvy and brutally honest rebuttal when the Morning
Show hosts allege that "Russia" is looking to help Tulsi when the 2020 Democratic Primary
election
How it can be that there not 50K anti war people in the whole USA? Or they are waiting for something ? I do not know
what is the deadline, I do not understand why she still did not got 50K donations to bring her to debate. .
Tulsi needs about 20000 more unique donors to get to the debate stage! Tell your friends
and family to donate a dollar at
tulsi2020.com ! Even if she isn't their preferred candidate, they might still appreciate
a strong anti-interventionist voice on the debate stage!
A calm, thoughtful, anti-war progressive voice that we need to hear in the coming debates.
Please make a donation or buy something at
Tulsi2020.com She needs another 20,000 contributors to meet the DNC
requirement.
This is probably the most comprehensive outline of the color revolution against Trump. Bravo, simply bravo !!!
Reads like Agatha Christi Murder on the Orient
Express ;-) Rosenstein role is completely revised from a popular narrative. Brennan role clarifies and detailed. Obama
personal role hinted. Victoria Nuland role and the role of the State Department in Russiagate is documented for the first
time, I think.
Notable quotes:
"... The "insurance policy" appears to have been the effort to legitimize the Trump–Russia collusion narrative so that an FBI investigation, led by McCabe, could continue unhindered. ..."
"... Ohr, one of the highest-ranking officials in the DOJ, was communicating on an ongoing basis with Steele, whom he had known since at least 2006 , well into mid-2017. He is also married to Nellie Ohr, an expert on Russia and Eurasia who began working for Fusion GPS sometime in late 2015 . Nellie Ohr likely played a significant role in the construction of the dossier. ..."
"... The Obama administration provided a simultaneous layer of protection and facilitation for the entire effort. One example is provided by Section 2.3 of Executive Order 12333 , also known as Obama's data-sharing order . With the passage of the order, agencies and individuals were able to ask the NSA for access to specific surveillance simply by claiming the intercepts contained relevant information that was useful to a particular mission. ..."
"... Leaking, including felony leaking of classified information, has been widespread. The Carter Page FISA warrant -- likely the unredacted version -- has been in the possession of The Washington Post and The New York Times since March 2017. Traditionally, the intelligence community leaked to The Washington Post while the DOJ leaked to sources within The New York Times. This was a historical pattern that stood until this election. The leaking became so widespread, even this tradition was broken. ..."
"... The information contained within both articles likely came via felony leaks from James Wolfe, former director of security for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, who was arrested on June 7, 2018, and charged with one count of lying to the FBI. Wolfe's indictment alleges that he was leaking classified information to multiple reporters over an extended period of time. ..."
"... The Steele dossier was fed into U.S. channels through several different sources. One such source was Sir Andrew Wood, the former British ambassador to Russia, who had been briefed about the dossier by Steele. Wood later relayed information regarding the dossier to Sen. John McCain, who dispatched David Kramer, a fellow at the McCain Institute, to London to meet with Steele in November 2016. McCain would later admit in a Jan. 11, 2017, statement that he had personally passed on the dossier to then-FBI Director James Comey. ..."
"... Trump, after issuing an order for the declassification of documents and text messages related to the Russia-collusion investigations -- including parts of the Carter Page FISA warrant application -- received phone calls from two U.S. allies saying, "Please, can we talk." Those "allies" were almost certainly the UK and Australia. ..."
"... Questions to be asked are why is it that two of our allies would find themselves so opposed to the release of these classified documents that a coordinated plea would be made directly to the president? And why would these same allies have even the slightest idea of what was contained in these classified U.S. documents? ..."
Spygate: The True Story of Collusion [Infographic] How America's most powerful agencies were weaponized against President
Donald Trump
Although the details remain complex, the structure underlying Spygate -- the creation of the false narrative that candidate Donald
Trump colluded with Russia, and the spying on his presidential campaign -- remains surprisingly simple:
CIA Director John Brennan, with some assistance from Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, gathered foreign intelligence
and fed it throughout our domestic Intelligence Community.
The FBI became the handler of Brennan's intelligence and engaged in the more practical elements of surveillance.
The Department of Justice facilitated investigations by the FBI and legal maneuverings, while providing a crucial shield of
nondisclosure.
The Department of State became a mechanism of information dissemination and leaks.
Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee provided funding, support, and media collusion.
Obama administration officials were complicit, and engaged in unmasking and intelligence gathering and dissemination.
The media was the most corrosive element in many respects. None of these events could have transpired without their willing
participation. Stories were pushed, facts were ignored, and narratives were promoted.
Let's start with a simple premise: The candidacy of Trump presented both an opportunity and a threat.
Initially not viewed with any real seriousness, Trump's campaign was seen as an opportunistic wedge in the election process. At
the same time, and particularly as the viability of his candidacy increased, Trump was seen as an existential threat to the established
political system.
The sudden legitimacy of Trump's candidacy was not welcomed by the U.S. political establishment. Here was a true political outsider
who held no traditional allegiances. He was brash and boastful, he ignored political correctness, he couldn't be bought, and he didn't
care what others thought of him -- he trusted himself.
Governing bodies in Britain and the European Union were also worried. Candidate Trump was openly challenging monetary policy,
regulations, and the power of special interests. He challenged Congress. He challenged the United Nations and the European Union.
He questioned everything.
Brennan played a crucial role in the creation of the Russia-collusion narrative and the spying on the Trump campaign. (Don Emmert/AFP/Getty
Images)
Brennan became the point man in the operation to stop a potential Trump presidency. It remains unclear whether his role was self-appointed
or came from above. To embark on such a mission without direct presidential authority seems both a stretch of the imagination and
particularly foolhardy.
Brennan took unofficial foreign intelligence compiled by contacts, colleagues, and associates --
primarily from the UK , but also from other Five Eyes members, such as Australia.
Individuals in official positions in UK intelligence, such as Robert Hannigan -- head of the UK Government Communications Headquarters
(GCHQ, Britain's equivalent of the National Security Agency) -- partnered with former UK foreign intelligence members. Former MI6
head Sir Richard Dearlove
, former Ambassador Sir Andrew Wood, and private UK intelligence firm
Hakluyt all played a role.
In the summer of 2016, Hannigan traveled to Washington to
meet with Brennan
regarding alleged communications between the Trump campaign and Moscow. On Jan. 23, 2017 -- three days after Trump's inauguration
-- Hannigan abruptly announced
his retirement. The Guardian openly
speculated that Hannigan's
resignation was directly related to the sharing of UK intelligence.
One method used to help establish evidence of collusion was the employment of "spy traps." Prominent among these were ones set
for Trump campaign advisers George Papadopoulos and Carter Page. The intent was to provide or establish connections between the Trump
campaign and Russia. The content and context mattered little as long as a connection could be established that could then be publicized.
The June 2016 Trump Tower meeting was another such attempt.
Western intelligence assets were used to initiate and establish these connections, particularly in the cases of Papadopoulos and
Page.
Ultimately, Brennan formed an inter-agency task
force comprising an estimated six agencies and/or government departments. The FBI, Treasury, and DOJ handled the domestic inquiry
into Trump and possible Russia connections. The CIA, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the National Security Agency
(NSA) handled foreign and intelligence aspects.
Brennan's inter-agency task force is not to be confused with the July 2016 FBI counterintelligence investigation, which was formed
later at Brennan's urging.
During this time, Brennan also employed the use of
reverse targeting , which relates to the targeting of a foreign individual with the intent of capturing data on a U.S. citizen.
This effort was uncovered and
made public by Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) in a March 2017
press conference :
"I have seen intelligence reports that clearly show the president-elect and his team were monitored and disseminated out in
intelligence-reporting channels. Details about persons associated with the incoming administration, details with little apparent
foreign-intelligence value were widely disseminated in intelligence community reporting.
"From what I know right now, it looks like incidental collection. We don't know exactly how that was picked up but we're trying
to get to the bottom of it."
As this foreign intelligence -- unofficial in nature and outside of any traditional channels -- was gathered, Brennan began a
process of feeding his gathered intelligence to the FBI. Repeated transfers of foreign intelligence from the CIA director pushed
the FBI toward the establishment of a formal counterintelligence investigation. Brennan repeatedly noted this during
a May 23, 2017, congressional testimony :
"I made sure that anything that was involving U.S. persons, including anything involving the individuals involved in the Trump
campaign, was shared with the [FBI]."
Brennan also admitted that his intelligence helped establish
the FBI investigation:
"I was aware of intelligence and information about contacts between Russian officials and U.S. persons that raised concerns in
my mind about whether or not those individuals were cooperating with the Russians, either in a witting or unwitting fashion, and
it served as the basis for the FBI investigation to determine whether such collusion [or] cooperation occurred."
Once the FBI began its counterintelligence investigation on July 31, 2016, Brennan shifted his focus. Through a series of meetings
in August and September 2016, Brennan informed the congressional Gang of Eight regarding intelligence and information he had gathered.
Notably, each Gang of Eight member was briefed separately, calling into question whether each of the members received the same information.
Efforts to
block the release of the transcripts from each meeting remain ongoing.
This final report was used to continue pushing the Russia-collusion narrative following the election of President Donald Trump.
Notably, Admiral Mike Rogers of the NSA publicly dissented from the findings of the ICA, assigning only a moderate confidence level.
Although the FBI is technically part of the DOJ, it is best for the purposes of this article that the FBI and DOJ be viewed as
separate entities, each with its own related ties.
The FBI itself was comprised of various factions, with a particularly active element that has come to be known as the "insurance
policy group." It appears that this faction was led by FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and comprised other notable names such as
FBI agent Peter Strzok, FBI lawyer Lisa Page, and FBI general counsel James Baker.
The FBI established the counterintelligence investigation into alleged Russia collusion with the Trump campaign on July 31, 2016.
Comey initially refused to say whether the FBI was investigating possible connections between members of the Trump campaign and Russia.
He would continue to refuse to provide answers until March 20, 2017, when he disclosed the existence of the FBI investigation
during congressional testimony.
Comey also testified that he did not provide notification to the Gang of Eight until early March 2017 -- less than one month earlier.
This admission was in stark contrast to actions taken by Brennan, who had notified members of the Gang of Eight individually during
August and September 2016. It's likely that Brennan never informed Comey that he had briefed the Gang of Eight in 2016. Comey did
note that the DOJ "had been aware" of the investigation all along.
Comey opened the counterintelligence investigation into Trump on the urging of CIA Director John Brennan.
Following Comey's firing on May 9, 2017, the FBI's investigation was transferred to special counsel Robert Mueller. The
Mueller investigation remains ongoing.
The FBI's formal involvement with the
Steele dossier began on July 5, 2016,
when Mike Gaeta, an FBI agent and assistant legal attaché at the US Embassy in Rome, was dispatched to visit former MI6 spy Christopher
Steele in London. Gaeta would return from this meeting with a copy of Steele's first memo. This memo was given to Victoria Nuland
at the State Department, who passed it along to the FBI.
Gaeta, who also headed the FBI's Eurasian Organized Crime unit, had known Steele since at least 2010, when Steele had provided
assistance to the FBI's investigation into the
FIFA corruption
scandal .
Prior to the London meeting, Gaeta may also have met on a less formal basis with Steele
several weeks earlier.
"In June, Steele flew to Rome to brief the FBI contact with whom he had cooperated over FIFA," The Guardian reported. "His information
started to reach the bureau in Washington."
It's worth noting that there was no "dossier" until it was fully compiled in December 2016. There was only a sequence of documents
from Steele -- documents that were passed on individually -- as they were created. Therefore, from the FBI's legal perspective, they
didn't use the dossier. They used individual documents.
For the next month and a half, there appeared to be little contact between Steele and the FBI. However, the FBI's interest in
the dossier suddenly accelerated in late August 2016, when the bureau
asked Steele "for all information in his possession and for him to explain how the material had been gathered and to identify
his sources."
In September 2016, Steele traveled back to Rome to meet with the FBI's Eurasian squad once again. It's likely that the meeting
included several other FBI officials as well. According to a
House Intelligence Committee
minority memo , Steele's reporting reached the FBI counterintelligence team in mid-September 2016 -- the same time as Steele's
September trip to Rome.
The reason for the FBI's renewed interest had to do with an adviser to the Trump campaign -- Carter Page -- who had been in
contact with Stefan Halper, a CIA
and FBI source, since July 2016. Halper
arranged to meet with Page for the first time on July 11, 2016, at a
Cambridge symposium , just three days after Page took a trip
to Moscow. Speakers at the symposium included Madeleine Albright, Vin Webber, and Sir Richard Dearlove, the former head of MI6.
Page was now the FBI's chosen target for a FISA warrant that would be obtained on Oct. 21, 2016. The Steele dossier would be the
primary evidence used in obtaining the FISA warrant, which would be renewed three separate times, including after Trump took office,
finally expiring in September 2017.
Former volunteer Trump campaign adviser Carter Page on Nov. 2, 2017. The FBI obtained a retroactive FISA spy warrant
on Page.
After being in contact with Page for 14 months, Halper stopped contact exactly as the final FISA warrant on Page expired. Page,
who has steadfastly maintained his innocence, was never charged with any crime by the FBI. Efforts for the declassification of the
Page FISA application are currently ongoing through the DOJ's Office of the Inspector General.
Peter Strzok and Lisa Page
Peter Strzok and Lisa Page were two prominent members of the FBI's "insurance policy" group. Strzok, a senior FBI agent, was the
deputy assistant director of FBI's Counterintelligence Division. Lisa Page, an FBI lawyer, served as special counsel to FBI Deputy
Director Andrew McCabe.
Strzok was in charge of the investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server for government business. He helped
FBI Director James Comey draft the statement exonerating Clinton and was personally responsible for changing specific wording within
that statement that reduced Clinton's legal liability. Specifically, Strzok changed the words "grossly negligent," which could be
a criminal offense, to "extremely careless."
Strzok also personally led the FBI's counterintelligence investigation into the alleged Trump–Russia collusion and signed the
documents that opened the investigation on July 31, 2016. He was one of the FBI agents who interviewed Trump's national security
adviser, Gen. Michael Flynn. Strzok met multiple times with DOJ official Bruce Ohr and received information from Steele at those
meetings.
Following the firing of FBI Director James Comey, Strzok would join the team of special counsel Robert Mueller. Two months later,
he was removed from that team after the DOJ inspector general discovered a lengthy series of texts between Strzok and Page that contained
politically charged messages. Strzok would be fired from the FBI in August 2018.
Both Strzok and Page engaged in strategic
leaking to the press. Page did so at the direction of McCabe, who directly
authorized Page to share information with Wall Street
Journal reporter Devlin Barrett. That information was used in an Oct. 30, 2016, article headlined
"FBI in Internal Feud Over Hillary Clinton Probe ." Page leaked to Barrett thinking she had been granted legal and official authorization
to do so.
McCabe would later initially deny providing such
authorization to the Office of Inspector General. Page, when confronted with McCabe's denials, produced texts refuting his statement.
It was these texts that led to the inspector general uncovering the texts between Strzok and Page.
The two exchanged thousands of texts, some of them indicating surveillance activities, over a two-year period. Texts sent between
Aug. 21, 2015, and June 25, 2017, have been made
public . The series comes
to an end with a final text by Page telling Strzok, "Don't ever text me again."
On Aug. 8, 2016, Stzrok wrote that they would prevent candidate Trump from becoming president:
Page: "[Trump is] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!"
Strzok: "No. No he won't. We'll stop it."
On Aug. 15, 2016, Strzok sent a text referring to an "insurance policy":
"I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office -- that there's no way [Trump] gets elected --
but I'm afraid we can't take that risk. It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40."
The "insurance policy" appears to have been the effort to legitimize the Trump–Russia collusion narrative so that an FBI investigation,
led by McCabe, could continue unhindered.
Department of Justice
The Department of Justice, which comprises 60 agencies , was transformed
during the Obama years. The department is forbidden by federal law from hiring employees based on political affiliation.
However, a
series
of investigative articles by PJ Media published during Eric Holder's tenure as attorney general revealed an unsettling pattern
of ideological conformity among new hires at the DOJ: Only lawyers from the progressive left were hired. Not one single moderate
or conservative lawyer made the cut. This is significant as the DOJ enjoys significant latitude in determining who will be subject
to prosecution.
The DOJ's job in Spygate was to facilitate the legal side of surveillance while providing a protective layer of cover for all
those involved. The department became a repository of information and provided a protective wall between the investigative efforts
of the FBI and the legislative branch. Importantly, it also served as the firewall within the executive branch, serving as the insulating
barrier between the FBI and Obama officials. The department had become legendary for its stonewalling tactics with Congress.
DOJ Official Bruce Ohr on Aug. 28, 2018. Ohr passed on information from Christopher Steele to the FBI.
The DOJ, which was fully aware of the actions being taken by James Comey and the FBI, also became an active element acting against
members of the Trump campaign. Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, along with Mary McCord, the head of the DOJ's National Security
Division, was actively
involved in efforts to remove Gen. Michael Flynn from his position as national security adviser to President Trump.
To this day, it remains unknown which individual was responsible for making public Flynn's call with the Russian ambassador. Flynn
ultimately pleaded guilty to a process crime: lying to the FBI. There have been
questions raised in Congress regarding the possible alteration of FD-302s, the written notes of Flynn's FBI interviews. Special
counsel Robert Mueller has repeatedly deferred Flynn's sentencing hearing.
David Laufman, deputy assistant attorney general in charge of counterintelligence at the DOJ's National Security Division, played
a key role in both the Clinton email server and Russia hacking investigations. Laufman is currently the attorney for Monica McLean,
the long-time friend of Christine Blasey Ford, who recently accused Judge Brett Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her while in high
school. McLean was also
employed
by the FBI for 24 years.
Bruce Ohr was a significant DOJ official who played a
key role in Spygate. Ohr held
two important positions at the DOJ: associate deputy attorney general, and director of the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task
Force. As associate deputy attorney general, Ohr was just four offices away from then-Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, and he
reported directly to her. As director of the task force, he was in charge of a program described as "the centerpiece of the attorney
general's drug strategy."
Ohr, one of the highest-ranking officials in the DOJ, was communicating on an ongoing basis with Steele, whom he had known
since at
least 2006 , well into mid-2017. He is also married to Nellie Ohr,
an expert on Russia and Eurasia who began working
for Fusion GPS sometime in
late 2015 . Nellie Ohr likely played a significant role in the construction of the dossier.
According to testimony from FBI agent Peter Strzok, he and Ohr met at least five times during 2016 and 2017. Strzok was working
directly with then-Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe.
Additionally, Ohr met with the FBI at least
12 times between late November 2016 and May 2017 for a series of interviews. These meetings could have been used to
transmit information from Steele to the FBI. This came after the FBI had formally severed contact with Steele in late October
or early November 2016.
John Carlin is another notable figure with the DOJ. Carlin was an assistant attorney general and the head of the DOJ's National
Security Division until October 2016. His role will be discussed below in the section on FISA abuse.
The Battle Between Rosenstein and McCabe
Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe held a pivotal role in what has become known as "Spygate." He directed the activities of Peter
Strzok and Lisa Page and was involved in all aspects of the Russia investigation. He was also mentioned in the infamous "insurance
policy" text message.
McCabe was a major component of the insurance policy.
On April 26, 2017, Rosenstein found himself appointed as the new deputy attorney general. He was placed into a somewhat chaotic
situation, as Attorney General Jeff Sessions had recused himself from the ongoing Russia investigation a little less than two months
earlier, on March 2, 2017. This effectively meant that no one in the Trump administration had any oversight of the ongoing investigation
being conducted by the FBI and the DOJ.
Additionally, the leadership of then-FBI Director James Comey was coming under increased scrutiny as the result of actions taken
leading up to and following the election, particularly Comey's handling of the Clinton email investigation.
On May 9, 2017, Rosenstein wrote a memorandum recommending that Comey be fired. The subject of the memo was "Restoring Public
Confidence in the FBI." Comey was fired that day. McCabe was now the acting director of the FBI and was immediately under consideration
for the permanent position.
On the same day Comey was fired, McCabe would lie during an interview with agents from the FBI's Inspection Division (INSD) regarding
apparent leaks that were used in an Oct. 30, 2016, Wall Street Journal article, "FBI in Internal Feud Over Hillary Clinton Probe"
by Devlin Barrett. This would later be disclosed in the inspector general report, "A Report of Investigation of Certain Allegations
Relating to Former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe."
At the time, nobody, including the INSD agents, knew that McCabe had lied, nor were the darker aspects of McCabe's role in Spygate
fully known.
In late April or early May 2016, McCabe opened a federal criminal investigation on Sessions, regarding potential lack of candor
before Congress in relation to Sessions's contacts with Russians. Sessions was unaware of the investigation.
Sessions would later be cleared of any wrongdoing by special counsel Robert Mueller.
On the morning of May 16, 2017, Rosenstein reportedly suggested to McCabe that he secretly record President Trump. This remark
was reported in a New York Times article that was sourced from memos from the now-fired McCabe, along with testimony taken from former
FBI general counsel James Baker, who relayed a conversation he had with McCabe about the occurrence. Rosenstein issued a statement
denying the accusations.
The alleged comments by Rosenstein occurred at a meeting where McCabe was "pushing for the Justice Department to open an investigation
into the president." An unnamed participant at the meeting, in comments to The Washington Post, framed the conversation somewhat
differently, noting Rosenstein responded sarcastically to McCabe, saying, "What do you want to do, Andy, wire the president?"
Later, on the same day that Rosenstein had his meetings with McCabe, President Trump met with Mueller, reportedly as an interview
for the FBI director job. On May 17, 2017, the day after President Trump's meeting with Mueller -- and the day after Rosenstein's
encounters with McCabe -- Rosenstein appointed Mueller as special counsel.
The May 17 appointment of Mueller in effect shifted control of the Russia investigation from the FBI and McCabe to Mueller. Rosenstein
would retain ultimate authority for the probe and any expansion of Mueller's investigation required authorization from Rosenstein.
Interestingly, without Comey's memo leaks, a special counsel might not have been appointed -- the FBI, and possibly McCabe, would
have remained in charge of the Russia investigation. McCabe was probably not going to become the permanent FBI director, but he was
reportedly under consideration. Regardless, without Comey's leak, McCabe would have retained direct involvement and the FBI would
have retained control.
On July 28, 2017, McCabe lied to Inspector General Michael Horowitz while under oath regarding authorization of the leaking to
The Wall Street Journal. At this point, Horowitz knew McCabe was lying, but did not yet know of the May 9 INSD interview with McCabe.
On Aug. 2, 2017, Rosenstein secretly issued Mueller a revised memo on "the scope of investigation and definition of authority"
that remains heavily redacted. The full purpose of this memo remains unknown. On this same day, Christopher Wray was named as the
new FBI director.
Two days later, on Aug. 4, 2017, Sessions announced that the FBI had created a new leaks investigation unit. Rosenstein and Wray
were tasked with overseeing all leak investigations.
That Aug. 2 memo from Rosenstein to Mueller may have been specifically designed to remove any residual FBI influence -- specifically
that of McCabe -- from the Russia investigation. The appointment of Wray as FBI director helped cement this. McCabe was finally completely
neutralized.
On March 16, 2018, McCabe was fired for lying under oath at least three different times and is currently the subject of a grand
jury investigation.
State Department
The State Department, with its many contacts within foreign governments, became a conduit for the flow of information. The transfer
of Christopher Steele's first dossier memo was personally
facilitated by Victoria Nuland, the assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs. Nuland gave approval for
FBI agent Michael Gaeta to travel to London to obtain the memo from Steele. The memo may have passed directly from her to FBI leadership.
Secretary of State John Kerry was also given a copy.
Steele was already well-known within the State Department. Following Steele's involvement in the FIFA scandal investigation, he
began to provide reports
informally to the State Department. The reports were written for a "private client" but were "shared widely within the U.S. State
Department, and sent up to Secretary of State John Kerry and Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, who was in charge of
the U.S.
response to Putin's annexation of Crimea and covert invasion of eastern Ukraine," the Guardian reported.
Nuland passed on parts of the Steele dossier to the FBI. (Mark Wilson/Getty Images)
In July 2016, when the FBI wanted to send Gaeta to visit Steele in London, the bureau
sought permission from the office of Nuland, who provided this version of events during a Feb. 4, 2018,
appearance on CBS's "Face the Nation":
"In the middle of July, when [Steele] was doing this other work and became concerned, he passed two to four pages of short
points of what he was finding and our immediate reaction to that was, this is not in our purview. This needs to go to the FBI
if there is any concern here that one candidate or the election as a whole might be influenced by the Russian Federation. That's
something for the FBI to investigate."
Steele also
met with Jonathan Winer, a former deputy assistant secretary of state for international law enforcement and former special envoy
for Libya. Steele and Winer had known each other since at least 2010. In an opinion article in The Washington Post, Winer wrote the
following:
"In September 2016, Steele and I met in Washington and discussed the information now known as the 'dossier.' Steele's sources
suggested that the Kremlin not only had been behind the hacking of the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign
but also had compromised Trump and developed ties with his associates and campaign."
In a strange turn of events, Winer also received a
separate dossier , very similar to Steele's, from long-time Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal. This "second dossier" had been
compiled by another longtime Clinton operative, former journalist Cody Shearer, and echoed claims made in the Steele dossier. Winer
then met with Steele in late September 2016 and gave Steele a copy of the "second dossier." Steele went on to
share this second dossier with the FBI, which may have used it to corroborate his dossier.
Winer passed on memos from Christopher Steele to Victoria Nuland. (State Department)
Other foreign officials also used conduits into the State Department. Alexander Downer, Australia's high commissioner to the UK,
reportedly funneled his conversation
with Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos -- later used as a reason to open the FBI's counterintelligence investigation --
directly to the U.S. Embassy in London.
"The Downer details landed with the embassy's then-chargé d'affaires, Elizabeth Dibble, who previously served as a principal deputy
assistant secretary in Mrs. Clinton's State Department," The Wall Street Journal's Kimberley Strassel wrote in a May 31, 2018,
article .
If true, this would mean that neither Australian intelligence nor the Australian government alerted the FBI to the Papadopoulos
information. What happened with the Downer details, and to whom they were ultimately relayed, remains unknown.
Curiously, details surprisingly similar to the Papadopoulos–Downer conversation show up in the
first memo written
by Steele on June 20, 2016:
"A dossier of compromising information on Hillary Clinton has been collated by the Russian Intelligence Services over many
years and mainly comprises bugged conversations she had on various visits to Russia and intercepted phone calls. It has not yet
been distributed abroad, including to Trump."
Clinton Campaign and the DNC
The Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee both occupied a unique position. They had the most to gain but they
also had the most to lose. And they stood willing and ready to do whatever was necessary to win. Hillary Clinton's campaign manager,
Robby Mook, is credited with being the first to raise the specter of candidate Donald Trump's alleged collusion with Russia.
The entire Clinton campaign willfully promoted the narrative of Russia–Trump collusion despite the uncomfortable fact that they
were the ones who had engaged the services of Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele through their law firm Perkins Coie. Information
flowed from the campaign -- sometimes through Perkins Coie, other times through affiliates -- ultimately making its way into the
media and sometimes to the FBI. Information from the Clinton campaign may also have ended up in the Steele dossier.
Jennifer Palmieri, the communications director for the Clinton campaign, in tandem with Jake Sullivan, the senior policy adviser
to the campaign,
took the lead in briefing the press on the Trump–Russia collusion story.
Another example of this behavior can be seen from an instance when Perkins Coie lawyer Michael Sussmann
leaked information from Steele and Fusion GPS to Franklin Foer of Slate magazine. This event is described in the House Intelligence
Committee's final report on
Russian active measures
, in footnote 43 on page 57. Foer then published the article
"Was a Trump Server Communicating With Russia? " on Oct. 31, 2016. The article concerns allegations regarding a server in the
Trump Tower.
The Slate article managed to attract the immediate attention of Clinton, who posted a
tweet on the same day the article was
published:
"Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank."
Attached to her tweet was a
statement from Sullivan:
"This could be the most direct link yet between Donald Trump and Moscow. Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert
server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank.
"This secret hotline may be the key to unlocking the mystery of Trump's ties to Russia. It certainly seems the Trump Organization
felt it had something to hide, given that it apparently took steps to conceal the link when it was discovered by journalists."
These statements, which were later proven to be incorrect, are all the more disturbing with the hindsight knowledge that it was
a senior Clinton/DNC lawyer who helped plant the story. And given the prepared statement by Sullivan, the Clinton campaign knew this.
This type of behavior would be engaged in repeatedly -- damning leaks leading to media stories, followed by ready attacks from
the Clinton campaign.
Alexandra Chalupa is a Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee. Chalupa
met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties between Trump, Paul Manafort, and Russia.
Chalupa began investigating
Manafort in 2014. In late 2015, Chalupa expanded her opposition research on Manafort to include Trump's ties to Russia. In January
2016, Chalupa shared her information with a senior DNC official.
Chalupa's meetings with DNC and Ukrainian officials would continue. On April 26, 2016, investigative reporter Michael Isikoff
published a story
on Yahoo News about Manafort's business dealings with Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska. It was later learned from a DNC email leaked
by Wikileaks that Chalupa had been working with Isikoff
-- the same journalist Christopher Steele
leaked to
in September 2016. Manafort would later be indicted for Foreign Agents Registration Act violations that occurred during the Obama
administration.
Perkins Coie
International law firm Perkins Coie served as the legal arm for both the Clinton campaign and the DNC. Ties to Perkins Coie extended
beyond the DNC into the Obama White House.
Bob Bauer, a partner at the law firm and founder of its political law practice, served as
White House counsel to President Barack Obama throughout 2010 and 2011. Bauer was also
general counsel to Obama's campaign organization, Obama for America, in 2008 and 2012.
Perkins Coie partners Marc Elias and Michael Sussmann each played critical roles and were the ones who hired Fusion GPS and Steele.
Sussmann
personally handled the alleged hack of the DNC server. He also transmitted information, likely from Steele and Fusion GPS, to
James Baker, then-chief counsel at the FBI, and to several members of the press.
Perkins Coie partner Michael Sussmann. Sussmann transmitted information to FBI chief counsel James Baker and several
journalists. (Courtesy Perkins Coie)
According to a
letter
dated Oct. 24, 2017, written by Matthew Gehringer, general counsel at Perkins Coie, the firm was approached by Fusion GPS founder
Glenn Simpson in early March 2016 regarding the possibility of hiring Fusion GPS to continue opposition research into the Trump campaign.
Simpson's overtures were successful, and in April 2016, Perkins Coie
hired
Fusion GPS on behalf of the DNC.
Sometime in April or May 2016, Fusion GPS
hired Christopher Steele. During
this same period, Fusion also reportedly
hired Nellie Ohr, the wife of Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr. Steele would complete his first memo on June 20, 2016,
and send it to Fusion via enciphered mail.
Perkins Coie appears to have also been acting as a conduit between the DNC and the FBI.
Documents suggest that Sussmann was feeding information to FBI general counsel James Baker and at least one journalist ahead
of the FBI's application for a FISA warrant on the Trump campaign.
The information provided by Sussmann may have been used by the FBI as "corroborating information."
Obama Administration
The Obama administration provided a simultaneous layer of protection and facilitation for the entire effort. One example is
provided by
Section
2.3 of Executive Order 12333 , also known as Obama's
data-sharing
order . With the passage of the order, agencies and individuals were able to ask the NSA for access to specific surveillance
simply by claiming the intercepts contained relevant information that was useful to a particular mission.
Section 2.3 had been expected to be finalized by early to mid-2016. Instead, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper didn't
sign off on Section 2.3 until Dec. 15, 2016. The order was finalized when Attorney General Loretta Lynch signed it on Jan. 3, 2017.
The reason for the delay could relate to the fact that while the executive order made it easier to share intelligence between
agencies, it also limited certain types of information from going to the White House.
An example of this was provided by Evelyn Farkas during a March 2, 2017,
MSNBC interview , where she detailed how the Obama administration
gathered and disseminated intelligence on the Trump team:
"I was urging my former colleagues and, frankly speaking, the people on the Hill 'Get as much information as you can. Get as
much intelligence as you can before President Obama leaves the administration.'
"The Trump folks, if they found out how we knew what we knew about the Trump staff's dealing with Russians, [they] would try
to compromise those sources and methods, meaning we would no longer have access to that intelligence. That's why you have the
leaking."
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia/Ukraine/Eurasia Evelyn Farkas on May 6, 2014. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)
Many of the Obama administration's efforts appear to have been structural in nature, such as establishing new procedures or creating
impediments to oversight that enabled much of the surveillance abuse to occur.
DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz was appointed by Obama in 2011. From the very start, he found his duties throttled by the
attorney general's office. According to congressional
testimony by Horowitz:
"We got access to information up to 2010 in all of these categories. No law changed in 2010. No policy changed. It was simply
a decision by the General Counsel's Office in 2010 that they viewed, now, the law differently. And as a result, they weren't going
to give us that information."
These new restrictions were
put in place by Attorney General Eric Holder and Deputy Attorney General James Cole.
On Aug. 5, 2014, Horowitz and other inspectors general sent a
letter to Congress asking for unimpeded access to all records. Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates responded on July 20, 2015,
with a 58-page
memorandum . The memo specifically denied the inspector general access to any information collected under Title III -- including
intercepted communications and national security letters.
The New York Times recently
disclosed that national security letters were used in the surveillance of the Trump campaign.
At other times, the Obama administration's efforts were more direct. The
Intelligence Community assessment was released
internally on Jan. 5, 2017. On this same day, Obama held an undisclosed White House meeting to discuss the dossier with national
security adviser Susan Rice, FBI Director James Comey, and Yates. Rice would later send herself an email
documenting
the meeting.
The following day, Brennan, Clapper, and Comey attached a written summary of the Steele dossier to the classified briefing they
gave Obama. Comey then met with President-elect Trump to inform him of the dossier. This meeting took place just hours after Comey,
Brennan, and Clapper formally briefed Obama on both the Intelligence Community assessment and the Steele dossier.
Comey would only inform Trump of the "salacious" details contained within the dossier. He later
explained on CNN in an April 2018 interview
why:
"Because that was the part that the leaders of the Intelligence Community agreed he needed to be told about."
Shortly after Comey's meeting with Trump, both the Trump–Comey meeting and the existence of the dossier were leaked to CNN. The
significance of the meeting was material, as Comey
noted in
a Jan. 7 memo he wrote:
"Media like CNN had them and were looking for a news hook. I said it was important that we not give them the excuse to write
that the FBI has the material."
Clapper leaked information to CNN, after which he publicly condemned the leaks. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)
The media had widely dismissed the dossier as unsubstantiated and, therefore, unreportable. It was only after learning that Comey
briefed Trump that
CNN reported
on the dossier. It was later
revealed that DNI James Clapper personally leaked Comey's meeting with Trump to CNN.
The Obama administration also directly participated in a series of
intelligence unmaskings
, the process whereby a U.S. citizen's identity is revealed from collected surveillance. U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Samantha
Power reportedly engaged in hundreds of unmasking requests. Rice has admitted to doing the same.
The Obama administration engaged in the ultimately successful effort to oust Trump's newly appointed national security adviser,
Gen. Michael Flynn. Yates, along with Mary McCord, head of the DOJ's National Security Division,
led that effort
.
Executive Order 13762
President Barack Obama issued a last-minute executive order on Jan. 13, 2017, that altered the line of succession within the DOJ.
The action was not done in consultation with the incoming Trump administration.
Acting Attorney General Sally Yates was fired on Jan. 30, 2017, by a newly inaugurated President Trump for refusing to uphold
the president's executive order limiting travel from certain terror-prone countries. Yates was initially supposed to serve in her
position until Jeff Sessions was confirmed as attorney general.
Obama's executive order placed the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia next in line behind the department's senior leadership.
The attorney at the time was Channing Phillips.
Phillips was first hired by former Attorney General Eric Holder in 1994 for a position in the D.C. U.S. attorney's office. Phillips,
after serving as a senior adviser to Holder, stayed on after he was replaced by Attorney General Loretta Lynch.
It appears the Obama administration was hoping the Russia investigation would default to Channing in the event Sessions was forced
to recuse himself from the investigation. Sessions, whose confirmation hearings began three days before the order, was already coming
under intense scrutiny.
The implementation of the order may also tie into Yates's efforts to remove Gen. Michael Flynn over his call with the Russian
ambassador.
Trump ignored the succession order, as he is legally allowed to do, and instead appointed Dana Boente, the U.S. attorney for the
Eastern District of Virginia, as acting attorney general on Jan. 30, 2017, the same day Yates was fired.
Trump issued a new executive order on Feb. 9, 2017, the same day Sessions was sworn in, reversing Obama's prior order.
On March 10, 2017, Trump fired 46 Obama-era U.S. attorneys, including Preet Bharara, the U.S. attorney in Manhattan. These firings
appear to have been unexpected.
Media
In some respects, the media has played the most disingenuous of roles. Areas of investigation that historically would have proven
irresistible to reporters of the past have been steadfastly ignored. False narratives have been all-too-willingly promoted and facts
ignored. Fusion GPS personally made a
series of payments to several as-of-yet-
unnamed reporters .
The majority of the mainstream media has represented positions of the DNC and the Clinton campaign.
Steele met with members of certain media with relative frequency. In
September 2016 ,
he met with a number of U.S. journalists for "The New York Times, the Washington Post, Yahoo! News, the New Yorker and CNN," according
to The Guardian. It was during this period that Steele met with Michael Isikoff of Yahoo News.
In mid-October
2016, Steele returned to New York and met with reporters again. Toward the end of October, Steele spoke via Skype with Mother
Jones reporter David Corn.
Leaking, including felony leaking of classified information, has been widespread. The Carter Page FISA warrant -- likely the
unredacted version -- has been in the possession of The Washington Post and The New York Times since March 2017. Traditionally, the
intelligence community leaked to The Washington Post while the DOJ leaked to sources within The New York Times. This was a historical
pattern that stood until this election. The leaking became so widespread, even this tradition was broken.
On April 3, 2017, BuzzFeed reporter Ali Watkins wrote the article "
A Former Trump Adviser Met With a Russian Spy ." In the article, she identified "Male-1," referred to in
court documents
relating to the case of Russian spy Evgeny Buryakov, as Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, who had provided the FBI with assistance
in the case. Just over a week later, on April 11, 2017, a Washington Post article, "
FBI Obtained FISA Warrant to Monitor Former Trump Adviser Carter Page ," confirmed the existence of the October 2016 Page FISA
warrant.
The information contained within both articles likely came via felony leaks from James Wolfe, former director of security
for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, who was arrested on June 7, 2018, and
charged with one count of lying
to the FBI. Wolfe's indictment
alleges that he was leaking classified information to multiple reporters over an extended period of time.
Reporter Ali Watkins likely received the undredacted FISA application on Carter Page from James Wolfe.
It appears probable that Wolfe leaked unredacted copies of the Page FISA application. According to the
indictment , Wolfe
exchanged 82 text messages with
Watkins on March 17, 2017. That same evening they engaged in a 28-minute phone call. The original Page FISA application is 83 pages
long, including one final signatory page.
In the public version of the application, there are 37 fully redacted pages. In addition to that, several other pages have redactions
for all but the header. There are only two pages in the entire document that contain no redactions.
Why would Wolfe bother to send 37 pages of complete redactions? It seems more than plausible that Wolfe took pictures of the original
unredacted FISA application and sent them by text to Watkins.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes has repeatedly
stated that evidence within the FISA application
shows the counterintelligence agencies were abused by the Obama administration. Most of the mainstream media has known this.
Despite this, most major news organizations for over two years have promoted the Russia-collusion narrative. Despite ample evidence
having come out to the contrary, they have not admitted they were wrong, likely because doing so would mean they would have to admit
their complicity.
Foreign Intelligence
UK and Australian intelligence agencies also played meaningful roles during the 2016 presidential election.
Britain's GCHQ was involved in
collecting information regarding then-candidate Trump and transmitting it to the United States. In the summer of 2016, Robert
Hannigan, the head of GCHQ, flew from London to
meet personally
with then-CIA Director John Brennan, The Guardian reported.
Former GCHQ head Robert Hannigan in this file photo. Hannigan transmitted information regarding Donald Trump to John
Brennan in the summer of 2016. (Romeo Gacad/AFP/Getty Images)
Hannigan's meeting was noteworthy because Brennan wasn't Hannigan's counterpart. That position belonged to NSA Director Mike Rogers.
In the following year, Hannigan
abruptly announced
his retirement on Jan. 23, 2017 -- three days after Trump's inauguration.
As GCHQ was gathering intelligence, low-level Trump campaign foreign-policy adviser George Papadopoulos appears to have been targeted
after a series of highly coincidental meetings. Maltese professor Josef Mifsud, Australian diplomat Alexander Downer, FBI informant
Stefan Halper, and officials from the UK's Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) all crossed paths with Papadopoulos -- some repeatedly
so.
Christopher Steele, who authored the dossier on Trump, was an MI6 agent while the agency was headed by Sir Richard Dearlove. Steele
retains close ties with Dearlove.
Dearlove has ties to most of the parties mentioned. It was he who advised Steele and his business partner, Chris Burrows, to
work with a top British government official to pass along information to the FBI in the fall of 2016. He also was a speaker at
the July 2016 Cambridge symposium that Halper invited Carter
Page to attend.
Dearlove knows Halper through their
mutual association at the Cambridge Intelligence Seminar. Dearlove also knows Sir Iain Lobban, a former head of GCHQ, who is
an advisory board member at British strategic intelligence
and advisory firm Hakluyt , which was founded by former MI6 members and
retains close ties to UK intelligence services.
Halper has historical connections to Hakluyt through Jonathan Clarke, with whom he has
co-authored two books.
Downer, who
met Papadopoulos in a May 2016 meeting
established through a chain
of two intermediaries, served on the advisory board of Hakluyt
from 2008 to 2014. He reportedly still
maintains contact with Hakluyt officials. Information from his meeting with Papadopoulos was later used by the FBI to establish
the bureau's counterintelligence investigation into Trump–Russia collusion. Downer has changed his version of events multiple times.
The Steele dossier was fed into U.S. channels through several different sources. One such source was Sir Andrew Wood, the
former
British ambassador to Russia, who had been briefed about the dossier by Steele. Wood later
relayed information regarding the dossier to Sen. John McCain, who dispatched David Kramer, a fellow at the McCain Institute,
to London to meet with Steele in November 2016. McCain would later admit in a Jan. 11, 2017,
statement that he had personally passed on the dossier to then-FBI Director James Comey.
Trump, after issuing an order for the declassification of documents and text messages related to the Russia-collusion investigations
-- including parts of the Carter Page FISA warrant application -- received phone calls from two U.S. allies saying, "Please, can
we talk." Those "allies" were almost certainly the UK and Australia.
In a Twitter post , Trump wrote that
the "key Allies called to ask not to release" the documents.
Questions to be asked are why is it that two of our allies would find themselves so opposed to the release of these classified
documents that a coordinated plea would be made directly to the president? And why would these same allies have even the slightest
idea of what was contained in these classified U.S. documents?
Britain and Australia appear to know full well what those documents contain, and their attempt to prevent their public release
appears to be because they don't want their role in events surrounding the 2016 presidential election to be made public.
Fusion GPS/Orbis/Christopher Steele
Glenn Simpson, a former Wall Street Journal reporter, is co-founder of Fusion GPS, along with Peter Fritsch and Tom Catan. Fusion
was hired by the DNC and the Clinton campaign through law firm Perkins Coie to produce and disseminate the Steele dossier used against
Trump. The dossier would later be the primary evidence used to obtain a FISA warrant on Carter Page on Oct. 21, 2016.
The company was hired by the Clinton campaign and the DNC–through law firm Perkins Coie–to produce the dossier on Trump.
Christopher Steele, who retains close ties to UK intelligence, worked for MI6 from 1987 until his retirement in 2009, when he
and his partner, Chris Burrows, founded Orbis Intelligence. Steele
maintains contact with British intelligence,
Sir Richard Dearlove
, and UK intelligence firm Hakluyt.
Steele appears to have been
represented
by lawyer Adam Waldman, who also represented Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska. We know this from
texts sent by Waldman. On April 10, 2017, Waldman sent this to Sen. Mark Warner:
"Hi. Steele: would like to get a bi partisan letter from the committee; Assange: I convinced him to make serious and important
concessions and am discussing those w DOJ; Deripaska: willing to testify to congress but interested in state of play w Manafort.
I will be with him next tuesday for a week."
Steele also appears to have
lobbied on behalf of Deripaska, who was discussed in
emails between Bruce Ohr and Steele that were recently
disclosed by the Washington Examiner:
"Steele said he was 'circulating some recent sensitive Orbis reporting' on Deripaska that suggested Deripaska was not a 'tool'
of the Kremlin. Steele said he would send the reporting to a name that is redacted in the email."
Fusion GPS was also employed by Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya in a previous case. Veselnitskaya was involved in litigation
pitting Russian firm Prevezon Holdings against British-American financier William Browder. Veselnitskaya hired U.S. law firm BakerHostetler,
who, in turn, hired Fusion GPS to dig up dirt on Browder. Veselnitskaya was one of the participants at the June 2016 Trump Tower
meeting, at which she discussed the
Magnitsky Act .
Fox News reported on Nov. 9, 2017, that Simpson
met with Veselnitskaya immediately before and after the Trump Tower meeting.
A declassified top-secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court report released on April 26, 2017, revealed that government
agencies, including the FBI, CIA, and NSA, had improperly accessed Americans' communications. The FBI specifically provided outside
contractors with access to raw surveillance data on American citizens without proper oversight.
Communications and other data of members of the Trump campaign may have been accessed in this way.
Nellie Ohr, the wife of high-ranking DOJ official Bruce Ohr, was hired by Fusion GPS to work on the dossier on Trump.
Bruce and Nellie Ohr have
known Simpson since at least 2010 and have known Steele since at least 2006. The Ohrs and Simpson worked together on a
DOJ report in 2010 . In that report, Nellie Ohr's biography
lists her as working for Open Source Works, which is part of the CIA. Simpson met with Bruce Ohr
before and after the 2016 election.
Bruce Ohr had been in
contact repeatedly with Steele during the 2016 presidential campaign -- while Steele was constructing his dossier. Ohr later
actively shared information he received from Steele with the FBI, after the agency had terminated Steele as a source. Interactions
between Ohr and Steele stretched for months into the first year of Trump's presidency and were documented in a number of FD-302s
-- memos that summarize interviews with him by the FBI.
Spy Traps
In an effort to put forth evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, it appears that several different spy traps
were set, with varying degrees of success. Many of these efforts appear to center around Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos
and involve London-based professor Joseph Mifsud, who has
ties to Western intelligence, particularly in the UK.
Papadopoulos and Mifsud
both worked
at the London Centre of International Law Practice (LCILP). Mifsud appears to have joined LCILP around
November
2015 . Papadopoulos reportedly
joined
LCILP sometime in late February 2016 after leaving Ben Carson's presidential campaign. However, some
reports indicate Papadopoulos joined LCILP in November
or December of 2015. Mifsud and Papadopoulos reportedly never crossed paths
until March 14, 2016, in Italy.
Mifsud introduced Papadopoulos to several Russians, including Olga Polonskaya, whom Mifsud introduced as "Putin's niece," and
Ivan Timofeev, an official at a state-sponsored think tank called the Russian International Affairs Council. Both Papadopoulos and
Mifsud were interviewed by the FBI. Papadopoulos was ultimately charged with a process crime and was recently sentenced to 14 days
in prison for lying to the FBI. Mifsud was never charged by the FBI.
Throughout this period, Papadopoulos continuously pushed for meetings between Trump campaign officials and Russian contacts but
was ultimately unsuccessful in establishing any meetings.
Papadopoulos met with Australian diplomat Alexander Downer on May 10, 2016. The Papadopoulos–Downer meeting has been portrayed
as a
chance encounter in a bar. That does not appear to be the case.
Papadopoulos was introduced
to Downer through a chain of two intermediaries who said Downer wanted to meet with Papadopoulos. Another individual happened
to
be in London at exactly the same time: the FBI's head of counterintelligence, Bill Priestap. The purpose of Priestap's visit
remains unknown.
The Papadopoulos–Downer
meeting was later used to establish the FBI's counterintelligence investigation into Trump–Russia collusion. It was repeatedly
reported that Papadopoulos told Downer that Russia had Hillary Clinton's emails. This is incorrect.
Foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign was approached by several individuals with ties to UK and U.S. intelligence
agencies. (Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images)
According to Downer, Papadopoulos at some point
mentioned the Russians had damaging information on Hillary Clinton.
"During that conversation, he [Papadopoulos] mentioned the Russians might use material that they have on Hillary Clinton in the
lead-up to the election, which may be damaging,'' Downer told
The Australian about the Papadopoulos meeting in an April 2018 article. "He didn't say dirt, he said material that could be damaging
to her. No, he said it would be damaging. He didn't say what it was."
Downer, while serving as Australia's foreign minister, was
responsible for one of the largest foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation: $25 million from the Australian government.
Unconfirmed media reports, including a Jan. 12, 2017,
BBC article , have suggested that the FBI attempted
to obtain two FISA warrants in June and July 2016 that were denied by the FISA court. It's likely that Papadopoulos was an intended
target of these failed FISAs.
Interestingly, there is no mention of Papadopoulos in the Steele dossier. Paul Manafort, Carter Page, former Trump lawyer Michael
Cohen, Gen. Michael Flynn, and former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski are all listed in the Steele dossier.
Papadopoulos may have started out assisting the FBI or CIA and later discovered that he was being set up for surveillance himself.
After failing to obtain a spy warrant on the Trump campaign using Papadopoulos, the FBI set its sights on campaign volunteer Carter
Page. By this time, the counterintelligence investigation was in the process of being established, and we know now that it was formalized
with no official intelligence. The FBI needed some sort of legal cover. They needed a retroactive warrant. And they got one on Oct.
21, 2016. The Page FISA warrant would be renewed three times and remain in force until September 2017.
Stefan Halper met with Page for the first time on July 11, 2016, at a
Cambridge symposium , just three days after Page's July 2016
Moscow trip. As noted previously, former MI6 head Sir Richard Dearlove was a speaker at the symposium. Halper and Dearlove have known
each other for years and maintain several mutual associations.
Page was already known to the FBI. The Page FISA warrant application references the Buryakov spy case and an FBI interview with
Page. Current information suggests there was only
one meeting between Page and the FBI in 2016. It happened on March 2, 2016. It was in relation to Victor Podobnyy, who was named
in the Buryakov case.
Page, who
cooperated with the FBI on the case, almost certainly was providing testimony or details against Podobnyy. Page had been contacted
by Podobnyy in 2013 and had previously provided information to the FBI. Buryakov
pleaded guilty on March 11, 2016 -- nine days after Page met with the FBI on the case -- and was
sentenced to 30 months in prison on May 25, 2016. On April 5, 2017, Buryakov was granted early release and was
deported to Russia.
FBI informant Stefan Halper approached Trump campaign advisers George Papadopoulos and Carter Page.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes
said in August that exculpatory evidence
on Page exists that wasn't included by the DOJ and the FBI in the FISA application and subsequent renewals. The exculpatory evidence
likely relates specifically to Page's role in the Buryakov case.
If the FBI failed to disclose Page's cooperation with the bureau or materially misrepresented his involvement in its application
to the FISA Court, it means that the FBI's Woods procedures, which govern FISA applications, were violated.
Page has not been arrested or charged with any crime related to the investigation.
FISA Abuse
Admiral Mike Rogers, while director of the NSA, was personally responsible for
uncovering an unprecedented level of FISA abuse that would later be documented in a 99-page
unsealed FISA
court ruling . As the FISA court noted in the April 26, 2017, ruling, the abuses had been occurring since at least November 2015:
"The FBI had disclosed raw FISA information, including but not limited to Section 702-acquired information, to private contractors.
"Private contractors had access to raw FISA information on FBI storage systems.
"Contractors had access to raw FISA information that went well beyond what was necessary to respond to the FBI's requests."
The FISA Court report is particularly focused on the FBI:
"The Court is concerned about the FBI's apparent disregard of minimization rules and whether the FBI may be engaging in similar
disclosures of raw Section 702 information that have not been reported."
The FISA Court
disclosed that illegal NSA database searches were endemic. Private contractors, employed by the FBI, were given full access to
the NSA database. Once in the contractors' possession, the data couldn't be traced.
In April 2016, after Rogers became aware of
improper
contractor access to raw FISA data on March 9, 2016, he
directed the NSA's Office
of Compliance to conduct a "fundamental baseline review of compliance associated with 702."
On April 18, 2016, Rogers shut down all outside contractor access to raw FISA information -- specifically outside contractors
working for the FBI.
Then-NSA Director Adm. Mike Rogers on May 23, 2017. Rogers uncovered widespread abuse of FISA data by the FBI. (Saul
Loeb/AFP/Getty Images)
DOJ National Security Division (NSD) head John Carlin filed the government's proposed
2016 Section 702 certifications on Sept. 26, 2016. Carlin knew the general status of compliance review by Rogers. The NSD was
part of the review. Carlin failed to disclose a critical Jan. 7, 2016,
report by the Office
of the Inspector General and associated FISA abuse to the FISA Court in his 2016 certification. Carlin also failed to disclose
Rogers's ongoing Section 702 compliance review.
The following day, on Sept. 27, 2016, Carlin
announced his resignation, effective Oct. 15, 2016.
After receiving a briefing by the NSA compliance officer on Oct. 20, 2016, detailing
numerous "about query"
violations from the 702 NSA compliance audit, Rogers shut down all "about query" activity the next day and
reported his findings
to the DOJ. "About queries" are searches based on communications containing a reference "about" a surveillance target but that are
not "to" or "from" the target.
On Oct. 21, 2016, the DOJ and the FBI sought and received a Title I FISA probable-cause order authorizing electronic surveillance
on Carter Page from the FISA Court.
At this point, the FISA Court was still unaware of the Section 702 violations.
On Oct. 24, 2016, Rogers verbally
informed
the FISA Court of his findings. On Oct. 26, 2016, Rogers appeared formally before the FISA Court and presented the written findings
of his audit.
The FISA Court had been unaware of the query violations until they were presented to the court by Rogers.
Carlin didn't disclose his knowledge of FISA abuse in the annual Section 702 certifications in order to avoid raising suspicions
at the FISA Court ahead of receiving the Page FISA warrant.
The FBI and the NSD were literally racing against Rogers's investigation in order to obtain a FISA warrant on Carter Page.
While all this was transpiring, DNI James Clapper and Defense Secretary Ash Carter submitted a
recommendation that Rogers be removed from his post as NSA director.
The move to fire Rogers, which ultimately failed, originated sometime in mid-October 2016 -- exactly when Rogers was preparing
to present his findings to the FISA Court.
The Insurance Policy
Ever since the release of FBI text messages revealing the existence of an "insurance policy," the term has been the subject of
wide speculation.
Some observers have suggested that the insurance policy was the FISA spy warrant used to monitor Trump campaign adviser Carter
Page and, by extension, other members of the Trump campaign. This interpretation is too narrow and fails to capture the underlying
meaning of the text.
The insurance policy was the actual process of establishing the Trump–Russia collusion narrative.
It encompassed actions undertaken in late 2016 and early 2017, including the leaking of the Steele dossier and James Clapper's
leaks of James Comey's briefing to President Trump. The intent behind these actions was simple. The legitimization of the investigation
into the Trump campaign.
The strategy involved the recusal of Trump officials with the intent that Andrew McCabe would end up running the investigation.
The Steele dossier, which was paid for by the Clinton presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee, served as the
foundation for the Russia narrative.
The intelligence community, led by CIA Director John Brennan and DNI James Clapper, used the dossier as a launching pad for creating
their Intelligence Community assessment.
This report, which was presented to Obama in December 2016, despite NSA Director Mike Rogers having only moderate confidence in
its assessment, became one of the core pieces of the narrative that Russia interfered with the 2016 elections.
Through intelligence community leaks, and in collusion with willing media outlets, the narrative that Russia helped Trump win
the elections was aggressively pushed throughout 2017.
Spygate
Spygate represents the biggest political scandal in our nation's history. A sitting administration actively colluded with a political
campaign to affect the outcome of a U.S. presidential election. Government agencies were weaponized and a complicit media spread
intelligence community leaks as facts.
But a larger question remains: How long has the United States been subject to interference from the intelligence community and
our political agencies? Was the 2016 presidential election a one-time aberration, or is this episode symptomatic of a larger pattern
extending back decades?
The intensity, scale, and coordination suggest something greater than overzealous actions taken during a single election. They
represent a unified reaction of the establishment to a threat posed by a true outsider -- a reaction that has come to be known as
Spygate.
Jeff Carlson is a regular contributor to The Epoch Times. He also runs the website TheMarketsWork.com and can be followed
on Twitter @themarketswork.
But sophistication of intelligence agencies now reached very high level. Russiage was pretty dirty but pretty slick operation. British
thre letter againces were even more devious, if we view Skripals poisoning as MI5/Mi6 "witness protection" operation due to possible
Skripal role in creating Steele dossier. So let's keep wanting the evnet. The election 2020 might be event more interesting the Elections
of 2016. Who would suggest in 2015 that he/she elects man candidate from Israel lobby instead of a woman candidate from the same lobby?
Notable quotes:
"... The consistent derogation of Trump in the New York Times or on MSNBC may be helpful in keeping the resistance fired up, but it is counterproductive when it comes to breaking down the Trump coalition. His followers take every attack on their leader as an attack on them. ..."
"... Adorno also observed that demagoguery of this sort is a profession, a livelihood with well-tested methods. Trump is a far more familiar figure than may at first appear. The demagogue's appeals, Adorno wrote, 'have been standardised, similarly to the advertising slogans which proved to be most valuable in the promotion of business'. Trump's background in salesmanship and reality TV prepared him perfectly for his present role. ..."
"... the leader can guess the psychological wants and needs of those susceptible to his propaganda because he resembles them psychologically, and is distinguished from them by a capacity to express without inhibitions what is latent in them, rather than by any intrinsic superiority. ..."
"... The leaders are generally oral character types, with a compulsion to speak incessantly and to befool the others. The famous spell they exercise over their followers seems largely to depend on their orality: language itself, devoid of its rational significance, functions in a magical way and furthers those archaic regressions which reduce individuals to members of crowds. ..."
"... Since uninhibited associative speech presupposes at least a temporary lack of ego control, it can indicate weakness as well as strength. The agitators' boasting is frequently accompanied by hints of weakness, often merged with claims of strength. This was particularly striking, Adorno wrote, when the agitator begged for monetary contributions. ..."
"... Since 8 November 2016, many people have concluded that what they understandably view as a catastrophe was the result of the neglect by neoliberal elites of the white working class, simply put. Inspired by Bernie Sanders, they believe that the Democratic Party has to reorient its politics from the idea that 'a few get rich first' to protection for the least advantaged. ..."
"... Of those providing his roughly 40 per cent approval ratings, half say they 'strongly approve' and are probably lost to the Democrats. ..."
One might object that Trump, a billionaire TV star, does not resemble his followers. But this misses the powerful intimacy that he
establishes with them, at rallies, on TV and on Twitter. Part of his malicious genius lies in his ability to forge a bond with people
who are otherwise excluded from the world to which he belongs. Even as he cast Hillary Clinton as the tool of international finance,
he said:
I do deals – big deals – all the time. I know and work with all the toughest operators in the world of high-stakes global finance.
These are hard-driving, vicious cut-throat financial killers, the kind of people who leave blood all over the boardroom table
and fight to the bitter end to gain maximum advantage.
With these words he brought his followers into the boardroom with him and encouraged them to take part in a shared, cynical exposure
of the soiled motives and practices that lie behind wealth. His role in the Birther movement, the prelude to his successful presidential
campaign, was not only racist, but also showed that he was at home with the most ignorant, benighted, prejudiced people in America.
Who else but a complete loser would engage in Birtherism, so far from the Hollywood, Silicon Valley and Harvard aura that elevated
Obama, but also distanced him from the masses?
The consistent derogation of Trump in the New York Times or on MSNBC may be helpful in keeping the resistance fired up, but
it is counterproductive when it comes to breaking down the Trump coalition. His followers take every attack on their leader as an
attack on them. 'The fascist leader's startling symptoms of inferiority', Adorno wrote, 'his resemblance to ham actors and asocial
psychopaths', facilitates the identification, which is the basis of the ideal. On the Access Hollywood tape, which was widely assumed
would finish him, Trump was giving voice to a common enough daydream, but with 'greater force' and greater 'freedom of libido' than
his followers allow themselves. And he was bolstering the narcissism of the women who support him, too, by describing himself as
helpless in the grip of his desires for them.
Adorno also observed that demagoguery of this sort is a profession, a livelihood with well-tested methods. Trump is a far
more familiar figure than may at first appear. The demagogue's appeals, Adorno wrote, 'have been standardised, similarly to the advertising
slogans which proved to be most valuable in the promotion of business'. Trump's background in salesmanship and reality TV prepared
him perfectly for his present role. According to Adorno,
the leader can guess the psychological wants and needs of those susceptible to his propaganda because he resembles them
psychologically, and is distinguished from them by a capacity to express without inhibitions what is latent in them, rather than
by any intrinsic superiority.
To meet the unconscious wishes of his audience, the leader
simply turns his own unconscious outward Experience has taught him consciously to exploit this faculty, to make rational use
of his irrationality, similarly to the actor, or a certain type of journalist who knows how to sell their sensitivity.
All he has to do in order to make the sale, to get his TV audience to click, or to arouse a campaign rally, is exploit his own
psychology.
Using old-fashioned but still illuminating language, Adorno continued:
The leaders are generally oral character types, with a compulsion to speak incessantly and to befool the others. The famous
spell they exercise over their followers seems largely to depend on their orality: language itself, devoid of its rational significance,
functions in a magical way and furthers those archaic regressions which reduce individuals to members of crowds.
Since uninhibited associative speech presupposes at least a temporary lack of ego control, it can indicate weakness as well
as strength. The agitators' boasting is frequently accompanied by hints of weakness, often merged with claims of strength. This was
particularly striking, Adorno wrote, when the agitator begged for monetary contributions. As with the Birther movement or Access
Hollywood, Trump's self-debasement – pretending to sell steaks on the campaign trail – forges a bond that secures his idealised status.
Since 8 November 2016, many people have concluded that what they understandably view as a catastrophe was the result of the
neglect by neoliberal elites of the white working class, simply put. Inspired by Bernie Sanders, they believe that the Democratic
Party has to reorient its politics from the idea that 'a few get rich first' to protection for the least advantaged.
Yet no one who lived through the civil rights and feminist rebellions of recent decades can believe that an economic programme
per se is a sufficient basis for a Democratic-led politics.
This holds as well when it comes to trying to reach out to Trump's supporters. Of those providing his roughly 40 per cent
approval ratings, half say they 'strongly approve' and are probably lost to the Democrats. But if we understand the personal
level at which pro-Trump strivings operate, we may better appeal to the other half, and in that way forestall the coming emergency.
"... At Netanyahu's behest, Flynn and President Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner reportedly took the lead in the lobbying to derail the U.N. resolution, which Flynn discussed in a phone call with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak (in which the Russian diplomat rebuffed Flynn's appeal to block the resolution). ..."
"... In this case, what Flynn and Kushner were doing was going directly against US foreign policy, because Obama wanted the resolution to pass; He just didn't want to vote for it because that would cross the Israel lobby in the United States. The US finally ended up abstaining on the resolution and it passed 14-0. ..."
"... But before that happened, Flynn went to the Russians and to Egypt, both members of the Security Council, and tried to get the resolution delayed. But all of Israel's machinations to derail this resolution failed and that is what Mueller was investigating, the intervention and disruption of American foreign policy by private citizens who had no official role. ..."
"... While I think Bibi is an idiot, I also think the Logan Act is overinvoked, overstated, probably of dubious legal value and also of dubious constitutional value. ..."
"... In short, especially because Trump had been elected, though not yet inaugurated, I think he is not at all guilty of a Logan Act violation. This is nothing close to Spiro Agnew calling Anna Chenault from the airplane in August 1968. ..."
"... Probably true, although evidence of extreme collusion with Israel eliminates any case against Russia, with whom we have far more reasons for amity. Bringing out the Israel collusion greatly improves public understanding of political corruption. Perhaps it will awaken some to the Agnew-Chennault betrayal of the people of the US. ..."
"... It's ironic that Russia-gate is turning out to be Israel's effort to distract attention from its complete control over the Democratic party in 2016. From Israeli billionaires behind the scenes to Debbie Wasserman-Schultz at the helm. ..."
"... "Whether we like it or not, the former and current administration view Russia is as an enemy state." So that is how it works, the White House says it is an enemy state and therefore it is. The so called declaration is the hammer used for trying to make contact with Russia a criminal offense. We are not at war with Russia although we see our leaders doing their best to provoke Russia into one. ..."
"... The Israel connection disclosed by the malpracticer hack Mueller in the recent Flynn-flam just made Trump bullet-proof (so to speak). ..."
"... So Mueller caught Kushner and Flynn red-handed, sabotaging the Obama administration? What of it? He can't use that evidence, because it would inculpate the Zionist neocons that are orchestrating his farcical, Stalinist witchhunt. And Mueller, being an efficient terminator bot, knows that his target is Russia, not Israel. ..."
"... So Mueller will just have to continue swamp-fishing for potential perjurers ahem witnesses, for the upcoming show trials (to further inflame public opinion against Russia and Russia sympathizers). And continue he will, because (as we all know from Schwarzenegger's flicks), the only way to stop the terminator is to terminate him/it first. ..."
"... Trump and Kushner have nothing to worry about, even if a smoking gun is found that proves their collusion with Israel. That's because the entire political and media establishment will simply ignore the Israeli connection. ..."
"... Journalists and politicians will even continue to present Mike Flynn's contacts as evidence of collusion with Russia. They'll keep on repeating that "Flynn lied about his phone call to the Russian ambassador". But there will be no mention of the fact that the purpose of this contact was to support Israel and not any alleged Russian interference. ..."
"... I think you have it right Brendan. The MSM, Intelligence Community, and Mueller would never go down any path that popularized undue Israeli influence on US foreign policy. "Nothing to see here folks, move along." ..."
"... The Nice Zionists responsible for the thefts and murders for the past 69 years along with the "Jewish Community" in the rest of the world will resolve the matter so as to be fair to both parties. This is mind-boggling fantasy. ..."
"... FFS, Netanyahu aired a political commercial in Florida for Romney saying vote for this guy (against Obama)! I mean, it doesn't get any more overtly manipulative than that. Period. End of story. ..."
"... God, I hate to go all "Israel controls the media" but there it is. Not even a discussion. Just a fact. ..."
"... I also have to point out that he "fist pumped" Hillary Clinton at Mohammed Ali's eulogy. If he's as astute as he purports to be, he has to know that Hillary would have invaded Syria and killed a few hundred thousand more Syrians for the simple act of defiantly preserving their country. By almost any read of Ali's history, he would have been adamantly ("killing brown people") against that. But there was Silverstein using the platform to promote, arguably, perpetual war. ..."
"... Yeah I found a couple of Silverstein's statements to be closer to neocon propaganda than reality: "Because this is Israel and because we have a conflicted relationship with the Israel lobby . . ." "Instead of going directly to the Obama administration, with which they had terrible relations, they went to Trump instead." My impression was that the whole "terrible relationship between Obama and Netanyahu" was manufactured by the Israel lobby to bully Obama. However these are small blips within an otherwise solid critique of the Israel lobby's influence. ..."
The Israel-gate Side of Russia-gate December 23, 2017
While unproven claims of Russian meddling in U.S. politics have whipped Official Washington
into a frenzy, much less attention has been paid to real evidence of Israeli interference in
U.S. politics, as Dennis J Bernstein describes.
In investigating Russia's alleged meddling in U.S. politics, special prosecutor Robert
Mueller uncovered evidence that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pressured the Trump
transition team to undermine President Obama's plans to permit the United Nations to censure
Israel over its illegal settlement building on the Palestinian West Bank, a discovery
referenced in the plea deal with President Trump's first National Security Adviser Michael
Flynn.
At Netanyahu's behest, Flynn and President Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner reportedly took
the lead in the lobbying to derail the U.N. resolution, which Flynn discussed in a phone call
with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak (in which the Russian diplomat rebuffed Flynn's appeal
to block the resolution).
I spoke on Dec, 18 with independent journalist and blogger Richard Silverstein, who writes
on national security and other issues for a number of blogs at Tikun Olam .
Dennis Bernstein: A part of Michael Flynn's plea had to do with some actions he took before
coming to power regarding Israel and the United Nations. Please explain.
Richard Silverstein:
The Obama administration was negotiating in the [UN] Security Council
just before he left office about a resolution that would condemn Israeli settlements.
Obviously, the Israeli government did not want this resolution to be passed. Instead of going
directly to the Obama administration, with which they had terrible relations, they went to
Trump instead. They approached Michael Flynn and Jared Kushner became involved in this. While
they were in the transition and before having any official capacity, they negotiated with
various members of the Security Council to try to quash the settlement resolution.
One of the issues here which is little known is the Logan Act, which was passed at the
foundation of our republic and was designed to prevent private citizens from usurping the
foreign policy prerogatives of the executive. It criminalized any private citizen who attempted
to negotiate with an enemy country over any foreign policy issue.
In this case, what Flynn and Kushner were doing was going directly against US foreign
policy, because Obama wanted the resolution to pass; He just didn't want to vote for it because
that would cross the Israel lobby in the United States. The US finally ended up abstaining on
the resolution and it passed 14-0.
But before that happened, Flynn went to the Russians and to Egypt, both members of the
Security Council, and tried to get the resolution delayed. But all of Israel's machinations to
derail this resolution failed and that is what Mueller was investigating, the intervention and
disruption of American foreign policy by private citizens who had no official role.
This speaks to the power of the Israel lobby and of Israel itself to disrupt our foreign
policy. Very few people have ever been charged with committing an illegal act by advocating on
behalf of Israel. That is one of the reasons why this is such an important development. Until
now, the lobby has really ruled supreme on the issue of Israel and Palestine in US foreign
policy. Now it is possible that a private citizen will actually be made to pay a price for
that.
This is an important development because the lobby till now has run roughshod over our
foreign policy in this area and this may act as a restraining order against blatant disruption
of US foreign policy by people like this.
Bernstein: So this information is a part of Michael Flynn's plea. Anyone studying this would
learn something about Michael Flynn and it would be part of the prosecution's
investigation.
Silverstein:
That's absolutely right. One thing to note here is that it is reporters who
have raised the issue of the Logan Act, not Mueller or Flynn's people or anyone in the Trump
administration. But I do think that Logan is a very important part of this plea deal, even if
it is not mentioned explicitly.
Bernstein: If the special prosecutor had smoking-gun information that the Trump
administration colluded with Russia, in the way they colluded with Israel before coming to
power, this would be a huge revelation. But it is definitely collusion when it comes to
Israel.
Silverstein: Absolutely. If this were Russia, it would be on the front page of every major
newspaper in the United States and the leading story on the TV news. Because this is Israel and
because we have a conflicted relationship with the Israel lobby and they have so much influence
on US policy concerning Israel, it has managed to stay on the back burner. Only two or three
media outlets besides mine have raised this issue of Logan and collusion. Kushner and Flynn may
be the first American citizens charged under the Logan Act for interfering on behalf of Israel
in our foreign policy. This is a huge issue and it has hardly been raised at all.
Bernstein: As you know, Rachel Maddow of MSNBC has made a career out of investigating the
Russia-gate charges. She says that she has read all this material carefully, so she must have
read about Flynn and Israel, but I haven't heard her on this issue at all.
Silverstein:
Even progressive journalists, who you'd think would be going after this with a
vengeance, are frightened off by the fact the lobby really bites back. So, aside from outlets
like the Intercept and the Electronic Intifada, there is a lot of hesitation about going after
the Israel lobby. People are afraid because they know that there is a high price to be paid. It
goes from being purely journalism to being a personal and political vendetta when they get you
in their sights. In fact, one of the reasons I feel my blog is so important is that what I do
is challenge Israeli policy and Israeli intervention in places where it doesn't belong.
Bernstein: Jared Kushner is the point man for the Trump administration on Israel. He has
talked about having a "vision for peace." Do you think it is a problem that this is someone
with a long, close relationship with the prime minister of Israel and, in fact, runs a
foundation that invests in the building of illegal Israeli settlements? Might this be
problematic?
Silverstein:
It is quite nefarious, actually. When Jared Kushner was a teenager, Netanyahu
used to stay at the Kushner family home when he visited the United States. This relationship
with one of the most extreme right political figures in Israel goes back decades. And it is not
just Kushner himself, but all the administration personnel dealing with these so-called peace
negotiations, including Jason Greenblatt and David Friedman, the ambassador. These are all
orthodox Jews who tend to have very nationalist views when it comes to Israel. They all support
settlements financially through foundations. These are not honest brokers.
We could talk at length about the history of US personnel who have been negotiators for
Middle East peace. All of them have been favorable to Israel and answerable to the Israel
lobby, including Dennis Ross and Makovsky, who served in the last administration. These people
are dyed-in-the-wool ultra-nationalist supporters of [Israeli] settlements. They have no
business playing any role in negotiating a peace deal.
My prediction all along has been that these peace negotiations will come to naught, even
though they seem to have bought the cooperation of Saudi Arabia, which is something new in the
process. The Palestinians can never accept a deal that has been negotiated by Kushner and
company because it will be far too favorable to Israel and it will totally neglect the
interests of the Palestinians.
Bernstein: It has been revealed that Kushner supports the building of settlements in the
West Bank. Most people don't understand the politics of what is going on there, but it appears
to be part of an ethnic cleansing.
Silverstein:
The settlements have always been a violation of international law, ever since
Israel conquered the West Bank in 1967. The Geneva Conventions direct an occupying power to
withdraw from territory that was not its own. In 1967 Israel invaded Arab states and conquered
the West Bank and Gaza but this has never been recognized or accepted by any nation until
now.
The fact that Kushner and his family are intimately involved in supporting
settlements–as are David Friedman and Jason Greenblatt–is completely outrageous. No
member of any previous US administration would have been allowed to participate with these
kinds of financial investments in support of settlements. Of course, Trump doesn't understand
the concept of conflict of interest because he is heavily involved in such conflicts himself.
But no party in the Middle East except Israel is going to consider the US an honest broker and
acceptable as a mediator.
When they announce this deal next January, no one in the Arab World is going to accept it,
with the possible exception of Saudi Arabia because they have other fish to fry in terms of
Iran. The next three years are going to be interesting, supposing Trump lasts out his term. My
prediction is that the peace plan will fail and that it will lead to greater violence in the
Middle East. It will not simply lead to a vacuum, it will lead to a deterioration in conditions
there.
Bernstein: The Trump transition team was actually approached directly by the Israeli
government to try to intercede at the United Nations.
Silverstein:
I'm assuming it was Netanyahu who went directly to Kushner and Trump. Now, we
haven't yet found out that Trump directly knew about this but it is very hard to believe
that Trump didn't endorse this. Now that we know that Mueller has access to all of the emails
of the transition team, there is little doubt that they have been able to find their smoking
gun. Flynn's plea meant that they basically had him dead to rights. It remains to be seen what
will happen with Kushner but I would think that this would play some role in either the
prosecution of Kushner or some plea deal.
Bernstein: The other big story, of course, is the decision by the Trump administration to
move the US embassy from Tel-Aviv to Jerusalem. Was there any pre-election collusion in that
regard and what are the implications?
Silverstein:
Well, it's a terrible decision which goes against forty to fifty years of US
foreign policy. It also breaches all international understanding. All of our allies in the
European Union and elsewhere are aghast at this development. There is now a campaign in the
United Nations Security Council to pass a resolution condemning the announcement, which we will
veto, but the next step will be to go to the General Assembly, where such a resolution will
pass easily.
The question is how much anger, violence and disruption this is going to cause around the
world, especially in the Arab and Muslim world. This is a slow-burning fuse. It is not going to
explode right now. The issue of Jerusalem is so vital that this is not something that is simply
going to go away. This is going to be a festering sore in the Muslim world and among
Palestinians. We have already seen attacks on Israeli soldiers and citizens and there will be
many more.
As to collusion in all of this, since Trump always said during the campaign that this was
what he was going to do, it might be difficult to treat this in the same way as the UN
resolution. The UN resolution was never on anybody's radar and nobody knew the role that Trump
was playing behind the scenes with that–as opposed to Trump saying right from the get-go
that Jerusalem was going to be recognized as the capital of Jerusalem.
By doing that, they have completely abrogated any Palestinian interest in Jerusalem. This is
a catastrophic decision that really excludes the United States from being an honest broker here
and shows our true colors in terms of how pro-Israel we are.
As most regular readers of CN already know, some dynamite books on the inordinate amount
of influence pro-Israel zealots have on Washington:
1.) 'The Host and the Parasite' by Greg Felton
2.) 'Power of Israel in the United States' by James Petras
3.) 'They Dare to Speak Out' by Paul Findley
4.) 'The Israel Lobby' by Mearsheimer and Walt
5.) 'Zionism, Militarism and the Decline of U.S. Power' by James Petras
I suggest that anyone relatively knew to this neglected topic peruse a few of the
aforementioned titles. An inevitable backlash by the citizens of the United States is
eventually forthcoming against the Zionist Power Configuration. It's crucial that this
impending backlash remain democratic, non-violent, eschews anti-Semitism, and travels in a
progressive in direction.
Annie , December 23, 2017 at 5:47 pm
Which one would you suggest? I already read "The Israel Lobby."
Sam F , December 23, 2017 at 8:38 pm
Findley and Mearsheimer are certainly worthwhile. I will look for Petras.
Larry Larsen , December 24, 2017 at 6:38 pm
If you haven't already read them, the end/footnotes in "The Israel Lobby" are more
illuminating.
That influence is also shown, of course, by the fact that Obama waited until the midnight
hours of his tenure and after the 2016 election to even start working on this resolution.
While I think Bibi is an idiot, I also think the Logan Act is overinvoked, overstated,
probably of dubious legal value and also of dubious constitutional value.
In short, especially because Trump had been elected, though not yet inaugurated, I think
he is not at all guilty of a Logan Act violation. This is nothing close to Spiro Agnew
calling Anna Chenault from the airplane in August 1968.
Sam F , December 23, 2017 at 8:41 pm
Probably true, although evidence of extreme collusion with Israel eliminates any case
against Russia, with whom we have far more reasons for amity. Bringing out the Israel
collusion greatly improves public understanding of political corruption. Perhaps it will
awaken some to the Agnew-Chennault betrayal of the people of the US.
JWalters , December 24, 2017 at 3:32 am
It's ironic that Russia-gate is turning out to be Israel's effort to distract attention
from its complete control over the Democratic party in 2016. From Israeli billionaires behind
the scenes to Debbie Wasserman-Schultz at the helm.
The leaked emails showed the corruption
plainly, and based on the ACTUAL evidence (recorded download time), most likely came from a
highly disgruntled insider. The picture was starting to spill into public view. I'd estimate
the real huge worry was that if this stuff came out, it could bring out other Israeli
secrets, like their involvement in 9/11. That would mean actual jail time. Might be hard to
buy your way out of that no matter how much money you have.
Annie , December 23, 2017 at 10:48 pm
The Logan act states that anyone who negotiates with an enemy of the US, and Israel is not
defined as an enemy.
Annie , December 23, 2017 at 6:59 pm
The Logan act would not apply here, although I wish it would. I don't think anyone has
been convicted based on this act, and they were part of a transition team not to mention the
Logan act clearly states a private citizen who attempts to negotiate with an enemy state, and
that certainly doesn't apply to Israel. In this administration their bias is so blatant that
they can install Kushner as an honest broker in the Israeli-Palestine peace process while his
family has a close relationship with Netanyahu, and he runs a foundation that invests in the
building of illegal settlements which goes against the Geneva conventions. Hopefully Trump's
blatant siding with Israel will receive a lot of backlash as did his plan to make Jerusalem
the capital of Israel.
I also found that so called progressive internet sites don't cover this the way they
should.
Al Pinto , December 24, 2017 at 9:16 am
@Annie
"The Logan act would not apply here, although I wish it would."
You and me both .
From the point of starting to read this article, it has been in my mind that the Logan act
would not apply here. After reading most of the comments, it became clear that not many
people viewed this as such. Yes, Joe Tedesky did as well
The UN is the "clearing house" for international politics, where countries freely contact
each other's for getting support for their cause behind the scene. The support sought after
could be voting for or against the resolution on hand. At times, as Israel did, countries
reach out to perceived enemies as well, if they could not secure sufficient support for their
cause. This is the normal activity of the UN diplomacy.
Knowing that the outgoing administration would not support its cause, Israel reached out
to the incoming administration to delay the vote on the UN resolution. I fail to see anything
wrong with Israel's action even in this case; Israel is not an enemy state to the US. As
such, there has been no violation of any acts by the incoming administration, even if they
tried to secure veto vote for Israel. I do not like it, but no action by Mueller in this case
is correct.
People, just like the article in itself, implying that the Logan Act applies in this case
are just plain wrong. Not just wrong, but their anti-Israel bias is in plain view.
Whether we like it or not, the former and current administration view Russia is as an
enemy state. Even then, Russia contacting the incoming administration is not a violation of
the Logan Act. That is just normal diplomacy in the background between countries. What would
be a violation is that the contacted official acted on the behalf of Russia and tried to
influence the outgoing administration's decision. That is what the Mueller investigation
tries to prove hopelessly
"Whether we like it or not, the former and current administration view Russia is as an
enemy state." So that is how it works, the White House says it is an enemy state and
therefore it is. The so called declaration is the hammer used for trying to make contact with
Russia a criminal offense. We are not at war with Russia although we see our leaders doing
their best to provoke Russia into one.
Annie , December 24, 2017 at 1:55 pm
Thanks for your reply. When I read the article and it referenced the Logan Act, which I am
familiar with in that I've read about it before, I was surprised that Bernstein and
Silverstein even brought it up because it so obviously does not apply in this case, since
Israel is not considered an enemy state. Many have even referenced it as flimsy when it comes
to convictions against those in Trump's transition team who had contacts with Russia. No one
has ever been convicted under the Logan Act.
Larry Larsen , December 24, 2017 at 6:41 pm
The Logan Act either should apply equally, or not apply at all. This "Russia-gate" hype
seems to apply it selectively.
mrtmbrnmn , December 23, 2017 at 7:36 pm
You guys are blinded by the light. The Israel connection disclosed by the malpracticer
hack Mueller in the recent Flynn-flam just made Trump bullet-proof (so to speak).
There is no doubt that Trump is Bibi's and the Saudi's ventriloquist dummy and Jared has
been an Israel agent of influence since he was 12.
But half the Dementedcrat Sore Loser Brigade will withdraw from the field of battle (not
to mention most of the GOP living dead too) if publically and noisily tying Israel to Trump's
tail becomes the only route to his removal. Which it would have to be, as there is no there
there regarding the yearlong trumped-up PutinPutinPutin waterboarding of Trump.
Immediately (if not sooner) the mighty (pro-Israel) Donor Bank of Singer (Paul), Saban
(Haim), Sachs (Goldman) & Adelson (Sheldon), would change their passwords and leave these
politicians/beggars with empty begging bowls. End of $ordid $tory.
alley cat , December 23, 2017 at 7:45 pm
So Mueller caught Kushner and Flynn red-handed, sabotaging the Obama administration? What
of it? He can't use that evidence, because it would inculpate the Zionist neocons that are
orchestrating his farcical, Stalinist witchhunt. And Mueller, being an efficient terminator
bot, knows that his target is Russia, not Israel.
Mueller can use that evidence of sabotage and/or obstruction of justice to try to coerce
false confessions from Kushner and Flynn. But what are the chances of that, barring short
stayovers for them at some CIA black site?
So Mueller will just have to continue swamp-fishing for potential perjurers ahem
witnesses, for the upcoming show trials (to further inflame public opinion against Russia and
Russia sympathizers). And continue he will, because (as we all know from Schwarzenegger's
flicks), the only way to stop the terminator is to terminate him/it first.
Leslie F. , December 23, 2017 at 8:28 pm
He used it, along with other info, to turn flip Flynn and possibly can use it the same way
again Kusher. Not all evidence has end up in court to be useful.
JWalters , December 23, 2017 at 8:40 pm
This is an extremely important story, excellently reported. All the main "facts" Americans
think they know about Israel are, amazingly, flat-out lies.
1. Israel was NOT victimized by powerful Arab armies. Israel overpowered and victimized a
defenseless, civilian Arab population. Military analysts knew the Arab armies were in poor
shape and would not be able to resist the zionist army.
2. Muslim "citizens" of Israel do NOT have all the same rights as Jews.
3. Israelis are NOT under threat from the indigineous Palestinians, but Palestinians are
under constant threats of theft and death from the Israelis.
4. Israel does NOT share America's most fundamental values, which rest on the principle of
equal human rights for all.
Maintaining such a blanket of major lies for decades requires immense power. And this
power would have to be exercised "under the radar" to be effective. That requires even more
power. Both Congress and the press have to be controlled. How much power does it take to turn
"Progressive Rachel" into "Tel Aviv Rachel"? To turn "It Takes a Village" Hillary into
"Slaughter a Village" Hillary? It takes immense power AND ruthlessness.
War profiteers have exactly this combination of immense war profits and the ruthlessness
to victimize millions of people. "War Profiteers and the Roots of the War on Terror" http://warprofiteerstory.blogspot.com
Vast war profits easily afford to buy the mainstream media. And controlling campaign
contributions for members of Congress is amazingly cheap in the big picture. Such a squalid
sale of souls.
And when simple bribery is not enough, they ruin a person's life through blackmail or
false character assassination. And if those don't work they use death threats, including to
family members, and finally murder. Their ruthlessness is unrestrained. John Perkins has
described these tactics in "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man".
For readers who haven't seen it, here is an excellent riff on the absurdly overwhelming
evidence for Israel's influence compared to that of Russia, at a highly professional news and
analysis website run by Jewish anti-Zionists. "Let's talk about Russian influence" http://mondoweiss.net/2016/08/about-russian-influence/
mike k , December 23, 2017 at 8:44 pm
Hitler and Mussolini, Trump and Netanyahoo – matches made in Hell. These characters
are so obviously, blatantly evil that it is deeply disturbing that people fail to see that,
and instead go to great lengths to find some complicated flaws in these monsters.
mike k , December 23, 2017 at 8:49 pm
Keep it simple folks. No need for complex analyses. Just remember that these characters as
simply as evil as it gets, and proceed from there. These asinine shows that portray mobsters
as complex human beings are dangerously deluding. If you want to be victimized by these
types, this kind of overthinking is just the way to go.
Sam F , December 23, 2017 at 9:00 pm
There is a modern theory of fiction that insists upon the portrayal of inconsistency in
characters, both among the good guys and the bad guys. It is useful to show how those who do
wrongs have made specific kinds of errors that make them abnormal, and that those who do
right are not perfect but nonetheless did the right thing. Instead it is used by commercial
writers to argue that the good are really bad, and the bad are really good, which is of
course the philosophy of oligarchy-controlled mass publishers.
Sam F , December 23, 2017 at 8:54 pm
A very important article by Dennis Bernstein, and it is very appropriate that non-zionist
Jews are active against the extreme zionist corruption of our federal government. I am sure
that they are reviled by the zionists for interfering with the false denunciations of racism
against the opponents of zionism. Indeed critics face a very nearly totalitarian power of
zionism, which in league with MIC/WallSt opportunism has displaced democracy altogether in
the US.
backwardsevolution , December 23, 2017 at 9:18 pm
A nice little set-up by the Obama administration. Perhaps it was entrapment? Who set it
up? Flynn and Kushner should have known better to fall for it. So at the end of his
Presidency, Obama suddenly gets balls and wants to slap down Israel? Yeah, right.
Nice to have leverage over people, though, isn't it? If you're lucky and play your cards
right, you might even be lucky enough to land an impeachment.
Of course, I'm just being cynical. No one would want to overturn democracy, would
they?
Certainly people like Comey, Brenner, Clinton, Clapper, Mueller, Rosenstein wouldn't want
that, would they?
Joe Tedesky , December 23, 2017 at 10:33 pm
I just can't see any special prosecutor investigating Israel-Gate. Between what the
Zionist donors donate to these creepy politicians, too what goods they have on these same
mischievous politicians, I just can't see any investigation into Israel's collusion with the
Trump Administration going anywhere. Netanyahu isn't Putin, and Russia isn't Israel. Plus,
Israel is considered a U.S. ally, while Russia is being marked as a Washington rival. Sorry,
this news regarding Israel isn't going to be ranted on about for the next 18 months, like the
MSM has done with Russia, because our dear old Israel is the only democracy in the Middle
East, or so they tell us. So, don't get your hopes up.
JWalters , December 24, 2017 at 3:33 am
It's true the Israelis have America's politicians by the ears and the balls. But as this
story gets better known, politicians will start getting questions at their town meetings.
Increasingly the politicians will gag on what Israel is force-feeding them, until finally
they reach a critical mass of vomit in Congress.
Joe Tedesky , December 24, 2017 at 11:12 am
I hope you are right JWalters. Although relying on a Zionist controlled MSM doesn't give
hope for the news getting out properly. Again I hope you are right JWalters. Joe
Actually, Netanyahu was so desperate to have the resolution pulled and not voted on that
he reached out to any country that might help him after the foreign minister of New Zealand,
one of its co-sponsors refused to pull the plug after a testy phone exchange with the Israeli
PM ending up threatening an Israeli boycott oturnef the KIwis.
He then turned to his buddy, Vladimir Putin, who owed him a favor for having Israel's UN
delegate absent himself for the UNGA vote on sanctioning Russia after its annexation of
Crimea.
Putin then called Russia's UN Ambassador, Vitaly Churkin, since deceased, and asked him to
get the other UNSC ambassadors to postpone the vote until Trump took over the White House but
the other ambassadors weren't buying it. Given Russia's historic public position regarding
the settlements, Churkin had no choice to vote Yes with the others.
This story was reported in detail in the Israeli press but blacked out in the US which,
due to Zionist influence on the media, does not want the American public to know about the
close ties between Putin and Netanyahu which has led to the Israeli PM making five state
visits there in the last year and a half.
Had Clinton won the White House we can assume that there would have been no US veto. That
Netanyahu apparently knew in advance that the US planned to veto the resolution was, I
suspect, leaked to the Israelis by US delegate Samantha Power, who was clearly unhappy at
having to abstain.
Abe , December 24, 2017 at 12:39 am
The Israeli Prime Minister made five state visits to Russia in the last year and a half to
make sure the Russians don't accidentally on purpose blast Israeli warplanes from the sky
over Syria (like they oughtta). Putin tries not to snicker when Netanyahu bloviates ad
nauseum about the purported "threat" posed by Iran.
He thinks Putin is a RATS ASS like the yankee government
JWalters , December 24, 2017 at 3:34 am
"This story was reported in detail in the Israeli press but blacked out in the
US"
We've just had a whole cluster of big stories involving Israel that have all been
essentially blacked out in the US press. e.g. "Dionne and Shields ignore the Adelson in the room" http://mondoweiss.net/2017/12/jerusalem-israels-capital
This is not due to chance. There is no doubt that the US mainstream media is wholly
controlled by the Israelis.
alley cat , December 24, 2017 at 4:49 am
"He [Netanyahu] then turned to his buddy, Vladimir Putin "
Jeff, that characterization of Putin and Netanyahu's relationship makes no sense, since
the Russians have consistently opposed Zionism and Putin has been no exception, having
spoiled Zionist plans for the destruction of Syria.
"Had Clinton won the White House we can assume that there would have been no US
veto."
Not sure where you're going with that, since the US vote was up to Obama, who wanted to
get some payback for all of Bibi's efforts to sabotage Obama's treaty with Iran.
For the record, Zionism has had no more rabid supporter than the Dragon Lady. If we're
going to make assumptions, we could start by assuming that if she had won the White House
we'd all be dead by now, thanks to her obsession (at the instigation of her Zionist/neocon
sponsors) with declaring no-fly zones in Syria.
Brendan , December 24, 2017 at 6:18 am
Trump and Kushner have nothing to worry about, even if a smoking gun is found that proves
their collusion with Israel. That's because the entire political and media establishment will
simply ignore the Israeli connection.
Journalists and politicians will even continue to present Mike Flynn's contacts as
evidence of collusion with Russia. They'll keep on repeating that "Flynn lied about his phone
call to the Russian ambassador". But there will be no mention of the fact that the purpose of
this contact was to support Israel and not any alleged Russian interference.
Skip Scott , December 24, 2017 at 7:59 am
I think you have it right Brendan. The MSM, Intelligence Community, and Mueller would
never go down any path that popularized undue Israeli influence on US foreign policy.
"Nothing to see here folks, move along."
The zionist will stop at nothing to control the middle east with American taxpayers
money/military equiptment its a win win for the zionist they control America lock stock and
barrel a pity though it is a great country to be led by a jewish entity.
What will Israel-Palestine look like twenty years from now? Will it remain an apartheid
regime, a regime without any Palestinians, or something different. The Trump decision, which
the world rejects, brings the issue of "final" settlement to the fore. In a way we can go
back to the thirties and the British Mandate. Jewish were fleeing Europe, many coming to
Palestine. The British, on behalf of the Zionists, were delaying declaring Palestine a state
with control of its own affairs. Seeing the mass immigration and chafing at British foot
dragging, the Arabs rebelled, What happened then was that the British, responding to numerous
pressures notably war with Germany, acted by granting independence and granting Palestine
control of its borders.
With American pressure and the mass exodus of Jews from Europe, Jews defied the British
resulting in Jewish resistance. What followed then was a UN plan to divide the land with a
Jerusalem an international city administered by the UN. The Arabs rebelled and lost much of
what the UN plan provided and Jerusalem as an international city was scrapped.
Will there be a second serious attempt to settle the issue of the land and the status of
Jerusalem? Will there be a serious move toward a single state? How will the matter of
Jerusalem be resolved. The two state solution has always been a fantasy and acquiescence of
Palestinians to engage in this charade exposes their leaders to charges of posturing for
perks. Imagined options could go on and on but will there be serious options placed before
the world community or will the boots on the ground Israeli policies continue?
As I have commented before, it will most probably be the Jewish community in Israel and
the world that shapes the future and if the matter is to be resolved that is fair to both
parties, it will be they that starts the ball rolling.
Zachary Smith , December 24, 2017 at 1:34 pm
As I have commented before, it will most probably be the Jewish community in Israel and
the world that shapes the future and if the matter is to be resolved that is fair to both
parties, it will be they that starts the ball rolling.
The Nice Zionists responsible for the thefts and murders for the past 69 years along with
the "Jewish Community" in the rest of the world will resolve the matter so as to be fair to
both parties. This is mind-boggling fantasy.
Larry Larsen , December 24, 2017 at 5:56 pm
Truly mind-boggling. Ahistorical, and as you say, fantasy.
Larry Larsen , December 24, 2017 at 5:48 pm
FFS, Netanyahu aired a political commercial in Florida for Romney saying vote for this guy
(against Obama)! I mean, it doesn't get any more overtly manipulative than that. Period. End
of story.
$50K of Facebook ads about puppies pales in comparison to that blatant, prima facia,
public manipulation. God, I hate to go all "Israel controls the media" but there it is. Not even a discussion. Just a fact.
Larry Larsen , December 24, 2017 at 6:11 pm
Just for the record, Richard Silverstein blocked me on Twitter because I pointed out that
he slammed someone who was suggesting that the Assad government was fighting for its
(Syria's) life by fighting terrorists. Actually, more specifically, because of that he read
my "Free Palestine" bio on Twitter and called me a Hamas supporter (no Hamas mentioned) and a
"moron" for some seeming contradiction.
I also have to point out that he "fist pumped" Hillary Clinton at Mohammed Ali's eulogy.
If he's as astute as he purports to be, he has to know that Hillary would have invaded Syria
and killed a few hundred thousand more Syrians for the simple act of defiantly preserving
their country. By almost any read of Ali's history, he would have been adamantly ("killing
brown people") against that. But there was Silverstein using the platform to promote,
arguably, perpetual war.
Silverstein is probably not a good (ie. consistent) arbiter of Israeli impact on US
politics. Just sayin'.
This may be a tad ot but it relates to the alleged hacking of the DNC, the role debbie
wasserman schultz plays in the spy ring (awan bros) in house of rep servers: I have long
suspected that mossad has their fingers in this entire mess. FWIW
Good site, BTW.
Zachary Smith , December 24, 2017 at 7:35 pm
I can't recall why I removed the Tikun Olam site from my bookmarks – it happened
quite a while back. Generally I do that when I feel the blogger crossed some kind of personal
red line. Something Mr. Silverstein wrote put him over that line with me.
In the course of a search I found that at the neocon NYT. Mr. Silverstein claims several
things I find unbelievable, and from that alone I wonder about his ultimate motives. I may be
excessively touchy about this, but that's how it is.
Larry Larsen , December 24, 2017 at 8:51 pm
Yeah Zachary, "wondering about ultimate motives" is probably a good way to put it/his
views. He's obviously conflicted, if not deferential in some aspects of Israeli policy. He
really was a hero of mine, but now I just don't get whether what he says is masking something
or a true belief. He says some good stuff, but, but, but .
P. Michael Garber , December 24, 2017 at 11:54 pm
Yeah I found a couple of Silverstein's statements to be closer to neocon propaganda than
reality: "Because this is Israel and because we have a conflicted relationship with the Israel
lobby . . ." "Instead of going directly to the Obama administration, with which they had terrible
relations, they went to Trump instead." My impression was that the whole "terrible relationship between Obama and Netanyahu" was
manufactured by the Israel lobby to bully Obama. However these are small blips within an otherwise solid critique of the Israel lobby's
influence.
Tulsi Gabbard is less than 20K individual donations away from getting on the debate stage!
Help her get there by donating just $1 to her campaign!
Tulsi Gabbard 5:21 PM - 22 Mar 2019
Thank you! So far we have 44,255 unique donors of the 65,000 needed to get on the debate
stage! Almost 4,000 people contributed in the last 2 days. I'm humbled by your support. Stay
tuned for updates! pic.twitter.com/UOd5Ky39vf
Something is rotten in the state of Denmark. Hamlet (1.4), Marcellus to Horatio. This line
spoken by Marcellus (and not Hamlet as is commonly believed) is one of the most recognizable
lines in all of Shakespeare's works. Fully applicable to Sanders, Hillary and Trump
The context of the quote is also interesting and fully applicable: Marcellus, shaken by
the many recent disturbing events and no doubt angered (as is Hamlet) by Claudius's mismanagement
of the body politic, astutely notes that Denmark is festering with moral and political
corruption. Horatio replies "Heaven will direct it" (91), meaning heaven will guide the state of
Denmark to health and stability.
This investgation was a convenient sham to cover for the real collusion and Trump was
the Zionist 1 percenters choice and nothing was going to foil that and many of you here
fell for the entire charade hook, line and sinker believing Trump was a poor victim all
along.
I think you're mostly right but there's more to it, like:
>> Complicity of Christian Zionists and other enablers and hangers on;
>> Deep-State CYA after the lost war in Syria;
>> New Cold War as AZ Empire re-orients to respond to Russia-China challenge.
AIPAC/Israel's power in US politics is well known. And they have great influence
on BOTH Parties. Your focus on as the embodiment of this evil suggest that you think that if
he were not elected in 2016 then Zionist influence would be eliminated or greatly diminished.
That is certainly not the true.
What strikes me about the 2016 Presidential election is not that wealthy Jews donated to
Trump but that the election was manipulated in numerous ways. Highlights:
>> Trump was the only Republican populist (out of 19 contenders!);
>> Sanders and Trump were both long-time friends of the Clintons;
>> Sanders was a sheepdog that prevented progressives from breaking with the
Democratic Party;
>> Hillary didn't need to collude with DNC - that added very very little to
the money she raised for her campaign - but it did allow her to treat Sanders and his
supporters shabbily;
>> Hillary also alienated other important groups, like blacks and white
conservatives ("deplorables");
>> Trump played along by bringing on Manafort, asking Russia to find Hillary's
emails, and breaking his campaign promise to investigate Hillary within days of the
election;
>> Trump has brought allies of his supposed enemies into his Administration: VP
Pence was close to McCain (as was Lindsey Graham who was anti-Trump during the election);
Gina Haspel is Brennan's gal at CIA; Bolton and Abrams are neocons (neocons were 'Never
Trump'); Attorney General William Barr is close with Robert Mueller; etc.
Bernie only he served as a sheepdog for Hillary, he want to serve a sheep dog in elections 2020
Notable quotes:
"... Sen. John McCain was a friend and a man of great courage and integrity. We need a president who will fight for our veterans, not attack the memory of an American hero. ..."
"... "How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle?...How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets?" - Smedley Butler, "War is a Racket" ..."
While I respect Bernie, I disagree with him strongly on this. John McCain was a war hawk
who sent American youth to fight and die and never met a problem he didn't think could be
solved through invasion or intervention. The real heroes are those who fought for PEACE.
Bernie Sanders 4:17 PM - 20 Mar 2019
Sen. John McCain was a friend and a man of great courage and integrity. We need a
president who will fight for our veterans, not attack the memory of an American hero.
Mike Gravel 5:28 AM - 21 Mar 2019
"How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle?...How many of them knew what it
meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened
nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets?" - Smedley Butler, "War is a
Racket"
"... The story comes after a number of leading candidates- Sen. Bernie Sanders , Sen. Kamala Harris , Sen. Elizabeth Warren , Beto O'Rourke , Mayor Julián Castro , Governor Jay Inlsee , and Mayor Pete Buttigieg - said that they will not attend AIPAC's conference. ..."
"... "The influx of progressive candidates confirming they will not attend-even those who have gone in years past-shows how the momentum is shifting. In 2007, for example, ..."
"... both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton attended, ..."
"... going so far as to throw parties at the conference. ..."
"... "AIPAC is clearly a partisan lobbying group that has undermined diplomatic efforts. It's no secret that that AIPAC has worked to hinder diplomatic efforts like the Iran deal, is undermining Palestinian self-determination, and inviting figures actively involved in human rights violations to its stage. Meanwhile, they give platforms to ..."
"... and refuse to condemn the anti-Semitism stemming from Republicans. It should come as no surprise that progressives don't want anything to do with this conference. ..."
"... "The fact that no 2020 Democratic presidential contenders have as of yet publicly committed to attending AIPAC's conference in DC this weekend-with seven candidates confirming they will definitely not ..."
"... stands in sharp contrast to the past. MoveOn members applaud the candidates for taking a stand against AIPAC's dangerous, partisan lobbying efforts." ..."
"... more than 74 percent of MoveOn members who responded agree or strongly agree with the statement that "any progressive vying to be the Democratic nominee for President should skip the AIPAC conference." ..."
"... AIPAC spent tens millions of dollars in 2015 to defeat the Iran nuclear deal negotiated by President Obama along with our European and international allies-a historic diplomatic agreement that Trump has tried to derail since taking office. ..."
"... This year's AIPAC conference is headlined by Benjamin Netanyahu under whose leadership, according to the U.N., Israel may have committed war crimes in attacks on Gaza. Netanyahu also has been indicted on bribery and fraud charges, and recently made a deal to bring the "Israeli KKK" party into the next government. ..."
"... AIPAC has been known to traffic in anti-Muslim and anti-Arab rhetoric while providing a platform to Islamophobes. ..."
Iram Ali, campaign director at MoveOn, explained the significance:
"The influx of progressive candidates confirming they will not attend-even those who have gone in years past-shows how
the momentum is shifting. In 2007, for example, both Barack Obama and
Hillary Clinton attended, going so far as to throw parties at the conference.
"AIPAC is clearly a partisan lobbying group that has undermined diplomatic efforts. It's no secret that that AIPAC has
worked to hinder diplomatic efforts like the Iran deal, is undermining Palestinian self-determination, and inviting figures actively
involved in human rights violations to its stage. Meanwhile, they give platforms to Islamophobes
and refuse to condemn the anti-Semitism stemming from Republicans. It should come as no surprise that progressives don't want
anything to do with this conference.
"The fact that no 2020 Democratic presidential contenders have as of yet publicly committed to attending AIPAC's conference
in DC this weekend-with seven candidates confirming they will definitely not attend-stands in sharp contrast to the past.
MoveOn members applaud the candidates for taking a stand against AIPAC's dangerous, partisan lobbying efforts."
On Wednesday, MoveOn released the results of a member survey which found that more than 74 percent of MoveOn members who responded
agree or strongly agree with the statement that "any progressive vying to be the Democratic nominee for President should skip the
AIPAC conference."
Here are some of the reasons MoveOn called on 2020 candidates to skip AIPAC:
AIPAC spent tens millions of dollars in 2015 to defeat the Iran nuclear deal negotiated by President Obama along with
our European and international allies-a historic diplomatic agreement that Trump has tried to derail since taking office.
This year's AIPAC conference is headlined by Benjamin Netanyahu under whose leadership, according to the U.N., Israel may
have committed war crimes in attacks on Gaza. Netanyahu also has been indicted on bribery and fraud charges, and recently made
a deal to bring the "Israeli KKK" party into the next government.
AIPAC has been known to traffic in anti-Muslim and anti-Arab rhetoric while providing a platform to Islamophobes.
AIPAC has refused to condemn the anti-Semitism of Republicans, such as Trump's friend and advisor Steve Bannon. Bannon's wife
reported that he had their kids removed from a school because of "the number of Jews that attend," and that "he didn't want the
girls going to school with Jews. While many groups condemned Bannon, Politico reported that AIPAC "declined to weigh in." This
is one of many examples.
As the 2020 presidential field takes shape, Democratic voters by double digits say they are
more interested in nominating a candidate who can defeat President Trump than one they agree
with most on the issues, a new USA TODAY/Suffolk University Poll finds.
Tulsi Gabbard Verified account @ TulsiGabbard Mar 17
For decades, Space has been a model of cooperation between global superpowers. But such
cooperation is the latest victim of the new Cold War. Trump/Neocon efforts to start a space
war/arms race will lead to destruction of our country and planet. #Tulsi2020
Tulsi Gabbard Verified account @ TulsiGabbard Mar 17
For decades, Space has been a model of cooperation between global superpowers. But such
cooperation is the latest victim of the new Cold War. Trump/Neocon efforts to start a space
war/arms race will lead to destruction of our country and planet. #Tulsi2020
Another example of Trump and Netanyahu putting their own political interests ahead of the
interests of our respective countries. Will escalate tensions and likelihood of war between
Israel/US/Syria/Iran/Russia. Shortsighted. https:// twitter.com/nytimes/status /1108783266075684865
Omani 1:12 PM - 21 Mar 2019
How long will this continue to go on? They must be stopped. #Tulsi2020
Attorney General William Barr said in a letter to Congress Friday that he may be able to
provide lawmakers with the special counsel's principal conclusions "as soon as this
weekend."
There were no instances in which Mueller was told not to take a specific action in his
wide-ranging probe, Barr said.
"... The divisions can always be jacked up. "My opponent is a white nationalist!" and so he doesn't just think you're lazy, he wants to kill you. Convince average Americans to vote against their own interests by manipulating them into opposing any program that might benefit black and brown equally or more than themselves. ..."
"... Listen for what's missing in the speeches about inequality and injustice. Whichever candidate admits that we've created an apartheid of dollars for all deserves your support. ..."
The birth lottery determines which of those three bands we'll sink or swim together in,
because there is precious little mobility. In that bottom band,
81 percent face flat or falling net worths (
40 percent of Americans make below $15
an hour) and so aren't going anywhere. Education, once a vehicle, is now mostly a tool for the
preservation of current statuses across
generations, to the point that it's worth paying bribes for. Class is sticky.
Money, not so much. Since the 9.9 percent have the most (except for the super wealthy at
least), they have the most to lose. At their
peak in the mid-1980s, the managers and technicians in this group held 35 percent of the
nation's wealth. Three decades later, that fell 12 percent,
exactly as much as the wealth of the 1 percent rose. A significant redistribution of wealth
-- upwards -- took place following the 2008 market collapse, as bailouts, shorts,
repossessions, and new laws helped the top end of the economy at cost to the bottom. What some
label hardships are to others business opportunities.
The people at the top are throwing nails off the back of the truck to make sure no one else
can catch up with them. There is a strong zero sum element to all this. The goal is to
eliminate the competition
. They'll have it all when society is down to two classes, the 1 percent and the 99 percent,
and at that point we'll all be effectively the same color. The CEO of JP Morgan
called it a bifurcated economy. Historians will recognize it as feudalism.
You'd think someone would sound a global climate change-level alarm about all this. Instead
we divide people into
tribes and make them afraid of each other by forcing competition for limited resources like
health care. Identity politics sharpens
the lines, recognizing increasingly smaller separations, like adding letters to LGBTQQIAAP.
Failed Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams, herself with presidential ambitions,
is an example of the loud voices demanding
more division . Contrast that with early model Barack Obama at the 2004 Democratic National
Convention, who pleaded, "There's not a black America and white America and Latino America and
Asian America; there's the United States of America."
The divisions can always be jacked up. "My opponent is a white nationalist!" and so he
doesn't just think you're lazy, he wants to kill you. Convince average Americans to vote
against their own interests by manipulating them into opposing any program that might benefit
black and brown equally or more than themselves. Keep the groups fighting left and right and
they'll never notice the real discrimination is up and down, even as massive economic forces
consume all equally. Consumption becomes literal as Americans die from alcohol, drugs, and
suicide in record numbers
.
Meanwhile, no one has caught on to the fact that identity politics is a marketing tool for
votes, fruit flavored vape to bring in the kiddies. Keep that in mind as you listen to the
opening cries of the 2020 election. Listen for what's missing in the speeches about inequality
and injustice. Whichever candidate admits that we've created an apartheid of dollars for all
deserves your support.
** The author doesn't really drive for Uber but his conversation with the Spaniard was
real.
Mr Van Buren. This piece nails it. The Democrats made a huge mistake focusing on race and
LGBTQ instead of class. Their stated goal should be to replace race based affirmative action
with class-based programs.
If there is serious violence coming to America it will come during the next major
recession/financial crisis. The ARs will come out of the closet when, during the next
financial crisis, the elites are bailed out (again), yet the riff raff lose their homes and
pickups to foreclosure.
I am very pessimistic in this area. I believe the elites, in general, are agnostic to SJW
issues, abortion, job loss, BLM, religious liberty, and on and on. The look at the riff raff
with amusement, sparring over such trivial things. Meanwhile, the river of cash keeps flowing
to their bank accounts.
Imagine if the digital transfer of money was abolished. Imagine if everybody had to have
their money in a local bank instead of in an investment account of a major bank. Imagine if
Americans saw, day after day, armored vehicles showing up at local banks to offload sacks of
currency that went to only a few individual accounts held by the very rich.
Instead, the elites receive their financial statements showing an ever increasing hoard of
cash at their disposal. They see it, but nobody else does. However, if everybody saw the
river of wealth flowing to the elites, I believe things would change. Fast. Right now this
transfer of wealth is all digital, hidden from the view of 99.99% of Americans and the IRS.
And the elites, the banking industry, and the wealth management cabal prefer it that way.
It's easy to propose the ultimate goal of the elites is to have a utopian society to
themselves, where the only interaction they have with the riff raff is with subservient
technicians keeping it all running. Like the movie Elysium.
When feudalism comes to America, it will be justified by Libertarianism. With government
defined as the bad guy, there's nothing to stop the 1% from organizing everything to their
own benefit.
On the other side of the political spectrum, identity politics emphasizes people's
differences and tribal affiliations over their shared citizenship. This prevents them from
making common cause.
Fundamentally, these trends make the body politic so weak that it becomes susceptible to
takeover by authoritarians that represent narrow interests.
"His skin was clearly a few shades darker than mine, though he pointed out that was only
because my relatives came from the cold part of Europe and he came from the sunny part."
The Spanish in Europe got their color from the Moorish invasion, not the sun.
More of my annoying trivia that has little to do with the subject of an article.
Welp, the Democratic Party, by and large, believes all Americans regardless of class, race,
religion, and gender should have guaranteed equal access to affordable healthcare, a
substantial minimum wage, education and the rest.
Stacy Abrams wants these items too, along with equal access to the voting franchise.
"Until slavery was ended in the United States, human beings were legally considered
capital, just like owning stocks and bonds today. But the Spaniard knew enough about history
to wonder what reparations would be offered to the thousands of Chinese treated as animals to
build the railroads or the 8,000 Irish who died digging the New Basin Canal or the whole
families of Jews living on the Lower East Side of New York who were forced to employ their
children to make clothing for uptown "white" stores. Later in the same century, wages were
"voluntarily" cut to the bone at factories in Ohio to save jobs that disappeared anyway after
the owners had wrung out the last profits."
That would be an excellent point if your inner Spaniard concluded reparations should be
offered to the others as well, but ends up being merely tendentious if he contends that no
one gets reparations.
But will you like it if the Democratic Party makes that part of their platform too?
I was born in Middletown, Ohio alongside the elegiacal hillbillies, who, by the way,
didn't care for the blacks on the other side of the tracks anymore than my Armco-employed
grandfather did, and certainly the business owners who disappeared the jobs and cut wages
while voting for the so-called free traders were of the same ilk.
I didn't know any Democrats among any of my family's circle and, by the way, Middletown
might as well have been south of the Mason Dixon anyway for all the white Democrats in town
who gave not a crap about their fellow black citizens, certainly not the business owners who
disappeared the jobs while voting for the so-called free traders.
It was the Republican Party (Larry Kudlow, I'm gunning for you) who championed creative
destruction and the red tooth and claw of unfettered worldwide competition without asking, in
fact jumping for joy, what the unintended consequences would be because the consequences were
intended smash the unions for all, cut wages and benefits and hand the booty to shareholders,
move operations to lower-tax, lower wage, environmentally unregulated parts of the globe to
manufacture them thar high margin MAGA hats for the aggrieved.
What a beautiful grift!
Hello, Marianas.
That Democrats jumped on the bandwagon is no credit to them, especially while assuming the
prone position as the republican party frayed the safety net.
True, the republicans laid off everyone, regardless of race, gender, and class and then
cut everyone's benefits.
As the Spaniard rightly understood, one can look way back into our history and see that the
moneyed class has always used identity politics in economic control games to divide and
conquer. That the Republicans rail on this as some evil creation of the modern Democrat is
laughable at best. That the sheep who follow the party mouth pieces of the moneyed class in
this media age can still be so easily manipulated is rather pitiful. Making common cause for
the general welfare has never really sunk in as an American value.
Divide and conquer remains our true ethos. As the dole gets evermore paltry the only
seeming options remaining are common cause for a common good or greater violence. One
requires us to find a contentment beyond the delusional American dream of becoming that 1 to
10%. The other just requires continued anger, division and despair.
Ironically the view that race/culture isn't at all important and should be disregarded in
view of the class division (a "distraction"), is pretty much endorsing the classic Marxist
critique.
It's easy to notice divide and conquer when it's hate against those of the same class but are
of a different culture/race.
But what's *difficult* to notice is identifying with the elites of your race in a positive
way.
A lot of people, especially with the onset of realityTV, tend to think rich people are just
like them (albeit a little smarter). The methods and systems to keep power aren't considered.
They're made non-threatening. So many billionaires and politicians act effete today to stoke
this image.
" Whether your housing is subsidized via a mortgage tax deduction "
This jumped off the screen. I wonder how many people even realize that. Probably the same
number who still believe that social security is a "forced savings".
Not to put too fine a point on it but clearly we are wasting our time arguing. As long as the
current system of government remains in effect it will be same old same old.
Many changes are in order–starting with this archaic remnant of a bygone era called
"The Two Party System".
Spaniards are indeed Hispanic. The definition of Hispanic relates to a linguistic grouping
– that is, relating to Spain or Spanish speaking countries. Your friend would indeed
qualify for all sorts of preferences according to the definition.
As to being a POC, I could not locate any definition as to what threshold of skin tone
qualifies someone as a POC. I wager none yet exists but will be forthcoming.
Johann
As for the skin tone of Spaniards, many in the south have the Moorish influence,however,
in the rest of the country skin tones range from light beige to very fair. Rather similar to
Italians, actually.
First, kudos to Van Buren for getting a Seamless delivery while driving. That's not easy to
coordinate. Second, I look forward to more conservative policies addressing poverty, drug
addiction and access to health care. This article adds to the 10-year rant against what
Democrats have done or want to do.
Like nearly every Republican of the last 10 years, Van Buren offers none here. But I'm
sure once the complaining is out of his system, they will arrive.
Your Spaniard friend also has it all wrong. The real division line is between those willing
to initiate coercion for their own self-righteousness and those who refuse to. Anyone that
supports government is one-in-the-same, regardless of color or class.
Thirty years ago I'd be asking who printed the canned response pamphlet to give prepared
talking points to enable anyone to provide quick sharp tongued witty criticisms of anything
they may encounter that didn't tow the party line.
Now I gotta ask where do I download the Trollware to accomplish the same thing.
The Moors were a tiny class of invaders who left rather little imprint on the Spanish genome.
That was true of the Romans and the Goths as well. Spanish genes are mostly the genes of the
pre-Roman population: the Iberians in the south (who maybe migrated from North Africa), Celts
in the north, and the indigenous Basques along the Pyrenees.
What happened to "a rising tide lifts all boats"? We've been promised for decades that the
wealth generated by those at the very top would "trickle down." This was a cornerstone of
Reaganism that has been parroted ever since.
There have been naysayers who say that that theory was fantasy and that all we would have
is increased wealth disparity and greater national deficits.
The idea that this country has a true democracy is absurd. Everyone knows in their heart
of hearts that we're ruled by elites, Wall Street, etc. We need serious, fundamental
political reform - real, direct democracy: a Legislature of the People to decide policy.
Mike Gravel 8:28 PM - 20 Mar 2019
If you vote for the country to go to war, you should have to serve in the front lines in
that war. I served in the U.S. Army, fiercely opposed the Vietnam War, helped end the draft.
@JoeBiden never
served and still saw fit to send this country's kids to Iraq
Mike Gravel 10:57 AM - 20 Mar 2019
The philosophical underpinning of the neoliberal project is @FukuyamaFrancis ' thesis that
civilization had reached its final stage with modern capitalistic democracy. In effect: rule
by the elites. Fukuyama was wrong. The final stage is rule not by the elites but by the
PEOPLE.
Mike Gravel 10:45 AM - 20 Mar 2019
The neoliberal style in politics means delivering, in a wrapping of lofty words,
absolutely nothing. It's the style that got us into Iraq in 2003, that destroyed our economy
in 2008, that failed to effectively challenge Trump in 2016. Above all, It's the style of
@HillaryClinton .
Mike Gravel 2:05 AM - 20 Mar 2019
It's simply not enough to go back to "the pre-Trump normal." Because the pre-Trump normal
meant drone strikes, forever, massacres, and mass surveillance. Pre-Trump gave us Trump. The
way to escape the hell of Trump is by finding something better, not just returning to the
old.
Mike Gravel 10:01 PM - 19 Mar 2019
If I run, I'd run not to win, but to push great candidates like @BernieSanders and @TulsiGabbard toward more sensible
views on political reform and foreign policy through the debates. We need a strong left flank
for strong policy.
Mike Gravel 9:38 PM - 19 Mar 2019
. @CoryBooker
melodramatically declared releasing inconsequential files on Brett Kavanaugh his "Spartacus
moment." This is me, in 1971, reading the Pentagon Papers into the record for hours on end,
risking expulsion from the Senate. That's real courage, Cory.
With Democratic Party completely sold to Wall Street and multinationals and Republican Party
completely sold to MIC and multinationals both constitute single War Party pursuing the same
jingoistic foreign policy. So it is tricky whom we should support in 2002.
Consensus conservatism long ago ceased to inquire into the first things. But we will
not.
We oppose the soulless society of individual affluence.
Our society must not prioritize the needs of the childless, the healthy, and the
intellectually competitive. Our policy must accommodate the messy demands of authentic human
attachments: family, faith, and the political community. We welcome allies who oppose
dehumanizing attempts at "liberation" such as pornography, "designer babies," wombs for rent,
and the severing of the link between sex and gender.
We stand with the American citizen.
In recent years, some have argued for immigration by saying that working-class Americans are
less hard-working, less fertile, in some sense less worthy than potential immigrants. We oppose
attempts to displace American citizens. Advancing the common good requires standing with,
rather than abandoning, our countrymen. They are our fellow citizens, not interchangeable
economic units. And as Americans we owe each other a distinct allegiance and must put each
other first.
We reject attempts to compromise on human dignity.
In 2013, the Republican National Committee released an "autopsy report" that proposed
compromising on social issues in order to appeal to young voters. In fact, millennials are the
most pro-life generation in America, while economic libertarianism isn't nearly as popular as
its Beltway proponents imagine. We affirm the nonnegotiable dignity of every unborn life and
oppose the transhumanist project of radical self-identification.
We resist a tyrannical [neo]liberalism.
We seek to revive the virtues of liberality and neighborliness that many people describe as
"liberalism." But we oppose any attempt to conflate American interests with [neo]liberal
ideology . When an ideological [neo]liberalism seeks to dictate our foreign policy and
dominate our religious and charitable institutions, tyranny is the result, at home and
abroad.
We want a country that works for workers.
The Republican Party has for too long held investors and "job creators" above workers and
citizens, dismissing vast swaths of Americans as takers unworthy of its time. Trump's victory,
driven in part by his appeal to working-class voters, shows the potential of a political
movement that heeds the cries of the working class as much as the demands of capital. Americans
take more pride in their identity as workers than about their identity as consumers. Economic
and welfare policy should prioritize work over consumption.
We believe home matters.
For those who enjoy the upsides, a borderless world brings intoxicating new liberties. They
can go anywhere, work anywhere. They can call themselves "citizens" of the world. But the
jet-setters' vision clashes with the human need for a common life. And it has bred resentments
that are only beginning to surface. We embrace the new nationalism insofar as it stands against
the utopian ideal of a borderless world that, in practice, leads to universal tyranny.
Whatever else might be said about it, the Trump phenomenon has opened up space in which to
pose these questions anew. We will guard that space jealously. And we respectfully decline to
join with those who would resurrect warmed-over Reaganism and foreclose honest debate.
... ... ...
Y'all know that I don't usually have much good to say about the president, but to me, Trump
has accomplished two unambiguously good things: 1) put some good judges on the courts, and 2)
smashed Conservatism, Inc.'s hegemony on the Right, opening the door for real debate about the
future of the country, and of conservatism.
Any attempt by establishment conservatives to aspire to, and create, a Restoration after
Trump goes should be strongly opposed.
He has made a big mess, but out of that mess we have to fight for renewal and the
construction of something new, not the revivification of Zombie Reaganism.
"So you ask what I will change? I will change our priorities so we stop wasting trillions
of our dollars on wasteful counterproductive wars and dedicate them to taking care of the
urgent needs of our communities across this country." #ServiceBeforeSelf#PeaceDvidend
Tulsi Gabbard 7:44 AM - 20 Mar 2019
"I'm not running for president to BE president. I'm running for president to be able to
bring about this sea change in our foreign policy that is so necessary for us and for the
world, and I'm most qualified to do that." #ServiceBeforeSelf#Tulsi2020pic.twitter.com/wk2M7O0CgR
Senator Kamala Harris hinted Tuesday that if she wins the election in 2020, she will continue to "prosecute"
President Donald Trump even after he leaves the White House.
Appearing on
Jimmy Kimmel Live
on Tuesday, the
Democrat candidate for president said that her experience as a prosecutor would figure into her actions as president
and that she thinks the voters would want her to "prosecute" Trump.
"I also believe that what voters are going to want is they are going to want that there is someone who has the proven ability
to prosecute the case against this administration and this president," she said. "And that is going to be about having an ability
and a proven ability to be able to articulate the evidence that makes the case for why we need new leadership in this country."
Kimmel pressed her on the point and asked if she intended to continue trying to jail Trump after he leaves the White
House, but Harris dissembled saying, "I am very supportive of Bob Mueller being able to finish his process and do his
job."
During her appearance, Harris also signed onto the new Democrat
narrative of abolishing the Electoral College.
"I'm open to the discussion," she told Kimmel. "There's no question that the popular vote has been diminished in
terms of making the final decision about who's the president of the United States, and we need to deal with that."
As to other hot-button policies, Harris also
signed on
with the so-called Green New Deal offered up by controversial liberal New York Representative
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. In addition, the Californian
said
she supports "some type" of reparations for slavery.
@ testing that responded to my comment that wrote of Berniebots
I will support anyone who wants to take down global private banking and I don't think that
includes Bernie
That said, there is a growing mass of young folks that just might try to take over the
(s)election process this time around.....will they succeed? Not from what we see of protests
against US meddling in Venezuela.....nothing
We will see what TPTB put forward for a circus this time around.....if we make it that
far.....
@ testing who wrote
"
Yes indeed. So much candidates. Seems like fog of war.
"
With more candidates early on, it takes all that energy and diffuses it for petty warfare
instead of a firmly focused "machine" that would take over Congress through the Dem
party.
In 2016, Cannon wrote that Warren would indeed bring more warmth than Clinton,
pointing to an anecdote she shared on Facebook about how she would bake her mother a "heart
shaped cake" as a child. He contrasted that with Clinton's sarcastic "I suppose I could have
stayed home and baked cookies"
comment from 1992 , which was a response to ongoing questions about why she chose to
continue her law practice when her husband was governor of Arkansas.
For some Bernie Sanders supporters, meanwhile, praising Warren was a way to deflect
accusations of sexism. In a 2016
Huffington Post opinion piece titled, "I Despise Hillary Clinton And It Has Nothing to Do
With Her Gender," Isaac Saul wrote that he "and many Sanders supporters would vote for
Elizabeth Warren if she were in the race over Hillary or Bernie." (
Saul apologized to Clinton for being a "smug young journalist" and "Bernie Bro" in a follow
up article months later, writing that his views of her changed after he endeavored to learn
more about her history).
So what's going on here? Has Warren become incredibly unlikable over the past two years? Or
is this change more an indication of her growing power. High-achieving women, sociologist
Marianne Cooper wrote in a 2013 Harvard Business
Review article , are judged differently than men because "their very success -- and
specifically the behaviors that created that success -- violates our expectations about how
women are supposed to behave." When women act competitively or assertively rather than warm and
nurturing, Cooper writes, they "elicit pushback from others for being insufficiently feminine
and too masculine." As a society, she says, "we are deeply uncomfortable with powerful women.
In fact, we don't often really like them."
The former interim head of the Democratic Party just accused Hillary Clinton's campaign of
"unethical" conduct that "compromised the party's integrity." The Clinton campaign's alleged sin: A hostile takeover
of the Democratic National Committee before her primary with Sen. Bernie Sanders had concluded.
Donna Brazile's op-ed in Politico
is the equivalent of taking the smoldering embers of the 2016 primary and
throwing some gasoline on them. Just about everything she says in the piece will inflame Sanders's passionate
supporters who were already suspicious of the Democratic establishment and already had reason to believe -- based on
leaked DNC emails
-- that the committee wasn't as neutral in the primary as it was supposed to be.
But the op-ed doesn't break too much new provable, factual ground, relying more upon Brazile's
own perception of the situation and hearsay. In the op-ed, Brazile says:
Clinton's campaign took care of the party's debt and "put it on a starvation diet. It had become dependent on
her campaign for survival, for which [Clinton] expected to wield control of its operations." She described
Clinton's control of the DNC as a "cancer."
Gary Gensler, the chief financial officer of Clinton's campaign, told her the DNC was (these are Brazile's
words) "fully under the control of Hillary's campaign, which seemed to confirm the suspicions of the Bernie camp."
She "couldn't write a news release without passing it by Brooklyn."
Then-Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, whose
pressured resignation after the leaked emails
left Brazile in charge as interim chairwoman, "let Clinton's
headquarters in Brooklyn do as it desired" because she didn't want to tell the party's leaders how dire the DNC's
financial situation was. Brazile says Wasserman Schultz arranged a $2 million loan from the Clinton campaign
without the consent of party officers like herself, contrary to party rules.
Brazile sums it up near the end: "If the fight had been fair, one campaign would not have control
of the party before the voters had decided which one they wanted to lead. This was not a criminal act, but as I saw
it, it compromised the party's integrity."
None of this is truly shocking. In fact, Brazile is largely writing about things we already knew
about. The joint fundraising agreement between the Clinton campaign and the DNC
was already known about and the subject of derision
among Sanders's supporters. But it's worth noting that
Sanders was given a similar opportunity and passed on using it, as Brazile notes.
There were also those emails from the DNC hack released by WikiLeaks that
showed some at the DNC were hardly studiously neutral
. One email chain discussed bringing Sanders's Jewish
religion into the campaign, others spoke of him derisively, and in one a lawyer who worked for both Clinton and the
DNC advised the committee on how to respond to questions about the Clinton joint fundraising committee. The emails
even cast plenty of doubt on Brazile's neutrality, given she shared with the Clinton campaign
details
of questions to be asked at a pair of CNN forums
for the Democratic candidates in March 2016, before she was
interim chair but when she was still a DNC official. Brazile, who was a CNN pundit at the time, lost her CNN job over
that.
The timeline here is also important. Many of those emails described above came after it was
abundantly clear that Clinton would be the nominee, barring a massive and almost impossible shift in primary votes.
It may have been in poor taste and contrary to protocol, but the outcome was largely decided long before Sanders
ended his campaign. Brazile doesn't dwell too much on the timeline, so it's not clear exactly how in-the-bag Clinton
had the nomination when the alleged takeover began. It's also not clear exactly what Clinton got for her alleged
control.
This is also somewhat self-serving for Brazile, given the DNC continued to struggle during and
after her tenure,
especially financially
. The op-ed is excerpted from her forthcoming book, "Hacks: The Inside Story of the
Break-ins and Breakdowns That Put Donald Trump in the White House." Losses like the one in 2016 will certainly lead
to plenty of finger-pointing, and Brazile's book title and description allude to it containing plenty of that.
But taking on the Clintons is definitely something that most in the party wouldn't take lightly.
And Brazile's allegation that Clinton was effectively controlling the DNC is the kind of thing that could lead to
some further soul-searching and even bloodletting in the Democratic Party. It's largely been able to paper over its
internal divisions since the primary season in 2016, given the great unifier for Democrats that is President Trump.
Sanders himself has somewhat toned down his criticism of the DNC during that span, but what he
says -- especially given he seems to want to run again in 2020 -- will go a long way in determining how the party moves
forward.
Warren is trying to treat not just the symptoms but the underlying disease. She has
proposed a universal child-care
and pre-K program that echoes the universal high school movement of the early 20th century. She favors not only a tougher approach
to future mergers, as many Democrats do, but also
a breakup of Facebook
and other tech companies that have come to resemble monopolies. She wants to require corporations to include worker representatives
on their boards -- to end the era of "shareholder-value maximization," in which companies care almost exclusively about the interests
of their shareholders, often
at the expense of their workers, their communities and their country.
Warren was also the first high-profile politician to call for
an annual wealth
tax , on fortunes greater than $50 million. This tax is the logical extension of research by the economist Thomas Piketty and
others, which has shown how extreme wealth perpetuates itself. Historically, such concentration has often led to
the decline
of powerful societies. Warren, unlike some Democrats, comfortably explains that she is not socialist. She is a capitalist and,
like Franklin D. Roosevelt, is trying to save American capitalism from its own excesses.
"Sometimes, bigger ideas are more possible to accomplish," Warren told me during
a
recent conversation about the economy at her Washington apartment. "Because you can inspire people."
... ... ...
Warren's agenda is a series of such bold ideas. She isn't pushing for a byzantine system of tax credits for child care. She wants
a universal program of pre-K and child care, administered locally, with higher pay for teachers and affordable tuition for families.
And to anyone who asks, "But how will you pay for that?" Warren has an answer. Her wealth tax
would raise more than $250 billion
a year, about four times the estimated cost of universal child care. She is, in her populist way, the fiscal conservative in the
campaign.
@ testing that responded to my comment that wrote of Berniebots
I will support anyone who wants to take down global private banking and I don't think that
includes Bernie
That said, there is a growing mass of young folks that just might try to take over the
(s)election process this time around.....will they succeed? Not from what we see of protests
against US meddling in Venezuela.....nothing
We will see what TPTB put forward for a circus this time around.....if we make it that
far.....
@ testing who wrote
"
Yes indeed. So much candidates. Seems like fog of war.
"
With more candidates early on, it takes all that energy and diffuses it for petty warfare
instead of a firmly focused "machine" that would take over Congress through the Dem
party.
"... There are numerous clues that point to the 2016 US Presidential Election as having been a set-up. Few seem willing to take a close look at these facts. But it is necessary for an understanding of the world we live in today. ..."
"... Sanders as sheep-dog Black Agenda Report called Sanders a sheep-dog soon after he entered the race . ..."
"... "Enough with the emails!" ..."
"... Not pursuing Hillary's 'winning' of 6 coin tosses in Iowa ..."
"... Virtually conceding the black and female vote to Hillary ..."
"... Not calling Hillary out about her claim to have NEVER sold her vote ..."
"... Endorsing Hillary despite learning of Hillary-DNC collusion ..."
"... Continuing to help the Democratic Party reach out to Bernie supports even after the election ..."
"... As one keen observer noted: Sanders is a Company Man . ..."
There are numerous clues that point to the 2016 US Presidential Election as having been a set-up. Few seem willing to take a
close look at these facts. But it is necessary for an understanding of the world we live in today.
Trump's first 100 days has come and gone and he has proven to be every bit the faux populist that Obama was (as I explained in
a previous post). In hind-sight we can see how a new faux populist was installed.
Sanders made it clear from the start that he ruled
out the possibility of running as an independent. That was only the first of many punches that Sanders pulled as he led his 'sheep'
into the Democratic fold.
Others were:
; "Enough with the emails!"
; Not pursuing Hillary's 'winning' of 6 coin tosses in Iowa;
; Virtually conceding the black and female vote to Hillary;
; Not calling Hillary out about her claim to have NEVER sold her vote;
; Endorsing Hillary despite learning of Hillary-DNC collusion;
; Continuing to help the Democratic Party reach out to Bernie supports even after the election.
"... "Defiant leftwinger" is a bit rich. "Defiant leftwinger" only in relation to an artificially skewed spectrum represented by Fox News, Casino Trump, and a corporate funded neoliberal nominee toeing a rightwing foreign policy line. ..."
"... Bernie Sanders is a social democrat in the tradition of FDR whose policies are centrist in relation to other industrialised nations. ..."
"... He has focused on four planks he wants in the Democratic Party platform: the creation of an economy that works for all citizens, breaking up the five "too-big-to-fail" banks, a carbon tax to address climate change, and a single-payer healthcare system. ..."
"... Of course Bernie needs to stay. Hillary is under FBI investigation. If she ends up in an orange pantsuit in the big house Bernie will look very stupid and basically has thrown out over 200 mio. dollars which is the amount he has spent on his campaign so far. Given to him by his supporters. It is his duty to them to stay in. ..."
"... " the Guardian are stuck in the old, failed new Labour/Lib Dem politics and do everything to undermine him.( Corbyn )" ..."
"... The Clinton camp is attempting to pressure Sanders to force him out before the convention to make sure that doesn't happen. The Sanders camp is just following the rules and playing fairly. ..."
"... Britain began its retreat from this post WWII social democracy in 1979, 37 years ago when Thatcher took over. The essentially neo-liberal agenda has been actively pursued by every government since then - Thatcher-Major-Blair-Brown - and indeed has accelerated under Cameron. ..."
"... There is nothing to indicate that the average american will be worse off with Trump in office as opposed to Clinton. That's how far to the right her actual policies are. Not the crap she claims, but the stuff she has been doing for the past 20 years. ..."
"... People wonder why there is such animosity towards Americans. You support a woman for president whilst disregarding her most vile traits as a joke? Clinton is a real danger towards the Middle East and that is partly because of her warmongering and absolute support for Israel, wrong or right. There are girls in Sirte, Libya currently being used as sex slaves by ISIS who may think your not so funny. ..."
"... "He tapped into deeply held sentiments about a rigged economy and a broken political system, and built a mass movement of people who believe we can do better and demand solutions that match the scale of the crises." Corbyn has the same agenda in the UK and given the internecine struggle in the Tory Party has an even better chance of winning in 2020. Pity that progressive newspapers like the Guardian are stuck in the old, failed new Labour/Lib Dem politics and do everything to undermine him. ..."
"... And, who knows, elsewhere could possibly prove better - your guess is as good as mine. Clinton is neo-liberal establishment through-and-through. The darling of the global capitalist corporations. ..."
"... Yes, what is wrong with the idiots? Why don't they just lie on their backs and surrender to the neo-liberalist elite? ..."
"... Just a few years ago Americans prised themselves from an unelected monster, G. W. Bush - he and his monster crowd being the key architects/facilitators of the current economic woes and mayhem in the middle east. That's pretty well indisputable. People can try to dispute it but they are flat out wrong and they know it. So given that, why would America now want to place another monster in power? ..."
"... Funny, cancer works this way on the human organism confusing the immune system so much that the body thinks a tumour is okay, a genuine part of the body. Until it's too late. ..."
"... So the American presidential race is down to a contest between the supporter of Oligarchy (Clinton) and the Oligarch (Trump). Of course this would never lead you to believe that American politics serves only the Oligarchy and funds only their candidates. ..."
"... Dems are only about 29% of registered voters, btw, so that is 6% of 29% of voters backing her right now. Yep. Trump has a good chance of winning against that - a write-in campaign for a soggy loaf of bread has a good chance of winning against that. ..."
"... You really don't get what created Trump's opportunity do you, its the same that has seen a new options becoming a political force throughout Europe, its ever & constant growth of disenchantment with the Clinton's, Cameron's & the rest of the political establishment.......sadly the US people need Sanders far more than he needs them of so it would seem. ..."
"... It is no longer "God Bless America". It's "God Help America". With the choice of Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. Bill (Mr. Zippy) Clinton is already interviewing the interns and glad that he can now get Cuban cigars. From President to "First Man". Remember " I did not have sexual relations with this woman." Just a Blow Job. ..."
"... However they must take a leaf out of the Tea Party's book and start getting their candidates elected as State and congress candidates. There is no point in having a radical president and a reactionary congress. ..."
"... No, those who propped up the corrupt Hitlery, knowing full-well that the system is rigged and the super delegates are bought and paid for, are to blame. ..."
"... Republicans have more of a spine than the Hitlery voters, because they voted for who they actually wanted, not who they were told to. ..."
"... Bernie is an Independent, he should run as one. F*ck Clinton and f*ck the DNC. ..."
"... The 67-year-old Democratic front-runner has been "frequently plagued" by "blinding headaches" and a series of strokes over the course of the campaign which have left her second-guessing her chances of winning in 2016, says the upcoming book "Unlikeable - The Problem with Hillary." ..."
"... The Democrat Party is controlled by the Right and the the representatives at [almost] all levels appear untouchable. The key to the future, not just for Sanders but for the Left he has mobilised, will be in opening up the Party to democracy and accountability. ..."
"... It is truly depressing that the democrats had the chance to put a decent trustworthy person in the White House but instead opted for Clinton, who represents the interests of Wall Street and the Party of Perpetual War. By opting for her they have handed the keys to the repulsive Trump. ..."
"... For decades tens of millions of Americans who are left politically on major issues (whether they identify as "left-wing" or not) have voted for politicians who have carried water for Wall Street, the Pentagon, and the national security apparatus--often more effectively than the Republicans they depict themselves as the progressive alternative to. ..."
"... Money buys power - always has; always will. Read 'Clinton Ca$h'. Or just read something besides MSM. ..."
"... I'm not saying that there are not people who fully support her (and Obama's) IMF/World Bank/USAID/Clinton Foundation approach to international development and international trade, her center aisle approach to use of armed force, her (and Obama's) preference for private insurance based health reform, her approach to Haiti ..."
"... Remember!, it wasn't all sweetness and light under warmonger Hillary. C. ..."
"... "save America" - if Clinton or Trump gets into the White House, NOTHING will save America! ..."
"... "In Syria, militias armed by the Pentagon fight those armed by the CIA" ..."
"... ISIS was not reversed in Syria until Russia became involved, and they were in full decline within a month. Years of Obama's war against them and they expanded to holding 80% of Syria , and beyond. ..."
There is a difference isn't it? The Clintons are career politicians who have amassed a bigger fortune than Trump (and they
are not the only ones that's become wealthy representing corporations) Bernie has amassed a few hundred thousand from a life in
politics representing the voters.
SoxmisUK -> Shelfunit 9 Jun 2016 04:50
Compared to all the vile insults, conspiracy theory wailing and holy-than-thou posts by Sanders supporters over the last
few months it's nothing
Let me amend that for you: "Compared to all the vile insults, conspiracy theory wailing and holy-than-thou posts by Clinton's
supporters over the last few months it's nothing.."
There. Fixed.
Not true in either case, as one has been as bad as the other, but good to see you sticking your British oar in where it's clearly
not wanted. You shit-stir enough for the Tories here in the UK.
WhigInterpretation 9 Jun 2016 04:50
"Defiant leftwinger" is a bit rich. "Defiant leftwinger" only in relation to an artificially skewed spectrum represented
by Fox News, Casino Trump, and a corporate funded neoliberal nominee toeing a rightwing foreign policy line.
Bernie Sanders is a social democrat in the tradition of FDR whose policies are centrist in relation to other industrialised
nations.
He has focused on four planks he wants in the Democratic Party platform: the creation of an economy that works for all
citizens, breaking up the five "too-big-to-fail" banks, a carbon tax to address climate change, and a single-payer healthcare
system.
Victorious1 -> Herr_Settembrini 9 Jun 2016 04:50
Sorry, but you cannot compare Ron Paul to Sanders and say they have little to show. One ran for many years and despite his
sincerity and common sense came nowhere being nominated at any point in time and the other started a political revolution in his
first run as nominee, drawing tens of thousands in crowds, more individual contributions than ever before and incredibly nearly
won the nomination and probably would have done if he wasn't largely ignored by the media and the superdelegates weren't a bunch
of establishment corrupt cronies.
ungruntled -> killedbydrones 9 Jun 2016 04:47
The election isnt over until the Party congress. In politics people often lie. A bunch of folk have said they will vote one
way........but they may vote another(they may have been lying, or they may just change their minds.)
When the dust settles, and a few more wobbly polls are applied, it may transpire Clinton has no chance against Trump.
In which case Clinton could easily be shown the VP's seat or...........
Seeing as there is little difference between Dems and Repubs, they might put the top heads of each party together in a room
and dream up some other staretegy to screw over the American people. Clinton might get arrested. The possibilities are pretty
endless
But the next POTUS is yet to be chosen
And Bernie is fighting on, just because he can. He isnt playing the stupid "I will bow out gracefully to keep the party together"
bollocks because the party needs to be blown apart. Democracy in the USA is a joke.
Its all about who can buy the power, and Clinton and Trump are living proof of that fact.
Sanders sees that as corrupt and unnaceptable to the American people, (so do I) and anything he can do to upset the apple cart/gravy
train, is fine with me
Ummmmm -> Suckspencil 9 Jun 2016 04:41
I agree with a fair amount of what you're saying, but with all due respect, you're missing the point, which is that what Sanders
is proposing is eminently affordable for any developed nation. The Czech Republic, Greece, Norway, Sweden and Estonia, among others,
do, I believe, provide free higher education. If Estonia, why not the US?
As things stand, most of Europe still has a healthcare system free at the point of delivery. Europe has more stringent climate
legislation than the US. That's one of the reasons that TTIP poses such a threat.
Of course Bernie needs to stay. Hillary is under FBI investigation. If she ends up in an orange pantsuit in the big house
Bernie will look very stupid and basically has thrown out over 200 mio. dollars which is the amount he has spent on his campaign
so far. Given to him by his supporters. It is his duty to them to stay in.
ID6512838 -> Herr_Settembrini 9 Jun 2016 04:35
corporations will just do business elsewhere (especially in emergent markets like India and China). The result will be a relative
decline in living standards for the lower and middle classes in the U.S. (good bye cheap kitchen appliances, cellular phones,
and big screen tvs) and a further erosion in jobs.
Corporations do business where the consumers. The USA is going to be a consumer society for many more years - they have been
trained over many years to consume more and more.
HNS1684 9 Jun 2016 04:30
As I said before: the very fact that Clinton has only "won" VERY NARROWLY in New Mexico, Nevada, South Dakota, Missouri, Iowa,
Illinois, Connecticut, Massachusetts and probably other states as well, the fact Bernie got nearly half the votes in these states,
means that there is STILL at least some hope left for Bernie Sanders.
ArchibaldLeach 9 Jun 2016 04:30
Sanders campaign did a lot to move Hilary to the left but it's not enough. He needs to start moving from his campaign to building
a grassroots liberal activist movement. (Not just supporting people who endorsed him). My hope is that the next Democratic nominee
will be more liberal. Sanders showed us that liberalism is alive and well and he brought crucial issues to the debate that were
being ignored.
snakeatzoes kirby1 9 Jun 2016 04:30
" the Guardian are stuck in the old, failed new Labour/Lib Dem politics and do everything to undermine him.( Corbyn )"
The latest, yesterday, in the middle of the Euro debate, was an astonishing attack by Blair, who clearly is about to" have
his collar felt " over Iraq .
aaronpeacock 9 Jun 2016 04:30
what a load... it's a bitter pill and no one wants to eat it.
Clinton supporters have done little to nothing in the way of policy/platform inclusion, and the general election means she
will pivot to the right shortly, where she always lived anyway.
It's going to take yet another cycle of right-wing idiocy, it seems, before the Democrats will realize that pushing a strong
left/liberal candidate is what's required for electoral success. Get ready for a President Trump.
Lagasse 9 Jun 2016 04:29
Right now the delegate count stands at 2,178 to 1,810. Neither can get enough in the final primary to clinch the nomination.
It has to go to the convention for a decision, therefore. Either candidate could be given the nomination at the convention, per
DNC rules.
The Clinton camp is attempting to pressure Sanders to force him out before the convention to make sure that doesn't happen.
The Sanders camp is just following the rules and playing fairly.
SoxmisUK -> Deborah Holloway 9 Jun 2016 04:27
That's twice you've posted that. Trolling for some reason? The only reason Bernie lost was that Clinton got a massive head
start from the DLC as part of the institution and she was married to a former president.
If Sanders had another 3 months (Possibly much less..) he'd have wiped the floor with her and re-written politics in the USA.
You can crow all you wish now, but the truth is come the next time around there will be a popular vote that stands firmly on the
foundations Sanders has (Quite remarkably..) built.
Suckspencil Ummmmm 9 Jun 2016 04:26
what Sanders proposes is no more than bog-standard, post WWII social democracy - the sort of infrastructure that most
of the rest of the developed world has enjoyed for the past seven decades
Britain began its retreat from this post WWII social democracy in 1979, 37 years ago when Thatcher took over. The essentially
neo-liberal agenda has been actively pursued by every government since then - Thatcher-Major-Blair-Brown - and indeed has accelerated
under Cameron.
These are the issues which Sanders has campaigned on:
getting big money out of politics, his plan to make public colleges and universities tuition-free, combating climate
change and ensuring universal healthcare,"
I wonder if Ummmmm could remind me which of those we still have in the UK. The struggle must continue here as well, I think.
I wouldn't mind a bit of Sanders' "crazed pipe dream".
Ziontrain -> anemag 9 Jun 2016 04:24
There is nothing to indicate that the average american will be worse off with Trump in office as opposed to Clinton. That's
how far to the right her actual policies are. Not the crap she claims, but the stuff she has been doing for the past 20 years.
Spare us the scaremongering. If you wanted to vote for a republican, why would you do so under the "Democratic party" banner?
p0winc -> Ummmmm 9 Jun 2016 04:22
Completely agree. What he wants to implement is what the rest of us take as ordinary and for granted. 643,000 People in the
states went bankrupt from Medical bills last year. He has however started something unique in the states, showing it's possible
to fund and at times out fund the political establishment from individual small donations and not have to compromise on policies.
Bookseeker -> snakeatzoes 9 Jun 2016 04:22
'La Lucha Continua' was also a slogan used by the CNT on its 100th anniversary.
JayJ66 -> R. Ben Madison 9 Jun 2016 04:21
People wonder why there is such animosity towards Americans. You support a woman for president whilst disregarding her
most vile traits as a joke? Clinton is a real danger towards the Middle East and that is partly because of her warmongering and
absolute support for Israel, wrong or right. There are girls in Sirte, Libya currently being used as sex slaves by ISIS who may
think your not so funny.
kirby1 9 Jun 2016 04:20
"He tapped into deeply held sentiments about a rigged economy and a broken political system, and built a mass movement
of people who believe we can do better and demand solutions that match the scale of the crises." Corbyn has the same agenda in
the UK and given the internecine struggle in the Tory Party has an even better chance of winning in 2020. Pity that progressive
newspapers like the Guardian are stuck in the old, failed new Labour/Lib Dem politics and do everything to undermine him.
chrisdix15 9 Jun 2016 04:18
Trump and Clinton are a double headed coin. I would hope Sanders keeps himself away from either but ensures his supporters
vote for neither - don't join the Corrupters Bernie, but stay where you are and keep the struggle going within Congress to show
that both Trump and Clinton mean and do the same things. Only doing this will ensure people see a real alternative to the strait-jacket
the Democrat/Republican parties stand for. The struggle has only just begun.
ryanpatrick9192 -> fedback 9 Jun 2016 04:39
If Hillary is indicted then that does not make Bernie the nominee by default. The superdelegates can still back Clinton and
let her pick a replacement they approve of. Why would they choose Bernie? He doesnt have enouh support to win a general election.
Trunp got more votes in the primary than Bernie for crying out loud.
Suckspencil -> Shotcricket 9 Jun 2016 04:35
How could you, even in jest, suggest such a thing possible? We in the West, are blessed to be led by fearless god-fearing moderates
who believe in justice, peace, equality and the rule of law. Shame on you!
Suckspencil -> Cleggatemyhamster 9 Jun 2016 04:31
And, who knows, elsewhere could possibly prove better - your guess is as good as mine. Clinton is neo-liberal establishment
through-and-through. The darling of the global capitalist corporations.
Suckspencil -> twiglette 9 Jun 2016 04:30
Yes, what is wrong with the idiots? Why don't they just lie on their backs and surrender to the neo-liberalist elite?
BruceRobbie 9 Jun 2016 04:15
Despite this dreadful situation one thing remains, Sanders and Trump supporters simply do not TRUST Clinton to deliver on her
promises and she needs them to trust her if she is to get people go out and to vote for her. Voting requires effort for many people,
and if they don't believe, they will simply stay at home on Election Day. In which case Clinton will lose, because a majority
of Americans actually don't like her.
She is also perceived by a large numbers of Americans as little more than a Manager of the American nation; the leaders, the
CEOs of America, sit in board rooms of corporate America waiting for their "manager" to deliver on their investment in her campaign.
Due to her untrustworthiness and serpentine character, Sanders has wisely shifted his efforts to Congress and the Senate, so
that Clinton if elected, is held to account for electoral promises, Clinton is adept at avoiding difficult situation, emails and
Goldman Speeches, and will try to wriggle out of any commitment if her leaders deem it necessary. She and the DNC have fought
a disgraceful, campaign of deceit, corrupt electoral practise and voter suppression. So when she spouts her Democratic rhetoric
in the coming months, her words will ring hollow as a drum. Good luck America, I fear you're going to need it as your choice of
leader this time around truly is the lesser of two evils.
LouisianaAlba 9 Jun 2016 04:13
The story foisted upon us so far in this electoral cycle is a reasonably but not very complicated narrative - a few players
strutting, ranting and pouting about the country in a predictable plot. In keeping with this predictability let's keep any analysis
simple - fairytale level. Let's talk about monsters.
Just a few years ago Americans prised themselves from an unelected monster, G. W. Bush - he and his monster crowd being
the key architects/facilitators of the current economic woes and mayhem in the middle east. That's pretty well indisputable. People
can try to dispute it but they are flat out wrong and they know it.
So given that, why would America now want to place another monster in power?
Another age of the political monster is looming. Two loom over the world in the coming battle, with a third in the wings by
marriage who wants another shot at power as well, the man who signed away the last threads of Glass Steagall's legal powers.
What is it with Americans and their love affair with these political monsters? Can't Americans choose a good and decent human
being who cares for the people and the country. A person who doesn't treat the country and the world as fools.
Even on the money front, it can be so simple, as economists often say - a confident happy people can lead to economic prosperity.
It won't guarantee it I concede and I won't trade arguments on government or no government intervention, but a happy people is
a better bet for a good economy than the opposite. Keeping it all at the fairytale level of course. Treating people well leads
them to be disposed, motivated towards treating others well. Most times. Okay then there is psychopathology and the narrative
gets complicated.
But the simple truth is - the simple story has been hijacked because a simple story is too easily managed and a country easily
managed is not so easily fooled. And if you can't fool a country and the world, it is not so easy to get away with complicated
crimes. Which is the usual way a monster gets away with them or gets to be rich, complicating things so much we aren't aware fast
enough to stop any of it. Then after we know we are so beaten down and weakened we're simply not strong or ready enough to fix
blame where it belongs.
Funny, cancer works this way on the human organism confusing the immune system so much that the body thinks a tumour is
okay, a genuine part of the body. Until it's too late.
NickDaGeek 9 Jun 2016 04:13
So the American presidential race is down to a contest between the supporter of Oligarchy (Clinton) and the Oligarch (Trump).
Of course this would never lead you to believe that American politics serves only the Oligarchy and funds only their candidates.
God help us if Trump wins and the idiots in Whitehall sign up to TTIP. If that happens Brexit will swap Brussels for Washington
and we will still be a vassal state of a huge power block run by tax avoiding globalist monopoly capitalists.
Lagasse -> MrBrownley 9 Jun 2016 04:13
the large majority who didn't vote for him
Where did that happen? Democratic primary turnout has been around 11%. So far she's got about 6% of Dem voters, meaning that
around 94% of registered Dems that could have voted for her, didn't.
Dems are only about 29% of registered voters, btw, so that is 6% of 29% of voters backing her right now. Yep. Trump has
a good chance of winning against that - a write-in campaign for a soggy loaf of bread has a good chance of winning against that.
She polls terribly with the largest group of registered voters: Independent (however Sanders does quite well).
Meanwhile, the GOP has had higher primary turnouts. More votes were cast in their primaries even though there are fewer registered
Rep voters.
GOP voters are fired up while Dem voters aren't fired up to vote for an unpopular, DNC-annointed candidate - that's a recipe
for losing, ask Martha Coakley.
Clinton and her supporters better up their games and quick.
Shotcricket -> pucksfriend 9 Jun 2016 04:10
You really don't get what created Trump's opportunity do you, its the same that has seen a new options becoming a political
force throughout Europe, its ever & constant growth of disenchantment with the Clinton's, Cameron's & the rest of the political
establishment.......sadly the US people need Sanders far more than he needs them of so it would seem.
Clinton is the old way, Sanders is the new way...the irony of that should not be lost on anyone.
SonOfFredTheBadman 9 Jun 2016 04:10
It is no longer "God Bless America". It's "God Help America". With the choice of Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. Bill
(Mr. Zippy) Clinton is already interviewing the interns and glad that he can now get Cuban cigars. From President to "First Man".
Remember " I did not have sexual relations with this woman." Just a Blow Job.
ga gamba 9 Jun 2016 04:09
Shrewd move by Sanders, I think. Many believe that Clinton will veer sharply to the right when she nominated and campaigns
for the general election. Withholding an endorsement until late October keeps her honest; if she backtracks on her "progressive"
promises made during the primaries Sanders can endorse Jill Stein. In a sense, Sanders is the conscience Clinton doesn't possess.
He said it was a revolution, so Clinton and her supporters shouldn't be surprised that he's using revolutionary tactics.
Oudeis1 -> fahkingobserving 9 Jun 2016 04:09
I thank you -primarily for you actually typing-out your rationale. Mere 'carping' is the more common response to my posts,
thanks again - for processing and expounding. And yes, I know enough of American Football to appreciate your analogy.
On the Green invitation to Sanders: I have been aware of this for some time. I'm sure that it is sincere, I'm also certain
that it was a little too soon. Sanders does indeed know much about US Politics, and his conduct throughout this contest
has been consistent enough for most observers to discern a clear pattern:
-His ideas are more important to him that his personal success.
-His 'read' on the electoral niceties, possibilities, probabilities and 'desirabilities' is sagacious.
-His initiation of his campaign by way of the Democrat Party is entirely logical.
-A firm commitment from the DNC & HRC on some of his more important policy-planks would allow him to conclude that his job
was (well) done. And to then advise his supporters to get behind the renewed and revitalized HRC ticket.
Personally, inline with my own take on these things, Senator Sanders will not concede without (firm & meaningful) concessions.
Should no such concessions be forthcoming...
He may then - if this is how things pan out, turn to his supporters for their opinion, or 'knowing' full well there likely
response, turn directly to the Greens and add Jill Stein to his then Independent ticket, and run as a third option.
These last two options represent at least as much chance of the defeat of Trump, and very likely more chance of doing that, than
his caving-in (selling his soul) to the DNC.
-Yes, I am aware that Sanders has firmly denied that he has any wish at all to run as a third option - this stance is both inline
with his desire to see the Democrat Party turn away from the neoliberal/Republican-lite present and his overall objective of getting
his policies promoted in November.
However: Nobody can promote the fundamentals of US Democracy and then deny them.
MajorRoadRage -> abdul maulud 9 Jun 2016 04:05
I would rather see Trump in office and see Hillary's supporters endure the same punishment as if we had all voted for her to
begin with. Hillary is in it for herself and her corporate sponsors. So if I'm gonna be screwed, so will Hillary supporters, even
with mountains of evidence available that she is NOT the candidate to run for presidency people still smile and nod their heads
with complacency. Wake up and smell the corruption.
Bitty31985 -> powellscribe 9 Jun 2016 04:08
As I said; if you want some one to blame , blame the media and the DNC. I am never wasting my vote on the lesser of two evils
ever again. You WILL never ever convince me to do otherwise. I vote for who I BELIEVE IN. Good luck trying to guilt people into
supporting that sociopath.
wiseowler 9 Jun 2016 04:06
If Sanders can get people who support his core radical progressive changes onto key Democratic committees and positions of
power, plus get support at the convention for these policies then he may be bale to set in train a transformation of the Democratic
Party and the possibility of a real change candidate winning the next election.
However they must take a leaf out of the Tea Party's book and start getting their candidates elected as State and congress
candidates. There is no point in having a radical president and a reactionary congress.
If he can achieve this then maybe his momentum can help transform the Clinton campaign - which is in sore need of some radical
and youthful energy if she is to defeat Trump
artvandalay316 -> abdul maulud 9 Jun 2016 04:01
No, those who propped up the corrupt Hitlery, knowing full-well that the system is rigged and the super delegates are bought
and paid for, are to blame. Spineless cowards who would rather tow the establishment line and never see any real change than
vote for something a bit different for once. The most amusing thing is, the Republicans have more of a spine than the Hitlery
voters, because they voted for who they actually wanted, not who they were told to.
Shotcricket 9 Jun 2016 03:57
"Sanders will discuss a wide range of issues, including getting big money out of politics, his plan to make public colleges
and universities tuition-free, combating climate change and ensuring universal healthcare"
Almost The Guardian mantra of many a year
And yet The Guardian has been pro Clinton throughout the nomination campaign.....& very negative toward Sanders, just what
does The Guardian believe in, other than the longevity of the political establishment ?
SilverTui 9 Jun 2016 03:45
L.A. County Supervisors Demand Answers Day After CBS2 Investigation Uncovers Deceased Voters Casting Ballots
How can people believe their vote counts when it is opposed by endless money, lies and manipulation ? For example, how could
the media make free tuition, last signed into law, by Abe Lincoln and existing in California until a couple of decades ago, seem
strange ? And it's normal in all other countries as a matter of course. I cannot believe you can have that debt at such a young
age and manage. It seems the last economic conflict exploited by capitalism is conflict--which should not be--is between old people
and young people. Young people more and more are excluded from that American economic leveler, education.
blackerdog -> StephenChin 9 Jun 2016 03:20
The super delegates are all full paid up members of the establishment that's why Clinton get their vote.
She won't win against Tump, she has blood on her hands legal problems and can't control her own house never mind the lives of
hundreds of millions.
Trump is a buffoon but he hasn't been bought. Middle America won't vote for her.
Flugler -> Virginia Fast 9 Jun 2016 03:18
Bill Clinton stripped the social security fund dry and used it to balance the budgets. Americans retiring in the near future
are screwed. Cheers bill.
Virginia Fast -> Flugler 9 Jun 2016 03:14
With Clinton putting Hubby in charge of financial affairs, better get ready to bail out the banks and lose whatever you managed
to keep last time. If only the fools who voted for them suffered --
It's a nightmare of endless war and homeless filling th streets. More of the same forever and ever.......the future as igtmare
Mynameistoocommon -> turn1eft 9 Jun 2016 02:50
If this were true the FBI should get the hell on with it and not play political games. It is certainly not any of their concern
whether Clinton could be pardoned by Obama (which would surely kill her campaign in any event). Since she is innocent until proven
guilty, the suspicion that the investigation places over her is itself damaging. If it could ever be proven that the FBI had deliberately
taken their time in order to prolong the doubt, before clearing her, that would be a very serious allegation. I can't really see
why they would bother though.
JK1875 9 Jun 2016 02:50
Bernie is an Independent, he should run as one. F*ck Clinton and f*ck the DNC.
robinvp11 -> Highgatecemetry 9 Jun 2016 02:47
I lived in the US for twelve years. Bernie Sanders is not a 'socialist;' in the UK, he'd be a Tory - not entirely sure where.
Maybe liberal Tory but on a lot of things, he'd be to the right ie his views on guns (yes, he's pro-limited control but he buys
into the NRA idea that it's 'mental health' issue).
trow 9 Jun 2016 02:46
Clinton was not elected she was appointed by so called super delegates .The election process was exposed as a farce .
turn1eft 9 Jun 2016 02:44
Sanders is only hanging on because the FBI have said they will prosecute Hillary on treason and racketeering.
Which sound strange to our ears. But racketeering was revived during the 1920s and treason during the Cold War.
Clintons email server didnt just include top secret documents illegally it also included information about illegal donations
from foreign backers.
I think the FBI are undecided whether to press charges now - with a high chance Obama will pardon her - or press charges after
the election in November when she will be spending the rest of her life dealing with this case.
ShaneFromMelbourne saddam 9 Jun 2016 02:43
Under Obama's watch:
Too big to fail banks....they're even BIGGER
1.5 Quadrillion dollar derivatives market that scares the shit out of even the hedge funds.
Dodd-Frank Act that has loopholes you could drive a truck through.
Unemployment still out of the park (as if anyone believes the BS statistic of 4.9%)
The US economy is still so shit the the Fed can't increase interest rates (that's right, there will be no interest rate hike this
year or the next)
8 years hasn't improved much.....
qelt17 -> Aquarius9 9 Jun 2016 02:38
The 67-year-old Democratic front-runner has been "frequently plagued" by "blinding headaches" and a series of strokes over
the course of the campaign which have left her second-guessing her chances of winning in 2016, says the upcoming book "Unlikeable
- The Problem with Hillary." http://nypost.com/2015/09/22/hillary-is-dealing-with-mounting-health-issues-new-book-claims/
FrankLeeSpeaking -> Mea Mea 9 Jun 2016 02:26
You must be a Killkary feminist. Sanders has deep rooted integrity and a fire to make the US a better place, unlike Killary
ready to make the next killing, physically and financially speaking.
SilverTui 9 Jun 2016 02:15
A well funded and organised exit poll, which included mail in ballots, had a deficit of 16 percent from the reported results
in California.
A deficit of 2 percent is sufficient to trigger an official investigation in Denmark.
Also millions of California independents were given "placebo" affidavit ballots, that are not counted.
passtherockplease -> davidlen 9 Jun 2016 02:14
I believe we are already there. I think it will be very close but Trump will win -- republican tend to vote for their 'side'
no matter whom it is. Those of us on the left seem to like purity, more than getting power to get things done. It is why These
people only come out at Presidential elections forgetting there are three branches to governing in the US, Check out off year
voting patterns GOP vote numbers stay firm. Democrats less so it is why there is no Democratic control senate and house and the
house, well that is lost at least until the next census.
Go look at things like Young Turks and the like. They really think Clinton is worse than Trump.
gwynnechris -> Dennis25 9 Jun 2016 02:13
Lessor 'evilism' argument don't work. Trump may have different style, but politically/economically he's similar to Clinton.
(Technically he's not a Fascist. He does not have bullyboys physically attacking left-wing/Trade Union meetings. eg Germany 1930's).
I guess many people in USA want something different to Corporate dominance; which I believe will require a Labour Party formed
from the Trade Unions. So Trump gets elected. Big deal. People will soon see their mistake and change. Politics has moved beyond
the illusionary middle-ground as the election of Jeremy Corbyn indicates.
queequeg7 9 Jun 2016 01:52
The Democrat Party is controlled by the Right and the the representatives at [almost] all levels appear untouchable. The
key to the future, not just for Sanders but for the Left he has mobilised, will be in opening up the Party to democracy and accountability.
In much the same way as Corbyn's election must make Labour MPs and Councillors more accountable to the Party membership, so
Sanders' campaign must now find a way of challenging both the individuals and the process.
eastbayradical 9 Jun 2016 01:51
Here some wondrous policies and initiative enacted or supported by Bill Clinton and Barack Obama during their presidencies,
almost all of which Hillary Clinton supports:
--Deregulation of telecom and finance
--The Omnibus Crime Bill
--The sanctions regime against Iraq (which killed 500,000 Iraqi children)
--NAFTA
--CAFTA
--TPP
--Fracking
--The objectively-racist death penalty
--Don't Ask, Don't Tell
--The Defense of Marriage Act
--Historic levels of repression against whistle-blowers
--Preservation of Bush-era tax cuts on the rich
--Expansion of NSA spying
--Years of foot-dragging on climate change
--Support for Israeli atrocities
--Support for the right-wing coup in Honduras
--Support for fraudulent election in Haiti
--Support for the Saudi dictatorship
--Support for a 31 cents/hour minimum wage (and against attempts to raise it)
--Arctic Drilling
--$1 trillion 20 year modernization of nuclear weapons arsenal
--Historically high numbers of deportations
--Drone missile strikes that kill large numbers of civilian an inflame anti-US hatred
--Health care reform that fortifies the power of the insurance cartel
--The bail-out of Wall Street
eastbayradical -> MikaelRogers 9 Jun 2016 01:48
Mikael supports the candidate that has backed the destruction of welfare, the private prison industry, the objectively-racist
death penalty, fortification of the police state, deregulation of investment banks, NAFTA, the Iraq War, the bombing of Libya,
the right-wing coup in Honduras, Israel's starvation blockade and blitzkrieg of Gaza, and the fight against raising the minimum
wage in Haiti from 30 cents/hour to 60 cents/hour--all policies from which non-white people hav disproportionately suffered--yet
every chance she gets, Mikael accuses the Sanders' campaign and supporters of being the racists.
Nietzschestache 9 Jun 2016 01:37
It is truly depressing that the democrats had the chance to put a decent trustworthy person in the White House but instead
opted for Clinton, who represents the interests of Wall Street and the Party of Perpetual War. By opting for her they have handed
the keys to the repulsive Trump.
Guest Oo -> saddam 9 Jun 2016 01:30
If Bernie took in all the BIG MONEY like the corrupt politicians, he would accomplished a lot more for the oligarchy and corporations
and forget the people. He would also be a multi-millionaire by now.
Bernie chose the route to have a government for the PEOPLE and that does not work anymore. Majority of the corrupt Democrat
voters chose a GOVERNMENT FOR THE CORPORATIONS by voting for Hillary.
For decades tens of millions of Americans who are left politically on major issues (whether they identify as "left-wing"
or not) have voted for politicians who have carried water for Wall Street, the Pentagon, and the national security apparatus--often
more effectively than the Republicans they depict themselves as the progressive alternative to.
Every four years we're told "yes, X Democrat is a corporate-backed, warmongering stooge, but look at how horrible Y Republican
is! If you don't vote for the Democrat you're voting for the Republican!" It's the same scare tactics year after year after year--and
year after year the political center of gravity shifts further to the right. This is the anatomy of our demise.
Finally, millions that have for years dutifully voted for the corporate, warmongering pseudo-progressive stooge with the (D)
next to his name are waking up and saying to the Democrats: Try to win without out us you corporate scum!
joeblow9999 -> saddam 9 Jun 2016 01:16
Hilly's accomplishments?
Iraq War
Setting the stage for ISIS
Kicking off the next Cold War
She is a sham.
Jill McLean 9 Jun 2016 01:15
What I don't get is everyone's surprise. Just one example: A $29 billion deal with Saudi Arabia goes down, and the Clinton
Foundation gets a $10 mil contribution. What kind of payback could Bernie get for petitioning for 'equal rights'? Come one, people.
Money buys power - always has; always will. Read 'Clinton Ca$h'. Or just read something besides MSM.
duncandunnit 9 Jun 2016 01:03
Hillary Clinton is a warmongering she devil, that will only ever work with problems rather than solutions. She will be very
happy for the usa to continue selling billions of dollars of weapons to wasabi jihadists at saudi instruction (which caused the
European refugee crisis), she will continue the usa track record of the usa sticking in puppet presidentas into countries denying
them democracy. She will continue the usa using propaganda as a weapon.
sammy3110 9 Jun 2016 00:48
After Hillary's coronation, I'll change my registration from D to I, and I hope others will consider doing the same. I'm not
leaving the D Party, the D Party has left me.
ynnej1964 -> garth25 9 Jun 2016 00:42
I have to wonder. Among my pro-Clinton friends the dominant arguments were a) her 'qualification' b) it's time for a woman
c) Bernie is less qualified, and so to chose him over hillary might indicate unconscious sexism.
I'm not saying that there are not people who fully support her (and Obama's) IMF/World Bank/USAID/Clinton Foundation approach
to international development and international trade, her center aisle approach to use of armed force, her (and Obama's) preference
for private insurance based health reform, her approach to Haiti , but I don't think that is why my clinton friends supported
her. I can't speak for all. But i'd say these are more things they would forgive her for, rather than their first choice on policy.
daWOID -> eastbayradical 9 Jun 2016 00:36
Sorry, friend, I happen to know a good deal about voter fraud in New York State, where I worked for a few decades as Inspector
of Elections. Don't know much about California. So here's what I can contribute:
a) In New York State at least, provisional ballots are exactly the joke you describe. All it takes is a poll worker who doesn't
like your looks and they'll pretend they can't find you on the rolls and why don't you simply fill out a provisional ballot?
b) And of course the provisional ballots never get counted, because to have your ballot counted you would have to go before
a judge to determine whether or not you were rightly denied your vote.
c) The amount of voter fraud and voter suppression perpetrated in the Democratic Primary this year has surpassed anything I've
ever seen in my lifetime, excepting my work during the Civil Rights Era, where it was just as bad but considerably less sophisticated.
So is it likely that the same applied in California? Well, duh...
macktan894 9 Jun 2016 00:32
These are crucial issues that most people have repeatedly bitched about over the years in these forums. It makes no sense to
plunge kids into bankruptcy and lifelong debt with outrageous fees and interest rates who are tying to get an education. We have
seniors whose social security checks are being garnished because they still owe on college loans. We have people who are afraid
to see a doctor or go to an emergency room, even though they pay yearly escalating premiums, because they fear the debt it will
trigger. Yet Elected Officials seem only able to act when it comes to Endless Wars and surveillance; no problem spending trillions
on defense, just don't ask them to spend it on the American people lest they feel entitled.
I'm hardly surprised that the Status Quo wants Bernie to just shut up and disappear. Who's lauding him for running a campaign
financed by people who voted for him, not by corporations and billionaires? And I'll continue to donate to him because he is the
people's lobbyist. Go, Bernie!
GigabitG 9 Jun 2016 00:31
So is the Guardian arguing that Clinton fought a fair campaign? Really? Try a little harder please, you know full well that
Clinton hobbled Sanders at every step. Throughout this campaign the Guardian has chosen to ignore all the reports of widespread
disenfranchisement and polling irregularities that prevented millions of Sanders supporters from voting and instead lazily point
to the inevitability of Clinton. Depressing news from a complicit Guardian.
RogersRoy ChrisD58 9 Jun 2016 00:29
Sad to see Sanders ego and self delusion providing even more opportunity for the monster that is Trump
Remember!, it wasn't all sweetness and light under warmonger Hillary. C.
The Republican & Democrat DNA is within 1% of each other. These parties have loads of Corporate corrupt White House monsters.
When our governments; the White House and their British Parliamentary lackeys use our taxes to pay their terrorists to overthrow
legitimate sovereign countries and their elected leaders and organise assassinations then I say; it's high time this incompetent
maverick nonsense stopped!!.
I Refuse To Pay These Illegal Bills.
eastbayradical 9 Jun 2016 00:07
Both my wife and I registered as Democrats in California in the last month.
My wife received a ballot in the mail but she was still listed as a Green. When she went to the precinct to vote she was given
a provisional ballot that allowed her to vote in the Democratic primary. I just asked her if her name was on the voter rolls and
she said she doesn't know, that the precinct workers "didn't know what they were doing, they just gave me a provisional ballot."
Unlike my wife I did receive confirmation that I had been registered as a Democrat and I received a ballot with the Democratic
primary choices on it. Despite getting the ballot in the mail I wanted to vote at the precinct. I found when I got to the precinct
that my name wasn't listed on voter rolls. The precinct worker recommended that I vote by provisional ballot, which I didn't like
the idea of. I decided to fill out my ballot at the precinct and I was told to put it into a blue bag with a slot on the top.
The precinct worker assured me that my ballot would be counted.
Journalist Greg Palast reports that provisional ballots, like the one my wife voted with, are essentially "placebo ballots"--that
a very large percentage of them are never counted. He additionally reports that there are hundreds of thousands of provisional
ballots in California that have yet to be counted. There is every reason to believe that provisional ballots, since they're given
to newly-registered voters, were disproportionately given to Sanders' voters like my wife. Palast also reports that very large
numbers of voters found that there names were not on voting rolls when they went to vote. It would seem that this would also disproportionately
affect newly-registered voters.
On top of all this, there are many thousands of ballots that were sent on Monday and Tuesday that have yet to be counted.
Does anyone have any thoughts on this matter? Is Greg Palast wrong about provisional ballots? Are all the votes going to be
counted? I'm happy to hear the thoughts of people who think that Palast is full of shit, so long as they're actually engaging
in thinking.
Janosik53 -> sandi78 8 Jun 2016 23:55
Published May 11, 2016
Hillary Clinton for months has downplayed the FBI investigation into her private email server and practices as a mere "security
inquiry."
But when asked Wednesday about Clinton's characterization of the bureau's probe, FBI Director James Comey said he doesn't know
what "security inquiry" means -- adding, "We're conducting an investigation. That's what we do."
Hillary Clinton is a pathological liar.
iammaynard -> drpage1 8 Jun 2016 23:38
Your leaders, Clinton and Obama created ISIS
I wish I had the middle east figured out as well as you got it. If you understand the causes so clearly, when will you be bringing
your solutions? Those must obviously as clear to you, yes?
Carenshare -> Annie Rainier 8 Jun 2016 23:31
Re: Your points.....
"bags" - Both Clintons drag around more baggage than American Airlines
"old man" - Sanders isn't much older than Clinton
"God" - There is no God "save America" - if Clinton or Trump gets into the White House, NOTHING will save America!
But 'Good Luck' anyways!
Girl 8 Jun 2016 23:27
Super delegates don't count until the convention... The Guardian has aided the fruad and been a champion for the DNC...Hillary
is goin' down, either the e mails, the clinton foundation, or Trump, she is done...
drpage1 -> nevesone 8 Jun 2016 23:19
Your leaders, Clinton and Obama created ISIS. Here is a clue:
"In Syria, militias armed by the Pentagon fight those armed by the CIA"
"...a string of embarrassing setbacks which included recruits being ambushed and handing over much of their U.S.-issued ammunition
and trucks to an Al Qaeda affiliate."
ISIS was not reversed in Syria until Russia became involved, and they were in full decline within a month. Years of Obama's
war against them and they expanded to holding 80% of Syria , and beyond.
DesertPear -> Jared Hall 8 Jun 2016 23:06
The US Military-Industrial Complex is possibly the largest user of fossil fuels in the world and the information is not transparent
nor available. We absolutely must turn away from war as a solution if we are to slow climate change! And the only way to change
the military is to get money out of politics.
mbidding -> notmurdoch 8 Jun 2016 21:34
Student financial aid is not extremely generous in the US and generally does not cover the full cost of tuition at modestly
priced state schools, let alone books. Loans, of course, are available, but financial aid is nothing like it was before Reagan
gutted federal financial aid in the eighties and the states started divesting from their public universities at the same time.
Kim Iversen did a good job attacking our interesting to this non-establishment
candidate.
Universal basic income must come with the strict criteria for eligibility (probably income
less then median) and "strings attacked"; for unemployment this might be doing some community
work.
Looks like Yang got a really interesting set of domestic policies...
Why does so much for what passes as "objective" journalism these days sound like
click-bait? Is it being rewarded by higher ranking in social media and search engine
algorithms? Good on Andrew Yang for drawing people from both sides of the political spectrum
to his universal human-centered platform. I like the fact he is not shy in campaigning on
Fox. He is not afraid to break our idealogical bubbles in the name of data and
compassion.
I've been following Mr. Yang for a while, and he's like Bernie and Tulsi in a way a
true progressive vs the rest of the candidates are label themselves as! And Andrew has a
sense of humor too!
She can serve in the army and still be anti interventionist because our military is
supposed to be a defense force not an offense force. You can be willing to fight to protect
your country without wanting to go running round the world creating conflict for oil and
regime change.
'm 66, a Progressive formerly from Boston where we eat and breathe politics and I'll tell
you... never in my life have I seen a Democratic candidate like this fearless young woman who
will simultaneously attract veterans AND anti-war folks AND moderate Republicans AND youth.
NO OTHER CANDIDATE CAN DO THIS. My absolute belief is that if Tulsi's not on the ticket...
Trump wins. Sorry Bernie, this time I'm going with Tulsi.
"... The american entitlement, as if it is your buisness what happens in other countries to the point that you have a right to invade, kill, and oppress their citizens is disgusting. The U.S. sanctions are starving Venezeualans, as is the theft of billions of dollars by the wannabe puppet president. Sanders/Gabbard all the way. ..."
Why doesn't anyone say...Assad did not gas his own people...US backed rebels gassed the
Syrian people. It's called manufactured consent. Sometimes I really hate the ignorance too
many Americans choose.
Megan is such a lying fake news propagandist. Yes Assad is a brutal dictator. However, the
allegations of gassing his people are debunked fake news (her stating them as facts is fake
news). There was no ISIS and Al Qaeda in Syria before the US backed regime change war.
Hundreds of thousands have been killed, millions displaced.
Her calm and poise in the face of these right wing hacks is impressive. The american
entitlement, as if it is your buisness what happens in other countries to the point that you
have a right to invade, kill, and oppress their citizens is disgusting. The U.S. sanctions
are starving Venezeualans, as is the theft of billions of dollars by the wannabe puppet
president. Sanders/Gabbard all the way.
"... Elizabeth Warren has infuriated bankers and alienated half of Washington, all in the name of a new consumer protection agency she may not get to run ..."
"... At this point, Warren says, the banker made a confession. "We recognize that we have an unsustainable model, and it cannot work forever," she says he told her. "If we told people how much these things cost, they wouldn't use them." ..."
"... Warren's life is a blur of building and promoting the agency she dreamed up -- and that she may never get to lead. On leave from Harvard, she has spent hundreds of hours on Capitol Hill visiting with members of Congress, Democrat and Republican, and flown across the country meeting with the heads of the nation's major banks and many smaller ones. If most financial firms have yet to embrace the bureau, she's made some headway, at least, among the community banks. "Some of my colleagues have not gotten there yet because they are convinced she's close to the antichrist," says Roger Beverage, the head of the Oklahoma Bankers Assn. "I don't think she's doing anything but speaking from the heart on community banks." ..."
"... While Washington bickers, Warren has built the CFPB largely to her specs and almost entirely free of interference from Congress and the Administration, which devotes most of its attention to fixing the economy. Few Cabinet secretaries can claim to have left as indelible a mark on the departments they lead as Elizabeth Warren has already left on the one she doesn't. ..."
Elizabeth Warren has infuriated bankers and alienated half of Washington, all in the name of a new consumer protection agency
she may not get to run
Elizabeth Warren's admirers often refer to her as a grandmother from Oklahoma. This is technically true. It's also what you might
call posturing. Warren, 62, is a Harvard professor and perhaps the country's top expert on bankruptcy law. Over the past four years
she has managed to stoke a fervent debate over the government's role in protecting American consumers from what she sees as the predatory
practices of financial institutions, and she has positioned herself as the person to oversee a new federal agency to rewrite the
rules of lending. Warren is a grandma from Oklahoma in roughly the same way Ralph Nader is a pensioner with a thing about cars.
If the grandmother perception is plausible, it's largely because Warren has a gift for parables and for placing herself in the
middle of them as the embodiment of moral force. Thus, her account of the precise moment she realized that changing the way banks
lend was going to require a new federal bureaucracy -- and that it was up to her to create it.
Warren begins her tale in the spring of 2007, before the housing crash and the financial crisis. She was on a plane back to Boston
after a series of discouraging meetings with credit-card company executives. She had tried to sell them on an idea called the "clean
card" that grew out of her academic work and her side gig as a guest on such shows as Dr. Phil , where she dispensed empathy
and advice to audience members who were one bad check away from losing everything. The concept was simple: Offer the equivalent of
a Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval to any credit-card company that disclosed all of its costs and fees up front, no fine print.
After a few meetings in which she was politely rebuffed, one executive walked Warren to the door and, with his arm around her,
let her in on a trade secret: If he admitted that his card's actual rate was 17 percent, while his competitors were still claiming
theirs was only 2.9 percent, his customers would desert him for the seemingly cheaper option, seal of approval or not. No credit-card
company would ever go along with a clean card unless all of them did. And the only way to get all of them to do it was to require
it by law.
At this point, Warren says, the banker made a confession. "We recognize that we have an unsustainable model, and it cannot
work forever," she says he told her. "If we told people how much these things cost, they wouldn't use them."
Here she pauses for effect, and to take a sip of herbal tea. Warren is slight and kinetic, with wide, pale blue eyes behind rimless
glasses. She punctuates her sentences with exclamations like "Holy guacamole!" It's difficult to tell whether these are spontaneous
or deliberately deployed to soften her imposing professorial mien. Warren, who grew up poor and went to college on a debate scholarship,
understands the power of expression. When she wants to underline a point, she leans in to conspire with her listener; then her voice
goes quiet, as it does when she says she knew instantly the condescending executive was right. Her clean card was a flop.
And so, on the flight home, Warren turned to the problem of how to push those credit-card companies into doing the right thing.
By landing time, she says, she had her answer: a powerful new federal agency whose sole mission would be to protect consumers, not
only from confusing credit cards but from what she calls the "tricks and traps" of all dangerous financial products. The same way
the Consumer Product Safety Commission guards against dangerous household products or the Food and Drug Administration watches out
for contaminated produce and quack medications. The way Warren tells it, she pulled a piece of paper out of her backpack and got
to work right there on the plane. "I started sketching out the problem and what the agency should look like."
It's a good story, even if the timeline is a little off. Warren's aides say she first pitched the idea of a consumer financial
protection agency to then-Senator Barack Obama's office months before her fateful meeting with the executive. Whatever the idea's
provenance, there's no doubting its influence. In a summer 2007 article in the journal Democracy , Warren outlined what her
guardian agency would look like. "It is impossible to buy a toaster that has a one-in-five chance of bursting into flames and burning
down your house," she wrote. "But it is possible to refinance an existing home with a mortgage that has the same one-in-five chance
of putting the family out on the street -- and the mortgage won't even carry a disclosure of that fact to the homeowner." One was
effectively regulated. The other was not.
The annals of academia are stuffed with provocative proposals. Most die in the library. A little over four years after she first
dreamed it up, Warren's has become a reality. Last summer, President Obama signed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer
Protection Act, a package of financial reforms meant to prevent another economic meltdown. One of the bill's pillars is Warren's
watchdog agency, now called the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
On July 21, exactly a year after Dodd-Frank became law, the CFPB is scheduled to open for business with a broad mandate to root
out "unfair, deceptive, or abusive" lending practices. Consolidating functions previously scattered across seven different agencies,
the bureau will have the power to dictate the terms of every consumer lending product on the market, from mortgages and credit cards
to student, overdraft, and car loans. It will supervise not only banks and credit unions but credit-card companies, mortgage servicers,
credit bureaus, debt collectors, payday lenders, and check-cashing shops. Dozens of researchers will track trends in the lending
market and keep an eye on new products. Teams of examiners will prowl the halls of financial institutions to ensure compliance. The
bureau is already at work on its first major initiative: simplifying the bewildering bank forms you sign when you buy a house.
Warren's life is a blur of building and promoting the agency she dreamed up -- and that she may never get to lead. On leave
from Harvard, she has spent hundreds of hours on Capitol Hill visiting with members of Congress, Democrat and Republican, and flown
across the country meeting with the heads of the nation's major banks and many smaller ones. If most financial firms have yet to
embrace the bureau, she's made some headway, at least, among the community banks. "Some of my colleagues have not gotten there yet
because they are convinced she's close to the antichrist," says Roger Beverage, the head of the Oklahoma Bankers Assn. "I don't think
she's doing anything but speaking from the heart on community banks."
One other person she has not yet won over: Barack Obama. The President has not nominated her to head the bureau. Instead, last
fall he gave her the title of special assistant to the President and special adviser to the Treasury and tasked her with getting
the place up and running. For now, she is the non-head of a non-agency. The White House refuses to say whether Obama will eventually
put her up for the job, allowing only that he is considering several candidates. In the coded language of appointment politics, it
is a signal that they are seriously considering passing Warren over for someone else. A White House official says the Administration
would like to have a nominee in place before Congress leaves for its August recess.
There's a reason for their wariness. The White House is reluctant to antagonize congressional Republicans in the middle of contentious
negotiations over the federal debt ceiling. Warren's position requires Senate approval, and Republicans, many of whom regard the
CFPB as more clumsy government meddling in the free market, are vehemently opposed to allowing its creator to be installed at its
helm. Republicans have used a parliamentary maneuver to keep the Senate from officially adjourning for its traditional summer break,
thus depriving Obama of the opportunity to sidestep their objections and make Warren a recess appointment.
"She's probably a nice person, as far as I know," says Senator Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), the ranking member of the Banking Committee,
which will hold hearings on the eventual nominee for the post. Shelby has said Warren is too ideological to lead the agency, a judgment
shared by many of his Republican colleagues. "She's a professor and all this," he says in a tone that makes it clear he is not paying
her a compliment. "To think up something, to create something of this magnitude, and then look to be the head of it, I wouldn't do
that," Shelby says. "It looks like you created yourself a good job, a good power thing."
Warren is not waiting for permission to do the job she may never get. She and her small team have hired hundreds of people, at
a recent clip of more than 80 per month. The agency has already outgrown its office space and is divided between two buildings in
downtown Washington -- with branches to be opened across the country. A fledgling staff of researchers is cranking out the CFPB's
first reports, and its first bank examiners are being trained. Meanwhile, the office softball team has compiled a 2-3 record.
Above all, an institutional culture is emerging, and it is largely loyal to Warren and her idea of what the agency should be.
She has attracted several top hires from outside the federal government. The bureau's chief operating officer, Catherine West, was
previously president of Capital One; its head of research, Sendhil Mullainathan, is a behavioral economist and star Harvard professor;
the chief of enforcement, Richard Cordray, is the former attorney general of Ohio; Raj Date, her deputy and head of the bureau's
Research, Markets and Regulation Div., is a former banker at Capital One and Deutsche Bank. Warren, whose reputation as a scholar
rests on her pioneering use of bankruptcy data, has imbued the place with her faith in quantitative analysis. Researchers she recruited
and hired have begun to build the bureau's database of financial information, with a broad mandate to keep track of lending markets
and find ways to make financial information more easily digestible.
While Washington bickers, Warren has built the CFPB largely to her specs and almost entirely free of interference from Congress
and the Administration, which devotes most of its attention to fixing the economy. Few Cabinet secretaries can claim to have left
as indelible a mark on the departments they lead as Elizabeth Warren has already left on the one she doesn't.
The CFPB's main offices are on two floors of a russet-colored office building a few blocks northwest of the White House. The government-gray
cubicles and hallways spill over with new hires -- many of them young -- working 12- and 14-hour days elbow to elbow, pale and exuding
a dogged cheerfulness that suggests that, no, they do not miss the sun. By the elevator bank is a calendar counting down the days
until July 21.
Ten years ago, before she became a liberal icon, Warren was a popular Harvard professor known for taking a maternal interest in
the students she chose as research assistants. She was famous, but only in the small corner of academia that cared about bankruptcy.
"In my opinion she is the best bankruptcy scholar in the country," says Samuel Bufford, a law professor at Penn State who got to
know Warren decades ago as a bankruptcy judge in California's Central District.
Work Warren did with Jay Westbrook, a law professor at the University of Texas at Austin, and Teresa Sullivan, a sociologist who
is now president of the University of Virginia, reshaped the scholarly understanding of bankruptcy. Analyzing thousands of filings
and interviewing many of the debtors themselves, they found that those who go bankrupt weren't, as commonly assumed, primarily poor
or financially reckless. A great many of them were solidly middle class and had been driven to bankruptcy by circumstances they did
not choose or could not control: the loss of a job, a medical disaster, or a divorce. The explosion in consumer credit in recent
decades had only exacerbated the situation -- almost without realizing it, households could now slide faster and further into debt
than ever before.
Warren, Westbrook, and Sullivan all saw their bankruptcy findings as a window into the broader travails of the financially fragile
middle class. More than her co-authors, though, Warren sought a larger audience for the message. In 2003, along with her daughter,
Amelia Warren Tyagi, she wrote The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Mothers & Fathers Are Going Broke , a book that combined
arguments about the political and economic forces eroding middle-class financial stability with practical advice about how households
could fight them. The language was sharper than in her academic work: "Subprime lending, payday loans, and the host of predatory,
high-interest loan products that target minority neighborhoods should be called by their true names: legally sanctioned corporate
plans to steal from minorities," Warren and Tyagi wrote.
The book got attention and Warren became a frequent TV guest. She was invited to give speeches and sit on panels on bankruptcy
and debt. She was a regular on comedian Al Franken's radio show on the now defunct Air America network. "She's quite brilliant. She
was always just an excellent guest," recalls Franken, now a Democratic U.S. Senator from Minnesota. "She has a very good sense of
humor."
In 2003, Warren attended a fundraiser in Cambridge for Barack Obama, then running for U.S. Senate. When she walked up to shake
his hand, he greeted her with two words: "predatory lending." As a senator, Obama would occasionally call Warren for her thoughts,
though the two never became close.
It was the financial crisis that made Warren a star. In November 2008, in a nod to her growing reputation as a consumer advocate,
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid chose Warren to chair the congressional panel overseeing the TARP financial rescue program. The
reports she helped produce over the next two and a half years and the hearings she helped lead gave the panel a higher profile than
even its creators had predicted, as she articulated concerns that many Americans had about the wisdom of a massive Wall Street bailout.
In perhaps her most famous moment, Warren grilled Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on AIG's share of the aid money and how it
was that so much of it had ended up simply reimbursing the investment banks the insurer owed money.
Warren used her role on the panel, and the newfound visibility it gave her, to push for her agency. She worked the idea into a
special report the committee released in January 2009, among a list of recommendations to head off fut ure financial crises. She
wrote op-ed pieces, was on TV constantly, and met with at least 80 members of Congress. She also brought the idea to the Administration.
Over a long lunch at an Indian restaurant in Washington, she pitched the concept to White House economic adviser Lawrence Summers,
whom she knew from his tenure as Harvard's president. Inside Treasury, the idea was taken up by Michael Barr, a key architect of
Dodd-Frank and a lawyer Warren had known for years. At least within the White House, Barr recalls, it wasn't hard to build support.
"I think there was a general consensus that built pretty quickly that this was a good option," he says. "I didn't get any significant
pushback on the idea." Barr's inside advocacy, combined with Warren's PR blitz, paid off. In June 2009, Obama released a "white paper"
laying out his own financial regulatory proposals, and Warren's agency was in it.
Among the CFPB staff there is a strongly held belief that they have the opportunity not only to reshape an industry but reinvent
what a government agency can be, to rescue the idea of bureaucracy from its association with sclerosis and timidity. People there
emphasize that they are creating a 21st century agency. Still, there's a throwback Great Society feel to the place, with its faith
in the abilities of very smart unelected administrators, armed with data, to iron out the inefficiencies and injustices of the world.
"Nobody looks at consumer finance regulation as it existed over the past decade and says, 'Yeah, that seemed to work all right, let's
do more of that,' " says Raj Date, a square-jawed 40-year-old who speaks in the confident, numbers-heavy parlance of Wall Street.
Regardless of whether the CFPB has a director by its July 21 "transfer date," there are certain things it will immediately begin
to do. One is to send teams of examiners into banks and credit unions to make sure they are complying with existing consumer finance
regulations. When the bureau is fully staffed up -- initially, it will have some 500 employees and an annual budget of around $500
million -- a majority of the people who work there will be examiners. The bureau has only supervisory power over banks with assets
of more than $10 billion, though the rules it writes will still apply to smaller banks. Banks on the low end of the scale will see
a team of examiners for a few weeks every two years, unless there are specific complaints to investigate. Most of the biggest banks,
those with assets of $100 billion and up, will have CFPB examiners in residence year-round. The examiners will go to work parsing
the terms of mortgages and other loans, searching for evidence of consumer harm. They'll look at how the products are marketed and
sold to make sure it's done transparently, that costs and fees are disclosed up front.
What the bureau will not be able to do without a director is send its examiners into nonbank financial institutions. Dodd-Frank
gives the CFPB jurisdiction over payday lenders, check cashers, mortgage brokers, student loan companies, and the like. Because this
is an expansion of regulatory powers, it will not take effect until a permanent director is in place.
The bureau is less willing to discuss the specifics of what will happen when it finds evidence of wrongdoing. The press office
refused to make the head of enforcement, Richard Cordray, available for an interview. Like other enforcement agencies, the CFPB will
have a variety of measures at its fingertips: It will be able to give firms a talking-to, or issue so-called "supervisory guidance"
papers on problematic financial products. It will be able to send cease-and-desist orders. And if all else fails, the bureau will
be able to take offenders to court.
The CFPB will also have broad rule-making powers over everything from credit-card marketing campaigns to car loan terms to the
size of bank overdraft fees. For now, it has confined itself to initiatives less likely to arouse wide opposition among financial
firms. The major one at the moment is developing a clear, simple, two-page mortgage form that merges the two confusing ones borrowers
now confront. Bureau staff met with consumer advocates and mortgage brokers last fall, then put up two versions of a possible new
form on the bureau's website, where consumers were invited to leave critiques. About 14,000 people weighed in. The forms are now
being shown to focus groups around the country. A new version is due out in August.
This lengthy process is meant to demonstrate the bureau's commitment to a sort of radical openness to counter accusations that
it's a body of unaccountable bureaucrats. In another gesture, Warren's calendar is posted on the website so that anyone can see who
has a claim on her time. The undeniable sense among bureau staffers that they are political targets tempers that commitment to transparency
a bit. The press office is jittery about allowing reporters to talk to staff on the record, and Warren agreed to two interviews on
the condition that Bloomberg Businessweek allow her to approve quotes before publication.
If the supervision and enforcement division is the long arm of the bureau, its eyes and brain will be Research, Markets and Regulations,
headed by Raj Date. Teams of analysts will follow various markets -- credit cards, mortgages, or student loans -- to spot trends
and examine new products. Economists and other social scientists on staff will help write financial disclosure forms that make intuitive
sense. The benefits of this sort of work, Date argues, will extend beyond just protecting consumers. It will help spot signs of more
systemic risks. If the bureau and its market research teams had been in place five years ago, he says, they would have spotted evidence
of the coming mortgage meltdown and could have coordinated with the bureau's enforcement division to head it off. "If it was someone's
job to be in touch with the marketplace and monitor what was going on," Date says, "it would have been very difficult not to notice
that three different kinds of mortgages had gone from nothing to a very surprising share of the overall marketplace in the span of,
honestly, like three years."
Were it not for a head of prematurely gray hair, Patrick McHenry could still pass for the college Republican he once was. Elected
to Congress from North Carolina seven years ago at age 29, he speaks through an assiduous smile and arches his eyebrows as he listens
-- furrowing them quizzically at arguments he disagrees with. In late May, McHenry assumed the role of Warren's chief antagonist
in Congress. At an oversight hearing he was chairing, McHenry accused Warren of misleading Congress about whether she had given advice
to Treasury and Justice Dept. officials who were investigating companies for mortgage fraud. McHenry said she had concealed her conversations.
Warren insisted she had disclosed them.
The hearing then took a bizarre turn. McHenry called for a recess so members of the committee could go to the House floor for
a vote. Warren replied that she had agreed to testify for an hour and could not stay any longer. "Congressman, you are causing problems,"
she said. "We had an agreement." Offended, McHenry shot back: "You're making this up, Ms. Warren. This is not the case." Warren's
response, an outraged gasp, was played on cable news.
In a conversation a month later in his Capitol Hill office, McHenry is eager to emphasize that his problem is not with Warren,
but with the bureau itself. That's not to say he feels he has anything to apologize for. "I've asked questions of a litany of Administration
officials from Democrat and Republican Administrations, and I've never seen an action by any witness like I saw that day," he says.
Like most congressional Republicans -- and a broad array of business groups, including the Chamber of Commerce, the Financial
Services Roundtable, and the National Association of Federal Credit Unions -- McHenry opposed the creation of the CFPB and voted
against Dodd-Frank. At the time, the bureau's opponents argued that its seemingly noble goals would not only hurt financial firms
-- depriving them of the ability to compensate for risky borrowers by charging higher interest rates -- they would also hurt borrowers.
The prospect of limits on the sort of rates and fees they could charge would cause banks and payday lenders alike to lend less and
to not lend at all to marginal borrowers at a time when the economy needed as much credit as it could get.
Where it's not actively harmful, McHenry argues, the bureau will be redundant. If there's fraud or deceptive marketing in the
consumer lending market, the federal government can prosecute it through the Federal Trade Commission. Clearer mortgage forms are
all well and good, but Congress can take care of that, he says, noting that he introduced legislation for a simpler mortgage form
three years ago. In response to arguments like these, Warren simply points to the record of those existing regulators: the Fed and
the Housing & Urban Development Dept. have haggled over a simpler mortgage form for years. As for fears that the bureau will cap
the interest rates companies can charge, she notes that Dodd-Frank explicitly prevents it from doing that.
Warren has been uncharacteristically tightlipped about her own ambitions. She refuses to say whether she even wants the job and
has never publicly expressed a desire for it. In a way, the White House may do her a favor by not nominating her. If the President
decides to go with a compromise candidate to appease Republicans, she will be spared the indignity of being tossed aside. She can't
be said to have lost a job she was never offered.
Yet Warren gives the distinct impression that she will not suffer long if the President passes her over. Harvard has more than
its share of celebrity professors who have gone to Washington and returned. The experience could also lead to a different kind of
life in politics: Democrats in Massachusetts have been urging her to come home to run for Senate against Republican Scott Brown.
There would be books to write, television appearances to make, and, who knows, maybe a show of her own. And whatever happens, she
will get to tell the second half of the story of how she started a government agency. Whether the story ends with her confirmation
or being driven from town, it's almost certain that the character of Elizabeth Warren will come out looking just fine.
( Corrects the year Elizabeth Warren moved to Washington to work at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau )
I grew up watching and loving Colbert. Over the last few years I have not really liked him
or his views, but still had a sot spot in my heart for him. This interview makes me never
want to even watch another clip of his again. I felt disgust and anger after watching his
interrogation of Tulsi.
I have never before heard a politician give a straight yes or no answer to a direct
question and follow through with, "in my opinion". She is fantastic.
What Tulsi should point out is that we created the vacuum in the first place. If we had
not intervened there would be no power vacuum for China or Russia to fill. The first rule of
getting out of a hole: stop digging
China is going to become the worlds biggest super power because they're playing the long
game. Although you can say their building is a "debt trap" it's still business deals that the
other countries need and it's not like we Americans dont use credit cards and are in a bunch
of debt.
The US keeps losing trust in the world because of how we've gone about things. We
need someone like Tulsi to gain that trust back and actually do good in the world
Great video as usual. Stephen Colbert is a total disgrace and surprisingly really stupid.
However, it doesn't matter if Tulsi doesn't win the presidency in 2020. What is most
important is she becomes a part of Sander's team so that she can put a stop to the crazy US
military ambition.
Tulsi is perfect as the Sec of State. She can be the president a few years
into a Sanders presidency. Her time is not in 2020, but in 2024 or 2028. Her support will
grow over time.
Once again Tulsi Gabbard was smeared by War Friendly Agents this time it was The View's
Meghan McCain. Tulsi Gabbard explains her positions on a series of issues. #TulsiGabbard#TheView#TimBlackShow Pinned by
TBTV
Meghan McCain is a disgusting little Neocon warmonger who has been brought up in an elite
bubble she wouldn't have the guts or integrity to serve like Tulsi did. Tulsi handed this
with class.
For the record, I always cringe when Meghan McCain opens her mouth Anyone remember her
appearance on Bill Maher's show when she engaged Paul Begalla in a little debate on a
specific moment in history and she replied, "I wasn't born yet," and then Begalla immediately
stated, "I wasn't round during the French Revolution but I know about it"? Time to stop
employing the uninformed daughter of a deceased Senator, dontcha think? Especially one who is
so unmercifully unread.
The fact that Americans are still convinced the reasons they intervene in other countries
are humanitarian help and defending freedom and not economic or strategic reasons is
laughable. Get real, people, you are rarely the good guys. And no, the rest of the world do
not want you barging in and patronize them.
First time I've seen this beautiful intelligent compassionate lady named Tulsi. That
blonde haired land shark thinks she's smart because she has been allowed to masquerade as
some sort of respectable human for so long, she's just a fool even she's fooled by her own
foolishness
Damn! Tulsi Gabbard just gained my respect. She walked through minefield and came out
unscathed because she kept her composure and stuck to her beliefs. And she is right--Assad
has never threatened us!
hated the way Tulsi was attacked by these women there was literally hate on their faces
they were clearly biased unfortunate she had to be interviewed by them but kudos to her, she
answered every question and hell yes, there is vagueness in the green new deal Tulsi is
talking about environment since a long time now but there is suddenly a new deal and new
blood in Congress and all of a sudden ppl are noticing 'women' in Congress talking and making
valid points while women like Tulsi have been making their arguments and many valid points
w/o shouting
You're the only person that I've heard be honest enough to say that the Green New Deal is
just a framework. It is a starting point to a conversation. Thank you. Secondly, it is always
amazing to me when political Talking Heads say we can't pay for universal healthcare or free
higher education but are willing to fund regime changes in other countries. Willing to spend
unnegotiated billions of dollars and Wars and conflicts in other countries. Where's the sense
in that? And finally what would Meghan McCain have done had Hillary Clinton not accepted the
Electoral College results and declared herself president in the United States because she won
the popular vote? What would all of those Talking Heads and politicians have thought or done
at all had all of those voters marched against the White House and Congress to force Hillary
into the presidency? Hmmmm
wow. that was just wow. when she said "I am not someone who will go into the white house
and sit back and rely on the foreign policy establishment in Washington to tell me what to
do, I don't have to. I'm not intimidated by the stars that someone wears on their shoulders.
I am not intimidated by the military industrial complex and what they're pushing for." she
literally could have just dropped the mic. I bet the aforementioned military industrial
complex just peed themselves a little. This is why MSM and DNC hate her. And why we all love
her. I'm all in on #Tulsi2020 .
Hello, Mrs. Gabbard excuse my English which is my third language. I respect you so much,
I'm from Syrian, I live in SF you are the only one who really stood up for the Syrian people
by talking about the lies of the media toward my country, and also by meeting with The Syrian
President who is the legal representative of the Syrian people by election. You had the honor
to visit my country and saw the miserable situation caused by the war that was made and
supported by the US; please if you become the president end this war and end the suffer of
the Syrian people
99 year Old Mother, WWII ARMY Nurse Corp Vet on the Comfort when it was hit by a kamikaze,
"adores" you Tulsi. So moved when watching the CNN Town Hall. You are her hero!
I don't think I've ever seen a politician who I've listened to and said "This person, THIS
is the one I want to be our President. THIS is the one who will truly represent the people,
and lead this nation with a true vision and actually fight to do the things they say they
want to do". But when I see and hear Tulsi, I feel like I'm seeing just that, for maybe the
first time in my life.
Who should I support? An incredible woman who is a combat veteran with original ideas, or
a white skateboarder who pretends to be Latino and married a rich girl? #Tulsi2020
I was overwhelmed with so much warmth when I heard you speak, I swear I have never felt
this before. Thank You for all your hard work! No matter what happens, you have my full
support and my vote :)
I've been all in for Bernie but listening to Tulsi is equally if not more inspiring
given that her focus is on our insane interventionist foreign policy
No teleprompters, no notes, no platitudes or empty rhetoric. Calm and logical and
intelligent. No wonder the establishment is scared of her. GO TULSI!!!!
Elizabeth Warren had a good speech at UC-Berkeley. She focused on the middle class family balance sheet and risk shifting.
Regulatory policies and a credit based monetary system have resulted in massive real price increases in inelastic areas of demand
such as healthcare, education and housing eroding purchasing power.
Further, trade policies have put U.S. manufacturing at a massive disadvantage to the likes of China, which has subsidized
state-owned enterprises, has essentially slave labor costs and low to no environmental regulations. Unrestrained immigration policies
have resulted in a massive supply wave of semi- and unskilled labor suppressing wages.
Recommended initial steps to reform:
1. Change the monetary system-deleverage economy with the Chicago Plan (100% reserve banking) and fund massive infrastructure
lowering total factor costs and increasing productivity. This would eliminate
2. Adopt a healthcare system that drives HC to 10% to 12% of GDP. France's maybe? Medicare model needs serious reform but is
great at low admin costs.
3. Raise tariffs across the board or enact labor and environmental tariffs on the likes of China and other Asian export model
countries.
4. Take savings from healthcare costs and interest and invest in human capital–educational attainment and apprenticeships programs.
5. Enforce border security restricting future immigration dramatically and let economy absorb labor supply over time.
As I have said in other comments, I like Liz Warren a lot within the limits of what she is good at doing (i.e. not President)
such as Secretary of the Treasury etc. And I think she likes the media spotlight and to hear herself talk a little to much, but
all quibbling aside, can we clone her??? The above comment and video just reinforce "Stick to what you are really good at Liz!".
I am not a Liz Warren fan boi to the extent Lambert is of AOC, but it seems that most of the time when I hear Warren, Sanders,
or AOC say something my first reaction is "Yes, what she/he said!".
The column praises Elizabeth Warren. Leonhardt (like his colleague Paul Krugman) is careful
to refrain from declaring his intention to vote for her in the primary. I am planning to vote
for her. I mostly agreed with the column to begin with, but was not convinced by Leonard's
praise of Warren's emphasis on aiming for more equal pre-fiscal distribution of income rather
than just relying on taxes and transfers to redistribute.
In particular, I was not convinced by
This history suggests that the Democratic Party's economic agenda needs to become more
ambitious. Modest changes in the top marginal tax rate or in middle-class tax credits aren't
enough. The country needs an economic policy that measures up to the scale of our
challenges.
Here two issues are combined. One is modest vs major changes. The other is that
predistribution is needed in addition to redistribution, as discussed even more clearly
here
"Clinton and Obama focused on boosting growth and redistribution," Gabriel Zucman, a
University of California, Berkeley, economist who has advised Warren, says. "Warren is
focusing on how pretax income can be made more equal."
The option of a large change in the top marginal tax rate and a large middle class tax
credit isn't considered in the op-ed. I think this would be excellent policy which has
overwhelming popular support as measured by polls (including the support of a large fraction of
self declared Republicans). I note from time to time that, since 1976 both the Democrats who
have been elected president campaigned on higher taxes on high incomes and lower taxes on the
middle class (and IIRC none of the candidates who lost did).
After the jump, I will make my usual case. But first, I note Leonardt's excellent argument
for why "soak the rich and spread it out thin" isn't a sufficient complete market oriented
egalitarian program. It is phrased as a question.
"How can the next president make changes that will endure, rather than be undone by a future
president, as both Obama's and Clinton's top-end tax increases were?"
Ahh yes. High taxes on high income and high wealth would solve a lot of problems. But they
will be reversed. New programs such as Obamacare or Warren's proposed universal pre-K and
subsidized day care will not. Nor will regulatory reforms such as mandatory paid sick leave and
mandatory paid family leave. I am convinced that relatively complicated proposals are more
politically feasible, not because it is easier to implement them, but because it is very hard
to eliminate programs used by large numbers of middle class voters.
I'd note that I had already conceded the advantage of a regulatory approach which relies on
the illusion that the costs must be born by the regulated firms. Here I note that fleet fuel
economy standards are much more popular than increased gasoline taxes. One is a market oriented
approach. The other is one that hides behind the market as consumers don't know that part of
the price of a gas guzzler pays the shadow price of reducing fleet average milage.
OK my usual argument after the jump
It is unusual for me to disagree with Baker, Leonhardt, and (especially) Krugman. I am quite
sure that the Democratic candidate for president should campaign on higher taxes on the rich
and lower taxes for the non-rich.
To be sure, I can see that that isn't the only possible policy improvement. Above, I note
the advantages of hiding spending by mandating spending by firms and of creating entitlements
which are very hard for the GOP to eliminate. I'd add that we have to do a lot to deal with
global warming. Competition policy is needed for market efficiency. I think unions and
restrictions on firing without cause have an effect on power relations which is good in
addition to the effect on income distribution.
But I don't understand the (mildly) skeptical tone. I will set up and knock down some straw
men
1) Total straw -- US voters are ideological conservatives and operational liberals. They
reject soaking the rich, class war, and redistribution. To convince them to help the non rich,
one has to disguise what one is doing.
2) Extremely high marginal tax rates are bad for the economy. Here this is often conceded,
in particular by people arguing for modest increases in the top marginal tax rate. The claim is
not supported by actual evidence. In particular the top rate was 70% during the 60s boom.
3) High tax rates cause tax avoidance. This reduces efficiency and also means that they
don't generate the naively expected revenue. There is very little evidence that this is a huge issue . In
particular there was a huge increase in tax sheltering after the 1981 Kemp-Roth tax cuts and
reforms. It is possible to design a tax code which makes avoidance difficult (as shown by the
1986 Kemp-Bradley tax reform). It is very hard to implement such a code without campaigning on
soaking the rich and promoting class uh struggle.
4) More generally, redistribution does not work -- the post tax income distribution is not
equalized because the rich find a way. This is super straw again. All the international and
time series evidence points the other way.
I don't see a political or policy argument against a large increase in taxes on high incomes
(70% bracket starting at $400,000 a year) used to finance a large expansion of the EITC (so
most households receive it).
I think a problem is that a simple solution does not please nerds. I think another is that a
large fraction of the elite would pay the high taxes and it is easier to trick them into trying
to make corporations pay the costs.
First, whenever anybody (that I hear or read) talks about what to do with the revenue from
higher taxes on the rich, they always suggest this or that government program (education,
medical, housing). I always think of putting more money back in the pockets of my middle 59%
incomes to make up for the higher consumer prices they will have to pay when the bottom 40%
get unionized.
Of course the 59% can use that money to pay taxes for said government programs -- money is
fungible. But, that re-inserts an important element or dimension or facet which seems
perpetually forgotten (would not be in continental Europe or maybe French Canada).
Don't forget: predistribution goal = a reunionized labor market. Don't just look to Europe
for redistribution goals -- look at their predistribution too.
Bert Schlitz , March 17, 2019 10:14 pm
Nobody in the 60's that was taxed at a marginal 70% rate paid 70%. The top effective rate
was about 32-38%, which was far higher than today, but you get the point. The income tax code
was as much control of where investment would take place as much as anything ..Ronald Reagan
whined about this for years. Shove it grease ball. There was a reason why.
Redistribution won't work because the system is a debt based ponzi scheme. The US really
hasn't grown much since 1980, instead you have had the growth in debt.
You need to get rid of the federal reserve system's banks control of the financial system,
which they have had since the 1830's in terms of national control(from Hamilton's Philly,
which was the financial epicenter before that) and de Rothschild free since the 1930's(when
the bank of de Rothschild ala the Bank of England's reserve currency collapsed). Once we have
a debt free currency that is usury free, then you can develop and handle intense changes like
ecological problems ala Climate Change, which the modern plutocrats cannot and will not
solve.
They have been ramming debt in peoples face since 1950 and since 1980 it has gotten
vulgar. They know they are full of shit and can't win a fair game.
run75441 , March 18, 2019 6:09 am
Robert:
Would you agree a secure healthcare system without work requirements for those who can not
afford healthcare is a form of pre-distribution of income? Today's ACA was only a step in the
right direction and is being tampered with by ideologs to limit its reach. It can be improved
upon and have a socio-economic impact on people. Over at Medpage where I comment on
healthcare, the author makes this comment:
"Investing in improvements in patients' social determinants of health -- non-medical areas
such as housing, transportation, and food insecurity -- is another potentially big area, he
said. "It's a major opportunity for plans to position around this and make it real. The more
plans can address social determinants of health, [the more] plans can become truly
organizations dedicated to health as opposed to organizations dedicated to incurring medical
costs, and that to me is a bright future and a bright way to position the industry."
Many of the "social determinants of health" are not consciously decided by the patient and
are predetermined by income, social status or politics, and education. What is being said in
this paragraph makes for nice rhetoric and is mostly unachievable due to the three factors I
suggested. And yes, you can make some progress. People can make healthy choices once the
pre-determinants to doing so are resolved.
Another factor which was left dangling when Liebermann decided to be an ass is Long Term
Healthcare for the elderly and those who are no longer capable. Medicare is only temporary
and Medicaid forces one to be destitute. There is a large number of people who are
approaching the time when they will need such healthcare till death. We have no plans for
this tsunami of people.
The tax break was passed using Reconciliation. In 7-8 years out, there is a planned shift
in taxes to be levied on the middle income brackets to insure the continuamce of Trump's tax
break for the 100 or so thousand households it was skewed towards. If not rescinding the tax
break then it should be fixed so it sunsets as did Bush's tax break due to its budget
creating deficit. Someone running for the Pres position should be discussing this and
pointing out how Republicans have deliberately undermined the middle income brackets.
We should not limit solutions to just income when there are so many areas we are lacking
in today.
Mu $.02.
Robert Waldmann , March 18, 2019 4:47 pm
I guess I consider food stamps, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security old age pensions and
disability pensions to be redistribution. My distinction is whether it is tax financed.
Providing goods or services as in Medicare and food stamps seems to me basically the same as
providing cash as in TANF and old age pensions.
There is also a difference between means tested and age dependent eligiability, but I
don't consider it fundamental.
I assert that Medicare (especially plan B) is a kind of welfare basically like TANF and
food stamps.
(and look forward to a calm and tranquil discussion of that opinion).
run75441 , March 18, 2019 9:01 pm
Robert:
Medicare is 41% funded by general revenues. The rest comes from payroll taxes and
beneficiary premiums. Advantage plans cost more than traditional Medicare for providing the
same benefits and also extract a premium fee. I do not believe I have been mean to you. I
usually question to learn more. I am happy to have your input.
I am writing for Consumer Safety Org on Woman's healthcare this time and also an article
on the Swiss struggling to pay for cancer fighting drugs.
amazing, simply amazing. You need to watch this Town Hall in full to appreciate the skills she demonstrated in defense of
her principles. What a fearless young lady.
And this CNN warmonger, a prostitute of MIC was/is pretty devious. Question were selected with malice to hurt Tulsi and people who
ask them were definitely pre-selected with an obvious intent to smear Tulsi. In no way those were spontaneous question. This was a session
of Neocon//Neolib inquisition. Tulsi behaves like a modern Joan of Arc
From comments: "People need to donate to Tulsi Gabbard for president so she is allowed on the DNC sponsored debate stages. 65000
unique donors required to be in the debates. Donation can be as small as $1 if you can't afford $25"(mrfuzztone)
Notable quotes:
"... Braver then 99.9% of all men in power. They just enjoy watching the blood sports they create for profit. Looks like people are starting to get fed up with the show. About time ..."
"... WE CURRENTLY HAVE A CRONY CAPITALIST PYRAMID SCHEME AND CNN PLAYS IT'S PART TO KEEP THAT SYSTEM IN PLACE ..."
"... I'm 66, a Progressive formerly from Boston where we eat and breathe politics and I'll tell you... never in my life have I seen a Democratic candidate like this fearless young woman who will simultaneously attract veterans AND anti-war folks AND moderate Republicans AND youth. NO OTHER CANDIDATE CAN DO THIS. My absolute belief is that if Tulsi's not on the ticket... Trump wins. Sorry Bernie, this time I'm going with Tulsi. ..."
Braver then 99.9% of all men in power. They just enjoy watching the blood sports they create for profit. Looks like people
are starting to get fed up with the show. About time✌️ 😉
I'm 66, a Progressive formerly from Boston where we eat and breathe politics and I'll tell you... never in my life have
I seen a Democratic candidate like this fearless young woman who will simultaneously attract veterans AND anti-war folks AND moderate
Republicans AND youth. NO OTHER CANDIDATE CAN DO THIS. My absolute belief is that if Tulsi's not on the ticket... Trump wins.
Sorry Bernie, this time I'm going with Tulsi.
Tulsi handled these hacks like a pro LOOL Are you a capitalist? LOL What s stupid question.....CCN usually stacks there town
halls with corporate cronies. I bet Bernie picks her for a high position in his government.
People need to donate to Tulsi Gabbard for president so she is allowed on the DNC sponsored debate stages. 65000 unique donors
required to be in the debates. Donation can be as small as $1 if you can't afford $25.
Wow. The same people blaming "bernie bros" for Trump are gonna teach us a lesson by giving
us more of what they are mad about. Now, that's some "unity" for ya! #Bernie2020
Someone should send this clip to Sanders/Gabbard. Just have them play this on repeat
during their campaign so people will wake up to how awful America is if the people don't vote
correctly in 2020
"Of course it has to be reformed" yes, and how many times do we reform capitalism before
we realise that there's something intrinsically wrong with it?
The media and the establishment are focused on Trump and his personality. They don't want
to delve into the zeitgeist that allowed him to defeat two political dynasties. That's what
they should be focused on.
It's a similar zeitgeist that caused Brexit. That elected Salvini and 5 Star in Italy.
That's behind Gilets Jaunes who are now in their 18th week of protests in France. China going
more totalitarian by the day under Chairman Xi.
The Party of Davos have ruled for 40-50 years. We've got unprecedented wealth inequality.
We've got endless wars with no benefit for the Deplorables. All they have are opioids. More
dying of that than automobile accidents. Health care, tuition, rents all rising. A double
standard in tthe application of the law. Hypocrisy oozing from every pore of the ruling
elites. Bribing their way to elite colleges while espousing meritocracy.
Is this what Howe & Strauss mean by the Fourth Turning?
CNN is just mouthpiece for intelligence community and MIC
The question of a type "did you finished to beat your wife" are very difficult to ask. So how
skillfully Tulsi handled those "sinking" question comment her skills.
The problem with Jimmy Dore is he has some kind of mental block or is somehow completely
unaware of the reasons we bomb countries that are hostile to Israel and located right on
their border or at least near them. You also have to be completely unaware of the power of
the Jewish lobbies and their obvious bias towards their own interests to ignore Jews role in
promoting wars that benefit Israel. It's not the "military industrial complex" Jimmy, it's
who controls that complex. Jeff Zucker, the head of CNN is a Jew, that like Jake Tapper (also
a Jew) sees any destruction of Syria as beneficial to Israel. The neo-Con Max Boot was born
in Russia and still wants to bomb Russia because he's a Jew that doesn't want Putin
preventing Jewish controlled US from destroying Syria. I can level some similar criticism at
Jimmy that he levels at the mainstream media.
Boeing Co. tumbled early Monday on heightened scrutiny by regulators and prosecutors over
whether the approval process for the company's 737 Max jetliner was flawed.
A person familiar with the matter on Sunday said that the U.S. Transportation Department's
Inspector General was examining the plane's design certification before the second of two
deadly crashes of the almost brand-new aircraft.
Separately, the Wall Street Journal reported that a grand jury in Washington, D.C., on
March 11 issued a subpoena to at least one person involved in the development process of the
Max. And a Seattle Times investigation found that U.S. regulators delegated much of the plane's
safety assessment to Boeing and that the company in turn delivered an analysis with crucial
flaws.
Boeing dropped 2.8 percent to $368.53 before the start of regular trading Monday in New
York, well below any closing price since the deadly crash of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 on
March 10. Ethiopia's transport minister said Sunday that flight-data recorders showed "clear
similarities" between the crashes of that plane and Lion Air Flight 610 last October.
U.S. Federal Aviation Administration employees warned as early as seven years ago that
Boeing had too much sway over safety approvals of new aircraft, prompting an investigation by
Transportation Department auditors who confirmed the agency hadn't done enough to "hold Boeing
accountable."
The 2012 investigation also found that discord over Boeing's treatment had created a
"negative work environment" among FAA employees who approve new and modified aircraft designs,
with many of them saying they'd faced retaliation for speaking up. Their concerns pre-dated the
737 Max development.
In recent years, the FAA has shifted more authority over the approval of new aircraft to the
manufacturer itself, even allowing Boeing to choose many of the personnel who oversee tests and
vouch for safety. Just in the past few months, Congress expanded the outsourcing arrangement
even further.
"It raises for me the question of whether the agency is properly funded, properly staffed
and whether there has been enough independent oversight," said Jim Hall, who was chairman of
the National Transportation Safety Board from 1994 to 2001 and is now an aviation-safety
consultant.
Outsourcing Safety
At least a portion of the flight-control software suspected in the 737 Max crashes was
certified by one or more Boeing employees who worked in the outsourcing arrangement, according
to one person familiar with the work who wasn't authorized to speak about the matter.
The Wall Street Journal first reported the inspector general's latest inquiry. The watchdog
is trying to assess whether the FAA used appropriate design standards and engineering analysis
in approving the 737 Max's anti-stall system, the newspaper said.
Both Boeing and the Transportation Department declined to comment about that inquiry.
In a statement on Sunday, the agency said its "aircraft certification processes are well
established and have consistently produced safe aircraft designs," adding that the "737 Max
certification program followed the FAA's standard certification process."
The Ethiopian Airlines plane crashed minutes after it took off from Addis Ababa, killing all
157 people on board. The accident prompted most of the world to ground Boeing's 737 Max 8
aircraft on safety concerns, coming on the heels of the October crash of a Max 8 operated by
Indonesia's Lion Air that killed 189 people. Much of the attention focused on a flight-control
system that can automatically push a plane into a catastrophic nose dive if it malfunctions and
pilots don't react properly.
In one of the most detailed descriptions yet of the relationship between Boeing and the
FAA during the 737 Max's certification, the Seattle Times quoted unnamed engineers who said the
planemaker had understated the power of the flight-control software in a System Safety Analysis
submitted to the FAA. The newspaper said the analysis also failed to account for how the system
could reset itself each time a pilot responded -- in essence, gradually ratcheting the
horizontal stabilizer into a dive position.
Software Fix
Boeing told the newspaper in a statement that the FAA had reviewed the company's data and
concluded the aircraft "met all certification and regulatory requirements." The company, which
is based in Chicago but designs and builds commercial jets in the Seattle area, said there are
"some significant mischaracterizations" in the engineers' comments.
"... It appears the FBI, CIA, and NSA have great difficulty in differentiating between Russians and Democrats posing as Russians. ..."
"... Maybe the VIPS should look into the murder of Seth Rich, the DNC staffer who had the security clearance required to access the DNC servers, and who was murdered in the same week as the emails were taken. In particular, they should ask why the police were told to stand down and close the murder case without further investigation. ..."
"... What a brilliant article, so logical, methodical & a forensic, scientific breakdown of the phony Russiagate project? And there's no doubt, this was a co-ordinated, determined Intelligence project to reverse the results of the 2016 Election by initiating a soft coup or Regime change op on a elected Leader, a very American Coup, something the American Intelligence Agencies specialise in, everywhere else, on a Global scale, too get Trump impeached & removed from the Whitehouse? ..."
"... Right. Since its purpose is to destroy Trump politically, the investigation should go on as long as Trump is in office. Alternatively, if at this point Trump has completely sold out, that would be another reason to stop the investigation. ..."
"... Nancy Pelosi's announcement two days ago that the Democrats will not seek impeachment for Trump suggests the emptiness of the Mueller investigation on the specific "collusion" issue. ..."
"... We know and Assange has confirmed Seth Rich, assassinated in D.C. for his deed, downloaded the emails and most likely passed them on to former British ambassador Craig Murray in a D.C. park for transport to Wikileaks. ..."
"... This so-called "Russiagate" narrative is an illustration of our "freedom of the press" failure in the US due to groupthink and self censorship. He who pays the piper is apt to call the tune. ..."
"... Barr, Sessions, every congressmen all the corporate MSM war profiteer mouth pieces. They all know that "Russia hacked the DNC" and "Russia meddled" is fabricated garbage. They don't care, because their chosen war beast corporate candidate couldn't beat Donald goofball Trump. So it has to be shown that the war beast only lost because of nefarious reasons. Because they're gonna run another war beast cut from the same cloth as Hillary in 2020. ..."
"... Mar 4, 2019 Tom Fitton: President Trump a 'Crime Victim' by Illegal Deep State DOJ & FBI Abuses: https://youtu.be/ixWMorWAC7c ..."
"... Trump is a willing player in this game. The anti-Russian Crusade was, quite simply, a stunningly reckless, short-sighted effort to overturn the 2016 election, removing Trump to install Hillary Clinton in office. ..."
"... Much ado about nothing. All the talk and chatter and media airplay about "Russian meddling" in the 2016 election only tells me that these liars think the American public is that stupid. ..."
"... Andrew Thomas I'm afraid that huge amounts of our History post 1947 is organized and propagandized disinformation. There is an incredible page that John Simpkin has organized over the years that specifically addresses individuals, click on a name and read about them. https://spartacus-educational.com/USAdisinformation.htm ..."
"... It's pretty astonishing that Mueller was more interested in Roger Stone and Jerome Corsi as credible sources about Wikileaks and the DNC release than Craig Murray! ..."
"... Yes, he has done his job. And his job was to bring his royal Orangeness to heel, and to make sure that detente and co-operation with Russia remained impossible. The forever war continues. Mission Accomplished. ..."
I could not suffer through reading the whole article. This is mainly because I have
watched the news daily about Mueller's Investigation and I sincerely believe that Mueller is
Champion of the Democrats who are trying to depose President Donald Trump at any cost.
For what Mueller found any decent lawyer with a Degree and a few years of experience could
have found what Mueller found for far far less money. Mueller only found common crimes AND NO
COLLUSION BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PUTIN!
The Mueller Investigation should be given to an honest broker to review, and Mueller
should be paid only what it would cost to produce the commonplace crimes Mueller, The
Democrats, and CNN has tried to convince the people that indeed Trump COLLUDED with RUSSIA.
Mueller is, a BIG NOTHING BURGER and THE DEMOCRATS AND CNN ARE MUELLER'S SINGING CANARYS!
Mueller should be jailed.
Bogdan Miller , March 15, 2019 at 11:04 am
This article explains why the Mueller Report is already highly suspect. For another thing,
we know that since before 2016, Democrats have been studying Russian Internet and hacking
tactics, and posing as Russian Bots/Trolls on Facebook and other media outlets, all in an
effort to harm President Trump.
It appears the FBI, CIA, and NSA have great difficulty in differentiating between Russians
and Democrats posing as Russians.
B.J.M. Former Intelligence Analyst and Humint Collector
vinnieoh , March 15, 2019 at 8:17 am
Moving on: the US House yesterday voted UNANIMOUSLY (remember that word, so foreign these
days to US governance?) to "urge" the new AG to release the complete Mueller report.
A
non-binding resolution, but you would think that the Democrats can't see the diesel
locomotive bearing down on their clown car, about to smash it to pieces. The new AG in turn
says he will summarize the report and that is what we will see, not the entire report. And
taxation without representation takes a new twist.
... ... ...
Raymond Comeau , March 15, 2019 at 12:38 pm
What else would you expect from two Political Parties who are really branches of the ONE
Party which Represents DEEP STATE".
DWS , March 15, 2019 at 5:58 am
Maybe the VIPS should look into the murder of Seth Rich, the DNC staffer who had the
security clearance required to access the DNC servers, and who was murdered in the same week
as the emails were taken. In particular, they should ask why the police were told to stand
down and close the murder case without further investigation.
Raymond Comeau , March 15, 2019 at 12:47 pm
EXACTLY! But, Deep State will not allow that. And, it would ruin the USA' plan to continue
to invade more sovereign countries and steal their resources such as oil and Minerals. The
people of the USA must be Ostriches or are so terrified that they accept anything their
Criminal Governments tell them.
Eventually, the chickens will come home to roost and perhaps the USA voters will ROAST
when the crimes of the USA sink the whole country. It is time for a few Brave Men and Women
to find their backbones and throw out the warmongers and their leading Oligarchs!
KiwiAntz , March 14, 2019 at 6:44 pm
What a brilliant article, so logical, methodical & a forensic, scientific breakdown of
the phony Russiagate project? And there's no doubt, this was a co-ordinated, determined
Intelligence project to reverse the results of the 2016 Election by initiating a soft coup or
Regime change op on a elected Leader, a very American Coup, something the American
Intelligence Agencies specialise in, everywhere else, on a Global scale, too get Trump
impeached & removed from the Whitehouse?
If you can't get him out via a Election, try
& try again, like Maduro in Venezuela, to forcibly remove the targeted person by setting
him up with fake, false accusations & fabricated evidence? How very predictable & how
very American of Mueller & the Democratic Party. Absolute American Corruption, corrupts
absolutely?
Brian Murphy , March 15, 2019 at 10:33 am
Right. Since its purpose is to destroy Trump politically, the investigation should go on
as long as Trump is in office. Alternatively, if at this point Trump has completely sold out, that would be another
reason to stop the investigation.
If the investigation wraps up and finds nothing, that means Trump has already completely
sold out. If the investigation continues, it means someone important still thinks Trump retains some
vestige of his balls.
DH Fabian , March 14, 2019 at 1:19 pm
By last June or July the Mueller investigation has resulted in roughly 150 indictments
for perjury/financial crimes, and there was a handful of convictions to date. The report did
not support the Clinton wing's anti-Russian allegations about the 2016 election, and was
largely brushed aside by media. Mueller was then reportedly sent back in to "find something."
presumably to support the anti-Russian claims.
mike k , March 14, 2019 at 12:57 pm
From the beginning of the Russia did it story, right after Trump's electoral victory, it
was apparent that this was a fraud. The democratic party however has locked onto this
preposterous story, and they will go to their graves denying this was a scam to deny their
presidential defeat, and somehow reverse the result of Trump's election. My sincere hope is
that this blatant lie will be an albatross around the party's neck, that will carry them down
into oblivion. They have betrayed those of us who supported them for so many years. They are
in many ways now worse than the republican scum they seek to replace.
DH Fabian , March 14, 2019 at 1:26 pm
Trump is almost certain to be re-elected in 2020, and we'll go through this all over
again.
The very fact that the FBI never had access to the servers and took the word of a private
company that had a history of being anti-Russian is enough to throw the entire ruse out.
LJ , March 14, 2019 at 2:39 pm
Agreed!!!! and don't forget the FBI/Comey gave Hillary and her Campaign a head's up before
they moved to seize the evidence. . So too, Comey said he stopped the Investigation , thereby
rendering judgement of innocence, even though by his own words 'gross negligence' had a
occurred (which is normally considered grounds for prosecution). In doing so he exceeded the
FBI's investigative mandate. He rationalized that decision was appropriate because of the
appearance of impropriety that resulted from Attorney General Lynch having a private meeting
on a plane on a runway with Bill and Hillary . Where was the logic in that. Who called the
meeting? All were Lawyers who had served as President, Senator, Attorney General and knew
that the meeting was absolutely inappropriate. . Comey should be prosecuted if they want to
prosecute anyone else because of this CRAP. PS Trump is an idiot. Uhinfortunately he is just
a symptom of the disease at this point. Look at the cover of Rolling Stone magazine , carry a
barf bag.
Jane Christ , March 14, 2019 at 6:51 pm
Exactly. This throws doubt on the ability of the FBI to work independently. They are
working for those who want to cover -up the Hillary mess . She evidently has sufficient funds
to pay them off. I am disgusted with the level of corruption.
hetro , March 14, 2019 at 10:50 am
Nancy Pelosi's announcement two days ago that the Democrats will not seek impeachment for
Trump suggests the emptiness of the Mueller investigation on the specific "collusion" issue.
If there were something hot and lingering and about to emerge, this decision is highly
unlikely, especially with the reasoning she gave at "so as not to divide the American
people." Dividing the people hasn't been of much concern throughout this bogus witch hunt on
Trump, which has added to his incompetence in leavening a growing hysteria and confusion in
this country. If there is something, anything at all, in the Mueller report to support the
collusion theory, Pelosi would I'm sure gleefully trot it out to get a lesser candidate like
Pence as opposition for 2020.
We know and Assange has confirmed Seth Rich, assassinated in D.C. for his deed, downloaded
the emails and most likely passed them on to former British ambassador Craig Murray in a D.C.
park for transport to Wikileaks.
We must also honor Shawn Lucas assassinated for serving DNC with a litigation notice
exposing the DNC conspiracy against Sanders.
hetro , March 14, 2019 at 3:18 pm
Where has Assange confirmed this? Assange's long-standing position is NOT to reveal his
sources. I believe he has continued to honor this position.
Skip Scott , March 15, 2019 at 7:15 am
It has merely been insinuated by the offering of a reward for info on Seth's murder. In
one breath he says wikileaks will never divulge a source, and in the next he offers a $20k
reward saying that sources take tremendous risk. Doesn't take much of a logical leap to
connect A to B.
DH Fabian , March 14, 2019 at 1:30 pm
Are you aware that Democrats split apart their 0wn voting base in the 1990s, middle class
vs. poor? The Obama years merely confirmed that this split is permanent. This is particularly
relevant for Democrats, as their voting base had long consisted of the poor and middle class,
for the common good. Ignoring this deep split hasn't made it go away.
hetro , March 14, 2019 at 3:24 pm
Even more important is how the Democrats have sold out to an Establishment view favoring
neocon theory, since at least Bill Clinton. Pelosi's recent behavior with Ilhan Omar confirms
this and the split you're talking about. My point is it is distinctly odd that Pelosi is
discouraging impeachment on "dividing the Party" (already divided, of course, as you say),
whereas the Russia-gate fantasy was so hot not that long ago. Again it points to a cynical
opportunism and manipulation of the electorate. Both parties are a sad excuse to represent
ordinary people's interests.
Skip Scott , March 15, 2019 at 7:21 am
She said "dividing the country", not the party. I think she may have concerns over Trump's
heavily armed base. That said, the statement may have been a ruse. There are plenty of
Republicans that would cross the line in favor of impeachment with the right "conclusions" by
Mueller. Pelosi may be setting up for a "bombshell" conclusion by Mueller. One must never
forget that we are watching theater, and that Trump was a "mistake" to be controlled or
eliminated.
Mueller should be ashamed that he has made President Trump his main concern!! If all this
investigation would stop he could save America millions!!! He needs to quit this witch-hunt
and worry about things that really need to be handled!!! If the democrats and Trump haters
would stop pushing senseless lies hopefully this would stop ? It's so disgusting that his
democrat friend was never really investigated ? stop the witch-hunt and move forward!!!!
torture this , March 14, 2019 at 7:29 am
According to this letter, mistakes might have been made on Rachel Maddow's show. I can't
wait to read how she responds. I'd watch her show, myself except that it has the same effect
on me as ipecac.
Zhu , March 14, 2019 at 3:37 am
People will cling to "Putin made Trump President!!!" much as many cling "Obama's a Kenyan
Muslim! Not a real American!!!". Both nut theories are emotionally satisfying, no matter what
the historical facts are. Many Americans just can't admit their mistakes and blaming a
scapegoat is a way out.
O Society , March 14, 2019 at 2:03 am
Thank you VIPS for organizing this legit dissent consisting of experts in the field of
intelligence and computer forensics.
This so-called "Russiagate" narrative is an illustration of our "freedom of the press"
failure in the US due to groupthink and self censorship. He who pays the piper is apt to call
the tune.
It is astounding how little skepticism and scientifically-informed reasoning goes on in
our media. These folks show themselves to be native advertising rather than authentic
journalists at every turn.
DH Fabian , March 14, 2019 at 1:33 pm
But it has been Democrats and the media that market to middle class Dems, who persist in
trying to sell the Russian Tale. They excel at ignoring the evidence that utterly contradicts
their claims.
Oh, we're well beyond your "Blame the middle class Dems" stage.
The WINNING!!! team sports bullshit drowns the entire country now the latrine's sprung a
leak. People pretend to live in bubbles made of blue or red quite like the Three Little Pigs,
isn't it? Except instead of a house made of bricks saving the day for the littlepiggies, what
we've got here is a purple puddle of piss.
Everyone's more than glad to project all our problems on "THEM" though, aren't we?
Meanwhile, the White House smells like a urinal not washed since the 1950s and simpletons
still get their rocks off arguing about whether Mickey Mouse can beat up Ronald McDonald.
T'would be comic except what's so tragic is the desperate need Americans have to believe,
oh just believe! in something. Never mind the sound of the jackhammer on your skull dear,
there's an app for that or is it a pill?
I don't know, don't ask me, I'm busy watching TV. Have a cheeto.
Very good analysis clearly stated, especially adding the FAT timestamps to the
transmission speeds.
Minor corrections: "The emails were copied from the network" should be "from the much
faster local network" because this is to Contradict the notion that they were copied over the
internet network, which most readers will equate with "network." Also "reportedin" should be
"reported in."
Michael , March 13, 2019 at 6:25 pm
It is likely that New Knowledge was actually "the Russians", possibly working in concert
with Crowdstrike. Once an intelligence agency gets away with something like pretending to be
Russian hackers and bots, they tend to re-use their model; it is too tempting to discard an
effective model after a one-off accomplishment. New Knowledge was caught interfering/
determining the outcome in the Alabama Senate race on the side of Democrat Doug Jones, and
claimed they were merely trying to mimic Russian methods to see if they worked (they did; not
sure of their punishment?). Occam's razor would suggest that New Knowledge would be competent
to mimic/ pretend to be "Russians" after the fact of wikileaks' publication of emails. New
Knowledge has employees from the NSA and State department sympathetic to/ working with(?)
Hillary, and were the "outside" agency hired to evaluate and report on the "Russian" hacking
of the DNC emails/ servers.
DH Fabian , March 13, 2019 at 5:48 pm
Mueller released report last summer, which resulted in (the last I checked) roughly 150
indictments, a handful of convictions to date, all for perjury/financial (not political)
crimes. This wasn't kept secret. It simply wasn't what Democrats wanted to hear, so although
it was mentioned in some lib media (which overwhelmingly supported neoliberal Hillary
Clinton), it was essentially swept under the carpet.
Billy , March 13, 2019 at 11:11 pm
Barr, Sessions, every congressmen all the corporate MSM war profiteer mouth pieces. They
all know that "Russia hacked the DNC" and "Russia meddled" is fabricated garbage. They don't
care, because their chosen war beast corporate candidate couldn't beat Donald goofball Trump.
So it has to be shown that the war beast only lost because of nefarious reasons. Because
they're gonna run another war beast cut from the same cloth as Hillary in 2020.
Realist , March 14, 2019 at 3:22 am
You betcha. Moreover, who but the Russians do these idiots have left to blame? Everybody
else is now off limits due to political correctness. Sigh Those Catholics, Jews, "ethnics"
and sundry "deviants" used to be such reliable scapegoats, to say nothing of the
"undeveloped" world. As Clapper "authoritatively" says, only this vile lineage still carries
the genes for the most extremes of human perfidy. Squirrels in your attic? It must be the
damned Russkies! The bastards impudently tried to copy our democracy, economic system and
free press and only besmirched those institutions, ruining all of Hillary's glorious plans
for a worldwide benevolent dictatorship. All this might be humorous if it weren't so
funny.
And those Chinese better not get to thinking they are somehow our equals just because all
their trillions invested in U.S. Treasury bonds have paid for all our wars of choice and MIC
boondoggles since before the turn of the century. Unless they start delivering Trump some
"free stuff" the big man is gonna cut off their water. No more affordable manufactured goods
for the American public! So there!
As to the article: impeccable research and analysis by the VIPS crew yet again. They've
proven to me that, to a near certainty, the Easter Bunny is not likely to exist. Mueller
won't read it. Clapper will still prance around a free man, as will Brennan. The Democrats
won't care, that is until November of 2020. And Hillary will continue to skate, unhindered in
larding up the Clinton Foundation to purposes one can only imagine.
Joe Tedesky , March 14, 2019 at 10:02 pm
Realist,
I have posted this article 'the Russia they Lost' before and from time to time but
once again it seems appropriate to add this link to expound upon for what you've been saying.
It's an article written by a Russian who in they're youth growing up in the USSR dreamed of
living the American lifestyle if Russia were to ever ditch communism. But . Starting with
Kosovo this Russian's youthful dream turned nightmarishly ugly and, as time went by with more
and yet even more USA aggression this Russian author loss his admiration and desire for all
things American to be proudly envied. This is a story where USA hard power destroyed any hope
of American soft power for world unity. But hey that unity business was never part of the
plan anyway.
right you are, joe. if america was smart rather than arrogant, it would have cooperated
with china and russia to see the belt and road initiative succeed by perhaps building a
bridge or tunnel from siberia to alaska, and by building its own fleet of icebreakers to open
up its part of the northwest passage. but no, it only wants to sabotage what others propose.
that's not being a leader, it's being a dick.
i'm gonna have to go on the disabled list here until the sudden neurological problem with
my right hand clears up–it's like paralysed. too difficult to do this one-handed using
hunt and peck. at least the problem was not in the old bean, according to the scans. carry
on, sir.
Brian James , March 13, 2019 at 5:04 pm
Mar 4, 2019 Tom Fitton: President Trump a 'Crime Victim' by Illegal Deep State DOJ &
FBI Abuses: https://youtu.be/ixWMorWAC7c
DH Fabian , March 13, 2019 at 5:55 pm
Trump is a willing player in this game. The anti-Russian Crusade was, quite simply, a stunningly reckless,
short-sighted effort to overturn the 2016 election, removing Trump to install Hillary Clinton in office. Trump and the
Republicans continue to win by default, as Democrats only drive more voters away.
Thank you Ray McGovern and the Other 17 VIPS C0-Signers of your National Security Essay
for Truth. Along with Craig Murray and Seymour Hirsch, former Sam Adams Award winners for
"shining light into dark places", you are national resources for objectivity in critical
survival information matters for our country. It is more than a pity that our mainstream
media are so beholden to their corporate task masters that they cannot depart from the
company line for fear of losing their livelihoods, and in the process we risk losing life on
the planet because of unconstrained nuclear war on the part of the two main adversaries
facing off in an atmosphere of fear and mistrust. Let me speak plainly. THEY SHOULD BE
TALKING TO YOU AND NOT THE VESTED INTERESTS' MOUTHPIECES. Thank you for your continued
leadership!
Roger Ailes founder of FOX news died, "falling down stairs" within a week of FOX news
exposing to the world that the assassinated Seth Rich downloaded the DNC emails.
DH Fabian , March 13, 2019 at 6:03 pm
Google the Mueller investigation report from last June or July. When it was released, the
public response was like a deflated balloon. It did not support the "Russian collusion"
allegations -- the only thing Democrats still had left to sell. The report resulted in
roughly 150 indictments for perjury/financial crimes (not political), and a handful of
convictions to date -- none of which had anything to do with the election results.
Hank , March 13, 2019 at 6:19 pm
Much ado about nothing. All the talk and chatter and media airplay about "Russian
meddling" in the 2016 election only tells me that these liars think the American public is
that stupid. They are probably right, but the REAL reason that Hillary lost is because there
ARE enough informed people now in this nation who are quite aware of the Clinton's sordid
history where scandals seem to follow every where they go, but indictments and/or
investigations don't. There IS an internet nowadays with lots of FACTUAL DOCUMENTED
information. That's a lot more than I can say about the mainstream corporate-controlled
media!
I know this won't ever happen, but an HONEST investigation into the Democratic Party and
their actions during the 2016 election would make ANY collusion with ANY nation look like a
mole hill next to a mountain! One of the problems with living in this nation is if you are
truly informed and make an effort 24/7 to be that way by doing your own research, you
more-than-likely can be considered an "island in a sea of ignorance".
We know that the FBI never had access to the servers and a private company was allowed to
handle the evidence. Wasnt it a crime scene? The evidence was tampered with And we will never
know what was on the servers.
Mark McCarty , March 13, 2019 at 4:10 pm
As a complement to this excellent analysis, I would like to make 2 further points:
The Mueller indictment of Russian Intelligence for hacking the DNC and transferring their
booty to Wikileaks is absurd on its face for this reason: Assange announced on June 12th the
impending release of Hillary-related emails. Yet the indictment claims that Guccifer 2.0 did
not succeed in transferring the DNC emails to Wikileaks until the time period of July 14-18th
– after which they were released online on July 22nd. Are we to suppose that Assange, a
publisher of impeccable integrity, publicly announced the publication of emails he had not
yet seen, and which he was obtaining from a source of murky provenance? And are we further to
suppose that Wikileaks could have processed 20K emails and 20K attachments to insure their
genuineness in a period of only several days? As you will recall, Wikileaks subsequently took
a number of weeks to process the Podesta emails they released in October.
And another peculiarity merits attention. Assange did not state on June 12th that he was
releasing DNC emails – and yet Crowdstrike and the Guccifer 2.0 personna evidently knew
that this was in store. A likely resolution of this conundrum is that US intelligence had
been monitoring all communications to Wikileaks, and had informed the DNC that their hacked
emails had been offered to Wikileaks. A further reasonable prospect is that US intelligence
subsequently unmasked the leaker to the DNC; as Assange has strongly hinted, this likely was
Seth Rich. This could explain Rich's subsequent murder, as Rich would have been in a position
to unmask the Guccifer 2.0 hoax and the entire Russian hacking narrative.
Curious that Assange has Not explicitly stated that the leaker was Seth Rich, if it was,
as this would take pressure from himself and incriminate the DNC in the murder of Rich.
Perhaps he doesn't know, and has the honor not to take the opportunity, or perhaps he knows
that it was not Rich.
View the Dutch TV interview with Asssange and there is another interview available on
youtube in which Assange DOES subtly confirmed it was Seth Rich.
Assange posted a $10,000 reward for Seth Rich's murders capture.
Abby , March 13, 2019 at 10:11 pm
Another mistaken issue with the "Russia hacked the DNC computers on Trump's command" is
that he never asked Russia to do that. His words were, "Russia if you 'find' Hillary's
missing emails let us know." He said that after she advised congress that she wouldn't be
turning in all of the emails they asked for because she deleted 30,000 of them and said that
they were personal.
But if Mueller or the FBI wants to look at all of them they can find them at the NYC FBI
office because they are on Weiner's laptop. Why? Because Hillary's aid Huma Abedin, Weiner's
wife sent them to it. Just another security risk that Hillary had because of her private
email server. This is why Comey had to tell congress that more of them had been found 11 days
before the election. If Comey hadn't done that then the FBI would have.
But did Comey or McCabe look at her emails there to see if any of them were classified? No
they did not do that. And today we find out that Lisa Page told congress that it was Obama's
decision not to charge Hillary for being grossly negligent on using her private email server.
This has been known by congress for many months and now we know that the fix was always in
for her to get off.
robert e williamson jr , March 13, 2019 at 3:26 pm
I want to thank you folks at VIPS. Like I have been saying for years now the relationship
between CIA, NSA and DOJ is an incestuous one at best. A perverse corrupted bond to control
the masses. A large group of religious fanatics who want things "ONE WAY". They are the
facilitators for the rogue government known as the "DEEP STATE"!
Just ask billy barr.
More truth is a very good thing. I believe DOJ is supporting the intelligence community
because of blackmail. They can't come clean because they all risk doing lots of time if a new
judicial mechanism replaces them. We are in big trouble here.
Apparently the rule of law is not!
You folks that keep claiming we live in the post truth era! Get off me. Demand the truth
and nothing else. Best be getting ready for the fight of your lives. The truth is you have to
look yourself in the mirror every morning, deny that truth. The claim you are living in the
post truth era is an admission your life is a lie. Now grab a hold of yourself pick a
dogdamned side and stand for something,.
Thank You VIPS!
Joe Tedesky , March 13, 2019 at 2:58 pm
Hats off to the VIP's who have investigated this Russian hacking that wasn't a hacking for
without them what would we news junkies have otherwise to lift open the hood of Mueller's
never ending Russia-gate investigation. Although the one thing this Russia-gate nonsense has
accomplished is it has destroyed with our freedom of speech when it comes to how we citizens
gather our news. Much like everything else that has been done during these post 9/11 years of
continual wars our civil rights have been marginalized down to zero or, a bit above if that's
even still an argument to be made for the sake of numbers.
Watching the Manafort sentencing is quite interesting for the fact that Manafort didn't
conclude in as much as he played fast and loose with his income. In fact maybe Manafort's
case should have been prosecuted by the State Department or, how about the IRS? Also wouldn't
it be worth investigating other Geopolitical Rain Makers like Manafort for similar crimes of
financial wrongdoing? I mean is it possible Manafort is or was the only one of his type to do
such dishonest things? In any case Manafort wasn't charged with concluding with any Russians
in regard to the 2016 presidential election and, with that we all fall down.
I guess the best thing (not) that came out of this Russia-gate silliness is Rachel
Maddow's tv ratings zoomed upwards. But I hate to tell you that the only ones buying what Ms
Maddow is selling are the died in the wool Hillary supporters along with the chicken-hawks
who rally to the MIC lobby for more war. It's all a game and yet there are many of us who
just don't wish to play it but still we must because no one will listen to the sanity that
gets ignored keep up the good work VIP's some of us are listening.
Andrew Thomas , March 13, 2019 at 12:42 pm
The article did not mention something called to my attention for the first time by one of
the outstanding members of your commentariat just a couple of days ago- that Ambassador
Murray stayed publicly, over two years ago, that he had been given the thumb drive by a
go-between in D.C. and had somehow gotten it to Wikileaks. And, that he has NEVER BEEN
INTERVIEWED by Mueller &Company. I was blown away by this, and found the original
articles just by googling Murray. The excuse given is that Murray "lacks credibility ", or
some such, because of his prior relationship with Assange and/or Wikileaks. This is so
ludicrous I can't even get my head around it. And now, you have given me a new detail-the
meeting with Pompeo, and the complete lack of follow-up thereafter. Here all this time I
thought I was the most cynical SOB who existed, and now I feel as naive as when I was 13 and
believed what Dean Rusk was saying like it was holy writ. I am in your debt.
Bob Van Noy , March 13, 2019 at 2:33 pm
Andrew Thomas I'm afraid that huge amounts of our History post 1947 is organized and
propagandized disinformation. There is an incredible page that John Simpkin has organized
over the years that specifically addresses individuals, click on a name and read about
them. https://spartacus-educational.com/USAdisinformation.htm
Mark McCarty , March 13, 2019 at 4:18 pm
A small correction: the Daily Mail article regarding Murray claimed that Murray was given
a thumbdrive which he subsequently carried back to Wikileaks. On his blog, Murray
subsequently disputed this part of the story, indicating that, while he had met with a leaker
or confederate of a leaker in Washington DC, the Podesta emails were already in possession of
Wikileaks at the time. Murray refused to clarify the reason for his meeting with this source,
but he is adamant in maintaining that the DNC and Podesta emails were leaked, not hacked.
And it is indeed ludicrous that Mueller, given the mandate to investigate the alleged
Russian hacking of the DNC and Podesta, has never attempted to question either Assange or
Murray. That in itself is enough for us to conclude that the Mueller investigation is a
complete sham.
Ian Brown , March 13, 2019 at 4:43 pm
It's pretty astonishing that Mueller was more interested in Roger Stone and Jerome Corsi
as credible sources about Wikileaks and the DNC release than Craig Murray!
LJ , March 13, 2019 at 12:29 pm
A guy comes in with a pedigree like that, """ former FBI head """ to examine and validate
if possible an FBI sting manufactured off a phony FISA indictment based on the Steele Report,
It immediately reminded me of the 9-11 Commission with Thomas Kean, former Board member of
the National Endowment for Democracy, being appointed by GW Bush the Simple to head an
investigation that he had previously said he did not want to authorize( and of course bi
partisan yes man Lee Hamilton as #2, lest we forget) . Really this should be seen as another
low point in our Democracy. Uncle Sam is the Limbo Man, How low can you go?
After Bill and
Hillary and Monica and Paula Jones and Blue Dresses well, Golden Showers in a Moscow luxury
hotel, I guess that make it just salacious enough.
Mueller looks just like what he is. He
has that same phony self important air as Comey . In 2 years this will be forgotten.. I do
not think this hurts Trumps chances at re-election as much as the Democrats are hurting
themselves. This has already gone on way too long.
Mueller has nothing and he well knows it. He was willingly roped into this whole pathetic
charade and he's left grasping for anything remotely tied to Trump campaign officials and
Russians.
Even the most tenuous connections and weak relationships are splashed across the mass
media in breathless headlines. Meanwhile, NONE of the supposed skulduggery unearthed by
Mueller has anything to do with the Kremlin "hacking" the election to favor Trump, which was
the entire raison d'etre behind Rosenstein, Brennan, Podesta and Mueller's crusade on behalf
of the deplorable DNC and Washington militarist-imperialists. It will be fascinating to
witness how Mueller and his crew ultimately extricate themselves from this giant fraudulent
edifice of deceit. Will they even be able to save the most rudimentary amount of face?
So sickening to see the manner in which many DNC sycophants obsequiously genuflect to
their godlike Mueller. A damn prosecutor who was likely in bed with the Winter Hill Gang.
Jack , March 13, 2019 at 12:21 pm
You have failed. An investigation is just that, a finding of the facts. What would Mueller
have to extricate himself from? If nothing is found, he has still done his job. You are a
divisive idiot.
Skip Scott , March 13, 2019 at 1:13 pm
Yes, he has done his job. And his job was to bring his royal Orangeness to heel, and to
make sure that detente and co-operation with Russia remained impossible. The forever war
continues. Mission Accomplished.
@Jack,
Keep running cover for an out of control prosecutor, who, if he had any integrity, would have
hit the bully pulpit mos ago declaring there's nothing of substance to one of the most
potentially dangerous accusations in world history: the Kremlin hacking the election. Last I
checked it puts two nuclear nation-states on the brink of potential war. And you call me
divisive? Mueller's now a willing accomplice to this entire McCarthyite smear and
disinformation campaign. It's all so pathetic that folks such as yourself try and mislead and
feed half-truths to the people.
Drew, you might enjoy this discussion Robert Scheer has with Stephen Cohen and Katrina
vanden Heuvel.
Realist , March 15, 2019 at 3:38 am
Moreover, as the Saker pointed out in his most recent column in the Unz Review, the entire
Deep State conspiracy, in an ad hoc alliance with the embarrassed and embarrassing Democrats,
have made an absolute sham of due process in their blatant witch hunt to bag the president.
This reached an apex when his personal lawyer, Mr. Cohen, was trotted out before congress to
violate Trump's confidentiality in every mortifying way he could even vaguely reconstruct.
The man was expected to say anything to mitigate the anticipated tortures to come in the
course of this modern day inquisition by our latter day Torquemada. To his credit though,
even with his ass in a sling, he could simply not confabulate the smoking gun evidence for
the alleged Russian collusion that this whole farce was built around.
Mueller stood with Bush as he lied the world into war based on lies and illegally spied on
America and tortured some folks.
George Collins , March 13, 2019 at 2:02 pm
QED: as to the nexus with the Winter Hill gang wasn't there litigation involving the
Boston FBI, condonation of murder by the FBI and damages awarded to or on behalf of convicted
parties that the FBI had reason to know were innocent? The malfeasance reportedly occurred
during Mueller time. Further on the sanctified diligence of Mr. Mueller can be gleaned from
the reports of Coleen Rowley, former FBI attorney stationed in Milwaukee??? when the DC FBI
office was ignoring warnings sent about 9/11. See also Sibel Edmonds who knew to much and was
court order muzzled about FBI mis/malfeasance in the aftermath of 9/11.
I'd say it's game, set, match VIPS and a pox on Clapper and the
complicit intelligence folk complicit in the nuclear loaded Russia-gate fibs.
Kiers , March 13, 2019 at 11:47 am
How can we expect the DNC to "hand it " to Trumpf, when, behind the scenes, THEY ARE ONE
PARTY. They are throwing faux-scary pillow bombs at each other because they are both
complicit in a long chain of corruptions. Business as usual for the "principled" two party
system! Democracy! Through the gauze of corporate media! You must be joking!
Skip Scott , March 13, 2019 at 11:28 am
"We believe that there are enough people of integrity in the Department of Justice to
prevent the outright manufacture or distortion of "evidence," particularly if they become
aware that experienced scientists have completed independent forensic study that yield very
different conclusions."
I wish I shared this belief. However, as with Nancy Pelosi's recent statement regarding
pursuing impeachment, I smell a rat. I believe with the help of what the late Robert Parry
called "the Mighty Wurlitzer", Mueller is going to use coerced false testimony and fabricated
forensics to drop a bombshell the size of 911. I think Nancy's statement was just a feint
before throwing the knockout punch.
If reason ruled the day, we should have nothing to worry about. But considering all the
perfidy that the so-called "Intelligence" Agencies and their MSM lackeys get away with daily,
I think we are in for more theater; and I think VIPS will receive a cold shoulder outside of
venues like CN.
I pray to God I'm wrong.
Sam F , March 13, 2019 at 7:32 pm
My extensive experience with DOJ and the federal judiciary establishes that at least 98%
of them are dedicated career liars, engaged in organized crime to serve political gangs, and
make only a fanatical pretense of patriotism or legality. They are loyal to money alone,
deeply cynical and opposed to the US Constitution and laws, with no credibility at all beyond
any real evidence.
Eric32 , March 14, 2019 at 4:24 pm
As near I can see, Federal Govt. careers at the higher levels depend on having dirt on
other players, and helping, not hurting, the money/power schemes of the players above
you.
The Clintons (through their foundation) apparently have a lot of corruption dirt on CIA,
FBI etc. top players, some of whom somehow became multi-millionaires during their civil
service careers.
Trump, who was only running for President as a name brand marketing ploy with little
desire to actually win, apparently came into the Presidency with no dirt arsenal and little
idea of where to go from there.
Bob Van Noy , March 13, 2019 at 11:09 am
I remember reading with dismay how Russians were propagandized by the Soviet Press
Management only to find out later the depth of disbelief within the Russian population
itself. We now know what that feels like. The good part of this disastrous scenario for
America is that for careful readers, disinformation becomes revelatory. For instance, if one
reads an editorial that refers to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, or continually refers to
Russian interference in the last Presidential election, then one can immediately dismiss the
article and question the motivation for the presentation. Of course the problem is how to
establish truth in reporting
Jeff Harrison , March 13, 2019 at 10:41 am
Thank you, VIPs. Hopefully, you don't expect this to make a difference. The US has moved
into a post truth, post reality existence best characterized by Karl Rove's declaration:
"we're an empire now, when we act, we create our own reality." What Mr. Rove in his arrogance
fails to appreciate is that it is his reality but not anyone else's. Thus Pompous can claim
that Guaido is the democratic leader in Venezuela even though he's never been elected .
Thank you. The next time one of my friends or family give me that glazed over stare and
utters anymore of the "but, RUSSIA" nonsense I will refer them directly to this article. Your
collective work and ethical stand on this matter is deeply appreciated by anyone who values
the truth.
Russiagate stands with past government propaganda operations that were simply made up out
of thin air: i.e. Kuwaiti incubator babies, WMD's, Gaddafi's viagra fueled rape camps, Assad
can't sleep at night unless he's gassing his own people, to the latest, "Maduro can't sleep
at night unless he's starving his own people."
The complete and utter amorality of the deep state remains on display for all to see with
"Russiagate," which is as fact-free a propaganda campaign as any of those just mentioned.
Marc , March 13, 2019 at 10:13 am
I am a computer naif, so I am prepared to accept the VIPS analysis about FAT and transfer
rates. However, the presentation here leaves me with several questions. First, do I
understand correctly that the FAT rounding to even numbers is introduced by the thumb drive?
And if so, does the FAT analysis show only that the DNC data passed through a thumb drive?
That is, does the analysis distinguish whether the DNC data were directly transferred to a
thumb drive, or whether the data were hacked and then transferred to a thumb drive, eg, to
give a copy to Wikileaks? Second, although the transatlantic transfer rate is too slow to fit
some time stamps, is it possible that the data were hacked onto a local computer that was
under the control of some faraway agent?
Jeff Harrison , March 13, 2019 at 11:12 am
Not quite. FAT is the crappy storage system developed by Microsoft (and not used by UNIX).
The metadata associated with any file gets rewritten when it gets moved. If that movement is
to a storage device that uses FAT, the timestamp on the file will end in an even number. If
it were moved to a unix server (and most of the major servers run Unix) it would be in the
UFS (unix file system) and it would be the actual time from the system clock. Every storage
device has a utility that tells it where to write the data and what to write. Since it's
writing to a storage device using FAT, it'll round the numbers. To get to your real question,
yes, you could hack and then transfer the data to a thumb drive but if you did that the dates
wouldn't line up.
Skip Scott , March 14, 2019 at 8:05 am
Jeff-
Which dates wouldn't line up? Is there a history of metadata available, or just metadata
for the most recent move?
David G , March 13, 2019 at 12:22 pm
Marc asks: "[D]oes the analysis distinguish whether the DNC data were directly transferred
to a thumb drive, or whether the data were hacked and then transferred to a thumb drive, eg,
to give a copy to Wikileaks?"
I asked that question in comments under a previous CN piece; other people have asked that
question elsewhere.
To my knowledge, it hasn't been addressed directly by the VIPS, and I think they should do
so. (If they already have, someone please enlighten me.)
Skip Scott , March 13, 2019 at 1:07 pm
I am no computer wiz, but Binney has repeatedly made the point that the NSA scoops up
everything. If there had been a hack, they'd know it, and they wouldn't only have had
"moderate" confidence in the Jan. assessment. I believe that although farfetched, an argument
could be made that a Russian spy got into the DNC, loaded a thumb drive, and gave it to Craig
Murray.
David G , March 13, 2019 at 3:31 pm
Respectfully, that's a separate point, which may or may not raise issues of its own.
But I think the question Marc posed stands.
Skip Scott , March 14, 2019 at 7:59 am
Hi David-
I don't see how it's separate. If the NSA scoops up everything, they'd have solid evidence
of the hack, and wouldn't have only had "moderate" confidence, which Bill Binney says is
equivalent to them saying "we don't have squat". They wouldn't even have needed Mueller at
all, except to possibly build a "parallel case" due to classification issues. Also, the FBI
not demanding direct access to the DNC server tells you something is fishy. They could easily
have gotten a warrant to examine the server, but chose not to. They also purposely refuse to
get testimony from Craig Murray and Julian Assange, which rings alarm bells on its own.
As for the technical aspect of Marc's question, I agree that I'd like to see Bill Binney
directly answer it.
The final Mueller report should be graded "incomplete," says VIPS, whose forensic work proves the speciousness of the story that
DNC emails published by WikiLeaks came from Russian hacking.
MEMORANDUM FOR: The Attorney General
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
SUBJECT: Mueller's Forensics-Free Findings
Executive Summary
Media reports are predicting that Special Counsel Robert Mueller is about to give you the findings of his probe into any
links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump.
If Mueller gives you his "completed" report anytime soon, it should be graded "incomplete."
Major deficiencies include depending on a DNC-hired cybersecurity company for forensics and failure to consult with those who
have done original forensic work, including us and the independent forensic investigators with whom we have examined the data. We
stand ready to help.
We veteran intelligence professionals (VIPS) have done enough detailed forensic work to prove the speciousness of the prevailing
story that the DNC emails published by WikiLeaks came from Russian hacking. Given the paucity of evidence to support that story,
we believe Mueller may choose to finesse this key issue and leave everyone hanging. That would help sustain the widespread belief
that Trump owes his victory to President Vladimir Putin, and strengthen the hand of those who pay little heed to the unpredictable
consequences of an increase in tensions with nuclear-armed Russia.
There is an overabundance of "assessments" but a lack of hard evidence to support that prevailing narrative. We believe that there
are enough people of integrity in the Department of Justice to prevent the outright manufacture or distortion of "evidence," particularly
if they become aware that experienced scientists have completed independent forensic study that yield very different conclusions.
We know only too well -- and did our best to expose -- how our former colleagues in the intelligence community manufactured fraudulent
"evidence" of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
We have scrutinized publicly available physical data -- the "trail" that every cyber operation leaves behind. And we have had
support from highly experienced independent forensic investigators who, like us, have no axes to grind. We can prove that the conventional-wisdom
story about Russian-hacking-DNC-emails-for-WikiLeaks is false. Drawing largely on the unique expertise of two VIPS scientists who
worked for a combined total of 70 years at the National Security Agency and became Technical Directors there, we have regularly published
our findings. But we have been deprived of a hearing in mainstream media -- an experience painfully reminiscent of what we had to
endure when we exposed the corruption of intelligence before the attack on Iraq 16 years ago.
This time, with the principles of physics and forensic science to rely on, we are able to adduce solid evidence exposing mistakes
and distortions in the dominant story. We offer you below -- as a kind of aide-memoire -- a discussion of some of the key
factors related to what has become known as "Russia-gate." And we include our most recent findings drawn from forensic work on data
associated with WikiLeaks' publication of the DNC emails.
We do not claim our conclusions are "irrefutable and undeniable," a la Colin Powell at the UN before the Iraq war. Our judgments,
however, are based on the scientific method -- not "assessments." We decided to put this memorandum together in hopes of ensuring
that you hear that directly from us.
If the Mueller team remains reluctant to review our work -- or even to interview willing witnesses with direct knowledge, like
WikiLeaks' Julian Assange and former UK Ambassador Craig Murray, we fear that many of those yearning earnestly for the truth on Russia-gate
will come to the corrosive conclusion that the Mueller investigation was a sham.
In sum, we are concerned that, at this point, an incomplete Mueller report will fall far short of the commitment made by then
Acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein "to ensure a full and thorough investigation," when he appointed Mueller in May 2017. Again,
we are at your disposal.
Discussion
The centerpiece accusation of Kremlin "interference" in the 2016 presidential election was the charge that Russia hacked Democratic
National Committee emails and gave them to WikiLeaks to embarrass Secretary Hillary Clinton and help Mr. Trump win. The weeks following
the election witnessed multiple leak-based media allegations to that effect. These culminated on January 6, 2017 in an evidence-light,
rump report misleadingly labeled "Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA)." Prepared by "handpicked analysts" from only three of
the 17 U.S. intelligence agencies (CIA, FBI, and NSA), the assessment expressed "high confidence" in the Russia-hacking-to-WikiLeaks
story, but lacked so much as a hint that the authors had sought access to independent forensics to support their "assessment."
The media immediately awarded the ICA the status of Holy Writ, choosing to overlook an assortment of banal, full-disclosure-type
caveats included in the assessment itself -- such as:
" When Intelligence Community analysts use words such as 'we assess' or 'we judge,' they are conveying an analytic assessment
or judgment. Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on
collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary High confidence in a judgment does not imply that the assessment
is a fact or a certainty; such judgments might be wrong."
To their credit, however, the authors of the ICA did make a highly germane point in introductory remarks on "cyber incident attribution."
They noted: "The nature of cyberspace makes attribution of cyber operations difficult but not impossible. Every kind of cyber
operation -- malicious or not -- leaves a trail." [Emphasis added.]
Forensics
The imperative is to get on that "trail" -- and quickly, before red herrings can be swept across it. The best way to establish
attribution is to apply the methodology and processes of forensic science. Intrusions into computers leave behind discernible physical
data that can be examined scientifically by forensic experts. Risk to "sources and methods" is normally not a problem.
Direct access to the actual computers is the first requirement -- the more so when an intrusion is termed "an act of war" and
blamed on a nuclear-armed foreign government (the words used by the late Sen. John McCain and other senior officials). In testimony
to the House Intelligence Committee in March 2017, former FBI Director James Comey admitted that he did not insist on physical access
to the DNC computers even though, as he conceded, "best practices" dictate direct access.
In June 2017, Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Richard Burr asked Comey whether he ever had "access to the actual hardware
that was hacked." Comey answered, "In the case of the DNC we did not have access to the devices themselves. We got relevant forensic
information from a private party, a high-class entity, that had done the work. " Sen. Burr followed up: "But no content? Isn't content
an important part of the forensics from a counterintelligence standpoint?" Comey: "It is, although what was briefed to me by my folks
is that they had gotten the information from the private party that they needed to understand the intrusion by the spring of 2016."
The "private party/high-class entity" to which Comey refers is CrowdStrike, a cybersecurity firm of checkered reputation and multiple
conflicts of interest, including very close ties to a number of key anti-Russian organizations. Comey indicated that the DNC hired
CrowdStrike in the spring of 2016.
Given the stakes involved in the Russia-gate investigation – including a possible impeachment battle and greatly increased tension
between Russia and the U.S. -- it is difficult to understand why Comey did not move quickly to seize the computer hardware so the
FBI could perform an independent examination of what quickly became the major predicate for investigating election interference by
Russia. Fortunately, enough data remain on the forensic "trail" to arrive at evidence-anchored conclusions. The work we have done
shows the prevailing narrative to be false. We have been suggesting this for over two years. Recent forensic work significantly strengthens
that conclusion.
We Do Forensics
Recent forensic examination of the Wikileaks DNC files shows they were created on 23, 25 and 26 May 2016. (On June 12, Julian
Assange announced he had them; WikiLeaks published them on July 22.) We recently discovered that the files reveal a FAT (File Allocation
Table) system property. This shows that the data had been transferred to an external storage device, such as a thumb drive,
before WikiLeaks posted them.
FAT is a simple file system named for its method of organization, the File Allocation Table. It is used for storage only and is
not related to internet transfers like hacking. Were WikiLeaks to have received the DNC files via a hack, the last modified times
on the files would be a random mixture of odd-and even-ending numbers.
Why is that important? The evidence lies in the "last modified" time stamps on the Wikileaks files. When a file is stored under
the FAT file system the software rounds the time to the nearest even-numbered second. Every single one of the time stamps in the
DNC files on WikiLeaks' site ends in an even number.
We have examined 500 DNC email files stored on the Wikileaks site. All 500 files end in an even number -- 2, 4, 6, 8 or 0. If
those files had been hacked over the Internet, there would be an equal probability of the time stamp ending in an odd number. The
random probability that FAT was not used is 1 chance in 2 to the 500th power. Thus, these data show that the DNC emails posted by
WikiLeaks went through a storage device, like a thumb drive, and were physically moved before Wikileaks posted the emails on the
World Wide Web.
This finding alone is enough to raise reasonable doubts, for example, about Mueller's indictment of 12 Russian intelligence officers
for hacking the DNC emails given to WikiLeaks. A defense attorney could easily use the forensics to argue that someone copied the
DNC files to a storage device like a USB thumb drive and got them physically to WikiLeaks -- not electronically via a hack.
Role of NSA
For more than two years, we strongly suspected that the DNC emails were copied/leaked in that way, not hacked. And we said so.
We remain intrigued by the apparent failure of NSA's dragnet, collect-it-all approach -- including "cast-iron" coverage of WikiLeaks
-- to provide forensic evidence (as opposed to "assessments") as to how the DNC emails got to WikiLeaks and who sent them. Well before
the telling evidence drawn from the use of FAT, other technical evidence led us to conclude that the DNC emails were not hacked over
the network, but rather physically moved over, say, the Atlantic Ocean.
Is it possible that NSA has not yet been asked to produce the collected packets of DNC email data claimed to have been hacked
by Russia? Surely, this should be done before Mueller competes his investigation. NSA has taps on all the transoceanic cables leaving
the U.S. and would almost certainly have such packets if they exist. (The detailed slides released by Edward Snowden actually show
the routes that trace the packets.)
The forensics we examined shed no direct light on who may have been behind the leak. The only thing we know for sure is that the
person had to have direct access to the DNC computers or servers in order to copy the emails. The apparent lack of evidence from
the most likely source, NSA, regarding a hack may help explain the FBI's curious preference for forensic data from CrowdStrike. No
less puzzling is why Comey would choose to call CrowdStrike a "high-class entity."
Comey was one of the intelligence chiefs briefing President Obama on January 5, 2017 on the "Intelligence Community Assessment,"
which was then briefed to President-elect Trump and published the following day. That Obama found a key part of the ICA narrative
less than persuasive became clear at his last press conference (January 18), when he told the media, "The conclusions of the intelligence
community with respect to the Russian hacking were not conclusive as to how 'the DNC emails that were leaked' got to WikiLeaks.
Is Guccifer 2.0 a Fraud?
There is further compelling technical evidence that undermines the claim that the DNC emails were downloaded over the internet
as a result of a spearphishing attack. William Binney, one of VIPS' two former Technical Directors at NSA, along with other former
intelligence community experts, examined files posted by Guccifer 2.0 and discovered that those files could not have been downloaded
over the internet. It is a simple matter of mathematics and physics.
There was a flurry of activity after Julian Assange announced on June 12, 2016: "We have emails relating to Hillary Clinton which
are pending publication." On June 14, DNC contractor CrowdStrike announced that malware was found on the DNC server and claimed there
was evidence it was injected by Russians. On June 15, the Guccifer 2.0 persona emerged on the public stage, affirmed the DNC statement,
claimed to be responsible for hacking the DNC, claimed to be a WikiLeaks source, and posted a document that forensics show
was synthetically tainted with "Russian fingerprints."
Our suspicions about the Guccifer 2.0 persona grew when G-2 claimed responsibility for a "hack" of the DNC on July 5, 2016, which
released DNC data that was rather bland compared to what WikiLeaks published 17 days later (showing how the DNC had tipped the primary
scales against Sen. Bernie Sanders). As VIPS
reported in a wrap-up
Memorandum for the President on July 24, 2017 (titled "Intel Vets Challenge 'Russia Hack' Evidence)," forensic examination of the
July 5, 2016 cyber intrusion into the DNC showed it NOT to be a hack by the Russians or by anyone else, but rather a copy onto an
external storage device. It seemed a good guess that the July 5 intrusion was a contrivance to preemptively taint anything WikiLeaks
might later publish from the DNC, by "showing" it came from a "Russian hack." WikiLeaks published the DNC emails on July 22, three
days before the Democratic convention.
As we prepared our July 24 memo for the President, we chose to begin by taking Guccifer 2.0 at face value; i. e., that the documents
he posted on July 5, 2016 were obtained via a hack over the Internet. Binney conducted a forensic examination of the metadata contained
in the posted documents and compared that metadata with the known capacity of Internet connection speeds at the time in the U.S.
This analysis showed a transfer rate as high as 49.1 megabytes per second, which is much faster than was possible from a remote online
Internet connection. The 49.1 megabytes speed coincided, though, with the rate that copying onto a thumb drive could accommodate.
Binney, assisted by colleagues with relevant technical expertise, then extended the examination and ran various forensic tests
from the U.S. to the Netherlands, Albania, Belgrade and the UK. The fastest Internet rate obtained -- from a data center in New Jersey
to a data center in the UK -- was 12 megabytes per second, which is less than a fourth of the capacity typical of a copy onto a thumb
drive.
The findings from the examination of the Guccifer 2.0 data and the WikiLeaks data does not indicate who copied the information
to an external storage device (probably a thumb drive). But our examination does disprove that G.2 hacked into the DNC on July 5,
2016. Forensic evidence for the Guccifer 2.0 data adds to other evidence that the DNC emails were not taken by an internet spearphishing
attack. The data breach was local. The emails were copied from the network.
Presidential Interest
After VIPS' July 24, 2017 Memorandum for the President, Binney, one of its principal authors, was invited to share his insights
with Mike Pompeo, CIA Director at the time. When Binney arrived in Pompeo's office at CIA Headquarters on October 24, 2017 for an
hour-long discussion, the director made no secret of the reason for the invitation: "You are here because the President told me that
if I really wanted to know about Russian hacking I needed to talk with you."
Binney warned Pompeo -- to stares of incredulity -- that his people should stop lying about the Russian hacking. Binney then started
to explain the VIPS findings that had caught President Trump's attention. Pompeo asked Binney if he would talk to the FBI and NSA.
Binney agreed, but has not been contacted by those agencies. With that, Pompeo had done what the President asked. There was no follow-up.
Confronting James Clapper on Forensics
We, the hoi polloi, do not often get a chance to talk to people like Pompeo -- and still less to the former intelligence
chiefs who are the leading purveyors of the prevailing Russia-gate narrative. An exception came on November 13, when former National
Intelligence Director James Clapper came to the Carnegie Endowment in Washington to hawk his memoir. Answering a question during
the Q&A about Russian "hacking" and NSA, Clapper said:
" Well, I have talked with NSA a lot And in my mind, I spent a lot of time in the SIGINT business, the forensic evidence
was overwhelming about what the Russians had done. There's absolutely no doubt in my mind whatsoever." [Emphasis added]
Clapper added: " as a private citizen, understanding the magnitude of what the Russians did and the number of citizens in our
country they reached and the different mechanisms that, by which they reached them, to me it stretches credulity to think they didn't
have a profound impact on election on the outcome of the election."
(A transcript of the interesting Q&A can be found
here and a commentary
on Clapper's performance at Carnegie, as well as on his longstanding lack of credibility, is
here .)
Normally soft-spoken Ron Wyden, Democratic senator from Oregon, lost his patience with Clapper last week when he learned that
Clapper is still denying that he lied to the Senate Intelligence Committee about the extent of NSA surveillance of U.S. citizens.
In an unusual outburst, Wyden said: "James Clapper needs to stop making excuses for lying to the American people about mass surveillance.
To be clear: I sent him the question in advance. I asked him to correct the record afterward. He chose to let the lie stand."
The materials brought out by Edward Snowden in June 2013 showed Clapper to have lied under oath to the committee on March 12,
2013; he was, nevertheless, allowed to stay on as Director of National Intelligence for three and half more years. Clapper fancies
himself an expert on Russia, telling Meet the Press on May 28, 2017 that Russia's history shows that Russians are "typically,
almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever."
Clapper ought to be asked about the "forensics" he said were "overwhelming about what the Russians had done." And that, too, before
Mueller completes his investigation.
For the steering group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity:
William Binney , former NSA Technical Director for World Geopolitical & Military Analysis; Co-founder of NSA's Signals
Intelligence Automation Research Center (ret.)
Richard H. Black , Senator of Virginia, 13th District; Colonel US Army (ret.); Former Chief, Criminal Law Division,
Office of the Judge Advocate General, the Pentagon (associate VIPS)
Bogdan Dzakovic , former Team Leader of Federal Air Marshals and Red Team, FAA Security (ret.) (associate VIPS)
Philip Girald i, CIA, Operations Officer (ret.)
Mike Gravel , former Adjutant, top secret control officer, Communications Intelligence Service; special agent of the
Counter Intelligence Corps and former United States Senator
James George Jatras , former U.S. diplomat and former foreign policy adviser to Senate leadership (Associate VIPS)
Larry C. Johnson , former CIA and State Department Counter Terrorism officer
John Kiriakou , former CIA Counterterrorism Officer and former senior investigator, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Karen Kwiatkowski , former Lt. Col., US Air Force (ret.), at Office of Secretary of Defense watching the manufacture
of lies on Iraq, 2001-2003
Edward Loomis , Cryptologic Computer Scientist, former Technical Director at NSA (ret.)
David MacMichael , Ph.D., former senior estimates officer, National Intelligence Council (ret.)
Ray McGovern , former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA analyst; CIA Presidential briefer (ret.)
Elizabeth Murray , former Deputy National Intelligence Officer for the Near East, National Intelligence Council & CIA
political analyst (ret.)
Todd E. Pierce , MAJ, US Army Judge Advocate (ret.)
Peter Van Buren , US Department of State, Foreign Service Officer (ret.) (associate VIPS)
Sarah G. Wilton , CDR, USNR, (ret.); Defense Intelligence Agency (ret.)
Kirk Wiebe , former Senior Analyst, SIGINT Automation Research Center, NSA
Ann Wright , retired U.S. Army reserve colonel and former U.S. diplomat who resigned in 2003 in opposition to the Iraq
War
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) is made up of former intelligence officers, diplomats, military officers
and congressional staffers. The organization, founded in 2002, was among the first critics of Washington's justifications for launching
a war against Iraq. VIPS advocates a US foreign and national security policy based on genuine national interests rather than contrived
threats promoted for largely political reasons. An archive of
VIPS memoranda is available at Consortiumnews.com.
Someone astute once said "history repeats itself--the first as tragedy and then as farce."
Oh, yes, it was Karl Marx in his Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon. Quite relevant to the
subject.
I have followed the beginning of the 2020 presidential campaign undecided whether to cry or
laugh. That is to say, I am undecided whether to view the unfolding season as a tragic or
farcical circumstance.
Of particular agony is the back-and-forth between President Trump and his sycophants on the
one side and the nominal Democratic wunderkind AOC (Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for those living
on another planet) on the other. Trumpers label her as a dangerous socialist and vow to defend
America against a resurgence of socialism. AOC returns the volley by declaring that she is,
indeed a socialist, and the socialistic redistribution of billionaire fortune is what's best
for the United States. Mainstream Democrats are terrified that AOC and her Millennial fans will
hijack the 2020 primary campaign and once again allow the Democrats to seize defeat from the
jaws of victory.
Between AOC and The Donald, I doubt that a single page of the writings of Karl Marx, V.I.
Lenin, or Mao Zedong have been read and digested.
There were serious revolutions in the 19th and early 20th century. Marx's writings on class
warfare, the theory of surplus value and related topics were once seriously studied and gave
some foundation to serious revolutionary thinkers. There were ferocious debates, particularly
in Bolshevik Soviet Union post-1917 that led to firing squads and other serious consequences.
Socialism in one country of Stalin versus permanent revolution of Trotsky was a core issue in
shaping world revolution in the 1930s. The Popular Front Against Fascism was Stalin's approach
to align with the United States and others to defeat the Nazis. 20 million Russians and 23
million Chinese died in the fight. 16 million Americans were sent to battle in Europe and the
Pacific during World War II. But the moment the war ended, the new Cold War started. It was a
struggle between Soviet Communism and Western Democracy, led by the United States. It had real
consequences. It led to the rise of what President Eisenhower warned of as the
"military-industrial complex" in his Farewell Address.
Relative to these genuine battles over ideas, I find the current debate worse than farce. If
the best that the two major parties can come up with in the upcoming presidential and
congressional elections is a debate over "socialism for dummies," then the real losers will be
the American people.
I hope this thread sparks some response. I am touching on a big subject in a few words. Is
there a genuine emergence of Millennial Socialism? AOC's self-proclaimed Green New Deal has
nothing to do with FDR's actions in 1933, which were aimed, in part, at preparing the United
States for the next war that was already looming in Europe. Reichstag Fire was February
27,1933.
FDR was inaugurated March 4, 1933--not even a week later. Serious times demand serious ideas
and rich debate. Not kindergarten name calling from the peanut gallery.
It's IMO merely an aspiration document. I totally agree it's unrealistic and potentially
catastrophic if suddenly implemented in the style of, say, one of Mao's 5-year plans. Yet
it's not completely without merit. The world is rapidly industrializing and the population
booming. At some point fossil fuels will become precious. There really are "green jobs", many
in infrastructure and that means some government involvement. Jobs jobs jobs.
We have too large a percentage of our capital just sloshing back and forth on Wall Street
casino tables IMO.
You mean when Senator Malarkey introduced that legislation he did not intend it to become the
law of the land? That says a great deal about the Senator. "aspiration" is just the twist the
Democratic party is using to continue to control the media narrative.
"We have too large a percentage of our capital... on Wall Street..."
How did it become "our capital" and why should the Federal government be telling me what I
can do with my own money?
Because "A hungry mon is an angry mon." The US model is one of government saving capitalism
both from and for the capitalists.
I understand some subscribe to the Ayn Rand notions of laissez faire capitalism, but I
know of no industrialized place on the world where that has worked out well. We went through
a Gilded Age ourselves, the result was not a happy one for most workers so we broke up the
trusts and redistributed the wealth. Worked out pretty well, and it was done by the very
generation being touted as heroes of capitalism now. Ike had a 90% tax rate on individual
incomes above a certain level, and he hardly did that alone. I suspect Ike wanted to make
damn sure the Daddy Warbucks of his previous war did not make him have to route hungry vets
protesting for their pay out of Washington's streets again, but I be guessing.
I hear a lot about "supply side" theories. That implies a false dichotomy, one must be
either a supply sider or something else. I'm a "both sider". Can't have a consumer economy
without consumers and so consumers must have money to spend. Can't have jobs without some
capital. I view assuming that it happens naturally in all cases as blind faith.
If I had to justify this constitutionally, I'd put it under "provide for the general
welfare' and "preserve domestic tranquility'.
The GND as introduced by AOC is indeed an aspirational document. It is a resolution rather
than a bill destined to become law. Compared to some of the GNDs put out by other groups over
the last few years, AOC's resolution is almost moderate. Almost, I still think going to net
zero carbon emissions in 10 years is a tall order.
We are subsidizing a lot of industries at the state and federal level. That in itself
smacks of socialist policies. If those subsidies were redirected to green industries we would
be well on the way to meeting a lot of the GND goals. Even without those subsidies, the auto
industry seems intent on moving to EP fleets at the expense of their fossil fuel fleets. And
coal as a fuel is going the way of the dodo bird.
"... Yang promises a universal entitlement, not dependent on income, that he calls a "freedom dividend." To be funded through a value added tax , Yang claims that it would reduce the strain on "health care, incarceration, homeless services, and the like" and actually save billions of dollars. Yang also notes that "current welfare and social program beneficiaries would be given a choice between their current benefits or $1,000 cash unconditionally." ..."
"... Yang is justifying the need for such a program because of automation . Again, VDARE.com has been exploring how automation may necessitate such a program for many years . Yang also discussed this problem on Tucker Carlson's show , which alone shows he is more open to real discussion than many progressive activists. ..."
"... Indeed, journalists, hall monitors that they are, have recognized that President Trump's online supporters are flocking to Yang, bringing him a powerful weapon in the meme wars. ..."
"... it is ominous for Trump that many of the more creative and dedicated people who formed his vanguard are giving up on him. ..."
Yang is a businessman who has worked in several fields, but was best known for founding
Venture for America , which helps college graduates become entrepreneurs.
However, he is now gaining recognition for his signature campaign promise -- $1,000 a month for every American.
Yang promises a
universal entitlement, not dependent on income, that he calls a "freedom dividend." To be funded through a
value added tax , Yang claims that it would
reduce the strain on "health care, incarceration, homeless services, and the like" and actually save billions of dollars. Yang also
notes
that "current welfare and social program beneficiaries would be given a choice between their current benefits or $1,000 cash unconditionally."
As Yang himself notes, this is not a new idea, nor one particularly tied to the Left. Indeed, it's been proposed by several prominent
libertarians because it would replace the far more inefficient welfare system.
Charles Murray called for
this policy in 2016. [ A
guaranteed income for every American, AEI, June 3, 2016]
Milton
Friedman suggested a similar policy in a 1968 interview with William F. Buckley, though
Friedman called it a
"negative income tax."
It's also been proposed by many nationalists, including, well, me. At the January 2013 VDARE.com Webinar, I
called for a "straight-up minimum income for citizens only" among other policies that would build a new nationalist majority
and deconstruct Leftist power. I've
retained that belief ever since and argued for it here for years.
However, I've also made the argument that it only works if it is for
citizens
only and is combined with a restrictive immigration policy. As I previously
argued in a piece attacking Jacobin'sdisingenuous
complaints about the "reserve army of the unemployed," you simply can't support high wages, workers' rights, and a universal
basic income while still demanding mass immigration.
Yang is also directly addressing the crises that the Trump Administration has seemly forgotten. Unlike Donald Trump himself, with
his endless boasting about "low black and Hispanic unemployment," Yang
has directly spoken about the demographic
collapse of white people because of "low birth rates and white men dying from
substance
abuse and suicide ."
Significantly, President Trump himself has never once specifically recognized the plight of white Americans.
...He wants to make
Puerto Rico a state . He
supports a path to citizenship for illegal
aliens, albeit with an 18-year waiting period and combined with
pledges to secure the border
and deport illegals who don't enroll in the citizenship program. He
wants to create a massive bureaucratic system to track
gun owners, restrict
gun ownership , and require various "training" programs for licenses. He wants to
subsidize local journalists with taxpayer
dollars...
... ... ...
Indeed, journalists, hall monitors that they are, have recognized that President Trump's online supporters are flocking to
Yang, bringing him a powerful weapon in the meme wars. (Sample meme at right.) And because many of these online activists are
"far right" by Main Stream Media standards, or at least Politically Incorrect, there is much hand-waving and wrist-flapping about
the need for Yang to decry "white nationalists." So of course, the candidate has dutifully done so, claiming "racism and white nationalism
[are] a threat to the core ideals of what it means to be an American". [
Presidential candidate
Andrew Yang has a meme problem, by Russell Brandom, The Verge, March 9, 2019]
But what does it mean to be an American? As more and more of American history is described as racist, and even national
symbols and the national anthem are targets for protest, "America" certainly doesn't seem like a real country with a real identity.
Increasingly, "America" resembles a continent-sized shopping mall, with nothing holding together the warring tribes that occupy it
except money.
President Trump, of course, was elected because many people thought he could reverse this process, especially by limiting mass
immigration and taking strong action in the culture wars, for example by promoting official English. Yet in recent weeks, he has
repeatedly endorsed more legal immigration. Rather than fighting, the president is content to brag about the economy and whine about
unfair press coverage and investigations. He already seems like a lame duck.
The worst part of all of this is that President Trump was elected as a response not just to the Left, but to the failed Conservative
Establishment. During the 2016 campaign, President Trump specifically
pledged to protect
entitlements , decried foreign wars, and argued for a massive infrastructure plan. However, once in office, his main legislative
accomplishment is a tax cut any other Republican president would have pushed. Similarly, his latest budget contains the kinds of
entitlement cuts that are guaranteed to provoke Democrat attack ads. [
Trump said he wouldn't cut Medicaid, Social Security, and Medicare . His 2020 budget cuts all 3, by Tara
Golshan, Vox, March 12, 2019] And the president has already backed down on withdrawing all troops from Syria, never mind Afghanistan.
Conservatism Inc., having learned nothing from candidate Donald Trump's scorched-earth path to the Republican nomination, now
embraces Trump as a man but ignores his campaign message. Instead, the conservative movement is still promoting the same tired slogans
about "free markets" even as they have appear to have lost an
entire
generation to socialism. The most iconic moment was Charlie Kirk, head of the free market activist group Turning Point USA, desperately
trying to tell his followers not to cheer for Tucker Carlson because
Carlson had suggested a nation should be treated like a
family, not simply a marketplace .
Thus, especially because of his cowardice on immigration, many of President Trump's most fervent online supporters have turned
on him in recent weeks. And the embrace of Yang seems to come out of a great place of despair, a sense that the country really is
beyond saving.
Yang has Leftist policies on many issues, but many disillusioned Trump supporters feel like those policies are coming anyway.
If America is just an economy, and if everyone in the world is a simply an American-in-waiting, white Americans might as well get
something out of this System before the bones are picked clean.
National Review ' s Theodore Kupfer just claimed the main importance of Yang's candidacy is that it will prove meme-makers
ability to affect the vote count "has been overstated" [
Rise of the pink hats,
March 12, 2019].
Time will tell, but it is ominous for Trump that many of the more creative and dedicated people who formed his vanguard
are giving up on him.
"... Warren could have easily gone either way, succumbing to the emotive demands of the Never Trump mob. She instead opted to stick to the traditional progressive position on undeclared war, even if it meant siding with the president. ..."
"... Bravo Congressman Khanna. And to those progs who share his sympathies with those of us who have consistently opposed US military adventurism. Howard Dean's comments that American troops should take a bullet in support of "women's rights" in Afghanistan (!) only underscores why he serves as comic relief and really should consider wearing tassels and bells. ..."
"... Trump – and Bernie – put their fingers on the electoral zeitgeist in 2016: the oligarchy is out of control, its servants in Washington have turned their backs on the middle class, and we need to stop getting into stupid, needless wars. ..."
"... "Principles", LOL? What principles? When have Democrats ever not campaigned on a "bring them home, no torture, etc" peace platform and then governed on a deep state neocon foreign policy, with entitlements to drone anyone on earth in Obama's case? At least horrible neocon Republicans are honest enough to say what they believe when they run. ..."
"... Hillary was full hawk. It was Trump who said he was less hawkish. Yeah, he hasn't lived up to that either. But Democrats can't go hawkish in response. They already were the hawks. ..."
When President Donald Trump announced in December that he wanted an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria, there was
more silence and opposition from the Left than approval. The 2016 election's highest-profile progressive, Senator Bernie Sanders,
said virtually nothing at the time. The 2018 midterm election's Left celeb, former congressman Beto O'Rourke, kept mum too. The 2004
liberal hero, Howard Dean, came out against troop withdrawals,
saying they would damage women's rights
in Afghanistan.
The liberal news outlet on which Warren made her statement, MSNBC, which had already been sounding more like Fox News circa 2003,
warned that withdrawal from Syria could hurt national security. The left-leaning news channel has even made common cause with Bill
Kristol and other neoconservatives in its shared opposition to all things Trump.
Maddow herself has not only vocally opposed the president's decision, but has become arguably more popular than ever with liberal
viewers by peddling
wild-eyed anti-Trump conspiracy theories worthy of Alex Jones. Reacting to one of her cockamamie theories, progressive journalist
Glenn Greenwald tweeted , "She is Glenn Beck
standing at the chalkboard. Liberals celebrate her (relatively) high ratings as proof that she's right, but Beck himself proved that
nothing produces higher cable ratings than feeding deranged partisans unhinged conspiracy theories that flatter their beliefs."
The Trump derangement that has so enveloped the Left on everything, including foreign policy, is precisely what makes Democratic
presidential candidate Warren's Syria withdrawal position so noteworthy. One can safely assume that Sanders, O'Rourke, Dean, MSNBC,
Maddow, and many of their fellow progressive travelers' silence on or resistance to troop withdrawal is simply them gauging what
their liberal audiences currently want or will accept.
Warren could have easily gone either way, succumbing to the emotive demands of the Never Trump mob. She instead opted to stick
to the traditional progressive position on undeclared war, even if it meant siding with the president.
... ... ...
Jack Hunter is the former political editor of Rare.us and co-authored the 2011 book The Tea Party Goes to Washington with
Senator Rand Paul.
The antiwar movement is not a "liberal" movement. Hundreds of mainly your people addressed the San Francisco board of supervisors
asking them to condemn an Israeli full-fledged attack on Gaza. When they were finished, without objection from one single supervisor,
the issued was tabled and let sink permanently in the Bay, never to be heard of again. Had the situation been reversed and Israel
under attack there most probably would have been a resolution in nanoseconds. Maybe even half the board volunteering to join the
IDF? People believed Trump would act more objectively. That is why he got a lot of peace votes. What AIPAC wants there is a high
probability our liberal politicians will oblige quickly and willingly. Who really represents America remains a mystery?
"That abiding hatred will continue to play an outsized and often illogical role in determining what most Democrats believe about
foreign policy."
True, but the prowar tendency with mainstream liberals ( think Clintonites) is older than that. The antiwar movement among
mainstream liberals died the instant Obama entered the White House. And even before that Clinton and Kerry and others supported
the Iraq War. I think this goes all the way back to Gulf War I, and possibly further. Democrats were still mostly antiwar to some
degree after Vietnam and they also opposed Reagan's proxy wars in Central America and Angola. Some opposed the Gulf War, but it
seemed a big success at the time and so it became centrist and smart to kick the Vietnam War syndrome and be prowar. Bill Clinton
has his little war in Serbia, which was seen as a success and so being prowar became the centrist Dem position. Obama was careful
to say he wasn't antiwar, just against dumb wars. Gore opposed going into Iraq, but on technocratic grounds.
And in popular culture, in the West Wing the liberal fantasy President was bombing an imaginary Mideast terrorist country.
Showed he was a tough guy, but measured, unlike some of the even more warlike fictitious Republicans in that show. I remember
Toby Ziegler, one of the main characters, ranting to his pro diplomacy wife that we needed to go in and civilize those crazy Muslims.
So it isn't just an illogical overreaction to Trump, though that is part of it.
Won't happen. Gabbard is solid and sincere but she's not Hillary so she won't be the candidate. Hillary is the candidate forever.
If Hillary is too drunk to stand up, or too obviously dead, Kamala will serve as Hillary's regent.
The problem isn't THAT Trump is pulling the troops out of Syria. The problem is HOW Trump is pulling the troops out of Syria.
The Left isn't fighting about 'keeping troops indefinitely in Syria' vs pulling troops out of Syria'. Its a fight over 'pulling
troops out in a way that makes it so that we don't have to go back in like Obama and Iraq' vs 'backing the reckless pull out Trump
is going to do'.
For Democrats, everything depends on what the polls say, which issues seem important to get elected. They will say anything,
no matter how irrational & outrageously insane if the polls say Democrat voters like them. If American involvement in Syria, Iraq,
Afghanistan are less important according to the polls, Democratic 2020 hopefuls will not bother to focus on it.
For True Christian conservatives, everything depends on how issues line up to God's laws. Polls do not change what is morally
right, & what is morally evil.
"I am glad Donald Trump is withdrawing troops from Syria. Congress never authorized the intervention."
Bravo Congressman Khanna. And to those progs who share his sympathies with those of us who have consistently opposed US
military adventurism. Howard Dean's comments that American troops should take a bullet in support of "women's rights" in Afghanistan
(!) only underscores why he serves as comic relief and really should consider wearing tassels and bells.
Kasoy: "For True Christian conservatives, everything depends on how issues line up to God's laws. Polls do not change what is
morally right, & what is morally evil."
I think that needs the trademark symbol, i.e True Christians™
The Second Coming of Jack Hunter. Given his well-documented views on race, it's no surprise he's all in on Trump. That surely
outweighs Trump's massive spending and corruption that most true libertarians oppose.
Trump – and Bernie – put their fingers on the electoral zeitgeist in 2016: the oligarchy is out of control, its servants in
Washington have turned their backs on the middle class, and we need to stop getting into stupid, needless wars.
Of course, the left would come out against puppies and sunshine if Trump came out for those things.
But if they are smart, they'd recognize that on war, or his lack of interest in starting new wars, even the broken Trump clock
has been right twice a day.
The flip side of this phenomenon is that so many Republican voters supported Trump's withdrawal from Syria. Had it been Obama
withdrawing the troops, I suspect 80-90% of Republicans would have opposed the withdrawal.
This does show that Republicans are listening to Trump more than Lindsey Graham or Marco Rubio on foreign policy. But once
Trump leaves office, I fear the party will swing back towards the neocons.
"Principles", LOL? What principles? When have Democrats ever not campaigned on a "bring them home, no torture, etc" peace
platform and then governed on a deep state neocon foreign policy, with entitlements to drone anyone on earth in Obama's case?
At least horrible neocon Republicans are honest enough to say what they believe when they run.
Dopey Trump campaigned on something different and has now surrounded himself with GOP hawks, probably because he's lazy and
doesn't know any better.
Bernie, much like Ron Paul was, 180 degrees away, is the only one who might do different if he got into office, and the rate
the left is going he may very well be the nominee.
Hillary was full hawk. It was Trump who said he was less hawkish. Yeah, he hasn't lived up to that either. But Democrats can't
go hawkish in response. They already were the hawks.
The least bad comment on Democrats is that everyone in DC is a hawk, not just them.
What the Strzok-Page 'insurance policy' text was actually about - The Washington Post
With the release of testimony from those two employees -- attorney Lisa Page and agent Peter
Strzok -- the "insurance policy" argument for the illegitimacy of the Russia investigation
gained new energy. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) tweeted a Fox News story about Page's testimony.
"This deserves more attention!" he wrote . "FBI Mistress, Lisa Page,
confirmed to House Judiciary, there was an anti-Trump Insurance Policy and it's the fake
Russian investigation! She admits there was almost no evidence on collusion, yet they continued
with WITCH HUNT!"
Trump tweeted Paul's message to
his followers, adding, "I agree with Rand Paul. This is a total disgrace and should NEVER
happen to another President!"
Yang is a businessman who has worked in several fields, but was best known for founding
Venture for America , which helps
college graduates become entrepreneurs. However, he is now gaining recognition for his
signature campaign promise -- $1,000 a month for every American.
ORDER IT NOW
Yang promises a
universal entitlement, not dependent on income, that he calls a "freedom dividend." To be
funded through a value added tax , Yang claims that
it would reduce the strain on "health care, incarceration, homeless services, and the like" and
actually save billions of dollars. Yang also
notes that "current welfare and social program beneficiaries would be given a choice
between their current benefits or $1,000 cash unconditionally."
As Yang himself notes, this is not a new idea, nor one particularly tied to the Left.
Indeed, it's been proposed by several prominent libertarians because it would replace the far
more inefficient welfare system. Charles Murray called for
this policy in 2016. [ A guaranteed income
for every American, AEI, June 3, 2016]
Milton Friedman suggested a similar policy in a 1968 interview with William F. Buckley,
though Friedman called
it a "negative income
tax."
It's also been proposed by many nationalists, including, well, me. At the January 2013
VDARE.com Webinar, I
called for a "straight-up minimum income for citizens only" among other policies that would
build a new nationalist majority and deconstruct Leftist power. I've
retained that belief ever since and argued for it here for years.
However, I've also made the argument that it only works if it is for citizens only and is combined with a restrictive immigration policy. As I previously
argued in a piece attacking Jacobin's
disingenuous complaints about the "reserve army of the unemployed," you simply can't
support high wages, workers' rights, and a universal basic income while still demanding mass
immigration.
Yang is also directly addressing the crises that the Trump Administration has seemly
forgotten. Unlike Donald Trump himself, with his endless boasting about "low black and Hispanic
unemployment," Yang has directly spoken about
the demographic collapse of white people because of "low birth rates and white men dying from
substance abuse and suicide ."
Significantly, President Trump himself has never once specifically recognized the plight of
white Americans.
Of course, Yang has foolish, even flippant policies on other issues. He wants to make Puerto
Rico a state . He supports a path to citizenship
for illegal aliens, albeit with an 18-year waiting period and combined with pledges
to secure the border and deport illegals who don't enroll in the citizenship program. He
wants to create a
massive bureaucratic system to track gun owners, restrict
gun ownership , and require various "training" programs for licenses. He wants to
subsidize local journalists with
taxpayer dollars, which in practice would mean just paying Leftist activists to dox people in
their communities.
(Though as some have pointed out, with a thousand dollars a month no matter what,
right-wingers wouldn't have to worry as much about being targeted by
journofa ).
Indeed, journalists, hall monitors that they are, have recognized that President Trump's
online supporters are flocking to Yang, bringing him a powerful weapon in the meme wars.
(Sample meme at right.) And because many of these online activists are "far right" by Main
Stream Media standards, or at least Politically Incorrect, there is much hand-waving and
wrist-flapping about the need for Yang to decry "white nationalists." So of course, the
candidate has dutifully done so, claiming "racism and white nationalism [are] a threat to the
core ideals of what it means to be an American". [ Presidential
candidate Andrew Yang has a meme problem, by Russell Brandom, The Verge,
March 9, 2019]
But what does it mean to be an American? As more and more of American history is
described as racist, and even national symbols and the national anthem are targets for protest,
"America" certainly doesn't seem like a real country with a real identity. Increasingly,
"America" resembles a continent-sized shopping mall, with nothing holding together the warring
tribes that occupy it except money.
President Trump, of course, was elected because many people thought he could reverse this
process, especially by limiting mass immigration and taking strong action in the culture wars,
for example by promoting official English. Yet in recent weeks, he has repeatedly endorsed more
legal immigration. Rather than fighting, the president is content to brag about the economy and
whine about unfair press coverage and investigations. He already seems like a lame duck.
The worst part of all of this is that President Trump was elected as a response not just to
the Left, but to the failed Conservative Establishment. During the 2016 campaign, President
Trump specifically pledged
to protect entitlements , decried foreign wars, and argued for a massive infrastructure
plan. However, once in office, his main legislative accomplishment is a tax cut any other
Republican president would have pushed. Similarly, his latest budget contains the kinds of
entitlement cuts that are guaranteed to provoke Democrat attack ads. [ Trump said he wouldn't cut Medicaid, Social Security, and Medicare . His 2020 budget
cuts all 3, by Tara Golshan, Vox, March 12, 2019] And the president has
already backed down on withdrawing all troops from Syria, never mind Afghanistan.
Conservatism Inc., having learned nothing from candidate Donald Trump's scorched-earth path
to the Republican nomination, now embraces Trump as a man but ignores his campaign message.
Instead, the conservative movement is still promoting the same tired slogans about "free
markets" even as they have appear to have lost an
entire generation to socialism. The most iconic moment was Charlie Kirk, head of the free
market activist group Turning Point USA, desperately trying to tell his followers not to cheer
for Tucker Carlson because Carlson had suggested a nation should be
treated like a family, not simply a marketplace .
Thus, especially because of his cowardice on immigration, many of President Trump's most
fervent online supporters have turned on him in recent weeks. And the embrace of Yang seems to
come out of a great place of despair, a sense that the country really is beyond saving.
Yang has Leftist policies on many issues, but many disillusioned Trump supporters feel like
those policies are coming anyway. If America is just an economy, and if everyone in the world
is a simply an American-in-waiting, white Americans might as well get something out of this
System before the bones are picked clean.
National Review ' s Theodore Kupfer just claimed the main importance of Yang's
candidacy is that it will prove meme-makers ability to affect the vote count "has been
overstated" [ Rise of the pink
hats, March 12, 2019]. Time will tell, but it is ominous for Trump that many of
the more creative and dedicated people who formed his vanguard are giving up on him.
In this interview with Colbert, Tulsi Gabbard discussed what should be one of the biggest scandals of the 21st century
-- war in Syria and support of jihadists by the USA government
Tulsi demonstrated again "courage under fire". Evidently hostile Colbert is a more dangerous opponent then Megan McCain, even if
he asked basically the same questions. His popularity adds to the weight of the questions. .
Notable quotes:
"... America is not the "policeman of the world". It is the military enforcer of its multinational corporations. ..."
"... Oh my God Colbert. Hack and establishment stooge. Embarrassing line of questioning. ..."
"... They ALL try to pin her on Syria, Assad, how can she be non-interventionist and still support the military, etc etc etc. ..."
"... It's SERIOUSLY as though they're all reading from the same exact script verbatim. Someone could put together a soundbyte of all of the different anchors asking the same questions sycnhronized I bet. ..."
"... @Animus Nocturnus the same recycled questions about meeting Assad she has answered 1000 times before isnt journalism. Journalism is what you need to get NEW information. ..."
"... T his is just one hack beating the war drum. ( dog whistling I believe the new term is) and pushing American exceptionalism ..."
"... Wow.... Colbert is being quite the little imperialist! Thanks for nothing Colbert. ..."
"... Colbert did the Clintons bidding, again ... he tried to ambush Tulsi, but Tulsi was too good, and also right! I'm with Tulsi. I donated, and I want the USA to be involved in the world too, to be a force for good. GO TULSI GABBARD!! ..."
In this rare mainstream interview,
@
TulsiGabbard discussed what should
be one of the biggest scandals of the 21st century (which Colbert has never mentioned on his show):
In its war on Syria, the US armed and trained far-right Salafi-jihadist rebels, empowering al-Qaeda and ISIS
Yea Colbert is
bought and paid for by his NBC/corporate masters, anti-war pro peace is not allowed, we spend $700 billion dollars a year on
the military. They will smear anyone who tries to stop that gravy train and he's one of their puppets that does that
smearing.
8
Actually, that
was a great line of questioning. Instead of the wish-wash "how are you, how are the kids, what did you ate today"
bullshit, he asked real questions and she was able to give real answers. That's what journalism should look like, and
how people running for high government jobs should be interviewed.
Those are jobs that require people who know their
stuff instead of entertainers.
And you will only know about how the people runnig for those jobs will conduct
themselves if they get asked tough questions. And she did a great job answering those questions.
MawcDrums, 6 hours ago (edited)
@Animus Nocturnus
The thing is they "sound like" real questions, BUT, and this is a HUGE but, they
are the EXACT SAME questions she has received from every other mainstream media interview I've seen with her.
They ALL try to pin her on Syria, Assad, how can she be non-interventionist
and still support the military, etc etc etc.
And then some cute jab about Hawaii as if to say "Sorry about that". It's
despicable and it's happening to Bernie and all of the true progressive candidates (AOC as well).
It's SERIOUSLY as though they're all reading from the same exact script
verbatim. Someone could put together a soundbyte of all of the different anchors asking the same questions sycnhronized I bet.
dirtcom7, 4 hours ago
@Animus Nocturnus the same recycled questions about meeting Assad she has
answered 1000 times before isnt journalism. Journalism is what you need to get NEW information. Hence the NEWS.
This is just one hack beating the war drum. ( dog whistling I believe the
new term is) and pushing American exceptionalism
Ron Widelec, 23 hours ago
Wow.... Colbert is being quite the little imperialist! Thanks for nothing
Colbert.
Jesse Prevallet, 1 day ago
Colbert,
if you had any of your 3 kids serving in the military right now, you would not be
such a mouthpiece for the empire. Grow a spine and ask a real question instead of these CIA lapdog questions
Robert S, 23 hours ago
Colbert did the Clintons bidding, again ... he tried to ambush Tulsi, but
Tulsi was too good, and also right! I'm with Tulsi. I donated, and I want the USA to be involved in the world too, to be a force
for good. GO TULSI GABBARD!!
"... If the government can change the designation of Wikileaks from being a news organization (Obama Administration's designation of Wikileaks) to a 'hostile intelligence service' (Trump Administration's designation), then any entity – online and offline – is in danger of being designated a hostile intelligence agency if they carry out investigative reporting that the US government or a particular administration considers to be hostile to itself. ..."
"... This will have a chilling effect on investigative reporting of powerful government agencies or officials, including the president, intelligence agencies, etc. This is a serious breach of our constitutional freedoms and every American – Democrat, Republican or Independent – must stand up against it." ..."
"... This is a follow-up to similar statements she's made about WikiLeaks before. During an event in New Hampshire, she said the stolen information that WikiLeaks published had "spurred necessary change." During her Concord meet and greet she said: "Obviously the information that has been put out has exposed a lot of things that have been happening that the American people were not aware of and have spurred some necessary change there." ..."
If the government can change the designation of Wikileaks from being a news organization (Obama Administration's designation
of Wikileaks) to a 'hostile intelligence service' (Trump Administration's designation), then any entity – online and offline –
is in danger of being designated a hostile intelligence agency if they carry out investigative reporting that the US government
or a particular administration considers to be hostile to itself.
This will have a chilling effect on investigative reporting of powerful government agencies or officials, including the
president, intelligence agencies, etc. This is a serious breach of our constitutional freedoms and every American – Democrat,
Republican or Independent – must stand up against it."
... ... ...
You can see her Facebook post and the responses below.
... ... ...
This is a follow-up to similar statements she's made about WikiLeaks before. During an event in New Hampshire, she said the
stolen information that WikiLeaks published had "spurred necessary change." During her Concord meet and greet she said: "Obviously
the information that has been put out has exposed a lot of things that have been happening that the American people were not aware
of and have spurred some necessary change there."
Her response was an answer to a question about President Donald Trump's administration seeking to prosecute Julian Assange. Just
this week, Chelsea Manning was jailed for not
answering questions from a grand jury about Assange. She refused to testify before a grand jury investigation regarding WikiLeaks,
AP shared . She said she objected to the secrecy
of the grand jury process and had already shared everything that she knows. Because prosecutors granted her immunity for her testimony,
she said she couldn't invoke the Fifth Amendment to defend her right not to speak.
The emails from the DNC shared by WikiLeaks did indeed ultimately bring about some changes, including lesser power to superdelegates
in 2020. Donna Brazile, former DNC chairwoman, has said that the DNC primary in 2016 was "rigged" against Bernie Sanders. Brazile
herself had even leaked some debate questions to Hillary Clinton before her debate with Sanders. Brazile has said that the DNC worked
closely with Clinton's campaign in 2016 because it needed the money, and Debbie Wasserman Schultz let Clinton's campaign help cover
the DNC's debt in exchange for some level of control,
the Miami Herald reported
. The DNC is supposed to be impartial during Democratic presidential primaries, but Brazile said that was not the case.
... ... ...
In July 2016, Wasserman Schultz stepped down as chair of the DNC after WikiLeaks published DNC emails that showed the organization
strongly favored Clinton over Sanders during the primary. Brazile briefly served as interim chair before Tom Perez took over.
I asked and demanded Debbie Wasserman Schultz's resignation many, many months ago and I state that again. I don't think she
is qualified to be the chair of the DNC. Not only for these awful emails which revealed the prejudice of the DNC, but also because
we need a party that reaches out to working people and young people and I don't think her leadership style is doing that."
However, DWS was allowed to resign after the 2016 Convention, which angered some. Meanwhile, Clinton praised DWS and gave her
an honorary position on her campaign.
... ... ...
One of the emails that WikiLeaks leaked showed
a letter from Darnell Strom and Michael Kives to Tulsi Gabbard, saying they were very disappointed that she had resigned from the
DNC to endorse Bernie Sanders. The email read in part: "For you to endorse a man who has spent almost 40 years in public office with
very few accomplishments, doesn't fall in line with what we previously thought of you. Hillary Clinton will be our party's nominee
and you standing on ceremony to support the sinking Bernie Sanders ship is disrespectful to Hillary Clinton. A woman who has spent
the vast majority of her life in public service and working on behalf of women, families, and the underserved. You have called both
myself and Michael Kives before about helping your campaign raise money, we no longer trust your judgement so will not be raising
money for your campaign "
She doesn't have a policy ready yet on the issue, and it is an important one she needs to
address better than this. FWIW, she follows Wikileaks on Twitter and she is critical of the
Deep State- which is better than Bernie Sanders. It matters to me and most Americans, I
believe, that she would not pursue Julian Assange. It also matters that she believes in very
strong progressive taxation. Top marginal rate over a million needs to start at 50 percent.
Progressively increase the rate so it becomes impossible to become a billionare. This is
about fairness and making sure that a single person does not have control of that many
resources. I prefer to talk about resource distribution instead of wealth
inequality.
Tulsi is the bravest candidate for standing against war!! This should indeed be our first
consideration. Please donate to her effort, even if it's just $5!! She needs 65,000 donations
from different people in at least 30 states!! Please donate!! Go Tulsi!!!
Donated! - For once let's say 'No Wars', 'Yes to health care', 'Yes we like to spend our
$s here in the U S of A', 'Let's free ourselves from Employer health care bondage!'. Why not
divert billions of dollars that feed wars go to our health care, our schools. And yes to
retrain those people whom current system is forcing to go back into tunnels and dig dirt to
make money. America is great when her people are living great lives! -- Why not make funds
available to retrain these wonderful people in jobs above ground? Do you know the risks to
health working underground? At minimum you must heard of Radon gas in basements, right?
causes cancer. And basements are only a few feet deep!. Come on people do you really want
this work for your children and their children? no you do not. You deserve to have shot at
good life, a healthy shot!
Nikki2 comment on Youtube: "GUYS! Tulsi needs 65,000 individual donations to get into the
debates. Even if she's not your #1 candidate, please donate a small amount so she can bring the
foreign policy/regime change conversation to the debates"
@ChuckOrloski
Chelsea Manning is imprisoned (from the article you cited) "for refusing to testify in front
of a secretive Grand Jury." The regime is after Julian Assange, so they're trying to squeeze
Manning. Not happening!
"Three companies have vast power over our economy and our democracy. Facebook, Amazon, and
Google," read the ads which began to run on Friday, According to Politico
. "We all use them. But in their rise to power, they've bulldozed competition, used our private
information for profit, and tilted the playing field in their favor."
As these companies have grown larger and more powerful, they have used their resources and
control over the way we use the Internet to squash small businesses and innovation , and
substitute their own financial interests for the broader interests of the American people. To
restore the balance of power in our democracy, to promote competition, and to ensure that the
next generation of technology innovation is as vibrant as the last, it's time to break up our
biggest tech companies. -Elizabeth Warren
Facebook confirmed with Politico that the ads had been taken down and said said the
company is reviewing the matter. "The person said, according to an initial review, that the
removal could be linked to the company's policies about using Facebook's
brand in posts ."
Around a dozen other ads placed by Warren were not affected.
"... He apparently still sees neoliberalism as way to "control capitalism's worst tendencies," when in fact neoliberalism is capitalism on steroids. In other words, he's completely lost. ..."
"... Black seems to be seeing a change of heart where there is simply a temporary surrender until the coalition of " neoliberal shills" can infiltrate and then overthrow again the "left policies that are bound to lead to destruction". ..."
"... And he seems to be blaming the blue dogs for not drumming into the plebs' heads that the former Presidents' (Clinton/Obama's) policy were great in order that the coalition grew. This was not a mea culpa. It was Delong's realistic strategy outline for neoliberal's continuance. And perhaps, a thinly veiled request for a policy position for himself or his son in any new lefty administration. ..."
"... Wasn't DeLong the economist so threatened to kneecap any academic economist and policy wonk who went against Hillary in the last election? He sounds practically mafiaso in this post . ..."
"... It's hard to take DeLong seriously. Contrary to what he says, the GOP and Dems have worked closely and successfully to implement neo-liberalism in America. ..."
"... My feeling is DeLong and the neo-liberal donor class are already conceding the 2020 election; seeing it as a repeat of the 1984 Mondale debacle. They want the young socialist side of the Democratic Party to take the blame, so in 2024 the donor class can run a candidate pushing new and improved neo-liberalism. Trump seems to be making the same calculation as he moves away from his populist/nationalist policies to become just another in a long line of Koch brother GOP neo-liberal stooges. ..."
"... Brad DeLong is brilliant, yet pushed the magical thinking of neoliberalism for 30 years. Am I missing something here? ..."
"... the university professors, who teach but do not learn. ..."
"... But when it came to Hillary running for President in 2016, DeLong fell in line and endorsed her, despite HRC's bad ("complete flop"?) decisions along the way as Senator and SOS (Honduras, Libya, Iraq, Syria and Ukraine, Wall Street Speeches and Clinton Foundation grift). Can DeLong be trusted? ..."
MARC STEINER: So I mean, there's one quote that kind of sums up for me. When he
wrote: "Barack Obama rolls into office with Mitt Romney's healthcare policy, with John McCain's
climate policy, with Bill Clinton's tax policy, and George H.W. Bush's foreign policy. And did
George H.W. Bush, did Mitt Romney, did John McCain say a single good word about anything Barack
Obama ever did over the course of eight solid years? No f'n way he did not," is what he said.
Cleaned it up just a little bit. But that kind of sums up, in many ways, exactly what he was
saying.
BILL BLACK: Brad DeLong is brilliant. And he writes really well. And he has, in a
super short form, captured it exactly. All of Obama's key policies were the product of very
conservative views that are, on many economic fronts, literally to the right of these crazies
that are the Republicans who constitute the House and the Senate. And even when they're not to
the right of the crazies, they're way, way right, and they're inferior. Right? The progressive
policies are fundamentally superior. Market regulation is a terrible failure. It is
criminogenic.
I'll give you one example. He ends by saying wouldn't it be a wonderful thing if we could
use cap and trade to create an incentive for, you know, 20-plus million people to do the right
thing? Because again, the neoliberal view is if they do the right thing they will get a profit.
See? It'll all be wonderful. They'll all do the right thing. Except that it's vastly easier on
something like cap and trade to do the wrong thing. To lie, to commit fraud about whether
you're actually reducing the pollution, and collect the fees. And so he doesn't realize, still,
I think, that we are incentivizing not 20 million people to do the right thing, but literally 2
billion people to do the wrong thing. And you know, often that will be the result, the wrong
thing.
MARC STEINER: So, two final questions here. So in this–what's moving ahead
here. Let me just posit this. So how did Democrats and the left respond to this? We're about to
see an MSNBC clip from the CPAC meeting that took place in D.C. last weekend. And this is
clearly going to be part of their major attack in the coming elections. Think about this vis a
vis the long road. Let's watch this.
TED CRUZ: Look, I think there's a technical description of what's going on, which is
that Democrats have gone bat crap crazy.
MIKE PENCE: That system is socialism.
SEBASTIAN GORKA: That is why Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has introduced the Green New
Deal. It's a watermelon. Green on the outside. Deep, deep red communist on the inside. They
want to take your pickup truck. They want to rebuild your home. They want to take away your
hamburgers. This is what Stalin dreamt about but never achieved.
MARC STEINER: So clearly this is going to be part of this strategy coming forth. I'm
thinking about the long road and how this fits in, because this clearly is going to be the
opposition, what they're going to start doing.
BILL BLACK: So literally, the watermelon guy, Gorka, is literally a Croatian
fascist.
MARC STEINER: No question. No question.
BILL BLACK: I mean the Ustase, the pro-Hitler Croatian fascists. So progressives
should take enormous comfort from Brad DeLong. He is one of the most influential economists. He
wasn't just a theorist. He actually was there designing and implementing these policies at the
most senior levels of the Clinton administration. And he says they are failures. They're
political failures and they're often economic failures. And he says the left is
composed–the progressive wing of the Democratic Party–of among the best people in
the world. Their policies are typically wonderful. Excellent for the world. We need to get
behind them. And the idea that we should continue to listen to the New Democrats, the Wall
Street Democrats, and take guidance from them, is preposterous; that they must exit the stage
and the baton must pass to the progressives to take the leadership role. And that they're doing
an excellent job of that, and should continue and expand that leadership
ok after reading the comments i'm discouraged again. delong isn't a signal of a sea change
of heart among neoliberals. but it's more friction for the neoliberals to cope with, and it
is useful politically. he did admit that the policies he had espoused were wrong, and that
the neoliberal view of the world was inaccurate. this isn't going to be easy for the krugmans
to ignore.
delong personally could be another david brock; time will tell, and how he responds to the
wave of criticism he will face from former colleagues.
DeLong gives a qualified support to MMT, saying that it's not foolproof but better than
the alternatives. As MMT-ers remind us, in political economy the policies are a different
matter.
Reminds me of a bit of physics theories, that an old one is retired when a newer theory
explains reality better. Except the old theorys were designed to conceal, not explain,
reality.
Thanks for this link. It was such a short, clear analysis. In econospeak it was like a
memo to a colleague. So Brad DeLong is on our list of good guys. How nice. The questions I am
left with are about the usefulness of interest rates at all, and I vaguely remember Randy
Wray saying stg. like 'interest rates should be kept very low to insure against inflation'
which makes sense. Interest rates themselves could be pushing bubbles. And then what exactly
are we talking about with the word "inflation"? I like (DeLong's or MMT's?) theory about
inflated assets (govt bonds here) – that prices stay within a balance because there are
fewer greater fools than we imagine. Maybe. But it might be nice to actually come up with a
better remedy if and when the SHTF. A fiscal means of adjusting the balance without harming
ordinary people. (MMT does this best.) The only method I know about is devaluing a currency
and keeping on as is. Nobody loses any value that way because more dollars balance out the
inflated values. But neoliberals are definitely batshit about currency devaluations. As if
money had some intrinsic value. Maybe it's just a trade thing – but if so, you'd think
it could be separated out from the rest of the uses of money. Maybe firewalls. So maybe I'll
read some more Brad. Thanks.
I'm not rejoicing about this, and having read the VOX interview, I don't quite understand
Steiner's and Black's enthusiasm. DeLong doesn't want to pass the baton at all -- he wants to
crapify valid and essential policies: expanded, improved Medicare for All, the Green New
Deal, MMT with a Job Guarantee, and a foreign policy not based on forever-wars. And that's
exactly what the neoliberals intend to do: crapification on a grand scale.
"Market-friendly neoliberals, rather than pushing their own ideology, should work to
improve ideas on the left. This, [DeLong] believes, is the most effective and sustainable
basis for Democratic politics and policy for the foreseeable future."
Hey, DeLong, listen up: expanded, improved Medicare for All, the Green New Deal, a federal
Job Guarantee, and a foreign policy (and defense budget) ending forever-wars are NOT ideas
that need improving. They ARE the improvements. Neoliberalism is dead, and we intend to bury
it.
No. It means argue with them, to the extent that their policies are going to be wrong and
destructive, but also accept that there is no political path to a coalition built from the
Rubin-center out. Instead, we accommodate ourselves to those on our left. To the extent that
they will not respond to our concerns, what they're proposing is a helluva better than the
poke-in-the-eye with a sharp stick. That's either Trumpist proposals or the current
status.
Basically he's saying we don't have the numbers and building a coalition with the right
hasn't worked, so now we should build one with the left. He's not actually saying the
progressive policies are better, just that they have a better chance of getting their agenda
forward with progressives than with conservatives.
The key to all of this from my perspective is they don't have the numbers. The American
empire is in accelerating decline. Every major system is broken and corrupt. Government can't
fix the problems. Populism elected Trump, and now voters will swing the other way looking for
the magic bullet. The corporatists choices are deliberate sabotage of the electoral system,
because good old fashioned corruption will no longer suffice, or capitulate to the left.
DeLong sounds like a trial balloon to me.
Read up on his Wikipedia entry and the following bit grabbed my attention-
"In 1990 and 1991 DeLong and Lawrence Summers co-wrote two theoretical papers that were
to become critical theoretical underpinnings for the financial deregulation put in place when
Summers was Secretary of the Treasury under Bill Clinton."
I would be very wary on any advice that he gives out myself.
He doesn't have to convince me, so it doesn't matter that he won't. But if he can convince
a few shaky Democrats on the less-right side that it's futile to try to reform the Republican
Party from within
Basically he's saying we don't have the numbers and building a coalition with the right
hasn't worked, so now we should build one with the left. He's not actually saying the
progressive policies are better, just that they have a better chance of getting their
agenda forward with progressives than with conservatives.
Exactly. He hasn't changed his neoliberal stripes. He in no way admits, or feels sorry
for, the incredible destruction neoliberal policies have wreaked on the masses here and
abroad. He apparently still sees neoliberalism as way to "control capitalism's worst
tendencies," when in fact neoliberalism is capitalism on steroids. In other words, he's
completely lost.
Although he has a wide audience and any change in his rhetoric can theoretically be
positive, there's no way he should be trusted. His change of opinion is not a substantive
change of heart. It's out of absolute necessity due to the incredible pressure exerted by
the grassroots. That pressure should never cease, or rest on its laurels, because the
Brad DeLong's of the world change their tune.
The thing to rejoice or be sad about is not whether DeLong abandons centrism and becomes a
leftist (or if you believe he has); it's whether the Left has a place at the table, which is
what he is acknowledging.
For years, the Centrists have ignored or hippy-punched the Left while bargaining with the
Right, which has pulled the Centrists ever-further to the right.
When a Centrist like DeLong says they should argue with the Left about lefty policies;
when he says Centrists should pass the baton to the Left, he is acknowledging they have power
now that must be reckoned with.
Acquiring enough power that the Establishment must treat with them should be the goal of
all people on the left. It's far more important than winning any specific election.
(Let's just skip over distinctions between 'left', 'liberal' and 'progressive' in reading
my comment. Those terms are entirely over-loaded and you can tell who I mean)
Forget "left," "right," and "progressive" and look at the actual policies that a group
brings to politics–that's where you will find what is best for the public. Try to list
T's policies and you will see what I mean.
I agree. Black seems to be seeing a change of heart where there is simply a temporary
surrender until the coalition of " neoliberal shills" can infiltrate and then overthrow again
the "left policies that are bound to lead to destruction".
Delong asserts that once these
neoliberal Econ policies work then this great coalition was going to feel less grinchy and
the trickling would indeed then have trickled. He blames the politics not the economics.
And
he seems to be blaming the blue dogs for not drumming into the plebs' heads that the former
Presidents' (Clinton/Obama's) policy were great in order that the coalition grew. This was
not a mea culpa. It was Delong's realistic strategy outline for neoliberal's continuance. And
perhaps, a thinly veiled request for a policy position for himself or his son in any new
lefty administration.
I'm not sure I agree with Prof. Black here either. Wasn't DeLong the economist so threatened to kneecap any academic economist and policy
wonk who went against Hillary in the last election? He sounds practically mafiaso in
this post .
"Mind you: The day will come when it will be time to gleefully and comprehensively trash
people to be named later for Guevarista fantasies about what their policies are likely to do.
The day will come when it will be time to gleefully and comprehensively trash people to be
named later for advocating Comintern-scale lying to voters about what our policies are like
to do. And it will be important to do so then–because overpromising leads to bad policy
decisions, and overpromising is bad long-run politics as well."
That doesn't seem like integrity to me. It appears to be more opportunistic. He'll happily
kick you whenever he thinks he can get away with it.
It's hard to take DeLong seriously. Contrary to what he says, the GOP and Dems have worked
closely and successfully to implement neo-liberalism in America. He cites ObamaCare? The GOP
pretended to be against it in order to win support from the less bright side of the political
left bell curve and to wean them away from things like the public option or single-payer. But
the GOP never went past Kabuki theatre to dismantle ObamaCare when they had the power to do
so.
DeLong gives no policy specifics outside of some boring carbon tax stuff. Will he support
protectionism? Single-payer? Nationalisation of Wall Street? Dismantling the US empire? Huge
punitive tax increases on the wealthy? These are all things the Democratic donor class (which
of course has a strong overlap with the GOP donor class) will never accept.
And what about ideas to deal with AI, deindustrialisation, automation, guaranteed income,
etc? And since neo-liberals are 100% committed to mass immigration policies that at the same
time increases total GDP but reduce per capita GDP; how will they react if progressive
finally wake up and realise that taking in millions of low skilled workers in a future where
demand for labour is radically reducing is a total recipe for disaster? Not to mention that
the welfare state they are proposing will be impossible without very strict immigration
policies, not to mention the terrible impact mass immigration has on the climate.
My feeling is DeLong and the neo-liberal donor class are already conceding the 2020
election; seeing it as a repeat of the 1984 Mondale debacle. They want the young socialist
side of the Democratic Party to take the blame, so in 2024 the donor class can run a
candidate pushing new and improved neo-liberalism. Trump seems to be making the same
calculation as he moves away from his populist/nationalist policies to become just another in
a long line of Koch brother GOP neo-liberal stooges.
The problem is that Trump's radical energy and ideas seduced many Americans who are now
disappointed with his decidedly low-energy accomplishments. Basically the only campaign
promises he kept were those he made to the Israel lobby. Now Trump is conceding the high
energy and new idea ground to the Democratic left. He is switching from radical to
establishment. This will open the door to say Bernie Sanders to win in 2020. But you can rest
assured that the most voracious opponents that Bernie will have to get past will be Brad
DeLong and the Democratic donor class when they realise this just might not be 1984 all over
again.
Brad DeLong is brilliant, yet pushed the magical thinking of neoliberalism for 30 years.
Am I missing something here? Is Bill Black patting him on the back because he's brilliant at
sophistry?
Back 15 years or so ago, I read DeLong's blog daily, trying to learn more economics than I
know. I quit because it didn't make any sense. I remember there being these broad principles,
but they had to be applied in a very narrow sense. One I remember vividly was DeLong's
objections to consumer boycotts of foreign goods to end abuse of workers. These boycotts are
counterproductive, he opined, and therefore you are just hurting the people you're trying to
help. You should just shop as normal. So, I presume he regarded it as all right for me to
choose products that are the color I want, the size I want, the whatever I want, except for
the way it's produced I want. He did not like considerations of right and wrong among the
people.
DeLong has always been among the most thoughtful of centrists. He reminds me of people I
know who are instinctively quite left wing but who's instincts are even stronger to stay
within their own particular establishment circle and to side with the winners. Back in the
1990's I knew a few formerly left Labour supporters who became cautious Blairites (or at
least Brownites). Some were opportunists of course, but some put it simply – 'I'm tired
of losing. The reality is that a pure left wing government will not get elected under current
conditions, we've proved this over decades. The only way we can protect the poor and
vulnerable is to make peace with at least some of the capitalists, and remake ourselves as
the party of growth and stability. If we can achieve growth, we can funnel as much as
possible as this to the poor'.
What he seems to be saying is that the left wing analysis (economically and politically)
is at least as intellectually tenable as those in the Centre and right, even if he has his
doubts. He is honest enough to know that the political strategy of making common cause with
'moderate' Republicans hasn't worked and won't work. And he doesn't see 'the Left' as any
worse than so called moderates or centre right (which of course distinguishes him from many
Dems). So he is seeing the way the wind is blowing and is tacking that way. Essentially, he
is recognising that the Overton Window is shifting rapidly to the left, and as a good
centrist, he's following wherever the middle might be.
Whatever you think of his motivations (and from my reading over the years of his writings
I think he has a lot more integrity than most of his colleagues. and is also very smart), the
reality is that a successful left wing movement will need establishment figures like him to
be 'on board'. Of course, they'll do their best to grab the steering wheel – the task
is to keep them on board without allowing them to do that.
The 'first step' is to admit you have a problem, and it's obvious that those of us
who self-identify as progressives, if not socialists, have taken that step, admitting that as
democrats, we have a problem.
The eleven-dimension game that we were sold, and that we so wishfully believed in, turned
out to be a massive delusion, and ultimately an empty promise on the part of the democratic
leadership.
The ' powder ' was kept dry, but ultimately stolen.
We were left defenseless, and became prey, and third-way democrats are the architects of
our collective loss.
I'm taking DeLong at his word.
He may be the exception that proves the rule, and the Clinton wing of the democratic party
may yet wrong-foot us, continue to mis-lead, and capitulate in the face of the enemy, but it
strikes me as totally to be expected that reality should eventually dawn on at least a few of
the folks responsible for the epic failures of democratic leadership.
I'm a big fan of that old saw, 'Lead, follow, or get out of the way' , democrats,
fearful after losing to the likes of Reagan, decided to follow, and now find themselves as
lost as the rest of us.
It doesn't strike me as totally impossible that a few of them might decide to ' get out
of the way ', if only to be able to face themselves in the mirror.
>MARC STEINER: You–do you think that the Wall Street Democrats, folks who are in
the investment world, along with the Chuck Schumers of the world, are going to acquiesce? ..
but are actually going to take seriously what DeLong said? -- -- -
>BILL BLACK: No, but that's because Brad DeLong has vastly more integrity than they do.
They know, however, that they've been conned, played, and they're absolute fools in the
game.
For as long as Black has been around, I would not expect him to argue that "Wall Street
Democrats" have been "conned, played, and they're absolute fools in the game". Democrats such as Schumer, HRC, and Obama are in on the con and are not "absolute
fools". They have the money and power to show that they were not working for chump change.
I agree. I see no evidence that people Wall Street/corporate Democrats have collectively
been "fooled" by Republicans. Take Obamacare for example, Obama mumbled some "facts" about
health-care briefly at the beginning of the process and never mentioned anything like how
much the US spends relative to other OECD countries which, with his bully-pulpit, he could
have done to create a more reasonable system. All he would have to have done is cite
statistics, studies, facts, facts, facts, facts about other health-care systems and the
obvious corruption, inefficiency or our own. He could easily have gotten some equivalent of
the "public option" or a more managed system like in continental Europe had he hammered away
at FACTS.
I don't think Obama ever had any intention of changing health-care from a profit-making
industry to a public utility like what the rest of the world enjoys. I don't think Obama ever
had any intention of being anything but a center-right (not a centrist) POTUS. I don't buy
into this "we were fooled" argument.
Guys like DeLong may have been fooled but I believe,
more likely (and I know the Washington milieu), he pulled the wool rather intensively over
his own eyes as many brilliant people did in the Clinton/Obama administrations because it was
a good career move. I don't, btw, believe this was directly and consciously a deliberate
plan–I believe it was something to do with a profound ignorance on the part of many if
not most Washingtonians (and indeed most intellectuals in the USA) of the role of the
unconscious in the psyche. I've seen it. A big player (a family friend) from the Clinton era
went into Big Pharma thinking he could "do good" and he was sincere about it. But I also knew
he liked money and the lifestyle that it brings–later he said that he was fooled after
six or seven years of lavish salaries.
I noticed that too. Black often strikes me as having a very crude framework that is either
naivete or (more likely imo) bad faith and intentional misleading. It's just too much of a
cartoon to be believed, even if (like me) you're not an insider who personally knows the
players (as Black does DeLong.)
Repubs are "crazies" while Progressives have "wonderful, superior" policies. Ok sure This
is not much more sophisticated thinking than team Red or team Blue that you get from your
Aunt Irene or somebody.
"TIME TO POUND MY HEAD AGAINST THE WALL ONCE AGAIN"
" My two cents' worth–and I think it is the two cents' worth of everybody who worked
for the Clinton Administration health care reform effort of 1993-1994–is that Hillary
Rodham Clinton needs to be kept very far away from the White House for the rest of her life.
Heading up health-care reform was the only major administrative job she has ever tried to do.
And she was a complete flop at it. She had neither the grasp of policy substance, the
managerial skills, nor the political smarts to do the job she was then given. And she wasn't
smart enough to realize that she was in over her head and had to get out of the Health Care
Czar role quickly."
But when it came to Hillary running for President in 2016, DeLong fell in line and
endorsed her, despite HRC's bad ("complete flop"?) decisions along the way as Senator and SOS
(Honduras, Libya, Iraq, Syria and Ukraine, Wall Street Speeches and Clinton Foundation
grift). Can DeLong be trusted?
Can't say whether DeLong can be trusted but I can imagine him remembering Keynes' famous
line about changing his opinion when new information becomes available. That said, I can not
imagine what new information may have come about, aside from Trump's unexpected wrecking of
main stream Republicans, that had him change his mind about HRC. Her truth has been evident
for decades and the more power she amassed over those years only made her truth ever more
execrable.
They know, however, that they've been conned, played, and they're absolute fools in the
game.
Thank you Mr. Black for the laugh this morning. They know exactly what they have been
doing. Whether it was deregulating so that Hedge funds and vulture capitalism can thrive, or
making sure us peons cannot discharge debts, or making everything about financalization. This
was all done on purpose, without care for "winning the political game". Politics is
economics, and the Wall Street Democrats have been winning.
For sure. I'm quite concerned at the behavior of the DNC leadership and pundits. They are
doubling down on blatant corporatist agendas. They are acting like they have this in the bag
when objective evidence says they do not and are in trouble. Assuming they are out of touch
is naive to me. I would assume the opposite, they know a whole lot more than what they are
letting on.
I think the notion that the DNC and the Democrat's ruling class would rather lose to a
like-minded Republican corporatist than win with someone who stands for genuine progressive
values offering "concrete material benefits." I held my nose and read comments at the kos
straw polls (where Sanders consistently wins by a large margin) and it's clear to me that the
Clintonista's will do everything in their power to derail Bernie.
Daily Kos is like a yoga session compared to all of the Obots and Clintonites on Balloon
Juice. One particular article "writer" there by the name of Annie Laurie is a textbook
example of said Clinton die-hards and she whips up all of her cohorts into a rabid,
anti-Sanders frenzy every time she posts.
Despite all of the complaining about Trump, I am sure that these neoliberals and
identitarians would pine for the days of his administration and pal around with ex-president
Trump much like they did with W. Bush. If Saint Harris or Saint Biden lose they will fail to
shield the take-over of the political leadership of the unwashed masses of ignorant peasants
who elected Sanders or Gabbard. Then places like Daily Kos and Balloon Juice will bemoan the
fact that we did not listen to those who know what is best for us lowly knaves.
Though I like Bill Black a lot–seems like a very hip guy and has done marvelous work
for many years. However, my father got his second master's degree in economics around
1961–he did it as a career move. Eventually when I got old enough he told me that the
field was "bullshit" and based on false assumptions about reality, however, the math worked
so everyone believed in the field. Economics, as I looked into it is, indeed, a largely
bullshit discipline that should never have been separated from politics or other fields.
We have a kind of fetishistic attitude towards "the economy" which is religious. "It's the
economy, stupid" is an example of this fetish. I've talked to economists who really believes
that EVERYTHING is a commodity and all motivations, interests, all come down to some kind of
market process. This is utterly false and goes directly against what we've learned about
social science, human motivation including happiness studies.
Economics also ignores history–people are motivated more by myth than by facts on
the ground. This is why neoliberals are so confused when their models don't work. Thomas
Frank described how Kansans favored policies that directly harmed them because of religious
and cultural myths–this is, in fact, true everywhere and always has been. We aren't
machines as economists seem to believe. All economists, particularly those who rely on "math"
to describe our society need to be sent to re-education camps.
Keynes' "animal spirits" and the "tragedy of the commons" (Lloyd, 1833 and Hardin, 1968)
both implied that economics was messier than Samuelson and Friedman would have us believe
because there are actual people with different short- and long-term interests.
The behavioral folks (Kahnemann, Tversky, Thaler etc.) have all shown that people are even
messier than we would have thought. So most macro-economic stuff over the past half-century
has been largely BS in justifying trickle-down economics, deregulation etc.
There needs to be some inequality as that provides incentives via capitalism but
unfettered it turns into France 1989 or the Great Depression. It is not coincidence that the
major experiment in this in the late 90s and early 2000s required massive government
intervention to keep the ship from sinking less than a decade after the great uregulated
creative forces were unleashed.
MMT is likely to be similar where productive uses of deficits can be beneficial, but if
the money is wasted on stupid stuff like unnecessary wars, then the loss of credibility means
that the fiat currency won't be quite as fiat anymore. Britain was unbelievably economically
powerfully in the late 1800s but in half a century went to being an economic afterthought
hamstrung by deficits after two major wars and a depression.
So it is good that people like Brad DeLong are coming to understand that the pretty
economic theories have some truths but are utter BS (and dangerous) when extrapolated without
accounting for how people and societies actually behave.
I never understood the incentive to make more money–that only works if money = true
value and that is the implication of living in a capitalist society (not
economy)–everything then becomes a commodity and alienation results and all the
depression, fear, anxiety that I see around me. Whereas human happiness actually comes from
helping others and finding meaning in life not money or dominating others. That's what social
science seems to be telling us.
I read DeLong's piece in an airport last Tuesday, so I may have missed something (or I may
have read an abridged version). But I think Steiner and Black read a little too much into
it.
I interpreted DeLong's statement essentially as saying now neoliberals will have to make
policy by collaborating with the left rather than the right. And I certainly didn't get the
sense he was looking to the left to lead, but instead how neoliberals could co-opt the left,
or simply be "freeloaders".
So the position is not that neoliberals should abandon their policy beliefs. It's that you
need to reorient your understanding of who your coalition is.
Brad DeLong
Yes, but that's also relevant to policy beliefs, right?
.
.
We need Medicare-for-all, funded by a carbon tax, with a whole bunch of UBI rebates for the
poor and public investment in green technologies.
.
How does Bernie fit in here? Ever?
We already are paying more for the medical care that is being provided than what single
lpayer will cost. I am so tired of the "How are you gonna pay for it" stuff. We already are,
it's just a question of what bucket it comes from.
True, but there still has to be a way of transferring the funds from the "private" bucket
to the "government" bucket. MMT is one way of doing that, but still not acknowledged as a
possibility by the PTB – except for the military, of course.
I'd rather see it taken out of the military, since that would be a good thing in itself,
and the carbon tax (merely one of many measures, of course) rebated and/or used specifically
to remediate climate deterioration. Rebating a carbon tax both protects it politically and
corrects the harm that would otherwise be done to poor people.
Take it out if the property taxes that Muni's have to use to insure all of their
employees.
Take it out of all the money that business pays to health insurance.
Cut the military budget in half and tell a few if the tributaries "You are on your own".
Cut the Navy in half and police only the Pacific.. tell Europe they are on the hook for the
Atlantic and Mediterranean.
Start there and you will get pretty close to $3 Trillion.
Quoting DeLong: " He says we are discredited. Our policies have failed. And they've failed
because we've been conned by the Republicans."
That's welcome, but it's still making excuses. Neoliberal policies have failed because the
economics were wrong, not because "we've been conned by the Republicans." Furthermore, this
may be important – if it isn't acknowledged, those policies are quite likely to come
sneaking back, especially if Democrats are more in the ascendant., as they will be, given the
seesaw built into the 2-Party.
Might be right there. Groups like the neocons were originally attached the the left side
of politics but when the winds changed, detached themselves and went over to the Republican
right. The winds are changing again so those who want power may be going over to what is
called the left now to keep their grip on power. But what you say is quite true. It is not
really the policies that failed but the economics themselves that were wrong and which, in an
honest debate, does not make sense either.
"And they've failed because we've been conned by the Republicans.""
Not at all. What about the "free trade" hokum that Deong and his pal Krugman have been
peddling since forever? History and every empirical test in the modern era shows that it
fails in developing countries and only exacerbates inequality in richer ones.
That's just a failed policy.
I'm still waiting for an apology for all those years that those two insulted anyone who
questioned their dogma as just "too ignorant to understand."
It's intriguing, but two other voices come to mind. One is Never Let a Serious Crisis Go
To Waste by Mirowski and the other is Generation Like by Doug Rushkoff. Neoliberalism is
partially entrepreneurial self-conceptions which took a long time to promote. Rushkoff's
Frontline shows the Youtube culture. There is a girl with a "leaderboard" on the wall of her
suburban room, keeping track of her metrics. There's a devastating VPRO Backlight film on the
same topic. Internet-platform neoliberalism does not have much to do with the GOP. It's going
to be an odd hybrid at best – you could have deep-red communism but enacted for and by
people whose self-conception is influenced by decades of Becker and Hayek? One place this
question leads is to ask what's the relationship between the set of ideas and material
conditions-centric philosophies? If new policies pass that create a different possibility
materially, will the vise grip of the entrepreneurial self loosen? Partially yeah, maybe, a
Job Guarantee if it passes and actually works, would be an anti-neoliberal approach to jobs,
which might partially loosen the regime of neoliberal advice for job candidates delivered
with a smug attitude that There Is No Alternative. (Described by Gershon). We take it
seriously because of a sense of dread that it might actually be powerful enough to lock us
out if we don't, and an uncertainty of whether it is or not.
There has been deep damage which is now a very broad and resilient base. It is one of the
prongs of why 2008 did not have the kind of discrediting effect that 1929 did. At least
that's what I took away from _Never Let_. Brad DeLong handing the baton might mean something
but it is not going to ameliorate the sense-of-life that young people get from managing their
channels and metrics.
Take the new 1099 platforms as another focal point. Suppose there were political measures
that splice in on the platforms and take the edge off materially, such as underwritten
healthcare not tied to your job. The platforms still use star ratings, make star ratings seem
normal, and continually push a self-conception as a small business. If you have overt DSA
plus covert Becker it is, again, a strange hybrid,
Your comment is very insightful. Neoliberalism embeds its mindset into the very fabric of
our culture and self-concepts. It strangely twists many of our core myths and beliefs.
Thanks Jeremy! Glad you saw it as you are one of the Major Mirowski Mentioners on NC and I
have enjoyed your comments. Hope to chat with you some time.
This is nothing but a Trojan horse to 'co-opt' and 'subvert'. Neoliberals sense a risk to
their neo feudal project and are simply attempting to infiltrate and hollow out any threats
from within.
There are the same folks who have let entire economics departments becomes mouthpieces for
corporate propaganda and worked with thousands of think tanks and international organizations
to mislead, misinform and cause pain to millions of people.
The have seeded decontextualized words like 'wealth creators' and 'job creators' to create
a halo narrative for corporate interests and undermine society, citizenship, the social good,
the environment that make 'wealth creation' even possible. So all those take a backseat to
'wealth creator' interests. Since you can't create wealth without society this is some
achievement.
Its because of them that we live in a world where the most important economic idea is
protecting people like Kochs business and personal interests and making sure government is
not 'impinging on their freedom'. And the corollary a fundamental anti-human narrative where
ordinary people and workers are held in contempt for even expecting living wages and
conditions and their access to basics like education, health care and living conditions is
hollowed out out to promote privatization and become 'entitlements'.
Neoliberalism has left us with a decontextualized highly unstable world that exists in a
collective but is forcefully detached into a context less individual existence. These are not
mistakes of otherwise 'well meaning' individuals, there are the results of hard core
ideologues and high priests of power.
Two thumbs up. This has been an ongoing agenda for decades and it has succeeded in
permeating every aspect of society, which is why the United States is such a vacuous,
superficial place. And it's exporting that superficiality to the rest of the world.
I read Brad DeLong's and Paul Krugman's blogs until their contradictions became too great.
If anything, we need more people seeing the truth. The Global War on Terror is into its 18th
year. In October the USA will spend approximately $6 trillion and will have accomplish
nothing except to create blow back. The Middle Class is disappearing. Those who remain in
their homes are head over heels in debt. The average American household carries $137,063 in
debt. The wealthy are getting richer. The Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffett and Bill Gates families
together have as much wealth as the lowest half of Americans. Donald Trump's Presidency and
Brexit document that neoliberal politicians have lost contact with reality. They are
nightmares that there is no escaping. At best, perhaps, Roosevelt Progressives will be reborn
to resurrect regulated capitalism and debt forgiveness. But more likely is a middle-class
revolt when Americans no longer can pay for water, electricity, food, medicine and are jailed
for not paying a $1,500 fine for littering the Beltway.
A civil war inside a nuclear armed nation state is dangerous beyond belief. France is
approaching this.
Debt forgiveness is something we don't hear much about, even from the Bernie Sanders left.
Very important policy throughout history, as Michael Hudson has so thoroughly documented.
Gabbard is set to lay out her vision for the country and her 2020 candidacy during a live
presidential town hall starting at 8 p.m. ET. The "Live From SXSW" event Sunday will be
moderated by CNN's Dana Bash and Jake Tapper. The event will air
live on CNN , CNN International and CNN Español channels.
The tapes,
released on Sunday by Media Matters for America , a progressive watchdog group, are
recordings of Carlson from 2006 to 2011 when the media personality regularly called in to
The Bubba the Love Sponge Show . The nationally-syndicated program featured shock jock
host Todd "Bubba" Clem, who legally changed his name to Bubba the Love Sponge Clem in 1998, and
broadcast from Tampa, Florida.
The three-and-half minutes of audio features a wide variety of subjects including Carlson,
Bubba and an unnamed co-host discussing Warren Jeffs, who is currently serving a life sentence
after being convicted of two counts of felony child sexual assault.
"(Jeffs) is in prison because he's weird and unpopular and he has a different lifestyle that
other people find creepy," Carlson says in a clip from August 2009 following a discussion about
the charges brought against Jeffs.
"No, he is an accessory to the rape of children. That is a felony and a serious one at
that," a co-host responds, prompting Carlson to ask what he means by an "accessory."
"He's got some weird, religious cult where he thinks it's okay to, you know, marry underage
girls, but he didn't do it," Carlson said. "Why wouldn't the guy who actually did it, who had
sex with an underage girl, he should be the one who is doing life."
"Look, just to make it absolutely clear. I am not defending underage marriage at all. I just
don't think it's the same thing exactly as pulling a child from a bus stop and sexually
assaulting that child," Carlson added later in the interview.
In a separate interview, dated September 5, 2009, Carlson says that the charges against
Jeffs for sexual assault are "bulls--t" because he is not "accused of touching anybody. He is
accused of facilitating a marriage between a 16-year-old girl and a 27-year-old man. That's the
accusation. That's what they're calling felony rape."
In another interview, Carlson referred to Martha Stewart's daughter Alexis Stewart as
a"'c--nt" and, in yet another one, called Britney Spears and Paris Hilton "biggest white
wh--res in America."
Carlson also found himself caught in a discussion about his daughter's boarding school in
October 2009, and allegations from Bubba and his co-host that girls attending boarding schools
often experiment with same-sex relationships.
Note that the candidate swears to be "faithful" to the "interests, welfare and success of
the Democratic Party," but not to its principles. That's because there aren't any.
Readers may enjoy picking through the bafflegab, because I think you could drive a whole
fleet of trucks through the loopholes. Here, for example, is Benjamin
Studebaker's view : "A Second Term for Trump is Better Than Beto."
Nobody, after all, said that success had to be immediate ; perhaps a short term
failure improves the ultimate welfare and prospects for success for the party.
In a way, this McCarthy-ite armraising is a kludge, another symptom of a fraying system:
Exactly as we can no longer, apparently, trust voters to pick a President, and so must give
veto power to the intelligence community, so we can no longer trust primary voters to pick a
candidate, and the "National Chairperson" must step in if they somehow get the wrong answer.
Pesky voters!
"... I'll be honest here and admit that Democrats irritate me more than Republicans for this one simple reason. ..."
"... I've come to expect Republicans to be malicious -- there is honesty in their advertisement. However, it's the Democrats who smile like foxes as they pretend to be our allies only to stab us in our backs the minute they get elected. ..."
"Foxes and wolves usually are of the same breed. They belong to the same family -- I think
it's called canine. And the difference is that the wolf when he shows you his teeth, you know
that he's your enemy; and the fox, when he shows you his teeth, he appears to be smiling. But
no matter which of them you go with, you end up in the dog house."
It took a mean mugging by reality -- one that shook me out of cognitive dissonance -- for me
to realize that Democrats are no different than Republicans. They differ in their methods, but
in the end they feast on us regardless of their gang affiliation. Both parties are subsidiaries
of corporations and oligarchs; our entire political system is based on two factions bamboozling their
respective bases while manufacturing dissension on all sides.
... ... ...
Now that I've shed my political blinders, I see how this game is played. I'll be honest here
and admit that Democrats irritate me more than Republicans for this one simple reason.
I've
come to expect Republicans to be malicious -- there is honesty in their advertisement. However,
it's the Democrats who smile like foxes as they pretend to be our allies only to stab us in our
backs the minute they get elected.
They have maintained power for decades by successfully
treading on the pains of marginalized groups as they concurrently enact legislation and
regulations that inflame the very injustices they rail against.
If there is one group that has been leveraged the most by Democrats, it's the descendants of slaves and "black" diaspora
as a whole. For generations, supposed liberals -- who now call themselves progressives -- have
cunningly used the pains of "African-Americans" to further their own agendas. The Democrat's
most loyal voting bloc have time and time again been taken advantage of only to be tossed to
the side as soon as Democrats gain power. They talk a good game and pretend to be for us right
up until election day, soon as the last ballot is counted, they are nowhere to be found.
I want to say this is the Zabinski Point (apparently the lowest dry point in the
geographic US) in the D party's recent history, but I fear it could get lower still.
The actual lowest point in the state might be at the bottom of the artificially created
lake-the Salton Sea, as at the surface it's -236 feet, and the claim is the bottom is 5 feet
higher than Badwater, but who knows.
It was created in 1905, when a diversion of the Colorado River went out of control for 2
years, until they were able to stop the flow.
"Zabriskie Point." A truly apt metaphor for the modern political landscape.
My favourite foreign movie metaphor for the Democrat Party would be Bertolucci's "The
Conformist."
Jimmy Dore show is pretty educational... Why hasn't Schultz been charged for election fraud yet (she rigged the 2016 primary
and then rigged her own race in Florida against Tim Canova.)? Just when you thought crooked Hillary and corrupt Debbie
Wasserman-Schultz were finally silent and out of the picture, they keep coming back again and again and again...like a case of
herpes.
Nothing that Bernie will do can satisfy the Democrats. Said the other day he was
wishy-washy over Venezuela but it was still not enough. Seems that Debbie Wasserman Schultz
has threatened to have him kicked out of the party unless he calls out Madura as a dictator.
Well then, Sanders better be carrying a polished shield at all times never know when
Debbie the medusa will lurch forward throwing that gazy DNC stink-eye in his direction !
On Friday she called for legislation that would designate large technology companies as
"platform utilities," and for the appointment of regulators who'd unwind technology mergers
that undermine competition and harm innovation and small businesses.
"The idea behind this is for the people in this room," for tech entrepreneurs who want to
try out "that new idea," Warren told a packed and enthusiastic crowd. "We want to keep that
marketplace competitive and not let a giant who has an incredible competitive advantage snuff
that out."
Warren said venture capital "in this area" has dropped by about 20 percent because of a
perceived uneven playing field. She didn't provide more detail or say where she obtained her
figures.
Elizabeth Warren's proposal to break up "Big Tech" companies is sure to stoke debate and add to the tension
between the Democratic Party and reliably Democratic Silicon Valley. While breaking up Big Tech isn't likely to
happen anytime soon, one nuance in her proposal is worth thinking about, and that's whether tech companies that
operate large marketplaces should also be able to participate in said marketplaces.
The most obvious impact this would have would be on Amazon. While in the universe of the American retail
industry Amazon's market share remains in the single digits, in e-commerce it's got around
50
percent market share
. When consumers shop on Amazon, they're presented with items sold by Amazon, and also
items that Amazon doesn't own or warehouse but merely hosts the listings. It's also increasingly getting into the
advertising business, so that when you're searching you'll be presented with a list of sponsored products in
addition to whatever results a search may generate.
A third-party seller on Amazon has a difficult relationship with Amazon, which can act both as partner and
competitor. Amazon can use its huge data sets to see how successful third-party sellers and products are, and if
they meet a certain profitability threshold Amazon can decide to compete with that third-party seller directly.
Someone might say, isn't that what grocery stores or Costco do with private label goods or Costco's Kirkland
brand? But the difference is that in physical retail, there are all sorts of stores where a producer can sell
their products -- Walmart, Target, Costco, major grocery chains, and so on. In e-commerce, with half the market
share, Amazon has a dominant position. While in the short run Amazon being able to compete with its third-party
sellers may be good for consumers, who can end up with lower prices, in the long run it may mean fewer producers
even bother to come up with new products, feeling that eventually Amazon will crowd them out of the marketplace.
Would restricting Amazon, which has grown so quickly and is popular with consumers, harm the economy?
Government's antitrust fight with Microsoft a generation ago ended up paying dividends for innovation. In the
2000s a common critique of Microsoft was that it "missed" the internet, and smartphones, and social media, but to
some extent that may have been because the company feared an expansion in emerging technologies would bring back
more scrutiny from the government. As a result, new tech platforms and companies bloomed. The same could happen in
the next decade if Amazon's ambitions were reined in a little.
"Break up Big Tech" is an easy emotional hook, but hopefully Warren's proposal will get all Americans to think
more about the power of tech companies and their platforms, and whether regulatory changes would best serve both
consumers and producers.
Note that the candidate swears to be "faithful" to the "interests, welfare and success of
the Democratic Party," but not to its principles. That's because there aren't any.
Readers may enjoy picking through the bafflegab, because I think you could drive a whole
fleet of trucks through the loopholes. Here, for example, is Benjamin
Studebaker's view : "A Second Term for Trump is Better Than Beto."
Nobody, after all, said that success had to be immediate ; perhaps a short term
failure improves the ultimate welfare and prospects for success for the party.
In a way, this McCarthy-ite armraising is a kludge, another symptom of a fraying system:
Exactly as we can no longer, apparently, trust voters to pick a President, and so must give
veto power to the intelligence community, so we can no longer trust primary voters to pick a
candidate, and the "National Chairperson" must step in if they somehow get the wrong answer.
Pesky voters!
It's been the biggest money maker for them since -- the Rothschild family invented central
banks -- or loaned money to both sides in every war they could find and/or drum up.
The Rothschilds must be financially liquidated in an orderly and legal manner as a lesson to
the other globalizer plutocrats.
The Koch boys and the Benetton bunch should be legally liquidated financially as well.
There should be no billionaires in European Christian nations.
The Russians excepted; let those Ruski bastards do as they please within reason. I love
Russians, and I would like to see many Russians depart the USA and England to go back to
beautiful Russia. England for the English; America for the Americans; Russia for the
Russians!
Billionaires in European Christian nations should be financially liquidated and exiled to
sub-Saharan Africa. They must never be allowed to leave sub-Saharan Africa once they are
escorted there.
The above is my modest Swiftian proposal to deliver swift justice to globalizer plutocrats
such as the Rothschilds.
Seenator Bernie Sanders came to the defense of Representative Ilhan Omar as the Minnesota
congresswoman faced backlash over remarks that some perceived as anti-Semitic. Sanders said
there was a key difference between anti-Semitism and legitimate criticism of the Israeli
government.
The Vermont senator criticized House Democrats' reaction to Omar after she was heavily
condemned for her tweet that said: "I should not be expected to have allegiance/pledge support
to a foreign country in order to serve my country in Congress or serve on committee." Omar was
referring to Israel.
The comment, which has been rebuked
by members of her own party , was seen as exploiting anti-Semitic tropes and attacking U.S.
support of Israel.
In a statement, Sanders, who is a 2020 presidential candidate, said that while
anti-Semitism is a "hateful and dangerous ideology which must be vigorously opposed we must not
equate anti-Semitism with legitimate criticism of the right-wing, Netanyahu government in
Israel.
"Rather, we must develop an even-handed Middle East policy which brings Israelis and
Palestinians together for a lasting peace," Sanders said, reported HuffPost. "What I fear is
going on in the House now is an effort to target congresswoman Omar as a way of stifling that
debate. That's wrong."
Sander's statement came after senior Democrats had planned to vote on a resolution
condemning anti-Semitism, which was seen as a direct response to
Omar's comments . The vote was delayed as the House Foreign Affairs Committee rewrites the
resolution to include condemnation of all hate.
Kamala Harris, also a 2020 presidential candidate, also issued a statement defending Omar,
suggesting that the spotlight currently on the congresswoman "may put her at risk.
"We should be having a sound, respectful discussion about policy," Harris said, as reported
by HuffPost. "You can both support Israel and be loyal to our country. I also believe there is
a difference between criticism of policy or political leaders, and anti-Semitism."
Elizabeth Warren, another Democratic presidential candidate, expressed similar views in her statement defending Omar.
"We have a moral duty to combat hateful ideologies in our own country and around the world, and that includes both anti-Semitism
and Islamophobia. In a democracy, we can and should have an open, respectful debate about the Middle East that focuses on
policy," Warren said.
"Branding criticism of Israel as automatically anti-Semitic has a chilling effect on our public discourse and makes it harder to
achieve a peaceful solution between Israelis and Palestinians. Threats of violence-like those made against Omar-are never
acceptable."
Omar, who was forced to apologize for previous remarks in which she suggested that the American Israel Public Affairs
Committee (AIPAC) was paying politicians for their support of Israel, has defended her latest remarks.
"Being opposed to Netanyahu and the occupation is not the same as being anti-Semitic. I am grateful to the many Jewish allies
who have spoken out and said the same," she tweeted on March 2.
"... One thing your blog ignores is the role of the media (note that Johnson and Gove had secondary careers as journalists). Democracy specifically doesn't work if the public are shamelessly misled by the people whose job it is to inform others. ..."
"... The key question for Burkeans is: to what degree do these elites look out for the interests of the people as a whole, instead of their own interests? ..."
"... The EU vote was influenced not only by the belief that "Europe" was symbolic of this decline, but by the realisation that a referendum was a rare opportunity for direct democracy ..."
"... The Left get a bloody nose from the electorate over a major shift in the course society is going to take for the first time in 30 years and suddenly democracy isn't a satisfactory way of deciding things. ..."
"... How convenient. I've always said the Left don't really give a sh*t about the people they purport to represent, its all just a facade to gain power. I think the response to the Brexit vote pretty much settles it. ..."
"... I think if the Australian system of compulsory [voting] was introduced it would help - by making zealots a smaller proportion of the electorate and by (hopefully) making it clear that voting is not a right to get what you want, but a responsibility to vote in the public interest. ..."
"... This is the problem with the state of our politics. There is a group of people who think they have some kind of right to sit in judgment on the others and decide what is right for them. They have unilaterally split the world into sensible rational people like us and stupid people not like us. They have decided that people who seek out rotten fish are clearly stupid, when they might have decided that "One's man's trash is another man's treasure" ..."
"... The politicians are the ones who are informed and they have a difficult job. Sometimes they have to decide to do things which are unpopular but which will benefit society at large. ..."
"... Our FPTP system ensures that only a minority of an elite make these decisions, and sadly the rest of the tories fall into line like willing sheep. Ultimately the question for the people is whether they can trust the decision-makers to decide on their behalf. Over the last few decades that trust has been eroded. ..."
"... There is, I believe, a political consequence of our modern "knowledge explosion" that has yet to be widely recognized. That lack of recognition may have very grave consequences. ..."
"... Human knowledge has vastly outstripped the capacity of any single human mind. ..."
"... The men who wrote the Constitution of the United States of America "knew everything". As a group, they held all human knowledge: economics, physics, medicine, geology, ... everything! ..."
"... Back then, any (fairly intelligent) person who was determined enough, could collect all the knowledge needed to competently understand the policy decisions that the Founding Fathers were making. ..."
"... Democracy was possible, because demos could in fact be competent. ..."
"... This is no longer true. Demos has absolutely no chance of being competent on the complex and interlocking topics of today's world. If an incompetent demos tries to run the world, the inevitable result is erratic, erroneous policy with no basis in fact: Tea Party America. ..."
"... We are not competent to decide policy; but no political organization has yet had the courage to say, "We propose to choose the experts who MUST decide and manage policies on such-and-such criteria"... which would be the best that demos could hope to decide with any degree of competence. ..."
"... I fear that democracy is a zombie. Walking dead. ..."
One thing your blog ignores is the role of the media (note that Johnson and Gove had secondary
careers as journalists). Democracy specifically doesn't work if the public are shamelessly misled
by the people whose job it is to inform others.
The people have asked for rotting fish because they were told it was good nourishing fish.
Traditionally, representative democracy has maintained a mainly Burkean ethos, and respecting
'the will of the people' has largely been done only when it represents the desires of (some set
of) elites. Brexit is largely falling into this camp -- May et al are claiming clear mandates
for specific policies from a vote which offered, at best, a murky amalgamation of possible motives
(as well as very likely the problems of misinformation/ignorance).
There has for the last half-century or so been a push toward removing this layer of Burkean
restraint -- not institutionally, but culturally, in rhetoric if not in practice. The current
Tory policy move to the hard right on immigration makes canny use of this, but the anti-Burkean
left seems very happy to let this happen in its respect for methodology over outcomes.
Respect for the trappings of democracy (voting, the will of the people) without the accompanying
information & deliberation seems a shallow form of democracy. I too would like to see the left-intelligentsia's
critique of Burke struggle against these challenges of voter understanding, and to propose a new
model for achieving Burke's desired ends, but I'm not sure that epistocracy moves us any closer
to a fair society than the system of having a powerful class of elites act as a check on the will
of the people. The key question for Burkeans is: to what degree do these elites look out for the
interests of the people as a whole, instead of their own interests?
The democracy problem that has been brewing for 40 years has been the practical curtailment of
representative democracy in the West. The chief driver of this has been the institutional encroachment
of the market, from supranational bodies down to local authorities. The decline in respect for
the political class is due more to a belief that our elected representatives are powerless than
that they are corrupt.
The EU vote was influenced not only by the belief that "Europe" was symbolic of this decline,
but by the realisation that a referendum was a rare opportunity for direct democracy (it's worth
wondering to what extent the "excitement" around the Scottish independence vote fed into this).
Michael Gove may be an idiot, but his jibe at "experts" resonated.
Any theory of politics that doesn't address this encroachment by the market is just rearranging
the deckchairs.
The Left get a bloody nose from the electorate over a major shift in the course society is going
to take for the first time in 30 years and suddenly democracy isn't a satisfactory way of deciding
things.
How convenient. I've always said the Left don't really give a sh*t about the people they purport
to represent, its all just a facade to gain power. I think the response to the Brexit vote pretty
much settles it.
I think if the Australian system of compulsory [voting] was introduced it would help - by making zealots
a smaller proportion of the electorate and by (hopefully) making it clear that voting is not a
right to get what you want, but a responsibility to vote in the public interest.
"If a man asks for a lot of rotting fish, should we blame the fishmonger for giving it him?"
This is the problem with the state of our politics. There is a group of people who think they
have some kind of right to sit in judgment on the others and decide what is right for them. They
have unilaterally split the world into sensible rational people like us and stupid people not
like us. They have decided that people who seek out rotten fish are clearly stupid, when they
might have decided that "One's man's trash is another man's treasure"
Not Social Darwinism but Psychology, backed by experimental evidence. But people aren't killing
each other in the Middle East in a spasm of tribalism?
And when they come here they will be enlightened by your views and not keep their culture,
attitudes to women and prejudices, as the Swedes about that one, and social cohesion.
Rather than voting from experience it was mob mentality? Half the country in a civilised exercise
in democracy over several months.
No they have experienced immigration and rejected free movement.
Boston in Lincolnshire is one of the areas most impacted by European immigration and voted
Brexit.
The areas that voted remain are the areas doing best from the status quo e.g London and the
South East, who don't want to rock the boat.
Aragon, you have just vindicated TonyBrite's point. You start with stating that there are people in the middle east who have different values.
You then connect that to the EU. This is a deliberate conflation I have seen time and time
again with immigration especially in our awful media.
As Dave Hansell said a few posts ago, you will find that save for one year immigration has
primarily came from outside the EU.
This is exactly why the complex decision of brexit should not have been left to the media in
this country and a simple vote, as it just brought out base prejudices and ill-informed opinions.
For example, how many people knew that when outside the EU it would be unlawful to subsidise
the farming industry? (WTO rules) or how many people believed the propaganda that the original
EC treaty voted on in 1975 was really just a trade treaty (a look at that treaty, article 46,
"social policy" would have ended that argument)?
The politicians are the ones who are informed and they have a difficult job. Sometimes they
have to decide to do things which are unpopular but which will benefit society at large.
I agree with you, Chris, that it is difficult to do, but what I would say is that we could
make a better fist of it than we currently do. One of the ways of doing this would be to increase
representation at governing level and force more negotiation/compromise. Our FPTP system ensures
that only a minority of an elite make these decisions, and sadly the rest of the tories fall into
line like willing sheep. Ultimately the question for the people is whether they can trust the
decision-makers to decide on their behalf. Over the last few decades that trust has been eroded.
There is, I believe, a political consequence of our modern "knowledge explosion" that has yet
to be widely recognized. That lack of recognition may have very grave consequences.
The founders of our "Modern Occidental World" -- France's philosophes, Great Britain's Royal
Academy, America's Founding Fathers -- were men (and a very few particularly enterprising women)
who "knew everything". If you google "the last man who knew everything" you'll find several candidates...
but none are modern. Even such wide-ranging intellects as Hawking and Sagan never pretended to
"know everything".
Human knowledge has vastly outstripped the capacity of any single human mind.
That seems like an obvious statement... but it is in fact quite a recent situation. The men
who wrote the Constitution of the United States of America "knew everything". As a group, they
held all human knowledge: economics, physics, medicine, geology, ... everything!
When those men decided policy, they could -- BY THEMSELVES -- take account of ALL human knowledge.
Back then, any (fairly intelligent) person who was determined enough, could collect all the
knowledge needed to competently understand the policy decisions that the Founding Fathers were
making.
(Not incidentally, human population and human technology were still such that the Earth could
digest any negative consequences of erroneous decisions.)
Democracy was possible, because demos could in fact be competent.
This is no longer true. Demos has absolutely no chance of being competent on the complex and
interlocking topics of today's world. If an incompetent demos tries to run the world, the inevitable
result is erratic, erroneous policy with no basis in fact: Tea Party America.
We are not competent to decide policy; but no political organization has yet had the courage
to say, "We propose to choose the experts who MUST decide and manage policies on such-and-such
criteria"... which would be the best that demos could hope to decide with any degree of competence.
I fear that democracy is a zombie. Walking dead.
And we have yet to even begin to discuss its replacement.
"... In his attitudes toward "diversity," Carlson considers Graham not much different from his Northwest Washington neighbors. "My neighbors," he says, "don't understand why it is not a good idea to keep 'welcoming' untold thousands of low-income, poorly educated immigrants whose wage expectations are lower than those of Americans who are already here and are struggling to keep their jobs." Who is hurt most, he asks, by this competition for jobs? His answer: "Americans who are themselves poorly educated -- especially, I might add, African-Americans." Organized labor, a pillar of the Democratic Party for decades, always seemed to understand this. Bill Clinton -- "the last Democrat to recognize this problem and speak to the middle class" -- also understood it. "So why can't my neighbors?" ..."
"... Though Carlson supported the Iraq War when Bush initiated it, he later denounced it as "a total nightmare and a disaster, and I'm ashamed I went against my own instincts in supporting it. I'll never do it again. Never." He has also developed a contempt for much of neocon foreign policy -- and for some of its chief proponents. Back in July, a guest on his show was Max Boot of the Council on Foreign Relations, who once suggested that the troubled lands of Islam "cry out for the sort of enlightened foreign administration once provided by self-confident Englishmen in jodhpurs and pith helmets." ..."
"... When Carlson told Boot that it was folly for the United States to have tried to oust Syria's Bashar al-Assad and that neocons (and Democrats) are wildly exaggerating the Russian threat, Boot accused Carlson of being a "cheerleader" for Russia, which Carlson called "grotesque." Boot professed indignation that Carlson was "yukking it up over the fact that Putin is interfering and meddling in our election process," and Carlson called it "odd coming from you, who really has been consistently wrong in the most flagrant and flamboyant way for over a decade." ..."
"... as the self-styled "sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness, and groupthink," Carlson deploys his well-honed tools of debate in a cause that many consider valuable, even indispensable -- especially in calling out the agents of foreign policy adventurism ..."
"... "In his vicious and ad hominem way," wrote Beinart in The Atlantic , "Carlson is doing something extraordinary: He's challenging the Republican Party's hawkish orthodoxy in ways anti-war progressives have been begging cable hosts to do for years [wading into] a debate between the two strands of thinking that have dominated conservative foreign policy for roughly a century." These two strands, presumably, are the long-dominant hawks and the still outnumbered non-interventionists troubled by the expansion of federal power that goes with those who seem to favor one war after another -- often fought simultaneously all over the globe. ..."
"... This raises a question: Can you be a conservative if you don't embrace foreign policy interventionism? "Look,'' Carlson says, "if Bill Kristol is a conservative, I am not." Further, he suggests he actually isn't much of a conservative on some economic issues either. "I do not favor cutting tax rates for corporations, and I do not favor invading Iran," he says. ..."
"... Sometimes, he adds, "the hard left is correct. The biggest problem this country faces is income inequality, and neither the liberals nor the conservatives see it. There is a great social volatility that goes with inequality like we have now. Inequality will work under a dictatorship, maybe, but it does not work in a democracy. It is dangerous in a democracy. In a democracy, when there is inequality like this, the people will rise up and punish their elected representatives." ..."
"... Carlson rarely leaves Democrats out of his sights for long, however. Yes, he will go after neocons, but he still directs plenty of firepower at the opposition party, which has only recently come to fear Russia as our "enemy" and uses this perceived threat to undermine President Trump. "Democrats cannot accept the fact that Trump is the president, so they have to find ways to tell themselves he really didn't win the election," Carlson says. "First, it was James Comey's fault. Now it is the Russians with their 'collusion.' The same crowd that for years made excuses for Stalin, now that the Soviet threat no longer exists, has decided that Russia is our 'great enemy.' The same people who for years were highly distrustful of the FBI and the intelligence agencies now accept on faith whatever comes out of them. It's a good thing Frank Church is no longer alive to see this." ..."
"... Carlson says that the rise of the brutal Islamists of ISIS was a direct result of the Iraq War, a clear example of the law of unintended consequences. "When you think about it," he says, "we are still suffering from the ill effects of World War I. The Austro-Hungarian archduke is assassinated, and the world is still feeling the effects. There are unforeseen consequences of any of these actions." ..."
"... Is Carlson oblivious to the threats confronting America and its allies? He doesn't think so, even if Boot and other neocons might make that claim. "Am I concerned about North Korea?" he asks. "Am I concerned about Iran? Let's put it this way. I am concerned about North Korea. I am concerned about Iran, but I am also concerned about Pakistan as a nuclear power. I'm concerned about a lot of things." When he hears that Iran is the number one sponsor of terrorism in the world, he asks how many Americans have been killed as a result of Iran-sponsored terrorism. Carlson's answer: "In the neighborhood of none, that's how many." ..."
"... If Carlson's skepticism about the Iranian threat is still a minority view in Washington, he is used to having unpopular opinions. He seems comfortable taking on the establishment, as he defines it, whether the subject is Iran, Russia, immigration, or trade -- or Trump. When asked what he thinks of Steve Bannon, the president's erstwhile chief strategist who also deals in controversy, Carlson replies, "I don't think Bannon fully understands the ideas he espouses." But he adds: "I will say this for him: He has been brave enough to say that the people in charge in Washington don't know what they are doing, with respect to Iran and a lot else." The people making the decisions these days are the equivalent of day traders, "making it up as they go," Carlson says. "The private equity model is not good for the economy, and it is not good for the government or the American people. It's too shortsighted." ..."
Carlson avoids both O'Reilly's hokeyness and Hannity's pro-Trump histrionics, instead
drawing on his own strength as rapid-fire commentator and relentless interrogator -- that rare
Grand Inquisitor with a boisterous sense of humor. Besides the obvious entertainment value,
what's also worth following is how Carlson's own birthright conservatism (he says he has never
gone through a "liberal phase") is a work in progress. He's increasingly willing -- sometimes
eager -- to challenge positions sacrosanct to the Republican right, especially to
neoconservatives. He drives neocons crazy, for example, with his opposition to the overseas
militarism they support and with his skepticism about their fixation on the "Russian threat."
That he is perfectly willing to irk the orthodox was on display at the 2009 Conservative
Political Action Conference when he dared suggest that the New York Times , while
liberal, is also a paper "that actually cares about accuracy." Boos followed, but he remained
unfazed, lecturing his audience about how conservatives should care about getting their facts
right, too.
He remains well within the ideological tent on many red meat controversies of the day,
however, particularly on immigration, which he considers a factor in the troubling condition of
many rural communities. It isn't the only factor, certainly, but it particularly animates
Carlson these days. When Trump outraged polite society with his crude characterization of Haiti
and African countries, Carlson countered that "almost every single person in America" in fact
agrees with the president. "An awful lot of immigrants come to this country from other places
that aren't very nice," he said. "Those places are dangerous. They're dirty, they're corrupt,
and they're poor, and that's the main reason those immigrants are trying to come here, and you
would too if you lived there."
As for the idea that "diversity is our strength," Carlson lit into Sen. Lindsey Graham for
saying that America is "an idea, not defined by its people." This claim, Carlson said, might
surprise the people who already live here, "with their actual families and towns and traditions
and history and customs." It might also come as a surprise that "they're irrelevant to the
success or failure of what they imagined was their country." If diversity is our strength, it
must follow that "the less we have in common somehow the stronger we are. Is that true? We
better hope it's true because we're betting everything on it."
In his attitudes toward "diversity," Carlson considers Graham not much different from his
Northwest Washington neighbors. "My neighbors," he says, "don't understand why it is not a good
idea to keep 'welcoming' untold thousands of low-income, poorly educated immigrants whose wage
expectations are lower than those of Americans who are already here and are struggling to keep
their jobs." Who is hurt most, he asks, by this competition for jobs? His answer: "Americans
who are themselves poorly educated -- especially, I might add, African-Americans." Organized
labor, a pillar of the Democratic Party for decades, always seemed to understand this. Bill
Clinton -- "the last Democrat to recognize this problem and speak to the middle class" -- also
understood it. "So why can't my neighbors?"
Carlson pauses, tosses another piece of Nicorette gum into his mouth, and laughs. It's not a
bitter laugh, but one of seeming disbelief. While he can be abrupt and sometimes even brutal
with guests on his nightly program, one-on-one he's good humored and ebullient. He's that way,
according to those who know him, even during breaks with on-air guests he is about to behead.
He is exceedingly pleasant company for a leisurely lunch at swank Bistro Bis near the Fox
headquarters, within walking distance of the U.S. Capitol. (The former smoker orders a plate of
cheeses, which seem not to interfere with the gum, which he says both "sharpens the intellect
and calms you down at the same time. It's great.") His own office, with the kind of framed
political memorabilia de rigueur in Washington, looks out on Union Station. His desk is
spacious and well-worn; he likes to tell people "it was Millard Fillmore's," which is the kind
of joke also de rigueur in Washington.
"I have a good life," he says. The pay is good, and there was a time he could not have
afforded a sizeable house in Northwest Washington. After college, for example, he worked on the
editorial staff of the now-defunct Policy Review , then owned by the Heritage
Foundation. He also paid his dues as a reporter for the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette in
Little Rock and, after that, The Weekly Standard . Back then, of course, he could not
have afforded the five-bedroom, six-and-a-half-bath, 7,400-square-foot house he bought last
July (purchase price: $3.895 million).
He likes his new neighbors -- and the nearby dog park. "My neighbors are intelligent and
thoughtful people," he says, most of whom still have Obama stickers on their Priuses. "They
think Trump is awful on immigration, and they don't see how anyone could possibly view the
issue any differently. But that's because there is only one way that the issue touches them in
their lives, and that is in terms of their household help. They worry about 'Margarita who has
been with our family for years and the kids love her and we just want to know that she will be
protected.' They aren't cynical. They really care about the legal status of their household
help. I get that. They just don't see the issue in any larger social context."
♦♦♦
There is some irony here, given Carlson's family background. The son of a former president
of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, director of Voice of America, and ambassador to the
African island republic of the Seychelles, this "primetime populist," as The Atlantic 's
McKay Coppins calls him, is clearly a child of privilege. While he no longer sports bow-ties,
he looks the part, with that well-scrubbedness we associate with boarding schools. (He went to
St. George's in Middletown, Rhode Island.) On his mother's side, he is a descendant of St.
George Tucker of Bermuda and Williamsburg, who straddled the 18th and 19th centuries, served as
one of the first law professors at the College of William and Mary, and was stepfather of the
acerbic Virginia Congressman John Randolph of Roanoke. "They thought of naming me St. George
Tucker Carlson," he says. His stepmother is a Swanson frozen-food heiress and niece of Senator
J. William Fulbright.
Though Carlson sees the irony, he's untroubled by it. "I grew up in the world I'm
describing," he acknowledges. "I grew up in Georgetown. I know the way these people think.
Look, there are very few poorly educated Honduran talk show hosts who are out to take my
job."
Actually, there aren't a lot of well-educated, native-born Ivy Leaguers who pose much of a
threat, either, given his current audience ratings. But Carlson knows from personal experience
that the world he inhabits can be fickle. He has bounced around on cable news programs since
2000, when he went to work for CNN. In 2005, the channel cancelled his show, "Crossfire," and
he was hired by MSNBC, where he hosted "Tucker," also dropped in 2008. Fox picked him up as a
news contributor and eventually hired him as co-host of "Fox & Friends." "Tucker Carlson
Tonight" debuted in November 2016. ("Sooner or later," he writes in his breezy 2003 memoir of
his cable career, Politicians, Partisans, and Parasites , "just about everyone in
television gets canned, usually without warning.")
Kelefa Sanneh writes in The New Yorker that Carlson has been doing cable news "for
far too long to be considered a rising star," though he still seems like something of a fresh
face. Liberals of course can't stand him -- and aren't likely to notice how his views have been
changing. "I'm probably more liberal right now than I've ever been," he says. In prep school
and at Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut, he considered the arrival of The American
Spectator and Commentary "thrilling." For years he read those magazines "cover to
cover," he says. "They were great, especially the Spectator , which had such spirit and
published writers like P.J. O'Rourke and Andrew Ferguson. It's depressing to see how far both
those once-great magazines have fallen."
Though Carlson supported the Iraq War when Bush initiated it, he later denounced it as "a
total nightmare and a disaster, and I'm ashamed I went against my own instincts in supporting
it. I'll never do it again. Never." He has also developed a contempt for much of neocon foreign
policy -- and for some of its chief proponents. Back in July, a guest on his show was Max Boot
of the Council on Foreign Relations, who once suggested that the troubled lands of Islam "cry
out for the sort of enlightened foreign administration once provided by self-confident
Englishmen in jodhpurs and pith helmets."
When Carlson told Boot that it was folly for the United States to have tried to oust Syria's
Bashar al-Assad and that neocons (and Democrats) are wildly exaggerating the Russian threat,
Boot accused Carlson of being a "cheerleader" for Russia, which Carlson called "grotesque."
Boot professed indignation that Carlson was "yukking it up over the fact that Putin is
interfering and meddling in our election process," and Carlson called it "odd coming from you,
who really has been consistently wrong in the most flagrant and flamboyant way for over a
decade."
Boot, who can take care of himself, held his own in the exchange, but some hapless "guests"
find themselves in a mismatch. Carlson, who seems only too happy to press his advantage, can
come off as a bit of a bully, especially when he bursts into derisive laughter. "To me, it's
just cringe-making," Ferguson, now with The Weekly Standard , told The New Yorker
. "You get some poor little columnist from the Daily Oregonian who said Trump was
Hitler, and you beat the shit out of him for ten minutes."
Maybe so, but as the self-styled "sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness, and groupthink," Carlson deploys his
well-honed tools of debate in a cause that many consider valuable, even indispensable -- especially in calling out the agents of
foreign policy adventurism. Peter Beinart, late of The New Republic , anticipated something
conservatives have yet to address but might need to soon.
"In his vicious and ad hominem way,"
wrote Beinart in The Atlantic , "Carlson is doing something extraordinary: He's
challenging the Republican Party's hawkish orthodoxy in ways anti-war progressives have been
begging cable hosts to do for years [wading into] a debate between the two strands of thinking
that have dominated conservative foreign policy for roughly a century." These two strands,
presumably, are the long-dominant hawks and the still outnumbered non-interventionists troubled
by the expansion of federal power that goes with those who seem to favor one war after another
-- often fought simultaneously all over the globe.
This raises a question: Can you be a conservative if you don't embrace foreign policy
interventionism? "Look,'' Carlson says, "if Bill Kristol is a conservative, I am not." Further,
he suggests he actually isn't much of a conservative on some economic issues either. "I do not
favor cutting tax rates for corporations, and I do not favor invading Iran," he says.
Sometimes, he adds, "the hard left is correct. The biggest problem this country faces is income
inequality, and neither the liberals nor the conservatives see it. There is a great social
volatility that goes with inequality like we have now. Inequality will work under a
dictatorship, maybe, but it does not work in a democracy. It is dangerous in a democracy. In a
democracy, when there is inequality like this, the people will rise up and punish their elected
representatives."
In fact, they did rise up, says Carlson, when they elected Trump in 2016. "There was no
mystery to why Trump won. He was the only candidate speaking to the collapsing middle class.
Conservatives do not understand the social consequences of economic inequality."
Carlson rarely leaves Democrats out of his sights for long, however. Yes, he will go after
neocons, but he still directs plenty of firepower at the opposition party, which has only
recently come to fear Russia as our "enemy" and uses this perceived threat to undermine
President Trump. "Democrats cannot accept the fact that Trump is the president, so they have to
find ways to tell themselves he really didn't win the election," Carlson says. "First, it was
James Comey's fault. Now it is the Russians with their 'collusion.' The same crowd that for
years made excuses for Stalin, now that the Soviet threat no longer exists, has decided that
Russia is our 'great enemy.' The same people who for years were highly distrustful of the FBI
and the intelligence agencies now accept on faith whatever comes out of them. It's a good thing
Frank Church is no longer alive to see this."
Carlson's skeptical view of U.S. policy in the Middle East can be traced, at least in part,
to 2006, which was a strange year in Carlson's life. That fall, he appeared on ABC's "Dancing
with the Stars" and was the first contestant to be eliminated. (Even Jerry Springer did
better.) In Carlson's defense, he was also doing his nightly MSNBC show "Tucker" at the time
and had to miss his dancing classes because he was on assignment in Israel and Lebanon during
the war between Israel and Hezbollah. While there, he also was the host of an MSNBC Special
Report called "Mideast Crisis."
It is not clear what he learned on "Dancing with the Stars," but he learned a great deal, he
says, in the Middle East. "First, the closer you get to any situation, at least in terms of
these wars, the more confusing and complicated things are," he says. "Second, the consequences
of your actions are never predictable." The United States toppled the Afghan government in
2001, "and 16 years and $1 trillion later, what do we have to show for it?" American diplomats,
he reports, can't even drive the two miles from the airport in Kabul to our embassy because
it's unsafe. "They have to take helicopters."
Carlson says that the rise of the brutal Islamists of ISIS was a direct result of the Iraq
War, a clear example of the law of unintended consequences. "When you think about it," he says,
"we are still suffering from the ill effects of World War I. The Austro-Hungarian archduke is
assassinated, and the world is still feeling the effects. There are unforeseen consequences of
any of these actions."
This concern about consequences sounds eminently conservative, even if a lot of
conservatives don't want to hear it. Like their liberal counterparts, many neoconservatives
have fallen under the spell of what Carlson considers the maddening optimism of the American
people -- the view that we can take any situation around the world and improve it. "Something
else you learn in the Middle East is that there are some really crummy places in the world,"
Carlson says, adding that Americans viewed Iraq's Saddam Hussein as such an evil leader that,
no matter what followed, his overthrow would have to be an improvement. "Well, that is
naïve," he says. "Things can always get worse. But Americans don't want to believe that,
because we lack imagination and we want to help. And as for toppling dictatorships, we don't
seem to realize that there's something worse than a dictatorship -- and that's anarchy. Because
with anarchy, there can be a dictator in any neighborhood: anybody with an AK-47."
♦♦♦
Is Carlson oblivious to the threats confronting America and its allies? He doesn't think so,
even if Boot and other neocons might make that claim. "Am I concerned about North Korea?" he
asks. "Am I concerned about Iran? Let's put it this way. I am concerned about North Korea. I am
concerned about Iran, but I am also concerned about Pakistan as a nuclear power. I'm concerned
about a lot of things." When he hears that Iran is the number one sponsor of terrorism in the
world, he asks how many Americans have been killed as a result of Iran-sponsored terrorism.
Carlson's answer: "In the neighborhood of none, that's how many."
If Carlson's skepticism about the Iranian threat is still a minority view in Washington, he
is used to having unpopular opinions. He seems comfortable taking on the establishment, as he
defines it, whether the subject is Iran, Russia, immigration, or trade -- or Trump. When asked
what he thinks of Steve Bannon, the president's erstwhile chief strategist who also deals in
controversy, Carlson replies, "I don't think Bannon fully understands the ideas he espouses."
But he adds: "I will say this for him: He has been brave enough to say that the people in
charge in Washington don't know what they are doing, with respect to Iran and a lot else." The
people making the decisions these days are the equivalent of day traders, "making it up as they
go," Carlson says. "The private equity model is not good for the economy, and it is not good
for the government or the American people. It's too shortsighted."
Like millions of other Americans, Carlson worries about the current administration, though
not necessarily for the same reasons. "My concern is that Trump is actually weaker than most
people realize," he says. "I don't worry about the people who go on TV and say Trump is a
'racist' and a 'fascist' and all that. They have no effect on the administration. The worry for
me is the people who want to use Trump as a host to do things they want, like a war with Iran."
Many of the people who advocated the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's government, which posed the
one real counterbalance to Iran, are now calling for American ground troops in the Islamic
Republic -- "people like Max Boot, who calls anyone who disagrees with this idea a
quisling."
Again the law of unintended consequences comes to mind for Carlson, as does the son he
drives down U.S. Route 29 to visit in Charlottesville. "I'm against those people who want a war
with Iran. Those are the people who might get my 20-year-old son killed in a war in Iran. Why
would I favor that?"
Carlson has emerged from a small bubble and moved into a slighter bigger bubble. This has an
initial invigorating effect; but it only lasts until he bumps against the bigger bubble. This
notion that America is a naive optimist looking to fix things but screwing up is very dear to
AC conservatives. But it ain't true. Read that famous quote by Smedley Butler and you will
have it in a nutshell.
Tucker is good at provoking thought. As a (sorta) conservative reexamining (Reaganite)
conservatism as it's been known.
Problem is, he's very short on coherent solutions. The rightist populists generally are. If
'the hard left is right, income inequality is the biggest problem', what is the solution to
that other than trust in bigger govt and more collectivism? Protectionism is not going to
reverse inequality, the opposite if anything. Nor is immigration restriction likely to,
materially. Yes, immigration is a legitimate issue, and no not everyone who wants less is a
'racist'. But the economic as opposed to social impact of immigration is very easy to
overstate.
Tucker is ultimately an example of a 'new kind of right' which simply lacks solutions other
than those of the left. Why not just embrace the left if it's right about the 'main problem'
and you have not other practical solution than those of the left? Maybe a left with less
'elitism' and 'snobbery'? Thought provoking but I'm not sure Tucker is really about anything
other than style. It's again a problem of the populist right generally.
"Max Boot of the Council on Foreign Relations, who once suggested that the troubled lands
of Islam "cry out for the sort of enlightened foreign administration once provided by
self-confident Englishmen in jodhpurs and pith helmets.""
Boot is such a big, easy target, isn't he? "Jodhpurs and pith helmets" don't you know,
preached by a Russian Jew with American citizenship for God's sake
Can't Boot see how pathetic and incongruous this mush sounds coming from a neocon's mouth?
Particularly after the serial disasters they engineered in the Mideast? The best of the old
Brit colonials (and there weren't that many) weren't just "self-confident", they were shrewd
and surpassingly competent. And they didn't let punk client states call the shots.
Nonetheless, to the extent that "jodhpurs and pith helmets" were responsible for turning the
Middle East and large swathes elsewhere into despoiled ruin, I suppose Boot has got his
wish.
How typical of a neocon to mistake attitude for substance and power for "enlightenment",
eh?
I guess it's nice to have Boot for Carlson to kick around, and here's hoping Carlson
continues to hark to "the People". More "the People" and less Boot would suit me just fine,
and I'm one of precious few people who actually own jodhpurs and a pith helmet!
The sooner that the neocons are kicked out of the public square the better.
" the opposition party, which has only recently come to fear Russia as our 'enemy' 'The same
crowd that for years made excuses for Stalin'"
I'm sorry Mr. Crawford, but which Democrats are you talking about who "only recently came
to fear Russia as our 'enemy?'" The Democrats who prosecuted the Korean and Vietnam Wars?
JFK, who campaigned on the lie of a "missile gap?" The Democrats who, while Nixon and Ford
pursued Détente, organized rallies and sanctions to force the Soviets to allow Jews to
emigrate? Charlie Wilson and the other enthusiastic Democratic supporters of the mujahideen
of Afghanistan? Bill Clinton, who happily pushed for NATO to include former members of the
Warsaw Pact and former Soviet republics while supporting the economic rape of Russia and the
collapse of not only its living standards but the longevity of its people's lives?
And, I'm sorry, but which liberals does Mr. Carlson think made excuses for Stalin? Hubert
Humphrey? Adlai Stevenson? JFK? LBJ? Henry "Scoop" Jackson? Jimmy Carter, the man who gave
the go-ahead to foment an Afghan civil war specifically to goad the Soviet Union to
intervene?
I know Bernie Sanders isn't officially a Democrat, but he did run for the Democratic
Party's presidential nomination, and he called the late Hugo Chavez a "dead Communist
dictator," which certainly seemed to fit very nicely into the mainstream of Democratic Party
thinking about Stalin, Russia and Communism for the last 70 years.
Max Boot held his own against Tucker? Boot was red-faced and sputtering. He had nothing to
say, because his worldview is vapid. I rarely watch TV, but somehow I caught that exchange
live, and it was deeply gratifying. Making it even better was the knowledge that there would
be clips of it stored on youtube and elsewhere.
This portrait should have mentioned Carlson's essay from the beginning of 2016 asking what
conservatives have gotten from the Republican establishment. It was superb.
We need more voices like Carlon's right now. Many more.
Another difference: Bernie always uses the phrase "billionaire class" while Tucker uses the
more accurate "ruling class." (See the terrific 2-19-18 episode.) But I hope he's careful.
Remember what Schumer said a year ago: the intel agencies have "six ways from Sunday of
getting back at you." (It would have been nice if one of our crack reporters asked him what
he meant by that.)
Tucker is the best. He does his homework and can confront, rhetorically, the diverse group of
guests he has on. He does an excellent job of trying to keep the guests on topic. In our age
of parrying questions, the Tuck continually zeros in on the salient discrepancies in the
discussion. He does not bloviate like O'Reilly did.
Tucker does not toe the party line, he can wonder, out loud why we are fighting these endless
wars?
It must take a lot of work to familiarize yourself with all the varying subjects that go in
to one night of 'Tucker Carlson'. Lets hope he is on TV for another ten or twenty years.
Tight lines to Tucker.
tNot so puzzling if you buy into the "Fake Wrestling" theory. Since Bill Clinton
each party gets 8 years on the throne then hands off to the other party. Dems just playing
their part as they did in the 2016 election. Both parties controlled by the corporate and
cognitive elites pursuing their globalist agenda thats occasionally masked by nationalism to
appease the herd.
China has multiple parties within the CCP. The CCP is the visible face of authority. In
the West the CCP equivalent is hidden, preferring to allow each party in turn to accept the
blame for executing their agenda. Every 8 years the herd votes for Hope and Change or the
lesser evil and watches in amazement as nothing changes and lesser evil becomes more, only to
try again in the next cycle. Kind of like Groundhog Day.
When half the population has an IQ under 100, its easy for those with IQ's 4-6 SD above
average to manipulate the herd given the tools they have today. People can be made to believe
anything and much of what people believe is not true.
"Every 8 years the herd votes for Hope and Change or the lesser evil and watches in
amazement as nothing changes and lesser evil becomes more, only to try again in the next
cycle. Kind of like Groundhog Day.....When half the population has an IQ under 100, its
easy for those with IQ's 4-6 SD above average to manipulate the herd given the tools they
have today. People can be made to believe anything and much of what people believe is not
true."
My guess is that this contempt for "the herd" must be accompanied by a very generous
estimation of your own independence of mind and superiority of intellect.
My question, is how can democracy work in the world which you describe? Or would it just
consist of the idiotic "herd" listening to your ideas, applauding and carrying out
orders?
Bernie wouldn't attack Hillary on character issues. He pulled many punches - like not
rebutting Hillary's claim to have "never changed her vote for money" with the well-known
example of when she did so (for the credit card industry: she changed her vote on the
bankruptcy bill). And he continued to support Hillary after Hillary brought Debra
Wasserman-Shultz into her campaign - a clear slap in the face to Bernie and Bernie's
supporters.
And why did Bernie refuse to release tax returns before 2015? The only tax returns he
released were for 2015. When reporters asked him to release earlier tax returns (because
his 2015 tax returns were delayed), Bernie said that his returns were "boring" - but he
wouldn't release them.
Bernie is close with the leaders of the Democratic Party. Obama campaigned for him.
Hillary is "a friend of 25 years". Chuck Schumer refused to provide Democratic Party
funding for any Democrat that ran against Bernie.
You want government to be accountable? A good start would be to start holding
politicians accountable. And recognizing that the fundamental problem is the duopoly.
IMO the similarities in politics among the "Western democracies" is important to note. One
example is the fakeness of Obama, Macron, and Trudeau.
The difficulties faced by US and UK progressives are likely to not be an accident. We now
know via the Integrity Initiative hack that a British operative (likely to be MI-6) was
working in the Sanders campaign.
@Jen A third-party doesn't help if it can be compromised too. We need a new kind of
politics.
A popular narrative in the West is that the world would be a much better place if all
countries just look and act more like the Western world. Indeed, the West has enjoyed great
wealth and growth over the years. But growing instability in the Western world has also raised
doubts about the Western-style of democratic governance.
In fact, there is a tendency to put Western-style democracy on a pedestal; but by doing so,
we overlook its faults and even potential dangers. From the never-ending gridlock in
Washington, to chaos in the House of Commons of United Kingdom over the Brexit mess, to people
rioting on the streets of Paris, more and more people are calling into question the
effectiveness of Western-style democracy.
Brexit, for some at least, encapsulates the perils and pitfalls of this style of democracy.
In June 2016, the people of the UK voted to leave the European Union and, for now at least, the
UK will leave the EU by March 29 this year, with or without a plan in place. The irrational
jump into the unknown and the chaos that followed has created a troubling situation for the
country, as well as other parts of the world, raising serious questions about the effectiveness
and legitimacy of UK-style democracy.
Whether to leave or stay in the EU is a complicated issue that requires careful study and
rational decisions from knowledgeable, well-informed people. It is irresponsible to just drag
people off the streets for a vote on a major policy issue like Brexit. For example, days after
the UK voted to leave the EU, a commentary on TIME's website wrote that the referendum was not
a triumph of democracy, but an ugly populist fiasco.
Thus, there is good reason why more and more people feel like Western-style democracy has
become a big joke. In the UK, the people voted to "take back control" of their country -- but
without a plan. In the United States, politics has become a soap opera and the system is
pitting Americans against Americans, splitting the country further apart. In fact, the US
government has become so divided and dysfunctional that it recently broke the record for the
longest shutdown in US history, which forced many government employees to turn to food banks to
feed their families.
Yet, a very different story is unfolding in Asia. During the more than month-long government
shutdown in the United States, China made history, too -- by landing the Chang'e-4 spacecraft
on the far side of the moon. As a US senator pointed out during the shutdown, China has
quadrupled its GDP since 2001, but the United States cannot even keep the government up and
running. He called the situation in the United States "ludicrous."
Clearly, Western-style democracy is not "the end of history," as some have predicted and
hoped for. This is not to say that the Western system is a failure or that China's system is
superior to Western-style democracy, but it is fair to say that China's own system is a good
fit for the country and it achieves the best results for the Chinese people.
For example, China has built the largest, most advanced high-speed train network in the
world. It is the envy for many in the world, even for many Americans, including former
President Barack Obama, who, nearly a decade ago, unveiled a plan for a national network of
high-speed passenger rail lines that was envisioned to transform travel in America. The plan,
like many others, turned out to be an American Dream that never came true. Just recently in
California, for example, the state's new governor killed the high-speed rail program that would
link Los Angeles to San Francisco -- a project beloved by the just-retired four-term Governor
Jerry Brown.
And then there is US President Donald Trump's ambitious plan to "Rebuild America," which he
has been unable to deliver. Stuck in an endless battle with Democrats over funding for the
border wall, Trump declared a national emergency to fulfill his pledge to construct a wall
along the US-Mexico border. His decision reflects a difference between the two countries'
models. Whereas the Chinese model is people-centered, the American model is vote-centered. With
regard to the "security and humanitarian crisis" on the country's southern border, the people
are asking, "where is the crisis?" And herein lies the dilemma: Decisions, like Trump's
decision to declare a national emergency, are essentially political stunts for votes. The
Western model reduces people to a source of votes, essentially turning democracy into a game of
likes.
This kind of decision-making is in stark contrast to the decision-making process in China,
which makes annual, five-year, and long-term plans to guide the country forward and conducts
extensive consultations to reach a broad consensus on major issues. A clear advantage of the
Chinese system is that it is constantly exploring ways to adapt to the changing times,
including large-scale reform of Party and government institutions to adapt to internal and
external changes.
Perhaps there was a time when one could argue that the Western model produced the best
results, but that is no longer the case. What we are seeing now is that it is increasingly
difficult for Western countries to reach a consensus on major issues and to form a strategic
plan. Western-style of democracy has become too rigid and Western democratic institutions are
in a state of degradation, making it next to impossible to carry out any substantial reform.
This can be seen in the fact that democracy in the Western world has increasingly become a
fight for money and a game of manipulating people for votes.
In China's socialist democracy, there is a strong and stable political force that represents
the interests of the great majority of the Chinese people. The Chinese government takes a
people-centered approach to politics and good governance ensures that results can be delivered.
It should be no wonder, then, that the Western model is barreling toward a cliff, while China
is making great progress in various aspects, including the nation's ambitious plan to eradicate
poverty by 2020. In a world of turmoil, there is reason for China and the Chinese people to be
confident in its path.
--it is fair to say that China's own system is a good fit for the country and it achieves
the best results for the Chinese people--
Putting it broadly 'One Size does not fit All' - as such values of the society, history of
the society and potential of the society are different everywhere - as such state management
be different. Moroever governance methods be flexible enough so that the decisions be adopted
according to the national and international requirements.
In some Western countries it's not the political system itself that is necessarily bad. In
the case of the present "sole superpower", for example, refusal to change policies based on
the extermination of over 95% of its indigenous population and centuries of inhuman slavery
of black people have perpetuated the present war against oppressed minorities. Further, the
continuation of aggressive wars overseas, a habit that prompted Martin Luther King Jr to call
his country "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world" has ensured the neglect of
infrastructure, healthcare, and quality of disenfranchised minorities, especially the
Afro-Americans. It's not surprising that in poll after poll, the US have garnered the most
votes for being the most dangerous country in the world. The much-maligned North Korea was
second.
Millions of poor people of all colours. The Africans used slaves long before the Arabs/
Europeans went to Africa and bought them from Africans, who used them for centuries, rounded
them up, for sale to anyone with trinkets. The A-rabs were real big slavers, real big. Russia
used Swedish slaves as did all nations use their fellow humans as slaves, only the US Negros
get all the publicity.
Trump actually proved to be very convenient President to CIA., Probably as convenient as Obama... Both completely outsourced
foreign policy to neocons and CIA )in this sense the appointment of Pompeo is worst joke Trump could play with the remnants of
US democracy_ .
Notable quotes:
"... "The Deep State does not consist of the entire government. It is a hybrid of national security and law enforcement agencies: the Department of Defense, the Department of State, the Department of Homeland Security, the Central Intelligence Agency and the Justice Department. I also include the Department of the Treasury because of its jurisdiction over financial flows, its enforcement of international sanctions and its organic symbiosis with Wall Street." ..."
"... "It's agencies like the CIA, the NSA and the other intelligence agencies, that are essentially designed to disseminate disinformation and deceit and propaganda, and have a long history of doing not only that, but also have a long history of the world's worst war crimes, atrocities and death squads." ..."
"... Greenwald asserts the the CIA preferred Clinton because, like the clandestine agency, she supported regime change in Syria. In contrast, Trump dismissed America's practice of nation-building and declined to tow the line on ousting foreign leaders, instead advocating working with Russia to defeat ISIS and other extremist groups. ..."
"... "So, Trump's agenda that he ran on was completely antithetical to what the CIA wanted," Greenwald argued. "Clinton's was exactly what the CIA wanted, and so they were behind her. And so, they've been trying to undermine Trump for many months throughout the election. And now that he won, they are not just undermining him with leaks, but actively subverting him." ..."
"... But on the other hand, the CIA was elected by nobody. They're barely subject to democratic controls at all. And so, to urge that the CIA and the intelligence community empower itself to undermine the elected branches of government is insanity. ..."
"... He also points out the left's hypocrisy in condemning Flynn for lying when James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence during the Obama administration, perpetuated lies without ever being held accountable. ..."
And on the heels of
Dennis Kucinich's warnings , The Intercept's Glenn Greenwald, who opposes Trump for a variety of reasons, warns that siding with
the evidently powerful Deep State in the hopes of undermining Trump is dangerous.
As TheAntiMedia's Carey Wedler notes ,
Greenwald asserted in
an interview with Democracy Now, published on Thursday, that this boils down to a fight between the Deep State and the Trump administration.
Though Greenwald has argued the leaks were "wholly justified" in spite of the fact they violated criminal law, he also questioned
the motives behind them.
"It's very possible - I'd say likely - that the motive here was vindictive rather than noble," he wrote. "Whatever else is true,
this is a case where the intelligence community, through strategic (and illegal) leaks, destroyed one of its primary adversaries
in the Trump White House."
"The Deep State does not consist of the entire government. It is a hybrid of national security and law enforcement agencies:
the Department of Defense, the Department of State, the Department of Homeland Security, the Central Intelligence Agency and the
Justice Department. I also include the Department of the Treasury because of its jurisdiction over financial flows, its enforcement
of international sanctions and its organic symbiosis with Wall Street."
As Greenwald explained during his interview:
"It's agencies like the CIA, the NSA and the other intelligence agencies, that are essentially designed to disseminate
disinformation and deceit and propaganda, and have a long history of doing not only that, but also have a long history of the
world's worst war crimes, atrocities and death squads."
Greenwald believes this division is a result of the Deep State's disapproval of Trump's foreign policy and the fact that the intelligence
community overwhelmingly supported Hillary Clinton over Trump because of her hawkish views. Greenwald
noted that Mike Morell,
acting CIA chief under Obama, and Michael Hayden, who ran both the CIA and NSA under George W. Bush, openly spoke out against Trump
during the presidential campaign.
Greenwald asserts the the CIA preferred Clinton because, like the clandestine agency, she supported regime change in Syria.
In contrast, Trump dismissed America's practice of nation-building and declined to tow the line on ousting foreign leaders, instead
advocating working with Russia to defeat ISIS and other extremist groups.
"So, Trump's agenda that he ran on was completely antithetical to what the CIA wanted," Greenwald argued. "Clinton's was
exactly what the CIA wanted, and so they were behind her. And so, they've been trying to undermine Trump for many months throughout
the election. And now that he won, they are not just undermining him with leaks, but actively subverting him."
"[In] the closing months of the Obama administration, they put together a deal with Russia to create peace in Syria. A few
days later, a military strike in Syria killed a hundred Syrian soldiers and that ended the agreement. What happened is inside
the intelligence and the Pentagon there was a deliberate effort to sabotage an agreement the White House made."
Greenwald, who opposes Trump for a variety of reasons, warns that siding with the evidently powerful Deep State in the hopes of
undermining Trump is dangerous. "Trump was democratically elected and is subject to democratic controls, as these courts just demonstrated
and as the media is showing, as citizens are proving," he said, likely alluding to a recent court ruling that nullified Trump's travel
ban.
He continued:
"But on the other hand, the CIA was elected by nobody. They're barely subject to democratic controls at all. And so, to
urge that the CIA and the intelligence community empower itself to undermine the elected branches of government is insanity."
He argues that mentality is "a prescription for destroying democracy overnight in the name of saving it," highlighting that members
of both prevailing political parties are praising the Deep State's audacity in leaking details of Flynn's conversations.
As he wrote in his article, " it's hard to put into words how strange it is to watch the very same people - from both parties,
across the ideological spectrum - who called for the heads of Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning, Tom Drake, and so many other Obama-era
leakers today heap praise on those who leaked the highly sensitive, classified SIGINT information that brought down Gen. Flynn."
He also points out the left's hypocrisy in condemning Flynn for lying when James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence
during the Obama administration, perpetuated lies without ever being held accountable.
In a recent issue of THE WEEKLY STANDARD,
Matt Labash highlighted
the sad story of Trump University, one of the Donald's biggest failures. Here's an excerpt:
But most egregious was Trump University, a purported real estate school that attracted the attention of New York's attorney general,
who brought a $40 million suit on behalf of 5,000 people. The New York Times described Trump U as "a bait-and-switch scheme,"
with students lured "by free sessions, then offered packages ranging from $10,000 to $35,000 for sham courses that were supposed
to teach them how to become successful real estate investors." Though Trump himself was largely absentee, one advertisement featured
him proclaiming, "Just copy exactly what I've done and get rich." While some students were hoping to glean wisdom directly from
the success oracle, there was no such luck. At one seminar, attendees were told they'd get to have their picture taken with Trump.
Instead, they ended up getting snapped with his cardboard cutout. What must have been a crushing disappointment to aspiring real
estate barons is a boon to Republican-primary metaphor hunters.
Read the whole article
here , which documents
Trump at his Trumpiest, from his penchant for cheating at golf to his sensitivity to being called a "short-fingered vulgarian."
Michael Warrenis a senior writer at The
Weekly Standard.
The problem with your views is that there is no liberals in the USA per se. Most are in
reality neoliberals and as such are the part of the right, if we define right as those who
want to increase the power of capital vs. labor.
This flavor of democracy for top 1% the they promote (one dollar one vote) should be
property called "oligarchy" or at best "polyarchy" (the power of the top 10%).
The rest (aka "Debt slaves") are second class citizens and are prevented from political
self-organization, which by-and-large deprives them of any form of political participation.
In best Roman tradition it is substituted with the participation in political shows ("Bread
and circuses"). In a way US election is the ultimate form of "bait and switch" maneuvers of
the ruling elite.
The two party system invented by the elite of Great Britain proved to be perfect for
neoliberal regimes, which practice what Sheldon Wolin called inverted totalitarism.
The latter is the regime in which all political power belongs to the financial oligarchy
which rules via the deep state mechanisms, and where traditional political institutions
including POTUS are downgraded to instruments of providing political legitimacy of the ruling
elite. Population is discouraged from political activity. "Go shopping" as famously
recommended Bush II to US citizens after 9/11.
"A pension is not a 'gratuity.' A pension is wages you could have taken in cash, but
prudently and conservatively set aside for your old age. It's your money. If your
employer, for every pay period, does not set aside and designate it to go into a
pension plan, your employer is stealing from you. The way to get this is to require pay
stubs to itemize the amount of money that has been contributed to your pension plan."
David Cay Johnston
"Capitalism is at risk of failing today not because we are running out of innovations,
or because markets are failing to inspire private actions, but because we've lost sight
of the operational failings of unfettered gluttony. We are neglecting a torrent of
market failures in infrastructure, finance, and the environment. We are turning our
backs on a grotesque worsening of income inequality and willfully continuing to slash
social benefits. We are destroying the Earth as if we are indeed the last generation."
Jeffrey Sachs
"We are coming apart as a society, and inequality is right at the core of that. When
the 90 percent are getting worse off and they're trying to figure out what happened,
they're not people like me who get to spend four or five hours a day studying these
things and then writing about them -- they're people who have to make a living and get
through life. And they're going to be swayed by demagogues and filled with fear about
the other, rather than bringing us together.
President Theodore Roosevelt said we shall all rise together or we shall all fall
together, and we need to have an appreciation of that.
I think it would be easy for someone to arrive in the near future and really create
forces that would lead to trouble in this country. And you see people who, they're not
the leaders to pull it off, but we have suggestions that the president should be
killed, that he's not an American, that Texas can secede, that states can ignore
federal law, and these are things that don't lack for antecedents in America history
but they're clearly on the rise.
In addition to that, we have this large, very well-funded news organization that is
premised on misconstruing facts and telling lies, Faux News that is creating, in a
large segment of the population -- somewhere around one-fifth and one-fourth of it --
belief in all sorts of things that are detrimental to our well-being.
So, no, I don't see this happening tomorrow, but I have said for many years that if we
don't get a handle on this then one of these days our descendants are going to sit down
in high-school history class and open a textbook that begins with the words:
The
United States of America was
and then it will dissect how our experiment in
self-governance came apart."
Senator Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) is expected to introduce a new tax bill today. The senator
says his bill would tax the sale of stocks, bonds and derivatives at a 0.1 rate. It would apply
to any transaction in the United States. The senator says his proposal would clamp down on
speculation and some high frequency trading that artificially creates more market
volatility.
"... Instead of serving as a counter weight to the market, then, the family was invaded and undermined by the market. The sentimental veneration of motherhood, even at the peak of its influence in the late nineteenth century, could never quite obscure the reality that unpaid labour bears the stigma of social inferiority when money becomes the universal measure of value. ..."
"... Commercial television dramatizes in the most explicit terms the cynicism that was always implicit in the ideology of the marketplace. The sentimental convention that the best things in life are free has long since passed into oblivion. Since the best things clearly cost a great deal of money, people seek money, in the world depicted by commercial television, by fair means or foul. ..."
"... Throughout the twentieth century liberalism has been pulled in two directions at once: toward the market and (not withstanding its initial misgivings about government) toward the state. On the one hand, the market appears to be the ideal embodiment of the principle-the cardinal principle of liberalism-that individuals are the best judges of their own interests and that they must therefore be allowed to speak for themselves in matters that concern their happiness and well-being. But individuals cannot learn to speak for themselves at all, much less come to an intelligent understanding of their happiness and well-being, in a world in which there are no values except those of the market. Even liberal individuals require the character-forming discipline of the family, the neighbourhood, the school, and the church, all of which (not just the family) have been weakened by the encroachments of the market. ..."
"... The market notoriously tends to universalize itself. It does not easily coexist with institutions that operate according to principles antithetical to itself: schools and universities, newspapers and magazines, charities, families. Sooner or later the market tends to absorb them all. It puts an almost irresistible pres sure on every activity to justify itself in the only items it recognizes: to become a business proposition, to pay its own way, to show black ink on the bottom line. It turns news into entertainment, scholarship into professional careerism, social work into the scientific management of poverty. Inexorably it remodels every institution in its own image. ..."
"... In the attempt to restrict the scope of the market, liberals have therefore turned to the state. But the remedy often proves to be worse than the disease. The replacement of informal types of association by formal systems of socialization and control weakens social trust, undermines the willingness both assume responsibility for one's self and to hold others accountable for their actions destroys respect for authority and thus turns out to be self-defeating. Neighbourhoods, which can serve as intermediaries between the family and the larger world. Neighbourhoods have been destroyed not only by the market-by crime and drugs or less dramatically by suburban shopping malls-but also by enlightened social engineering. ..."
"... "The myth that playgrounds and grass and hired guards or supervisors are innately wholesome for children and that city streets, filled with ordinary people, are innately evil for children, boils down to a deep contempt for ordinary people." In their contempt planners lose sight of the way in which city streets, if they are working as they should, teach children a lesson that cannot be taught by educators or professional caretakers: that "people must take a modicum of public responsibility for each other even if they have no ties to each other." When the corner grocer or the locksmith scolds a child for running into the street, the child learns something that can't be learned simply by formal instruction. ..."
"... The crisis of public funding is only one indication of the intrinsic weakness of organizations that can no longer count on informal, everyday mechanisms of social trust and control. ..."
If terms like "populism" and "community" figure prominently in political discourse today, it is because the ideology of the Enlightenment,
having come under attack from a variety of sources, has lost much of its appeal. The claims of universal reason are universally suspect.
Hopes for a system of values that would transcend the particularism of class, nationality, religion, and race no longer carry much
conviction. The Enlightenment's reason and morality are increasingly seen as a cover for power, and the prospect that the world can
he governed by reason seems more remote than at any time since the eighteenth century. The citizen of the world-the prototype of
mankind in the future, according to the Enlightenment philosophers-is not much in evidence. We have a universal market, but it does
not carry with it the civilizing effects that were so confidently expected by Hume and Voltaire. Instead of generating a new appreciation
of common interests and inclinations-if the essential sameness of human beings everywhere-the global market seems to intensify the
awareness of ethnic and national differences. The unification of the market goes hand in hand with the fragmentation of culture.
The waning of the Enlightenment manifests itself politically in the waning of liberalism, in many ways the most attractive product
of the Enlightenment and the carrier of its best hopes. Through all the permutations and transformations of liberal ideology, two
of its central features have persisted over the years: its commitment to progress and its belief that a liberal state could dispense
with civic virtue. The two ideas were linked in a chain of reasoning having as its premise that capitalism had made it reason able
for everyone to aspire to a level of comfort formerly accessible only to the rich. Henceforth men would devote themselves to their
private business, reducing the need for government, which could more or less take care of itself. It was the idea of progress that
made it possible to believe that societies blessed with material abundance could dispense with the active participation of ordinary
citizens in government.
After the American Revolution liberals began to argue-in opposition to the older view that "public virtue is the only foundation
of republics," in the words of John Adams -- that proper constitutional checks and balances would make it advantageous even for bad
men to act for the public good," as James Wilson put it. According to John Taylor, "an avaricious society can form a government able
to defend itself against the avarice of its members" by enlisting the "interest of vice ...on the side of virtue." Virtue lay in
the "principles of government," Taylor argued, not in the "evanescent qualities of individuals." The institutions and "principles
of a society may be virtuous, though the individuals composing it are vicious."
Meeting minimal conditions
The paradox of a virtuous society based on vicious individuals, however agree able in theory, was never adhered to very consistently.
Liberals took for granted a good deal more in the way of private virtue than they were willing to acknowledge. Even to day liberals
who adhere to this minimal view of citizenship smuggle a certain amount of citizenship between the cracks of their free- market ideology.
Milton Friedman himself admits that a liberal society requires a "minimum degree of literacy and knowledge" along with a "widespread
acceptance of some common set of values." It is not clear that our society can meet even these minimal conditions, as things stand
today, but it has always been clear, in any case, that a liberal society needs more virtue than Friedman allows for.
A system that relies so heavily on the concept of rights presupposes individuals who respect the rights of others, if only because
they expect others to respect their own rights in return. The market itself, the central institution of a liberal society, presupposes,
at the very least, sharp-eyed, calculating, and clearheaded individuals-paragons of rational choice. It presupposes not just self
interest but enlightened self-interest. It was for this reason that nineteenth-century liberals attached so much importance to the
family. The obligation to support a wife and children, in their view, would discipline possessive individualism and transform the
potential gambler, speculator, dandy, or confidence man into a conscientious provider. Having abandoned the old republican ideal
of citizenship along with the republican indictment of luxury, liberals lacked any grounds on which to appeal to individuals to subordinate
private interest to the public good.
But at least they could appeal to the higher selfishness of marriage and parenthood. They could ask, if not for the suspension
of self-interest, for its elevation and refinement. The hope that rising expectations would lead men and women to invest their ambitions
in their offspring was destined to be disappointed in the long run. The more closely capitalism came to be identified with immediate
gratification and planned obsolescence, the more relentlessly it wore away the moral foundations of family life. The rising divorce
rate, already a source of alarm in the last quarter of the nineteenth century, seemed to reflect a growing impatience with the constraints
imposed by long responsibilities and commitments.
The passion to get ahead had begun to imply the right to make a fresh start whenever earlier commitments became unduly burden
some. Material abundance weakened the economic as well as the moral foundations of the "well-'ordered family state" admired by nineteenth-century
liberals. The family business gave way to the corporation, the family farm (more slowly and painfully) to a collectivized agriculture
ultimately controlled by the same banking houses that had engineered the consolidation of industry. The agrarian uprising of the
1870s, 1880s, and l890s proved to be the first round in a long, losing struggle to save the family farm, enshrined in American mythology,
even today, as the sine qua non of a good society but subjected into practice to a ruinous cycle of mechanization, indebtedness,
and overproduction.
The family invaded
Instead of serving as a counter weight to the market, then, the family was invaded and undermined by the market. The sentimental
veneration of motherhood, even at the peak of its influence in the late nineteenth century, could never quite obscure the reality
that unpaid labour bears the stigma of social inferiority when money becomes the universal measure of value.
In the long run women were forced into the workplace not only because their families needed extra income but because paid labour
seemed to represent their only hope of gaining equality with men. In our time it is increasingly clear that children pay the price
for this invasion of the family by the market. With both parents in the workplace and grandparents conspicuous by their absence,
the family is no longer capable of sheltering children from the market. The television set becomes the principal baby-sitter by default.
Its invasive presence deals the final blow to any lingering hope that the family can provide a sheltered space for children to grow
up in.
Children are now exposed to the out side world from the time they are old enough to be left unattended in front of the tube. They
are exposed to it, moreover, in a brutal yet seductive form that reduces the values of the marketplace to their simplest terms.
Commercial television dramatizes in the most explicit terms the cynicism that was always implicit in the ideology of the marketplace.
The sentimental convention that the best things in life are free has long since passed into oblivion. Since the best things clearly
cost a great deal of money, people seek money, in the world depicted by commercial television, by fair means or foul.
Throughout the twentieth century liberalism has been pulled in two directions at once: toward the market and (not withstanding
its initial misgivings about government) toward the state. On the one hand, the market appears to be the ideal embodiment of the
principle-the cardinal principle of liberalism-that individuals are the best judges of their own interests and that they must therefore
be allowed to speak for themselves in matters that concern their happiness and well-being. But individuals cannot learn to speak
for themselves at all, much less come to an intelligent understanding of their happiness and well-being, in a world in which there
are no values except those of the market. Even liberal individuals require the character-forming discipline of the family, the neighbourhood,
the school, and the church, all of which (not just the family) have been weakened by the encroachments of the market.
The market notoriously tends to universalize itself. It does not easily coexist with institutions that operate according to
principles antithetical to itself: schools and universities, newspapers and magazines, charities, families. Sooner or later the market
tends to absorb them all. It puts an almost irresistible pres sure on every activity to justify itself in the only items it recognizes:
to become a business proposition, to pay its own way, to show black ink on the bottom line. It turns news into entertainment, scholarship
into professional careerism, social work into the scientific management of poverty. Inexorably it remodels every institution in its
own image.
Weakening social trust
In the attempt to restrict the scope of the market, liberals have therefore turned to the state. But the remedy often proves
to be worse than the disease. The replacement of informal types of association by formal systems of socialization and control weakens
social trust, undermines the willingness both assume responsibility for one's self and to hold others accountable for their actions
destroys respect for authority and thus turns out to be self-defeating. Neighbourhoods, which can serve as intermediaries between
the family and the larger world. Neighbourhoods have been destroyed not only by the market-by crime and drugs or less dramatically
by suburban shopping malls-but also by enlightened social engineering.
The main thrust of social policy, ever since the first crusades against child labour, has been to transfer the care of children
from informal settings to institutions designed specifically for pedagogical and custodial purposes. Today this trend continues in
the movement for daycare, often justified on the undeniable grounds that working mothers need it but also on the grounds that daycare
centers can take advantage of the latest innovations in pedagogy and child psychology. This policy of segregating children in age-graded
institutions under professional supervision has been a massive failure, for reasons suggested some time ago by Jane Jacobs in The
Death and Life of Great American Cities, an attack on city planning that applies to social planning in general.
"The myth that playgrounds and grass and hired guards or supervisors are innately wholesome for children and that city streets,
filled with ordinary people, are innately evil for children, boils down to a deep contempt for ordinary people." In their contempt
planners lose sight of the way in which city streets, if they are working as they should, teach children a lesson that cannot be
taught by educators or professional caretakers: that "people must take a modicum of public responsibility for each other even if
they have no ties to each other." When the corner grocer or the locksmith scolds a child for running into the street, the child learns
something that can't be learned simply by formal instruction.
What the child learns is that adults unrelated to one another except by the accident of propinquity uphold certain standards and
assume responsibility for the neighbourhood. With good reason, Jacobs calls this the "first fundamental of successful city life,"
one that "people hired to look after children cannot teach because the essence of this responsibility is that you do it without being
hired."
Neighbourhoods encourage "casual public trust," according to Jacobs. In its absence the everyday maintenance of life has to be
turned over to professional bureaucrats. The atrophy of informal controls leads irresistibly to the expansion of bureaucratic controls.
This development threatens to extinguish the very privacy liberals have always set such store by. It also loads the organizational
sector with burdens it cannot support. The crisis of public funding is only one indication of the intrinsic weakness of organizations
that can no longer count on informal, everyday mechanisms of social trust and control.
The taxpayers' revolt, although itself informed by an ideology of privatism resistant to any kind of civic appeals, at the same
time grows out of a well-founded suspicion that tax money merely sustains bureaucratic self-aggrandizement
The lost habit of self-help
As formal organizations break down, people will have to improvise ways of meeting their immediate needs: patrolling their own
neighbourhoods, withdrawing their children from public schools in order to educate them at home. The default of the state will thus
contribute in its own right to the restoration of informal mechanisms of self-help. But it is hard to see how the foundations of
civic life can be restored unless this work becomes an overriding goal of public policy. We have heard a good deal of talk about
the repair of our material infrastructure, but our cultural infrastructure needs attention too, and more than just the rhetorical
attention of politicians who praise "family values" while pursuing economic policies that undermine them. It is either naive or cynical
to lead the public to think that dismantling the welfare state is enough to ensure a revival of informal cooperation-"a thousand
points of light." People who have lost the habit of self-help, who live in cities and suburbs where shopping malls have replaced
neighbourhoods, and who prefer the company of close friends (or simply the company of television) to the informal sociability of
the street, the coffee shop, and the tavern are not likely to reinvent communities just because the state has proved such an unsatisfactory
substitute. Market mechanisms will not repair the fabric of public trust. On the contrary the market's effect on the cultural infrastructure
is just as corrosive as that of the state.
A third way
We can now begin to appreciate the appeal of populism and communitarianism. They reject both the market and the welfare state
in pursuit of a third way. This is why they are so difficult to classify on the conventional spectrum of political opinion. Their
opposition to free-market ideologies seems to align them with the left, but 'their criticism of the welfare state (whenever this
criticism becomes open and explicit) makes them sound right-wing. In fact, these positions belong to neither the left nor the right,
and for that very reason they seem to many people to hold out the best hope of breaking the deadlock of current debate, which has
been institutionalized in the two major parties and their divided control of the federal government. At a time when political debate
consists of largely of ideological slogans endlessly repeated to audiences composed mainly of the party faithful, fresh thinking
is desperately needed. It is not likely to emerge, however, from those with a vested interest in 'the old orthodoxies. We need a
"third way of thinking about moral obligation," as Alan Wolfe puts it, one that locates moral obligation neither in the state nor
in the market but "in common sense, ordinary emotions, and everyday life."
Wolfe's plea for a political program designed to strengthen civil society, which closely resembles the ideas advanced in The Good
Society by Robert Bellah and his collaborators, should be welcomed by the growing numbers of people who find themselves dissatisfied
with the alternatives defined by conventional debate. These authors illustrate the strengths of the communitarian position along
with some of its characteristic weaknesses. They make it clear that both the market and the state presuppose the strength of "non-economic
ties of trust and solidarity" as Wolfe puts it. Yet the expansion of these institutions weakens ties of trust and thus undermines
the preconditions for their own success. The market and the "job culture," Bellah writes, are "invading our private lives," eroding
our "moral infrastructure" of "social trust." Nor does the welfare state repair the damage. "The example of more successful welfare
states ... suggests that money and bureaucratic assistance alone do not halt the decline of the family" or strengthen any of the
other "sustaining institutions that make interdependence morally significant." None of this means that a politics that really mattered-a
politics rooted in popular common sense instead of the ideologies that appeal to elites-would painlessly resolve all the conflicts
that threaten to tear the country apart. Communitarians underestimate the difficulty of finding an approach to family issues, say,
that is both profamily and profeminist.
That may be what the public wants in theory. In practice, however, it requires a restructuring of the workplace designed to make
work schedules far more flexible, career patterns less rigid and predictable, and criteria for advancement less destructive to family
and community obligations. Such reforms imply interference with the market and a redefinition of success, neither of which will be
achieved without a great deal of controversy.
"... As Sen. Elizabeth Warren has famously said with respect to cabinet and other political appointments, "Personnel Is Policy." You can see the outline of the Trump administration's real policies being shaped before our eyes via his proposed cabinet appointees, covered by Politico and other sites. ..."
"... Sanders, Warren and others should hold Trump's feet to the fire on the truly populist things he said and offer to work with him on that stuff. Like preserving Social Security and Medicare and getting out of wars. ..."
Not surprised at all. The election is over, the voters are now moot. As Sen. Elizabeth Warren
has famously said with respect to cabinet and other political appointments, "Personnel Is Policy."
You can see the outline of the Trump administration's real policies being shaped before our eyes
via his proposed cabinet appointees, covered by Politico and other sites.
Also no mention of NAFTA or renegotiating trade deals in the new transition agenda. Instead
there's just a bunch of vague Chamber of Commercesque language about making America attractive
to investors. I think our hopes for a disruptive Trump presidency are quickly being dashed.
Sanders, Warren and others should hold Trump's feet to the fire on the truly populist things
he said and offer to work with him on that stuff. Like preserving Social Security and Medicare
and getting out of wars.
As to the last point, appointing Bolton or Corker Secretary of State would be a clear indication
he was just talking. A clear violation of campaign promises that would make Obama look like a
choirboy. Trump may be W on steroids.
I can't imagine how he's neglected to update his transition plan regarding nafta. After all,
he's already been president-elect for, what, 36 hours now? And he only talked about it umpteen
times during the campaign. I'm sure he'll renege.
Hell, it took Clinton 8 hours to give her concession speech.
On the bright side, he managed to kill TPP just by getting elected. Was that quick enough for
you?
This just in .Saint Obama is no longer infallible among Dems. Winds of change are blowing. Six months ago, you couldn't get
away with saying this kind of thing.
"The New York Times reported on Wednesday that Obama will receive the sum - equal to his annual pay as president - for a speech
at Cantor Fitzgerald LP's healthcare conference, though there has been no public announcement yet."
=======================================
Sheer coincidence that what Obama campaigned on and what Obama governed on appear to be influenced by rich people. Physics prevents
single payer health care .dark energy, dark matter, dark, dark, money ..
Until a strong majority of dems are ready to say what is patently obvious to anyone even mildly willing to acknowledge reality,
i.e., that policy is decided not by a majority of voters, but by a majority of dollars, than there is simply no hope for reform.
... just as the day was ending, news broke that Rep. Duncan D. Hunter (R-Calif.), an early Trump backer,
was indicted for misusing campaign funds for personal expenses big and small, including dental bills and a trip to Italy.
And this sort of behavior isn't even what Warren is targeting.
Warren's bill takes on what is usually termed the legalized corruption, the dirty dealings of Washington. Among other things,
the legislation would:
Increase salaries for congressional staffers, so they will be less tempted to "audition" for lobbying jobs while working for government.
Ban the "revolving door" for elected officials expand how lobbying is defined to include anyone who is paid to lobby the federal
government as well as halt permitting any American to take money from "foreign governments foreign individuals and foreign companies"
for lobbying purposes.
Prohibit elected officials from holding investments in individual stocks require that presidential candidates
make their tax returns public
The goal? To make government once again responsive to voters, not the corporations and the wealthy donors responsible for the
vast majority of the $3.37 billion spent lobbying Washington in
2017. That money buys results, but only for the people paying the bills. As Warren said:
Corruption has seeped into the fabric of our government, tilting thousands of decisions away from the public good and toward
the desires of those at the top. And, over time, bit by bit, like a cancer eating away at our democracy, corruption has eroded
Americans' faith in our government.
This is not hyperbole. A 2014
academic study found the U.S. government policy almost always reflected the desires of the donor class over the will of the majority
of voters, while a 2016 report by the progressive think tank
Demos determined
political donors have distinctly different views from most Americans on issues ranging from financial regulation to abortion rights.
A tax reform package that showers benefits on corporations and the wealthiest among us? Consider it done. But a crackdown on drug
pricing, buttressing of Social Security without cutting benefits, expansion of Medicare and Medicaid, or progress combating global
warming, all of which majorities say they want? Not so fast.
Sen. Warren (D-Mass.) said on June 5 that she will introduce "sweeping anti-corruption legislation to clean up corporate money sloshing
around Washington." (Georgetown Law)
It's not just what laws get passed, but who is held accountable under those laws. No one in a high position went to jail for the
financial crisis. Foreclosure fraud on the part of the banks was punished with a slap on the wrist – if that. All too many corporations
treat their customers with complete impunity, as scandals ranging from the
Equifax hack to
Wells Fargo's many misdeeds demonstrate. It feels as if there is no one minding the store -- if you are rich and connected enough,
that is.
This behavior leaves us enraged, feeling like outsiders peering in on our own elected government. A Gallup poll found 3 out of
4 voters surveyed described corruption as "
widespread throughout the government " -- in 2010. There's a reason Trump's claim he would "drain the swamp" resonated. No one,
after all, thought Trump was clean. His stated argument was, in fact, the opposite. He claimed his success a businessman navigating
the corrupt U.S. system gave him just the right set of insight and tools to clean up Washington.
We all know now that was just another audacious Trump con. The tax reform package almost certainly benefited his own bottom line,
though we don't know that for sure since he has not released his taxes.
Andrew Wheeler , the acting head
of the Environmental Protection Agency, is a former lobbyist for the coal industry.
Alex Azar , the secretary of Health and Human Services, is a former top executive of pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly. At the Education
Department, the revolving door is alive and well, with
former George W. Bush administration officials who went on to work at for-profit institutions of higher education
returning to government
service to advise Betsy De Vos who is -- surprise! -- cutting the sector multiple breaks.
And all this, under our current laws, is allowed.
To be clear, this is not a matter of Republicans Good, Democrats Bad. As Warren put it on Tuesday, "This problem is far bigger
than Trump." An Obama-era attempt to slow the revolving door
was riddled with loopholes
that allowed the appointment of Wall Street insiders to too many regulatory posts. Subsequently, more than a few Obama appointees
have gone on to work for big business as lobbyists.
Corruption, legal or illegal, rots the system from the inside out. In an environment where it seems anything goes, it's not hard
to think that, well, anything goes -- like Cohen and Manafort, who almost certainly would have gotten away with their behavior if
not for the Mueller investigation, and Hunter, who ignored multiple warnings from his campaign treasurer and instead continued to
do such things as pass off the purchase of a pair of shorts as sporting equipment intended for use by "wounded warriors."
There is, of course, no way Warren's bill would clean up this entire festering mess. But healthy democracies need government officials
-- elected and unelected -- to behave both ethically and honestly. Warren is putting our governing and business classes on notice.
Simply saying the law is on your side isn't good enough. The voters won't stand for that.
On Tuesday, Sen. Elizabeth Warren
addressed the National Press Club , outlining with great specificity a host of proposals on
issues including eliminating financial conflicts, close the revolving door between business and
government and, perhaps most notably, reforming
corporate structures .
Warren gave a blistering attack on corporate power run amok, giving example after example,
like Congressman Billy Tauzin doing the pharmaceutical lobby's bidding by preventing a bill for
expanded Medicare coverage from allowing the program to negotiate lower drug prices. Noted
Warren: "In December of 2003, the very same month the bill was signed into law, PhRMA -- the
drug companies' biggest lobbying group -- dangled the possibility that Billy could be their
next CEO.
"In February of 2004, Congressman Tauzin announced that he wouldn't seek re-election. Ten
months later, he became CEO of PhRMA -- at an annual salary of $2 million. Big Pharma certainly
knows how to say 'thank you for your service.'"
But I found that Warren's tenacity when ripping things like corporate lobbyists'
"pre-bribes" suddenly evaporated when dealing with issues like the enormous military budget and
Israeli assaults on Palestinian children.
... ... ...
Said Warren of her own financial reform proposals: "Inside Washington, some of these
proposals will be very unpopular, even with some of my friends. Outside Washington, I expect
that most people will see these ideas as no-brainers and be shocked they're not already the
law.
Why doesn't the same principle apply to funding perpetual wars and massive human rights
abuses against children?
Sam Husseini is an independent journalist, senior analyst at the Institute for Public
Accuracy and founder of VotePact .org.
Follow him on twitter: @samhusseini
August 22, 2018,
10:46 am OpenSecrets shows that Senator Warren has received funds from the pro-Israel
PAC Joint Action Committee for Political Affairs for the 2018 election cycle. Among the
largest funders of this PAC are billionaire venture capitalist J.B. Pritzker and his wife. At
the start of Israel's 2014 massacre in Gaza, the PAC issued a statement in support of Israel.
August 22, 2018,
12:36 pm No surprise there, ckg. I cannot think of anyone in Congress nor in the US cabinet
that is not 99-100% in Israel supporters' pockets. Nor can I think of anyone that is
diplomatically focused. Nor can I think of anyone that is seriously objecting to the slaughter
in Yemen, the ongoing attempt to topple Assad, and the endless war in Afghanistan, etc.
Then there's this: the US and too many others pay/subsidize Israel for the privilege of
dictating foreign policy and for their own selfish, ridiculous claims of being 'surrounded by
enemies'. A nuclear- armed state (though never inspected nor properly declared) keeps this
trope/cliché alive???
How many billions should Americans and others pay to Israel for nothing in return?
August 23, 2018, 7:10 am
Standing up to the Israel lobby now is suicidal. Nobody will risk a career to support a
dissident until the dam breaks as it always does.
Power doesn't work linearly. It goes in cycles. Zionism is tied up with money which is a
function of the economic system. Warren is playing a long game. She knows the people at the Fed
are clueless. She knows there is going to be an awful crash. She knows there will be a new
economic system based on the people rather than the elites..
"... By Joshua Weitz, a research associate at the Academic-Industry Research Network and an incoming graduate student in the PhD program in political science at Brown University ..."
By Joshua Weitz, a research associate at the Academic-Industry Research Network and an incoming
graduate student in the PhD program in political science at Brown University
Since leaving office President Obama has drawn widespread criticism for accepting a
$400,000 speaking fee from the Wall Street investment firm Cantor Fitzgerald, including from
Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. Only a few months out of office, the move has been
viewed as emblematic of the cozy relationship between the financial sector and political elites.
But as the President's critics have voiced outrage over the decision many have been reluctant
to criticize the record-setting
$65 million book deal that Barack and Michelle Obama landed jointly this February with Penguin
Random House (PRH). Writing in the Washington Post, for example,
Ruth Marcus argues that while the Wall Street speech "feels like unfortunate icing on an already
distasteful cake," the book deal is little more than the outcome of market forces fueled by consumer
demand: "If the market bears $60 million to hear from the Obamas, great."
Obama centrists don't have to worry just about Sanders' popularity. Elizabeth Warren, who is increasingly appearing as a plausible
presidential candidate for 2020, has also risen as an economic populist critic of the former president.
She has been perfectly willing to challenge Obama by name, saying he was wrong to claim at a commencement address at Rutgers last
year that "the system isn't as rigged as you think." "No, President Obama, the system is as rigged as we think," she writes in her
new book This Fight Is Our Fight. "In fact, it's worse than most Americans realize." She even went so far as to say she was "troubled"
by Obama's willingness to take his six-figure speaking fee from Wall Street. There is indeed a fight brewing, but it's not Obama
v. Trump, but Obama v. Warren-Sanders.
And this is where the real difficulty lies for the Democrats. The trouble with the popular and eminently reasonable Sanders-Warren
platform-reasonable for all those, Obama and Clinton included, who express dismay over our country's rampaging levels of Gilded Age-style
inequality-is that it alienates the donor class that butters the DNC's bread. With Clinton's downfall, and with the popularity of
economic populism rising in left circles, Obama has to step in and reassert his more centrist brand of Democratic politics. And what
better way to do so than by conspicuously cashing a check from those who would fund said politics?
Oh please, stop quoting Andy Slavitt, the United Healthcare Ingenix algo man. That guy is
the biggest crook that made his money early on with RX discounts with his company that he and
Senator Warren's daughter, Amelia sold to United Healthcare.
He's out there trying to do his own reputation restore routine. Go back to 2009 and read
about the short paying of MDs by Ingenix, which is now Optum Insights, he was the CEO and
remember it was just around 3 years ago or so he sat there quarterly with United CEO Hemsley
at those quarterly meetings.
Look him up, wants 40k to speak and he puts the perception out there he does this for
free, not so.
I think you're missing the context. Lambert is quoting him by way of showing that the
sleazy establishment types are just fine with him. Thanks for the extra background on that
particular swamp-dweller, though.
Alex Azar is a Dartmouth grad (Gov't & Economics '88) just like Jeff Immelt (Applied
Math & Economics '78). So much damage to society from such a small department!
Since 2014, Ross has been the vice-chairman of the board of Bank of Cyprus PCL, the
largest bank in Cyprus.
He served under U.S. President Bill Clinton on the board of the U.S.-Russia Investment
Fund. Later, under New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Ross served as the Mayor's
privatization advisor.
Is America ready for a real antiwar candidate? Clearly the political establishment and the
media aren't. Criticism of presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard and anyone else who questions
foreign policy orthodoxies is swift and unrelenting. Fighting for peace has never been so
difficult.
CrossTalking with Daniel Faraci, Thomas Palley, and Philip Giraldi.
#RT (Russia
Today) is a global #news network broadcasting from
Moscow and Washington studios. RT is the first news channel to break the 1 billion YouTube
views benchmark.
I have met a surprising number of Republicans and Libertarians who support Tulsi, many of
them former Trump supporters. Bernie had a meeting with her in Vermont before she announced
that she is running. Many think that they plan to join forces at some point. They would be a
formidable team for the neoliberal neocons to beat.
its worse than stifling free speech. These neocons are criminals. Anyone who is always for
invading other countries to take control of resources & killing millions of people along
the way should be considered war criminals & enemies of the USA. They should be locked
up. Including the media fanboys.
The Democratic party is trying to keep Tulsi from the debates , they want her to have 60
something thousand individual donations to her campaign, it's the only way for her to
participate. They want her out of the way ...donate a dollar everyone...let's see her at the
debates. She is the only one that can take Trump on.
If just ONE MSM outlet held a show with such open,honest,invigorating discussion as
CROSSTALK allowing real analyst to present facts and reality into the discussion it would be
a totally different world this morning. Instead I need to go to Internet,go outside my own
countries news sources,even watch other countries governments relations on shadow banned or
plain censored sources. To find the facts,the truth in America today is to risk your own
freedom,Physically,Spiritually,or just plain Sanity. 1933 has collided with 1984 to bring us
2019.
No the sheep citizens of US are not ready for anti war establishment because the dual
nationals in congress won't let that happen who works for Israel not their own country.
People like Ron Paul are never elected in US who wants to work to fix the problems in his own
country and US citizens. They need war criminals and zionist puppets to promote the new
liberal world order and globalist agenda. Even now the Trump is not ending the wars. He is
just shifting the illegal wars from middle east to latin america which will also be a
disaster. This will create more chaos, economic and migrant crisis. US needs anti war leaders
or else one day world will be pushed to nuclear ww3 because of these parasites.
Peter your indignation over Tulsa's treatment is just a wonderful thing to see. She has
been treated horribly so far and I don't think it's ever going to stop. Although as far as I
stand right now she is who I will vote for. I just wish Bernie and Tulsi would run on a
ticket together and run on the Green Party. 47% of America voted for Independents last
elections. Bernie could win as an independent.
Thank you for this conversation. I never wanted to hug old white men so much. Ideas that
should be bought up and discussed and never are since everyone is in such a cult of
personality around that guy. These men should be regulars on your show since this was
riveting conversation. Spot On.
Well, what sort of "patsy" do you think the powers that be will use when they go to
assassinate Tulsi? That's my only question at this point. I assume they'll find some modern
version of Sirhan-Sirhan; that is, they'll find some foreign goofball who actually has a mild
political grudge against the candidate, have their Mossad agents to work him up with drugs
and hypnosis, drive him to wherever the candidate is visiting nearby, have an actual assassin
(paid-off security guard) shoot the candidate for real as soon as their drugged-up patsy
starts firing his gun. Only later do we learn the candidate was killed with 9 bullets while
the patsy's gun only held 8 rounds. In fact, I'll make a prediction of the sort of patsy
they'll use: It will be a Venezuelan emigre who dislikes Maduro's socialism and who believes
Tulsi wants to socialize all of America. However, he won't be able to recall where he was the
12 hours before the shooting. That, and one of the recently-hired armed security guards at
the building where she was speaking decides to quit his job and move to some farm in Peru or
Chile right after the assassination. And the mainstream media will give it only one headline
in their newspapers. After that, they'll go back to headlining sports events and whatever
alleged "hate crime" is in vogue this week.
Say what its is: the deepest cause of our political and societal problems is the MSM power
of international Zionism in America and Europe. To break this power at the current rate with
social media, will at least take another generation's time. But probably long before this
time the social media will be blocked for Zionism criticism by a new inquisition. Which we
are already seeing in progress. So what is left for us to shake off the Zionist yoke? Not
Trump!
Megan McCaine have the nerve to claim she supports the military yet here she is attacking
an actual military servicewomen who've lost her brothers and sisters in arms in Iraq for lies
such as WMD and fake Al Qaeda connection. The establishment media should and chickenhawks
should be called out for this treasonous labeling of Tulsi Gabbard.
Gabbard/Sanders or Sanders/Gabbard ~ I am INDEPENDENT and ready to move on for 2020. Trump
has NOT drained the swamp......EX: Reappoint COMEY = No..........But thanks Pres. Trump for
NOT giving us HRC! Dean K.
President Trump just a Robot in the White House and His Foreign Policies decided by Pro
Israel and Anti Russia WAR CRIMINALS,who are a Bullish,Lying and pro War.
Why isn't crosstalk talkin about AIPEC influence on Congress because the neocons And AIPEC
are basically controlling Congress and are the people responsible behind all the Middle East
War chicanery and Benjamin Netanyahu's influence on Congress is obscene and they actually are
passing laws now that if you speak up against AIPEC in anyway whatsoever you are immediately
smeared and called an anti-semite and your words are considered a hate speech crime... as in
the recent case of congresswoman Ilhan Omar... WTF is going on here??!!
Tulsi is on the same page as Bernie, if she aligns with Bernie and they are on the ticket
for the Dem's - they will win the election - zionists hate them both for the same reason they
are against war machine and want to look after the American homeland and people. Notice how
they are the only two in the US that want to pressure dotard through congress to not be able
to pull out of INF and rejoin the Iran deal. They are for peace .. something Americans want
and zionists don't
As a registered independent and former Trump supporter, she has my vote. I don't agree
with 80% of her platform but I do trust her to do her best to end the US perpetual war state.
However, if she should happen to do the obligatory trip to the wailing wall and pledge
allegiance to Israel, she will lose my support immediately. We'll know she's full of sh*t
when she bows to AIPAC.
MSM either makes ridiculous smears on tulsi or/and what's happening the most at the moment
is to COMPLETELY IGNORE her and act like doesnt exist, even when talking about all candidates
they will conveniently never mention her and pass though her name quickly sometimes even say
her name in a like quieter tone then change the subject, so frustrating! While shoving basic
bitches pro establishment pro war morons like Kamal Harris down our throats, no thank you. I
really hope ALL people see though this at very least most. And people still supporting trump
even after he turned on alot lf his main promises and pretending to be "anti interventionist"
while being compete opposite and wanting to invade any country he can see to benefit from,
how can they still Support him and not even call out his hypocrisy and lies. Hes just another
neocon warmonger.
Tulsi is amazing; she is the only dem I would vote for, all the rest are phonies or
brainwashed. Bernie is especially disappointing in his gullible acceptance of the fake Russia
collusion narrative, his voting for every war except the Iraq war, and his do nothing/say
nothing about election fraud. Tulsi is the real deal; in my opinion she is the only dem who
could beat Trump at this point. All the rest of the dems are scary and crazy, including
Bernie.
Peter, there should be more presentations and conversations about Tulsi on Cross talk and
the Duran as she, in my opinion, is the only person who will bring honesty and integrity to
US politics and restore America as a truly democratic country and restore the bad image that
the rest of the world has of the US apart from the current western alliance. I have listened
to her talks in New Hampshire and Iowa and can see her popularity increasing by the day. The
rest of the Democrats are part of the neocon group that supports war along with the
Republicans. When Trump was running in 2016 I thought it was a breath of fresh air compared
to Clinton. He has reneged on most things he promised to his base and has increased foreign
intervention. The world as a whole is looking for and needs peace.
Tulsi will not become the Democratic nominee, to low name recognition and not enough cash.
Donate to her, 1 USD is enough, she needs 65.000 individual donations to get on the televised
debates. She will drive other candidates to take a stance on US military interventions, a
good cause in itself. I would like to see, in the end, Bernie as POTUS, Warren in Treasury
and Tulsi as Sec State OR VP but think Sec State is better.
I love this show and amazing intelligent knowledgeable people as your guests. Excellent.
Please Keep going because you have 99% of humanity with you. The victory is certain and it
takes a bit more time to overcome evil that has built foundations for centuries but not
winning. You are the real champions not Old books or statues, and future generations will
play your each videos again and again and they will analyse it over and over again. What you
say and what you do is part of renaissance and foundation of future of the world. It is
important to say and do right things and be proud that you are making important history for
humanity. You will not have only statues or quotes also will have real videos to play it and
listen and see it. Children in schools, students at colleges and universities and
intellectuals politicians all will listen to your important brave opinions and views in this
curtail time of human history. I hope you realise the importance of this time and your moral
stands
Tulsi is going directly for the jugular of the ultimate origin of all this mess, she is
aiming at the core problem that generates, or makes worse, any other problem in our society,
ranging since: Climate Change on the top at planet level, down to bullying in schools at
street level. Not to mention, of course, that War Business means "Killing Humans by the
Thousands Business".
Tulsi Gabbard would do a better job than Bernie, who supports Government Intervention in
Venezuela and didn't expose the corruption of the DNC when he should have.
The only corporate US news reporter that doesn't try to "gotcha" Gabbard & smear her
is Tucker Carlson who gives her a chance to express her anti foreign intervention
message
So, Lindsey Graham, both Bushes, John McCain, and virtually all the other Republicans are
peaceniks and it's all the Democrats' fault? As to the baby boomers...I am a baby boomer and
have opposed US warmongering ever since Vietnam....ever heard of Jesse Ventura, or horrors!
Jill Stein? Partly, after they came home from Woodstock, it was back to business as usual.
Certainly a component of that is there. Many boomers sold out after the Civil Rights and anti
war movements. So, so far in this discussion, I am not hearing anything about what's left of
the real Left, such as Chris Hedges on RT, or Ventura and many other voices like Michael
Parenti, whom the Establishment either bought off or banished. Dennis Kucinich being a good
example. And let's not even talk about the Greens, who have always been anti war. Their
candidate--a female baby boomer was shackled so she couldn't be in the presidential debates!
And then accused by the Democrats of being a Russian bot.
Neo-Cons are Zionist partisans and former "Troksyists"(as Chris Hitchens would say), AIPAC
is the only foriegn lobby not registered under FARA....this network has infiltrated this
country on every government and social level since even before they accomplished a state,
Mossad is tied hip to hip with our intelligence agencies and have and continue to steal
secrets and material of all kinds.....btw the last president and attorney general to demand
inspections of Dimona, supported Palestinian right of return and gave the Zionist lobby 72
hours to register under FARA were Jack and Bobby Kennedy, read Michael Collins Piper's Final
Judgment if you wan't more about that but we should all know who the real problem is and that
problem comes out of Tel Aviv.....
Do not base your opinion of what the people want by looking at the 2018 mid term
elections. Between the astronomical amount of voter fraud and the sabotaging by Paul Ryan
(because he is one of those neocons or some would call RHINO"s) because Paul Ryan hates
Trump! 2020 will be a huge disappointment if you do. For starters there were about 40 seats
that dems ran completely unopposed!
Tulsi Gabbard does NOT align with Bernie Sanders at all. Sanders is PRO war. Do your
homework, jog your memory. As VP she wouild have zip power over foreign affairs or u.s. war
involvement. She is however, aligned with Rand Paul, if anyone. Sanders' association with
socialist DOMESTIC change has nothing to do with his unspoken position on imperialistic
occupation and regime change.
Its so comical to hear news hosts on all the mainstream media outlets criticizing Tulsi
for going to Syria yet none of them ever discuss Chelsea Manning let alone show the video of
the US Hellicopter gunning down 12 people and the American soldiers laughing after it.
Manning was imprisoned and tortured for her act of journalism. The networks still do not dare
show that video let alone discuss it.
Its so comical to hear news hosts on all the mainstream media outlets criticizing Tulsi
for going to Syria yet none of them ever discuss Chelsea Manning let alone show the video of
the US Hellicopter gunning down 12 people and the American soldiers laughing after it.
Manning was imprisoned and tortured for her act of journalism. The networks still do not dare
show that video let alone discuss it.
She will make an excellent VP. or Secretary of State if not the President ! I am tired of
being taken to war by people who haven't served . (Not even as Boy Scout) !!!
I wish Tulsi well..best candidate since Ron Paul. Unfortunately the stupidity of the
American public never ceases to amaze. Just YouTube a few of Mark Dice interviews when he
asks just the basic of questions...the responses are a scary but albeit reflection of why
America is doomed
"legacy media" !! a great phrase. Oh, I see. I thought legacy media was a reference to
sources like CNN and MSNBC. But it refers more to magazines and other publications (old
media).
The current and past agendas of the neocons can be easily identified as failures from the
viewpoint of making things better for humanity. But this is not their measure. The failure
you are seeing is actually success for them. Their interest is in war and destruction. See
how this cancer is spreading through their thought patterns. The total dismantling of their
military complex is the only way to bring this cancer to heel. This must happen from
within.
The curtains are being raised showing neo cons and neo libs on same team exposing war
mongers in media as well Tulsi Gabbard for president feel the aloha
Tulsi's voting record shows she will feed the DOD machine regardless of pork. She voted
yea on HR 695, HR 3364, HR 1301, etc., all for a DOD that is yet to be held accountable for
lost $ trillions.
She raise important question about Trump university
Notable quotes:
"... That was brutally enlightening. I mean, I heard from the news that she didn't have a clue about education, but I didn't know it was this bad. America's education system desperately needs to be improved, but I don't see that coming with her... ..."
"... Senator Warren's zeal and interrogation skills are both admirable. ..."
I am an Australian observer, What I see of Elizabeth Warren, she should be the next
American President, 1, she has a brain, 2, she has dignity, 3, she knows what she is dong,
(she has a clue, unlike the current one ) no one scares this woman.
Betsy deVos got raked over the coals by both Franken and Warren... deVos isn't qualified
to be a teacher's aid for a kindergarten class much less run the D. of Ed. scary!
We need more Elizabeth Warrens in America. And we need new rules in our governance. Can
you imagine if this was a real life corporate board interview. Would DeVos be hired by that
board? Be honest....... DeVos was beyond stupid here.
That was brutally enlightening. I mean, I heard from the news that she didn't have a clue
about education, but I didn't know it was this bad. America's education system desperately
needs to be improved, but I don't see that coming with her...
I am not a fan either way of DeVos, but this was nothing but a platform for Warren to fast
talk over her, and a way to slam Trump, call him a crook and fraud, and be condescending
non-stop.
Elizabeth Warren has some good ideas at times, but this was bullying and
showboating on her part and she wasted her time lecturing instead of really giving her a real
opportunity to answer a few strong questions to see where she stood on certain topics. Pity.
Has Warren been held accountable for the billions of waste and fraud committed by the
congress in the past 8 years on failed policies, laws, etc.
And by the way, how many people
in Washington, D C have had experience running a Trillion dollar bank? What a rather dumb
question since the answer is NOBODY.
"Destroys?" She basically ask her a bunch of questions she already knew the answer to just
to point out she hasn't taken out a student loan or has experience overseeing a trillion
dollar program. Then Liz proceeds to derive her own answer prior to Besty answering herself.
A cop may not have saved someones life before so by that logic the cop is not qualified to
save lives? Sure, she may not have experience with student loans but that doesn't mean she
doesn't understand compound interest, inflation and economics. Maybe these hearings would be
a better use of tax payer's money if they weren't merely a forum to broadcast the fact that
you don't like someone's political affiliations.
So having focused on being a community organizer is fine for running for president, but
somehow NOT for running a federal agency under a president? Meanwhile, when it comes to
following the spirit of regulations as opposed to regulations themselves, which (if any) were
NOT violated when a certain senator used to be a professor at Harvard and proclaimed that she
was of American Indian heritage, while such a classification "coincidentally" benefited
whomever claimed it?
Having said that, Senator Warren's zeal and interrogation skills are
both admirable. So is the way in which Betsy Devos diplomatically handles such an onslaught
of pointed questions that some say are agenda-driven.
This is democracy at work and it's
refreshing to see. Thanks Youtube and all who helped bring this about.
Senator Warren. You are a US Senator. What is your plan for insuring the United States
won't run up 10's of trillions of debt which will bankrupt our country? Senator Warren, have
you ever balanced a budget? Do you know what a balanced budget is? Senator Warren, what is
your plan for protecting US citizens from criminal illegal aliens? Do you know, Senator
Warren, we already have laws in place to protect US citizens from criminal illegal aliens?
They're called immigration laws.
Tim Sloan has all the characteristics of a crook. He is remorseless, misleading, lacks
responsibility, tries to cause confusion of the facts, and a manipulator. This guy was the
CFO and claims he was removed from the scams. Yeah right!
I know Tim Sloan did not do a good job and Senator Warren grilled him to the point where I
feel bad for him. She is so good at finding out the truth and cornering the guilty like a
rat.
I don't know all the ins-and-outs of Tim Sloan, probably some fair criticism, but he
doesn't strike me as a crook. For Pocahontas to say he should be "fired", the same charge
could be made at Pocahontas - that she should resign (fire herself from the Senate); the scam
of her claiming Native American heritage to further her career was TOTALLY bogus.
If she would shut up about being an Indian and attacking Trump and focus on attacking the
banks she would win I'm a Trump supporter and I would vote for her. She is great on the
fed
Trump is a dangerous and in his own way very capability media person, a propagandist who is
capable fully exploit this story. She really needs to call Trump Pinocchio to neutralize this
line of attack
Notable quotes:
"... She has too much excess baggage to run for president. She reminds me a little bit of Hillary mixed with Trump. She used to or still supports Susie Orman, the self proclaimed financial wizard. Orman is a lier and has cheated many people and has made a lot of money off people who fell for her get rich sceems. Orman is a lot like Trump. I don't mind having a woman president but just not this ine! ..."
"... Donald and Fred Trump both claimed that their family is from Switzerland when they are are actually 2nd and 3rd generation German immigrants and still have a whole town of living relatives in Germany. I'm sure we need to demand Donald Trump take a DNA test and also exhume and test Fred Trump's remains . I mean since these matters are clearly so important to everyone. Come on let's dig up the president's dead father to solve a petty political dispute! ..."
"... CNN literally can't do an interview without being obsessed with race. ..."
"... She mentions her native ancestry. It's a point of pride to her, she has no shame of it. Trumps bullying her lead her to get the DNA test. It made her look foolish, like she would do anything to shut the bully up. Whatever her action they have a reaction of insulting her. Because they are racist. ..."
"... OMG, What controversy with Warren?? No one outside of DC cares about the ancestry.. Trump is literally a Mob Boss... ..."
Most White ppl in the U.S. think they are Cherokee, even though they aren't. In fact, I
know White conservatives who claim Cherokee. Sure she went a step too far 30-40yrs ago, but
at least she actually cares about Natives. Conservatives, on the other hand, claim to be
Native Americans, support DAPL, could care less about them and mock Natives any chance they
get
--Principal Chief Richard Sneed "It's media fodder. It's sensationalism. That's what it
is,. All it takes is for one person to say they're offended, and then everybody does a dog
pile. But to me, it's 'Wait a second. Let's get to some of the facts here.' Sen. Warren has
always been a friend to tribes. And we need all the allies we can get."
I see the hate on the comments...it looks like the KKK types are here donning their MAGA
hats. Are they tight? Lowering your, already low, IQs further? Yeah
The whole DNA thing is such a silly, irrelevant distraction. It's so utterly unimportant.
But we're now going to find that those sideshows become the focus of the race rather than any
real discussion on policy. I'm becoming more and more convinced that people are increasingly
too stupid or simply lazy and cynical to bother thinking about things that actually
matter.
Why? The poor learned the loopholes just like the rich. That's why she checked the
native American box. And the hypocrisy of "President" Trump's past brought out from the time
he stated he was running, this women was right next to Hillary knocking him down.
I don't buy the soft casual talk about not going to the past. She messes with the wrong
man and then her skeletons came our of the closet. She deserved it
Nothing we First Nations people despise more than a white person so ashamed of themselves
try and pretend they are one of us . We have more respect for white people who are strong and
proud of their own people . She is not only very weak , she is a traitor to her people . We
do not respect people ashamed of themselves .
I also hope all you upright citizens are out there demanding a boycott of Chuck Norris.
I'm sure you're outraged by Walker Texas Ranger, correct? You know that tv show where one of
the whitest guys in America claimed both in the show and outside of the show for marketing
purposes that he is native American. I assume you all want Chuck Norris to take a DNA test
and prove it right? Guys? Right?
They should simply agree on what is the proper genetic mix that is acceptable
ideologically to determine which genetic mix is less or not acceptable so that the proper
mistreatment of the lesser sort can be determined and enforced by popular consensus. This
seems almost to be having the force and effect of law socially and politically. This is
becoming a strange mix of nostalgic notions of virtue while at the same time embracing the
basic premise of Nuremburg.
She has too much excess baggage to run for president. She reminds me a little bit of
Hillary mixed with Trump. She used to or still supports Susie Orman, the self proclaimed
financial wizard. Orman is a lier and has cheated many people and has made a lot of money off
people who fell for her get rich sceems. Orman is a lot like Trump. I don't mind having a
woman president but just not this ine!
Donald and Fred Trump both claimed that their family is from Switzerland when they are are
actually 2nd and 3rd generation German immigrants and still have a whole town of living
relatives in Germany. I'm sure we need to demand Donald Trump take a DNA test and also exhume
and test Fred Trump's remains . I mean since these matters are clearly so important to
everyone. Come on let's dig up the president's dead father to solve a petty political
dispute!
CNN literally can't do an interview without being obsessed with race. Warren would
probably had a chance if they gave her a support like they do Harris. ...now here comes the
twist I actually do not support her or anyone on the left but she didn't even get a solid
chance she might as well drop out now and endorse someone.
She mentions her native ancestry. It's a point of pride to her, she has no shame of it.
Trumps bullying her lead her to get the DNA test. It made her look foolish, like she would do
anything to shut the bully up. Whatever her action they have a reaction of insulting her.
Because they are racist.
It's so annoying how anytime a decent person fucks up nowadays they're forced to spend
like an entire year apologizing, and that's only if they don't automatically lose their
entire career right after said fuck up. She admits she shouldn't have done it, great, now
lets get back to policy.
I just don't understand how some people can't accept her apology for the Native American
fiasco, yet they give trump all the slack in the world. This is a man who bragged about
grabbing women by the pussy..... The double standard is just ridiculous.
Taxation itself does not solve the problem. You also need to cut MIC. Only in this case
orginary americans will benefit. Andf that Mmieans that Eligeth Warren will face tremendous
slander campaign neocons.
If Elizabeth Warren is nominated for president, and I hope she will be, I believe we will
see the most virulent, vile and vituperative campaign imaginable against her by the right,
the wealthy and the corporate interests. It will be a battle for the soul of this country.
But if anyone can make the case to the middle class for real economic and tax reform in the
face of the attacks that such a plan will face, Elizabeth Warren is the person to do it. She
has a first class intellect, she has remarkable communication skills and, as she says, this
is her life. She's not running in order to "be" president, she's running to enact policies
that have the potential of turning the tide in this country in favor of the people and away
from the plutocrats. And in this, she will face real opposition from many within her own
party. It's going to be an interesting two years.
Paul, it would be great if you could compare the revenue effects of this Warren proposal
with the actual tax policies that were in effect during the Eisenhower administration. It
seems that the progressive taxation rates of that era, topping out at about 90% marginal
rates, should and could be the "gold standard" for comparison with current plans.
The neolib/libertarian campaign, stretching back to those years and even earlier, has been
wildly successful in brainwashing Americans with regard to both public finance and the link
with tax structures. And the removal of controls on money in politics has us in a truly toxic
environment that in my view has already tipped us into an oligo-klepto-plutocracy. The
ravaging of all three branches of government has reached critical mass, and we're teetering
on the brink in a way that may not be reversible.
Any candidate who is promising health care for all and a substantial response to climate
change and crumbling infrastructure, has to be talking taxation of the wealthy either by
income tax or wealth tax or both. Otherwise, they are just blowing smoke. Elizabeth has that
combination in her platform.
It is a tragic commentary on the American political system that FDR felt he had to make a
compromise with the Devil in order to gain the passage of progressive legislation.
The situation continues today with the institutions of the electoral college and
especially the US Senate, where the population of several small easily manipulated states can
hold equal power to representatives of states with many times more people. In our times the
circumstances often result in gridlock when the Senators from progressive states refuse to
compromise with these who represent minority viewpoints.
Warren Buffett and other billionaires who are socially committed should endorse Senator
Warren's proposal and her candidacy. Let Trump call her names; she knows what she's doing and
is truly on our side.
The national debt as a % of GDP was higher after WWII than it is now. Then we had three
decades of prosperity along with a steady decline in the debt. How? High marginal tax rates.
Since Reagan's election the debt has steadily increased, so that now it's almost as high as
it was in 1945. We solved this problem before, we can solve it again. Warren and AOC are
right on.
There is a very simple logic to focus on; The corruption of Republicans from campaign
donations to legislation as directed by wealthy's lobbyists enriching their wealthy
benefactors, to gross wealth inequality as a result, is overwhelming justification to get
that wealth back to the nation through progressive taxation. Tax the wealthy before they
export America's wealth. It isn't trickling down as much as trickling Up and Out of the
country.
The idea that a couple of extra percentage points of taxes on fifty million dollars could
be considered to be outrageous shows how radical the right-wing has become in this
country.
Someone who has that much income- I was going to say "earned", but it's the lower-class
working people who earn it for them- would not even miss that money. And how much money can
you actually spend in a way that makes you happy, or happier, anyway?
In real life, Obama already increased taxes for the extreme rich, and Hillary's campaign
agenda included additional tax increases. So this is merely a logical continuation of what
Democrats have always stood for.
I've noticed two things that have happened in my lifetime. Many Billionaires and near
billionaires have proliferated while at the same time social security has become more
precarious and homelessness has exploded.
And of course our overall national debt has dramatically increased. Nobody needs a billion
dollars or even ten percent of it for that matter. Not sure if Warren's plan is the best but
it would generate a ton of money to improve the collective good and it still wouldn't dent
the billionaires much.
The downside to this proposal is that my newest Bugatti Veyron I was planning to
gold-plate may have to be silver-plated instead. Worse, my tenth beach house estate I was
planning on building on the island I purchased off Fiji may have to be scaled back to a
bungalow occasionally rented out to cover the utilities. Oh, the pain. And forget about me
trying a hostile takeover of a major media outlet I will not name.
Prof. Krugman, why do you give credit to Elizabeth Warren's party rather than to Elizabeth
Warren herself? Her party will deserve credit if they can get beyond the corporatists and
nominate her. Otherwise, no. Last night on Lawrence O'Donnell, Sen. Warren explained how the
wealthy have manipulated the system for years to accumulate more and more wealth.
Their lobbyists persistently ask Congress for small, subtle changes in the law that
benefit them. Because the individual changes seem minor, Congress often goes along, but, over
the years, they add up to major benefits allowing the wealthiest to accumulate more and more
assets.
Billionaire Howard Schultz's ability to self-fund a presidential campaign and the Koch
political network's efforts to make its own preferred policies exemplify another reason for
taxing the wealthiest. They can and do use their vast resources to cause significant harm to
the country.
Watched Sen. Warren on MSNBC last night and she did well to explain her plan to us
"regular folks," rare for a politician. Just ask Paul Ryan.
This plan can work if we don't let Republicans lie about its benefits. Nail the Fox crew
to the wall in siding with their uber rich boss Murdoch, who loathes the plan (I wonder why).
This plan can work if it still contains tax break goodies for the 90%---all levels. We all
have to join together and we all have different economic concerns. That's a fact.
This plan can work if the public realizes it prevents tapping into Social Security or
Medicare or cutting benefits. This plan can work if we can hear over and over again how the
money will be spent on climate change, healthcare, college tuition, infrastructure, cyber
security, and poverty, to name a few. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat. This plan will work if they
point to the Republican tax debacle giveaway of 2018 did NOTHING to help any of those
problems but was a major giveaway to the rich who did not reinvest into the economy but
cashed in instead.
The ripple effects of more fair, adequate, progressive tax rates are huge throughout the
society. Low tax rates and tax havens for the rich and corporations lets mega donors keep
increasing their donations (investments) in our politicians and elections, thus their
dominance over lawmaking.
This effectively subverts our professed ideals of equality and citizen influence. It
subverts our constitution, bill of rights, and the safeguards of our 3 equal branches. Big
money values infect our executive, legislative and judicial branches. The S. Court legalized
unlimited donor money (investments) in our elections, pretending that any limits would
subvert the 1st Amendment's Free Speech. We see the effects on tax laws and weak regulations
giving huge advantage to the donor elites. In effect they are regulating our govt.
You are wrong in every argument you make. You don't live in isolation, you live in an
organized society that makes your wealth possible. There would be no wealth in the US if we
didn't have a functioning society, and there would be no functioning society without taxation
and government functions. And "the rich" didn't go anywhere in the fifties and sixties when
the taxation was much higher than today. Also these 0.1 to 0.01% that Warren is proposing to
tax don't pay vast majority of the taxes, it's the upper 10% that pays the majority.
I agree that the tax rates from the 1950's were economically, fiscally and socially sound.
Were it not a violation of the constitutional ban on bills of attainder, I would propose a
more rigorous tax be applied to the Kochs and the Adelsons. When it comes to spending more on
Medicare (which I interpret to mean more than the current 17-18% of GDP), however, we should
not. I recently had a health problem while traveling in Germany. I spent 4 days in a teaching
hospital (University Clinic of Bonn--UKB). Not only did I receive excellent care, which my
American doctor told me was as good as any care available here, but the bill came to around
$4300 (€3700). That included three diagnostic procedures. The Medicare-approved payments
for the same care would have been about $28,000. Throwing more money down the bottomless pit
of U.S. medical practice is futile. The proceeds of such a capital levy as that proposed by
Ms.Warren would be better spent on addressing hunger, on infrastructure and on retiring some
of the national debt
A tax on significant accumulated wealth is past due. The same for inherited wealth.
Apparently the hated "Death Tax" doesn't go far enough. Many self-made millionaires promote
the benefits of pulling one's self up by one's boot straps. Why are they so adamant about
denying the opportunity to their children?
When Warren Buffett turned over much of his wealth to charity through Bill Gates, he was
asked if he wasn't giving away his children's inheritance. Buffett responded, (paraphrase,)
"My children have enough to do whatever they want. They do not have enough to do nothing." In
my perfect world, it would be difficult to be very rich or very poor, and no one would ever
go without.
Nice headline---Eliz Warren does Teddy Roosevelt--- who broke up the trusts in the
progressive era. And Bernie Sanders aimed to do Franklin Roosevelt. Sanders had the quixotic
idea to restore the New Deal. But he was soundly bashed and trashed by Krugman and most NYT
columnists/reporters.
Even if he wasn't their ideal candidate, his proposals should have been given the respect
of serious discussion, like we now are getting for Ocasio and Warren. Do a compare and
contrast on policy---Warren and Sanders. Interesting to see what we can learn.
Speaking of billionaires, I just heard Howard Schultz on NPR trashing Warren's wealth tax
plan. So what does this say? Even a so-called progress wealthy person really doesn't want to
give up a scintilla of coin. I think the counter-argument, that increasing the income of the
0.1% with tax breaks, does not lead to significant increases in prosperity for everybody -
the "lifts all boats" ruse. A recent article in the NY Times shows that this is the case.
That is, yachts are being lifted, dinghies are getting shredded by their propellers.
Ignoring the irrelevance of the Teddy Roosevelt comparison (hardly has anything to do with
the rest of his article anyway), this is pretty good from a guy who did all he could to kill
Bernie against Hillary. Bernie would have said pretty much the same as Warren then and
probably would agree with the proposals now. So Dr K, good to have you back in the midst of
the progressives and assume you had a lapse of reason for the past 3 or 4 years. Saez,
Piketty and Zucman are fantastic. I am delighted the first two are helping Warren. Ps. All
three deserve the Nobel Prize. At least as much as you did.
I was disappointed that she didn't run in 16. She knows that large swaths of our
population are under-educated, superstitious, and under the impression that their little
arsenals will make a dent should their conspiracy theories that heroically place them behind
bushes at Lexington and Concord at odds with the US government somehow come to pass. As
someone who has taught school, she appears to understand that trying to engage the back row
not only fails to produce positive results but also annoys and appalls those who showed up in
good faith. Similarly, she appears to know that the best way to enlighten is to lay out the
facts as accessibly as possible and trust that those viewing the facts can come to logical
conclusions. Note that if her theory is fatally flawed, so is the Republic. Adlai Stevenson,
when told that every thinking American would vote for him, reportedly was chagrined and noted
that to win he needed a majority. That was in the 1950's, when sensible tax policies had not
been hijacked by dark messaging funded by those who had so much to gain if American safety
nets such as Social Security and, in the 1960's, Medicare, could be misconstrued as the
insidious tentacles of the Red Menace. The messengers of deceit, thanks to Citizens United,
no longer have to whisper doom from the shadows. Rest assured that if EW moves toward the
nomination we will be frightened by slick ads that equate gross wealth not with a cancerous
concentration but with American lifeblood.
@JW Not sure why anyone on the left sneers at Sanders. Did you know that Sanders has an
approval rating of something like 80% in Vermont, a state that used to be full of Republicans
and still has plenty of conservatives? People who pay serious attention to Sanders like and
respect him. We'll actually be very lucky if we get someone with Sanders' magnetism. If you
listen closely, his anger is at injustice, not at other people. He cares about everyone.
Why do we have college football coaches making $6million per year ? Because slightly
lesser coaches make $5million per year. They could all get by very nicely on a quarter
million per year. It's the same with the 1% : they need their fortune only in comparative
terms. In the meantime 80% of us live in an economy comprising about 20% of our country's
wealth, a very poor country in itself indeed.
Liz has always been ahead of the curve. She knows well that it's time for Democrats to
right the ship of state by reducing income and wealth inequality before it sinks our
democracy. Go Liz! Go Dems! Go big .. before it's too late!
"...public opinion surveys show overwhelming support for raising taxes on the rich." Yet,
congress refuses to support such tax reform. I guess that tells us that most politicians are
serving and protecting their wealthy political donors rather than our country.
One summer in Sigourney, Iowa, when I was a small boy, my grandfather took me into the
library Carnegie built and talked about it with great pride. By the way, he served in both
world wars and was a prominent Republican. Oh, how times have changed.
This is going to be a tough choice for average voters. Work till the day you die, live in
squalor and penury in old age as the social safety net is cut, and condemn your family to
ever decreasing living standards -- or in the alternative, tax the accumulated wealth of
billionaires. Decisions, decisions, decisions...
RICH- THE ANSWER IS NOT CLASS WARFARE VS THE RICH...I'm not rejecting this proposal out of
hand but Warren/Picketty have been putting the cart before the horse-she needs to identify
and focus on a fiscal need, THEN assemble tax policy to pay for it in an earmarked way...and
it has to be gradual, ideally phased in over 10 plus years. Suggestions ? What do we need to
establish Medicare for all ? Or address infrastructure problems over next 10-20 years ? Or
make SS solvent ? Determine the revenue you need, not the "revenge" you might want vs the
"rentiers" - and I think a very good place to start would be top tax advantages accounts very
heavily at high rates.Its absurd Mitt Romney has like what $200 million in his IRA and hes
only taking the RMD ?? Tax any income to an IRA with a balance over say $10 million....nobody
needs a tax break at that level.
But billionaires are the job creators, the noble stewards of finance and cap... and I'm
laughing. Tax the rats. If they complain, tax them more. Let them move to Singapore and share
their crocodile tears with crocodiles (does Singapore have crocodiles?)
America's oligarchs have given the working class 40 years of wage slavery and we've given
them a life in the clouds. Time to renegotiate.
It's I thought was about taxing the rich more, not only on high incomes but on high net
worth also. Rajiv said about how the rich donate to causes that reduce their taxes, by say,
electing more tax-cutting Republicans. The Koch brothers are good examples. I didn't quite
get your criticism of Rajiv.
This column " Elizabeth Warren does Teddy Roosevelt " says a lot about Professor Warren
but very little about Teddy. I read a column yesterday by Charlie Pierce where he goes into
detail about TR`s New Nationalism speech.
There are parts of this speech that are real eye openers such as - The true friend of
property, the true conservative, is he who insists that property shall be the servant and not
the master of the commonwealth; who insists that the creature of man's making shall be the
servant and not the master of the man who made it. The citizens of the United States must
effectively control the mighty commercial forces which they have called into being.
Or- We must have complete and effective publicity of corporate affairs, so that the people
may know beyond peradventure whether the corporations obey the law and whether their
management entitles them to the confidence of the public. It is necessary that laws should be
passed to prohibit the use of corporate funds directly or indirectly for political purposes;
it is still more necessary that such laws should be thoroughly enforced. Corporate
expenditures for political purposes, and especially such expenditures by public-service
corporations, have supplied one of the principal sources of corruption in our political
affairs. This speech spends a lot of time praising the Saviors of our Country, The Civil War
Veterans. And it also says a lot about the proper place for Capital and Corporations,
servants not masters.
I might agree with you if this was a momentary phenomenon, but it's not. The imbalance
that is finally plain to all began with subtle changes in the balance between capital and
labor in the early 1970s. The truly rich understood what they were doing. They found a
fulcrum that allowed them to pry money and power from the increasingly vulnerable middle and
lower classes, so they did. To correct this by less drastic means will take at least that
long again. I doubt we can wait another 45 years, so yes. We need to use the taxation
authority as the fulcrum to pry back the people's fair share. There is no other option as far
as I can see.
Your characterization of the argument as suggesting that "we should just take all the
money from individuals because we can" is as complacent as your reference to Lenin and Mao.
Did you miss the part where Krugman points out that we have already used progressive taxation
in this country to advance the collective economic good? U.S. economic policy from the Great
Depression to Reagan unleashed a rising tide that truly floated all boats in the U.S.
economy.
It was the gratuitous tax giveaways to the wealthy advocated by Milton Friedman, among
others, that gave our wealth distribution its present hourglass configuration.
Let's add another thing: scrap the cap on the amount of wages subject to the 6.2%
Social Security tax, currently set at $128,400. Why should someone making $20 million a year
only pay the SS tax on the first $128,400? Scraping the cap would make SS solvent forever,
and could even reduce the percentage we're taxed.
@Robert Elizabeth Warren is a good explainer, and when she starts banging on a point she's
convincing. Importantly, she doesn't do it just once, she makes it a theme to be
hammered.
A great lesson of the Vietnam War was that it is *repetition* that drives change -- in
that case, TV news repeatedly showing flag-draped coffins coming home, covering marching
protesters, exposing atrocities, etc.
Whether through timidity or laziness or slavishness to big money donors, Democrats have
failed to create a momentum on the idea of wealth inequality that would persuade the public.
This will change with Elizabeth Warren and, if he chooses to run, Bernie Sanders. In this
regard, a prediction: At some point before November 2020, we will hear the phrase "I welcome
their hatred."
Far from radical, the ideas of Warren, Sanders, and AOC are sensible, logical, and fair.
Bring on any politician who means business such as these proposals and can articulate them,
isn't a billionaire already, and doesn't have a tawdry history of being entangled with Wall
Street, and watch him/her win.
Progressive taxation isn't all that progressive anymore. Capital gains and even earned
income of incredible amounts of money as well as stock options are taxed at low rates. In
case no one has noticed, the AMT is a bust. It doesn't work and when it does, it harms the
upper middle class rather than the super-rich.
The "high-end earners" pay a lot (but not enough) because they are the only ones who have
so much income that taxing them does not adversely affect the economy. We have rich folks who
can afford giant yachts and not so rich folks who can't survive an unexpected $400 bill. That
is not the way the economy should work. Eventually, income inequality will even weaken
corporate profits and destroy the economy. Even large corporations need customers who can buy
their products.
FDR 2.0 must address the social class the Great Recession created. Those are the now 50-60
year olds and millennials who lost jobs, pensions, and are still underemployed and in the gig
economy.
Starting in ten years, if nothing is done,very will have 95 million or so homeless.
Leaving it to states to construct affordable housing won't do. We need Universal Basic
Income. This is needed regardless of whether the GOP and Trump's scams cause a depression.
Bernie and Elizabeth would easily demand Congress act on these ideas. Bloomberg and Schultz?
Not on your life. A decent future is progressive. We need FDR 2.0. we need to be done with
triangulation.
The GOP is an untrustworthy partner. --- Things Trump Did While You Weren't Looking [2019]
https://wp.me/p2KJ3H-3h2
Let's hope Warren succeeds, whether she becomes President or not. I recall that under
Eisenhower-era rates of taxation, the middle class and the working class had a lot better
deal than we have today. Heck, we even had a better deal under Nixon-era rates of taxation.
It's weird to be nostalgic for Nixon, but look at what's in the White House now.
Thanks for a great column again, and yes, Ms. Warren in on the right track. Now if we
could only get the corporate media to stop trivializising her policies as "nerdy" we might
get somewhere.
While Warren's proposal and ACO's marginal tax ideas both have merit, let's be honest-
ideas such as these have no chance until campaign finance reform occurs. Given the current
composition of the SOCTUS that seems impossible for several decades, as the obscenely rich
simply buy the government they want.
I suggest that you rethink your position. I appreciate the frustration with the current
system but the public school system is habitually underfunded. The $40k is not a direct
benefit to each child. Look into that. And maybe look at Finland where schooling is
considered one of the most important benefits to a country. As a result you see the best
university graduates going into teaching because they make a very good salary and they are
supported by an administration that supports their efforts, efforts that come with passion
for helping kids.
A 2% tax on wealth is not much more than what many of us pay the financial industry to
'manage' our savings. The investment funds take their percentage, and the companies managing
the portfolio take theirs. Small investors tend to pay a higher percentage in fees than
larger investors. When all is taken into account, people living paycheck to paycheck pay the
highest percentage, of what ends up being zero wealth. This 'wealth tax' would help rectify
the imbalance.
I'm very impressed with Elizabeth Warren,not just for her tax proposals, but because she
is so intelligent - and genuine. Some say that she is too heady to win but she certainly has
more charisma than Adlai Stevenson, who lost in the 1950s because he was too intellectual.
And he didn't have a catchy slogan such as "I Like Ike." Unfortunately, it's all about how
politicians are perceived. I would like to see Warren more poised and not afraid to express
her sense of humor.
If talent and drive - particularly talent - were the deciding factor in wealth
accumulation, the descendants of Fred Trump would be living on the street.
We have a Carnegie library in our small town of 2400 in rural Indiana. It is still in use
as a community resource center and town history museum. It is a beautiful sturdy brick
building and I assume it will be around for 100 more years. We just outgrew it and had to
build a new one. Carnegie will be remembered for this, not his great wealth. Same with Gates
and Buffett.
I've generally been impressed with Warren's economic analyses, going back a couple of
years before she ran for Senate. A close version of this plan deserves support. If it seems
"radical," it's probably because the USA drifted so far to the right. I blame disco and
"Grand Theft Auto."
Her tax proposal would be a nightmare to implement. How do you value thinly traded assets
(real estate, art, antiques, etc.)? Hire a valuation expert? Have the IRS contesting it every
year? Litigate? Please, tax all dividends as ordinary income, eliminate/change the duration
for long term cap gains treatment, make inherited assets have a zero cost basis, etc. Simple
to implement, enforce, ideas.
In 1906, Representatives and Senators did not spend 4.5 days a week, every in a cubicle,
begging for money, calling rich people all day. We have elected telemarketers. (no insult
intended to telemarketers.)
It's not surprising that "the usual suspects" are already trying to disarm Elizabeth
Warren's well thought out tax plan. Many American billionaires are nouveau riche, and don't
have the sense of responsibility that the very wealthy used to feel towards the less
fortunate. And the Republican party is right there egging them on to resist fair
taxation--like Elizabeth Warren's proposal.
I'm all for her. Warren is by far the smartest presidential candidate in the Democratic
pack and I'm all for supertaxing the superrich -- as well as making mega-corporations pay the
proper taxes they've been evading for so long.
The confiscation of excessive wealth is exactly the point and that point is a practical
one -- to mitigate the tendency of unregulated large scale economies to form parasitic
aristocracies that lead to resource deprivation in vast portions of the society's population.
And this is not a scapegoating of the wealthy, it is refusing to worship them, it is to call
them back to Earth and ask of them what is asked of each of us.
"Malefactors of great wealth," Theodore Roosevelt called them. Prosperity that delivers
unbelievable amounts of wealth to a very few while the other 99% struggle is not
sustainable.
TR was no wild-eyed Socialist: he was a man of wealth and property and wished to remain
so. He and FDR were both blue-blooded aristocrats. Both were saving capitalism by restraining
its excesses.
Whether you realize it or not, the good old USA takes away the wealth of individuals and
hands it over to the government to allocate. The rest of your statement, about tyrants, is
just wrong. You are equating communism with taxation, a silly thing to do. Educate
yourself.
I agree with you 1000%. I'm tired of people arguing that certain persons would not be good
candidates because they sound too smart. That's the dumbest argument I've heard so far. If
someone sounds smart, then GOOD. I hope they ARE smart.
Right now we are a laughing stock of the world because our leaders are actually proud
to sound stupid and boorish. Out with charisma and in with intellect and expertise, please. I
wouldn't want Tom Hanks performing brain surgery on me, nor do I want him in the White House
(much as I enjoy seeing him on the big screen
This isn't about taxing wealth. It's about taxing power, privilege and greed. This
isn't about punishing oligarchy. This is about saving democracy. The concentration of wealth
parallels the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere: it is economic climate change
with consequences equally as dire as global warming on all lifeforms.
The challenge will be no less difficult, replete with a powerful lobby of deniers and
greed-mongers ready for war against all threats to their power and position. Their battle cry
is apres moi, le deluge -- as if taxing wealth and privilege is barbarians at the gate and
the demise of civilization rather than curbing cannibals driven not by hunger but voracious
greed. Everywhere climate change deniers are being drowned out by a rational majority who now
see the signs of global warming in every weather report and understand what this means for
their children if we continue to emulate ostriches.
Likewise, the same majority now sees the rising tide of inequality and social
dysfunction and what that means for the future as a global caste system condemns nearly all
of us -- but mainly our progeny -- to slavery in servitude to our one percent
masters.
Elizabeth Warren is no nerd. She's our Joan of Arc. And it's up to us to make sure she
isn't burned alive by the dark lords as she rallies us to win back our country and our
future.
the two issues, inequality of wealth and global warming, are related. The vast wealth of
the Koch Brothers enables them to drown out rational debate with propaganda. Propaganda must
be abolished.
@FunkyIrishman I think Trump intentionally or inadvertently has destroyed anything
resembling the status quo. It's the political equivalent of Newton's Third Law of Motion:
that for every action in nature there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Trump is the ugly face of unbridled power and privilege, leavened only by vainglory
ignorance.
He's the equivalent of melting icecaps and stranded polar bears when it comes to the
concentration of wealth and economic climate change. His utter failure will be the rational
majority's success in plowing a better and more equitable path forward. There's been nothing
more radical than Trump. He's made radical solutions compelling and necessary. And
inevitable.
@Yuri Asian: "This isn't about taxing wealth. It's about taxing power, privilege and
greed." Their is plenty of power, privilege and "greed" in our nation's capital, and it is
practiced daily by individuals who are elected and un-elected.
@Jim Thanks for your reply and appreciation. I'm lucky to be an Editor's Pick as there are
so many great comments by thoughtful and articulate NYT readers, particularly those who
follow Krugman's columns. I agree with your sense of wealth as a social disease that's highly
contagious. We need a vaccine and I hope Sen. Warren is it and she inoculates a strong
majority by 2020.
November 2018 has Come; 2020 is Coming Vallejo Jan. 28
@Anne-Marie
Hislop
I agree, Anne - Marie. There was a time when being rich carried a responsibility to
contribute more to the world than those with less; a responsibility to serve society overall,
and one's country and community in particular. Also the rich were expected to have better
manners and more discerning taste than those who worked because they had the free time to
study and model grace and refinement.
In addition, the wealthy were expected to be patrons of the arts, the sciences, and
religion by contributing money and time to support practioners, research, and experimentation
in these areas.
Finally, the wealthy were expected to raise children who were role models, leaders, and
volunteers who contributed emotionally and spiritually to their schools and communities.
Compare Franklin D. and Eleanor Roosevelt to Paris Hilton or the tRump family.
Amen and hallelujah, and I'm an atheist. For those asleep or oblivious, we're in the new
gilded age. But faux gold, as evidenced by the occupant sitting in the Oval Office.
These " Job Creators " are creating Jobs only for shady attorneys and accountants
specializing in creative mathematics, sham Corporations, Trusts and TAX avoidance. See: the
Trump Family.
What's the average, law abiding citizen to do ??? Absent actually eating the Rich, WE must
overhaul the entire system.
Warren is very nerdy, and very necessary. Unfortunately, the great majority of Men will
not vote for any Woman, not yet. See: Trump. She would be a most excellent choice for VP, the
back-up with a genius IQ and unstoppable work ethic. President ??? A modern day, working
man's Teddy OR Franklin Roosevelt, and His name is Senator Sherrod Brown, Of the very great
state of Ohio. MY native state. Think about it, it's the perfect pair.
I particularly like Elizabeth Warren's ability to talk policy. But as a career academic
I also realize that she sounds to most like a law professor giving a lecture. Unfortunately,
I don't think this is a winning formula but I'd be happy to be proven wrong.
Yesterday a billionaire threatened the Democratic Party with certain defeat in the 2020
Presidential election if the Party chose a candidate not to his liking. Increasing
concentration of wealth in the hands of a few will ultimately spell the end of our
democracy.
If there were ever a politician for our time, the second and more egregious gilded age,
it should be Elizabeth Warren. She INVENTED the Consumer Financial Protection Burueau! She
has studied the big banks and Wall Street for decades! She knows how they operate better than
anyone on the planet. She is the Teddy Roosevelt of our time, but are we smart enough to
elect her?
My wife and I find Warren to be the most impressive candidate we've seen in a long time.
She has the mastery of detail that can actually move our country to where it should be. No
lazy demagoguery, either -- and she communicates well.
The primary purpose of taxes should be to raise necessary revenues, not the confiscation
of "excessive" wealth. Making the case for the moral and practical necessity to contribute
more would be more effective than the tiresome scapegoating of the wealthy.
@RR I happen to live in one of those Scandinavian paradises. I, nor my family, have ever
had a problem with ''care''. We also have higher education paid for through a moderately
higher tax structure. (perhaps 10% average higher than the U.S.) I sleep like a baby and all
is taken care of. (as well as 5 weeks vacation per year) You are welcome to visit
anytime.
@Shiv, the wealthiest 20% of Americans also have about 90% of the wealth (as of 2013,
probably higher now). According to the Wall Street Journal, the top 20% in income paid about
87% of individual federal income taxes in 2018. But income tax is just a portion of tax.
Personal income taxes were about 48% of federal revenues in 2017, payroll tax was 35%.
Since payroll taxes are regressive, the top 20% of income tax payers pay a considerably
lower percentage of total taxes than the percentage of the nation's wealth they control.
Saying those paying more in taxes than they receive in direct benefits and services are
'paying all the taxes' is simplistic and deceptive. It isn't even accurate to say that they
are completely funding the transfers and services to the bottom 50%, since the federal
government operates at a deficit.
The deficit is covered in large part by debt owed to the social security fund, which is
funded through payroll taxes. When you include state and local taxes, it looks like the
percentage of total taxes paid by each income quintile is not far off from the percentage of
total income that they bring in.
We probably all remember the scene where Chinatown's detective, J. J. Gittes, asks the bad
guy, Noah Cross, "How much are you worth?" And Cross says, "I've no idea."
There are two take-aways from this. One is the low marginal utility of wealth at Mr.
Cross's level. This is what makes the optimal progressivity of a wealth tax positive. But the
second is the literal take-away: he really doesn't know. Nobody knows.
So, as Prof. Piketty points out (pp. 518ff of his book), the value of even a nominal
wealth tax in terms of transparency -- forcing the system to determine what the distribution
of wealth actually is -- is substantial, aside from revenue generation. If we're going to
give wealth a vote, via Citizens United etc., then wealth should at least have to
register.
As this op-ed shows, even a majority of Republicans ALREADY supports this idea. So the
problem is not so much getting rid of the GOP's fake news, but having a voter turnout where
the demographics of those who vote reflect the demographics of the entire population. In
2016, a whopping 50% of citizens eligible to vote, didn't vote. And the lack of political
literacy among many progressives has certainly been a factor here. So what is needed is for
ordinary citizens to start engaging in real, respectful debates with their family, friends,
neighbors, colleagues etc. again, to make sure that everybody votes. Only then will we have
more impact on what happens in DC than Big Money.
This is a superb insight you are providing....the 'critique' of Late Capitalism from the
perspective of 'Systems Stability'. I work in the field of Distributed Systems Management
though Cloud for Living. The way with Distributed Decision Making is, in a number of
situations it is a lot more resilient and powerful. There are advantages of Command &
Control decision making (war for example). But in Late Capitalism that concentration of
Decision Making in hand of few has gone too far.
To understand all this, to figure out the relevance of Distributed Decision Making, to
articulate all this to masses and then to formulate sane policy proposals out of all that -
that is not a simple task. So Sen. Warren, please continue the 'nerding'. I am Kamala Harris
constituency, but the intellectual heft Warren is bringing to this campaign; I love that. She
needs to bring her such big guns for a couple of marquee social issues as well as about
America's Foreign Policy. Obviously, it cannot degenerate into 63 details policy papers like
HRC.
The trick is to make the campaign about few core issues and then there to 'have the house
cleaned' - completely worked out theory, understanding, explanation and policy proposals.
Hope E. Warren does that, she is capable no doubt. (Predictable election cycles - such a good
thing with American System....for a while just to think and discuss things apart from the
Orange Head in White House - it is so refreshing...)
J suspect that the notion that proposals to raise taxes sharply on the wealthy are too
left-wing for American voters is wishful thinking or propaganda by the wealthy, on whom many
pundits and analysts rely, one way or another, for their jobs. "It's difficult to get a man
to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it." I don't know
whether I agree with Warren on enough things to support her, but I hope this idea influences
the Democratic platform and becomes reality.
@Tom The current Republican Party is toxic – to democracy, truth, ethics, human
health, human survival, equality, education, nature, love... most anything a decent person
values. We can get rid of it and still have a two-party system of reasonable people who
disagree on the best way to solve problems.
I read somewhere that the Davos crowd was intent on speeding up the development of robots
to do those jobs so they wouldn't have to deal with pesky humans who want an occasional
break.
As a person who has done fairly well, there is no end to your "needs" once your start
getting wealthy. Let's take flying. First, you are happy to get a deal every now and then on
a flight to Hawaii. After a while, you earn status, so now you want to be first in line, have
baggage privileges and get into premium economy with an extra 5 inches of leg space. Then,
it's enough status to "earn" business class upgrades. Next you have to have business class on
every flight, so you pay up. There's first class, but now you can afford NetJets where you
get fractional ownership of a jet to fly almost anytime you like. If you get even wealthier,
you get your own jet with an on demand staff. It's "worth it" as your time is valuable. It
goes on and on. Every time you get more, you can't live without it. You feel like you deserve
it because you've worked so hard for that money. Knowing some of those super rich, they will
complain about those fascist attacking their success. They "donate" a lot to candidates whose
job it is to protect their wealth. While Warren's ideas via Piketty are really interesting,
maybe we need to work on our culture and values so people understand what they are doing when
they expect that jet with a staff that waits in them like royalty. Then let's invest in the
IRS to stop the cheating that deprives our citizens of at least $200 billion/year. After
that, let's look at closing loopholes and increasing taxes.
Until we get the money out of elections, the moneyed will control those elected. I'm not
sure what our elected officials are more afraid of - meeting with their electorate and facing
our anger, or voting against Grover Norquist et al.
During the primaries and the subsequent campaign, Democratic candidates should run
explicitly and continually as new Teddy Roosevelts, using his words and images of him --
presenting the Democratic Party as the Roosevelt Republican alternative when it comes to
taxation policy. It would reduce right-wing attempts to cast them as Maduros-in-waiting to
pure late-night comic fodder: which is what they properly are. In fact, they should identify
past Republican champions of as many of their policy proposals as possible and run as
"Democrats: the Real Republicans."
Warren, Ocasio-Cortez, and Bernie have blown open up a discussion that had been locked
down since Reagan -- tax the rich. Krugman is too timid.
Time to radically redistribute wealth from the capitalist class to the people in the form
of jobs and social benefits.
Tax the banks and corporation to 40+% and end all tax incentives -- corporate welfare.
Apple used its tax break to buy back stock to enrich investors. Facebook bought up
competitors like Instagram and suppresses start-ups. A hedge fund bought Toys R Us, loaded it
with debt, then bankrupted it.
The right-wing turn of rural white Americans is largely due to economic anxiety resulting
from the industrialization of agriculture and global commodification of grain -- all the
profits leave farm communities for mega-corporations based in cities and Wall Street, as well
as global capitalist de-industrialization.
Americans on both the right and left believe the system is rigged, because it is. Warren's
tax on personal assets is the first baby step. To win 2020, Democrats have to secure the vote
of minorities, women, and Millennials, and peel off some white working-class voters. They
have to fight for working people against the capitalists.
And we have to keep educating people, in large part at taxpayers expense, so they can
continue to speak up as you have. The idea that everything, education, healthcare,
prescriptions, housing, food, etc has to be on a max-out-profit basis is not sustainable for
a decent society. If you look into the history of successful billionaire families who might
profess that government should not be used to create equal financial opportunity, you may
find that they have benefited from U.S. government policies themselves to get to where they
are. So why prevent others from having the opportunity to join them ?
@Bill A small transaction tax on sales of stocks would not raise that much money. What it
would do is much more useful -- put program trading and the arbitraging of tiny, tiny price
differences on huge, huge trades out of business. The sort of liquidity they provide is not
needed by the market and is not worth the price we pay for it.
Absolutely agree with R. Law--the carried interest loophole has got to go. That's probably
contributed more to the aggrandizement of oligarchical fortunes than just about anything
else. But I'd also add two more modest suggestions: --Eliminate the cap on individual Social
Security contributions. There's no reason it should fade to black at $132,900 gross annual
income. It should be applicable to ALL earned (and unearned) income. --Institute a small
stock trade/financial transactions tax; even a 0.1% rate here would raise significant
revenue, and it also might curb a lot of wild equities speculation. But, of course, none of
this is likely until we can get big money out of politics; it's impossible to get
representatives to represent their actual constituents, rather than their oligarchic campaign
funders, if the latter are the prime source of campaign money. So, as the risk of repeating
myself: --Publicly funded elections, with low three digit limits on individual campaign
contributions and NO corporate, organizational, church, or (yes, even) union contributions.
No PAC's, 501's, or any other letter/number combinations. --Reinstatement of the Fairness
Doctrine. --Legislative repeal of the Citizens United decision.
@Tom "Wealthy people reinvest their money in economic ventures that grow their wealth,
which generates greater productivity while creating jobs and wealth for the society." Like,
for example, the investments that caused the 2008 Republican Great Recession for example?
That plan hasn't worked since Reagan. And taxing 2%-3% of enormous wealth is hardly taking
away "all the wealth of individuals!" We also need to roll back estate tax to pre-Reagan
policies.
So businessmen and financiers need checks and balances, and these checks and balances
include high taxation and occasionally breaking a business into pieces because it is too big
and powerful. We broke up Rockefeller's company. We should be thinking about Amazon, Google,
Facebook, and even Microsoft. We are using Word and Excel because Microsoft owned the
operating system they run under, not because they were better products. Now we are stuck with
their strengths, weaknesses, and odd habits.
Boy do I wish I could share Dr, Krugman's hopefulness. But after the Supreme Court
decision equating money with speech and one of the two major political parties literally a
"wholly owned subsidiary" of those very 0.01%, as the ancestral Scot in laments, "I hae me
doots."
@Blair A Miller....Rewarded for hard work and talent? Well that is the myth. There is a
case to be made that capitalism rewards greedy and unethical people who have a talent for
working the system. There is also no question that it rewards monopolists and the
fortunate.
@Kurt Heck It doesn't. That's precisely why we have to stop the GOP strategy to pass tax
cut after tax cut for the wealthiest all while making life even more difficult for the other,
very hard-working 99%. And if you believe that in order to be a billionaire today you must
work hard, it's time to update your info. Most of them inherited a fortune already, together
with the knowledge needed to engage in financial speculation, which in the 21st century is
totally disconnected from the real economy - or rather, they PAY experts to engage in
financial speculation, and that's it.
It's time for the most industrious to at least be able to pay the bills, get the education
and healthcare they want, and become represented in Congress again. THAT is why we need a tax
increase for the extreme rich, all while increasing the minimum wage, and expanding Medicaid
and Medicare. THAT is how we'll finally become an entirely civilized country too. Not by
adding trillions and trillions to the debt just to make the extreme wealthy even wealthier,
as the GOP just did again.
The NYTimes reported in October, "Over the past decade, Jared Kushner's net worth has
quintupled to almost $324 million. And yet, for several years running, Mr. Kushner paid
almost no federal income taxes." Let's not get lost in the details of how we do it:
taxing wealth, making income taxes more progressive, restoring the estate tax, or something
else. Let's remember that Jared Kushner is the poster boy for our current (extremely unfair)
tax system.
I care about taxes and wealth inequality, so I like that Warren is talking about them. I'm
also a bit of a policy wonk, so I like the fact that Warren focuses on policy issues. As a
classically trained economist, though, I know how quickly others' eyes glaze over when I get
too excited about anything related to finance or economics. The vast majority of people lack
the patience for it. Too many think they understand far more than they really do because they
read a handful of articles and watched CNBC a couple times. And when people believe they
already know something, they're unlikely to greet new ideas with an open mind. A wealth tax
makes sense to me on a lot of levels. I just hope Senator Warren keeps the explanation as
simple as possible. For every wonk she wins over, she risks pushing two rubes away if she
makes it any more complicated. It's unfortunate that we live in the Twitter era of gadfly
attention spans, but we do. Dems need to do a better job of distilling their platform to
bumper stickers. If they do that, the polity might actually remember some of their talking
points.
Win or lose, Elizabeth Warren will bring the lion's share of ideas to this presidential
season. It's one to say that you support a trendy concept, but it's quite another to have
thought through the implications of your proposals - and be prepared to first defend, and
then implement them. Warren is, and will be - from Day 1. We shouldn't settle for "hope and
change" this time; we need a President in 2021 capable of thinking her way through a maze of
societal problems, and unafraid to passionately, untiringly champion her preferred
option.
Paul, as an aside, do you think that we would have lost the House of Representatives in
2010 if someone had opted for that much larger stimulus package that you, Joe Stiglitz and
Robert Reich were recommending (thus causing the economy to more quickly and fully rebound in
time for the midterms)?
@Tom A 2% tax on wealth from $50 million to $1000 million, will have minimal impact on the
mega rich, with hopefully maximum benefit going to those who need government assistance.
The primary purpose of Citizens United was to allow the wealthy a back door into
stealing our public institutions and public contracts along with reducing the taxes on
passive income for their own personal expansion of wealth. While I agree this is a form of
class warfare, the rich have won the war. Instead of thinking of this as confiscation,
consider it insurance for keeping your head up.
As Yascha Mounk has been saying for years, democracy isn't about a firm belief in the
power of the people, or a belief in personal liberty - above all, its support is determined
by one thing: whether it is delivering results for the majority of the population. If it
doesn't, it loses support; and unfortunately, for decades now, it hasn't been delivering
results. Even Obama, the great liberal hope, stacked his cabinet and advisors with the likes
of Geithner, Bernanke, and Sommers, appointing people to the FTC who were too soft to
trust-bust or aggressively tackle mergers. I am of the belief that Trump was a warning. We
got him because ordinary people have been losing faith that the government is working for
them. If we want to regain that faith, we need a government (meaning both an Executive and a
Legislature) that is prepared to go full FDR in 2021. Trust bust corporations that have
decreased power of workers by consolidating labor market, and the power of consumers by
monopolizing goods and services. Expand social security. Cut the red tape to build millions
of desperately-needed housing units. Take away the excess wealth of the plutocrats, and their
political power. Expand voting rights. Make unionization easier, and healthcare more
affordable by socializing it. Without this, we run the risk of losing our democracy. 2020 is
do or die. Warren has a record of fighting for this. She has my vote.
If the people who make their fortunes in America because of Americans don't want to
support the country that helped them perhaps they should consider this: our sweat, our hard
work, and our tears were a vital part of their success. It doesn't matter how brilliant the
idea is or smart the inventor is or how cleverly the product is marketed. If the public isn't
ready for it, it won't sell and money won't be made. There is a lot of luck involved in
making a fortune. Part of that luck depends upon us and our willingness to buy into what is
being sold. Yes, the inventor or the creator has to have the drive to succeed. S/he has to
accept failure, work very hard, and have faith that s/he will succeed.
It's nonsense to claim that Bill Gates would not have created Windows if he knew he'd be
taxed at very high rates. He didn't know if it would succeed as well as it did. The purpose
of taxes is to support the country. It's to have a government that can fund basic research to
help us, create nationwide rules to ensure that milk in New York is milk in North Dakota, and
to regulate those little things like roads, bridges, water safety, and keep the country safe.
Any exceedingly rich corporation or person who doesn't want to support that is not patriotic
in the least. They are greedy.
The American Revolution was a revolt of American born property holders, not of the
peasants or the slaves. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are both very strong on
property rights. The rights of an individual to own property free from seizure by the
government is at the heart of Liberalism. We live in a two party state. If we truly
eliminated the Republican party we'd be no different than China. America only gets better if
the Republican party gets better. The Democratic party could use some improvement too. I
support Warren's tax plan. It's a reasonable and sensible move, not just a bunch of poorly
thought out hot air.
This is but one in a long line of cogent reasonable suggestions to tax mega rich a little
more. Unfortunately while the economics makes sense, these schemes fail politically because
enough of the vast majority of much poorer people in the middle class can be convinced that
there is something unfair by singling out the successful.
The Steve Jobs story, whereby a poor boy with a great idea should be able to make tons of
money. The only way a change will come is if the middle class' eyes can be opened to the fact
that for every Steve Jobs there are thousands of Jay Gatsbys who inherited their wealth and
privilege and who now spend much of their time and money ensuring that the laws are written
so that they can keep their wealth.
The inequity of the present laws, via tax loopholes and corporate subsidies to favour the
very rich should be highlighted, showing the middle class how they are constantly being
ripped off in order to fund the rich.
There are polls and then there is reality. In Alabama in 2003, a newly-elected
conservative Republican governor proposed a constitutional amendment to raise taxes on the
wealthiest Alabamans. The measure was defeated 67.5%-32.5% with low-income voters opposing it
by a significant margin. In Washington in 2010, voters defeated a referendum to impose a
modest income tax on the state's wealthiest residents. (There is no income tax in
Washington.)
It seems unlikely that in the state with the country's most regressive tax system that 65%
of the voters are wealthy. Despite language in the referendum that guaranteed it could never
be applied to lower incomes without a vote of the people and a provision to lower property
taxes by 20%, paranoia, not reason, ruled the day. It lost 65%-35%.
Polling is easy. But when concrete proposals go to the voters, the wealthy interests
overwhelm voters with fear and lies, and the voters, complacent and ill-informed, can be
easily manipulated. Conservative Alabama and liberal Washington State both defeated measures
that would have helped their state finances significantly.
The money raised was to be spent on education, health care for the elderly and other
radical things some of which would have helped the poor, but lower income voters cast their
votes as though, despite their current conditions, they'd be subject to the taxes tomorrow or
next month or next year.
@Acajohn "Why isn't there one billionaire or multi billion dollar company that actually
takes pride in paying their fair share?" Like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, the two richest
men in America, who have pledged to follow Carnegie's example, and taken actions to do
so?
The notion that Sanders has no deep understanding of the policies that he champions is a
stroke of common wisdom that is not very wise, as anyone who ever bothered going to he web
site would find. In 2016, at least, it was chalk full of issues and positions with a long
section on how it could be paid for.
Krugman seemed to shun him for reasons that were never clear to me, but Sanders' proposals
had the ear of quite a few economists.
Even Krugman's crush, Thomas Piketty was intrigued. I'm thrilled that both Warren and
Sanders are in this, and if the primary were today I could probably toss a coin. But I find
this constant picking at Bernie Sanders and his "flailing arms" to be grating and uninformed.
It's akin to asking him to just smile more.
Not just Roosevelt. "The consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery
to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing
property... Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all
from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in
geometrical progression as they rise." - Thomas Jefferson, October 28, 1785.
"An enormous proportion of property vested in a few individuals is dangerous to the
rights, and destructive of the common happiness, of mankind; and therefore every free state
hath a right by its laws to discourage the possession of such property." - Benjamin Franklin,
July 29, 1776.
"All property ... seems to me to be the creature of public convention. Hence the public
has the right of regulating descents and all other conveyances of property, and even of
limiting the quantity and the uses of it." - Benjamin Franklin, December 25, 1783.
Senator Warren should consider a few adjustments to her plan. First, tax capital gains
income at the same rate as earned income. Eliminate the carried interest deduction and close
some other egregious loopholes (including the new "pass through" income loophole). Finally,
give the wealth tax a nine year period after which it would have to be renewed. Call it a
"Patriotism Tax". Pledge to use it for infrastructure improvements and debt reduction. I
think that could be very popular.
That is a radical plan, one tried many times before. It fails because humans are not
perfect, and not perfectible. They try to accumulate wealth and power, are jealous of each
other's possessions and mates, and try to create circumstances that favor their offspring
over others of the next generation.
The fields of human evolutionary biology and psychology tell us that your plan can not and
will not work. Not only that, countless Utopians have tried this in the past. Most fail
within months, even with a small group of people who all supposedly love one another. All
societies founded on the belief that humans are perfectible have failed. Societies founded on
the belief that humans will be venal, corrupt, and power-hungry tend to have the safeguards
that allow them to survive. That's why the constitution is full of "checks and balances".
Don't think you can replace them with a society of peace and love where we will all live in
quiet harmony. You can only replace them with better checks and balances if you hope to
succeed. John Lennon's "Imagine" is a lovely song. But it's just a wish list, not a
manifesto.
Yes, what kind of person, especially one with obscene wealth, prefers to keep every penny
rather than pay taxes that make our country function? Why isn't there one billionaire or
multi billion dollar company that actually takes pride in paying their fair share?
Sanders said little about taxation. In his debates with Clinton, he advocated scrapping
the ACA and starting de novo, whereas Clinton suggested legislation to improve it. Thanks in
part to Sanders' attacks on Clinton, both personally and on policy, Trump got elected and the
Republicans have tried in every possible way to destroy it. On this issue, will Pelosi and
Warren follow the so-called progressivism of Sanders?
I don't get your criticism of Rajiv either. Rajiv know what he is talking about. The rich
can never have enough; more is not enough. We see it all the time. We need to eliminate the
dynasties and equalize the democracy.
Existing wealth and annual income are two very different things. Both are now problems.
Existing wealth disparity is the accumulation of all the last 40 years of income disparity,
plus the "work the money did" to pile itself up higher. Our laws magnified the wealth
disparity. That was deliberate and calculated. Our laws allow it to pile up without the
former taxation at death to trim it back. We charge only half the tax rate on the "work" of
the money itself, the special "capital gains" rate. It is specially privileged from taxes,
which is entirely new over these last few Presidential Administrations. It was said that
would encourage job growth. It never did. Nobody who knew anything about the subject ever
really believed it would. What is now proposed by Warren is to fix what they so deliberately
broke. This would not come up if they had not done that first. And if we hadn't done this,
we'd have had the job growth this stifled, from the consumer purchasing power it took to pile
up as wealth, much of it speculative and overseas.
Conservative voters are against taxes because *if* they get rich they don't want to pay
them. As a liberal I, on the other hand, would be *delighted* to have to pay this tax!
By all means let's tax the rich. But what I find most alarming is Kamala Harris's call for
yet ANOTHER tax cut for the middle class. Every since the days of Saint Ronnie, Americans
have been misled into believing they deserve tax cut after tax cut. And the result for the
commons (those goods and services that we share) has been disastrous. Americans already pay
lower taxes than most of the developed world. Yet the candidates are also calling for more
benefits: Medicare for All and free college. The defense establishment continues to clamor
for more resources. What we need is to increase taxes on the rich along with a robust tax
enforcement system, so that Americans see that EVERYONE is pulling their weight, according to
their means.
Redistribution of wealth through progressive taxation is as American as apple pie. In
addition to taxing wealth, there should be a significant estate tax on the top 1%. Getting
rich is for many the American Dream, but that does not entitle the rich to endless wealth
forever. Others should have an opportunity to take their shot.
A couple of points: at the turn of the 20th Century (about the time that Teddy
Roosevelt was railing against the rich), John D Rockefeller had more lawyers on staff than
the United States Government. Rockefeller's net worth at that point (they had not yet broken
up Standard Oil at that point), was $1 billion, at a time when the total receipts of the US
Government were $700 billion.
Krugman also mentions Piketty and his book. A central theme in Piketty's book, not
mentioned here, was that there is no countervailing force that naturally takes us back to a
more equitable distribution of wealth.
That only occurred because the world suffered through two world wars, and a depression,
out of which came a determination by FDR to use government as a countervailing force. And so
it is not an accident that the Republican Party is trying to kill government because that is
the only large, countervailing force known to be effective. Do we really want a world where a
Jeff Bezos has more lawyers on staff than the US Government? Don't laugh; something similar
has happened in the past.
@dajoebabe For the last 40 years, we have had the GOP tell us that government is the
problem and lower tax rates will supercharge economic growth. Now we have a nation with a
superpower's army, third rate infrastructure, a porous social safety net and a mediocre
education system. Granted that government cannot solve all problems (nor should it try!), but
the evidence is clear that the effects of our disinvestment in ourselves is now coming to the
fore. If we are truly at the point where raising the marginal tax rate on a very small number
of households will cause economic collapse, then our capitalist system has failed and should
be replaced.
Interesting ideas, but to get Americans (read Republicans) to swallow this whole is
doubtful. Perhaps some marketing is in order. Let's not call this a tax. Let's call it a
gift. High value households would give to the government agency of their choice (Social
Security, Veteran's Affairs, EPA etc..), garner a modest tax credit as in charity donations,
and as a plus receive a full accounting of how their money was spent by an independent
auditor. Their gifts could be publicized on social media, thus generating the kind of
attention that could generate higher and higher donations. Just a thought.
We could also use Teddy Roosevelt's anti-corruption and environmental values as well. I
think he is one Republican completely disowned by the current Republican Party. While I
do not believe Elizabeth Warren has any chance to be President, her candidacy will certainly
force intelligent debate on the Democratic Platform for 2020. She will make a tremendous
Treasury Secretary and break the Goldman Sachs stranglehold on that position.
Let's not stop with progressive taxes on the income and wealth of corporations and
individuals. We need to ban monopolies outright, and limit the market share of oligopolies to
something like 20%. And we should even limit the fraction of a corporations' shares (e.g.
10%) that can be owned by any one entity (corporal or corporate), and make privately-held
corporations go public once they reach a certain size.
There's a lesson we can learn from Mother Nature: "Too big to fail" really means "Too
big to exist"!
Maybe Piketty instead of Teddy Roosevelt -- but the rates for the wealthy should be
higher, especially for passive income, to force the rich if for no other to avoid taxation to
invest their money in the economy.
@Linda: Your comment is just wonderful, and gets to the crux of what is right, fair,
decent, moral. Some super wealthy people will always be superficial and greedy, and others
will always be generous, and have profound character and depth.
People who are remembered with the greatest respect, fondness, reverence, and joy, are not
those who have amassed fortunes, but those who have done what they could with their fortunes,
for those who would never have fortunes. Or people who sacrificed for others, if not with
their fortunes, then by other means. It is not desirable to be remembered for being selfish,
greedy, and financially predatory like trump and his ilk.
Aside from the fact that a a massive concentration of wealth is inimical to a functioning
democracy because it inevitably leads to a concentration of power, if the tax code is meant
to give incentives to productive behavior, what is less of an incentive to being productive
than inheriting hundreds of millions of dollars?
I personally knew an heiress from one of the most famous wealthy families of the 20th
century; the name would be familiar. She was a good person, but a drug addict. So was her
brother. No one needs to start life with a hundred million dollars. It's not healthy.
tax and spend is what a government is for. Spending it on infrastructure as opposed to
increasing the already bloated pentagon budget and not on a wall, would be preferable.
And reallocation, so that for instance teaching becomes a viable career choice again, would
be a very useful government task. I don't know whether mr. Coctosin ever worked in the
private industry but if he did he must have seen a lot of waste. Though willful blindness is
of course "so expected from" the right.
"Conficatory taxes on excessive wealth" is a sin tax-a tax on greed. There is only so
much money on person can use in a lifetime if it is to be more than a competitive status and
power symbol and is not given back as an investment to build society and the future.
The numbers-$50 million are HUGE. Anyone, with that kind of money who could resent paying
1% toward the future and toward society is simply, selfishly and sinfully, GREEDY! It's about
time the excessively wealthy, who do not allow their wealth to trickle down as wages, or even
trickle through the economy as investments for the benefit of society, are taxed because it
has become apparent that only taxes will force them to let go of their wealth.
Trump making his tax returns public has nothing to do with IRS staffing. And yes, a better
staffed IRS does a better job of catching tax cheats. (No idea why they never nailed Trump's
father, though.)
We will only have a government for the people if it's a government BY the people. That
means politicians who REALLY are just like you and me, not always very charismatic, not
always your ideal best friend, or a "savior", or common sense spiritual leader such as
Michelle Obama, but instead people who flaws, all while being decent citizens, with a very
clear moral compass, AND the skills and intellectual capacity to know how to design new,
science-based law projects and how to obtain political agreements in DC without even THINKING
of starting to stop implementing already existing law (= shutting down the Executive branch
of government).
Warren would be an excellent Cabinet member. But people vote for President on an emotional
level, and I don't think Warren has that emotional charisma. It's excellent that she is
running and running early, because that way she can set some of the parameters of discussion,
which is what she's doing now.
Just how much money does somebody really need? The Bezos divorce is going to result in two
people having "only" 70 billion dollars each. 1 billion, 10 billion, 70 billion; at some
point, how can you tell? At some point, doesn't it just become a number?
@Yuri Asian Best comment I have read on this subject, Thank you. It should be understood
that the wealthy just don't care and are very un- American. Wealth in our society will equal
slavery for everyone else and it has already begun. See the republican tax plan if you have
any doubts.
Two points: If you add the compound interest forgone on the amount paid in SS taxes I
wonder if the calculation changes. The wealth of the over 65 group is very differentially
distributed, just like wealth in general. Think what the Koch Brothers, Sheldon Adelson, the
Walmart heirs and Warren Buffet do to that distribution.
Just because Ellen is 70 does not mean she is participating in the relative wealth growth
of the over 65 cohort you note. I imagine with few exceptions most very wealthy people are
over 65, but that does not mean the reverse is true, that most over 65 are wealthy or even
comfortable. For a large number SS is their main source of support, and rampant ageism makes
it very difficult for even healthy over 65 years to find a job to supplement it.
Taxing SS is a form of double taxation. People with high incomes could still be taxed on
their income after excluding SS. Or, since you are so concerned about the people collecting
more in SS than they paid in, taxation could start on all benefits exceeding that figure.
(And you seem totally unconcerned with all the people who collect nothing or much less than
they paid in. If you are worried about one group not being in balance you should be equally
worried about the other group not being in balance.
I am ok with both because I consider SS to be an insurance program. I don't pay income
taxes on my insurance proceeds paid for by premiums on which I did pay taxes.
The shutdown taught a clear lesson: people squarely located in the middle class (in this
case, federal workers) cannot afford to miss a single paycheck.
Add that awareness to the cluelessness of the wealthy who, with the attention brought to
them by their position in the trump administration, put that cluelessness on full display --
and add the awareness that the trump tax break benefitted the wealthy only while saddling the
nation with debt -- put those together, and we will find positive support for what amounts to
a relative pinprick of sacrifice from the ultra wealthy, as proposed by Warren and likeminded
Congresswomen.
American public policy is designed to concentrate wealth at the top and impoverish the
bottom. Progressive taxation is but one measure to correct the economic structure that
results in death and destitution, even among fully employed workers. Health care for all and
living wages are additional measures.
Extreme poverty in America is a result of public policy which further enriches the
wealthy. Course correction is a moral imperative.
It's a giant leap to say that a 2% tax or a higher marginal rate is the confiscation of
wealth. It's also a giant leap imply that only the very wealthy reinvest their money. Where
do you think the dividends and gains in your 401K account go? They are reinvested! The key
point is that many of the very wealthy have used their wealth and influence to change the tax
code and other laws to their benefit. There is zero evidence that a lower marginal tax rate
on the wealthy has any correlation to job creation, but there is a very strong correlation
between lower tax rates and income disparity.
Taxes are the necessary fact of a thriving civilization. When confronted by the trained
mindset of anti-tax rhetoric issuing from a clone of selfish leadership, I simply say; if it
were not for taxes, we'd all be driving on rutted dirt roads and dying young. Tax the rich so
they survive the slings and arrows of discontent they created. They will thank us for it
later.
You already pay a wealth tax, if you own a home. It's called "property tax". Why should
the very wealthy not pay a property tax, too? But in the present condition, they do not, and
can easily hide their wealth from view, and pass it to their heirs without paying any tax.
Which just adds and adds to the concentration of wealth among the few.
Of course it makes perfect sense. Which is why those uber-rich people will not allow this
to happen. They'll do everything they can to shut down Ms. Warren. It's what they do
If I were doing tax policy from scratch, I'd include both the Warren wealth tax, a
progressive income tax culminating with the AOC 70% marginal rate, treat capital gains as
regular income, eliminate the carried interest loophole, and investigate the taxing of all
"non-profits" including religious and political organizations. I would replace the standard
deduction and personal exemption with a universal basic income. I would reduce the military
budget and provide at least a buy-in to medicare.
Anything less that than, I don't consider "radical."
If the Democratic party continues to do nothing to address the problem of the top .1
percemt owning 90 percent of American wealth, we are destined to sit idly by as the
heartbreaking inequities and divisions of this country deepen.... and this means, too, that
we will be doing very little to address the deeper causes of a certain kind of American
desperation and violence.
It's time to address the radically warped system with sensible countermeasures. This is,
in my view, a moderate position that moderate, sensible politicians will promote. Doing
nothing to address this enormous problem is the most radical position of all.
I work and pay taxes and have done so for 40 years. I'm happy to pay taxes, not because
I'm dependent on them, but because I realize a few things that make you uncomfortable:
1. No one does it by themselves; we all rely on others at work, at home and in life; we're
part of society; we are not solo warriors on some mystical heroic island
2. Not everyone is as fortunate as I; I'm glad the poor, the disabled, the unlucky, the
elderly, the uneducated and the unskilled can get a modicum of government assistance when
their chips are own
3. Canadians and Europeans and the Japanese do not suffer from 'dependency' syndrome;
they're hardworking people with healthy market economies who have decent government that
regulate healthcare extortion and corporate extortion to a minimum; it's a pretty humane
arrangement
4. Corporations and CEO's have been redistributing upward for about fifty years; 20:1
CEO:worker pay was the 1960's norm....now a 350:1 ration is common.
5. Tax rates for the rich and corporations have collapsed from the 1950's to 2019; the
right-wing pretends they're high, but they're not. 6. America has the greatest health-care
rip-off in the world at 17% of GDP; it's an international 'free-market' disgrace that no
foreign country would touch a 300-foot pole because it would bankrupt them, just as it
bankrupts Americans.
Keep living in a 1787 time tunnel and see where it gets you. Or buy a calendar...and
evolve.
[Drive toward] Equality is the basis of society; it has always been close to my heart.
Thank you, Paul Krugman, for standing clearly for economic equality.
The purpose of taxes is not only to fund public necessities, but also to encourage society
to behave in a manner which is good for all of society.
Thus, in World War 2 income tax was set quite high, to discourage consumption of scarce
resources.
It is not scapegoating the wealthy to have them pay a proportional share of their wealth
to fund the public good, and to, in a small way, discourage inherited wealth. It is through
our society that they are able to accumulate their wealth, it follows that they should have
incentive to preserve and further that society.
I agree completely with a progressive tax on net wealth. Piketty proposed this in "Capital
in the Twenty-first Century" back in 2014. I'm happy to hear that Elizabeth Warren has picked
up the idea.
The elegance of it is that it does not prevent the wealth-motivated from seeking high
incomes and accumulating a lot of wealth in their lifetime. But it reduces the incentive to
earn an ever-higher income, and it prevents the wealthy from creating wealth dynasties.
And consider this: even a 90% tax on inherited wealth would mean, for someone who
accumulated a $10 billion estate, that their heirs would receive a $1 billion inheritance as
a grubstake. Not a bad start in life, if I say so myself.
Almost any tax measure to re-distribute wealth is appropriate in a nation that values
economic justice. However, answering the question of just how people accumulate billions,
while so many others struggle so hard to remain in place. First, it is necessary to dispense
with the fiction that the wealthy earned it so let them keep it.
No one person or one family EARNS billions. The hard work necessary to create wealth
belongs to many hard working and creative people and to numerous public institutions that
make its creation possible.
Both are entitled to a fair share of the wealth they help to create. It is the laws and
even traditions that allow one individual to CAPTURE and keep so much wealth. And those laws
and traditions need to be changed.
Start with a Living Wage plus full benefits for all workers and salary scales that are
reasonable, not the 1:300 that some CEO's currently enjoy. End golden parachutes for retiring
or even fired executives and tax unearned income at the same rate as earned income. Equal
opportunity cannot stand without economic justice.
No, part of the purpose of taxes should be to counteract the normal power of capital
that causes the formation of massive personal fortunes which distort the economy relied on by
all. It's not scapegoating to try to put our economy back in balance, to curtail its division
into the Main St. economy, currently starved by that wealth division so heavily favoring the
fabulously wealthy, and the shadow economy of Wall St. gambling, commodity market
manipulation, and asset ownership.
I like the idea, although it may be very difficult to value certain kinds of assets and
how they may have appreciated. For example, if the Republican Congressman you bought as a
freshman goes on to win a Senate seat, how much would his value have increased?
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) on Sunday said that President Donald Trump "may not even be
a free person" by 2020, suggesting the president might become ensnared by the special counsel's
investigation before she has a chance to face him in a general election.
"Every day there is a racist tweet, a hateful tweet -- something really dark and ugly,"
Warren said during a campaign event in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. "What are we as candidates, as
activists, as the press going to do about it? We're going to chase after those every day?"
She added: "Here's what bothers me. By the time we get to 2020, Donald Trump may not even be
president. In fact, he may not even be a free person."
The jab marks Warren's first foray into campaign-trail skirmishing with Trump since entering
the Democratic presidential fray with a Saturday announcement event in Lawrence, Mass.
During her kickoff speech, Warren, a consumer protection advocate and former Harvard Law
School professor, attacked Trump as being part of a "rigged system that props up the rich and
the powerful and kicks dirt on everyone else."
Earlier Saturday, Trump mocked Warren's rollout and took aim at the controversies
surrounding her past claims of Native American heritage, which intensified Wednesday after The
Washington Post revealed that she had identified herself as American Indian on her Texas State
Bar registration card.
"Today Elizabeth Warren, sometimes referred to by me as Pocahontas, joined the race for
President," Trump tweeted. "Will she run as our first Native American presidential candidate,
or has she decided that after 32 years, this is not playing so well anymore?"
"See you on the campaign TRAIL, Liz!" the president added, in what many Democrats judged to
be a reference to the forced relocation of several Native American tribes in the Southeast U.S.
in the 1830s known as the Trail of Tears.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) announced Monday her campaign will shun fundraising through
some of the old-fashioned means: dinners, donor calls and cocktail parties.
In an email to supporters Monday, Warren also said she won't sell access to big-name donors
as candidates often do to raise money for a presidential bid.
Warren has demonstrated as much in organizing events where she poses for photos with anyone
who stands in line and requests it. Typically, candidates put a premium on such access,
sometimes charging thousands of dollars for a personal photograph.
"My presidential primary campaign will be run on the principle of equal access for anybody
who joins it," Warren said in a message to supporters.
"That means no fancy receptions or big money fundraisers only with people who can write the
big checks. And when I thank the people giving to my campaign, it will not be based on the size
of their donation. It means that wealthy donors won't be able to purchase better seats or
one-on-one time with me at our events. And it means I won't be doing 'call time,' which is when
candidates take hours to call wealthy donors to ask for their support."
The self-imposed restrictions allow Warren to distinguish herself from the field at a time
when candidates are in a mad race for donations from small donors.
The Democrat, who launched a full-fledged campaign earlier this month, has already vowed not
to take money from lobbyists or super PACs.
She has rejected all PAC money and challenged others in the sprawling field of candidates to
reject PAC money. A group of competitors have said they wouldn't take corporate PAC money --
including Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and Amy
Klobuchar (D-Minn.). Former Texas Rep. Beto O'Rourke, a prospective candidate, shattered
records in the 2018 midterms after rejecting PACs and relying on small-dollar donors.
Warren's move, though, takes that promise a step further, saying she won't spend time making
donor calls or that she will host private fundraising dinners or receptions.
While Warren did hold fundraisers in her years as a senator, she hasn't held any since she
first launched her exploratory bid Dec. 31, according to her campaign.
Warren has a proven network of small dollar donors, but she's also seemed to lag others in
the primary field in early fundraising, including Harris and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), whose
one-day $6 million haul swamped all his competitors in the field.
America invented progressive taxation. And there was a time when leading American politicians were proud to proclaim their willingness
to tax the wealthy, not just to raise revenue, but to limit excessive concentration of economic power.
"It is important," said Theodore
Roosevelt in 1906, "to grapple with the problems connected with the amassing of enormous fortunes" -- some of them, he declared,
"swollen beyond all healthy limits."
Today we are once again living in an era of extraordinary wealth concentrated in the hands of a few people, with the net worth
of the wealthiest 0.1 percent of Americans almost equal to that of the bottom 90 percent combined. And this concentration of wealth
is growing; as Thomas Piketty famously argued in his book "Capital in the 21st Century," we seem to be heading toward a society dominated
by vast, often inherited fortunes.
So can today's politicians rise to the challenge? Well, Elizabeth Warren has released an
impressive proposal for taxing extreme wealth. And whether or not she herself becomes the Democratic nominee for president, it
says good things about her party that something this smart and daring is even part of the discussion.
The Warren proposal would impose a 2 percent annual tax on an individual household's net worth in excess of $50 million, and an
additional 1 percent on wealth in excess of $1 billion. The proposal was released along with an analysis by
Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman of Berkeley,
two of the world's leading experts on inequality.
Saez and Zucman found that this tax would affect only a small number of very wealthy people -- around 75,000 households. But because
these households are so wealthy, it would raise a lot of revenue, around $2.75 trillion over the next decade.
Make no mistake: This is a pretty radical plan.
I asked Saez how much it would raise the share of income (as opposed to wealth) that the economic elite pays in taxes. His estimate
was that it would raise the average tax rate on the top 0.1 percent to 48 percent from 36 percent, and bring the average tax on the
top 0.01 percent up to 57 percent. Those are high numbers, although they're roughly comparable to average tax rates in the 1950s.
Would such a plan be feasible? Wouldn't the rich just find ways around it? Saez and Zucman argue, based on evidence from Denmark
and Sweden, both of which used to have significant wealth taxes, that it wouldn't lead to large-scale evasion if the tax applied
to all assets and was adequately enforced.
Wouldn't it hurt incentives? Probably not much. Think about it: How much would entrepreneurs be deterred by the prospect that,
if their big ideas pan out, they'd have to pay additional taxes on their second $50 million?
It's true that the Warren plan would limit the ability of the already incredibly wealthy to make their fortunes even bigger, and
pass them on to their heirs. But slowing or reversing our drift toward a society ruled by oligarchic dynasties is a feature, not
a bug.
And I've been struck by the reactions of tax experts like
Lily Batchelder and
David Kamin ; while they don't necessarily
endorse the Warren plan, they clearly see it as serious and worthy of consideration. It is, writes Kamin, "addressed at a real problem"
and "goes big as it should." Warren, says The Times, has been "
nerding
out "; well, the nerds are impressed.
But do ideas this bold stand a chance in 21st-century American politics? The usual suspects are, of course, already comparing
Warren to Nicolás Maduro or even Joseph Stalin, despite her actually being more like Teddy Roosevelt or, for that matter, Dwight
Eisenhower. More important, my sense is that a lot of conventional political wisdom still assumes that proposals to sharply raise
taxes on the wealthy are too left-wing for American voters.
By the way, polls also show overwhelming public support for increasing, not cutting, spending on
Medicare and Social Security . Strange to say, however, we rarely hear politicians who demand "entitlement reform" dismissed
as too right-wing to be taken seriously.
And it's not just polls suggesting that a bold assault on economic inequality might be politically viable. Political scientists
studying the behavior of billionaires
find that while many of them push for lower taxes, they do so more or less in secret, presumably because they realize just how
unpopular their position really is. This "stealth politics" is, by the way, one reason billionaires can seem much more liberal than
they actually are -- only the handful of liberals among them speak out in public.
The bottom line is that there may be far more scope for a bold progressive agenda than is dreamed of in most political punditry.
And Elizabeth Warren has just taken an important step on that agenda, pushing her party to go big. Let's hope her rivals -- some
of whom are also quite impressive -- follow her lead.
This isn't about taxing wealth. It's about taxing power, privilege and greed. This isn't about punishing oligarchy. This is
about saving democracy. The concentration of wealth parallels the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere: it is economic
climate change with consequences equally as dire as global warming on all lifeforms. The challenge will be no less difficult,
replete with a powerful lobby of deniers and greed-mongers ready for war against all threats to their power and position. Their
battle cry is apres moi, le deluge -- as if taxing wealth and privilege is barbarians at the gate and the demise of civilization
rather than curbing cannibals driven not by hunger but voracious greed. Everywhere climate change deniers are being drowned out
by a rational majority who now see the signs of global warming in every weather report and understand what this means for their
children if we continue to emulate ostriches. Likewise, the same majority now sees the rising tide of inequality and social dysfunction
and what that means for the future as a global caste system condemns nearly all of us -- but mainly our progeny -- to slavery
in servitude to our one percent masters. Elizabeth Warren is no nerd. She's our Joan of Arc. And it's up to us to make sure she
isn't burned alive by the dark lords as she rallies us to win back our country and our future.
Warren's proposal- and her desire to try to actually explain these basic economic realities without dumbing them down- has
put her at the top of my list for the Dems so far. I was/am a big Bernie fan, and Bernie is great with the big picture (it's Yuge).
But Warren really knows the details and how to craft an economic policy. Trump will call her names (that's his specialty), and
she will explain reality (her specialty).
@George, It's not scapegoating the wealthy. When I was born, the top marginal tax rate was 91%. This has shriveled, along with
inheritance and cap gains taxes. This was not due to an act of nature: it was a series of conscious policy decisions and SCOTUS
decisions that created the situation we face today. Great societal damage derives from wealth inequality -- think public schools,
access to college, housing costs, and more recently, political influence. Those who have far more money than they need distort
the economic and political landscape, to the detriment of the majority. Class warfare against the poor and middle classes must
end. Reversing the policies that changed the US from having a growing middle-class of my childhood to the shrinking one my kid
faces is simply correcting bad policy. It can't come soon enough.
I recently listened to a TED talk where Yuval Harari observed that capitalism beat out communism in the 20th century in large
part due to the distributed decision making platform it provided that far out-performed what was available to the limited number
of central planners in communist systems. It occurs to me that this same limiting dynamic of a restricted number of decision makers
can occur in capitalist systems if wealth (and power) become concentrated. When just 2200 billionaires meet in Davos to choose
the path forward for the rest of the 7.53 billion inhabitants of this planet (without their input) we can be assured that a series
of sub-optimal decisions will have been made.
Elizabeth Warren is impressive. She has the passion of Bernie Sanders. Unlike Sanders, she has a deep understanding of
the policy and mechanisms that can achieve that result. A plan to tax extreme wealth is brilliant and, at about $275 billion per
year, will ease the budget deficit.
As the Times noted, Warren also can talk expertly about subjects as diverse as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to
net power metering. The political punditry is probably wrong about voters rejecting a too-intellectual candidate. (They seem to
be wrong a lot lately.) Especially in contrast to Trump, voters hunger for someone who is passionate, smart, has their interests
at heart, and is very well informed.
If amassing billions of dollars isn't a hoarding disease, nothing is. Who needs more than a few hundred millions dollars, anyway?
Perhaps it would be less of a problem if the uber-wealthy didn't secretly try to get their taxes lowered. They also, like the
Koch brothers, like to buy policy positions and elect politicians that hurt most of the rest of us. The Bill of Rights isn't meant
to be a list of suggestions. A democratic republic isn't meant to be ruled by the wealthiest 0.01 percent of all Americans. When
those with the money get to establish opinions as to what is and isn't too radical for this nation, all of the marching and demonstrating
the rest of us do doesn't amount to much. Vote the Republicans out of office in the next election and keep voting them out until
their number fit in the bathtub they would have liked to drown the government in. That's two or three, tops.
A small transaction tax on the sale of stocks and bonds that was proposed as a way to sure-up and expand social security and
Medicare should be added to the list of higher taxes on earned income. Furthermore, the tax rates on salaries and wages should
no longer be penalized with high rates so that the privileged who make their money from transactions can pay a favored tax rate
that is much much lower than the rates paid by people who work. Please, Paul, write a column on what Teddy Roosevelt and FDR advocated.
They were nearly a hundred years ahead of where Americans want us to be. Minimum wage, from the Roosevelts' perspective meant
a wage that could support a family. It meant making enough for a family to take a vacation and put some money away to retire.
They weren't contemplating a wage for teenagers when they talked about minimum wage. The Roosevelts wanted to see retirement security.
They were advocates of legislation that prevented employers from ripping off the wages of their workers. Liz Warren isn't radical;
neither is OCA, or Bernie Sanders. They are merely informed about our history and the trends around the world.
We should use some (a pittance) of the $300 billion a year this proposal would raise on giving the IRS the resources it needs
to actually enforce the laws already on the books, and to the prisons, to house tax-cheats like our "president".
''Make no mistake: This is a pretty radical plan.'' - Uhm No. A radical plan is not allowing any single person or family to
even HAVE a billion dollars, let alone tax them @ a paltry 3%. A radical plan would be to do way with money altogether, and have
all of us contribute proportionally and progressive into one single community, instead of having 26 people have the SAME wealth
as HALF of the world's population. A radical plan would be to actually work together so that our species could actually survive,
instead of destroying our planet, and us as an extension. I am really tired of people and pundit alike trying to box in people
and ideas before they even get off the ground, because all it does is continue the status quo. Perhaps the point, I suppose...
I'm reading Susan Orlean's book, The Library Book. It's not just about the fire in Los Angeles but covers much of the history
of libraries. If you love libraries, you probably know who Andrew Carnegie was. At one time, he was the richest person in the
world. In middle-age, he decided to give his money away. He built 1,700 libraries for towns that couldn't afford them. I'm sure
he had his problems and wasn't perfect. But, Carnegie realized you really can't take it with you and you can do much good while
on earth. When I see rich people who only seem to care about showing up at premiers, jetting around the world, wearing different
outfits every time they're photographed, and not seeming to care about all the pain on earth, it hurts. A certain billionaire
bragged that not paying taxes made him smart. That means he's not paying to help the poor, the sick, the elderly, not paying for
safe roads or safe water systems, not paying for the soldiers he claims to be so proud of. If these rich people were true Americans,
they'd be proud to pay their fair share, proud to support the country that gave them so much. Happy to give away their money because
they have more than they'll ever use. They won't be remembered for being rich. But look when you drive through small towns. More
than 100 years after he gave his money away, you still see the name Carnegie on libraries across America.
Let's be honest: there's a limit to how much wealth one person or even one clan can reasonably use, and it's way below
$1 billion. The super-rich are not motivated by money. Many of them are motivated by power, and money is an important surrogate
for power, but by no means the only We need to think about all the ways that the super-wealthy exercise power -- not just about
money -- about which ones are harmful to society, and how they can be restrained or redirected.
It's only a matter of time before the uber rich pay more in taxes. And when all the tired right-wing arguments about "penalizing
people for being successful." and "socialism" get trotted out by the right-wing media echo chamber, there's a quick and decisive
answer. The additional taxes (that have been there before and always should have been preserved) are the price of admission to
a system that is the only one in the world where such vast sums can be accumulated with so little being required in return. Taxes
pay for the roads, bridges, sewer systems, public protection, airports, seaports, armies, navies, court systems, research, health
assistance, disaster relief, and future employee training and education of the society, to name just a few things. Having the
middle class and poor pay for this disproportionately is absurd. And is unsustainable. People have to buy things, money has to
circulate, or capitalism falls apart. Period.
Warren's approach could work, but persuading the public is another story. Every time Democrats want to raise taxes on the wealthy,
Republicans claim Democrats are raising taxes on everybody. This has gone on for decades! Why can't Democrats get this point across
without having it perennially hijacked?
These potential changes in the tax law are important and, if enacted, will actually replicate what happened at the turn of
the 20th century, when marginal tax rates started to rise dramatically, eventually landing in the 90% range in mid-century. That's
when the middle class was truly allowed to come into existence. Accumulated wealth, it was learned more than 100 years ago, is
not healthy for society in general. Personally, I would like to see a complete overhaul of the tax structure so that the earnings
on the first 10K to 20K are not taxed at all. This would put much more money into the hands of people who, in the immortal words
of Molly Ivins, would use it to go out and buy shoes for their babies.
Raising taxes on the super wealthy won't really hurt them. How about eliminating taxes on Social Security? That would be very
popular with most senior citizens.
"And there was a time when leading American politicians were proud to proclaim their willingness to tax the wealthy, not just
to raise revenue, but to limit excessive concentration of economic power." I believe it's only since the 1980s that taxing wealth
became akin to killing one's newborn. That's when voo-doo economics started the mess we we're in, where every Republican administration
then and since delivered tax cuts for the folks who needed it least. The latest abomination, the Trump tax heist, was, really
the coup de grace. That the net worth of the 0.1% equal the bottom 90% of the entire nation is not only obscene, it bodes ill
for our society. Of course, it's gotten even worse since Citizens United, because, greed feeds on itself, now that every wealthy
family can buy some politicians. The fact that so many, even Republicans, aren't screaming their heads off makes me think that--like
Medicare for All--a new wealth tax is not the anathema it once was. Maybe ordinary Americans are sick and tired of hearing corrupt
cabinet members tell unpaid federal workers to just apply for a loan.
Elizabeth Warren is my personal pick. Flashy she ain't. But experience, knowledge of government, the details of policy
changes, and , most of all - integrity, she's got it in spades. Remember the kick back on Nancy Pelosi and how that proved
totally unjustified? Same with Warren. This kind of experience, savy, and integrity is just what we need right now.
Coming from Senator Warren, I find this is THE MOST EXCITING 2020 campaign proposal on the table. Senator Warren and her team
of world class economists are serious and credible. It might take two years to understand some of these issues, but we are coming
out of a four year soak in corruption and lies like we never knew. We need some all-American TLC. Senator Warren can help us recover
our national mojo.
@George The practical necessity is that we have crumbling infrastructure and are woefully behind the times in providing affordable
medical care, secure retirements and quality public education. The alternative, is to take funds from the military - the other
elephant in the room that remains strangely out of bounds in this discussion when cuts to "entitlement programs" are discussed.
And further, what is the larger immoral situation: excessive wealth concentrated in the hands of a few or the inability of the
richest country on the planet to provide a healthy, safe, well-functioning society for its citizens? And don't try the philanthropy
non-starter - this reflects the priorities of the ultra rich, not the nation as a whole.
@Peter Wolf We have all these Democrats approaching the same issue from different directions, at different levels of sophistication,
which is good. So long as they, with the kind cooperation of the media, are able to flesh out their case, the more people from
varied backgrounds they will reach. It's great that we're already talking about such things relatively early in our interminable
election cycle. In fact, any candidate who is not talking about tax policy, but instead is focused on "working across the aisle"
should be immediately scratched off everyone's list. We've had enough of such pablum, where "bipartisan" is just a euphemism for
being a good corporate stooge.
We can all thank Ronald Reagan for taxes on social security benefits. Taxing social security benefits was necessary to
narrow the deficit he created with Trickle Down I. Trickle Down II (The Job Creators), and Trickle Down III (Ryan's Private Objectives)
have followed with their own form of penalizing the little people.
Warren has excellent ideas that must be carefully explained to various groups of Americans who a very susceptible to Fox and
other right wing pundits. She must stay on the offensive to be sure her ideas are not twisted by those who will be very upset
with her message getting out. She will constantly need to inform and "teach" the underlying math to win over the group that will
take the right wing click bait and Kool aid. It will be tough reaching this group but then again Warren is tough!
Billy The woods are lovely, dark and deep. Jan. 28
Fixing the consequences of ultra-concentrated wealth and power is going to take whatever it takes. It has to be done. When
a cop arrests a person for resisting arrest, the person resisting doesn't really get much chance to plead that the world would
be a better place for all if he were not in jail.
It should not be left to the wealthiest among us to decide what tax they themselves pay. A tiny minority calls the shots as
to the fundamental frameworks that underlie our problems. This has to change. Taxpayers bailed out the rich ten years ago. None
of them went to jail. It's time to pay the taxpayers back.
Once again, I remind everyone that we saw THE EXACT SAME THING with Obama. Failures were
NEVER attributed to Obama despite the fact that Obama kept "failing" over and over again.
What is "failure" to us is success for the establishment.
That's how the faux populist leader psyop works. I've been writing about Trump as a
faux populist like Obama for about 18 months. But those who hope that Trump is their
hero refuse to see what they don't want to see . And then there are those that
deliberately want to push the pretense that hero Trump is repeatedly confounded by his
advisors.
steven t johnson @6 has it right: Believing Trump is or ever was open to breaking with
US imperialism is Trumpery.
<> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Anyone trying to excuse Trump is a fool or worse. Trump is not hero, he's a member of the
team. He is is part and parcel of the anti-democratic scam. He is the Empire's spokesperson,
and a tool of the Deep State.
Trump's 11 dimensional chess is a lot like Obama's 11 dimensional chess. Neither could figure
out a way to keep warmongers and hateful pricks out of their cabinets, or curtail the war
machine in any way, or to stop handing out tax giveaways to people who don't need them.
by Tyler Durden
Thu, 02/28/2019 - 13:25 762 SHARES
CNN has been accused of ambushing Bernie Sanders and tricking viewers by passing off
Democratic political operatives as everyday people during a Monday evening town hall as part of
his campaign for the 2020 election. Internet sleuths looked into the backgrounds of those
asking Sanders various questions - most of which could be considered fair game to ask a
presidential candidate, only to find that there was more than meets the eye as noted by
Paste Magazine .
For example, Sanders was asked a tough question about allegations of sexual harassment on
his 2016 campaign by "American University Student" Shadi Nasab. What CNN didn't mention is that
she's also an intern for a large D.C. lobbying firm, Cassidy & Associates.
Another question came from Tara Ebersole, a humble " Former Biology Professor " according to
CNN. She's also the chair of the Baltimore County Democratic Party according to her LinkedIn page . What's
more, Ebersole's husband is a Maryland state delegate, and was on Hillary Clinton's
leadership council in 2016.
Abena McAllister was labeled by CNN as a " Mother of Two ," but failed to mention that she's
also the Charles County Democratic Central Committee Chair .
" Maryland Voter " Michelle Gregory is yet another 'everyday person' who turns out to be
politically active as the chair of the Lower Shore Progressive Caucus .
There are several more examples - as nearly everyone who asked Bernie a question is linked
to some type of Democratic activism.
One explanation for why so many political operatives asked Bernie question might be that
political activists are more likely to choose to participate in a Bernie Sanders town hall.
That said, CNN made it appear as though these were 'everyday voters' - not people people
involved in politics themselves .
As Paste 's Jacob Weindling reports, most of the questions weren't unfair.
I watched the entire town hall last night, and none of the questions asked by these people
resonated as unfair to me. There were a couple asked by other people that were based on wrong
assumptions (like the myth that Bernie's only support comes from young white dudes), but it's
hard to blame individuals for coming to wrong conclusions like that when the Democratic
Party's infrastructure has invested so much time and energy gaslighting the public into
thinking that way.
...
But back to my main point: really the only problem in all this is that because CNN did not
disclose many of these questioners' ties to politics, one cannot help wonder why. The famed
Bobby Knight quote of "stupid loses more games than smart wins" is Occam's Razor here, as
Wolf Blitzer isn't exactly universally respected and
we have documented CNN's struggles with the truth before , but the nefarious angle is the
elephant in that Washington D.C. room. -
Paste Magazine
As Weindling notes - "being politically-involved doesn't disqualify these folks from asking
questions, and it doesn't automatically make their motivations disingenuous," however " had CNN
been more accurate in describing the questioners, I wouldn't be writing this column ."
The best CNN sandbagging ever was GHW Bush having Larry King give him a call from a
'concerned listener in the audience' who turned out to be George Stephanopoulis right out of
Clinton's war room.What a sham!
He would have won, which is why they sandbagged him.
The Money Power Monopolists wanted Trump.
THEY DO NOT WANT SANDERS.
Can you figure out why?
THEY HAVE ZERO INTENTION OF GIVING FREE CHIT TO THE FREE CHIT ARMY, OTHER THAN THE HOPE OF
FREE CHIT THAT NEVER, EVER, EVER COMES.
Hellary, on the other hand, is EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANT.
Why? She can get almost all the black vote after using al Qaeda to overthrow an African
country and set up public primarily black slave auctions that even sell black children!
Care enough to look it up!
If you don't care, well, WHEN THEY DO IT TO YOU AND YOURS, YOU WILL HAVE A BIG LESSON TO
LEARN FROM THE EXPERIENCE.
No, Democratic party is composed primarily of mindless, programmed nitwits.
The Money Power Monopolist financiers of DNC, inc DON'T WANT BERNIE.
THEY HAVE NO INTENTION OF DEPLOYING FREE CHIT TO THE MASSES.
NONE.
Your next President almost certain has a first letter of "H."
Who else can use al Qaeda to overthrow an African country, set up a debt-based money
central bank to enslave the Libyans, set up a milieu where black people are sold as slaves in
public auctions, AND STILL GET THE MAJORITY SUPPORT OF THE AVERAGE DEMOCRATIC PARTY MINDLESS
MUPPET?
Bernie must be going senile; he's forgotten he was not only bought off, but sodomized in
the process by his fellow Dems, while betraying all those young people who were thinking he'd
bring them solid golden unicorn turds to pay off their school loans with, and now he thinks
he's his own man, again. Few things worse than a whore with dementia.
"... "That might have left people with the false impression that their votes mean absolutely nothing, and that the entire American electoral system is just a simulation of democracy, and in reality they are living in a neo-feudalist, de facto global capitalist empire administrated by omnicidal money-worshipping human parasites that won't be satisfied until they've remade the whole of creation in their nihilistic image." ..."
"That might have left people with the false impression that their votes mean absolutely
nothing, and that the entire American electoral system is just a simulation of democracy, and
in reality they are living in a neo-feudalist, de facto global capitalist empire
administrated by omnicidal money-worshipping human parasites that won't be satisfied until
they've remade the whole of creation in their nihilistic image."
Now that's writing worth reading. If the Nobel committee did not serve the Global Empire,
it would give the Literature Prize to Hopkins.
The late 19th and 20th century Russians had the horror of dealing with Nihilists running
amuck in their country. Now the Nihilists rule the world as multi-billionaire Globalists.
"... Socialism is government by the working-class. There is not the slightest hint of the working-class ruling over society anywhere in the world, certainly not in a dictatorship such as America. Capitalists own all the means of production, all levers of government, and all the major media. ..."
"... I've given up the illusion that we'll ever vote our way out of this madness, look at Narco Rubio's tweet yesterday using snuff photos of Gaddafi after the gangsters in DC murdered him and destroyed his country ..."
"... There are limits, after all, to people's gullibility. It's not like you can just run the same con, with the same fake message and the same fake messiah, over and over, and expect folks to fall for it. ..."
Bernie is no socialist, neither are any Democrats, just controlled puppets to keep the
American people docile, keep up the illusion that things will actually get better one day. He
may be an FDR capitalist, giving you just enough socialism to keep the capitalist system
afloat, keeping the pitchforks and torches at bay.
Bernie is a pro-war imperialist, just look at his tweets about Maduro recently, or his
views on Palestine-Israel. He may be the best "candidate" in 2020, but he is far from a
socialist. Same deal with Tulsi, if you are pro-Israel, you are a pro-war imperialist
period.
Notice she always makes a point to say "regime change wars" but what about drones? What
about covert CIA-mercenary assassinations? What about the war OF terror? She has no problem
with these types of war apparently. Colonialism and imperialism (theft of other people's and
nation's resources) are not true socialist policies. Capitalism by definition is stealing the
surplus value of the labor of other people – it cannot lead anywhere but to where we
are today.
Socialism is government by the working-class. There is not the slightest hint of the
working-class ruling over society anywhere in the world, certainly not in a dictatorship such
as America. Capitalists own all the means of production, all levers of government, and all
the major media.
There is now no Left left in America, although plenty people here now think "left" means
identity stuff. It does not. Left is giving priority to the welfare if the working class
majority and protecting them from predatory capitalists. Race, gender and deviancies did not
define the authentic socialist agenda.
I've given up the illusion that we'll ever vote our way out of this madness, look at Narco
Rubio's tweet yesterday using snuff photos of Gaddafi after the gangsters in DC murdered him
and destroyed his country, turning it back centuries, using them as a threat to Maduro. You
don't vote that kind of Mob out, we have the mafia now in charge of our country, the most
powerful military in the world is run by satanic mobsters, and we're foolish enough to think
voting is going to make this go away? Criminals and gangsters don't stop until they're either
in prison or dead. They don't go away or give up power because you ask them to, which is all
voting is, asking them nicely. Good luck with that!
I wish it wasn't true. I wish we could vote Bernie or Tulsi in and things change for the
better, but from what I've seen the past 30 years, it ain't happening. Their silence on 9-11
truth, knowing full well they know better is pretty telling.
It doesn't take an Einstein to
see those buildings were blown up with explosives, if they're not willing to call that out,
what makes you think they're willing to do what needs to be done once in office? Sadly I'm
afraid either collapse, armed revolt, or China or Russia invading and/or nuking us is the
only way out of this evil system.
There are limits, after all, to people's gullibility. It's not like you can just run the
same con, with the same fake message and the same fake messiah, over and over, and expect
folks to fall for it.
This is a great
article which effectively exposes Sanders as being fatally compromised by his role as
Clinton lackey after the evidence emerged that the party engaged in fraud securing the
predicted result. I also fully endorse Hooch's response to the commentary. Great job on both
counts.
"... This is where Sanders will come to help: he will help US citizens, by helping corporations to be able to sell their stuff to US citizens. Sanders calls that socialism, but it is, as Chomsky explained, new dealism. ..."
"... As of 3 min ago, https://berniesanders.com/ was just a splash screen. He had 4 yrs to update his website. He should not run. Tulsi Gabbard went to the mat for him in 2016, he should have sat this one out and endorsed her. Bernie is a typical narcissistic baby boomer who believes only he can save the world he has spent his life F-ing up. ..."
@Bern I think that
Sanders is able to change half of the USA. He is likely to do something about inequality,
unemployment, health care, but he will not touch the MIC.
The US is a rich country, and if the US wants stay rich it has to do something about this
third world-isation of the USA that is in play since the 1990s (outsourcing of jobs, leaving
the home population with less and less means to buy stuff US corporations produce abroad).
This is where Sanders will come to help: he will help US citizens, by helping corporations to
be able to sell their stuff to US citizens. Sanders calls that socialism, but it is, as
Chomsky explained, new dealism.
Socialism would be if Sanders promoted that workers would
take over the corporations, or would allow to re-open factories, warehouses, and farmland
where the workers were in control, not the bosses. Sanders is not promoting any of that.
Sanders may be a Roosevelt, but he is not an Upton Sinclair (who nearly became governor of
California in the 1930s by running a truly socialist platform). And, as said, he will
certainly not touch the MIC.
IMO he is the lesser evil of candidates who run for the 2020 US elections, but to consider
him a socialist, as Sanders calls himself, will lead to disappointment.
Here is Michael Parenti talking about his former compatriot:
As of 3 min ago, https://berniesanders.com/ was just a splash screen. He had 4
yrs to update his website. He should not run. Tulsi Gabbard went to the mat for him in 2016, he
should have sat this one out and endorsed her. Bernie is a typical narcissistic baby boomer who
believes only he can save the world he has spent his life F-ing up.
Oh great, Bernie -- another Sunday Socialist. The road to Hell is trodden bare by his
type, downhill all the way. Bernie's assigned role is to "suck up all the oxygen". Provide
the necessary razzle-dazzle for the war democrats, police state liberals and austerity
progressives to suck up the attention and energy of the disaffected.
That's what they get paid to do. This layer of burn-outs, has beens and traitors. The
ever-odious staffers, full-timers, consultants, aides, advisors, policy wonks, publicity
hounds. Ever advancing themselves as spokespeople for all the causes. Always ready to turn
viciously on any regular people who have the impertinence to say otherwise. Generals without
an army.
Always anything but class with the Bernie boosters. Furiously beating their drums for
feminism, gay whatever, racism, the environment. But never for mobilization of the working
class. Never for fighting against real capitalism. The Bernie Sunday Socialists live
comfortably, haven't walked a picket line in ages, buy sweat shop labour designer clothes and
are as tough as jello.
Life has a way of paying you out. And the future for the Bernie boosters and those dumb
enough to buy their bilge is -- the Ukraine.
While the Bernie crowd serve as their apologists the class elites grind on. They have no
limit and the Bernie bunch will swallow anything so long as they keep their place and
privileges as police for the working poor. But, at some point, Ukrainization hits the
tipping point. As it is heading for in Brazil, Italy, Spain, France, Mexico. When the shit
hits the fan, the Bernie boosters will be on the wrong side of the barricades.
@redmudhooch "See how
the faithful city has become a prostitute! She once was full of justice; righteousness used
to dwell in her -- but now murderers!"
(Isaiah 1:21-23)
Bernie is not a magic socialist. He is a fraud: he was cheated out of nomination, and then
supported the cheater. Shame on him! He will never get my vote, period.
So here it is, the announcement we've been waiting for all aboard for another cruise on the
new and improved U.S.S. Magic Socialist with your captain Bernie Sanders at the helm! If you're
not familiar with this extraordinary vessel, it's like the luxury liner in The Magic Christian , except
catering to credulous American socialists instead of the British filthy rich. Tickets start at
just $27 dollars so hurry, because they're going fast!
That's right, folks, Bernie is back, and this time it's not just a sadistic prank where he
gets you all fired up about his fake "revolution" for fifteen months, gets cheated out of the
nomination, then backs whichever corporate-bought candidate the Democratic Party orders you to
vote for.
No, this time the Bernster really means it! This time, when the DNC rigs the primaries to
hand the nomination to Harris, or Biden, or some billionaire android like Michael Bloomberg,
Bernie is not going to break your heart by refusing to run as an independent candidate,
unbeholden to the corporations and oligarchs that own both political parties, or otherwise make
you feel like a sucker for buying his "revolution" schtick. He's not going to fold like a fifty
dollar suit and start parroting whatever propaganda the corporate media will be prodigiously
spewing to convince you the Russians and Nazis are coming unless you vote for the empire's
pre-anointed puppet!
Bernie would never dream of doing that or at least he'd never dream of doing that twice.
"That might have left people with the false impression that their votes mean absolutely
nothing, and that the entire American electoral system is just a simulation of democracy, and
in reality they are living in a neo-feudalist, de facto global capitalist empire
administrated by omnicidal money-worshipping human parasites that won't be satisfied until
they've remade the whole of creation in their nihilistic image."
Now that's writing worth reading. If the Nobel committee did not serve the Global Empire,
it would give the Literature Prize to Hopkins.
The late 19th and 20th century Russians had the horror of dealing with Nihilists running
amuck in their country. Now the Nihilists rule the world as multi-billionaire Globalists.
Oh great, Bernie -- another Sunday Socialist. The road to Hell is trodden bare by his
type, downhill all the way. Bernie's assigned role is to "suck up all the oxygen". Provide
the necessary razzle-dazzle for the war democrats, police state liberals and austerity
progressives to suck up the attention and energy of the disaffected.
That's what they get paid to do. This layer of burn-outs, has beens and traitors. The
ever-odious staffers, full-timers, consultants, aides, advisors, policy wonks, publicity
hounds. Ever advancing themselves as spokespeople for all the causes. Always ready to turn
viciously on any regular people who have the impertinence to say otherwise. Generals without
an army.
Always anything but class with the Bernie boosters. Furiously beating their drums for
feminism, gay whatever, racism, the environment. But never for mobilization of the working
class. Never for fighting against real capitalism. The Bernie Sunday Socialists live
comfortably, haven't walked a picket line in ages, buy sweat shop labour designer clothes and
are as tough as jello.
Life has a way of paying you out. And the future for the Bernie boosters and those dumb
enough to buy their bilge is -- the Ukraine.
While the Bernie crowd serve as their apologists the class elites grind on. They have no
limit and the Bernie bunch will swallow anything so long as they keep their place and
privileges as police for the working poor. But, at some point, Ukrainization hits the
tipping point. As it is heading for in Brazil, Italy, Spain, France, Mexico. When the shit
hits the fan, the Bernie boosters will be on the wrong side of the barricades.
Bernie is no socialist, neither are any Democrats, just controlled puppets to keep the
American people docile, keep up the illusion that things will actually get better one day. He
may be an FDR capitalist, giving you just enough socialism to keep the capitalist system
afloat, keeping the pitchforks and torches at bay.
Bernie is a pro-war imperialist, just look at his tweets about Maduro recently, or his
views on Palestine-Israel. He may be the best "candidate" in 2020, but he is far from a
socialist. Same deal with Tulsi, if you are pro-Israel, you are a pro-war imperialist
period.
Notice she always makes a point to say "regime change wars" but what about drones? What
about covert CIA-mercenary assassinations? What about the war OF terror? She has no problem
with these types of war apparently. Colonialism and imperialism (theft of other people's and
nation's resources) are not true socialist policies. Capitalism by definition is stealing the
surplus value of the labor of other people – it cannot lead anywhere but to where we
are today.
Socialism is government by the working-class. There is not the slightest hint of the
working-class ruling over society anywhere in the world, certainly not in a dictatorship such
as America. Capitalists own all the means of production, all levers of government, and all
the major media.
There is now no Left left in America, although plenty people here now think "left" means
identity stuff. It does not. Left is giving priority to the welfare if the working class
majority and protecting them from predatory capitalists. Race, gender and deviancies did not
define the authentic socialist agenda.
I've given up the illusion that we'll ever vote our way out of this madness, look at Narco
Rubio's tweet yesterday using snuff photos of Gaddafi after the gangsters in DC murdered him
and destroyed his country, turning it back centuries, using them as a threat to Maduro. You
don't vote that kind of Mob out, we have the mafia now in charge of our country, the most
powerful military in the world is run by satanic mobsters, and we're foolish enough to think
voting is going to make this go away? Criminals and gangsters don't stop until they're either
in prison or dead. They don't go away or give up power because you ask them to, which is all
voting is, asking them nicely. Good luck with that!
I wish it wasn't true. I wish we could vote Bernie or Tulsi in and things change for the
better, but from what I've seen the past 30 years, it ain't happening. Their silence on 9-11
truth, knowing full well they know better is pretty telling.It doesn't take an Einstein to
see those buildings were blown up with explosives, if they're not willing to call that out,
what makes you think they're willing to do what needs to be done once in office? Sadly I'm
afraid either collapse, armed revolt, or China or Russia invading and/or nuking us is the
only way out of this evil system.
There are limits, after all, to people's gullibility. It's not like you can just run the
same con, with the same fake message and the same fake messiah, over and over, and expect
folks to fall for it.
What's wrong with Tulsi's fundraisers? They are not PAC money and $125/plate is not that
expensive. Tulsi has a huge disadvantage, because she isn't getting any coverage. Tulsi's
dinners are not sponsored by Corporate money.
Warren said to Cenk Uygur(in a NEW interview!) that her refusal of corporate donations
only extends to the primaries. She said [we] need corporate donations- or as she calls them-
"everything in our arsenal to beat Trump". Still want to lump her in with Bernie?
Never Completely Trust anyone, so thoroughly research everyone before supporting anyone on
anything to be fully aware of who benefits and how, since you may or may not benefit at all
11:16
hours Pacific Standard Time on Tuesday, 26 February 2019
So here it is, the announcement we've been waiting for all aboard for another cruise on the
new and improved U.S.S. Magic Socialist with your captain Bernie Sanders at the helm! If you're
not familiar with this extraordinary vessel, it's like the luxury liner in The Magic Christian , except
catering to credulous American socialists instead of the British filthy rich. Tickets start at
just $27 dollars so hurry, because they're going fast!
That's right, folks, Bernie is back, and this time it's not just a sadistic prank where he
gets you all fired up about his fake "revolution" for fifteen months, gets cheated out of the
nomination, then backs whichever corporate-bought candidate the Democratic Party orders you to
vote for.
No, this time the Bernster really means it! This time, when the DNC rigs the primaries to
hand the nomination to Harris, or Biden, or some billionaire android like Michael Bloomberg,
Bernie is not going to break your heart by refusing to run as an independent candidate,
unbeholden to the corporations and oligarchs that own both political parties, or otherwise make
you feel like a sucker for buying his "revolution" schtick. He's not going to fold like a fifty
dollar suit and start parroting whatever propaganda the corporate media will be prodigiously
spewing to convince you the Russians and Nazis are coming unless you vote for the empire's
pre-anointed puppet!
Bernie would never dream of doing that or at least he'd never dream of doing that twice.
NowThis published low quality video of the interview.
Not clear what they have cut.
What this Dutch academic does not understand that in a society controlled by financial oligarchy changing tax level to the level
that existed under President Eisenhower means rebellion and as such are simply impossible. They already managed to decimate unions,
the alliance of upper management and unions that exited during the New Deal seized to exist in 70th and can't be restored. Upper management
changed sides and allied with capital owners against workers.
So which social force will do this, may ask this brave Dutch histories. The US Army ?
On the other hand Carlson did not do his homework. He should read more this guy writings. He was caught off guard and that was sad.
"A millionaire paid by billionaires" was a punch in Carlson face and what is worse it is true. But so what ? This is tue and this is
what situation is. But it was this millionare who invited this radical histories to air his views. So why to try to cut the branch on
which you are sitting, is not it?
That's how neoliberalism works. So in a way existence more or less honest millionaire paid by billionaires is not a bad situation,
when other was jingoistic morons. Also millionaires and probably far richer then Tucker. You do not fight the battle with the army you
wish to have.
Dutch academic probably need to take lessons in diplomacy in his university after that ;-)
Notable quotes:
"... This is supposed to be a profound discussion or argument? I don't see it, but i think most of you folks just see what you want. You hate Tucker/fox so you cheer for anyone to get a rise out of him and call it something profound? I'm no defender of Fox as i hate most of its people, but Tucker is hardly a neocon defender of billionaires. ..."
"... The arrogance with which this glorified Marxist tries to smugly insult a man who is trying to compliment him is beyond words. ..."
"... My grievances with Tucker is well over a decade. Tucker supported the lies and deception in Iraq, over 1 million innocent lives massacred over lies and deception. ..."
"... Bregman is wrong, we must get rid of tax havens and tax avoidance before we increase the tax rates. Because billionaires don't care what rate you throw at them they have enough influence and power to avoid them. Instead small businesses take the burden ..."
"... Tucker brought up an example of a company that paid ZERO taxes. This is what needs to be addressed. ..."
"... Illegal immigrants provide cheap labor for corporations, some of the very same people he's talking about. Very different than legal immigrants who must be paid minimum wage and are subject to IRS auditing. ..."
"... Putting immigrants in the same pile as illegal immigrants is like holding a bank robber at the same level as a customer at an ATM. "Well, they're both making withdrawals." ..."
"... LMAO dude this guy doesn't have a clue what he's talking about or is being dishonest intentionally. Clearly he went on the show to try to hit Tucker with a "gotcha" that would later be used to make Tucker look dumb. ..."
Fox News refused to air this full interview with historian Rutger Bregman after Fox News host Tucker Carlson lost his temper,
calling his guest a 'tiny brain...moron' during the interview.
" Subscribe to NowThis:
http://go.nowth.is/News_Subscribe
Watch this leaked interivew, Tucker Carlson's full interview with Rutger Bregman, which Fox News decided not to air in full. During
the Rutger Bregman interview, host Tucker Carlson goes off on Bregman, calling his guest a 'tiny brain...moron.'
NowThis has obtained the full segment of the unaired interview with historian Rutger Bregman that Fox News refused to air. Watch
it here first.
In a previous video, at the Davos World Economic Forum 2019, Historian Rutger Bregman told a room full of billionaires that they
need to step up and pay their fair share of taxes – watch it here:
https://youtu.be/paaen3b44XY
NowThis is your premier news outlet providing you with all the videos you need to stay up to date on all the latest in trending
news. From entertainment to politics, to viral videos and breaking news stories, we're delivering all you need to know straight to
your social feeds. We live where you live.
Tucker Carlson Blows Up at Rutger Bregman in Unaired Fox News Interview | NowThis
This is supposed to be a profound discussion or argument? I don't see it, but i think most of you folks just see what you
want. You hate Tucker/fox so you cheer for anyone to get a rise out of him and call it something profound? I'm no defender of
Fox as i hate most of its people, but Tucker is hardly a neocon defender of billionaires.
The arrogance with which this glorified Marxist tries to smugly insult a man who is trying to compliment him is beyond
words.
Are we going to pretend that Marxism is some new movement (or what Rutger calls the "bandwagon")? AOC is a moron who is
widely hated by her own party and has an IQ in the 80 range, and Bernie has NEVER had a job in his life. Hes been supported his
entire existence by other peoples labor. Thats why I'd never support these lazy deadbeats who cry about "taxes".
My grievances with Tucker is well over a decade. Tucker supported the lies and deception in Iraq, over 1 million innocent
lives massacred over lies and deception.
Tucker is a freak indeed a millionaire paid by billionaires to do fluff stories on feminist, and also refugees which he promoted
in the first place.
High taxation should be a matter of national security. Look how dangerous these giants get to society. They cant put their
money into any markets without disrupting everything and same when they get out. They tilt favor in politics completely out of
the hands of the people.
GOP has no problem with trickle-down economics (which never has trickled) but something which worked in the '50's and 60's
will totally lead to socialism. Go figure.
Bregman is wrong, we must get rid of tax havens and tax avoidance before we increase the tax rates. Because billionaires don't
care what rate you throw at them they have enough influence and power to avoid them. Instead small businesses take the burden
Scott Thompson, 1 day ago
Class warfare is a waste. Tucker brought up an example of a company that paid ZERO taxes. This is what needs to be addressed.
This is not a rich poor thing. This is a loophole thing.
Tax code needs revision. Get rid of picking winners and losers. All need to pay tax regardless of income. The more you make
the more you pay.
The Dutch way of communicating is that of direct speech. So direct that this can be perceived as bluntness or impoliteness.
In my opinion Bregman's direct communication did not result into rudeness or being impolite, in the contrary. Carlson is the one
who resorted to namecalling, so he's the one being tacky and rude. Bregman did not engage in the namecalling and kept telling
it like it is.
And this is how you win an argument with psychological warfare. Carlson had the opportunity to present some counter arguments
(which he could've easily prepared), but instead resorts to attempting to derail to discussion and eventually blatant insults.
Bergman immediately recognizes this and calmly pushes him over the edge.
The best part is where Carlson digs his own grave at
4:55 : I don't think the preceding argument was
aimed at fox news specifically, but the instant Carlson becomes defensive, Bergman jumps on top of it. Carlson can't even make
a coherent sentence after that haha: "AOC is- wait, but, can I just say- and you- ... moron...". This is brilliant xD.
What a buttercup!! When he can control the debate he ends up insulting his guest. But one thing is true, most reporters, not
only in Fox News but in other channels too are millionaires and will not ask for higher taxes for the millionaires because that
would affect them...
Standard reaction: losing the argument? Time to start swearing and spitting personal insults! And of course: do not air the
interview in which you've just been knocked out.
Mr Bregman owned Carlson during that interview. Bregman did indeed do his homework and Carlson was reduced to the blubbering,
name calling puppet better known as a right wing conservative.
I really don't understand why such a large portion of Americans are anti-elitist and talk about 'deep state' on the one hand,
while on the other they accept the influence of money on politics (because it's 'capitalist'), see Fox News as an actual (or the
only genuine) news source (while they're a blatant example of the influence of money on politics) and think 'trickle down economy'
is a real thing.
The election of DJT as president is the apex of that discrepancy. They worship him because he is a 'self-made man' (even though
he is not) and 'not a politician' while his policies are not only based on lies and deliberate ignorance, but more importantly
they're mainly to benifit himself (or his donors, like with the Jerusalem debacle).
Bernie Sanders is right when he says people are only talking about Howard Schultz because he's a billionaire. When are Americans
going to learn 'the American Dream' is a sham, because it's basically a race to the top and a race always has more losers than
winners?
When is this anti-government mindset finally going out of style? Business people got rich because their strategies are designed
to benefit themselves, while politicians are elected to represent and adhere to the need of the people. Get money out of politics.
Only then can you start to solve the bigger problems, like the opioid crisis, climate change, defect infrastructure, minimum wage,
health care, mass incarceration, the list goes on and on.
Got em! One thing the Dutchie doesn't understand about "scapegoating immigrants." Illegal immigrants provide cheap labor
for corporations, some of the very same people he's talking about. Very different than legal immigrants who must be paid minimum
wage and are subject to IRS auditing.
Putting immigrants in the same pile as illegal immigrants is like holding a bank robber at the same level as a customer
at an ATM. "Well, they're both making withdrawals."
LMAO dude this guy doesn't have a clue what he's talking about or is being dishonest intentionally. Clearly he went on
the show to try to hit Tucker with a "gotcha" that would later be used to make Tucker look dumb.
You'll notice that Tucker was amiable and in agreement with most of his points up until the point at which he began throwing
wild accusations that because Tucker is a millionaire he was therefore bought out? His criticism of Fox is welcomed, and Tucker
is not exempt from that criticism despite being the sole personality farthest removed from their narrative bubble, but his train
of logic to therefore incriminate Tucker as part of a global conspiracy to enslave the masses is incredibly small brained.
There is no reason to necessarily believe that 90% tax rates will work the same as they did 80 years ago in a very different
economy, just as there is no reason to believe that Tucker is a shill just because he makes money.
It is unfortunate that a much needed criticism of Fox and conservative anarcho capitalist doctrine get wrapped up in such a
low-tier, clickbait "gotcha" for gaslit shitlibs who want to feel like they won an argument for once. Sad.
Interview is about forthcoming book "Peak
Trump" In "Peak Trump", Stockman goes after all the sacred cows: Military spending, entitlement spending, MAGA, Trump's tax cut,
the intelligence budget, and the Wall. Trump is a symptom of the problem. He wanted to drain the swamp but failed to do so. He never
really had a good chance of doing that, but he failed to make the most of the chance he had. We are where we are because of decades
of Congressional and monetary mismanagement
All in the name of empire... the Deep state in non-particular and Trump proved to be a "naked king"
At 15:49 min Ron Paul asks the question about Tulsi... She positioned herself as noninterventionists and has similar foreign policy
as Ron Paul used to have. Stockman answer was very interesting and informative.. MSM journalists are essentially federal contractor,
lobbyists of MIC.
He also mentioned that Trump falls from the bait. And the appointment of Elliot Abrams was real betrayal of his voters.
Notable quotes:
"... He was smart enough to understand that the commonplace observation codified as the Laffer Curve, while true, didn't mean that DC could just go on an endless spending spree and expect increased tax revenues to exceed the avarice of politicians, though. ..."
"... No, I don't think Stockman's rhetoric was a lie. He did end up getting shoved out of the Reagan regime, after all, precisely because he resisted giving every cabinet secretary all the money they wanted and, as you say, insisted that the tax cuts needed to be accompanied by spending cuts. ..."
"... But supply-side economics is, perversely, a departure from sound economic policy in the direction of central planning . Its premise is that instead of production being driven by diffuse demand, money should be concentrated in the hands of a few who "know better" what should be produced. ..."
"... And in practice, the "entrepreneurs" intended to benefit were the businesses who already had the clout to make themselves part of the political class, not the guy in his garage designing a better mousetrap. ..."
"... The Laffer Curve is an interesting but much over-used (and badly used) observation: There is a tax revenue curve with a top to it. That is, as you raise taxes, revenues go up ... until the taxation gets onerous enough that additional earnings beyond bare subsistence strike people as not worth the input, beyond which point tax INcreases produce revenue DEcreases. ..."
David Stockman was one of my conservative heroes during the Reagan years. He was the one person in the Administration who seemed
to have an honest understanding of economics. It's nice to see that his experiences with the reality of the DC swamp have made
him go all the way to describing himself as a libertarian, rather than a conservative.
He could have sold out, given up any modicum of principle, and simply become a multi-millionaire Republican Party establishment
hack.
I would venture to say he and I have some policy differences, but it's always nice to see when someone embraces their best,
rather than their worst, instincts.
My recollection of Stockman's economics from those years (based on e.g. The Triumph of Politics) was that he was all-in on
"supply side" economics, which is twaddle. He was smart enough to understand that the commonplace observation codified as
the Laffer Curve, while true, didn't mean that DC could just go on an endless spending spree and expect increased tax revenues
to exceed the avarice of politicians, though.
Yes, supply side is bogus, but my observations were that Stockman was quite critical of the spending increases that the Administration
put forth. He approved of the so called tax-cuts, but he did so with the understanding that there would be spending cuts along
with them.
My own recollections (I was alive back then, but not as politically conscious as I am now) were that Stockman was not endorsing
the supply side theory so much as his own idea that cuts in government spending were necessary, and that tax cuts would put pressure
on Congress and the administration to cut spending. The irony is that, for whatever reason, tax revenues overall increased by
60% in Reagan's two terms, yet spending increased almost 100%. This certainly disproves the idea that there was ever a revenue
problem, and that it has always been a spending problem.
In any event, Stockman was just about the only person with an official capacity in DC, who actually worked toward spending
cuts. Unless you are saying that his rhetoric was a lie, and he was just like all the others. If that is the case then, of course,
you could always be right.
No, I don't think Stockman's rhetoric was a lie. He did end up getting shoved out of the Reagan regime, after all, precisely
because he resisted giving every cabinet secretary all the money they wanted and, as you say, insisted that the tax cuts needed
to be accompanied by spending cuts.
But supply-side economics is, perversely, a departure from sound economic policy in the direction of central planning .
Its premise is that instead of production being driven by diffuse demand, money should be concentrated in the hands of a few who
"know better" what should be produced.
True, the central planning class in question was, broadly and not very honestly defined, "entrepreneurs" rather than government
bureaucrats, but the principle was the same. And in practice, the "entrepreneurs" intended to benefit were the businesses
who already had the clout to make themselves part of the political class, not the guy in his garage designing a better mousetrap.
"But supply-side economics is, perversely, a departure from sound economic policy"
Perhaps the most damning thing about it was that the stated goal was to increase the federal government's revenue. What person
in their right mind would wish to give even more money and power to the federal government?
The Laffer Curve is an interesting but much over-used (and badly used) observation: There is a tax revenue curve with a
top to it. That is, as you raise taxes, revenues go up ... until the taxation gets onerous enough that additional earnings beyond
bare subsistence strike people as not worth the input, beyond which point tax INcreases produce revenue DEcreases.
She folded under pressure, but what would you expect her to do. Being branded as an "Assad stooge", even if wrong, is a death sentence
for the campaign. This is was nasty and effective trick to keep her "in place". And it worked.
Off course, Megan McCain behaved like an angry alcoholic, but that does not change the situation much: all them were neoliberal/neocon
warmongers.
Notable quotes:
"... You know for a FACT that # Assad isn't a brutal dictator and that he never used chemical weapons against his people. You even went to Syria. Yet you're willing to lie just to please a bullying McCain of all people. What a shame. ..."
"... Melissa, when you come up with a reasonable alternative to al nusra, al qaeda and isis to govern the country and unite the syrian people, and have a game plan to impose it, please let us know. ..."
"... Well you have a big problem on your hands @ MeghanMcCain because your dads "moderate rebels" beheaded 2 of our family members in # Syria Not President Assad He has protected our family in the Christian Valley of Syria and we went to over 50 Reporters "experts" who refused to talk ..."
You know for a FACT that #Assad isn't a
brutal dictator and that he never used chemical weapons against his people. You even went to Syria. Yet you're willing to lie just
to please a bullying McCain of all people. What a shame.
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard says "there's no disputing the fact" that Bashar Al-Assad is a "brutal dictator" who "has used chemical weapons"
against his people, but adds that amid the US's "regime-change war," the "lives of the Syrian people have not been improved"
http:// abcn.ws/2Ne74r9
NativeSF @dypraxia Replying to @melmel24 @TheView
Melissa, when you come up with a reasonable alternative to al nusra, al qaeda and isis to govern the country and unite the
syrian people, and have a game plan to impose it, please let us know.
Well you have a big problem on your hands @MeghanMcCain
because your dads "moderate rebels" beheaded 2 of our family members in
#Syria Not President Assad He has protected
our family in the Christian Valley of Syria and we went to over 50 Reporters "experts" who refused to talk
Bernie Sanders @SenSanders
The people of Venezuela are enduring a serious humanitarian crisis. The Maduro
government must put the needs of its people first, allow humanitarian aid into the
country, and refrain from violence against protesters.
12:45 PM - 23 Feb 2019
Good speeches on Venezuela on the following link:
The World Today With Tariq Ali - No War on Venezuela
Tariq spoke at a public meeting in London, where many attended to express their solidarity
with the people of Venezuela, and to reject the coup attempt by the United States and their
allies.
what connects libya. Syria, Iran, N.korea and Venezuela, it is not oil. It is the fact that
they did not or do not owe the IMF a penny, or a cent or even a thin dime. Economic slavery
Bernie, are you f-ing kidding me! if you buy the Trump, Bolton, Abrams, Rubio line,
"humanitarian intervention" and collude in the destruction of Venezuela, you cannot be
credible candidate for President of the USA. Or, maybe you can, maybe you're the perfect
stooge for the 1 %.
What does Bernie's tweet say about who he is? What does Bernie's tweet say about his
participation in the 2016 election? and the 2020 election?
Early in the race (April 2015), Black Agenda Report called Bernie a 'sheepdog' for
Hillary:
Vermont senator and ostensible socialist Bernie Sanders is playing the sheepdog
candidate for Hillary Clinton this year. Bernie's job is to warm up the crowd for Hillary,
herding activist energies and the disaffected left back into the Democratic fold one more
time. Bernie aims to tie up activist energies and resources till the summer of 2016 when
the only remaining choice will be the usual lesser of two evils.
During the election, Bernie told us that he was a friend of Hillary's for twenty-five
years. He claimed to be an independent but he was close to most of the Democratic leadership:
Schumer, Hillary, Obama. Obama campaigned for him. Schumer refused to allow funding of
Democratic candidates that might oppose him.
Bernie refused to attack his friend Hillary on character issues. He pulled punches like
not refuting her claim to have never changed her vote for money by citing the
well-known and irrefutable example of Hillary's having done so on the bankruptcy bill
(Elizabeth Warren proved that Hillary had changed her position for money from the Credit
Card industry) . And he refused offers to lead a progressive Movement that was separate
from the Democratic Party after the DNC colluded with Hillary and Hillary brought Debra
Wasserman Shultz into her election and picked Kaine for VP over Bernie.
Bernie has entered the 2020 race knowing that he can't win given that many progressives
were disillusion by his failings in 2016. He's just a spoiler now to ensure that a Centrist
or another progressive stooge gets the Democratic nomination.
<> <> <> <> <> <> <>
It seems clear at this point that there was far more 'meddling' in the 2016 Presidential
race by CIA/MI6, the Israel lobby, and the three stooges that participated (Bernie, Hillary,
Trump) than by Russia.
On February 18th, Gallup bannered "Record High Name Government as Most Important
Problem" ... More than a third of Americans think that "The government/Poor leadership" is
the "Top Problem" in America. That's almost twice the percentage who listed the
second-from-top option, "Immigration," ...
The term the academics actually used was "inverted totalitarianism" .
The plutocracy has great influence (via money) but not control. They exert that influence
via political donations, lobbyists, cut-outs, etc. However, when a small group of political
and intel agency leaders recognize a danger to USA/plutocrat interests - like the
Russia-China alliance - they can collectively act like a dictator. This is what I contend has
actually occurred, and why a nationalist (Trump) was selected as nominal leader and
spokesperson.
At the 20 - 26 second mark, the Venezuelan or south american version of the white helmets
can be seen.
Coalition Aid and Freedom. Also a number of white teeshirts with black writing appear to be
another unit.
At the 35 second mark, one of the injured from the Columbian side of the
barricade is filmed. Lots of people with cameras filming her, but not one helps her.
I guess she is just one of the suckers destined to become US cannon fodder.
Peter AU 1 , Feb 23, 2019 10:12:15 PM |
linkben , Feb 23, 2019 10:27:48 PM |
link
"Home> Newsroom> Press Releases> Press Release
Sanders Statement on Venezuela
Thursday, January 24, 2019
WASHINGTON, Jan. 24 – Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) issued the following statement
Thursday on the political situation in Venezuela:
"The Maduro government in Venezuela has been waging a violent crackdown on Venezuelan
civil society, violated the constitution by dissolving the National Assembly and was
re-elected last year in an election that many observers said was fraudulent. Further, the
economy is a disaster and millions are migrating.
"The United States should support the rule of law, fair elections and self-determination
for the Venezuelan people. We must condemn the use of violence against unarmed protesters and
the suppression of dissent. However, we must learn the lessons of the past and not be in the
business of regime change or supporting coups – as we have in Chile, Guatemala, Brazil,
and the Dominican Republic. The United States has a long history of inappropriately
intervening in Latin American countries; we must not go down that road again."
Earlier, I was wondering if the current bullshit was just the opening ceremony
for the beginning of Syria style unconventional warfare, or Iraq shock and awe
style conventional war.
Judging by what is coming out in the last few hours, conventional war it is.
Conventional as in open in your face US military attack.
Marco Rubio
Verified account
@marcorubio
47m47 minutes ago
More Marco Rubio Retweeted Juan Guaidó
After discussions tonight with several regional leaders it is now clear that the grave
crimes
committed today by the Maduro regime have opened the door to various potential
multilateral
actions not on the table just 24 hours ago
Secretary Pompeo
Verified account
@SecPompeo
2h2 hours ago
More
The U.S. will take action against those who oppose the peaceful restoration
of democracy in #Venezuela. Now is the time to act in support of the needs of
the desperate Venezuelan people. We stand in solidarity with those continuing
their struggle for freedom.
CARACAS (Reuters) - Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaido said on Saturday that
President Nicolas Maduro's use of troops to violently block the entry of humanitarian
aid meant he would propose to the international community that all options remain
open to oust Maduro.
Sounds like the screech of the harpies more than actual war plans.
I have a different take. This was all they could do. It was just a propaganda move. And
the bolt is now shot.
They will follow with the only weapons they have: (a) sanctions of course and (b)
exhausting every color-revolution ploy in the playbook with the affluent and the oligarchs,
combined with limited paramilitary actions, very limited because it involves the invasion of
a country with closed borders that expects incursions and where foreign nationals arrested
and killed - be they Colombians, Brazilians or foreign mercenaries - will be very
embarrassing for the source nation or nations. Both actions could drag on for years,
ultimately wearing out the US far more than the Venezuelans.
I'm no military expert but cruise missiles or air bombing seem impractical to me.
Venezuela has Russian defense systems. The Pentagon will rattle sabers but it will not risk
something like a plane or a ship, because this would escalate the military imperatives for
the US beyond where the US actually wants to go. The US only wants to win. It absolutely
doesn't want to fight to do it.
The risk-aversion of the US (to put it politely) is huge, much, much greater - in my
estimation - than is commonly perceived. Remember, these are totally corrupt institutions
that we're talking about here. No backbone.
So they made a bit of theater, enough to fill the Wurlitzer for weeks, and preach to their
propagandized populace. But then there's the real situation on the ground. What exactly are
they going to do with that situation? They have zero legitimacy, and the UN is watching. Does
the Pentagon really want to risk a hardware or personnel loss sufficient for even the US
population to agree to sending real boots on the ground? Without air cover? A real act of
war, until the first ship is sunk? And then no moral high ground whatsoever, and the UN
nations one by one turning away, just like the EU members not applauding Pence? Does Trump
really want to go into an election with a new Vietnam on his hands? Do they really think they
can convince the people of the US to put up with that?
Perhaps they can. But either way, those are the stakes. There are no smaller stakes.
There's no easy win here. Either they go all-in, as if they had gumption, and stay in, as if
they had will, or they screech and screech and stay out. Because they know they can't win.
Not easy, not hard. No win here for the US. And they will throw away their entire presence in
Latin America, while accelerating the rotting of the political corpse back home.
Hard to tell but at least for now I agree with Grieved Feb 23, 2019 11:21:37 PM | 86 although
Peter AU 1 | Feb 23, 2019 10:40:41 PM | 83 and others make valid points: this could actually
be all the US is able to do (and essentially nothing but misdirection) or otherwise it will
require "everything" and spell the end of the US. Another possibility mentioned at the end of
this post.
Karlof1 wrote yet another interesting post in the "Trump Likes Beautiful Border Walls"
thread about (at the very least previous or recent) US access to Colombian air bases and also
a link to Google maps of seven such. According to Wikipedia it looks like the Colombian air
force has more bases but the US might not be present at all (or any, it might only be
temporary access/assured use) and so far I've only looked at one particular one (where they
most likely aren't, but Russia and China would know for sure). This is only meant as
reference, it is not necessarily factual or up to date.
I think Karof1 linked to the Google maps in this thread as well, I hate Google but it is
worth a look at that base (I could zoom all the way down to 5 meters scale indicator but I
doubt that's actual resolution, it got very grainy) if only to see a place on Earth with an
incredible amount of rivers ...everywhere! And laugh a little about it if you can :D
(and I might be wrong but if anything the satellite picture looks like it was taken during
the dry season since it's only verdant along the river edges lol).
There's no shortage of things to think about. Most here are sure to know this but I will
hastily mention all the trouble Colombia has had and link to a Wikipedia summary, it might be
an okay summary or maybe not but it ought to be okay as a reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colombian_conflict
the US might be pushing their luck attempting to stay relevant or to have any influence,
everything might actually be about Colombia (and Brazil or even Latin America in general)
rather than Venezuela.
Bernie was a sheepdog. He has no real intention to fight for the presidency in 2016, and he gave up very despicably to Hillary
during the National convention.
At his age he is not a presidential candidate in 2020 (he was born in 1941). He just again play the role of sheep dog,
possibly helping to defeat Tulsi Gabbard. As The Atlantic
pointed out:" Sanders will hurt contenders whose support overlaps with his, reducing the pool of voters available for those who
are targeting the same groups most drawn to him, particularly young people, the most liberal activists, and independents who
participate in Democratic primaries. "
Sanders's entry could also influence his competitors' assessment of the earliest primary states, by causing other candidates
to view the New Hampshire contest as a regional showdown between him and Warren
Notable quotes:
"... "My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders." – Hillary Clinton to investors in a paid speech given to Brazilian Banco Itau in 2013 ..."
"... Had primary voters known everything that was going on, including rigging of the primaries and laundering of money from state and local committees, and Bernie had actually hammered Clinton for those things like any normal candidate would, he'd have won the primary and might very well be President today. Her compromising of national security via email would've been the cherry on top. ..."
Bernie Sanders's quest for the Democratic presidential nomination was one of the biggest
surprises of the 2016 campaign, surpassed only by the election's
ultimate winner . The rumpled septuagenarian socialist senator from the tiny state of
Vermont, who had never even run for office as a Democrat before, went from decades of laboring
in obscurity to competing with Hillary Clinton on something approaching even terms. On Tuesday
he announced he wants to try again, this time in a race with no obvious frontrunner.
The closest parallel to Sanders's success was probably Ron Paul: elderly, ideological
veteran lawmakers who were beloved by younger voters inside the major political party to which
they were intermittently attached (Paul was the 1988 Libertarian Party nominee for president,
Sanders technically won all his elections as an independent or third-party candidate) when they
sought its presidential nomination late in their careers. Despite their vast differences on
economics, both men also wanted an end to perpetual war in the Middle East.
Yet Sanders thrived in a two-way race and came closer than Paul to the nomination, even if
he never quite threatened to pull off a Barack Obama-style upset against Clinton. With the
GOP's small government wing in
decline , Sanders also appears for now to have had more of a transformative effect on the
Democratic Party.
"Socialism" is no longer an epithet in American politics and Sanders proved there was
valuable ground to the left of Obama.
Can Sanders do it again? To get a sense of how the Bernie revolution might eat its own,
let's reflect on why he fell short the first time. Sanders is an old-school leftist who
believes in the centrality of class, not race.
Hailing from one of the whitest states in the country, he never made inroads in the
communities of color that have become such a large part of the Democratic primary electorate --
and the crucial reason Obama prevailed where Sanders' fellow Vermonter Howard Dean did not.
Sanders was pilloried for his refusal to support
open borders in a 2015 interview with liberal pundit Ezra Klein. "No, that's a Koch brothers
proposal," Sanders replied, later calling it "right-wing." He added, "It would make everybody
in America poorer -- you're doing away with the concept of a nation state, and I don't think
there's any country in the world that believes in that." Klein's website then ran a piece with
a headline claiming "Bernie
Sanders's fear of immigrant labor is ugly -- and wrongheaded."
This left-wing economic nationalism might make Sanders attractive to the white working-class
voters who cast the decisive ballots for Donald Trump in 2016. So too would the fact that while
Sanders is reliably liberal on social issues, including the obligatory support for abortion on
demand, he is clearly not animated by them. The key swing voters in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and
Wisconsin are economically liberal but socially conservative.
What might be assets in the general election against Trump are huge liabilities in the
Democratic primaries, however. In an American progressivism increasingly defined by
intersectionality and identity politics, even a socialist who
honeymooned in the Soviet Union is something of a relic. Centrists and liberals alike
lobbed accusations of sexism against the "Bernie bros" supporting Sanders.
Now these Sanders critics will have liberal women -- in some cases, women of color -- to
choose from in the primaries. Even outside presidential politics, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
offers the same democratic socialism in a more attractive, internet-savvy, diverse, and woke
package. In the primaries, Sanders will have to share the left lane with others. Elizabeth
Warren can compete with him on economics, Tulsi Gabbard for antiwar street cred. Nearly all the
contenders now support "Medicare for All," with many signing up for the $42 trillion Green New
Deal.
If Democrats decide they want an aging white male for old times sake, Joe Biden could do the
trick. His eight years as vice president under Obama revived his political fortunes, as Trump
says in less flattering
terms . A crowded group of progressives could give an establishment icon who starts with
high name recognition a path to the nomination. And Biden could also vie with Trump for
blue-collar white voters.
Of course, Biden would be making much of that appeal on the basis of personality. Trump and
Sanders rail against bad trade deals and the Iraq war. Biden has an even longer record of
supporting such policies than Clinton did. Some of the other Sanders alternatives'
progressivism is of more recent vintage (Kamala Harris) and perhaps of questionable sincerity
(Cory Booker). Bernie is a true believer.
But the modern Democratic Party is like a parade marching leftward so rapidly that it is
hard for anyone, even Bernie Sanders, to keep up for long.
Interesting take on Bernie here,
yet, at the same time, I'm thinkin': The bad jokes continue on the American people, which is, for example, the two names toward
the end of this article.
Booker and Harris? These two intellectually hollow politicians are quite different from
Bernie.
They are opportunists using the labels 'liberal' or simply 'Democrats' to run for office.
And, cynically using the label of being a 'minority.' Come on now!
The joke I refer to is that these two, unlike Bernie don't give a rat's butt about anyone,
ii's all self serving bull.
The difference with Bernie? He, Bernie, is sincere and really cares for people, he has heart.
Now, would some of you care to read old articles, some in the San Francisco newspapers from
the bad old days when mayor Willie Brown was there and how he, married, was having ah,
regular 'get togethers' with Kamala Harris and how he got her high paid positions with
commissions and then helped her become Att. General. And, so they used the exact opposite of
what I and my generation (teens) in the mid-late 60's were told, which was: judge everyone by
THEIR character (as MLK also said). It doesn't matter whether you are of this or that, you
know, race, national origin and so on.
So Kamala Harris was using her ah, whatever to get ego
positions and money. These are facts and I'm being kind here. There's more, Brown himself
said, in recent interviews that he had the ah, affair(we know what that means and it's not
for discussions on Plato and Calvin, ha) with her. So, this clown Booker is running cause
he's black and that's it and Harris is using that too and that she's a female??
More jokes
from jokers on the American people. Again, a betrayal of myself and my fellow liberals from
the 60's and 70's. Run, brother Bernie run! At least you're real and not sleazy, can you all
dig what I'm sayin'?
If memory serves, significant numbers of black and Hispanic voters do not support open
borders either. Bernie should learn from his 2016 mistakes, and go for the jugular against
ex-prosecutor Harris and longtime foe of teachers and water carrier for the charter school
industry Booker. He might also note Gillibrand's flip flop on guns, if he hasn't done the
same.
He also needs to call out the Democratic establishment for supporting Medicare for All
in words, while undercutting it in deed.
And he must learn not to be so solicitous of
corporate Democrats, be they corrupt war criminals like Clinton (he should have kept his
mouth shut about the e-mails) or bait-and-switch types like Andrew Cuomo, who is pulling on a
state level with "free college" and an "increased" minimum wage exactly what Pelosi is doing
at the federal level with Medicare for All. Oh, and talk more about jobs for all, a shortened
workweek, restoring voting rights and the Voting Rights Act, and breaking up and controlling
the banks and near monopolies instead of wonking out about Big Money in politics (nowhere
near as visceral as closing down polling places and purging voter rolls, although
gerrymandering might be turning into a rare winning "wonk" issue).
Respect the voters, Bernie, lay out your records vs. your opponents in targeted
advertising, but treat your opponents as most of them deserve.
Nah. Ideology is meaningless. It's all about GANG POWER. Bernie is not authorized by the
Clinton Mob, so he can't win. Kamala is employed by the Clinton Mob, so she will win.
Re: Sanders was pilloried for his refusal to support open borders in a 2015 interview with
liberal pundit Ezra Klein.
This is lazy writing. Words have meaning and there's no support for "open borders" among
the Democrats either– which would mean tearing down all our border controls so that
travel into the US from either Mexico or Canada would be as unhindered, on our side, as
travel between Michigan and Ohio.
Re: The key swing voters in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin are economically liberal
but socially conservative.
It would be better stated that they are socially moderate: generally in favor of abortion
rights (with limitations) and at peace with SSM, but not on board with the more extreme forms
of feminism or gay rights advocacy. The days of true social conservatism as the default
working class position are long gone. Mostly these people just want to be left alone–
by both SJWs of the Left and Bible thumping preachers of the Right. In that regard Donald
Trump seemed like a safe vote for them.
As someone who voted for Ron Paul 2008-12, , Bernie in the primaries and then for Trump
(reluctantly) in the general election, I will share what I see in Bernie: Honesty. Unbought.
Unbossed. No taint of scandal, lifelong devotion to his beliefs, went to jail over housing
desegregation, itinerate ne'er-d0-well supporting himself with home-made educational films
for schools and carpentry gigs, a gadfly who won his first election by 10 votes in a four-way
race, etc. , in other words, he's real. I don't share his views on social issues, but Trump's
judicial picks make it a lot easier to contemplate a Bernie Presidency, as the Senate and
courts would check and balance his more lefty impulses.
He's about as un-bought as any
politician in America, and having not been one of the cool kids means he's not beholden to
them.
Teamed with another outsider like Tulsi, Bernie would have a very good chance of
winning, and he's quite possibly do as much good, on balance, as anyone could hope for.
"My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders." –
Hillary Clinton to investors in a paid speech given to Brazilian Banco Itau in 2013
Rep. Jackie Speier: "I have said publically before that if what we're doing is build a
useless wall for a couple of years that we can then tear down, I'm willing to pay that price
to make sure these DACA kids can stay in the country."
zagonostra: "Wow, not one word on the corruption and collusion between HRC and DNC as
evidenced in Podesta emails and Donna Brazile's book."
Had primary voters known everything that was going on, including rigging of the primaries
and laundering of money from state and local committees, and Bernie had actually hammered
Clinton for those things like any normal candidate would, he'd have won the primary and might
very well be President today. Her compromising of national security via email would've been
the cherry on top.
Sorry, that was a very cheap shot to snidely refer to Socialist Bernie's Honeymoon in the
Soviet Union. He was mayor of Burlington, Vermont at the time and he officially visited the
town's sister city in Russia with his new bride. Did he have fun while he was there, God
forbid? Probably, as the video link clearly shows. Was he there to report to his Kremlin
masters?
Obviously not, since he has never been suspected of spying or of being a Russian stooge.
TAC in general -- but Pat Buchannan and Rod Dreher in particular -- continues to exaggerate
the portion of Democrats who are on the extreme far-left, and thus more "radical" than
Bernie. Clinton hangers-on and hardcore DNC insiders aside, most Democrats can easily square
their ideals and beliefs with Bernie's and have stronger incentives to do so than they did in
2016. Beyond the Democrats, those who saw him as too extreme in 2016 must re-calibrate and
consider him as a viable alternative to the fiasco of Trump. However, it's difficult to
imagine the extreme MAGA club defecting to Sanders, given how deeply they've entrenched
themselves in Trump's fakery and lies.
Re: Kent, "Then we will have a great national debate over what's more important: a wall to
keep out the Mexicans, or affordable healthcare."
Related to "affordable" healthcare, the Democrat Medicare for All proposal is a naive and
stupid illusion. The U.S. health care system based on the current fee-for-service model
cannot be reformed by moving the "who pays" food around the plate.
U.S. health care per capita costs of over $10,000 a year are 45% higher than German per
capita costs. The ONLY genuine reform would provide a significant reduction in the per cost
of health care to approach than of other advanced nations with some universal health care
model.
The ONLY way Medicare for All could work would be for the government to force massive fee
cram-downs on the health care Crony Cartels. Big Doctor, Big Hospital, Big Pharma, Big
Insurance would all have to be lined up for Big Haircuts.
Only nobody in Washington has the guts to do that. Or has the guts to propose a truly
transformational change in the health care model paradigm, e.g., a variation of the German
model.
The sad thing is that so many Americans are played for chumps by politicians spouting
their simplistic solutions that make no more sense than the obviously wired-for-failure
Obamacare.
Stick a fork in America with Dems running the show too – Because it's still
cooked.
All this concern-trolling from the Right and Center is really amusing.
Polls indicate that the actual voters want what Bernie is selling. Given the chance, he
will crush Trump, defeating ugly and vulgar cruelty with love and kindness.
"the crucial reason Obama prevailed where Sanders' fellow Vermonter Howard Dean did not"
Beyond all the bad faith toothless crushing of sour grapes in the article, this is an
interesting line.
Dean ran on an anti-war platform – against the Bush Doctrine – at a time when
no other Democratic "leader" dared, and Barbara Lee's resolution to disavow the doctrine of
preventive war got cobwebbed in the biparty Congress. His position – which contrasts
well with his pitiful shilling for MEK these days – challenged the blobbed US biparty
foreign policy "consensus" in much the same manner Primary Trump did, and the media and party
backstablishment rallied to derail Dean ASAP.
Obama had the foresight to speak out against the Iraq war without having to deliver a
Senate vote, and he postured as comprehensively dishonest as an anti-war candidate as Trump
did, and then implemented US impunitivism just as Trump does.
The difference was 4 years, from 2004 to 2008. The People, in their finite wisdom, saw fit
to elect a Supreme Court-selected GWB with popular majority, approving of illegal aggressive
war (as well as Congress' unconstitutional authorizations for that crime).
Incidentally, Barbara Lee refrained from re-introducing the disavowal of preventive war
during the Obama years. Presumably the party might have not actually voted for it as long as
they had that uncomfortable majority.
Since 2008, the anti-war "movement" has veritably sublimated, and Obama's continuation of
expansion of Bush's illegal wars has not been challenged and is – Syria, Yemen –
rarely mentioned by those who criticize Trump for delivering Bush 5th term. In this respect,
2012 and 2016 were as different from 2008 as 2008 was from 2004 – and frankly, Obama's
re-election in 2012 had the same "follow the leader" partisan stain that Bush's election in
2004 had: letters of indulgence to Presidents who had proven themselves liars and
criminals.
If there is one valid criticism of Sanders, it is that he has not committed in 2016 or
since to a full, open break with the blob and the foreign policy consensus, and he has not
taken a clear stand against illegal war, wasteful debt-backed military spending, and US
impunitivism.
No candidate for 2020 has committed to repealing the AUMF:
Nice guy, Bernie, though wooly-headed. I would like to think, however, that he truly believes
in what he is saying. Sometimes, however, I wonder if what he says is for public consumption
only and not reflective of what he really believes in–namely, garden variety Old School
Liberalism. If he had been a True Believer and given the way they cooked the books, he would
have flipped the bird to Madame and her DNC flunkies and run third-party (wouldn't THAT have
been fun!). In the end, however he copped out, which makes one wonder where he really stands.
If Sanders is denied the nomination of his party again–a distinct possibility as
suggested by Mr. Antle–let's see if he"bolts" and mounts a third-party candidacy. If he
does, he would be demonstrating the courage of his convictions–a rare commodity among
politicians.
If he doesn't and cops out yet again, falling meekly in lockstep behind the Democrat
nominee, then it says here that Bernie Sanders is just another phony politician.
"When we talk about the word 'socialism,' I think what it really means is just democratic
participation in our economic dignity and our economic, social, and racial dignity. It is
about direct representation and people actually having power and stake over their economic
and social wellness, at the end of the day."
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
"They call it the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it."
Before the George Soros clones start the Revolution, they need to understand who owns most of
the guns and ammunition in this country and knows how to use them. If you ass wipes want to
dance, then start the music or shut the Hell up.
"Nah. Ideology is meaningless. It's all about GANG POWER. Bernie is not authorized by the
Clinton Mob, so he can't win. Kamala is employed by the Clinton Mob, so she will win."
Little known political trivia: in the 2008 primaries, there was a challenger to Clinton,
named Barrack Obama. He was stomped out of the race so fast that most people don't even
remember him.
I am not a fan of Trump, and believe the country would be better off with new leadership. But
the liberal-left wing of the Democratic Party -- well, is it a wing or the party proper,
that's the question -- is seriously delusional to think Bernie, Harris, Warren, Booker and
the rest could carry more than 5 states. My guess is that only Sherrod Brown of Ohio could
pull off a victory, if he has the chops to handle whatever slurs and nicknames Trump will
have for him. Maybe the Democrats should draft Michael Dukakis. He crushed Biden.
The problem for the Republicans is that we can't deny that the economy favors the wealthy,
not because they are creative, or because they are building factories, and providing jobs but
because they are able to borrow money at zero percent interest in order to keep the Wall
Street casinos going. Trillions of dollars have been transferred from savings and pension
plans to the wealthy in the form of bailouts and quantitative easing. And now the Fed has
decided to not unload its balance sheet which means the debt has been monetized. Soon there
will be lowering of interest rates and more quantitative easing. In short, we have a managed
economy that favors the wealthy. Capitalism is dead. Transferring money to the wealthy while
everyone else must bear the burden of austerity cannot, and should not last. The people will
not continue to accept it. The wealthy brought it upon themselves.
"The people will not continue to accept it. The wealthy brought it upon themselves."
Great! So what can the people do? Those wealthy have the ability to send unemployment
skyrocketing. They have the backing of both parties. Those people were progressive before
anything we have today. Those wealthy do not play by the same rules others do. You can blame
Republicans all you want, but many Dems are just as guilty and many Dem voters will feel the
pain. too.
Sanders was pilloried for his refusal to
support open borders in a 2015 interview with liberal pundit Ezra Klein. "No, that's a
Koch brothers proposal," Sanders replied, later calling it "right-wing." He added, "It
would make everybody in America poorer -- you're doing away with the concept of a nation
state, and I don't think there's any country in the world that believes in that." Klein's
website then ran a piece with a headline claiming "Bernie
Sanders's fear of immigrant labor is ugly -- and wrongheaded."
You can't say it any clearer than that. Tulsi will get her chance to shine and break from
the pack in the first debate. She will stand out in stark contrast against the other war
party candidates in both parties. I am looking for Tulsi to come out of the debates as a
clear anti-war alternative while the others split the pro-war vote.
Unlike Trump you don't have to read between the lines to cherry pick anti war nuggets
while ignoring the other 90% of what Gabbard says. Nor do you need to ignore her vids about
"pussy grabbing" or her draft dodging or tabloid scandals and self-centered get rich schemes.
Tulsi is an Iraq War combat zone veteran with a genuine commitment to public service with
crossover appeal to red and blue voters. She would beat Trump head to head.
Trump barely beat Hillary despite Hillary's warmongering , poor judgment and scandalous
foundation. Tulsi has none of Hillary's baggage and would demolish Trump on national TV.
Would you rather your kids grew up to be like Tulsi or like Trump?
I hope Sanders understands that Gabbard will be a much more powerful candidate than he
could ever be, especially since he will be 79 before the 2020 election, he can't connect with
Black voters and has no military service.
Sanders should throw his support to Gabbard early and become her adviser or running mate.
Sanders' support could help Tulsi get off to a strong start in New Hampshire. Here's
hoping.
It's official today, Bernie is running. Even if he wasn't, he doesn't possess the backbone
to support a candidate this dangerous to the DNC. He didn't even have the backbone to stand
up for his own voters when Hillary mugged the vote. The man is on the record as a
Russia-bating, Hugo-bashing, drone-strike-socialist. He's an albatross around the left's
neck. Nobody needs another FDR. Nobody but the Military Industrial Complex that is. People
like Bernie only give such institutions a much needed "compassionate" makeover.
Bernie can shit in his hat. There is only one Democrat left committed to McGovern-style
anti-imperialism and that's Tulsi Gabbard . I left that party of dickless hypocrites
years ago and I have zero intention of ever returning but you can consider this an
endorsement. If you're gonna vote in 2020, vote for Tulsi. We gotta put an end to this
bomb-dropping shitshow we call a super-power. This is a start.
"... So, you can actually help to get her in the Debates by going to her Campaign Page and making a contribution, and encouraging others to do the same. It's the total number of contributions that matters, not the total amount, so anything will help toward the goal. ..."
"... Let's get Tulsi Gabbard on the stage for the first Democratic Primary Debate in June! Donate $5 today at www.tulsi2020.com to help Tulsi get her message out to America! ..."
"... Again, you're a young Hawaiian female. In a field of more than a dozen candidates, you have to quickly establish yourself as "top tier". Barring an endorsement from Bernie Sanders, the only way to do that is to look, speak, and act top tier. ..."
"... Like Ron Paul, Gabbard says things that desperately need saying but that establishment politicians rarely say. She not only says them. She makes them the centerpiece of her campaign, so I support her speaking tour rather than the campaign per se. ..."
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard released this 30-second video in her campaign for
the White House. It is one of the most clear and unequivocal statements I have ever heard
from a presidential candidate:
Please note that this is not an endorsement or statement of support. Antiwar.com is a
nonprofit organization and does not endorse or urge support for any candidates. We do,
however, provide news and commentary on campaigns.
Just because the talk gets tougher doesn't mean the policy will change. Especially from
the top down. We can hope, but if she's at all sincere I doubt she'll ever get close to the
debates since it would be an indictment upon the elite who stack the slate we vote from.
I hope she keeps saying what she's saying but it's abundantly clear to me the five eyes
countries are already beyond the point of no return as far as their sh*tty global debt
peonage and slavery utopia dream goes.......
Without mass civil disobedience this gal will either fade away or get JFK'd.
The rules say that they have to let her in the first Debate if she raises donations from
at least 65,000 people by then. She has to have raised these contributions from at least 20
States, with at least 200 contributors coming from an individual State in order for that
State to count toward the 20 State total.
So, you can actually help to get her in the Debates
by going to her Campaign Page and making a contribution, and encouraging others to do the
same. It's the total number of contributions that matters, not the total amount, so anything
will help toward the goal.
There is also a polling threshold in order to qualify for the
Debates, but you only have to meet one or the other. The polling threshold is too easy for
the Establishment to manipulate and rig. The donation threshold can't be faked, and is the
safer path toward getting her on that Stage.
https://www.tulsi2020.com/s...
I don't give money to politicians. That's how we got to this point remember ? All you're doing is paying consultants who used to work for the Clinton Mafia anyway.
Your comment is paradoxical. You either have hope for recovery or you believe all hope is
lost. You can't claim both.
I don't worry about the debates as each four years that pass reduces the hold the TV debates
have on Joe America and pumps up the internet which the Commission on Presidential Debates
has no control.
Thank you for your passionate comment.
I have no hope the current system will recover. I have hope something new will rise out of
the ashes of the old. The enemy is this stupid idea of there being an "elite" class among
us.
Interesting assertion you have there. I'd be interested if you know of any articles or
books that elaborate on your no elite class among us concept. Thank you for your reply.
Dave chimes in with his usual cynicism and the well worn " only massive civil disobedience
will work" trope. Read John McCarthy below for a solid and effective thing to do for Tulsi -
not that Dave seems to want to help in any way.
Is he cynical or lazy - and those are not mutually exclusive?
I'd say it's the more naive among us that believe that political stump speeches actually
have to mean something that are the lazy ones.
How come voting hasn't changed policy goals so far Cratylus ?
If people like you would pull your head out of your arses and quit supporting the two
funding arms of the war party we would be less likely to get "hope and change" over and over
again.
Here's a clue for you..... Politicians don't always mean what they say in stump
speeches......
Here's another clue for you..... You live in a plutocracy, please take note of this and
quit pretending you have representative government or anything close to a democracy.
FYI for those that don't have their dictionary handy.
The definition of a plutocracy is a political system where the wealthy govern. When the
richest people have all of the power in a society and make all of the political decisions,
this is an example of a plutocracy. YourDictionary definition and usage example.
"The definition of a plutocracy is a political system where the wealthy govern."
You repeat yourself. All existing States are governed by the (relatively) wealthy. It
cannot be otherwise. Once the State has been granted the legal authority to plunder, it is
only a matter of time before the wealthy become the biggest purchasers of the plundering
service.
That just means the state isn't the enemy, the "elite" are. Or in other words, the concept
of their being an elite. The state is just another benign entity like a religion that in
reality is the control mechanism of the so called elite.
Yes, the state is just another benign entity that murdered somewhere in the neighborhood
of 300 million people in the 20th century, excluding war deaths and incidental rather than
intentional killings.
If Trump can win, anything is possible. We're looking at a whole new ballgame here. I
generally prefer general strikes and direct action myself but if there's a ballot box just
lying there, I'm gonna pick it up and throw it through the nearest government window. Why the
f**k not? The brick and the ballot box, that's my motto. Put that shit on a T-shirt and sell
it.
For anyone to actually get elected President and THEN make major policy changes that
GREATLY benefit the American people, as USG policies should, would take a full-scale
revolution against the ruling classes! That is the REALITY of the USA today. All talk about
"freedom and democracy" and nothing but policies that suffocate these two things all over the
globe AND at home! A candidate can have 70% of the vote and STILL be prisoner to the Deep
State in some way.
Even if I didn't vote for her in the general election, I am certainly going to contribute,
as she will probably be the only major party candidate who is remotely antiwar. If she can
get her ideas some exposure, you are correct, she would mop the floor with Trump. My only
concern would be her coziness with Israel, but, perhaps, she will rethink those ties to be
consistent with her overall antiwar message.
Borg, I agree that Gabbard needs to articulate a clearer understanding of Israel and its
lobby in US wars. But she is the only candidate who would never put Israel's interest ahead
of the interests of the American people.
In less than 20 years Gabbard has grown from a homophobic Hawaiian surfer girl to the
youngest woman legislator in American history to a veteran twice deployed in an Iraq war zone
to a resolute critic of the eternal wars who condemned Obama and Trump alike for their neocon
foreign policies. She is still growing. I hope she comes to a deeper understanding of the
Zionist influence on US policy as well as a deeper appreciation of the foreign policy goals
of the Iranian regime. I am optimistic because her past record shows a capacity for change, a
commitment to honesty and the ability to respond effectively and courageously to diverse
challenges. If given the chance Tulsi would resolutely fight against the war mongers in both
parties.
We need Tulsi on that debate stage! She is the only candidate speaking about the issues of
war and peace. Once she gets the exposure, people will like her and her platform. Then she
has a chance to get to the White House.
We can help her!
Let's get Tulsi Gabbard on the stage for the first Democratic Primary Debate in June!
Donate $5 today at
www.tulsi2020.com to help Tulsi get her message out to America!
We need 65,000 supporters across the country to donate so we can meet the DNC's fundraising
threshold requirement to qualify Tulsi for the debate stage.
- Lose the lei. It's distracting and it subconsciously broadcasts that you're an
"other".
- You're a 37-year-old woman from a tiny state. People need to get to know you. Start with
a photo/video montage showing military career, family, speaking in the House, etc. while you
do a voiceover. Then switch to headshot video of you speaking directly to the viewer.
- Instead of attacking "warmongers in their ivory towers", connect with viewers by
explaining that you're a combat veteran who shares their war-weariness. Leave in the stuff
about the monetary and human costs of the wars.
- The "speech" setting for the ad doesn't work: if you're speaking to a crowd, where's the
applause? And the constant looking left and right (to, presumably, imaginary people) makes
you look nervous.
Again, you're a young Hawaiian female. In a field of more than a dozen candidates, you
have to quickly establish yourself as "top tier". Barring an endorsement from Bernie Sanders,
the only way to do that is to look, speak, and act top tier.
People were clapping, but the event was outdoors, and the clips don't feature applause
lines. The entire speech is online if you want to hear it.
Sanders doesn't excite me, and I don't think he'll fare as well in a crowded field, but
I'll be happy with Gabbard as his running mate. She's not remotely like Trump, but because
corporate media paint her this way, they'll help her draw votes from Trump.
I don't vote as a rule, and I don't support political candidates because I expect them to
win. Like Ron Paul, Gabbard says things that desperately need saying but that establishment
politicians rarely say. She not only says them. She makes them the centerpiece of her
campaign, so I support her speaking tour rather than the campaign per se.
The lei and aloha talk also seem overdone to me, but these superficial appeals don't
affect me one way or the other, and for all I know, they're effective for people who are
moved by them.
I think if Tulsi became President, we would know soon whether or not the Trump apologists
are full of crap that Trump is simply "playing 3D Chess" and doing everything in his power
for peace. Tulsi appears to be the real thing, and, if she actually followed through, we
would put an end to this talk of Trump - Peace - MAGA. Of course, there is always the slight
chance, no matter how small, that the Deep State actually does possess mind control weapons
which can morph any pro-peace President into another Trump, but I'd like to think it is not
that late yet.
I would be interested in a few reference links. If this is true, it would complicate
things, but, people, even politicians, can learn and change for the better. If I can be
redeemed after some of the lame headed things I've said and done, anyone can.
Tucker dishes it out but he sure can't take it. He invites the guy on because of his
critique of climate change warriors flying around in jets but gets more truth than he
bargained for. A millionaire paid by billionaires not to talk about tax avoidance. I read
Carlson is heir to the Swansons frozen food empire. Then there's Anderson Cooper heir to the
Vanderbilt fortune and Wolf Blitzer with his $5 million salary at CNN. Chris Matthews and
Rachel Maddow over at MSNBC at $5 and $6 million per year respectively. And you wonder why
they talk all day long about issues that don't matter to most Americans.
Is Rutger stating anything new to be garnering so much attention? Fox news is agenda
driven network and everyone knows that except believers of fox news. No matter what false
facts one states on Fox news, viewers of that network are blind believers. Also, Rutger seems
to be wanting attention by coming to Davos and stating the obvious about rich not having to
pay wealth tax, estate tax etc. This chatter has been going on for many years including
Bernie Sanders campaign. Just because Rutger opened up on Davos about the most obvious thing
he becomes an overnight celebrity. And his idea of taxing the rich with such a high amount is
pretty stupid in my opinion because it is not hard for the rich to buy their citizenship in
other countries. Many countries will welcome them with open arms. Example Peter Schiff, hedge
fund guy, who moved to Puerto Rico to avoid taxes.
No one in that argument "won" as far as I am concerned. CNN and FOX are funded by
billionaires, so I don't really see the point of singleling out Fox News. I would have liked
to see the historian address Tucker's point about the role of tax in different economies, but
instead he went on with his attempt to provoke Tucker.
I am not taking Tucker's side in this btw. I just thought both guys missed out on a great
conversation.
I used to think major news outlets were against each other. Now I believe they conspire to
divide us people. I believe most of us want the same thing in life when it comes down to it,
a safe place to live that we can be comfortable in and not worry too much about the future.
We want happiness. Where we differ is how to achieve this. We're so caught up in how to
achieve this goal we've lost sight of it and turn against one another blaming the other
groups of our divided people, furthering our division. We are a nation divided by politics. I
believe one day we can be a nation United by Love 💙
Something is off on this video...This is cut in my opinion...I think the other guy, not
Tucker, cut some of his responses in afterward...seems odd. I've watched Tucker and he
usually talks a lot over others or at least interjects much more during the convo. This video
seems fake to me, like some of it was real and the Rutger added in some stuff later on.
Footage was cut to make Tucker look like he flipped out all of the sudden. You can tell
because they switched to the picture of Tucker right before he got mad. Which shows to me
that they used the picture to disguise the video cut. Very sneaky but not sneaky enough.
This guy is a grandstander. He's edited the recording and said outrageous things to
Carlson who all the while thought this was too be a legit interview.
this tape is clearly edited. you can't even hear Carlson respond. many false premises made
by Bergman. golden age of capitalism was clearly NOT the 1950s and 60s. probably more like
the early 20th century before 1913...before there was a personal income tax. there was
obscene personal wealth by a few tycoons, but thye probably gave a greater pecentage of their
personal wealth to charity...simply out of altruism since there were not tax deductions at
the time for this.
still feel that a tactful approach could have established more dialogue. but usually if
tucker invites a guest on his show, and he does the interview remotely, you can be sure the
guest is one who will have an antagonist opinion to tucker's. the remote setup gives him
considerable editorial power over the interview, something he would not have were it a live
arrangement. i guess bregman decided, f this, i am going to leeroy jenkins this. and guess
this one time it worked.
Um lots of stories don't make to air. You don't just throw all your work on air. They
probably have tons of stories that are complete garbage and can't justify the limited time. I
agree with the tax havens not the 70-90% taxes, but tax law is complicated I'm sure. Those
tax rates aren't even enough for a socialist paradise which can't exist anyway. Human
personality pretty much dictates those in power favor their friends and family and power
itself. There will always be a ruling class and uber rich.
Meh Gleaned from wiki(we're never wrong)pedia: Bregman is the author of Utopia for
Realists: The Case for a Universal Basic Income, Open Borders and A Fifteen-Hour Workweek. In
a nutshell: He's a daydreamer from another country that has the gall to tell the US how to
live.. Point of fact: People work as historians and lovers of history for two basic reasons:
1. They can't find a job with their liberal arts degree 2. It pays more than a librarian Note
to Tucker: You seem like a smart guy; why do you waste your time on these imbeciles?
"Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have." Power is derived
from 2 main sources – money and people. "Have-Nots" must build power from flesh and
blood.
"Never go outside the expertise of your people." the result is confusion, fear, and
retreat.
"Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy." Here you want to cause
confusion, fear, and retreat.
"Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules." You can kill them with this, for they
can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.
"Ridicule is man's most potent weapon ." It is almost impossible to counterattack
ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.
"A good tactic is one your people enjoy." If your people are not having a ball doing it,
there is something very wrong with the tactic.
"A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag." Man can sustain militant interest in
any issue for only a limited time, after which it becomes a ritualistic commitment, like
going to church on Sunday mornings. New issues and crises are always developing, and one's
reaction becomes, "Well, my heart bleeds for those people and I'm all for the boycott, but
after all there are other important things in life" -- and there it goes.
"Keep the pressure on. Never let up." [use] different tactics and actions, and utilize
all events of the period for your purpose.
" The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself. "
"The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a
constant pressure upon the opposition." It is this unceasing pressure that results in the
reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign. It should
be remembered not only that the action is in the reaction but that action is itself the
consequence of reaction and of reaction to the reaction, ad infinitum. The pressure produces
the reaction, and constant pressure sustains action.
"If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside
[positive] " this is based on the principle that every positive has its negative. We have
already seen the conversion of the negative into the positive, in Mahatma Gandhi's
development of the tactic of passive resistance.
"The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative." You cannot risk being
trapped by the enemy in his sudden agreement with your demand and saying "You're right -- we
don't know what to do about this issue. Now you tell us."
"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." the opposition must be
singled out as the target and "frozen." in a complex, interrelated, urban society, it becomes
increasingly difficult to single out who is to blame for any particular evil. There is a
constant passing of the buck. Obviously there is no point to tactics unless one has a target
upon which to center the attacks If an organization permits responsibility to be diffused and
distributed in a number of areas, attack becomes impossible.
So the next time you see a political movement or campaign in action, compare their tactics
to the list above and you'll know how you are being manipulated!
It is like classic Greek mythology epic" Trojan Horse" story and this Dutch guy is a typical
Trojans horse. Tucker Carlson is not that bad among leading US commentators, so shaming him is
essentially playing in favor of Cox brothers, Goldman Sachs honchos and such.
The Dutch histories really wanted to attack Fox and as Tucker was unprepared quickly reached
the designed result. But issues discusses are very complex and they way this Dutch historian
presented them are misleading.
Tax issues are complex and lowering taxes for rich were at the center that what we call the
neoliberal revolution. Which was about the redistribution of wealth up. But Tax issues are
complex. for example taxes on capital gains is one thing and should be different that taxes on
ordinary income.
The other issue is tax avoidance. As tax go up tax avoidance increases as there is more
return on investment in shrew and corrupt tax lawyers. Think Magnitsky and Browder tax avoidance
scheme -- they higher disabled veterans on minimal salaries for their criminal business to get
tax brakes from the state for this business when you employed certain percentage of disabled
workers (this tax avoidance scheme is called "Horns and hooves"). Tax lawyers in the USA are
probably even more inventive then that. So in this fight rich have an advantage -- it is like
attacking a well defended fortress, when losses of attacking side are at least 2 to 1. So for
example while elimination of estate tax was a criminal act -- typical for neoliberal
policymakers, the designing a fool proof scheme that close all schemes to avoid inheritance tax
(fake corporation, foundations, whatever) in current circumstances is not trivial. It might be
simpler to tax capital gains in any jurisdiction for any US citisen.
Notable quotes:
"... He did nothing to substantiate his claims, yet spent all his air time attacking the "corrupt" host, who gave him FOX air time to raise his issues. ..."
"... Tucker is definitely not at his best this interview also. ..."
"... So, maybe this Prof. is a really well-informed and sensible guy and Tucker was having an off day, but in this instance both of them failed miserably to interest anyone, who wanted a real discussion. ..."
"... Is Cato Institute one of the many funded by the Koch brothers? Never mind, picked up it is on rewatch. ..."
"... As an example Amazon paid $0 in taxes. Focus on the right thing .. follow the money ..."
"... lol here we see Tucker literally was agreeing with pretty much everything Bregman said about billionaires, then Bregman bizarrely calls Tucker a paid shill for billionaires because of his past affiliation with a libertarian think tank. ..."
"... This is setup. Bregman says no facts. He just says taxes. ..."
"... Really? This Dutch historian might be the biggest dolt here. He had a forum to tell the world and raise the issue on a show with millions of views, but instead he decided to attack the host; even those tried to keep him reigned in on topic... ..."
"... You guys are confused about how simple Rutger makes all of this sound . Because it's not that simple ..."
"... Yeah, it was a personal attack on Carlson. So who pays off Rutger? He doesn't get free money either . Hollywood millionaires are paid off by Hollywood billionaires. What about that doesn't Rutger understand? ..."
"... Hmmm, I wonder what Rutger Bregman's views are on those same tax-avoiding elites replacing his fellow countrymen with Third World immigrants ...or is that simply a non-issue for him?? ..."
"... All this interview does is showcase just how much the Left has been duped and utilized by the globalists. The Left is basically now the primary force in aiding the globalist elite in rolling out their anti-human agenda worldwide and are too blinded by their own childish ambitions and hatred to see it! ..."
"... What's interesting is news anchors get paid based on viewership which of course can be tied to Ads and whatnot.. so that fact there are millionaires says nothing other than their show is watched by many people. ..."
"... What this ''historian'' proposes has been tried to even greater extents already. Communist countries seized all the wealth of the rich and redistributed it among the citizens and made all wages nearly equal. Same countries were split into capitalist and communist parts: North Korea and South Korea, East Germany and West Germany, China and Hong Kong. ..."
"... "Millionaires paid by billionaires" possibly the dumbest throwaway argument ever. Poor people are also paid by billionaires. And middle class are also paid by billionaires. ..."
"... Rutger made it personal, and I'm not sure he had to. He could have been much more subtle, and perhaps much more effective. ..."
"... He rightfully says: crack down on tax paradises. ..."
"... Mr. Bergman is being selective with the issues he is raising. When the tax rate was at its highest, the code was filled with loopholes that allowed those who were to pay that rate could hide their wealth and avoid that rate. ..."
"... This guest clearly had his agenda against Tucker, he said it when he said he does his 'research'. Of course there was a team who 'researched' all this and played it in such a way that puts tucker in bad light. ..."
The celebration of a Dutch populist troll that's going on in the comments is just
hilarious. He did nothing to substantiate his claims, yet spent all his air time attacking
the "corrupt" host, who gave him FOX air time to raise his issues. Let's see this guy do
the same on CNN or BBC. Oh, wait, they have not invited him yet, have they? :-)
Tucker is definitely not at his best this interview also.
After all these years as an anchor you gotta know how to deal with a guy, who is there not
for a discussion, but for a blatant agenda pushing and some quite cheap smearing in the
process (all the mass media is in one way or another funded by a big bizz, betcha no one knew
that! Oh, wait...)
So, maybe this Prof. is a really well-informed and sensible guy and Tucker was having an
off day, but in this instance both of them failed miserably to interest anyone, who wanted a
real discussion.
You're reading to much into it. The Dutch just wanted to call out the hypocrisy on Fox
News. But sure blow it out of proportion like the rest of the "issues" you supposedly care
about.
...Carlson denied him
any air time because the whole interview was censured. Furthermore, I have seen Bergman on
BBC, so I guess you got that one wrong too. I have never seen Tucker Carlson handle a hostile
interview well. H The only tool in his shed is to get snappy and ignorant - and then cut to
commercial. He does not have the interview skills anywhere near approaching Gross, Stewart,
or Cavett. He's actually a lightweight compared to anyone outside the fox echo
chamber
He sounded intelligent, until he started saying exactly the same things as Alexandra
Occasional-Cortex says about the people at the tippy tops paying "their fair share", whatever
that means. Most Americans do call for higher taxes on the rich, but when asked what that
rate should be, they either have no idea, or they say a number that's lower than what the
rich are already paying.
After WWII, when Eisenhower was President, yes, the rich paid
70-90%, but the tax codes were VERY different then and have since gone though a massive
overhaul. Here's a question for you. If your idea of paying for free college, free
healthcare, free mass transit, free solar panels, etc. is taxing the evil billionaires that
you hate so much, what happens when you get your wish and there aren't any billionaires left?
What happens when they all either leave or get taxed out of their own tax brackets, and you
don't have Rich Uncle Pennybags to pay for all your free stuff? The problem with all these
socialists who hate the rich is that every one of their plans relies on the presence of the
rich. Socialists NEED that income inequality to pay for all their Apple products.
A thing of beauty ;-) He started losing it after the Cato institute was mentioned. Like
couldn't even form a coherent sentence ;-) and then the Dutch guy did a Tucker on Tucker. Just talked over Tucker's response
until he flipped out. He's not wrong when he said he did his homework! Time to watch again :-)
Dutch boy still hasn't made a winning argument for anything. All he does is throw around
"tax the rich". The fact is, if you took ALL the money from the 550 Billionaires in the US,
you could fund the government for 8 months. You still can't tax your way into
prosperity.
Bravo .. bravo .. finally someone who is focused on the real issue .. money!! Americans ..
we are the same. Most people are decent .. but the rich will drive a wedge between us by
making you think that the "others" (insert race) are coming for you.
Guess what .. no one is
coming for you. While you are focused on that .. they steal from you. Creating an unfair
playing field.
The days of "all you have to is work hard and you will make it" are gone - the
game is no longer the same. If you don't believe me .. do your taxes this year .. you will
pay more than a billionaire and all the corporations combined.
As an example Amazon paid $0
in taxes. Focus on the right thing .. follow the money. These clip says it so well .. these
Fox hosts are millionaires paid by Billionaires to distract you.
lol here we see Tucker literally was agreeing with pretty much everything Bregman said
about billionaires, then Bregman bizarrely calls Tucker a paid shill for billionaires because
of his past affiliation with a libertarian think tank.
This Dutch man truly is autistic and
can't think outside of partisan politics, like most westerners
It was because Carlson denied that Fox News is politically influenced by the tax-evasive
billionaires who fund the network. By denying this, Carlson had it coming to him.
Bregman was
not there to befriend Carlson, was he?
@Mick The Nick Tucker had Bregman on the show to talk about Davos billionaires. This was
said in the video.
That's also why it would be bizarre/autistic for Bregman to use that as
a chance to call Tucker a shill, since he is clearly trying to promote anti-billionaire
dialogue by having this historian on and agreeing with him
I am conservative and I agree with the idea of taxing the gazillionaires who, because of
their obscene wealth like Soros and others, wield far, far too much power over humanity.
he was too impolite for sure - he did not have t dig at him for being new at the issue of
tax avoidance - that was not proper. The point is good and valid, millionaires funded by
billionaires but digging into him like an adolescent in that churlish way certainly went
beyond the bounds. So I can get Tucker's ire when you have the chance to finally discuss this
on tv, you insult him multiple times and he still is willing to talk but then you keep the
insults coming instead of being a good guest. Childish and foolish when there were serious
issues about tax avoidance that will no longer see the light due to this pros immature
behaviour.
Really? This Dutch historian might be the biggest dolt here. He had a forum to tell the
world and raise the issue on a show with millions of views, but instead he decided to attack
the host; even those tried to keep him reigned in on topic...
this silly goose instead
decided to try to leverage some self perceived moral high ground... who does that? Tucker
shouldn't have cussed this guy out, but I'm not surprised. This Dutch guy wasted everyones
time, and this video was a waste time.
You guys are confused about how simple Rutger makes all of this sound . Because it's not
that simple . If you tax the rich at a very high rate those rich could choose to shut down
companies that all of us work for and get paid by . Why make more money if it will all go to
taxes ? You would see a massive amount of layoffs and go "what about what AOC and Rutger said
would work ?"
Yeah, it was a personal attack on Carlson. So who pays off Rutger? He doesn't get free
money either . Hollywood millionaires are paid off by Hollywood billionaires. What about that
doesn't Rutger understand? EVERYONE is paid by someone who has more money than themselves....
D U H !! Change your name to Rutger Gump...
Tucker was right though. When taxes were high in the 1950s there was an industrial
heartland and healthy middle class. If you were to bring back 80% taxes on the rich they
would just change country. That's globalism. That's exactly WHY Trump lowered taxes to bring
the work back to the USA.
Hmmm, I wonder what Rutger Bregman's views are on those same tax-avoiding elites replacing
his fellow countrymen with Third World immigrants ...or is that simply a non-issue for him??
All this interview does is showcase just how much the Left has been duped and utilized by the
globalists. The Left is basically now the primary force in aiding the globalist elite in
rolling out their anti-human agenda worldwide and are too blinded by their own childish
ambitions and hatred to see it!
So the guy literally baited that. What does this show? Tucker is a human being on my
god!!! That guy blatantly attacked tucker and while he should have kept his cool, he
responded like most people would when being insulted.
What's interesting is news anchors get
paid based on viewership which of course can be tied to Ads and whatnot.. so that fact there
are millionaires says nothing other than their show is watched by many people.
We all know
about tax loopholes and safe havens, it was never a guarded secret.
What this ''historian'' proposes has been tried to even greater extents already. Communist
countries seized all the wealth of the rich and redistributed it among the citizens and made
all wages nearly equal. Same countries were split into capitalist and communist parts: North
Korea and South Korea, East Germany and West Germany, China and Hong Kong.
Everytime capitalism has beaten socialism and communism by whatever positive metric you
choose. Instead of trying to steal other peoples wealth that they created how about he tries
to create it himself. People should pay for what they use and the rich pay way more than they
use already.
"Millionaires paid by billionaires" possibly the dumbest throwaway argument ever. Poor
people are also paid by billionaires. And middle class are also paid by billionaires.
And
other billionaires are also paid by billionaires. So what? Trying to suggest some sort of
collusion is ridiculous, levied against millionaires, when you don't make the same claim
against other classes.
Rutger is on target. Trump added a rider on his last tax bill for the rich and oh by the
way, also added a clause giving extra large tax cuts to people who own golf courses. Trump is
so sleazy. Tucker, why don't you and sean hannity talk about trumps tax cuts for people who
own golf courses? Because you two are talking heads.
IT's actually too bad. The first 4:40 of the interview were quite
interesting. Then Rutger Bregman called out Tucker. Up until that point, Tucker was going
pretty easy on him.
But Rutger made it personal, and I'm not sure he had to. He could have
been much more subtle, and perhaps much more effective.
tbf this dutch historian is being smug and unfair. carlson actually asks the fundamental
question of how to actually get a hold of taxable income and the "historian" has only talking
points about "cracking down" etc. a real historian on these matters could tell you that
carlson is right in saying it whas indeed a different economy(also japan/korea and europe).
we had a system troughout the west with capital-exchange controls, which made each large
international money transfer a moral and national question and private entities couldnt just
ping-pong capital troughout the world. todays economy is completely different, is way more
financialized and global, while continually creating endless interdependencies. we dont have
this "economy" anymore indeed. the historian is right in saying that the usa has the power to
recreate national-economies again based on mathematical and sound principals, but to claim
"its really simple" shows he has no clue about this even. i wouldnt want to interact with
this level of unearned smugness either.
Lol they don't air one interview due to the guest using profanity on every other word he
said and fox is labeled as being "owned" but CNN spread biased media and edited videos
everyday and even choose not to cover stories that are bad for the left and it's ok lol you
people are nuts
It's all entertaining how he confronts people what they not want to hear to raise the
issue about tax. But i don't hear any plan or something. I hear just a guy getting a kick out
of 'playing the blunt dutch guy' and kicking it with oneliners. Doesn't seem like the right
way to map out your beliefs. Whats the plan? Getting internet famous?
he is an ECONOMIC historian. yes, that is a specialty within economics that exists. He
rightfully says: crack down on tax paradises.
But the rich are never going to act against
their own interests and manage to keep dividing their labor-blue and white collar slaves
into right/left , conservative/liberal , democrat/republican and so on.
They use media and
politicians as their main propaganda tool : keep them divided and weak, and get them some
enemy to hate. Sadly ,it seems to work very well. time to wake up !
Lesson for dump American! The suggestion is: all the incomes above the 470.000 U$ should
have a higher income tax. That means, if someone earn 1million U$ per year, the amount below
470.000 U$ tax with normal rate, all the amount above 470.00U$ tax with higher rate.
All
American that have income below the 470.000U$ don't have to take part in this discussion.
These all will benefit the US economy, good infrastructure, the US society as a whole.
Nothing to do with Socialism! Tucker Carlson invited people on Fox News only to be attacked
by him, not for a fair discussion
Rutger Bergman could take care of this Fake News
anchor!
Mr. Bergman is being selective with the issues he is raising. When the tax rate was at its
highest, the code was filled with loopholes that allowed those who were to pay that rate
could hide their wealth and avoid that rate.
The top marginal tax rate was little more than
window dressing.
Mr. Bergman completely ignored the industrial nature of the American Economy
in the '50's and into the '70's. There was a time when everything bought in America was made
in America. That is not a small point. I see the man as little more than a rhetorical sniper
who is finding his 15 minutes of fame.
You know influence and power of Tucker when entire Left wing media is smearing him. Tucker
cursed that means he must be bad. As if all these leftists are saints. Its not about loosing
your temper or being a gentlemen on TV but about agenda.
This guest clearly had his agenda
against Tucker, he said it when he said he does his 'research'. Of course there was a team
who 'researched' all this and played it in such a way that puts tucker in bad light.
No
mainstream media is saint. Fox is also not a unbiased media. But tucker is a sensible man
unlike this 'guest' who's character is full of malevolence and selective bias.
"I think there are serious questions about the recent election. There are many people who
feel it was a fraudulent election, and I think the United States has got to work with the
international community to make sure that there is a free and fair election in
Venezuela,"
which we know is yet another BigLie. So, as with Syria, he's really no different on
Venezuela. What a weak, disappointing old turd. No one should be surprised.
What a weak, disappointing old turd. No one should be surprised.
________________________________________________
As the saying goes, "should" is a bold word. You're probably aware that the Sandernistas,
true to the "battered partner syndrome" nature of progressive-liberals, are ecstatic at
Bernie's announcement that he's "running" again in 2020. I probably don't need to explain
that I put "running" in quotes because Team Sanders' 2016 campaign was either an outright
fraud, or an effective fraud steeped in political duplicity and doublethink.
Here's the end of a comment I posted in 2017 to an article touting Sanders as the obvious
choice to head a new "People's Party"; it's become relevant again:
________________________________________________
In all this, those who wish, hope, or expect Bernie to get a second wind of sorts remind
me of the legend of "El Cid": per Wikipedia,
... After his demise, but still during the siege of Valencia, legend holds that
Jimena ordered that the corpse of El Cid be fitted with his armor and set atop his horse
Babieca, to bolster the morale of his troops. In several variations of the story, the dead
Rodrigo [El Cid] and his knights win a thundering charge against Valencia's besiegers,
resulting in a war-is-lost-but-battle-is-won catharsis for generations of Christian
Spaniards to follow.
karlof1@29, indeed I agree with you on Sanders. I was very hopeful reading the headline at
rt.com that Sanders had refused to acknowledge Guiado - well, that was a disingenuous
headline to say the least - I didn't see any refusal in that first question which was whether
Maduro was the legitimate president. Bernie hummed and hawed on that one for sure. The
'international community', whatever that is, has no business deciding anything!
I was earlier grateful to NZ for at least saying they would not sponsor any claimant to
power when asked about the pretender, as that sort of thing wasn't their way. But Bernie is
in our government and what he said there stinks.
Sanders on Venezuela: "I think there are serious questions about the recent election. There
are many people who feel it was a fraudulent election, and I think the United States has got
to work with the international community to make sure that there is a free and fair election
in Venezuela". Sad to see him telling half truths again and coming in on the wrong side of
history. I wish he, or any of these regime change propagandists would mention some actual
details about what "the serious questions about the recent election " are. The opposition
boycotted and the US declared it a fraud before it even happened. Venezuela's election system
is among the safest in the world, utilizing a finger print and ID technology. The election
was observed by election monitoring groups and no serious problems were reported, so please
Bernie what are the serious questions?
Bernie needs to partner with Tulsi and have her craft
his foreign policy statements to reflect a move towards peace.
re Bernie
I saved this zerohedge comment from a while back because it was so through.
Enjoy.
Tomsk on July 26, 2018 · at 12:08 pm EST/EDT
It is amazing how many people actually believe that Bernie Saunders is some kind of decent
guy posing an "alternative" to the other 2 contenders when his sole purpose was to round up
"dissenters" and funnel them into the Hillary camp.
As Alexander Azadgan points out –
1. He voted in favor of use of force (euphemism for bombing) 12 sovereign nations that never
represented a threat to the U.S.:
1) Afghanistan.
2) Lebanon.
3) Libya.
4) Palestine.
5) Somalia
6) Syria.
7) Yemen.
8) Yugoslavia
9) Haiti
10) Liberia
11) Zaire (Congo)
12) Sudan
2. He has accepted campaign money from Defense contractor Raytheon, a defense contractor, he
continues his undying support of the $1.5 trillion F-35 industry and said that predator
drones "have done some very good things". Sanders has always voted in favor of awarding more
corporate welfare for the military industrial complex – and even if he says he's
against a particular war he ends up voting in favor of funding it.
3. He routinely backs appropriations for imperial wars, the corporate scam of Obamacare,
wholesale surveillance and bloated defense budgets. He loves to bluster about corporate
welfare and big banks but he voted for funding the Commodity Futures "Modernization" Act
which deregulated commercial banks and created an "unregulated market in derivatives and
swaps" which was the major contributor to the 2007 economic crisis.
4. Regardless of calling himself an "independent", Sanders is a member of the Democratic
caucus and votes 98% of the time with the Democrats and votes in the exact same way as war
criminal Hillary Clinton 93% of the time. Sanders campaigned for Bill Clinton in the 1992
presidential race and again in 1996 -- after Clinton had rammed through the North American
Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), vastly expanded the system of mass incarceration and destroyed
welfare.
5. The sheepdog is a card the Democratic Party plays when there's no White House Democrat
running for re-election. The sheepdog is a presidential candidate running ostensibly to the
left of the establishment Democrat to whom the billionaires will award the nomination.
Sheepdogs are herders, . charged with herding activists and voters back into the Democratic
fold who might otherwise drift leftward and outside of the Democratic Party, either staying
home. In 2004 he called on Ralph Nader to abandon his presidential campaign.
The Democratic Party has played this "sheep dog" card at least 7-8 times in the past
utilizing collaborators such as Eugene McCarthy in 1968, Jesse Jackson in 1984 and 1988,
Jerry Brown in 1992, Al Sharpton in 2000, Howard Dean in 2004, Dennis Kucinich in 2008 and in
2016 was Bernie Sanders' turn.
6. Regardless of calling himself a "socialist" he labeled the late Hugo Chávez,
architect of the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela responsible for lifting millions of lives
out of poverty "a dead communist dictator." Then he saddled up for a photo op with Evo
Morales at the Vatican and also voted to extradite former Black Panther member, Assata
Shakur.
7. He refers to ISIS' godfather and warmonger extraordinaire John McCain as "my friend and a
very, very decent person."
8. He routinely parrots the DNC lines: "the Russians hacked our elections" despite there is
no evidence of such hacking, but lowered his head and tucked tail when the DNC actually
rigged the primary elections against him, proving he is more loyal to the Democratic (war)
Party than to the millions of people who supported him and donated to his fraudulent
campaign.
9. He expressed staunch support for the aid of violently right-wing separatist forces such as
the self-styled Kosovo Liberation Army, whose members were trained as Mujahideen, during
Clinton's 100-day bombing of Yugoslavia and Kosovo in 1999. He has an extensive record of
supporting jihadist proxies for the overthrow of sovereign governments in Yugoslavia,
Afghanistan, Libya and Syria.
10. He supported Bill Clinton's sanctions against Iraq, sanctions that prohibited medicines
for infants and children more than 500,000 innocents killed for no other reason than that
they were Iraqi.
11. He said yes in a voice vote to the Clinton-era crime Bill, the Violent Crime Control
& Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which expanded the death penalty to cover 60 offenses. So
he is obviously pro-death penalty.
12. In the 2016 elections, he betrayed millions of people that believed in him when after
making the central point of his campaign the fight against Wall Street he instructed his
followers to vote for Wall Street's candidate, war criminal/corporate criminal Hillary
Clinton.
https://imperianews.com/usa-news-analysis/liberalisms-hypocrisy-a-case-study-of-the-american-senator-bernie-sanders-and-the-ones-to-follow/
Reply
Good quote selection of Sanders quote: '....United States has got to work with the
international community to make sure that there is a free and fair election in
Venezuela,"
Exemplary sample of meaningless weasel words. What 'international community' has the US
engaged with which it hasn't dominated or hand-picked to serve as it's privately-owned posse?
His position offers no vision or cause other than a calibrated stunt to serve private
objectives. He's hugging the middle ground as a hedge.
Venezuela already has anti-aircraft and anti-ship systems that can reach well outside its
borders...
In my opinion any such Venezuelan systems would be smoking rubble immediately after a US
attack.
Billionaire Bernie is just another fake...
My search indicated Bernie Sanders has a net worth of $2 million dollars at the
most. It's true the guy is far too old to be in the White House. I think he would have to
pledge "1 Term" AND have a Vice President who was acceptable to most of the nation. Somebody
like Tulsi Gabbard. Sanders is at least as bad as Obama, Hillary, and Trump on matters
concerning the American Empire and the apartheid Jewish state. There is reason to believe he
would be at least a "B-" on domestic issues.
Washington Post has no journalists at all...
Instinctively I want to agree, but most likely they have some fine people there.
Only that small group doesn't dare do anything except to toe the Bezos/apartheid Jewish state
line.
There's no hyperinflation when it comes to oil and gold which are the de facto
international currencies of Venezuela...
Again, my own lookup suggests the current price of gasoline in Venezuela is
about 15 cents per gallon. But as a medium of exchange that's useless, for everybody can buy
it at the same price. If I'm hungry I want food, not gasoline. Gold? Anybody who has any in a
hyperinflation is probably holding it very close. Regarding Venezuela's money problems, it
wouldn't surprise me at all if some of those US military airplanes aren't carrying a few
extra tons of Venezuelan currency each trip - to help that hyperinflation along.
Unfortunately the article does not mention the term McCarthyism, which is fully applicable. Also the role of CNN of the
voice of Clinton wing of Democratic Party presuppose the attitudes the Caitlin is complaining about. This is a party MSM
masquerading as impendent new outlet. This are neoliberal presstitutes and warmongers, for the lack of stronger worlds.
Also correlation with RT policies does undermine the US foreign policy. We need only decide whether this is a good or bad
thing and whether the US imperial policies are good for American people, or only for large transnational corporations. I
think Tucker Carlson also undermines the US foreign policy and as such you can find a correlation between his positions and
RT position. Now what ?
Money quote: "the possibility of
an American opposing US warmongering and the political establishment which drives it without
being ordered to by a rubles-dispensing FSB officer was a completely alien idea to them."
Yes, they actually care only in the "politically correct" reason for suppression. So the only new moment is blatant
hypocrisy. But that's how all societies work and in this sense there is nothing special in the fact that dissident voices
are suppressed. In middle ages heretics were burned at the stake.
The situation is interesting because neoliberalism is definitely on the decline and as such represent now (unlike
say 10 year ago) and rich target of attack and as the USA support it neoliberal empire such attacks usually attack the US
foreign policy. The real question is what alternative the particular outlet proposes -- the return to the New Deal
Capitalism in some form or shape, or new socialist experiment is some form of shape.
Notable quotes:
"... CNN knew that Facebook was going to be suspending the pages of her company Maffick Media before she did, suggesting a creepy degree of coordination between the two massive outlets to silence an alternative media platform. ..."
"... the US government has found a legal loophole to suppress speech, in this case speech that is critical of destructive US government policies around the world. ..."
"... Thirdly, and in my opinion weirdest of all, the article goes to great lengths to make the fact that a dissident media outlet supports the same foreign policy positions as Russia look like something strange and nefarious, instead of the normal and obvious thing that it is. ..."
"... the possibility of an American opposing US warmongering and the political establishment which drives it without being ordered to by a rubles-dispensing FSB officer was a completely alien idea to them. ..."
"... Nimmo said the tone of Maffick's pages is 'broadly anti-US and anti-corporate. That's strikingly similar to RT's output. Maffick may technically be independent, but their tone certainly matches the broader Kremlin family.' ..."
"... This is a truly obnoxious mind virus we're seeing the imperial narrative controllers pushing more and more aggressively into mainstream consciousness today : that anyone who opposes the beltway consensus on western interventionism is not simply an individual with a conscience who is thinking critically for themselves, but is actually "boosting the Kremlin narrative" ..."
"... Don't even subscribe to an anti-establishment subreddit. Those things are all Russian. Listen to Big Brother instead. Big Brother will protect you from their filthy Russian lies. ..."
"... "If CNN would like to hire me to present facts against destructive US wars and corporate ownership of our political system, I'll gladly accept," Khalek told me when asked for comment ..."
"... Russian media influence is not their actual target. Their actual target is leftist, antiwar and anti-establishment voices. That's what they're really trying to eliminate. ..."
"... It doesn't take any amount of sympathy for Russia to see that the unipolar empire is toxic for humanity, and most westerners who oppose that toxicity have no particular feelings about Russia any more than they have about Turkey or the Philippines ..."
In an extremely weird article titled " Russia is backing a viral video company aimed at American
millennials ", CNN reports that Facebook has suspended popular dissident media outlet "In
The Now" and its allied pages for failing to publicly "disclose" its financial ties to a
subsidiary of RT.
According to CNN, such disclosures are not and have never been an actual part of Facebook's
official policy, but Facebook has made the exceptional precondition of public disclosure of
financial ties in order for In The Now to return to its platform.
I say the article is extremely weird for a number of reasons.
Firstly , according to In The Now CEO Anissa Naouai, CNN knew that Facebook was going to be
suspending the pages of her company Maffick Media before she did, suggesting a creepy degree of
coordination between the two massive outlets to silence an alternative media platform.
Secondly, the article reports that CNN found out about Maffick's financial ties thanks to a
tip-off from the German Marshall Fund, a narrative control firm which receives funding from the
US government. In The Now 's Rania Khalek has described this tactic as
"a case where the US government has found a legal loophole to suppress speech, in this case
speech that is critical of destructive US government policies around the world."
Thirdly, and in my opinion weirdest of all, the article goes to great lengths to make the
fact that a dissident media outlet supports the same foreign policy positions as Russia look
like something strange and nefarious, instead of the normal and obvious thing that it is.
The article repeatedly mentions the fact that all the people working for In The Now "claim"
to be editorially independent as opposed to being told what to report by Kremlin officials, a
notion which Khalek says was met with
extreme skepticism when she was interviewed for the piece by CNN. As though the possibility of
an American opposing US warmongering and the political establishment which drives it without
being ordered to by a rubles-dispensing FSB officer was a completely alien idea to them.
Check out the following excerpt, for example of this bizarre attitude:
"Ben Nimmo, a senior fellow for information defense at the Atlantic Council's Digital
Forensic Research Lab, told CNN that while Russian state-backed outlets claim to be
editorially independent, 'they routinely boost Kremlin narratives, especially those which
portray the West negatively.'
"Nimmo said the tone of Maffick's pages is 'broadly anti-US and anti-corporate. That's
strikingly similar to RT's output. Maffick may technically be independent, but their tone
certainly matches the broader Kremlin family.' "
This is a truly obnoxious mind virus we're seeing the imperial narrative controllers pushing
more and more aggressively into mainstream consciousness today : that anyone who opposes the
beltway consensus on western interventionism is not simply an individual with a conscience who
is thinking critically for themselves, but is actually "boosting the Kremlin narrative". If you
say it in an assertive and authoritative tone like Mr Nimmo does, it can sound like a perfectly
reasonable position if you don't think about it too hard. If you really look at it directly,
though, what these manipulators are actually saying is "Russia opposes western interventionism,
therefore anyone who opposes western interventionism is basically Russian."
Which is of course a total non-argument. You don't get to just say "Russia bad" for two
years to get everyone riled up into a state of xenophobic hysteria and then say "That's
Russian!" at anything you don't like. That's not a thing. More to the point, though, there is
no causal relationship between the fact that Russia opposes western interventionism and the
fact that many westerners do.
As we
discussed recently , there will necessarily be inadvertent agreement between Russia and
westerners who oppose western interventionism, because Russia, like so many other sovereign
nations, opposes western interventionism. If you discover that an American who opposes US
warmongering and establishment politics is saying the same things as RT, that doesn't mean
you've discovered a shocking conspiracy between western dissidents and the Russian government,
it means people who oppose the same things oppose the same things.
We're seeing this absurd gibberish spouted over and over again by the mainstream media now.
The other day the delightful pro-Sanders subreddit WayOfTheBern was
smeared as a Russian operation by the Washington Times, not because the Washington Times
had any evidence anywhere supporting that claim, but because the subreddit's members are
hostile to Democratic presidential hopefuls other than Sanders, and because its posts
"consistently support positions that would be amenable to the Kremlin." All this means is that
the subreddit is full of people who support Bernie Sanders and oppose US government
malfeasance, yet an entire article was published in a mainstream outlet treating this as
something dangerous and suspicious.
If you really listen to what the CNNs and Ben Nimmos and Washington Timeses are actually
trying to tell you, what they're saying is that it's not okay for anyone to oppose any part of
the unipolar world order or the establishment which runs it . Never ever, under any
circumstances. Don't work for a media outlet that's funded by the Russian government even
though no mainstream outlets will ever platform you. Don't even subscribe to an
anti-establishment subreddit. Those things are all Russian. Listen to Big Brother instead. Big
Brother will protect you from their filthy Russian lies.
"If CNN would like to hire me to present facts against destructive US wars and corporate
ownership of our political system, I'll gladly accept," Khalek told me when asked for
comment.
"But the corporate media doesn't allow antiwar voices a platform. In The Now does. I've
worked for dozens of different outlets, from Vice to Al Jazeera to RT, and my message has
always been the same: leftist, antiwar and pro justice and equality. People should be asking
why US mainstream media outlets that claim to be free and independent refuse to air critical
and adversarial voices like mine."
Why indeed? Actually, if CNN is so worried about Russian media influence in America, all
they'd have to do is put on a few shows featuring leftist, antiwar and pro-justice voices and
that would be the end of it. They could easily out-spend RT by a massive margin, buy up all the
talent like Khalek, Lee Camp and Chris Hedges, put on a sleek, high-budget show and steal RT
America's audience, killing it dead and drawing all anti-establishment energy to their
material.
But they don't. They don't, and they never will. Because Russian media influence is not
their actual target. Their actual target is leftist, antiwar and anti-establishment voices.
That's what they're really trying to eliminate.
So yes, Moscow will of course elevate some western voices who oppose the power establishment
that is trying to undermine and subvert Russia. Those voices will not require any instruction
to speak out against that establishment, since that's what they'd be doing anyway and they're
just grateful to finally have a platform upon which to speak. And it is good that they're
getting a platform to speak. If western power structures have a problem with it, they should
stop universally refusing to platform anyone who opposes the status quo that is destroying
nations abroad and squeezing the life out of citizens at home.
It doesn't take any amount of sympathy for Russia to see that the unipolar empire is toxic
for humanity, and most westerners who oppose that toxicity have no particular feelings about
Russia any more than they have about Turkey or the Philippines. Sometimes Russia will come in
and give them a platform in the void that has been left by the mainstream outlets which are
doing everything they can to silence them. So what? The alternative is all dissident voices
being silenced. The fact that Russia prevents a few of them from being silenced is not the
problem. The problem is that they are being silenced at all.
* * *
Thanks for reading! My articles are entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece
please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook , following my antics on Twitter , throwing some money into my hat on
Patreon or Paypal , purchasing some of my sweet
merchandise , buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin
Johnstone , or my previous book
Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers . The best way to get around the internet censors
and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website , which will get you an email
notification for everything I publish.
With Trump incoherence, impulsivity and appointment of Pompeo and Bolton it is really unclear who are the good guys and and who
are bad guys.
Color revolution against Trump failed and that's a good sign, the sign of healthy political system. But it might well
be that "The moor has done his duty, the moor can go"
Trump already undermined the credibility of neoliberal MSM and we should be glad to him for that. He also withdrawing troops from
Syria (which were in the country illegally) but only after bombing Assad air forces half-dozen times on false premises.
Looks like he reached some progress in talks with China and Chine will buy more agricultural production from the USA. But
the question to him is: if China already has the capacity to produce all those goods, how he think manufacturing will return to the
USA.
He still is warmongering about Iran. And he initiated the regime change in Venezuela.
On domestic front he positioned himself as a clear neoliberal and bully -- king of "national neoliberalism" instead of national
socialism of the past (what is funny is that many point of NSDAP program of 1920 are now far left to the Democratic Party platform,
to say nothing about Trump.
Notable quotes:
"... "All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible." -Frank Herbert, Author of Dune ..."
The bad guys wear black hats. We're programmed to see things in black or white, right or wrong, good or evil. From what we are
shown in movies and books from an early age, there is a protagonist and an antagonist.
Clever writers make it a little more complex, with the Boo Radleys and Snapes who are thought to be villains but turn out to be
heroes. But generally, the characters fit largely into extremes: good guys or bad guys with little overlap: Harry Potter versus Voldemort.
But it's those characters on the edge who people can't get enough of. Like Walter White, the cancer patient who starts producing
meth to leave some money behind for his family in the TV show Breaking Bad .
And that's probably because its an often unspoken truth that life is mostly gray, and not so black and white.
But the binary two choice meme has a function. It makes things a hell of a lot easier. And it prevents us from being crippled
by indecision and inaction.
Of course, this is also easily exploited by bad guys
When I hear that the FBI considered attempting to oust Trump from the oval office, I am tempted to think, hey, Trump must not
be such a bad guy.
According to a new book by former deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe, top FBI brass discussed using the 25th amendment to remove
Trump, even though as the Wall Street Journal explains:
A President exercises his constitutional prerogative to fire the FBI director, and Mr. Comey's associates immediately talked
about deposing him in what would amount to a coup?
The 25th Amendment was passed after JFK's assassination to allow for a transfer of power when a President is "unable" to discharge
his duties. It is intended to be used only after demonstrated evidence of impairment that is witnessed by those closest to the
Commander in Chief. It doesn't exist to settle political differences, or to let scheming bureaucrats imagine they are saving the
country from someone they fear is a Manchurian candidate. The constitutional process for that is impeachment.
So if the
horribly corrupt FBI doesn't like Trump, he must have something to offer. But this is only true in the binary world or pure good
and evil. In the real world, evil often opposes evil, because they are different factions fighting for the same territory.
"All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but
that it is magnetic to the corruptible." -Frank Herbert, Author of Dune
We usually end up supporting who we see as the lesser of two evils.
That's sort of like Walter White. He starts off as a timid science geek and devoted father and husband. He is attracted to the
drug industry for apparently noble purposes. And he ends up poisoning a child, causing another child to be murdered, ordering an
innocent assistant killed, and causing the death of his brother-in-law. Ultimately, Walter White admits he didn't become a massive
meth producer for his family. He did it for the thrill, the glory, the power that came with it . We live in a world of Walter Whites,
not Voldemorts.
J.K. Rowling made Voldemort pure evil. But to her credit, she demonstrated how easy it was for him to seize the reigns of power
at the Ministry of Magic, and how all the bureaucrats and ministers simply started serving a new master. Some even rejoiced in their
new authority, relishing the newfound power.
When it comes to Trump versus the FBI, the Wall Street Journal editorial laments, "This is all corrosive to public trust in American
democracy."
So what do we do about it?
Rejoice!
The less trust we put in the political system, the better. All we can do is separate ourselves to the best of our abilities from
far off bureaucrats and politicians.
We've all been deceived. Almost everything "we're told" is a lie. It's up to each of us to
discern the truth.
Notable quotes:
"... Like Rome, the US has hollowed itself out ..."
"... Perhaps some do wish the US Empire's collapse will come sooner rather than later, and even that some other empire will replace it. I simply see its collapse as both inevitable, and imminent (in historical terms, of course), but I don't see another global Empire rising to take its place, much less wish it. ..."
"The United States once dominated economically by making better products at better prices,
ran a large trade surplus, and barely had competitors." Wrong. The United States once
dominated by NOT competing – until around 1970, foreign trade was a negligible fraction
of the economy. The United States historically was a functional autarky. With a modest
population, abundant resources, and no need to worry about competing with slave-labor level
wages, America's economy and power boomed.
"The US chooses its government by popularity contests among provincial lawyers rather than
by competence." Utterly false. Our government is one of oligarchy, democratic elections have
essentially zero impact on policy. Our government is not incompetent because of 'democracy'
but because our elites and their institutions are corrupt and insulated from the consequences
of their decisions. One is reminded that Chinese industry is still overwhelmingly US industry
that was moved their because US elites wanted quick shot-term profits – and were just
too greedy to think about the long-term consequences of giving away the work of centuries to
a large competitor nation.
Good to see an article that doesn't blame only the "Jews" seems some people here have a
terrible time believing that there can be more than 1 single cause of wars or other troubles.
I thought all our military heros were required to read and understand Sun Tzu's Art of
War? Seems they skipped a few chapters and cheated on the exam.
Capitalism always fails. Capitalism is growing and the white population is dying
.hmmmm
The 'flaw' (intentional) in capitalism is that it was never intended to improve the
conditions of the common man. Capital, was only ever intended to fill the coffers of princes,
kings, dukes, barons and lesser nobles so that they would have a medium of exchange for
services that they, themselves, were incapable of producing/providing.
And, as we now see the full long term 'effects' of capitalism, wealth disparity,
homelessness, drug addiction, increased suicide rates, lowered longevity, stagnant wages,
staggeringly high personal, corporate, and sovereign debt levels, increases in personal
bankruptcy (particularly health care related), predatory lending, a monopolistic private
sector, corporate dominance of government (think ALEC and uncontrolled corporate lobbying),
unrestricted immigration (think removal of sanctions on employers for illegals), destruction
of unions (& pensions), encouragement of offshoring and destructive mergers and
acquisitions via changes to the tax code, massive overspending on the military along with an
aggressive empire-building posture, trickle down economics, etc.
The current situation in the U.S. should not be a surprise it started about 38 years ago.
You voted for it and now you will have to live with it. China is indeed kicking our ass, our
"leaders" are far too corrupt to change course, we've hit the iceberg already.
No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will
be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.
Welcome to the Saint Reagan Revolution. Have a nice day.
country that is 15% black and 25% Mestizo (and growing) will not rebound to the former
heights of a country that was 90% white. Won't happen.
Why not? Where are all the high ability whites gonna go? Will they just vanish? They're
still around, and aren't going anywhere. The talent pool will continue to have the same
absolute number of people, even if a lower fraction of the whole.
There is a difference between percentages and absolute numbers. All that will have
happened is that a large number of slightly less able people will have been added to the pie.
That doesn't diminish the number of more able people. They're still around.
Here's another little secret. A country is great because of its top 15% of people. The
average Chinese, or the lower class Chinese, is far from impressive.
If the gap between the top 15 percent and everyone else is too large, that may create some
problems, but Hispanics are a fairly capable people.
This doesn't mean I support immigration. But adding say 50 million slightly less able
people to 250 million slightly more able isn't exactly going to ruin a country,
realistically. And other countries may have more serious deficiencies.
Interesting article, and good timing too. China's president today reiterated China's
commitment to developing its strategic partnership with Iran. The US may have pulled out of
the Iran Nuclear Deal, but China remains committed to that deal, and EU doesn't seem quite
ready to jettison it either.
WSJ reported today that India is ignoring US warning about Huawei and will use their
equipment for 5G anyway. Germany is reportedly doing the same.
Thanks to the Zionist stranglehold on the US and UK, I see the world developing into two
factions, one of US-UK-Israel-Saudi Arabia and other Sunni Muslim countries, and the other of
Russia-China-Iran, and potentially India, with EU sitting uncomfortably in the middle. F is
on the Ziocon side as long as Macron is in office, but once he leaves, France could well join
Germany and the rest of the EU and switch side.
The Europeans were not too enamored with Pence at the recent Munich Security Conference,
they all know what a Jew puppet he is, esp. after he used a visit to Auschwitz to convey to
the Europeans that if they do not join the US on our antagonism towards Iran, they are as
good as anti-Semites. The only 2 people who gave him a standing O after his speech were
Javanka. Sad.
Zionists will turn America into an international pariah, as isolated and alone as
Israel.
@Harold Smith
Socialism means equalizing and socializing – of rich and poor – at the expense of
the rich who got that way at the expense of the poor, so you can say – it's little bit
of a payback time. Americans have very clear minds about socialism – that's because
they have been brainwashed during decades long running propaganda.
Then they got introduced to a wrong kind of "socialism" – where they were forced to
socialize with a wrong kind of people – from alien lands and cultures. That's not
socialism, that's cheap propaganda stunt, worthy of the Adolf himself.
I think they were introduced to that type of "socialism" under the motto: "Fake it, so you
don't have to make it". I think that the time will eventually come, where the more
traditional motto will come into play: "Fake it, until you make it".
Just because this produce has the label "United States" doesn't mean that it's the same
as the old product. Grow up.
No, it definitely won't be the same product. But nations change character fairly often.
Elizabethan England was very different than Georgian England. The one was known as merry and
licentious and highly emotional, the other was melancholy, stiff and inexressive, and more
Puritan. Nations literally flip over into their opposites. In the past century Jews went from
being physical cowards to tough physical adventurers in the Middle East. The Germans went
from being the land of poets and thinkers to the land of blood and iron and war.
America will change, very drastically. Immigration will eventually stop, and the new
people absorbed and integrated. Something new will emerge to replace a European civilization
that had grown old. Something partly European and probably very capable.
And yes, I know that ethnic changes aren't the same thing. And I don't supplier
immigration. I'm just pointing out realities.
That's because the America see no advantage in placing its boot upon Canada's neck as
long as Canada, recognizing its absolute dependence on the US for its territorial integrity
and economic prosperity, remains subservient, sending token military forces wherever NATO
directs, extraditing foreign nationals as America requires, and assimilating every
appalling American cultural meme.
LOL how true. Canada to the US is like NZ to Australia. They just don't matter.
How old is Fred Reed anyway? I first became aware of him in late 2001. Back then he posted
his picture at the top of his articles and I thought he looked ancient even back then.
Could it be because that their religious elites correctly figure that it would be
difficult to sell rapist/gay/androgynous deities, phallus/vagina/devil/animal worship,
etc., to the world, except to some whitey hippies (e.g. Tulsi's mother)? They feel ashamed
to proselytise except to braindead whitey hippies.
LOLOL. You really have to wonder what kind of people could be dumb/crazy enough to follow
a religion with 33 million gods! It's no wonder India is such a fucked up country, completely
ungovernable. The worst thing is, these nutcases are now invading the US en masse (and soon
to be let in by tens of millions more courtesy of Trump), are increasingly running for
office, and winning as zealous socialist leftists running in uber liberal districts.
These bullshit artist nutjobs are not satisfied having completely destroyed their own
country, they now want to destroy ours. We are on our way to becoming the next India,
completely with people defecating out in the open like our growing homeless population, just
like in Mumbai.
@flashlight joe Agree
with Flashlight Joe on the duties and imposts and the Civil War. That was the major cause of
the war as far as I can tell from reading books. Of course there were other factors including
slavery as a lesser cause. What a waste of lives and treasure.
@Harold Smith I find
it hard to believe the masses in the US will choose Bernie's socialism. It doesn't work and
the evidence for failure is overwhelming just in the last 100 years. We should stop the
migrations of impoverished third worlders. Lacking any education these migrants would be most
susceptible to hair brained socialism.
@Biff Socialist phone
network? Last I heard the phone companies are 100% privately owned.
All those sewage pipes were privately built and private companies collect your water and
sewer bill.
The definition of socialism: the government or community owns the means of production.
Some nations have more regulations than others but successful nations are capitalist,
including Scandinavians.
Roads are built by private contractors. Missiles and jets as well.
The Jews think far too much of themselves and are screwed. Their hollowing out of the
manufacturing of the US was premature before they could guarantee a home in China. The
Chinese thing of course is not working out so well. The Chinese are not nice individualist
like Europeans that they can manipulate with "caring" for others as the Chinese don't "care"
and will laugh at Jewish cries of "victimization".
Jewish parasitism is only functionally
able to work among Europeans and only last so long in each region they go to. I suspect the
Western Ukraine take over was to have a plan "B" place to go if they get overrun in Israel.
I'm not so sure that will work out in the long run either.
I noted your impressions, but Asia is a big place. There's a great variety of peoples and
cultures between Japan and Saudi Arabia, and I'm curious which you're actually commenting
on.
The US is having a little bit of a bad period, and everyone is rushing to say it's
completely finished for all time.
It isn't simply a "bad period" from where I sit, and I don't think any serious person
would claim "it's completely finished for all time". In the first place it's not that "bad"
(yet), and it has a long way to go before it gets genuinely bad for no greater reason than
that it's starting its decline from a fully developed state. A lot of things have to go to
hell for it to become hell.
And its debatable just how bad a period the US is going through. I think its overstated,
although there are undoubtedly some serious problems that need to be addressed.
The issue for America is that having lost its civilizational strengths, it's running on
the fumes of Empire. So, we're really talking about just how much of those fumes there are
left. The former didn't simply get weakened. For the elites and approx half the population
they seem to have been replaced by something alien and corrosive. "Freedom", "Democracy",
"Rule of Law" and even "American Know-how" have visibly dissipated to invisibility for those
looking honestly for them. The fumes it's running on are the preeminence of the U$ dollar
system and such fear as the USM is able to generate. Both are past their tipping point, and
well into decline.
great nations go through bad periods, and then rise again.
They do, but Empires generally don't. It's all about resource flow, and when the flow
stops, or worse reverses, the nation at the core of empire rarely survives in anything like
its original form. Greece, Italy, Mongolia or Iran are very different than simply diminished
versions of their former selves at the core of Empires. The original versions
disappeared.
In any case, America wasn't great for long enough to be called a historically great
nation. Great nations build civilizations that endure through trials such as the loss of
Empire. Russia and China have, and arguably remain modern versions of their original
selves.
In 4thC Rome, things didn't look so bad either. There was lots of asset speculation for
the rich, and bread 'n circuses for everyone else, while the Empire's ability to bring
resources in from the periphery shrank a little every day. Without new resources being
brought in, the Empire inevitably ate its tail. The people remained blithely certain that
there would be even more bread 'n circuses in the future. So Americans are today. They'll
stay quite certain until a modern-day Alaric hammers on the Imperial Gates and says "It's
over". Rome never recovered its Empire, and the city itself went from a population of ~1M to
<50,000 at its depths. It and the area that became Italy took centuries to recover a
halfway decent standard of living.
Like Rome, the US has hollowed itself out and became dependent on such tithes a shrinking
Empire can deliver to keep the bread 'n circuses going. Rome, however, had no peers and so
could continue on well beyond its sell-by date. America, through a breathtaking series of
strategic blunders, has lost that advantage. There's more peers now than America can hope to
deal with and they, not America control the clock. The resources the Empire needs to continue
have been taken off the table. It needed Russia's natural resources, and China's human
resources. It lost both, and what's worse forced them into partnership. As the recent Warsaw
"conference" so vividly exposed, even its vassals know that the Empire has lost its mojo, if
DC's brain-trusts don't.
Can it recover and become a normal country again? Absolutely, though I give it less chance
of coming through the process intact than either Russia or China did. Cultural homogeneity is
what carries a civilization through hard times, and the US ain't got much of that. Perhaps it
will undergo a similar split to Rome's, where the Eastern Empire went on to develop a very
different society than the one it split off from. Rome split along more or less logistical
and administrative lines, whereas the US' fissures are marbled across the continent. It'll
take some serious statesmanship to hold it together.
As for wishing
Perhaps some do wish the US Empire's collapse will come sooner rather than later, and even
that some other empire will replace it. I simply see its collapse as both inevitable, and
imminent (in historical terms, of course), but I don't see another global Empire rising to
take its place, much less wish it.
Maybe one will arise in the fullness of time, but not in mine, or in anyone's that's
currently alive. The resource base just ain't there any more. A Eurasian Empire? Maybe.
Global? Nah.
Hawaii Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard was greeted with a "warm aloha" on the The View
Wednesday morning. But things didn't stay sunny for long.
As the
2020 Democratic presidential candidate began to lay out how her time serving in Iraq has
influenced her non-interventionist foreign policy position, Meghan McCain was just itching to
push back. "Can I interrupt you?" she asked.
After thanking Gabbard for her service, McCain told her, "When I hear the name Tulsi
Gabbard, I think of Assad apologist. I think of someone who comes back to the United States and
is spouting propaganda from Syria." The co-host was referring to a controversial trip Gabbard
made to Syria two years ago. While there, she met
with President Bashar al-Assad and defended him upon her return. More recently, she told
MSNBC's Morning Joe , "Assad is not the enemy of the United States because Syria does
not pose a direct threat to the United States."
"You have said that the Syrian president, Assad, is not the enemy of the United States,"
McCain continued, "yet he's used chemical weapons against his own people 300 times." When she
says that "regime change" would be hurtful to that country but "gassing children isn't more
hurtful, it's hard for me to understand where you would come from a humanitarian standpoint if
you were to become president."
In response, Gabbard accused McCain of "putting words in [her] mouth," but she did not alter
her fundamental stance. Asked to clarify her position, she said, "An enemy of the United States
is someone who threatens our safety and our security."
"There is no disputing the fact that Bashar al-Assad and Syria is a brutal dictator,"
Gabbard added. "There's no disputing the fact that he has used chemical weapons and other
weapons against his people. There are other terrorist groups in Syria who have used similar
chemical weapons and other weapons of terror against the people of Syria."
I think that Bernie Sanders was the best hope that US had in the last 50 years. And they
killed that hope by stealing his nomination and highly probable presidency from him. I don't
care what the orange clown says about "US will never be a socialist country". One other
individual of his ethnic background once prognosticated a 1000 year Reich – and we all
know how that turned out.
I don't know what Bernie views on immigration are, but on social and economic issues
– he is bang on. And I just heard on the news that Bernie new campaign for 2020, has
broken all previous records – raising 6 million $ in the first 24 hours.
All that nonsensical talk about empire is just a product of idle (and deranged) minds of
individuals who have achieved personal wealth and success based on rules of questionable
fairness, and now have nothing better to do than play some retarded game of world domination
– which doesn't benefit the average American at all. It's just a way for the
degenerates to achieve "immortality" and get into the history books – where they don't
belong – certainly not based on their abilities.
"Yeah right. Sanders is just another scammer, like Trump and all the rest of them:"
Yes of course they're all scammers, but there's a reason they picked the orange clown
scammer rather than the Sanders scammer or the Clinton scammer. And I think that reason is
because orange clown is actually the most evil of the three; evil enough to risk planetary
extinction in pursuit of world domination and control, whereas Sanders probably isn't.
So in a sense Sanders probably is "the best hope that the U.S. had in the last 50
years."
Tulsi vs. the war propaganda machine of the US government and MIC. It was tough, but she made it (neocons are
just MIC prostitutes; they have zero independent in their views). I wish we have several anti-war candidates for
president, but we have only one and she has all my support.
This idea of ruling the world after the collapse of the USSR the neolib/neocon elite in Washington pushed
for the last 30 years proves to be a disaster for the country. See
Neocon foreign policy is a
disaster for the USA
I hope that all those despicable warmongers (which happen to be women) are chronic alcoholics because that's the only reliable method to
survive when you have no self-esteem and just parrot view of people who pay you money. That's just a different type of
prostitution...
Judging from her appearance, Megan McCain might have problem with substance abuse, though.
Notable quotes:
"... Meghan's father proudly advocated for the regime change wars in Iraq and Libya, both of which resulted in the deaths of millions of innocent civilians and gave rise to ISIS, which is still wreaking havoc in the Middle East today. He also advocated for the arming and funding of "moderate" rebels (a.k.a. terrorists) in Syria in an attempt to overthrow Assad. ..."
"... Wow didn't expect this candidate to tell the truth about America's intervention in the World. So refreshing ! I understand now why Meghan doesn't like her. ..."
McCain is such an angry interviewer... always thinking about her next attacking retort
without actually listening to the answer of a level-headed, thoughtful guest.
It's not Meghan's tough questions, because tough questions are much appreciated, its the
condescension and the juvenile behaviour. Its cringey, sooo cringey.
She made Meghan look so ignorant which she is. They say if you argue with a fool
from a distance no one knows who the fool is we know who the fool is this debate the
undisputed queen of ignorance Meghan McCain.
Meghan's father proudly advocated for the regime change wars in Iraq and Libya, both of
which resulted in the deaths of millions of innocent civilians and gave rise to ISIS, which
is still wreaking havoc in the Middle East today. He also advocated for the arming and
funding of "moderate" rebels (a.k.a. terrorists) in Syria in an attempt to overthrow
Assad.
Wow didn't expect this candidate to tell the truth about America's intervention in the
World. So refreshing ! I understand now why Meghan doesn't like her.
"... Tulsi Gabbard has recently launched a new attack on New World Order agents and ethnic cleansers in the Middle East, and one can see why they would be upset with her ..."
"... Gabbard is smart enough to realize that the Neocon path leads to death, chaos, and destruction. She knows that virtually nothing good has come out of the Israeli narrative in the Middle East -- a narrative which has brought America on the brink of collapse in the Middle East. Therefore, she is asking for a U-turn. ..."
"... The first step for change, she says, is to "stand up against powerful politicians from both parties" who take their orders from the Neocons and war machine. These people don't care about you, me, the average American, the people in the Middle East, or the American economy for that matter. They only care about fulfilling a diabolical ideology in the Middle East and much of the world. These people ought to stop once and for all. Regardless of your political views, you should all agree with Gabbard here. ..."
Tulsi Gabbard has recently launched a new attack on New World Order agents and ethnic
cleansers in the Middle East, and one can see why they would be upset with her. She said:
" We must stand up
against powerful politicians from both parties who sit in their ivory towers thinking up
new wars to wage, new places for people to die, wasting trillions of our taxpayer dollars and
hundreds of thousands of lives and undermining our economy, our security, and destroying our
middle class."
It is too early to formulate a complete opinion on Gabbard, but she has said the right thing
so far. In fact, her record is better than numerous presidents, both past and present.
As we have documented in the past, Gabbard is an Iraq war veteran, and she knew what
happened to her fellow soldiers who died for Israel, the Neocon war machine, and the military
industrial complex. She also seems to be aware that the war in Iraq alone will cost American
taxpayers at least six trillion dollars.
[1] She is almost certainly aware of the fact that at least "360,000 Iraq and Afghanistan
veterans may have suffered brain injuries."
[2]
Gabbard is smart enough to realize that the Neocon path leads to death, chaos, and
destruction. She knows that virtually nothing good has come out of the Israeli narrative in the
Middle East -- a narrative which has brought America on the brink of collapse in the Middle
East. Therefore, she is asking for a U-turn.
The first step for change, she says, is to "stand up against powerful politicians from both
parties" who take their orders from the Neocons and war machine. These people don't care about
you, me, the average American, the people in the Middle East, or the American economy for that
matter. They only care about fulfilling a diabolical ideology in the Middle East and much of
the world. These people ought to stop once and for all. Regardless of your political views, you
should all agree with Gabbard here.
[1] Ernesto Londono, "Study: Iraq, Afghan war costs to top $4 trillion," Washington
Post , March 28, 2013; Bob Dreyfuss, The $6 Trillion Wars," The Nation , March 29,
2013; "Iraq War Cost U.S. More Than $2 Trillion, Could Grow to $6 Trillion, Says Watson
Institute Study," Huffington Post , May 14, 2013; Mark Thompson, "The $5 Trillion War
on Terror," Time , June 29, 2011; "Iraq war cost: $6 trillion. What else could have
been done?," LA Times , March 18, 2013.
[2] "360,000 veterans may have brain injuries," USA Today , March 5, 2009.
"We must stand up against powerful politicians from both parties who sit in their ivory towers thinking up new wars to wage, new
places for people to die, wasting trillions of our taxpayer dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives and undermining our economy,
our security, and destroying our middle class."
"... US soldiers are butchered, maimed and horribly wounded fighting wars on behalf of Israel and Charles Schumer will start screaming about so-called "anti-Semitism" if anyone questions the foreign policy choices of the American Empire's ruling class ..."
...Charles Schumer is a JEW NATIONALIST who uses his power and the
power of the Israel Lobby to get American soldiers to fight wars on behalf of Israel in the
Middle East and West Asia.
US soldiers are butchered, maimed and horribly wounded fighting wars on behalf of Israel and
Charles Schumer will start screaming about so-called "anti-Semitism" if anyone questions the
foreign policy choices of the American Empire's ruling class.
Tulsi is the person who can heal our deeply wounded national psyche due to the idiocy and
ignorance of the Trump Regime. I have the same feeling watching her that I did when I saw
Obama at the 2004 convention, only Tulsi is a progressive where I sadly learned Obama was way
too corporate. I need to live to see Tulsi Gabbard in the White House. It's the same God, the
Force in everything, and nobody should be forced away from their beliefs or non belief. It's
Time To Show People That NOBODY IS NOBODY!
Tulsi Gabbard, one of the very few good politicians. Too much focus on Left and Right
views. It's time for Right and Wrong to come to the fore. Tulsi will try to clean up the mess
that her predecessors have created. Stop the bullshit deep state wars. Sons and daughters
being sacrificed for gas and oil profits. The benefits then ironically never come
I so want to support Tulsi. Shall we ever get a progressive enough candidate to get a real
investigation on the events of 9/11...to determine why the dust of those buildings had
military grade nano thermite, in which all the evidence suggests an intentional demolition of
those towers, and when, oh when will we get a candidate that unequivocally works for all
money out of campaigns and publicly funded elections like our Canadian neighbors.
This is my prediction - Tulsi Gabbard in 2020 election is like what Trump was in 2016
Election. Eventually, Tulsi is going to strike a chord with American people and almost all
Democrats and Independents are going to vote her and few from Trump base is also going to
vote her and eventually elect her as President in 2020 election. This is too early to make
such prediction but I think majority of Americans are very fair minded people and will do the
justice to her by electing her as President.
Liz Warren is talking about what Bernie talked about in '16. I'm concerned that she has
progressive rhetoric but centrist instincts. Her voting record isn't as progressive as I
believe is necessary. She needs to be able to withstand scrutiny if she hopes to attract
progressive voters. Rhetoric and platitudes aren't enough... #LeadersNeedToLeadByExample
I don't think I'm alone in finding a big difference that was not mentioned in the video.
While I greatly appreciate Elizabeth Warren, and those clips you showed from earlier today
were very encouraging, there is just a quality Bernie and Tulsi share that is very rare among
politicians. Something about the way they speak, their past actions, and ways they don't
speak, just hit home really hard a believability that they are extremely genuine and from the
heart. I see some of this from EW, but, Bernie and Tulsi are just incredibly impressive in
regard to this quality... it doesn't feel like supporting a politician, it feels like
supporting a kind of way of being and appreciation for what we all are so many of us try to
make our way of life. fwiw, I think it's also a big part of AOC's appeal.
Elizabeth Warren is a cautious, cowardish (her behaviour during 2016 was disgusting), but pretty energetic careerist. Her views will
quickly change under pressure, so good talking points will never translated into real policies.
The fact the wealthy control the USA is not news. This is the fact of life and always be. the
question is how to reach optimal middle point when interest of the bottom 80% standard of living
do not deteriorate.
Probably close to Barack Obama who also utters all right things during election complain and then blatantly betrayed his
voters.
She clearly is the top anti-corruption candidate and will expose the level of corruption in
Washington. So she is preferable to Kamala Harris and other establishment candidates.
The fight between organized and rich few and unorganized and poor many became hotter right
now. But what is the power base of anti-neoliberal movement. That can be only trade unions, which
were decimated. So the first step might be to restore the power of unions.
Notable quotes:
"... Elizabeth Warren is a progressive with no backbone who supports the military industrial complex ..."
"... Warren missed her moment when she failed us in 2016. She'd be VP today, and thinking about running in 2024. She shied away and instead, we have Trump ..."
Elizabeth Warren is weak. She did not have the courage to stand up to the Clinton machine
in 2016 when she could have made a difference by standing up against corruption. Now she is
waffling on what it means when she says she supports Medicare for All, as now she is open to
tweaking the Republican "Affordable" Care Act. She won't fight for us. We need real fighters.
We need Bernie and Tulsi.
I'll always have a soft spot in my heart for Elizabeth Warren but in the last few years
she's shown that she's not as reliable as i thought she was. She's way to soft when it comes
to calling out the corruption in the dem party. She's also shown she's more willing to bend
to the will of the Dem establishment and that is not the kind of President we need right now.
I'll be posting a video on her campaign soon & unfortunately I'll have to tear into her a
lot more than you did in this video
Elizabeth Warren is a progressive with no backbone who supports the military industrial
complex. She will lose to Trump if she gets the nominee. Tulsi is a real progressive with
balls. #Tulsi2020
Warren missed her moment when she failed us in 2016. She'd be VP today, and thinking about
running in 2024. She shied away and instead, we have Trump.
I don't think she has the ability
to motivate she could have had back then. I don't think she has the savvy to beat Trump. We
need Tulsi or Bernie, the rest would lose in the general.
tomjulio2002, 1 week ago
Sorry but there is no comparison between Warren and Sanders.
Warren is either at best a coward (see primary 2016) or at worst a con (at lot of words but no action when it matters). So
not much will change with her, except that Trump would be gone. Then we will get a worse than Trump next time around when
people get even more disappointed and desperate.
For Sanders, you know for sure that he means what he says and that he intends to try.
The question is whether he will have the courage to go for it when the going gets tough. Or will he buckle like he did at
the 2016 convention thinking best to get half a loaf than risking to get nothing.
With Sanders, there is at least a chance (albeit a slim one in my opinion) of big changes happening on the issues like
Medicare for all, Green New Deal, Free public college...
For me, Warren is a no go.
Also Gabbard is clearly a fighter but I am still hazy on some of her positions. But I will take her before I even take
another look at Warren (if somehow Warren becomes the nominee).
Tulsi Gabbard is courageous and stands up against her own party regardless of the
political cost. Elizabeth Warren is a coward; she never stands up against her party; she only
fights the easy fights (GOP,Trump). Elizabeth Warren was a college professor she knows the
words the young kids want to listen and she says them often. Mark my words 'Elizabeth Warren
in 2020 will be the Walter Mondale of 1984'
Tulsi Gabbard. She supports Medicare for all and Elizabeth Warren does not. She's also
really pushing the fake Russia story all over MSNBC. Tulsi was the only one who didn't
endorse Hillary.
Liz voted to get rid of Habeas Corpus and we're going to put her up for president now?
Bernie and Liz will certainly maintain the Democratic Party line on the Middle East.
Mike don't be naive. The Democratic Party has learned NOTHING! They'd definitely cheat a
true progressive in 2020. Have you seen ANY changes? Do you hear what their lawyers say about
cheating Sanders on the record?
I'd take Tulsi Gabbard over Elizabeth Warren. Warren showed her true colors. Always too
little too late and she doesn't do it by mistake. Gabbard just does the right thing because
it's right. I don't think Warren could beat Trump. He can poke way too many holes in her.
"... Congress needs to take back the war powers. The fact that no one wants to be the one responsible for deciding to go to war might help slow down if not stop all these regime change wars. Maybe if Congress votes on it enough of them will be reluctant to make a yes vote. ..."
"... how being a mercenary soldier/terrorist in other people's countries, murdering their people and destroying their infrastructure, for military and multinational corporate profits and Wall St., translates to "serving and sacrificing for the people of our country"? How do you make that weird leap in logic? ..."
Foreign policy is more than just war and peace, it is a nuanced and complex issue that
directly affects us here at home. In this interview, Dr. Jane Sanders sits down with
Representative Tulsi Gabbard to talk about U.S. foreign policy and how it affects us here at
home.
Tulsi this is the first I've explored who you are. This conversation felt like a life
giving refreshment. The constant war and regime change policy of every administration since I
was a young child has been utterly confounding. We are bankrupting our society and
civilization with military expenditure exactly like a life destroying heroin addict except
it's on a global scale. These people in the powers that be together with the masses that back
them are literal sociopaths and they're entirely in control at both the highest and base
levels. The only other time I've felt as nourished by a public figure that somehow pierced
through the mainstream media was Bernie Sanders actually expressing the fact that we are an
oligarchy not a democracy. Like oligarchy, anti-war and imperialism is just not talked about.
US Americans won't acknowledge the scale of our imperialism.
Tulsi should run and both Sanders should follow her lead. As much as I love him, Bernie's
too old to be president - when it gets to the stage against Trump, we need a young, vibrant
face. Add onto that the fact that she's a veteran who actually asked to be deployed in
comparison to him, a draft dodger - he looks like an old fat pathetic septogenarian next to
an early 40s real populist. Ultimately it is up to Sanders whether this whole thing is about
a man or a movement. If he runs, he'll probably win the primary but it is not a guarantee
that he'd win - Tulsi would win and she'd be around for decades to come as a standard barer
too.
"Sensible politics" seems to be an oxymoron these days and pretty much throughout the
history of our country. It's so refreshing to see a politician who has a vision for the
future that the majority of us can get behind. It scares me though. I've read quite a bit
about JFK the past few years, and he amassed a number of very powerful and dangerous enemies.
They won't just stand by and allow someone in a position of influence to get the truth out
about our immoral and illegal wars. Tulsi, I support your efforts to bring peace to the
Middle East and elsewhere, but please do be careful. You're a fighter and I admire that, but
we all want you to be safe and healthy for many years to come.
Tulsi Gabbard, I am thrilled to have someone like you running for president. I am a fellow
Veteran dealing with disability and I am glad to have a candidate who understands the issues
Veterans are dealing with. I also realize that the voting public will support the person who
resonates with their personal lives and issues that don't exist in their life they will
disregard.Thank you for you're support.
The DNC will lie cheat and steal the election from Tulsi Gabbard just like they did Bernie
Sanders, and the 15 million Americans who Left the un-Democratic party will double and
triple....DEMEXIT
Tulsi Gabbard needs to be the president of the United States of America period. If she not
the president of our country will not survive. That is a fact, how stupid can our government
be. I guess very stupid, what else can I say. We don't hear that in main news media, the
reason we do hear it the media . The news media is totally brought, the main news media love
money and the devil, simple as that. How are you going to hear about wars from main news
media. They do care about the citizens or the country. We really don't have a real news
media, it all propaganda. All fake news, that why one doesn't hear anything from the new
medias.
Congress needs to take back the war powers. The fact that no one wants to be the one
responsible for deciding to go to war might help slow down if not stop all these regime
change wars. Maybe if Congress votes on it enough of them will be reluctant to make a yes
vote.
WAKE UP, PEOPLE! Bernie is a sell-out - a sheeple-herder that never intended to win. He
was a gatekeeper for Hillary because she is AIPAC-beloved and he is an Israel-firster. He
threw his supporters under the bus as they told him in real time that the nomination was
being stolen. He's part of the con, and the sooner we realize this, the better off we'll be.
BERNIE WORKS FOR DEMOCRATS. Vote Third Party (REAL third parties, not the Bernie Sanders'
kind).
Kinky, 2 months ago
Tulsi - re your comment about our veterans who have "served and sacrificed for their country," could you clarify how
being a mercenary soldier/terrorist in other people's countries, murdering their people and destroying their infrastructure,
for military and multinational corporate profits and Wall St., translates to "serving and sacrificing for the people of our
country"? How do you make that weird leap in logic?
Jimmy, the whole Tulsi interview was a clinic on real journalism. It's efforts from TJDS
like this that make me wish I had more $ to give to the show than I do. Thank you for the
great work! And, while I was already a big supporter of Tulsi Gabbard, the way she spoke
honestly & addressed some tough questions & uncomfortable truths about the party
(& capitalism- that's what buying off pols is, an aspect of capitalism) just sent her
credibility sky high with me. Thank you Tulsi, & thank you Jimmy & the crew at TJDS.
Well done!
This entire interview, was nothing short of brilliant. Tulsi is the real deal. When Jimmy
mentions her & Bernie start a new party, her face said it all. She seemed genuinely
flattered and became very humble. Wish there was a "Tulsi Gabbard" in all 50 states. She
gives hope to people. Peace. And, thank you.
I hate to say it, but I remember another progressive politician who said all the right
things, at the right time: Barack Obama. I drank up that kool aid by the gallon, and voted
for him twice. Will Gabbard emerge from her first briefing as POTUS as a Stepford Wife of the
MIC, as Obama did? Will it be "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss" yet again? By 2013,
specifically after Ukraine and vilification of Snowden (not to mention Libya, Syria,
Iraq/ISIS, Afghanistan, Guantanamo, etc) I vowed to never vote for a Democrat again, after
pulling the lever for dems my entire life. I would vote for Gabbard as an independent in a
hot second, but unfortunately have no hope for her or her seemingly progressive agenda if she
stays tied to the corrupt and warmongering DNC.
Wow, I absolutely love every point she made, what a breath of fresh air. Our less popular presidents that have lost their second
term elections have lost them because.. their opponent was a breath of fresh air. She's going to win by an embarrassing margin,
wish her the best!
A very interesting interview. You need to listed to it in full to appreciates. Probably best interviewer so far interviewed
Tulsi, and Tulsi is really impressive. Cool, definitely high intellect, deep understanding of current US problems
Notable quotes:
"... I'm not a Democrat. I would vote for this person. Just saying. Elizabeth Warren didn't even support Bernie while Tulsi resigned to support Bernie ..."
"... Intellectually gifted. Well prepared. Emotionally stable. Able to change her ideas as life goes on, taking each issue as it comes. Vs a bunch of 70 year old maniacs who have never told the truth, never served, and have made deal with the devil to get where they are. Game over ..."
"... If the establishment weren't smearing her, I wouldn't trust her. They are, which means that she'll fight for working people, and against the neoconservative chickenhawks! ..."
"... Tulsi is the General Smedley Butler of today, someone who knows how war works and is brave enough to tell the truth. Please read his short book "War Is A Racket". Even though it was written in the 30's, as long as things are this way, it'll never go out of style. ..."
"... Let's put our egos aside and work together as citizens! Tell your friends to do the same to overthrow corporate establishment Kamala ..."
I'm a libertarian and love hearing Tulsi!! She's the antithesis of Hillary. Only dem I would support in 2020. Agree 100% with
her foreign policy views.
Combat vet, Currently serving in the Guard, rank of Major. Intellectually gifted. Well prepared. Emotionally stable. Able to change
her ideas as life goes on, taking each issue as it comes. Vs a bunch of 70 year old maniacs who have never told the truth, never
served, and have made deal with the devil to get where they are. Game over
B. Greene, 1 week ago
If the establishment weren't smearing her, I wouldn't trust her. They are, which means that she'll fight for working
people, and against the neoconservative chickenhawks!
Howard Sexton, 2 months ago
Damn! I am republican but she has my vote 🗳! I have never heard a politician talk this long without blaming the opposing
party. Just impressed
Zwart Poezeke, 1 week ago
Man she's smart, critical and actually comes off as honest. She really would be an inspiring leader. Guys I'm from Belgium,
so I can't vote, but do me a favor and vote for her
a_g60, 2 weeks ago
Tulsi Gabbard is the ultimate woman. That's why the DNC is colluding against her.
she's articulate and highly educated
she's extremely attractive
she was a combat medic
she's young
she has a great family
she gets all the attention of men
she's presidential
This is what a candidate looks like. Take notes!
Matthew Mauldon, 1 month ago
She is amazing and I would vote for her as president. It is very disturbing how she sheds light on how Saudi Arabia uses
our us military and how Saudi Arabia murdered many innocents and we said nothing and continue to support them. Also the level
of corruption of our politicians and how they mis use our troops without a care in the world. We need to wake up folks this is
not right
The Scapegoat Mechanism, 1 month ago
Obama was the thesis. Trump was the antithesis. Gabbard will be the synthesis.
Chris Jones, 5 months ago
I absolutely adore this woman. She gave up her Vice chair position in the DNC when she saw they were stealing the
nomination from Bernie. That's integrity.
Paul Peart-Smith, 1 week ago
Tulsi is the General Smedley Butler of today, someone who knows how war works and is brave enough to tell the truth.
Please read his short book "War Is A Racket". Even though it was written in the 30's, as long as things are this way, it'll
never go out of style.
algo, 5 days ago
See Joe, this woman has INTEGRITY, unlike that zionist warmongering shill Bari Weiss regurgitating her fed opinions which
she didn't even know the meaning of!
savita purohit, 2 months ago
this is what 1st female president of US should be like, not Clinton or that virtue signaling Warren, not Nikki either
Ryan Hamilton, 1 day ago (edited)
I'm a conservative, Republican, combat vet. I would follow her into combat. I would vote for her because she's a
pragmatist, puts America first, is skeptical of US foreign policy, and stands up for the little guy. There is some remarkable
overlap between the anti establishment populist left and anti establishment populist right.
Loro sono umano, 2 days ago
Don't forget to change party to Democrat to vote her in the primaries if you're Green, libertarian, independent, or
conservative, even if its temporary. Let's put our egos aside and work together as citizens! Tell your friends to do the
same to overthrow corporate establishment Kamala. Dont let the establishment get their way
Chico Christe Pace, 1 week ago
damn, I never thot there is an American politician who thinks this way. she sees the whole picture and made sense to it.
this lady is kick ass! :) you guys shd keep voting for her :) put her on the top seat, she can be the real hope for the US of
A :)
bestrainingtechnique, 4 months ago
So let me get this straight I don't know much about this woman, but from what I've seen in this interview she seems to be
very intelligent, rational, experienced, has military experience, extremely well spoken, and doesn't trust the mainstream
media and realizes that there are elements of our government that are basically unhinged and looking for war?? And is there
anyone on earth that wouldn't vote for her as president??? Would we really rather have an orange face reality star buffoon or
a war mongering lunatic who has no real experience except being married to a former president?
I really hope she runs as an independent, I think she would win in a landslide, since I think it is the perfect time in our
country where I think a non-Republican or Democrat can definitely win! The two party system needs to go!
Skemoo, 1 week ago
I came back after MSM and Jews started smearing her including Sam Harris. I cant sense any form of malevolence or evil in
her words or body language.. she seems like a sweet empathetic lady.
Im fuking angry that these ppl are smearing her. Im not an american but you ppl better wake the fuk up and vote her into
office i think she is fit to be the first female president. Hope Rogan doesnt do 180 and betray her . im surprized Sam harris
hates her.
David Paley, 1 week ago
If they can keep everyone in need of working 3 jobs just to make ends meet, and make healthcare too expensive to afford
proper care, the people will always be too busy, tired, and worn-out, to actively participate in the electoral process; the
only thing that might change things for the better. The elites know exactly what they're doing, so now they see this woman as
an existential threat, and the smear campaigns have already begun. I hope the sensible people in your country can support her
as much as she is trying to support you. Good luck in 2020, both to Tulsi, and America.
Tulsi Gabbard is a really next-level politician. Any amateur can be a traditional US racist
politician, but it takes skill to succeed in America as a Hindu-nationalist racist / tankie
Assad apologist.
"... I'm not against capitalism per se but unfettered free market capitalism is a disaster for everyone except the very few. The moves we've been making in that direction on both sides of the Atlantic over the past decades can clearly be shown to have concentrated wealth in the hands of the fewer and fewer. This is not a good thing. ..."
"... But there is an opportunity for Democrats. Trump has made a serious mess by being divisive and a liar. ..."
"... Would there be any practical difference on issues between Kamala Harris and Hillary Clinton? She reminds me of Hillary a lot more than more than Warren does. ..."
"... Warren's entire campaign will probably contain fewer P.R. fuckups than Trump does in any single week. I think people will get over her Native American mistake. ..."
"... Anyone who thinks truly unregulated Capitalism won't fuck the public, needs to go back to history class. It's been experimented with just like Communism has. ..."
"... I disagree. This gave us the industrial revolution and the gilded age. It didn't give us the middle class. The unions did that and we wouldn't have needed the "new deal" if is wasn't for Wilson. Wilson gave us the great depression. ..."
"... The reason I think of myself as a capitalist is because I want the means of production to stay with the private sector. Wilson gave monetary control to the private sector. I think fiscal and monetary control should have remained in the public sector. ..."
"... The Democrats push policies that also are bad policy. Affirmative action fundamentally is based on racism. It has not lead to a colorblind society and it serves as a convenient way to ignore problems rather than deal with them. Obamacare pushed expensive health care programs on people without cost controls. Democrats need to focus on infrastructure. ..."
"... I'm a self proclaimed capitalist. I just don't think deregulation will lead to anywhere other than where Marx said it would ..."
"... I do think Trump will be defeated in 2020. There are some serious, solid Democratic candidates on offer, and I think one of them will get the nomination ..."
"... Average white Americans support the GOP because the average white American fears facing minorities as a minority themselves, because they know how they've treated others. ..."
"... In has final state of the union address, Obama told the people that they get the government they deserve. I'm not really an Obama fan because a neoliberal is just a neocon wearing a blue blazer, but Obama was right and I gave him a lot more respect after he said it. ..."
"... I think the opioid crisis is caused by economic woes of the guy who can't get a living wage job. That problem isn't going away despite how well Trump says things are going (#2). Trickle down econ has never worked for the little guy and if the democrats nominate the right person, Trump will lose. ..."
I'm glad to take this opportunity to side with Wes here. I'm not against capitalism per se but unfettered free market capitalism
is a disaster for everyone except the very few. The moves we've been making in that direction on both sides of the Atlantic over
the past decades can clearly be shown to have concentrated wealth in the hands of the fewer and fewer. This is not a good thing.
But there is an opportunity for Democrats. Trump has made a serious mess by being divisive and a liar. Trump is
a would be dictator. It is unlikely Trump will get reelected since a lot of people see him for the psychopath that he is. But
he may get reelected if Democrats select a tone deaf person like Elizabeth Warren to lead them. She falsely claimed to be an
Indian. She reminds me of Hillary Clinton.
Democrats need someone who does not have faults similar to Trump. Amy Klobuchar, Kamala Harris, or someone else may be the
best choice. Democrats need to recognize how much of a disaster Hillary Clinton was for them.
Would there be any practical difference on issues between Kamala Harris and Hillary Clinton? She reminds me of Hillary
a lot more than more than Warren does.
Warren's entire campaign will probably contain fewer P.R. fuckups than Trump does in any single week. I think people will
get over her Native American mistake.
I know Trump has a nickname for Warren. He's gonna come up with nicknames for anyone he runs against. If that is a deal-breaker
then Trump will be running unopposed.
Anyone who thinks truly unregulated Capitalism won't fuck the public, needs to go back to history class. It's been experimented
with just like Communism has.
It failed for the same reason that Communism did -- you cannot make a few minor tweaks to human nature so the system works
better. You have to work with human nature exactly the way it really is.
Free market capitalism is a very simple concept: voluntary transactions among free people. This is what lifted the masses
out of poverty, created the middle class
I disagree. This gave us the industrial revolution and the gilded age. It didn't give us the middle class. The unions did
that and we wouldn't have needed the "new deal" if is wasn't for Wilson. Wilson gave us the great depression.
The reason I think of myself as a capitalist is because I want the means of production to stay with the private sector.
Wilson gave monetary control to the private sector. I think fiscal and monetary control should have remained in the public sector.
Your idea of capitalism will wind up with all the money in the hands of a few (no middle class) because people can make more
money without competition that with it. Deregulation leads to collision and the formation of cartels. The real hero was Teddy
Roosevelt (not FDR). He was the trust buster. When two competitors form a trust, that isn't capitalism by the free market. Instead
that is two capitalists trying to corner the market. That is a monopoly and together those two start to lock the small business
man out of the market. It kills the middle class.
The reality is political parties don't do a good job governing. Trump is a train wreck. But there are a lot of Republicans who
hate immigrants and black people. And that is his base. It is not just Republicans who push bad policy.
The Democrats push policies that also are bad policy. Affirmative action fundamentally is based on racism. It has not lead
to a colorblind society and it serves as a convenient way to ignore problems rather than deal with them. Obamacare pushed expensive
health care programs on people without cost controls. Democrats need to focus on infrastructure.
But there is an opportunity for Democrats. Trump has made a serious mess by being divisive and a liar. Trump is a would be
dictator. It is unlikely Trump will get reelected since a lot of people see him for the psychopath that he is. But he may get
reelected if Democrats select a tone deaf person like Elizabeth Warren to lead them. She falsely claimed to be an Indian. She
reminds me of Hillary Clinton.
Democrats need someone who does not have faults similar to Trump. Amy Klobuchar, Kamala Harris, or someone else may be the
best choice. Democrats need to recognize how much of a disaster Hillary Clinton was for them.
California has always been a leader among the States. Whether that continues remains to be seen. I hope it does.
The US may look weak right now to other countries. But I think that is a wrong conclusion. Our economy is strong despite poor
political leadership over the last fifty years. Trump is an aberration. I don't see China overtaking the US. In particular, Xi
Jinping will be dictator for life and he makes bad decisions. He likely will strike an alliance with Russia and find out too late
that he made a mistake. Putin seeks to turn China into a colony. Democracy may not be pretty, but it auto-corrects itself over
time.
However "capitalism" isn't capitalism for the poor and socialism for the rich.
No, that is known as progressivism. Free market capitalism is a very simple concept: voluntary transactions among free people
.
This is what lifted the masses out of poverty, created the middle class, and has not existed in the "free world" since Wilson
saddled us with the income tax and the central bank (a.k.a the Federal Reserve) and FDR sealed the deal by imposing his fascist,
disastrous New Deal.
You are no more a capitalist than I am an Etruscan. You are a big-government statist that likes just enough "free enterprise"
to support the ruling class who will pass on some of their loot to whomever you think deserves it. You don't realize that "regulation"
is a ruse to protect large business interests from competition while providing the appearance of accountability.
In other words, you are a progressive, just like most of the U.S. population, be they the left-wing Dems or so-called right-wing
GOP.
Together, they have utterly corrupted and bankrupted the nation, just as leftists do everywhere and always when they seize
control of a nation.
Given that socialists of one flavor or another slaughtered " https://fee.org/articles/death-by-government/?gclid=CjwKCAiAqaTjBRAdEiwAOdx9xnneMhaqvHwARaE8iFvo3WVN265UO8PYklsV_XOTpjoRd78M97ulYRoC7fQQAvD_BwE">slaughtered
close to 170 million souls in the last century, I'm not sure "tribal" is the proper term.
To this day, one can walk the streets of major western cities and see ignorant barbarian leftists (or do I repeat myself)
glorifying their favorite mass-murderers such as Lenin, Mao and Che on T-Shirts and windows.
And now, of course, in Congress, where borderline morons like AOC want to accomplish a "massive transformation of our society"
via a "special panel" of commissars to dictate all aspects of the energy economy.
One can only speculate if during her Boston University education she was ever exposed to the terms "Bolshevik", "USSR",
"Dictatorship of the Proletariat", "Purge", "Holodomor", and, particularly apropos, "Politburo" and "Cultural Revolution".
If she was, any lesson to be learned was clearly lost in the vacuous fog wafting about between her ears.
You can call the rejection and demonization of these wannabe totalitarian monsters, along with the "community organizers"
and "educators" that taught them to be useful idiots "tribalism" if you like.
Those of us who actually know something of history and reality will just keep calling it "saving civilization
So I guess you hate the 1940s-70s America the.
Getting the extreme private profits out of healthcare?
Getting education costs back under control?
Taxing the very (not mildly) rich?
This proposed "transformation of society" is not to a new form, it's to undo the right-wing transformation since Reagan.
We already tried it your way. We've done it for 40 years. Every time we got the opposite effect of what was promised, we tried
doubling down harder on it. It just kept getting WORSE. It's time for the right wing to admit it that it has been a total trainwreck.
If this was your idea of a good plan then your judgment is flawed.
Great. we can have a rational conversation if you like
As for moving elsewhere, why should we?
You shouldn't. if you love the constitution then stay and fight for her. Your posts were sounding like you were trying to get
around her. Seemed like it would just be easier to move away. We need help. Rational people can help. Patriotic Americans will
help
I call it tribalism when one wishes to see things as either supply-side econ or socialism. I'm a self proclaimed capitalist.
I just don't think deregulation will lead to anywhere other than where Marx said it would.
Socialism isn't the answer per se because it doesn't work as well as capitalism. However "capitalism" isn't capitalism for
the poor and socialism for the rich. Capitalism is only self regulating when competition is preserved, so if the people at the
top believe "competition is a sin" the so called free market isn't free any more. If you can talk about that, you aren't being
tribal. If you cannot, reason isn't really a part of this. It is more about whose side you are on and less about who is trying
to look at this using reason.
Unfortunately the way the democrats silenced Omar, I'm betting they have no intention of nominating somebody that can beat
Trump.
I don't think Ilhan Omar was silenced, only (and justly) criticised for her use of anti-Semitic tropes. Criticism of the Israeli
government's actions and policies, OTOH, are fair game. And I do think Trump will be defeated in 2020. There are some serious,
solid Democratic candidates on offer, and I think one of them will get the nomination. (I'm backing
John Delaney , BTW.)
What I've been discussing is the feasibility of seceding and the reasons for it.
I would argue that it is definitely feasible. However I don't think it is plausible. There are a few different directions you
could go and I don't think you are picking the path that is:
1. most likely to succeed and
2. the least painful whether it is successful or not
Why you want to secede is well articulated even if I don't agree. If you want what you want, take the best means in order to
achieve the goal. For example, if you like authoritarianism, wouldn't it be easier to move to China rather than risk killing a
bunch of people and doing it your way? You say you like the constitution but instead of learning about who is messing with it,
you assume the people with whom you agree, don't threaten it. They do. They don't like the 2nd amendment. They don't like the
electoral college. They'd just as soon rewrite the constitution rather than read it first.
Average white Americans support the GOP because the average white American fears facing minorities as a minority themselves,
because they know how they've treated others.
You know, that "Do unto others" thing? That's what a large lot white Americans fear, and why they support the GOP. The ones
who don't tend to live in California and other West Coast states.
In has final state of the union address, Obama told the people that they get the government they deserve. I'm not really an
Obama fan because a neoliberal is just a neocon wearing a blue blazer, but Obama was right and I gave him a lot more respect after
he said it.
Some people just want to be told the truth.
Others don't even care what the truth is.
I think the opioid crisis is caused by economic woes of the guy who can't get a living wage job. That problem isn't going
away despite how well Trump says things are going (#2). Trickle down econ has never worked for the little guy and if the democrats
nominate the right person, Trump will lose.
Unfortunately the way the democrats
silenced
Omar , I'm betting they have no intention of nominating somebody that can beat Trump. Both parties are in bed with AIPAC.
That means their constituents come second and the rationally thinking person isn't inspired by the democrats.
its the media; they are brainwashing people and it is working. if there was no free internet, they'd have an excuse, but anybody
with access to the G ought to know better. The media BS doesn't stand up in the face of honest debate and hyperlinks.
this 2 hour interview sheds so much light on things
inquiring minds would like to know, imho.
Most of the rest chose to cast their lot with Trump and the Republicans, and with supply-side economics and trickle down,
with predictable and predicted results.
I'm not a supply sider, but I am a self proclaimed capitalist. I detest deregulation and I'm pro union. Trump should have been
impeached the day he went on TV and told why he fired Comey.
1. The media is broken
2. Congress is broken
It may be a better chess move to try to fix what is broken (don't expect a broken Congress to impeach Trump), instead of trying
to make an enemy of the most powerful military on earth by trying to leave the union. You don't have the legal right nor the military
means to pull that off.
Tulsi Gabbard's platform
is closely aligned with Senator Bernie Sanders' platform – the platform supported by millions and millions of American working class
during his 2016 presidential campaign.
In fact, one of two things are most likely to happen next:
Tulsi Gabbard remains true to her ideals and views and she gets no money for her campaign Tulsi Gabbard caves in to the Neocons and
the Deep State and she become another Obama/Trump
Okay, in theory, a third option is possible (never say never!) but I see that as highly unlikely: Tulsi Gabbard follows in the
footsteps of Trump and gets elected in spite of a massive media hate-campaign against her and once she makes it to the White House
she does what Trump failed to do and appeals directly to the people of the USA to back her in a ruthless campaign to "drain the swamp"
(meaning showing the door to the Neocons and their Deep State). This is what Putin did, at least partially, when he came to power,
by the way. Frankly, for all her very real qualities she does not strike me as a "US Putin" nor does she have the kind of institutional
and popular backing Putin had. So while I will never say never, I am not holding my breath on this one
Finally, if Gabbard truly is "for real" then the Deep State will probably "Kennedy" her and blame Russia or Iran for it.
Still, while we try to understand what, if anything, Tulsi Gabbard could do for the world, she does do good posting messages like
this one:
I don't know about you, but I am rather impressed!
At the very least, she does what "Occupy Wall Street" did with its "1%" which was factually wrong. The actual percentage is much
lower but politically very effective. In this case, Gabbard speaks of both parties being alike and she popularizes concepts like
" warmongers in ivory towers thinking up new wars to wage and new places for people to die ". This is all very good and useful
for the cause of peace and anti-imperialism because when crimethink concepts become mainstream, then the mainstream is collapsing
!
The most important achievement of Tulsi Gabbard, at least so far, has been to prove that the so-called "liberals" don't give a
damn about race, don't give a damn about gender, don't give a damn about minorities, don't give a damn about "thanking our veterans"
or anything else. They don't even care about Israel all that much. But what they do care about is power, Empire and war. That they
really care about.
Tulsi Gabbard is the living proof that the US Democrats and other pretend "liberals" are hell bent on power, empire and war. They
also will stop at nothing to prevent the USA from (finally!) becoming a "normal" country and they couldn't care less about the fate
of the people of the USA. All they want is for us all to become their serfs.
All of this is hardly big news. But this hysterical reaction to Gabbard's candidacy is a very powerful and useful proof of the
fact that the USA is a foreign-occupied country with no real sovereignty or democracy. As for the US media, it would make folks like
Suslov or Goebbels green with envy. Be it
the ongoing US aggression
against Venezuela or the reaction to the Tulsi Gabbard phenomenon, the diagnostics concur and we can use the typical medical
euphemism and say with confidence: "the prognosis is poor".
In fact, one of two things are most likely to happen next:
– Tulsi Gabbard remains true to her ideals and views and she gets no money for her campaign
– Tulsi Gabbard caves in to the Neocons and the Deep State and she become another Obama/Trump
I think it is unlikely that Tulsi Gabbard caves in so soon. The way she has started her campaign, she is certainly aware that
she has cut off herself from the normal donors of Democrats, and the way she talks shows that she is not afraid of alienating
them even more because she won't get money from them, anyway. The plan is to do the same like Bernie Sanders 2016 and raise small
donations. Many Democratic candidates now say they don't take PAC money, but there are different ways of getting money from big
donors – Tulsi Gabbard is probably one of those who are more serious about avoiding reliance on big donors. It could work. In
2016, during the primaries, Hillary Clinton regularly had to interrupt her campaign in order to attend dinners with superrich
donors, while Bernie Sanders asked people to donate as a part of his campaign on social media, and Sanders regularly outraised
Clinton. Of course, 2016, we just saw that for the primaries, but it might also work for the general election (and numbers are
not everything, Hillary Clinton spent far more than Donald Trump and still lost, so even if small donations would lead to a somewhat
lower sum, she could still win with a popular message). And not only could it work, I think it would be the only way for Tulsi
Gabbard to succeed because she has probably already been too outspoken about some things to ever gain back the trust of the neocons
and their allies in the media and the billionaire donor class.
Of course, if Tulsi Gabbard advances in the primaries, she will be attacked most viciously in the media. I am not so sure what
the effect will be. On one hand, Trump's victory in the primaries and the general election showed that being hated by mainstream
media does not have to be an obstacle that cannot be surmounted, and as long as there are so many primary candidates, such vicious
attacks can also make her seem more interesting to some people. On the other hand, her main hurdle are probably the Democratic
primaries, and, according to polls, Democrats have lost trust in the mainstream media to a lesser degree than the general public.
But then again, vilifying her too much in the liberal media (as it has already started) is also a certain risk for them because
it could become too obvious to see that the decisive feature that leads to such attacks is that someone is not seen as reliably
pro-neocon, and that could also lead to doubts about the media in leftists who readily accepted the attacks on Trump because they
hated him for other reasons. Therefore, I think the main hope of the establishment is that Tulsi Gabbard can be treated as a „minor
candidate" and won't get far, in case she becomes a serious contender for the nomination, they are in trouble.
If Tulsi Gabbard wins the nomination, we can almost be certain that the pro-neocon establishment will a) see a re-election
of Trump as the lesser evil and b) they will support a pro-establishment third party candidate (already last time, Michael Bloomberg
threatened to run if the two major candidates are Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, now Howard Schultz seems to have positioned
himself that way, though I think he is too ridiculous and ineffective and will be replaced by someone else if the establishment
needs a third party candidate because they lose the Democratic primaries). Such a third party candidate probably increases the
chances of Trump's re-election (probably a desired side-effect, many of these liberal oligarchs probably prefer Trump to Gabbard
and Sanders by far, but it would be difficult for them to support Trump in public, supporting a third party candidate is much
easier), but a populist campaign against both Trump and that third party candidate as representatives of a corrupt billionaire
class might well be successful.
Then, if Tulsi Gabbard is elected, she certainly runs the risk of ending like JFK, but the fact that so many people now already
talk and write about this risk might also protect her to some degree – the danger is so obvious that many people won't believe
theories about a lonewolf terrorist easily (and blaming Russia and Iran after Tulsi Gabbard had been vilified as an Assadist and
Russian trolls' favorite candidate would also be difficult, if for some reasons relations with Saudi Arabia are not seen as so
important any more, the more realistic option of blaming Saudi terrorists may be chosen). Another option would be to impeach her,
though that could also be a big risk for the establishment, and depending on who would be her VP, it would not be enough. Of course,
there could be bipartisan agreement about blocking all of her initiatives.
Even if she is extremely smart and tough, alone against the united forces of the deep state, establishment media and the bipartisan
war party, Tusli Gabbard probably could not achieve very much – of course, she would still be commander in chief and probably
could prevent new wars, and she could open some people's eyes about who really holds power, but she could hardly achieve very
much. The question is whether she still might get some institutional support like Putin when he became president. I think that
is not so unlikely because there are indications that the deep state is internally divided (one small example is that the communications
of Lisa Page and Peter Strzok were published) and that the neocons' grip on power is far from total. Therefore, it does not seem
impossible that with a combination of support in the general public (and she certainly has the potential of becoming very popular)
and the support of parts of the deep state that have not been subdued by the neocons, she might be successful – it would be a
very harsh power struggle.
As far as caving in to Israel is concerned, Tulsi Gabbard has never been too critical of Israel – there was some relatively
mild criticism of attacks on Gaza (in a way that is fairly common among progressives), but in general, she has not been too critical
of Israel and has also had some friendly contacts with the pro-Israel lobby. So, while she is very strong and consistent in rejecting
neocons and their regime change wars, as far as Israel and Palestinians' rights are concerned, people should probably not expect
too much from her. But if she is serious about fighting the neocons and limiting the power of the military-industrial complex
and still could win an election, that would already be a big achievement.
After witnessing the temper tirades and the teeth gnashing of the deep states media minions after the anti-war-lite Donald Trump
got elected, I'm guessing Tulsi Gabbard is in for one of two things:
1) The 2012 Ron Paul treatment – total media blackout
Or
2) A media Blitzkrieg that will depend on outright lies to discredit her – in which case she might as well bring a hat and a broom
to most debates.
I don't think American Democracy(AKA Empire) is in any mood for another spoiler
By the way, check out how Rep. Ilhan Omar grills that sorry SOB Abrams here:
http://thesaker.is/rep-ilhan-omar-vs-elliott-abrams/
. This young lady clearly has more courage and integrity that all her colleagues taken together!
This is one of the few things I agree with Ilhan Omar about. Abrams is a felonious, warmongering prick.
She is very photogenic. So is Kamala Harris.
Projecting an anti-war position against promoting the bonafides of her army service will be quite the balancing act of cognitive
dissonance, but opposite the hyper-masculine affect a candidate like Trump or Hillary must emote to neutralize an absence of military
experience in their résumé.
Then there's that first husband and her family's political machine.
But damn, Tulsi and Kamala photograph impeccably well from every angle.
What are the chances outside of India that three potential presidential candidates of the female persuasion all share a common
ethnic background, Nimrata Haley, Tulsi and Kamala? No coincidence there.
Finding all this information below takes less time than burning a cigarette.
United Christians for Israel, founded and led by pastor John Hagee, have millions of members and call themselves "the largest
pro-Israel charity in the United States." The organization was an important factor in the decision of US President Donald Trump
in 2017 to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and to transfer the US embassy there.
Gabbard sponsored the resolution of the Congress criticizing Amnesty International for revealing Israeli atrocities against
civilians in his blitzkrieg in Gaza in 2014. The resolution stated that Israel "focuses on terrorist targets" and "goes to extraordinary
efforts to attack only terrorist actors". https://www.counterpunch.org/2014/10/22/gaza-and-the-bi-partisan-war-on-human-rights/
Zionism and Islamophobia Gabbard have gained recognition and support from all kinds of unpalatable characters – like right-wing
billionaire and Zionist Sheldon Adelson, who loudly declared that "all Muslims are terrorists".
In addition to Israel's loyal defender, Gabbard has also proved to be a credible servant of Adelson's business interests. Introduced
regulations against online gambling to protect the casino's empire from competition on the Internet. Adelson thanked her, giving
her the Champion of Freedom award. http://time.com/3695948/sheldon-adelson-online-gambling/
Her prejudices against Islam directly stem from her Hindu fundamentalism. Gabbard became one of the main American political
supporters of Narendra Modi, the leader of the Hindu sectarian party Bharatiya Janata (BJP) and the current Prime Minister of
India.
Being the main minister of the Indian state of Gujarat in 2002, Modi helped spark a pogrom against Muslims, in which they killed
2,000 people and displaced over 200,000 people in the ethnic cleansing campaign. Since his victory in the 2014 elections, Modi
has been a decidedly pro-Israeli Indian politician and has strong relations with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
At the invitation of Modi, Gabbard traveled through India for three weeks during which various Hindu fundamentalists greeted
her as their American master. In probably the worst part of the tour, the India Foundation, a formation tuned to the Hindu fascist
group Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), hosted Gabbard to discuss the future of Indian-American relations. After the reactionary
lovefest, the Indian newspaper Telegraph called it "the American Sangha mascot" https://www.telegraphindia.com/india/sangh-finds-a-mascot-in-american-tulsi/cid/1579985
After returning to the USA, Gabbard defended Modi against any criticism. She was one of the few democrats who spoke against
the federal government's decision to refuse a Modi visa in 2014 because of his abolition of religious freedom
As with other leading liberal democrats, Gabbard's alleged progressive values do not extend to the Palestinian struggle for
freedom. While she may support the resistance of Indian Native at Standing Rock, she will not support the indigenous people of
Palestine and her struggle for self-determination against Israeli colonialism. http://socialistworker.org/2014/08/13/liberal-champions-of-apartheid
Yawn. Tulsi, Bernie, Corbyn – doesn't matter. The ruling elites have the power to co-opt, demonize or kill them. And, that regime
is desperate enough to do this.
We are all waiting for the tectonic impact of some external shocks. Because the system is fragile, over-ripe. Collapse of debt
bubbles, an infectious disease epidemic, a rogue general fires off some nukes. Whatever. Just passes the Global Tipping Point,
then, everything disintegrates. The centre cannot hold. And at that point the tensions release and people go nuts. The regime
divides against itself; the roof falls in. The whole world is waiting, expecting this to happen in some way or form.
Go and max out your credit card, get hard stuff, don't pay, stop buying anything. A few millions doing that. Empty your bank
account. Stop paying your mortgage and car loan. Make them chase you. Work to precipitate the Big One. Help tear the fabric beyond
its tensile strength. Do your bit.
Don't expect to see Tulsi on your side of the barricades.
@Rich1234
Nimrata Randhawa Haley is of Punjabi Sikh ancestry on both sides, genetically closer to southern Europeans than to most Indians.
Kamala Harris is descended from South Indian brahmins on her mother's side. You can't get more Aryan than that – look up the
word. And she is Jamaican on her father's side. I haven't seen a picture of him but I imagine he's about as black as fellow Jamaican
Colin Powell. An octoroon to use that old-fashioned term. But Negro blood was considered so polluting that just a smidgeon put
you with the lower race. It's still working like that, but in victim politics less is more.
Tulsi Gabbard had a WASP mother who became a member of Swami Bhaktivedanta's Krishna devotees. Her father was Polynesian. There's
no genes from India. It's a mistake to think of her religion as Hindu, but it's her mistake as well as that of many Indians. Hinduism
is not *a* religion because Hinduism is the liberating realization that the idea of *a* religion is very shallow. It is a pleasure
to see Tulsi, in videos, going about her devotions.
.. "drain the swamp" (meaning showing the door to the Neocons and their Deep State). This is what Putin did, at least partially,
when he came to power, by the way.
a good article, overall.
Especially:
USA "liberals" do not refer to folks with liberal ideas, but to folks who are hell-bent on imperialism and war; folks who
don't care one bit about any real "liberal" values and who use a pseudo-liberal rhetoric to advocate for war outside the USA
and for a plutocratic dictatorship inside the USA.
Apparently, US public figures like Gabbard and Trump still don't understand the simple fact that NO amount of grovelling
will EVER appease the Neocons or the Ziolobby
the so-called "liberals" don't give a damn about race, don't give a damn about gender, don't give a damn about minorities,
don't give a damn about "thanking our veterans" or anything else. They don't even care about Israel all that much. But what
they do care about is power, Empire and war. That they really care about.
It's interesting to see the prompt [13] Democrat party oppo based on the "right-wing Indian agent" smear. It's exactly analogous
to Democrat/CIA attack on "Russian puppet" Trump, when Democrats had absolutely nothing to offer in lieu of a famous loathsome
TV asshole they hand-picked to beat like a drum and then lost to.
If it were the case that Tulsi were an Indian fifth-column traitor, like Rubio is a Israeli fifth-column traitor, So what?
Objective indicators of world-standard state responsibilities show that the state of India is more developed, more legitimate,
and more entitled to responsible sovereignty than the US government. India exceeds US performance on most of the top-level human
rights indicators.
You can see for yourself, in whatever level of detail you desire, with NGO input exhaustively compiled by elected independent
international experts acting in their personal capacity.
Tulsi's exposure to superior Indian human-rights compliance is likely to build her capacity in terms of Responsibility to Protect
Pillar 2. She will have a better understanding of rights and rule of law than provincial goober candidates with no international
exposure. That will necessarily influence her evolving stance on systematic and widespread Israeli extermination of Palestinian
indigenous peoples.
I have never voted for a Democrat. I plan to vote for Gabbard. I have contributed to her campaign. I cringe at her progressive
agenda, but I fully support her positions on non-intervention.
@der einzige
Hope is such a frail and tenuous emotion.
That said, l'm investing some of my dwindling reserves of hope in Tulsi. Your comments are very considered, and l share your concerns
for peace with the current play of Theo-politics. Modi is an unapologetic Hindu chauvinist who has successfully incited brutal
communalism for electoral gain. But my personal loathing of him has ameliorated over time (I shock myself!) because he has steered
a pretty independent course for India, maintaining friendly relations with China for example,despite U.S. pressure to use India
as a wedge. His Hinduva ideology appears to be a domestic political tool. This is a cunning but pragmatic approach and is distinct
from a religious ideology with global ambitions. The latter is the province of Zionism which is not really a religion but has
(other) religious affiliations or "allies",including Hinduism but most importantly Christian zionism (or evangelicism or dispensationalism
et al). It seems to me that a lot of what Trump is doing re. "Jerusalem as the capital of Israel" is to appease the Christian
Zionists who comprise a large chunk of his support base, and not American Jewry.(They are democrats as a foregone conclusion).There
is great irony in this if you follow the fantastical narrative of the Christian evangelical apocalypse.
Political ambitions are the scourge of religion.I attend an Anglican Church,very traditional, because my preferred form of worship
is hymn singing-the sung mass for Eucharist.I do this in contradistinction(!) to evangelicism. Unfortunately Islam too undergone
a political makeover in recent history which has led to un utter corruption of prophet Mohammad's words.It's apogee is Wahhabism,
a fad made manifest through money and power and war. Shia is also Islam, but not according to Wahhabis,who do not even relate
to Shia as "self-hating Moslems."And do not imagine that the Moslem brotherhood is any better for all the acceptable styling.
Sunnism needs to detach itself from ideology.God is in the poetry and not the small print.
Thanks for your patience with my digression. The Saker suggests we examine the Tulsi phenomenon as a diagnostic tool.
This may be useful. But Tulsi as a Hindi wooden horse?
She cannot be anti war without being anti Israel. Her candidacy is going nowhere.
It would be nice to have an anti war voice in the debates but Gabbard will be adrift in a sea of idiots. How many candidates
will there be for the Democratic nomination? Twenty? Eighty? All of them competing for who hates whitey the most. Featuring as
a side show Biden and Bernie expressing their shame at their skin color.
If Gabbard wants to be heard she should switch parties and primary Trump. Let him defend his Israel first foreign policy.
She is the only prominent politician in the commander-in-chief discussion who has served in Iraq or Afghanistan. Is there a poll
on her standing with the military demographic? An argument can be made that her credibility on fighting more war or fighting less
war is an order of magnitude higher than a dozen Trumps, Clintons, et al all put together.
She has seen firsthand the pointlessness of the waste of blood and treasure. How can you root against Gabbard? She is near
the only elected official to get any positive press at anitwar.com.
I have a somewhat contrary analysis although admittedly, it's not based on much.
Tulsi's speech patterns closely resemble Hillary Clinton's. I put this down to various leadership classes they attended which
likely have a common source. I think we are seeing a divergence of opinion in the Deep State with some wanting Globalism, while
others are unwilling to accept the destruction of the United States as a price for Globalism. Call them the Fortress America
wing of the Deep State. They want to rebuild America and preserve its wealth and autonomy while moving toward a world government.
In other words, Tulsi could emerge as the candidate of the MAGA section of the Deep State.
As for Trump, he is waist deep in the Swamp fighting for his life against pretty much everybody. If Omar had her way he would
be impeached. Trump's support among Republicans is the only thing keeping from being impeached. His partisan attacks are probably
designed to signal his willingness to lead the fight for Republicans, hoping they will defend him in return.
You make such a convincing case that you've painted yourself into a corner. Your point is that the Ziocons or whatever you call
them are so bent on war and empire that they'll destroy anyone who tries to get in their way.
To be credible, because your claim is so extreme, you'd need to explain the abnormal psychology that drives this will to domination.
Can you do that? If not, your article -- and a number of your others -- come off as routine Jew- and liberal-bashing. The bashing
may or may not be deserved depending on your point of view. But that would be all it is: standard prejudice and bigotry in what
you seem to take as a good cause.
We see from where we've been. I supported Ron Paul. He was ignored, and then cheated.
Voting for Washington wannabes is like watching just the "good programs" on TV, or patronizing the non-disgusting movies that
manage to emerge from Hollywood. Those doing so endorse and prop up the tottering, rotten Establishment.
Another very important thing Tulsi is doing is being a completely different person from Trump but hammering home the same Trump
campaign message against the war-lusting elites.
If it wasn't for her, the media and elite mafia could marginalize this entire argument. They'll never let the population vote
on these points because then, the jig will be up.
A media blackout of Tulsi will only work if people continue to get their information from the boob tube and newspapers. Why is
anyone still expecting to get the truth from the MSM? Anyone with half a brain and an internet connection should be able to follow
her. Tell all of your grandparents, uncles, and other old fogies to throw away CNN, NYT, Fox, WaPo, NBC, etc. and find the truth
online.
@jacques
sheete The Anti-federalist's never had a chance, nor would Aloha Tulsi. The Boston tea party itself was a false flag attempting
to pass blame on to the Indians. How typically American. Lexington was caused by the that same Sam Adams and his free masons from
the green dragon, who were firing at both the British and the Militia's, just like they did in Maidan 5 years ago. The US revolution
in 1776 was just another Masonic color revolution on behalf of the Rothschild's. These are the same guys who killed Kennedy and
pulled off 9/11. Now they have Trump 100% corralled and black balled, and he is one of them anyway.
That was when Wonder Woman Tulsi came surfin' into the Washington swamp, all ready to drain it.
True – "The most important achievement of Tulsi Gabbard, at least so far, has been to prove that the so-called "liberals" don't
give a damn about race, don't give a damn about gender, don't give a damn about minorities, don't give a damn about "thanking
our veterans" or anything else. They don't even care about Israel all that much. But what they do care about is power, Empire
and war. That they really care about. Tulsi Gabbard is the living proof that the US Democrats and other pretend "liberals" are
hell bent on power, empire and war."
The average Liberal voter thinks that Conservatives love Empire while Liberals oppose empires. Likewise, the average Middle
American Republican voter thinks America is anything but the new British Empire and that America is always fighting against those
bad empires and so must be very active globally to do good and prevent even worse bad.
True – "As for the US media, it would make folks like Suslov or Goebbels green with envy."
The Anglo-Zionist Empire: the inherent fruit of Anglo-Saxon Puritanism that was not stopped dead in its tracks.
It will get worse before it can get better. It cannot be corrected without a rejection of WASP culture, which is replaced with
an authentically Christian culture.
Tulsi Gabbard presents bill to stop Trump from pulling out of INF treaty
Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard has introduced a bill to Congress which would prevent President Donald Trump
from withdrawing the US from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF).
Speaking at a press conference on Friday morning, Gabbard said that Trump's decision to pull out of the 1988 treaty was
"reckless," was "exacerbating a new Cold War" with Russia, and could spark another arms race.
"Walking away from this agreement doesn't solve our problems, it makes them worse. It doesn't bring us closer to peace,
it moves us closer to war," she said.
I am hoping that Gabbard is the next president because it would mean Hindus beat Jews to the White House, and if she serves a
full term she will be the first nonprotestant* president to serve a full term, take that Catholics. She will be sworn in with
her hand on the Bhagavad Gita, bah ha hah ha. The Evangelicals will go berserk (I hope). She declared herself Hindu as a teen,
was she baptized?
* Jimmy Carter was 'born again' so he might be the first non main line Protestant or even nonProtestant.
@JL
I think both the anti-war Left and anti-war Right are sizeable and growing. Speaking of the Dissident Right, which I am more in
tune with, we just need a courageous leader to rally around. Right now the Dissident Right is more reliably anti-war than any
other faction.
But, really, the dissident right is not doctrinaire right at all as they are against Big Business and reject Libertarianism.
Tulsi probably doesn't even want the open support of the dissident right (very few are racist white supremacists, although the
media has tarred us all with that brush)...
@Biff1) The 2012 Ron Paul treatment – total media blackout
Or
2) A media Blitzkrieg that will depend on outright lies to discredit her – in which case she might as well bring a hat and a broom
to most debates.
But what about social media? The MSM mostly ignored Bernie Sanders but he got a huge boost.
I think the real problem with Tulsi is she comes across as too calm for politics. She's not low-energy like Jeb, but she lacks
fire.
Also, I'm not sure most progs would be interested in her anti-war platform. They liked Bernie because his message was mostly
domestic: Free Stuff!
Americans are anti-war only when too many Americans are getting killed overseas. In the Obama yrs, the US perfected a new way
of Open Borders War where US uses proxies to destroy other nations. So, most Americans don't care.
@Robert
Bruce It's the same 'bait and switch' strategy, that occurs every 4 years. Why change a strategy when the old one works so
well? To date, Trump holds the record for fooling the largest number of people, with anti-war candidate, John Kerry coming in
a distant 2nd.
I suppose there is also a fourth option: Tulsi Gabbard keeps her no-war stance, and follows in the footsteps of Trump and gets
elected in spite of a massive media hate-campaign against her and once she makes it to the White House she does what Trump did
and caves.
As the narrative of a 'racist, homophobic
attack' on actor Jussie Smollett in Chicago continues to collapse, politicians and celebrities
who fueled the outrage over the incident are quietly backing away and hoping no one
notices.
Every soldier knows this simple fact: If you don't know your enemy, you will not be able to defeat him. Tulsi
Gabbard Simple , Soldier , Enemy "'Knives are out': Hawaii Dem faces backlash for taking on Obama over 'Islamist' extremism".
Interview with Malia Zimmerman, www.foxnews.com. February 28, 2015.
Through my time in the military and my deployments, I have recognized the importance of having a Commander in Chief who will
not only go after those who threaten the safety and security of the American people, but who will also exercise good judgment
and foresight in stopping these failed interventionist wars of regime change that have cost our country so much in human lives,
untold suffering, and trillions of dollars. Source:
www.glamour.com
>The cost of war impacts all of us - both in the human cost and the cost that's being felt frankly in places like Flint, Michigan,
where families and children are devastated and destroyed by completely failed infrastructure because of lack of investment. Source:
www.glamour.com
Students are suffering under incredibly high tuitions and high student loan interest rates. They graduate from school, and
they're having a very difficult time finding a job. They don't feel as though there are honest leaders who are listening to them,
and who will be a part of the solution. Source:
www.glamour.com
It makes no sense for us to consider going back there and getting involved in what truly is a religious civil war. What real
difference would it make on the ground? And secondly, is it in the best interests of the United States to do that? I would say
that those questions are not being answered in a compelling way that would cause me to support that.
"Gabbard: Back to Iraq 'makes no
sense'" by Jonathan Topaz, www.politico.com. June 13, 2014.
Hawaii is a special place because we have a very diverse population there, who are very respectful and tolerant of those who
have differing opinions and different views.
A military mindset is objectively analyzing a planned course of action and anticipating the likely consequences before you
take that action. Source:
www.glamour.com
It's easy to say, let's go in and get the bad guys. But you have a divided country of Sunnis and Shias. The United States goes
and takes action there on behalf of the Iraqi government. You've got Iran coming in and saying we're going to stand with Iraqi
Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, so now we're aligning ourselves with Iran, and if we do air strikes, becoming de facto air force
for them. "The Lead with Jake Tapper", www.cnn.com.
June 12, 2014.
I'm not a political pundit, and I don't follow these things probably as closely as others, but there are polls that have shown
that Senator Bernie Sanders can beat Donald Trump and, I believe, some of the other Republican candidates as well. Source:
www.glamour.com
As a soldier, I've served with the most brave people in an institution that's built on integrity, honor, and duty. This is
why I'm working very hard to support Senator Bernie Sanders - not only to get through the Democratic primary, but also to win
the presidency. He is the only candidate on both sides who understands the cost of war, who has that foresight to keep our country
safe, and who will make sure that our military power is not being when and where it shouldn't be. Source:
www.glamour.com
I volunteered to deploy to Iraq. I was one of the few soldiers who were not on the mandatory deployment roster - close to 3,000
Hawaii soldiers were.
Hopefully the presence in Congress of an American who happens to be Hindu will increase America's understanding of India as
well as India's understanding of America.
"... Due to her antiwar stance in Syria, Gabbard was at one point rumored to be a potential candidate to head Trump's State Department, and even met with the president-elect at Trump Tower in November 2016, but nothing came of it. ..."
"... In January 2017, she traveled to Syria on a fact-finding trip, outraging the Washington establishment. She has also proposed a bill to outlaw US weapons sales to terrorists. ..."
"... It is unclear whether Gabbard will get much traction among the establishment Democrats, who she has frequently disagreed with on foreign policy issues. ..."
"... So many entrenched bipartisan interests fear the foreign policy debate her presence on the campaign trail will provoke. Look for more obsessive attacks in Omidyar's the Interventionist, republished in his local Hawaii paper. ..."
Due to her antiwar stance in Syria, Gabbard was at one point rumored to be a potential candidate to head Trump's State Department,
and even met with the president-elect at Trump Tower in November 2016, but nothing came of it.
In January 2017, she traveled to Syria on a fact-finding trip,
outraging the
Washington establishment. She has also proposed a bill to
outlaw US weapons
sales to terrorists.
Gabbard first sparked rumors of a 2020 run
in December , when she toured Iowa and New
Hampshire, the first two states to host nationwide party primary elections.
Inspired by the party's strong showing in the November midterms, a number of Democrats are eager to challenge Trump in the 2020
presidential election.
Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) announced on New Year's Eve that she was forming a presidential exploratory committee.
Julian Castro, former Housing and Urban Development secretary in the Obama administration, has also toured Iowa and is expected to
announce his candidacy this weekend.
It is unclear whether Gabbard will get much traction among the establishment Democrats, who she has frequently disagreed with
on foreign policy issues.
Ostensibly, Tulsi Gabbard checks all the correct "diversity boxes" that Democrats claim they want: young, female, minority.
But weirdly, she won't benefit from satisfying these (fake) criteria, because she's hated for unrelated political reasons. So
that should be fun.
Tulsi Gabbard is a really next-level politician. Any amateur can be a traditional US racist politician, but it takes skill
to succeed in America as a Hindu-nationalist racist / tankie Assad apologist.
Say what you want about Tulsi Gabbard (I have my own criticisms) but this is probably an accurate prediction of how opposition
to her campaign from other Democrats will play out https://t.co/xEhdD1ZmyN
So many entrenched bipartisan interests fear the foreign policy debate her presence on the campaign trail will provoke.
Look for more obsessive attacks in Omidyar's the Interventionist, republished in his local Hawaii paper. Also, not sure what
this means for a Bernie run. https://t.co/RD7pCRRkTW
Tulsi Gabbard is a really next-level politician. Any amateur can be a traditional US racist
politician, but it takes skill to succeed in America as a Hindu-nationalist racist / tankie
Assad apologist.
Democratic Representative Tulsi Gabbard from Hawaii announced she will
launch a presidential campaign for 2020. Her campaign is likely to distinguish itself from
other Democratic campaigns by making wars and broader United States foreign policy a major
issue.
Gabbard was elected to the Hawaii state legislature in 2002. She joined the Hawaii Army
National Guard a year later and voluntarily deployed to Iraq, where she completed two tours of
duty in 2004 and 2005.
She was elected to the House of Representatives in 2012, and according to her own website,
she was "one of the first two female combat veterans to ever serve in the U.S. Congress, and
also its first Hindu member."
During Senator Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign, Gabbard gained notoriety after she
resigned from her position as vice chair of the Democratic National Committee so she could
openly support Sanders. She spoke at Sanders campaign rallies to help him distinguish his
foreign policy from the much more hawkish foreign policy of Hillary Clinton.
Gabbard was overwhelmingly re-elected in 2018. She won 83 percent of the vote in the
Democratic primary election.
Most progressives are not as outspoken against U.S. military interventions or what she
refers to as "regime change wars." She witnessed the impact of regime change on the people of
Iraq, as well as U.S. troops, and that inspired her to talk more about the human cost of war
and challenge the military industrial-complex.
Gabbard has persistently called attention to the war in Syria. She traveled to Aleppo and
Damascus in January 2017 to see some of the devastation Syrians have endured since 2011. Syrian
President Bashar al-Assad invited her to a meeting, and she accepted.
"Originally, I had no intention of meeting with Assad, but when given the opportunity, I
felt it was important to take it. I think we should be ready to meet with anyone if there's a
chance it can help bring about an end to this war, which is causing the Syrian people so much
suffering," Gabbard
declared .
Supporters of the Syrian war -- the same people who do not want President Donald Trump to
withdraw U.S. troops -- seized upon Gabbard's meeting with Assad to discredit her, and it has
fueled the backlash among Western media pundits to her decision to run for president.
Yet, in spite of a smear campaign encouraged by the political establishment, Gabbard has not
backed down from protesting U.S. support for terrorists in Syria. She sponsored legislation,
the Stop Arming Terrorists Act.
During an
interview for the Sanders Institute in September 2018, Gabbard said, "Since 2011, when the
United States, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and these other countries started this slow drawn-out
regime change war in Syria, it is terrorist groups like al Qaida, al Nusra, and Hayat Tahrir al
Sham, these different groups that have morphed and taken on names but essentially are all
linked to al Qaida or al Qaida themselves that have proven to be the most effective ground
force against the government in trying to overthrow the Syrian government."
Gabbard opposes what she calls a "genocidal war" in Yemen, and she is one of the few
representatives, who has worked to pass a war powers resolution in the House to end U.S.
military involvement since Congress never authorized the war.
"The United States is standing shoulder to shoulder supporting Saudi Arabia in this war as
they commit these atrocities against Yemeni civilians," Gabbard said during the same Sanders
Institute interview.
Another war Gabbard questions is the war in Libya. In an interview for "The Jimmy Dore Show" on September 11, 2018,
she spoke about the devastating consequences of pursuing regime change without considering what
would happen after Muammar Gaddafi was removed from power.
"After we led the war to topple Gaddafi, we have open human slave trading going on, in open
market. In today's society, we have more terrorists in Libya today than there ever were
before."
Gabbard is also one of the few elected politicians to oppose weapons sales, especially to
Saudi Arabia. She recognizes the military industrial-complex benefits the most from Congress
not exercising its authority over war-making by presidents, whether they are Republican or
Democrat.
She spoke out against Secretary of State Mike Pompeo when he refused to revoke support for
Saudi Arabia and the war in Yemen because it would jeopardize a $2 billion arms deal.
Not many Democrats are willing to be optimistic on North Korea, but Gabbard sees potential
for peace and does not view Trump's meeting with Kim Jong-un as an act of treason.
Gabbard said during the Sanders Institute interview, "For years, I've been working in
Congress and calling for direct engagement with North Korea with Kim Jong-un to be able to try
to broker a peace agreement that will result in de-nuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and
and finally bring about an end to the Korean War."
"So I think that the recent engagement that we have seen -- both the historic meeting
between a sitting U.S. president and the leader of North Korea -- is certainly a positive step
in the right direction. We have to be willing to have these conversation to promote peace,"
Gabbard said. And, "I think the continued engagement between North Korea and South Korea is
positive."
Gabbard acknowledged there are a lot of details that have to be worked out, but that does
not make her hostile to the entire process, which is the attitude of many pundits and Democrats
in the establishment.
Joe Rogan interviewed Gabbard in September 2018. He
raised the issue of Russian troll farms and Facebook's failure to deal with them. She had a
sober response to his concerns.
"The United States has been doing this for a very long time in countries around the world,
both overtly and covertly, through these kinds of disinformation campaigns," Gabbard contended.
"Not even counting like the regime change wars, like we're going to take you out."
She continued, "I think it is very hypocritical for us to be discussing this issue as a
country without actually being honest about how this goes both ways. So, yes, we need to stop
these other foreign countries -- and Russia's not the only one; there are others -- from trying
to influence the American people and our elections. We also need to stop doing the same thing
in other countries."
Such positions on war and U.S. foreign policy effectively make her a pariah to establishment
media pundits and the political class. But her anti-establishment politics do not end
there.
Gabbard has advocated against superdelegates, which are Democratic party insiders that have
an outsized role in influencing the outcome of presidential primaries. She favors open
primaries and same-day voter registration. She is outspoken against the influence of money in
politics, and she is audacious enough to question members of her own political party.
"We have to dig a few layers deeper as people are running for office, say what do you
actually stand for?" she said on "The Jimmy Dore Show." "What is your vision for this country?
That's the debate that we will have to have in Congress should Democrats win over the House or
win more seats in the Senate."
"Otherwise, it will be more of the same status quo, where you'll have lobbyists who have
more of a seat at the table writing policies that affect healthcare and education and Wall
Street and everything else rather than having a true and representative government by and for
the people," she concluded.
She was also critical of self-described progressives, who are pro-war, while on "Jimmy
Dore":
You have these individuals and groups of people who call themselves progressive but are
some of the first to call for more war in the guise of humanitarianism. They look at these
poor people suffering -- and there are people suffering in the other parts of the world.
Let's go drop more bombs and try to take away their suffering. And when you look at example
after example after example, our actions, U.S. policy, interventionist regime change war
policy, [has] made the lives of people in these other countries far worse off than they ever
were before or would have been if we had just stayed out of it.
***
Gabbard was much closer to an establishment politician prior to her resignation from the
DNC. She accepted tens of thousands of dollars in contributions from political action
committees (PACs).
The Center for Responsive Politics noted, "One of the largest contributing sectors was the
defense industry. While Gabbard has gained a following for her
anti-interventionist stances , yet, her 2016 campaign was given $63,500 from
the defense sector . In fact, the campaign
received donations of $10,000 from the Boeing Corporation PAC and from Lockheed Martin's
PAC, two of the biggest names in the military-industrial complex."
In 2017, Gabbard announced she would no longer accept PAC money. She raised $37,000 from
labor associations and trade unions.
Gabbard was "conflicted" over whether to support the Senate report on CIA torture. She said
in 2014 that she thought there were "things missing or it was incomplete." She also endorsed
the "ticking time bomb" scenario that officials use to justify torture, and it is unclear what
her view would be now, if asked about the issue.
She has taken a position on Israeli occupation of Palestine that is
common among Democrats. She supports a two-state solution and describes Israel as the U.S.'
"strongest ally." But it may be shifting. In the last year, she condemned Israel for its
violence against the people of Gaza, and she was reluctant to vote for a House resolution that
condemned the UN Security Council for criticizing Israeli settlements.
Journalist Eoin Higgins
questioned Gabbard's support from the Hindu American Foundation (HAF), which he described
as right-wing. She has garnered criticism for her trip to India in 2014, when she met with
India prime minister Narendra Modi, a Hindu nationalist.
But HAF believes this criticism of Gabbard is unfair because other members of Congress, like
Speaker Nancy Pelosi, have attended gatherings with Modi. They also point to financial records
and maintain they are a U.S. organization without ties to any organizations in India.
When she was much younger, Gabbard helped her
father's organization mobilize against a same-sex marriage in Hawaii. The organization,
Alliance for Traditional Marriage, backed conversion therapy
However, there is evidence to suggest that Gabbard has abandoned much of the bigotry that
she probably learned from her father. She backed Edith Windsor when she challenged the Defense
of Marriage Act (DOMA).
"Let me say I regret the positions I took in the past, and the things I said. I'm grateful
for those in the LGBTQ+ community who have shared their aloha with me throughout my personal
journey," Gabbard stated, responding to media coverage of this aspect of her past.
She noted that she has since supported "the Equality Act, the repeal of DOMA, Restore Honor
to Service members Act, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, the Safe Schools Improvement
Act, and the Equality for All Resolution," and added, "Much work remains to ensure equality and
civil rights protections for LGBTQ+ Americans, and if elected President, I will continue to
fight for equal rights for all."
There are powerful forces in American politics that will seize upon her past opposition to
LGBTQ rights and meeting with Assad to neutralize her presidential campaign before she even has
an opportunity to tour the country and meet with potential supporters. They fear the impact she
could have if voters gravitate to her campaign, which will likely promote her
anti-imperialism.
Often Democrats do not bother to connect foreign policy to domestic issues. Gabbard is
likely to run a rare campaign, where she makes the case that they are intertwined -- that in
order to make investments in universal health care, education, infrastructure, etc, the massive
investment in war must be severely curtailed.
Gabbard also aware of the disenchantment among voters, who do not believe either political
party has the answers. She understands President Trump is a symptom of what ails the
country.
As she said on "Jimmy Dore," "If we look at the lead-up to the 2016 election, and if we
actually listen to and examine why people chose to vote the way they did, it points to much
bigger problems, a much bigger disaffection that has been building for quite some time, that
voters have against the establishment of Washington, the political establishment within both
parties."
The problem here is the progressive votes is split between Bernie, Warren, and Tulsi. That means that all three of them
now can be eliminated be invertionaist Dems.
Notable quotes:
"... Tulsi Gabbard is scary to Republicans because a lot of us center-right folks would be tempted to support her ..."
"... Would love to see a Tulsi - Trump debate. She'd be a formidable opponent. ..."
Well, as we all saw, the putatively "liberal" legacy Ziomedia hates Tulsi Gabbard with a passion. Maybe not as much as that legacy
Ziomedia hates Trump or Putin, but still – the levels of hostility against her are truly amazing. This may seem bizarre until you
realize that, just like Donald Trump, Tulsi Gabbard has said all the right things about Israel, but that this was not nearly "enough"
to please the US Ziolobby. Check out the kind of discussions about Gabbard which can be found in the Israeli and pro-Israeli press:
This is just a small sample of what I found with a quick search. It could be summed up "Gabbard is not pro-Israel enough". But
is that really The Main Reason for such a hostility towards her? I don't think so. I believe that Gabbard's real "ultimate sin" is
that she is against foreign wars of choice. That is really her Crime Of Crimes!
The AngloZionists wanted to tear Syria apart, break it up into small pieces, most of which would be run by Takfiri crazies and
Tulsi Gabbard actually dared to go and speak to "animal Assad", the (latest) "New Hitler", who "gasses his own people". And this
is an even worse crime, if such a thing can even be imagined! She dared to disobey her AngloZionist masters.
So, apparently, opposing illegal wars and daring to disobey the Neocons are crimes of such magnitude and evil that they deserve
the hysterical Gabbard-bashing campaign which we have witnessed in recent times. And even being non-Christian, non-White, non-male
and "liberal" does not in any way compensate for the heinous nature of "crimes".
What does this tell us about the real nature of the US society?
It is also interesting to note that the most vicious (and stupid) attacks against Gabbard did not come from "conservative" media
outlets or journalists. Not at all! Most of the attacks, especially the more vicious ones, came from supposedly "liberal" sources,
which tell us that in 2019 USA "liberals" do not refer to folks with liberal ideas, but to folks who are hell-bent on imperialism
and war; folks who don't care one bit about any real "liberal" values and who use a pseudo-liberal rhetoric to advocate for war outside
the USA and for a plutocratic dictatorship inside the USA.
The ability of those in power to manipulate
the ways ordinary people think, act and vote has allowed for an
inverted totalitarianism
which turns the citizenry into their own prison wardens, allowing those with real power to continue doing as they please unhindered
by the interests of the common man.
In neoliberal MSM there is positive feedback loop for "Trump is a Russian agent" stories. So the meme feeds on itself.
Notable quotes:
"... And yet the trending, most high-profile stories about Trump today all involve painting him as a Putin puppet who is working to destroy America by taking a weak stance against an alarming geopolitical threat. This has had the effect of manufacturing demand for even more dangerous escalations against a nuclear superpower that just so happens to be a longtime target of U.S. intelligence agencies. ..."
"... the mass media is not in the business of reporting facts, it's in the business of selling narratives. Even if those narratives are so shrill and stress-inducing that they imperil the health of their audience. ..."
"... Trump is clearly not a Russian asset, he's a facilitator of America's permanent unelected government just like his predecessors, and indeed as far as actual policies and administration behavior goes he's not that much different from Barack Obama and George W Bush. Hell, for all his demagogic anti-immigrant speech Trump hasn't even caught up to Obama's peak ICE deportation years ..."
"... Used to be that the U.S. mass media only killed people indirectly, by facilitating establishment war agendas in repeating government agency propaganda as objective fact and promulgating narratives that manufacture support for a status quo which won't even give Americans health insurance or safe drinking water ..."
"... Now they're skipping the middle man and killing them directly by psychologically brutalizing them so aggressively that it ruins their health, all to ensure that Democrats support war and adore the U.S. intelligence community . ..."
"... The social engineers responsible for controlling the populace of the greatest military power on the planet are watching France closely, and understand deeply what is at stake should they fail to control the narrative and herd ordinary Americans into supporting U.S. government institutions. ..."
"... The ability of those in power to manipulate the ways ordinary people think, act and vote has allowed for an inverted totalitarianism which turns the citizenry into their own prison wardens, allowing those with real power to continue doing as they please unhindered by the interests of the common man. ..."
The always excellent Moon of Alabama blog has just
published a sarcasm-laden piece documenting the many, many aggressive maneuvers that this administration has made against the
interests of Russia, from pushing for more NATO funding to undermining Russia's natural gas interests to bombing Syria to sanctioning
Russian oligarchs to dangerous military posturing.
<picture deleted>
And yet the trending, most high-profile stories about Trump today all involve painting him as a Putin puppet who is working
to destroy America by taking a weak stance against an alarming geopolitical threat. This has had the effect of manufacturing demand
for even more dangerous escalations against a nuclear superpower that just so happens to be a longtime target of U.S. intelligence
agencies.
If the mass media were in the business of reporting facts, there would be a lot less "Putin's puppet" talk and a lot more "Hey,
maybe we should avoid senseless escalations which could end all life on earth" talk among news media consumers. But there isn't,
because the mass media is not in the business of reporting facts, it's in the business of selling narratives. Even if those narratives
are so shrill and stress-inducing that they imperil the health of their audience.
Like His Predecessors
Trump is clearly not a Russian asset, he's a facilitator of America's permanent unelected government just like his predecessors,
and indeed as far as actual policies and administration behavior goes he's
not that much different
from Barack Obama and George W Bush. Hell, for all his demagogic anti-immigrant speech Trump
hasn't even caught up to Obama's peak ICE deportation years.
If the mass media were in the business of reporting facts, people would be no more worried about this administration than they
were about the previous ones, because when it comes to his administration's actual behavior, he's just as reliable an upholder of
the establishment-friendly status quo as his predecessors.
Used to be that the U.S. mass media only killed people indirectly, by facilitating establishment war agendas in repeating
government agency propaganda as objective fact and promulgating narratives that manufacture support for a status quo which won't
even give Americans health insurance or safe drinking water.
They do this for a reason, of course. The Yellow Vests protests in France have continued unabated for their
ninth consecutive week , a decentralized populist uprising resulting from ordinary French citizens losing trust in their institutions
and the official narratives which uphold them.
The social engineers responsible for controlling the populace of the greatest military power on the planet are watching France
closely, and understand deeply what is at stake should they fail to control the narrative and herd ordinary Americans into supporting
U.S. government institutions. Right now they've got Republicans cheering on the White House and Democrats cheering on the U.S.
intelligence community, but that could all change should something happen which causes them to lose control over the thoughts that
Americans think about their rulers.
Propaganda is the single most-overlooked and under-appreciated aspect of human society. The ability of those in power to manipulate
the ways ordinary people think, act and vote has allowed for an
inverted totalitarianism
which turns the citizenry into their own prison wardens, allowing those with real power to continue doing as they please unhindered
by the interests of the common man.
The only thing that will lead to real change is the people losing trust in corrupt institutions and
rising like lions against them. That gets increasingly likely as those
institutions lose control of the narrative, and with trust in the mass media at an all-time low, populist uprisings restoring power
to the people in France, and media corporations
acting increasingly weird and insecure , that looks more and more likely by the day.
"... Morning Joe presents the largest collective of Media Shills that think with one Corporate brain(trust). MSNBC and CNN commits the greatest threat to the dumbing down of America, and in the longterm, nothing impacts our American freedoms and World Peace than such lowly, deceptive, shills. Everybody has to make a buck, but come on MSNBC; you guys could stand some old school mothering and have those dirty little pie-holes washed out with soap. ..."
The concerned look on everyone's face, acting like they are coming from a moral high
ground because they support war. Corporate media is garbage! They will never cover her fairly
so its up to us to do so!
Saudi Arabia offered to pay for us to take down Syria. We are aiding Al Qaeda and their
related groups, proxies for Saudi Arabia, in their war against Syria. It's about money and
oil period. The 'humanitarian crisis' has nothing to do with this war and is just as likely
to have been staged by Al Qaeda if not more likely.
Morning Joe presents the largest collective of Media Shills that think with one
Corporate brain(trust). MSNBC and CNN commits the greatest threat to the dumbing down of
America, and in the longterm, nothing impacts our American freedoms and World Peace than such
lowly, deceptive, shills. Everybody has to make a buck, but come on MSNBC; you guys could
stand some old school mothering and have those dirty little pie-holes washed out with
soap.
Neoliberal Dems -- Clinton wing of the Party (and
thedailybeast.com
is Hillary bulletin board) doe no like Tulsi. that's expected.
What what they really fear is that Tulsi can get support of considerable part of former Trump voters and repeat the
maneuver that Trump accomplished in 2016 elections.
Notable quotes:
"... In a Monday evening segment, featuring anti-war leftist journalist Glenn Greenwald, the Fox News host argued that Gabbard had been unfairly maligned because of her deep skepticism about intervention in Syria and willingness to talk to Assad. ..."
"... "There's something so stealthy and feline and dishonest about the way they're attacking her," Tucker said. "If you don't like her foreign policy views, let's just say so. But no one ever really wants to debate what our foreign policy should be. They just attack anyone who deviates from their own dumb ideas." ..."
"... In May 2015, the National Review implored readers to "Meet the Beautiful, Tough Young Democrat Who's Turning Heads by Challenging Obama's Foreign Policy." The conservative outlet touted Gabbard as having "endeared herself to right-wing hawks" by challenging Obama's "rudderless" foreign policy. "I like her thinking a lot," American Enterprise Institute president Arthur Brooks was quoted as saying. ..."
"... And earlier this month, after she accused her fellow Democratic senators of engaging in "religious bigotry" for asking questions about a Trump judicial nominee's faith, she received yet another round of Fox News praise ..."
When she ran for re-election in 2018, she had the backing of liberal groups
including
the AFL-CIO and Planned Parenthood, yet she was briefly considered as a potential member for
Trump's cabinet, and cheered on his diplomatic overtures to North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un.
Since
announcing her bid for the presidency, Gabbard has faced a torrent of criticism for some of her more
eccentric politics, zeroing in on her equivocations on Assad and
her past homophobic comments
.
And, in the process, she has earned one prominent defender: Tucker Carlson.
In a Monday evening segment, featuring anti-war leftist journalist Glenn Greenwald, the Fox News host
argued that Gabbard had been unfairly maligned because of her deep skepticism about intervention in Syria
and willingness to talk to Assad.
"There's something so stealthy and feline and dishonest about the way they're attacking her," Tucker
said. "If you don't like her foreign policy views, let's just say so. But no one ever really wants to debate
what our foreign policy should be. They just attack anyone who deviates from their own dumb ideas."
Gabbard first became
an in-demand
Fox News guest in 2015 after she criticized Barack Obama's unwillingness to use the label
"radical Islamic terrorism." Her media tour explaining that position earned her positively-tilted coverage
in right-wing outlets like Breitbart and The Daily Caller -- a trend that continued when she later expressed
skepticism of Obama's Iran nuclear deal.
One person with direct knowledge told The Daily Beast that in the wake of her Obama criticism of Obama,
Gabbard became an increasingly requested guest for Fox News hosts and producers to appear on-air. They
weren't the only ones in television news who took notice: senior executives at Sinclair Broadcasting made
appeals for Gabbard to appear on their networks after she rebuked Obama.
And her emergence as a left-wing Obama critic further put Gabbard on the map in conservative media.
In May 2015, the
National Review
implored readers to "Meet the Beautiful, Tough Young Democrat
Who's Turning Heads by Challenging Obama's Foreign Policy." The conservative outlet touted Gabbard as having
"endeared herself to right-wing hawks" by challenging Obama's "rudderless" foreign policy. "I like her
thinking a lot," American Enterprise Institute president Arthur Brooks was quoted as saying.
Gabbard has also maintained friendly relationships with high-profile, right-leaning television
personalities, including Carlson and Fox News colleague Neil Cavuto, a long-time anchor and Trump skeptic
who leans conservative on business issues.
And earlier this month, after she
accused
her fellow Democratic senators of engaging in "religious bigotry" for asking questions about a
Trump judicial nominee's faith, she received yet another round of Fox News praise. Todd Starnes, a Fox
pundit with a
long history
of anti-gay comments,
wrote in an op-ed
that he found Gabbard's comments "encouraging."
charley15z
1 month ago
The
establishment left and blue checkmarks on Twitter are gonna go after her HARD. But I will support her, purely on her
policies.
Marcy Clay
1 month ago
She would get
independents and some Republicans to cross over. She is already being attacked by the left, and right for some old remarks
that were homophobic, and for meeting with Assad. I like her better than Warren or Harris by far..
lrein077
1 month ago
I had the
opportunity to meet Tulsi in person and she was the most approachable & genuine person. Congratulations Tulsi.
Jimmy Russle
1 month ago
I'm a Trump
supporter, but she certainly has a better resume than Trump. Her most important issue is peace among nations, I'm all on
board.
27
Thank you to @RepMcGovern@repmarkpocan & @IlhanMN for cosponsoring H.R. 1249, the INF Treaty Compliance Act, to prevent
taxpayer dollars from being used for weapons that would breach the INF treaty. This is one step
Congress can & must take now toward national security and peace
The first day Tulsi arrived at her camp in Iraq, she saw a large sign at one of the gates
that read, "Is today the day?" It was a blunt reminder that today may be the day that any of
the soldiers would be called to make the ultimate sacrifice for their country. It caused her to
reflect on her own life and the reality that each of us could die at any moment.
While serving in a base in the Sunni Triangle at the height of the war, Tulsi had the
heart-wrenching daily responsibility of going through the list of every injury and casualty in
the entire theatre of operations, looking to see if any soldiers in her unit were on the list,
so she could ensure they received the care they needed and their families were notified.
She was hit with the enduring pain and hardship of her brothers and sisters in uniform, and
the stress and pressure on their families. She wondered if those who voted to send soldiers to
Iraq really understood why they were there -- if lawmakers and the President reflected daily on
each death, each injury, and the immeasurably high cost of war.
Having experienced first-hand the true cost of war, she made a personal vow to find a way to
ensure that our country doesn't continue repeating the mistakes of the past, sending our troops
into war without a clear mission, strategy, or purpose. In Congress
Serving over 6 years in Congress, and as a member of the Armed Services, Homeland Security,
and Foreign Affairs Committees, Tulsi has been a leading voice fighting to end regime change
wars and instead focus our military efforts on defeating the terrorist groups that attacked and
declared war on the United States. She has approached every issue through the lens of what will
best serve the American people, secure our country, and promote peace.
She is a champion for protecting our environment, ensuring clean water and air for
generations to come, investing in infrastructure and a green energy economy, healthcare for
all, civil liberties and privacy, support for small businesses, criminal justice reform,
sustainable agriculture, breaking up the big banks and she needs your help!
Regime change wars are bankrupting our country and our moral authority. We need to redirect
those resources into a renewable, sustainable economy that works for everyone and bring about
an era of peace. We must put service above self and reclaim our great democracy from the forces
of hatred and division.
This is a very important point. She can bring a large part of Trump voters (all anti-war votes and most of promiddle
class voters) and part of Sanders voters together.
Notable quotes:
"... As long as we're talking Hawaii, I have found my candidate for President: Tulsi Gabbard. I guess I'm late to the party, and she sure is hated by the intelligentsia, boy do they hate her, but she's really, really electable for President and she would, more than any other candidate, actually start to heal this country. Aloha. ..."
"... I don't believe the Democrats will nominate her. They'll use the electability canard to dismiss her candidacy, much like how Ron Paul was treated by the GOP. ..."
As long as we're talking Hawaii, I have found my candidate for President: Tulsi Gabbard. I
guess I'm late to the party, and she sure is hated by the intelligentsia, boy do they hate
her, but she's really, really electable for President and she would, more than any other
candidate, actually start to heal this country. Aloha.
I don't believe the Democrats will nominate her. They'll use the electability canard to
dismiss her candidacy, much like how Ron Paul was treated by the GOP.
However, she seems to have an agenda I would back.
The goal of any "peddler" is to move product. When perpetual war is the product, then any
rationale that leads to more sales will do. Enemies become interchangeable. The only thing to
apologize for is the lack of sales.
These two hucksters are not experts on the product itself, but rather experts at selling
the product.
Pres. Eisenhower, a genuine "authority on armed conflict", warned us of such peddlers.
"... Because DC is bought and paid for by the defense industry. Constant wars are good for the bottom line, so winning is not the right strategy. Loosing doesn't work either. A constant low level set of global conflicts is perfect. ..."
"... The goal of any "peddler" is to move product. When perpetual war is the product, then any rationale that leads to more sales will do. Enemies become interchangeable. The only thing to apologize for is the lack of sales. ..."
Why Are These Professional War Peddlers Still Around? Pundits like Max Boot and Bill
Kristol got everything after 9/11 wrong but are still considered "experts."
1. The goal of the neocons was to exploit 9/11 to destroy countries in the Middle East
that posed a threat to Israel. As Wesley Clarke told us a long time ago, they were going to
"do" Iraq first, and after that, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Lebanon and finally Iran. Most
of this has been accomplished. We are now in the end game and Iran is in their
cross-hairs.
From the perspective of the neocons, everything has gone their way.
2. The only people who got everything thing wrong were useful idiots like Rod Dreher,
Tucker Carlson and Walter "Freedom Fries" Jones who were too dense to see what the neocons
were really up to. You did not a PhD from Harvard to see that Bush and Blair had no evidence
to back up their claims that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction or to figure out the true
intentions of the neocons.
So why are Boot and Kristol still around? Because Iran is not yet reduced to an ash-heap,
courtesy of USA!USA!USA! so they still have work to do.
Why have they paid no price? Let's all pretend like we don't know the answer to this. And
don't forget to condemn Ilhan Omar for her tweets just to be on the safe side.
It's difficult to live in a post-America America where American interests are subordinate to
Israel and AIPAC and lunatics like Bolton and Pompeo, now have replaced the president in
matters of foreign policy.
Trump has done a 180 and given in completely.
I like Tulsi Gabbard
and hope that she might have a chance of winning the Democratic nomination in spite of the
fact that she now is being attacked by members of her own party, along with the
representative from Minnesota who has the courage to talk of the power of the Israel lobby
that functions solely in the interest of Israel. It seems the Democrats are not so tolerant
of strong women after all. And its time for everyone to stop being intimidated by the charge
of anti-Semitism. When Israeli interests are not those of America and Americans.
Because DC is bought and paid for by the defense industry. Constant wars are good for the
bottom line, so winning is not the right strategy. Loosing doesn't work either. A constant
low level set of global conflicts is perfect.
The goal of any "peddler" is to move product. When perpetual war is the product, then any
rationale that leads to more sales will do. Enemies become interchangeable. The only thing to
apologize for is the lack of sales.
These two hucksters are not experts on the product itself, but rather experts at selling
the product.
Pres. Eisenhower, a genuine "authority on armed conflict", warned us of such peddlers.
Yes the neocons have a poor track record but they've succeeded at turning our republic into
an empire. The mainstream media and elites of practically all western nations are unanimously
pro-war. Neither political party has defined a comprehensive platform to rebuild our
republic.
Even you, Tucker Carlson, mock the efforts of Ilhan Omar for criticizing AIPAC and
Elliott Abrams.
I don't personally care for many of her opinions but that's not what matters:
if we elect another neocon government we won't last another generation. Like the lady asked
Ben Franklin "What kind of government have you bequeathed us?", and Franklin answered "A
republic, madam, if you can keep it."
While we should thank Tucker for this takedown of these two warmongering know-nothings, he himself is not without a blame...
Also while Max Boot and Bill Kristol have Twitter feeds and occasional MSNBC appearances, neocons John Bolton and Eliott Abrams
are running American foreign policy.
While I was entertained by Tucker's take down of Mssr's Boot and Kristol, I can't help but
recall when he was carrying the water for the Bush administration during its build up for the
invasion of Iraq. I offer up my encounter with him while he co-hosted CNN's Crossfire in July
2002. My answers, and facts, have withstood the test of time. Tucker's have not, and to see
him calling out Boot and Kristol for their advocacy of war while possessing no real-world
experience when it comes to fighting war when Tucker did the same thing is very much like the
pot calling the kettle black. http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0207/31/cf.00.html
Gabbard is going nowhere, and while it's true that the powers that be will try to bury her,
they don't need to. The simple truth is this: the American public largely doesn't care about
the wars and never has. There hasn't been an anti-war movement of any significance since Bush
left office, and that was mostly a phony anti-war movement in the first place. It was
primarily an anti-Bush movement, and the bulk of the people screaming 'no blood for oil'
would've just been screaming some other anti-Bush slogan had our current path of destruction
through the Mideast never occurred.
Yes, there has always been a small, independent-minded minority on both the right and left
who genuinely oppose American interventionism.
The vast majority of voters, though, don't care much, don't have strong opinions and will
largely just follow their leaders. Rank and file Democrats now oppose drawing down from Syria
and Afghanistan and want to 'contain' Russia.
This is solely because Trump has made noises in the opposite direction, even if he hasn't
done much of anything. And a good portion of the Republicans who say they want out of these
wars would support them if Jeb or Rubio were in the White House.
There is a fair bit more genuine antiwar sentiment on the right now than there was 15
years ago. But it's not a dominant issue for many people on the right who didn't always
oppose the wars from the get-go. And the mainstream left, again, has totally abandoned the
issue.
Only a tiny proportion of the American public considers the endless wars to be the most
important issue facing America today.
You don't win campaigns focusing on issues that are regarded as unimportant and where most
of the voters in your party oppose you on this point. There is no real antiwar movement.
Another full-scale invasion of a previously stable country would generate some serious
opposition, sure, but the current slow bleed of endless occupations and occasional
opportunistic attacks on already destabilizing regimes can continue forever with little
pushback from the public at large.
How anyone could live through the last 15 years of American politics and not realize this
is beyond me.
That one trick happens to the most important trick that America is facing.
No Art, that would be unchecked legal and illegal immigration and as far as I can tell
Tulsi Gandhi is pretty dreadful on that subject. True, the likudniks in the diaspora don't
like her because she would be bad for an expansionist Israel...
If elected Tulsi would probably become a Jew tool just like Trump has become. If not, then
they'll have another special counsel ready to take her down. That's how the (((deep state)))
operates.
Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard attacked Donald Trump for his tweet praising Saudi Arabia after
the CIA report which found the country's crown prince was behind the murder of journalist Jamal
Khashoggi.
Democratic Rep. Gabbard, a National Guard veteran who did two tours in the Middle East,
branded the president 'Saudi Arabia's b**ch' after he announced the U.S. would stand by the
nation.
'Hey @realdonaldtrump: being Saudi Arabia's bitch is not '"America First,'" Gabbard
tweeted.
"... Tulsi's own military experience notwithstanding, she gives every indication of being honestly anti-war. In the speech announcing her candidacy she pledged "focus on the issue of war and peace" to "end the regime-change wars that have taken far too many lives and undermined our security by strengthening terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda." She referred to the danger posed by blundering into a possible nuclear war and indicated her dismay over what appears to be a re-emergence of the Cold War. ..."
"... Gabbard has spoken at a conference of Christians United for Israel, which has defended Israel's settlement enterprise; has backed legislation that slashes funding to the Palestinians; and has cultivated ties with Boteach as well as with major GOP donor casino magnate Sheldon Adelson. She also attended the controversial address to Congress by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in March 2015, which many progressive Democrats boycotted. ..."
"... Nevertheless, Tulsi supported Bernie Sanders' antiwar candidacy in 2016 and appears to be completely onboard and fearless in promoting her antiwar sentiments. Yes, Americans have heard much of the same before, but Tulsi Gabbard could well be the only genuine antiwar candidate that might truly be electable in the past fifty years. ..."
"... What's her angle about immigration? This: https://votesmart.org/public-statement/1197137/rep-tulsi-gabbard-calls-on-congress-to-pass-the-dream-act#.XGXEplUza1s Not optimistic. ..."
"... What's her angle about "outsourcing" jobs overseas? This: https://www.votetulsi.com/node/25011 Not bad, but, still .. ..."
"... Regularly Americans vote for the less interventionist candidate. ..."
"... Of course, it is impossible to predict whether it will be the same with Tulsi Gabbard, but unlike these other candidates in the past , she puts her rejection of neocons and regime change wars so much into the center of her campaign that it should be assumed that she is serious – otherwise it would be complete betrayal. ..."
"... She'll be sabotaged by relentless smears and other dirty tricks. Only someone bought and owned will be allowed to be a candidate which means the MIC must continue being fed enormous amounts of money and war hysteria constantly being stoked. ..."
"... Has anyone discussed the possibility of Tulsi being "marketed" or long-game "branded" through intentional theatre as "anti-war" ? ..."
"... Any serious Democratic candidate, and to some extent any Republican, must fly through the flack of Deep State anti-populist guns. I am skeptical about Gabbard because her policy views are already too good to be true. She is "cruisin' for a bruisin'" and there is already a campaign to erase her from the debate in the manner in which Ron Paul was erased a few years back ..."
"... Gabbard is an attractive woman and on camera she comes across as aggressive and a quick-thinking, highly articulate debater. Like Trump her instinct is to meet force with counter-force rather than roll with the punches and I think that is her best chance. ..."
"... De ja vu. I remember reading these very similar (not exactly but similar) sentiments about Barack Obama back in 2008. What a load of crap that turned out to be ..."
"... Don't know much about this lady. If she is "fair dinkum" in her anti war/anti-imperialism stance her only chance to get into power & then get things done will be to gain a massive, committed popular following. ..."
The lineup of Democrats who have already declared themselves as candidates for their party's presidential nomination in 2020 is
remarkable, if only for the fact that so many wannabes have thrown their hats in the ring so early in the process. In terms of electability,
however, one might well call the seekers after the highest office in the land the nine dwarfs. Four of the would-be candidates –
Marianne Williamson a writer, Andrew Yang an entrepreneur, Julian Castro a former Obama official, Senator Amy Klobuchar and Congressman
John Delaney – have no national profiles at all and few among the Democratic Party rank-and-file would be able to detail who they
are, where they come from and what their positions on key issues might be.
Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts has a national following but she also has considerable baggage. The recent revelation
that she
falsely described herself as "American Indian" back in 1986 for purposes of career advancement, which comes on top of similar
reports of more of the same as well as other resume-enhancements that surfaced when she first became involved in national politics,
prompted Donald Trump to refer to her as "Pocahontas." Warren, who is largely progressive on social and domestic issues, has been
confronted numerous times regarding her views on Israel/Palestine and beyond declaring that she favors a "two state solution" has
been somewhat reticent. She should be described as pro-Israel for the usual reasons and is not reliably anti-war. She comes across
as a rather more liberal version of Hillary Clinton.
And then there is New Jersey Senator Cory Booker, being touted as the "new Obama," presumably because he is both black and progressive.
His record as Mayor of Newark New Jersey, which launched his career on the national stage, has both high and low points and it has
to be questioned if America is ready for another smooth-talking black politician whose actual record of accomplishments is on the
thin side. One unfortunately recalls the devious Obama's totally bogus Nobel Peace Prize and his Tuesday morning meetings with John
Brennan to work on the list of Americans who were to be assassinated.
Booker has carefully cultivated the Jewish community in his political career, to include a close relationship with the stomach-churning
"America's Rabbi" Shmuley Boteach, but has recently become more independent of those ties, supporting the Obama deal with Iran and
voting against anti-Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) legislation in the Senate. On the negative side, the New York Times likes
Booker, which means that he will turn most other Americans off. He is also 49 years old and unmarried, which apparently bothers some
in the punditry.
California Senator Kamala Harris is a formidable entrant into the crowded field due to her resume, nominally progressive on most
issues, but with a work history that has attracted critics concerned by her hard-line law-and-order enforcement policies when she
was District Attorney General for San Francisco and Attorney General for California. She has also
spoken at AIPAC , is anti-BDS, and is considered to be reliably pro-Israel, which would rule her out for some, though she might
be appealing to middle of the road Democrats like the Clintons and Nancy Pelosi who have increasingly become war advocates. She will
have a tough time convincing the antiwar crowd that she is worth supporting and there are reports that she will likely split the
black women's vote even though she is black herself, perhaps linked to her affair with California powerbroker Willie Brown when she
was 29 and Brown was 61. Brown was married, though separated, to a black woman at the time. Harris is taking heat because she clearly
used the relationship
to advance her career
while also acquiring several patronage sinecures on state commissions that netted her hundreds of thousands of dollars.
The most interesting candidate is undoubtedly Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, who is a fourth term Congresswoman from Hawaii, where
she was born and raised. She is also the real deal on national security, having been-there and done-it through service as an officer
with the Hawaiian National Guard on a combat deployment in Iraq. Though in Congress full time, she still performs her Guard duty.
Tulsi's own military experience notwithstanding, she gives every indication of being honestly anti-war. In
the speech announcing her candidacy she pledged "focus
on the issue of war and peace" to "end the regime-change wars that have taken far too many lives and undermined our security by strengthening
terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda." She referred to the danger posed by blundering into a possible nuclear war and indicated her dismay
over what appears to be a re-emergence of the Cold War.
Not afraid of challenging establishment politics,
she called for an end to the "illegal war to overthrow the Syrian government," also observing that "the war to overthrow Assad
is counter-productive because it actually helps ISIS and other Islamic extremists achieve their goal of overthrowing the Syrian government
of Assad and taking control of all of Syria – which will simply increase human suffering in the region, exacerbate the refugee crisis,
and pose a greater threat to the world." She then backed up her words with action by secretly arranging for a personal trip to Damascus
in 2017 to meet with President Bashar al-Assad, saying it was important to meet adversaries "if you are serious about pursuing peace."
She made her own assessment of the situation in Syria and now favors pulling US troops out of the country as well as ending American
interventions for "regime change" in the region.
In 2015, Gabbard supported President Barack Obama's nuclear agreement with Iran and more recently has criticized President Donald
Trump's withdrawal from the deal. Last May, she criticized Israel for shooting "unarmed protesters" in Gaza, but one presumes that,
like nearly all American politicians, she also has to make sure that she does not have the Israel Lobby on her back. Gabbard
has spoken at a conference of Christians United for Israel, which has defended Israel's settlement enterprise; has backed legislation
that slashes funding to the Palestinians; and has cultivated ties with Boteach as well as with major GOP donor casino magnate Sheldon
Adelson. She also attended the controversial address to Congress by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in March 2015, which
many progressive Democrats boycotted.
Nevertheless, Tulsi supported Bernie Sanders' antiwar candidacy in 2016 and appears to be completely onboard and fearless
in promoting her antiwar sentiments. Yes, Americans have heard much of the same before, but Tulsi Gabbard could well be the only
genuine antiwar candidate that might truly be electable in the past fifty years.
What Tulsi Gabbard is accomplishing might be measured by the enemies that are already gathering and are out to get her. Glenn
Greenwald at The Intercept
describes how NBC news published a
widely distributed story on February 1 st , claiming that "experts who track websites and social media linked to Russia
have seen stirrings of a possible campaign of support for Hawaii Democrat Tulsi Gabbard."
But the expert cited by NBC turned out to be a firm New Knowledge,
which was exposed by no less
than The New York Times for falsifying Russian troll accounts for the Democratic Party in the Alabama Senate race to suggest
that the Kremlin was interfering in that election. According to Greenwald, the group ultimately behind
this attack on Gabbard is The Alliance for Securing Democracy (ASD), which sponsors a tool called
Hamilton 68 , a news "intelligence net checker" that
claims to track Russian efforts to disseminate disinformation. The ASD
website advises that "Securing Democracy is a Global Necessity."
ASD was set up in 2017 by the usual neocon crowd with funding from The Atlanticist and anti-Russian German Marshall Fund. It is
loaded with a full complement of Zionists
and interventionists/globalists, to include Michael Chertoff, Michael McFaul, Michael Morell, Kori Schake and Bill Kristol. It claims,
innocently, to be a bipartisan transatlantic national security advocacy group that seeks to identify and counter efforts by Russia
to undermine democracies in the United States and Europe but it is actually itself a major source of disinformation.
For the moment, Tulsi Gabbard seems to be the "real thing," a genuine anti-war candidate who is determined to run on that platform.
It might just resonate with the majority of American who have grown tired of perpetual warfare to "spread democracy" and other related
frauds perpetrated by the band of oligarchs and traitors that run the United States. We the people can always hope.
Just those two. We can leave the rest of "globo-homo" agenda off the table, for the moment. And, the last but not the least,
that nagging angle about automation and (paid) work in general. Let's not get too ambitious here. Those two, only, should suffice
at the moment.
I like Tulsi. but she hasn't been tested in a presidential campaign yet. At least we will have someone who could put peace on
the ballot. She should write a book pulling her policies together and use it to get some publicity.
Regularly Americans vote for the less interventionist candidate. 2008, an important reason for Obama's victory against
Hillary Clinton and John McCain was that he had been against the Iraq war. 2000, George W. Bush said he was against nation building.
Then, after they are elected, the neocons remain in power. Something similar again with Donald Trump who campaigned against stupid
wars in the Middle East and now has surrounded himself with some of the most extreme neocons.
Of course, it is impossible to predict whether it will be the same with Tulsi Gabbard, but unlike these other candidates
in the past , she puts her rejection of neocons and regime change wars so much into the center of her campaign that it should
be assumed that she is serious – otherwise it would be complete betrayal. However, if she is serious about this and is elected,
she will be fought by the deep state and its allies in the media much more harshly than Trump, who isn't even consistently anti-neocons,
just not reliably pro-neocon. What they would probably do to her would make spygate, the Russiagate conspiracy theory, and the
Muller investigation look harmless. She might end like JFK (a VP who is just as anti-neocons might increase the chances of survival).
But despite all the risks, I think it is worth trying. If the US was a parliamentary democracy with proportional representation
and the neocons had their own party, it would hardly have more than a handful of seats in Congress. Although they don't have,
a significant base of their own, neocons have remained in power for a long time, whoever was elected. At the moment, Tulsi Gabbard
is probably the best hope for ending their long reign.
She'll be sabotaged by relentless smears and other dirty tricks. Only someone bought and owned will be allowed to be a candidate
which means the MIC must continue being fed enormous amounts of money and war hysteria constantly being stoked. She won't
have a chance. Besides, the Dem party has gotten radical and out of touch with the majority of Americans so who really wants them
in? There's no cause for optimism anywhere one looks.
Has anyone discussed the possibility of Tulsi being "marketed" or long-game "branded" through intentional theatre as "anti-war"
? Greenwald himself has questionable backers and the WWF good guy/bad guy character creations (like Trump's pre-election
talking points concerning illegal wars , now stuffed down the memory holes of many), all the FAKE and distracting "fights" etc
etc
Any serious Democratic candidate, and to some extent any Republican, must fly through the flack of Deep State anti-populist
guns. I am skeptical about Gabbard because her policy views are already too good to be true. She is "cruisin' for a bruisin'"
and there is already a campaign to erase her from the debate in the manner in which Ron Paul was erased a few years back.
Gabbard is an attractive woman and on camera she comes across as aggressive and a quick-thinking, highly articulate debater.
Like Trump her instinct is to meet force with counter-force rather than roll with the punches and I think that is her best chance.
In that way she calls the bluff of her opponents: Just how confident are they that in the end the public will prefer war to peace?
These points add up to a realistic chance of success but given the Deep State's stranglehold on the media she is definitely a
long shot.
De ja vu. I remember reading these very similar (not exactly but similar) sentiments about Barack Obama back in 2008. What
a load of crap that turned out to be, but I do understand that not all politicians are cut from the same dung heap, so it
is probably best to find out who is funding the little pricks while they are campaigning – for once they are elected, payback
is due.
In the case of Obama it was Robert Rubin( of Goldman Sachs) who bankrolled him, and of course, once elected it was bank bailout
time. Then once Ghaddaffi's gold back Dinar became a monetary powerhouse, he committed another crime for the bankers.
"Is she the real deal?"
Elect her and you'll find out, and there lies the problem – you get to find out when it's too late. On the other hand, she
could actually be honest and sincere, but that alone disqualifies her as a politician (the kind that Americans are used to anyway).
NTL, she's got people's attention and if for anything else – the people are anti-war, but the monied power brokers are definitely
not which begs the question – will democracy actually happen?
Don't know much about this lady. If she is "fair dinkum" in her anti war/anti-imperialism stance her only chance to get
into power & then get things done will be to gain a massive, committed popular following.
She will need to use tactics from both the Sanders & Trump play-books. She will need to appeal to a good number in both the
Sanders & Trump constituencies. Regardless, she will need an iron-will & tsunami of charisma .
@Biff Obama was a creation
of the Pritzker and Crowne families, although the puppet did decide he wanted to somewhat act on his own. Gabbard is certainly
taking flak from the Israel firsters, and her debating Trump on foreign policy in a US Presidential election would be a real paradigm
shift.
@renfro Where do you get
this "obsessive hatred of Muslims and Islam?"
She's been [insistent and consistent] using the term 'radical Islamic terrorists' which, unfortunately, is an accurate description
of ISIS (the bane of the ummah). OTOH, last year Tulsi was a featured speaker at a Moslem conference in NJ, and she has been outspoken
about freedom of religion and mutual respect. If you've got some evidence that she excludes Islam from that, please show it.
[Gabbard's] policy views are already too good to be true.
Not really. Too good to be true would be if she understood Putin in the context of the US and oligarch rape of Russia in the
1990's and how he has restored the Russian economy and dignity; and if she recognized (openly) the US role in the Maidan coup
and accepted the validity of the Crimean decision to return to Russia.
Unfortunately, even though she's taken a brave position on ending US regime-change war on Syria, in many other respects she
remains quite conventional. She also promotes fear of DPRK, and who knows what she thinks about China.
she comes across as aggressive and a quick-thinking, highly articulate debater.
Aggressive? Composed, confident, yes. Aggressive, no. Calm under fire is more like it. Take a look at the whole interview on
Morning Joe. She really outclasses those squirming bitches. BUT, notice her (short) responses on Putin and Assad ("adversary"
and "no"), real Judas moments. Does she believe that, or is she clinging to the Overton Window? https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/rep-gabbard-assad-is-not-an-enemy-of-the-us-1438093891865
Tulsi's presidential timber but she's wasting her life with the Democrats. Their consulting apparatchiks are going to stuff a
bunch of incoherent slogans up her butt. If she wants a real antiwar platform she should steal it wholesale from Stein and Ajamu
Baraka. Baraka built a complete and consistent law-and-order platform. He's the only real antiwar candidate in this country.
Of course the Democrat's CIA handlers will crush Tulsi if she starts to make sense, so she's going to have to take her supporters
and jump to the Greens.
She will lose, but arbitrary forcible repression of the party will discredit bullshit US electoral pageantry once and for all.
Then we move into the parallel government zone in conformity with world-standard human rights law and destroy the parasitic kleptocratic
USA.
@jack daniels You know .there
IS one thing nobody wants, really, to talk about.
.given the Deep State's stranglehold on the media she is definitely a long shot
Why, in this age, the "stronghold on the media" is so decisive? A person who gets the most of media exposure wins? That's how
it works?
Or, do anyone reading and posting here gets his/her information from the "media"? I'd say not.
Isn't the bottom, the very heart of the matter NOT a Deep State, Dem Joos, Anglo-Saxons, Masons, Illuminati and .whatever but
simple, eternal, laziness and stupidity of an average person?
Or, even worse: the real, true, needs and wants of an average person are simply "breads and circuses". Nothing more.
Combine those two and here we are.
I am aware that throws the spanner into works of those into Aryans, White supremacy, Western man and similar stuff, but, the
conclusion seems inevitable.
That's the heart of the problem "we" face at the moment. How to fix it, or even is it possible, I don't know. Have some ideas,
of course.
CIA Giraldi probably has more Cherokee DNA than Warren. Another fact he failed to provide to the Government during the security
clearance process. The troll has supported the republican establishment all his career, this distinguishes him from the trolls
that support the democratic establishment all of their careers. The fact that people can debate the relative merits of political
leaders from the dark lagoon reveals their complete lack of rational thought. No politician decides anything important.
@Anonymous No, then she is
toast in Hawaii politics, and she is probably running not because she plans on winning, but to raise her profile and perhaps open
doors for herself on the national or state level, which won't happen if you shoot yourself in the foot at the same time.
Besides, leaving aside Krishna consciousness, she is too close to Sanders to get any traction among the Republicans. I suppose
getting the bipartisan support of the Internet kook vote is something, but hard to translate into political office.
You're never going to get anything worthwhile from a Democratic politician because they're indoctrinated worse that the brightest
little Pioneer in Juche class. Take Ro Khana's meaningless pap.
What is this 'we should' crap? The law is perfectly clear. The right to self-defense is subject to necessity and proportionality
tests, and invariably subject to UN Charter Chapter 7 in its entirety. See Article 51. Instead of this 'restraint' waffle, just
say, the president must commit to faithfully execute the supreme law of the land, including UN Charter Chapter 7 and Article 2(4).
That means refrain from use or threat of force. Period.
Second, national security is not a loophole in human rights. Khana uses the legally meaningless CIA magic word 'threat.' Under
universal jurisdiction law, it is a war crime to declare abolished, suspended or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and
actions of the nationals of the hostile party. Domestic human rights are subject to ICCPR Article 4, HRC General Comment 29, and
the Siracusa Principles. Instead of CIA's standard National Security get-out clause, state explicitly that US national security
means respect, protection and fulfillment of all human rights. To enforce that, ratify the Rome Statute or GTFO.
Third, internationalism is OK as far as it goes, but Ro Khana doesn't deal with the underlying problem: CIA has infested State
with focal points and dotted-line reports, and demolished the department's capacity for pacific resolution of disputes. You have
to explicitly tie State's mission to UN Charter Chapter 6, and criminalize placement of domestic CIA agents in State.
Fourth, Congressional war-making powers are useless with Congress completely corrupted. Bring back the Ludlow Amendment, war
by public referendum only, subject to Article 51.
Tulsi is a far Left democrat. She supports raising taxes to pay for free college for people earning less than 125K and universal
health care, she actually joined protesters against the Dakota Access Pipeline, has a 100% rating from NARAL and Planned Parenthood,
supports homosexual marriage (changed her previous position in 2012), and has an F rating from the NRA. She's a Lefty. Not for
me, anyway.
I like the one on here who says the Democrat party has "gotten radical."
I assume this is sarcasm, but there is no denying the fact that the neocons(radical whack jobs) have jumped ship from the Republicans
and attached themselves to the Democrats (although there are filtering back into the Trump administration – drunk with power they'll
suck up to anyone)
The DNC NeverTrump crowd is all but calling for a nuclear exchange with Russia because they colluded with Trump to throw the
election, and they pose a National Security threat to the United States(in their head). Hillary also went on to say that Russians
Hacking the DNC is another 9/11. The radical Antifa crowd is made up of 99.999999% of Democratic voters.
The article states: " but by 2011 Boot had another war in mind. 'Qaddafi Must Go,' Boot
declared in The Weekly Standard. In Boot's telling, the Libyan dictator had become a threat
to the American homeland." -- -- - There is reported evidence that Libya was a war crime. And
the perpetrators are Free. See info below:
They speak of "The Rule of Law" while breaking the law themselves They are the dangerous
hypocrites that bombed Libya, and created hell Thousands upon thousands are dead in this
unfortunate country Many would still be alive, if our "leaders" had not been down and
dirty
Libya is reportedly a war crime and the war criminals are free Some of them are seen
posturing on the world stage and others are on T.V. Others have written books and others are
retired from public office And another exclaimed: "We came, we saw, he died" as murder was
their accomplice
They even teamed up with terrorists to commit their bloody crimes And this went unreported
in the "media": was this by design? There is a sickness and perversion loose in our society
today When war crimes can be committed and the "law" has nothing to say
Another "leader" had a fly past to celebrate the bombing victory in this illegal war Now
Libya is in chaos, while bloody terrorists roam secure And the NATO gang that caused all this
horror and devastation Are continuing their bloody bombings in other unfortunate nations
The question must be asked: "Are some past and present leaders above the law? Can they get
away with bombing and killing, are they men of straw? Whatever happened to law and order in
the so- called "democracies"? When those in power can get away with criminality: Is that not
hypocrisy?
There is no doubt that Libya was better off, before the "liberators" arrived Now many of
its unfortunate people are now struggling to exist and survive The future of this war torn
country now looks very sad and bleak If only our "leaders" had left it alone; but instead
hypocrisy: They Speak
Last night on "Tucker Carlson Tonight," Tucker interviewed J.D. Vance. The interview is
called "Why has the Democratic party turned into the party of the upper class" (February 14,
2019)
Carlson: Well for generations everybody in America knew what the stereotypes were
for the two political parties. Democrats were the party of the working class: Coal miners,
factory workers, your local beat cop. Republicans were the party of lawyers, and doctors, and
they spent a lot of time at country clubs. Remember? Things have changed a lot. Now Democrats
have become the party of the elite professional class. They're consultants, i-bankers,
socialites eager to lecture you about open borders, global warming, from their gated
communities. Nobody knows that change better, or has watched it more carefully than the
author of "Hillbilly Elegy," J.D. Vance. We spoke to him recently about it:
Carlson: J.D. Vance: Thanks for joining us. Because you don't live in Washington
and you think bigger thoughts than the rest of us who are completely consumed by this dumb
new cycle, I want to ask you a broader question: The parties have re-aligned. They don't
represent the same people they thought they represented, or that they've represented for the
last 70 years. I'm not sure their leaders understand this, but you do. Who do the parties
represent as of right now?
Vance: Well, at a big level the Democratic Party increasingly represents
professional class elites and Republicans represent middle and working class wage earners in
the middle of the country. Now I will say I think Democratic leaders kind of get this. If you
look at the big proposals from the 2020 presidential candidates: Universal child care,
debt-free college, even medicare for all which is framed as this lurch to the left, but is
really just a big hand-out to doctors, physicians, pharmaceutical companies and hospitals.
The sort of get that they're the party of the professional class and a lot of their policies
are geared towards making life easier for professional class Americans. The problem I have is
that my party, the Republican Party, hasn't quite figured out that we basically inherited a
big chunk of the old FDR coalition: The middle of the country, working and middle class blue
collar folks, the sort of people who work, pay their taxes, send their kids into the military
-- that's increasingly the base of the Republican Party, but the Republican donor elites are
actually not aligned with those folks in a lot of ways and so there's this really big
miss-match, big-picture, within the Republican Party.
Carlson: So I'm completely fascinated by what you just said -- something I've never
thought of in my life -- that medicare for all is actually a sop for the professional class.
That's a whole separate segment and I hope you'll come back and unpack that all. But more
broadly what you're saying I think is that the Democratic Party understands what it is, and
who it represents, and affirmatively represents them. They do things for their voters. But
the Republican Party doesn't actually represent its own voters very well.
Vance: Yes, that's exactly right. I mean look at who the Democratic Party is -- and
look, I don't like the Democratic Party's policies; most of the time I disagree with them --
but I at least admire that they know who their voters are and they actually -- just as raw,
cynical politics -- do a lot of things to serve those voters. Now look at who Republican
voters increasingly are: They're people who disproportionately serve in the military, but
Republican foreign policy has been a disaster for a lot of veterans. They're
disproportionately folks who want to have more children, they're people who want to have more
single-earner families, they're people who don't necessarily want to go to college, but they
want to work in an economy where, if you play by the rules, you could actually support a
family on one income. Have Republicans done anything for those people, really, in the last 15
or 20 years? I think you can point to some policies of the Trump administration -- certainly
instinctively the President gets who his voters are and what he has to do to service those
folks -- but at the end of the day the broad elite of the party, the folks who really call
the shots, the think-tank intellectuals, the people who write the policy, I just don't think
they realize who their own voters are. Now the slightly more worrying implication is that
maybe some of them do realize who their voters are, they just don't actually like those
voters a lot.
Carlson: Well, that's it. So, I watch the Democratic Party and I notice that if
there's a substantial block within it -- it's this unstable coalition of all these groups
that have nothing in common -- but the one thing they have in common is that the Democratic
Party will protect them. You criticize a block of Democratic voters and they're on you like a
wounded wombat -- they'll bit you! The Republicans watch their voters come under attack and
sort of nod in agreement: Yeah, these people should be attacked.
Vance: That's absolutely right. If you talk to people who spent their lives in DC
-- I know you live in DC, I've spent a lot of my life here -- the people who spend their time
in DC, who work on Republican campaigns, who work at conservative think-tanks -- now this
isn't true of everybody -- but a lot of them actually don't like the people who are voting
for Republican candidates these days. And if you ultimately boil down the Never Trump
phenomenon -- what is the Never Trump phenomenon? -- I was very critical of the President
during the campaign -- but the Never Trump phenomenon is primarily not about the President.
It's about the people who are most excited about somebody who was anti-elitest effectively
taking over the Republican Party. They recognize that Trump was -- whatever his faults -- a
person who instinctively understood who Republicans needed to be for. And at the end of the
day, I think they don't think they necessarily want the Republican Party to be for those
folks. They don't like the policies that will come from it, they don't like necessarily the
country that will come from it, and so there's a lot of vitriol directed at people who voted
for Donald Trump, whether excitedly or not.
Carlson: If the Republican Party has a future, it'll be organized around the ideas
you just laid out -- maybe led by you or by somebody who thinks like you, I'm serious. That's
what it needs. I think. J.D. Vance. Thank you.
"... As Trump found himself accused of improper ties to Vladimir Putin, Boot agitated for more aggressive confrontation with Russia. Boot demanded larger weapons shipments to Ukraine. ..."
"... Boot's stock in the Washington foreign policy establishment rose. In 2018, he was hired by The Washington Post as a columnist. The paper's announcement cited Boot's "expertise on armed conflict." ..."
"... Republicans in Washington never recovered. When Trump attacked the Iraq War and questioned the integrity of the people who planned and promoted it, he was attacking them. They hated him for that. Some of them became so angry, it distorted their judgment and character. ..."
"... Almost from the moment Operation Desert Storm concluded in 1991, Kristol began pushing for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. In 1997, The Weekly Standard ran a cover story titled "Saddam Must Go." If the United States didn't launch a ground invasion of Iraq, the lead editorial warned, the world should "get ready for the day when Saddam has biological and chemical weapons at the tips of missiles aimed at Israel and at American forces in the Gulf." ..."
"... Under ordinary circumstances, Bill Kristol would be famous for being wrong. Kristol still goes on television regularly, but it's not to apologize for the many demonstrably untrue things he's said about the Middle East, or even to talk about foreign policy. Instead, Kristol goes on TV to attack Donald Trump. ..."
"... Trump's election seemed to undo Bill Kristol entirely. He lost his job at The Weekly Standard after more than 20 years, forced out by owners who were panicked about declining readership. He seemed to spend most of his time on Twitter ranting about Trump. ..."
"... By the spring of 2018, Kristol was considering a run for president himself. He was still making the case for the invasion of Iraq, as well as pushing for a new war, this time in Syria, and maybe in Lebanon and Iran, too. Like most people in Washington, he'd learned nothing at all. ..."
"... Creating complex and convincing false narratives to support demonic purposes is HARD WORK, and requires big pay. ..."
"... Lots of spilled ink here that's pretty meaningless without an answer to the following: Why does Trump employ John Bolton and Elliot Abrams? Explain Trump and Pence and Pompeo's Iran obsession and how it's any better than Kristol/Boot? ..."
One thing that
every late-stage ruling class has in common is a high tolerance for mediocrity. Standards
decline, the edges fray, but nobody in charge seems to notice. They're happy in their sinecures
and getting richer. In a culture like this, there's no penalty for being wrong. The talentless
prosper, rising inexorably toward positions of greater power, and breaking things along the
way. It happened to the Ottomans.
Max Boot is living proof that it's happening in America.
Boot is a professional foreign policy expert, a job category that doesn't exist outside of a
select number of cities. Boot has degrees from Berkeley and Yale, and is a fellow at the
Council on Foreign Relations. He has written a number of books and countless newspaper columns
on foreign affairs and military history. The International Institute for Strategic Studies, an
influential British think tank, describes Boot as one of the "world's leading authorities on
armed conflict."
None of this, it turns out, means anything. The professional requirements for being one
ofthe world's Leading Authorities on Armed Conflict do not include relevant experience with
armed conflict. Leading authorities on the subject don't need a track record of wise
assessments or accurate predictions. All that's required are the circular recommendations of
fellow credential holders. If other Leading Authorities on Armed Conflict induct you into their
ranks, you're in. That's good news for Max Boot.
Boot first became famous in the weeks after 9/11 for outlining a response that the Bush
administration seemed to read like a script, virtually word for word. While others were
debating whether Kandahar or Kabul ought to get the first round of American bombs, Boot was
thinking big. In October 2001, he published a piece in The Weekly Standard titled "The
Case for American Empire."
"The September 11 attack was a result of insufficient American involvement and ambition,"
Boot wrote. "The solution is to be more expansive in our goals and more assertive in their
implementation." In order to prevent more terror attacks in American cities, Boot called for a
series of U.S.-led revolutions around the world, beginning in Afghanistan and moving swiftly to
Iraq.
"Once we have deposed Saddam, we can impose an American-led, international regency in
Baghdad, to go along with the one in Kabul," Boot wrote. "To turn Iraq into a beacon of hope
for the oppressed peoples of the Middle East: Now that would be a historic war aim. Is this an
ambitious agenda? Without a doubt. Does America have the resources to carry it out? Also
without a doubt."
In retrospect, Boot's words are painful to read, like love letters from a marriage that
ended in divorce. Iraq remains a smoldering mess. The Afghan war is still in progress close to
20 years in. For perspective, Napoleon Bonaparte seized control of France, crowned himself
emperor, defeated four European coalitions against him, invaded Russia, lost, was defeated and
exiled, returned, and was defeated and exiled a second time, all in less time than the United
States has spent trying to turn Afghanistan into a stable country.
Things haven't gone as planned. What's remarkable is that despite all the failure and waste
and deflated expectations, defeats that have stirred self-doubt in the heartiest of men, Boot
has remained utterly convinced of the virtue of his original predictions. Certainty is a
prerequisite for Leading Authorities on Armed Conflict.
In the spring of 2003, with the war in Iraq under way, Boot began to consider new countries
to invade. He quickly identified Syria and Iran as plausible targets, the latter because it was
"less than two years" from building a nuclear bomb. North Korea made Boot's list as well. Then
Boot became more ambitious. Saudi Arabia could use a democracy, he decided.
"If the U.S. armed forces made such short work of a hardened goon like Saddam Hussein,
imagine what they could do to the soft and sybaritic Saudi royal family," Boot wrote.
Five years later, in a piece for The Wall Street Journal , Boot advocated for the
military occupation of Pakistan and Somalia. The only potential problem, he predicted, was
unreasonable public opposition to new wars.
"Ragtag guerrillas have proven dismayingly successful in driving out or neutering
international peacekeeping forces," he wrote. "Think of American and French troops blown up in
Beirut in 1983, or the 'Black Hawk Down' incident in Somalia in 1993. Too often, when outside
states do agree to send troops, they are so fearful of casualties that they impose rules of
engagement that preclude meaningful action."
In other words, the tragedy of foreign wars isn't that Americans die, but that too few
Americans are willing to die. To solve this problem, Boot recommended recruiting foreign
mercenaries. "The military would do well today to open its ranks not only to legal immigrants
but also to illegal ones," he wrote in the Los Angeles Times . When foreigners get
killed fighting for America, he noted, there's less political backlash at home.
♦♦♦
American forces, documented or not, never occupied Pakistan, but by 2011 Boot had another
war in mind. "Qaddafi Must Go," Boot declared in The Weekly Standard . In Boot's
telling, the Libyan dictator had become a threat to the American homeland. "The only way this
crisis will end -- the only way we and our allies can achieve our objectives in Libya -- is to
remove Qaddafi from power. Containment won't suffice."
In the end, Gaddafi was removed from power, with ugly and long-lasting consequences. Boot
was on to the next invasion. By late 2012, he was once again promoting attacks on Syria and
Iran, as he had nine years before. In a piece for The New York Times , Boot laid out
"Five Reasons to Intervene in Syria Now."
Overthrowing the Assad regime, Boot predicted, would "diminish Iran's influence" in the
region, influence that had grown dramatically since the Bush administration took Boot's advice
and overthrew Saddam Hussein, Iran's most powerful counterbalance. To doubters concerned about
a complex new war, Boot promised the Syria intervention could be conducted "with little
risk."
Days later, Boot wrote a separate piece for Commentary magazine calling for American
bombing of Iran. It was a busy week, even by the standards of a Leading Authority on Armed
Conflict. Boot conceded that "it remains a matter of speculation what Iran would do in the wake
of such strikes." He didn't seem worried.
Listed in one place, Boot's many calls for U.S.-led war around the world come off as a
parody of mindless warlike noises, something you might write if you got mad at a country while
drunk. ("I'll invade you!!!") Republicans in Washington didn't find any of it amusing. They
were impressed. Boot became a top foreign policy adviser to John McCain's presidential campaign
in 2008, to Mitt Romney in 2012, and to Marco Rubio in 2016.
Everything changed when Trump won the Republican nomination. Trump had never heard of the
International Institute for Strategic Studies. He had no idea Max Boot was a Leading Authority
on Armed Conflict. Trump was running against more armed conflicts. He had no interest in
invading Pakistan. Boot hated him.
As Trump found himself accused of improper ties to Vladimir Putin, Boot agitated for more
aggressive confrontation with Russia. Boot demanded larger weapons shipments to Ukraine. He
called for effectively expelling Russia from the global financial system, a move that might be
construed as an act of war against a nuclear-armed power. The stakes were high, but with
signature aplomb Boot assured readers it was "hard to imagine" the Russian government would
react badly to the provocation. Those who disagreed Boot dismissed as "cheerleaders" for Putin
and the mullahs in Iran.
Boot's stock in the Washington foreign policy establishment rose. In 2018, he was hired by
The Washington Post as a columnist. The paper's announcement cited Boot's "expertise on
armed conflict."
It is possible to isolate the precise moment that Trump permanently alienated the Republican
establishment in Washington: February 13, 2016. There was a GOP primary debate that night in
Greenville, South Carolina, so every Republican in Washington was watching. Seemingly out of
nowhere, Trump articulated something that no party leader had ever said out loud. "We should
never have been in Iraq," Trump announced, his voice rising. "We have destabilized the Middle
East."
Many in the crowd booed, but Trump kept going: "They lied. They said there were weapons of
mass destruction. There were none. And they knew there were none."
Pandemonium seemed to erupt in the hall, and on television. Shocked political analysts
declared that the Trump presidential effort had just euthanized itself. Republican voters, they
said with certainty, would never accept attacks on policies their party had espoused and
carried out.
Republican voters had a different reaction. They understood that adults sometimes change
their minds based on evidence. They themselves had come to understand that the Iraq war was a
mistake. They appreciated hearing something verboten but true.
Rival Republicans denounced Trump as an apostate. Voters considered him brave. Trump won the South Carolina primary, and shortly after that, the Republican nomination.
Republicans in Washington never recovered. When Trump attacked the Iraq War and questioned
the integrity of the people who planned and promoted it, he was attacking them. They hated him
for that. Some of them became so angry, it distorted their judgment and character.
♦♦♦
Bill Kristol is probably the most influential Republican strategist of the post-Reagan era.
Born in 1954, Kristol was the second child of the writer Irving Kristol, one of the founders of
neoconservatism.
The neoconservatism of Irving Kristol and his friends was jarring to the ossified liberal
establishment of the time, but in retrospect it was basically a centrist philosophy: pragmatic,
tolerant of a limited welfare state, not rigidly ideological. By the time Bill Kristol got done
with it 40 years later, neoconservatism was something else entirely.
Almost from the moment Operation Desert Storm concluded in 1991, Kristol began pushing for
the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. In 1997, The Weekly Standard ran a cover story titled
"Saddam Must Go." If the United States didn't launch a ground invasion of Iraq, the lead
editorial warned, the world should "get ready for the day when Saddam has biological and
chemical weapons at the tips of missiles aimed at Israel and at American forces in the
Gulf."
After the September 11 attacks, Kristol found a new opening to start a war with Iraq. In
November 2001, he and Robert Kagan wrote a piece in The Weekly Standard alleging that
Saddam Hussein hosted a training camp for Al Qaeda fighters where terrorists had trained to
hijack planes. They suggested that Mohammad Atta, mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, was actively
collaborating with Saddam's intelligence services. On the basis of no evidence, they accused
Iraq of fomenting the anthrax attacks on American politicians and news outlets.
Under ordinary circumstances, Bill Kristol would be famous for being wrong. Kristol still
goes on television regularly, but it's not to apologize for the many demonstrably untrue things
he's said about the Middle East, or even to talk about foreign policy. Instead, Kristol goes on
TV to attack Donald Trump.
Trump's election seemed to undo Bill Kristol entirely. He lost his job at The Weekly
Standard after more than 20 years, forced out by owners who were panicked about declining
readership. He seemed to spend most of his time on Twitter ranting about Trump.
Before long he was ranting about the people who elected Trump. At an American Enterprise
Institute panel event in February 2017, Kristol made the case for why immigrants are more
impressive than native-born Americans. "Basically if you are in free society, a capitalist
society, after two, three, four generations of hard work, everyone becomes kind of decadent,
lazy, spoiled, whatever." Most Americans, Kristol said, "grew up as spoiled kids and so
forth."
In February 2018, Kristol tweeted that he would "take in a heartbeat a group of newly
naturalized American citizens over the spoiled native-born know-nothings" who supported
Trump.
By the spring of 2018, Kristol was considering a run for president himself. He was still
making the case for the invasion of Iraq, as well as pushing for a new war, this time in Syria,
and maybe in Lebanon and Iran, too. Like most people in Washington, he'd learned nothing at
all.
Trump isn't the only one hated by useless establishment Republicans – with essays like
this so will Tucker. Thanks for this takedown of these two warmongering know-nothings. I wish
Trump all the time was like he was at that debate in S Carolina where he said what every
American knows: the Iraq invasion was stupid and we should not have done it!
So why are these professional war peddlers still around? For the same reason that members of
the leadership class who failed and continue to fail in the Middle East are still around.
There has not been an accounting at any level. There is just more talk of more war.
Well, the headline pretty much answers its own question if you know the purpose of Experts.
In any subject matter from science to economics to politics, Experts are paid to be
wrong. Nobody has to be paid to observe reality accurately with his own senses and rational mind.
Every living creature does that all the time. It's the basic requirement of survival.
Creating complex and convincing false narratives to support demonic purposes is HARD WORK,
and requires big pay.
""The September 11 attack was a result of insufficient American involvement and ambition,"
Boot wrote. "The solution is to be more expansive in our goals and more assertive in their
implementation.""
In other words, if we had only squandered even more blood and treasure, why, everything
would have been fine.
Why do so many true believers end up with some variation on the true believer's wheeze:
"Communism didn't fail ! It was never tried!" Then again one can't be sure that Boot
is a true believer. He might be a treacherous snake trying to use American power to advance a
foreign agenda.
Max Boot has indeed been an advocate of overseas intervention, but you fail to point out
that he has recanted his support of the Iraq War. In his 2018 book "The Corrosion of
Conservatism: Why I left the American Right," he states:
". . . I can finally acknowledge the obvious: it (The Iraq War) was all a big mistake.
Saddam Hussein was heinous, but Iraq was better off under his tyrannical rule than the chaos
that followed. I regret advocating the invasion and feel guilty about all the lives lost. It
was a chastening lesson in the limits of American power."
I'm glad to see that Boot, along with yourself and other Republicans, realize that
American use of force must have a clear objective with reasonable chance of success. I
suggest you send this article to John Bolton. I'm not sure he agrees with you.
Excellent article. It's a shame that the Bush era GOP took Boot and Kristol seriously. That
poor judgment led Bush to make the kinds of mistakes that gave Democrats the opening they
needed to gain power, which in turn led them to make even more harmful mistakes.
Being against the Iraq 2 I find this populist arguing very 'eye-rolling' as you were pimping
this war to death back in the day. (In fact I remember Jon Stewart being one of the few
'pundits' that questioned the war in 2003 & 2004.) And has dovish as Trump as been, his
administration is still filled with Hawks and if you are concerned about wars then maybe use
your TV show for instead of whining for past mistakes:
1) The administration action in Iran is aggressive and counter-productive to long term
peace. The nuclear deal was an effective way of ensuring Iran controlling behavior for 15
years as the other parties, Europe and China, wanted to trade with Iran. (Additionally it
makes our nation depend more on the Saudia relationship in which Washington should be slowly
moving away from.)
2) Like it or not, Venezuela is starting down the steps of mission creep for the Trump
Administration. Recommend the administration stay away from peace keeping troops and suggest
this is China's problem. (Venezuela in debt to their eyeballs with China.)
3) Applaud the administration with peace talks with NK but warn them not to overstate
their accomplishments. It is ridiculous that the administration signed big nuclear deals with
NK that don't exist.
I find it amazing that Boot is considered one of the "world's leading authorities on armed
conflict,"yet never appears to have served in any branch of the armed forces, nor even heard
a shot fired in anger. He is proof that academic credentials do not automatically confer
"expertise."
Any war, anytime, any place, and cause just so long as American boys and girls can be in the
middle of it.
Welcome to the American NeoCon movement, recently joined by Republican Never Trumpers,
elected Democrats, and a host of far too many underemployed Beltway Generals &
Admirals.
From a reformed Leftist, thank you Tucker for calling out the stank from the Republicans. The
detailed compilation of lowlights from Max Boot and Bill Kristol (don't forget Robert Kagan!)
should be etched in the minds of the now pro-war Democratic Party establishment.
I laughed out loud while reading this, and continued laughing through to the end, until I
saw who had the audacity to tell the truth about these utter incompetent failures (who have
failed upwards for more than a decade now) who call themselves "foreign policy experts."
Yeah -- "experts" at being so moronically wrong that you really start wondering if perhaps
the benjamins from another middle eastern nation, that can't be named, has something to do
with their worthless opinions, which always seem to do made for the benifit of the nameless
nation.
So hurrah for you!!!
Let the truth set us all free!
Praise the Lord & Sing Songs of Praise to his Name!!!!
Literally that's how great it is to hear the pure & unvarnished TRUTH spoken out loud in
this publication!
I hope you get such awesome feedback that you are asked to continue to bless us with more
truths!
Thank you! You totally made my day!
And thank you for your service to this country, where it used to be considered patriotic
to speak the truth honestly & plainly!
"Once we have deposed Saddam, we can impose an American-led, international regency in
Baghdad, to go along with the one in Kabul," Boot wrote.
To which the reader might reasonably reply, "What do you mean we , Paleface?"
When I see Max Boot or Bill Kristol in uniform, carrying a rifle, and trudging with their
platoon along the dusty roads of the Middle East, I'll begin to pay attention to their bleats
and jeremiads.
Until that day, I'll continue to view them as a pair of droning, dull-as-ditchwater
members of the 45th Word-processing Brigade. (Company motto: "Let's you and him fight!")
It is my understanding that HRC led the charge to overthrow and hang Gaddafi in spite of a
reluctant Obama administration. Did Boot, in fact, influence her?
"Most Americans, Kristol said, "grew up as spoiled kids and so forth."" Unintentional irony, one must presume. Still it is astonishing that it took someone as addled as DJT to point out the
obvious–Invading Iraq was a massive mistake.
Just like Eliot Abrams, John McCain, GWB, Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld or any other neocon, there is
no justice or punishment or even well deserved humiliation for these parasites. They are
always misinformed, misguided, or "well intentioned."
The US can interfere with sovereign governments and elections at will I guess and not be
responsible for the the unintended consequences such as 500k+ killed in the Middle East since
the Iraq and Afghan debacle.
There are sugar daddies from the MIC, the Natsec state (aka the Swamp), AIPAC, and even
Jeff Bezos (benefactor of WaPo) that keep these guys employed.
You need to be more critical of Trump also as he is the one hiring these clowns. But other
than that, keep up the good work Mr. Carlson!
These Chairborne Rangers in Washington know nothing about war. They are the flip side of the radical Dems. "Hey, we lost in 2016. Let's do MORE of what
made us lose in the first place!"
The GOP is as much an enemy to the Trump revolution
as the left. The Bush/Clinton/Obama coalition runs DC – controls the federal workforce, and
colludes to run the Federal government for themselves and their pet constituents.
Trump should have stuck it out on the shutdown until those federal workers left. I think
it was called RIF wherein after 30 days, he could dump the lot of em.
THE GOP IS NOT THE PARTY OF LESS GOVERNMENT. That's there motto for busy conservatives who
don't have the time or inclination to monitor both sides of the swamp.
Lots of spilled ink here that's pretty meaningless without an answer to the following:
Why does Trump employ John Bolton and Elliot Abrams? Explain Trump and Pence and Pompeo's Iran obsession and how it's any better than
Kristol/Boot?
Funny how when liberals said it was wrong to be in Iraq they were vilified. Yes some
conservatives changed their minds. Trump however is all over the map when it comes to wars.
http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/176527/
"... Why does the USA care about internal Venezuelan politics? Because it cares about every country's politics and demands every country bow down and kneel to the USA. The voters, aka morons, support this, both liberal and right wing, and have for generations. ..."
"... The morons pay their taxes to meddle in other countries and for a giant military to slaughter people who do not obey. ..."
Venezuela invasion thing is double-faceted: a trap for Trump & a bluff. if the
invasion is, then bye-bye 2020 election, mission accomplished. if no invasion on sight then
the bluff of Pompeo-Bolton-Abrams is called & the 2020 reelection assured. Venezuela in
the role of bait.
The real issue lies in the voting class which cowers in fear all day long and
seeks saviors every four years via rigged circus. Trump = Obama = CIA meddling in every
country. Presidents never change, only the perception of the morons changes.
Why does the USA care about internal Venezuelan politics? Because it cares about every
country's politics and demands every country bow down and kneel to the USA. The voters, aka
morons, support this, both liberal and right wing, and have for generations.
The morons pay their taxes to meddle in other countries and for a giant military to
slaughter people who do not obey. Freedom at the point of a gun. Nothing quite says
democracy like having the US president tell the Venezuelans how to run their country.
"... Establishment NeoCons and Neolibs are going to erase Tulsi's candidacy by not mentioning her, not including her in polls, and not letting into debates. Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich received this treatment in 2008/2012 ... because of their Antiwar stance. ..."
Establishment NeoCons and Neolibs are going to erase Tulsi's candidacy by not mentioning her,
not including her in polls, and not letting into debates. Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich
received this treatment in 2008/2012 ... because of their Antiwar stance.
I get goosebumps every time I listen to this lady speak, even without the dramatic music.
Happy Valentines day to the heart of America, Tulsi Gabbard!!
I really don't think Bernie is going to run. and tulsi should announce
early on that her pick for vp is bernie. bernie for domestic solutions and tulsi for foreign
ones. That's the winning ticket.
If the dnc rigs the election again then i think the people
should conduct our own regime change here with tulsi as our commander-in-chief of the
peoples' army. this nonsense has to stop.
"... I'm not American but after seeing how Tulsi Gabbard conducted herself in this (so called) interview I urge ALL thinking Americans to put all of their support behind her candidacy for the Presidency. ..."
I'm not American but after seeing how Tulsi Gabbard conducted herself in this (so called)
interview I urge ALL thinking Americans to put all of their support behind her candidacy for
the Presidency.
I am a Syrian and I appreciate everything Tulsi Gabbard is trying to do to stop regime
change. The US media is criminal and responsible for the blood shed in Syria and many other
places. Assad was never an enemy to the US or other western countries.
Gabbard is young, but her metal shows in this clip as she just smiles at the msnbc
stupidity. She doesn't even take these jokers seriously, and that is going to allow her to go
over their heads and connect directly with the public. This is actually awesome.
I am a Trump supporter on the right but truly appreciate Jimmy Dore. I am hopeful that the
left & right can unite against these pro-war establishment propagandists. Let's stop
foreign wars, neocon/neolib policies & MSM deceit ... then we can debate progressive vs
conservative issues.
Putin actually said that, other than the cold war, Russia and the U.S. have always been
allies, and that's what he wants. I have two recent videos where Putin is calling for peace
and good relations with America. Do I really need to find the links and post them here? I'm a
busy man. Let's all help Jimmy, Ron and Steph by doing some homework. Americans should stop
smearing good people and start applying some critical thinking skills. "Putin-puppets"?
What
about " military industrial complex puppets" who robotically repeat false Russian collusion
accusations in order to silence honest dissent? Talk about the pot calling the kettle
black.
Hey Jimmy, hey Jimmy! Have you seen the vid of Putin talking to the western press? I think
it was 2015 or so. He's calmly talking about NATO and weapons being put on Russia's borders
and how bad it would be if this goes ahead and Russia has to respond. He's practically
pleading with them to let the American people know this doesn't have to happen. I saw him
saying much the same thing in a Charlie Rose interview before Rose moved into the Big Bucks
on network TV. Yet as things were heating up about Russia Rose never mentioned this as he sat
at that morning show desk.
MSNBC and especially the panel of Morning Joe are some of the most shameless tools in
America. If DC is a sewer inhabited by big fat sewer rats; then Kasie (and her ilk), are the
plague-infected fleas that take their blood-meals from those rats.
This is a good reason to vote for her the only thing she represents is good and they want her gone it seems, she has the majority
of America on her mind.
I was a huge Bernie fan in the last election, but I would love it if he holds a huge press conference to announce his plans
and instead gives a HUGE endorsement to Tulsi. That would be a great way to stick it to the media and give her more coverage.
They need to make sure Tulsi won't make it to any debates, because they can't allow the discussion that would ensue about expensive,
illegal and useless military adventures that we need to stop. And in a debate, they can't simply interrupt her like they can in
an interview. That's not a discussion they can allow because people could think they might actually have a choice in the matter.
For war mongers, they sure are chicken-shits who obviously don't even have any confidence in their own arguments in favor of it.
Politics as usual. Voters always end up with two oligarch picks that have been groomed to mouth what they are told. MSM employees
are not independent thinkers either. The two party system has been around for a long time, although in reality it is one party
with a and b choices.
Press Release Washington, DC -- Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (HI-02) joined a
coalition of over 160 lawmakers in introducing legislation that would create a national paid
family and medical leave program. The Family and Medical Insurance Leave Act, known as the
FAMILY Act, would ensure that every American worker can take up to 12 weeks of paid leave for a
pregnancy or the birth or adoption of a child, to recover from a serious illness, or to care
for a seriously ill family member.
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard said: "Across the country, people are working hard every day, living
paycheck to paycheck, barely making enough to get by. When a crisis arises, like a parent who
falls sick, a personal health crisis, or a newborn child, the demands of balancing a job and
family needs can be too much. Without a national family leave policy, millions of Americans are
forced to make an impossible choice between their family's health, and their financial
security. Our legislation will provide the security our working families need to care for their
loved ones, without risking their ability to keep a roof over their heads and food on the
table."
Background: The FAMILY Act establishes a national family and medical leave insurance
program. Receiving paid leave benefits allows workers to take time away from their jobs to
address their most-pressing needs. Specifically, the legislation would provide eligible
employees up to 12 weeks of partial income to address:
A serious personal health condition, including pregnancy or childbirth,
A family member with a serious health condition,
A newborn, newly-adopted child, or a newly-placed foster child, or
"... So how did Trump finally get the liberal corporate media to stop calling him a fascist? He did that by acting like a fascist (i.e., like a "normal" president). Which is to say he did the bidding of the deep state goons and corporate mandarins that manage the global capitalist empire the smiley, happy, democracy-spreading, post-fascist version of fascism we live under. ..."
"... Notwithstanding what the corporate media will tell you, Americans elected Donald Trump, a preposterous, self-aggrandizing ass clown, not because they were latent Nazis, or because they were brainwashed by Russian hackers, but, primarily, because they wanted to believe that he sincerely cared about America, and was going to try to "make it great again" (whatever that was supposed to mean, exactly). ..."
"... Unfortunately, there is no America. There is nothing to make great again. "America" is a fiction, a fantasy, a nostalgia that hucksters like Donald Trump (and other, marginally less buffoonish hucksters) use to sell whatever they are selling themselves, wars, cars, whatever. What there is, in reality, instead of America, is a supranational global capitalist empire, a decentralized, interdependent network of global corporations, financial institutions, national governments, intelligence agencies, supranational governmental entities, military forces, media, and so on. If that sounds far-fetched or conspiratorial, look at what is going on in Venezuela. ..."
"... And Venezuela is just the most recent blatant example of the empire in action. ..."
Maybe Donald Trump isn't as stupid as I thought. I'd hate to have to admit that publicly,
but it does kind of seem like he has put one over on the liberal corporate media this time.
Scanning the recent Trump-related news, I couldn't help but notice a significant decline in the
number of references to Weimar, Germany, Adolf Hitler, and "
the brink of fascism " that America has supposedly been teetering on since Hillary Clinton
lost the election.
I googled around pretty well, I think, but I couldn't find a single
editorial warning that Trump is about to summarily cancel the U.S. Constitution, dissolve
Congress, and
proclaim himself Führer . Nor did I see any mention of Auschwitz , or any other Nazi
stuff which is weird, considering that the Hitler hysteria
has been a standard feature of the official narrative we've been subjected to for the last two
years.
So how did Trump finally get the liberal corporate media to stop calling him a fascist? He
did that by acting like a fascist (i.e., like a "normal" president). Which is to say he did the
bidding of the deep state goons and corporate mandarins that manage the global capitalist
empire the smiley, happy, democracy-spreading, post-fascist version of fascism we live
under.
I'm referring, of course, to Venezuela, which is one of a handful of uncooperative countries
that are not playing ball with global capitalism and which haven't been "regime changed" yet.
Trump green-lit the attempted coup purportedly being staged by the Venezuelan "opposition," but
which is obviously a U.S. operation, or, rather, a global capitalist operation. As soon as he
did, the corporate media immediately suspended calling him a fascist, and comparing him to
Adolf Hitler, and so on, and started spewing out blatant propaganda supporting his effort to
overthrow the elected government of a sovereign country.
Overthrowing the governments of sovereign countries, destroying their economies, stealing
their gold, and otherwise bringing them into the fold of the global capitalist "international
community" is not exactly what most folks thought Trump meant by "Make America Great Again."
Many Americans have never been to Venezuela, or Syria, or anywhere else the global capitalist
empire has been ruthlessly restructuring since shortly after the end of the Cold War. They have
not been lying awake at night worrying about Venezuelan democracy, or Syrian democracy, or
Ukrainian democracy.
This is not because Americans are a heartless people, or an ignorant or a selfish people. It
is because, well, it is because they are Americans (or, rather, because they believe they are
Americans), and thus are more interested in the problems of Americans than in the problems of
people in faraway lands that have nothing whatsoever to do with America. Notwithstanding what
the corporate media will tell you, Americans elected Donald Trump, a preposterous,
self-aggrandizing ass clown, not because they were latent Nazis, or because they were
brainwashed by Russian hackers, but, primarily, because they wanted to believe that he
sincerely cared about America, and was going to try to "make it great again" (whatever that was
supposed to mean, exactly).
Unfortunately, there is no America. There is nothing to make great again. "America" is a
fiction, a fantasy, a nostalgia that hucksters like Donald Trump (and other, marginally less
buffoonish hucksters) use to sell whatever they are selling themselves, wars, cars, whatever.
What there is, in reality, instead of America, is a supranational global capitalist empire, a
decentralized, interdependent network of global corporations, financial institutions, national
governments, intelligence agencies, supranational governmental entities, military forces,
media, and so on. If that sounds far-fetched or conspiratorial, look at what is going on in
Venezuela.
The entire global capitalist empire is working in concert to force the elected president of
the country out of office. The US, the UK, Canada, France, Germany, Spain, Austria, Denmark,
Poland, the Netherlands, Israel, Brazil, Peru, Chile, and Argentina have officially recognized
Juan Guaido as the legitimate president of Venezuela, in spite of the fact that no one elected
him. Only the empire's official evil enemies (i.e., Russia, China, Iran, Syria, Cuba, and other
uncooperative countries) are objecting to this "democratic" coup. The global financial system
(i.e., banks) has frozen (i.e., stolen) Venezuela's assets, and is attempting to transfer them
to Guaido so he can buy the Venezuelan military. The corporate media are hammering out the
official narrative like a Goebbelsian piano in an effort to convince the general public that
all this has something to do with democracy. You would have to be a total moron or hopelessly
brainwashed not to recognize what is happening.
What is happening has nothing to do with America the "America" that Americans believe they
live in and that many of them want to "make great again." What is happening is exactly what has
been happening around the world since the end of the Cold War, albeit most dramatically in the
Middle East. The de facto global capitalist empire is restructuring the planet with virtual
impunity. It is methodically eliminating any and all impediments to the hegemony of global
capitalism, and the privatization and commodification of everything.
Venezuela is one of these impediments. Overthrowing its government has nothing to do with
America, or the lives of actual Americans. "America" is not to going conquer Venezuela and
plant an American flag on its soil. "America" is not going to steal its oil, ship it "home,"
and parcel it out to "Americans" in their pickups in the parking lot of Walmart.
What what about those American oil corporations? They want that Venezuelan oil, don't they?
Well, sure they do, but here's the thing there are no "American" oil corporations.
Corporations, especially multi-billion dollar transnational corporations (e.g., Chevron,
ExxonMobil, et al.) have no nationalities, nor any real allegiances, other than to their major
shareholders. Chevron, for example, whose major shareholders are asset management and mutual
fund companies like Black Rock, The Vanguard Group, SSgA Funds Management, Geode Capital
Management, Wellington Management, and other transnational, multi-trillion dollar outfits. Do
you really believe that being nominally headquartered in Boston or New York makes these
companies "American," or that Deutsche Bank is a "German" bank, or that BP is a "British"
company?
And Venezuela is just the most recent blatant example of the empire in action. Ask yourself,
honestly, what have the "American" regime change ops throughout the Greater Middle East done
for any actual Americans, other than get a lot of them killed? Oh, and how about those bailouts
for all those transnational "American" investment banks? Or the billions "America" provides to
Israel? Someone please explain how enriching the shareholders of transnational corporations
like Raytheon, Boeing, and Lockheed Martin by selling billions in weapons to Saudi Arabian
Islamists is benefiting "the American people." How much of that Saudi money are you seeing?
And, wait, I've got another one for you. Call up your friendly 401K manager, ask how your
Pfizer shares are doing, then compare that to what you're paying some "American" insurance
corporation to not really cover you.
For the last two-hundred years or so, we have been conditioned to think of ourselves as the
citizens of a collection of sovereign nation states, as "Americans," "Germans," "Greeks," and
so on. There are no more sovereign nation states. Global capitalism has done away with them.
Which is why we are experiencing a "neo-nationalist" backlash. Trump, Brexit, the so-called
"new populism" these are the death throes of national sovereignty, like the thrashing of a
suffocating fish before you whack it and drop it in the cooler. The battle is over, but the
fish doesn't know that. It didn't even realize there was a battle until it suddenly got jerked
up out of the water.
In any event, here we are, at the advent of the global capitalist empire. We are not going
back to the 19th Century, nor even to the early 20th Century. Neither Donald Trump nor anyone
else is going to "Make America Great Again." Global capitalism will continue to remake the
world into one gigantic marketplace where we work ourselves to death at bullshit
jobs in order to buy things we don't need, accumulating debts we can never pay back, the
interest on which will further enrich the global capitalist ruling classes, who, as you may
have noticed, are preparing for the future by purchasing luxury
underground bunkers and post-apocalyptic compounds in New Zealand. That, and militarizing
the police, who they will need to maintain "public order" you know, like they are doing in
France at the moment, by
beating, blinding, and hideously maiming those Gilets Jaunes (i.e., Yellow Vest) protesters
that the corporate media are doing their best to demonize and/or render invisible.
Or, who knows, Americans (and other Western consumers) might take a page from those Yellow
Vests, set aside their political differences (or at least ignore their hatred of each other
long enough to actually try to achieve something), and focus their anger at the politicians and
corporations that actually run the empire, as opposed to, you know, illegal immigrants and
imaginary legions of Nazis and Russians. In the immortal words of General Buck Turgidson, "I'm
not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed," but, heck, it might be worth a try, especially
since, the way things are going, we are probably going end up out there anyway.
C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and political satirist
based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play
Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is
published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant Paperbacks. He can be reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org .
"... Cohen said the censorship that he has faced in recent years is similar to the censorship imposed on dissidents in the Soviet Union. ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... "Katrina and I had a joint signed op-ed piece in the New York Times ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... "The alternatives have been excluded from both. I would welcome an opportunity to debate these issues in the mainstream media, where you can reach more people. And remember, being in these pages, for better or for worse, makes you Kosher. This is the way it works. If you have been on these pages, you are cited approvingly. You are legitimate. You are within the parameters of the debate." ..."
"... "When I lived off and on in the Soviet Union, I saw how Soviet media treated dissident voices. And they didn't have to arrest them. They just wouldn't ever mention them. Sometimes they did that (arrest them). But they just wouldn't ever mention them in the media." ..."
"... "And something like that has descended here. And it's really alarming, along with some other Soviet-style practices in this country that nobody seems to care about – like keeping people in prison until they break, that is plea, without right to bail, even though they haven't been convicted of anything." ..."
"... "That's what they did in the Soviet Union. They kept people in prison until people said – I want to go home. Tell me what to say – and I'll go home. That's what we are doing here. And we shouldn't be doing that." ..."
"... Russell Mokhiber is the editor of the Corporate Crime Reporter.. ..."
Cohen has largely been banished from mainstream media.
"I had been arguing for years -- very much against the American political media grain --
that a new US/Russian Cold War was unfolding -- driven primarily by politics in Washington, not
Moscow," Cohen writes in War with Russia. "For this perspective, I had been largely
excluded from influential print, broadcast and cable outlets where I had been previously
welcomed."
On the stage at Busboys and Poets with Cohen was Katrina vanden Heuvel, the editor of
The Nation magazine, and Robert Borosage, co-founder of the Campaign for America's
Future.
Cohen said the censorship that he has faced in recent years is similar to the censorship
imposed on dissidents in the Soviet Union.
"Until some period of time before Trump, on the question of what America's policy toward
Putin's Kremlin should be, there was a reasonable facsimile of a debate on those venues that
had these discussions," Cohen said. "Are we allowed to mention the former Charlie Rose for
example? On the long interview form, Charlie would have on a person who would argue for a very
hard policy toward Putin. And then somebody like myself who thought it wasn't a good idea."
"Occasionally that got on CNN too. MSNBC not so much. And you could get an op-ed piece
published, with effort, in the New York Times or Washington Post ."
"Katrina and I had a joint signed op-ed piece in the New York Times six or
seven years ago. But then it stopped. And to me, that's the fundamental difference between this
Cold War and the preceding Cold War."
"I will tell you off the record – no, I'm not going to do it," Cohen said. "Two
exceedingly imminent Americans, who most op-ed pages would die to get a piece by, just to say
they were on the page, submitted such articles to the New York Times , and they were
rejected the same day. They didn't even debate it. They didn't even come back and say –
could you tone it down? They just didn't want it."
"Now is that censorship? In Italy, where each political party has its own newspaper, you
would say – okay fair enough. I will go to a newspaper that wants me. But here, we are
used to these newspapers."
"Remember how it works. I was in TV for 18 years being paid by CBS. So, I know how these
things work. TV doesn't generate its own news anymore. Their actual reporting has been
de-budgeted. They do video versions of what is in the newspapers."
"Look at the cable talk shows. You see it in the New York Times and Washington
Post in the morning, you turn on the TV at night and there is the video version. That's
just the way the news business works now."
"The alternatives have been excluded from both. I would welcome an opportunity to debate
these issues in the mainstream media, where you can reach more people. And remember, being in
these pages, for better or for worse, makes you Kosher. This is the way it works. If you have
been on these pages, you are cited approvingly. You are legitimate. You are within the
parameters of the debate."
"If you are not, then you struggle to create your own alternative media. It's new in my
lifetime. I know these imminent Americans I mentioned were shocked when they were just told no.
It's a lockdown. And it is a form of censorship."
"When I lived off and on in the Soviet Union, I saw how Soviet media treated dissident
voices. And they didn't have to arrest them. They just wouldn't ever mention them. Sometimes
they did that (arrest them). But they just wouldn't ever mention them in the media."
"Dissidents created what is known as samizdat – that's typescript that you circulate
by hand. Gorbachev, before he came to power, did read some samizdat. But it's no match for
newspapers published with five, six, seven million copies a day. Or the three television
networks which were the only television networks Soviet citizens had access to."
"And something like that has descended here. And it's really alarming, along with some
other Soviet-style practices in this country that nobody seems to care about – like
keeping people in prison until they break, that is plea, without right to bail, even though
they haven't been convicted of anything."
"That's what they did in the Soviet Union. They kept people in prison until people said
– I want to go home. Tell me what to say – and I'll go home. That's what we are
doing here. And we shouldn't be doing that."
Cohen appears periodically on Tucker Carlson's show on Fox News. And that rankled one person
in the audience at Busboys and Poets, who said he worried that Cohen's perspective on Russia
can be "appropriated by the right."
"Trump can take that and run on a nationalistic platform – to hell with NATO, to
hell with fighting these endless wars, to do what he did in 2016 and get the votes of people
who are very concerned about the deteriorating relations between the U.S. and Russia," the
man said.
Cohen says that on a personal level, he likes Tucker Carlson "and I don't find him to be a
racist or a nationalist."
"Nationalism is on the rise around the world everywhere," Cohen said. "There are
different kinds of nationalism. We always called it patriotism in this country, but we have
always been a nationalistic country."
"Fox has about three to four million viewers at that hour," Cohen said. "If I am not
permitted to give my take on American/Russian relations on any other mass media, and by the
way, possibly talk directly to Trump, who seems to like his show, and say – Trump is
making a mistake, he should do this or do that instead -- I don't get many opportunities
– and I can't see why I shouldn't do it."
"I get three and a half to four minutes," Cohen said. "I don't see it as consistent with my
mission, if that's the right word, to say no. These articles I write for The Nation ,
which ended up in my book, are posted on some of the most God awful websites in the world. I
had to look them up to find out how bad they really are. But what can I do about it?"
"... Voters support Elizabeth Warren's proposed tax on large fortunes by a three-to-one majority. Only a small minority want to see cuts in Medicaid, even though such cuts have been central to every G.O.P. health care proposal in recent years. ..."
Donald Trump, who ran on promises to expand health care and
raise taxes on the rich , began betraying his working-class supporters the moment he took
office, pushing through big tax cuts for the rich while trying to take health coverage away
from millions.
... ... ...
Meanwhile, the modern Republican Party is all about cutting taxes on the rich and benefits
for the poor and the middle class. And Trump, despite his campaign posturing, has turned out to
be no different.
... ... ...
Polling is unambiguous here. If you define the "center" as a position somewhere between
those of the two parties, when it comes to economic issues the public is overwhelmingly left of
center; if anything, it's to the left of the Democrats. Tax cuts for the rich are the G.O.P.'s
defining policy, but two-thirds of voters believe that taxes on the rich are actually too low,
while only 7 percent believe that they're too high.
Voters support Elizabeth Warren's proposed tax on large fortunes by a three-to-one
majority. Only a small minority want to see cuts in Medicaid, even though such cuts have been
central to every G.O.P. health care proposal in recent years.
Why did Republicans stake out a position so far from voters' preferences? Because they
could. As Democrats became the party of civil rights, the G.O.P. could attract working-class
whites by catering to their social and racial illiberalism, even while pursuing policies that
hurt ordinary workers.
... ... ...
In any case, if there's a real opening for an independent, that candidate will look more
like George Wallace than like Howard Schultz. Billionaires who despise the conventional parties
should beware of what they wish for.
I consider myself socially conservative and economically liberal and I very bitterly
reject the idea that I am a "racist". The left has to stop tossing around the word "racist"
to essentially mean "anything they dislike" and "anyone they disagree with". I am not a
racist, and I defy anyone to prove I am. Dr. Krugman, if you are going to call 50% of the
voters in the US "racists"....well, consider what happened when your pal Hillary called us
"deplorables in a basket". How'd that work out for her?
Democrats love to eat their own. We have one of the most racist presidents to ever hold
office in modern times, yet some Democrats are going after Northam over some dumb stunt that
happened decades ago. Is he a good leader NOW? Does he support good policies NOW? Is
Northam's behavior really any worse (blackface versus sexual misconduct) than someone who
just got a seat on the Supreme Court? Wow, this is like watching an episode of The Twilight
Zone. Republicans have a strategic advantage because, while Democrats get all twisted up in
identity politics, Republican leaders are only tightly focused on serving the rich and
powerful at the expense of average Americans. No party disunity there. Democrats need to
start focusing on the basic, kitchen table issues that average Americans care about, like
affordable health care, affordable housing and affordable higher education. With that strong
streak of self-destruction that runs through Democrats, Nancy Pelosi is needed more than ever
in the people's House where badly needed legislation has to move forward.
A Democrat could beat Trump if he was pro-single payer, pro family, pro-union, anti-war,
and for the aggressive taxing of ultra high wealth if he could just shut down the flagrant
abuse of our immigration laws and border. That candidate can't win the primary though because
not welcoming the infinite number of suffering illegal immigrants to share these expensive
benefits or wanting law and order to immigration earns a label of "racist" in the Democratic
Party. Trump will win in 2020 unless dems stop with the wild misuse of the word racist.
"Racial hostility" is what I, a white male, feel from the Democrats. It's a common thread
among the reluctant Trump supporters I know - they are disgusted by Trump, but they won't
support the Democrats for that reason. My 66-year-old father recently said to me, for the
first time, "well, you know, I'm a racist."
This man voted for Obama, but I wouldn't be surprised if he casts his vote for Trump in
2020 because the left has lost all credibility in his eyes. They call my dad a racist over
and over, but he knows he's a fair person, so he's accepted that the "racist" label isn't
that big of a deal.
"... "The absence of effective state, and, especially, national, restraint upon unfair money-getting has tended to create a small class of enormously wealthy and economically powerful men, whose chief object is to hold and increase their power," he explained. "The prime need to is to change the conditions which enable these men to accumulate power which it is not for the general welfare that they should hold or exercise." ..."
"... Roosevelt was, however, conscious of the threats posed to the American experiment by the rapid consolidation wealth and power. And he knew that progressive taxation could be used to address those threats. ..."
"... The Democrats who seek to dislodge Donald Trump in 2020 will all need to make tax policy a priority. Republicans have for so long practiced reverse Robin Hood politics -- take from the poor and give to the rich -- that the promised Democrats make will be unobtainable without the infusion of revenues that comes from taxing the wealthy. Changing tax policy also infuses governing with democracy, as it dials down the influence of specially interested billionaires (such as the Koch brothers) and their corporations. ..."
"... Horsemen of the Trumpocalypse: A Field Guide to the Most Dangerous People in America ..."
"... People Get Ready: The Fight Against a Jobless Economy and a Citizenless Democracy ..."
What a Midwestern Presidential Candidate Learned From Marxist Intellectuals | The Nation
The really big fortune, the swollen fortune, by the mere fact of its size, acquires qualities which differentiate it in kind as well
as in degree from what is possessed by men of relatively small means. Therefore, I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes."
That's what Teddy Roosevelt proposed in his agenda-setting
"New Nationalism" speech from
1910 , when he prodded the United States toward a fuller embrace of progressive reform. As a former president who was preparing
to again bid for the position, Roosevelt opened a conversation about tax policy in order to frame a broader debate about at least
some of the values that should guide American progress.
At the heart of Roosevelt's agenda was a specific form of taxation. While progressive taxation in a general sense was desirable
and necessary, Roosevelt was particularly enthusiastic about "another tax which is far more easily collected and far more effective
-- a graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against evasion, and increasing rapidly in amount with the size
of the estate."
Teddy Roosevelt, it should be noted, was a Republican who possessed considerable wealth of his own. He was a flawed figure who
let down the progressive cause at many turns and never matched the courageous domestic and foreign policy vision advanced by his
rival for leadership of the progressive movement, Wisconsin Senator Robert M. La Follette. But Roosevelt recognized that taxing inherited
wealth not merely to collect revenues but to preserve and extend democracy.
"One of the chief factors in progress is the destruction of special privilege." -- Teddy Roosevelt, 1910
"The absence of effective state, and, especially, national, restraint upon unfair money-getting has tended to create a small
class of enormously wealthy and economically powerful men, whose chief object is to hold and increase their power," he explained.
"The prime need to is to change the conditions which enable these men to accumulate power which it is not for the general welfare
that they should hold or exercise."
Roosevelt's critics may have characterized him as a radical, but he was never as radical (or as right) as La Follette. Roosevelt
was, however, conscious of the threats posed to the American experiment by the rapid consolidation wealth and power. And he knew
that progressive taxation could be used to address those threats.
Bernie Sanders knows this, as well. That's why Sanders is proposing a progressive estate tax on the fortunes of the top 0.2 percent
of Americans. The senator from Vermont's newly introduced "For the 99.8% Act" would collect $2.2 trillion from 588 billionaires.
"At a time of massive wealth and income inequality, when the three richest Americans own more wealth than 160 million Americans,
it is literally beyond belief that the Republican leadership wants to provide hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks to
the top 0.2 percent," argues Sanders. "Our bill does what the American people want by substantially increasing the estate tax
on the wealthiest families in this country and dramatically reducing wealth inequality. From a moral, economic, and political
perspective our nation will not thrive when so few have so much and so many have so little."
Sanders is widely expected to bid for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020. If he does so, Sanders will not be the only
contender with a bold plan to tax the rich.
Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren , for instance, has a plan to levy a 2 percent tax on the assets of wealthy Americans
with more than $50 million. From those with over $1 billion, she'd demand an additional 1 percent.
The Democrats who seek to dislodge Donald Trump in 2020 will all need to make tax policy a priority. Republicans have for so long
practiced reverse Robin Hood politics -- take from the poor and give to the rich -- that the promised Democrats make will be unobtainable
without the infusion of revenues that comes from taxing the wealthy. Changing tax policy also infuses governing with democracy, as
it dials down the influence of specially interested billionaires (such as the Koch brothers) and their corporations.
What is notable about the Sanders plan is that, with his proposal to establish a 77 percent tax on the value of an estate above
$1 billion, the senator is merely seeking "a return to the top rate from 1941 through 1976."
Sanders is proposing an approach that renews American values, as notes University of California–Berkeley economics professor Emmanuel
Saez. "The estate tax was a key pillar of the progressive tax revolution that the United States ushered one century ago. It prevented
self-made wealth from turning into inherited wealth and helped make America more equal," explains Saez. "However, the estate tax
is dying of neglect, as tax avoidance schemes are multiplying and left unchallenged. As wealth concentration is surging in the United
States, it is high time to revive the estate tax, plug the loopholes, and make it more progressive. Senator Sanders' bill is a bold
and welcome leap forward in this direction."
Teddy Roosevelt understood this economic calculus, and this democratic imperative.
"In every wise struggle for human betterment one of the main objects, and often the only object, has been to achieve in large
measure equality of opportunity. In the struggle for this great end, nations rise from barbarism to civilization, and through it
people press forward from one stage of enlightenment to the next," the Republican president
explained in 1910. "One
of the chief factors in progress is the destruction of special privilege. The essence of any struggle for healthy liberty has always
been, and must always be, to take from some one man or class of men the right to enjoy power, or wealth, or position, or immunity,
which has not been earned by service to his or their fellows. That is what you fought for in the Civil War, and that is what we strive
for now."
The inimitable CN commenting system just ate my detailed reply to your question of who
else besides Gabbard has spoken up, and won't let me repost it. But the short version is that
Rep. Ilhan Omar came out with a decent statement, like
Tulsi.
Rep. Ro Khanna hedged his bets by insulting Maduro while criticizing the coup attempt.
Saint Bernie came out with something that was two-thirds State Department talking points
followed by limp disapproval of U.S. sponsored coups in general. Classic Sanders.
Saint Alexandria doesn't want to talk about it.
As far as I know, everybody else is on board the regime-change express, enjoying the bar
car.
Summary: Tulsi rocks.
KiwiAntz, February 12, 2019 at 7:04 am
Trump & his corrupt Administration with the Troika of morons such as Pompeo, Bolton & Abrams, are the most dangerous bunch
of idiots ever to be in power?
Hopelessly inept & out of his depth, Trump doesn't have a clue about Foreign Policy & his stupid Regime change
antics are going to blow up in his & his meddling Nations face!
This buffoonish Clown is really accelerating America's downfall & declining Hegemonic power & turning the World away from
the corrupt US Dollar, Petrodollar system with other Countries, actively moving away from this tyranny?
"... To that end, the senator from Florida on Tuesday unveiled a proposal to limit corporate buybacks. Unlike a plan pitched by Bernie Sanders and Chuck Schumer earlier this month, Rubio's plan would seek to end preferential tax treatment of share buybacks, by decreeing that any money spent on buybacks would be considered - for tax purposes - a dividend paid to shareholders, even if individual investors didn't actually part with any stock. ..."
"... Any tax revenue generated by these changes could then be used to encourage more capital investment, Rubio said. As part of the proposal, Rubio would make a provision in the tax law that allows companies to deduct capital investment permanent (that provision is currently set to expire in 2022). ..."
"... But before lawmakers take their next steps toward regulating how and when companies should return excess capital to shareholders, they might want to take a look at a column recently published by WSJ's "Intelligent Investor" that expounds a concept called "the bladder theory." ..."
"... But the law most likely to govern here is the Law of Unintended Consequences. ..."
"... That companies bought back a record $1 trillion worth of stock last year while employers like GM slashed jobs and closed factories has stoked criticisms of the Trump tax cuts, but as the gulf between the rich and the poor grows ever more wide (a phenomenon for which we can thank the Federal Reserve and other large global central banks) it's worth wondering: facing a simmering backlash to one of the most persistent marginal bids in the market place, have investors already become too complacent about proposals like Rubio's? ..."
"... Worse, since they're largely funded by increased corporate debt (!) they amount to corporate strip-mining by senior management. This is disgraceful and dangerous. The debt will bust some corporations when the inevitable next downturn comes. ..."
"... This buyback cancer, which has grown rapidly because of corrupt SEC thinking and perverse tax incentives, requires urgent treatment. ..."
For better or worse, Republican Senator and one-time presidential candidate Marco Rubio
isn't about to let
the Democrats own the fight to curtail one of the most flagrant examples of post-crisis
corporate excess. And if he can carve out a niche for himself that might one day help him
credibly pitch himself as a populist firebrand, much like the man who went on to claim the
presidency after defeating him in the Republican primary, well, that sounds to us like a
win-win.
To that end, the senator from Florida on Tuesday unveiled a proposal to limit corporate
buybacks. Unlike a plan pitched by Bernie Sanders and Chuck Schumer earlier this month, Rubio's
plan would seek to end preferential tax treatment of share buybacks, by decreeing that any
money spent on buybacks would be considered - for tax purposes - a dividend paid to
shareholders, even if individual investors didn't actually part with any stock.
According to CNBC
, the plan calls for every shareholder to receive an imputed portion of the funds equivalent to
the percentage of company stock they own, which, of course, isn't the same thing as directly
handing capital to shareholders (it simply changes the tax rate that the company buying back
the shares would pay).
Ultimately, Rubio hopes that these changes would discourage companies from buying back
stock. Those companies that continued to buy back shares would help contribute to higher
revenues by increasing the funds that can be taxed, while also raising the rate at which this
money can be taxed. Any tax revenue generated by these changes could then be used to encourage
more capital investment, Rubio said. As part of the proposal, Rubio would make a provision in
the tax law that allows companies to deduct capital investment permanent (that provision is
currently set to expire in 2022).
But before lawmakers take their next steps toward regulating how and when companies should
return excess capital to shareholders, they might want to take a look at a column recently
published by WSJ's
"Intelligent Investor" that expounds a concept called "the bladder theory."
Overall, however, buybacks (and dividends) return excess capital to investors who are free
to spend or reinvest it wherever it is most needed. By requiring companies to hang onto their capital instead of paying it out, Congress might
- perhaps - encourage them to invest more in workers and communities.
But the law most likely to govern here is the Law of Unintended Consequences. The history of investment by corporate managers with oodles of cash on their hands isn't
encouraging. Hugh Liedtke, the late chief executive of Pennzoil, reportedly liked to quip
that he believed in "the bladder theory:" Companies should pay out as much cash as possible,
so managers couldn't piss all the money away.
That companies bought back a record $1 trillion worth of stock last year while employers
like GM slashed jobs and closed factories has stoked criticisms of the Trump tax cuts, but as
the gulf between the rich and the poor grows ever more wide (a phenomenon for which we can
thank the Federal Reserve and other large global central banks) it's worth wondering: facing a
simmering backlash to one of the most persistent marginal bids in the market place, have
investors already become too complacent about proposals like Rubio's?
We ask only because
the Dow soared more than 350 points on Tuesday, suggesting that, even as Rubio added a
bipartisan flavor to the nascent movement to curb buybacks, investors aren't taking these
proposals too seriously - at least not yet.
Celotex
This still doesn't address the insider trading aspect of stock buybacks, with insiders front-running the buyback.
vladiki
No one's arguing that if a company's groaning with cash then buybacks make sense. But it's the other 95% of of them that
are the problem. Compare the 20 year graphs of buybacks with corporate profits, corporate debt, corporate tax paid, corporate
dividends paid.
They tell you what everyone in higher management knows - that they're a tax-free dividend mechanism pretending to be
"capital rationalisation".
Worse, since they're largely funded by increased corporate debt (!) they amount to corporate strip-mining by senior
management. This is disgraceful and dangerous. The debt will bust some corporations when the inevitable next downturn comes.
This buyback cancer, which has grown rapidly because of corrupt SEC thinking and perverse tax incentives, requires
urgent treatment.
james diamond squid
Everyone is in on this ponzi. I'm expecting tax deductions for buying stocks/homes.
The USSR had elections of various types. They meant nothing because the Party owned
everybody.
We have elections that are far more like Soviet elections than the average 'conservative'
voter can allow himself to imagine. The great difference Soviet elections and ours today is
who – what entity – owns the system, meaning which cultural values rule,
dictate.
Ours is the Anglo-Zionist Empire. This is the end game of the Judaizing heresies that
destroyed Christendom. This nightmare is where WASP culture leads and always lead.
"... Under Warren's proposal, households with over $50 million in assets would pay a 2 percent tax on their net worth every year. The rate would rise to 3 percent on assets over $1 billion. Warren's plan would affect just 75,000 households total. ..."
"... Taxes on wealth in Switzerland are not fixed, but set by 26 regional governments with rates that varied from 0.13 percent to 1 percent per year in 2016, according to the OECD report. They also are much broader, affecting not just millionaires, but many middle-class households as well ..."
"... A study of the country's tax system by Jonathan Gruber and several other economists found that for every 0.1 percent taxes on wealth went up in an area, the wealth taxpayers reported to the government dropped by 3.5 percent ..."
"... "When you tax people's wealth, they manage to somehow reduce their taxable wealth," Gruber told NBC News. "We don't know if it's by saving less or by hiding it. ..."
"... "It's really difficult to enforce," said Alan Cole, a former adviser to House Republicans on tax policy. "That's why almost everyone goes the capital gains tax route and very few go the wealth tax route." ..."
"... The OECD's report found that countries with wealth taxes have tended to collect relatively similar amounts of revenue over time even as the overall wealth in their countries increased at much faster rates. This suggests taxpayers either found new ways to get around them or that legislators and tax collectors weren't keeping pace with annual growth. ..."
"... While they expect the rich to succeed in shielding some of their assets, Warren advisers Saez and Zucman peg the number at 15 percent total based on a survey of existing research. In a letter to Warren, they wrote that Gruber's study was an "outlier" and that studies of wealth taxes in other countries like Sweden and Denmark showed less tax avoidance ..."
"... Lily Batchelder, a professor at New York University and former economic adviser under President Barack Obama, pointed to The Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, a 2010 U.S. law in coordination with other governments around the world that requires banks to report activity by American citizens. ..."
"... The fear that the ultra-rich will not just lowball their fortunes, but pack up and take them to a rival country, is a significant reason the wealth tax has declined. In France, President Emmanuel Macron replaced the country's decades-old wealth tax with a narrower tax on real estate partly in response to data suggesting 60,000 millionaires had left the country since 2000. ..."
"... In one prominent case, famed actor Gérard Depardieu moved across the border to less-taxed Belgium while criticizing France's policies. It wasn't just the wealth tax -- the previous government also imposed a 75 percent tax rate on income for millionaires, a policy that bears similarities to a proposal by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. ..."
"... Warren's plan would apply to Americans based on citizenship, not where they live or where their money is earned, so the ultra-rich couldn't easily move to avoid it. If they renounced their citizenship, they'd have to pay a one-time 40 percent "exit tax" on their net worth. ..."
Versions of a
"wealth tax" proposed by the 2020 hopeful have been put in place in a number of countries. Most have
gotten rid of them.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., has made a splash with her plan for a
"wealth tax" on the super-rich, a major break from typical Democratic proposals that target income,
investment gains and inheritances.
While wealth taxes aren't a new invention and a handful of
developed nations currently have them in place, they are on the decline: The number nations that are
members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development with a wealth tax dropped from 12
to four from 1990 to 2017, according
to a report
by the organization last year.
With inequality hitting new heights, though, Democrats running for president have made finding new
ways to tax the rich and distribute the benefits downward a key part of their economic message. Wealth
taxes are making a comeback in policy discussions abroad as well, led by French economist Thomas
Piketty's call for a global tax on the rich.
Now economists are debating what other countries can tell us about the Warren Ultra-Millionaires
Tax and whether it's useful to tie their experiences to the United States.
One prominent case study is Switzerland, where a longstanding series of wealth taxes account for
about 1 percent of GDP each year. That's a much higher share than in other countries with a wealth tax
and it's similar to what Warren's advisers predict her own tax would raise.
"The comparison everyone is thinking of is Switzerland, because it's probably the best precedent
for a reasonably effective wealth tax," Ari Glogower, a professor at Ohio State University who
researches wealth taxes, told NBC News.
The country's wealth tax may offer some insight into one looming question over Warren's wealth tax,
which is whether its targets would find ways to avoid paying it. It's an important debate, because
Warren's counting on her tax to raise a lot of money for social programs: $2.75 trillion over 10
years, according to an estimate by Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, two economists advising her
campaign.
Under Warren's proposal, households with over $50 million in assets would pay a 2 percent tax
on their net worth every year. The rate would rise to 3 percent on assets over $1 billion. Warren's
plan would affect just 75,000 households total.
Taxes on wealth in Switzerland are not fixed, but set by 26 regional governments with rates
that varied from 0.13 percent to 1 percent per year in 2016, according to the OECD report. They also
are much broader, affecting not just millionaires, but many middle-class households as well
.
A
study
of the country's tax
system by Jonathan Gruber and several other economists found that for every 0.1 percent taxes on
wealth went up in an area, the wealth taxpayers reported to the government dropped by 3.5 percent
.
"When you tax people's wealth, they manage to somehow reduce their taxable wealth," Gruber told
NBC News. "We don't know if it's by saving less or by hiding it.
"
Critics point to these shifts as evidence that a wealth tax is an inefficient way to collect taxes.
While the IRS can easily check the price of a publicly traded stock, it may be hard to value a
privately held company or a rare art collection until it's sold, which is often a source of legal
battles in calculating estate taxes. But unlike an estate, which is taxed once at death, the
government would have to figure out the value every year.
"It's really difficult to enforce," said Alan Cole, a former adviser to House Republicans on
tax policy. "That's why almost everyone goes the capital gains tax route and very few go the wealth
tax route."
The OECD's report found that countries with wealth taxes have tended to collect relatively
similar amounts of revenue over time even as the overall wealth in their countries increased at much
faster rates. This suggests taxpayers either found new ways to get around them or that legislators and
tax collectors weren't keeping pace with annual growth.
Anticipating this concern, Warren's plan includes a pledge to bolster the IRS, require a minimum
number of audits, and use a variety of techniques to indirectly value more difficult to price assets.
While they expect the rich to succeed in shielding some of their assets, Warren advisers Saez
and Zucman peg the number at 15 percent total based on a survey of existing research. In a letter to
Warren, they wrote that Gruber's study was an "outlier" and that studies of wealth taxes in other
countries like Sweden and Denmark showed less tax avoidance
.
As Gruber noted, Switzerland's broad tax base makes it a less than exact comparison. But the tax
rate in Warren's plan would also be much higher, giving its targets more motive to avoid it. They
would also be more likely to have skilled accountants and lawyers to help them out.
"It doesn't mean it's a bad idea or it won't raise money," Gruber said. "Elizabeth Warren's tax
would raise money, it's a question of how much."
At the same time, some argue recent changes in finance make it harder for the rich to hide assets
from tax collectors.
Lily Batchelder, a professor at New York University and former economic adviser under President
Barack Obama, pointed to The Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, a 2010 U.S. law in coordination with
other governments around the world that requires banks to report activity by American citizens.
"It's certainly not perfect and there's more work to be done, but compared to even five years ago,
the landscape has really changed," she said. "So people who are looking at this from five or 10 or 20
years ago are missing that."
Gruber's study does cut against another top concern raised by critics of a wealth tax -- that it
will cause taxpayers to pack up and move. Even with lower-tax options inside the same country, their
research found little sign of people moving to avoid higher rates.
The fear that the ultra-rich will not just lowball their fortunes, but pack up and take them to
a rival country, is a significant reason the wealth tax has declined. In France, President Emmanuel
Macron
replaced the
country's decades-old wealth tax with a narrower tax on real estate
partly in response to data
suggesting 60,000 millionaires had left the country since 2000.
In one prominent case, famed actor Gérard Depardieu
moved across the border
to less-taxed Belgium while criticizing France's policies. It wasn't just
the wealth tax -- the previous government also imposed a 75 percent tax rate on income for
millionaires, a policy that bears similarities to a proposal by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y.
Warren's plan would apply to Americans based on citizenship, not where
they live or where their money is earned, so the ultra-rich couldn't easily move to avoid it. If they
renounced their citizenship, they'd have to pay a one-time 40 percent "exit tax" on their net worth.
"We can have extreme wealth concentrated in the hands of the few; or, we can have democracy, we can't have both." Judge
Brandies was right
Notable quotes:
"... "We can have extreme wealth concentrated in the hands of the few; or, we can have democracy, we can't have both." Judge Brandies was right. The Republicans have chosen extreme wealth concentrated in the hands of the few, the few who happen to donate to their campaigns specifically, rather than democracy. The Republicans have sold out the American people. ..."
"... It's all thanks to the Roberts' SCOTUS's Citizens United decision, the McCutcheon decision, and egregious GOP'er gerrymandering of 2010. Vulture Capitalism and democracy cannot co-exist. ..."
I don't think it's that complicated. Donald Trump is the Republican party. He has solidified
his power in three basic ways. The first is that he gave a huge tax cut to corporate America.
This greatly boosted profits and the stock market reacted in sync. This is all Wall Street and
big business cares about. Nothing else matters to them and consequently they ignore everything
else that Trump does, no matter how awful, how incompetent and how damaging it is to our
republic.
@R. Law "We can have extreme wealth concentrated in the hands of the few; or, we can have
democracy, we can't have both." Judge Brandies was right. The Republicans have chosen extreme
wealth concentrated in the hands of the few, the few who happen to donate to their campaigns
specifically, rather than democracy. The Republicans have sold out the American people.
We agree with Dr. K.: " But maybe the gravitational attraction of big money -- which has
completely captured the G.O.P., and has arguably kept Democrats from moving as far left as
the electorate really wants -- is too great. " defines the issue, since 'voters' are not the
actual consumers of politics being sold by the pols - those consumers are the pols' donors:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/15/government-wealthy-study_n_5154879.html
It's all thanks to the Roberts' SCOTUS's Citizens United decision, the McCutcheon decision,
and egregious GOP'er gerrymandering of 2010. Vulture Capitalism and democracy cannot
co-exist.
Elizabeth is super rich when compared to the average American citizen (who's worth is around
$100,000), but keep in mind that Congress is virtually made up of some of the richest people in
the country.
While a whole lot of Elizabeth's net worth is based around the investments she's
made, she also has a huge house that's worth almost $2 million which isn't bad at all. The
house is reportedly in Massachusetts.
CNN reported that Warren is worth between $3.7
million and $10 million dollars because of her combined net worth with her husband and ranked
her the 76th wealthiest out of 541 senators and representatives.
It's quite interesting to know
that Warren didn't start off rich – she was born to a middle-class family and rose to the
top based on pure merit.
She earned a degree in bankruptcy law and began teaching in
universities just like her husband. They were soon able to amass a huge amount together.
Ocasio-Cortez is rolling out the "Green New Deal" with Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA), which she says
calls for a "national, social, industrial and economic mobilization at a scale not seen since
World War II and the New Deal," and is "a wartime-level, just economic mobilization plan to get
to 100% renewable energy."
The plan also aims "to promote justice and equity by stopping current, preventing future,
and repairing historic oppression of indigenous communities, communities of color, migrant
communities" and other "frontline and vulnerable communities. "
Ocasio-Cortez's plan, which has several doesn't outline specific policy proposals (they'll
"work it out" we guess), and promises grandiose measures using broad brush strokes such as
achieving "net-zero greenhouse gas emissions through a fair and just transition for all
communities and workers. Everybody gets a job, clean water, healthy food, and "access to
nature," whatever that means.
Where it does get slightly more specific, the resolution, obtained by
NPR , mandates among other things (via
NPR ):
" upgrading all existing buildings" in the country for energy efficiency ;
working with farmers " to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions... as much as
is technologically feasible " (while supporting family farms and promoting "universal access
to healthy food");
"Overhauling transportation systems" to reduce emissions -- including expanding electric
car manufacturing, building "charging stations everywhere," and expanding high-speed rail to
"a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary";
A guaranteed job "with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid
vacations and retirement security" for every American ;
"High-quality health care" for all Americans.
For a deeper analysis which we noted earlier,
click here .
For decades we have heard about the loss of industrial production throughout what is called the "Rust Belt". It's presented,
even as recent as the prior presidential election as a relative regional problem that only began post-Reagan.
With all due respect, it looks like you forgot that at some point quantity turns into quality, so making simple extrapolations
might well result in an oversimplification of the current situation.
You essentially ignore the current reality of rising popular anger, and the fact of breaking of the social contract by neoliberal
(and first of all financial) oligarchy, which is as detached from "deplorable" as French aristocracy ("let them eat cakes" mentality.)
While less dangerous for the oligarchy then when the USSR used to exist, the level of social anger comes into play as never
before. In 2016 became a material factor that decided the elections. I do not see that 2020 will be different.
The most detrimental effects from outsourcing and offshoring will come to the forefront probably in 10 years or so when the
oil price might be well over $100 per barrel. But even now this huge social experiment on live people in redistribution of wealth
up turn out to be detrimental for the unity of the country (and not only to the unity).
The current squabble between globalist, Clinton wing of Democratic Party allied with the corporatists with the Republican Party
(with supporting intelligence agencies) and rag-tag forces of the opposition is a good indication of the power of this resentment.
Spearheaded by intelligence agencies (with material support from British government ) attack on Trump (aka Russiagate) is the
attack on the idea of an alternative for neoliberal globalization, not so much on the personality or real or perceived Trump actions;
the brutal, Soviet-style attack on the deviation from neoliberal status quo directed on the political elimination of the opposition
by elimination of Trump from the political scene. Much like Show Trials were in the USSR (in this case people were charged to
be British spies ;-)
There are two countries now co-existing within the USA borders. Which often speak different languages. One is the country of
professionals, managers, and capital owners (let's say top 10%). The other is the country of common people (aka "deplorable",
or those who are below median wage -- ~$30K in 2017; ratio of average and median wage is now around 65% ).
With the large part of the latter living as if they live in a third world country. That's definitely true for McDonald, Wall-mart
(and all retail) employees (say, all less than $15 per hour employees, or around half of US workers).
I think the level of anger of "deplorable" will play the major role in 2020 elections and might propel Warren candidacy. That's
why now some MSM are trying to derail her by exploiting the fact that she listed her heritage incorrectly on several applications.
But when the anger of "deplorable" is in play, then, as Donald Trump aptly quipped, one could stand in the middle of Fifth
Avenue, shoot somebody and do not lose any voters. I think this is now true for Warren too.
-- The United States has lost approximately 42,400 factories since 2001
-- The United States has lost a total of about 5.5 million manufacturing jobs since October 2000
-- From 1999 to 2008, employment at the foreign affiliates of US parent companies increased an astounding 30 percent to 10.1 million
-- In 1959, manufacturing represented 28 percent of U.S. economic output. In 2008, it represented 11.5 percent
-- As of the end of 2009, less than 12 million Americans worked in manufacturing. The last time less than 12 million Americans
were employed in manufacturing was in 1941. The United States has lost a whopping 32 percent of its manufacturing jobs since the
year 2000
-- As of 2010 consumption accounts for 70 percent of GDP. Of this 70 percent, over half is spent on services
-- In 2001, the United States ranked fourth in the world in per capita broadband Internet use. Today it ranks 15th
-- Asia produces 84% of printed circuit boards used worldwide.
-- In September 2011, the Census Bureau said 46.2 million Americans are now living in poverty, which is the highest number of
poor Americans in the 52 years that records have been kept
President Bill Clinton
claimed
at a forum in 1998 that his grandmother was "one-quarter Cherokee." The assertion, from a politician
with a not-always-sterling reputation for truthfulness, went unheralded.
Clinton's mother had earlier been described, in a 1992
article
, as a "descendant of Irish farmers and Cherokee Indians." The genealogical receipts were never in
evidence. But families have their stories; few seemed to care one way or another.
They do now.
Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren is one of the most talented politicians in the nation and one of the most
important policy leaders in her party. She has superb communication skills, including the ability to distill
complex class and economic dynamics into compelling,
comprehensible rhetoric
. She is extremely smart. She might make a fine nominee, even president.
She also can't seem to shake a political problem that posed no noticeable discomfort to Clinton.
The latest
installment
-- it seems there may be more -- was the unearthing of an apparently not-so-confidential Texas state
bar form that Warren filled out three decades ago when she was a law professor at the University of Texas. On the
form she wrote her race as "American Indian."
The discovery follows her recent release of a report she commissioned on her DNA that was occasioned by
previous controversy about her claims to American Indian ancestry.
Many people find the storm over Warren ridiculous. And they have reason. At a time when the president of the
United States makes regular and open appeals to bigotry, harping on Warren's minor identity foibles seems absurd.
Warren is not calling Mexicans rapists. She's not
caricaturing
black neighborhoods as savage war zones where you can't walk down the street without being shot.
She has sexually assaulted no one.
Nor did Warren dress in blackface at a time when anyone mindful of history, or even mildly conscious of
contemporary American society outside the confines of a creepy college fraternity, understood it to be an act of
social barbarism.
The Boston Globe
reported
that Warren gained no career benefit from her self-designation. "At every step of her remarkable rise
in the legal profession, the people responsible for hiring her saw her as a white woman," the Globe reported.
Regarding the Texas bar form, Brian Beutler
tweeted
, "The fact that she made the claim on a form that was meant to be unlogged and confidential actually
underscores her point that she identified as she did out of sincere belief."
Warren is 69. Over the years, she has surely mentioned her Indian affinity many times -- contributing recipes in
the 1980s, for example, to "Pow Wow Chow: A Collection of Recipes from Families of the Five Civilized Tribes" --
without social awkwardness or professional consequence.
Warren also grew up in Oklahoma, a state created from Indian Territory. "I think what Warren has done in
identifying as American Indian -- and particularly as a Cherokee -- is very Oklahoman," said Circe Sturm, author of
"
Becoming
Indian: The Struggle over Cherokee Identity in the 21st Century.
"
Blue-eyed Indians are too common to be political fodder in Oklahoma. "In Oklahoma, you have plenty of native
people who look white but have native ancestry or tribal citizenship," Sturm said in a telephone interview.
There was a time when Elvis Presley could grab a piece of "race music" and exploit it for fame and fortune in
the white mainstream. Three decades ago, Warren perhaps thought she was respectfully identifying with a brutalized
minority, or just imagining herself as the person she thought she was, or wanted to be. You didn't need malicious
intent, or a desire to game racial classifications, to want to stretch the bounds of whiteness.
But as nonwhite Americans have gained more political power, cultural appropriation, conscious or otherwise, has
become increasingly fraught. Complicating matters, tribal identity is a political designation, and Cherokees are
wary
of granting inclusion to any Bill or Elizabeth who purports to have an ancestor somewhere.
Historically, whites generally had greater freedom to try on new identities, and explore new social
arrangements. Racial minorities had their identities assigned, and "passing" beyond rigid definitions was a
perilous exercise.
Now the rules are evolving. A once-free, or at least freer, range of white identity is gradually being fenced
by consequences, just as consequences have bound racial minorities to identities for centuries. A white frontier
is closing.
One of the chief institutions grappling with this transformation, and driving it, is the Democratic Party. As a
woman, Warren has benefited from the party's new openness to female power. But she's being buffeted by crosswinds
on race.
Republicans and much of the GOP-allied media, active or silent partners in the Trumpist campaign to sustain
white political, social and economic power, are rarely as gleeful as when attacking liberals who struggle to
conform to the emerging norms that conservatives subvert. (The
case
of GOP House leader Kevin McCarthy's family, which has cashed in on dubious claims of Indian heritage, is
curiously less scrutinized than Warren's predicament.)
The mainstream news media, always eager to posit a Democratic counterpoint to the criminality and corruption
swirling around Trump, may conclude that Warren's Indian issue is an offense so grave that it rivals substandard
email protocol. The Democratic Party itself, testing its surroundings with multiracial sensors, may conclude that
it has enough high-quality alternatives to Warren that it can afford to leave a star player on the bench.
That would be a shame. Warren is well worth hearing from. But it may also be the high price of progress.
Democrats, after all, are the only game in town. Republicans, seated in the whites-only section of the bleachers,
hurling insults
at the players on the field, won't join in making social justice and empowerment a cause.
Being first movers into a multiracial, female-empowered century has given Democrats a strategic advantage and
moral high ground. But the new terrain is often
tough to navigate
, as another quality politician, Senator Al Franken,
discovered
. The march forward can be unforgiving, leaving even good people behind.
"The march forward can be unforgiving, leaving even good people behind."
Concerning Warren, this
silliness has gone on far too long. Everyone not firmly ensconced in the Trumpist base should just
ignore it from this point forward. I'm originally from Oklahoma and can confirm that pretty much
every family claimed some Native American heritage, usually in hushed, tittering tones. Certainly
my family did, and I've told anyone who asked that I believe there's such DNA in my own ancestry.
Is there? I don't know, and really don't care one way or the other. It's a family story, no more
than that. Media - just let this story die, please. You've milked it long enough.
Concerning other more serious and offensive actions, such as offensive posts, blackface, and
harassment, we need a reasonable balance, not pitchforks. Everyone does something stupid at one
time or another, something offensive, something cruel. After all, we're only human. The
hypocritical faux-outrage from the right should simply be ignored until they're willing to focus
such outrage on their own. The equally passionate outrage on the left, however, needs to accept the
inherent fallibility of human beings.
If Northam wore blackface 35 years ago, dressed up as Michael Jackson, did the moon walk, but
has since acted to promote racial equality, what's the problem? Let the guy apologize and move on.
If, on the other hand, he has a clear history and pattern of such behavior? Don't give him a pass.
It all comes down to allowing people to outgrow their mistakes, to make up for them. If they fail
to do so, then throw them out. But if we fire everyone who has ever made a mistake, we'll quickly
run out of people to hire and fire.
You can claim Indian heritage if you believe that you have Indian heritage. The EOC
Dept can not require a DNA test from you because that would violate your right to
privacy, according to the Supreme Court. Also, transgender self ID is recognized by the
Supreme Court. Transgender, "I am a woman trapped in a man's body). There is also the
transitory transgender.
On campus, we accept any self ID that a person states. It is
all in the mind. If some months who feel Native American and other months Chinese, that
is fine. You will get escorted off campus if you challenge that person's self identity
by the SS(student security).
A British woman was arrested in front of her children and held in police custody for
7 hours after calling a transgender woman a man online.
Did they also use that (fake) heritage to milk affirmative action racial rent seeking?
I think I'll start
checking "black" on the kids college applications as well. They can claim Aunt Lucy from Oldevai Gorge as our
African ancestor. Yes, that famous Lucy. She got around ("she said her name was Lucy, but they all called her
Loose").
Trump has tried to turn his presidency into a personality cult rather than MAGA. That is a mistake because Trump's campaign positions
were more popular than Trump and it doesn't lift the entire party.
Every Hillary voter I meet, male or female, buys every one of the stupid narratives being pushed and are fired up to vote.
The Bernie voters don't automatically buy every narrative but they despise Trump and want him out and Democrats to regain control.
I agree with Derb that the hearing may make up some of the enthusiasm gap. A lot of conservative men had to have been looking
at that hearing and thinking how easy it would be for them to get similar treatment at work or school.I imagine a good number
of conservative women don't want their husbands and sons to face similar inquisitions.
'Populism' is just democracy in action and most people seem to think democracy is a good
thing. So what's the problem? Apparently the masses don't want what's being shoved down their
throats by undemocratic rulers so now we have this ongoing conflict. One can only hope that
the populists get the upper hand in all this. We need a new political terminology because it
seems strange to use the label "liberal" for a group of people that are such aggressive
war-mongers. There doesn't seem to be much that's liberal about them.War lovers and
anti-democratic, they have much in common with fascism.
"... By Jerri-Lynn Scofield, who has worked as a securities lawyer and a derivatives trader. She is currently writing a book about textile artisans. ..."
"... Quip, then Clear, Simple Statement. ..."
"... The thing that worries me is that congress might find some way to remove her or shut her up if she continues to ruffle neoliberal feathers like this. ..."
"... Fascinating as this is, I worry that AOC might get the "Rosa Luxembourg" treatment from the present day power elites. ..."
This is a must-watch clip. I hesitate to add much commentary, as anything I write will
likely not add all that much, and might instead only distract from the original.
Nonetheless, full speed ahead, damn the torpedoes! I will hazard adding some commentary.
I only ask that you watch the clip first. It'll only take five minutes of your time. Just
something to ponder on what I hope for many readers is a lazy, relaxing Sunday. Please watch
it, as my commentary will assume you've done so.
How to Explain What's At Stake with a Complex Subject
I've spent many, many years thinking about how business influences public policy – and
trying to get people to understand some of the details of how that's done, in a variety of
contexts.
Here, AOC breaks down one aspect of the problem, and clearly and succinctly explains what's
the deal, in terms that've obviously resounded with people and led them to share her primer
with their friends.
Quip, then Clear, Simple Statement. She opens with a self deprecating aside –
perhaps a bit too self-deprecating, as she doesn't pause long enough to elicit many chuckles.
Am I imagining a sense of "What's she up to?" emanating from the (sparse) crowd in that quick
initial establishing shot of the hearing chamber?
And then explains what she's up to:
Let's play a lightning round game.
I'm gonna be the bad guy, which I'm sure half the room would agree with anyway, and I want
to get away with as much bad things as possible, really to enrich myself and advance my
interests, even if that means putting my interests ahead of the American people.
I've enlisted all of you as my co-conspirators, so you're going help me legally get away
with all of this."
Framing. Turning this into a lightning round taps into popular culture. Most TV
viewers know what a lightning round is, certainly far more than regularly watch congressional
hearings on C-Span.
And using the Q & A format requires those summoned to testify at the hearing to affirm
each of her points. This reminded me a bit of the call and response technique that some
preachers employ.
By structuring this exercise in a lightning round format, each witness can only answer yes
or no, allowing little room to obfuscate – I'm looking at you, Bradley A. Smith, chairman
of the Institute for Free Speech (IFS). (Here's a link to the Washington Post op-ed AOC refers
to:
Those payments to women were unseemly. That doesn't mean they were illegal. )
AOC has no time for any waffling, "Okay green light for hush money, I can do all sorts of
terrible things, It's totally legal now for me to pay people off " She's not just working from
a great script – but is quick on her feet as well. Nice!
Simple Language, Complex Points
The language is simple, and sounds like the way ordinary people speak – "bad
guy," Followed later by "super bad guy."
"Totally."
"Okay great."
"Fabulous."
"Okay, so, awesome."
I think it's easier for her to do this, because she's not a lawyer. Even when she's
discussing questions of legality, she doesn't slip into legalese -- "super legal" isn't the
sort of phrase that would trip easily from the tongues of most lawyers– even recovering
ones, or those who got sidetracked into politics.
Repetition of One Point: This is All Legal
AOC channels Michael Kinsley's observation, "The scandal isn't what's illegal, the scandal
is what's legal." I hesitate to repeat that saying here, as for political junkies, it's been
been heard all too many times before.
AOC fleshes out the details of a message many Americans understand: the system is broken,
and under the current laws, no one's going to jail for doing any of this stuff. Instead, this
is standard operating procedure in Washington. And that's the case even though as this May
headline for report by the Pew Research Centre's headline makes clear:
Most Americans want to limit campaign spending, say big donors have greater political
influence .
AOC has great skill in understanding how language works, it is kind of mesmerizing
watching her thinking and talking on her feet -- she intertwines big narratives with smaller
ones seamlessly. Just brilliant.
She is gifted. She has demonstrated remarkable poise in her reactions to Pelosi. She
refuses to sling dirt, instead acting in deference to her power with a confidence that her
own principles will eventually prevail. It's an incredibly wise approach and extremely
counter-intuitive to most.
by supporting pelosi, calling her a progressive she shows acknowledgement of her role in
the system. it may be the confidence that her principles of being part of the club will
prevail. if you pay any attention at all to the system you'd understand it isn't broken, it
works as designed.
This past summer right around the time she went to Iowa with Bernie that she was on a
Sunday morning talk show. The host asked a question that was pointed and would pin most pols
into a corner they'd likely not want to be pinned to. AOC hesitated, thought, and said, "Yes,
i'll grant that. I agree with that." or something very similar.
Her hesitation and then acceptance told me two things:
1. She knows herself and she's not frightened by it. Other pols lapse into meaningless
nonsense and think defense first. AOC just moves forward aggressively because she's confident
in what she believes in.
2. She knows her audience. She understands who she's talking to.
Criticism just bounces off someone like that.
I had already seen the Now This video, and what is striking to me is that we have social
media content producers like Now This that are willing to treat AOC seriously and give a
platform for her ideas, unlike the TV news or most newspapers. Now This and AJ+ (Al Jazeera
social video) specialize in making videos viral, so they are the proximate cause of this
video going viral, unlike some earlier AOC videos.
Now This is owned by Group Nine Media which is an independent
startup that has received millions in venture funding as well as a significant investment by
Discovery Media, according to Wikipedia.
Also, Facebook's role is interesting because they are still allowing at least some
left-leaning videos to go viral.
How much longer will we have these outlets before they turn into CNN, MSNBC, NYT,
etc.?
Thanks for this, JLS. I was very impressed with AOC when I first saw her campaign video in
her race against Joe Crowley. Since that time she has become a force of nature not just in
Washington but across the country and internationally. I believe she is most impressive
politician I have ever seen and I am in my late sixties. She is simply thrilling to watch and
I think she appeals to many outside of her progressive base. Naturally the Washington Post,
with its neocon and neoliberal editorial page, will use every tool at its disposal to
discredit her and any other progressive.
The thing that worries me is that congress might find some way to remove her or shut
her up if she continues to ruffle neoliberal feathers like this.
While it would be a very extreme measure, do you think that Congress might try to place
her under Censure, and possibly even try building a case for Congressional Expulsion on bogus
charges? It would be a very underhanded thing to do, but on the other hand, the neoliberals
in both parties in Washington D.C. probably want to mount her head on a wall at this
point.
AOC isn't beholden to the corporate donor/lobbyist/consultant owners of the Dem estab. If
she isn't spending 30 hours a week dialing-for-dollars, and is free to represent her voters
interests, she might give other Dems ideas, especially the younger ones . Gasp! can't have
that! (/s)
I saw this one on Friday .captivating and jaw-dropping. I almost couldn't believe she just
got as blunt as that.
I wonder if she's preparing anything to get a little revenge on Pelosi for the brilliantly
withering scorn she dropped on the GND, turning it into the "Green Dream". I found myself
laughing and annoyed at the same time.
Pelosi knows she's got a grip on the reigns of power and she's happy to rub it in the face
of the new freshman class of what she sees as little more than noisemakers (not to dismiss
the power of the noisemakers, they've done more than I could have anticipated).
AOC and friends have cards to play .let's see how they play them. They can't directly
attack her, of course, they need her. But they can get attention, pressure and embarrass her
to take various actions.
AOC is not reacting to Trump's socialism challenge. She is ignoring it as if it came from
someone unqualified to be president. Imagine that. Or from masterful legislators so
compromised by corruption they will only change when they get good and frightened. It might
take a while because they have been too impervious to fear anything for so many decades they
might not realize they are in danger. They might as well be very, very stupid. No, she's not
taking the bait. Instead, she is pointing out what a corrupt thing both branches of
government are, the legislature and, even worse and more dangerous, the president, and not
merely because he is controlled by the military. She's playing chess for now. Checkmate will
probably come from left field in the form of an economic collapse. Nothing to see here. Move
along.
Fascinating as this is, I worry that AOC might get the "Rosa Luxembourg" treatment
from the present day power elites.
Murder has become a standard operating procedure for American operatives overseas; see drone
warfare as an example. The logic of Empire predicts that in general, the tactics used by the
Empire overseas will be brought back to the Homeland for eventual use against domestic
'enemies.'
The 'Tinfoil Hat Cadres' can cite numerous examples of domestic killings with suspicious ties
to internal politics. In the main, these 'examples' of evil are tied to individuals and
smaller groups of the power elites. I fear that political murder has become normalized inside
America's political classes.
Many here joke about "Mr. or Mz. 'X' better not take any small airplane flights for the
foreseeable future." It may be a 'joke' to us, but it certainly is not a joke to those
viewing their impending demise from 10,000 feet up in the air.
They probably will not have to go to that much trouble. They can always invent a
quasi-legal or illegal procedure to remove her from the senate, like the example I gave above
with Censure or Expulsion. Plus, this will be officially-sanctioned by Washington D.C. and
all of the major media outlets will be able to portray it as getting rid of a troublemaker
who did not want to be a team player.
Freuddian slip that, " remove her from the senate"? Actually, there have been open calls
from within the establishment to primary her, or most recently, to gerrymander her House
district out of existence. But that would just free her up to run for US Senate. It has been
suggested that possibility might cause Sen. Schumer to put the kabosh on any effort to
eliminate her district. As for a primary challenge, while it certainly would mean lots of
walking around money for a select group of Democratic political consultants (the Republicans
seem to have slurped up all the foreign regime-change work for this cycle), given AOC's
position as the first or second most popular politician in the country (right up there with
Bernie), that seems like a fool's errand.
Nice to know that anyone is saying this in a public forum.
In a bit of coincidence, I heard and adviser to Jerry Brown recite the current political
system's creed, saying that just because candidates get money from special interests doesn't
mean they're captives to those interests. It was astonishing to hear because the speaker said
this without the slightest hesitation The rest of us in the room paused for a moment.
I replied that psychological studies demonstrate that if I give you a piece of gum, not
millions in campaign contributions, you're likely to be more favorably disposed to what I
say.
so we agreed to disagree. Personally, I've interpreted reciting this creed as a kind of
initiation the prerequisite to belong to the religion that currently governs the country, not
as something the guy actually believed. Like Michael Corleone's recitation at his children's
christening Sure, it's a toxic religion, but there are so many of those the cult of
vengeance, for example (why else would Americans incarcerate so many people).
The context of AOC's hypothetical 100%-PAC-financed campaign:
Meet the Most Corporate PAC-Reliant Reps in Congress
Here are the eight House representatives who took more than two-thirds of their overall
campaign funding in the 2018 cycle from PACs representing corporations and corporate trade
associations:
My interpretation of the relationship between Pelosi and AOC.
I don't think at all that Pelosi is out to crush AOC. She certainly does not agree with
most of AOC's policies (after all Pelosi's path to power was different and she is irrevocably
wedded to it) but I think she operates on a different plane here.
Pelosi's rise to power was arduous and her success came from her brilliance in overcoming
a wide range of obstacles. She is focused, smart, relentless and ruthless. She earned her
power and will not give it away. (what she uses her power for is not really relevant in this
discussion)
I think she recognizes in AOC a woman not that dissimilar to herself but separated by a
couple of generations. She will not try and destroy her as AOC is not a meaningful threat to
her and she can leverage politically from AOC's huge impact in ways only Pelois is likely to
know how to do. She will make AOC earn her own power by proving she can overcome obstacles
and has the smarts and fortitude to take what she wants in spite of what her opponents do to
stop her (opponents come from all directions in politics) – just as she did. That kind
of behavior is what Pelosi respects. She could have prevented AOC from being on the committee
she used as a platform for the above exposure of corruption but she did not – and it is
certain that Pelosi was aware of the potential for AOC to use it to her advantage, or not. So
AOC just passed a test there will be many more. She may eventually fall, or she may be one of
the rare occurrences of someone rising to prominence and changing the world. She is where she
is at at 29 years old! I am sure that scares the crap out of her political opponents as
anyone can see tremendous upside for her should she continue to develop. Here's wishing her
luck – we need people like her more than any other kind by far.
I'd take it, but sounds wishful. Never underestimate incompetence. Pelosi is where she is
not because of brilliance but because she is the bag lady.
Pelosi might have made a deal to get her support for speaker, which was more important to
her.
Or she might think that AOC would quiet down once she got up on the totem pole, just as she
would have done.
Seems unlikely for somebody that believes in the rich and powerful Uber alles would otherwise
support somebody that wants to topple that temple.
AOC's appointment to Fin Svcs is an interesting one. House Oversight Environmental sub
committee is useful to Pelosi to have AOC go after Trump, but I'm not sure what Pelosi gets
out of the Fin Svcs committee. A quid pro quo for Speaker support makes some sense on the
surface.
Interesting as well, AOC turned down an appointment to the Select GND committee and
explained it as a timing issue, being asked after her previous two appointments and
not having the bandwidth to take on the Select committee and do her job well.
I can read some things into that:
– AOC values those two committee assignments. She's pretty wise to not bite off more
than she can chew.
– That Select committee is pretty meaningless. She got the resolution she wanted
introduced.
– Did Pelosi underestimate her early and then try to bury her with work? Or did she
force her to compromise either the spotlight she will have tearing people up on FS and
Oversight or the content of the GND resolution?
I think you have two very savvy political women facing off here, both know it, and both
are working a long term game of chess. The generational gap is a huge advantage and
disadvantage for both. For now, they are going to leverage it/each other and play their
roles. Sometime before the DNC convention in 2020 pieces are going to be played that changes
the dynamic. The outcome of that will dictate the path post 2020 convention. The odds of a
progressive House are slim. Progressive President a little better. AOC will need Pelosi
especially with a Progressive Presidency. Pelosi will need her with a Progressive President.
Centrist President relegates AOC to noise in terms of actual House business.
AOC is exposing the corruption of paid politics. Virginia Democrats, Donald Trump, and
Jeff Bezos illuminate the dark secrets that the plutocratic system uses to keep the connected
in line. This is breaking down. Oligarchs are at war. Neoliberalism is stealing life away
from the little people and destroying the world. She is a noble in the good old fashion
classical sense. Compare her to Adam Schiff. This is visceral. This is good versus evil.
Brings back fond memories of Alan Grayson's rundowns of the republican healthcare plan (if
you do get sick, die quickly) and socializing losses (now we all own the red roof inn).
AOC was even more riveting than Alan Grayson. I'd forgotten about the Bernanke grilling,
although his marvelous skewering of the Fed general counsel (Alvarez, I think his name was)
about where all the gazillion dollars of bailout money went was also pretty special. "Answer
the question." "Congressman, I did answer the question." "No you didn't. Answer the
question."
We're going to see more of this in the future remember, AOC doesn't do "call time," so
she'll have plenty of opportunities to engage in hearings like this.
She and the panel missed an important opportunity to point out that what gets you on a
committee is raising money from the industry regulated by that committee. Instead they just
said there is no illegality in working on related legislation.
Maybe this uniquely Article I corruption, didn't fit with her The President Is Even Worse
thesis. But she has the skills to tie it to Article II, revolving door scams. I hope she does
so soon.
I know that Big Oil is a baddie nic on AOC's quiver, but why not hit at the black heart of
HighFinance,, and their kin, WhiteShoeBoy Big-n-Legal who are, mostly likely, some of the
biggest, and most manipulative donors around. I think loosing arrows constantly the earl
cos., to the exclusion of other nefarious principals might loose some steam, especially when
most of the country's citizens rely considerably on FFs as a means of fueling their ground
transport, to say nothing of air travel. An example : She could hit Biden by name, with
regard to his imput and substantial influence, in passing legislation that has only screwed a
generation .. or few !!
So, if she's serious for change, for the better, for the Commons, she needs some specific
bulleyes to aim at, many of whom are within her own party !
It's not clear to me how this hearing happened, Can anyone enlighten? Can AOC just
schedule her own hearings on her own topics, call her own witnesses? I have no idea how those
committees work.
I've been alive forever
And I wrote the very first law
I put the weasel words together
I am power and I write the laws
I write the laws that make my wealth increase
I write the laws of war and other hateful things
I write the laws that let the poor folks die
I write the laws, I write the laws
My home lies far above you
But my claws are deep into your soul
Now, when I ignore your cries
I'm young again, even though I'm very old
I write the laws that make my wealth increase
I write the laws of war and other hateful things
I write the laws that let the poor folks die
I write the laws, I write the laws
Oh my greed makes you dance
And lets you know you have no chance
And I wrote foreclosure laws so you must move
Dejection fills your heart
Well, that's a real fine place to start
It's all for me it's not for you
It's all from you, it's all for me
It's a worldwide travesty
I write the laws that make my wealth increase
I write the laws of war and other hateful things
I write the laws that let the poor folks die
I write the laws, I write the laws
I write the laws that make my wealth increase
I write the laws of war and other hateful things
I write the laws that let the poor folks die
I write the laws, I write the laws
I am power and I write the laws
'We have a system that is fundamentally broken.' -- Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is
explaining just how f*cked campaign finance laws really are.
" Subscribe to NowThis:
http://go.nowth.is/News_Subscribe
In the latest liberal news and political news, New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez made
headlines at a recent congressional hearing on money in politics by explaining and inquiring
about political corruption. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, aka AOC, went into the issues of
lobbyists and Super PACs and how the political establishment, including Donald Trump, uses big
money to their advantage, to hide and obfuscate, and push crooked agendas. Alexandria Ocasio
Cortez is a rising star in the Democratic Party and House of Representatives.
NowThis is your premier news outlet providing you with all the videos you need to stay up to
date on all the latest in trending news. From entertainment to politics, to viral videos and
breaking news stories, we're delivering all you need to know straight to your social feeds. We
live where you live.
Love this feisty congresswoman. I can see why AOC is dislike by the right and even many
democrats. She's in DC to work for the American ppl and not enrich herself or special
interest. Love the 2018 class and hope they make changes and clean up DC.
AOC is amazing, pointing out all the fundamental wrongs in our political system. I hope
she stays in Congress as long as possible to spread her influence.
AOC is speaking out when no one else will about the corruption in Washington. She is
disliked because she is actually fighting for people. This makes me want to move to New York
just so I can vote for her. Keep it up the pressure.
She is going to be needing extra security. She's poised to take them down and we know how
these things have been handled in the past. I'm loving her fearlessness but worry for her
safety. May she be protected and blessed. SMIB
@NoseytheDuke
Face it -- he neither believed nor understood those Stephen Miller speeches. Coming from the
mouth of Donald Trump, they were lies.
Why do so many of you intelligent people still buy into the political puppet show,
expecting BigGov to fix itself? Electoral politics, judicial confirmations, etc, are
orchestrated conflict to keep dissidence channeled and harmlessly blown off as the Empire
lurches along.
There are other columnists here at Unz who have been calling the Beltway BS for years. For
example:
"In 2008, Obama was touted as a political outsider who will hose away all of the rot and
bloody criminality of the Bush years. He turned out to be a deft move by our ruling class.
Though fools still refuse to see it, Obama is a perfect servant of our military banking
complex. Now, Trump is being trumpeted as another political outsider.
A Trump presidency will temporarily appease restless, lower class whites, while serving as
a magnet for liberal anger. This will buy our ruling class time as they continue to wage war
abroad while impoverishing Americans back home. Like Obama, Trump won't fulfill any of his
election promises, and this, too, will be blamed on bipartisan politics."
"... The job paid minimum wage and exposed Warren firsthand to the topics that would later define her career: the power of corporations and the effects of bankruptcy on the American consumer. ..."
"... Warren, who had been sharply critical of Clinton in part over her ties to Wall Street, ultimately chose not to challenge her for the Democratic party's nomination and endorsed the former secretary of state's campaign. It was also during this time that Warren proved among the few capable of getting under then candidate Donald Trump's skin. ..."
"... At the same time, Warren became a top target of conservatives and Trump himself. The president has repeatedly mocked Warren with the derisive nickname "Pocahontas" – including at an event intended to honor Native Americans. ..."
"... Republicans first tried to push the notion that Warren used her Native American ancestry to further her career in the 2012 Senate race, homing in on a single questionnaire in which she claimed mixed ancestry. ..."
"... But the matter did not end there. The Washington Post published a story revealing Warren listed her race as "American Indian" while seeking a Texas bar registration card in 1986. ..."
"... Warren's platform includes the single-payer healthcare system Medicare for All, debt-free college tuition and anti-corruption legislation designed to restore accountability in government. She is also poised to unveil a proposal that would impose a wealth tax on Americans worth over $50m. ..."
Warren's official entry into the race has differed sharply from when she captured widespread liberal enthusiasm in
her unlikely bid for the Senate seven years ago.
The two-term senator will join a crowded Democratic primary
field with no clear frontrunner – and several contenders jockeying to claim the progressive mantle that she
aspires to grasp. She has also found herself contending with a lingering controversy for previously identifying as
Native American over the course of nearly two decades.
The question now is whether Warren, who moved early to build an expansive field operation in anticipation of
her presidential run, can overcome early setbacks and reclaim her role as the Democratic party's top foil to
Donald Trump.
Born to middle-class parents in Norman, Oklahoma
, Warren has spoken
candidly about how her family's livelihood was upended when her father's heart attack forced him out of work.
Addressing crowds across the country, Warren often recalls how her late mother – determined not to lose the
family's home – "pulled on her best dress" and got her first paying job at the department store Sears.
The job paid minimum wage and exposed Warren firsthand to the topics that would later define her career:
the power of corporations and the effects of bankruptcy on the American consumer.
Her research in bankruptcy law – and the impact on the average person's medical bills, mortgage payments and
other installments – led Warren to become a leading expert on the subject and rise in the academia world.
"These are the issues she still cares about," said Charles Fried, a professor at Harvard Law School who helped
recruit Warren to its faculty.
"I think she is extraordinary for this reason, that she got into politics because she cared about some issues.
She didn't get into politics because she wanted to be in office and then tried to figure out what issues she cared
about."
Warren cultivated a profile as a populist firebrand against the backdrop of the Great Recession, earning the
ire of Wall Street by spearheading the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau – an agency
established under the Obama administration as part of the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill of 2010.
Upon being passed over to head the agency she helped create, Warren decided to continue the fight from within
the government, embarking on a campaign to win back the late senator and liberal icon Ted Kennedy's seat from the
Republican incumbent, Scott Brown, in the high-profile 2012 Massachusetts Senate race.
Roughly $70m was spent on the bitterly waged contest, which catapulted Warren to the national stage.
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
Elizabeth Warren speaks during day two of the Democratic national convention in Charlotte, North Carolina,
on 5 September 2012. Photograph: Joe Raedle/Getty Images
The race also saw Warren cement herself as a leader of the burgeoning progressive movement within the
Democratic party; branding the choice before voters as "Wall Street versus you", Warren viewed the election as an
opportunity to hand a major defeat to what she once
dubbed
as "the largest lobbying force ever assembled on the face of the earth".
Following her victory, Warren's profile grew so rapidly that speculation swiftly emerged over a potential White
House run in 2016, despite the inevitability of Hillary Clinton's candidacy. A group of progressives even mounted
a #DraftWarren campaign.
Warren, who had been sharply critical of Clinton in part over her ties to Wall Street, ultimately chose not to
challenge her for the Democratic party's nomination and endorsed the former secretary of state's campaign. It was
also during this time that Warren proved among the few capable of getting under then candidate Donald Trump's
skin.
After Trump derided Clinton as a "nasty woman", Warren famously riffed: "Get this, Donald. Nasty women are
tough, nasty women are smart and nasty women vote, and on November 8, we nasty women are going to march our nasty
feet to cast our nasty votes to get you out of our lives forever."
The 2016 presidential election did not, however, produce the groundswell of unified opposition to Trump that
Democrats
had hoped for. Instead, it left the party in search of a clear leader to fill the void left by
Obama's departure from the White House.
For Warren, it looked as though her moment had arrived.
In the early days of the Trump administration, Warren quickly emerged as the face of the Democratic opposition,
matching the president's tweets with sharp ripostes of her own and holding his cabinet nominees to account when
they appeared for consideration before congressional committees.
During the confirmation process for the former attorney general Jeff Sessions, Warren famously read a letter
written 30 years prior by Coretta Scott King, in which the widow of Dr Martin Luther King Jr warned of Sessions'
civil rights record from the time of his nomination for a federal judgeship.
Silenced by Republicans mid-speech
on the Senate floor, Warren read the letter on Facebook Live. The hashtag
#LetLizSpeak trended on Twitter and the phrase "Nevertheless, she persisted" was coined.
At the same time, Warren became a top target of conservatives and Trump himself. The president has repeatedly
mocked Warren with the derisive nickname "Pocahontas" – including at an event intended to honor Native Americans.
Although Warren long ignored the president's taunts, she took the unusual step of addressing the issue head on
in October by making public the results of a DNA test revealing that she did, in fact, have some Native American
ancestry.
Rather than putting the topic to rest, Warren's move was rebuked by some tribal leaders, who felt it
politicized their identity, and reignited the story.
Republicans first tried to push the notion
that Warren used her
Native American ancestry to further her career in the 2012 Senate race, homing in on a single questionnaire in
which she claimed mixed ancestry.
An exhaustive investigation by the Boston Globe found no evidence that Warren benefited from doing so, and
nearly every living Harvard law professor involved in her hiring
has said
it was not a factor in their votes to offer her a tenured position.
"When we brought her to Harvard, no one had a clue that she thought of herself as Native American," said
Laurence Tribe, the school's professor of constitutional law.
"I think she's had an unfair rap," he added. "I don't think it's the case that she ever exploited her family's
background or ancestry in a way that some people seem to think she did."
The Cherokee nation, one of the groups that was critical of Warren, said she privately apologized to to tribal
leaders.
But the matter did not end there. The Washington Post published a story revealing Warren
listed her race
as "American Indian" while seeking a Texas bar registration card in 1986. Warren apologized once more, telling reporters: "I'm not a tribal citizen.
"My apology is an apology for not having been more sensitive about tribal citizenship and tribal sovereignty. I
really want to underline the point, tribes and only tribes determine tribal citizenship."
Warren remains a popular figure in the Democratic party
and was
easily re-elected to a second Senate term in the 2018 midterm elections.
Even so, she received fewer votes in her home state than Charlie Baker, the Republican governor of
Massachusetts, prompting Warren's hometown paper to urge the senator to reconsider a presidential bid.
"While Warren won re-election, her margin of victory in November suggests there's a ceiling on her popularity,"
the
Boston Globe editorial board
wrote. "Baker garnered more votes than she did in a state that is supposed to be
a Democratic haven."
She's hard-edged, not personally, but ideologically. She takes very sharp and
controversial positions
Barney Frank
"While Warren is an effective and impactful senator with an important voice nationally, she has become a
divisive figure," the board added. "A unifying voice is what the country needs now after the polarizing politics
of Donald Trump." Those close to Warren dismissed the editorial as having more to do with the personal biographies and
inclinations of those who sit on the board. "She's hard-edged, not personally, but ideologically," said Frank. "She takes very sharp and controversial
positions."
"So, yeah, they're going to be people who are unhappy with her."
More challenging for Warren, friends and former colleagues said, would be the task of distinguishing herself
within a diverse field of Democratic candidates that includes at least three of her Senate colleagues and a record
number of women seeking the party's nomination.
Warren's platform includes the single-payer healthcare system Medicare for All, debt-free college tuition and
anti-corruption legislation designed to restore accountability in government. She is also poised to unveil a
proposal that would impose a wealth tax on Americans worth over $50m.
Fried, who served as solicitor general under Ronald Reagan, said he disagreed with some of the more expansive
economic policies touted by Warren. But her greatest asset as a candidate, he acknowledged, would be to approach the campaign with the same steely
resolve to elevate the middle class that endeared her to voters seven years ago.
Although he is only occasionally in touch with Warren as she embarks on what will undoubtedly be a grueling
campaign for America's highest office, Fried recalled recently sending Warren a lengthy article about capitalism
and income inequality.
To his surprise, he received a response from Warren 10 days later. She had not only taken the time to read the
article, but highlighted a portion that stood out to her. "How many presidential candidates would do that?" Fried asked.
In her email, Warren also recounted to her old colleague how not very long ago they sat together on a flight
discussing the prospects of a Clinton presidency.
That day never came to fruition, Warren noted.
"I don't know what lies ahead," she added. "But I know what I'm fighting for."
While controversy around her heritage lingers, voters call the Democrat's fight against economic
injustice 'inspiring'
On a cold, blustery January day in 1912, immigrant women walked out of the Everett Mill in the
->
Massachusetts
factory town of Lawrence demanding higher wages and better working conditions. Mill owners and
city government responded in a swift and heavy-handed manner; local militias and police forces were called to the
streets. Protesters died. Many more were arrested.
On a cold, blustery February day 117 years later, the
Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren stood in front of Everett Mill
->
to announce her candidacy for president of the United States
, channeling the spirit of those women as she told
her supporters that they were in a fight for their lives against a rigged system that favors the rich and
powerful.
ss="rich-link">
Why women 2020 candidates face 'likability' question even as they make
history
Read more
"These workers – led by women – didn't have much. Not even a common language. Nevertheless, they persisted,"
she said. "The story of Lawrence is about how real change happens in America. It's a story about power – our power
– when we fight together."
For Warren, who grew up in an economically struggling Oklahoma household and who first rose to mainstream
prominence by handing out practical financial advice to American families, the word "fight" is central to her
platform and political ethos – it was a word peppered throughout her speech.
But on Saturday, she made clear that hers was not just a fight against president Donald Trump, but against a
system she described as one where the rich, privileged and powerful oppress the rest of the country.
"The man in the White House is not the cause of what is broken, he is just the latest – and most extreme –
symptom of what's gone wrong in America, a product of a rigged system that props up the rich and the powerful and
kicks dirt on everyone else," she said. "So once he's gone, we can't pretend that all of this never happened."
The backdrop of the mill, where the so-called Bread and Roses strikes originated, was symbolic. But so too was
the choice of the modern day city of Lawrence, which is one of those places in America that has felt left behind
in recent times. To many in New England, Lawrence is synonymous with crime, drugs and poverty. The Republican
governors of Maine and New Hampshire have invoked the city's name when laying blame for the opioid crises in their
states. As was the case at the time of the strikes, Lawrence is a working class city of immigrants, with a
population that is about 80% Latino. It is a city where wealth is nearby, but out of reach for many.
Sebastian Brown, 31, moved to Lawrence five years ago. While he had yet to choose a candidate to support, he
was excited by Warren's message and was happy Warren chose the town as the site of her announcement.
ass="inline-garnett-quote inline-icon ">
I think we need a woman president and I think it will be the fight of our lives
Vicki Ward, rally attendee
"This is a working class city. And I think her – and Bernie [Sanders] – are running on platforms that speak to
the working class and how they're being screwed over by the rich and powerful," he said. "And I think she's a
great messenger for it."
While there was optimism about Warren's candidacy at her rally, she enters an already crowded Democratic field
amid
->
r
enewed controversy over her past identification as Native American.
For years now – since even before he was president –
->
Trump has needled Warren on the issue
, calling her "Pocahontas". He and others accuse Warren of falsely
presenting herself as Native American to gain unfair advantages in life.
The controversy was re-ignited last week when the Washington Post
->
published Warren's 1986 registration card
for the Texas State Bar. In it, she listed "American Indian" as her
race.
Warren has now apologised repeatedly for identifying as Native American, saying in recent days that she "should
have been more mindful of the distinction with tribal citizenship and tribal sovereignty". She still maintains
that Native American ancestry was part of her family's story passed down to her.
->
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
Elizabeth Warren called Donald Trump the 'most extreme' symptom of a broken system. Photograph: Cj Gunther/EPA
How damaging the controversy will be remains to be see. Warren enters a diverse Democratic field where other
candidates belong to minority groups: New Jersey senator
->
Cory Booker is African American
;
->
California senator Kamala Harris
was born to an Indian mother and a Jamaican father.
->
Hawaii congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard
is both the first Hindu and first Samoan-American member of Congress, and
the former San Antonio mayor
->
Julián Castro is Latino
. When the Democratic race gets heated, Warren's portrayal of race could prove to be a
point of attack.
Peter Devlin, a 56-year-old dentist from the nearby town of North Andover, said he was at the rally to hear
what Warren had to say but said that the Native American controversy "is going to be a problem" for her campaign.
"I voted for her as senator, but I'm concerned about her electability," he said. "It's going to be a tough run.
She's got a bit of baggage and she's so sort of cliche progressive liberal that I think there's a lot of America
that's not up for that. But I want to hear what she's up to."
ss="rich-link">
Stacey Abrams on the ticket? Democrat's star turn fuels talk for 2020
Read more
However, other attendees, like 64-year-old Vicki Ward, who drove two hours to the event from Vermont, were
ready to throw their support behind Warren on the first day of the senator's presidential campaign.
"I think she's got the qualities that we need," she said. "I think we need a woman president and I think it
will be the fight of our lives."
Maryann Johnson, who came to Warren's announcement from New Hampshire, also said she was already sold on
Warren.
"I basically agreed with everything she said. We need to have more equality, there needs to be less corruption
in government," she said. "She's inspiring."
The Bill Buckley of the paleoconservatives has arrived, and just in time for the Trump era.
While Tucker Carlson's rhetorical reach may not stretch as far and wide as Buckley's, he evokes
the same gaily combative spirit that young conservatives of the 1960s admired in the founder of
National Review . Both emerged as symbols of a new and rising movement, an insurgency
on the right that delighted in confronting and demolishing the mythology of modern liberalism
-- "owning the libs" as we say nowadays -- as Buckley regularly did on his PBS-aired TV show
Firing Line and as Carlson does five times a week on Fox News.
Yet that is where the resemblance ends. The "fusionism" of Buckley and National
Review was a far cry from the unreconstructed America First-ism of an earlier American
right, so ably reconfigured by Carlson for the twenty-first century. The original Buckley
program brought together the three contending factions of the conservative movement: the
anti-communists, the social conservatives, and the nascent libertarian movement. The America
First coalition personified by Carlson connects the paleoconservatives, long thought to be the
least influential of the right's many factions, with millions of radicalized middle Americans,
the inhabitants of "flyover country" -- that is, the least influential people in the nation,
the "forgotten people" Trump directly appealed to.
The revolution in conservative thought represented by Carlson sets many of what Buckley
would have recognized as the central principles of modern conservatism on their head. Beyond
that, however, is the fundamental difference in their respective positions: Buckley came to be
part of the political class, the coastal elite that has ruled the nation since its earliest
days: Carlson targets those people as the hapless captains of a "ship of fools," the title of
his new book.
A decadent and self-isolated elite elected Donald Trump, says Carlson. Yes, somewhat
tiresomely, Carlson launches his polemic with the eternal search for whom to "blame" for the
victory of the "unappealing," "vulgar and ignorant" Trump. Once we get past this boilerplate,
however, Carlson homes in on the real problem: the bicoastal oligarchy that dominates the rest
of the country and is determined to hold on to power no matter what the cost.
They invaded Iraq on a pretext, bailed out Wall Street, lowered interest rates to zero,
unleashed an unprecedented tide of immigration, and stood by while the country's manufacturing
foundation was eaten away and the middle class collapsed. Yet still, the oligarchs felt
entitled to rule, and they certainly expected to continue their rule beyond that November night
in 2016, despite the fact that they were lording it over a population with which they had
almost nothing in common.
In a phrase that will surely earn him howls of outrage from the guardians of political
correctness, Carlson describes the "Latin Americanization" of the U.S. economy, where the
income distribution curve is coming to resemble what one might find under a new form of
feudalism. The Democrats, once the party of the working class, now advance the interests of the
progressive bourgeoisie in D.C., New York, and Silicon Valley.
This Latin Americanization process is not defined merely by the isolation of the ruling
class, its arrogance and indifference to the fate of its own people, but also by a major
demographic project: the wholesale substitution of more pliable subjects for the voting
population. When the East Germans of the German Democratic Republic rose up in rebellion and
the communists solicited ideas to get back in the workers' good graces, the Stalinist
poet/playwright Bertolt Brecht opined, "Would it not be easier in that case for the government
to dissolve the people and elect another?" That is precisely what is happening. The American
people never voted for it. Indeed, at every chance they have been given to express their
opinion on mass immigration and open borders, the result has been an overwhelming and
unmitigated rejection of both.
Carlson raises a question that no one else dares ask, for fear of the answer: Are we a
country anymore? Or are we a sprawling borderless empire that simply expands and spreads,
unbidden, like some mindless amoeba? "Again and again, we are told that these changes are
entirely good," Carlson writes. "Change itself is inherently virtuous, our leaders explain.
Those who oppose it are bigots." We have no common language, culture, history -- so why should
we remain a country?
Our rulers cannot and will not answer this question. It violates everything they believe,
everything they hold sacred: it strikes at the very heart of their worldview. Carlson points
out that this country is in the midst of a disorienting, alienating, and potentially dangerous
transformation that is changing the kind of country we were into something that may not be a
country at all. If you oppose this, you're an enemy of diversity -- which is now our highest
value.
We are not allowed to debate this: like all religious dogmas, it is beyond dispute, and any
questioning of its wisdom is apt to get you run out of town on a rail. The penalty is so high
because the policy is so unpopular, except with the bicoastal oligarchy, which imports cheap
computer nerds from India to run their companies and Guatemalan nannies to raise their
children. Mexican gardeners order their landscapes, while robbers, rapists, and drug dealers in
this country illegally spread disorder in the neighborhoods on the other side of the railroad
tracks. Not that the elites care: it isn't happening in the leafy suburbs they inhabit, which
haven't changed since 1956.
And they wonder why the peasants with pitchforks are on the march. Not even the Bourbons
were this indifferent to reality. How could they not have seen Trump and the upsurge of
right-wing populism coming? How could they not have realized that, as Carlson puts it,
"virtually none of their core beliefs had majority support from the population they governed.
It was a strange arrangement for a democracy. In the end, it was unsustainable."
Right down the line, from immigration to foreign policy to the economic policies that
enriched Silicon Valley and impoverished Middle America, the Davos crowd's agenda is the polar
opposite of what most Americans want. Indeed, if a single phrase embodies the new conservative
dispensation's view of the elite's policy agenda, and its conservative doppelgänger,
Trump's supporters on the right often repeat it with ill-concealed contempt: Invade the world,
invite the world.
This was the policy of the George W. Bush administration, and, with only slight rhetorical
modifications, the mind-set that animated the Obama administration, not to mention most of the
2016 would-be Republican aspirants. Yet Americans of both parties were sick and tired of being
lied to about the most disastrous war in their history, so they ignored the establishment
outcries when Trump denounced the Iraq War as based on a lie. Trump was supposed to lose the
South Carolina primary due to this "faux pas," but as usual the conventional wisdom was wrong:
he won overwhelmingly.
Carlson's chapter on our "Foolish Wars" does something I have seen no other conservative
work do: it documents the betrayal of the neoconservatives and their attempted reentry into the
legions of the left. Max Boot, formerly a minor neocon known for advocating an "American
empire," has now become one of many competing gurus of the NeverTrumpers and is busily trying
to convince his newfound leftist comrades that he's really one of them. Carlson's mere listing
of all the countries Boot has demanded we hit underscores the sheer craziness and lack of
accountability that has dominated our discourse for years.
One almost feels sorry for Bill Kristol -- almost! -- as Carlson documents the trail of
failed predictions ("They'll greet us as liberators!") and disastrous policies initiated by the
little Lenin of the neocons. It's a virtually unbroken record of failed bets, miscalculations,
and outright lies spelled out over decades -- a record that would doom any other pundit to
irrelevance, instead of gifting him a prime spot on the cable networks and the op-ed pages.
Buckley made room for the neoconservatives when they defected from a pacifistic Democratic
Party in the 1960s. Now Carlson is formalizing their unceremonious exit from the right by
giving them a good shove. They'll land on their feet: they always do, like a hobo jumping off a
boxcar. Let Tucker's book serve as a warning to the next train they try to hitch a ride on.
♦
"... The imperialists want to grab the rich oil fields for the US big oil cartel ..."
"... Venezuela must not become an example for other countries in the region on social-programs policy ..."
"... Venezuela must not turn to cooperation with rival powers like China and Russia. Such a prospect may give the country the ability to minimize the effects of the economic war ..."
"... So, when Trump declared the unelected Juan Guaido as the 'legitimate president' of Venezuela, all the main neoliberal powers of the West rushed to follow the decision. ..."
"... Donald Trump is the personification of an authoritarian system that increasingly unveils its true nature. The US empire makes the Venezuelan economy 'scream hard', as it did in Chile in 1973. The country then turned into the first laboratory of neoliberalism with the help of the Chicago Boys and a brutal dictatorship. So, as the big fraud is clear now, neoliberalism is losing ground and ideological influence over countries and societies, after decades of complete dominance. ..."
Even before the 2016 US presidential election, this blog supported that Donald Trump is
apure sample of neoliberal barbarism . Many almost laughed at this perception because Trump was being already promoted,
more or less, as the 'terminator' of the neoliberal establishment. And many people, especially in the US, tired from the economic
disasters, the growing inequality and the endless wars, were anxious to believe that this was indeed his special mission.
Right after the elections, we supported that the
US establishment
gave a brilliant performance by putting its reserve, Donald Trump, in power, against the only candidate that the same
establishment identified as a real threat: Bernie Sanders.
In 2017 , Trump bombed Syria for the first time, resembling the lies that led us to the Iraq war disaster. Despite the fact that
the US Tomahawk missile attack had zero value in operational level (the United States allegedly warned Russia and Syria, while the
targeted airport was operating normally just hours after the attack), Trump sent a clear message to the US deep state that he is
prepared to meet all its demands - and especially the escalation of the confrontation with Russia.
Indeed, a year later, Trump built a pro-war team that includes the most bloodthirsty, hawkish neocons. And then, he ordered a
second airstrike against Syria, together with his neocolonial friends.
In the middle of all this 'orgy' of pro-establishment moves, Trump offered a controversial withdrawal of US forces from Syria
and Afghanistan to save whatever was possible from his 'anti-interventionist' profile. And it was indeed a highly controversial action
with very little value, considering all these US military bases that are still fully operational in the broader Middle East and beyond.
Not to mention the various ways through which the US intervenes in the area (training proxies, equip them with heavy weapons, supporting
the Saudis and contribute to war crimes in Yemen, etc.)
And then , after this very short break, Trump returned to 'business as usual' to satisfy the neoliberal establishment with a 'glorious'
record. He achieved a 35-day government shutdown, which is the
"longest shutdown in US history"
.
Trump conducted the longest experiment on neoliberals' ultimate goal: abolishing the annoying presence of the state. And this
was just a taste of what Trump is willing to do in order to satisfy all neoliberals' wet dreams.
And now, we have the Venezuela issue. Since Hugo Chavez nationalized PDVSA, the central oil and natural gas company, the US empire
launched a fierce economic war against the country. Yet, while all previous US administrations were trying to replace legitimate
governments with their puppets as much silently as possible through slow-motion coup operations, Trump has no problem to do it in
plain sight.
And perhaps the best proof for that is a statement by one of the most warmongering figures of the neocon/neoliberal cabal, hired
by Trump . As John Bolton cynically and openly
admitted recently,
" It will make a big difference to the United States economically if we could have American oil companies really invest in and
produce the oil capabilities in Venezuela. "
Therefore, one should be very naive of course to believe that the Western imperialist gang seriously cares about the Venezuelan
people and especially the poor. Here are three basic reasons behind the open US intervention in Venezuela:
The imperialists want to grab the rich oil fields for the US big oil cartel, as well as the
great untapped
natural resources , particularly gold (mostly for the Canadian companies).
Venezuela must not become an example for other countries in the region on social-programs policy, which is mainly funded by
the oil production. The imperialists know that they must interrupt the path of Venezuela to real Socialism by force if necessary.
Neoliberalism must prevail by all means for the benefit of the big banks and corporations.
Venezuela must not turn to cooperation with rival powers like China and Russia. Such a prospect may give the country the ability
to minimize the effects of the economic war. The country may find an alternative to escape the Western sanctions in order to fund
its social programs for the benefit of the people. And, of course, the West will never accept the exploitation of the Venezuelan
resources by the Sino-Russian bloc.
So, when Trump declared the unelected Juan Guaido as the 'legitimate president' of Venezuela, all the main neoliberal powers of
the West rushed to follow the decision.
This is something we have never seen before. The 'liberal democracies' of the West - only by name - immediately, uncritically
and without hesitation jumped on the same boat with Trump towards this outrageously undemocratic action. They recognized Washington's
puppet as the legitimate president of a third country. A man that was never elected by the Venezuelan people and has very low popularity
in the country. Even worse, the EU parliament
approved this action
, killing any last remnants of democracy in the Union.
Yet, it seems that the US is finding increasingly difficult to force many countries to align with its agenda. Even some European
countries took some distance from the attempted constitutional coup, with Italy even
trying to
veto EU's decision to recognize Guaido.
Donald Trump is the personification of an authoritarian system that increasingly unveils its true nature. The US empire makes
the Venezuelan economy 'scream hard', as it did in Chile in 1973. The country then turned into the first laboratory of neoliberalism
with the help of the Chicago Boys and a brutal dictatorship. So, as the big fraud is clear now, neoliberalism is losing ground and
ideological influence over countries and societies, after decades of complete dominance.
This unprecedented action by the Western neoliberal powers to recognize Guaido is a serious sign that neoliberalism returns to
its roots and slips towards fascism. It appears now that this is the only way to maintain some level of power.
I just had this insight and wanted to share it here.
I am 70 and am thinking that when I was growing up the US Democrats represented the
concepts of socialism and the Republicans that of capitalism. Today I see the Democrats as
representing capitalism and Republicans representing fascism.
A commenter on another thread asked me about my China socialism focus and referred to the
US Interstate highway system initiated in the Eisenhower era when the marginal tax rate was
in the low 90 percent range. America has and continues to embrace aspects of socialism they
refuse to believe exists in America.......the effects of MSM brainwashing and propaganda.
China is attempting a mixed economy favoring socialism AFAICT
If Trump runs of the defense of neoliberalism platform he will lose. But Trump proved to be a bad, superficial politician,
Republican Obama so to speak, so he may take this advice from his entourage. Trump proved to be a puppet of MIC and
Israel, his tax cuts had shown that he is a regular "trickle down" neoliberal. So he attraction to voters is down
substantially. Now
Polling is unambiguous here. If you define the "center" as a position
somewhere between those of the two parties, when it comes to economic issues the public is overwhelmingly left of center; if anything,
it's to the left of the Democrats. Tax cuts for the rich are the G.O.P.'s defining policy, but two-thirds of voters believe that taxes
on the rich are actually too low, while only 7 percent believe that they're too high. Voters support Elizabeth Warren's proposed tax
on large fortunes by a three-to-one majority. Only a small minority want to see cuts in Medicaid, even though such cuts have been central
to every G.O.P. health care proposal in recent years.
Notable quotes:
"... Insiders have suggested that Trump plans to explicitly run against socialism in 2020. In fact, in playing up the dangers of socialism, he may be positioning himself to run against Bernie Sanders in 2020. ..."
"... Sanders's rebuttal to Trump's address gave us a preview of how he plans to respond to the mounting attacks on socialism from the Right. President Trump said tonight, quote, "We are born free, and we will stay free," end of quote. Well I say to President Trump, people are not truly free when they can't afford to go to the doctor when they are sick. People are not truly free when they cannot afford to buy the prescription drugs they desperately need. People are not truly free when they are unable to retire with dignity. People are not truly free when they are exhausted because they are working longer and longer hours for lower wages. People are not truly free when they cannot afford a decent place in which to live. People certainly are not free when they cannot afford to feed their families. ..."
"... As Dr Martin Luther King Jr said in 1968, and I quote, "This country has socialism for the rich, and rugged individualism for the poor." What Dr. King said then was true, and it is true today, and it remains absolutely unacceptable. ..."
"... In essence what we're seeing here is Bernie Sanders challenging the popular equation of capitalism with democracy and freedom. This is the same point Bernie has been making for decades. "People have been brainwashed into thinking socialism automatically means slave-labor camps, dictatorship and lack of freedom of speech," he said in 1976. This Cold War dogma swept the pervasive reality of capitalist unfreedom - from the bondage of poverty to the perversions of formal democracy under the pressure of a dominant economic class - under the rug. In a 1986 interview, Bernie elaborated: ..."
"... All that socialism means to me, to be very frank with you, is democracy with a small "d." I believe in democracy, and by democracy I mean that, to as great an extent as possible, human beings have the right to control their own lives. And that means that you cannot separate the political structure from the economic structure. One has to be an idiot to believe that the average working person who's making $10,000 or $12,000 a year is equal in political power to somebody who is the head of a large bank or corporation. So, if you believe in political democracy, if you believe in equality, you have to believe in economic democracy as well. ..."
"... The rise of neoliberalism and the fall of the Soviet Union relieved the capitalist state's elite of the need to keep shoring up the equation between capitalism and freedom. Capitalists and their ideology had triumphed, hegemony was theirs, and socialism was no real threat, a foggy memory of a distant era. But forty years of stagnating wages, rising living costs, and intermittent chaos caused by capitalist economic crisis remade the world - slowly, and then all at once. When Bernie Sanders finally took socialist class politics to the national stage three years ago, people were willing to listen. ..."
Trump Is Right to Be Afraid of Socialism
BY MEAGAN DAY
... I think he's scared," said Ocasio-Cortez of Trump's socialism remarks. "He sees that everything is closing in on him. And
he knows he's losing the battle of public opinion when it comes to the actual substantive proposals that we're advancing to the
public." Given the remarkable popularity of proposals like Bernie's Medicare for All and tuition-free college and Ocasio-Cortez's
70 percent top marginal tax rate, she's probably onto something.
Insiders have suggested that Trump plans to explicitly
run against socialism in 2020. In fact, in playing up the dangers of socialism, he may be positioning himself to run against Bernie
Sanders in 2020. That would be a smart move, since Bernie is the most popular politician in America and could very well be
Trump's direct contender in the general election, if he can successfully dodge attacks from the establishment wing of the Democratic
Party in the primary.
Sanders's rebuttal to Trump's address gave us a preview of how he plans to respond to the mounting attacks on socialism
from the Right. President Trump said tonight, quote, "We are born free, and we will stay free," end of quote. Well I say to President
Trump, people are not truly free when they can't afford to go to the doctor when they are sick. People are not truly free when
they cannot afford to buy the prescription drugs they desperately need. People are not truly free when they are unable to retire
with dignity. People are not truly free when they are exhausted because they are working longer and longer hours for lower wages.
People are not truly free when they cannot afford a decent place in which to live. People certainly are not free when they cannot
afford to feed their families.
As Dr Martin Luther King Jr said in 1968, and I quote, "This country has socialism for the rich, and rugged individualism
for the poor." What Dr. King said then was true, and it is true today, and it remains absolutely unacceptable.
In essence what we're seeing here is Bernie Sanders challenging the popular equation of capitalism with democracy and freedom.
This is the same point Bernie has been making for decades. "People have been brainwashed into thinking socialism automatically
means slave-labor camps, dictatorship and lack of freedom of speech," he said in 1976. This Cold War dogma swept the pervasive
reality of capitalist unfreedom - from the bondage of poverty to the perversions of formal democracy under the pressure of a dominant
economic class - under the rug. In a 1986 interview, Bernie elaborated:
All that socialism means to me, to be very frank with you, is democracy with a small "d." I believe in democracy, and by
democracy I mean that, to as great an extent as possible, human beings have the right to control their own lives. And that means
that you cannot separate the political structure from the economic structure. One has to be an idiot to believe that the average
working person who's making $10,000 or $12,000 a year is equal in political power to somebody who is the head of a large bank
or corporation. So, if you believe in political democracy, if you believe in equality, you have to believe in economic democracy
as well.
For more than four decades, Bernie made these points to relatively small audiences. In 2016, everything changed, and he now
makes them to an audience of millions.
The rise of neoliberalism and the fall of the Soviet Union relieved the capitalist state's elite of the need to keep shoring
up the equation between capitalism and freedom. Capitalists and their ideology had triumphed, hegemony was theirs, and socialism
was no real threat, a foggy memory of a distant era. But forty years of stagnating wages, rising living costs, and intermittent
chaos caused by capitalist economic crisis remade the world - slowly, and then all at once. When Bernie Sanders finally took socialist
class politics to the national stage three years ago, people were willing to listen.
Bernie has been so successful at changing the conversation that the President now feels obligated to regurgitate Cold War nostrums
about socialism and unfreedom to a new generation.
Good, let him. Each apocalyptic admonition is an opportunity for Bernie, and the rest of us socialists, to articulate a different
perspective, one in which freedom and democracy are elusive at present but achievable through a society-wide commitment to economic
and social equality. We will only escape "coercion, domination, and control" when we structure society to prioritize the well-being
of the many over the desires of the greedy few.
Mr. Bill said in reply to anne... February 06, 2019 at 03:29 PM
A lot of the opinion part of what Paul Krugman says, in this article, maybe, doesn't ring quite true, although I don't dispute
the facts.
Poll after poll show that 75% of us agree on 80% of the issues, regardless of which political tribe we identify with.
I tend to think that the real problem is that neither the GOP, which represents the top 1% of the economically comfortable, nor the
Democrats who represent the top 10%, are representative of the majority of Americans.
Frantically trying to slice and dice the electorate into questionably accurate tranches, ignores the elephant in the room, Paul.
"... "Am I crazy?" -Bari Weiis Well Bari Weiis you're either crazy or you're a yet another worthless establishment shill whose job is spread deliberate misinformation about the most genuine anti-war candidate running at a time when the entire MSM, MIC, and the neoliberal rightwing establishment (including AIPAC) is deliberately smearing her to immediately kill her campaign. And you didn't come across as crazy so... ..."
This woman had NO CLUE what she was talking about. She thought she was on a show that would just tow the party line and let
her get away with wrong statements. She's just repeating what critics say with no idea of the truth. What a fool. As a woman,
THIS IS WHY I WON'T JUST VOTE FOR ANY WOMAN. We are just as capable of being stupid as anyone else.
Bari: "I think Tulsi Gabbard is an Assad toadie." Joe: "What do you mean by toadie?" Bari: "Oh, I don't know what that means."
Joe: "Okay, I looked it up, and it's like a sycophant." Bari: "Then Tulsi is like an Assad sycophant." Joe: "So what do you mean
by that?" Bari: "I'm not sure what sycophant means either." Joe: "I looked up the definition, it's like a suck-up." Bari: "All
right, Tulsi is an Assad suck-up." Joe: "Could you explain that further?" Bari: "I don't know what suck means." Joe: "It's what
you're doing right now."
"Am I crazy?" -Bari Weiis Well Bari Weiis you're either crazy or you're a yet another worthless establishment shill whose job
is spread deliberate misinformation about the most genuine anti-war candidate running at a time when the entire MSM, MIC, and
the neoliberal rightwing establishment (including AIPAC) is deliberately smearing her to immediately kill her campaign. And you
didn't come across as crazy so...
I will be very surprised if neocons would not frame her Putin toady as well. This is how this
system works. It eliminates undesirable to the neoliberals candidates with 100% efficiency.
They
serve as local STASI and some former STASI official might well envy neocons efficiency of
silencing opponents (with much less blood and overt repression, by pure magic of neocon
propaganda ).
Notable quotes:
"... She has "monstrous ideas, she's an Assad toady," Weiss tells Rogan. ..."
"... Rogan then reads the definition: "Toadies. The definition of toadies: A person who flatters or defers to others for self-serving reasons." "A sycophant. So I did use it right!" Weiss exclaims. "So she's an Assad sycophant? Is that what you're saying?" "Yeah, that's, proven -- known -- about her." ..."
"... When Rogan asks what Gabbard has said that qualifies her as a sycophant, Weiss replies: "I don't remember the details." ..."
"... Gabbard, who announced her presidential campaign on January 11, has drawn incredible amounts of ire from mainstream Democrats tripping over themselves for war with Syria because in January 2017, Gabbard met with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and denounced the opposition rebels in the country's civil war as "terrorists." ..."
"... She has also expressed skepticism about accusations that Assad's government has used chemical weapons during the conflict and spoken out against cruise missile attacks by the US and its allies against the country. ..."
Monday to discuss current events, but
things got embarrassing when she went in on Gabbard, a progressive Democrat whose foreign
policy positions have turned more than a few heads.
Neocon NY Times columnist Bari Weiss smeared Tulsi Gabbard (who bravely opposed regime
change and US support for Salafi-jihadist contras) as an "Assad toady," then couldn't
spell/define toady or offer any evidence to prove her smear. Embarrassingly funny pic.twitter.com/m0MLaHFPiX
When Rogan asks for clarification, she says, "I think that I used that word correctly." She
then asks someone off camera to look up what toady means. "Like toeing the line," Rogan says,
"is that what it means?" "No, I think it's like, uh " and Weiss drones off without an answer.
She then attempts to spell it, and can't even do that. "T-O-A-D-I-E. I think it means what I
think it means "
Rogan then reads the definition: "Toadies. The definition of toadies: A person who flatters
or defers to others for self-serving reasons." "A sycophant. So I did use it right!" Weiss
exclaims. "So she's an Assad sycophant? Is that what you're saying?" "Yeah, that's, proven --
known -- about her."
When Rogan asks what Gabbard has said that qualifies her as a sycophant,
Weiss replies: "I don't remember the details."
"We probably should say that before we say that about her -- we should probably read it,
rather, right now, just so we know what she said," Rogan notes. "I think she's, like, the
motherlode of bad ideas," Weiss then says. "I'm pretty positive about that, especially on
Assad. But maybe I'm wrong. I don't think I'm wrong." It seems to us here at Sputnik that such
claims should be made with a bit more confidence than this. So let's set the record
straight.
Gabbard, who announced her presidential campaign on January 11, has drawn incredible amounts
of ire from mainstream Democrats tripping over themselves for war with Syria because in January
2017, Gabbard met with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and denounced the opposition rebels in
the country's civil war as "terrorists."
She has also expressed skepticism about accusations that Assad's
government has used chemical weapons during the conflict and spoken out against cruise missile
attacks by the US and its allies against the country.
"Initially I hadn't planned on meeting him," Gabbard, an Iraq War veteran, told CNN's Jake
Tapper following the meeting. "When the opportunity arose to meet with him, I did so, because I
felt it's important that if we profess to truly care about the Syrian people, about their
suffering, then we've got to be able to meet with anyone that we need to if there is a
possibility that we could achieve peace. And that's exactly what we talked about."
"I have seen this cost of war firsthand, which is why I fight so hard for peace," Gabbard
said. "And that's the reality of the situation that we're facing here. It's why I have urged
and continue to urge [US President Donald] Trump to meet with people like Kim Jong Un in North
Korea, because we understand what's at stake here. The only alternative to having these kinds
of conversations is more war."
Moreover, in a March 2016 speech before Congress, Gabbard called Assad
"a brutal dictator," noting that her opposition to what she called a "war bill" was over the
legal ramifications that she feared would lead to the overthrow of Assad, which she opposes on
anti-interventionist grounds.
"[T]oppling ruthless dictators in the Middle East creates even more human suffering and
strengthens our enemy, groups like ISIS and other terrorist organizations, in those countries,"
Gabbard
said at the time.
Gabbard has been thoroughly demonized for her pro-peace views by global liberal media, as
Trump has been for his moves to end the war in Syria and avoid another on the Korean Peninsula.
For example, The Daily Beast's
article announcing her candidacy called Gabbard "Assad's Favorite Democrat" in its
headline; a Haaretz
headline from last week say she had "Tea With Assad," and the Washington Post has
called her "Assad's Mouthpiece in Washington." The UK Independent
called her a "defender of dictators."
It's not clear what Weiss had in mind when she called Gabbard a "sycophant" and a "toady,"
since the congresswoman's rhetoric about Assad has consisted of skepticism and opposition to
intervention, and she hasn't hesitated to call the Syrian president a "brutal dictator." What
Gabbard's treatment has demonstrated is that a Democrat who steps out of line from the party's
pro-regime change agenda in Syria and who condemns Muslim extremists associated with Daesh and
al-Qaeda should be prepared to suffer for it in the mainstream media.
"... As a Trump supporter from 2016, this is probably the only Democratic candidate that I would seriously consider abandoning Trump over. The rest, I wouldn't give them the time of day - even Bernie. ..."
I trust Tulsi on
foreign policy more than I trust just about anybody else. Some people don't like her because she won't just say that we
should stop all military under any circumstances. She's been in the military. She understands the military. She understands
that the military is not evil. Drones are not evil. They're just currently being misused. We need to cut military spending,
but not eliminate it. We need to end offensive wars and withdraw from countries that aren't attacking us. But that doesn't
mean we don't need a military and don't need to be ready to defend ourselves.
I'm from the Uk
as soon as I heard Tulsi was running I got excited....a chance for real change and dismantling of the military industrial
complex.....could it be?
Why do you
worship Bernie Sanders so much? What does he have that Tulsi Gabbard doesn't in terms of policy? May I note that Sanders is
more pro-Israel and actually more for war than Gabbard is. It means something when it's coming from a vet who actually served
and visited war-torn countries.
As a Trump
supporter from 2016, this is probably the only Democratic candidate that I would seriously consider abandoning Trump over.
The rest, I wouldn't give them the time of day - even Bernie.
That's nice. I
always liked her, but I was worried about her military policy, good that she got rid of that doubt right away. Now we just
need these people to actually follow through and not become another Obama with his "change" and "hope". Not that any of this
is going to really make a difference or anything unless all the sycophants in the opposition suddenly dies, but it' still
nice that someone seems to care.
I love Tulsi; her ad was great. She's the only dem I would vote for at this point. Kamala is an evil hypocrite. And Tulsi's
right, love is the most powerful force in the planet.
Wake up folks -Tulsi would not have run if Bernie was going run. Bernie will endorse her early on and she will have a much
tougher fight than he did, because while Sanders caught the corporate establishment sleeping in 2016, they are now frightened
and see Gabbard coming. They will use every dirty trick at their disposal to keep her from catching fire -and that begins with
dividing progressives like us. Tulsi is not perfect because no one is perfect. But she is young, bright and fucking fearless compared
to other politicians about putting the long term good of the American people above the moneyed interests who think they own our
media and our government. This is why the establishment despises her more than even Sanders. 2020 will reveal weather or not we
can retake ownership of our media and our government. That fight will require all of us - so Kyle get on the bus!
Tulsi is an amazing candidate in her own right, but IMO she would be a perfect VP pick for Bernie. She has the amazing foreign
policy cred and would really shore up Bernie's weakest areas.
Tulsa Gabbard's ad doesn't mention the people who die in the countries we invade. That's 600k people in Iraq for example. A
significant omission me thinks.
The Aloha Spirit Law is a big deal in Hawaii. Government officials are required to approach dignitaries from other countries
or states with the spirit of aloha. "Aloha" means mutual regard and affection and extends warmth in caring with no obligation
in return. Aloha is the essence of relationships in which each person is important to every other person for collective existence.
I think that's what we want in a President or a diplomat.
She's great and unique as she doesnt fall back to identity politics and sjwism as much as the standard left politicians. I
hope she doesnt bend her ethics when the sjws come for her. I'm putting my trust in her. I hope she wins. And if she isn't in
the race, i wont be voting.
The question I would love her to address specifically is will her campaign focus on decreasing military spending like Bernie
Sanders? She has a military background and the US loves war. This ad is good but it is tip toing around the MIC ( military industrial
complex) She can be non interventionist but not decrease military spending is what worries me
This is why we need Gabbard on the debate stage. She will push the Overton window on revealing to the public what our military
is actually doing overseas. She's also a staunch progressive. Bernie/Tulsi 2020. Their weakness match well with each other, and
Tulsi was one of the first to jump ship on the sinking DNC ship when Hillary got caught cheating being the DNC. Keep small donations
going into your favorite progressive candidates to hear their voice. It doesn't work any other way folks.
Intervention isn't only an issue about morality. As Dwight Eisenhower put it (even though he himself was far from an anti imperialist),
you can't have an endless stream of money dedicated to military endeavors AND a sufficient investment in domestic public priorities.
This easily explains why we have increasingly decrepit infrastructure, increasingly worse performing education, increasingly worse
performing health care, absurdly insufficient regulation between government and business (although the pay to play system certainly
is the top reason) and a generally decaying public atmosphere. Beyond the fact that getting involved everywhere creates humanitarian
crises, countless dead people, hopelessly destroyed countries, and so much more, even if other countries haven't in return bombed
our shores from sea to sea, even if generally speaking those who consider not only the US but Americans the "enemies" haven't
overwhelmed with non stop attacks, this non stop and ever growing appetite for more money for more war priorities has created
the very decline we see in our country today. Until there is a change in priorities in general, these problems in the US will
only continue to get worse.
Man, Tulsi made me tear up. She's my girl. This message reminds me more of the message of Jesus than many of the fundamentalists.
She's not even Christian, yet represents Christ very well. I love this woman.
Prepare for BAE, Systems, Boeing, Lockheed Martin and other weapons corporations and their bum lickers to launch a viscous
smear campaign against her suggesting she's somehow a Neo Nazi communist anti Semitic islamophobic islamist.
Tulsi 2020 she's saying some of the same things Trump said in his 2016 campaign. Unfortunately, he didn't deliver. Per the
corporate Democrates, making America better is a bad thing.
Tulsi can actually beat Trump...if she gets the nomination. The wars are the elephant in the room, and whoever is willing to
take that on full force, can win.
Meanwhile, the modern Republican Party is all about cutting taxes on the rich and benefits for the poor and the middle class.
And Trump, despite his campaign posturing, has turned out to be no different.
Hence the failure of our political system to serve socially conservative/racist voters who also want to tax the rich and preserve
Social Security. Democrats won't ratify their racism; Republicans, who have no such compunctions, will -- remember, the party establishment
solidly backed Roy Moore's Senate bid -- but won't protect the programs they depend on.
Paul Krugman is a baby boomer, pissant globalizer bastard, but he has made reasonable comments about immigration in the past.
Paul Krugman is a high IQ moron who has occasional bouts of clarity on the anti-worker aspects of mass legal immigration and illegal
immigration. Krugman had it right in 2006 when he said that mass immigration lowers wages for workers in the USA.
Krugman in NY Times 2006:
First, the benefits of immigration to the population already here are small. The reason is that immigrant workers are, at least
roughly speaking, paid their "marginal product": an immigrant worker is paid roughly the value of the additional goods and services
he or she enables the U.S. economy to produce. That means that there isn't anything left over to increase the income of the people
already here.
My second negative point is that immigration reduces the wages of domestic workers who compete with immigrants. That's just
supply and demand: we're talking about large increases in the number of low-skill workers relative to other inputs into production,
so it's inevitable that this means a fall in wages. Mr. Borjas and Mr. Katz have to go through a lot of number-crunching to turn
that general proposition into specific estimates of the wage impact, but the general point seems impossible to deny.
However, Krugman is also a relentless partisan hack. So his expert analysis always ends up supporting the current Democrat
talking points -- whatever they may be.
Here, Krugman is disparaging any move to the center as the DNC wants to keep the Dems unified on the left and keep Schultz
(or anyone like him) out of the race. Of course, the real reason Schultz has massively negative polling is because the Democrat
establishment has been savaging him for precisely this reason.
Likewise, to Krugman a "Racist" politician is anyone who holds the same immigration position as Krugman did in 2006, which
is now anathema to the Dem's new Open Borders electoral strategy.
It's only a matter of time until Krugman starts talking up Kamala Harris as the best thing that could happen for the economy.
Bottom line: Krugman – like any economist who was gifted with a fake Nobel Prize in Economics by his wealthy patrons (the Nobel
Prize in Economics does not exist – check out wikipedia!) – is a whore whose only function is to protect the left flank of our
corrupt and rapacious elite.
He's not a moron, and he's certainly not a liberal. His job – which pays very well mind you – is to pretend to be a sorta-kinda
Keynesian New Dealer, but in reality, anything that the rich wants, he will end up defending. And even if he sorta kinda claims
to be opposing something that the rich want which will impoverish the rest of us, when it comes to the bottom line, he will ruthlessly
attack any opposition to these policies.
"Fauxcahontas " is never going to live this one down.
In a report published Tuesday night, just before President Trump started his State of the
Union,
the Washington Post revealed that it had discovered a document where 2020 Democratic
presidential contender Elizabeth Warren, who was exposed by a DNA test that backfired late last
year for having a negligible amount of Native American heritage, listed her race as "American
Indian" on a registration card for the Texas State Bar in the mid-1980s.
The card lists Warren's name, gender and the address for the University of Texas law school
in Austin, where she was working at the time. On the line for "race," Warren wrote: "American
Indian." Meanwhile, lines for "National Origin" and "Physical handicap" were left blank.
As
WaPo explains, "the card is significant" because, for the first time, it shows that Warren
"directly claimed the identity."
One spokeswoman said Warren was sorry for "not more mindful of this" (presumably referring
to the risks that this would all blow up in her face later in life), when she was younger, and
for falsely identifying as a Native American for more than two decades.
"I can't go back," Warren told WaPo.
According to WaPo, the card, dated April 1986, is the first document to surface showing
Warren claiming Native American heritage in her own handwriting. Her office didn't deny the
authenticity of the document.
WaPo explained that it found the card through an open-records request.
Using an open records request during a general inquiry, for example, The Post obtained
Warren's registration card for the State Bar of Texas, providing a previously undisclosed
example of Warren identifying as an "American Indian."
The card was filled out by Warren after she was admitted to the Texas bar. Her reasons for
joining the bar are unclear: Though, at the time, she was doing legal work on the side, the
work wasn't anything that required her to be admitted to the bar. The date on the card
coincided with her fist self-identified listing as a "minority" by the Association of American
Law Schools, where she reported herself as a minority in the directory every year beginning in
1986 (the year the Association started listing minority law professors). Her name dropped off
that list in 1995.
Warren also famously had her ethnicity changed to Native American from "White" in December,
1989 while working at UPenn, two years after she was hired. She also listed her ethnicity as
Native American when she started working at Harvard Law School in 1995.
In a sign that Warren's listing herself as Native American may have been more an act of
self-delusion than an attempt to give herself a leg up in the world of academia, the card
explicitly states that "the following information is for statistical purposes only and will not
be disclosed to any person or organization without the express written consent of the
attorney."
Back in October, Warren's decision to release her DNA test results revealed that she had a
negligible level of Native American heritage (possibly as little as 1/1,024 Native) while the
stunt - which backfired spectacularly - angered leaders of the Cherokee nation, who, as WaPo
explained, typically exercise tight control over the process of connecting individuals with the
tribe. Warren's apology for that incident hasn't been uniformly accepted, and there are still
some who want to see a more thorough apology from Warren.
Whether this is enough to sink her primary bid remains to be seen. But one thing is for
sure: We imagine President Trump will be weighing in with some more prospective campaign
materials.
When you overemphasize and exaggerate identity politics beyond all reason, you're bound to
get plenty of people playing these angles. She's already benefited from it, so too *******
bad.
Obama graduated from Columbia University in 1983 with a degree in political science and
graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School in 1991.
Trump graduated from the undergraduate school of finance and commerce at Penn
(Wharton school), but he did not graduate at the top of his class or with honors. He did NOT
graduate at the top of his class at Wharton undergrad or grad, as the Liar in Chief has
frequently quipped. It is believed he was in the bottom third of the undergraduate class.
It is illegal under federal law to release any former student's records to
reporters or members of the public without that person's specific, written permission. Obama
hasn't released them, but neither have other presidential candidates released their college
records.
Trump has not released his records from Penn either. But of course he is your Orange
Geezus, so this is an inconvenient truth for you
"... Tucker is an interesting thinker who doesn't tow a party line. We need more people like Jimmy and Tucker in the news. This is easily the 10th video of Jimmy taking Tucker's side ..."
I don't agree with Jimmy Dore on much, but he and Tucker are 100% right about Syria. There is a segment of the left and right
that aren't that far apart, but we keep getting manipulated to hate each other.
Jimmy, Just admit that you like and agree with Tucker. Every Tucker video has the premise of, "I disagree with 99% of what
Tucker says" or "If Tucker sees this then everyone should see it." Tucker is an interesting thinker who doesn't tow a party
line. We need more people like Jimmy and Tucker in the news. This is easily the 10th video of Jimmy taking Tucker's side
.
Why are we there? To destabilize and baulkanize the remaining Middle East Who are we there for? For the greater 1srae1 project.
Who is isis? Massads people. What is our objective? Oil pipelines for 1srae1. Who are we going after next? Iran
Why are we there? To destabilize and baulkanize the remaining Middle East Who are we there for? For the greater 1srae1 project.
Who is isis? Massads people. What is our objective? Oil pipelines for 1srae1. Who are we going after next? Iran
Jimmy Dore: the only leftist journalist with any integrity. I legitimately believe that while he's wrong all the time (to my
far-right view), he's not lying.
Most important part in my opinion is comment about christians celebrating Christmass in Damascus. They wouldn't celebrate under
Al Nusra or Isis or other wahabi supported fractions, but they are celebrating under Assad. By the way US government is in some
way protecting HTS in Idlib wich is rebranded Al Nusra, Syrian ofshoot of Al Kaida so Assad army is not attacking them.
Pro war people don't just want to be there for the sake of it. They want to have US forces on the ground there for a whole
host of reason all related to maintaining US hegemony wherever they can. We have forces deployed throughout the middle east because
we want to be the primary hegemon in the middle east. Our primacy is threatened by no one nation but by a coalition of anti US
nations particularly Iran, Syria and Syria's longstanding alliance with Russia.
I find it a shame that the western nations are vilifying Russia as Putin hates the globalists and is fighting against the terrorists.
It appears that Russia should be our allies rather than Isra Hell and the Saudi regime. Putin was invited by Assad to help him
rid his country of the terrorists but the US weren't asked and just illegally invaded. Out of interest why does the US support
Isra hell when it has over 300 nukes but it thinks Iran is a problem? Isn't it more that Iran doesn't have a central (Rothschild)
bank? Just like North Korea, Cuba and now, Russia due to paying them off and ridding his country of the Rotschilds! They don't
own Russia like they do the US. Edited as I forgot to say I love Tucker and his common sense.
The best part by far of this was when Jimmy yelled, we are in these countries ILLEGALLY!! Jimmy I love you bc you are unbiased
but for you to complain we are somewhere illegally is rich considering how much you defended ILLEGAL immigration in America. Must
have been a freudian slip.
The best part by far of this was when Jimmy yelled, we are in these countries ILLEGALLY!! Jimmy I love you bc you are unbiased
but for you to complain we are somewhere illegally is rich considering how much you defended ILLEGAL immigration in America. Must
have been a freudian slip.
This guy can't admit that the Obama Administration started the Syrian civil war and created ISIS. What he really wants is to
PROTECT ISIS because after Syria they were trained to attack Russia in the Caucasus. Russia is sensibly wiping out ISIS in Syria
so they don't have to fight them in Chechnya. The Democrats and the neocons created Russiagate to prevent Trump from pulling out
two years ago, now Trump doesn't care, because they will invent shit about him regardless.
You're missing a major point -- I S R A E L These neocon and establishment democrats have tightened ass cheeks because Trump's
decision bypasses these Zionists' fervent wishes of keeping the US there in a proxy war as Israel's protectors.
Tucker is slowly but surely becoming increasingly sympathetic towards the third position.He's the only figure on the MSM who
thinks critically and asks uncomfortable questions. I wonder when the Zionists over at Fox News will pull the plug on him? You
should have Tucker on if it's at all possible. He is actually aligned with the left somewhat on economic issues.
Is anyone else tired of the longest, least productive waste of war in American history ? What
have we achieved, where are we going with this ? More war.
We are being fed a fairy tale of war about what men, long dead, did. And the reason they did
it. America is being strangled by the burden of belief that now is like then.
By the patrician men and women administrators, posturing as soldiers like the WW2 army, lie
for self profit. Why does anyone believe them ? Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, each an economic
decision, rather than a security issue.
Capitalists need their options regulated and their markets ripped from their control by the
state. Profits must be subject to use it to a social purpose or heavily taxed. Dividends
executive comp and interest payments included
Well done! Much clearer than your usual. There are several distinct motivations for taxes. We
have been far enough from fairness to workers, for so long, that we need to use the tax
system to redistribute the accumulated wealth of the plutocrats.
So I would say high marginal rates are a priority, which matches both objectives. Wealth
tax is needed until we reverse the massive inequality supported by the policies of the last
40 years.
Carbon tax and the like are a different thing, use of the tax code to promote a particular
policy and reduce damage to the commons.
"...we need to use the tax system to redistribute the accumulated wealth of the plutocrats.
So I would say high marginal rates are a priority..."
Forgive me, but high marginal rates (which I hugely favor) don't "redistribute the
accumulated wealth" of the plutocrats. If such high marginal rates are ever enacted, they'll
apply only to the current income of such plutocrats.
You merged paragraphs, and elided the next one. The way I see it, high rates are a
prerequisite to prevent the reaccumulation of obscene wealth, and its diversion into
financial gambling.
But yes that would be a very slow way to redistribute what has already accumulated.
Didn't mean to misinterpret what you were saying, sorry. High rates are not only "a
prerequisite to prevent the reaccumulation of obscene wealth," they are also a reimposition
of fair taxation on current income (if it ever happens, of course).
Wealth tax is needed until we reverse the massive inequality supported by the policies of the
last 40 years. Carbon tax and the like are a different thing, use of the tax code to promote
a particular policy and reduce damage to the commons.
"
more wisdom as usual!
Although wealth tax will be unlikely, it could be a stopgap; could also be a guideline to
other taxes as well. for example, Elizabeth points out that billionaires pay about 3% of
their net worth into their annual tax bill whereas workers pay about 7% of their net worth
into their annual tax bill. Do you see how that works?
it doesn't? this Warren argument gives us a guideline. it shows us where other taxes
should be adjusted to even out this percentage of net worth that people are taxed for. Ceu,
during the last meltdown 10 years or so ago, We were collecting more tax from the payroll
than we were from the income tax. this phenomenon was a heavy burden on those of low net
worth. All this needs be resorted. we've got to sort this out.
and the carbon tax? may never be; but it indicates to us what needs to be done to make
this country more efficient. for example some folks, are spending half a million dollars on
the Maybach automobile, about the same amount on a Ferrari or a Alfa Romeo Julia
quadrifoglio, but the roads are built for a mere 40 miles an hour, full of potholes.
What good is it to own a fast car like that when you can't drive but 40 -- 50 miles an
hour? and full of traffic jams. something is wrong with taxation incentives. we need to get a
better grid-work of roads that will get people there faster.
Meanwhile most of those sports cars just sitting in the garage. we need a comprehensive
integrated grid-work of one way streets, roads, highways, and interstates with no traffic
lights, no stop signs; merely freeflow ramp-off overpass interchanges.
Jesus Christ said, in so many words, that a man's worth will be judged by his generosity and
his avarice.
" 24And the disciples were amazed at His words. But Jesus said to them again, "Children,
how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! 25It is easier for a camel to pass through the
eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." 26They were even more
astonished and said to one another, "Who then can be saved?"
This article from 2017 looks like it was written yesterday. Trump betrayal of his elctorate on multiple levels, essentially on all
key poin of his election program mkes him "Republican Obama".
What is interesting about Trump foreign policy is his version of neoliberal "gangster capitalism" on foreign arena:
might is right principle applied like universal opener. Previous administrations tried to put a lipstick on the pig. Trump
does not even bother.
In terms of foreign policy, and even during the transition before Trump's inauguration, there were other, more disturbing signs
of where Trump would be heading soon. When Fidel Castro died on November 25, 2016,
Trump seemed jubilant as if he had somehow been vindicated, and took the opportunity to slander Castro as a "brutal dictator" who
"oppressed his own people" and turned Cuba into a "totalitarian island".
Notable quotes:
"... However, when he delivered his inaugural address on January 20, 2017, Trump appeared to reaffirm his campaign themes of anti-interventionism. In particular he seemed to turn the government's back on a long-standing policy of cultural imperialism , stating: "We do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone". In addition he said his government would "seek friendship and goodwill with the nations of the world," and he understood the importance of national sovereignty when he added, "it is the right of all nations to put their own interests first". ..."
"... Yet when it came to Russia, Trump could have instantly removed sanctions that were imposed by Obama in his last weeks in office -- an irresponsible and dangerous act by Obama, where foreign policy was used as a partisan tool in the service of shoring up a crummy conspiracy theory about "Russian hacking" in order to deny the Democrats any culpability in their much deserved defeat. ..."
"... The entire conflict with Russia that has developed in recent years, on the US side, was totally unnecessary, illogical, and quite preventable. ..."
"... Just two weeks after violating his promise to end the US role as the world's policeman and his vow to extricate the US from wars for regime change, Trump sold out again. "I love WikiLeaks -- " -- this is what Trump exclaimed in a speech on October 10, 2016. Trump's about-face on WikiLeaks is thus truly astounding. ..."
"... AP: If I could fit a couple of more topics. Jeff Sessions, your attorney general, is taking a tougher line suddenly on Julian Assange, saying that arresting him is a priority. You were supportive of what WikiLeaks was doing during the campaign with the release of the Clinton emails. Do you think that arresting Assange is a priority for the United States? ..."
"... AP: But that didn't mean that you supported what Assange is doing? ..."
"... AP: Can I just ask you, though -- do you believe it is a priority for the United States, or it should be a priority, to arrest Julian Assange? ..."
"... While there is no denying the extensive data about the severe impacts of NAFTA on select states and industries in the US, witnessed by the closure of tens of thousands of factories and the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs, there is little support for the claim that Canada and Mexico, as wholes, have instead fared well and that the US as a whole has been the loser thanks to them. ..."
"... Since NAFTA was implemented, migration from Mexico to the US skyrocketed dramatically. US agricultural industries sent millions of Mexican farmers into food poverty, and ultimately drove them away from agriculture ..."
"... As for per capita GDP, so treasured by economists, NAFTA had no positive impact on Mexico -- in fact, per capita GDP is nearly a flat line for the entire period since 1994. Finally, Trump does not mention that in terms of the number of actual protectionist measures that have been implemented, the US leads the world . ..."
"... To put Trump's position on NAFTA in bold relief, it is not that he is decidedly against free trade. In fact, he often claims he supports free trade, as long as it is "fair". However, his notion of fairness is very lopsided -- a trade agreement is fair only when the US reaps the greater share of benefits. ..."
"... As argued in the previous section, if Trump is to be the newfound champion of this imperialism -- empire's prodigal son -- then what an abysmally poor choice he is ..."
"... On the one hand, he helped to unleash US anti-interventionism (usually called "isolationism" not to call it anti-imperialism, which would then admit to imperialism which is still denied by most of the dominant elites). On the other hand, in trying to now contain such popular sentiment, he loses credibility -- after having lost credibility with the groups his campaign displaced. ..."
"... As for Trump's domestic opposition, what should be most pertinent are issues of conflict of interest and nepotism . Here members of Trump's base are more on target yet again, when they reject the presence of Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner in the White House ("we didn't elect Ivanka or Jared"), than are those distracted by identity politics. ..."
"... As Trump leverages the presidency to upgrade the Trump family to the transnational capitalist class, and reinforces the power of US imperialism which that class has purchased, conflict of interest and nepotism will be the main political signposts of the transformation of the Trump presidency, but they could also be the targets for a refined strategy of opposition. ..."
Trump could have kept quiet, and lost nothing. Instead what he was attacking -- and the irony was missed on his fervently right
wing supporters -- was someone who was a leader in the anti-globalist movement, from long before it was ever called that. Fidel Castro
was a radical pioneer of independence, self-reliance, and self-determination.
Castro turned Cuba from an American-owned sugar plantation and brothel, a lurid backwater in the Caribbean, into a serious international
actor opposed to globalizing capitalism. There was no sign of any acknowledgment of this by Trump, who instead chose to parrot the
same people who would vilify him using similar terms (evil, authoritarian, etc.). Of course, Trump respects only corporate executives
and billionaires, not what he would see as some rag-tag Third World revolutionary. Here Trump's supporters generally failed, using
Castro's death as an opportunity for tribal partisanship, another opportunity to attack "weak liberals" like Obama who made minor
overtures to Cuba (too little, too late).
Their distrust of "the establishment" was nowhere to be found this time: their ignorance of Cuba and their resort to stock clichés
and slogans had all been furnished to them by the same establishment they otherwise claimed to oppose.
Just to be clear, the above is not meant to indicate any reversal on Trump's part regarding Cuba. He has been consistently anti-communist,
and fairly consistent in his denunciations of Fidel Castro. What is significant is that -- far from overcoming the left-right divide
-- Trump shores up the barriers, even at the cost of denouncing others who have a proven track record of fighting against neoliberal
globalization and US interventionism. In these regards, Trump has no track record. Even among his rivals in the Republican primaries,
senators Ted Cruz and Rand Paul had more of an anti-interventionist track record.
However, when he delivered his inaugural address
on January 20, 2017, Trump appeared to reaffirm his campaign themes of anti-interventionism. In particular he seemed to turn the
government's back on a long-standing policy of
cultural imperialism
, stating: "We do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone". In addition he said his government would "seek friendship and goodwill
with the nations of the world," and he understood the importance of national sovereignty when he added, "it is the right of all nations
to put their own interests first".
Russia
Yet when it came to Russia, Trump could have instantly removed sanctions that were imposed by Obama in his last weeks in office
-- an irresponsible and dangerous act by Obama, where foreign policy was used as a partisan tool in the service of shoring up a crummy
conspiracy theory about "Russian hacking" in order to deny the Democrats any culpability in their much deserved defeat.
Instead, Trump continued the sanctions, as if out of meek deference to Obama's policy, one founded on lies and antagonism
toward Trump himself. Rather than repair the foul attempt to sabotage the US-Russian relationship in preparation for his presidency,
Trump simply abided and thus became an accomplice. To be clear,
Trump has done precisely nothing
to dampen the near mass hysteria that has been manufactured in the US about alleged -- indeed imaginary -- "Russian intervention".
His comments, both during the electoral campaign and even early into his presidency, about wanting good relations with Russia,
have been replaced by Trump's admissions that US relations with Russia are at a low point (Putin agreed: "I would say the level of
trust [between Russia and the US] is at a workable level, especially in the military dimension, but it hasn't improved. On the contrary,
it has degraded " and his spokesman called
the relations " deplorable ".)
Rather than use the power of his office to calm fears, to build better ties with Russia, and to make meeting with Vladimir Putin
a top priority, Trump has again done nothing , except escalating tensions. The entire conflict with Russia that has
developed in recent years, on the US side, was totally unnecessary, illogical, and quite preventable. Russia had actively facilitated
the US' war in Afghanistan for over a decade, and was a consistent collaborator on numerous levels. It is up to thinking American
officials to honestly explain what motivated them to tilt relations with Russia, because it is certainly not Russia's doing. The
only explanation that makes any sense is that the US leadership grew concerned that Russia was no longer teetering on the edge of
total socio-economic breakdown, as it was under the neoliberal Boris Yeltsin, but has instead resurfaced as a major actor in international
affairs, and one that champions anti-neoliberal objectives of enhanced state sovereignty and self-determination.
WikiLeaks
Just two weeks after violating his promise to end the US role as the world's policeman and his vow to extricate the US from
wars for regime change, Trump sold out again.
"I love WikiLeaks --
" -- this is what Trump exclaimed in a speech on October 10, 2016. Trump's about-face on WikiLeaks is thus truly astounding.
After finding so much use for WikiLeaks' publication of the Podesta emails, which became incorporated into his campaign speeches,
and which fuelled the writing and speaking of journalists and bloggers sympathetic to Trump -- he was now effectively declaring WikiLeaks
to be both an enemy and a likely target of US government action, in even more blunt terms than we heard during the past eight years
under Obama. This is not mere continuity with the past, but a dramatic escalation. Rather than praise Julian Assange for his work,
call for an end to the illegal impediments to his seeking asylum, swear off any US calls for extraditing and prosecuting Assange,
and perhaps meeting with him in person, Trump has done all of the opposite. Instead we learn that Trump's administration may
file arrest charges against Assange
. Mike Pompeo ,
chosen by Trump to head the CIA, who had himself
cited WikiLeaks as a reliable source of proof about how the Democratic National Committee had rigged its campaign, now declared
WikiLeaks to be a "
non-state hostile intelligence service ," along with vicious personal slander against Assange.
Trump's about-face on WikiLeaks was one that he defended in terms that were not just a deceptive rewriting of history, but one
that was also fearful -- "I don't support or unsupport" WikiLeaks, was what Trump was now saying in his dash for the nearest exit.
The backtracking is so obvious in this
interview
Trump gave to the AP , that his shoes must have left skid marks on the floor:
AP: If I could fit a couple of more topics. Jeff Sessions, your attorney general, is taking a tougher line suddenly on
Julian Assange, saying that arresting him is a priority. You were supportive of what WikiLeaks was doing during the campaign with
the release of the Clinton emails. Do you think that arresting Assange is a priority for the United States?
TRUMP: When Wikileaks came out never heard of Wikileaks, never heard of it. When Wikileaks came out, all I was just saying
is, "Well, look at all this information here, this is pretty good stuff." You know, they tried to hack the Republican, the RNC,
but we had good defenses. They didn't have defenses, which is pretty bad management. But we had good defenses, they tried to hack
both of them. They weren't able to get through to Republicans. No, I found it very interesting when I read this stuff and I said,
"Wow." It was just a figure of speech. I said, "Well, look at this. It's good reading."
AP: But that didn't mean that you supported what Assange is doing?
TRUMP: No, I don't support or unsupport. It was just information .
AP: Can I just ask you, though -- do you believe it is a priority for the United States, or it should be a priority, to
arrest Julian Assange?
TRUMP: I am not involved in that decision, but if Jeff Sessions wants to do it, it's OK with me. I didn't know about that decision,
but if they want to do it, it's OK with me.
First, Trump invents the fictitious claim that WikiLeaks was responsible for hacking the DNC, and that WikiLeaks also tried to
hack the Republicans. Second, he pretends to be an innocent bystander, a spectator, in his own administration -- whatever others
decide, is "OK" with him, not that he knows about their decisions, but it's all up to others. He has no power, all of a sudden.
Again, what Trump is displaying in this episode is his ultimate attachment to his class, with all of its anxieties and its contempt
for rebellious, marginal upstarts. Trump shuns any sort of "loyalty" to WikiLeaks (not that they ever had a working relationship)
or any form of gratitude, because then that would imply a debt and therefore a transfer of value -- whereas Trump's core ethics are
those of expedience and greed (he admits that much).
This move has come with a cost , with members of Trump's support base openly denouncing the betrayal. 6
NAFTA
On NAFTA , Trump claims he has not changed his position -- yet, from openly denouncing the free trade agreement and promising
to terminate it, he now vows only to seek modifications and amendments, which means supporting NAFTA. He appeared to be
awfully quick to obey the diplomatic pressure of Canada's Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, and Mexico's President, Enrique Peña
Nieto. Trump's entire position on NAFTA now comes into question.
While there is no denying the extensive data about the severe impacts of NAFTA on select states and industries in the US,
witnessed by the closure of tens of thousands of factories and the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs, there is little support
for the claim that Canada and Mexico, as wholes, have instead fared well and that the US as a whole has been the loser thanks to
them.
This really deserves to be treated at length, separately from this article. However, for now, let's keep in mind that when
Trump complains about Canadian softwood lumber and dairy exports to the US, his argument about NAFTA is without merit. Neither commodity
is part of the NAFTA agreement.
Moreover, where dairy is concerned, the problem is US overproduction.
Wisconsin alone has more
dairy cows than all of Canada . There is a net surplus , in the US' favour, with respect to US dairy exports to Canada.
Overall,
the US has a net surplus in the trade in
goods and services with Canada. Regarding Mexico, the irony of Trump's denunciations of imaginary Mexican victories is that he
weakens his own criticisms of immigration.
Since NAFTA was implemented,
migration from Mexico to
the US skyrocketed dramatically. US agricultural industries sent millions of Mexican farmers into food poverty, and ultimately
drove them away from agriculture.
As for per capita GDP, so treasured by economists, NAFTA had no positive impact on Mexico -- in fact,
per capita GDP is nearly a flat
line for the entire period since 1994. Finally, Trump does not mention that in terms of the number of actual protectionist measures
that have been implemented, the
US leads the world .
To put Trump's position on NAFTA in bold relief, it is not that he is decidedly against free trade. In fact, he often claims
he supports free trade, as long as it is "fair". However, his notion of fairness is very lopsided -- a trade agreement is fair only
when the US reaps the greater share of benefits.
His arguments with respect to Canada are akin to those of a looter or raider. He wants to block lumber imports from Canada, at
the same time as he wants to break the Canadian dairy market wide open to absorb US excess production. That approach is at the core
of what defined the US as a "new empire" in the 1800s. In addition, while Trump was quick to tear up the TPP, he has said nothing
about TISA and TTIP.
Mexico
Trump's argument with Mexico is also disturbing for what it implies. It would seem that any
evidence of production
in Mexico causes Trump concern. Mexico should not only keep its people -- however many are displaced by US imports -- but it should
also be as dependent as possible on the US for everything except oil. Since Trump has consistently declared his antagonism to OPEC,
ideally Mexico's oil would be sold for a few dollars per barrel.
China
Trump's turn on China almost provoked laughter from his many domestic critics. Absurdly, what figures prominently in most renditions
of the story of Trump's change on China (including his own), is a big piece of chocolate cake. The missile strike on Syria was, according
to Wilbur Ross, the "
after-dinner entertainment ". Here, Trump's loud condemnations of China on trade issues were suddenly quelled -- and it is not
because chocolate has magical properties. Instead it seems Trump has been willing to settle on
selling out citizens' interests , and
particularly those who voted for him, in return for China's assistance on North Korea. Let's be clear: countering and dominating
North Korea is an established favourite among neoconservatives. Trump's priority here is fully "neocon," and the submergence of trade
issues in favour of militaristic preferences is the one case where neoconservatives might be distinguished from the otherwise identical
neoliberals.
North Korea
Where North Korea is concerned, Trump chose to manufacture a "
crisis ". North Korea has actually done nothing
to warrant a sudden outbreak of panic over it being supposedly aggressive and threatening. North Korea is no more aggressive than
any person defending their survival can be called belligerent. The constant series of US military exercises in South Korea, or near
North Korean waters, is instead a deliberate provocation to a state whose existence the US nearly extinguished. Even last year the
US Air Force publicly boasted of having
"nearly destroyed" North Korea -- language one would have expected from the Luftwaffe in WWII. The US continues to maintain roughly
60,000 troops on the border between North and South Korea, and continues to refuse to formally declare an end to the Korean War and
sign a peace treaty
. Trump then announced he was sending an "armada" to the Korean peninsula, and boasted of how "very powerful" it was. This was in
addition to the US deploying the THAAD missile system in South Korea. Several of his messages in Twitter were written using highly
provocative and threatening language. When asked if he would start a war, Trump glibly replied: "
I don't know. I mean, we'll see ". On another occasion Trump stated, "There is a chance that we could end up having a
major, major conflict with North
Korea. Absolutely". When the world's leading military superpower declares its intention to destroy you, then there is nothing you
can do in your defense which anyone could justly label as "over the top". Otherwise, once again Trump posed as a parental figure,
the world's chief babysitter -- picture Trump, surrounded by children taking part in the "Easter egg roll" at the White House, being
asked about North Korea and responding "they gotta behave". Trump would presume to teach manners to North Korea, using the only tools
of instruction that seem to be the first and last resort of US foreign policy (and the "defense" industry): bombs.
Syria
Attacking Syria , on purportedly humanitarian grounds, is for many (including vocal supporters) one of the most glaring contradictions
of Trump's campaign statements about not embroiling the US in failed wars of regime change and world policing. During the campaign,
he was in favour of Russia's collaboration with Syria in the fight against ISIS. For years he had condemned Obama for involving the
US in Syria, and consistently opposed military intervention there. All that was consigned to the archive of positions Trump declared
to now be worthless. That there had been a change in Trump's position is not a matter of dispute --
Trump made the point himself :
"I like to think of myself as a very flexible person. I don't have to have one specific way, and if the world changes, I go
the same way, I don't change. Well, I do change and I am flexible, and I'm proud of that flexibility. And I will tell you, that
attack on children yesterday had a big impact on me -- big impact. That was a horrible, horrible thing. And I've been watching
it and seeing it, and it doesn't get any worse than that. And I have that flexibility, and it's very, very possible -- and I will
tell you, it's already happened that my attitude toward Syria and Assad has changed very much. And if you look back over the last
few weeks, there were other attacks using gas. You're now talking about a whole different level".
Bending to the will of the prevailing Cold War and neo-McCarthyist atmosphere in the US, rife with anti-Russian conspiracy theories,
Trump found an easy opportunity to score points with the hostile media, ever so mindful as he is about approval ratings, polls, and
media coverage. Some explain Trump's reversals as arising from his
pursuit
of
public adulation -- and while the media play the key role in purveying celebrity status, they are also a stiff bastion of imperialist
culture. Given his many years as a the host of a popular TV show, and as the owner of the Miss Universe Pageant, there is some logical
merit to the argument. But I think even more is at work, as explained in paragraphs above.
According to Eric Trump it was at the urging of Ivanka that Donald Trump decided to strike a humanitarian-militarist pose. He
would play the part of the Victorian parent, only he would use missiles to teach unruly children lessons about violence. Using language
typically used against him by the mainstream media, Trump now felt entitled to pontificate that Assad is "evil," an "
animal ," who would
have
to go . When did he supposedly come to this realization? Did Assad become evil at the same time Trump was inaugurated? Why would
Trump have kept so silent about "evil" on the campaign trail? Trump of course is wrong: it's not that the world changed and he changed
with it; rather, he invented a new fiction to suit his masked intentions. Trump's supposed opponents and critics, like the Soros-funded
organizer of the women's march Linda Sarsour, showed her
approval of even more drastic
action by endorsing messages by what sounded like a stern school mistress who thought that 59 cruise missiles were just a mere "slap
on the wrist". Virtually every neocon who is publicly active applauded Trump, as did most senior Democrats. The loudest
opposition
, however, came from Trump's
own base , with a number of articles
featuring criticism from Trump's
supporters , and one conservative publication calling him outright a "
weakling
and a political ingrate ".
Members of the Trump administration have played various word games with the public on intervention in Syria. From unnamed officials
saying the missile strike was a "one off," to named officials
promising more if there
were any other suspected chemical attacks (or use of barrel bombs -- and this while the US dropped the biggest non-nuclear bomb in
existence on Afghanistan); some said that
regime change was not the goal,
and then others made it clear that was the ultimate
goal ; and then Trump saying, "Our policy is the same, it hasn't changed.
We're not going into Syria " -- even
though
Trump himself greatly increased the number of US troops he deployed to Syria , illegally, in an escalation of the least
protested invasion in recent history. Now we should know enough not to count this as mere ambiguity, but as deliberate obfuscation
that offers momentary (thinly veiled) cover for a
renewal of neocon policy .
We can draw an outline of Trump's liberal imperialism when it comes to Syria, which is likely to be applied elsewhere. First,
Trump's interventionist policy regarding Syria is one that continues to treat that country as if it were terra nullius ,
a mere playground for superpower politics. Second, Trump is clearly continuing with the
neoconservative agenda and its hit list of
states to be terminated by US military action, as famously confirmed by Gen. Wesley Clark. Even Trump's strategy for justifying the
attack on Syria echoed the two prior Bush presidential administrations -- selling war with the infamous "incubator babies" myth and
the myth of "weapons of mass destruction" (WMDs). In many ways, Trump's presidency is thus shaping up to be either the seventh term
of the George H.W. Bush regime, or the fifth straight term of the George W. Bush regime. Third, Trump is taking ownership of an extremely
dangerous conflict, with costs that could surpass anything witnessed by the war on Iraq (which also continues). Fourth, by highlighting
the importance of photographs in allegedly changing his mind, Trump has placed a high market value on propaganda featuring dead babies.
His actions in Syria will now create an effective demand for the pornographic trade in pictures of atrocities. These are matters
of great importance to the transnational capitalist class, which demands full global penetrability, diminished state power (unless
in the service of this class' goals), a uniformity of expectations and conformity in behaviour, and an emphasis on individual civil
liberties which are the basis for defending private property and consumerism.
Venezuela
It is very disturbing to see how Venezuela is being framed as ripe for US intervention, in ways that distinctly echo the lead
up to the US war on Libya. Just as disturbing is that Trump's Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, has a clear conflict of interest
regarding Venezuela, from his recent role as CEO of
Exxon
and its conflict with the government of Venezuela over its nationalization of oil. Tillerson is, by any definition, a clear-cut
member of the transnational capitalist class. The Twitter account of the
State
Department has a battery of messages sternly lecturing Venezuela about the treatment of protesters, while also pontificating
on the Venezuelan Constitution as if the US State Department had become a global supreme court. What is impressive is the seamless
continuity in the nature of the messages on Venezuela from that account, as if no change of government happened between Obama's time
and Trump's. Nikki Haley, Trump's neocon ambassador to the UN, issued
a statement that read like it had been written by her predecessors, Samantha Power and Susan Rice, a statement which in itself
is an unacceptable intervention in Venezuelan internal affairs. For Trump's part, from just days
before the election, to a couple of weeks
after his inauguration, he has sent explicit
messages of support for anti-government
forces in Venezuela. In February, Trump
imposed sanctions on Venezuela's
Vice President. After Syria and North Korea, Venezuela is seeming the likely focus of US interventionism under Trump.
NATO
Rounding out the picture, at least for now (this was just the first hundred days of Trump's presidency), was Trump's outstanding
reversal on NATO -- in fact, once again he stated the reversal himself, and without explanation either: "
I said it was obsolete. It's no longer obsolete ". This came just days after the US missile strike against Syria, and just as
Ivanka Trump was about to represent
his government at a meeting of globalist women, the
W20 . NATO has served as
the transnational military alliance at the service of the transnational capitalist class, and particularly the military and political
members of the TCC. 7
Saving Neoliberalism?
Has Trump saved neoliberal capitalism from its ongoing demise? Has he sustained popular faith in liberal political ideals? Are
we still in the dying days of liberalism
? If there had been a centrally coordinated plan to plant an operative among the ranks of populist conservatives and independents,
to channel their support for nationalism into support for the persona of the plant, and to then have that plant steer a course straight
back to shoring up neoliberal globalism -- then we might have had a wonderful story of a masterful conspiracy, the biggest heist
in the history of elections anywhere. A truly "rigged system" could be expected to behave that way. Was Trump designated to take
the fall in a rigged game, only his huge ego got in the way when he realized he could realistically win the election and he decided
to really tilt hard against his partner, Hillary Clinton? It could be the basis for a novel, or a Hollywood political comedy. I have
no way of knowing if it could be true.
Framed within the terms of what we do know, there was relief by the ousted group of political elites and the liberal globalist
media at the sight of Trump's reversals, and a sense that
their vision had been vindicated.
However, if they are hoping that the likes of Trump will serve as a reliable flag bearer, then theirs is a misguided wishful thinking.
If someone so demonized and ridiculed, tarnished as an evil thug and racist fascist, the subject of mass demonstrations in the US
and abroad, is the latest champion of (neo)liberalism, then we are certainly witnessing its dying days.
Is Trump Beneficial for Anti-Imperialism?
Once one is informed enough and thus prepared to understand that anti-imperialism is not the exclusive preserve of the left (a
left which anyway has mostly shunned it over the last two decades), that it
did not originate with the
left , and that it has a long and distinguished history
in the US itself , then we can move
toward some interesting realizations. The facts, borne out by surveys and my own online immersion among pro-Trump social media users,
is that one of the
significantreasons
why Trump won is due to the growth in popularity of basic anti-imperialist principles (even if not recognized under that name): for
example, no more world policing, no transnational militarization, no more interventions abroad, no more regime change, no war, and
no globalism. Nationalists in Europe, as in Russia, have also pushed forward a basic anti-imperialist vision. Whereas in Latin America
anti-imperialism is largely still leftist, in Europe and North America the left-right divide has become blurred, but the crucial
thing is that at least now we can speak of anti-imperialism gaining strength in these three major continents. Resistance against
globalization has been the primary objective, along with strengthening national sovereignty, protecting local cultural identity,
and opposing free trade and transnational capital. Unfortunately, some anti-imperialist writers (on the left in fact) have tended
to restrict their field of vision to military matters primarily, while almost completely neglecting the economic and cultural, and
especially domestic dimensions of imperialism. (I am grossly generalizing of course, but I think it is largely accurate.) Where structures
such as NAFTA are concerned, many of these same leftist anti-imperialists, few as they are, have had virtually nothing to say. It
could be that they have yet to fully recognize that the transnational capitalist class has, gradually over the last seven decades,
essentially purchased the power of US imperialism. Therefore the TCC's imperialism includes NAFTA, just as it includes open borders,
neoliberal identity politics, and drone strikes. They are all different parts of the same whole.
As argued in the previous section, if Trump is to be the newfound champion of this imperialism -- empire's prodigal son --
then what an abysmally poor choice he is. 8
On the one hand, he helped to unleash US anti-interventionism (usually called "isolationism" not to call it anti-imperialism,
which would then admit to imperialism which is still denied by most of the dominant elites). On the other hand, in trying to now
contain such popular sentiment, he loses credibility -- after having lost credibility with the groups his campaign displaced.
In addition to that, given that his candidacy aggravated internal divisions in the US, which have not subsided with his assumption
of office, these domestic social and cultural conflicts cause a serious deficit of legitimacy, a loss of political capital. A declining
economy will also deprive him of capital in the strict sense. Moreover, given the kind of persona the media have crafted, the daily
caricaturing of Trump will significantly spur anti-Americanism around the world. If suddenly even Canadian academics are talking
about boycotting the US, then the worm has truly turned. Trump can only rely on "hard power" (military violence), because "soft power"
is almost out of the question now that Trump has been constructed as a barbarian. Incompetent and/or undermined governance will also
render Trump a deficient upholder of the status quo. The fact that nationalist movements around the world are not centrally coordinated,
and their fortunes are not pinned to those of Trump, establishes a well-defined limit to his influence. Trump's antagonism toward
various countries -- as wholes -- has already helped to stir up a deep sediment of anti-Americanism. If Americanism is at the heart
of Trump's nationalist globalism, then it is doing all the things that are needed to induce a major heart attack.
As for Trump's domestic opposition, what should be most pertinent are issues of conflict of interest and nepotism
. Here members of Trump's base are more on target yet again, when they reject the presence of Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner
in the White House ("we didn't elect Ivanka or Jared"), than are those distracted by identity politics.
As Trump leverages the presidency to upgrade the Trump family to the transnational capitalist class, and reinforces the power
of US imperialism which that class has purchased, conflict of interest and nepotism will be the main political signposts of the transformation
of the Trump presidency, but they could also be the targets for a refined strategy of opposition.
"... This reminds me of the gerontocrats of the Soviet Politburo in the worst stagnation years who had to appoint the likes of Chernenko to top positions. ..."
"... The one thing the Mr MAGA's administration has in common with the late Brezhevian Politburo is its total inability to get anything done. My wife refers to the folks in the White House (since Dubya came to power) as the " gang that couldn't shoot straight " and she is right (she always is!): they just can't really get anything done anymore – all their half-assed pseudo-successes are inevitably followed by embarrassing failures. ..."
Remember the almost universal reaction of horror when Bolton was appointed as National
Security Advisor? Well, apparently, either the Neocons completely missed that, which I doubt,
or they did what they always do and decided to double-down by retrieving Elliott Abrams from
storage and appointing him US Special Envoy to Venezuela. I mean, yes, of course, the Neocons
are stupid and sociopathic enough not to ever care about others, but in this case I think that
we are dealing with a "Skripal tactic": do something so ridiculously stupid and offensive that
it places all your vassals before a stark choice: either submit and pretend like you did not
notice or, alternatively, dare to say something and face with wrath of Uncle Shmuel (the
Neocon's version of Uncle Sam).
And it worked, in the name of "solidarity" or whatever else, the most faithful lackeys of
the Empire immediate fell in line behind the latest US aggression against a sovereign nation in
spite of the self-evident fact that this aggression violates every letter of the most sacred
principles of international law. This is exactly the same tactic as when they make you clean
toilets with a toothbrush or do push-ups in the mud during basic training: not only to
condition you to total obedience, but to make you publicly give up any semblance of
dignity.
...Finally, these appointments also show that the senior-Neocons are frightened and paranoid
as there are still plenty of very sharp junior-Neocon folks to chose from in the US, yet they
felt the need to get Abrams from conservation and place him in a key position in spite of the
strong smell of naphthalene emanating from him. This reminds me of the gerontocrats of the
Soviet Politburo in the worst stagnation years who had to appoint the likes of Chernenko to top
positions.
The one thing the Mr MAGA's administration has in common with the late Brezhevian
Politburo is its total inability to get anything done. My wife refers to the folks in the White
House (since Dubya came to power) as the " gang that couldn't shoot straight "
and she is right (she always is!): they just can't really get anything done anymore – all
their half-assed pseudo-successes are inevitably followed by embarrassing failures.
"... This isn't about taxing wealth. It's about taxing power, privilege and greed. This isn't about punishing oligarchy. This is about saving democracy. ..."
"... The concentration of wealth parallels the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere: it is economic climate change with consequences equally as dire as global warming on all lifeforms. The challenge will be no less difficult, replete with a powerful lobby of deniers and greed-mongers ready for war against all threats to their power and position. Their battle cry is apres moi, le deluge -- as if taxing wealth and privilege is barbarians at the gate and the demise of civilization rather than curbing cannibals driven not by hunger but voracious greed. ..."
"... Likewise, the same majority now sees the rising tide of inequality and social dysfunction and what that means for the future as a global caste system condemns nearly all of us -- but mainly our progeny -- to slavery in servitude to our one percent masters. ..."
This isn't about taxing wealth. It's about taxing power, privilege and greed. This
isn't about punishing oligarchy. This is about saving democracy.
The concentration of wealth parallels the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere: it is economic climate change with consequences equally as dire as global warming
on all lifeforms. The challenge will be no less difficult, replete with a powerful lobby of
deniers and greed-mongers ready for war against all threats to their power and position.
Their battle cry is apres moi, le deluge -- as if taxing wealth and privilege is barbarians
at the gate and the demise of civilization rather than curbing cannibals driven not by hunger
but voracious greed.
Everywhere climate change deniers are being drowned out by a rational majority who now see
the signs of global warming in every weather report and understand what this means for their
children if we continue to emulate ostriches.
Likewise, the same majority now sees the rising tide of inequality and social
dysfunction and what that means for the future as a global caste system condemns nearly all
of us -- but mainly our progeny -- to slavery in servitude to our one percent
masters.
Elizabeth Warren is no nerd. She's our Joan of Arc. And it's up to us to make sure she
isn't burned alive by the dark lords as she rallies us to win back our country and our
future.
"The net worth of the wealthiest 0.1 percent of Americans is almost equal to that of the
bottom 90 percent combined." This describes a truly radical concentration of wealth that
should raise red flags for anyone who genuinely cares about the future of this country. How
long can such a situation last...or grow even worse...without resulting in social upheaval on
a massive scale, such as happened in France in the late 1700's or Russia in the early 1900s?
And exactly what do those 0.1 percent want so much wealth for anyway? While some people of
great wealth do try to use it to make the world a better place, far too manty of them seem
not to know what to do with it, except to let it pile up to gloat over or use it to influence
politicians to create policies that will give them even more. Proposals for higher taxes on
the very wealthy are derided as too radical. But the economic chasm that exists in this
country between the very wealthiest and everyone else represents a radical challenge that
must be addressed.
All you smarties ignored us when your Globalism took away all our jobs. Prez Clinton aimed
for middle with his love of approval. Our situation became worse so in desperation we
believed the Huckster Trump and called him our "NEW DEAL" Trump has failed us and there is a
chance for Dem government in two years. A cautious, donor friendly, middle of the road
Democratic administration just like the last one will send us on the hunt again for a leader
to save us from peonage.
@Charlie As enticing as is your suggestion, let's not lower ourselves that far down to
Tweety's "standards of behavior". Pinocchio redeemed himself in the end; Tweety never will,
and many hope he ends up sharing a cell with Bernie Madoff.
Thank you for this review of reactions from the experts -- and for the list of experts who
focus on this topic. And thank you for sharing your views. The challenge with Warren's
proposal isn't devising a good policy. The challenge will be explaining it to voters who
don't understand economics or Piketty's book. It's a voter-education problem more than an
economics problem. I wish Elizabeth Warren and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez well in their efforts
to explain their proposals. It seems a tall order, but it's just the kind of medicine we
need.
Thanks to Trump we, as a nation, got to see that even Federal workers can barely get by.
This was quite a revelation for many. There has long been a stigma in this country about
sharing the truly dismal state of one's economic affairs. It's why we've made so little
progress along the lines discussed here. It's also the reason once-middle class people place
themselves in a debt spiral, to compete with others who, unbeknownst to them, are doing
likewise. There will be much more discussion now of just how unequal and insecure this
society is. The powers that be have tried to muffle the conversation for long enough. And
kudos to Wilbur Ross for opening his fat mouth and provoking everyone's ire!
@dajoebabe Another sign that ours is "a system that is the only one in the world where
such vast sums can be accumulated with so little being required in return" is the way foreign
capital is swamping our property markets because people from un-free countries are trying to
buy access to the rule of law. There aren't that many places in the world for the rich to
flee where public infrastructure and the rights of citizenship are quite as robust as here in
the US.
@Ana Luisa Amen!! Very well said. I hope you're correct in projecting that the U.S. "will
finally become an entirely civilized country too." I fear that the 'Kochtopus' will strangle
the initiatives proposed by Warren and other progressives before they can be enacted. But I
won't roll over and give up. Dr. Krugman's columns and the comments from others such as
yourself inspire me to continue to push back against the Repubs and support candidates such
as Sen. Warren. Bravo Zulu to you and all the other NYT readers who speak up to state that
the United States can strive to be the shining example of equality and fairness that does
truly function to promote governance that works for the common good of ALL U.S.
citizens.
Dr. Krugman uses the argument of "marginal utility value" as the crux of one of his
statements. Marginal utility, briefly described, is the value one might put on he first
milkshake he's had in years. Probably very high. But what about the 10th milkshake in the
same day? ("Yuck" would do nicely.) So it is with "the second $50 million", as Dr. Krugman
argues. Quite right. After a given point - depending on the individual - wealth ceases to
play an important part in one's life. Would a billionaire miss a million?... one thousandth
of his net worth? Hardly. But when arguing such a point, beware the Slippery Slope argument
(a classic fallacy). "Yeah, maybe just a million today; but tomorrow? Maybe TEN
million!!
"Taxing the superrich is an idea whose time has come -- again." Let's hope Democrats have
their ducks in a row with this legislation when they regain the presidency and full control
of Congress in 2020. And if we want to get even more radical with the "swollen" wealthy, we
could rescind their recent trillion-dollar tax cut. Perhaps that will start acclimating them
to what needs to be our new normal. We should consider cuts to our bloated defense budget as
well. We can use all of this money to shore up Social Security and Medicare, in addition to
Medicaid, and to promote more affordable public education, infrastructure to fight climate
change, and universal health care. This additional revenue is not just something we should
see as a windfall for society. In the end, it may prove to be what saves what's left of our
society.
@Mike Rowe The only people that this would effect are the people who can't afford lawyers
and accountants. I have been audited twice. Both times it turned out the government owed me
money, but the money I was owed, was eaten up because I had to pay and accountant to defend
me. Trump still has not put forward his tax documents, do you really think that adding a few
more IRS agents would change that.
@Orthoducks Let's be honest: every society that has taken away the wealth of individuals
and handed it to the government to allocate has been ruled by tyrants and has reduced their
citizenry to penury at the point of a gun. Wealthy people reinvest their money in economic
ventures that grow their wealth, which generates greater productivity while creating jobs and
wealth for the society. If there is too much concentration of wealth (there is), let's tax it
back down, but don't ever suggest that we should just take all the money from individuals
because we can. That's the route Lenin and Mao went down; I thought we had learned that
lesson.
Whether you agree with Warren's proposal or not it's a good thing that this issue is being
put out in the public domain because we've now reached the stage where income and wealth
inequality is eroding the effectiveness of the open and dynamic capitalist economy that we
all need. Some of the more perceptive of the super rich like Warren Buffett and Michael
Bloomberg have recognized this and the dangers it threatens. It was a problem recognized in
the 30's by J. M. Keynes speaking in America when he said "If the new problem of inequality
is not solved the existing order of society will become so discredited that wild, foolish and
destructive changes will become inevitable." It's worth remembering that Maduro and Chavez
before him were the products of the vast inequalities in Venezuelan society. And there are
plenty of other examples of a similar dynamic at work.
The people who don't like a wealth tax are a) very wealthy, or b) corrupt politicians, or
c) pundits who like to sound like they know everything. Yes, tax the wealthy. Even Willie
Sutton could tell you that if you want money (tax revenue) go where it is. The time is right.
They can choose: higher taxes or the guillotine.
@Shiv Taxes were at this rate in the 50's and inequality was nowhere as bad as it is now.
Undertaxing Bezos and his ilk (and the way our tax system is now set up, generally), directs
money to the CEOs and other muckety mucks, not to their employees. Republicans seem to think
that there's a "natural" (as in, arising out of nature) situation where money goes to the
person who has "earned" it. That's simply not true. The economy is a construct, created by
law and custom. And right now, the law makes sure that Bezos gets a whole lot more than he
should be getting, while his hapless employees (the folks who do the actual work) get way
less than they should.
I have admired Warren since she entered the political spectator sport. She has a lot of
guts for a woman. I gathered from your essay that only 75,000 or so Americans hold as much
wealth as the lower 90 percent of the entire population of 320,000,000 Americans. Decades
have passed since Eisenhower rightly paid down the debt of the great war. In that time,
fairly dispersed wealth trickled up to a few who employed "Trickle Down" propaganda and
political manipulation, all too often agreed to, to reduce their tax burden thereby heaping
all responsibilities of maintaining the nation on everyone but the rich. "Trickle Down
Economics" was always a lie we all saw through. Party politics, bought and paid for, happily
accepted wealthy dollars in exchange for legislation outlined by the wealthys' lobbyists. The
reality has always been "Trickle Up" and "Trickle Out" economics as American wealth is
grossly concentrated at the top. I like the taxation plan as presented. It still leaves the
filthy rich, well, filthy rich. It started as our money they now have amassed. Decades of
lies and corruption justify any new taxes on the wealthy who need to be convinced their
absent patriotism should be reestablished by law. If the wealthy are going to "Crowd Source"
America, let's make them "Crowd Pleasers". It's a great way to keep the peace. We do want
peace, don't we?
@DJS Ummm, wealthy people, no matter how well meaning or even well-acting (and there are
many who are neither), do not (or should not) be in charge of infrastructure, public health,
national defense, public education and so on. As far as "helping needy people, who never see
it," I wonder what you are thinking. I assure you that the recipients of food stamps,
unemployment, social security, medicare and medicaid benefits certainly "see" it. As do the
rest of us when we have clean air and water (currently under attack by Republicans), safe air
flight (ditto), and well-maintained roads (also ditto).
@Registered Repub (Reply to your reply to FunkyIrishman) Could you please explain how
American workers can be simultaneously 30-40% more productive than Scandinavian workers, and
all American "socialists" (which for you seems to be a synonym with Democrats, and as a
consequence refers to the majority of the American people) "lazy" ... ? And of course America
hasn't a 40% higher productivity rate than Scandinavian countries. In 2015, the US ranked
merely fifth on the OECD's productivity list - after Luxemburg, Ireland, Norway and Belgium.
A US workers adds $68 per hour to the GDP, a Danish worker half a dollar less, and a Swedish
worker $9 dollars less. And maybe Americans "own more cars and live in bigger houses", but
Norwegians are FAR happier, as all studies show. Producing tons of money as a country's
highest ideal is clearly not the best way to have a happy, healthy and well-educated
population and economy that works for all citizens. And funny enough, in the US it's
precisely the party that loves to call itself "the party of values" that indeed
systematically sees money as its main value ... http://time.com/4621185/worker-productivity-countries
/
@Paul Rogers Agree except for abolishing propaganda, which offends the First Amendment.
Better to help others recognize political manipulation and reject irrational or emotional
appeals. Thanks for your reply.
It doesn't matter whether large majorities of Americans or economists or tax experts
support a wealth tax or higher marginal rates. The only poll that matters limits itself to
535 people, the members of the House and Senate. And the net worth of those 535 people is on
average 5 times larger than that of the rest of America. Fourteen have net worths larger than
the $50 million of the proposal. Will they vote to tax themselves more? Though the number may
be small, in a contentious matter and a highly partisan and divided body, every vote
matters.
Let's start simple: close the carried interest loophole. For all the talk of Obama being
about the working class, he didn't get this done. Hedge fund guys had his administration and
Dems lobbied up to prevent closing this. So it's not just the Republicans supporting the
oligarchy. Democrats are guilty too.
Us Americans need to stop seeing ourselves as temporarily embarrassed millionaires, that's
the problem. I don't care how we do it, either by raising rates, closing loopholes, or both,
but the 1%, the 0.1%, and the 0.01% need to take home less money. They don't "work harder"
than the rest of us, that's complete garbage. Maybe we pass a tiered law stipulating an
allowed pay ratio between the CEO and lowest level employee, based on either company size as
the number of people, or revenue, or some other formula. Or maybe we say you get a lower tax
rate if you meet that ratio, and higher taxes if you don't. I'm glad people are moving the
overton window though.
@Taz Obama was also a moderate Republican. This time, we need a liberal. Who was the last
president to be nearly universally popular? (Except with the mega-rich) FDR. And remember
what he said about his wealthy enemies? "I welcome their hatred!"
Existing US infrastructure is so degraded, the ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers)
estimates it will cost $2 trillion just to bring it back up to code. President Trump cut
taxes on the 1%, which will cost about that much in increased debt over ten years. Candidate
Trump floated the idea that this imminent infrastructure cost should be born by the 'little
people' via toll booths, as they schlep themselves to work and back each day just trying to
make their rent money. Americans need to realize something about our government: it costs
money, and that money is not in question. Someone is going to pay that bill: 'nothing is
certain but death and taxes'. As the infrastructure debate illustrates, we can either make
the wealthy pay that cost, or they will make us pay it. But somebody is going to pay it, of
that you can be sure. (Just a suggestion: that $2 trillion is just for delayed maintenance on
existing infrastructure. But that infrastructure was originally constructed, i.e. out of
nothing, back at a time when the maximum marginal income tax was over 90%).
Benjamin Franklin founded the first communally funded public hospital and library, and
Jefferson the the first communally funded public school. Both also touted the benefits of
capitalism, including Franklin in his autobiography, stressing self discipline and creativity
in business; and Jefferson famously said, paraphrasing here, that he 'admired industry and
abhorred slavery' while they touted science and technologies' advances and natural law.
Therefore, they believed in and instantiated a mixed economics plan for the future of the
nation, with both capitalist and socialist dimensions. This was over the objections and boos
of men of lesser ideals, at the time. But the founders became Founders, and the other men of
lesser ideals did not. Therefore, it is the ideals of the founders that should live on in our
country, not other ideals. We can all take a simple pride in the American Exceptionalism that
led Ben Franklin to maneuver against powerful loyalist-capitalists in the 1750's in
Pennsylvania colony, and found the first hospital in Philadelphia above their private
disbelief that it would ever work; the hospital would unquestioningly take in any and all
from off of the streets who needed assistance. The combined ideal vision of America's
founding fathers broke the mold of two-tiered monarchy capitalism, and established mixed
capitalism on the new plateau of democracy. There's no need to apologize, if we aim to
fulfill this vision in a now more pluralist America.
Simply: the USA has perhaps the largest set of overpaid, underperforming rich people the
world has ever seen. Yes, there are always rich people ... but ... at some point they realize
the only significant remaining goal is to make humankind ... well, more human. Teddy R and
Franklin R "got it", even Dwight. But certainly not Saint Ronald. Without implementation of
the Warren or other plans, we will let the rich destroy the fundamentals of society which
allowed them to become rich. Rich includes: law and order, free speech, little corruption
among police, ... children who will grow up and support the rich in their
dotage.
To me the current trend in concentration of income at the top looks like inflation. In
places like San Francisco you have to earn 7 digit incomes to be able to afford housing. In
response housing gets more expensive, and Google will have to increase your salary to make
your ends meet. So now houses will get more expensive... Of course, if you are a school
teacher, or a baker or a cashier at the supermarket, your goose is cooked. If a hedge fund
manager can afford to pay $200+ million for a penthouse where you used to live, you are going
to be homeless
The real justice of such a plan is that money could be made to move throughout the system
stimulating the economy and shared prosperity. What should be obvious to all and hopefully
will before the next election cycle is that the Dems are imaginatively searching for
solutions and coming up with great ideas.
@Baldwin - How about property tax? Tax on your same home over an over again, with the home
itself paid for with money that was already taxed. T'would be no worse than
that.
We have no hesitation in shaming those who get a dopamine rush from alcohol or from drugs
or from sex or (occasionally) from an obscene accumulation of power. But as the saying goes,
you can never be too rich or too thin. Well, that's a cultural meme not a Platonic truth, one
probably dating back to at least Freud (if not Augustine) who preferred we "sublimate" our
sexual lust for money/power lust because the latter is, at least theoretically, more
"productive" for society. Except when it isn't. And when dopamine (a/k/a/ greed) driven
plutocrats use their wealth to corrupt the system so that they can continue to accumulate
more wealth and power, it isn't. Neuter them.
It's time we ask ourselves this: What happens if we do nothing versus if we do something?
If we do nothing, we continue with a small group of family dynasties that owns everything,
whose primary commitment is only to amassing more wealth. We have a precedent for this in the
robber barons of the late 1800's. The outcome? They drove the U.S. economy off the cliff in
the 1920's. (Yes, simplified, but not much.) What happens if we do what Warren proposes -- or
something similar? More tax money to solve problems, and we need the money. We just gave
these people around $1.5 trillion in tax breaks, and the data clearly show they will not
trickle down on us. And we're not remotely addressing climate change or crumbling
infrastructure -- situations that will strain our social and economic capacity for perhaps a
century. But just as important, it would cap the capacity of 75,000 people to make all the de
facto decisions for our society. Democracy would be reinvigorated. Throw in the destruction
of Citizens United, and it would usher in a new era in America. Of course, it is guaranteed
that the ultra-rich, their super-rich pals, and the politicians they buy through Citizens
United will fight this tooth and nail. For them it would be: to the barricades! Just like
corporations, their loyalty is to themselves and their wealth, not to their
country.
Wealth Redistribution is only one of the four legs of the stool of an inclusive society.
Prof Krugman, AOC and Democrats would do well to expand the narrative to address right wing
concerns: 1. Effective government spending on public services that improve welfare and
national wealth and risk taking and knowledge generation (eg NASA) that the private sector
just wont do - root out inefficiencies in the system, ensure incentives for productivity are
maximized and keep operations lean and accountable to society. 2. Campaign finance reform:
mandate air time for election coverage as a public good and give parties public funds and
budget ceilings to ensure a level playing field. Also ensure redistricting makes all races
competitive scross party lines as the preeminent rule. Eliminate the electoral college and
moderately shift senate power to more populous states. 3. Equalise access to educational
opportunities by removing the link between geography and housing and education quality and
massively supporting early education programmes across the board. Improve educational
outcomes to ensure the majority of society is capable of critical thinking. 4. Redistribute
wealth and limit the power of elites to tilt the system in their favour: both in government
policy and in how the judicial system operates (no more a la carte legal representation
quality based on ability to pay).
@Michael Who says it will be changed? You? Progressive taxation is not seizing assets.
Without it a modern state cannot function. And the AMT came into existence because of the
efforts of people like Donald Trump to evade taxation.
Income inequality along with climate change are the two BIG issues that need to be
addressed. The rollback in the progressive income tax that began with Ronald Reagan needs to
be reversed. The proposals by Sen. Warren, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Steven Rattner in
today's Times need to be debated and carefully evaluated. But, there are related issues that
are relevant to this debate concerning how to cope with automation and artificial
intelligence that will dramatic effect the labor market for those still struggling for decent
paying jobs. Democrats must not lose sight of their base--blue-collar, lower- and
middle-class voters still struggling with wage stagnation and the loss of manufacturing jobs.
That's where Hillary Clinton lost the last election, and while Democrats may feel good about
taxing the rich, they must not forget the 99 plus percent who are still in need of
help.
I feel this is exactly what this country needs. The rich have become richer and seem to
demand more and more. Time to stop this incredible greed and put some of those dollars back
to work in the country. Hopefully all of the Dems will agree with this.
Excellent article and kudos to Elizabeth Warren. On top of her and AOC's proposals I would
add a 100% inheritance tax on estates over $1M. This isn't my idea but that of my favorite
law school professor: the taxee doesn't care because s/he's dead; any money passed on to
children is a complete windfall to them. Let's end the aristocracy.
The time has got to be ripe for these kinds of proposals. The primary source of
unhappiness in the working class throughout the western world is the feeling of being left
behind and not having their problems addressed. In the US we need to fix our crumbling
infrastructure, provide a livable minimum wage and universal health care. These goals can
easily be achieve by addressing the outrageous accumulation of wealth by the top 1%.
Implement Warren's plan, AOC's 70% tax, tax capital gains the same as income, and add a 1%
fee on all stock trades. The money the rich are hoarding needs to be invested in the
betterment of society. That would truly make America great again.
@Alice...Inflation has been low and stable for 20 years and quantitative easing has had no
effect on it, despite the forecasts of most right-wing economists. If you knew anything about
macroeconomics you would be aware that in the past some governments have had serious
struggles with the control of inflation.
It's a sad, very sad day, when in order to have a very brief but concrete idea about what
Warren just proposed, you have to read an op-ed, not a NYT article, as that article just
skips the very content of her speech and instead focuses on what most MSM constantly focus
on: a politician as an individual wanting a career in DC, and whether this or that will
advance or hurt that career (supposedly based not on policy but "likability"). MSM, I really
hope that this time you will do your job! That Trump and the lying GOP won the 2016 elections
is as much due to Fox News constant barrage of fake news as to MSM's tendency to
systematically silence the most relevant facts (most of the time not in order to distort the
truth, as Trump falsely claims, but simply because of their "small" concept of political
journalism, which often seems closer to a sports match report than to a way to build a truly
informed and engaged democratic civil society, even though that's precisely the crucial job
of the fourth branch of government, in a democracy).
@Linda Helping the poor seems to be your prescription for salvation. But what hope is
there for those who don't help the poor when they actually made and continue to make people
poor?
It's the T word that hangs people up. On any given day, the paper wealth of billionaires
can gain or lose one or two percent based on the fluctuations of the stock market. They
happily play the numbers to stabilize -- and hopefully improve -- their portfolios, but they
manage to take the lumps without having to alter their lavish lifestyles. They're fixated on
control, which they believe is stolen from them by big government. But in the long run, they
really don't feel the pain on a personal level. Let 'em be taxed.
Bully for Elizabeth Warren! Take the time to read or skim the engaging books she has
written about the economic plight of the American family---available on Amazon, and in your
local library.
If her bid for the nomination fails the winning candidate should commit to her being their
Treasury secretary. She knows how to reform and tame finance.
@Ana Luisa Hillary totally ignored the blue-collar voters in the Midwest "blue wall"
states and did not advocate for stronger unions. In fact, she never agreed with the
progressive proposal for a $15/hr. minimum wage. She was a centrist, establishment, Wall
Street candidate who picked a center-right running mate rather than uniting the party by
picking a progressive like Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio. The election NEVER should have been
close, but Clinton was out-of-touch with the working class and most Sanders progressives--and
it cost her.
@carlyle 145 This has nothing to do with globalism, and everything with the fact that for
too long, many people didn't vote, allowing the GOP to fire up their base with fake news and
as such force Democrats in DC to move more and more to the right, each time they had to
compromise with the GOP because "we the people" didn't give them the votes to control DC. And
in a democracy, ALL real, radical, lasting, democratic progress is step by step progress. So
as long as progressives don't see that Democrats' are their natural allies and simply wait
until someone comes along who claims to be able to single-handedly change everything
overnight, it's the lying GOP and their Big Money corruption that will continue to destroy
the country. Conclusion: stop "hunting for a leader to save us", in a democracy only "we the
people" can save us. So instead of standing at the sidelines yelling "not enough!" to those
fighting in the mud each time they managed to get us one step closer to the finish line,
start focusing on that finish line too, then roll up your sleeves and come standing in the
mud too, and then the next step forward will be taken much faster
"... "As commander-in-chief, I will work to end the new cold war, nuclear arms race and slide into nuclear war. That is why the neocon/neolib warmongers will do anything to stop me . ..."
"... In short; NBC relied on a known propagandist who created a Russian bot "false flag" to meddle in an election, who claims to track pro-Kremlin Twitter activity, in order to smear Tulsi Gabbard as a Putin puppet. ..."
"... It's uncanny what lengths the establishment will go to in order to eliminate threats. For example, take a look at this Vanity Fair hit piece from Jan 30, which uses perhaps the most unflattering photo Gabbard has ever taken and starts off (emphasis not ours): ..."
"... One question remains; will Gabbard become a Democrat puppet like Bernie Sanders if the DNC colludes with their chosen candidate to cheat against her? ..."
"... Obey or die ... that's the ethos of the U.S. elite, these days ... Tulsi can't fight that. ..."
"... I wonder if Ron Paul feels jealous that Tulsi is getting all the hate he used to get when HE ran for president on the peace platform? ..."
"... I thought Social Security was "the third rail of politics" but obviously it is now "perpetual war". Anyone daring to touch it is going to be zapped by the corporate media, whose owners are likely majority stockholders of the military industrial complex. ..."
"... Orange wants to run against some crazy like Hitlery... easy pickings ... he can't win against a sensible person ..."
"... The term "neoliberal warmongers" is thus born ... ..."
"... Yes, good to add that term to "neoconservative warmongers" because of the degree to which almost all successful politicians have become puppets of the best organized gangsters (due to the long history of the vicious feedback loops of the funding of all aspects of the political processes.) The false fundamental dichotomies and related impossible ideals associated with "liberal" versus conservative" are manifestations of the methods of divide and conquer, which methods are being pushed towards oblivion with their excessive indulgence in the demonization of Russia. ..."
"... All of those may be viewed as manifestations of "false flag attacks" whereby the ruling classes drive the people they rule over to fight against boogie men, in ways which therefore backfire badly, by causing the "blowbacks" which those "false flag" presentations of the "public enemies" were originally designed to cause! ..."
"... Tulsa Gabbard shares the same views on Israel that most of the world outside of the US hold ... that there really is zero difference between the apartheid South Africa regime of 3 decades ago and present day Israel. ..."
"... Now that the evil SA apartheid is ended, the natives are rising up and showing their sadism and hatred for all manner of civilization. They sing and chant about how much they want to "kill de white man!" But they have NO IDEA what to do once they've done that. ..."
"... Too bad, the rabid dogs are firmly in charge of the US government. ..."
"... she could beat orange ... orange is afraid of her... so are the zio elite ..."
Tulsi Gabbard Slams "Neocon/Neolib Warmongers" After NBC Propaganda Exposed
by Tyler Durden
Mon, 02/04/2019 - 11:31 525 SHARES
Tulsi Gabbard lashed out at "neocon" and "neolib warmongers" after NBC News was exposed
trying to smear her as a Kremlin stooge. The network was called out over the weekend for
relying on a Democrat-run firm that created fake Russian twitter bots to stage a "false flag"
campaign against Republic Roy Moore in the 2017 Alabama special election - New Knowledge.
To justify its claim that Tulsi Gabbard is the Kremlin's candidate, NBC writes:
"analysts at New Knowledge, the company the Senate Intelligence Committee used to track
Russian activities in the 2016 election, told NBC News they've spotted 'chatter' related to
Gabbard in anonymous online message boards, including those known for fomenting right-wing
troll campaigns."
Only to be called out hard by journalist Glenn Greenwald:
After Greenwald fingered NBC for relying on New Knowledge - run by Jonathan Morgan (who also
developed the technology behind "Hamilton 68" Russian bot-tracking propaganda website that refuses
to disclose its methods) - Gabbard chimed in, tweeting:
"@ggreenwald exposes that @NBC used journalistic fraud to discredit our campaign. But more
important is their motive: "to smear any adversary of the establishment wing of the Democratic
Party – whether on the left or the right – as a stooge or asset of the
Kremlin.""
She later added:
"As commander-in-chief, I will work to end the new cold war, nuclear arms race and slide
into nuclear war. That is why the neocon/neolib warmongers will do anything to stop me .
Disturbingly, the Senate Intelligence Committee has relied on a
report by New Knowledge on Russian social media election interference, while the firm has
created a "Hamilton 68" offshoot, "Disinfo2018" referenced in the NBC article, which claims
that three of the top URLs propagated throughout social media by Kremlin bots were about
Gabbard.
In short; NBC relied on a known propagandist who created a Russian bot "false flag" to
meddle in an election, who claims to track pro-Kremlin Twitter activity, in order to smear
Tulsi Gabbard as a Putin puppet.
It's uncanny what lengths the establishment will go to in order to eliminate threats. For
example, take a look at this Vanity
Fair hit piece from Jan 30, which uses perhaps the most unflattering photo Gabbard has ever
taken and starts off (emphasis not ours):
The presidential campaign of Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, the renegade Democrat known as much for
her chummy relationship with Bashar al-Assad as for supporting Bernie Sanders , is
beginning to resemble the candidate herself: confusing, disorganized, and, according to
Politico
, falling apart. - Vanity
Fair
One question remains; will Gabbard become a Democrat puppet like Bernie Sanders if the DNC
colludes with their chosen candidate to cheat against her?
I thought Social Security was "the third rail of politics" but obviously it is now
"perpetual war". Anyone daring to touch it is going to be zapped by the corporate media,
whose owners are likely majority stockholders of the military industrial complex.
Tulsi Gabbard for 2020 is not enough. You will also need a group of truly knowledgeable,
experienced and courageous reformers to fill the cabinet. People who dare to take on the CIA,
the MIC, and the pro-Israel lobby. People like Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, Edward Snowden,
Julian Assange ...
Orange wants to run against some crazy like Hitlery... easy pickings ... he can't win
against a sensible person... mericans are tiring of orange... he may be one term if he
doesn't deliver on ****.. just get some wall... cheap wall, any wall... move on
Yes, good to add that term to "neoconservative warmongers" because of the degree to which
almost all successful politicians have become puppets of the best organized gangsters (due to
the long history of the vicious feedback loops of the funding of all aspects of the political
processes.) The false fundamental dichotomies and related impossible ideals associated with
"liberal" versus conservative" are manifestations of the methods of divide and
conquer, which methods are being pushed towards oblivion with their excessive indulgence in
the demonization of Russia.
Welcome To The Wile E Coyote Phase Of American History:
Alcohol Prohibition and the War on Drugs were insane &
War on Terror was perhaps thousands of times more so,
Demonizing Russia is thousands of times more insane.
All of those may be viewed as manifestations of "false flag attacks" whereby the ruling
classes drive the people they rule over to fight against boogie men, in ways which
therefore backfire badly, by causing the "blowbacks" which those "false flag"
presentations of the "public enemies" were originally designed to cause!
Running against the fake news is pretty effective. She's pretty effective at staying rational. She needs to establish a bipartisan core who will support her once elected. And some decent appointees. If she has family that she likes she'll need to get them in protective situation. And divest of any assets. I don't know why she would want this task - it's unwinnable.
Tulsa Gabbard shares the same views on Israel that most of the world outside of the US
hold ... that there really is zero difference between the apartheid South Africa regime of 3
decades ago and present day Israel.
With that said, there is fuckall chance of her ever getting either party's support.
Sad, because if America changed course on their blind support of Israel today, the
backlash would be less extreme than what the future holds when Americans finally realize that
they've been duped into supporting a pariah state.
...there really is zero difference between the apartheid South Africa regime of 3
decades ago and present day Israel.
Yup. That would be the result when you're in the same region with a severely low IQ
culture.
Now that the evil SA apartheid is ended, the natives are rising up and showing their
sadism and hatred for all manner of civilization. They sing and chant about how much they
want to "kill de white man!" But they have NO IDEA what to do once they've done that.
It's a failed state in the making, and it's happening FAST. If you wanted to horrify me by bringing up the wicked nasty apartheid of SA... Wow.
Ah, so they steal the land, put the indigenous people in "homelands" and then wonder why
those same people are pissed ? I'm neither a black South African living under the Apartheid
regime of yesteryear, or a Palestinian driven from his home; but I'm pretty certain that if I
had been either; I would have been packing a AK47 and a limpet mine staking out the occupiers
shopping malls.
mericans voted for orange for certain reasons... health care, no more war... he is not
delivering very well... too much time on the wall.. orange is sucked into the wall **** by
dems...
Japan has medicare for all. Doctors and nurses are paid by the government. You are sick..
you go to the hospital.. you get treated..and you go home. There is nothing wrong with that.
If Japan can pay the doctors, if Germany, France, Nederland, Sweden, England, China, etc, can
pay the doctor's salaries, why can't the USA?
Currently, they spent $50 billions a year destroying Syria. They spent trillion destroying
Iraq. They spent billions a year maintaining a military base in Japan while Japanese foot the
medical bills of its citizen. Don't you see there something wrong with this picture? If it's
to deploy soldiers all around the world and kill people, we have the money. No one
complains.
Yes, medicare for all. Every developed nations does it. And their citizens are not sicker
than us. Some of the French, Japanese, German living here in the USA, go home to get treated
when they have serious illnesses. They don't want the huge medical bills.
"The net worth of the wealthiest 0.1 percent of Americans is almost equal to that of the
bottom 90 percent combined." This describes a truly radical concentration of wealth that
should raise red flags for anyone who genuinely cares about the future of this country. How
long can such a situation last...or grow even worse...without resulting in social upheaval on
a massive scale, such as happened in France in the late 1700's or Russia in the early 1900s?
And exactly what do those 0.1 percent want so much wealth for anyway? While some people of
great wealth do try to use it to make the world a better place, far too manty of them seem
not to know what to do with it, except to let it pile up to gloat over or use it to influence
politicians to create policies that will give them even more. Proposals for higher taxes on
the very wealthy are derided as too radical. But the economic chasm that exists in this
country between the very wealthiest and everyone else represents a radical challenge that
must be addressed.
All you smarties ignored us when your Globalism took away all our jobs. Prez Clinton aimed
for middle with his love of approval. Our situation became worse so in desperation we
believed the Huckster Trump and called him our "NEW DEAL" Trump has failed us and there is a
chance for Dem government in two years. A cautious, donor friendly, middle of the road
Democratic administration just like the last one will send us on the hunt again for a leader
to save us from peonage.
@Charlie As enticing as is your suggestion, let's not lower ourselves that far down to
Tweety's "standards of behavior". Pinocchio redeemed himself in the end; Tweety never will,
and many hope he ends up sharing a cell with Bernie Madoff.
Thank you for this review of reactions from the experts -- and for the list of experts who
focus on this topic. And thank you for sharing your views. The challenge with Warren's
proposal isn't devising a good policy. The challenge will be explaining it to voters who
don't understand economics or Piketty's book. It's a voter-education problem more than an
economics problem. I wish Elizabeth Warren and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez well in their efforts
to explain their proposals. It seems a tall order, but it's just the kind of medicine we
need.
Thanks to Trump we, as a nation, got to see that even Federal workers can barely get by.
This was quite a revelation for many. There has long been a stigma in this country about
sharing the truly dismal state of one's economic affairs. It's why we've made so little
progress along the lines discussed here. It's also the reason once-middle class people place
themselves in a debt spiral, to compete with others who, unbeknownst to them, are doing
likewise. There will be much more discussion now of just how unequal and insecure this
society is. The powers that be have tried to muffle the conversation for long enough. And
kudos to Wilbur Ross for opening his fat mouth and provoking everyone's ire!
@dajoebabe Another sign that ours is "a system that is the only one in the world where
such vast sums can be accumulated with so little being required in return" is the way foreign
capital is swamping our property markets because people from un-free countries are trying to
buy access to the rule of law. There aren't that many places in the world for the rich to
flee where public infrastructure and the rights of citizenship are quite as robust as here in
the US.
@Ana Luisa Amen!! Very well said. I hope you're correct in projecting that the U.S. "will
finally become an entirely civilized country too." I fear that the 'Kochtopus' will strangle
the initiatives proposed by Warren and other progressives before they can be enacted. But I
won't roll over and give up. Dr. Krugman's columns and the comments from others such as
yourself inspire me to continue to push back against the Repubs and support candidates such
as Sen. Warren. Bravo Zulu to you and all the other NYT readers who speak up to state that
the United States can strive to be the shining example of equality and fairness that does
truly function to promote governance that works for the common good of ALL U.S.
citizens.
Dr. Krugman uses the argument of "marginal utility value" as the crux of one of his
statements. Marginal utility, briefly described, is the value one might put on he first
milkshake he's had in years. Probably very high. But what about the 10th milkshake in the
same day? ("Yuck" would do nicely.) So it is with "the second $50 million", as Dr. Krugman
argues. Quite right. After a given point - depending on the individual - wealth ceases to
play an important part in one's life. Would a billionaire miss a million?... one thousandth
of his net worth? Hardly. But when arguing such a point, beware the Slippery Slope argument
(a classic fallacy). "Yeah, maybe just a million today; but tomorrow? Maybe TEN
million!!
"Taxing the superrich is an idea whose time has come -- again." Let's hope Democrats have
their ducks in a row with this legislation when they regain the presidency and full control
of Congress in 2020. And if we want to get even more radical with the "swollen" wealthy, we
could rescind their recent trillion-dollar tax cut. Perhaps that will start acclimating them
to what needs to be our new normal. We should consider cuts to our bloated defense budget as
well. We can use all of this money to shore up Social Security and Medicare, in addition to
Medicaid, and to promote more affordable public education, infrastructure to fight climate
change, and universal health care. This additional revenue is not just something we should
see as a windfall for society. In the end, it may prove to be what saves what's left of our
society.
@Mike Rowe The only people that this would effect are the people who can't afford lawyers
and accountants. I have been audited twice. Both times it turned out the government owed me
money, but the money I was owed, was eaten up because I had to pay and accountant to defend
me. Trump still has not put forward his tax documents, do you really think that adding a few
more IRS agents would change that.
@Orthoducks Let's be honest: every society that has taken away the wealth of individuals
and handed it to the government to allocate has been ruled by tyrants and has reduced their
citizenry to penury at the point of a gun. Wealthy people reinvest their money in economic
ventures that grow their wealth, which generates greater productivity while creating jobs and
wealth for the society. If there is too much concentration of wealth (there is), let's tax it
back down, but don't ever suggest that we should just take all the money from individuals
because we can. That's the route Lenin and Mao went down; I thought we had learned that
lesson.
Whether you agree with Warren's proposal or not it's a good thing that this issue is being
put out in the public domain because we've now reached the stage where income and wealth
inequality is eroding the effectiveness of the open and dynamic capitalist economy that we
all need. Some of the more perceptive of the super rich like Warren Buffett and Michael
Bloomberg have recognized this and the dangers it threatens. It was a problem recognized in
the 30's by J. M. Keynes speaking in America when he said "If the new problem of inequality
is not solved the existing order of society will become so discredited that wild, foolish and
destructive changes will become inevitable." It's worth remembering that Maduro and Chavez
before him were the products of the vast inequalities in Venezuelan society. And there are
plenty of other examples of a similar dynamic at work.
The people who don't like a wealth tax are a) very wealthy, or b) corrupt politicians, or
c) pundits who like to sound like they know everything. Yes, tax the wealthy. Even Willie
Sutton could tell you that if you want money (tax revenue) go where it is. The time is right.
They can choose: higher taxes or the guillotine.
@Shiv Taxes were at this rate in the 50's and inequality was nowhere as bad as it is now.
Undertaxing Bezos and his ilk (and the way our tax system is now set up, generally), directs
money to the CEOs and other muckety mucks, not to their employees. Republicans seem to think
that there's a "natural" (as in, arising out of nature) situation where money goes to the
person who has "earned" it. That's simply not true. The economy is a construct, created by
law and custom. And right now, the law makes sure that Bezos gets a whole lot more than he
should be getting, while his hapless employees (the folks who do the actual work) get way
less than they should.
I have admired Warren since she entered the political spectator sport. She has a lot of
guts for a woman. I gathered from your essay that only 75,000 or so Americans hold as much
wealth as the lower 90 percent of the entire population of 320,000,000 Americans. Decades
have passed since Eisenhower rightly paid down the debt of the great war. In that time,
fairly dispersed wealth trickled up to a few who employed "Trickle Down" propaganda and
political manipulation, all too often agreed to, to reduce their tax burden thereby heaping
all responsibilities of maintaining the nation on everyone but the rich. "Trickle Down
Economics" was always a lie we all saw through. Party politics, bought and paid for, happily
accepted wealthy dollars in exchange for legislation outlined by the wealthys' lobbyists. The
reality has always been "Trickle Up" and "Trickle Out" economics as American wealth is
grossly concentrated at the top. I like the taxation plan as presented. It still leaves the
filthy rich, well, filthy rich. It started as our money they now have amassed. Decades of
lies and corruption justify any new taxes on the wealthy who need to be convinced their
absent patriotism should be reestablished by law. If the wealthy are going to "Crowd Source"
America, let's make them "Crowd Pleasers". It's a great way to keep the peace. We do want
peace, don't we?
@DJS Ummm, wealthy people, no matter how well meaning or even well-acting (and there are
many who are neither), do not (or should not) be in charge of infrastructure, public health,
national defense, public education and so on. As far as "helping needy people, who never see
it," I wonder what you are thinking. I assure you that the recipients of food stamps,
unemployment, social security, medicare and medicaid benefits certainly "see" it. As do the
rest of us when we have clean air and water (currently under attack by Republicans), safe air
flight (ditto), and well-maintained roads (also ditto).
@Registered Repub (Reply to your reply to FunkyIrishman) Could you please explain how
American workers can be simultaneously 30-40% more productive than Scandinavian workers, and
all American "socialists" (which for you seems to be a synonym with Democrats, and as a
consequence refers to the majority of the American people) "lazy" ... ? And of course America
hasn't a 40% higher productivity rate than Scandinavian countries. In 2015, the US ranked
merely fifth on the OECD's productivity list - after Luxemburg, Ireland, Norway and Belgium.
A US workers adds $68 per hour to the GDP, a Danish worker half a dollar less, and a Swedish
worker $9 dollars less. And maybe Americans "own more cars and live in bigger houses", but
Norwegians are FAR happier, as all studies show. Producing tons of money as a country's
highest ideal is clearly not the best way to have a happy, healthy and well-educated
population and economy that works for all citizens. And funny enough, in the US it's
precisely the party that loves to call itself "the party of values" that indeed
systematically sees money as its main value ... http://time.com/4621185/worker-productivity-countries
/
@Paul Rogers Agree except for abolishing propaganda, which offends the First Amendment.
Better to help others recognize political manipulation and reject irrational or emotional
appeals. Thanks for your reply.
It doesn't matter whether large majorities of Americans or economists or tax experts
support a wealth tax or higher marginal rates. The only poll that matters limits itself to
535 people, the members of the House and Senate. And the net worth of those 535 people is on
average 5 times larger than that of the rest of America. Fourteen have net worths larger than
the $50 million of the proposal. Will they vote to tax themselves more? Though the number may
be small, in a contentious matter and a highly partisan and divided body, every vote
matters.
Let's start simple: close the carried interest loophole. For all the talk of Obama being
about the working class, he didn't get this done. Hedge fund guys had his administration and
Dems lobbied up to prevent closing this. So it's not just the Republicans supporting the
oligarchy. Democrats are guilty too.
Us Americans need to stop seeing ourselves as temporarily embarrassed millionaires, that's
the problem. I don't care how we do it, either by raising rates, closing loopholes, or both,
but the 1%, the 0.1%, and the 0.01% need to take home less money. They don't "work harder"
than the rest of us, that's complete garbage. Maybe we pass a tiered law stipulating an
allowed pay ratio between the CEO and lowest level employee, based on either company size as
the number of people, or revenue, or some other formula. Or maybe we say you get a lower tax
rate if you meet that ratio, and higher taxes if you don't. I'm glad people are moving the
overton window though.
@Taz Obama was also a moderate Republican. This time, we need a liberal. Who was the last
president to be nearly universally popular? (Except with the mega-rich) FDR. And remember
what he said about his wealthy enemies? "I welcome their hatred!"
Existing US infrastructure is so degraded, the ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers)
estimates it will cost $2 trillion just to bring it back up to code. President Trump cut
taxes on the 1%, which will cost about that much in increased debt over ten years. Candidate
Trump floated the idea that this imminent infrastructure cost should be born by the 'little
people' via toll booths, as they schlep themselves to work and back each day just trying to
make their rent money. Americans need to realize something about our government: it costs
money, and that money is not in question. Someone is going to pay that bill: 'nothing is
certain but death and taxes'. As the infrastructure debate illustrates, we can either make
the wealthy pay that cost, or they will make us pay it. But somebody is going to pay it, of
that you can be sure. (Just a suggestion: that $2 trillion is just for delayed maintenance on
existing infrastructure. But that infrastructure was originally constructed, i.e. out of
nothing, back at a time when the maximum marginal income tax was over 90%).
Benjamin Franklin founded the first communally funded public hospital and library, and
Jefferson the the first communally funded public school. Both also touted the benefits of
capitalism, including Franklin in his autobiography, stressing self discipline and creativity
in business; and Jefferson famously said, paraphrasing here, that he 'admired industry and
abhorred slavery' while they touted science and technologies' advances and natural law.
Therefore, they believed in and instantiated a mixed economics plan for the future of the
nation, with both capitalist and socialist dimensions. This was over the objections and boos
of men of lesser ideals, at the time. But the founders became Founders, and the other men of
lesser ideals did not. Therefore, it is the ideals of the founders that should live on in our
country, not other ideals. We can all take a simple pride in the American Exceptionalism that
led Ben Franklin to maneuver against powerful loyalist-capitalists in the 1750's in
Pennsylvania colony, and found the first hospital in Philadelphia above their private
disbelief that it would ever work; the hospital would unquestioningly take in any and all
from off of the streets who needed assistance. The combined ideal vision of America's
founding fathers broke the mold of two-tiered monarchy capitalism, and established mixed
capitalism on the new plateau of democracy. There's no need to apologize, if we aim to
fulfill this vision in a now more pluralist America.
Simply: the USA has perhaps the largest set of overpaid, underperforming rich people the
world has ever seen. Yes, there are always rich people ... but ... at some point they realize
the only significant remaining goal is to make humankind ... well, more human. Teddy R and
Franklin R "got it", even Dwight. But certainly not Saint Ronald. Without implementation of
the Warren or other plans, we will let the rich destroy the fundamentals of society which
allowed them to become rich. Rich includes: law and order, free speech, little corruption
among police, ... children who will grow up and support the rich in their
dotage.
To me the current trend in concentration of income at the top looks like inflation. In
places like San Francisco you have to earn 7 digit incomes to be able to afford housing. In
response housing gets more expensive, and Google will have to increase your salary to make
your ends meet. So now houses will get more expensive... Of course, if you are a school
teacher, or a baker or a cashier at the supermarket, your goose is cooked. If a hedge fund
manager can afford to pay $200+ million for a penthouse where you used to live, you are going
to be homeless
The real justice of such a plan is that money could be made to move throughout the system
stimulating the economy and shared prosperity. What should be obvious to all and hopefully
will before the next election cycle is that the Dems are imaginatively searching for
solutions and coming up with great ideas.
@Baldwin - How about property tax? Tax on your same home over an over again, with the home
itself paid for with money that was already taxed. T'would be no worse than
that.
We have no hesitation in shaming those who get a dopamine rush from alcohol or from drugs
or from sex or (occasionally) from an obscene accumulation of power. But as the saying goes,
you can never be too rich or too thin. Well, that's a cultural meme not a Platonic truth, one
probably dating back to at least Freud (if not Augustine) who preferred we "sublimate" our
sexual lust for money/power lust because the latter is, at least theoretically, more
"productive" for society. Except when it isn't. And when dopamine (a/k/a/ greed) driven
plutocrats use their wealth to corrupt the system so that they can continue to accumulate
more wealth and power, it isn't. Neuter them.
It's time we ask ourselves this: What happens if we do nothing versus if we do something?
If we do nothing, we continue with a small group of family dynasties that owns everything,
whose primary commitment is only to amassing more wealth. We have a precedent for this in the
robber barons of the late 1800's. The outcome? They drove the U.S. economy off the cliff in
the 1920's. (Yes, simplified, but not much.) What happens if we do what Warren proposes -- or
something similar? More tax money to solve problems, and we need the money. We just gave
these people around $1.5 trillion in tax breaks, and the data clearly show they will not
trickle down on us. And we're not remotely addressing climate change or crumbling
infrastructure -- situations that will strain our social and economic capacity for perhaps a
century. But just as important, it would cap the capacity of 75,000 people to make all the de
facto decisions for our society. Democracy would be reinvigorated. Throw in the destruction
of Citizens United, and it would usher in a new era in America. Of course, it is guaranteed
that the ultra-rich, their super-rich pals, and the politicians they buy through Citizens
United will fight this tooth and nail. For them it would be: to the barricades! Just like
corporations, their loyalty is to themselves and their wealth, not to their
country.
Wealth Redistribution is only one of the four legs of the stool of an inclusive society.
Prof Krugman, AOC and Democrats would do well to expand the narrative to address right wing
concerns: 1. Effective government spending on public services that improve welfare and
national wealth and risk taking and knowledge generation (eg NASA) that the private sector
just wont do - root out inefficiencies in the system, ensure incentives for productivity are
maximized and keep operations lean and accountable to society. 2. Campaign finance reform:
mandate air time for election coverage as a public good and give parties public funds and
budget ceilings to ensure a level playing field. Also ensure redistricting makes all races
competitive scross party lines as the preeminent rule. Eliminate the electoral college and
moderately shift senate power to more populous states. 3. Equalise access to educational
opportunities by removing the link between geography and housing and education quality and
massively supporting early education programmes across the board. Improve educational
outcomes to ensure the majority of society is capable of critical thinking. 4. Redistribute
wealth and limit the power of elites to tilt the system in their favour: both in government
policy and in how the judicial system operates (no more a la carte legal representation
quality based on ability to pay).
@Michael Who says it will be changed? You? Progressive taxation is not seizing assets.
Without it a modern state cannot function. And the AMT came into existence because of the
efforts of people like Donald Trump to evade taxation.
Income inequality along with climate change are the two BIG issues that need to be
addressed. The rollback in the progressive income tax that began with Ronald Reagan needs to
be reversed. The proposals by Sen. Warren, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Steven Rattner in
today's Times need to be debated and carefully evaluated. But, there are related issues that
are relevant to this debate concerning how to cope with automation and artificial
intelligence that will dramatic effect the labor market for those still struggling for decent
paying jobs. Democrats must not lose sight of their base--blue-collar, lower- and
middle-class voters still struggling with wage stagnation and the loss of manufacturing jobs.
That's where Hillary Clinton lost the last election, and while Democrats may feel good about
taxing the rich, they must not forget the 99 plus percent who are still in need of
help.
I feel this is exactly what this country needs. The rich have become richer and seem to
demand more and more. Time to stop this incredible greed and put some of those dollars back
to work in the country. Hopefully all of the Dems will agree with this.
Excellent article and kudos to Elizabeth Warren. On top of her and AOC's proposals I would
add a 100% inheritance tax on estates over $1M. This isn't my idea but that of my favorite
law school professor: the taxee doesn't care because s/he's dead; any money passed on to
children is a complete windfall to them. Let's end the aristocracy.
The time has got to be ripe for these kinds of proposals. The primary source of
unhappiness in the working class throughout the western world is the feeling of being left
behind and not having their problems addressed. In the US we need to fix our crumbling
infrastructure, provide a livable minimum wage and universal health care. These goals can
easily be achieve by addressing the outrageous accumulation of wealth by the top 1%.
Implement Warren's plan, AOC's 70% tax, tax capital gains the same as income, and add a 1%
fee on all stock trades. The money the rich are hoarding needs to be invested in the
betterment of society. That would truly make America great again.
@Alice...Inflation has been low and stable for 20 years and quantitative easing has had no
effect on it, despite the forecasts of most right-wing economists. If you knew anything about
macroeconomics you would be aware that in the past some governments have had serious
struggles with the control of inflation.
It's a sad, very sad day, when in order to have a very brief but concrete idea about what
Warren just proposed, you have to read an op-ed, not a NYT article, as that article just
skips the very content of her speech and instead focuses on what most MSM constantly focus
on: a politician as an individual wanting a career in DC, and whether this or that will
advance or hurt that career (supposedly based not on policy but "likability"). MSM, I really
hope that this time you will do your job! That Trump and the lying GOP won the 2016 elections
is as much due to Fox News constant barrage of fake news as to MSM's tendency to
systematically silence the most relevant facts (most of the time not in order to distort the
truth, as Trump falsely claims, but simply because of their "small" concept of political
journalism, which often seems closer to a sports match report than to a way to build a truly
informed and engaged democratic civil society, even though that's precisely the crucial job
of the fourth branch of government, in a democracy).
@Linda Helping the poor seems to be your prescription for salvation. But what hope is
there for those who don't help the poor when they actually made and continue to make people
poor?
It's the T word that hangs people up. On any given day, the paper wealth of billionaires
can gain or lose one or two percent based on the fluctuations of the stock market. They
happily play the numbers to stabilize -- and hopefully improve -- their portfolios, but they
manage to take the lumps without having to alter their lavish lifestyles. They're fixated on
control, which they believe is stolen from them by big government. But in the long run, they
really don't feel the pain on a personal level. Let 'em be taxed.
Bully for Elizabeth Warren! Take the time to read or skim the engaging books she has
written about the economic plight of the American family---available on Amazon, and in your
local library.
If her bid for the nomination fails the winning candidate should commit to her being their
Treasury secretary. She knows how to reform and tame finance.
@Ana Luisa Hillary totally ignored the blue-collar voters in the Midwest "blue wall"
states and did not advocate for stronger unions. In fact, she never agreed with the
progressive proposal for a $15/hr. minimum wage. She was a centrist, establishment, Wall
Street candidate who picked a center-right running mate rather than uniting the party by
picking a progressive like Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio. The election NEVER should have been
close, but Clinton was out-of-touch with the working class and most Sanders progressives--and
it cost her.
@carlyle 145 This has nothing to do with globalism, and everything with the fact that for
too long, many people didn't vote, allowing the GOP to fire up their base with fake news and
as such force Democrats in DC to move more and more to the right, each time they had to
compromise with the GOP because "we the people" didn't give them the votes to control DC. And
in a democracy, ALL real, radical, lasting, democratic progress is step by step progress. So
as long as progressives don't see that Democrats' are their natural allies and simply wait
until someone comes along who claims to be able to single-handedly change everything
overnight, it's the lying GOP and their Big Money corruption that will continue to destroy
the country. Conclusion: stop "hunting for a leader to save us", in a democracy only "we the
people" can save us. So instead of standing at the sidelines yelling "not enough!" to those
fighting in the mud each time they managed to get us one step closer to the finish line,
start focusing on that finish line too, then roll up your sleeves and come standing in the
mud too, and then the next step forward will be taken much faster
"... This isn't about taxing wealth. It's about taxing power, privilege and greed. This isn't about punishing oligarchy. This is about saving democracy. ..."
"... The concentration of wealth parallels the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere: it is economic climate change with consequences equally as dire as global warming on all lifeforms. The challenge will be no less difficult, replete with a powerful lobby of deniers and greed-mongers ready for war against all threats to their power and position. Their battle cry is apres moi, le deluge -- as if taxing wealth and privilege is barbarians at the gate and the demise of civilization rather than curbing cannibals driven not by hunger but voracious greed. ..."
"... Likewise, the same majority now sees the rising tide of inequality and social dysfunction and what that means for the future as a global caste system condemns nearly all of us -- but mainly our progeny -- to slavery in servitude to our one percent masters. ..."
This isn't about taxing wealth. It's about taxing power, privilege and greed. This
isn't about punishing oligarchy. This is about saving democracy.
The concentration of wealth parallels the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere: it is economic climate change with consequences equally as dire as global warming
on all lifeforms. The challenge will be no less difficult, replete with a powerful lobby of
deniers and greed-mongers ready for war against all threats to their power and position.
Their battle cry is apres moi, le deluge -- as if taxing wealth and privilege is barbarians
at the gate and the demise of civilization rather than curbing cannibals driven not by hunger
but voracious greed.
Everywhere climate change deniers are being drowned out by a rational majority who now see
the signs of global warming in every weather report and understand what this means for their
children if we continue to emulate ostriches.
Likewise, the same majority now sees the rising tide of inequality and social
dysfunction and what that means for the future as a global caste system condemns nearly all
of us -- but mainly our progeny -- to slavery in servitude to our one percent
masters.
Elizabeth Warren is no nerd. She's our Joan of Arc. And it's up to us to make sure she
isn't burned alive by the dark lords as she rallies us to win back our country and our
future.
"... This reminds me of the gerontocrats of the Soviet Politburo in the worst stagnation years who had to appoint the likes of Chernenko to top positions. ..."
"... The one thing the Mr MAGA's administration has in common with the late Brezhevian Politburo is its total inability to get anything done. My wife refers to the folks in the White House (since Dubya came to power) as the " gang that couldn't shoot straight " and she is right (she always is!): they just can't really get anything done anymore – all their half-assed pseudo-successes are inevitably followed by embarrassing failures. ..."
Remember the almost universal reaction of horror when Bolton was appointed as National
Security Advisor? Well, apparently, either the Neocons completely missed that, which I doubt,
or they did what they always do and decided to double-down by retrieving Elliott Abrams from
storage and appointing him US Special Envoy to Venezuela. I mean, yes, of course, the Neocons
are stupid and sociopathic enough not to ever care about others, but in this case I think that
we are dealing with a "Skripal tactic": do something so ridiculously stupid and offensive that
it places all your vassals before a stark choice: either submit and pretend like you did not
notice or, alternatively, dare to say something and face with wrath of Uncle Shmuel (the
Neocon's version of Uncle Sam).
And it worked, in the name of "solidarity" or whatever else, the most faithful lackeys of
the Empire immediate fell in line behind the latest US aggression against a sovereign nation in
spite of the self-evident fact that this aggression violates every letter of the most sacred
principles of international law. This is exactly the same tactic as when they make you clean
toilets with a toothbrush or do push-ups in the mud during basic training: not only to
condition you to total obedience, but to make you publicly give up any semblance of
dignity.
...Finally, these appointments also show that the senior-Neocons are frightened and paranoid
as there are still plenty of very sharp junior-Neocon folks to chose from in the US, yet they
felt the need to get Abrams from conservation and place him in a key position in spite of the
strong smell of naphthalene emanating from him. This reminds me of the gerontocrats of the
Soviet Politburo in the worst stagnation years who had to appoint the likes of Chernenko to top
positions.
The one thing the Mr MAGA's administration has in common with the late Brezhevian
Politburo is its total inability to get anything done. My wife refers to the folks in the White
House (since Dubya came to power) as the " gang that couldn't shoot straight "
and she is right (she always is!): they just can't really get anything done anymore – all
their half-assed pseudo-successes are inevitably followed by embarrassing failures.
"... Why does everyone make Trump out to be a victim, poor ol Trump, he's being screwed by all those people he himself appointed, poor ol persecuted Trump. Sounds like our Jewish friends with all the victimization BS. ..."
"... I think Israel is just a capitalist creation, nothing to do with Jews, just a foothold in he middle east for Wall St to have a base to control the oil and gas there, they didn't create Israel until they discovered how much oil was there, and realized how much control over the world it would give them to control it. ..."
"... It is the love of money, the same thing the Bible warned us about. Imperialism/globalism is the latest stage of capitalism, that is what all of this is about, follow the money. ..."
I heartily dislike and find despicable the socialist government of Maduro, just as I did
Hugo Chavez when he was in power. I have some good friends there, one of whom was a student
of mine when I taught in Argentina many years ago, and he and his family resolutely oppose
Maduro. Those socialist leaders in Caracas are tin-pot dictator wannabees who have wrecked
the economy of that once wealthy country; and they have ridden roughshod over the
constitutional rights of the citizens. My hope has been that the people of Venezuela,
perhaps supported by elements in the army, would take action to rid the country of those
tyrants.
Hard to take this guy seriously when he spouts Fox News level propaganda.
Why does everyone make Trump out to be a victim, poor ol Trump, he's being screwed by
all those people he himself appointed, poor ol persecuted Trump. Sounds like our Jewish
friends with all the victimization BS.
Its clear that voting no longer works folks, this is an undemocratic and illegitimate
"government" we have here. We let them get away with killing JFK, RFK, MLK, Vietnam, we let
them get away with 9/11, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Syria. They've made a mess in Africa. All
the refugees into Europe, all the refugees from Latin America that have already come from CIA
crimes, more will come.
We wouldn't need a wall if Wall St would stop with their BS down there!
You can't just blame Jews, yes there are lots of Jews in Corporate America, bu t not all
of them are, and there are lots of Jews who speak out against this. We were doing this long
before Israel came into existence. You can't just blame everything one one group, I think
Israel/Zionist are responsible for a lot of BS, but you can't exclude CIA, Wall St,
Corporations, Banks, The MIC either. Its not just one group, its all of them. They're all
evil, they're imperialists and they're all capitalists.
I think Israel is just a capitalist creation, nothing to do with Jews, just a foothold
in he middle east for Wall St to have a base to control the oil and gas there, they didn't
create Israel until they discovered how much oil was there, and realized how much control
over the world it would give them to control it.
Those people moving to Israel are being played, just like the "Christian Zionists" here
are, its a cult. Most "Jews" are atheists anyhow, and it seems any ol greedy white guy can
claim to be a Jew. So how do you solve a "Jewish Problem" if anybody can claim to be a Jew? I
think solving the capitalist problem would be a little easier to enforce.
All of the shills can scream about communists, socialists and marxists all they want.
Capitalism is the problem always has been always will be. Its a murderous, immoral,
unsustainable system that encourages greed, it is a system who's driving force is maximizing
profits, and as such the State controlled or aligned with Corporations is the most advanced
form of capitalism because it is the most profitable. They're raping the shit out of us,
taking our money to fund their wars, so they can make more money while paying little to no
taxes at all. Everything, everyone here complains about is caused by CAPITALISM, but nobody
dares say it, they've been programmed since birth to think that way.
We should nationalize our oil and gas, instead of letting foreigners come in and steal it,
again paying little or no taxes on it, then selling the oil they took from our country back
to us. Russia and Venezuela do it, Libya did it, Iraq did it, and they used the money for the
people of the country, they didn't let the capitalists plunder their wealth like the traitors
running our country. We're AT LEAST $21 trillion in the hole now from this wonderful system
of ours, don't you think we should try something else? Duh!
It is the love of money, the same thing the Bible warned us about.
Imperialism/globalism is the latest stage of capitalism, that is what all of this is about,
follow the money. Just muh opinion
The opposition hates me. I can do no right. The
Trumptards blindly support me. I can do no wrong. There are not enough independent thinkers
to make a difference as the two main sides bitterly fight each other over every minute,
meaningless issue. I can pretty much do as I please without consequence ..like pay off all my
buddies and pander to the jews/globalist/elites.
I'd add: and by doing the last, I could cut a deal with the real TPTBs as to for what happens
after I leave White House.
New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy signed legislation on Thursday mandating that every school in
the state teach students about "the political, economic, and social contributions" of LGBTQ
people and people with disabilities.
The legislation, which will apply
starting in the 2020-21 school year, requires that the boards of education for middle and high
schools ensure that instructional materials, such as text books, include accurate portrayals of
the contributions made by LGBTQ people and those with disabilities.
"... This included "unprecedented steps going far beyond our obligations," Lavrov said, and noted that part of Washington's "systematic" attempts to undermine the treaty included "testing drones that matched the characteristics" of ground-based cruise missiles banned in the treaty, as well as installing "MK 41 launching systems for the defense shield in Europe that can be used to fire mid-range Tomahawk cruise missiles without any modification." ..."
"... Putin noted further in the midst of Lavrov's remarks, "This is a direct a violation of the INF." And Lavrov also added, "Such launchers have already been completed in Romania, more are scheduled to be put into service in Poland and Japan." ..."
"... Alarmingly, Putin concluded his remarks by saying Washington could be imperiling in the long term the landmark New START treaty, set to expire in 2021. ..."
The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) has effectively collapsed following the
US announcing Friday that it's suspending all obligations under the treaty. Predictably
Moscow's response has been swift, with President Vladimir Putin saying in a meeting with his
foreign and defense ministers that Russia will now pursue missile development previously banned
under its terms .
Putin said "ours will be a mirror response" in a tit-for-tat move that the Russian president
ultimately blames on Washington's years-long "systematic" undermining of the agreement. "Our US
partners say that they are ceasing their participation in the treaty, and we are doing the
same," the Russian president said . "They say that they are doing
research and testing [on new weapons] and we will do the same thing."
Crucially, however, he noted that there were no plans to deploy short and mid-range missiles
to Europe unless the US does it first -- a worst nightmare scenario that has rattled European
leaders ever since talk began from Trump that the 1987 treaty could be scrapped.
Putin still seemed to allow some degree space for last minute concessions as "still on the
table" possibly in line with the Trump administration's desire to modernize and update a new
treaty taking into account new technological and geopolitical realities, such as China's
ballistic missile capabilities.
"Let's wait until our partners mature sufficiently to hold a level, meaningful conversation
on this topic, which is extremely important for us, them, and the entire world," Putin said.
But also lashing out during the press conference that followed the meeting with top officials
Putin
described :
Over many years, we have repeatedly suggested staging new disarmament talks, on all types
of weapons. Over the last few years, we have seen our initiatives not supported. On the
contrary, pretexts are constantly sought to demolish the existing system of international
security .
Specifically he and FM Sergei Lavrov referenced not only Trump's threats to quit the
agreement, which heightened in December, but accusations leveled from Washington that the
Kremlin was in violation. The White House has now affirmed the bilateral historic agreement
signed by Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan will be suspended for 180 days. Lavrov insisted
that Moscow "attempted to do everything we could to rescue the treaty."
This included "unprecedented steps going far beyond our obligations," Lavrov said, and noted
that part of Washington's "systematic" attempts to undermine the treaty included "testing
drones that matched the characteristics" of ground-based cruise missiles banned in the treaty,
as well as installing "MK 41 launching systems for the defense shield in Europe that can be
used to fire mid-range Tomahawk cruise missiles without any modification."
Putin noted further in the midst of Lavrov's remarks, "This is a direct a violation of the
INF." And Lavrov also added, "Such launchers have already been completed in Romania, more are
scheduled to be put into service in Poland and Japan."
Alarmingly, Putin concluded his remarks by saying Washington could be imperiling in the long
term the landmark New START treaty, set to expire in 2021.
" as well as installing "MK 41 launching systems for the defense shield in Europe that can
be used to fire mid-range Tomahawk cruise missiles without any modification."
US trying to get from Russia top position first-response list and get Europe on that
position.
Neocons should be remembered as oldcons because their bag of tricks is so well known that
they don't fool anyone. Think about this Reagan era fossil who tries to arrange his little
coup in Venezuela and will fall flat on his face. Think also about these Pompeo and Bolton
who are so desperate that they didn't even spend the necessary time to learn the checkers
rules before trying to take on Putin in his favorite chess play. No really, the level of
mediocrity and the lack of strategy or even sheer preparedness of these dudes is so low that
they may even be hung by their own subordinates who can't even stand that stench of fool
play. Trump should be ashamed he hired these clowns to ride their one trick ponies while the
titanic goes down. History will not be kind with him.
Additionally, just last week the Russian Ministry of Defense invited foreign military
attachés and journalists to inspect the new Iskander 9M729 cruise missile. This is the
one that the US claims is in violation of the INF treaty. Representatives of the US and NATO
were invited and expected to be there, but they never showed up.
Interestingly, the 9M729 has a heavier warhead, and thus shorter range, than the older
9M728, which the US has not claimed violates the INF treaty. See it for yourself:
This is the one that the US claims is in violation of the INF treaty. Representatives of
the US and NATO were invited and expected to be there, but they never showed up .
About standard to ignore what doesn't fit the agenda.
Additionally, just last week the Russian Ministry of Defense invited foreign military
attachés and journalists to inspect the new Iskander 9M729 cruise missile. This is the
one that the US claims is in violation of the INF treaty. Representatives of the US and NATO
were invited and expected to be there, but they never showed up.
Interestingly, the 9M729 has a heavier warhead, and thus shorter range, than the older
9M728, which the US has not claimed violates the INF treaty. See it for yourself:
This is the one that the US claims is in violation of the INF treaty. Representatives of
the US and NATO were invited and expected to be there, but they never showed up .
About standard to ignore what doesn't fit the agenda.
He called
Warren's wealth tax proposal "ridiculous" and Harris'
single-payer health care plan "not American," while also saying "we can't afford" debt-free
college, a plank likely to end up in many candidates' platforms.
"What's 'ridiculous' is billionaires who think they can buy the presidency to keep the
system rigged for themselves while opportunity slips away for everyone else," Warren fired back on
Twitter.
Bill Burton, a former deputy press secretary in the Obama White House who is now working for
Schultz, told NBC News that his boss anticipated there would be "immediate vigorous debate
about whether this is a good idea."
"... The humble-petit-bourgeois dream is not a bad one, and seems realistic if globalist-oligarch forces are kept in check. Europe has shown this is workable, with a number of societies over decades, with essentially zero poverty amongst legal residents. But the wrecking ball has been brought to that. ..."
"... And perhaps the contentedness of so many Europeans for so long, has left them weakened in spirit, and vulnerable to all the propaganda and manipulations now being used to destroy what they have had. Perhaps it's just one more round of the famous cycle ..."
Populism by itself cannot hold together for a lack of common values. However, Christian
Populism can hold the long road by emphasising the common values of French Christians and
European Christians.
Globalist mass-migration theology was an obvious attempt to suppress or replace common
European Christian values. In direct opposition to the Globalist screed -- Christian
Populists are rising up in France, Poland, Hungary, Italy, Austria, and elsewhere. All with a
common, unifying Christian cause and true European Values.
This movement is different from those that have come before. In the past, Anti-Christian,
Leftist, Socialism has managed to hijack Populist efforts. Here the Christian backbone of the
movement prevents that fate.
It's not true that people as a whole are driven by endless greed and 'bottomless human
desire'.
In general, people understand the limits of the world, and the mass of commoners merely
want something small and safe a nice little home, the ability to raise a family, a safe
neighbourhood and decent schools, no worries about medical care – and stability in all
of this, knowing that their little petit bourgeois lives will not be undermined or destroyed.
That is it.
There may be a little 'dreaming' about wealth and expensive toys, cars, homes, apparel,
but that is not very 'driven'. People are overall content with something humble, a safe,
stable little corner, having 'enough' and no worries.
The problem is that people are not given this, they don't have their stable little corner
in security, they see and watch what little they have being undermined. Oligarchs demand
'more', sponsoring progressive impoverishment as they extract more profit; as well as seeking
control by sponsoring social turmoil, in part via waves of invited arrivals who create great
difficulties for humble working class lives and stability.
The humble-petit-bourgeois dream is not a bad one, and seems realistic if
globalist-oligarch forces are kept in check. Europe has shown this is workable, with a number
of societies over decades, with essentially zero poverty amongst legal residents. But the
wrecking ball has been brought to that.
And perhaps the contentedness of so many Europeans for so long, has left them weakened
in spirit, and vulnerable to all the propaganda and manipulations now being used to destroy
what they have had. Perhaps it's just one more round of the famous cycle
Hard times make strong people
Strong people make good times
Good times make weak people
Weak people make hard times
Everybody is analyzing analyzing ..and nobody is coming out in the end with solution
not even with the hint of solution.
Everything is becoming so superficial, Speeches of politicians are totally superficial now.
News station propagate superficiality.
Accusations against Trump supporters are examples of superficiality.
..
We are living in abstract world, There is no more reality.
..
And I am net even talking about comments here.
We left the reality so far behind that if we look back we do not even see it.
Everybody is analyzing analyzing ..and nobody is coming out in the end with solution
not even with the hint of solution.
Everything is becoming so superficial, Speeches of politicians are totally superficial now.
News station propagate superficiality.
Accusations against Trump supporters are examples of superficiality.
..
We are living in abstract world, There is no more reality.
..
And I am net even talking about comments here.
We left the reality so far behind that if we look back we do not even see it.
@anon A lot of truth in what you say. Personally, I'm ashamed to admit that I bought into
the 'Red peril' nonsense when I was young. When leftists–yeah, back then it was the
leftists–tried to warn us that the elites were going to bust the unions, export jobs and
roll-out 'free trade', I didn't believe them. I actually couldn't then imagine that any
non-communist would be so diabolical! I was a pretty naïve kid, all in all. But then, I
guess most kids by nature are.
I detect more than a whiff of National Review in this article. How come whenever Joe
Blow (or Jacques Bonhomme) wants something essential like healthcare, transportation or an
affordable dwelling, he is denounced as 'greedy' for demanding a bunch of 'gibmedats', but when
the big multi-national corporations want another free-trade treaty or another tax cut, this is
labelled 'progress'?
I guess that's why I just can't get into conservatism.
All of this actually helps the EU, which is not a globalist project but a regionalist
alternative to globalism. Globalism was imposed on a very reluctant EU in the 1980s by a then
hyperdominant US (I'm old enough to remember!) with Margaret Thatcher acting as an American
Trojan horse within the EU. It has never worked precisely because it contradicts the inherent
regionalist logic that underlies the whole idea of European integration.
Thus, the more the US globalist project goes under, the more the EU and similar regionalist
projects in other parts of the world come to the fore.
Just as Trumpmania spawned the pro-US and pro-globalist Brexiteers in the summer of 2016,
Trump's bull in a china shop blundering and the self-destruction of American power that has
entailed has empowered the various protest movements we've seen in Europe, none of which are
calling for the withdrawal of their countries from the EU.
People instinctively sense that Trump has defeated the notorious "TINA" argument, which in
Europe meant "the US won't let us do anything else". The ongoing collapse of American power
makes for a very turbulent and unstable situation in the world but fundamentally, we're all on
the right track. For European integration, that doesn't mean collapse but a return to the
original post-WWII project, designed to allow us to have our respective nationalisms without
killing each other at regular intervals.
That concept is so alien to the American experience that it is unsurprising that Americans
have difficulty in understanding it. Americans need to stop lumping themselves together with
Europeans and calling us all "Westerners".
@obwandiyag Contrary to obwandiyag, Durocher came over to me as the sort of sour
conservative who can't deliver goods for the people and therefore reflects that, well, people
oughtn't to demand so much goods.
Well, both kinds, the libertarian and the sour conservative, have a certain disregard for the
average guy.
The average guy is by no means crying "me,me,me" all the time and he doesn't demand the best
and the most of everything. Also, he is quite prepared too work for life, if his work is within
his range of capabilities and if it doesn't develop into a kind of modern slave labour.
But he sees, and reads, that technology improves which means that life should become easier
not more difficult.
And he too often sees that in fact he has to live worse than his father – or, if he is
the father, he sees that his sons will live worse than he. And he asks why. And the media can
give no honest explanation. (Nor can Durocher.)
In the " west " , the working people are extracted to the last cent with the all the locals IRS
and varied taxes . This surplus goes to pay faraonic governement bureaucracies which live on
the taxpayers and humiliate them , goes to subvention tax free oligarchs , and goes to
subvention all kind of stupid utopias and a wide array of social bums national and foreign .
They have killed the hen of the golden eggs . The CCCP fell in the 1990`s , our EUUSACCCP will
fall in the 2020`s ?
By the way will the Cesar of the western Roman Empire Trumpo Maximo order you Microncito
Napoleonis to go away like he is doing with his rebelius consul Maduro Petrolero ? After all
Microncito is very mean with his subdits , and after all he is not supported by the Cesar of
the eastern Roman Empire Putinos Bizantinii like Maduro Petrolero is , it would be an easy coup
, and very popular .
@Jewish minds Trump Zionism. Completely agree on "representative" democracy being a sham,
and on the feasibility and great importance of direct democracy. Realistically, though, one
still needs legal specialists who can draft workable laws and ensure their compatibility with
existing laws and constitutions. Some sort of hybrid system – a lawmaking institution, be
it elected or appointed – with oversight and ultimate arbitration by the citizens will
probably work better in practice.
Probably just as important is the media – the kind of oligarchic concentration we have
right now in the mass media is going to interfere with any kind of democracy, however much
improved over the current dysfunctional and discredited system.
I'll tell you what the average Joe Blow(Yellow Vest)wants, and it is not just more "Shiny
stuff".
1) He/She wants to be left alone. H/S is sick of breaking some law every time H/S merely
sets foot out of their house. Police forces have become nothing more than revenue sources for
the ever growing police state and have absolutely nothing to do with protecting the common man.
Pulling a cell phone out of your pocket at the wrong time is enough to get you killed by tyrant
with a badge.
2) H/S wants to be able to make enough money to raise a family and live comfortably. H/S is
sick of watching the top 1% steal everything that is not nailed down through such scams as
fractional reserve banking and stock market swindles. As the old saying goes: Give a man a gun
and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world.
3)H/S wants a REAL form "affirmative action", where every man/woman is chosen for their
ability not the color of their skin or their ethnicity. A world where an an individual is
judged on their ability and nothing more.
4) H/S wants to be safe in their neighborhoods as they watch them being flooded by
uncivilized and criminal immigrants. All the while his and hers own government is confiscating
their means of self protection through such things as gun control.
5) H/S is sick of watching programs such as Social Security and Medicare being bled dry by
people who have never contributed a dime to such programs, while H/S has contributed to these
programs their entire working lives.
6)H/S is sick of these never ending wars, which are started but never fought by the men in
suits. They are tired of watching the blood suckers of war stealing not only the treasure of
their country, but the very lives of their sons and daughters. All they are saying is give
peace a chance.
So you see, it is much more than a bunch of whiny socialist wanting more free stuff.
I detect more than a whiff of National Review in this article.
Yeah. You could have replaced the byline with any one of Conservative, Inc.'s generic hack
writers and other than Durocher's improved erudition, nobody would have known the
difference.
@Michael Kenny I agree . We europeans are not " westeners " ( " occidentales " , "
occidentaux " ) ,we are just europeans , greco-roman europeans .
To call western europeans " westeners " is an English fraud , followed by the US , made to
isolate Russia from the rest of Europe and preventing the formation of a strong continental
Europe from Lisbon to Vladivostok .
We europeans , produced the greco-roman culture , the Christian culture , we consider
ourselves the land of Christian and greco-roman civilization . We consider ourselves the
fathers of most of the Americas .
For us ,europeans , at least for old ones , the " westeners " were the half mexican people
from Texas to California , the cowboys , the vaqueros . And the US easteners were the yankees
.
We always liked the cowboys , the soul of north America , the roots of north America , and
we always felt some uneasiness and distrust of the yankees , those excentric , warmonger ,
greedy , rootless ex-europeans .
All this shows the limits both of official Europeanism and short-sighted demotic populism.
The goal of both is to distract the French from their real problems, namely their spiritual
and demographic collapse. The EU as such is not the source, or even a significant cause, of
France's problems.
Germany passes immigration law to lure non-EU skilled workers . It is silly to call for
cohesion unless you halt immigration and have the strength to sacrifice for that end. France is
much further down the road to dissolution than they are over the Rhine. Germany has not
suffered much so mar, they can take far more immigration than France. Germany' business class
has reasons for increasing immigration into Germany, which is becoming ever more powerful
though building up its economic strength by abandoning ll nuclear capacity and defence against
other countries, and keeping labour costs low–by any means necessary. The USA is turning
away from defending Germany (which tried to claim the costs of it taking million refugees
should be counted as a defence contribution). For now, Germany thinks it has enough cohesion in
reserve to sacrifice some to building up its economic strength and productive capacity in
particular. In the EU, France will be subjected to German priorities.
The troubles that our society is experiencing are also sometimes due and related to the
fact that too many of our fellow citizens believe that they can earn without effort . . .
It is comparative. Immigrants, especially illegal immigrants and refugees, come from
countries where if you don't work you starve. But those countries lack the flexibility
conferred by the gentrified, relaxed and complex societies of Europe.
Going all out rather than tepidly for native demographic strength is probably a bad idea,
because we don't know what national or personal qualities are going to be needed to cope with
the unexpected type of challenges that will certainly be posed in our future.
@Johnny Walker Read You are essentially right, but some of your points speak more to
America than France. In particular, police tends to be a lot less trigger-happy and generally
more lenient in France. Considering the scale of the French protests, I would say overall the
number of people who got hurt by police is very low. I even suspect that the few really bad
cases were committed not by regular police but by special agents provocateurs, trying to incite
violence in order to create a pretext for cracking down.
Amusing anecdote – I spent a couple of months in Paris a goodish number of years ago.
One French guy told me that he was stopped while driving drunk by police. He explained to them,
"it is the last night before I will be thirty years old." Police told him, "o.k., you be
careful now while driving home" and let him go.
With a monetary system based on debt, and the counterfeiting and issuance of money privately
controlled, it was inevitable that globalization and the elimination of state sovereignty would
result. Global financial capitalism is the maximizing of profit for private gain and the
socialization of losses by the state. Although, nation-states are now nothing more than
subsidiaries of the global banking cartel. As debt levels grow well beyond the ability of
states to service, let alone repay, the banking cartel need seamless access to other nation's
resources to keep the ponzi going – hence the unified global banking cartel, always
acting in concert.
The counterfeiting racket is quite ingenious. The public demanding more and more state
subsidies to ensure their standards of living, as high paying jobs disappear, never to return,
give the political class free rein to borrow well beyond tax levels, or their ability to ever
repay. Of course, there isn't sufficient savings to fund this level of borrowing on a global
scale (public and private) so it must be manufactured, or more bluntly, counterfeited. The
banking cartel then takes it's skim off the top in fees, seniorage, and interest. Over time,
this enormous skim has allowed them to buy whatever, and whomever, they want.
We live in an age of money illusion, where the enormous amount of phony money has corrupted
every aspect of society, and disguises late-stage, economic collapse. It's just as likely the
the global economy has been going nowhere in the last ten years but we can't tell because GDP,
being a measure of money transactions, presents a false picture of growth, disguised by the
enormous quantities of money counterfeited over the decade, and indeed since Mr. Greenspan took
the helm at the Fed.
It has been very successful, however, in inflating all asset classes, other than commodities
(controlled by futures derivatives trading), to increase collateral for even more debt
issuance. Of course, all these assets are tightly controlled by the counterfeiters.
Unfortunately, we have reached a point where even interest can't be paid, let alone principle.
And the underlying asset values look to be poised for collapse. Counterfeiting more money, ie.
QE, will most certainly be redeployed, but should result in collapsing currencies around the
globe, as all are in the same boat.
In effect, the western world has created a neo-feudal order, with money counterfeiters being
the overlords, rather than the land-holding thugs of the past.
A rather sad piece from someone not quite au fait with current thinking though understandable
under the circumstances.
Politics today is no longer of the 'left' or the 'right', but of globalism or nationalism. Yes,
groups like Antifa cling to the old while supporting the fascist Establishment with fascist
action. Odd lot those people.
Essentially you can't have a just society where usuary, share dealing and currency speculation
take place. The termites that practice this sort of lifestyle need to be given a spade to dig
the earth and grow their own veggies!
And democracy is just a smoke screen permitting special interest groups to over ride the
popular consensus. To have it clarified by a popular vote one way or the other is a good idea,
but can only work where the local culture supports the concept as in Switzerland, as opposed to
California where it doesn't really work properly, since the culture is alien to that sort of
concept.
Old man Le Pen's daughter is a wiley old solicitor that speaks like a fisherman's wife. The old
man won't be bothered about what has happened to his party, though it is surprising things have
stagnated a bit for National Rally.
The EU should not have expanded in to Eastern Europe and it should never have permitted the
sort of third rate politicians such as Junkers, Moderini, the Kinnocks to have the power and
the gravy they have got. The ultimate weakness is having Rothschild control all the banks and
operate his money laundering business in the City of London. The EU is just another scam and
the 520 million people in the EU are sick of it.
If you think the US is a poisoned chalice, the EU by comparison drank the Coudenhove-Calergi
poison fifty years ago and is just about to go tits up and expire. Immigrants or no immigrants,
the Austro-Japanese Richard Coudenhove-Calergi brand of pure poison has destroyed everything of
worth in Europe.
This writer touches on the edges of the truth without actually pointing a finger at the cause:
greed through usuary, share dealing and currency speculation. Until you deal with this cancer
and the termites that promote it you will never find an answer.
"... My 95 year old aunt here in NL lived thru the NAZI occupation. She said its sad that the nice decent Americans of 1945 have now become like the people we fought. ..."
The launch of INSTEX -- "Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges" -- by France, Germany, and the UK
this week
to allow "legitimate trade" with Iran, or rather effectively sidestep US sanctions and bypass SWIFT after Washington was able
to pressure the Belgium-based financial messaging service to cut off the access of Iranian banks last year, may be too little too
late to salvage the Iran nuclear deal .
Tehran will only immediately press that more than just the current "limited humanitarian" and medical goods can be purchased on
the system, in accordance with fulfilling the EU's end of the 2015 JCPOA -- something which EU officials have promised while saying
INSTEX will be "expansive" -- while European companies will likely continue to stay away for fear of retribution from Washington,
which has stated it's "closely following" reports of the payment vehicle while reiterating attempts to sidestep sanctions will "risk
severe consequences" .
As a couple of prominent Iranian academics
told Al Jazeera this week: "If [the mechanism] will permanently be restricted to solely humanitarian trade, it will be apparent
that Europe will have failed to live up to its end of the bargain for Iran ," said political analyst Mohammad Ali Shabani. And another,
Foad Izadi, professor at the University of Tehran, echoed what is a common sentiment among Iran's leaders: "I don't think the EU
is either willing or able to stand up to Trump's threat," and continued, "The EU is not taking the nuclear deal seriously and it's
not taking any action to prove to Iran otherwise... People are running out of patience."
But Iranian leadership
welcomed the new mechanism as merely a small first step: "It is a first step taken by the European side... We hope it will cover
all goods and items," Iranian Deputy FM Abbas Araqchi told state TV, referencing EU promises to stick to its end of the nuclear deal.
The European side also acknowledged it as a precondition to keeping the nuclear deal alive, which EU leaders sea as vital to their
security and strategic interests : "We're making clear that we didn't just talk about keeping the nuclear deal with Iran alive, but
now we're creating a possibility to conduct business transactions," German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas
told reporters on
Thursday . "This is a precondition for us to meet the obligations we entered into in order to demand from Iran that it doesn't
begin military uranium enrichment," Maas said.
What is INSTEX?
A "special purpose vehicle" that will allow European businesses to trade with Iran, despite strict US sanctions.
According to media reports, INSTEX will be based in Paris and will be managed by German banking expert Per Fischer, a former
manager at Commerzbank. The UK will head the supervisory board.
The European side intends to use the channel initially only to sell food, medicine and medical devices in Iran. However,
it will be possible to expand it in the future. --
DW.com
Technically US sanctions allow some limited humanitarian trade and limited goods; however the White House's "maximum pressure"
campaign on Iran has still scared away European giants like Seimens, Maersk, Total, Daimler, Peugeot, Renault, and others.
This brings up the central question of whether skittish European countries will actually return to doing business with Iran, the
entire purpose on which the new mechanism rests. The dilemma was summarized at the start of this week by outspoken Iran hawk Sen.
Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), who told the AP
"The choice is whether to do business with Iran or the United States." He warned, "I hope our European allies choose wisely."
Thus far a number of analysts and observers have remained far less optimistic than the European sponsors of INSTEX. One particular
interview with geopolitical analyst and journalist Luc Rivet, cited in Russian media, outlines
the likelihood for failure of the new payment
vehicle : "I don't know what companies will make use of that mechanism to sell to Iran," Rivet said, noting that countries still
consider it "dangerous" to be caught working with Iran.
Addressing the current restriction of INSTEX facilitating medical and pharmaceutical goods transactions, he continued:
Who produces this equipment? You think that Siemens will sell to Iran? Never, because they sell to America many other things
as well And Siemens is afraid of losing the American market.
No matter if a handful of companies resume or continue business with Iran he explained that an "incredible number of companies"
won't. He added: "It's much easier for Chinese and Russian companies to make deals with Iran. The Europeans are scared in an incredible
way. The companies are afraid by ricochet of being in the eye of the storm with the Americans."
He concluded, "That's very dangerous for European companies," and repeated, "I don't know anybody who will dare to go with this
Instex system."
And the New York Times in asking the same question --
But Will Anyone Use
It? -- concludes similarly that "given that most large companies have significant business in the United States, very few --
if any -- are likely to use the trading mechanism for fear of incurring Washington's wrath."
However, the test will be whether or not a steady trickle of small companies gives way to bigger companies. The NYT report
continues :
But the financial mechanism could make it easier for smaller companies with no exposure in the United States to trade with
Iran and could promote trade in medicine and food, which are not subject to sanctions. European diplomats say that, in the beginning,
the concentration will be on goods that are permitted by Washington, to avoid an early confrontation .
But much could also depend on just how fierce the White House reaction will be. If the past months' Trump administration rhetoric
is any indicator, it will keep large companies scared and on the sidelines.
Europe has had double the tariffs on American cars than we had for theirs. It's time for us to quadruple the tariff on European
cars, to make up for the tariff imbalance that Europe has taken advantage of for decades.
Before World War II the question was, "Who will stand up to the demands of Germany?" Now the question is, "Who will stand up
to the demands of the United States?" It is clear that as far as means and methods are concerned Washington flies the swastika.
History has come full circle.
The following quote from J. R. R. Tolkien makes the point, "Always after a defeat and a respite," says Gandalf, "the shadow
takes another shape and grows again." The irony of our times is that the shadow has moved from Germany to the US.
Consternation and craven refusal to confront the reality of our times is again in vogue. We are walking towards madness crying,
"Let the other fellow fix this!"
My 95 year old aunt here in NL lived thru the NAZI occupation. She said its sad that the nice decent Americans of 1945
have now become like the people we fought.
"... UN should be probing Washington and allies for regime-change crimes Identical condemnations from the US and allies and the synchronicity show that Venezuela is being targeted for regime change in a concerted plot led by Washington. ..."
"... It is so disappointing that Americans yet to come to realization that this criminal Jewish Mafia does not standing at the end of the old republic. He is DEEPLY involved, but his STYLE is different. He kills and terrorize the same as Regan, Carter, Clinton, Bush, Obama who have killed millions of people. His sanction is the KILLING MACHINE to topple governments TO STEAL THEIR RESOURCES FOR THE DUMMIES. I have NO respect for the liars who are trying to paint a criminal as someone 'standing against' the deep state. TRUMP IS PART OF THE DEEP STATE, ONLY DUMMIES DO NOT GET IT. ..."
"... No matter the situation in Venezuela, whatever the US government and media are saying is just hostile propaganda as they couldn't give a rat's ass about the people living there. The Libyan people were doing well out of their oil, as were the Iraqis, living in reasonable wealth and security, and look at them now after the US decided to meddle in their affairs. Now after all that, even if something the US government says may be true, why believe it? How many times do you need to be fooled to stop being a fool? ..."
"... The nuttiest member of the Trump administration is UN Ambassador Nikki Haley. Her latest neo-nazi stunt was to join protestors last week calling for the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Venezuela. She grabbed a megaphone at a tiny New York rally and told the few "protesters" (organized by our CIA) to say the USA is working to overthrow their President. This was so bizarre that our corporate media refused to report it. ..."
"... Why does everyone make Trump out to be a victim, poor ol Trump, he's being screwed by all those people he himself appointed, poor ol persecuted Trump. Sounds like our Jewish friends with all the victimization BS. ..."
"... By now Trump must be near bat shit crazy. Imagine hundreds of vampires descending on every exposed artery and vein. Does he have a chance in 2020? Not with the people who are around him today ..."
"... Regardless of what the MSM reports, the population is fed-up with all the malarkey, and the same old faces. ..."
"... If he can he should issue an executive order allowing important items like immigration to go directly to public referendum, by passing congress. We're tired of idiots with personal grudges holding our President hostage. Stern times calls for sterner measures. ..."
"... Juan Guaidó is the product of a decade-long project overseen by Washington's elite regime change trainers. While posing as a champion of democracy, he has spent years at the forefront of a violent campaign of destabilization. ..."
Agent76 says:
January 30, 2019 at 7:21 pm GMT 100 Words Jan 24, 2019 Catastrophic Consequences What's Really Happening in Venezuela
In this video, we give you the latest breaking news on the current situation in Venezuela with Maduro, the election, and Trump's
response.
UN should be probing Washington and allies for regime-change crimes Identical condemnations from the US and allies and the
synchronicity show that Venezuela is being targeted for regime change in a concerted plot led by Washington.
@Sergey Krieger Negotiations are not necessarily a sign of weakness. However, Maduro should negotiate with the puppet masters,
not with the puppet. I don't think that killing that pathetic Guaido is a good strategy: you don't want to make a martyr out of
nonentity.
And, in effect, I wish for the success of Juan Guaido in his struggle with Maduro, and I support American diplomatic and
economic pressure on Maduro to step down. After all, Venezuela is in our back yard with huge oil reserves.
FUCK YOU! Venezuela is not "our" back yard. And the oil does not belong to "us".
[Donald Trump, for all that and for his various faults and miscues, is in reality the only thing standing in the way of the end
of the old republic. ]
It is so disappointing that Americans yet to come to realization that this criminal Jewish Mafia does not standing at the
end of the old republic. He is DEEPLY involved, but his STYLE is different. He kills and terrorize the same as Regan, Carter,
Clinton, Bush, Obama who have killed millions of people. His sanction is the KILLING MACHINE to topple governments TO STEAL THEIR
RESOURCES FOR THE DUMMIES. I have NO respect for the liars who are trying to paint a criminal as someone 'standing against' the
deep state. TRUMP IS PART OF THE DEEP STATE, ONLY DUMMIES DO NOT GET IT.
The ignorant Jewish mafia 'president' IS MORE DANGEROUS because he like his 'advisors' is totally ILLITERATE. It is a family
business dummies.
Are dummies going to hold petty people like Bolton who lie to get money from MEK to buy a new suit and new shoes, is responsible
for the policy of the Trump regime where he wages WARS, economic sanction, to starve children to surrender? Then NO ONE Trusts
you. MEK people are not more than 20, but are funded by the US colony, Saudi Arabia where MBS transfers money to the Jewish mafia
family funding US wars.
Maduro has EVERY SINGLE RIGHT to arrest Juan Guiado, a gigolo who is taking orders from a US and an illiterate 'president',
where its dark history known to every living creature on earth. US has massacred millions of people in all continents including
Latin America.
Maduro has every single right to arrest him and put on trail and execute him as a traitor and an enemy of the state. How many
years the people in Venezuela should suffer for the US 'regime change' and its crimes against humanity in Venezuela to STEAL ITS
RESOURCES.
"So let me get this straight: The Russians brought America to its knees with a few facebook ads, but Uncle Sam's concerted and
ongoing efforts to overthrow governments around the world and interfere with elections is perfectly fine? Because democracy? Riiiiiiight."
:
[The last Venezuelan Presidential election was a joke. ]
YOU ARE A JOKE ZIONIST IDIOT.
The Making of Juan Guaidó: How the US Regime Change Laboratory Created Venezuela's Coup Leader
[Juan Guaidó is the product of a decade-long project overseen by Washington's elite regime change trainers. While posing as
a champion of democracy, he has spent years at the forefront of a violent campaign of destabilization.]
Illiterate Jewish Mafia 'president' must be kicked out of the office. Hands of Israel is all over the SELECTION.
The ignorant 'president' is MORE DANGEROUS THANT OTHER CRIMINAL US REGIMES because on top of being a criminal, he is ILLITERATE
as well.
[In 2009, the Generation 2007 youth activists staged their most provocative demonstration yet, dropping their pants on public
roads and aping the outrageous guerrilla theater tactics outlined by Gene Sharp in his regime change manuals.This far-right group
"gathered funds from a variety of US government sources, which allowed it to gain notoriety quickly as the hardline wing of opposition
street movements," according to academic George Ciccariello-Maher's book, "Building the Commune."
That year, Guaidó exposed himself to the public in another way, founding a political party to capture the anti-Chavez energy
his Generation 2007 had cultivated.]
@By-tor See, this is the typical lie. Socialism fails, so the socialist blames the outside wrecker for causing the problem.
If Moscow freezes, then it is because of the wreckers. If Moscow starves, then it is because of the wreckers.
If Venezuela collapses, then it is because of "sanctions," not the failure of the new socialist economy.
America has the right to lock anyone out of its economy that it wants, for whatever reasons. This should not matter because
that nation can still trade with the rest of the world, like China. Venezuela could get everything it wants by simply selling
oil to China in exchange for goods. The problem is, there is not enough oil production to do so and other nations are reluctant
to replace American investment for fear of losing their assets as well.
Think about how wrong-headed the Chavez policy has been. If the Venezuelans have problems with their local ruling class and
want to get rid of them fine do so. But, why go after the American oil company? The Americans don't care who rules Venezuela as
long as their contracts are honored. Chavez could have then been a true socialist an allocate a greater dividend to Venezuelans
that was previously being hoarded by the ruling class an arrangement similar to what Alaskans have with American oil companies.
But no there was an immediate seizure of assets because the only purpose of socialism is to make the socialist leaders rich.
And Chavez and Maduro became very rich indeed.
@AnonFromTN I would happily martyr gorbachov , Yeltsin and all their gang. I think everybody would have been far better of
then. Same is applied to the puppet. Nikolai II was martyred and things got a lot better. What is important is winning and final
outcome, while making some martyrs in the process.
@Harold Smith Trump's personnel picks are mind-boggling. I cannot see how he disapproves Eliot Abrams for deputy SoS with
one breath, then blandly allows Pompeo to appoint him an envoy to a trouble-spot. Bolton, Pompeo, Goldberg et al.
NEOCON America does not want Russian bombers in South America.
Real America doesn't give a f*ck. Bombers are so last century, might as well put up machine-gun equipped Union Pacific Big
Boys to make it marginally more steampunk and become a real danger for the USA.
@Tyrion 2 There is not a single complaint here that did not exist before the election or before Pres Chavez.
There are poor management leaders all over the globe. That';s their business. Hey we have some right here in the US I take
it your solution is a military coup or better yet a coup fostered by the EU or the OAS, or maybe ASEAN or SDG . . .
It would be nice if someone simply asked Trump why it is he originally wanted to get along with Russia and pull out of the middle
east and generally opposed the "neoconservative" approach and now seems to be hiring neocons and doing what they want. Is he trying
to placate Sheldon Adelson and Adelson's lackeys, or what? I don't know of his being asked about this directly.
Venezuelan lawmaker Jose Guerra dropped a bombshell on Twitter Tuesday: The Russian Boeing 777 that had landed in Caracas the
day before was there to spirit away 20 tons of gold from the vaults of the country's central bank. Guerra is a former central
bank economist who remains in touch with old colleagues there. A person with direct knowledge of the matter told Bloomberg News
Tuesday that 20 tons of gold have been set aside in the central bank for loading. Worth some $840 million, the gold represents
about 20 percent of its holdings of the metal in Venezuela.
No matter the situation in Venezuela, whatever the US government and media are saying is just hostile propaganda as they
couldn't give a rat's ass about the people living there. The Libyan people were doing well out of their oil, as were the Iraqis,
living in reasonable wealth and security, and look at them now after the US decided to meddle in their affairs. Now after all
that, even if something the US government says may be true, why believe it? How many times do you need to be fooled to stop being
a fool?
No, Chavez had popular legitimacy. Maduro has nothing but force to keep himself in power now. Yes, there's easy definition
for the above but Chavismo is decrepit.
Pressure for a reasonable Presidential election is based on that.
The Trumptards blindly support me. I can do no wrong.
There are not enough independent thinkers to make a difference as the two main sides bitterly fight each other over every
minute, meaningless issue.
I can pretty much do as I please without consequence ..like pay off all my buddies and pander to the jews/globalist/elites.
I'd add: and by doing the last, I could cut a deal with the real TPTBs as to for what happens after I leave White House.
Chavez had popular support . He felt the need to intimidate opponents from the beginning. Like Bill Bellicheck and Tom
Brady feeling the need to cheat.
Makes sense. They owe a big chunk of money to Russia and a payment of 100 million is coming due. Russia gets security for future
payments while it holds their gold in a safe place. They may ship the rest to China if they are smart
The nuttiest member of the Trump administration is UN Ambassador Nikki Haley. Her latest neo-nazi stunt was to join
protestors last week calling for the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Venezuela. She grabbed a megaphone
at a tiny New York rally and told the few "protesters" (organized by our CIA) to say the USA is working to overthrow their
President. This was so bizarre that our corporate media refused to report it.
She's being paid no doubt by the usual suspects. She is personally 1 million in debt and has signed with a Speakers agency
to give speeches for 200,000 a pop.
COLUMBIA, S.C. (WCIV)
"Haley is currently quoting $200,000 and the use of a private jet for domestic speaking engagements, according to CNBC
In October 2018, when Haley resigned, she said, she would be taking a "step up" into the private sector after leaving the U.N.
According to a public financial disclosure report based on 2017 data, at the rate quoted for her engagements, just a handful would
pay down more than $1 million in outstanding debt that was accrued during her 14 years
3. There are not enough independent thinkers to make a difference as the two main sides bitterly fight each other over every
minute, meaningless issue.
Well people you need to explore this move to take over Venezuela in the context of what having that oil control will mean for
the US and Israel in the increasingly likely event we blow up Iran and up end the ME for Israel.
So what could happen that might make control of oil rich Venezuela necessary? Why has Venezuela become a Bolton and Abrams
project? Why is Netanyahu putting himself into the Venezuela crisis ?
We, otoh, would need all the oil we could get if we blew up the ME, specifically Iran, figuratively or literally. The US signed
a MOU with Israel in 1973 obligating us to supply Israel with oil ( and ship it to them) if they couldn't secure any for themselves.
@Hibernian I hate those two guys so much, and the owner Kraft also. I'm hoping for a helmet to helmet collision for Brady
early in the second quarter with his bell ringing for the rest of the game. (Evil grin)
@Tyrion 2 Yes, the int'l monitors said the elections were fair as Maduro received over 60% of the vote. You think the 'deplorables'
of venezuela elected the known US-Wall Street neo-liberal puppet Guaido? No, the US Tape Worm groomed this twerp, all-the-while
his backers and paymasters in the American neo-Liberal ruling class claim Russian meddling in the 2016 US elections. The shamelessness
and hypocrisy is astounding.
@Tyrion 2 Pres Hugo Chavez's admin was very controversial. And the conditions you speak of have plagued Venezuela even before
Pres Chavez came to government.
This really is none of our affair. We don't have a mandate to go about the planet tossing out whoever we think is crazy. He
is not a threat to the US. There's no indication that he intends to harm US businesses.
Their polity means their polity. You'll have to do better than he's crazy, mean, a despot, etc. That's for them to resolve.
@Commentator Mike Seems some will never learn the definition of insanity, especially the NeoCons who have been running America
for far too long. I recommend John Perkins "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" for the less informed among us here today. Maybe
at some point they will get a clue.
I heartily dislike and find despicable the socialist government of Maduro, just as I did Hugo Chavez when he was in power.
I have some good friends there, one of whom was a student of mine when I taught in Argentina many years ago, and he and his
family resolutely oppose Maduro. Those socialist leaders in Caracas are tin-pot dictator wannabees who have wrecked the economy
of that once wealthy country; and they have ridden roughshod over the constitutional rights of the citizens. My hope has been
that the people of Venezuela, perhaps supported by elements in the army, would take action to rid the country of those tyrants.
Hard to take this guy seriously when he spouts Fox News level propaganda.
Why does everyone make Trump out to be a victim, poor ol Trump, he's being screwed by all those people he himself appointed,
poor ol persecuted Trump. Sounds like our Jewish friends with all the victimization BS.
Its clear that voting no longer works folks, this is an undemocratic and illegitimate "government" we have here. We let them
get away with killing JFK, RFK, MLK, Vietnam, we let them get away with 9/11, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Syria. They've made a
mess in Africa. All the refugees into Europe, all the refugees from Latin America that have already come from CIA crimes, more
will come.
We wouldn't need a wall if Wall St would stop with their BS down there!
You can't just blame Jews, yes there are lots of Jews in Corporate America, bu t not all of them are, and there are lots of
Jews who speak out against this. We were doing this long before Israel came into existence. You can't just blame everything one
one group, I think Israel/Zionist are responsible for a lot of BS, but you can't exclude CIA, Wall St, Corporations, Banks, The
MIC either. Its not just one group, its all of them. They're all evil, they're imperialists and they're all capitalists. I think
Israel is just a capitalist creation, nothing to do with Jews, just a foothold in he middle east for Wall St to have a base to
control the oil and gas there, they didn't create Israel until they dicovered how much oil was there, and realized how much control
over the world it would give them to control it. Those people moving to Israel are being played, just like the "Christian Zionists"
here are, its a cult. Most "Jews" are atheists anyhow, and it seems any ol greedy white guy can claim to be a Jew. So how do you
solve a "Jewish Problem" if anybody can claim to be a Jew? I think solving the capitalist problem would be a little easier to
enforce.
All of the shills can scream about communists, socialists and marxists all they want. Capitalism is the problem always has
been always will be. Its a murderous, immoral, unsustainable system that encourages greed, it is a system who's driving force
is maximizing profits, and as such the State controlled or aligned with Corporations is the most advanced form of capitalism because
it is the most profitable. They're raping the shit out of us, taking our money to fund their wars, so they can make more money
while paying little to no taxes at all. Everything, everyone here complains about is caused by CAPITALISM, but nobody dares say
it, they've been programmed since birth to think that way.
We should nationalize our oil and gas, instead of letting foreigners come in and steal it, again paying little or no taxes
on it, then selling the oil they took from our country back to us. Russia and Venezuela do it, Libya did it, Iraq did it, and
they used the money for the people of the country, they didn't let the capitalists plunder their wealth like the traitors running
our country. We're AT LEAST $21 trillion in the hole now from this wonderful system of ours, don't you think we should try something
else? Duh!
It is the love of money, the same thing the Bible warned us about. Imperialism/globalism is the latest stage of capitalism,
that is what all of this is about, follow the money. Just muh opinion
@Tyrion 2 From the people fool not by the C.I.A. declaring that well we like the other fellow best for president,after all
using the logic you fail to have Hillary could have said call me madam president and leave the orange clown out in the dark,stupid,stupid
people
"And, in effect, I wish for the success of Juan Guaido in his struggle with Maduro, and I support American diplomatic and
economic pressure on Maduro to step down. After all, Venezuela is in our back yard with huge oil reserves."
OMG, Cathey really said that. Is he always such a shit? He certainly has Venezuela completely wrong.
@AnonFromTN This phylosophical questions should not led to no actions. Modern Russia is actually in much better position now
than it was in 1913. True. There is never final. Sorry for wrong words choice. Dialectics.
@Wizard of Oz The scenario you describe is an accurate. And requires me to make judgments about a dynamic I am unfamiliar
with -- no bite. Several sides to this tale and I have heard and seen it before.
I may however make a call.
In 2017 2/3 of the states in the region chose not to interfere. They have not changed their minds on intervention.
ohh by the way I did ask and here's the familial response:
But reading the data sets makes it clear that what they want is some humanitarian relief. B y and large I have the family telling
me to mind my own business, but they would like a meal, some medicine and some water.
By now Trump must be near bat shit crazy. Imagine hundreds of vampires descending on every exposed artery and vein. Does he
have a chance in 2020? Not with the people who are around him today.
Regardless of what the MSM reports, the population is fed-up with all the malarkey, and the same old faces.
In Trump's remaining 2 years he must throw off the parasites, bring in real men, and go to work on infrastructure, health
care, and real jobs. He has to out the naysayers, the creeps and the war mongers. Throw Bolton from the train, and divorce Netanyahu
and Israel. Appeal directly to the public.
If he can he should issue an executive order allowing important items like immigration to go directly to public referendum,
by passing congress. We're tired of idiots with personal grudges holding our President hostage. Stern times calls for sterner
measures.
@RobinG That would be an easy, almost optimistic explanation: some people are venal enough to say or write anything for money.
Pessimistic explanation is that some people who can read and write are nonetheless dumb or brainwashed enough to sincerely believe
the BS they are writing.
Can you define what capitalism is ? Once that idea is refined, finessed, and compared to multiple color changes of capitalism,
it becomes easier who to fit in the plastic infinitely expandable box of ideas of capitalism starting with the chartered company
to patient laws to companies making military hardwares paid by tax payers to tax cut by government to seizure of foreign asset
by US-UK to protection of the US business by military forces to selling military gadgets to the countries owned by families like
Saudi royals Gulf monarchs and to the African ( American installed ) dictators to printing money .
A great article I posted in another thread few days ago dives deep into who Juan Guaido is and his past grooming for the past
10+ years:
Juan Guaidó is the product of a decade-long project overseen by Washington's elite regime change trainers. While posing
as a champion of democracy, he has spent years at the forefront of a violent campaign of destabilization.
It's not hard to see the parallels of how the US is treating China today compared with
Japan in 1939. The US sanctioned Japan and stopped them from importing Iron and Oil and today
China is being technologically sanctioned throughout the West with Huawei.
The US is bludgeoning every Govt throughout the world to get its own way both allied and
contested. This attitude can only lead to War eventually. Venezuela today, Iran tomorrow
which will continue to box in China and Russia.
The US is needing a war to rally its people around the flag and to attempt to keep its
hand on the Rudder of the world.
China will be forced to sink an American ship or shoot down an American Jet to save face
re Taiwan and their Islands in the China Sea.
The West is begging for war and the parallels now and before WW11 is scary.
Just one more to a long list of Trump appointments. I believe Trump is some kind of pervert,
like the ones that like to get whipped, only Trump likes to get stabbed in the back.
Betrayed
He does what Sheldon and Bibi tell him.
You think you're so ******* smart, but this some how eludes you?
napper , 3 hours ago (Edited)
Donald Trump's House of Cons, Clowns, Crappolas, Criminals, and Conspirators:
Mike Pence
Mike Pompeo
Steven Mnuchin
John Bolton
Elliot Abrams
Nikki Haley
Gina Haspel
Peter Navarro
Wilbur Ross
Kirstjen Nielsen
Robert Lighthizer
Dan Coats
and Donkey Drumpf managed to convince a big bunch of brainless sheeple that he's going to
make America great again with the help of those career swamp dwellers???
Gotta give it to the Donkey. He's good at acting at least.
TGF Texas, 3 hours ago
Shitty appointment, you bet! Regime Change, back on, after a 2 yr vacation, time will tell,
but it sure looks that way! Remembering, Seth Rich, and the Guy who shot himself in the head,
twice with a revolver, and the Clintons had the cops rule it a suicide, or the fact that she
actually asked people if we could drone Assage...
Yes you can vote for the third party. The question is, does it affect anything?
Notable quotes:
"... And voting for direct democracy sends the message that the people are angry at the system, not just the players that run it. ..."
"... Not voting is also a valid protest. But using one's vote to send a message, instead of just withholding legitimacy, seems more powerful as other disaffected people are more likely to join in a Movement for direct democracy. ..."
Yes. Any vote for a third party is a protest vote.
I think that only a Party that promotes direct democracy has any chance of drawing
sufficient votes to embarrass the establishment.
And voting for direct democracy sends the message that the people are angry at the
system, not just the players that run it.
Similarly to the Yellow Vests (part of their demands is an increase in direct democracy
via referendums) .
Not voting is also a valid protest. But using one's vote to send a message, instead of
just withholding legitimacy, seems more powerful as other disaffected people are more likely
to join in a Movement for direct democracy.
Well, that's the way I see it now. There's still a lot of time before the election.
I agree with what you said regarding elections... The usa has something around 55-60%
turnout for elections and it continues to slide.
I gave-up voting after the 2008 election, when Cynthia McKinney was my choice for
president. I realized that voting only feeds the beast and if we could get less than 50%
turn-out people might wake-up to what farce elections in the usa are.
What difference does it really make voting for two slightly different forms of cancer? I'd
rather be thought as stupid or moronic for not voting than to choose the lesser of two evils,
which is the only really choice we have when we vote.
All those die hard political types don't realize that not voting is a vote too.
And a big thanks to the MoA community for continually posting the most interesting
discussions on the Web.
"... As our society rushes toward technological ataraxia , it may do us some good to ponder the costs of what has become Silicon Valley's new religious covenant. For the enlightened technocrat and the venture capitalist, God is long dead and buried, democracy sundered, the American dream lost. These beliefs they keep hush-hushed, out of earshot of their consumer base. Best not to run afoul of the millions of middle-class Americans who have developed slavish devotions to their smartphones and tablets and Echo Dots, pouring billions into the coffers of the ballooning technocracy. ..."
"... The problem with Silicon Valley elites is a bit simpler than that. They are all very smart, but their knowledge is limited. They know everything about electronics, computers, and coding, but know little of history, philosophy, or the human condition. Hence they see everything as an engineering problem, something with an optimal, measurable solution. ..."
"... As Tucker Carlson is realizing, Artificial Intelligence eliminating around 55% of all jobs (as the Future of Employment study found) so that wealthy people can have more disposable income to demand other services also provided by robots is madness. This is religious devotion either to defacto anarcho-capitalism, transhumanism, or both. ..."
"... @TheSnark -- valid observation: The Silicon Valley elites " know everything about electronics, computers, and coding, but know little of history, philosophy, or the human condition." Religion is not an engineering issue. Knowing a little about history, philosophy, human condition would help them to understand that humans need something for their soul. And the human soul is not described by boolean "1"s or "0"s ..."
"... Zuckerberg's comment about the Roman Empire is bizzare.to say the least. Augustus didn't create "200 years of peace". The Roman Empire was constantly conquering its neighbors. And of the first 5 Roman Emperors, Augustus was the only one who defintly died of natural causes ..."
"... This time period was an extremely violent time period. The fact that Zuckerberg doesn't realize this, indicates to me that while he is smart at creating a business, he is basically a pseudo-intellectual ..."
They've rejected God and tradition in favor of an egoistic radicalism that sees their fellow man as expendable.
As our society rushes toward technological ataraxia , it may do us some good to ponder the costs of what has become
Silicon Valley's new religious covenant. For the enlightened technocrat and the venture capitalist, God is long dead and buried,
democracy sundered, the American dream lost. These beliefs they keep hush-hushed, out of earshot of their consumer base. Best not
to run afoul of the millions of middle-class Americans who have developed slavish devotions to their smartphones and tablets and
Echo Dots, pouring billions into the coffers of the ballooning technocracy.
While Silicon Valley types delay giving their own children screens, knowing full well their deleterious effects on cognitive and
social development (not to mention their addictive qualities), they hardly bat an eye when handing these gadgets to our middle class.
Some of our Silicon oligarchs have gone so far as to call these products "demonic," yet on they go ushering them into schools, ruthlessly
agnostic as to whatever reckoning this might have for future generations.
As they do this, their political views seem to become more radical by the day. They as a class represent the junction of meritocracy
and the soft nihilism that has infiltrated almost every major institution in contemporary society. By day they inveigh against guns
and walls and inequality; by night they decamp into multimillion-dollar bunkers, safeguarded against the rest of the world, shamelessly
indifferent to their blatant hypocrisy. This cognitive dissonance results in a plundering worldview, one whose consequences are not
yet fully understood but are certainly catastrophic. Its early casualties already include some of the most fundamental elements of
American civil society: privacy, freedom of thought, even truth itself.
Hence a recent
New York Times profile of Silicon Valley's anointed guru, Yuval Harari. Harari is an Israeli futurist-philosopher whose apocalyptic
forecasts, made in books like Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow , have tantalized some of the biggest names on the political
and business scenes, including Barack Obama, Bill Gates, and Mark Zuckerberg. The Times portrays Harari as gloomy about the
modern world and especially its embrace of technology:
Part of the reason might be that Silicon Valley, at a certain level, is not optimistic on the future of democracy. The more
of a mess Washington becomes, the more interested the tech world is in creating something else, and it might not look like elected
representation. Rank-and-file coders have long been wary of regulation and curious about alternative forms of government. A separatist
streak runs through the place: Venture capitalists periodically call for California to secede or shatter, or for the creation
of corporate nation-states. And this summer, Mark Zuckerberg, who has recommended Mr. Harari to his book club, acknowledged a
fixation with the autocrat Caesar Augustus. "Basically," Mr. Zuckerberg told The New Yorker, "through a really harsh approach,
he established 200 years of world peace."
Harari understands that liberal democracy is in peril, and he's taken it upon himself to act as a foil to the anxieties of the
elite class. In return, they regale him with lavish dinner parties and treat him like their maharishi. Yet from reading the article,
one gets the impression that, at least in Harari's view, this is but a facade, or what psychologists call "reaction formation." In
other words, by paying lip service to Harari, who is skeptical of their designs, our elites hope to spare themselves from incurring
any moral responsibility for the costs of their social engineering. And "social engineering" is not a farfetched term to use. A portion
of the Times article interrogates the premise of Aldous Huxley's dystopian 1932 novel Brave New World , which tells
the story of a totalitarian regime that has anesthetized a docile underclass into blind submission:
As we boarded the black gull-wing Tesla Mr. Harari had rented for his visit, he brought up Aldous Huxley. Generations have
been horrified by his novel "Brave New World," which depicts a regime of emotion control and painless consumption. Readers who
encounter the book today, Mr. Harari said, often think it sounds great. "Everything is so nice, and in that way it is an intellectually
disturbing book because you're really hard-pressed to explain what's wrong with it," he said. "And you do get today a vision coming
out of some people in Silicon Valley which goes in that direction."
Here, Harari divulges with brutal frankness the indisputable link between private atheism and political thought. Lacking an immutable
ontology, man is left in the desert, unmoored from anything to keep his insatiable passions in check. His pride entices him into
playing the role of God.
At one point in the article, Harari wonders why we should even maintain a low-skilled "useless" class, whose work is doomed to
disappear over the next several decades, replaced by artificial intelligence. "You're totally expendable," Harari tells his audience.
This is why, the Times says, the Silicon elites recommend social engineering solutions like universal income to try and mitigate
the more unpleasant effects of that "useless" class. They seem unaware (or at least they're incapable of admitting) that human nature
is imperfect, sinful, and can never be perfected from on high. Since many of the Silicon breed reject the possibility of a
timeless, intelligent metaphysics (to say nothing of Christianity), such truisms about our natures go over their heads. Metaphysics
aside, the fact that our elites are even thinking this way to begin with -- that technology may render an entire underclass "expendable"
-- is in itself cause for concern. (As Keynes once quipped, "In the long run we are all dead.")
Harari seems to have a vendetta against traditions -- which can be extrapolated to the tradition of Western civilization writ
large -- for long considering homosexuality aberrant. He is quoted as saying, "If society got this thing wrong, who guarantees it
didn't get everything else wrong as well?" Thus do the Silicon elites have the audacity to shirk their entire Western birthright,
handed down to them across generations, in the name of creating a utopia oriented around a modern, hyper-individualistic view of
man.
When man abandons God, he begins to channel his religious desire, more devouring than even his sexual instinct, into other worldly
outlets. Thus has modern liberalism evolved from a political school of thought into an out-and-out ecclesiology, one that perverts
elements of Christian dogma into technocratic channels. (Of course, one can debate whether this was liberalism's intent in the first
place.) Our elites have crafted for themselves a new religion. Humility to them is nothing more than a vice.
The reason the elites are entertaining alternatives to democracy is because they know that so long as we adhere to constitutional
government -- our American system, even in its severely compromised form -- we are bound to the utterly natural constraints hardwired
by our framers (who, by the way, revered Aristotle and Jesus). Realizing this, they seek alternative forms in Silicon Valley social
engineering projects, hoping to create a regime that will conform to their megalomaniacal fancies.
If there is a silver lining in all this, it's that in the real word, any such attempt to base a political regime on naked ego
is bound to fail. Such things have been tried before, in our lifetimes, no less, and they have never worked because they cannot work.
Man should never be made the center of the universe because, per impossible, there is already a natural order that cannot
be breached. May he come to realize this sooner rather than later. And may Mr. Harari's wildest nightmares never come to fruition.
Paul Ingrassia is a co-host of the Right on Point podcast. To listen to his podcast, click
here .
"in the real word, any such attempt to base a political regime on naked ego is bound to fail. Such things have been tried before,
in our lifetimes, no less, and they have never worked because they cannot work."
But they can create hells on earth for many decades, in which millions are consumed, until played out.
As Kipling so aptly put it, in the final stanzas of a poem:
As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;
And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!
"The reason the elites are entertaining alternatives to democracy is because they know that so long as we adhere to constitutional
government -- our American system, even in its severely compromised form -- we are bound to the utterly natural constraints hardwired
by our framers (who, by the way, revered Aristotle and Jesus)."
Um, you do know that one of the gravest dangers the founders feared was democracy? And the bulwarks they put in place are all
meant to constraint majority rule? Now, if the argument you are making that the elites have so corrupted the hoi polloi that only
rule by a minority of REAL AMERICANS can save us, say so, don't do the idiotic dodge of invoking democratic arguments while obviously
advocating minority rule.
The problem with Silicon Valley elites is a bit simpler than that. They are all very smart, but their knowledge is limited.
They know everything about electronics, computers, and coding, but know little of history, philosophy, or the human condition.
Hence they see everything as an engineering problem, something with an optimal, measurable solution.
As a result, they do not even understand the systems they have built; witness Zuckerberg struggling to get Facebook under control.
If they go the way the author fears it will be by accident, not design. Despite their smarts, they really don't know what they
are doing in terms of society.
As Tucker Carlson is realizing, Artificial Intelligence eliminating around 55% of all jobs (as the Future of Employment study
found) so that wealthy people can have more disposable income to demand other services also provided by robots is madness. This
is religious devotion either to defacto anarcho-capitalism, transhumanism, or both.
They're literally selling out human existence for their own myopic short-term gain, yet have a moral superiority complex.
I suppose the consensus is that the useless class gets welfare depending on their social credit score. Maybe sterilization will
lead to a higher social credits score. Dark days are coming.
@TheSnark -- valid observation: The Silicon Valley elites " know everything about electronics, computers, and coding, but
know little of history, philosophy, or the human condition." Religion is not an engineering issue. Knowing a little about history,
philosophy, human condition would help them to understand that humans need something for their soul. And the human soul is not
described by boolean "1"s or "0"s
Western Culture is struggling to adapt to the new communication technologies that inhabit the Internet. That the developers of
these technologies see themselves as gods of a sort is entirely consistent with human history and nature.
The best historical example of how new communication technology can change society occurred about 500 years ago, when the printing
press was developed in Europe. A theologian and professor named Martin Luther (Perhaps you have heard of him?) composed a list
of 95 discussion questions regarding the then-current activities of The Church. That list, known as the "95 Theses" was posted
on the chapel door in Wittenburg, Germany. Before long, the list was transcribed and published. The list, and many responses,
were distributed throughout Europe. The Protestant Reformation was sparked.
The Press and Protestant Reformation it launched remains a primary foundation of today's Western Culture. It has initiated
much violence, much dissension, war with millions of deaths, The Enlightenment, and much else. The printing press ushered in the
modern era.
Just as the printing press enabled profound change in the world 500 years ago, The Internet is prompting similar disruption
today. I think we are in the early stages, and estimate that our great great grandchildren will be among the first to fully appreciate
what has been gained and lost as a result of this technology.
So the arrogance of religious believers convinced that they know "the TRUTH!", are the only ones to do so, and are justified in
forcing non-believers to act as "God says!" is to be completely ignored?
Methinks we're seeing a huge case of projection here .
The problem is also that once those religious foundations are gone, they don't come back easily. How can you talk to an atheist/muslim/buddhist
who doesn't even believe that lying is always sin? People in the west have started to think that all our nice freedoms and comfort
have magically come from the heart of humans, that we are all somehow equal and want the same things but the bible tells us the
real story: The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked.
Then we have religions who fundamentally do not even view death as a problem. Now this is where we enter the danger zone. In
the west we have lived on such a good, superior Christian foundation we seem to have forgotten how truly horrible and inferior
the alternatives are. Suddenly you get people who endorse cannibalism and child sacrifice again, I have seen this myself. How
do you even explain to somebody that this is wrong when he fundamentally disagrees on the morality of killing?
People don't understand that Christian morality was hard fought for, they refuse to understand that human beings do not have
a magical switch that makes them disapprove of murder.
Thousands were burned alive in England just for wanting to read the bible. It is like a technological innovation. We found
a trick in the human condition, we discovered the truth about humanity. Now these coddled silicon valley people who have grown
up in a Christian society with Christian morality and protections in their arrogance think that Christian behavior is the base
of human morality anyway and needs no protection. Thanks to them in no small part the entire world is currently doing its utmost
to reject the reality of the bible. We see insane propositions that say we should not judge people. Or that everyone is equal.
Of course the bible never says that with the meaning they imply, but it was coopted beautifully for their own evil agenda. Yes
evil, did I mention that our technocratic genius overlords don't believe in that either?
How can you talk with somebody that has rejected the most base truths of human life. How can you say a murderer is equal to
a non-criminal? You must understand that these new age fake Christians truly think like this, they truly believe that everyone
is equal. You can't allow yourself to think that 'oh they just mean we are all equal like.. on a human level, in our humanity'.
Nono, I made the mistake to be too charitable with them. They actually think we are all equal no matter what. I found it hard
to believe that we have degenerated so much, I have been in a quasi state of shock for a long time over this.
Zuckerberg's comment about the Roman Empire is bizzare.to say the least. Augustus didn't create "200 years of peace". The
Roman Empire was constantly conquering its neighbors. And of the first 5 Roman Emperors, Augustus was the only one who defintly
died of natural causes
This time period was an extremely violent time period. The fact that Zuckerberg doesn't realize this, indicates to me that
while he is smart at creating a business, he is basically a pseudo-intellectual
As George Carlin observed, it's a big club and you aren't in it. Hiring Elliott Abrams makes Trump a variation on theme of Bush II: the more things change that more they
stay the same. BTW Bush also campaigned on withdrew troops and no national building .
Notable quotes:
"... When did he hire Hillary? ..."
"... There is not much difference between Hillary and Pompeo. Pompeo is basically Hillary with a **** and a religious twist ..."
"... Who knew that in electing Trump we were electing the ultimate politician? His "art of the deal" is nothing but politics 101: Blame both sides, apologize for your side, and immediately surrender your stronger points while praising the weak points of your opponent. And when you have a chance, give up; sacrifice your friends and appoint their enemies, and, last but not least, look everybody in the eye and say, "I didn't steal the money, "mistakes were made." ..."
Trump is a psychopath and he loves to hire even bigger psychopaths. Your whole admin is a swamp of sociopaths, psychopaths
and other sick deranged people.
There is not much difference between Hillary and Pompeo. Pompeo is basically Hillary with
a **** and a religious twist
bshirley1968, 2 hours ago
Thinking? Well that's a stretch of the imagination, but let me suggest this......
The opposition hates me. I can do no right.
The Trumptards blindly support me. I can do no wrong.
There are not enough independent thinkers to make a difference as the two main sides bitterly fight eachother over
every minute, meaningless issue.
I can pretty much do as I please without consequence.....like pay off all my buddies and pander to the jews/globalist/elites.
That could be what he is thinking. But I can bet you anything that there isn't a Trumptard out there that can comment
here and give us a rational reason for this appointment. Oh, they can down vote because they don't like being called
Trumptards. .....but they don't mind being one.
NAV, 2 hours ago
Who knew that in electing Trump we were electing the ultimate politician? His "art of the deal" is nothing but
politics 101: Blame both sides, apologize for your side, and immediately surrender your stronger points while praising the
weak points of your opponent. And when you have a chance, give up; sacrifice your friends and appoint their enemies, and,
last but not least, look everybody in the eye and say, "I didn't steal the money, "mistakes were made."
"... Rajan, a professor of finance at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, spoke about the "concentrated and devastating" impact of technology and trade on blue-collar communities in areas like the Midwest, the anger toward "totally discredited" elites following the 2008 financial crisis, and the subsequent rise of populist nationalism, seen as a way to restore a sense of community via exclusion ..."
"... In his talk, Rajan focused on three questions related to current populist discontent: 1. Why is anger focused on trade? 2. Why now? 3. Why do so many voters turn to far-right nationalist movements? ..."
"... Frankly, "crony capitalism" has always been the primary one, as even Adam Smith noted ..."
"... Communities have become politically disempowered in large part because they have become economically disempowered. ..."
The wave of populist nationalism that has been sweeping through Western democracies
in the past two years is "a cry for help from communities who have seen growth bypass them."
So said Raghuram Rajan, the former governor of the Reserve Bank of India, during a keynote address he gave at the Stigler Center's
conference on the political
economy of finance that took place in June.
Rajan, a professor of finance at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, spoke about the "concentrated and devastating"
impact of technology and trade on blue-collar communities in areas like the Midwest, the anger toward "totally discredited" elites
following the 2008 financial crisis, and the subsequent rise of populist nationalism, seen as a way to restore a sense of community
via exclusion.
In his talk, Rajan focused on three questions related to current populist discontent: 1. Why is anger focused on trade? 2. Why
now? 3. Why do so many voters turn to far-right nationalist movements?
"Pointing fingers at these communities and telling them they don't understand is not the right answer," he warned. "In many ways,
the kind of angst that we see in industrial countries today is similar to the bleak times [of] the 1920s and 1930s. Most people in
industrial countries used to believe that their children would have a better future than their already pleasant present. Today this
is no longer true." ...
There's quite a bit more. I don't agree with everything he (Raghuram) says, but thought it might provoke discussion.
The understanding of exploitation of wage earning production workers is a better base then the 18th century liberal ideal of equality
Exploitation and oppression are obviously not the same even if they make synergistic team mates more often then not.
So long as " them " are blatantly oppressed it's easy to forget you are exploited. Unlike oppression exploitation can be so
stealthy.
So not part of the common description of the surface of daily life
Calls for equality must include a careful answer to the question "Equal with who ? "
Unearned equality is not seen as fair to those who wanna believe they earned their status. Add in the obvious : to be part
of a successful movement aimed at exclusion of some " thems " or other is narcotic
Just as fighting exclusion can be a narcotic too for " thems "
But fighting against exclusion coming from among a privileged rank among the community of would be excluders.
That is a bummer. A thankless act of sanctimony. Unless you spiritually join the " thems"
Now what have we got ?
Jim Crow thrived for decades it only ended when black arms and hands in the field at noon ...by the tens of millions were no
longer necessary to Dixie
"Pointing fingers at these communities and telling them they don't understand is not the right answer," he warned. "In many ways,
the kind of angst that we see in industrial countries today is similar to the bleak times [of] the 1920s and 1930s. Most people
in industrial countries used to believe that their children would have a better future than their already pleasant present. Today
this is no longer true." ...
I thought this sort of thinking was widely accepted only in 2016 we were told by the center left that no it's not true.
"Rajan, a professor of finance at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, spoke about the "concentrated and devastating"
impact of technology and trade on blue-collar communities in areas like the Midwest, the anger toward "totally discredited" elites
following the 2008 financial crisis, and the subsequent rise of populist nationalism, seen as a way to restore a sense of community
via exclusion."
Instead the center left is arguing that workers have nothing to complain about and besides they're racist/sexist.
'"These communities have become disempowered partly for economic reasons but partly also because decision-making has increasingly
been centralized toward state governments, national governments, and multilateral [agreements]," said Rajan. In the European
Union, he noted, the concentration of decision-making in Brussels has led to a lot of discontent.'
I'd suggest that this part is not true. Communities have become politically disempowered in large part because they have
become economically disempowered. A shrinking economy means a shrinking tax base and less funds to do things locally. Even
if the local government attempts to rebuild by recruiting other employers, they end up in a race to the bottom with other communities
in a similar situation.
I'd also suggest that the largest part of the "discontent" in the EU is not because of any "concentration of decision-making",
but because local (and regional, and national) politicians have used the EU as a convenient scapegoat for any required, but unpopular
action.
"... Then, on Wednesday night , Carlson told the Council on Foreign Relations Senior Fellow, and former Mitt Romney adviser, Max Boot, that he opposed overthrowing Syria's Bashar al-Assad and didn't see Russia as a serious threat. Boot responded by accusing him of being a "cheerleader" for Moscow and Tehran. Carlson called that comment "grotesque" too. And declared, "This is why nobody takes you seriously." ..."
"... He's challenging the Republican Party's hawkish orthodoxy in ways anti-war progressives have been begging cable hosts to do for years. For more than a decade, liberals have rightly grumbled that hawks can go on television espousing new wars without being held to account for the last ones. Not on Carlson's show. When Peters called him an apologist for Vladimir Putin, Carlson replied , "I would hate to go back and read your columns assuring America that taking out Saddam Hussein will make the region calmer, more peaceful, and America safer." ..."
"... When Boot did the same, Carlson responded that Boot had been so "consistently wrong in the most flagrant and flamboyant way for over a decade" in his support for wars in the Middle East that "maybe you should choose another profession, selling insurance, house painting, something you're good at." ..."
"... Most importantly, Carlson is saying something pundits, especially conservative ones, rarely say on television: that America must prioritize. Since the George W. Bush years, conservative politicians and pundits have demanded that the United States become more aggressive everywhere. They've insisted that America confront China, Russia, Iran, Syria, North Korea, the Taliban, ISIS, and al-Qaeda, all at the same time. Strategically, that's absurd. Because America's power is limited, its goals must be too. Foreign policy involves tradeoffs. Carlson acknowledges that. "How many wars can we fight at once?" he asked Peters. "How many people can we be in opposition to at once?" He told Boot that, "In a world full of threats, you create a hierarchy of them. You decide which is the worst and you go down the list." ..."
"... For over a century, conservative interventionists and conservative anti-interventionists have taken turns at the helm of the American right. In the 1920s, after Wilson failed to bring America into the League of Nations, Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge -- perhaps the two most conservative presidents of the 20th century -- steadfastly avoided military entanglements in Europe. But after World War II, William F. Buckley, Barry Goldwater, and others argued that anti-communism now required confronting the USSR around the world. While conservatives in the 1930s had generally attacked Franklin Roosevelt as too interventionist, conservatives from the 1950s through the 1980s generally attacked Democrats as not interventionist enough. ..."
"... When the Cold War ended, the pendulum swung again. Pat Buchanan led a revival of conservative anti-interventionism. The biggest foreign policy complaint of Republican politicians during the 1990s was that Bill Clinton's humanitarian interventions were threatening American sovereignty by too deeply entangling the United States with the UN. ..."
"... Donald Trump, exploiting grassroots conservative disillusionment with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, has revived the anti-interventionist tradition of Coolidge, Harding, and Buchanan. And Carlson is championing it on television. ..."
Carlson told retired Lieutenant Colonel Ralph Peters he thought the U.S. should team up with Russia to defeat ISIS.
Peters responded that, "You sound like Charles Lindbergh in 1938." Carlson called that comment "grotesque" and "insane."
Then, on
Wednesday night , Carlson told the Council on Foreign Relations Senior Fellow, and former Mitt Romney adviser, Max Boot, that
he opposed overthrowing Syria's Bashar al-Assad and didn't see Russia as a serious threat. Boot responded by accusing him of being
a "cheerleader" for Moscow and Tehran. Carlson
called that comment "grotesque" too. And declared, "This is why nobody takes you seriously."
In his vicious and ad hominem way, Carlson is doing something extraordinary: He's challenging the Republican Party's hawkish
orthodoxy in ways anti-war progressives have been begging cable hosts to do for years. For more than a decade, liberals have rightly
grumbled that hawks can go on television espousing new wars without being held to account for the last ones. Not on Carlson's show.
When Peters called him an apologist for Vladimir Putin, Carlson
replied , "I would hate to go back and read your columns assuring America that taking out Saddam Hussein will make the region
calmer, more peaceful, and America safer."
When Boot did the same, Carlson
responded that Boot had been so "consistently wrong in the most flagrant and flamboyant way for over a decade" in his support
for wars in the Middle East that "maybe you should choose another profession, selling insurance, house painting, something you're
good at."
On Iran, Carlson made an argument that was considered too dovish for even mainstream Democrats to raise during the debate over
the nuclear deal: He questioned whether Tehran actually endangers the United States. He
told Peters that "[w]e actually don't face any domestic threat from Iran." And he
asked Boot to "tell me how many Americans in the United States have been murdered by terrorists backed by Iran since 9/11?"
Most importantly, Carlson is saying something pundits, especially conservative ones, rarely say on television: that America
must prioritize. Since the George W. Bush years, conservative politicians and pundits have demanded that the United States become
more aggressive everywhere. They've insisted that America confront China, Russia, Iran, Syria, North Korea, the Taliban, ISIS, and
al-Qaeda, all at the same time. Strategically, that's absurd. Because America's power is limited, its goals must be too. Foreign
policy involves tradeoffs. Carlson acknowledges that. "How many wars can we fight at once?" he asked Peters. "How many people can
we be in opposition to at once?" He told Boot that, "In a world full of threats, you create a hierarchy of them. You decide which
is the worst and you go down the list."
His nastiness notwithstanding, Carlson is offering a glimpse into what Fox News would look like as an intellectually interesting
network. He's moderating a debate between the two strands of thinking that have dominated conservative foreign policy for roughly
a century. On foreign policy, what has long united conservatives is their emphasis on sovereignty -- their contempt for Woodrow Wilson's
vision of international law and global community. But some conservatives oppose restraints on American sovereignty primarily because
they want the U.S. to impose its will on other countries. (Think Dick Cheney.) Other conservatives oppose those restraints primarily
because they want to prevent other countries from imposing their will on the United States. (Think Ron Paul.)
For over a century, conservative interventionists and conservative anti-interventionists have taken turns at the helm of the American
right. In the 1920s, after Wilson failed to bring America into the League of Nations, Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge -- perhaps
the two most conservative presidents of the 20th century -- steadfastly avoided military entanglements in Europe. But after World
War II, William F. Buckley, Barry Goldwater, and others argued that anti-communism now required confronting the USSR around the world.
While conservatives in the 1930s had generally attacked Franklin Roosevelt as too interventionist, conservatives from the 1950s through
the 1980s generally attacked Democrats as not interventionist enough.
When the Cold War ended, the pendulum swung again. Pat Buchanan led a revival of conservative anti-interventionism. The biggest
foreign policy complaint of Republican politicians during the 1990s was that Bill Clinton's humanitarian interventions were threatening
American sovereignty by too deeply entangling the United States with the UN.
Then came September 11, which like Pearl Harbor and the onset of the Cold War, led the right to embrace foreign wars. Now Donald
Trump, exploiting grassroots conservative disillusionment with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, has revived the anti-interventionist
tradition of Coolidge, Harding, and Buchanan. And Carlson is championing it on television.
Peter Beinart is a contributing editor at
The Atlantic and an associate professor of journalism and political science at the City University of New York.
"... the Davos crew is trying to combat populism, according to The Washington Post . It is kind of amazing that the rich people at Davos would not understand how absurd this is. ..."
"... The real incredible aspect of Davos is that so many political leaders and news organizations would go to a meeting that is quite explicitly about rich people trying to set an agenda for the world. ..."
"... It is important to remember, the World Economic Forum is not some sort of international organization like the United Nations, the OECD, or even the International Monetary Fund. It is a for-profit organization that makes money by entertaining extremely rich people. The real outrage of the story is that top political leaders, academics, and new outlets feel obligated to entertain them. ..."
"... Davos ought to be treated as a conspiracy against labor, representative government, environmental regulation and decent living standards, but of course our admiring national press corps doesn't see it that way -- their bosses attend, after all. ..."
"... It may be best to avoid the term "populist" because it tends to be applied indiscriminately to the likes of Trump and to leftist reformers. Or if it is used for Trump it should be "fake populist". Opposition to corporatist globalization can be populistic, but Trump's version so far has been mostly fake. ..."
"... Two kinds of populism: rightwing populism (which often looks like fascism) and leftwing populism. They are quite different critters and they don't have a lot to do with each other though they agree on a few things. ..."
"... People REALLY need to re-read 1984 & refresh their memories of Orwellian good-is-bad brainwashing ..."
"... Trump is a rightwing populist, but it is very confusing. In the US anyway and often in general, rightwing populists are NOT the enemies of the rich. Note Mussolini and Hitler. Fascism really is a type of rightwing populism. ..."
"... Rightwing populism pretends to be for the people and is to some extent (protectionism, isolationalism, nationalism) but in a lot of other ways, it's just fake and it's always a cover for class rule and rule by the rich. ..."
"... The rich will go to fascism or rightwing populism if they get a threat from the Left (read Trotsky), but they don't really like them very much, think they are classless brutes, barbarians, racists, bigots, etc. ..."
"... They're not worried about Donnie. He's no class traitor. They're worried about the populism of the Left and possibly about rightwing populism in Europe. Bolzonaro and Trump are hardly threats to capital. ..."
"... He pretends to be a populist because it helps him. For example, he doesn't care about illegal immigration. He's been happy to hire undocumented workers his whole life, even now in office. But it gets his base fired up so he rails about immigration. He has no ideology, he will use whatever helps him. ..."
"... Rightwing populism is NOT cool in my boat. Rightwing populism is Bolsonaro. It's Duterte too, but that's a bit different, he's a bit more pro-people. Erdogan is a rightwing populist too, but he's rather socialist. Marie Le Pen is out and out socialist and she gets called rightwing populist. Orban is 5X more socialist than Venezuela and he gets called rightwing populist. It's all very confusing. ..."
"... But in the US and Latin America, rightwing populism is ugly stuff all right, and it tends to be associated with fascism! ..."
Let's see, cattle ranchers are against vegetarianism, coal companies are against restricting CO2 emissions, and the Davos crew
is trying to combat populism, according to
The Washington Post . It is kind of amazing that the rich people at Davos would not understand how absurd this is.
Yeah, we get that rich people don't like the idea of movements that would leave them much less rich, but is it helpful to their
cause to tell us that they are devoting their rich people's conference to combating them? The real incredible aspect of Davos
is that so many political leaders and news organizations would go to a meeting that is quite explicitly about rich people trying
to set an agenda for the world.
It is important to remember, the World Economic Forum is not some sort of international organization like the United Nations,
the OECD, or even the International Monetary Fund. It is a for-profit organization that makes money by entertaining extremely rich
people. The real outrage of the story is that top political leaders, academics, and new outlets feel obligated to entertain them.
And the fact that so many Americans -(and especially American workers) still mistake Von Clownstick as a so called ''Populist''
- and being on their side - is... unbearable!
He IS in fact a rigthwing populist of a sort. That's what rightwing populism in the US looks like, and what it's always looked
like. Bunch of crap huh? Gimme Marie Le Pen any day.
"The real incredible aspect of Davos is that so many political leaders and news organizations would go to a meeting that is
quite explicitly about rich people trying to set an agenda for the world." \
Agreed - like how people almost worship British Royals.. or American celebrities... and yet, unfortunately, isn't it true that
the greedmongers at Davos are not "trying," but rather "largely succeeding" at setting said world agenda?
Nothing to see here, folks, move right along . . .
Davos and TED Talks. One entertains the rich, the other the smart. The skiing is better at Davos, the ideas are better at a
TED Talk. Just remember, most of the rich aren't smart and most of the smart aren't rich. So it's all rather silly, 'though it's
easier to get rich if you're smart than it is to get smart if you're rich. Don't ask me how I know that, but I'll tell you, if
you have an ounce of human kindness in you, learning the second half of that lesson is more painful than the first.
None of this would be half as much fun outside the glare of publicity, or if not heavily spiced with the envy of the excluded.
Ishi--I don't disagree with you. Just not as stupid as the Davos drivel. Perhaps I should have said 'less bad' ideas, but I
liked the cadence of 'better' and 'better.' Gotta have cadence if you want to get the People Marching.
Davos ought to be treated as a conspiracy against labor, representative government, environmental regulation and decent
living standards, but of course our admiring national press corps doesn't see it that way -- their bosses attend, after all.
Firstly we have to treat the so called ''Populists'' as a conspiracy against labor - because they pretended in the utmost conspirational
way to be on labors side.
While It always was as clear as mud that Davos was a Party of the Rich!
It may be best to avoid the term "populist" because it tends to be applied indiscriminately to the likes of Trump and to
leftist reformers. Or if it is used for Trump it should be "fake populist". Opposition to corporatist globalization can be populistic,
but Trump's version so far has been mostly fake.
You guys need to read up. Two kinds of populism: rightwing populism (which often looks like fascism) and leftwing populism.
They are quite different critters and they don't have a lot to do with each other though they agree on a few things.
That's basically my take, too. The term is purposely misused by the propagandists to get normal people thinking "Populism"
must be something they don't like. People REALLY need to re-read 1984 & refresh their memories of Orwellian good-is-bad brainwashing.
[and even "brainwashing" is an orwellian term! Brain-NUMBING, maybe... but nothing's getting cleaned, that's for sure]
Nope US rightwing populism has often looked a lot like Trump's crap. I mean some of it was better. I have a soft spot for Huey
Long. But in the US, rightwing populism just helps the rich mostly and it tends to be fascist.
''The term is purposely misused by the propagandists to get normal people thinking "Populism" must be something they don't
like'' You mean some con-artists have conned people who liked the term ''Populism'' into liking idiocy - racism and nationalism?.
Trump is a rightwing populist, but it is very confusing. In the US anyway and often in general, rightwing populists are
NOT the enemies of the rich. Note Mussolini and Hitler. Fascism really is a type of rightwing populism.
Rightwing populism pretends to be for the people and is to some extent (protectionism, isolationalism, nationalism) but
in a lot of other ways, it's just fake and it's always a cover for class rule and rule by the rich.
The rich will go to fascism or rightwing populism if they get a threat from the Left (read Trotsky), but they don't really
like them very much, think they are classless brutes, barbarians, racists, bigots, etc.
But the rich allow them because they think they can control them and not let them get out of hand. This is what happened in
Germany. This is what often happens actually.
In a sense, rightwing populism IS fake populism because it pretends to be for the people while often fucking them over with
rightwing class rule via fascism. It's still populism, it's just not for the people. It's fraudulent, iike most rightwing bullshit.
- AND! -
to suggest - or imply? - that the type of ''Populism'' Trump -(and other so called ''Populists) represent - IS to ''leave the
Davos Crowd much less rich'' -
could be the funniest thing ever written on this blog?
They're not worried about Donnie. He's no class traitor. They're worried about the populism of the Left and possibly about
rightwing populism in Europe. Bolzonaro and Trump are hardly threats to capital.
He pretends to be a populist because it helps him. For example, he doesn't care about illegal immigration. He's been happy
to hire undocumented workers his whole life, even now in office. But it gets his base fired up so he rails about immigration.
He has no ideology, he will use whatever helps him.
and to makes sure not to be misunderstood - I also think Davos is ''pathetic'' and ''hypocritical'' - and everything
else one wants to throw at it -
BUT as one of my favorite American Philosophers said:
"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."
And I think he meant the current ''Populists'' of this planet! -(and lets include especially the Brazilian one too)
But isn't it GREAT- that also ''the rich'' are starting to battle morons and a...holes like Baron von Clownsticks -(or the
nationalistic idiots in the UK - or the Neo Nazis in Germany?) -
For I while I thought I was left ALL alone in order to battle the type of ''Populism''- which is nothing else than the sick
racist phantasies of some nationalistic a...holes?
Rightwing populism is NOT cool in my boat. Rightwing populism is Bolsonaro. It's Duterte too, but that's a bit different,
he's a bit more pro-people. Erdogan is a rightwing populist too, but he's rather socialist. Marie Le Pen is out and out socialist
and she gets called rightwing populist. Orban is 5X more socialist than Venezuela and he gets called rightwing populist. It's
all very confusing.
But in the US and Latin America, rightwing populism is ugly stuff all right, and it tends to be associated with fascism!
"... The French bourgeoisie is the politically most experienced ruling class in Europe. It has no illusions about the challenge it faces. Le Point put its file on the revolt of the vests under the self-telling title "What is waiting us". ..."
"... But it's not only the king who is naked. The whole system is naked. In the many pages devoted by the magazine to demonstrate that what the Vests want is unfeasible, not even a single serious word is written about what needs to be done to deal with the deep causes which led the French to revolt. Today's capitalism of Macron, Merkel and Trump does not produce a Roosevelt and New Deal or Popular Fronts – and we have to wait to see if it will produce a Hitler as some are trying to achieve. For the time being, it only produces Yellow Vests! ..."
"... In Oscar Wilde's masterpiece "The Picture of Dorian Gray", the main character looks every night at his horrible real self in the mirror. But he looks at it alone. ..."
"... This is where Macron made his most fatal mistake, being arrogant and markedly cut off from reality – with the confidence given to him by the mighty elite forces, which elected him and by his contempt of the common people which characterizes him. ..."
"... Observing Macron, the people understood what lied ahead for them. They felt their backs against the wall – they felt that they had only themselves to rely on, that they had to take themselves action to save themselves and their country. ..."
"... This was the decisive moment, the moment the historical mission of Macron was achieved . By establishing the most absolute control of Finance over Politics, he himself invited Revolution. His triumph and his tragedy came together. ..."
"... Many established "leftists" or "radical" intellectuals, who used to feverishly haul capitalism over the coals – although the last thing they really wanted was to experience a real revolution during their lifetime – they too, stand now frightened, looking at an angry Bucephalus running ahead of them. They prefer a stable capitalism, of which they can constitute its "consciousness", writing books, appearing on shows and giving lectures, analyzing its crises and explaining its tribulations. They idea that the People could at some point take seriously what they themselves said, never crossed their minds either! ..."
"... Today, four out of five French people disapprove of Macron's policies and one in two demands that he resigns immediately. We assume that this percentage is greater than the percentage of Russians who wanted the ousting of Tsar Nicholas II in February 1917. ..."
"... France is currently almost in a state of Power Vacuum . The president and the government cannot in essence govern and the people cannot tolerate them. It is not a situation of dual power, but a situation of dual legitimacy , in Mélenchon 's accurate description. ..."
"... This is a typical definition of a revolutionary situation . As history teaches us, the emergence of such a situation is necessary but not sufficient condition for a victorious Revolution. What is required in or order to turn a rebellion into a potentially victorious Revolution, is a capable and decided leadership and an adequate strategy, program and vision. These elements do not seem to exist, at last not for now, in today's France, as they did not exist in May 1968 or during the Russian Revolution of February 1917. Therefore, the present situation remains open to all possible eventualities; there must be no doubt however, that this is the beginning of a period of intense political and class conflicts in Europe, and that the Europe, as we know it, is already history. ..."
"... Or at least, for the people to be given the opportunity to develop an effective way of controlling state power. ..."
"... By reversing Marx's famous formula in German Ideology , the ideas of the dominant class do not dominate society. This is why the situation can be described as revolutionary. ..."
"... Although it is difficult to form an opinion from afar about how the situation may unfold, the formation of a such a United Front from grassroots could perhaps offer a way out with regards to the need for a political leadership for the movement, or even of the need to work out a transitional economic program for France, which must also serve as a transitional program for Europe . ..."
"... Contrary to how things were a century ago, certain factors such as the educational level of the lower social classes, the existence of a number of critical, radical thinkers with the necessary intellectual skills and the Internet, render such a possibility a much more realistic scenario today, than in the past. ..."
The magazine LePoint is one of the main media outlets of the French
conservative "centre-right". One of its December issues carries the cover title France
Faces its History. 1648, 1789, 1830, 1848, 1871 four centuries of revolutions.
The cover features also a painting by Pierre-Jérôme Lordon, showing people
clashing with the army at Rue de Babylone , in Paris, during the
Revolution of 1830. Perhaps this is where Luc Ferry, Chirac's former minister, got his idea
from, when, two days ago, he asked the Army to intervene and the police to start shooting and
killing Yellow Vests.
Do not be surprised if you haven't heard this from your TV or if you don't know that the
level of police repression and violence in France, measured in people dead, injured and
arrested, has exceeded everything the country has experienced since 1968. Nor should you
wonder why you don't know anything about some Yellow Vest's new campaign calling for a
massive run on French banks. Or why you have been lead you to believe that the whole thing is
to do with fuel taxes or increasing minimum wage.
The vast majority of European media didn't even bother to communicate to their readers
or viewers the main political demands of the Yellow Vests ; and certainly, there hasn't
been any meaningful attempt to offer an insightful interpretation of what's happening in
France and there is just very little serious on-the-ground reporting, in the villages and
motorways of France.
Totalitarianism
Following Napoleon's defeat in Waterloo, European Powers formed the Holy Alliance banning
Revolutions.
Nowadays, Revolutions have just been declared inconceivable (Soros – though not just
him – has been giving a relentless fight to take them out of history textbooks or, as a
minimum, to erase their significance and meaning). Since they are unthinkable they cannot
happen. Since they cannot happen they do not happen.
In the same vein, European media sent their journalists out to the streets in Paris on
Christmas and New Year's days, counted the protesters and found that they weren't too many
after all. Of course they didn't count the 150,000 police and soldiers lined up by Macron on
New Year's Eve. Then they made sure that they remain "impartial" and by just comparing
numbers of protesters, led viewers to think that we are almost done with it – it was
just a storm, it will pass.
The other day I read a whole page article about Europe in one of the most "serious" Greek
newspapers, on 30.12. The author devoted just one single meaningless phrase about the Vests.
Instead, the paper still found the way to include in the article the utterly stupid statement
of a European Right-Wing politician who attributed the European crisis to the existence of
Russia Today and Sputnik! And when I finally found a somewhat more serious article online
about the developments in France, I realized that its only purpose was to convince us that
what is happening in France surely has nothing to do with 1789 or 1968!
It is only a pity that the people concerned, the French themselves, cannot read in Greek.
If they could, they would have realized that it does not make any sense to have "Revolution"
written on their vests or to sing the 1789 song in their demonstrations or to organize
symbolic ceremonies of the public "decapitation" of Macron, like Louis XV. And the French
bourgeois press would not waste time everyday comparing what happens in the country now with
what happened in 1968 and 1789.
Totalitarianism is not just a threat. It's already here. Simply it has omitted to
announce its arrival. We have to deduce its precence from its results.
A terrified
ruling class
The French bourgeoisie is the politically most experienced ruling class in Europe. It has
no illusions about the challenge it faces. Le Point put its file on the
revolt of the vests under the self-telling title "What is waiting us".
A few months ago, all we had about Macron in the papers was praise, inside and outside of
France – he was the "rising star" of European politics, the man who managed to pass the
"reforms" one after the other, no resistance could stop him, he would be the one to save and
rebuild Europe. Varoufakis admired and supported him, as early as of the first round of the
2017 elections.
Now, the "chosen one" became a burden for those who put him in office. Some of them
probably want to get rid of him as fast as they can, to replace him with someone else, but
it's not easy – and even more so, it is not easy given the monarchical powers conferred
by the French constitution to the President. The constitution is tailored to the needs of a
President who wants to safeguard power from the people. Those who drafted it could not
probably imagine it would make difficult for the Oligarchy also to fire him!
And who would dare to hold a parliamentary or presidential election in such a situation,
as in France today? No one knows what could come out of it. Moreover, Macron does not have a
party in the sense of political power. He has a federation of friends who benefit as long as
he stays in power and they are damaged when he collapses.
The King is naked
"The King is naked", points out Le Point's editorial, before, with almost sadistic
callousness, posing the question: "What can a government do when a remarkable section of the
people vomits it?"
But it's not only the king who is naked. The whole system is naked. In the many pages
devoted by the magazine to demonstrate that what the Vests want is unfeasible, not even a
single serious word is written about what needs to be done to deal with the deep causes which
led the French to revolt. Today's capitalism of Macron, Merkel and Trump does not produce a
Roosevelt and New Deal or Popular Fronts – and we have to wait to see if it will
produce a Hitler as some are trying to achieve. For the time being, it only produces Yellow
Vests!
They predicted it, they saw it coming, but they didn't believe it!
Yet they could have predicted all that. It would have sufficed, had they only taken
seriously and studied a book published in France in late 2016, six months before the
presidential election, highlighting the explosive nature of the social situation and warning
of the danger of revolution and civil war.
The title of the book was "Revolution". Its author was none other than Emmanuel Macron
himself. Six months later, he would become the President of France, to eventually verify, and
indeed rather spectacularly, his predictions. But the truth is probably, that not even he
himself gave much credit to what he wrote just to win the election.
By constantly lying, politicians, journalists and intellectuals reasonably came to believe
that even their own words are of no importance. That they can say and do anything they want,
without any consequence.
In Oscar Wilde's masterpiece "The Picture of Dorian Gray", the main character looks every
night at his horrible real self in the mirror. But he looks at it alone.
This is where Macron made his most fatal mistake, being arrogant and markedly cut off from
reality – with the confidence given to him by the mighty elite forces, which elected
him and by his contempt of the common people which characterizes him.
Unwise and Arrogant, he made no effort to hide – this is how sure he felt of
himself, this is how convinced his environment was that he could infinitely go on doing
anything he wanted without any consequences (same as our Tsipras). Thus, acting foolishly and
arrogantly, he left a few million eyes to see his real face. This was the last straw that
made the French people realize in a definite way what they had already started figuring out
during Sarkozy's and Hollande's, administration, or even earlier. Observing Macron, the
people understood what lied ahead for them. They felt their backs against the wall –
they felt that they had only themselves to rely on, that they had to take themselves action
to save themselves and their country.
There was nobody else to make it in their place.
Macron as a Provocateur.
Terror in Pompeii
This was the decisive moment, the moment the historical mission of Macron
was achieved . By establishing the most absolute control of Finance over Politics, he himself invited
Revolution. His triumph and his tragedy came together.
It was just then, that Bucephalus (*) sprang from the depths of historical Memory,
galloping without a rider, ready to sweep away everything in his path.
Now those in power look at him with fear, but fearful too are both the "radical right" and
the "radical left". Le Pen has already called on protesters to return to their homes and give
her names to include in her list for the European election!
Mélenchon supports the Vests – 70% of their demands coincide with the program
of his party, La France Insoumise – but so far he hasn't dared to join the
people in demanding Macron's resignation, by adopting the immense, but orphan, cry of the
people heard all over France: "Macron resign". Perhaps he feels that he hasn't got the steely
strength and willpower required for attempting to lead such a movement.
The unions' leadership is doing everything it can to keep the working class away from the
Vests, but this stand started causing increasing unrest at its base.
Many established "leftists" or "radical" intellectuals, who used to feverishly haul
capitalism over the coals – although the last thing they really wanted was to
experience a real revolution during their lifetime – they too, stand now frightened,
looking at an angry Bucephalus running ahead of them. They prefer a stable capitalism, of
which they can constitute its "consciousness", writing books, appearing on shows and giving
lectures, analyzing its crises and explaining its tribulations. They idea that the People
could at some point take seriously what they themselves said, never crossed their minds
either!
In fact, this is also a further confirmation of the depth of the movement. Lenin ,
who, in any event knew something about revolutions, wrote in 1917: "In a revolutionary
situation, the Party is a hundred times farther to the left than the Central Committee and
the workers a hundred times farther to the left than the Party."
"Revolutionary
Situation" and Power Vacuum
Today, four out of five French people disapprove of Macron's policies and one in two
demands that he resigns immediately. We assume that this percentage is greater than the
percentage of Russians who wanted the ousting of Tsar Nicholas II in February 1917.
France is currently almost in a state of Power Vacuum . The president and
the government cannot in essence govern and the people cannot tolerate them. It is not a
situation of dual power, but a situation of dual legitimacy , in
Mélenchon 's accurate description.
This is a typical definition of a revolutionary situation . As history
teaches us, the emergence of such a situation is necessary but not sufficient condition for a victorious Revolution. What is required in or order to turn
a rebellion into a potentially victorious Revolution, is a capable and decided leadership and
an adequate strategy, program and vision. These elements do not seem to exist, at last not
for now, in today's France, as they did not exist in May 1968 or during the Russian
Revolution of February 1917. Therefore, the present situation remains open to all possible
eventualities; there must be no doubt however, that this is the beginning of a period of
intense political and class conflicts in Europe, and that the Europe, as we know it, is
already history.
People's Sovereignty at the center of demands
Starting from fuel tax the revolting French have now put at the centre of their demands,
in addition to Macron's resignation, the following:
preserving the purchasingpower of the poorest social strata, e.g.
with the abolition of VAT on basic necessities to ensure decent standards of living for the
entire population,
the right of people to provoke referendums on any issue, the Citizens'
Initiative Referendum (RIC), including referendums to revokeelectedrepresentatives (the President, MPs, mayors, etc. ) when they violate their mandate,
all that in the context of establishing a SixthFrenchRepublic .
In other words, they demand a profound and radical " transformation " of the
Western bourgeois-democratic regime, as we know it, towards a form of directdemocracy in order to take back the state, which has gradually and in a totalitarian
manner – but while keeping up democratic appearances – passed under direct and
full control of the Financial Capital and its employees. Or at least, for the people to be
given the opportunity to develop an effective way of controlling state power.
These are not the demands of a fun-club of Protagoras or of some left-wing or right-wing
groupuscule propagating Self-Management or of some club of intellectuals. Nor are they the
demands of only the lowest social strata of the French nation.
They are supported, according to the polls and put forward by at least three quarters of
French citizens, including a sizeable portion of the less poor. In such circumstances, these
demands constitute in effect the Will of the People, the Will of the Nation.
The Vests are nothing more than its fighting pioneers. And precisely because it is the
absolute majority of people who align with these demands, even if numbers have somewhat gone
down since the beginning of December, the Vests are still wanted out on the streets.
By reversing Marx's famous formula in German Ideology , the ideas
of the dominant class do not dominate society. This is why the situation can be
described as revolutionary.
And also because it is not only the President and the Government, who have been debunked
or at least de-legitimized, but it's also the whole range of state and political
institutions, the parties, the unions, the "information" media and the "ideologists" of the
regime.
The questioning of the establishment is so profound that any arguments about violence and
the protesters do not weaken society's support for them. Many, but not all, condemn violence,
but there are not many who don't go on immediately to add a reminder of the regime's social
violence against the people. When a famous ex-boxer lost his temper and reacted by punching a
number of violent police officers, protesters set up a fundraising website for his legal
fees. In just two hours they managed to raise around 120.000 euro, before removing the page
over officials' complaints and threats about keeping a file on anyone who contributes money
to support such causes.
Until now, an overwhelming majority of the French people supports the demands while an
absolute majority shows supports for the demonstrations; but of course, it is difficult to
keep such a deadlock and power-void situation going for long. They will sooner or later
demand a solution, and in situations such as these it is often the case that public opinion
shifts rapidly from the one end of the political spectrum to the other and vice versa,
depending on which force appears to be more decisive and capable of driving
society out of the crisis.
The organization of the Movement
Because the protesters have no confidence in the parties, the trade unions, or anyone else
for that matter, they are driven out of necessity into self-organization, as they already do
with the Citizens' Assemblies that are now emerging in villages, cities and motorway camps.
Indeed, by the end of the month, if everything goes well, they will hold the first "
AssemblyofAssemblies ".
Similar developments have also been observed in many revolutionary movements of this kind
in various countries. A classic example is the spontaneous formation of the councils (
Soviets ) during the Russian revolutions of 1905 and 1917.
Although it is difficult to form an opinion from afar about how the situation may unfold,
the formation of a such a United Front from grassroots could perhaps offer a
way out with regards to the need for a political leadership for the movement,
or even of the need to work out a transitional economic program for
France, which must also serve as a transitional program for Europe .
Contrary to how things were a century ago, certain factors such as the educational level
of the lower social classes, the existence of a number of critical, radical thinkers with the
necessary intellectual skills and the Internet, render such a possibility a much more
realistic scenario today, than in the past.
Because the movement's Achilles' Heel is that, while it is already in the process of
forming a political proposition, it still, at least for now, does not offer any economic
alternative or a politically structured, democratically controlled leadership.
Effective Democracy is an absolute requirement in such a front, because it is the
only way to synthesize the inevitablydifferentlevels of
consciousness within the People and to avoid a split of the movement between "left"
and "right", between those who are ready to resort to violence to achieve their ends and
those who have a preference for more peaceful, gradual processes.
Such a " front " could perhaps also serve as a platform for solidifying a
program and vision, to which the various parties and political organizations could
contribute.
In her CritiqueoftheRussianRevolutionRosaLuxemburg , the leader of the German Social Democracy was overly critical
of the Bolsheviks , even if, I think, a bit too severe in some points. But she closes
her critique with the phrase: " They at least dared "
Driven by absolute Need, guided by the specific way its historical experience has formed
its consciousness, possessing a Surplus of Consciousness, that is able to feel the
unavoidable conclusions coming out of the synthesis of the information we all possess, about
both the "quality" of the forces governing our world and the enormous dangers threatening our
countries and mankind, the French People, the French Nation has already crossed the
Rubicon.
By moving practically to achieve their goals at a massive scale, and regardless of what is
to come next, the French people has already made a giant leap up and forward and, once more
in its history, it became the world's forerunner in tackling the terrible economic,
ecological, nuclear and technological threats against human civilization and its
survival.
Without the conscious entry of large masses into the historical scene, with all the
dangers and uncertainties that such a thing surely implies, one can hardly imagine how
humanity will survive.
The neoliberalism of the Democratic Party elite (and most of the rank and file) is one big
factor in our 2016 loss. Even voters too ignorant to see Trump for what he really was -
voters that are misinformed to the point that they unwittingly and continually vote against
their own best interests - realized how much the Dems have sold out to Wall Street.
HRC would have been nominated in '08 if she had kissed more Wall Street you-know-what.
That's why they anointed Obama who then proceeded to squander eight years of opportunity to
remove big money from politics and enact progressive reforms to health care, the environment,
etc.
Bernie is a bit long in the tooth, so I am all in for Liz Warren. She's the only one with
both the courage and the intelligence to take on the big money that controls our
politics.
Therefore, you can expect the Russian trolls to be coming for her in force. If you read
anything negative about Warren in the coming months, check the source and don't trust the
accuracy.
"... Trump's recent tax cuts are a good example. Most of the actual cuts go toward the corporations and ultra-wealthy, which just increases the deficit while shifting the proportion of taxes paid onto the middle class. It's a con that many Americans are inexplicably susceptible to believing, for some reason. ..."
Didn't help that the ostensibly neutral DNC was sending emails saying that they should play
up Bernie Sanders' Jewish faith (among other attack strategies), fed debate questions to the
Clinton campaign or tried to limit opportunities for Bernie and Hillary to share a stage
together.
Bernie Sanders is widely considered by many to be one of the most popular American
politicians, more than Trump and certainly more popular than Hillary. I think an interesting
phenomenon to notice is the lengths the GOP, in particular, will go to in order to convince
the average voter that anything that cuts taxes is inherently good for the 'little guy,'
while anything that raises taxes is bad.
Trump's recent tax cuts are a good example. Most of
the actual cuts go toward the corporations and ultra-wealthy, which just increases the
deficit while shifting the proportion of taxes paid onto the middle class. It's a con that
many Americans are inexplicably susceptible to believing, for some reason.
We've known since WW2, that fighting fascism is difficult. Benito Mussolini defined fascism
as "Barely able to slip a cigarette paper between business and government." And when business
runs government, we have even exceeded fascism. The new battle against fascism is not going
to be easy.
"... The best approach to retirement would be a more generous Social Security system plus single payer, so that older people don't have to worry about Medicaid crapification like joining a HMO or drug plans and so everyone gets the benefit of limiting drug price increases and getting rid of costly middlemen. You'll notice that Fink said squat about companies needing to do their bit to help with retirement by halting discrimination against older workers. Creating more opportunities for those who want to work to keep working would do a good deal to reduce retirement insecurity. ..."
BlackRock CEO Larry Fink Tells Corporate CEOs to Engage in Better Eyewash Posted on
January 21, 2019 by Yves Smith One of the sorry spectacles
of modern life is having prominent individuals who profit from and serve as prime exemplars of
major social ills trying to depict themselves as part of the solution, when they haven't gone
through any sort of Damascene conversion o give their virtue-signalling even a thin veneer of
legitimacy.
Today's object lesson is Larry Fink, the Chairman and CEO of the ginormous fund manager
BlackRock (not to be confused with the private equity/alternative asset manager Blackstone).
BlackRock, with $6.2 trillion under management as of October, 2018, is the largest asset
manager in the world,.
Fink became a big cheerleader of sustainability in early 2018, which makes him awfully late
to this party; "environment, social, and governance" has been an investment fad for well over a
decade. We've embedded his 2019 letter letter to CEOs at this end of this post.
One imagines that Fink thinks his missive is forthright, but it doesn't even register as
either a "dare to be great" exhortation or an incisive analysis. Instead, it comes off as a
rehash of Davos Man worries, with it all too evident that Fink and his fellow travelers are in
comfortable denial about the rot in the foundations of the political and social order.
Fink Is the Last to Lecture; He's Patient Zero of the Problem
Nowhere does Fink mention the elephant in the room: high levels of income and wealth
inequality. Heavens no. All that populist revolt and decline in faith in globalization is due
to the great unwashed masses wanting companies to step in because governments haven't responded
adequately. No, I am not making that up. Fink never acknowledges that the sustained war on New
Deal safety nets and labor protections, and the resulting rise in insecurity and lack of class
mobility are fueling this legitimacy crisis.
Fink can't afford to acknowledge that he exemplifies the problem. Supersized finance sectors
have played a big, direct role in the rise in inequality in advanced economies. These studies
have also found that the growth in secondary market trading is particularly unproductive in
economic terms. And not to belabor the obvious, but rising levels of pay in finance since the
early 1980s have also led to a brain drain, particularly of mathematics and physicians who
became "quants"
As Dr. Asbhy Monk pointed out in talk at CalPERS, you are twice as likely to become a
billionaire in asset management as you are in tech. While the 1% consists largely of CEOs and
their top retainers (such as partners at the toniest law and consulting firms), the top 0.1%
consists mainly of private equity and hedge fund heavyweights. Fink, a billionaire is
a member of the 0.1% club .
Nor is Fink a credible party to tell other CEOs how to behave. He's been one of the 25
most overpaid CEOs . It should come as no surprise that BlackRock is also less likely than
other large fund managers to vote against CEO pay packages. Can't risk alienating prospects for
401(k) mandates, now can we?
The New Corporate Salvation: "Purpose"
The big theme of Fink's letter is that companies need to put "purpose" first. He's very late
to this party too. We wrote back in 2007 of Financial Times writer John Kay's discussion of the
idea of obliquity, that in complex systems, it is actually counterproductive to try to pursue
goals directly, because the environment is too complicated to be able to map a straight path.
One of the implications is that companies that focus on profits don't wind up being the most
profitable in their industry: the one with loftier goals do better.
The wee problem with Fink's exhortation for those businesses that fetishized maximizing
shareholder value to start focusing on nobler aims is that it is very hard to change the
culture of large organizations, short of a replacing lots of people at the top. And that sort
of shakeup pretty much never happens save as a result of a major crisis.
Fink contends that companies will have to take the demand of millennials that companies put
improving society over generating profit. However, given that these same millennials are
perfectly happy to work for elite (Google and Facebook) and not-so-elite companies that are
putting more and more surveillance technology in place, and are all too happy to give personal
data away (DNA???? What are you thinking?), the days of millennial uppity-ness are likely to be
short lived.
A Bit Too Obvious that Fink Is Talking His Book
Larry, a pro tip: if you are going to pretend to offer advice, it has to be credible. This
isn't:
Unnerved by fundamental economic changes and the failure of government to provide lasting
solutions, society is increasingly looking to companies, both public and private, to address
pressing social and economic issues.
This is true only by by "society" he means the old money 400 families sort. Everyone else
who has been paying attention has noticed that the compensation for CEOs and top executives has
kept rising relentlessly, while they pay of ordinary people has languished and their jobs have
become less secure. And no one on the wrong side of this trade is going as a supplicant to
"companies" and plead with them to do better. Laborers got safer working conditions and
eventually shorter workweeks and better pay only after years of struggle that included killing
of labor leaders, and even then, those gains were solidified for a few decades primarily to
hold Communism at bay.
The reason that Bernie Sanders is the most popular politician in the US and that Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez has caught on like a house on fire is that they have put economic inequality and
injustice at the center of their agendas, and American are hungry for the types of change they
are advocating. More female and minority board members means squat to American who are living
paycheck to paycheck.
A plausible pitch would have gone more like: "The pitchforks are coming,. You can either
remain a target or figure out what you need to do to have your leadership group look less like
out-of-touch greedheads." But I doubt that Fink will be in the vanguard of business leaders
arguing for the need to give up excesses like corporate jets.
Another tell that the times that the word "sustainable" appears in Fink's letter, it refers
to financial performance, not to sustainability as it is usually used in the wider world, for
needing to work within planetary resource limits. But if Fink were to be at all candid on this
front, he'd have to admit that huge swathe of investee companies should be radically downsized
or liquidated, such as oil and gas exploration and development companies, airlines, fast
fashion companies, and plastics makers like Dow Chemical. And then we have other companies that
are negative value added societally, such as health insurers and banks. Recall that the Bank of
England's Andrew Haldane, in a 2010 back of the envelope estimate of the GDP cost of the crisis
that proved to be accurate, ascertained that
banks could not begin to pay for the damage they did . In other words, a banking industry
that creates global crises is negative value added from a societal standpoint. It is purely
extractive.
But a more obvious howler is Fink's discussion of how companies have to help with
retirement:
Retirement, in particular, is an area where companies must reestablish their traditional
leadership role. For much of the 20th Century, it was an element of the social compact in
many countries that employers had a responsibility to help workers navigate retirement. In
some countries, particularly the United States, the shift to defined contribution plans
changed the structure of that responsibility, leaving too many workers unprepared. And nearly
all countries are confronting greater longevity and how to pay for it. This lack of
preparedness for retirement is fueling enormous anxiety and fear, undermining productivity in
the workplace and amplifying populism in the political sphere.
In response, companies must embrace a greater responsibility to help workers navigate
retirement, lending their expertise and capacity for innovation to solve this immense global
challenge. In doing so, companies will create not just a more stable and engaged workforce,
but also a more economically secure population in the places where they operate.
Fink can't possibly admit that the "save in financial assets" model for retirement cannot
possibly work, particularly in a backdrop where advanced economies desperately need to reduce
their populations as part of a program to curb resource demands. The old model the US had for
saving for retirement was the 30 year mortgage. Men (it was then almost entirely men) got jobs
that would last 20+ years. Paying down the mortgage was forced savings. The house would become
mortgage-free around the time of retirement, lowering household costs when income dropped.
The compound interest magic that made Warren Buffett rich depends on corporate profit growth
and/or falling interest rates. In aggregate corporate profit growth depends on population
growth and productivity growth. Labor is the biggest input cost for goods and obviously for
services, so productivity growth generally speaking will reduce the amount of labor. When
workers had more bargaining power, the benefits of productivity gains were once split between
profits and wage increases, but those days ended in the mid-1970s.
Or to put it another way, trees can't grow to the sky. The US is already at a record high
level of profit share to GDP. Corporations have been the biggest buyers of stocks in the US for
years and that has to slow down due to debt levels and rising interest rates making that game
less attractive than it used to be.
You don't have to look hard to see that valuation of financial assets are attenuated, and
with central banks determined over time to get back to more normal interest rates, it's not as
if there's good reason to expect the financial markets to be a friendly setting for the next
few years.
Michael Hudson has documented how in Bronze Age societies that excessive financial burdens,
in the form of debt, were periodically wiped clean in jubilees. We don't have such enlightened
approaches for pro-actively cancelling or cutting dysfunctional financial claims. We instead
have financial crises or wars or revolutions do the trick.
The best approach to retirement would be a more generous Social Security system plus
single payer, so that older people don't have to worry about Medicaid crapification like
joining a HMO or drug plans and so everyone gets the benefit of limiting drug price increases
and getting rid of costly middlemen. You'll notice that Fink said squat about companies needing
to do their bit to help with retirement by halting discrimination against older workers.
Creating more opportunities for those who want to work to keep working would do a good deal to
reduce retirement insecurity.
So Fink is yet another one of those squillionaires who doesn't get that his patter has a
Versailles circa 1788 feel to it. But at least his version is bland and conventional. He could
be trying to pitch some technology snake oil instead.
FTA "The fund groups were particularly irked by a 'Statement of Principles' drawn up by
Godfrey signing them up to put clients first. Their objection was to the extra bureaucracy
involved.
Another bone of contention is the IA's stance on bosses' pay. It set up a working group to
look at excessive rewards – which could embarrass some fund managers."
Stealing from the rich like that, he should be ashamed /sx2
Return to the tax rates in effect during the Eisenhower administration (with adjustments
to the table to reflect inflation, of course). Then the government could use the extra income
to pay for additional benefits.
(Note to NC readers – that last sentence should really be "..to pretend to pay for "
but perhaps it's better to let them hold onto some of their fantasies)
my god. what a masterpiece. I'm gonna read this one twice. First thoughts: I love it; I
almost passed it by because shiney objects; 6.2 trillion is a punchline; the Finkster as
patient zero is a new Marvel Comic Evil Hero for Real; I'm getting a front-row seat on
history, past and future; human rationalization is the great twister; defined contribution
plans is greed on steroids; I even took notes on the inside of the envelope; "sustainability"
as a financial performance legitimizer – my god it's just the opposite – it's a
financial performance control; the Finkster is in the .1% club of delusional gods on the
Cystine (sp?)Chapel; profit IS inequality bec. growth is secondary and therefore finance is
Un-f'ing-productive but masquerades as productive; a few objections: I like the Millenials
(most of them, but not the quants); Rupert Sheldrake rules: knowledge (per this post) goes
around the world at mach speed and then exponentiates! – thank you god for small favors
like Yves; and we will survive because we will come together.
"... Checking facts and adding context is what journalists are paid to do. It's in the first line of the job description. Yet, amazingly, almost nobody in the American media did that. ..."
"... That's a shame, because there was a lot to check. The full video of what happened on Friday in Washington is well over an hour long. The four minutes that made Twitter don't tell the story, but instead distorted the story. A longer look shows that the boys from Covington Catholic in Kentucky weren't a roving mob looking for a fight. They were, in fact -- and it shows it on the tape -- standing in place waiting to be picked up by a bus. ..."
"... As they waited there, members of a group called the Black Hebrew Israelites, a black supremacist organization, began taunting them with racial epithets. Nathan Phillips, the now-famous American Indian activist, also approached them, pounding his drum. The footage seems to suggest the boys were unsure whether Phillips was hostile or taking their side against the Black Hebrew Israelites. But in any case, there is no evidence at all that anyone said, "build a wall." ..."
"... So, what really happened on Friday? Watch and decide for yourself. There's plenty of video out there, and some of it is fascinating. What we know for certain at this point is that our cultural leaders are, in fact, bigots. They understand reality on the basis of stereotypes. When the facts don't conform to what they think they know, they ignore the facts. They see America not as a group of people or of citizens, but as a collection of groups. Some of these groups, they are convinced, are morally inferior to other groups. They know that's true. They say it out loud. That belief shapes almost all of their perceptions of the world. ..."
Once footage emerged of the entire incident, however, it became clear that the left had
gotten it completely wrong ; Phillips had approached the teens - many wearing MAGA hats, while
a group of Black Israelites considered to be a hate group by the Anti-Defamation League hurled
racial insults at the students.
After the truth emerged, famous liberals who were previously frothing at the mouth went on a
mad scramble to delete their tweets full of hate, slander and disinformation . The internet
never forgets, however, and neither does Tucker Carlson:
If you were on social media over the weekend, you probably saw the video. It was
shot Friday afternoon , on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. It seemed to show a group
of teenage boys taunting an elderly American Indian man who was holding a drum.
The young men
had come to Washington from a Catholic school in Kentucky to demonstrate in the March for
Life . Some of them wore "Make America Great Again" hats. They seemed menacing. Within
hours, the video was being replayed by virtually every news outlet in America. The American
Indian man with the drum in the video is called Nathan Phillips. He described the young men
he encountered, the ones in the hats, as aggressive and threatening -- essentially shock
troops for Donald Trump.
"I heard them saying, 'Build that wall. Build that wall,'" Phillips said. "This is
indigenous land. We're not supposed to have walls here."
It's hard to remember the last time the great American meme machine produced a clearer
contrast between good and evil -- it was essentially an entire morality play shrunk down to
four minutes for Facebook.
On one side, a noble tribal elder, weather-beaten, calm and wise. He looks like a living
icon. You could imagine a single tear sliding slowly down his cheek at the senselessness of
it all.
On the other side, you had a pack of heedless, sneering young men from the south, drunk on
racism and white privilege. The irony is overwhelming: The indigenous man's land had been
stolen by the very ancestors of these boys in MAGA hats. Yet they dare to lecture him about
walls designed to keep people who look very much like him out what they were calling "their"
country.
It was infuriating to a lot of people. At the same time, it was also strangely comforting
to the people who watched it from Brooklyn and L.A. The people who run this country have long
suspected that middle America is a hive of nativist bigotry. And now they had proof of that.
It was cause for a celebration of outrage. There's nothing quite as satisfying as having your
own biases confirmed.
But did the video really describe what happened? That should have been the first question
journalists asked. Checking facts and adding context is what journalists are paid to do. It's
in the first line of the job description. Yet, amazingly, almost nobody in the American media
did that.
That's a shame, because there was a lot to check. The full video of what happened on
Friday in Washington is well over an hour long. The four minutes that made Twitter don't tell
the story, but instead distorted the story. A longer look shows that the boys from Covington
Catholic in Kentucky weren't a roving mob looking for a fight. They were, in fact -- and it
shows it on the tape -- standing in place waiting to be picked up by a bus.
As they waited there, members of a group called the Black Hebrew Israelites, a black
supremacist organization, began taunting them with racial epithets. Nathan Phillips, the
now-famous American Indian activist, also approached them, pounding his drum. The footage
seems to suggest the boys were unsure whether Phillips was hostile or taking their side
against the Black Hebrew Israelites. But in any case, there is no evidence at all that anyone
said, "build a wall."
So, what really happened on Friday? Watch and decide for yourself. There's plenty of video
out there, and some of it is fascinating. What we know for certain at this point is that our
cultural leaders are, in fact, bigots. They understand reality on the basis of stereotypes.
When the facts don't conform to what they think they know, they ignore the facts. They see
America not as a group of people or of citizens, but as a collection of groups. Some of these
groups, they are convinced, are morally inferior to other groups. They know that's true. They
say it out loud. That belief shapes almost all of their perceptions of the world.
It's not surprising, then, that when a group of pro-life Catholic kids who look like
lacrosse players and live in Kentucky are accused of wrongdoing, the media don't pause for a
moment before casting judgment. Maggie Haberman of the New York Times suggested the boys
needed to be expelled from school. Ana Navarro of CNN called the boys racists and "asswipes"
and then went after their teachers and parents.
Others called for violence against them . CNN legal analyst Bakari Sellers suggested one
of the boys should be, "punched in the face." Former CNN contributor Reza Aslan agreed. Aslan
asked on Twitter, "Have you ever seen a more punchable face than this kid's?" Longtime CNN
contributor Kathy Griffin seemed to encourage a mob to rouse up and hurt these boys,
tweeting, "Name these kids. I want names. Shame them. If you think these effers wouldn't dox
you in a heartbeat. Think again." She repeated her demand again later: "Names please. And
stories from people who can identify them and vouch for their identity. Thank you."
Hollywood film producer Jack Morrissey tweeted that he wanted the boys killed: "MAGA kids
go screaming, hats first, into the woodchipper." He paired that with a graphic photo. Actor
Patton Oswalt linked to personal information about one of the boys, in case anyone wanted to
get started on that project. Meanwhile, Twitter, which claims to have a policy against
encouraging violence, stood by silently as all this happened.
But in case you think the response was entirely from the left, you should know that the
abuse was bipartisan. This wasn't just left versus right. It was the people in power
attacking those below them as a group. Plenty of Republicans in Washington were happy to
savage the Covington kids, probably to inoculate themselves from charges of improper thought.
Bill Kristol asked his Twitter followers to consider "the contrast between the calm dignity
and quiet strength of Mr. Phillips and the behavior of MAGA brats who have absorbed the
spirit of Trumpism."
So what's actually going on here? Well, it's not really about race. In fact, most of the
stories about race really aren't about race. And this is no different. This story is about
the people in power protecting their power, and justifying their power, by destroying and
mocking those weaker than they are.
And then when the actual facts emerged, Kristol quietly deleted his tweet. He never
apologized, of course. He hasn't apologized for the Iraq war, either. There's no need. People
keep giving him money.
The National Review, meanwhile, ran a story entitled, "The Covington Students Might As
Well Have Just Spit on the Cross." That story has since been pulled too, but not before the
author admitted he never even bothered to watch all the videos. He knew what he knew. That
was enough.
What was so interesting about the coverage of Friday's video was how much of it mentioned
something called "privilege." Alex Cranz, an editor at Gizmodo, for example, wrote, "From
elementary school through college, I went to school with sheltered upper middle-class white
boys who could devastate with a smirk. A facial gesture that weaponized their privilege.
Infuriatingly you can't fight that effing smirk with a punch or words. We saw that as Trump
smirked his way through the election and we'll see it as that boy from Kentucky's friends,
family, and school protect him. I effing hate that smirk. It says 'I'm richer, I'm white, and
I'm a guy.'"
What's so fascinating about all these attacks is how inverted they are. These are high
school kids from Kentucky. Do they really have more privilege than Alex Cranz from Gizmodo?
Probably not. In fact, probably much less. They're far less privileged than virtually
everyone who called for them to be destroyed, based on the fact that they have too much
privilege.
Consider Kara Swisher, for example, an opinion columnist at the New York Times. Swisher
went to Princeton Day School and then Georgetown, then got a graduate degree at Columbia.
She's become rich and famous, in the meantime, by toadying for billionaire tech CEOs. She's
their handmaiden. Nobody considers her very talented. And yet she's somehow highly
influential in our society. Is she more privileged than the boys of Covington Catholic in
Kentucky? Of course she is. Maybe that's why she feels the need to call them Nazis, which she
did, repeatedly.
So what's actually going on here? Well, it's not really about race. In fact, most of the
stories about race really aren't about race. And this is no different. This story is about
the people in power protecting their power, and justifying their power, by destroying and
mocking those weaker than they are.
Why? It's simple. Our leaders haven't improved the lives of most people in America. They
can't admit that because it would discredit them. So, instead they attack the very people
they've failed. The problem, they'll tell us, with Kentucky, isn't that bad policies have
hurt the people who live there. It's that the people who live there are immoral because
they're bigots. They deserve their poverty and opioid addiction. They deserve to die
young.
That's what our leaders tell themselves. And now, that's what they're telling us. Just
remember: they're lying.
"... Uber passengers were paying only 41% of the actual cost of their trips; Uber was using these massive subsidies to undercut the fares and provide more capacity than the competitors who had to cover 100% of their costs out of passenger fares. ..."
"... Warren Supports Medicare for All Only Nominally ..."
"... Never mind that Warren can say, virtually in the same breath, that insurance companies "still make plenty of money" and "we have plenty of work to do to bring down health care spending." RomneyCare was the beta version of ObamaCare. We tried it, as a nation, starting in 2009, and here we are.[5] Is that's what Warren wants, fine, but why not simply advocate for it? ..."
"... Except, perhaps, one distinctly slanted toward insiders. " Work hard and play by the rules " is a Clintonite trope ..."
"... but only through the institutional framework of unions ..."
"... Warren's emphasis on the economic market for health "care?" (insurance companies making plenty of money ..."
"... I've long ago disabused myself of the notion that E. Warren is more than "lipstick" on the usual "pig", but it was good to have written support for that thesis and I will save it for my reference. ..."
"... Non-profit health insurance Company – https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/money/business/2014/04/25/former-excellus-ceo-package-total-m/8155853/ The final retirement package for former Excellus BlueCross BlueShield CEO David Klein likely will exceed -- by millions -- the $12.9 million the company reported to the state in March. $29.8 Million in retirement. Non-profit for who? It's a complete misnomer and a huge problem in the discourse of healthcare. Hospitals are usually non-profits too. They non-profitly charge you $80,000 for a few stitches and some aspirin. ..."
"... The transcript could easily have been a speech by Hillary (and even delivered to Goldman Sachs if Hillary had had the foresight to realize that every speech would become known to everybody in the Internet age -- before Russiagate was leveraged into Social media banning of anti-establishment speech). ..."
"... The Eric Schmidt who took Google down the primrose part of spying on everybody. Warren is centrist. ..."
"... Warren 2020 campaign is DOA. If you want Trump for another four years go with Warren 2020. Bernie would have won. ..."
"... " Elizabeth Warren is Hillary Clinton reborn, and they're both unlikable, because they're both inauthentic scolds who suffer from hall monitor syndrome. They spent their entire lives breaking every rule they could find while awkwardly fantasizing about running every tiny detail of everyone else's lives . ..."
Posted on January
20, 2019 by Lambert Strether
New America (board chair emeritus Eric Schmidt
, President the aptronymic Anne-Marie
Slaughter ), a
nominally center-left
Beltway think tank ( funding ) "
took up the mission of designing a new social contract
in 2007 and was the first organization [anywhere?] to frame its vision in these terms." On May 19, 2016, New America sponsored an
annual conference (there was no 2017 iteration) entitled "The Next Social Contract." Elizabeth Warren, presidential contender, was
invited to give the opening keynote (
transcript , whicn includes
video). Warren shared a number of interesting ideas. I will quote portions of her speech, followed by brief commentary, much of it
already familiar to NC readers, in an effort to situate her
more firmly
in the political landscape. But first, let me quote Warren's opening paragraph:
It is so good to be here with all of you. And yes I will be calling on people. Mostly those of you standing in the back. I
always know why people are standing in the back. That's what teachers do.
Professional-class dominance games aside, it's evident that Warren is comfortable here. These are her people. And I would urge
that, no matter what policy position she might take on the trail, these policies and this program are her "center of gravity," as
it were. Push her left (or, to be fair, right) and, like a
bobo doll , she will return to this upright position
. So, to the text (all quotes from Warren from the
transcript ). I'll start
with two blunders, and then move on to more subtle material.
Warren Does Not Understand Uber's Business Model
Or, in strong form, Warren fell for Uber's propaganda.[1] Warren says:
Thank you to the New America Foundation for inviting me here today to talk about the gig economy You know, across the country,
new companies are using the Internet to transform the way that Americans work, shop, socialize, vacation, look for love, talk
to the doctor, get around, and track down ten foot feather boas, which is actually my latest search on Amazon .
These innovations have helped improve our lives in countless ways, reducing inefficiencies and leveraging network effects to
help grow our economy. And this is real growth . The most famous example of this is probably the ride-sharing platforms in our
cities. The taxi cab industry was riddled with monopolies, rents, inefficiencies. Cities limited the number of taxi licenses
Uber and Lyft, two ride-sharing platforms came onto the scene about five years ago, radically altered this model, enabling
anyone with a smartphone and a car to deliver rides . The result was more rides, cheaper rides, and shorter wait times.
The ride-sharing story illustrates the promise of these new businesses. And the dangers. Uber and Lyft fought against local
taxi cab rules that kept prices high and limited access to services .
And while their businesses provide workers with greater flexibility, companies like Lyft and Uber have often resisted efforts
of those very same workers to try to access a greater share of the wealth that is generated from the work that they
do. Their business model is, in part , dependent on extremely low wages for their drivers.
"In part" is doing rather a lot of work, there, even more than "the wealth that is generated," because NC readers know, Uber's
business model is critically dependent on massive subsidies from investors, without which is would not exist as a firm.
Hubert Horan (November 30, 2016):
Published financial data shows that Uber is losing more money than any startup in history and that its ability to capture customers
and drivers from incumbent operators is entirely due to $2 billion in annual investor subsidies. The vast majority of media coverage
presumes Uber is following the path of prominent digitally-based startups whose large initial losses transformed into strong profits
within a few years.
This presumption is contradicted by Uber's actual financial results, which show no meaningful margin improvement through
2015 while the limited margin improvements achieved in 2016 can be entirely explained by Uber-imposed cutbacks to driver
compensation. It is also contradicted by the fact that Uber lacks the major scale and network economies that allowed digitally-based
startups to achieve rapid margin improvement.
As a private company, Uber is not required to publish financial statements, and financial statements disseminated privately
are not required to be audited in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) or satisfy the SEC's reporting
standards for public companies.
The financial tables below are based on private financial statements that Uber shared with investors that were published in
the financial press on three separate occasions. The first set included data for 2012, 2013 and the first half of 2014
The second set included tables of GAAP profit data for full year 2014 and the first half of 2015 ; the third set included
summary EBITAR contribution data for the first half of 2016. .
[F]or the year ending September 2015, Uber had GAAP losses of $2 billion on revenue of $1.4 billion, a negative 143% profit
margin. Thus Uber's current operations depend on $2 billion in subsidies, funded out of the $13 billion in cash its investors
have provided.
Uber passengers were paying only 41% of the actual cost of their trips; Uber was using these massive subsidies to undercut
the fares and provide more capacity than the competitors who had to cover 100% of their costs out of passenger fares.
Many other tech startups lost money as they pursued growth and market share, but losses of this magnitude are unprecedented;
in its worst-ever four quarters, in 2000, Amazon had a negative 50% margin, losing $1.4 billion on $2.8 billion in revenue, and
the company responded by firing more than 15 percent of its workforce. 2015 was Uber's fifth year of operations; at that point
in its history Facebook was achieving 25% profit margins.
Now, in Warren's defense, it is true that she, on May 19, 2016, could not have had the benefit of Horan's post at Naked Capitalism,
which was published only on November 30, 2016. However, I quoted Horan's post at length to show the dates: The data was out there;
it wasn't a secret; it only needed a staffer with a some critical thinking skills and a mandate to do the research to come to the
same conclusions Horan did, and Uber's lack of profitabilty, easily accessible, is a ginormous red flag for anybody who takes the
idea that Uber "generates wealth" seriously. How is it that the wonkish Warren is recommending policy based on what can only be superfical
research in the trade and technical press? Should not the professor have done the reading?[2]
Warren Does Not Understand How Federal Taxation Works
The second blunder. Warren says:
First, make sure that every worker pays into Social Security, as the law has always intended. Right now, it is a challenge
for someone who doesn't have an employer that automatically deducts payroll taxes to pay into Social Security. This can affect
both a worker's ability to qualify for disability insurance after a major [injury], and it can result in much lower retirement
benefits. If Social Security is to be fully funded for generations to come, and if all workers are to have adequate benefits,
then electronic, automatic, mandatory withholding of payroll taxes must apply to everyone , gig workers, 1099 workers, and
hourly employees.
It is laudable that Warren wants to bring all workers in the retirement system. But as NC readers know, Federal taxes do not "pay
for" Federal spending, and hence Warren's thinking that Social Security will be "fully funded" through "payroll taxes" is a nonsense
(and also reinforces incredibly destructive neoliberal austerity policies). I will not tediously rehearse MMT's approach to taxation,
but will simply quote a recent tweet from Warren Mosler:
Warren is indeed a co-sponsor
of Sanders' (
inadequate
) S1804. But read the following passages, and you will see #MedicareForAll not where her passion lies:
As greater wealth is generated by new technology, how can we ensure that the workers who support the economy can actually share
in the wealth?
(The idea that workers "support" "the" [whose?] "economy," instead of driving or being the economy, is interesting, but
let that pass.)
Warren then proceeds to lay out a number of policies to answer that question. She says:
Well, I believe we start with one simple principle. All workers, no matter where they work, no matter how they work, no matter
when they work, no matter who they work for, whether they pick tomatoes or build rocket ships, all workers should have some basic
protections and be able to build some economic security for themselves and their families. No worker should fall through the cracks.
And here are some ideas about how to rethink and strengthen the worker's bargain.
So, she's not just laying out policy for the gig economy (the occasion of the speech); she's laying out a social contract (the
topic of the speech). Picking through the next sections, here is the material on health care:
We can start by strengthening our safety net so that it catches anyone who has fallen on hard times, whether they have a formal
employer or not. And there are three much-needed changes right off the bat on this.
I hate the very concept of a "safety net." Why should life be like a tightrope walk? Who wants that, except crazypants neoliberal
professors, mostly tenured? She then makes recommendations for three policies, and sums up:
These three, Social Security, catastrophic insurance, and earned leave, create a safety net for income.
Hello? Medical bankruptcy ?[3]
She then moves on from the "safety net" for income to benefits, which is the aegis under which she places health care:
Now, the second area of change to make is on employee benefits, both for healthcare and retirement. To make them fully portable.
They belong to the worker, no matter what company or platform generates the income, they should follow that worker wherever that
worker goes. And the corollary to this is that workers without formal employers should have access to the same kinds of benefits
that some employees already have.
I want to be clear here. The Affordable Care Act is a big step toward addressing this problem for healthcare. Providing access
for workers who don't have employer-sponsored coverage and providing a long term structure for portability. We should improve
on that structure, enhancing its portability, and reducing the managerial involvement of employers.
Remember, this is a Democratic audience, and what do we get? "Portability," "access", and reduced "managerial involvement." That's
about as weak as tea can possibly get, and this is a liberal Democrat audience. ("The same kinds of benefits that some employees
already have." Eeesh.) But wait, you say! This speech iis in 2016, and in 2018, Warren supports #MedicareForAll! For example, "
Health care: Supports the "Medicare for All" bill led by Bernie Sanders " (PBS, January 17, 2019). But notice how equivocal that
support is. Quoting PBS again, Warren "called that approach 'a goal worth fighting for.'" Rather equivocal! And folliowing the link
to that quote, we find it's from a
speech
Warren gave to Families USA's Health Action 2018 Conference :
I endorsed Bernie Sanders' Medicare for All bill because it lays out a way to give every single person in this country a guarantee
of high-quality health care. Everybody is covered. Nobody goes broke because of a medical bill. No more fighting with insurance
companies. This is a goal worth fighting for, and I'm in this fight all the way.
There are other approaches as well I'm glad to see us put different ideas on the table.
So, we have a gesture toward #MedicareForAll. But then, Warren, instead of going into detail about how #MedicareForAll would work,
immediately backtracks and emits a welter of detail about minor fixes improvements, on the order of "portability," "access,"
and reduced "managerial involvement." (Different details, but still details). Then she moves on to Massachusetts. Read this, and
it's clear where Warren's heart is:
Massachusetts has the highest rate of health insurance coverage in the nation. We are the healthiest state in the nation[4].
That didn't just happen because we woke up one morning and discovered that insurance companies had just started offering great
coverage at a price everyone could afford.
We demanded that insurance companies live up to their side of the bargain. Every insurer participating in our exchange is required
to offer plans with standard, easy-to-compare benefits and low up-front costs for families. Last year, we had the second-lowest
premiums in the ACA market of any state in the country. Massachusetts insurers pay out 92% of the dollars they bring in through
premiums to cover costs for beneficiaries – not to line their own pockets.
The rules are tough in Massachusetts, but the insurance companies have shown up and done the hard work of covering families
in a responsible way. We have more than double the number of insurers participating on our exchanges, compared to the average
across the country. They show up, they serve the people of Massachusetts, and they still make plenty of money.
Look, we still have plenty of work to do, particularly when it comes to bring down health spending, but we're proud of the
system we have built in Massachusetts, and I think it shows that good policies can have a real impact on the health and well-being
of hard working people across the country.
Never mind that Warren can say, virtually in the same breath, that insurance companies "still make plenty of money" and "we
have plenty of work to do to bring down health care spending." RomneyCare was the beta version of ObamaCare. We tried it, as a nation,
starting in 2009, and here we are.[5] Is that's what Warren wants, fine, but why not simply advocate for it?
Warren Has No Coherent Theory of Change
Except, perhaps, one distinctly slanted toward insiders. "
Work hard and play by the rules
" is a Clintonite trope, but let's search on "rules" and see what we come up with. More from the transcript:
But it is policy, rules and regulations, that will determine whether workers have a meaningful opportunity to share
in the wealth that is generated.
Here, workers are passive , acted upon by rules, and those who create them. But Warren contradicts herself: "Lyft and
Uber have often resisted efforts of those very same workers." Here, workers are active. But if workers are active in the second context,
they are also active in the first! Where does Warren think change comes from? The generosity of Uber and its investors? More:
Antitrust laws and newly-created public utilities addressed the new technological revolution's tendency toward concentration
and monopoly, and kept our markets competitive. Rules to prevent cheating and fraud were added to make sure that bad actors in
the marketplace couldn't get a leg up over folks who played by the rules.
Note the lack of agency in "were added." Warren erases
the
entire Populist Movement ! She also can't seem to get her head round the idea that workers didn't necessarily play by the existing
ruies in order to create new ones. And:
Workers have a right to expect our government to work for them. To set the basic rules of the game. If this country is to have
a strong middle class, then we need the policies that will make that possible. That's how shared prosperity has been built in
the past, and that is our way forward now. Change won't be easy. But we don't get what we don't fight for. And I believe that
America's workers are worth fighting for.
Now, on the one hand, this is great. I, too, believe that "America's workers are worth fighting for." What Warren seems to lack,
at the visceral level, is the idea that workers should be (self-)empowered to do the fighting (as opposed to having the
professional classes pick their fights for them). Here is Warren on unions:
Every worker should have the right to organize, period. Full-time, part-time, temp workers, gig workers, contract workers,
you bet.
Very good. More:
Those who provide the labor should have the right to bargain as a group with whoever controls the terms of their work .
The idea that workers themselves should control the terms of their work seems to elude Warren. This erases, for example, co-ops.
More:
Government is not the only advocate on behalf of workers.
"Not the only?" Like, there are lots of others? This seems a tendentious, not to say naive, view of the role of government. More:
It was workers [here we go], bargaining through their unions [and the qualification], who helped [helped?] introduce retirement
benefits, sick pay, overtime, the weekend, and a long list of other benefits, for their members and for all workers across this
country. Unions helped build America's middle class, and unions will help rebuild America's middle class.
Here, at least, Warren grants workers (partial) agency, but only through the institutional framework of unions . That
distorts the history. Granted, "helped introduce" is doing a lot of work, and who they were "helping" isn't entirely clear,
but the history is enormously complicated. (Here again, Warren needs to do the reading.) For example,
the history
of the weekend long predates unions . And "bargaining through their unions" isn't the half of it. Take, for example,
the Haymarket Affair . From the Illinois
Labor History Society:
To understand what happened at Haymarket, it is necessary to go back to the summer of 1884 when the Federation of Organized
Trades and Labor Unions, the predecessor of the American Federation of Labor, called for May 1, 1886 to be the beginning of a
nationwide movement for the eight-hour day. This wasn't a particularly radical idea since both Illinois workers and federal employees
were supposed to have been covered by an eight-hour day law since 1867. The problem was that the federal government failed to
enforce its own law, and in Illinois, employers forced workers to sign waivers of the law as condition of employment.
Fine, "rules." Which weren't being obeyed! More from the Illinois Labor History Society:
Monday, May 3, the peaceful scene turned violent when the Chicago police attacked and killed picketing workers at the McCormick
Reaper Plant at Western and Blue Island Avenues. This attack by police provoked a protest meeting which was planned for Haymarket
Square on the evening of Tuesday, May 4. Very few textbooks provide a thorough explanation of the events that led to Haymarket,
nor do they mention that the pro-labor mayor of Chicago, Carter Harrison, gave permission for the meeting . Most speakers failed
to appear . Instead of the expected 20,000 people, fewer than 2,500 attended . The Haymarket meeting was almost over and only
about two hundred people remained when they were attacked by 176 policemen carrying Winchester repeater rifles. Fielden was speaking;
even Lucy and Albert Parsons had left because it was beginning to rain. Then someone, unknown to this day, threw the first dynamite
bomb ever used in peacetime history of the United States. The next day martial law was declared, not just in Chicago but throughout
the nation. Anti-labor governments around the world used the Chicago incident to crush local union movements.
This is how workers "helped introduce" the eight-hour day.
Yes, America's workers are "worth fighting for." But they also fight for themselves , and are fought against! Warren's
theory of change -- which seems to involve people of good will "at the table" -- cannot give an account of events like Haymarket
or why, in the present day, it's Uber's drivers who are also the drivers of change, and not benevolent rulemakers. Warren's views
on the social contract are in great contrast to Sanders'
"Not me, us."
NOTES
[1] Warren is far stronger in areas where she has developed academic expertise than in areas where she has not.
[2] Google is Google, i.e., crapified, but if Warren has retracted or changed her views on Uber, I can't find it. She was receiving
good press for this speech as late as
August 2017 .
[3] Oddly, bankruptcy is where Warren made her academic bones. I'm frankly baffled at her lack of full-throated advocacy on this,
especially before a friendly audience.
[4] Warren, by juxtaposition, suggests that Massachusetts' health insurance coverage causes it to be "the healthiest
state in the nation." This post hoc fallacy ignores, for example,
demographics and
the social determinants of health .
[5] Warren focuses on health insurance, not health care. I'm nothing like an expert in the Massachusetts health insurance system.
However, looking at this
chart , I'm seeing all the usual techniques to deny access to care: Deductibles, co-pays, out-of-network costs, and (naturally)
high-deductible plans. Health care should be free at the point of delivery. Why is that so hard to understand?
I quickly went over the (188 page!) report referenced in Warren's claim that "Massachusetts has the highest rate of health
insurance coverage in the nation. We are the healthiest state in the nation". It should be noted I went in with the expressed
purpose of finding something to be snarky about, and I found it.
One of the metrics under "core measures" of clinical care was Preventable Hospitalizations. As it states in the report itself:
"Preventable hospitalizations reflect the efficiency of a population's use of primary care and the quality of the primary health
care received Preventable hospitalizations are more common among people without health insurance and often occur because of failure
to treat conditions early in an outpatient setting". Wow! With such bang up health insurance in MA, one would figure they would
do great on this metric. Nope! MA ranks 37th in the country. Many more such examples can be found, I'm sure.
I have a real dislike of these "who's best" lists, regardless of topic. Rarely do they (the aggregated ratings) contain insight
beyond that captured by the individual metrics.
Massachusetts is #1 on mortality (though they have issues with opioids). They have median US age, so it's not the enormous
Boston student population. So they're doing something right, I'm just not sold it's health insurance or, more to the point, health
insurers. They do have more physicians (and psychiatrists) per capita.
What is "mortality" in this case? I'm curious about this because people often casually say that US health outcomes are worse
than in other countries by looking at life expectancy (which I guess is not the same as mortality), and that comparison is rarely
done on a state by state basis in the US.
Also amazed just now to see that Asian American and Latino life expectancy are so much higher than for white and black Americans.
Does anyone know anything about that? I'm really stunned.
Usually, lower life expectancy for blacks is given as evidence of inequality, but the white-black gap (about 1-2 years) is
tiny compared with the black-Latino and black-Asian gap, or for that matter, the white-Latino or white-Asian gap, which are more
like 5-10 years. I'm really floored by that.
In general, looking at the numbers just now has shaken my assumptions about poor US life expectancy and also racial disparities
and I'm wondering if I'm misinterpreting them.
So, why Mass. has a relatively high life expectancy could in part be due to it having one of the earliest and most aggressive
anti-smoking movements. I'm guessing historically high smoking rates (up to 50% of adults in the 1950s with huge second-hand exposure)
could also account for poorer health outcomes today.
One of my favorite pictures (the one I have not yet taken) would have been an elevated shot of the intersection at Longwood
and Brookline Avenues (379–385 Brookline Ave) at noon on a clear, sunny spring day to see the murmuration of medical staff running
between appointments, lunch, rounds, etc.
The intersection is surrounded by arguably some of the finest medical institutions in the Western world (Beth Israel Deaconess,
Dana-Farber, Brigham & Women's (where Atul Gawande, author of the book "Better" and the whole entire concept of positive deviance,
once held court), Harvard Medical School itself with its etched-in-granite entrace to the Countway Library that reads "Ars Longa,
Vita Brevis", and the Harvard School of Public Health.
The murmuration of white coats may be at that moment the greatest single concentrated density of medical excellence at one
time. It is easy to scoff. I've been the recipient of bad medicine myself, but also far more high-quality, life-saving medicine.
But the public health movement in Massachusetts has been around for a very long time and is supported by and engrained within
governmental regulations, oversight and policy. Insurance plans covering most of the state ranked, typically and for years, #'s
1, 2, 3 and more. The Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Systems report out results that are painstakingly gathered,
audited to improve performance. It is fair to say that a major part of the intersection between computing and medicine was born
and is overseen across the river in Cambridge. Organizations that collect or audit data for health plans and providers are screened,
trained and certified by NCQA ( https://www.ncqa.org/about-ncqa/
).
In addition, there are national, regional and state associations devoted to quality improvement and toi improvement of access.
The National Association of Community Health Centers (those clinics funded Federally to serve the under-served for free or on
a sliding scale) "works in conjunction with state and regional primary care associations, health center controlled networks and
other public and private sector organizations to expand health care access to all in need." There are CHC's dotted everywhere
around the country (albeit not enough of them), and there is a state association in almost every state. No one can ever be turned
away from a CHC, especially for lack of ability to pay; the Federal government underwrites their care.
govts can call force us to call toilet paper a pound, but i doubt they can make it worth a pound of sterling silver – if they
pretend that they can produce any amount.
Warren's emphasis on the economic market for health "care?" (insurance companies making plenty of money ) and
particularly her whole rant on the superlatives of Massachusetts insurance care (that means, care for insurance companies)
, increasingly neglects health and people care as the primary concern of medicine and the people who practice
it.
As an average Joe, meaning not part of the medical world, I have come across a surprising number of doctors in both social
circumstances as well as health issues of my own and of my extended family, where doctors have complained about the ever worsening
constraints imposed on them by insurance companies. I know at least three doctors who retired early because of it and one of them
talks about it being a significant problem in keeping highly qualified doctors in general practice. From ever more ridiculously
short visits, to constant refusal to cover such and such a drug, to all manner of schemes to improve patients health by overseeing
and controlling what the doctor does to finding ways to monitor what the patient does; what he or she takes as medicine and exactly
when and how often – cutting the doctor out of the loop completely. Improve the patient experience my *ss. It's horrible and it
all comes down to ever new ways to reduce coverage – to make more money.
Perhaps I'm being a little unjust, but Warren seems fine with this "system" where the gate keepers make, "plenty of money,"
as long as people are going in and out of doctors' offices in countable droves as if on run-away conveyer belts. I should at least
allow that many of her superlative claims are accurate (or somewhat accurate) and that there is fairly wide coverage in
this state but nevertheless stress that our excellent medical facilities in Boston proper are due to historical reasons and NOT
to RomneyCare.
Thank you Lambert, for your cogent and discerning analysis as always. I've long ago disabused myself of the notion that
E. Warren is more than "lipstick" on the usual "pig", but it was good to have written support for that thesis and I will save
it for my reference.
What worries me more though is Sanders's bill and why he wouldn't go all the way? Would you do an analysis of that please –
will really appreciate it.
The vast majority of Massachusetts health plan providers are nonprofit HMOs so I'm baffled by the idea that they are making
tons of money since legally they are not supposed to.
The most obvious difference between Mass and the rest of the country is precisely the preponderance of nonprofit health plans
(it's not commonly called health insurance here) and nonprofit hospitals. The idea of for-profit health plans and hospitals freaks
me out.
It's worth noting that Mass health coverage seems to have gotten worse in recent years, though I don't know how much of that
is due to Obamacare. High deductibles, coinsurance, confusing in-network requirements combined with poor documentation and even
poorer customer service to tell you what is in-network and what is not. I just got a surprise $370 bill for a provider that supposedly
was out of network even though I had checked extensively that they were in-network. That is the first time that has ever happened
to me in Mass. Not to mention the confusing and unnerving notices I got the last few months saying I was in danger of losing coverage.
A great big ball of Weberian beaureaucratic stress.
Non-profit health insurance Company –
https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/money/business/2014/04/25/former-excellus-ceo-package-total-m/8155853/ The final
retirement package for former Excellus BlueCross BlueShield CEO David Klein likely will exceed -- by millions -- the $12.9 million
the company reported to the state in March. $29.8 Million in retirement. Non-profit for who? It's a complete misnomer and a huge
problem in the discourse of healthcare. Hospitals are usually non-profits too. They non-profitly charge you $80,000 for a few
stitches and some aspirin.
Health Care Economist / Professor Uwe Reinhardt used to comment that in the current system non-profit hospitals (The Sisters
of Mercy, with a token nun on their board, in his telling) were subject to the same forces as for profit hospitals.
He also said Massachusetts has the only adult health care system, and the other states are all adolescents.
Wow, I'd missed that (moved out of state, then came back). Thanks for the update. It looks like the Catholic Church (former
owner of Caritas) has further enhanced its legacy in Massachusetts. However, I believe it is still true that the hospital market
in Mass. is dominated by nonprofits (albeit greedy nonprofits).
And yes, hospitals and hospital chains (e.g., Partners Healthcare, which is nonprofit) pose huge challenges to managing healthcare
costs in Mass. as the numerous Boston Globe investigative series attest, by using their market power to raises prices.
My concern is when the market becomes dominated by for-profit actors, the profit-seeking, which is already bad with nonprofits,
becomes even worse, especially in an ultra-expensive market like Greater Boston.
I should add (if my earlier comment get's posted), it's even more surprising how many doctor's seem just fine with all the
negative changes being brought about by insurance companies' intrusive quest for control and I don't mean just the ones who say
nothing.
That is, some doctors seem to enjoy the vestiges of the glow of community respect and honor that once went with being a doctor
all while doing almost nothing other than sheep herding patients through the office in good file while staff (not the good doctor)
attend to making the visit digital and storing it away in some cloud.
I agree with Warren Mosler that Elizabeth Warren's apparent ignorance of MMT, much less mastery of it, makes here a lame candidate
in my book. She needs to get woke pretty quickly or settle for some cabinet appointment.
You don't even need MMT. When asked how the federal government can pay for something, people can just answer, "the same way
we pay for military and intelligence spending." Any politician who won't say at least this is deeply suspicious.
In The Unwinding , George Packer quotes Elizabeth Warren as describing her political views thusly:
"I was a Republican because I thought that those were the people who best supported markets"
I'm glad that she's out there, I'm glad that she's talking, and we need an open and transparent nomination process, but Bernie
Sanders remains the only (potential) nominee who comes close to representing my views. Good piece.
The transcript could easily have been a speech by Hillary (and even delivered to Goldman Sachs if Hillary had had the foresight
to realize that every speech would become known to everybody in the Internet age -- before Russiagate was leveraged into Social
media banning of anti-establishment speech).
The speech's date (May 19 2016), was two days after Bernie won the Oregon primary by 14%, and two days before Hillary won the
Washington state primary by 5%.
The Eric Schmidt who took Google doen the path of spying on everybody. He has nothing to offer by centrist rhetoric. It would
be very interesting in how much In-Q-Tel invested in Google.
Thanks for this post.
And thanks for the reminder that the 8 hour workday and the 40 hour workweek were not 'given' to workers, they were won by workers.
Giant companies may hate my Affordable Drug Manufacturing bill – but I don't work for them. The American people deserve
competitive markets and fair prices. By fixing the broken generic drug market, we can bring the cost of prescriptions down.
Sanders:
If the pharmaceutical industry will not end its greed, which is literally killing Americans, then we will end it for them.
Tell me what about Warren not understanding how federal taxes work, which is fundamental to formulating sound fiscal policy
and spending plans, not being serious about fixing our health care system, or praising the predatory gig economy, is "good".
On a side note: self-employed workers pay more out-of-pocket into Social Security than W-2 employees. W-2 employees only pay
half the Social Security tax – employers pay the other half via a "payroll tax."
The self-employed pay both the employee's half of Social Security, and also pay a "Self-Employment tax" (the employer's half
of Social Security). The logic is that if you are both employee and employer, you should pay both halves.
This is thread jacking, plus an economist would point out that the employer clearly is paying a net wage that reflects his
awareness that he is paying the employer side of the FICA taxes.
Or lesser of two evils? There really needs to be a good discussion again about reform versus structural change without Chait-like
pretensions. The question isn't just whether we'll get there in time, but whether reform even out runs reaction. Once you take
out patriotic myth, it's not obvious whethervthe good in the long term is even worth bothering with.
I can't help but think that if you are talking about the "Next Social Contract", them you should put something in there that
if you have children going hungry then something has gone wrong with your society. Not being snarky here as I believe that a fundamental
purpose of society is to protect those in need. An earlier society talked about 'women and children first' and they were not too
far off the mark here.
She was invited to talk about the gig economy but in reading her speech I was under the impression that she wants the Federal
government to underwrite the costs of workers for corporations to ensure that maybe these workers have food to eat while working
for these very same corporations. I suspect that this is the thinking behind letting Amazon workers go for Federal assistance
for the sheer basics of life while Amazon makes off like bandits.
No. The way to go is to enforce corporations like this pay a living wage and not to have them count on the country to make
up the difference. If they start to protest, then start to talk about looking over their accounts for any discrepancies to make
them back off. That's how they got Al Capone you know. Not for being a gangster but for not paying his taxes while doing so. And
do the same for mobs like Uber and Lyft and all the other corporations.
" Elizabeth Warren is Hillary Clinton reborn, and they're both unlikable, because they're both inauthentic scolds who suffer
from hall monitor syndrome. They spent their entire lives breaking every rule they could find while awkwardly fantasizing about
running every tiny detail of everyone else's lives ."
Sigh. Nail hit squarely on head. The one thing I will say to Warren's credit is that she has learned in some specific ways
that the world isn't invariably the pure meritocracy that is so instinctively part of her world view. That said, it seems clear
there will always be plenty that she is simply not capable of seeing, so she will always say and support things that are just
wrong. She will not be leading the revolution.
The problem is not Russia; the problem is the crisis of neoliberalism in the USA. And related legitimization of neoliberal
elite, which now Deep State is trying ot patch with anti-Russian hysteria
Notable quotes:
"... That is, in the modern history of US-Russian summits, we are told by a former American ambassador who knows, the "secrecy of presidential private meetings has been the rule, not the exception." He continues, "There's nothing unusual about withholding information from the bureaucracy about the president's private meetings with foreign leaders . Sometimes they would dictate a memo afterward, sometimes not." Indeed, President Richard Nixon, distrustful of the US "bureaucracy," sometimes met privately with Kremlin leader Leonid Brezhnev while only Brezhnev's translator was present. ..."
Baseless Russiagate allegations continue to risk war with Russia.
Anti-Trump Frenzy Threatens to End Superpower Diplomacy | The Nation
The New Year has brought a torrent of ever-more-frenzied allegations that President Donald Trump has long had a conspiratorial relationship
-- why mince words and call it "collusion"? -- with Kremlin leader Vladimir Putin.
Why the frenzy now? Perhaps because Russiagate promoters in high places are concerned that special counsel Robert Mueller will
not produce the hoped-for "bombshell" to end Trump's presidency. Certainly,
New York Times columnist
David Leonhardt seems worried, demanding, "The president must go," his drop line exhorting, "What are we waiting for?" (In some
countries, articles like his, and there are very many, would be read as calling for a coup.) Perhaps to incite Democrats who have
now taken control of House investigative committees. Perhaps simply because Russiagate has become a political-media cult that no
facts, or any lack of evidence, can dissuade or diminish.
And there is no new credible evidence, preposterous claims notwithstanding. One of The New York Times '
own recent "bombshells,"
published on January 12, reported, for example, that in spring 2017, FBI officials "began investigating whether [President Trump]
had been working on behalf of Russia against American interests." None of the three reporters bothered to point out that those "agents
and officials" almost certainly included ones later reprimanded and retired by the FBI itself for their political biases. (As usual,
the Times buried its self-protective disclaimer deep in the story: "No evidence has emerged publicly that Mr. Trump was secretly
in contact with or took direction from Russian government officials.")
Whatever the explanation, the heightened frenzy is unmistakable, leading the "news" almost daily in the synergistic print and
cable media outlets that have zealously promoted Russiagate for more than two years, in particular the Times , The Washington
Post , MSNBC, CNN, and their kindred outlets. They have plenty of eager enablers, including the once-distinguished Strobe Talbott,
President Bill Clinton's top adviser on Russia and until recently president of the Brookings Institution.
According to Talbott
, "We already know that the Kremlin helped put Trump into the White House and played him for a sucker . Trump has been colluding
with a hostile Russia throughout his presidency." In fact, we do not "know" any of this. These remain merely widely disseminated
suspicions and allegations.
In this cult-like commentary, the "threat" of "a hostile Russia" must be inflated along with charges against Trump. (In truth,
Russia represents no threat to the United States that Washington itself did not provoke since the end of the Soviet Union in 1991.)
For its own threat inflation, the Times featured not an expert with any plausible credentials but Lisa Page, the former FBI
lawyer with no known Russia expertise, and who was one of those reprimanded by the agency for anti-Trump political bias. Nonetheless,
the Times quotes Page
at length : "In the Russian Federation and in President Putin himself you have an individual whose aim is to disrupt the Western
alliance and whose aim is to make Western democracy more fractious in order to weaken our ability to spread our democratic ideals."
Perhaps we should have guessed that the democracy-promotion genes of J. Edgar Hoover were still alive and breeding in the FBI, though
for the Times , in its exploitation of the hapless and legally endangered Page, it seems not to matter.
Which brings us, or rather Russiagate zealots, to the heightened "threat" represented by "Putin's Russia." If true, we would expect
the US president to negotiate with the Kremlin leader, including at summit meetings, as every president since Dwight Eisenhower has
done. But, we are told, we cannot trust Trump to do so, because,
according to The Washington Post , he has repeatedly met with Putin alone, with only translators present, and concealed
the records of their private talks, sure signs of "treasonous" behavior, as the Russiagate media first insisted following the Trump-Putin
summit in Helsinki in July 2018.
It's hard to know whether this is historical ignorance or Russiagate malice, though it is probably both. In any event, the truth
is very different. In preparing US-Russian (Soviet and post-Soviet) summits since the 1950s, aides on both sides have arranged "private
time" for their bosses for two essential reasons: so they can develop sufficient personal rapport to sustain any policy partnership
they decide on; and so they can alert one another to constraints on their policy powers at home, to foes of such détente policies
often centered in their respective intelligence agencies. (The KGB ran operations against Nikita Khrushchev's détente policies with
Eisenhower, and, as is well established, US intelligence agencies have run operations against Trump's proclaimed goal of "cooperation
with Russia.")
That is, in the modern history of US-Russian summits, we are told by a former American ambassador who knows, the "secrecy
of presidential private meetings has been the rule, not the exception." He continues, "There's nothing unusual about withholding
information from the bureaucracy about the president's private meetings with foreign leaders . Sometimes they would dictate a memo
afterward, sometimes not." Indeed, President Richard Nixon, distrustful of the US "bureaucracy," sometimes met privately with Kremlin
leader Leonid Brezhnev while only Brezhnev's translator was present.
Nor should we forget the national-security benefits that have come from private meetings between US and Kremlin leaders. In October
1986, President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev met alone with their translators and an American official who took
notes -- the two leaders, despite their disagreements, agreed in principle that nuclear weapons should be abolished. The result,
in 1987, was the first and still only treaty abolishing an entire category of such weapons, the exceedingly dangerous intermediate-range
ones. (This is the historic treaty Trump has said he may abrogate.)
And yet, congressional zealots are now threatening to subpoena the American translator who was present during Trump's meetings
with Putin. If this recklessness prevails, it will be the end of the nuclear-superpower summit diplomacy that has helped to keep
America and the world safe from catastrophic war for nearly 70 years -- and as a new, more perilous nuclear arms race between the
two countries is unfolding. It will amply confirm a thesis set out in my book
War with Russia? -- that anti-Trump
Russiagate allegations have become the gravest threat to our security.
The following correction and clarification were made to the original version of this article on January 17: Reagan and Gorbachev
met privately with translators during their summit in Reykjavik, Iceland, in October 1986, not February, and Reagan was also accompanied
by an American official who took notes. And it would be more precise to say that the two leaders, despite their disagreements, agreed
in principle that nuclear weapons should be abolished.
Stephen F. Cohen is professor emeritus of politics and Russian studies at Princeton and NYU and author of the new book
War with Russia? From Putin and
Ukraine to Trump and Russiagate . This commentary is based on the most recent of his weekly discussions of the new US-Russian
Cold War with the host of the John Batchelor radio show. (The podcast is
here . Previous installments, now in their fifth year, are at
TheNation.com . )
"... I venture to guess, since Anne goes here several times. The 'militarists', unrelated to LGBT, faction of the DNC will use LGBT comments from Gabbard's past...... to show she is not liberal enough to defend the party's permanent war profiteering plank! ..."
Tulsi Gabbard, Democratic Presidential Candidate,
Apologizes for Anti-Gay Past https://nyti.ms/2HhUDev
NYT - Liam Stack - Jan. 17, 2019
Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, who last week announced she was running for
president, apologized Thursday for her history of anti-gay statements and her past work for
an anti-gay advocacy group -- issues that have emerged as an early obstacle as she pursues a
long-shot bid for the Democratic Party's nomination.
I venture to guess, since Anne goes here several times. The 'militarists', unrelated
to LGBT, faction of the DNC will use LGBT comments from Gabbard's past...... to show she is
not liberal enough to defend the party's permanent war profiteering plank!
"... Darnell Strom, a Hillary Clinton fundraiser , sent an email to Tulsi Gabbard on Feb. 2016 to express his big disappointment about the fact that she had chosen to endorse Bernie Sanders. ..."
"... The tone of writing reveals a lot of anger for the fact that Gabbard had clearly chosen to join the Bernie Sanders camp instead of that of Hillary Clinton. And it's quite impressive that in the end, Strom straightly clarifies that he will not help Gabbard to raise money for her campaign! Strom wrote (emphasis added): ..."
Searching the Podesta emails inside WikiLeaks we found a rather disturbing fact about Tulsi Gabbard who recently announced that
she will run for the 2020 US presidency. Iraq War Veteran, Jon Soltz, chairman at VoteVets at the time, sent an email on Aug. 2012
to Hillary Clinton top lobbyist, John Podesta, in order to thank him for his contribution to Gabbard's campaign in Hawaii.
Soltz wrote (emphasis added):
This morning, we are one step closer to making history. In Hawaii, VoteVets PAC-endorsed Iraq veteran Tulsi Gabbard has
won her primary, in a stunning come-from-behind victory. If she wins in November, she along with Tammy Duckworth (who we also
feel very good about), would be the first female combat veteran ever elected to Congress in United States history! This is
happening because of you. Your tens of thousands of dollars in donations for Tulsi's campaign, through VoteVets PAC , allowed
her to run a first-rate effort.
[...]
VoteVets Action Fund was the first group to step up to help her close that gap. In all, VoteVets Action Fund spent over
$317,000 promoting Tulsi's incredible biography . Now, we're even closer to sending another incredible veteran to Congress,
to add to the growing voice of today's progressive veterans in the halls of power. From all of us at VoteVets.org, I want to
thank you for helping to make this all possible .
While it's quite annoying the fact that one of the most promising progressives for the US presidency, have won back then, to some
extent, thanks to Podesta's money, it is clear that she didn't receive that money directly from Clinton's top lobbyist.
The money was used by VoteVets Action Fund to boost Gabbard's campaign, and there is no evidence that she had direct connections
with the Clinton mechanism.
Furthermore, there is additional evidence about the fact that Gabbard upset the elites inside the Democratic party, as she has
subsequently chosen to adopt more progressive positions and join permanently the Bernie Sanders progressive faction.
For example, Darnell Strom, a
Hillary Clinton fundraiser , sent an email to Tulsi Gabbard on Feb. 2016 to express his big disappointment about
the fact that she had chosen to endorse Bernie Sanders.
The tone of writing reveals a lot of anger for the fact that Gabbard had clearly chosen to join the Bernie Sanders camp instead
of that of Hillary Clinton. And it's quite impressive that in the end, Strom straightly clarifies that he will not help Gabbard to
raise money for her campaign!
Strom wrote (emphasis added):
We were very disappointed to hear that you would resign your position with the DNC so you could endorse Bernie Sanders,
a man who has never been a Democrat before . When we met over dinner a couple of years ago I was so impressed by your intellect,
your passion, and commitment to getting things done on behalf of the American people.
For you to endorse a man who has spent
almost 40 years in public office with very few accomplishments , doesn't fall in line with what we previously thought of you.
Hillary Clinton will be our party's nominee and you standing on ceremony to support the sinking Bernie Sanders ship is disrespectful
to Hillary Clinton . A woman who has spent the vast majority of her life in public service and working on behalf of women,
families, and the underserved. You have called both myself and Michael Kives before about helping your campaign raise money,
we no longer trust your judgement so will not be raising money for your campaign .
This is probably the best proof that, at that moment, Tulsi Gabbard had cut ties with the Clinton mechanism permanently. A very
hopeful sign.
Recall that Gabbard
introduced
the Stop Arming Terrorists act to prohibit taxpayer dollars for being used to support terrorists. She is probably the
only one from the US Congress who dared to tell the truth about Syria by stating that " ... the US government has been violating
this law for years, directly and indirectly supporting allies and partners of groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS, with money, weapons,
intelligence and other support in their fight to overthrow the Syrian government. "
"... If Gabbard's candidacy catches on enough for her to become a threat to prevailing interests within the Democratic Party, expect to hear more about how her policies are of a piece with Assad's, the demon of the hour, and also, of course with Vladimir Putin's, the devil incarnate in the eyes not just of Clintonite liberals, but also of the anti-Trump "conservatives" who have overrun CNN and MSNBC (=MSDNC), and of the national security state "experts" whom one sees at all hours of the day and night on those increasingly unbearable cable networks. ..."
"Gabbard seems to think of international relations in a different register, seeing states as
rational agents pursuing their national interests – mainly in self-preservation and
self-defense. Academics call this way of thinking about geopolitics 'realism'; it is
old-fashioned Realpolitik projected onto the global stage .
If Gabbard's candidacy catches on enough for her to become a threat to prevailing interests
within the Democratic Party, expect to hear more about how her policies are of a piece with
Assad's, the demon of the hour, and also, of course with Vladimir Putin's, the devil incarnate
in the eyes not just of Clintonite liberals, but also of the anti-Trump "conservatives" who
have overrun CNN and MSNBC (=MSDNC), and of the national security state "experts" whom one sees
at all hours of the day and night on those increasingly unbearable cable networks.
Worse still, expect to hear more about how Gabbard's views coincide with Trump's. If anyone
really is the devil incarnate, he's the man. But face it: when he's right, he's right, and
compared to Clintonite Democrats, on more issues than foreign affairs – on trade, for
example -- he's often more right than they. Better a leftwing realist, which is what Gabbard
seems to be, than a Clintonite moralist." • Indeed.
"New Trump campaign hires to focus on convention delegates, party organization" [ Politico
]. "The new hires will help run the campaign's delegate and party organization arm, which is
waging an elaborate nationwide campaign to ensure the delegates selected to attend the
nominating convention are staunch White House allies -- not Never Trump Republicans.
The group
will be focused on delving into the granular state-by-state battles that will ensue in the
coming months and which will determine the composition of the convention delegation."
"... The first, directed outward, finds its expression in the global War on Terror and in the Bush Doctrine that the United States
has the right to launch preemptive wars. This amounts to the United States seeing as illegitimate the attempt by any state to resist
its domination. ..."
"... The second dynamic, directed inward, involves the subjection of the mass of the populace to economic "rationalization", with
continual "downsizing" and "outsourcing" of jobs abroad and dismantling of what remains of the welfare state created by President Franklin
D. Roosevelt's New Deal and President Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society. Neoliberalism is an integral component of inverted totalitarianism.
The state of insecurity in which this places the public serves the useful function of making people feel helpless, therefore making
it less likely they will become politically active and thus helping maintain the first dynamic. ..."
"... By using managerial methods and developing management of elections, the democracy of the United States has become sanitized
of political participation, therefore managed democracy is "a political form in which governments are legitimated by elections that
they have learned to control". ..."
"... Under managed democracy, the electorate is prevented from having a significant impact on policies adopted by the state because
of the opinion construction and manipulation carried out by means of technology, social science, contracts and corporate subsidies.
..."
According to Wolin, domestic and foreign affairs goals are each important and on parallel tracks,
as summarized at Wikipedia,the United
States has two main totalizing dynamics:
The first, directed outward, finds its expression in the global War on Terror and in the Bush Doctrine that the United
States has the right to launch preemptive wars. This amounts to the United States seeing as illegitimate the attempt by any
state to resist its domination.
The second dynamic, directed inward, involves the subjection of the mass of the populace to economic "rationalization",
with continual "downsizing" and "outsourcing" of jobs abroad and dismantling of what remains of the welfare state created by
President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal and President Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society. Neoliberalism is an integral component
of inverted totalitarianism. The state of insecurity in which this places the public serves the useful function of making people
feel helpless, therefore making it less likely they will become politically active and thus helping maintain the first dynamic.
<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Wolin's Inverted Totalitarianism provides the ground work for my suspicions regarding faux populists Obama and Trump:
By using managerial methods and developing management of elections, the democracy of the United States has become sanitized
of political participation, therefore managed democracy is "a political form in which governments are legitimated by elections
that they have learned to control".
Under managed democracy, the electorate is prevented from having a significant impact on policies adopted by the state
because of the opinion construction and manipulation carried out by means of technology, social science, contracts and corporate
subsidies.
"... We saw the exact same dynamic when Obama was the populist hero. As Obama betrayed his base and acted against what people had expected from him, Obamabots insisted that Obama was playing 11-dimensional chess and that their hero's intentions were pure. It was all bullshit. ..."
"... Trump brought on Nikki Haley, Bolton, and Pompeo. Trump nominated Gina Haspel, acolyte of his supposed nemesis Brennan, for CIA director. Trump approved termination of JCPOA. ..."
"... And Trump's duplicity extends beyond Russia and Syria. He pretended to make a peace deal with North Korea but refuses to complete it. He railed against TPP but included TPP provisions in the new North America free-trade agreement. He said he would prosecute Hillary but backed within days of being elected saying: "the Clintons have been through enough" (what have they been through?!?), he said he would "drain the swamp" but has added to it, he put Jared Kushner - a supporter of illegal settlement building - in charge of Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts, etc. ..."
"... It was obvious from jumpstreet what Obama was all about! I never for once believed anything ..."
"... It is very unusual for a populist to win office in USA. I would say that today it is virtually impossible due to the money-based US electoral system. Once this fact is understood, it becomes clear that BOTH Trump and Obama are each faux populists ..."
"... The faux populist leader model is actually well suited for an inverted totalitarian government like USA. And I've previously described a number of elements that make up this model such as the need for partisans (Obamabots/Trumptards) that vehemently defend the popular hero as he betrays his base while bogus accusations from political opponents spark a knee-jerk reaction in the hero's base and prepare the ground for the next faux populist leader. ..."
"... In 2008, the Deep State needed to "turn the page" from Bushes militarism and Obama embodied that "change". In 2016, the Deep State needed a nationalist that could revive patriotism in order to meet the challenge from Russia and China. I don't think this was accidental. ..."
There are other signs a confrontation is coming soon. The U.S. has objected to Iran's
pending launch of two space satellites, saying these look like tests of missiles designed
to deliver nuclear warheads....
In short, forces are moving in this country and in Israel to bring about a U.S.
confrontation with Iran -- before our troops leave Syria [NYT says troop withdrawal is
estimated to take 4-6 months] .
But the real questions here are not about Bolton or Pompeo.
They are about Trump .
We saw the exact same dynamic when Obama was the populist hero. As Obama
betrayed his base and acted against what people had expected from him, Obamabots insisted
that Obama was playing 11-dimensional chess and that their hero's intentions were pure. It
was all bullshit.
Trump brought on Nikki Haley, Bolton, and Pompeo. Trump nominated Gina Haspel, acolyte
of his supposed nemesis Brennan, for CIA director. Trump approved termination of
JCPOA.
And Trump's administration claims to have defeated ISIS. They say that USA actions were
responsible for 99% of the anti-ISIS effort. Why make such a claim after Trump said in his
campaign: "Let Russia take care of ISIS"? My best guess: They want to portray
themselves as the 'good guy' to Western audiences and when they act against Syria in the
future, they will attempt to convince the Syrian people that the 'Assad must go'
Coalition was responsible for eliminating ISIS.
And Trump's duplicity extends beyond Russia and Syria. He pretended to make a peace
deal with North Korea but refuses to complete it. He railed against TPP but included TPP
provisions in the new North America free-trade agreement. He said he would prosecute Hillary
but backed within days of being elected saying: "the Clintons have been through enough" (what
have they been through?!?), he said he would "drain the swamp" but has added to it, he put
Jared Kushner - a supporter of illegal settlement building - in charge of Israeli-Palestinian
peace efforts, etc.
We saw the exact same dynamic when Obama was the populist hero. As Obama betrayed his base
and acted against what people had expected from him, Obamabots insisted that Obama was
playing 11-dimensional chess and that their hero's intentions were pure. It was all
bullshit.
It was obvious from jumpstreet what Obama was all about! I never for once believed
anything he said but I looked at what he did. A gangster from Chicago. In some
respects he was a black Carter, designed to act as an interregnum. It was Carter who
kickstarted the occupation of Afghanistan. It was Carter who bumped up the nuclear weapons
programme.
Trump is just a naked version of every prior US prez.
Trump is just a naked version of every prior US prez.
It is very unusual for a populist to win office in USA. I would say that today it is
virtually impossible due to the money-based US electoral system. Once this fact is
understood, it becomes clear that BOTH Trump and Obama are each faux populists.
The faux populist leader model is actually well suited for an inverted totalitarian
government like USA. And I've previously described a number of elements that make up this
model such as the need for partisans (Obamabots/Trumptards) that vehemently defend the
popular hero as he betrays his base while bogus accusations from political opponents spark a
knee-jerk reaction in the hero's base and prepare the ground for the next faux populist
leader.
"Untethered from any political responsibility whatsoever, he can be expected to capitalize fully on his new status as
political martyr and leader of a new "resistance" that will make today's look supine."
Trump campaigned as a populist, the principal time the term applies, and also as
president. Witness the current impasse over a border wall which is an appeal to the ordinary
people who elected Trump, and he often wears that silly MAGA cap which appeals to his
electorate.
populist: a person, especially a politician, who strives to appeal to ordinary
people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups.
Trump on the campaign trail was a populist as you admit at your link: "Trump was the ONLY
populist on the Republican side (out of 19 contenders!)." That's how he got nominated and
then elected in a huge upset, appealing to ordinary people which the other candidates
couldn't do. Trump wasn't chosen by anybody, but he was (and is) ridiculed by many.
How Trump and Obama got elected is clear. But just because they ran as populists doesn't
mean that they have a populist agenda. I think I've been pretty clear that they have each
made decisions and taken actions that furthered the establishment over the people.
And running as a populist doesn't mean an automatic 'win'. For example, voters are going
to be skeptical about the motives of a billionaire running for office, question the ability
of a novice politician, and be distrustful of a man who has had 3 wives and 4
bankruptcies.
In 2008, the Deep State needed to "turn the page" from Bushes militarism and Obama
embodied that "change". In 2016, the Deep State needed a nationalist that could revive
patriotism in order to meet the challenge from Russia and China. I don't think this was
accidental.
@ karlof1 | Jan 15, 2019 8:29:05 PM | 30 Which are more salient--domestically: The attacks on Russia or those against
Trump?
Of course the attacks against Trump by the establishment are more important, designed to
bring him down. The American people have been conditioned by the press in American
Exceptionalism, so they expect that those people in the world who were not wise enough to be
born Americans ought to suffer for it especially if they are -- yuk -- Russian. So anything
the US government does against Russia is accepted as a given, no big deal, run-of-the-mill.
When is Trump's "delivering" for Israel (i.e. not Russia) going to be examined?
Let's examine it -- Trump is delivering a crushing defeat to Israel by backing out of Syria,
and thereby conceding the "Shia Crescent" to Iran, backed by Russia and Turkey.
Thanks b that sets out the nature of the great distraction and the transparent BS that it
represents. So now that USAians can see the nonsense could they please get on with the
substance of making change and making USA great again by taking to the streets. Its about
time for a large wage increase and dropping taxes that impact on low to medium wage people.
Given the special role played by France in the USA struggle for independence, its about
time the the Gillet Jaune manifested in the USA. The low and middle income people already
Occupy the nation so now they should demand reform. Those few old and new progressive leftish
congresscritters should don the yellow vest and meet their allies on the street corners for
discussions and talk of equity and wage and tax justice. Its Rules for Radicals time or its
going nowhere time. Will they choose? May I suggest the first Rule for Radicals could be the
wearing of a yellow vest by the Congressional and Senate supporters of wage and tax justice
at the next and all subsequent pressers and attendances.
If not I gather they have all guzzled the cool aid and are content with the noise emitted
from the great distractor.
I've made a substantial case for Trump's having been chosen to follow Obama. I look forward
to any comments you may have regarding that the argument that I've set forth.
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jan 15, 2019 6:20:14 PM | 24
That was a joke, right?
Anyone so hampered by dotage that he forgets, several times a day, that he's already repeated
the substance of his 'newest' meme several times in the same thread, and a majority of
others, should probably consider getting a good night's sleep as an anti-dote.
"crushing defeat"? what utter provocative BS Don! Trump withdrawal leaves all the local
belligerents and malign Syria haters to do the job any way they wish. This fantasy that Trump
has abandoned Israel's regional domination is totally unsupported by fact and sounds to me
like a typical AIPAC alarmist trope.
Trump has being saying for some years now that others need to shoulder the burden.
Lets look at what the burden in Syria is shall we. Not only does USA give billions to
Israel to guarantee the colony but it also fights its wars for it in Syria. Then there are
all those charities raising money in the USA for the IDF. Then there is all the armaments
transfers by numerous clandestine channels to head choppers trying to destroy the Syrian
people's government and society. Many of those armaments transfers are paid with by USA black
dollars possibly to be accounted for in that $21 trillion fund that the USA Defense
Department has been wallowing in.
It is bleedingly obvious to me that Israel in not being crushingly defeated by anyone.
Syria nearly was!!!!!
When a self professed progressive country such as Israel is incapable of getting on with
the most religiously diverse border nation as Syria or Lebanon then there is a hoax somewhere
in the dialogue. The manifestation of a Shia crescent (a BS straw man)is because the
belligerent nations self defeated their allies: the Sunni murderers.
Mind you Don, I don't see any Shia crescent, I see a few nations bombed and shot to hell
desperately trying to establish normalcy of some sort BECAUSE of the manipulations of Saudi
and Israel governments and their pawns.
He makes great points, and I'm encouraged that he's allowed to do so on to a big and
important audience.
I remember when his predecessor, Bill O'Rielly, claimed to have seen the evidence of
Saddam's WMD, and told his audience, on the run up to war, and I was appalled. As indeed, it
turned out he too was lying.
When the ZUSA was entrenched in the highly profitable war on Vietnam, there seemed to be no
way to end it. Protests in the streets and at the universities, and anger at the war and war
pig$ seemed to no avail.
But then a phenomena began. Fragging.
one wonders .
at seven minutes in, Carlson interviews a senator. The senator does his best to lie and
deceive, as only a ZUS senator can. But Tucker eviscerates him on screen.
now if this senator, and others like him, were themselves put into peril by these
serial, treasonous wars for Israel, would they still be so keen to have Americans die,
slaughtering innocent people- to bolster and benefit the main enemy of America; Israel?
I imagine the parent of a young American, who's life was sacrificed to augment the career of
Lindsey Graham. Or other Americans who're fed up with the endless wars for Israel, and are
willing to do something about the treasonous scum who're demanding and foisting all of these
Satanic wars.
Just as Tucker says, any general who advocates for these wars, should be required to
actually visit a battlefield, so too I wonder about the politicians, and how they eventually
have to go home, and live among their constituents. What if some of the worst of them, like
Graham for instance, were to actually suffer some consequence for all the evil he's done, and
continues to do?
Of course I'm not advocating anything illegal. Just ruminating on potential solutions to the
Eternal Wars for Israel – which are nothing more or less than a continuation of the first
two World Wars (for Israel) duh
END the FED!
(or watch your nation bankrupted and looted and made to die for Israel)
Don Lemon -- has it nailed. As we told you Tuesday night - you could've seen this coming - the FBI has suspected this for some
time.
The bureau opened a criminal investigation into the president more than a year ago, on the grounds that no loyal American would
fire a leader as impressive as FBI director James Comey. Putin must have ordered it. The Washington Post concurred with this.
As one of the paper's columnists noted, Trump has also "endorsed populism." That's right. Populism.
It has the stink of Russia all over it. Smells like vodka and day-old herring.
"... Even voters too ignorant to see Trump for what he really was - voters that are misinformed to the point that they unwittingly and continually vote against their own best interests - realized how much the Dems have sold out to Wall Street. ..."
"... That's why they anointed Obama who then proceeded to squander eight years of opportunity to remove big money from politics and enact progressive reforms to health care, the environment, etc. ..."
"... Bernie is a bit long in the tooth, so I am all in for Liz Warren. She's the only one with both the courage and the intelligence to take on the big money that controls our politics. ..."
"... Sanders or Warren would mean a change from neoliberal war mongering of the Clinton/W model. If the Democrats offer up another Clintonite they will lose. They need to offer something positive to the 90% who have lost the last 40 years of class war. ..."
The neoliberalism of the Democratic Party elite (and most of the rank and file) is one big
factor in our 2016 loss. Even voters too ignorant to see Trump for what he really was -
voters that are misinformed to the point that they unwittingly and continually vote against
their own best interests - realized how much the Dems have sold out to Wall Street.
HRC would have been nominated in '08 if she had kissed more Wall Street you-know-what.
That's why they anointed Obama who then proceeded to squander eight years of opportunity
to remove big money from politics and enact progressive reforms to health care, the
environment, etc.
Bernie is a bit long in the tooth, so I am all in for Liz Warren. She's the only one
with both the courage and the intelligence to take on the big money that controls our
politics.
Therefore, you can expect the Russian trolls to be coming for her in force. If you read
anything negative about Warren in the coming months, check the source and don't trust the
accuracy.
Sanders or Warren would mean a change from neoliberal war mongering of the Clinton/W
model. If the Democrats offer up another Clintonite they will lose. They need to offer
something positive to the 90% who have lost the last 40 years of class war.
"... The inquiry follows a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau report said that Wells Fargo charged students the highest fees of 573 banks examined. ..."
"... "When granted the privilege of providing financial services to students through colleges, Wells Fargo used this access to charge struggling college students exorbitant fees," Warren said in a statement. "These high fees, which are an outlier within the industry, demonstrate conclusively that Wells Fargo does not belong on college campuses." ..."
Elizabeth Warren is demanding that Wells Fargo & Co. be kicked off college campuses, a market the bank has said is among its fastest-growing.
The Democratic senator from Massachusetts and likely presidential candidate said Thursday that she requested more information
from Wells Fargo Chief Executive Officer Tim Sloan and from 31 colleges where the bank does business. The inquiry follows a Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau report said that Wells Fargo charged students the highest fees of 573 banks examined.
"When granted the privilege of providing financial services to students through colleges, Wells Fargo used this access to charge
struggling college students exorbitant fees," Warren said in a statement. "These high fees, which are an outlier within the industry,
demonstrate conclusively that Wells Fargo does not belong on college campuses."
Warren has been a vocal critic of Wells Fargo -- including repeatedly calling for Sloan's ouster -- since a series of consumer
issues at the company erupted more than two years ago with a phony-accounts scandal.
Wells Fargo is "continually working to improve how we serve our customers," a bank spokesman said in an emailed statement Thursday.
"Before and since the CFPB's review on this topic, we have been pursuing customer-friendly actions that support students," including
waiving service fees on some checking accounts offered to them.
A reputation for overcharging students could further harm Wells Fargo's consumer-banking strategy. The San Francisco-based bank
has identified college-age consumers as a growth opportunity, and John Rasmussen, head of personal lending, said last year that Wells
Fargo
may expand into the refinancing of federal student loans.
Half of Americans don't bother voting for president. Why is the American media full only of people who insist that the country
is divided in half between Democrat and Republican supporters? Where are the people of influence who think it's a problem and
reflects poorly on the country that half of eligible voters don't see a reason to participate, and that it's worth changing things
in order to get more people to change their minds about that?
Both parties are content with being unpopular, but with political mechanisms ensuring they stay in power anyway. The Democrats
aren't concerned with being popular. They're content with being a token opposition party that every once in a while gets a few
token years with power they don't put to any good anyway. It pays more, I guess.
It still looks like if Americans want to live in a progressive country, they'll have to move to one. But as it is clear that the
neoliberalism of establishment Democrats has little or nothing to offer the poor and working class, or to non-wealthy millennials,
the times they are a-changing.
Don Lemon -- has it nailed. As we told you Tuesday night - you could've seen this coming - the FBI has suspected this for some
time.
The bureau opened a criminal investigation into the president more than a year ago, on the grounds that no loyal American would
fire a leader as impressive as FBI director James Comey. Putin must have ordered it. The Washington Post concurred with this.
As one of the paper's columnists noted, Trump has also "endorsed populism." That's right. Populism.
It has the stink of Russia all over it. Smells like vodka and day-old herring.
''Tis booming because the left/liberal/metropolitan muesli crunching elites (and I include
the Tories in that) who have reigned disdainfully over us since the Second World War have
ignored our fears over mass immigration and the changing of our established traditions and
cultures. They have also connived in the insanity of insisting every hair brained liberal
idea is worthy of being protected by the human rights legislative farce. Rapists being
offered a say in the upbringing of their issue, school uniforms being dragged into law and a
thousand and other one 'special issues' to a tiny minority being rammed down the throats of
the fed up majority at every opportunity by activists.
But that's the point, isn't it? That populist has been so vaguely defined that it encompasses
anything the authors don't like. It's a straw man, a pejorative.
Populism is a belief in the goodness of people, a belief that masses make better decisions
than elites and that the the rule of the elite come at the expense of the demos.
It's a term synonymous with grassroots, popular democracy. Proponents of elite rule with
reductionistic views democracy (rule with the consent of the governed and all that trash)
call their grassroots opponents 'populists' in attempt to tie them to strong men.
Noam Chomsky has a view on this issue and I am inclined to think he has a better
understanding of it than the author of this piece.
Chomsky rejects the term "populism" in this matter and offers, instead, the proposal that
;
"Working people are turning against elites and dominant institutions that have been
punishing them for a generation"
The theory of 'cause and effect' seems eminently more sensible to me than the shrill cries
of "It was the internet wot dun it"
The elites and dominant institutions that Chomsky refers to ( including mainstream media )
precipitated the current shift and would do better to acknowledge the part they played in it,
rather than insult and demean the consequential reaction of people on the receiving end of
it.
The enemy is not populism, it's the right's capture of the populist narrative. Trump is a
faux populist that has nothing but disdain for the people he employs and the people
rules.
The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through
our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my
ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."
Isaac Asimov
"A Cult of Ignorance". Newsweek, January 21, 1980.
the very old school Christian conservative libertarians and old skool nutty right have
seized on the success populist narrative has had in recent elections and referendum.
I would argue that is is because establishment figures in the Democratic party -- the New
Democrats -- decided that the days of class struggle were over, that 'we are all capitalists
now' and ceded the populist narrative to the right. Yes, this a populist moment and the
question is not if we can reestablish faith in the elite but whether we can ensure that the
new populism goes is a left rather than right direction.
I don't agree that populism lacks depth -- probably because when I think of populism I
think of left populist intellectuals like Friere, Martin-Baro and the like who thought that
democracy should be built on the virtues of the people.
The occupy movement was a populist movement. It said we, the people on the ground, know
better than the elites in the towers. It made decisions democratically, this in stark
contrast to the hierarchical structures of decision making exercised by the financial elite.
I think populism, or grassroots, popular democracy has intellectual depth and
sophistication. Take a look a the writing of Sheldin Wolin, Noam Chomsky, Chris Hedges, David
Graeber . . .
I don't agree with most of the definitions of populism we've been offered -- I think they
are little more that pejoratives dressed in academic language and have as much depth as the
right's favored "snowflake" pejorative.
I remember watching 'Tomorrows World' ' in the 1970s and they showed us an unpuncturable
cycle tyre that would last 25,000 miles.
The patent was bought by Europe's largest cycle tyre manufacturer, and AFAIK that was the
last ever heard of it.
If that happened why is the water fuel idea so fanciful?
If you inject water into the inlet port or combustion chamber of a petrol engine, compression
ratios, power output and efficiency can be raised dramatically, this has been known since WW1
and was employed in high altitude aero engines during WW2, yet has never been taken up by any
major car manufacturer as far as I know, why?
So the notion that inventions could be suppressed for commercial reasons is really not
fanciful at all, it would make less sense for such technology, if it existed, to be made
altruistically available on a single purchase basis than to shitcan it.
As far as I can see, our country has been ruled by a right-wing, monied elite for many
years- not a 'liberal' one. Liberals at least tend to think in terms of economic equality and
social freedoms, whatever their other faults might be.
But many working class and middle class people still carry on voting Tory even though it's
against their own interests.
We don't have a 'liberal elite' in the UK. We still have the old-fashioned right wing Tory
elite in power based on class and wealth. Why 'liberals' get all the abuse these days is
beyond me.
I'm researching populism on youtube - and it is seedy- and I have yet to turn on the FB news
feed, but the algorithms do support populism- watch a PragerU video and the feed is full of
other rightwing nonsense.
And all of it has the same empty lines.
I watched the Oxford Union Steve Bannon address- and it could have come from a left
winger- the globalised corporate world has abandoned the little guy, and Trump is fixing
it.
The on message is the MSM is lying
PC and activists are totalitarian = commies
either capitalism or socialism [commies] = freedom vs enslavement
and an over whelming anti intellectualism - where have we heard that before.
True but there is still a case for having decent housing etc and training our own
professionals as well and not hollow out professionals from less advantaged countries. When
we took hundreds of nurses from the Philippines in 2000 and whole clinics there had to shut
to terrible detriment of ill locals
"But populism has two chief characteristics. First, it offers immediate and supposedly
obvious answers to complicated problems, which usually blame some other group along the
way."
I think this point (simple solutions to complex problems) is often overstated. If you take
the issue of immigration (an issue that has fuelled populism) , it actually shouldn't
necessarily be that difficult to bring the number of new immigrants down, except that the
political and media establishment pretend that it is.
Take Trump's plan to build a wall on the Mexican border. I see absolutely nothing wrong
with this as it is ultimately every country's prerogative to defend its borders.
Ditto for intra-EU immigration (perhaps the main reason for Brexit): the EU acts as if
this principle of free movement is sacred, but why should that be the case? Or Germany, where
I live, where the constitution guarantees a right to asylum for those seeking refuge in the
country. Again, this is spoken of as though it were cast in stone, when it really shouldn't
be that difficult to amend. So I don't necessarily believe that solutions to problems always
have to be difficult and complicated.
I agree that advances in people's abilities to interact with greater numbers of other people
tend to usher in periods of social upheaval. A lot of the current nationalistic,
anti-foreigner sentiments are the result of our initial reactions against unfamiliar
influences coming from groups with whom we previously had relatively little contact.
Brexit, "Make America Great Again", and similar movements are the collective screams of
resistance against dealing with unfamiliarity, learning new things, and growing. Over time,
we will adapt, but this will probably require a generation or so, at minimum.
Of course, given the high pace of technological change, we are likely to be collectively
bonded together even more tightly before we are able to adapt to the current state of the
world. It won't be long before people will all be interconnected via implants, which means
that each and every thing we do and every emotion we have will be sent out over the
net.
In a way Populism is somewhat similar to Marxism: implicit message is that the class struggle
in the societies is the key problem, which is completely true. American middle class was robbed
from 1970th of a considerable chunk of its standard of living. So it is not surprising that the
neoliberal elite ( the News Class of as they are called the US nomenklatura) now feels threatened
and resorts to censorship, usage of intelligence agencies and mass surveillance, and other
oppressive tactics to squash the dissent.
But in such cases the dissent grows stronger despise such an efforts and might turn, at some
point, into insurrection against financial oligarchy as Marxists predicted.
The only problem is with Marxism is that they considered working class to the the next
dominant class and this proved to be a false idea. That will never never happens.
Populism is a range of political approaches that deliberately appeal to "the people,"
often juxtaposing this group against a so-called "elite." There is no single definition of
the term, which developed in the 19th century and has been used to mean various things
since that time. Few politicians or political groups describe themselves as "populists",
and in political discourse the term is often applied to others pejoratively. Within
political science and other social sciences, various different definitions of populism have
been used, although some scholars propose rejecting the term altogether.
the wiki
page is a bit more expansive you should try reading it.
The left is also guilty of populist ideas- blaming the rich, or banking [when in the UK we
get a lot of tax from international banking as a service].
The right has just seized on populism and mainly through social media- brexit and trump
are proof its works- but the people behind the populist message are the same old tired neo
con christian right of the Reagan era and the sad old far right conspiracy nut jobs. Their
message failed in the past- but people like Rees-mogg can now seize on this technique.
Your misunderstanding of what socialism means indicates you swallow the new right wing
propaganda. Poorly funded education will result in people without proper opportunity- S.Korea
is not a socialist country but they spend a huge amount on education and reap the rewards.
But they have a culture where children doing well academically is praised but can also have
negative pressure consequences.
It is complicated and worth discussion but populism wants the easy message.
One of the better reports on populism I've see recently is ''European Disunion'' by Yascha
Mounk, a lecturer on government at Harvard
https://newrepublic.com/article/143604/european-disunion-rise-populist-movements-means-democracy
.
A analysis by Harvard ''Trump, Brexit, and the Rise of Populism: Economic Have-Nots and
Cultural Backlash'' found that the primary factor driving populism is a cultural backlash
i.e. against [neo]liberal policies and immigration.
Populism is growing because wealth is being concentrated into the hands of the wealthy, at
the expense of everyone else.
Generations, instead of doing better, through working are doing worse because governments
are allowing individuals and corporations to reduce terms and conditions of the
workforce.
Twenty years ago, many UK workers had company pension schemes and jobs that paid the rent
& bills. Now, the pensions have largely dried up and as housing has got more expensive,
and incomes have shrunk.
Those at the top are pushing those beneath them closer to a bowl of rice a day, and shrug
at the social consequences as inevitable - and a necessary step to protect shareholder values
and profits.
In essence, it is the same situation that gave rise to populism in the thirties.
Who do you blame for the fact that house prices have gone up?
Who do you blame for the fact that your pension is going to be smaller than your
parents'?
Thing is the populist politicians are the very same people who cut your pension and made
money out of it. They just want you to blame someone else.
Some highlights from this thread (no names, no pack drill):
Populism is a kickback and correction to the forty years of political correctness where
the white masses of Europe and America were forbidden by the liberal establishment to be
their real selves
People are fed up with the elite consensus because of the failures of the elites.
Perhaps the reason that "populism" is thriving is that the liberal elites who ruled us
in the entire post war period became complacent out of touch with those they were meant to
represent.
there are millions of others whose voices have been ignored or silenced by the
mainstream news
We are disenfranchised by what the elites are saying because the elites control the
narrative in a way that makes sure the power will always reside with them.
The MSM has always been biased-
Why is democracy booming the article asks.
Well because the lies and bullshit of the liberal elite are there for all to see.
Take a look at what the MSM refuses to report, or what it deliberately distorts,
You can see the problem. It's like they are all reading from the same limited script which
has been handed to them. Given the freedom to express our opinions, we are regurgitating what
someone else has told us to say.
Maybe we should not be too pessimistic. The levels of opportunity for expression that the
internet and social media have given us might currently have exceeded our ability to think
critically about whatever bullshit we are being fed, but future generations may be better.
After all, it's only a small step from doubting whatever mainstream thought tells you, to
starting to wonder who is telling you to doubt those things and why and then to actually go
back and think for yourself about the issues.
So Corbyn and Trump are the same because they both have shirts. Well, color me
convinced!
Like so many of these articles -- including the long but uninformative 'long read' on the
same topic -- there is no mention of the failures of the elites.
Clinton sold us a false bill of goods. The Washington Consensus on economics would make
the country richer and, after some 'pain', would benefit the working class. Sure you wouldn't
be making cars but after some retraining you would work in tech.
This was a broken promise -- de industrialization has devastated the upper midwest. The
goods are made in China and the money goes to Bezos. People are rightly upset.
The Washington Consensus on war sold us a false bill of goods. Instead of peace through
strength we have seen a century of endless conflict. We have been caught in state of constant
killing since 2001 and we are no safer for it. Indeed the conflicts have created new enemies
and the only solution on offer is a hair of the dog solution.
People are fed up with the elite consensus because of the failures of the elites. Nowhere
are the repeated failures of the elites, the decades of broken promises mentioned in the
articles. Instead, those of us who prefer Sanders to Clinton, Corbyn to Blair are mesmerized
by emotional appeals and seduced by simplistic appeals to complex problems. And they wonder
why we don't accept their analyses . . .
TL;DR -- clickbait didn't get us here. The broken promises of the Washington consensus
did.
Why is populism booming asks the writer - simple, because people feel that no-one's
listening. Can it really be a surprise to The Guardian Opinion writers that people who have a
zero hours contract, pay a high rent and have little job security won't vote for more of the
same?
It's not a question as the writer suggests of 'if this wave of populism drifts into
authoritarianism or worse' it's more a question of when - and when it does the liberal left
will still be asking themselves - why?
Ship of Fools is, says the opening flap of the book, "the story of the new American
elites, a group whose power and wealth has grown beyond imagination even as the rest of the
country has withered. The people who run America now barely interact with it. They fly on their
own planes, ski on their own mountains, watch sporting events from the stands in skyboxes. They
have total contempt for you."
In thumbnail, that could not possibly be a more accurate description of American elites, not
to mention the reaction they produced: the election of Donald Trump. As someone who long ago
left the precincts of Inside the Beltway Washington, D.C. to come home to the wilds of Central
Pennsylvania, it was plain what was coming down the pike in November of 2016. This area was
awash in Trump signs. They were everywhere, even hand-painted on the sides of barns. As it
were, this was a sure sign of what Tucker describes this way:
Trump's election wasn't about Trump. It was a throbbing middle finger in the face of
America's ruling class. It was a gesture of contempt, a howl of rage, the end result of
decades of selfish and unwise decisions made by selfish and unwise leaders. Happy countries
don't elect Donald Trump president. Desperate ones do.
Bingo.
On page after page Ship of Fools discusses the problems that millions of Americans
have long since grasped -- sometimes without even formally being aware just what they were
coming to understand. Among them:
• "a meritocracy" that is about the business of creating "its own kind of
stratification, a kind more rigid than the aristocracy it replaced."
• Apple, on the one hand, has an astounding record of iPhones being assembled in China
by Foxconn, "a Taiwanese company that is the biggest electronics manufacturer in the world."
That would be workers making less than two dollars an hour, and who report "being forced to
stand for twenty-four hours at a time" with others "beaten by their supervisors." On the other
hand, the company gets a pass because "like virtually every big employer in American life, has
purchased indulgences from the church of cultural liberalism. Apple has a gay CEO with
fashionable social views. The company issues statements about green energy and has generous
domestic partner benefits. Apple publicly protested the Trump administration's immigration
policies. The company is progressive in ways that matter in Brooklyn. That's enough to stop any
conversation about working conditions in Foxconn factories." Concern about this from the
American ruling class? Zero.
• Then there's Uber, presenting itself to the public with the same liberal wokeness as
Apple. But in reality? In reality Uber's more than one million drivers "would make Uber the
second-largest private sector employer in the world." Ahhhh but there's a catch, which the book
zeroes in on. "But employees are expensive, they require vacation days and health-care
benefits. They have rights. In the United States, employees receive unemployment insurance, and
they are entitled to compensation for on-the-job injuries." But does Uber do these things? Of
course not. By playing a game that says their drivers aren't employees but rather
"contractors," like a small independent business -- Uber escapes these responsibilities.
• And let's not forget Facebook. In perhaps the most frightening section of the book,
Tucker details the degree to which Facebook "continues to gather ever-growing amounts of
intimate information about its customers," something about which "most people have no idea."
Tucker writes:
Use Facebook's mobile app on your phone? Facebook sees and records everywhere you go.
Facebook knows the stores you visited, the events you attended, and whether you walked,
drove, or rode your bike. Because Facebook is integrated onto so many other sites, the
company also knows much of your Web browsing history as well, even when you're not browsing
on Facebook.
Worse? There is the admission from Facebook's first president, Sean Parker, that, as Tucker
writes, Parker "admitted that Facebook can override the free will of its users. The product is
literally addictive. It was engineered to be that way."
There's more here on Facebook, much more that will raise the hair on the back of readers',
not to mention Facebook users', necks. And much more to Ship of Fools . There is a
thorough-going discussion of Cesar Chavez who founded the United Farmworkers union in the
1960s. As a serious Bobby Kennedy fan in that time-period, I well recall Chavez and RFK's
alliance with him that made repeated headlines in the day. What Tucker reminds here is that
there was no stauncher opponent of illegal immigration than the then-liberal hero Cesar Chavez.
Chavez went to incredible lengths to fight the problem, even going to the extent of having his
union members out "intercepting Mexican nationals as they crossed the border and assaulted them
in the desert. Their tactics were brutal: Chavez's men beat immigrants with chains, clubs, and
whips made of barbed wire. Illegal aliens who dared to work as scabs had their houses bombed
and cars burned. The union paid Mexican officials to keep quiet." Which is to say, Cesar Chavez
on illegal immigration makes Trump look like a wimp. And this being a Tucker Carlson book,
there is the humorous irony as he notes that Cesar Chavez, who died in 1993, is so revered by
liberals surely unaware of his actual position on illegals that there is a California state
holiday named for him, along with all manner of schools, libraries, highways, and one
college.
Not spared in this book -- as well they should not be -- is the GOP Washington
Establishment. Tucker lasers in on outgoing Speaker Paul Ryan, saying that he has been a leader
in the open borders movement. He runs through various Ryan actions that made clear "Republicans
in Congress don't care about the territorial integrity of the country."
This is a superb book, filled with eye-popping information on just how today's American
ruling class conducts itself. As soon as the book appeared, it shot to the top of the
bestseller lists, as well it should.
A word here about the author. In the headlines the other day was a tale of Antifa thugs
gathering outside the Carlson home -- he was at the Fox TV studio -- yelling and screaming as
an attempt was made to knock down the front door, damaging it as Tucker's wife, fearing a home
invasion, hid in the pantry calling the police.
This in fact was just one more incident in a list of similar attacks made by mobs of
fascist-minded thugs who have made it their business to go after any recognizable conservative
or Trump supporter across the country. It takes courage to go on the most popular cable network
night after night and stand up for conservative values in an atmosphere where the Left is in a
furious fight to gain permanent power and privilege over their fellow Americans. Tucker Carlson
-- like his colleagues Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham -- thankfully have that courage in
spades.
Violence is in the DNA of the American Left -- and it always has been. From the use of the
Ku Klux Klan as the military arm of the Democratic Party to labor violence, the 1960s Weather
Underground and anti-Vietnam War protests, not to mention the window smashers of Occupy Wall
Street and now the hooded thugs of Antifa, the Left's instinctive use of violence has never
changed. It is imperative to understand that this is, indeed, straight-up fascism. Antifa --
and those who defend them in the liberal media and the Democratic Party and in scores of venues
across the country, college campuses notably -- need to be called out for what they are.
"Antifa" is, in reality, "Profa" -- pro-fascist, not anti-fascist. They are the philosophical
descendants of Mussolini's "black shirts" -- with the addition of hoods to hide their
paramilitary faces. And when they show up and physically attack someone's home, they should be
tracked down, arrested, and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
It is amazing -- and I have written on this subject a great deal in this space -- that to
believe in a colorblind America as Tucker Carlson does, to oppose identity politics, the latter
which I have long since termed the son of segregation and grandson of slavery because it is, in
fact, racist -- is to be accused, of all ridiculous things, of "white nationalism." It should
not escape that the Carlson accusers on this score have a serious projection problem.
As Ship of Fools makes crystal clear, Americans face a serious problem in dealing
with this cast of characters who populate the American elites. These elites do indeed hold
millions of Americans in contempt -- and the election of Donald Trump was the answer. But
Donald Trump will not be president forever, and, as Tucker points out, "if you want to save
democracy, you've got to practice it."
Wall Street gives money to the Dems not to help Dems win; it's to make sure Wall Street
doesn't lose.
Notable quotes:
"... I like Tulsi Gabbard a lot. She knew that Hillary Clinton was a real menace so she not only endorsed Bernie Sanders but quit her vice-chair post at the DNC in order to do so since the DNC laws insisted that the DNC stay neutral (if only she knew then what we know now). Also, it will be delicious to watch the Hillary mouthpieces and stooges - who contended that any criticism of Hillary Clinton was just down to her being female - attackdog Tulsi Gabbard, oblivious to their rancid hypocrisy. ..."
"... Warren's got many bridges and fences to mend with the US left but I think that she knows and that's why she's declared early. I think that she'll be the last progressive standing; that she should run with Sanders as her vice-president for 2020 and then with the now-of-age Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as vice-president for her second term. ..."
"... Tulsi Gabbard for president! Nobody's perfect but at least she isn't a lawyer! ..."
"... As well, such a law should permanently eliminate the revolving door through which many politicians scamper to become a lobbyist for Wall Street after he "retires" from politics and the law should block all former lobbyists from running for an office that would have a bearing on legislation that would affect the corporation for which he or she worked. ..."
"... Wall Street gives money to the Dems not to help Dems win; it's to make sure Wall Street doesn't lose. ..."
"... That will allow capitalists to focus their attention on candidates such as Bernie
Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, who have shown a real willingness to abandon the traditional
coziness of the Democratic party with the finance, insurance and real estate industries
......".
Yes and who's been on the end of media hit pieces recently? Not Booker, Harris, Gillibrand
and the like but Sanders, Warren and Gabbard.
I like Tulsi Gabbard a lot. She knew that Hillary Clinton was a real menace so she not
only endorsed Bernie Sanders but quit her vice-chair post at the DNC in order to do so since
the DNC laws insisted that the DNC stay neutral (if only she knew then what we know now).
Also, it will be delicious to watch the Hillary mouthpieces and stooges - who contended that
any criticism of Hillary Clinton was just down to her being female - attackdog Tulsi Gabbard,
oblivious to their rancid hypocrisy.
There actually is plenty to go on - Gabbard's links to Modi; her past comments about guns,
about immigration, about gay rights when she was under the wing of her Dad's jaundiced
outlook and her appalling comments about torture and that fictional 'ticking time bomb'
scenario - but that's as nothing (and a lot of it probably has crossover appeal and shows an
independent mind) compared to Hillary's decades of moral bankruptcy. Yet critiques of Clinton
were inherently sexist, apparently.
They've never forgiven Gabbard for her righteous stand against the moral hazard of the
Clintons. I think, and as others have said, that she's probably running for vice-president,
at best, or to lay the groundwork for future runs and/or obtain a cabinet position. For 2020,
Democrats will make it their business to take her down after they've invalidated Bernie
Sanders. The current trick is beautiful in its simplicity. They shriek that Sanders will be
divisive and their shrieking will be proof of that contention: quod erat demonstrandum.
Sanders and Gabbard would have a much, much easier time in the general election than in the
'kill switch' Democratic primaries. Those primaries will be brutal beyond belief.
Warren's got many bridges and fences to mend with the US left but I think that she knows
and that's why she's declared early. I think that she'll be the last progressive standing;
that she should run with Sanders as her vice-president for 2020 and then with the now-of-age
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as vice-president for her second term.
ID,
Could you be a conservative projecting your desire for the Dems to select a more
conservative candidate?
A progressive would stomp Trump in the rust belt if they ran on the issues where the
public agrees with progressives. Medicare for all. No more bullshit foreign wars. Do
something about higher education cost/debt. Decriminalize low-level pot offenses. Etc.
All it takes is disobeying the laws that corporate/Wall Street write for Dem
candidates.
I'm sure Wall Street will be quite happy to see the Republicans face some
purer-than-pure left wing candidate at the next Presidential election.
Bernie would have cleaned Trump's clock in the 2016 general election and Wall Street knows
it.
Trump would get curb-stomped by a genuinely left and competent candidate. It's the
standard issue GOP-Lite Democrat that will have a harder time against him (although probably
still win).
The best way to determine if one claims to be a Progressive is to fact-check the
candidate's claim.
The first and foremost question that should be asked and researched: Does this
candidate have as one of his or her top priorities to eliminate corporate/private/labor
money in politics? This would require a major federal campaign finance reform
law that would establish public funding for all campaigns, permanently bar corporate/labor
union/private-entity money (including funding media-attack ads) from any political influence
and require all broadcast/cable networks to allow every candidate equal air time to state his
opinions, policies, promises, and to state why he believes he is the best candidate for the
working class and/or corporations.
As well, such a law should permanently eliminate the revolving door through which
many politicians scamper to become a lobbyist for Wall Street after he "retires" from
politics and the law should block all former lobbyists from running for an office that would
have a bearing on legislation that would affect the corporation for which he or she
worked.
As well, such a law should bar any politicians or family members from purchasing or
selling stocks in corporate entities that would be affected by the legislation on which
the politician is working (insider trading).
Think about it. The lure of big bucks can, and does, corrupt politicians such that they
will work mainly for the donor (corporate, labor, and/or private) and provide for just enough
benefit politicians' the voters (America's working class) to make them think he cares most
about them. Much of that money is hidden in super-pacs where the donor's identity is hidden.
Too, super-pacs would have to be eliminated.
A Progressive should advocate for a large infrastructure project . Our bridges and
highways are now in a state of disrepair. Other nations such as Japan now have high-speed
bullet trains, the fastest so far is Shanghai Maglev and can travel 267.8 mph. The U.S.
has none.
Poverty would be a major focus of Progressives. Corporations will pay as little as
they can get by paying. So there must be a minimum wage boost to a living wage. To
keep corporations from moving to a part-time labor force with less pay, part-time workers
must make the same hourly wage as full time workers. As well, universal, proactive
healthcare must become law (Medicare for all).
Another major way to eliminate poverty would be to reform the income tax structure
such that those individuals whose income exceeds ~$10 million would be taxed at 70%. I would
also suggest that every dollar exchanged on the Stock Exchange would be taxed at 3%.
Using a greater influx of money into the public coffers, education should be a top
priority for lawmakers. College tuition in public schools would be no cost, thus
providing completely tuition free higher education and allowing every student equal
access. A major bill should be passed to provide money to modernize/upgrade all secondary
schools to provide a better learning environment for study. Every primary school should
have a child psychologist on staff. Every High School a psychologist as well as every public
college.
There are other Progressive policies--such as reversing the conservative's trickle-down
economics (also called supply-side economics) such that we return to demand-side
economics--that would be highly beneficial to the working class and to the future
intellectual strength of the U.S., especially by providing a course structure that equips
students to face the quick shift of industry to electronics and robotics. Currently, those
will little technical training are being left behind. We must end this or face a HUGE poorly
educated working class that will have no place to work.
Quite likely, both the RNC and the DNC (Wall Street's favorite politicians) will be
against such measures. They'd rather have more billionaires and an unfettered Wall Street
than eliminate poverty. The only way, however, to have a truly just society is to push
for and vote for a progressive government. But before any of the above can happen, we MUST
eliminate corporate/private/labor money from our government.
If he can only succeed in a positive environment then there's not much hope for him, he needs to be able to fight and prove
he's got what it takes. As it is I'm not sure he's got it.
That's not what I said at all and you know it.
Last time, the only stories that the NYTimes and (mostly) the Guardian could manage to run were Bernie-negative
stories. The NYTimes has already begun the exact same campaign for the 2020 cycle. By comparison, the Guardian
has been providing balanced Bernie coverage.
Do not count on the mainstream media to support him. They're already hard at work smearing him and he hasn't even announced yet.
Half the time they dont even mention him as being a likely contender. It's Biden all day, all night. Might as well be Hillary
again.
Expect 2020 to be quite contentious, possibly even more than 2016. That just means as a supporter of Bernie you'll have to
work twice, maybe three times as hard. The corporate media is going to suppress and challenge him as much as possible. They don't
even mask it anymore.
[Jan 16, 2019] Corporatism is the control of government by big business. This is what we have in the USA today. The main difference between corporatism and fascism is the level of repressions against opposition. Corporatism now tales forma of inverted totalitarism and use ostracism instead of phycal repressions
That is why we need a Constitutional amendment to get the money OUT of politics. Make bribery illegal. THEN, we will not need
Wall Street, which doesn't serve MOST of the population of this country, and is mostly responsible for the wealth gap and lack
of opportunities for most of the population.
I'm not fooled. These are not progressives, they are corporatists, beholden to their donors. They have no courage, no interest
in serving their constituencies, but are only interested in the power and money. What our country , and the world, needs is radical
change from the profit-first point of view. I won't support either one of them.
These corporate-Dem candidates are not being forced to sell out to win elections. Quite the
opposite in fact. They are risking losing their elections for the sake of selling out.
Surely, many will comment that Democrats have no choice but to take the money in order to be
competitive. I have one truism for such folks to ponder: Why would you trust your allegiance
to those who don't care if you win?
Basic logic: rich people win the general election either way, so long as the
primary-winning Democrat is in their pocket (the GOP is always on their side). So this
monetary affection is certainly more about fixing an no-lose general than it is about ousting
Trump, or any Republican.
"... Here's a good reason to support Tulsi Gabbard. Look at who opposes her. Jacob Wohl Claims Everyone In The Pro-Israel Lobby, Including Himself, Will Interfere With Tulsi Gabbard's Campaign She's taking flak from the Enemy of Mankind. ..."
"... Soon, if Trump keeps the government shutdown, those idled federal workers just might be seen in the streets. ..."
"... "The very conditions Macron strove so very hard to bring about in Damascus and that France DID help bring about in Kiev are now rocking the very foundations of the French Republic." ..."
"... Metaphorically, Rome burns while Nero and his Senators fiddle ..."
George Galloway
weighs in on the chaos engulfing the Empire in Washington, London and Paris. The
Neoliberal ship is foundering while the uplifting of people-based policies of Russia and
China keep them on track to reach their aims. Soon, if Trump keeps the government
shutdown, those idled federal workers just might be seen in the streets. George has a
penchant for connecting things, and had this to say about Macron:
"The very conditions Macron strove so very hard to bring about in Damascus and that
France DID help bring about in Kiev are now rocking the very foundations of the French
Republic."
The false flag of Austerity--Neoliberalism preying on its own as was predicted at its
beginnings is what we're witnessing, while the actors that created the situation cling with
bloody hands to the ship of state unwilling to surrender the wheel to those who might salvage
the situation.
Metaphorically, Rome burns while Nero and his Senators fiddle .
Mueller investigation is a continuation of JFK assassination by other means.
Notable quotes:
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Now, as the 'Russian influence' narrative is dying down, the anti-Trump - anti-Russian campaign is moving to new grounds. ..."
"... Initiating a counter-intelligence investigation, for which there was no basis, gave the FBI, and later the Mueller investigation, unfettered access to NSA 'signals intelligence' that could then possibly be used to incriminate Trump or his associates. ..."
"... It was the Obama administration which had given the FBI access to this tool : ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Trump is no populist. A populist can't be elected by the money-based US political system. Trump's election was almost certainly arranged ..."
"... Then why did Trump nominate Gina Haspel as head of the CIA? She is the acolyte of Trump nemesis Brennan. Why does Trump choose people like Nikki Halley, Pompeo, Bolton? ..."
"... "I very much dislike most of Trump's domestic and foreign policy. But he was duly elected under the existing rules. The campaign the media and the intelligence services have since run against him undermines the will of the people." ..."
"... the assassination of JFK opened the floodgates of blatant depravity perpetrated by those whose greed and lust for power will ultimately destroy us. ..."
"... There are trends: A growing US citizen realization that their political system prior to Trump was nearly completely corrupt; the Clintons are more broadly understood as the pathological criminals that they are; the Podesta emails with their sick connotations remain 'in the air' - See Ben Swann's work, for example. The Clinton Foundation is far more broadly understood as a massive criminal enterprise. ..."
"... "Pompeo met on October 24 [at Trump's request] with William Binney, a former National Security Agency official-turned-whistleblower who co-authored an analysis published by a group of former intelligence officials that challenges the U.S. intelligence community's official assessment that Russian intelligence was behind last year's theft of data from DNC computers. Binney and the other former officials argue that the DNC data was "leaked," not hacked, "by a person with physical access" to the DNC's computer system." ..."
"... In short the last two years have been about trying to defeat Trump but the attackers are looking more and more wounded, and Trump, well, he's hanging in there. General Kelly and others have described Trump's work ethic as exhausting. ..."
"... Trump has been put under intense investigation by Deep State hacks who are determined to see him impeached. And all they have come up with is that he is a compulsive pussy-grabber (no shit, hey?). ..."
"... Well, if he has then he has hidden them extraordinarily well, because Mueller with all his resources hasn't found any. Indeed, Mueller's investigation is so well-resourced that the only conclusion I can reach is that Trump has no such skeletons. ..."
"... "Simply put, the Russia NIA is not an "IC-coordinated" assessment -- the vehicle for such coordination, the NIC, was not directly involved in its production, and no NIO was assigned as the responsible official overseeing its production. Likewise, the Russia NIA cannot be said to be the product of careful coordination between the CIA, NSA and FBI -- while analysts from all three agencies were involved in its production, they were operating as part of a separate, secretive task force operating under the close supervision of the Director of the CIA, and not as an integral part of their home agency or department." ..."
"... Escalation towards war with Russia was a matter of public record in late pre-election 2016, thanks to Clinton News Network ... now ask yourselves where is that general in the press conference nowadays? ..."
"... For a thorough update on the Integrity Initiative and its offshoots, check out the latest from legal investigator Barbara Boyd. ..."
"... To defeat the "Deep State" in the U.S., it is essential to understand the role of British Intelligence. While it is essential to know the role of Hillary Clinton, Obama, Comey, DOJ/FBI operatives, et.al., it is even more important to understand the geopolitical assumptions behind Russiagate. And for that, one must turn to the British. ..."
"... The aim of the counterintelligence operation and of the Russiagate hoax was not to build a prosecution case against President Trump. It was to put the United States in constitutional limbo by creating a parallel and competing center of constitutional legitimacy. ..."
"... Very difficult to judge: what is the result of infighting in the US vs. any agreed-on never mind coherent foreign policy? That the question is even asked - all over the world now - spells stage one collapse. ..."
"... Trump's nationalist credentials are further belied by such things as: adding TPP provisions to the new North American trade agreement; attacking Syria based on false flags; arming Ukraine; pulling out of the INF treaty and engaging in an unnecessary and costly arms race; actively seeking to overthrow the governments of Iran and Venezuela; etc. ..."
"... My own theory about 2016 is that everybody miscalculated. Trump was (IMO) running as an ego-building publicity stunt. Hillary (and her Deep State sponsors) had actively helped Trump get the nomination with hundreds of millions of dollars of free publicity which also enhanced the bottom lines of Big Media. His multiple flaws were airbrushed away. ..."
Despite the loss of major narratives, the war of the deep state against U.S. President Trump continues unabated. The main of tool
in this war are allegations of relations between Trump and anything Russia. The war runs along several parallel paths.
The narrative war in the media is most visible one. When any of the fake stories about Trump and Russia gets debunked and disposed,
new ones are created or others intensified.
In parallel to these propaganda efforts the deep state created an investigation that Trump has no way to escape from. Enabled
by one of the Obama administrations last acts the investigation is using signal intelligence to entrap and flip the people surrounding
Trump (see section three below). The big price will be Trump himself. Here we take a look at what transpired during the last weeks.
One major anti-Trump narrative was that 'Russian influence' helped to put him into office. This was based on the alleged nefarious
influence a Russian clickbait company, the Internet Research Agency (IRA) in St. Peterburg, had on the U.S. electorate. That explanation
never made sense. Little of the IRA activities had to do with the election. It used sockpuppets on Facebook and Twitter to attract
people to websites filled with puppy pictures or similar nonsense. The IRA would then sell advertisement and promotions on these
sites.
This
was obvious for anyone following the factual content of the news instead of the 'opinions' a whole bunch of anti-Trump 'experts'
and the media formed around them.
That the Mueller investigation finally indicted several of the IRA's officers over minor financial transactions was seen as a
confirmation of the political aspects of the IRA activities. But nearly all the reporting left out that Mueller
confirmed the commercial intent behind the IRA and its activities. There is nothing political in the accusations. Indeed point
95 of the Mueller
indictment
of the IRA says:
Defendants and their co-conspirators also used the accounts to receive money from real U.S. persons in exchange for posting promotions
and advertisements on the ORGANIZATION-controlled social media pages. Defendants and their co-conspirators typically charged certain
U.S. merchants and U.S. social media sites between 25 and 50 U.S. dollars per post for promotional content on their popular false
U.S. persona accounts , including Being Patriotic, Defend the 2nd, and Blacktivist.
Part of the false narrative of a political influence campaign was the claim that the $100,000 the IRA spent for advertisement
to promote its clickbait webpages through Facebook ads somehow moved people to vote for Trump. But 56% of the IRA ads ran after the
election, 25% of all its ads were never seen by anyone. How a few $10,000 for ads only few saw moved an election that was fought
with several billions spent by each candidate's campaign was left unexplained.
[T]he common understanding is that Russia's interference efforts included sophisticated targeting of specific voting groups on
Facebook, which could have made the difference in states that Trump narrowly won on his way to an electoral-vote victory.
That understanding about Russia's sophisticated targeting, though, is not supported by the evidence -- if it's not flat-out
wrong.
...
Most of the ads purchased by the Russians didn't specify a geographic target smaller than the United States on the whole, according
to a Post review of the ads released by the House Intelligence Committee. Those that did target specific states heavily targeted
those that weren't really considered targets of the 2016 election, such as Missouri and Maryland. And of those ads that did target
specific states, most happened well before or well after the final weeks of the campaign.
All the claims that some Russian sockpuppets influenced the 2016 elections were and are nonsense. The IRA sockpuppets never had
any political intent.
Likewise the allegations that Russian intelligence hacked the DNC and Clinton crony Podesta's email are mere assertions for which
no hard evidence was ever provided. The only known fact is that the emails and papers were real, and that there content revealed
the shoddiness of Hillary Clinton, the DNC, and her campaign.
Now, as the 'Russian influence' narrative is dying down, the anti-Trump - anti-Russian campaign is moving to new grounds. Last week
the New York Times claimed that Paul Manafort, who for some time ran the Trump election campaign, gave public and internal
polling data to the Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska:
Manafort Accused
of Sharing Trump Polling Data With Russian Associate . A day after that sensational claim made a large splash throughout U.S.
media the New York Times recanted:
CORRECTION: PAUL MANAFORT asked KONSTANTIN KILIMNIK to pass TRUMP polling to the Ukrainian oligarchs SERHIY LYOVOCHKIN & RINAT
AKHMETOV, & not to OLEG DERIPASKA, as originally reported. We have corrected the story & I deleted a tweet repeating the error.
Duh. Manafort gave polling data to his Ukrainian fixer Konstantin Kilimnik with the request to pass it along to Ukrainian oligarchs
for who he had worked before joining the Trump campaign. Kilimnik had long
worked for the International Republican Institute office in Moscow. The IRI is a CIA offshot under Republican Party tutelage
that is used to influence politics abroad. Its long time head was the deceased hawkish Senator John McCain. While he worked with
Kilimnik in the Ukraine, Manafort concentrated on moving the Ukraine towards the European Union and away from Russia. His and Kilimnik
efforts were always opposed to Russian interests. But the NYT and others falsely
try to pass them off as the opposite
with the sole purpose of feeding the anti-Trump/anti-Russia campaign.
Another anti-Trump/anti-Russian propaganda effort is a new sensational NYT piece on obvious misbehavior in the upper rows
of the FBI :
In the days after President Trump fired James B. Comey as F.B.I. director, law enforcement officials became so concerned by the
president's behavior that they began investigating whether he had been working on behalf of Russia against American interests
, according to former law enforcement officials and others familiar with the investigation.
The inquiry carried explosive implications. Counterintelligence investigators had to consider whether the president's own actions
constituted a possible threat to national security. Agents also sought to determine whether Mr. Trump was knowingly working for
Russia or had unwittingly fallen under Moscow's influence.
The NYT lets it seem as if the decision to launch a counter-intelligence investigation related to Trump was as based
on some reasonable suspicion the FBI had. It was not. This was an act of revenge by the upper anti-Trump echelons in the FBI with
which they attempted to undermine Trump's presidency. Note what the claimed suspicion was based on:
Mr. Trump had caught the attention of F.B.I. counterintelligence agents when he called on Russia during a campaign news conference
in July 2016 to hack into the emails of his opponent, Hillary Clinton. Mr. Trump had refused to criticize Russia on the campaign
trail, praising President Vladimir V. Putin. And investigators had watched with alarm as the Republican Party softened its convention
platform on the Ukraine crisis in a way that seemed to benefit Russia.
Other factors fueled the F.B.I.'s concerns, according to the people familiar with the inquiry. Christopher Steele, a former
British spy who worked as an F.B.I. informant, had compiled memos in mid-2016 containing unsubstantiated claims that Russian officials
tried to obtain influence over Mr. Trump by preparing to blackmail and bribe him.
Trump made a joke during the election campaign asking Russia to release the 30,000 emails Hillary Clinton had deleted from her
illegal private email server. There is no requirement, as far as I know, for any candidate to criticize this or that country. How
can not following the non existing requirement to criticize Russia be suspicious? The Republican Party did not soften its convention
platform on Ukraine. It rejected an amendment that would have further sharpened it. Overall the Republican platform was
more hawkish than the Democratic one. The
Steele dossier was of course from A to Z
made up nonsense paid for
by the Hillary Clinton campaign.
It is non sensible to claim that these were reasonable suspicions sufficient to open a counter-intelligence investigation. The
hasty FBI move to launch a counter-intelligence operation obviously had a different motive and aim.
Strzok and Page sent other text messages that raise the possibility they were discussing opening up a counterintelligence investigation
against Trump before Comey's firing.
"And we need to open the case we've been waiting on now while Andy is acting ," Strzok wrote to Page on the day of Comey's
ouster.
Andy is Andrew McCabe, who served as deputy FBI director.
Page gave some indication in her congressional testimony in July 2018 that the text message was a reference to an investigation
separate from the obstruction probe that has already been reported.
Normally the FBI needs to clear such counter-intelligence investigations with the Justice Department. In this case it
did not do so at all :
In the case of the investigation into Trump, the FBI's decision to open a file on the president so quickly after Comey's firing
in May 2017 was a source of concern for some officials at the Justice Department because the FBI acted without first consulting
leadership at the department . But those worries were allayed when, days later, special counsel Robert S. Mueller III was appointed
to oversee the Russia probe ...
After Comey was fired, the FBI made a very hasty move, without reasonable suspicion and without informing the Justice Department,
to launch a counter-intelligence operation involving the sitting president and his administration. What was the real purpose of this
move?
Initiating a counter-intelligence investigation, for which there was no basis, gave the FBI, and later the Mueller investigation,
unfettered access to NSA 'signals intelligence' that could then possibly be used to incriminate Trump or his associates.
On his way out the door, we all were wallowing in our winter of discontent, Obama signed an executive order...
...
The order revised the rules around intelligence sharing among our intel community. Specifically, it made the firehose of raw intelligence
collected by the NSA directly accessible to the FBI and CIA. Instead of having to ask for intel and getting what they filtered
down the FBI and CIA could directly access the unfiltered "SigInt" or signals intelligence. Intercepted phone calls, emails, raw
intel from human sources. Everything our vast intelligence vacuum hoovers up, available directly... but only for counterintel
and foreign intel purposes .
The NSA can sit on virtually every communication into and out of the U.S. that takes place over networks. Obama made it possible
for the FBI to directly access everything they had on Trump, et al. Obama supercharged the FBI's ability to investigate Trump.
The Obama administration
enacted the changed executive order EO 12333 in early January 2017, shortly before Trump took over:
Previously, the N.S.A. filtered information before sharing intercepted communications with another agency, like the C.I.A. or
the intelligence branches of the F.B.I. and the Drug Enforcement Administration. The N.S.A.'s analysts passed on only information
they deemed pertinent, screening out the identities of innocent people and irrelevant personal information.
Now, other intelligence agencies will be able to search directly through raw repositories of communications intercepted by
the N.S.A. and then apply such rules for "minimizing" privacy intrusions.
...
[T]he 12333 sharing procedures allow analysts, including those at the F.B.I., to search the raw data using an American's identifying
information only for the purpose of foreign intelligence or counterintelligence investigations , not for ordinary criminal cases.
And they may do so only if one of several other conditions are met, such as a finding that the American is an agent of a foreign
power.
However, under the rules, if analysts stumble across evidence that an American has committed any crime, they will send it to
the Justice Department.
At that time Peter Lee, aka Chinahand,
already had the suspicion
that Obama was behind the FBI campaign against Trump.
With the changes in EO 12333 Obama gave the FBI the ability to launch a world wide snooping operation against the incoming Trump
administration under the guise of a 'counter-intelligence' operation. The hasty FBI move after Comey was fired activated this instrument.
The Mueller investigation has since used it extensively. 'Crimes' revealed through the snooping operation are turned over to the
Justice Department.
The NYT claim that the counter-intelligence investigation was initiated because of reasonable suspicion of Russian influence
over Trump is nonsense. It was initiated to get access to a set of tools that would allow unlimited access to communication of Trump
and anyone related to him. It was Obama who on his way out of the door gave the FBI these capabilities.
There are signs that the unlimited access the FBI and Mueller investigation have to signal intelligence is used to create prosecutions
via ' parallel construction ':
An active counterintel investigation means the Trump Administration's crimes were only as secure as the weakest link in their
weakest moment. We got hints of this early. Our intelligence folks picked up "signals intelligence" or SigInt from Russians talking
to Russians.
Those "signals" aren't the kind of evidence that finds its way into a courtroom. In fact, it's important that it doesn't. It would
burn sources and methods. It lays out the crimes and the players though... and then prosecutors find ways to make triable cases
other ways .
The public sees cases for specific charges carrying significant prison time without ever knowing that the NSA and prosecutors
knew so much more than they ever revealed. Now, apply those principles to the cases we've seen Mueller bring forward so far.
Mike Flynn: pleaded out to a minor charge, rolled over in full and then produced five rounds of documents. Likely: Flynn was
confronted with the intel they had on him and knew he was cooked. They knew the crimes. They heard and saw everything. There'd
be no escape.
By flipping and pleading out Flynn, all of that secret intel stays secret. Our intelligence efforts are protected. And Flynn
goes down. And he cooks a bunch of other gooses. He's savvy enough to know that once they have the intel, all that's left to do
is make the case.
...
The 'crime' that di Flynn in was misremembering a phone call he had with the Russian ambassador. Similar happened with Rick Gates,
Paul Manafort's righthand man and a member of Trump's transition team. Then it happened to Paul Manafort himself and to George Papadopoulos.
The Mueller investigation, thanks to the snooping Obama and the FBI enabled, knows the content of every phonecall, chat and email
any member of the Trump administration made and make to someone abroad (and likely also within the U.S.). It invites people as witnesses
and asks them about the content of a specific calls they made. If they misremember or lie - bang - Mueller has the transcript ready.
A crime has been created and an indictment for lying to the FBI will follow. This is what happened to Flynn and the others the Mueller
investigation entrapped and convicted.
Because of the counter-intelligence investigation the anti-Trump gang in the FBI hastened to initiate, the investigators got hands
on signal intelligence - phone calls, chats and emails - that allowed them to indict minor people for petty crimes and to flip them
to talk to the investigation.
The aim, in the end, was and is to build a prosecution case against President Trump for whatever minor and petty half-backed illegal
doing there may be.
To make such a prosecution and an indictment publicly palpable the media is assigned with launching story after story about nefarious
relations between Trump and anything Russia.
As we have seen above with the IRA story, the retracted NYT 's Manafort bang, and the NYT's false claims about
the motive of the FBI's counter-intelligence investigation, none of these stories hold up to diligent scrutiny. Today's Washington
Post adds another example of no-beef stories that insinuate mystic 'Russian influence' over Trump:
President Trump has gone to extraordinary lengths to conceal details of his conversations with Russian President Vladimir Putin
, including on at least one occasion taking possession of the notes of his own interpreter and instructing the linguist not to
discuss what had transpired with other administration officials, current and former U.S. officials said.
The rest of the story largely refutes the claim made in its headline and very first sentence:
Trump did so after a meeting with Putin in 2017 in Hamburg that was also attended by then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.
...
Trump generally has allowed aides to listen to his phone conversations with Putin ..
...
In an email, Tillerson said that he " was present for the entirety of the two presidents' official bilateral meeting in Hamburg,"...
After Trump had a first White House meeting with the Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov in Washington, lots of leaks about the talk
appeared in the DC media. Trump was accused of giving information about an ISIS plot to the Russians that was allegedly secret.
It was not . Since then Trump clamped down on the number of participants, briefings and readouts for such talks. That is simply
a necessary and laudable behavior. Now the media try to construct that into 'Trump is concealing details' about talks with Russia
even when the U.S. Secretary of State and others are present in these.
Ever since Trump won the Republican primaries, the Clinton campaign, the Obama administration and the U.S. and British intelligence
services prepared to prevent a successful Trump presidency. The Steele dossier, created by 'former' British intelligence agents and
paid for by the Clinton campaign, was the basis for an FBI investigation that was seen
as
an insurance against a Trump win. Any possible Russia relations Trump might have came under scrutiny. This prevented him from
fulfilling his campaign promise of coming to better relations with Russia.
Shortly before Obama left the office he created the tool the FBI needed to put its investigation on steroids. When Trump fired
Comey for his handling of the Clinton email affair, the FBI put that tool into action. With unfettered access to signal intelligence
the Mueller investigation was able to entrap a number of Trump related people and to flip them to its side. It will use any information
they give up to find some angle under which Trump can be prosecuted and eventually impeached. Even if nothing comes off this investigations,
the media reports and slander all this created may well be enough to prevent an election of Trump for a second term.
I very much dislike most of Trump's domestic and foreign policy. But he was duly elected under the existing rules. The campaign
the media and the intelligence services have since run against him undermines the will of the people. Unfortunately I see no way
that Trump could escape from the hold it has gained over him. Exposing it as much as possible might well be his best defense.
It is information that is put out there that is never cross checked by the American people. They are too busy, too involved
with other things or too stupid to find out the true facts. It is hard to predict what will occur next year. I
feel it all depends who wins the primary on the Democrat side.
[Trump] ... was duly elected under the existing rules. The campaign the media and the intelligence services have since
run against him undermines the will of the people.
There is a major flaw in reasoning here. Trump is no populist. A populist can't be elected by the money-based US political system.
Trump's election was almost certainly arranged:
The anti-Russia campaign began in earnest in 2014 (well before the 2016 election);
Trump's pre-election relationship to the Clinton's is highly suspect: they were likely to be much closer than we have
been led to believe;
An FBI informant worked for Trump for over 10 years - during the time that Mueller was FBI director;
Trump was the ONLY populist on the Republican side (out of 19 contenders!);
Sanders was a 'sheepdog'
and Hillary ran a terrible campaign in which she made obvious mistakes that a seasoned campaigner like herself would never
make;
British involvement in the election (Fusion GPS, Cambridge Analytica, a Brit 'spy' in the Sanders campaign, etc.) suggests
CIA-MI6 working together;
Trump Administration policies are consistent those of Clinton-Bush-Obama:
> Obamacare was not repealed "on day one" - it has been strengthened by not defending coverage for prior conditions;
> Trump put TPP provisions into his new North American trade deal;
> Trump continues ME meddling;
> Trump continues militarism and tax cutting;
> Etc.
The only major "difference" that I can think of are Trump's Wall and China tariffs. But these are consistent with the 'Deep
State' goals.
Surveys show that the "will of the people" is very different than the neoliberal, neoconservative policies that the establishment
fosters upon us.
MAGA is a POLICY CHOICE as much as it is a campaign slogan. It is designed to meet the challenge posed by Russia and China
and 'turn the page' on the deceit and duplicity of the Obama Administration just as Obama's "Change You Can Believe In" was designed
to turn the page on the the militarism of the Bush Administration. These BI-PARTISAN page-turnings ensure that there is no accountability
and provides each new Administration with a new sly story line that the public readily swallows. Each new Presidential charade
entertains and misdirects as the interests of the Empire are advanced with a refreshed box of tricks and dishonest narratives.
...war of the deep state against U.S. President Trump continues unabated.
Then why did Trump nominate Gina Haspel as head of the CIA? She is the acolyte of Trump nemesis Brennan. Why does Trump choose
people like Nikki Halley, Pompeo, Bolton?
The war of the Deep State is a psyop to crush dissent as the butt-hurt Deep State continues to pursue their dream of global
hegemony. Anyone that believes that Trump is no part of that psyop is delusional.
Wow, man. Thanks to you and all the regulars here who contribute to gathering relevant info from all kinds of sources. I hate
to repeat myself, but I feel that a little praise every 3 or 6 months is not too much spamming. This is what serious journalism
looks like.
Zachary Smith @2: ... I just don't buy into the "insurance" theory.
And I don't buy the theory that Hillary is hell bent on war. The Clinton's are very rational and calculating and no President has the freedom that your theory suggests. IMO what the Deep State has done under their man Trump is very similar to what the Deep State would have done if they had selected
Clinton instead. The fact is, a populist nationalist is what was deemed necessary to meet the challenge from Russia and China. And that is what
we got (surprise!).
<> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Furthermore, focusing on personality and Party is just what they want
"Watch what they do, not what they say" has a corollary: pay attention to the polices, not the politicians.
"I very much dislike most of Trump's domestic and foreign policy. But he was duly elected under the existing rules. The campaign
the media and the intelligence services have since run against him undermines the will of the people."
This pretty well sums it up for me. Being old enough to remember FDR and the brief rise of the middle class in the 40's, 50's
and 60's (and having benefited from that attempt at leveling the playing field), I am more than saddened at the downward spiral
of our nation. Politics have obviously never been clean and fair, but the assassination of JFK opened the floodgates of blatant
depravity perpetrated by those whose greed and lust for power will ultimately destroy us.
Of course b you have nothing here to offer except your opinion. Your views regarding the relentlessness of the US criminal justice
system are on target, just ask the underclasses about that. Once in view, you are never let be and in the US everyone can be found
guilty of something.
Rather nice to see the pampered son of inherited tax-free wealth on the receiving end for once, in my opinion.
Trump is a crook. Russian collusion is his smokescreen. His crimes have already been demonstrated through what little we already
know and there is still much we don't know and probably never will know.
This essay reads something like a veiled mea culpa from you.
You were wrong about Trump from the get go. Why not just admit it and move along? Why remain steadfastly in thrall to any shred
of rightwing, authoritarianism of the elite masquerading as populism?
Whatever Trump gets from the criminal justice system, Congress or the voters appears to be well-deserved. He has brought this
on himself and really there is no one else to blame even as he never will accept responsibility. He is stupid at best, dishonest
at best, a useful idiot at best.
Trump saved his ass financially after a series of disastrous business bankruptcies by accepting what appears by all indications
to be laundered money from literally hundreds of anonymous shell companies investing in his condos since at least 2008.
He has run roughshod over the emoluments clause quite openly.
I do believe, knowing what we know now, he will probably avoid indictment and escape impeachment, maybe only through resignation/pardon
but more likely the old fashioned way: defeat at the polls in 2020.
In many ways Trump has done some good by reinvigorating the US left (such as it is) and bringing at least enough cohesion in
the ranks of a badly splintered populace mainly among white females and white college educated voters who now reject the GOP,
or at least the GOP of Trump.
Whether this will lead to badly needed fixes for the heinous wealth inequality (started with Reagan) is doubtful but at least
the conversation is now underway (started with Bernie) which is the first step.
Tax increases, social security stabilisation, re-funneling wasted MIC billions to domestic programs for the poor, etc.
It is a start. Will it become a solution or a revolution in time?
That is up to the people who are still under the yoke of neoliberalism and global capital flight.
re:
Mike Flynn: pleaded out to a minor charge, rolled over in full and then produced five rounds of documents. Likely: Flynn was confronted
with the intel they had on him and knew he was cooked. They knew the crimes. They heard and saw everything. There'd be no escape.
By flipping and pleading out Flynn, all of that secret intel stays secret. Our intelligence efforts are protected. And Flynn goes
down. And he cooks a bunch of other gooses. He's savvy enough to know that once they have the intel, all that's left to do is
make the case.//
So the situation is worse than I thought. The clear inference is that (1) Flynn (and others) really did commit some major crimes,
and then (2) got off easy by admitting to a memory lapse (3) while cooking a bunch of other gooses.
Flynn does the easy (2) and gets away with (1) and (3), both very serious. This is justice?
As you may recall, the woman threatened conflict on cyberattacks.
"As president, I will make it clear that the United States will treat cyberattacks just like any other attack," the Democratic
presidential nominee said. "We will be ready with serious political, economic and military responses."
Regarding the Deep State and Trump, Syria is in the process of winning against the neocons. And Iran has not yet been attacked.
Hillary has a record, and for the most part hasn't even tried to run away from it.
thanks b... the topic is so very tiring.. i am sick of hearing about it.. if the usa fell off a cliff and never came back again
- i would be fine with that.. thank you regardless, for taking it apart and trying ti dispel the bullshite.. it is so thick, it
defies logic.. i agree with @1 jose garcia, and @4 radiator...
trump is a crook... so what? most of the business class in the west are at this point! politics and crookery go hand in hand...
i would be surprised if it was any different at this point in time.. how about the intel agencies? you want to sleep with them?
lol..
There's either something wrong with this assumption, or something we're not being told...
The Mueller investigation, thanks to the snooping Obama and the FBI enabled, knows the content of every phonecall, chat
and email any member of the Trump administration made and make to someone abroad (and likely also within the U.S.). It invites
people as witnesses and asks them about the content of a specific calls they made. If they misremember or lie - bang - Mueller
has the transcript ready. A crime has been created and an indiction for lying to the FBI will follow. This is what happened to
Flynn and the others the Mueller investigation entrapped and convicted.
Option 1. Something wrong?
If you're being cross-examined in a court or pseudo-legal forum about things you may or may not remember, you have the right to
decline to answer a question, or to preface any and every answer with the phrase "If I remember correctly blah blah blah..."
Option 2. Something we're not being told?
If the interrogators were able to ambush Flynn, then it's probably because they didn't acquaint him with all of his rights, or
he didn't have a lawyer with him.
Trump's not stupid. He won't blunder into a situation bereft of any semblance of legal Human Rights protections designed to
ambush him. And if he can't have a lawyer with him when the questions start, then he can probably refuse to attend without breaking
any law.
@donkeytale There has been close to three years of serious investigative intent to lay a glove on Trump (HRC's team, the FBI and
Mueller) and there is only the merest scratch of a womaniser (which with three marriages doesn't come as a surprise). What is
quite remarkable, despite all the investigative effort, is how clean Trump has managed to keep himself despite building a fortune
in one of the toughest cities in the world, building himself up through the eras of the five families, junk bonds and ponzi schemes
and soviet union mobsters, not to mention the corruption of the poltical classes and regulatory abuses and unionised labor.
For the world's he moves in, the only explanation that gives him enough protection is that for a long time Trump has been a
protected FBI asset for one of the field offices, possibly now senior service figures. And it's this deep relationship with well
connected parts of the FBI or other secret services that has given him the ability to steer past the various attempts by the deep
state. Why, for instance, do we have such a lot of leakage of the inner workings of the anti-Trump FBI? Some part of the deep
state has become disgusted at the spying (eg on congress), the blackmailing, the warmongering, and deep corruption of the anti-constitutionalists,
and Trump is their vengence. You just have to decide which side you are on...
I read that as Testing - perhaps a trial/demonstration as a professional troll for somebody or other. How else to interpret "only the merest scratch of a womaniser" or "how clean Trump has managed to keep himself". Maybe I'm
surprised not to also see praise for the clever Government Shutdown.
meanwhile..trump and his appointees attack legitimacy of Venezuela govt.
Trump is in bad odor at home while seeking to attack other govts.
' Washington has explicitly expressed its support for a potential coup against the elected Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro,
by offering its backing to the opposition and stating outright it was time for a "new government."
"The Maduro regime is illegitimate and the United States will continue ... to work diligently to restore a real democracy"
to Venezuela, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told reporters on his trip to the Middle East on Saturday, adding that Washington
would attempt to make the Latin American nations "come together to deliver that."' https://www.rt.com/news/448673-us-venezuela-time-new-government/
One thing the US deep state and their muller proxy would have on Trump, and most if not all of Trump's team, is collusion with
Israel (can this convert into charges of treason as threats). A weapon that is good for threats against and turning those around
Trump, and possibly used in as a last resort to remove Trump.
Adding to my post @ 18
Pat Lang has a post up "What is wrong with Trump?" "But, how does one explain his lack of action on the border? Does someone or
some thing in Russia, Israel, the UK, his former business associates, have something really juicy on Trump, something that he
fears to unleash through decisive action? pl"
Collusion with Israel is something neither side - team Trump and the deep state - would wish to bring into the open, but this
may be the only thing they have on Trump.
"On Thursday November 17th, 2016, NSA Director Mike
Rogers traveled to New York and met with President-Elect Donald Trump.
On Friday November 18th The Washington Post reported
on a recommendation in "October" that [NSA Director
Admiral Mike Rogers] Mike Rogers be removed from his
NSA position:
The heads of the Pentagon and the nation's
intelligence community have recommended to President
Obama that the director of the National Security
Agency, Adm. Michael S. Rogers, be removed.
In a move apparently unprecedented for a military
officer, Rogers, without notifying superiors, traveled
to New York to meet with Trump on Thursday at Trump
Tower.
Occam's Razor. NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers
didn't want to participate in the spying scheme [on
Trump]
(Clapper, Brennan, Etc.), which was the baseline for
President Obama's post presidency efforts to undermine
Donald Trump and keep Trump from digging into
[who knows what crimes]"
After the visit by Rogers, Trump vacated Trump Towers. There is considerable irony in the Mueller 'probe' and the continuing avalanche of MSM lies and evasions and spin etc pertaining
to Trump.
There are trends: A growing US citizen realization that their political system prior to Trump was nearly completely corrupt;
the Clintons are more broadly understood as the pathological criminals that they are; the Podesta emails with their sick connotations
remain 'in the air' - See Ben Swann's work, for example. The Clinton Foundation is far more broadly understood as a massive criminal
enterprise.
Serious criminality at the highest levels of the FBI is now far more obvious to far more people
MSM as evil propaganda is more widely understood.
It is understood widely that the DNC material to Wikileaks was not 'hacked' (Binney)
From the theintercept.com :
"Pompeo met on October 24 [at Trump's request] with William Binney, a former National Security Agency official-turned-whistleblower
who co-authored an analysis published by a group of former intelligence officials that challenges the U.S. intelligence community's
official assessment that Russian intelligence was behind last year's theft of data from DNC computers. Binney and the other former
officials argue that the DNC data was "leaked," not hacked, "by a person with physical access" to the DNC's computer system."
In short the last two years have been about trying to defeat Trump but the attackers are looking more and more wounded, and
Trump, well, he's hanging in there. General Kelly and others have described Trump's work ethic as exhausting.
The Internet Research Agency (IRA) paid $100,000 for Facebook ads and then charged its customers for the clickbait service (between
25 and 50 U.S. dollars per post for promotional content). So even if the IRA didn't manage to make a profit, the net cost for them must have been much lower than $100,000. Does anyone
know how much revenue it made from that operation? Facebook must know but they've kept quiet about it. Same with Mueller.
Thank you, b. I am so glad I did not vote for Obama a second time around. A very rotten duopoly has taken over the US government,
all based on the premise that money is speech and money runs government, the people be damned. Hence the shutdown being orchestrated
by money, with Trump in the crosshairs.
I also very much adhere to your final paragraph's sentences. Let no one be in any doubt - what is underway is no less than
traitorous activity, a clear violation of the US Constitution, motivated by corrupt individuals whose meanness is beyond dispute.
How it can be redressed at this very late stage beggars the mind; I can only hope it be done as peacefully as possible.
If this is really true, then it's a clear sign of decline: Obama sacrificed a huge chunk of American freedom just for the sake
of personal political revenge. The USA is transitioning from a laissez faire to a highly burocratized, byzantine economy.
Shortly after the USSR's experiment with communism collapsed, I read an article which suggested that if the noise from that fall
was loud, even louder will be the noise when the second shoe (the American experiment with capitalism) falls.
And this is the crux of why I appreciate The Donald. His is the most honest face the US can present to the world at this point
in time. So look at it closely, and marvel at where we have come to.
I am so glad I did not vote for Obama a second time around.
LOL (first time I've ever written this!)
You made the same mistake I did in 2008. The deck was really stacked in that election, though I was too blind to see it at
the time. Smiling & smooth-talking black face issuing zillions of promises, and this was right after the Codpiece Commander. It
took me a whole year to realize I'd been suckered, and by 2012 understood the fix was STILL on. Obama had lost most all of his
glitter by then, so the Power Elites arranged his opposition to be a financial predator/Mormon bishop paired up with the most
awful Libertarian POS I've ever seen. Speaking the honest truth here, I'd prefer to have Sarah Palin as POTUS to Paul Ryan. What
a combo! That's why I offered anybody I met 10:1 odds on Obama winning. Hillary thought she had had seen a winning pattern from
all that, and arranged to have as her opponent a fellow named Donald Trump.
@15 Zachary Smith "How else to interpret 'only the merest scratch of a womaniser' or 'how clean Trump has managed to keep himself'."
Zachary Smith, I have been posting here for a number of years, and on this I have to agree with the newcomer Tess Ting
Trump has been put under intense investigation by Deep State hacks who are determined to see him impeached.
And all they have come up with is that he is a compulsive pussy-grabber (no shit, hey?).
To my mind Trump is a very offensive human being, but that isn't an impeachable character trait.
I had assumed that he would have skeletons in his cupboard that would be grounds for impeachment.
Well, if he has then he has hidden them extraordinarily well, because Mueller with all his resources hasn't found any.
Indeed, Mueller's investigation is so well-resourced that the only conclusion I can reach is that Trump has no such skeletons.
As I say, that is extraordinary.
But - apparently - also true.
Blooming Barricade , Jan 13, 2019 9:21:09 PM |
link
Astonishing how out in the open the military coup plotting against Venezuela is right now, it was consisted an outrage to overthrow
Allende and that was even before direct proof of US involvement, now the anti-war and left wing consciousness of the public and
the intellectual class has been so corroded that nobody care and many even see an attempted coup as a god thing. The ideological
counter revolution in full swing.
@ Yeah, Right who wrote:
"
Indeed, Mueller's investigation is so well-resourced that the only conclusion I can reach is that Trump has no such skeletons.
"
I would just bring your attention to the possibility that bringing Trump down brings them down as well. Your assertion that
Trump doesn't have any skeletons in the closet is laughable.
Also consider that most of what is known comes from compromised sources and much of the house of cards we live is built on
sketchy assumptions.
Cui Bono for Trump?
I am beginning to understand how Trump fits the elite plan and instead of your "grab them by the pussy" thought change it to
"they have him by the balls". They played his ego to get him to run the race and then, gee, he won.
I now see Trump as the last great hope of the elite to carve out as big a chunk as they can of the new world....and try and
hold onto it. The ongoing proxy conflicts will keep the musical chair game playing for a bit more but then something is going
to stop the music.
A shrink told me once that after fire came music. What comes after music?
How did I know that you would be first up after b's exhaustive story on the IC's corruption and utterly obvious attempt to
take Trump down to cry, "Fiction."
Here is a reply to all your points:
- yes, the Russia-bad narrative was picking up steam before Trump's election. The MSM and TPTB incorrectly surmised that there
would be enough anti-Russia fervor among the masses that pinning the accusation on Trump would stick. It did not. It is evidence
of THEIR stupidity.
- you must have never heard of keeping your enemies close. The Clintons are powerbrokers. Trump used them. Maybe he did like them
at one point, but clearly shat on his relationship with them and since the election they have truly been trashed and unable to
recover any good fortune or power. The Dems made a mistake will backing HRC. They weren't acting under Deep State orders once
again, Occam's Razor dictates that stupidity is the culprit here.
- How does FBI informant in campaign neccessarily implicate Trump in conspiracy and not confirm IC's weasely attempts to dig up
dirt?
- Look at prior Repub primaries? Notice anything? Populists don't float in the Yacht Club Party, do they? Trump was an anomoly
indicitive of the times (again, Occam's Razor).
- Again, it is absolutely absurd and suspicious that you can not admit that the Dems are a party of retards and that they consistently
step over quarters to pick up pennies.
- Your opinion that Trump's policies do not differ from the Dems needs qualifying. I don't agree that his domestic policies align
and verdict is still out on his FP. We know he is not a True-Believer, which is good.
- British involvement again suggests that the IC is compromised and globalized yielding national sovereignty to centralized planning.
Trump deserves that ire and proves that there is a contest afoot.
If Trump's corporate bankruptcies are so well-known, and picked over several times by different media sources (even Snopes
has covered them), surely any other behaviour or incident that might call Trump's character or ethics into question must have
been uncovered by Robert Mueller by now?
I can't imagine the scale of exploding heads among the media talking heads and the establishment of the two parties, IF, Trump
gets re-elected. DC would be in serious melt down. After 4 years of continuous assault the voters may actually repudiate the corporate
media and the DC elites in the 2020 elections.
In any case with the Democrat candidates starting to announce we are essentially into the next presidential campaign. I don't
think it is smart to under-estimate Trump's electoral chances.
"Normally the FBI needs to clear such counter-intelligence investigations with the Justice Department. In this case it did
not do so at all:"This sounds like the same "kangaroo court" MO Scott Ritter detailed a few years ago:
"Simply put, the Russia NIA is not an "IC-coordinated" assessment -- the vehicle for such coordination, the NIC, was not directly
involved in its production, and no NIO was assigned as the responsible official overseeing its production. Likewise, the Russia
NIA cannot be said to be the product of careful coordination between the CIA, NSA and FBI -- while analysts from all three agencies
were involved in its production, they were operating as part of a separate, secretive task force operating under the close supervision
of the Director of the CIA, and not as an integral part of their home agency or department."
Why does it have to be either-or?; it could have been for insurance AND warmongering narrative/dog whistling.
Escalation towards war with Russia was a matter of public record in late pre-election 2016, thanks to Clinton News Network
... now ask yourselves where is that general in the press conference nowadays?
NemesisCalling @31: Here is a reply to all your points
Well, you haven't replied to all my points, nor have you addressed the the thrust of my remarks. But I'll answer the issues
that you raised so my view is clear to everyone.
= - yes, the Russia-bad narrative was picking up steam before Trump's election. The MSM and TPTB incorrectly surmised that there
would be enough anti-Russia fervor among the masses that pinning the accusation on Trump would stick. It did not. It is evidence
of THEIR stupidity. Wrong. Firstly, I was referring to the anti-Russia imperative in official circles NOT to the propaganda effort. That imperative
intensified greatly after Russia blocked USA-proxy takeover of Syria (2013), and Crimea and Donbas (2014). In fact,
Kissinger
wrote a WSJ Op-Ed in Aug 2014 that issued a cryptic call for MAGA.
"picking up steam before Trump's election" needs some unpacking. The anti-Russia fervor among the masses has been
entirely concocted, and mostly AFTER 2014.
Nothing has stuck to Trump because there's no substance to the allegations.
= - you must have never heard of keeping your enemies close. The Clintons are powerbrokers. Trump used them. Maybe he did like
them at one point, but clearly shat on his relationship with them and since the election they have truly been trashed and unable
to recover any good fortune or power. The Dems made a mistake will backing HRC. They weren't acting under Deep State orders once
again, Occam's Razor dictates that stupidity is the culprit here. What does Occam's Razor have to say about the remarkable continuity of US foreign and domestic policy for the last 30 years?
Trump and the Clintons were known to be close. Even their daughter's were/are close.
Are you unaware of the CIA connections of Clinton, Bush, and Obama? Should we assume that Trump is free of any such connection?
= - How does FBI informant in campaign neccessarily implicate Trump in conspiracy and not confirm IC's weasely attempts to dig
up dirt? The FBI informant (Felix Sater) worked for Trump from about 2001 to 2013. This was essentially the same period in which Mueller
was FBI Director. Mueller and Comey are close and are connected to the Clinton's.
The informant wasn't investigating Trump or digging up dirt on him, he was informing on the Russian mob, and probably using
employment by Trump to get closer to the mob. FBI/counter intel might have also used info provided to turn some of the Russians
into US intel assets.
= - Look at prior Repub primaries? Notice anything? Populists don't float in the Yacht Club Party, do they? Trump was an anomoly
indicitive of the times (again, Occam's Razor). Have you heard of the Tea Party? Have you heard of Obama using the IRS against the Tea Party? Seems that a Republican populist
would get a lot of votes against the hated Hillary who championed Obama's "legacy".
- Again, it is absolutely absurd and suspicious that you can not admit that the Dems are a party of retards and that they
consistently step over quarters to pick up pennies. You can't admit that the Dem's have failed the left so consistently that it is unlikely to be due to their mental capacity
or an accident of circumstance.
= - Your opinion that Trump's policies do not differ from the Dems needs qualifying. I don't agree that his domestic policies
align and verdict is still out on his FP. We know he is not a True-Believer, which is good. I didn't say that they don't differ from the Dems, I said that Trump policies are consistent with policies of previous Administrations
and that Hillary likely would've ruled in much the same way.
= - British involvement again suggests that the IC is compromised and globalized yielding national sovereignty to centralized
planning. Trump deserves that ire and proves that there is a contest afoot The US IC is undoubtedly primary and universally acknowledged to be the lead in the US-Brit Intel relationship.
The only 'contest' I can discern is how best to fool the people.
<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
You seem to believe that a populist outsider can be elected President. And, you also believe that a US President can be both
all powerful (Obama) or constrained by Deep State whim (Trump).
You also seem to believe that Trump's rhetoric is gospel-truth and means what you think it does. Surprise! "Negotiation with
Russia" doesn't mean peace. Troop 'pull out' doesn't mean it'll happen any time soon (and possibly never). Anti-TPP doesn't mean
he won't implement TPP provisions in other trade agreements. Etc.
PS The establishment doesn't benefit DESPITE our populist President's, they benefit BECAUSE we are willing to believe that
our populist President's work for US.
Jr, it was a fruitless endeavor, to be sure, but I gave it a shot.
For the record, I never counted Trump as savior, although he could very well be if he continues on getting caught with his
dick in his hand as the empire around him crumbles. He's not a true believer, but he can at the very least be a useful idiot for
the real anti-imperialists in the world.
It is of note that Oleg Deripaska is not a stranger to the world of politics and politicians. Before his fortunes changed dramatically,
Oleg Deripaska was well-known for entertaining world politicians on his luxury yacht moored off Kassiopi in the northwest corner
of the Greek Island of Corfu.
The Rothschilds have an estate outside Kassiopi. Among the many high-powered friends and guests
of Deripaska was UK Tory politician, George Osborne, who visited him on his yacht at Kassiopi while still British Chancellor of
the Exchequer. Osborne and EU Commissioner Peter Mandelson, a powerful force in Tony Blair's government, were both guests at a
function held aboard the yacht in 2008. Baron Mandelson's position in the EU, at the time, led to accusations of a conflict of
interest.
Among other movers and shakers, John McCain was also a friend of Oleg Deripaska, but that friendship may have soured
after the virtual collapse of the Russian billionaire companies. McCain was more a fairweather friend than a stalwart ally through
thick and thin. The reason I mention these tidbits is because the corporate media fails to join all the pieces that show just
how corrupt Western politicians have become.
For a thorough update on the Integrity Initiative and its offshoots, check out the latest from legal investigator Barbara Boyd.
To defeat the "Deep State" in the U.S., it is essential to understand the role of British Intelligence. While it is essential
to know the role of Hillary Clinton, Obama, Comey, DOJ/FBI operatives, et.al., it is even more important to understand the geopolitical
assumptions behind Russiagate. And for that, one must turn to the British.
It would help to get a handle on the precise nature and format of these FBI "under oath" fishing expeditions if the FBI released
transcripts of a few of the recent hi-profile Q & A sessions. If suspects are being convicted for misdemeanors of dubious relevance
to the stated aim of the Mueller Crusade then transcripts would allow inconsistencies to be counted and evaluated. It would also
be interesting to discover whether the FBI uses a seductive approach to questioning, or a confrontational approach, given the
petty nature of the 'crimes' exposed to date.
The aim of the counterintelligence operation and of the
Russiagate hoax was not to build a prosecution
case against President Trump. It was to put the United States in constitutional limbo by creating a parallel and competing center
of constitutional legitimacy.
The Obama Administration would live on in the structure of this "investigation", without ever having
to relinquish power to Trump. The investigation would form the center of "The Resistance", with the ability to question the legitimacy
of the Trump Administration.
I didn't say that they don't differ from the Dems, I said that Trump policies are consistent with policies of previous Administrations
and that Hillary likely would've ruled in much the same way.
This is very true but only in the same sort of overgeneralised sense with you populate your latest CT. That is, sweep any of
the plainly ridiculous assumptions in your theory under the widest possible rug available to conspiratards.
At least you aint exactly drinking the Orange Kool-Aid like so many of the posters on this thread. That's a big positive in
my book. As for them, it's more a reflection of the love for rightwing authoritarianism than for Trump himself. What they really
wish for is a crafier, shrewder Amerikkkan version of Putin, but they accept Trump because his bumbling is the existential proof
of US decline in relative power, as if such proof was necessary.
And if you overlook all Trump's achievements (such as they are):
1. Obamacare/Medicaid expansion repeal and subsequent degradation of the enrollment and funding processes by executive degree
when appeal failed thanks only to McCain's "in yo office sucka" thumbs down vote.
2. Tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations (basically same thing)
3. SCOTUS and federal bench selections
The US system is meant to create a uniparty environment whereby opposing views are compromised into a "third way" legislative
process.
I grok this system is broken and completely controlled by the wealthiest (show me a political system anywhere that you prefer
that is not controlled by the wealthiest) but the funding mechanisms need changing before there will ever be significant change
to governing processes.
Trump through his ignorance, corruption and loose lips has tilted the playing field left. Hilliary through her elitism, arrogance,
corruption and lack of retail political skills gets a big assist in the same tilting.
Those who believe (if any truly do) that Trump represents anything more than the end of Reaganist conservatism are "wishin'
and hopin'" as Dusty Springfield would say.
I do applaud those who are willing to show in the comments that they suffer from the real "Trump Derangement Syndrome," such
as your good buddy James. They're all crooks, in his opinion.
So what is it Jim? Do you excuse Trump only or do you excuse them all? LMAO
Putin January 2017 - "You know, there is a category of people who leave without saying goodbye, out of respect for the situation
that has evolved, so as not to upset anything. And then there are people who keep saying goodbye but don't leave. I believe the
outgoing administration belongs to the second category.
What are we seeing in the United States? We are seeing the continuation of an acute internal political struggle despite the
fact that the presidential election is over and it ended in Mr Trump's convincing victory. Nevertheless, in my opinion, several
goals are being set in this struggle. Maybe there are more, but some of them are perfectly obvious."
The first is to undermine the legitimacy of the US president-elect. By the way, in this regard, I would like to point out that
whether deliberately or not, these people are causing enormous damage to US interests. Simply enormous. The impression is that,
after a practice run in Kiev, they are now ready to organise a Maidan in Washington to prevent Trump from taking office."
Posted by: pretzelattack , Jan 14, 2019 10:05:43 AM |
link
sure, no doubt trump has been involved in financial improprieties; this in no way means he colluded with Russia to fix the election,
or that russia on its own hacked the election, or any of the other false narratives the ic is trying to cram down our throats
with the connivance of the msm and (mostly, but there are some republicans pushing it, too) the "centrist" dems.
And the clintons have their own skeletons, but they seem to be judgement proof with the aid of comey et al.
The only real difference between Trump and the Clintons at end of the day is they are smart lawyers who obviously better understand
how to navigate the treacherous legal waters surrounding them.
They also know what the definition of "is, is" and how to carefully craft their words in public, while Trump is all loose cannon
all the time ahd his legal representation appears to follow his lead, IE Giuliani and Cohen.
Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Jan 14, 2019 9:45:39 AM | 45:
We are seeing the continuation of an acute internal political struggle despite the fact that the presidential election is
over and it ended in Mr Trump's convincing victory.
Not really. What we are seeing is Deep State controlled media force-feeding the public a toxic concoction: the narrative of a
political struggle that centers on anti-Russia hysteria.
Maybe you missed Romney's Op-Ed in which he praised Trump's pro-establishment policies while attacking his Russia-friendly
'pull out' from Syria. That's the best example of the two-faced establishment bullsh*t.
Welcome to the rabbit hole.
Robert Snefjella , Jan 14, 2019 10:57:29 AM |
link
What is loosely called 'globalism', consisting of various trends and ideologies and practices: the EU and the aborted for now
'North American Union' and satellites, and cell phones able to instantly transmit images from the other side of the planet, and
so on, has also importantly aimed at and advocated for and implemented various means by which national sovereignty was eroded.
And this erosion meant a reduction of the ability of a country's people to wield an effective national politics, let alone
something vaguely democratic, or to implement policies which were at odds with the various globalist institutions and imperatives
and programs. So we've seen on numerous occasions, for example, the IMF impose its globalist economic 'recipe' on a nation's economic
policies.
And even the destruction of Libya in 2011 was primarily or importantly directed at preventing Libya from implementing a national
financial strategy intended to give African countries an alternative to the depredations of global financial 'business as usual'.
But over the last two years the movement to restore or renovate national sovereignty has made something of a comeback.
So for example, Macron as recently as roughly two years ago was being lauded as a great new leader of the globalist project,
and both he and Merkel have gone on record decrying the very concept of national sovereignty.
But now Macron and Merkel are largely reviled, especially Macron, by their people, and 'populist' enthusiasm strengthens. You
can see the same trend in virtually every European country.
And in the United States, the tens of millions of 'deplorables' backing Trump are doing so partly, perhaps mostly, because
he champions the restoration of national sovereignty and has questioned dominant globalist institutions.
Now for those who are committed to the view that Trump doesn't really mean it, that he isn't really an American nationalist,
and so on, well, fine, believe what you like. But in the end, Trump's base of support is nationalistic, and that is as I noted
above a very general trend that is quickly manifesting.
Re. the USA, when the handmaidens of power, aka politicians, the servant class in an oligarchic corporatist 'state,' are alarmingly
seen to fight to the death in public it is crystal clear that control (which may take the shape of relatively informal and obscure
networks ) is lost, .. > the 'fight' will only serve to weaken all parties.
Trump is loathed because he upset the apple cart and revealed weakness and fissures in the system. (+ possibly because he is
an upstart, from the wrong side of whatever, has bad hair, is dumb, a thief, more )
He ran as an anti-establishment maverick:
"Drain the Swamp!"
"Lock her up!"
"Build the Wall!"
- and was elected only for that reason. It was disconcertingly easy to do, which is also terrifying to the PTB. Plus, election/voter
fraud did not perform as expected - help !! The MSM promoted him with mega 24/24 coverage - help !!
As the no. 1 disruptive foe is merely an elderly scummy biz type, an intruder, some other entity like malignant agressive Russia
had to be associated with him. (Yes, is was Obama-Clinton who started the highjinks + the following Mueller investig.; see b at
top - also, bashing Russia gradually took wing as it recovered under Putin, the Ukraine plots did not work out, etc. *Crimea!*
the last straw! ..)
If Obama had announced that 2K USA personnel were to be withdrawn from Syria because the good folks want their wonderful husbands
and wives, great ppl, our folks, home soon, they have dutifully served, etc. the MSM and anyone who bothered to digest that news
would have clapped and sent off pixel sparkles and sweet tweets.
Very difficult to judge: what is the result of infighting in the US vs. any agreed-on never mind coherent foreign policy? That
the question is even asked - all over the world now - spells stage one collapse.
Now for those who are committed to the view that Trump doesn't really mean it, that he isn't really an American nationalist,
and so on, well, fine, believe what you like. But in the end, Trump's base of support is nationalistic ..."
Did Obama really mean it when he touted "Change You Can Believe In"? No. His rhetoric was meant to turn the page
from the Bush Administration excesses and convince the world that USA was not the threat that they perceived us to be. In fact,
he was given a Nobel Prize for essentially not being Bush. But it was all psyop. Obama refused to hold CIA accountable for rendition
and torture, refused to stop NSA pervasive spying, conducted covert wars and regime change ops, bragged of his drone targeting
skills, made Bush tax cuts permanent, bailed out bankers, etc.
Does Trump really mean his nationalism? Only to the extent that a nationalist was needed to meet the challenge from Russia
and China. People don't fight for globalist principals.
US is still a member of NATO, still involved in the Middle East, still has hundreds of bases around the world.
Trump's nationalist credentials are further belied by such things as: adding TPP provisions to the new North American trade
agreement; attacking Syria based on false flags; arming Ukraine; pulling out of the INF treaty and engaging in an unnecessary
and costly arms race; actively seeking to overthrow the governments of Iran and Venezuela; etc.
Is there a requirement for an open trial on these sort of things. I'm not sure about the US, but normally gag orders are all
that's required to keep something quiet. All the people around Trump could be taken down in this way with charges that would stick.
Apparently the only one they cannot take down in this way is the president (Another post up now at SST on the legalities of investigating
the president). As far as I know, the president can only be taken down by impeachment so I guess they wouldn't try to use collusion
with Israel for that unless they could keep what they were impeaching him for secret.
And in the United States, the tens of millions of 'deplorables' backing Trump are doing so partly, perhaps mostly, because
he champions the restoration of national sovereignty and has questioned dominant globalist institutions.
Yes, "Amerikkka First" represents nationalism for sure. Many, maybe most Amerikkkans have always been nationalistic and detest
globalist structures because they view them as limiting Amerikkka's rightful global sovereignty. This is a fine distinction
I believe gets lost in commentary such as yours. Trump isn't looking to retreat from Amerikkkan Exceptionalism at all, it his
raison d etre for the tariffs and increases in military spending.
The movement which elected Trump represents the nostalgic view of a lost Amerikkkan dominance over the globe, which of course
they blame on those hated Democratic and Republican establishment globalists, Bushes, Clintons and Obama.
You see all that and then assume that the Hillary-Trump contest was genuine?
Why not assume that the Deep State's candidate won in every election since Carter and work from there.
That first is a difficult one to answer, for I quite agree with you on the second part. Rigged elections from Carter on to
the present day matches my own thoughts as well. In 2000 "they" had to go all the way to the Supreme Court to get their man in
office, but GWB did indeed move into the White House.
My own theory about 2016 is that everybody miscalculated. Trump was (IMO) running as an ego-building publicity stunt. Hillary
(and her Deep State sponsors) had actively helped Trump get the nomination with hundreds of millions of dollars of free publicity
which also enhanced the bottom lines of Big Media. His multiple flaws were airbrushed away. Hillary ran a horrible campaign because
she is an arrogant and "entitled" woman. The incompetence of that campaign simply didn't uncover the extent to which she was hated
by so many people. (myself included, but I didn't vote for the torture-loving Trump, either)
The biggest mistake of all was not having any plan in place to use the touch-screen voting systems (think "Diebold") to
nail down her victory. Again an opinion, but I think that was judged to be a little too risky plus the fact it was obviously
totally unnecessary. Hillary didn't have a "loss" speech prepared, and Trump didn't have a "victory" one.
This is why I call Trump an "accidental" President. I'll admit the Deep State has reacted pretty well since 2016, but they're
still playing catchup. Israel - to name just one - remains in shell shock.
Further to American's general support for Trump's declared intention of reduction of troops in Syria and Afghanistan, the Daily
Caller on the 9th of January 2019 cited 56 % in support, 20 % not sure, and 27 % opposing. This is after MSM and general national
political outrage and 'deep concern' over Trump's decision.
Note that US involvement in Syria has been justified by the most lurid of lies and disinfo continually poured for years into
American's psyches. For Tulsi Gabbard to have a direct conversation with Assad (the designated 'butcher of Damascus', the 'horrid
monstrous dictator' accused over and over of attacking his own people, often with chemical weapons from barrel bombs, and especially
targeting children and hospitals: the man can have no soul, no heart! We must help the Syrians in their struggle against this
animal!) was an outrage!
So not only do most Americans want American troops out of Syria, it would seem that there is some growing immunity among the
people of the United States to their diet of diseased propaganda.
The populist hero must be portrayed as an "outsider" that takes on the establishment. Obama was positioned in much the same way.
Trump is no "outsider". He is very establishment. Even before running for President, he had access that ordinary people never
get.
Trump only won because of a bizarre technicality of the American electoral system.
You are directing our attention to what the establishment wants us to see. It ignores Hillary's spectacular failure: snubbing
of Sanders progressives; Cold shoulder to black voters; insult to white voters ("deplorables"); choosing not to campaign in crucial
states; the wierdness of Bill Clinton being discovered meeting with Attorney General Loretta Lynch (Bill Clinton is one of
the most recognizable people in America - why why why would be meeting with the Attorney General on an airport tarmac?), etc.
If the race were easy, Trump woundn't be a populist hero, would he? And Hillary's winning the popular vote is a nice consolation
prize to the Clinton's. Plus, it nicely sets up the fake Deep State vs. Trump conflict.
While Trump is a member of the elite establishment that practically owns the country he has always been a pariah for one main
reason. He does not honor the unspoken code of never exposing inside information about other elite members. He is a big mouth.
Given that, the establishment and their propaganda arm of the media have been out to get him even before he was elected. His presidency
has largely been an inside struggle. However, Trump is clever and crafty. During his tenure he has been give access to tremendous
amounts of information about his political enemies and he continues to bait, insult and fire them, pushing them deeper and deeper
into insanity.
He will fight fire with fire. If they attempt to impeach him he will tit for tat release information incriminating
his enemies. I view this as a positive direction for the US in the long run. ALL of these people need to be banished to "Elba".
Maybe they will fight to the death of both sides. One can dream.
The book, Profit over People by Noam Chomsky, Linguist turned political / social critic, is
an indictment against the process of globalization currently in vogue. Supporters of U.S.
International policy and trade agreements beware. If you agree with present policy then this
book is not for you. However, if you seek to examine your views, or if you need data to
utilize as a critique of current policy then Noam Chomsky offers a strong expose of
capitalism and globalization.
The book revolves around several major themes, including an examination of neoliberalism,
its definition, history, and how it is utilized in current policy. Next, Mr. Chomsky turns to
how consent for neoliberalism is manufactured through institutions such as the media. He ends
with a critique of U.S. Foreign policy especially in Latin America, the NAFTA agreement, and
insights into the Zapatista rebellion in Chiapas Mexico during the 1990's.
Mr. Chomsky uses neoliberalism as a pejorative term to connote the practices of economic
liberalization, privatization, free trade, open markets, and deregulation. In 'Profit over
People' it is defined "as the policies and processes whereby a relative handful of private
interests are permitted to control as much as possible of social life in order to maximize
their personal profit." Neoliberalism is based on the economic theories of Friedrich Hayek,
Milton Friedman, and the policies of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.
At the time of 'Profit Over People,' Neoliberalism had been the dominant economic paradigm
for a couple decades. In his critique of this paradigm, Mr. Chomsky observed that it was
being used to justify the corporate domination of the civic and public life of nations
including the U.S. He also noted that through neoliberalism, capitalism was being equated
with democracy and supporters were using this perspective to advocate for deregulation
policies as well as international trade agreements. He insinuated that at the same time
corporations were manufacturing consent for economic liberalization their real goal was to
attempt to gain control of international markets. A quote from the introduction illustrates
this theme;
"....as Chomsky points out, markets are almost never competitive. Most of the economy is
dominated by massive corporations with tremendous control over their markets and that
therefore face precarious little competition of the sort described in economic textbooks and
politicians speeches. Moreover, corporations themselves are effectively totalitarian
organizations, operating along nondemocratic lines."
Contemplating the issues Mr. Chomsky raises it is difficult to be objective with him
because his argument is so one-sided. He does not have one good thing to say about the
effects of globalization or trade agreements. There definitely are some negative effects of
globalization, yet it raises red flags in the mind of a discerning reader when positive
effects are overlooked. For example, he is very critical of NAFTA and provides evidence in
support of his argument, yet his critique is before NAFTA even went into effect.
Still, although a little outdated, and opinionated, Profit over People provides important
insights into the process of globalization, and who gains from the process. Mr. Chomsky
raises legitimate concerns about current trends in global development, and the forces behind
it. This is why I consider 'Profit over People' a book worth reflecting on.
American are so tired of foreign wars, that if DNC will not derail her with some "Putin agent" smears, and she wins the
Primary, she has a chance against Donald Trump, who completely discredited himself by his actions and can defeat
only opponent to the right of him (which with Hillary absence for the race now is difficult to find) like Obama against
Romnay
Notable quotes:
"... During an interview for the Sanders Institute in September 2018, Gabbard said, "Since 2011, when the United States, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and these other countries started this slow drawn-out regime change war in Syria, it is terrorist groups like al Qaida, al Nusra, and Hayat Tahrir al Sham, these different groups that have morphed and taken on names but essentially are all linked to al Qaida or al Qaida themselves that have proven to be the most effective ground force against the government in trying to overthrow the Syrian government." ..."
Democratic Representative Tulsi Gabbard from Hawaii announced she will
launch a presidential campaign for 2020. Her campaign is likely to distinguish itself from
other Democratic campaigns by making wars and broader United States foreign policy a major
issue.
Gabbard was elected to the Hawaii state legislature in 2002. She joined the Hawaii Army
National Guard a year later and voluntarily deployed to Iraq, where she completed two tours of
duty in 2004 and 2005.
She was elected to the House of Representatives in 2012, and according to her own website,
she was "one of the first two female combat veterans to ever serve in the U.S. Congress, and
also its first Hindu member."
During Senator Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign, Gabbard gained notoriety after she
resigned from her position as vice chair of the Democratic National Committee so she could
openly support Sanders. She spoke at Sanders campaign rallies to help him distinguish his
foreign policy from the much more hawkish foreign policy of Hillary Clinton.
Gabbard was overwhelmingly re-elected in 2018. She won 83 percent of the vote in the
Democratic primary election.
Most progressives are not as outspoken against U.S. military interventions or what she
refers to as "regime change wars." She witnessed the impact of regime change on the people of
Iraq, as well as U.S. troops, and that inspired her to talk more about the human cost of war
and challenge the military industrial-complex.
Gabbard has persistently called attention to the war in Syria. She traveled to Aleppo and
Damascus in January 2017 to see some of the devastation Syrians have endured since 2011. Syrian
President Bashar al-Assad invited her to a meeting, and she accepted.
"Originally, I had no intention of meeting with Assad, but when given the opportunity, I
felt it was important to take it. I think we should be ready to meet with anyone if there's a
chance it can help bring about an end to this war, which is causing the Syrian people so much
suffering," Gabbard
declared .
Supporters of the Syrian war -- the same people who do not want President Donald Trump to
withdraw U.S. troops -- seized upon Gabbard's meeting with Assad to discredit her, and it has
fueled the backlash among Western media pundits to her decision to run for president.
Yet, in spite of a smear campaign encouraged by the political establishment, Gabbard has not
backed down from protesting U.S. support for terrorists in Syria. She sponsored legislation,
the Stop Arming Terrorists Act.
During an
interview for the Sanders Institute in September 2018, Gabbard said, "Since 2011, when the
United States, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and these other countries started this slow drawn-out
regime change war in Syria, it is terrorist groups like al Qaida, al Nusra, and Hayat Tahrir al
Sham, these different groups that have morphed and taken on names but essentially are all
linked to al Qaida or al Qaida themselves that have proven to be the most effective ground
force against the government in trying to overthrow the Syrian government."
Gabbard opposes what she calls a "genocidal war" in Yemen, and she is one of the few
representatives, who has worked to pass a war powers resolution in the House to end U.S.
military involvement since Congress never authorized the war.
"The United States is standing shoulder to shoulder supporting Saudi Arabia in this war as
they commit these atrocities against Yemeni civilians," Gabbard said during the same Sanders
Institute interview.
Another war Gabbard questions is the war in Libya. In an interview for "The Jimmy Dore Show" on September 11, 2018,
she spoke about the devastating consequences of pursuing regime change without considering what
would happen after Muammar Gaddafi was removed from power.
"After we led the war to topple Gaddafi, we have open human slave trading going on, in open
market. In today's society, we have more terrorists in Libya today than there ever were
before."
Gabbard is also one of the few elected politicians to oppose weapons sales, especially to
Saudi Arabia. She recognizes the military industrial-complex benefits the most from Congress
not exercising its authority over war-making by presidents, whether they are Republican or
Democrat.
She spoke out against Secretary of State Mike Pompeo when he refused to revoke support for
Saudi Arabia and the war in Yemen because it would jeopardize a $2 billion arms deal.
Not many Democrats are willing to be optimistic on North Korea, but Gabbard sees potential
for peace and does not view Trump's meeting with Kim Jong-un as an act of treason.
Gabbard said during the Sanders Institute interview, "For years, I've been working in
Congress and calling for direct engagement with North Korea with Kim Jong-un to be able to try
to broker a peace agreement that will result in de-nuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and
and finally bring about an end to the Korean War."
"So I think that the recent engagement that we have seen -- both the historic meeting
between a sitting U.S. president and the leader of North Korea -- is certainly a positive step
in the right direction. We have to be willing to have these conversation to promote peace,"
Gabbard said. And, "I think the continued engagement between North Korea and South Korea is
positive."
Gabbard acknowledged there are a lot of details that have to be worked out, but that does
not make her hostile to the entire process, which is the attitude of many pundits and Democrats
in the establishment.
Joe Rogan interviewed Gabbard in September 2018. He
raised the issue of Russian troll farms and Facebook's failure to deal with them. She had a
sober response to his concerns.
"The United States has been doing this for a very long time in countries around the world,
both overtly and covertly, through these kinds of disinformation campaigns," Gabbard contended.
"Not even counting like the regime change wars, like we're going to take you out."
She continued, "I think it is very hypocritical for us to be discussing this issue as a
country without actually being honest about how this goes both ways. So, yes, we need to stop
these other foreign countries -- and Russia's not the only one; there are others -- from trying
to influence the American people and our elections. We also need to stop doing the same thing
in other countries."
Such positions on war and U.S. foreign policy effectively make her a pariah to establishment
media pundits and the political class. But her anti-establishment politics do not end
there.
Gabbard has advocated against superdelegates, which are Democratic party insiders that have
an outsized role in influencing the outcome of presidential primaries. She favors open
primaries and same-day voter registration. She is outspoken against the influence of money in
politics, and she is audacious enough to question members of her own political party.
"We have to dig a few layers deeper as people are running for office, say what do you
actually stand for?" she said on "The Jimmy Dore Show." "What is your vision for this country?
That's the debate that we will have to have in Congress should Democrats win over the House or
win more seats in the Senate."
"Otherwise, it will be more of the same status quo, where you'll have lobbyists who have
more of a seat at the table writing policies that affect healthcare and education and Wall
Street and everything else rather than having a true and representative government by and for
the people," she concluded.
She was also critical of self-described progressives, who are pro-war, while on "Jimmy
Dore":
You have these individuals and groups of people who call themselves progressive but are
some of the first to call for more war in the guise of humanitarianism. They look at these
poor people suffering -- and there are people suffering in the other parts of the world.
Let's go drop more bombs and try to take away their suffering. And when you look at example
after example after example, our actions, U.S. policy, interventionist regime change war
policy, [has] made the lives of people in these other countries far worse off than they ever
were before or would have been if we had just stayed out of it.
***
Gabbard was much closer to an establishment politician prior to her resignation from the
DNC. She accepted tens of thousands of dollars in contributions from political action
committees (PACs).
The Center for Responsive Politics noted, "One of the largest contributing sectors was the
defense industry. While Gabbard has gained a following for her
anti-interventionist stances , yet, her 2016 campaign was given $63,500 from
the defense sector . In fact, the campaign
received donations of $10,000 from the Boeing Corporation PAC and from Lockheed Martin's
PAC, two of the biggest names in the military-industrial complex."
In 2017, Gabbard announced she would no longer accept PAC money. She raised $37,000 from
labor associations and trade unions.
Gabbard was "conflicted" over whether to support the Senate report on CIA torture. She said
in 2014 that she thought there were "things missing or it was incomplete." She also endorsed
the "ticking time bomb" scenario that officials use to justify torture, and it is unclear what
her view would be now, if asked about the issue.
She has taken a position on Israeli occupation of Palestine that is
common among Democrats. She supports a two-state solution and describes Israel as the U.S.'
"strongest ally." But it may be shifting. In the last year, she condemned Israel for its
violence against the people of Gaza, and she was reluctant to vote for a House resolution that
condemned the UN Security Council for criticizing Israeli settlements.
Journalist Eoin Higgins
questioned Gabbard's support from the Hindu American Foundation (HAF), which he described
as right-wing. She has garnered criticism for her trip to India in 2014, when she met with
India prime minister Narendra Modi, a Hindu nationalist.
But HAF believes this criticism of Gabbard is unfair because other members of Congress, like
Speaker Nancy Pelosi, have attended gatherings with Modi. They also point to financial records
and maintain they are a U.S. organization without ties to any organizations in India.
When she was much younger, Gabbard helped her
father's organization mobilize against a same-sex marriage in Hawaii. The organization,
Alliance for Traditional Marriage, backed conversion therapy
However, there is evidence to suggest that Gabbard has abandoned much of the bigotry that
she probably learned from her father. She backed Edith Windsor when she challenged the Defense
of Marriage Act (DOMA).
"Let me say I regret the positions I took in the past, and the things I said. I'm grateful
for those in the LGBTQ+ community who have shared their aloha with me throughout my personal
journey," Gabbard stated, responding to media coverage of this aspect of her past.
She noted that she has since supported "the Equality Act, the repeal of DOMA, Restore Honor
to Service members Act, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, the Safe Schools Improvement
Act, and the Equality for All Resolution," and added, "Much work remains to ensure equality and
civil rights protections for LGBTQ+ Americans, and if elected President, I will continue to
fight for equal rights for all."
There are powerful forces in American politics that will seize upon her past opposition to
LGBTQ rights and meeting with Assad to neutralize her presidential campaign before she even has
an opportunity to tour the country and meet with potential supporters. They fear the impact she
could have if voters gravitate to her campaign, which will likely promote her
anti-imperialism.
Often Democrats do not bother to connect foreign policy to domestic issues. Gabbard is
likely to run a rare campaign, where she makes the case that they are intertwined -- that in
order to make investments in universal health care, education, infrastructure, etc, the massive
investment in war must be severely curtailed.
Gabbard also aware of the disenchantment among voters, who do not believe either political
party has the answers. She understands President Trump is a symptom of what ails the
country.
As she said on "Jimmy Dore," "If we look at the lead-up to the 2016 election, and if we
actually listen to and examine why people chose to vote the way they did, it points to much
bigger problems, a much bigger disaffection that has been building for quite some time, that
voters have against the establishment of Washington, the political establishment within both
parties."
The quote below is from Tucker book... Tucker Carlson for President ;-)
Notable quotes:
"... What was written as an allegory is starting to feel like a documentary, as generations of misrule threaten to send our country beneath the waves. ..."
"... Facts threaten their fantasies. And so they continue as if what they're doing is working, making mistakes and reaping consequences that were predictable even to Greek philosophers thousands of years before the Internet. ..."
"... They're fools. The rest of us are their passengers. ..."
Most terrifying of all, the crew has become incompetent. They have no idea how to sail. They're spinning the ship's wheel like
they're playing roulette and cackling like mental patients.
The boat is listing, taking on water, about to sink. They're totally
unaware that any of this is happening. As waves wash over the deck, they're awarding themselves majestic new titles and raising
their own salaries. You look on in horror, helpless and desperate. You have nowhere to go. You're trapped on a ship of fools.
Plato imagined this scene in The Republic. He never mentions what happened to the ship. It would be nice to know. What
was written as an allegory is starting to feel like a documentary, as generations of misrule threaten to send our country beneath
the waves.
The people who did it don't seem aware of what they've done. They don't want to know, and they don't want you to tell them.
Facts threaten their fantasies. And so they continue as if what they're doing is working, making mistakes and reaping consequences
that were predictable even to Greek philosophers thousands of years before the Internet.
They're fools. The rest of us are their passengers.
The quote below is from Tucker book... Tucker Carlson for President ;-)
Notable quotes:
"... What was written as an allegory is starting to feel like a documentary, as generations of misrule threaten to send our country beneath the waves. ..."
"... Facts threaten their fantasies. And so they continue as if what they're doing is working, making mistakes and reaping consequences that were predictable even to Greek philosophers thousands of years before the Internet. ..."
"... They're fools. The rest of us are their passengers. ..."
Most terrifying of all, the crew has become incompetent. They have no idea how to sail. They're spinning the ship's wheel like
they're playing roulette and cackling like mental patients.
The boat is listing, taking on water, about to sink. They're totally
unaware that any of this is happening. As waves wash over the deck, they're awarding themselves majestic new titles and raising
their own salaries. You look on in horror, helpless and desperate. You have nowhere to go. You're trapped on a ship of fools.
Plato imagined this scene in The Republic. He never mentions what happened to the ship. It would be nice to know. What
was written as an allegory is starting to feel like a documentary, as generations of misrule threaten to send our country beneath
the waves.
The people who did it don't seem aware of what they've done. They don't want to know, and they don't want you to tell them.
Facts threaten their fantasies. And so they continue as if what they're doing is working, making mistakes and reaping consequences
that were predictable even to Greek philosophers thousands of years before the Internet.
They're fools. The rest of us are their passengers.
Looks like Warren is a variation of the theme of Hillary Clinton: a ruthless female careerist, a closet Republican
who is quote jingoistic in foreign policy.
On home front Warren is probably more hostile to financial oligarchy then Hillary Clinton, but like Hillary she can be bought.
Currently the US citizens are "... Prisoners of the American Dream ...": the evolution of neoliberalism in the USA (and most Western countries)
undermined society because it treated land and labor as commodities. The impact of the neoliberalism on communities and families is
disruptive and that generates a strong backlash against financial oligarchy.
Which started in full force in 2016 which led to election of Trump.
Notable quotes:
"... By Thomas Neuburger Originally published at DownWithTryanny! ..."
"... I get the feeling that the Democrats are now more ruthless and heartless than the Republicans. ..."
"... In fact, I read the other day that Nixon had sought to introduce universal Medicare, and that the AFL-CIO, with Watergate in
development, convinced Teddy Kennedy to back away from his long dream of moving similar legislation through Congress, so as not to give
Nixon a victory. ..."
"... I'm feeling extra cynical today, if that can be believed, and am wondering if Warren is being encouraged to run, but not told
that she is intended to be a spoiler to Sanders. ..."
"... Just because the Gang Of Two Mommies hope to exploit Warren as a counter-Sanders spoiler does not mean that she has to run
that way or that Sanders has to take it that way. Sanders and Warren appeal to two some overlapping but still different sets of people.
Their added-together voter-count could be bigger than either nominee-wannabe's voter count total on its own. ..."
"... With Warren wanting to be at the table with the elites, perhaps she took the advice of Larry Summers. In her memoir, "A Fighting
Chance", she mentions a dinner conversation where she was told by him 'I had a choice. I could be an insider or I could be an outsider.
Outsiders can say whatever they want. But people on the inside don't listen to them. Insiders, however, get lots of access and a chance
to push their ideas. People -- powerful people -- listen to what they have to say. But insiders also understand one unbreakable rule:
They don't criticize other insiders.' ..."
"... The elites will, and have been, doing anything to derail rebellion and block any electoral movement towards popular governance,
even of the save-the-system New Deal style of politics. If co-opting fails, then media blackout, vote fraud and silencing follows. ..."
"... They took it all and plan to keep it at any cost. The immiseration of the American people, to paraphrase Madeleine Albright,
is worth it. ..."
"... incumbent elections are always a referendum on the state of the economy, full stop. ..."
"... I also got that Organizing for Bernie email. And I unsubscribed. Bernie, I haven't forgotten about 2016. Especially the part
about taking this fight all the way to the convention. ..."
"... The elite have used leverage thinking to gain control over the mass of humanity and the environment, but now that they reign
supreme, they have run out of ideas as to social evolution. If put to the question- To what purpose are all human labor and effort to
be directed? They seem to not have a clue, other than conjuring up ways to perpetuate the status quo- which is to protect elite interests
at the expense of the weak and poor. ..."
"... I don't intend to be negative on Sanders and Warren, but American politics and life are so out of balance, at times it seems
that being an outsider- or non-participant is the way to sanity. When politicians can blatantly lie their way into office, and the system
allows them to survive and persist, the system is beyond fixing. ..."
"... 'Both are critics of the Democratic establishment. Both are foes of Wall Street. And both are substantive, policy-focused politicians.'
Yes, and this will prevent either of them getting the nomination ..."
"... Sanders is going to get drowned out in 2020. He is too old and it shows. ..."
Posted on
January 11,
2019 by Yves Smith Yves here. I know Warren is
deemed to be progressive by American standards, but I recall clearly when I first say her speak at a Roosevelt Institute conference,
Let Markets Be Markets, which was a title I found to be unhelpful, since it suggested that markets would exist in a state of nature
and just needed to be left alone. In fact, markets depend on rules and enforcement mechanisms to operate regularly and well.
Warren, who was the first speaker, gave a long preamble about how she loved markets and had long taught contract in law school.
I don't recall her giving any reason as to why she loved markets, when you'd expect her to make a case, such as how they were good
for people. Her speech struck me as defensive, as in she felt she had to say she was in favor of commerce so as not to be painted
as a Commie if/when she called for reforms.
By contrast, Karl Polyani, in his classic book The Great Transformation, argued that the evolution of market economies undermined
society because it treated land and labor as commodities. Pressured to slow the development economies were inevitable and Polyani
suggested, desirable, because the impact of the development of the market society on communities and families was often so disruptive
that the changes needed to be mitigated.
I didn't get any sense that Warren had those concerns, and I found that troubling. I didn't see how her profession of enthusiasm
for markets connected with the concerns she has expressed for the welfare of American families.
I've written before comparing Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders as presidential candidates, but only preliminarily. (See "
The Difference Between
Sanders and Warren, or Can Regulated Capitalism Save the Country? ") But there's much more to say -- foreign policy, for example,
is barely touched on there -- and also much is evolving in their positions, especially Warren's.
That earlier piece focused on the differences between these two candidates based on their economic ideologies. As I wrote then,
"Though both would make the next administration, if either were elected, a progressive one by many definitions, the nature of the
progressivism under each would be quite different."
In particular, I asked:
Can the current capitalist system be reformed and retained, or must it be partly nationalized -- taken over by government
-- and reduced in size and capacity, for the country to be saved from its current economic enslavement to the "billionaire
class"? In addition to questions of personal preference, Democratic primary voters will be asked to decide this question as well.
And the question applies quite broadly. The billionaire class also controls our response to climate change. Is it possible
for a "free" market system -- a system in which billionaires and their corporations have control -- to transform the energy economy
enough to mitigate the coming disaster, or must government wrest control of the energy economy in order to have even a hope
of reducing the certain damage?
But there are other contrasts between these two as well, other differences, as Zaid Jilani,
writing in
Jacobin , points out. He begins where we began, with the ideological and philosophical differences:
Why the Differences Between Sanders and Warren Matter
Both are critics of the Democratic establishment. Both are foes of Wall Street. And both are substantive, policy-focused politicians.
But that doesn't mean Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren share the same worldview.
Sanders tends to focus on "post-distribution" remedies, meaning he prefers to use the government's power to tax and spend to
directly meet Americans' needs -- or replace the market altogether. His social-democratic ideas, like free college and single-payer
health care, are now policies most Democrats have to tip their hat to at least for electoral reasons.
Warren wants to empower regulators and rejigger markets to shape "pre-distribution" income, before taxes. Less likely to push
for big-ticket programs, she wants to re-regulate Wall Street and make life easier for consumers.
So far this is familiar ground.
Different Theories of Change
But as Jilani points out, there are differences in style and "theory of change" as well. ("Theory of change" usually encompasses
how a given policy change is to be accomplished, as opposed to what that change should be.) Jilani again:
The two senators also have distinct theories of change. Sanders has long believed in
bottom-up, movement-based
politics. Since
his days as mayor of Burlington, Vermont, he has tried to energize citizens to take part in government. He generally distrusts
elites and decision-making that does not include the public. Warren, on the other hand, generally accepts political reality and
works to push elite decision-makers towards her point of view.
When I worked at PCCC ["the most influential outside PAC supporting Warren" says Jilani], I was once told that Warren decided
to run for the Senate after witnessing the amount of power she had as an oversight chair for the bank bailouts. She believed that
"being in the room" with decision-makers in the Obama administration was essential to creating change.
About this he concludes: "While Warren wants to be at the table with elites, arguing for progressive policies, Sanders wants to
open the doors and let the public make the policy."
"Elizabeth is all about leverage"
These are significant differences, and his observation goes a long way to explaining this item from a
long piece published in Politico Magazine in 2016, an article otherwise about Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Discussing
why Warren refused to endorse Sanders, Glenn Thrush wrote:
Luckily for Clinton, Warren resisted Sanders' entreaties, for months telling the senator and his staff she hadn't made up her
mind about which candidate she would support. For all her credibility on the left, Warren is more interested in influencing the
granular Washington decisions of policymaking and presidential personnel -- and in power politics. Warren's favored modus operandi:
leveraging her outsider popularity to gain influence on the issues she cares about, namely income inequality and financial services
reform.
"Elizabeth is all about leverage, and she used it," a top Warren ally told me. "The main thing, you know, is that she always
thought Hillary was going to be the nominee, so that was where the leverage was."
Warren, several people in her orbit say, never really came close to endorsing the man many progressives consider to be her
ideological soulmate.
For many grassroots supporters of Sanders, who were also strong Warren supporters prior to his entry into the race, these revelations
-- "all about the leverage" and "never came close to endorsing" -- took the bloom off the Warren rose. For whatever reason, that
bloom appears not to have returned, at least not completely.
Jilani's observation in no way diminishes Warren's credibility or core desirability as a candidate. If you care about achieving
your goals through "leverage," joining the Sanders campaign, which may have looked to you like a kind of Children's Crusade, would
seem foreign to your way of operating.
The Bottom Line -- Not Just Method, But Scope
While Jilani notes that many of Warren's past positions, for example,
on charter schools and Medicare
for All, have grown more progressive, she still doesn't seem to prioritize Medicare for All as strongly as Sanders does.
In 2012, Warren was explicitly opposed to Medicare for All (called "single payer" at the time). "Five years later --
after decades of advocacy
by Sanders had helped popularize Medicare for All -- Warren [finally] decided to endorse the policy," writes Jilani. "But unlike
consumer protections or financial regulation, establishing a single-payer health care system doesn't seem to be a top priority for
Warren." He adds, "It's hardly a surprise
that Warren didn't raise single-payer during her first two campaign events in Iowa and when asked about it by a Washington Post
reporter, [she] suggested she didn't bring it up because no one else at the events raised it."
As noted above, if either were president, the odds that America will change for the better would vastly improve. But each would
do that job in a different way. Each has a different philosophy of how government should work, and approach the process of change
from different directions -- though I have to give Warren credit for
picking public fights with
fellow Democrats when others are much more timid.
But to these two differences -- philosophy and approach -- let me add a third, a difference in sweep. The scope of change envisioned
and attempted by a Sanders presidency would likely be far greater than that attempted by Warren.
In these times, with a massive climate tsunami fast approaching and a Depression-style rebellion in full view, can America,
in this Franklin Roosevelt moment , afford just a better manager of the current system, a better rearranger, and survive?
There's not much question that Warren would better fix the status quo, and be a better choice as president, than 95% of the other
candidates on offer. But would a Warren presidency be enough to bring us through this crisis as safely as Washington, Lincoln and
FDR once did?
For many true progressives, I think that's the question she'll be asked to answer, and she has about a year, or less, to answer
it.
Just spitballing here, but I think that Warren has more of a technocrat view of the process of governance than Sanders does.
Warren seems to be an academic at heart.
Sanders has experience dealing with the public in all it's tatterdemalion glory. He was a City Mayor, about as close to the
ground level in politics as one can get. Warren would make an excellent Department Head, a good member of the Cabinet. Sanders
has a reputation of 'getting things done' in the Senate. This suggests that Sanders has the skills of persuasion and, importantly,
coalition building, incorporating strategic concessions. These are a big part of the Art of Politics.
So, Sanders has the Art of Politics in his tool kit while Warren has the bureaucratic skills to work behind the scenes. They
would make a good team, if Warren is to be trusted. And there is the stumbling block.
Sanders has a reputation of 'getting things done' in the Senate.
Really? I wonder how many voters had ever heard of Sanders before he ran for president.
Perhaps the real question is who has the greatest chance of building a movement which is the only way we will really "get things
done" in the face of stiff opposition. Unfortunately–given Sanders' age and Warren's political ham handedness–the answer may be
neither. But at least Sanders seems more willing to upset the apple carts than the go along to get along Warren. It's not about
"persuasion" of elites, who just need to see reason. It's about power, and TPTB are afraid of the voters which is why there's
such a tizzy over Trump.
Yes. Trump did to the Republican Party what Sanders should have done to the Democrat Party. I get the feeling that the
Democrats are now more ruthless and heartless than the Republicans.
Also, when he was in the Senate, Sanders only had to worry about name recognition in his home state. The transition to the
national stage is not instant. It takes time and Sanders seems to have learned that lesson. I'm wondering if even Sanders was
blindsided by his own success in the Democrat primary process the last time around.
I dunno. Lots of us lefties had been following him for years.
Though I am in no way Pollyannaish about his prospects, I tend to see Sanders as our last, best hope. But I confess to being
both baffled and a little bit outraged that all of those liberals who spent several years calling those of us whose policy differences–whose
differences with her record–made Hillary Clinton unacceptable to us "anti-feminist" now won't even give Warren the time of day!
Honestly?
A certain anti-intellectualism obviously informs this view. . . but for me it's also a mark of just what a carefully feminine
(and faux feminist) persona Ms. Clinton carved out for herself along the way, and what a dreadfully long way that women still
have to go–or worse, how much ground has been lost.
In fact, I read the other day that Nixon had sought to introduce universal Medicare, and that the AFL-CIO, with Watergate
in development, convinced Teddy Kennedy to back away from his long dream of moving similar legislation through Congress, so as
not to give Nixon a victory. Crass cynicism has long been in place, as the story demonstrates.
But with "liberals" and the Democratic establishment now telling us that things like universal healthcare are just too ambitious,
and their minions parroting such thinking, we have a stark illustration of just how far right American liberalism has now drifted,
further right–in certain aspects–than centrist Republicanism of the 1970s.
These aren't the 70s. And there is a great deal of political ferment at present. But such analysis does suggest that there
is a great deal of space waiting to be (re)occupied on the left.
That is my take too. Warren has the technical savvy to rewire our regulatory systems, and she appreciates how they are interconnected
(move one and others change). Having drafted a lot of policy myself, it is understanding and minimizing the unintended consequences
of change that creates success. I do not see Bernie as a whiz at technocracy. Where Bernie shines is he nagging attention to the
fact that politics is all about people and making life better for the majority – not just squillionaires – in fact, not even necessarily
squillionaires. As Trump would remark; "They'll make adjustments."
I'm feeling extra cynical today, if that can be believed, and am wondering if Warren is being encouraged to run, but not
told that she is intended to be a spoiler to Sanders.
Out of the wreckage, expect the 'Two Mommies,' Hillary and Michelle to arise promising to heal all wounds and unite the Party.
"Onward to Victory!" (We'll worry about the policy later, after we have slain the Dragon Trump.)
One hopes that Warren and Sanders both have people reading this blog regularly and reporting back with any possibly pertinent
information and theory.
Just because the Gang Of Two Mommies hope to exploit Warren as a counter-Sanders spoiler does not mean that she has to
run that way or that Sanders has to take it that way. Sanders and Warren appeal to two some overlapping but still different sets
of people. Their added-together voter-count could be bigger than either nominee-wannabe's voter count total on its own.
The two seekers and their two groups of supporters might well choose to force-multiply eachother in order to frustrate the
Two Mommies Conspiracy.
What if the two groups of delegates together added up to enough to victorialize One of the Two if all the delegates voted for
One of them? Suppose they all got together and pledged (and meant it) to study very carefully which of the Two got More delegate
votes on the First Ballot? Suppose the Second Votegetter agreed to add their delegates's votes to the votes of the First votegetter,
such that the First votegetter on the first ballot would get ALL the two groups of delegates's votes on the second ballot? Either
Sanders or Warren would win, and the Winner would make the Other One herm's running mate.
We decide who is electable based on responses to debate terms. Electible is not some eternal quality a candidate is born with,
it is a media trope to restrict the field to the corporate friendly candidates. Enough of that
How many of those who actually vote in an election watch debates? Back in horse and buggy days, a debate was the premier way
to reach the 'interested' parties in a district. Debates, and hand shaking, baby kissing and newspaper/handbill politics was the
game before electronic media.
Then there is that indefinable quality known a "charisma." There, the 'art' part of politics comes into play. To get someone
who is marginally cognizant of policies to vote for one, there must be some affinity between candidate and voter. To the extent
that 'charisma' drives the political relationship, 'charisma' is that "eternal quality."
In that regard, 'charisma' is not a media trope, but a personal quality. Thus, villains like Hitler can succeed. If you read
contemporary accounts of Hitler's political style, he was very popular and actually described as "charismatic." An American villain
such as Bill Clinton likewise had charismatic qualities. From further back, an anti-Establishment outsider like Huey Long was
successful through building an almost visceral connection to his electorate. He was killed.
So, don't be in too much of a hurry to dismiss 'alternate' methods of carrying out politics.
Oh, I am not beholden to a techocratic, scoring policy points debate. But electability and charisma are very different. Bernie
was not electable, but was charismatic for most; vice versa for Hillary ? Not sure, I think many found her charismatic, I couldn't
stand her. "Electable" is a terrible, vague concept to be manipulated – at least charismatic provides some basis for definition.
Thanks for the well thought out reply.
I'll agree that "electable" is vague and prone to multiple definitions. However, "electable" is almost the term of art used
by the campaigns themselves. The more technical thinking campaigners can cut the electorate up into an infinitude of 'silos' and
figure how to manipulate each. This strategy naturally falls into an infinite regression state and eventually exhausts itself.
The concept of a "sterile" campaign philosophy comes into it's own in that case. People can usually recognize "inauthentic" political
rhetoric, and react negatively to it. When the campaign splinters into multiple 'silo'd' sub-campaigns, the threat is that each
mini-electorate will eventually spot the inauthenticity and bad faith argumentation of another, related strand of the campaign.
They might fall for the ploy being employed against them, but notice a parallel 'silo' being deceived, due to a detachment inherent
in not being the target audience for that other particular ploy. That way, the seeds of distrust against the entire campaign are
planted. I find this to be the fatal flaw in identitarian politics.
Sorry for the rant.
Well, he was from Tennessee. That whiskey was an early form of "walking around money." Vote Early and Vote Often! Jackson was
the early exemplar of a populist president.
With Warren wanting to be at the table with the elites, perhaps she took the advice of Larry Summers. In her memoir, "A
Fighting Chance", she mentions a dinner conversation where she was told by him 'I had a choice. I could be an insider or I could
be an outsider. Outsiders can say whatever they want. But people on the inside don't listen to them. Insiders, however, get lots
of access and a chance to push their ideas. People -- powerful people -- listen to what they have to say. But insiders also understand
one unbreakable rule: They don't criticize other insiders.'
That interview introduced me to Warren and made me a fan. And, reminds me how much I miss Bill Moyers. Glad he's enjoying some
downtime in his later years but no one could do interviews like he did and nothing compares to the depth of his show for informing
viewers.
kudos to bill moyers, he did several stories that should STILL be seen by more people. Especially since they have come true..
but that interview was the first place I saw warren too. And she sounded good at the time Given the overreach of the credit card
industry and all that. But now not so much.
The elites will, and have been, doing anything to derail rebellion and block any electoral movement towards popular governance,
even of the save-the-system New Deal style of politics. If co-opting fails, then media blackout, vote fraud and silencing follows.
They took it all and plan to keep it at any cost. The immiseration of the American people, to paraphrase Madeleine Albright,
is worth it.
"They took it all and plan to keep it at any cost."
Sadly this is true and they really don't understand what "any cost" means. Eventually the mobs always come and eventually the
mobs are larger and more angry than any amount of money be spent to stave them off. As Mark Blyth said, the Hamptons are not a
defensible position.
Agree. It's notable that one needs oh-so-complex complex (heh!) "theories of change" when proposing anything that has a hint
of benefiting the many.
When it come to the few and already well-to-do, though, the answer is simple: keep shoveling the money this-a-way, always!
"you many proles need to work, so we few don't have to!"
Elizabeth Warren had no comment when asked if she voted for Ronald Reagan. She was still a registered Republican in 1996. Those
are tall hurdles; maybe she can get over them. Yes, she makes some noise that is congenial to ears here, and perhaps in the country.
But she is no more "electable" than Hillary Clinton, the most recent slam-dunk electable candidate for president. You can be one
of the adults in the dining room so that you can be heard. Or you can be heard by figuratively, of course, burning down the decrepit
house that is far beyond rehabilitation.
And that Cherokee thing? It won't go away, especially against the Current Occupant. I am sympathetic to why she did what she
did regarding her tiny admixture of Cherokee DNA, and the subsequent hysterics from the leaders in Tahlequah were just that. But
she responded to the biggest troll of all. Don't feed the trolls! Every white person in Oklahoma seems to claim a Cherokee "ancestor."
This is true also in the broad swath of the Southern states all the way from Texas/Oklahoma to North Carolina. Funny thing, it
is always a Cherokee, never a Chickasaw, Creek, Choctaw, or Seminole among the "Five Civilized Tribes." A Sequoyah thing, maybe?
Anyway, compared to Kamala Harris or Beto, Elizabeth Warren is FDR. So she's got that going for her. Which is nice. But it
isn't enough. Not yet in her telling. Not for the predicament we are in. The "Left Wing of the Possible" had moved so far to the
right in the past 40 years that is has no distinct meaning, certainly not what the late Michael Harrington had in mind from about
1978 through the 1984 election. I've recently re-read his chapter "The Lesser Evil? The Left, the Democrats and 1984" in Prisoners
of the American Dream by Mike Davis (highly recommended). The current revival of the same play, different cast, will end
the same way if it doesn't close. Now.
>And that Cherokee thing? It won't go away, especially against the Current Occupant.
You respectfully have that exactly wrong. Not sure how it will play with the hand-wringers in the Democratic Party, but in
the general against Trump?
1) Things are decent economically, Trump is going to win, it's just a torture skiv he can twist for fun.
2) Things are not going well, Trump is going to be told "shut up with the 4th grade name-calling and tell us how you are going
to fix the economy compared to what she is proposing".
Trump played his card. He can't play it again 4 years later, again if he really needs some sort of hand to play, as
it would emphasize that he's got nothing else.
Maybe Pence can use it, I dunno. But incumbent elections are always a referendum on the state of the economy, full stop.
"Since 2016, our movement has changed what's possible in American politics. We've made Medicare for All a national issue, challenged
conventional wisdom around combating climate change, and pressured corporations to start giving their employees the wages they
deserve -- but there's more to be done and Sen. Bernie Sanders is just the person to do it.
I am excited to announce that this Saturday, January 12, Our Revolution, Organizing for Bernie, the Bernie Delegate Network,
and the Progressive Democrats of America will be hosting hundreds of house parties around the country to talk about how we lay
the foundation for a Bernie 2020 presidential run.
Will you join us at 1 p.m. PT/4 p.m. ET this Saturday? Sign up here to let us know you'll be there.
Grassroots organizing is the key to building an agenda for the working people of this country, not just the 1 percent. Thank
you for joining this fight."
I also got that Organizing for Bernie email. And I unsubscribed. Bernie, I haven't forgotten about 2016. Especially the
part about taking this fight all the way to the convention.
My only comment is that it is better to vote for someone than not to have anyone that you are able to say is at least better
than the other. Last time I didn't have anyone to vote for on that basis.
America needs bold leadership centered on the needs and interests of the people, the citizenry as a whole, not more elitist,
leveraged thinking.
The elite have used leverage thinking to gain control over the mass of humanity and the environment, but now that they
reign supreme, they have run out of ideas as to social evolution. If put to the question- To what purpose are all human labor
and effort to be directed? They seem to not have a clue, other than conjuring up ways to perpetuate the status quo- which is to
protect elite interests at the expense of the weak and poor.
People are looking for bold change and action, but place their faith in the wrong people. In better times, people like Warren
and Sanders would be quietly working in the background ensuring that a bold vision of equality and justice are actually carried
out. However, Sanders is old and Warren is not a bold visionary- she seems a careerist just like everyone else, though less ruthless
and not blatantly imperialistic to her core. However, she is not for fundamental change and I would expect, once in power, she
could be persuaded to moderate any attempts to make such changes a reality- or push them off into some distant future.
The problem lies in the relentless, narrow vision of capitalism itself. Who in public life can afford to say that openly- or
believe it? Who takes the time and effort to say that life is not about having "better" things? The cynicism in American politics
today makes it a meaningless process for those not making their living from it. Better to think up ways of making political statements
and actions outside the official processes.
The enlightenment seems to have brought about false hopes for humanity. Instead of walking in the sunlight of reason, humanity
still seems to be stumbling along in the dark. A new vision is needed.
A meaningful opposition must be based on a resistance to capitalism itself, a desire to restore the power of the state to act
in the interests of the citizenry as a whole or majority, and to instill a sense of frugality and purpose in the citizenry- not
a desire for endless consumption and distraction.
Fundamental change will always be mocked by those in power- or labeled as treason.
I don't intend to be negative on Sanders and Warren, but American politics and life are so out of balance, at times it
seems that being an outsider- or non-participant is the way to sanity. When politicians can blatantly lie their way into office,
and the system allows them to survive and persist, the system is beyond fixing.
Our future is of Capitalist Nations battling for market share. If the insanity of nuclear weapons does not kill us all first,
meeting human needs by the capitalist system surely will- however slowly.
Capitalists will just redefine what it means to be a human being- as they always have and carry on. This cannot be allowed
to happen. Corporate power must be curtailed.
A new vision is needed, and political leaders willing to articulate it.
Authoritarianism is in our future. How else can radical change occur and is that a bad thing? Slow death brought about by radical
capitalism, or authoritarian rule to nationalize key industries in order to bring about social stability and fairness.
@ Norb: Re: "A new vision is needed." Since Yves invoked Polanyi you could start there. Whatever is old is new again. And as
she points out Polanyi's analysis is also an effective method for separating the gold nuggets from the lighter materials.
If and when it comes to the time for pollsters and the press to throw out the "strong leader" card, Sanders will win it hands-down
over Warren. Warren will be embraced much more by the centrist rich owners of the party. The question remains will Sanders actually
lead this time around. I still think he should have put those owners/thieves through a wood-chipper throughout the primary and
especially for all the world to see at the convention .
But hey I am not now nor am I ever likely to vote for that criminally anti-democratic party ever again. You don't join a mafia
in order to reform it.
This time I think Sanders might put the owners/thieves "through a wood-chipper throughout the primary" because this is his
last chance. He doesn't have to play 'nice' to stay in the party for another run.
Who cares what warren says,on the road to the campign. Words are cheap. When I first saw her on bill moyers, I liked that she
sounded good as a voice of opposition to credit card company policies, albeit in a news interview, while still at harvard,i believe.
Then I have liked that at least she comes off as a voice above the low hum of republican low lifes in congress. more of an adult
in the room ,so to speak. I don't really fault her for "not doing anything" in congress yet.. after all it is a body, and as such
lone voices have little sway so that is a net neutral.
But, If she can't get behind single payer. And in my mind, simplistic single payer that says healthcare should not be a for
profit owned institution, of any ones. Everyone who works for, be they doctors, nurses, or janitors, ought to be paid..
The inventors and manufacturers, ought to be fairly compensated. The physical assets, hospitals, factories, distribution, ought
to be more a federal "in-house" operation like the post office.. to keep it honest, and less expensive.
For all the money they can save, they can afford to keep everything in top notch, clean and current condition better than some
places today. Her stance on single payer is a non starter to me.
If her views on the approach to gov't as being "for the people" is the same as her view of healthcare, meaning for the corporation
than forget it.
After all, When Obama wrote his article in foreign affairs in 2006 or 2007, when he was putting his hat in the ring, that is
exactly who he said he was, and it was exactly what he did he said he was for the system as it was, and he was. He never claimed
he was a "radical" and he didn't stand for "change".
He was looking for a job. And if warren is the same. Looking for a job, and a believer in the way things are . Then nevermind.
I say she needs to show some real progressive inclination not just campaign rhetoric.
"I say she needs to show some real progressive inclination not just campaign rhetoric." She's already shown us who she is.
See above re: Larry Summers' insiders' rules.
I do agree. Warren at this point for me is a non-starter. If she was the democratic party "choice", I would feel very comfortable
voting for the green party again. A vote for the green party may mean there is no chance your candidate is going to win, but my
soul is satisfied I made a choice I actually like. Good enough for me.
If bernie gets the nomination, that is the only one talked about who might sway me as a candidate to the left wing of the bird
I so despise. Now If they put someone like ocasio cortez on the ticket . then wowie! I can't imagine anyone doing a worse job
, professionally speaking than trump, so considering her obvious authenticity, I would vote for her in a heartbeat. I would take
my chances with youthful over exuberance,and in-experience.. and go for someone who has the INCLINATION to do the right thing.
In fact I would rather vote for ocasio cortez then bernie. Berni should be her VP, to add the wisdom of age and to keep her on
the tracks. and advise her of the duplicity and treachery she would face.
Bernie's weakness after all is that he is from Vermont. A politician from vermont CAN be on the progressive side, in rhetoric,
and know nothing will come of it, and be re-elected . but before now, he hasn't really had to DO anything. And his stance on Israel,
is a bit too chummy IMO.
I would be curious how he voted on the senates first bill of the year, in that no one is allowed to criticize the isreali gov't
and boycott a product . What a perfect way for a despicable body to start off a new year. Someone ought to tell them what country
they are supposed to be representing. We have a whitehouse lobbying for russia, and a senate lobbying for isreal . WTF! And americans
are supposed to be okay with a gov't shut down, and if americans aren't getting paid so what.
You're right. She's only 29 years old and I read that the US Constitution states that you have to be a minimum of 35 years
of age to be President. So 2024 at a minimum. This talk is kinda like when years ago that some people said that Arnold Schwarzenegger
should run for President, forgetting that to be President that you have to be actually born in the US.
I liked that she sounded good as a voice of opposition to credit card company policies
Perhaps unfairly, the first thing I think of when I think of Elizabeth Warren is
her appearance on PBS
FRONTLINE's 2004 "Secret History of the Credit Card" where she says:
What I'd ask [the credit card companies] to do is just reprogram their computers to put two little lines on every credit
card statement, one that says if you make the minimum monthly payment, this is how long it will take you to pay off, and if
you make the minimum monthly payment, this is how much interest you'll pay over time. They could go a long way towards educating
a lot of consumers that way
Of course, there's nothing wrong with and everything laudable about that type of fix -- in any sort of political system not
bought and sold by the financial industry, that sort of thing would be obvious. But, it seems like, in Warren's world, if we just
make the system a bit fairer , if the parties contracting -- and all we have are "transactional actors," people contracting
or being consumers -- if they just have clearer, more readily-understood terms -- she taught contract law at Harvard, after all
-- well, that's sufficient and maybe the best we can do or all we should do.
I think it's perfectly valid to view Warren as a defender of the status quo, lover of markets, and all that, as this post says,
but I feel like, ultimately, something else is going on here. Her response regarding her claimed Cherokee heritage -- a DNA test
-- in the interests of "transparency" and
"put[ting] it out
there" typifies the problem. In Elizabeth Warren's wonkish, Lisa Simpson world, the problem isn't that Trump and the right-wing
wing are bullying her into responding, the problem is that the information isn't out there on the table. If the kid in the neighborhood
taunts you, saying "My dad is stronger than your dad," the Elizabeth Warren solution is to get them both to submit to strength
tests. It misconstrues the issue -- she doesn't get the underlying power dynamic.
For Warren, the problem isn't a private, for-profit health insurance industry -- she "loves" markets, after all -- it's
holding them accountable and strengthening consumer protections. (And, more broadly, holding capitalism
accountable .) It's not just that she's
"capitalist to the bone," it's that she seems pretty oblivious to both the underlying power relations -- imagine FDR saying he
wanted to hold the "economic royalists" "accountable" (what he said was "I should like to have it said that
these forces [of selfishness and of lust] met their master") -- and, more specifically, to the idea that some things, such as
health care, are best not left to an for-profit private sector, even one that is "accountable." That's not an issue of
capitalism and the status quo per se any more than Warren's response regarding her background is about DNA tests -- it's
that her take on systems is wrong. (Hillary Clinton's "never, ever" statement on single payer was more of a systemic
take, in its own cynical way, than Warren's opposition.) Warren might be all about "leverage," according to one of her allies,
but, in her talk of transparency and fairness and accountability, she picks the points of weakest leverage in the system
and doesn't even seem to realize she's doing so.
At some level, I think that the question is whether we want to save capitalism (from itself) or replace it. I don't think that
assuming that the current extreme free-markets uber alles version of capitalism is the only or even inevitable form by ignoring
the post war period when capitalism worked reasonably well for the middle class is particularly useful. It is the mirror image
to those that regard any form of socialism as the first step of an inevitable slide to Venezuelan/Zimbabwean authoritarian market
collapse and ignoring the Nordic countries which seem to manage a high level of government intervention pretty well thank-you-very-much.
Neither system works very well when taken to extremes.
To a real extant, I just think that it is easier to move from where we are now to reasonably well functioning system like that
we had in the 60s than to a Nordic-style economy.
The differences between these two candidates is substantial and important. If Sanders supporters can't articulate why Warren's
stances are unacceptable, then it will be that much easier for the Hillary/Warren/Establishment wing of the DNC to paint us as
misogynists.
The DNC is already "painting" the Sanders 'wing' of American politics as misogynist. It doesn't matter whether it is true or
not. The "Big Lie" method is being used. That method has no relation to objective reality, by design. So, don't defend against
the Big Lies' specific items. Attack the 'Big Lie' itself and it's enablers head on.
For instance, when a Hillbot attacks you because "one of Bernies staffers watches porn," don't whine about "people are all
over the place and the bad apples will be thrown out of our barrel." Instead, tell them that you'd rather have one of your staffers
watching porn than having the candidates husband raping underage girls on the "Lolita Express." This level of savagery is needed.
The Dem apparatchiks have already self selected for "True Believers," who will stop at nothing to get their way. They must be
expunged igneously.
"If Sanders supporters can't articulate why Warren's stances are unacceptable .." That just means that Sanders supporters haven't
done their homework sufficiently. The Sanders campaign needs to put out a source of quick replies to anti-Sanders attacks. A Political
F.A.Q.s sidebar on the campaign website as it were.
The one quibble I would have with this analysis is the idea that Sanders is inherently more "sweeping" than Warren in policy
changes. Despite his label, the actual policy positions that Sanders pushes are more SocDem than DemSoc. Don't get me wrong, the
expanded welfare state he proposes would be a vast improvement, but that's standard issue nordic-style sandbox capitalism; it
doesn't touch on the "worker control of the means of production" part that makes up the socialist part of Democratic Socialism.
Warren's plan, while the optics are "save capitalism," ironically does more in that regard by giving workers in large corporations
co-determination and some effective veto powers on board decisions. I'm not saying the policy is socialism, but it would cause
just as much disruption to the political economy as the Sanders agenda.
Yea she might actually be in some ways more radical.
Although I rather doubt either of them are the revolutionaries the writer seems to be looking for. AOC maybe? We don't have
very much experience to go by there though, so it's really too soon to say.
How often have we heard about working from the inside? How often do you have to do it before realizing it will not work with
these overwhelmingly entrenched powers? Moreover, how much more leverage would a Sanders/Warren (or vice versa) ticket have? Far,
far more than a Senator Warren who is lukewarm on issue vital to the people?
'Both are critics of the Democratic establishment. Both are foes of Wall Street. And both are substantive, policy-focused
politicians.' Yes, and this will prevent either of them getting the nomination
Blame the voters. Most are neo-liberals. It was many a neo-liberal who didn't like Hillary Clinton and wouldn't vote for her.
But a Biden? Sure, he is old, but they like him. Hillary lost 400,000 votes from Ohio just from James Comey's hatch act violations.
Now think about that for a sec.
Elections are popularity contest. Always have been. Its about dopamine release.
Most national economies, including that of the US, are held together by mountains of debt, variously estimated at figures well
over $US 125 trillion. Thanks to a decade of ridiculously low interest rates, so are many large companies. Sooner or later some
black swan or other will cause one of these financial houses of cards to topple, and the leverage and interconnectedness of modern
finance, together with the massive proliferation of more and new derivative markets will cause a massive cascading financial crash,
worldwide.
This is notwithstanding the remarkable levels of creativity displayed by financial and political institutions like the US Fed,
the EU and the IMF to kick the proverbial debt cans down the road still further.
Then and only then will the majority of us working stiffs (i.e. Those other than the top one percent) realise that the hyper
capitalism that we have arrived at over the last decade or so simply does not work for most people.
Then and only then will we see real and meaningful economic, political and necessary environmental policy change. The sooner
the better.
In the mean time the old Roman recipe of "Feed them Bread and Circuses" will continue , to the ever increasing detriment of the
planet.
Can't change the system from the inside except by radical mutation or extinction. Which looks to be our course. Liz is just
another elite sell-out. Would she be able to articulate what the country wants (medicare for all, free education, etc) if it weren't
for Bernie? No, she would not. She's a coward. Her pronouncements are as vacuous but emphatic as Theresa May's. "Leverage" is
her euphemism – she just wants to find cover and suck up. What exactly does she mean by "regulate markets to shape pre-distribution
income before taxes"? For god's sake, this is stuff we should have looked at 50 years ago, now it's too late. She wants to "be
in the room" – I'm pretty sure that would be a circular love-fest as usual. Liz is busy fogging up the mirror. She can't hold
a candle to Bernie.
Sanders is going to get drowned out in 2020. He is too old and it shows. He got lucky in 2016 when Biden's son died
making Hillary the consensus favorite with her large "ethics issues". If Biden's son hadn't died, he would have been the nominee.
Instead he could blather on and be the "protest vote".
There may be 30 candidates this cycle. It will be crazy. He is going to feel the Bern all right.
Maybe, but his age won't help. He is old, very old. He is older than Biden. I think he also comes off as a carpetbagger to
neo-libs where Warren or O'Neoliberal is more frank.
It is just like most who whine about "cultural marxism" don't get marxists also don't support cultural marxism .because it
isn't marxist. It is nothing more than a gimmick sold by "contards" to stimulate the dopamine receptors of their flock.
I don't know, I'm more inclined to keep it simple and call Warren a standard-issue liberal whose brand is Wall Street regulation.
Jay Inslee's brand will be climate change, Biden's will be the Golden Age of Obama and his folksiness, and so on. Sanders, on
the other hand, is fundamentally not a liberal as we usually understand it, though he has compromised with liberals in a great
many ways for practical reasons.
I liked Warren when she first popped into the picture but I have real trouble thinking of her as a candidate for President.
Warren seems far far too willing to focus on details, rhetoric, and then move on to some new 'hot-rock'. She impresses me as most
like Obama. Speaking the 'right' words, but small in her concerns, and solutions, and smaller in impact beyond the 'right' words.
I remain firmly in the Bernie Sanders camp -- barring the entry of some truly radical dark horse. I am concerned about his
age. I might be less concerned if he could give a hint about who he favors as his Vice-President -- maybe he has but I'm just
not aware(?). Even so, completely discounting his age, Bernie is not my ideal candidate. I think he is radical only by comparison
with everyone else who might have a chance to become POTUS.
Without radical reform of our Society and its economic system I fear we approach threat of a time of "luan" as tao99 described
such times in Chinese history in a comment to today's post on China [tao99. January 11, 2019 at 7:29 am]: " in China the biggest
fear amongst the government and the people is "luan" (translated basically meaning chaos). Collective memories are there of the
points in the not so distant past where starvation and chaos did reign – and this puts some additional urgency in trying not to
go over the cliff." How many coincident 'unfortunate' events would it take to make -- food and water -- life-and-death concerns
for those living in some of our great cities?
What if the power went out but there was no replacement transformer and no one coming
to install it?
Sanders is the wrench in the system, Warren the oil.
I was aware of Sanders well before seeing him about ten years ago giving an impassioned speech at a single-payer event and
lobby day in D.C. put on by Progressives, the California Nurses Association (now NNU) and other groups. Unfortunately, but the
nature of policy and those outside the pale of the mainstream media and centrist politics is the hinterlands. They do not get
the platform or visibility. We might also ask who ever heard of HR 676 (the better single-payer bill when compared to Sanders')
and John Conyers back then, who had been the sponsor of a single payer bill (until his reason problems), but the number of those
endorsing it has grown in recent years, much due to the work of single payer groups and people like Sanders who have raised the
profile of it. And now the Progressive Caucus (though now filled with some faux progressives who need to co-opt the brand) was
then and is even much more so now the largest caucus in the House. Sanders had a lot to do with raising the profile of single
payer, and many other issues that got little attention, and his penchant for movement building sits well with a populace that
is disillusioned by both political parties and the years of neoliberalism that have made their prosperity suffer.
Sanders keeps plugging away, year after year, and his expanding base are more politically conscious of the need for systemic
change. Regardless of his shortcomings and the already many attacks by the corporate Dems and their surrogates and the mainstream
media Jake Tapper types, he is the only candidate that will enthuse voters, if or course the establishment mud slinging does not
bring him down once again along with centrist Dem machinations.
His continual emphasis on policy is key for me, particularly since he works to avoid the cult of personality that others rely
on, such as Beto O'Rourke. The manner in which Warren handled the whole "Pocahontas" debacle showed a real weakness on her part
to navigate the political world, even if she is good at navigating well in power centers. At times her speeches appear to self-serving
and lack the genuineness of a Sanders speech, and he after all has remained fairly consistent over decades.
When he runs, which I think he will, it would behoove anyone desiring throwing a wrench into the works to do all they can to
get him elected. I say that as one who eschews any cultist belief in him.
I encourage people to read this book. My four star rating certainly does NOT reflect my
agreement with all of his points and arguments. However, debate and understanding of other
viewpoints is important. Compared to many other right-wing books, Tucker I think makes a lot
of valid points.
However, I am dinging him one-star because I don't think he put himself really out there.
I suspect he wants to protect his viewership on Fox by not calling out Trump when
appropriate. Tucker never once mention Trump where Trump does not stand for what Tucker
stands for. The words civility is often mentioned; yet nothing about our President outright
meanness, cruelty, and lack of civility. Also, I get and agree with the subject of Free
Speech and some of the extremists on the left. Yet failing to mention the attacks on the free
press from Trump illustrates his weakness to be completely objective. (Yes the MSM is
liberal, but free press is still part of our democracy). Probably most important is Tucker's
failure to even address tax and fiscal policy in regards to the elites. Maybe Tucker thinks a
ballooning debt is okay (both Obama and Trump); and the Trump tax cut is not part of the
elite structure to gain even more power. Seems odd to me.
Other noteworthy items for potential readers. Be prepared for two long rants. While I lean
liberal, I had no idea what Chelsea Clinton was up to. Apparently she is destroying the
world. lol. It's almost like Tucker just has a personal vendetta with her. I myself don't
keep up with any President's kids. ...okay, that's a little bit of a lie. I find the SNL
skits on Don Jr. and Eric very funny. Tucker's other personal vendetta is with Ta-Nehisi
Coates. I got in the first two minutes Tucker didn't like the book and thought it full of
holes. I didn't agree with everything Ta-Nehisi Coates wrote either just like I don't agree
with everything Tucker writes; but I have rated both as four stars.
T.C. - Kudos, you absolutely nailed it with title and introduction. The first paragraph
exacts our situation, and lowers down your reader ever so softly, allowing us to know: You Do
Get It. Perhaps best explified with this little zinger:
"Happy countries don't elect Donald Trump as President - Desperate Ones Do!"
And, please accept a Big Thank You for taking the time to narrate your own book. IT truly
is the best way to consume the content.
"Nothing is really hidden - Only ignored!!" I sincerely doubt our ruling class - which
reasoned away why Trump was ever elected.. Will Ever Get This Point. Today's ruling elite's
are fully insulated and it is EXACTLY the way they like it. They have it Far Too Good living
in a No Answer Required reality while being fed by lobbists. Heck our leadership is so far
removed, they couldn't hear the ever increasing cries for Civil Revolution that have bellowed
on since at least, 2010. On the other hand, Donald Trump sure did! He campaigned exactly on
this. And some of us that voted for him, are willing to bet too - The Wizards of Oz [Federal
Reserve] were listening as rebels yelled with question of their secret club and it's role in
this funneling - decades long downward swirel. Lest anyone forget, it was they [under FDR's
New Deal] who are postured with pinnicle to shield us from another Great Depression.
So What if Trump tells lies. Don't you get it? It's FREE Speech on Steroids. He's making a
statement about our First Amendment.
Your next 8 chapters... profoundly filled with deep and convincing material.. albeit,
sometimes shocking in perspective... clearly articulates our reality... all of which, when
glued together tells us exactly what we know: The Boat has Run Amuk!
The meaty middle of your publication... filled with oceans of content - leaves this reader
to wonder which think tank supported your endevour? I mean, material like this doesn't just
come from perusing the Washington or New York Post. Lastly, you give thanks to your Fox Team
but come on... this is far too volumous for stellar three research artists to uncover - even
if given 5 years.
Notwithstanding, it was your epilog that brought my Biggest Disappointment. Any sailor
knows if you want to Right a Rolled Ship, you'll first need Force - to get the thing
uprighted, and a Super Slurping Sump to get it drained. Only then, can we change how it
Floats.. and which way it Sails. In fairness, perhaps you are implying the ship was uprighted
by such a force back in Nov. 2016, with the election of President Trump. If so, I clearly
missed that one from you.
Amazingly, with just under two years in office, his administration has made tremendous
headway at operating the bilge. And, I don't think there has been another president in the
history of your country who has Done More of what he campaigned on, to this point in any
administration. And only the next election cycle will determine if the Coast Guard has begun
sailing toward us in rescue.
With our capitalistic democracy you can't just wish the boat to flip and drain. While your
"Tend to the Population" idea is both eloquent and laudable - and will help change the course
once the keel is down.. it does nothing to cause money to stop flowing up the hill. When 2%
of the population holds 90% of the wealth, when the outdated middle class based Income
Taxation System is wrapped around a middle class that is no longer in existence, then there's
little hope for the lower 10% to emerge. Heck, take this to a basic conversation about our
democracy. We have lost faith in the power of our vote against the lobbists. The middle and
lower class population can't spare the time to handle your decentralized suggestion even if
leaders did fork over some power. We fell in the ocean long ago and are doing all we can to
tread water, while fending off the circling sharks.
Sir, you know full well there is no incentive in our current democracy which will change
what has been 40+ years in the making.. that which your middle 8 chapters so eloquently
reveal. Oh, one or two politicians with genuine heart will try. But the two party system and
all it's disfunctional glory will only laugh.
You suggest our leaders should proceed slow, that they decentralize power. Again laudable
in therory, but reality suggests we stand too far devided in these "United States" and far
too loudly is the call for revolution. The politicians are pandering the point!
We need to break the Democratically Elected, Capitalistically Funded - Autocratcy! Short
of a mutiny, I for one have lost faith to believe anything else is going to right the ship.
Rather than offer a mildly soft solution, your book needed to speak to action. And how it
will get done!
Love him or loathe him (I happen to know him, and I'd describe him as a "charming rogue"
after sitting next to him at dinner on several occasions), the author has some very
interesting things to say about why we as a nation seem to be headed in the direction we're
heading. A few of his facts that he uses to back up his ideas seem a little "let me see if I
can find an obscure fact or quote to back my point up" and fly in the face of reality (which
is why I only gave 4 stars), but he presents some ideas that everyone should consider - you
may choose not accept them, but an open-minded, independent person would take the time to
actually think about what he's saying instead of dismissing it out of hand.
Bill Hughes 4.0 out of 5 stars
I'm giving Carlson's tome three out of five stars. November 3, 2018
Format: Hardcover Let's face it, we live in trying times. Take politics for example. Donald
Trump's Right-leaning Republicans (The Repugs) couldn't be more divided from Nancy Pelosi's
Liberal Democrats (The Dims) on just about every serious issue. How wide? Think Atlantic Ocean
wide!
We don't need any expert to tell us that either. Things are so bad, most sane people won't
bring up sensitive subjects, such as government, race, immigration, the environment, and on and
on, in the company of strangers. To do so is to risk starting WWIII. Under the reign of "El
Presidente," aka "The Donald," it has all gotten worse.
When I was growing up in a heavily-democratic South Baltimore, a Republican was a novelty.
There was only one on my block in Locust Point. She kept a low profile. This was so even during
the halcyon days of Republican Theodore "Teddy" McKeldin, twice mayor of Baltimore and twice
governor of Maryland.
Things have changed dramatically. Now, my old democratic political club on South Charles
Street, near the Cross Street market, "The Stonewall," a once-strong bastion for the working
class, is no more. Its boss, Harry J. "Soft Shoes" McGuirk, too, has passed on to his final
reward. Its loyal followers, the ever faithful precinct workers, have vanished along with it.
Instead, there's a booming housing market with properties, new and old, selling in Federal
Hill, and Locust Point, too, for over one half million dollars.
During my salad days, you could have bought a whole block of houses in Locust Point for that
kind of money. That day is over.
The Millennials, aka "Generation Y," have flooded the area. They have also found it hard to
identify with either major political party, or major institutions, according to a recent Pew
Study. Bottom line: The Millennials have demonstrated little or no interest in democratic
machine politics. This is not a good sign for maintaining a vigorous participatory democracy at
either the local or national level.
Enter Tucker Carlson and his best-selling book, "Ship of Fools: How a Selfish Ruling Class
is Bringing America to the Brink of Revolution." It couldn't be more timely with divisions in
the country rising daily and sometimes leading to - violence!
The author zeroed in on America's grasping ruling clique. I like to call them "The 1% Gang."
The numbers keep changing for the worse. One study shows them owning about 40 percent of the
country's wealth. They own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent combined, according to a
Federal Survey of Consumers Finances.
In a recent "Portside" commentary, writer Chuck Collins, pointed out that the wealth of
America's three richest families has grown by 6,000 percent since 1982. Today, they owned as
"much wealth as the bottom half of the U.S. population combined." (11.02.18)
Carlson labeled the "1% Gang" as "globalist" schemers who could care less about the folks at
the bottom - or our America. He wrote that they hide their contempt for the poor and working
class behind the "smokescreen of identity politics." They are leaving us with a "Them vs. Us"
society, he warned - "a new class system."
How did Donald Trump win in 2016? Carlson gives his spin on that controversial election: He
said, "desperate" countries elect candidates like Trump. The voters were, in effect, giving the
"middle finger" to the ruling class, after decades of "unwise leaders." Once the voters believe
that "voting is pointless," anything can happen. Wise leaders should understand this. But after
listening to Hillary Clinton perpetually whine about her losing bid, "poor Hillary," in 2016,
for the highest office, I'm not so sure they do.
To underscore the charge of unwise leadership, the author pointed to the stupid decisions to
"invade Iraq and bail out Wall Street lowering interest rates, opening borders and letting the
manufacturing sector collapse and the middle class die." The people, Carlson emphasized, sent a
strong message: "Ignore voters for long enough and you get Donald Trump." To put it another
way, Hillary's "Deplorables" had spoken out loud and clear.
I especially enjoyed how Carlson ripped into the Neocons' leading warmonger, Bill Kristol.
He exposed the latter's secret agenda to become the "ideological gatekeeper of the Republican
party." Kristol believed the U.S. should be bombing and invading countries throughout the
Middle East. His main claim to infamy was his support for the illegal and immoral U.S. invasion
of Iraq. When Trump critiqued the Iraq War and its promoters, Carlson wrote "Kristol erupted."
That feud continues to this day. I'm sure if Trump goes along with a US invasion of Iran, they
will patch things up - quickly.
Question: Shouldn't warmongering be a "Hate Crime?"
In summing up his book, Carlson said that the "1% Gang," hasn't gotten the message. They are
"fools, unaware that they are captains on a sinking ship."
Let's hope the Millennials are listening. It sure is odd, however, that this book advocating
"reason" in our political life, comes from a commentator associated with a television station
which is known as a bastion of unreason - Fox News! The author is an anchor on the Fox News
Channel.
Although, Carlson deserves credit for blasting both the Left and Right in his book, I found
some of his arguments lacking substance. Nevertheless, his main point about greedy lunatics
running the country into the ground, and the need for a campaign to stop them, warrants
immediate attention by an informed electorate.
I'm giving Carlson's tome three out of five stars.
While Tucker uses logic and facts to make his arguments, Cenk uses feelings to
support his. If anyone is still a follower of Cenk after this video, then Tucker is right, the
level of delusion in society is staggering.
Chunk really is a disingenuous slime ball. He brings up food as evidence of our
"multiculturalism", it's such a moronic example. The fundamentals of culture that Tucker was
speaking of include our beliefs enshrined in the constitution, freedom of speech, our
egalitarianism, capitalism, the English language, ingenuity, entrepreneurial spirit, all of the
god-given rights we believe in, self defense, etc. It's very uniquely American and to have
millions upon millions of Hondurans or Mexicans or whatever flood in, not assimilate, and
change the language and the freedoms/god-given rights we believe in, that will displace OUR
culture with theirs.... and clearly our culture is superior, if it wasn't then they'd be the
one's with a rich country that we'd want to move to. Who gives a fuck if we like to eat tacos
or pasta you greasy slime ball. Basically if Glob of Grease was right then there would be no
such thing as assimilation.
At the risk of sounding misogynistic I have to say listening to a liberal is like listening to
a woman. No matter how wrong they are in their mind they're right. No matter how much logic
& common sense you throw their way it's never enough for them to understand. That's what it
be like watching these "debates". This is why a lot of the left when it comes to men are
considered BETA. They have the skewed mind like that of a female, men appeal more to logic than
emotional rhetoric like what Cenk was speaking from. This is why civilizations of the past have
all gone the way of the dodo bird. Because they'll allow themselves to become so diverse to the
point of collapse. It's funny too because all of the countries they beg us to allow in are some
of the most segregated countries on the planet, such as Asia.
Tucker Carlson, Fox News host and author of "Ship of Fools", joins Ben to discuss the social
impact of rapid technological advances, what role government should or shouldn't play in the
economy, and how both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are able to appeal to the same
voters.
I am 73 and voted for Bill Clinton both times. Was heavily involved in local union as
president of a local. I have witnessed the declining middle class. The loss of our critical
steel industry and the SHAFTA deal as we termed it NAFTA was first started by Bush Senior
adopted as a center piece by Bill Clinton and and supported by both party's. Then we
witnessed the migration of jobs, factories and the middle class becoming food stamp
recipients. I couldn't understand how our country willing destroyed our manufacturing jobs. I
wondered how we could ever fight a world war with no Steel and Aluminum plants. I became very
disillusioned with both political party's. I felt Neither party gave a dime about the real
loss to our country.
When the Towers fell I witnessed how it must have been when Pearl Harbor was attacked.
People actually came together the Recruiter offices were packed with both men and women
wanting to extract revenge on the terrorist. Then the longest war in our history began. It
saddens me to say that our wonderful country hasn't won a war since World War 2. But not
because of our military but the politicians . Vietnam was a for profit war most that fought
there didn't have a clue as to why we were bogged down there and not one of the Generals had
any idea how to fight this terrible travesty that took over 58000 lives and uncounted lives
of veterans since.
When Trump announced his bid for president he was ridiculed by the elite from both party's
. He listened to the disillusioned to the workers that lost everything. When Trump won it was
a shot across the bow of the powers that be.
Our president is far from perfect however he heard the masses and brought back some
semblance of sanity. Once again President has given hope to our country that had been
commandeered by an apologist President . Who was not respected on the world stage. Thank you
Tucker for this book.
If there's one word that describes Tucker Carlson, it is "sharp." He cuts to the core of each
issue, explains it concisely, and shucks away the hidden agendas of those who want to
manipulate the issue for their own self-serving agendas.
That's exactly what he does in this book. It is written conversationally, the way Tucker
Carlson talks on TV. He has condensed millions of words about the advent of Donald Trump into
two sentences: "Countries can survive war and famines and disease. They cannot survive
leaders who despise their own people." Tucker elaborates:
=====
Donald Trump was in many ways an unappealing figure. He never hid that. Voters knew it. They
just concluded that the options were worse -- and not just Hillary Clinton and the Democratic
Party, but the Bush family and their donors and the entire Republican leadership, along with
the hedge fund managers and media luminaries and corporate executives and Hollywood
tastemakers and think tank geniuses and everyone else who created the world as it was in the
fall of 2016: the people in charge. Trump might be vulgar and ignorant, but he wasn't
responsible for the many disasters America's leaders created .
There was also the possibility that Trump might listen. At times he seemed interested in
what voters thought. The people in charge demonstrably weren't. Virtually none of their core
beliefs had majority support from the population they governed .Beginning on election night,
they explained away their loss with theories as pat and implausible as a summer action movie:
Trump won because fake news tricked simple minded voters. Trump won because Russian agents
"hacked" the election. Trump won because mouth-breathers in the provinces were mesmerized by
his gold jet and shiny cuff links.
=====
He covers many insights provided in other excellent books by Laura Ingraham, Newt
Gingrich, Anne Coulter, Charles Murray, and Jordan Peterson. But he brings them into the
sharpest focus in his own unique way. For example, he addresses the issue of income
inequality, which the Republican and Conservative Establishments seems afraid of:
====
America thrived for 250 years mostly because of its political stability. The country had no
immense underclass plotting to smash the system. There was not a dominant cabal of the
ultrawealthy capable of overpowering the majority. The country was fundamentally stable. On
the strata of that stability its citizens built a remarkable society.
In Venezuela . small number of families took control of most of the Venezuelan economy.
America isn't Venezuela. But if wealth disparities continue to grow, why wouldn't it be? Our
political leaders ought to be concerned. Instead they work to make the country even less
stable, by encouraging rapid demographic change
====
He is courageous in pointing out that excessive immigration, of the kind that Wall Street
Republicans and Liberals Democrat want, is perhaps detrimental to the interests of most
Americans:
====
. Democrats know immigrants vote overwhelmingly for them, so mass immigration is the most
effective possible electoral strategy: You don't have to convince or serve voters; you can
just import them. Republican donors want lower wages.
====
He talks about the social stratification of American society: that we have become an
overly-credentialized society that concentrates its wealth into a tiny number of elites,
while the middle class struggles far in the rea:
====
The path to the American elite has been well marked for decades: Perform well on standardized
tests, win admission to an elite school, enter one of a handful of elite professions, settle
in a handful of elite zip codes, marry a fellow elite, and reproduce.
=====
Tucker castigates the corruption of Conservatives and Liberals. He characterizes
Republican House leader Paul Ryan as a bought-and-paid-for tool of multinational
corporations. He talks about how Liberals have also become corrupted. The old-time Liberals
(like his elementary school teacher) were an affable group of socially-conscious,
well-meaning, and charmingly eccentric people. Some of those Liberals are still around. But
many have become the greediest of Wall Street charlatans who operate the most oppressive
companies here and abroad. Even worse, they have come do despise their fellow American
citizens who have been distressed by the unstable economy of recent decades:
====
This is the unspoken but core assumption of modern American elites: I went to Yale and live
on ten acres in Greenwich because I worked hard and made wise choices. You're unemployed and
live in an apartment in Cleveland because you didn't. The best thing about old-fashioned
liberals was how guilty they were. They felt bad about everything, and that kept them
empathetic and humane. It also made them instinctively suspicious of power, which was useful.
Somebody needs to be.
=====
Tucker concludes by explaining why the Establishments of both parties are whining about
what they think is "the end of democracy" (translation: "We, the Establishment, think
democracy is ending because the people won't vote for our candidates"). Then he gives the
Establishment his trademark, one-sentence summation:
"If you want to save democracy, you've got to practice it."
Tucker Carlson does a good job, in this book, of laying out the mistakes being made by the
Political Establishment in America. He takes both flavors of the Establishment to task. Both
the smug, leftist Democrats and the soft Republican RINO's. I thought that I was educated on
the problems being caused by this 'Ship of Fools' but Mr. Carlson informed me that things
were even worse than I feared.
Where the book is weak is in the area of offered solutions. This is why I only gave it 4
stars. Mr. Carlson assumes that the Establishment set is purely driven by greed and a selfish
desire for more and more power. So, his 'Solution' is to just tongue-lash them for being so
greedy and selfish. He seems to assume that such shaming will force them to reform from
within. This is delusional.
The Establishment is driven not only by greed and a lust for power. Many of them truly
believe in a Marxist-Socialist ideology. They have taken over the education system, the
legacy media, Hollywood and many big internet companies. This makes their ideology
self-perpetuating. They cannot and will not reform on their own. Mr. Carlson is walking up
the gangplank and joining the 'Ship of Fools' if he believes that 'self-reform' is a
solution.
No, there are only two solutions. One is the election of 'disruptors', like President
Trump, who will gradually reform both the Government and the Education System so as to
replace Marxist-Socialism with a return to the core American principles of a Representative
Republic. The other, I am sad to say, is forcible suppression of the Establishment Class by
the American People. The smug elites may imagine that the police and military will support
them. However, they won't do it against their own people. Especially for a ruling class that
does nothing but belittle both the police and the military at every opportunity.
I truly don't want to see this second approach implemented. America already has enough
blood-stained pages in her history. Nevertheless, if the Establishment and the
Marxist-Socialist Education system is not reined in, it will end up with many of the
Establishment Class hanging from lampposts or facing firing squads. I truly hope it does not
come to that.
"Ship of Fools" extends the recent run of books that attack the American
ruling class as decayed and awful. However it is characterized, as the professional-management
elite, the Front Row Kids, or one of many other labels, all these books argue the ruling class
is running our country into the ground, and most argue it is stupid and annoying to boot. I
certainly agree, and I also tend to agree with the grim prognostication in the subtitle, that
revolution is coming -- that is, this will end in blood. What this book fails to offer, though,
just like all these books, is any kind of possible other solution. Which, after a while,
reinforces the reader's conclusion that there is no other solution.
Not a word in this book is truly original. That's not to say it's bad: Carlson is highly
intelligent and well informed, and his book is extremely well written, clever, funny, and
compelling. As with most current political books, Donald Trump appears often, not as himself,
but as a phenomenon, whose rise deserves and requires explanation, and who therefore implicitly
frames the book, though the author stops mentioning him about halfway through. Carlson's
thoughts on Trump, however, are no more original than the rest of the book, the basic
conclusion of which is that actions have consequences, and Trump is a natural consequence of
the actions taken by our ruling class. In Greek myth, when you sow the earth with dragon's
teeth, you get fierce warriors; today, when you harrow the disempowered with rakes, you get
Trump.
Carlson, in his Introduction, recites a familiar litany, of the evisceration of the middle
class and the emergence of the new class system, where there is a great gulf set between the
ruling class and the mass of Americans. Part of the gap is money, shown by increased income and
asset inequality. Part of the gap is status, as shown by behavior, such as consumption habits,
but even more visible in differences in opportunity, where many desirable options are available
to those who pass elite filters such as attending the right universities, and are wholly
unavailable to the rest. Few people, of whatever political persuasion, would deny the emergence
of this gap; it is what conclusions to draw that are in dispute.
This widening horizontal fracture between mass and elite is reflected in the political
parties. The Democrats have shifted from a party of the masses, to a party focused on elite
concerns, such as "identity politics, abortion, and abstract environmental concerns." They
ignore existential threats to the non-elites such as the loss of good manufacturing jobs, the
opioid epidemic, the dropping life span of the non-elite, and that Obamacare and crony
capitalism handouts to the insurance companies and lawyers have made insurance unaffordable for
the working class. The Republicans have always been more focused on the elite (until Trump),
and so have shifted position less, but are no less blameless. Carlson recognizes that the
common Republican talking point, that nobody in America is actually poor by historical
standards, is mostly irrelevant for these purposes. Inequality is perceived on a relative
scale, and it creates envy. As Jonathan Haidt has explained at length, for many people's moral
views, fairness is a key touchstone, and abstract economic arguments are not an adequate
response. And whatever the causes or rationales, this abandonment of the masses by both parties
leaves nobody with power representing the non-elite.
Now, I think this horizontal fracture analysis of the political parties is a bit too
simplistic. I see American politics as a quadrant, in which neoliberal Democrats like Hillary
Clinton have more in common with elite-focused Republicans like Jeb Bush than they do with
either Bernie Sanders Democrats or Trump Republicans, who have much in common with each other.
Carlson collapses this quadrant into a duality, in essence lumping Clinton and Bush into one
group, and Sanders and Trump acolytes into another. This conceals certain critical issues,
especially between the two portions of the quadrant that constitute those excluded from the
ruling class. But I suppose Carlson's main goal is to highlight the elite/non-elite distinction
on which he builds his case.
The rest of the book is an expansion on this Introduction, in which history is intertwined
with analysis of the present day. Carlson heavily focuses on immigration, i.e., "Importing a
Serf Class." This is the issue most clearly separating the ruling class from the ruled.
Democrat and Republican elites have actively cooperated to flood America with alien immigrants,
legal and illegal, against the wishes and interests of the masses. Diversity is not our
strength, "it's a neutral fact, inherently neither good nor bad. . . . Countries don't hang
together simply because. They need a reason. What's ours?" Carlson contrasts Cesar Chavez, who
hated illegal immigrants as wage-lowering scum, with today's elites, who demand illegal
immigrants so they can be waited on hand and foot in their gated palaces. These changes are
reflected in the official programs of the parties and in the pronouncements of their mandarins
-- or they were, until Trump showed up, and modified the Republican approach. What is more,
they extend now to seemingly unrelated single-issue pressure groups -- the Sierra Club, for
example, now shrilly demands unlimited immigration, increased pressure on the environment be
damned.
Immigration, though, is just one example of how the elites now ignore the legitimate
interests of the working class. Apple treats workers (Chinese, to be sure) like slaves, but
burns incense at the concerns of the elite such as gender inequality in management, so no
attention is paid to the workers -- the time of Dorothy Day is long gone. Amazon treats its
employees as human robots, yet nobody in power complains. Facebook corrupts our youth through
deliberate addiction and is chummy with killer regimes, yet no Congressman challenges them for
that. Meanwhile the Democratic Party has exiled real representatives of the masses, whom they
used to lionize, such as Ralph Nader. How do the elites reconcile this behavior in their own
minds? They are united in their belief that their elite status is the result of merit, what
Carlson cleverly calls "secular Calvinism." The masses have less because they deserve less.
That is to say, elite liberals, in particular, no longer challenge the hierarchy on behalf of
the truly powerless, which is, as Jordon Peterson points out, the traditional and valid role of
the Left. Instead, they denigrate the powerless, the bitter-clingers, the deplorables, while
assuring themselves that because they focus on elite matters supposedly related to
"oppressions," such as granting new rights to homosexuals (a wealthy and powerful group), that
they are somehow maintaining their traditional role.
Carlson also covers "Foolish Wars," in which the masses die for elite stupidity, such as
George W. Bush's delusion that the Arab world wanted democracy. Again, the cutting humor shows
through: "One thing that every late-stage ruling class has in common is a high tolerance for
mediocrity. . . . The talentless prosper, rising inexorably toward positions of greater power,
and breaking things along the way. It happened to the Ottomans. Max Boot is living proof it's
happening in America." Trump, at least in the campaign, saw the demands for ever-more foreign
wars as what they are -- an abomination. The ruling classes, on the other hand, are all for
more wars -- a departure from the past, especially among Democrats.
It's not just Max Boot that Carlson attacks by name. He slices up Bill Kristol for several
pages. It is brutal. (I was a young intern in the White House when Dan Quayle was Vice
President and Kristol his chief of staff. Kristol was a preening moron even then; unlike a fine
wine, he has not improved with age.) Carlson also savages Ta-Nehisi Coates at length, although
that's a bit like thrashing a man tied up in a gimp suit, too easy. Referring to Coates's
miserable book, he says "It's a measure how thoroughly the diversity cult has corroded the
aesthetic standards of our elite that the book was greeted with almost unanimous praise, which
is to say, lying."
Next comes free speech. Liberals used to support free speech, no matter the cause; now the
elite is eager to violently suppress speech that displeases them (or, more accurately, speech
that threatens them by proving to be effective in eroding their power). Such suppression is
primarily something pushed by the Left, though the elite Right is happy to cooperate. Carlson
adduces the infamous dawn SWAT raids on conservatives by elite Democrats in Wisconsin, led by
Milwaukee district attorney John Chisholm, judge Barbara Kluka, and prosecutor Francis Schmitz
(who have escaped punishment, so far, unfortunately, although if the revolution that Carlson
seems to predict arrives, hopefully they will be remembered). Brendan Eich and James Damore
also make an appearance, as individuals persecuted by the elites, in the form of corporations,
for their speech.
Carlson makes an important point here, one ignored by the odious coterie of
inside-the-beltway corporate Republicans and #NeverTrumpers -- that even though they are not
subject to the First Amendment, it is false that corporations who behave this way cannot or
should not be disciplined. As he notes, "Government regulates all sorts of speech in the
private sector." What government doesn't do is regulate speech in a way that protects
conservatives -- restriction of speech is a sword used only to enforce the dominion of the
Left. The Right needs to weaponize it against the Left, not to defend an abstract and
unnecessary principle that is ignored when harm is done to them. As I have written elsewhere, a
good place to start would be legislatively forbidding all sizeable corporations from any
discrimination based on speech or other expressive action (such as donating money to a cause)
that the federal government could not legally forbid (e.g.., obscenity). The law would be
enforced by massive statutory damages ($500,000 per occurrence), one-way fee shifting against
the companies, and a huge federal enforcement bureaucracy empowered with broad discovery
powers. This would apply both to protect employees and, critically, to protect all speech and
actions of the public where the corporation, such as Twitter or Facebook, offers a supposedly
neutral platform for the public to make statements. It would further apply, beyond mere speech,
to forbid discrimination by all entities providing services analogous to common carriers, such
as payment processors, notably PayPal, and credit card processors, whose services are now being
selectively denied to suppress conservative speech. In addition, online shopping platforms such
as Amazon would also be deemed common carriers, not permitted to refuse to list any non-illegal
good for sale if they held themselves out as acting as a seller of general merchandise, or as
acting as a platform to match third-party sellers and buyers. All this would be a good start to
break the power of the corporate Left; it would be a change from conservatives' belief that
private businesses should be left alone, but if they won't leave us alone, there is no reason
we should leave them alone.
Identity, and its uses by the ruling class, swing next into the author's crosshairs. Carlson
notes the elites don't bear the costs of the "diversity cult"; the masses do. The elites whip
up fear of white supremacists as a political tool, even though the sum total of real white
supremacists is trivial and they have no power. That is, the elites inflame racial passions for
every group but whites, not realizing how dangerous that is. Of the obvious question, why
whites shouldn't organize as a group, Carlson points out that some have asked the question,
"but so far they have been self-discrediting: haters, morons, and charlatans. What happens when
someone calm and articulate does it?" I am not eager to find out, but we are probably going
to.
And, on feminism, Carlson notes the inconvenient truth that women are far less happy, as
reported by the University of Chicago's longitudinal General Social Survey, than they were
forty years ago, and that those with traditional views of gender roles are much happier, in
general and in their marriages, than their harpy cousins. The latter, though, are dominant in
the elites; Carlson names here names and shames Sheryl Sandberg. Moreover, the elites mandate a
focus on their obsessive concerns about sexual behavior, including demanding the masses endorse
claims utterly divorced from reality. "Men posing as female weight lifters isn't the biggest
problem Western civilization faces, but it's an ominous symptom of deeper rot. When the people
in charge retreat into fantasy, and demand that everyone else join them there, society itself
becomes impervious to reality." Non-elite men, meanwhile, are treated like dirt, can't find
jobs, and die at ever-younger ages, and the elite doesn't care -- in fact, it (mostly)
discreetly celebrates. Finally, on environmentalism, elites don't care about the actual
environment, cleaning up the trash, but rather about abstractions like supposed global warming,
while they urge their private jets to greater speed.
It is a fast and compelling read. True, every so often Carlson missteps when talking about
history. No, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the crown prince of the Austro-Hungarian Empire,
assassinated in 1914, was not "a second-string Austrian nobleman." Nor is it even remotely true
that "Divide and conquer. That's how the British ruled India." Equally untrue is that "The
right to express your views is the final bulwark that shields the individual from the mob that
disagrees with him." The right to own and carry effective military weaponry, enshrined in the
Second Amendment, is that right. Speech is a distant second as a bulwark. For a very smart man,
Carlson seems to avoid any but recent history, and given these examples, that is probably a
wise choice for him.
OK, so far, so good. The book is worth reading -- as I say, nothing original, but for those
not attuned to such matters and looking for a primer, an excellent read. I eagerly looked
forward to the last chapter, or rather the Epilogue, "Righting the Ship." That was a mistake.
It is less than two pages. It offers bad history, suggesting that the only two alternatives are
a system of oppressive rulers and oppressed serfs, and democracy. The former, supposedly, is
the norm; our democracy is special, but it is under attack. Carlson therefore offers us, or
rather our ruling class, two options: suspend democracy, or "attend to the population . . . If
you want to save democracy, you've got to practice it." The alternative is likely civil
war.
This is not helpful. Leaving aside that democracy is far from the only system that has
provided a proper equilibrium between the ruling class and the masses (as Carlson himself
admits when talking at length about the disappearance today of noblesse oblige), Carlson offers
no reason at all for the ruling classes to take his advice. Why would they? Even if they
accepted his analysis, which they don't, and won't, there is zero historical example of a
late-stage ruling class reforming itself voluntarily. Carlson's Epilogue is just so much space
filling. I suspect he knows that, too, which is why his Introduction is longer and more
apocalyptic -- because he thinks that rupture is the future, and only hopes it will involve
minimal violence. Rupture is almost certainly inevitable, but the end result is unlikely to be
the saving of democracy as it exists now, since democracy is an inherently unstable system and
at least partially responsible for the core fact of which Carlson complains, the rot of the
ruling class. Thus, this book is a decent introduction to the topic of ruling class vice and
decay, but no more. 16 people found this helpful
Helpful1 1 commentReport abuse
Enlightening, but with Frustrations
I like to watch Tucker Carlson's show on the Fox network. This book reads just like his
opening monologues on his show, and I think that some (maybe much) of its content is a direct
spinoff from that show. His writing sounds just like he speaks on his program. It is terse,
compact, and often riveting. It is well written, and I did not observe any "typos" in its
pages. He also provides excellent summaries of a wide ranging set of topics. For all of that,
I would give the book a 5 star rating.
However, the book has a serious weakness for anyone who desires to use it to identify sources
either easily or accurately. For examples, Tucker often directly quotes individuals (using
quotation marks) but does not provide the sources where he obtained the quoted information.
Many times he will refer to articles in Time magazine, or the Washington Post, or the Los
Angeles Times, etc., but does not give the author of the articles, nor the titles, nor the
dates. This makes a reader wonder precisely what those sources are. I recognize that Tucker
is writing for an "ordinary reader," but for any reader who desires to have precise source
data, this book is completely lacking. For that reason, I gave it a 4 star rating.
Being pre-baby boomer (1943) I have witnessed most of this. I guess I was aware on some level
but not until Bill Clinton did I really start to pay close attention to political slide that
is so evident now. Much of the Democratic screed is utter BS but to youngsters it is new,
exciting and entirely believable because they have no from of reference.
The average liberal, democrat, or progressive might want to avoid this book unless they
possess a fair amount of courage. I'm talking about the courage to have their world view
challenged. About what, you ask? A short, partial list includes immigration, racism,
environmentalism, global warming, and the first amendment. And left wing folks are not the
heroes of the piece. Then again, this book is not full of heroes. But the elites and ruling
classes, most--but certainly not all--of whom are are left wing as described
here--consistently occupy the roles of the villains in Ship of Fools. Tucker writes clearly
and concisely in sketch and essay format. Each topic he tears into, and there are many, ends
up shredded, in ruins when he's done with it and moves on. My only regret as he angers me
about one issue and then the next is that he fails to offer solutions. I believe that's from
whence the anger emanates. Readers might like to read that there is something obvious, if not
easy, they can do to correct the moronic and hypocritical deeds the elites have bequeathed to
the rest of us.
Being a fairly regular viewer of Tucker Carlson Tonight, I had heard a.lot of his views on,
e.g., Environmentalism, Gender Issues, Feminism, etc. What I appreciated about his book was
that he explained how, when and why these became issues for America and the process by which
so many good ideas have been derailed by greed, personal agendas, and selfishness.
On balance, he's right! ! I'm a great fan of Tucker Carlson on TV; he routinely takes on the
lip flappers in the same way he does in this book. Every night. Five nights a week. And to
what end?
The subject is hypocrisy, pure and unadulterated. It won't change, no matter what. Reading
books like it only serves to frustrate me because people like Tucker know what's going on and
we are all powerless to do anything about it. Yes, I'll vote and go to meetings, but it's all
so miniscule.
Keep on truckin Tucker. Maybe someday somebody will listen.
My copy of the book went from page 184 to 217, which is bad enough, but from page 217 onward
it was a rehash of Chapter 6. Fortunately, I also purchased the CD or I would never know what
else Tucker had to say. Amazon, look into this!
The book itself, what I could read of it, is right on. He says we're on the brink of
revolution. I think we're already there. We are no longer a republic; we are an oligarchy,
IMO. Tucker points out the reasons why. Much of what he says in the book you have probably
heard him say on his show. That may prevent you from buying this book but sometimes
repetition is good, especially when it's on subjects that address our imminent demise as a
sovereign nation if we don't wake up. Tucker is not an alarmist; he's a realist. Liberals
will hate this book b/c truth hurts.
I give Mr. Carlson a four for his succinct statement of the major political/social problem of
our society. It can be found in the preface and itself is a major contribution to
understanding society's major challenge and the imperative to address it.
95% of the book is devoted to fleshing out the problem. But this section is much too verbose.
Also Carlson tucks in his pet opinions uch as his belief that global warming is not
happening. That is not at all essential to his argument. Whatever side one is on, the pet
opinions distract from the imperative of the fundamental problem and tend to be divisive.
He gets one star for the solution to the problem. It is covered in the last paragraph on
the last page. One might hope that almost half of the book might be devoted to it. After all,
it does little good to identify a problem and then leave the reader to fend for himself in
solving it. The absence of his thinking about it makes one wonder how serious he is in
addressing society's greatest challenge. This book needed an enlightened and heavy-handed
editor.
"... Tucker Carlson's critique of unrestrained capitalism last week sent the Respectable Righ t into apoplectic fury. That's why it's irrelevant -- and why Carlson is increasingly emerging as a name to conjure with. ..."
"... Mitt Romney supports the status quo. But for everyone else, it's infuriating ..."
"... Republican leaders will have to acknowledge that market capitalism is not a religion. Market capitalism is a tool, like a staple gun or a toaster. You'd have to be a fool to worship it. Our system was created by human beings for the benefit of human beings. We do not exist to serve markets. Just the opposite. Any economic system that weakens and destroys families is not worth having. A system like that is the enemy of a healthy society. ..."
"... National Review ..."
"... The Right Should Reject Tucker Carlson's Victimhood Populism ..."
"... National Review ..."
"... National Review? ..."
"... [T]he primary responsibility for creating a life of virtue and purpose rests with families and individuals. In fact, it is still true that your choices are far more important to your success than any government program or the actions of any nefarious banker or any malicious feminist. ..."
"... Tucker Carlson Claims Market Capitalism Has Undermined American Society. He's Wrong. ..."
"... National Review ..."
"... America Needs Virtue before Prosperity ..."
"... National Review ..."
"... National Review ..."
"... Most young Americans prefer socialism to capitalism, new report finds ..."
"... Socialism is exactly what we're going to get, and very soon unless a group of responsible people in our political system reforms the American economy in a way that protects normal people ..."
"... Carlson's economic populism pairs with his support for patriotic immigration reform: both policies aim to serve the people's interest and strengthen America as a unified community. This vision conflicts with multinational corporations who would rather see America as one giant strip mall filled with atomized customers. Not surprisingly, these companies oppose patriotic immigration reform. Also not surprisingly, so does Conservatism Inc. ..."
"... The only institution that can stand up to corporations and tell them to change is the state -- which happens to be the only institution patriots can have any influence over. Academia, Hollywood, corporate America, and the Establishment Media are all under the thrall of Cultural Marxists. (The churches are a more complicated matter, but fewer Americans listen to religious leaders in our day and age.) ..."
"... Washington Watcher [ email him ] is an anonymous source Inside The Beltway. ..."
"... Don't cry in 2020 if Donald Trump loses because he took advice from the same market capitalists who tried to sink him and his movement back in 2016 – the same people who destroyed Romney's chances in 2012. He's already well on his way with deregulation and tax cuts for the rich. Unfortunately, some of his supporters seem eager to help him in that losing effort. ..."
"... In my view, I think the message is clear. Government's role of facilitator, monitor and guarantor of fair practices has decided to jump in bed on the side of business and that without guarantee of a fair distribution to the US citizens, who in the case of government subsidies, contracts and bailouts are footing the bill for a good deal of financial misconduct and lousy adherence to best practices as they reap the benefits. ..."
"... Oh–I get it. The problem is not Capitalism. It's that we don't have more of it. God you people are brazenly ingenuous. ..."
"... Deregulating big biz without corresponding relaxations on common people is wrong and we must oppose it. No tax cuts for biz without much bigger ones for the common people! ..."
"... Some below average dude above said "this country has nothing resembling Capitalism going on. Big Business is in bed with Big Feral Gov't. "Crony Capitalism" may not roll off the tongue, but that's the usual fair description of it." Hear that on Fox News? Oh, if only we were all controlled and dominated by Capitalists. If only capitalists owned all the major media. If only Capitalists owned all the politicians. If only capitalists made up all the leading politicians. If only all the bankers were Capitalists If only the Fed was made up of capitalists. Then we would finally have true capitalism. ..."
"... But wait a minute. That's EXACTLY the situation that we do have. What that means is that we have EXACTLY the capitalism that capitalism produces. We have EXACTLY the capitalism that the leading capitalists, who will always control the capitalist government and the capitalist economy, want and need. ..."
"... And before anyone starts with "its the globalists." Globalism is capitalism. Capitalism brought the black slaves here, capitalism is bringing the Mexicans here. Slave labor/cheap labor is the name of the game, always has been. Nothing new. Globalism=capitalism ..."
"... Capitalist wars are also driving the refugees from their homelands. Whether in Iraq, Sudan or Honduras, wars are a twofer for capitalists, massive war profiteering, theft of resources, with the added bonus of driving refugees into Europe/America to lower the standard of living and decrease wages for us. ..."
"... Privatization of public property/resources is theft, privatization today is strictly about prioritizing money away from the commons and general welfare and giving total monopoly to the inbred 1% rent-seeking parasites, monopoly of resources (food, water, air, shelter), monopoly of control, monopoly of propaganda, monopoly of Policy, monopoly of money, monopoly of war. ..."
"... Most people, including below average guy above don't wan't to accept this, usually because of ignorance or "muh capitalism" and "muh free markets " brainwashing by Fox "News". They have been programmed subconsciously into thinking that any other alternative method will not work or it is "evil socialism". They are still interested in making rentier classes out of each other and fucking over their children's future, while propping up their capitalist overlords. ..."
"... Meet the New World Order. Revealed – the capitalist network that runs the world https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228354-500-revealed-the-capitalist-network-that-runs-the-world/ ..."
"... and give it a rest with the "freedumb" BS you goon. The US has the largest prison population in the world. You go to jail for smoking a joint for goodness sake. At the same time capitalist bankers make off with trillions in stolen wealth without a slap on the wrist. ..."
"... Not to mention the spying/surveillance, Patriot Act, assassinations and indefinite detention of Americans with no due process, Anti-BDS laws, a totally rigged judicial system, a healthcare system that is nothing short of a racket, a fake media totally controlled by the capitalist war profiteers and corporate parasites. Everything that you accuse "communists" of is what is actually happening under the Capitalists. ..."
"... I agree with Tucker that the family unit is the most important reason why America is degenerating, resulting in less people getting married, less children, less everything, creating a vacuum that can only be filled by foreign invasion. The lack of strong families is also the reason for the rise in suicides, drug addiction, crime, treason, etc., etc. ..."
"... Militant feminism has made it such that husbands and wives become economic competitors rather than complementary partners. Families have become less important as compared to each partner seeking financial success above all else ..."
"... There is a disincentive to have children because it is an obstacle to climbing the corporate ladder. If you don't have children, there is not a lot of benefit to being married, so divorces increase. ..."
"... As Tucker says, no woman wants to marry a man who makes less than she does. So, as more women are forced into the workforce, less marriages happen. ..."
"... Uncontrolled immigration helps the ruling class to reduce wages, also contributing to declining families. Legal immigration decimates the middle class ..."
"... If that isn't enough, mass distribution of pornography, deviant sex, gender perversion, LGBTQXYZZY , all contribute to the breaking of traditional intimacy between one man and one woman, that is the foundation of marriage and stable families. ..."
"... And there are the fake wars. As sons, and now daughters, go off to fight in foreign lands that have not attacked us, only one parent stays behind to raise the family, inadequately. Moreover, when these traumatized soldiers return from battle, they are seldom able to re-integrate into the family unit, and in a large number of cases, divorces and criminal behavior result. ..."
"... Idiots on here are always going on about how we don't got capitalism, if we only had capitalism, we don't got free markets, if only we had free markets, then everything would be hunky-dory. Without any proof, of course, because there never was and never will be a "free" "market." The US has plenty capitalism. And everything sucks. And they want more. Confused, stupid, disingenuous liars. ..."
"... Free markets are crookedness factories. As a PhD from Chicago Business School told me, "Free markets?! What free markets?! There is no free market! It's all crooked!" ..."
Tucker Carlson's critique of unrestrained capitalism last week sent the Respectable Right into apoplectic
fury. That's why it's irrelevant -- and why Carlson is increasingly emerging as a name to conjure with.
In a now-celebrated monologue on his Fox News show, Carlson blamed multinational
corporations and urban elites for the decline of Middle America. [
Mitt Romney supports the status quo. But for everyone else, it's infuriating , Fox
News , January 3, 2019] He listed several social ills that he attributed to unrestrained
capitalism, including predatory loans, higher drug use ,
declining marriage
rates , and shuttered factories.
Carlson lambasted "conservatives" who bemoan the decay of the family but refuse to consider
if capitalism played any role in that tragedy. According to Carlson, "conservatives" consider
criticism of the free market to be
apostasy.
He offered this blunt advice to Republicans who want to make America great again.
Republican leaders will have to acknowledge that market capitalism is not a religion.
Market capitalism is a tool, like a staple gun or a toaster. You'd have to be a fool to
worship it. Our system was created by human beings for the benefit of human beings. We do not
exist to serve markets. Just the opposite. Any economic system that weakens and destroys
families is not worth having. A system like that is the enemy of a healthy society.
Needless to say, this opinion was met with frothing anger by several
Conservatism Inc. writers, a crowd that seems to believe the free market a holy thing that must not
suffer blasphemy. They were upset that anyone would dare suggest that the state could act to
rectify social ills, arguing that this was rank demagogy and antithetical to conservatism.
National Review published several op-eds condemning Tucker's monologue -- a sure sign
of Respectable Right displeasure.
David
French , briefly Bill Kristol's Never
Trump catspaw, represented the typical response in
The Right Should Reject Tucker Carlson's Victimhood Populism . [ National
Review , January 4, 2019]. French claims to agree with Carlson that Middle America suffers
from numerous ills, but he argues the state should play no role with fixing them. Thus payday
loans are a necessary part of capitalism, drug criminalization is bad because it puts nice
minorities in jail, and radical feminism and Affirmative Action aren't serious concerns.
Carlson is advancing a form of victim-politics populism that takes a series of tectonic
cultural changes -- civil rights, women's rights, a technological revolution as significant
as the industrial revolution, the mass-scale loss of religious faith, the sexual revolution,
etc. -- and turns the negative or challenging aspects of those changes into an angry tale of
what they are doing to you.
French's solution is for the working class to go to
community college and for America to magically experience an organic renewal of virtue.
It's all up to the individual to make America better:
[T]he primary responsibility for creating a life of virtue and purpose rests with families
and individuals. In fact, it is still true that your choices are far more important to your
success than any government program or the actions of any nefarious banker or any malicious
feminist.
It is certainly true that your family and your own choices has a great influence over
whether you live a virtuous and even happy life. But that does not show how social ills will
somehow be corrected by self-help advice.
Additionally, as one man from a
Midwest town destroyed by plant closures pointed out on Twitter, community college and
re-training are not sufficient in equaling the old
manufacturing jobs . "'New tech always comes along to save the day' does not apply. The
late 19th-Century farm workers who flocked to Henry Ford for jobs after the
last great labor upheaval have nowhere to go this time," the man, Tom Ferguson, tweeted.
Greenville has only 8,000 residents, but is the largest city in Montcalm County. The plant
closure eliminated 3,000 jobs. As long as we're quantifying, I'll note the equivalence to
3,000,000 (sic) jobs being lost in New York City.
4/20 The local community
college offered communications and other job-skills courses. My recollection says this noble
effort, measured across 3,000 layoffs, was not very meaningful.
8/20 "New tech always comes
along to save the day" does not apply. The late 19th-Century farm workers who flocked to
Henry Ford for jobs after the last great labor upheaval have nowhere to go this time.
11/20
(See the whole thread here , here , or (as a screenshot)
here .)
French also failed to consider how much influence a "
malicious
feminist " can have over the lives of
normal people. Just one "offensive" tweet can cost somebody their career and reputation if
Leftists stir up a mob . Good luck finding a job if your
Google history is says you're a sexist. Additionally,
Human Resources Departments are run to conform to Leftist dictates, and your private speech
and views could draw the suspicion of HR at any time.
Daily Wire editor-in-chief Ben Shapiro
attacked Carlson in two separate articles. The first, for his own website, zealously defended
the greatness of the free market and the purity of movement conservatism: "Traditional
conservatives recognized that the role of economics is to provide prosperity – to raise
the GDP," is a sentence that best summarizes Shapiro's ridiculous retconning of a
once-great movement [ Tucker
Carlson Claims Market Capitalism Has Undermined American Society. He's Wrong. , by Ben
Shapiro, Daily Wire , January 4, 2019]
Shapiro truly believes the free market is one of the greatest things to ever exist and it
must not be restrained. All social problems, according to him, are due to individual choices
and we should not seek collective solutions to social ills like declining marriage rates and
fewer good jobs for working-class males. Trust the free market and insist a virtue renewal will
resolve the problems state aims to solve.
Shapiro followed up his Daily Wire column with a short column in National
Review that also insisted we need a virtue renewal instead of a state intervention into
the market. Shapiro believes we just need Americans to stop wanting "stuff" and exhibit virtue
in order to bring back Middle America [
America Needs Virtue before Prosperity , by Ben Shapiro, National Review ,
January 8, 2019].
"Carlson's claim that material gain isn't enough to provide happiness doesn't lead him back
to virtue, which would bolster additional freedom. It leads him to the same material solutions
that undercut virtue in the first place," Shapiro concluded,.
It would be nice if people would make themselves better and get the right job training after
they read one National Review column. But that's not going to happen and Shapiro
offers no means for enacting a renewal of virtue.
In effect, all of Carlson's Conservatism Inc. critics demand we must do nothing about the
woes of working-class whites and the free market will figure out something.
So at a time when a majority of Americans -- including a majority of Republicans --
support single-payer healthcare and other big government initiatives, Conservatism Inc.
pundits offer platitudes about limited government and the greatness of capitalism [
Most young Americans prefer socialism to capitalism, new report finds , by Kathleen
Elkins, CNBC , August 14, 2018].
This will not end well. Indeed, Carlson anticipated noted this response in his monologue:
Socialism is exactly what we're going to get, and very soon unless a group of responsible
people in our political system reforms the American economy in a way that protects normal
people
(Carson did not directly mention immigration, somewhat surprising because it has been one of
his long-standing concerns. But it ties into this debate. Many of the Conservativism Inc, types
outraged at Tucker also support mass immigration and buy into the notion that America is a "
nation of
immigrants ." They see America as primarily an economy or an idea, not a nation. Tucker's
national populism reverses those false notions -- America is a nation first and its
primary responsibility
is to its citizens , not the GDP.
Carlson's economic populism pairs with his support for patriotic immigration reform: both
policies aim to serve the people's interest and strengthen America as a unified community. This
vision conflicts with multinational corporations who
would rather see America as one giant strip mall filled with atomized customers. Not
surprisingly, these companies oppose patriotic immigration reform. Also not surprisingly, so
does Conservatism Inc.
The unfortunate fact is that American corporations pose the greatest threat to our
fundamental liberties and way of life. They censor free speech, make banking difficult for
political dissidents, exclusively promote progressive causes, listen to foreign governments
more than our own, promote mass immigration, and demonstrate a loyalty only to their own
profits and power. Currently, in fact, they are increasingly
boycotting Tucker Carlson's show, to Leftist
applause .
The only institution that can stand up to corporations and tell them to change is the state
-- which happens to be the only institution patriots can have any influence over. Academia,
Hollywood, corporate America, and the Establishment Media are all under the thrall of Cultural
Marxists. (The churches
are a more
complicated matter, but fewer Americans listen to religious leaders in our day and
age.)
Americans cannot expect a civic renewal from our social institutions. Conservatives wield
zero influence over a culture that encourages drug use, sexual promiscuity, agnosticism, and
women's' choosing career over family. We are not going to experience a social renaissance just
by wishing for one.
If we want our society to improve, we have to push for state policies with that goal in
mind. There is no other option.
It's time to discard the worn-out conservative dogmas and make the state serve the people.
National populism is the only path for Republicans to remain viable and (yes!) make our country
great again.
Washington Watcher [ email him ] is an anonymous source
Inside The Beltway. Tucker Carlson Routs Conservatism Inc. On Unrestrained Capitalism --
And Immigration, by Washington Watcher - The Unz Review
The first two comments on this blog perfectly illustrate why conservatives are in so much
trouble: they refuse to let go of old – harmful – dogmas, preferring to
rationalize them instead; they fail to embrace the policies that could realistically assure a
positive outcome for themselves and their beliefs. This leaves them vulnerable to rhetorical
conmen like Ben Shapiro and outfits like the National Review – controlled opposition if
I ever saw it.
It's not surprising to me that the National Review would oppose Carlson's viewpoint, as
the article mentioned. Here are the readership demographics of the National Review: 60+ with
an average annual salary somewhere north of $200,000. With that in mind, ask yourself if it
is really more likely that the National Review is interested in preserving the principles of
free market capitalism than they are merely interested in preserving the pocketbooks of their
donors and readers.
And let's be honest, Ben Shapiro was brought in by the National Review to
run interference after the disastrous failure of their market capitalism-based NeverTrump
critiques back in 2016; their front cover during that campaign was entitled "Against Trump".
Despicable.
Ben Shapiro's shtick is to mix "muh feminism" rhetoric popular with the youth
with "muh unregulated markets" rhetoric popular with the National Review donors in order to
obscure the line between the two. The end result is that you hear exactly what you want to
hear (a temporary, but hollow, pleasure) while nothing is ever ultimately done to address the
cause of "muh feminism" in the first place which just so happens to be some of the same
things pushed by the National Review, as Tucker Carlson noted. This is the kind of thing that
explains why you lost the culture war. You embraced rhetoric over reason with no mind to the
future.
What the responder here has done is merely repackage old assertions with new rhetoric. He
makes the same kind of outlandish and unrealistic claims as Shapiro, even if he is unaware
– wishing for miracles, essentially. He points out an issue (say the tax code) and then
claims this problem is the ultimate source of all our problems. Lost in this analysis is any
sense of probability. What is the probability that the tax code (or anything else he
mentioned) will spontaneously fix itself against the wishes of the public, according to all
the polls? Answer: very small, probably zero. So, why bother with that approach?
Ask yourself why we shouldn't address the crime rate with the same logic. We could abolish
the prison system and just hope that there is a solution to the ensuing rampant dysfunction
by wishing for it. Obviously, that's stupid and the public would never go for it, ever. So,
why is this logic smart for economics and politics?
Could the National Review and their conman Ben Shapiro really be so obtuse as to really
believe that their suggestions are even a remote possibility? I doubt it. Or maybe they have
an ulterior motive, as I have already mentioned: run interference with cleverly chosen words
while fundamental problems affecting actual republican voters go unaddressed – poverty,
suicide, revocation of fundamental liberties, a growing police state, and rampant internet
censorship; meanwhile, rich National Review donors continue to line their pocketbooks with
cheap labor immigration.
Also unaddressed in multiple – often disingenuous – critiques of Tucker
Carlson is exactly how supporters of voodoo economics have any solutions themselves beyond
mere rhetoric. Do they even bother at this point? I didn't see much in these rebuttals other
than assertions and semantics games. Perhaps, instead, these people have a track record of
success that might lead one to believe Elysium is around the corner? Hardly. They have a
track record of continual failure. So, why believe them here?
Wage growth has been stagnant for decades while healthcare costs, public debt, and tuition
have soared. They've done next to nothing on immigration; their proposal before Trump was to
double it. These are also the same people who claimed NAFTA would be great for the American
worker – that people could just get retrained. Also wrong. NAFTA has exploded the trade
deficit while workers often work longer hours for less pay and fewer benefits. The culture
wars? Total failure. Freedom of religion, of speech, and of association are on life support
– often at the behest of multinational corporations that threaten boycotts or deny
service to conservative viewpoints. What about the rise of China? Totally wrong. That nation
is eating our lunch. Sucks that we had to export our industries to them. As we speak, they're
considering an armed assault against Taiwan while Rand says their military is probably strong
enough to defeat ours if we came to their defense.
Meanwhile, cultural conservatives have lost every battle in the United States mainland.
The movement is so weak we can't even protect our own borders because, according to Nancy
Pelosi, "that's not who we are." You want to know who else agrees with Nancy? Multinational
corporations and National Review donors. Funny how those issues go hand-in-hand. It's almost
like these trucons care more about low taxes than mass immigration. Which do you care more
about?
And that's why conservatives lose. They refuse to choose between pie-in-the-sky dogma that
benefits others at their expense and practical solutions to the issues at hand. They'll
justify the current order with statements like "this isn't capitalism, if only we had real
capitalism" not realizing that this is the real capitalism the ruling class wants because it
benefits them economically, not you the ordinary man.
Ironically, this result is similar to Alexander Fraser Tytler's critique of democracy
– that it ends as soon as the public realizes they can vote themselves free goodies.
The often missed point of Lord Tytler's argument is that, when given a choice, the average
person will forego sacrifice with long-term benefits, instead choosing short-term pleasures
with long-term consequences; the end result is dysfunction and ruin. In this case, market
capitalists make the same mistake. They embrace disastrous long-term policies –
immigration, deregulation, monopolies, a warped tax code, punishing the poor – in order
to preserve their short-term bank accounts. We will lose the nation if they and their
supporters are allowed to carry the day. That's what happens when you let your enemy control
every lever of power in society; they use it to their benefit and at your expense. And that's
exactly what free market capitalists advocate, even if they don't directly state it. Thus,
the need for regulation and the exercise of power from the sole places where we have it: the
government and the military.
Don't cry in 2020 if Donald Trump loses because he took advice from the same market
capitalists who tried to sink him and his movement back in 2016 – the same people who
destroyed Romney's chances in 2012. He's already well on his way with deregulation and tax
cuts for the rich. Unfortunately, some of his supporters seem eager to help him in that
losing effort.
In my view, I think the message is clear. Government's role of facilitator, monitor and
guarantor of fair practices has decided to jump in bed on the side of business and that
without guarantee of a fair distribution to the US citizens, who in the case of government
subsidies, contracts and bailouts are footing the bill for a good deal of financial
misconduct and lousy adherence to best practices as they reap the benefits.
Solutions:
a. no member of an elected position should be permitted to own stock, sit on the boards of
stock or financial instititions which they are the creators of regulations and laws.
b. elected and appointed government employees are barred from consulting and working as or
with private sector companies.
c. senior military leaders are barred from working with or for private industry in any
manner related to government provides services and goods, (except as instructors, and similar
capacities)
just for starters -- I am a pro capitalist. But what we are experiencing is not capitalism.
@Achmed E. Newman As a long-time libertarian, I'd agree with you for the most part. But
I've had an epiphany in the last 2 years. All freedoms are not created equal. One of the
things beltway-tarians such as the Koch-funded Cato Institute push is the idea that an
increase in freedom in any area is good because the benefits "trickle down." Bullcrap!
Deregulating big biz without corresponding relaxations on common people is wrong and we must
oppose it. No tax cuts for biz without much bigger ones for the common people!
Some below average dude above said "this country has nothing resembling Capitalism going on.
Big Business is in bed with Big Feral Gov't. "Crony Capitalism" may not roll off the tongue,
but that's the usual fair description of it." Hear that on Fox News? Oh, if only we were all controlled and dominated by Capitalists. If
only capitalists owned all the major media. If only Capitalists owned all the politicians. If
only capitalists made up all the leading politicians. If only all the bankers were
Capitalists If only the Fed was made up of capitalists. Then we would finally have true
capitalism.
But wait a minute. That's EXACTLY the situation that we do have. What that means is that
we have EXACTLY the capitalism that capitalism produces. We have EXACTLY the capitalism that
the leading capitalists, who will always control the capitalist government and the capitalist
economy, want and need.
Newsflash! There can be no Capitalism that is different from what we've got today. You
would have to kill all the capitalists, to start over, because they would just buy their way
right back to the top. The money all accrues to the top, very quickly. It's like a bad game
of Monopoly. They take the money they've accumulated, and, realizing that money is just a
means to an end, put it to work. They buy political power, and use the combination of
political and financial/economic power to cement their monopoly. The very first thing they do
it to pull up the "ladder of success" after themselves.
When nobody else can climb the ladder, we get frustrated, and want to change the rules to
allow an "even playing field." This is exactly what the early winners of Capitalism will not
allow, and they go to great lengths to prevent it. They also complain bitterly about any and
all attempts to even out the effects of Capitalism.
That "evil government" that you hate is nothing more than the organization of the
capitalists. Every member of the government is a Capitalist, often funded into power by even
richer capitalists. We do not have a government, we have puppets of capitalists or as you Fox
News Hannity enthusiasts call it "the deep state"
Government was intended to be of the people, by the people, for the people, and to serve the
people, not the Corporation.
To the (((shill))) Shapiro
If we all had a PhD, there would be EXACTLY the same number of people being paid poverty
wages and exactly the same number unemployed. McDonalds and Wal-Mart don't pay a penny more
for a fry cook or greeter with a PhD. It's capitalism that determines the jobs and the pay,
not the education level of the masses.
When capitalism tells the masses to "go get an education" as being the solution to their
poverty, it's nothing more than saying, "you workers need to compete harder among yourselves
for the few good-paying jobs that capitalism has to offer." Thanks to the capitalists sending
the good paying middle class jobs to slave labor countries so they could make a few dollars
more.
And before anyone starts with "its the globalists."
Globalism is capitalism. Capitalism brought the black slaves here, capitalism is bringing the
Mexicans here. Slave labor/cheap labor is the name of the game, always has been. Nothing new.
Globalism=capitalism
Capitalist wars are also driving the refugees from their homelands. Whether in Iraq, Sudan
or Honduras, wars are a twofer for capitalists, massive war profiteering, theft of resources,
with the added bonus of driving refugees into Europe/America to lower the standard of living
and decrease wages for us.
Privatization of public property/resources is theft, privatization today is strictly about
prioritizing money away from the commons and general welfare and giving total monopoly to the
inbred 1% rent-seeking parasites, monopoly of resources (food, water, air, shelter), monopoly
of control, monopoly of propaganda, monopoly of Policy, monopoly of money, monopoly of
war.
Most don't have a clue what Socialism actually is. Socialism is government by the
working-class. There is not the slightest hint of the working-class ruling over society
anywhere in the world. Obviously.
The New World Order is being brought to you through capitalism, private banking and
corporate monopoly over EVERYTHING. You think your imaginary boogie-man socialists and
communists are scary? Wait till Monsanto/Bayer have total monopoly over our food and water,
they're getting very close, better wake up. Jesus warned you.
Some miserably mediocre guy above said "Jesus didn't warn me that I'd better love "my"
government."
He warned you about the love of money AKA capitalism, and what it leads to. You like being
replaced with cheap labor, H1B visa slaves, alright that's fine, but I think most American
workers are a little tired of it.
Problem today mediocre dude, is that governments aren't "governments" but private
corporations, with shareholders, operating in the public sector. Again, government is the
PEOPLE. The citizens, the workers. Of the people, by the people, for the people, and to serve
the people, not the Corporation. Not the parasite. You got it backwards son.
Most people, including below average guy above don't wan't to accept this, usually because
of ignorance or "muh capitalism" and "muh free markets " brainwashing by Fox "News". They have
been programmed subconsciously into thinking that any other alternative method will not work
or it is "evil socialism". They are still interested in making rentier classes out of each
other and fucking over their children's future, while propping up their capitalist
overlords.
I get that you are too young, too stupid, or both, to imagine freedom
and give it a rest with the "freedumb" BS you goon. The US has the largest prison
population in the world. You go to jail for smoking a joint for goodness sake. At the same
time capitalist bankers make off with trillions in stolen wealth without a slap on the
wrist.
Not to mention the spying/surveillance, Patriot Act, assassinations and indefinite
detention of Americans with no due process, Anti-BDS laws, a totally rigged judicial system,
a healthcare system that is nothing short of a racket, a fake media totally controlled by the
capitalist war profiteers and corporate parasites. Everything that you accuse "communists" of
is what is actually happening under the Capitalists.
Ask Julian Assange or Snowden about this freedumb you speak of.
I agree with Tucker that the family unit is the most important reason why America is
degenerating, resulting in less people getting married, less children, less everything,
creating a vacuum that can only be filled by foreign invasion. The lack of strong families is also the reason for the rise in suicides, drug addiction,
crime, treason, etc., etc.
But Tucker can't tell us the reason for why this has been happening for decades now. He
can't point to the deliberate manipulation of America by strong Jewish forces. The family
unit has been the thrust of these attacks, and nobody realizes it.
... ... ...
3. Militant feminism has made it such that husbands and wives become economic competitors
rather than complementary partners. Families have become less important as compared to each
partner seeking financial success above all else.
There is a disincentive to have children
because it is an obstacle to climbing the corporate ladder. If you don't have children, there
is not a lot of benefit to being married, so divorces increase. After his divorce, one of the
managers in my company has been living together with his girlfriend for 11 years, and they
have no intention of getting married or having children. They are together because neither
can afford housing on their own and their joint income makes it possible. With only economic
necessity holding them together, there is every reason to expect cheating or unexpected
dissolution of the partnership when better financial opportunities present themselves. As
Tucker says, no woman wants to marry a man who makes less than she does. So, as more women
are forced into the workforce, less marriages happen.
... ... ...
5. Uncontrolled immigration helps the ruling class to reduce wages, also contributing to
declining families. Legal immigration decimates the middle class.
6. If that isn't enough, mass distribution of pornography, deviant sex, gender perversion, LGBTQXYZZY , all contribute to the breaking of traditional intimacy between one man and one
woman, that is the foundation of marriage and stable families.
7. And there are the fake wars. As sons, and now daughters, go off to fight in foreign
lands that have not attacked us, only one parent stays behind to raise the family,
inadequately. Moreover, when these traumatized soldiers return from battle, they are seldom
able to re-integrate into the family unit, and in a large number of cases, divorces and
criminal behavior result.
Idiots on here are always going on about how we don't got capitalism, if we only had
capitalism, we don't got free markets, if only we had free markets, then everything would be
hunky-dory. Without any proof, of course, because there never was and never will be a "free"
"market." The US has plenty capitalism. And everything sucks. And they want more. Confused, stupid,
disingenuous liars.
Look, what you call "capitalism" and "free markets" just means scams to make rich people
richer. You read some simple-minded description of some pie-in-the-sky theory of some perfect
world where rational actors make the best possible decisions in their own interest without
any outside interference, and you actually think you are reading a description of something
real.
I'll tell you what's real. Crookedness. Free markets are crookedness factories. As a PhD
from Chicago Business School told me, "Free markets?! What free markets?! There is no free
market! It's all crooked!"
@Achmed E. Newman "We need nationalism without capitalism and socialism without
internationalism" ~ Gregor Strasser
In the American case, that would also in effect restrict all transfer payments to being
within kin-groups and at the local / state / civil society level. America could have had a
workable welfare state if the right leadership had governed it (i.e. if there had been no
Sexual Revolution amplified by feminism and Cultural Marxist subversion of critical
institutions) and if resources of middle class white families were not transferred to
non-white underclass dysfunctional degenerates.
Tucker's show is the only political opinion show I watch. The rest of Fox is pretty much
Neocon Central. CNN/MSNBC are jokes parading as news outlets. I love it when Trump
continually calls them Fake News, which is exactly what they are.
But it's ominous that so many corporations have stopped advertising on Tucker's show. Fox
now finds itself in a bind. Not knowing he would become such a threat to the established
order when they gave him a prime time gig, they may well prefer to get rid of him. And they
could use the convenient excuse that no one wants to advertise on the show anymore. But
Carlson has become such a popular pundit that, if they fired him, it could well spell the end
of Fox as viewers would leave in droves.
Free speech is dying in newsrooms everywhere and is endangered on the Internet also, with
all-powerful leftist corporations like Google deciding what (to them) is acceptable speech.
I'd just hate to see Tucker go the way of Phil Donohue, who lost his MSNBC show (at the time
the most popular on the network) because he was against the Iraq war.
It's kinda weird watching you two trade blows.. from the outside your differences seem
about 10% of your shared disgust of the MSM.
I'm guessing you'll thump each other to a draw and both fall over exhausted, having left the
genuine shared enemy untouched.
In what world is that a sensible outcome?! Stop being such macho douches and start playing a
smart political game, or just get used to being shat on by the incumbent powers. Your
choice..
@Achmed E. Newman yes, I agree with you Mr. Newman.. but there is something still missing
to explain how the good wholesome concept of Capitalism has captured the governed of nearly
every nation state and placed them into a prison farm where the monopoly powered corporate
private capitalist can extort as much as they please.
Keeping the economic environment fair, open, free, in a fully restrained completely fair
play condition is an absolute requirement of capitalism is the only legitimate function of
government; in fact, it is the essence of a government that is formed of the substance of the
right of self determination. When monopoly powers are generated by government and given to
private private enterprise, or or when government services are privatized, capitalism has
been turned into captivism and the market has be turned into a human farm yard, allowing
those with the monopoly powers to cull and harvest the herds as they wish.
Instead of government doing its job; the USA has actually become the center for biasing
capitalism. It continues to bestow monopoly powers (copyright, patents, and it continues to
give government grants to universities that use the grants to take the risk that industry
should be taking, to investigate new ideas and new products and it continues to allow its
obligations to the governed to be privatized ). Basically the University has become the
middle man between government and monopoly powered capitalism. The government gives the
University a grant, the grant is used to fund training programs called Phd studies, and after
a while the (the research encounters a promising discovery, and the corporate department is
created within the University but funded by the governed in the form of a government grant.
Next when a product of substance is sufficiently understood and most of the questions about
it fully explored at government expense (note the privately owned monopoly powered
corporation does not have to put any money at risk, until the University develops the product
so billions of research dollars are funded from the pockets of the governed, for the
practical benefit of one of the monopoly powered corporations), the entire university
department become employees of the patent acquiring monopoly powered privately owned
corporation. Then as if to add insult to injury, the government has been allowing the private
corporations to offer the services the government is suppose to offer (like the water
companies, the power companies, the garbage companies, the security companies, the production
of weapons, and the likes, all of these government monopolies have been sold off or licensed
to private enterprise.in a monopoly transfer concept called privatization or grant by
government contract)
so in fact there is no such thing as capitalism in the USA governed America, its privatized
monopoly ism.
What makes monopolies so bad is that they prevent competition (and competition is the name
of the game in capitalism ). Someone in his back yard invents something that puts Apple or
Microsoft, or IBM or the Federal Reserve out of business, just as the University of Australia
has invented a way to supply the whole world with nearly free energy, the solar and wind
power are used when functioning while the excess is stored so that the capacity of the wind,
solar and hydro storage are sufficient to generate, store and provide a flow of energy
sufficient to supply the needs of the world, yet few have heard about it, because the media
is another privatized thing, and it(the media) will remain silent about such innovation, at
least, until it can force the university to sell its patents to one of the mega buck monopoly
powered corporations. This solar, wind and hydro
combinationhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Lk3elu3zf4 is not really a new science discovery
, its an application using proven methodology) would eliminate the need for gas and oil in
the world, and that would solve the C02 problem which is the essence of global warming
.
The problem with capitalism USA style is that government must function as an independent
third party, some the USA cannot seem to be, an honest broker.. the government must deny any
kind of favouritism to any and all that would in any way bias discovery, bias competition, or
bias the financing of investigations that might lead to discovery or financing needed to
build the infra structure that allows the new invention to replace the old. History shows the
problem with republics, is that the corrupt soon own the government, at least that seems to
fit the conditions in the UK, USA, Israel, France, and Saudi Arabia. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Lk3elu3zf4
@obwandiyag The same thing was in the Soviet Union. Any problem was dismissed on account
that they would go away once they had more communism. And it was always emphasized that it
must be so because it was scientifically proven by Marx. The libertarian idiots like our
Achmed here are no different than those communist idiots.
@Achmed E. Newman Indeed, the examples below are not free market capitalism, but these
are what too many erroneously think is the result of free market capitalism:
– Trade deals made by Big Gov are not free market capitalism.
– Special exemptions from competition for those connected to Big Gov is not free market
capitalism.
– Big Gov granting monopolies to unions is not free market capitalism.
– Big Gov granted monopolies to utility companies are not free market capitalism.
– No bid Big Gov contracts are not free market capitalism.
– Gov laws supporting rent controls are not free market capitalism.
– Big Gov price fixing is not free market capitalism.
– Big Gov income taxes are not free market capitalism.
– Big Gov property taxes are not free market capitalism
– The Big Gov authorized Federal Reserve is not free market capitalism.
– Big Gov massive taxes on every aspect of the economy are not free market capitalism,
and which often lead to companies setting up shop elsewhere.
– Big Gov fees for services from agencies we already pay for are not free market
capitalism.
– Big Gov subsidies of "alternative energy" which cannot otherwise compete is not free
market capitalism.
The list of Big Government intervention in the economy is endless.
Big Gov intervention is the problem, not free market capitalism
@Achmed E. Newman " a land full of people encouraged to be irresponsible by, yes, you
guessed it, Big Government." Sure. OK.
But watch an hour of TV & try to tell me it's ONLY big Gov encouraging people to be
irresponsible.
Our whole consumer culture makes a virtue out of irresponsibility & the plain stupid
& juvenile. (Incidentally, it is utter crock that the Right wants "virtuous" citizens.
Where would the Oligarchs be if masses of people started being virtuous ? Honesty, truth,
justice, impulse control & rational desires would wreck their whole grubby set-up.
Indeed, a virtuous public might actually start thinking & thinking might lead to
lamp posts & pitch forks .)
@redmudhooch You simply don't know the difference between authoritarian Big Government
intervention in the economy, which is sadly what we increasingly have and is what you
advocate more of, vs. a truly free market economy.
But then Communists have made ignorance and being wrong an art form.
Another undefined slogan in this era of muddle headed thinking, or of no thinking at
all.
The 'again' suggests there once upon a times there was this great America.
I cannot be too difficult to specify when this great America existed, and what was so great
about it.
But I wonder if it is as in one of Deighton's Cold War novels, German refugees from the east
meeting in West Berlin, 'talking about a society that never was'.
What's the difference between government controlling every aspect of business, or business
controlling every aspect of government?
Would there be two different outcomes?
I keep hearing about "free markets" but I've never actually encountered one. It seems we will
die slowly of taxation and regulation while blaming Ron Paul and his friends for our misery.
If there were free markets we would be able to sell coal and oil to China and buy weapons
from Russia, build nuclear power plants, desalination plants, and LNG ports. But our wise
overlords in D.C. won't permit this. Also, the pride of those Marxists who were converted in
the 70's and 80's won't let them admit they were cruelly deceived.
a. no member of an elected position should be permitted to own stock, sit on the boards
of stock or financial instititions which they are the creators of regulations and laws.
b. elected and appointed government employees are barred from consulting and working as
or with private sector companies.
c. senior military leaders are barred from working with or for private industry in any
manner related to government provides services and goods, (except as instructors, and
similar capacities)
You hit the jackpot, this is a good start but needs to go much further to drive the
powerful interest groups out of Government.
It doesn't matter if you believe in capitalism, socialism both or neither. Left or Right
politics, big or small government or none. Everyone should recognize that without this
process NOTHING will ever change, absent perhaps a bloody revolution.
It's a full time job for citizens of every country to guard their government from being
hijacked by special interest groups. In most cases they fail and almost always it's the same
group ending up with all the power. Crony capitalist elites.
In America and most of Europe the Crony Capitalistic elites running the country have
joined small part of the left wing – SJW types and allow them good access to their
media outlets and small share of the loot. This mercenary army of SJW then in turn barks and
gnaws at anyone threatening the status quo. It's a win win. In the meantime both the
traditional left (pro working class) and the right have no voices or influence.
Our own (Icelandic) banking crash enabled similar process as you describe, grants to
political parties are limited, MP's have to publish their ownership in corporations etc and
all kinds of limitations. We are currently enjoying the benefits. It will last few years more
– by then the elites will be back in full force.
a. no member of an elected position should be permitted to own stock, sit on the boards
of stock or financial instititions which they are the creators of regulations and laws.
b. elected and appointed government employees are barred from consulting and working as
or with private sector companies.
c. senior military leaders are barred from working with or for private industry in any
manner related to government provides services and goods, (except as instructors, and
similar capacities)
Where can we find a free market? The US markets are so skewed by regulation that there is not
one commodity that has a 'free' market. Add to that the fact that the government has
abandoned its policy of preventing market dominance through monopoly. Add to that the US tax
payers feeding money into the wealthiest government in the world, a quantity of money that
attracts the least beneficial leeches from around the world. The government attracts leeches,
otherwise known as individual or corporate government contractors, being overpaid money from
the tax payers to support their companies that can't make it in the 'free' market: these
companies need the handouts to help them survive.
So where's the free market? It exists only in the small companies that litter the USA and
who battle the big corporates, like Amazon, that survive on tax handouts, beating their
competitors by bribing politicians rather than fighting the good fight in the free
market.
"the free market"?
[MORE]
'This "equilibrium" graph (Figure 3) and the ideas behind it have been re-iterated so many
times in the past half-century that many observes assume they represent one of the few firmly
proven facts in economics. Not at all. There is no empirical evidence whatsoever that demand
equals supply in any market and that, indeed, markets work in the way this story
narrates.
We know this by simply paying attention to the details of the narrative presented. The
innocuous assumptions briefly mentioned at the outset are in fact necessary joint conditions
in order for the result of equilibrium to be obtained. There are at least eight of these
result-critical necessary assumptions: Firstly, all market participants have to have "perfect
information", aware of all existing information (thus not needing lecture rooms, books,
television or the internet to gather information in a time-consuming manner; there are no
lawyers, consultants or estate agents in the economy). Secondly, there are markets trading
everything (and their grandmother). Thirdly, all markets are characterized by millions of
small firms that compete fiercely so that there are no profits at all in the corporate sector
(and certainly there are no oligopolies or monopolies; computer software is produced by so
many firms, one hardly knows what operating system to choose ). Fourthly, prices change all
the time, even during the course of each day, to reflect changed circumstances (no labels are
to be found on the wares offered in supermarkets as a result, except in LCD-form). Fifthly,
there are no transaction costs (it costs no petrol to drive to the supermarket, stock brokers
charge no commission, estate agents work for free – actually, don't exist, due to
perfect information!). Sixthly, everyone has an infinite amount of time and lives infinitely
long lives. Seventhly, market participants are solely interested in increasing their own
material benefit and do not care for others (so there are no babies, human reproduction has
stopped – since babies have all died of neglect; this is where the eternal life of the
grown-ups helps). Eighthly, nobody can be influenced by others in any way (so trillion-dollar
advertising industry does not exist, just like the legal services and estate agent
industries).
It is only in this theoretical dreamworld defined by this conflagration of wholly unrealistic
assumptions that markets can be expected to clear, delivering equilibrium and rendering
prices the important variable in the economy – including the price of money as the key
variable in the macroeconomy. This is the origin of the idea that interest rates are the key
variable driving the economy: it is the price of money that determines economic outcomes,
since quantities fall into place.
But how likely are these assumptions that are needed for equilibrium to pertain? We know that
none of them hold. Yet, if we generously assumed, for sake of argument (in good economists'
style), that the probability of each assumption holding true is 55% – i.e. the
assumptions are more likely to be true than not – even then we find the mainstream
result is elusive: Because all assumptions need to hold at the same time, the probability of
obtaining equilibrium in that case is 0.55 to the power of 8 – i.e. less than 1%! In
other words, neoclassical economics has demonstrated to us that the circumstances required
for equilibrium to occur in any market are so unlikely that we can be sure there is no
equilibrium anywhere. Thus we know that markets are rationed, and rationed markets are
determined by quantities, not prices.
On our planet earth – as opposed to the very different planet that economists seem to
be on – all markets are rationed. In rationed markets a simple rule applies: the short
side principle. It says that whichever quantity of demand or supply is smaller (the 'short
side') will be transacted (it is the only quantity that can be transacted). Meanwhile, the
rest will remain unserved, and thus the short side wields power: the power to pick and choose
with whom to do business. Examples abound. For instance, when applying for a job, there tend
to be more applicants than jobs, resulting in a selection procedure that may involve a number
of activities and demands that can only be described as being of a non-market nature (think
about how Hollywood actresses are selected), but does not usually include the question: what
is the lowest wage you are prepared to work for?
Thus the theoretical dream world of "market equilibrium" allows economists to avoid talking
about the reality of pervasive rationing, and with it, power being exerted by the short side
in every market. Thus the entire power hiring starlets for Hollywood films, can exploit his
power of being able to pick and choose with whom to do business, by extracting 'non-market
benefits' of all kinds. The pretense of 'equilibrium' not only keeps this real power
dimension hidden. It also helps to deflect the public discourse onto the politically more
convenient alleged role of 'prices', such as the price of money, the interest rate. The
emphasis on prices then also helps to justify the charging of usury (interest), which until
about 300 years ago was illegal in most countries, including throughout Europe.
However, this narrative has suffered an abductio ad absurdum by the long period of near zero
interest rates, so that it became obvious that the true monetary policy action takes place in
terms of quantities, not the interest rate.
Thus it can be plainly seen today that the most important macroeconomic variable cannot be
the price of money. Instead, it is its quantity. Is the quantity of money rationed by the
demand or supply side? Asked differently, what is larger – the demand for money or its
supply? Since money – and this includes bank money – is so useful, there is
always some demand for it by someone. As a result, the short side is always the supply of
money and credit. Banks ration credit even at the best of times in order to ensure that
borrowers with sensible investment projects stay among the loan applicants – if rates
are raised to equilibrate demand and supply, the resulting interest rate would be so high
that only speculative projects would remain and banks' loan portfolios would be too
risky.
The banks thus occupy a pivotal role in the economy as they undertake the task of creating
and allocating the new purchasing power that is added to the money supply and they decide
what projects will get this newly created funding, and what projects will have to be
abandoned due to a 'lack of money'.
It is for this reason that we need the right type of banks that take the right decisions
concerning the important question of how much money should be created, for what purpose and
given into whose hands. These decisions will reshape the economic landscape within a short
time period.
Moreover, it is for this reason that central banks have always monitored bank credit creation
and allocation closely and most have intervened directly – if often secretly or
'informally' – in order to manage or control bank credit creation. Guidance of bank
credit is in fact the only monetary policy tool with a strong track record of preventing
asset bubbles and thus avoiding the subsequent banking crises. But credit guidance has always
been undertaken in secrecy by central banks, since awareness of its existence and
effectiveness gives away the truth that the official central banking narrative is
smokescreen.'
https://professorwerner.org/shifting-from-central-planning-to-a-decentralised-economy-do-we-need-central-banks/
"Socialism is exactly what we're going to get, and very soon unless a group of responsible
people in our political system reforms the American economy in a way that protects normal
people "
"Even in the US most of nine Labour policies we put to people received majority
backing
Tucker's point is that the "Free Market" system of America is run by an amoral predator class
looking out for only its own interests. What is missing is a sense of noblesse oblige
rank has its privileges, but also its own duties to others in the system. Shapiro is but
another amoral schmuck looking out only for himself.
@redmudhooch So true. All these libertarians think capitalism automatically implies
competition , but in the real world, that's just a temporary phase. Once the oligopoly
stage of capitalism is reached, businesses cease to compete with one another and simply
collude–to take over the government, among other things. Then you have business and
government working together to shaft the common man (they'll call it "public/private
partnership," or some such).
Competition is simply not a permanent part of capitalism, any more than the
maggot-phase is a permanent part of being a fly. In the end, the 'free' market is destined to
give way either to Jew-Bolshevism or to National Socialism. Personally, I opt for the
latter.
It looks like a pipe dream, and perhaps it is, do you have better alternative?
Of course: socialists, pure capitalists and libertarians can all continue to sit in their
little corner and continue to argue against each other like they have done for the past
decades, totally powerless and ignored. All waiting for.. what? At least here is an idea to
start with, a common ground.
Think about it, while commenters "Achmed E. Newman" and "redmudhooch" almost
totally disagree on ideological grounds It seems obvious they could march in a lockstep in a
political movement trying to separate the Government from crony capitalism – with all
the Unz crowd and majority of the public close behind them. It would be a beautiful
sight!
Washington filled with protesters with signs: "We want our Government back" or "The best
Government money can by doesn't work – lets try something else"
The MSM would be powerless, their heads would explode trying to dig up slander against
such movement.
@aspnaz aspnaz says: "Where can we find a free market? "
It's now called "the black market" don't you know.
Tucker Carlson, Ben Shapiro etc, like most here, wouldn't know a free market if it bit
them in the a$$.
Carlson and Shapiro et all are nothing more than shills for the state [again, like most
here].
aspnaz says: "So where's the free market? It exists only in the small companies that
litter the USA and who battle the big corporates"
Outside of "illegal" black markets, that's pretty much true.
Corporations are creatures of the state and are protected by the state. Hell, they
are the state!
As you obviously know, government/ the state is the problem- never the
solution.
The only real political "solution" [as I see it] would be to return the government to its
original size and functions, getting rid of the 1000's of regulatory agencies [EPA, FDA,
BATF, CIA FBI NSA etc etc etc ad nauseum], plus all welfare , government-run "healthcare",
social "security" etc. etc.
And of course, getting rid of the standing army and all associated, to boot.
And to a nation of government indoctrinated, [virtually] commie slaves whose only desire
is to live at the expense of everyone else, that "solution" is entirely out of the
question.
But even if it were possible to return to the original constitutional government
limitations, seeing as how, judging by the results to date, the constitution and bill of
rights obviously was not/is not a secure enough chain on federal government growth and its
ever increasing interference in all markets [and all areas of our lives], that "solution"
would only give us all, at most, about 10 years of relative freedom and prosperity, if even
that.
So unless we could figure out some new, better way to permanently chain down the
government to a constitution and bill of rights and keep it out of everything else , then a
dreamed of return to an allegedly "constitutionally limited" government would only provide a
temporary, short term reprieve, as I see it.
@niceland Unfortunately the prescriptions are naive.
c. with a bit of grammatical tidying up is already the rule I say with some confidence.
The problem is what they might do in the hope of employment when they retire from the armed
forces. Perhaps a four year embargo on receiving any direct or indirect benefit from the arms
industry might be worth thinking about.
a. is an invitation to legal ingenuity. Ever heard of a "blind trust"? How blind is the
politician to the reality of his interests even if his wife isn't the trustee. And if you
banned blind trusts you wouldn't stop the spouse, siblings or children standing in for the
politician as investor.
b. You could prevent them getting paid directly and immediately but they could often make
a case that the consulting was just part of a politician's and some bureaucrats' everyday job
and involved both giving and receiving information and advice. And, as to the money side of
it, nearly all Congressmen spend a great deal of their time raising money for their
reelection campaigns so they wouldn't be asking to be paid personally in most cases. And if
the worst came to the worst a PAC fund could receive the money.
Ironically I came to tuckers same conclusion about a decade ago while being redpilled by neo
reactionaries. They of course are technofuturist post humanists which is why its ironic, but
they did encourage me to more radically check my premises and i had to admit capitalism had
probably done more harm to west civ tham communism in fact without capitalism there is no
communism. I had to admit my reflex unequivocal defense of capitalism was more coldwar anti
socialism refelex mixed with theoretical capitalism. Oh im still a capitalist but like tucker
i think its a tool and we who love it have to remember why we love it or ought to, because it
serves us, iy might also be a beautiful machine but if it didnt serve us theres no reason to
support it. i also had to admit not only do we not actually have capitalism but corporatism
and corporatism is inevitable tendency of capitalism but that we dont really think capitalism
functions well without intervention as we pretend we just think it functions best when
conservatives invent the interventions .we know left un tended monopolies and cartels form,
we know that large corporations will use their size to crush smarter more innovative new
firms,price fixing will happen, we dont allow a free market in all sorts of things from child
porn to heroine, yet inexplicably other porn and alcohol are ok.I also had to admit it wasnt
true that capitalism needs democracy, capitalism finds ways of thriving in any government
from stalinist communist to monarchies to managed theocracies or anything in between.Finally
I had to admit apes are both capitalist and socialist creatures and white apes particularly
so, we are the most capitalistic yet have the lowest tolerance for watching suffering, now
that can be for the most part solved with market solutions to social safety if we are willing
to admit that despite our hatred of socialists we are never the less social apes. And this is
perhaps the crux of the matter, HBD some people are just genetically more capable than others
in a free market some will thrive others not so much over time some will really really thrive
others not so much at all. so yeah white nationalism is a must actually any nation must be an
ethno state because your only real chance of overcoming this natural difference is to start
with a group that at least fairly homogenous, but then you must intervene. NO NOT BECAUSE
THEY ARE HUMANS WITH RIGHTS FUCKEM NO NOT BECAUSE THEYRE MUH WHITE BROS
because theres more of them than us cog elites and as tucker points out eventually if we make
it worth their wiles they will just take our shit. Capitalism does require some form of
government even if its just my gang enforcing my rules. all civilization is built on violence
and the proles have it they just dont use it because frankly we are their slaves we make the
world better for them or they replace us.its in our interest to be their stewards. its also a
better way to live with bakers wives and steam fitters smiling and happy nd pumping out
children to ward off the other nations. As elites we must do for them what they can not
naturally do for themselves a nation is a family or ought to be, everyone has a place. Thats
not to say we ought not find ways to stretch our right tale and shorten our left tail which
will make us tighter knit and more efficient and less fractured.
besides its simply retarded to give away your best tech to your enemies and and then buy it
back from them while leaving your 90% unemployed. This idea that thats capitalism implies
that you intend to reduce americans to the status of the least paid third worlder and only
when hes willing to work for those wages will you hire him- well good luck with that all I
can say is where are you going to hide.Heres the thing all the smart people do not in fact
rise to the elite in fact more and more get locked out in a way that prevents them from even
breeding statistically the average proles are producing 50% of each year cognitive elite
children they are less stable cog elites in as much as their children more likely to revert
to mean but never the less they will meet and fuck your children at harvard and contribute
50% of elite generation and some hybrid vigor.you really dont want 50% of the gifted
struggling in tiny houses and gigs deciding they really ought to be figuring out how to build
a robot army to take you out because they can they have the numbers
Inside beltway crap.
Capitalism have been hijacked long time ago by the secret private bank.Central economic
control.
The average american citizen daily survival depends on the will to deliver the goods from
roughly 11 corporations and their subsidiary networks.And for those who are trying to control
morality "happy fishing day".
@follyofwar Phil Donohue had his issues but was a semi-honest liberal and was the only
popular talking head that I recall who was opposed to the Iraq war and asking the hard
questions and second guessing politicians.
Mr. "no spin zone" Bill O' Reilly and many others gave us nothing but spin and just
vomited out the neocon talking points.
@Wally Do you get your talking points from Ayn Rand's didactic, absurd novel "Atlas
Shrugged?" Paul Ryan did, and what did he ever do for the country besides give more tax cuts
to the rich?
Take power away from the elected politicians who can be bribed by the capitalists, and give
it to average people. Adopt the Athenian system of choosing officials by lot from all
citizens, and capitalism may have to reform.
"Dreams, you've been hanging on
To dreams when all your dreaming should be done
Dreams, about the way the world could be
You keep dreaming , despite reality
"Dreams, that Donald Trump is not a fraud,
Dreams, that Obama was not a fraud,
Dreams, that Reagan was not a fraud,
Dreams, that all the rest were not frauds,
Dreams, that the Constitution is not a scam,
[MORE] Dreams, that the Supreme Court is not a scam,
Dreams, that the Federal Reserve is not a scam,
Dreams, that the C.I.A. is not a scam,
Dreams, that the F.B.I. is not a scam,
Dreams, that the cops and the courts are not a scam,
Dreams, that the Pentagon is not a scam,
Dreams, that 9/11 was not a scam,
Dreams, that the war on terror is not a scam,
Dreams, that Social Security is not a scam,
Dreams, that public education is not a scam .." [and so on and so forth] .
@anon anon[393] • Disclaimer says: "..i had to admit capitalism had probably done
more harm to west civ tham communism in fact without capitalism there is no communism ."
If you [ or anyone else] wanted to live under an entirely voluntary communist/socialist [
or whatever] system, while others freely chose not to, then I personally would have no
problem with that.
But of course, that is not whats being implied in all of this back and forth. The
discussion here and elsewhere is ultimately always about who gets to enforce, at the point of
a gun, their own imagined "ideal" system on everyone else, via everybodys imagined best
friend/big brother, the government, regardless of individual preference.
Private socialism? Go for it.
Not a problem [except for those who try to live under it], but "go ahead, make my day" as
someone once said.
After all , the very first Plymouth colony in the "New World" was founded on full on
socialism, and therefor quickly failed, but , I remind myself: the one thing that we learn
from history is that we don't learn anything from history.
@EliteCommInc. I would take it a step further. As it stands now, Congress exempts itself
from just about every law and regulation that it imposes on the rest of us. Also, most people
are unaware that federal judges do not pay "income taxes".
What is needed it a Constitutional amendment to wit:
"Congress shall make NO LAW that does not apply equally to itself, the legislative branch,
the executive branch, the judicial branch, and its agencies, departments, and subdivisions,
thereof. All federal agencies, departments, and subdivisions thereof are prohibited from
enacting any rulemaking without express approval of Congress. Corporate charters shall not
confer the status of personhood on corporations"."
@Achmed E. Newman Great comment! I found Tucker's speech to be vague and largely off
point. We do not have capitalism, we have "currently existing capitalism"- like the left
called the USSR "currently existing socialism", libertarians know, as Rand said, capitalism
is an Unknown Ideal.
As a fellow traveller with Ron Paul, Tucker still has libertarian leanings. He seems confused
sometimes about his stand on the Drug War, too often settling for his trope that interdiction
at the border will actually stop the overdose deaths, rather than recognizing interdiction
has been a failure for a hundred years. And how can he recognize that our foreign wars
involve us in one futile crisis after another, without asking why after a century of the war
on drugs, we are still experiencing a drug crisis? He says he regrets his "long haired
libertarian youth", thereby marking himself as just another old fogey who can't remember the
fun he had When he was young.
Instead of pearl clutching, he could strike the biggest blow to international corporatism by
acknowledging the crucial role that de- dollariztion is playing. He could recognize the role
of the Fed in creating international power centers in NYC, London, Zurich now being
challenged by Moscow and Beijing.
Like all conservatives, and alas libertarians as well, he doesn'understand the US Individual
Income Tax, the original Populist response to big government enabled crony capitalism. He
doesn't understand the income tax is a tax on the exploitation of a federal privilege for
profit, not an UN-apportioned tax on "everything that comes in". See http://www.losthorizons.com
And please, bring a real libertarian on as his straw man, not that awful, slow thinking slow
talking Objectivist !
Libertarianism needs white nationalism, but at least libertarians consistently call out the
Federal Reserve. Tucker never has to my knowledge, maybe because he doesn't understand or
isn't interested in monetary policy. But monetary policy affects all aspects of the economy,
from wages to international trade. Tucker is libertarian on foreign policy, among other
things, and the last time I checked, he's no Bernie Sanders or Ocasio-Cortez when it comes to
domestic policy. Does he favor socialized medicine, public higher education, expansion of the
welfare state, and government housing for all? His main gripe is with many corporations' love
of cheap foreign labor, big tech censorship, and "free" trade. Oh, and he thinks the rich
need to be taxed a little more. Can't say I disagree with him there. However, I don't even
see any evidence that he is a race realist. I like him, but he seems like the quintessential
civic nationalist to me, though that could just be the mask he has to wear.
The foreign labor aspect does need to be reined in (hence why libertarianism needs
racial/ethnic nationalism). Google is hardly a private company as it was seed funded by the
CIA and NSA. Facebook regularly colludes with Israeli/U.S. Intelligence. It is not
unlibertarian to oppose "private" companies that become arms of the state to shut down
opposition. The whole free trade vs. protectionism debate is more complicated than either
side will admit. Both policies create winners and losers to varying degrees as Trump's
tariffs have shown, and the Federal Reserve mucks up things either way. There is no free
market in America.
@Anon Good rebuttal to Achmed E. Newman's comment and the Hallelujah Chorus replying to
him. Carlson's point about market capitalism being a religion to conservatives triggers them
mightily.
Which brings us to recent commentary from Fox News host Tucker Carlson on his eponymous
show, Tucker Carlson Tonight . Among other things Carlson asked why investors (think
hedge funds, private equity, venture capital, etc.) are taxed at lower rates than are typical
workers. Carlson's specific target was Mitt Romney.
The junior Utah senator famously earned hundreds of millions while running private equity
(vulture) firm Bain Capital.
Earlier tonight I spoke with my friend Van Jones about the challenges we face and the
future of our country.
He asked me bluntly whether I'll run for president, and I told him straight: I've
decided to run and will make a formal announcement next week.
There are many reasons I'm offering to serve you as President -- to ensure every
American gets the healthcare they need, to bring about comprehensive immigration reform, to
make sure we have clean water and clean air for generations to come, to fix our broken criminal
justice system, to end the corrupt influence of special interests in Washington, and so much
more.
But the main reason I'm running has to do with an issue that is central to the rest --
war and peace. I look forward to talking with you more about this in the coming days.
When we stand together, united by our love for each other and for our country, there is
no challenge we cannot overcome.
Aloha,
Tulsi
************************
I received this email from Tulsi Gabbard's office tonight. No, we don't know each other. I
signed up for her updates over two years ago because of my interest in her. We've talked about
her over the years within this committee of correspondence, always on a positive note as I
recall.
As I'm sure you remember, she left the DNC leadership in 2016 because of their high-handed
treatment of Bernie Sanders. She caused quite a stir for meeting with Bashar Assad when she
visited Syria in early 2017. She is still an Army major in the Hawaiian National Guard and
advocates for a strong defense, including a robust ballistic missile defense. Not unusual
considering she represents Hawaii's 2nd Congressional District. As a Progressive, she calls for
an end to all our overseas wars including Syria and Yemen. But I think she's more of a Teddy
Roosevelt Progressive
Before delving into her politics, I recommend an article Tulsi wrote back in October 2017
entitled "My Spiritual Journey." I think it says a lot about her and her upbringing. She is
definitely a committed member of the Hawaiian ohana.
In my few short years there, I was most
impressed by this spirit. I saw it in my neighbors in Mililani Town, my friends and
counterparts in Company C, 1/299 Infantry (HI ARNG) on Maui and in the pig hunters/pakalolo
growers of the Koolau Mountains. I think the DC swamp can use a little more aloha spirit.
Shaka, brah!
"... Crumbling of neoliberal ideology now is an undisputable scientific fact. While neoliberal practice continues since 2008 unabated, and neoliberalism even managed (not without help from some three-letter agencies) staged counterrevolutions in several countries such as Ukraine, Argentina, and Brazil (the phenomena known as "Strange non-death of Neoliberalism"). ..."
"... The current level of degeneration of the neoliberal elite is another interesting factor. Essentially neoliberal oligarchy (and this is first of all financial oligarchy) and their political stooges lost the legitimacy in the minds of the majority of the electorate in the USA (Trump+Sanders supporters). ..."
"... Republican leaders will have to acknowledge that market capitalism is not a religion. Market capitalism is a tool, like a staple gun or a toaster. You'd have to be a fool to worship it. Our system was created by human beings for the benefit of human beings. We do not exist to serve markets. Just the opposite. Any economic system that weakens and destroys families is not worth having. A system like that is the enemy of a healthy society. ..."
"... Socialism is exactly what we're going to get, and very soon unless a group of responsible people in our political system reforms the American economy in a way that protects normal people ..."
My impression is that it is impossible to separate the current backlash on globalization
from the backlash on neoliberalism as an ideology.
Crumbling of neoliberal ideology now is an undisputable scientific fact. While neoliberal
practice continues since 2008 unabated, and neoliberalism even managed (not without help from
some three-letter agencies) staged counterrevolutions in several countries such as Ukraine,
Argentina, and Brazil (the phenomena known as "Strange non-death of Neoliberalism").
One of the fundamental forces behind the last 25 years of neoliberal globalization is the
availability of cheap oil. If this period is coming to an end in a decade or two (as in
prolonging period of over $100 per barrel prices) the reversal of neoliberal globalization
might acquire a completely different pace and scale.
The current level of degeneration of the neoliberal elite is another interesting factor.
Essentially neoliberal oligarchy (and this is first of all financial oligarchy) and their
political stooges lost the legitimacy in the minds of the majority of the electorate in the USA
(Trump+Sanders supporters).
In this sense, I would like to emphasize an amazing and unexplainable (given Fox news owner)
speech by Tucker Carlson on Jan 2, 2009.
He offered this blunt advice to Republicans:
Republican leaders will have to acknowledge that market capitalism is not a religion. Market capitalism is a tool,
like a staple gun or a toaster. You'd have to be a fool to worship it. Our system was created by human beings for the
benefit of human beings. We do not exist to serve markets. Just the opposite. Any economic system that weakens and
destroys families is not worth having. A system like that is the enemy of a healthy
society.
This is probably the first statement that neoliberalism is the enemy of healthy society on
Fox.
This might not end well as financial oligarchy is entrenched and does not was to share power
with anybody. Indeed, Carlson anticipated the resistance to his views in the way similar to
FDR:
Socialism is exactly what we're going to get, and very soon unless a group of responsible
people in our political system reforms the American economy in a way that protects normal
people
This also shed additional light of Russiagate, as an attempt to cement cracks in the
neoliberal society by uniting the nation against the common enemy. In no way Russiagate is only
about Trump.
"... On Friday November 18th The Washington Post reported on a recommendation in "October" that [NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers] Mike Rogers be removed from his NSA position: The heads of the Pentagon and the nation's intelligence community have recommended to President Obama that the director of the National Security Agency, Adm. Michael S. Rogers, be removed. ..."
"... After the visit by Rogers, Trump vacated Trump Towers. ..."
"On Thursday November 17th, 2016, NSA Director Mike Rogers traveled to New York and met
with President-Elect Donald Trump.
On Friday November 18th The Washington Post reported on a recommendation in "October"
that [NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers] Mike Rogers be removed from his NSA position: The
heads of the Pentagon and the nation's intelligence community have recommended to President
Obama that the director of the National Security Agency, Adm. Michael S. Rogers, be
removed.
In a move apparently unprecedented for a military officer, Rogers, without notifying
superiors, traveled to New York to meet with Trump on Thursday at Trump Tower.
Occam's Razor. NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers didn't want to participate in the spying
scheme [on Trump]
(Clapper, Brennan, Etc.), which was the baseline for President Obama's post presidency
efforts to undermine Donald Trump and keep Trump from digging into [who knows what
crimes]"
After the visit by Rogers, Trump vacated Trump Towers.
There is considerable irony in the Mueller 'probe' and the continuing avalanche of MSM
lies and evasions and spin etc pertaining to Trump.
There are trends: A growing US citizen realization that their political system prior to
Trump was nearly completely corrupt; the Clintons are more broadly understood as the
pathological criminals that they are; the Podesta emails with their sick connotations remain
'in the air' - See Ben Swann's work, for example. The Clinton Foundation is far more broadly
understood as a massive criminal enterprise.
Serious criminality at the highest levels of the FBI is now far more obvious to far more
people
MSM as evil propaganda is more widely understood.
It is understood widely that the DNC material to Wikileaks was not 'hacked' (Binney)
From the theintercept.com :
"Pompeo met on October 24 [at Trump's request] with William Binney, a former National
Security Agency official-turned-whistleblower who co-authored an analysis published by a
group of former intelligence officials that challenges the U.S. intelligence community's
official assessment that Russian intelligence was behind last year's theft of data from DNC
computers. Binney and the other former officials argue that the DNC data was "leaked," not
hacked, "by a person with physical access" to the DNC's computer system."
In short the last two years have been about trying to defeat Trump but the attackers are
looking more and more wounded, and Trump, well, he's hanging in there. General Kelly and
others have described Trump's work ethic as exhausting.
Trump was elected using Adelson money. That;s probably is what is wrong with Trump.
Is Trump a Republican Obama? As in "Brain dead Dems kept saying Obama would do the right thing by the nation, that he was
playing 4D chess, up till the moment he was no longer president, and in the end he was a
narcisstic, self-aggrandizing politician who transferred trillions to the 0.1% and made
America worse by any standard."
Notable quotes:
"... The struggle between the neocons and Trump over control of foreign policy has become ridiculous. One must remember that he can dismiss them all with the stroke of a pen, just he can dismiss his non civil service tormentors in the justice department and the FBI. ..."
"... Bolton has tried to countermand Trump's decision in Syria. His attempt and that of Jeffrey were rebuked in Ankara and DoD then announced an immediate commencement of the withdrawal. ..."
"... And yet the unholy trio of Pompeo (first in the hearts of his USMA class), Jeffrey, a career neocon hack at State, and Bolton (the mustachioed menace) are still in their jobs? Say what? ..."
"... And then there is the Great Southern Border Crisis. The Democrats have repeatedly voted for a great deal of money for barrier systems on the border. Chancy (Chuck and Nancy) were in the lead in such votes over the years. Now Nancy (who may not remember her votes) is denying Trump "a single dollar" for border barriers. ..."
"... To say that barriers are ineffective is dishonest. By now Trump knows that he can declare a national emergency and fund the barriers after however much litigation the Dems can arrange. There is ample money available for the purpose. So, why does he not do it? ..."
"... I voted for Trump. He lost me when he filled his cabinet with swamp creatures and then further when he replaced the generals with neo-cons like Bolton. You cant change the government if you don't understand how the government works - its not a real estate business that you can declare bankruptcy to make a buck. ..."
"... Brain dead Dems kept saying Obama would do the right thing by the nation, that he was playing 4D chess, up till the moment he was no longer president, and in the end he was a narcisstic, self-aggrandizing politician who transferred trillions to the 0.1% and made America worse by any standard. ..."
"... If he cared about illegal immigration, how about enforcing laws against employing illegal immigrants ..."
According to Hido, Washington's Special Representative for Syria, James Jeffrey, delivered
several messages to the leadership of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) demanding them to slow
down the negotiations with Damascus and promising to discuss the idea of establishing a no-fly
zone over northeastern Syria.
The Kurdish political described Jeffery's messages as "disturbing" and called on the Kurdish
leadership to deal with them in careful manner.
Furthermore, Hido stressed that the SDF should take a decision on the talks with the
Damascus government as soon as possible and regretted that some Kurdish officials are still
pinning their hopes on a possible change in the
U.S. decision to withdraw from Syria .
"Talks with the Syrian government are still ongoing in a positive atmosphere," RT quoted
Hido as saying.
Jeffrey made a visit to Turkey recently, where he tried to strike a deal with Ankara over
northeastern Syria. However, Turkey's plans to attack US-backed Kurdish forces and invade the
region hindered his efforts.
It appears to be that the SDF's only real option is the deal with Damascus as any U.S.
solution would likely involve Turkey, which has demonstrated its agressive attitude towards
Syrian Kurdish groups during its operation in Afrin in 2018." SF
------------
The struggle between the neocons and Trump over control of foreign policy has become
ridiculous. One must remember that he can dismiss them all with the stroke of a pen, just he
can dismiss his non civil service tormentors in the justice department and the FBI.
Bolton has
tried to countermand Trump's decision in Syria. His attempt and that of Jeffrey were rebuked in
Ankara and DoD then announced an immediate commencement of the withdrawal.
What could that have
been other than a renewed presidential order to the Defense Department? And yet the unholy trio
of Pompeo (first in the hearts of his USMA class), Jeffrey, a career neocon hack at State, and
Bolton (the mustachioed menace) are still in their jobs? Say what?
And then there is the Great Southern Border Crisis. The Democrats have repeatedly voted for
a great deal of money for barrier systems on the border. Chancy (Chuck and Nancy) were in the
lead in such votes over the years. Now Nancy (who may not remember her votes) is denying Trump
"a single dollar" for border barriers.
BTW, any soldier will tell you that the purpose of
barriers IS NOT to stop all movement. No, it is to slow up movement and canalize it so that
Quick Reaction Forces (QRF) can get there first with the most. To say that barriers are
ineffective is dishonest. By now Trump knows that he can declare a national emergency and fund
the barriers after however much litigation the Dems can arrange. There is ample money available
for the purpose. So, why does he not do it?
On Smerconish's show today, Bob Baer, spy extraordinaire, (read his books) asserted that the
various bits and pieces of circumstantial "evidence" about Trump's contacts with and attitude
toward Russia, as well as those of his flunkies and relatives amount to a "good enough" case
for Trump being a Russian agent of influence. That is how a HUMINT spook judges such things. It
is a matter of probabilities, not hard evidence. Assets of an alien government are not always
witting (understanding) of their status from the POV of the foreign government, but that does
not necessarily make other than agents. Sometimes they think they are merely cooperating in a
good and normal way when, in fact, the relationship is much deeper. Jane Fonda in North Vietnam
would be an example.
OTOH the president is responsible for the conduct of US foreign policy and is not under an
obligation to accept the perhaps hackneyed views of his subordinates. Perhaps his world view is
quite different and he is not mesmerized by the group think of the Borg. If that is so ...
But, how does one explain his lack of action on the border? Does someone or some thing in
Russia, Israel, the UK, his former business associates, have something really juicy on Trump,
something that he fears to unleash through decisive action? pl
Sir, I think he's just being cautious and exhausting all other options because half of the
country has been made to believe he's a dictator. He's being sensitive to that. He will act.
Give it time.
Sensitive? Cautious? Caring about Americans not in his base (whatever his base means)? Doesnt
sounds like president Donald Trump the last two years. He acts more like he is confused about what the president's powers are while the
wormtongues he appointed and replaces with more of the same continue to whisper in his
ear.
Contrary to all the TDS out there, maybe he prefers to do things the right way and have
Congress make laws and budgets that work for all of us whether or not we all understand how.
If that was the case, why so many signing statements (particularly since republicans control
congress ). He is on target to pass Obama. who also preferred not to do things by laws.
http://www.coherentbabble.c... Its just that the trend towards an imperial, unitary presidency keeps getting worse with
full acquiescence of congress who suckles on the corporate money teat, under both Dems and
Repubs.
I voted for Trump. He lost me when he filled his cabinet with swamp creatures and then
further when he replaced the generals with neo-cons like Bolton. You cant change the
government if you don't understand how the government works - its not a real estate business
that you can declare bankruptcy to make a buck.
Brain dead Dems kept saying Obama would do the right thing by the nation, that he was
playing 4D chess, up till the moment he was no longer president, and in the end he was a
narcisstic, self-aggrandizing politician who transferred trillions to the 0.1% and made
America worse by any standard.
-----
Here's a nice plot - US apprehensions comparable to 1970 when the US had a much smaller
population.
Now if Trump shut the govt down until congress did something about big pharma and the opioid
crisis because Congress is in their pocket he would have my support. But then the republicans
and dems would jointly impeach him to keep the money spigot flowing.
Decreasing life expectancy is what happens in the sh-tholes to use his term. If he cared about illegal immigration, how about enforcing laws against employing illegal
immigrants. Don't republicans who theoretically support capitalism (as opposed to crony
capitalism) understood supply and demand? (If there is a demand, then supply will meet
it)
Oh, because illegal immigrants are good for the bottom line of people, like, well,
Trump:
"... Yes, plus they could have at least tied in the Rosenstein attempt to wear a wire to trap Trump via the 25th amendment as hatched by McCabe too. Lousy article. ..."
Yes, plus they could have at least tied in the Rosenstein attempt to wear a wire to trap
Trump via the 25th amendment as hatched by McCabe too. Lousy article.
"... "Anyone who thinks the health of a nation can be summed up in GDP is an idiot," he scoffed at one point, and later elaborated: "Market capitalism is not a religion. Market capitalism is a tool, like a staple gun or a toaster. You'd have to be a fool to worship it." His speech reached a remarkable crescendo: "Any economic system that weakens and destroys families is not worth having." ..."
"... conservatives could also use this to finally connect with those market-critiquing progressives across the aisle -- or at least to understand them ..."
The bell tolled last week on the Jan. 2 edition of "Tucker Carlson Tonight," his Fox News show. Carlson spent several minutes
in the first half of the show bemoaning the plight of American men, who, as one segment title put it, are "in decline as the
ruling class looks away."
... ... ...
What happens when Tucker Carlson makes sense? - The Washington Post
Still, there were some uncomfortable truths to be found in between the finger-pointing. Men
are
struggling: Even the American Psychological Association, the country's largest professional organization of
psychologists, agrees, and is crafting
new standards
to address it. Marriage rates
are
eroding
, especially among the poor, and
trade shocks
-- especially to the manufacturing sector --
have
lowered men's earnings and their marriage
market potential. Yes, well-educated elites
do
tend to value stable marriages for themselves, even while
championing atypical family structures and laissez-faire lifestyles in public.
Carlson's
Wednesday night monologue
was part of a larger critique of American financial systems and the failures of free
market capitalism, and his commentary was on target there, too.
"Anyone who thinks the health of a nation can be summed up in GDP is an idiot," he scoffed at one
point, and later elaborated: "Market capitalism is not a religion. Market capitalism is a tool, like a staple gun or
a toaster. You'd have to be a fool to worship it." His speech reached a remarkable crescendo: "Any economic system
that weakens and destroys families is not worth having."
In a follow-up interview with the news site
Vox
, Carlson elaborated on his counterintuitive views...
... ... ...
Intriguingly, now that Carlson is speaking the truth, it's progressive outlets and personalities
who seem most willing to engage with his rather out-of-character commentary. (There were positive
write-ups in the Atlantic
and the above piece in Vox, as well as approving chatter on social media and thoughtful
discussion
elsewhere
.) And while conservatives were quick to defend his less-than-fact-based scapegoating of feminism, they
seem less eager to countenance his newly woke ideas.
That's a shame. Carlson's fiery new take should appeal to his traditional constituency, which
purports to have an interest in issues of the family and social stability. But conservatives could also use this to
finally connect with those market-critiquing progressives across the aisle -- or at least to understand them...
Voters around the world revolt against leaders who won't improve their lives.
Newly-elected Utah senator Mitt Romney kicked off 2019 with an op-ed in the Washington Post
that savaged Donald Trump's character and leadership. Romney's attack and Trump's response
Wednesday morning on Twitter are the latest salvos in a longstanding personal feud between the
two men. It's even possible that Romney is planning to challenge Trump for the Republican
nomination in 2020. We'll see.
But for now, Romney's piece is fascinating on its own terms. It's well-worth reading. It's a
window into how the people in charge, in both parties, see our country.
Romney's main complaint in the piece is that Donald Trump is a mercurial and divisive
leader. That's true, of course. But beneath the personal slights, Romney has a policy critique
of Trump. He seems genuinely angry that Trump might pull American troops out of the Syrian
civil war. Romney doesn't explain how staying in Syria would benefit America. He doesn't appear
to consider that a relevant question. More policing in the Middle East is always better. We
know that. Virtually everyone in Washington agrees.
Corporate tax cuts are also popular in Washington, and Romney is strongly on board with
those, too. His piece throws a rare compliment to Trump for cutting the corporate rate a year
ago.
That's not surprising. Romney spent the bulk of his business career at a firm called Bain
Capital. Bain Capital all but invented what is now a familiar business strategy: Take over an
existing company for a short period of time, cut costs by firing employees, run up the debt,
extract the wealth, and move on, sometimes leaving retirees without their earned pensions.
Romney became fantastically rich doing this.
Meanwhile, a remarkable number of the companies are now bankrupt or extinct. This is the
private equity model. Our ruling class sees nothing wrong with it. It's how they run the
country.
Mitt Romney refers to unwavering support for a finance-based economy and an internationalist
foreign policy as the "mainstream Republican" view. And he's right about that. For generations,
Republicans have considered it their duty to make the world safe for banking, while
simultaneously prosecuting ever more foreign wars. Modern Democrats generally support those
goals enthusiastically.
There are signs, however, that most people do not support this, and not just in America. In
countries around the world -- France, Brazil, Sweden, the Philippines, Germany, and many others
-- voters are suddenly backing candidates and ideas that would have been unimaginable just a
decade ago. These are not isolated events. What you're watching is entire populations revolting
against leaders who refuse to improve their lives.
Something like this has been in happening in our country for three years. Donald Trump rode
a surge of popular discontent all the way to the White House. Does he understand the political
revolution that he harnessed? Can he reverse the economic and cultural trends that are
destroying America? Those are open questions.
But they're less relevant than we think. At some point, Donald Trump will be gone. The rest
of us will be gone, too. The country will remain. What kind of country will be it be then? How
do we want our grandchildren to live? These are the only questions that matter.
The answer used to be obvious. The overriding goal for America is more prosperity, meaning
cheaper consumer goods. But is that still true? Does anyone still believe that cheaper iPhones,
or more Amazon deliveries of plastic garbage from China are going to make us happy? They
haven't so far. A lot of Americans are drowning in stuff. And yet drug addiction and suicide
are depopulating large parts of the country. Anyone who thinks the health of a nation can be
summed up in GDP is an idiot.
The goal for America is both simpler and more elusive than mere prosperity. It's happiness.
There are a lot of ingredients in being happy: Dignity. Purpose. Self-control. Independence.
Above all, deep relationships with other people. Those are the things that you want for your
children. They're what our leaders should want for us, and would want if they cared.
But our leaders don't care. We are ruled by mercenaries who feel no long-term obligation to
the people they rule. They're day traders. Substitute teachers. They're just passing through.
They have no skin in this game, and it shows. They can't solve our problems. They don't even
bother to understand our problems.
One of the biggest lies our leaders tell us that you can separate economics from everything
else that matters. Economics is a topic for public debate. Family and faith and culture,
meanwhile, those are personal matters. Both parties believe this.
Members of our educated upper-middle-classes are now the backbone of the Democratic Party
who usually describe themselves as fiscally responsible and socially moderate. In other words,
functionally libertarian. They don't care how you live, as long as the bills are paid and the
markets function. Somehow, they don't see a connection between people's personal lives and the
health of our economy, or for that matter, the country's ability to pay its bills. As far as
they're concerned, these are two totally separate categories.
Social conservatives, meanwhile, come to the debate from the opposite perspective, and yet
reach a strikingly similar conclusion. The real problem, you'll hear them say, is that the
American family is collapsing. Nothing can be fixed before we fix that. Yet, like the
libertarians they claim to oppose, many social conservatives also consider markets sacrosanct.
The idea that families are being crushed by market forces seems never to occur to them. They
refuse to consider it. Questioning markets feels like apostasy.
Both sides miss the obvious point: Culture and economics are inseparably intertwined.
Certain economic systems allow families to thrive. Thriving families make market economies
possible. You can't separate the two. It used to be possible to deny this. Not anymore. The
evidence is now overwhelming. How do we know? Consider the inner cities.
Thirty years ago, conservatives looked at Detroit or Newark and many other places and were
horrified by what they saw. Conventional families had all but disappeared in poor
neighborhoods. The majority of children were born out of wedlock. Single mothers were the rule.
Crime and drugs and disorder became universal.
What caused this nightmare? Liberals didn't even want to acknowledge the question. They were
benefiting from the disaster, in the form of reliable votes. Conservatives, though, had a ready
explanation for inner-city dysfunction and it made sense: big government. Decades of
badly-designed social programs had driven fathers from the home and created what conservatives
called a "culture of poverty" that trapped people in generational decline.
There was truth in this. But it wasn't the whole story. How do we know? Because virtually
the same thing has happened decades later to an entirely different population. In many ways,
rural America now looks a lot like Detroit.
This is striking because rural Americans wouldn't seem to have much in common with anyone
from the inner city. These groups have different cultures, different traditions and political
beliefs. Usually they have different skin colors. Rural people are white conservatives,
mostly.
Yet, the pathologies of modern rural America are familiar to anyone who visited downtown
Baltimore in the 1980s: Stunning out of wedlock birthrates. High male unemployment. A
terrifying drug epidemic. Two different worlds. Similar outcomes. How did this happen? You'd
think our ruling class would be interested in knowing the answer. But mostly they're not. They
don't have to be interested. It's easier to import foreign labor to take the place of
native-born Americans who are slipping behind.
But Republicans now represent rural voters. They ought to be interested. Here's a big part
of the answer: male wages declined. Manufacturing, a male-dominated industry, all but
disappeared over the course of a generation. All that remained in many places were the schools
and the hospitals, both traditional employers of women. In many places, women suddenly made
more than men.
Now, before you applaud this as a victory for feminism, consider the effects. Study after
study has shown that when men make less than women, women generally don't want to marry them.
Maybe they should want to marry them, but they don't. Over big populations, this causes a drop
in marriage, a spike in out-of-wedlock births, and all the familiar disasters that inevitably
follow -- more drug and alcohol abuse, higher incarceration rates, fewer families formed in the
next generation.
This isn't speculation. This is not propaganda from the evangelicals. It's social science.
We know it's true. Rich people know it best of all. That's why they get married before they
have kids. That model works. But increasingly, marriage is a luxury only the affluent in
America can afford.
And yet, and here's the bewildering and infuriating part, those very same affluent married
people, the ones making virtually all the decisions in our society, are doing pretty much
nothing to help the people below them get and stay married. Rich people are happy to fight
malaria in Congo. But working to raise men's wages in Dayton or Detroit? That's crazy.
This is negligence on a massive scale. Both parties ignore the crisis in marriage. Our
mindless cultural leaders act like it's still 1961, and the biggest problem American families
face is that sexism is preventing millions of housewives from becoming investment bankers or
Facebook executives.
For our ruling class, more investment banking is always the answer. They teach us it's more
virtuous to devote your life to some soulless corporation than it is to raise your own
kids.
Sheryl Sandberg of Facebook wrote an entire book about this. Sandberg explained that our
first duty is to shareholders, above our own children. No surprise there. Sandberg herself is
one of America's biggest shareholders. Propaganda like this has made her rich.
We are ruled by mercenaries who feel no long-term obligation to the people they rule.
They're day traders. Substitute teachers. They're just passing through. They have no skin in
this game, and it shows.
What's remarkable is how the rest of us responded to it. We didn't question why Sandberg was
saying this. We didn't laugh in her face at the pure absurdity of it. Our corporate media
celebrated Sandberg as the leader of a liberation movement. Her book became a bestseller: "Lean
In." As if putting a corporation first is empowerment. It is not. It is bondage. Republicans
should say so.
They should also speak out against the ugliest parts of our financial system. Not all
commerce is good. Why is it defensible to loan people money they can't possibly repay? Or
charge them interest that impoverishes them? Payday loan outlets in poor neighborhoods collect
400 percent annual interest.
We're OK with that? We shouldn't be. Libertarians tell us that's how markets work --
consenting adults making voluntary decisions about how to live their lives. OK. But it's also
disgusting. If you care about America, you ought to oppose the exploitation of Americans,
whether it's happening in the inner city or on Wall Street.
And by the way, if you really loved your fellow Americans, as our leaders should, if it
would break your heart to see them high all the time. Which they are. A huge number of our
kids, especially our boys, are smoking weed constantly. You may not realize that, because new
technology has made it odorless. But it's everywhere.
And that's not an accident. Once our leaders understood they could get rich from marijuana,
marijuana became ubiquitous. In many places, tax-hungry politicians have legalized or
decriminalized it. Former Speaker of the House John Boehner now lobbies for the marijuana
industry. His fellow Republicans seem fine with that. "Oh, but it's better for you than
alcohol," they tell us.
Maybe. Who cares? Talk about missing the point. Try having dinner with a 19-year-old who's
been smoking weed. The life is gone. Passive, flat, trapped in their own heads. Do you want
that for your kids? Of course not. Then why are our leaders pushing it on us? You know the
reason. Because they don't care about us.
When you care about people, you do your best to treat them fairly. Our leaders don't even
try. They hand out jobs and contracts and scholarships and slots at prestigious universities
based purely on how we look. There's nothing less fair than that, though our tax code comes
close.
Under our current system, an American who works for a salary pays about twice the tax rate
as someone who's living off inherited money and doesn't work at all. We tax capital at half of
what we tax labor. It's a sweet deal if you work in finance, as many of our rich people do.
In 2010, for example, Mitt Romney made about $22 million dollars in investment income. He
paid an effective federal tax rate of 14 percent. For normal upper-middle-class wage earners,
the federal tax rate is nearly 40 percent. No wonder Mitt Romney supports the status quo. But
for everyone else, it's infuriating.
Our leaders rarely mention any of this. They tell us our multi-tiered tax code is based on
the principles of the free market. Please. It's based on laws that the Congress passed, laws
that companies lobbied for in order to increase their economic advantage. It worked well for
those people. They did increase their economic advantage. But for everyone else, it came at a
big cost. Unfairness is profoundly divisive. When you favor one child over another, your kids
don't hate you. They hate each other.
That happens in countries, too. It's happening in ours, probably by design. Divided
countries are easier to rule. And nothing divides us like the perception that some people are
getting special treatment. In our country, some people definitely are getting special
treatment. Republicans should oppose that with everything they have.
What kind of country do you want to live in? A fair country. A decent country. A cohesive
country. A country whose leaders don't accelerate the forces of change purely for their own
profit and amusement. A country you might recognize when you're old.
A country that listens to young people who don't live in Brooklyn. A country where you can
make a solid living outside of the big cities. A country where Lewiston, Maine seems almost as
important as the west side of Los Angeles. A country where environmentalism means getting
outside and picking up the trash. A clean, orderly, stable country that respects itself. And
above all, a country where normal people with an average education who grew up in no place
special can get married, and have happy kids, and repeat unto the generations. A country that
actually cares about families, the building block of everything.
What will it take a get a country like that? Leaders who want it. For now, those leaders will
have to be Republicans. There's no option at this point.
But first, Republican leaders will have to acknowledge that market capitalism is not a
religion. Market capitalism is a tool, like a staple gun or a toaster. You'd have to be a fool
to worship it. Our system was created by human beings for the benefit of human beings. We do
not exist to serve markets. Just the opposite. Any economic system that weakens and destroys
families is not worth having. A system like that is the enemy of a healthy society.
Internalizing all this will not be easy for Republican leaders. They'll have to unlearn
decades of bumper sticker-talking points and corporate propaganda. They'll likely lose donors
in the process. They'll be criticized. Libertarians are sure to call any deviation from market
fundamentalism a form of socialism.
That's a lie. Socialism is a disaster. It doesn't work. It's what we should be working
desperately to avoid. But socialism is exactly what we're going to get, and very soon unless a
group of responsible people in our political system reforms the American economy in a way that
protects normal people.
If you want to put America first, you've got to put its families first.
Adapted from Tucker Carlson's monologue from "Tucker Carlson Tonight" on January 2,
2019.
"... America's "ruling class," Carlson says, are the "mercenaries" behind the failures of the middle class -- including sinking marriage rates -- and "the ugliest parts of our financial system." He went on: "Any economic system that weakens and destroys families is not worth having. A system like that is the enemy of a healthy society." ..."
"... He concluded with a demand for "a fair country. A decent country. A cohesive country. A country whose leaders don't accelerate the forces of change purely for their own profit and amusement." ..."
"... The monologue and its sweeping anti-elitism drove a wedge between conservative writers. The American Conservative's Rod Dreher wrote of Carlson's monologue, "A man or woman who can talk like that with conviction could become president. Voting for a conservative candidate like that would be the first affirmative vote I've ever cast for president. ..."
"... The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Parents Are Growing Broke ..."
"... Carlson wanted to be clear: He's just asking questions. "I'm not an economic adviser or a politician. I'm not a think tank fellow. I'm just a talk show host," he said, telling me that all he wants is to ask "the basic questions you would ask about any policy." But he wants to ask those questions about what he calls the "religious faith" of market capitalism, one he believes elites -- "mercenaries who feel no long-term obligation to the people they rule" -- have put ahead of "normal people." ..."
"... "What does [free market capitalism] get us?" he said in our call. "What kind of country do you want to live in? If you put these policies into effect, what will you have in 10 years?" ..."
"... Carlson is hardly the first right-leaning figure to make a pitch for populism, even tangentially, in the third year of Donald Trump, whose populist-lite presidential candidacy and presidency Carlson told me he views as "the smoke alarm ... telling you the building is on fire, and unless you figure out how to put the flames out, it will consume it." ..."
"... Trump borrowed some of that approach for his 2016 campaign but in office has governed as a fairly orthodox economic conservative, thus demonstrating the demand for populism on the right without really providing the supply and creating conditions for further ferment. ..."
"... Ocasio-Cortez wants a 70-80% income tax on the rich. I agree! Start with the Koch Bros. -- and also make it WEALTH tax. ..."
"... "I'm just saying as a matter of fact," he told me, "a country where a shrinking percentage of the population is taking home an ever-expanding proportion of the money is not a recipe for a stable society. It's not." ..."
"... Carlson told me he wanted to be clear: He is not a populist. But he believes some version of populism is necessary to prevent a full-scale political revolt or the onset of socialism. Using Theodore Roosevelt as an example of a president who recognized that labor needs economic power, he told me, "Unless you want something really extreme to happen, you need to take this seriously and figure out how to protect average people from these remarkably powerful forces that have been unleashed." ..."
"... But Carlson's brand of populism, and the populist sentiments sweeping the American right, aren't just focused on the current state of income inequality in America. Carlson tackled a bigger idea: that market capitalism and the "elites" whom he argues are its major drivers aren't working. The free market isn't working for families, or individuals, or kids. In his monologue, Carlson railed against libertarian economics and even payday loans, saying, "If you care about America, you ought to oppose the exploitation of Americans, whether it's happening in the inner city or on Wall Street" -- sounding very much like Sanders or Warren on the left. ..."
"... Capitalism/liberalism destroys the extended family by requiring people to move apart for work and destroying any sense of unchosen obligations one might have towards one's kin. ..."
"... Hillbilly Elegy ..."
"... Carlson told me that beyond changing our tax code, he has no major policies in mind. "I'm not even making the case for an economic system in particular," he told me. "All I'm saying is don't act like the way things are is somehow ordained by God or a function or raw nature." ..."
"All I'm saying is don't act like the way things are is somehow ordained by God."
Last Wednesday, the conservative talk show host Tucker Carlson started a fire on the right after airing a prolonged
monologue on his show that was, in essence, an indictment of American capitalism.
America's "ruling class," Carlson says, are the "mercenaries" behind the failures of the middle class -- including sinking
marriage rates -- and "the ugliest parts of our financial system." He went on: "Any economic system that weakens and destroys families
is not worth having. A system like that is the enemy of a healthy society."
He concluded with a demand for "a fair country. A decent country. A cohesive country. A country whose leaders don't accelerate
the forces of change purely for their own profit and amusement."
The monologue was stunning in itself, an incredible moment in which a Fox News host stated that for generations, "Republicans
have considered it their duty to make the world safe for banking, while simultaneously prosecuting ever more foreign wars." More
broadly, though, Carlson's position and the ensuing controversy reveals an ongoing and nearly unsolvable tension in conservative
politics about the meaning of populism, a political ideology that Trump campaigned on but Carlson argues he may not truly understand.
Moreover, in Carlson's words: "At some point, Donald Trump will be gone. The rest of us will be gone too. The country will remain.
What kind of country will be it be then?"
The monologue and its sweeping anti-elitism drove a wedge between conservative writers. The American Conservative's Rod Dreher
wrote of Carlson's monologue,
"A man or woman who can talk like that with conviction could become president. Voting for a conservative candidate like that would
be the first affirmative vote I've ever cast for president." Other conservative commentators scoffed. Ben Shapiro wrote in
National Review that Carlson's monologue sounded far more like Sens. Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren than, say, Ronald Reagan.
I spoke with Carlson by phone this week to discuss his monologue and its economic -- and cultural -- meaning. He agreed that his
monologue was reminiscent of Warren, referencing her 2003
bookThe Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Parents Are Growing Broke . "There were parts of the book that I disagree
with, of course," he told me. "But there are parts of it that are really important and true. And nobody wanted to have that conversation."
Carlson wanted to be clear: He's just asking questions. "I'm not an economic adviser or a politician. I'm not a think tank
fellow. I'm just a talk show host," he said, telling me that all he wants is to ask "the basic questions you would ask about any
policy." But he wants to ask those questions about what he calls the "religious faith" of market capitalism, one he believes elites
-- "mercenaries who feel no long-term obligation to the people they rule" -- have put ahead of "normal people."
But whether or not he likes it, Carlson is an important voice in conservative politics. His show is among the
most-watched television programs in America. And his raising questions about market capitalism and the free market matters.
"What does [free market capitalism] get us?" he said in our call. "What kind of country do you want to live in? If you put
these policies into effect, what will you have in 10 years?"
Populism on the right is gaining, again
Carlson is hardly the first right-leaning figure to make a pitch for populism, even tangentially, in the third year of Donald
Trump, whose populist-lite
presidential candidacy and presidency Carlson told me he views as "the smoke alarm ... telling you the building is on fire, and unless
you figure out how to put the flames out, it will consume it."
Populism is a rhetorical approach that separates "the people" from elites. In the
words of Cas
Mudde, a professor at the University of Georgia, it divides the country into "two homogenous and antagonistic groups: the pure people
on the one end and the corrupt elite on the other." Populist rhetoric has a long history in American politics, serving as the focal
point of numerous presidential campaigns and powering William Jennings Bryan to the Democratic nomination for president in 1896.
Trump borrowed some of that approach for his 2016 campaign but in office has governed as a fairly orthodox economic conservative,
thus demonstrating the demand for populism on the right without really providing the supply and creating conditions for further ferment.
When right-leaning pundit Ann Coulter
spoke with Breitbart Radio about Trump's Tuesday evening Oval Office address to the nation regarding border wall funding, she
said she wanted to hear him say something like, "You know, you say a lot of wild things on the campaign trail. I'm speaking to big
rallies. But I want to talk to America about a serious problem that is affecting the least among us, the working-class blue-collar
workers":
Coulter urged Trump to bring up overdose deaths from heroin in order to speak to the "working class" and to blame the fact
that working-class wages have stalled, if not fallen, in the last 20 years on immigration. She encouraged Trump to declare, "This
is a national emergency for the people who don't have lobbyists in Washington."
Ocasio-Cortez wants a 70-80% income tax on the rich. I agree! Start with the Koch Bros. -- and also make it WEALTH tax.
These sentiments have even pitted popular Fox News hosts against each other.
Sean Hannity warned his audience that New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's economic policies would mean that "the rich people
won't be buying boats that they like recreationally, they're not going to be taking expensive vacations anymore." But Carlson agreed
when I said his monologue was somewhat reminiscent of Ocasio-Cortez's
past comments on the economy , and how even a strong economy was still leaving working-class Americans behind.
"I'm just saying as a matter of fact," he told me, "a country where a shrinking percentage of the population is taking home
an ever-expanding proportion of the money is not a recipe for a stable society. It's not."
Carlson told me he wanted to be clear: He is not a populist. But he believes some version of populism is necessary to prevent
a full-scale political revolt or the onset of socialism. Using Theodore Roosevelt as an example of a president who recognized that
labor needs economic power, he told me, "Unless you want something really extreme to happen, you need to take this seriously and
figure out how to protect average people from these remarkably powerful forces that have been unleashed."
"I think populism is potentially really disruptive. What I'm saying is that populism is a symptom of something being wrong," he
told me. "Again, populism is a smoke alarm; do not ignore it."
But Carlson's brand of populism, and the populist sentiments sweeping the American right, aren't just focused on the current
state of income inequality in America. Carlson tackled a bigger idea: that market capitalism and the "elites" whom he argues are
its major drivers aren't working. The free market isn't working for families, or individuals, or kids. In his monologue, Carlson
railed against libertarian economics and even payday loans, saying, "If you care about America, you ought to oppose the exploitation
of Americans, whether it's happening in the inner city or on Wall Street" -- sounding very much like Sanders or Warren on the left.
Carlson's argument that "market capitalism is not a religion" is of course old hat on the left, but it's also been bubbling on
the right for years now. When National Review writer Kevin Williamson
wrote
a 2016 op-ed about how rural whites "failed themselves," he faced a massive backlash in the Trumpier quarters of the right. And
these sentiments are becoming increasingly potent at a time when Americans can see both a booming stock market and perhaps their
own family members struggling to get by.
Capitalism/liberalism destroys the extended family by requiring people to move apart for work and destroying any sense
of unchosen obligations one might have towards one's kin.
At the Federalist, writer Kirk Jing
wrote of Carlson's
monologue, and a
response
to it by National Review columnist David French:
Our society is less French's America, the idea, and more Frantz Fanon's "Wretched of the Earth" (involving a very different
French). The lowest are stripped of even social dignity and deemed
unworthy of life . In Real America, wages are stagnant, life expectancy is crashing, people are fleeing the workforce, families
are crumbling, and trust in the institutions on top are at all-time lows. To French, holding any leaders of those institutions
responsible for their errors is "victimhood populism" ... The Right must do better if it seeks to govern a real America that exists
outside of its fantasies.
J.D. Vance, author of
Hillbilly Elegy
, wrote that the [neoliberal] economy's victories -- and praise for those wins from conservatives -- were largely meaningless
to white working-class Americans living in Ohio and Kentucky: "Yes, they live in a country with a higher GDP than a generation ago,
and they're undoubtedly able to buy cheaper consumer goods, but to paraphrase Reagan: Are they better off than they were 20 years
ago? Many would say, unequivocally, 'no.'"
Carlson's populism holds, in his view, bipartisan possibilities. In a follow-up email, I asked him why his monologue was aimed
at Republicans when many Democrats had long espoused the same criticisms of free market economics. "Fair question," he responded.
"I hope it's not just Republicans. But any response to the country's systemic problems will have to give priority to the concerns
of American citizens over the concerns of everyone else, just as you'd protect your own kids before the neighbor's kids."
Who is "they"?
And that's the point where Carlson and a host of others on the right who have begun to challenge the conservative movement's orthodoxy
on free markets -- people ranging from occasionally mendacious bomb-throwers like Coulter to writers like
Michael Brendan Dougherty -- separate
themselves from many of those making those exact same arguments on the left.
When Carlson talks about the "normal people" he wants to save from nefarious elites, he is talking, usually, about a specific
group of "normal people" -- white working-class Americans who are the "real" victims of capitalism, or marijuana legalization, or
immigration policies.
In this telling, white working-class Americans who once relied on a manufacturing economy that doesn't look the way it did in
1955 are the unwilling pawns of elites. It's not their fault that, in Carlson's view, marriage is inaccessible to them, or that marijuana
legalization means more teens are smoking weed (
this probably isn't true ). Someone,
or something, did this to them. In Carlson's view, it's the responsibility of politicians: Our economic situation, and the plight
of the white working class, is "the product of a series of conscious decisions that the Congress made."
The criticism of Carlson's monologue has largely focused on how he deviates from the free market capitalism that conservatives
believe is the solution to poverty, not the creator of poverty. To orthodox conservatives, poverty is the result of poor decision
making or a
lack of virtue that can't be solved by government programs or an anti-elite political platform -- and they say Carlson's argument
that elites are in some way responsible for dwindling marriage rates
doesn't make sense .
But in French's response to Carlson, he goes deeper, writing that to embrace Carlson's brand of populism is to support "victimhood
populism," one that makes white working-class Americans into the victims of an undefined "they:
Carlson is advancing a form of victim-politics populism that takes a series of tectonic cultural changes -- civil rights, women's
rights, a technological revolution as significant as the industrial revolution, the mass-scale loss of religious faith, the sexual
revolution, etc. -- and turns the negative or challenging aspects of those changes into an angry tale of what they are
doing to you .
And that was my biggest question about Carlson's monologue, and the flurry of responses to it, and support for it: When other
groups (say, black Americans) have pointed to systemic inequities within the economic system that have resulted in poverty and family
dysfunction, the response from many on the right has been, shall we say,
less than
enthusiastic .
Really, it comes down to when black people have problems, it's personal responsibility, but when white people have the same
problems, the system is messed up. Funny how that works!!
Yet white working-class poverty receives, from Carlson and others, far more sympathy. And conservatives are far more likely to
identify with a criticism of "elites" when they believe those elites are responsible for the
expansion of trans
rights or creeping secularism
than the wealthy and powerful people who are investing in
private prisons or an expansion
of the
militarization of police . Carlson's network, Fox News, and Carlson himself have frequently blasted leftist critics of market
capitalism and efforts to
fight
inequality .
I asked Carlson about this, as his show is frequently centered on the turmoils caused by "
demographic change
." He said that for decades, "conservatives just wrote [black economic struggles] off as a culture of poverty," a line he
includes in his monologue .
He added that regarding black poverty, "it's pretty easy when you've got 12 percent of the population going through something
to feel like, 'Well, there must be ... there's something wrong with that culture.' Which is actually a tricky thing to say because
it's in part true, but what you're missing, what I missed, what I think a lot of people missed, was that the economic system you're
living under affects your culture."
Carlson said that growing up in Washington, DC, and spending time in rural Maine, he didn't realize until recently that the same
poverty and decay he observed in the Washington of the 1980s was also taking place in rural (and majority-white) Maine. "I was thinking,
'Wait a second ... maybe when the jobs go away the culture changes,'" he told me, "And the reason I didn't think of it before was
because I was so blinded by this libertarian economic propaganda that I couldn't get past my own assumptions about economics." (For
the record, libertarians have
critiqued Carlson's
monologue as well.)
Carlson told me that beyond changing our tax code, he has no major policies in mind. "I'm not even making the case for an
economic system in particular," he told me. "All I'm saying is don't act like the way things are is somehow ordained by God or a
function or raw nature."
And clearly, our market economy isn't driven by God or nature, as the stock market soars and unemployment dips and yet even those
on the right are noticing lengthy periods of wage stagnation and dying little towns across the country. But what to do about those
dying little towns, and which dying towns we care about and which we don't, and, most importantly, whose fault it is that those towns
are dying in the first place -- those are all questions Carlson leaves to the viewer to answer.
This is the typical level of repression that exist in Police State: any politician who deviates from the "Inner Party" (aka Deep
State) course is branded as Russian spy and "counterintelligence" dogs are send to sniff any dirty clothing that might exist to and
this politician career.
Notable quotes:
"... counterintelligence investigators had to consider whether the president's own actions constituted a possible threat to national security. Agents also sought to determine whether Mr. Trump was knowingly working for Russia or had unwittingly fallen under Moscow's influence. ..."
"... "anybody who fires corrupt Comey must be a Russian spy." ..."
"... Wow, just learned in the Failing New York Times that the corrupt former leaders of the FBI, almost all fired or forced to leave the agency for some very bad reasons, opened up an investigation on me, for no reason & with no proof, after I fired Lyin' James Comey, a total sleaze! ..."
President Trump on Saturday lashed out after a Friday evening report in the
New York Times that US
law enforcement officials " became so concerned by the president's behavior " in the days after Trump fired James Comey as FBI director,
that "t hey began investigating whether he had been working on behalf of Russia against American interests. "
According to the NYT, agents and senior F.B.I. officials " had grown suspicious of Mr. Trump's ties to Russia during the 2016
campaign " but held off on opening an investigation into him, the people said, in part because they were uncertain how to proceed
with an inquiry of such sensitivity and magnitude.
What happened next? Well, a collusion narrative was born and carefully crafted as the paper explains:
The president's activities before and after Mr. Comey's firing in May 2017, particularly
two
instances in which Mr. Trump tied the Comey dismissal to the Russia investigation, helped prompt the counterintelligence aspect
of the inquiry, the people said.
The odd inquiry carried "explosive implications" as counterintelligence investigators had to consider whether the president's
own actions constituted a possible threat to national security. Agents also sought to determine whether Mr. Trump was knowingly working
for Russia or had unwittingly fallen under Moscow's influence.
The criminal and counterintelligence elements were coupled together into one investigation, former law enforcement officials
said in interviews in recent weeks, because if Mr. Trump had ousted the head of the F.B.I. to impede or even end the Russia investigation,
that was both a possible crime and a national security concern. The F.B.I.'s counterintelligence division handles national security
matters.
Even so, "...some former law enforcement officials outside the investigation have questioned whether agents overstepped in opening
it ."
Then, in paragraph nine we read " No evidence has emerged publicly that Mr. Trump was secretly in contact with or took direction
from Russian government officials. " Or, as The Washington Examiner 's Byron York sums it up:
Some were even more laconic, summarizing the "scoop" as "anybody who fires corrupt Comey must be a Russian spy."
Put another way:
Responding to the "bombshell" NYT report - which curiously resurrects the "Russian collusion" narrative right as Trump is set
to test his Presidential authority over the border wall, the president lashed out over Twitter .
Wow, just learned in the Failing New York Times that the corrupt former leaders of the FBI, almost all fired or forced
to leave the agency for some very bad reasons, opened up an investigation on me, for no reason & with no proof, after I fired
Lyin' James Comey, a total sleaze!"
Funny thing about James Comey. Everybody wanted him fired, Republican and Democrat alike. After the rigged & botched Crooked
Hillary investigation, where she was interviewed on July 4th Weekend, not recorded or sworn in, and where she said she didn't
know anything (a lie), the FBI was in complete turmoil (see N.Y. Post) because of Comey's poor leadership and the way he handled
the Clinton mess (not to mention his usurpation of powers from the Justice Department).
My firing of James Comey was a great day for America. He was a Crooked Cop who is being totally protected by his best friend,
Bob Mueller, & the 13 Angry Democrats - leaking machines who have NO interest in going after the Real Collusion (and much more)
by Crooked Hillary Clinton, her Campaign, and the Democratic National Committee. Just Watch!
I have been FAR tougher on Russia than Obama, Bush or Clinton. Maybe tougher than any other President. At the same time, &
as I have often said, getting along with Russia is a good thing, not a bad thing. I fully expect that someday we will have good
relations with Russia again!
Lyin' James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter S and his lover, agent Lisa Page, & more, all disgraced and/or fired and caught in
the act. These are just some of the losers that tried to do a number on your President. Part of the Witch Hunt. Remember the "insurance
policy?" This is it! -Donald Trump
Update: Comey has responded over Twitter with a pithy FDR quote:
Although we seem to recall that Democrats were Comey's enemy when he reopened Hillary Clinton's email investigation during the
election.
While there is nothing new here confirming Trump was colluding with Russia, as Byron York asks following the article, was the
New York Times story about Trump, or about FBI malfeasance?
Elizabeth Warren and Her Party of Ideas She's what a serious policy intellectual looks like in 2019. By Paul Krugman
Almost 40 years have passed since Daniel Patrick Moynihan -- a serious intellectual turned influential politician -- made
waves by declaring, "Of a sudden, Republicans have become a party of ideas." He didn't say that they were good ideas; but the
G.O.P. seemed to him to be open to new thinking in a way Democrats weren't.
But that was a long time ago. Today's G.O.P. is a party of closed minds, hostile to expertise, aggressively uninterested in
evidence, whose idea of a policy argument involves loudly repeating the same old debunked doctrines. Paul Ryan's "innovative"
proposals of 2011 (cut taxes and privatize Medicare) were almost indistinguishable from those of Newt Gingrich in 1995.
Meanwhile, Democrats have experienced an intellectual renaissance. They have emerged from their 1990s cringe; they're no longer
afraid to challenge conservative pieties; and there's a lot of serious, well-informed intraparty debate about issues from health
care to climate change.
You don't have to agree with any of the various Medicare for All plans, or proposals for a Green New Deal, to recognize that
these are important ideas receiving serious discussion.
The question is whether our media environment can handle a real party of ideas. Can news organizations tell the difference
between genuine policy wonks and poseurs like Ryan? Are they even willing to discuss policy rather than snark about candidates'
supposed personality flaws?
Which brings me to the case of Elizabeth Warren, who is probably today's closest equivalent to Moynihan in his prime.
Like Moynihan, she's a serious intellectual turned influential politician. Her scholarly work on bankruptcy and its relationship
to rising inequality made her a major player in policy debate long before she entered politics herself. Like many others, I found
one of her key insights -- that rising bankruptcy rates weren't caused by profligate consumerism, that they largely reflected
the desperate attempts of middle-class families to buy homes in good school districts -- revelatory.
She has also proved herself able to translate scholarly insights into practical policy. Full disclosure: I was skeptical about
her brainchild, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. I didn't think it was a bad idea, but I had doubts about how much difference
a federal agency tasked with policing financial fraud would make. But I was wrong: Deceptive financial practices aimed at poorly
informed consumers do a lot of harm, and until President Trump sabotaged it, the bureau was by all accounts having a hugely salutary
effect on families' finances.
And Warren's continuing to throw out unorthodox policy ideas, like her proposal that the federal government be allowed to get
into the business of producing some generic drugs. This is the sort of thing that brings howls of derision from the right, but
that actual policy experts consider a valuable contribution to the discussion.
Is there anyone like Warren on the other side of the aisle? No. Not only aren't there any G.O.P. politicians with comparable
intellectual heft, there aren't even halfway competent intellectuals with any influence in the party. The G.O.P. doesn't want
people who think hard and look at evidence; it wants people like, say, the "economist" Stephen Moore, who slavishly reaffirm the
party's dogma, even if they can't get basic facts straight.
Does all of this mean that Warren should be president? Certainly not -- a lot of things determine whether someone will succeed
in that job, and intellectual gravitas is neither necessary nor sufficient. But Warren's achievements as a scholar/policymaker
are central to her political identity, and clearly should be front and center in any reporting about her presidential bid.
But, of course, they aren't. What I'm seeing are stories about whether she handled questions about her Native American heritage
well, or whether she's "likable."
This kind of journalism is destructively lazy, and also has a terrible track record. I'm old enough to remember the near-universal
portrayal of George W. Bush as a bluff, honest guy, despite the obvious lies underlying his policy proposals; then he took us
to war on false pretenses.
Moreover, trivia-based reporting is, in practice, deeply biased -- not in a conventional partisan sense, but in its implicit
assumption that a politician can't be serious unless he (and I mean he) is a conservative, or at most centrist, white male. That
kind of bias, if it persists, will be a big problem for a Democratic Party that has never been more serious about policy, but
has also never been more progressive and more diverse.
This bias needs to be called out -- and I'm not just talking about Warren. Consider the contrast between the unearned adulation
Ryan received and how long it took conventional wisdom to recognize that Nancy Pelosi was the most effective House speaker of
modern times.
Again, I'm not arguing that Warren should necessarily become president. But she is what a serious policy intellectual looks
and sounds like in 2019. And if our media can't recognize that, we're in big trouble.
Warren's point is: "the generals, 'adults' to the neocons and media, have to express in clear terms what is 'winning', how we
the unwashed know it is winning and what cost and time to 'win'.
No more deferring to neocon pundits and appeal to generals' authority for insanities like Syria and Libya!
Sort of like what the TDS'ers are saying about the border wall only for the immense pentagon waste machine.
Skeptical about the war mongers, Warren may not be an adult any more........
... Afghanistan has long been called the "graveyard of empires" -- for so long that it is unclear who coined that disputable
term.
In truth, no great empires perished solely because of Afghanistan. Perhaps a better way to put it is that Afghanistan is the
battleground of empires. Even without easily accessible resources, the country has still been blessed -- or cursed, more likely
-- with a geopolitical position that has repeatedly put it in someone or other's way. ...
Were they really "going broke"? They could print unlimited amounts of money.
Or was it that no one was bothering to work?
Or was it that the oligarchs realized they could get richer if they could fire people rather than under a system where they
had to employ everyone?
I had a co-worker that grew up in the Soviet Union. From his point of view, one day you had a guaranteed job and the pay was
going to be low no matter how hard you worked, so no one actually worked much. The next day you could be fired if you didn't work.
So people actually started to work. Output increased, their pay didn't go up, but the oligarchs were able to get a lot richer.
"Were they really "going broke"? They could print unlimited amounts of money."
Sounds like you're being argumentative.
The U.S.S.R. couldn't afford the invasion of Afghanistan. It cost a lot so it reduced their ability to spend on other priorities,
like aid to allied states. The Warsaw PACT countries began to fall away and then it snowballed.
If by "argument" we mean using logical statements to support a conclusion, then YES, I'm being argumentative. Not if you mean,
disagreeing just to be a jerk.
On an economics site, even if no where else, we have to view the economy from two sides... supply and demand.
Work produces supply and money supplies demand.
Was the USSR's problem on the supply side or the money side? Saying "went bankrupt" implies the problem was on the money side.
My view of state socialism, or any system where you can't be fired, is that it creates supply side problems. If you can't be
fired, there is no motivation to work hard.
I think it a HIGHLY important distinction, and one that we must use to keep progressive liberalism on the right track. (or
is it tack?)
Margaret Thatcher's quote "The problem with socialism is that you run out of other peoples' money to spend." is ignorant on
its face. As soon as government spends the money, it is someone else's again, ready to be taxed away again.
This "The USSR went bankrupt" reinforces the false view of socialism's flaws.
This feeds into the "We can't afford it" bulldung when we try to talk about things like Medicare for All.
Did the USSR collapse because they ran out of other peoples' money (went bankrupt)? OR, was production really low because people
couldn't be fired, so didn't bother to work hard? Did the oligarchs decided to end socialism and move to capitalism, so that they
could fire people, to motivate them to work harder, to increase production?
It is HUGELY important distinction for creating a successful progressive economy.
Pro-union? I'm all for it if it is about getting a bigger share of revenue for the workers via collective bargaining. BUT,
does that include making it hard to impossible to fire terrible workers? If so, does that hurt total production? If so, then it
has the same fatal flaw of state socialism.
Guaranteed Job: An idea that if you don't have a private sector job, you show up at a government employment office, do whatever
work is assigned, and get a check. However, since you can't be fired from the guaranteed job, there is absolutely no motivation
to actually do the assigned work. Then, there becomes no motivation to get a private sector job where you actually do have to
work.
Universal Basic Income: Until we reach the level of automation seen in Wall-E, stuff is still going to need to be done, by
someone. UBI makes people not want to do it.
+++++
On the flip side...
For Medicare for All, it is work that is already being done. All we're talking about is if we hand the money to the government
to manage the risk-pooling, or we hand the money over to for-profit insurance companies.
The "how can we afford it?" argument is based on the idea that the USSR went bankrupt from spending too much of "other peoples'
money".
However, if properly viewed as a labor issue, then "How can we afford it?" becomes obvious. We just use some of the money people
are already spending on healthcare.
Any apparent agreement between Liz Warren and Trump can be chalked up to coincidence. Liz Warren's opposition to the US always-war
is a feature, not a bug.
The MIC is an unregulated pox on American history.
War would not end if the USA slashed defense spending. All that would change is that other countries would colonize the USA
instead of the USA colonizing other countries.
You can chose to be the predator, or you can chose to be the prey, but you can't chose to not participate.
"... As it happens, neocons are in luck. Most Americans know little of the ideas that animated their country's founding. They're more likely to hold ideas in opposition to the classical-liberal philosophy of the Founders, and, hence, wish to see the aggrandizement of the coercive, colossal, Warfare State. That's just the way things are. ..."
"... If past is prologue, Ron Paul is probably right when he says the CIA is likely meddling in Iranian politics. ..."
"... Then US ambassador to the UN, Samantha Power, a woman as dumb and dangerous as Nikki Haley, was cool with the carnage. (One almost misses Henry Kissinger's realpolitik . At least the man was highly educated and deeply knowledgeable about history and world affairs. Second only to Jared Kushner, of course.) ..."
"... No one would deny the largely neoconservative nature of Trump's National Security Strategy . Tucked in there somewhere is the Trumpian theme of "sovereignty," but in watered-down words. The promised Wall has given way to "multilayered technology"; to the "deployment of additional personnel," and to the tried-and-tested (not!) "vetting of prospective immigrants, refugees, and other foreign visitors." ..."
"... These are mouthfuls Barack Obama and Genghis Bush would hardly oppose. ..."
"... "It's often said that the Trump administration is 'isolationist,'" wrote historian Andrew J. Bacevich, in the UK Spectator. Untrue. "In fact, we are now witnessing a dramatic escalation in the militarization of US foreign policy in the Middle East, Africa and Afghanistan. This has not been announced, but it is happening, and much of it without any debate in Congress or the media." ..."
"... To some, the normalizing of neoconservatism by a president who ran against it is a stroke of genius; of a piece with Bill Clinton's triangulation tactics. To others, it's a cynical sleight of hand. ..."
"... So Trump did morph into Hillary. Actually, it was something I was afraid of once I got the good news of Hillary losing, but expected, considering that I view presidents as empty suits, and the National Security State calling the shots. ..."
"... The Trump holdouts that maintain his turncoat buffoonery is actually 5d chess are the 2018 equivalent of the 2009 hopey changey Obots and can't accept their big daddy is a liar and a spineless turncoat. The system is broken and cannot be fixed from within. ..."
"... The signs were already there before the election, too many people were hoping that this time it will be different (it never is) and ignored them. He has jewish children and did say how he was anti Iran, he was always a neo cohen servative. ..."
"... I'm a little more sanguine about a Zionist President who approaches problems from a business and deal-making position than from one who comes a neocon political position (e.g., Hillary, every other GOP candidate except Rand Paul). The former are pragmatic and will avoid conflict, especially stupid conflict, at all costs. While the latter believe they are virtuous in going to war and/or attacking countries. Did you hear Hillary threaten to shoot down Russian planes in Syria during the campaign (WTF??!). ..."
It's fact: Neoconservatives are pleased with President Trump's foreign policy.
A couple of months back, Bloomberg's Eli Lake let it know he was in neoconservative
nirvana:
" for Venezuela, [Donald Trump] came very close to calling for regime change. 'The United
States has taken important steps to hold the regime accountable,' Trump said. 'We are prepared
to take further action if the government of Venezuela persists on its path to impose
authoritarian rule on the Venezuelan people.'"
"For a moment,"
swooned Lake , "I closed my eyes and thought I was listening to a Weekly Standard
editorial meeting."
Onward to Venezuela! Mr. Lake, a neoconservative, was loving every moment. In error, he and his kind confuse an
expansionist foreign policy with "American exceptionalism." It's not.
As it happens, neocons are in luck. Most Americans know little of the ideas that animated
their country's founding. They're more likely to hold ideas in opposition to the
classical-liberal philosophy of the Founders, and, hence, wish to see the aggrandizement of the
coercive, colossal, Warfare State. That's just the way things are.
So, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have enlisted the West in "a proxy Sunni-Shia
religious war," Riyadh's ultimate aim. Donald Trump has been perfectly willing to partake. After a campaign of "America First," the president sided with Sunni Islam while demonizing
Iran. Iranians have killed zero Americans in terrorist attacks in the US between
1975-2015; Saudi Arabians
murdered 2369 !
Iranians recently reelected a reformer. Pray tell who elected the Gulf petrostate
sheiks?
Moderates danced in the streets of Tehran when President Hassan Rouhani was reelected.
Curiously, they're currently rioting.
If past is prologue, Ron Paul is probably right when he says the CIA is likely meddling in
Iranian politics. For the Left and the pseudo-Right, this is a look-away issue. As the
left-liberal establishment lectures daily, to question the Central Intelligence Agency -- its
spooks are also agitating against all vestiges of President Trump's original "America First"
plank -- is to "undermine American democracy."
Besides, "good" Americans know that only the Russians "meddle."
In Saudi Arabia, a new, more-dangerous regime is consolidating regional power. Almost
overnight has the kingdom shifted from rule by family dynasty (like that of the Clintons and
the Bushes), to a more authoritarian style of one-man
rule .
When it comes to the Saudi-Israeli-American-Axis-of-Angels, the Kushner-Trump Administration
-- is that another bloodline in-the-making? -- has not broken with America's ruling dynastic
families (the Clintons and the Bushes, aforementioned).
It's comforting to know Saudi Arabia plays a crucial role in the UN's human rights affairs.
In January of last year, the Kingdom executed 47 people in one day, including a rather benign
Shiite cleric. Fear not, they went quickly,
beheaded with a sword .
Then US ambassador to the UN, Samantha Power, a woman as dumb and dangerous as Nikki Haley,
was cool with the carnage. (One almost misses Henry Kissinger's realpolitik . At
least the man was highly educated and deeply knowledgeable about history and world
affairs. Second only to Jared Kushner, of course.)
Our bosom buddies, the Saudi's, are currently
barricading Yemeni ports. No aid gets through her hermetically sealed ports. Yemenis are
dying. Some Twitter followers twittered with joy at the sight of starving Yemeni babies, like
this
one . Oh well, Yemeni babies can be sinister.
No one would deny the largely neoconservative nature of
Trump's National Security Strategy . Tucked in there somewhere is the Trumpian theme of
"sovereignty," but in watered-down words. The promised Wall has given way to "multilayered
technology"; to the "deployment of additional personnel," and to the tried-and-tested (not!)
"vetting of prospective immigrants, refugees, and other foreign visitors."
These are mouthfuls Barack Obama and Genghis Bush would hardly oppose.
"It's often said that the Trump administration is 'isolationist,'" wrote
historian Andrew J. Bacevich, in the UK Spectator. Untrue. "In fact, we are now witnessing a
dramatic escalation in the militarization of US foreign policy in the Middle East, Africa and
Afghanistan. This has not been announced, but it is happening, and much of it without any
debate in Congress or the media."
Indeed, while outlining his "new" Afghanistan plan, POTUS had conceded that "the American
people are weary of war without victory." (Make that war, full-stop.) Depressingly, the
president went on to promise an increase in American presence in Afghanistan. By sending 4000
additional soldiers there, President Trump alleged he was fighting terrorism, yet not
undertaking nation building.
This is tantamount to talking out of both sides of one's mouth.
Teasing apart these two elements is near-impossible. Send "4,000 additional soldiers to add
to the 8,400 now deployed in Afghanistan," and you've done what Obama and Bush before you did
in that blighted and benighted region: muddle along; kill some civilians mixed in with some bad
guys; break bread with tribal leaders (who hate your guts); mediate and bribe.
Above all, spend billions not your own to perfect the credo of a global fighting
force that doesn't know Shiite from Shinola .
The upshot? It's quite acceptable, on the Left and the pseudo-Right, to casually quip about
troops in Niger and
Norway . "We have soldiers in Niger and Norway? Of course we do. We need them."
With neoconservatism normalized, there is no debate, disagreement or daylight between our
dangerously united political factions.
This is the gift President Trump has given mainstream neoconservatives -- who now
comfortably include neoliberals and all Conservatism Inc., with the exceptions of Pat Buchanan,
Ann Coulter and Tucker Carlson.
How exactly did the president normalize neoconservatism: In 2016, liberals accused candidate
Trump of isolationism. Neoconservatives -- aka Conservatism Inc. -- did the same.
Having consistently complained of his isolationism , the Left and the phony Right
cannot but sanction President Trump's interventionism . The other option is to admit
that we of the callused
Old Right, who rejoiced at the prospects and promise of non-interventionism, were always
right.
Not going to happen.
To some, the normalizing of neoconservatism by a president who ran against it is a stroke of
genius; of a piece with Bill Clinton's triangulation tactics. To others, it's a cynical sleight
of hand.
You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but
you cannot fool all the people all the time.
But you can fool the whole country all the time in American bi-partisan system. Clinton,
Bush, Obama, Trump each were brought to power by fooling their electorate.
So Trump did morph into Hillary.
Actually, it was something I was afraid of once I got the good news of Hillary losing, but
expected, considering that I view presidents as empty suits, and the National Security State
calling the shots.
I'm waiting for another one of those "Trump's Truth in Action" moments when describes the
real political atmosphere in Washington.
Trump was asked about something he said in a previous interview: "When you give, they do
whatever the hell you want them to do." "You'd better believe it," Trump said. "If I ask them, if I need them, you know, most of
the people on this stage I've given to, just so you understand, a lot of money."
I think its time to dump the label "neoconservative". The appropriate term is
"interventionists without a cause" (IWAC or IWC) or some other descriptor.
The real problem that Pres Trump has and I remain a Pres Trump supporter is two fold:
1. He seems to have forgotten he won the election.
2. He seems to have forgotten what he was elected to do.
And nearly everyone of these issues on foreign policy the answer rests in respecting
sovereignty – that of others and our own.
I didn't need to read,"Adios, America" to comprehend the deep state damage our careless
immigration policy has on the country. I don't need to reread, "Adios, America" to grasp that
our policies of intervening in the affairs of other states undermines our own ability to make
the same case at home.
If I weren't already trying to plow my way through several other books, documentaries and
relapsing to old school programming such as The Twilight Zone, Star Trek, and now the Dick
Van Dyke show, i would reread,
"Adios , America."
In Col. Bacevich's book,
Washington Rules, he posits a distressing scenario that the foreign policy web is so
tangled and entrenched, the executive branch is simply out his league. The expectation was
that Pres trump had the will to turn the matter. I hold out hope, but maybe not. There's
time.
@J.RossThe Trump holdouts that maintain his turncoat buffoonery is actually 5d chess are the 2018
equivalent of the 2009 hopey changey Obots and can't accept their big daddy is a liar and a
spineless turncoat. The system is broken and cannot be fixed from within.
The signs were already there before the election, too many people were hoping that this time
it will be different (it never is) and ignored them. He has jewish children and did say how
he was anti Iran, he was always a neo cohen servative.
I have a question for all the Trump supporters still in denial, what will it take to break
your delusions? He is not going to build a wall, mass immigration is up, the left wing are
mass censoring and essentially running everything now, his foreign policy is now endorsed by
the all the never Trumpers – so what is your limit, is there anything he must do to
lose your support?
Jews and the Jewish Media normalized Jewish NeoCons by guaranteeing that they always
have a voice and airtime in American culture and media. Never called out by the
WashingtonPost and NY Times for their previous blunders, they continue to shape American
foreign policy. And, of course, the end game here is Israel and the Israeli agenda at all
costs, you Jews are one issue folk. And You definitely do your part, with the subtle
subterfuge at work in the articles that you write.
No one should be surprised by Trump promoting Israeli interests über alles. For
decades he was so involved in Israel events in New York I debated whether he was actually
Jewish or not. Bannon said the embassy move to Jerusalem was at the behest of Adelson,
Trump's old casino buddy. In the campaign Trump got a lot of support from NY Jewish
billionaires (Icahn, Feinberg, Paulson, et al.). They know him and how he operates.
But being pro-Israel doesn't necessarily equate to neocon. The neocons are the dumb Jews
with serious inadequacy issues who could never make it in business and instead went into
politics and journalism. The latter are still staunchly opposed to Trump even after a lot of
pro-Israel moves. They might warm up to Trump's bellicosity towards a lot of Israel's enemies
(a long list with degrees of separation), but so far they've simply moved left.
I'm a little more sanguine about a Zionist President who approaches problems from a
business and deal-making position than from one who comes a neocon political position (e.g.,
Hillary, every other GOP candidate except Rand Paul). The former are pragmatic and will avoid
conflict, especially stupid conflict, at all costs. While the latter believe they are
virtuous in going to war and/or attacking countries. Did you hear Hillary threaten to shoot
down Russian planes in Syria during the campaign (WTF??!).
Lastly, I like to think Trump surrounded himself with neocons (McMaster, Haley, et al.) to
placate the GOP establishment because he knows he has to play the game.
People are inclined to believe that any activity -- in this instance, voting for the
red/blue puppets in Washington -- in which their participation is patronized must be
legitimate and effectual. Many duped in November 2016, even those who now feel betrayed by
that farce, were still around here a few weeks ago acting like a Senator Moore in Alabama
would be pivotal to reform, his defeat devastating.
That's how Ms. Mercer and her pundit ilk
(Buchanan, Napolitano, etc.) thrive -- supporting the Empire by never questioning its
legitimacy, just taking sides within the Establishment. And they'll be buying into the 2018
congressional contests, ad nauseum.
Of course, what is done to us, and to others in our name and with our money, never changes
to any meaningful degree. Americans might realize this if they thought critically about it,
so they don't. Instead, they lap up the BS and vote for who tells them the lie they like to
hear. When there are identity politics involved, the delusion seems even deeper. There are
self-styled "progressives" who used to advocate single-payer, nationalized health care who
are elated over the retention of so-called "Obamacare," the legislation for which was written
by and for the insurance and pharmaceutical industries.
Me? I cope by boycotting national elections and mass media, participating in forums like
this, and hoping that when the tottering tower of debt and gore tips over, as few innocents
and as many guilty as practicable are among those crushed.
The Zionist neocons and Israel did 911 and got away with it and everyone in the U.S. gov
knows it and they tried to sink the USS LIBERTY and got away with it and so normal is an
Orwellian society where Zionists can kill Americans and destroy the Mideast and nobody does
jack shit about it.
The neocons are Satanists warmongers and will destroy America.
Neocons are about as evil as proudly proclaimed Leftists, and they are obviously more
duplicitous.
Either Neocons will be refuted and publicly rebuked and rejected, or Neocons will
eventually destroy the country. Their long term fruits are destruction of that which they
have used to destroy so many others.
@anonymous
Far from all Neocons are Jews. However, virtually all Neocons are militantly pro-Israel to
the point of making Israel's foreign policy desires central to their assessment of what
America needs in foreign policy.
And the source is Anglo-Saxon Puritanism, which was a Judaizing heresy. Judaizing heresy
necessarily produces pro-Jewish culture. WASP culture is inherently pro-Jewish, as much as it
is anti-Catholic and anti-French and and anti-Spanish and anti-Irish, etc.
And all that means that WASP is opposed to the nest interests of the vast majority of
white Christians while being pro-Jewish.
Jews did not cause any of that. Anglo-Saxon Puritan heretics did.
@neutral
Pres Trump is a situational leader. It's a rare style, for good reason. However, he is openly
situational. That was clear during the campaign season. however,
I thought his positions were sincere. I don't think that this was any kind of slight of
hand, "watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat". His positions on Israel, same sex behavior,
marijuana, healthcare remain what they were going in. His foreign policy and immigration
positions have been buffered and he seems incapable of standing where he came in.
It was no secret he intended an assertive military. However, he seems easily convinced
that strong means aggressive, and that needlessly aggressive policy is a substitute for a
strong US -- that is a mistake. Syria cruise strike was the first sign that he was giving in
to the men whom he chose as advisers. As it it turns out winning the election has been easier
than governing. I assumed he had a much stronger backbone, than he has been willing to
exhibit in office.
@Jake
The Israeli/AIPAC bribery of American bible thumper preachers, especially in the
fundamentalist southern American states has more to do with it than the reformation.
The preachers get huge donations to pay for their churches and TV shows. They get free
trips to Israel for themselves and their families all the time.
On their Israel trips they pay more attention to the OT Jewish and holocaust sites than
the Christian ones
It's true that the reformation was a return to Judaism and a rejection of Christianity,
but that was 500 years ago.
What's important now is the vast amounts of money the Israeli government and the lobby
funnels into those fundamentalist churches.
If the southern fundamentalists only knew what Jews think of them. I really got an earful
of Jewish scorn and hate for southerners and fundamentalists during the recent Roy Moore
election.
Read Jewish publications if you want to learn what they think of southern
fundamentalists
@Twodees
Partain Trump appointed Haley because Sheldon Adelson told him to.
And contrary to the myth of trump funding his own campaign he did not the only money he put
in his campaign was a 1o million loan to it. Adelson was his biggest contributor just like
Saban was Hillary's.
Not coincidentally, however, neocon hopes may lie as well with the generous political
funding provided to Haley by Sheldon Adelson, the GOP's and Trump's single biggest donor.
Between May and June, 2016, Sheldon Adelson contributed $250,000 to Haley's 527 political
organization, A Great Day, funds that she used to target four Republican state senate rivals
in primaries. (Only one was successfully defeated.) Adelson was the largest contributor to
her group,
which raised a total of $915,000.
This powerful Adelson-funded Israel lobby could soon rival AIPAC's https://www.haaretz.com › U.S.
News
Oct 31, 2017 – Sheldon Adelson(L), The 3rd annual IAC National Conference, in
September, 2016, and Nikki Haley. . will feature, for the first time ever, a prominent
speaker from the ranks of the U.S. government: U.S. ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley, who is
a favorite among the right-leaning "pro-Israel" crowd.
The Jews have bought this government and trump and Haley are nothing but junk yard
dogs.
Not that there are good alternatives but anyone who stills supports trump is as crazy as he
is.
The title is ridiculous. Neo conservatives have been normal for decades.
The neocon movement was normalized in 2001 by the PATRIOT Act. The domestic side of the
neocon worldview -- or world-system -- was joined with the international or interventionist
side, just as anti-Palestinian actions by Israel were joined by way of repression of free
speech with the Charlottesville protest by conservatives of the desecration of monuments.
@renfro
I'm sure the evangelical preachers con their followers into donating money to Israel. I've
seen those late night ads begging for donations to feed ancient old holocaust survivors in
Israel.
But the Israelis pay for all those luxury trips to Israel And a lot of the money to start
those TV shows and for the big salaries come from Israel and AIPAC so does the money to set
up those big churches that just appear from nowhere
@Grandpa
Charlie I have always wondered why its okay to say WASP but not Jew in public.
One is more pc, the other is not allowed.
I have seen some articles about Jews replacing wasp, even from Jewish authors.
As for Neoconservatives. It depends how we define it.
I see it as a case of American imperialism fused with pro Israel sentiment. Large overlap,
but not always.
From what I know modern Neoconservativism started somewhere around the 70s,80s? Became
dominant around the Bush years. (during Reagan years they got rid of many Paleocons).
@Twodees
Partain Not only Nikki is a prank, she is also a godsend. Now the world get to see USG
naked without usual pretension.
Trumps is probably the most honest Potus with highest integrity & bravery in American
history(stupid aside). He means what he said without mind boggling hypocrite lies, he tried
fulfilling all his election promises, fighting bravely with his only little weapon tweeter
besiege by entire states organs, CIA/FBI, both parties, MSM, world allies,
He put US Embassy in Jerusalem that all other Potus promised but never keep, he tried to
revise immigration policy that people blocked, building prototype wall now, try befriend
Russia become a treason act, reneged nuclear agreement with Iran, make US military great(of
course need hyper tension like nuclear NK), scraped Obacare, TTP, Climate deal, try to grab
Killary, bring back jobs with tax heaven .
Mann, this is really a man of his word. Didn't these are what you people voted him for, to
drain the swamp? He gotta shock the entire MSM brainwashed nation up to see the deeply
corrupted USG, collapse it quickly for a new one to move in(by whoever after his prank). As
Trumps had asked:"what you got to lose to vote me?"
@Twodees
Partain Yes..ues i admit, don't shoot. Im just been sarcastic, USG is in such a laughing
stock to the world now, many americans probably are exasperated if not yet numb. I am not
judging he is good, DT is just less evil typical business man..imo
But frankly, i do see why people are voting DT now. He is at least more entertaining and
blunt to screw up WH deep states show. Per msm (fake news), he is honouring all his campaign
promises rt? So that make him above hypocrite liar Obama who speak on peace(Nobel prize), but
drenched in Libyan and Syrians blood.
US msm brainwashed people need lot of shock & awe to wake up to reality, then they
might have hope to drain the swamp in unity or just await to implode and suck down whole
world.
Believing that the current world system no longer sufficiently advances American
interests ever since Washington lost control of its institutional tools, and that the
eventual outcome of this increasingly multipolar state of affairs is that the US will in
turn lose its global empire, Trump has decided to become the Agent of Chaos in bringing
about its destruction.
I know with certainty that Hillary is a beast from depth of hell.
Meh, hyperbole.
Hillary is no different from most politicians. She's in it for the wealth and power. She
got herself a real smart, duplicitous, pussy-chasing beast of a husband, and made the most of
the opportunity.
People -- the American people -- should be able to see this rather-evident characteristic
of politicians. They should be adequately educated, at least to the extent of being able to
detect the base chicanery and corruption that radiates from political personalities.
But, they don't. They don't see the evil. The media deftly conceals it, because the beasts
of the media, like jackals, feed on the morsels of wealth that fall to the ground as the
politicians devour the carcass of well, hell, freedom and democracy is as useful a metaphor
as any.
In this context, I am reminded of British comedian Alexei Sayle. When asked what he does
when he watches a really talented satirist performing, Sayle replied: "I go back stage and
tell him he'll never make it."
Indeed, the attitude to my work over 20 years has been the best proof of its quality.
If the Comments threads about "ilana mercer," on the Unz Review, prove anything (other
than that anti-Semitism lives), it is that mediocre "men" (for the most) hate a woman who can
out-think them. As a defender of men, this saddens me, but it is, nevertheless, true.
Ron Unz, our wonderful editor, chose the image appended to the column. (The brilliant Mr.
Unz is one of the few intellectually honest individuals I know in this biz. He, columnist
Jack Kerwick, and a handful of others.)
In reply to kunckle-dragger's sniveling: I'll continue to refrain from interacting with
his ilk ("fanboys") on my column's thread. But this particular dreadful cur (with apologies
to dogs, which I love) further embarrasses himself when he offers up the non sequitur that
engaging him is the litmus test for being a "good writer."
I see it as a case of American imperialism fused with pro Israel sentiment. Large
overlap, but not always.
Agreed. American imperialism has a long long history (going back to at least the mid-19th
century). That's why the neocons were able to gain so much influence. They were appealing to
a pre-existing imperialist sentiment.
There is a large group of US politician non Jews
who also are pushing this policies. So these two groups together would be called
Neocons.
There is a large group in US population, that find this idea very appealing.
That's why Make America Great Again was such a popular slogan. It appeals to mindless
American jingoism and imperialism.
@dfordoom
Edward Dutton stated that it was a trade-off between intelligence on one side and instinct on
another – both are necessary for survival. For me, intelligence does not seem to
correlate directly to wisdom.
If so, that reinforces my view that Trump doesn't know anybody in the Swamp
You are exactly right.
Trump really knew no one to hire or appoint to anything except his NY cronies , mainly his
Jewish lawyers and Kushner contacts.
So he appointed anyone they and his biggest donors recommended to him.
His ego and insecurity demanded he surround himself with his NY cohorts and close family.
" It appeals to mindless American jingoism and imperialism" = "Make America great
again"
So you would prefer : "Make America powerless and insignificant again"
How about "Make America a normal nation that respects other nations' sovereignty, that
doesn't plant military bases on foreign soil, that doesn't bomb other people's countries,
doesn't try to impose its views and its culture on the rest of the world, doesn't undermine
the governments of other countries and doesn't threaten any country that dares to disagree
with it." Would that be too much to ask?
I would have thought that someone "Mensa" qualified since 1973 could understand that
greatness should not be equated with behaving like a thug or a schoolyard bully. America's
aggression does tend to look like the manifestation of a massive inferiority complex.
I commend Ms. Mercer for publishing this which will no doubt bring to light an ugly truth
about many of her own tribesmen since there many of her other views which I wholly or
partially disagree with
And as was said sometime before, the thought process of earlier elites (the banking,
Hollywood and the neo-con, neo-lib crowd which was almost exclusively Zio-Jewish and is
disproportionately still is) has creeped into the very being of what constitutes to be an
"elite" in the west these days. Unlimited warfare and welfare using fraudulent money,
disturbing the social and sexual fabric of a society! Satan would be quite proud of this scum
bunch
So the zionist cabal still calls the shots and the slavish goyim second tier elites now
willingly go along and in fact share the same mentality
"... Excessive financialization is the Achilles' heel of neoliberalism. It inevitably distorts everything, blows the asset bubble, which then pops. With each pop, the level of political support of neoliberalism shrinks. Hillary defeat would have been impossible without 2008 events. ..."
Barkley insists on a left-right split for his analysis of political parties and their attachment to vague policy tendencies
and that insistence makes a mess of the central issue: why the rise of right-wing populism in a "successful" economy?
Naomi Klein's book is about how and why centrist neoliberals got control of policy. The rise of right-wing populism is often
supposed (see Mark Blyth) to be about the dissatisfaction bred by the long-term shortcomings of or blowback from neoliberal policy.
Barkley Rosser treats neoliberal policy as implicitly successful and, therefore, the reaction from the populist right appears
mysterious, something to investigate. His thesis regarding neoliberal success in Poland is predicated on policy being less severe,
less "shocky".
In his left-right division of Polish politics, the centrist neoliberals -- in the 21st century, Civic Platform -- seem to disappear
into the background even though I think they are still the second largest Party in Parliament, though some seem to think they
will sink in elections this year.
Electoral participation is another factor that receives little attention in this analysis. Politics is shaped in part by the
people who do NOT show up. And, in Poland that has sometimes been a lot of people, indeed.
Finally, there's the matter of the neoliberal straitjacket -- the flip-side of the shock in the one-two punch of "there's no
alternative". What the policy options for a Party representing the interests of the angry and dissatisfied? If you make policy
impossible for a party of the left, of course that breeds parties of the right. duh.
Likbez,
Bruce,
Blowback from the neoliberal policy is coming. I would consider the current situation in the USA as the starting point of this
"slow-motion collapse of the neoliberal garbage truck against the wall." Neoliberalism like Bolshevism in 1945 has no future,
only the past. That does not mean that it will not limp forward in zombie (and pretty bloodthirsty ) stage for another 50 years.
But it is doomed, notwithstanding recently staged revenge in countries like Ukraine, Argentina, and Brazil.
Excessive financialization is the Achilles' heel of neoliberalism. It inevitably distorts everything, blows the asset bubble,
which then pops. With each pop, the level of political support of neoliberalism shrinks. Hillary defeat would have been impossible
without 2008 events.
At least half of Americans now hate soft neoliberals of Democratic Party (Clinton wing of Bought by Wall Street technocrats),
as well as hard neoliberal of Republican Party, which created the " crisis of confidence" toward governing neoliberal elite in
countries like the USA, GB, and France. And that probably why the intelligence agencies became the prominent political players
and staged the color revolution against Trump (aka Russiagate ) in the USA.
The situation with the support of neoliberalism now is very different than in 1994 when Bill Clinton came to power. Of course,
as Otto von Bismarck once quipped "God has a special providence for fools, drunkards, and the United States of America." and another
turn of the technological spiral might well save the USA. But the danger of never-ending secular stagnation is substantial and
growing. This fact was admitted even by such dyed- in-the-wool neoliberals as Summers.
This illusion that advances in statistics gave neoliberal access to such fine-grained and timely economic data, that now it
is possible to regulate economy indirectly, by strictly monetary means is pure religious hubris. Milton Friedman would now be
laughed out the room if he tried to repeat his monetarist junk science now. Actually he himself discarded his monetarist illusions
before he died.
We probably need to the return of strong direct investments in the economy by the state and nationalization of some assets,
if we want to survive and compete with China. Australian politicians are already openly discussing this, we still are lagging
because of "walking dead" neoliberals in Congress like Pelosi, Schumer, and company.
But we have another huge problem, which Australia and other countries (other than GB) do not have: neoliberalism in the USA
is the state religion which completely displaced Christianity (and is hostile to Christianity), so it might be that the lemming
will go off the cliff. I hope not.
The only thing that still keeps neoliberalism from being thrown out to the garbage bin of history is that it is unclear what
would the alternative. And that means that like in 1920th far-right nationalism and fascism have a fighting chance against decadent
neoliberal oligarchy.
Previously financial oligarchy was in many minds associated with Jewish bankers. Now people are more educated and probably
can hang from the lampposts Anglo-Saxon and bankers of other nationalities as well ;-)
I think that in some countries neoliberal oligarchs might soon feel very uncomfortable, much like Soros in Hungary.
As far as I understood the level of animosity and suppressed anger toward financial oligarchy and their stooges including some
professors in economics departments of the major universities might soon be approaching the level which existed in the Weimar
Republic. And as Lenin noted, " the ideas could become a material force if they got mass support." This is true about anger as
well.
Thoughts
on Warren and Sanders: How Much Change Is Needed in 2021? Posted on
January 11,
2019 by Yves Smith Yves here. I know Warren is
deemed to be progressive by American standards, but I recall clearly when I first say her speak at a Roosevelt Institute conference,
Let Markets Be Markets, which was a title I found to be unhelpful, since it suggested that markets would exist in a state of nature
and just needed to be left alone. In fact, markets depend on rules and enforcement mechanisms to operate regularly and well.
Warren, who was the first speaker, gave a long preamble about how she loved markets and had long taught contract in law school.
I don't recall her giving any reason as to why she loved markets, when you'd expect her to make a case, such as how they were good
for people. Her speech struck me as defensive, as in she felt she had to say she was in favor of commerce so as not to be painted
as a Commie if/when she called for reforms.
By contrast, Karl Polyani, in his classic book The Great Transformation, argued that the evolution of market economies undermined
society because it treated land and labor as commodities. Pressured to slow the development economies were inevitable and Polyani
suggested, desirable, because the impact of the development of the market society on communities and families was often so disruptive
that the changes needed to be mitigated.
I didn't get any sense that Warren had those concerns, and I found that troubling. I didn't see how her profession of enthusiasm
for markets connected with the concerns she has expressed for the welfare of American families.
I've written before comparing Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders as presidential candidates, but only preliminarily. (See "
The Difference Between
Sanders and Warren, or Can Regulated Capitalism Save the Country? ") But there's much more to say -- foreign policy, for example,
is barely touched on there -- and also much is evolving in their positions, especially Warren's.
That earlier piece focused on the differences between these two candidates based on their economic ideologies. As I wrote then,
"Though both would make the next administration, if either were elected, a progressive one by many definitions, the nature of the
progressivism under each would be quite different."
In particular, I asked:
Can the current capitalist system be reformed and retained, or must it be partly nationalized -- taken over by government --
and reduced in size and capacity, for the country to be saved from its current economic enslavement to the "billionaire class"?
In addition to questions of personal preference, Democratic primary voters will be asked to decide this question as well.
And the question applies quite broadly. The billionaire class also controls our response to climate change. Is it possible
for a "free" market system -- a system in which billionaires and their corporations have control -- to transform the energy economy
enough to mitigate the coming disaster, or must government wrest control of the energy economy in order to have even a hope of
reducing the certain damage?
But there are other contrasts between these two as well, other differences, as Zaid Jilani,
writing in
Jacobin , points out. He begins where we began, with the ideological and philosophical differences:
Why the Differences Between Sanders and Warren Matter
Both are critics of the Democratic establishment. Both are foes of Wall Street. And both are substantive, policy-focused politicians.
But that doesn't mean Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren share the same worldview.
Sanders tends to focus on "post-distribution" remedies, meaning he prefers to use the government's power to tax and spend to
directly meet Americans' needs -- or replace the market altogether. His social-democratic ideas, like free college and single-payer
health care, are now policies most Democrats have to tip their hat to at least for electoral reasons. Warren wants to empower
regulators and rejigger markets to shape "pre-distribution" income, before taxes. Less likely to push for big-ticket programs,
she wants to re-regulate Wall Street and make life easier for consumers.
So far this is familiar ground.
Different Theories of Change
But as Jilani points out, there are differences in style and "theory of change" as well. ("Theory of change" usually encompasses
how a given policy change is to be accomplished, as opposed to what that change should be.) Jilani again:
The two senators also have distinct theories of change. Sanders has long believed in
bottom-up , movement-based
politics. Since
his days as mayor of Burlington, Vermont, he has tried to energize citizens to take part in government. He generally distrusts
elites and decision-making that does not include the public. Warren, on the other hand, generally accepts political reality and
works to push elite decision-makers towards her point of view.
When I worked at PCCC ["the most influential outside PAC supporting Warren" says Jilani], I was once told that Warren decided
to run for the Senate after witnessing the amount of power she had as an oversight chair for the bank bailouts. She believed that
"being in the room" with decision-makers in the Obama administration was essential to creating change.
About this he concludes: "While Warren wants to be at the table with elites, arguing for progressive policies, Sanders wants to
open the doors and let the public make the policy."
"Elizabeth is all about leverage"
These are significant differences, and his observation goes a long way to explaining this item from a
long piece published in Politico Magazine in 2016, an article otherwise about Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Discussing
why Warren refused to endorse Sanders, Glenn Thrush wrote:
Luckily for Clinton, Warren resisted Sanders' entreaties, for months telling the senator and his staff she hadn't made up her
mind about which candidate she would support. For all her credibility on the left, Warren is more interested in influencing the
granular Washington decisions of policymaking and presidential personnel -- and in power politics. Warren's favored modus operandi:
leveraging her outsider popularity to gain influence on the issues she cares about, namely income inequality and financial services
reform.
"Elizabeth is all about leverage, and she used it," a top Warren ally told me. "The main thing, you know, is that she always
thought Hillary was going to be the nominee, so that was where the leverage was."
Warren, several people in her orbit say, never really came close to endorsing the man many progressives consider to be her
ideological soulmate.
For many grassroots supporters of Sanders, who were also strong Warren supporters prior to his entry into the race, these revelations
-- "all about the leverage" and "never came close to endorsing" -- took the bloom off the Warren rose. For whatever reason, that
bloom appears not to have returned, at least not completely.
Jilani's observation in no way diminishes Warren's credibility or core desirability as a candidate. If you care about achieving
your goals through "leverage," joining the Sanders campaign, which may have looked to you like a kind of Children's Crusade, would
seem foreign to your way of operating.
The Bottom Line -- Not Just Method, But Scope
While Jilani notes that many of Warren's past positions, for example,
on charter schools and Medicare
for All, have grown more progressive, she still doesn't seem to prioritize Medicare for All as strongly as Sanders does.
In 2012, Warren was explicitly opposed to Medicare for All (called "single payer" at the time). "Five years later --
after decades of advocacy
by Sanders had helped popularize Medicare for All -- Warren [finally] decided to endorse the policy," writes Jilani. "But unlike
consumer protections or financial regulation, establishing a single-payer health care system doesn't seem to be a top priority for
Warren." He adds, "It's hardly a surprise
that Warren didn't raise single-payer during her first two campaign events in Iowa and when asked about it by a Washington Post
reporter, [she] suggested she didn't bring it up because no one else at the events raised it."
As noted above, if either were president, the odds that America will change for the better would vastly improve. But each would
do that job in a different way. Each has a different philosophy of how government should work, and approach the process of change
from different directions -- though I have to give Warren credit for
picking public fights with
fellow Democrats when others are much more timid.
But to these two differences -- philosophy and approach -- let me add a third, a difference in sweep. The scope of change envisioned
and attempted by a Sanders presidency would likely be far greater than that attempted by Warren.
In these times, with a massive climate tsunami fast approaching and a Depression-style rebellion in full view, can America,
in this Franklin Roosevelt moment , afford just a better manager of the current system, a better rearranger, and survive?
There's not much question that Warren would better fix the status quo, and be a better choice as president, than 95% of the other
candidates on offer. But would a Warren presidency be enough to bring us through this crisis as safely as Washington, Lincoln and
FDR once did?
For many true progressives, I think that's the question she'll be asked to answer, and she has about a year, or less, to answer
it.
Just spitballing here, but I think that Warren has more of a technocrat view of the process of governance than Sanders does.
Warren seems to be an academic at heart. Sanders has experience dealing with the public in all it's tatterdemalion glory. He was
a City Mayor, about as close to the ground level in politics as one can get. Warren would make an excellent Department Head, a
good member of the Cabinet. Sanders has a reputation of 'getting things done' in the Senate. This suggests that Sanders has the
skills of persuasion and, importantly, coalition building, incorporating strategic concessions. These are a big part of the Art
of Politics.
So, Sanders has the Art of Politics in his tool kit while Warren has the bureaucratic skills to work behind the scenes. They would
make a good team, if Warren is to be trusted. And there is the stumbling block.
With Warren wanting to be at the table with the elites, perhaps she took the advice of Larry Summers. In her memoir, "A Fighting
Chance", she mentions a dinner conversation where she was told by him 'I had a choice. I could be an insider or I could be an
outsider. Outsiders can say whatever they want. But people on the inside don't listen to them. Insiders, however, get lots of
access and a chance to push their ideas. People -- powerful people -- listen to what they have to say. But insiders also understand
one unbreakable rule: They don't criticize other insiders.'
The elites will, and have been, doing anything to derail rebellion and block any electoral movement towards popular governance,
even of the save-the-system New Deal style of politics. If co-opting fails, then media blackout, vote fraud and silencing follows.
They took it all and plan to keep it at any cost.
The immiseration of the American people, to paraphrase Madeleine Albright, is worth it.
"... Behind the candidate's rhetoric there never was enough strategic sense, necessary knowledge, or even caring about foreign affairs to ward off the maneuvers of a determined hawk like Bolton once he was in position to do damage. ..."
Pillar
comments on Bolton's maneuvers to keep us at war in Syria:
The episode involving withdrawal and non-withdrawal of U.S. troops in Syria should be a
lesson for those who mistakenly placed hopes in Trump for a more restrained and less
militaristic U.S. foreign policy. Applause lines on the campaign trail have been mistaken for
deeper thought. Behind the candidate's rhetoric there never was enough strategic sense,
necessary knowledge, or even caring about foreign affairs to ward off the maneuvers of a
determined hawk like Bolton once he was in position to do damage.
If the first two years of Trump's presidency didn't already make it clear, the last few
weeks should have laid to rest any suspicions that the Trump administration is going to put an
end to unnecessary foreign wars. It isn't happening. For one thing, everyone around Trump
doesn't want those wars to end and will go to considerable lengths to ensure that they
continue. That is a result of Trump's own poor personnel choices and bad judgment. It isn't
possible to have a "more restrained and less militaristic U.S. foreign policy" when the
president's national security team is dominated by reflexive hawks that have never seen a
military intervention they didn't want to support. Trump put Bolton in the position he now
occupies, and unless he wants to start in on his fourth National Security Advisor within two
years we are going to be stuck with the unfortunate consequences of that bad decision for a
while longer.
Pillar writes:
The de facto reversal of Trump's withdrawal decision is a victory only for those who --
like Bolton, who still avers that the Iraq War was a good idea -- never met a U.S. military
intervention in the Middle East they didn't like and never stop seeing regimes they would
like to change with force.
One big problem with the Trump administration is that it is filled with the people who never
met an intervention they didn't like. People like that have been the ones shaping
administration policies in the region for the last two years, and on Syria they have prevailed
once again. It could scarcely be otherwise when there is essentially no one willing or able to
make the arguments for the other side of these issues. It is extremely difficult for hawks to
lose an internal administration debate when there is no one in the administration that opposes
hawkish policies.
Obama strategy in Syria was replica of Clinton strategy in Yugoslavia during the Balkan Wars. Divide everybody up by ethnicity
or religion (Croats are Catholics, Serbians are Orthodox not to mention the various Muslims and Albanians lurking about), arm
them, create false flags to set them at each other's throats. Enjoy the results.
Obama like Clinton before him was a real wolve in sheep's clothing
Notable quotes:
"... Jackrabbit, I agree with Bevin. Obama was really useful to the deep state because, as the "First Black President" he was widely popular, not just inside the US but outside it as well. Before the 2016 election, there was a widespread hope inside the US elite that Hillary Clinton, as the "First Woman President" would be able to serve a similar function in giving US imperialism a pleasing face. ..."
"... Trump, by contrast, hurts the US deep state because his true nature as a greedy, incompetent egotist is just too blatantly obvious to too many people. And he won't follow a script, the way GW Bush usually did. That's why we see major sections of the US deep state going out of their way to be publically hostile towards Trump. ..."
But the notion that it is part of a complex and tightly scripted conspiracy in which he
plays his public part and the deep state play theirs, pretending to be at odds with each
other, is bizarre.
I would've agreed with you before Obama. I followed the criticisms of Obama from true
progressives closely. It was clear within 2 or 3 years that Obama was betraying his 'base'.
His lofty rhetoric didn't match his actions. His Nobel Peace Prize can only be viewed
today as a ruse. He talked of peace and fairness but worked behind the scenes to further the
establishment.
Fast forward to the 2016 election where Sanders was a sheepdog and Hillary ran a terrible
campaign. It's difficult to look back and not be at least somewhat suspicious of the 2016
election. A populist nationalist was what the Deep State NEEDED to face the threat from
Russia and China to their NWO project. And that is what they got. After recognizing the
threat in 2013-14 (when Russia countered the Empire in Syria and Ukraine).
Similar excuses are made for both Obama and Trump. We are told that they were FORCED to
succumb to Deep State scheming and political power. But a much more logical view is that
these "populists" know exactly what they are doing: they know what their 'job' is to serve
the establishment and act as the leader of the Deep State's political arm. In return they get
financial gain, social standing, and life long protection. Sweet.
Obama 'turned the page' on the Bush Administration's warmongering. He promised a more
peaceful USA. But he conducted covert wars and bragged of his drone targeting.
Trump 'turned the page' on Obama's deceitfulness. He promised to put 'America First' but
within months attacked Syria with missiles "for the babies". Evidence that his first attack
was prompted by a false flag didn't deter him from attacking AGAIN - also based on a false
flag. Trump is still helping the Saudis in Yemen. And he's not doing what's necessary to get
peace in Korea.
Obama promised 'transparency' ("Sunlight is the best disinfectant") but 'no drama' Obama
protected CIA torturers, NSA spies, and bankers. Trump promised to "drain the swamp" but has
welcomed oligarchs and neocons into his Administration.
How much sly BS do we have to see before people connect the dots? A real populist will
NEVER be elected in USA unless there is a revolution; USA political elites are fully
committed to a neoliberal economics that make society neofeudal, and a neoconservative-driven
foreign policy that demands full spectrum dominance that brooks no opposition to its NWO
goals.
Anyone who believes otherwise has drunk the Kool-Aid, an addictive, saccharine concoction,
provided without charge and in abundance.
Glenn Brown | Jan 5, 2019 10:27:14 PM |
39@ 10 17
Jackrabbit, I agree with Bevin. Obama was really useful to the deep state because, as the "First Black President" he
was widely popular, not just inside the US but outside it as well. Before the 2016 election, there was a widespread hope
inside the US elite that Hillary Clinton, as the "First Woman President" would be able to serve a similar function in giving
US imperialism a pleasing face.
Trump, by contrast, hurts the US deep state because his true nature as a greedy, incompetent egotist is just too
blatantly obvious to too many people. And he won't follow a script, the way GW Bush usually did. That's why we see major
sections of the US deep state going out of their way to be publically hostile towards Trump.
Yes, their public rejection of Trump is partly motivated by the need to be able to claim that Trump is an aberration from
all previous US Presidents, as opposed to Trump and his policies being just a particularly explicit continuation of the same
underlying trends.
But I see no reason to doubt that the US elites really wish they had someone as President who was better at supplying the
right propaganda and less obviously an incompetent fool. So I don't understand why you think the US oligarchy and deep state
would have thought they needed someone like Trump, or would have greatly preferred him to Hillary Clinton.
Numerous MSM articles appear about Trump's standing up to the Generals: Mattis, Kelly, Dunford, etc. Yet Bolton feels free to
conspire against the President's agenda? The narrative that Trump is fighting for his campaign promises, but allows Bolton and
Pompeo to scheme against him does not make any sense.
A more realistic take is that rump is a faux populist. He is the Republican Obama - pretending to be a populist
peacemaker while working for the establishment. The "populist hero" is a gimmick that reinforces people's belief in USA democracy
and the righteousness of USA actions. The Trump/Deep-State conflict is a propaganda psy-op.
The major inconsistency here is why the Deep State is hell bent of deposing him. Is The Trump/Deep-State conflict
is a propaganda psy-op? I do no not think so.
Trump is certainly a 'faux populist' as all right wing populists are: promises to the people while promoting the interests of
the 1%. But there is a genuine struggle going on within the ruling class due to the crisis of neoliberal governance. The world is
a complex place and Washington's influence is declining. No surprise that parts of the US elite that got used to "full spectrum
dominance" are panicking. And it is all real.
Notable quotes:
"... "The president's statement offered the latest illustration of the dramatic gyrations that have characterized his foreign policy and fueled questions about whether his senior advisers are implementing his policies or pursuing their own agendas." ..."
"... Here we have the question asked, in effect: Are Trump's senior people going rogue? Does the master of spin Washington Post, by putting the question in a manner sympathetic to Trump and unsympathetic to Bolton and Pompeo, and by extension the hordes denouncing Trump's decision to reduce US involvement in Syria suggest a new orientation in the Mockingbird media? ..."
The Washington Post article that b links to ("never signed off") has the headline " 'They
can do what they want' Trump's Iran comments defy his top aids"
The "They" in the quote in the headline is a reference to Iran in Syria. "President Trump
stuck a dagger in a major initiative advanced by his foreign policy team:
Iran's leaders, the president said, "can do what they want" in Syria.
With a stray remark, Trump snuffed out a plan from his national security adviser, John
Bolton, who this fall vowed that the United States would not leave Syria
"as long as Iranian troops are outside Iranian borders." Pompeo has of course also obsessed
over Iran.
Now the next paragraph in the WP piece is I think quite remarkable: "The president's
statement offered the latest illustration of the dramatic gyrations that have characterized
his foreign policy and fueled questions about whether his senior advisers are implementing
his policies or pursuing their own agendas."
Here we have the question asked, in effect: Are Trump's senior people going rogue? Does
the master of spin Washington Post, by putting the question in a manner sympathetic to Trump
and unsympathetic to Bolton and Pompeo, and by extension the hordes denouncing Trump's
decision to reduce US involvement in Syria
suggest a new orientation in the Mockingbird media?
Also note that acting Defense Sec Patrick Shanahan, who was injected immediately into his
position when Trump gave Mattis the boot, is becoming part of the strategic scene.
From the NYT: "He is the brightest and smartest guy I worked with at Boeing," said Carolyn
Corvi, a former executive at the company. "He has the ability to see over the horizon and
{implement needed change]."
"Ana Mari Cauce, the president of University of Washington, worked with Mr. Shanahan ....
She said his outsider perspective was helpful in questioning old practices,
forcing people to look at problems in different ways."
The University of Michigan Has At Least 82 Full-Time Diversity Officers at a Total Annual
Payroll Cost of $10.6M.
so applying some crude arithmetic, 8 cost $1M meaning they are paid upward of 100k apiece?
Or if it's differently apportioned the Chief Executive Officer of Diversity makes some
unimaginably astronomical salary and the others are in the 60-80k range?
Maybe they are including a travel allowance as part of "payroll"? I know much of what they
do is recruitment since back in the 90s my then-bf was one of only two -- count 'em, TWO --
Blacks in the entire graduate physical sciences division at the University of Chicago. He was
in Computer Science (machine learning) and the other was in Chemistry. They would send him
back to Atlanta where he gone to school at Morehouse and the University of GA.
There is no political left in US. There are only 2 right wing parties and it's only a matter
of degrees. Policies define a party, not what they call themselves. You can call yourself
whatever you want. It's not like it's against the Geneva convention or something.
Examples of mismatch between the official name and reality are: North Korea calling itself
DPRK – where D stands for democracy and yet they have never had elections, not that it
matters, the whole thing about "democracy" is a sham anyway. Also East Germany used to call
themselves DDR – which of course stands for Deutsche Demokratische Republikische (I
couldn't ressist making fun of the German language). Anyway, they called
themselves"Democratic" with no elections ever taking place there.
Same thing with the Democratic party in US. Calling yourself Democratic doesn't make you a
left wing automatically. After all, the Nazis used to call themselves "Socialists", which
would imply leftist orientation, yet they were as far right as you can get.
In order for a party to qualify as left wing, they have to look after the interests of the
working class. US has no such party, they probably never did. So, both Democrats and
Republicans are right wing, but not as far right as the Nazis used to be. Yet, the Nazis were
way smarter because they saw foreigners as the main threat to their country. Both domestic
born and foreign born foreigners.
The 2 right wing US parties see their native born population as their main threat. Their
"instincts" tell them that even after decades long propaganda, they haven't succeeded in
completely lobotomizing the native born citizens, and that there is still some
"revolutionary" potential left in them, who might one day reach for their pockets.
That's where the degeneracy of the elites comes into clear focus. Seeing the working class
as a potential threat to them and their pockets. When it's actually the opposite. The
degenerate elites are a threat to the working class (and frankly to themselves, but they are
too degenerate to see that). They are threat because they off-shored millions of jobs of the
working class, and if that wasn't enough, they imported millions of third world individuals
to fill in jobs that are not even there anymore.
Who is a threat to whom? Multiculturalism is not a left wing policy. It's a fascist
policy. The only difference is that the intended victims are domestic, rather than foreign.
It's inward oriented fascism. The only hope for US is that under Trump, the republicans are
starting to flip-flop between seeing the Americans and foreigners as a threat. Where the
other right wing party – the "Democrats" are firm in their belief that the Americans
are the threat.
I guess it's just a matter of perspective – who is Nazi to whom. The democrats think
that the deplorables are potential Nazis towards the foreigners, while actually it's them
– the Democrats that are currently Nazis towards the "deplorables".
"... The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto ..."
"... "Uneven Development: Understanding the Roots of Inequality" ..."
"... "A generation ago, the country's social contract was premised on higher wages and reliable benefits, provided chiefly by employers. In recent decades, we've moved to a system where low wages are supposed to be made bearable by low consumer prices and a hodgepodge of government assistance programs. But as dissatisfaction with this arrangement has grown, it is time to look back at how we got here and imagine what the next stage of the social contract might be." ..."
"... New America Foundation's ..."
"... The Social Contract in Africa ..."
"... "Neoliberalism – the ideology at the root of all our problems" The Guardian ..."
"... Neoliberalism: do you know what it is? Its anonymity is both a symptom and cause of its power. It has played a major role in a remarkable variety of crises: the financial meltdown of 2007-2008, the offshoring of wealth and power, of which the Panama Papers offer us merely a glimpse, the slow collapse of public health and education, resurgent child poverty, the epidemic of loneliness, the collapse of ecosystems, the rise of Donald Trump. But we respond to these crises as if they emerge in isolation, apparently unaware that they have all been either catalysed or exacerbated by the same coherent philosophy; a philosophy that has – or had – a name. What greater power can there be than to operate namelessly? ..."
"... "From Military Keynesianism to Global-Neoliberal Militarism" ..."
"... Monthly Review ..."
"... A Short History ofNeoliberalism ..."
"... Ideology, the Neoliberal State, and the Social Contract ..."
"... "I think not having the ..."
"... recognizes the people that are investing -- as opposed to those that are just spending every darn penny they have, whether it's on booze or women or movies." ..."
"... "the transition from organised capitalism to neoliberal hegemony over the recent period has brought about a corresponding transformation in subjectivity. Leading celebrities, most notably high-tech entrepreneurs, for instance, operate in the popular imagination as models of achievement for the aspiring young. They are seldom emulated in real life, however, even unrealistically so. Still, their famed lifestyles and heavily publicised opinions provide guidelines to appropriate conduct in a ruthlessly competitive and unequal world." ..."
"... "Pessimism of Intelligence, Optimism of Will" ..."
"... Perspectives on Gramsci ..."
"... Social vs. Corporate Welfare ..."
"... "The common denominator is the empowering of elites over the masses with the assistance of international forces through military action or financial coercion -- a globalized dialectic of ruling classes." ..."
"... The End of Ideology ..."
"... : "It's the end of ideology in China. Not the end of all ideology, but the end of Marxist ideology. China has many social problems, but the government and its people will deal with them in pragmatic ways, without being overly constrained by ideological boundaries. I still think there's a need for a moral foundation for political rule in China – some sort of guiding ideal for the future – but it won't come from Karl Marx." ..."
"... The End of History ..."
"... Ideology of Power and the Power of Ideology ..."
"... "Limiting Dissent: The Mechanisms of State Repression in the USA" Social Movement Studies," ..."
"... The Great Transformation ..."
"... "To allow the market mechanism to be sole director of the fate of human beings and their natural environment would result in the demolition of society." ..."
"... "The withering away of national states and the wholesale privatization of state-owned enterprises and state-administered services transferred highly profitable monopolies to capitalists, and guaranteed the repayment of the foreign debt-contracted, as in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Uruguay-by irresponsible, corrupt, and de facto military rulers. Neoliberalism supplied the general justification for the transfer of public assets and state-owned enterprises, paid for with public savings, even in areas considered "taboo" and untouchable until a few years ago, such as electricity, aviation, oil, or telecommunications. ..."
"... "Democracy or Neoliberalism?" ..."
"... "When Exclusion Replaces Exploitation: The Condition of the Surplus-Population under Neoliberalism" ..."
"... Neoliberalism and Fascism ..."
"... The role of the state ..."
"... "The combination of economic disruption, cultural disruption ― nothing feels solid to people ― that's a recipe for people wanting to find security somewhere. And sadly, there's something in all of us that looks for simple answers when we're agitated and insecure. The narrative that America at its best has stood for, the narrative of pluralism and tolerance and democracy and rule of law, human rights and freedom of the press and freedom of religion, that narrative, I think, is actually the more powerful narrative. The majority of people around the world aspire to that narrative, which is the reason people still want to come here." ..."
"... Independence from America: Global Integration and Inequality ..."
"... Friendly Fascism: The New Face of Power in America ..."
"... everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state. ..."
"... "everything within neoliberalism, nothing against neoliberalism, nothing outside neoliberalism. ..."
"... Neoliberal Fascism: Free Markets and the Restructuring of Indian Capitalism," ..."
"... is seen as an effort by neoliberalism, or perhaps more broadly by capitalism, to divert attention from class conflict, to divide and weaken working class struggles and to deflect class-driven anxieties on to minority communities. This approach is problematic in two senses. First, it does not explain why Hindutva organisations are able to develop a mass base, except to the extent that they are seen to be appealing to "historical identity" or "emotive" issues. ..."
"... The state exists ..."
"... as the expression and guarantor of a collectivity founded around a transcendent principle ..."
"... The ideal state is the guarantor of the Hindu rashtra, a "nation" that exists as an organic and harmonious unity between "Hindus." ..."
"... The Politics of Free Markets ..."
"... "The new dual sate is alive and well: Normative State for the core populations of the capitalist center, and another State of arbitrary decrees for the non-citizens who are the rest. Unlike in classical fascism, this second State is only dimly visible from the first. The radical critique protesting that liberty within the Normative State is an illusion, although understandable, is erroneous. The denial of citizenship based not on exploitation, oppression and straightforward discrimination, but on mere exclusion and distance, is difficult to grasp, because the mental habits of liberation struggle for a more just redistribution of goods and powers are not applicable. The problem is not that the Normative State is becoming more authoritarian: rather, that it belongs only to a few." ..."
"... Alternative fur Deutchalnd ..."
"... Neoliberalism as Exception: Mutations in Citizenship and Sovereignty ..."
"... Neoliberalism presumes a strong state, working only for the benefit of the wealthy, and as such it has little pretence to neutrality and universality, unlike the classical liberal state. I would go so far as to say that neoliberalism is the final completion of capitalism's long-nascent project, in that the desire to transform everything -- every object, every living thing, every fact on the planet -- in its image had not been realized to the same extent by any preceding ideology. ..."
"... The Fascist Nature of Neoliberalism ..."
"... "La Dottrina del Fascismo" ..."
"... "Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state," ..."
"... "inverted totalitarianism" ..."
"... Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism, ..."
"... Neoliberalism and Terror: Critical Engagements ..."
"... Characteristics of the Illiberal Neoliberal Society ..."
"... Sociology of Imperialism ..."
"... "The bourgeoisie did not simply supplant the sovereign, nor did it make him its leader, as did the nobility. It merely wrested a portion of its power from him and for the rest submitted to him. It did not take over from the sovereign the state as an abstract form of organization. The state remained a special social power, confronting the bourgeoisie. In some countries it has continued to play that role to the present day. It is in the state that the bourgeoisie with its interests seeks refuge, protection against external and even domestic enemies. The bourgeoisie seeks to win over the state for itself, and in return serves the state and state interests that are different from its own." ..."
"... Democratic elections have become the means for installing leaders with little respect for democratic values. The tolerance, openness and inclusiveness on which modern democracy is founded are being rejected by candidates and voters in favor of sectarian, parochial fears and interests. The role of the free press as an impartial arbiter of facts is being undermined by the rise of private and public news media conglomerates purveying political preference as fact combined with a blinding blizzard of fake news. Party politics has been polarized into a winner-take-all fight to the finish by vested-interests and impassioned extremist minorities trying to impose their agendas on a complacent majority. Corporate power and money power are transforming representative governments into plutocratic pseudo-democracies. Fundamentalists are seizing the instruments of secular democracy to impose intolerant linguistic, racial and religious homogeneity in place of the principles of liberty and harmonious heterogeneity that are democracy's foundation and pinnacle of achievement." ..."
"... "Suppose the election was declared free and fair and those elected are "racists, fascists, separatists, who are publicly opposed to [peace and reintegration]. That is the dilemma." ..."
"... "Fascism may be defined as the subordination of every part of the State to a totalitarian and nihilistic ideology. I argue that neoliberalism is a species of fascism because the economy has brought under subjection not only the government of democratic countries but also every aspect of our thought. The state is now at the disposal of the economy and of finance, which treat it as a subordinate and lord over it to an extent that puts the common good in jeopardy." ..."
"... Lectures on Fascism, ..."
"... Neoliberalism has been more successful than most past ideologies in redefining subjectivity, in making people alter their sense of themselves, their personhood, their identities, their hopes and expectations and dreams and idealizations. Classical liberalism was successful too, for two and a half centuries, in people's self-definition, although communism and fascism succeeded less well in realizing the "new man." It cannot be emphasized enough that neoliberalism is not classical liberalism, or a return to a purer version of it, as is commonly misunderstood; it is a new thing, because the market, for one thing, is not at all free and untethered and dynamic in the sense that classical liberalism idealized it. ..."
"... "In some parts of Europe, and in the United States, anti-foreigner rhetoric full of unbridled vitriol and hatred, is proliferating to a frightening degree, and is increasingly unchallenged. The rhetoric of fascism is no longer confined to a secret underworld of fascists, meeting in ill-lit clubs or on the 'deep net'. It is becoming part of normal daily discourse." ..."
"... The Global Rise of Populism ..."
"... The risk democratic formations continually face is internal disintegration such that the heterogeneous elements of the social order not only fail to come together within some principle of or for unity, but actively turn against one another. In this case, a totally unproductive revolution takes place. Rather than subversion of the normative order causing suffering, rebellion or revolution that might establish a new nomos of shared life as a way of establishing a new governing logic, the dissociated elements of disintegrating democratic formations identify with the very power responsible for their subjection–capital, the state and, the strong leader. Thus the possibility of fascism is not negated in neoliberal formations but is an ever present possibility arising within it. Because the value of the social order as such is never in itself sufficient to maintain its own constitution, it must have recourse to an external value, which is the order of the sacred embodied by the sovereign. ..."
"... Can the World be Wrong ..."
"... "Even mature democracies show signs of degenerating into their illiberal namesakes. The historical record confirms that peaceful, prosperous, free and harmonious societies can best be nurtured by the widest possible distribution of all forms of power -- political, economic, educational, scientific, technological and social -- to the greatest extent to the greatest number. The aspiration for individual freedom can only be realized and preserved when it is married with the right to social equality. The mutual interdependence of the individual and the collective is the key to their reconciliation and humanity's future. ..."
"... Beset by stagnant wage growth, less than half of respondents in America, Britain and France believe that globalisation is a "force for good" in the world. Westerners also say the world is getting worse. Even Americans, generally an optimistic lot, are feeling blue: just 11% believe the world has improved in the past year. The turn towards nationalism is especially pronounced in France, the cradle of liberty. Some 52% of the French now believe that their economy should not have to rely on imports, and just 13% reckon that immigration has a positive effect on their country. France is divided as to whether or not multiculturalism is something to be embraced. Such findings will be music to the ears of Marine Le Pen, the leader of the National Front, France's nationalist, Eurosceptic party. Current (and admittedly early) polling has her tied for first place in the 2017 French presidential race. ..."
"... "Populism is not Fascism: But it could be a Harbinger" ..."
"... Foreign Affairs ..."
"... Structural Exploitation under the Neoliberal Social Contract ..."
"... "a property of institutions or systems in which the "rules of the game" unfairly benefit one group of people to the detriment of another" ..."
"... The End of Politics: Corporate Power and the Decline of the Public Sphere ..."
"... The Trickle Down Delusion ..."
"... "Real hourly compensation of production, nonsupervisory workers who make up 80 percent of the workforce, also shows pay stagnation for most of the period since 1973, rising 9.2 percent between 1973 and 2014.Net productivity grew 1.33 percent each year between 1973 and 2014, faster than the meager 0.20 percent annual rise in median hourly compensation. In essence, about 15 percent of productivity growth between 1973 and 2014 translated into higher hourly wages and benefits for the typical American worker. Since 2000, the gap between productivity and pay has risen even faster. The net productivity growth of 21.6 percent from 2000 to 2014 translated into just a 1.8 percent rise in inflation-adjusted compensation for the median worker (just 8 percent of net productivity growth).Since 2000, more than 80 percent of the divergence between a typical (median) worker's pay growth and overall net productivity growth has been driven by rising inequality (specifically, greater inequality of compensation and a falling share of income going to workers relative to capital owners).Over the entire 1973–2014 period, rising inequality explains over two-thirds of the productivity–pay divergence. ..."
"... "Understanding the Historic Divergence Between Productivity and a Typical Worker's Pay Why It Matters and Why It's Real" ..."
"... "The fact that our society places no limit on wealth while making it accessible to all helps account for the 'feverish' quality Tocqueville sensed in American civilization." Culture Against Man ..."
"... Neoliberal Hegemony ..."
"... Toward a 21st Century Social Contract" ..."
"... "A 21 st Century Social Contract" ..."
"... "The nature of work is changing very rapidly. Old models of lifelong employment via business and a predictable safety net provided by government are no longer assured in a new demographic, economic, and political environment. We see these trends most clearly in the rise of the "gig economy," in which contingent workers (freelancers, independent contractors, consultants, or other outsourced and non-permanent workers) are hired on a temporary or part-time basis. These workers make up more than 90 percent of new job creation in European countries, and by 2020, it is estimated that more than 40 percent of the U.S. workforce will be in contingent jobs." ..."
"... " Turning the Social Contract Inside Out: Neoliberal Governance and Human Capital in Two Days, One Night" ..."
"... 'knowledge based economy' ..."
"... "The Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich have taken a database listing 37 million companies and investors worldwide, pulled out all 43,060 multinational corporations and the share ownerships linking them to construct a model of which companies controlled others through shareholding networks, coupled with each company's operating revenues, to map the structure of economic power.The model revealed a core of 1318 companies with interlocking ownerships. Each of the 1318 had ties to two or more other companies, and on average they were connected to 20. What's more, although they represented 20 per cent of global operating revenues, the 1318 appeared to collectively own through their shares the majority of the world's large blue chip and manufacturing firms, the "real" economy, representing a further 60 per cent of global revenues.When the team further untangled the web of ownership, it found much of it tracked back to a super-entity of 147 even more tightly knit companies (all of their ownership was held by other members of the super-entity) that controlled 40 per cent of the total wealth in the network. "In effect, less than 1 per cent of the companies were able to control 40 per cent of the entire network." ..."
"... "Neoliberalism and technology: Perpetual innovation or perpetual crisis?" ..."
"... Liberalism in the Shadow of Totalitarianism ..."
"... "The Corporate Contradictions of Neoliberalism" ..."
"... "Neoliberalism was born in reaction against totalitarian statism, and matured at the University of Chicago into a program of state-reduction that was directed not just against the totalitarian state and the socialist state but also (and especially) against the New Deal regulatory and welfare state. It is a self-consciously reactionary ideology that seeks to roll back the status quo and institutionalize (or, on its own understanding, re-institutionalize) the "natural" principles of the market. But the contradiction between its individualist ideals and our corporate reality means that the effort to institutionalize it, oblivious to this contradiction, has induced deep dysfunction in our corporate system, producing weakened growth, intense inequality, and coercion. And when the ideological support of a system collapses -- as appears to be happening with neoliberalism -- then either the system will collapse, or new levels of coercion and manipulation will be deployed to maintain it. This appears to be the juncture at which we have arrived." ..."
"... lumpenproletariat ..."
"... "Sociology and the Critique of Neoliberalism" ..."
"... The Social Nature of Cryptocurrencies ..."
"... The Denationalization of Money ..."
"... Austerity: The Lived Experience ..."
"... Neoliberalism, Economic Radicalism, and the Normalization of Violence ..."
"... "Over the past twenty years, the IMF has been strengthened enormously. Thanks to the debt crisis and the mechanism of conditionality, it has moved from balance of payments support to being quasi-universal dictator of so-called "sound" economic policies, meaning of course neo-liberal ones. The World Trade Organisation was finally put in place in January 1995 after long and laborious negotiations, often rammed through parliaments which had little idea what they were ratifying. Thankfully, the most recent effort to make binding and universal neo-liberal rules, the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, has failed, at least temporarily. It would have given all rights to corporations, all obligations to governments and no rights at all to citizens. The common denominator of these institutions is their lack of transparency and democratic accountability. This is the essence of neo-liberalism. It claims that the economy should dictate its rules to society, not the other way around. Democracy is an encumbrance, neo-liberalism is designed for winners, not for voters who, necessarily encompass the categories of both winners and losers." ..."
"... "When elected governments break the "representative covenant" and show complete indifference to the sufferings of citizens, when democracy is downgraded to an abstract set of rules and deprived of meaning for much of the citizenry, many will be inclined to regard democracy as a sham, to lose confidence in and withdraw their support for electoral institutions. Dissatisfaction with democracy now ranges from 40 percent in Peru and Bolivia to 59 percent in Brazil and 62 percent in Colombia. ..."
"... Exploitation; What is it and why it is Wrong ..."
"... Shadow Sovereigns: How Global Corporations are seizing Power ..."
"... Publics around the globe are generally unhappy with the functioning of their nations' political systems. Across the 36 countries asked the question, a global median of 46% say they are very or somewhat satisfied with the way their democracy is working, compared with 52% who are not too or not at all satisfied. Levels of satisfaction vary considerably by region and within regions. Overall, people in the Asia-Pacific region are the most happy with their democracies. At least half in five of the six Asian nations where this question was asked express satisfaction. Only in South Korea is a majority unhappy (69%). ..."
"... Communication and the Globalization of Culture ..."
"... Class Politics and the Radical Right ..."
"... In 2012 the United States spent an estimated 19.4% of GDP on such social expenditures, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the Paris-based industrial country think tank. Denmark spent 30.5%, Sweden 28.2% and Germany 26.3%. All of these nations have a lower central government debt to GDP ratio than that of the United States. Why the United States invests relatively less in its social safety net than many other countries and why those expenditures are even at risk in the current debate over debt reduction reflect Americans' conflicted, partisan and often contradictory views on fairness, inequality, the role and responsibility of government and individuals in society and the efficacy of government action. Rooted in value differences, not just policy differences, the debate over the U.S. social contract is likely to go on long after the fiscal cliff issue has been resolved." ..."
"... Popper, Hayek and the Open Society ..."
"... Social Exclusion, Popular Resistanceand the Future of Neoliberalism ..."
"... Social Exclusion ..."
"... London Labour and the London Poor ..."
"... The German Ideology ..."
"... "Labour Relations and Social Movements in the 21st Century" ..."
"... "The panorama of a deep economic crisis which in the last few decades has hit Europe and its Welfare state in particular has had an unprecedented impact on employment and social policies. The neoliberal model and the effects of deregulated and global finance not only question the "European social model" but push sectors of the labour force – with the youngest and well-qualified being prominent – into unemployment or precarious jobs. the sociological and potential socio-political significance of these actionsparticularly as a result of the interconnections that such movements express, both in the sphere of the workplace and industrial system or whether with broader social structures, with special emphasis on the middle classes and the threats of 'proletarianization' that presently hang over them. labour relations of our time are crossed by precariousness and by a new and growing "precariat" which also gave rise to new social movements and new forms of activism and protest." ..."
"... Personal Insolvency in the 21st Century: A Comparative Analysis of the US and Europe, ..."
"... "Working-class participation, middle-class aspiration? Value, upward mobility and symbolic indebtedness in higher education."The Sociological Review ..."
"... The Financialization of Capitalism: 'Profiting without producing' ..."
"... European Network and Debt and Development ..."
"... "Do you enjoy rising prices? Everybody talks about commodities – with the Agriculture Euro Fund you can benefit from the increase in value of the seven most important agricultural commodities." With this advertisement the Deutsche Bankt tried in spring 2008 to attract clients for one of its investment funds. At the same time, there were hunger revolts in Haiti, Cameroon and other developing countries, because many poor could no longer pay the exploding food prices. In fact, between the end of 2006 and March 2008 the prices for the seven most important commodities went up by 71 per cent on average, for rice and grain the increase was 126 per cent. The poor are most hit by the hike in prices. Whereas households in industrialised countries spend 10 -20 per cent for food, in low-income countries they spend 60 – 80 per cent. As a result, the World Bank forecasts an increase in the number of people falling below the absolute poverty line by more than 100 million. Furthermore, the price explosion has negative macroeconomic effects: deterioration of the balance of payment, fuelling inflation and new debt." ..."
"... Makers and Takers: How Wall Street Destroyed Main Street ..."
"... "The Politics of Public Debt: Neoliberalism, capitalist development, and the restructuring of the state", ..."
"... "Why should the new oligarchs be interested in their countries' future productive capacities and present democratic stability if, apparently, they can be rich without it, processing back and forth the synthetic money produced for them at no cost by a central bank for which the sky is the limit, at each stage diverting from it hefty fees and unprecedented salaries, bonuses and profits as long as it is forthcoming -- and then leave their country to its remaining devices and withdraw to some privately owned island? ..."
"... Neoliberalism and the Making of the Subprime Borrower ..."
"... The Making of the Indebted Man: An Essay on the Neoliberal Condition ..."
"... Debt: the First 5000 Years ..."
"... "Torturing the Poor, German-Style" ..."
"... "Germany's chancellor [Gerhard] Schröder (SPD) –known as the "Comrade of the Bosses"– no longer sought to integrate labour into capitalism, at least not the Lumpenproletariat or ..."
"... . These sections of society are now deliberately driven into mass poverty, joining the growing number of working poor on a scale not seen in Germany perhaps since the 1930s." ..."
"... Alternative fur Deutchland ..."
"... Grassroots Resistance to Neoliberalism ..."
"... Homeless Workers' Movement and Landless Workers' Movement), ..."
"... (Ejército Zapatista de Liberación Nacional, EZLN), ..."
"... (Fanmi Lavalas) ..."
"... (Narmada Bachao Andolan). ..."
"... "Dying for Growth: Global Inequality and the Health of the Poor" ..."
"... "100 countries have undergone grave economic decline over the past three decades. Per capita income in these 100 countries is now lower than it was 10, 15, 20 or in some cases even 30 years ago. In Africa, the average household consumes 20 percent less today than it did 25 years ago. Worldwide, more than 1 billion people saw their real incomes fall during the period 1980-1993." ..."
"... Democracy against Neoliberalism in Argentina and Brazil, ..."
"... Double Jeopardy: The Impact of Neoliberalism on Care Workers in the United States and South Africa" ..."
"... The BRICS: Challenges to the Global Status Quo" ..."
"... Landless Workers Movement ..."
"... Partido dos Trabalhadores ..."
"... The Drug War in Mexico: Hegemony and Global Capitalism ..."
"... Justice in El Barrio ..."
"... Black Lives Matter ..."
"... Occupy Wall Street ..."
"... 'De-democratization' under Neoliberalism ..."
"... Undoing the Demos: Neoliberalism's Stealth Revolution ..."
"... "If the core of neoliberalism is a natural fact, as suggested by the ideology already embedded deep within our collective psyche, who can change it? Can you live without breathing, or stop the succession of days and nights? This is why Western democracy chooses among the many masks behind which is essentially the same liberal party. Change is not forbidden, change is impossible. Some consider this feature to be an insidious form of invisible totalitarianism. ..."
"... "The unholy alliance of neoliberalism and postmodernism" ..."
"... "undermine the immune system of society, neoliberalism by commercialization of even the most sacred domains and postmodernism by its super-relativism and refusal to recognize any hierarchy in value or belief systems." ..."
"... "Neoliberalism as Political Theology of Chance: the politics of divination." ..."
"... Revoking the Moral Order: The Ideology of Positivism and the Vienna Circle ..."
"... "Neoliberalism and its Threat to Moral Agency" ..."
"... Virtue and Economy ..."
"... The Neoliberal Pattern of Domination: Capital's Reign in Decline, ..."
"... The Future of Neoliberalism ..."
"... Hall of Mirrors: The Great Depression, the Great Recession and the Uses and Misuses of History ..."
"... Alternatives to Neoliberal Globalization ..."
"... Alternatives to Neoliberal Globalization ..."
"... Christian Science Monitor ..."
"... "Worldwide, it has been a rough years for democracy. The UK, the United States and Colombia made critical decisions about their nations' future, and – at least from the perspective of liberal values and social justice – they decided poorly. Beyond the clear persistence of racism, sexism and xenophobia in people's decision-making, scholars and pundits have argued that to understand the results of recent popular votes, we must reflect on neoliberalism. International capitalism, which has dominated the globe for the past three decades, has its winners and its losers. And, for many thinkers, the losers have spoken. My fieldwork in South America has taught me that there are alternative and effective ways to push back against neoliberalism. These include resistance movements based on pluralism and alternative forms of social organisation, production and consumption." ..."
"... Neoliberalism, Social Exclusion, and Social Movements ..."
"... The Politics of Thatcherism ..."
"... "The death of neoliberalism and the crisis in western politics" ..."
"... "A sure sign of the declining influence of neoliberalism is the rising chorus of intellectual voices raised against it. From the mid-70s through the 80s, the economic debate was increasingly dominated by monetarists and free marketeers." ..."
The
creation of large enterprises gave rise not only to an organized labor movement, but to a
larger bureaucratic regulatory state with agencies intended to help stabilize and grow
capitalism while keeping the working class loyal to the social contract. Crisis in public
confidence resulted not only from economic recessions and depressions built into the economy,
but the contradictions capitalism was fostering in society as the benefits in advances in
industry, science and technology accrued to the wealthy while the social structure remained
hierarchical.
Ever since 1947 when the ideological father of neoliberalism Friedrich von Hayek called a
conference in Mont Pelerin to address how the new ideology would replace Keynesianism,
neoliberals have been promising to address these contradictions, insisting that eliminating the
social welfare state and allowing complete market dominationthat would result in society's
modernization and would filter down to all social classes and nations both developed and
developing. Such thinking is rooted in the modernization theory that emerged after WWII when
the US took advantage of its preeminent global power to impose a transformation model on much
of the non-Communist world. Cold War liberal economist Walt Rostow articulated the
modernization model of development in his work entitled The Stages of Economic Growth: A
Non-Communist Manifesto , 1960. By the 1970s, neoliberals adapted Rostow's modernization
theory as their bible and the core of the social contract. (Evans Rubara, "Uneven
Development: Understanding the Roots of Inequality"
The challenge for the political class has always been and remains to mobilize a popular base
that would afford legitimacy to the social contract. The issue for mainstream political parties
is not whether there is a systemic problem with the social contract intended to serve the
capitalist class, but the degree to which the masses can be co-opted through various methods to
support the status quo. "A generation ago, the country's social contract was premised on
higher wages and reliable benefits, provided chiefly by employers. In recent decades, we've
moved to a system where low wages are supposed to be made bearable by low consumer prices and a
hodgepodge of government assistance programs. But as dissatisfaction with this arrangement has
grown, it is time to look back at how we got here and imagine what the next stage of the social
contract might be."
Considering that Keynesianism and neoliberalism operate under the same social structure and
differ only on how best to achieve capital formation while retaining sociopolitical conformity,
the article above published in The Atlantic illustrates how analysts/commentators
easily misinterpret nuances within a social contract for the covenant's macro goals. A similar
view as that expressed in The Atlantic is also reflected in the New America
Foundation's publications, identifying specific aspects of Arthur Schlesinger's Cold War
militarist policies enmeshed with social welfare Keynesianism as parts of the evolving social
contract.
Identifying the social contract with a specific set of policies under different
administrations evolving to reflect the nuances of political class and economic elites,some
analysts contend that there is a European Union-wide social contract to which nationally-based
social contracts must subordinate their sovereignty. This model has evolved to accommodate
neoliberal globalism through regional trade blocs on the basis of a 'patron-client'integration
relationship between core and periphery countries.
A European export and integral part of cultural hegemony in the non-Western world, the
liberal-bourgeois social contract for the vast majority of Africans has failed to deliver on
the promise of socioeconomic development, social justice and national sovereignty since
independence from colonial rule. Just as in Africa, the Asian view of the social contract is
that it entails a liberal model of government operating within the capitalist system rather
than taking into account social justice above all else. Embracing pluralism and diversity while
shedding aspects of authoritarian capitalism associated with cronyism and the clientist state,
the view of the Asian social contract is to subordinate society to neoliberal global
integration and work within the framework of Western-established institutions. In each country,
traditions governing social and political relationships underlie the neoliberal model. (Sanya
Osha, The Social Contract in Africa , 2014;
Despite far reaching implications for society and despite the political and business class
keen awareness of neoliberalism, most people around the world are almost as perplexed by the
term neoliberalism as they are with social contract theory that is outside the public debate
confined to the domain of political philosophy. Many associate neoliberalism withRonald Reagan
supporter Milton Friedman and the 'Chicago School', rarely mentioning the political dimension
of the economic philosophy and its far-reaching implications for all segments of society. In an
article entitled "Neoliberalism – the ideology at the root of all our problems" The
Guardian columnist George Monbiot raised a few basic questions about the degree to which
the public is misinformed when it comes to the neoliberal social contract under which society
operates.
" Neoliberalism: do you know what it is? Its anonymity is both a symptom and cause of
its power. It has played a major role in a remarkable variety of crises: the financial meltdown
of 2007-2008, the offshoring of wealth and power, of which the Panama Papers offer us merely a
glimpse, the slow collapse of public health and education, resurgent child poverty, the
epidemic of loneliness, the collapse of ecosystems, the rise of Donald Trump. But we respond to
these crises as if they emerge in isolation, apparently unaware that they have all been either
catalysed or exacerbated by the same coherent philosophy; a philosophy that has – or had
– a name. What greater power can there be than to operate namelessly?
Advocates of neoliberalism, both from the pluralist-social welfare wing and the rightwing
populist camp, have succeeded in institutionalizing the new social contract which has
transformed the historically classical notion of individual freedombased on the Enlightenment
concept of natural rights into freedom of capitalist hegemony over the state and society.
Whether operating under the political/ideological umbrella of pluralism-environmentalism in
Western nations, combined with some version of a Keynesian social welfare pluralist model, with
rightwing populism or authoritarianism in one-party state, political and corporate elites
advancing the neoliberal model share the same goal with regard to capital formation and
mainstream institutions.
Weakening the social welfare corporatist state model by reaching political consensus among
mainstream political parties by the late 1980s-early 1990s, whether operating under a
centrist-pluralist or conservative party, neoliberals have been using the combination of
massive deregulation with the state providing a bailout mechanism when crisis hits; fiscal
policy that transfers income from workers and the middle class – raising the public debt
to transfer wealth from the bottom 90% to the wealthiest 10% -; providing corporate subsidies
and bailouts; and privatizing public projects and services at an immense cost to the declining
living standards for the middle class and workers.
As much in the US as in other developed nations beginning in the 1980s, the neoliberal state
has become status quo by intentionally weakening the social welfare state and redefining the
social contract throughout the world. Working with large banks and multilateral institutions
such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank that use loans as leverage to
impose neoliberal policies around the world in debtor nations desperate to raise capital for
the state and attract direct foreign investment, the advanced capitalist countries impose the
neoliberal social contract on the world.
As reflected in the integrated global economy, the neoliberal model was imbedded in IMF
stabilization and World Bank development loans since the late 1940s. After the energy crisis of
the mid-1970s and the revolutions in Iran and Nicaragua in 1979, international developments
that took place amid US concerns about the economy under strain from rising balance payments
deficits that could not accommodate both 'military Keynesianism' (deficit spending on defense
as a means of boosting the economy) and the social welfare system, neoliberalism under the
corporate welfare state emerged as the best means to continue strengthening capitalism. (J. M.
Cypher, "From Military Keynesianism to Global-Neoliberal Militarism" , Monthly
Review Vol. 59, No. 2, 2007; Jason Hickel, A Short History ofNeoliberalism ,
Everything from government agencies whose role is strengthening capital, to public schools
and hospitals emulating the market-based management model and treating patients and students as
customers, the neoliberal goal is comprehensive market domination of society. Advocates of the
neoliberal social contract no longer conceal their goals behind rhetoric about
liberal-democratic ideals of individual freedom and the state as an arbiter to harmonize the
interests of social classes. The market unequivocally imposes its hegemony not just over the
state but on all institutions, subordinating peoples' lives to market forces and equating those
forces with democracy and national sovereignty. In pursuit of consolidating the neoliberal
model on a world scale, the advocates of this ideology subordinate popular sovereignty and
popular consent from which legitimacy of the state emanates to capital. http://www.rhizomes.net/issue10/introren.htm
As an integral part of the social environment and hegemonic culture reflecting the
hierarchical class structure and values based on marginalization, the neoliberal social
contract has become institutionalized in varying degrees reflecting the more integrative nature
of capitalism after the fall of the Communist bloc coinciding with China's increased global
economic integration. Emboldened that there was no competing ideology from any government
challenging capitalism, neoliberals aggressively pursued globalization under the
deregulation-corporate welfare anti-labor model.
Some countries opted for mixed policies with a dose of quasi-statist policies as in the case
of China. Others retained many aspects of the social welfare state as in the case of EU
members, while some pursue authoritarian capitalism within a pluralistic model. Still other
nations in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia where pluralism and multi-party traditions are not
very strong, neoliberal policies are tailored to clientist politics and crony capitalism. In
all cases, 'market omnipotence theory' is the catalyst under the umbrella of the neoliberal
social contract.
Ideology, the Neoliberal State, and the Social Contract
Just as religion was universally intertwined with identity, projection of self-image in the
community and the value system in the Age of Faith (500-1500), secular ideology in the modern
world fulfills somewhat a similar goal. Although neoliberalism has been criticized as a secular
religion precisely because of its dogmatism regarding market fundamentalism, especially after
2013 when Pope Francis dismissed it as idolatry of money that attempts to gloss over abject
socioeconomic inequality on a world scale, capitalistsand the political class around the world
have embraced some aspects if not wholeheartedly neoliberal ideology.
https://economicsociology.org/2014/12/25/pope-francis-against-neoliberalism-finance-capitalism-consumerism-and-inequality/
In the early 21 st century arguments equating the rich with societal progress and
vilifying the poor as social stigma indicative of individual failure are no different than
arguments raised by apologists of capitalism in the early 19 th century when the
British Parliament was debating how to punish the masses of poor that the industrial revolution
had created. In defending tax cuts to the wealthy, Republican Senator Chuck Grassley stated:
"I think not having theestate taxrecognizes the people
that are investing -- as opposed to those that are just spending every darn penny they have,
whether it's on booze or women or movies."
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/grassley-estate-taxes-booze-women_us_5a247d89e4b03c44072e5a04
; The US senator's argument could easily be heard in early 19 th century England.
Blaming the poor for structural poverty which capitalism causes has become widespreadsince the
early 1980s. This is because of government efforts to dismantle the welfare state as a social
safety net and transfer resources for tax cuts to the wealthiest individuals. https://www.globalresearch.ca/blaming-the-poor-for-poverty/535675
Rooted in classical liberal ideology, neoliberalism rests on laissez-faire and social
Darwinist principles that affirm societal progress as defined by materialist self-interest.
Because private financial gain is the sole measure of success and virtue, neoliberals demand
that the state and international organizations must remove impediments to capital
accumulationnationally and internationally no matter the consequences to the non-propertied
classes. Aiming for more than mere mechanical compliance, the goal of the ideology is to create
the illusion of the neoliberal self that lives, breathes, and actualizes neoliberal myths in
every aspect of life from a person as a worker to consumer and citizen.
Jim Mcguigan argues that "the transition from organised capitalism to neoliberal
hegemony over the recent period has brought about a corresponding transformation in
subjectivity. Leading celebrities, most notably high-tech entrepreneurs, for instance, operate
in the popular imagination as models of achievement for the aspiring young. They are seldom
emulated in real life, however, even unrealistically so. Still, their famed lifestyles and
heavily publicised opinions provide guidelines to appropriate conduct in a ruthlessly
competitive and unequal world." (Jim McGuigan: 'The Neoliberal Self',Culture Unbound,
Volume 6, 2014; http://www.cultureunbound.ep.liu.se/v6/a13/cu14v6a13.pdf
By offering the illusion of integration to those that the social structure has marginalized
while trying to indoctrinate the masses that the corporate state is salvation and the welfare
state is the enemy to default all of society's problems, the neoliberal ideology has captured
the imagination of many in the middle class and even some in the working class not just in the
West but around the world and especially in former Communist bloc countries where people
entertained an idealized version of bourgeois liberal society. (S. Gill, "Pessimism of
Intelligence, Optimism of Will" in Perspectives on Gramsci , ed. by Joseph
Francene 2009)
Similar to liberalism in so far as it offers something for which to hope, neoliberalism is a
departure when it decries the state as an obstacle to capitalist growth not only because of
regulatory mechanisms and as an arbiter in society that must placate the masses with social
programs, but even as a centralized entity determining monetary and fiscal policy. Proponents
of neoliberalism demand turning back the clock to the ideology that prevailed among capitalists
and their political supporters at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution when there were no
state mechanisms to regulate labor conditions, mining operations and the environment, food and
drugs, etc. From a dogmatic market fundamentalist perspective, the market transcends national
borders and supersedes the state, thus the principal form of governance revolves around
furthering capital accumulation.
Not only is there an absence of a social conscience not so different than what prevailed in
the nascent phase of industrial capitalism, but there is disdain of social responsibility on
the part of capital beyond the realm of tax-deductible charity donations and voluntarism. More
significant, neoliberals believe that capital is entitled to appropriate whatever possible from
society because the underlying assumption of corporate welfare entitlement is built into the
neoliberal ideology that identifies the national interest with capital and labor as the enemy
of capital accumulation. (K. Farnsworth, Social vs. Corporate Welfare , 2012)
The irony in all of this is that in 2008 the world experienced the largest and deepest
recession since the 1930s precisely because of neoliberal policies. However, its advocates
insisted that the recession was causedwe did not have enough deregulation, privatization,
corporate welfare and low taxes on capital rather than going too far with such an extreme
ideology whose legal and illegal practices that led to the global recession. Even more ironic
neoliberal ideology blames the state – central banks, legislative branch and regulatory
agencies – rather than the economic system for the cyclical crisis.
https://cgd.leeds.ac.uk/events/2008-global-financial-crisis-in-a-long-term-perspective-the-failure-of-neo-liberalism-and-the-future-of-capitalism-2/
Because the state puts the interests of a tiny percentage of the population above the rest
of society, it is a necessary structure only in so far as it limits its role to promoting
capital formation by using any means to achieve the goal. Whether under a pluralistic-diversity
political model or an authoritarian one, neoliberalism is anti-democratic because as Riad Azar
points out, "The common denominator is the empowering of elites over the masses with the
assistance of international forces through military action or financial coercion -- a
globalized dialectic of ruling classes."
From conservative and liberal to self-described Socialist, political parties around the
world have moved ideologically farther to the right in order to accommodate neoliberalism as
part of their platform. The challenge of the political class is to keep people loyal to the
neoliberal ideology; a challenge that necessarily forces political parties to be eclectic in
choosing aspects of other ideological camps that appeal to voters. While embracing corporate
welfare, decrying social welfare is among the most glaring neoliberal contradiction of an
ideology that ostensibly celebrates non-state intervention in the private sector. This
contradiction alone forces neoliberal politicians of all stripes and the media to engage in
mass distraction and to use everything from identity politics ideologies to cult of
personality,and culture wars and 'clash of civilization' theories.
https://www.telesurtv.net/english/opinion/How-the-Democrats-Became-The-Party-of-Neoliberalism-20141031-0002.html
;
https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/paul-emery/why-on-earth-would-socialists-support-neoliberal-undemocratic-eu
To justify why self-proclaimed socialist and democratic parties have embraced neoliberalism,
many academics have provided a wide range of theories which have in fact helped solidify the
neoliberal ideology into the political mainstream. Among the countless people swept up by the
enthusiasm of the Communist bloc's fall and China's integration into the world capitalist
economy, Daniel Bell, The End of Ideology (2000), argued that the world returned to
old religious and ethnic conflicts around which ideologies of the new century were molded.
Encouraged by China's integration into the global capitalist system, in September 2006 Bell
wrote : "It's the end of ideology in China. Not the end of all ideology, but the end of
Marxist ideology. China has many social problems, but the government and its people will deal
with them in pragmatic ways, without being overly constrained by ideological boundaries. I
still think there's a need for a moral foundation for political rule in China – some sort
of guiding ideal for the future – but it won't come from Karl Marx."https://prezi.com/kha1ketnfjtd/ideology-in-everyday-life/
Such hasty pronouncements and others in works like Francis Fukuyama's The End of
History expressed the Western bourgeois sense of relief of an integrated world under the
Western-dominated neoliberal ideology that would somehow magically solve problems the Cold War
had created. While Bell, Fukuyama and others celebrated the triumphant era of neoliberal
ideology, they hardly dealt with the realities that ideology in peoples' lives emanates from
mainstream institutions manifesting irreconcilable contradictions. A product molded by the
hegemonic political culture, neoliberal ideology has been a factor in keeping the majority in
conformity while a small minority is constantly seeking outlets of social resistance, some
within the neoliberal rightwing political mold.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/mar/21/bring-back-ideology-fukuyama-end-history-25-years-on
As catalyst to mobilize the masses, nationalism remains a strong aspect of ideological
indoctrination that rightwing populist neoliberals have used blaming immigrants, Muslims,
women, gays, environmentalists, and minorities for structural problems society confronts
resulting from the political economy. Although there are different political approaches about
how best to achieve neoliberal goals, ideological indoctrination has always played an essential
role in keeping people loyal to the social contract. However, the contradiction in neoliberal
ideology is the need for a borderless world and the triumph of capital over the nation-state
while state policies harmonize disparate capitalist interests within the nation-state and
beyond it. If neoliberal ideology tosses aside nationalism then it deprives itself of a
mechanism to mobilize the masses behind it. https://left-flank.org/2011/01/16/the-curious-marriage-of-neoliberalism-and-nationalism/
Arguing that the 'Ideological State Apparatuses' (ISA) such as religious and educational
institutions among others in the private sector perpetuate the ideology of the status quo,
Louis Pierre Althusser captured the essence of state mechanisms to mobilize the masses.
However, ideology is by no means the sole driving force in keeping people loyal to the social
contract. While peoples' material concerns often dictate their ideological orientation, it
would be hasty to dismiss the role of the media along with hegemonic cultural influences deeply
ingrained into society shaping peoples' worldview and keeping them docile.
Building on Althusser's theory of how the state maintains the status quo, Goran Therborn (
Ideology of Power and the Power of Ideology , 1999) argues that the neoliberal state
uses ideological domination as a mechanism to keep people compliant. Combined with the state's
repressive mechanisms – police and armed forces – the ideological apparatus
engenders conformity wherein exploitation and repression operate within the boundaries that the
state defines as 'legal', thus 'normal' for society. A desirable goal of regimes ranging from
parliamentary to Mussolini's Fascist Italy (1922-1943) and clerical Fascism under Antonio de
Oliveira Salazar's Portugal (1932-1968), legalized repressive mechanisms have become an
integral part of neoliberal ideological domination.
The unchecked role of neoliberal capitalism in every aspect of the social fabric runs the
risk of at the very least creating massive social, economic and political upheaval as was the
case with the great recession of 2008 preceded by two decades of neoliberal capitalism taking
precedence over the welfare regulatory state whose role is to secure and/or retain equilibrium
in global markets. In The Great Transformation , (1944)", Karl Polanyi argued that:
"To allow the market mechanism to be sole director of the fate of human beings and their
natural environment would result in the demolition of society."
Because Polanyi lived through the Great Depression era of the New Deal and the rise and fall
of the Axis Powers, he was optimistic that a return to the 1920s would not take root after
WWII. Polanyi accepted Hegel's view of the social contract that the state preserves society by
safeguarding general or universal interests against particular ones. However, we have been
witnessing the kind of demolition of society Polanyi feared because of unchecked market forces.
This is in part because the demise of the Communist bloc and the rise of China as a major
economic power emboldened advocates of neoliberal ideology.
With the realization of US long road to decline at the end of the Vietnam War, neoliberal
elites prevailed that the crisis of American leadership could be met with the elimination of
Keynesian ideology and the adoption of neoliberalism as tested by the Chicago School in Chile
under the US-backed dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet from 1973 to 1990. That the neoliberal
ideology became an experiment tested in a US-backed military dictatorship in South America is
itself revealing about what the nature of the social contract once implemented even in
pluralistic societies where there was popular and political support for Keynesianism.
Characteristic of a developing nation like Chile was external dependence and a weak state
structure, thus easily manipulated by domestic and foreign capital interested in deregulation
and further weakening of the public sector as the core of the social contract.
"The withering away of national states and the wholesale privatization of state-owned
enterprises and state-administered services transferred highly profitable monopolies to
capitalists, and guaranteed the repayment of the foreign debt-contracted, as in Argentina,
Brazil, Chile, and Uruguay-by irresponsible, corrupt, and de facto military rulers.
Neoliberalism supplied the general justification for the transfer of public assets and
state-owned enterprises, paid for with public savings, even in areas considered "taboo" and
untouchable until a few years ago, such as electricity, aviation, oil, or
telecommunications. (Atilio A. Boron, "Democracy or Neoliberalism?"http://bostonreview.net/archives/BR21.5/boron.html
Advocating the systematic dismantling of the social welfare state in the name of upholding
the virtues of individualism while strengthening of corporate welfare capitalism in the name of
economic growth on global scale, advocates of neoliberal ideology were emboldened by the
absence of a competing ideology after the fall of the Soviet bloc and China's capitalist
integration. As the income gap widened and globalization resulted in surplus labor force amid
downward pressure on wages, a segment of the social and political elites embraced a rightwing
populist ideology as a means of achieving the neoliberal goals in cases where the pluralist
ideological model was not working. The failure of neoliberal policies led some political and
business elites to embrace rightwing populism in order to save neoliberalism that had lost
support among a segment of society because of its association with centrist and reformist
cultural-diversity pluralist neoliberals. This trend continues to gain momentum exposing the
similarities between neoliberalism and Fascism. (David Zamora, "When Exclusion Replaces
Exploitation: The Condition of the Surplus-Population under Neoliberalism"http://nonsite.org/feature/when-exclusion-replaces-exploitation.
Neoliberalism and Fascism
The role of the state
Unprecedented for a former president, on 10 December 2017 Barak Obama warned Americans not
to follow a Nazi path. A clear reference to president Trump and the Republican Party leading
America in that direction with rhetoric and policies that encourage 'culture war' (
kulturkampf – struggle between varieties of rightwingers from evangelicals to
neo-Nazis against secular liberals), Obama made reference to socioeconomic polarization at the
root of political polarization.
"The combination of economic disruption, cultural disruption ― nothing feels solid
to people ― that's a recipe for people wanting to find security somewhere. And sadly,
there's something in all of us that looks for simple answers when we're agitated and insecure.
The narrative that America at its best has stood for, the narrative of pluralism and tolerance
and democracy and rule of law, human rights and freedom of the press and freedom of religion,
that narrative, I think, is actually the more powerful narrative. The majority of people around
the world aspire to that narrative, which is the reason people still want to come here."
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/obama-warns-americans-against-following-in-the-path-of-nazi
germany_us_5a2c032ce4b0a290f0512487
Warning about the road to Nazism, Obama drew distinctions between the Democratic Party's
brand of pluralist neoliberalism and Trump's rightwing populist model. Naturally, Obama did not
mention that both models seek the same goals, or that policies for which he and his predecessor
Bill Clinton pursued drove a segment of the population toward the authoritarian neoliberal
model that offers the illusion of realizing the American Dream. Distancing themselves from
neo-Fascists, mainstream European political leaders embracing the pluralist model under
neoliberalism have been as condemnatory as Obama of rightwing populism's pursuit of 'culture
war' as a precursor to Fascism.
Accusing Trump of emboldening varieties of neo-Fascists not just in the US and EU but around
the globe, European neoliberal pluralists ignored both the deep roots of Fascism in Europe and
their own policies contributing to the rise of neo-Fascism. Just as with Obama and his fellow
Democrats, European neoliberal pluralists draw a very sharp distinction between their version
of neoliberalism and rightwing populism that either Trump or Hungary's Viktor Orban pursue.
Neoliberal pluralists argue that rightwing populists undercut globalist integration principles
by stressing economic nationalism although it was right nationalists Margaret Thatcher and
Ronald Reagan that engaged in wholesale implantation of neoliberal policies.
https://bpr.berkeley.edu/2017/02/28/the-myths-of-far-right-populism-orbans-fence-and-trumps-wall/
Rightwing populism under Ronald Reagan as the first president to implement neoliberal
policies emerged as a reaction to the prospect that the Western-basedcore of capitalism was
weakening as a result of a multi-polar world economy. Whereas in the middle of the 20
th century the US enjoyed balance of payments surpluses and was a net creditor with
the dollar as the world's strongest reserve currency and the world's strongest manufacturing
sector, in 2017 the US is among the earth's largest debtor nations with chronic balance of
payments deficits, a weak dollar with a bleak future and an economy based more on parasitic
financial speculation and massive defense-related spending and less on productive sectors that
are far more profitable in Asia and developing nations with low labor costs. (Jon Kofas,
Independence from America: Global Integration and Inequality , 2005, 40-54)
Exerting enormous influence by exporting its neoliberal ideological, political, economic and
cultural influence throughout the world, the US-imposed transformation model has resulted in
economic hardships and political and social instability in Latin America, Africa and Asia.
Institutionalizing neoliberalism under rightwing populism and using Trump as the pretext to do
so, the US is leading nations around the world to move closer to neo-Fascism, thus exposing
neoliberalism as totalitarian.The recognition by the political class and business class that
over-accumulation is only possible by continued downward wage pressure has been a key reason
that a segment of the population not just in the US but across EU has supported populist
rightwing and/or neo-fascists.
Rejecting the claim of any similarities between neoliberalism and Fascism, neoliberal
apologists take pride that their apparent goal is to weaken the state, by which they mean the
Keynesian welfare state, not the 'military Keynesian' and corporate welfare state. By contrast,
Fascists advocated a powerful state – everything within the state, nothing outside
the state, nothing against the state. American neoliberals of both the pluralist and
rightwing camps have created a societal model not just in one nation like Mussolini and Hitler
but globally with the result of: "everything within neoliberalism, nothing against
neoliberalism, nothing outside neoliberalism.
Neoliberal totalitarianism finds different expression in the US than in India, in Hungary
than in Israel. In " Neoliberal Fascism: Free Markets and the Restructuring of Indian
Capitalism," Shankar Gopalakrishnan observed that exclusive Hindu nationalism has been the
catalyst for rightwing neoliberalism to mobilize popular support. "Hindutva [ a term
coined by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar in 1923 to assert exclusive Hindu dominance] is seen as
an effort by neoliberalism, or perhaps more broadly by capitalism, to divert attention from
class conflict, to divide and weaken working class struggles and to deflect class-driven
anxieties on to minority communities. This approach is problematic in two senses. First, it
does not explain why Hindutva organisations are able to develop a mass base, except to the
extent that they are seen to be appealing to "historical identity" or "emotive" issues.The state exists only as the expression and guarantor of a collectivity founded
around a transcendent principle : The ideal state is the guarantor of the Hindu
rashtra, a "nation" that exists as an organic and harmonious unity between "Hindus."
Whereas under Ronald Reagan's neoliberal populist policies (Reaganism) under a rightwing
political umbrella the state structure was strengthened in the US, in the process of
implementing neoliberal policies state bureaucratic functions have been outsourced to private
companies thus keeping with the spirit of corporate-welfare goals. Other countries followed a
path similar to the one of the US. Contrary to the claims of many neoliberal scholars,
politicians and commentators, neoliberalism has not weakened the state simply because the
ideology lays claims to a hegemonic private sector and weak state. It is true that the
Keynesian-welfare state structure has been weakened while the
corporate-welfare-militarist-police-state structure has been strengthened. However, in the less
developed capitalist countries the public sector has weakened as a result of the US and EU
imposing the neoliberal model which drains the public sector of any leverage in stimulating
economic and social development investment because of the transfer of public assets and public
services to the private sector.( http://jgu.edu.in/article/indias-neoliberal-path-perdition
; Monica Prasad, The Politics of Free Markets , 2006)
Gaspar Miklos Tamas, a Romanian political philosopher of the George Lukacs-inspired Budapest
School, argues that global division of labor in the neoliberal era has not only resulted in
wealth transfer from the bottom up but it has diminished national sovereignty and citizenship
for those in less developed (periphery) nations. "The new dual sate is alive and well:
Normative State for the core populations of the capitalist center, and another State of
arbitrary decrees for the non-citizens who are the rest. Unlike in classical fascism, this
second State is only dimly visible from the first. The radical critique protesting that liberty
within the Normative State is an illusion, although understandable, is erroneous. The denial of
citizenship based not on exploitation, oppression and straightforward discrimination, but on
mere exclusion and distance, is difficult to grasp, because the mental habits of liberation
struggle for a more just redistribution of goods and powers are not applicable. The problem is
not that the Normative State is becoming more authoritarian: rather, that it belongs only to a
few."https://www.opendemocracy.net/people-newright/article_306.jsp
If the normative state is the domain of the very few with the rest under the illusion of
inclusion, Miklos Tamas concludes that we are living in a global post-fascist era which is not
the same as the interwar totalitarian model based on a mass movement of Fascism. Instead,
neoliberal totalirarianism categorically rejects the Enlightenment tradition of citizenship
which is the very essence of the bourgeois social contract. While the normative state in
advanced countries is becoming more authoritarian with police-state characteristics, the state
in the periphery whether Eastern Europe, Latin America or Africa is swept along by neoliberal
policies that drive it toward authoritarianism as much as the state in Trump's America as in
parts of Europe to the degree that in January 2018 Angela Merkel's Christian Democratic Union
(CDU) faced the prospect either of new elections or entering into a coalition with the neo-Nazi
Alternative fur Deutchalnd (AfD). https://www.prosper.org.au/2010/05/25/the-counter-enlightenment/
The rightwing course of the Western World spreading into the rest of the world is not only
because of IMF austerity used as leverage to impose neoliberalism in developing nations.
Considering that countries have been scrambling to attract foreign investment which carries
neoliberal policies of deregulation, privatization, weak trade unions and low taxes as a
precondition, the entire world economic system is the driving force toward a form of
totalitarianism. As Miklos Tamas argues, this has diluted national sovereignty of weaker
countries, allowing national capitalists and especially multinational corporations to play a
determining role in society against the background of a weak state structure. Along with
weakened national sovereignty, national citizenship in turn finds expression in extreme
rightwing groups to compensate for loss of independence as the bourgeois social contract
presumably guarantees. (Aihwa Ong, Neoliberalism as Exception: Mutations in Citizenship and
Sovereignty , 2006;
http://www.e-ir.info/2012/08/22/globalization-does-not-entail-the-weakening-of-the-liberal-state/
It is undeniable that there is a qualitative difference in Berlin and Rome under neoliberal
regimes today than it was under Fascism. It would be a mistake to lump a contemporary
neoliberal society together with the Third Reich and Fascist Italy, a dreadful and costly
mistake that Stalinists made in the 1930s. Interwar totalitarianism existed under one-party
state with a popular base operating as a police state. Although many countries under varieties
of neoliberal regimes have an electoral system of at least two parties alternating power, the
ruling parties pursue neoliberal policies with variations on social and cultural issues
(identity politics), thus operating within the same policy framework impacting peoples' living
standards.
Not just leftist academic critics, but even the progressive democratic Salon
magazine recognized during the US election of 2016 that the neoliberal state would prevail
regardless of whether Trump or Clinton won the presidential contest. " Neoliberalism
presumes a strong state, working only for the benefit of the wealthy, and as such it has little
pretence to neutrality and universality, unlike the classical liberal state. I would go so far
as to say that neoliberalism is the final completion of capitalism's long-nascent project, in
that the desire to transform everything -- every object, every living thing, every fact on the
planet -- in its image had not been realized to the same extent by any preceding
ideology.
In neoliberal society either of the pluralist-diversity or of the authoritarian political
camp there are elements of polizeistaat though not nearly full blown as in the Third
Reich. While conformity to the status quo and self-censorship is the only way to survive,
modern means of communication and multiple dissident outlets attacking the status quo from the
right, which is far more pervasive and socio-politically acceptable than doing so from the
left, has actually facilitated the evolution of the new totalitarian state.
http://www.thegreatregression.eu/progressive-neoliberalism-versus-reactionary-populism-a-hobsons-choice/
Whereas big business collaborated closely with Fascist dictators from the very beginning to
secure the preeminence of the existing social order threatened by the crisis of democracy
created by capitalism, big business under the neoliberal social contract has the same goal,
despite disagreement on the means of forging political consensus. Partly because neoliberalism
carries the legacy of late 19 th century liberalism and operates in most countries
within the parliamentary system, and partly because of fear of grassroots social revolution, a
segment of the capitalist class wants to preserve the democratic façade of the
neoliberal social contract by perpetuating identity politics. In either case, 'economic
fascism' as the essence of neoliberalism, or post-fascism as Miklos Tamas calls it, is
an inescapable reality. (Andrea Micocci and Flavia Di Mario, The Fascist Nature of
Neoliberalism , 2017).
In distinguishing the composition and goals of theparliamentary state vs. the Fascist
one-party state, Italian Fascism's theoretician Giovanni Gentile characterizedit as
'totalitario'; a term also applied to Germany's Third Reich the latter which had the added
dimension of anti-Semitism as policy. Arguing that ideology in the Fascist totalitarian state
had a ubiquitous role in every aspect of life and power over people, Gentile and Mussolini
viewed such state as the catalyst to a powerful nation-state that subordinates all institutions
and the lives of citizens to its mold. In "La Dottrina del Fascismo" (Gentile and
Mussolini, 1932), Musolini made famous the statement: "Everything within the state, nothing
outside the state, nothing against the state," although Hitler's polizeistaat was
more totalitarian because it had the means to achieve policy goals stated in Mein
Kampf .
The convergence of neoliberalism and Fascism is hardly surprising when one considers that
both aim at a totalitarian society of different sorts, one of state-driven ideology and the
other market-driven with the corporate welfare state behind it. In some respects, Sheldon
Wolin's the "inverted totalitarianism" theory places this issue into another
perspective, arguing that despite the absence of a dictator the corporate state behind the
façade of 'electoral democracy' is an instrument of totalitarianism. Considering the
increased role of security-intelligence-surveillance agencies in a presumably open society, it
is not difficult to see that society has more illiberal than classic liberal traits. Sheldon
Wolin, Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted
Totalitarianism, 2008)
More powerful than the Axis Powers combined, American "Inverted totalitarianism" was
internationalized during the Cold War and became more blatant during the war on terror, in
large measure used as a pretext to impose neoliberalism in the name of national security. As
the police-state gradually became institutionalized in every respect from illegal surveillance
of citizens to suppressing dissent to the counterterrorism-neoliberal regime, it was becoming
clearer to many scholars that a version of fascism was emerging in the US which also sprang up
around the world. (Charlotte Heath-Kelly et al. eds., Neoliberalism and Terror: Critical
Engagements , 2016;
https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?15074-Chris-Hedges-The-Great-Unraveling-USA-on-the-brink-of-neo-fascist-police-state#.WifwyLBrzIU
Almost a century after the era of Fascist totalitarianism that led to WWII, the transition
of capitalism's global structure with a shifting core from the US and northwest Europe to East
Asia has entailed intense global competition for capital accumulation to the degree that the
advanced countries have been pushing living standards downward to compete with low-wage global
markets. The process of draining greater surplus value from labor especially from the periphery
countries where IMF-style austerity policies have resulted in massive capital transfer to the
core countries has taken place under the neoliberal social contract that has striking
similarities with Fascism.
Backed by the state in the advanced capitalist countries, international organizations among
them the IMF have been promoting economic fascism under the label of 'neoliberal reforms', thus
molding state structures accordingly. Neoliberal totalitarianism is far more organized and
ubiquitous than interwar Fascism not only because of the strong national state structure of
core countries and modern technology and communications networks that enables surveillance and
impose subtle forms of indoctrination, but also because the international agencies established
by the US under the Bretton Woods system help to impose policies and institutions globally.
Characteristics of the Illiberal Neoliberal Society
The genesis of illiberal politics can be traced back to the end of WWI when Europeans
witnessed the unraveling of the rationalist order of the Enlightenment rooted in Lockean
liberalism. Influenced by the wars of imperialism that led the First World War at the end of
which Vladimir Lenin led the Bolsheviks to a revolutionary victory over Czarist Russia, Joseph
Schumpeter like many European scholars was trying to make sense of how capitalism's forcible
geographic expansion (imperialism) led to such global disasters that undermined the rationalist
assumptions of the Enlightenment about society and its institutions. In his Sociology of
Imperialism (1919), he wrote the following about the relationship of the bourgeoisie with
the state.
"The bourgeoisie did not simply supplant the sovereign, nor did it make him its leader,
as did the nobility. It merely wrested a portion of its power from him and for the rest
submitted to him. It did not take over from the sovereign the state as an abstract form of
organization. The state remained a special social power, confronting the bourgeoisie. In some
countries it has continued to play that role to the present day. It is in the state that the
bourgeoisie with its interests seeks refuge, protection against external and even domestic
enemies. The bourgeoisie seeks to win over the state for itself, and in return serves the state
and state interests that are different from its own."
The strong state structure of the imperial state that the bourgeoisie supported as a vehicle
of expanding their interests globally while maintaining the social order at the national level
held true only for the advanced capitalist countries eagerly trying to secure international
markets at any cost including armed conflict. While essential for capital integration and
expansion, the strong state structure was and remains an anathema to the bourgeoisie, if its
role is to make political, economic and social concessions to the laboring and middle classes
which are the popular base for bourgeois political parties. While classical liberal theory
expresses the interests of capitalism its role is not to serve in furtherance of political
equality for the simple reason that capitalism cannot exist under such a regime. Both John
Locke and John Stuart Mill rejected political egalitarianism, while Schumpeter viewed
democratic society with egalitarianism as an integral part of democracy. Rejecting Locke's and
Mill's abstract receptiveness to egalitarianism, neoliberals of either the pluralist or
authoritarian camp are blatantly adopt illiberal policies that exacerbate elitism, regardless
of the rhetoric they employ to secure mass popular support.
Characterized by elitism, class, gender, racial and ethnic inequality, limits on freedom of
expression, on human rights and civil rights, illiberal politics thrives on submission of the
masses to the status quo. In his essay The Political Economy of Neoliberalism and Illiberal
Democracy, Garry Jacobs, an academic/consultant who still believes in classical liberal
economics operating in a pluralistic and preferably non-militaristic society, warns that
world-wide democracy is under siege. " Democratic elections have become the means for
installing leaders with little respect for democratic values. The tolerance, openness and
inclusiveness on which modern democracy is founded are being rejected by candidates and voters
in favor of sectarian, parochial fears and interests. The role of the free press as an
impartial arbiter of facts is being undermined by the rise of private and public news media
conglomerates purveying political preference as fact combined with a blinding blizzard of fake
news. Party politics has been polarized into a winner-take-all fight to the finish by
vested-interests and impassioned extremist minorities trying to impose their agendas on a
complacent majority. Corporate power and money power are transforming representative
governments into plutocratic pseudo-democracies. Fundamentalists are seizing the instruments of
secular democracy to impose intolerant linguistic, racial and religious homogeneity in place of
the principles of liberty and harmonious heterogeneity that are democracy's foundation and
pinnacle of achievement."
While neoliberals in the populist rightwing wholeheartedly share and promote such views,
those who embrace the pluralist-identity politics camp are just as supportive of many aspects
of the corporate welfare-police-counterterrorism state as a means to engender domestic
sociopolitical conformity and to achieve closer global economic integration. The question is
not so much what each political camp under the larger neoliberal umbrella pursues as a strategy
to mobilize a popular base but whether the economic-social policies intertwined with a
corporate-welfare-police-counterterrorism state is the driving force toward a Fascist model of
government. In both the pluralist model with some aspects of the social safety net, and the
rightwing populist version neoliberalism's goal is rapid capital accumulation on a world scale,
institutional submission of the individual and molding the citizen's subjective reality around
the neoliberal ideology.
Illiberal politics in our time is partly both symptomatic of and a reaction to neoliberal
globalism and culture wars that serve to distract from the intensified class struggle boiling
beneath the surface. Rhetorically denouncing globalist neoliberalism, populist rightwing
politicians assert the importance of national capitalism but always within the perimeters of
neoliberal policies. Hence they co-opt the socio-cultural positions of nationalist extremists
as a political strategy to mobilize the masses. Scholars, journalists and politicians have
speculated whether the rising tide of rightwing populism pursuing neoliberalism under
authoritarian models not just in the Western World, but Eastern Europe, South Asia and Africa
reflects the rejection of liberal democracy and the triumph of illiberal politics that best
reflects and serves the political economy. Unquestionably, there is a direct correlation
between the internationalization of the Western neoliberal transformation model imposed on the
world in the post-Soviet era and the rise of rightwing populism reacting to the gap between the
promises of what capitalism was supposed to deliver and the reality of downward pressures on
living standards. http://www.counterfire.org/interview/18068-india-s-nightmare-the-extremism-of-narendra-modi
;
http://ac.upd.edu.ph/index.php/news-announcements/1201-southeast-asian-democracy-neoliberalism-populism-vedi-hadiz
; http://balticworlds.com/breaking-out-of-the-deadlock-of-neoliberalism-vs-rightwing-populism/
Not just the US, but Europe has been flirting with 'illiberal democracy' characterized by
strong authoritarian-style elected officials as Garry Jacobs has observed. Amid elections in
Bosnia in 1996, US diplomat Richard Holbrooke wondered about the rightwing path of former
Yugoslav republics. "Suppose the election was declared free and fair and those elected are
"racists, fascists, separatists, who are publicly opposed to [peace and reintegration]. That is
the dilemma." Twenty years after what Holbrooke dreaded election outcomes in Yugoslavia,
the US elected a rightwing neoliberal populist leading the Republican Party and making culture
wars a central theme to distract from the undercurrent class struggle in the country. A
structural issue that transcends personalities, this reality in America is symptomatic of the
link between neoliberalism and the rise of illiberal democracy in a number of countries around
the world. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/1997-11-01/rise-illiberal-democracy
Some political observers analyzing the rightist orientation of neoliberal policies have
concluded that neoliberalism and Fascism have more in common than people realize. In 2016,
Manuela Cadelli, President of the Magistrates Union of Belgium, wrote a brief article arguing
that Neoliberalism is indeed a form of Fascism; a position people seem to be willing to debate
after the election of Donald Trump pursuing neoliberal policies with a rightwing populist
ideological and cultural platform to keep a popular base loyal to the Republican Party.
"Fascism may be defined as the subordination of every part of the State to a totalitarian
and nihilistic ideology. I argue that neoliberalism is a species of fascism because the economy
has brought under subjection not only the government of democratic countries but also every
aspect of our thought. The state is now at the disposal of the economy and of finance, which
treat it as a subordinate and lord over it to an extent that puts the common good in
jeopardy."http://www.defenddemocracy.press/president-belgian-magistrates-neoliberalism-form-fascism/
It is ironic that neoliberal society is 'a species of fascism', but there no widespread
popular opposition from leftist groups to counter it. People remain submissive to the
neoliberal state that has in fact eroded much of what many in the pluralist camp hail as
liberal democratic institutions. Most adapt to the status quo because to do otherwise means
difficulty surviving today just as it was difficult to survive under Fascism for those in
opposition; as Palmiro Togliatti noted ( Lectures on Fascism, 1935) when he cautioned
about castigating workers who joined the party simply because they placed survival of their
family above any progressive ideology. Because evidence of systemic exploitation ingrained into
society passes as the 'norm', and partly because repression targets minority groups, migrants,
and the working class, especially those backing trade unions and progressive political parties,
people support the neoliberal state that they see as the constitutional entity and the only
means for survival.
The media, government and mainstream institutions denounce anyone crying out for social
justice, human rights and systemic change. Such people are 'trendy rebels', as though social
justice is a passing fad like a clothing line, misguided idealists or treasonous criminals.
Considering that the corporate-owned and state media validates the legitimacy of the neoliberal
social contract, the political class and social elites enjoy the freedom to shape the state's
goals in the direction toward a surveillance police-state. All of this goes without notice in
the age when it is almost expected because it is defaulted to technology making easy to detect
foreign and domestic enemies while using the same technology to shape the citizen's subjective
reality.
Partly because of the communications revolution in the digital age, neoliberalism has the
ability to mold the citizen beyond loyalty to the social contract not just into mechanical
observance but total submission to its institutions by reshaping the person's values and
identity. In this respect, neoliberalism is not so different from Fascism whose goal was to
mold the citizen. " Neoliberalism has been more successful than most past ideologies in
redefining subjectivity, in making people alter their sense of themselves, their personhood,
their identities, their hopes and expectations and dreams and idealizations. Classical
liberalism was successful too, for two and a half centuries, in people's self-definition,
although communism and fascism succeeded less well in realizing the "new man." It cannot be
emphasized enough that neoliberalism is not classical liberalism, or a return to a purer
version of it, as is commonly misunderstood; it is a new thing, because the market, for one
thing, is not at all free and untethered and dynamic in the sense that classical liberalism
idealized it.
Although people go about their daily lives focused on their interests, they operate against
the background of neoliberal institutions that determine their lives in every respect from
chatting on their cell phones to how they live despite their illusions of free will. As the
world witnessed a segment of the population openly embracing fascism from movement to
legitimate political party in interwar Europe, a corresponding rise in racism and ethnocentrism
under the umbrella of rightwing neoliberal populism has taken place in the first two decades of
the 21 st century.
Representing the UN Human Rights agency, Prince Zeid bin Ra'ad al-Hussein stated that 2016
was disastrous for human rights, as the 'clash of civilizations' construct has become ingrained
into the political mainstream in Western countries. "In some parts of Europe, and in the
United States, anti-foreigner rhetoric full of unbridled vitriol and hatred, is proliferating
to a frightening degree, and is increasingly unchallenged. The rhetoric of fascism is no longer
confined to a secret underworld of fascists, meeting in ill-lit clubs or on the 'deep net'. It
is becoming part of normal daily discourse."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/united-nations-chilling-warning-rise-fascism-human-rights-prince-zeid-a7464861.html
Because neoliberalism has pushed all mainstream bourgeois political parties to the right,
the far right no longer seems nearly as extreme today as it did during the Vietnam War's
protest generation who still had hope for a socially just society even if that meant
strengthening the social welfare system. The last two generations were raised knowing no
alternative to neoliberalism; the panacea for all that ails society is less social welfare and
privatization of public services within the framework of a state structure buttressing
corporate welfare. The idea that nothing must be tolerated outside the hegemonic market and all
institutions must mirror the neoliberal model reflects a neo-totalitarian society where
sociopolitical conformity follows because survival outside the system is not viable.
Although Western neoconservatives have employed the term 'neo-totalitarian' to describe
Vladimir Putin's Russia, the term applies even more accurately to the US and someEuropean
nations operating under neoliberal-military-police state structures with as much power than the
Russian bureaucratic state has at its disposal.The contradiction of neoliberalism rests in the
system's goal of integrating everyone into the neo-totalitarian mold. Because of the system's
inherent hierarchical structure, excluding most from the institutional mainstream and limiting
popular sovereignty to the elites exposes the exploitation and repression goals that account
for the totalitarian nature of the system masquerading as democratic where popular sovereignty
is diffused. The seemingly puzzling aspect of the rise in rightwing populism across the globe
that rests in marginalization of a segment of the population and the support for it not just
from certain wealthy individuals financing extremist movements, but from a segment of the
middle class and even working class lining up behind it because they see their salvation with
the diminution of weaker social groups. This pattern was also evident in Nazi Germany, Fascist
Italy and pro-Nazi authoritarian regimes of the interwar era. https://www.demdigest.org/neo-totalitarian-russia-potent-existential-threat-west/
; Benjamin Moffitt, The Global Rise of Populism (2017.
Because of contradictions in bourgeois liberal democracy where capital accumulation at any
social cost is the goal, the system produced the current global wave of rightwing populism just
as capitalism in the interwar era gave rise to Fascism. As one analyst put it, " The risk
democratic formations continually face is internal disintegration such that the heterogeneous
elements of the social order not only fail to come together within some principle of or for
unity, but actively turn against one another. In this case, a totally unproductive revolution
takes place. Rather than subversion of the normative order causing suffering, rebellion or
revolution that might establish a new nomos of shared life as a way of establishing a new
governing logic, the dissociated elements of disintegrating democratic formations identify with
the very power responsible for their subjection–capital, the state and, the strong
leader. Thus the possibility of fascism is not negated in neoliberal formations but is an ever
present possibility arising within it. Because the value of the social order as such is never
in itself sufficient to maintain its own constitution, it must have recourse to an external
value, which is the order of the sacred embodied by the sovereign.
http://readersupportednews.org/pm-section/78-78/41987-neoliberalism-fascism-and-sovereignty
/
Public opinion surveys of a number of countries around the world, including those in the US,
indicated that most people do not favor the existing social contract rooted in neoliberal
policies that impact everything from living standards and labor policy to the judicial system
and foreign affairs. Instead of driving workers toward a leftwing revolutionary path, many
support rightwing populism that has resulted in the rise of even greater oppression and
exploitation. Besides nationalism identified with the powerful elites as guardians of the
national interest, many among the masses believe that somehow the same social contract
responsible for existing problems will provide salvation they seek. While widespread
disillusionment with neoliberal globalization seems to be at the core in the rise of rightwing
populism, the common denominator is downward social mobility. (Doug Miller, Can the World
be Wrong ? 2015)
As Garry Jacobs argues, "Even mature democracies show signs of degenerating into their
illiberal namesakes. The historical record confirms that peaceful, prosperous, free and
harmonious societies can best be nurtured by the widest possible distribution of all forms of
power -- political, economic, educational, scientific, technological and social -- to the
greatest extent to the greatest number. The aspiration for individual freedom can only be
realized and preserved when it is married with the right to social equality. The mutual
interdependence of the individual and the collective is the key to their reconciliation and
humanity's future.
http://www.cadmusjournal.org/article/volume-3/issue-3/political-economy-neoliberalism-and-illiberal-democracy
Just as in the interwar era when many Europeans lost confidence in the rationalism of the
Enlightenment and lapsed into amorality and alienation that allowed for even greater public
manipulation by the hegemonic culture, in the early 21 st the neoliberal social
contract with a complex matrix of communications at its disposal is able to indoctrinate on a
mass scale more easily than ever. Considering the low level of public trust in the mainstream
media that most people regardless of political/ideological position view as propaganda rather
than informational, cynicism about national and international institutions prevails. As the
fierce struggle for power among mainstream political parties competing to manage the state on
behalf of capital undercuts the credibility of the political class, rightwing elements enter
the arena as 'outsider' messiahs above politics (Bonapartism in the 21 st century)
to save the nation, while safeguarding the neoliberal social contract. This is as evident in
France where the pluralist political model of neoliberalism has strengthened the neo-Fascist
one that Marine Le Pen represents, as in Trump's America where the Democratic Party's
neoliberal policies helped give rise to rightwing populism.
As the following article in The Economist points out, widespread disillusionment
with globalist neoliberal policies drove people to the right for an enemy to blame for all the
calamities that befall society. " Beset by stagnant wage growth, less than half of
respondents in America, Britain and France believe that globalisation is a "force for good" in
the world. Westerners also say the world is getting worse. Even Americans, generally an
optimistic lot, are feeling blue: just 11% believe the world has improved in the past year. The
turn towards nationalism is especially pronounced in France, the cradle of liberty. Some 52% of
the French now believe that their economy should not have to rely on imports, and just 13%
reckon that immigration has a positive effect on their country. France is divided as to whether
or not multiculturalism is something to be embraced. Such findings will be music to the ears of
Marine Le Pen, the leader of the National Front, France's nationalist, Eurosceptic party.
Current (and admittedly early) polling has her tied for first place in the 2017 French
presidential race.https://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/11/daily-chart-12
Similar to deep-rooted cultural and ideological traits of Nazism in German society, there
are similar traits in contemporary US, India and other countries where rightwing populism has
found a receptive public. Although there are varieties of populism from Lepenism (Marine Le
Pen's National Front) to Trumpism (US Republican Donald Trump) to Modism (India's Narendra
Modi), they share common characteristics, including cult of personality as a popular rallying
catalyst, promoting hatred and marginalization of minority groups, and promising to deliver a
panacea to "society" when in fact their policies are designed to strengthen big capital.
Rightwing populist politicians who pursue neoliberal policies are opportunistically pushing
the political popular base toward consolidation of a Fascist movement and often refer to
themselves as movement rather than a party. Just as there were liberals who refused to accept
the imminent rise of Fascism amid the parliamentary system's collapse in the 1920s, there are
neoliberals today who refuse to accept that the global trend of populism is a symptom of failed
neoliberalism that has many common characteristics with Fascism. In an article entitled
"Populism is not Fascism: But it could be a Harbinger" by Sheri Berman, the neoliberal
journal Foreign Affairs , acknowledged that liberal bourgeois democracy is losing its
luster around the world. However, the author would not go as far as to examine the structural
causes for this phenomenon because to do so would be to attack the social contract within which
it operates. Treating rightwing populism as though it is a marginal outgrowth of mainstream
conservatism and an aberration rather than the outgrowth of the system's core is merely a
thinly veiled attempt to defend the status quo of which rightwing populism is an integral
part.
Structural Exploitation under the Neoliberal Social Contract
Structural exploitation – "a property of institutions or systems in which the
"rules of the game" unfairly benefit one group of people to the detriment of another"https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/exploitation/
– has been an incontrovertible reality of all class-based societiesfrom the establishment
of the earliest city-states in Mesopotamia until the present.Usually but not always intertwined
with social oppression, structural exploitation entails a relationship of social dominance of
an elite group over the rest of society subordinated for the purpose of economic, social,
political, and cultural exploitation. Legitimized by the social contract, justifications for
institutional exploitation include safety and security of country, eliminating impediments to
progress, and emulating nature's competitive forces that exist in the animal kingdom and
reflect human nature.
From Solon's laws in 6 th century BC Athens until our contemporary neoliberal
era, social contract theory presumes that the state is the catalyst for social harmony if not
fairness and not for a privileged social class to exploit the rest of society. No legal system
has ever been codified that explicitly states its goal is to use of the state as an instrument
of exploitation and oppression. In reality however, from ancient Babylon when King Hammurabi
codified the first laws in 1780 B.C. until the present when multinational corporations and
wealthy individuals directly or through lobbyists exert preponderate influence in public policy
the theoretical assumption is one of fairness and justice for all people as a goal for the
social contract.
In the age of the Fourth Industrial Revolution – biotechnology, nanotechnology,
quantum computing, and artificial intelligence – presumably to serve mankind as part of
the social contract rather than to exploit more thoroughly and marginalize a large segment of
humanity, the persistence of structural exploitation and oppression challenges those with a
social conscience and morality rooted in humanist values to question what constitutes societal
progress and public interest. Liberal and Christian-Libertarian arguments about free will
notwithstanding, it has always been the case that mainstream institutions and the dominant
culture indoctrinate people into believing that ending exploitation by changing the social
contract is a utopian dream; a domain relegated to poets, philosophers and song writers lacking
proper grounding in the reality of mainstream politics largely in the service of the dominant
socioeconomic class. The paradox in neoliberal ideology is its emphasis on free choice, while
the larger goal is to mold the subjective reality within the neoliberal institutional structure
and way of life. The irreconcilable aspects of neoliberalism represent the contradictory goals
of the desire to project democratic mask that would allow for popular sovereignty while
pursuing capital accumulation under totalitarian methods. http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_contractarianism.html
' http://www.patheos.com/blogs/tippling/2017/05/15/indoctrination-and-free-will/
Social cooperation becomes dysfunctional when distortions and contradictions within the
system create large-scale social marginalization exposing the divergence between the promise of
the neoliberal social contract and the reality in peoples' lives. To manage the dysfunction by
mobilizing popular support, the political elites of both the pluralist and the
authoritarian-populist wing operating under the neoliberal political umbrella compete for power
by projecting the image of an open democratic society. Intra-class power struggles within the
elite social and political classes vying for power distracts from social exploitation because
the masses line behind competing elites convinced such competition is the essence of democracy.
As long as the majority in society passively acquiesces to the legitimacy of the social
contract, even if in practice society is socially unjust, the status quo remains secure until
systemic contradictions in the political economy make it unsustainable. https://mises.org/library/profound-significance-social-harmony
In the last three centuries, social revolutions, upheavals and grassroots movements have
demonstrated that people want a social contract that includes workers, women, and marginalized
groups into the mainstream and elevates their status economically and politically. In the early
21 st century, there are many voices crying out for a new social contract based on
social justice and equality against neoliberal tyranny. However, those faint voices are drowned
against the preponderate neoliberal public policy impacting every sector while shaping the
individual's worldview and subjective reality. The triumph of neoliberal orthodoxy has deviated
from classical liberalism to the degree that dogmatism 'single-thought' process dominates not
just economics, not just the social contract, but the very fabric of our humanity. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/21598282.2013.761449?journalCode=rict20
; https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/aug/18/neoliberalism-the-idea-that-changed-the-world
Under neoliberalism, "Uberization" as a way of life is becoming the norm not just in the
'financialization' neoliberal economy resting on speculation rather than productivity but in
society as well. The neoliberal ideology has indoctrinated the last two generations that grew
up under this system and know no other reality thus taking for granted the neoliberal way of
life as natural as the air they breathe. Often working two jobs, working overtime without
compensation or taking work home just to keep the job has become part of chasing the dream of
merely catching up with higher costs of living. People have accepted perpetual work enmeshed
with the capitalist ideology of perpetual economic growth perversely intertwined with progress
of civilization. The corporate ideology of "grow or die" at any cost is in reality economic
growth confined to the capitalist class, while fewer and fewer people enjoy its fruits and
communities, cities, entire countries under neoliberal austerity suffer.
The incentive for conformity is predicated on the belief that the benefits of civilization
would be fairly distributed if not in the present then at some point in the future for one's
children or grandchildren; analogous to living a virtuous life in order to enjoy the rewards
after death. As proof that the system works for the benefit of society and not just the
capitalist class, neoliberal apologists point to stock market gains and surprisingly there is a
psychological impact – the wealth effect – on the mass consumer who feels
optimistic and borrows to raise consumption. Besides the fact that only a very small percentage
of people on the planet own the vast majority of securities, even in the US there is no
correlation between stock market performance and living standards. (John Seip and Dee Wood
Harper, The Trickle Down Delusion , 2016)
If we equate the stock market with the 'wealth of the nation', then in 1982 when the S & P
index stood at 117 rising to 2675 in December 2017, the logical conclusion is that living
standards across the US rose accordingly. However, this is the period when real incomes for
workers and the middle class actually declined despite sharp rise in productivity and immense
profits reflected in the incomes gap reflected in the bottom 90% vs. the top 10%. This is also
the period when we see the striking divergence between wealth accumulation for the top 1% and a
relative decline for the bottom 90%. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/17/upshot/income-inequality-united-states.html
; https://ourworldindata.org/income-inequality/
A research study compiled by the pro-organized labor non-profit think tank 'Economic Policy
Institute' stresses the divergence between productivity and real wages. While the top 0.01% of
America's experienced 386% income growth between 1980 and 1914, the bottom 90% suffered 3% real
income drop. Whereas in 1980 income share for the bottom 90% stood at 65% and for the top 1% it
stood at 10%, by 2014 the bottom 90% held just half of the income, while the top 1% owned 21%.
This dramatic income divergence, which has been shown in hundreds of studies and not even
neoliberal billionaires deny their validity, took place under the shift toward the full
implementation of the neoliberal social contract. It is significant to note that such income
concentration resulting from fiscal policy, corporate subsidy policy, privatization and
deregulation has indeed resulted in higher productivity exactly as neoliberal apologists have
argued. However, higher worker productivity and higher profits has been made possible precisely
because of income transfer from labor to capitalist. http://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/
;
https://aneconomicsense.org/2015/07/13/the-highly-skewed-growth-of-incomes-since-1980-only-the-top-0-5-have-done-better-than-before/
"Real hourly compensation of production, nonsupervisory workers who make up 80 percent
of the workforce, also shows pay stagnation for most of the period since 1973, rising 9.2
percent between 1973 and 2014.Net productivity grew 1.33 percent each year between 1973 and
2014, faster than the meager 0.20 percent annual rise in median hourly compensation. In
essence, about 15 percent of productivity growth between 1973 and 2014 translated into higher
hourly wages and benefits for the typical American worker. Since 2000, the gap between
productivity and pay has risen even faster. The net productivity growth of 21.6 percent from
2000 to 2014 translated into just a 1.8 percent rise in inflation-adjusted compensation for the
median worker (just 8 percent of net productivity growth).Since 2000, more than 80 percent of
the divergence between a typical (median) worker's pay growth and overall net productivity
growth has been driven by rising inequality (specifically, greater inequality of compensation
and a falling share of income going to workers relative to capital owners).Over the entire
1973–2014 period, rising inequality explains over two-thirds of the
productivity–pay divergence. " (Josh Bivens and Lawrence Mishel, "Understanding
the Historic Divergence Between Productivity and a Typical Worker's Pay Why It Matters and Why
It's Real" in Economic Policy Institute, 2015,
http://www.epi.org/publication/understanding-the-historic-divergence-between-productivity-and-a-typical-workers-pay-why-it-matters-and-why-its-real/
The average corporate tax rate in the world has been cut in half in the last two decades
from about 40% to 22%, with the effective rate actually paid lower than the official rate. This
represents a massive transfer of wealth to the highest income brackets drained from the working
class. More than half-a-century ago, American anthropologist Jules Henry wrote that: "The
fact that our society places no limit on wealth while making it accessible to all helps account
for the 'feverish' quality Tocqueville sensed in American civilization." Culture Against
Man (1963). The myth that the neoliberal policies in the information age lead toward a
society richer for all people is readily refuted by the reality of huge wealth distribution
gaps resulting from 'informational capitalism' backed by the corporate welfare state.
Capital accumulation not just in the US but on a world scale without a ceiling has resulted
in more thorough exploitation of workers and in a less socially just society today than in the
early 1960s when Jules Henry was writing and it is headed increasingly toward authoritarian
models of government behind the very thin veneer of meaningless elections. Against this
background of unfettered neoliberalism, social responsibility is relegated to issues ranging
from corporate-supported sustainable development in which large businesses have a vested
interest as part of future designs on capital accumulation, to respecting lifestyle and
cultural and religious freedoms within the existing social contract. (Dieter Plehwe et al.
eds., Neoliberal Hegemony , 2006; Carl Ferenbach and Chris Pinney, " Toward a 21st
Century Social Contract" Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, Vol. 24, No 2, 2012;
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1745-6622.2012.00372.x/abstract
At its Annual conference in 2017 where representatives from the 'Fortune 500', academia,
think tanks, NGOs, and government, business consultancy group BSR provided the following vision
under the heading "A 21 st Century Social Contract" : "The nature of
work is changing very rapidly. Old models of lifelong employment via business and a predictable
safety net provided by government are no longer assured in a new demographic, economic, and
political environment. We see these trends most clearly in the rise of the "gig economy," in
which contingent workers (freelancers, independent contractors, consultants, or other
outsourced and non-permanent workers) are hired on a temporary or part-time basis. These
workers make up more than 90 percent of new job creation in European countries, and by 2020, it
is estimated that more than 40 percent of the U.S. workforce will be in contingent jobs."https://bsr17.org/agenda/sessions/the-21st-century-social-contract
Representing multinational corporate members and proud sponsors of sustainable development
solutions within the neoliberal model, BSR applauded the aspirations and expectations of
today's business people that expect to concentrate even more capital as the economy becomes
more 'UBERized' and reliant on the new digital technology. Despite fear and anxiety about a
bleak techno-science future as another mechanism to keep wages as close to subsistence if not
below that level as possible, peoples' survival instinct forces them to adjust their lives
around the neoliberal social contract. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/531726/technology-and-inequality/
Reflecting the status quo, the media indoctrinate people to behave as though systemic
exploitation, oppression, division, and marginalization are natural while equality and the
welfare of the community represent an anathema to bourgeois civilization. What passes as the
'social norm', largely reflects the interests of the socioeconomic elites propagating the
'legitimacy' of their values while their advocates vilify values that place priority on the
community aspiring to achieve equality and social justice. (Robert E. Watkins, " Turning
the Social Contract Inside Out: Neoliberal Governance and Human Capital in Two Days, One
Night" , 2016).
The neoliberal myth that the digital technological revolution and the 'knowledge based
economy' (KBE) of endless innovation is the catalyst not only to economic growth but to
the preservation of civilization and welfare of society has proved hollow in the last four
decades. Despite massive innovation in the domain of the digital and biotech domains,
socioeconomic polarization and environmental degradation persist at much higher rates today
than in the 1970s. Whether in the US, the European Union or developing nations, the neoliberal
promise of 'prospering together' has been a farce. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/tsq.12106/full
; http://www.ricerchestoriche.org/?p=749
Neoliberal myths about upward linear progress across all segments of society and throughout
the world notwithstanding, economic expansion and contraction only result in greater capital
concentration. "The Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich have taken a database
listing 37 million companies and investors worldwide, pulled out all 43,060 multinational
corporations and the share ownerships linking them to construct a model of which companies
controlled others through shareholding networks, coupled with each company's operating
revenues, to map the structure of economic power.The model revealed a core of 1318 companies
with interlocking ownerships. Each of the 1318 had ties to two or more other companies, and on
average they were connected to 20. What's more, although they represented 20 per cent of global
operating revenues, the 1318 appeared to collectively own through their shares the majority of
the world's large blue chip and manufacturing firms, the "real" economy, representing a further
60 per cent of global revenues.When the team further untangled the web of ownership, it found
much of it tracked back to a super-entity of 147 even more tightly knit companies (all of their
ownership was held by other members of the super-entity) that controlled 40 per cent of the
total wealth in the network. "In effect, less than 1 per cent of the companies were able to
control 40 per cent of the entire network."https://weeklybolshevik.wordpress.com/2013/05/19/imperialism-and-the-concentration-of-capital/http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1107/1107.5728v2.pdf
.
With each passing recessionary cycle of the past four decades working class living standards
have retreated and never recovered. Although the techno-science panacea has proved a necessary
myth and a distraction from the reality of capital concentration, considering that innovation
and technology are integral parts of the neoliberal system, the media, politicians, business
elites, corporate-funded think tanks and academics continue to promote the illusive 'modernist
dream' that only a small segment of society enjoys while the rest take pride living through it
vicariously. ( Laurence Reynolds and Bronislaw Szerszynski, "Neoliberalism and
technology: Perpetual innovation or perpetual crisis?"
Rooted in militarism and police-state policies, the culture of fear is one of the major ways
that the neoliberal regime perpetually distracts people from structural exploitation and
oppression in a neoliberal society that places dogmatic focus on atomism. Despite the atomistic
value system as an integral part of neoliberalism, neoliberals strongly advocate a corporate
state welfare system. Whether supporting pluralism and diversity or rightwing populists,
neoliberals agree that without the state buttressing the private sector, the latter will
collapse. Author of Liberalism in the Shadow of Totalitarianism (2007) David Ciepley
argues in "The Corporate Contradictions of Neoliberalism" that the system's
contradictions have led to the authoritarian political model as its only option moving
forward.
"Neoliberalism was born in reaction against totalitarian statism, and matured at the
University of Chicago into a program of state-reduction that was directed not just against the
totalitarian state and the socialist state but also (and especially) against the New Deal
regulatory and welfare state. It is a self-consciously reactionary ideology that seeks to roll
back the status quo and institutionalize (or, on its own understanding, re-institutionalize)
the "natural" principles of the market. But the contradiction between its individualist ideals
and our corporate reality means that the effort to institutionalize it, oblivious to this
contradiction, has induced deep dysfunction in our corporate system, producing weakened growth,
intense inequality, and coercion. And when the ideological support of a system collapses -- as
appears to be happening with neoliberalism -- then either the system will collapse, or new
levels of coercion and manipulation will be deployed to maintain it. This appears to be the
juncture at which we have arrived."https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2017/05/corporate-contradictions-neoliberalism/
Adhering to a tough law-and-order policy, neoliberals have legalized large-scale criminal
activity perpetrated by capitalists against society while penalizing small-scale crimes carried
out mostly by people in the working class and the marginalized lumpenproletariat .
Regardless of approaches within the neoliberal social contract, neoliberal politicians agree on
a lengthy prison sentences for street gangs selling narcotics while there is no comparable
punishment when it comes to banks laundering billions including from narcotics trafficking, as
Deutsche Bank among other mega banks in the US and EU; fixing rates as
Barclays among others thus defrauding customers of billions; or creating fake accounts
as Wells Fargo , to say nothing of banks legally appropriating billions of dollars
from employees and customers and receiving state (taxpayer) funding in times of 'banking
crises'. Although it seems enigmatic that there is acquiescence for large scale crimes with the
institutional cover of 'legitimacy' by the state and the hegemonic culture, the media has
conditioned the public to shrug off structural exploitation as an integral part of the social
contract. http://theweek.com/articles/729052/brief-history-crime-corruption-malfeasance-american-banks
;
https://www.globalresearch.ca/corruption-in-the-european-union-scandals-in-banking-fraud-and-secretive-ttip-negotiations/5543935
Neoliberalism's reach does not stop with the de-criminalization of white-collar crime or the
transfer of economic policy from the public sector to corporations in order to reverse social
welfare policies. Transferring sweeping policy powers from the public to the corporate sector,
neoliberalism's tentacles impact everything from labor and environment to health, education and
foreign policy into the hands of the state-supported corporate sector in an effort to realize
even greater capital concentration at an even greater pace. This has far reaching implications
in peoples' lives around the world in everything from their work and health to institutions
totalitarian at their core but projecting an image of liberal democracy on the surface. (Noam
Chomsky and R. W. McChesney, Profit Over People: Neoliberalism and Global Order , 2011; Pauline
Johnson, "Sociology and the Critique of Neoliberalism" European Journal of Social
Theory , 2014
Comprehensive to the degree that it aims to diminish the state's role by having many of its
functions privatized, neoliberalism's impact has reached into monetary policy trying to
supplant it with rogue market forces that test the limits of the law and hard currencies. The
creation of cryptocurrencies among them BITCOIN that represents the utopian dream of
anarcho-libertarians interested in influencing if not dreaming of ultimately supplanting
central banks' role in monetary policy is an important dimension of neoliberal ideology.
Techno-utopians envisioning the digital citizen in a neoliberal society favor a 'gypsy economy'
operating on a digital currency outside the purview of the state's regulatory reach where it is
possible to transfer and hide money while engaging in the ultimate game of speculation. (
https://btctheory.com ; Samuel Valasco and
Leonardo Medina, The Social Nature of Cryptocurrencies , 2013)
Credited as the neoliberal prophet whose work and affiliate organizations multinational
corporations funded, Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek favored market forces to determine
monetary policy rather than having government in that role working behind central banks. Aside
from the fact that central banks cater to capital and respond to markets and no other
constituency, Hayek's proposal ( The Denationalization of Money , 1976) was intended
to permit the law of the 'free market' (monetary speculation) determine policy that would
impact peoples' living standards. Hence capital accumulation would not be constrained by
government regulatory measures and the coordination of monetary policy between central banks.
In short, the law of unfettered banking regulation would theoretically result in greater
economic growth, no matter the consequences owing to the absence of banking regulatory measures
that exacerbate contracting economic cycles such as in 2008. www.voltaire.org/article30058.html )
In December 2017, the UK and EU warned that cryptocurrencies are used in criminal
enterprises, including money laundering and tax evasion. Nevertheless, crypto-currency reflects
both the ideology and goals of capital accumulation of neoliberals gaining popularity among
speculators in the US and other countries. Crypto-currencyfulfills the neoliberal speculator's
dream by circumventing the IMF basket of reserved currencies on which others trade while
evading regulatory constraints and all mechanisms of legal accountability for the transfer of
money and tax liability.
Although a tiny fraction of the global monetary system, computer networks make
crypto-currency a reality for speculators, tax evaders, those engaged in illegal activities and
even governments like Venezuela under Nocolas Maduro trying to pump liquidity into the
oil-dependent economy suffering from hyperinflation and economic stagnation If the
crypto-currency system can operate outside the purview of the state, then the neoliberal
ideology of trusting the speculator rather than the government would be proved valid about the
superfluous role of central banks and monetary centralization, a process that capitalism itself
created for the harmonious operation of capitalism.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/dec/04/bitcoin-uk-eu-plan-cryptocurrency-price-traders-anonymity
; http://www.lanacion.com.ar/2099017-venezuela-inflacion-nicolas-maduro-crisis-precios
Indicative of the success of the neoliberal ideology's far reaching impact in economic life
cryptocurrencies' existencealso reflects the crisis of capitalism amid massive assaults on
middle class and working class living standards in the quest for greater capital concentration.
In an ironic twist, the very neoliberal forces that promote cryptocurrencies decry their use by
anti-Western nations – Iran, Venezuela, and Russia among others.The criticism of
anti-Western governments resorting to cryptocurrenciesis based on their use as a means of
circumventing the leverage that reserve currencies like the dollar and euro afford to the West
over non-Western nations. This is only one of a few contradictions that neoliberalism creates
and undermines the system it strives to build just as it continues to foster its ideology as
the only plausible one to pursue globally. Another contradiction is the animosity toward
crypto-currencies from mainstream financial institutions that want to maintain a monopoly on
government-issued currency which is where they make their profits. As the world's largest
institutional promoter of neoliberalism, the IMF has cautioned not to dismiss cryptocurrencies
because they could have a future, or they may actually 'be the future'. https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoins-unlimited-potential-lies-in-apolitical-core/
; http://fortune.com/2017/10/02/bitcoin-ethereum-cryptocurrency-imf-christine-lagarde/
After the "Washington Consensus" of 1989, IMF austerity policies are leverage to impose
neoliberal policies globally have weakened national institutions from health to education and
trade unions that once formed a social bond for workers aspiring to an integrative socially
inclusive covenant in society rather than marginalization. The IMF uses austerity policies for
debt relief as leverage to have the government provide more favorable investment conditions and
further curtail the rights of labor with everything from ending collective bargaining to
introducing variations of "right-to-work" laws" that prohibit trade unions from forcing
collective strikes, collecting dues or signing the collective contract. Justified in the name
of 'capitalist efficiency', weakening organized labor and its power of collective bargaining
has been an integral part of the neoliberal social contract as much in the US and UK as across
the rest of the world, invariably justified by pointing to labor markets where workers earn the
lowest wages. (B. M. Evans and S. McBride, Austerity: The Lived Experience , 2017;
Vicente Berdayes, John W. Murphy, eds. Neoliberalism, Economic Radicalism, and the
Normalization of Violence , 2016).
Although many in the mainstream media took notice of the dangers of neoliberalism leading
toward authoritarianism after Trump's election, a few faint voices have been warning about this
inevitability since the early 1990s. Susan George, president of the Transnational Institute,
has argued that neoliberalism is contrary to democracy, it is rooted in Social Darwinism, it
undermines the liberal social contract under which that people assume society operates, but it
is the system that governments and international organization like the IMF have been
promoting.
"Over the past twenty years, the IMF has been strengthened enormously. Thanks to the
debt crisis and the mechanism of conditionality, it has moved from balance of payments support
to being quasi-universal dictator of so-called "sound" economic policies, meaning of course
neo-liberal ones. The World Trade Organisation was finally put in place in January 1995 after
long and laborious negotiations, often rammed through parliaments which had little idea what
they were ratifying. Thankfully, the most recent effort to make binding and universal
neo-liberal rules, the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, has failed, at least temporarily.
It would have given all rights to corporations, all obligations to governments and no rights at
all to citizens. The common denominator of these institutions is their lack of transparency and
democratic accountability. This is the essence of neo-liberalism. It claims that the economy
should dictate its rules to society, not the other way around. Democracy is an encumbrance,
neo-liberalism is designed for winners, not for voters who, necessarily encompass the
categories of both winners and losers."
Those on the receiving end of neoliberalism's Social Darwinist orientation are well aware of
public policy's negative impact on their lives but they feel helpless to confront the social
contract. According to opinion polls, people around the world realize there is a huge gap
between what political and business leaders, and international organizations claim about
institutions designed to benefit all people and the reality of marginalization. The result is
loss of public confidence in the social contract theoretically rooted in consent and democracy.
"When elected governments break the "representative covenant" and show complete
indifference to the sufferings of citizens, when democracy is downgraded to an abstract set of
rules and deprived of meaning for much of the citizenry, many will be inclined to regard
democracy as a sham, to lose confidence in and withdraw their support for electoral
institutions. Dissatisfaction with democracy now ranges from 40 percent in Peru and Bolivia to
59 percent in Brazil and 62 percent in Colombia. (Boron, "Democracy or Neoliberalism",
http://bostonreview.net/archives/BR21.5/boron.html
)
Not just in developing nations operating under authoritarian capitalist model to impose
neoliberal policies, but in advanced countries people recognize that the bourgeois freedom,
democracy and justice are predicated on income. Regardless of whether the regime operates under
a pluralistic neoliberal regime or rightwing populist one, the former much more tolerant of
diversity than the latter, the social contract goals are the same. In peoples' lives around the
world social exploitation has risen under neoliberal policies whether imposed the nation-state,
a larger entity such as the EU, or international organizations such as the IMF. Especially for
the European and US middle class, but also for Latin American and African nations statistics
show that the neoliberal social contract has widened the poor-rich gap.
In a world where the eight wealthiest individuals own as much wealth as the bottom 50% or
3.6 billion people, social exploitation and oppression has become normal because the mainstream
institutions present it in such light to the world and castigate anyone critical of
institutionalized exploitation and oppression. Rightwing populist demagogues use nationalism,
cultural conservatism and vacuous rhetoric about the dangers of big capital and 'liberal
elites' to keep the masses loyal to the social contract by faulting the pluralist-liberal
politicians rather than the neoliberal social contract. As the neoliberal political economy has
resulted in a steady rising income gap and downward social mobility in the past three decades,
it is hardly surprising that a segment of the masses lines behind rightwing populist demagogues
walking a thin line between bourgeois democracy and Fascism.
Seizing power from sovereign states, multinational corporation are pursuing neoliberal
policy objectives on a world scale, prompting resistance to the neoliberal social contract
which rarely class-based and invariably identity-group oriented manifested through
environmental, gender, race, ethnicity, gay, religious and minority groups of different sorts.
Regardless of the relentless media campaign to suppress class consciousness, workers are aware
that they have common interests and public opinion studies reveal as much. (Susan George,
Shadow Sovereigns: How Global Corporations are seizing Power , 2015)
According to the Pew Research center, the world average for satisfaction with their
governments are at 46%, the exact percentage as in the US that ranks about the same as South
Africa and much lower than neighboring Canada at 70% and Sweden at 79%. " Publics around
the globe are generally unhappy with the functioning of their nations' political systems.
Across the 36 countries asked the question, a global median of 46% say they are very or
somewhat satisfied with the way their democracy is working, compared with 52% who are not too
or not at all satisfied. Levels of satisfaction vary considerably by region and within regions.
Overall, people in the Asia-Pacific region are the most happy with their democracies. At least
half in five of the six Asian nations where this question was asked express satisfaction. Only
in South Korea is a majority unhappy (69%).
As confounding as it appears that elements of the disillusioned middle class and working
class opt either for the exploitation of pluralist neoliberalism or the exploitation and
oppression of rightwing populism expressed somewhat differently in each country, it is not
difficult to appreciate the immediacy of a person's concerns for survival like all other
species above all else. The assumption of rational behavior in the pursuit of social justice is
a bit too much to expect considering that people make irrational choices detrimental to their
best interests and to society precisely because the dominant culture has thoroughly
indoctrinated them. It seems absurd that indirectly people choose exploitation and oppression
for themselves and others in society, but they always have as the dominant culture secular and
religious indoctrinates them into accepting exploitation and oppression. (Shaheed Nick
Mohammed, Communication and the Globalization of Culture , 2011)
Throughout Western and Eastern Europe rightwing political parties are experiencing a
resurgence not seen since the interwar era, largely because the traditional conservatives moved
so far to the right. Even the self-baptized Socialist parties are nothing more than staunch
advocates of the same neoliberal status quo as the traditional conservatives. The US has also
moved to the right long before the election of Donald Trump who openly espouses suppression of
certain fundamental freedoms as an integral part of a pluralistic society. As much as in the US
and Europe as in the rest of the world, analysts wonder how could any working class person
champion demagogic political leaders whose vacuous populist rhetoric promises 'strong nation"
for all but their policies benefit the same socioeconomic elites as the neoliberal
politicians.(J. Rydgren (Ed.), Class Politics and the Radical Right , 2012)
Rooted onclassical liberal values of the Enlightenment, the political and social elites
present a social contract that is theoretically all-inclusive and progressive, above all 'fair'
because it permits freedom to compete, when in reality the social structure under which
capitalism operates necessarily entails exploitation and oppression that makes marginalization
very clear even to its staunchest advocates who then endeavor to justify it by advancing
theories about individual human traits.
In 2012 the United States spent an estimated 19.4% of GDP on such social expenditures,
according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the Paris-based
industrial country think tank. Denmark spent 30.5%, Sweden 28.2% and Germany 26.3%. All of
these nations have a lower central government debt to GDP ratio than that of the United States.
Why the United States invests relatively less in its social safety net than many other
countries and why those expenditures are even at risk in the current debate over debt reduction
reflect Americans' conflicted, partisan and often contradictory views on fairness, inequality,
the role and responsibility of government and individuals in society and the efficacy of
government action. Rooted in value differences, not just policy differences, the debate over
the U.S. social contract is likely to go on long after the fiscal cliff issue has been
resolved."http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/01/15/public-attitudes-toward-the-next-social-contract/
The neoliberal model of capitalism spewing forth from core countries to the periphery and
embraced by capitalists throughout the world has resulted in greater social inequality,
exploitation and oppression, despite proclamations that by pluralist-diversity neoliberals
presenting themselves as remaining true to 'democracy'. The tilt to the right endorsed at the
ballot box by voters seeking solutions to systemic problems and a more hopeful future indicates
that some people demand exclusion and/or punishment of minority social groups in society, as
though the exploitation and oppression of 'the other' would vicariously elevate the rest of
humanity to a higher plane. Although this marks a dangerous course toward authoritarianism and
away from liberal capitalism and Karl Popper's 'Open Society' thesis operating in a pluralistic
world against totalitarianism, it brings to surface the essence of neoliberalism which is
totalitarian, the very enemy Popper and his neoconservative followers were allegedly trying to
prevent. (Calvin Hayes, Popper, Hayek and the Open Society , 2009)
Social Exclusion, Popular Resistanceand the Future of Neoliberalism
Social Exclusion
Every sector of society from the criminal justice system to elderly care has been impacted
by neoliberal social marginalization. More significant than any other aspect of neoliberalism,
the creation of a chronic debtor classwithout any assets is floating a step above the
structurally unemployed and underemployed.The Industrial revolution exacerbated social
exclusion producing an underclass left to its own fate by a state that remained faithful to the
social contract's laissez philosophy. Composed of vagrants, criminals, chronically unemployed,
and people of the streets that British social researcher Henry Mayhew described in London
Labour and the London Poor , a work published three years after the revolutions of 1848
that shattered the liberal foundations of Europe, the lumpenproletariat caught the attention of
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels ( The German Ideology ) interested in the industrial
working class movement as the vanguard of the revolution.
Lacking a class consciousness thus easily exploited by the elites the lumpenproletariat were
a product of industrial capitalism's surplus labor that kept wages at or just above subsistence
levels, long before European and American trade union struggles were able to secure a living
wage.In the last four decades neoliberal policies have created a chronic debtor working class
operating under the illusion of integration into the mainstream when in fact their debtor
status not only entails social exclusion but relegated to perpetual servitude dependence and
never climbing out of it. The neoliberal state is the catalyst to the creation of this new
class.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-20/a-164-year-old-idea-helps-explain-the-huge-changes-sweeping-the-world-s-workforce
In an essay entitled "Labour Relations and Social Movements in the 21st
Century"
Portuguese social scientists Elísio Estanque and Hermes Augusto Costa argue that the
manner that neoliberalism has impacted Europe's social structure in both core and periphery
countries has given rise to the new precarious working class, often college-degreed,
overqualified, and struggling to secure steady employment especially amid recessionary cycles
that last longer and run deeper.
"The panorama of a deep economic crisis which in the last few decades has hit Europe and
its Welfare state in particular has had an unprecedented impact on employment and social
policies. The neoliberal model and the effects of deregulated and global finance not only
question the "European social model" but push sectors of the labour force – with the
youngest and well-qualified being prominent – into unemployment or precarious jobs. the
sociological and potential socio-political significance of these actionsparticularly as a
result of the interconnections that such movements express, both in the sphere of the workplace
and industrial system or whether with broader social structures, with special emphasis on the
middle classes and the threats of 'proletarianization' that presently hang over them. labour
relations of our time are crossed by precariousness and by a new and growing "precariat" which
also gave rise to new social movements and new forms of activism and protest."
http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/34149/InTech-Labour_relations_and_social_movements_in_the_21st_century.pdf
'Proletarization' of the declining middle class and downward income pressure for the working
class and middle classhas been accompanied by the creation of a growing chronic debtor class in
the Western World. Symptomatic of the neoliberal globalist world order, the creation of the
debtor class and more broadly social exclusion transcends national borders, ethnicity, gender,
culture, etc. Not just at the central government level, but at the regional and local levels,
public policy faithfully mimics the neoliberal model resulting in greater social exclusion
while there is an effort to convince people that there is no other path to progress although
people were free to search; a dogma similar to clerical intercession as the path to spiritual
salvation. http://www.isreview.org/issues/58/feat-economy.shtml
The neoliberal path to salvation has resulted in a staggering 40% of young adults living
with relatives out of financial necessity. The number has never been greater at any time in
modern US history since the Great Depression, and the situation is not very different for
Europe. Burdened with debt, about half of the unemployed youth are unable to find work and most
that work do so outside the field of their academic training. According to the OECD, youth
unemployment in the US is not confined only to high school dropouts but includes college
graduates. Not just across southern Europe and northern Africa, but in most countries the
neoliberal economy of massive capital concentration has created a new lumpenproletariat that
has no assets and carries debt. Owing to neoliberal policies, personal bankruptcies have risen
sharply in the last four decades across the Western World reflecting the downward social
mobility and deep impact on the chronically indebted during recessionary cycles.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/04/53-of-recent-college-grads-are-jobless-or-underemployed-how/256237/
; https://www.cbsnews.com/news/for-young-americans-living-with-their-parents-is-now-the-norm/
; Iain Ramsay, Personal Insolvency in the 21st Century: A Comparative Analysis of the US
and Europe, 2017)
Historically, the safe assumption has been that higher education
is the key to upward social mobility and financial security, regardless of cyclical economic
trends. However, the laws of overproduction apply not only to commodities but to the labor
force, especially as the information revolution continues to chip away at human labor. College
education is hardly a guarantee to upward social mobility, but often a catalyst to descent into
the debtor unemployed class,or minimum wage/seasonalpart time job or several such jobs. The
fate of the college-educated falling into the chronic debtor class is part of a much larger
framework, namely the 'financialization' of the economy that is at the core of neoliberalism. (
Vik Loveday, "Working-class participation, middle-class aspiration? Value, upward mobility
and symbolic indebtedness in higher education."The Sociological Review , September
2014)Beyond the simplisticsuggestion of 'more training' to keep up with tech changes,
the root cause of social exclusion and the chronic debtor class revolves around the
'financialization' of the neoliberal globalist economy around which central banks make monetary
policy. Since the beginning of the Thatcher-Reagan era, advanced capitalist countries led by
the US conducted policy to promote the centrality of financial markets as the core of the
economy. This entails resting more on showing quarterly profit even at the expense of taking on
debt, lower productivity and long-term sustainability, or even breaking a company apart and
dismissing workers because it would add shareholder value. Therefore, the short-term financial
motives and projection of market performance carry far more weight than any other
consideration.
Symptomatic of a combination of deregulation and the evolution of capitalism especially in
core countries from productive to speculative, financialization has transformed the world
economy. Enterprises from insurance companies to brokerage firms and banks like Goldman Sachs
involved in legal and quasi-legal practices, everything from the derivatives market to helping
convert a country's sovereign debt into a surplus while making hefty profits has been part of
the financialization economy that speeds up capital concentration and creates a wider rich-poor
gap. Housing, health, pension systems, health care and personal consumption are all impacted by
financialization that concentrates capital through speculation rather than producing anything
from capital goods to consumer products and services. (Costas Lapavitsas, The
Financialization of Capitalism: 'Profiting without producing'http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13604813.2013.853865
Billionaire speculator George Soros has observed that market speculation not only drives
prices higher, especially of commodities on a world scale, but the inevitability of built-in
booms and busts are disruptive simply because a small group of people have secured a legal
means for capital accumulation. At the outbreak of the US stock market collapse followed by the
'great recession' of 2008, the European Network and Debt and Development (EURODAD)
published an article critical of financialization and its impact on world hunger.
"Do you enjoy rising prices? Everybody talks about commodities – with the
Agriculture Euro Fund you can benefit from the increase in value of the seven most important
agricultural commodities." With this advertisement the Deutsche Bankt tried in spring 2008 to
attract clients for one of its investment funds. At the same time, there were hunger revolts in
Haiti, Cameroon and other developing countries, because many poor could no longer pay the
exploding food prices. In fact, between the end of 2006 and March 2008 the prices for the seven
most important commodities went up by 71 per cent on average, for rice and grain the increase
was 126 per cent. The poor are most hit by the hike in prices. Whereas households in
industrialised countries spend 10 -20 per cent for food, in low-income countries they spend 60
– 80 per cent. As a result, the World Bank forecasts an increase in the number of people
falling below the absolute poverty line by more than 100 million. Furthermore, the price
explosion has negative macroeconomic effects: deterioration of the balance of payment, fuelling
inflation and new debt."http://eurodad.org/uploadedfiles/whats_new/news/food%20speculation%202%20pager%20final.pdf
Someone has to pay for the speculative nature of financialization, and the labor force in
all countries is the first to do so through higher indirect taxes, cuts in social programs and
jobs and wages for the sake of stock performance. Stock markets around which public policy is
conducted have eroded the real economy while molding a culture of financialization of the last
two generations a large percentage of which has been swimming in personal debt reflecting the
debt-ridden financialization economy. Contrary to claims by politicians, business leaders and
the media that the neoliberal system of financialization is all about creating jobs and helping
to diffuse income to the middle class and workers, the only goal of financialization is wealth
concentration while a larger debtor class and social marginalization are the inevitable
results. It is hardly surprising that people world-wide believe the political economy is rigged
by the privileged class to maintain its status and the political class is the facilitator.
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/41359-financialization-has-turned-the-global-economy-into-a-house-of-cards-an-interview-with-gerald-epstein
; Costas Lapavitsa, Financialization in Crisis, 2013; Rona Foroohar, Makers and Takers: How
Wall Street Destroyed Main Street , 2016)
Despite efforts by pluralist and populist neoliberals throughout the world to use 'culture
wars' and identity politics as distractionwhile deemphasizing the role of the state as the
catalyst in the neoliberal social contract, the contradictions that the political economy
exposes the truth about the socially unjustsociety that marginalizes the uneducated poor and
college-educated indebted alike.Not to deemphasize the significance of global power
distribution based on the Westphalian nation-state model and regional blocs such as the
European Union, but neoliberals are the ones who insist on the obsolete nation-state that the
international market transcends, thus acknowledging the preeminence of capitalism in the social
contract and the subordination of national sovereignty to international capital and
financialization of the economy. After all, the multinational corporation operating in
different countries is accountable only to its stockholders, not to the nation-state whose role
is to advance corporate interests.
No matter how rightwing populists try to distract people from the real cause of social
exclusion and marginalization by focusing onnationalist rhetoric, marginalized social groups
and Muslim or Mexican legal or illegal immigrantshave no voice in public policy but
financialization speculators do. In an article entitled "The Politics of Public Debt:
Neoliberalism, capitalist development, and the restructuring of the state", Wolfgang
Streeck concludes that neoliberalism's systemic rewards provide a disincentive for capitalists
to abandon financialization in favor of productivity. "Why should the new oligarchs be
interested in their countries' future productive capacities and present democratic stability
if, apparently, they can be rich without it, processing back and forth the synthetic money
produced for them at no cost by a central bank for which the sky is the limit, at each stage
diverting from it hefty fees and unprecedented salaries, bonuses and profits as long as it is
forthcoming -- and then leave their country to its remaining devices and withdraw to some
privately owned island?
An important difference between pluralists and rightwing populists in their approach to the
state's role is that the former advocate for a strong legislative branch and weaker executive,
while rightwing populists want a strong executive and weak legislative. However, both political
camps agree about advancing market hegemony nationally and internationally and both support
policies that benefit international and domestic capital, thus facilitating the convergence of
capitalist class interests across national borders with the symptomatic results of social
exclusion. ( http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016718508000924
; Vicente Navarro, "The Worldwide Class Struggle"https://monthlyreview.org/2006/09/01/the-worldwide-class-struggle/
Regardless of vacuous rhetoric about a weak state resulting from neoliberal policies, the
state in core countries where financialization prevailshas been and remains the catalyst for
class hegemony as has been the case since the nascent stage of capitalism. Both Margaret
Thatcher and Ronald Reagan strengthened the corporate welfare state while openly declaring war
against trade unions and by extension on the working class that neoliberals demonize as the
enemy of economic progress. As statistics below illustrate, the debtor class expanded rapidly
after 1980 when the financialization economy took off, reaching its highest point after the
subprime-induced great recession in 2008. Under neoliberal globalist policies, governments
around the world followed theReagan-Thatcher model to facilitate over-accumulation of capital
in the name of competition. (Montgomerie Johnna, Neoliberalism and the Making of the
Subprime Borrower , 2010)
Whether the state is promoting neoliberal policies under a pluralist or authoritarian
models, the neoliberal culture has designated labor as the unspoken enemy, especially organized
labor regardless of whether the ruling parties have co-opted trade unions. In the struggle for
capital accumulation under parasitic financialization policies, the state's view of labor as
the enemy makes social conflict inevitable despite the obvious contradiction that the
'enemy-worker' is both the mass consumer on whom the economy depends for expansion and
development. Despite this contradiction, neoliberals from firms such as Goldman Sachs has many
of its former executives not just in top positions of the US government but world-wide, no
matter who is in power. Neoliberal policy resulting in social exclusion starts with
international finance capitalism hiding behind the pluralist and rightwing populist masks of
politicians desperately vying for power to conduct public policy.
Just as the serfs were aware in the Middle Ages that Lords and Bishops determined the fate
of all down here on earth before God in Heaven had the last word, people today realize the
ubiquitous power of capitalists operating behind the scenes, and in some case as with Trump in
the forefront of public-policy that results in social exclusion and rising inequality in the
name of market fundamentalism promising to deliver the benefits to all people. Neoliberalism
has created a chronicdebtor class that became larger after the 2008 recession and will continue
growing with each economic contracting cycle in decades to come. Despite its efforts to keep
one step ahead of bankruptcy, the identity of the new chronic debtor class rests with the
neoliberal status quo, often with the rightwing populist camp that makes rhetorical overtures
to the frustrated working classthat realize financialization benefits a small percentage of
wealthy individuals.
Personal debt has skyrocketed, reaching $12.58 trillion in the US in 2016, or 80% of GDP.
The irony is that the personal debt level is 2016 was the highest since the great recession of
2008 and it is expected to continue much higher, despite the economic recovery and low
unemployment. Wage stagnation and higher costs of health, housing and education combined with
higher direct and indirect taxes to keep public debt at manageable levels will continue to
drive more people into the debtor class. Although some European countries such as Germany and
France have lower household debt relative to GDP, all advanced and many developing nations have
experienced a sharp rise in personal debt because of deregulation, privatization, and lower
taxes on the wealthy with the burden falling on the mass consumer. Hence the creation of a
permanent debtor class whose fortunes rest on maintaining steady employment and/or additional
part-time employment to meet loan obligations and keep one step ahead of declaring bankruptcy.
Austerity policies imposed either by the government through tight credit in advanced capitalist
countries or IMF loan conditionality in developing and semi-developed nations the result in
either case is lower living standards and a rising debtor class. http://fortune.com/2017/02/19/america-debt-financial-crisis-bubble/
Maurizio Lazzarato's The Making of the Indebted Man: An Essay on the Neoliberal
Condition argues that neoliberalism has created a debtor-creditorrelationship which has
supplanted the worker-capitalist dichotomy, an argument that others focusing on the
financialization of the economy have made as well. Although in Keynesian economics public and
private debt was a stimulant for capitalist growth amid the contracting cycle of the economy,
the neoliberal era created the permanent chronic debtor class that finds it difficult to
extricate itself from that status. Evident after the deep recession of the
subprime-financialization-induced recession in 2008, this issue attracted the attention of some
politicians and political observers who realized theconvergence of the widening debtor class
with the corresponding widening of the rich-poor income gap.
By making both private and public debt, an integral part of the means of production, the
neoliberal system has reshaped social life and social relationships because the entire world
economy is debt-based. Servicing loans entails lower living standards for the working class in
advanced capitalist countries, and even lower in the rest of the world, but it also means
integrating the debtor into the system more closely than at any time in history. While it is
true that throughout the history of civilization human beings from China and India to Europe
have used various systems of credit to transact business (David Graeber, Debt: the First
5000 Years , 2014), no one would suggest reverting back to debt-slavery as part of the
social structure. Yet, neoliberalism has created the 'indebted man' as part of a policythat has
resulted in social asymmetrical power,aiming to speed up capital accumulation and maintain
market hegemony in society while generating greater social exclusion. https://marxandphilosophy.org.uk/reviewofbooks/reviews/2013/87E0
Ever since the British Abolition of the Slave Trade Act in 1807, followed by a number of
other European governments in the early 1800s, there was an assumption that slave labor is
inconsistent with free labor markets as well as with the liberal social contract rooted in
individual freedom. Nevertheless, at the core of neoliberal capitalismUS consumer debt as of
October 2017 stood at $3.8 trillion in a 419 trillion economy. Debt-to-personal income ratio is
at 160%; college student debt runs at approximately $1.5 trillion, with most of that since
2000; mortgage debt has tripled since 1955, with an alarming 8 million people delinquent on
their payments and the foreclosure rate hovering at 4.5% or three times higher than postwar
average; consumer debt has risen 1,700 since 1971 to above $1 trillion, and roughly half of
Americans are carrying monthly credit debt with an average rate of 14%. The debt problem is
hardly better for Europe where a number of countries have a much higher personal debt per
capita than the US.In addition to personal debt, public debt has become a burden on the working
class in so far as neoliberal politicians and the IMF are using as a pretext to impose
austerity conditions, cut entitlements and social programs amid diminished purchasing power
because of inflationary asset values and higher taxes. https://www.thebalance.com/consumer-debt-statistics-causes-and-impact-3305704
; https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/17/business/dealbook/household-debt-united-states.html
While personal debt is often but not always a reflection of a consumerist society, personal
debt encompasses everything from education to health care costs in times when the
digital/artificial intelligence economy is creating a surplus labor force that results in work
instability and asymmetrical social relations. Technology-automation-induced unemployment
driving down living standards creates debtor-workers chasing the technology to keep up with
debt payments in order to survive until the next payment is due. Considering the financial
system backed by a legal framework is established to favor creditors, especially given the
safeguards and protections accorded to creditors in the past four decades, there are many
blatant and overt ways that the state uses to criminalize poverty and debt. In 2015, for
example, Montana became the first state not to take the driver's license of those delinquent on
their student debt, thus decriminalizing debt in this one aspect, though hardly addressing the
larger issue of the underlying causes of debt and social exclusion. https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac:4b8gtht779
; https://lumpenproletariat.org/tag/neoliberalism/
In an article entitled "Torturing the Poor, German-Style" , Thomas Klikauer
stressed that the weakening of the social welfare state took place under the Social Democratic
Party (SPD)-Green Party coalition (1998-2005) government pursuing pluralist neoliberal
policies. Although historically the SPD had forged a compromise that would permit for the
social inclusion of labor into the institutional mainstream, by the 1990s, theSPD once rooted
in socialism had fully embraced neoliberalism just as the British Labour Party and all
socialist partiers of Europe pursuing social exclusion. Klilauer writes: "Germany's
chancellor [Gerhard] Schröder (SPD) –known as the "Comrade of the Bosses"– no
longer sought to integrate labour into capitalism, at least not the Lumpenproletariat orprecariate. These sections of society are now deliberately driven into mass poverty, joining the
growing number of working poor on a scale not seen in Germany perhaps since the 1930s."https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/10/20/torturing-the-poor-german-style/
No different than working class people in other countries need more than one job to keep up
with debt and living expenses, so do three million Germans (rising from 150,000 in 2003) that
have the privilege of living in Europe's richest nation. Just as the number of the working poor
has been rising in Germany, so have they across the Western World. Social exclusion and the
expansion of the debtor class in Germany manifested itself in the national elections of 2017
where for the first time since the interwar era a political party carrying the legacy of
Nazism, the Alternative fur Deutchland (AfD), founded by elite ultra-conservatives,
captured 13% of the vote to become third-largest party and giving a voice of neo-Nazis who
default society's neoliberal ills to Muslims and immigrants. Rejecting the link between market
fundamentalism that both the SPD and German conservatives pursued in the last three decades,
neoliberal apologists insist that the AfD merely reflects a Western-wide anti-Muslim trend
unrelated to social exclusion and the policies that have led to Germany's new lumpenproletariat
and working poor.
https://crimethinc.com/2017/10/01/the-rise-of-neo-fascism-in-germany-alternative-fur-deutschland-enters-the-parliament
; https://www.jku.at/icae/content/e319783/e319785/e328125/wp59_ger.pdf
Interestingly, US neoliberal policies also go hand-in-hand with Islamophobia and the war on
terror under both Democrat and Republican administrations, although the pluralist-diversity
neoliberals have been more careful to maintain a politically-correct rhetoric. Just as in
Germany and the rest of Europe, there is a direct correlation in the US between the rise in
social exclusion ofMuslim and non-Muslim immigrants and minorities and the growing trend of
rightwing populism. There is no empirical foundationto arguments that rightwing populism
whether in Germany or the US has no historical roots and it is unconnected both to domestic and
foreign policies. Although the neoliberal framework in which rightwing populism operates and
which creates social exclusion and the new chronic debtor class clashes with neoliberal
pluralism that presents itself as democratic, structural exploitation is built into the social
contract thus generating grassroots opposition.
Even before the great recession of 2008, there were a number of grassrootsgroups against
neoliberal globalism both in advanced and developing nations. Some found expression in social
media, others at the local level focused on the impact of neoliberal policies in the local
community, and still others attempted to alter public policy through cooperation with state
entities and/or international organizations. The most important anti-neoliberal grassroots
organizations have been in Brazil ( Homeless Workers' Movement and Landless Workers'
Movement), South Africa (Abahlali baseMjondolo, Western Cape Anti-Eviction Campaign,
Landless Peoples' Movement), Mexico (Ejército Zapatista de Liberación
Nacional, EZLN), Haiti (Fanmi Lavalas) and India (Narmada Bachao
Andolan).
The vast majority of organizations claiming to be fighting against neoliberal policies are
appendages either of the pluralist or the rightwing populist political camp both whose goal is
to co-opt the masses as part of their popular base. The anti-globalization movement and by
implication anti-neoliberal includes elements from the entire political spectrum from left to
ultra-right. From India, to Bangladesh, from South Africa to Brazil, and from the US, France,
and the UK, working class resistance to neoliberal globalism has been directly or indirectly
co-opted and often de-politicized by corporate-funded or government-funded NGOs and by
'reformist' local and international organizations.
By promoting measures invariably in the lifestyle domain but also some social welfare and
civil rights issues such as women's rights, renter's rights, etc, the goals of organizations
operating within the neoliberal structure is not social inclusion by altering the social
contract, but sustaining the status quo by eliminating popular opposition through co-optation.
It is hardly a coincidence that the rise of the thousands of NGOs coincided with the rise of
neoliberalism in the 1990s, most operating under the guise of aiding the poor, protecting human
rights and the environment, and safeguarding individualism. Well-funded by corporations,
corporate foundations and governments, NGOs are the equivalent of the 19 th century
missionaries, using their position as ideological preparatory work for Western-imposed
neoliberal policies. http://socialistreview.org.uk/310/friends-poor-or-neo-liberalism
;
https://zeroanthropology.net/2014/08/28/civil-society-ngos-and-saving-the-needy-imperial-neoliberalism/
On the receiving end of corporate and/or government-funded NGOs promoting the neoliberal
agenda globally, some leading grassroots movements that advocate changing the neoliberal status
quo contend that it is better to 'win' on a single issue such as gay rights, abortion, higher
minimum wage, etc. at the cost of co-optation into neoliberal system than to have nothing at
all looking in from the outside. Their assumption is that social exclusion can be mitigated one
issue at a time through reform from within the neoliberal institutional structure that
grassroots organizations deem as the enemy. This is exactly what the pluralist neoliberals are
promoting as well to co-opt grassroots opposition groups.
Partly because governmental and non-governmental organizations posing as reformist have
successfully co-opted grassroots movements often incorporating them into the neoliberal popular
base, popular resistance has not been successful despite social media and cell phones that
permit instant communication. This was certainly the case with the Arab Spring uprisings across
North Africa-Middle East where genuine popular opposition to neoliberal policies of
privatization, deregulation impacting everything from health care toliberalizing rent controls
led to the uprising. In collaboration with the indigenous capitalists, political and military
elites, Western governments directly and through NGOs were able to subvert and then revert to
neoliberal policies once post-Arab Spring regimes took power in the name of 'reform' invariably
equated with neoliberal policies.
https://rs21.org.uk/2014/10/06/adam-hanieh-on-the-gulf-states-neoliberalism-and-liberation-in-the-middle-east/
In "Dying for Growth: Global Inequality and the Health of the Poor" Jim Yong Kim
ed., 2000) contributing authors illustrate in case studies of several countries how the
neoliberal status quo has diminished the welfare of billions of people in developing nations
for the sake of growth that simply translates into even greater wealth concentration and misery
for the world's poor. According to the study: "100 countries have undergone grave economic
decline over the past three decades. Per capita income in these 100 countries is now lower than
it was 10, 15, 20 or in some cases even 30 years ago. In Africa, the average household consumes
20 percent less today than it did 25 years ago. Worldwide, more than 1 billion people saw their
real incomes fall during the period 1980-1993."http://www.mit.edu/~thistle/v13/2/imf.html
Anti-neoliberal groups assume different forms, depending on the nation's history, social and
political elites, the nature of institutions and the degree it has been impacted by neoliberal
policies that deregulate and eliminate as much of the social safety net as workers will
tolerate. Even the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) that experienced rapid
growth from the early 1990s until the great recession of 2008 have not escaped mass opposition
to neoliberalism precisely because the impact on workers and peasants has been largely
negative.
https://www.cpim.org/views/quarter-century-neo-liberal-economic-policies-unending-distress-and-peasant-resistance
; Juan Pablo Ferrero, Democracy against Neoliberalism in Argentina and Brazil, 2014;
Mimi Abramovitz and Jennifer Zelnick, " Double Jeopardy: The Impact of Neoliberalism on
Care Workers in the United States and South Africa" , http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.2190/HS.40.1.f
Grassroots organizations opposed to policies that further integrate their countries into the
world economy and marginalize the working class have been especially persistent in South
Africa, Brazil, and India. To assuage if not co-opt the masses the BRICS followed a policy mix
that combines neoliberalism, aspects of social welfare and statism. Combined with geopolitical
opposition to US-NATO militarism and interventionism, the BRICS policies were an attempt to
keep not just the national bourgeois loyal but the broader masses by projecting a commitment to
national sovereignty.
In Brazil, India and South Africa internal and external corporate pressure along with US,
EU, and IMF-World Bank pressures have been especially evident to embrace neoliberal policies
and confront grassroots opposition rather than co-opt it at the cost of making concessions to
labor. Considering that the development policies of the BRICS in the last three decades of
neoliberal globalism accommodated domestic and foreign capital and were not geared to advance
living standards for the broader working class and peasantry, grassroots opposition especially
in Brazil, India and South Africa where the state structure is not nearly as powerful as in
Russia and China manifested itself in various organizations.
One of the grassroots organizations managing to keep its autonomy is Brazil's Landless
Workers Movement (MST)skillfully remaining independent of both former President Luiz
Inacio Lula da Silva and Dilma Rousseff. Although the MST supported some policies of theformer
presidents who presented themselves as champions of labor rather than capital, both Lula and
Rousseff made substantial policy compromises with the neoliberal camp and were eventually
implicated in corruption scandals revealing opportunism behind policy-making. While the record
of their policies on the poor speaks for itself, the Lula-Rousseff era of Partido dos
Trabalhadores was an improvement over previous neoliberal president Fernando Henrique
Cardoso (1995-2003). https://monthlyreview.org/2017/02/01/the-brazilian-crisis/
The MST persisted with the struggle against neoliberal policies that have contributed to
rising GDP heavily concentrated among the national and comprador bourgeoisie and foreign
corporations. Other Latin American grassroots movements have had mixed results not much better
than those in Brazil. Ecuador under president Rafael Correa tried to co-opt the leftby yielding
on some policy issues as did Lula and Rousseff, while pursuing a neoliberal development model
as much as his Brazilian counterparts. With its economy thoroughly integrated into the US
economy, Mexico is a rather unique case where grassroots movements against neoliberalism are
intertwined with the struggle against official corruption and the narco-trade resulting in the
assassination of anti-neoliberal, anti-drug activists. (William Aviles, The Drug War in
Mexico: Hegemony and Global Capitalism ;
Anti-neoliberal resistance in the advanced countries has not manifested itself as it has in
the developing nations through leftist movements such as South Africa's Abahlali baseMjondolo
or Latin American trade unions that stress a working class philosophy of needs rather than the
one of rights linked to middle class property and identity politics. https://roarmag.org/essays/south-africa-marikana-anc-poor/
Popular resistance to neoliberalism in the US has been part of the anti-globalization movement
that includes various groups from environmentalists to anti-IMF-World Bank and anti-militarism
groups.
Although there are some locally based groups like East Harlem-based Justice in El
Barrio representing immigrants and low-income people, there is no national anti-neoliberal
movement. Perhaps because of the war on terror, various anti-establishment pro-social justice
groups assumed the form of bourgeois identity politics of both the Democratic Party and the
Republican where some of the leaders use rightwing populism as an ideological means to push
through neoliberal policies while containing grassroots anger resulting from social exclusion
and institutional exploitation. https://www.dissentmagazine.org/blog/the-legacy-of-anti-globalization
Black Lives Matter revolving around the systemic racism issue and Occupy Wall
Street anti-capitalist group fell within the left orbit of the Democratic Party (Senator
Bernie Sanders) who is an advocate of the pluralist-diversity model, opposes market
fundamentalism,and proposes maintaining some vestiges of the Keynesian welfare state. With the
exception of isolated voices by a handful of academics and some criticsusing social media as a
platform, there is no anti-neoliberal grassroots movement that Democrats or Republicans has not
successfully co-opted. Those refusing to be co-opted are invariably dismissed as everything
from idealists to obstructionists. Certainlythere is nothing in the US like the anti-neoliberal
groups in Brazil, India, Mexico, or South Africa operating autonomously and resisting
co-optation by political parties. The absence of such movements in the US is a testament to the
strong state structure andthe institutional power of the elites in comparison with many
developing nations and even some parts of Europe.
https://www.salon.com/2015/08/15/black_lives_matter_joins_a_long_line_of_protest_movements_that_have_shifted_public_opinion_most_recently_occupy_wall_street/
As an integrated economic bloc, Europe follows uniform neoliberal policies using as leverage
monetary and trade policy but also the considerable EU budget at its disposal for subsidies and
development. A number of European trade unions and leftist popular groups fell into the trap of
following either Socialist or centrist parties which are pluralist neoliberal and defend some
remnants of Keynesianism. Those disillusioned with mainstream Socialist Parties pursue the same
neoliberal policies of social exclusion as the conservatives fell in line behind newly formed
non-Communist reformist parties (PODEMOS in Spain, SYRIZA in Greece, for example) with a
Keynesian platform and socialist rhetoric.
As the government of Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras proved once in power in 2015,
self-baptized 'leftist' parties areleftist in rhetoric only. When it comes to policy they are
as neoliberal as the opposition they criticize; even more dangerous because they have deceived
people to support them as the alternative to neoliberal conservatives. Because grassroots
movements andthe popular base of political parties that promise 'reform' to benefit the masses
are co-opted by centrists, center-left or rightwing political parties, social exclusion becomes
exacerbated leading to disillusionment.
Consequently,people hoping for meaningful change become apathetic or they become angry and
more radicalized often turning to rightwing political parties. Although there is a
long-standing history of mainstream political parties co-opting grassroots movements, under
neoliberalism the goal is to shape them intoan identity politics mold under the pluralist or
rightwing populist camp. Behind the illusion of choice and layers of bourgeois issues ranging
from property rights and individual rights rests a totalitarian system whose goal is popular
compliance. https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/eliane-glaser/elites-right-wing-populism-and-left
;
More subtly and stealthily interwoven into the institutional structure than totalitarian
regimes of the interwar era, neoliberal totalitarianism has succeeded not because of the
rightwing populist political camp but because of the pluralist one that supports both
militarism in foreign affairs and police-state methods at home as a means of maintaining the
social order while projecting the façade of democracy. Whereas the neoliberal
surveillance state retains vestiges of pluralism and the façade of electoral choice, the
police state in interwar Germany and Italy pursued blatant persecution of declared ideological
dogmatism targeting 'enemies of the state' and demanding complete subjugation of citizens to
theregime. Just as people were manipulated in interwar Europeinto accepting the totalitarian
state as desirable and natural, so are many in our time misguided into supporting neoliberal
totalitarianism.
In her book entitled Undoing the Demos: Neoliberalism's Stealth Revolution (2015),
Wendy Brown argues that not just in the public sector, but in every sector of society
neoliberal ideology of 'de-democratization' prevails. Extensions of a hierarchical economic
system rather than citizens with civil and human rights guaranteed by a social contract aimed
at the welfare of the collective, human beings are more commoditized today than they were in
the nascent phase of industrial capitalism. The kind of ubiquitous transformation of the
individual's identity with the superstructure and the 'de-democratization' of society operating
under massively concentrated wealth institutionally intertwined with political power in our
contemporary erawas evident in totalitarian countries during the interwar era.
Whereas protest and resistance, freedom of expression and assembly were not permitted by
totalitarian regimes in interwar Europe, they are permitted in our time. However, they are so
marginalized and/or demonized when analyzing critically mainstream institutions and the social
contract under which they operate that they are the stigmatizedas illegitimate opposition.
Permitting freedom of speech and assembly, along with due process and electoral politicsbest
servesneoliberal socioeconomic totalitarianism because its apologists can claim the system
operates in an 'open society'; a term that Karl Popper the ideological father of
neo-conservatism coined to differentiate the West from the former Communist bloc closed
societies.
As Italian journalist Claudio Hallo put it: "If the core of neoliberalism is a natural
fact, as suggested by the ideology already embedded deep within our collective psyche, who can
change it? Can you live without breathing, or stop the succession of days and nights? This is
why Western democracy chooses among the many masks behind which is essentially the same liberal
party. Change is not forbidden, change is impossible. Some consider this feature to be an
insidious form of invisible totalitarianism. " https://www.rt.com/op-edge/171240-global-totalitarianism-change-neoliberalism/
In an essay entitled "The unholy alliance of neoliberalism and postmodernism" ,
Hans van Zon argues that as the Western World'sdominant ideologies since the 1980s,
"undermine the immune system of society, neoliberalism by commercialization of even the
most sacred domains and postmodernism by its super-relativism and refusal to recognize any
hierarchy in value or belief systems."http://www.imavo.be/vmt/13214-van%20Zon%20postmodernism.pdf
. Beyond undermining society's immune system and the open society under capitalism, asHans van
Zon contends, the convergence of these ideologies have contributed to the 'de-democratization'
of society,the creation of illiberal institutions and collective consciousness of conformity to
neoliberal totalitarianism. The success of neoliberalism inculcated into the collective
consciousness is partly because of the long-standing East-West confrontation followed by the
manufactured war on terror. However, it is also true that neoliberal apologists of both the
pluralist and rightwing camp present the social contract as transcending politics because
markets are above states, above society as 'objective' thus they can best determine the social
good on the basis of commoditized value. (Joshua Ramsay, "Neoliberalism as Political
Theology of Chance: the politics of divination."https://www.nature.com/articles/palcomms201539
An evolutionary course, the 'de-democratization' of society started in postwar US that
imposed transformation policy on the world with the goal of maintaining its economic,
political, military and cultural superpower hegemony justified in the name of anti-Communism.
Transformation policy was at the root of the diffusion of the de-democratization process under
neoliberalism, despite the European origin of the ideology. As it gradually regained its status
in the core of the world economy after the creation of the European Economic Community (EEC) in
1957, northwest Europe followed in the path of the US. http://www.eurstrat.eu/the-european-neoliberal-union/
Ten years before the Treaty of Rome that created the EEC,Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek
gathered a number of scholars in Mont Pelerin where they founded the neoliberal society named
after the Swiss village. They discussed strategies of influencing public policy intended to
efface the Keynesian model on which many societies were reorganized to survive the Great
Depression. Financed by some of Europe's wealthiest families, the Mont Pelerin Society grew of
immense importance after its first meeting which coincided with the anti-labor Taft-Hartley
Act, the Truman Doctrine formalizing the institutionalization of the Cold War, and the Marshall
Plan intended to reintegrate Europe and its colonies and spheres of influence under the aegis
of the US. Helped along by the IMF, World Bank, and the International Agreement on Tariffs and
Trade established in 1947, US transformation policy was designed to shape the world to its own
geopolitical and economic advantage based on a neo-classical macroeconomic and financial
theoretical model on which neoliberal ideology rested. http://fpif.org/from_keynesianism_to_neoliberalism_shifting_paradigms_in_economics/
Considering that millionaires and billionaires providefunding for the Mont Pelerin Society
and affiliates, this prototype neoliberal think tank became the intellectual pillar of both the
pluralist and rightwing neoliberal camps by working with 460 think tanks that have
organizations in 96 countries where they influence both centrist and rightwing political
parties. Whether Hillary Clinton's and Emmanuel Macron's pluralist neoliberal globalist version
or Donald Trump's and Narendra Modi's rightwing populist one, the Mont Pelerin Society and
others sharing its ideology and goals exercise preeminent policy influence not on the merit of
its ideas for the welfare of society but because the richest people from rightwing Czech
billionaire Andrej Babisto liberal pluralist billionaireseither support its principles and
benefit from their implementation into policy. (J. Peterson, Revoking the Moral Order: The
Ideology of Positivism and the Vienna Circle , 1999;
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/09/rise-of-the-davos-class-sealed-americas-fate
If the neoliberal social contract is the answer to peoples' prayers world-wide as Hayek's
followers insist, why is there a need on the part of the state, international organizations
including UN agencies, billionaire and millionaire-funded think tanks, educational institutions
and the corporate and state-owned media to convince the public that there is nothing better for
society than massive capital concentration and social exclusion, and social conditions that in
some respects resemble servitude in Medieval Europe? Why do ultra-rightwing Koch brothers and
the Mercer family, among other billionaires and millionaires fromNorth America, Europe, India,
South Korea and Latin America spend so much money to inculcate the neoliberal ideology into the
collective consciousness andto persuade the public to elect neoliberal politicians either of
the pluralist camp or the authoritarian one?
Seventy years after Hayek formed the Mont Leperin Societyto promotea future without
totalitarianism, there are elected neoliberal politicians from both the pluralist and
authoritarian camps with ties to big capital and organized crime amid the blurring lines
between legal and illegal economic activities that encompasses everything from crypto-currency
and insider trading to offshore 'shell corporations' and banks laundering money for drug lords
and wealthy tax evaders. Surrender of popular sovereignty through the social contract now
entails surrender to a class of people who are criminals, not only based on a social justice
criteria but on existing law if it were only applied to them as it does to petty thieves. In
the amoral Machiavellian world of legalized "criminal virtue" in which we live these are the
leaders of society.Indicative of the perversion of values now rooted in atomism and greed, the
media reports with glowingly admiring terms that in 2017 the world's 500 richest people became
richer by $1 trillion, a rise that represents one-third of Africa's GDP and just under
one-fifth of Latin America's. Rather than condemning mal-distribution ofincome considering what
it entails for society, the media and many in the business of propagating for neoliberalism
applaud appropriation within the legal framework of the social contract as a virtue.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/business-news/500-richest-people-became-1-trillion-richer-in-2017-mukesh-ambani-tops-indian-list/story-JcNXhH9cCp2pzRopkoFdfL.html
; Bob Brecher, "Neoliberalism and its Threat to Moral Agency" in Virtue and
Economy . ed. Andrius Bielskis and Kelvin Knight, 2015)
Neoliberalism has led to the greater legitimization of activities that would otherwise be
illegal to the degree that the lines between the legitimate economy and organized criminal
activity are blurred reflecting the flexible lines between legally-financed millionaire-backed
elected officials and those with links to organized crime or to illegal campaign contributions
always carrying an illegal quid-pro-quo legalized through public policy. Beyond the usual
tax-haven suspects Panama, Cyprus, Bermuda, Malta, Luxemburg, among othersincluding states such
as Nevada and Wyoming, leaders from former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi to President Donald
Trump with reputed ties to organized criminal networks have benefited from the neoliberal
regime that they served.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254953831_Economic_Crime_and_Neoliberal_Modes_of_Government_The_Example_of_the_Mediterranean
)
Self-righteous pluralist neoliberals castigate rightwing billionaires for funding rightwing
politicians. However, there is silence when it comes to the millions amassed by pluralist
neoliberals as the infamous "Panama Papers" revealed in 2016. Despite the institutionalized
kleptocracy, the mediahas indoctrinated the public to accept as 'normal' the converging
interests of the capitalist class and ruling political class just as it has indoctrinated the
public to accept social exclusion, social inequality, and poverty as natural and democratic;
all part of the social contract.( http://revistes.uab.cat/tdevorado/article/view/v2-n1-armao
; Jose Manuel Sanchez Bermudez, The Neoliberal Pattern of Domination: Capital's Reign in
Decline, 2012;
https://www.globalresearch.ca/neoliberalisms-world-of-corruption-money-laundering-corporate-lobbying-drug-money/5519907
The Future of Neoliberalism
After the great recession of 2008, the future of neoliberalism became the subject of debate
among politicians, journalists and academics. One school of thought was that the great
recession had exposed the flaws in neoliberalism thus marking the beginning of its demise. The
years since 2008 proved that in a twist of irony, the quasi-statist policies of China with its
phenomenal growth have actually been responsible for sustaining neoliberalism globally and not
just because China has been financing US public debt by buying treasuries while the US buys
products made in China. This view holds that neoliberalism will continue to thrive so as long
as China continues its global ascendancy, thus the warm reception to Beijing as the new
globalist hegemonic power after Trump's noise about pursuing economic nationalism within the
neoliberal model. (Barry Eichengreen, Hall of Mirrors: The Great Depression, the Great
Recession and the Uses and Misuses of History , 2016;
http://www.e-ir.info/2011/08/23/has-the-global-financial-crisis-challenged-us-power-in-international-finance/
)
China is not pursuing the kind of neoliberal model that exists in the US or the EU, but its
economy is well integrated with the global neoliberal system and operates within those
perimeters despite quasi-statist policies also found in other countries to a lesser degree.
Adjusted for purchasing power parity (PPP), China's current share of world GDP stands at 16%
and at annual growth above 6% it is expected to reach 20%, by 2020. This in comparison with
only 1.9% in 1979 and it explains why its currency is now among the IMF-recognized reserved
currencies. With about half-a-million foreign companies in China and an average of 12,000 new
companies entering every day, capitalists from all over the world are betting heavily on
China's future as the world's preeminent capitalist core country in the 21 st
century. China will play a determining role in the course of global neoliberalism, and it is
politically willing to accept the US as the military hegemon while Beijing strives for economic
preeminence. Interested in extracting greater profits from China while tempering its race to
number one, Western businesses and governmentshave been pressuring Beijing to become more
immersed in neoliberal policies and eliminate all elements of statism. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/business/2012-09/22/content_15775312.htm
; https://en.portal.santandertrade.com/establish-overseas/china/foreign-investment
Although the US that has 450,000 troops in 800 foreign military bases in more than 150
countries and uses its military muscle along with 'soft-power' policies including sanctions as
leverage for economic power, many governments and multinational corporations consider Beijing
not Washington as a source of global stability and growth. With China breathing new life into
neoliberalism on the promise of geographic and social convergence, it is fantasy to speculate
that neoliberalism is in decline when in fact it is becoming more forcefully ubiquitous.
However, China like the West that had promised geographic and social convergence in the last
four decades of neoliberalism will not be any more successful in delivering on such promises.
The resultof such policies will continue to be greater polarization and social exclusion and
greater uneven development, with China and multinationals investing in its enterprises becoming
richer while the US will continue to use militarism as leverage to retain global economic
hegemony rapidly eroding from its grip. ( http://www.businessinsider.com/us-military-deployments-may-2017-5
;
http://www.zapruderworld.org/welfare-state-decline-and-rise-neoliberalism-1980s-some-approaches-between-latin-americas-core-and
; Dic Lo, Alternatives to Neoliberal Globalization , 2012)
Between China and the US, the world can expect neoliberal globalization to continue under
the pluralist and populist rightwing models in different countries with the two converging and
reflecting the totalitarian essence of the system at its core.Characterized by rapid
development and sluggish growth in Japan and Western core countries, neoliberal globalization
has entailed lack of income convergence between the developed and developing world where uneven
export-oriented growth based on the primary sector keeps developingnations perpetually
dependent and poor. Interestingly, the trend of falling incomes characteristic of the
developing nations from 1980 to 2000 was just as true in Western countries. It was during these
two decades of ascendant neoliberalism that rightwing populist movements began to challenge the
pluralist neoliberal political camp and offering nationally-based neoliberal solutions, further
adding to the system's existing contradictions. (Dic Lo, Alternatives to Neoliberal
Globalization , 2012)
The debate whether the rise of populism or perhaps the faint voices of anti-capitalism will
finally bring about the end of neoliberalism often centers on the digital-biotech revolution
often blamed for exacerbating rather than solving social problems owing to uneven benefits
accruing across social classes. It is somewhat surprising that IMF economists have questioned
the wisdom of pursuing unfettered neoliberalism where there is a trade-off between economic
growth andsocial exclusion owing to growing income inequality. Naturally, the IMF refrains from
self-criticism and it would never suggest that neoliberal globalization that the Fund has been
promoting is responsible for the rise of rightwing populism around the world.
Within the neoliberal camp, pluralist-diversity advocatesare satisfied they have done their
part in the 'fight for democracy' when in fact their stealthy brand of the neoliberal social
contract isin some respects more dangerous than the populist camp which is unapologetically
candid about its pro-big business, pro-monopoly, pro-deregulation anti-social welfare platform.
Shortly after Trump won the presidential election with the help of rightwing billionaires and
disillusioned workers who actually believed that he represented them rather than the
billionaires, an article appearing in the Christian Science Monitor is typical of how
pluralist neoliberals view the global tide of rightwing populism.
"Worldwide, it has been a rough years for democracy. The UK, the United States and
Colombia made critical decisions about their nations' future, and – at least from the
perspective of liberal values and social justice – they decided poorly. Beyond the clear
persistence of racism, sexism and xenophobia in people's decision-making, scholars and pundits
have argued that to understand the results of recent popular votes, we must reflect on
neoliberalism. International capitalism, which has dominated the globe for the past three
decades, has its winners and its losers. And, for many thinkers, the losers have spoken. My
fieldwork in South America has taught me that there are alternative and effective ways to push
back against neoliberalism. These include resistance movements based on pluralism and
alternative forms of social organisation, production and consumption."
https://www.csmonitor.com/Technology/Breakthroughs-Voices/2016/1206/Opposing-neoliberalism-without-right-wing-populism-A-Latin-American-guide
Without analyzing the deeper causes of the global tide of rightwing populism promoting
neoliberalism under an authoritarian political platform, pluralist-diversity neoliberals
continue to promote socioeconomic policies that lead to social exclusion, inequality, and
uneven development as long as they satisfy the cultural-lifestyle and corporate-based
sustainable-development aspects of the social contract.Tolend legitimacy and public acceptance
among those expecting a commitment to pluralism, the neoliberal pluralists embrace the
superficialities and distraction of diversity and political correctness. Ironically, the
political correctness trend started during theReagan administration's second term and served as
a substitute for social justice that the government and the private sector were rapidly eroding
along with the social welfare state and trade union rights. As long as there is'politically
correctness', in public at least so that people feel they are part of a 'civilized' society,
then public policy can continue on the barbaric path of social exclusion, police-state methods,
and greater economic inequality.
The future of neoliberalism includes the inevitability that social exclusion will lead to
social uprisings especially as even some billionaires readily acknowledge the social contract
favors them to the detriment of society. As the voices against systemic exploitation become
louder,the likelihood will increase for authoritarian-police state policies if not regimes
reflecting the neoliberal social contract's ubiquitous stranglehold on society. Although
resistance to neoliberalism will continue to grow, the prospects for a social revolution in
this century overturning the neoliberal order in advanced capitalist countries is highly
unlikely. Twentieth century revolutions succeeded where the state structure was weak and people
recognized that the hierarchical social order was the root cause of the chasm between the
country's vast social exclusion coupled with stagnation vs. its potential for a more inclusive
society where greater social equality and social justice would bean integral part of the social
contract. (Donna L. Chollett, Neoliberalism, Social Exclusion, and Social Movements ,
2013)
Despite everything pointing to the dynamics of a continued neoliberal social contract,
diehard pluralists like British academic Martin Jacques and American economist Joseph Stiglitz
insist there is hope for reformist change. In The Politics of Thatcherism (1983)
Jacques applauded neoliberalism, but during the US presidential election in 2016 he had changed
his mind, predicting neoliberalism's demise. He felt encouraged that other pluralist
neoliberals like Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz were voicing their concerns signaling an
interest in the debate about social inequality. In an article entitled "The death of
neoliberalism and the crisis in western politics" , he wrote: "A sure sign of the
declining influence of neoliberalism is the rising chorus of intellectual voices raised against
it. From the mid-70s through the 80s, the economic debate was increasingly dominated by
monetarists and free marketeers."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/21/death-of-neoliberalism-crisis-in-western-politics
Along with Krugman, Stiglitz and others in the pluralist camp favoring a policy mix that
includes Keynesianism,Martin Jacques, Thomas Picketty and others like them around the world
doenjoy some small influence with the pluralist-diversity camp. However, the demise of
neoliberalism will not result from intellectual critiques regardless of the merits. On the
contrary, the neoliberal social contract is solidifying not evolving toward dissolution. This
is largely because the dynamics of the social order continue to favor it and the opposition is
split between ultra-right nationalists, pluralists of varying sorts resting on hope of
restoring Keynesian rationalism in the capitalist system, and the very weak and divided
leftists in just about every country and especially the core ones.
https://theconversation.com/if-we-are-reaching-neoliberal-capitalisms-end-days-what-comes-next-72366
Neoliberalism's inherent contradictions will result in its demise andthe transition into a
new phase of capitalism. Among the most obvious and glaring contradictions is that the ideology
promotes freedom and emancipation when in practice it is a totalitarian system aimed to mold
society and the individual into conformity of its dogmatic market fundamentalism.Another
contradiction is the emphasis of a borderless global market, while capitalists operate within
national borders and are impacted by national policies that often collide at the international
level as the competition intensifies for market share just as was the case in the four decades
before the outbreak of WWI. Adding to the list of contradictions that finds expression the
debate between neoliberal rightwingers and pluralists is the issue of "value-free" market
fundamentalism while at the same time neoliberals conduct policy that has very strong moral
consequences in peoples' lives precisely because of extremely uneven income distribution.
The enigma in neoliberalism's futureis the role of grassroots movements that are in a
position to impact change but have failed thus far to make much impact. Most people embrace the
neoliberal political parties serving the same capitalist class, operating under the illusion of
a messiah politician delivering the promise of salvation either from the pluralist or
authoritarian wing of neoliberalism. The turning point for systemic change emanates from within
the system that fails to serve the vast majority of the people as it is riddled with
contradictions that become more evident and the elites become increasingly contentious about
how to divide the economic pie and how to mobilize popular support behind mainstream political
parties so they can maintain the social order under an unsustainable political economy. At that
juncture, the neoliberal social contract suffersan irrevocable crisis of public confidence on a
mass scale. Regardless under which political regime neoliberalism operates, people will
eventually reject hegemonic cultural indoctrination. A critical mass in society has not reached
this juncture. Nevertheless, social discontinuity is an evolutionary process and the
contradictions in neoliberalism will continue to cause political disruption, economic
disequilibrium and social upheaval.
Jon V. Kofas , Ph.D. – Retired university professor of history – author of ten
academic books and two dozens scholarly articles. Specializing in International Political
economy, Kofas has taught courses and written on US diplomatic history, and the roles of the
World Bank and IMF in the world.
At the inception of this entire RussiaGate spectacle I suggested that it was a political
distraction to take the attention away from the rejection by the people of neoliberalism which
has been embraced by the establishments of both political parties.
And that the result of the investigation would be indictments for perjury in the covering up
of illicit business deals and money laundering. But that 'collusion to sway the election' was
without substance, if not a joke.
Everything that has been revealed to date tends to support that.
One thing that Aaron overlooks is the evidence compiled by William Binney and associates
that strongly suggests the DNC hack was no hack at all, but a leak by an insider who was
appalled by the lies and double dealing at the DNC.
In general, RussiaGate is a farcical distraction from other issues as they say in the video.
And this highlights the utterly Machiavellian streak in the corporate Democrats and the Liberal
establishment under the Clintons and their ilk who care more about money and power than the
basic principles that historically sustained their party. I have lost all respect for them.
But unfortunately this does open the door for those who use this to approve of the
Republican establishment, which is 'at least honest' about being substantially corrupt servants
to Big Money who care nothing about democracy, the Constitution, or the public. The best of
them are leaving or have already left, and their party is ruined beyond repair.
This all underscores the paucity of the Red v. Blue, monopoly of two parties, 'lesser of two
evils' model of political thought which has come to dominate the discussion in the US.
We are heavily propagandized by the owners of the corporate media and influencers of the
narrative, and a professional class that has sold its soul for economic advantage and access to
money and power.
"... Nearly 50% of the top executives and managers surveyed admit that they mobilize their workers politically. ..."
"... The most important factor in determining whether a firm engages in partisan mobilization of its workers-and thinks that that mobilization is effective-is the degree of control it has over its workers. ..."
"... But the problem isn't corruption. It's capitalism. Workers are dependent on employers for their well-being. That makes them vulnerable to their bosses' demands, about a great many matters, including politics. The ballot and the buck are fused. Not because of campaign donations but because of the unequal relationship between capital and labor. Not just in the corridors of Congress but also in the halls of the workplace. Unless you confront the latter, you'll never redress the former. Without economic democracy, there's no political democracy. ..."
"... I'd argue though that in terms of the overall discourse, "the bosses" have won without even resorting to anything so crude. ..."
"... people soak up attitudes about economics and trade policy from work. ..."
"... They aren't being threatened, it's simply a matter of culture – of lionising the "private sector" and bashing the "public sector" and those out of work. The identity comes out of water cooler moments and the lunch break. It takes a strong outside-work identity not to want the halo of "private sector wealth creator" and thus disdain a union, or a strike or a dole recipient ..."
"... But hey, it's not him getting black lung or dying in a mine collapse. It's his workers. The ones he's been fined repeated times for ignoring safety regulations to save a buck here and there. ..."
"... Much conservative rhetoric, especially in the US, is caught up in an anachronistic big-government/small-government debate. But real government is not where the nominal authority lies, but who has the real power! ..."
"... conservatives are leading a revolution, in which national governments are being usurped by the big government of the international corporate oligopoly. ..."
"... . . . the problem isn't corruption. It's capitalism. ..."
"... 15% report that employer messages affected their vote choice. ..."
"... Some workers are terribly underpaid, forcing them to work extra hours/job; some are subject to capricious scheduling, and irregular hours; others in prestige jobs intentionally overworked, makes for easier conditioning. All around the 40hr/week standard persists despite massive productivity gains. At least the French get August off to take a proper trip to the beach. ..."
In
my Salon column today, I look at new research examining how corporations influence politics.
Money talks. But how?
From "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" to
Citizens United, the story goes like this: The
wealthy corrupt and control democracy by purchasing politicians, scripting speech and writing laws. Corporations and rich people
make donations to candidates, pay for campaign ads and create PACs. They, or their lobbyists, take members of Congress out to
dinner, organize junkets for senators and tell the government what to do. They insinuate money where it doesn't belong. They don't
build democracy; they buy it.
But that, says Alex Hertel-Fernandez, a PhD student in Harvard's
government department, may not be the only or even the best way to think about the power of money. That power extends far beyond
the dollars deposited in a politician's pocket. It reaches for the votes and voices of workers who the wealthy employ. Money talks
loudest where money gets made: in the workplace.
Among Hertel-Fernandez's findings:
1. Nearly 50% of the top executives and managers surveyed admit that they mobilize their workers politically.
2. Firms
believe that mobilizing their workers is more effective than donating money to a candidate, buying campaign ads, or investing
in large corporate lobbies like the Chamber of Commerce.
3. The most important factor in determining whether a firm engages in partisan mobilization of its workers-and thinks that
that mobilization is effective-is the degree of control it has over its workers. Firms that always engage in surveillance
of their employees' online activities are 50 percent more likely to mobilize their workers than firms that never do.
4. Of the workers who say they have been mobilized by their employers, 20% say that they received threats if they didn't.
My conclusion:
When we think of corruption, we think of something getting debased, becoming impure, by the introduction of a foreign material.
Money worms its way into the body politic, which rots from within. The antidote to corruption, then, is to keep unlike things
apart. Take the big money out of politics or limit its role. That's what
our campaign finance reformers tell us.
But the problem isn't corruption. It's capitalism. Workers are dependent on
employers for their well-being. That makes them vulnerable to their bosses' demands, about a great many matters, including
politics. The ballot and the buck are fused. Not because of campaign donations but because of the unequal relationship between
capital and labor. Not just in the corridors of Congress but also in the halls of the workplace. Unless you confront the
latter, you'll never redress the former. Without economic democracy, there's no political democracy.
That's a disgusting state of affairs, and one which I hope is confined to the US. I've never seen anything remotely like that
– never had a hint that my boss wanted to influence my vote – at any of the places I've worked, including the ones with no pension
scheme and no union recognition.
.2
Metatone 06.07.15 at 3:44 pm
I think in terms of campaigning (letter writing) etc. these abuses have clear effects.
I'd argue though that in terms of the overall discourse, "the bosses" have won without even resorting to anything so crude.
At least here in the UK it's palpable that people soak up attitudes about economics and trade policy from work. And
those policy preferences aren't designed around their prosperity
They aren't being threatened, it's simply a matter of culture – of lionising the "private sector" and bashing the "public
sector" and those out of work. The identity comes out of water cooler moments and the lunch break. It takes a strong outside-work
identity not to want the halo of "private sector wealth creator" and thus disdain a union, or a strike or a dole recipient
Josh Jasper 06.07.15 at 4:38 pm
cassander : Seems to me that coal miners and coal mine owners have a lot of interests in common.
You might want to mention that to someone who's worked for Massey energy at the Upper Big Branch Mine. Suggest to him that
he really ought to be giving his wages to the PACs if Massey tells them to.
I suggest having your dentist on speed dial.
For that matter, it's evident that the lot of interests Murray and his labor force have in common exclude worker safety as
well
But hey, it's not him getting black lung or dying in a mine collapse. It's his workers. The ones he's been fined repeated
times for ignoring safety regulations to save a buck here and there.
Does mobilization to vote Republican affect coal workers? Yes. It makes it very likely that the industry will get away with
ignoring safety regulations to save money, because destroying mining safety regulations for major donors is a Republican party
practice.
Sasha Clarkson 06.07.15 at 6:45 pm
Much conservative rhetoric, especially in the US, is caught up in an anachronistic big-government/small-government debate.
But real government is not where the nominal authority lies, but who has the real power!
Like it or not, conservatives are leading a revolution, in which national governments are being usurped by the big government
of the international corporate oligopoly. This of course is barely accountable for its actions, nor subject to democratic
oversight, and hence can ride roughshod over the broad mass of humanity. Of course, like the Star Wars Trade Federation, the oligopoly
also subverts/coerces the loyalties of employees from the wider community to itself.
I suspect that the trend is that national governments will be important only in that they will provide the armies to enforce
the will of the corporate elite. Eventually even this may become unimportant as other means are found to suppress us!
. . . the problem isn't corruption. It's capitalism.
So simple, then. So obvious.
More than a century of organizing work in hierarchy was all just a big mistake, but no worries, we'll just exchange it for
"economic democracy" at the service desk at Best Buy.
Ronan(rf) 06.07.15 at 8:11 pm
Not to display a put on world weary cynicism , but I'm surprised people are surprised by this. It isn't "capitalism" , it's politics.
People have always been pressured into how they vote, whether by domineering individuals in their family, notable families in
their community , factions in their village, political machines in their towns and cities , so on and so forth. In workplaces
of all sizes, from small shops to local factories, individuals have been coerced, whether implicitly (through peer pressure) or
explicitly (threats of dismissal) into supporting political positions a dominant faction wants them to. (Is this not part of what
trade unions do, or have done?)
It is a fallacy of WEIRD thinking to imagine away such pressures historically. Obviously this situation in the OP isn't ideal,
but it is politics , as it has existed since time immemorial. (Or at least a date I can't place)
Alex Hertel-Fernandez 06.07.15 at 8:24 pm
Cassander: I've looked at workers' self-reports of whether employer messages changed their behaviors. About half of all workers
who have been contacted by their bosses report a change in at least one of their political behaviors or attitudes, and 15%
report that employer messages affected their vote choice. Is this a lot or a little? I think the answer depends on whether
you think it is an appropriate role for managers to play in the political lives of their employees.
You're definitely right that the economic interests of workers and managers are often aligned on things like trade and regulation.
But many times they are not - as in the cases of working conditions (e.g. minimum wage) or redistributive policies. And independent
of the content of employers' political messages, we might be worried about the power that managers have over their workers. For
instance, I find that about 28% of contacted workers reported that their employers' messages either made them uncomfortable or
included threats of economic retaliation. I think whether you are troubled by these statistics or not depends on whether you are
concerned about power differentials between employers and their employees.
Barry Freed: Many of these employer tactics used to be illegal, for the most part, before Citizens United. And some states
have taken action to curb the most coercive practices (NJ and OR). But most states haven't.
hix 06.07.15 at 8:40 pm
Well, I associate such behaviour with defect democracy – which is how id think of most historical democracies. So for me it is
shocking to see this kind of mechanism in a modern long established rich democracy (ok not that shocking, considering all the
other fingerpointers towards that direction with regards to the US).
gianni 06.07.15 at 8:46 pm
Not to mention the ways in which American corporations especially have worked to diminish the employee's time for political activity.
Some workers are terribly underpaid, forcing them to work extra hours/job; some are subject to capricious scheduling, and
irregular hours; others in prestige jobs intentionally overworked, makes for easier conditioning. All around the 40hr/week standard
persists despite massive productivity gains. At least the French get August off to take a proper trip to the beach.
Added to this our antiquated infrastructure and sprawling residential geography make the simple fact of getting to work a huge
time investment. While in your car you are more likely to be fed the political opinions of well-funded media figures than to those
of your peers. Don't forget that this is in the country that invented the internet – how many of those people could just be telecommuting
anyway?
Ronan(rf) 06.07.15 at 8:55 pm
@13 – I don't know if I'd see the US as an institutionally mature democracy akin to what exists in Northern Europe, more as a
hybrid of areas that are economically and politically developed, and others that are more comparable to weak states or emerging
democracies (at best the European 'periphery', Spain, Greece, Italy, Ireland- perhaps in the 80s more than now) You can see this
in the weak state capacity, corrupt militia like police forces and late agrarian style of politics.
Also, perhaps I'm wrong.
Bruce Wilder 06.07.15 at 9:44 pm
Rich Puchalsky @ 11:
I appreciate that when you're going against an established story, you have to emphasize that what's really
going on is a whole different story.
That's what I'd take "the problem isn't corruption. It's capitalism." to be.
Craig Murray is right that "As the Establishment feels its grip slipping, as people wake up to the appalling economic exploitation by the few that underlies
the very foundations of modern western society, expect the methods used by the security services to become even dirtier."
Collapse of neoliberal ideology and rise of tentions in neoliberal sociarties resulted in unprecedented increase of covert and false
flag operations by British intelligence services, especially against Russia, which had been chosen as a convenient scapegoat.
With Steele dossier and Skripal affair as two most well known.
New Lady Macbeth (Theresa May) Russophobia is so extreme that her cabinet derailed the election of a Russian to head
Interpol.
Looks like neoliberalism cannot be defeated by and faction of the existing elite. Only when shepp oil end mant people will
have a chance. The US , GB and EU are part of the wider hegemonic neoliberal system. In fact rejection of neoliberal
globalization probably will lead to "national neoliberals" regime which would be a flavor of neo-fascism, no more no less.
Notable quotes:
"... The British state can maintain its spies' cover stories for centuries. ..."
"... I learnt how highly improbable left wing firebrand Simon Bracey-Lane just happened to be on holiday in the United States with available cash to fund himself, when he stumbled into the Bernie Sanders campaign. ..."
"... It is, to say the least, very interesting indeed that just a year later the left wing, "Corbyn and Sanders supporting" Bracey-Lane is hosting a very right wing event, "Cold War Then and Now", for the shadowy neo-con Institute for Statecraft, at which an entirely unbalanced panel of British military, NATO and Ukrainian nationalists extolled the virtues of re-arming against Russia. ..."
"... the MOD-sponsored Institute for Statecraft has been given millions of pounds of taxpayers' money by the FCO to spread covert disinformation and propaganda, particularly against Russia and the anti-war movement. Activities include twitter and facebook trolling and secretly paying journalists in "clusters of influence" around Europe. Anonymous helpfully leaked the Institute's internal documents. Some of the Integrity Initiative's thus exposed alleged covert agents, like David Aaronovitch, have denied any involvement despite their appearance in the documents, and others like Dan Kaszeta the US "novichok expert", have cheerfully admitted it. ..."
"... By sleuthing the company records of this "Scottish charity", and a couple of phone calls, I discovered that the actual location of the Institute for Statecraft is the basement of 2 Temple Place, London. This is not just any basement – it is the basement of the former London mansion of William Waldorf Astor, an astonishing building . It is, in short, possibly the most expensive basement in London. ..."
"... Which is interesting because the accounts of the Institute for Statecraft claim it has no permanent staff and show nothing for rent, utilities or office expenses. In fact, I understand the rent is paid by the Ministry of Defence. ..."
"... I have a great deal more to tell you about Mr Edney and his organisation next week, and the extraordinary covert disinformation war the British government wages online, attacking British citizens using British taxpayers' money. Please note in the interim I am not even a smidgeon suicidal, and going to be very, very careful crossing the road and am not intending any walks in the hills. ..."
"... I am not alleging Mr Bracey-Lane is an intelligence service operative who previously infiltrated the Labour Party and the Sanders campaign. He may just be a young man of unusually heterodox and vacillating political opinions. He may be an undercover reporter for the Canary infiltrating the Institute for Statecraft. All these things are possible, and I have no firm information. ..."
"... one of the activities the Integrity Initiative sponsors happens to be the use of online trolls to ridicule the idea that the British security services ever carry out any kind of infiltration, false flag or agent provocateur operations, despite the fact that we even have repeated court judgements against undercover infiltration officers getting female activists pregnant. The Integrity Initiative offers us a glimpse into the very dirty world of surveillance and official disinformation. If we actually had a free media, it would be the biggest story of the day ..."
"... As the Establishment feels its grip slipping, as people wake up to the appalling economic exploitation by the few that underlies the very foundations of modern western society, expect the methods used by the security services to become even dirtier. ..."
"... You can bank on continued ramping up of Russophobia to supply "the enemy". ..."
The British state can maintain its spies' cover stories for centuries. Look up Eldred Pottinger, who for 180 years appears
in scores of British history books – right up to and including William Dalrymple's Return of the King – as a British officer who
chanced to be passing Herat on holiday when it came under siege from a partly Russian-officered Persian army, and helped to organise
the defences. In researching
Sikunder Burnes, I discovered and published from the British Library incontrovertible and detailed documentary evidence that
Pottinger's entire journey was under the direct instructions of, and reporting to, British spymaster Alexander Burnes. The first
historian to publish the untrue "holiday" cover story, Sir John Kaye, knew both Burnes and Pottinger and undoubtedly knew he was
publishing lying propaganda. Every other British historian of the First Afghan War (except me and latterly
Farrukh Husain) has just followed Kaye's official propaganda.
Some things don't change. I was irresistibly reminded of Eldred Pottinger just passing Herat on holiday, when I learnt how
highly improbable left wing firebrand Simon Bracey-Lane
just happened to be on holiday in the
United States with available cash to fund himself, when he stumbled into the Bernie Sanders campaign.
Recent university graduate Simon Bracey-Lane took it even further. Originally from Wimbledon in London, he was inspired to
rejoin the Labour party in September when Corbyn was elected leader. But by that point, he was already in the US on holiday. So
he joined the Sanders campaign, and never left.
"I had two weeks left and some money left, so I thought, Fuck it, I'll make some calls for Bernie Sanders," he explains. "I just
sort of knew Des Moines was the place, so I just turned up at their HQ, started making phone calls, and then became a fully fledged
field organiser."
It is, to say the least, very interesting indeed that just a year later the left wing, "Corbyn and Sanders supporting" Bracey-Lane
is hosting a very right wing event, "Cold War Then and Now", for the shadowy neo-con Institute for Statecraft, at which an entirely
unbalanced panel of British
military, NATO and Ukrainian nationalists extolled the virtues of re-arming against Russia.
Nor would it seem likely that Bracey-Lane would be involved with the Integrity Initiative. Even the mainstream media has been
forced to give a few paragraphs to the outrageous Integrity Initiative, under which the MOD-sponsored Institute for Statecraft
has been given millions of pounds of taxpayers' money by the FCO to spread covert disinformation and propaganda, particularly against
Russia and the anti-war movement. Activities include twitter and facebook trolling and secretly paying journalists in "clusters of
influence" around Europe. Anonymous helpfully leaked the Institute's internal documents. Some of the Integrity Initiative's thus
exposed alleged covert agents, like David Aaronovitch, have denied any involvement despite their appearance in the documents, and
others like Dan Kaszeta the US "novichok expert", have cheerfully admitted it.
The mainstream media have
tracked down
the HQ of the "Institute for Statecraft" to a derelict mill near Auchtermuchty. It is owned by one of the company directors, Daniel
Lafayeedney, formerly of D Squadron 23rd SAS Regiment and later of Military Intelligence (and incidentally born the rather more prosaic
Daniel Edney).
By sleuthing the company records of this "Scottish charity", and a couple of phone calls, I discovered that the actual location
of the Institute for Statecraft is the basement of 2 Temple Place, London. This is not just any basement – it is the basement of
the former London mansion of William Waldorf Astor, an astonishing building.
It is, in short, possibly the most expensive basement in London.
Which is interesting because the accounts of the Institute for Statecraft claim it has no permanent staff and show nothing
for rent, utilities or office expenses. In fact, I understand the rent is paid by the Ministry of Defence.
Having been told where the Institute for Statecraft skulk, I tipped off journalist Kit Klarenberg of Sputnik Radio to go and physically
check it out. Kit did so and was
aggressively
ejected by that well-known Corbyn and Sanders supporter, Simon Bracey-Lane. It does seem somewhat strange that our left wing
hero is deeply embedded in an organisation that
launches troll attacks on Jeremy Corbyn.
I have a great deal more to tell you about Mr Edney and his organisation next week, and the extraordinary covert disinformation
war the British government wages online, attacking British citizens using British taxpayers' money. Please note in the interim I
am not even a smidgeon suicidal, and going to be very, very careful crossing the road and am not intending any walks in the hills.
I am not alleging Mr Bracey-Lane is an intelligence service operative who previously infiltrated the Labour Party and the
Sanders campaign. He may just be a young man of unusually heterodox and vacillating political opinions. He may be an undercover reporter
for the Canary infiltrating the Institute for Statecraft. All these things are possible, and I have no firm information.
But one of the activities the Integrity Initiative sponsors happens to be the use of online trolls to ridicule the idea that the
British security services ever carry out any kind of infiltration, false flag or agent provocateur operations, despite the fact that
we even have repeated court judgements against undercover infiltration officers getting female activists pregnant. The Integrity
Initiative offers us a glimpse into the very dirty world of surveillance and official disinformation. If we actually had a free media,
it would be the biggest story of the day.
As the Establishment feels its grip slipping, as people wake up to the appalling economic exploitation by the few that underlies
the very foundations of modern western society, expect the methods used by the security services to become even dirtier.
You can
bank on continued ramping up of Russophobia to supply "the enemy".
As both Scottish Independence and Jeremy Corbyn are viewed as
real threats by the British Establishment, you can anticipate every possible kind of dirty trick in the next couple of years, with
increasing frequency and audacity
I think the Internet and the infotech revolution in general have been largely negative in their impact on the world. Ian Welsh
has a blog post that largely sums up my views on the issue.
Contrary to what many people say I think large organizations like governments and corporations have significantly more power
now than before and ordinary people have less power. The Internet has made it easier to get information but you have to sift through
tons of junk to get to anything decent. For every website like Naked Capitalism there are thousands pushing nonsense or trying
to sell you stuff.
And even if you are more knowledgeable, so what? If you cannot put that knowledge to use what good is it? At best it makes
you more well-rounded, interesting and harder to fool but in political terms knowing a lot of stuff doesn't make you more effective.
In the past people didn't have access to nearly as much information but they were more willing and able to organize and fight
against the powerful because it was easier to avoid detection/punishment (that is where stuff like widespread surveillance tech
comes in) and because they still had a vibrant civic life and culture.
I actually think people are more atomized now than in the past and the Internet and other technologies have probably fueled
this process. Despite rising populism, the Arab Spring, Occupy, the Yellow Jackets in France, Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
and the DSA this is all a drop in the bucket compared to just the massive social movements of the 1960s much less earlier periods.
Robert Putnam argued that television, the Internet and other technologies likely helped to produce the collapse of civic life
in the United States by "individualizing" people's leisure time and personally I think Putnam is right. Civic life today is very
weak and I think the Internet is partially to blame.
And even if you are more knowledgeable, so what? If you cannot put that knowledge to use what good is it?
Agreed. If anything these more knowledgeable people had a greater audience prior to the internet. Whether you were a journalist,
a great economist, a great author, or a great orator you need to persist and show intellect and talent to have your message heard
wide and broad.
(This is probably a little idealistic, but I think there is truth there.)
Now you need very little of this. If your most famous asset is your attractive body you can attract a greater audience than
great scholars and politicians.
I can't speak much on authoritarianism since whatever form it takes on today is wildly different from what it was in the past.
Unfortunately, it is hard to convince many people living in western societies that they are living in an authoritarian system
because their metal images are goose-stepping soldiers and Fraktur print posters.
I suppose the way I can assure myself that we are living in an authoritarian society is by analyzing the endless propaganda
spewed from countless, high-viewership media and entertainment outlets. It is quite simple, if the media and entertainment narratives
are within a very narrow intellectual window (with lots of 600 lb. gorillas sitting in corners) than the culture and politics
are being defined by powerful people with a narrow range of interests. This is not to say that forming public opinion or preferring
particular political views is a new thing in Western media and entertainment, just that its application, IMO, is far more effective
and subtle (and becoming more-so by the day) than it ever was in, say, NAZI Germany or the Soviet Union.
I'd put my money down that most educated Germans during NAZI rule were well aware that propaganda was being utilized to "manufacture
consent" but they participated and accepted this despite the content for pragmatic/selfish reasons. Much of the NAZI propaganda
played on existing German/European cultural narratives and prejudices. Leaveraging existing ideology allowed the party to necessitate
their existence by framing the German as juxtaposed against the impure and unworthy. Again, ideologies that existed independent
of the party not within it. Goebbels and company were just good at utilizing the technology of the time to amplify these monstrosities.
I question that being the case today. It is far more complicated. Technology is again the primary tool for manipulation, but
it is possible that current technology is allowing for even greater leaps in reason and analysis. The windows for reflection and
critical thought close as soon as they are opened. Seems more like the ideology is manufactured on the fly. For example, the anti-Russia
narrative has some resonance with baby boomers, but how the hell is it effective with my generation (millennial) and younger?
The offhand references to Putin and Russian operatives from my peers are completely from left field when considering our life
experience. People in my age group had little to say about Russia three years ago. It says volumes on the subtle effectiveness
of Western media machines if you can re-create the cold war within two years for an entire generation.
In addition and related to above, the West's understanding of "Freedom of Speech" is dated by about 100 years. Governments
are no longer the sole source of speech suppression (more like filtering and manipulation), and the supremacy of the free-market
coupled with the erroneously perceived black-and-white division between public and private have convinced the public (with nearly
religious conviction) that gigantic media and entertainment organizations do not have to protect the free speech of citizens because
they are not government. Public/Private is now an enormous blob. With overlapping interests mixed in with any antagonisms. It
is ultimately dictated by capital and its power within both government and business. Cracking this nut will be a nightmare.
Yes, this is an authoritarian world, if measured by the distance between the populace and its governing powers, but it is an
authoritarianism operating in ways that we have never seen before and using tools that are terribly effective.
It has become all too easy for democracy to be turned on its head and popular nationalist
mandates, referenda and elections negated via instant political hypocrisy by leaders who show
their true colours only after the public vote. So it has been within the two-and-a-half year
unraveling of the UK Brexit referendum of 2016 that saw the subsequent negotiations now provide
the Brexit voter with only three possibilities. All are a loss for Britain.
One possibility, Brexit, is the result of Prime Minister, Theresa May's negotiations- the
"deal"- and currently exists in name only. Like the PM herself, the original concept of Brexit
may soon lie in the dust of an upcoming UK Parliament floor vote in exactly the same manner as
the failed attempt by the Greeks barely three years ago. One must remember that Greece on June
27, 2015 once voted to leave the EU as well and to renegotiate its EU existence as well in
their own "Grexit" referendum. Thanks to their own set of underhanded and treasonous
politicians, this did not go well for Greece. Looking at the Greek result, and understanding
divisive UK Conservative Party control that exists in the hearts of PMs on both sides of the
House of Commons, this new parliamentary vote is not looking good for Britain. Brexit:
Theresa May Goes Greek! "deal" -- would thus reveal the life-long scars of their true
national allegiance gnawed into their backs by the lust of their masters in Brussels. Brexit:
Theresa May Goes Greek!, by Brett Redmayne-Titley - The Unz Review
Ironically, like a cluster bomb of white phosphorous over a Syrian village, Cameron's Brexit
vote blew up spectacularly in his face. Two decades of ongoing political submission to the EU
by the Cons and "new" labour had them arrogantly misreading the minds of the UK
voter.
So on that incredible night, it happened. Prime Minister David Cameron the Cons New Labour
The Lib- Dems and even the UK Labour Party itself, were shocked to their core when the
unthinkable nightmare that could never happen, did happen . Brexit had passed by popular
vote!
David Cameron has been in hiding ever since.
After Brexit passed the same set of naïve UK voters assumed, strangely, that Brexit
would be finalized in their national interest as advertised. This belief had failed to
read
Article 50 - the provisos for leaving the EU- since, as much as it was mentioned, it was
very rarely linked or referenced by a quotation in any of the media punditry. However, an
article published four days after the night Brexit passed,
" A Brexit Lesson In Greek: Hopes and Votes Dashed on Parliamentary Floors," provided
anyone thus reading Article 50, which is only eight pages long and double-spaced, the info to
see clearly that this never before used EU by-law would be the only route to a UK exit.
Further, Article 50 showed that Brussels would control the outcome of exit negotiations along
with the other twenty-seven member nations and that effectively Ms May and her Tories
would be playing this game using the EU's ball and rules, while going one-on-twenty-seven
during the negotiations.
In the aftermath of Brexit, the real game began in earnest. The stakes: bigger than
ever.
Forgotten are the hypocritical defections of political expediency that saw Boris Johnson and
then Home Secretary Theresa May who were, until that very moment, both vociferously and very
publicly against the intent of Brexit. Suddenly they claimed to be pro- Brexit in their quest
to sleep in Cameron's now vacant bed at No. 10 Downing Street. Boris strategically dropped out
to hopefully see, Ms May, fall on her sword- a bit sooner. Brexit: Theresa May Goes Greek!, by
Brett Redmayne-Titley - The Unz Review
So, the plucky PM was left to convince the UK public, daily, as the negotiations moved on,
that "Brexit means Brexit!" A UK media that is as pro-EU as their PM chimed in to help
her sell distortions of proffered success at the negotiating table, while the rise of "old"
Labour, directed by Jeremy Corbyn, exposed her "soft" Brexit negotiations for the
litany of failures that ultimately equaled the "deal" that was strangely still called
"Brexit."
Too few, however, examined this reality once these political Chameleons changed their
colours just as soon as the very first results shockingly came in from Manchester in the wee
hours of the morning on that seemingly hopeful night so long ago: June 23, 2016. For thus would
begin a quiet, years-long defection of many more MPs than merely these two opportunists.
What the British people also failed to realize was that they and their Brexit victory would
also be faced with additional adversaries beyond the EU members: those from within their own
government. From newly appointed PM May to Boris Johnson, from the Conservative Party to the
New Labour sellouts within the Labour Party and the Friends of Israel , the
quiet internal political movement against Brexit began. As the House of Lords picked up their
phones, too, for very quiet private chats within House of Commons, their minions in the British
press began their work as well.
Brexit: Theresa May Goes Greek!, by Brett Redmayne-Titley -
The Unz Review
This article by Brett Redmayne is certainly right re the horrific sell-out by the Greek
government of Tsipras the other year, that has left the Greek citizenry in enduring political
despair the betrayal of Greek voters indeed a model for UK betrayal of Brexit voters
But Redmayne is likely very mistaken in the adulation of Jeremy Corbyn as the 'genuine
real deal' for British people
Ample evidence points to Corbyn as Trojan horse sell-out, as covered by UK researcher
Aangirfan on her blogs, the most recent of which was just vapourised by Google in their
censorship insanity
Jeremy Corbyn was a childhood neighbour of the Rothschilds in Wiltshire; with Jeremy's
father David Corbyn working for ultra-powerful Victor Rothschild on secret UK gov scientific
projects during World War 2
Jeremy Corbyn is tied to child violation scandals & child-crime convicted individuals
including Corbyn's Constituency Agent; Corbyn tragically ignoring multiple earnest complaints
from child abuse victims & whistleblowers over years, whilst "child abuse rings were
operating within all 12 of the borough's children's homes" in Corbyn's district not very
decent of him
And of course Corbyn significantly cucked to the Israel lobby in their demands for purge
of the Labour party alleged 'anti-semites'
The Trojan Horse 'fake opposition', or fake 'advocate for the people', is a very classic
game of the Powers That Be, and sadly Corbyn is likely yet one more fake 'hero'
My theory is, give "capitalism" and financial interests enough time, they will consume any
democracy. Meaning: the wealth flows upwards, giving the top class opportunity to influence
politics and the media, further improving their situation v.s. the rest, resulting in ever
stronger position – until they hold all the power. Controlling the media and therefore
the narrative, capable to destroy any and all opposition. Ministers and members of
parliaments, most bought and paid for one way or the other. Thankfully, the 1% or rather the
0.1% don't always agree so the picture can be a bit blurred.
You can guess what country inspired this "theory" of mine. The second on the list is
actually the U.K. If a real socialist becomes the prime minister of the U.K. I will be very
surprised. But Brexit is a black swan like they say in the financial sector, and they tend to
disrupt even the best of theories. Perhaps Corbin is genuine and will become prime minister!
I am not holding my breath.
However, if he is a real socialist like the article claims. And he becomes prime minister
of the U.K the situation will get really interesting. Not only from the EU side but more
importantly from U.K. best friend – the U.S. Uncle Sam will not be happy about this
development and doesn't hesitate to crush "bad ideas" he doesn't like.
Case in point – Ireland's financial crisis in 2009;
After massive expansion and spectacular housing bubble the Irish banks were in deep
trouble early into the crisis. The EU, ECB and the IMF (troika?) met with the Irish
government to discuss solutions. From memory – the question was how to save the Irish
banks? They were close to agreement that bondholders and even lenders to the Irish banks
should take a "haircut" and the debt load should be cut down to manageable levels so the
banks could survive (perhaps Michael Hudson style if you will). One short phone call from
the U.S Secretary of the treasury then – Timothy Geithner – to the troika-Irish
meeting ended these plans. He said: there will be no haircut! That was the end of it.
Ireland survived but it's reasonable to assume this "guideline" paved the road for the
Greece debacle.
I believe Mr. Geithner spoke on behalf of the financial power controlling – more or
less-our hemisphere. So if the good old socialist Corbin comes to power in the U.K. and
intends to really change something and thereby set examples for other nations – he is
taking this power head on. I think in case of "no deal" the U.K. will have it's back against
the wall and it's bargaining position against the EU will depend a LOT on U.S. response. With
socialist in power there will be no meaningful support from the U.S. the powers that be will
to their best to destroy Corbin as soon as possible.
My right wing friends can't understand the biggest issue of our times is class war. This
article mentions the "Panama papers" where great many corporations and wealthy individuals
(even politicians) in my country were exposed. They run their profits through offshore tax
havens while using public infrastructure (paid for by taxpayers) to make their money. It's
estimated that wealth amounting to 1,5 times our GDP is stored in these accounts!
There is absolutely no way to get it through my right wing friends thick skull that
off-shore accounts are tax frauds. Resulting in they paying higher taxes off their wages
because the big corporations and the rich don't pay anything. Nope. They simply hate taxes
(even if they get plenty back in services) and therefore all taxes are bad. Ergo tax evasions
by the 1% are fine – socialism or immigrants must be the root of our problems.
MIGA!
Come to think of it – few of them would survive the "law of the jungle" they so much
desire. And none of them would survive the "law of the jungle" if the rules are stacked
against them. Still, all their political energy is aimed against the ideas and people that
struggle against such reality.
I give up – I will never understand the right. No more than the pure bread
communist. Hopeless ideas!
" This is because the deal has a provision that would still keep the UK in the EU Customs
Union (the system setting common trade rules for all EU members) indefinitely. This is an
outrageous inclusion and betrayal of a real Brexit by Ms May since this one topic was the
most contentious in the debate during the ongoing negotiations because the Customs Union is
the tie to the EU that the original Brexit vote specifically sought to terminate. "
Here I stopped reading, maybe later more.
Nonsense.
What USA MSM told in the USA about what ordinary British people said, those who wanted to
leave the EU, I do not know, one of the most often heard reasons was immigration, especially
from E European countries, the EU 'free movement of people'.
"Real' Britons refusing to live in Poland.
EP member Verhofstadt so desperate that he asked on CNN help by Trump to keep this 'one of
the four EU freedoms'.
This free movement of course was meant to destroy the nation states
What Boris Johnson said, many things he said were true, stupid EU interference for example
with products made in Britain, for the home market, (he mentioned forty labels in one piece
of clothing), no opportunity to seek trade without EU interference.
There was irritation about EU interference 'they even make rules about vacuum cleaners', and,
already long ago, closure, EU rules, of village petrol pumps that had been there since the
first cars appeared in Britain, too dangerous.
In France nonsensical EU rules are simply ignored, such as countryside private sewer
installations.
But the idea that GB could leave, even without Brussels obstruction, the customs union,
just politicians, and other nitwits in economy, could have such ideas.
Figures are just in my head, too lazy to check.
But British export to what remains of the EU, some € 60 billion, French export to GB,
same order of magnitude, German export to GB, far over 100 billion.
Did anyone imagine that Merkel could afford closing down a not negligible part of Bayern car
industry, at he same time Bayern being the Land most opposed to Merkel, immigration ?
This Brexit in my view is just the beginning of the end of the illusion EU falling
apart.
In politics anything is connected with anything.
Britons, again in my opinion, voted to leave because of immigration, inside EU
immigration.
What GB will do with Marrakech, I do not know.
Marrakech reminds me of many measures that were ready to be implemented when the reason to
make these measures no longer existed.
Such as Dutch job guarantees when enterprises merged, these became law when when the merger
idiocy was over.
The negative aspects of immigration now are clear to many in the countries with the imagined
flesh pots, one way or another authorities will be obliged to stop immigration, but at that
very moment migration rules, not legally binding, are presented.
As a Belgian political commentator said on Belgian tv 'no communication is possible
between French politicians and French yellow coat demonstrators, they live in completely
different worlds'.
These different worlds began, to pinpoint a year, in 2005, when the negative referenda about
the EU were ignored. As Farrage reminded after the Brexit referendum, in EP, you said 'they
do not know what they're doing'
But now Macron and his cronies do not know what to do, now that police sympathises with
yellow coat demonstrators.
For me THE interesting question remains 'how was it possible that the Renaissance
cultures manoevred themselves into the present mess ?'.
@Digital
Samizdat Corbyn, in my opinion one of the many not too bright socialists, who are caught
in their own ideological prison: worldwide socialism is globalisation, globalisation took
power away from politicians, and gave it to multinationals and banks.
@niceland The
expression class war is often used without realising what the issue is, same with tax
evasion.
The rich of course consume more, however, there is a limit to what one can consume, it takes
time to squander money.
So the end of the class war may make the rich poor, but alas the poor hardly richer.
About tax evasion, some economist, do not remember his name, did not read the article
attentively, analysed wealth in the world, and concluded that eight % of this wealth had
originated in evading taxes.
Over what period this evasion had taken place, do not remember this economist had reached a
conclusion, but anyone understands that ending tax evasion will not make all poor rich.
There is quite another aspect of class war, evading taxes, wealth inequality, that is
quite worrying: the political power money can yield.
Soros is at war with Hungary, his Open University must leave Hungary.
USA MSM furious, some basic human right, or rights, have been violated, many in Brussels
furious, the 226 Soros followers among them, I suppose.
But since when is it allowed, legally and/or morally, to try to change the culture of a
country, in this case by a foreigner, just by pumping money into a country ?
Soros advertises himself as a philantropist, the Hungarian majority sees him as some kind of
imperialist, I suppose.
For me THE interesting question remains 'how was it possible that the Renaissance cultures
manoevred themselves into the present mess ?'.
Well , I am reading " The occult renaissance church of Rome " by Michael Hoffman ,
Independent History and research . Coeur d`Alene , Idaho . http://www.RevisionistHistory.org
I saw about this book in this Unz web .
I used to think than the rot started with protestantism , but Hoffman says it started with
catholic Renaissance in Rome itself in the XV century , the Medici , the Popes , usury
This whole affair illustrates beautifully the real purpose of the sham laughingly known as
"representative democracy," namely, not to "empower" the public but to deprive it of
its power.
With modern means of communication, direct democracy would be technically feasible even in
large countries. Nevertheless, practically all "democratic" countries continue to delegate
all legislative powers to elected "representatives." These are nothing more than consenting
hostages of those with the real power, who control and at the same time hide behind those
"representatives." The more this becomes obvious, the lower the calibre of the people willing
to be used in this manner – hence, the current crop of mental gnomes and opportunist
shills in European politics.
I would only shout this rambling ignoramus a beer in the pub to stop his mouth for a while.
Some of his egregious errors have been noted. and Greece, anyway, is an irrelevance to the
critical decisions on Brexit.
Once Article 50 was invoked the game was over. All the trump cards were on the EU side.
Now we know that, even assuming Britain could muster a competent team to plan and negotiate
for Brexit that all the work of proving up the case and negotiating or preparing the ground
has to be done over years leading up to the triggering of Article 50. And that's assuming
that recent events leave you believing that the once great Britain is fit to be a sovereign
nation without adult supervision.
As it is one has to hope that Britain will not be constrained by the total humbug which
says that a 51 per cent vote of those choosing to vote in that very un British thing, a
referendum, is some sort of reason for not giving effect to a more up to date and better
informed view.
@Digital
Samizdat Hypothesis: The British masses would fare better without a privatized
government.
"Corbyn may prove to be real .. .. old-time Labour platform [leadership, capable to]..
return [political, social and financial] control back to the hands of the UK worker".. [but
the privateers will use the government itself and mass media to defeat such platforms and to
suppress labor with new laws and domestic armed warfare]. Why would a member of the British
masses allow [the Oligarch elite and the[ir] powerful business and foreign political
interests restrain democracy and waste the victims of privately owned automation revolution?
.. ..
[Corbyn's Labour platform challenges ] privatized capitalist because the PCs use the
British government to keep imprisoned in propaganda and suppressed in opportunity, the
masses. The privateers made wealthy by their monopolies, are using their resources to
maintain rule making and enforcement control (via the government) over the masses; such
privateers have looted the government, and taken by privatization a vast array of economic
monopolies that once belonged to the government. If the British government survives, the
Privateers (monopoly thieves) will continue to use the government to replace humanity, in
favor of corporate owned Robots and super capable algorithms.
Corbyn's threat to use government to represent the masses and to suppress or reduce
asymmetric power and wealth, and to provide sufficient for everyone extends to, and alerts
the masses in every capitalist dominated place in the world. He (Corbyn) is a very dangerous
man, so too was Jesus Christ."
There is a similar call in France, but it is not yet so well led.
Every working Dutch person is "owed" 50k euro from the bailout of Greece, not that Greece
will ever pay this back, and not as if Greece ever really got the money as it just went
straight to northern European banks to bail them out. Then we have the fiscal policy creating
more money by the day to stimulate the economy, which also doesn't reach the countries or
people just the banks. Then we have the flirting with East-European mobsters to pull them in
the EU sphere corrupting top EU bureaucrats. Then we have all of south Europe being extremely
unstable, including France, both its populations and its economy.
It's sad to see the British government doesn't see the disaster ahead, any price would be
cheaper then future forced EU integration. And especially at this point, the EU is so
unstable, that they can't go to war on the UK without also committing A kamikaze attack.
@Brabantian
Thank you for your comment and addition to my evaluation of Corbyn. I do agree with you that
Corbyn has yet to be tested for sincerity and effectiveness as PM, but he will likely get his
chance and only then will we and the Brits find out for sure. The main point I was hoping to
make was that: due to the perceived threat of Labour socialist reform under Corbyn, he has
been an ulterior motive in the negotiations and another reason that the EU wants PM May to
get her deal passed. Yes, I too am watching Corbyn with jaundiced optimism. Thank you.
This is from 1999 and in 2018 we see that Mills was right.
Notable quotes:
"... Personnel were constantly shifting back and forth from the corporate world to the military world. Big companies like General Motors had become dependent on military contracts. Scientific and technological innovations sponsored by the military helped fuel the growth of the economy. ..."
"... the military had become an active political force. Members of Congress, once hostile to the military, now treated officers with great deference. And no president could hope to staff the Department of State, find intelligence officers, and appoint ambassadors without consulting with the military. ..."
"... Mills believed that the emergence of the military as a key force in American life constituted a substantial attack on the isolationism which had once characterized public opinion. He argued that "the warlords, along with fellow travelers and spokesmen, are attempting to plant their metaphysics firmly among the population at large." ..."
"... In this state of constant war fever, America could no longer be considered a genuine democracy, for democracy thrives on dissent and disagreement, precisely what the military definition of reality forbids. If the changes described by Mills were indeed permanent, then The Power Elite could be read as the description of a deeply radical, and depressing, transformation of the nature of the United States. ..."
"... The immediate consequence of these changes in the world's balance of power has been a dramatic decrease in that proportion of the American economy devoted to defense. ..."
"... Mills's prediction that both the economy and the political system of the United States would come to be ever more dominated by the military ..."
"... Business firms, still the most powerful force in American life, are increasingly global in nature, more interested in protecting their profits wherever they are made than in the defense of the country in which perhaps only a minority of their employees live and work. Give most of the leaders of America's largest companies a choice between invading another country and investing in its industries and they will nearly always choose the latter over the former. ..."
"... Mills believed that in the 1950s, for the first time in American history, the military elite had formed a strong alliance with the economic elite. ..."
One of the crucial arguments Mills made in The Power Elite was that the emergence of
the Cold War completely transformed the American public's historic opposition to a permanent
military establishment in the United States. In deed, he stressed that America's military elite
was now linked to its economic and political elite. Personnel were constantly shifting back and
forth from the corporate world to the military world. Big companies like General Motors had
become dependent on military contracts. Scientific and technological innovations sponsored by
the military helped fuel the growth of the economy. And while all these links between the
economy and the military were being forged, the military had become an active political force.
Members of Congress, once hostile to the military, now treated officers with great deference.
And no president could hope to staff the Department of State, find intelligence officers, and
appoint ambassadors without consulting with the military.
Mills believed that the emergence of the military as a key force in American life
constituted a substantial attack on the isolationism which had once characterized public
opinion. He argued that "the warlords, along with fellow travelers and spokesmen, are
attempting to plant their metaphysics firmly among the population at large." Their goal was
nothing less than a redefinition of reality -- one in which the American people would come to
accept what Mills called "an emergency without a foreseeable end." "
War or a high state of war
preparedness is felt to be the normal and seemingly permanent condition of the United States,"
Mills wrote. In this state of constant war fever, America could no longer be considered a
genuine democracy, for democracy thrives on dissent and disagreement, precisely what the
military definition of reality forbids. If the changes described by Mills were indeed
permanent, then The Power Elite could be read as the description of a deeply radical,
and depressing, transformation of the nature of the United States.
Much as Mills wrote, it remains true today that Congress is extremely friendly to the
military, at least in part because the military has become so powerful in the districts of most
congressmen. Military bases are an important source of jobs for many Americans, and government
spending on the military is crucial to companies, such as Lockheed Martin and Boeing, which
manufacture military equipment. American firms are the leaders in the world's global arms
market, manufacturing and exporting weapons everywhere. Some weapons systems never seem to die,
even if, as was the case with a "Star Wars" system designed to destroy incoming missiles, there
is no demonstrable military need for them.
Yet despite these similarities with the 1950s, both the world and the role that America
plays in that world have changed. For one thing, the United States has been unable to muster
its forces for any sustained use in any foreign conflict since Vietnam. Worried about the
possibility of a public backlash against the loss of American lives, American presidents either
refrain from pursuing military adventures abroad or confine them to rapid strikes, along the
lines pursued by Presidents Bush and Clinton in Iraq. Since 1989, moreover, the collapse of
communism in Russia and Eastern Europe has undermined the capacity of America's elites to
mobilize support for military expenditures. China, which at the time Mills wrote was considered a serious threat, is now viewed by American businessmen as a source of great potential
investment. Domestic political support for a large and permanent military establishment in the
United States, in short, can no longer be taken for granted.
The immediate consequence of these changes in the world's balance of power has been a
dramatic decrease in that proportion of the American economy devoted to defense. At the time
Mills wrote, defense expenditures constituted roughly 60 percent of all federal outlays and
consumed nearly 10 percent of the U. S. gross domestic product. By the late 1990s, those
proportions had fallen to 17 percent of federal outlays and 3.5 percent of GDP. Nearly three
million Americans served in the armed forces when The Power Elite appeared, but that
number had dropped by half at century's end. By almost any account, Mills's prediction that
both the economy and the political system of the United States would come to be ever more
dominated by the military is not borne out by historical developments since his time.
And how could he have been right? Business firms, still the most powerful force in American
life, are increasingly global in nature, more interested in protecting their profits wherever
they are made than in the defense of the country in which perhaps only a minority of their
employees live and work. Give most of the leaders of America's largest companies a choice
between invading another country and investing in its industries and they will nearly always
choose the latter over the former.
Mills believed that in the 1950s, for the first time in
American history, the military elite had formed a strong alliance with the economic elite. Now
it would be more correct to say that America's economic elite finds more in common with
economic elites in other countries than it does with the military elite of its own....
After Democratic party was co-opted by neoliberals there is no way back. And since Obama the trend of Democratic Party is
toward strengthening the wing of CIA-democratic notthe wing of the party friendly to workers. Bought by Wall Street leadership is
uncable of intruting any change that undermine thier current neoliberal platform. that's why they criminally derailed Sanders.
Notable quotes:
"... When you think about the issue of how exactly a clean-energy jobs program would address the elephant in the room of private accumulation and how such a program, under capitalism, would be able to pay living wages to the people put to work under it, it exposes how non threatening these Green New Deals actually are to capitalism. ..."
"... To quote Trotsky, "These people are capable of and ready for anything!" ..."
"... "Any serious measures to stop global warming, let alone assure a job and livable wage to everyone, would require a massive redistribution of wealth and the reallocation of trillions currently spent on US imperialism's neo-colonial wars abroad." ..."
"... "It includes various left-sounding rhetoric, but is entirely directed to and dependent upon the Democratic Party." ..."
"... "And again and again, in the name of "practicality," the most unrealistic and impractical policy is promoted -- supporting a party that represents the class that is oppressing and exploiting you! The result is precisely the disastrous situation working people and youth face today -- falling wages, no job security, growing repression and the mounting threat of world war." - New York Times tries to shame "disillusioned young voters" into supporting the Democrats ..."
"... It is an illusion that technical innovation within the capitalist system will magically fundamentally resolve the material problems produced by capitalism. But the inconvenient facts are entirely ignored by the corporate shills in the DSA and the whole lot of establishment politicians, who prefer to indulge their addiction to wealth and power with delusions of grandeur, technological utopianism, and other figments that serve the needs of their class. ..."
"... First it was Obama with his phoney "hope and change" that lured young voters to the Dumbicrats and now it's Ocacia Cortez promising a "green deal" in order to herd them back into the Democratic party--a total fraud of course--totally obvious! ..."
"... from Greenwald: The Democratic Party's deceitful game https://www.salon.com/2010/... ..."
they literally ripped this out of the 2016 Green Party platform. Jill Stein spoke repeatedly
about the same exact kind of Green New Deal, a full-employment, transition-to-100%-renewables
program that would supposedly solve all the world's problems.
When you think about the issue of how exactly a clean-energy jobs program would address
the elephant in the room of private accumulation and how such a program, under capitalism,
would be able to pay living wages to the people put to work under it, it exposes how non
threatening these Green New Deals actually are to capitalism.
In 2016, when the Greens made
this their central economic policy proposal, the Democrats responded by calling that platform
irresponsible and dangerous ("even if it's a good idea, you can't actually vote for a
non-two-party candidate!"). Why would they suddenly find a green new deal appealing now
except for its true purpose: left cover for the very system destroying the planet.
To quote
Trotsky, "These people are capable of and ready for anything!"
"Any serious measures to stop global warming, let alone assure a job and livable wage to
everyone, would require a massive redistribution of wealth and the reallocation of trillions
currently spent on US imperialism's neo-colonial wars abroad."
Their political position not only lacks seriousness, unserious is their political
position.
"It includes various left-sounding rhetoric, but is entirely directed to and dependent
upon the Democratic Party."
For subjective-idealists, what you want to believe, think and feel is just so much more
convincing than objective reality. Especially when it covers over single-minded class
interests at play.
"And again and again, in the name of "practicality," the most unrealistic and impractical
policy is promoted -- supporting a party that represents the class that is oppressing and
exploiting you! The result is precisely the disastrous situation working people and youth
face today -- falling wages, no job security, growing repression and the mounting threat of
world war." - New York Times tries to shame "disillusioned young voters" into supporting
the Democrats
It is an illusion that technical innovation within the capitalist system will magically
fundamentally resolve the material problems produced by capitalism. But the inconvenient
facts are entirely ignored by the corporate shills in the DSA and the whole lot of
establishment politicians, who prefer to indulge their addiction to wealth and power with
delusions of grandeur, technological utopianism, and other figments that serve the needs of
their class.
First it was Obama with his phoney "hope and change" that lured young voters to the
Dumbicrats and now it's Ocacia Cortez promising a "green deal" in order to herd them back
into the Democratic party--a total fraud of course--totally obvious!
Only an International Socialist program led by Workers can truly lead a "green revolution" by
expropriating the billionaire oil barons of their capital and redirecting that wealth into
the socialist reconstruction of the entire economy.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's "Green New Deal" is a nice laugh. Really, it sure is funny hearing
these lies given any credence at all. This showmanship belongs in a fantasy book, not in real
life. The Democratic Party as a force for good social change Now that's a laugh!
Lies, empty promises, meaningless tautologies and morality plays, qualified and conditional
declarations to be backpedalled pending appropriate political expediencies, devoid any
practical content that is what AOC, card carrying member of DSA, and in fact young energetic
political apparatchik of calcified political body of Dems establishment, duty engulfs. And
working for socialist revolution is no one of them.
What kind of socialist would reject socialist revolution, class struggle and class
emancipation and choose, as a suppose socialist path, accommodation with oligarchic ruling
elite via political, not revolutionary process that would have necessarily overthrown ruling
elite.
What socialist would acquiesce to legalized exploitation of people for profit, legalized
greed and inequality and would negotiate away fundamental principle of egalitarianism and
working people self rule?
Only National Socialist would; and that is exactly what AOC campaign turned out to be all
about.
National Socialism with imperial flavor is her affiliation and what her praises for
Pelosi, wife of a billionaire and dead warmonger McCain proved.
Now she is peddling magical thinking about global change and plunge herself into falacy of
entrepreneurship, Market solution to the very problem that the market solutions were designed
to create and aggravate namely horrific inequality that is robbing people from their own
opportunities to mitigate devastating effects of global change.
The insidiousness of phony socialists expresses itself in the fact that they lie that any
social problem can be fixed by current of future technical means, namely via so called
technological revolution instead by socialist revolution they deem unnecessary or
detrimental.
The technical means for achieving socialism has existed since the late 19th century, with the
telegraph, the coal-powered factory, and modern fertilizer. The improvements since then have
only made socialism even more streamlined and efficient, if such technologies could only be
liberated from capital! The idea that "we need a new technological revolution just to achieve
socialism" reflects the indoctrination in capitalism by many "socialist" theorists because it
is only in capitalism where "technological growth" is essential simply to maintain the
system. It is only in capitalism (especially America, the most advanced capitalist nation,
and thus, the one where capitalism is actually closest towards total crisis) where the dogma
of a technological savior is most entrenched because America cannot offer any other kind of
palliative to the more literate and productive sections of its population. Religion will not
convince most and any attempt at a sociological or economic understanding would inevitably
prove the truth of socialism.
CIA democrats of which Obama is a prominent example (and Hillary is another one) are are Werewolfs, very dangerous political beasts,
probably more dangerous to the world then Republicans like George W Bush. But in case of Ukraine, it was easily pushed into Baltic orbit,
because it has all the preconditions for that. So Nuland has an relatively easy, albeit dirty task. Also all this
probably that "in five years we will be living like French" was pretty effective. Now the population faces
consequences of its own stupidity. This is just neoliberal business as usual or neocolonialism.
Notable quotes:
"... populists on the right ..."
"... hired members of Ukraine's two racist-fascist, or nazi, political parties ..."
"... Disclaimer: No Russian, living or dead, had anything to do with the posting of this proudly home-grown comment ..."
Let's recap what Obama's coup
in Ukraine has led to shall we? Maybe installing and blatantly backing Neo Nazis in Ukraine might have something to do with the
rise of " populists on the right " that is spreading through Europe and this country, Hillary.
America's criminal 'news' media never even reported the coup, nor that in 2011 the Obama regime began
planning for
a coup in Ukraine . And that by 1 March 2013 they started organizing it
inside the
U.S. Embassy there . And that they hired members of Ukraine's two racist-fascist, or nazi, political parties , Right
Sector and Svoboda (which latter had been called the Social Nationalist Party of Ukraine until the CIA advised them to change
it to Freedom Party, or "Svoboda" instead). And that in February 2014 they did it (and here's the
4 February 2014 phone call instructing the U.S. Ambassador
whom to place in charge of the new regime when the coup will be completed), under the cover of authentic anti-corruption demonstrations
that the Embassy organized on the Maidan Square in Kiev, demonstrations that the criminal U.S. 'news' media misrepresented as
'democracy demonstrations ,' though Ukraine already had democracy (but still lots of corruption, even more than today's U.S. does,
and the pontificating Obama said he was trying to end Ukraine's corruption -- which instead actually soared after his coup there).
But wait there's more .... Remember
that caravan of refugees making their way through Mexico? Guess where a number of them came from? Honduras. Yep. Another coup that
happened during Obama's and Hillary's tenure.
In a recent op-ed in The Washington Post, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
used a review of Henry Kissinger's latest book, "World Order ," to lay out her vision for "sustaining America's leadership
in the world." In the midst of numerous global crises, she called for return to a foreign policy with purpose, strategy and pragmatism.
She also highlighted some of these policy choices in her memoir "Hard Choices" and how they contributed to the challenges that
Barack Obama's administration now faces.
**
The chapter on Latin America, particularly the section on Honduras, a major source of the child migrants currently pouring into
the United States, has gone largely unnoticed. In letters to Clinton and her successor, John Kerry, more than 100 members of Congress
have repeatedly warned about the deteriorating security situation in Honduras, especially since the 2009 military coup that ousted
the country's democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya. As Honduran scholar Dana Frank points out in Foreign Affairs, the
U.S.-backed post-coup government "rewarded coup loyalists with top ministries," opening the door for further "violence and anarchy."
The homicide rate in Honduras, already the highest in the world, increased by 50 percent from 2008 to 2011; political repression,
the murder of opposition political candidates, peasant organizers and LGBT activists increased and continue to this day. Femicides
skyrocketed. The violence and insecurity were exacerbated by a generalized institutional collapse. Drug-related violence has worsened
amid allegations of rampant corruption in Honduras' police and government. While the gangs are responsible for much of the violence,
Honduran security forces have engaged in a wave of killings and other human rights crimes with impunity.
Despite this, however, both under Clinton and Kerry, the State Department's response to the violence and military and police
impunity has largely been silence, along with continued U.S. aid to Honduran security forces. In "Hard Choices," Clinton describes
her role in the aftermath of the coup that brought about this dire situation. Her firsthand account is significant both for the
confession of an important truth and for a crucial false testimony.
First, the confession: Clinton admits that she used the power of her office to make sure that Zelaya would not return to office.
"In the subsequent days [after the coup] I spoke with my counterparts around the hemisphere, including Secretary [Patricia] Espinosa
in Mexico," Clinton writes. "We strategized on a plan to restore order in Honduras and ensure that free and fair elections could
be held quickly and legitimately, which would render the question of Zelaya moot."
Clinton's position on Latin America in her bid for the presidency is another example of how the far right exerts disproportionate
influence on US foreign policy in the hemisphere. up 24 users have voted. --
Disclaimer: No Russian, living or dead, had anything to do with the posting of this proudly home-grown comment
@snoopydawg@snoopydawg
Obama, Hillary and the rest of that administration knew it was a coup because that was the goal.
"..4. (C) In our view, none of the above arguments has any substantive validity under the Honduran constitution. Some are outright
false. Others are mere supposition or ex-post rationalizations of a patently illegal act. Essentially: --
the military had no authority to remove Zelaya from the country;
-- Congress has no constitutional authority to remove a Honduran president;
-- Congress and the judiciary removed Zelaya on the basis of a hasty, ad-hoc, extralegal, secret, 48-hour process;
-- the purported "resignation" letter was a fabrication and was not even the basis for Congress's action of June 28; and
-- Zelaya's arrest and forced removal from the country violated multiple constitutional guarantees, including the prohibition
on expatriation, presumption of innocence and right to due process. " https://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/09TEGUCIGALPA645_a.html
That evil woman thinks she has the right to preach to others about how to handle the very fallout from the horrific disasters
that she HERself created? Hillary, look in the mirror, you evil woman.
Clinton said rightwing populists in the west met "a psychological as much as political yearning to be told what to do, and
where to go, and how to live and have their press basically stifled and so be given one version of reality.
" The whole American system was designed so that you would eliminate the threat from a strong, authoritarian king or
other leader and maybe people are just tired of it. They don't want that much responsibility and freedom. They want to be told
what to do and where to go and how to live and only given one version of reality.
"I don't know why at this moment that is so attractive to people, but it's a serious threat to our freedom and our democratic
institutions, and it goes very deep and very far and we've got to do a better job of shining a light on it and trying to combat
it."
This arrogance of looking down on the populace is very part and parcel of the neoliberal attitude of the ruling class takes
to the rest of us peons. They created this unreality for the American people and have suppressed our right to know what is really
happening in the world. Obama destroyed the Occupy Movement with violent police attacks and kettling. And then disgustingly, Clinton
comes out with her hubristic victim blaming.
The Clintons are nearly single handedly responsible for much of the destruction of the American middle class and the repression
of poor and black people under Bill and the violent destruction of many countries under Hillary. And yet neither Clinton is willing
to own up for all the human misery that they have caused wherever they go. Unfortunately, the one place they refuse to go is just
away forever.
The belief that HRC & her circle are principled & progressive is just as fictitious as the belief that they lost to a reality
TV host because of stolen emails, social media trolls, & a (fictitious) conspiracy between the reality TV host & the Kremlin:
https://t.co/iyTC1M6uws
Clinton says Europe should make clear that "we are not going to be able to continue provide refuge & support." Isn't this
the attitude we denounce Trump for? Speaking of irony, Clinton's regime wars in Libya & Syria (& Iraq, indirectly) fueled the
migration she wants to stop. https://t.co/CIkkGRRKNd
This ego-maniac sees the world's problems - which she had a huge hand in creating - only through the lens of her electability.
Apparently, the only problems the world has are the one's that keep her from sitting in the Oval Office. Everything else is
fine. She is deplorable.
That evil woman thinks she has the right to preach to others about how to handle the very fallout from the horrific disasters
that she HERself created? Hillary, look in the mirror, you evil woman.
Clinton said rightwing populists in the west met "a psychological as much as political yearning to be told what to do,
and where to go, and how to live and have their press basically stifled and so be given one version of reality.
" The whole American system was designed so that you would eliminate the threat from a strong, authoritarian king
or other leader and maybe people are just tired of it. They don't want that much responsibility and freedom. They want to
be told what to do and where to go and how to live and only given one version of reality.
"I don't know why at this moment that is so attractive to people, but it's a serious threat to our freedom and our democratic
institutions, and it goes very deep and very far and we've got to do a better job of shining a light on it and trying to
combat it."
This arrogance of looking down on the populace is very part and parcel of the neoliberal attitude of the ruling class takes
to the rest of us peons. They created this unreality for the American people and have suppressed our right to know what is
really happening in the world. Obama destroyed the Occupy Movement with violent police attacks and kettling. And then disgustingly,
Clinton comes out with her hubristic victim blaming.
The Clintons are nearly single handedly responsible for much of the destruction of the American middle class and the repression
of poor and black people under Bill and the violent destruction of many countries under Hillary. And yet neither Clinton is
willing to own up for all the human misery that they have caused wherever they go. Unfortunately, the one place they refuse
to go is just away forever.
@gulfgal98 Because they just HAVE to get a rich, far-right, patriarchal white woman elected at any cost for the sake
of 'making history'. If these idiots really wanted to make history, they'd work like hell to put someone in charge who actually
had the balls to hang the pigs and their collaborators for their crimes.
The belief that HRC & her circle are principled & progressive is just as fictitious as the belief that they lost to a
reality TV host because of stolen emails, social media trolls, & a (fictitious) conspiracy between the reality TV host &
the Kremlin: https://t.co/iyTC1M6uws
Clinton says Europe should make clear that "we are not going to be able to continue provide refuge & support." Isn't
this the attitude we denounce Trump for? Speaking of irony, Clinton's regime wars in Libya & Syria (& Iraq, indirectly)
fueled the migration she wants to stop. https://t.co/CIkkGRRKNd
This ego-maniac sees the world's problems - which she had a huge hand in creating - only through the lens of her electability.
Apparently, the only problems the world has are the one's that keep her from sitting in the Oval Office. Everything else
is fine. She is deplorable.
The Democrats are politically responsible for the rise of Trump.
Notable quotes:
"... As Obama said following Trump's election, the Democrats and Republicans are "on the same team" and their differences amount to an "intramural scrimmage." They are on the team of, and owned lock stock and barrel by, the American corporate-financial oligarchy, personified by Trump. ..."
"... The Democrats are, moreover, politically responsible for the rise of Trump. The Obama administration paved the way for Trump by implementing the pro-corporate (Wall Street bailout), pro-war (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, drone killings) and anti-democratic (mass surveillance, persecution of Snowden, Assange, Manning) policies that Trump is continuing and intensifying. And by breaking all his election promises and carrying out austerity policies against the working class, Obama enabled the billionaire gangster Trump to make an appeal to sections of workers devastated by deindustrialization, presenting himself as the anti-establishment spokesman for the "forgotten man." ..."
"... This was compounded by the right-wing Clinton candidacy, which exuded contempt for the working class and appealed for support to the military and CIA and wealthy middle-class layers obsessed with identity politics. Sanders' endorsement of Clinton gave Trump an open field to exploit discontent among impoverished social layers. ..."
Pelosi's deputy in the House, Steny Hoyer, sums up the right-wing policies of the Democrats,
declaring: "His [Trump's] objectives are objectives that we share. If he really means that,
then there is an opening for us to work together."
So much for the moral imperative of voting for the Democrats to stop Trump! As Obama said
following Trump's election, the Democrats and Republicans are "on the same team" and their
differences amount to an "intramural scrimmage." They are on the team of, and owned lock stock
and barrel by, the American corporate-financial oligarchy, personified by Trump.
The Democrats are, moreover, politically responsible for the rise of Trump. The Obama
administration paved the way for Trump by implementing the pro-corporate (Wall Street bailout),
pro-war (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, drone killings) and anti-democratic (mass
surveillance, persecution of Snowden, Assange, Manning) policies that Trump is continuing and
intensifying. And by breaking all his election promises and carrying out austerity policies
against the working class, Obama enabled the billionaire gangster Trump to make an appeal to
sections of workers devastated by deindustrialization, presenting himself as the
anti-establishment spokesman for the "forgotten man."
This was compounded by the right-wing Clinton candidacy, which exuded contempt for the
working class and appealed for support to the military and CIA and wealthy middle-class layers
obsessed with identity politics. Sanders' endorsement of Clinton gave Trump an open field to
exploit discontent among impoverished social layers.
The same process is taking place internationally. While strikes and other expressions of
working class opposition are growing and broad masses are moving to the left, the right-wing
policies of supposedly "left" establishment parties are enabling far-right and neo-fascist
forces to gain influence and power in countries ranging from Germany, Italy, Hungary and Poland
to Brazil.
As for Gay's injunction to vote "pragmatically," this is a crude promotion of the bankrupt
politics that are brought forward in every election to keep workers tied to the capitalist
two-party system. "You have only two choices. That is the reality, whether you like it or not."
And again and again, in the name of "practicality," the most unrealistic and impractical policy
is promoted -- supporting a party that represents the class that is oppressing and exploiting
you! The result is precisely the disastrous situation working people and youth face today --
falling wages, no job security, growing repression and the mounting threat of world war.
The Democratic Party long ago earned the designation "graveyard of social protest
movements," and for good reason. From the Populist movement of the late 19th century, to the
semi-insurrectional industrial union movement of the 1930s, to the civil rights movement of the
1950s and 1960s, to the mass anti-war protest movements of the 1960s and the eruption of
international protests against the Iraq War in the early 2000s -- every movement against the
depredations of American capitalism has been aborted and strangled by being channeled behind
the Democratic Party.
"... You know something is fundamentally wrong when the average high school drop-out MAGA-hat-wearing Texan or Alabaman working a blue collar job has more sense, can SEE much more clearly, than the average university-educated, ideology-soaked, East Coast liberal. ..."
"... Trump is a "nationalist". More or less every administration previous to his, going back at least 100 years, was "globalist". For much of its history, the USA has been known around the world as a very patriotic (i.e., nationalist) country. Americans in general had a reputation for spontaneous chants of "USA! USA! USA!", flying the Stars And Stripes outside their houses and being very proud of their country. Sure, from time to time, that pissed off people a little in other countries but, by and large, Americans' patriotism was seen as endearing, if a little naive, by most foreigners. ..."
"... Globalism, on the other hand, as it relates to the USA, is the ideology that saturates the Washington establishment think-tanks, career politicians and bureaucrats, who are infected with the toxic belief that America can and should dominate the world . This is presented to the public as so much American largess and magnanimity, but it is, in reality, a means to increasing the power and wealth of the Washington elite. ..."
"... Consider Obama's two terms, during which he continued the massively wasteful (of taxpayer's money) and destructive (of foreigners' lives and land) "War on Terror". Consider that he appointed Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, who proceeded to joyfully bomb Libya back to the stone age and murder its leader. Consider that, under Obama, US-Russia relations reached an all-time low, with repeated attacks (of various sorts) on the Russian president, government and people, and the attempted trashing of Russia's international reputation in the eyes of the American people. Consider the Obama regime's hugely destructive war waged (mostly by proxy) on the Syrian people. Consider the Obama era coup in Ukraine that, in a few short months, set that country's prospects and development back several decades and further soured relations with Russia. ..."
"... The problem however, is that the Washington elite want - no, NEED - the American people to support such military adventurism, and what better way to do that than by concocting false "Russian collusion" allegations against Trump and having the media program the popular mind with exactly the opposite of the truth - that Trump was a "traitor" to the American people. ..."
"... The only thing Trump is a traitor to is the self-serving globally expansionist interests of a cabal of Washington insiders . This little maneuver amounted to a '2 for 1' for the Washington establishment. They simultaneously demonized Trump (impeding his 'nationalist' agenda) while advancing their own globalist mission - in this case aimed at pushing back Russia. ..."
"... The US 'Deep State' did this in response to the election of Trump the "nationalist" and their fears that their globalist, exceptionalist vision for the USA - a vision that is singularly focused on their own narrow interests at the expense of the American people and many others around the world - would be derailed by Trump attempting to put the interests of the American people first . ..."
Billed as a 'referendum on Trump's presidency', the US Midterm Elections drew an
unusually high number of Americans to the polls yesterday. The minor loss, from Trump's
perspective, of majority Republican control of the lower House of Representatives, suggests, if
anything, the opposite of what the media and establishment want you to believe it means.
An important clue to why the American media has declared permanent open season on this man
transpired during a sometimes heated post-elections press conference at the White House
yesterday. First, CNN's obnoxious Jim Acosta insisted on bringing up the patently absurd
allegations of 'Russia collusion' and refused to shut up and sit down. Soon after, PBS reporter
Yamiche Alcindor joined her colleagues in asking Trump another loaded question , this time on the 'white
nationalism' canard:
Alcindor : On the campaign trail you called yourself a nationalist. Some people saw
that as emboldening white nationalists...
Trump : I don't know why you'd say this. It's such a racist question.
Alcindor : There are some people who say that now the Republican Party is seen as
supporting white nationalists because of your rhetoric. What do you make of that?
Trump : Why do I have among the highest poll numbers with African Americans?
That's such a racist question. I love our country. You have nationalists, and you have
globalists . I also love the world, and I don't mind helping the world, but we have to
straighten out our country first. We have a lot of problems ...
The US media is still "not even wrong" on Trump and why he won the 2016 election.
You know something is fundamentally wrong when the average high school drop-out
MAGA-hat-wearing Texan or Alabaman working a blue collar job has more sense, can SEE much more
clearly, than the average university-educated, ideology-soaked, East Coast liberal.
Trump is a "nationalist". More or less every administration previous to his, going back at
least 100 years, was "globalist". For much of its history, the USA has been known around the
world as a very patriotic (i.e., nationalist) country. Americans in general had a reputation
for spontaneous chants of "USA! USA! USA!", flying the Stars And Stripes outside their houses
and being very proud of their country. Sure, from time to time, that pissed off people a little
in other countries but, by and large, Americans' patriotism was seen as endearing, if a little
naive, by most foreigners.
Globalism, on the other hand, as it relates to the USA, is the ideology that saturates the
Washington establishment think-tanks, career politicians and bureaucrats, who are infected with
the toxic belief that America can and should dominate the world . This is presented to the
public as so much American largess and magnanimity, but it is, in reality, a means to
increasing the power and wealth of the Washington elite.
Consider Obama's two terms, during which he continued the massively wasteful (of taxpayer's
money) and destructive (of foreigners' lives and land) "War on Terror". Consider that he
appointed Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, who proceeded to joyfully bomb Libya back to
the stone age and murder its leader. Consider that, under Obama, US-Russia relations reached an
all-time low, with repeated attacks (of various sorts) on the Russian president, government and
people, and the attempted trashing of Russia's international reputation in the eyes of the
American people. Consider the Obama regime's hugely destructive war waged (mostly by proxy) on
the Syrian people. Consider the Obama era coup in Ukraine that, in a few short months, set that
country's prospects and development back several decades and further soured relations with
Russia.
These are but a few examples of the "globalism" that drives the Washington establishment.
Who, in their right mind, would support it? (I won't get into what constitutes a 'right mind',
but we can all agree it does not involve destroying other nations for profit). The problem
however, is that the Washington elite want - no, NEED - the American people to support such
military adventurism, and what better way to do that than by concocting false "Russian
collusion" allegations against Trump and having the media program the popular mind with exactly
the opposite of the truth - that Trump was a "traitor" to the American people.
The only thing
Trump is a traitor to is the self-serving globally expansionist interests of a cabal of
Washington insiders . This little maneuver amounted to a '2 for 1' for the Washington
establishment. They simultaneously demonized Trump (impeding his 'nationalist' agenda) while
advancing their own globalist mission - in this case aimed at pushing back Russia.
Words and their exact meanings matter . To be able to see through the lies of
powerful vested interests and get to the truth, we need to know when those same powerful vested
interests are exploiting our all-too-human proclivity to be coerced and manipulated by appeals
to emotion.
So the words "nationalist" and "nationalism", as they relate to the USA, have never been
"dirty" words until they were made that way by the "globalist" element of the Washington
establishment (i.e., most of it) by associating it with fringe Nazi and "white supremacist"
elements in US society that pose no risk to anyone, (except to the extent that the mainstream
media can convince the general population otherwise). The US 'Deep State' did this in response
to the election of Trump the "nationalist" and their fears that their globalist, exceptionalist
vision for the USA - a vision that is singularly focused on their own narrow interests at the
expense of the American people and many others around the world - would be derailed by Trump
attempting to put the interests of the American people first .
"... There is only the Deep Purple Mil.Gov UniParty. The Titanic is dead in the water, lights out, bow down hard. The Rich, the Corporate Profiteers and the Military-Political Establishment have pulled away in their fur and jewel-encrusted life boats. It's one minute after midnight on the Doomsday Clock, the hands have fallen off the Debt Clock, the skies are burning and seas are rising (they say), and we are in WW3 in 8 nations. Or is it 9? ..."
"... So the Democrat faction of the Corporate One-Party took back control of the House from the Republican faction. (It's one hard-right party, of course; only liars and those ignorant of history call the Dems "centrist". By any objective or historical standard they're a right-wing party.) ..."
"... I made no prediction on what would happen in this election, but I've long predicted that if/when the Democrats win control of either house they'll do nothing with that control. Jack squat. Status quo all the way, embellished with more retarded Russia-Derangement stuff and similar nonsense. ..."
"... If there really were a difference between these corporate factions, here's the chance for the House to obstruct all Senate-passed legislation. ..."
"... They claim there's a difference between the two parties? ..."
"... But I predict this House won't lift a finger vs. the Senate, and that it'll strive to work with the Senate on legislation, and that it'll fully concur with the Senate on war budgets, police state measures, anything and everything demanded by Wall Street, Big Ag, the fossil fuel extractors, and of course the corporate welfare state in general. ..."
"... Nothing I've talked about here is anything but what is possible, what is always implicitly or explicitly promised by Dembots, and what it would seem is the minimum necessary given what Dembots claim is the scope of the crisis and what is at stake. ..."
It's not even decent theatre. Drama is much lacking, character development zilch. The outcome that dems take congress,& rethugs
improve in senate is exactly as was predicted months ago.
The dems reveal once again exactly how mendacious and uncaring of
the population they are. Nothing matters other than screwing more cash outta anyone who wants anything done so that the DC trough
stays full with the usual crew of 4th & 5th generation wannabe dem pols guzzling hard at the corporate funded 'dem aligned' think
tanks which generate much hot air yet never deliver. Hardly suprising given that actually doing something to show they give a
sh1t about the citizenry would annoy the donor who would give em all the boot, making all these no-hopers have to take up a gig
actually practising law.
These are people whose presence at the best law schools in the country prevented many who wanted to be y'know lawyers from
entering Harvard, Cornell etc law school. "one doesn't go to law school to become a lawyer It too hard to even pull down a mil
a year as a brief, nah, I studied the law to learn how to make laws that actually do the opposite of what they seem to. That is
where the real dough is."
Those who think that is being too hard on the dem slugs, should remember that the rethugs they have been indoctrinated to detest
act pretty much as printed on the side of the can. They advertise a service of licking rich arseholes and that is exactly what
they do. As venal and sociopathic as they are, at least they don't pretend to be something else; so while there is no way one
could vote for anyone spouting republican nonsense at least they don't hide their greed & corruption under a veneer of pseudo-humanist
nonsense. Dems cry for the plight of the poverty stricken then they slash welfare.
Or dems sob about the hard row african americans must hoe, then go off to the house of reps to pass laws to keep impoverished
african americans slotted up in an over crowded prison for the rest of his/her life.
Not only deceitful and vicious, 100% pointless since any Joe/Jo that votes on the basis of wanting to see more blackfellas
incarcerated is always gonna tick the rethug box anyhow.
Yeah- yeah we know all this so what?
This is what - the dems broke their arses getting tens of millions of young first time voters out to "exercise their democratic
prerogative" for the first time. Dems did this knowing full well that there would be no effective opposition to rethug demands
for more domestic oppression, that in fact it is practically guaranteed that should the trump and the rethug senate require it,
in order to ensure something particularly nasty gets passed, that sufficient dem congress people will 'cross the floor' to make
certain the bill does get up.
Of course the dems in question will allude to 'folks back home demanding' that the dem slug does vote with the nasties, but
that is the excuse, the reality is far too many dem pols are as bigoted greedy and elitist as the worst rethugs.
Anyway the upshot of persuading so many kids to get out and vote, so the kids do but the dems are content to just do more of
the same, will be another entire generation lost to elections forever.
If the DNC had been less greedy and more strategic they would have kept their powder dry and hung off press-ganging the kids
until getting such a turnout could have resulted in genuine change, prez 2020' or whenever, would be actual success for pols and
voters.
But they didn't and wouldn't ever, since for a dem pol, hundreds of thousands of fellow citizens living on the street isn't
nearly as problematic for them, as the dem wannabe pol paying off the mortgage on his/her DC townhouse by 2020, something that
would have been impossible if they hadn't taken congress as all the 'patrons' would have jerked back their cash figuring there
is no gain giving dosh to losers who couldn't win a bar raffle.
As for that Sharice Davids - a total miss she needed to be either a midget or missing an arm or leg to qualify as the classic
ID dem pol. Being a native american lezzo just doesn't tick enough boxes. I predict a not in the least illustrious career since
she cannot even qualify as the punchline in a circa 1980's joke.
As you said, nothing will get out of the House, Pelosi can't lead. They can easily swing 3 Democrats, then Mike Pence puts
the hammer down. If anything manages to crawl through, it won't even be brought to a vote in the Republican Senate. Trump can
still us his bully pulpit to circle the White wagons, fly in even more than his current 1,125,000 H-visa aliens, and No Taxes
for the Rich is now engraved in stone for the Pharoahs.
The imminent $1,500B Omnibus Deficit Bill Three will be lauded as a 'bipartisan solution' by both houses, and 2020 looks to
be a $27,000B illegal, onerous, odious National Debt open Civil War.
There is only the Deep Purple Mil.Gov UniParty. The Titanic is dead in the water, lights out, bow down hard. The Rich,
the Corporate Profiteers and the Military-Political Establishment have pulled away in their fur and jewel-encrusted life boats.
It's one minute after midnight on the Doomsday Clock, the hands have fallen off the Debt Clock, the skies are burning and seas
are rising (they say), and we are in WW3 in 8 nations. Or is it 9?
Smart money is moving toward the exits. This shyte is gonna blow. Let's move to Australia, before it becomes part of Xi's PRC
String of Girls.
Reading most of the comments explaining how the D's won/lost,,, the R's won/lost,,, Trump and company won/lost,,, but couldn't
find one post about how America is losing due to the two suffocating party's and a greedy, disunited, selfish, electorate that
wants it all free.
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the Majority discovers it can vote itself
largess out of the public treasury,,,,,,, After that the Majority always votes for the candidate 'promising the most' ,,,,,,,
Alex Fraser.
So the Democrat faction of the Corporate One-Party took back control of the House from the Republican faction. (It's one hard-right
party, of course; only liars and those ignorant of history call the Dems "centrist". By any objective or historical standard they're
a right-wing party.)
It's no big surprise. Last two years it's been the normally self-assured Republicans who, because of their ambivalence about Trump,
have uncharacteristically taken on the usual Democrat role of existential confusion and doubt. Meanwhile the Democrats, in a berserk
batsh$t-insane way, have been more motivated and focused.
So what are these Democrats going to do with this control now that they have it?
I made no prediction on what would happen in this election, but I've long predicted that if/when the Democrats win control of
either house they'll do nothing with that control. Jack squat. Status quo all the way, embellished with more retarded Russia-Derangement
stuff and similar nonsense.
If there really were a difference between these corporate factions, here's the chance for the House to obstruct all Senate-passed
legislation. And as for things which are technically only in the power of the Senate such as confirming appointments, here's the
chance for the House to put public moral pressure on Democrats in the Senate. And there's plenty of back-door ways an activist
House can influence Senate business. Only morbid pedantry, so typical of liberal Dembots, babbles about what the technical powers
of this or that body are. The real world doesn't work that way. To the extent I pay attention at all to Senate affairs it'll be
to see what the House is doing about it.
They claim there's a difference between the two parties? And they claim Trump is an incipient fascist dictator? In that case there's
a lot at stake, and extreme action is called for. Let's see what kind of action we get from their "different" party in control
of the House.
But I predict this House won't lift a finger vs. the Senate, and that it'll strive to work with the Senate on legislation, and
that it'll fully concur with the Senate on war budgets, police state measures, anything and everything demanded by Wall Street,
Big Ag, the fossil fuel extractors, and of course the corporate welfare state in general.
Nor will any of these new-fangled fake "socialist" types take any action to change things one iota. Within the House Democrats,
they could take action, form any and every kind of coalition, to obstruct the corporate-Pelosi leadership faction. They will not
do so. This "new" progressive bloc will be just as fake as the old one.
Nothing I've talked about here is anything but what is possible, what is always implicitly or explicitly promised by Dembots,
and what it would seem is the minimum necessary given what Dembots claim is the scope of the crisis and what is at stake.
The typical scheme of politic life in US under neoliberalism is as following:: candidate for
President promises something reasonable, like to end foreign wars and improve the sliding
standard of living of the middle class and/or cut outsourcing and offshoring. Gullible voters
elect him. He governs as worst of his predecessors and start cutting benefits for the middle
class and workers. . In two years voters start realizing that they were deceived and elect House
or Senate or both from another party, not realizing that the difference is minimal, if exists at
all.
This cycle of election fraud can continue indefinitely.
Notable quotes:
"... "and with those gains voters have delivered a sharp rebuke to the president and his party." ..."
"... The problem with health care in America is not the cost of insurance, it's the cost of health care services. Moving the "who pays" food around the plate accomplishes nothing. A "Medicare for All" plan under the existing fee for service model will only increase the pathological per capita health care cost in the U.S. ..."
"... Forget what Trump said as a candidate. Every winning candidate since arguably 1988 ("kinder, gentler America") has run as a non-interventionist and promised to restore jobs, then immediately morphed into John McCain the moment they took the Oath of Office. Instead, watch what Trump has done since getting elected. From that perspective, it is obvious that there is no such thing as "Trumpism", only a meaner, more dysfunctional, more reckless version of Dubya. ..."
The US Democrats have taken control of the House of Representatives in the mid-term
elections, dealing a serious blow to President Donald Trump.
While the GOP is poised to add to its Senate majority, yesterday's election was the best
midterm result for the Democrats since 2006. They flipped dozens of Republican-held seats,
including some that they were not expected to win (e.g., IL-06, OK-05), and with those gains
voters have delivered a sharp rebuke to the president and his party. It is normal for the
president's party to lose seats in the first midterm following a presidential election, and
Democratic gains were in line with pre-election predictions. The striking thing about this
year's result is that the president's party has lost so much ground despite relatively good
economic conditions. Republicans had an extremely favorable Senate map, and despite that they
barely managed to eke out a win in Texas of all places. It was not as thorough of a repudiation
as the GOP deserved, but it was a significant rejection all the same.
The president's poor approval ratings and his unimpressive record to date have further
dragged down a Republican Party that wasn't very popular to begin with. Americans seem to lose
patience with unified government fairly quickly. Yesterday voters gave the Democratic Party an
opportunity to put the president in check and hold him accountable for his overreaching and
illegal wars. Trump and his officials should expect to face much more rigorous oversight and
scrutiny from relevant Congressional committees, and Trump's haphazard and incompetent conduct
of foreign policy should run into much stronger resistance from the Foreign Affairs and Armed
Services Committees. Trump won't be able to count on the leadership in the House to roll over
for him over the next two years, and he and his Cabinet members are likely to be facing one
investigation after another.
Losing control of one house of Congress under current circumstances is a huge vote of no
confidence in Trump and the GOP, and it could not have come a moment too soon.
I voted for him in 2016, but I lost confidence in him as he started doing favors for Wall
Street, Israel, and Saudi Arabia instead of doing the job we hired him for, the job he
promised to do during the campaign: deport the illegals, stop immigration and foreign work
visas, get us out of the Middle East, rebuild US infrastructure, i.e. "America First".
Yesterday I voted against the only national GOP politician I could get my hands on. He
lost, and I'm glad, especially because he was a Tea Party Republican who betrayed our Tea
Party principles by voting for Trump's out of control deficit spending and for more stupid
Mideast wars.
We've got a lady Democrat now, but she looks fairly sane. We'll see. The problem with
Democrat politicians is that a lot of them only pretend to be normal until they get to
Washington.
I am no Trump fan, but what is going to change? It will still be a do nothing Congress. The
wars will still go on and the health-care dilemma will still be ever-present. It is sad that
the past 2 years have been wasted. Even if the Republican Congress could not do something about
health-care due to the size of the problem, they could have at least done something about
infrastructure, immigration, and these dumb wars. The failure is just as much Paul Ryan's fault
as it is Trump's. I watched last night with far more interest than 2016 and am amazed that so
many old Boomers were elected given the supposed youth movement. It never occurred to me that
there are alot of Septuagenarian war-mongers who should have retired a decade ago still
receiving votes. The Democrats took the House, but what is left of this nation is toast
regardless.
"Losing control of one house of Congress under current circumstances is a huge vote of no
confidence in Trump and the GOP, and it could not have come a moment too soon."
How much of this was national in nature is unclear. Many of the republicans that lost were
"Never Trump" advocates or very "lukewarm" at best. I think this reflects more failure on the
local level to turn or translate the positives into something beneficial locally.
I am just surprised the Republicans managed to lose the house given the economic numbers
(though I remain deeply distrustful of them -- given exports) and what has been repeated
stumbles by democrats.
Texas, is a perfect example. While Sen Cruz was not a never Trumper, he was mild fair in the
president's corner. His election was about him, not the president. And I think the vote
reflected less confidence in his leadership. Neither Texas nor Sen Cruze are as conservative as
believed or at least not as they once were considered. Unfortunately, what carried him over the
top was ethnicity, not his leadership.
It's probably too early to tell, just how big a factor the president was in the election or
how much change will result. Thus far, the establishment that existed previously remains
despite the presidential election that was intended to reshape or at least curb its self
serving appetite --
Given the the money at play -- it is doubtful that that things are going to change much. Now
that I put at the admin door step. Because his folded a lot against the reasons he was elected,
during the last two years.
Re: "and with those gains voters have delivered a sharp rebuke to the president and his
party."
And with what promises did the Democrats win those votes? Why with the bogus "Medicare for
All" and the equally bogus "Free College Education for All".
The problem with health care in America is not the cost of insurance, it's the cost of
health care services. Moving the "who pays" food around the plate accomplishes nothing. A
"Medicare for All" plan under the existing fee for service model will only increase the
pathological per capita health care cost in the U.S. Too bad the MSM in love with Nitwit
Newbie Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is too stupid to connect the dots.
And higher ed is unaffordable simply because it's also over priced. Using government
subsidies to sustain a bankrupt higher ed model amounts to re-arranging even more deck chairs
on the Titanic.
The Democrats are the Party of Free Lunch and Free War. While the Republicans are the Party
of Free War and Free Lunch.
@SteveM
The fact is that any "solution" to health care that has any integrity to it is a single payer
solution. That's also probably the only solution that reduces, as you accurately state, the
pathological per capita health care cost.
And to be clear, in terms of fiscal viability, the party of reducing taxes and raising
budgets is currently and has been historically the GOP. The current administration has picked
up that baton as well.
One final thing, I wouldn't count out Ocasio-Cortes as a nitwit. I've been reading her white
papers and following her evolution and she makes 95% of the current GOP crop seem like
toddlers. Yes, her idealism will backfire hard as it always does. But what's the other option?
Endless corrupt cynicism? She's impressive. I'm pulling for her to stay focused and do
well.
Forget what Trump said as a candidate. Every winning candidate since arguably 1988
("kinder, gentler America") has run as a non-interventionist and promised to restore jobs, then
immediately morphed into John McCain the moment they took the Oath of Office. Instead, watch
what Trump has done since getting elected. From that perspective, it is obvious that there is
no such thing as "Trumpism", only a meaner, more dysfunctional, more reckless version of
Dubya.
The alternative to Ocasio-Cortez style state worship is the simple wisdom that governments are
neither efficient nor effective at delivering what she proposes.
Of course, we are all supposed to vote Democratic to halt the tide of Trump fascism. But
should the Democrats take control of the House of Representatives, hate speech and violence as
a tool for intimidation and control will increase, with much of it directed, as we saw with the
pipe bombs intended to decapitate the Democratic Party leadership, toward prominent Democratic
politicians and critics of Donald Trump. Should the white man's party of the president retain
control of the House and the Senate, violence will still be the favored instrument of political
control as the last of democratic protections are stripped from us. Either way we are in for
it.
Trump is a clownish and embarrassing tool of the kleptocrats. His faux populism is a sham.
Only the rich like his tax cuts, his refusal to raise the minimum wage and his effort to
destroy Obamacare. All he has left is hate. And he will use it. Which is not to say that, if
only to throw up some obstacle to Trump, you shouldn't vote for the Democratic scum, tools of
the war industry and the pharmaceutical and insurance industry, Wall Street and the fossil fuel
industry, as opposed to the Republican scum. But Democratic control of the House will do very
little to halt our descent into corporate tyranny, especially with another economic crisis
brewing on Wall Street. The rot inside the American political system is deep and terminal.
The Democrats, who refuse to address the social inequality they helped orchestrate and that
has given rise to Trump, are the party of racial and ethnic inclusivity, identity politics,
Wall Street and the military. Their core battle cry is: We are not Trump! This is
ultimately a losing formula. It was adopted by Hillary Clinton, who is apparently weighing
another run for the presidency after we thought we had thrust a stake through her political
heart. It is the agenda of the well-heeled East Coast and West Coast elites who want to instill
corporate fascism with a friendly face.
Bertram
Gross (1912-1997) in "Friendly Fascism: The New Face of American Power" warned us that
fascism always has two looks. One is paternal, benevolent, entertaining and kind. The other is
embodied in the executioner's sadistic leer. Janus-like, fascism seeks to present itself to a
captive public as a force for good and moral renewal. It promises protection against enemies
real and invented. But denounce its ideology, challenge its power, demand freedom from
fascism's iron grip, and you are mercilessly crushed. Gross knew that if the United States'
form of fascism, expressed through corporate tyranny, was able to effectively mask its true
intentions behind its "friendly" face we would be stripped of power, shorn of our most
cherished rights and impoverished. He has been proved correct.
"Looking at the present, I see a more probable future: a new despotism creeping slowly
across America," Gross wrote. "Faceless oligarchs sit at command posts of a
corporate-government complex that has been slowly evolving over many decades. In efforts to
enlarge their own powers and privileges, they are willing to have others suffer the intended or
unintended consequences of their institutional or personal greed. For Americans, these
consequences include chronic inflation, recurring recession, open and hidden unemployment, the
poisoning of air, water, soil and bodies, and more important, the subversion of our
constitution. More broadly, consequences include widespread intervention in international
politics through economic manipulation, covert action, or military invasion."
No totalitarian state has mastered propaganda better than the corporate state. Our press has
replaced journalism with trivia, feel-good stories, jingoism and celebrity gossip. The banal
and the absurd, delivered by cheery corporate courtiers, saturate the airwaves. Our emotions
are skillfully manipulated around manufactured personalities and manufactured events. We are,
at the same time, offered elaborate diversionary spectacles including sporting events, reality
television and absurdist political campaigns. Trump is a master of this form of entertainment.
Our emotional and intellectual energy is swallowed up by the modern equivalent of the Roman
arena. Choreographed political vaudeville, which costs corporations billions of dollars, is
called free elections. Cliché-ridden slogans, which assure us that the freedoms we
cherish remain sacrosanct, dominate our national discourse as these freedoms are stripped from
us by judicial and legislative fiat. It is a vast con game.
You cannot use the word "liberty" when your government, as ours does, watches you 24 hours a
day and stores all of your personal information in government computers in perpetuity. You
cannot use the word "liberty" when you are the most photographed and monitored population in
human history. You cannot use the word "liberty" when it is impossible to vote against the
interests of Goldman Sachs or General Dynamics. You cannot use the word "liberty" when the
state empowers militarized police to use indiscriminate lethal force against unarmed citizens
in the streets of American cities. You cannot use the word "liberty" when 2.3 million citizens,
mostly poor people of color, are held in the largest prison system on earth. This is the
relationship between a master and a slave. The choice is between whom we want to clamp on our
chains -- a jailer who mouths politically correct bromides or a racist, Christian fascist.
Either way we are shackled.
Gross understood that unchecked corporate power would inevitably lead to corporate fascism.
It is the natural consequence of the ruling ideology of neoliberalism that consolidates power
and wealth into the hands of a tiny group of oligarchs. The political philosopher Sheldon
Wolin , refining Gross' thesis, would later characterize this corporate tyranny or friendly
fascism as "inverted totalitarianism." It was, as Gross and Wolin pointed out, characterized by
anonymity. It purported to pay fealty to electoral politics, the Constitution and the
iconography and symbols of American patriotism but internally had seized all of the levers of
power to render the citizen impotent. Gross warned that we were being shackled incrementally.
Most would not notice until they were in total bondage. He wrote that "a friendly fascist power
structure in the United States, Canada, Western Europe, or today's Japan would be far more
sophisticated than the 'caesarism' of fascist Germany, Italy, and Japan. It would need no
charismatic dictator nor even a titular head it would require no one-party rule, no mass
fascist party, no glorification of the State, no dissolution of legislatures, no denial of
reason. Rather, it would come slowly as an outgrowth of present trends in the
Establishment."
Gross foresaw that technological advances in the hands of corporations would be used to trap
the public in what he called "cultural ghettoization" so that "almost every individual would
get a personalized sequence of information injections at any time of the day -- or night." This
is what, of course, television, our electronic devices and the internet have done. He warned
that we would be mesmerized by the entertaining shadows on the wall of the Platonic cave as we
were enslaved.
Gross knew that the most destructive force against the body politic would be the war
profiteers and the militarists. He saw how they would siphon off the resources of the state to
wage endless war, a sum that now accounts for half of all discretionary spending. And he
grasped that warfare is the natural extension of corporatism. He wrote:
Under the militarism of German, Italian, and Japanese fascism violence was openly
glorified. It was applied regionally -- by the Germans in Europe and England, the Italians in
the Mediterranean, the Japanese in Asia. In battle, it was administered by professional
militarists who, despite many conflicts with politicians, were guided by old-fashioned
standards of duty, honor, country, and willingness to risk their own lives.
The emerging militarism of friendly fascism is somewhat different. It is global in scope.
It involves weapons of doomsday proportions, something that Hitler could dream of but never
achieve. It is based on an integration between industry, science, and the military that the
old-fashioned fascists could never even barely approximate. It points toward equally close
integration among military, paramilitary, and civilian elements. Many of the civilian leaders
-- such as Zbigniew Brzezinski or Paul Nitze -- tend to be much more bloodthirsty than any
top brass. In turn, the new-style military professionals tend to become corporate-style
entrepreneurs who tend to operate -- as Major Richard A. Gabriel and Lieutenant Colonel Paul
L. Savage have disclosed -- in accordance with the ethics of the marketplace. The old
buzzwords of duty, honor, and patriotism are mainly used to justify officer subservience to
the interests of transnational corporations and the continuing presentation of threats to
some corporate investments as threats to the interest of the American people as a whole.
Above all, in sharp contrast with classic fascism's glorification of violence, the friendly
fascist orientation is to sanitize, even hide, the greater violence of modern warfare behind
such "value-free" terms as "nuclear exchange," "counterforce" and "flexible response," behind
the huge geographical distances between the senders and receivers of destruction through
missiles or even on the "automated battlefield," and the even greater psychological distances
between the First World elites and the ordinary people who might be consigned to quick or
slow death.
We no longer live in a functioning democracy. Self-styled liberals and progressives, as they
do in every election cycle, are urging us to vote for the Democrats, although the Democratic
Party in Europe would be classified as a right-wing party, and tell us to begin to build
progressive movements the day after the election. Only no one ever builds these movements. The
Democratic Party knows there is no price to pay for selling us out and its abject service to
corporations. It knows the left and liberals become supplicants in every election cycle. And
this is why the Democratic Party drifts further and further to the right and we become more and
more irrelevant. If you stand for something, you have to be willing to fight for it. But there
is no fight in us.
The elites, Republican and Democrat, belong to the same club. We are not in it. Take a look
at the flight roster of the billionaire
Jeffrey Epstein , who was accused of prostituting dozens of underage girls and ended up
spending 13 months in prison on a single count. He flew political insiders from both parties
and the business world to his secluded Caribbean island, known as "Orgy Island," on his jet,
which the press nicknamed "the Lolita Express." Some of the names on his flight
roster, which usually included unidentified women, were Bill Clinton, who took dozens of trips,
Alan
Dershowitz , former Treasury Secretary and former Harvard President Larry Summers, the
Candide -like
Steven Pinker ,
whose fairy dust ensures we are getting better and better, and Britain's Prince Andrew. Epstein
was also a friend of Trump, whom he visited at Mar-a-Lago.
We live on the precipice, the eve of the deluge. Past civilizations have crumbled in the
same way, although as Hegel understood, the only thing we learn from history is "that people
and governments never have learned anything from history." We will not arrest the decline if
the Democrats regain control of the House. At best we will briefly slow it. The corporate
engines of pillage, oppression, ecocide and endless war are untouchable. Corporate power will
do its dirty work regardless of which face -- the friendly fascist face of the Democrats or the
demented visage of the Trump Republicans -- is pushed out front. If you want real change,
change that means something, then mobilize, mobilize, mobilize, not for one of the two
political parties but to rise up and destroy the corporate structures that ensure our doom.
"... The Democratic Party split into a four-headed monster comprised of Wall Street patrons seeking favors, war hawks and their corporate allies looking for new global rumbles, the permanent bureaucracy looking to always expand itself, and the various ethnic and sexual minorities whose needs and grievances are serviced by that bureaucracy. It's the last group that has become the party's most public face while the party's other activities – many of them sinister -- remain at least partially concealed. ..."
"... the Republicans are being forced to engage on some real issues, such as the need for a coherent and effective immigration policy and the need to redefine formal trade relations. (Other issues like the insane system of medical racketeering and the deadly racket of the college loan industry just skate along on thin ice. And then, of course, there's the national debt and all its grotesque outgrowths.) ..."
"... Meanwhile, the Democratic Party has become the party of bad ideas and bad faith, starting with the position that "diversity and inclusion" means shutting down free speech, an unforgivable transgression against common sense and common decency. It's a party that lies even more systematically than Mr. Trump, and does so knowingly (as when Google execs say they "Do no Evil"). Its dirty secret is that it relishes coercion, it likes pushing people around, telling them what to think and how to act. Its idea of "social justice" is a campus kangaroo court, where due process of law is suspended. And it is deeply corrupt, with good old-fashioned grift, new-fashioned gross political misconduct in federal law enforcement, and utter intellectual depravity in higher education. ..."
"... I hope that the party is shoved into an existential crisis and is forced to confront its astounding dishonesty. I hope that the process prompts them to purge their leadership across the board. ..."
Back in the last century, when this was a different country, the Democrats were the "smart"
party and the Republicans were the "stupid" party.
How did that work?
Well, back then the Democrats represented a broad middle class, with a base of factory
workers, many of them unionized, and the party had to be smart, especially in the courts, to
overcome the natural advantages of the owner class.
In contrast, the Republicans looked like a claque of country club drunks who staggered
home at night to sleep on their moneybags. Bad optics, as we say nowadays.
The Democrats also occupied the moral high ground as the champion of the little guy. If not
for the Dems, factory workers would be laboring twelve hours a day and children would still be
maimed in the machinery. Once the relationship between business and labor was settled in the
1950s, the party moved on to a new crusade on even loftier moral high ground: civil rights,
aiming to correct arrant and long-lived injustices against downtrodden black Americans. That
was a natural move, considering America's self-proclaimed post-war status as the world's Beacon
of Liberty. It had to be done and a political consensus that included Republicans got it done.
Consensus was still possible.
The Dems built their fortress on that high ground and fifty years later they find themselves
prisoners in it. The factory jobs all vamoosed overseas. The middle class has been pounded into
penury and addiction.
The Democratic Party split into a four-headed monster comprised of Wall Street patrons
seeking favors, war hawks and their corporate allies looking for new global rumbles, the
permanent bureaucracy looking to always expand itself, and the various ethnic and sexual
minorities whose needs and grievances are serviced by that bureaucracy. It's the last group
that has become the party's most public face while the party's other activities – many of
them sinister -- remain at least partially concealed.
The Republican Party has, at least, sobered up some after getting blindsided by Trump and
Trumpism. Like a drunk out of rehab, it's attempting to get a life. Two years in, the party
marvels at Mr. Trump's audacity, despite his obvious lack of savoir faire. And despite a
longstanding lack of political will to face the country's problems,the Republicans are being
forced to engage on some real issues, such as the need for a coherent and effective immigration
policy and the need to redefine formal trade relations. (Other issues like the insane system of
medical racketeering and the deadly racket of the college loan industry just skate along on
thin ice. And then, of course, there's the national debt and all its grotesque outgrowths.)
Meanwhile, the Democratic Party has become the party of bad ideas and bad faith, starting
with the position that "diversity and inclusion" means shutting down free speech, an
unforgivable transgression against common sense and common decency. It's a party that lies even
more systematically than Mr. Trump, and does so knowingly (as when Google execs say they "Do no
Evil"). Its dirty secret is that it relishes coercion, it likes pushing people around, telling
them what to think and how to act. Its idea of "social justice" is a campus kangaroo court,
where due process of law is suspended. And it is deeply corrupt, with good old-fashioned grift,
new-fashioned gross political misconduct in federal law enforcement, and utter intellectual
depravity in higher education.
I hope that Democrats lose as many congressional and senate seats as possible.I hope that
the party is shoved into an existential crisis and is forced to confront its astounding
dishonesty. I hope that the process prompts them to purge their leadership across the board. If
there is anything to salvage in this organization, I hope it discovers aims and principles that
are unrecognizable from its current agenda of perpetual hysteria. But if the party actually
blows up and disappears, as the Whigs did a hundred and fifty years ago, I will be content. Out
of the terrible turbulence, maybe something better will be born.
Or, there's the possibility that the dregs of a defeated Democratic Party will just go
batshit crazy and use the last of its mojo to incite actual sedition. Of course, there's also a
distinct possibility that the Dems will take over congress, in which case they'll ramp up an
even more horrific three-ring-circus of political hysteria and persecution that will make the
Spanish Inquisition look like a backyard barbeque. That will happen as the US enters the most
punishing financial train wreck in our history, an interesting recipe for epic political
upheaval.
Burkman told The Atlantic that he has no clue who the woman is, suggesting he represents a
different accuser.
DOJ spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores referred all inquiries back to the special counsel,
however we imagine the "all survivors must be believed" standard applies.
The false flags and fake scandals are flying fast and furious in the final weeks before
the election. Let's see if Mueller is able to construct another charge against Trump. The
collusion failed. Obstruction? Failed. Got to concoct something else.
Remember, this is the guy in charge of the FBI during 911. He's good at constructing a
narrative and has a LOT to lose if the house intelligence committee stays in GOP hands.
I am shocked this man is roaming free tonight. We must believe the women, unless and until
Mueller can prove his innocence. There is too much smoke for there not to be some fire. At
this point, he should resign and begin the process of constructing his defense.
Meanwhile, on the Gateway Pundit, they are spinning this way more aggressively at
Mueller....
The Gateway Pundit obtained a copy of the charges.
What we know: The woman is a "very credible witness." Her story are corroborated. The
incident happened in 2010 in New York City. The woman is a professional.
The Mueller apologists are already trashing the accuser -- and don't even know who she
is!
OMG, this story is the best. It keeps giving. So, the phony security company, "Surefire
Intelligence", which Jacob Wohl created and then claimed he had no connection to, but was
registered to his mom's home phone number, has a guy named "Matthew Cohen" as a supposed
founder, who is supposedly ex-Mossad. The profile for "Matthew Cohen" in one place is a photo
of actor Christoph Waltz, and in another place is a photo of Jacob Wohl himself.
Now Jack Burkman, who's the one who has been promoting this story, says he was being
hoaxed by Wohl. When a reporter was talking to Wohl and brought up the fact that "Surefire
Intelligence" is registered to his mom's phone number, he hung up.
So far, no women have come forward with any allegations against Mueller, but several have
come forward with allegations saying Wohl offered them $20,000 to make up phony
allegations.
The special counsel's office confirmed to CNBC that it learned about the "scheme" from
journalists who had been approached by a woman alleging that she had been offered $20,000 by
Burkman "to make accusations of sexual misconduct and workplace harassment against Robert
Mueller." -
CNBC
So con men covering Bad Bob.....as though CNBC has any credibility...
I think FBI and CIA live in strong conviction that they are Rex Mundi. They can do
whatever they want. There is no law for them at all. Typical demokratorship
Let's see. I believe all Victims. Where have I heard that before? Amazing how the Demtards
have fall guys lined up for miles to take the hit for the team. Their spin control is amazing
to watch in action. I so hope this is true. Mueller seems like an evil cat.
These counter claims sound a whole lot like the technique of inserting "confidential
informants" into the Trump Campaign to insert information - or DISINFORMATION - into the
storyline.
what if this whole Pillsbury email was manufactured to create a counter narrative that
people are paid off.....?
see, no one trusts anyone anymore......so, might as well question everything. or not
question ANYTHING and just #believewomen
Mueller is a huge snake; a guy who'll grin widely into your face as he plants evidence to
frame you from the ground up. Ask those who've been released from years of imprisonment
because of Mueller's set ups. They've got a few things to say about Robert Mueller...
A rapist? Who the hell knows but those involved at the time?
I'd put nothing past this uranium mule Mueller. Nothing. Deepest Statist Mueller's career
was made on being a silent and gruesomely pernicious bastard who'd go there for his pals. A
DC Fixer; like his devotee James Comey. Real dirty crums. And they hold a shitload of
blackmail-able secrets.
The question is why the Deep State still is trying to depose him, if he essentially obeys the dictate of the Deep State ?
Notable quotes:
"... The Wall Street Journal ..."
"... Actually that's Trump. He demands total and utter loyalty from his people and gives none in return. ..."
"... The significance here is that Bolton and Pompeo represent just about everything Trump ran against during his 2016 presidential campaign. He ran against the country's foreign policy establishment and its rush to war in Iraq; its support of NATO's provocative eastward expansion; its abiding hostility toward Russia; its destabilization of the Middle East through ill-conceived and ill-fated activities in Iraq, Libya, and Syria; its ongoing and seemingly endless war in Afghanistan; and its enthusiasm for regime change and nation-building around the world. Bolton and Pompeo represent precisely those kinds of policies and actions as well as the general foreign policy outlook that spawned them. ..."
"... Trump gave every indication during the campaign that he would reverse those policies and avoid those kinds of actions. He even went so far, in his inimitable way, of accusing the Bush administration of lying to the American people in taking the country to war in Iraq, as opposed to making a reckless and stupid, though honest, mistake about that country's weapons of mass destruction. He said it would be great to get along with Russia and criticized NATO's aggressive eastward push. He said our aim in Syria should be to combat Islamist extremism, not depose Bashar al-Assad as its leader. In promulgating his America First approach, he specifically eschewed any interest in nation-building abroad. ..."
"... Still, generally speaking, anyone listening to Trump carefully before the election would have been justified in concluding that, if he meant what he said, he would reverse America's post-Cold War foreign policy as practiced by George W. Bush and Barack Obama. ..."
"... Thus any neutral observer, at the time of Mattis's selection as defense secretary, might have concluded that he was more bent on an adventurous American foreign policy than his boss. But it turned out to be just the opposite. There are two reasons for this. First, Mattis is cautious by nature, and he seems to have taken Trump at his word that he didn't want any more unnecessary American wars of choice. Hence he opposed the withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal prior to Trump's decision to pull America out of it. That action greatly increased the chances that America and Iran could find themselves on a path to war. Mattis also redeployed some military resources from the Middle East to other areas designed to check actions by Russia and China, which he considered greater threats to U.S. security. ..."
"... That seems to have presented a marvelous opportunity to Bolton and Pompeo, whose philosophy and convictions are stark and visible to all. Bolton has made clear his desire for America to bring about regime change in Iran and North Korea. He supported the Iraq war and has never wavered in the face of subsequent events. He has advocated a preemptive strike against North Korea. Pompeo harbors similar views. He favored withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal and has waxed bellicose on both Iran and Russia. ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... Bolton was put in power to ensure unswerving loyalty to the dictates of Bibi Netanyahu and local neocons. Have we forgotten Iraq and endless wars since? ..."
"... this is all about Israel's hold on the Oval Office. Bolton and Pompeo are far, far closer to Israel than Mattis and that's a problem for him. Sorry Robert Merry, but you clearly didn't catch Trump's first foreign "policy" speech in 2016. He suddenly revealed his priorities for all to see. There are four words that Trump apologists simply cannot bring themselves to utter: "Trump is a neo-con". Suckers. ..."
"... Military adventurism is another disappointment. We can't afford more neocon disasters. We don't need to be the world's police force. We should be shrinking the military budgets. It is dismaying to watch the neocons gaining power after the catastrophic failures of recent decades. ..."
"... "Still, generally speaking, anyone listening to Trump carefully before the election would have been justified in concluding that, if he meant what he said, he would reverse America's post-Cold War foreign policy as practiced by George W. Bush and Barack Obama." ..."
"... Come on, anyone listening to Trump before the election realized that he said whatever drew the most applause from the crowd. He never, in his entire life, has meant what he said. ..."
"... He will continue down the neo-con line until Fox News and NY Times run front-page articles about how Bolton and Pompeo are manipulating him and actually running US foreign policy, at which time he will dump them and make up something else. ..."
"... Arrest the warmongering "leaders" who create havoc around the world ..."
"... I guess DJT offered you a "Bad Deal" then? Past performance does predict future results. ..."
In covering President Donald Trump's recent pregnant comments about Defense Secretary Jim
Mattis, The Wall Street Journal tucked away in its story an observation that hints at
the president's foreign policy direction. In an interview for CBS's 60 Minutes , the
president described Mattis as "sort of a Democrat if you want to know the truth" and suggested
he wouldn't be surprised if his military chief left his post soon. After calling him "a good
guy" and saying the two "get along very well," Trump added, "He may leave. I mean, at some
point, everybody leaves . That's Washington."
Actually that's Trump. He demands total and utter loyalty from his people and gives none in
return. In just his first 14 months as president, he hired three national security advisors,
reflecting the unstable relationships he often has with his top aides. Following the 60
Minutes interview, Washington was of course abuzz with speculation about what all this
might mean for Mattis's fate and who might be the successor if Mattis were to quit or be fired.
It was just the kind of fodder Washington loves -- human drama revealing Trump's legendary
inconstancy amid prospective new turmoil in the capital.
But far more significant than Mattis's future or Trump's love of chaos was a sentence
embedded in the Journal 's report. After noting that recent polls indicated that
Mattis enjoys strong support from the American people, reporter Nancy A. Youssef writes: "But
his influence within the administration has waned in recent months, particularly following the
arrival of John Bolton as national security adviser and former CIA Director Mike Pompeo as
secretary of state."
The significance here is that Bolton and Pompeo represent just about everything Trump ran
against during his 2016 presidential campaign. He ran against the country's foreign policy
establishment and its rush to war in Iraq; its support of NATO's provocative eastward
expansion; its abiding hostility toward Russia; its destabilization of the Middle East through
ill-conceived and ill-fated activities in Iraq, Libya, and Syria; its ongoing and seemingly
endless war in Afghanistan; and its enthusiasm for regime change and nation-building around the
world. Bolton and Pompeo represent precisely those kinds of policies and actions as well as the
general foreign policy outlook that spawned them.
Trump gave every indication during the campaign that he would reverse those policies and
avoid those kinds of actions. He even went so far, in his inimitable way, of accusing the Bush
administration of lying to the American people in taking the country to war in Iraq, as opposed
to making a reckless and stupid, though honest, mistake about that country's weapons of mass
destruction. He said it would be great to get along with Russia and criticized NATO's
aggressive eastward push. He said our aim in Syria should be to combat Islamist extremism, not
depose Bashar al-Assad as its leader. In promulgating his America First approach, he
specifically eschewed any interest in nation-building abroad.
The one area where he seemed to embrace America's post-Cold War aggressiveness was in his
attitude toward Iran. But even there he seemed less bellicose than many of his Republican
opponents in the 2016 primaries, who said they would rip up the Iran nuclear deal on their
first day in office. Trump, by contrast, said it was a bad deal but one he would seek to
improve.
Still, generally speaking, anyone listening to Trump carefully before the election would
have been justified in concluding that, if he meant what he said, he would reverse America's
post-Cold War foreign policy as practiced by George W. Bush and Barack Obama.
Now we know he didn't mean what he said, and the latest tiff over the fate of Mattis
crystallizes that reality. It's not that Mattis represents the kind of anti-establishment
outlook that Trump projected during the campaign; in fact, he is a thoroughgoing product of
that establishment. He said Iran was the main threat to stability in the Middle East. He
supported sending arms to the Syrian rebels. He decried Russia's intent to "break NATO
apart."
Thus any neutral observer, at the time of Mattis's selection as defense secretary, might
have concluded that he was more bent on an adventurous American foreign policy than his boss.
But it turned out to be just the opposite. There are two reasons for this. First, Mattis is
cautious by nature, and he seems to have taken Trump at his word that he didn't want any more
unnecessary American wars of choice. Hence he opposed the withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal
prior to Trump's decision to pull America out of it. That action greatly increased the chances
that America and Iran could find themselves on a path to war. Mattis also redeployed some
military resources from the Middle East to other areas designed to check actions by Russia and
China, which he considered greater threats to U.S. security.
And second, it turns out that Trump has no true convictions when it comes to world affairs.
He brilliantly discerned the frustrations of many Americans over the foreign policy of the
previous 16 years and hit just the right notes to leverage those frustrations during the
campaign. But his actual foreign policy has manifested a lack of consistent and strong
philosophy. Consider his approach to NATO. During the campaign he criticized the alliance's
eastward push and aggressive approach to Russia; then as president he accepted NATO's inclusion
of tiny Montenegro, a slap at the Russians; then later he suggested Montenegro's NATO status
could force the U.S. into a major conflagration if that small nation, which he described as
aggressive, got itself into a conflict with a non-NATO neighbor. Such inconsistencies are not
the actions of a man with strong convictions. They are hallmarks of someone who is winging it
on the basis of little knowledge.
That seems to have presented a marvelous opportunity to Bolton and Pompeo, whose
philosophy and convictions are stark and visible to all. Bolton has made clear his desire for
America to bring about regime change in Iran and North Korea. He supported the Iraq war and has
never wavered in the face of subsequent events. He has advocated a preemptive strike against
North Korea. Pompeo harbors similar views. He favored withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal and
has waxed bellicose on both Iran and Russia.
Thus a conflict was probably inevitable between Mattis and these more recent administration
arrivals. The New York Times speculates that Bolton likely undermined Mattis's
standing in Trump's eyes. Writes the paper: "Mr. Bolton, an ideological conservative whose
views on foreign policy are more hawkish than those of Mr. Mattis, appears to have deepened the
president's suspicions that his defense secretary's view of the world is more like those of
Democrats than his own."
The paper didn't clarify the basis of this speculation, but it makes sense. Bolton and
Pompeo are gut fighters who go for the jugular. Trump is malleable, susceptible to obsequious
manipulation. Mattis is an old-style military man with a play-it-straight mentality and a
discomfort with guile. Thus it appears we may be seeing before our eyes the transformation of
Trump the anti-establishment candidate into Trump the presidential neocon.
Bolton was put in power to ensure unswerving loyalty to the dictates of Bibi Netanyahu and
local neocons. Have we forgotten Iraq and endless wars since? We need more folks like Phil
Giraldi at TAC. Love him or hate him – but please bring him back. The First Amendment
needs him. And many of us still long for his direct and well-informed comments.
"Come on now!" as sports analysts say in a sarcastic segment about football blunders on ESPN.
Did GWB really make just an honest mistake based upon faulty intelligence? Does this writer
really believe his assertion? This intellectually dishonest essay comes on the heels of a
puff piece by another so-called "conservative" writer who asserted that had JFK not been
assassinated and won a second term, he would have surely withdrawn American soldiers from
South Vietnam. And then later in this essay the writer finally admits that these wars in the
global war on terror, excluding the war in Afghanistan, were unnecessary. But if these other
wars were unnecessary, then it historically follows they were illegal wars of aggression
against humanity. That was the legal basis under which we tried Nazi leaders as war criminals
at Numenberg. By the way, if Trump does get rid of Mattis, there are plenty more, one could
even say they are a dime a dozen, at the Pentagon who would be willing to toe the line under
Trump. They're basically professional careerists, corporate suits with misto salads of
colorful medals on their uniforms. They take their marching orders from the
military/industrial complex. I'm a Vietnam vet and realized long ago how clueless these
generals actually are when we crossed our Rubicon in Vietnam. The war on terror now rivals
the Vietnam War as a major foreign policy debacle. All these other unnecessary wars are part
of the endgame as we continue our decline as a constitutional republic and we eventually hit
bottom and go bankrupt by 2030.
Absolutely right General Manager, this is all about Israel's hold on the Oval Office. Bolton and Pompeo are far, far closer to Israel than Mattis and that's a problem for
him. Sorry Robert Merry, but you clearly didn't catch Trump's first foreign "policy" speech in
2016. He suddenly revealed his priorities for all to see. There are four words that Trump apologists simply cannot bring themselves to utter: "Trump is a neo-con". Suckers.
When was Trump's foreign policy anything but Neo-con? Oh, he had a few good lines when he was
running – that was the "con" part. I didn't fall for it but many did. But since he took
office, he's been across-the-board anti-Russian, anti-Iran, pro-Saudi, uber-Zionist, and
enthusiastic shill for the military-industrial complex.
Trump surprised many of us with some very positive conservative actions but has also
disappointed smaller government conservatives. The deficits and debt grows as the economy
improves. What in the world happens in the next recession?
Military adventurism is another disappointment. We can't afford more neocon disasters. We
don't need to be the world's police force. We should be shrinking the military budgets. It is dismaying to watch the neocons gaining power after the catastrophic failures of
recent decades.
"Still, generally speaking, anyone listening to Trump carefully before the election would
have been justified in concluding that, if he meant what he said, he would reverse America's
post-Cold War foreign policy as practiced by George W. Bush and Barack Obama."
Come on, anyone listening to Trump before the election realized that he said whatever drew
the most applause from the crowd. He never, in his entire life, has meant what he said.
He will continue down the neo-con line until Fox News and NY Times run front-page articles
about how Bolton and Pompeo are manipulating him and actually running US foreign policy, at
which time he will dump them and make up something else.
And second, it turns out that Trump has no true convictions when it comes to world
affairs.
Fixed:
And second, it turns out that Trump has no true convictions.
This is another article that attempts to overlay some sort of actual logical policy or
moral framework over the top of Trumps actions. Please stop. Next week or next month this
whole line of reasoning will be upended again and you will have to start over with another
theory that contradicts this one.
Are are you implying that Mattis is a slacker? Like, he isn't doing a good job? And,
specially, what is he failing to do?
Even if he wasn't doing anything at all, you don't fire Mattis. He is beloved among the
military. While a fair number revere and maybe even keep their own little "St. Mattis" shrine
as a joke, it is only half a joke.
Mattis is one of the few modern military generals with a cult of personality who, I have
little doubt, could declare crossing the Rubicon and would get a good number of veterans and
active marching in support.
I believe a good peaceful and appropriate "Foreign Policy" would be to:
"Arrest Them"
Arrest all those responsible for the plight of the Refugees
These people are in camps, or drowning in unfriendly seas
And when these unwanted, reach "safety," or a foreign land
They are treated like garbage and the rulers want them banned
Arrest these "rulers" who created this hell on earth
Who act, that human lives, don't have any worth
They are examples of evil and should not be in power
They really are disgraceful and an awful bloody shower
Arrest the warmongering "leaders" who create havoc around the world
Authorizing bombings and killings these "leaders" should be reviled
Instead we give them fancy titles and homes to park their asses
Will there ever be a day of reckoning and a rise up of the masses?
Arrest the financiers of these bloody wars of destruction
This is how these blood sucking parasites get their satisfaction
Drag them away in chains and handcuffs, and orange prison attire
These are the corporate cannibals who set the world on fire
Arrest the fat and plump little "honourable" Ministers of Wars
They are the "useful idiots" for the leading warmongering whores
They never fight in battle or sacrifice any of their rotten lives
They get others to do their evil work while they themselves thrive
Arrest the corporate chieftains who feed off death and destruction
And who count their bloodstained profits with smiling satisfaction
These are the well dressed demons who call their investments "creating jobs"
Meanwhile, around the world the oppressed are crying, and nobody hears their sobs
Arrest the uniformed generals who blindly obey their marching orders
To bomb, kill, maim and destroy: they are the brainwashed enforcers
Years ago there were trials for war crimes committed by those in charge
Now we need them again for we have war criminals at large
Arrest all the aforementioned, and help clean up the world
We cannot afford these people in power: Are they mentally disturbed?
They are a danger to all of us and we better wake up
Is it time to arrest all of them: Have you had enough?
[more info at links below]
"The significance here is that Bolton and Pompeo represent just about everything Trump ran
against during his 2016 presidential campaign. "
Yes. Those two names are the main reason that this lifelong Republican is voting against
Trump and the GOP in a few weeks. I voted against this kind of crap in 2016.
"[G]enerally speaking, anyone listening [..] before the election would have been justified in
concluding [Trump] would reverse America's post-Cold War foreign policy as practiced by
George W. Bush and Barack Obama."
What did Judas Goat 43 say again?
"Fool me once, shame on me. Full me twice in the long run we'll all be dead."
I guess DJT offered you a "Bad Deal" then?
Past performance does predict future results.
If Trump loses at least one house of Congress this year, he can put it down to 1) failure on
immigration and border control, 2) failure to control government spending, and 3) failure to
get us out of the Middle East.
His new neocon friends are responsible for 3) and couldn't care less about 1) and 2).
No, Mr. Merry. We knew that long ago. I don't know how much attention you've been paying,
but it's been so obvious for so long. But better late than never, I suppose.
Changing the rules, talks of changing the constitution, and the status of the SC because
Dems can't find a positive message, or a positive candidate, or persuade the candidate to
recognize and reach out to voters the Democratic party abandoned, reeks of defeatism and
worse.
Exactly.
Clinton neoliberals (aka soft neoliberals) still control the Democratic Party but no longer
can attract working-class voters. That's why they try "identity wedge" strategy trying to
compensate their loss with the rag tag minority groups.
Their imperial jingoism only makes the situation worse. Large swaths of the USA population,
including lower middle class are tired of foreign wars and sliding standard of living. They see
exorbitant military expenses as one of the causes of their troubles.
That's why Hillary got a middle finger from several social groups which previously supported
Democrats. And that's why midterm might be interesting to watch as there is no political party
that represents working class and lower middle class in the USA.
"Lesser evil" mantra stops working when people are really angry at the ruling neoliberal
elite.
control of the Senate, a relentlessly undemocratic institution
likbez 10.08.18 at 6:24 am (no link)
I think the US society is entering a deep, sustained political crisis and it is unclear what
can bring us back from it other then the collapse, USSR-style. The USA slide into corporate
socialism (which might be viewed as a flavor of neofascism) can't be disputed.
Looks like all democracies are unstable and prone to self-destruction. In modern America,
the elite do not care about lower 80% of the population, and is over-engaged in cynical
identity politics, race and gender-mongering. Anything to win votes.
MSM is still cheering on military misadventures that kill thousands of Americans,
impoverish millions, and cost trillions. Congress looks even worse. Republican House leader
Paul Ryan looks like 100% pure bought-and-paid-for tool of multinational corporations
The scary thing for me is that the USA national problems are somewhat similar to the ones
that the USSR experienced before the collapse. At least the level of degeneration of
political elite of both parties (which in reality is a single party) is.
The only positive things is that there is viable alternative to neoliberalism on the
horizon. But that does not mean that we can't experience 1930th on a new level again. Now
several European countries such as Poland and Ukraine are already ruled by far right
nationalist parties. Brazil is probably the next. So this or military rule in the USA is not
out of question.
Some other factors are also in play: one is that a country with 320 million population
can't be governed by the same methods as a country of 76 million (1900). End of cheap oil is
near and probably will occur within the next 50 years or so. Which means the end of
neoliberalism as we know it.
Tucker states that the USA's neoliberal elite acquired control of a massive chunk of the
country's wealth. And then successfully insulated themselves from the hoi polloi. They send
their children to the Ivy League universities, live in enclosed compounds with security
guards, travel in helicopters, etc. Kind of like French aristocracy on a new level ("Let them
eat cakes"). "There's nothing more infuriating to a ruling class than contrary opinions.
They're inconvenient and annoying. They're evidence of an ungrateful population Above all,
they constitute a threat to your authority." (insert sarcasm)
Donald Trump was in many ways an unappealing figure. He never hid that. Voters knew it.
They just concluded that the options were worse -- and not just Hillary Clinton and the
Democratic Party, but the Bush family and their donors and the entire Republican
leadership, along with the hedge fund managers and media luminaries and corporate
executives and Hollywood tastemakers and think tank geniuses and everyone else who created
the world as it was in the fall of 2016: the people in charge. Trump might be vulgar and
ignorant, but he wasn't responsible for the many disasters America's leaders created .
There was also the possibility that Trump might listen. At times he seemed interested in
what voters thought. The people in charge demonstrably weren't. Virtually none of their
core beliefs had majority support from the population they governed .Beginning on election
night, they explained away their loss with theories as pat and implausible as a summer
action movie: Trump won because fake news tricked simple minded voters. Trump won because
Russian agents "hacked" the election. Trump won because mouth-breathers in the provinces
were mesmerized by his gold jet and shiny cuff links.
From a reader review:
The New Elite speaks: "The Middle Class are losers and they have made bad choices, they
haven't worked as hard as the New Elite have, they haven't gone to SAT Prep or LSAT prep so
they lose, we win. We are the Elite and we know better than you because we got high SAT
scores.
Do we have experience? Uh .well no, few of us have been in the military, pulled KP, shot
an M-16 . because we are better than that. Like they say only the losers go in the
military. We in the New Elite have little empirical knowledge but we can recognize patterns
very quickly."
Just look at Haley behavior in the UN and Trump trade wars and many things became more
clear. the bet is on destruction of existing international institutions in order to save the
USA elite. A the same time Trump trade wars threaten the neoliberal order so this might well
be a path to the USA self-destruction.
On Capital hill rancor, a lack of civility and derisive descriptions are everywhere.
Respect has gone out the window. Left and right wings of a single neoliberal party (much like
CPSU was in the USSR) behave like drunk schoolchildren. Level of pettiness is simply
amazing.
The fundamental rule of democratic electoral politics is this: tribes don't win elections,
coalitions do. Trump's appeal is strongly tribal, and he has spent two years consolidating
his appeal to that tribe rather than reaching out. But he won in 2016 (or 'won') not on the
strength of that tribal appeal, but because of a coalition between core Trumpists and more
respectable conservatives and evangelicals, including a lot of people who find Trump himself
vulgar and repellent, but who are prepared to hold their noses. The cause
célèbre (or cause de l'infâme) that Kavanaugh's appointment became
ended-up uniting these two groups; the Trumpists on the one hand ('so the Libs are saying we
can't even enjoy a beer now, are they?') and the old-school religious Conservatives,
for whom abortion is a matter of conscience.
Given the weird topographies of US democratic process, the Democrats need to build a
bigger counter-coalition than the coalition they are opposing. Metropolitan liberals are in
the bag, so that means reconnecting with the working class, and galvanising the black and
youth votes, which have a poor record of converting social media anger into actual ballot-box
votes. But it also means reaching out to moderate religious conservatives, and the Dems don't
seem to me to have a strategy for this last approach at all. Which is odd, because it would
surely, at least in some ways, be easier than persuading young people to vote at the levels
old people vote. At the moment abortion (the elephant in the Kavanaugh-confirmation room) is
handled by the Left as a simple matter of structural misogyny, the desire to oppress and
control female bodies. I see why it is treated that way; there are good reasons for that
critique. But it's electorally dumb. Come at it another way instead, accept that many
religious people oppose abortion because they see it as killing children; then lead the
campaign on the fact that the GOP is literally putting thousands upon thousands of
children in concentration camps . Shout about that fact. Determine how many kids
literally die each year because their parents can't access free healthcare and put that stat
front and centre. Confront enough voters with the false consciousness of only caring about
abortion and not these other monstrosities and some will reconsider their position.
And one more thing that I have never understood about the Dems (speaking as an outsider),
given how large a political force Christianity is in your country: make more of Jimmy Carter.
He's a man of extraordinary conscience as well as a man of faith; the contrast with how he
has lived his post-Presidential life and the present occupier of the White House could
hardly, from a Christian perspective, be greater. If the Dems can make a love-thy-neighbour
social justice Christianity part of their brand, leaving Mammon to the GOP, then they'd be in
power for a generation.
"... . . . The ability of alcohol to cause short term memory problems and blackouts is due to its effects on an area of the brain called the hippocampus. The hippocampus is a structure that is vital to learning and the formation of memory. ..."
"... Why did no one ask Christine Beasley Ford how much and how often she drank in high school and in college? ..."
Alcohol, Memory, and the Hippocampus
[In adolescents] . . . cognitive processes are exquisitely sensitive to the effects of
chemicals such as alcohol. Among the most serious problems is the disruption of memory, or
the ability to recall information that was previously learned. When a person drinks
alcohol, (s)he can have a "blackout."
A blackout can involve a small memory disruption, like forgetting someone's name, or it can
be more serious -- the person might not be able to remember key details of an event that
happened while drinking. An inability to remember the entire event is common when a
person drinks 5 or more drinks in a single sitting ("binge").
. . . The ability of alcohol to cause short term memory problems and blackouts is due to
its effects on an area of the brain called the hippocampus. The hippocampus is a structure
that is vital to learning and the formation of memory.
Christine Ford claims her difficulties in her first years in college were due to "trauma"
from the attempted rape. A professor of psychology, Ford used impressive big words, (iirc)
stating that endocrine imprints such traumatic memories on the hippocampus.
So does alcohol.
Why did no one ask Christine Beasley Ford how much and how often she drank in high
school and in college?
The Kavanaugh confirmation process has been a missed opportunity for the United States to
face up to many urgent issues on which the bi-partisans in Washington, DC are united and
wrong.
Kavanaugh's career as
a Republican legal operative and judge supporting the power of corporations, the security
state and abusive foreign policy should have been put on trial. The hearings could have
provided an opportunity to confront the security state, use of torture, mass spying and the
domination of money in politics and oligarchy as he has had an important role in each of
these.
Kavanaugh's behavior as a teenager who likely drank too much and was inappropriately
aggressive and abusive with women, perhaps even attempting rape, must also be confronted. In an
era where patriarchy and mistreatment of women are being challenged, Kavanaugh is the wrong
nominee for this important time. However, sexual assault should not be a distraction that keeps
the public's focus off other issues raised by his career as a conservative political
activist.
The Security State, Mass Spying and Torture
A central issue of our era is the US security state -- mass spying on emails, Internet
activity, texts and phone calls. Judge Kavanough
enabled invasive spying on everyone in the United States . He described mass surveillance
as "entirely consistent" with the US Constitution. This manipulation of the law turns the
Constitution upside down a it clearly requires probable cause and a search warrant for the
government to conduct searches.
Kavanaugh
explained in a decision, "national security . . . outweighs the impact on privacy
occasioned by this [NSA] program." This low regard for protecting individual privacy should
have been enough for a majority of the Senate to say this nominee is inappropriate for the
court.
Kavanaugh ruled multiple times that police have the
power to search people, emphasizing "reasonableness" as the standard for searching people.
He ruled broadly for the police in searches conducted on the street without a warrant and for
broader use of drug testing of federal employees. Kavanaugh applauded Justice Rehnquist's views
on the Fourth Amendment, which favored police searches by defining probable cause in a flexible
way and creating a broad exception for when the government has "special needs" to search
without a warrant or probable cause. In this era of police abuse through stop and frisk, jump
out squads and searches when driving (or walking or running) while black, Kavanaugh is the
wrong nominee and should be disqualified.
Kavanaugh also played a role in the Bush torture policy. Torture is against US
and international law , certainly facilitating torture should be disqualifying not only as
a justice but
should result in disbarment as a lawyer . Kavanaugh was appointed by President Trump, who
once vowed he would "bring back waterboarding and a hell of a lot worse than
waterboarding." Minimizing torture is demonstrated in his rulings, e.g. not protecting
prisoners at risk of torture and not allowing people to sue the government on allegations of
torture.
Torture is a landmine in the Senate, so
Kavanaugh misled the Senate likely committing perjury on torture . In his 2006
confirmation, he said he was "not involved" in "questions about the rules governing detention
of combatants." Tens of thousands of documents have been kept secret by the White House about
Kavanaugh from the Bush era. Even so, during these confirmation hearings documents related to
the nomination of a lawyer involved in the torture program showed
Kavanaugh's role in torture policies leading Senator Dick Durbin to write : "It is clear
now that not only did Judge Kavanaugh mislead me when it came to his involvement in the Bush
Administration's detention and interrogation policies, but also regarding his role in the
controversial Haynes nomination."
Durbin spoke more broadly about perjury writing: "This is a theme that we see emerge with
Judge Kavanaugh time and time again – he says one thing under oath, and then the
documents tell a different story. It is no wonder the White House and Senate Republicans are
rushing through this nomination and hiding much of Judge Kavanaugh's record -- the questions
about this nominee's credibility are growing every day." The long list of
perjury allegations should be investigated and if proven should result in him not being
confirmed.
This should have been enough to stop the process until documents were released to reveal
Kavanaugh's role as Associate White House Counsel under George Bush from 2001 to 2003 and
as his White House Staff Secretary from 2003 to 2006. Unfortunately, Democrats have been
complicit in allowing torture as well, e.g. the Obama administration never prosecuted anyone
accused of torture and advanced the careers of people involved in torture.
Shouldn't the risk of having a torture facilitator on the Supreme Court be enough to stop
this nomination?
Corporate Power vs Protecting People and the Planet
In this era of corporate power, Kavanaugh sides with the corporations. Ralph Nader
describes him as a corporation masquerading as a judge . He narrowly limited the powers of
federal agencies to curtail corporate power and to protect the interests of the people and
planet.
This is evident in cases where Kavanaugh has favored
reducing restrictions on polluting corporations. He dissented in cases where the majority ruled
in favor of environmental protection but has never dissented where the majority ruled against
protecting the environment. He ruled against agencies seeking to protect clean air and water.
If Kavanaugh is on the court, it will be much harder to hold corporations responsible for the
damage they have done to the climate, the environment or health.
Kavanaugh takes the side of businesses over their workers with a consistent history of
anti-union and anti-labor rulings. A few examples of many, he ruledin favor of the Trump Organizatio
n throwing out the results of a union election,
sided with the management of Sheldon Adelson's Venetian Casino Resort upholding the
casino's First Amendment
right to summon police against workers engaged in a peaceful demonstration -- for which
they had a permit, affirmed the Department of Defense's discretion to negate
the collective bargaining rights of employees, and overturned an NLRB ruling that allowed
Verizon workers to display pro-union signs on company property despite having given up the
right to picket in their collective bargaining agreement. In this time of labor unrest and
mistreatment of workers, Kavanaugh will be a detriment to workers rights.
Kavanough
opposed the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) ruling in favor of net neutrality,
which forbids telecom companies from discrimination on the Internet. He argued net neutrality
violated the First Amendment rights of Internet Service Providers (ISP) and was beyond the
power granted to the FCC. He put the rights of big corporations ahead of the people having a
free and open Internet. The idea that an ISP has a right to control what it allows on the
Internet could give corporations great control over what people see on the Internet. It is a
very dangerous line of reasoning in this era of corporations curtailing news that challenges
the mainstream narrative.
Kavanaugh will be friendly to powerful business and the interests of the wealthy on the
Supreme Court, and will tend to stand in the way of efforts by administrative agencies to
regulate them and by people seeking greater rights.
On the third day of his confirmation hearings, Judge Brett Kavanaugh seemed to refer to the
use of contraception as "abortion-inducing drugs ." It was a discussion of a case where
Kavanaugh dissented from the majority involving the Priests for Life's challenge to the
Affordable Care Act (ACA). Kavanaugh opposed the requirement that all health plans cover birth
control, claiming that IUDs and emergency contraception were an infringement of their free
exercise of religion.
Kavanaugh clerked for Judge Kosinski who he describes as a mentor. Kosinski was forced to
resign after being accused of harassing at least 12 women in the sanctity of his judicial
chambers. Kavanaugh swears he never saw any signs that the judge was sexually harassing
women, but the Democrats did not ask a single question about it.
Multiple accusers
have come forward to allege Kavanaugh's involvement in sexual assault and abuse. While Dr.
Christine Blasey Ford is viewed as credible – she was the only witness allowed to testify
– it is not clear these allegations will be thoroughly reviewed. After being approved by
the committee, the Republican leadership and President Trump agreed on a limited FBI
investigation. It is unclear
whether the FBI will be allowed to follow all the evidence and question all the witnesses.
As we write this newsletter, the outcome has yet to unfold but Jeffrey St.
Clair at Countpunch points out, "the FBI investigation will be overseen by director
Christopher Wray, who was two years behind Brett-boy at both Yale and Yale Law. After
graduation, they entered the same rightwing political orbit and both took jobs in the Bush
Administration. How do you think it's going to turn out?"
Why don't Democrats, as Ralph Nader
suggests , hold their own hearing and question all the witnesses? If there is corroborating
evidence for the accusers, Kavanaugh should not be approved.
During his confirmation process, in response to the accusations of assault, he claimed they
were "a calculated and orchestrated political hit" and "revenge on behalf of the Clinton's." He
demonstrated partisan anger and displayed a lack of judicial temperament, making him unfit to
serve on the Supreme Court.
Kavanaugh exposes the true partisan nature of the highest court, which is not a neutral
arbiter but another battleground for partisan politics. The lack of debate on issues of spying,
torture and more shows both parties support a court that protects the security state and
corporate interests over people and planet. Accusations of sexual assault must be confronted,
but there are many reasons Kavanaugh should not be on the court. The confirmation process
undermines the court's legitimacy and highlights bi-partisan corruption.
"... Their testimony was usually highly emotional and impassioned, leaving an impression very similar to that conveyed last night by Dr. Ford. ..."
"... The "Recovered" (or "False") Memory Syndrome movement emerged in the midst of the steadily radicalizing Feminist Movement in the United States, probably at the very apogee of its extreme evolution, and was a movement in which Freudian therapy was central and Freudian therapists came to play the leading role. ..."
"... It was only after they had been subjected to extensive pseudo-scientific Freudian "therapy," in which sex always lay prominently at the center, that virtually all of these women came forward with these stories. ..."
"... nd, in this dispute the American ultra-Feminists chose to believe and preach the worst, most salacious, and most vicious possible interpretation of Dr. Freud's highly speculative, evidence-less, and – as subsequent study has overwhelmingly shown – completely contrived diagnoses. ..."
"... Beginning with a conviction that cocaine could provide a substantial therapeutic base for solving psychological problems, Freud seems himself to have become for a period a regular consumer of that drug, but subsequently altered the focus of his therapy to hypnosis. After realizing certain limitations to this approach, he shifted again, turning to the so-called "Talking Cure" rooted in provoking word associations, which provided the basis for the classic Freudian method of popular imagination – with the patient reclining on a couch and the good Dr. seated behind with his notebook and pen in hand. This is the method he retained for the rest of his life. ..."
"... The primary fault which has been cited for Freud's methods generally, but which has been particularly critiqued in both hypnosis and the "Talking Cure" as a reason for their invalidation, is the claim that both – at least inadvertently – incorporate the high probability of suggestion from the therapist. ..."
"... Analysis thus follows a circular course, the analyst's theoretical surmise being first subtly communicated to the patient, then confirmed by the patient's casting of his (or, more often her) own ideas within the framework which had been suggested by the analyst. In the end, nothing new is actually discovered. The patient merely replicates the expressed Freudian doctrine. ..."
"... Those women patients, and a few men, became their victims, but in turn became the perpetrators in the savaging of numerous men's lives, as these men were subjected to the most vicious accusations imaginable. Most of these accusations were, in retrospect, clearly fantasies in a ruthless mid-20th century male-witch hunt. ..."
"... Into this popular intellectual desert walks Dr. Ford, both whose personal history and her strange physical mannerisms in testimony before the Senate clearly indicate she has unfortunately suffered some form of serious psychological disturbance. ..."
"... Seemingly alienated from her own parents and most immediate family members, she has made her home as far away from the Washington, DC area ..."
"... In 2012 she underwent some sort of psychological counseling with her husband, though the details as far as I know have not emerged. But, it hardly seems likely coincidental that her first documentable expressions of antipathy to Judge Kavanaugh occurred in that year, when it was announced that Judge Kavanaugh was considered the likely Supreme Court appointee should Mit Romney win the Presidential election. Her expressions of antipathy to him have only grown from there. ..."
"... Use of weapons and tactics, of which the defender is unprepared for, is a good offense. ..."
"... Are Republicans et al. unable to understand basic military strategy? Do we lack the ability to conceive of new tactics and weapons to use against Democrats and Globalists? ..."
"... I realize that it is unacceptable to attack this poor helpless victim so the "it can't be corroborated" card has to be played. However, who else notices how carefully manicured these charges are such that they can never be falsified? This is the actual proof she is a liar and this whole thing is staged. ..."
"... She always takes everybody on some emotional ride right up to the point where she could be exposed but never with enough information so somebody could come out of the woodwork and prove she is a liar. ..."
"... We also have the infamous letter where we are repeatedly reminded she mailed it BEFORE Kavanaugh was picked. Of course, we only have Feinstein's word for that since nobody saw it until after this crap started. The delay was used to push up the story with new revelation about Mike Judge in a grocery store that shied away from her – again with no specific date so Judge could prove she is a liar. ..."
"... We also have all of our own recollections of high school insecurities and male-female interactions. What freshman or sophomore girl didn't get all giddy at the thought of the older guys hitting on her so she could tell all her friends about her older boyfriend ..."
"... Outside doors enter public areas kitchen sunroom living rooms not bedrooms. An outside door into a master bedroom with attached bathroom is a red flag that it's intended for an illegal what's called in law apartment ..."
"... Your post is very perceptive and just might be how it all went down. With the complications of couples' counseling over her demand for the bizarre double main entry doors. (lulz) Though I would think any family that built an illegal in-law apartment into their Palo Alto house and deployed it, would be ratted out by their neighbors. ..."
We still have to wait to see whether Judge Kavanaugh's appointment will go through, so the most important practical consequence
of this shameful exercise in character assassination is as yet unknown. I'm pretty sure he'll eventually be appointed.
But, I think some critical theoretical aspects of the context in which this battle was waged were definitively clarified in
the course of this shameful and hugely destructive effort by the Democrat leadership to destroy Judge Kavanaugh's reputation in
pursuit of narrow political advantage. On balance, although Judge Kavanaugh and his family were the ones who had to pay the price
for this bitter learning experience, all of us should be the long-term beneficiaries of this contest's central but often hidden
issues being brought to light and subjected to rational analysis. I want to show what I think these hidden issues are.
What this sordid affair was all about was the zombie-like return-from-the-dead of a phenomenon exposed and pretty much completely
invalidated more than thirty years ago, which never should have been permitted to raise its ugly head before an assembly of rational,
educated Americans: the "Recovered Memory" (aka "False Memory") Syndrome movement of the 1980s, in which numerous troubled, frequently
mentally off-balance, women (and a few men) came forward to declare that they had been the victims of incestual sexual abuse –
most often actual sexual intercourse – at the hands of mature male family members; usually fathers but sometimes uncles, grandfathers,
or others.
Their testimony was usually highly emotional and impassioned, leaving an impression very similar to that conveyed last
night by Dr. Ford. Many hearers were completely convinced that these events had occurred. I recall having a discussion in
the 1990s with two American women who swore up and down that they believed fully 25% of American women had been forced into sexual
intercourse with their fathers. I was dumbfounded that they could believe such a thing. But, vast numbers of American women did
believe this at that time, and many – perhaps most – may never have looked sufficiently into the follow-up to these testimonials
to realize that the vast majority of such bizarre claims had subsequently been definitively proven invalid.
The "Recovered" (or "False") Memory Syndrome movement emerged in the midst of the steadily radicalizing Feminist Movement
in the United States, probably at the very apogee of its extreme evolution, and was a movement in which Freudian therapy was central
and Freudian therapists came to play the leading role.
It was only after they had been subjected to extensive pseudo-scientific Freudian "therapy," in which sex always lay prominently
at the center, that virtually all of these women came forward with these stories. A major controversy, which arose within
the ranks of the Freudians themselves over what was the correct understanding of the Master's teachings, lay at the core of the
whole affair. A nd, in this dispute the American ultra-Feminists chose to believe and preach the worst, most salacious, and
most vicious possible interpretation of Dr. Freud's highly speculative, evidence-less, and – as subsequent study has overwhelmingly
shown – completely contrived diagnoses.
It's now known that Dr. Freud's journey to the theoretical positions which had become orthodoxy among his followers by the
mid-20th century had followed a strange, little known, possibly deliberately self-obscured, and clearly unorthodox course.
Beginning with a conviction that cocaine could provide a substantial therapeutic base for solving psychological problems, Freud
seems himself to have become for a period a regular consumer of that drug, but subsequently altered the focus of his therapy to
hypnosis. After realizing certain limitations to this approach, he shifted again, turning to the so-called "Talking Cure" rooted
in provoking word associations, which provided the basis for the classic Freudian method of popular imagination – with the patient
reclining on a couch and the good Dr. seated behind with his notebook and pen in hand. This is the method he retained for the
rest of his life.
The primary fault which has been cited for Freud's methods generally, but which has been particularly critiqued in both
hypnosis and the "Talking Cure" as a reason for their invalidation, is the claim that both – at least inadvertently – incorporate
the high probability of suggestion from the therapist. In this view, patient testimony moves subtly, and probably without
the patient's awareness, from whatever his or her own understanding might originally have been to the interpretation implicitly
propounded by the analyst. Analysis thus follows a circular course, the analyst's theoretical surmise being first subtly communicated
to the patient, then confirmed by the patient's casting of his (or, more often her) own ideas within the framework which had been
suggested by the analyst. In the end, nothing new is actually discovered. The patient merely replicates the expressed Freudian
doctrine.
The particular doctrine at hand was undergoing a critical reworking at this very time, and this important reconsideration of
the Master's meaning almost certainly constituted a major, likely the predominating, factor which facilitated the emergence of
the Recovered Memory Syndrome movement. Freudian orthodoxy at that time included as an important – seemingly its key – component
the conviction of a child's (even an infant's) sexuality, as expressed through the hypothesized Oedipus Complex for males, and
the corresponding Electra Complex for females. In these complexes, Freud speculated that sexually-based neuroses derived from
the child's (or infant's) fear of imagined enmity and possible physical threat from the same-sex parent, because of the younger
individual's sexual longing for the opposite-sex parent.
This Freudian idea, entirely new to European, American, and probably most other cultures, that children, even infants, were
the possessors of an already well-developed sexuality had been severely challenged by Christian and some other traditional authorities,
and had been met with repugnance from many individuals in Western society. But, the doctrine, as it then stood, was subject to
a further major questioning in the mid-1980s from Freudian historical researcher Jeffrey Masson, who postulated, after examining
a collection of Freud's personal writings long kept from popular examination, that the Child Sexual Imagination thesis itself
was a pusillanimous and ethically-unjustified retreat from an even more sinister thesis the Master had originally held, but which
he had subsequently abandoned because of the controversy and damage to his own career its expression would likely cause. This
was the belief, based on many of his earlier interviews of mostly women patients, that it wasn't their imaginations which lay
behind their neuroses. They had told him that they had actually been either raped or molested as infants or young girls by their
fathers. This was the secret horror hidden away in those long-suppressed writings, now brought into the light of day by Prof.
Masson.
Masson's research conclusions were initially widely welcomed within the psychoanalytical fraternity/sorority and shortly melded
with the already raging desire of many ultra-Feminist extremists to place the blame for whatever problems and dissatisfactions
women in America were encountering in their lives upon the patriarchal society by which they claimed to be oppressed. The problem
was men. Countless fathers were raping their daughters. Wow! What an incentive to revolutionary Feminist insurrection! You couldn't
find a much better justification for their man-hate than that. Bring on the Feminist Revolution! Men are not only a menace, they
are no longer even necessary for procreation, so let's get rid of them entirely. This is the sort of extreme plan some radical
Feminists advocated. Many psychoanalysts became their professional facilitators, providing the illusion of medical validation
to the stories the analysts themselves had largely engendered. Those women patients, and a few men, became their victims,
but in turn became the perpetrators in the savaging of numerous men's lives, as these men were subjected to the most vicious accusations
imaginable. Most of these accusations were, in retrospect, clearly fantasies in a ruthless mid-20th century male-witch hunt.
This radical ideology is built upon the conviction that Dr. Freud, in at least this one of his several historical phases of
interpretative psychological analysis, was really on to something. But, subsequent evaluation has largely shown that not to be
the case. The same critique which had been delivered against the Child Sexual Imagination version of Freud's "Talking Cure" analytical
method was equally relevant to this newly discovered Father Molestation thesis: all such notions had been subtly communicated
to the patient by the analyst in the course of the interview. Had thousands, hundreds of thousands, even millions of European
and American women really been raped or molested by their fathers? Freud offered no corroborating evidence of any kind, and I
think it's the consensus of most competent contemporary psychoanalysts to reject this idea. Those few who retain a belief in it
betray, I think, an ideological commitment to Radical Feminism, for whose proponents such a view offers an ever tempting platform
to justify their monstrous plans for the future of a human race in which males are subjected to the status of slaves or are entirely
eliminated.
But, the judicious conclusions of science often – perhaps usually – fail to promptly percolate down to the comprehension of
common humanity on the street, and within the consequent vacuum of understanding scheming politicians can frequently find opportunity
to manipulate, obfuscate, and distort facts in order to facilitate their own devious and often highly destructive schemes. Such,
I fear, is the situation which has surrounded Dr. Ford. The average American of either sex has absolutely no familiarity with
the history, character, or ultimate fate of the Recovered Memory Syndrome movement, and may well fail to realize that the phenomenon
has been nearly entirely disproved.
Into this popular intellectual desert walks Dr. Ford, both whose personal history and her strange physical mannerisms in
testimony before the Senate clearly indicate she has unfortunately suffered some form of serious psychological disturbance.
Seemingly alienated from her own parents and most immediate family members, she has made her home as far away from the
Washington, DC area where she was born as possible within the territorial limits of the continental United States. The focus
of her professional research and practice in the field of psychology has lain in therapeutic treatment to overcome mental and
emotional trauma, a problem she has acknowledged has been her own disturbing preoccupation for many decades. In 2012 she underwent
some sort of psychological counseling with her husband, though the details as far as I know have not emerged. But, it hardly seems
likely coincidental that her first documentable expressions of antipathy to Judge Kavanaugh occurred in that year, when it was
announced that Judge Kavanaugh was considered the likely Supreme Court appointee should Mit Romney win the Presidential election.
Her expressions of antipathy to him have only grown from there.
Dr. Ford is clearly an unfortunate victim of something or someone, but I don't believe it was Judge Kavanaugh. Almost certainly
she has been influenced in her denunciations against him by both that long-term preoccupation with her own sense of psychological
injury, whatever may have been its cause, and her professional familiarization with contemporary currents of psychological theory,
however fallacious, likely mediated by the ministrations of that unnamed counselor in 2012. Subsequently, she has clearly been
exploited mercilessly by the scheming Democratic Party officials who have viciously plotted to turn her plight to their own cynical
advantage. As in so many cases during the 1980s Recovered Memory movement, she has almost certainly been transformed by both the
scientifically unproven doctrines and the conscienceless practitioners of Freudian mysticism from being merely an innocent victim
into an active victimizer – doubling, tripling, or even quadrupling the pain inherent in her own tragic situation and aggressively
projecting it upon helpless others, in this case Judge Kavanaugh and his entire family. She is not a heroine.
A recovered memory from more than five decades ago. Violet Elizabeth, a irritating younger child who tended to tag along,
often wore expensive Kate Greenaway dresses. Her family was new money.
William was no misogynist, though. He liked and respected Joan, who was his friend. The second William book is online.
Rules-of-thumb
-- -- -- -- -- -- -
1. A good offense is the best defense.
2. An ambush backed up by overwhelming force is a good offense.
3. Use of weapons and tactics, of which the defender is unprepared for, is a good offense.
Are Republicans et al. unable to understand basic military strategy? Do we lack the ability to conceive of new tactics
and weapons to use against Democrats and Globalists?
I realize that it is unacceptable to attack this poor helpless victim so the "it can't be corroborated" card has to be played.
However, who else notices how carefully manicured these charges are such that they can never be falsified? This is the actual
proof she is a liar and this whole thing is staged.
She always takes everybody on some emotional ride right up to the point where she could be exposed but never with enough
information so somebody could come out of the woodwork and prove she is a liar.
We also have the infamous letter where we are repeatedly reminded she mailed it BEFORE Kavanaugh was picked. Of course, we
only have Feinstein's word for that since nobody saw it until after this crap started. The delay was used to push up the story
with new revelation about Mike Judge in a grocery store that shied away from her – again with no specific date so Judge could
prove she is a liar. This all reeks of testimony gone over and coached by a team of lawyers.
We also have all of our own recollections of high school insecurities and male-female interactions. What freshman or sophomore
girl didn't get all giddy at the thought of the older guys hitting on her so she could tell all her friends about her older
boyfriend
and possibility of going to the prom as a lower classman? All he had to do (assuming he wasn't repulsive physically and he was
a bit of a jock) was make the usual play of pretending to be interested and he likely would have been at least getting to first
base at the party.
From her pictures she was no Pamela Anderson and would likely have been flattered. The idea that you rape someone
without trying to get the milk handed to you on a silver platter is ridiculous.
This is another female driven hysteria based on lies like the child molestation and satanic cult hysterias of years past. Those
were all driven by crazy or politically motivated women who whipped up the rest of the ignorant females.
Outside doors enter public areas kitchen sunroom living rooms not bedrooms. An outside door into a master bedroom
with attached bathroom is a red flag that it's intended for an illegal what's called in law apartment
Your post is very perceptive and just might be how it all went down. With the complications of couples' counseling over her
demand for the bizarre double main entry doors. (lulz) Though I would think any family that built an illegal in-law apartment
into their Palo Alto house and deployed it, would be ratted out by their neighbors.
"... " The Republican and Democratic parties, or, to be more exact, the Republican-Democratic party, represent the capitalist class in the class struggle. They are the political wings of the capitalist system and such differences as arise between them relate to spoils and not to principles ..."
"... "The real question before the American people is why are they, the media, the government, MeToo feminists, the Identity Politics Democrats and liberal-progressive-left, and conservatives stone silent while Washington enables Saudia Arabia to murder the Yemeni people to the point that Yemenis have to eat leaves in a desperate attempt to survive." ..."
"... Why are vastly more people wondering whether Ford's accusations are true than those wondering how to change our FUBAR/SNAFU political system? ..."
" The Republican and Democratic parties, or, to be more exact, the Republican-Democratic party, represent the capitalist class
in the class struggle. They are the political wings of the capitalist system and such differences as arise between them relate to
spoils and not to principles ."
(The Socialist Party and the Working Class". Eugene V. Debs' opening speech as Presidential candidate of the Socialist Party in
Indianapolis, Indiana, www.marxists.org . September 1, 1904. )
I haven't paid any attention to the "Kavanaugh hearings" other than reading some headlines and some comments here and there. It's
not that I don't care about the Supreme Court, although my paying attention to this bullshit won't change a damn thing, it's more
that the entire spectacle of watching this country's political system in action, with or without sex crime accusations, makes me
sick.
I'm writing this because I clicked on an article titled,
"More Like a
Hijacking Than A Democracy, Senator Graham" because the reference to democracy interested me (we don't live in one for the ten
thousandth time). I scanned the article, which has a photo of Lindsey Graham and some suits against a wood grained background of
political importance, and saw it contained information about the process and system being followed by the oligarchy controlled duopoly.
At this point in my life, I'm adamantly against having a "Supreme" court with nine One Percenter assholes appointed for LIFE by
the duopoly unrepresentatives having the power of life, death or misery over hundreds of millions of people, and beyond when it comes
down to it. What bullshit. As with everything else in our national political system, the system and process has become so warped,
corrupt, partisan and ideological it's pathetic.
Plenty of people are asking why the process is unfolding the way it is, with the sex allegations as the focal point, but very
few are asking why we have a system like this at all. Why do we need this? Who and what is this for? Aren't there better options?
Why are we letting all these assholes do this to us? WHY do we let the corrupt and oligarchy controlled democratic and republican
parties completely control this process? In the end, isn't this just another example of how fucked up our political system is at
the national level?
"The real question before the American people is why are they, the media, the government, MeToo feminists, the Identity Politics
Democrats and liberal-progressive-left, and conservatives stone silent while Washington enables Saudia Arabia to murder the Yemeni
people to the point that Yemenis have to eat leaves in a desperate attempt to survive."
Kind of the same old, same old Paul. I think the real question is why can't enough of us organize together to challenge those that
rule us. I mean really challenge, like revolution type challenge. Overthrow these motherfuckers type challenge. This isn't new. Look
at that Debs quote, 1904. Nothing is new, we keep doing the same shit over and over. Maybe that's just the way it is, but then again,
we're smarter than that aren't we? Why aren't more people calling for/demanding radical change to our fucked up political system
completely controlled by the rich? Why are vastly more people wondering whether Ford's accusations are true than those wondering
how to change our FUBAR/SNAFU political system?
They're doing all this shit and then we're going to have another election. Shit.
An interesting hypothesis. CIA definitly became a powerful political force in the USA -- a rogue political force which starting from JFK assasination tries to control who is elected to important offices. But in truth Cavanaugh is a pro-CIA candidate so to speak. So why CIA would try to derail him.
Notable quotes:
"... I think I've figured out why they had to go to couples counseling about an outside door and why she came up with claim that she needed an outside bedroom door because she'd been assaulted 37 years ago. The Palo Alto building codes for single family homes were created to make sure single family homes remained single family and weren't chopped up into apartments. ..."
"... An outside door into a master bedroom with attached bathroom is a red flag that it's intended for an illegal what's called in law apartment ..."
"... So she wants the door. Husband says waste of money and trouble. Contractor says call me when you're ready. So they go to counseling Husband explains why the door's unreasonable. Therapist asks wife why she " really deep down" needs the door. Wife makes up the story about attempted rape 35 years ago flashbacks If only there were 2 doors in that imaginary bedroom she could have escaped. ..."
"... Kacanaugh was nominated. CIA searched for sex problems in his working life. Found nothing Searched law school and college found nothing. In desperation searched high school found nothing. Searched CIA personnel records which go back to grade school and found one of their own employees was about Kavanaugh's age and attended a high school near his and the students socialized. ..."
"... She's 3rd generation CIA. grandfather assistant director. Father CIA contractor who managed CIA unofficial band accounts. And she runs a CIA recruitment office. ..."
I think I've figured out why they had to go to couples counseling about an outside door and why she came up with claim
that she needed an outside bedroom door because she'd been assaulted 37 years ago. The Palo Alto building codes for single family
homes were created to make sure single family homes remained single family and weren't chopped up into apartments.
Outside doors enter public areas kitchen sunroom living rooms not bedrooms. An outside door into a master bedroom with
attached bathroom is a red flag that it's intended for an illegal what's called in law apartment
There's a unit It's a stove 2 ft counter space and sink. The stoves electric and plugs into an ordinary household electricity.
It's backed against the bathroom wall. Break through the wall, connect the pipes running water for the sink. Add an outside door
and it's a small apartment.
Assume they didn't want to make it an apartment just a master bedroom. Usually the contractor pulls the permits routinely.
But an outside bedroom door is complicated. The permits will cost more. It might require an exemption and a hearing They night
need a lawyer. And they might not get the permit.
So she wants the door. Husband says waste of money and trouble. Contractor says call me when you're ready. So they go to
counseling Husband explains why the door's unreasonable. Therapist asks wife why she " really deep down" needs the door. Wife
makes up the story about attempted rape 35 years ago flashbacks If only there were 2 doors in that imaginary bedroom she could
have escaped.
Kacanaugh was nominated. CIA searched for sex problems in his working life. Found nothing Searched law school and college
found nothing. In desperation searched high school found nothing. Searched CIA personnel records which go back to grade school
and found one of their own employees was about Kavanaugh's age and attended a high school near his and the students socialized.
She's 3rd generation CIA. grandfather assistant director. Father CIA contractor who managed CIA unofficial band accounts.
And she runs a CIA recruitment office.
"... "a key feature of the Roman Empire in its final slide to collapse ... shared values and consensus which had held the Empire's core together dissolved, leaving petty fiefdoms to war among themselves for what power and swag remained." ..."
"... If we understand the profound political disunity fracturing the nation and its Imperial Project, we understand the Deep State must also fracture along the same fault lines. ..."
"... If we consider the state of the nation from 40,000 feet, several key indicators of profound political disunity within the elites pop out: ..."
"... Psychopaths with no moral principles. The nation's elites are not just divided--they're exhibiting signs of schizophrenic breakdown : disassociation and a loss of the ability to discern the difference between reality and their internal fantasies. ..."
"... A funny thing happens when a nation allows itself to be ruled by Imperial kleptocrats: such rule is intrinsically destabilizing, as there is no longer any moral or political center to bind the nation together. The public sees the value system at the top is maximize my personal profit by whatever means are available , i.e. complicity, corruption, monopoly and rentier rackets , and they follow suit by pursuing whatever petty frauds and rackets are within reach: tax avoidance, cheating on entrance exams, gaming the disability system, lying on mortgage and job applications, and so on. ..."
"... But the scope of the rentier rackets is so large, the bottom 95% cannot possibly keep up with the expanding wealth and income of the top .1% and their army of technocrats and enablers, so a rising sense of injustice widens the already yawning fissures in the body politic. ..."
"... As the Power Elites squabble over the dwindling crumbs left by the various rentier rackets, there's no one left to fight for the national interest because the entire Status Quo of self-interested fiefdoms and cartels has been co-opted and is now wedded to the Imperial Oligarchy as their guarantor of financial security. ..."
"... The divided Deep State is a symptom of this larger systemic political disunity. I have characterized the divide as between the Wall Street-Neocon-Globalist Neoliberal camp--currently the dominant public face of the Deep State, the one desperately attempting to exploit the "Russia hacked our elections and is trying to destroy us" narrative--and a much less public, less organized "rogue Progressive" camp, largely based in the military services and fringes of the Deep State, that sees the dangers of a runaway expansionist Empire and the resulting decay of the nation's moral/political center. ..."
"a key feature of the Roman Empire in its final slide to collapse ...
shared values and consensus
which had held the Empire's core together dissolved, leaving petty fiefdoms to war among themselves for what power
and swag remained."
If we understand the profound political disunity fracturing the nation and its Imperial Project, we understand
the Deep State must also fracture along the same fault lines.
If we consider the state of the
nation from 40,000 feet, several key indicators of
profound political disunity within the elites
pop out:
The overt politicization of the central state's law enforcement and intelligence agencies: it is now
commonplace to find former top officials of the CIA et al. accusing a sitting president of treason in the
mainstream media. What was supposed to be above politics is now nothing but politics.
The overt politicization of the centralized (corporate) media: evidence that would stand up in a court of
law is essentially non-existent but the interpretations and exaggerations that fit the chosen narrative are
ceaselessly promoted--the classic definition of desperate propaganda by those who have lost the consent of the
governed.
Psychopaths with no moral principles.
The nation's elites are not just divided--they're exhibiting signs of schizophrenic breakdown
:
disassociation and a loss of the ability to discern the difference between reality and their internal fantasies.
It's impossible to understand the
divided Deep State
unless we situate it in the larger
context of
profound political disunity
, a concept I learned from historian Michael Grant, whose
slim but insightful volume
The
Fall of the Roman Empire
I have been recommending since 2009.
As I noted in my 2009 book
Survival+
,
this was a key feature of the Roman Empire in its final slide to collapse.
The shared values and
consensus which had held the Empire's core together dissolved, leaving petty fiefdoms to war among themselves for
what power and swag remained.
A funny thing happens when a nation allows itself to be ruled by Imperial kleptocrats:
such
rule is intrinsically destabilizing, as there is no longer any moral or political center to bind the nation
together. The public sees the value system at the top is
maximize my personal profit by whatever means are
available
, i.e. complicity, corruption, monopoly and
rentier rackets
, and they follow suit by
pursuing whatever petty frauds and rackets are within reach: tax avoidance, cheating on entrance exams, gaming the
disability system, lying on mortgage and job applications, and so on.
But the scope of the rentier rackets is so large, the bottom 95% cannot possibly keep up with the expanding
wealth and income of the top .1% and their army of technocrats and enablers, so a rising sense of injustice widens
the already yawning fissures in the body politic.
Meanwhile, diverting the national income into a few power centers is also destabilizing
, as
Central Planning and Market Manipulation (a.k.a. the Federal Reserve) are intrinsically unstable as price can no
longer be discovered by unfettered markets. As a result, imbalances grow until some seemingly tiny incident or
disruption triggers a cascading collapse, a.k.a. a phase shift or system re-set.
As the Power Elites squabble over the dwindling crumbs left by the various rentier rackets, there's no one left
to fight for the national interest because the entire Status Quo of self-interested fiefdoms and cartels has been
co-opted and is now wedded to the Imperial Oligarchy as their guarantor of financial security.
The divided Deep State is a symptom of this larger systemic political disunity.
I have
characterized the divide as between the Wall Street-Neocon-Globalist Neoliberal camp--currently the dominant
public face of the Deep State, the one desperately attempting to exploit the "Russia hacked our elections and is
trying to destroy us" narrative--and a much less public, less organized "rogue Progressive" camp, largely based in
the military services and fringes of the Deep State, that sees the dangers of a runaway expansionist Empire and
the resulting decay of the nation's moral/political center.
What few observers seem to understand is that concentrating power in centralized nodes is intrinsically
unstable.
Contrast a system in which power, control and wealth is extremely concentrated in a few nodes
(the current U.S. Imperial Project) and a decentralized network of numerous dynamic nodes.
The disruption of any of the few centralized nodes quickly destabilizes the entire system
because
each centralized node is highly dependent on the others. This is in effect what happened in the 2008-09 Financial
Meltdown: the Wall Street node failed and that quickly imperiled the entire economy and thus the entire political
order, up to and including the Global Imperial Project.
Historian Peter Turchin has proposed that the dynamics of profound political disunity (i.e. social, financial
and political disintegration) can be quantified in a Political Stress Index, a concept he describes in his new
book
Ages
of Discord
.
If we understand the profound political disunity fracturing the nation and its Imperial Project, we
understand the Deep State must also fracture along the same fault lines.
There is no other possible
output of a system of highly concentrated nodes of power, wealth and control and the competing rentier rackets of
these dependent, increasingly fragile centralized nodes.
"... Trump's nationalist fans are sick of the globalist wars that America never seems to win. They are hardly against war per se. They are perfectly fine with bombing radical Islamists, even if it means mass innocent casualties. But they have had enough of expending American blood and treasure to overthrow secular Arab dictators to the benefit of Islamists; so, it seemed, was Trump. They also saw no nationalist advantage in the globalists' renewed Cold War against Assad's ally Russian president Vladimir Putin, another enemy of Islamists. ..."
"... The Syrian pivot also seemed to fulfill the hopes and dreams of some antiwar libertarians who had pragmatically supported Trump. For them, acquiescing to the unwelcome planks of Trump's platform was a price worth paying for overthrowing the establishment policies of regime change in the Middle East and hostility toward nuclear Russia. While populism wasn't an unalloyed friend of liberty, these libertarians thought, at least it could be harnessed to sweep away the war-engineering elites. And since war is the health of the state, that could redirect history's momentum in favor of liberty. ..."
"... But then it all evaporated. Shortly after Bannon's ouster from the NSC, in response to an alleged, unverified chemical attack on civilians, Trump bombed one of Assad's airbases (something even globalist Obama had balked at doing when offered the exact same excuse), and regime change in Syria was top priority once again. The establishment media swooned over Trump's newfound willingness to be "presidential." ..."
"... Since then, Trump has reneged on one campaign promise after another. He dropped any principled repeal of Obamacare. He threw cold water on expectations for prompt fulfillment of his signature promise: the construction of a Mexico border wall. And he announced an imminent withdrawal from NAFTA, only to walk that announcement back the very next day. ..."
"... Poor white people, "the forgotten men and women of our country," have been forgotten once again. Their "tribune" seems to be turning out to be just another agent of the power elite. ..."
"... Who yanked his chain? Was there a palace coup? Was the CIA involved? Has Trump been threatened? ..."
"... Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy ..."
"... Even in a political system based on popular sovereignty, Michels pointed out that, "the sovereign masses are altogether incapable of undertaking the most necessary resolutions." This is true for simple, unavoidable technical reasons: "such a gigantic number of persons belonging to a unitary organization cannot do any practical work upon a system of direct discussion." ..."
"... " while Trump might be able to seize the presidency in spite of establishment opposition, he will never be able to wield it without establishment support." ..."
Did the Deep State deep-six Trump's populist revolution?
Many observers, especially among his fans, suspect that the seemingly untamable Trump has already been housebroken by the Washington,
"globalist" establishment. If true, the downfall of Trump's National Security Adviser Michael Flynn less than a month into the new
presidency may have been a warning sign. And the turning point would have been the removal of Steven K. Bannon from the National
Security Council on April 5.
Until then, the presidency's early policies had a recognizably populist-nationalist orientation. During his administration's first
weeks, Trump's biggest supporters frequently tweeted the hashtag #winning and exulted that he was decisively doing exactly what,
on the campaign trail, he said he would do.
In a flurry of executive orders and other unilateral actions bearing Bannon's fingerprints, Trump withdrew from the Trans-Pacific
Partnership, declared a sweeping travel ban, instituted harsher deportation policies, and more.
These policies seemed to fit Trump's reputation as the "
tribune of poor white people
," as he has been called; above all, Trump's base calls for protectionism and immigration restrictions. Trump seemed to be delivering
on the populist promise of his inauguration speech (thought to be written by Bannon), in which he said:
"Today's ceremony, however, has very special meaning. Because today we are not merely transferring power from one administration
to another, or from one party to another – but we are transferring power from Washington, D.C. and giving it back to you, the American
People.
For too long, a small group in our nation's Capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost.
Washington flourished – but the people did not share in its wealth. Politicians prospered – but the jobs left, and the factories
closed.
The establishment protected itself, but not the citizens of our country. Their victories have not been your victories; their
triumphs have not been your triumphs; and while they celebrated in our nation's capital, there was little to celebrate for struggling
families all across our land.
That all changes – starting right here, and right now, because this moment is your moment: it belongs to you.
It belongs to everyone gathered here today and everyone watching all across America. This is your day. This is your celebration.
And this, the United States of America, is your country.
What truly matters is not which party controls our government, but whether our government is controlled by the people. January
20th 2017, will be remembered as the day the people became the rulers of this nation again. The forgotten men and women of our country
will be forgotten no longer.
Everyone is listening to you now." [Emphasis added.]
After a populist insurgency stormed social media and the voting booths, American democracy, it seemed, had been wrenched from
the hands of the Washington elite and restored to "the people," or at least a large, discontented subset of "the people." And this
happened in spite of the establishment, the mainstream media, Hollywood, and "polite opinion" throwing everything it had at Trump.
The Betrayal
But for the past month, the administration's axis seems to have shifted. This shift was especially abrupt in Trump's Syria policy.
Days before Bannon's fall from grace, US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley declared that forcing Syrian president Bashar al-Assad
from power was no longer top priority. This too was pursuant of Trump's populist promises.
Trump's nationalist fans are sick of the globalist wars that America never seems to win. They are hardly against war per se. They
are perfectly fine with bombing radical Islamists, even if it means mass innocent casualties. But they have had enough of expending
American blood and treasure to overthrow secular Arab dictators to the benefit of Islamists; so, it seemed, was Trump. They also
saw no nationalist advantage in the globalists' renewed Cold War against Assad's ally Russian president Vladimir Putin, another enemy
of Islamists.
The Syrian pivot also seemed to fulfill the hopes and dreams of some antiwar libertarians who had pragmatically supported Trump.
For them, acquiescing to the unwelcome planks of Trump's platform was a price worth paying for overthrowing the establishment policies
of regime change in the Middle East and hostility toward nuclear Russia. While populism wasn't an unalloyed friend of liberty, these
libertarians thought, at least it could be harnessed to sweep away the war-engineering elites. And since war is the health of the
state, that could redirect history's momentum in favor of liberty.
But then it all evaporated. Shortly after Bannon's ouster from the NSC, in response to an alleged, unverified chemical attack
on civilians, Trump bombed one of Assad's airbases (something even globalist Obama had balked at doing when offered the exact same
excuse), and regime change in Syria was top priority once again. The establishment media swooned over Trump's newfound willingness
to be "presidential."
Since then, Trump has reneged on one campaign promise after another. He dropped any principled repeal of Obamacare. He threw cold
water on expectations for prompt fulfillment of his signature promise: the construction of a Mexico border wall. And he announced
an imminent withdrawal from NAFTA, only to walk that announcement back the very next day.
Here I make no claim as to whether any of these policy reversals are good or bad. I only point out that they run counter to the
populist promises he had given to his core constituents.
Poor white people, "the forgotten men and women of our country," have been forgotten once again. Their "tribune" seems to be turning
out to be just another agent of the power elite.
Who yanked his chain? Was there a palace coup? Was the CIA involved? Has Trump been threatened? Or, after constant obstruction,
has he simply concluded that if you can't beat 'em, join 'em?
The Iron Law of Oligarchy
Regardless of how it came about, it seems clear that whatever prospect there was for a truly populist Trump presidency is gone
with the wind. Was it inevitable that this would happen, one way or another?
One person who might have thought so was German sociologist Robert Michels, who posited the "iron law of oligarchy" in his 1911
work Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy .
Michels argued that political organizations, no matter how democratically structured, rarely remain truly populist, but inexorably
succumb to oligarchic control.
Even in a political system based on popular sovereignty, Michels pointed out that, "the sovereign masses are altogether incapable
of undertaking the most necessary resolutions." This is true for simple, unavoidable technical reasons: "such a gigantic number of
persons belonging to a unitary organization cannot do any practical work upon a system of direct discussion."
This practical limitation necessitates delegation of decision-making to officeholders. These delegates may at first be considered
servants of the masses:
"All the offices are filled by election. The officials, executive organs of the general will, play a merely subordinate part,
are always dependent upon the collectivity, and can be deprived of their office at any moment. The mass of the party is omnipotent."
But these delegates will inevitably become specialists in the exercise and consolidation of power, which they gradually wrest
away from the "sovereign people":
"The technical specialization that inevitably results from all extensive organization renders necessary what is called expert
leadership. Consequently the power of determination comes to be considered one of the specific attributes of leadership, and is gradually
withdrawn from the masses to be concentrated in the hands of the leaders alone. Thus the leaders, who were at first no more than
the executive organs of the collective will, soon emancipate themselves from the mass and become independent of its control.
Organization implies the tendency to oligarchy. In every organization, whether it be a political party, a professional union,
or any other association of the kind, the aristocratic tendency manifests itself very clearly."
Trumped by the Deep State
Thus elected, populist "tribunes" like Trump are ultimately no match for entrenched technocrats nestled in permanent bureaucracy.
Especially invincible are technocrats who specialize in political force and intrigue, i.e., the National Security State (military,
NSA, CIA, FBI, etc.). And these elite functionaries don't serve "the people" or any large subpopulation. They only serve their own
careers, and by extension, big-money special interest groups that make it worth their while: especially big business and foreign
lobbies. The nexus of all these powers is what is known as the Deep State.
Trump's more sophisticated champions were aware of these dynamics, but held out hope nonetheless. They thought that Trump would
be an exception, because his large personal fortune would grant him immunity from elite influence. That factor did contribute to
the independent, untamable spirit of his campaign. But as I
predicted
during the Republican primaries:
" while Trump might be able to seize the presidency in spite of establishment opposition, he will never be able to wield it
without establishment support."
No matter how popular, rich, and bombastic, a populist president simply cannot rule without access to the levers of power. And
that access is under the unshakable control of the Deep State. If Trump wants to play president, he has to play ball.
On these grounds, I advised his fans over a year ago, " don't hold out hope that Trump will make good on his isolationist rhetoric
" and anticipated, "a complete rapprochement between the populist rebel and the Republican establishment." I also warned that, far
from truly threatening the establishment and the warfare state, Trump's populist insurgency would only invigorate them:
"Such phony establishment "deaths" at the hands of "grassroots" outsiders followed by "rebirths" (rebranding) are an excellent
way for moribund oligarchies to renew themselves without actually meaningfully changing. Each "populist" reincarnation of the power
elite is draped with a freshly-laundered mantle of popular legitimacy, bestowing on it greater license to do as it pleases. And nothing
pleases the State more than war."
Politics, even populist politics, is the oligarchy's game. And the house always wins.
Dan Sanchez is the Digital Content Manager at the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE), developing educational and inspiring
content for FEE.org , including articles and courses. The originally appeared on the
FEE website and is reprinted with the author's permission.
In my own words then. According to Cook the power elites goal is to change its
appearance to look like something new and innovative to stay ahead of an electorate who are
increasingly skeptical of the neoliberalism and globalism that enrich the elite at their
expense.
Since they do not actually want change they find actors who pretend to represent change
, which is in essence fake change. These then are their insurgent candidates
Trump serves the power elite , because while he appears as an insurgent against the
power elite he does little to change anything
Trump promotes his fake insurgency on Twitter stage knowing the power elite will counter
any of his promises that might threaten them
As an insurgent candidate Trump was indifferent to Israel and wanted the US out of
Syria. He wanted good relations with Russia. He wanted to fix the health care system,
rebuild infrastructure, scrap NAFTA and TTIPS, bring back good paying jobs, fight the
establishment and Wall Street executives and drain the swamp. America First he said.
Trump the insurgent president , has become Israel's biggest cheerleader and has launched
US missiles at Syria, relations with Russia are at Cold War lows, infrastructure is still
failing, the percentage of people working is now at an all time low in the post housewife
era, he has passed tax cuts for the rich that will endanger medicare, medicaid and social
security and prohibit infrastructure spending, relaxed regulations on Wall Street, enhanced
NAFTA to include TTIPS provisions and make US automobiles more expensive, and the swamp has
been refilled with the rich, neocons , Koch associates, and Goldman Sachs that make up the
power elites and Deep State Americas rich and Israel First
@34 pft... regarding the 2 cook articles.. i found they overly wordy myself...
however, for anyone paying attention - corbyn seems like the person to vote for given how
relentless he is being attacked in the media... i am not so sure about trump, but felt cook
summed it up well with these 2 lines.. "Trump the candidate was indifferent to Israel and
wanted the US out of Syria. Trump the president has become Israel's biggest cheerleader and
has launched US missiles at Syria." i get the impression corbyn is legit which is why the
anti-semitism keeps on being mentioned... craig murrary is a good source for staying on top
of uk dynamics..
(a) talk coherently
(b) have some kind of movement consisting of people that agree with what is says -- that
necessitates (a)
Then he could staff his Administration with his supporters rather than a gamut of
conventional plutocrats, neocons, and hacks from the Deep State (intelligence, FBI and
crazies culled from Pentagon). As it is easy to see, I am describing an alternate reality.
Who is a Trumpian member of the Administration? His son-in-law?
The swamps been filled with all kinds of vile creatures since the Carter administration.
This is when the US/UK went full steam ahead with neoliberal globalism with Israel directing
the war on terror for the Trilateral Empire (following Bibis Jerusalem conference so as to
fulfill the Yinon plan). 40 years of terror and financial mayhem following the coup that took
place from 1963-1974. After Nixons ouster they were ready to go once TLC Carter/Zbig kicked
off the Trilateral era. Reagan then ran promising to oust the TLC swamp but broke his
promise, as every President has done since .
"... If Trump backs the British looneys in the UN security council in a day or two we can all be sure he is now a puppet on a British string and that point will be seen by USA voters. ..."
"... Any leader that lets a foreign nation, Britain, try to destroy his family, presidential campaign and now presidency by assembling and publishing a dirt dossier without response is a coward. If Trump wont stand up to Hillary Clinton, Theresa May, or any of the dossier conspirators, then he is useless. The USA voters see that no matter what the spin but the swing voters more than any other actually discriminate and make judgements based on actions ..."
"... They are in a quandary and only Trump can cement their support by going after the perpetrators NOW and telling the EU loonies like Britain and France to F off with their belligerent war mongering. I wouldn't count on it. ..."
More notions on USA election so excuse a repeat post all. I figure an enormous number of
voters reeled in horror at the prospect of a Hillary Clinton president and voted for Trump.
Will that horror revert to more democrat support now?
Are those swing voters now uncertain if the $hillary will stage a come back. Nothing
absolute has been stated and the demoncrats go through the motions of 'thinking about'
another stooge like creepy Joe Biden. The USA is not liberated from the 'Clinton option'
yet.
More to the point though is that repeatedly implied and sometimes stated 'certainty' that
the DOJ/FBI under its new Trumpian management has a thousand grand jury indictments pending
to be actioned in October or something. The Trumpers are certain that their hero is about to
slay the many headed dragon and they have been anticipating that move for some time. Sure
there appears to be sufficient evidence to draw and quarter a couple of seriously stupid
clowns.
Given Trumps kneeling to the British Skripal poisoning 'hate russia' hoax I suspect there
is no chance he will go after Christopher Steele or any of the senior demoncrat conspirers no
matter how much he would love to sucker punch Theresa May and her nasty colleagues. If
Trump backs the British looneys in the UN security council in a day or two we can all be sure
he is now a puppet on a British string and that point will be seen by USA voters.
Any leader that lets a foreign nation, Britain, try to destroy his family,
presidential campaign and now presidency by assembling and publishing a dirt dossier without
response is a coward. If Trump wont stand up to Hillary Clinton, Theresa May, or any of the
dossier conspirators, then he is useless. The USA voters see that no matter what the spin but
the swing voters more than any other actually discriminate and make judgements based on
actions .
They are in a quandary and only Trump can cement their support by going after the
perpetrators NOW and telling the EU loonies like Britain and France to F off with their
belligerent war mongering. I wouldn't count on it.
"... If the so-called "Resistance" to Trump was ever actually interested in opposing this administration in any meaningful way, this would be the top trending news story in America for days, like how "bombshell" revelations pertaining to the made-up Russiagate narrative trend for days. Spoiler alert: it isn't, and it won't be. ..."
"... The US Senate has just passed Trump's mammoth military spending increase by a landslide 92–8 vote . The eight senators who voted "nay"? Seven Republicans, and Independent Bernie Sanders. Every single Democrat supported the most bloated war budget since the height of the Iraq war . Rather than doing everything they can to weaken the potential damage that can be done by a president they've been assuring us is a dangerous hybrid of equal parts Benedict Arnold and Adolf Hitler, they've been actively increasing his power as Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful military force the world has ever seen. ..."
"... They're on the same team, wearing different uniforms. ..."
"... US politics is pretty much the same; two mainstream parties owned by the same political class, engaged in a staged bidding war for votes to give the illusion of competition. ..."
"... In reality, the US political system is like the unplugged video game remote that kids give their baby brother so he stops whining that he wants a turn to play. No matter who they vote for they get an Orwellian warmongering government which exists solely to advance the agendas of a plutocratic class which has no loyalties to any nation; the only difference is sometimes that government is pretending to care about women and minorities and sometimes it's pretending to care about white men. In reality, all the jewelers work for the same plutocrat, and that video game remote won't impact the outcome of the game no matter how many buttons you push. ..."
"... The only way to effect real change is to stop playing along with the rigged system and start waking people up to the lies. As long as Americans believe that the mass media are telling them the truth about their country and their partisan votes are going somewhere useful, the populace whose numbers should give it immense influence is nullified and sedated into a passive ride toward war, ecocide and oppression. ..."
"... Reprinted with author's permission from Medium.com . ..."
"... Support Ms. Johnstone's work on Patreon or Paypal ..."
A new article from the Wall Street
Journal reports that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo
lied to congress about the measures Saudi Arabia is taking to minimize the civilian
casualties in its catastrophic war on Yemen, and that he did so in order to secure two billion
dollars for war profiteers.
This is about as depraved as anything you could possibly imagine. US-made bombs have
been conclusively tied to civilian deaths in a war which has caused the single worst
humanitarian crisis on earth, a crisis which sees
scores of Yemeni children dying every single day and has
placed five million children at risk of death by starvation in a nation where families are
now eating
leaves to survive . CIA veteran Bruce Riedel
once said that "if the United States of America and the United Kingdom tonight told King
Salman that this war has to end, it would end tomorrow, because the Royal Saudi Airforce cannot
operate without American and British support." Nobody other than war plutocrats benefits from
the US assisting Saudi Arabia in its monstrous crimes against humanity, and yet Pompeo chose to
override his own expert advisors on the matter for fear of hurting the income of those very war
plutocrats.
If the so-called "Resistance" to Trump was ever actually interested in opposing this
administration in any meaningful way, this would be the top trending news story in America for
days, like how "bombshell" revelations pertaining to the made-up Russiagate narrative trend for
days. Spoiler alert: it isn't, and it won't be.
It would be so very, very easy for Democratic party leaders and Democrat-aligned media to
hurt this administration at the highest level and cause irreparable political damage based on
this story. All they'd have to do is give it the same blanket coverage they've given the
stories about Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos and Paul Manafort which
end up leading nowhere remotely near impeachment or proof of collusion with the Russian
government. The footage of the starving children is right there, ready to be aired to pluck at
the heart strings of rank-and-file Americans day after day until Republicans have lost all hope
of victory in the midterms and in 2020; all they'd have to do is use it. But they don't. And
they won't.
The US Senate has just passed Trump's mammoth military spending increase by
a landslide 92–8 vote . The eight senators who voted "nay"? Seven Republicans, and
Independent Bernie Sanders. Every single Democrat supported the most bloated war budget
since the
height of the Iraq war . Rather than doing everything they can to weaken the potential
damage that can be done by a president they've been assuring us is a dangerous hybrid of equal
parts Benedict Arnold and Adolf Hitler, they've been actively increasing his power as
Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful military force the world has ever seen.
The reason for this is very simple: President Trump's ostensible political opposition does
not oppose President Trump. They're on the same team, wearing different uniforms. This is the
reason they attack him on Russian collusion accusations which the brighter bulbs among them
know full well will never be proven and have no basis in reality. They don't stand up to Trump
because, as Julian Assange once said , they are
Trump.
In John Steinbeck's The Pearl, there are jewelry buyers set up around a fishing community
which are all owned by the same plutocrat, but they all pretend to be in competition with one
another. When the story's protagonist discovers an enormous and valuable pearl and goes to sell
it, they all gather round and individually bid far less than it is worth in order to trick him
into giving it away for almost nothing. US politics is pretty much the same; two mainstream
parties owned by the same political class, engaged in a staged bidding war for votes to give
the illusion of competition.
In reality, the US political system is like the unplugged video game remote that kids give
their baby brother so he stops whining that he wants a turn to play. No matter who they vote
for they get an Orwellian warmongering government which exists solely to advance the agendas of
a plutocratic class which has no loyalties to any nation; the only difference is sometimes that
government is pretending to care about women and minorities and sometimes it's pretending to
care about white men. In reality, all the jewelers work for the same plutocrat, and that video
game remote won't impact the outcome of the game no matter how many buttons you push.
The only way to effect real change is to stop playing along with the rigged system and start
waking people up to the lies. As long as Americans believe that the mass media are telling them
the truth about their country and their partisan votes are going somewhere useful, the populace
whose numbers should give it immense influence is nullified and sedated into a passive ride
toward war, ecocide and oppression.
If enough of us keep throwing sand in the gears of the lie
factory, we can wake
the masses up from the oligarchic lullaby they're being sung. And then maybe we'll be big
enough to have a shot at grabbing one of the real video game controllers.
Reprinted with author's permission from
Medium.com .
"... Trump's new saber rattling against Syria, Russia and Iran goes beyond pure irony and will certainly fuel rumors embraced by critics that he is becoming senile. When Trump was running for the Presidency, he sang a radically different tune: ..."
"... If Vladimir Putin wants to launch airstrikes inside Syria, that's no problem for Donald Trump, who said Wednesday that he believes Russia's military moves in Syria are targeting ISIS and that the United States shouldn't interfere. ( https://www.cnn.com/2015/09/30/politics/donald-trump-syria-don-lemon/index.html ) 1 October 2015 ..."
"... However, Trump did note the complexity of the situation on the ground in Syria, pointing out in reference to Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad that Putin "is an Assad person" and "the United States doesn't like Assad". He went on to condemn the Obama administration for "backing people who they don't know who they are", and to warn that rebels backed by the United States "could be Isis" ..."
"... President Donald Trump warned Syria and its allies Russia and Iran on Monday against attacking the last major rebel stronghold of Idlib province in the country's northwest. "President Bashar al-Assad of Syria must not recklessly attack Idlib Province," Trump wrote on Twitter. "The Russians and Iranians would be making a grave humanitarian mistake to take part in this potential human tragedy. Hundreds of thousands of people could be killed. Don't let that happen!" ( https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/03/politics/trump-syria-tweet-assad-rebel-idlib/index.html ) 4 September 2018 ..."
"... In a recent discussion about Syria, people familiar with the exchange said, President Trump threatened to conduct a massive attack against Mr. Assad if he carries out a massacre in Idlib, the northwestern province that has become the last refuge for more than three million people and as many as 70,000 opposition fighters that the regime considers to be terrorists. ( https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-says-syria-plans-gas-attack-in-rebel-stronghold-1536535853?mod=mktw ) 9 September 2018 ..."
Trump's new saber rattling against Syria, Russia and Iran goes beyond pure irony and will certainly fuel rumors embraced by critics
that he is becoming senile. When Trump was running for the Presidency, he sang a radically different tune:
If Vladimir Putin wants to launch airstrikes inside Syria, that's no problem for Donald Trump, who said Wednesday that he believes
Russia's military moves in Syria are targeting ISIS and that the United States shouldn't interfere. (
https://www.cnn.com/2015/09/30/politics/donald-trump-syria-don-lemon/index.html
) 1 October 2015
Addressing Russia's intervention in the Syrian conflict, which has so far
disproportionately targeted rebel-held areas with no Isis presence, Trump expressed confidence that Vladimir Putin would eventually
target the Islamic State. "He's going to want to bomb Isis because he doesn't want Isis going into Russia and so he's going to want
to bomb Isis," Trump said of the Russian president. "Vladimir Putin is going to want to really go after Isis, and if he doesn't it'll
be a big shock to everybody."
However, Trump did note the complexity of the situation on the ground in Syria, pointing out in reference
to Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad that Putin "is an Assad person" and "the United States doesn't like Assad". He went on to condemn
the Obama administration for "backing people who they don't know who they are", and to warn that rebels backed by the United States
"could be Isis". (
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/13/donald-trump-foreign-policy-doctrine-nation-building
) 13 October 2015.
That was then. Now Trump is chest thumping and trash talking Syria and Russia like the recently deceased John McCain. He now appears
ready to lead the NeoCon Conga line into an escalation of the war in Syria:
President Donald Trump warned Syria and its allies Russia and Iran on Monday against attacking the last major rebel stronghold
of Idlib province in the country's northwest. "President Bashar al-Assad of Syria must not recklessly attack Idlib Province," Trump
wrote on Twitter. "The Russians and Iranians would be making a grave humanitarian mistake to take part in this potential human tragedy.
Hundreds of thousands of people could be killed. Don't let that happen!" (
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/03/politics/trump-syria-tweet-assad-rebel-idlib/index.html
) 4 September 2018
In a recent discussion about Syria, people familiar with the exchange said, President Trump threatened to conduct a massive attack
against Mr. Assad if he carries out a massacre in Idlib, the northwestern province that has become the last refuge for more than
three million people and as many as 70,000 opposition fighters that the regime considers to be terrorists. (
https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-says-syria-plans-gas-attack-in-rebel-stronghold-1536535853?mod=mktw
) 9 September 2018
In an Op-Ed in WSJ:
https://www.wsj.com/article...
"Moderate rebels played a key role in Turkey's fight against terrorists in Northern #Syria; their assistance and guidance will
be crucial in Idlib as well"
Yep wonder where all those moderate rebels aka foreign jihadis came through after landing in IST.
Putin told him off in Tehran and now he is back on the fence or on the FUKUS side.
Guess Qatar must be pushing him to play nice by flooding him with billions .
WSJ is really hoping to get the war going . This is a second article /op-ed two days in a row.
Fisk is an old school journalist who doesn't sport a parting in his tongue. I've found him to be very reliable in his reporting.
His latest report reveals that despite considerable searching over a 2 day period, he could find no massed Syrian troops around
Idlib ready for the looming ground battle.
It's not like you can miss 100,000 men and all the supporting equipment; armoured vehicles,, kitchens, field hospitals, tent
cities etc. No Hezbollah, no Russians.
Which raises the question: are we being played here?
The US has no more authority to interfere in Syria domestic affairs than Syria has to interfere in US domestic affairs.
>Syrian President Bashar Assad has authorized his forces to use chlorine gas in the assault on the last significant rebel redoubt
in the country, The Wall Street Journal reported Sunday. Who can doubt the Wall Street Journal?
>The Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods
of Warfare, usually called the Geneva Protocol, is a treaty prohibiting the use of chemical and biological weapons in international
armed conflicts.
> The Protocol was Signed at Geneva June 17, 1925, and Entered into force February 8, 1928, and the convention were ratified by
President Ford on January 22, 1975.
>Chlorine itself is not a chemical weapon. It's a toxic industrial chemical that is very useful to purify water. It's really very
important to have clean water to avoid water borne diseases. But chlorine is a chemical agent that effects the eyes and the ability
to breath. When mixed with water it produces hydrochloride acid. It's not a very efficient chemical weapon because we can sense
it when it's not very toxic yet. So you can run away. Using chlorine gas is not prohibited as such, but using chlorine gas as
a weapon is prohibited in international armed conflicts.
We can be certain that the jihadi White Helmets will stage an "outrage" event, since Bolton and Nikki have already stated what
the US response would be. The media I'm sure have their playbook already figured out and ready to create the necessary media hysteria.
The last two times Trump fired a few missiles and called it a day. Woodward however claims that his "anonymous" sources say
that Trump wanted to assassinate Assad and Mattis walked it back to token missile strikes. Woodward also claims that the #Resistance
in the White House are doing whatever they want and Trump is for all intents and purposes rather clueless about what they're up
to. If this has any credence would it be possible that Bolton and Nikki and the other ziocons in the White House orchestrate a
provocation by the jihadis that will then be setup to "we need a muscular response to show who's boss". You know the all too familiar
argument that the US needs to act to retain credibility.
All this is coming just before the mid-terms which is a pivotal election for Trump. If he loses the House then he's up shit
creek with Dems running all kinds of investigations and Mueller emboldened. How does he calculate the political implications of
a deeper military engagement in Syria? IMO, many who supported him in the last election will not be very happy and their enthusiasm
may waver which could be the difference in close races. OTOH, there is a perception that his economic team and policies are making
a positive difference and that is benefiting the Deplorables.
Obama lost big time in his first mid-terms and did very poorly for the Democrats in both federal and state elections during
his term as president. Yet the Democrat establishment has continued to back him. That may not happen with Trump as the GOP establishment
will find the opportunity to go back to their traditional ways if Trump can't hold the House.
It is really becoming unlearn why the Deep State hates Trump so much and tries to depose him. He became a typical neocon,
Republican Obama, another "bait and switch" artist with slogan "Make America Great Again" (MAGA) as equivalent to Obama's fake
"Change we can believe in".
May be Deep State has so many skeletons in the closet (811 is one) that he can only allow CIA controlled puppets as
Presidents (looks like Clinton, Bush and Obama were such puppets).
Notable quotes:
"... If you believe Trump is trying to remove neocons(Deep State) from the government, explain Bolton and many other Deep State denizens Trump has appointed. ..."
"... Drain the Swamp? Trump and his sidekick Jared K inhabit the murkiest depths of that Swamp. But people will say Tubby's being forced into a corner and just has to appoint neoCON psychopaths like Bolton. Then explain Trump appointing Nutty Nikki to the UN, at the start of his presidency? Israeli PM wanted Nutty in that job and after watching her unhinged performances in the UNGA, I see why; she's a Shabbos Goy, more than willing to do anything Israel asks, and BTW, keep me in mind for that POTUS opening, OK guys? ..."
"... MAGA was Trump's 'Hope and Change' mantra that many bought. ..."
"... Trump made and lost four multi-billion dollar fortunes while using NYC as his home base. Then made another multi-billion dollar fortune. One doesn't do that in NYC unless you're in bed with the same gangsters that have been looting this nation for decades, those TBTF Wall Street banks that us peasants are forced to bail-out every 10 or so years. ..."
"... Trump was bought and paid for a long time ago, now he's paying off his helpers by doing their dirty work around the word while the 'marks,' us Americans, get our pockets picked. ..."
Another great
article by Mr. Giraldi. If Trump can't get the neocons out of the government, who possibly
can?
In liberals derangement over Trump, and willingness to support anything that challenges his
2016 America First (anti-interventionist) campaign, they're willing to support the old order
for fear of an "isolationist," or realist one, taking its place. If there's a large scale
intervention, it'll be interesting to see what kind of left-liberal/dissident-right anti-war
movement emerges, and if that furthers the deformation of the normative "liberal"
"conservative" divide.
Another great article by Mr. Giraldi. If Trump can't get the neocons out of the
government, who possibly can?
If you believe Trump is trying to remove neocons(Deep State) from the government, explain
Bolton and many other Deep State denizens Trump has appointed.
If you believe Trump is trying to remove neocons(Deep State) from the government,
explain Bolton and many other Deep State denizens Trump has appointed.
Agreed.
Drain the Swamp? Trump and his sidekick Jared K inhabit the murkiest depths of that
Swamp. But people will say Tubby's being forced into a corner and just has to appoint neoCON
psychopaths like Bolton. Then explain Trump appointing Nutty Nikki to the UN, at the start of
his presidency? Israeli PM wanted Nutty in that job and after watching her unhinged
performances in the UNGA, I see why; she's a Shabbos Goy, more than willing to do anything
Israel asks, and BTW, keep me in mind for that POTUS opening, OK guys?
MAGA was Trump's 'Hope and Change' mantra that many bought.
Trump made and lost four multi-billion dollar fortunes while using NYC as his home base. Then
made another multi-billion dollar fortune. One doesn't do that in NYC unless you're in bed
with the same gangsters that have been looting this nation for decades, those TBTF Wall
Street banks that us peasants are forced to bail-out every 10 or so years.
Trump was bought and paid for a long time ago, now he's paying off his helpers by doing
their dirty work around the word while the 'marks,' us Americans, get our pockets picked.
"... We Americans are totally subject to ziocon propaganda when it comes to Middle East affairs. Anyone that disagrees with that viewpoint is immediately labeled anti-semitic and now banned from social media and of course from the TV talk shows. ..."
"... Jack posed an interesting question, how does someone like Putin respond to an irrational US who in their delusions can easily escalate military conflict if their ego gets bruised when it is shown that they don't have the unilateral power of a hegemon? ..."
"... Always thought that Nikki Haley was the price Donald Trump had to pay to get Sheldon Adelson's large campaign contributions in 2016. Adelson was Trump's second biggest contributor. So was recognition of Jerusalem as the Israeli capital. Sheldon got his money's worth. https://www.investopedia.co... ..."
"... Nikki Haley's Sikh origins may have something to do with her anti-Muslim feelings. ..."
"... it is hypocritical in the extreme for the U.S. to be criticising anyone for killing people anywhere after what they have been doing in the Middle East. According to Professor Gideon Polya the total avoidable deaths in Afghanstan alone since 2001 under ongoing war and occupation-imposed deprivation amount to around three million people, about 900,000 of whom are infants under the age of five (see Professor Gideon Polya at La Trobe University in Melbourne book, 'Body Count: Global Avoidable Mortality Since 1950' and Washington DC-based Physicians for Social Responsibility study: http://www.psr.org/assets/p... . ..."
"... Is it in our DNA that we can't learn lessons from our interventionist experience in the Middle East? Looks like Iraq is spinning out of control once again. I'm sure many including the Shia may reminisce favorably to the Sadam years despite his tyranny. https://ejmagnier.com/2018/... ..."
"... We are indoctrinated with the idea that all people are basically the same. In fact this is only true at the level of basics like shelter, food, sex, etc. We refuse to really believe in the reality of widely varying cultures. It makes us incapable, as a group, of understanding people who do not share our outlook. i have been dealing with this all my life as a delegated "ambassador" to the "others." ..."
"... In this context, if you were Vladimir Putin and knowing that President Trump is completely ignorant when it comes to history and policy details and has surrounded himself with neocons as far as foreign policy is concerned and Bibi has him eating out of his hands, how would you deal with him if he starts to get belligerent in Syria and Ukraine? ..."
"... Did the Syrians get upset by General Sherman's destructive march through South Carolina? No. It was a mistake for the US ever getting involved in Syria, with forming, equipping and training foreign armies and shadow governments including replacement prime ministers, all in violation of the UN Charter. ..."
"... Trump is more savagely and ignorantly aggressive. ..."
"... Trump, Nikki and Bolton have been tweeting warnings about the Idlib offensive and already accusing Assad if there are any chemical attacks. Wonder why? Lavrov has also made comments that he expects a chemical use false flag. Not sure about this post on Zerohedge, but if it has any credibility then it would appear that the US military is getting ready for some kind of provocation. ..."
"In her statement during the UN Security Council briefing, Haley said that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and its "enablers,"
Russia and Iran have a playbook for the war in Syria. First, they surround a civilian area. Next, they make the "preposterous claim
that everyone in the area is a terrorist," thus making all civilians targets. That is followed by a "starve and surrender" campaign,
during which Syrian security forces keep attacking until the people no longer have food, clean water, or shelter. "It's a playbook
of death. The Assad regime has spent the last seven years refining it with Russia and Iran's help."
According to her it has happened many times before, in July 2018 it happened in Dara'a and the southwest of Syria, where Syrian
forces "trapped and besieged civilians." In February 2018, it was Ghouta. In 2017 it was Aleppo, and prior to that places like Madaya
and Hama.
According to her, Assad's government has left the country in ruins. "The atrocities committed by Assad will be a permanent stain
on history and a black mark for this Council -- which was blocked over and over by Russia from taking action to help," Nikki Haley
said." SF
------------
Well, strictly speaking, her parents were immigrants, not she. She was born in Bamberg, South Carolina, a little town in the Piedmont
that is majority Black. Her parents were professional people at Amritsar in the Punjab. Haley is the surname of her husband. Nikki
is a nickname by which she has long been known. As governor, she was in favor of flying the Confederate flag on the Statehouse grounds
before the Charleston massacre of Black Christians at a Bible study session. They were killed by an unstable white teen aged misfit
whom they had invited to join their worship. After that Nikki discovered that the Confederate flag was a bad and disruptive symbol.
It was a popular position across the country and Nikki became an instant "hit," the flavor of the month so to speak.
I suppose that she was supposed to be an interesting and decorative figure as UN ambassador. She is quite pretty and the South
Carolina accent adds to the effect.
The positions she has taken at the UN with regard to the ME are similar to those expressed by her boss, President Trump. They
are largely reflections of images projected by the popular and mass media operating as Zionist propaganda machines. I don't believe
that the State Department's INR analytic bureau believes the crapola that she spouts with such hysteric fervor. I don't believe that
my former friend David Satterfield believes the crapola. So, where does she get ideas like the ones quoted above? IMO she is trying
to out-Trump Trump. DJT is a remarkably ignorant man concerning the geo-politics of just about everything in the ME. He appears to
have once seen the film, "Exodus" and to have decided on the basis of Paul Newman's performance as Begin that the situation was and
is quite simple - Israel good! Everyone else bad! Nikki's depth of knowledge appears to be just about the same.
She also appears to me to be in receipt of a stream of opinion from various Zionist and anti-Muslim groups probably related to
the anti-Muslim ravings of Maronite and other Christian ME extremists.
These groups cannot seem to understand that alliances shift as does policy. They don't seem to understand that Israel's policy
in Syria is no longer regime change. They never seem to have understood that the Syrian government is the protector of the religious
minorities against Sunni jihadi fanatics.
They don't seem to understand that the Syrian government has no choice but to recover Idlib Province, a piece of Syria's heartland.
pl
Haley's "playbook" is used by the US but not by Russia & Iran as she claims, with all civilians being targeted. Instead, Russia
& Iran have taken warfare to a higher and better level, allowing the armed factions to surrender their arms and get on a bus or
be killed, and many of them took the bus to preserve their lives until the final offensive. A third option, which many of them
took, was to join the SAA and fight against their former comrades. All of this statecraft was revolutionary, and was not at all
as Haley described, including the crocodile tears over Syrian lives which has never been honest especially considering the level
of support Assad has within Syria.
I agree it is revolutionary, at least in modern times in the western world. I wonder if it will set a "trend": a more humane way
to wage war. I am sure it will be studied in war colleges.
One observation I had while thinking about the Ambassador Haley quote you provided (which I think supports the point you
were making in your post):
When the US was in a somewhat similar situation during the occupation of Iraq, where Sunni militants were in open rebellion
and controlling towns like Fallujah, our response wasn't wildly different to the Syrian government's response. The US gov't at
the time typically labeled any armed resistance "terrorists", and while they might acknowledge that there were civilians in those
territories in addition to terrorists, they were just "human shields" and "regrettable collateral damage". Did the US try a little
harder, and have a bit better of technology, training, etc, and do a little bit better of trying to limit damage to civilians
when crushing those uprisings? Yes. But we're mostly talking modest quantitative differences in response, not fundamentally morally
superior qualitative differences. I bet you if you took pictures of towns like Fallujah, Sadr City, etc, after US counter-insurgency
operations, and mixed them in with pictures of trashed Syrian towns that had just been liberated from rebel groups, and showed
them to Nikki Haley, or frankly any neocon, they'd have a hard time telling the difference.
As I was reading this topic Raqqa and Fallujah came to mind. In the case of Fallujah I don't recall if the civilians were given
an opportunity to evacuate. They were not in ISIS controlled Raqqa. In any event Haley's blather at the UN is for the consumption
of the rubes.
as far as i recall in the battle for fallujah, only women and children were permitted to leave during the siege.and during the
siege of Mosul they were dropping leaflets telling people not to try and leave.
And giving civilians a chance to evacuate doesn't help as much as one would think if the insurgents/rebels really do want to use
them as human shields.
Speaking to young marines in the aftermath of the second assault on Fallujah I learned that although women and children were allowed
to pass the checkpoints but men of fighting age (also known as the father, brother or husband who was driving the families out
of the city) were sent back into the city.
In talking with people here in the U.S. about Syria there is the total lack of understanding of Assad's Alawite government. There
are a couple million Christians in Syria and it is Assad's government that protects them from the Saudi sponsored Sunni headchoppers
who would like to eliminate Christians, Jews, and Shia from the Middle East. Perhaps, the Alawites being an offshoot of Shia makes
them sensitive to minority religions. However, mentioning Assad evokes strong negative reaction among U.S. Christians, similar
to Trumps "lets kill them all". On my one visit to Damascus, traveling on my U.S. Passport rather than my Israeli one, The Christians
I met were uniformly positive about Assad and the need for Assad to control the ENTIRE country.
Thank you for providing your direct experience of the views of Christian Syrians you met there.
Unfortunately none of those views ever make it to either to our print or broadcast media. We Americans are totally subject
to ziocon propaganda when it comes to Middle East affairs. Anyone that disagrees with that viewpoint is immediately labeled anti-semitic
and now banned from social media and of course from the TV talk shows.
Jack posed an interesting question, how does someone like Putin respond to an irrational US who in their delusions can
easily escalate military conflict if their ego gets bruised when it is shown that they don't have the unilateral power of a hegemon?
Always thought that Nikki Haley was the price Donald Trump had to pay to get Sheldon Adelson's large campaign contributions
in 2016. Adelson was Trump's second biggest contributor. So was recognition of Jerusalem as the Israeli capital. Sheldon got his
money's worth.
https://www.investopedia.co...
There's a disturbing piece up today at WaPo by Karen De Young asserting the USA is doubling down in Syria. From the piece, emphasis
by ex-PFC Chuck:
"We've started using new language," [James] Jeffrey said, referring to previous warnings against the use of chemical weapons.
Now, he said, the United States will not tolerate "an attack. Period." "Any offensive is to us objectionable as a reckless
escalation" he said. "You add to that, if you use chemical weapons, or create refugee flows or attack innocent civilians,"
and "the consequences of that are that we will shift our positions and use all of our tools to make it clear that we'll have
to find ways to achieve our goals that are less reliant on the goodwill of the Russians."
Jeffrey is said to be Pompeo's point person on Syria. Do any of you with ears closer to the ground than those of us in flyover
land know anything about this change of tune?
.Iraq PM urged to quit as key ally deserts him over unrest.
Iraqi Prime Minister Haider Al-Abadi faced calls to resign yesterday as his alliance with a populist cleric who won May elections
crumbled over deadly unrest shaking the country's south. The two leading groups in parliament called on Abadi to step down, after
lawmakers held an emergency meeting on the public anger boiling over in the southern city of Basra.,...
The Conquest Alliance of pro-Iranian former paramilitary fighters was "on the same wavelength" as Sadr's Marching Towards Reform
list and they would work together to form a new government, Assadi said. Abadi, whose grouping came third in the May polls, defended
his record in parliament, describig the unrest as "political sabotage" and saying the crisis over public services was being exploited
for political ends.
http://news.kuwaittimes.net...
Nikki Haley's Sikh origins may have something to do with her anti-Muslim feelings. According to J. D Cunningham, author
of 'History of the Sikhs (Appendix XX)' included among the injunctions ordained by Guru Gobind Singh, the tenth guru, 'a Khalsa
(true Sikh) proves himself if he mounts a warhorse; is always waging war; kills a Khan (Muslim) and slays the Turks (Muslims).'
Aside from this, it is hypocritical in the extreme for the U.S. to be criticising anyone for killing people anywhere after
what they have been doing in the Middle East. According to Professor Gideon Polya the total avoidable deaths in Afghanstan alone
since 2001
under ongoing war and occupation-imposed deprivation amount to around three million people, about 900,000 of whom are infants
under the age of five (see Professor Gideon Polya at La Trobe University in Melbourne book, 'Body Count: Global Avoidable Mortality
Since 1950' and Washington DC-based Physicians for Social Responsibility study:
http://www.psr.org/assets/p... .
Your good professor sounds like a great piece of work. "Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950" Perhaps we should have
stopped all that foreign aid in the '50s.
The under five mortality figures from Afghanistan (1 in 5) are a problem that preceded our involvement by many years. However,
the failure of the international community to make any significant progress over the last 17 years would be a legitimate criticism.
Is it in our DNA that we can't learn lessons from our interventionist experience in the Middle East? Looks like Iraq is
spinning out of control once again. I'm sure many including the Shia may reminisce favorably to the Sadam years despite his tyranny.
https://ejmagnier.com/2018/...
We are indoctrinated with the idea that all people are basically the same. In fact this is only true at the level of basics
like shelter, food, sex, etc. We refuse to really believe in the reality of widely varying cultures. It makes us incapable, as
a group, of understanding people who do not share our outlook. i have been dealing with this all my life as a delegated "ambassador"
to the "others."
Thank you, Sir. It makes perfect sense with the End if History and all those beliefs.
In this context, if you were Vladimir Putin and knowing that President Trump is completely ignorant when it comes to history
and policy details and has surrounded himself with neocons as far as foreign policy is concerned and Bibi has him eating out of
his hands, how would you deal with him if he starts to get belligerent in Syria and Ukraine?
You may be interested in a recent article in Unz by SST's own 'smoothieX12' in response to Paul Craig Roberts asking how long
Russia should continue to turn the other cheek:
http://www.unz.com/article/...
Did the Syrians get upset by General Sherman's destructive march through South Carolina? No. It was a mistake for the US ever
getting involved in Syria, with forming, equipping and training foreign armies and shadow governments including replacement prime
ministers, all in violation of the UN Charter.
A new PM was at the top of H.Clinton's to-do list as Secretary of State. My favorite Assad replacement candidate was Ghassan
Hitto from Murphy Texas, but he only lasted a couple months.
here
I don't trust converts except for the adjustment from Protestant to Catholic or vice versa. I suppose shifts from one madhab to
another, or between Buddhist schools are also ok.
Sad that in a moment of crisis,so many of the rising political stars of both parties are so hollow to the point of dangerousness.
Has anything really changed much with our policies in the ME in the past 50+ years? Haven't we been deeply influenced/controlled
by Israeli interests in this period, maybe even beyond if the attacks on USS Liberty are taken into account? Is the Trump administration
just following in the traditions of Reagan, Bush Père et fils, Clinton and Obama, or is there a qualitative difference?
Trump, Nikki and Bolton have been tweeting warnings about the Idlib offensive and already accusing Assad if there are any
chemical attacks. Wonder why? Lavrov has also made comments that he expects a chemical use false flag. Not sure about this
post on Zerohedge, but if it has any credibility then it would appear that the US military is getting ready for some kind of provocation.
Maybe this is all just "positioning" and "messaging" but maybe not. With Bibi, Nikki, Bolton and Pompeo as THE advisors, does
anyone have a clue what Trump decides, when, not if, the jihadi White Helmets stage their chemical event in Idlib?
The United States today qualifies as a plutocracy – on a number of grounds, and it is having a profound impact on the media, education
and think tanks–indeed on the whole of society, says Michael Brenner.
Plutocracy literally means rule by the rich. "Rule" can have various shades of meaning:
those who exercise the authority of public office are wealthy; their wealth explains why they hold that office; they exercise that
authority in the interests of the rich; they have the primary influence over who holds those offices and the actions they take.
These aspects of "plutocracy" are not exclusive. Moreover, government of the rich and for the rich need not be run directly by
the rich. Also, in some exceptional circumstances rich individuals who hold powerful positions may govern in the interests of the
many, for example Franklin Roosevelt.
The United States today qualifies as a plutocracy – on a number of grounds. Let's look at some striking bits of evidence. Gross
income redistribution upwards in the hierarchy has been a feature of American society for the past decades. The familiar statistics
tell us that nearly 80 percent of the national wealth generated since 1973 has gone to the upper 2 percent and 65 percent to the
upper 1 per cent. Estimates for the rise in real income for salaried workers over the past 40 years range from 20 percent to 28 percent.
In that period, real GDP has risen by 110 percent – it has more than doubled.
To put it somewhat differently, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the top earning 1 percent of households gained about
8 times more than those in the 60 percentile after federal taxes and income transfers between 1979 and 2007 and 10 times those in
lower percentiles.
In short, the overwhelming fraction of all the wealth created over two generations has gone to those at the very top of the income
pyramid.
That pattern has been markedly accelerated since the financial crisis hit in 2008. Between 2000 and 2012, the real net worth of
90 percent of Americans has declined by 25 percent. Meanwhile, Warren Buffet, Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates et al, i.e. the wealthiest
1 percent of the world's population, now own more than half of the world's wealth (according to a Credit Suisse report in Nov. 2017).
Croesus is green with envy.
Not By Accident
Theoretically, there is the possibility that this change is due to structural economic features operating nationally and internationally.
That argument won't wash, though, for three reasons.
Plutocrat Bezos at the Pentagon with then Defense Secretary Ash Carter, May 2016. (Wikimedia Commons)
First, there is every reason to think that such a process has accelerated over the past nine years during which disparities have
widened at a faster rate. Second, other countries (many even more enmeshed in the world economy) have seen nothing like the drastic
phenomenon occurring in the United States. Third, the readiness of the country's political class to ignore what has been happening,
and the absence of remedial action that could have been taken, in themselves are clear indicators of who shapes thinking and determines
public policy.
In addition, several significant governmental actions have been taken that directly favor the moneyed interests. This includes
the dismantling of the apparatus to regulate financial activities specifically and big business generally.
Runaway exploitation of the system by predatory banks was made possible by the Clinton "reforms" of the 1990s and the lax application
of those rules that still prevailed. Former Attorney General Eric Holder, let's recall, went so far as to admit that the Department
of Justice's decisions on when to bring criminal charges against the biggest financial institutions will depend not on the question
of legal violations alone but would include the hypothetical effects on economic stability of their prosecution. (Those adverse effects
are greatly exaggerated).
Earlier, Holder had extended blanket immunity to Bank of America and other mortgage lenders for their apparent criminality in
forging through robo-signing of foreclosure documents on millions of home owners. In brief, equal protection and application of the
law has been suspended. That is plutocracy.
Moreover, the extremes of a regulatory culture that, in effect, turns public officials into tame accessories to financial abuse
emerged in stark relief at the 2013 Levin Committee
hearings on J P Morgan Chase's 'London Whale" scandal. Morgan officials stated baldly that they chose not to inform the Controller
of the Currency about discrepancies in trading accounts, without the slightest regard that they might be breaking the law, in the
conviction that it was Morgan's privilege not to do so.
Senior regulators explained that they did not see it as their job to monitor compliance or to check whether claims made by their
Morgan counterparts were correct. They also accepted abusive treatment, e.g. being called "stupid" to their face by senior Morgan
executives. That's plutocracy at work. The Senate Finance Committee hearing drew only 3 senators – yet another sign of plutocracy
at work. When mega-banks make illicit profits by money laundering for drug cartels and get off with a slap on the wrist, as has HSBC
and others, that too is plutocracy. FDR, it rightly is said, saved American capitalism. Barack OBAMA saved predatory financial capitalism.
When the system of law that is meant to order the workings of society without reference to ascriptive persons is made malleable
in the hands of officials to serve the preferred interests of some, it ceases to be a neutral instrument for the common good. In
today's society, it is becoming the instrument of a plutocracy.
The financial behemoths and big business in general can count on sympathetic justices to bail them out when cornered by prosecutors.
The United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Preet Bharara, was making an earnest attempt to call to account
several predators when the New York Supreme Court pulled the rug out from under him. Their generous interpretation of the dubious
Supreme Court decision on wrongful trading cases upheld the overturning of the conviction of Michael S. Steinberg, the highest-ranking
officer of notorious hedge fund
SAC Capital Advisors . Bharara was obliged to
drop seven outstanding cases against the Wall Street biggies.
Corporate Tax Dodging
There are myriad other examples of complicity between legislators or regulators, on the one hand, and special business interests
on the other. Environmental Protection Agency judgments that are reversed under the combined pressure of the commercial interests
of affected and beholden politicians is one. The government's decision not to seek the power to bargain with pharmaceutical companies
over the price of drugs paid for with public funds is another. Tolerance for the concealment of offshore profits in the tens of billions
is a third. This last is the most egregious.
Taking a bite out of public finances: Apple paid zero taxes.
Some of the most profitable companies pay little or no federal taxes. Apple is outstanding among them – it has paid zero. Facebook
and Microsoft follow closely behind. General Electric received a tax refund in 2015 – after revenues of $8 billion. Its global tax
rate in all jurisdictions was 3.2 percent.
In California, several corporate giants (including Apple and Genentech) have launched an aggressive campaign in an unprecedented
effort to be reimbursed for real estate taxes on the grounds that their assets have been over-assessed – and their profits unfairly
cut. The Silicon Valley town of Cupertino hosts the world headquarters of Apple, which built its vast campus there in 2014. It has
13,000 employees. How much does it pay the city of Cupertino for the services provided? $6,000.
Apple has rejected polite suggestions that it might raise that amount on grounds that doing so would be in contradiction of its
business model. The threat of packing up and moving the whole shebang to Sheboygan is hardly credible given the multi-billion investment
in concrete and glass. Apple's power to get its way is political and cultural. Cupertino, by the way, was a prosperous town before
Apple set up shop there.
Even in Seattle, bastion of progressive politics, Amazon has shown how easily it can intimidate and muscle politicos to do its
bidding. A path-breaking corporate tax was enacted in May that would raise $50 million annually to help cover the cost of desperately
needed affordable housing programs. It was passed unanimously by the City Council to nation-wide acclaim.
In June it was scuttled by a 7-2 vote. What had happened to produce this 'epiphany?' Simple – Amazon announced that it was suspending
all expansion plans for Seattle, and were joined by Microsoft, Starbucks and others in a declaration of war against the city. Mayor
Jenny Durkin caved in: "We heard you," she said while waving the white flag and bowing to her masters.
In short, a city besieged by barbarians saved itself by enslaving itself. Thereby, Seattle is little different from an old style
corporate run mill town like Bethlehem or Scranton, Pennsylvania. That's our bright high-tech future under plutocracy.
Please note: Seattle and Silicon Valley are where Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and other Democratic leaders go to plead for money
from hedge fund vultures and IT billionaires to fund their 'Republican-lite' 'reform' campaigns.
Über Alles
The ethic of corporate entitlement is carried to its extreme by Uber. The company flouts laws and regulations as a matter of course.
It exploits its disposable gig workers to build a clientele and then tells local authorities that if they enforce the rules, Uber
will leave – and leave angry voters behind. Currently, they are hotly contesting a ruling of the California Supreme Court that its
throw-away workers are not "independent contractors." In its typical aggressive fashion, Uber leaders are buying politicians and
stirring its promoters to get a legislative exception. Board member Ariana Huffington, former progressive activist, is in full support.
So it goes in a plutocracy.
Relaxed interpretations of the tax laws by the IRS to the advantage of high income persons can be added to the list. So, too,
can the give-away to sole source contractors of the tens of billions squandered in Iraq and Afghanistan. The number of such direct
assists to big business and the wealthy is endless.
The point is that government, at all levels, serves particular selfish interests no matter who holds high positions. While there
is some difference between Republicans and Democrats on this score, it has narrowed on most major items to the point that the fundamental
properties of the biased system are so entrenched as to be impervious to electoral outcomes. The most revealing experience that we
have of that harsh reality is the Obama administration's strategic decision to allow Wall Street to determine how and by whom the
2008 financial crisis would be handled.
Systemic biases are the most crucial factor is creating and maintaining plutocratic orientations of government. They are confirmed,
and reinforced, by the identities and identifications of the persons who actually hold high elected office.
Our leaders are nearly all rich by any reasonable standard. Most are very rich. Trump's cabinet is dominated by billionaires.
Those who weren't already rich have aspired to become so and have succeeded. The Clintons are the striking case in point. That aspiration
is evinced in how they conduct themselves in office.
DeVos: One of several Trump Cabinet billionaires. (Michael Vadon)
Congress, for its part, is composed of two rich men/women's clubs. In many cases, personal wealth helped win them their offices.
In many others, they knit ties with lobbies that provided the necessary funds. Former Senator Max Baucus should have worn a Big Pharma
jersey, like soccer players, if truth in advertising rules pertained. Whether they are "bought off" in some sense or other, they
surely are often coopted. The most insidious aspect of cooptation is to see the world from the vantage point of the advantaged and
special economic interests.
Democrats' Devolution
The devolution of the Democratic Party from being the representative of ordinary people to being just "another bunch of guys"
is a telling commentary on how American politics has degenerated into a plutocracy. The party's rolling over to accommodate the interests
of the wealthy has been a theme of the past decade or longer.
From the Obama White House to the halls of Congress, party leaders (and most followers) have conceded the dominance of conservative
ideas about macro-economic strategy (the austerity dogma), about retaining largely untouched the for-profit health care "non-system,"
about bailing out the big financial players at the expense of everyone else and the economy's stability, and about degrading Social
Security and Medicare. The last item is the most egregious – and revealing – of our plutocratic ways and means. For it entails a
combination of intellectual deceit, blatant massaging of the numbers, and disregard for the human consequences in a time of growing
distress for tens of millions. In other words, there is no way to conceal or spin the trade-offs made, who is being hurt and who
would continue to enjoy the advantages of skewed fiscal policies.
The most compelling evidence of how the money interests shape American politics is the systematic disregard for the most overt
manifestations of predatory capitalism. Consider the tax exemption corporate leaders have granted themselves by devising ingenious
ways of incorporating themselves in tax havens (or even no-tax cyber space) where all profits are registered via the manipulation
of transfer pricing – as noted above. Yet, there is not a single bit of proposed legislation to remedy this gross misappropriation
of wealth being considered by either branch of the United States Congress. It was raised, albeit tangentially and briefly, by only
one candidate in the 2016 election – Bernie Sanders.
No one is raising it in this year's mid-terms. As for the hedge fund/private equity vultures, they were singled out for denunciation
by Newt Gingrich – of all people – back in the 2012 Republican primaries against Mitt Romney. It was the main reason for his surprise
victory in South Carolina. Then came the much publicized debate in Florida. To everyone's surprise, Gingrich was completely silent
about hedge funds and never mentioned Romney's career as a hedge fund predator. What happened? The Party heavies made him a proposition
he could not refuse: either shut up or you'll never eat lunch again in Washington. Fold up your lucrative consultancy, turn in your
celebrity card, and start getting your new wife accustomed to dinners at Eat & Park.
The Media's Job
In 1884 when major media took on the plutocracy before the plutocracy took over the media. (Wikimedia Commons)
There is another, absolutely crucial dimension to the consolidation of America's plutocracy. It is controlling the means to shape
how the populace understands public matters and, thereby, to channel thought and behavior in the desired direction. Our plutocratic
guides, prophets and trainers have been enormously successful in accomplishing this. One object of their efforts has been to render
the media into either conscious allies or to denature them as critics or skeptics. Their success is readily visible.
Who in the media has challenged the plutocracy serving falsehood that Social Security and Medicare are the main cause of our deficits
whose imminent bankruptcy puts in jeopardy the American economy? Who even bothers to inform the public that those two programs' trust
funds draw on a separate revenue source from the rest of the budget? Answer: no one in or near the mainstream media.
Who has performed the most elementary service in pointing out that of all the jobs created since 2009, small as the number has
been, 60 percent at least have been either part-time or temporary? Answer: again, no one. Who has bothered to highlight the logical
flaws in the market fundamentalist view of the world that has so deformed perceptions of what works and doesn't work in macro-economic
management? Yes, Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz and a handful of others – although even Krugman's colleagues writing on business and
economics at The New York Times seem not to have the time to read him or else lack the wit to comprehend what he is saying.
Think Tank Takeovers
A second objective in a similar vein has been to dominate the think tank/foundation world. Today, nearly every major Washington
think tank depends on corporate money. Businessmen sit on the boards and shape research programs. Peter G. Peterson, the hedge fund
billionaire, took the more direct route of acquiring the International Institute of Economics, renaming it after himself. He then
set about using it as an instrument to carry on the campaign against Social Security which has become his life's work.
Then there is Robert Rubin. Rubin is the distilled essence of financial malpractice, and the embodiment of the government-Wall
Street nexus that brought the country to wrack and ruin. Author of Clinton's deregulation program while Secretary of the Treasury:
later super lobbyist and Chairman of the conglomerated super bank CITI (only made possible by his deregulation) in the years before
it was pulled from the brink of bankruptcy by Ben Bernanke, Hank Paulson and Tim Geithner; and adviser to Barack Obama who stocked
the new administration with Rubin protégés. He since has ensconced himself as Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations and Director
of the highly prestigious, lavishly funded Hamilton Project at Brookings. By happenstance, both organizations late last year featured
presentations by Jaime Dimon, chairman and CEO of JPMorgan Chase, America's biggest bank. The presentation was billed as a forum
for a leading global CEO to share priorities and insights before a high-level audience of CFR members. This is plutocracy in action.
Education Undermined
The third objective has been to weaken public education. We have witnessed the assault on our public elementary school system
in the name of effectiveness, efficiency and innovation. Charter schools are the watchword. Teachers are blamed as the heart of the
problem. So privatization, highly profitable privatization, is sold as the solution to save America's youth in the face of ample
evidence to the contrary. Cast aside is the historical truth that our public school system is the one institution, above all others,
that made American democracy. It also is a bastion of enlightened social thinking. It thereby qualifies as a target.
The same goes for the country's proud network of public universities. From state to state, they are starved for funding and made
sacrificial lambs on the altar of the austerity cult. They, too, are stigmatized as "behind the times," as no longer doing the job
of supplying the business world with the obedient, practical skilled workers it wants. Business schools, long a dependency of the
corporate world, are held up as the model for private-public partnership in higher education. Distance learning, often managed by
for-profit "expert" consultants or "entrepreneurs", is advertised as the wave of a bright future – a future with fewer liberal-leaning
professors with fuzzy ideas about the good society. Distance learning is the higher education companion to the charter school fad.
Lots of promises, little delivery, but well conceived to advance a plutocracy friendly agenda.
The University of Virginia. (Karen Blaha)
Here, too, boards of regents are led by business men or women. The abortive coup at the University of Virginia was instigated
by the rector who is a real estate developer in Virginia Beach. The chairman of the Board of Regents at the University of Texas system
where tensions are at a combustible level is a real estate developer. The chairman at the University of California is CEO of two
private equity firms – and the husband of Senator Diane Feinstein. His pet project was to have the moneys of the California teacher's
pension fund (CALPERS) placed in the custody of private financial houses. Two former directors of the fund currently are under criminal
investigation for taking very large kick-backs from other private equity firms to whom they directed monies – and which later employed
them as 'placers.' That's plutocracy at work.
Money as the Measure of All Things
The ultimate achievement of a plutocracy is to legitimize itself by fixing in the minds of society the idea that money is the
measure of all things. It represents achievement, it is the sine qua non for giving people the things they most want. It is the gauge
of an individual's worth. It is the mark of status in a status anxious culture. That way of seeing the world describes the outlook
of Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and Donald Trump. It is Obama who, at the height of the financial meltdown, lauded Jaime Dimon and
Lloyd Blankfein, Goldman Sachs CEO, as "savvy and successful businessmen." It is Obama who eagerly became Dimon's golfing buddy –
an Obama who twice in his career took jobs with corporate law firms. It was Bill Clinton who has been flying the world in corporate
jets for the past twelve years. It is the two of them who promoted Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles to press for the crippling of
Social Security. That's plutocracy pervading the leadership ranks in both parties of what used to be the American republic.
Perhaps the most extraordinary achievement of the plutocracy's financial wing has been to convince the political class that its
largely speculative activities are normal. Indeed, they are feted as being the economy's principal reason for growth. Their ruse
follows that their own well-being is essential to the well-being of the national economy and, therefore, they deserve privileged
treatment.
Subtlety, discretion and restraint are foreign to their buccaneering style with deep roots in the country's culture and history.
Their behavior is often impulsive and grasping: greedy to display what they can get away with and that they are top dogs. They are
playing with the nation's wealth to enrich themselves rather than manage an economy.
There is little interest in building anything that might endure – no 'new order,' no new party, no new institutions. Not even
physical monuments to themselves. Why bother when the existing set-up works so well now to your advantage and your like-minded and
like-interested associates who can turn ideas, money and policies in their direction with ease.
Meanwhile the public is blind to how they are being deluded and abused, thanks in large part to a supine news media. Little changes
in a country whose civic ideology imbues the populace with the firm belief that its principles and institutions embody unique virtue.
Challenging that is a threat to plutocrats and the media and the educational system they run or influence.
A Wall Street Police State
Wall Street, March 2012. (Michael Fleshman)
One of the most stunning examples of direct plutocratic involvement in the state was Wall Street's audacity in coopting a part
of the NYC Police Department in setting up a semi-autonomous unit to monitor the financial district.
Funded by Goldman Sachs et al, managed in part by private bank employees in key administrative positions, and with an explicit
mandate to prevent and deal with any activity that threatens them, it operates with the latest high tech equipment out of a dedicated
facility provided by its sponsors. The facility for years was kept "under the counter" so as not to tempt inquisitive parties to
expose it. This is the unit that coordinated squelching of the Occupy Movement's Manhattan demonstrations. It represents the appropriation
of a public agency to serve and to serve under private interests.
The post-9/11 hyper-anxiety provided political and ideological cover for a deal devised by Mayor Mike Bloomberg (himself a Wall
Street billionaire who went down the line to defend Wall Street against all charges of financial abuse) in collusion with his former
associates. Is this simply Bloomberg exposing NYC's fiscal dependency on financial sector jobs?
This is the same Bloomberg who killed a widely supported initiative to set a minimum decent wage of $10 an hour with health insurance
($11.50 without) on development projects that receive more than $1 million in taxpayer subsidies. He stigmatized the measure as "a
throwback to the era when government viewed the private sector as a cash cow to be milked . The last time we really had a big managed
economy was the USSR and that didn't work out so well." That's as plutocratic as it gets – and in liberal New York.
No Conspiracy Necessary
Furthermore, the moving parts of plutocracy are not well organized. There is no conspiracy as such. It is the convergence of outlook
and self-interests among disparate persons in different parts of the system that has accomplished a revolution in American public
life, public discourse, and public philosophy.
Nobody had to indoctrinate Barack Obama in 2008-2009 or intimidate him or bribe him. He
came to the plutocrats on his own volition with his mind-set and values already in conformity with the plutocracy's view of itself
and of America. This is the man who, for the first two years of his presidency, repeatedly misstated the coverage of the Social Security
Act of 1935 – ignorant and not bothering to find out, or willfully ignorant so as to create a convenient comparison with his fatally
flawed health care pseudo-plan. This was the man, after all, who cited Ronald Reagan as a model for what sort of presidency America
needed. He has been living proof of how effectively Americans had been brought into line with the plutocratic vision.
This is not to say that the plutocrats' success was inevitable – or that they were diabolically clever in manipulating everything
and everyone to their advantage. There has been a strong element of good fortune in their victory. Their most notable piece of luck
has been the ineptitude and shortsightedness of their potential opposition – liberal Democrats, intellectuals, professional asociations
and their like. The plutocrats pursued their goals in a disorganized, diffuse way. However, the absence of an opponent on the contested
terrain ensured success.
Not Smart
As for cleverness, the American plutocracy is actually a stupid plutocracy. First, it overreaches. Far better to leave a few goodies
on the table for the 99 percent and even a few crumbs for the 47 percent than to risk generating resentment and retaliation.
Since the financial meltdown, financial and business interests have been unable to resist picking the pockets of the weak. Fishing
out the small change in the wake of grand larceny is rubbing salt into wounds. Why fight a small rise in the minimum wage? Why ruthlessly
exploit all those temps and part-timers who have so little in the way of economic or political power anyway? Why squeeze every last
buck from the small depositors and credit card holders whom you already systematically fleece? In the broad perspective, that sort
of behavior is stupid.
To explain it, we must look to the obsession with status of America's audacious corporate freebooters. These peculiar traits grow
more intense the higher one goes in the hierarchy of riches. One is the impulse to show to everybody your superiority by displaying
what you can get away with. "Sharp dealing" always has been prized by segments of American society. It's the striving, insecure man
who has to prove to the world – and to himself – that he can act with impunity. He is little different from the hoodlum showing off
to his pals and to his moll.
Blankfein with a friend. (John Moore/Getty Images)
These people at heart are hustlers – they crave the thrill of pulling off a scam, not constructing something. Hence, Lloyd Blankfein
not showing up for White House meetings yet having Obama thank him for letting the president know, albeit after the meeting already
had begun, that Blankfein can't make it. Hence, Jaime Dimon indignantly protesting his verbal mistreatment by the press, by the White
House, by whomever.
Then there is Jack Welch, the titan of American industry who struts sitting down, holding the Guinness record for the most manufacturing
jobs outsourced by one company – and yet impudently calling Obama "anti-business" after the president appoints his hand-picked successor,
Jeffrey Immelt, to head the White House's Job Council. Or Bank of America's faking compliance with the sweetheart deal it got from
Obama on the felonious foreclosure scam.
The ultimate episode of egregious lawlessness is the MF Holdings affair – whereby under its chief, former Senator and Governor
Jon Corzine, this hedge fund took the illegal action of looting a few billion from custodial accounts to cover losses incurred in
its proprietary trading. JP Morgan, which held MF Global funds in several accounts and also processed the firm's securities trades,
resisted transferring the funds to MF's customers until forced to by legal action. Punitive action: none. Why? The Justice Department
and regulatory bodies came up with the lame excuse that the MF group's decision-making was so opaque that they could not determine
whose finger clicked the mouse. Shades of SNL. To pull capers like these and get off scot free without chastisement is the ultimate
ego trip.
Where the Money Is
Willie Sutton, the notorious bank robber of the 1940s, explained his targeting banks this way: "That's where the money is." Today's
financial swindlers go after high risk gambles because that's where the biggest kicks are. That is more important than the biggest
bucks – although they add to the thrill. The constant status striver and insecure financial baron is a compulsive gambler. He needs
his fixes: of winning, of celebrity, of respect, or deference as transitory as all may be.
American culture provides few insignia of rank. No 'Sirs,' no seats in the House of Lords, no rites of passage that separate the
heralded elite from all the rest of us. Since oblivion shadows the most famous and acclaimed, they often grasp for whatever is within
reach – however ludicrous that might be. When
IR Magazine awarded JPMorgan the prize for "best crisis management" of 2012 for its handling of the London Whale trading debacle,
at a black-tie awards ceremony in Manhattan , Morgan executives were there to express their appreciation, rather than hide in
shame. The only Wall Street personage who has played the celebrity game without being marginalized in the public mind is Robert Rubin.
Through nimbleness and political connection he has semi-institutionalized his celebrity status. Yes, there is former Fed chairman
Paul Volcker. But his stature is built on an unmatched record of service to the commonweal and unchallenged integrity. The Blankfeins
and Dimons and Welchs and Rubins not only lack the critical attributes – they also appear to scorn the public, rathe than serve it,
which even private financial institutions should do, while still making a decent profit.
The plutocrats' compulsive denigration of the poor and the dispossessed is perhaps the most telling evidence of status obsession
linked to insecurity borne of their often ill-gotten gains. That is at the core of their social personality. They seem to find it
necessary to stigmatize the everyone not in their class as losers. Those at the lower end are condemned as as moral degenerates –
drug addicts, lazy parasites – rather than victims of their financial system. This attitude is in part to highlight their superiority
and in part to blur the human consequences of their rapacity. Behavior of this kind is the antithesis of a cultivated image of the
statesman of commerce – even though they are paying a price in public esteem despite the media's attempts to maintain their elevated
status.
American plutocrats have a deep craving to believe in their own virtue – and to have others recognize it, despite the facts. Their
perverse pride in beating the system does not tarnish how they regard their behavior. Blankfein said: "I have been doing the Lord's
work."
Dimon swaggers through the Council on Foreign Relations or Brookings with the huddled masses in his audience beaming their adulation
as they bask in his fame and thirst for his wisdom on the great affairs of the world. Would he give his views on whether the BRICS
can rig the LIBOR rate with the connivance of the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve – or ignore regulatory reporting rules
when they threaten to reveal a madcap scheme that loses $6 billion?
The Widespread Effect
Plutocracy in the current American style is having pernicious effects
that go beyond the dominant influence of the rich on the nation's economy and government. It is setting precedents and modeling the
unaccountability and irresponsibility that is pervading executive power throughout the society. Three successive presidential administrations
and two decades of rogue behavior by corporate elites have set norms now evident in institutions as diverse as universities and think
tanks, the military and professional associations – even private clubs. The cumulative result is a widespread degrading of standards
in the uses and abuses of power.
Plutocracy raises social tensions. Logically, the main line of tension should be between the plutocrats and the rest of us – or,
at least, between the plutocrats and all those with modest means. But that is not the case in the United States. While it is true
that there were bitter words about Wall Street moguls and their bailouts during the first year or so after the financial collapse,
it never became a main line of political division.
Today, outrage has abated and politics is all about austerity and debts rather than the distribution of wealth, and the power
that goes with it.The deep-seated sense of anxiety and grievance that pervades the populace manifests itself in outbreaks of hostile
competition among groups who are in fact all victims themselves of the plutocrats' grabbing most of the country's wealth – leaving
the rest of us to fight over scraps. So it's private sector employees pitted against government employees because the latter have
(some) health insurance, some pension and some security relative to the former who have been shorn of all three. It's parents worried
about their kids' education against teachers. Both against cash-strapped local authorities. Municipalities vs states. It's the small
businessman against unions and health insurance requirements. It's doctors against patients against administrators. It's university
administrators against faculty and against students, and faculty against students competing for much-reduced appropriations. It's
all of those against boards of regents and state governors.
Nearly e veryone is frustrated by the ever-sharpening contrast between hopes and aspirations and darkening realities of what they
might expect for themselves and their children. Meanwhile, the folks at the top wait confidently and expectantly above the fray that
they have engineered – ever ready to swoop down to strip what remains by way of privatized public assets, no-bid contracts, tax and
regulatory havens, commercially owned toll roads, student loan monopolies, rapacious buying of foreclosed properties with federal
incentives, and myriad tax breaks.
President Obama used his State of the Union Address of 2017 to send the message loud and clear. "Let me put colleges and universities
on notice" he warned, "If you can't stop tuition from going up, the funding you get from taxpayers will go down." He thereby set
forth a line of reasoning that put him on the same wavelength as Rick Perry because the reality is the exact opposite. It is because
public funding has gone down by 2/3 over the past few decades that colleges and universities are obliged to raise tuition – despite
flat-lining faculty and staff salaries. This is the essence of intellectual conditioning to the plutocracy's self-serving dogma and
the suborning of public authorities by the plutocracy. Beyond capture, it is assimilation.
Does this sort of perverse pride go before the fall? No sign of that happening yet. Plutocracy in America is more likely to be
our destiny. The growing dynastic factor operating within the financial plutocracy militates in that direction. Wealth itself has
always been transferred from one generation to another, of course; reduced inheritance taxes along with lower rates at upper income
brackets generally accentuate that tendency. With socio-economic mobility in American society slipping, it gains further momentum.
Something approaching a caste identity is forming among the financial elites – as personified by Dimon who is the third generation
of Wall Street stockbrokers and financial managers in his family. His father was an executive director at American Express where
the young Dimon joined forces with Sandy Weill. As a revealing coda to this generational tale, Dimon, last year, hired his 81-year
old father to work for JP Morgan Chase. His father's first-year salary was $447,000; slated to rise to $1.6 million – now that the
apprentice has some work experience under his belt, presumably. A sense of limits is not part of the financial plutocracy's persona.
Michael Brenner is a professor of international affairs at the University of Pittsburgh.[email protected]
gratefulreader , September 7, 2018 at 12:37 pm
Beyond the long-established institutional and assimilating powers that damp down potential for a meaningful rebellion, think
about acceleration of tech-powered and centrally-owned (and controlled) requirements of existence: the electronification of currency
and and information (consolidated into the hands of a few) literally affect our use of and access to everything. Then consider
monopolistic laws (IP, patents, resource rights, etc.) that make even doing things for oneself illegal (think patented seeds),
coupled with panopticon surveilance + panopticon enforcement (drones). It's like feeling safe while swimming above a sink hole
-- you might think you're OK, but don't stop paddling.
Deniz , September 7, 2018 at 11:52 am
While there is much to this that I agree with, I dont agree with the author's understanding of the US Tax System.
We have the most sophisticated and complex tax code in the world. It is designed that way to make US companies globally competitive
while still collecting a competitive percent of taxes. By and large, it does a pretty good job. The author talks about transfer
pricing and tax havens, in fact, Trump's tax effectively shut down the use of tax havens by imposing a minimum tax on all profits
retained offshore. In other words, it no longer makes sense to create an offshore intellectual property holding company. Companies
should just keep their profits in the US and pay the minimum or reduced tax.
I see 3 major issues in the tax system:
1 > The repeal of the Estate Tax. The Estate tax was designed to ensure that we would not have political dynasties like the
Bushs, Clintons, Koch brothers running our country. We absolutely need to bring this tax back. The tax loopholes are also rife
in the estate tax system, this is where reforms need to take place.
2 > Enforcement – Republican control of Congress has gutted the IRS. The IRS no longer has the personnel necessary to unwind sophisticated
tax structures and properly service US taxpayers in an ever more complex system. They also don't have the power to go after our
plutocrats, who will show up with dozens of attorneys and accountants and have the capacity to fight the IRS for a very long time.
Once money hits a rich man's pocket, you are not gong to ever see it again as it is much easier to target a defenseless middle-class
taxpayer with limited legal resources. The problem then is not that Trump reduced the corporate tax rate, there is no need for
double taxation, all taxes should be collected at the individual level at progressive rates. The issue is that if you dont collect
taxes at the corporate level, you are never going to get from our plutocrats.
3> Foreigners – Outside of Europe and Canada, taxes are in the land of the wild west. There are many rich Asians here who seldom
pay taxes as their native institutions aren't sophisticated enough to control tax cheats. As a consequence, dodging taxes is generally
seen as much more of a game that is played rather than a real criminal activity. The IRS takes this problem very seriously, but
it is a very difficult issue to resolve.
The US is financing its wars by printing money, which is extremely inflationary. The problem of our corrupt financial system
lies squarely with the bankers. "The corrupt tax system", is mostly a plutocrat's talking point.
James Cool , September 8, 2018 at 1:50 am
Your essay is well written however, the estate tax is a double dip by the government which impacts family farms and businesses
immensely requiring families to break up and sell off their businesses to pay the taxes. I agree that the rich have it best because
they generally are beyond most taxes by off-shore accounts and family trusts and such and buy gifting it early. I would generally
eliminate it entirely because the rich escape most of its' impacts and it stifles the upper middle class and by not producing
much in taxes, comparatively. To put a finer point on the author's article, I would think the title is off of the mark by equating
wealth with absolute political power, dynastically. In the recent election, neither the Clinton nor the Bush dynasty got elected
and others historically really haven't been all that favored if wealth is the real, rule. The Roosevelts( Teddy was not closely
related), the Rockefellers and Kennedys are the only other dynasties that come to mind and they didn't have that much longterm
influence, politically, but were fabulously wealthy in comparison to our more modern dynasties; the Bushes and Clintons, both
of whom, gained their wealth through international corruption for decades not domestically. So we have had 1 Roosevelt president,
1 Kennedy president, and no Rockefeller presidents and 1 Clinton president and 2 Bush presidents which in total don't add up to
much in many ways compared to all the rest. I realize that power is both covert and overt but wealth also can make one lazy and
incompetent which seems a better predictor of outcomes than the author's dynastic interpretation of our Democratic Republic. Throw
in a few Congress people and it still doesn't indicate overwhelming power over our populace except locally. MAGA.
Faith , September 7, 2018 at 11:24 am
CALPERS is the California Public Employees Retirement Fund. CalSTRs is the teachers fund.
Realist , September 7, 2018 at 1:40 am
The plutocrats think that it is their world and they just allow the rest of us to live in it. Once they decide they can't afford
the expense of excess humanity, I think I'll start cheering for the machines to take over.
jacobo , September 7, 2018 at 1:25 am
as usual, Michael Brenner nails it. What'll it take to bring down the plutocracy? Same as before, solidarity of the 99% in
pursuit of that just and peaceful world.
Godfree Roberts , September 7, 2018 at 12:45 am
This looks bad in 2018 but imagine how it will look in 2021, when every Chinese will have a home, a job, plenty of food, education,
safe streets, health and old age care.
On that day there will be more poor, hungry and imprisoned people in America than in China.
Not relatively or per capita. In absolute numbers.
KiwiAntz , September 7, 2018 at 12:11 am
A Plutocracy; a Kleptocracy or a Corptocracy, just name your poison to describe the US of A? But it certainly isn't a Democracy,
that's just a sick joke for the masses to believe in? Run like a Medieval Fiefdom with its citizens as compliant serfs to be treated
like crap, living on lousy wages, third world healthcare & crumbling infrastructure & feed on propagandist BS! It's a throwback
to the Dark Ages? All the anger over Trump is because the World is finally getting to see the real America now that Trump has
torn off the mask of this tired Empire, lashing about in its death throes? America is like the Picture of Dorian Grey with the
false appearance of a moral, beautiful, benevolent Country but the real picture or portrait, is that it's a rotting, immoral,
lawless & cancerous mess of a Nation! And with Trump in charge, the acceleration of America's decline is now on steroids? And
never has that decline been so evident with it's Trade sanctions, weaponisation of the US dollar & other nefarious acts as a last
gasp attempt to hold on to its dying, hegemonic Empire! The Worlds heading towards a multipolar future & freeing itself from the
shackles of this Superpower Tyrant ? Buckle up for a wild ride but for America the biblical verses which state that "the writings
on the wall" & "the end is nigh" could be the anthem for the American Empire & it's Plutocracy with it's future demise, already
in motion!
Randy , September 6, 2018 at 11:22 pm
FDR was for the many only because he was preparing to meat-grinder them in the interest of the few. Really, no Supreme Court
judgement has been legal since the sob FDR packed the courts. They call that group the Greatest Generation yet they choked when
they should have rebelled.
robert e williamson jr , September 6, 2018 at 8:55 pm
On the plutocracy, obtaining authority ( governing power) and wealth. Suffice to say that "American style capitalism", the
neo-liberal economic theory in practice, concentrates wealth in the hands of the fewest. Lust for wealth or "GREED" drives this
concentration. This lust for more power in order to concentrate even more wealth by designing government law and guiding ( lobbying
) the elected representatives such to allow and facilitate the concentration of this authority even further. Rule by the super
wealthy corporate elitist.(sw(c)ets) This is an illness, a cancer compromising the rule of law to impotency and there by rule
by authoritarian government. The result of this is the super wealthy elitists (swets) find them selves the targets of the masses
they try to control. The final result of this plutocracy is the SWETS find themselves the targets of the masses they yearn to
control. And the birth of a government that will suppress the masses by force or any means necessary o protect the SWETS and THEIR
form of government. This should come as no surprise.
So the rub comes when the powerful elitists suppress the masses by force. Submit to our will or die. Born of the necessity
of self. preservation of the 1 %. Reminds me of Ohio 1783-1795.
Louis Sartor , September 6, 2018 at 8:26 pm
Should we not just address the 1% as our Lords? Why pretend otherwise? This will be fun once .
Realist , September 6, 2018 at 7:03 pm
"President Obama used his State of the Union Address of 2017 to send the message loud and clear."
Obama did not give a State of the union address in 2017.
Paul Volcker deliberately smashed US unions by strangling the economy.
robert e williamson jr , September 6, 2018 at 5:03 pm
It's a manifest destiny thing study the US history esp 1783-1795 by reading THE THEFT OF OHIO, WALKER 2016. Especially pages
641-665. The white true believers never had any other way of looking at it.
Pallas Ferrante , September 6, 2018 at 3:36 pm
This is a superb article that sums of the bleak landscape of money-domination and the catastrophic destruction of anything
approaching a democracy: wealth, or ploutos, has been crushing the people (demos). The terrifying issue is that the crushing is
proceeding and will proceed exponentially. The wealthy will grow much wealthier and the poor ever more poor in this expanding
financial human-made universe of greed, accumulation, corruption and deceit.
I agree with every word you wrote Pallas, this article is full of informative nuggets, and lots of truth and wisdom. But it
is too long!
I would dearly love to forward this to several important people who I think would benefit from Brenner's expertise, but these
people are not retired; they are busy at their work and or studies and don't have time to spend three fourths of an hour reading
something this long( even speed reading something this long takes time).
Too often I am frustrated by long, yet informative articles that I'd like to share yet know it is pointless. It's as though the
writer has all this information and feels that he/she must impart ALL of it at once. I do wish Joe Lauria, who is now in charge
would keep in mind that, although many of the commenters here at Consortium seem to have limitless time to partake of the articles
and write commentary, there are many others who don't and although we admire Consortium we don't have many days where we have
the leisure to read everything. Plus Consortium is not the only thing we read, so it is competing for our attention. If the articles
are too long, some of us who have to prioritize our time, may choose to not participate by reading what is offered.
I love Consortium and always enjoy readers comments when I have time; but I wish Joe would keep in mind that some of us have major
time constraints. And I hope Consortium is not just for retired folks who have lots of time to read and comment.
Pallas Ferrante , September 7, 2018 at 12:09 am
yes, brevity is the soul of wit (wit derives from the old english 'wiggen' which means to know
but sometimes you have to lay everything out
I see your point, though, and I thank you for your kind words about my comment
robert e williamson jr , September 6, 2018 at 3:28 pm
Why you all seem to miss the point.
I'm not sure why anyone ever expected anything different. From 1783-1795 the white man stole Ohio from the native peoples using
the ruse of "Manifest Destiny" and "True Believers"' have espoused this garbage ever since.
Let us never forget that while negotiations with the Indians for land for peace were ongoing on Oct 11, 1788 Congress adjourned
and became defunct for two years there was no congress.
See Richard Gale Walker The Theft of Ohio 1783-1795, Turas pub. Copy Right 2016, p 253 note 105 and pages 648-655
especially p 649 last Paragraph "Although the his (Rev Daniel Breck) sermon could not be found, it was based on Exodus 19:
5-6, which made clear that the god of old eastern Mediterranean tribes, not the god of the eastern North American tribes, owned
the land treasured the obedient "above all people":
"Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all
people: for ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests and an holy nation."
note 17 Dickinson, p 289. For a description of the service, see May, p 87, Mays Journal July 20, 1788.
The concept that this nation exists because someones god wanted it that way is simply because of the whites professed belief
in mysticism as a way to justify their greed.
Is anyone interested in explaining to me why the great creator would placed the native Americans , North Americas indigenous
peoples, as sole inhabitants of the north American continent? Only to then have the European whites come to the continent to enslave
and murder the native inhabitants .
Or said another way do you actually believe that "only true believers could own land". The chosen ones. Who I might as bestowed
this grand right upon themselves obviously since God hasn't said anything about it. This is pure lunacy.
I'm simply asking why when one enters an endeavor seeking only wealth that the ultimate result of their efforts is to continue
pursuing efforts of greed.
Or said another way, since the ground work for this country was based on a lie why would we expect to not end up living the
resulting lie? For the sake of clarity this country did not become a plutocracy it always has been one.
If you are offended turn me into the White House the lunatic there is looking for witches to burn right now.
Note: the author of this book allows that up to fifty pages may be reproduced for the purposes of edification of the public.
Look to amazon to find the book.
Deschutes , September 6, 2018 at 3:12 pm
Imagine that: a plutocracy runs the USA! Scandalous! Never thunk it. In other news
Many of our richest do little or none of their own work. They live on their wealth. They have people to do the work. They pay
them, and often not very well.
Capitalism sells people on the idea that "you, too, can become a millionaire" and it's a free market, which it isn't and not
everyone could get rich. It's a giant Ponzi scheme and just cannot go on forever. Even if some corporations bring back jobs, not
enough will, because the basic premise is profit, not preservation of resources. I maintain that we need nothing short of a change
in our whole outlook toward our planet, a change in consciousness, and who's doing that but a few? They're certainly not at the
top. Jacob Rothschild, head of the banking family that stays out of news, just two weeks ago came out publicly stating that "the
'new world economic order' is not working". Now why did he say that? He's a bit worried? The banks might fail! And, Back, the
move toward 'uniworld' could not have been carried out years ago, as we see the evolution of the Common Market to the EU, the
attempts for the North American Union, all these steps have been hitting roadblocks of various sorts.
backwardsevolution , September 6, 2018 at 6:50 pm
Jessika – interesting about Rothchild's comment. Soros is quite worried too and made similar comments recently. If they're
worried, then that's a good thing because that means that their plans for a one-world government and common currency are in trouble.
Banks don't like having a bunch of different currencies and sovereign countries because that enables countries to devalue when
they get in trouble (as Italy and Greece would have done in the last crisis, if not for the E.U.), and the banks end up getting
back less than they lent. A bunch of unelected bureaucrats in Brussels now get to dictate what happens in the E.U. Perfection,
in their eyes, because the E.U. makes sure the banks get their money back in full, even when they lend to high-risk countries
that they shouldn't have lent to.
Jessika, in 2008, had they wanted to, they could have let things fall to pieces. I mean, down on the ground ugly. They could
have introduced a common currency right then and there, shrugged their shoulders and said that it had to be done, just as they
did when they got rid of the gold standard. It doesn't have to make sense. They just do as they please, and we all swallow it.
QE was pulled off over and over again and is still being pulled off. Who protested? No one.
Trade treaties are falling apart and being rewritten, and Trump has a lot to do with this. I can't imagine the "one-world"
proponents liking him much for that, but at least sovereignty will be maintained this way.
If we worry about this planet, as I know you and I both do, then things should be manufactured close to home, not shipped halfway
around the world. We are *aping this planet, and we are going to pay the price for it. I do not want to see China's One Belt Road
because that is going to bring about our demise that much quicker. They build a new highway for goods so that more consumers can
be manufactured, and for what? We cannot afford to continue living as WE do, never mind the rest of the world coming on line and
living like us. It's got to stop.
And China is not going to be any more benevolent than the current leaders are, probably less so. They just execute people who
don't go along, and their elite are every bit as corrupt as our's are.
Good talking to you, Jessika. Interesting times ahead.
Dr. Ip , September 7, 2018 at 3:43 am
Fear is a driving force in capitalism as well as in organized crime [can capitalism be defined as organized crime?], and it
is epitomised in the plot of Godfather III, where Michael Corleone tries to take his whole operation into the "legit" area because
he knows, once he's in there, he and the future of his "business" is safe. Joining the oligarchs is what keeps you safe from the
law because their methods of accumulating wealth have been the same as those in organized crime for centuries, intimidate and
steal and make deals with other oligarchs to ensure that one stays among "friends." When possible, of course, stealing and eliminating
a competitor is always allowed, as long as the war that is thus started is winnable. And the people who run Wall Street and the
oligach families are criminals, whether "doing good for common people" or not. It's a jungle. But it's a jungle populated by human
beasts, the most deadly mammals on the planet.
F. G. Sanford , September 6, 2018 at 11:44 am
There is no left/right, liberal/conservative, nationalist/globalist, socialist/capitalist or any other set of labels that apply.
It's just the rich against the rest of us, and all these labels are a smokescreen to divide and conquer. Employment under the
current administration is 0.02% LESS than when Obama left office. The stock market goes up, but productivity is stagnant, and
off-shoring continues. I recommend listening to economist Richard Wolff for a real picture of the economy. It is going to crash.
The question is when.
The latest scam being floated is the idea that Naziism was a "socialist" system. The so-called "Austrian School" of economics
has taken the lead on this -- probably to deflect attention from their roots in Hjalmar Schacht's economic principles. The German
economic miracle was based on prison labor, corporate control of the economy, capital controls and militarization. With a prison
industrial complex, seven ongoing wars, a privatized FED, and a political system controlled by corporate money, what's the difference?
Well, our politicians and pundits use the pejorative terms "socialism", "leftism", "progressivism" and "liberalism" to deflect
attention from rampant theft that has gone through the roof. Does anybody remember when General Electric paid no taxes, but still
got a refund when they filed? Who bailed out the banks? Who bailed out the auto industry? The rich own stocks and bonds, but pay
no "property tax" on those possessions. All that "free stuff" is "socialism" for the rich. They're just like the Central Committee
of the Communist Party -- living in the lap of luxury while the "deplorables" in the "workers paradise" enjoy the fruits of an
imposed plutocratic system.
The tragedy is that those most exploited see this propaganda as salvation. In my family, there's a 105 year old great aunt
who grew up in Italy under Mussolini. As working class people, their lives got slightly better, and she still worships the man
she remembers. It takes very little to "buy off" the misinformed, the disenfranchised and the already exploited. They see a savior
where the adequately educated see a demagogue. No wonder education is being gutted. If you're too dumb to know the difference,
MAGA sounds like "a plan". Sorry, folks, but there is no plan. Look carefully, and you'll see that nothing of substance has changed
in four administrations.
backwardsevolution , September 6, 2018 at 12:24 pm
"All that 'free stuff' is 'socialism' for the rich." Just like it's always been – corporate welfare. And socialism is great
in their eyes whenever they need to be bailed out.
"Look carefully, and you'll see that nothing of substance has changed in four administrations."
Well, wanting peace with Russia is certainly a huge change, along with wanting to get rid of NATO. So is wanting to apply tariffs
on the goods the U.S. multinationals are exporting from China. I'd call that "substance".
As far as being misinformed, uneducated, it really depends on what history books you read, doesn't it? So much of what we've
been taught and are still being taught is nothing but propaganda. Alternative history is simply not allowed, outright banned in
many cases. Too bad. It keeps us all in the dark.
ronnie mitchell , September 6, 2018 at 2:31 pm
I don't know where you get the idea that Trump is working towards peace with Russia, but as he is like a loose cannon sometimes
he talks like that is his goal then in the next frame he is shoveling large amounts of lethal weapons to Ukraine where the military
is formed (and doing drills) all along Russia's border.Maybe Putin should do that in Mexico or would it look like a threatening
move to the US? O course it would.
Even the war monger Obama restricted 'lethal weaponry' sales to the Ukraine because it would incite hostile relations with Russia,
even tho he was funding other attacks on Russia.
It should not be overlooked that the Obama's administration spent 5 BILLION dollars (as Under Sec. of State Victoria Nuland bragged)
to bring about the coup and brought about the Nazi loving leaders that are there today.
There is also the other front on the war being waged right now against Russia, and that is in the form of 'sanctions' which are
a military tactic, an economic siege, from the earliest days when an army would surround a castle or town and absolutely nothing
could come or go from the there until it fell from within.
Right now under Trump more sanctions on Russia than even existed during the 'Cold War' era.That is not a matter of dispute.
Sanctions are an act of war,and they don't harm the Ruling Class, they harm the general public like when sanctions against Iraq
under Bill Clinton brought about the estimated deaths of 500,000 CHILDREN to which his Sec.of State Madeline Albright when asked
about it in an interview on 60 Minutes, said that "we feel it was worth it". Of course the interviewer never asked what that "it"
was.
Trump is also once again threatening Russia in regards to Syria and the current situation in Idlib reads just like the one in
Ghouta, first the US, UK, France and Canada (and others to a varying degree), first warnings are given about the possible use
of chemical weapons by Syria, then the terrorist's ambulance and PR group The White Helmets' stage a false flag event and the
bombs start falling on Syria.
Not to mention that in the last event the bombing started BEFORE the OPCW could arrive to investigate the allegations and they
were on their way but had to stop when the bombing started, and not so mysteriously bombs also fall on the area they were coming
to inspect.
As far as NATO goes life has never been better as they are being swamped with more military hardware than ever to use and they
have increased their number of bases in Europe, and all across Africa btw.
It is growing and while that happens the number ONE promoter/funder of terrorism and radical versions of Islam all around the
world, Saudi Arabia, is getting hundreds of billions of dollars in military hardware, which they are using in its genocidal campaign
in Yemen as they do photo-ops with Donald Trump clasping their hands and smiling for the camera.
One last thing, there is no such thing as "alternative history", alternative versions of it is what I expect you meant to say
and as far as the tariffs go it just means the average consumer will pay more for things imported from China (and that's a LOT
of stuff) then China will respond in kind which will hurt industries here but above it all those corporations will continue their
ways and counting the cash.
backwardsevolution , September 7, 2018 at 5:29 pm
ronnie mitchell – no, the average consumer will NOT pay more for things imported from China. The average consumer is tapped
out, and the corporations know that they won't be able to pass along the tariff costs. Oh, they will try, and some might be successful,
but most will not be. The corporations are going to have to eat the tariffs, which will cut into their insane profits, harming
their stock prices. Gee, maybe they'll consider coming home now? This should have been done 30 to 40 years ago! You don't have
a marriage (a country) when one party is using a concubine in some far-off land.
And China has been doing all they can to keep huge tariffs on U.S. goods trying to get into China. A nice one-way street for
them whose time has come to an end. So China isn't going to buy U.S. soy? Who cares.
Cheap labor and no environmental controls made up for the shipping costs, plus some, but now with the tariffs, using China
as a manufacturing base isn't looking so good anymore. What to do, what to do! If what Deniz (above) said is true, then jobs just
might come home. Of course, automation is right around the corner.
"Trump's tax effectively shut down the use of tax havens by imposing a minimum tax on all profits retained offshore. In other
words, it no longer makes sense to create an offshore intellectual property holding company. Companies should just keep their
profits in the US and pay the minimum or reduced tax."
I read somewhere that 60% of what comes in from China are products manufactured in China for the U.S. multinationals. The rest
is junk. The deal was they had to take on a Chinese partner (nice for those Chinese elites who did nothing and made billions)
in order to manufacture in China. Trump is trying to entice these U.S. multinationals to assemble their products in the U.S.
That's substance.
backwardsevolution , September 7, 2018 at 5:39 pm
ronnie mitchell – yeah, and Trump went to visit Putin in Helsinki and he was labelled a "traitor" for it. He forewarned Syria
both times that missiles were coming, giving them time to evacuate. Trump even mentioned "false flags", but was vilified for it.
Trump knows it's all bullsh*t, but he has to go along, doesn't he? He's being forced to by the Democrats and almost all of the
Republicans, all of whom are bought-and-paid-for. Ditto regarding the media.
Maybe the sanctions, in Trump's view, are better than letting the warmongers have their way – all-out war.
You and I don't really know what's going on behind the scenes. Well, maybe Bob Woodward knows – ha!
backwardsevolution , September 7, 2018 at 6:35 pm
"The most scary fact of our time is that the two men most committed to peaceful relations between the US and Russia -- Donald
Trump and Vladimir Putin -- are the two most demonized people on Earth. The demonization of Trump and Putin is the principal activity
of the US media and the Democratic Party."
Paul Craig Roberts
Joe Tedesky , September 6, 2018 at 12:48 pm
There are no good guys and gals. Our government has been overrun by parasites who care nothing of our national commons, as
they stuff their pockets lined with their rewards for their hefty donor contributions. These are certainly the days to be Independent,
as the 2 Parties are 2 wrongs that never get it right.
mike k , September 6, 2018 at 11:40 am
What I would like to see is for the US to renounce it's goal of world domination, and agree to help create a world at peace.
What is the alternative? Increasing the madness until it destroys all of us. This latter seems the most probable outcome, since
the insane power addicts continually pushing for more war, seem incapable of curing themselves of their fatal obsession.
Very good article, even for Consortium News that has high standards.
A somber (pessimistic note): plutocrats are as organized and as smart as they need to be to remain plutocrats (both rich and
powerful). As a group, they have unquestioned dominance, so while small part of their "power-related" efforts still goes to snuffing
out emerging political alternatives, they can focus on winning some points against each other. Same with intelligence and wisdom.
There is a plutocratic consensus, some shades of it have homes in two major parties, and attempts to squash efforts to go outside
that envelope are as organized and "smart" as necessary.
An optimistic note 1. The oversized role of fund raising in American politics is definitely cementing plutocratic control of
politics, but it was shown several times that it is not so difficult to challenge that role. For example, with quite progressive
political program and masterful rhetoric (effects, not my personal impression) Obama collected several hundred million dollars,
recruited volunteers and won elections. By the way of contrast, un-inspiring political program, pedestrian rhetoric etc. did not
carry Hillary Clinton to power in spite of money advantage.
An optimistic note 2. Old proven ways of squashing progressive ideas loose their efficacy. The prime example is the increase
acceptance of "socialist" by American public. I recall certain D'Amato winning senatorial election in NY state under slogan "Mario
Cuomo, too liberal for too long". Socialism was used to scare people away from improper ideas like government regulation of health
insurance -- Marx, Engels, Lenin etc. would be very surprised by that usage. So most of the public knows the term from the invectives
heaped on the people who defend Obama-care and those who propose single-payer system, and the public had to reason on their own
that it can be better than the status quo.
That said, politicians with progressive impulses lack comprehensive vision that could be implemented and address various constituencies
that are currently pitted against each other. Sanders was not that bad in my opinion, but comprehensive he was not. What do we
do about MIC and imperialism? Money and energies consumed by them could be turned into badly needed resources. What would be a
humane and rational way of protecting jobs so workers do not have to compete against their "colleagues" from Vietnam, India or
recent poor and illegal immigrants. What to do about guns to satisfy hunters and urbanites (here I liked Sanders).
One could add more questions, and propose answers that I could propose, but not in a comment. My modest point is that without
a comprehensive program, politicians with whatever type of "impulses" (Trump comes to mind) end up recruiting people from former
Administration, think tanks etc. and enter the Swamp.
It's the USG where G stands for "gangsters". I also disagree that there is no conspiracy. Every day there are conspiracies
being plotted. The Federal Reserve is not a bank of the USG, I think most who read CN know that.
Trump boasting about the strong economy with the tariff/trade wars is more plutocrat hot air and will actually hurt the middle
class -- sorry, Back, I know you hope MAGA will succeed, but I don't, because I believe he got talked into a Mnuchin/Goldman Sachs
and Wilbur Ross idea of making the stock market go up and aiding corporate profits, but regular folks don't have the money in
the first place to buy much more than basics. Many alternative economists think we are heading for a grand collapse, and I think
so, too. Which then would aid the central bank idea of a common currency for everyone, digital probably, and then we're really
controlled.
The world economic powers have already run into trouble with European countries pushback on migrants caused by the US/Israel/KSA
led wars, but when we see another collapse perhaps worse than 2008 in the US, the entire world will have even more chaos adjusting
than we already see with Trumponomics. It seems we have, ever since the Clinton/Robert Rubin era, been taken over by Goldman Sachs.
My joke is that "the Gold Man sacks US", always thought that was an interesting metaphor for our exploitation.
backwardsevolution , September 6, 2018 at 11:49 am
Jessika – of course the stock market is going up. It's been going up since the spring of 2009 when the Fed took the interest
rates down to zilch, and when the banks were bailed out. The corporations have been using their profits to buy back their own
stock, a practice that used to be illegal prior to the 80's (and should be illegal again).
I don't understand how the tariff/trade wars are going to hurt the middle class. It should work to force corporations to bring
jobs back (which will benefit the middle class). If they don't, then they pay tariffs. No, the corporations will not be able to
pass these costs along because, I agree, the average consumer is tapped out and can't afford to pay more. They already know they
can't raise prices. Instead, the tariffs will eat into corporate profits, which have been insane. They just don't want to have
to give up some of their profits.
It's their choice: either they keep manufacturing overseas and pay the tariffs (money which would go a long way to rebuilding
infrastructure, as an example) or they bring jobs back. Trump has taken the corporate tax rate down nice and low for them, trying
to entice them to come back home, but they like it the way it currently is, with money in tax havens, cheap overseas labor, and
ridiculous profits. The Chinese and U.S. elites have been making out like bandits.
"Many alternative economists think we are heading for a grand collapse." We already had a grand collapse in 2001, which was
bailed out, and then we had another grand collapse in 2008, which Obama bailed out and left the mess for the next sucker who came
along (Trump). At any moment the Fed could bring the whole thing down. It's within their power to do that since the whole thing
is manipulated and engineered, anyway. There is actually a wizard behind the curtain.
Trump already knows it's not a strong economy, but he's trying to make it stronger. Yes, he talks it up and boasts because
he realizes people don't consume when they are afraid and fearful. As he says, you don't really have a country if you don't have
a strong manufacturing base and a modern infrastructure.
But I could be wrong, Jessika. Trump might be in on the game (an insider, not an outsider) and the elite and media going after
him 24/7 might just be part of the show. Russiagate might be part of the show too, along with Manafort going to jail. If true,
then they really have gone to great lengths to fool us, haven't they? But I just don't see this.
The only thing is: if they wanted a world currency, why wouldn't they have done it back in 2008? They could have (and should
have) let the bubble deflate fully back then, but they didn't. All central banks (even China) rushed in and bailed their systems
out, and some, who actually were insolvent, have been saved by these actions: the banks. Was it all part of the show? Is that
why no bankers went to jail? We won't know the answer to that question until we get there, but you can bet that some people already
know the answer.
Did they let Trump win in order to blame him for an upcoming collapse, resulting in a one-world currency, or is he part of
the scheme to bring it down? So many questions.
Would be helpful if such learned men would be less descriptive and more prescriptive.
The line from the old song, "The rich get rich and the poor get poorer" seems to sum it up. And then there is the other line
in the same song: "In the mean time, in between time, ain't we got fun."
You wonder if one of those plutocrats commissioned the song.
Another is the line in The Bridge Over the River Kwai: "Be happy in your work."
Time to go back and look at what Stiglitz has to say. Smart and his heart is in the right place, with ordinary folks.
Unfettered Fire , September 6, 2018 at 8:49 am
Powerful article. The free-floating, fiat currency system has been grossly exploited by the 1% since 1971. Private bank money
creation has been obscenely abused as well. David Stockman, one of the architects of trickle down economics, proudly boasted on
60 Minutes in 2011 that the top 5% net worth went from $8 trillion in 1985 to $40 trillion in 2011. Today, it's closer to $100
trillion. Neoliberalism continues to teach Orwellian "junk" economics in mainstream university classrooms:
"Economics students are forced to spend so much time with this complex calculus so that they can go to work on Wall St. that
there's no room in the course curriculum for the history of economic thought.
So all they know about Adam Smith is what they hear on CNN news or other mass media that are a travesty of what these people
really said and if you don't read the history of economic thought, you'd think there's only one way of looking at the world and
that's the way the mass media promote things and it's a propagandistic, Orwellian way.
The whole economic vocabulary is to cover up what's really happening and to make people think that the economy is getting richer
while the reality is they're getting poorer and only the top is getting richer and they can only get rich as long as the middle
class and the working class don't realize the scam that's being pulled off on them." ~ Michael Hudson
Why concern yourself with history when the endless feudal loop has been installed? Brazil's austerity policies inadvertently
caused the burning down of a museum, the history of civilization, due to the lack of a sprinklers system, one of many safety regulations
burned up in the global privatization fire.
in addition, both Colin Kaepernick and our military men and women are endorsing and supporting a plutocracy that exploits child
labor and indiscriminately bombs civilians. Neither are representing justice.
"We must never again let any force dedicated to a super race or a super idea or super anything become strong enough to impose
itself upon a free world. We must be smart enough and tough enough in the beginning to put out the fire before it starts spreading.
As the years go by, a lot of people are going to forget, but you won't. And don't ever let anybody tell you you were a sucker
for fighting against fascism." ~ scene from Battleground
A key to understanding all of this is it gets worse no matter who is in office. Trump, Obama, Bush, Clinton it makes no difference.
The trajectory is downward.The slope is negative. It's Robin Hood in reverse, whether we call it trickle-down, supply side, neoliberalism
the song remains the same. All of us regular people get poorer while a handful of rich people get richer.
How do we fix this? It's going to take radical change. Here are three recent articles with suggestions about this:
The big banks have all the power now because they're pretty much the only game in town. Blow bubbles – boom – bust. All the
well-paying manufacturing jobs were shipped overseas, leaving labor, unions and wages gutted. Millions of uneducated and vulnerable
illegals serve to keep wages down for the few remaining jobs. Ralph Nader believes this gutting began in the 70's and has escalated
since then.
When you're the only game in town, you get to dictate the rules. The whole country is one great big financial Ponzi scheme.
I agree with F. G. Sanford – there was and is collusion between the players. The central banks act in concert, as does the
media and politicians.
I would not listen to one word out of Paul Krugman's mouth. The guy is part of the Group of 30 and very much aligned with the
plutocrats.
I agree with dick Spencer – boycott the Plutocrats! Get your money out of the big banks, stop buying from Amazon, use cash,
stop reading the New York Times, the Washington Post, stop watching MSM. Boycott every large multinational.
Overall, this was an excellent article. Thank you.
playmobil , September 6, 2018 at 7:15 am
wonderful piece
backwardsevolution , September 6, 2018 at 6:22 am
I've said several times on this site that this is a class war. The plutocrats are winning because they're deflecting the war
away from themselves by using divide and conquer tactics: "Don't look at us, look at those deplorables! Don't look at us, look
at those racists!" And they're laughing all the way to the bank as the Left and Right tear each other to shreds.
And there's another war going on between the globalists and the nationalists, and the plutocrats are fighting to the death.
One side wants open borders with cheap, free-flowing labor, no nation states, multinationals beholden to no one, tax havens,
and supranational organizations with the power to override sovereign courts and laws. Kind of like an open marriage. Anybody know
of an open marriage that was successful in the long run? Oh, and endless wars to ensure worldwide supremacy.
Conversely, the nationalists want fair trade, controlled borders, sovereignty, and a country that manufacturers their own products,
where possible. A country that minds their own business, defends themselves, when necessary, and concentrates on their own citizens.
Damn near every Democrat and Republican is on the globalist side. They've all been bought off by big money, as has the media.
Monopolies are growing, small business is dying.
Start looking "up". That's where your real enemy is – at the top of the pyramid. Don't let them take your eyes off the ball.
Realist , September 6, 2018 at 4:11 am
Our plutocracy is abetted by Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1976 and exacerbated by continuing dumb shit SC decisions First National
Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission
Brad Owen , September 6, 2018 at 4:00 am
Privatization and deregulation, public private partnership, plutocracy; all just fancy words for racketeering. The racketeers
and pirates have taken over, and our economy is just a bundle of rackets.
Not only affairs within the United States are affected by the forces at work but the world of American foreign policy and empire.
I've written on the matter a number of times, and I am just very doubtful there can a solution.
The entire political structure of the United States has been bent and re-shaped by and for plutocracy.
After all, you have Supreme Court decisions that say money is free speech and corporations are people, about as meaningful
and principled as the Dred Scott decision.
And all the people with any power, who could potentially change anything, are on-board with the big money. All of them. They
have no motive for change.
The immense sense of power experienced by plutocrats leads to some very morally and ethically questionable activities.
Some of the stuff coming out of the Gates Foundation for example.
And, of course, we have Lord Acton's words about the effects of poweer, one of the most important observations ever made
Dmitry Babich , September 6, 2018 at 1:47 am
Just a great article! Congratulations to Consotriumnews on having professor Michael Brenner among its authors. I am a subscriber
to the professor's newsletter and I see him as the best authority in the US on the subjects covered in this article: income inequality,
the mainstream media lies, the destruction of democratic institutions. Professor Brenner's ideas apply to other countries, too/
But his edge on the US is the sharpest one.
I believe, the plundering is all connected:
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
May 5, 2017
"The Open Criminality of the Establishment and its Political Puppets"
"There is nothing politically right that is morally wrong" Daniel O'Connell
The system has been pillaged and plundered by financial criminals and none have gone to jail. In the Libor "racket" some of
them have paid large fines and continue to operate in the financial world. Other financial institutions have been involved in
laundering drug money and financing terrorism but still no jail time ensues. Many banks have been bailed out with taxpayers' dollars,
and many taxpayers have lost their homes and their jobs and have seen their pension funds and their savings go into the dumpster
(no bailouts for them) because of the financial banditry by these monetary reprobates. Some of these monetary manipulators have
been known to advise governments, and goofy governments take their advice and impose austerity on their own people .
"Therefore one has to ask: Has the Rule of Law Become the Rule of Outlaws?"
Meanwhile, there is no "austerity" in the "war business. Countries are invaded, millions are dead, millions are refugees and
the financial industry reaps huge bloodstained profits. Corporate cannibals feed off death and destruction and taxpayers pay for
all the carnage and soldiers pay with their lives, while others make a killing. (No pun intended)
[read more at link below] http://graysinfo.blogspot.com/2017/05/the-open-criminality-of-establishment.html
Carlespie McKinney , September 5, 2018 at 10:42 pm
I have come to painfully accept the fact that this country has failed to live up to the values it claims to hold dear – values
it claims to be ones that lights its path. I do not believe it is going to change. The United Sates is, indeed, a plutocracy.
In fact, it has been so for most of its history but especially so in the last few years. This country is racing down a path from
which it almost cannot veer. In short, democracy is a best a wishful dream and at worst, something this country will never see
again.
CitizenOne , September 5, 2018 at 10:12 pm
I'll keep sending this quotable notes out like a lighthouse beacon that our ship of state is about to come crashing onto the
shoals of despotism.
"The Money Powers":
"The fact is that there is a serious danger of this country becoming a pluto-democracy; that is, a sham republic with the real
government in the hands of a small clique of enormously wealth men, who speak through their money, and whose influence, even today,
radiates to every corner of the United States."
William McAdoo – President Wilson's national campaign vice-chairman, wrote in Crowded Years (1974)
"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a
result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of
the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in
a few hands, and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before,
even in the midst of war."
Abraham Lincoln – In a letter written to William Elkin less than five months before he was assassinated.
"The money power preys on the nation in times of peace, and conspires against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic
than monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. It denounces, as public enemies, all who question
its methods or throw light upon its crimes."
Abraham Lincoln
"A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the Nation
and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled
and dominated Governments in the world – no longer a Government of free opinion no longer a Government by conviction and vote
of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of small groups of dominant men .
Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the U.S., in
the field of commerce and manufacturing, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere
so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath
when they speak in condemnation of it."
Woodrow Wilson – In The New Freedom (1913)
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation,
the banks and corporations that will grow up around them, will deprive the people of their property until their children will
wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."
Thomas Jefferson
"The system of banking [is] a blot left in all our Constitutions, which, if not covered, will end in their destruction I sincerely
believe that banking institutions are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid
by posterity is but swindling futurity on a large scale."
Thomas Jefferson
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up
a monied aristocracy that has set the Government at defiance. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to
the people to whom it properly belongs."
Thomas Jefferson
To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress (The Nucllear Option enacted
by Congress which dissolved the two thirds majority rule enabling the nomination of Supreme Court Justices based on a simple majority)
is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition. The incorporation of a bank, and
the powers assumed by this bill [chartering the first Bank of the United States], have not, been delegated to the United States
by the Constitution. My own interpretation (in parentheses). Hence there is not a quotation for this one.
"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course
of time, a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it."
Frederic Bastiat – (1801-1850) in Economic Sophisms
"The powers of financial capitalism had (a) far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control
in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was
to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in
frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland,
a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank
sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the
level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business
world."
Prof. Carroll Quigley in Tragedy and Hope
"In a small Swiss city sits an international organization so obscure and secretive .Control of the institution, the Bank for
International Settlements, lies with some of the world's most powerful and least visible men: the heads of 32 central banks, officials
able to shift billions of dollars and alter the course of economies at the stroke of a pen."
Keith Bradsher of the New York Times, August 5, 1995
"The Federal Reserve Bank of New York is eager to enter into close relationship with the Bank for International Settlements
.The conclusion is impossible to escape that the State and Treasury Departments are willing to pool the banking system of Europe
and America, setting up a world financial power independent of and above the Government of the United States .The United States
under present conditions will be transformed from the most active of manufacturing nations into a consuming and importing nation
with a balance of trade against it."
Rep. Louis McFadden – Chairman of the House Committee on Banking and Currency quoted in the New York Times (June 1930)
"Nothing did more to spur the boom in stocks than the decision made by the New York Federal Reserve bank, in the spring of
1927, to cut the rediscount rate. Benjamin Strong, Governor of the bank, was chief advocate of this unwise measure, which was
taken largely at the behest of Montagu Norman of the Bank of England .At the time of the Banks action I warned of its consequences
.I felt that sooner or later the market had to break."
Money baron Bernard Baruch in Baruch: The Public Years (1960)
"The Federal Reserve Bank is nothing but a banking fraud and an unlawful crime against civilization. Why? Because they "create"
the money made out of nothing, and our Uncle Sap Government issues their "Federal Reserve Notes" and stamps our Government approval
with NO obligation whatever from these Federal Reserve Banks, Individual Banks or National Banks, etc."
H.L. Birum, Sr., American Mercury, August 1957, p. 43
"[The] abandonment of the gold standard made it possible for the welfare statists to use the banking system as a means to an
unlimited expansion of credit . In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through
inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holdings illegal, as was done
in the case of gold . The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect
themselves . [This] is the shabby secret of the welfare statist's tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for
the 'hidden' confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights."
We live in a world in which the wealthiest 5 humans have as much wealth as the 3.8 poorest humans on the entire freaking planet.
Five people vs 3.8 BILLION people. If one set out to create the most unfair, amoral, ecologically destructive, violent system
humanly possible – I really don't think one could do better than our current model.
The habitability of the earth itself, clean air, clean water, a toxin free environment are literally considered unimportant
"externalities" by the literally insane market "logic" of our current civilizational myth system. The toxins we are ingesting
daily are leading to intergenerational epigenetic changes that are destroying the health of as yet unborn generations.
Our arrogance and narcissism regarding our home, the earth, is coming back to haunt us, and none of our absurd arguments claiming
that – "externalities" (such as a livable planet) – don't really matter in our sacred equation of greed – is going to help us.
Given the complete greed fueled blindness of the wealthy & powerful, one must assume that only utter the crash of global economy
and of our ecosystems will bring this concrete zeppelin back to earth with a thud. God forbid we'd employ common sense in the
meantime.
Anon , September 6, 2018 at 8:44 am
In the end, the Earth will win. And that day seems to be rapidly approaching.
Tom Kath , September 5, 2018 at 9:37 pm
The essential underlying "consensus" among plutocrats, and, as you rightly lament, "also amongst the victims", is a deep seated
belief in "THE AMERICAN DREAM". You describe very well the almost universal joy and pride in the ability to take advantage of
our fellow man! – The respectability of "giving yourself an unfair advantage", or in blunt terms, the respect for the successful
SCAM ! – This will not be easy to remove or overthrow. – However ..
The most sophisticated and credible challenge to this distorted obsession with MONEY as the ultimate measure of VALUE, is the
bitcoin phenomenon. The crucial component of it is the blockchain innovation. – In brief, I will simply describe it as a revolutionary
new value system.
Meanwhile, I leave you with a few words that occurred to me regarding the current state of political power compared to MONEY-
In Power
Because they don't have opinions, and haven't any ideas,
They're selected, endorsed, and elected. That's how it has been now for years.
Manicured and well presented, they play out their role on the stage
Working hard to preserve the wellbeing of those few who just pay their wage.
Smooth and polished and handsome, with the face of a movie star,
They rehearse every word that's been scripted. That's what politicians now are.
Overseeing their wide dominions, to allay the public's worst fears
Can't afford to have any opinions, dare not have any ideas.
Sally Snyder , September 5, 2018 at 9:13 pm
Here is an article that looks at the big favour that the Trump Administration has granted to the American banking sector:
Washington failed to learn the lessons taught by the 2008 – 2009 recession and has set the economy up for another banking sector
crisis that the Fed will be forced to resolve, an issue that will compromise its ability to "correct" the economy.
backwardsevolution , September 6, 2018 at 12:04 am
Sally – the Fed is responsible for the last three or four bubbles, and we all know what happens to bubbles – they pop. By holding
interest rates down too low for far too long, the bubbles expanded. And, yes, they knew what they were doing.
Every single bubble has been engineered and manufactured deliberately and with intent. The big banks own the Fed.
Yahweh , September 5, 2018 at 9:12 pm
So the sitcom some live in is called plutocracy. You honestly don't have to be a member of the cast. Everyone has a choice
to be free or a slave to this narrative.
Have you ever watched a scripted play or movie? One that was so compelling you felt like you were there and even after the
movie was over there was an emotional hangover.
Now, think real hard about who writes the most realistic scripts for Hollywood. Mesmerizing. Do you know what that means ?
The life blood of any endeavor/ scripted play on earth is funded by the US Dollar. Maybe it's time to check your portfolio
to see if you're an active actor in the play. Or keep your eyes on the magician and not their half naked assistant.
A vivid description of the plutocracy! It might be a little stronger if it had more comparison with the way that capitalists
and the ruling elite acted in a pre-plutocratic era. The next question is
why bourgeois democracy degenerated
.
Jeff Harrison , September 5, 2018 at 7:43 pm
It is all very sad. The only way to upend this plutocracy is violent revolution. No one relinquishes power freely. Failing
at that, like the malignant tumor that they are, they will destroy the host that contains them.
F. G. Sanford , September 5, 2018 at 7:29 pm
Actually, it is a conspiracy, and its perpetration and implementation have been carefully planned and executed. The architect
of this conspiracy was economist James McGill Buchanan, and his patron saints are the Koch Brothers, the Ford Foundation, J.P.
Morgan Chase and an enormous list of other financial elites, entities and think tanks. For the last sixty years, legislation has
been quietly floated by American political puppets in order to permanently and irreversibly embed this dystopian system by convincing
the masses that "big government" –in other words, "socialism"– works to steal from the "haves" in order to give "free stuff" to
the "parasites". In truth, government has become a reverse Robin Hood enriching the already rich at the expense of the poor.
Buchanan believed that the measure of human worth was wealth, and poor people were poor because that's what they deserved.
The "deplorables" have actually been conditioned to believe that, and they worship their oppressors. The media plays along to
reenforce the delusion. Bill Maher sucking up to John Brennan, John Lewis sucking up to John McCain, John Oliver sucking up to
Barack Obama, Rachel Maddow sucking up to Hillary Clinton, and of course, there's CNN, where Cristiane Amanpour (married to Robert
Rubin) and Anderson Cooper (of Vanderbilt family fortune) gleefully suck up to any corporate enterprise.
The strategy behind dismantling Social Security is predicated on the impoverishment of the elderly, which precludes intergenerational
accumulation of wealth. They don't have anything to pass to their children, which insures that durable assets accrue to the financial
class over time.
As ugly as Buchanan's philosophy is, Americans keep proving him right. They keep voting against their own interests. In fact,
they elect the very billionaires who insure that they remain "deplorable". Tragically, because the legislation is so difficult
to reverse or overcome, the only way out is probably a "let them eat cake" moment. With militarization and the expanded surveillance
of the burgeoning police state however, that is unlikely. Americans will keep right on believing that "social justice" is all
about free market economy and private property. They keep convincing the billionaires that they deserve whatever they can get.
Nope, no "free stuff" for us, dammit! We're Americans!
LarcoMarco , September 6, 2018 at 12:51 am
I suspect that Trumpsterfire's base of "deplorables" have been led to believe that most "free stuff" goes to Black or Brown
people and that Real Americans decline offers of govt aid and oppose the legislation that enables it.
backwardsevolution , September 6, 2018 at 5:46 am
Larco Marco – the "deplorables" are angry about the jobs that have been offshored by the multinationals and angry that half
of the country cares more about illegals than they do of their own countrymen. They're working two and three jobs and haven't
had a real raise in close to 40 years, when you factor in inflation.
There are many black and brown "deplorables". They too hope for a country where things are made locally, like they should be
(not produced and then shipped halfway around the world).
The bad thing about getting "free stuff" is it's never really ever free, is it?
Joe Tedesky , September 6, 2018 at 9:32 am
F.G. great comment as usual, to go with Professor Brenner's terrific essay.
Reading your comment, after reading this article, makes my mind travel to America's labor struggles of the early 20th Century.
Will the protest, and riots, such as what happened at the Chicago Republic Steel strike in the 30's come back to haunt the American
landscape of discourse? Could we expect that at some point a generational struggle for higher wages, and job securities, will
become vogue? Will my grandchildren return to petition for the values their great grandparents fought so hard for? May we expect
a FDR to rise out of the ashes of destructing greed, and plutocratic abuse? Will the pendulum swing viciously back towards the
laborers?
Questions on top of questions. Joe
mike k , September 5, 2018 at 7:07 pm
Belaboring the obvious. Of course the rich control our society. If you can't see that, you are deeply brainwashed. If you see
the obvious truth, the question is – what can we do about it? Whatever that is – let's do it!
dick Spencer , September 5, 2018 at 8:03 pm
BOYCOTT–the Plutocracy -- -Now–
Joseph , September 5, 2018 at 6:16 pm
In every government since the dawn of time, there have been people who have more impact on that government and there have been
people who have less. In Ancient Athens, every citizen had an equal vote, but the people who came to assembly every day made the
laws, and the folks who stayed home had to live with the consequences. In the middle ages, it was primarily the noblemen who made
the laws, Serfs got no say and the merchant/middle class were scarcely better.
John Adams predicted that when Americans threw off nobility, it would soon be replaced by a sneakier kind of noble – one that
held no title, no royal pedigree, but would still be able to tell his employees or tenants who to vote for. He believed that there
would always be those people who wheel and deal considerably more power than the common man. He was right.
Generally the way that big business get bigger is by crushing their smaller competitors, and they use the government for this.
The spotted owl story was pushed by big logging companies who owned the land. The story resulted in government no longer leasing
land to small logging companies – the competitors of the big logging companies. When the supreme court gave the states the right
to collect sales taxes from online companies in other states, the extra headache of learning 50 different tax codes put a lot
of small online sellers out of business. Not so for Amazon. A federal tax code that is 74608 pages long benefits large businesses
who can hire lawyers and accountants, but is a hindrance to small business. Every license, registration, fee, regulation, and
nearly every law hurts small business and helps large business. Government isn't the solution to big business, it's the cause.
Everything the government touches tends give off the foul odor of corruption and inefficiency afterwards.
When the red communists lined all the property owners against the wall and shot them, they still ended up with a system of
government where a small portion of the population exerted significantly more political sway than the others. There is no permanent
solution to this because it's a fact of human nature that some people will be more involved in politics and some will be less.
I will say that I think that the Americans of 1776 were much better informed and more active in political debate, thought, and
theory than anything we've seen in my generation.
backwardsevolution , September 6, 2018 at 5:42 pm
Joseph – what a great comment! I totally agree with what you've said: how big business gets rid of its smaller competitors
(by passing more regulation), how there's always a small segment of society who rise to the top (not because they're smarter,
but because they're craftier, sneakier, and certainly more willing to use manipulation and bribes to get ahead). You and others
are no doubt smart, but it takes a certain type to step on others to get to the top.
I also agree with John Adams about the "new" nobility. It's exactly the same thing. Kings and queens used to have to watch
their backs constantly. Heads were always rolling over one plot or another. It hasn't changed, not really, just a slightly different
form of landed gentry.
I remember reading once that the French Revolution was not started by the lower classes, but the merchant class, the business
people. These up-and-coming pillars of society riled up the peasants, who finally took over, but when it all ended, who was there
to pick up the pieces? The merchant class. Just a different nobility with so-called "democracy" being the new king.
"Government isn't the solution to big business, it's the cause. Everything the government touches tends give off the foul odor
of corruption and inefficiency afterwards."
Totally agree with "government" ending up corrupted. Of course we need strict, enforced laws, but the fewer, the better. Big
government is just a cover for corruption, for buying the population, for protecting the privileged class. The poor, who often
want big government because they feel safer, are actually deluded in their thinking. They end up being bought for their vote.
"... Why didn't Sanders complain about DNC-Hillary collusion (he knew about it well before she captured the nomination - MSM didn't publicize it until after she had won). ..."
"... Why didn't Sanders make a big deal of Hillary's winning 6 of 6 coin tosses during the Iowa primaries. Character was an issue from the start of the race. Trump would later lambast "crooked Hillary". ..."
There were only two populists in the race: Trump and Sanders. One on Hillary's left (sheep-dogging voters to Hillary)
and one on Hillary's right (Trump).
Why did any of the other 18 republicans turn populist? Why didn't they wait so long to complain about the coverage being
provided to Trump?
Why were Republicans so adamantly against Trump after he won the nomination? Many said that they prefered Hillary - whom they
had claimed to hate so much only months before? Answer: Trump had to be an outsider. That's what makes the populist so compelling.
He has to be seen as taking on the establishment.
After such a contentious race, why did Trump quickly say that there would be no prosecution of Hillary? He has proven to be
petty and vain yet he was so quick to forgive the Clintons?
Why did Trump wait so long to fire Comey? It's almost like it was timed for Comey to hand the baton to a special prosecutor.
<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Here's a few more questions (of many many other questions)
Why didn't Sanders complain about DNC-Hillary collusion (he knew about it well before she captured the nomination -
MSM didn't publicize it until after she had won).
Why didn't Sanders make a big deal of the well-documented time that Hillary changed her vote for a big donor? Hillary loudly
proclaimed that she NEVER changed her vote for money before and DURING the crucial New York debate.
Why didn't Sanders release his 2014 tax returns? He called his tax returns "boring" yet, despite Hillary having released
10 years of tax returns, Sanders only released his 2015 returns. When his 2015 returns were delayed, reporters
asked for the 2014 returns but Sanders refused to provide them.
Why didn't Sanders make a big deal of Hillary's winning 6 of 6 coin tosses during the Iowa primaries. Character was
an issue from the start of the race. Trump would later lambast "crooked Hillary".
Good questions. Asking them sequentially leads even a dumbass like me to conclude Sanders is a fraud.
Unfortunately, most Sanders supporters probably don't remember the issues long enough to reevaluate them collectively. Each
issue appears to them during "the news cycle" as some one-off foible -- considered as misdemeanors and then forgotten before
the next one occurs and thus never assembled mentally as evidence for a larger felony case.
"... The dominant corporate U.S. media routinely exaggerates the degree of difference and choice between the candidates run by the nation's two corporate-dominated political organizations, the Democrats and the Republicans. It never notes that the two reigning parties agree about far more than they differ on, particularly when it comes to fundamental and related matters of business class power and American Empire. It shows U.S. protestors engaged in angry confrontations with police and highlights isolated examples of protestor violence but it downplays peaceful protest and never pays serious attention to the important societal and policy issues that have sparked protest or to the demands and recommendations advanced by protest movements. ..."
"... Newscasters who want to keep their careers afloat learn the fine art of evasion with great skill they skirt around the most important parts of a story. With much finesse, they say a lot about very little, serving up heaps of junk news filled with so many empty calories and so few nutrients. Thus do they avoid offending those who wield politico-economic power while giving every appearance of judicious moderation and balance. It is enough to take your breath away ..."
"... In U.S. "mainstream" media, Washington's aims are always benevolent and democratic. Its clients and allies are progressive, its enemies are nefarious, and its victims are invisible and incidental. The U.S. can occasionally make "mistakes" and "strategic blunders" on the global stage, but its foreign policies are never immoral, criminal, or imperialist in nature as far as that media is concerned. This is consistent with the doctrine of "American Exceptionalism," according to which the U.S., alone among great powers in history, seeks no selfish or imperial gain abroad. It is consistent also with "mainstream" U.S. media's heavy reliance on "official government sources" (the White House, the Defense Department, and the State Department) and leading business public relations and press offices for basic information on current events. ..."
"... U.S. citizens regularly see images of people who are angry at the U.S. around the world. The dominant mass media never gives them any serious discussion of the US policies and actions that create that anger. Millions of Americans are left to ask in childlike ignorance "Why do they hate us? What have we done?" ..."
"... If transmitting Washington's lies about Iraq were something to be fired about, then U.S. corporate media authorities would have to get rid of pretty much of all their top broadcasters. ..."
"... The U.S. corporate media's propagandistic service to the nation's reigning and interrelated structures of Empire and inequality is hardly limited to its news and public affairs wings. Equally if not more significant in that regard is that media's vast "entertainment" sector, which is loaded with political and ideological content ..."
"... Seen broadly in its many-sided and multiply delivered reality, U.S. corporate media's dark, power-serving mission actually goes further than the manufacture of consent. A deeper goal is the manufacture of mass idiocy, with "idiocy" understood in the original Greek and Athenian sense not of stupidity but of childish selfishness and willful indifference to public affairs and concerns. (An "idiot" in Athenian democracy was characterized by self-centeredness and concerned almost exclusively with private instead of public affairs.). As the U.S. Latin Americanist Cathy Schneider noted, the U.S.-backed military coup and dictatorship headed by Augusto Pinochet "transformed Chile, both culturally and politically, from a country of active participatory grassroots communities, to a land of disconnected, apolitical individuals"[7] – into a nation of "idiots" understood in this classic Athenian sense. ..."
"... To be sure, a narrow and reactionary sort of public concern and engagement does appear and take on a favorable light in this corporate media culture. It takes the form of a cruel, often even sadistically violent response to unworthy and Evil Others who are perceived as failing to obey prevalent national and neoliberal cultural codes. Like the U.S. ruling class that owns it, the purportedly anti-government corporate media isn't really opposed to government as such. It's opposed to what the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu called "the left hand of the state" – the parts of the public sector that serve the social and democratic needs of the non-affluent majority. ..."
"... The generation of mass idiocy in the more commonly understood sense of sheer stupidity is also a central part of U.S. "mainstream" media's mission. Nowhere is this more clearly evident than in the constant barrage of rapid-fire advertisements that floods U.S. corporate media. ..."
"... There's nothing surprising about the fact that the United States' supposedly "free" and "independent" media functions as a means of mass indoctrination for the nation's economic and imperial elite ..."
"... A second explanation is the power of advertisers. U.S. media managers are naturally reluctant to publish or broadcast material that might offend the large corporations that pay for broadcasting by purchasing advertisements. ..."
"... A third great factor is U.S. government media policy and regulation on behalf of oligopolistic hyper-concentration. The U.S. corporate media is hardly a "natural" outcome of a "free market." It's the result of government protections and subsidies that grant enormous "competitive" advantages to the biggest and most politically/plutocratically influential media firms. ..."
"... In this writer's experience, the critical Left analysis of the U.S. "mainstream" media as a tool for "manufacturing consent" and idiocy developed above meets four objections from defenders of the U.S. media system, A first objection notes that the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Financial Times (FT), the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) and other major U.S. corporate media outlets produce a significant amount of, informative, high-quality and often candid reporting and commentary that Left thinkers and activists commonly cite to support their cases for radical and democratic change. ..."
"... The observation that Leftists commonly use and cite information from the corporate media they harshly criticize is correct but it is easy to account for the apparent anomaly within the critical Left framework by noting that that media crafts two very different versions of U.S. policy, politics, society, "life," and current events for two different audiences. Following the work of the brilliant Australian propaganda critic Alex Carey, we can call the first audience the "grassroots."[14] It comprises the general mass of working and lower-class citizens. ..."
"... The second target group comprises the relevant political class of U.S. citizens from at most the upper fifth of society. This is who reads the Times, the Post, WSJ, and FT, for the most part. Call this audience (again following Carey) the "treetops": the "people who matter" and who deserve and can be trusted with something more closely approximating the real story because their minds have been properly disciplined and flattered by superior salaries, significant on-the-job labor autonomy, and "advanced" and specialized educational and professional certification. ..."
"... To everyday Americans' credit, corporate media has never been fully successful in stamping out popular resistance and winning over the hearts and minds of the U.S. populace. ..."
"... The U.S. elite is no more successful in its utopian (or dystopian) quest to control every American heart and mind than it is in its equally impossible ambition of managing events across a complex planet from the banks of the Potomac River in Washington D.C ..."
Consistent with its possession as a leading and money-making asset of the nation's wealthy
elite, the United States corporate and commercial mass media is a bastion of power-serving
propaganda and deadening twaddle designed to keep the U.S. citizenry subordinated to capital
and the imperial U.S. state. It regularly portrays the United States as a great model of
democracy and equality. It sells a false image of the U.S. as a society where the rich enjoy
opulence because of hard and honest work and where the poor are poor because of their laziness
and irresponsibility. The nightly television news broadcasts and television police and law and
order dramas are obsessed with violent crime in the nation's Black ghettoes and Latino barrios,
but they never talk about the extreme poverty, the absence of opportunity imposed on those
neighborhoods by the interrelated forces of institutional racism, capital flight, mass
structural unemployment, under-funded schools, and mass incarceration. The nightly television
weather reports tells U.S. citizens of ever new record high temperatures and related forms of
extreme weather but never relate these remarkable meteorological developments to anthropogenic
climate change.
The dominant corporate U.S. media routinely exaggerates the degree of difference and choice
between the candidates run by the nation's two corporate-dominated political organizations, the
Democrats and the Republicans. It never notes that the two reigning parties agree about far
more than they differ on, particularly when it comes to fundamental and related matters of
business class power and American Empire. It shows U.S. protestors engaged in angry
confrontations with police and highlights isolated examples of protestor violence but it
downplays peaceful protest and never pays serious attention to the important societal and
policy issues that have sparked protest or to the demands and recommendations advanced by
protest movements.
As the prolific U.S. Marxist commentator Michael Parenti once remarked, US "Newscasters who
want to keep their careers afloat learn the fine art of evasion with great skill they skirt
around the most important parts of a story. With much finesse, they say a lot about very
little, serving up heaps of junk news filled with so many empty calories and so few nutrients.
Thus do they avoid offending those who wield politico-economic power while giving every
appearance of judicious moderation and balance. It is enough to take your breath away." [1]
Selling Empire
U.S. newscasters and their print media counterparts routinely parrot and disseminate the
false foreign policy claims of the nation's imperial elite. Earlier this year, U.S. news
broadcasters dutiful relayed to U.S. citizens the Obama administration's preposterous assertion
that social-democratic Venezuela is a repressive, corrupt, and authoritarian danger to its own
people and the U.S. No leading national U.S. news outlet dared to note the special absurdity of
this charge in the wake of Obama and other top U.S. officials' visit to Riyadh to guarantee
U.S. support for the new king of Saudi Arabia, the absolute ruler of a leading U.S. client
state that happens to be the most brutally oppressive and reactionary government on Earth.
In U.S. "mainstream" media, Washington's aims are always benevolent and democratic. Its
clients and allies are progressive, its enemies are nefarious, and its victims are invisible
and incidental. The U.S. can occasionally make "mistakes" and "strategic blunders" on the
global stage, but its foreign policies are never immoral, criminal, or imperialist in nature as
far as that media is concerned. This is consistent with the doctrine of "American
Exceptionalism," according to which the U.S., alone among great powers in history, seeks no
selfish or imperial gain abroad. It is consistent also with "mainstream" U.S. media's heavy
reliance on "official government sources" (the White House, the Defense Department, and the
State Department) and leading business public relations and press offices for basic information
on current events.
As the leading Left U.S. intellectuals Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman showed in their
classic text Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (1988), Orwellian
double standards are rife in the dominant U.S. media's coverage and interpretation of global
affairs. Elections won in other countries by politicians that Washington approves because those
politicians can be counted on to serve the interests of U.S. corporations and the military are
portrayed in U.S. media as good and clean contests. But when elections put in power people who
can't be counted on to serve "U.S. interests," (Hugo Chavez and Nicolas Maduro for example),
then U.S. corporate media portrays the contests as "rigged" and "corrupt." When Americans or
people allied with Washington are killed or injured abroad, they are "worthy victims" and
receive great attention and sympathy in that media. People killed, maimed, displaced and
otherwise harmed by the U.S. and U.S. clients and allies are anonymous and "unworthy victims"
whose experience elicits little mention or concern.[2]
U.S. citizens regularly see images of people who are angry at the U.S. around the world. The
dominant mass media never gives them any serious discussion of the US policies and actions that
create that anger. Millions of Americans are left to ask in childlike ignorance "Why do they
hate us? What have we done?"
In February of 2015, an extraordinary event occurred in U.S. news media – the firing
of a leading national news broadcaster, Brian Williams of NBC News. Williams lost his position
because of some lies he told in connection with the U.S. invasion of Iraq. A naïve
outsider might think that Williams was fired because he repeated the George W. Bush
administration's transparent fabrications about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction
and Saddam's supposed connection to 9/11. Sadly but predictably enough, that wasn't his
problem. Williams lost his job because he falsely boasted that he had ridden on a helicopter
that was forced down by grenade fire during the initial U.S. invasion. If transmitting
Washington's lies about Iraq were something to be fired about, then U.S. corporate media
authorities would have to get rid of pretty much of all their top broadcasters.
More than Entertainment
The U.S. corporate media's propagandistic service to the nation's reigning and interrelated
structures of Empire and inequality is hardly limited to its news and public affairs wings.
Equally if not more significant in that regard is that media's vast "entertainment" sector,
which is loaded with political and ideological content but was completely ignored in Herman and
Chomsky's groundbreaking Manufacturing Consent. [3] One example is the Hollywood movie "Zero
Dark Thirty," a 2012 "action thriller" that dramatized the United States' search for Osama
bin-Laden after the September 11, 2001 jetliner attacks. The film received critical acclaim and
was a box office-smash. It was also a masterpiece of pro-military, pro-CIA propaganda,
skillfully portraying U.S. torture practices "as a dirty, ugly business that is necessary to
protect America" (Glenn Greenwald[4]) and deleting the moral debate that erupted over the CIA's
"enhanced interrogation techniques." Under the guise of a neutral, documentary-like
façade, Zero Dark Thirty normalized and endorsed torture in ways that were all the more
effective because of its understated, detached, and "objective" veneer. The film also marked a
distressing new frontier in U.S. military-"embedded" filmmaking whereby the movie-makers
receive technical and logistical support from the Pentagon in return for producing elaborate
public relations on the military's behalf.
The 2014-15 Hollywood blockbuster American Sniper is another example. The film's audiences
is supposed to marvel at the supposedly noble feats, sacrifice, and heroism of Chris Kyle, a
rugged, militantly patriotic, and Christian-fundamentalist Navy SEALS sniper who participated
in the U.S. invasion of Iraq to fight "evil" and to avenge the al Qaeda jetliner attacks of
September 11, 2001. Kyle killed 160 Iraqis over four tours of "duty" in "Operational Iraqi
Freedom." Viewers are never told that the Iraqi government had nothing to do with the 9/11
attacks or al Qaeda or that the U.S. invasion was one of the most egregiously criminal and
brazenly imperial and mass-murderous acts in the history of international violence. Like Zero
Dark Thirty's apologists, American Sniper's defenders claim that the film takes a neutral
perspective of "pure storytelling," with no ideological bias. In reality, the movie is filled
with racist and imperial distortions, functioning as flat-out war propaganda.[5]
These are just two among many examples that could be cited of U.S. "entertainment" media's
regular service to the American Empire. Hollywood and other parts of the nation's vast
corporate entertainment complex plays the same power-serving role in relation to domestic
("homeland") American inequality and oppression structures of class and race. [6]
Manufacturing Idiocy
Seen broadly in its many-sided and multiply delivered reality, U.S. corporate media's dark,
power-serving mission actually goes further than the manufacture of consent. A deeper goal is
the manufacture of mass idiocy, with "idiocy" understood in the original Greek and Athenian
sense not of stupidity but of childish selfishness and willful indifference to public affairs
and concerns. (An "idiot" in Athenian democracy was characterized by self-centeredness and
concerned almost exclusively with private instead of public affairs.). As the U.S. Latin
Americanist Cathy Schneider noted, the U.S.-backed military coup and dictatorship headed by
Augusto Pinochet "transformed Chile, both culturally and politically, from a country of active
participatory grassroots communities, to a land of disconnected, apolitical individuals"[7]
– into a nation of "idiots" understood in this classic Athenian sense.
In the U.S., where violence is not as readily available to elites as in 1970s Latin America,
corporate America seeks the same terrible outcome through its ideological institutions,
including above all its mass media. In U.S. movies, television sit-coms, television dramas,
television reality-shows, commercials, state Lottery advertisements, and video games, the
ideal-type U.S. citizen is an idiot in this classic sense: a person who cares about little more
than his or her own well-being, consumption, and status. This noble American idiot is
blissfully indifferent to the terrible prices paid by others for the maintenance of reigning
and interrelated oppressions structures at home and abroad.
A pervasive theme in this media culture is the notion that people at the bottom of the
nation's steep and interrelated socioeconomic and racial pyramids are the "personally
irresponsible" and culturally flawed makers of their own fate. The mass U.S. media's version of
Athenian idiocy "can imagine," in the words of the prolific Left U.S. cultural theorist Henry
Giroux "public issues only as private concerns." It works to "erase the social from the
language of public life so as to reduce" questions of racial and socioeconomic disparity to
"private issues of individual character and cultural depravity. Consistent with "the central
neoliberal tenet that all problems are private rather than social in nature," it portrays the
only barriers to equality and meaningful democratic participation as "a lack of principled
self-help and moral responsibility" and bad personal choices by the oppressed. Government
efforts to meaningfully address and ameliorate (not to mention abolish) societal disparities of
race, class, gender, ethnicity, nationality and the like are portrayed as futile,
counterproductive, naïve, and dangerous.[8]
To be sure, a narrow and reactionary sort of public concern and engagement does appear and
take on a favorable light in this corporate media culture. It takes the form of a cruel, often
even sadistically violent response to unworthy and Evil Others who are perceived as failing to
obey prevalent national and neoliberal cultural codes. Like the U.S. ruling class that owns it,
the purportedly anti-government corporate media isn't really opposed to government as such.
It's opposed to what the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu called "the left hand of the state"
– the parts of the public sector that serve the social and democratic needs of the
non-affluent majority. It celebrates and otherwise advances the "right hand of the state"[9]:
the portions of government that serve the opulent minority, dole out punishment for the poor,
and attacks those perceived as nefariously resisting the corporate and imperial order at home
and abroad. Police officers, prosecutors, military personnel, and other government authorities
who represent the "right hand of the state" are heroes and role models in this media. Public
defenders, other defense attorneys, civil libertarians, racial justice activists, union
leaders, antiwar protesters and the like are presented at best as naïve and irritating
"do-gooders" and at worst as coddlers and even agents of evil.
The generation of mass idiocy in the more commonly understood sense of sheer stupidity is
also a central part of U.S. "mainstream" media's mission. Nowhere is this more clearly evident
than in the constant barrage of rapid-fire advertisements that floods U.S. corporate media. As
the American cultural critic Neil Postman noted thirty years ago, the modern U.S. television
commercial is the antithesis of the rational economic consideration that early Western
champions of the profits system claimed to be the enlightened essence of capitalism. "Its
principal theorists, even its most prominent practitioners," Postman noted, "believed
capitalism to be based on the idea that both buyer and seller are sufficiently mature,
well-informed, and reasonable to engage in transactions of mutual self-interest." Commercials
make "hash" out of this idea. They are dedicated to persuading consumers with wholly irrational
claims. They rely not on the reasoned presentation of evidence and logical argument but on
suggestive emotionalism, infantilizing manipulation, and evocative, rapid-fire imagery.[10]
The same techniques poison U.S. electoral politics. Investment in deceptive and manipulative
campaign commercials commonly determines success or failure in mass-marketed election contests
between business-beholden candidates that are sold to the audience/electorate like brands of
toothpaste and deodorant. Fittingly enough, the stupendous cost of these political
advertisements is a major factor driving U.S. campaign expenses so high (the 2016 U.S.
presidential election will cost at least $5 billion) as to make candidates ever more dependent
on big money corporate and Wall Street donors.
Along the way, mass cognitive competence is assaulted by the numbing, high-speed ubiquity of
U.S. television and radio advertisements. These commercials assault citizens' capacity for
sustained mental focus and rational deliberation nearly sixteen minutes of every hour on cable
television, with 44 percent of the individual ads now running for just 15 seconds. This is a
factor in the United States' long-bemoaned epidemic of "Attention Deficit Disorder."
Seventy years ago, the brilliant Dutch left Marxist Anton Pannekoek offered some chilling
reflections on the corporate print and broadcast media's destructive impact on mass cognitive
and related social resistance capacities in the United States after World War II:
"The press is of course entirely in hands of big capital [and it] dominates the spiritual
life of the American people. The most important thing is not even the hiding of all truth about
the reign of big finance. Its aim still more is the education to thoughtlessness. All attention
is directed to coarse sensations, everything is avoided that could arouse thinking. Papers are
not meant to be read – the small print is already a hindrance – but in a rapid
survey of the fat headlines to inform the public on unimportant news items, on family triflings
of the rich, on sexual scandals, on crimes of the underworld, on boxing matches. The aim of the
capitalist press all over the world, the diverting of the attention of the masses from the
reality of social development, nowhere succeed with such thoroughness as in America."
"Still more than by the papers the masses are influenced by broadcasting and film. These
products of most perfect science, destined at one time to the finest educational instruments of
mankind, now in the hands of capitalism have been turned into the strongest means to uphold its
rule by stupefying the mind. Because after nerve-straining fatigue the movie offers relaxation
and distraction by means of simple visual impressions that make no demand on the intellect, the
masses get used to accepting thoughtlessly all its cunning and shrewd propaganda. It reflects
the ugliest sides of middle-class society. It turns all attention either to sexual life, in
this society – by the absence of community feelings and fight for freedom – the
only source of strong passions, or to brute violence; masses educated to rough violence instead
of to social knowledge are not dangerous to capitalism "[11]
Pannekoek clearly saw an ideological dimension (beyond just diversion and stupefaction) in
U.S. mass media's "education to thoughtlessness" through movies as well as print
sensationalism. He would certainly be impressed and perhaps depressed by the remarkably
numerous, potent, and many-sided means of mass distraction and indoctrination that are
available to the U.S. and global capitalist media in the present digital and Internet era.
The "entertainment" wing of its vast corporate media complex is critical to the considerable
"soft" ideological "power" the U.S. exercises around the world even as its economic hegemony
wanes in an ever more multipolar global system (and as its "hard" military reveals significant
limits within and beyond the Middle East). Relatively few people beneath the global capitalist
elite consume U.S. news and public affairs media beyond the U.S., but "American" (U.S.) movies,
television shows, video games, communication devices, and advertising culture are ubiquitous
across the planet.
Explaining "Mainstream" Media Corporate Ownership
There's nothing surprising about the fact that the United States' supposedly "free" and
"independent" media functions as a means of mass indoctrination for the nation's economic and
imperial elite. The first and most important explanation for this harsh reality is concentrated
private ownership – the fundamental fact that that media is owned primarily by giant
corporations representing wealthy interests who are deeply invested in U.S. capitalism and
Empire. Visitors to the U.S. should not be fooled by the large number and types of channels and
stations on a typical U.S. car radio or television set or by the large number and types of
magazines and books on display at a typical Barnes & Noble bookstore. Currently in the
U.S., just six massive and global corporations – Comcast, Viacom, Time Warner, CBS, The
News Corporation and Disney – together control more than 90 percent of the nation's print
and electronic media, including cable television, airwaves television, radio, newspapers,
movies, video games, book publishing, comic books, and more. Three decades ago, 50 corporations
controlled the same amount of U.S. media.
Each of the reigning six companies is a giant and diversified multi-media conglomerate with
investments beyond media, including "defense" (the military). Asking reporters and commentators
at one of those giant corporations to tell the unvarnished truth about what's happening in the
U.S. and the world is like asking the company magazine published by the United Fruit Company to
the tell the truth about working conditions in its Caribbean and Central American plantations
in the 1950s. It's like asking the General Motors company newspaper to tell the truth about
wages and working conditions in GM's auto assembly plants around the world.
As the nation's media becomes concentrated into fewer corporate hands, media personnel
become ever more insecure in their jobs because they have fewer firms to whom to sell their
skills. That makes them even less willing than they might have been before to go outside
official sources, to question the official line, and to tell the truth about current events and
the context in which they occur.
Advertisers
A second explanation is the power of advertisers. U.S. media managers are naturally
reluctant to publish or broadcast material that might offend the large corporations that pay
for broadcasting by purchasing advertisements. As Chomsky has noted in a recent interview,
large corporations are not only the major producers of the United States' mass and commercial
media. They are also that media's top market, something that deepens the captivity of nation's
supposedly democratic and independent media to big capital:
"The reliance of a journal on advertisers shapes and controls and substantially determines
what is presented to the public the very idea of advertiser reliance radically distorts the
concept of free media. If you think about what the commercial media are, no matter what, they
are businesses. And a business produces something for a market. The producers in this case,
almost without exception, are major corporations. The market is other businesses –
advertisers. The product that is presented to the market is readers (or viewers), so these
are basically major corporations providing audiences to other businesses, and that
significantly shapes the nature of the institution."[12]
At the same time, both U.S. corporate media managers and the advertisers who supply revenue
for their salaries are hesitant to produce content that might alienate the affluent people who
count for an ever rising share of consumer purchases in the U.S. It is naturally those with the
most purchasing power who are naturally most targeted by advertisers.
Government Policy
A third great factor is U.S. government media policy and regulation on behalf of
oligopolistic hyper-concentration. The U.S. corporate media is hardly a "natural" outcome of a
"free market." It's the result of government protections and subsidies that grant enormous
"competitive" advantages to the biggest and most politically/plutocratically influential media
firms. Under the terms of the 1934 Communications Act and the 1996 Telecommunications Act,
commercial, for-profit broadcasters have almost completely free rein over the nation's airwaves
and cable lines. There is no substantive segment of the broadcast spectrum set aside for truly
public interest and genuinely democratic, popular not-for profit media and the official
"public" broadcasting networks are thoroughly captive to corporate interests and to right-wing
politicians who take giant campaign contributions from corporate interests. Much of the 1996
bill was written by lobbyists working for the nations' leading media firms. [13]
A different form of state policy deserves mention. Under the Obama administration, we have
seen the most aggressive pursuit and prosecution in recent memory of U.S. journalists who step
outside the narrow parameters of pro-U.S. coverage and commentary – and of the
whistleblowers who provide them with leaked information. That is why Edward Snowden lives in
Russia, Glenn Greenwald lives in Brazil, Chelsea Manning is serving life in a U.S. military
prison, and Julian Assange is trapped in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. A leading New York
Times reporter and author, James Risen, has been threatened with imprisonment by the White
House for years because of his refusal to divulge sources.
Treetops v. Grassroots Audiences
In this writer's experience, the critical Left analysis of the U.S. "mainstream" media as a
tool for "manufacturing consent" and idiocy developed above meets four objections from
defenders of the U.S. media system, A first objection notes that the New York Times, the
Washington Post, the Financial Times (FT), the Wall Street Journal (WSJ)
and other major U.S. corporate media outlets produce a significant amount of, informative,
high-quality and often candid reporting and commentary that Left thinkers and activists
commonly cite to support their cases for radical and democratic change. Left U.S. media critics
like Chomsky and Herman are said to be hypocrites because they obviously find much that is of
use as Left thinkers in the very media that they criticize for distorting reality in accord
with capitalist and imperial dictates.
The observation that Leftists commonly use and cite information from the corporate media
they harshly criticize is correct but it is easy to account for the apparent anomaly within the
critical Left framework by noting that that media crafts two very different versions of U.S.
policy, politics, society, "life," and current events for two different audiences. Following
the work of the brilliant Australian propaganda critic Alex Carey, we can call the first
audience the "grassroots."[14] It comprises the general mass of working and lower-class
citizens. As far as the business elites who own and manage the U.S. mass media and the
corporations that pay for that media with advertising purchases are concerned, this "rabble"
cannot be trusted with serious, candid, and forthright information. Its essential role in
society is to keep quiet, work hard, be entertained (in richly propagandistic and ideological
ways, we should remember), buy things, and generally do what they're told. They are to leave
key societal decisions to those that the leading 20th century U.S. public intellectual and
media-as-propaganda enthusiast Walter Lippman called "the responsible men." That "intelligent,"
benevolent, "expert," and "responsible" elite (responsible, indeed, for such glorious
accomplishments as the Great Depression, the Vietnam War, the invasion of Iraq, the Great
Recession, global warming, and the rise of the Islamic State) needed, in Lippman's view, to be
protected from what he called "the trampling and roar of the bewildered herd."[15] The deluded
mob, the sub-citizenry, the dangerous working class majority is not the audience for elite
organs like the Times, the Post, and the Journal.
The second target group comprises the relevant political class of U.S. citizens from at most
the upper fifth of society. This is who reads the Times, the Post, WSJ, and FT, for the most
part. Call this audience (again following Carey) the "treetops": the "people who matter" and
who deserve and can be trusted with something more closely approximating the real story because
their minds have been properly disciplined and flattered by superior salaries, significant
on-the-job labor autonomy, and "advanced" and specialized educational and professional
certification. This elite includes such heavily indoctrinated persons as corporate managers,
lawyers, public administrators, and (most) tenured university professors. Since these elites
carry out key top-down societal tasks of supervision, discipline, training, demoralization,
co-optation, and indoctrination – all essential to the rule of the real economic elite
and the imperial system – they cannot be too thoroughly misled about current events and
policy without deleterious consequences for the smooth functioning of the dominant social and
political order. They require adequate information and must not be overly influenced by the
brutal and foolish propaganda generated for the "bewildered herd." At the same time,
information and commentary for the relevant and respectable business and political classes and
their "coordinator class" servants and allies often contains a measure of reasoned and sincere
intra-elite political and policy debate – debate that is always careful not to stray
beyond narrow U.S. ideological parameters. That is why a radical Left U.S. thinker and activist
can find much that is of use in U.S. "treetops" media. Such a thinker or activist would,
indeed, be foolish not to consult these sources.
"P"BS and N"P"R
A second objection to the Left critique of U.S. "mainstream" media claims that the U.S.
public enjoys a meaningful alternative to the corporate media in the form of the nation's
Public Broadcasting Service (television) and National Public Radio (NPR). This claim should not
be taken seriously. Thanks to U.S. "public" media's pathetically weak governmental funding, its
heavy reliance on corporate sponsors, and its constant harassment by right wing critics inside
and beyond the U.S. Congress, N"P"R and "P"BS are extremely reluctant to question dominant U.S.
ideologies and power structures.
The tepid, power-serving conservatism of U.S. "public" broadcasting is by longstanding
political and policy design. The federal government allowed the formation of the "public"
networks only on the condition that they pose no competitive market or ideological challenge to
private commercial media, the profits system, and U.S. global foreign policy. "P"BS and N"P"R
are "public" in a very limited sense. They not function for the public over and against
corporate, financial, and imperial power to any significant degree.
"The Internet Will Save Us"
A third objection claims that the rise of the Internet creates a "Wild West" environment in
which the power of corporate media is eviscerated and citizens can find and even produce all
the "alternative media" they require. This claim is misleading but it should not be reflexively
or completely dismissed. In the U.S. as elsewhere, those with access to the Internet and the
time and energy to use it meaningfully can find a remarkable breadth and depth of information
and trenchant Left analysis at various online sites. The Internet also broadens U.S. citizens
and activists' access to media networks beyond the U.S. – to elite sources that are much
less beholden of course to U.S. propaganda and ideology. At the same time, the Internet and
digital telephony networks have at times shown themselves to be effective grassroots organizing
tools for progressive U.S. activists.
Still, the democratic and progressive impact of the Internet in the U.S. is easily
exaggerated. Left and other progressive online outlets lack anything close to the financial,
technical, and organizational and human resources of the corporate news media, which has its
own sophisticated Internet. There is nothing in Left other citizen online outlets that can
begin to remotely challenge the "soft" ideological and propagandistic power of corporate
"entertainment" media. The Internet's technical infrastructure is increasingly dominated by an
"ISP cartel" led by a small number of giant corporations. As the leading left U.S. media
analyst Robert McChesney notes:
"By 2014, there are only a half-dozen or so major players that dominate provision of
broadband Internet access and wireless Internet access. Three of them – Verizon,
AT&T, and Comcast – dominate the field of telephony and Internet access, and have
set up what is in effect a cartel. They no longer compete with each other in any meaningful
sense. As a result, Americans pay far more for cellphone and broadband Internet access than
most other advanced nations and get much lousier service These are not 'free market'
companies in any sense of the term. Their business model, going back to pre-Internet days,
has always been capturing government monopoly licenses for telephone and cable TV services.
Their 'comparative advantage' has never been customer service; it has been world-class
lobbying.' [16]
Along the way, the notion of a great "democratizing," Wild West" and "free market" Internet
has proved politically useful for the corporate media giants. The regularly trumpet the great
Internet myth to claim that the U.S. public and regulators don't need to worry about corporate
media power and to justify their demands for more government subsidy and protection. At the
same time, finally, we know from the revelations of Edward Snowden, Glenn Greenwald and others
that the nation's leading digital and Internet-based e-mail (Google and Yahoo), telephony (e.g.
Verizon), and "social network" (Facebook above all) corporations have collaborated with the
National Security Agency and with the nation's local, state, and federal police in the
surveillance of U.S. citizens' and activists' private communications.[17]
Solutions
The fourth objection accuses Left media critics of being overly negative, "carping" critics
who offer no serious alternatives to the nation's current corporate-owned corporate-managed
commercial and for-profit media system. This is a transparently false and mean-spirited charge.
Left U.S. media criticism is strongly linked to a smart and impressive U.S. media reform
movement that advances numerous and interrelated proposals for the creation of a genuinely
public and democratically run non-commercial and nonprofit U.S. media system. Some of the
demand and proposals of this movement include public ownership and operation of the Internet as
a public utility; the break-up of the leading media oligopolies; full public funding of public
broadcasting; limits on advertising in commercial media; the abolition of political
advertisements; the expansion of airwave and broadband access for alternative media outlets;
publicly-funded nonprofit and non-commercial print journalism; the abolition of government and
corporate surveillance, monitoring, and commercial data-mining of private communication and
"social networks."[18] With regard to the media as with numerous other areas, we should recall
Chomsky's sardonic response to the standard conservative claim that the Left offers criticisms
but no solutions: "There is an accurate translation for that charge: 'they present solutions
and I don't like them.'"[19]
A False Paradox
The propagandistic and power-serving mission and nature of dominant U.S, corporate mass
media might seem ironic and even paradoxical in light of the United States' strong free speech
and democratic traditions. In fact, as Carey and Chomsky have noted, the former makes perfect
sense in light of the latter. In nations where popular expression and dissent is routinely
crushed with violent repression, elites have little incentive to shape popular perceptions in
accord with elite interests. The population is controlled primarily through physical coercion.
In societies where it is not generally considered legitimate to put down popular expression
with the iron heel of armed force and where dissenting opinion is granted a significant measure
of freedom of expression, elites are heavily and dangerously incentivized to seek to
manufacture mass popular consent and idiocy. The danger is deepened by the United States'
status as the pioneer in the development of mass consumer capitalism, advertising, film, and
television. Thanks to that history, corporate America has long stood in the global vanguard
when it comes to developing the technologies, methods, art, and science of mass persuasion and
thought control.[20]
It is appropriate to place quotation marks around the phrase "mainstream media" when writing
about dominant U.S. corporate media. During the Cold War era, U.S. officials and media never
referred to the Soviet Union's state television and radio or its main state newspapers as
"mainstream Russian media." American authorities referred to these Russian media outlets as
"Soviet state media" and treated that media as means for the dissemination of Soviet
"propaganda" and ideology. There is no reason to consider the United States' corporate and
commercial media as any more "mainstream" than the leading Soviet media organs were back in
their day. It is just as dedicated as the onetime Soviet state media to advancing the doctrinal
perspectives of its host nation's reigning elite -- and far more effective.
Its success is easily exaggerated, however. To everyday Americans' credit, corporate media
has never been fully successful in stamping out popular resistance and winning over the hearts
and minds of the U.S. populace. A recent Pew Research poll showed that U.S. "millennials"
(young adults 18-29 years old) have a more favorable response to the word "socialism" than to
"capitalism" – a remarkable finding on the limits of corporate media and other forms of
elite ideological power in the U.S. The immigrant worker uprising of May 2006, the Chicago
Republic Door and Window plant occupation of 2008, the University of California student
uprisings of 2009 and 2010, the Wisconsin public worker rebellion in early 2011, the Occupy
Movement of late 2011, and Fight for Fifteen (for a $15 an hour minimum wage) and Black Lives
Matter movements of 2014 and 2015 show that U.S. corporate and imperial establishment has not
manufactured anything like comprehensive and across the board mass consent and idiocy in the
U,S. today. The U.S. elite is no more successful in its utopian (or dystopian) quest to control
every American heart and mind than it is in its equally impossible ambition of managing events
across a complex planet from the banks of the Potomac River in Washington D.C. The struggle for
popular self-determination, democracy, justice, and equality lives on despite the influence of
corporate media.
"... The identity politics phenomenon sweeping across the Western world is a divide and conquer strategy that prevents the emergence of a genuine resistance to the elites. ..."
"... Each subgroup, increasingly alienated from all others, focuses on the shared identity and unique experiences of its members and prioritises its own empowerment. Anyone outside this subgroup is demoted to the rank of ally, at best. ..."
"... Precious time is spent fighting against those deemed less oppressed and telling them to 'check their privilege' as the ever-changing pecking order of the 'Oppression Olympics' plays out. The rules to this sport are as fluid as the identities taking part. One of the latest dilemmas affecting the identity politics movement is the issue of whether men transitioning to women deserve recognition and acceptance or 'whether trans women aren't women and are apparently " raping ..."
"... It is much easier to 'struggle' against an equally or slightly less oppressed group than to take the time and effort to unite with them against the common enemy - capitalism. ..."
"... There is a carefully crafted misconception that identity politics derives from Marxist thought and the meaningless phrase 'cultural Marxism', which has more to do with liberal culture than Marxism, is used to sell this line of thinking. Not only does identity politics have nothing in common with Marxism, socialism or any other strand of traditional left-wing thought, it is anathema to the very concept. ..."
"... 'An injury to one is an injury to all' has been replaced with something like 'An injury to me is all that matters'. No socialist country, whether in practice or in name only, promoted identity politics. Neither the African and Asian nations that liberated themselves from colonialist oppression nor the USSR and Eastern Bloc states nor the left-wing movements that sprung up across Latin America in the early 21st century had any time to play identity politics. ..."
"... The idea that identity politics is part of traditional left-wing thought is promoted by the right who seek to demonise left wing-movements, liberals who seek to infiltrate, backstab and destroy said left-wing movements, and misguided young radicals who know nothing about political theory and have neither the patience nor discipline to learn. The last group seek a cheap thrill that makes them feel as if they have shaken the foundations of the establishment when in reality they strengthen it. ..."
"... Identity politics is typically a modern middle-class led phenomenon that helps those in charge keep the masses divided and distracted. ..."
"... Think your friends would be interested? Share this story! ..."
"... Tomasz Pierscionek is a doctor specialising in psychiatry. He was previously on the board of the charity Medact, is editor of the London Progressive Journal and has appeared as a guest on RT's Sputnik and Al-Mayadeen's Kalima Horra. ..."
The
identity politics phenomenon sweeping across the Western world is a divide and conquer strategy
that prevents the emergence of a genuine resistance to the elites. A core principle of
socialism is the idea of an overarching supra-national solidarity that unites the international
working class and overrides any factor that might divide it, such as nation, race, or gender.
Workers of all nations are partners, having equal worth and responsibility in a struggle
against those who profit from their brain and muscle.
Capitalism, especially in its most evolved, exploitative and heartless form - imperialism -
has wronged certain groups of people more than others. Colonial empires tended to reserve their
greatest brutality for subjugated peoples whilst the working class of these imperialist nations
fared better in comparison, being closer to the crumbs that fell from the table of empire. The
international class struggle aims to liberate all people everywhere from the drudgery of
capitalism regardless of their past or present degree of oppression. The phrase 'an injury
to one is an injury to all' encapsulates this mindset and conflicts with the idea of
prioritising the interests of one faction of the working class over the entire collective.
Since the latter part of the 20th century, a liberally-inspired tendency has taken root
amongst the Left (in the West at least) that encourages departure from a single identity based
on class in favour of multiple identities based upon one's gender, sexuality, race or any other
dividing factor. Each subgroup, increasingly alienated from all others, focuses on the
shared identity and unique experiences of its members and prioritises its own empowerment.
Anyone outside this subgroup is demoted to the rank of ally, at best.
At the time of writing there are apparently over
70 different gender options in the West, not to mention numerous sexualities - the
traditional LGBT acronym has thus far grown to LGBTQQIP2SAA
. Adding race to the mix results in an even greater number of possible permutations or
identities. Each subgroup has its own ideology. Precious time is spent fighting against
those deemed less oppressed and telling them to 'check their privilege' as the ever-changing
pecking order of the 'Oppression Olympics' plays out. The rules to this sport are as fluid as
the identities taking part. One of the latest dilemmas affecting the identity politics movement
is the issue of whether men transitioning to women deserve recognition and acceptance or
'whether trans women aren't women and are apparently " raping "
lesbians'.
The ideology of identity politics asserts that the straight white male is at the apex of the
privilege pyramid, responsible for the oppression of all other groups. His original sin
condemns him to everlasting shame. While it is true that straight white men (as a group) have
faced less obstacles than females, non-straight men or ethnic minorities, the majority of
straight white men, past and present, also struggle to survive from paycheck to paycheck and
are not personally involved in the oppression of any other group. While most of the world's
wealthiest
individuals are Caucasian males, millions of white men exist who are both poor and
powerless. The idea of 'whiteness' is itself an ambiguous concept involving racial profiling.
For example, the Irish, Slavs and Ashkenazi Jews may look white yet have suffered more than
their fair share of famines, occupations and genocides throughout the centuries. The idea of
tying an individual's privilege to their appearance is itself a form of racism dreamed up by
woolly minded, liberal (some might say privileged) 'intellectuals' who would be superfluous in
any socialist society.
Is the middle-class ethnic minority lesbian living in Western Europe more oppressed than the
whitish looking Syrian residing under ISIS occupation? Is the British white working class male
really more privileged than a middle class woman from the same society? Stereotyping based on
race, gender or any other factor only leads to alienation and animosity. How can there be unity
amongst the Left if we are only loyal to ourselves and those most like us? Some 'white' men who
feel the Left has nothing to offer them have decided to play the identity politics game in
their search of salvation and have drifted towards supporting Trump (a billionaire with whom
they have nothing in common) or far-right movements, resulting in further alienation, animosity
and powerlessness which in turn only strengthens the position of the top 1%. People around the
world are more divided by class than any other factor.
It is much easier to 'struggle' against an equally or slightly less oppressed group than
to take the time and effort to unite with them against the common enemy - capitalism.
Fighting oppression through identity politics is at best a lazy, perverse and fetishistic form
of the class struggle led by mostly liberal, middle class and tertiary-educated activists who
understand little of left-wing political theory. At worst it is yet another tool used by the
top 1% to divide the other 99% into 99 or 999 different competing groups who are too
preoccupied with fighting their own little corner to challenge the status quo. It is ironic
that one of the major donors to the faux-left identity politics movement is the privileged
white cisgender male billionaire
George Soros , whose NGOs helped orchestrate the Euromaidan protests in Ukraine that gave
way to the emergence of far right and neo-nazi movements: the kind of people who believe in
racial superiority and do not look kindly on diversity.
There is a carefully crafted misconception that identity politics derives from Marxist
thought and the meaningless phrase 'cultural Marxism', which has more to do with liberal
culture than Marxism, is used to sell this line of thinking. Not only does identity politics
have nothing in common with Marxism, socialism or any other strand of traditional left-wing
thought, it is anathema to the very concept.
'An injury to one is an injury to all' has been replaced with something like 'An injury
to me is all that matters'. No socialist country, whether in practice or in name only, promoted
identity politics. Neither the African and Asian nations that liberated themselves from
colonialist oppression nor the USSR and Eastern Bloc states nor the left-wing movements that
sprung up across Latin America in the early 21st century had any time to play identity
politics.
The idea that identity politics is part of traditional left-wing thought is promoted by
the right who seek to demonise left wing-movements, liberals who seek to infiltrate, backstab
and destroy said left-wing movements, and misguided young radicals who know nothing about
political theory and have neither the patience nor discipline to learn. The last group seek a
cheap thrill that makes them feel as if they have shaken the foundations of the establishment
when in reality they strengthen it.
Identity politics is typically a modern middle-class led phenomenon that helps those in
charge keep the masses divided and distracted. In the West you are free to choose any
gender or sexuality, transition between these at whim, or perhaps create your own, but you are
not allowed to question the foundations of capitalism or liberalism. Identity politics is the
new opiate of the masses and prevents organised resistance against the system. Segments of the
Western Left even believe such aforementioned 'freedoms' are a bellwether of progress and an
indicator of its cultural superiority, one that warrants export abroad be it softly via NGOs or
more bluntly through colour revolutions and regime change.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
Tomasz Pierscionek is a doctor specialising in psychiatry. He was previously on the
board of the charity Medact, is editor of the London Progressive Journal and has appeared as a
guest on RT's Sputnik and Al-Mayadeen's Kalima Horra.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the
author and do not necessarily represent those of RT. Read more
"... Well, it comes down to the myths we've been sold. Myths that are ingrained in our social programming from birth, deeply entrenched, like an impacted wisdom tooth. These myths are accepted and basically never questioned. ..."
"... Our media outlets are funded by weapons contractors, big pharma, big banks, big oil and big, fat hard-on pills. (Sorry to go hard on hard-on pills, but we can't get anything resembling hard news because it's funded by dicks.) The corporate media's jobs are to rally for war, cheer for Wall Street and froth at the mouth for consumerism. It's their mission to actually fortify belief in the myths I'm telling you about right now. Anybody who steps outside that paradigm is treated like they're standing on a playground wearing nothing but a trench coat. ..."
"... The criminal justice system has become a weapon wielded by the corporate state. This is how bankers can foreclose on millions of homes illegally and see no jail time, but activists often serve jail time for nonviolent civil disobedience. Chris Hedges recently noted , "The most basic constitutional rights have been erased for many. Our judicial system, as Ralph Nader has pointed out, has legalized secret law, secret courts, secret evidence, secret budgets and secret prisons in the name of national security." ..."
"... This myth (Buying will make you happy) is put forward mainly by the floods of advertising we take in but also by our social engineering. Most of us feel a tenacious emptiness, an alienation deep down behind our surface emotions (for a while I thought it was gas). That uneasiness is because most of us are flushing away our lives at jobs we hate before going home to seclusion boxes called houses or apartments. We then flip on the TV to watch reality shows about people who have it worse than we do (which we all find hilarious). ..."
"... According to Deloitte's Shift Index survey : "80% of people are dissatisfied with their jobs" and "[t]he average person spends 90,000 hours at work over their lifetime." That's about one-seventh of your life -- and most of it is during your most productive years. ..."
"... Try maintaining your privacy for a week without a single email, web search or location data set collected by the NSA and the telecoms. ..."
Our society should've collapsed by now. You know that, right?
No society should function with this level of inequality (with the possible exception of one of those prison planets in a "Star
Wars" movie). Sixty-three percent of Americans
can't afford a $500 emergency
. Yet Amazon head Jeff Bezos is now
worth a record $141 billion . He could literally end world hunger for multiple years and still have more money left over than
he could ever spend on himself.
Worldwide,
one in
10 people only make $2 a day. Do you know how long it would take one of those people to make the same amount as Jeff Bezos has?
193 million years . (If they only buy single-ply toilet paper.) Put simply, you cannot comprehend the level of inequality in our
current world or even just our nation.
So shouldn't there be riots in the streets every day? Shouldn't it all be collapsing? Look outside. The streets aren't on fire.
No one is running naked and screaming (usually). Does it look like everyone's going to work at gunpoint? No. We're all choosing to
continue on like this.
Why?
Well, it comes down to the myths we've been sold. Myths that are ingrained in our social programming from birth, deeply entrenched,
like an impacted wisdom tooth. These myths are accepted and basically never questioned.
I'm going to cover eight of them. There are more than eight. There are probably hundreds. But I'm going to cover eight because
(A) no one reads a column titled "Hundreds of Myths of American Society," (B) these are the most important ones and (C) we all have
other shit to do.
Myth No. 8 -- We have a democracy.
If you think we still have a democracy or a democratic republic, ask yourself this: When was the last time Congress did something
that the people of America supported that did not align with corporate interests? You probably can't do it. It's like trying to think
of something that rhymes with "orange." You feel like an answer exists but then slowly realize it doesn't. Even the Carter Center
and former President Jimmy Carter believe that America has been
transformed into
an oligarchy : A small, corrupt elite control the country with almost no input from the people. The rulers need the myth that
we're a democracy to give us the illusion of control.
Myth No. 7 -- We have an accountable and legitimate voting system.
Gerrymandering, voter purging, data mining, broken exit polling, push polling, superdelegates, electoral votes, black-box machines,
voter ID suppression, provisional ballots, super PACs, dark money, third parties banished from the debates and two corporate parties
that stand for the same goddamn pile of fetid crap!
What part of this sounds like a legitimate election system?
No, we have what a large Harvard study called the
worst election system in the Western world . Have you ever seen where a parent has a toddler in a car seat, and the toddler has
a tiny, brightly colored toy steering wheel so he can feel like he's driving the car? That's what our election system is -- a toy
steering wheel. Not connected to anything. We all sit here like infants, excitedly shouting, "I'm steeeeering !"
And I know it's counterintuitive, but that's why you have to vote. We have to vote in such numbers that we beat out what's stolen
through our ridiculous rigged system.
Myth No. 6 -- We have an independent media that keeps the rulers accountable.
Our media outlets are funded by weapons contractors, big pharma, big banks, big oil and big, fat hard-on pills. (Sorry to go hard
on hard-on pills, but we can't get anything resembling hard news because it's funded by dicks.) The corporate media's jobs are to
rally for war, cheer for Wall Street and froth at the mouth for consumerism. It's their mission to actually fortify belief in the
myths I'm telling you about right now. Anybody who steps outside that paradigm is treated like they're standing on a playground wearing
nothing but a trench coat.
Myth No. 5 -- We have an independent judiciary.
The criminal justice system has become a weapon wielded by the corporate state. This is how bankers can foreclose on millions
of homes illegally and see no jail time, but activists often serve jail time for nonviolent civil disobedience. Chris Hedges
recently noted , "The most basic constitutional
rights have been erased for many. Our judicial system, as Ralph Nader has pointed out, has legalized secret law, secret courts, secret
evidence, secret budgets and secret prisons in the name of national security."
If you're not part of the monied class, you're pressured into releasing what few rights you have left. According to
The New
York Times , "97 percent of federal cases and 94 percent of state cases end in plea bargains, with defendants pleading guilty
in exchange for a lesser sentence."
That's the name of the game. Pressure people of color and poor people to just take the plea deal because they don't have a million
dollars to spend on a lawyer. (At least not one who doesn't advertise on beer coasters.)
Myth No. 4 -- The police are here to protect you. They're your friends .
That's funny. I don't recall my friend pressuring me into sex to get out of a speeding ticket. (Which is essentially still
legal in 32
states .)
The police in our country are primarily designed to do two things: protect the property of the rich and perpetrate the completely
immoral war on drugs -- which by definition is a war on our own people .
We lock up more people than
any other country on earth
. Meaning the land of the free is the largest prison state in the world. So all these droopy-faced politicians and rabid-talking
heads telling you how awful China is on human rights or Iran or North Korea -- none of them match the numbers of people locked up
right here under Lady Liberty's skirt.
Myth No. 3 -- Buying will make you happy.
This myth (Buying will make you happy) is put forward mainly by the floods of advertising we take in but also by our social engineering. Most of us feel a
tenacious emptiness, an alienation deep down behind our surface emotions (for a while I thought it was gas). That uneasiness is because
most of us are flushing away our lives at jobs we hate before going home to seclusion boxes called houses or apartments. We then
flip on the TV to watch reality shows about people who have it worse than we do (which we all find hilarious).
If we're lucky, we'll make enough money during the week to afford enough beer on the weekend to help it all make sense. (I find
it takes at least four beers for everything to add up.) But that doesn't truly bring us fulfillment. So what now? Well, the ads say
buying will do it. Try to smother the depression and desperation under a blanket of flat-screen TVs, purses and Jet Skis. Now does
your life have meaning? No? Well, maybe you have to drive that Jet Ski a little faster! Crank it up until your bathing suit flies
off and you'll feel alive !
The dark truth is that we have to believe the myth that consuming is the answer or else we won't keep running around the wheel.
And if we aren't running around the wheel, then we start thinking, start asking questions. Those questions are not good for the ruling
elite, who enjoy a society based on the daily exploitation of 99 percent of us.
Myth No. 2 -- If you work hard, things will get better.
According to Deloitte's Shift
Index survey : "80% of people are dissatisfied with their jobs" and "[t]he average person spends 90,000 hours at work over their
lifetime." That's about one-seventh of your life -- and most of it is during your most productive years.
Ask yourself what we're working for. To make money? For what? Almost none of us are doing jobs for survival anymore. Once upon
a time, jobs boiled down to:
I plant the food -- >I eat the food -- >If I don't plant food = I die.
But nowadays, if you work at a café -- will someone die if they don't get their super-caf-mocha-frap-almond-piss-latte? I kinda
doubt they'll keel over from a blueberry scone deficiency.
If you work at Macy's, will customers perish if they don't get those boxer briefs with the sweat-absorbent-ass fabric? I doubt
it. And if they do die from that, then their problems were far greater than you could've known. So that means we're all working to
make other people rich because we have a society in which we have to work. Technological advancements can do most everything that
truly must get done.
So if we wanted to, we could get rid of most work and have tens of thousands of more hours to enjoy our lives. But we're not doing
that at all. And no one's allowed to ask these questions -- not on your mainstream airwaves at least. Even a half-step like universal
basic income is barely discussed because it doesn't compute with our cultural programming.
Scientists say it's quite possible artificial intelligence will take away
all human jobs in 120 years . I think they know that will
happen because bots will take the jobs and then realize that 80 percent of them don't need to be done! The bots will take over and
then say, "Stop it. Stop spending a seventh of your life folding shirts at Banana Republic."
One day, we will build monuments to the bot that told us to enjoy our lives and leave the shirts wrinkly.
And this leads me to the largest myth of our American society.
Myth No. 1 -- You are free.
... ... ...
Try sleeping in your car for more than a few hours without being harassed by police.
Try maintaining your privacy for a week without a single email, web search or location data set collected by the NSA and the telecoms.
Try signing up for the military because you need college money and then one day just walking off the base, going, "Yeah, I was
bored. Thought I would just not do this anymore."
Try explaining to Kentucky Fried Chicken that while you don't have the green pieces of paper they want in exchange for the mashed
potatoes, you do have some pictures you've drawn on a napkin to give them instead.
Try using the restroom at Starbucks without buying something while black.
We are less free than a dog on a leash. We live in one of the hardest-working, most unequal societies on the planet with more
billionaires than ever .
Meanwhile,
Americans
supply 94 percent of the paid blood used worldwide. And it's almost exclusively coming from very poor people. This abusive vampire
system is literally sucking the blood from the poor. Does that sound like a free decision they made? Or does that sound like something
people do after immense economic force crushes down around them? (One could argue that sperm donation takes a little less convincing.)
Point is, in order to enforce this illogical, immoral system, the corrupt rulers -- most of the time -- don't need guns and tear
gas to keep the exploitation mechanisms humming along. All they need are some good, solid bullshit myths for us all to buy into,
hook, line and sinker. Some fairy tales for adults.
815M people chronically malnourished according to the UN. Bezos is worth $141B.
$141B / 815M people = $173 per person. That would definitely not feed them for "multiple years". And that's only if Bezos could
fully liquidate the stock without it dropping a penny.
" Point is, in order to enforce this illogical, immoral system, the corrupt rulers -- most of the time -- don't
need guns and tear gas to keep the exploitation mechanisms humming along. All they need are some good, solid bullshit myths for
us all to buy into, hook, line and sinker. Some fairy tales for adults. "
Seems like there's tear gas in the air and guns are going to be used soon. The myths are dying on the tongues of the liars.
Molon Labe!....and I'm usually a pacifist.
"American Society Would Collapse If It Weren't For Invasions Of Foreign Countries, Murdering Their People, Stealing Their Oil
Then Blaming Them For Making The US Do It."
Well, in a world driven by oil, it is entirely bogus to suggest that citizens have to work their asses off. That was the whole
point of the bill of goods that was sold to us in the late 70's and early 80'. More leisure time, more time for your family and
personal interests.
Except! It never happened. All they fucking did was reduce real wages and force everyone from the upper middle class down,
into a shit hole.
But, they will pay for their folly. Guaran-fucking-teed.
As one who has hoed many rows of cotton in 115F temperatures as well as picking cotton during my childhood and early adolescence
during weekends and school holidays, I concur. It was a very powerful inducement to get a good education back when schools actually
taught things and did not tolerate backtalk or guff from students instead of babysitting them. It worked, and I ended up writing
computer software for spacecraft, which was much fun than working in the fields.
"... After the Creation of the "CIA" Unelected, Unconstitutional CIA Intelligence Agency Interfered In Foreign Presidential Elections At Least 81 Times In 54 Years. The US was found to have interfered in foreign elections at least 81 times in 31 countries between 1946 and 2000 – not counting Libya, Syria, Turkey, Ukraine, The US-backed military coups or regime change efforts, Proxy-Wars. Just saying ..."
"... Tucker Carlson has been analyzing policies/ideas on a deeper level this year. He is painting US a big picture for us to see. It's quite refreshing to see Fox News actually allow objective truth be aired on on occasion. ..."
"... The Intelligence Agencies are the Praetorian Guard in the United States. ..."
"... Party politics is a means of control. When you come to realize that we all have a tendency to agree that the major issues have no party loyalty, and we're all on the same side, you can look past minor differences and move forward to working for the greater good... ..."
"... I just saw another Tucker Carlson news clip that Tony Podesta is offered immunity to testify against Paul Manafort? WTF? Why aren't Podestas charged?! ..."
"... Neocons, military industrial complex and liberal leftists have penetrated deeply into the government intelligence communities, wall street banking, both houses of Us congress, mainstream media as well as Hollywood people, even in an academia. This country is deep sh*t. I am surprised liberal leftists have not crucified Tucker Carlson yet for speaking out. ..."
"... Russiagate is DemoKKKrat horse cookies. Putin is correct. DemoKKKrats are bad losers. $1.2 billion gone, servers gone! ..."
Guys Did you know: After the Creation of the "CIA" Unelected, Unconstitutional CIA
Intelligence Agency Interfered In Foreign Presidential Elections At Least 81 Times In 54
Years. The US was found to have interfered in foreign elections at least 81 times in 31
countries between 1946 and 2000 – not counting Libya, Syria, Turkey, Ukraine, The
US-backed military coups or regime change efforts, Proxy-Wars. Just saying.
¯\_(^)_/¯
Tucker Carlson is a special character. 95% of time i disagree with Tucker but 5% of time
he's just exceptionally good. In April his 8 minute monologue was epic. I love Jimmy Dore's
passion... specially when he pronounes "they're lying!!!" Jimmy clearly hates liars ;-) We
love you Jimmy for your integrity and intelligence.
Weapons of mass destruction, 9/11, Bin Laden, Lybia, Gulf of Tonkin, Opium fields in
Afghanistan, Operation Mockingbird, Operation Paperclip..... A few reasons not to trust your
CIA and FBI. I am sure you guys can name some more.
Tucker Carlson has been analyzing policies/ideas on a deeper level this year. He is
painting US a big picture for us to see. It's quite refreshing to see Fox News actually allow
objective truth be aired on on occasion.
Pulling off the partisan blinders is the first step toward enlightenment... Party politics
is a means of control. When you come to realize that we all have a tendency to agree that the
major issues have no party loyalty, and we're all on the same side, you can look past minor
differences and move forward to working for the greater good...
THE CIA HAS BEEN OVERTHROWING GOVERMENTS FOR DECADES,and you wonder why Trump doesn't
trust them? It's because he doesn't want war. He ain't no saint but at least we have an anti
war President.
Morning Joe's panel said today that the Democrats need to run on this Russia conspiracy
theory, and nothing else, in order to win the midterms. If they bring up free college or
medicare for all it will "weaken their message and confuse the voters". Once again the
corporate neoliberal warmonger Democrats and their rich TV puppets are setting us up for
failure, no voter gives a damn about Russia, MSNBC wants our progressive candidates to lose
instead of reform their corrupt party!
I think what has happened to the Liberals, is that for decades and decades they were the
most progressive, tolerant party. They really did want to do more for the people and tried to
introduce things that the right would instantly point to and call "socialist!!" Corporations
started to look at these liberals as representatives they could pay off but without suspect,
unlike Republicans, who were widely known to accept money from Corporations, Big Pharma and
huge construction companies (Haliburton anyone?).
Over time, Liberals saw the benefits of
being chummy with these same big $$ companies and voted on bills, etc in the ways that would
make these corps very happy and more profitable. No one wanted to believe that Liberals were
doing the same thing as Republicans but now we know they are. It's not a secret anymore. Most
politicians aren't in it to make their country, their state or their cities better; they're
in it to make their bank accounts unbelievably huge and that's it. They're greedy people with
no integrity, pretending to serve the people.
I'm a righty, and I'm so surprised to see a liberal agree with Tucker in all the things I
care about! Imagine what we could accomplish if we put aside our differences for a time and
work on what we agree on! No more immoral wars for Israel! TRY BUSH, CHENEY, AND ALL NEOCONS
THAT LED US TO WAR WITH IRAQ FOR TREASON!!
You are so right. Thank you for bringout the truth. Neocons, military industrial complex
and liberal leftists have penetrated deeply into the government intelligence communities,
wall street banking, both houses of Us congress, mainstream media as well as Hollywood people,
even in an academia. This country is deep sh*t. I am surprised liberal leftists have not
crucified Tucker Carlson yet for speaking out.
Russiagate is DemoKKKrat horse cookies. Putin is correct. DemoKKKrats are bad losers. $1.2
billion gone, servers gone! DmoKKKrats cannot even prove climate change
I think there is much more to the comment made by Putin regarding Bill Browder and his money flows into the DNC and Clinton
campaign. That would explain why the DNC didn't hand the servers over to the FBI after being hacked. If you follow the money a
lot of what happened during the election and afterwards in regards to Russia and Trump start to make sense. Could it be that we
are finally witnessing the removal the last layers of the center of the onion?
HILLARY CLINTON'S COMPROMISED EMAILS WERE GOING TO A FOREIGN ENTITY – NOT RUSSIA! FBI Agent Ignored Evidence Report from
Decameron
FBI Peter Strzok – the philandering FBI chief investigator who facilitated the FISA surveillance of Trump campaign officials in
2016 – has been exposed for ignoring evidence of major Clinton-related breaches of national security and has been accused of lying
about it.
Hillary Clinton's emails, "every single one except for four, over 30,000 of them, were going to an address that was not on the
distribution l ist," Texas Congressman Louis Gohmert said on Friday. And they went to "an unauthorized source that was a foreign
entity unrelated to Russia." The information came from Intelligence Community Inspector General Chuck McCullough, who sent his
investigator Frank Rucker, along with an ICIG attorney Janette McMillan, to brief Strzok.
Gohmert nailed Strozk at the open Congressional hearing on Friday the 13 th in Washington, but Strzok claimed no recollection.
Gohmert accused him of lying. Maybe Strzok's amnesia about the briefing on Hillary Clinton's email server is nothing but standard
FBI training: i.e., when in doubt, don't recall. It's far more likely that there is a campaign of deliberate obstructing justice,
selective prosecution, and political targeting by top officials embedded in the permanent bureaucracy of the Justice Department,
FBI, and broader IC. Strzok is not alone.
And what "foreign entity" got Hillary's classified emails? Trump haters in British Intelligence and those in Israel who want to
manipulate the US presidency – whatever party prevails – come to mind. Listen closely and you may hear rumors around Washington that
it was Israel, not Russia, that was the foreign power involved in approaching Trump advisers. Time to follow that thread.
Both Representatives Gohmert (TX) and Trey Gowdy (SC) did a great job trying to pierce the veil of denials. But, right after Strzok's
amnesia in Congress, the Justice Department announced the indictment of GRU members. Change of subject. The same foul stench noted
by Publius Tacitus about the GRU indictment filled Congress as Agent Strzok testified.
So, a foreign power (not Russia but "hostile" according to Gohmert) modified internal instructions in HC's server so that a blind
copy went to this other country, all 30,000 e-mails. I wonder what was different about the four that were not so copied. What
are likely countries? The UK, China and Israel would be at the top of my list
So the emails were being bcc-ed or the server was set up to copy all emails passing through it to some foreign server? I am curious
about the mechanics.
It seems that the server was the mechanism. Whether that was by physical access to the server or electronically at a distance.
Her entire system was not secure and could be easily penetrated.
"... In December, a letter from Senate Homeland Security Committee Chair Ron Johnson (R-WI) revealed that Strzok and other FBI officials effectively "decriminalized" Clinton's behavior through a series of edits to James Comey's original statement. ..."
"... The letter described how outgoing Deputy Director Andrew McCabe exchanged drafts of Comey's statement with senior FBI officials , including Strzok, Strzok's direct supervisor , E.W. "Bill" Priestap, Jonathan Moffa, and an unnamed employee from the Office of General Counsel (identified by Newsweek as DOJ Deputy General Counsel Trisha Anderson) - in a coordinated conspiracy among top FBI brass. ..."
"... In summary; the FBI launched an investigation into Hillary Clinton's private server, ignored evidence it may have been hacked, downgraded the language in Comey's draft to decriminalize her behavior, and then exonerated her by recommending the DOJ not prosecute. ..."
"... Meanwhile, a tip submitted by an Australian diplomat tied to a major Clinton Foundation deal launched the FBI's counterintelligence operation against the Trump campaign - initially spearheaded by the same Peter Strzok who worked so hard to get Hillary off the hook. ..."
FBI counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok reportedly ignored "an irregularity in the
metadata" indicating that Hillary Clinton's server may had been breached, while FBI top brass
made significant edits to former Director James Comey's statement specifically minimizing how
likely it was that hostile actors had gained access.
Sources told
Fox News that Strzok, who sent anti-Trump text messages that got him removed from the
ongoing Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Russia probe, was told about the metadata anomaly in
2016, but Strzok did not support a formal damage assessment. One source said: " Nothing
happened. "
In December, a letter
from Senate Homeland Security Committee Chair Ron Johnson (R-WI) revealed that Strzok and other
FBI officials effectively "decriminalized" Clinton's behavior through a series of edits to
James Comey's original statement.
The letter described how outgoing Deputy Director Andrew McCabe exchanged drafts of Comey's
statement with senior FBI officials , including Strzok, Strzok's direct supervisor , E.W. "Bill" Priestap, Jonathan
Moffa, and an unnamed employee from the Office of General Counsel (identified by Newsweek as DOJ Deputy General Counsel Trisha
Anderson) - in a coordinated conspiracy among top FBI brass.
It was already known that Strzok - who was demoted to the FBI's HR department for sending
anti-Trump text messages to his mistress -
downgraded the language describing Clinton's conduct from the criminal charge of "gross
negligence" to "extremely careless."
Notably, "Gross negligence" is a legal term of art in criminal law often associated with
recklessness. According to Black's Law Dictionary, it is defined as " A severe degree of
negligence taken as reckless disregard ," and " Blatant indifference to one's legal duty,
other's safety, or their rights ." "Extremely careless," on the other hand, is not a legal term
of art.
18 U.S. Code §
793 "Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information" specifically uses the phrase
"gross negligence." Had Comey used the phrase, he would have essentially declared that Hillary
had broken the law.
In order to justify downgrading Clinton's behavior to "extremely careless," however, FBI
officials also needed to minimize the impact of her crimes. As revealed in the letter from Rep.
Johnson, the FBI downgraded the probability that Clinton's server was hacked by hostile actors
from " reasonably likely " to " possible ."
"Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained
access to Secretary Clinton's personal e-mail account," Comey said in his statement.
By doing so, the FBI downgraded Clinton's negligence - thus supporting the "extremely
careless" language.
The FBI also edited Clinton's exoneration letter to remove a reference to the "sheer volume"
of classified material on the private server, which - according to the original draft "supports
an inference that the participants were grossly negligent in their handling of that
information." Furthermore, all references to the Intelligence Community's involvement in
investigating Clinton's private email server were removed as well.
Director Comey's original statement acknowledged the FBI had worked with its partners in the
Intelligence Community to assess potential damage from Secretary Clinton's use of a private
email server. The original statement read:
W]e have done extensive work with the assistance of our colleagues elsewhere in the
Intelligence Community to understand what indications there might be of compromise by hostile
actors in connection with the private email operation.
In summary; the FBI launched an investigation into Hillary Clinton's private server, ignored
evidence it may have been hacked, downgraded the language in Comey's draft to decriminalize her
behavior, and then exonerated her by recommending the DOJ not prosecute.
Meanwhile, a tip submitted by an Australian diplomat tied to a major Clinton Foundation deal
launched the FBI's counterintelligence operation against the Trump campaign - initially
spearheaded by the same Peter Strzok who worked so hard to get Hillary off the hook.
And Strzok still collects a taxpayer-funded paycheck.
Looks like Brennan abused his power as a head of CIA and should be held accountable for that.
Notable quotes:
"... Did the U.S. "Intelligence Community" judge that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election? ..."
"... it is not that ..."
"... even that is misleading ..."
"... the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence Research did, in fact, have a different opinion but was not allowed to express it ..."
"... The second thing to remember is that reports of the intelligence agencies reflect the views of the heads of the agencies and are not necessarily a consensus of their analysts' views. The heads of both the CIA and FBI are political appointments, while the NSA chief is a military officer; his agency is a collector of intelligence rather than an analyst of its import, except in the fields of cryptography and communications security. ..."
"... Among the assertions are that a persona calling itself "Guccifer 2.0" is an instrument of the GRU, and that it hacked the emails on the Democratic National Committee's computer and conveyed them to Wikileaks. What the report does not explain is that it is easy for a hacker or foreign intelligence service to leave a false trail. In fact, a program developed by CIA with NSA assistance to do just that has been leaked and published. ..."
"... Retired senior NSA technical experts have examined the "Guccifer 2.0" data on the web and have concluded that "Guccifer 2.0's" data did not involve a hack across the web but was locally downloaded. Further, the data had been tampered with and manipulated, leading to the conclusion that "Guccifer 2.0" is a total fabrication. ..."
"... "Disclosures through WikiLeaks did not contain any evident forgeries." ..."
"... DHS [the Department of Homeland Security] assesses that the types of systems Russian actors targeted or compromised were not involved in vote tallying ..."
"... Prominent American journalists and politicians seized upon this shabby, politically motivated, report as proof of "Russian interference" in the U.S. election without even the pretense of due diligence. They have objectively acted as co-conspirators in an effort to block any improvement in relations with Russia, even though cooperation with Russia to deal with common dangers is vital to both countries. ..."
Musings II The "Intelligence Community," "Russian Interference," and Due Diligence
Posted on by JackDid the U.S. "Intelligence Community" judge that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential
election?
Most commentators seem to think so. Every news report I have read of the planned meeting of
Presidents Trump and Putin in July refers to "Russian interference" as a fact and asks whether
the matter will be discussed. Reports that President Putin denied involvement in the election
are scoffed at, usually with a claim that the U.S. "intelligence community" proved Russian
interference. In fact, the U.S. "intelligence community" has not done so. The intelligence
community as a whole has not been tasked to make a judgment and some key members of that
community did not participate in the report that is routinely cited as "proof" of "Russian
interference."
I spent the 35 years of my government service with a "top secret" clearance. When I reached
the rank of ambassador and also worked as Special Assistant to the President for National
Security, I also had clearances for "codeword" material. At that time, intelligence reports to
the president relating to Soviet and European affairs were routed through me for comment. I
developed at that time a "feel" for the strengths and weaknesses of the various American
intelligence agencies. It is with that background that I read the January 6. 2017 report of three
intelligence agencies: the CIA, FBI, and NSA.
This report is labeled "Intelligence Community Assessment," but in fact it is not
that . A report of the intelligence community in my day would include the input of all the
relevant intelligence agencies and would reveal whether all agreed with the conclusions.
Individual agencies did not hesitate to "take a footnote" or explain their position if they
disagreed with a particular assessment. A report would not claim to be that of the
"intelligence community" if any relevant agency was omitted.
The report states that it represents the findings of three intelligence agencies: CIA, FBI,
and NSA, but even that is misleading in that it implies that there was a consensus of
relevant analysts in these three agencies. In fact, the report was prepared by a group of
analysts from the three agencies pre-selected by their directors, with the selection process
generally overseen by James Clapper, then Director of National Intelligence (DNI). Clapper told
the Senate in testimony May 8, 2017, that it was prepared by "two dozen or so analysts --
hand-picked, seasoned experts from each of the contributing agencies." If you can hand-pick the
analysts, you can hand-pick the conclusions. The analysts selected would have understood what
Director Clapper wanted since he made no secret of his views. Why would they endanger their
careers by not delivering?
What should have struck any congressperson or reporter was that the procedure Clapper
followed was the same as that used in 2003 to produce the report falsely claiming that Saddam
Hussein had retained stocks of weapons of mass destruction. That should be worrisome enough to
inspire questions, but that is not the only anomaly.
The DNI has under his aegis a National Intelligence Council whose officers can call any
intelligence agency with relevant expertise to draft community assessments. It was created by
Congress after 9/11 specifically to correct some of the flaws in intelligence collection
revealed by 9/11. Director Clapper chose not to call on the NIC, which is curious since its
duty is "to act as a bridge between the intelligence and policy communities."
During my time in government, a judgment regarding national security would include reports
from, as a minimum, the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), and the Bureau of
Intelligence and Research (INR) of the State Department. The FBI was rarely, if ever, included
unless the principal question concerned law enforcement within the United States. NSA might
have provided some of the intelligence used by the other agencies but normally did not express
an opinion regarding the substance of reports.
What did I notice when I read the January report? There was no mention of INR or DIA! The
exclusion of DIA might be understandable since its mandate deals primarily with military
forces, except that the report attributes some of the Russian activity to the GRU, Russian
military intelligence. DIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, is the U.S. intelligence organ
most expert on the GRU. Did it concur with this attribution? The report doesn't say.
The omission of INR is more glaring since a report on foreign political activity could not
have been that of the U.S. intelligence community without its participation. After all, when it
comes to assessments of foreign intentions and foreign political activity, the State
Department's intelligence service is by far the most knowledgeable and competent. In my day, it
reported accurately on Gorbachev's reforms when the CIA leaders were advising that Gorbachev
had the same aims as his predecessors.
This is where due diligence comes in. The first question responsible journalists and
politicians should have asked is "Why is INR not represented? Does it have a different opinion?
If so, what is that opinion? Most likely the official answer would have been that this is
"classified information." But why should it be classified? If some agency heads come to a
conclusion and choose (or are directed) to announce it publicly, doesn't the public deserve to
know that one of the key agencies has a different opinion?
The second question should have been directed at the CIA, NSA, and FBI: did all their
analysts agree with these conclusions or were they divided in their conclusions? What was the
reason behind hand-picking analysts and departing from the customary practice of enlisting
analysts already in place and already responsible for following the issues involved?
As I was recently informed by a senior official, the State Department's Bureau of
Intelligence Research did, in fact, have a different opinion but was not allowed to express
it . So the January report was not one of the "intelligence community," but rather of
three intelligence agencies, two of which have no responsibility or necessarily any competence
to judge foreign intentions. The job of the FBI is to enforce federal law. The job of NSA is to
intercept the communications of others and to protect ours. It is not staffed to assess the
content of what is intercepted; that task is assumed by others, particularly the CIA, the DIA
(if it is military) or the State Department's INR (if it is political).
The second thing to remember is that reports of the intelligence agencies reflect the views
of the heads of the agencies and are not necessarily a consensus of their analysts' views. The
heads of both the CIA and FBI are political appointments, while the NSA chief is a military
officer; his agency is a collector of intelligence rather than an analyst of its import, except
in the fields of cryptography and communications security.
One striking thing about the press coverage and Congressional discussion of the January
report, and of subsequent statements by CIA, FBI, and NSA heads is that questions were never
posed regarding the position of the State Department's INR, or whether the analysts in the
agencies cited were in total agreement with the conclusions.
Let's put these questions aside for the moment and look at the report itself. On the first
page of text, the following statement leapt to my attention:
We did not make an assessment of the impact that Russian activities had on the outcome of
the 2016 election. The US Intelligence Community is charged with monitoring and assessing the
intentions, capabilities, and actions of foreign actors; it does not analyze US political
processes or US public opinion.
Now, how can one judge whether activity "interfered" with an election without assessing its
impact? After all, if the activity had no impact on the outcome of the election, it could not
be properly termed interference. This disclaimer, however, has not prevented journalists and
politicians from citing the report as proof that "Russia interfered" in the 2016 U.S.
presidential election.
As for particulars, the report is full of assertion, innuendo, and description of
"capabilities" but largely devoid of any evidence to substantiate its assertions. This is
"explained" by claiming that much of the evidence is classified and cannot be disclosed without
revealing sources and methods. The assertions are made with "high confidence" or occasionally,
"moderate confidence." Having read many intelligence reports I can tell you that if there is
irrefutable evidence of something it will be stated as a fact. The use of the term "high
confidence" is what most normal people would call "our best guess." "Moderate confidence" means
"some of our analysts think this might be true."
Among the assertions are that a persona calling itself "Guccifer 2.0" is an instrument of
the GRU, and that it hacked the emails on the Democratic National Committee's computer and
conveyed them to Wikileaks. What the report does not explain is that it is easy for a hacker or
foreign intelligence service to leave a false trail. In fact, a program developed by CIA with
NSA assistance to do just that has been leaked and published.
Retired senior NSA technical experts have examined the "Guccifer 2.0" data on the web and
have concluded that "Guccifer 2.0's" data did not involve a hack across the web but was locally
downloaded. Further, the data had been tampered with and manipulated, leading to the conclusion
that "Guccifer 2.0" is a total fabrication.
The report's assertions regarding the supply of the DNC emails to Wikileaks are dubious, but
its final statement in this regard is important: "Disclosures through WikiLeaks did not
contain any evident forgeries." In other words, what was disclosed was the truth! So,
Russians are accused of "degrading our democracy" by revealing that the DNC was trying to fix
the nomination of a particular candidate rather than allowing the primaries and state caucuses
to run their course. I had always thought that transparency is consistent with democratic
values. Apparently those who think that the truth can degrade democracy have a rather bizarre
-- to put it mildly–concept of democracy.
Most people, hearing that it is a "fact" that "Russia" interfered in our election must think
that Russian government agents hacked into vote counting machines and switched votes to favor a
particular candidate. This, indeed, would be scary, and would justify the most painful
sanctions. But this is the one thing that the "intelligence" report of January 6, 2017, states
did not happen. Here is what it said: " DHS [the Department of Homeland Security] assesses
that the types of systems Russian actors targeted or compromised were not involved in vote
tallying ."
This is an important statement by an agency that is empowered to assess the impact of
foreign activity on the United States. Why was it not consulted regarding other aspects of the
study? Or -- was it in fact consulted and refused to endorse the findings? Another obvious
question any responsible journalist or competent politician should have asked.
Prominent American journalists and politicians seized upon this shabby, politically
motivated, report as proof of "Russian interference" in the U.S. election without even the
pretense of due diligence. They have objectively acted as co-conspirators in an effort to block
any improvement in relations with Russia, even though cooperation with Russia to deal with
common dangers is vital to both countries.
This is only part of the story of how, without good reason, U.S.-Russian relations have
become dangerously confrontational. God willin and the crick don't rise, I'll be musing about
other aspects soon.
Thanks to Ray McGovern and Bill Binney for their research assistance.
Jack F. Matlock, Jr.
Booneville, Tennessee
June 29, 2018
"... In a mature society, it would not matter if someone was black, white, gay, Jewish, young, old, whatever but what policies they bring to the party. This article, going out of its way to label Nixon as LGBT and Sanders as Jewish, really only means that they are letting the other side set the rules and that is never a winning position. Unfortunately we do not live in a mature society. ..."
"... Not until people are done with identity politics will it be really possible to bring a new order into focus. Support Kamala Harris, for example, because she is not white and a woman? Not unless she has policies that the bulk of Americans want and is not just the old party in a new guise. I suspect that this use of the term 'progressive' is just a term to describe what the majority of Americans want out of their governments. People like Clinton, Pelosi, Waters and Albright can not and will not do this so time for them to be pushed aside. I think that the US Presidential election of 2020 will be very telling of how things play out as the results of the 2018 mid-terms are absorbed. ..."
"... I think identity politics has always served as a diversion for elites to play within the neoliberal bandwidth of decreasing public spending. Fake austerity and an unwillingness to use conjured money for public QE are necessary for pursuing neoliberal privatization of public enterprises. Therefore Bernie and his MMT infrastructure are anathema to corporate democrats and their Wall St. benefactors. ..."
"... Moral Monday represents what I deem as people over profit. I would rather be a spoiler than enable corporate sociopaths to.expand mass incarceration, end welfare as we know it, consider the killing of a half-million Iraqi children an acceptable cost, or oversee the first inverted debt jubilee in 2008 to forgive the liabilities of fraudsters by pauperizing debtors. ..."
"... Once you abandon class-based politics, and all parties accept the neoliberal consensus, you still have the problem of attracting support. You can only do that by turning to the politics of identity, as practised in Africa or the Balkans, where you seek to corral entire groups to vote for you, based on ethnicity, skin colour etc. ..."
"... Modern parties of the "Left" have taken over the methods, if not the ideology, of the old Communist parties, which is to say they present themselves as natural leaders, whom the membership should follow and vote for. ..."
"... Readers should examine the recent book Asymmetric Politics. The key point is that the Democratic Party is as described by David in some fair part an identity-based party, so it is supported by, e.g., many African-Americans. The Republican Party, unusual in the Western World, is not an identity based party; it is an idea-based party. It may not be very good at putting its ideas into effect, but it is an idea-based party that anyone can support. ..."
"... The Republicans are an "ideas-based" party? Well, I guess if you consider the interest-motivated "product" of Overclass-funded think tanks to be "idea-based," then OK. Me, I've haven't seen the Republicans as anything other than a class and (white) race-based party since I was a youth half a century ago. ..."
"... As for the cynicism of how the Democrats use identity politics: granted. Nevertheless, African-Americans have some tangible and valid reasons for voting for them, awful as they are. ..."
"... George Phillies didn't say the Republicans had "good" ideas. He just noted that the Republicans have "ideas". A "bad" idea is still an "idea". ..."
"... So Pelosi's final bequest to the public is a corrupt successor? What a world! ..."
"... Pelosi's been quoted a number of times saying, "we lead with our values". You certainly do, Mrs. Speaker! Thanks for making it clear! ..."
"... Come on, folks. By now you should have learned that what politicians say doesn't mean a damn thing -- it's what they do. The establishment is only interested in perpetuating the establishment. ..."
"... As far as I've seen, they trot out identity politics only when it suits their aims and it has nothing to do with what the voters actually want. ..."
"... Identity politics are to Democrats what religious politics are to Republicans: A pious high ground they use whenever they want to denounce anyone opposed to them as corrupt and immoral, but immediately gets shelved the moment it interferes with the money and power. ..."
"... To me, it's a dishonest policy erasure tactic for favoring establishment candidates. If you're against Hillary Clinton, it's must be ..."
"... Of course the most important identity is that of the worker, the person who must sell their labor power in the marketplace to survive. But you will rarely hear the Democrats discuss that identity. You might hear about "working families" and the "middle class" but it really means nothing. The Republicans use the same language and they are just as mendacious. ..."
"... Working families: Groups of people related genetically or by choice, all of whom, regardless of age, have to work to ensure they have food, clothing, and shelter. ..."
"... I can think of a couple of identity-words to offer to see if anyone identifies with them. Ex-middle class. Nouveau poor. ..."
"... Western Democrats focus too much on a minority which has barely any impact on the economy at the expense of the majority which actually dictates the general economic trend and therefore also creates the byproduct welfare/life quality of all the meme minorities to whom it trickles down. That's the issue here. The difference between normal people and minorities is that normal people know they don't matter in the larger picture, while minorities think they matter while at the same time asking to be treated as part of the normal people even though their very mentality is a paradox towards being normal. ..."
"... The West is simply too bankrupt on things that matter in the bigger picture and too involved in things that don't, a complete lack of prioritization. ..."
Eric Holder, former attorney general of the USA under President Obama, has publicly
announced that he is considering a run for the White House in 2020. (Thanks to that
WikiLeaked email awhile back, we know that Citigroup directed a newly elected President Obama
to appoint him to the position of A.G.)
I fervently pray that Eric Holder, of Covington & Burling, declares himself a
candidate!
Only then will the opportunity again present itself to expose Eric Holder -- and Covington
& Burling -- in their involvement with the creation and operation of MERS (Mortgage
Electronic Reporting System) and its connection to the global economic meltdown (2007 --
2009), the greatest illegal wealth transfer and insurance swindle in human history!
How we would welcome such transparency of evil, how BlackRock profited from that economic
meltdown, then oversaw the disbursement of those TARP bailout funds.
Exposure of the network of BlackRock and Vanguard and State Street and Fidelity; exposure
of their major investors. Further exposure of the Blackstone Group and Carlyle Group and
other such PE/LBO giants!
How the InterContinental Exchange (ICE) was involved in nefarious commodity price rigging,
etc., manipulated derivatives dealing and how today they oversee LIBOR rates!
The further exposure of the influence and perfidy of the Group of Thirty (www.group30.org)
and the Bretton Woods Committee (www.brettonwoods.org) -- oh how we'd love to see such
exposure!
Holder for President? Oh boy Mr. Peabody! That's great!
If a critical difference-making margin of non-voting Black non-voters in Milwaukee were
willing to non-vote between Clinton and Trump even at the price of letting Trump take
Wisconsin, that could mean that the Race Card is wearing thin. Who exactly would Mr. Holder
be able to fool in Milwaukee? He would do well in Hyde Park though . . . getting the Guilty
White Privilege Expiation vote. Will that be enough? Will the Madison vote be enough to make
up for the Milwaukee non-vote?
You know who would be a perfect pair? Holder and Harris. Or Holder and Booker. Or some
such. Seriously, if the DemParty nominates Holder, I will vote for Trump all over again. And
at the Senate or Representative level, I would vote for an old legacy New Deal Democrat if
there is one. But if they run a Clintonite, some protest Third Party looks very attractive by
comparison.
In a mature society, it would not matter if someone was black, white, gay, Jewish,
young, old, whatever but what policies they bring to the party. This article, going out of
its way to label Nixon as LGBT and Sanders as Jewish, really only means that they are letting
the other side set the rules and that is never a winning position. Unfortunately we do not
live in a mature society.
If push came to shove you would have to describe both the Republican and Democrat parties
as bastions of neoliberalism and both parties play games with identity politics as it
fractures those who would oppose them and encourages internecine warfare. Like a kaleidoscope
shifting focus, the 2008 crash has started off a shift in how politics is done and the
success of Trump in the US, Brexit in the UK as well as other leaders is this shift in its
first efforts of readjusting.
Not until people are done with identity politics will it be really possible to bring a new
order into focus. Support Kamala Harris, for example, because she is not white and a woman?
Not unless she has policies that the bulk of Americans want and is not just the old party in
a new guise. I suspect that this use of the term 'progressive' is just a term to describe
what the majority of Americans want out of their governments. People like Clinton, Pelosi,
Waters and Albright can not and will not do this so time for them to be pushed aside. I think
that the US Presidential election of 2020 will be very telling of how things play out as the
results of the 2018 mid-terms are absorbed.
I think identity politics has always served as a diversion for elites to play within the
neoliberal bandwidth of decreasing public spending. Fake austerity and an unwillingness to
use conjured money for public QE are necessary for pursuing neoliberal privatization of
public enterprises. Therefore Bernie and his MMT infrastructure are anathema to corporate
democrats and their Wall St. benefactors.
Moral Monday represents what I deem as people over profit. I would rather be a spoiler
than enable corporate sociopaths to.expand mass incarceration, end welfare as we know it,
consider the killing of a half-million Iraqi children an acceptable cost, or oversee the
first inverted debt jubilee in 2008 to forgive the liabilities of fraudsters by pauperizing
debtors.
The obvious answer is "very" and this applies pretty much to every major allegedly leftist
party in the western world.
The fact is that if you want to form a political party and take power, or even make good
careers, you have to find supporters and get them to vote for you. Historically, after the
growth of modern political parties, they differentiated themselves by reference to social and
economic groups. In most countries there was a traditionalist party, often rural, with links
to church and aristocracy and the socially conservative, a middle-class professional/small
business party and a mass working class party often under middle-class leadership. Depending
on the country, this could, in practice, be more than three or less than three distinct
parties.
Once you abandon class-based politics, and all parties accept the neoliberal
consensus, you still have the problem of attracting support. You can only do that by turning
to the politics of identity, as practised in Africa or the Balkans, where you seek to corral
entire groups to vote for you, based on ethnicity, skin colour etc. The problem is that
whilst the old political distinctions were objective, the new ones are much more subjective,
overlapping and sometimes in conflict with each other. After all, you are objectively
employed or unemployed, a shareholder or landowner or not, an employee or an employer, you
have debt or savings, you earn enough to live on or you don't. It's therefore easier to
construct political parties on that basis than on the basis of ascriptive, overlapping and
conflicting subjective identities.
Modern parties of the "Left" have taken over the methods, if not the ideology, of the
old Communist parties, which is to say they present themselves as natural leaders, whom the
membership should follow and vote for. This worked well enough when the markers were
economic, much less well when they are identity based. Trying to herd together middle-class
professional socially-liberal voters, and immigrants from a socially conservative background
afraid of losing their jobs backfired disastrously for the Socialist party in the 2017
elections in France, and effectively destroyed the party. People don't like being instructed
who it is their duty to vote for.
The other very clarifying moment of that election was the complete absence, up and down
the western world, of voices supporting Marine Le Pen for President. Not a single voice was
raised in her support, although her victory would have been epoch-making in terms of French
politics, and certainly not Albright's.
That tells you everything you need to know, really.
Readers should examine the recent book Asymmetric Politics. The key point is that the
Democratic Party is as described by David in some fair part an identity-based party, so it is
supported by, e.g., many African-Americans. The Republican Party, unusual in the Western
World, is not an identity based party; it is an idea-based party. It may not be very good at
putting its ideas into effect, but it is an idea-based party that anyone can support.
Note that many Democrats are totally terrified by the idea that the Republican Party would
become an identity-based party, namely the white people's party, because if the white vote
supported the Republicans nationally the way it already does in the south the Democrats
would, in the immortal words of Donald Trump, be schlonged.
Indeed, that support is now
advancing up through the Appalachians into central Pennsylvania and the Southern Tier of New
York. West Virginia was once heavily Democratic.
And while some Democrats propose that
America is becoming a majority-minority country, others have worked out that, e.g., persons
of Hispanic or Chinese ancestry may over several generations follow the Irish and the
Italians and the Hungarians and the Jews, none of whom were originally viewed* as being
white, by being reclassified in the popular mind as being part of the white majority.
*Some readers will recall that quaint phrase "the colored races of Europe". At the time, a
century and then a fair amount ago, it was meant literally. Anglo-Saxons were a race.
Irishmen were a distinct race.
The Republicans are an "ideas-based" party? Well, I guess if you consider the interest-motivated "product" of Overclass-funded think
tanks to be "idea-based," then OK. Me, I've haven't seen the Republicans as anything other than a class and (white)
race-based party since I was a youth half a century ago.
That Republicans will distract, misdirect and dissemble to mask their class and race-based
identity doesn't change the reality of it.
As for the cynicism of how the Democrats use identity politics: granted. Nevertheless,
African-Americans have some tangible and valid reasons for voting for them, awful as they
are.
Dyson neatly derailed the whole thing with his 'mean white man' line. Could have just been
Fry vs Goldberg too, Peterson talked past the others yhe whole time.
Whole thing deserves a do-over.
I'm really worried about a repeat of 2016 with a heavy dose of voter purges and
reregistrations. Ocasio-Cortez will need a strong GOTV ground game to pull off the upset.
Cuomo may be part of a political dynasty, but I recall that when Mario Cuomo was sending
out feelers about running for president, there was plenty of "Who's the furriner?" I can't
find the quote, but some Southern politician opined that there weren't many Marios and fewer
Cuomos in the South. (And when Geraldine Ferraro was on the ticket with Mondale, journalists
and columnists "miraculously" discovered that her husband was a mafioso.) So there's white
and there's white.
Not that I'd vote for Cuomo. And I certainly agree with Glenn Greenwald. But ethnic
politics cut all different ways.
Come on, folks. By now you should have learned that what politicians say doesn't mean a
damn thing -- it's what they do. The establishment is only interested in perpetuating the
establishment.
Here in Pennsylvania, Republican senator Pat Toomey has stayed in office only because the
Dem establishment here has refused to back Joe Sestak, a terrific but rebellious candidate,
for years. Last time around, it endorsed a woman over Sestak and another fantastic male
candidate–but she was as crappy as they come. As far as I've seen, they trot out
identity politics only when it suits their aims and it has nothing to do with what the voters
actually want.
If Sestak and his supporters started a little Third Party just for Pennsylvania, how many
votes would he get? If he and his supporters called it the Revenge Against Betrayal Party,
how many votes would he get?
Identity politics are to Democrats what religious politics are to Republicans: A pious
high ground they use whenever they want to denounce anyone opposed to them as corrupt and
immoral, but immediately gets shelved the moment it interferes with the money and power.
To me, it's a dishonest policy erasure tactic for favoring establishment candidates. If
you're against Hillary Clinton, it's must be because she's a woman, not because
she's, say, a neoliberal, corporatist warmonger -- it deliberately supplants legitimate
policy differences with identity. Not only is it breathtakingly dopey as a psychological
theory -- because it's pretty obvious that someone could oppose a person based on
those policy differences -- it's also obnoxiously presumptuous: "I'm going to substitute my
statements as to motivation for yours." None of that matters, of course, as long as the work
of erasing policy from the discourse is done.
And while it surely matters who is in congress and who sits in the oval office, possibly
we should all become more focused and engaged with system change rather than just individuals
running for office. (although damn am I impressed with Alexandria's keen appreciation of
democracy), To that end I offer ideas from the brain of Gar Alperovitz https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1-Ss5h9F9k
Thank you, Lee. About a quarter of the way through Gar's talk and may need to take a
little rest to let my soul catch up. For me, in my community which is being hard hit by
gentrification and rents are, for many long-time residents, becoming unaffordable, this might
be the exactly the right ideas at the right time. Tomorrow I will be going to the last
meeting of our neighbourhood food co-op as it dissolves, after 10 years, and I can't decide
whether I am more angry or sad. It was well-intentioned, but just couldn't make it work.
Perhaps a bad plan, or maybe no systematic plan at all. Anyway. I never really expected to
see my $1000 again when I bought that bond 10 years ago.
Meantime, I will listen to Gar finish his talk, and pro'ly get his book from the
library.
So here is Gar talking about the Evergreen Co-ops of Cleveland: "That is a
community-building, wealth-democratizing, decentralized, combination of community and worker
ownership, supported by quasi-public procurement, through a planning system using
quasi-public moneys. That is a planning system. {It} begins with a vision of community which
starts by democratizing as far as you can from the ground up, building capacity at the
national level or the regional level, to purchase and thereby stabilize the system in a form
of economic planning. Now think about those things. Those are ideas in a fragmentary
developmental process as the pain of the system grows and there are no other solutions. "
It is strong stuff, but reading it seems dense and dull, but Gar makes it all make sense
on first hearing. So, in anyone interested in community economic action, do check it out.
Of course the most important identity is that of the worker, the person who must sell
their labor power in the marketplace to survive. But you will rarely hear the Democrats
discuss that identity. You might hear about "working families" and the "middle class" but it
really means nothing. The Republicans use the same language and they are just as
mendacious.
I wouldn't mind the slogans and euphemisms if there was some substance behind them. I get
that Americans generally like to think of themselves as "middle class" whether they are
making minimum wage or millions of dollars but at least put some substance behind your
rhetoric.
Both parties are using identity politics to win elections while avoiding the economic
issues that every poll indicates Americans care about the most. The result is an increasingly
disillusioned and depressed population that hates the entire political system. Almost half of
the eligible electorate stays home during election years. Non-voters tend to be poorer while
the political junkies who are increasingly shrill, angry and unreasonable tend to be
wealthier. These are the people who form the base for identity politics because they have the
luxury to worry about such nonsense.
Working families: Groups of people related genetically or by choice, all of whom,
regardless of age, have to work to ensure they have food, clothing, and shelter.
"It's about the children " Madeline Albright, when asked about 500,000+ dead Iraqi children caused by the sanctions
she promoted said "We think the price was worth it " When will this nauseating hag slink off the public stage?
https://fair.org/extra/we-think-the-price-is-worth-it/
An average person with their limited lifespan can barely manage a quota of about a dozen
people to truly care about and about 70 to be acquainted with. Chances of any of those
belonging to some of those special category people are low to the point of it being
irrelevant and worthless to get acquainted with the categories themselves and their
cultures/language, unless they live in a few congregation capitals on this planet like San
Francisco, capitals which can be numbered on both my hands.
Unless the average person decides for themselves to care, trying to convince them to care
about special identity is tantamount to attempting to rob them of their precious lifespan,
over what? Superficial identities. There are religions which worship the supernatural. Now
there's a religion which worships the superficial called Identity Politics or Social Justice
Evangelism as i like to call it (as usual it has about as much to do with social justice as
Christianity had to do with world peace, and all to do with identity masturbation), arisen
jointly as a result of inflated and growing narcissism and unwarranted sense of
self-importance personality disorders influenced by spending too much time on social media
such as Facebook and Twitter.
Bah. Western Democrats focus too much on a minority which has barely any impact on the
economy at the expense of the majority which actually dictates the general economic trend and
therefore also creates the byproduct welfare/life quality of all the meme minorities to whom
it trickles down. That's the issue here. The difference between normal people and minorities
is that normal people know they don't matter in the larger picture, while minorities think
they matter while at the same time asking to be treated as part of the normal people even
though their very mentality is a paradox towards being normal.
The West is simply too
bankrupt on things that matter in the bigger picture and too involved in things that don't, a
complete lack of prioritization.
"... the progressive left has been destroyed. All that's left is the Democratic Party which CALLS ITSELF "progressive" but actually acts in a way that undermines progressive ideals. ..."
"... Both Obama and Trump are faux populists. Both were probably thrust upon us in very slick operations. Proof? In hindsight, their political opponents (McCain, Hillary) were so flawed as to be ridiculous, especially because they were each the very embodiment of an establishment that most people KNOW works against them. In our current, money-driven political system electing a real progressive is virtually impossible. ..."
This shows how hypocritical and partisan the left is in the U.S. That's because the progressive left has been destroyed. All
that's left is the Democratic Party which CALLS ITSELF "progressive" but actually acts in a way that undermines progressive ideals.
karlof1 is right. Revolutions happen from the bottom up. Not by electing those who have been selected to run for office.
Both Obama and Trump are faux populists. Both were probably thrust upon us in very slick operations. Proof? In hindsight, their
political opponents (McCain, Hillary) were so flawed as to be ridiculous, especially because they were each the very embodiment
of an establishment that most people KNOW works against them. In our current, money-driven political system electing a real progressive
is virtually impossible.
The establishment agenda is agreed and enacted by BOTH parties:
neo-feudalism : low taxes on the wealthy and roll-back of social programs;
legal usury : very low interest rates for best credit / very high interest rates to ordinary people;
neolib taking of the commons ; Example from the neolib Sith Lord himself:
Obamaland
Fiasco Worsens
A presidential library became Obamaland... The center will not be a presidential library because Obama's archives
and documents won't be there there and it won't be federally run.
[Furthermore] The taxpayer bill for the Obama Center to be built on Chicago's Southside is now $224 million, not
$172 million as initially reported, and it's certainly not privately funded as initially promised.
global hegemony via massive spending on military & spying; It's for the children. No, not YOUR children.
divisive politics to keep lower classes occupied; Let's talk about bathrooms and statues and "rocketman".
militarized police & massive propaganda . You are now a consumer of government services not a citizen. Have a nice day.
This is prophetic article, no question about it. "National neoliberalism" and interesting term.
Notable quotes:
"... Political theorist Sheldon Wolin writes in Democracy, Inc. ..."
"... By contrast, in Trump's America -- where an emergent "national neoliberalism" may be gradually guiding us to a more overt and obvious totalitarian politics -- we can expect a similar fusion of state and market interests, but one in which the marketplace and big business have almost total power and freedom of movement (I think that labor will do poorly in this configuration). State and market in the U.S. will fuse further together in the coming years, leading some to make close parallels with European fascism. But it will do so not because of heavy handed government dictates and interventions, but rather because domestic privatization initiatives, appointments of businessmen to government posts, fiscal stimulus and the business community's need for protection abroad will bring them closer. Corporate interests will merge with state interests not because corporations are commanded to, but rather because the landscape of risk and reward will shift and redirect investment patterns to a similar effect. This may be where a budding U.S. totalitarianism differs most starkly from its European cousins. ..."
And why the world is about to get much more dangerous The election of Donald Trump "represents a triumph of neoliberal
thinking and values." (Photo: Carlo Allegri/ Reuters) Many writers and pundits are currently framing Trump's election in terms of
a dispossessed and disenfranchised white, male working class, unsatisfied with neoliberal globalization and the insecurity and hardship
it has unleashed -- particularly across regions of the United States that were formerly manufacturing powerhouses (like the Rust
Belt states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin, four states believed to have cost Hillary Clinton the election). While
there is much truth to this perspective and substantial empirical evidence to support it, it would be a mistake to see Trump's election
wholly in these terms.
"What Trump's election has accomplished is an unmasking of the corporate state."
Trump's election is in some ways a neoliberal apex, an event that portends the completion of the U.S. government's capture by
wealthy corporate interests. While in my opinion Trump's election does not signal the beginning of a rapid descent into European-style
fascism, it appears to be a key stage in the ongoing process of American democratic disintegration. American democracy has been under
attack from large and wealthy corporate interests for a long time, with this process accelerating and gaining strength over the period
of neoliberal globalization (roughly the early 1970s to the present). This time period is associated with the rise of powerful multinational
corporations with economic and political might that rivals that of many national governments.
In terms of the political consequences of these trends in the U.S., certain thinkers have argued that the U.S. political system
is not democratic at all, but rather an "inverted totalitarian" system. Political commentator Chris Hedges notes: "Inverted totalitarianism
is different from classical forms of totalitarianism. It does not find its expression in a demagogue or charismatic leader but in
the faceless anonymity of the corporate state." Citing the American political theorist Sheldon Wolin, Hedges continues, "Unlike the
Nazis, who made life uncertain for the wealthy and privileged while providing social programs for the working class and poor, inverted
totalitarianism exploits the poor, reducing or weakening health programs and social services, regimenting mass education for an insecure
workforce threatened by the importation of low-wage workers." Our inverted totalitarian system is one that retains the trappings
of a democratic system -- e.g. it retains the appearance of loyalty to "the Constitution, civil liberties, freedom of the press,
[and] the independence of the judiciary" -- all the while undermining the capacity of citizens to substantively participate and exert
power over the system.
In my view, what Trump's election has accomplished is an unmasking of the corporate state. Trump gives inverted totalitarianism
a persona and a face, and perhaps marks the beginning of a transformation from inverted totalitarianism to totalitarianism proper.
In spite of this, it makes no sense to me to call the system toward which we are heading (that is, if we do not stand up and resist
with all our might right this second) "fascism" or to make too close comparisons to the Nazis. Whatever totalitarian nightmare is
on our horizon, it will be uniquely American. And it will bear a striking resemblance to the corporate oriented system we've been
living in for decades. Indeed, if the pre-Trump system of inverted totalitarianism solidified in the context of global neoliberalism,
the period we are entering now seems likely to be one characterized by what I call "national neoliberalism."
Trump's Election Doesn't Mean the End of Neoliberalism
Trump's election represents a triumph of neoliberal thinking and values. Perhaps most importantly, we should all keep in mind
the fact that Americans just elected a businessman to the presidency. In spite of his Wall Street background and billionaire status,
Trump successfully cast himself as the "anti-establishment" candidate. This configuration -- in which a top-one-percenter real estate
tycoon is accepted as a political "outsider" -- is a hallmark of neoliberal thinking. The fundamental opposition between market and
government is a central dichotomy in the neoliberal narrative. In electing Trump, American voters are reproducing this narrative,
creating an ideological cover for the closer connections between business and the state that are in store moving forward (indeed,
Trump is already using the apparatus of the U.S. federal government to promote his own business interests). As states and markets
further fuse in coming years, this representation of Trump and his administration -- as being anti-government -- will help immunize
his administration from accusations of too-cozy relationships with big business. Trump's attempts to "drain the swamp" by imposing
Congressional term limits and constraints on lobbying activities by former political officials will also help to hide this relationship.
(Has anyone else noticed that Trump only addresses half of the "revolving door," i.e., he plans to limit the lobbying of former politicians,
but not the political roles of businessmen?)
"Whatever totalitarian nightmare is on our horizon, it will be uniquely American."
Trump's Contract with the American Voter, his plan for the first 100 days in office, discusses policies and programs many of which
are consistent with neoliberal thinking. (I understand the term "neoliberalism" to emphasize at its core the importance of private
property rights, market-based social organization, and the dangers of government intervention in the economy.) Trump's plan redirects
the activities of the U.S. government along the lines touted by neoliberal "market fundamentalists" like Milton Friedman, who advocate
limiting government's role to market-supportive functions like national defense (defense stocks are doing very well since the election)
and domestic law and order (Trump's proposals have a lot to do with altering immigration policy to "restore security"). Trump also
plans to use government monies to revitalize physical infrastructure and create jobs. Other government functions, for example, health
care provision and education as well as protecting the environment and public lands, are open for privatization and defunding in
Trump's agenda. Under Trump, the scope of federal government activities will narrow, likely to infrastructure, national defense,
and domestic policing and surveillance, even if overall government spending increases (as bond markets are predicting).
Trump also seems content to take neoliberal advice in regard to business regulation (less is best) and the role of the private
sector in regulating itself (industry insiders understand regulatory needs better than public officials). Trump's plan for the first
100 days specifies "a requirement that for every new federal regulation, two existing regulations must be eliminated." As of the
time of this writing, his selection of cabinet appointees illustrate a broad willingness to appoint businesspeople to government
posts. As of mid-December 2016, a Goldman Sachs veteran, Steven Mnuchin, has been appointed Secretary of the Treasury; billionaire
investor Wilbur Ross has been appointed Secretary of Commerce; fossil fuel industry supporter and Oklahoma Attorney General Scott
Pruitt has been appointed as EPA administrator; and fast-food mogul Andrew Puzder has been appointed as Secretary of Labor. Trump's
business council is staffed by the CEOs of major U.S. corporations including JP Morgan Chase, IBM and General Motors. To be fair,
the "revolving door" between government and industry has been perpetuated by many of Trump's predecessors, with Trump poised to continue
the tradition. But this is not to say that neoliberalism will continue going in a "business as usual" fashion. The world is about
to get much more dangerous, and this has serious implications for patterns of global trade and investment.
Trump's Election Does Mean the End of Globalism
The nationalism, xenophobia, isolationism, and paranoia of Donald Trump are about to replace the significantly more cosmopolitan
outlook of his post-WWII predecessors. While Trump is decidedly pro-business and pro-market, he most certainly does not see himself
as a global citizen. Nor does he intend to maintain the United States' extensive global footprint or its relatively open trading
network. In other words, while neoliberalism is not dead, it is being transformed into a geographically more fragmented and localized
system (this is not only about the US election, but also about rising levels of global protectionism and Brexit, among other anti-globalization
trends around the world). I expect that the geographic extent of the US economy in the coming years will coincide with the new landscape
of U.S. allies and enemies, as defined by Donald Trump and his administration.
Trump's Contract with the American Voter outlines several policies that will make it more expensive and riskier to do business
abroad. All of these need not occur; I think that even one or two of these changes will be sufficient to alter expectations in business
communities about the benefits of certain cross-border economic relationships. Pulling the United States out of the TPP, along with
threats to pull out of the Paris Climate Agreement and attempts to renegotiate NAFTA, is already signaling to other countries that
we are not interested in international cooperation and collaboration. A crackdown on foreign trading abuses will prompt retaliation.
Labelling China a currency manipulator will sour relations between the two countries and prompt retaliation by China. As Trump goes
forward with his anti-immigration and anti-Muslim rhetoric and policies, he will alienate the United States' traditional allies in
Europe (at least until Europe elects its own nationalist and xenophobic leaders) and communities across the Global South. The U.S.
election has already undermined performance in emerging markets, and bigoted rhetoric and policy will only increase anti-American
sentiment in struggling economies populated largely by people of color. Add to this the risk of conflict posed by any number of the
following: his antagonizing China, allying with Russia, deploying ground troops to stop ISIS, and pulling out of the Korean DMZ,
among other initiatives that seem likely to contribute to a more confrontational and violent international arena. All of this is
to say that Trump will not have to intervene directly in the affairs of business in order to nationalize it. The new global landscape
of conflict and risk, combined with elevated domestic spending on infrastructure and security, will bring U.S. business and investment
back home nonetheless.
National Neoliberalism and State-Market Relations
Fascist states are corporatist in nature, a state of affairs marked by a fusion of state and business functions and interests,
with an often significant role for labor interests as well. In the fascist states on the European continent in the 1930s and 1940s
-- systems that fall under the umbrella of "national socialism" -- the overwhelming power of the state characterized this tripartite
relationship. Political theorist Sheldon Wolin writes in Democracy, Inc. in regard to Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy
(as well as Stalinist Russia), "The state was conceived as the main center of power, providing the leverage necessary for the mobilization
and reconstruction of society".
By contrast, in Trump's America -- where an emergent "national neoliberalism" may be gradually guiding us to a more overt
and obvious totalitarian politics -- we can expect a similar fusion of state and market interests, but one in which the marketplace
and big business have almost total power and freedom of movement (I think that labor will do poorly in this configuration). State
and market in the U.S. will fuse further together in the coming years, leading some to make close parallels with European fascism.
But it will do so not because of heavy handed government dictates and interventions, but rather because domestic privatization initiatives,
appointments of businessmen to government posts, fiscal stimulus and the business community's need for protection abroad will bring
them closer. Corporate interests will merge with state interests not because corporations are commanded to, but rather because the
landscape of risk and reward will shift and redirect investment patterns to a similar effect. This may be where a budding U.S. totalitarianism
differs most starkly from its European cousins.
Sasha Breger Bush is an assistant professor of political science at the University of Colorado–Denver and author of Derivatives
and Development: A Political Economy of Global Finance, Farming, and Poverty (Palgrave Macmillan, 2012).
"... But if we take seriously the idea that Trump is a consequence of the disintegration of American democracy rather than the cause of it, this "blame game" becomes especially problematic. Partisan bickering, with one party constantly pointing to the other as responsible for the country's ills, covers up the fact that Democrats and Republicans alike have presided over the consolidation of corporate power in the United States. To paraphrase Ralph Nader, the U.S. corporate state is a two-headed beast. Sure, President Trump and the Republican Party are currently handing over public lands to oil and gas companies, eliminating net neutrality, introducing pro-corporate tax legislation, kowtowing to the military industrial complex, defunding the welfare state, and attempting to privatize education and deregulate finance. But let's not forget our recent Democratic presidents, for example, who are also guilty of empowering and enriching big business and disempowering and impoverishing ordinary Americans. ..."
"... All of this is to say that I'm considerably less excited about 2018 and 2020 than many others -- on what counts as the U.S. left -- appear to be. Democratic Party victories at the ballot box would certainly reduce some of the pressures on a variety of marginalized groups who are suffering mightily under President Trump. This is, of course, a good thing. But, Democratic victories will not "fix" the structural problems that underpin our current political crisis nor will they ensure a freer and more just future. ..."
This article is from Dollars & Sense : Real World Economics, available at
http://www.dollarsandsense.org
Last winter, in the wake of the 2016 Presidential election, I wrote an article for
Dollars & Sense in which I argued that Trump's election represented a transition
toward "national neoliberalism" in the United States ("Trump and National Neoliberalism:
Trump's ascendance means the end of globalism -- but not of neoliberalism," January/February
2017).
I argued that this emergent state of affairs would be marked by a completion of the takeover
of the U.S. government by corporate interests. I saw the election of Trump -- a top
one-percenter and real estate tycoon firmly rooted in the culture and logic of big business,
who has somehow convinced many Americans that he is an anti-establishment "outsider" -- as an
"unmasking" of the corporate state, a revelation of the ongoing merger between state and market
that has arguably been ongoing since the 1970s. In short, I envisioned a movement away from
"global neoliberalism," a state of affairs characterized by the increasing preeminence of
transnational corporate capital in a relatively open global political-economic system, and
towards "national neoliberalism," a state of affairs in which transnational corporate dominance
is cemented in the context of an ever more fragmented and dangerous global system.
About ten years ago, political theorist Sheldon Wolin published Democracy
Incorporated , diagnosing American democracy with a potentially fatal corporate disease.
Referring to the specter of "inverted totalitarianism," Wolin writes in his preface:
Primarily it represents the political coming of age of corporate power and the political
demobilization of the citizenry. Unlike the classic forms of totalitarianism [e.g. Germany,
Italy], which openly boasted of their intentions to force their societies into preconceived
totality, inverted totalitarianism is not expressly conceptualized as an ideology or
objectified in public policy. Typically it is furthered by power-holders and citizens who often
seem unaware of the deeper consequences of their actions or inactions. There is a certain
heedlessness, an inability to take seriously the extent to which a pattern of consequences may
take shape without having been preconceived. Wolin paints a picture of a gradual process of
change in which many different actors, some wealthy and powerful and others not, unwittingly
push the country's politics, bit by bit in piecemeal fashion, towards an undemocratic,
corporate-controlled end. Many of these actors may have good intentions. Many of them may see
themselves as champions of the people. Many of them may actually speak out against the very
interests that they in other ways empower.
This framework for thinking about the plight of the United States, which has for me been
legitimated over and over again during Trump's first year in office, conditions how I think
about President Trump and the Republican Party, and how I think about our opportunities for
nonviolent social transformation, freedom, and social justice. It's hard not to point to
President Trump and blame him for our problems. He is a bigot who has struck out at immigrants,
Muslims, Arabs, African-Americans, Mexicans, women, LGBT people, and disabled people. He lacks
the basic knowledge of politics and foreign policy that are a necessary condition for competent
leadership. He picked up a congratulatory call from the President of Taiwan in December 2016,
disrupting relations with China, and called North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un "short" and
"fat." He is a paranoid and narcissistic demagogue who has scorned and marginalized
journalists, and made the terms "fake news" and "alternative facts" household words. He is a
corrupt businessman who is using the levers of power that he controls to enrich Big Business,
as well as his cronies, his friends, and himself. I could go on.
It's also hard not to point to Republicans in Congress. After the election, there was hope
that the "never Trump" Republicans would win out and that Trump's agenda would be blocked. This
has not happened. While some in Congress, like Senators McCain (R-Ariz.), Corker (R-Tenn.),
Collins (R-Maine), Flake (R-Ariz.) and Murkowski (R-Alaska) have defied Trump in certain
contexts (e.g. on foreign policy), on many issues congressional Republicans have simply fallen
in line (e.g. with tax reform). Today, the Republican Party is often discussed by liberals in
the same breath as Trump, with everyone hoping for good news in 2018 and 2020.
But if we take seriously the idea that Trump is a consequence of the disintegration of
American democracy rather than the cause of it, this "blame game" becomes especially
problematic. Partisan bickering, with one party constantly pointing to the other as responsible
for the country's ills, covers up the fact that Democrats and Republicans alike have presided
over the consolidation of corporate power in the United States. To paraphrase Ralph Nader, the
U.S. corporate state is a two-headed beast. Sure, President Trump and the Republican Party are
currently handing over public lands to oil and gas companies, eliminating net neutrality,
introducing pro-corporate tax legislation, kowtowing to the military industrial complex,
defunding the welfare state, and attempting to privatize education and deregulate finance. But
let's not forget our recent Democratic presidents, for example, who are also guilty of
empowering and enriching big business and disempowering and impoverishing ordinary
Americans.
President Obama presided over the modernization of the U.S. nuclear arsenal, a process that
President Trump is continuing. As William Hartung recently reported in Mother Jones ,
"There is, in fact, a dirty little secret behind the massive U.S. arsenal: It has more to do
with the power and profits of weapons makers than it does with any imaginable strategic
considerations." President Obama also helped corporations get richer and more powerful in other
ways. He negotiated the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a multilateral trade deal that, if Trump had
not withdrawn us, would have expanded U.S. corporate access to overseas markets and given
multinational corporates new policy leverage over governments (via investor-state dispute
settlement mechanisms). (See Robin Brand, "Remembering the 'Tokyo No'," Dollars &
Sense , January/February 2015.) In 2012, as he was running for his second term, Obama
proposed a reduction in the corporate tax rate to 28%, not much different from the bill just
passed by Congress. He also lobbied Congress for the $700 billion Wall Street bailouts after
the Great Recession, continuing on the policy path set by his Republican predecessor, President
Bush. (Obama received huge campaign contributions from finance, insurance, and real estate.) In
terms of income inequality, CNBC had to reluctantly conclude that the gap widened under Obama,
in spite of all his powerful rhetoric about equity and equality.
President Clinton negotiated and signed NAFTA into law, a trade agreement that created
hardship for millions of American manufacturing workers and farmers, and generated large
profits for multinational industrial and agricultural corporations. Clinton also pushed for
welfare reform, signing into law a "workfare" system that required recipients to meet strict
job and employment related conditions. Millions of people became ineligible for payments under
the new system, and poverty increased especially among households in which members were
long-term unemployed. Clinton's 1997 tax proposal advocated cutting estate taxes and capital
gains taxes, and did not favor lower-income Americans. The Center on Budget and Policy
Priorities noted, "Analyses by the Treasury Department indicate that when fully in effect, the
Clinton plan would give the 20 percent of Americans with the highest incomes about the same
amount in tax cuts as the bottom 60 percent combined. This is an unusual characteristic for a
tax plan proposed by a Democratic President."
All of this is to say that I'm considerably less excited about 2018 and 2020 than many
others -- on what counts as the U.S. left -- appear to be. Democratic Party victories at the
ballot box would certainly reduce some of the pressures on a variety of marginalized groups who
are suffering mightily under President Trump. This is, of course, a good thing. But, Democratic
victories will not "fix" the structural problems that underpin our current political crisis nor
will they ensure a freer and more just future.
I plan to support third-party candidates at the ballot box in coming years, in the hopes of
contributing to the creation of a new kind of political infrastructure that can help us to
unmake the corporate state.
SASHA BREGER-BUSH is an assistant professor of political science at the University of
Colorado–Denver.
"... the Obama administration intelligence agencies worked with Clinton to block " Siberian candidate " Trump. ..."
"... The template was provided by ex-MI6 Director Richard Dearlove , Halper's friend and business partner. Sitting in winged chairs in London's venerable Garrick Club, according to The Washington Post , Dearlove told fellow MI6 veteran Christopher Steele, author of the famous "golden showers" opposition research dossier, that Trump "reminded him of a predicament he had faced years earlier, when he was chief of station for British intelligence in Washington and alerted US authorities to British information that a vice presidential hopeful had once been in communication with the Kremlin." ..."
"... Apparently, one word from the Brits was enough to make the candidate in question step down. When that didn't work with Trump, Dearlove and his colleagues ratcheted up the pressure to make him see the light. A major scandal was thus born – or, rather, a very questionable scandal. Besides Dearlove, Steele, and Halper, a bon-vivant known as "The Walrus" for his impressive girth , other participants include: Robert Hannigan, former director Government Communications Headquarters, GCHQ, UK equivalent of the NSA. Alexander Downer, top Australian diplomat. Andrew Wood, ex-British ambassador to Moscow. Joseph Mifsud, Maltese academic. James Clapper, ex-US Director of National Intelligence. John Brennan, former CIA Director (and now NBC News analyst). ..."
"... Dearlove and Halper are now partners in a private venture calling itself "The Cambridge Security Initiative." Both are connected to another London-based intelligence firm known as Hakluyt & Co. Halper is also connected via two books he wrote with Hakluyt representative Jonathan Clarke and Dearlove has a close personal friendship with Hakluyt founder Mike Reynolds, yet another MI6 vet. Alexander Downer served a half-dozen years on Hakluyt's international advisory board, while Andrew Wood is linked to Steele via Orbis Business Intelligence, the private research firm that Steele helped found, and which produced the anti-Trump dossier, and where Wood now serves as an unpaid advisor . ..."
"... Everyone, in short, seems to know everyone else. But another thing that stands out about this group is its incompetence. Dearlove and Halper appear to be old-school paranoids for whom every Russian is a Boris Badenov or a Natasha Fatale . In February 2014, Halper notified US intelligence that Mike Flynn, Trump's future national security adviser, had grown overly chummy with an Anglo-Russian scholar named Svetlana Lokhova whom Halper suspected of being a spy – suspicions that Lokhova convincingly argues are absurd. ..."
"... As head of Britain's foreign Secret Intelligence Service, as MI6 is formally known, Dearlove played a major role in drumming up support for the 2003 Anglo-American invasion of Iraq even while confessing at a secret Downing Street meeting that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the [regime-change] policy." When the search for weapons of mass destruction turned up dry, Clapper, as then head of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, argued that the Iraqi military must have smuggled them into neighboring Syria, a charge with absolutely no basis in fact but which helped pave the way for US regime-change efforts in that country too. ..."
"... Brennan was meanwhile a high-level CIA official when the agency was fabricating evidence against Saddam Hussein and covering up Saudi Arabia's role in 9/11. Wood not only continues to defend the Iraqi invasion, but dismisses fears of a rising fascist tide in the Ukraine as nothing more than "a crude political insult" hurled by Vladimir Putin for his own political benefit. Such views now seem distressingly misguided in view of the alt-right torchlight parades and spiraling anti-Semitism that are now a regular feature of life in the Ukraine. ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... describes Mifsud as "an enthusiastic promoter of President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia" and "a regular at meetings of the Valdai Discussion Club, an annual conference held in Sochi, Russia, that Mr. Putin attends," which tried to suggest that he is a Kremlin agent of some sort. ..."
"... But WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange later tweeted photos of Mifsud with British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson and a high-ranking British intelligence official named Claire Smith at a training session for Italian security agents in Rome. Since it's unlikely that British intelligence would rely on a Russian agent in such circumstances, Mifsud's intelligence ties are more likely with the UK. ..."
"... Stefan Halper then infiltrated the Trump campaign on behalf of the FBI as an informant in early July, weeks before the FBI launched its investigation. Halper had 36 years earlier infiltrated the Carter re-election campaign in 1980 using CIA agents to turn information over to the Reagan campaign. Now Halper began to court both Page and Papadopoulous, independently of each other. ..."
"... The rightwing Federalist website speculates that Halper was working with Steele to flesh out a Sept. 14 memo claiming that "Russians do have further 'kompromat' on CLINTON (e-mails) and [are] considering disseminating it." Clovis believes that Halper was trying "to create an audit trail back to those [Clinton] emails from someone in the campaign so they could develop a stronger case for probable cause to continue to issue warrants and to further an investigation." Reports that Halper apparently sought a permanent post in the new administration suggest that the effort was meant to continue after inauguration. ..."
"... Notwithstanding Clovis's nutty rightwing politics , his description of what Halper may have been up to makes sense as does his observation that Halper was trying " to build something that did not exist ." Despite countless hyper-ventilating headlines about mysterious Trump Tower meetings and the like, the sad truth is that Russiagate after all these months is shaping up as even more of a "nothing-burger" than Obama administration veteran Van Jones said it was back in mid-2017. Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller has indicted Papadopoulos and others on procedural grounds, he has indicted former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort for corruption, and he has charged a St. Petersburg company known as the Internet Research Agency with violating US election laws. ..."
"... As The Washington Post noted in an oddly, cool-headed Dec. 2 article , 2, 700 suspected Russian-linked accounts generated just 202,000 tweets in a six-year period ending in August 2017, a drop in a bucket compared to the one billion election-related tweets sent out during the fourteen months leading up to Election Day. ..."
"... Opposition research is intended to mix truths and fiction, to dig up plausible dirt to throw at your opponent, not to produce an intelligence assessment at taxpayer's expense to "protect" the country. And Steele was paid for it by the Democrats, not his government. ..."
"... Although Kramer denies it, The New Yorker ..."
"... But how could Trump think otherwise? As Consortium News founding editor Robert Parry observed a few days later, the maneuver "resembles a tactic out of FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover's playbook on government-style blackmail: I have some very derogatory information about you that I'd sure hate to see end up in the press." ..."
"... It sounds more like CIA paranoia raised to the nth degree. But that's what the intelligence agencies are for, i.e. to spread fear and propaganda in order to stampede the public into supporting their imperial agenda. In this case, their efforts are so effective that they've gotten lost in a fog of their own making. If the corporate press fails to point this out, it's because reporters are too befogged themselves to notice. ..."
"... "Russiagate" continues to attract mounting blowback at Clinton, Obama and the Dems. Might well be they who end up charged with lawbreaking, though I'd be surprised if anyone in authority is ever really punished. https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-06-02/fbi-spying-trump-started-london-earlier-thought-new-texts-implicate-obama-white ..."
"... I've always thought that the great animus between Obama and Trump stemmed from Trump's persistent birtherist attacks on Obama followed by Obama's public ridicule of Trump at the White House Correspondants' Dinner. Without the latter, Trump probably would not have been motivated to run for the presidency. Without the former, Obama would probably not have gotten into the gutter to defeat and embarrass Trump at all costs. Clinton and Obama probably never recruit British spooks to sabotage and provide a pretense for spying on the campaigns of Jeb, Ted or Little Marco. Since these were all warmongers like Hillary and Obama, the issues would have been different, Russia would not have been a factor, and Putin would have had no alleged "puppet." ..."
"... The irony is that Clinton and Obama wanted Trump as her opponent. They cultivated his candidacy via liberal media bias throughout the primaries. (MSNBC and Rachel Maddow were always cutting away to another full length Trump victory speech and rally, including lots of jibber jabber with the faithful supporters.) Why? Because they thought he was the easiest to beat. The polls actually had Hillary losing against the other GOP candidates. The Dems beat themselves with their own choice of candidate and all the intrigue, false narratives and other questionable practices they employed in both the primaries and the general. That's what really happened. ..."
"... I agree that Hillary wanted Trump as an opponent, thought she could easily win. I've underestimated idiot opponents before, always to my detriment. Why is it that they are always the most formidable? The "insiders" are so used to voters rolling over, taking it on the chin. They gave away their jobs, replaced them with the service industry, killed their sons and daughters in wars abroad, and still the American people cast their ballots in their favor. This time was different. The insiders just did not see the sea change, not like Trump did. ..."
"... Long-time CIA asset named as FBI's spy on Trump campaign By Bill Van Auken https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/05/21/poli-m21.html ..."
"... What the MSM really needed was a bait which they could use to lure more dollars just like a horse race where the track owners needed a fast underdog horse to clean up. I believe the term is to be "hustled". The con men of the media hustlers decided they needed a way to cause all of the candidates to squirm uneasily and to then react to the news that Donald Trump was "in the lead". ..."
"... Those clever media folks. What a gift the Supreme Court handed them. But there was one little (or big) problem. The problem was the result of the scam put Trump in the White House. Something that no conservative republican would ever sign onto. Trump had spent years as a democrat, hobnobbed with the Clinton's and was an avowed agnostic who favored the liberal ideology for the most part. ..."
"... The new guy in the White House with his crazy ideas of making friends with Vladimir Putin horrified a national arms industry funded with hundreds of billions of our tax dollars every year propped up by all the neocons with their paranoid beliefs and plans to make America the hegemon of the World. Our foreign allies who use the USA to fight their perceived enemies and entice our government to sell them weapons and who urge us to orchestrate the overthrow of governments were all alarmed by the "not a real republican" peace-nick occupying the White House. ..."
"... It is probable that the casino and hotel owner in the White House posed an very threatening alternate strategy of forming economic ties with former enemies which scared the hell out of the arms industry which built its economy on scaring all of us and justifying its existence based on foreign enemies. ..."
"... So the MSM and the MIC created a new cold war with their friends at the New York Times and the Washington Post which published endless stories about the new Russian threat we faced. It had nothing to do with the 0.02% Twitter and Facebook "influence" that Russia actually had in the election. It was billed as the crime of the century. The real crime was that they committed the crime of the century that they mightily profited from by putting Trump in the White House in the first place with a plan to grab all the election cash they could grab. ..."
As the role of a well-connected group of British and U.S. intelligence agents begins to
emerge, new suspicions are growing about what hand they may have had in weaving the Russia-gate
story, as Daniel Lazare explains.
Special to Consortium News
With the news that a Cambridge academic-cum-spy
named Stefan Halper infiltrated the Trump campaign, the role of the intelligence agencies in
shaping the great Russiagate saga is at last coming into focus.
It's looking more and more massive. The intelligence agencies initiated reports that Donald
Trump was colluding with Russia, they nurtured them and helped them grow, and then they spread
the word to the press and key government officials. Reportedly, they even tried to use these
reports to force Trump to step down prior to his inauguration. Although the corporate press
accuses Trump of conspiring with Russia to stop Hillary Clinton, the reverse now seems to be
the case: the Obama administration intelligence agencies worked with Clinton to block "
Siberian
candidate " Trump.
The template was provided by ex-MI6 Director Richard Dearlove , Halper's friend and business
partner. Sitting in winged chairs in London's venerable Garrick Club, according to The
Washington Post , Dearlove
told fellow MI6 veteran Christopher Steele, author of the famous "golden showers"
opposition research dossier, that Trump "reminded him of a predicament he had faced years
earlier, when he was chief of station for British intelligence in Washington and alerted US
authorities to British information that a vice presidential hopeful had once been in
communication with the Kremlin."
Apparently, one word from the Brits was enough to make the candidate in question step down.
When that didn't work with Trump, Dearlove and his colleagues ratcheted up the pressure to make
him see the light. A major scandal was thus born – or, rather, a very questionable
scandal. Besides Dearlove, Steele, and Halper, a bon-vivant known as "The Walrus" for
his impressive girth , other participants include: Robert Hannigan, former director
Government Communications Headquarters, GCHQ, UK equivalent of the NSA. Alexander Downer, top
Australian diplomat. Andrew Wood, ex-British ambassador to Moscow. Joseph Mifsud, Maltese
academic. James Clapper, ex-US Director of National Intelligence. John Brennan, former CIA
Director (and now NBC News analyst).
In-Bred
A few things stand out about this august group. One is its in-bred quality. After helping to
run an annual confab known as the Cambridge Intelligence Seminar, Dearlove and Halper are now
partners in a private venture calling itself "The Cambridge Security Initiative." Both are
connected to another London-based intelligence firm known as Hakluyt & Co. Halper is also
connected via two books he wrote with Hakluyt representative Jonathan Clarke
and Dearlove has a close personal friendship with Hakluyt founder Mike Reynolds, yet another
MI6 vet. Alexander Downer
served a half-dozen years on Hakluyt's international advisory board, while Andrew Wood is
linked to Steele via Orbis Business Intelligence, the private research firm that Steele helped
found, and which produced the anti-Trump dossier, and where Wood now serves as an
unpaid
advisor .
Everyone, in short, seems to know everyone else. But another thing that stands out about
this group is its incompetence. Dearlove and Halper appear to be old-school paranoids for whom
every Russian is a Boris
Badenov or a Natasha Fatale . In February 2014, Halper notified US intelligence that Mike
Flynn, Trump's future national security adviser, had grown overly chummy with an Anglo-Russian
scholar named Svetlana Lokhova whom Halper suspected of being a spy – suspicions that
Lokhova convincingly
argues are absurd.
Halper: Infiltrated Trump campaign
In December 2016, Halper and Dearlove both resigned from the Cambridge Intelligence Seminar
because they suspected that a company footing some of the costs was tied up with Russian
intelligence – suspicions that Christopher Andrew, former chairman of the Cambridge
history department and the seminar's founder, regards as " absurd " as well.
As head of Britain's foreign Secret Intelligence Service, as MI6 is formally known,
Dearlove played a major role in drumming up support for the 2003 Anglo-American invasion of
Iraq even while confessing at a secret Downing Street meeting that "the intelligence and facts
were being fixed around the [regime-change] policy." When the search for weapons of mass
destruction turned up dry, Clapper, as then head of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency,
argued that the Iraqi
military must have smuggled them into neighboring Syria, a charge with absolutely no basis in
fact but which helped pave the way for US regime-change efforts in that country too.
Brennan was meanwhile a high-level CIA official when the agency was fabricating evidence
against Saddam Hussein and covering up Saudi Arabia's role in 9/11. Wood not only continues to defend
the Iraqi invasion, but dismisses
fears of a rising fascist tide in the Ukraine as nothing more than "a crude political insult"
hurled by Vladimir Putin for his own political benefit. Such views now seem distressingly
misguided in view of the alt-right torchlight parades and
spiraling anti-Semitism that are now a regular feature of life in the Ukraine.
The result is a diplo-espionage gang that is very bad at the facts but very good at public
manipulation – and which therefore decided to use its skill set out to create a public
furor over alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.
It Started Late 2015
The effort began in late 2015 when GCHQ, along with intelligence agencies in Poland,
Estonia, and Germany, began monitoring
what they said were " suspicious 'interactions' between figures connected to Trump and
known or suspected Russian agents."
Since Trump was surging ahead in the polls and scaring the pants off the foreign-policy
establishment by calling for a rapprochement with Moscow, the agencies figured that Russia was
somehow behind it. The pace accelerated in March 2016 when a 30-year-old policy consultant
named George Papadopoulos joined the Trump campaign as a foreign-policy adviser. Traveling in
Italy a week later, he ran into Mifsud, the London-based Maltese academic, who reportedly set
about cultivating him after learning of his position with Trump. Mifsud claimed
to have "substantial connections with Russian government officials," according to prosecutors.
Over breakfast at a London hotel, he told Papadopoulos that he had just returned from Moscow
where he had learned that the Russians had "dirt" on Hillary Clinton in the form of "thousands
of emails."
This was the remark that supposedly triggered an FBI investigation. The New York
Timesdescribes
Mifsud as "an enthusiastic promoter of President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia" and "a regular at
meetings of the Valdai Discussion Club, an annual conference held in Sochi, Russia, that Mr.
Putin attends," which tried to suggest that he is a Kremlin agent of some sort.
But WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange later
tweeted photos of Mifsud with British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson and a high-ranking
British intelligence official named Claire Smith at a training session for Italian security
agents in Rome. Since it's unlikely that British intelligence would rely on a Russian agent in
such circumstances, Mifsud's intelligence ties are more likely with the UK.
After Papadopoulos caused a minor political ruckus by
telling a reporter that Prime Minister David Cameron should apologize for criticizing
Trump's anti-Muslim pronouncements, a friend in the Israeli embassy put him in touch with a
friend in the Australian embassy, who introduced him to Downer, her boss. Over drinks, Downer
advised him to be more diplomatic. After Papadopoulos then passed along Misfud's tip about
Clinton's emails, Downer informed his government, which, in late July, informed the FBI.
Was Papadopoulos Set Up?
Suspicions are unavoidable but evidence is lacking. Other pieces were meanwhile clicking
into place. In late May or early June 2016, Fusion GPS, a private Washington intelligence firm
employed by the Democratic National Committee, hired Steele to look into the Russian angle.
On June 20, he turned in the first of eighteen memos that would eventually comprise
the
Steele dossier , in this instance a three-page document asserting that Putin "has been
cultivating, supporting and assisting TRUMP for at least 5 years" and that Russian intelligence
possessed "kompromat" in the form of a video of prostitutes performing a "golden showers" show
for his benefit at the Moscow Ritz-Carlton. A week or two later, Steele
briefed the FBI on his findings. Around the same time, Robert Hannigan flew to Washington
to brief CIA Director John Brennan about additional material that had come GCHQ's way, material
so sensitive that it could only be handled at "director level."
One player was filling Papadopoulos's head with tales of Russian dirty tricks, another was
telling the FBI, while a third was collecting more information and passing it on to the bureau
as well.
Page: Took Russia's side.
On July 7, 2016 Carter Page delivered a lecture on
U.S.-Russian relations in Moscow in which he complained that " Washington and other western
capitals have impeded potential progress through their often hypocritical focus on ideas such
as democratization, inequality, corruption, and regime change." Washington hawks expressed "
unease " that someone representing the presumptive Republican nominee would take Russia's
side in a growing neo-Cold War.
Stefan Halper then
infiltrated the Trump campaign on behalf of the FBI as an informant in early July, weeks
before the FBI launched its investigation. Halper had 36 years earlier infiltrated the Carter
re-election campaign in 1980 using CIA agents to turn information over to the Reagan campaign.
Now Halper began to court both Page and Papadopoulous, independently of each other.
On July 11, Page showed up at a Cambridge symposium at which Halper and Dearlove both spoke.
In early September, Halper sent Papadopoulos an email offering $3,000 and a paid trip to London
to write a research paper on a disputed gas field in the eastern Mediterranean, his specialty.
"George, you know about hacking the emails from Russia, right?" Halper asked when he got there,
but Papadopoulos said he knew nothing. Halper also sought out Sam Clovis, Trump's national
campaign co-chairman, with whom he chatted about China for an hour or so over coffee in
Washington.
The rightwing Federalist website
speculates that Halper was working with Steele to flesh out a Sept. 14 memo claiming that
"Russians do have further 'kompromat' on CLINTON (e-mails) and [are] considering disseminating
it." Clovis believes
that Halper was trying "to create an audit trail back to those [Clinton] emails from someone in
the campaign so they could develop a stronger case for probable cause to continue to issue
warrants and to further an investigation." Reports that Halper apparently sought
a permanent post in the new administration suggest that the effort was meant to continue
after inauguration.
Notwithstanding Clovis's nutty
rightwing politics , his description of what Halper may have been up to makes sense as does
his observation that Halper was trying " to build something that did not exist ." Despite
countless hyper-ventilating headlines about mysterious Trump Tower meetings and the like, the
sad truth is that Russiagate after all these months is shaping up as even more of a
"nothing-burger" than Obama administration veteran Van Jones said
it was back in mid-2017. Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller has indicted Papadopoulos and others
on procedural grounds, he has indicted former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort for
corruption, and he has charged a St. Petersburg company known as the Internet Research Agency
with violating US election laws.
But the corruption charges have nothing to do with Russian collusion and nothing in the
indictment against IRA indicates that either the Kremlin or the Trump campaign were involved.
Indeed, the activities that got IRA in trouble in the first place are so unimpressive –
just $46,000 worth of Facebook
ads that it purchased prior to election day, some pro-Trump, some anti, and some with
no particular slant
at all – that Mueller probably wouldn't even have bothered if he hadn't been under
intense pressure to come up with anything at all.
The same goes for the army of bots that Russia supposedly deployed on Twitter. As The
Washington Post noted in an oddly, cool-headed Dec. 2
article , 2, 700 suspected Russian-linked accounts generated just 202,000 tweets in a
six-year period ending in August 2017, a drop in a bucket compared to the one
billion election-related tweets sent out during the fourteen months leading up to Election
Day.
The Steele dossier is also underwhelming. It declares on one page that the Kremlin sought to
cultivate Trump by throwing "various lucrative real estate development business deals" his way
but says on another that Trump's efforts to drum up business were unavailing and that he thus
"had to settle for the use of extensive sexual services there from local prostitutes rather
than business success."
Why would Trump turn down business offers when he couldn't generate any on his own? The idea
that Putin would spot a U.S. reality-TV star somewhere around 2011 and conclude that he was
destined for the Oval Office five years later is ludicrous. The fact that the Democratic
National Committee funded the dossier via its law firm Perkins Coie renders it less credible
still, as does the fact that the world has heard nothing more about the alleged video despite
the ongoing deterioration in US-Russian relations. What's the point of making a blackmail tape
if you don't use it?
Steele: Paid for political research, not intelligence.
Even Steele is backing off. In a legal paper filed in response to a libel suit last May, he
said the document "did not represent (and did not purport to represent) verified facts, but
were raw intelligence which had identified a range of allegations that warranted investigation
given their potential national security implications." The fact is that the "dossier" was
opposition research, not an intelligence report. It was neither vetted by Steele nor anyone in
an intelligence agency. Opposition research is intended to mix truths and fiction, to dig
up plausible dirt to throw at your opponent, not to produce an intelligence assessment at
taxpayer's expense to "protect" the country. And Steele was paid for it by the Democrats, not
his government.
Using it Anyway
Nonetheless, the spooks have made the most of such pseudo-evidence. Dearlove and Wood both
advised Steele to take his "findings" to the FBI, while, after the election, Wood pulled
Sen. John McCain aside at a security conference in Halifax, Nova Scotia, to let him know that
the Russians might be blackmailing the president-elect. McCain dispatched long-time aide David
J. Kramer to the UK to discuss the dossier with Steele directly.
Although Kramer denies it, The New Yorker found a former national-security
official who
says he spoke with him at the time and that Kramer's goal was to have McCain confront Trump
with the dossier in the hope that he would resign on the spot. When that didn't happen, Clapper
and Brennan arranged for FBI Director James Comey to confront Trump instead. Comey later
testified that he didn't want Trump to think he was creating "a J. Edgar Hoover-type
situation – I didn't want him thinking I was briefing him on this to sort of hang it over
him in some way."
But how could Trump think otherwise? As Consortium News founding editor Robert Parry
observed a few
days later, the maneuver "resembles a tactic out of FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover's playbook on
government-style blackmail: I have some very derogatory information about you that I'd sure
hate to see end up in the press."
Since then, the Democrats have touted the dossier at every opportunity, TheNew
Yorker
continues to defend it , while Times columnist Michelle Goldberg cites it as well,
saying it's a
"rather obvious possibility that Trump is being blackmailed." CNN, for its part, suggested not
long ago that the dossier may actually be Russian
disinformation designed to throw everyone off base, Republicans and Democrats alike.
It sounds more like CIA paranoia raised to the nth degree. But that's what the
intelligence agencies are for, i.e. to spread fear and propaganda in order to stampede the
public into supporting their imperial agenda. In this case, their efforts are so effective that
they've gotten lost in a fog of their own making. If the corporate press fails to point this
out, it's because reporters are too befogged themselves to notice.
Daniel Lazare is the author of The Frozen Republic: How the Constitution Is Paralyzing
Democracy (Harcourt Brace, 1996) and other books about American politics. He has written for a
wide variety of publications from The Nation to Le Monde Diplomatique , and his articles about
the Middle East, terrorism, Eastern Europe, and other topics appear regularly on such websites
as Jacobin and The American Conservative.
Mueller is trying to omit the normal burden of legal liability, "wilful intent" in his
charges against the St Petersburg, social media operation. In a horrifically complex area
such as tax, campaign contributions or lobbying, a foreign entity can be found guilty of
breaking a law that they cannot reasonably have been expected to have knowledge of.
But the omission or inclusion of "wilful intent" is applied on a selective basis depending on
the advantage to the deep state.
From a practical standpoint, omission of "wilful intent" makes it easier for Mueller to get a
guilty verdict (in adsentia assuming this is legally valid in America). Once the "guilt" of
the St Petersburg staff is established, any communication between an American and them
becomes "collusion".
I've always thought that the great animus between Obama and Trump stemmed from Trump's
persistent birtherist attacks on Obama followed by Obama's public ridicule of Trump at the
White House Correspondants' Dinner. Without the latter, Trump probably would not have been
motivated to run for the presidency. Without the former, Obama would probably not have gotten
into the gutter to defeat and embarrass Trump at all costs. Clinton and Obama probably never
recruit British spooks to sabotage and provide a pretense for spying on the campaigns of Jeb,
Ted or Little Marco. Since these were all warmongers like Hillary and Obama, the issues would
have been different, Russia would not have been a factor, and Putin would have had no alleged
"puppet."
The irony is that Clinton and Obama wanted Trump as her opponent. They cultivated his
candidacy via liberal media bias throughout the primaries. (MSNBC and Rachel Maddow were
always cutting away to another full length Trump victory speech and rally, including lots of
jibber jabber with the faithful supporters.) Why? Because they thought he was the easiest to
beat. The polls actually had Hillary losing against the other GOP candidates. The Dems beat
themselves with their own choice of candidate and all the intrigue, false narratives and
other questionable practices they employed in both the primaries and the general. That's what
really happened.
backwardsevolution , June 3, 2018 at 2:50 pm
Realist – good post. I think what you say is true. Trump got too caught up in the
birther crap, and Obama retaliated. But I think that Trump had been thinking about the
presidency long before Obama came along. He sees the country differently than Obama and
Clinton do. Trump would never have built up China to the point where all American technology
has been given away for free, with millions of jobs lost and a huge trade deficit, and he
would have probably left Russia alone, not ransacked it.
I saw Obama as a somewhat reluctant globalist and Hillary as an eager globalist. They are
both insiders. Trump is not. He's interested in what is best for the U.S., whereas the
Clinton's and the Bush's were interested in what their corporate masters wanted. The
multinationals have been selling the U.S. out, Trump is trying to put a stop to this, and it
is going to be a fight to the death. Trump is playing hardball with China (who ARE U.S.
multinationals), and it is working. Beginning July 1, 2018, China has agreed to reduce its
tariffs:
"Import tariffs for apparel, footwear and headgear, kitchen supplies and fitness products
will be more than halved to an average of 7.1 percent from 15.9 percent, with those on
washing machines and refrigerators slashed to just 8 percent, from 20.5 percent.
Tariffs will also be cut on processed foods such as aquaculture and fishing products and
mineral water, from 15.2 percent to 6.9 percent.
Cosmetics, such as skin and hair products, and some medical and health products, will also
benefit from a tariff cut to 2.9 percent from 8.4 percent.
In particular, tariffs on drugs ranging from penicillin, cephalosporin to insulin will be
slashed to zero from 6 percent before.
In the meantime, temporary tariff rates on 210 imported products from most favored nations
will be scrapped as they are no longer favorable compared with new rates."
Trade with China has been all one way. At least Trump is leveling the playing field. He at
least is trying to bring back jobs, something the "insiders" could care less about.
I agree that Hillary wanted Trump as an opponent, thought she could easily win. I've
underestimated idiot opponents before, always to my detriment. Why is it that they are always
the most formidable? The "insiders" are so used to voters rolling over, taking it on the
chin. They gave away their jobs, replaced them with the service industry, killed their sons
and daughters in wars abroad, and still the American people cast their ballots in their
favor. This time was different. The insiders just did not see the sea change, not like Trump
did.
Abe , June 2, 2018 at 2:20 am
"Pentagon documents indicate that the Department of Defense's shadowy intelligence arm,
the Office of Net Assessment, paid Halper $282,000 in 2016 and $129,000 in 2017. According to
reports, Halper sought to secure Papadopoulos's collaboration by offering him $3,000 and an
all-expenses-paid trip to London, ostensibly to produce a research paper on energy issues in
the eastern Mediterranean.
"The choice of Halper for this spying operation has ominous implications. His deep ties to
the US intelligence apparatus date back decades. His father-in-law was Ray Cline, who headed
the CIA's Directorate of Intelligence at the height of the Cold War. Halper served as an aide
to Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Alexander Haig in the Nixon and Ford administrations.
"In 1980, as the director of policy coordination for Ronald Reagan's presidential
campaign, Halper oversaw an operation in which CIA officials gave the campaign confidential
information on the Carter administration and its foreign policy. This intelligence was in
turn utilized to further back-channel negotiations between Reagan's campaign manager and
subsequent CIA director William Casey and representatives of Iran to delay the release of the
American embassy hostages until after the election, in order to prevent Carter from scoring a
foreign policy victory on the eve of the November vote.
"Halper subsequently held posts as deputy assistant secretary of state for
political-military affairs and senior adviser to the Pentagon and Justice Department. More
recently, Halper has collaborated with Richard Dearlove, the former head of MI6, the British
intelligence service, in directing the Cambridge Security Initiative (CSi), a security think
tank that lists the US and UK governments as its principal clients.
"Before the 2016 election, Halper had expressed his view – shared by predominant
layers within the intelligence agencies – that Clinton's election would prove 'less
disruptive' than Trump's.
"The revelations of the role played by Halper point to an intervention in the 2016
elections by the US intelligence agencies that far eclipsed anything one could even imagine
the Kremlin attempting."
Sorry for not commenting on other posts as of yet. But I think I have a different
perspective. Russia Gate is not about Hillary Clinton or Putin but it is about Donald Trump.
Specifically an effort to get rid of him by the intelligence agencies and the MSM. The fact
is the MSM created Trump and were chiefly responsible for his election. Trump is their
brainchild starlet used to fleece all the republican campaigns like a huckster fleeces an
audience. It all ties to key Supreme Court rulings eliminating campaign finance regulations
which ushered in the age of dark money.
When billionaires can donate unlimited amounts of money anonymously to the candidate of
their choosing what ends up is a field of fourteen wannabes in a primary race each backed by
their own investor(s). The only way these candidates can win is to convince us to vote. The
only way they can do that is to spend on advertising.
What the MSM dreamed of in a purely capitalistic way was a way to drain the wallets of
every single one of the republican Super PACs. The mission was fraught with potential
checkmates. Foe example, there could be an early leader who snatched up the needed delegates
for the nomination early on which would have stopped the flow of advertising cash flowing to
the MSM. Such possibilities worried the MSM and caused great angst since this might just be
the biggest haul they ever took in during a primary season. How would they prevent a
premature end of the money river. Like financial vampire bats, ticks and leeches they needed
a way to keep the money flowing from the veins of the republican Super PACs until they were
sucked dry.
What the MSM really needed was a bait which they could use to lure more dollars just like
a horse race where the track owners needed a fast underdog horse to clean up. I believe the
term is to be "hustled". The con men of the media hustlers decided they needed a way to cause
all of the candidates to squirm uneasily and to then react to the news that Donald Trump was
"in the lead".
It was a pure stroke of genius and it worked so well that Carl Rove is looking for a job
and Donald Trump is sitting in the White House.
Those clever media folks. What a gift the Supreme Court handed them. But there was one
little (or big) problem. The problem was the result of the scam put Trump in the White House.
Something that no conservative republican would ever sign onto. Trump had spent years as a
democrat, hobnobbed with the Clinton's and was an avowed agnostic who favored the liberal
ideology for the most part.
What to do? Trump was now the Commander in Chief and was spouting nonsense that the
establishment recoiled at such as Trumps plans to form economic ties with Russia rather than
continue to wage a cold war spanning 65 years which the MIC used year after year to spook us
all and guarantee their billions annual increase in funding. Trump directly attacked defense
projects and called for de-funding major initiatives like F35 etc.
The new guy in the White House with his crazy ideas of making friends with Vladimir Putin
horrified a national arms industry funded with hundreds of billions of our tax dollars every
year propped up by all the neocons with their paranoid beliefs and plans to make America the
hegemon of the World. Our foreign allies who use the USA to fight their perceived enemies and
entice our government to sell them weapons and who urge us to orchestrate the overthrow of
governments were all alarmed by the "not a real republican" peace-nick occupying the White
House.
What to do? There was clearly a need to eliminate this bad guy since his avowed policies
were in direct opposition to the game plan that had successfully compromised the former
administration. They felt powerless to dissuade the Administration to continue the course and
form strategies to eliminate Iran, Syria, North Korea, Libya, Ukraine and other vulnerable
targets swaying toward China and Russia. They faced a new threat with the Trump
Administration which seemed hell bent to discontinue the wars in these regions robbing them
of many dollars.
It is probable that the casino and hotel owner in the White House posed an very
threatening alternate strategy of forming economic ties with former enemies which scared the
hell out of the arms industry which built its economy on scaring all of us and justifying its
existence based on foreign enemies.
So the MSM and the MIC created a new cold war with their friends at the New York Times and
the Washington Post which published endless stories about the new Russian threat we faced. It
had nothing to do with the 0.02% Twitter and Facebook "influence" that Russia actually had in
the election. It was billed as the crime of the century. The real crime was that they
committed the crime of the century that they mightily profited from by putting Trump in the
White House in the first place with a plan to grab all the election cash they could grab.
In the interim, they also forgot on purpose to tell anyone about the election campaign
finance fraud that they were the chief beneficiaries of. They also of course forgot to tell
anyone what the fight was about for the Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch. Twenty seven
million dollars in dark money was donated by dark money donors enabled by the Supreme Court's
decisions to eliminate campaign finance regulations which enabled these donors to buy out
Congress and elect and confirm a Supreme Court Justice who would uphold the laws which
eliminate all the election rules and campaign finance regulations dating back to the Tillman
Act of 1907 which was an attempt to eliminate corporate contributions in political campaigns
with associated meager fines as penalties. The law was weak then and has now been
eliminated.
In an era of dark money in politics protected by revisionist judges laying at the top of
our federal judicial branch posing as strict constructionists while being funded by the
corporatocracy that viciously fights over control of the highest court by a panicked
republican party that seeks to tie up their domination in our Congress by any means including
the abdication of the Constitutional authority granted to the citizens of the nation we now
face a new internal enemy.
That enemy is not some foreign nation but our own government which conspires to represent
the wealthy and the powerful and which exalts them and which enacts laws to defend their
control of our nation. Here is a quote:
When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they
create for themselves in the course of time, a legal system that authorizes it and a moral
code that glorifies it.
Frederic Bastiat – (1801-1850) in Economic Sophisms
Realist , June 1, 2018 at 4:32 am
Different journalist covering much the same ground:
"Russiagate" is strictly a contrivance of the Deep State, American & British Spookery,
and the corporate media propagandists. It clearly needs to be genuinely investigated (unlike
the mockery being orchestrated by Herr Mueller from the Ministry of Truth), re-christened
"Intellgate" (after the real perpetrators of crime), pursued until all the guilty traitors
(including Mueller) who really tried to steal our democratic election are tried, convicted
and incarcerated (including probably hundreds complicit from the media) and given its own
lengthy chapter in all the history books about "The Election They Tried to Steal and Blame on
Russia: How America Nearly Lost its Constitution." If not done, America will lose its
constitution, or rather the incipient process will become totally irreversible.
Vivian O'Blivion , June 1, 2018 at 6:25 am
Your timing of events is confused.
The deep state didn't try and steal the election because they were overly complacent that
their woman would win. Remember, they didn't try to use the dodgy, Steele dossier before the
election.
What the deep state has done is reactively try to overcome the election outcome by launching
an investigation into Trump. The egregious element of the investigation is giving it the
title "investigation into collusion" when they in all probability knew that collusion was
unlikely to have taken place. To achieve their aim (removing Trump) they included the line
"and matters arising" in the brief to give them an open ended remit which allowed them to
investigate Trump's business dealings of a Russian / Ukrainian nature (which may venture
uncomfortably close to Semion Mogilevich).
If as you state (and I concur) there was no Russian collusion, then barring fabrication of
evidence by Mueller (and there is little evidence of that to date) you have nothing to worry
about on the collusion front. Remember, to date, Mueller has stuck (almost exclusively) to
meat and potatoes charges like tax evasion and money laundering. If however the investigation
leads to credible evidence that Trump broke substantive laws in the past for financial gain,
then it is not reasonable to cry foul.
Seer , June 1, 2018 at 7:02 am
The Deep State assisted the DNC in knocking out Sanders. THAT was ground zero. Everything
since then has been to cover this up and to discredit Trump (using him as the distraction).
Consider that the Deep State never bothered to investigate the DNC servers/data; reason being
is that they'd (Deep State) be implicated.
Skip Scott , June 1, 2018 at 7:29 am
Very true Seer. That is the real genesis of RussiaGate. It was a diversion tactic to keep
people from looking at the DNC's behavior during the primaries. They are the reason Trump is
president, not the evil Ruskies.
Vivian O'Blivion , June 1, 2018 at 8:13 am
We all seem agreed that the Russia collusion is an exercise in distraction. I can't say I
know enough to comment with authority on whether the DNC would require assistance from the
deep state to trash Bernie. From an outsider perspective it looked more like an application
of massively disproportionate spending and standard, back room dirty tricks.
There is a saying; don't attribute to conspiracy that which can be explained by incompetence.
In this case, try replacing incompetence with MONEY.
dikcheney , June 2, 2018 at 5:09 pm
Totally agree with you Skip and the Mueller performance is there to keep up the
intimidation and distraction by regularly finding turds to throw at Trump. Mueller doesnt
need to find anything, he just needs to create vague intimations of 'guilty Trump' and
suspicious associates so that no one will look at the DNC or the Clinton corruption or the
smashing of the Sanders campaign.
Their actual agenda is to smother analysis and clear thinking. Thankfully there is the
forensicator piecing the jigsaw as well as consortium news.
robjira , June 1, 2018 at 11:55 am
Spot on, Seer.
michael , June 1, 2018 at 4:49 pm
Those servers probably had a lot more pay-to-play secrets from the Clinton Foundation and
ring-kissing from foreign big donors than what was released by Wikileaks, which mostly was
just screwing over Bernie, which the judge ruled was Hillary's prerogative. Some email chains
were probably construed as National Security and were discreetly not leaked.
The 30,000 emails Hillary had bit bleached from her private servers are likely in the hands
of Russians and every other major country, all biding their time for leverage. This was the
carrot the British (who undoubtedly have copies as well) dangled over idiot Popodopolous.
Uncle Bob , June 1, 2018 at 10:33 pm
Seth Rich
anon , June 1, 2018 at 7:42 am
Realist is likely referring to events before the election which involved people with
secret agency connections, such as the opposition research (Steele dossier and Skripal
affair).
Realist , June 1, 2018 at 9:32 am
Realist responded but is being "moderated" as per usual.
Realist , June 1, 2018 at 9:31 am
Hillary herself was a prime force in cooking up the smear against Trump for being "Putin's
puppet." This even before the Democratic convention. Then she used it big time during the
debates. It wasn't something merely reactive after she lost. Certainly she and her
collaborators inside the deep state and the intelligence agencies never imagined that she
would lose and have to distract from what she and her people did by projecting the blame onto
Trump. That part was reactive. The rest of the conspiracy was totally proactive on her part
and that of the DNC, even during the primaries.
Don't forget, the intel agencies led by Clapper, Brennan and Comey were all working for
Obama at the time and were totally acquiescent in spying on the Trump campaign and
"unmasking" the identities and actions of his would-be administration, including individuals
like General Flynn. The cooked up Steele dossier was paid for by money from the Clinton
campaign and used as a pretext for the intel agencies to spy on the Trump campaign. There is
no issue on timing. The establishment was fully behind Clinton by hook or crook from the
moment Trump had the delegates to win the GOP nomination. (OBTW, I am not a Trump supporter
or even a Republican, so I KNOW that I "have nothing to worry about on the collusion front."
I'm a registered Dem, though not a Hillary supporter.)
Moreover, if you think that Mueller (and the other intel chiefs) have been on the
impartial up-and-up, why did the FBI never seize and examine the DNC servers? Why simply
accept the interpretation of events given by the private cybersecurity firm (Crowdstrike)
that the Clinton campaign hired to very likely mastermind a cover-up? That is exceptional
(nay, unheard of!) "professional courtesy." Why has Mueller to this day not deposed Julian
Assange or former British Ambassador Craig Murray, both of whom admit to knowing precisely
who provided the leaked (not hacked) Podesta and DNC emails to Wikileaks? Why has Mueller not
pursued the potential role of the late Seth Rich in the leaking of said emails? Why has
Mueller not pursued the robust theory, based on actual evidence, proposed by VIPS, and
supported by computer experts like Bill Binney and John McAfee, that the emails were not, as
the Dems and the intel agencies would have you believe on NO EVIDENCE, hacked (by the
"Russians" or anyone else) but were downloaded to a flash drive directly from the DNC
servers? Why has Mueller not deposed Binney or Ray McGovern who claim to have evidence to
bear on this and have discussed it freely in the media (to the miniscule extent that the
corporate media will give them an audience)? Is Mueller after the truth, or is this a
kangaroo court he is running? Is the media really independent and impartial or are they part
of a cover-up, perpetrating numerous sins of both commission and omission in their highly
flawed reportage?
I don't see clarity in what has been thus far been propounded by Mueller or any of Trump's
other accusers, but I don't think I am the one who is confused here, Vivian. If you want to
meet a thoroughly confused individual on what transpired leading up to this moment in
American political history, just go read Hillary's book. Absolutely everyone under the sun
shares in the blame but her for the fact that she does not presently reside in the White
House.
Vivian O'Blivion , June 1, 2018 at 1:48 pm
You have presented your case with a great deal more detail and clarity than the original
post that prompted my reply. You are also a great deal more knowledgeable than I on the
details. I think we are 98% in agreement and I wouldn't like to say who's correct on the
remaining 2%.
For clarity, I didn't follow the debates and wouldn't do so now if they were repeated. Much
heat very little light.
The "pretext" that the intel agencies claim launched their actions against Trump was not the
Steele dossier, at least that is what the intel agencies say. Either way your assertion that
it was the dossier that set things off is just that, an assertion. I think this is a minor
point.
On the DNC servers and the FBI we are 100% singing from the same hymn book and it all sticks.
Mueller's apparent disinterest in the question of hack or USB drive does rather taint his
investigation and thanks for pointing this out, I hadn't thought of that angle. I still think
Mueller will stick to tax and money laundering and stay well clear of "collusion", so yes he
may be running a kangaroo court investigation but the charges will be real world.
The MSM as a whole are a sick joke which is why we collectively find ourselves at CN, Craig
Murray's blog, etc. I wouldn't like to attribute "collaboration" to any individual in the
media. It was the reference to hundreds of journalists being sent to jail in your original
post that set me off in the first place. When considering the "culpability" of any individual
journalist you can have any position on a spectrum from; fully cognisant collaborator with a
deep state conspiracy, to; a bit dim and running with the "sexy" story 'cause it's the
biggest thing ever, the bosses can't get enough of it and the overtime is great. If American
journalists are anything like their UK counterparts, 99% will fall into the latter
category.
Don't have any issue with your final point. Hillary on stage and on camera was phoney as
rocking horse s**te and everyone outside her extremely highly remunerated team could see
it.
Sorry for any inconvenience, but your second post makes your points a hell of a lot clearer
than the original.
Realist , June 1, 2018 at 4:26 pm
My purpose for the first post in this thread was to direct readers to the article in Unz
by Mike Whitney, not to compress a full-blown amateur expose' by myself into a three-sentence
paragraph. You would have found much more in the way of facts, analysis and opinion in his
article to which my terse comments did not even serve as an abstract.
Quoting his last paragraph may give you the flavor of this piece, which is definitely not
a one-off by him or other actual journalists who have delved into the issues:
"Let's see if I got this right: Brennan gets his buddies in the UK to feed fake
information on Russia to members of the Trump campaign, after which the FBI uses the
suspicious communications about Russia as a pretext to unmask, wiretap, issue FISA warrants,
and infiltrate the campaign, after which the incriminating evidence that was collected in the
process of entrapping Trump campaign assistants is compiled in a legal case that is used to
remove Trump from office. Is that how it's supposed to work?
It certainly looks like it. But don't expect to read about it in the Times."
backwardsevolution , June 1, 2018 at 4:49 pm
Vivian – 90% of all major media is owned by six corporations. There most definitely
was and IS collusion between some of them to bring down the outsider, Trump.
As far as individual journalists go, yeah, they're trying to pay their mortgage, I get it,
and they're going to spin what their boss bloody well tells them to spin. But there is
evidence coming out that "some" journalists did accept money from either Fusion GPS, Perkins
Coie (sp) or Christopher Steele to leak information, which they did.
Bill Clinton passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that enabled these six media
conglomerates to dominate the news. Of course they're political. They need to be split up,
like yesterday, into a thousand pieces (ditto for the banks). They have purposely and with
intent been feeding lies to the American people. Yes, some SHOULD go to jail.
As Peter Strzok of the FBI said re Trump colluding with Russia, "There was never any
there, there." The collusion has come from the intelligence agencies, in cahoots with Hillary
Clinton, perhaps even as high as Obama, to prevent Trump being elected. When that failed,
they set out to get him impeached on whatever they could find. Of course Mueller is going to
stick with tax and money laundering because he already KNOWS there was never any collusion
with Russia.
This is the Swamp versus the People.
backwardsevolution , June 1, 2018 at 1:52 pm
Realist – another excellent post. "Is Mueller after the truth, or is this a kangaroo
court he is running?" As you rightly point out, Mueller IS being very selective in what he
examines and doesn't examine. He's not after the whole truth, just a particular kind of
truth, one that gets him a very specific result – to take down or severely cripple the
President.
Evidence continues to trickle out. Former and active members of the FBI are now even
begging to testify as they are disgusted with what is being purposely omitted from this
so-called "impartial" investigation. This whole affair is "kangaroo" all the way.
I'm not so much a fan of Trump as I am a fan of the truth. I don't like to see him –
anyone – being railroaded. That bothers me more than anything. But he's right about
what he calls "the Swamp". If these people are not uncovered and brought to justice, then the
country is truly lost.
Realist , June 1, 2018 at 4:38 pm
Precisely. Destroy the man on false pretenses and you destroy our entire system, whether
you like him and his questionable policies or not.
Some people would say it's already gone, but we do what we can to get it back or hold onto
to what's left of it. Besides, all the transparent lies and skullduggery in the service of
politics rather than principles are just making our entire system look as corrupt as
hell.
michael , June 1, 2018 at 5:00 pm
When Mueller arrested slimy Manafort for crimes committed in the Ukraine and gave a pass
to the Podesta Brothers who worked closely with Manafort, it was clear that Russiagate was a
partisan operation.
backwardsevolution , June 1, 2018 at 6:17 pm
Michael – good point!
KiwiAntz , June 1, 2018 at 1:00 am
Its becoming abundantly clear now, that the whole Russiagate charade was had nothibg to do
with Russia & is about a elaborate smokescreen & shellgame coverup designed to divert
attention away from, firstly the Democratic Party's woeful defeat & its lousy Candidate
choice in the corrupt Hillary Clinton? & also the DNC's sabotaging of Bernie Saunders
campaign run! But the most henious & treacherous parts was Obama's, weaponising the
intelligence agencies to spy (Halper) on the imaginary Mancharian Candidate Trump & to
set him up as a Russia stooge? Obama & Hillary Clinton are complicent in this disgraceful
& illegal activity to get dirt on Trump withe goal of ensuring Clinton's election win?
This is bigger than Watergate & more scandalous? But despite the cheating & stacking
of the card deck, she still lost out to the Donald? And this isn't just illegal its
treasonous & willful actions deserving of a lengthy jail incarceration? HRC & her
crooked Clinton foundation's funding of the fraudulent & discredited "Steele Dosier" was
also used to implement Trump & Russia in a made up, pile of fictitious gargage that was
pure offal? Obama & HRC along with their FBI & CIA spys need to be rounded up,
convicted & thrown in jail? Perhaps if Trump could just shut his damn mouuth for once
& get off twitter long enough to be able too get some Justice Dept officials looking into
this, without being distracted by this Russiagate shellgame fakery, then perhaps the real
criminal's like Halpert, Obama,HRC & these corrupt spooks & spies can be rounded up
& held to account for this treasonous behaviour?
Sean Ahern , May 31, 2018 at 7:25 pm
Attention should be paid also to the role of so called progressive media outlets such as
Mother Jones which served as an outlets for the disinformation campaign described in Lazare's
article.
Here from David Corn's Mother Jones 2016 article:
"And a former senior intelligence officer for a Western country who specialized in Russian
counterintelligence tells Mother Jones that in recent months he provided the bureau with
memos, based on his recent interactions with Russian sources, contending the Russian
government has for years tried to co-opt and assist Trump -- and that the FBI requested more
information from him."
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/veteran-spy-gave-fbi-info-alleging-russian-operation-cultivate-donald-trump/
Not only was Corn and Mother Jones selected by the spooks as an outlet, but these so
called progressives lauded their 'expose' as a great investigative coup on their part and it
paved the way for Corn's elevation on MSNBC for a while as a 'pundit.'
Paul G. , May 31, 2018 at 8:46 pm
In that vein did the spooks influence Rachel Maddow or is her $30,000. a day salary
adequate to totally compromise her microscopic journalistic integrity.
dikcheney , June 3, 2018 at 6:57 am
Passing around references to Mother Jones is like passing round used toilet paper for
another try. MJ is BS it is entirely controlled fake press.
Abby , May 31, 2018 at 6:23 pm
Stefan Halper was being paid by the Clinton's foundation during the time he was spying on
the Trump campaign. This is further evidence that Hillary Clinton's hands are all over
getting Russia Gate started. Then there's the role that Obama's justice department played in
setting up the spying on people who were working with the Trump campaign. This is worse than
Watergate, IMO.
Rumors are that a few ex FBI agents are going to testify to congress in Comey's role in
covering up Hillary's crimes when she used her private email server to send classified
information to people who did not have clearance to read it. Sydney Bluementhol was working
for Hillary's foundation and sending her classified information that he stole from the
NSA.
Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills were concerned about Obama knowing that Hillary wasn't using
her government email account after he told the press that he only found out about it at the
same time they did. He had been sending and receiving emails from her Clintonone email
address during her whole tenure as SOS.
Obama was also aware of her using her foundation for pay to play which she was told by
both congress and Obama to keep far away from her duties. Why did she use her private email
server? So that Chelsea could know where Hillary was doing business so she could send Bill
there to give his speeches to the same organizations, foreign governments and people who had
just donated to their foundation.
Has any previous Secretary of State in history used their position to enrich their spouses
or their foundations? I think not.
The secrets of how the FBI covered for Hillary are coming out. Whether she is charged for
her crimes is a different matter.
F. G. Sanford , May 31, 2018 at 7:48 pm
If Hillary paid a political operative using Clinton Foundation funds – those are tax
exempt charitable contributions – she would be guilty of tax fraud, charity fraud and
campaign finance violations. Hillary may be evil, but she's not stupid. The U.S.Government
paid Halper, which might be "waste, fraud and abuse", but it doesn't implicate Hillary at
all. Not that she's innocent, mind you
Rob , June 1, 2018 at 2:14 am
I need some references to take any of your multitude of claims seriously. With all due
respect, this sound like something taken from info wars and stylized in smartened up a little
bit.
the idea that Stefan Halper was some sort a of mastermind spy behind the so called
"Russiagate" fiasco
seems very implausible considering what he seems to have spent doing for the past 40
years
going back to the Iran hostage crisis of 1979-1980 and his efforts then.
i think he must have had a fairly peripheral role as to whatever or not was going on
behind the scenes from 2016 election campaign, and the campaign to first stop Trump getting
elected, and secondly, when that failed, to bring down his Presidency.
of course, the moment his name was revealed in recent days, would have shocked or
surprised those of in the general
public, but not certainly amongst those in Government aka FBI/CIA/Military-industrial
circles.
backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 4:36 pm
chris m – Halper is probably one of those people who hide behind their professor (or
other legitimate) jobs, but are there at the ready to serve the Deep State. "I understand.
You want me to set up some dupes in order to make it look like there was or could be actual
Russian meddling. Gotcha." All you've got to do is make it "look like" something nefarious
was going on. This facilitates a "reason" to have a phony investigation, and of course they
make it as open-ended an investigation as possible, hoping to get the target on something,
anything.
Well, they've no doubt looked long and hard for almost two years now, but zip. However, in
their zeal to get rid of their opponent, who they did not think would win the election, they
left themselves open, left a trail of crimes. Whoops!
This is the Swamp that Trump talked about during the election. He's probably not squeaky
clean either, but he pales in comparison to what these guys have done. They have tried to
take down a duly-elected President.
F. G. Sanford , May 31, 2018 at 5:09 pm
His role may have been peripheral, but I seem to recall that the Office of Net Assessments
paid him roughly a million bucks to play it. That office, run from the Pentagon, is about as
deep into the world of "black ops" spookdom as you can get. Hardly "peripheral", I'd say.
backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 7:13 pm
F. G. Sanford – yes, a million bucks implies something more than just a peripheral
involvement, more like something essential to the plot, like the actual setting up of the
plot. Risk of exposure costs money.
ranney , May 31, 2018 at 6:17 pm
Chris, I think the Halper inclusion in this complex tale is simply an example of how these
things work in the ultra paranoid style of spy agencies. As Lazare explains, every one knew
every one else – at least at the start of this, and it just kind of built from there,
and Halper may have been the spark – but the spark landed on a highly combustible pile
of paranoia that caught on fire right away. This is how our and the UK agencies function.
There is an interesting companion piece to this story today at Common Dreams by Robert Kohler
titled The American Way of War. It describes basically the same sort of mind set and action
as this story. I'd link it for you if I knew how, but I'm not very adept at the computer.
(Maybe another reader knows how?)
We (that is the American people who are paying the salaries of these brain blocked, stiff
necked idiots) need to start getting vocal and visible about the destructive path our
politicians, banks and generals have rigidly put us on. Does any average working stiff still
believe that all this hate, death and destruction is to "protect" us?
backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 7:07 pm
ranney – when you are on the page that you want to link to, take your cursor (the
little arrow on your screen) to the top of the page to the address bar (for instance, the
address for this article is:
"https://consortiumnews.com/2018/05/31/spooks-spooking ")
Once your cursor is over the address bar, right click on your mouse. A little menu will
come up. Then position your cursor down to the word "copy" and then left click on your mouse.
This will copy the link.
Then proceed back to the blog (like Consortium) where you want to provide the link in your
post. You might say, "Here is the link for the article I just described above." Then at this
point you would right click on your mouse again, position your cursor over the word "paste",
and then left click on your mouse. Voila, your link magically appears.
If you don't have a mouse and are using a laptop pad, then someone else will have to help
you. That's above my pay grade. Good luck, ranney.
irina , May 31, 2018 at 8:13 pm
If you are using a Mac, either laptop w/touch screen or with a mouse, the copy/paste
function
works similarly. Use either the mouse (no need to 'right click, left click') or the touch
screen
to highlight the address bar once you have the cursor flashing away on the left side of
it.
You may need to scroll right to highlight the whole address. Then go up to Edit (there's
also
a keyboard command you can use, but I don't) in your tool bar at the top of your screen.
Click on 'copy'. Now your address is in memory. Then do the same as described above to
get back to where you want to paste it. Put your cursor where you want it to be 'pasted'.
Go back to 'edit' and click 'paste'. Voila !
This is a very handy function and can be used to copy text, web addresses, whatever you
want.
Explore it a little bit. (Students definitely overuse the 'paste and match style' option,
which allows
a person to 'paste' text into for example an essay and 'match the style' so it looks
seamless, although
unless carefully edited it usually doesn't read seamlessly !)
Remember that whatever is in 'copy' will remain there until you 'copy' something else. (Or
your
computer crashes . . . )
ranney , June 1, 2018 at 3:39 pm
Irina and Backwards Evolution – Thanks guys for the computer advice! I'll try it,
but I think I need someone at my shoulder the first time I try it.
backwardsevolution , June 1, 2018 at 8:53 pm
ranney – you're welcome! Snag one of your kids or a friend, and then do it together.
Sometimes I see people posting things like: "Testing. I'm trying to provide a link, bear with
me." Throw caution to the wind, ranney. I don't worry about embarrassing myself anymore. I do
it every day and the world still goes on.
I heard a good bit of advice once, something I remind my kids: when you're young, you
think everybody is watching you and so you're afraid to step out of line. When you're
middle-aged, you think everybody is watching you, but you don't care. When you're older, you
realize nobody is really watching you because they're more concerned about themselves.
Good luck, ranney.
irina , June 2, 2018 at 10:00 pm
I find it helpful to write down the steps (on an old fashioned piece of paper, with old
fashioned ink)
when learning to use a new computer tool, because while I think I'll remember, it doesn't
usually
'stick' until after using it for quite a while. And yes, definitely recruit a member of the
younger set
or someone familiar with computers. My daughter showed me many years ago how to 'cut &
paste'
and to her credit she was very gracious about it. Remember that you need a place to 'paste'
what-
ever you copied -- either a comment board like this, or a document you are working on, or
(this is
handy) an email where you want to send someone a link to something. Lots of other
possibilities too!
mike , June 1, 2018 at 7:43 pm
No one is presenting Halper as a mastermind spy. He was a tool of the deep state nothing
more.
It seems a mistake to frame the "Russiagate" nonsense as a "Democrat vs Republican"
affair, except at the most surface level of understanding in terms of our political
realities. If one considers that the Bush family has been effectively the Republican Party's
face of the CIA/deep state nexus for decades, as the Clinton/Obama's have been the Democratic
Party's face for decades now, what comes into focus is Trump as a sort of unknown, unexpected
wild card not appropriately tethered to the control structure. Simply noting that the U.S.
and Russia need not be enemies is alone enough to require an operation to get Trump into
line.
This hardly means this is some sort of "partisan" issue as the involvement of McCain and
others demonstrates.
One of the true "you can't make this stuff up" ironies of the Bush/Clinton CIA/deep state
nexus history is worth remembering if one still maintains any illusions about how the CIA
vets potential presidents since they killed JFK. During Iran/Contra we had Bush, the former
CIA director now vice president, running a drugs for arms operation out the White House
through Ollie North, WHILE then unknown Arkansas governor Bill Clinton was busy squashing
Arkansas State Police investigations into said narcotics trafficking. Clinton obviously
proved his bona fides to the CIA/deep state with such service and was appropriately rewarded
as an asset who could function as a reliable president. Here in one operation we had two
future presidents in Bush and Clinton both engaged in THE SAME CIA drug running operation.
You truly can't make this stuff up.
Russiagate seems to be in the end all about keeping deep state policy moving in the "right
direction" and "hating Russia" is the only entree on the menu at this time for the whole
cadre of CIA/deep state, MIC, neocons, Zionists, and all their minions in the MSM. The Obama
White House would have gladly supported Vlad the Impaler as the Republican candidate that
beat Hillary if Vlad were to have the appropriate foaming at the mouth "hate-Russia" vibe
going on.
backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 7:18 pm
Gary – great post.
irina , May 31, 2018 at 8:18 pm
Roger that. I would really like to see an inquiry re-opened into the
teenage boys who died 'on the train tracks' in Arkansas during the
early years of the Clinton-Bush trafficking. Many questions are still
unanswered. Speculation is that they saw something they weren't
supposed to see.
Mark Thomason , May 31, 2018 at 1:12 pm
This all grows out of the failure to clean up the mess revealed by the Iraq fiasco.
Instead, those who did that remained, got away with it, and are doing more of the same.
Babyl-on , May 31, 2018 at 12:46 pm
So, here is my question – Who, ultimately does the
permanent/bureaucratic/deep/Imperial* state finally answer to? Who's interests are they
serving? How do they know what those interests are?
It could be, and increasingly it looks as if, the answer is – no one in particular
– but the Saud family, the Zionist cabal of billionaires, the German industrialist
dynasties, the Japanese oligarchy and never forget the arms dealers, all of them once part of
the Empire now fighting for themselves so we end up with the high level apparatchiks not
knowing what to do or who to follow so they lie outright to Congress and go on TV and babble
more lies for money.
It's a great contradiction that the greatest armed force ever assembled with cutting edge
robotics and AI yet at the same time so weak and pathetic it can not exercise hegemony over
the Middle East as it seems to desire more than anything. Being defeated by forces with less
than 20% of the US spend.
Abby , May 31, 2018 at 6:36 pm
You're right. They answer to no one because they are not just working in this country, but
they think that the whole world is theirs.
To these people there are no borders. They meet at places like the G20, Davos and wherever
the Bilderberg group decides to meet every year. No leader of any country gets to be one
unless they are acceptable to the Deep State. The council of foreign relations is one of the
groups that run the world. How we take them down is a good question.
Abe , May 31, 2018 at 12:43 pm
Following the pattern of mainstream media, Daniel Lazare assiduously avoids mentioning
Israel and pro-Israel Lobby interference in the 2016 presidential election, and the
Israel-gate reality underlying all the Russia-gate fictions.
For example, George Papadopoulos is directly connected to the pro-Israel Lobby, right wing
Israeli political interests, and Israeli government efforts to control regional energy
resources.
Lazare mentions that Papadapoulos had "a friend in the Israeli embassy".
But Lazare conspicuously neglects to mention numerous Israeli and pro-Israel Lobby players
interested in "filling Papadopoulos's head" with "tales of Russian dirty tricks".
Papadopoulos' LinkedIn page lists his association with the right wing Hudson Institute.
The Washington, D.C.-based think tank part of pro-Israel Lobby web of militaristic security
policy institutes that promote Israel-centric U.S. foreign policy.
The Hudson Institute confirmed that Papadopoulos was an intern who left the pro-Israel
neoconservative think tank in 2014.
In 2014, Papadopoulos authored op-ed pieces in Israeli publications.
In an op-ed published in Arutz Sheva, media organ of the right wing Religionist Zionist
movement embraced by the Israeli "settler" movement, Papadopoulos argued that the U.S. should
focus on its "stalwart allies" Israel, Greece, and Cyprus to "contain the newly emergent
Russian fleet".
In another op-ed published in Ha'aretz, Papadopoulos contended that Israel should exploit
its natural gas resources in partnership with Cyprus and Greece rather than Turkey.
In November 2015, Papadapalous participated in a conference in Tel Aviv, discussing the
export of natural gas from Israel with a panel of current and past Israeli government
officials including Ron Adam, a representative of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
and Eran Lerman, a former Israeli Deputy National Security Adviser.
Among Israel's numerous violations of United Nations Resolution 242 was its annexation of
the Syrian Golan Heights in 1981. Recent Israeli threatened military threats against Lebanon
and Syria have a lot to do with control of natural gas resources, both offshore from Gaza and
on land in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights region.
Israeli plans to develop energy resources and expand territorial holdings in the Syrian
Golan are threatened by the Russian military presence in Syria. Russian diplomatic efforts,
and the Russian military intervention that began in September 2015 after an official request
by the Syrian government, have interfered with the Israeli-Saudi-U.S. Axis "dirty war" in
Syria.
Israeli activities and Israel-gate realities are predictably ignored by the mainstream
media, which continues to salivate at every moldy scrap of Russia-gate fiction.
Lazare need no be so circumspect, unless he has somehow been spooked.
"Among Israel's numerous violations of United Nations Resolution 242 was its annexation of
the Syrian Golan Heights in 1981. Recent Israeli threatened military threats against Lebanon
and Syria have a lot to do with control of natural gas resources, both offshore from Gaza and
on land in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights region."
And water. Rating energy and water, what's at the top for Israel. Israel would probably
say both but Israel shielded by the US will take what it wants. That is already true with the
Palestinians.. The last figure I heard is that the Palestinians are allocated one fifth per
capita what is allocated to Israel's
mike k , May 31, 2018 at 11:59 am
A large swamp is actually an ancient and highly organized ecosystem. Only humans could
create a lawless madness like Washington DC.
irina , May 31, 2018 at 8:24 pm
Yes that is a good description of a swamp. BUT, if it loses what sustains it --
water, in the case of a 'real' swamp and money in the case of this swamp --
it changes character very quickly and becomes first a bog, then a meadow.
I am definitely ready for more meadowland ! But the only way to create it
is to voluntarily redirect federal taxes into escrow accounts which stipulate
that the funds are to be used for (fill in the blank) Public Services at the
Local and Regional levels. Much more efficient than filtering them through
the federal bureaucracy !
Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 10:21 pm
But how would one avoid prosecution for nonpayment of taxes?
That seems a very quiet way to be rendered ineffective as a resister.
irina , June 1, 2018 at 2:30 am
The thing is, you don't 'nonpay' them. The way it used to work, through the
Con$cience and Military Tax Campaign Escrow Account, was that you filed
your taxes as usual. (This does require having less withholding than you owe).
BUT instead of paying what is due to the IRS, you send it to the Escrow Account.
You attach a letter to your tax return, explaining where the money is and why it
is there. That is, you want it to be spent on _________________(fill in the blank)
worthy public social service. Then you send your return to the IRS.
When I used to do this, I stated that I wanted my tax dollars to be spent to develop
public health clinics at neighborhood schools. Said clinics would be staffed by nurse
practitioners, would be open 24-7 and nurses would be equipped with vans to make
House Calls. Security would be provided.
So you're not 'nonpaying' your taxes, you are (attempting) to redirect them.
Eventually,
after several rounds of letters back and forth, the IRS would seize the monies from the
escrow account, which would only release them to the IRS upon being told to by the
tax re-director. Unfortunately, not enough people participated to make it a going
concern.
But the potential is still there, and the template has been made and used. It's very
scale-
able, from local to international. And it would not take that many 're-directors' to shift
the
focus of tax liability from the collector to the payor. Because ultimately we are liable
for
how our funds are used !
Bill , June 2, 2018 at 3:19 pm
this was done a lot during the Vietnam conflict, especially by Quakers. the first thing,
if you are a wage earner, is to re-file a W2 with maximum withholdings-that has two effects:
1) it means you owe all your taxes in April. 2) it means the feds are deprived of the hidden
tax in which they use or invest your withholding throughout the year before it's actually
due(and un-owed taxes if you over over-withhold). Pretty sure that if a large number of
people deprive the government of that hidden tax by under-withholding, they will begin to
take notice.
Abe , May 31, 2018 at 11:54 am
Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) is an intelligence agency of the government
and armed forces of the United Kingdom.
In 2013, GCHQ received considerable media attention when the former National Security
Agency contractor Edward Snowden revealed that the agency was in the process of collecting
all online and telephone data in the UK. Snowden's revelations began a spate of ongoing
disclosures of global surveillance and manipulation.
For example, NSA files from the Snowden archive published by Glenn Greenwald reveal
details about GCHQ's Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group (JTRIG) unit, which uses "dirty
trick" tactics to covertly manipulate and control online communities.
In 2017, officials from the UK and Israel made an unprecedented confirmation of the close
relationship between the GCHQ and Israeli intelligence services.
Robert Hannigan, outgoing Director-General of the GCHQ, revealed for the first time that
his organization has a "strong partnership with our Israeli counterparts in signals
intelligence." He claimed the relationship "is protecting people from terrorism not only in
the UK and Israel but in many other countries."
Mark Regev, Israeli ambassador to the UK, commented on the close relationship between
British and Israeli intelligence agencies. During remarks at a Conservative Friends of Israel
reception, Regev opined: "I have no doubt the cooperation between our two democracies is
saving British lives."
Hannigan added that GCHQ was "building on an excellent cyber relationship with a range of
Israeli bodies and the remarkable cyber industry in Be'er Sheva."
The IDF's most important signal intelligence–gathering installation is the Urim
SIGINT Base, a part of Unit 8200, located in the Negev desert approximately 30 km from Be'er
Sheva.
Snowden revealed how Unit 8200 receives raw, unfiltered data of U.S. citizens, as part of
a secret agreement with the U.S. National Security Agency.
After his departure from GCHQ, Hannigan joined BlueteamGlobal, a cybersecurity services
firm, later re-named BlueVoyant.
BlueVoyant's board of directors includes Nadav Zafrir, former Commander of the Israel
Defense Forces' Unit 8200. The senior leadership team at BlueVoyant includes Ron Feler,
formerly Deputy Commander of the IDF's Unit 8200, and Gad Goldstein, who served as a division
head in the Israel Security Agency, Shin Bet, in the rank equivalent to Major General.
In addition to their purported cybersecurity activities, Israeli. American, and British
private companies have enormous access and potential to promote government and military
deception operations.
mike k , May 31, 2018 at 12:23 pm
Thanks Abe. Sounds like a manual for slave owners and con men. What a tangled wed the rich
bastards weave. The simple truth is their sworn enemy.
Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 10:19 pm
Interesting that a foreign power would be given all US communications data, which implies
that the US has seized it all without a warrant and revealed it all in violation of the
Constitution. If extensive, this use of information power amounts to information warfare
against the US by its own secret agencies in collusion with a foreign power, an act of
treason.
Seer , June 1, 2018 at 7:18 am
This has been going on for a LONG time, it's nothing new. I seem to recall 60 Minutes
covering it way back in the 70s(?). UK was allowed to do the snooping in the US (and, likely,
vice versa) and then providing info to the US. This way the US govt could claim that it
didn't spy/snoop on its citizens. Without a doubt Israel has been extensively intercepting
communications in the US..
Secrecy kills.
Sam F , June 1, 2018 at 8:23 am
Yes, but the act of allowing unregulated foreign agencies unwarranted access to US
telecoms is federal crime, and it is treason when it goes so far as to allow them full
access, and even direct US bulk traffic to their spy agencies. If this is so, these people
should be prosecuted for treason.
F. G. Sanford , May 31, 2018 at 11:36 am
To listen to the media coverage of these events, it is tempting to believe that two
entirely different planets are being discussed. Fox comes out and says Mueller was "owned" by
Trump. Then, CNN comes out and says Trump was "owned" by Clapper. Clapper claims the evidence
is "staggering", while video clips of his testimony reveal irrefutable perjury. Some of
President Trump's policies are understandably abhorrent to Democrats, while Clinton's email
server and charity frauds are indisputably violations of Federal statutes. Democrats are
attempting to claim that a "spy" in the Trump campaign was perfectly reasonable to protect
"national security", but evidence seems to indicate that the spy was placed BEFORE there was
a legitimate national security concern. Some analysts note that, while Mueller's team appears
to be Democratic partisan hacks, their native "skill set" is actually expertise in money
laundering investigations. They claim that although Mr. Trump may not be compromised by the
Russian government, he is involved with nefarious Russian organized crime figures. It
follows, according to them, that given time, Mueller will reveal these illicit connections,
and prosecution will become inevitable.
Let's assume, for argument, that both sides are right. That means that our entire
government is irretrievably corrupt. Republicans claim that it could " go all the way to
Obama". Democrats, of course, play the "moral high ground" card, insinuating that the current
administration is so base and immoral that somehow, the "ends justify the means". No matter
how you slice it, the Clinton campaign has a lot more liability on its hands. The problem is,
if prosecutions begin, people will "talk" to save their own skins. The puppet masters can't
really afford that.
"All the way to Obama", you say? I think it could go higher than that. Personally, I think
it could go all the way to Dick Cheney, and the 'powers that be' are in no mood to let that
happen.
Vivian O'Blivion , May 31, 2018 at 12:19 pm
The issue as I see it is that from the start everyone was calling the Mueller probe an
investigation into collusion and not really grasping the catch all nature of his brief.
It's the "any matters arising " that is the real kicker. So any dodgy dealing / possible
criminal activity in the past is fair game. And this is exactly what in happening with
Manafort.
Morally you can apply the Nucky Johnson defence and state that everyone knew Trump was a
crook when they voted for him, but legally this has no value.
There is an unpleasant whiff of deep state interference with the will of the people
(electoral college). Perhaps if most bodies hadn't written Trump's chances off in such an off
hand manner, proper due diligence of his background would have uncovered any liabilities
before the election.
If there is actionable dirt, can't say I am overly sympathetic to Trump. Big prizes sometimes
come with big risks.
David G , May 31, 2018 at 5:14 pm
My own feeling from the start has been that Mueller was never going to track down any
"collusion" or "meddling" (at least not to any significant degree) because the whole,
sprawling Russia-gate narrative – to the extent one can be discerned – is
obviously phony.
But at the same time, there's no way the completely lawless, unethical Trump, along with
his scummy associates, would be able to escape that kind of scrutiny without criminal conduct
being exposed.
So far, on both scores, that still seems to me to be a likely outcome, and for my part I'm
fine with it.
Vivian O'Blivion , June 1, 2018 at 5:29 am
My thoughts exactly. Collusion was never a viable proposition because the Russians aren't
that stupid. Regardless of any personal opinion regarding the intelligence and mental
stability of Donald Snr., the people he surrounds himself with are weapons grade stupid. I
don't see the Russians touching the Trump campaign with a proverbial barge pole.
Bill , June 2, 2018 at 3:26 pm
it just happens that Trump appears to have been involved (wittingly or not), with the
laundering a whole lot of Russian money and so many of his friends seem to be connected with
wealthy Russian oligarchs as well plus they are so stupid, they keep appearing to (and
probably are) obstructing justice. The Cohen thing doesn't get much attention here, but it's
significant that they have all this stuff on a guy who is clearly Trump's bagman.
Steve Naidamast , May 31, 2018 at 3:15 pm
There is also quite an indication that the entire Mueller investigation is a complete
smoke screen to be used as cannon fodder in the mainstream media.
On the one hand, Mueller and his hacks have found nothing of import to link Trump to
anything close to collusion with members of the Russian government. And I am by no means a
Trump supporter by any stretch of the imagination, except as a foil to Clinton. However, even
my minimalist expectations for Trump have not worked out either.
In addition. the Mueller investigation has been spending what appears to be a majority of
its time on ancillary matters that were not within the supposed scope and mandate of this
investigation. Further, a number of indictments have come down against people involved with
such ancillary matters.
The result is that if Mueller is going beyond the scope of his investigatory mandate, this
may come in as a technicality that will allow indicted persons to escape prosecution on
appeal.
Such a mandate, I would think, is the same thing as a police warrant, which can find only
admissible evidence covered by the warrant. Anything else found to be criminally liable must
be found to be as a result of a completely different investigation that has nothing to do
with the original warrant.
In other words, it appears that the Mueller investigation was allowed to commence under a
Republican controlled Congress for the very reason that its intent is simply to go in circles
long enough for Republicans to get their agendas through, which does not appear to be working
all too well as a result of their high levels of internecine party conflicts.
This entire affair is coming to show just how dysfunctional, corrupt, and incompetent the
entirety of the US federal government has become. And to the chagrin of all sincere
activists, no amount of organized protesting and political action will ever rid the country
of this grotesque political quagmire that now engulfs the entirety of our political
infrastructure.
Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 8:48 pm
Very true that the US federal government is now "dysfunctional, corrupt, and
incompetent."
What are your thoughts on forms of action to rid us this political quagmire?
(other than ineffective "organized protesting and political action")
Have you considered new forms of public debate and public information?
Seer , June 1, 2018 at 7:34 am
All of this is blackmail to hold Trump's feet to the fire of the Israel firsters (such
actions pull in all the dark swampy things). By creating the Russia blackmail story they've
effectively redirected away from themselves. The moment Trump balks the Deep State will reel
in some more, airing innuendos to overwhelm Trump. Better believe that Trump has been fully
"briefed" on all of this. John Bolton was able to push out a former OPCW head with threats
(knew where his, the OPCW head's children were). And now John Bolton is sitting right next to
Trump (whispering in his ear that he knows ways in which to oust Trump).
What actual "ideas" were in Trump's head going in to all of this (POTUS run) is hard to
say. But, anything that can be considered a threat to the Deep State has been effectively
nullified now.
Vivian O'Blivion , June 1, 2018 at 8:22 am
Possible, but Manafort already tried to get his charges thrown out as being the outcome of
investigations beyond the remit He failed.
Brendan , May 31, 2018 at 10:26 am
There's no doubt at all that Joseph Mifsud was closely connected with western
intelligence, and with MI6 in particular. His contacts with Russia are insignificant compared
with his long career working amongst the elite of western officials.
Lee Smith of RealClearInvestigations lists some of the places where Mifsud worked, including
two universities:
"he taught at Link Campus University in Rome, ( ) whose lecturers and professors include
senior Western diplomats and intelligence officials from a number of NATO countries,
especially Italy and the United Kingdom.
Mifsud also taught at the University of Stirling in Scotland, and the London Academy of
Diplomacy, which trained diplomats and government officials, some of them sponsored by the
UK's Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the British Council, or by their own governments."
Two former colleagues of Mifsud's, Roh and Pastor, recently interviewed him for a book
they have written. Those authors could very well be biased, but one of them makes a valid
point, similar to one that Daniel Lazare makes above:
"Given the affiliations of Link's faculty and staff, as well as Mifsud's pedigree, Roh thinks
it's impossible that the man he hired as a business development consultant is a Russian
agent."
Politically, Mifsud identifies with the Clintons more than anyone else, and claims to
belong to the Clinton Foundation, which has often been accused of being just a way of
funneling money into Hillary Clinton's campaign.
As Lee Smith says, if Mifsud really is a Russian spy, "Western intelligence services are
looking at one of the largest and most embarrassing breaches in a generation. But none of the
governments or intelligence agencies potentially compromised is acting like there's anything
wrong."
From all that we know about Joseph Mifsud, it's safe to say that he was never a Russian
spy. If not, then what was he doing when he was allegedly feeding stories to George
Papadopoulos about Russians having 'dirt' on Clinton?
I read somewhere that Mifsud had disappeared. Was that true? If so, is he back, or still
missing?
Chet Roman , May 31, 2018 at 6:21 pm
Here are some excerpts that will answer your question from an article by Lee Smith at
Realclearinvestigations, "The Maltese Phantom of Russiagate".
A new book by former colleagues of Mifsud's – Stephan Roh, a 50-year-old
Swiss-German lawyer, and Thierry Pastor, a 35-year-old French political analyst –
reports that he is alive and well. Their account includes a recent interview with him.
Their self-published book, "The Faking of Russia-gate: The Papadopoulos Case, an
Investigative Analysis," includes a recent interview with Mifsud in which he denies saying
anything about Clinton emails to Papadopoulos. Mifsud, they write, stated "vehemently that he
never told anything like this to George Papadopoulos." Mifsud asked rhetorically: "From where
should I have this [information]?"
Mifsud's account seems to be supported by Alexander Downer, the Australian diplomat who
alerted authorities about Papadopoulos. As reported in the Daily Caller, Downer said
Papadopoulos never mentioned emails; he spoke, instead, about the Russians possessing
material that could be damaging to Clinton. This new detail raises the possibility that
Mifsud, Papadopoulos' alleged source for the information, never said anything about
Clinton-related emails either.
In interviews with RealClearInvestigations, Roh and Pastor said Mifsud is anything but a
Russian spy. Rather, he is more likely a Western intelligence asset.
According to the two authors, it was a former Italian intelligence official, Vincenzo
Scotti, a colleague of Mifsud's and onetime interior minister, who told the professor to go
into hiding. "I don't know who was hiding him," said Roh, "but I'm sure it was organized by
someone. And I am sure it will be difficult to get to the bottom of it."
Toby McCrossin , June 1, 2018 at 1:54 am
" The Papadopoulos Case, an Investigative Analysis," includes a recent interview with
Mifsud in which he denies saying anything about Clinton emails to Papadopoulos. Mifsud, they
write, stated "vehemently that he never told anything like this to George Papadopoulos.""
Thank you for providing that explosive piece of information. If true, and I suspect it is,
that's one more nail in the Russiagate narrative. Who, then, is making the claim that Misfud
mentioned emails? The only source for the statement I can find is "court documents".
Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 9:20 am
The election scams serve only to distract from the Israel-gate scandal and the oligarchy
destruction of our former democracy. Mr. Lazare neglects to tell us about that. All of
Hillary's top ten campaign bribers were zionists, and Trump let Goldman-Sachs take over the
economy. KSA and big business also bribed heavily.
We must restrict funding of elections and mass media to limited individual donations, for
democracy is lost.
We must eliminate zionist fascism from our political parties, federal government, and
foreign policy. Obviously that has nothing to do with any ethnic or religious preference.
Otherwise the United States is lost, and our lives have no historical meaning beyond
slavery to oligarchy.
Joe Tedesky , May 31, 2018 at 9:51 am
You are right Sam. Israel does work the fence under the guise of the Breaking News.
Joe
Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 8:18 pm
My response was that Israel massacres at the fence, ignored by the zionist US mass
media.
mike k , May 31, 2018 at 11:48 am
The extreme wealth and privileges of oligarchy depend on the poverty and slavery of
others. Inequality of income is the root cause of most of our ills. Try to imagine what a
world of economic equals would be like. No striving for more and more wealth at the expense
of others. No wars. What would there be to fight over – everyone would be content with
what they already had.
If you automatically think such a world would be impossible, try to state why. You might
discover that the only obstacle to such a world is the greedy bastards who are sitting on top
of everybody, and will do anything to maintain their advantages.
mike k , May 31, 2018 at 11:52 am
How do the oligarchs ensure your slavery? With the little green tickets they have hoarded
that the rest of us need just to eat and have a roof over our heads. The people sleeping in
the streets tell us the penalty for not being good slaves.
Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 12:50 pm
Very true, Mike. Those who say that equality or fairness of income implies breaking the
productivity incentive system are wrong. No matter how much or how little wage incentive we
offer for making an effort in work, we need not have great disparities of income. Those who
can work should have work, and we should all make an effort to do well in our work, but none
of us need the fanciest cars or grand monuments to live in, just to do our best.
Getting rid of oligarchy, and getting money out of mass media and elections, would be the
greatest achievement of our times.
Joe Tedesky , May 31, 2018 at 5:30 pm
An old socialist friend of my dad's generation who claimed to have read the biography of
Andrew Carnegie had told me over a few beers that Carnegie said, "that at a time when he was
paying his workers $5 a week he 'could' have been paying them $50 a day, but then he could
not figure out what kind of life they would lead with all that money". Think about it mike,
if his workers would have had that kind of money it would not be long before Carnegie's
workers became his competition and opened up next door to him the worst case scenario would
be his former workers would sell their steel at a cheaper price, kind of, well no exactly
like what Rockefeller did with oil, or as Carnegie did with steel innovation. How's that
saying go, keep them down on the farm . well. Remember Carnegie was a low level stooge for
the railroads at one time, and rose to the top .mike. Great point to make mike, because there
could be more to go around. Joe
Steve Naidamast , May 31, 2018 at 3:16 pm
"We must restrict funding of elections and mass media to limited individual donations, for
democracy is lost.
We must eliminate zionist fascism from our political parties, federal government, and
foreign policy. Obviously that has nothing to do with any ethnic or religious
preference."
Good luck with that!!!
Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 8:19 pm
Well, you are welcome to make suggestions on how to save the republic.
john wilson , May 31, 2018 at 9:10 am
The depths of the deep state has no limits, but as a UK citizen, I fail to see why the
American "spooks" need any help from we Brits when it comes state criminal activity. Sure, we
are masters at underhand dirty tricks, but the US has a basket full of tricks that 'Trump'
(lol) anything we've got. It was the Russians wot done mantra has been going on for many
decades and is ever good for another turn around the political mulberry tree of corruption
and underhand dealings. Whether the Democrats or the Republicans win its all the same to the
deep state as they are in control whoever is in the White House. Trump was an outsider and
there for election colour and the "ho ho ho" look what a great democracy we are, anyone can
be president. He is in fact the very essence of the 'wild card' and when he actually won
there was total confusion, panic, disbelief and probably terror in the caves and dungeons of
the deep state.
Realist , May 31, 2018 at 9:33 am
I'm sure the result was so unexpected that the shadowy fixers, the IT mavens who could
have "adjusted" the numbers, were totally caught off guard and unable to do "cleanly." Not
that they didn't try to re-jigger the results in the four state recounts that were ordered,
but it was simply too late to effectively cheat at that point, as there were already massive
overvotes detected in key urban precincts. Such a thing will never happen again, I am
sure.
Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 9:36 am
It appears that UK has long had a supply of anti-Russia fearmongers, presumably backed by
its anti-socialist oligarchy as in the US. Perhaps the US oligarchy is the dumbest salesman,
who believes that all customers are even dumber, so that UK can sell Russophobia here thirty
years after the USSR.
Bob Van Noy , May 31, 2018 at 8:49 am
"But how could Trump think otherwise? As Consortium News founding editor Robert Parry
observed a few days later, the maneuver "resembles a tactic out of FBI Director J. Edgar
Hoover's playbook on government-style blackmail: I have some very derogatory information
about you that I'd sure hate to see end up in the press."
Perfect.
Recently, while trying to justify my arguement that a new investigation into the RFK Killing
was necessary, I was asked why I thought that, and my response was "Modus operandi," exactly
what Robert Parry learned by experience, and that is the fundamental similarity to all of the
institutionalized crime that takes place by the IC. Once one realizes the literary approach
to disinformation that was fundamental to Alan Dulles, James Jesus Angleton, even Ian
Fleming, one can easily see the Themes being applied. I suppose that the very feature of
believability offered by propaganda, once recognized, becomes its undoing. That could be our
current reality; the old Lines simply are beginning to appear to be ridiculous
Thank you Daniel Lazar.
Sam F , June 1, 2018 at 8:39 am
The recognition of themes of propaganda as literary themes and modus operandi is helping
to discredit propaganda. The similarities of the CW false-flag operations (Iraq, Syria, and
UK), and the fake assassinations (Skripal and Babchenko) by the anti-Russia crowd help reveal
and persuade on the falsehood of the Iraq WMD, Syria CW, and MH-17 propaganda ops. Just as
the similarities of the JFK/MLK/RFK assassinations persuade us that commonalities exist long
before we see evidence.
Bob Van Noy , June 1, 2018 at 1:11 pm
Many thanks Sam F for recognizing that. As we begin to achieve a resolution of the 60's
Kllings, we can begin to see the general and specific themes utilized to direct the programs
of Assassination. The other aspect is that real investigation Never followed; and that took
Real Power.
In a truly insightful book by author Sally Denton entitled "The Profiteers" she puts
together a very cogent theory that it isn't the Mafia, it's the Syndicate, which means (for
me at least) real, criminal power with somewhat divergent interests ok with one another, to
the extent that they can maintain their Own Turf. I think that's a profound insight
Too, in a similar vain, the Grand Deceptions of American Foreign Policy, "scenarios" are
simply and only that, not a Real possible solution. Always resulting in failure
Sam F , June 1, 2018 at 9:23 pm
Yes, it is difficult to determine the structure of a subculture of gangsterism in power,
which can have many specialized factions in loose cooperation, agreeing on some general
policy points, like benefits for the rich, hatred of socialism, institutionalized bribery of
politicians and judges, militarized policing, destruction of welfare and social security,
deregulation of everything, essentially the neocon/neolib line of the DemReps. The party line
of oligarchy in any form.
Indeed the foreign policy of such gangsters is designed to "fail" because destruction of
cultures, waste, and fragmentation most efficiently exploits the bribery structure available,
and serves the anti-socialist oligarchy. Failure of the declared foreign policy is success,
because that is only propaganda to cover the corruption.
You know, not only Gay Trowdy but even Dracula Napolitano think people like Lazare ,
McGovern, etc. are overblown on this issue.
backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 1:47 pm
SocraticGadfly – Trey Gowdy hasn't even seen the documents yet, so he's hardly in a
position to say anything. The House Intelligence Committee, under Chairman Nunes, are being
stymied by the FBI and the Department of Justice who are refusing to hand over documents.
Refusing! Refusing to disclose documents to the very people who, by law, have oversight.
Nunes is threatening to hit them with Contempt of Congress.
Let's see the documents. Then Trey Gowdy can open his mouth.
What I take from this head spinning article is the paragraph about Carter Page.
"On July 7, 2016 Carter Page delivered a lecture on U.S.-Russian relations in Moscow in
which he complained that "Washington and other western capitals have impeded potential
progress through their often hypocritical focus on ideas such as democratization, inequality,
corruption, and regime change." Washington hawks expressed "unease" that someone representing
the presumptive Republican nominee would take Russia's side in a growing neo-Cold War
Mr. Page hit the nail on the head. There is no greater sin to entrenched power than to
spell out what is going on with Russia. It helps us understand why terms like dupe and
naïve were stuck on Carter Page's back.. Truth to power is not always good for your
health.
Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 10:07 am
The tyrant accuses of disloyalty, all who question the reality of his foreign
monsters.
And so do his monster-fighting agencies, whose budgets depend upon the fiction.
backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 7:25 am
Daniel Lazare – good report. "It sounds more like CIA paranoia raised to the nth
degree." This wasn't a case of paranoia. This was a blatant attempt to bring down a rival
opponent and, failing that, the President of the United States. This was intentional and
required collusion between top officials of the government. They fabricated the phony Steele
dossier (paid for by the Clinton campaign), exonerated Hillary Clinton, and then went to town
on bringing down Trump.
"Was George Popodopolous set up?" Of course he was. Set up a patsy in order to give you
reason to carry out a phony investigation.
"If the corporate press fails to point this out, it's because reporters are too befogged
themselves to notice." They're not befogged; they're following orders (the major television
and newspaper outfits). Without their 24/7 spin and lies, Russiagate would never have been
kept alive.
These guys got the biggest surprise of their life when Hillary Clinton lost the election.
None of this would have come out had she won. During the campaign, as Trump gained in the
polls, she was heard to say, "If they ever find out what we've done, we'll all hang."
I hope they see jail time for what they've done.
backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 7:38 am
Apparently what has come out so far is just the tip of the iceberg. Some are saying this
could lead all the way up to Obama. I hope not, but they have certainly done all they can to
ruin the Trump Presidency.
JohnM , May 31, 2018 at 9:58 am
I'm adjusting my tinfoil hat right now. I'm wondering if Skripal had something to do with
the Steel dossier. The iceberg may be even bigger than thought.
Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 10:18 am
It is known that Skripal's close friend living nearby was an employee of Steele's firm
Orbis.
Chet Roman , May 31, 2018 at 2:58 pm
Exactly, his name is Pablo Miller and he is the MI6 agent who initially recruited Sergei
Skripal. Miller worked for Orbis, Steele's company and listed that in his resume on LinkedIn
but later deleted it. But once it's on the internet it can always be found and it was and it
was published.
robjira , May 31, 2018 at 2:13 pm
John, both Moon Of Alabama and OffGuardian have had excellent coverage of the Skripal
affair. Informed opinions wonder if Sergei Skripal was one of Steele's "Russian sources," and
that he may have been poisoned for the purpose of either a) bolstering the whole "Russia =
evil" narrative, or b) a warning not to ask for more than what he may have conceivably
received for any contribution he may or may not have made to the "dossiere."
mike k , May 31, 2018 at 7:20 am
Interesting details in this article, but we have known this whole Russiagate affair was a
scam from the get go. It all started the day after Trump's unexpected electoral win over
Hillary. The chagrined dems came together and concocted their sore loser alibi – the
Russians did it. They scooped up a lot of pre-election dirt, rolled it into a ball and
directed it at Trump. It is a testament to the media's determination to stick with their
story, that in spite of not a single scrap of real evidence after over a year of digging by a
huge team of democratic hit men and women, this ridiculous story still has supporters.
David G , May 31, 2018 at 10:31 am
"It all started the day after Trump's unexpected electoral win over Hillary."
Not so.
Daniel Lazare's first link in the above piece is to Paul Krugman's July 22, 2016 NY Times
op-ed, "Donald Trump, the Siberian Candidate". (Note how that headline doesn't even bother to
employ a question mark.)
I appreciate that that Krugman column gets pride of place here since I distinctly remember
reading it in my copy of the Times that day, months before the election, and my immediate
reaction to it: nonplussed that such a risible thesis was being aired so prominently, along
with a deep realization that this was only the first shot in what would be a co-ordinated
media disinformation campaign, à la Saddam's WMDs.
Chet Roman , May 31, 2018 at 3:37 pm
Actually, I think the intelligence agencies' (CIA/FBI/DNI) plan started shortly after
Trump gave the names of Page and Papadopoulos to the Washington Post (CIA annex) in a meeting
on March 21, 2016 outlining his foreign policy team.
Carter Page (Naval Academy distinguished graduate and Naval intelligence officer) in 2013
worked as an "under-cover employee" of the FBI in a case that convicted Evgeny Buryakov and
it was reported that he was still an UCE in March of 2016. The FBI never charged or even
hinted that Page was anything but innocent and patriotic. However, in October 2016 the FBI
told the FISA Court that he was a spy to support spying on him. Remember the FISA Court
allows spying on him AND the persons he is in contact, which means almost everyone on the
Trump transition team/administration.
Here is an excerpt from an article by WSJ's Kimberley Strassel:
In "late spring" of 2016, then-FBI Director James Comey briefed White House "National
Security Council Principals" that the FBI had counterintelligence concerns about the Trump
campaign. Carter Page was announced as a campaign adviser on March 21, and Paul Manafort
joined the campaign March 29. The briefing likely referenced both men, since both had
previously been on the radar of law enforcement. But here's what matters: With this briefing,
Mr. Comey officially notified senior political operators on Team Obama that the bureau had
eyes on Donald Trump and Russia. Imagine what might be done in these partisan times with such
explosive information.
And what do you know? Sometime in April, the law firm Perkins Coie (on behalf the Clinton
campaign) hired Fusion GPS, and Fusion turned its attention to Trump-Russia connections.
David G , May 31, 2018 at 4:56 pm
Most interesting, Chet Roman. Thanks.
My understanding is that Trump more or less pulled Page's name out of a hat to show the
WashPost that he had a "foreign policy team", and thus that his campaign wasn't just a hollow
sham, but that at that point he really had had no significant contact at all with Page
– maybe hadn't even met him. It was just a name from his new political world that
sprang to "mind" (or the Trumpian equivalent).
Of course, the Trump campaign *was* just a sham, by conventional Beltway standards: a
ramshackle road show with no actual "foreign policy team", or any other policy team.
So maybe that random piece of B.S. from Trump has caused him a heap of trouble. This is
part of why – no matter how bogus "Russia-gate" is – I just can't bring myself to
feel sorry for old Cheeto Dust.
backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 6:56 am
Kimberly Strassel of the Wall Street Journal had some good advice:
"Mr. Trump has an even quicker way to bring the hostility to an end.
He can – and should – declassify everything possible, letting Congress and the
public see the truth.
That would put an end to the daily spin and conspiracy theories. It would puncture
Democratic arguments that the administration is seeking to gain this information only for
itself, to "undermine" an investigation.
And it would end the Justice Department's campaign of secrecy, which has done such harm to
its reputation with the public and with Congress."
What do you bet he does?
RickD , May 31, 2018 at 6:44 am
I have serious doubts about the article's veracity. There seems to be a thread running
through it indicating an attempt to whitewash any Russian efforts to get Trump elected. To
dismiss all the evidence of such efforts, and , despite this author's words, there is enough
such evidence, seems more than a bit partisan.
What evidence? I've seen none so far. A lot of claims that there is such evidence but no
one seems to ever say what it is.
backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 7:06 am
RickD – thanks for the good laugh before bedtime. I'm with Mr. Merrell and I
actually want to see some evidence. Maybe it was Professor Halper in the kitchen with the
paring knife.
Realist , May 31, 2018 at 9:21 am
Unfortunately, what this guy says is what most Americans still seem to believe. When I ask
people what is the actual hard evidence for "Russiagate" (because I don't know of any that
has been corroborated), I get a response that there have been massive examples of Russian
hacks, Russian posts, tweets and internet adverts–all meant to sabotage Hillary's
candidacy, and very effective, mind you. Putin has been an evil genius worthy of a comic book
villain (to date myself, a regular Lex Luthor). Sez who, ask I? Sez the trustworthy American
media that would never lie to the public, sez they. You know, professional paragons of virtue
like Rachel Maddow and her merry band.
Nobody seems aware of the recent findings about Halpern, none seem to have a realistic
handle on the miniscule scope of the Russian "offenses" against American democracy. Rachel,
the NY Times and WaPo have seen to that with their sins of both commission and omission. Even
the Republican party is doing a half-hearted job of defending its own power base with
rigorous and openly disseminated fact checking. It's like even many of the committee chairs
with long seniority are reluctant to buck the conventional narrative peddled by the media.
Many have chosen to retire rather than fight the media and the Deep State. What's a better
interpretation of events? Or is one to believe that the silent voices, curious retirements
and political heat generated by the Dems, the prosecutors and the media are all independent
variables with no connections? These old pols recognise a good demonizing when they see it,
especially when directed at them.
Personally, I think that not only the GOPers should be fighting like the devil to expose
the truth (which should benefit them in this circumstance) but so should the media and all
the watchdog agencies (ngo's) out there because our democracy WAS hijacked, but it was NOT by
the Russians. Worse than that, it was done by internal domestic enemies of the people who
must be outed and punished to save the constitution and the republic, if it is not too late.
All the misinformation by influential insiders and the purported purveyors of truth
accompanied by the deliberate silence by those who should be chirping like birds suggests it
may well be far too late.
backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 7:53 pm
Realist – a most excellent post! Some poll result I read about the other day
mentioned that well over half of the American public do NOT believe what they are being told
by the media. That was good to hear. But you are right, there are still way too many who
never question anything. If I ever get in trouble, I wouldn't want those types on my jury.
They'd be wide awake during the prosecution's case and fast asleep during my defense.
This is the Swamp at work on both sides of the aisle. Most of the Republicans are hanging
Trump out to dry. They've probably got too much dirt they want to keep hidden themselves, so
retirement looks like a good idea. Get out of Dodge while the going is good, before the real
fighting begins! The Democrats are battling for all they're worth, and I've got to hand it to
them – they're dirty little fighters.
Yes, democracy has been hijacked. Hard to say how long this has been going on –
maybe forever. If there is anything good about Trump's presidency, it's that the Deep State
is being laid out and delivered up on a silver platter for all to see.
There has never been a better chance to take back the country than this. If this
opportunity passes, it will never come again. They will make sure of it.
The greatest thing that Trump could do for the country would be to declassify all
documents. Jeff Sessions is either part of the Deep State or he's been scared off. He's not
going to act. Rosenstein is up to his eyeballs in this mess and he's not going to act. In
fact, he's preventing Nunes from getting documents. It is up to Trump to act. I just hope
he's not being surrounded by a bunch of bad apple lawyers who are giving him bad advice. He
needs to go above the Department of Justice and declassify ALL documents. If he did that, a
lot of these people would probably die of a heart attack within a minute.
mike k , May 31, 2018 at 7:11 am
You sure came out of the woodwork quickly to express your "serious doubts" RickD.
Skip Scott , May 31, 2018 at 8:07 am
Please provide "such evidence". I've yet to see any. The entire prosecution of RussiaGate
has been one big Gish Gallop.
strgr-tgther , May 31, 2018 at 9:39 pm
RickD – Thank you for pointing that out! You were the only one!!! It is a very
strange article leaving Putin and the Russians evidence out and also not a single word about
Stromy Daniels witch is also very strange. I know Hillary would never have approved of any of
this and they don't say that either.
John , June 1, 2018 at 2:26 am
What does Stormy Daniels have to do with RussiaGate?
You know that someone who committed the ultimate war crime by lying us into war to destroy
Libya and re-institute slavery there, and who laughed after watching video of a man that
Nelson Mandela called "The Greatest Living Champion of Human Rights on the Planet" be
sodomized to death with a knife, is somehow too "moral" to do such a thing? Really?
It amazes me how utterly cultish those who support the Red Queen have shown themselves to
be – without apparently realizing that they are obviously on par with the followers of
Jim Jones!
strgr-tgther , June 1, 2018 at 12:17 pm
That is like saying what does income tax have to do with Al Capone. Who went to Alctraz
because he did not pay income tax not for being a gangster. So we know Trump has sexual
relations with Stormy Daniels, then afterward PAID her not to talk about it. So he paid Story
Daniels for sex! That is Prostitution! Same thing. And that is inpeachable, using womens
bodies as objects. If we don't prosecute Trump here then from now on all a John needs to say
to the police is that he was not paying for sex but paying to keep quiet about it. And
Cogress can get Trump for prostitution and disgracing the office of President. Without Russia
investigations we would never have found out about this important fact, so that is what it
has to do with Russia Gate.
"... That did not prevent the "handpicked" authors of that poor excuse for intelligence analysis from expressing "high confidence" that Russian intelligence "relayed material it acquired from the Democratic National Committee to WikiLeaks." Handpicked analysts, of course, say what they are handpicked to say. ..."
"... The June 12, 14, & 15 timing was hardly coincidence. Rather, it was the start of a pre-emptive move to associate Russia with anything WikiLeaks might have been about to publish and to "show" that it came from a Russian hack. ..."
"... "No one has challenged the authenticity of the original documents of Vault 7, which disclosed a vast array of cyber warfare tools developed, probably with help from NSA, by CIA's Engineering Development Group. That Group was part of the sprawling CIA Directorate of Digital Innovation – a growth industry established by John Brennan in 2015. [ (VIPS warned President Obama of some of the dangers of that basic CIA reorganization at the time.] ..."
"... "Scarcely imaginable digital tools – that can take control of your car and make it race over 100 mph, for example, or can enable remote spying through a TV – were described and duly reported in the New York Times and other media throughout March. But the Vault 7, part 3 release on March 31 that exposed the "Marble Framework" program apparently was judged too delicate to qualify as 'news fit to print' and was kept out of the Times at the time, and has never been mentioned since . ..."
"... "More important, the CIA reportedly used Marble during 2016. In her Washington Post report , Nakashima left that out, but did include another significant point made by WikiLeaks; namely, that the obfuscation tool could be used to conduct a 'forensic attribution double game' or false-flag operation because it included test samples in Chinese, Russian, Korean, Arabic and Farsi." ..."
"... The CIA's reaction to the WikiLeaks disclosure of the Marble Framework tool was neuralgic. Then Director Mike Pompeo lashed out two weeks later, calling Assange and his associates "demons," and insisting; "It's time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is, a non-state hostile intelligence service, often abetted by state actors like Russia."Our July 24 Memorandum continued: "Mr. President, we do not know if CIA's Marble Framework, or tools like it, played some kind of role in the campaign to blame Russia for hacking the DNC. Nor do we know how candid the denizens of CIA's Digital Innovation Directorate have been with you and with Director Pompeo. These are areas that might profit from early White House review. [ President Trump then directed Pompeo to invite Binney, one of the authors of the July 24, 2017 VIPS Memorandum to the President, to discuss all this. Binney and Pompeo spent an hour together at CIA Headquarters on October 24, 2017, during which Binney briefed Pompeo with his customary straightforwardness. ] ..."
"... Another false flag operation? Suddenly false flag operations have become the weapon of choice. Interestingly enough, they are nefariously (always) committed by the US or US allies. MH17 was a false flag with an SU-25 Ukraine jet responsible for downing the passenger jet (to blame Russia). All of the chemical attacks in Syria were false flag operations with the supply of sarin/chlorine made in Turkey or directly given to the "rebels" by the CIA or US allies. The White Helmets were of course in on all of the details. Assad was just simply not capable of doing that to "his" people. Forget that the sarin had the chemical signature of the Assad regime sarin supply. Next it was the snipers who used a false flag operation during the Maidan revolution to shoot protesters and police to oust Yanukovych. Only the neo-Nazis could be capable of shooting the Maidan protesters so they could take power. And then Seth Rich was murdered so he couldn't reveal he was the "real" source of the leak. This was hinted by Assange when he offered a reward to find the killers. ..."
"... The author tosses out that the DNC hack was (potentially) a false flag operation by the CIA obviously to undermine Trump while victimizing Russia. ..."
"... I don't seen any cause to say that any false-flag theory you don't like is merely "tossed out" propaganda. One cannot tell in your comment where you think the accounts are credible and where not. No evidence that the Syria CW attacks "had the chemical signature of the Assad regime sarin supply." ..."
"... There can be no doubt that counterintelligence tools would be pursued by our intelligence agencies as a means to create narratives and false evidence based on the production of false flags which support desired geopolitical outcomes. There would be a need to create false flags using technology to support the geopolitical agenda which would be hard or impossible to trace using the forensic tools used by cyber sleuths. ..."
"... Russia-gate is American Exceptionalism writ large which takes on a more sinister aspect as groups like BLM and others are "linked" to alleged "Russian funding"on one and and Soros funding on another ..."
"... (FWIW, this is a new neoliberal phenomenon when the ultra-rich "liberals" can quietly fund marches on Washington and "grassroots" networking making those neophyte movements too easy targets with questionable robust foundation (color revolutions are possible when anyone is able to foot the cost of 1,000 or 2000 "free" signs or t-shirts -- impecccably designed and printed. ..."
"... Excellent post. Thanks also for reminding me I need to revisit the Vault 7 information as source material. These are incredibly important leaks that help connect the dots of criminal State intelligence activities designed to have remained forever hidden. ..."
"... Actually, both Brennan and Hayden testified to Congress that only 3 agencies signed off on their claim. They also said that they'd "hand picked" a special team to run their "investigation," and no other people were involved. So, people known to be perjurers cherry picked "evidence" to make a claim. Let's invade Iraq again. ..."
"... Mueller is not interested in the truth. He can't handle the truth. His purpose is not to divulge the truth. He has no use for truthtellers including the critical possessors of the truth whom you mentioned. This aversion to the truth is the biggest clue that Mueller's activities are a complete sham. ..."
"... Thanks, Ray, for revealing that the CIA's Digital Innovation Directorate is the likely cause of the Russiagate scams. ..."
"... Your disclaimer is hilarious: "We speak and write without fear or favor. Consequently, any resemblance between what we say and what presidents, politicians and pundits say is purely coincidental." ..."
"... For whatever reason, Ray McGovern chose not to mention the murder of Seth Rich, which pretty clearly points to the real source of the leak being him, as hinted by Assange offering a reward for anyone uncovering his killer. The whole thing stinks of a democratic conspiracy. ..."
"... Ray, from what I have seen in following his writing for years, meticulously only deals in knowns. The Seth Rich issue is not a known, it is speculation still. Yes, it probably is involved, but unless Craig Murray states that Seth Rich was the one who handed him the USB drive, it is not a known. ..."
"... There is a possibility that Seth Rich was not the one who leaked the information, but that the DNC bigwigs THOUGHT he was, in which case, by neither confirming nor denying that Seth Rich was the leaker, it may be that letting the DNC continue to think it was him is being done in protection of the actual leaker. Seth Rich could also have been killed for unrelated reasons, perhaps Imran Awan thought he was on to his doings. ..."
"... Don't forget this Twitter post by Wikileaks on October 30, 2016: Podesta: "I'm definitely for making an example of a suspected leaker whether or not we have any real basis for it." https://www.wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/36082#efmAGSAH- ..."
"... Mueller has nothing and he well knows it. He was willingly roped into this whole pathetic charade and he's left grasping for anything remotely tied to Trump campaign officials and Russians. Even the most tenuous connections and weak relationships are splashed across the mass media in breathless headlines. Meanwhile, NONE of the supposed skulduggery unearthed by Mueller has anything to do with the Kremlin "hacking" the election to favor Trump. Which was the entire raison d'etre behind Rosenstein and Mueller's crusade on behalf of the deplorable DNC and Washington militarist-imperialists. Sure be interesting to see how Mueller and his crew ultimately extricate themselves from this giant fraudulent edifice of deceit. Will they even be able to save the most rudimentary amount of face? ..."
"... If they had had any evidence to inculpate Russia, we would have all seen it by now. They know that by stating that there is an investigation going on: they can blame Russia. The Democratic National Committee is integrated by a pack of liars. ..."
"... My question is simple, when will we concentrate on reading Hillary's many emails? After all wasn't this the reason for the Russian interference mania? Until we do, take apart Hillary's correspondence with her lackeys, nothing will transpire of any worth. I should not be the one saying this, in as much as Bernie Sanders should be the one screaming it for justice from the highest roof tops, but he isn't. So what's up with that? Who all is involved in this scandalous coverup? What do the masters of corruption have on everybody? ..."
If you are wondering why so little is heard these days of accusations that Russia hacked
into the U.S. election in 2016, it could be because those charges could not withstand
close scrutiny . It
could also be because special counsel Robert Mueller appears to have never bothered to
investigate what was once the central alleged crime in Russia-gate as no one associated with
WikiLeaks has ever been questioned by his team.
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity -- including two "alumni" who were former
National Security Agency technical directors -- have long since concluded that Julian Assange
did not acquire what he called the "emails related to Hillary Clinton" via a "hack" by the
Russians or anyone else. They found, rather, that he got them from someone with physical access
to Democratic National Committee computers who copied the material onto an external storage
device -- probably a thumb drive. In December 2016 VIPS explained
this in some detail in an open Memorandum to President Barack Obama.
On January 18, 2017 President Obama admitted
that the "conclusions" of U.S. intelligence regarding how the alleged Russian hacking got to
WikiLeaks were "inconclusive." Even the vapid FBI/CIA/NSA "Intelligence Community Assessment of
Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent U.S. Elections" of January 6, 2017, which tried to
blame Russian President Vladimir Putin for election interference, contained
no direct evidence of Russian involvement. That did not prevent the "handpicked" authors of
that poor excuse for intelligence analysis from expressing "high confidence" that Russian
intelligence "relayed material it acquired from the Democratic National Committee to
WikiLeaks." Handpicked analysts, of course, say what they are handpicked to say.
Never mind. The FBI/CIA/NSA "assessment" became bible truth for partisans like Rep. Adam Schiff
(D-CA), ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, who was among the first off the
blocks to blame Russia for interfering to help Trump. It simply could not have been that
Hillary Clinton was quite capable of snatching defeat out of victory all by herself. No, it had
to have been the Russians.
Five days into the Trump presidency, I had a chance to
challenge Schiff personally on the gaping disconnect between the Russians and WikiLeaks.
Schiff still "can't share the evidence" with me or with anyone else, because it does not
exist.
WikiLeaks
It was on June 12, 2016, just six weeks before the Democratic National Convention, that
Assange announced the pending publication of "emails related to Hillary Clinton," throwing the
Clinton campaign into panic mode, since the emails would document strong bias in favor of
Clinton and successful attempts to sabotage the campaign of Bernie Sanders. When the emails
were published on July 22, just three days before the convention began, the campaign decided to
create what I call a Magnificent Diversion, drawing attention away from the substance of the
emails by blaming Russia for their release.
Clinton's PR chief Jennifer Palmieri later admitted that she golf-carted around to various
media outlets at the convention with instructions "to get the press to focus on something even
we found difficult to process: the prospect that Russia had not only hacked and stolen emails
from the DNC, but that it had done so to help Donald Trump and hurt Hillary Clinton." The
diversion worked like a charm. Mainstream media kept shouting "The Russians did it," and gave
little, if any, play to the DNC skullduggery revealed in the emails themselves. And like Brer'
Fox, Bernie didn't say nothin'.
Meanwhile, highly sophisticated technical experts, were hard at work fabricating "forensic
facts" to "prove" the Russians did it. Here's how it played out:
June 12, 2016: Assange announces that WikiLeaks is about to publish "emails related to
Hillary Clinton."
June 14, 2016: DNC contractor CrowdStrike, (with a dubious professional record and multiple
conflicts of interest) announces that malware has been found on the DNC server and claims there
is evidence it was injected by Russians.
June 15, 2016: "Guccifer 2.0" affirms the DNC statement; claims responsibility for the
"hack;" claims to be a WikiLeaks source; and posts a document that the forensics show was
synthetically tainted with "Russian fingerprints."
The June 12, 14, & 15 timing was hardly coincidence. Rather, it was the start of a
pre-emptive move to associate Russia with anything WikiLeaks might have been about to publish
and to "show" that it came from a Russian hack.
Enter Independent Investigators
A year ago independent cyber-investigators completed the kind of forensic work that, for
reasons best known to then-FBI Director James Comey, neither he nor the "handpicked analysts"
who wrote the Jan. 6, 2017 assessment bothered to do. The independent investigators found
verifiable evidence from metadata found in the record of an alleged Russian hack of July 5,
2016 showing that the "hack" that day of the DNC by Guccifer 2.0 was not a hack, by Russia or
anyone else.
Rather it originated with a copy (onto an external storage device – a thumb drive, for
example) by an insider -- the same process used by the DNC insider/leaker before June 12, 2016
for an altogether different purpose. (Once the metadata was found and the "fluid dynamics"
principle of physics applied, this was not difficult to
disprove the validity of the claim that Russia was responsible.)
One of these independent investigators publishing under the name of The Forensicator on May
31
published new evidence that
the Guccifer 2.0 persona uploaded a document from the West Coast of the United States, and not
from Russia.
In our July 24, 2017 Memorandum to President Donald Trump we stated ,
"We do not know who or what the murky Guccifer 2.0 is. You may wish to ask the FBI."
Our July 24 Memorandum continued: "Mr. President, the disclosure described below may be
related. Even if it is not, it is something we think you should be made aware of in this
general connection. On March 7, 2017, WikiLeaks began to publish a trove of original CIA
documents that WikiLeaks labeled 'Vault 7.' WikiLeaks said it got the trove from a current or
former CIA contractor and described it as comparable in scale and significance to the
information Edward Snowden gave to reporters in 2013.
"No one has challenged the authenticity of the original documents of Vault 7, which
disclosed a vast array of cyber warfare tools developed, probably with help from NSA, by CIA's
Engineering Development Group. That Group was part of the sprawling CIA Directorate of Digital
Innovation – a growth industry established by John Brennan in 2015. [ (VIPS warned
President Obama of some of the dangers of that basic CIA reorganization at the time.]
Marbled
"Scarcely imaginable digital tools – that can take control of your car and make it
race over 100 mph, for example, or can enable remote spying through a TV – were described
and duly reported in the New York Times and other media throughout March. But the Vault 7, part
3 release on March 31 that exposed the "Marble Framework" program apparently was judged too
delicate to qualify as 'news fit to print' and was kept out of the Times at the time, and has
never been mentioned since .
"The Washington Post's Ellen Nakashima, it seems, 'did not get the memo' in time. Her March
31
article bore the catching (and accurate) headline: 'WikiLeaks' latest release of CIA
cyber-tools could blow the cover on agency hacking operations.'
"The WikiLeaks release indicated that Marble was designed for flexible and easy-to-use
'obfuscation,' and that Marble source code includes a "de-obfuscator" to reverse CIA text
obfuscation.
"More important, the CIA reportedly used Marble during 2016. In her Washington Post
report , Nakashima left that out, but did include another significant point made by
WikiLeaks; namely, that the obfuscation tool could be used to conduct a 'forensic attribution
double game' or false-flag operation because it included test samples in Chinese, Russian,
Korean, Arabic and Farsi."
A few weeks later William Binney, a former NSA technical, and I commented on
Vault 7 Marble, and were able to get a shortened op-ed version
published in The Baltimore Sun
The CIA's reaction to the WikiLeaks disclosure of the Marble Framework tool was
neuralgic. Then Director Mike Pompeo lashed out two weeks later, calling Assange and his
associates "demons," and insisting; "It's time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is, a
non-state hostile intelligence service, often abetted by state actors like Russia."Our July 24
Memorandum continued: "Mr. President, we do not know if CIA's Marble Framework, or tools like
it, played some kind of role in the campaign to blame Russia for hacking the DNC. Nor do we
know how candid the denizens of CIA's Digital Innovation Directorate have been with you and
with Director Pompeo. These are areas that might profit from early White House review. [
President Trump then directed Pompeo to invite Binney, one of the authors of the July 24, 2017
VIPS Memorandum to the President, to discuss all this. Binney and Pompeo spent an hour together
at CIA Headquarters on October 24, 2017, during which Binney briefed Pompeo with his customary
straightforwardness. ]
We also do not know if you have discussed cyber issues in any detail with President Putin.
In his interview with NBC's Megyn Kelly he seemed quite willing – perhaps even eager
– to address issues related to the kind of cyber tools revealed in the Vault 7
disclosures, if only to indicate he has been briefed on them. Putin pointed out that today's
technology enables hacking to be 'masked and camouflaged to an extent that no one can
understand the origin' [of the hack] And, vice versa, it is possible to set up any entity or
any individual that everyone will think that they are the exact source of that attack.
"'Hackers may be anywhere,' he said. 'There may be hackers, by the way, in the United States
who very craftily and professionally passed the buck to Russia. Can't you imagine such a
scenario? I can.'
New attention has been drawn to these issues after I discussed them in a widely published
16-minute
interview last Friday.
In view of the highly politicized environment surrounding these issues, I believe I must
append here the same notice that VIPS felt compelled to add to our key Memorandum of July 24,
2017:
"Full Disclosure: Over recent decades the ethos of our intelligence profession has eroded in
the public mind to the point that agenda-free analysis is deemed well nigh impossible. Thus, we
add this disclaimer, which applies to everything we in VIPS say and do: We have no political
agenda; our sole purpose is to spread truth around and, when necessary, hold to account our
former intelligence colleagues.
"We speak and write without fear or favor. Consequently, any resemblance between what we say
and what presidents, politicians and pundits say is purely coincidental." The fact we find it
is necessary to include that reminder speaks volumes about these highly politicized times.
Ray McGovern works for Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the
Savior in inner-city Washington. He was an Army infantry/intelligence officer before serving as
a CIA analyst for 27 years. His duties included preparing, and briefing one-on-one, the
President's Daily Brief.
ThomasGilroy , June 9, 2018 at 9:44 am
"More important, the CIA reportedly used Marble during 2016. In her Washington Post
report, Nakashima left that out, but did include another significant point made by
WikiLeaks; namely, that the obfuscation tool could be used to conduct a 'forensic
attribution double game' or false-flag operation because it included test samples in
Chinese, Russian, Korean, Arabic and Farsi."
Another false flag operation? Suddenly false flag operations have become the weapon of
choice. Interestingly enough, they are nefariously (always) committed by the US or US allies.
MH17 was a false flag with an SU-25 Ukraine jet responsible for downing the passenger jet (to
blame Russia). All of the chemical attacks in Syria were false flag operations with the
supply of sarin/chlorine made in Turkey or directly given to the "rebels" by the CIA or US
allies. The White Helmets were of course in on all of the details. Assad was just simply not
capable of doing that to "his" people. Forget that the sarin had the chemical signature of
the Assad regime sarin supply. Next it was the snipers who used a false flag operation during
the Maidan revolution to shoot protesters and police to oust Yanukovych. Only the neo-Nazis
could be capable of shooting the Maidan protesters so they could take power. And then Seth
Rich was murdered so he couldn't reveal he was the "real" source of the leak. This was hinted
by Assange when he offered a reward to find the killers.
The author tosses out that the DNC hack was (potentially) a false flag operation by the
CIA obviously to undermine Trump while victimizing Russia. It must be the Gulf of Tonkin all
over again. While Crowdstrike might have a "dubious professional record and multiple
conflicts of interest", their results were also confirmed by several other cyber-security
firms (Wikipedia):
cybersecurity experts and firms, including CrowdStrike, Fidelis Cybersecurity, Mandiant,
SecureWorks, ThreatConnect, and the editor for Ars Technica, have rejected the claims of
"Guccifer 2.0" and have determined, on the basis of substantial evidence, that the
cyberattacks were committed by two Russian state-sponsored groups (Cozy Bear and Fancy
Bear).
Then there was Papadopoulas who coincidentally was given the information that Russia had
"dirt" on Hillary Clinton in the form of thousands of emails. Obviously, they were illegally
obtained (unless this was another CIA false flag operation). This was before the release of
the emails by WikiLeaks. This was followed by the Trump Tower meeting with Russians with
connections to the Russian government and the release of the emails by WikiLeaks shortly
thereafter. Additionally, Russia had the motive to defeat HRC and elect Trump. Yesterday,
Trump pushed for the reinstatement of Russia at the G-7 summit. What a shock! All known
evidence and motive points the finger directly at Russia.
Calling everything a false flag operation is really the easy way out, but ultimately, it
lets the responsible culprits off of the hook.
anon , June 9, 2018 at 11:28 am
I don't seen any cause to say that any false-flag theory you don't like is merely "tossed
out" propaganda.
One cannot tell in your comment where you think the accounts are credible and where not.
No evidence that the Syria CW attacks "had the chemical signature of the Assad regime sarin
supply."
CitizenOne , June 8, 2018 at 11:40 pm
There can be no doubt that counterintelligence tools would be pursued by our intelligence
agencies as a means to create narratives and false evidence based on the production of false
flags which support desired geopolitical outcomes. There would be a need to create false
flags using technology to support the geopolitical agenda which would be hard or impossible
to trace using the forensic tools used by cyber sleuths.
In pre computer technology days there were also many false flags which were set up to
create real world scenarios which suited the geopolitical agenda. Even today, there are many
examples of tactical false flag operations either organized and orchestrated or utilized by
the intelligence agencies to create the narrative which supports geopolitical objectives.
Examples:
The US loaded munitions in broad daylight visible to German spies onto the passenger ship
Lusitania despite German warnings that they would torpedo any vessels suspected of carrying
munitions. The Lusitania then proceeded to loiter unaccompanied by escorts in an area off the
Ireland coast treading over the same waters until it was spotted by a German U-Boat and was
torpedoed. This was not exactly a false flag since the German U-Boat pulled the trigger but
it was required to gain public support for the entrance of the US into WWI. It worked.
There is evidence that the US was deliberately caught "off guard" in the Pearl Harbor
Attack. Numerous coded communication intercepts were made but somehow the advanced warning
radar on the island of Hawaii was mysteriously turned off in the hours before and during the
Japanese attack which guaranteed that the attack would be successful and also guaranteed that
our population would instantly sign on to the war against Japan. It worked.
There is evidence that the US deliberately ignored the intelligence reports that UBL was
planning to conduct an attack on the US using planes as bombs. The terrorists who carried out
the attacks on the twin towers were "allowed" to conduct them. The result was the war in Iraq
which was sold based on a pack of lies about WMDs and which we used to go to war with
Iraq.
The Tonkin Gulf incident which historians doubt actually happened or believe if it did was
greatly exaggerated by intelligence and military sources was used to justify the war in
Vietnam.
The Spanish American War was ginned up by William Randolph Hearst and his yellow
journalism empire to justify attacking Cuba, Panama and the Philippines. The facts revealed
by forensic analysis of the exploded USS Maine have shown that the cataclysm was caused by a
boiler explosion not an enemy mine. At the time this was also widely believed to not be
caused by a Spanish mine in the harbor but the news sold the story of Spanish treachery and
war was waged.
In each case of physical false flags created on purpose, or allowed to happen or just made
up by fictions based on useful information that could be manipulated and distorted the US was
led to war. Some of these wars were just wars and others were wars of choice but in every
case a false flag was needed to bring the nation into a state where we believed we were under
attack and under the circumstances flocked to war. I will not be the judge of history or
justice here since each of these events had both negative and positive consequences for our
nation. What I will state is that it is obvious that the willingness to allow or create or
just capitalize on the events which have led to war are an essential ingredient. Without a
publicly perceived and publicly supported cause for war there can be no widespread support
for war. I can also say our leaders have always known this.
Enter the age of technology and the computer age with the electronic contraptions which
enable global communication and commerce.
Is it such a stretch to imagine that the governments desire to shape world events based on
military actions would result in a plan to use these modern technologies to once again create
in our minds a cyber scenario in which we are once again as a result of the "cyber" false
flag prepared for us to go to war? Would it be too much of a stretch to imagine that the
government would use the new electronic frontier just as it used the old physical world
events to justify military action?
Again, I will not go on to condemn any action by our military but will focus on how did we
get there and how did we arrive at a place where a majority favored war.
Whether created by physical or cyberspace methods we can conclude that such false flags
will happen for better or worse in any medium available.
susan sunflower , June 8, 2018 at 7:52 pm
I'd like "evidence" and I'd also like "context" since apparently international electoral
"highjinks" and monkey-wrenching and rat-f*cking have a long tradition and history (before
anyone draws a weapon, kills a candidate or sicc's death squads on the citizenry.
The DNC e-mail publication "theft" I suspect represents very small small potatoes for so
many reasons As Dixon at Black Agenda Report put it . Russia-gate is American Exceptionalism
writ large which takes on a more sinister aspect as groups like BLM and others are "linked"
to alleged "Russian funding"on one and and Soros funding on another
(FWIW, this is a new neoliberal phenomenon when the ultra-rich "liberals" can quietly fund
marches on Washington and "grassroots" networking making those neophyte movements too easy
targets with questionable robust foundation (color revolutions are possible when anyone is
able to foot the cost of 1,000 or 2000 "free" signs or t-shirts -- impecccably designed and
printed.
Excellent post. Thanks also for reminding me I need to revisit the Vault 7 information as
source material. These are incredibly important leaks that help connect the dots of criminal
State intelligence activities designed to have remained forever hidden.
Skip Scott , June 8, 2018 at 1:07 pm
I can't think of any single piece of evidence that our MSM is under the very strict
control of our so-called intelligence agencies than how fast and completely the Vault 7
releases got flushed down the memory hole. "Nothing to see here folks, move along."
I don't think anyone can predict whether or not Sanders would have won as a 3rd party
candidate. He ran a remarkable campaign, but when he caved to the Clinton machine he lost a
lot of supporters, including me. If he had stood up at the convention and talked of the DNC
skullduggery exposed by Wikileaks, and said "either I run as a democrat, or I run as a Green,
but I'm running", he would have at least gotten 15 pct to make the TV debates, and who knows
what could have happened after that. 40 pct of registered voters didn't vote. That alone
tells you it is possible he might have won.
Instead he expected us to follow him like he was the f'ing Pied Piper to elect another
Wall St. loving warmonger. That's why he gets no "pass" from me. He (and the Queen of Chaos)
gave us Trump. BTW, Obama doesn't get a "pass" either.
willow , June 8, 2018 at 9:24 pm
It's all about the money. A big motive for the DNC to conjure up Russia-gate was to keep
donors from abandoning any future
Good Ship Hillary or other Blue Dog Democrat campaigns: "Our brand/platform wasn't flawed. It
was the Rooskies."
Vivian O'Blivion , June 8, 2018 at 8:22 am
An earlier time line.
March 14th. Popadopoulos has first encounter with Mifsud.
April 26th. Mifsud tells Popadopoulos that Russians have "dirt" on Clinton, including "thousands of e-mails".
May 4th. Trump last man standing in Republican primary.
May 10th. Popadopoulos gets drunk with London based Australian diplomat and talks about "dirt" but not specifically
e-mails.
June 9th. Don. Jr meets in Trump tower with Russians promising "dirt" but not specifically in form of e-mails.
It all comes down to who Mifsud is, who he is working for and why he has been "off grid" to journalists (but not presumably
Intelligence services) for > 6 months.
Specific points.
On March 14th Popadopoulos knew he was transferring from team Carson to team Trump but this was not announced to the
(presumably underwhelmed) world 'till March 21st. Whoever put Mifsud onto Popadopoulos was very quick on their feet.
The Australian diplomat broke chain of command by reporting the drunken conversation to the State Department as opposed to his
domestic Intelligence service. If Mifsud was a western asset, Australian Intelligence would likely be aware of his status.
If Mifsud was a Russian asset why would demonstrably genuine Russians be trying to dish up the dirt on Clinton in June?
There are missing pieces to this jigsaw puzzle but it's starting to look like a deep state operation to dirty Trump in the
unlikely event that he went on to win.
Realist , June 8, 2018 at 4:28 pm
Ms. Clinton was personally trying to tar Trump with allusions to "Russia" and being
"Putin's puppet" long before he won the presidency, in fact, quite conspicuously during the
two conventions and most pointedly during the debates. She was willing to use that ruse long
before her defeat at the ballot box. It was the straw that she clung to and was willing to
use as a pretext for overturning the election after the unthinkable happened. But, you are
right, smearing Trump through association with Russia was part of her long game going back to
the early primaries, especially since her forces (both in politics and in the media) were
trying mightily to get him the nomination under the assumption that he would be the easiest
(more like the only) Republican candidate that she could defeat come November.
Wcb , June 8, 2018 at 5:25 pm
Steven Halper?
Rob Roy , June 8, 2018 at 1:33 am
I might add to this informative article that the reason why Julian Assange has been
ostracized and isolated from any public appearance, denied a cell phone, internet and
visitors is that he tells the truth, and TPTB don't want him to say yet again that the emails
were leaked from the DNC. I've heard him say it several times. H. Clinton was so shocked and
angry that she didn't become president as she so confidently expected that her, almost
knee-jerk, reaction was to find a reason that was outside of herself on which to blame her
defeat. It's always surprised me that no one talks about what was in those emails which
covered her plans for Iran and Russia (disgusting).
Trump is a sociopath, but the Russians had nothing to do with him becoming elected. I was
please to read here that he or perhaps just Pompeo? met with Binney. That's a good thing,
though Pompeo, too, is unstable and war hungry to follow Israel into bombing yet another
innocent sovereign country. Thank, Mr. McGovern for another excellent coverage of this
story.
MLS , June 7, 2018 at 9:59 pm
"no one associated with WikiLeaks has ever been questioned by his team"
Do tell, Ray: How do you know what the GOP Congress appointed Special Prosecutor's investigation –
with its unlimited budget, wide mandate, and notable paucity of leaks – has and has not
done?
strgr-tgther , June 8, 2018 at 12:14 am
MLS: Thank you! No one stands up for what is right any more. We have 17 Intelligency
agencies that say are election was stolen. And just last week the Republicans Paul Ryan,
Mitch McConnel and Trey Gowdy (who I detest) said the FBI and CIA and NSA were just doing
there jobs the way ALL AMERICANS woudl want them to. And even Adam Schiff, do you think he
will tell any reporter what evidence he does have? #1 It is probably classified and #2 he is
probably saving it for the inpeachment. We did not find out about the Nixon missing 18
minutes until the end anyways. All of these articles sound like the writer just copied Sean
Hannity and wrote everything down he said, and yesterday he told all suspects in the Mueller
investigation to Smash and Bleach there mobile devices, witch is OBSTRUCTION of justice and
witness TAMPERING. A great American there!
Rob Roy , June 8, 2018 at 1:48 am
strgr-tgther:
Sean Hannity??? Ha, ha, ha.
As Mr. McGoven wrote .."any resemblance between what we say and what presidents,
politicians and pundits say is purely coincidental."
John , June 8, 2018 at 5:48 am
Sorry I had to come back and point out the ultimate irony of ANYONE who supports the
Butcher of Libya complaining about having an election stolen from them (after the blatant
rigging of the primary that caused her to take the nomination away from the ONE PERSON who
was polling ahead of Trump beyond the margin of error of the polls.)
It is people like you who gave us Trump. The Pied Piper Candidate promoted by the DNC
machine (as the emails that were LEAKED, not "hacked", as the metadata proves conclusively,
show.)
incontinent reader , June 8, 2018 at 7:14 am
What is this baloney? Seventeen Intelligence agencies DID NOT conclude what you are
alleging, And in fact, Brennan and his cabal avoided using a National intelligence Estimate,
which would have shot down his cherry-picked 'assessment' before it got off the ground
– and it would have been published for all to read.
The NSA has everything on everybody, yet has never released anything remotely indicating
Russian collusion. Do you think the NSA Director, who, as you may recall, did not give a
strong endorsement to the Brennan-Comey assessment, would have held back from the Congress
such information, if it had existed, when he was questioned? Furthermore, former technical
directors of the NSA, Binney, Wiebe and Loomis- the very best of the best- have proven
through forensics that the Wikileaks disclosures were not obtained by hacking the DNC
computers, but by a leak, most likely to a thumb drive on the East Coast of the U.S. How many
times does it have to be laid out for you before you are willing and able to absorb the
facts?
As for Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan, (and Trey Gowdy, who was quite skilled on the
Benghazi and the Clinton private email server investigations- investigations during which
Schiff ran interference for Clinton- but has seemed unwilling to digest the Strozk, Page,
McCabe, et al emails and demand a Bureau housecleaning), who cares what they think or say,
what matters is the evidence.
I suggest you familiarize yourself with the facts- and start by rereading Ray's articles,
and the piece by Joe diGenova posted on Ray's website.
Realist , June 8, 2018 at 4:12 pm
The guy's got Schiff for brains. Everyone who cares about the truth has known since before
Mueller started his charade that the "17 intelligence agency" claim was entirely a ruse,
bald-faced confected propaganda to anger the public to support the coup attempted by Ms.
Clinton and her zombie followers. People are NOT going to support the Democratic party now or
in the future when its tactics include subverting our public institutions, including the
electoral process under the constitution–whether you like the results or not! If the
Democratic party is to be saved, those honest people still in it should endeavor to drain the
septic tank that has become their party before we can all drain the swamp that is the federal
government and its ex-officio manipulators (otherwise known as the "deep state") in
Washington.
Farmer Pete , June 8, 2018 at 7:30 am
"We have 17 Intelligency agencies that say are election was stolen."
You opened up with a talking point that is factually incorrect. The team of hand-picked
spooks that slapped the "high confidence" report together came from 3 agencies. I know, 17
sounds like a lot and very convincing to us peasants. Regardless, it's important to practice
a few ounces of skepticism when it comes to institutions with a long rap sheet of crime and
deception. Taking their word for it as a substitute for actual observable evidence is naive
to say the least. The rest of your hollow argument is filled with "probably(s)". If I were
you, I'd turn off my TV and stop looking for scapegoats for an epically horrible presidential
campaign and candidate.
strgr-tgther , June 8, 2018 at 12:50 pm
/horrible presidential campaign and candidate/ Say you. But we all went to sleep
comfortable the night before the election where 97% of all poles said Clinton was going to be
are next President. And that did not happen! So Robert Mueller is going to find out EXACTLY
why. Stay tuned!!!
irina , June 8, 2018 at 3:40 pm
Not 'all'. I knew she was toast after reading that she had cancelled her election night
fireworks
celebration, early on the morning of Election Day. She must have known it also, too.
And she was toast in my mind after seeing the ridiculous scene of her virtual image
'breaking the glass ceiling' during the Democratic Convention. So expensively stupid.
Realist , June 8, 2018 at 3:50 pm
Mueller is simply orchestrating a dramatic charade to distract you from the obvious reason
why she lost: Trump garnered more electoral votes, even after the popular votes were counted
and recounted. Any evidence of ballot box stuffing in the key states pointed to the
Democrats, so they gave that up. She and her supporters like you have never stopped trying to
hoodwink the public either before or after the election. Too many voters were on to you,
that's why she lost.
Realist , June 8, 2018 at 3:57 pm
Indeed, stop the nonsense which can't be changed short of a coup d'etat, and start
focusing on opposing the bad policy which this administration has been pursuing. I don't see
the Dems doing that even in their incipient campaigns leading up to the November elections.
Fact is, they are not inclined to change the policies, which are the same ones that got them
"shellacked" at the ballot box in 2016. (I think Obama must own lots of stock in the shellack
trade.)
Curious , June 8, 2018 at 6:27 pm
Ignorance of th facts keep showing up in your posts for some unknown reason. Sentence two:
"we have 17 intelligency (sic) agencies that say ". this statement was debunked a long time
ago.
Have you learned nothing yet regarding the hand-picked people out of three agencies after all
this time? Given that set of lies it makes your post impossible to read.
I would suggest a review of what really happened before you perpetuate more myths and this
will benefit all.
Also, a good reading of the Snowden Docs and vault 7 should scare you out of your shell since
our "intelligeny" community can pretend to be Chinese, Russian, Iranian just for starters,
and the blame game can start after hours instead of the needed weeks and/or months to
determine the veracity of a hack and/or leak.
It's past trying to win you over with the actual 'time lines' and truths. Mr McGovern has
re-emphasized in this article the very things you should be reading.
Start with Mr Binney and his technical evaluation of the forensics in the DNC docs and build
out from there This is just a suggestion.
What never ceases to amaze me in your posts is the 'issue' that many of the docs were
bought and paid for by the Clinton team, and yet amnesia has taken over those aspects as
well. Shouldn't you start with the Clintons paying for this dirt before it was ever
attributed to Trump?
Daniel , June 8, 2018 at 6:38 pm
Actually, both Brennan and Hayden testified to Congress that only 3 agencies signed off on
their claim. They also said that they'd "hand picked" a special team to run their
"investigation," and no other people were involved. So, people known to be perjurers cherry
picked "evidence" to make a claim. Let's invade Iraq again.
More than 1/2 of their report was about RT, and even though that was all easily viewable
public record, they got huge claims wrong. Basically, the best they had was that RT covered
Occupy Wall Street and the NO DAPL and BLM protests, and horror of horrors, aired third party
debates! In a democracy! How dare they?
Why didn't FBI subpoena DNC's servers so they could run their own forensics on them? Why
did they just accept the claims of a private company founded by an Atlantic Council board
member? Did you know that CrowdStrike had to backpedal on the exact same claim they made
about the DNC server when Ukraine showed they were completely wrong regarding Ukie
artillery?
Joe Lauria , June 8, 2018 at 2:12 am
Until he went incommunicado Assange stated on several occasions that he was never
questioned by Muellers team. Craig Murray has said the same. And Kim Dotcom has written to
Mueller offering evidence about the source and he says they have never replied to him.
Realist , June 8, 2018 at 3:40 pm
Mueller is not interested in the truth. He can't handle the truth. His purpose is not to
divulge the truth. He has no use for truthtellers including the critical possessors of the
truth whom you mentioned. This aversion to the truth is the biggest clue that Mueller's
activities are a complete sham.
MLS wrote, "How do you know what the GOP Congress appointed Special Prosecutor's
investigation – with its unlimited budget, wide mandate, and notable paucity of leaks
– has and has not done?"
Robert Mueller is NOT a Special Prosecutor appointed by the Congress. He is a special
counsel appointed by the Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein, and is part of the
Department of Justice.
I know no one who dislikes Trumps wants to hear it. But all Mueller's authority and power
to act is derived from Donald J. Trump's executive authority because he won the 2016
presidential election. Mueller is down the chain of command in the Executive Department.
That's why this is all nonsense. What we basically have is Trump investigating himself.
The framers of the Constitution never intended this. They intended Congress to investigate
the Executive and that's why they gave Congress the power to remove him or her via
impeachment.
As long as we continue with this folly of expecting the Justice Department to somehow
investigate and prosecute a president we end up with two terrible possibilities. Either a
corrupt president will exercise his legitimate authority to end the investigation like Nixon
did -or- we have a Deep State beyond the reach of the elected president that can effectively
investigate and prosecute a corrupt president, but also then has other powers with no
democratic control.
The solution to this dilemma? An empowered Congress elected by the People operating as the
Constitution intended.
As to the rest of your post? It is an example of the "will to believe." Me? I'll not act
as if there is evidence of Russian interference until I'm shown evidence, not act as if it
must be true, because I want to believe that, until it's fully proven that it didn't
happen.
F. G. Sanford , June 7, 2018 at 8:22 pm
There must be some Trump-Russia ties.
Or so claim those CIA spies-
McCabe wants a deal, or else he won't squeal,
He'll dissemble when he testifies!
No one knows what's on Huma's computer.
There's no jury and no prosecutor.
Poor Adam Schiff hopes McCabe takes the fifth,
Special council might someday recruit her!
Assange is still embassy bound.
Mueller's case hasn't quite come unwound.
Wayne Madsen implies that there might be some ties,
To Israelis they haven't yet found!
Halper and Mifsud are players.
John Brennan used cutouts in layers.
If the scheme falls apart and the bureau is smart,
They'll go after them all as betrayers!
They needed historical fiction.
A dossier with salacious depiction!
Some urinous whores could get down on all fours,
They'd accomplish some bed sheet emiction!
Pablo Miller and Skripal were cited.
Sidney Blumenthal might have been slighted.
Christopher Steele offered Sidney a deal,
But the dossier's not copyrighted!
That story about Novichok,
Smells a lot like a very large crock.
But they can't be deposed or the story disclosed,
The Skripals have toxic brain block!
Papadopolis shot off his yap.
He told Downer, that affable chap-
There was dirt to report on the Clinton cohort,
Mifsud hooked him with that honey trap!
She was blond and a bombshell to boot.
Papadopolis thought she was cute.
She worked for Mifsud, a mysterious dude,
Now poor Paps is in grave disrepute!
But the trick was to tie it to Russians.
The Clinton team had some discussions.
Their big email scandal was easy to handle,
They'd blame Vlad for the bad repercussions!
There must have been Russian collusion.
That explained all the vote count confusion.
Guccifer Two made the Trump team come through,
If he won, it was just an illusion!
Lisa Page and Pete Strzok were disgusted
They schemed and they plotted and lusted.
If bald-headed Clapper appealed to Jake Tapper,
Brennan's Tweets might get Donald Trump busted!
There had to be cyber subversion.
It would serve as the perfect perversion.
They would claim it was missed if it didn't exist,
It's a logically perfect diversion!
F.G., you've done it again, and I might add, topped even yourself! Thanks.
KiwiAntz , June 7, 2018 at 7:30 pm
What a joke, America, the most dishonest Country on Earth, has meddled, murdered &
committed coups to overturn other Govts & interfered & continues to do so in just
about every Country on Earth by using Trade sanctions, arming Terrorists & illegal
invasions, has the barefaced cheek to puff out its chest & hypocritcally blame Russia for
something that it does on a daily basis?? And the point with Mueller's investigation is not
to find any Russian collusion evidence, who needs evidence when you can just make it up? The
point is provide the US with a list of unfounded lies & excuses, FIRSTLY to slander &
demonise RUSSIA for something they clearly didn't do! SECONDLY, was to provide a excuse for
the Democrats dismal election loss result to the DONALD & his Trump Party which just
happens to contain some Republicans? THIRDLY, to conduct a soft Coup by trying to get Trump
impeached on "TRUMPED UP CHARGES OF RUSSIAN COLLUSION"? And FOURTLY to divert attention away
from scrutiny & cover up Obama & Hillary Clinton's illegal, money grubbing activities
& her treasonous behaviour with her private email server?? After two years of Russiagate
nonsense with NOTHING to show for it, I think it's about time America owes Russia a public
apology & compensation for its blatant lying & slander of a innocent Country for a
crime they never committed?
Sam F , June 7, 2018 at 7:11 pm
Thanks, Ray, for revealing that the CIA's Digital Innovation Directorate is the likely
cause of the Russiagate scams.
I am sure that they manipulate the digital voting machines directly and indirectly. True
elections are now impossible.
Your disclaimer is hilarious: "We speak and write without fear or favor. Consequently, any
resemblance between what we say and what presidents, politicians and pundits say is purely
coincidental."
Antiwar7 , June 7, 2018 at 6:23 pm
Expecting the evil people running the show to respond to reason is futile, of course. All
of these reports are really addressed to the peanut gallery, where true power lies, if only
they could realize it.
Thanks, Ray and VIPS, for keeping up the good fight.
mike k , June 7, 2018 at 5:55 pm
For whatever reason, Ray McGovern chose not to mention the murder of Seth Rich, which
pretty clearly points to the real source of the leak being him, as hinted by Assange offering
a reward for anyone uncovering his killer. The whole thing stinks of a democratic
conspiracy.
And BTW people have become shy about using the word conspiracy, for fear it will
automatically brand one as a hoaxer. On the contrary, conspiracies are extremely common, the
higher one climbs in the power hierarchy. Like monopolies, conspiracies are central to the
way the oligarchs do business.
John , June 8, 2018 at 5:42 am
Ray, from what I have seen in following his writing for years, meticulously only deals in
knowns. The Seth Rich issue is not a known, it is speculation still. Yes, it probably is
involved, but unless Craig Murray states that Seth Rich was the one who handed him the USB
drive, it is not a known.
There is a possibility that Seth Rich was not the one who leaked the information, but that
the DNC bigwigs THOUGHT he was, in which case, by neither confirming nor denying that Seth
Rich was the leaker, it may be that letting the DNC continue to think it was him is being
done in protection of the actual leaker. Seth Rich could also have been killed for unrelated
reasons, perhaps Imran Awan thought he was on to his doings.
" whether or not"?!! Wow. That's an imperialistic statement.
Drew Hunkins , June 7, 2018 at 5:50 pm
Mueller has nothing and he well knows it. He was willingly roped into this whole pathetic
charade and he's left grasping for anything remotely tied to Trump campaign officials and
Russians. Even the most tenuous connections and weak relationships are splashed across the
mass media in breathless headlines. Meanwhile, NONE of the supposed skulduggery unearthed by
Mueller has anything to do with the Kremlin "hacking" the election to favor Trump. Which was
the entire raison d'etre behind Rosenstein and Mueller's crusade on behalf of the deplorable
DNC and Washington militarist-imperialists. Sure be interesting to see how Mueller and his
crew ultimately extricate themselves from this giant fraudulent edifice of deceit. Will they
even be able to save the most rudimentary amount of face?
So sickening to see the manner in which many DNC sycophants obsequiously genuflect to
their godlike Mueller. A damn prosecutor who was arguably in bed with the Winter Hill
Gang!
jose , June 7, 2018 at 5:13 pm
If they had had any evidence to inculpate Russia, we would have all seen it by now. They
know that by stating that there is an investigation going on: they can blame Russia. The
Democratic National Committee is integrated by a pack of liars.
Jeff , June 7, 2018 at 4:35 pm
Thanx, Ray. The sad news is that everybody now believes that Russia tried to "meddle" in
our election and, since it's a belief, neither facts nor reality will dislodge it. Your
disclaimer should also probably carry the warning – never believe a word a government
official says especially if they are in the CIA, NSA, or FBI unless they provide proof. If
they tell you that it's classified, that they can't divulge it, or anything of that sort, you
know they are lying.
john wilson , June 7, 2018 at 4:09 pm
I suspect the real reason no evidence has been produced is because there isn't any. I know
this is stating the obvious, but if you think about it, as long as the non extent evidence is
supposedly being "investigated" the story remains alive. They know they aren't going to find
anything even remotely plausible that would stand up to any kind of scrutiny, but as long as
they are looking, it has the appearance that there might be something.
Joe Tedesky , June 7, 2018 at 4:08 pm
I first want to thank Ray and the VIPS for their continuing to follow through on this
Russia-Gate story. And it is a story.
My question is simple, when will we concentrate on reading Hillary's many emails? After
all wasn't this the reason for the Russian interference mania? Until we do, take apart
Hillary's correspondence with her lackeys, nothing will transpire of any worth. I should not
be the one saying this, in as much as Bernie Sanders should be the one screaming it for
justice from the highest roof tops, but he isn't. So what's up with that? Who all is involved
in this scandalous coverup? What do the masters of corruption have on everybody?
Now we have Sean Hannity making a strong case against the Clinton's and the FBI's careful
handling of their crimes. What seems out of place, since this should be big news, is that CNN
nor MSNBC seems to be covering this story in the same way Hannity is. I mean isn't this news,
meant to be reported as news? Why avoid reporting on Hillary in such a manner? This must be
that 'fake news' they all talk about boy am I smart.
In the end I have decided to be merely an observer, because there are no good guys or gals
in our nation's capital worth believing. In the end even Hannity's version of what took place
leads back to a guilty Russia. So, the way I see it, the swamp is being drained only to make
more room for more, and new swamp creatures to emerge. Talk about spinning our wheels. When
will good people arrive to finally once and for all drain this freaking swamp, once and for
all?
Realist , June 7, 2018 at 5:25 pm
Ha, ha! Don't you enjoy the magic show being put on by the insiders desperately trying to
hang onto their power even after being voted out of office? Their attempt to distract your
attention from reality whilst feeding you their false illusions is worthy of Penn &
Teller, or David Copperfield (the magician). Who ya gonna believe? Them or your lying
eyes?
Joe Tedesky , June 7, 2018 at 10:00 pm
Realist, You can bet they will investigate everything but what needs investigated, as our
Politico class devolves into survivalist in fighting, the mechanism of war goes
uninterrupted. Joe
F. G. Sanford , June 7, 2018 at 5:34 pm
Joe, speaking of draining the swamp, check out my comment under Ray's June 1 article about
Freddy Fleitz!
Sam F , June 7, 2018 at 6:59 pm
That is just what I was reminded of; here is an antiseptic but less emphatic last
line:
"Swamp draining progresses apace.
It's being accomplished with grace:
They're taking great pains to clean out the drains,"
New swamp creatures will need all that space!
Unfettered Fire , June 8, 2018 at 11:00 am
We must realize that to them, "the Swamp" refers to those in office who still abide by New
Deal policy. Despite the thoroughly discredited neoliberal economic policy, the radical right
are driving the world in the libertarian direction of privatization, austerity, private bank
control of money creation, dismantling the nation-state, contempt for the Constitution,
etc.
From comments: "Putin, if people would listen, proposes a model that I find acceptable. Respect for
national sovereignty and government institutions. In this model, yes, we would tolerate
authoritarian governments as long as they respect the sovereignty and stability of other
countries." But the problem with this statement is the dynamics of American Imperialism, which would not tolerate any
government which is not a vassal.
Notable quotes:
"... Idealism in foreign policy is, by definition, the pursuit of a dreamy vision of a better world that does not seriously ask whether the ideal is actually compatible with reality. Illusions set idealists up for terrible surprises. Addressing problems through, for example, the lens of Fukuyama-style Hegelian idealism, according to which the world is inexorably progressing toward liberal democratic values, would in today's world be not only absurd but dangerous. ..."
"... When realist thinkers -- from Machiavelli to Kissinger -- prick the bubbles of the dreamers, they incur only wrath. For idealists, it is the height of cynicism and bad manners to point out that cunning and force are what actually dominate world affairs. ..."
"... For Kissinger, peace depends upon "a system of independent states refraining from interference in each other's domestic affairs and checking each other's ambitions through a general equilibrium of power." The Peace of Westphalia and, to some degree, the Congress of Vienna embodied such an arrangement, offering the lesson that balance-of-power theory is indispensable in analyzing world events. ..."
"... However, Kissinger was intellectually astute enough to recognize that, in order to create and maintain this equilibrium of power, something more than a mechanical balance is required: enlightened statesmen. Kissinger states explicitly that balance-of-power "does not in itself secure peace." If world leaders refuse to play by Westphalian rules, the system will break down. He warns of the rise of radical Islamists, for example, who refuse to think in Westphalian terms. ..."
"... Morality in foreign affairs, then, is not found in a set of abstract rules of behavior for nation-states, nor is it found in deploying military power to advance some progressive, idealistic cause. Morality can be found only in the souls of righteous statesmen who, under complex international circumstances, act not out of malice or hatred, nor out of greed or pure self-interest, but who find a path to peace that is compatible not only with the interest of their own nations but that of the others. ..."
"... Just had to correct that one sentence, there. Kissinger had no problem intervening in the affairs of "independent states" that posed little military or political threat to the United States, but perhaps threatened the commercial interests, profits or market share of American companies and capitalists. ..."
"... The record of the foreign policy realists, Republican or Democratic, is drenched in blood, from Afghanistan, Indonesia and Angola to Chile, Nicaragua and Guatemala, not to mention Cambodia from Nixon to Carter to Reagan. And the long-term consequences of their decisions (Iran in 1953, Afghanistan under Carter and Brezinski) can bite the rest of us pretty hard, too. Hell, George H.W. Bush and James Baker brought us the first Iraq War, which should have been left to the Arab League to solve (and, frankly, I give not a whit for the independence of the Emirs of Kuwait). ..."
"... An American imperialist is still, when all is said and done, an American imperialist, and woe be to any small, non-nuclear independent state that gets in the way of said imperialist making the world safe for ExxonMobil, Goldman Sachs or Citibank. ..."
"... What Machiavelli wrote is that statesmen should advocate conventional religious morality as the default position in most circumstances but when faced with an existential emergency they must sacrifice their soul to not do good and use evil but only as an occasion calls for it to protect the nation. ..."
"... Putin, if people would listen, proposes a model that I find acceptable. Respect for national sovereignty and government institutions. In this model, yes, we would tolerate authoritarian governments as long as they respect the sovereignty and stability of other countries. ..."
"... Kissinger is famous for his attachment to the balance of power concept, particularly in relation to the Congress of Vienna, but I always think that he leaves out the main point. The balance of power wasn't an end in itself. It was a means to the end that the European powers wanted to achieve, namely, the restoration of the "ancien régime". The idea of the balance of powers was to prevent the Great Powers getting into fights with each other, leading to mutual destruction, which, indeed, is what ultimately happened in 1914. ..."
"... There are countless examples where realists cherry-picked the facts (variables). ..."
"... Good discussion. Machiavelli's central insight is that a national leader must get their hands dirty, even to the point of committing evil, to protect the nation from disaster, to reform corruption, to remove internal insurrectionists. But using evil for good is limited to only those real (realistic) threats against the nation. According to Machiavelli in his Discourses, glory is reserved for those who are the founders of republics, reformers or religious leaders of a nation, military leaders followed by literature writers and artists who reflect republican virtues. Contra William Smith, foreign policy can not ALWAYS be "just and moral", which is an idealistic a notion. ..."
Great power competition is everywhere these days -- in Syria, Ukraine, the South China Sea,
North Korea. With the rise of China and the rejuvenation of Russian military power, realist
thinking is suddenly back in vogue, as it should be.
Idealism in foreign policy is, by definition, the pursuit of a dreamy vision of a better
world that does not seriously ask whether the ideal is actually compatible with reality.
Illusions set idealists up for terrible surprises. Addressing problems through, for example,
the lens of Fukuyama-style Hegelian idealism, according to which the world is inexorably
progressing toward liberal democratic values, would in today's world be not only absurd but
dangerous. The liberal idea that the UN can foster world order through international
institutions is likewise naïve and perilous. Fantasy lands in art and literature can be
wonderful divertissements , but using them as the basis for great nation's foreign
policy can produce nightmares.
George W. Bush created a dream world in his mind where it seemed plausible for American
military power to end "tyranny in our world." Tyranny, as anyone who has not slipped the bonds
of reality knows, is rooted in the human soul and cannot be "ended." Tyranny can be checked and
mitigated, but only through extraordinary effort and with the help of a rich tradition.
But it is always easier to assign oneself virtue based on self-applauding and unrealistic
notions about world peace. When realist thinkers -- from Machiavelli to Kissinger -- prick the
bubbles of the dreamers, they incur only wrath. For idealists, it is the height of cynicism and
bad manners to point out that cunning and force are what actually dominate world affairs.
Yet for all their sagacity, realist thinkers are not without their problems either. They
tend to deny the moral nature of human beings and the role that this may play in world events.
Because they have seen the great danger of moralistic idealism in foreign policy, they
sometimes don't think morality should be considered at all. Realist theory has a cold, inhumane
quality that makes it inattentive to the moral dimension of human existence.
The failure of realists to incorporate moral considerations into their thinking has made
realism unpopular with the American people, who historically believe that their nation's
foreign policy should have at least some moral content. They, after all, send their own boys
and girls to war, and they would like to think that those sacrifices are not made for some
mechanistic balance of power. They know that statesmen must often make cold calculations in the
national interest, but surely somewhere in there must be right and wrong, as in all human
endeavors.
Because some realists have adopted the philosophically untenable position that morality has
no role in world affairs, many Americans have signed on with the moralists' disastrous crusades
instead. The realists have the stronger policy case, but they have ceded the moral ground to
the idealists.
Ironically, it may be the work of Henry Kissinger that can show realists an intellectual
path toward restoring a sense of morality in foreign policy.
For Kissinger, peace depends upon "a system of independent states refraining from
interference in each other's domestic affairs and checking each other's ambitions through a
general equilibrium of power." The Peace of Westphalia and, to some degree, the Congress of
Vienna embodied such an arrangement, offering the lesson that balance-of-power theory is
indispensable in analyzing world events.
However, Kissinger was intellectually astute enough to recognize that, in order to
create and maintain this equilibrium of power, something more than a mechanical balance is
required: enlightened statesmen. Kissinger states explicitly that balance-of-power "does not in
itself secure peace." If world leaders refuse to play by Westphalian rules, the system will
break down. He warns of the rise of radical Islamists, for example, who refuse to think in
Westphalian terms.
Kissinger also says that enlightened leaders must not only recognize the realities of power
politics and the hard Machiavellian truths of international competition, but possess a certain
moral quality that he calls "restraint." Without a willingness to restrain themselves and to
act dispassionately, world leaders will be incapable of building an international order. When
facing difficult challenges, enlightened diplomats and statesmen must have the moral courage to
accept certain "limits of permissible action." Implicit in Kissinger's thought is that
morality, though of a realistic kind, is essential in foreign policy. Only statesmen of a
certain temperament and moral character can support the Westphalian model.
Morality in foreign affairs, then, is not found in a set of abstract rules of behavior
for nation-states, nor is it found in deploying military power to advance some progressive,
idealistic cause. Morality can be found only in the souls of righteous statesmen who, under
complex international circumstances, act not out of malice or hatred, nor out of greed or pure
self-interest, but who find a path to peace that is compatible not only with the interest of
their own nations but that of the others. Such a policy cannot be sketched out in the
abstract in advance; it can emerge only through the moral leadership of genuine statesmen who
act to find a specific solution in a set of complex, concrete circumstances. This is one of the
great lessons of classical political philosophy: justice is not an abstraction but found
concretely in the soul of the just man.
The answer to the question of what a just and moral foreign policy might look like is that
it's the kind that truly just and moral, but also supremely realistic, statesmen will adopt.
That such statesmen are rare is what has caused the great philosophers to lament that only the
dead have seen the end of war.
William S. Smith is managing director and research fellow at the Center for the Study of
Statesmanship at The Catholic University of America.
Implicit in Kissinger's thought is that morality, though of a realistic kind, is essential
in foreign policy. Only statesmen of a certain temperament and moral character can support
the Westphalian model.
1) In 1971, the government of Pakistan carried out a genocide of its Hindu minority in
what is now Bangladesh (then East Pakistan). Somewhere between 1 and 3 million Hindus were
killed, and many thousands of Bengali Muslim leaders and intellectuals were murdered by the
Pakistani regime.
Kissinger and Nixon supported Yahya Khan's government, and even shipped weapons to
Pakistan while the genocide was going on.
From Gary Bass's article in the New Yorker:
While the slaughter in what would soon become an independent Bangladesh was underway,
the C.I.A. and State Department conservatively estimated that roughly two hundred thousand
people had died (the official Bangladeshi death toll is three million). Some ten million
Bengali refugees fled to India, where untold numbers died in miserable conditions in refugee
camps. Pakistan was a Cold War ally of the United States, and Richard Nixon and his
national-security advisor, Henry Kissinger, resolutely supported its military dictatorship;
they refused to impose pressure on Pakistan's generals to forestall further
atrocities.
2) Kissinger was one of key organizers of the 1973 coup against the democratically elected
Allende government in Chile. When Allende was elected, this moral stalwart told his staff "I
don't see any reason why we should stand around and do nothing when a country goes communist
because of the irresponsibility of its own people."
In the first months after the coup d'état, the military killed thousands of
Chilean leftists, both real and suspected, or forced their "disappearance". The military
imprisoned 40,000 political enemies in the National Stadium of Chile In October 1973, the
Chilean songwriter Víctor Jara, and 70 other political killings were perpetrated by
the death squad, Caravan of Death (Caravana de la Muerte).
The government arrested some 130,000 people in a three-year period; the dead and
disappeared numbered thousands.
****************
Tom Lehrer once said that satire died when Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize.
Fortunately William Smith's article about Kissinger's "morality" shows that comedy is not yet
dead, even if the comic relief is inadvertent.
For Kissinger, peace depends upon "a system of MAJOR POWERS refraining from interference in
each other's domestic affairs and checking each other's ambitions through a general
equilibrium of power."
Just had to correct that one sentence, there. Kissinger had no problem intervening in the
affairs of "independent states" that posed little military or political threat to the United
States, but perhaps threatened the commercial interests, profits or market share of American
companies and capitalists.
The record of the foreign policy realists, Republican or Democratic, is drenched in blood,
from Afghanistan, Indonesia and Angola to Chile, Nicaragua and Guatemala, not to mention
Cambodia from Nixon to Carter to Reagan. And the long-term consequences of their decisions
(Iran in 1953, Afghanistan under Carter and Brezinski) can bite the rest of us pretty hard,
too. Hell, George H.W. Bush and James Baker brought us the first Iraq War, which should have
been left to the Arab League to solve (and, frankly, I give not a whit for the independence
of the Emirs of Kuwait).
Would the realists have responded to the 2009 coup in Honduras with any more morality than
Hilary Clinton did? Would the economic war upon Venezuela be any less damaging than it has
been under Bush II, Obama or Trump? Yes, some of the realists would not have launched the
invasion of Iraq, but would they have lifted the sanctions regime on Iraq? Would they have
restrained the Saudis in Yemen?
An American imperialist is still, when all is said and done, an American imperialist, and
woe be to any small, non-nuclear independent state that gets in the way of said imperialist
making the world safe for ExxonMobil, Goldman Sachs or Citibank.
Dr. Smith apparently has a misunderstanding about Machiavelli's realism being devoid of
morality.
What Machiavelli wrote is that statesmen should advocate conventional religious morality
as the default position in most circumstances but when faced with an existential emergency
they must sacrifice their soul to not do good and use evil but only as an occasion calls for
it to protect the nation.
Example: Truman authorizing the dropping on A-bombs on Japan;
Churchill not warning the City of Coventry they were to be bombed by the Luftwaffe in WW II
because to warn them would have revealed that the Brits had cracked the German secret codes;
and Pres. Reagan freeing American hostages in Iran in exchange for drug money to fund the
Contras in Nicaragua.
This is in sharp contrast to statesmen (women) such as Hillary Clinton
who used evil gratuitously by taking bribes from foreign nations to fund her foundation; or
Pres. Bill Clinton who "wagged the dog" by bombing a drug factory in Sudan to divert
attention away from a sex scandal.
Machiavelli was not anti-religious or anti-morality,
contrary to pop explanations by liberal media, novels and academics (read Erica Benner's book
Machiavelli's Ethics).
Henry Kissinger as a moral man? I really wish you had a better example to prove your valid
point. The man who was responsible for the murder of millions in Indo China including the
bombing of non combatant countries like Laos is hardly qualified to talk about morality of
anything.
Im not sure morality is even possible. I wonder if it ever was possible.
Everyone in the west is taught the values of multicultural and diversity while the rest of
the world is still tribal. It is those tribes who we (US) considers allies which are
controlling much of our foreign policy. The other constituency is just as old and its the
monied class or the corporations whose only goal is to maintain and grow revenue.
Thank god we have domestic and international law which constrains our foreign policy to
moral issues.
These terms get murky.
Neocons are idealists but most definitely believe in great power competition and dominance.
U.S. interests can only be protected if authoritarian regimes are replaced by pro-U.S.
Democratic govts which is why we were so aggressive in expanding our influence in Eastern
Europe, often through covert means and by force in the M.E. I never had much use for the term 'realism'.
Putin, if people would listen, proposes a model that I find acceptable. Respect for
national sovereignty and government institutions. In this model, yes, we would tolerate
authoritarian governments as long as they respect the sovereignty and stability of other
countries.
We have been brainwashed to consider him an offender in this model because of Ukraine but
his response was a minimalist response to a crisis on his border. We go on crusades and
experiment on other countries thousands of miles away from our shores.
Kissinger is famous for his attachment to the balance of power concept, particularly in
relation to the Congress of Vienna, but I always think that he leaves out the main point. The
balance of power wasn't an end in itself. It was a means to the end that the European powers
wanted to achieve, namely, the restoration of the "ancien régime". The idea of the
balance of powers was to prevent the Great Powers getting into fights with each other,
leading to mutual destruction, which, indeed, is what ultimately happened in 1914.
Westphalia
was a slightly different situation. A 30-year, on again–off again, triangular German
"civil war" between Catholics, Lutherans and Calvinists, with much foreign interference, had
reached a stalemate, which, in practice, amounted to a Catholic defeat. The only way out was
to let everybody keep what they had and agree not to try to take more. It was forced
forbearance rather than balance.
In Europe, at least, peace certainly depends upon "a system of independent states refraining
from interference in each other's domestic affairs and checking each other's ambitions
through a general equilibrium of power". The European Union is the modern expression of that
principle.
That's why Putin's interferences in Ukraine's domestic affairs and his undisguised
attempts to destroy the EU have set off alarm bells all across Europe and why US
unwillingness to check his ambitions is making the EU the only viable option to ensure peace
in Europe.
Kissinger is an extremely bad person to cite on the subject of morality in a realist foreign
policy. John Quincey Adam's would be better. Coincidentally, TAC printed him on this very
subject --
"Idealism in foreign policy is, by definition, the pursuit of a dreamy vision of a better
world"
It need not be that. The "vision thing" that Bush I famously did not do could well be a
part of our national interest, one of the things coldly evaluated, and contributing to our
strength when done correctly.
Of Wayne Lusvardi's examples of "existential" emergencies for which evil can be done to
"protect the nation," "Truman authorizing the dropping on A-bombs on Japan" is at best
debatable given the evidence that the Japanese were willing to surrender as long as they
could keep their emperor, and especially to keep the Soviets from declaring war on them,
while "Churchill not warning the City of Coventry they were to be bombed by the Luftwaffe in
WW II" is legitimate, in my opinion.
But "Reagan freeing American hostages in Iran in exchange for drug money to fund the
Contras in Nicaragua" is laughable. American pride may have needed protection from the
hostage "crisis," but the American nation certainly did not, as it was not threatened in any
way. American foreign policy continued on its way, funding the Mujahideen in Afghanistan,
backing the Khmer Rouge against the Vietnamese Stalinists who drove them from power in
Cambodia, and buying off Egypt, so you can't even say that America's "standing in the world"
particularly suffered from the hostage "crisis."
And as for "Pres. Bill Clinton who 'wagged the dog' by bombing a drug factory in Sudan to
divert attention away from a sex scandal," I'll trump that shameful episode with Pres. Ronald
Reagan invading Grenada two days after the Beirut barracks bombing.
Our D.I. In basic training in his frustration to turn raw recruits into soldiers would raise
his arms to the sky imploring the aid of the Commander-in-Chief in the heavens and holler,
"Dear Lord, give'em books and all they do is eat'em!" That's the way I viewed William Smith's
essay on the need for an infusion of a reconstituted morality in our foreign policy.
After
basic training, I then served as a medical corpsman in Vietnam, where I was confronted with
the grim and brutal reality of that quagmire and learned that the road to hell is paved with
good intentions. LBJ would come to regret calling South Vietnam President Ndo Dinh Diem the
"Churchill of Asia." There lies the dilemma when idealism confronts reality.
More generally,
I disagree with the centrality of the Westphalian concept of what constitutes a nation in the
post-modern world. Smith mentions the influence of non-actors such as jihadists to alter our
foreign policy goals but overlooks how corporations have also altered that concept with their
doctrine of globalization for profits which undercuts national sovereignty established in
Westphalia. Smith seems to be wandering between two worlds, "one dead / The other peerless to
be born" as Mathew Arnold lamented in his poem "Stanzas from the Grande Chartreuse."
Smith is
trying to promote a revisionist history of the last fifty years just as Niall Ferguson did in
the first volume of his authorized biography of Henry Kissinger as an idealist. Ferguson
notes even Kissinger obviously knew the war was a lost cause after he did two fact-finding
tours in South Vietnam early in the war but thought the war was still necessary to prosecute
to save a vestige of our credibility as policeman to the world. Ken Burns also attempts a
revisionist coup of the Vietnam War when he editorialized in his documentary that our
fearless leaders prosecuted that war with the best intentions. So unfortunately, I view this
essay as a current trend to to promote revisionism in our history of the last fifty years
despite the contrary conclusions of the historical facts.
But as John Adams, a foundering
father, once observed "facts are stubborn things."
I agree-Putin's response to our actions is often not even considered: The biggest flaw with realism that it's like a multivariate experiment
-- with everyone
having different variables they think to be relevant. For instance, Kissinger thought Vietnam would fall under Chinese influence under Communist
NVA, yet he ignored the variable of ethnic rivalries between Chinese and Vietnamese. GWB ignored the variables of Iran -- how it would swoop in and nurture newly Shia Iraq..
There are countless examples where realists cherry-picked the facts (variables).
Vietnam: perhaps the only conflict fought on half of another of but minor, if any real
benefit to the US. That with or without Sec. Kissinger is clear as day. As for quagmires --
it seems that all ward have them. Vietnam was a quagmire because our policy was one of
protect and hold as opposed to invade and conquer -- an unfortunate choice. In the world of a
realist, we should have killed any and all Vietcong, raced up to Hanoi and ended the matter.
'nough said.
I am not sure many here are reading the same article, because my take is that the author
is claiming that Sec Kissinger was a realist -- practical – what needed to be done to
accomplish task A -- morality doesn't enter into it. That explains why he found Pres Nixon's
faith amusing. So all of the comments bemoaning the Sec lack of moral attend, only confirms
the realists perspective.
Nonetheless,
I disagree with your version of the last seventeen years. it has not been orchestrated or
led by realists. Quite the opposite. The rhetoric may be couched in all manner of idealism ,
but so was their application of force.
A realist would not give a lick aboy religious affiliation to the aims of regime chang,
cpital market or democracy creation. The onlu factor that would have mattered is who was on
board, or not in the way -- all challengers regardless of their faith, political agendas,
personality, or concerned about symbols as nonsensical historical artifacts would moved aside
by any means necessary. A realist so engaging such large opposition would decided the matter
-- to utter destruction to complete compliance – period.
In fact, I will contend that these pseudo realists, were thwarted by their own bouts if
idealist moral relativity and were the worst sort for the job at hand.
What a joke of an article, Kissinger as a moralist. He is one of the major war criminals of
the second half of the 20th Century. He has the blood of hundreds of thousands if not
millions on his hands, as others above have details. And not all foreigners. Lest we forget
the part he played in Nixon's great lies about Vietnam that delayed a peace settlement to
help Nixon get elected. 30,000 dead Americans later we got pretty much the same settlement.
The author of this article has entered into the realm of the absurd.
Wow, I thought I wasn't ever going to read anything on economic war on Venezuela! Finally,
even if it is from the comments.
There is an article about not to support/encourage a cup here, but obviously, when it is
about the bad economic situation, only the leftish govenrments are blamed, as if Venezuela
wasn't thoroughly dependet on debt.
Besides of that, even if that mention weren't thre, I agree and thanks most of the
comments in this article.
Good discussion. Machiavelli's central insight is that a national leader must get their
hands dirty, even to the point of committing evil, to protect the nation from disaster, to
reform corruption, to remove internal insurrectionists. But using evil for good is limited to
only those real (realistic) threats against the nation. According to Machiavelli in his
Discourses, glory is reserved for those who are the founders of republics, reformers or
religious leaders of a nation, military leaders followed by literature writers and artists
who reflect republican virtues. Contra William Smith, foreign policy can not ALWAYS be "just
and moral", which is an idealistic a notion.
If, as Samuel Johnson is reputed to have said, "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel"
then using Kissinger as an example of realism is the last refuge of a fantasist.
The dramatic rise fo the number of CIA-democrats as candidates from Democratic Party is not assedental. As regular clintonites
are discredited those guys can still appeal to patriotism to get elected.
Notable quotes:
"... Bernie continuously forcing Hillary to appear apologetic about her campaign funding from big financial interests. She tries hard to persuade the public that she will not serve specific interests. Her anxiety can be identified in many cases and it was very clear at the moment when she accused Bernie of attacking her, concerning this funding. Hillary was forced to respond with a deeply irrational argument: anyone who takes money from big interests doesn't mean that he/she will vote for policies in favor of these interests! ..."
"... Bernie drives the discussion towards fundamental ideological issues. He forced Hillary to defend her "progressiveness". She was forced to speak even about economic interests by names. A few years ago, this would be nearly a taboo in any debate between any primaries. ..."
"... After the disastrous defeat by Trump in 2016 election, the corporate Democrats realized that the progressive movement, supported mostly by the American youth, would not retreat and vanish. On the contrary, Bernie Sanders' popularity still goes up and there is a wave of progressive candidates who appear to be a real threat to the DNC establishment and the Clintonian empire. ..."
"... It seems that the empire has upgraded its dirty tactics beyond Hillary's false relocation to the Left. Seeing the big threat from the real progressives, the empire seeks to "plant" its own agents, masked as progressives, inside the electoral process, to disorientate voters and steal the popular vote. ..."
"... This is a Master's class in blatant historical revisionism and outright dishonesty. Beals was not a soldier unwillingly drafted into service, but an intelligence officer who voluntarily accepted an influential and critically important post for the Bush Administration in its ever-expanding crime against humanity in Iraq. ..."
During the 2016 Democratic party primaries we wrote that
what Bernie achieved, is to bring back the real political discussion in America, at least concerning the Democratic camp. Bernie
smartly "drags" his primary rival, Hillary Clinton, into the heart of the politics. Up until a few years ago, you could not observe
too much difference between the Democrats and the Republicans, who were just following the pro-establishment "politics as usual",
probably with a few, occasional exceptions. The "politics as usual" so far, was "you can't touch the Wall Street", for example.
Bernie continuously forcing Hillary to appear apologetic about her campaign funding from big financial interests. She tries hard
to persuade the public that she will not serve specific interests. Her anxiety can be identified in many cases and it was very clear
at the moment when she accused Bernie of attacking her, concerning this funding. Hillary was forced to respond with a deeply irrational
argument: anyone who takes money from big interests doesn't mean that he/she will vote for policies in favor of these interests!
Bernie drives the discussion towards fundamental ideological issues. He forced Hillary to defend her "progressiveness". She was
forced to speak even about economic interests by names. A few years ago, this would be nearly a taboo in any debate between any primaries.
After the disastrous defeat by Trump in 2016 election, the corporate Democrats realized that the progressive movement, supported
mostly by the American youth, would not retreat and vanish. On the contrary, Bernie Sanders' popularity still goes up and there is
a wave of progressive candidates who appear to be a real threat to the DNC establishment and the Clintonian empire.
It seems that the empire has upgraded its dirty tactics beyond Hillary's false relocation to the Left. Seeing the big threat from
the real progressives, the empire seeks to "plant" its own agents, masked as progressives, inside the electoral process, to disorientate
voters and steal the popular vote.
Eric Draitser gives us valuable information for such a type of candidate. Key points:
One candidate currently generating some buzz in the race is Jeff Beals, a self-identified "Bernie democrat" whose campaign website
homepage describes him as a " local teacher and former U.S. diplomat endorsed by the national organization of former Bernie Sanders
staffers, the Justice Democrats. " And indeed, Beals centers his progressive bona fides to brand himself as one of the inheritors
of the progressive torch lit by Sanders in 2016. A smart political move, to be sure. But is it true?
Beals describes himself as a "former U.S. diplomat," touting his expertise on international issues born of his experience overseas.
In an email interview with CounterPunch, Beals describes his campaign as a " movement for diplomacy and peace in foreign affairs
and an end to militarism my experience as a U.S. diplomat is what drives it and gives this movement such force. " OK, sounds
good, a very progressive sounding answer. But what did Beals actually do during his time overseas?
By his own admission, Beals' overseas career began as an intelligence officer with the CIA. His fluency in Arabic and knowledge
of the region made him an obvious choice to be an intelligence spook during the latter stages of the Clinton Administration.
Beals shrewdly attempts to portray himself as an opponent of neocon imperialism in Iraq. In his interview with CounterPunch, Beals
argued that " The State Department was sidelined as the Bush administration and a neoconservative cabal plunged America into the
tragic Iraq War. As a U.S. diplomat fluent in Arabic and posted in Jerusalem at the time, I was called over a year into the war to
help our country find a way out. "
This is a Master's class in blatant historical revisionism and outright dishonesty. Beals was not a soldier unwillingly drafted
into service, but an intelligence officer who voluntarily accepted an influential and critically important post for the Bush Administration
in its ever-expanding crime against humanity in Iraq.
Moreover, no one who knows anything about the Iraq War could possibly swallow the tripe that CIA/State Department officials in
Iraq were " looking to help our country find a way out " a year into the war. A year into the war, the bloodletting was only
just beginning, and Halliburton, Exxon-Mobil, and the other corporate vultures had yet to fully exploit the country and make billions
off it. So, unfortunately for Beals, the historical memory of the anti-war Left is not that short.
It is self-evident that Beals has a laundry list of things in his past that he must answer for. For those of us, especially Millennials,
who cut our activist teeth demonstrating and organizing against the Iraq War, Beals' distortions about his role in Iraq go down like
hemlock tea. But it is the associations Beals maintains today that really should give any progressive serious pause.
When asked by CounterPunch whether he has any connections to either Bernie Sanders and his surrogates or Hillary Clinton and hers,
Beals responded by stating: " I am endorsed by Justice Democrats, a group of former Bernie Sanders staffers who are pledged to
electing progressives nationwide. I am also endorsed for the Greene County chapter of the New York Progressive Action Network, formerly
the Bernie Sanders network. My first hire was a former Sanders field coordinator who worked here in NY-19. "
However, conveniently missing from that response is the fact that Beals' campaign has been, and continues to be, directly managed
in nearly every respect by Bennett Ratcliff, a longtime friend and ally of Hillary Clinton. Ratcliff is not mentioned in any publicly
available documents as a campaign manager, though the most recent FEC filings show that as of April 1, 2018, Ratcliff was still on
the payroll of the Beals campaign. And in the video of Beals' campaign kickoff rally, Ratcliff introduces Beals, while only being
described as a member of the Onteora School Board in Ulster County . This is sort of like referring to Donald Trump as an avid
golfer.
Beals has studiously, and rather intelligently, avoided mentioning Ratcliff, or the presence of Clinton's inner circle on his
campaign. However, according to internal campaign documents and emails obtained by CounterPunch, Ratcliff manages nearly every aspect
of the campaign, acting as a sort of éminence grise behind the artifice of a progressive campaign fronted by a highly educated and
photogenic political novice.
By his own admission, Ratcliff's role on the campaign is strategy, message, and management. Sounds like a rather textbook description
of a campaign manager. Indeed, Ratcliff has been intimately involved in "guiding" Beals on nearly every important campaign decision,
especially those involving fundraising .
And it is in the realm of fundraising that Ratcliff really shines, but not in the way one would traditionally think. Rather than
focusing on large donations and powerful interests, Ratcliff is using the Beals campaign as a laboratory for his strategy of winning
elections without raising millions of dollars.
In fact, leaked campaign documents show that Ratcliff has explicitly instructed Beals and his staffers not to spend money on
food, decorations, and other standard campaign expenses in hopes of presenting the illusion of a grassroots, people-powered campaign
with no connections to big time donors or financial elites .
It seems that Ratcliff is the wizard behind the curtain, leveraging his decades of contact building and close ties to the Democratic
Party establishment while at the same time manufacturing an astroturfed progressive campaign using a front man in Beals .
One of Ratcliff's most infamous, and indefensible, acts of fealty to the Clinton machine came in 2009 when he and longtime Clinton
attorney and lobbyist, Lanny Davis, stumped around Washington to garner support for the illegal right-wing coup in Honduras, which
ousted the democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya in favor of the right-wing oligarchs who control the country today. Although
the UN, and even U.S. diplomats on the ground in Honduras, openly stated that the coup was illegal, Clinton was adamant to actively
keep Zelaya out.
Essentially then, Ratcliff is a chief architect of the right-wing government in Honduras – the same government assassinating feminist
and indigenous activists like Berta Cáceres, Margarita Murillo, and others, and forcibly displacing and ethnically cleansing Afro-indigenous
communities to make way for Carribbean resorts and golf courses.
And this Washington insider lobbyist and apologist for war criminals and crimes against humanity is the guy who's on a crusade
to reform campaign finance and fix Washington? This is the guy masquerading as a progressive? This is the guy working to elect an
"anti-war progressive"?
In a twisted way it makes sense. Ratcliff has the blood of tens of thousands of Hondurans (among others) on his hands, while Beals
is a creature of Langley, a CIA boy whose exceptional work in the service of Bush and Clinton administration war criminals is touted
as some kind of merit badge on his resume.
What also becomes clear after establishing the Ratcliff-Beals connection is the fact that Ratcliff's purported concern with
campaign financing and "taking back the Republic" is really just a pretext for attempting to provide a "proof of concept," as it
were, that neoliberal Democrats shouldn't fear and subvert the progressive wing of the party, but rather that they should co-opt
it with a phony grassroots facade all while maintaining links to U.S. intelligence, Wall Street, and the power brokers of the Democratic
Party .
An interesting new term is used in this discussion: "CIA democrats". Probably originated in Patrick Martin March 7, 2018
article at WSWS The CIA Democrats Part one - World Socialist Web
Site but I would not draw an equivalence between military and intelligence agencies.
"f the Democrats capture a majority in the House of Representatives on November 6, as widely predicted, candidates drawn from
the military-intelligence apparatus will comprise as many as half of the new Democratic members of Congress."
Notable quotes:
"... @leveymg ..."
"... @CS in AZ ..."
"... @CS in AZ ..."
"... @CS in AZ ..."
"... "I was truly fired up about Bernie Sanders at that time. I've come a very long ways since then." ..."
The left has never been welcome in the Republican party; and since the neoliberal Clinton machine showed up, they have not
been welcome in the Democratic party either. As Clinton debauched the historical, FDR/JFK/LBJ meaning of the word "liberal",
the left started calling itself "progressives". The left had long been the grassroots of the Democratic party; and after being
left in the lurch by John Kerry (no lawsuits against Ohio fraud), lied to by Barack Obama, and browbeaten by the increasingly
neocon Clintonite DNC, they enthusiastically coalesced around Bernie Sanders.
If our political system were honest, Bernie Sanders would have been the Democratic nominee; and Hillary Clinton and Debbie
W-S (of Aman Brothers infamy) would be on trial for violating national security and corrupting the DNC. But, our political
system isn't honest. Our political system, including the Democratic party, is completely bought and
paid for. And, unfortunately, Bernie Sanders - despite being a victim of that corruption - continues to refuse to make that point.
He refused to join the lawsuit (complete with dead process server and suspicious phone call from DWS's office) against the DNC.
All in the name of working within a party he does not even belong to.
After the 2016 election, the DNC, continuing its corrupt ways, blatantly favored Tom Perez over the "progressive" Keith Ellison,
smearing Ellison as a Moslem lover. Bernie's reaction to this continuing manipulation was muted. On foreign policy, Bernie continues
to be either AWOL or pro-MIC (F-35 plant in VT)/pro-Israel. These are not progressive positiions. AFAIAC, Bernie is half a leftist.
He is left on economics and social policy; but he is rightwing on the MIC, foreign policy, and Israel. There is very little democracy
left in this country, and I am not going to waste my time supporting Bernie, who has shown himself to be a sheepdog. That's my
take on the 2018 version of Bernie. I will always treasure the early 2016 version of Bernie, the only political candidate in my
life that I gave serious money to.
Neither will I waste my time pretending that honest, inside-the-system efforts can take the Democratic party back from the
plutocrats who own it, lock, stock, and checkbook. You might think there is a chance to work inside the system. You might think
the DNC is vulnerable because it learned nothing from the 2016 debacle; but you would be wrong. After the Hillary debacle, they
have learned how to manufacture more credible fake progressives.
------
For it seems that progressive candidates aren't the only ones who learned the lesson of Bernie Sanders in 2016; the neoliberal
Clintonites have too. So, while left-wing campaigns crop up in every corner of the country, so too do astroturf faux-progressive
campaigns. And it is for us on the left to parse through it all and separate the authentic from the frauds.
One candidate currently generating some buzz in the race is Jeff Beals, a self-identified "Bernie democrat"
whose campaign website homepage describes him as a "local teacher and former U.S. diplomat endorsed by the national organization
of former Bernie Sanders staffers, the Justice Democrats." And indeed, Beals centers his progressive bona fides to brand himself
as one of the inheritors of the progressive torch lit by Sanders in 2016. A smart political move, to be sure. But is it true?
By his own admission, Beals' overseas career began as an intelligence officer with the CIA. His fluency
in Arabic and knowledge of the region made him an obvious choice to be an intelligence spook during the latter stages of the
Clinton Administration.
Beals was not a soldier unwillingly drafted into service, but an intelligence officer who voluntarily accepted an
influential and critically important post for the Bush Administration in its ever-expanding crime against humanity
in Iraq.
Moreover, no one who knows anything about the Iraq War could possibly swallow the tripe that CIA/State Department officials
in Iraq were "looking to help our country find a way out" a year into the war. A year into the war, the bloodletting was only
just beginning, and Halliburton, Exxon-Mobil, and the other corporate vultures had yet to fully exploit the country and make
billions off it. So, unfortunately for Beals, the historical memory of the anti-war Left is not that short.
The takeaway here is that many of these self-declared "Bernie Democrats" are, in reality, the "CIA Democrats" that we have
been warned about. And Bernie has not called them out. Another thing he has not called out is the fact that the
party leadership is still blatantly sabotaging even modestly "progressive" candidates in the primaries.
In the latest striking example of how the Democratic Party resorts to cronyism (and perhaps corruption) to ensure that its
favored candidates beat back progressive challengers in local races, a candidate for Colorado's 6th Congressional District
has leaked a recording of a conversation with Minority Leader Steny Hoyer to The Intercept which published it overnight. In
it, Hoyer can be heard essentially lecturing the candidate about why he should step aside and let the Democratic Party
bosses - who of course have a better idea about which candidate will prevail over a popular Republican in the general
election - continue pulling the strings.
The candidate, Levi Tillemann, is hardly a party outsider. Tillemann had grandparents on both sides of his family who were
elected Democratic representatives, and his family is essentially Democratic Party royalty.
Still, the party's campaign arm - the notorious Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (better known as the DCCC, or
D-trip) - refused to provide Tillemann with access to party campaign data or any of the other resources he requested.
Here is yet another thing that Bernie has not called out: The DNC, which is reportedly badly behind in fundraising, is nevertheless
willing to spend obscene amounts of money in primaries just to keep progressives out of races - even Red district races that are
guaranteed losses for Democrats.
Dan Feehan has successfully bought the Democratic nomination for Minnesota's first congressional district (MN-CD1). Dan,
having lived outside the state since the age of 14, has allegedly misled the public on his FEC form, claiming residence at
his cousin's address. Here is Dan's FEC filing form. One can see that it his cousin who lives at this address...
Mr. Feehan has no chance to win in November. While nobody likes a candidate from Washington D.C., people
hate Washington money even more. To be fair to Dan he hasn't taken super PAC money, somehow. But he
has raised 565,000 dollars, an outrageous sum for a congressional race. 94% of this money has come from outside the district,
and 79% from outside the state. Where does this money come from? Well, according to the campaign, from people around
the country who want to keep Minnesota blue. If this was the case, why not wait to give money until Minnesota voted
for a candidate in the primary and then donate? And who on earth has this much money to pour into an obscure race outside of
their state?
Dan Feehan is of the same breed that most post-Trump Democrats are. Clean cut, military experience,
stern, anti-gun, anti-crazy Orange monsters, anti-negativity, and anti-discrimination of rich people who fall under a marginalized
group. What are they for? No one knows. If pushed they want "good" education, health care, jobs, environment,
etc. But they want Big money too for various reasons, but the ones cited are: because that is the only way to win,
because rich people are smart and poor people are dumb, and because money is speech. So they cannot and will not make
any concrete commitments. Hence energy becomes "all inclusive", as if balancing clean and dirty energy was a college admissions
department diversity issue, rather than a question of life or death for the entire planet. Healthcare becomes not a right,
but a requirement with a giant handout to insurance companies. Near full employment (with the near being very important, when
we consider leverage) comes with part-time, short-term, and low paying work.
The Clintonite Democrats and their spawn are postmodern progressives. In their world, there is no way to test if one is progressive.
Within the world of the Democratic party, there is no relativity. It is merely a universe that exists only to clash with (but
mostly submit to) the parallel Republican universe. Whoever proves to be the victor should be united behind without a thought
given to their place within the political spectrum of Democrat voters. They believe, if I were to paraphrase René Descartes:
"I Democrat, therefore I progressive."
Tell me again why I must be a loyal Democrat, why I must support candidates who are corporate/MIC shills, why I must submit
to the constant harassment and sabotage of progressive efforts. Tell me again how Bernie is fighting the party leadership. (That
is, explain away all the non-activity related to the items posted above.)
I'm with Chris Hedges. Formal democracy is dead in the US; all we have left are actions in the streets (and those are being
slowly made illegal). The only people in this country who deserve my support are: 1) the striking teachers, many of them non-unionized,
2) the oil pipeline protestors, who are being crushed by police state tactics, 3) the fighters for $15 minimum wage, again non-unionized.
The Democratic Party used to stand for unions. It doesn't any more. It doesn't stand for anything except getting more money from
the 1% to sell out the 99% with fake progressive CIA candidates. Oh, and it stands for pussy hats.
Anyone who tells me to get in line behind Bernie is either a naive pollyana or a disingenuous purity troll.
leveymg on Sat, 04/28/2018 - 9:44am
We have all been here before. 1948.
That was the year that the clawback of the Democratic Party and the purge of the Left was formalized. It really dates to the engineered
hijacking of the nomination of Henry Wallace at the 1944 Democratic Convention. History does repeat itself for those who didn't
learn or weren't adequately taught it.
however tragic it is. Instead of a true leftwinger, we got Harry Truman, a naive wardheeler from corrupt Kansas City. He was
led by the nose to create the CIA.
I do take your point; but the question is, can anything be done? If democracy has become meaningless kabuki, and the neocon
warmongers are in charge no matter whom we "elect", what is there to do besides build that bomb shelter?
That is why I say that only genuine issues will galvanize the public; and even then, they can run a hybrid war against the
left. They have created this ludicrous Identity Politics boogeyman that energizes the right and makes the postmodern progressives
look stupid. No matter what tactic I think of, TPTB have already covered that base. The problem is that the left has absolutely
no base in the U.S. today.
How will the pseudo-progressives be able to justify being both "progressive" and pro-war?
Talk about cognitive dissonance. But wait. Democraps of any stripe, don't cogitate, hence no dissonance.
zoebear on Sat, 04/28/2018 - 10:12am
Appreciate you posting this essay This
is only one of the many troubling signs which convince me he is being controlled by my enemy.
The takeaway here is that many of these self-declared "Bernie Democrats" are, in reality, the "CIA Democrats" that we have
been warned about. And Bernie has not called them out.
CS in AZ on Sat, 04/28/2018 - 11:12am
Thanks for the essay, arendt I came
to this site in the great purge at daily kos, and I was truly fired up about Bernie Sanders at that time. I've come a very long
ways since then. Thanks to the people here.
And to kos, who now rather infamously said "if you think Hillary Clinton can't beat Donald Trump, you're a fucking moron. Seriously,
you're dumb as rocks." And he said if you're not going to cheerlead for democrats, "go the fuck away. This is not your place."
True words!!
So this site was here and Bernie supporters flocked here. Including me. But over this time I have seen the mistakes I made.
Such a lot of wasted time and energy.
Still searching for answers myself, but I know what doesn't work, and how important for the status quo to keep the illusion
of democracy alive. But more and more people are not buying it anymore. I suspect that a few more crumbs will be forthcoming on
some issues. That's the very best way to keep the show going. And the show must go on.
Pulling back the curtain is really the first and most important weapon we have. Thank you for doing that.
zoebear on Sat, 04/28/2018 - 11:45am zoebear on Sat, 04/28/2018 - 11:45am
Countered with Russia, Russia, Russia. God he was such a prick.
I came to this site in the great purge at daily kos, and I was truly fired up about Bernie Sanders at that time. I've come
a very long ways since then. Thanks to the people here.
And to kos, who now rather infamously said "if you think Hillary Clinton can't beat Donald Trump, you're a fucking moron.
Seriously, you're dumb as rocks." And he said if you're not going to cheerlead for democrats, "go the fuck away. This is not
your place." True words!!
So this site was here and Bernie supporters flocked here. Including me. But over this time I have seen the mistakes I made.
Such a lot of wasted time and energy.
Still searching for answers myself, but I know what doesn't work, and how important for the status quo to keep the illusion
of democracy alive. But more and more people are not buying it anymore. I suspect that a few more crumbs will be forthcoming
on some issues. That's the very best way to keep the show going. And the show must go on.
Pulling back the curtain is really the first and most important weapon we have. Thank you for doing that.
That's how I feel about it. I've been suckered one time too many. The 2016 election was a complete farce. Bernie was sabotaged.
The DNC and Hillary broke their own rules to do it. But Bernie, with a perfect opportunity and lots of support, just walked away
from the fight that he had promised his people.
Sheep dog.
TPTB want the political "fight" to be between slightly different flavors of neoliberal looting/neocon warmongering. They want
unions, teachers, environmentalists, and minorities to, in the words of a UK asshole, "shut up and go away".
The CIA literally paid $600M to the Washington Post, whose purchase price was only $300M. Bezos made 200% of his money back
in a month. The media is completely corporatized; and they are coming for the internet with censorship. Where is Bernie on this?
Haven't heard a word.
Sheep dog.
As TPTB simply buy what is left of the Democratic party, they will enforce this kabuki politics. Any deviation will be labeled
Putin-loving, Assad-loving, China-loving, etc.
You can't have a democracy when free speech is instantly labeled fake news or enemy propaganda.
"I was truly fired up about Bernie Sanders at that time. I've come a very long ways since then."
This is how I see the way some people feel about him. This same thing happened after I voted for Obama. I thought that he would
do what "I heard him say that he would", but he let me down by not even bothering to try doing anything.
What soured me on Bernie was his saying that Her won the election fair and square after everything we saw happen. Even after
learning how the primary was rigged against him. And now he has jumped on the Russian interference propaganda train when he knows
that Russia had no hand with Trump beating Her out the presidency.
Bottom line is that I no longer believe that Bernie is being up front with me. I know that others feel differently, but remember
how people changed their minds on Obama and never accepted Herheinous! People should be free here to say how they feel.
Isn't making it "easier" for them to cheat when they are already doing that. What participating in their corruption does do
is keep the illusion of democracy alive for their benefit. Easier? They're already achieving their end game. Controlling us, electing
their candidates, and collecting our taxes.
Frankly we've been participating in their potemkin village passing as democracy for decades with no effect.
First, a boycott is not "ignoring" voting. It's an organized protest against fake elections. It's actually not that uncommon
for people in other countries to call for election boycotts in protest when a significant portion of people feel the election
is staged or rigged with a predetermined outcome, or where all of the candidates are chosen by the elite so none represent the
will of the people.
In that type of situation, boycotting the election -- and obviously that means saying why, and making a protest out of it --
is really the only recourse people have. It may not be effective at stopping the fake election, but it lets the world know the
vote was fake.
If you line up to go obediently cast your vote anyway, then you are the one who is empowering the enemy, by giving the illusion
of legitimacy to the fake vote.
Now about this big worry about what "they" will say... first, look at what they already say about third party voters.
In the media and political world, third party voters are a joke, useful idiots, who can be simultaneously written off as "fringe"
wackos who can and should be ignored, and also childish spoilers who can be scapegoated and blamed for eternity for election loses.
Witness Ralph Nader and Jill Stein. Of course people should still vote third party if there's someone that truly represents them,
and if they believe the election process is genuine. Because you don't let your voting choices be dictated by what the powers
that be say about it!
For those of us who believe the election process is a sham and a scam, voting is playing into their hands, giving legitimacy
to their show. That is what makes it easier for them to keep the status quo firmly in place, and is literally helping them do
it.
As has been pointed out, if an organized protest/boycott that called the elections fake were to take root and grow, they would
not be able to say we don't care. That's a big if, obviously, but it's better than playing your assigned role in The Voting Show.
Because that show is what everyone points to as proof that the American people want this fucked up warmongering government we
keep voting back into power every two years.
Enough is enough. One of Bernie's slogans, which I still agree with.
Trump betrayal of his voters is as staggering as Obama betrayal. May even more so.
Notable quotes:
"... It is fitting that one of the first things that will happen during Pompeo's tenure as chief diplomat is the repudiation of a successful diplomatic agreement solely for reasons of spite and ideology. That reflects the contempt for diplomacy and compromise that Pompeo shares with the president. It is an early reminder why having Pompeo in charge of U.S. diplomacy is so dangerous and why it would have been better not to confirm him. ..."
"... North Korea wasn't going to give up its nuclear weapons anyway, and now it will look at Trump's reneging on the nuclear deal as proof that they are right to keep them. ..."
"... Pompeo's recent statements are those of an ignorant and incompetent jackass. Barely two weeks in and sane Americans are already nostalgic for Tillerson. ..."
"... Instead, as Pompeo's current trip and whereabouts make very clear, he's aping the same old tired Bush/Obama Middle East crap and still running errands for the corrupt rulers of Israel and Saudi Arabia. ..."
"... And if Trump doesn't stop betraying his voters with all this pointless, staggeringly expensive Middle East crap, he'll be gone in 2020. ..."
It is fitting that one of the first things that will happen during Pompeo's tenure as chief
diplomat is the repudiation of a successful diplomatic agreement solely for reasons of spite
and ideology. That reflects the contempt for diplomacy and compromise that Pompeo shares with
the president. It is an early reminder why having Pompeo in charge of U.S. diplomacy is so
dangerous and why it would have been better not to confirm him.
Pompeo also
said this weekend that he didn't think North Korea would care if the U.S. withdrew from the
agreement:
"I don't think Kim Jong Un is staring at the Iran deal and saying, 'Oh goodness, if they
get out of that deal, I won't talk to the Americans anymore,'" Pompeo told reporters
traveling on his plane en route from Saudi Arabia to Israel. "There are higher priorities,
things that he is more concerned about than whether or not the Americans stay in the
[agreement]."
It is obvious that North Korea has bigger concerns than U.S. adherence to the JCPOA, but it
doesn't follow that they won't take U.S. withdrawal as another sign that negotiating with
Washington is pointless. North Korea already has other reasons to doubt U.S. trustworthiness.
John Bolton's
endorsement of using negotiations with Libya as a model couldn't be more tone-deaf, since
North Korean officials frequently cite the overthrow and death of Gaddafi as a cautionary tale
of what happens when a government makes a deal with the U.S. It is possible that North Korea
won't put much stock in what happens to the JCPOA one way or another for a very different
reason: unlike Iran, North Korea has no intention of making significant concessions, and it is
engaged in talks with the U.S. to get as much as it can out of the fact that it is now a
full-fledged nuclear weapons state.
North Korea wasn't going to give up its nuclear weapons
anyway, and now it will look at Trump's reneging on the nuclear deal as proof that they are
right to keep them.
Our involvement in international "diplomacy", already weird, embarrassing, and destabilizing
because of Trump's random behavior, now seems to be spinning out of control. Pompeo's
recent statements are those of an ignorant and incompetent jackass. Barely two weeks in and
sane Americans are already nostalgic for Tillerson.
Wake me up when any senior member of this government turns out to be something other than
crooked, stupid, vulgar, incompetent, or some kind of foreign agent. We voted for Trump
hoping for a radical re-dedication to American interests. Instead, as Pompeo's current
trip and whereabouts make very clear, he's aping the same old tired Bush/Obama Middle East
crap and still running errands for the corrupt rulers of Israel and Saudi Arabia.
November 2018 is already slated to be a Republican bloodbath, in great part because our
government, the Congress in particular, is serving foreign interests and Wall Street instead
of America. And if Trump doesn't stop betraying his voters with all this pointless,
staggeringly expensive Middle East crap, he'll be gone in 2020.
"... The media campaign alleging Russian intervention in the 2016 US elections has been based entirely on handouts from the CIA, NSA and FBI, transmitted by reporters who are either unwitting stooges or conscious agents of the military-intelligence apparatus. This has been accompanied by the recruitment of a cadre of top CIA and military officials to serve as highly paid "experts" and "analysts" for the television networks ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... The CIA operation in 2018 is unlike its overseas activities in one major respect: it is not covert. On the contrary, the military-intelligence operatives running in the Democratic primaries boast of their careers as spies and special ops warriors. Those with combat experience invariably feature photographs of themselves in desert fatigues or other uniforms on their websites. And they are welcomed and given preferred positions, with Democratic Party officials frequently clearing the field for their candidacies. ..."
"... the Democratic Party has opened its doors to a "friendly takeover" by the intelligence agencies. ..."
"... The incredible power of the military-intelligence agencies over the entire government is an expression of the breakdown of American democracy. The central cause of this breakdown is the extreme concentration of wealth in the hands of a tiny elite, whose interests the state apparatus and its "bodies of armed men" serve. Confronted by an angry and hostile working class, the ruling class is resorting to ever more overt forms of authoritarian rule. ..."
"... But it is impossible to carry out this fight through the "axis of evil" that connects the Democratic Party, the bulk of the corporate media, and the CIA. The influx of military-intelligence candidates puts paid to the longstanding myth, peddled by the trade unions and pseudo-left groups, that the Democrats represent a "lesser evil." On the contrary, working people must confront the fact that within the framework of the corporate-controlled two-party system, they face two equally reactionary evils. ..."
In a three-part series published last week,
the World Socialist Web Site documented an unprecedented influx of intelligence and military operatives into the Democratic
Party. More than 50 such military-intelligence candidates are seeking the Democratic nomination in the 102 districts identified by
the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee as its targets for 2018. These include both vacant seats and those with Republican
incumbents considered vulnerable in the event of a significant swing to the Democrats.
... ... ...
The media campaign alleging Russian intervention in the 2016 US elections has been based entirely on handouts from the CIA,
NSA and FBI, transmitted by reporters who are either unwitting stooges or conscious agents of the military-intelligence apparatus.
This has been accompanied by the recruitment of a cadre of top CIA and military officials to serve as highly paid "experts" and "analysts"
for the television networks .
In centering its opposition to Trump on the bogus allegations of Russian interference, while essentially ignoring Trump's attacks
on immigrants and democratic rights, his alignment with ultra-right and white supremacist groups, his attacks on social programs
like Medicaid and food stamps, and his militarism and threats of nuclear war, the Democratic Party has embraced the agenda of the
military-intelligence apparatus and sought to become its main political voice.
This process was well under way in the administration of Barack Obama, which endorsed and expanded the various operations of the
intelligence agencies abroad and within the United States. Obama's endorsed successor, Hillary Clinton, ran openly as the chosen
candidate of the Pentagon and CIA, touting her toughness as a future commander-in-chief and pledging to escalate the confrontation
with Russia, both in Syria and Ukraine.
The CIA has spearheaded the anti-Russia campaign against Trump in large part because of resentment over the disruption of its
operations in Syria, and it has successfully used the campaign to force a shift in the policy of the Trump administration on that
score. A chorus of media backers -- Nicholas Kristof and Roger Cohen of the New York Times , the entire editorial board
of the Washington Post , most of the television networks -- are part of the campaign to pollute public opinion and whip
up support on alleged "human rights" grounds for an expansion of the US war in Syria.
The 2018 election campaign marks a new stage: for the first time, military-intelligence operatives are moving in large numbers
to take over a political party and seize a major role in Congress. The dozens of CIA and military veterans running in the Democratic
Party primaries are "former" agents of the military-intelligence apparatus. This "retired" status is, however, purely nominal. Joining
the CIA or the Army Rangers or the Navy SEALs is like joining the Mafia: no one ever actually leaves; they just move on to new assignments.
The CIA operation in 2018 is unlike its overseas activities in one major respect: it is not covert. On the contrary, the military-intelligence
operatives running in the Democratic primaries boast of their careers as spies and special ops warriors. Those with combat experience
invariably feature photographs of themselves in desert fatigues or other uniforms on their websites. And they are welcomed and given
preferred positions, with Democratic Party officials frequently clearing the field for their candidacies.
The working class is confronted with an extraordinary political situation. On the one hand, the Republican Trump administration
has more military generals in top posts than any other previous government. On the other hand, the Democratic Party has opened
its doors to a "friendly takeover" by the intelligence agencies.
The incredible power of the military-intelligence agencies over the entire government is an expression of the breakdown of
American democracy. The central cause of this breakdown is the extreme concentration of wealth in the hands of a tiny elite, whose
interests the state apparatus and its "bodies of armed men" serve. Confronted by an angry and hostile working class, the ruling class
is resorting to ever more overt forms of authoritarian rule.
Millions of working people want to fight the Trump administration and its ultra-right policies. But it is impossible to carry
out this fight through the "axis of evil" that connects the Democratic Party, the bulk of the corporate media, and the CIA. The influx
of military-intelligence candidates puts paid to the longstanding myth, peddled by the trade unions and pseudo-left groups, that
the Democrats represent a "lesser evil." On the contrary, working people must confront the fact that within the framework of the
corporate-controlled two-party system, they face two equally reactionary evils.
"... For example, when a Republican talks about "freedom" they don't mean "freedom from want". They mean "freedom from government oppression", but only government oppression. ..."
"... Democrats act the same way about different things. When a Democrat says "diversity", they only mean diversity of race, gender, or sexual orientation. Diversity of ideas? Diversity of class? Not so much. When a Democrat says "privilege" it refers to "white" and "male". Privilege of wealth? (i.e. like the dictionary definition) That generally gets forgotten. ..."
"... -- Preamble to the Constitution of the Industrial Workers Of The World (IWW) ..."
"... @thanatokephaloides ..."
"... -- Preamble to the Constitution of the Industrial Workers Of The World (IWW) ..."
I've come to realize that there's a lot of confusion out there due to people using words with very specific definitions.
For example, when a Republican talks about "freedom" they don't mean "freedom from want".
They mean "freedom from government oppression", but only government oppression.
Private oppression? Republicans will either deny it exists, or justify it.
When a Republican is "pro-life" it only refers to birth.
Because those very same pro-life people are generally pro-war and pro-death penalty.
Democrats act the same way about different things.
When a Democrat says "diversity", they only mean diversity of race, gender, or sexual orientation.
Diversity of ideas? Diversity of class? Not so much.
When a Democrat says "privilege" it refers to "white" and "male".
Privilege of wealth? (i.e. like the dictionary definition) That generally gets forgotten.
And then there is the bipartisan misuse of words, which revolves around war and wealth.
When they say "humanitarian war" they mean, um, some contradictory concepts that are meaningless, but are designed to make you feel
a certain way.
When they say "socialism" they really mean "state oppression" regardless of the economic system.
As for the many version of socialism with minimal or non-existent central governments? Or when socialist programs work? No one talks
about them.
Let's not forget substituting or mixing up "middle class" for "working class".
"Working class" now equals "poor", which isn't right.
They use "working class" as a smear too.
When you say "working class" some people
automatically insert certain words in front of it, as if it's generally understood.
When many hear discussion of outreach to "working class" voters, they silently add the words "white" and "male" and all too often
imagine them working on a factory floor or in construction. They shouldn't. According to another analysis by CAP from late last
year, just under 6 in 10 members of the working class are white, and the group is almost half female (46 percent).
The topic of the needs and interests of the working class is usually race and gender neutral. Only the dishonest or indoctrinated
can't wrap their minds around that fact.This is important because working class values don't require a race or gender lens.
a new report released today by the Center for American Progress makes a convincing argument, using extensive polling data, that
this divide does not need to exist. As it turns out, in many cases, voters -- both college educated and working class, and of
all races -- are in favor of an economic agenda that would offer them broader protections whether it comes to work, sickness or
retirement.
"The polling shows that workers across race support similar views on economic policy issues," said David Madland, the co-author
of the report, entitled "The Working-Class Push for Progressive Economic Policies." "They support a higher minimum wage, higher
taxes on the wealthy, and more spending on healthcare and retirement. There is broad support among workers for progressive economic
policy."
This shows that it's possible to make economic issues front and center in a campaign platform in a way that doesn't just talk
to working class whites and dismisses the concerns of female and minority voters. It also shows that the oft-discussed dilemma
among Democrats -- whether to prioritize college educated voters or working class ones -- may be a false choice.
Propaganda is all about false choices. To accomplish this, the media has created a world in which the working class
exist only in the margins .
With the working class largely unrepresented in the media, or represented only in supporting roles, is it any wonder that people
begin to identify in ways other than their class? Which is exactly what the
ruling class
wants .
I can't believe I used to fall for this nonsense! It takes a stupendous level of cognitive dissonance to simultaneously celebrate
the fortunes of someone from a specific identity while looking past the vast sea of people from said identity who are stuck in
gut-wrenching poverty. We pop champagnes for the neo-gentry while disregarding our own tribulations. It's the most stunning form
of logical jujitsu establishment shills have successfully conditioned us to accept; instead of gauging the health of the economy
and the vitality of our nation based on the collective whole, we have been hoodwinked to accept the elevation of a few as success
for us all.
Diversity has become a scam and nothing more than a corporate bamboozle and a federated scheme that is used to hide the true nature
of crony capitalism. We have become a Potemkin society where tokens are put on the stage to represent equality while the vast
majority of Americans are enslaved by diminishing wages or kneecapped into dependency. The whole of our politics has been turned
into an identity-driven hustle. On both sides of the aisle and at every corner of the social divide are grievance whisperers and
demagogues who keep spewing fuel on the fire of tribalism. They use our pains and suffering to make millions only to turn their
backs on us the minute they attain riches and status.
It's only when you see an article written by the ruling elite, or one that identifies with the ruling elite, that you realize
just how out-of-touch they can be. The rich really
are different - they are sociopaths.
They've totally and completely bought into their own
righteousness,
merit and virtue .
Class ascendance led me to become what Susan Jacoby classifies in her recent New York Times Op-Ed "Stop Apologizing for Being
Elite" as an "elite": a vague description of a group of people who have received advanced degrees. Jacoby urges elites to reject
the shame that they have supposedly recently developed, a shame that somehow stems from failing to stop the working class from
embracing Trumpism. Jacoby laments that, following the 2016 election, these elites no longer take pride in their wealth, their
education, their social status, and posits that if only elites embraced their upward mobility, the working class would have something
to aspire to and thus discard their fondness for Trump and his promises to save them.
That level of condescension just blows my mind. It occurred to me some time ago that I have much more in common with a working
class slob in France, or Mexico, or Brazil, or Russia, than I do with the wealthy elite in my own country. Don't think that the wealthy
haven't figured that out too.
That is the only word you need pay attention to.
I am inferior therefore expendable.
How the lofty will fail. They will succumb to those who are lessor in their minds.
Nice post gjohn.
That is the only word you need pay attention to.
I am inferior therefore expendable.
How the lofty will fail. They will succumb to those who are lessor in their minds.
Nice post gjohn.
It occurred to me some time ago that I have much more in common with a working class slob in France, or Mexico, or Brazil,
or Russia, than a do with the wealthy elite in my own country.
Don't think that the wealthy haven't figured that out too.
The working class and the employing class have nothing in common.
There can be no peace so long as hunger and want are found among
millions of the working people and the few, who make up the employing
class, have all the good things of life.
-- Preamble to the Constitution of the Industrial Workers Of The World (IWW) source
@thanatokephaloides I have been a worker and an employer for most of my career. I associate with many of the same ilk.
None of us working / employer types can afford to hire the millions of under employed. Maybe a few here and there. We are not
wealthy, nor are we taking advantage of the poor. Try to put this lofty idealism into perspective.
It occurred to me some time ago that I have much more in common with a working class slob in France, or Mexico, or Brazil,
or Russia, than a do with the wealthy elite in my own country.
Don't think that the wealthy haven't figured that out too.
The working class and the employing class have nothing in common.
There can be no peace so long as hunger and want are found among
millions of the working people and the few, who make up the employing
class, have all the good things of life.
-- Preamble to the Constitution of the Industrial Workers Of The World (IWW) source
pay $125K per kid for college if you earn more than 125K. That makes zero sense. A parent has no legal obligation to a child
after age 18, but the 18 year old must include parental income if they apply for PELL. If they are included in their parents family,
then the family must be legally obligated to pay for college. 18 can legally die, go to war, be incarcerated, and contractually
bound, but they can't have a drink or be legally entitled to the same rights and benefits as everyone else.
Since the college-educated express less support at any price, it reeks of pettiness and tit for tat. "I paid for mine, you
pay for yours." It is no wonder there is so much resentment at all levels and an economic coalition can't be formed. Somebody
is always measuring who mom loves best. At no time did Bernie say a word about means testing a GD thing. It is why he was able
to transcend labels.
Since the college-educated express less support at any price, it reeks of pettiness and tit for tat. "I paid for mine, you
pay for yours."
Especially when one considers the chances of that being true are really quite small.
Contrary to the Randian beLIEf, they didn't build what they have all by themselves. Society carried quite a bit of the freight
here.
pay $125K per kid for college if you earn more than 125K. That makes zero sense. A parent has no legal obligation to a child
after age 18, but the 18 year old must include parental income if they apply for PELL. If they are included in their parents
family, then the family must be legally obligated to pay for college. 18 can legally die, go to war, be incarcerated, and contractually
bound, but they can't have a drink or be legally entitled to the same rights and benefits as everyone else.
Since the college-educated express less support at any price, it reeks of pettiness and tit for tat. "I paid for mine, you
pay for yours." It is no wonder there is so much resentment at all levels and an economic coalition can't be formed. Somebody
is always measuring who mom loves best. At no time did Bernie say a word about means testing a GD thing. It is why he was able
to transcend labels.
That starts out on disparities in housing, but rounds abouts to the "Elite Class" and the urban gentrification by corporatist
democrats. It points out how the democratic party caters to this elite wing, and how the NIMBY-ism of the elites blocks affordable
housing laws. It ends up with some observations:
"Taking it a step further, a Democratic Party based on urban cosmopolitan business liberalism runs the risk not only of leading
to the continued marginalization of the minority poor, but also -- as the policies of the Trump administration demonstrate --
to the continued neglect of the white working-class electorate that put Trump in the White House."
We really can't afford the wealthy parasite class anymore nor should we suffer their think tanks that make folks worship them
and their lifestyles of indulgence and greed!
"... The American ruling class loves Identity Politics, because Identity Politics divides the people into hostile groups and prevents any resistance to the ruling elite. With blacks screaming at whites, women screaming at men, and homosexuals screaming at heterosexuals, there is no one left to scream at the rulers. ..."
"... Consequently, the ruling elite have funded "black history," "women's studies," and "transgender dialogues," in universities as a way to institutionalize the divisiveness that protects them. These "studies" have replaced real history with fake history. ..."
PCR's latest is really good. I love it when he gets to ripping, and doesn't stop for 2000+ words or so. It reads a lot better
than Toynbee, fersher.
The working class, designated by Hillary Clinton as "the Trump deplorables," is now the victimizer, not the victim. Marxism
has been stood on its head.
The American ruling class loves Identity Politics, because Identity Politics divides the people into hostile groups
and prevents any resistance to the ruling elite. With blacks screaming at whites, women screaming at men, and homosexuals screaming
at heterosexuals, there is no one left to scream at the rulers.
The ruling elite favors a "conversation on race," because the ruling elite know it can only result in accusations that will
further divide society. Consequently, the ruling elite have funded "black history," "women's studies," and "transgender dialogues,"
in universities as a way to institutionalize the divisiveness that protects them. These "studies" have replaced real history
with fake history.
All of America, indeed of the entire West, lives in The Matrix, a concocted [and false] reality. Western peoples are so
propagandized, so brainwashed, that they have no understanding that their disunity was created in order to make them impotent
in the face of a rapacious ruling class, a class whose arrogance and hubris has the world on the brink of nuclear Armageddon.
History as it actually happened is disappearing as those who tell the truth are dismissed as misogynists, racists, homophobes,
Putin agents, terrorist sympathizers, anti-Semites, and conspiracy theorists. Liberals who complained mightily of McCarthyism
now practice it ten-fold.
The United States with its brainwashed and incompetent population -- indeed, the entirety of the Western populations are
incompetent -- and with its absence of intelligent leadership has no chance against Russia and China, two massive countries
arising from their overthrow of police states as the West descends into a gestapo state. The West is over and done with. Nothing
remains of the West but the lies used to control the people. All hope is elsewhere.
"... Putting aside his partisan motivations, House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes (R-CA) was unusually blunt two months ago in warning of legal consequences for officials who misled the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in order to enable surveillance on Trump and his associates. Nunes's words are likely to have sent chills down the spine of those with lots to hide: "If they need to be put on trial, we will put them on trial," he said ."The reason Congress exists is to oversee these agencies that we created." ..."
"... The media will be key to whether this Constitutional issue is resolved. Largely because of Trump's own well earned reputation for lying, most Americans are susceptible to slanted headlines like this recent one -- "Trump escalates attacks on FBI " -- from an article in The Washington Post , commiserating with the treatment accorded fired-before-retired prevaricator McCabe and the FBI he ( dis)served . ..."
"... What motivated the characters now criminally "referred" is clear enough from a wide variety of sources, including the text messages exchange between Strzok and Page. Many, however, have been unable to understand how these law enforcement officials thought they could get away with taking such major liberties with the law. ..."
"... None of the leaking, unmasking, surveillance, "opposition research," or other activities directed against the Trump campaign can be properly understood, if one does not bear in mind that it was considered a sure thing that Secretary Clinton would become President, at which point illegal and extralegal activities undertaken to help her win would garner praise, not prison. The activities were hardly considered high-risk, because candidate Clinton was sure to win. ..."
"... Comey admits, "It is entirely possible that, because I was making decisions in an environment where Hillary Clinton was sure to be the next president, my concern about making her an illegitimate president by concealing the re-started investigation bore greater weight than it would have if the election appeared closer or if Donald Trump were ahead in the polls." ..."
"... The key point is not Comey's tortured reasoning, but rather that Clinton was "sure to be the next president." This would, of course, confer automatic immunity on those now criminally referred to the Department of Justice. Ah, the best laid plans of mice and men -- even very tall men. One wag claimed that the "Higher" in "A Higher Loyalty" refers simply to the very tall body that houses an outsized ego. ..."
"... "Hope springs eternal" would be the cynical folk wisdom. FYI we haven't had a functioning constitution since the National Security Act of 1947 brought this nation under color of law, but the IC types wouldn't have you know that. Too tough to square the idea you'd never have had your CIA career in a world where the FISA court couldn't exist either. ..."
"... there is concrete evidence that the Democratic party/Clinton manipulated the primaries to destroy Clinton's challanger. That the DOJ, FBI & other alphabet agencies conspired with Clinton to equally, destroy Trump's campaign. ..."
"... We saw the same nonsense with Obama, the "peace president". Obama a man who never saw a Muslim he did not want to bomb or a Jew he did not want to bail out ..."
"... The best thing about this referral is that it also demands deputy AG Rod Rosenstein the weasel to recluse himself from this case. Rosenstein is the pinnacle of corruption by the deep state. ..."
"... Former CIA Director John Brennan is the prime mover behind the ongoing coup attempt against Trump. He gathered his deep state allies at DOJ and the FBI to join him in this endeavor. Brennan's allies -- McCabe, Lynch, Strzok, Yates, ect., may or may not be aware of Brennan's true motive behind creating all the noise and distraction since the 2016 election. It could be they're just partisan hacks; or they're on board with Brennan to keep secret what was revealed in the hack of the Podesta emails. ..."
"... I noticed Comey tried to pull a J Edgar-style subtle blackmail on Trump by the way he brought up the so-called "dossier" ..."
"... Bill Clinton got recruited into CIA by Cord Meyer, who bragged of it himself in his cups. ..."
"... Hillary cut her teeth on CIA's Watergate purge of Nixon. (If it's news to anyone that the Watergate cast of characters was straight out of CIA central casting, Russ Baker has conclusively tied the elaborate ratfeck to the intelligence community.) ..."
"... Obama was son of spooks, grandson of spooks, greased in to Harvard by Alwaleed bin-Talal's bagman. ..."
Wednesday's criminal referral by 11 House Republicans of former Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton as well as several former and serving top FBI and Department of Justice (DOJ) officials
is a giant step toward a Constitutional crisis.
Named in the referral to the DOJ for possible violations of federal law are: Clinton, former
FBI Director James Comey; former Attorney General Loretta Lynch; former Acting FBI Director
Andrew McCabe; FBI Agent Peter Strzok; FBI Counsel Lisa Page; and those DOJ and FBI personnel
"connected to" work on the "Steele Dossier," including former Acting Attorney General Sally
Yates and former Acting Deputy Attorney General Dana Boente.
With no attention from corporate media, the referral was sent to Attorney General Jeff
Sessions, FBI Director Christopher Wray, and U.S. Attorney for the District of Utah John Huber.
Sessions appointed Huber months ago to assist DOJ Inspector General (IG) Michael Horowitz. By
most accounts, Horowitz is doing a thoroughly professional job. As IG, however, Horowitz lacks
the authority to prosecute; he needs a U.S. Attorney for that. And this has to be disturbing to
the alleged perps.
This is no law-school case-study exercise, no arcane disputation over the fine points of
this or that law. Rather, as we say in the inner-city, "It has now hit the fan." Criminal
referrals can lead to serious jail time. Granted, the upper-crust luminaries criminally
"referred" enjoy very powerful support. And that will come especially from the mainstream
media, which will find it hard to retool and switch from Russia-gate to the much more delicate
and much less welcome "FBI-gate."
As of this writing, a full day has gone by since the letter/referral was reported, with
total silence so far from T he New York Times and The Washington Post and other
big media as they grapple with how to spin this major development. News of the criminal
referral also slipped by Amy Goodman's non-mainstream DemocracyNow!, as well as many
alternative websites.
The 11 House members chose to include the following egalitarian observation in the first
paragraph of the
letter conveying the criminal referral: "Because we believe that those in positions of high
authority should be treated the same as every other American, we want to be sure that the
potential violations of law outlined below are vetted appropriately." If this uncommon attitude
is allowed to prevail at DOJ, it would, in effect, revoke the de facto "David Petraeus
exemption" for the be-riboned, be-medaled, and well-heeled.
Stonewalling
Meanwhile, the patience of the chairmen of House committees investigating abuses at DOJ and
the FBI is wearing thin at the slow-rolling they are encountering in response to requests for
key documents from the FBI. This in-your-face intransigence is all the more odd, since several
committee members have already had access to the documents in question, and are hardly likely
to forget the content of those they know about. (Moreover, there seems to be a good chance that
a patriotic whistleblower or two will tip them off to key documents being withheld.)
The DOJ IG, whose purview includes the FBI, has been cooperative in responding to committee
requests for information, but those requests can hardly include documents of which the
committees are unaware.
Putting aside his partisan motivations, House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes
(R-CA) was unusually blunt two months ago in warning of legal consequences for officials who
misled the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in order to enable surveillance on Trump and
his associates. Nunes's words are likely to have sent chills down the spine of those with lots
to hide: "If they need to be put on trial, we will put them on trial," he said
."The reason Congress exists is to oversee these agencies that we created."
Whether the House will succeed in overcoming the resistance of those criminally referred and
their many accomplices and will prove able to exercise its Constitutional prerogative of
oversight is, of course, another matter -- a matter that matters.
And Nothing Matters More Than the Media
The media will be key to whether this Constitutional issue is resolved. Largely because of
Trump's own well earned reputation for lying, most Americans are susceptible to slanted
headlines like this recent one -- "Trump escalates attacks on FBI " -- from an
article in The Washington Post , commiserating with the treatment accorded
fired-before-retired prevaricator McCabe and the FBI he ( dis)served
.
Nor is the Post above issuing transparently clever warnings -- like this one in a
lead
article on March 17: "Some Trump allies say they worry he is playing with fire by taunting
the FBI. 'This is open, all-out war. And guess what? The FBI's going to win,' said one ally,
who spoke on the condition of anonymity to be candid. 'You can't fight the FBI. They're going
to torch him.'" [sic]
Mind-Boggling Criminal Activity
What motivated the characters now criminally "referred" is clear enough from a wide variety
of sources, including the text messages exchange between Strzok and Page. Many, however, have
been unable to understand how these law enforcement officials thought they could get away with
taking such major liberties with the law.
None of the leaking, unmasking, surveillance, "opposition research," or other activities
directed against the Trump campaign can be properly understood, if one does not bear in mind
that it was considered a sure thing that Secretary Clinton would become President, at which
point illegal and extralegal activities undertaken to help her win would garner praise, not
prison. The activities were hardly considered high-risk, because candidate Clinton was sure to
win.
But she lost.
Comey himself gives this away in the embarrassingly puerile book he has been hawking, "A
Higher Loyalty" -- which
amounts to a pre-emptive move motivated mostly by loyalty-to-self, in order to obtain a
Stay-Out-of-Jail card. Hat tip to Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone for a key observation, in his
recent article
, "James Comey, the Would-Be J. Edgar Hoover," about what Taibbi deems the book's most damning
passage, where Comey discusses his decision to make public the re-opening of the Hillary
Clinton email investigation.
Comey admits, "It is entirely possible that, because I was making decisions in an
environment where Hillary Clinton was sure to be the next president, my concern about making
her an illegitimate president by concealing the re-started investigation bore greater weight
than it would have if the election appeared closer or if Donald Trump were ahead in the
polls."
The key point is not Comey's tortured reasoning, but rather that Clinton was "sure to be the
next president." This would, of course, confer automatic immunity on those now criminally
referred to the Department of Justice. Ah, the best laid plans of mice and men -- even very
tall men. One wag claimed that the "Higher" in "A Higher Loyalty" refers simply to the very
tall body that houses an outsized ego.
I think it can be said that readers of Consortiumnews.com may be unusually well equipped to
understand the anatomy of FBI-gate as well as Russia-gate. Listed below chronologically are
several links that might be viewed as a kind of "whiteboard" to refresh memories. You may wish
to refer them to any friends who may still be confused.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of
the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He served as an Army Infantry/Intelligence officer and
then a CIA analyst for a total of 30 years. In retirement, he co-created Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).
A weird country, the USA.
Reading the article I'm reminded of the 1946 Senate investigation into Pearl Harbour, where,
in my opinion, the truth was unearthed.
At the same time, this truth hardly ever reached the wider public, no articles, the book, ed.
Harry Elmer Barnes, never reviewed.
Will McCabe wind up in jail? Will Comey? Will Hillary face justice? Fingers crossed!
The short answer is NO. McCabe might, but not Comey and the Killer Queen, they've both served Satan, uh I mean the
Deep State too long and too well.Satan and the banksters–who really run the show–take care of their own and
apex predators like Hillary won't go to jail. But it does keep the rubes entertained while the banksters continue to loot, pillage and
plunder and Israel keeps getting Congress to fight their wars.
"Hope springs eternal" would be the cynical folk wisdom. FYI we haven't had a functioning
constitution since the National Security Act of 1947 brought this nation under color of law,
but the IC types wouldn't have you know that. Too tough to square the idea you'd never have
had your CIA career in a world where the FISA court couldn't exist either.
Consortium News many sops tossed to 'realpolitik' where false narrative is attacked with
alternative false narrative, example given, drunk Ukrainian soldiers supposedly downing MH 17
with a BUK as opposed to Kiev's Interior Ministry behind the Ukrainian combat jet that
actually brought down MH 17, poisons everything (trust issues) spewed from that news
service.
The realpolitik 'face saving' exit/offer implied in the Consortium News narrative where
Russia doesn't have to confront the West with Ukraine's (and by implication the western
intelligence agencies) premeditated murder of 300 innocents does truth no favors.
Time to grow up and face reality. Realpolitik is dead; the caliber of 'statesman' required
for these finessed geopolitical lies to function no longer exist on the Western side, and the
Russians (I believe) are beginning to understand there is no agreement can be made behind
closed doors that will hold up; as opposed to experiencing a backstabbing (like NATO not
moving east.)
Back on topic; the National Security Act of 1947 and the USA's constitution are mutually
exclusive concepts, where you have a Chief Justice appoints members of our FISA Court, er,
nix that, let's call a spade a spade, it's a Star Chamber. There is no constitution to
uphold, no matter well intended self deceits. There will be no constitutional crisis, only a
workaround to pretend a constitution still exists:
To comprehend the internal machinations s of US politics one needs a mind capable of high
level yoga or of squaring a circle.
On the one hand there is a multimillion, full throttle investigation into – at best
– nebulus, inconsequential links between trump/ his campaign & Russia.
On the other there is concrete evidence that the Democratic party/Clinton manipulated the
primaries to destroy Clinton's challanger. That the DOJ, FBI & other alphabet agencies
conspired with Clinton to equally, destroy Trump's campaign.
Naturally, its this 2nd conspiracy which is retarded.
Imagine, a mere agency of a dept, the FBI, is widely considered untouchable by The President
! Indeed, they will "torch" him. AND the "the third estate" ie: the msm will support them the
whole way!
As a script the "The Twilight Zone" would have rejected all this as too ludicrous, too
psychotic for even its broad minded viewers.
And that will come especially from the mainstream media
I quit reading right there. Use of that term indicates mental laziness at best. What's mainstream about it? Please
refer to corporate media in proper terms, such as PCR's "presstitute" media. Speaking of PCR, it's too bad he doesn't allow comments.
The MSM is controlled by Zionists as is the U.S. gov and the banks, so it is no surprise that
the MSM protects the ones destroying America, this is what they do. Nothing of consequence will be done to any of the ones involved, it will all be covered
up, as usual.
What utter nonsense. These people are ALL actors, no one will go to jail, because everything
they do is contrived, no consequence for doing as your Zionist owners command.
There is no there there. This is nothing but another distraction, something o feed the
dual narratives, that Clinton and her ilk are out to get Trump, and the "liberal media" will
cover it up. This narrative feeds very nicely into the primary goal of driving
Republicans/conservatives to support Trump, even as Trump does everything they elected him
NOT TO DO!
We saw the same nonsense with Obama, the "peace president". Obama a man who never saw a
Muslim he did not want to bomb or a Jew he did not want to bail out
Yet even while Obama did the work of the Zionist money machine, the media played up the
fake battle between those who thought he was not born in America, "birthers" and his blind
supporters.
Nothing came of any of it, just like Monica Lewinsky, nothing but theater, fill the air
waves, divide the people, while America is driven insane.
The best thing about this referral is that it also demands deputy AG Rod Rosenstein the
weasel to recluse himself from this case. Rosenstein is the pinnacle of corruption by the deep
state. It's seriously way pass time for Jeff Sessions to grow a pair, put on his big boy
pants, unrecuse himself from the Russian collusion bullshit case, fire Rosenstein and Mueller
and end the case once and for all. These two traitors are in danger of completely derailing
the Trump agenda and toppling the Republican majority in November, yet Jeff Sessions is still
busy arresting people for marijuana, talk about missing the forest for the trees.
As far as where this referral will go from here, my guess is, nowhere. Not as long as Jeff
Sessions the pussy is the AG. It's good to hear that Giuliani has now been recruited by Trump
to be on his legal team. What Trump really needs to do is replace Jeff Sessions with
Giuliani, or even Chris Christie, and let them do what a real AG should be doing, which is
clean house in the DOJ, and prosecute the Clintons for their pay-to-play scheme with their
foundation. Not only is the Clinton corruption case the biggest corruption case in US
history, but this might be the only way to save the GOP from losing their majority in
November.
But it does keep the rubes entertained while the banksters continue to loot, pillage and
plunder and Israel keeps getting Congress to fight their wars.
Sadly I think you're right. Things might be different if we had a real AG, but Jeff
Sessions is not the man I thought he was. He's been swallowed by the deep state just like
Trump. At least Trump is putting up a fight, Sessions just threw in the towel and recused
himself from Day 1. Truly pathetic. Some patriot he is.
" He's ferreted out more than a few and probably has a lot better idea who his friends are
he certainly knows the enemies by now."
He failed to ferret out Haley, Pompeo, or Sessions and he just recently appointed John
Bolton, so I don't agree with your assessment. If his friends include those three, that says
enough about Trump to make any of his earlier supporters drop him.
Anyway, not having a ready made team, or at least a solid short list of key appointees
shows that he was just too clueless to have even been a serious candidate. It looks more as
though Trump is doing now what he intended to do all along. That means he was bullshitting
everybody during his campaign.
So, maybe the neocons really have been his friends all along.
" America is a very crooked country, nothing suprises me".
Every country on this insane planet is "crooked" to a greater or lesser degree, when to a
lesser degree, this is simply because they, the PTB, have not yet figured out how to
accelerate, how to increase their corruption and thereby how to increase their unearned
monetary holdings.
Money is the most potent singular factor which causes humans to lose their minds, and all
of their ethics and decency.
And within the confines of a "socialist" system, "money" is replaced by rubber-stamps, which
then wield, exactly in the manner of "wealth", the power of life or death, over the unwashed
masses.
Authenticjazzman "Mensa" qualified since 1973, airborne trained US Army vet, and pro jazz
musician.
BTW Jeff Sessions is a fraternal brother of Pence (a member of the same club, same
[recently deceased] guru) and is no friend of Trump.
That would explain why Sessions reclused himself from the start, and refused to appoint a
special council to investigate the Clintons. He's in on this with Pence.
Just as it looks like the Comey memos will further exonerate Trump, we now have this farce
extended by the DNC with this latest lawsuit on the "Trump campaign". The Democrats are now
the most pathetic sore losers in history, they are hell bent on dragging the whole country
down the pit of hell just because they can't handle a loss.
Wishful thinking that anything will come of this, just like when the Nunes memo was released.
Nothing will happen as long as Jeff Sessions is AG. Trump needs to fire either Sessions or
Rosenstein ASAP, before he gets dragged down by this whole Russian collusion bullshit case.
Former CIA Director John Brennan is the prime mover behind the ongoing coup attempt against
Trump. He gathered his deep state allies at DOJ and the FBI to join him in this endeavor.
Brennan's allies -- McCabe, Lynch, Strzok, Yates, ect., may or may not be aware of Brennan's
true motive behind creating all the noise and distraction since the 2016 election. It could
be they're just partisan hacks; or they're on board with Brennan to keep secret what was
revealed in the hack of the Podesta emails.
John Podesta, in addition to being a top Democrat/DC lobbyist and a criminal deviant, is
also a long-time CIA asset running a blackmail/influence operation that utilized his
deviancy: the sexual exploitation of children.
What kind of "physical proof" could Assange have? A thumb drive that was provably
American, or something? Rohrabacher only got Red Pilled on Russia because he had one very
determined (and well heeled) constituent. But he did cosponsor one of Tulsi Gabbard's "Stop
Funding Terrorists" bills, which he figured out on his own. Nevertheless, a bit of a loose
cannon and an eff'd up hawk on Iran He's probably an 'ISIS now, Assad later' on Syria.
I noticed Comey tried to pull a J Edgar-style subtle blackmail on Trump by the way he brought
up the so-called "dossier". Anyone could see it was absurd but he played his hand with it,
pretending it was being looked at. I would say Trump could see through this sleazy game Comey
was trying to play and sized him up. Comey is about as slimy as they get even as he parades
around trying to look noble. What a corrupt bunch.
"The culprit has swayed with the immediate need for a villain "
[What follows is excerpted from an article headlined Robert Mueller's Questionable Past
that appeared yesterday on the American Free Press website:]
During his tenure with the Justice Department under President George H W Bush, Mueller
supervised the prosecutions of Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega, the Lockerbie bombing (Pan
Am Flight 103) case, and Gambino crime boss John Gotti. In the Noriega case, Mueller ignored
the ties to the Bush family that Victor Thorn illustrated in Hillary (and Bill): The Drugs
Volume: Part Two of the Clinton Trilogy. Noriega had long been associated with CIA operations
that involved drug smuggling, money laundering, and arms running. Thorn significantly links
Noriega to Bush family involvement in the Iran-Contra scandal.
Regarding Pan Am Flight 103, the culprit has swayed with the immediate need for a villain.
Pro-Palestinian activists, Libyans, and Iranians have all officially been blamed when US
intelligence and the mainstream mass media needed to paint each as the antagonist to American
freedom. Mueller toed the line, publicly ignoring rumors that agents onboard were said to
have learned that a CIA drug-smuggling operation was afoot in conjunction with Pan Am
flights. According to the theory, the agents were going to take their questions to Congress
upon landing. The flight blew up over Lockerbie, Scotland.
There has been some former high flyers going to jail recently. Sarkozy is facing a hard
time at the moment. If it can happen to a former president of France it can happen to
Hillary.
Am I a Christian? Well, no. I had some exposure to Christianity but it never took hold. On
the other hand, I do believe there was a historical Jesus that was a remarkable man, but
there is a world (or universe) of difference between the man and the mythology. Here's some
of my thoughts on the matter:
Nothing uncanny about it. There's a frenetic Democratic cottage industry inferring magical
emotional charisma powers that explain the outsized influence of those three. The fact is
very simple. All three are CIA nomenklatura.
(1.) Bill Clinton got recruited into CIA by Cord Meyer, who bragged of it himself in his
cups.
(2.) Hillary cut her teeth on CIA's Watergate purge of Nixon. (If it's news to anyone that
the Watergate cast of characters was straight out of CIA central casting, Russ Baker has
conclusively tied the elaborate ratfeck to the intelligence community.)
(3.) Obama was son of spooks, grandson of spooks, greased in to Harvard by Alwaleed
bin-Talal's bagman. While he was vocationally wet behind the ears he not only got into
Pakistan, no mean feat at the time, but he went to a falconry outing with the future acting
president of Pakistan. And is there anyone alive who wasn't flabbergasted at the instant
universal acclaim for some empty suit who made a speech at the convention? Like Bill Clinton,
successor to DCI Bush, Obama was blatantly, derisively installed in the president slot of the
CIA org chart.
Excellent post and quite accurate information, however my point being that the irrational
fear harbored by the individuals who could actually begin to rope these scumbags in, is just
that : Irrational, as they seem to think or have been lead/brainwashed to believe that these
dissolute turds are somehow endowed with supernatural, otherworldy powers and options, and
that they are capable of unholy , merciless vengeance : VF, SR, etc.
And the truth is as soon as they finally start to go after them they, they will fall apart at
the seams, such as with all cowards, and this is the bottom line : They, the BC/HC/BO clique,
they are nothing more than consumate cowards, who can only operate in such perfidious manners
when left unchallenged.
Authenticjazzman "Mensa" qualified since 1973, airborne trained US Army vet, and pro Jazz
artist.
Amazingly BBC newsnight just started preparing viewers for the possibility that there was no
sarin attack, and the missile strikes might just have been for show, i plying Trump did it
for political reasons. Narrative changing a bit.
#Germany's state media senior correspondent (who is in Damascus right now & also visited
Douma) on primetime evening news on German television: "#Douma chemical attack is most likely
staged. A great many people here seem very convinced."
I too hope he will return soon, he seems to be one of the last sane voices of the msm.
Hopefully high viewer rates help to bring him back, but he wouldn't be the first one to
vanish from the screen, despite high ratings.
"... It is perfectly possible that the British government manufactured the whole Salisbury thing. We are capable of just as much despicable behavior and murder as the next. ..."
"... Tucker Carlson of Fox News has it nailed down.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M28aYkLRlm0 ..."
"... This "civil war" has been nothing but a war for Syrian resources waged by western proxies. ..."
"... So now, In desperation borne out of their impending defeat, the imperialists have staged a chemical attack in a last throw of the dice to gain popular support for an escalation in military intervention. Like military interventions of the past, it is being justified in the name of humanitarian intervention. ..."
Why is the prime minister of the United Kinkdom on the phone discussing whether or not to bomb a Sovereign country with the highly
unstable, Donald Trump?
Can she not make up her own mind? Either she thinks it's the right thing to do or it isn't. Hopefully,
the person on the other end of the phone was not Trump but someone with at least half a brain.
Proof, let's have some proof. Is that too much to ask? Apparently so. Russia is saying it's all a put up job, show us your
facts. We are saying, don't be silly, we're British and besides, you may have done this sort of thing before.
It is perfectly possible that the British government manufactured the whole Salisbury thing. We are capable of just as
much despicable behavior and murder as the next.
Part of the Great British act's of bravery and heroism in the second world war is the part played by women agents who were
parachuted into France and helped organize local resistance groups. Odette Hallowes, Noor Inayat Khan and Violette Szabo are just
a few of the many names but they are the best known. What is not generally know is that many agents when undergoing their training
in the UK, were given information about the 'D' day landings, the approx time and place. They were then dropped into France into
the hands of the waiting German army who captured and tortured and often executed them.
The double agent, who Winston Churchill met and fully approved of the plan was Henri Dericourt, an officer in the German army
and our man on the ground in France. Dericourt organized the time and place for the drop off of the incoming agents, then told
the Germans. The information about the 'D' day invasion time and place was false. The British fed the agents (only a small number)
into German hands knowing they would be captured and the false information tortured out of them.
Source :- 'A Quiet Courage' Liane Jones.
It's a tough old world and we are certainly capable of a Salisbury set-up and god knows what else in Syria.
From The Guardian articles today that I have read on Syria, it makes absolutely clear that if you in any way question the narrative
forwarded here, that you are a stupid conspiracy theorist in line with Richard Spencer and other far-right, American nutcases.
A more traditional form of argument to incline people to their way of thinking would be facts. But social pressure to conform
and not be a conspiratorial idiot in line with the far-right obviously work better for most of their readers. My only surprise
it that position hasn't been linked with Brexit.
Did anyone see the massive canister that was shown on TV repeatedly that was supposed to have been air-dropped and smashed through
the window of a house, landed on a bed and failed to go off.
The bed was in remarkable condition with just a few ruffled bedclothes considering it had been hit with a metal object weighing
god knows what and dropped from a great height.
"More than 40 years after the US sprayed millions of litres of chemical agents to defoliate"
The Defoliant Agent Orange was used to kill jungles, resulting in light getting through to the dark jungle floors & a massive
amount of low bush regrowing, making the finding of Vietcong fighters even harder!
It was sprayed even on American troops, it is a horrible stuff. Still compared to Chlorine poison gas, let alone nerve gases,
it is much less terrible. Though the long term effects are pretty horrible.
Who needs facts when you've got opinions? Non more hypocritical than the British. Its what you get when you lie and distort though
a willing press, you get found out and then nobody believes anything you say.anymore. The white helmets are a western funded and
founded organisation, they are NOT independent they are NOT volunteers, The UK the US and the Dutch fund them to the tune of over
$40 million. They are a propaganda dispensing outlet. The press shouldn't report anything they release because it is utterly unable
to substantiate ANY of it, there hasn't been a western journalist in these areas for over 4 years so why do the press expect us
to believe anything they print? Combine this with the worst and most incompetent Govt this country has seen for decades and all
you have is a massive distraction from massive domestic troubles which the same govt has no answers too.
""I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes," [Winston Churchill] declared in one secret memorandum."
The current condemnation by the international community and international law is good and needs enforcement. But no virtue
signalling where there is none.
But we're still awaiting evidence that a chemical attack has been carried out in Douma, aren't we? And if an attack was carried
out, by whom. But before these essential points are verified, you feel that a targeted military response is justified. Are you
equally keen for some targeted military response for the use of chemical weapons, namely white phosphorus, in Palestine by the
Israaeli military? Unlike Douma, the use of these chemical weapons in the occupied territories by the IDF's personnel is well
documented. But we haven't attacked them yet. Funny that.
Instead of "chemicals" why not just firebomb them - you know like we did to entire cities full of women and children in WW2?
Hamburg 27 July 1943 - 46,000 civilians killed in a firestorm
Kassel 22 October 1943 - 9,000 civilians killed 24,000 houses destroyed in a firestorm
Darmstadt 11 September 1944 - 8,000 civilians killed in a firestorm
Dresden 13/14th February - 25,000 civilians killed in a firestorm
Obviously we were fighting Nazism and hadn't actually been invaded - and he is fighting Wahhabism and has had major cities
overrun...
Maybe if Assad burnt people to death rather than gassing them we would make a statue of him outside Westminster like the one
of Bomber Harris?
Remember the tearful Kuwaiti nurse with her heartrending story of Iraqi troops tipping premature babies out of their incubators
after the invasion in 1990? The story was published in pretty much every major Western newspaper, massively increased public support
for military intervention............................and turned out to be total bullshit.
Is it too much too ask that we try a bit of collective critical thinking and wait for hard evidence before blundering into
a military conflict with Assad; and potentially Putin?
Well, this is the sort of stuff that the Israelis would be gagging for. They want Assad neutralised and they are assisting ISIS
terrorists on the Golan Heights. They tend to their wounded and send them back across the border to fight Assad. What better than
to drag the Americans, Brits and French into the ring to finish him off. Job done eh?
Are you sure you are not promoting an Israeli agenda here Jonathan?
Incidentantally what did we in the west do when the Iraqis were gassing the Iranians with nerve agents in the marshes of southern
Iraq during the Iran Iraq War? Did we intervene then? No, we didn't we allowed it to happen.
Come on frip, you have to admit there was absolutely no motive for Assad's forces to carry out this attack. Why do you think the
Guardian and other main stream media outlets are not even considering the possibility the Jihadi rebels staged it to trigger western
intervention? I know, I know.. it's all evil Assad killing his own people for no other reason than he likes butchering people...
blah blah. The regime change agenda against Syria has been derailed, no amount of false flag attacks can change the facts on the
ground.
More than 40 years after the US sprayed millions of litres of chemical agents to defoliate vast swathes of Vietnam and in the
full knowledge it would be have a catastrophic effect on the health of the inhabitants of those area, Vietnam has by far the highest
incidence of liver cancer on the planet.
Then more recently we have the deadly depleted uranium from US shells that innocent Iraqis are inhaling as shrill voices denounce
Assad.
The Syrian people are heroically resisting and defeating western imperialism. This "civil war" has been nothing but a war
for Syrian resources waged by western proxies.
So now, In desperation borne out of their impending defeat, the imperialists have staged a chemical attack in a last throw
of the dice to gain popular support for an escalation in military intervention. Like military interventions of the past, it is
being justified in the name of humanitarian intervention.
But if we have a brief browse of history we can see that US & UK governments have brought only death, misery and destruction
on the populations it was supposedly helping. Hands off Syria.
Now the color revolution against Trump just does not make any sense. We got to the point
where Trump=Hillary. Muller should embrace and kiss Trump and go home... Nobody care if Trump is impeached anymore.
Donald Trump's far-right loyal fans must be really pissed off right now after permanently
switching himself to pro-war mode with that evil,
warmongering triplet in charge and the second bombing against Syria. Even worse,
this time he has done it together with Theresa May and the neoliberal globalist Emmanuel
Macron.
We can tell that by watching the mind-blowing reactions of one of his most fanatic alt-right
media supporters: Alex Jones. Jones nearly cried(!) in front of the camera, feeling betrayed
from his 'anti-establishment', 'anti-interventionist' idol and declared that he won't support
Trump anymore. Well, what did you expect, Alex? expect, Alex?
A
year before the 2016 US national elections, the blog already warned that Trump is a pure
product of the neoliberal barbarism , stating that the rhetoric of extreme cynicism
used by Trump goes back to the Thatcherian cynicism and the division of people between
"capable" and "useless".
Right after the elections, we supported that the US
establishment gave a brilliant performance by putting its reserve, Donald Trump, in
power, against the only candidate that the same establishment identified as a real threat:
Bernie Sanders. Right after the elections, we supported that the US
establishment gave a brilliant performance by putting its reserve, Donald Trump, in
power, against the only candidate that the same establishment identified as a real threat:
Bernie Sanders.
The only hope that has been left, was to resist against starting a war with Russia, as the US
deep state (and Hillary of course) wanted. Well, it was proven to be only a hope too. Last
year, Trump bombed Syria under the same pretext resembling the lies that led us to the Iraq war
disaster. Despite the fact that the US Tomahawk missile attack had zero value in operational
level (the United States allegedly warned Russia and Syria, while the targeted airport was
operating normally just hours after the attack), Trump sent a clear message to the US deep
state that he is prepared to meet all its demands - and especially the escalation of
confrontation with Russia. Indeed, a year later, Trump already built a pro-war team that
includes the most bloodthirsty, hawkish triplet.
And then, Donnie ordered a second airstrike against Syria, together with his neo-colonial
friends.
It seems that neither this strike was a serious attempt against the Syrian army and its allies.
Yet, Donnie probably won't dare to escalate tension in the Syrian battlefield before the next
US national elections. That's because many of his supporters are already pissed off with him
and therefore, he wants to go with good chances for a second term.
Although we really hope that we are are wrong this time, we guess that, surrounded by all these
warmongering hawks, Donnie, in a potential second term, will be pushed to open another war
front in Syria and probably in Iran, defying the Russians and the consequent danger for a
WWIII.
Poor Alex et al: we told you about Trump from the beginning. You didn't listen ...
"The Democratic Party is better than the Republican Party in the way that manslaughter is
slightly better than murder: It might seem like a lesser crime, but the victim can't really
tell the difference." -- Michael Harriot
"... People such as Stephen Cohen and myself, who were actively involved throughout the entirety of the Cold War, are astonished at the reckless and irresponsible behavior of the US government and its European vassals toward Russia. ..."
"... In this brief video, Stephen Cohen describes to Tucker Carlson the extreme danger of the present situation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvK1Eu01Lz0 Published on Apr 13, 2018 ..."
A normal person would answer "yes" to the three questions. So what does this tell us about
Trump's government as these insane actions are the principle practice of Trump's
government?
Does anyone doubt that Nikki Haley is insane?
Does anyone doubt that John Bolton is insane?
Does anyone doubt that Mike Pompeo is insane?
Does this mean that Trump is insane for appointing to the top positions insane people who
foment war with a nuclear power?
Does this mean that Congress is insane for approving these appointments?
These are honest questions. Assuming we avoid the Trump-promised Syrian showdown, how long
before the insane Trump regime orchestrates another crisis?
The entire world should understand that because of the existence of the insane Trump regime,
the continued existence of life on earth is very much in question.
People such as Stephen Cohen and myself, who were actively involved throughout the entirety
of the Cold War, are astonished at the reckless and irresponsible behavior of the US government
and its European vassals toward Russia. Nothing as irresponsible as what we have witnessed
since the Clinton regime and which has worsened dramatically under the Obama and Trump regimes
would have been imaginable during the Cold War. In this brief video, Stephen Cohen describes to
Tucker Carlson the extreme danger of the present situation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvK1Eu01Lz0
Published on Apr 13, 2018
The failure of political leadership throughout the Western world is total. Such total
failure is likely to prove deadly to life on earth.
Trump became really deranged. For a world leader to behave in such a way is unexcusable. Now
even Trump supporters think that he should be removed
But the goal of the USA in Syria is establishing Saudi-friendly Sunni theocracy remains unchanged, since Obama unleashed this
war using Libyan weapons and Islamic mercenaries/volunteers They want to compensate with Syria the fact that Iraq now went to Iran
sphere of influence instead being a countervailing force during Saddam rein.
Notable quotes:
"... This latest Trump-Tweet about "Russia to be ready for new, smart missiles raining down on Syria" is also a negotiating ploy and to save face. Stock markets, even in this volatile times, have hardly budged, and the gold price is where it has been for the past year. ..."
It is long passed the time when any thinking person took Trump-Tweets seriously. Trump,
himself doesn't take them seriously and considers them as 'negotiating tactics'. Remember the
tweets: "Fire & Fury the World has Never Seen Before", "Little Rocket Man" and "Bigger
Nuclear Button", which then ushered in the prospect of a meeting between Trump and Kim Jong
Un?
This latest Trump-Tweet about "Russia to be ready for new, smart missiles raining down
on Syria" is also a negotiating ploy and to save face. Stock markets, even in this volatile
times, have hardly budged, and the gold price is where it has been for the past
year.
There will probably be a well-restricted cruise missile attack on some Syrian-Iranian base
with Russia pre-warned. The long-promised meeting between Trump and Putin will emerge in the
news to discuss the future of Syria. Trump's desire to pull out of Syria will then come about
naturally and as the result of consultations with Putin.
"... Running against what she (wrongly) perceived (along with most election prognosticators) as a doomed and feckless opponent and as the clear preferred candidate of Wall Street and the intimately related U.S foreign policy elite , including many leading Neoconservatives put off by Trump's isolationist and anti-interventionist rhetoric, the "lying neoliberal warmonger" Hillary Clinton arrogantly figured that she could garner enough votes to win without having to ruffle any ruling-class feathers. ..."
"... Smart Wall Street and K Street Democratic Party bankrollers have long understood that Democratic candidates have to cloak their dollar-drenched corporatism in the deceptive campaign discourse of progressive- and even populist-sounding policy promise to win elections. ..."
"... Trump trailed well behind Clinton in contributions from defense and aerospace – a lack of support extraordinary for a Republican presidential hopeful late in the race. ..."
"... one fateful consequence of trying to appeal to so many conservative business interests was strategic silence about most important matters of public policy. Given the candidate's steady lead in the polls, there seemed to be no point to rocking the boat with any more policy pronouncements than necessary ..."
"... Misgivings of major contributors who worried that the Clinton campaign message lacked real attractions for ordinary Americans were rebuffed. The campaign sought to capitalize on the angst within business by vigorously courting the doubtful and undecideds there, not in the electorate ..."
"... Of course, Bill and Hillary helped trail-blaze that plutocratic "New Democrat" turn in Arkansas during the late 1970s and 1980s. The rest, as they say, was history – an ugly corporate-neoliberal, imperial, and racist history that I and others have written about at great length. ..."
"... My Turn: Hillary Clinton Targets the Presidency ..."
"... Queen of Chaos: The Misadventures of Hillary Clinton ..."
"... The Condemnation of Little B: New Age Racism in America ..."
"... Still, Trump's success was no less tied to big money than was Hillary's failure. Candidate Trump ran strangely outside the longstanding neoliberal Washington Consensus, as an economic nationalist and isolationist. His raucous rallies were laced with dripping denunciations of Wall Street, Goldman Sachs, and globalization, mockery of George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq, rejection of the New Cold War with Russia, and pledges of allegiance to the "forgotten" American "working-class." He was no normal Republican One Percent candidate. ..."
"... Globalization has made the financial elite who donate to politicians very wealthy. But it has left millions of our workers with nothing but poverty and heartache ..."
"... "In a frontal assault on the American establishment, the Republican standard bearer proclaimed 'America First.' Mocking the Bush administration's appeal to 'weapons of mass destruction' as a pretext for invading Iraq, he broke dramatically with two generations of GOP orthodoxy and spoke out in favor of more cooperation with Russia . He even criticized the 'carried interest' tax break beloved by high finance" (emphasis added). ..."
"... "What happened in the final weeks of the campaign was extraordinary. Firstly, a giant wave of dark money poured into Trump's own campaign – one that towered over anything in 2016 or even Mitt Romney's munificently financed 2012 effort – to say nothing of any Russian Facebook experiments [Then] another gigantic wave of money flowed in from alarmed business interests, including the Kochs and their allies Officially the money was for Senate races, but late-stage campaigning for down-ballot offices often spills over on to candidates for the party at large." ..."
"... "In a harbinger of things to come, additional money came from firms and industries that appear to have been attracted by Trump's talk of tariffs, including steel and companies making machinery of various types [a] vast wave of new money flowed into the campaign from some of America's biggest businesses and most famous investors. Sheldon Adelson and many others in the casino industry delivered in grand style for its old colleague. Adelson now delivered more than $11 million in his own name, while his wife and other employees of his Las Vegas Sands casino gave another $20 million. ..."
"... Peter Theil contributed more than a million dollars, while large sums also rolled in from other parts of Silicon Valley, including almost two million dollars from executives at Microsoft and just over two million from executives at Cisco Systems. ..."
"... Among those were Nelson Peltz and Carl Icahn (who had both contributed to Trump before, but now made much bigger new contributions). In the end, along with oil, chemicals, mining and a handful of other industries, large private equity firms would become one of the few segments of American business – and the only part of Wall Street – where support for Trump was truly heavy the sudden influx of money from private equity and hedge funds clearly began with the Convention but turned into a torrent " ..."
"... The critical late wave came after Trump moved to rescue his flagging campaign by handing its direction over to the clever, class-attuned, far-right white- and economic- nationalist "populist" and Breitbart executive Steve Bannon, who advocated what proved to be a winning, Koch brothers-approved "populist" strategy: appeal to economically and culturally frustrated working- and middle-class whites in key battleground states, where the bloodless neoliberal and professional class centrism and snooty metropolitan multiculturalism of the Obama presidency and Clinton campaign was certain to depress the Democratic "base" vote ..."
"... Neither turnout nor the partisan division of the vote at any level looks all that different from other recent elections 2016's alterations in voting behavior are so minute that the pattern is only barely differentiated from 2012." ..."
"... An interesting part of FJC's study (no quick or easy read) takes a close look at the pro-Trump and anti-Hillary Internet activism that the Democrats and their many corporate media allies are so insistently eager to blame on Russia and for Hillary's defeat. FJC find that Russian Internet interventions were of tiny significance compared to those of homegrown U.S. corporate and right-wing cyber forces: ..."
"... By 2016, the Republican right had developed internet outreach and political advertising into a fine art and on a massive scale quite on its own. ..."
"... Breitbart and other organizations were in fact going global, opening offices abroad and establishing contacts with like-minded groups elsewhere. Whatever the Russians were up to, they could hardly hope to add much value to the vast Made in America bombardment already underway. Nobody sows chaos like Breitbart or the Drudge Report ." ..."
"... no support from Big Business ..."
"... Sanders pushed Hillary the Goldman candidate to the wall, calling out the Democrats' capture by Wall Street, forcing her to rely on a rigged party, convention, and primary system to defeat him. The small-donor "socialist" Sanders challenge represented something Ferguson and his colleagues describe as "without precedent in American politics not just since the New Deal, but across virtually the whole of American history a major presidential candidate waging a strong, highly competitive campaign whose support from big business is essentially zero ." ..."
"... American Oligarchy ..."
"... teleSur English ..."
"... we had no great electoral democracy to subvert in 2016 ..."
"... Only candidates and positions that can be financed can be presented to voters. As a result, in countries like the US and, increasingly, Western Europe, political parties are first of all bank accounts . With certain qualifications, one must pay to play. Understanding any given election, therefore, requires a financial X-ray of the power blocs that dominate the major parties, with both inter- and intra- industrial analysis of their constituent elements." ..."
"... Elections alone are no guarantee of democracy, as U.S. policymakers and pundits know very well when they rip on rigged elections (often fixed with the assistance of U.S. government and private-sector agents and firms) in countries they don't like ..."
"... Majority opinion is regularly trumped by a deadly complex of forces in the U.S. ..."
"... Trump is a bit of an anomaly – a sign of an elections and party system in crisis and an empire in decline. He wasn't pre-approved or vetted by the usual U.S. " deep state " corporate, financial, and imperial gatekeepers. The ruling-class had been trying to figure out what the Hell to do with him ever since he shocked even himself (though not Steve Bannon) by pre-empting the coronation of the "Queen of Chaos." ..."
"... His lethally racist, sexist, nativist, nuclear-weapons-brandishing, and (last but not at all least) eco-cidal rise to the nominal CEO position atop the U.S.-imperial oligarchy is no less a reflection of the dominant role of big U.S. capitalist money and homegrown plutocracy in U.S. politics than a more classically establishment Hillary ascendancy would have been. It's got little to do with Russia, Russia, Russia – the great diversion that fills U.S. political airwaves and newsprint as the world careens ever closer to oligarchy-imposed geocide and to a thermonuclear conflagration that the RussiaGate gambit is recklessly encouraging. ..."
On the Friday after the Chicago Cubs won the World Series and prior to the Tuesday on which
the vicious racist and sexist Donald Trump was elected President of the United States, Bernie
Sanders spoke to a surprisingly small crowd in Iowa City on behalf of Hillary Clinton. As I
learned months later, Sanders told one of his Iowa City friends that day that Mrs. Clinton was
in trouble. The reason, Sanders reported, was that Hillary wasn't discussing issues or
advancing real solutions. "She doesn't have any policy positions," Sanders said.
The first time I heard this, I found it hard to believe. How, I wondered, could anyone run
seriously for the presidency without putting issues and policy front and center? Wouldn't any
serious campaign want a strong set of issue and policy positions to attract voters and fall
back on in case and times of adversity?
Sanders wasn't lying. As the esteemed political scientist and money-politics expert Thomas
Ferguson and his colleagues Paul Jorgensen and Jie Chen note in an important study released by
the Institute for New Economic Thinking two months ago, the Clinton campaign "emphasized
candidate and personal issues and avoided policy discussions to a degree without precedent in
any previous election for which measurements exist .it stressed candidate qualifications [and]
deliberately deemphasized issues in favor of concentrating on what the campaign regarded as
[Donald] Trump's obvious personal weaknesses as a candidate."
Strange as it might have seemed, the reality television star and presidential pre-apprentice
Donald Trump had a lot more to say about policy than the former First Lady, U.S. Senator, and
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, a wonkish Yale Law graduate.
"Courting the Undecideds in Business, not in the Electorate"
What was that about? My first suspicion was that Hillary's policy silence was about the
money. It must have reflected her success in building a Wall Street-filled campaign funding
war-chest so daunting that she saw little reason to raise capitalist election investor concerns
by giving voice to the standard fake-progressive "hope" and "change" campaign and policy
rhetoric Democratic presidential contenders typically deploy against their One Percent
Republican opponents. Running against what she (wrongly) perceived (along with most election
prognosticators) as a doomed and feckless opponent and as the clear preferred candidate of
Wall
Street and the intimately related U.S foreign policy elite , including many leading
Neoconservatives put off by Trump's isolationist and anti-interventionist rhetoric, the
"lying
neoliberal warmonger" Hillary Clinton arrogantly figured that she could garner enough votes
to win without having to ruffle any ruling-class feathers. She would cruise into the White
House with no hurt plutocrat feelings simply by playing up the ill-prepared awfulness of her
Republican opponent.
If Ferguson, Jorgensen, and Chen (hereafter "JFC") are right, I was on to something but not
the whole money and politics story. Smart Wall Street and K Street Democratic Party bankrollers
have long understood that Democratic candidates have to cloak their dollar-drenched corporatism
in the deceptive campaign discourse of progressive- and even populist-sounding policy promise
to win elections. Sophisticated funders get it that the Democratic candidates' need to
manipulate the electorate with phony pledges of democratic transformation. The big
money backers know it's "just politics" on the part of candidates who can be trusted to
serve elite interests (like Bill
Clinton 1993-2001 and Barack
Obama 2009-2017 ) after they gain office.
What stopped Hillary from playing the usual game – the "manipulation of populism by
elitism" that Christopher
Hitchens once called "the essence of American politics" – in 2016, a year when the
electorate was in a particularly angry and populist mood? FJC's study is titled "
Industrial Structure and Party Competition in an Age of Hunger Games : Donald Trump and the
2016 Presidential Election." It performs heroic empirical work with difficult campaign finance
data to show that Hillary's campaign funding success went beyond her party's usual corporate
and financial backers to include normally Republican-affiliated capitalist sectors less
disposed than their more liberal counterparts to abide the standard progressive-sounding policy
rhetoric of Democratic Party candidates. FJC hypothesize that (along with the determination
that Trump was too weak to be taken all that seriously) Hillary's desire get and keep on board
normally Republican election investors led her to keep quiet on issues and policy concerns that
mattered to everyday people. As FJC note:
"Trump trailed well behind Clinton in contributions from defense and aerospace – a
lack of support extraordinary for a Republican presidential hopeful late in the race. For
Clinton's campaign the temptation was irresistible: Over time it slipped into a variant of
the strategy [Democrat] Lyndon Johnson pursued in 1964 in the face of another [Republican]
candidate [Barry Goldwater] who seemed too far out of the mainstream to win: Go for a grand
coalition with most of big business . one fateful consequence of trying to appeal to so
many conservative business interests was strategic silence about most important matters of
public policy. Given the candidate's steady lead in the polls, there seemed to be no point to
rocking the boat with any more policy pronouncements than necessary . Misgivings of
major contributors who worried that the Clinton campaign message lacked real attractions for
ordinary Americans were rebuffed. The campaign sought to capitalize on the angst within
business by vigorously courting the doubtful and undecideds there, not in the electorate
" (emphasis added). Hillary
Happened
FJC may well be right that a wish not to antagonize off right-wing campaign funders is what
led Hillary to muzzle herself on important policy matters, but who really knows? An alternative
theory I would not rule out is that Mrs. Clinton's own deep inner conservatism was sufficient
to spark her to gladly dispense with the usual progressive-sounding campaign boilerplate. Since
FJC bring up the Johnson-Goldwater election, it is perhaps worth mentioning that 18-year old
Hillary was a "Goldwater Girl" who worked for the arch-reactionary Republican presidential
candidate in 1964. Asked about that episode on National
Public Radio (NPR) in 1996 , then First Lady Hillary said "That's right. And I feel like my
political beliefs are rooted in the conservatism that I was raised with. I don't recognize this
new brand of Republicanism that is afoot now, which I consider to be very reactionary, not
conservative in many respects. I am very proud that I was a Goldwater girl."
It was a revealing reflection. The right-wing Democrat Hillary acknowledged that her
ideological world view was still rooted in the conservatism of her family of origin. Her
problem with the reactionary Republicanism afoot in the U.S. during the middle 1990s was that
it was "not conservative in many respects." Her problem with the far-right Republican
Congressional leaders Newt Gingrich and Tom DeLay was that they were betraying true
conservatism – "the conservatism [Hillary] was raised with." This was worse even than the
language of the Democratic Leadership Conference (DLC) – the right-wing Eisenhower
Republican (at leftmost) tendency that worked to push the Democratic Party further to the Big
Business-friendly right and away from its working-class and progressive base.
What happened? Horrid corporate Hillary happened. And she's still happening. The "lying
neoliberal warmonger" recently went to India to double down on her
"progressive neoliberal" contempt for the "basket of deplorables" (more on that phrase
below) that considers poor stupid and backwards middle America to be by
saying this : "If you look at the map of the United States, there's all that red in the
middle where Trump won. I win the coasts. But what the map doesn't show you is that I won the
places that represent two-thirds of America's gross domestic product (GDP). So I won the places
that are optimistic, diverse, dynamic, moving forward" (emphasis added).
That was Hillary Goldman Sachs-Council on Foreign Relations-Clinton saying "go to Hell" to
working- and middle-class people in Iowa, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Missouri,
Indiana, and West Virginia. It was a raised middle and oligarchic finger from a super-wealthy
arch-global-corporatist to all the supposedly pessimistic, slow-witted, and retrograde losers
stuck between those glorious enclaves (led by Wall Street, Yale, and Harvard on the East coast
and Silicon Valley and Hollywood on the West coast) of human progress and variety (and GDP!) on
the imperial shorelines. Senate Minority Leader Dick
Durbin had to go on television to say that Hillary was "wrong" to write off most of the
nation as a festering cesspool of pathetic, ass-backwards, lottery-playing, and opioid-addicted
white-trash has-beens. It's hard for the Inauthentic Opposition Party (as the late Sheldon Wolin reasonably called
the Democrats ) to pose as an authentic opposition party when its' last big-money
presidential candidate goes off-fake-progressive script with an openly elitist rant like
that.
Historic Mistakes
Whatever the source of her strange policy silence in the 2016 campaign, that hush was "a
miscalculation of historic proportion" (FJC). It was a critical mistake given what Ferguson and
his colleagues call the "Hunger Games" misery and insecurity imposed on tens of millions of
ordinary working- and middle-class middle-Americans by decades of neoliberal capitalist
austerity , deeply exacerbated by the Wall Street-instigated Great Recession and the weak
Obama recovery. The electorate was in a populist, anti-establishment mood – hardly a
state of mind favorable to a wooden, richly globalist, Goldman-gilded candidate, a long-time
Washington-Wall Street establishment ("swamp") creature like Hillary Clinton.
In the end, FJC note, the billionaire Trump's ironic, fake-populist "outreach to blue collar
workers" would help him win "more than half of all voters with a high school education or less
(including 61% of white women with no college), almost two thirds of those who believed life
for the next generation of Americans would be worse than now, and seventy-seven percent of
voters who reported their personal financial situation had worsened since four years ago."
Trump's popularity with "heartland" rural and working-class whites even provoked Hillary
into a major campaign mistake: getting caught on video telling elite Manhattan election
investors that half of Trump's supporters were a "basket
of deplorables." There was a hauntingly strong parallel between Wall Street Hillary's
"deplorables" blooper and the super-rich Republican candidate Mitt Romney's
infamous 2012 gaffe : telling his own affluent backers saying that 47% of the population
were a bunch of lazy welfare cheats. This time, though, it was the Democrat – with a
campaign finance profile closer to Romney's than Obama's in 2012 – and not the Republican
making the ugly plutocratic and establishment faux pas .
"A Frontal Assault on the American Establishment"
Still, Trump's success was no less tied to big money than was Hillary's failure. Candidate
Trump ran strangely outside the longstanding neoliberal Washington Consensus, as an economic
nationalist and isolationist. His raucous rallies were laced with dripping denunciations of
Wall Street, Goldman Sachs, and globalization, mockery of George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq,
rejection of the New Cold War with Russia, and pledges of allegiance to the "forgotten"
American "working-class." He was no normal Republican One Percent candidate. As FJC
explain:
"In 2016 the Republicans nominated yet another super-rich candidate – indeed,
someone on the Forbes 400 list of wealthiest Americans. Like legions of conservative
Republicans before him, he trash-talked Hispanics, immigrants, and women virtually non-stop,
though with a verve uniquely his own. He laced his campaign with barely coded racial appeals
and in the final days, ran an ad widely denounced as subtly anti-Semitic. But in striking
contrast to every other Republican presidential nominee since 1936, he attacked
globalization, free trade, international financiers, Wall Street, and even Goldman Sachs. '
Globalization has made the financial elite who donate to politicians very wealthy. But it
has left millions of our workers with nothing but poverty and heartache . When
subsidized foreign steel is dumped into our markets, threatening our factories, the
politicians do nothing. For years, they watched on the sidelines as our jobs vanished and our
communities were plunged into depression-level unemployment.'"
"In a frontal assault on the American establishment, the Republican standard bearer
proclaimed 'America First.' Mocking the Bush administration's appeal to 'weapons of mass
destruction' as a pretext for invading Iraq, he broke dramatically with two generations of GOP
orthodoxy and spoke out in favor of more cooperation with Russia . He even criticized
the 'carried interest' tax break beloved by high finance" (emphasis added).
Big Dark Money and Trump: His Own and Others'
This cost Trump much of the corporate and Wall Street financial support that Republican
presidential candidates usually get. The thing was, however, that much of Trump's "populist"
rhetoric was popular with a big part of the Republican electorate, thanks to the "Hunger Games"
insecurity of the transparently bipartisan New Gilded Age. And Trump's personal fortune
permitted him to tap that popular anger while leaping insultingly over the heads of his less
wealthy if corporate and Wall Street-backed competitors ("low energy" Jeb Bush and "little
Marco" Rubio most notably) in the crowded Republican primary race.
A Republican candidate
dependent on the usual elite bankrollers would never have been able to get away with Trump's
crowd-pleasing (and CNN and FOX News rating-boosting) antics. Thanks to his own wealth, the
faux-populist anti-establishment Trump was ironically inoculated against pre-emption in the
Republican primaries by the American campaign finance "wealth
primary," which renders electorally unviable candidates who lack vast financial resources
or access to them.
Things were different after Trump won the Republican nomination, however. He could no longer
go it alone after the primaries. During the Republican National Convention and "then again in
the late summer of 2016," FJC show, Trump's "solo campaign had to be rescued by major
industries plainly hoping for tariff relief, waves of other billionaires from the far, far
right of the already far right Republican Party, and the most disruption-exalting corners of
Wall Street." By FJC's account:
"What happened in the final weeks of the campaign was extraordinary. Firstly, a giant wave
of dark money poured into Trump's own campaign – one that towered over anything in 2016
or even Mitt Romney's munificently financed 2012 effort – to say nothing of any Russian
Facebook experiments [Then] another gigantic wave of money flowed in from alarmed business
interests, including the Kochs and their allies Officially the money was for Senate races,
but late-stage campaigning for down-ballot offices often spills over on to candidates for the
party at large."
"The run up to the Convention brought in substantial new money, including, for the first
time, significant contributions from big business. Mining, especially coal mining; Big Pharma
(which was certainly worried by tough talk from the Democrats, including Hillary Clinton,
about regulating drug prices); tobacco, chemical companies, and oil (including substantial
sums from executives at Chevron, Exxon, and many medium sized firms); and telecommunications
(notably AT&T, which had a major merge merger pending) all weighed in. Money from
executives at the big banks also began streaming in, including Bank of America, J. P. Morgan
Chase, Morgan Stanley, and Wells Fargo. Parts of Silicon Valley also started coming in from
the cold."
"In a harbinger of things to come, additional money came from firms and industries that
appear to have been attracted by Trump's talk of tariffs, including steel and companies
making machinery of various types [a] vast wave of new money flowed into the campaign from
some of America's biggest businesses and most famous investors. Sheldon Adelson and many
others in the casino industry delivered in grand style for its old colleague. Adelson now
delivered more than $11 million in his own name, while his wife and other employees of his
Las Vegas Sands casino gave another $20 million.
Peter Theil contributed more than a million
dollars, while large sums also rolled in from other parts of Silicon Valley, including almost
two million dollars from executives at Microsoft and just over two million from executives at
Cisco Systems. A wave of new money swept in from large private equity firms, the part of Wall
Street which had long championed hostile takeovers as a way of disciplining what they mocked
as bloated and inefficient 'big business.' Virtual pariahs to main-line firms in the Business
Roundtable and the rest of Wall Street, some of these figures had actually gotten their start
working with Drexel Burnham Lambert and that firm's dominant partner, Michael Milkin.
Among
those were Nelson Peltz and Carl Icahn (who had both contributed to Trump before, but now
made much bigger new contributions). In the end, along with oil, chemicals, mining and a
handful of other industries, large private equity firms would become one of the few segments
of American business – and the only part of Wall Street – where support for Trump
was truly heavy the sudden influx of money from private equity and hedge funds clearly began
with the Convention but turned into a torrent "
The critical late wave came after Trump moved to rescue his flagging campaign by handing its
direction over to the clever, class-attuned, far-right white- and economic- nationalist
"populist" and Breitbart executive Steve Bannon, who advocated what proved to be a winning,
Koch brothers-approved "populist" strategy: appeal to economically and culturally frustrated
working- and middle-class whites in key battleground states, where the bloodless neoliberal and
professional class centrism and snooty metropolitan multiculturalism of the Obama presidency
and Clinton campaign was certain to depress the
Democratic "base" vote. Along with the racist voter suppression carried out by Republican
state governments (JFC rightly chide Russia-obsessed political reporters and commentators for
absurdly ignoring this important factor) and (JFC intriguingly suggest) major anti-union
offensives conducted by employers in some battleground states, this major late-season influx of
big right-wing political money tilted the election Trump's way.
The Myth of Potent Russian Cyber-Subversion
As FJC show, there is little empirical evidence to support the Clinton and corporate
Democrats' self-interested and diversionary efforts to explain Mrs. Clinton's epic fail and
Trump's jaw-dropping upset victory as the result of (i) Russian interference, (ii), then FBI
Director James Comey's October Surprise revelation that his agency was not done investigating
Hillary's emails, and/or (iii) some imagined big wave of white working-class racism, nativism,
and sexism brought to the surface by the noxious Orange Hulk. The impacts of both (i) and (ii)
were infinitesimal in comparison to the role that big campaign money played both in silencing
Hillary and funding Trump.
The blame-the-deplorable-racist-white-working-class narrative is
belied by basic underlying continuities in white working class voting patterns. As FJC note: "
Neither turnout nor the partisan division of the vote at any level looks all that different
from other recent elections 2016's alterations in voting behavior are so minute that the
pattern is only barely differentiated from 2012." It was about the money – the big
establishment money that the Clinton campaign took (as FJC at least plausibly argue) to
recommend policy silence and the different, right-wing big money that approved Trump's
comparative right-populist policy boisterousness.
An interesting part of FJC's study (no quick or easy read) takes a close look at the
pro-Trump and anti-Hillary Internet activism that the Democrats and their many corporate media
allies are so insistently eager to blame on Russia and for Hillary's defeat. FJC find that
Russian Internet interventions were of tiny significance compared to those of homegrown U.S.
corporate and right-wing cyber forces:
"The real masters of these black arts are American or Anglo-American firms. These compete
directly with Silicon Valley and leading advertising firms for programmers and personnel.
They rely almost entirely on data purchased from Google, Facebook, or other suppliers,
not Russia . American regulators do next to nothing to protect the privacy of voters
and citizens, and, as we have shown in several studies, leading telecom firms are major
political actors and giant political contributors. As a result, data on the habits and
preferences of individual internet users are commercially available in astounding detail and
quantities for relatively modest prices – even details of individual credit card
purchases. The American giants for sure harbor abundant data on the constellation of bots,
I.P. addresses, and messages that streamed to the electorate "
" stories hyping 'the sophistication of an influence campaign slickly crafted to mimic and
infiltrate U.S. political discourse while also seeking to heighten tensions between groups
already wary of one another by the Russians miss the mark.' By 2016, the Republican right had
developed internet outreach and political advertising into a fine art and on a massive scale
quite on its own. Large numbers of conservative websites, including many that that tolerated
or actively encouraged white supremacy and contempt for immigrants, African-Americans,
Hispanics, Jews, or the aspirations of women had been hard at work for years stoking up
'tensions between groups already wary of one another.' Breitbart and other organizations were
in fact going global, opening offices abroad and establishing contacts with like-minded
groups elsewhere. Whatever the Russians were up to, they could hardly hope to add much value
to the vast Made in America bombardment already underway. Nobody sows chaos like Breitbart or
the Drudge Report ."
" the evidence revealed thus far does not support strong claims about the likely success
of Russian efforts, though of course the public outrage at outside meddling is easy to
understand. The speculative character of many accounts even in the mainstream media is
obvious. Several, such as widely circulated declaration by the Department of Homeland
Security that 21 state election systems had been hacked during the election, have collapsed
within days of being put forward when state electoral officials strongly disputed them,
though some mainstream press accounts continue to repeat them. Other tales about Macedonian
troll factories churning out stories at the instigation of the Kremlin, are clearly
exaggerated."
The Sanders Tease: "He Couldn't Have Done a Thing"
Perhaps the most remarkable finding in FJC's study is that Sanders came tantalizingly close
to winning the Democratic presidential nomination against the corporately super-funded Clinton
campaign with no support from Big Business . Running explicitly against the "Hunger
Games" economy and the corporate-financial plutocracy that created it, Sanders pushed Hillary
the Goldman candidate to the wall, calling out the Democrats' capture by Wall Street, forcing
her to rely on a rigged party, convention, and primary system to defeat him. The small-donor
"socialist" Sanders challenge represented something Ferguson and his colleagues describe as
"without precedent in American politics not just since the New Deal, but across virtually the
whole of American history a major presidential candidate waging a strong, highly
competitive campaign whose support from big business is essentially zero ."
Sanders pulled this off, FJC might have added, by running in (imagine) accord with
majority-progressive left-of-center U.S. public opinion. But for the Clintons' corrupt advance-
control of the Democratic National Committee and convention delegates, Ferguson et al might
further have noted, Sanders might well have been the Democratic presidential nominee, curiously
enough in the arch-state-capitalist and oligarchic United States
Could Sanders have defeated the billionaire and right-wing billionaire-backed Trump in the
general election? There's no way to know, of course. Sanders consistently out-performed Hillary
Clinton in one-on-one match -up polls vis a vis Donald Trump during the primary season, but
much of the big money (and, perhaps much of the corporate media) that backed Hillary would have
gone over to Trump had the supposedly
"radical" Sanders been the Democratic nominee.
Even if Sanders has been elected president, moreover, Noam Chomsky is certainly correct in
his recent judgement that Sanders would have been able to achieve very little in the White
House. As Chomsky told Lynn Parramore two weeks ago, in
an interview conducted for the Institute for New Economic Thinking, the same think-tank
that published FJC's remarkable study:
"His campaign [was] a break with over a century of American political history. No
corporate support, no financial wealth, he was unknown, no media support. The media simply
either ignored or denigrated him. And he came pretty close -- he probably could have won the
nomination, maybe the election. But suppose he'd been elected? He couldn't have done a thing.
Nobody in Congress, no governors, no legislatures, none of the big economic powers, which
have an enormous effect on policy. All opposed to him. In order for him to do anything, he
would have to have a substantial, functioning party apparatus, which would have to grow from
the grass roots. It would have to be locally organized, it would have to operate at local
levels, state levels, Congress, the bureaucracy -- you have to build the whole system from
the bottom."
As Chomsky might have added, Sanders oligarchy-imposed "failures" would have been great
fodder for the disparagement and smearing of "socialism" and progressive, majority-backed
policy change. "See? We tried all that and it was a disaster!"
I would note further that the Sanders phenomenon's policy promise was plagued by its
standard bearer's persistent loyalty to the giant and absurdly expensive U.S.-imperial Pentagon
System, which each year eats up hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars required to implement
the progressive, majority-supported policy agenda that Bernie F-35 Sanders ran
on.
"A Very Destructive Ideology"
The Sanders challenge was equally afflicted by its candidate-centered electoralism. This
diverted energy away from the real and more urgent politics of building people's movements
– grassroots power to shake the society to its foundations and change policy from the
bottom up (Dr. Martin Luther King's preferred strategy at the end of his life just barely short
of 50 years ago, on April 4 th , 1968) – and into the narrow, rigidly
time-staggered grooves of a party and spectacle-elections crafted by and for the wealthy Few
and the American
Oligarchy 's "permanent political class" (historian Ron Formisano). As Chomsky explained on the eve of the 2004
elections:
"Americans may be encouraged to vote, but not to participate more meaningfully in the
political arena. Essentially the election is a method of marginalizing the population. A huge
propaganda campaign is mounted to get people to focus on these personalized quadrennial
extravaganzas and to think, 'That's politics.' But it isn't. It's only a small part of
politics The urgency is for popular progressive groups to grow and become strong enough so
that centers of power can't ignore them. Forces for change that have come up from the grass
roots and shaken the society to its core include the labor movement, the civil rights
movement, the peace movement, the women's movement and others, cultivated by steady,
dedicated work at all levels, every day, not just once every four years sensible [electoral]
choices have to be made. But they are secondary to serious political action."
"The only thing that's going to ever bring about any meaningful change," Chomsky told Abby Martin on teleSur
English in the fall of 2015, "is ongoing, dedicated, popular movements that don't pay
attention to the election cycle." Under the American religion of voting,
Chomsky told Dan Falcone and Saul Isaacson in the spring of 2016, "Citizenship means every
four years you put a mark somewhere and you go home and let other guys run the world. It's a
very destructive ideology basically, a way of making people passive, submissive objects [we]
ought to teach kids that elections take place but that's not politics."
For all his talk of standing atop a great "movement" for "revolution," Sanders was and
remains all about this stunted and crippling definition of citizenship and politics as making
some marks on ballots and then returning to our domiciles while rich people and their
agents (not just any "other guys") "run [ruin?-P.S.] the world [into the ground-P.S.]."
It will take much more in the way of Dr. King's politics of "who' sitting in the streets,"
not "who's sitting in the White House" (to use Howard Zinn's
excellent dichotomy ), to get us an elections and party system worthy of passionate citizen
engagement. We don't have such a system in the U.S. today, which is why the number of eligible
voters who passively boycotted the 2016 presidential election is larger than both the number
who voted for big money Hillary and the number who voted for big money Trump.
(If U.S. progressives really want to consider undertaking the epic lift involved in passing
a U.S. Constitutional Amendment, they might want to focus on this instead of calling for a
repeal of the Second Amendment. I'd recommend starting with a positive Democracy Amendment that
fundamentally overhauls the nation's political and elections set-up in accord with elementary
principles and practices of popular sovereignty. Clauses would include but not be limited to
full public financing of elections and the introduction of proportional representation for
legislative races – not to mention the abolition of the Electoral College, Senate
apportionment on the basis of total state population, and the outlawing of gerrymandering.)
Ecocide Trumped by Russia
Meanwhile, back in real history, we have the remarkable continuation of a bizarre
right-wing, pre-fascist presidency not in normal ruling-class hands, subject to the weird whims
and tweets of a malignant narcissist who doesn't read memorandums or intelligence briefings.
Wild policy zig-zags and record-setting White House personnel turnover are par for the course
under the dodgy reign of the orange-tinted beast's latest brain spasms. Orange Caligula spends
his mornings getting his information from FOX News and his evenings complaining to and seeking
advice from a small club of right-wing American oligarchs.
Trump poses grave environmental and nuclear risks to human survival. A consistent Trump
belief is that climate change is not a problem and that it's perfectly fine – "great" and
"amazing," in fact – for the White House to do everything it can to escalate the
Greenhouse Gassing-to-Death of Life on Earth. The nuclear threat is rising now that he has
appointed a frothing right-wing uber-warmonger – a longtime advocate of bombing Iran and
North Korea who led the charge for the arch-criminal U.S. invasion of Iraq – as his top
"National Security" adviser and as he been convinced to expel dozens of Russian diplomats.
Thanks, liberal and other Democratic Party RussiaGaters!
The Clinton-Obama neoliberal Democrats have spent more than a year running with the
preposterous narrative that Trump is a Kremlin puppet who owes his presence in the White House
to Russia's subversion of our democratic elections. The climate crisis holds little
for the Trump and Russia-obsessed corporate media. The fact that the world stands at the eve of
the ecological self-destruction, with the Trump White House in the lead, elicits barely a
whisper in the reigning commercial news media. Unlike Stormy Daniels, for example, that little
story – the biggest issue of our or any time – is not good for television ratings
and newspaper sales.
Sanders, by the way, is curiously invisible in the dominant commercial media, despite his
quiet survey status as the nation's "most popular politician." That is precisely what you would
expect in a corporate and financial oligarchy buttressed by a powerful corporate, so-called
"mainstream" media oligopoly.
Political Parties as "Bank Accounts"
One of the many problems with the obsessive Blame-Russia narrative that a fair portion of
the dominant U.S. media is running with is that we had no great electoral democracy to
subvert in 2016 . Saying that Russia has "undermined [U.S.-] American democracy" is like
me – middle-aged, five-foot nine, and unblessed with jumping ability – saying that
the Brooklyn Nets' Russian-born center Timofy Mozgof subverted my career as a starting player
in the National Basketball Association. In state-capitalist societies marked by the toxic and
interrelated combination of weak popular organization, expensive politics, and highly
concentrated wealth – all highly evident in the New Gilded Age United States –
electoral contests and outcomes boil down above all and in the end to big investor class cash.
As Thomas Ferguson and his colleagues explain:
"Where investment and organization by average citizens is weak, however, power passes by
default to major investor groups, which can far more easily bear the costs of contending for
control of the state. In most modern market-dominated societies (those celebrated recently as
enjoying the 'end of History'), levels of effective popular organization are generally low,
while the costs of political action, in terms of both information and transactional
obstacles, are high. The result is that conflicts within the business community normally
dominate contests within and between political parties – the exact opposite of what
many earlier social theorists expected, who imagined 'business' and 'labor' confronting each
other in separate parties Only candidates and positions that can be financed can be presented
to voters. As a result, in countries like the US and, increasingly, Western Europe, political parties are first of all bank accounts . With certain qualifications, one
must pay to play. Understanding any given election, therefore, requires a financial X-ray of
the power blocs that dominate the major parties, with both inter- and intra- industrial
analysis of their constituent elements."
Here Ferguson might have said "corporate-dominated" instead of "market-dominated" for the
modern managerial corporations emerged as the "visible hand" master of the "free market" more
than a century ago.
We get to vote? Big deal.
People get to vote in Rwanda, Russia, the Congo and countless
other autocratic states as well. Elections alone are no guarantee of democracy, as U.S.
policymakers and pundits know very well when they rip on rigged elections (often fixed with the
assistance of U.S. government and private-sector agents and firms) in countries they don't
like, which includes any country that dares to "question the basic principle that the United
States effectively owns the world by right and is by definition a force for good" ( Chomsky,
2016 ).
Majority opinion is regularly trumped by a deadly complex of forces in the U.S. The
list of interrelated and mutually reinforcing culprits behind this oligarchic defeat of popular
sentiment in the U.S. is extensive. It includes but is not limited to: the campaign finance,
candidate-selection, lobbying, and policy agenda-setting power of wealthy individuals,
corporations, and interest groups; the special primary election influence of full-time party
activists; the disproportionately affluent, white, and older composition of the active (voting)
electorate; the manipulation of voter turnout; the widespread dissemination of false,
confusing, distracting, and misleading information; absurdly and explicitly unrepresentative
political institutions like the Electoral College, the unelected Supreme Court, the
over-representation of the predominantly white rural population in the U.S. Senate; one-party
rule in the House of "Representatives"; the fragmentation of authority in government; and
corporate ownership of the reigning media, which frames current events in accord with the
wishes and world view of the nation's real owners.
Yes, we get to vote. Super. Big deal. Mammon reigns nonetheless in the United States, where,
as the leading liberal
political scientists Benjamin Page and Martin Gilens find , "government policy reflects the
wishes of those with money, not the wishes of the millions of ordinary citizens who turn out
every two years to choose among the preapproved, money-vetted candidates for federal office."
Trump is a bit of an anomaly – a sign of an elections and party system in crisis and an
empire in decline. He wasn't pre-approved or vetted by the usual U.S. "
deep state " corporate, financial, and imperial gatekeepers. The ruling-class had been
trying to figure out what the Hell to do with him ever since he shocked even himself
(though not Steve Bannon) by pre-empting the coronation of the "Queen of Chaos."
He is a
homegrown capitalist oligarch nonetheless, a real estate mogul of vast and parasitic wealth who
is no more likely to fulfill his populist-sounding campaign pledges than any previous POTUS of
the neoliberal era.
His lethally racist, sexist, nativist, nuclear-weapons-brandishing, and
(last but not at all least) eco-cidal rise to the nominal CEO position atop the U.S.-imperial
oligarchy is no less a reflection of the dominant role of big U.S. capitalist money and
homegrown plutocracy in U.S. politics than a more classically establishment Hillary ascendancy
would have been. It's got little to do with Russia, Russia, Russia – the great diversion
that fills U.S. political airwaves and newsprint as the world careens ever closer to
oligarchy-imposed geocide and to a thermonuclear conflagration that the RussiaGate gambit is
recklessly encouraging.
"... And, quoting his colleague Archon Fung from the Harvard Kennedy School, " American politics is no longer characterized by the rule of the median voter, if it ever was. Instead, in contemporary America the median capitalist rules as both the Democratic and Republican parties adjust their policies to attract monied interests." And finally Mr. Ringen adds, "American politicians are aware of having sunk into a murky bog of moral corruption but are trapped." ..."
"... Trump merely reflects the dysfunctionality and internal contradictions of American politics. He is the American Gorbachev, who kicked off perestroika at the wrong time. ..."
"... Global financial services exercise monopolistic power over national policies, unchecked by any semblance of global political power. Trust is haemorrhaging. The European Union, the greatest ever experiment in super-national democracy, is imploding ..."
"... Probably this is because the Western model of neoliberalism does not provide any real freedom of commerce, speech, or political activity, but rather imposes a regime of submission within a clearly defined framework. ..."
"... america is going through withdraw from 30 years of trickledown crap. the young are realizing that the shithole they inherit does not have to be a shithole, and the old pathetic white old men who run the show will be dead soon. ..."
"... The liberal order is dying because it is led by criminally depraved Predators who have pauperized the labor force and created political strife, though the populists don't pose much threat to the liberal-order Predators. ..."
"... However by shipping the productive Western economies overseas to Asia, the US in particular cannot finance and physically support a military empire or the required R&D to stay competitive on the commercial and military front. ..."
"... So the US Imperialists are being eclipsed by the Sino-Russo Alliance and wants us to believe this is a great tragedy. Meanwhile the same crew of Liberal -neoCon Deep Staters presses on with wars and tensions that are slipping out of control. ..."
Haass writes: " Liberalism is in retreat. Democracies are feeling the effects of growing populism. Parties of the political extremes
have gained ground in Europe. The vote in the United Kingdom in favor of leaving the EU attested to the loss of elite influence.
Even the US is experiencing unprecedented attacks from its own president on the country's media, courts, and law-enforcement institutions.
Authoritarian systems, including China, Russia, and Turkey, have become even more top-heavy. Countries such as Hungary and Poland
seem uninterested in the fate of their young democracies
"We are seeing the emergence of regional orders. Attempts to build global frameworks are failing."
Haass has previously made alarmist statements , but this
time he is employing his rhetoric to point to the global nature of this phenomenon. Although between the lines one can easily read,
first of all, a certain degree of arrogance -- the idea that only we liberals and globalists really know how to administer foreign
policy -- and second, the motifs of conspiracy.
"Today's other major powers, including the EU, Russia, China, India, and Japan, could be criticized for what they are doing,
not doing, or both."
Probably this list could be expanded by adding a number of Latin American countries, plus Egypt, which signs arms deals with North
Korea while denying any violation of UN sanctions, and the burgeoning Shiite axis of Iran-Iraq-Syria-Lebanon.
But Haass is crestfallen over the fact that it is Washington itself that is changing the rules of the game and seems completely
uninterested in what its allies, partners, and clients in various corners of the world will do.
" America's decision to abandon the role it has played for more than seven decades thus marks a turning point. The liberal
world order cannot survive on its own, because others lack either the interest or the means to sustain it. The result will be
a world that is less free, less prosperous, and less peaceful, for Americans and others alike."
Richard Haass's colleague at the CFR, Stewart Patrick, quite agrees with the claim that it is
the US itself that is burying the liberal world order . However, it's not doing it on its own, but alongside China. If the US
had previously been hoping that the process of globalization would gradually transform China (and possibly destroy it, as happened
to the Soviet Union earlier), then the Americans must have been quite surprised by how it has actually played out. That country modernized
without being Westernized, an idea that had once been endorsed by the leader of the Islamic revolution in Iran, Ayatollah Khomeini.
Now China is expanding its influence in Eurasia in its own way, and this is for the most part welcomed by its partner countries.
But this has been a painful process for the US, as it is steadily and irrevocably undermining its hegemony.
"Its long-term ambition is to dismantle the U.S. alliance system in Asia, replacing it with a more benign (from Beijing's perspective)
regional security order in which it enjoys pride of place, and ideally a sphere of influence commensurate with its power.
China's Belt and Road initiative is part and parcel of this effort, offering not only (much-needed) infrastructure investments
in neighboring countries but also the promise of greater political influence in Southeast, South, and Central Asia. More aggressively,
China continues to advance outrageous jurisdictional claims over almost the entirety of the South China Sea , where it continues
its island-building activities, as well as engaging in provocative actions against Japan in the East China Sea," writes Patrick.
And as for the US:
"The United States, for its part, is a weary titan, no longer willing to bear the burdens of global leadership, either economically
or geopolitically.
Trump treats alliances as a protection racket, and the world economy as an arena of zero-sum competition. The result is a fraying
liberal international order without a champion willing to invest in the system itself. "
One can agree with both authors' assessments of the changed behavior of one sector of the US establishment, but this is about
more than just Donald Trump (who is so unpredictable that he has
staffed his own team with a member of the very swamp he was preparing to drain) and North American populism. One needs to look
much deeper.
"Today, American democratic exceptionalism is defined by a system that is dysfunctional in all the conditions that are needed
for settlement and loyalty...
Capitalism has collapsed into crisis in an orgy of deregulation. Money is transgressing into politics and undermining democracy
itself ."
And, quoting his colleague Archon Fung from the Harvard Kennedy School, " American politics is no longer characterized by
the rule of the median voter, if it ever was. Instead, in contemporary America the median capitalist rules as both the Democratic
and Republican parties adjust their policies to attract monied interests." And finally Mr. Ringen adds, "American politicians are
aware of having sunk into a murky bog of moral corruption but are trapped."
Trump merely reflects the dysfunctionality and internal contradictions of American politics. He is the American Gorbachev,
who kicked off perestroika at the wrong time. Although it must be conceded that if Hillary Clinton had become president, the
US collapse would have been far more painful, particularly for the citizens of that country. We would have seen yet more calamitous
reforms, a swelling influx of migrants, a further decline in the nation's manufacturing base, and the incitement of new conflicts.
Trump is trying to keep the body of US national policy somewhat alive through hospice care, but what's really needed is a major restructuring,
including far-reaching political reforms that would allow the country's citizens to feel that they can actually play a role in its
destiny.
These developments have spread to many countries in Europe, a continent that, due to its transatlantic involvement, was already
vulnerable and susceptible to the current geopolitical turbulence. The emergence of which, by the way, was largely a consequence
of that very policy of neoliberalism.
Stein Ringen continues on that score:
"Global financial services exercise monopolistic power over national policies, unchecked by any semblance of global political
power. Trust is haemorrhaging. The European Union, the greatest ever experiment in super-national democracy, is imploding
"
It is interesting that panic has seized Western Europe and the US -- the home of transatlanticism, although different versions
of this recipe for liberalism have been employed in other regions -- suffice it to recall the experience of Singapore or Brazil.
But they don't seem as panicked there as in the West.
Probably this is because the Western model of neoliberalism does not provide any real freedom of commerce, speech, or political
activity, but rather imposes a regime of submission within a clearly defined framework. Therefore, the destruction of the current
system entails the loss of all those dividends previously enjoyed by the liberal political elites of the West that were obtained
by speculating in the stock market, from the mechanisms of international foreign-exchange payments (the dollar system), and through
the instruments of supranational organizations (the UN, WTO, and World Bank). And, of course, there are the fundamental differences
in the cultural varieties of societies.
In his book The Hidden God, Lucien Goldmann draws some interesting conclusions, suggesting that the foundations of Western culture
have rationalistic and tragic origins, and that a society immersed in these concepts that have "abolish[ed] both God and the community
[soon sees] the disappearance of any external norm which might guide the individual in his life and actions." And because by its
very nature liberalism must carry on, in its mechanical fashion, "liberating" the individual from any form of structure (social classes,
the Church, family, society, and gender, ultimately liberating man from his very self), in the absence of any standards of deterrence,
it is quite logical that the Western world was destined to eventually find itself in crisis. And the surge of populist movements,
protectionist measures, and conservative policies of which Haass and other liberal globalists speak are nothing more than examples
of those nations' instinct for self-preservation. One need not concoct conspiracy theories about Russia or Putin interfering in the
US election (which Donald Trump has also denied, noting only that support was seen for Hillary Clinton, and it is entirely true that
a portion of her financial backing did come from Russia). The baseline political decisions being made in the West are in step with
the current crisis that is evident on so many levels. It's just that, like always, the Western elites need their ritual whipping
boy(although it would be more accurate to call it a human sacrifice). This geopolitical shake-up began in the West as a result of
the implicit nature of the very project of the West itself.
But since alternative development scenarios exist, the current system is eroding away. And other political projects are starting
to fill the resultant ideological void -- in both form as well as content.
Thus it's fairly likely that the current crisis of liberalism will definitively bury the unipolar Western system of hegemony.
And the budding movements of populism and regional protectionism can serve as the basis for a new, multipolar world order.
Oh, Wicked Witch of the West Wing, the cleansing fire awaits thy demise! Those meds can only keep you standing for so long.
Keep tripping. Keep stumbling. Satan calls you to him. The day approacheth. Tick tock tick tock. 👹😂
Democracy ultimately melts down into chaos. We have a perfectly good US Constitution, why don't we go back to using it as written?
That said, I am for anything that makes the elites become common.
Democracy is a form of government. Populism is a movement. Populist movements come about when the current form of government
is failing ... historically it seems they seldom choose wisely.
Ridiculous cunt Hillary thinks after getting REJECTED by the voters in the USA that somehow being asked to "go the fuck away
and shut the fuck up" makes her a women's leader. The cocksucker Soros and some of these other non-elected globalist should keep
in mind that while everybody has a right to an opinion: it took the Clinton Crime Family and lots of corruption to create the
scandals that sets a Clinton Crime Family member aside, and why Soros was given a free pass on election meddling and not others
requires congressional investigation and a special prosecutor. And then there is that special kind of legal and ignorant opinion
like David Hogg who I just disagree with, making him in my opinion and many fellow NRA members a cocksucker and a cunt. I'd wish
shingles on David Hogg, Hillary Clinton, and Soros.
america is going through withdraw from 30 years of trickledown crap. the young are realizing that the shithole they inherit
does not have to be a shithole, and the old pathetic white old men who run the show will be dead soon.
all i see is a bunch of fleeting old people who found facebook 10 years late are temporarily empowered since they can now connect
with other equally impotent old people.
The usual self-serving swill from the Best and the Brightest of the Predator Class out of the CFR via Haas.
The liberal order aka the New British Empire, was born 70 years ago by firebombing and nuking undefended civilian targets.
It proceeded to launch serial genocidal rampages in the Koreas, SE Asia, Latin America until finally burning down a large portion
of the Middle East.
The fact that there has not been a catastrophic nuclear war is pure dumb luck. The Deep State came within seconds of engineering
a nuclear cataclysm off the waters of Cuba in 1962. When JFK started dismantling the CIA Deep State and ending the Cold War with
the USSR, Dulles dispatched a CIA hit-squad to gun down the President. (RFK and Nixon immediately understood the assassination
was a CIA-led wet-works operation since they chaired the assassination committees themselves in the past).
The liberal order is dying because it is led by criminally depraved Predators who have pauperized the labor force and created
political strife, though the populists don't pose much threat to the liberal-order Predators.
However by shipping the productive Western economies overseas to Asia, the US in particular cannot finance and physically
support a military empire or the required R&D to stay competitive on the commercial and military front.
So the US Imperialists are being eclipsed by the Sino-Russo Alliance and wants us to believe this is a great tragedy. Meanwhile
the same crew of Liberal -neoCon Deep Staters presses on with wars and tensions that are slipping out of control.
Liberalism is anything but liberal... and I suppose that is the problem with it. It aims to do to the western world what Mao
did to China and Stalin did to Russia. Many people were murdered or imprisoned and people had no rights, just obligations to dictators
and their cronies.
I think this world is past the point where any benefit is gained from having "owners of the people", benevolent or otherwise.
And we certainly do not benefit from perverted demonic entities even if they come bearing technology. The price is too high.
Populism goes along with essential freedoms for the human race.-
As I told the idiotic retards who argued with me on Prodigy fucking 27 years ago, China will not change because of increased
trading and the West making them wealthier. In fact, just the opposite. I wonder if they have caught on yet?
Journalists are always "soldiers of the party". You just need to understand what party.
Notable quotes:
"... 'Fair and balanced' was a mid-20th century marketing tool and really, a confabulation of the times. ..."
"... The great Joseph Pulitzer largely founded his namesake prize for the same motives as Alfred Nobel, when the latter tried to make up for the incalculable injuries and deaths caused by the explosives he invented by endowing a Peace Prize. Pulitzer was attempting to atone for the "yellow journalism" sins of his own papers -- and even more, those of his arch rival, William Randolph "Citizen Kane" Hearst -- when he launched the prize that bears his name. ..."
"... To put it bluntly, as Frances McDormand's professor-mother in Almost Famous might have said, "Objective Journalism" was as much a marketing tool as anything else. It took off not because news neutrality was always enshrined in American journalistic ethics, but because of how rare it actually was. ..."
"... the Ochs-Sulzbergers of New York, the Meyer-Grahams of Washington, and the Chandlers of Los Angeles -- made a conscious decision to brand their newspapers as being truly fair and balanced to differentiate them from the competition. ..."
"... And even then, "objectivity" only went as far as the eyes and ears of the beholder. ..."
"... National Review ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Whether it's MSNBC on the left or Fox News on the right, the editorial decisions of how to spin a piece, where and how often to broadcast it, what kind of panelists you invite to "debate" a story, which anchors should be promoted and which ones will forever remain mere worker bees -- all these decisions are anything but "objective" or "unbiased." ..."
'Fair and balanced' was a mid-20th century marketing tool and really, a confabulation of the times.
"The Yellow Press", by L. M. Glackens, portrays newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst as a jester distributing sensational stories
in 1910. (Library of Congress/Public Domain) What the Greatest, Silent, and Boomer generations always regarded as the ideal of "objective
journalism" was actually the exception, not the rule. That was true from the time of Gutenberg until that of Franklin Roosevelt.
The great Joseph Pulitzer largely founded his namesake prize for the same motives as Alfred Nobel, when the latter tried to
make up for the incalculable injuries and deaths caused by the explosives he invented by endowing a Peace Prize. Pulitzer was attempting
to atone for the "yellow journalism" sins of his own papers -- and even more, those of his arch rival, William Randolph "Citizen
Kane" Hearst -- when he launched the prize that bears his name.
And if Pulitzer repented of his past, Hearst never did -- he went full speed ahead well into the 1920s and beyond, normalizing
Nazi science,
openly endorsing eugenics and white superiority, and promoting "Birth of a Nation"-like racism against African Americans, Latinos,
and Native Americans. His dehumanizing attacks against so-called
sneaking and treacherous "Japs" and "Chinks" -- well before Pearl Harbor, the Korean War, and communist China -- were even uglier.
To put it bluntly, as Frances McDormand's professor-mother in Almost Famous might have said, "Objective Journalism"
was as much a marketing tool as anything else. It took off not because news neutrality was always enshrined in American journalistic
ethics, but because of how rare it actually was. High-minded notions of "fairness" and "objective journalism" came to
the print media largely because the visionary first families of the papers that finally succeeded the Hearsts and Pulitzers in clout
and cache -- the Ochs-Sulzbergers of New York, the Meyer-Grahams of Washington, and the Chandlers of Los Angeles -- made a conscious
decision to brand their newspapers as being truly fair and balanced to differentiate them from the competition.
Meanwhile, the broadcast media (which didn't exist until the rise of radio and "talking pictures" in the late 1920s, followed
by TV after World War II) labored under the New Deal's famed Fairness Doctrine.
And even then, "objectivity" only went as far as the eyes and ears of the beholder. The fairness flag was fraying when
Spiro Agnew and Pat Buchanan took "liberal media elites" to task a generation ago during the Vietnam and civil rights era, while
Tom Wolfe made good, unclean fun out of the "radical chic" conceits of Manhattan and Hollywood limousine liberals.
What today's controversies illustrate is that a so-called "Fairness Doctrine" and "objective" newspaper reporting could only have
existed in a conformist Mad Men world where societal norms of what was (and wasn't) acceptable in the postwar Great Society
operated by consensus. That is to say, an America where moderate, respectable, white male centrist Republicans like Thomas Dewey,
Dwight Eisenhower, Nelson Rockefeller, and Gerald Ford "debated" moderate, respectable, white male centrist Democrats like Harry
Truman, Adlai Stevenson, Hubert Humphrey, and Jimmy Carter.
Now contrast that with today. On November 25, the New York Times made a now-notorious attempt to
understand the Nazi next door,
running a profile of young suburban white supremacist, Tony Hovater. Transgender social media superstar Charlotte Clymer spoke for
her fellow liberals when she savagely satirized the Times with a
tweet-storm that included things like:
Bob is a vegan. He believes we should protect the environment. He likes "Big Bang Theory". He pays taxes. He served in the
military.
He's a serial killer who has tortured and murdered 14 people. He dissolved their bodies in acid at a remote site. He made
them beg for their lives as he tortured them.
He attends PTA meetings. He DVR's episodes of his wife's fave shows when she's late at work.
The moral of the fable being (as Miss Clymer put it): "Bob is a mass-murdering f***head. STOP GIVING BOB NUANCE!"
When the Times followed their neo-Nazi profile by turning an entire op-ed column over to Donald Trump supporters in mid-January,
the Resistance went to red alert. And after Ross Douthat penned a column in defense of (Jewish) anti-immigration hardliner Stephen
Miller on Holocaust Memorial Day in January,
they went full DEFCON.
"F*** you @nytimes for publishing this article on #HolocaustMemorialDay from me & from those in my family whose voices were silenced
during the Holocaust. Shame on you!" said Nadine Vander Velde on Twitter. London left-wing journalist Sarah Kendzior agreed that
"The NYT is now a white supremacist paper. The multiple Nazi puff pieces, constant pro-Trump PR, and praise for Miller on today of
all days is not exceptional – it's [now] the guiding ideology of the paper."
And the current furor over The Atlantic
's hiring of National Review firebrand Kevin D. Williamson only underscores that it isn't just campus leftists or Tea Partiers
who are hitting the censor button.
But revealingly, it wasn't just the usual left-wing snowflakes who have needed a trigger warning of late. Just six weeks into
the new year, the Washington Post and CNN ran a series of tabloidy, Inside Edition -style stories glamorizing Kim Yo-jong,
the sister of North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un. The Washington Post even went so far as to call Ms. Yo-jong North Korea's
answer to Ivanka Trump (just ignore the fact she is the DPRK's assistant head of the Ministry of Propaganda and Agitation). That
led Bethany Mandel of the New York Post to wonder
what
was up with all the "perverse fawning over brutal Kim Jong-un's sister at the Olympics?"
Additionally, some of the most provocative critiques of "journalistic objectivity" have come from liberal polemicists like Matt
Taibbi and Sam Adler-Bell, who argue that before we go on blathering about untrammeled First Amendment freedom and "objectivity,"
the first question that must be asked is who has the balance of power and whose hands are on deck in the editing room. (And they're
not wrong to ask that question -- it was the same one that Pat Buchanan asked 50 years ago and Ann Coulter asked 20 years ago from
the opposite side of the newsroom.)
Whether it's MSNBC on the left or Fox News on the right, the editorial decisions of how to spin a piece, where and how often
to broadcast it, what kind of panelists you invite to "debate" a story, which anchors should be promoted and which ones will forever
remain mere worker bees -- all these decisions are anything but "objective" or "unbiased."
Let's face it: the supposedly more civilized, serious ecosystem of the pre-social media past would come across to identity-conscious
Millennials today as nothing more than stale white bread dominated by stale white men. Even among the campus leftists who protest
and violently riot to shut down and silence "hate speech," most of them would probably rather live in a world where Steve Bannon
and Richard Spencer anchored the nightly news on one channel -- so long as there was a hijab-wearing Muslim or a transgendered man
on another, equally highly-rated one.
What would be totally unacceptable to today's young consumer is any kind of return to the mid-century world where "the
news" was whatever Ben Bradlee, Johnny Apple, Robert Novak, and The Chancellor/Brinkley Nightly News said it was -- in essence,
the world where Punch Sulzberger, Otis Chandler, Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, and Tom Brokaw white-mansplained "facts" through their
own elite establishment filters, de facto ignoring everyone else.
Meanwhile, the beat goes on. From the left, conservative Sinclair Media
is accused of "forcing" its local anchors to read "pro-Trump propaganda." The Nation stalwart Eric Alterman
says that "When one side is
fascist, there's no need to show Both Sides." As for the right -- just ask your Fox-watching or Limbaugh-listening friends and families
what they think of the "mainstream media," the "Communist News Network," or the "opinion cartel."
The great Joan Didion once said "We tell ourselves stories in order to live." Maybe "objective journalism" was always just a little
social white lie we in the media told ourselves to make ourselves feel better -- fairer, kinder, gentler, more "professional." But
if there's one lesson that Barack Obama, the Tea Party, Bernie Sanders, Antifa, Donald Trump, and the Great Recession have taught
us over the past decade, it isn't just that the mythical "center" will no longer hold. It's that there may no longer be a center
for any of us to hold on to.
Telly Davidson is the author of a new book on the politics and pop culture of the '90s,Culture War : How the 90's Made Us Who We Are Today (Like it Or Not). He has written on culture for ATTN, FrumForum, All About Jazz, FilmStew, and Guitar Player ,andworked
on the Emmy-nominated PBS series "Pioneers of Television."
The "60 Minutes" broadcast on Sunday night, devoted to rehashing allegations of sexual
impropriety and bullying against Donald Trump, marked a new level of degradation for the US
political system. For nearly half an hour, an audience of 23 million people tuned in to a
discussion of a brief sexual encounter between Trump and adult film star Stormy Daniels
(Stephanie Clifford) in 2006.
Trump was then a near-bankrupt real estate and casino mogul, best known for reinventing
himself as a television personality. By her account, the proffer of a possible guest appearance
on Celebrity Apprentice was the only attraction the 60-year-old Trump had for Daniels,
then 27. Trump made promises, but as usual did not deliver.
Earlier in the week, the same interviewer, Anderson Cooper, appearing on CNN instead of CBS,
held an hour-long discussion with Karen McDougal, a former Playboy magazine
centerfold, who described a year-long relationship with Trump, also in 2006, the year after his
marriage to Melania Knauss.
White House officials flatly denied both accounts, but Trump himself has been conspicuously
and unusually silent, even on Twitter. His lawyers filed papers with a Los Angeles court, in
advance of the "60 Minutes" broadcast, claiming that Daniels was in violation of a
confidentiality agreement and could be liable for damages of up to $20 million.
Last Tuesday, a New York state judge turned down a motion by lawyers acting for Trump and
refused to dismiss the lawsuit for defamation brought against him by Summer Zervos, a former
contestant on another Trump "reality" show, The Apprentice . One of nearly a dozen
women who made public charges of sexual harassment against Trump during the final weeks of the
2016 campaign, Zervos alone has sued Trump over his repeated public claims that the women were
all liars.
There is little doubt that the accounts by Zervos, McDougal and Daniels are substantially
true. Trump has already demonstrated this by attempting to suppress their stories, either
through legal action or by purchasing their silence, directly or indirectly. A Trump ally,
David Pecker, owner of the National Enquirer tabloid, bought the rights to McDougal's
account of her relationship with Trump in 2016 for $150,000, in order not to publish it.
Trump's personal attorney, Michael Cohen, admitted last month that he had paid $130,000 to
Daniels in October 2016, only weeks before the election, to guarantee her silence.
The bullying tactics of Cohen and other Trump allies add credibility to the claim by
Daniels, during her "60 Minutes" interview, that a thug, presumably sent by Cohen, had
threatened her with violence in 2011, when she first sought to sell her story about Trump to
the media. Daniels offered no evidence to back her claim, but her attorney Michael Avenatti
dropped broad hints that Daniels would be able to corroborate much of her account.
Cohen may himself face some legal jeopardy due to his public declaration that he paid
Daniels out of his own funds. Given the proximity of the payment to the election, this could
well be construed as a cash contribution to the Trump campaign far beyond the $3,500 legal
limit for an individual.
The Zervos suit, however, may present the most immediate legal threat, since the next step,
after New York Supreme Court Justice Jennifer G. Schecter rejected Trump's claim that he has
presidential immunity, is to take discovery. In other words, Trump and his closest aides could
be required to give sworn depositions about his actions in relation to Zervos and many of the
other women.
Justice Schecter cited the precedent of the Paula Jones case against President Bill Clinton,
in which the US Supreme Court held that a US president had no immunity from lawsuits over his
private actions. While cloaked in democratic rhetoric at the time ("No one is above the law"),
that decision actually gave a green light to an anti-democratic conspiracy by ultra-right
forces who used the Jones lawsuit to trap Clinton into lying about his relationship with Monica
Lewinsky.
Unlike the 1998-1999 conflict over impeachment, there is no issue of democratic rights
involved in the sexual allegations against Trump. Some of the same legal tactics (using sworn
depositions to set a perjury trap), are being employed as weapons in an increasingly bitter
conflict within the US ruling elite, in which both factions are equally reactionary.
Trump is a representative of the underworld of real estate, casino gambling and reality
television, elevated to the presidency because he had the good fortune to run against a deeply
unpopular and reactionary shill for Wall Street and the military-intelligence agencies, Hillary
Clinton. Under conditions of mounting discontent among working people with the Democratic
Party, after eight years of the Obama administration, Trump was able to eke out a narrow
victory in the Electoral College.
The Democratic "opposition" to Trump is focused not on his vicious attacks on immigrants,
his promotion of racist and neo-fascist elements, his deregulation of business and passage of
the biggest tax cut for the wealthy in decades, or his increasingly violent and unhinged
foreign policy pronouncements. The Democrats have sought to attack Trump from the right,
particularly on the question of US-Russian relations, making use of the investigation into
alleged Russian interference in the 2016 elections, headed by former FBI Director Robert
Mueller.
Trump has sought to mollify his critics within the US national security establishment with
measures such as a more aggressive US intervention in Syria, the elevation of Gina Haspel, the
CIA's chief torturer, to head the agency, and, most recently, the expulsion of dozens of
Russian diplomats as part a NATO-wide campaign aimed at whipping up a war fever against
Moscow.
As Trump has made concessions on foreign policy, his opponents have shifted their ground,
attacking his behavior towards women. They have sought to link these exposures with the broader
#MeToo campaign, which is aimed at creating a witch-hunt atmosphere in Hollywood, the US
political system, and more generally throughout American society, in which gender issues are
brought forward to conceal and suppress more fundamental class questions.
In both the Russia investigation and now the allegations of sexual misconduct, the Democrats
have sought to hide their real political agenda, which is just as reactionary and dangerous as
that of Trump and the Republicans. While Trump is pushing towards war with North Korea or Iran,
and behind them China, the Democrats and their allies in the national security apparatus seek
to maintain the focus on Russia that was developed during the second term of the Obama
administration, particularly in Syria, Ukraine and Eastern Europe as a whole, posing the danger
of a war between the world's two main nuclear powers.
Beyond the immediate foreign policy issues, the whipping up of sexual scandals is invariably
a hallmark of reactionary politics. Such methods appeal to social backwardness, Puritanical
prejudices or prurient interest. They contribute nothing to the political education of working
people and youth, who must come to understand the fundamental class forces underlying all
political phenomena. The political basis for a struggle against Trump is not in designating him
as a sexual predator, but in understanding his class role as a front man for the American
financial oligarchy, which treats the entire working class, including the female half, as
objects of exploitation.
"... President Trump was said to complain that Tillerson disagreed with him and McMaster talked too much. Bolton seems likely to combine both of those traits in one pugnacious, mustachioed package. ..."
"... Bolton may find that in this job, he's the midlevel munchkin. Remember, the national security adviser is supposed to be the coordinator, conciliator, and honest broker among Cabinet officials, managing a process by which all get a fair say and the president makes well-informed decisions. Outgoing National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster reportedly lost favor with Defense Secretary Mattis and Chief of Staff John Kelly for failing to defer to them, and for being too emotional . ..."
John Bolton has been one of liberals' top bogeymen on national security for more than a decade now. He seems to relish the
role, going out of his way to argue that the Iraq War wasn't really a failure, calling for U.S.-led regime change in Iran and
preventive war against North Korea, and writing the foreword for a
book
that proclaimed President Obama to be a secret Muslim. He is a profoundly partisan creature, having started a
super-PAC whose largest donor was leading Trump benefactor Rebekah Mercer and whose provider of analytics was Cambridge
Analytica, the firm alleged to have improperly used Facebook data to make voter profiles, which it sold to the Trump and
Brexit campaigns, among others.
Recently Bolton's statements have grown more extreme, alarming centrist and conservative national security professionals along
with his longtime liberal foes. He seemed to
say
that the United States could attack North Korea without the agreement of our South Korean allies, who would face the
highest risk of retaliation and casualties; just two months ago he
called for
a regime change effort in Iran that would allow the U.S. to open a new embassy there by 2019, the 40th
anniversary of the Iranian Revolution and the taking of Americans hostage in Tehran. His
hostility toward Islam
points toward a set of extreme policies that could easily have the effect of abridging American
Muslims' rights at home and alienating America's Muslim allies abroad.
As worrying as these policies are, it's worth taking a step back and thinking not about Bolton, but about his new boss, Donald
Trump. Trump reportedly considered Bolton for a Cabinet post early on, but then
soured
on him, finding his mustache unprofessional. His choice of Bolton to lead the National Security Council reinforces
several trends: right now, this administration is all about making Trump's opponents uncomfortable and angry. Internal
coherence and policy effectiveness are not a primary or even secondary consideration. And anyone would be a fool to imagine
that, because Bolton pleases Trump today, he will continue to do so tomorrow.
Yes, Bolton has taken strong stances against the policies of Russian President Vladimir Putin (though he has also been
quoted
praising Russian "democracy" as recently as 2013). That's nothing new: Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, incoming
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and outgoing National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster have called for greater pushback on
Russia as well. But there's every reason to think that, rather than a well-oiled war machine, what we'll get from Bolton's
National Security Council is scheming and discord – which could be even more dangerous.
President Trump was said to complain that Tillerson disagreed with him and McMaster talked too much. Bolton seems likely
to combine both of those traits in one pugnacious, mustachioed package.
Their disagreements are real – Bolton has
famously pooh-poohed the kind of summit diplomacy with North Korea that Trump is now committed to. While Trump famously backed
away from his support for the 2002 invasion of Iraq, courting the GOP isolationist base, Bolton continues to argue that the
invasion worked, and seldom hears of a war he would not participate in. Trump
attempted
to block transgender people from serving in the military, but Bolton has declined to take part in the right's
LGBT-bashing, famously hiring gay staff and
calling for
the end of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
That's all substance. What really seems likely to take Bolton down is his style, which is legendary – and not in a good way.
His colleagues from the George W. Bush administration responded to Trump's
announcement
with
comments like
"the obvious question is whether John Bolton has the temperament and the judgment for the job" – not exactly
a ringing endorsement. One former co-worker
described
Bolton as a "kiss up, kick down kind of guy," and he was notorious in past administrations for conniving and
sneaking around officials who disagreed with him, both traits that Trump seems likely to enjoy until he doesn't. This is a
man who can't refrain from
telling Tucker Carlson
that his analysis is "simpleminded" – while he's a guest on Carlson's show. Turns out it's not true
that he threw a stapler at a contractor – it was a
tape dispenser.
When Bolton was caught attempting to cook intelligence to suggest that Cuba had a biological weapons
program, he bullied the analyst who had dared push back, calling him a "
midlevel
munchkin
." How long until Trump tires of the drama – or of being eclipsed?
Bolton may find that in this job, he's the midlevel munchkin. Remember, the national security adviser is supposed to be
the coordinator, conciliator, and honest broker among Cabinet officials, managing a process by which all get a fair say and
the president makes well-informed decisions. Outgoing National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster reportedly lost favor with
Defense Secretary Mattis and Chief of Staff John Kelly for failing to defer to them, and for being
too emotional
.
Love Bolton or hate him, no one imagines he will be a self-effacing figure, and no one hires him to run a no-drama process.
It's also hard to imagine that many of the high-quality professionals McMaster brought into the National Security Council
staff will choose to stay. McMaster repeatedly had to fight for his team within the Trump administration, but Bolton seems
unlikely to follow that pattern, or to inspire the kind of loyalty that drew well-regarded policy wonks to work for McMaster,
regardless their views of Trump.
So even if you like the policies Bolton espouses, it's hard to imagine a smooth process implementing them. That seems likely
to leave us with Muslim ban-level incompetence, extreme bellicosity, and several very loud, competing voices – with
Twitter feeds
– on the most sensitive issues of war and weapons of mass destruction.
"... I agree that they are a big threat to life on earth. From the amount of ecological damage that our wars create, the number of people who we have killed or misplaced, to their planned war with Russia that could see the end of the human race and animals. That so many people are believing this Russian propaganda crap is beyond belief. These are the same people who used to question what the intelligence agencies were saying, but not any more. ..."
"... All Maxine "Lip Flappin" Waters does nowadays, like Adam Schiff, is ignore their districts in favor of Russiagate and get Trump out. They don't deserve their congressional positions. ..."
"... Ain't no one touching Schumer, and as for our president all he has to do is make another $10B donation to his favorite country and all this will go away. They done sold this country out many times over. ..."
"... The quaint idea that the public should "just trust" the "intelligence" (sic) "community" (sic) is trotted out by the propaganda media whenever anyone dares to question this gang of spies and dirty tricksters. As if these scum are somehow paragons of virtue and truthfulness! And the mass of Americans just swallow this rotten bait, and continue their profound sleep ..."
"... Yes, the secret agencies must be nearly abolished, as completely incompatible with democracy. ..."
"... I am wondering if Trump is going to make it out of this alive. ..."
"... I can see the pure evil in Brennan's eyes. He is dripping with hatred. Not that I like Trump, but our so-called intelligence agencies must be brought to heel if we are to have any hope for the future. People like Brennan need to be prosecuted and go to jail. ..."
"... Skip Scott -- Trump should keep his mouth shut, I know, but I can't blame the guy for speaking out, especially when he's been hounded by the press with something like 90+% negative coverage. He was right about his phones being "tapped", and everyone said he was out of his mind for saying such a thing. The Steele dossier is a phony, made-up dossier purposely invented to spy on Trump and bring in the Special Prosecutor. Everyone who had a hand in this should be behind bars. This has been an attempted coup against a duly-elected President. ..."
"... When the Inspector General's Report comes out, when Devin Nunes and Trey Gowdy finally get the information they've been asking for, I think we're going to see people go to jail. They're now looking into Uranium One and the Clinton Foundation. ..."
"... These guys brought down the World Trade Center just to further their geopolitical agenda. Nothing is beyond their treachery. They don't have to assassinate the man, as they did the hapless Skripal's just to smear Russia one more time. They can bring down Airforce One and blame it on the Russians in some kind of grand two-fer, if they so choose (everyone knows those Russians just can't quit their evil ways). ..."
"... These spooks and their collaborators in the Pentagon, the MIC, Capitol Hill and the MSM have as effectively seized all power in this country as the Stalinists did in the Soviet Union. Idiots like Schumer sometimes unwittingly let the cat out of the bag, and he was right in pin-pointing who runs this country and to what extent they will go to destroy you to maintain their stake in ruling the planet ..."
"... Realist, very true, and you have summarized it so well. I am afraid this Skirpal incident in U.K. has been staged as a prelude to attack on Syria by U.S., U.K., Israel, and France, with Germany and other Western Nations cheering from the side. ..."
"... Trump is completely safe & will not be taken out? Why? Because Candidate Trump has completely backtracked from every foreign policy statements he made such as seeking peace with Russia? It's no coincidence that Trump was made to pay a visit to the one of the Deepstate's intelligence agencies at the CIA? ..."
"... I wonder to what extent Trump is whistling past the graveyard. Most women understand the dynamic: When you know you are under threat, pretend not to notice anything untoward ..."
"... "Power also saw fit to remind Trump where the power lies, so to speak. She warned him publicly that it is "not a good idea to piss off John Brennan." Didn't Michael Hastings piss off Brennan? ..."
"... Washington is like a continuing Soap Opera, as the real bad guys battle it out with the other really bad guys. We the people are mere pawns in their hands, to be influenced and duped to no end, as the lies swirl around and around until a citizen is completely buffaloed into submission. ..."
"... While reading this about John Brennan I could not help but think of JFK firing Allen Dulles. Again with the rhyming. ..."
"... "Former Assistant FBI Director James Kallstrom said that there was a plot among "high-ranking" people throughout government -- "not just the FBI," who coordinated in a plot to help Hillary Clinton avoid indictment. ..."
"... "I think we have ample facts revealed to us during this last year and a half that high-ranking people throughout government, not just the FBI, high-ranking people had a plot to not have Hillary Clinton, you know, indicted," Kallstrom told Fox News' Maria Bartiromo. ..."
"... "I think it goes right to the top. And it involves that whole strategy -- they were gonna win, nobody would have known any of this stuff, and they just unleashed the intelligence community. Look at the unmaskings. We haven't heard anything about that yet. Look at the way they violated the rights of all those American citizens." ..."
"... "Mike Whitney suspects that John Brennan was the mastermind behind Russia-gate." Looking at the pictures of Barack Obama with John Brennen, they seemed to have very cozy relationship. I wonder about Obama's role in this Russia-Gate. There are many unanswered questions about the top-echelons' role in this bizarre drama which may end up in many ominous consequences for the country and for the World. ..."
"... I think the intelligence agencies are the true source of nearly all of the problems..instead of gathering intelligence the IAs are effecting the events about which the intelligence is supposed to be about. Certainty Intelligence agencies can be credited with 9/11 and the war on Iraq. Interconnected between nations, shuffling in open-source form, secret sharing, false flag event production, and media delivered propaganda are activities which define the intelligence agencies. Secret means slave citizens are denied the knowledge that would allow them to understand how corrupt our societies are; so that the leaders of such societies can continue in the office that commands the power. ..."
"... Brilliantly stated, faraday's law. You've raised the all-important point that the intelligence agencies are are not simply gathering intelligence, they are also engaging in covert action, unlawfully, unaccountably, and unscrutinized. For all we know they could be spending their virtually unlimited funds on creating our enemies, thereby creating a need for our military industrial complex, the only entity that benefits from their work. ..."
"... Seems like the two wings of the Anglo-American establishment alliance are working in concert to defeat all who stand in their way and regain dominance over the western world. In Britain, Teresa May and the Tories -- who are losing popularity to the resurgent Labour party and its progressive leader Jeremy Corbyn -- are trying to blame Russia for a nerve agent attack. The blame game over there is evidence-free of course and the lies and weasel-word assertions are being effectively countered by, among others, ex-Ambassador Craig Murray ( https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/ ) in post after post. ..."
"... You present some interesting points, but John Brennan is no "Wild Bill Donovan" or even a William Casey with the backup of the fraternity of OSS which no longer has meetings. It seems to me that Brennan's and his diminishing followers' power lies with the media that has done the dance of "valued sources" and perception manipulation of the masses. Actually, "night of the long knives" occurred in Saudi Arabia when Prince "Bandar Bush" was captured and "interviewed" not by the FBI or the CIA, but most probably by individuals with videos of confessions which summarized the long history of the activities involving operatives conducting activities during the presidential administrations of both political parties but continuously for clans such as the Bush Dynasty and assorted associates within the institutions that are now domestically profiting from the policies of the President. ..."
"... But beyond this crisis is the larger one of how to harness the Deep State to reflect the nation's interests, not those few who run things now. Some say start to rid foreign intelligence of its operational arm which has been at the forefront of regime change and other mischief. ..."
"... Yes, the CIA operations division should be made small because it is abused for the hidden agendas of oligarchy, that the People would never approve. It should be monitored by an agency reporting directly to Congress. ..."
"... The Deep State, through the CIA, pursues a foreign policy that is often at odds with the wishes of the vast majority of the people in this country ..."
"... Brennans screech confirms that Trump is not just smoke and mirrors. He really hit the bureaucracy where it hurts, their pensions -- brilliant move. ..."
"... Trump and Brennan represent equally criminal factions of the ruling class, divided over foreign policy, particularly in the civil war in Syria, and more generally towards Russia. ..."
"... Brennan and the Democrats speak for powerful sections of the military-intelligence apparatus embittered by the failure of US intervention in Syria and Trump's apparent abandonment of the Islamic fundamentalist groups armed by the CIA to fight the Russian and Iranian-backed government of President Bashar al-Assad. They want to push further into the Syrian slaughter, regardless of the risk of open military conflict with Russia, the world's second strongest nuclear power. ..."
"... That "moral turpitude" reference seems to imply that there is some -- yet to be revealed -- scandal held in abeyance, fully capable of delivering a decisive blow. And, the "deep staters" are merely waiting for the right moment to pull this shark-toothed rabbit out of the hat. ..."
"... Former heads of the nation's top intelligence organization do not attack sitting presidents, let alone in such a visceral vituperative and public fashion. This is indication of deep fissures, quite beyond politics as most citizens understand. As the World Socialist Web Site published today: "There is no recent parallel for statements and actions such as those of the past three days. One would have to go back to the period before the American Civil War to find equivalent levels of tension, which in the late 1850s erupted in violence in the halls of Congress before exploding in full-scale military conflict." ..."
"... Trump is a maverick outsider so it's hard to get a handle on what or who he represents, but the Brennan/deep state side of the dispute is very much aligned with the corporate DNC Democratic Party. That they seem, by Brennan's comments, to consider themselves as the representation of "America" as they abandon constitutional and etiquette norms and articulate visceral hatred towards political rivals should serve as fair warning. ..."
"... Kevin Zeese: "He basically is a Senator for Israel. He totally supports the Israeli foreign policy viewpoint, which is a very hawkish, if you were a Republican you would call him a neocon." ..."
"... Thomas Hedges: "Schumer's staunch support for Israel has prompted him for example, to criticize the Obama administration, when in 2016, the United States abstained from a UN Security Council resolution re-affirming something the Council had almost unanimously upheld since 1979. Namely, that Israel's settlement building projects on Palestinian land violated international law." ..."
"... Brennan is history's most hilarious DCI. His grandiose hissy fit suggests that CIA continues the Dulles tradition of infiltrating the civil service with 'focal points -' illegal CIA moles infiltrating US government agencies -- and the IG fumigated one key out in firing McCabe. ..."
"... the MSM and the Left see the "crime" being that McCabe was fired, not that McCabe broke the law. Kind of like when they didn't see a crime in Hillary using her own personal servers, but saw the crime as being that the emails might have been hacked by a foreign government. That they had no evidence of this didn't matter. ..."
"... Brennan sounds like a desperate man. They must be getting closer to him. ..."
"... See how this works? The article is about Brennan. The comment is about Brennan's CIA. But immersive CIA propaganda immediately diverts the topic to CIA's synthetic warring factions, Hillary! Trump! Hillary! Trump! ..."
"... CIA runs your country. You're not going to get anywhere until you stop bickering about their presidential puppet rulers. ..."
"... The mention of John Brennan brings to mind the bizarre death of Rolling Stone's writer, Michael Hastings, who was reported to be working on a story about Brennan just before he had his "accident". ..."
"... Our MS Media is nothing more than Democrat Propaganda, and that situation will doom us to Russian interference. Every election the Russians can do the same as 2016: release the truth about justice not served. ..."
"... Israel has advised, trained and equipped, and ran "dirty war" operations in the Latin American "dirty war" conflicts in Argentina, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, and Colombia. In the case of the Salvadoran "bloodbath", the Israelis were present from the beginning. Besides arms sales, they helped train ANSESAL, the secret police who were later to form the framework of the infamous death squads that would kill tens of thousands of mostly civilian activists. ..."
"... USMC activated. Well, I'd put my two-cents on POTUS. Just like we've all seen throughout our lives when the supposed tough guy starts making threats he is really scared Sh**less. Lots of these clowns are just going to disappear during the late night hours of the day never to be heard from again. ..."
"... Guys like Brennan are scared rats in a sinking ship, good riddance! ..."
"... What an amazingly illuminating article. Devin Nunes, who perfectly ok with wire taps as long as the target aren't from his party is somehow a noble individual. While I agree that Brennan should be in prison, it should be for torturing people ..."
Great article. I hope Brennan is running scared, along with Power. It's like the Irish
Mafia.
"Meanwhile, the Washington Post is dutifully playing its part in the deep-state game of
intimidation. The following excerpt from Sunday's lead article conveys the intended message:
"Some Trump allies say they worry he is playing with fire by taunting the FBI. 'This is open,
all-out war. And guess what? The FBI's going to win,' said one ally, who spoke on the
condition of anonymity to be candid. 'You can't fight the FBI. They're going to torch
him.'"
That sounds like something "Six Ways From Sunday" Schumer would say. In fact, I'd bet
money that it is the shyster himself. That guy should be removed from the Senate in leg
irons. He is a menace to society.
Abby , March 19, 2018 at 9:51 pm
I agree that they are a big threat to life on earth. From the amount of ecological
damage that our wars create, the number of people who we have killed or misplaced, to their
planned war with Russia that could see the end of the human race and animals. That so many
people are believing this Russian propaganda crap is beyond belief. These are the same people
who used to question what the intelligence agencies were saying, but not any more.
The fact that most of congress and people in other governments have made up the Russian
propaganda is what needs to be exposed. This is a huge crime against humanity, IMO. This
includes Bernie of all people. They are doing this so they can get their war on with Russia
and escalate the Syrian war.
geeyp , March 20, 2018 at 3:02 am
Agreed. All Maxine "Lip Flappin" Waters does nowadays, like Adam Schiff, is ignore
their districts in favor of Russiagate and get Trump out. They don't deserve their
congressional positions. I wish to add a comment Coleen Rowley's piece. An update: Law
Professor Jonathan Turley says Andrew M. will still get his pension, just have to wait until
he's 57 (now 50). Can you understand this? What will it take to punish these arrogant evil
little punks? And why should we pay their pensions, especially when so many of us get
nothing!
Ain't no one touching Schumer, and as for our president all he has to do is make
another $10B donation to his favorite country and all this will go away. They done sold this
country out many times over.
Brad Owen , March 19, 2018 at 12:16 pm
The draining of the swamp has now begun, and battle is about to be joined. That's the word
from Alex Jones, Roy Potter and that youtube crowd of similar "guerilla journalists", who
fill in for the Deep State-captured and untrustworthy MSM.
The Deep State miscalculated the alignment of forces for the upcoming, somewhat covert,
civil war within the governing apparatus; Trump knows the military has his back, especially
the Marines, and they are part & parcel of the Constitution. The Deep State is a sick
Post-WWII mistake, rogue and criminal, and will be rolled up. There are a lot of jewels
hidden in their unacknowledged black programs of great benefit to the World, if we can
wrestle them away from these weaponizing psychopaths of the Deep State.
jean , March 20, 2018 at 2:53 pm
Unfortunately whistleblowers like Bill Binny and others can't get airtime on in corporate
media but can get a voice on Alex Jones.
William Binney High Ranking NSA Whistle Blower Interview with Alex. Video for Bill Binney
alex jones
? 34:25 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sW-V-TOJVE8
Jun 14, 2017 -- Uploaded by N Jacobson
William Binney High Ranking NSA Whistle Blower Interview w/ Alex Jones 6-14-17 William
Binney, and ..
Whistleblower Reveals NSA Blackmailing Top Govt Officials -- YouTube
Video for Russ tice alex jones
? 22:27 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZoV52qdaOA
Jun 8, 2014 -- Uploaded by The Alex Jones Channel
NSA whistleblower Russell Tice was a key source in the 2005 New York Times report that blew
the lid off the
saveourliberty , March 20, 2018 at 8:35 pm
Attacks on Alex Jones might be warranted, but I find those trivial in comparison for how
he has awakened the masses and has given a bully-pit to those that have been silenced by the
MSM. Choose your battles. Jones isn't one I want to silence though we can never let our guard
down to co-option neither.
Andrew , March 20, 2018 at 7:04 am
An open threat to torch the POTUS and there are no consequences for making such threats?
Like Brennan's clear threat? No judicial system to deal with those threats?
mike k , March 19, 2018 at 7:46 am
The quaint idea that the public should "just trust" the "intelligence" (sic)
"community" (sic) is trotted out by the propaganda media whenever anyone dares to question
this gang of spies and dirty tricksters. As if these scum are somehow paragons of virtue and
truthfulness! And the mass of Americans just swallow this rotten bait, and continue their
profound sleep ..
Sam F , March 20, 2018 at 6:32 am
Yes, the secret agencies must be nearly abolished, as completely incompatible with
democracy.
Wolfbay , March 20, 2018 at 6:54 am
There are only 17 secret agencies. No room to cut.
toni , March 21, 2018 at 11:51 am
Why do you think that there all the shows on television and the movies where the good guy
is the cop, or some federal agent?
Skip Scott , March 19, 2018 at 8:06 am
I am wondering if Trump is going to make it out of this alive. I know they don't
want to tip their hand to the public, but if their media circus performance doesn't gain
sufficient traction, it'll probably be time for a "lone nut" assassin. I can see the pure
evil in Brennan's eyes. He is dripping with hatred. Not that I like Trump, but our so-called
intelligence agencies must be brought to heel if we are to have any hope for the future.
People like Brennan need to be prosecuted and go to jail.
backwardsevolution , March 19, 2018 at 8:34 am
Skip Scott -- Trump should keep his mouth shut, I know, but I can't blame the guy for
speaking out, especially when he's been hounded by the press with something like 90+%
negative coverage. He was right about his phones being "tapped", and everyone said he was out
of his mind for saying such a thing. The Steele dossier is a phony, made-up dossier purposely
invented to spy on Trump and bring in the Special Prosecutor. Everyone who had a hand in this
should be behind bars. This has been an attempted coup against a duly-elected
President.
When the Inspector General's Report comes out, when Devin Nunes and Trey Gowdy finally
get the information they've been asking for, I think we're going to see people go to jail.
They're now looking into Uranium One and the Clinton Foundation.
Never mind the damage being done re relations between Russia and the U.S. and the possible
nuclear threat. These people truly are insane. I agree with you, these intelligence agencies
really have gone rogue and need to be "brought to heel".
laninya , March 19, 2018 at 11:22 am
The day Trump keeps his mouth shut or stops tweeting is the day he and his revolution will
be over. What do you think is smoking all these malefactors out into the open?
Steve Naidamast , March 19, 2018 at 12:51 pm
backwardsevolution
Former CIA Officer, Kevin Shipp, spoke out in an article I saw the other day that the FBI
is working very methodically on the investigations into the Clinton Foundation. He expects
that when it comes out so many "heads will roll" in the Congress and the Executive branch
that we will have a Constitutional crises portending a collapse of the US government.
Can't wait to see these fireworks :-)
Typingperson , March 19, 2018 at 9:33 pm
Not holding my breath -- but I hope so!
Abby , March 19, 2018 at 9:55 pm
I read this article and I too hope that Shipp is right about this. The Clinton foundation
and everything connected to them is rotten. They robbed Haiti's reconstruction funds and gave
their friends and family members special access to bilking them. Everyone knew that they did
that, yet no one said a word about it.
Dave P. , March 20, 2018 at 1:27 am
Steve, I watched this Youtube video of Kevin Shipp talking to this Group of citizens, last
evening. It is really very informative. The title of the video was: "CIA Officer exposes the
shadow government" dated Feb 19, 2018. This video is really worth watching.
Realist , March 19, 2018 at 3:38 pm
These guys brought down the World Trade Center just to further their geopolitical
agenda. Nothing is beyond their treachery. They don't have to assassinate the man, as they
did the hapless Skripal's just to smear Russia one more time. They can bring down Airforce
One and blame it on the Russians in some kind of grand two-fer, if they so choose (everyone
knows those Russians just can't quit their evil ways).
These spooks and their collaborators in the Pentagon, the MIC, Capitol Hill and the
MSM have as effectively seized all power in this country as the Stalinists did in the Soviet
Union. Idiots like Schumer sometimes unwittingly let the cat out of the bag, and he was right
in pin-pointing who runs this country and to what extent they will go to destroy you to
maintain their stake in ruling the planet .
All this has been clear for a long time now, yet nothing is ever done about it, probably
because the task is too immense, these devils are too numerous and too deeply entrenched.
Everything they say or do before the public is simply stagecraft and dramatics, and that
includes all the gibbering that emanates from Congress each day, dispensed to you in a direct
feed by the propaganda organs of the mass media which now includes most of the internet. You
want to hear the truth? Go read a novel, maybe the publishing monolith will occasionally let
slip an accurate description of our world couched in metaphor, a glitch in the Matrix, if you
will.
Dave P. , March 20, 2018 at 3:16 pm
Realist, very true, and you have summarized it so well. I am afraid this Skirpal
incident in U.K. has been staged as a prelude to attack on Syria by U.S., U.K., Israel, and
France, with Germany and other Western Nations cheering from the side.
Most likely, a false flag event will staged in Syria very soon to justify it. And there
will be some sort of action in Ukraine too. U.S., U.K., and France are deep in debt. China is
rising economically, and I am afraid that these Western Imperial Nations will not let go
their complete dominance over the planet without a fight.
Events may take a very sad and violent turn in no time.
Skip Scott , March 21, 2018 at 8:47 am
Realist.
That is a very scary scenario you propose about Air Force One, and quite conceivable. The
way things are heating up, I suspect something in that order of magnitude very soon.
KiwiAntz , March 20, 2018 at 12:02 am
Trump is completely safe & will not be taken out? Why? Because Candidate Trump has
completely backtracked from every foreign policy statements he made such as seeking peace
with Russia? It's no coincidence that Trump was made to pay a visit to the one of the
Deepstate's intelligence agencies at the CIA?
Trump would have been taken into a office & shown a continuous looped, Zapruder film
of JFK getting his head blasted apart, as a warning of what happened to the last President
who tried to destroy their power & influences? Remember Chuck Schumer's threat in 2017,
warning Trump that the Intelligence Agencies have a number of ways, to take you down, if you
rock the boat? Trump was shown what to expect if he doesn't toe the line & do what he's
told by his real masters? Confirmation of Trump's obedience to the Deepstate agenda is that
as he's now singing from the same song sheet that the Deepstate is singing from, completely
backtracking most of his his election promises, making America great again, not by diplomacy
but by endless war mongering & foreign interventions with no end in sight?
geeyp , March 20, 2018 at 12:51 am
We have known for sometime that the CIA and Google (not to mention WaPo and Jeff's garage
sale site) are tight. Julian Assange's "When Google Met Wikileaks" is a go to for this. And
you know that Eric Schmidt and Hillary Clinton are close connivers.
Litchfield , March 20, 2018 at 9:17 am
I wonder to what extent Trump is whistling past the graveyard. Most women understand
the dynamic: When you know you are under threat, pretend not to notice anything untoward
. . . So as not to trigger something really bad happening. If the picture changed
dramatically -- say, with indictments of co-conspirators in the DNC shenanigans or the FBI
collusion, or the Russiagate farce -- Trump might do some kind fo about-face. The big
question, though, is his real relationship to and heartfelt convictions regarding
Netanyahu/Israel.
Gregory Herr , March 20, 2018 at 6:45 pm
"Power also saw fit to remind Trump where the power lies, so to speak. She warned him
publicly that it is "not a good idea to piss off John Brennan." Didn't Michael Hastings piss
off Brennan?
Washington is like a continuing Soap Opera, as the real bad guys battle it out with
the other really bad guys. We the people are mere pawns in their hands, to be influenced and
duped to no end, as the lies swirl around and around until a citizen is completely buffaloed
into submission.
While reading this about John Brennan I could not help but think of JFK firing Allen
Dulles. Again with the rhyming.
backwardsevolution , March 19, 2018 at 9:07 am
Two short interviews with James Kallstrom at this site:
"Former Assistant FBI Director James Kallstrom said that there was a plot among
"high-ranking" people throughout government -- "not just the FBI," who coordinated in a plot
to help Hillary Clinton avoid indictment.
"I think we have ample facts revealed to us during this last year and a half that
high-ranking people throughout government, not just the FBI, high-ranking people had a plot
to not have Hillary Clinton, you know, indicted," Kallstrom told Fox News' Maria
Bartiromo.
"I think it goes right to the top. And it involves that whole strategy -- they were
gonna win, nobody would have known any of this stuff, and they just unleashed the
intelligence community. Look at the unmaskings. We haven't heard anything about that yet.
Look at the way they violated the rights of all those American citizens."
Yes, very interesting interview with Kallstrom -- on mainstream media, which is important.
Seems too many people understand what's really transpired for Trump -- or anyone -- to be in
mortal danger. We'll see.
Brennan's tweet suggests he knows the walls are closing in on him.
I agree. If you're very strong, you don't bother making public threats against powerful
people. You just break their backs without comment. Brennan comes across like he's been
backed into a corner where he has no weapons and from which he knows there is no escape.
It is what I already sussed out, Paul. In reading Whitney's piece, it reminded me that
over the last eight years the State Department in their press gatherings continuously mocked
any RT reporters and disrespected them. You could easily surmise from this that they had a
hand in these propaganda smears and lies.
Dave P. , March 20, 2018 at 1:53 am
"Mike Whitney suspects that John Brennan was the mastermind behind Russia-gate."
Looking at the pictures of Barack Obama with John Brennen, they seemed to have very cozy
relationship. I wonder about Obama's role in this Russia-Gate. There are many unanswered
questions about the top-echelons' role in this bizarre drama which may end up in many ominous
consequences for the country and for the World.
Dave P(et.al.) it's getting more involved every day. It is interesting that the interview
was on Fox as it indicates prominent Republicans may be leaning towards a more thorough
investigation. However, if the investigation includes an inquiry into Cambridge Analytica
they are likely to find that most of the fake news on Facebook that was influential in
throwing the election to Trump was the result of Breitbart strategy with no Russian
connection. Some Republicans may be willing to do this, but if it were conclusive I doubt
whether either the Democrats or the Trump administration would come out on top; there are
very few innocents that didn't add to the stench of the swamp. BTW: thanks for that valuable
link B.E.!
How will it end, or will it go on without end?
This feasting on blood that these demons depend
Will these diabolical devils ever be arraigned and indicted
And will we ever see the land of the free tried and convicted?
[more info at link below]
http://graysinfo.blogspot.ca/2017/04/is-this-land-of-free.html
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
-- -- --
"It has become embarrassing to be an American. Our country has had four war criminal
presidents in succession. Clinton twice launched military attacks on Serbia, ordering NATO to
bomb the former Yugoslavia twice, both in 1995 and in 1999, so that gives Bill two war
crimes. George W. Bush invaded Afghanistan and Iraq and attacked provinces of Pakistan and
Yemen from the air. That comes to four war crimes for Bush. Obama used NATO to destroy Libya
and sent mercenaries to destroy Syria, thereby committing two war crimes. Trump attacked
Syria with US forces, thereby becoming a war criminal early in his regime."
Paul Craig Roberts, Information Clearing House, April 15/16, 2017.
Yes, this "H.W., Kuwait" is the war crime that started the era of ruthless war-making in
which we are now trapped. It is the era of the kicked-down Vietnam Syndrome, where we are
free once again to enrich our mercenary corporations as we project our military force
'exceptionally' to 'creatively destroy' in our noble quest to guide the world to do things
our way. Some may recall how, back then, the pundit and Congressional classes deployed
propaganda that was the prototype for what we have since become accustomed to. "We are doing
this for peace, so all you dissenters shut up." Nobody then would acknowledge that we had
covertly -- and treacherously -- aided and abetted both Iran and Iraq during their 8-year war
that immediately preceded our war. (Hush, hush, wink, wink, said the media.) Thus, we had no
moral or legal standing to pronounce any country guilty of 'aggression', as we did Saddam's
country, who we had also green-lighted into settling his border dispute with force. That
alone was enough to reveal our collective disregard for Muslim life. The rules of engagement
that allowed water treatment plants to be bombed only confirmed our disregard. Warnings of
unintended (or intended?) consequences then, as later, went unheeded, such as the certainty
of blow back when one betrays so many peoples of the world who thought we had 'principles'.
Is it any wonder there was blow back, such as the 1993 World Trade Center bombing? (By the
way, Rep. Dick Gephardt, criticized in this article, eventually led a valiant but futile
effort to derail the war momentum in the House.) Peace.
Paul Craig Roberts is a bit off. Each of the war crimes he mentions were waging wars of
aggression. But there were a multitude of lesser war crimes committed in each of those wars.
And his count is off. Bush's wars on Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Yemen did not cease
being wars of aggression in 2008 simply because 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue acquired new tenants
that year. Obama gets credit for the continuation of those four wars in addition to the wars
first launched while he was in office. And Trump likewise must be given credit for his
continuations of wars of aggression launched by his predecessors.
Michael Kenny , March 19, 2018 at 11:01 am
For over 50 years, I have applied the rule that I never take the word of anyone who has
ever been connected with the CIA.
Skip Scott , March 20, 2018 at 8:21 am
Bullshit. I've seen your posts going back months, and you are a typical MSM propaganda
apologist. If you know anything about "Operation Mockingbird", then you know that all of your
past comments are "connected with the CIA".
Realist , March 20, 2018 at 11:17 pm
I'm telling ya, the guy seems like the amazing schizoid man these days.
faraday's law , March 19, 2018 at 11:05 am
I think the intelligence agencies are the true source of nearly all of the
problems..instead of gathering intelligence the IAs are effecting the events about which the
intelligence is supposed to be about. Certainty Intelligence agencies can be credited with
9/11 and the war on Iraq. Interconnected between nations, shuffling in open-source form,
secret sharing, false flag event production, and media delivered propaganda are activities
which define the intelligence agencies. Secret means slave citizens are denied the knowledge
that would allow them to understand how corrupt our societies are; so that the leaders of
such societies can continue in the office that commands the power.
Linda Wood , March 20, 2018 at 6:24 pm
Brilliantly stated, faraday's law. You've raised the all-important point that the
intelligence agencies are are not simply gathering intelligence, they are also engaging in
covert action, unlawfully, unaccountably, and unscrutinized. For all we know they could be
spending their virtually unlimited funds on creating our enemies, thereby creating a need for
our military industrial complex, the only entity that benefits from their work.
Dr. Ip , March 19, 2018 at 11:17 am
Seems like the two wings of the Anglo-American establishment alliance are working in
concert to defeat all who stand in their way and regain dominance over the western world. In
Britain, Teresa May and the Tories -- who are losing popularity to the resurgent Labour party
and its progressive leader Jeremy Corbyn -- are trying to blame Russia for a nerve agent
attack. The blame game over there is evidence-free of course and the lies and weasel-word
assertions are being effectively countered by, among others, ex-Ambassador Craig Murray (
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/
) in post after post.
Over here, where the establishment Democrats and their cabal of friendly old Republicans
(think: Mitt Romney) have lost their hold on direct power, they are trying to assert it
through their long-time henchmen in the intelligence services. Ever since Wild Bill Donovan
and the Dulles brothers, the intelligence services have been looking after their own survival
and proliferation (and the profits of their masters) while, as a side-benefit, the United
States got some security.
This clash of the services with Trump is only the latest in a series of clashes which
Presidents have mostly lost (Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, even Obama backed
down after he became President) unless they were card-carrying members of the clan like Bush
the First. So, you can expect Trump to lose as well unless he has the armed forces behind him
and can purge the services of his enemies. We actually might have a night of the long knives
coming. The question is of course if Caesar can survive the knifings!
Not that this Caesar is an Augustus or Marcus Aurelius
You present some interesting points, but John Brennan is no "Wild Bill Donovan" or
even a William Casey with the backup of the fraternity of OSS which no longer has meetings.
It seems to me that Brennan's and his diminishing followers' power lies with the media that
has done the dance of "valued sources" and perception manipulation of the masses. Actually,
"night of the long knives" occurred in Saudi Arabia when Prince "Bandar Bush" was captured
and "interviewed" not by the FBI or the CIA, but most probably by individuals with videos of
confessions which summarized the long history of the activities involving operatives
conducting activities during the presidential administrations of both political parties but
continuously for clans such as the Bush Dynasty and assorted associates within the
institutions that are now domestically profiting from the policies of the President.
Yes, Pres. Trump and his advisers (such as Peter Thiel and even possibly Erik Prince and
individuals of varied backgrounds possibly to even include Rabbis, Cardinals and other wise
men not members of the Brookings Institution or the CFR) knew the obstacles and the nature of
the enemies that would unit against a Populist Movement. In addition to advisers aware of the
cyber world and the underworld of intelligence/counter-intelligence operations, advisers
aware of the functioning of institutions and how institutions change their "culture" were
absolutely necessary when the "resistance" was sending the message non-stop that Pres. Trump
was only a temporary resident of the White House, and he would follow the path of Nixon, but
in short order! Well, it seems that even the FBI is cleaning house internally and even
Brennan's supporters within the old intelligence community leadership are giving their
endorsement to the President's choice for CIA Dir. and she has a loyal following among the
rank and file members of that institution.
Yes, ministers of Egypt wanted to present documents on the Muslim Brotherhood and it's
relationship with the Obama Adm.; and Prince Salman will probably bring gifts during his
State Visit. Pres. Trump and his team will decide the time and date to unwrap the evidence
that will shatter the camera lens and stop the presses! No knives or guns, please!
"Moral turpitude is a legal concept in the United States and some other countries that
refers to "an act or behavior that gravely violates the sentiment or accepted standard of the
community".[1] This term appears in U.S. immigration law beginning in the 19th
century.[2]"
I guess the "community" Brennan was referring to was the Deep State. Not willingly but
perhaps fortuitously Trump finds himself on the battlefield playing David and Goliath is
there wearing a stone proof helmet. Obama liked to go after leakers, so long as the were
underling leakers. If Trump is successful, which is to be hoped for but unlikely, how will
the New York Times and Washington Post fill their editorial pages?
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, which is a paraphrase but apt.
But beyond this crisis is the larger one of how to harness the Deep State to reflect
the nation's interests, not those few who run things now. Some say start to rid foreign
intelligence of its operational arm which has been at the forefront of regime change and
other mischief.
Sam F , March 19, 2018 at 1:00 pm
Yes, the CIA operations division should be made small because it is abused for the
hidden agendas of oligarchy, that the People would never approve. It should be monitored by
an agency reporting directly to Congress.
Joe Wallace , March 19, 2018 at 3:32 pm
Herman and Sam F:
"But beyond this crisis is the larger one of how to harness the Deep State to reflect the
nation's interests, not those few who run things now. Some say start to rid foreign
intelligence of its operational arm which has been at the forefront of regime change and
other mischief."
"Yes, the CIA operations division should be made small because it is abused for the hidden
agendas of oligarchy, that the People would never approve. It should be monitored by an
agency reporting directly to Congress."
Not until Citizens United v FEC is overturned will we have a foreign policy that reflects
the nation's interests, administered by elected officials who actually represent the will of
the electorate. The Deep State, through the CIA, pursues a foreign policy that is often
at odds with the wishes of the vast majority of the people in this country .
Sam F , March 20, 2018 at 6:55 am
Yes, but the judiciary that decided Citizens United are corruption leaders installed by
corrupt politicians installed by the dictatorship of the rich. Until the rich are overthrown
there will be no democracy in the US.
I believe the system has become corrupted. The same people who parrot the words "rule of
law" are according to numerous reports working hand in glove with terrorists. They even pass
"laws" against terrorism, while at the same time consorting with terrorists. I guess "our
hypocrite leaders" are above the law? The latest horrific terrorist bombing in Manchester
raises questions about the spy agency "MI5."
[read more at link below] http://graysinfo.blogspot.ca/2017/06/has-system-become-corrupted.html
mike k , March 19, 2018 at 12:13 pm
Our problem is how to shock the American public into awareness of who their real enemies
are: the Oligarchs, Deep State, Zionazis, MSM, MIC. What kind of major disclosure could start
the ball rolling? What kind of outrage would be too much for the zombified public to brush
off and continue sleeping? What the hell would it take to knock the middle class out of it's
putrid comfort zone?
Linda Wood , March 20, 2018 at 7:04 pm
zendeviant, I think it will come to a national refusal to fund illegal activity on the
part of our federal government. I don't think it will come to violence, which would
accomplish less than nothing. Instead, I think the American people will take legal action to
stop the hemorrhage of black funding.
Skip Scott , March 21, 2018 at 10:22 am
Linda-
Funding is not the issue. They just print the money and give it out. Our tax dollars are
just demanded to make sure we are in submission. The Pentagon isn't even audited, and at this
point would be impossible to audit. Legal action requires an uncompromised judiciary. Haven't
seen that in my lifetime. It will take real "boots on the ground" from the people to get any
real change. TPTB will only budge when their backs are against the wall.
Sam F , March 20, 2018 at 7:54 am
Fair question, Mike, although perhaps annoying at times to very well-meaning people.
Middle class comfort is indeed the security of a corrupt government, and so affluence
destroys democracy.
As you know, I have advocated a College of Policy Debate constituted to protect all points
of view, and to conduct moderated text-only debate among university experts of several
disciplines, of the status and possibilities of each world region, and the policy options.
Debate summaries commented by all sides are to be made available for public study and
comment.
The debates would require a higher standard of argument in foreign and domestic policy on
all sides, and would have much reduced the group-think that led to our endless mad wars since
WWII. Extreme and naïve politicians would be easier to expose, and media commentators
would have a starting point and a standard for media investigation and analysis.
While most politicians will ignore and attack careful analysis, and "the common man avoids
the truth [because] it is dangerous, no good can come of it, and it doesn't pay" (Mencken),
the CPD can bring the knowledge of society into public debate, educate the electorate,
discourage propaganda, and expose the wrongs of society and the corruption of government that
desperately need reform.
If such a rational mechanism fails to awaken the public and cause reform, then we are
doomed to overthrow of the dictatorship of the rich, requiring far greater degradation to
motivate the people, and greater violence than any previous revolution due to the advance of
technology. I fear that both will in fact occur, after a long era of US corruption.
Deniz , March 19, 2018 at 12:36 pm
Brennans screech confirms that Trump is not just smoke and mirrors. He really hit the
bureaucracy where it hurts, their pensions -- brilliant move.
orwell , March 19, 2018 at 1:15 pm
It's nice to see that everybody here agrees about this situation. Really refreshing, and
no pro-CIA/FBI TROLLS !!!!!!
I remember that Larry Johnson described this threat in detail more than a year ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMkR_5Sesgg
It was on RT but he made a lot of sense. Appears to have been vindicated.
backwardsevolution , March 19, 2018 at 4:39 pm
Herry Smith -- thanks for posting that interview. Larry Johnson was excellent, articulate,
and he's going to be proven right.
Gregory Kruse , March 19, 2018 at 2:05 pm
"Shortly before his re-election in 2012, Obama reportedly was braced at a small dinner
party by wealthy donors who wanted to know whatever happened to the 'progressive Obama.' The
President did not take kindly to the criticism, rose from the table, and said, 'Don't you
remember what happened to Dr. King?'"
Dr. Ip , March 19, 2018 at 3:06 pm
" Trump and Brennan represent equally criminal factions of the ruling class, divided
over foreign policy, particularly in the civil war in Syria, and more generally towards
Russia.
Brennan and the Democrats speak for powerful sections of the military-intelligence
apparatus embittered by the failure of US intervention in Syria and Trump's apparent
abandonment of the Islamic fundamentalist groups armed by the CIA to fight the Russian and
Iranian-backed government of President Bashar al-Assad. They want to push further into the
Syrian slaughter, regardless of the risk of open military conflict with Russia, the world's
second strongest nuclear power. "
It is imperative to bring about a cleansing of the FBI and DOJ, removing high-ranking
officials who place politics and personal agendas ahead of enforcing the law fairly and
without bias. Will that mean a "war" with the deep state? Or are there enough people within
the FBI and DOJ who WANT to remove the stains from their agencies? If so, we may see more
corruption exposed in the coming days.
A cleansing of the CIA or NSA is probably not feasible, even though it is sorely needed. If
the president tried, he would probably be regime-changed.
Bob Van Noy , March 19, 2018 at 3:39 pm
Craig Murray has been totally reliable on Russiagate from the beginning. There is an
excellent synopsis of his web reporting with commentary at Unz for those interested.
http://www.unz.com/article/russian-to-judgement/
JWalters , March 19, 2018 at 10:24 pm
Excellent link. Thanks very much. His theory that the murder of the ex-Russian spy in
England was an Israeli false flag operation seems to me the most plausible theory, for the
reasons he states. And it fits so well into the overall picture.
KiwiAntz , March 19, 2018 at 4:03 pm
What a Banana Republic America has become? Russia has just had it's election & we have
had all the usual negative comments by Western Leaders regarding Putin & Russia's
supposed lack of a democratic process in voting?
Russians, at least, voted for a well known individual in Putin with a proven track record,
so they know exactly what they can look forward to, secure in that knowledge of certainty?
Russia has no Deepstate puppeteer's pulling the strings behind the scenes!
Contrast that with America? The whole Political system is corrupt & dominated by
Corporate money paying off its Leaders? The sick joke is America claims it's a Democracy
which it isn't? It's a Fascist Oligarchy ruled by a unelected Deepstate, & it doesn't
matter what Party or Leader you voted for, the Deepstate, shadow Govt never just marches on
& rules?
It also raises the issue, is there any point in American's actually getting out &
voting every 4 yrs, they may as well just stay home & have a beer instead, as this
electoral process is a complete & utter farce! America's Deepstate Govt doesn't need or
care for your vote? Your vote doesn't matter in the overall scheme of things? And that, by
definition, is what America has become, a Banana Republic!
Typingperson , March 20, 2018 at 12:47 am
True. And sad.
Michael Wilk , March 19, 2018 at 4:06 pm
Speaking for myself, I'd love nothing more than to see that degenerate orange-painted
child take the intel agencies and their scum-willing leaders down several pegs, just to
remind them who is supposed to be working for whom. Alas, the Great Orange Dope hasn't the
brains to do anything but screw things up. But give the boy credit for trying, bless his
toupée-glue-crusted head.
backwardsevolution , March 19, 2018 at 5:04 pm
Dumb like a fox: to be smart or cunning, but pretend you don't know what you're doing.
President Trump is letting them hang themselves. As someone said above, he is smoking them
out. It is working beautifully too. Who, besides Trump, could have or would have put up with
what he's had to contend with? It took a tough, hard-shelled individual who wouldn't cow,
someone who would hang in there long enough while the others (the Inspector General,
intelligence committees) could do their work.
I grant you that President Trump's brain is not like Slick Willy's or polished smooth like
the last Narcissist in Chief, but he's right about a lot of things: you can't have a country
without borders; you can't have a country without making your own steel and a healthy
manufacturing base; and you can't have a country run by the intelligence agencies.
I'm putting my money on Trump.
Michael Wilk , March 19, 2018 at 5:50 pm
That might be true if this country respected the borders of other nations or if it
actually brought back steel-making and a healthy manufacturing base. But Caligula Drumpf
never intended to bring any of that back, nor will he even try. Oh, he'll make a few token
statements bragging about his exaggerated actions having actually achieved success, but
that's all it will be is empty boasting. Let's face it: Drumpf supporters were had.
backwardsevolution , March 19, 2018 at 6:11 pm
Too early to call. It took years to ship all of the jobs overseas (thanks, Slick Willy!),
and it will take years to bring them back. Did you think Trump was magical, that he could
bring the jobs back in one year with the wave of a wand or something? I mean, he's been a tad
busy fighting the intelligence community, hasn't he?
If given the chance, he will secure the borders, decrease immigration, institute a
merit-based immigration system, bring some jobs back (a lot are being automated). The
globalists are losing, but it takes time.
The Swamp will take time to drain as well, but it's proceeding along quite nicely.
But Drumpf won't even try to bring the jobs back. This is not a matter of how quickly he
can do something he's never going to do, but about his will to actually follow through on his
campaign promises. There's simply no reason to believe Drumpf will bother. Why would he? He's
got no stake in bringing manufacturing back to the U.S.
Bart Hansen , March 19, 2018 at 5:28 pm
That "six ways from Sunday" saying may keep Schumer in line; but for Trump, what could
they possibly have against him that would in the least embarrass or bother his voters,
himself or his family? Day after day he crosses a variety of moral red lines.
F. G. Sanford , March 19, 2018 at 6:22 pm
That "moral turpitude" reference seems to imply that there is some -- yet to be
revealed -- scandal held in abeyance, fully capable of delivering a decisive blow. And, the
"deep staters" are merely waiting for the right moment to pull this shark-toothed rabbit out
of the hat. I can't help but wonder what you suspect they'll try next, Ray but this
whole thing reminds me of an old friend's advice given to me during a dark and desolate
period of my own life: "If they had something really good, they'd have used it by now."
jaycee , March 19, 2018 at 7:23 pm
A word of caution -- the intensely partisan fighting may induce a certain fascination as a
spectator, like eye-witnessing the aftermath of a vehicle accident, but what is happening is
without precedent, at least in modern history. Former heads of the nation's top
intelligence organization do not attack sitting presidents, let alone in such a visceral
vituperative and public fashion. This is indication of deep fissures, quite beyond politics
as most citizens understand. As the World Socialist Web Site published today: "There is no
recent parallel for statements and actions such as those of the past three days. One would
have to go back to the period before the American Civil War to find equivalent levels of
tension, which in the late 1850s erupted in violence in the halls of Congress before
exploding in full-scale military conflict."
Trump is a maverick outsider so it's hard to get a handle on what or who he
represents, but the Brennan/deep state side of the dispute is very much aligned with the
corporate DNC Democratic Party. That they seem, by Brennan's comments, to consider themselves
as the representation of "America" as they abandon constitutional and etiquette norms and
articulate visceral hatred towards political rivals should serve as fair warning.
backwardsevolution , March 19, 2018 at 8:25 pm
jaycee -- great post. I agree with what you've said: what is happening IS without
precedent, Brennan/deep state ARE aligned with the Democrats, and they believe only THEY
represent the true "America".
Dangerous game by very dangerous people who are systematically destroying the Constitution
in their quest to retain power.
Over and over I've heard people who know Trump well say that he listens to them, but then
makes up his own mind. They say he wants to stay true to what he promised to the American
people, that that is actually important to him. Of course he's willing to compromise some,
but he wants the basics of what he promised.
If the Swamp takes him out, the lid is going to come off.
Kevin Zeese: "He basically is a Senator for Israel. He totally supports the Israeli
foreign policy viewpoint, which is a very hawkish, if you were a Republican you would call
him a neocon."
Ariel Gold: "He has come out in strong opposition to the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions
movement and was very supportive of New York Governor Cuomo's order to ban BDS in New York
state, and Schumer made a direct statement in support of that."
Thomas Hedges: "Schumer's staunch support for Israel has prompted him for example, to
criticize the Obama administration, when in 2016, the United States abstained from a UN
Security Council resolution re-affirming something the Council had almost unanimously upheld
since 1979. Namely, that Israel's settlement building projects on Palestinian land violated
international law."
Ben Norton: "Schumer criticized the Obama administration for abstaining on this very basic
resolution, which every other country voted for. So the US was still a pariah, because the US
didn't vote for it, it just abstained on it. But to Schumer that was not enough, he wanted it
to be completely vetoed, because anything that Israel does is sacrosanct, and anyone who
criticizes it, in Schumer's eyes, is not someone he wants to ally with politically, so he'd
rather affectively ally with Trump."
Thomas Hedges: "The most recent showing of that allegiance was [ ] when Schumer supported
Trump's decision to launch an air strike on an Air Force base in Syria, something Israel also
strongly supported. [ ] But perhaps Schumer's greatest show of allegiance to Israel, was his
decision to oppose the Iran nuclear deal, without which experts have warned, would put the
United States and Iran on a collision course."
Ben Norton: "Under President Obama, Schumer was one of the most prominent Democrats to
oppose the Iran nuclear deal, and he was of course fearmongering about Iran, which to him is
the devil incarnate, and he actually made factually false statements about the nuclear
agreement, and claimed that it would allow Iran in 10 years to produce nuclear weapons
etc."
Thomas Hedges: "Leading up to his decision, Schumer reassured Zionists that he was
consulting the most credentialed men in Washington, including Henry Kissinger, an opponent of
the deal, and the man who orchestrated the violent coup in Chile that toppled its
democratically elected leader, as well as the architect of the very bloody Vietnam war."
Chuck Schumer: I spent some time with Dr. Kissinger, I'm spending time with
excellence.
Ariel Gold: So it threatened to pull us into another war, and we're back in that threat
again with Trump winning the election we hear a lot about undoing the Iran nuclear deal, and
it's one of the things that Israel has been saying they would like to see come out of the
Trump administration.
Thomas Hedges: Schumer's willingness to oppose the deal early on, which created an opening
for other undecided Democrats to do the same, is a strong display of support for Israel.
JWalters , March 19, 2018 at 10:32 pm
Spot on about Chuck Schumer. The following link, from a Jewish-run, anti-Zionist website,
proves that Schumer lies to Americans for the benefit of Israel. He puts Israel's interests
above those of the US. He is an Israeli mole in the US government. "Schumer says he
opposed the Iran deal because of 'threat to Israel'"http://mondoweiss.net/2018/03/schumer-opposed-because/
Opus Doi , March 19, 2018 at 7:40 pm
America will triumph over you. Wo wo wo. Wo wo wo. Doo doo-doo doo doo! ?
Brennan is history's most hilarious DCI. His grandiose hissy fit suggests that CIA
continues the Dulles tradition of infiltrating the civil service with 'focal points -'
illegal CIA moles infiltrating US government agencies -- and the IG fumigated one key out in
firing McCabe.
backwardsevolution , March 19, 2018 at 8:35 pm
Opus Doi -- and the MSM and the Left see the "crime" being that McCabe was fired, not
that McCabe broke the law. Kind of like when they didn't see a crime in Hillary using her own
personal servers, but saw the crime as being that the emails might have been hacked by a
foreign government. That they had no evidence of this didn't matter.
Brennan sounds like a desperate man. They must be getting closer to him.
Opus Doi , March 20, 2018 at 7:56 am
See how this works? The article is about Brennan. The comment is about Brennan's CIA.
But immersive CIA propaganda immediately diverts the topic to CIA's synthetic warring
factions, Hillary! Trump! Hillary! Trump!
People need to come to grips with the fact that the past four presidents -- the ones you
hate and the ones you like -- were all drawn from CIA nomenklatura. DCI Bush; Bill Clinton,
recruited by Cord Meyer at Oxford; spy brat and hopeless Arubusto 'wildcatter' GW Bush; and
Obama, son of spooks, grandson of spooks, greased into Harvard by Alwaleed bin-Talal's
bagman, invisible student at Columbia, honored guest of the future acting president of
Pakistan before his career even started. Before CIA took over directly they thwarted (Truman,
Eisenhower's disarmament plan, Carter's human rights initiative,) purged (Nixon, Carter,)
shot at (Ford,) and shot (Kennedy, Reagan) their presidential figureheads.
CIA runs your country. You're not going to get anywhere until you stop bickering about
their presidential puppet rulers.
Kenneth Rapoza , March 19, 2018 at 8:46 pm
Who makes the laws? He who makes the laws can break the laws. I would bet my life that
Brenna, Hillary and all the "deep state" actors do not see one second in jail nor pay a
nickel in fines.
backwardsevolution , March 19, 2018 at 10:22 pm
Comey and McCabe were fired for breaking the law. Lots of laws have been broken. The only
thing separating the U.S. and a Third World country is the Rule of Law. Start breaking laws
and looking the other way on corruption and you've got a Banana Republic. Jail time coming up
for some of them.
E. Leete , March 20, 2018 at 1:29 pm
"Give me control over a nation's money and I care not who makes the laws." -- Meyer A
Rothschild
Whoever controls the creation and destruction of money, as well as credit regulation (this
is the deep state; the massive financial matrix including the MIC -- all run by wealthpower
giants with their insatiable desires for power to control nothing less than the entire
planet) controls the government including the spook/spy agencies (this is the shadow
government).
the two are intimately connected, of course, and function thru unbridled unconstitutional
powers of secrecy -- empowered by the state secrets privilege
nothing changes until we once and for all time do away with the bankers having the power
to issue our money as debt
because, again, it all starts with private control of money creation -- the most enormous
farce in all of history and it rules yet today
"The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large
centers has owned the government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson." -- Franklin Delano
Roosevelt
"Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no
allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people." -- Theodore Roosevelt
"Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some
of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid
of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized,
so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not
speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it." -- Woodrow Wilson
The mention of John Brennan brings to mind the bizarre death of Rolling Stone's
writer, Michael Hastings, who was reported to be working on a story about Brennan just before
he had his "accident".
Imagine if a Trump tweet alleged that a man who was found guilty by the FBI was really
innocent. Imagine if Trump tweeted that a man was really guilty despite no evidence found
after almost 2 years of investigation.
What would be the response to either tweet be from the MS Media? Our MS Media is
nothing more than Democrat Propaganda, and that situation will doom us to Russian
interference. Every election the Russians can do the same as 2016: release the truth about
justice not served.
Skip Scott , March 20, 2018 at 1:00 pm
Michael-
I'm no fan of Trump, but Hillary had absolutely no intention to "address the needs of the
people". They are all globalizing warmongers who know how to say what needs to be said to get
elected, and then do whatever their paymasters tell them. Hillary's speeches to her banker
buddies unearthed via Podesta's email account show that she felt it necessary to have
"private views" separate from her "public views". How much plainer could it be than that!
j. D. D. , March 20, 2018 at 7:59 am
"Does one collect a full pension in jail?" Brilliant, provocative and persuasive, in the
way that any follower of Ray McGovern has come to expect.
Abe , March 21, 2018 at 11:38 am
As the Russia-gate fictions erode and Israel-gate emerges, the Hasbara troll army is
scraping the bottom of the propaganda barrel.
Here we have "j. D. D." and the shrill refrain of "BobS"
Comrade "BobS" and fellow Hasbara troll "will" are positively obsessed about Reagan era
"dirty wars" Central and South America. That's understandable.
Israel has advised, trained and equipped, and ran "dirty war" operations in the Latin
American "dirty war" conflicts in Argentina, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, and Colombia.
In the case of the Salvadoran "bloodbath", the Israelis were present from the beginning.
Besides arms sales, they helped train ANSESAL, the secret police who were later to form the
framework of the infamous death squads that would kill tens of thousands of mostly civilian
activists.
McGovern certainly understands what sort of "ally" Israel can be.
So keep on yappin' "BobS". We got you.
IsItAnyWonder , March 20, 2018 at 11:10 am
USMC activated. Well, I'd put my two-cents on POTUS. Just like we've all seen
throughout our lives when the supposed tough guy starts making threats he is really scared
Sh**less. Lots of these clowns are just going to disappear during the late night hours of the
day never to be heard from again.
Our society is sitting on a knifes edge, anything at all happens to Trump and the entire
nation will just burn to the ground with literal blood in the streets. No one needs to pound
their chest and say what tough guy acts they will do since most of the heavy lifting is
already going on with Spec Ops and very soon USMC.
Most of us would not have the skills are knowledge to do what is needed. Foggy Bottom is
about to get a big enema along with the CIA to our benefit. Guys like Brennan are scared
rats in a sinking ship, good riddance!
geeyp , March 20, 2018 at 3:05 pm
Excuse me Mr. Williamson, I think you are precisely right. This indeed is the time to get
it all out. Expose it all. Lay it all out and go for it. These people have it coming to
them.
will , March 20, 2018 at 1:23 pm
What an amazingly illuminating article. Devin Nunes, who perfectly ok with wire taps
as long as the target aren't from his party is somehow a noble individual. While I agree that
Brennan should be in prison, it should be for torturing people ...
Abe , March 21, 2018 at 12:18 pm
As the Russia-gate fictions erode and Israel-gate emerges, the Hasbara propaganda troll
army keeps on sending in the clowns.
Comrade "will" and his fellow Hasbara troll "BobS" recite the same propaganda script,
going on and on about the war in Latin America.
Of course, the trolls never mention the fact that the US government, especially the CIA,
recruited an all-too-eager Israel to "support" the Central and South American military forces
and intelligence units engaged in violent and widespread repression during the Reagan and
Bush era "dirty wars".
Recently declassified 1983 US government documents have obtained by the Washington,
DC-based National Security Archives through the Freedom of Information Act. One such
declassified document is a 1983 memo from the notorious Colonel Oliver North of the Reagan
Administration's National Security Council and reads: "As discussed with you yesterday, I
asked CIA, Defense, and State to suggest practical assistance which the Israelis might offer
in Guatemala and El Salvador."
Another document, this time a 1983 cable from the US Ambassador in Guatemala to Washington
Frederic Chapin shows the money trail. Chapin says that at a time when the US did not want to
be seen directly assisting Guatemala, "we have reason to believe that our good friends the
Israelis are prepared, or already have, offered substantial amounts of military equipment to
the GOG (Government of Guatemala) on credit terms up to 20 years (I pass over the importance
of making huge concessionary loans to Israel so that it can make term loans in our own
backyard)."
The Reagan and Bush era "dirty wars" were bad enough. The Israeli-Saudi-US Axis jumped the
shark with Bush the Lesser and Obama wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria. Under Trump,
Israel remains only to happy to continue providing "support" for Al Qaeda and ISIS.
So keep on blabbin', Hasbara troll team mates "will" and "BobS". We got you.
Drogon , March 20, 2018 at 6:45 pm
"It is an open secret that the CIA has been leaking like the proverbial sieve over the
last two years or so" And this is supposed to be a bad thing? I'm sorry, but the more leaks
the better IMO.
Drogon, You're right; usually the more leaks the better ..BUT these are "AUTHORIZED" leaks
to co-opted journalists and PR people like Palmieri designed to give some "substance" to
Russia-gate, for example. ray
Senators Mark Udall and
Ron Wyden are upset about something, they just can't say what. In a
letter
sent to the National Security Agency this week about a fact sheet on its surveillance programs, the senators complained about
what they refer to only as "the inaccuracy". The inaccuracy is "significant". The inaccuracy could "decrease public confidence in
the NSA's openness and its commitment to protecting Americans' constitutional rights". But, because the information underlying it
is classified, the inaccuracy can't be described.
This is either a frustrating illustration of the absurdities of America's secrecy regime, or the start of a pretty solid vaudeville
act.
The frenzied public debate over the NSA leaks has
focused on the correctness of the government surveillance programs themselves. But America cannot properly debate these and future
surveillance efforts until it decides what can be debated.
As an official in the first Obama administration, I worked in jobs requiring top secret clearance. I know firsthand how essential
secrecy can be to effecting policy goals and how devastating leaks can be. I navigated diplomatic relationships threatened by the
indiscriminate release of WikiLeaks documents, and volunteered on the taskforce that sifted through them, piecing together the damage
done. But it is also true that a culture of over-classification has shielded too much from public debate and that more could be disclosed
without damaging the efficacy of intelligence programs.
Trillions of new pages of text are classified each year. More than 4.8 million people now have a security clearance, including
low level contractors like Edward Snowden . A committee
established by Congress, the Public Interest Declassification Board, warned in December that rampant over-classification is "imped[ing]
informed government decisions and an informed public" and, worse, "enabl[ing] corruption and malfeasance". In one instance it documented,
a government agency was found to be classifying one petabyte of new data every 18 months, the equivalent of 20m filing cabinets filled
with text.
It is difficult to argue that all or even most of that information should be classified. By keeping too many secrets, America
has created fertile ground for their escape. Already, the Obama administration has been forced to initiate six espionage prosecutions
for leaks – twice as many as every previous administration combined.
It has also left the American people disillusioned and mistrustful. This is especially true of a new generation raised in a networked
world that has made them expect far greater transparency from the institutions around them. According to a recent
Pew
Research Center/ USA Today poll , a clear majority of young people (60%) feels that the NSA leaks served the public interest.
The leaks illustrate how bad the lack of trust has become - and present an opportunity for greater disclosure.
There is no doubt that some secrecy is essential to the efficacy of surveillance programs like those revealed by the
NSA leaks. The specific sources and methods of such programs
should be protected. However, it is entirely possible to protect those specifics while also broadly disclosing to the public the
scope of information subject to collection, and the rationale behind doing so.
That level of disclosure should be the norm for future programs, and can still be instated in the case of the current NSA surveillance
programs. Two Congressmen – Democrat Adam Schiff, who sits on the House Intelligence Committee, and Republican Todd Rokita – introduced
a bill last week that would call on the Department of Justice to declassify the legal justifications for NSA surveillance efforts.
Universal public disclosure of individual decisions could impede the efficacy of the program, but there is no reason the Department
of Justice can't disclose its generalized legal reasoning. That's a drawer in the stadium of filing cabinets that America can safely
open.
"You can't have 100% security and then have 100% privacy," President Obama said in the days immediately following the leaks. "We're
going to have to make some choices as a society." But the government can and should let Americans know what choices it is that they're
making. The intelligence community might find Americans, particularly young Americans most suspicious of government institutions,
more sympathetic to their delicate balancing act as informed participants.
Jeepers Cripes, y'all need to get a room and ass-hammer it out!
Latter Day America, there are no pristine people to choose from to populate any goddamned post in government, period! Everybody
has baggage, everybody is compromised.
This is the latter days of Rome 2.0 dipshits, got it? It is why one batch of clowns find it impossible to see one thing Trump
(or anybody in any country...except Czar Valdimir Putin in Russia...for whatever reason...default/nobody else to pick...when the
real answer even there is none of the above though many people refuse to see it) can do right and while the other batch is mystified
at those incapable of seeing (albeit sometime thin) distinctions between evils in the era of this-is-as-good-as-it'll-get. Cue
the inevitable endless circle jerk.
Trump, and all of DC have as much power to affect what is coming as a flea does trying to bench press 300 lbs. Those of them
who are aware of the true situation are scared shit less. Pompeo's appointment is just validating what is really about to come
down! When they can't intimidate the public into submission, they will try using a club.
Thanks for saying that. I detest Clinton and I want JUSTICE for what the evil treasonous psychopaths did in 2016, but I also
know Bibi and MBS have Trump on a short leash and Islamaphobes fill his home and cabinet.
The soft coup is now complete and a war with Iran inevitable.
"... If on November 6 the Democratic Party makes the net gain of 24 seats needed to win control of the House of Representatives, former CIA agents, military commanders, and State Department officials will provide the margin of victory and hold the balance of power in Congress. ..."
"... Since its establishment in 1947 -- under the administration of Democratic President Harry Truman -- the CIA has been legally barred from carrying out within the United States the activities which were its mission overseas: spying, infiltration, political provocation, assassination. These prohibitions were given official lip service but ignored in practice. ..."
"... The Church Committee in particular featured the exposure of CIA assassination plots against foreign leaders like Fidel Castro, Patrice Lumumba in the Congo, General Rene Schneider in Chile, and many others. More horrors were uncovered: MK-Ultra, in which the CIA secretly subjected unwitting victims to experimentation with drugs like LSD; ..."
"... Operation Mockingbird, in which the CIA recruited journalists to plant stories and smear opponents; Operation Chaos, an effort to spy on the antiwar movement and sow disruption; Operation Shamrock, under which the telecommunications companies shared traffic with the NSA for more than a quarter century. ..."
"... The Church and Pike committee exposures, despite their limitations, had a devastating political effect. The CIA and its allied intelligence organizations in the Pentagon and NSA became political lepers, reviled as the enemies of democratic rights. The CIA in particular was widely viewed as "Murder Incorporated." ..."
"... The last 15 years have seen a massive expansion of the CIA and other intelligence agencies, backed by an avalanche of media propaganda, with endless television programs and movies glorifying American spies and assassins ..."
"... The media campaign alleging Russian intervention in the 2016 US elections has been based entirely on handouts from the CIA, NSA and FBI, transmitted by reporters who are either unwitting stooges or conscious agents of the military-intelligence apparatus. This has been accompanied by the recruitment of a cadre of top CIA and military officials to serve as highly paid "experts" and "analysts" for the television networks . ..."
"... This process was well under way in the administration of Barack Obama, which endorsed and expanded the various operations of the intelligence agencies abroad and within the United States. Obama's endorsed successor, Hillary Clinton, ran openly as the chosen candidate of the Pentagon and CIA, touting her toughness as a future commander-in-chief and pledging to escalate the confrontation with Russia, both in Syria and Ukraine. ..."
"... The CIA has spearheaded the anti-Russia campaign against Trump in large part because of resentment over the disruption of its operations in Syria, and it has successfully used the campaign to force a shift in the policy of the Trump administration on that score. ..."
"... The 2018 election campaign marks a new stage: for the first time, military-intelligence operatives are moving in large numbers to take over a political party and seize a major role in Congress. The dozens of CIA and military veterans running in the Democratic Party primaries are "former" agents of the military-intelligence apparatus. This "retired" status is, however, purely nominal. Joining the CIA or the Army Rangers or the Navy SEALs is like joining the Mafia: no one ever actually leaves; they just move on to new assignments. ..."
In a three-part series published last week, the
World Socialist Web Site documented an unprecedented influx of intelligence and
military operatives into the Democratic Party. More than 50 such military-intelligence
candidates are seeking the Democratic nomination in the 102 districts identified by the
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee as its targets for 2018. These include both vacant
seats and those with Republican incumbents considered vulnerable in the event of a significant
swing to the Democrats.
If on November 6 the Democratic Party makes the net gain of 24 seats needed to win control
of the House of Representatives, former CIA agents, military commanders, and State Department
officials will provide the margin of victory and hold the balance of power in Congress. The
presence of so many representatives of the military-intelligence apparatus in the legislature
is a situation without precedent in the history of the United States.
Since its establishment in 1947 -- under the administration of Democratic President Harry
Truman -- the CIA has been legally barred from carrying out within the United States the
activities which were its mission overseas: spying, infiltration, political provocation,
assassination. These prohibitions were given official lip service but ignored in practice.
In the wake of the Watergate crisis and the forced resignation of President Richard Nixon,
reporter Seymour Hersh published the first devastating exposure of the CIA domestic spying, in
an investigative report for the New York Times on December 22, 1974. This report
triggered the establishment of the Rockefeller Commission, a White House effort at damage
control, and Senate and House select committees, named after their chairmen, Senator Frank
Church and Representative Otis Pike, which conducted hearings and made serious attempts to
investigate and expose the crimes of the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency.
The Church Committee in particular featured the exposure of CIA assassination plots against
foreign leaders like Fidel Castro, Patrice Lumumba in the Congo, General Rene Schneider in
Chile, and many others. More horrors were uncovered: MK-Ultra, in which the CIA secretly
subjected unwitting victims to experimentation with drugs like LSD;
Operation Mockingbird, in
which the CIA recruited journalists to plant stories and smear opponents; Operation Chaos, an
effort to spy on the antiwar movement and sow disruption; Operation Shamrock, under which the
telecommunications companies shared traffic with the NSA for more than a quarter century.
The Church and Pike committee exposures, despite their limitations, had a devastating
political effect. The CIA and its allied intelligence organizations in the Pentagon and NSA
became political lepers, reviled as the enemies of democratic rights. The CIA in particular was
widely viewed as "Murder Incorporated."
In that period, it would have been unthinkable either for dozens of "former"
military-intelligence operatives to participate openly in electoral politics, or for them to be
welcomed and even recruited by the two corporate-controlled parties. The Democrats and
Republicans sought to distance themselves, at least for public relations purposes, from the spy
apparatus, while the CIA publicly declared that it would no longer recruit or pay American
journalists to publish material originating in Langley, Virginia. Even in the 1980s, the
Iran-Contra scandal involved the exposure of the illegal operations of the Reagan
administration's CIA director, William Casey.
How times have changed. One of the main functions of the "war on terror," launched in the
wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, has been to
rehabilitate the US spy apparatus and give it a public relations makeover as the supposed
protector of the American people against terrorism.
This meant disregarding the well-known connections between Osama bin Laden and other Al
Qaeda leaders and the CIA, which recruited them for the anti-Soviet guerrilla war in
Afghanistan, waged from 1979 to 1989, as well as the still unexplained role of the US
intelligence agencies in facilitating the 9/11 attacks themselves.
The last 15 years have seen a massive expansion of the CIA and other intelligence agencies,
backed by an avalanche of media propaganda, with endless television programs and movies
glorifying American spies and assassins ( 24 , Homeland , Zero Dark
Thirty , etc.)
The American media has been directly recruited to this effort. Judith Miller of the New
York Times , with her reports on "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq, is only the most
notorious of the stable of "plugged-in" intelligence-connected journalists at the
Times , the Washington Post , and the major television networks. More
recently, the Times has installed as its editorial page editor James Bennet, brother
of a Democratic senator and son of the former administrator of the Agency for International
Development, which has been accused of working as a front for the operations of the Central
Intelligence Agency.
The media campaign alleging Russian intervention in the 2016 US elections has been based
entirely on handouts from the CIA, NSA and FBI, transmitted by reporters who are either
unwitting stooges or conscious agents of the military-intelligence apparatus. This has been
accompanied by the recruitment of a cadre of top CIA and military officials to serve as highly
paid "experts" and "analysts" for the television networks .
In centering its opposition to Trump on the bogus allegations of Russian interference, while
essentially ignoring Trump's attacks on immigrants and democratic rights, his alignment with
ultra-right and white supremacist groups, his attacks on social programs like Medicaid and food
stamps, and his militarism and threats of nuclear war, the Democratic Party has embraced the
agenda of the military-intelligence apparatus and sought to become its main political
voice.
This process was well under way in the administration of Barack Obama, which endorsed and
expanded the various operations of the intelligence agencies abroad and within the United
States. Obama's endorsed successor, Hillary Clinton, ran openly as the chosen candidate of the
Pentagon and CIA, touting her toughness as a future commander-in-chief and pledging to escalate
the confrontation with Russia, both in Syria and Ukraine.
The CIA has spearheaded the anti-Russia campaign against Trump in large part because of
resentment over the disruption of its operations in Syria, and it has successfully used the
campaign to force a shift in the policy of the Trump administration on that score. A chorus of
media backers -- Nicholas Kristof and Roger Cohen of the New York Times , the entire
editorial board of the Washington Post , most of the television networks -- are part
of the campaign to pollute public opinion and whip up support on alleged "human rights" grounds
for an expansion of the US war in Syria.
The 2018 election campaign marks a new stage: for the first time, military-intelligence
operatives are moving in large numbers to take over a political party and seize a major role in
Congress. The dozens of CIA and military veterans running in the Democratic Party primaries are
"former" agents of the military-intelligence apparatus. This "retired" status is, however,
purely nominal. Joining the CIA or the Army Rangers or the Navy SEALs is like joining the
Mafia: no one ever actually leaves; they just move on to new assignments.
The CIA operation in 2018 is unlike its overseas activities in one major respect: it is not
covert. On the contrary, the military-intelligence operatives running in the Democratic
primaries boast of their careers as spies and special ops warriors. Those with combat
experience invariably feature photographs of themselves in desert fatigues or other uniforms on
their websites. And they are welcomed and given preferred positions, with Democratic Party
officials frequently clearing the field for their candidacies.
The working class is confronted with an extraordinary political situation. On the one hand,
the Republican Trump administration has more military generals in top posts than any other
previous government. On the other hand, the Democratic Party has opened its doors to a
"friendly takeover" by the intelligence agencies.
The incredible power of the military-intelligence agencies over the entire government is an
expression of the breakdown of American democracy. The central cause of this breakdown is the
extreme concentration of wealth in the hands of a tiny elite, whose interests the state
apparatus and its "bodies of armed men" serve. Confronted by an angry and hostile working
class, the ruling class is resorting to ever more overt forms of authoritarian rule.
Millions of working people want to fight the Trump administration and its ultra-right
policies. But it is impossible to carry out this fight through the "axis of evil" that connects
the Democratic Party, the bulk of the corporate media, and the CIA. The influx of
military-intelligence candidates puts paid to the longstanding myth, peddled by the trade
unions and pseudo-left groups, that the Democrats represent a "lesser evil." On the contrary,
working people must confront the fact that within the framework of the corporate-controlled
two-party system, they face two equally reactionary evils.
Trump's game looks more and more like a V2.0 of Obama's "bait and switch" game... Another "change we can believe in" scam to
artificially extend the shelf life of neoliberal as a social system.
Notable quotes:
"... My take on his support: DT support is far higher than one would expect (duh.. it just isn't visible in the MSM, remember I predicted he would win when he threw his hat in). ..."
"... DT has lost some who voted for him, typically 'anything but Hillary' types, "give him a chance", who are disapointed at his poor performance on some/any/all issues. Some others have checked out of any involvement in MS pols. and have joined Doomsters, Refusniks, and even (imho) to my surprise, quasi-anarchists (who lack a platform.) ..."
"... The rapidly degrading US socio-economic landscape is no doubt responsible, more so than the person of DT. (Arguably he is contributing to the decline, other story.) Poverty, sagging life expectancy, opioid crisis, homelessness, student debt, crumbling infrastructure, cuts in social aid or 'benefits' as the brits say, no future generation, etc. ..."
"... On the other hand, DT supporters have become more 'radical and committed' ..."
"... The USA has become completely a-political, an oligarchy run by a convoluted circuit of top-dogs and gals, fights going on at the top (mafia 1 vs. team 2) for grabbing the leftovers of power/revenue/capture/ etc., not new but now evident. ..."
"... The top 20% chooses sides, as they have to, merely in function of who is paying them, where their status comes from, what hopes for children. The rest can check out and face their fate, or choose a cult, a tribe The next question is, what are the attitudes to civil war? How is that going to play out? ..."
I keep vague track of Trump support by consulting various sites. DT enthusiasts are all very
keen on GAB, the censorship on twitter - reddit - youtube and other pop. drives them totally
crazy.
My take on his support: DT support is far higher than one would expect (duh.. it just isn't
visible in the MSM, remember I predicted he would win when he threw his hat in).
DT has lost
some who voted for him, typically 'anything but Hillary' types, "give him a chance", who are disapointed at his poor performance on some/any/all issues. Some others have checked out of any
involvement in MS pols. and have joined Doomsters, Refusniks, and even (imho) to my surprise,
quasi-anarchists (who lack a platform.)
Technotopists are going out of fashion (> global warming disasters.) -- The rapidly
degrading US socio-economic landscape is no doubt responsible, more so than the person of DT.
(Arguably he is contributing to the decline, other story.) Poverty, sagging life expectancy,
opioid crisis, homelessness, student debt, crumbling infrastructure, cuts in social aid or
'benefits' as the brits say, no future generation, etc.
On the other hand, DT supporters have become more 'radical and committed' as is always the
case in these kind of 'tribal' belonging scenes, they have dragged in family members / friends,
through the usual conduits of social influence in micro-circles. Which has been made
exceptionally easy by the terminal idiocy, blindness and contradictions of the MSM, Dems and
the PTB (incl. top Republicans, corporations, etc.) generally. Authoritarian impulses (which DT
embraces in part - the WALL is a good ex. - for the rest, hmm..) will flourish up to a
point.
The USA has become completely a-political, an oligarchy run by a convoluted circuit of
top-dogs and gals, fights going on at the top (mafia 1 vs. team 2) for grabbing the leftovers
of power/revenue/capture/ etc., not new but now evident.
The top 20% chooses sides, as they have to, merely in function of who is paying them,
where their status comes from, what hopes for children. The rest can check out and face their
fate, or choose a cult, a tribe The next question is, what are the attitudes to civil war? How
is that going to play out?
About non-posts, I was going to go into the murder of Kim Jong-Nam (brother of today's Kim)
which ties two threads together - NKorea and murder by nerve gas. (Hoarse mentioned this in the
other thread.)
Like many high demand cults neoliberalism is a trap, from which it is very difficult to escape...
Notable quotes:
"... A large, open-border global free market would be left, not subject to popular control but managed by a globally dispersed, transnational one percent. And the whole process of making this happen would be camouflaged beneath the altruistic stylings of a benign humanitarianism. ..."
"... Globalists, as neoliberal capitalists are often called, also understood that democracy, defined by a smattering of individual rights and a voting booth, was the ideal vehicle to usher neoliberalism into the emerging world. Namely because democracy, as commonly practiced, makes no demands in the economic sphere. Socialism does. Communism does. These models directly address ownership of the means of production. Not so democratic capitalism. This permits the globalists to continue to own the means of production while proclaiming human rights triumphant in nations where interventions are staged. ..."
"... The enduring lie is that there is no democracy without economic democracy. ..."
This 'Washington Consensus' is the false promise promoted by the West. The reality is quite
different. The crux of neoliberalism is to eliminate democratic government by downsizing,
privatizing, and deregulating it. Proponents of neoliberalism recognize that the state is the
last bulwark of protection for the common people against the predations of capital. Remove the
state and they'll be left defenseless .
Think about it. Deregulation eliminates the laws. Downsizing eliminates departments and their
funding. Privatizing eliminates the very purpose of the state by having the private sector take
over its traditional responsibilities.
Ultimately, nation-states would dissolve except perhaps for armies and tax systems. A large, open-border global free
market would be left, not subject to popular control but managed by a globally dispersed, transnational one percent. And the
whole process of making this happen would be camouflaged beneath the altruistic stylings of a benign humanitarianism.
Globalists, as neoliberal capitalists are often called, also understood that democracy, defined
by a smattering of individual rights and a voting booth, was the ideal vehicle to usher
neoliberalism into the emerging world. Namely because democracy, as commonly practiced, makes
no demands in the economic sphere. Socialism does. Communism does. These models directly
address ownership of the means of production. Not so democratic capitalism. This permits the
globalists to continue to own the means of production while proclaiming human rights triumphant
in nations where interventions are staged.
The enduring lie is that there is no democracy
without economic democracy.
What matters to the one percent and the media conglomerates that disseminate their worldview is
that the official definitions are accepted by the masses. The real effects need never be known.
The neoliberal ideology (theory) thus conceals the neoliberal reality (practice). And for the
masses to accept it, it must be mass produced. Then it becomes more or less invisible by virtue
of its universality.
"... This,,,"Russia appears lost, a global menace, a moral vacuum, a far greater threat than it ever was during the cold war." Should be changed to "The Guardian appears lost, a global menace, a moral vacuum, a far greater threat than it ever was during the cold war." ..."
"... The Guardian has consistently propagandised for regime changes inspired by Washington NeoCons, those of Libya, Syria, Ukraine and is ramping up their propaganda machine toward North Korea, Venezuela and now Russia itself having promoted destabilisation on its borders in Ukraine. ..."
"... On top of what I said yesterday, if Russian oligarchs do pull all their money out of Britain, the British economy would crash, it being highly dependent on the services sector (constituting 80% of Britain's GDP in 2016 according to Wikipedia) and the financial services industry in particular. So if all those Russian billions swirling through Britain's financial system are "dodgy", that's because the system itself encouraged those inflows. ..."
"... "Poor little Britain" which actually spends on par with Russia in terms of its military budget, despite the fact that a) it's a much smaller country to defend and is surrounded by water, and b) it's part of NATO with the US as its staunch defender so it really doesn't need a standalone military anyway. ..."
"... From what's emerging now, it seems there simply were no assassins wandering round Salisbury. Instead, it appears Mr Skripal for some reason has a house full of nerve gas, or enough of it at least to take out himself, his daughter and a policeman who inspected the premises. ..."
"... There is one key element that proves that the Russians didn't do it: The Russians aren't so clumsy as to poison over a dozen other people at the same time. ..."
"... The whole piece is an emotionally charged rant, bordering on hysteria, based on a transparent tissue of lies, distortions and absolutely stunning hypocrisy; and this coming from the 'liberal' 'left of centre' Guardian! ..."
Mark Rice-Oxley,
Guardian columnist and the first in line to fight in WWIII.
The alleged poisoning of ex-MI6 agent Sergei Skripal has caused the Russophobic MSM to go into overdrive. Nowhere is the desperation
with which the Skripal case has been seized more obvious than the Guardian. Luke Harding is spluttering incoherently about a
weapons lab that might not even exist anymore . Simon Jenkins gamely takes up his position as the only rational person left at
the Guardian, before being heckled in the comments and dismissed as a contrarian by Michael White on twitter. More and more the media
are becoming a home for dangerous, aggressive, confrontational rhetoric that has no place in sensible, adult newspapers.
Oh, Russia! Even before we point fingers over poison and speculate about secret agents and spy swaps and pub food in Salisbury,
one thing has become clear: Russia appears lost, a global menace, a moral vacuum, a far greater threat than it ever was during
the cold war.
Read this. It's from a respected "unbiased", liberal news outlet. It is the worst, most partisan political language I have ever
heard, more heated and emotionally charged than even the most fraught moments of the Cold War. It is dangerous to the whole planet,
and has no place in our media.
If everything he said in the following article were true, if he had nothing but noble intentions and right on his side, this would
still be needlessly polarizing and war-like language.
To make it worse, everything he proceeds to say is a complete lie.
Usually we would entitle these pieces "fact checks", but this goes beyond that. This? This is a reality check.
Its agents pop over for murder and shopping
FALSE: There's no proof any of this ever happened. There has been no trial in the Litvinenko case. The
"public
inquiry" was a farce, with no cross-examination of witnesses, evidence given in secret and anonymous witnesses. All of which
contravene British law regarding a fair trial.
even while its crooks use Britain as a 24/7 laundromat for their ill-gotten billions, stolen from compatriots.
TRUE sort of: Russian billionaires do come to London, Paris, and Switzerland to launder their (stolen) money. Rice-Oxley is too
busy with his 2 minutes of hate to interrogate this issue. The reason oligarchs launder their money here is that WE let them. Oligarchs
have been fleeing Russia for over a decade. Why? Because, in Russia, Putin's government has jailed billionaires for tax evasion and
embezzling, stripped them of illegally acquired assets and demanded they pay their taxes. That's why you have wanted criminals like
Sergei Pugachev doing interviews with Luke Harding, complaining he's down to
his
"last 270 million" .
When was the last time a British billionaire was prosecuted for financial crimes? Mega-Corporations owe
literally billions in tax , and our government lets them
get away with it.
Its digital natives use their skills not for solving Russia's own considerable internal problems but to subvert the prosperous
adversaries that it secretly envies.
FALSE: Russiagate is a farce,
anyone with an open-mind can see that . The reference to Russians envying the west is childish and insulting. The 13, just thirteen,
Russians who were indicted by Mueller have no connection to the Russian government, a
nd allegedly
campaigned for many candidates , and both for and against Trump. They are a PR firm, nothing more.
It bought a World Cup,
FALSE: The World Cup bids are voted on, and after years and years of investigation the US/UK teams have found so little evidence
of corruption in the Russia bid that they simply stopped talking about it. If the FBI had found even the slightest hint of financial
malpractice, would we ever have stopped hearing about it?
Regarding the second "neighbour": Ukraine. Ukraine and Russia are not at war. Ukraine has claimed to have been "invaded" by Russia
many times but has never declared war. Why? Because they rely on Russian gas to live, and because they know that if Russia were to
ever REALLY invade, the war would last only just a big longer than the Georgian one. The
"anti-terrorist operation" in Ukraine was started by the coup government in 2014. Since that time over 10,000 people have died.
The vast majority killed by the governments mercenaries and far-right militias many of whom
espouse outright fascism
.
bombed children to save a butcher in the Middle East.
MISLEADING: The statement is trying to paint Russia/Assad as deliberately targeting children, which is clearly untrue. Russia
is operating in Syria in full compliance with international law. Unlike literally everybody else bar Iran. When Russia entered the
conflict, at the invitation of the legitimate Syrian government, Jihadists were winning the war. ISIS had huge swathes of territory,
al-Qaeda affiliates had strongholds in all of Syria's major cities. Syria was on the brink of collapse. Rice-Oxley is unclear whether
or not he thinks this is a good thing.
Today, ISIS is obliterated, Aleppo is free
and the war is almost over. Apparently Syria becoming another Libya is preferable to a secular government winning a war against terrorists
and US-backed mercenaries.
And now it wants to start a new nuclear arms race.
FALSE: America started the arms race when they pulled out of the anti-ballistic missile treaty.
Putin warned at the time it was a dangerous move . America then moved their
AEGIS "defense
shield" into Eastern Europe . Giving them the possibility of first-strike without retaliation. This is an untennable position
for any country.
Putin warned, at the time, that Russia would have to respond. They have responded. Mr Rice-Oxley should take this up with Bush
and Cheney if he has a problem with it.
And before the whataboutists say, "America does some of that stuff too", that may be true, but just because the US is occasionally
awful it doesn't mean that Russia isn't.
MISLEADING: America doesn't do "some of that stuff". No, America aren't "occasionally awful". They do ALL of that stuff, and have
been the biggest destructive force on the planet for over 70 years. Since Putin came to power America has carried out aggressive
military operations against Pakistan, Libya, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Lebanon and Syria. They have sanctioned and threatened
and carried out coups against North Korea, Ukraine, Iran, Honduras, Venezuela and Cuba. All that time, the US has also claimed the
right to extradite and torture foreign nationals with impunity. The war crimes of American forces and agencies are beyond measure
and count.
We are so used to American crimes we just don't see them anymore. Imagine Putin, at one his epic four-hour Q&A sessions, off-handedly
admitting to torturing people in illegal prison camps .
Would we ever hear the end of it?
Even if you cede the utterly false claim that Russia has "invaded two neighbours", the scale of destruction just does not compare.
Invert the scale of destruction and casualties of Georgia and Iraq. Imagine Putin's government had killed 500,000 people in Georgia
alone, whilst routinely condemning the US for a week-long war in Iraq that killed less than 600 people. Imagine Russia kidnapped
foreign nationals and tortured them, whilst lambasting America's human rights record.
The double-think employed here is literally insane.
Note to Rice-Oxley and his peers, pointing out your near-delusional hypocrisy is not "whataboutism". It's a standard rhetorical
appeal to fairness. If you believe the world shouldn't be fair, fine, but don't expect other people not to point out your double
standards.
As for poor little Britain, it seems to take this brazen bullying like a whipping boy in the playground who has wet himself.
Boycott the World Cup? That'll teach them!
FALSE: Rice-Oxley is trying to paint a picture of false weakness in order to promote calls for action. Britain has been anything
but cooperative with Russia. British forces operate illegally in
Syria , they arm and train rebels. They refused to let Russian authorities see the evidence in the Litvinenko case, and refused
to let Russian lawyers cross-examine witnesses. Britain's attitude to Russia has been needlessly, provocatively antagonistic for
years.
Russians have complained that the portrayal of their nation in dramas such as McMafia is cartoonish and unhelpful, a lazy smear
casting an entire nation as a ludicrous two-dimensional pantomime villain with a pocketful of poisonous potions .Of course, the
vast majority of Russians are indeed misrepresented by such portrayals, because they are largely innocent in these antics.
TRUE: Russians do complain about this, which is entirely justifiable. The western representation of Russians is ignorant and racist
almost without exception. It is an effort, just like Rice-Oxley's column, to demonize an entire people and whip up hatred of Russia
so that people will support US-UK warmongering.
Most ordinary Russians are in fact also victims of the power system in their country, which requires ideas such as individual
comfort, aspiration, dignity, prosperity and hope to be subjugated to the wanton reflexes of the state
FALSE: Putin's government has decreased poverty by
over 66% in 17 years . They have increased life-expectancy, decreased crime, and increased public health. Pensions, social security
and infrastructure have all been rebuilt. These are not controversial or debated claims. The Guardian published them itself just
a few years ago. That is hardly a state where hope and aspiration are put aside.
Why is Russian power like this: cynical, destructive, zero-sum, determined to bring everything down to a base level where everyone
thinks the worst of each other and behaves accordingly?
MISLEADING FALLACY: This is simply projection. There is no logical basis for this statement. He is simply employing the old rhetorical
trick of asking WHY something exists, as a way of establishing its existence. This allows the (dishonest) author to sell his own
agenda as if it solves a riddle. Before you can explain something, you need to establish an explanandum something which requires
explaining. This is the basic logical process that our dear author is attempting to circumvent. We don't NEED to explain why
Russian power is like this, because he hasn't yet established that it is .
I think there are two reasons. The most powerful political idea in Russia is restoration. A decade of humiliation – economic,
social and geopolitical – that followed its rebirth in 1991 became the defining narrative of the new nation.
MISLEADING LANGUAGE: Describing the absolute destruction caused by the fall of the USSR as "rebirth" is an absurd joke. People
sold their medals, furniture and keepsakes for food, people froze to death in the streets.
At times, even the continued existence of the Russian Federation appeared under threat.
TRUE: This is true. Russia was in danger of Balkanisation. The possibility of dozens of anarchic microstates, many with access
to nuclear weapons, was very real. Most rational people would consider this a bad thing. The achievement of Putin's government in
pulling Russia back from the brink should be applauded. Especially when compared with our Western governments who can barely even
maintain the functional social security states created by their predecessors. Compare the NHS now with the NHS in 2000, compare Russia's
health service now to 17 years ago. Who do you think is really in trouble?
The second reason is that the parlous internal state of Russia – absurdist justice, a threadbare social safety net, a pyramid
society in which a very few get very rich and the rest languish – creates moral ambivalence.
PROJECTION: he actually makes this statement without even a hint of irony. The Tory government has killed people by slashing their
benefits, and homeless people froze to death during the recent blizzards. The overall trend of British social structure has been
down, for decades.
Poverty is increasing all the time ,
food banks are opening and people are increasingly desperate. We are trending down. 20%, one in five British people,
now live in poverty .
In that same time, as stated above, Russia's poverty has gone down and down. 13% of Russians live in poverty, almost half the
UK rate. In 2014, before we sanctioned Russia, it was only 10%. Even the briefest research would show this. Columnists like Rice-Oxley
go out of their way to avoid inconvenient facts.
What is to be done? I wouldn't respond with empty threats, Boris Johnson. No one cares.
Here we come to the centre of the shrubbery maze, up until now the column was just build up. Establishing a "problem" so he can
pitch us a "solution".
There are only two weaknesses in this bully's defences. The first is his money. Britain needs to do something about the dodgy
Russian billions swilling through its financial system. Make it really hard for Kremlin-connected money to buy football clubs
or businesses or establish dodgy limited partnerships; stop oligarchs from raising capital on the London stock exchange. Don't
bother with sanctions. Just say: "No thanks, we don't want your business."
FALSE: This shows not even the most basic understanding of the way money works. Money being made in Russia and spent in London
is bad fo Russia. Sending billionaires back to Russia would inject money INTO the Russian economy. Either Rice-Oxley is actually
a moron, or he is being deliberately dishonest.
What he REALLY means is that we should put pressure on the oligarchs, not to the hurt the Russian economy, but in the hopes the
oligarchs will turn on Putin and remove him by undemocratic means.
He is pushing for backdoor regime change. And if you think I'm reading too much into this, then here
The second is public opinion. The imminent presidential election is a foregone conclusion, but the mood in Russia can turn
suddenly, as we saw in 1991, 1993 and 2011-2012.
Notice how quickly he dismisses the democratic will of the Russian people. Poor, stupid, "envious" Russians aren't equipped to
make their own decisions. We need to step in. "Public opinion" turning means a colour revolution. It means US backed regime change
in a nuclear armed super-power. Backed by the cyberwarriors paid to spread Western propaganda online.
Maybe it's time to try some new digital hearts-and-minds operation. In the internet age, Russians have already shown how public
opinion can be manipulated. Perhaps our own secret digital marvels can embark on the kind of information counter-offensive to
win over the many millions of Russians who share our values. Perhaps they already are.
The hypocrisy is mind-blowing, when I read this paragraph I was dumb-founded. Speechless. For months we've been hearing about
how terrible Russia is for allegedly interfering in the American election. Damaging democracy with reporting true news out of context
and some well placed memes.
Our response? Our defense of our "values"? Use the armies of online propagandists our governments employ –
their existence
was reported in the
Guardian – in order to undermine, or undo the democratic will of the Russian people. Rice-Oxley is positing this with a straight
face.
Russia is such a destabilising threat to "our democratic values", such a moral vacuum, that we must use subterfuge to undermine
their elections and remove their popular head of state.
Rice-Oxley wants to push and prod and provoke and antagonise a nuclear armed power that, at worst, is guilty of nothing but playing
our game by our rules and winning. He wants to build a case for war with Russia, and he's doing it on bedrock of cynical lies.
It's all incredibly dangerous. Hopefully they'll realise that before it's too late. For all our sakes.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, Putin's 10 year plan for the future of Russia. Putin is a builder, like Peter the Great. He
is a seeker after excellence, like Catherine the Great. If his 10 year plan can achieve the half of what he set out in his recent
speech, the name Putin will go down in history with the same sobriquet.
The most important part of Putin's March 1st speech:
And on the village level, because that's where most of the real work of the world is done, a snippet BTL from Auslander who
lives in the Crimea: "the first implications of anti corruption efforts are obvious in our little village. We'll see how it pans
out but everyone can, and should, assist in this task. The proof will be in the pudding when The West starts screaming about certain
kind, gentle and innocent 'businessmen' who end up counting trees [in Siberia?] for a decade or three."
I wonder how much longer the general readership over there will cotton on to the pro-war and propaganda agenda of the Guardian
and leave it en masse? It's as dishonest as The Sun.
"Poor little Britain", with half the population, a much smaller territory ,and being part of the largest military alliance in
the world, spends only 10 billions less than Russia in "defense". One of those "defense" strategies included in the budget, one
that all those commentators vilifying Russia conveniently ignore, is to blow up weddings, funerals and entire villages with missiles
fired from drones. No trial, no public kill list, no record of people killed, no accountability. That is sanctioned, extra-judicial
murder of suspects and everyone around them. And these progressive commentators, eager to spread prosperity by any mean, seem
to be ok with it.
Update: as I was writing this I noticed that The Guardian has a piece by (of all people!), Simon Jenkins, which, yes, takes
for granted that the assassination attempt was carried out by the Russians, but asks if there is a moral difference between that
and killing suspects with drone strikes. For that, he has been labeled an useful idiot and "an apologist for attempted mass murder
on British soil". Highly amusing if you ask me, but also a terrifying example of how straying if only a little bit from the official
line ("yes, the Russians tried to kill this guy, they are the worst, but maybe we should have a look at ourselves and our (kind
of) inappropriate tendency to murder everyone we want") has to be punished. There are no ifs or buts while at the two minutes
of hate. Now even the pieces that are there to give a semblance of balance have to be torn apart by those liberal, prosperity
loving persons that can´t seem to be able to condemn the murder of children at will. Now it is time to express hatred towards
Goldstein, I mean, of course, Putin and everything Russia.
This,,,"Russia appears lost, a global menace, a moral vacuum, a far greater threat than it ever was during the cold war."
Should be changed to "The Guardian appears lost, a global menace, a moral vacuum, a far greater threat than it ever was during
the cold war."
All suffering from PTDS AKA Putin-Trump Derangement Syndrome.
The Russophobes over at the Guardian (and the rest of the corporate media) would be well advised to review the trial of Julius
Streicher at the Nuremberg Tribunal.
The Guardian has consistently propagandised for regime changes inspired by Washington NeoCons, those of Libya, Syria, Ukraine
and is ramping up their propaganda machine toward North Korea, Venezuela and now Russia itself having promoted destabilisation
on its borders in Ukraine.
I find it the ultimate paradox that a publication purporting to be 'liberal' acts so enthusiastically
for deadly regime changes from this once Trotskyist but now extreme Right Wing group. There is nothing 'liberal', 'humanitarian',
or moral about promotion of deadly regime changes that have destroyed previously peaceful nations and murdered hundreds of thousands
in the process. Guardian for the geopolitical goals of the self-declared 'exceptional' Empire, the new 'master race' that of the
US.
One final observation on the Skripal case (for now): this stuff is so toxic. We don't know what the stuff is: nevertheless,
we know it is so toxic, can only be made by a state, and needs careful expert handling. We know this because every paper
and TV channel has by now emphasised that this stuff is so toxic, etc. If we missed the "nerve agents and what they do
to you" coverage: we can ascertain for ourselves from the men in the hazmat suits, the this stuff must be so toxic. The
Army have now been deployed: on hand after completing the largest CW exercise ever held, 'Toxic Dagger'; they are now employing
their specialist skills to carry out "Sensitive Site Operations" because this stuff is you get it by now. In another piece of
pure theater: police in hazmat suits were examining the grave of Alexander and Liudmila Skripal because even after a year or more
buried underground, you can't be too careful, because this stuff is A woman from the office next to Zizzi was taken ill (maybe
she had the risotto con pesce) because even after a week, and next door, traces of this stuff can still be
11 (or 16) people were hospitalised from the effects of 'this stuff': the first attending officer, Nick Bailey, is only just
out of ICU and lucky to be alive. The Skripal's are not so lucky: and on "palliative care" according to H de Bretton-Gordon. Yet
the eye-witness calling himself 'Jamie Paine' was close enough to get coughed on; and the unnamed passing doctor and nurse that
attended the Skripals at the scene, clearing their airways, are all fine (despite being hospitalised). Yet PC Bailey nearly died?
Funny that?
When first you practice to deceive: someone in the propaganda department must have noticed this glaring inconsistency. Enter,
stage right, former Met Chief Ian (now Lord) Blair (guess who was leading the Met when Litvinenko was poisoned?): to clarify that
PC Bailey was contaminated when he was the first officer to enter the Skripal's home – not attend them in Salisbury. This allowed
the Torygraph and Fox to speculate that Yulia brought a contaminated present for her father (which she kept in a drawer for a
week, because this stuff is so toxic?). The Torygraph's previous spin: that Skripal was poisoned for his contributions
to the Pissgate dossier were torpedoed by Orbis (Steele's company). Speaking on Radio 4: after pushing the Buzzfeed "14 other
deaths" dodgy dossier; Blair said "So there maybe some clues floating around in here." Yes, clues that you are lying? This is
pure theater: only it is more Morecambe and Wise than Shakespeare.
Check out the report from
C4News (mute the sound).
Two guys plodding around in fluorescent breather suits, another couple with gas masks, but behind them firemen in normal uniform
and no gas masks and the reporter 20 feet in front, in civvies wih no protective gear at all.
Virulent nerve agent threat? Theatre, and not very convincing at that.
Flaxgirl: a bit OT, but not too much as this event does not seem to have too much basis in reality: on the question of fabrication
the UK Home Office held an event this week – Security and Policing 2018 – where the "Live Demo Area" was sponsored by Crisis Cast.
I though you might interested? Are they providing critical incident training: or the critical incidents themselves is a legitimate
question after the events in Salisbury?
I suppose by now we should be used to the nauseating, self-righteous bluster dished out on a daily basis by the Anglo-Zionist
media. The two minutes hate by the flabby 'left' liberals who now have apparently joined forces with the demented US neo-cons
in openly baying for a war against Russia. How, exactly did these people expect Russia to react to the abrogation of the ABM agreement,
marching NATO right up to Russia's doorstep, staging coups in the Ukraine and Georgia, having the US sixth fleet swanning around
in the Black Sea? Of course, Russia reacted as any other self-respecting state would react to such blatant provocations. And this
includes the US during the Cuba crisis and its self-proclaimed right to intervene in its sphere of influence – Latin America –
and for that matter anywhere else on the planet. And it does so A L'outrance.
But I was foregetting, the Anglo-Zionist axis has a divine mission mandated by the deity to reconfigure the world and bring
democracy and freedom to those "Lesser breeds without the Law" (Kipling). Of course, this updated version of 'taking up the white
man's burden' by the 'exceptional people' may involve mass murder, mayhem, destruction and chaos, unfortunately necessary in the
short(ish) run. But these benighted peoples should realise it is for their own good, and if this means starving to death 500,000
Iraqi children through sanctions, well, it was 'worth it' according to the lovely Madeline Albright. This is the language and
methodology of a totalitarian imperialism. As someone has remarked the Anglo-zionist empire is not on the wrong side of history,
it is the wrong side of history.
The arrogance, ignorance and crass venality of these people is manifest to the point of parody.
I agree with Mark Rice-Oxley that Russian oligarchs should pull their money out of Britain and return it to Russia to invest in
businesses there. That would be the ethical thing for them to do, to fulfill their proper tax obligations and stop using Britain
as a tax haven.
I hear that Russia has had another bumper wheat harvest and is now poised to take over from Australia as the major wheat exporter
to Egypt and Indonesia, the world's biggest buyers of wheat. So if Russian oligarchs are wondering where to put their money in,
wheat production, research into improving wheat yields and the conditions wheat is grown in are just a few areas they can invest
in.
Be careful what you wish for, Mr Rice-Oxley – your wish might come true bigger than you realise!
On top of what I said yesterday, if Russian oligarchs do pull all their money out of Britain, the British economy would crash,
it being highly dependent on the services sector (constituting 80% of Britain's GDP in 2016 according to Wikipedia) and the financial
services industry in particular. So if all those Russian billions swirling through Britain's financial system are "dodgy", that's
because the system itself encouraged those inflows.
"Poor little Britain" which actually spends on par with Russia in terms of its military budget, despite the fact that a) it's
a much smaller country to defend and is surrounded by water, and b) it's part of NATO with the US as its staunch defender so it
really doesn't need a standalone military anyway.
"It's them, over there, they are evil. We must stop them. They are coming for us, they will take our children and steal our i
phones !!! Arrgh!!!" "I'll have another strong short black thanks"
Their world is falling apart- in Korea and the Middle East the Empire is on the verge of eviction. All the certitudes of yesteryear
are dissolving. Even the Turks, who, famously, held the line in Korea when the PLA attacked and the US Eighth Army fled south,
are now on the other side. The same Turks who hosted US nuclear armed strategic missiles so openly that the USSR sent missiles
of its own to Cuba.
As to the UK, the economy is contracting and the economic infrastructure is cracking up- living standards are plummeting and the
only recourse of those responsible for the mess-the officers on the bridge- is propaganda. Like the Empire the British Establishment
has been living on the fruits of its own propaganda for so long that, when it is exposed as merely empty bullying, there is nothing
left but to resort to more lies in the hope that they will obscure raw and looming reality.
In The Guardian newsroom the water
is three feet deep and rising inexorably, the ship is sinking and all hands are required to bail or the screens will go black.
There is no time to wait for developments, for investigations to be completed, for evidence- every ounce of strength must be thrown
into the defiance of nature, the shocking nakedness of reality.
There is something very significant about the way that simultaneous attacks of impotent russophobic dementia are eating away
the brains of the rulers on both sides of the Atlantic.
The game, which has been going the same way for about 500 years, is up. The maritime empire is becoming marginal and the force
that it has used, throughout these centuries, no longer overwhelms. The cruisers and carriers no longer work except to intimidate
those not worth frightening.
There is only one thing left for the Empire and its hundreds of thousands of apparatchiki-from cops to pundits, from Professors
to jailers- either they adjust to a new dispensation because the Times are Changing or they blow themselves and the whole planet
up.
From what's emerging now, it seems there simply were no assassins wandering round Salisbury. Instead, it appears Mr Skripal
for some reason has a house full of nerve gas, or enough of it at least to take out himself, his daughter and a policeman who
inspected the premises.
Cleary the Guardian was swallowed up by England's fascist regime controlled by the City of London when it surrendered its hard
drives to the regime for examination and/or destruction in the wake of the Snowden revelations.
The Guardian ownerships also sold their souls -- although the Guardian had already been in decline before they nabbed Glenn
Greenwald. When he left, the Guardian lost ALL presumptive credibility.
Now The Guardian is just an organ of regime propaganda like the BBC (thank GOd for OffGuardian) and here is the island nation
AGAIN asserting its dominance over the whole world, but this time on behalf of his brawnier brother, the EUSE, aka Exceptional
US Empire.
One wonders how much longer the Russians will put up with this now that it is CLEAR that -- for the first time ever -- the
Russians have complete military and nuclear superiority over "The West."
I'll bet Putin won't invade Ukraine, Germany, France, Brussels and England from the North and from the sea in the wintertime.
The Big Problem Is YThat Americans are afraid -- frightened -- but they are NOT afraid or frightened of a particular tbhing
-- it is a generic fright. So they are no longer afraid of nuclear war. Trotsky said A'meria was the strongest nation but also
the most terrified' and nothing has changed except military and nuclear superiority along with economic clout has shifted to Russia
and China. Were Americans afraid of nuclear war -- or say, of an invasion from Saskatchewan or Tamaulipas -- there might be hope.
But somewhere along the time beginning with Clinton, Americans didn't worry their pretty little heads about nuclear war or
American wars on everybody anywhere any longer so long as it didn't disturb their creature comforts and shopping and lattes by
coming to the homeland. The Nuclear Freeze movement was, after all, a direct response to Reagan's "evil empire" military buildup
in the 1980s and then voila he and Gorbachev negotiated away a whole class of nuclear weapoms and Old Bush promised NAto wouldn;t
expand. Hope. Then that sneaky little bastard Clinton started expanding Nato on behalf of the Pentagon / CKIA / NSA / miklitary
/congressional industyrial complex.
Maybe it's time to try some new digital hearts-and-minds operation. In the internet age, Russians have already shown
how public opinion can be manipulated. Perhaps our own secret digital marvels can embark on the kind of information counter-offensive
to win over the many millions of Russians who share our values. Perhaps they already are.
He really is taking Russians for idiots and fools!
There is one key element that proves that the Russians didn't do it: The Russians aren't so clumsy as to poison over a dozen
other people at the same time.
The whole piece is an emotionally charged rant, bordering on hysteria, based on a transparent tissue of lies, distortions
and absolutely stunning hypocrisy; and this coming from the 'liberal' 'left of centre' Guardian!
It's rather scary. The Guardian screaming for a crusade aimed at toppling the Russian system and replacing it with something
else, something closer to 'our values.' The moralizing is shocking and grotesque. I really wish the ground would just open up
and swallow the Guardian whole. We'd be far better off with out it.
Are powerful intelligence agencies compatible even with limited neoliberal democracy, or
democracy for top 10 or 1%?
Notable quotes:
"... I recall during the George II administration someone in congress advocating for he return of debtor's prisons during the 'debat' over ending access to bankruptcy ..."
"... Soros, like the Koch brothers, heads an organization. He has lots of "people" who do what he demands of them. ..."
"... Let's give these guys (and gals, too, let's not forget the Pritzkers and DeVoses and the Walton Family, just among us Norte Americanos) full credit for all the hard work they are putting in, and money too, of course, to buy a world the way they want it -- one which us mopes have only slave roles to play... ..."
You have a good point, but I often think that, a the machinery of surveillance and repression
becomes so well oiled and refined, the ruling oligarchs will soon stop even paying lip
service to 'American workers', or the "American middle class" and go full authoritarian. Karl
Rove's dream to return the economy to the late 19th Century standard.
The Clintonoid project seems set on taking it to the late 16th century. Probably with a
return of chattel slavery. I recall during the George II administration someone in congress
advocating for he return of debtor's prisons during the 'debat' over ending access to
bankruptcy
Soros, like the Koch brothers, heads an organization. He has lots of "people" who do what he
demands of them.
Do you really contend that Soros and the Koch brothers, and people like Adelson, aren't busily "undermining American democracy," whatever that is, via their
organizations (like ALEC and such) in favor of their oligarchic kleptocratic interests, and
going at it 24/7?
The phrase "reductio ad absurdam" comes to mind, for some reason...
Let's give these guys (and gals, too, let's not forget the Pritzkers and DeVoses and the
Walton Family, just among us Norte Americanos) full credit for all the hard work they are
putting in, and money too, of course, to buy a world the way they want it -- one which us
mopes have only slave roles to play...
The sad but reasonable conclusion from all those Russiagate events is that an influential part of the US elite wants to
balance on the edge of war with Russia to ensure profits and flow of taxpayer money. that part of the elite include top
honchos on the US intelligence community and Pentagon (surprise, surprise)
The other logical conclusion is that intelligence agencies now determine the US foreign policy and control all major political
players (there were widespread suspicions that Clinton, Bush II and Obama were actually closely connected to CIA). Which neatly fits
into hypotheses about the "deep state".
This "can of worms" that the US political scene now represents is very dangerous for the future on mankind indeed.
Notable quotes:
"... Most objective observers would concede that the DNI has been a miserable failure and nothing more than a bureaucratic boondoggle. ..."
"... "The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow -- the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities." ..."
"... More telling was the absence of any written document issued from the Office of the DNI that detailed the supposed intel backing up this judgment. Notice the weasel language in this release ..."
"... If there was actual evidence/intelligence, such as an intercepted conversation between Vladimir Putin and a subordinate ordering them to hack the DNC or even a human source report claiming such an activity, then it would have and should have been referenced in the Clapper/Johnson document. It was not because such intel did not exist. ..."
"... "We have 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military, who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyberattacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin, and they are designed to influence our election," Clinton said. "I find that deeply disturbing." ..."
"... The basic job of an analyst is to collect as much relevant information as possible on the subject or topic that is their responsibility. There are analysts at the CIA, the NSA, the DIA and State INR that have the job of knowing about Russian cyber activity and capabilities. That is certain. But we are not talking about hundreds of people. ..."
"... Let us move from the hypothetical to the actual. In January of 2017, DNI Jim Clapper release a report entitled, " Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections " (please see here ). In subsequent testimony before the Congress, Clapper claimed that he handpicked two dozen analysts to draft the document . That is not likely. There may have been as many as two dozen analysts who read the final document and commented on it, but there would never be that many involved in in drafting such a document. In any event, only analysts from the CIA, the NSA and the FBI were involved ..."
"... This report includes an analytic assessment drafted and coordinated among The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and The National Security Agency (NSA), which draws on intelligence information collected and disseminated by those three agencies. ..."
"... That is how the process is supposed to work. But the document produced in January 2017 was not a genuine work reflecting the views of the "Intelligence Community." It only represented the supposed thinking (and I use that term generously) of CIA, NSA and FBI analysts. In other words, only three of 16 agencies cleared on the document that presented four conclusions ..."
"... Russian efforts to influence the 2016 US presidential election represent the most recent expression of Moscow's longstanding desire to undermine the US-led liberal democratic order, but these activities demonstrated a significant escalation in directness, level of activity, and scope of effort compared to previous operations. ..."
"... We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. ..."
"... We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. ..."
"... We assess Moscow will apply lessons learned from its Putin-ordered campaign aimed at the US presidential election to future influence efforts worldwide, including against US allies and their election processes. ..."
"... It is genuinely shocking that DNI Jim Clapper, with the acquiescence of the CIA, the FBI and NSA, would produce a document devoid of any solid intelligence. There is a way to publicly release sensitive intelligence without comprising a the original source. But such sourcing is absent in this document. ..."
"... The Intelligence Community was used as a tool to misinform the public and persuade them that Russia was guilty of something they did not do. That lie remains unchallenged. ..."
"... "The Intelligence Community was used as a tool to misinform the public and persuade them that Russia was guilty of something they did not do. That lie remains unchallenged.'" Yes it was and so remains the lie unchallenged. ..."
"... Conjectural garbage appears first to have been washed through the FBI, headquarters no less, then probably it picked up a Triple A rating at the CIA, and then when the garbage got to Clapper, it was bombs away - we experts all agree. There were leaks, but they weren't sufficient to satisfy Steele so he just delivered the garbage whole to the Media in order to make it a sure thing. The garbage was placed securely out there in the public domain with a Triple A rating because the FBI wouldn't concern itself with garbage, would it? ..."
"... Contrast this trajectory with what the Russian policy establishment did when it concluded that the US had done something in the Ukraine that Russia found significantly actionable: it released the taped evidence of Nuland and our Ambassador finishing off the coup. ..."
"... To be precise, CrowdStrike did provide the FBI with allegedly "certified true images" of the DNC servers allegedly involved in the alleged "hack." They also allegedly provided these images to FireEye and Mandiant, IIRC ..."
"... Of course, given the CrowdStrike itself is a massively compromised organization due to its founder and CEO, those "certified true images" are themselves tainted evidence. ..."
"... In addition, regardless of whether the images were true or not, the evidence allegedly contained therein is painfully inadequate to confirm that APT28 or APT29 were involved, nor that the Russian government was involved, or even that there was a real hack involved, and even less evidence that any emails that might have been exfiltrated were given to Wikileaks as opposed to another leak such as that alleged by Sy Hersh to have been done by Seth Rich. ..."
"... My interpretation is: In 1990 +- Bush 41 sold us the 1st Iraq war using fudged intelligence, then Bush 43 sold us the second Iraq war using fabricated intelligence. And now the Obama Administration tried to sell us fake intelligence in regard to Russia in order to get Clinton elected ..."
"... Mueller has had 18 months and has proceeded to reveal exactly nothing related to either Trump "collusion" with Russia nor Russia as a state actually doing anything remotely described as "meddling." ..."
"... His expected indictment of some Russians for the DNC hack is going to be more of the same in all likelihood. I predict there will be next to zero evidence produced either that the Russians named are in fact members of APT28 or APT29 or that they had any direct connection with either the alleged DNC hack or Wikileaks or the Russian government. ..."
"... It's a witch hunt, nothing more. People holding their breath for the "slam dunk" are going to pass out soon if they haven't already. ..."
"... Mueller is investigating some aspects. But there is another aspect - the conspiracy inside law enforcement and the IC. That is also being investigated. There are Congressional committees in particular Nunes, Goodlatte and Grassley. Then there is the DOJ IG. And today AG Sessions confirms there is a DOJ prosecutor outside Washington investigating. ..."
"... But such evidence (corroborating the Steele dossier) was not forthcoming. If it had existed than Jim Comey could have claimed in his June 2017 testimony before Congress that the parts of the "Dossier" had been verified. He did not do so. Testifying under oath Comey described the "Dossier" as "salacious and unverified." ..."
"... ... was UK Intelligence, or an ex-UK intelligence officer, used to get material through the US evaluation process, material that would not have got through that US evaluation process had it originated within the US itself?" I would say yes and especially yes if the contact for this piece of data was conducted at the highest level within the context of the already tight liaison between the US IC and Mi-6/GCHQ ..."
"... Was it Hitler or Stalin who said "show me the man and I will find his crime?" As I have said before, Trumps greatest vulnerability lies in his previous business life as an entrepreneurial hustler. ..."
"... Re 'baby adoption' meeting between Trump, Jr. and Veselnitskaya, I recall a comment here linking to an article speculating the email initiating the meeting originated in Europe, was set up by the playboy son of a European diplomat, and contained words to trip data-gathering monitors which would have enabled a FISA request to have Trump, Jr. come under surveillance. ..."
"... "We don't have the evidence yet because Mueller hasn't found it yet!" is a classic argument from ignorance, in that is assumes without evidence (there's that pesky word again!) that there is something to be found. ..."
"... The fact is Flynn has pled guilty to perjury. Nothing else like collusion with the Russians. ..."
"... Manafort has been indicted for money laundering, wire fraud, etc for activities well before the election campaign. Sure, it is good that these corrupt individuals should be investigated and prosecuted. However, this corruption is widespread in DC. How come none of these cheering Mueller on to destroy Trump care about all the foreign money flowing to K Street? Why aren't they calling for investigations of the Clinton Foundation or the Podesta brothers where probable cause exist of foreign money and influence? What about Ben Cardin and all those recipients of foreign zionist money and influence? It would be nice if there were wide ranging investigations on all those engaged in foreign influence peddling. But it seems many just want a witch hunt to hobble Trump. It's going to be very difficult to get the Senate to convict him for obstruction of justice or tax evasion or some charge like that. ..."
"... What does "hacking our elections" mean? Does it means breaking into voting systems and changing the outcome by altering votes? Or does it mean information operations to change US voters' minds about for whom they would vote? ..."
"... As for McMasters, I am unimpressed with him. He displays all the symptoms of Russophobia. He has special information? Information can be interpreted many ways depending on one's purpose. pl ..."
"... IMO the perpetrators in the Steel Memo case are and were merely hiding behind claims of sources and methods protection in order to protect themselve. ..."
"... So now we are supposed to believe unquestioningly the word of torturers, perjurers and entrapment artists, all talking about alleged evidence that we are not allowed to see? Did you learn nothing from the "Iraqi WMD" fiasco or the "ZOMG! Assad gassed his own peoples ZOMG!" debacle? Funny how in each of these instances, the intelligence community's lies just happened to coincide with the agenda of empire. ..."
Americans tend to be a trusting lot. When they hear a high level government official, like former Director of National Intelligence
Jim Clapper, state that Russia's Vladimir ordered and monitored a Russian cyber attack on the 2016 Presidential election, those trusting
souls believe him. For experienced intelligence professionals, who know how the process of gathering and analyzing intelligence works,
they detect a troubling omission in Clapper's presentation and, upon examining the so-called "Intelligence Community Assessment,"
discover that document is a deceptive fraud. It lacks actual evidence that Putin and the Russians did what they are accused of doing.
More troubling -- and this is inside baseball -- is the fact that two critical members of the Intelligence Community -- the DIA and
State INR -- were not asked to coordinate/clear on the assessment.
You should not feel stupid if you do not understand or appreciate the last point. That is something only people who actually have
produced a Community Assessment would understand. I need to take you behind the scenes and ensure you understand what is intelligence
and how analysts assess and process that intelligence. Once you understand that then you will be able to see the flaws and inadequacies
in the report released by Jim Clapper in January 2017.
The first thing you need to understand is the meaning of the term, the "Intelligence Community" aka IC. Comedians are not far off
the mark in touting this phrase as the original oxymoron. On paper the IC currently is comprised of 17 agencies/departments:
Air Force Intelligence,
Army Intelligence,
Central Intelligence Agency aka CIA,
Coast Guard Intelligence,
Defense Intelligence Agency aka DIA,
Energy Department aka DOE,
Homeland Security Department,
State Department aka INR,
Treasury Department,
Drug Enforcement Administration aka DEA,
Federal Bureau of Investigation aka FBI,
Marine Corps Intelligence,
National Geospatial Intelligence Agency aka NGIA or NGA,
National Reconnaissance Office aka NRO,
National Security Agency aka NSA,
Navy Intelligence
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
But not all of these are "national security" agencies -- i.e., those that collect raw intelligence, which subsequently is packaged
and distributed to other agencies on a need to know basis. Only six of these agencies take an active role in collecting raw foreign
intelligence. The remainder are consumers of that intelligence product. In other words, the information does not originate with them.
They are like a subscriber to the New York Times. They get the paper everyday and, based upon what they read, decide what is going
on in their particular world. The gatherers of intelligence are:
The CIA collects and disseminates intelligence from human sources, i.e., foreigners who have been recruited to spy for us.
The DIA collects and disseminates intelligence on the activities and composition of foreign militaries and rely primarily
on human sources but also collect documentary material.
The State Department messages between the Secretary of State and the our embassies constitutes the intelligence reviewed and
analyzed by other agencies.
NGIA collects collects, analyzes, and distributes geospatial intelligence (GEOINT) in support of national security. NGA was
known as the National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA) until 2003. In other words, maps and photographs.
NRO designs, builds, and operates the reconnaissance satellites of the U.S. federal government, and provides satellite intelligence
to several government agencies, particularly signals intelligence (SIGINT) to the NSA, imagery intelligence (IMINT) to the NGA,
and measurement and signature intelligence (MASINT) to the DIA.
NSA analyzes signal intelligence, including phone conversations and emails.
Nine of the other agencies/departments are consumers. They do not collect and package original info. They are the passive recipients.
The analysts in those agencies will base their conclusions on information generated by other agencies, principally the CIA and the
NSA.
The astute among you, I am sure, will insist my list is deficient and will ask, "What about the FBI and DEA?" It is true that
those two organizations produce a type of human intelligence -- i.e., they recruit informants and those informants provide those
agencies with information that the average person understandably would categorize as "intelligence." But there is an important difference
between human intelligence collected by the CIA and the human source intelligence gathered by the FBI or the DEA. The latter two
are law enforcement agencies. No one from the CIA or the NSA has the power to arrest someone. The FBI and the DEA do.
Their authority as law enforcement agents, however, comes with limitations, especially in collecting so-called intelligence. The
FBI and the DEA face egal constraints on what information they can collect and store. The FBI cannot decide on its own that skinheads
represent a threat and then start gathering information identifying skinhead leaders. There has to be an allegation of criminal activity.
When such "human" information is being gathered under the umbrella of law enforcement authorities, it is being handled as potential
evidence that may be used to prosecute someone. This means that such information cannot be shared with anyone else, especially intelligence
agencies like the CIA and the NSA.
The "17th" member of the IC is the Director of National Intelligence aka DNI. This agency was created in the wake of the September
11, 2001 terrorist attacks for the ostensible purpose of coordinating the activities and products of the IC. In theory it is the
organization that is supposed to coordinate what the IC collects and the products the IC produces. Most objective observers would
concede that the DNI has been a miserable failure and nothing more than a bureaucratic boondoggle.
An important, but little understood point, is that these agencies each have a different focus. They are not looking at the same
things. In fact, most are highly specialized and narrowly focused. Take the Coast Guard, for instance. Their intelligence operations
primarily hone in on maritime threats and activities in U.S. territorial waters, such as narcotic interdictions. They are not responsible
for monitoring what the Russians are doing in the Black Sea and they have no significant expertise in the cyber activities of the
Russian Army military intelligence organization aka the GRU.
In looking back at the events of 2016 surrounding the U.S. Presidential campaign, most people will recall that Hillary Clinton,
along with several high level Obama national security officials, pushed the lie that the U.S. Intelligence agreed that Russia had
unleashed a cyber war on the United States. The initial lie came from DNI Jim Clapper and Homeland Security Chief, Jeb Johnson, who
released the following memo to the press on
7 October 2016 :
"The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails
from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on
sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed
efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow
-- the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there.
We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these
activities."
This was a deliberate deceptive message. It implied that the all 16 intelligence agencies agreed with the premise and "evidence
of Russian meddling. Yet not a single bit of proof was offered. More telling was the absence of any written document issued from
the Office of the DNI that detailed the supposed intel backing up this judgment. Notice the weasel language in this release:
"The USIC is confident . . ."
"We believe . . ."
If there was actual evidence/intelligence, such as an intercepted conversation between Vladimir Putin and a subordinate ordering
them to hack the DNC or even a human source report claiming such an activity, then it would have and should have been referenced
in the Clapper/Johnson document. It was not because such intel did not exist.
Hillary Clinton helped perpetuate this myth during the late October debate with Donald Trump, when she declared as fact that:
"We have 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military, who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyberattacks,
come from the highest levels of the Kremlin, and they are designed to influence our election," Clinton said. "I find that deeply
disturbing."
What is shocking is that there was so little pushback to this nonsense. Hardly anyone asked why would the DEA, Coast Guard, the
Marines or DOE have any technical expertise to make a judgment about Russian hacking of U.S. election systems. And no one of any
importance asked the obvious -- where was the written memo or National Intelligence Estimate laying out what the IC supposedly knew
and believed? There was nothing.
It is natural for the average American citizen to believe that something given the imprimatur of the Intelligence Community must
reflect solid intelligence and real expertise. Expertise is supposed to be the cornerstone of intelligence analysis and the coordination
that occurs within the IC. That means that only those analysts (and the agencies they represent) will be asked to contribute or comment
on a particular intelligence issue. When it comes to the question of whether Russia had launched a full out cyber attack on the Democrats
and the U.S. electoral system, only analysts from agencies with access to the intelligence and the expertise to analyze that intelligence
would be asked to write or contribute to an intelligence memorandum.
Who would that be? The answer is simple -- the CIA, the DIA, the NSA, State INR and the FBI. (One could make the case that there
are some analysts within Homeland Security that might have expertise, but they would not necessarily have access to the classified
information produced by the CIA or the NSA.) The task of figuring out what the Russians were doing and planned to do fell to five
agencies and only three of the five (the CIA, the DIA and NSA) would have had the ability to collect intelligence that could inform
the work of analysts.
Before I can explain to you how an analyst work this issue it is essential for you to understand the type of intelligence that
would be required to "prove" Russian meddling. There are four possible sources -- 1) a human source who had direct access to the
Russians who directed the operation or carried it out; 2) a signal intercept of a conversation or cyber activity that was traced
to Russian operatives; 3) a document that discloses the plan or activity observed; or 4) forensic evidence from the computer network
that allegedly was attacked.
Getting human source intel is primarily the job of CIA. It also is possible that the DIA or the FBI had human sources that could
have contributed relevant intelligence.
Signal intercepts are collected and analyzed by the NSA.
Documentary evidence, which normally is obtained from a human source but can also be picked up by NSA intercepts or even an old-fashioned
theft.
Finally there is the forensic evidence . In the case of Russian meddling there is no forensic evidence available to the IC because
the Democratic National Committee did not permit the FBI to investigate and examine the computers and the network that was allegedly
attacked.
What Do Analysts Do?
Whenever there is a "judgment" or "consensus" claimed on behalf to the IC, it means that one or more analysts have written a document
that details the evidence and presents conclusions based on that evidence. On a daily basis the average analyst confronts a flood
of classified information (normally referred to as "cables" or "messages"). When I was on the job in the 1980s I had to wade through
more than 1200 messages -- i.e., human source reports from the CIA, State Department messages with embassies around the world, NSA
intercepts, DIA reports from their officers based overseas (most in US embassies) and open source press reports. Today, thanks to
the internet, the average analyst must scan through upwards of 3000 messages. It is humanly impossible.
The basic job of an analyst is to collect as much relevant information as possible on the subject or topic that is their responsibility.
There are analysts at the CIA, the NSA, the DIA and State INR that have the job of knowing about Russian cyber activity and capabilities.
That is certain. But we are not talking about hundreds of people.
Let us move from the hypothetical to the actual. In January of 2017, DNI Jim Clapper release a report entitled, "
Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent
US Elections " (please see
here ). In subsequent testimony before the Congress, Clapper claimed that he handpicked
two dozen analysts to draft the document . That is not likely. There may have been as many as two dozen analysts who read the
final document and commented on it, but there would never be that many involved in in drafting such a document. In any event, only
analysts from the CIA, the NSA and the FBI were involved :
This report includes an analytic assessment drafted and coordinated among The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), The Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and The National Security Agency (NSA), which draws on intelligence information collected and disseminated
by those three agencies.
Limiting the drafting and clearance on this document to only the CIA, the NSA and the FBI is highly unusual because one of the
key analytical conclusions in the document identifies the Russian military intelligence organization, the GRU, as one of the perpetrators
of the cyber attack. DIA's analysts are experts on the GRU and there also are analysts in State Department's Bureau of INR who should
have been consulted. Instead, they were excluded.
Here is how the process should have worked in producing this document:
One or more analysts are asked to do a preliminary draft. It is customary in such a document for the analyst to cite specific
intelligence, using phrases such as: "According to a reliable source of proven access," when citing a CIA document or "According
to an intercept of a conversation between knowledgeable sources with access," when referencing something collected by the NSA.
The analyst does more than repeat what is claimed in the intel reports, he or she also has the job of explaining what these facts
mean or do not mean.
There always is an analyst leading the effort who has the job of integrating the contributions of the other analysts into
a coherent document. Once the document is completed in draft it is handed over to Branch Chief and then Division Chief for editing.
We do not know who had the lead, but it was either the FBI, the CIA or the NSA.
At the same time the document is being edited at originating agency, it is supposed to be sent to the other clearing agencies,
i.e. those agencies that either provided the intelligence cited in the draft (i.e., CIA, NSA, DIA, or State) or that have expertise
on the subject. As noted previously, it is highly unusual to exclude the DIA and INR.
Once all the relevant agencies clear on the content of the document, it is sent into the bowels of the DNI where it is put
into final form.
That is how the process is supposed to work. But the document produced in January 2017 was not a genuine work reflecting the views
of the "Intelligence Community." It only represented the supposed thinking (and I use that term generously) of CIA, NSA and FBI analysts.
In other words, only three of 16 agencies cleared on the document that presented four conclusions:
Russian efforts to influence the 2016 US presidential election represent the most recent expression of Moscow's longstanding
desire to undermine the US-led liberal democratic order, but these activities demonstrated a significant escalation in directness,
level of activity, and scope of effort compared to previous operations.
We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election.
Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability
and potential presidency.
We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump.
We assess Moscow will apply lessons learned from its Putin-ordered campaign aimed at the US presidential election to future
influence efforts worldwide, including against US allies and their election processes.
Sounds pretty ominous, but the language used tells a different story. The conclusions are based on assumptions and judgments.
There was nor is any actual evidence from intelligence sources showing that Vladimir Putin ordered up anything or that his government
preferred Trump over Clinton.
How do I know this? If such evidence existed -- either documentary or human source or signal intercept -- it would have been cited
in this document. Not only that. Such evidence would have corroborated the claims presented in the Steele dossier. But such evidence
was not forthcoming. If it had existed than Jim Comey could have claimed in his June 2017 testimony before Congress that the parts
of the "Dossier" had been verified. He did not do so. Testifying under oath Comey described the "Dossier" as "salacious and unverified."
It is genuinely shocking that DNI Jim Clapper, with the acquiescence of the CIA, the FBI and NSA, would produce a document devoid
of any solid intelligence. There is a way to publicly release sensitive intelligence without comprising a the original source. But
such sourcing is absent in this document.
That simple fact should tell you all you need to know. The Intelligence Community was used as a tool to misinform the public and
persuade them that Russia was guilty of something they did not do. That lie remains unchallenged.
Good summary argument, PT. Thanks. Helpful reminder.
But, makes me feel uncomfortable. Cynical scenario. I'd prefer them to be both drivers and driven, somehow stumbling into the
chronology of events. They didn't hack the DNC, after all. Crowdstrike? Steele? ...
********
But yes, all the 17 agencies Clinton alluded to in her 3rd encounter with Trump was a startling experience:
One other point on which Tacitus and I differ is the quality of the analysts in the "minors." The "bigs" often recruit analysts
from the "minors" so they can't be all that bad. And the analysts in all these agencies receive much the same data feed electronically
every day. There are exceptions to this but it is generally true. I, too, read hundreds of documents every day to keep up with
the knowledge base of the analysts whom I interrogated continuously. "How do you know that?" would have been typical. pl
"The Intelligence Community was used as a tool to misinform the public and persuade them that Russia was guilty of something they
did not do. That lie remains unchallenged.'"
Yes it was and so remains the lie unchallenged.
Conjectural garbage appears first to have been washed through the FBI, headquarters no less, then probably it picked up a Triple
A rating at the CIA, and then when the garbage got to Clapper, it was bombs away - we experts all agree. There were leaks, but
they weren't sufficient to satisfy Steele so he just delivered the garbage whole to the Media in order to make it a sure thing.
The garbage was placed securely out there in the public domain with a Triple A rating because the FBI wouldn't concern itself
with garbage, would it?
Contrast this trajectory with what the Russian policy establishment did when it concluded that the US had done something in the
Ukraine that Russia found significantly actionable: it released the taped evidence of Nuland and our Ambassador finishing off
the coup.
The whole sequence reminds me in some ways of the sub prime mortgage bond fiasco: garbage risk progressively bundled, repackaged,
rebranded and resold by big name institutions that should have known better.
I have only two questions: was it misfeasance, malfeasance, or some ugly combination of the two? And are they going to get away
with it?
Re this: " In the case of Russian meddling there is no forensic evidence available to the IC because the Democratic National Committee
did not permit the FBI to investigate and examine the computers and the network that was allegedly attacked."
To be precise, CrowdStrike did provide the FBI with allegedly "certified true images" of the DNC servers allegedly involved
in the alleged "hack." They also allegedly provided these images to FireEye and Mandiant, IIRC.
All three allegedly examined those images and concurred with CrowdStrike's analysis.
Of course, given the CrowdStrike itself is a massively compromised organization due to its founder and CEO, those "certified
true images" are themselves tainted evidence.
In addition, regardless of whether the images were true or not, the evidence allegedly contained therein is painfully inadequate
to confirm that APT28 or APT29 were involved, nor that the Russian government was involved, or even that there was a real hack
involved, and even less evidence that any emails that might have been exfiltrated were given to Wikileaks as opposed to another
leak such as that alleged by Sy Hersh to have been done by Seth Rich.
The "assessment" that Putin ordered any of this is pure mind-reading and can be utterly dismissed absent any of the other evidence
Publius points out as necessary.
The same applies to any "estimate" that the Russian government preferred Trump or wished to denigrate Clinton. Based on what
I read in pro-Russian news outlets, Russian officials took great pains to not pick sides and Putin's comments were similarly very
restrained. The main quote from Putin about Trump that emerged was mistranslated as approval whereas it was more an observation
of Trump's personality. At no time did Putin ever say he favored Trump over Clinton, even though that was a likely probability
given Clinton's "Hitler" comparison.
As an aside, I also recommend Scott Ritter's trashing of the ICA. Ritter is familiar with intelligence estimates and their
reliability based on his previous service as a UN weapons inspector in Iraq and in Russia implementing arms control treaties.
This is a wonderful explanation of the intelligence community. And I thank you for the explanation. My interpretation is: In 1990
+- Bush 41 sold us the 1st Iraq war using fudged intelligence, then Bush 43 sold us the second Iraq war using fabricated intelligence.
And now the Obama Administration tried to sell us fake intelligence in regard to Russia in order to get Clinton elected. However
inadequate my summary is it looks like the Democrats are less skilled in propaganda than the Repubs. And what else is the difference?
Mueller has had 18 months and has proceeded to reveal exactly nothing related to either Trump "collusion" with Russia nor Russia
as a state actually doing anything remotely described as "meddling."
His expected indictment of some Russians for the DNC hack is going to be more of the same in all likelihood. I predict there
will be next to zero evidence produced either that the Russians named are in fact members of APT28 or APT29 or that they had any
direct connection with either the alleged DNC hack or Wikileaks or the Russian government.
It's a witch hunt, nothing more. People holding their breath for the "slam dunk" are going to pass out soon if they haven't
already.
Mueller is investigating some aspects. But there is another aspect - the conspiracy inside law enforcement and the IC. That is also being investigated. There are
Congressional committees in particular Nunes, Goodlatte and Grassley. Then there is the DOJ IG. And today AG Sessions confirms
there is a DOJ prosecutor outside Washington investigating.
IMO, the conspiracy is significantly larger in scale and scope than anything the Russians did.
Yes, indeed we'll have to wait and see what facts Mueller reveals. But also what facts these other investigations reveal.
Thank you for setting out the geography and workings of this complex world.
Might I ask how liaison with other Intelligence Communities fits in? Is intelligence information from non-US sources such as
UK intelligence sources subject to the same process of verification and evaluation?
I ask because of the passage in your article -
"But such evidence (corroborating the Steele dossier) was not forthcoming. If it had existed than Jim Comey could have claimed
in his June 2017 testimony before Congress that the parts of the "Dossier" had been verified. He did not do so. Testifying under
oath Comey described the "Dossier" as "salacious and unverified." "
Does this leave room for the assertion that although the "Dossier" was unverified in the US it was accepted as good information
because it had been verified by UK Intelligence or by persons warranted by the UK? In other words, was UK Intelligence, or an ex-UK intelligence officer, used to get material through the US evaluation process,
material that would not have got through that US evaluation process had it originated within the US itself?
" ... was UK Intelligence, or an ex-UK intelligence officer, used to get material through the US evaluation process, material
that would not have got through that US evaluation process had it originated within the US itself?" I would say yes and especially
yes if the contact for this piece of data was conducted at the highest level within the context of the already tight liaison
between the US IC and Mi-6/GCHQ. PT may think differently. pl
Was it Hitler or Stalin who said "show me the man and I will find his crime?" As I have said before, Trumps greatest vulnerability
lies in his previous business life as an entrepreneurial hustler. If he is anything like the many like him whom I observed in
my ten business years, then he has cut corners legally somewhere in international business. they pretty much all do that. Kooshy,
a successful businessman confirmed that here a while back. These other guys were all business hustlers including Flynn and their
activities have made them vulnerable to Mueller. IMO you have to ask yourself how much you want to be governed by political hacks
and how much by hustlers. pl
hy this socialist pub would fing it surprising that former public servants seek elected office is a mystery to me. BTW, in
re all the discussion here of the IC, there are many levels in these essentially hierarchical structures and one's knowledge of
them is conditioned by the perspective from which you viewed them. pl
Re 'baby adoption' meeting between Trump, Jr. and Veselnitskaya, I recall a comment here linking to an article speculating the
email initiating the meeting originated in Europe, was set up by the playboy son of a European diplomat, and contained words to
trip data-gathering monitors which would have enabled a FISA request to have Trump, Jr. come under surveillance.
Also, the Seymour Hersh tape certainly seems authentic as far as Seth Rich being implicated in the DNC dump.
You insist (I guess you rely on MSNBC as your fact source) that Manafort, Page, etc. all "have connections to Russia or Assange."
You are using smear and guilt by association. Flynn's so-called connection to Russia was that he accepted an invite to deliver
a speech at an RT sponsored event and was paid. So what? Nothing wrong with that. Just ask Bill Clinton. Or perhaps you are referring
to the fact that Flynn also spoke to the Russian Ambassador to the US after the election in his capacity as designated National
Security Advisor. Zero justification for investigation.
Stone? He left the campaign before there had even been a primary and only had text exchanges with Assange.
Your blind hatred of Trump makes you incapable of thinking logically.
The most sarcastic irony was intended. This is what the real left looks like, its very different from Clintonite Liberals, not that I agree with their ideological
program, though I believe parts have their place.
And to your second comment, yes I agree about the complexity of institutions and how situationally constrained individual experiences
are, if that was the point.
I'll also concede my brief comments generalize very broadly, but it's hard to frame things more specific comments without direct
knowledge, such as the invaluable correspondents here. I try to avoid confirmation bias by reading broadly and try to provide
outside perspectives. My apologies if they're too far outside.
I suppose it would be interesting to see a side by side comparison of how many former IC self affiliated with which party in
choosing to run. I'm just guessing but I'll bet there's more CIA in the D column and more DIA among the Rs.
"We don't have the evidence yet because Mueller hasn't found it yet!" is a classic argument from ignorance, in that is assumes
without evidence (there's that pesky word again!) that there is something to be found.
That said, I have no doubt that Mueller will find *something*, simply because an aggressive and determined prosecutor can always
find *something*, especially if the target is engaged in higher level business or politics. A form unfiled, an irregularity in
an official document, and overly optimistic tax position.
If nothing else works, there's always the good old standby of asking question after question until the target makes a statement
that can be construed as perjury or lying to investigators.
My perspective, after reading that linked article by the WSWS, is that both, the IC and the DoD, are trying to take over the
whole US political spectrum, in fact, militarizing de facto the US political life....
Now, tell me that this is not an
intend by the MIC ( where all the former IC or DoD people finally end when they leave official positions )to take over the
government ( if more was needed after what has happened with Trump´s ) to guarantee their profit rate in a moment where
everything is crimbling....
Btw, have you read the recently released paper, "WorldWide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community" by Daniel R.
Coats ( DNI )? You smell fear from the four corners....do not you?
Those immortal words are attributed to Lavrentiy Beria, Colonel and you are not the first to draw the comparison re Mueller's
investigation. For those who do not know Beria was head of the NKVD under Stalin.
The BBC reported this morning that a police officer who was amongst the earliest responders to the "nerve gas" poisoning of Col.
Skripal is also being treated for symptoms. How was it that many "White Helmets" who were filmed where the sarin gas was dropped
on Khan Sheikhoun last April suffered no symptoms?
That's a good way to present it political hacks vs hustlers. The fact is Flynn has pled guilty to perjury. Nothing else like collusion with the Russians.
And his sentencing is on hold
now as the judge has ordered Mueller to hand over any exculpatory evidence. Clearly something is going on his case for the judge
to do that.
Manafort has been indicted for money laundering, wire fraud, etc for activities well before the election campaign. Sure, it is good that these corrupt individuals should be investigated and prosecuted. However, this corruption is widespread
in DC. How come none of these cheering Mueller on to destroy Trump care about all the foreign money flowing to K Street? Why aren't
they calling for investigations of the Clinton Foundation or the Podesta brothers where probable cause exist of foreign money
and influence? What about Ben Cardin and all those recipients of foreign zionist money and influence? It would be nice if there
were wide ranging investigations on all those engaged in foreign influence peddling. But it seems many just want a witch hunt
to hobble Trump. It's going to be very difficult to get the Senate to convict him for obstruction of justice or tax evasion or
some charge like that.
The select group of several dozen analysts from CIA, NSA and FBI who produced the January 2017 ICA are very likely the same group
of analysts assembled by Brenner in August 2016 to form a task force examining "L'Affaire Russe" at the same time Brennan brought
that closely held report to Obama of Putin's specific instructions on an operation to damage Clinton and help Trump. I've seen
these interagency task forces set up several times to address particular info ops or cyberattack issues. Access to the work of
these task forces was usually heavily restricted. I don't know if this kind of thing has become more prevalent throughout the
IC.
I am also puzzled by the absence of DIA in the mix. When I was still working, there were a few DIA analysts who were acknowledged
throughout the IC as subject matter experts and analytical leaders in this field. On the operational side, there was never great
enthusiasm for things cyber or info ops. There were only a few lonely voices in the darkness. Meanwhile, CIA, FBI and NSA embraced
the field wholeheartedly. Perhaps those DIA analytical experts retired or moved on to CYBERCOM, NSA or CIA's Information Operations
Center.
I predict there will be next to zero evidence produced either that the Russians named are in fact members of APT28 or APT29
...
Richard, over here the type of software is categorized under Advanced Persistent Threat, and beyond that specifically labeled
the "Sofacy Group". ... I seem to prefer the more neutral description 'Advanced Persistent Threat' by Kaspersky. Yes, they seem
to be suspicious lately in the US. But I am a rather constant consumer, never mind the occasional troubles over the years.
APT: Helps to not get confused by all the respective naming patterns in the economic field over national borders. APT 1 to
29 ...? Strictly, What's the precise history of the 'Bear' label and or the specific, I assume, group of APT? ...
Ever used a datebase checking a file online? Would have made you aware of the multitude of naming patterns.
******
More ad-hoc concerning one item in your argument above. To what extend does a standard back-up system leave relevant forensic
traces? Beyond the respective image in the present? Do you know?
Admittedly, I have no knowledge about matters beyond purely private struggles. But yes, they seemed enough to get a vague glimpse
of categories in the field of attribution. Regarding suspected state actors vs the larger cybercrime scene that is.
Even mentioning those is just further evidence that something really did happen.
I appreciate you are riding our partially shared hobby horse, Fred. ;)
But admittedly this reminds me of something that felt like a debate-shift, I may be no doubt misguided here. Nitwit! In other
words I may well have some type of ideological-knot in the relevant section dealing with memory in my brain as long-term undisciplined
observer of SST.
But back on topic: the argument seemed to be that "important facts" were omitted. In other words vs earlier times were are
now centrally dealing with omission as evidence. No?
General McMaster has seen the evidence and says the fact of Russian meddling can no longer be credibly denied.
That doesn't stop the right-wing extremists from spinning fairy tales.
The right wing (re: Hannity and Limbaugh) have been trying mightily to discredit this investigation by smearing Mueller's reputation,
even though he is a conservative republican.
They are doing this so that if Mueller's report is damning, they can call it a "witch hunt."
I would think that if Trump is innocent, he would cooperate with this investigation fully.
You are insinuating that McMaster is a liar even though he has access to information that you don't.
"omission as evidence. " Incorrect. Among the omissions was the fact that the dossier was paid for by a political campaign
and that the wife of a senior DOJ lawyer's wife was working for Fusion GPS. Then there's the rest of the political motivations
left out.
If you have seen the classified information that would be necessary to back up your conclusions, it should not be discussed in
this forum. As you are well aware sources and methods cannot be made public so I fail to see how you believe this should have
been publically done. Having said that, I pretty much agree with your conclusion except for the indication that the analysts lied.
What does "hacking our elections" mean? Does it means breaking into voting systems and changing the outcome by altering votes?
Or does it mean information operations to change US voters' minds about for whom they would vote?
If the latter you must know
that we (the US) have done this many times in foreign elections, including Russian elections, Israeli elections, Italian elections,
German elections, etc., or perhaps you think that a different criterion should be applied to people who are not American.
As for
McMasters, I am unimpressed with him. He displays all the symptoms of Russophobia. He has special information? Information can
be interpreted many ways depending on one's purpose. pl
PT does not have access to the classified information underlying but your argument that "As you are well aware sources and
methods cannot be made public so I fail to see how you believe this should have been publicly done." doesn't hold water for me
since I have seen sources and methods disclosed by the government of the US many times when it felt that necessary. One example
that I have mentioned before was that of the trial of Jeffrey Sterling (merlin) for which I was an expert witness and adviser
to the federal court for four years.
In that one the CIA and DoJ forced the court to allow them to de-classify the CIA DO's operational
files on the case and read them into the record in open court. I had read all these files when they were classified at the SCI
level. IMO the perpetrators in the Steel Memo case are and were merely hiding behind claims of sources and methods protection
in order to protect themselve. pl
Mueller cleared his ridiculous indictment relating to the Russian troll farm, a requirement that at one time would have been
SOP for any FBI Office or USAtty Office bringing an indictment of this kind.
Not aware of this. Can you help me out?
No doubt vaguely familiar with public lore, in limited ways. As always.
So now we are supposed to believe unquestioningly the word of torturers, perjurers and entrapment artists, all talking about alleged
evidence that we are not allowed to see?
Did you learn nothing from the "Iraqi WMD" fiasco or the "ZOMG! Assad gassed his own peoples ZOMG!" debacle? Funny how in each of these instances, the intelligence community's lies just happened to coincide with the agenda of empire.
Ok, true. I forgot 'Steele'* was used as 'evidence'. Strictly, Pat may have helped me out considering my 'felt' "debate-shift". Indirectly. I do recall, I hesitated to try to clarify
matters for myself.
Depends on what crime the "hack" committed. Fudging on taxes or cutting corners? Big whoop. Laundering $500 mil for a buddy of
Vlad's? Now you got my attention and should have the voters' attention.
This is a political process in the end game. Clinton lied about sex in the oval Office and was tried for it. Why don't we exercise
patience in the process and see if this President should be tried?
I ain't a lawyer but don't prosecutors hold their cards (evidence) close to their chests until the court has a criminal charge
and sets a date for discovery?
Linda,
You betray your ignorance on this subject. You clearly have not understood nor comprehended what I have written. So i will put
it in CAPS for you. Please read slowly.
THIS TYPE OF DOCUMENT, IF IT HAD A SOURCE OR SOURCES BEHIND IT, WOULD REFERENCE THOSE SOURCES. AN ANALYST WOULD NOT WRITE "WE
ASSESS." IF YOU HAVE A RELIABLE HUMAN SOURCE OR A RELIABLE PIECE OF SIGINT THE YOU DO NOT HAVE TO ASSESS. YOU SIMPLY STATE, ACCORDING
TO A KNOWLEDGEABLE AND RELIABLE SOURCE.
GOT IT. And don't come back with nonsense that the sources are so sensitive that they cannot be disclose. News flash genius--the
very fact that Clapper put out this piece of dreck would have exposed the sources if they existed (but they do not). In any event,
there would be reference to sources that provided the evidence that such activity took place at the direction of Putin.
I notice other Intelligence Community Assessments also use the term "we assess" liberally. For example, the 2018 Worldwide
Threat Assessment and the 2012 ICA on Global Water Security use the "we assess" phrase throughout the documents. I hazard to guess
that is why they call these things assessments.
The 2017 ICA on Russian Interference released to the public clearly states: "This report is a declassified version of a highly
classified assessment. This document's conclusions are identical to the highly classified assessment, but this document does not
include the full supporting information, including specific intelligence on key elements of the influence campaign. Given the
redactions, we made minor edits purely for readability and flow."
I would hazard another guess that those minor edits for readability and flow are the reason that specific intelligence reports
and sources, which were left out of the unclassified ICA, are not cited in that ICA.
As far as I know, no one has reliably claimed that election systems, as in vote tallies, were ever breached. No votes were
changed after they were cast. The integrity of our election system and the 2016 election itself was maintained. Having said that,
there is plenty of evidence of Russian meddling as an influence op. I suggest you and others take a gander at the research of
someone going by the handle of @UsHadrons and several others. They are compiling a collection of FaceBook, twitter and other media
postings that emanated from the IRA and other Russian sources. The breadth of these postings is quite wide and supports the assessment
that enhancing the divides that already existed in US society was a primary Russian goal.
I pointed this stuff out to Eric Newhill a while back in one of our conversations. He jokingly noted that he may have assisted
in spreading a few of these memes. I bet a lot of people will recognize some of the stuff in this collection. That's nothing.
Recently we all learned that Michael Moore did a lot more than unwittingly repost a Russian meme. He took part in a NYC protest
march organized and pushed by Russians. This stuff is open source proof of Russian meddling.
TTG
Nice try, but that is bullshit just because recent assessments come out with sloppy language is no excuse. Go back and look at
the assessment was done for iraq to justify the war in 2003. Many sources cited because it was considered something Required to
justify going to war. As we have been told by many in the media that the Russians meddling was worse or as bad as the attack on
Pearl Harbor and 9-11. With something so serious do you want to argue that they would downplay the sourcing?
"... To be precise, CrowdStrike did provide the FBI with allegedly "certified true images" of the DNC servers allegedly involved in the alleged "hack." They also allegedly provided these images to FireEye and Mandiant, IIRC ..."
"... Of course, given the CrowdStrike itself is a massively compromised organization due to its founder and CEO, those "certified true images" are themselves tainted evidence. ..."
"... In addition, regardless of whether the images were true or not, the evidence allegedly contained therein is painfully inadequate to confirm that APT28 or APT29 were involved, nor that the Russian government was involved, or even that there was a real hack involved, and even less evidence that any emails that might have been exfiltrated were given to Wikileaks as opposed to another leak such as that alleged by Sy Hersh to have been done by Seth Rich. ..."
Re this: " In the case of Russian meddling there is no forensic evidence available to the IC
because the Democratic National Committee did not permit the FBI to investigate and examine
the computers and the network that was allegedly attacked."
To be precise, CrowdStrike did provide the FBI with allegedly "certified true images"
of the DNC servers allegedly involved in the alleged "hack." They also allegedly provided
these images to FireEye and Mandiant, IIRC .
All three allegedly examined those images and concurred with CrowdStrike's analysis.
Of course, given the CrowdStrike itself is a massively compromised organization due to
its founder and CEO, those "certified true images" are themselves tainted evidence.
In addition, regardless of whether the images were true or not, the evidence allegedly
contained therein is painfully inadequate to confirm that APT28 or APT29 were involved, nor
that the Russian government was involved, or even that there was a real hack involved, and
even less evidence that any emails that might have been exfiltrated were given to Wikileaks
as opposed to another leak such as that alleged by Sy Hersh to have been done by Seth
Rich.
The "assessment" that Putin ordered any of this is pure mind-reading and can be utterly
dismissed absent any of the other evidence Publius points out as necessary.
The same applies to any "estimate" that the Russian government preferred Trump or wished
to denigrate Clinton. Based on what I read in pro-Russian news outlets, Russian officials
took great pains to not pick sides and Putin's comments were similarly very restrained. The
main quote from Putin about Trump that emerged was mistranslated as approval whereas it was
more an observation of Trump's personality. At no time did Putin ever say he favored Trump
over Clinton, even though that was a likely probability given Clinton's "Hitler"
comparison.
As an aside, I also recommend Scott Ritter's trashing of the ICA. Ritter is familiar with
intelligence estimates and their reliability based on his previous service as a UN weapons
inspector in Iraq and in Russia implementing arms control treaties.
"... Following Admiral Roger's closing the FSA mega-file to the FBI, it looks as though Christopher Steele's real role was laundering information stateside which had been obtained through continued Inquiries of the NSA mega-file by our Ambassador to the UN. *** Fusion GPS immediately hired FBI manager Bruce Ohr's wife, Nellie Ohr, and Christopher Steele. Bruce Ohr passed his illegally obtained information to Nellie, she to Steele, who then relayed the material back to Fusion / FBI as coming from his "Russian contacts." ..."
"... And here 44 may have made a mistake in authorizing the spread his Daily Briefing to 30+ agencies and individuals -- again as a work-around of the Roger's information ban. This places 44's fingerprints on the work-around. ..."
"... As it happens, I think the suggestion that Steele's role may have been, in very substantial measure, to give the impression that material from other source was the product of a high-quality 'humint' investigation merits being taken extremely seriously. ..."
"... Carter Page during his period of cooperation with the FBI, almost certainly was handled by Agents assigned to a field office. I wonder what they had to say, assuming they even knew, about HQ opening a CI case targeting their former cooperating witness for FISA coverage. It will be very interesting to see who handled Steele. Strzok? ..."
"... What was the compelling evidence and who furnished it to turn a US Naval Academy graduate, and presumably a Naval Officer with a readily accessible track record in service, into the targeted subject of an espionage investigation. Did he even have any current access to classified information? This is not looking good. ..."
Following Admiral Roger's closing the FSA mega-file to the FBI, it looks as though
Christopher Steele's real role was laundering information stateside which had been obtained
through continued Inquiries of the NSA mega-file by our Ambassador to the UN. *** Fusion GPS
immediately hired FBI manager Bruce Ohr's wife, Nellie Ohr, and Christopher Steele. Bruce Ohr
passed his illegally obtained information to Nellie, she to Steele, who then relayed the
material back to Fusion / FBI as coming from his "Russian contacts."
And here 44 may have made a mistake in authorizing the spread his Daily Briefing to 30+ agencies and individuals --
again as a work-around of the Roger's information ban. This
places 44's fingerprints on the work-around.
You may recall the incident of the wrong Michael Cohen traveling to Prague to meet with
Russians -- when the future 45's personal lawyer was having a family celebration / baseball
game stateside? The error was generated by the NSA mega-file. Steele's "Russian contacts"
dutifully corroborated Cohen's visit with them in Prague -- how could they not, since they
exist only in Steele's mind. In short, the Steele "Russians contacts" are proved to be
fictions and if fictions then there was no Russian collusion between the Trump Campaign and
Russia.
*** Our UN Ambassador claims she was not generating hundreds of NSA Inquiries per week and
we can believe her. The NSA Inquiries were coming from the FBI via her State Department
"support" in DC.
It really does help if, when you make claims, you link to the source so that others can
evaluate them. In the case of the claims you are making, the source is clearly a post two days ago by
'sundance' on the 'Conservative Treehouse' site entitled 'Tying All The Loose Threads
Together – DOJ, FBI, DoS, White House: "Operation Latitude" '
As it happens, I think the suggestion that Steele's role may have been, in very
substantial measure, to give the impression that material from other source was the product
of a high-quality 'humint' investigation merits being taken extremely seriously.
However, to repeat claims by 'sundance', while not taking the – rather minimal
– amount of trouble required to provide the link which allows others to evaluate them,
simply puts people's backs up and makes them less likely to take what you are suggesting
seriously.
Most unusual, I would say, for an Agent in an upper management position in FBI HQ to open a
counter intelligence case and then for all intents and purposes assign it to himself. Cases
are normally worked and directly supervised in field offices.
Carter Page during his period of cooperation with the FBI, almost certainly was handled by
Agents assigned to a field office. I wonder what they had to say, assuming they even knew,
about HQ opening a CI case targeting their former cooperating witness for FISA coverage.
It will be very interesting to see who handled Steele. Strzok?
What was the compelling evidence and who furnished it to turn a US Naval Academy graduate,
and presumably a Naval Officer with a readily accessible track record in service, into the
targeted subject of an espionage investigation. Did he even have any current access to
classified information?
This is not looking good.
So here is my personal conclusion: democracies are political systems in which the real
ruling elites hide behind an utterly fake appearance of people power.
"what we see is that western democracies are run by gangs of oligarchs and bureaucrats who
have almost nothing in common with the people they are supposed to represent."
A very interesting interview. It is almost one year old.
When intelligence agencies use the phase "with high confidence" means that they do not have evidence. This is one of
the biggest lie intelligence agencies resort to. They are all professional liars and should be treated as such.
If DNC email offloading was done over Internet (which means it was a hack not an internal leak) NSA should have the direct evidence.
They do not. So this is a progpaganda move by Brennan and Clapper to unleash MSM witch hunt, which is a key part of the color revolution
against Trump.
Another question is who downloaded this information to Wikileaks. Here NSA also should have evidence. And again they do not.
They have already to direct attention from the main issues. Oversight of intelligence agencies is joke. They can lie with impunity.
BTW NSA has all Hillary emails, including deleted.
He also exposes the NSA penchant for "swindles", such as preventing the plugging of holes in software around the world, to preserve
their spying access.
It's almost comical to hear that they lie to each other. No wonder why these retards in the mid-east and every other third
world country gets the better of us.
The Clinton campaign to divert attention to Russia instead of her myriad of crimes that were revealed during the election must
be stopped and the alt media needs to start talking about her and Obama's crimes again and demand justice...control the dialogue
This is an old method to unite the nation against external enemy. Carnage (with so much oil and gas) needs to be
destroyed. And it's working only partially with the major divisions between Trump and Hillary supporters remaining
open and unaffected by Russiagate witch hunt.
Notable quotes:
"... It is an age-old statecraft technique to seek unity within a state by depicting an external enemy or threat. Russia is the bête noire again, as it was during the Cold War years as part of the Soviet Union. ..."
"... Russophobia -- "blame it all on Russia" -- is a short-term, futile ploy to stave off the day of reckoning when furious and informed Western citizens will demand democratic restitution for their legitimate grievances. ..."
"... The dominant "official" narrative, from the US to Europe, is that "malicious" Russia is "sowing division;""eroding democratic institutions;" and "undermining public trust" in systems of governance, credibility of established political parties, and the news media. ..."
"... A particularly instructive presentation of this trope was given in a recent commentary by Texan Republican Representative Will Hurd. In his piece headlined, "Russia is our adversary" , he claims: "Russia is eroding our democracy by exploiting the nation's divisions. To save it, Americans need to begin working together." ..."
"... He contends: "When the public loses trust in the media, the Russians are winning. When the press is hyper-critical of Congress the Russians are winning. When Congress and the general public disagree the Russians are winning. When there is friction between Congress and the executive branch [the president] resulting in further erosion of trust in our democratic institutions, the Russians are winning." ..."
"... The endless, criminal wars that the US and its European NATO allies have been waging across the planet over the past two decades is one cogent reason why the public has lost faith in grandiose official claims about respecting democracy and international law. ..."
"... The US and European media have shown reprehensible dereliction of duty to inform the public accurately about their governments' warmongering intrigues. Take the example of Syria. When does the average Western citizen ever read in the corporate Western media about how the US and its NATO allies have covertly ransacked that country through weaponizing terrorist proxies? ..."
"... The destabilizing impact on societies from oppressive economic conditions is a far more plausible cause for grievance than outlandish claims made by the political class about alleged "Russian interference". ..."
"... Finian Cunningham (born 1963) has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published in several languages. Originally from Belfast, Northern Ireland, he is a Master's graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a scientific editor for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a career in newspaper journalism. For over 20 years he worked as an editor and writer in major news media organizations, including The Mirror, Irish Times and Independent. Now a freelance journalist based in East Africa, his columns appear on RT, Sputnik, Strategic Culture Foundation and Press TV. ..."
Russophobia - "blame it all on Russia" - is a short-term, futile ploy to stave off the day of reckoning when furious
and informed Western citizens will demand democratic restitution for their legitimate grievances
It is an age-old statecraft technique to seek unity within a state by depicting an external
enemy or threat. Russia is the bête noire again, as it was during the Cold War years as
part of the Soviet Union.
But the truth is Western states are challenged by internal problems. Ironically, by denying their own internal democratic challenges, Western authorities are
only hastening their institutional demise.
Russophobia -- "blame it all on Russia" -- is a short-term, futile ploy to stave off the day
of reckoning when furious and informed Western citizens will demand democratic restitution for
their legitimate grievances.
The dominant "official" narrative, from the US to Europe, is that "malicious" Russia is
"sowing division;""eroding democratic institutions;" and "undermining public trust" in systems
of governance, credibility of established political parties, and the news media.
This narrative has shifted up a gear since the election of Donald Trump to the White House
in 2016, with accusations that the Kremlin somehow ran "influence operations" to help get him
into office. This outlandish yarn defies common sense. It is also running out of thread to keep
spinning.
Paradoxically, even though President Trump has rightly rebuffed such dubious claims of
"Russiagate" interference as "fake news", he has at other times undermined himself by
subscribing to the notion that Moscow is projecting a campaign of "subversion against the US
and its European allies." See for example the National Security Strategy he signed off in
December.
Pathetically, it's become indoctrinated belief among the Western political class that
"devious Russians" are out to "collapse" Western democracies by
"weaponizing disinformation" and spreading "fake news" through Russia-based
news outlets like RT and Sputnik.
Totalitarian-like, there seems no room for intelligent dissent among political or media
figures.
British Prime Minister Theresa May has chimed in to
accuse Moscow of "sowing division;" Dutch state intelligence claim Russia
destabilized the US presidential election; the European Union commissioner for security, Sir
Julian King, casually lampoons Russian news media as "Kremlin-orchestrated
disinformation" to destabilize the 28-nation bloc; CIA chief Mike Pompeo recently warned
that Russia is stepping up its efforts to tarnish the Congressional mid-term elections later
this year.
On and on goes the narrative that Western states are essentially victims of a nefarious
Russian assault to bring about collapse.
A particularly instructive presentation of this trope was given in a recent commentary by Texan
Republican Representative Will Hurd. In his piece headlined, "Russia is our adversary"
, he claims: "Russia is eroding our democracy by exploiting the nation's divisions. To save
it, Americans need to begin working together."
Congressman Hurd asserts: "Russia has one simple goal: to erode trust in our democratic
institutions It has weaponized disinformation to achieve this goal for decades in Eastern and
Central Europe; in 2016, Western Europe and America were aggressively targeted as
well."
Lamentably, all these claims above are made with scant, or no, verifiable evidence. It is
simply a Big Lie technique of relentless repetition transforming itself into "fact"
.
It's instructive to follow Congressman Hurd's thought-process a bit further.
He contends: "When the public loses trust in the media, the Russians are winning. When
the press is hyper-critical of Congress the Russians are winning. When Congress and the general
public disagree the Russians are winning. When there is friction between Congress and the
executive branch [the president] resulting in further erosion of trust in our democratic
institutions, the Russians are winning."
As a putative solution, Representative Hurd calls for "a national counter-disinformation
strategy" against Russian "influence operations" , adding, "Americans must
stop contributing to a corrosive political environment".
The latter is a chilling advocacy of uniformity tantamount to a police state whereby any
dissent or criticism is a "thought-crime."
It is, however, such anti-democratic and paranoid thinking by Western politicians -- aided
and abetted by dutiful media -- that is killing democracy from within, not some supposed
foreign enemy.
There is evidently a foreboding sense of demise in authority and legitimacy among Western
states, even if the real cause for the demise is ignored or denied. Systems of governance,
politicians of all stripes, and institutions like the established media and intelligence
services are increasingly held in contempt and distrust by the public.
Whose fault is that loss of political and moral authority? Western governments and
institutions need to take a look in the mirror.
The endless, criminal wars that the US and its European NATO allies have been waging across
the planet over the past two decades is one cogent reason why the public has lost faith in
grandiose official claims about respecting democracy and international law.
The US and European media have shown reprehensible dereliction of duty to inform the public
accurately about their governments' warmongering intrigues. Take the example of Syria. When
does the average Western citizen ever read in the corporate Western media about how the US and
its NATO allies have covertly ransacked that country through weaponizing terrorist proxies?
How then can properly informed citizens be expected to have respect for such criminal
government policies and the complicit news media covering up for their crimes?
Western public disaffection with governments, politicians and media surely stems also from
the grotesque gulf in social inequality and poverty among citizens from slavish adherence to
economic policies that enrich the wealthy while consigning the vast majority to unrelenting
austerity.
The destabilizing impact on societies from oppressive economic conditions is a far more
plausible cause for grievance than outlandish claims made by the political class about alleged
"Russian interference".
Yet the Western media indulge this fantastical "Russiagate" escapism instead of campaigning
on real social problems facing ordinary citizens. No wonder such media are then viewed with
disdain and distrust. Adding insult to injury, these media want the public to believe Russia is
the enemy?
Instead of acknowledging and addressing real threats to citizens: economic insecurity,
eroding education and health services, lost career opportunities for future generations, the
looming dangers of ecological adversity, wars prompted by Western governments trashing
international and diplomacy, and so on -- the Western public is insultingly plied with corny
tales of Russia's "malign influence" and "assault on democracy."
Just think of the disproportionate amount of media attention and public resources wasted on
the Russiagate scandal over the past year. And now gradually emerging is the real scandal that
the American FBI probably colluded with the Obama administration to corrupt the democratic
process against Trump.
Again, is there any wonder the public has sheer contempt and distrust for "authorities" that
have been lying through their teeth and playing them for fools?
The collapsing state of Western democracies has got nothing to do with Russia. The
Russophobia of blaming Russia for the demise of Western institutions is an attempt at
scapegoating for the very real problems facing governments and institutions like the news
media. Those problems are inherent and wholly owned by these governments owing to chronic
anti-democratic functioning, as well as systematic violation of international law in their
pursuit of criminal wars and other subterfuges for regime-change objectives.
Finian Cunningham (born 1963) has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published in several
languages. Originally from Belfast, Northern Ireland, he is a Master's graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a
scientific editor for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a career in newspaper journalism. For
over 20 years he worked as an editor and writer in major news media organizations, including The Mirror, Irish Times and
Independent. Now a freelance journalist based in East Africa, his columns appear on RT, Sputnik, Strategic Culture Foundation
and Press TV.
Very weak analysis The authors completely missed the point. Susceptibility to rumors (now
called "fake new" which more correctly should be called "improvised news") and high level of
distrust to "official MSM" (of which popularity of alternative news site is only tip of the
iceberg) is a sign of the crisis and tearing down of the the social fabric that hold the so
social groups together. This first of all demonstrated with the de-legitimization of the
neoliberal elite.
As such attempt to patch this discord and unite the US society of fake premises of Russiagate
and anti-Russian hysteria look very problematic. The effect might be quite opposite as the story
with Steele dossier, which really undermined credibility of Justice Department and destroyed the
credibility o FBI can teach us.
In this case claims that "The claim that, for example, Mrs. Clinton's victory might aid Satan
" are just s a sign of rejection of neoliberalism by voters. Nothing more nothing less.
Notable quotes:
"... It has infected the American political system, weakening the body politic and leaving it vulnerable to manipulation. Russian misinformation seems to have exacerbated the symptoms, but laced throughout the indictment are reminders that the underlying disease, arguably far more damaging, is all American-made. ..."
"... A recent study found that the people most likely to consume fake news were already hyperpartisan and close followers of politics, and that false stories were only a small fraction of their media consumption. ..."
That these efforts might have actually made a difference, or at least were intended to,
highlights a force that was already destabilizing American democracy far more than any
Russian-made fake news post: partisan polarization.
"Partisanship can even alter memory, implicit evaluation, and even perceptual judgment," the
political scientists Jay J. Van Bavel and Andrea Pereira wrote in a recent paper . "The human attraction to fake and
untrustworthy news" -- a danger cited by political scientists far more frequently than
orchestrated meddling -- "poses a serious problem for healthy democratic functioning."
It has infected the American political system, weakening the body politic and leaving it
vulnerable to manipulation. Russian misinformation seems to have exacerbated the symptoms, but
laced throughout the indictment are reminders that the underlying disease, arguably far more
damaging, is all American-made.
... ... ...
A recent study found
that the people most likely to consume fake news were already hyperpartisan and close followers
of politics, and that false stories were only a small fraction of their media
consumption.
Americans, it said, sought out stories that reflected their already-formed partisan view of
reality. This suggests that these Russians efforts are indicators -- not drivers -- of how
widely Americans had polarized.
That distinction matters for how the indictment is read: Though Americans have seen it as
highlighting a foreign threat, it also illustrates the perhaps graver threats from
within.
An Especially Toxic Form of Partisanship
... ... ...
"Compromise is the core of democracy," she said. "It's the only way we can govern." But, she
said, "when you make people feel threatened, nobody compromises with evil."
The claim that, for example, Mrs. Clinton's victory might aid Satan is in many ways just a
faint echo of the partisan anger and fear already dominating American politics.
Those emotions undermine a key norm that all sides are served by honoring democratic
processes; instead, they justify, or even seem to mandate, extreme steps against the other
side.
In taking this approach, the Russians were merely riding a trend that has been building for
decades.
Since the 1980s , surveys have found that Republicans and Democrats' feelings toward the
opposing party have been growing more and more negative. Voters are animated more by distrust
of the other side than support for their own.
This highlights a problem that Lilliana Mason, a University of Maryland political scientist,
said had left American democracy dangerously vulnerable. But it's a problem driven primarily by
American politicians and media outlets, which have far louder megaphones than any Russian-made
Facebook posts.
"Compromise is the core of democracy," she said. "It's the only way we can govern." But, she
said, "when you make people feel threatened, nobody compromises with evil."
The claim that, for example, Mrs. Clinton's victory might aid Satan is in many ways just a
faint echo of the partisan anger and fear already dominating American politics.
Those emotions undermine a key norm that all sides are served by honoring democratic
processes; instead, they justify, or even seem to mandate, extreme steps against the other
side.
"... ANDREW LEVINE is the author most recently of THE AMERICAN IDEOLOGY (Routledge) and POLITICAL KEY WORDS (Blackwell) as well as of many other books and articles in political philosophy. His most recent book is In Bad Faith: What's Wrong With the Opium of the People . He was a Professor (philosophy) at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a Research Professor (philosophy) at the University of Maryland-College Park. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). ..."
Then Hillary Clinton, not Donald Trump, would be president of the United States, but the
Senate, probably, and the House of Representatives, certainly, would have remained under
Republican control.
In other words, had Hillary won, we would now have pretty much what we had when Barack Obama
was president – but with the executive branch less competently led and more packed with
Clintonite (neoliberal, liberal imperialist, shoot-first-and-ask-questions-later) officials,
and with a Congress run by obstinate Republican troglodytes running roughshod over feckless,
slightly less retrograde Democrats.
Radical impulses would, of course, continue to stir throughout the general population but
notwithstanding widespread and deep popular support, to even less avail than before.
A Clinton presidency wouldn't make the blood of high-minded people boil, the way the Trump
presidency has done, though, for anyone with the courage to face reality squarely, it would be
nearly as painful to endure.
That pain would be much less constructive than the pain that is now so widely felt. Instead
of sparking anodyne "resistance," it would be drowned out in a sea of acquiescence.
In a word, Clinton's first term would be what a third Obama term would have been –
ratcheted down a few notches in the squelched "hope" and "change" departments.
By being African American, Obama stirred up plenty of hope and change illusions, especially
at first, in many, maybe most, sectors of the population. In other sectors, Obama's race
brought barely suppressed prejudices and resentments out into the open.
Because it soon became clear – not to everybody, but to everybody not willfully blind
– that, under Obama, little, if any, good would come, Obamaphilia eventually faded away;
the racism and nativism Obama's election boosted proved more durable.
Hillary, on the other hand, was anything but a beacon of hope – except perhaps to
those of her supporters whose highest priority was electing a woman president. Hardly anyone
else ever expected much good to come from her calling the shots.
In comparison with Obama, she wasn't even good at what she did. Despite a constant barrage
of public relations babble about how experienced and competent she is, this was widely
understood, even if seldom conceded.
She hadn't been much of a First Lady or Senator; among other things, she helped set the
cause of health insurance reform back a generation, and she supported the Afghanistan and Iraq
Wars.
Then, as Secretary of State, she was at least partly responsible for devastating levels of
disorder and mayhem throughout North Africa (Libya especially), the Greater Middle East (not
just Syria), and elsewhere (Honduras, for example). But for her tenure at Foggy Bottom, there
would be many fewer refugees in the world today.
It is therefore a good bet that were she president now, Obama would be sorely missed –
notwithstanding his fondness for terrorizing civilians with weaponized drones, and for
deporting Hispanics and others with a zeal exceeding George Bush's.
Inasmuch as he did break a color line that seemed infrangible, it was impossible for persons
of good will not to root for the man. That would be like not rooting for Jackie Robinson. But
the fact remains: except in comparison to his rivals and to Trump, he was no prize.
Because it was clear to nearly everybody outside the Clinton propaganda circuit that, by
2016, there really was no "glass ceiling" holding women back, Hillary had nothing like that
going for her.
There were and are plenty of people of all ages and genders who would have liked to see a
woman elected president; the time for that is long past due. But, by the time Clinton became
the Democratic standard bearer, hardly anyone could truly believe that patriarchal attitudes or
rampant misogyny were significant factors standing in her way.
To be sure, the lingering effects of attitudes in place years ago have diminished the pool
of plausible female candidates. But then so too did the idea that Clinton was somehow entitled
to the office. Because that attitude was so deeply entrenched, few women wanted to cross
her.
Nevertheless, there are women who, running on the Democratic line, could surely have
defeated Trump. An obvious example is Elizabeth Warren.
I am not alone in thinking that had the Democratic National Committee not rigged the
nomination process in Clinton's favor, Bernie Sanders would have become the party's nominee and
then gone on to defeat Trump. Warren's chances of winning the election were better still
– precisely because, she is a woman.
Clinton's problem was not her gender; it was her politics.
Even so, we would be a lot better off now had she won in 2016 -- not just because the evil
we know (too well!) is easier to deal with than the blooming buzzing confusion we ended up with
instead, but also because, despite her Russophobia and fondness for "military solutions," the
likelihood that the United States would blunder into a nuclear Armageddon would now be
significantly less.
Too bad therefore that she flubbed even more egregiously than those of us who saw through
the public relations myths about her accomplishments and competence thought possible.
Needless to say, in the alternative universe that Democrats and their media flacks have
concocted, they explain the election outcome differently. In their view, Hillary lost because
"the Russians" subverted our democratic institutions.
Or was it because James Comey, then the Director of the FBI, tipped that election to Trump
by refocusing attention on Clinton's emails as Election Day approached?
One would think that it would faze Democratic confabulators that, shortly after the election
was over, Comey rose to the top of Donald Trump's shit list – and was unceremoniously
fired. They really should get their story straight.
While they are sorting that out, they might also make an effort to be a tad less besotted
with the FBI. It is, to say the least, unseemly, even for faux-progressives, to cozy up to the
perennial scourge of every progressive tendency in the American body politic.
And it isn't just the FBI – Democrats nowadays are smitten with the entire national
security state apparatus, including the CIA and the NSA.
Democrats have always been that way to some extent, but, in the pre-Trump era, Republicans
were generally the more gung ho of our two semi-established parties.
For decades, Cold War anti-Communist paranoia endeared the FBI and the others to wide
swathes of the general public and to Republicans and Democrats alike. When a dearth of real
world Communists made that story line impossible to maintain, "Islamic terrorists" were on hand
to take their place.
These obsessions pair well with the right's passion for law and order – in other
words, for keeping the poor generally, and persons of color especially, down.
And so, being the more rightwing of the duopoly parties, Republicans, before Trump, were
especially besotted with the forces of order – from local police (for whom, black lives
don't really matter) on up (or is it down?).
Democrats have never had any real quarrel with any of this, but, being the "nicer" and more
reasonable of the duopoly parties, they were less inclined to go overboard.
It grieves me to say anything good about Donald Trump, but, to his credit, he did force
Republicans onto a less unreasonable track – not in general, but towards Russia, a
country with a nuclear arsenal so formidable that only maniacs would want to mess with it
unnecessarily.
In all likelihood, Trump's reasons are venal or otherwise nefarious, and have little if
anything to do with common sense. But anything that holds back the Doomsday Clock is
welcome.
It is likely, though, that, before long, Republicans will revert back to their old ways.
Indeed, this is already happening: witness Trump's new "defense strategy" – aimed at
the old Cold War bugaboos, Russia and China.
The scare quotes are in order because there is no strategy there, and what Trump is
proposing has nothing to do with defense. It has everything to do, however, with giving free
rein to the Pentagon to squander monies that could be otherwise spent in socially useful ways,
and with stuffing the pockets of death merchants ("defense contractors") and those who feed off
the taxpayer money our political class throws their way.
***
Despite even this, Democrats remain the less odious duopoly party. On nearly all "issues,"
just about any Republican is worse than any Democrat; and the attitudes and instincts
Republicans evince are more execrable by far.
It should be born in mind, however, that the Democratic Party is, if anything, even more
responsible for Trump than the Republicans are.
Insofar as he has set political views and attitudes, they were forged in New York City,
under the aegis of Democratic Party politicians. And the Clintonite (neoliberal) turn in the
larger political culture created the conditions for the possibility of Trump, or someone like
him, rising to national prominence.
Democrats pulled this off by malignly neglecting the working class – and therefore
less well-off white voters, among others – and by euthanizing nascent left oppositions
that showed promise of challenging the economic supremacy and political power of the so-called
"donor class" and of capitalists generally.
Neoliberalism shifts power and resources from the state sector to private capital, it
encourages the globalization of trade, and it facilitates the free flow of capital around the
world.
Its nostrums are integral to a form of class struggle aimed at weakening working class
opposition – largely, but not exclusively, by attacks on the labor movement.
The classical fascism of the interwar years took aim at workers' economic and political
organizations too – more directly, through violent frontal assaults. Neoliberalism works
more gently, through protracted wars of attrition. The consequences, however, are much the
same.
The Clintons and Tony Blair and their counterparts in other countries make a show of their
progressivism – limiting their efforts, however, to cultural issues that do not
materially harm capitalists' interests.
Around election times, they even make nice with union leaders -- because they need the
resources and manpower they can still provide. But it is all a ruse, as workers and others know
well.
Real fascists set out to intimidate workers' organizations; they liked bloodying noses.
Neoliberals take aim at workers' power in such subtle but far-reaching ways that they often
don't even realize that they have been had.
In the early days of the Regan era, Bertram Gross famously introduced the notion of
"friendly fascism." The GOP used to be the friendly fascist's natural home. These days,
however, Republicans are a lot nastier than they were in Reagan's time.
In recent years, the Tea Party and then Trump and the miscreants he has empowered have
accentuated the GOP's racist, nativist, and authoritarian side. It is not a fascist party in
the traditional sense, but the resemblances are more than a little worrisome.
And so, Reagan-style friendly fascism has largely disappeared from the Republican fold. But
for what has taken its place, this would be a reason to celebrate.
Meanwhile, the spirit of the "Reagan revolution" lives on in the other duopoly party
–where, thanks to the Clintons and others like them, efforts to keep "the donor class up"
and everyone else down continue in a seemingly more benign way.
The electoral consequences are predictable. The kinds of working class people whom Trump
derides – basically, everyone who is not white, male and straight – are, of course,
more likely to vote for Democrats than Republicans. But they are more likely still not to vote
at all.
Why would they when they have nothing to vote for ?
And, in large (mainly rural) swathes of the country, white working class men and the women
who stand by them will vote for anyone, even an obviously incompetent billionaire buffoon whose
policies will do nothing for them materially, provided only that he channels their resentments
at Clintonite policies and people.
However, malign neglect of an important segment of the working class is only partly
responsible for Trump. The absence of a genuine left is of far greater importance.
The reasons for its absence are many, and go far beyond the Democratic Party. Even so,
Democrats have a lot to answer for.
As it became increasingly clear that the Bush-Cheney wars launched after 9/11 were
responsible for enormous harm to people and to geopolitical stability, a peace movement took
shape that, by 2006, had become a force to be reckoned with.
At the same time, in anticipation of the 2008 election, the leadership of the Democratic
Party did its best to keep dissent in bounds. Their aim was to get Hillary Clinton elected
president, and they feared that political turbulence would upset their plans.
At the very least, with the House back under Democratic control in 2006, Democrats could
have initiated impeachment proceedings against George Bush; they had more than ample grounds.
Whether or not he would then have been removed from office, he and his subordinates would have
been impeded to some extent from doing at least some of the harm they went on to do.
But Nancy Pelosi and her co-thinkers in Congress put the kibosh on that idea. Their efforts
did not stifle the growing peace movement entirely, but it did take some of the wind out its
sails.
When it turned out that Obama was a stronger candidate than Clinton, and that the nomination
would go his way, leading Democrats adapted. Hillary was their favorite, but Obama had been
thoroughly vetted for corporate-friendliness and passed all the tests with flying colors. That
was good enough for them.
And so it fell to the Nobel laureate to put the peace movement definitively down, even as he
continued – temporarily even escalating -- the Bush-Cheney wars.
For too long and against too much contrary evidence, liberals took it for granted that Obama
was on the side of the angels. They therefore let pass the murder and mayhem he was responsible
for.
After eight years of that, what little semblance of a genuine left there had been within the
Democratic Party's ambit found itself narcotized into oblivion.
An appetite for real opposition, even rebellion, existed within the general public; under
the pressure of events it was growing all the time. But, with our debilitating duopoly party
system in place, there was no political way out of the status quo.
Had Hillary won, that sad state of affairs would have continued, while the underlying
maladies that Trump exploited for the benefit of himself and his class would have continued to
fester.
And we would now likely be on the brink of even more appalling electoral outcomes than we
suffered through in 2010 and 2014, and in 2016, when the Trump phenomenon defied all
expectations.
Paradoxically, though, with Trump's victory, the prospects for a better mainstream politics
actually improved. Trump is so manifestly unfit for the job he holds that his hold over the
White House and the Republican Party actually harms the right more than it helps it.
His ever expanding docket of impeachable offenses and his crude misogyny are doing the work
an organized left opposition would be doing, if only one existed -- creating space for popular
movements to develop.
It started with the Women's March, immediately after Inauguration Day, and has been growing
ever since; with women – black, brown, and white – leading the surge.
With midterm elections looming, the danger of cooptation is great -- Democrats, their media
in tow, are working overtime to make that happen. But thanks to Trump, things have gone too far
by now to be squelched entirely.
What Obama's victory did to the peace movement after 2008, a Hillary victory in 2016 would
have done ten times over to the several (mainly woman-led) insurgencies that were beginning to
take shape during the campaign.
With Trump in the White House, progressive women remain in the forefront of struggles to
change the world for the better. With Clinton there instead, their best efforts would be
swamped by anodyne campaigns led by well-meaning liberals of the kind that understandably rile
up the Trump base.
All things considered, it would have been better (less catastrophically awful) had Hillary
won. Even so, there is some reason to be grateful that she did not. Join the debate on
Facebook More articles by: Andrew Levine
ANDREW LEVINE is the author most recently of THE AMERICAN IDEOLOGY (Routledge) and
POLITICAL KEY WORDS
(Blackwell) as well as of many other books and articles in political philosophy. His most
recent book is In Bad Faith: What's Wrong
With the Opium of the People . He was a Professor (philosophy) at the University of
Wisconsin-Madison and a Research Professor (philosophy) at the University of Maryland-College
Park. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and
the Politics of Illusion (AK Press).
"... And the dossier, a pastiche of falsehoods from gossips in the Kremlin, has been exposed as a smear job paid for by the Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee ..."
"... The hunters are the prey and Trump will prosecute, sack, or intimidate the deep state. But it is there, can arise quickly and can be very dangerous. Forewarned is forearmed. ..."
...Donald Trump went to war against the entire political class: all factions of both parties, the bureaucracy, the national
media, the lobbyists, Hollywood and Wall Street. He said the whole system was rotten and had failed the nation: hopeless wars
that accomplished nothing except the wastage of thousands of lives and trillions of dollars, the extension of Iranian influence
and an immense humanitarian crisis, a flatlined economy, a shrinking workforce, increasing poverty and crime, oceans of debt,
large trade deficits from trade agreements that exported unemployment to the United States and the unmonitored influx of
millions of illiterate peasants from Latin America.
... ... ...
For the first nine months of the new administration, there was the constant confected threat
of impeachment. The phantasmagorical imbecility that Trump had somehow colluded and connived
with the Russian government to rig the election was the excuse of the hapless Clinton and her
Trump-hating echo chamber in the national media for the election result.
The deep state was almost the whole state, and it pitched in to sabotage the administration.
For nearly that long, the Republican leaders sat on their hands waiting to see if he would be
impeached or not. His nominees were a long time in being confirmed. There were leaks of White
House conversations, including with foreign leaders -- outright acts of insubordination
causing Trump, a decisive executive, to fire some fairly high officials, including the malign
director of the FBI, who then informed Congress that he had leaked a self-addressed memo
(probably illegally, as it was technically government property), in order to have a special
prosecutor named to torment the president over the fatuous Russian allegations, although
Comey testified that Trump himself was not a target or suspect and the Russians had not
influenced the outcome of the election. (This was a sober position compared to the wholesale
fabrications of the Democratic vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Mark
Warner, that a
thousand Russian agents had swarmed the key battleground states and had delivered
Wisconsin to Trump.)
The president has strengthened the White House staff. The FBI and Justice Department have
been ripped apart in their partisanship and misuse of the dossier on which the collusion
argument and the surveillance of the Trump campaign were based. And the dossier, a pastiche
of falsehoods from gossips in the Kremlin, has been exposed as a smear job paid for by the
Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee, and the whole impeachment movement has
collapsed. The hunters are the prey and Trump will prosecute, sack, or intimidate the deep
state. But it is there, can arise quickly and can be very dangerous. Forewarned is
forearmed.
Conrad Black is a writer and former newspaper publisher whose most recent book is
Richard M. Nixon: A Life in Full
(PublicAffairs, 2007).
"... Mainly, unnamed intelligence officials and operatives who are in the CIA or recently retired from such. A number of media outfits are exceptionally active in propagating negative headlines and stories about Trump and his administration. Elements of other intelligence agencies and departments of government are possibly involved. We do not know the names of those operating against Trump, and this is a weakness of the coup hypothesis. ..."
"... Its foundation was laid in 2016 by accusations of Russian interference in the election. The coup began in earnest as soon as the election in November 2016 made Trump the winner. ..."
"... On Jan. 14, 2017, a news report states that the CIA set up a task force in 2016 to investigate possible Russian funding of Trump's campaign. The task force included the FBI, the Treasury, and Justice Departments, the CIA, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the National Security Agency (NSA). ..."
"... On February 24, 2016, ex-CIA chief Hayden said he'd be "frightened" of a Trump presidency. He said, "I would be incredibly concerned if President Trump governed in a way that was consistent with the language that candidate Trump expressed during the campaign." A news report told us "Former CIA director Michael Hayden believes there is a legitimate possibility that the U.S. military would refuse to follow orders given by Donald Trump if the Republican front-runner becomes president and decides to make good on certain campaign pledges." ..."
"... There is ample evidence in the form of sharp public bickering between Trump and these two CIA chiefs, present and the past, that the CIA set up a task force to investigate Trump's campaign as a weapon against Trump and his possible election. The motive behind the investigation was not to ensure a clean campaign free of Russian influence but to work against Trump's election chances. The CIA was dismayed by what appeared to them to be a possible president who was aiming to work with Putin and not against him. ..."
"... The excuse was an allegation that three of Trump's associates had received campaign money from the Kremlin. This allegation came from a Baltic state and it was processed by the CIA and made into something worthy of following up. We read that the task force " was set up after the director of the CIA, John Brennan, received a recording of a conversation about money from the Kremlin going into Trump's campaign coffers, the BBC's Paul Wood reported. The recording was apparently passed to the CIA by the intelligence agency of one of the Baltic States." ..."
"... According to this, John Brennan is the key player in the anti-Trump movement. He wants to see Trump's presidency brought to a quick end or otherwise neutered and made compliant to rule by the CIA. By their control over information and its interpretation, the leaders of the CIA have gained considerable power within the government. They've enhanced this by developing operational forces in the field. ..."
"... As occurred during the propaganda campaign that preceded Bush 2's attack on Iraq and as in the Ukraine case noted above, we again observe murky foreign sources that are given credence and validity by the CIA. The public and media have no viable way of checking on the story of Kremlin money except perhaps through off the record sources. Such stories can't be traced through public hearings without subpoena power and a will to wash a lot of dirty linen in public. They are perfect for propaganda and cover-ups. ..."
"... On January 3, 2016, Charles Schumer said that Trump was "being really dumb" for arguing against the assessments of the intelligence community on Russian hacking. He adds ominously: "Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you." ..."
"... On January 15, 2017, we read "CIA Director John Brennan on Sunday had a stern parting message for Republican Donald Trump days before he assumes the U.S. presidency, cautioning him against loosening sanctions on Russia and warning him to watch what he says. Brennan rebuked the president-elect for comparing U.S. intelligence practices to Nazi Germany in comments that laid bare the friction between Trump and the intelligence community he has criticized and is on the verge of commanding." ..."
"... In 2016 Trump and the CIA became foes of one another because of vast policy differences. Past and present CIA directors went public against Trump. They instigated a series of reports and leaks to discredit Trump and to link his campaign to Russian meddling in the election. They went after several of his aides, causing Paul Manafort to resign. After the election, they produced new anti-Trump material and managed to get his National Security Advisor, Michael Flynn, to resign. This adds up to an attempted coup that has had some success. ..."
A. Mainly, unnamed intelligence officials and operatives who are in the CIA or recently
retired from such. A number of media outfits are exceptionally active in propagating negative
headlines and stories about Trump and his administration. Elements of other intelligence
agencies and departments of government are possibly involved. We do not know the names of those
operating against Trump, and this is a weakness of the coup hypothesis.
Q. When did the coup attempt begin?
A. Its foundation was laid in 2016 by accusations of Russian interference in the
election. The coup began in earnest as soon as the election in November 2016 made Trump the
winner.
Q. What evidence points to the CIA's role in the coup attempt?
A. A news report from September 5, 2016, reports that "U.S. intelligence and law enforcement
agencies are investigating what they see as a broad covert Russian operation in the United
States to sow public distrust in the upcoming presidential election and in U.S. political
institutions, intelligence, and congressional officials said."
On Jan. 14, 2017, a news report states that the CIA set up a task force in 2016 to
investigate possible Russian funding of Trump's campaign. The task force included the FBI, the
Treasury, and Justice Departments, the CIA, the Office of the Director of National
Intelligence, and the National Security Agency (NSA).
Q. Why did the CIA set up a task force to investigate Trump's campaign?
A. Why did the CIA not set up a task force to investigate Hillary Clinton's activities
during and after being Secretary of State in response to receipt of mammoth amounts of foreign
money that were laundered through the Clinton Foundation? The reason is that she was the
candidate favored by the CIA leadership and Trump was not.
Early in 2016, Trump was raising very strong doubts in the intelligence community that he'd
govern as they saw fit.
On February 24, 2016, ex-CIA chief Hayden said he'd be "frightened" of a Trump presidency.
He said, "I would be incredibly concerned if President Trump governed in a way that was
consistent with the language that candidate Trump expressed during the campaign." A news report
told us "Former CIA director Michael Hayden believes there is a legitimate possibility that the
U.S. military would refuse to follow orders given by Donald Trump if the Republican
front-runner becomes president and decides to make good on certain campaign pledges."
A month later, Hayden opined that Trump was a larger threat to national stability on
security matters than Hillary Clinton.
On April 11, 2016, we learn that CIA Director "Brennan said on NBC News Sunday that he would
not allow enhanced interrogation tactics, including waterboarding, even if a future president
ordered it." Trump wasted no time responding: "Donald Trump is taking on CIA Director John
Brennan on torture, saying Brennan's pledge not to allow waterboarding is 'ridiculous.'"
On July 13, 2016, Brennan testified that he'd consider quitting rather than obey a
president's order to reinstate waterboarding, something that Trump had suggested. Another
article says that even before that date, "[Brennan] has already expressed his distaste for
Trump."
There is ample evidence in the form of sharp public bickering between Trump and these two
CIA chiefs, present and the past, that the CIA set up a task force to investigate Trump's
campaign as a weapon against Trump and his possible election. The motive behind the
investigation was not to ensure a clean campaign free of Russian influence but to work against
Trump's election chances. The CIA was dismayed by what appeared to them to be a possible
president who was aiming to work with Putin and not against him.
Q. But wasn't the CIA doing the right thing to investigate possible Russian funding of
the Trump campaign?
A. The idea of Russian funding of Trump's campaign was absurd. This investigation had no
reason to be started other than a goal of smearing Trump and preventing a Trump presidency. It
was absurd because foreign money given to American political campaigns is illegal and everyone
knows it. Trump would not jeopardize his campaign for some trivial amount of money nor would
his campaign officials; and a large amount would easily be spotted through the banking system.
It was also absurd because the Kremlin would not operate and does not operate in this way. It
would not risk being found out blatantly violating American law in this way, as that would
greatly diminish its credibility. "Doing the right thing" for the American system was strictly
a plausible and disingenuous device.
Q. If the investigation was absurd, what leads or allegations did the CIA have to set it
up?
A. The excuse was an allegation that three of Trump's associates had received campaign money
from the Kremlin. This allegation came from a Baltic state and it was processed by the CIA and
made into something worthy of following up. We read that the task force " was set up after the
director of the CIA, John Brennan, received a recording of a conversation about money from the
Kremlin going into Trump's campaign coffers, the BBC's Paul Wood reported. The recording was
apparently passed to the CIA by the intelligence agency of one of the Baltic States."
According to this, John Brennan is the key player in the anti-Trump movement. He wants to
see Trump's presidency brought to a quick end or otherwise neutered and made compliant to rule
by the CIA. By their control over information and its interpretation, the leaders of the CIA
have gained considerable power within the government. They've enhanced this by developing
operational forces in the field.
As occurred during the propaganda campaign that preceded Bush 2's attack on Iraq and as in
the Ukraine case noted above, we again observe murky foreign sources that are given credence
and validity by the CIA. The public and media have no viable way of checking on the story of
Kremlin money except perhaps through off the record sources. Such stories can't be traced
through public hearings without subpoena power and a will to wash a lot of dirty linen in
public. They are perfect for propaganda and cover-ups.
John Brennan has the CIA initiate an investigation on a flimsy basis and gets away with it.
We know from his public statements at that time and later that he's thoroughly anti-Trump and
anti-Russia. This is why such an investigation went forward. Brennan had nothing to lose. If he
found some dirt on Trump or his associates, he'd discredit Trump and lose him votes. If he
didn't find anything, the investigation itself would still raise suspicions about Trump and
provide Hillary Clinton and her aides with anti-Trump ammunition. In fact, her campaign did use
the alleged Russian connection against Trump.
Q. What else do we know of Brennan's differences with Trump?
A. On Sept. 11, 2016, Brennan disagreed with Trump publicly: "CIA Director John Brennan
pushed back against Donald Trump's claim that he could read disapproval of President Barack
Obama's policies in the body language of the intelligence officers who gave him a confidential
national security briefing."
On November 30, 2016, we read that Brennan expressed another difference with Trump: "The
director of the CIA has issued a stark warning to President-elect Donald J. Trump. Tearing up
the Iran nuclear deal would be 'the height of folly' and 'disastrous.'"
On January 3, 2016, Charles Schumer said that Trump was "being really dumb" for arguing
against the assessments of the intelligence community on Russian hacking. He adds ominously:
"Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at
getting back at you."
On January 15, 2017, we read "CIA Director John Brennan on Sunday had a stern parting
message for Republican Donald Trump days before he assumes the U.S. presidency, cautioning him
against loosening sanctions on Russia and warning him to watch what he says. Brennan rebuked
the president-elect for comparing U.S. intelligence practices to Nazi Germany in comments that
laid bare the friction between Trump and the intelligence community he has criticized and is on
the verge of commanding."
Q. What became of the allegations against the three associates of Trump?
A. The three accused men each strongly denied allegations of being paid by the Kremlin. On
October 15, the FISA court granted a warrant to intercept communications from two Russian
banks. The investigators were looking for evidence that money passed from Russia to the three
Trump associates. No such evidence was found.
On January 19, 2017, the continuing investigation by "American law enforcement and
intelligence agencies" was confirmed, and Paul Manafort, Trump's former campaign manager, was
mentioned:
"The counterintelligence investigation centers at least in part on the business dealings
that some of the president-elect's past and present advisers have had with
Russia . Mr. Manafort has done business in Ukraine and Russia. Some of his contacts there
were under surveillance by the National Security Agency for suspected links to Russia's Federal
Security Service, one of the officials said."
Mr. Manafort has done nothing illegal, we learn. He has merely done some business in Ukraine
and Russia. He merely came into contact with people with suspected links to a Russian
intelligence outfit. They weren't even known spies. Mr. Manafort has fallen victim to
suspicion by association two or three times removed even from guilt by association.
The other two being investigated are Carter Page and Roger Stone, and we learn that they too
are innocent of wrongdoing.
"The F.B.I. is leading the investigations, aided by the National Security Agency, the
C.I.A. and the Treasury Department's financial crimes unit. The investigators have
accelerated their efforts in recent weeks but have found no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing,
the officials said."
So, we know that a concerted effort has been made to investigate three of Trump's close
aides. We know that the CIA was the instigator and that it used its typical murky and
unverifiable tips to gain credibility. Finally, we know that this inquiry has produced no
evidence of any illegal activities of Trump or his aides.
Q. What other evidence is there of an attempted coup against Trump?
A. On Oct. 7, 2016, there was released the "Joint Statement from the Department Of Homeland
Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security". This brief
statement on behalf of U.S. intelligence agencies linked the Russian government to hacking:
"The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the
recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political
organizations." It stated its belief "that only Russia's senior-most officials could have
authorized these activities."
On Nov. 30, 2016, an outfit named PropOrNot with links to the U.S. intelligence community
published a report that named 200 websites as propagators of Russian propaganda: "Russia Is
Manipulating US Public Opinion through Online Propaganda".
On Dec. 9, 2016, it was reported that "The CIA has concluded in a secret assessment that
Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win the presidency "
Dec. 29, 2016, arrived the FBI-DHS report: "Grizzly Steppe – Russian Malicious Cyber
Activity". This was widely denounced as lacking even persuasive circumstantial evidence, never
mind direct evidence of Russian involvement.
On Jan. 10, 2017, the Golden Showers report was leaked, accusing Trump of having been
compromised by Russian agents and therefore subject to blackmail. This report had been
circulating for weeks in intelligence and media circles. It had supposedly been written between
July and December by former British MI-6 agent, Christopher Steele.
Once again we observe that a spurious anti-Trump report is purported or arranged to have a
foreign origination; but that it is carried to the public by means of the CIA and leaks within
the U.S.
On February 13, 2017, the coup perps drew fresh blood when Michael Flynn resigned, despite
no evidence of wrongdoing. Their success is attributable to their use of wiretapped phone calls
and to leaking these to the media. Since intelligence agents have access to these calls that
the NSA collects, we once again observe that intelligence circles are active in seeking to
undermine Trump. This is consistent with the conclusion that a coup attempt is ongoing.
Q. Could you summarize, please?
A. In 2016 Trump and the CIA became foes of one another because of vast policy differences.
Past and present CIA directors went public against Trump. They instigated a series of reports
and leaks to discredit Trump and to link his campaign to Russian meddling in the election. They
went after several of his aides, causing Paul Manafort to resign. After the election, they
produced new anti-Trump material and managed to get his National Security Advisor, Michael
Flynn, to resign. This adds up to an attempted coup that has had some success.
Q. What happens next?
A. The future is guesswork. We will be surprised at what happens, but here are some guesses.
The coup attempt will not cease. There is nothing presently opposing it unless Trump is
counterattacking behind the scenes, of which there is no evidence. Trump will eventually sense
the coup's efficacy and devise ways to stop it. The anti-Trump media will keep the pot boiling.
They will need new stories to exploit. Anti-Trump elements in the CIA can be expected to come
up with new, dubious and devious revelations aimed at discrediting Trump's handling of foreign
affairs. We can expect former intelligence officials to speak out against Trump at critical
times and to recruit allies who will add what appears to be an even more independent criticism
of Trump. The coup may transform into an effort to control Trump's policies from outside his
administration.
"... How did Simpson know with such confidence what the "Intelligence Community" was "saying", and who were Simpson's and Steele's sources in the "Intelligence Community"? Rooney failed to inquire. Instead, he and Simpson exchanged question and answer regarding the approach Simpson and Steele made to the FBI when they delivered their dossier. In the details of that, Simpson repeated what he had already told the Senate Judiciary Committee. ..."
"... Sources in London are divided on the question of where Steele's sources came from -- CIA, MI6, or elsewhere. What has been clear for the year in which the dossier's contents have been in public circulation is that the sources the dossier referred to as "Russian" were not. For details of the sourcing . The subsequent identification of the Maltese source Joseph Mifsud, and the Greek-American George Papadopoulos, corroborates their lack of direct Russian sources. Instead, the sources identified in the dossier were either Americans, Americans of Russian ethnic origin, or Russians with no direct knowledge repeating hearsay three or four times removed from source. ..."
"... Another reported version of the FIFA contract is that Steele, Burrows and Orbis were hired by the British Football Association to collect materials on FIFA corruption, and provide them to the FBI and other US investigators, and then to the press. The scheme's objective was reportedly to advance the British bidding for the World Cup in 2018 or 2022 by discrediting the rival bids from Russia and Qatar. Click to read . Were MI6 and CIA sources mobilized by Orbis to feed the FBI with evidence the US investigators were unable to turn up, or was Orbis the conduit through which disinformation targeting Russia was fed to make it appear more credible to the FBI, and to the media? ..."
"... US Congressional investigators have so far failed to notice the similarities between the FIFA and the Trump dossier operations. Early this month two Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee announced that they have called for a Justice Department and FBI investigation of Steele for providing false information to the FBI. The provision of the US code making lying a federal crime requires the falsehoods occur "within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States." Simpson has testified that when Steele briefed the FBI on the dossier, he did so at meetings in Rome, Italy. ..."
"... With Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, there is some evidence that Clinton and Co. actually wanted to run against Donald Trump, and tried to get their allies to manipulate the Republican primary in favor of a Trump victory (hence all the free corporate media coverage of the Donald). The dossier, fabricated or not, seems to have been one of many 'ace in the holes' that the Clinton campaign thought they could use to discredit Trump (including the Access Hollywood tape, etc.) in the general election. If so, this strategy really blew up in their face – they thought they could manipulate the process, so they could ignore the Rust Belt concerns, and that's what handed Trump the presidency. ..."
"... If the Clintonites were to admit this, however, they'd have to step down from party leadership and let the Sanders Democrats take over, and that's what this is really all about now, their effort to prevent that outcome. ..."
"... And I say "fed to him" when I'm in a generous mood, giving him the benefit of the doubt, because usually I am of the opinion that he's either a really crappy CIA agent posing as a journalist or just a garden variety rat f*!@er. A black job political operative, stitching together a few almost-believable "facts" and out-and-out fabrications with squishy words like "collusion" and "ties." ..."
"... The London experts believe the Senate Committee transcript shows Simpson and Steele were hired for the black job of discrediting the target of their research, Trump; did a poor job; failed in 2016; and now are engaged in bitter recriminations against each other to avoid multi-million dollar court penalties. ..."
"... A source at a London firm which is larger and better known than Steele's Orbis says "standard due diligence means getting to the truth. It's confidential to the client, and not leaked. There are also black jobs, white jobs, and red jobs. Black means the client wants you to dig up dirt on the target, and make it look credible for publishing in the press. White means the client wants you to clear him of the wrongdoing which he's being accused of in the media or the marketplace; it's also leaked to the press. A red job is where the client pays the due diligence firm to hire a journalist to find out what he knows and what he's likely to publish, in order to bribe or stop him. The Steele dossier on Trump is an obvious black job. Too obvious." ..."
"... A bigger bombshell, which of course none of them mentioned, is that Simpson, with his client's consent, was secretly briefing Clinton-friendly reporters on information from Steele's memos, and they used it to write stories based on "unnamed sources." He even admitted that he didn't verify the information before feeding it to the media, said he didn't feel he needed to, because it came from a trustworthy source. Where have we heard that before? ..."
"... I'm wondering why it's that much of a stretch to believe that the CIA might have engineered the whole thing. It's well-established that the State Department often acts as a cover for the CIA, and the agency under Secretary Clinton had a strong anti-Russia faction that's on the record as meddling in Ukraine's presidential election. And how much doubt could there be that both Clintons kept the CIA connections they made while in office? ..."
"... Then there was the whole "Grizzly Steppe" report just before Trump's inauguration, presented as a consensus among "17 intelligence agencies" that the Russians "hacked the election" to help Trump win. ..."
"... I'm not 100-percent convinced that U.S. intelligence was behind the dossier, but it's enough of a possibility that I'm not writing it off as some nutty "conspiracy theory." ..."
"... Few in the NC commentariat, at least from what I saw, had any problem accepting that the DNC and the Clinton campaign funded the dossier, so I'm wondering why it's that much of a stretch to believe that the CIA might have engineered the whole thing. ..."
"... In fact I am fairly certain that it is the case, although from what I understand the FBI and MI6 were also involved. ..."
According to Simpson, "foreign intelligence services hacking American political operations is not that unusual, actually, and
there's a lot of foreign intelligence services that play in American elections." He mentioned the Chinese and the Indians, not the
Israelis. The Mossad, Simpson did tell the Committee, was his source for his belief that Russian intelligence has been operating
through the Jewish Orthodox Chabad movement, and the Russian Orthodox Church. "The Orthodox church is also an arm of the Russian
State now the Mossad guys used to tell me about how the Russians were laundering money through the Orthodox church in Israel, and
that it was intelligence operations."
There are just two references in the Committee transcript to the CIA. One was a passing remark to imply the Russians cannot "break[ing]
into the CIA, [so instead] you are breaking into, you know, places where, you know, an open society leaves open."
The second was a bombshell. It dropped during questioning by Congressman Thomas Rooney (right), a 3-term Republican representative
from Florida with a career as an army lawyer. Rooney asked Simpson: "Do you or anyone else independently verify or corroborate any
information in the dossier?"
Simpson replied by saying, "Yes. Well, numerous things in the dossier have been verified. You know, I don't have access to the
intelligence or law enforcement information that I see made reference to, but, you know, things like, you know, the Russian Government
has been investigating Hillary Clinton and has a lot of information about her."
Then Simpson contradicted himself, disclosing what he had just denied. "When the original memos came in saying that the Kremlin
was mounting a specific operation to get Donald Trump elected President , that was not what the Intelligence Community was saying.
The Intelligence Community was saying they are just seeking to disrupt our election and our political process, and that this is sort
of kind of just a generally nihilistic, you know, trouble-making operation. And, you know, Chris turned out to be right, it was specifically
designed to elect Donald Trump President."
How did Simpson know with such confidence what the "Intelligence Community" was "saying", and who were Simpson's and Steele's
sources in the "Intelligence Community"? Rooney failed to inquire. Instead, he and Simpson exchanged question and answer regarding
the approach Simpson and Steele made to the FBI when they delivered their dossier. In the details of that, Simpson repeated what
he had already told the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Rooney then asked what contact had been made with the CIA or "any other intelligence officials". Simpson claimed he didn't understand
the question at first, then he stumbled.
What Simpson was concealing in the two pauses, reported in the transcript as hyphens, Rooney did not realize. Simpson was implying
that none from Fusion GPS, his consulting company, had been in contact with the CIA, nor him personally. But Simpson left open that
Steele had been in contact with the CIA. Rooney followed with a question about "anyone", but that was so imprecise, Simpson recovered
his confidence to say "No". That was a cover-up -- and the House Intelligence Committee let it drop noiselessly.
Intelligence community sources and colleagues who know Simpson and Steele say Simpson was notorious at the Wall Street Journal
for coming up with conspiracy theories for which the evidence was missing or unreliable. He told the Committee that disbelief on
the part of his editors and management had been one of his reasons for leaving the newspaper. "One of the reasons why I left the
Wall Street Journal was because I wanted to write more stories about Russian influence in Washington, D.C., on both the Democrats
and the Republicans eventually the Journal lost interest in that subject. And I was frustrated that was where I left my journalism
career."
When Simpson was asked "do you -- did you find anything to -- that you verified as false in the dossier, since or during?" Simpson
replied: "I have not seen anything -- ". Note the hypthen, the stenographer's signal that Simpson was pausing.
"[Question]. So everything in that dossier, as far as you're concerned, is true or could be true?"
"MR. SIMPSON: I didn't say that. What I said was it was credible at the time it came in. We were able to corroborate various things
that supported its credibility."
Sources in London are divided on the question of where Steele's sources came from -- CIA, MI6, or elsewhere. What has been
clear for the year in which the dossier's contents have been in public circulation is that the sources the dossier referred to as
"Russian" were not. For details of the
sourcing . The subsequent identification of the Maltese source Joseph Mifsud, and the Greek-American George Papadopoulos, corroborates
their lack of
direct Russian sources. Instead, the sources identified in the dossier were either Americans, Americans of Russian ethnic origin,
or Russians with no direct knowledge repeating hearsay three or four times removed from source.
So were the allegations of the dossier manufactured by a CIA disinformation unit, and fed back to the US through the British agent,
Steele? Or were they a Simpson conspiracy theory of the type that failed to pass veracity testing when Simpson was at the Wall Street
Journal? The House Intelligence Committee failed to inquire.
One independent clue is what financial and other links Simpson and Steele and their consulting firms, Fusion GPS and Orbis Business
Intelligence, have had with US Government agencies other than the FBI, and what US Government contracts they were paid for, before
the Republican and Democratic Party organizations commissioned the anti-Trump job?
The House Committee has subpoenaed business records from Fusion, but Simpson's lawyers say they will refuse to hand them over.
The financial records of Steele's firm are openly accessible through the UK government company registry, Companies House. Click to
read here .
Because the Trump dossier work ran from the second half of 2015 to November 2016, the financial reports of Orbis for the financial
years ending March 31, 2016, and March 31, 2017, are the primary sources. For FY 2016 and FY 2017, open this
link to read.
The papers reveal that Orbis was a small firm with no more than 7 employees. Steele's business partner and co-shareholder, Christopher
Burrows, is another former MI6 spy. They had been hoping for MI6 support of their private business, but it failed to materialize,
says an London intelligence source. "Chris Burrows is another from the same background. They all hope to be Hakluyt [a leading commercial
intelligence operation in London] but didn't get the nod on departure."
They do not report the Orbis income. Instead, for 2016 the company filings indicate £155,171 in cash at the bank, and income of £245,017
owed by clients and contractors. Offsetting that figure, Orbis owed £317,848 -- to whom and for what purposes is not reported. The
unaudited accounts show Orbis's profit jumped from £121,046 in 2015 to £199,223 in 2016, and £441,089 in 2017.
The financial data are complicated by the operation by Steele and Burrows of a second company, Orbis Business Intelligence International,
a subsidiary they created in 2010, a year after the parent company was formed. Follow its affairs
here .
According to British press
reports , Orbis and Steele
were paid £200,000 for the dossier. Simpson told the House Intelligence Committee the sum was much less -- $160,000 (about £114,000).
Simpson's firm, he also testified, was being paid at a rate of about $50,000 per month for a total of about $320,000. If the British
sources are more accurate than Simpson's testimony, Steele's takings from the dossier represented roughly half the profit on the
Orbis balance-sheet.
British sources also report that a US Government agency paid for Orbis to work on evidence and allegations of corruption at the
world soccer federation, Fédération Internationale de Football (FIFA). Indictments in this case were issued by the US Department
of Justice in
May 2015 , and the following
December . What role the two-partner British consultancy played in the complex investigations by teams from the Justice Department,
the FBI and also the Internal Revenue Service is unclear. That Steele, Burrows and Orbis depended on US government sources for their
financial well-being appears to be certain.
Another reported version of the FIFA contract is that Steele, Burrows and Orbis were hired by the British Football Association
to collect materials on FIFA corruption, and provide them to the FBI and other US investigators, and then to the press. The scheme's
objective was reportedly to advance the British bidding for the World Cup in 2018 or 2022 by discrediting the rival bids from Russia
and Qatar. Click to
read . Were MI6 and CIA sources mobilized by Orbis to feed the FBI with evidence the US investigators were unable to turn up,
or was Orbis the conduit through which disinformation targeting Russia was fed to make it appear more credible to the FBI, and to
the media?
US Congressional investigators have so far failed to notice the similarities between the FIFA and the Trump dossier operations.
Early this month two Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee
announced that they
have called for a Justice Department and FBI investigation of Steele for providing false information to the FBI. The
provision of the US code making lying a federal crime
requires the falsehoods occur "within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the
United States." Simpson has testified that when Steele briefed the FBI on the dossier, he did so at meetings in Rome, Italy.
Now then, Part I and this
sequel of the Simpson-Steele story having been read and thoroughly mulled over, what can the meaning be?
In the short run, this case was a black job assigned by Republican Party candidates for president, then the Democratic National
Committee, for the purpose of discrediting Trump in favour of Hillary Clinton. It failed on Election Day in 2016; the Democrats are
still trying.
In the long run, the case is a measurement of the life, or the half-life, of truth. Giuseppe di Lampedusa wrote once that nowhere
has truth so short a life as in Sicily. On his clock, that was five minutes. He didn't know the United States, or shall we say the
stretch from Washington through New York to the North End of Boston. There, truth has an even shorter life. Scarcely a second.
"The primary reason I generally don't believe in conspiracies is that they can usually be better explained as the result of
sheer incompetence and hubris."
I divide conspiracy notions into two categories: grand mal and petit mal . The former are generally implausible
due to the large number of participants involved and while occassionally attempted, they are typically exposed pretty quickly.
They may still have significant effects – for example, there was a large conspiracy to sell the Iraqi WMD story to the public,
involving top levels of the British and American governments and a good section of the corporate media. That's the grand mal
version.
Petit mal is your typical small criminal conspiracy. The FBI, for example, almost always includes 'conspiracy to commit
mail fraud' on the list of federal charges.
With Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, there is some evidence that Clinton and Co. actually wanted to run against Donald
Trump, and tried to get their allies to manipulate the Republican primary in favor of a Trump victory (hence all the free corporate
media coverage of the Donald). The dossier, fabricated or not, seems to have been one of many 'ace in the holes' that the Clinton
campaign thought they could use to discredit Trump (including the Access Hollywood tape, etc.) in the general election. If so,
this strategy really blew up in their face – they thought they could manipulate the process, so they could ignore the Rust Belt
concerns, and that's what handed Trump the presidency.
If the Clintonites were to admit this, however, they'd have to step down from party leadership and let the Sanders Democrats
take over, and that's what this is really all about now, their effort to prevent that outcome.
I pay pretty close attention to this topic and I must say I sometimes wonder if the Russians haven't sold the rope to the American
political elite. I read all 311 pages of Simpson's testimony. I was struck that much of what he was "fed" by Steele confirmed
his "OMG Russia corruption" biases.
And I say "fed to him" when I'm in a generous mood, giving him the benefit of the doubt, because usually I am of the opinion
that he's either a really crappy CIA agent posing as a journalist or just a garden variety rat f*!@er. A black job political operative,
stitching together a few almost-believable "facts" and out-and-out fabrications with squishy words like "collusion" and "ties."
London due diligence firms say the record of Simpson's firm Fusion GPS and Steele's Orbis Business Intelligence operations
in the US has discredited them in the due diligence market. The London experts believe the Senate Committee transcript
shows Simpson and Steele were hired for the black job of discrediting the target of their research, Trump; did a poor job;
failed in 2016; and now are engaged in bitter recriminations against each other to avoid multi-million dollar court penalties.
A source at a London firm which is larger and better known than Steele's Orbis says "standard due diligence means getting
to the truth. It's confidential to the client, and not leaked. There are also black jobs, white jobs, and red jobs. Black means
the client wants you to dig up dirt on the target, and make it look credible for publishing in the press. White means the client
wants you to clear him of the wrongdoing which he's being accused of in the media or the marketplace; it's also leaked to the
press. A red job is where the client pays the due diligence firm to hire a journalist to find out what he knows and what he's
likely to publish, in order to bribe or stop him. The Steele dossier on Trump is an obvious black job. Too obvious."
I read all 311 pages of Simpson's testimony. I was struck that much of what he was "fed" by Steele confirmed his "OMG Russia
corruption" biases.
Same here, but not just about what he was fed by Steele. Simpson claimed to have done some of his own research and said it
was consistent with what he got from Steele.
I'm about three-quarters of the way through the transcript of Simpson's interrogation by the House Intelligence Committee,
and I've read all 312 pages of the Senate Judiciary Committee transcript, which bears little resemblance to what was reported
in the major media – shocking, I know.
Among the "bombshells" the mainstream reported was "proof" that it wasn't the dossier that launched the FBI's investigation
of Trump, and therefore the dossier couldn't have been used as justification for a FISA warrant. A bigger bombshell, which
of course none of them mentioned, is that Simpson, with his client's consent, was secretly briefing Clinton-friendly reporters
on information from Steele's memos, and they used it to write stories based on "unnamed sources." He even admitted that he didn't
verify the information before feeding it to the media, said he didn't feel he needed to, because it came from a trustworthy source.
Where have we heard that before?
Few in the NC commentariat, at least from what I saw, had any problem accepting that the DNC and the Clinton campaign funded
the dossier, so I'm wondering why it's that much of a stretch to believe that the CIA might have engineered the whole thing.
It's well-established that the State Department often acts as a cover for the CIA, and the agency under Secretary Clinton had
a strong anti-Russia faction that's on the record as meddling in Ukraine's presidential election. And how much doubt could there
be that both Clintons kept the CIA connections they made while in office?
Then there was the whole "Grizzly Steppe" report just before Trump's inauguration, presented as a consensus among "17 intelligence
agencies" that the Russians "hacked the election" to help Trump win.
I'm not 100-percent convinced that U.S. intelligence was behind the dossier, but it's enough of a possibility that I'm
not writing it off as some nutty "conspiracy theory."
Few in the NC commentariat, at least from what I saw, had any problem accepting that the DNC and the Clinton campaign funded
the dossier, so I'm wondering why it's that much of a stretch to believe that the CIA might have engineered the whole thing.
FWIW this NC commenter has never had any problem believing that this may be the case. In fact I am fairly certain that
it is the case, although from what I understand the FBI and MI6 were also involved.
Adding: Heh. I posted this before looking at Rev Kev's link to the Raimondo article, which comes to the same conclusions. Interesting
times!
I believe that Seth Abramson or someone put photographs to the Steele dossier showing people in the places & at the times delineated
in the Steele dossier. From the very first Steele said he would not & could not reveal his sources. It was from the first indicated
that it would be to the FBI & CIA to discover. He said he believed that his sources were credible.
When I was studying Intelligence services the CIA was said to be the private army of the CIA. These days I don't know exactly
who the CIA works for, or answers to. I certainly don't think well of the CIA believing they are wrapped up working for their
Front businesses more than focusing on the mission of spying in the interests of the American people. Of private intelligence
companies I get what I can from IHS Jane's. That the CIA lost 20 assets, human beings, in China for incompetent secret communications
methods would lead professionals to withhold as much of identities as possible.
For awhile there I believe Steele was worried about his own health.
David Corn at Mother Jones was reticent to break the story. So now what I see to look for is what Steele said needed to be
done, & that being what Mueller is doing at the behest of the DOJ.
The US has been at war, albeit Hybrid war since the imposition of sanctions for their violations of international law as regarded
the annexation of Crimea & the attack on the Ukraine. Sanctions are Economic Warfare.
That the US feels the right to engage in warfare of any kind Economic or Hot over violations of International Law leads me
to believe that the UN will fail to prevent the apocalyptic riot. But that as regards Trump becomes neither here nor there, correct?
William Binney, former NSA technical official and whistleblower, comments on the FISA memo, that has apparently just been released.
Obviously, a major development in 'Russia-gate'.
"... The pro-Hillary warmongering media, the ones that pushed for war in Iraq and elsewhere, through big lies and false evidence, are the vanguard of this ugly machine that supports the most terrible Trump administration bills, yet, this machine can't stop accusing him for 'colluding' with Russia that 'interfered' in the 2016 US election. Of course, no evidence presented for such an accusation and no one really can explain what that 'interference' means. ..."
"... They're accusing the President of the United States of being a Russian agent, this has never happened in American history. However much you may loathe Trump, this is a whole new realm of defamation. For a number of years, there's been a steady degradation of American political culture and discourse, generally. There was a time when I hoped or thought that it would be the Democratic Party that would push against that degradation ..."
"... Now, however, though I'm kind of only nominally, a Democrat, it's the Democratic Party that's degrading our political culture and our discourse. So, this is MSNBC, which purports to be not only the network of the Democratic Party, but the network of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, is now actually because this guy was a semi-anchor was asking the question to an American senator, " Do you think that Representative Nunes, because he wants the memo released, has been compromised by the Kremlin? " ..."
"... And by the way, if people will say, " Well, it's a weak capitulation of McCarthyism, " I say no, it's much more than that because McCarthy was obsessed with Communist. That was a much narrower concept than being obsessed with anybody who might be under Russian influence of any kind. The so-called affinity for Russia. Well, I have a profound affinity for Russian culture and for Russian history. I study it all the time. This is something new. And so, when you accuse a Republican or any Congressman of being a Kremlin agent, this has become a commonplace. We are degraded. ..."
"... We are building up our military presence there, so the Russians are counter-building up, though within their territory. That means the chances of hot war are now much greater than they were before. ..."
"... Every time Trump has tried with Putin to reach a cooperative arrangement, for example, on fighting terrorism in Syria, which is a necessary purpose, literally, the New York Times and the others call him treasonous. Whereas, in the old days, the old Cold War, we had a robust discussion. There is none here. We have no alert system that's warning the American people and its representatives how dangerous this is. And as we mentioned before, it's not only Nunes, it's a lot of people who are being called Kremlin agents because they want to digress from the basic narrative. ..."
"... Meanwhile, people in Moscow who formed their political establishment, who surround Putin and the Kremlin, I mean, the big brains who are formed policy tankers, and who have always tended to be kind of pro-American, and very moderate, have simply come to the conclusion that war is coming. ..."
"... The Democrats couldn't had downgrade their party further. This disgusting spectacle would make FDR totally ashamed of what this party has become. Not only they are voting for every pro-plutocracy GOP bill under Trump administration, but they have become champions in bringing back a much worse and unpredictable Cold War that is dangerously escalating tension with Russia. ..."
How Russiagate fiasco destroys Kremlin moderates, accelerating danger for a hot war with Russiaglobinfo freexchange
Corporate Democrats can't stop pushing for war through the Russiagate fiasco.
The party has been completely taken over by the neocon/neoliberal establishment and has nothing to do with the Left. The pro-Hillary
warmongering media, the ones that pushed for war in Iraq and elsewhere, through big lies and false evidence, are the vanguard of
this ugly machine that supports the most terrible Trump administration bills, yet, this machine can't stop accusing him for 'colluding'
with Russia that 'interfered' in the 2016 US election. Of course, no evidence presented for such an accusation and no one really
can explain what that 'interference' means.
But things are probably much worse, because this completely absurd persistence on Russiagate fiasco that feeds an evident anti-Russian
hysteria, destroys all the influence of the Kremlin moderates who struggle to keep open channels between Russia and the United States.
Stephen Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian studies, history, and politics at NY University and Princeton University, explained
to Aaron Maté and the RealNews
the terrible consequences:
They're accusing the President of the United States of being a Russian agent, this has never happened in American history. However
much you may loathe Trump, this is a whole new realm of defamation. For a number of years, there's been a steady degradation of American
political culture and discourse, generally. There was a time when I hoped or thought that it would be the Democratic Party that would
push against that degradation.
Now, however, though I'm kind of only nominally, a Democrat, it's the Democratic Party that's degrading our political culture
and our discourse. So, this is MSNBC, which purports to be not only the network of the Democratic Party, but the network of the progressive
wing of the Democratic Party, is now actually because this guy was a semi-anchor was asking the question to an American senator,
" Do you think that Representative Nunes, because he wants the memo released, has been compromised by the Kremlin? "
I think all of us need to focus on what's happened in this country when in the very mainstream, at the highest, most influential
levels of the political establishment, this kind of discourse is no longer considered an exception. It is the norm. We hear it daily
from MSNBC and CNN, from the New York Times and the Washington Post, that people who doubt the narrative of what's loosely called
Russiagate are somehow acting on behalf of or under the spell of the Kremlin, that we aren't Americans any longer. And by the way,
if people will say, " Well, it's a weak capitulation of McCarthyism, " I say no, it's much more than that because McCarthy
was obsessed with Communist. That was a much narrower concept than being obsessed with anybody who might be under Russian influence
of any kind. The so-called affinity for Russia. Well, I have a profound affinity for Russian culture and for Russian history. I study
it all the time. This is something new. And so, when you accuse a Republican or any Congressman of being a Kremlin agent, this has
become a commonplace. We are degraded.
The new Cold War is unfolding not far away from Russia, like the last in Berlin, but on Russia's borders in the Baltic and in
Ukraine. We are building up our military presence there, so the Russians are counter-building up, though within their territory.
That means the chances of hot war are now much greater than they were before. Meanwhile, not only do we not have a discussion of
these real dangers in the United States but anyone who wants to incite a discussion, including the President of the United States,
is called treasonous. Every time Trump has tried with Putin to reach a cooperative arrangement, for example, on fighting terrorism
in Syria, which is a necessary purpose, literally, the New York Times and the others call him treasonous. Whereas, in the old days,
the old Cold War, we had a robust discussion. There is none here. We have no alert system that's warning the American people and
its representatives how dangerous this is. And as we mentioned before, it's not only Nunes, it's a lot of people who are being called
Kremlin agents because they want to digress from the basic narrative.
Meanwhile, people in Moscow who formed their political establishment, who surround Putin and the Kremlin, I mean, the big brains
who are formed policy tankers, and who have always tended to be kind of pro-American, and very moderate, have simply come to the
conclusion that war is coming. They can't think of a single thing to tell the Kremlin to offset hawkish views in the Kremlin. Every
day, there's something new. And these were the people in Moscow who are daytime peacekeeping interlockers. They have been
destroyed by Russiagate. Their influence as Russia is zilch. And the McCarthyites in Russia, they have various terms, now
called the pro-American lobby in Russia 'fifth columnists'. This is the damage that's been done. There's never been anything like
this in my lifetime.
The Democrats couldn't had downgrade their party further. This disgusting spectacle would make FDR totally ashamed of what this party
has become. Not only they are voting for every pro-plutocracy GOP bill under Trump administration, but they have become champions
in bringing back a much worse and unpredictable Cold War that is dangerously escalating tension with Russia.
And, unfortunately,
even the most progressives of the Democrats are adopting the Russiagate bogus, like Bernie Sanders, because they know that if they
don't obey to the narratives, the DNC establishment will crush them politically in no time.
"... The DP is a neoliberal party which has been able to distinguish itself from Republicans by campaigning like progressives, but governing as neoliberals. ..."
"... Trump ran his campaign as a populist who would "drain the swamp." He opposed trade deals, and corporations relocating their factories outside the US. The Clinton campaign ran mostly negative personal attacks at Trump's failed marriages, his university, business bankruptcies, abuse of women, and his Russian connection. ..."
"... The DP has a real problem, how can they continue to be a neoliberal party, and cooperate with the RP, while pretending to support progressive causes when more and more people realize the charade and are demanding real progressive change? ..."
Victor Sciamarelli says: February 10, 2018 at 2:35 pm
An interesting article especially the conclusion under "Top Priorities" where it states, "It
is here that Russiagate performs a critical function for Trump's political foes. Far beyond
Israelgate, Russiagate allows them [democrats] to oppose Trump while obscuring key areas where
they either share his priorities or have no viable alternative."
This is important and I largely agree, but the observation could have gone further. The
DP is a neoliberal party which has been able to distinguish itself from Republicans by
campaigning like progressives, but governing as neoliberals.
Trump ran his campaign as a populist who would "drain the swamp." He opposed trade
deals, and corporations relocating their factories outside the US. The Clinton campaign ran
mostly negative personal attacks at Trump's failed marriages, his university, business
bankruptcies, abuse of women, and his Russian connection. Jill Stein was attacked and
brought before the Senate Intelligence Committee because the dossier claimed, falsely, that she
accepted payment from Russia to attend a RT event in Moscow. And we all know what happened to
the Sanders' campaign.
None of this would matter because Clinton was expected to win. Trump is a hypocrite and a
fake populist but the populist message resonated with voters. Bernie Sanders, the real deal
populist, remains the most popular politician in America and he is the most popular democratic
politician among Republican voters.
The recent FISA reauthorization bill passed with 65 House Democrats who joined Trump and the
Republicans. In 2002 the DP controlled the Senate, but 29 Dems joined Republicans to pass the
Iraq War Resolution along with 82 House Dems. And was the Republican regime change in Iraq
better than the Democratic regime change in Libya? And recall that Hugo Chavez, who was
democratically elected, governed constitutionally, and complied with international law, and if
he ever crossed a line it was trivial compared to the lines Bush crossed, was labeled a
dictator and attacked much like Putin is today.
The DP has a real problem, how can they continue to be a neoliberal party, and cooperate
with the RP, while pretending to support progressive causes when more and more people realize
the charade and are demanding real progressive change?
Maintaining a neoliberal course on behalf of elite interests is more important than winning
elections. Thus, while Trump is investigated, the DP and supportive media are preparing to
demonize progressives and any alternative voices as nothing more than Russian puppets.
Actually an interesting interview. Of course, interviewer is a regulate presstitute, but still answers on provocative (and
predictable) questions based on State Department talking points were pretty interesting and sometimes unexpected.
Margarita Simonyan is the head of RT, Russia's state-run television network. She's also been
referenced 27 times in a U.S. intelligence report that assesses that Russian President Vladimir
Putin, "ordered an influence campaign aimed at the U.S . election."
Simonyan has a simple response to that.
"There's nothing illegal that we did," Simonyan tells 60 Minutes correspondent Lesley Stahl.
"There's nothing murky. There's no weird activity that we're involved in. Nothing."
"... In my experience as a journalist, the public have always been ahead of the media. And yet, in many news outlets there has always been a kind of veiled contempt for the public. You find young journalists affecting a false cynicism that they think ordains them as journalists. The cynicism is not about the people at the top, it's about the people at the bottom, the people that Hillary Clinton dismissed as "irredeemable." ..."
"... CNN and NBC and the rest of the networks have been the voices of power and have been the source of distorted news for such a long time. They are not circling the wagons because the wagons are on the wrong side. These people in the mainstream have been an extension of the power that has corrupted so much of our body politic. They have been the sources of so many myths. ..."
"... Media in the West is now an extension of imperial power. It is no longer a loose extension, it is a direct extension. Whether or not it has fallen out with Donald Trump is completely irrelevant. It is lined up with all the forces that want to get rid of Donald Trump. He is not the one they want in the White House, they wanted Hillary Clinton, who is safer and more reliable. ..."
"... I have found that those who voted for Clinton are very quick to swallow what mainstream media has to say, and those that voted for Trump, at this moment, hold the media in contempt, however they also very willingly accept Trump's policies and his lies ..."
"... I would like to add, that In the US most of Americans are usually ignorant of politics and government. Many believe that their votes are unlikely to change the outcome of an election and don't see the point in learning much about the subject. So we have a country of people with little political knowledge and little ability to objectively evaluate what they do know. ..."
Randy Credico: A lot of mainstream journalists complain when Trump refers to them as the enemy of the people, but they
have shown themselves to be very unwilling to circle the wagons around Assange. What is the upshot for journalists of Assange being
taken down?
John Pilger: Trump knows which nerves to touch. His campaign against the mainstream media may even help to get him re-elected,
because most people don't trust the mainstream media anymore.
In my experience as a journalist, the public have always been ahead of the media. And yet, in many news outlets there has
always been a kind of veiled contempt for the public. You find young journalists affecting a false cynicism that they think ordains
them as journalists. The cynicism is not about the people at the top, it's about the people at the bottom, the people that Hillary
Clinton dismissed as "irredeemable."
CNN and NBC and the rest of the networks have been the voices of power and have been the source of distorted news for such
a long time. They are not circling the wagons because the wagons are on the wrong side. These people in the mainstream have been
an extension of the power that has corrupted so much of our body politic. They have been the sources of so many myths.
This latest film about The Post neglects to mention that The Washington Post was a passionate supporter of the Vietnam
War before it decided to have a moral crisis about whether to publish the Pentagon Papers. Today, TheWashington Post
has a $600 million deal with the CIA to supply them with information.
Media in the West is now an extension of imperial power. It is no longer a loose extension, it is a direct extension. Whether
or not it has fallen out with Donald Trump is completely irrelevant. It is lined up with all the forces that want to get rid of Donald
Trump. He is not the one they want in the White House, they wanted Hillary Clinton, who is safer and more reliable.
I've always liked Mr. Pilger, and Mr. Parry, of course, and Hedges and so on However in this statement made by Mr. Pilger,
"Trump knows which nerves to touch. His campaign against the mainstream media may even help to get him re-elected, because most
people don't trust the mainstream media anymore." I would really disagree based on my own personal experiences. I have found
that those who voted for Clinton are very quick to swallow what mainstream media has to say, and those that voted for Trump, at
this moment, hold the media in contempt, however they also very willingly accept Trump's policies and his lies, like his
climate change denial and his position on Iran. It's more about taking sides then it is in being interested in the truth.
Annie , January 24, 2018 at 4:33 pm
I would like to add, that In the US most of Americans are usually ignorant of politics and government. Many believe that
their votes are unlikely to change the outcome of an election and don't see the point in learning much about the subject. So we
have a country of people with little political knowledge and little ability to objectively evaluate what they do know.
Joe Tedesky , January 24, 2018 at 6:28 pm
You got that right Annie. In fact I know people who voted for Hillary, and they wake up every morning to turn on MSNBC or CNN
only to hear what Trump tweeted, because they like getting pissed off at Trump, and get even more self induced angry when they
don't hear his impeachment being shouted out on the screen.
I forgive a lot of these types who don't get into the news, because it just isn't their thing I guess, but I get even madder
that we don't have a diversified media enough to give people the complete story. I mean a brilliant media loud enough, and objective
enough, to reach the mass uncaring community. We have talked about this before, about the MSM's omission of the news, as to opposed
just lying they do that too, as you know Annie, and it's a crime against a free press society. In fact, I not being a lawyer,
would not be surprised that this defect in our news is not Constitutional.
Although, less and less people are watching the news, because they know it's phony, have you noticed how political our Late
Night Talk Show Host have become? Hmmm boy, sometimes you have to give it to the Deep State because they sure know how to cover
the market of dupes. To bad the CIA isn't selling solar panels, or something beneficial like that, which could help our ailing
world.
We are living in a Matrix of left vs right, liberal vs conservative, all of us are on the divide, and that's the way it suppose
to be. You know I don't mean that, but that's what the Deep State has done to us, for a lack of a better description of their
evil unleashed upon the planet.
I like reading your thoughts, because you go kind of deep, and you come up with angles not thought of, well at least not by
me so forgive me if I reply to often. Joe
Annie , January 24, 2018 at 10:18 pm
I know I keep referring to Facebook, but it really allows you to see how polarized people have become. Facebook posts political
non issues, but nonetheless they will elicit comments that are downright hateful. Divide and conquer is something I often think
when I view these comments. I rarely watch TV, but enough to see how TV Talk Show hosts have gotten into the act, and Trump supplies
them with an endless source of material, not that their discussing core issues either.
I don't remember whether I mentioned this before in a recent article on this site, but when a cousin posts a response to a
comment I made about our militarism and how many millions have died as a result that all countries do sneaky and underhanded things,
I can only think people don't want to hear the truth either, and that's why most are so vulnerable to our propaganda, which is
we are the exceptional nation that can do no wrong. Those who are affluent want to maintain the status quo, and those that live
pay check to pay check are vulnerable to Trump's lies, and the lies of the Republican party whose interest lie with the top 1
percent.
Kiza , January 25, 2018 at 12:36 am
Talking about lies you mention only Trump and the Republicans Annie. Is this because the Democrats are such party of criminals
that you consider them worth mentioning only in the crime chronic not in the context of lies?
About that "Climate Change" religion of yours: how much does it make sense that people around US are freezing but TPTB still
want to tax fossil fuels, the only one thing which can keep people warm? Does that not look to your left-wing mind as taking
from the poor to give to the Green & Connected ? Will a wind-turbine or a solar-panel keep you warm on a -50 degree day? I
am yet to live to see one green-scheme which is not for the benefit of the Green & Connected, whilst this constant braying about
global warming renamed into climate change is simply as annoying as the crimes of the Israelis hidden by the media (Did you see
that photo of a 3-year old Palestinian child whose brain was splattered out by an Israeli sniper's bullet? She must have been
throwing stones or slapping Israeli soldiers, right?).
I am not a US voter and I do not care either way which color gang is running your horrible country, because it always turns
out the same. But the blatant criminality of your Demoncrats is only surpassed by their humanitarian sleaze – they always bomb,
kill and rape for the good of humanity or for the greenery or for some other touchy-feelly bull like that, which the left-wing
stupidos can swallow.
Annie , January 25, 2018 at 2:15 am
Oh, Kiza, are you one of those people that patrol the internet for people who dare mention climate change? I have no intentions
of changing your mind on the subject, even though my background is in environmental science with a Masters degree in the subject.
I am not a registered democrat, but an independent and didn't vote for Clinton, or Trump. I'm too much of a liberal. I'm very
aware of the many faults of the democratic party, and you're right about them. They abandoned their working class base decades
ago and they pretty much shun liberals within their own party, and pander to the top 10 percent in this country. Yes, both parties
proclaim their allegiance to their voting base, but both parties are lying, since in my opinion their base is the corporate world
and that world pretty much controls their agenda, and both parties have embraced the neocons that push for war.
P. S. However being fair, the Republican base is the top 1 percent in this country.
Kiza , January 25, 2018 at 6:46 am
Hello again Annie, thank you for your response. I must admit that your mention of climate change triggered an unhappy reaction
in me, otherwise I do think that our views are not far from each other. Thank you for not trying to change my mind on climate
change because you would not have succeeded no matter what your qualifications are. My life experience simply says – always follow
the money and when I do I see a climate mafia similar to the MIC mafia. I did think that the very cold weather that gripped US
would reduce the climate propaganda, but nothing can keep the climate mafia down any more – the high ranked need to pay for their
yachts and private jets and the low ranks have to pay of their house mortgages. But I will never understand why the US lefties
are so dumb – to be so easily taken to imperial wars and so easily convinced to tax the 99% for the benefit of 1% yet again. Where
do you think the nasty fossil fuel producers will find the money to pay for the taxes to be or already imposed? Will they sacrifice
their profits or pay the green taxes from higher prices?
Other than this, I honestly cannot see any difference between the so called Democrats and the so called Republicans (you say
that the Republicans are for the 1%). Both have been scrapping the bottom of the same barrel for their candidates, thus the elections
are always a contest between two disasters.
Sam F , January 25, 2018 at 7:02 am
Good that you both see the bipartisan corruption and can table background issues.
Joe Tedesky , January 25, 2018 at 9:09 am
Yeah Sam I was impressed by their conversation as well. Joe
Bob Van Noy , January 25, 2018 at 11:05 am
I agree, an excellent thread plus a civil disagreement. In my experience, only at CN. Thanks to all of you.
Realist , January 25, 2018 at 1:04 pm
I am with you, Annie, when you state that "They [the Democrats] abandoned their working class base decades ago and they pretty
much shun liberals within their own party, and pander to the top 10 percent in this country." And yet they are so glibly characterised
as "liberal" by nearly everyone in the media (and, of course, by the Republicans). Even the Nate Silver group, whom I used to
think was objective is propagating the drivel that Democrats have become inexorably more liberal–and to the extreme–in their latest
soireé analysing the two parties:
In reality, the Dems are only "liberal" in contrast to the hard right shift of the Republicans over the past 50-60 years. And
what was "extreme" for both parties is being sold to the public as moderate and conventional by the corporate media. It's almost
funny seeing so much public policy being knee-jerk condemned as "leftist" when the American left became extinct decades ago.
Virginia , January 25, 2018 at 12:16 pm
Annie, it's not just the Democrats who are bought and paid for.
Annie , January 25, 2018 at 2:54 pm
Virginia, I didn't say that only the democrats were bought and paid for, but said, " yes, both parties proclaim their allegiance
to their voting base, but both parties are lying, since in my opinion their base is the corporate world and that world pretty
much controls their agenda, and both parties have embraced the neocons that push for war." I also mentioned that the republicans
pander to the top 1 percent in this country.
Virginia , January 25, 2018 at 3:04 pm
And my reply was meant to say,
It's not just the Democrats who pander to the 1% who have bought and paid for them!
Brilliant summary of the situation. You should listen this interview. False Russiagate was from the beginning a plot to derail and then depose Trump. They created false facts.
Brazen port to exonerate Hillary Clinton and then derail Trump
Notable quotes:
"... It is rare to see a man of integrity and a lawyer who speaks in plain English and speaks about facts and conclusions of law. The problem we face today is far too many lawyers with no integrity in positions of government that protect blatant criminals holding public office who are also lawyers. Lawyers always protect other lawyers, except this wonderful man! ..."
It is rare to see a man of integrity and a lawyer who speaks in plain English and speaks
about facts and conclusions of law. The problem we face today is far too many lawyers with no
integrity in positions of government that protect blatant criminals holding public office who
are also lawyers. Lawyers always protect other lawyers, except this wonderful
man!
Love Joe to bad he can't become the new AG and why isn't this interview on the news at
least Fox, Hannity, Tucker, Laura. And we know CNN, MSNBC, and the rest are all in the bag
for Obummer and Killary. 😎
NY Times Buzzfeed Washington Post CNN ABC CBS NBC are all complicit in perpetrating these
lies Just watch Colbert Jimmy Farrel or Jimmy Kimmel These bad actors pretending to be
entertainers need to hang
Mueller carried the sample of Uranium to the Russians. Mueller was paid off, as was Comey.
So glad President Trump can confiscate all their money. Now to catch Daddy Bush and Jr for
having all those people in New York killed on 9/11! Go Trump!!
There needs to be an arrest of ALL the top MSM owners and chairpeople of all the
affiliates including those who stand in front of the camera pushing false information. Their
license needs to be rescinded and taken away. Bankrupt the news affiliates and sell off their
assets.
This is a truly excellent and clear explanation of how our government was corrupted by
Team Hillary. I reckon she needs to pay the Ultimate price: a thorough investigation into her
crimes: A fair trial... and maybe execution, followed by her being reviled down the centuries
as one of the most evil women in History. Every little girl should be told: Do not be like
this woman!
Bill, don't forget to mention that those same entities also include those working for CNN
and MSNBC who were funded by Clinton donations to push the false media on the country. Can
you say lawsuits?
The is a single party of neoliberal oligarchy with two wings. Both are afraid of citizens and would like to sly on them.
Notable quotes:
"... Despite being in the minority, Democrats last week had enough Republican votes on their side to curb the president's ability, enhanced since 9/11, to spy on citizens and non-citizens alike. ..."
"... In the House, a majority of Democrats were willing to join a small minority of Republicans to do just that. But 55 Democrats – including the minority leader, Nancy Pelosi; the minority whip, Steny Hoyer; and other Democratic leaders of the opposition to Trump – refused. ..."
"... After the House voted for an extension of the president's power to spy, a group of liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans attempted to filibuster the bill. The critical 60th vote to shut down the filibuster was a Democrat. ..."
"... This is despite the fact that the surveillance bill gives precisely the sorts of powers viewers of an Academy Award-winning film about the Stasi from not long so ago ..."
"... Pelosi: 'We Must Fight Even Harder Against Trump's Authoritarian Impulses Now That We've Voted to Enable Them' ..."
"... But in the same way that discourse of authoritarianism misses the democratic forest for the anti-democratic tweets, so does it focus more on the rhetoric of an abusive man than the infrastructure of an oppressive state, more on the erosion of norms than the material instruments of repression. ..."
You'd think that Democrats in Congress would jump at the opportunity to impose a constraint on Donald Trump's presidency – one
that liberals and Democrats alike have characterized as authoritarian. Apparently, that's not the case.
Despite being in the minority, Democrats last week had enough Republican votes on their side to curb the president's ability,
enhanced since 9/11, to spy on citizens and non-citizens alike.
In the House, a majority of Democrats were willing to join a small minority of Republicans to do just that. But 55 Democrats
– including the minority leader, Nancy Pelosi; the minority whip, Steny Hoyer; and other Democratic leaders of the opposition to
Trump – refused.
After the House voted for an extension of the president's power to spy, a group of liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans
attempted to filibuster the bill. The critical 60th vote to shut down the filibuster was a Democrat.
With the exception of Glenn Greenwald at the Intercept, a press that normally expresses great alarm over Trump's amassing and
abuse of power has had relatively little to say about this vote (or this vote or this vote).
This is despite the fact that the surveillance bill gives precisely the sorts of powers viewers of an Academy Award-winning
film about the Stasi from not long so ago would instantly recognize to a president whose view of the media a leading Republican
recently compared to Stalin.
It was left to the Onion to offer the best (and near only) comment:
Pelosi: 'We Must Fight Even Harder Against Trump's Authoritarian Impulses Now That We've Voted to Enable Them'
Last week, I wrote in these pages how the discourse of Trump's authoritarianism ignores or minimizes the ways in which democratic
citizens and institutions – the media, the courts, the opposition party, social movements – are opposing Trump, with seemingly little
fear of intimidation.
But in the same way that discourse of authoritarianism misses the democratic forest for the anti-democratic tweets, so does
it focus more on the rhetoric of an abusive man than the infrastructure of an oppressive state, more on the erosion of norms than
the material instruments of repression.
"Institutionally, the Democratic Party Is Not Democratic"
Very apt characterization "the Democratic Party is nothing more
than a layer of indirection between the donor class and the Democratic consultants and the
campaigns they run;" ... " after all, the Democratic Party -- in its current incarnation -- has important roles to play
in not expanding its "own" electorate through voter registration, in the care and feeding of the intelligence community, in
warmongering, in the continual buffing and polishing of neoliberal ideology, and in general keeping the Overton Window firmly
nailed in place against policies that would convey universal concrete material benefits, especially to the working class"
Notable quotes:
"... That said, the revivification of the DNC lawsuit serves as a story hook for me to try to advance the story on the nature of political parties as such, the Democratic Party as an institution, and the function that the Democratic Party serves. I will meander through those three topics, then, and conclude. ..."
"... What sort of legal entity is ..."
"... Political parties were purely private organizations from the 1790s until the Civil War. Thus, "it was no more illegal to commit fraud in the party caucus or primary than it would be to do so in the election of officers of a drinking club." However, due to the efforts of Robert La Follette and the Progressives, states began to treat political parties as "public agencies" during the early 1890s and 1900s; by the 1920s "most states had adopted a succession of mandatory statutes regulating every major aspect of the parties' structures and operations. ..."
"... While 1787 delegates disagreed on when corruption might occur, they brought a general shared understanding of what political corruption meant. To the delegates, political corruption referred to self-serving use of public power for private ends, including, without limitation, bribery, public decisions to serve private wealth made because of dependent relationships, public decisions to serve executive power made because of dependent relationships, and use by public officials of their positions of power to become wealthy. ..."
"... Two features of the definitional framework of corruption at the time deserve special attention, because they are not frequently articulated by all modern academics or judges. The first feature is that corruption was defined in terms of an attitude toward public service, not in relation to a set of criminal laws. The second feature is that citizenship was understood to be a public office. The delegates believed that non-elected citizens wielding or attempting to influence public power can be corrupt and that elite corruption is a serious threat to a polity. ..."
"... You can see how a political party -- a strange, amphibious creature, public one moment, private the next -- is virtually optimized to create a phishing equilibrium for corruption. However, I didn't really answer my question, did I? I still don't know what sort of legal entity the Democratic Party is. However, I can say what the Democratic Party is not ..."
"... So the purpose of superdelegates is to veto a popular choice, if they decide the popular choice "can't govern." But this is circular. Do you think for a moment that the Clintonites would have tried to make sure President Sanders couldn't have governed? You bet they would have, and from Day One. ..."
"... More importantly, you can bet that the number of superdelegates retained is enough for the superdelegates, as a class, to maintain their death grip on the party. ..."
"... could have voluntarily decided that, Look, we're gonna go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way. ..."
"... That's exactly ..."
"... Functionally, the Democratic Party Is a Money Trough for Self-Dealing Consultants. Here once again is Nomiki Konst's amazing video, before the DNC: https://www.youtube.com/embed/EAvblBnXV-w Those millions! That's real money! ..."
"... Today, it is openly acknowledged by many members that the DNC and the Clinton campaign were running an operation together. In fact, it doesn't take much research beyond FEC filings to see that six of the top major consulting firms had simultaneous contracts with the DNC and HRC -- collectively earning over $335 million since 2015 [this figure balloons in Konst's video because she got a look at the actual budget]. (This does not include SuperPACs.) ..."
"... One firm, GMMB earned $236.3 million from HFA and $5.3 from the DNC in 2016. Joel Benenson, a pollster and strategist who frequents cable news, collected $4.1m from HFA while simultaneously earning $3.3 million from the DNC. Perkins Coie law firm collected $3.8 million from the DNC, $481,979 from the Convention fund and $1.8 million from HFA in 2016. ..."
"... It gets worse. Not only do the DNC's favored consultants pick sides in the primaries, they serve on the DNC boards so they can give themselves donor money. ..."
"... These campaign consultants make a lot more money off of TV and mail than they do off of field efforts. Field efforts are long-term, labor-intensive, high overhead expenditures that do not have big margins from which the consultants can draw their payouts. They also don't allow the consultants to make money off of multiple campaigns all in the same cycle, while media and mail campaigns can be done from their DC office for dozens of clients all at the same time. They get paid whether campaigns win or lose, so effectiveness is irrelevant to them. ..."
"... the Democratic Party is nothing more than a layer of indirection between the donor class and the Democratic consultants and the campaigns they run; ..."
"... the Democratic Party -- in its current incarnation -- has important roles to play in not expanding its "own" electorate through voter registration, in the care and feeding of the intelligence community, in warmongering, in the continual buffing and polishing of neoliberal ideology, and in general keeping the Overton Window firmly nailed in place against policies that would convey universal concrete material benefits, especially to the working class. ..."
"... the bottom line is that if Democratic Party controls ballot access for the forseeable future, they have to be gone through ..."
"... In retrospect, despite Sanders evident appeal and the power of his list, I think it would have been best if their faction's pushback had been much stronger ..."
An alert reader who is a representative of the class that's suing the DNC Services
Corporation for fraud in the 2016 Democratic primary -- WILDING et al. v. DNC SERVICES
CORPORATION et al., a.k.a. the "DNC lawsuit" -- threw some interesting mail over the transom;
it's from Elizabeth Beck of Beck & Lee, the firm that brought the case on behalf of the
(putatively) defrauded class (and hence their lawyer). Beck's letter reads in relevant
part:
What a bombshell! Finally some truth about the "Justice system" in the US.
Following on from this should be the whole subsequent story of the DNC-Fusion-Steele dossier in detail, exposing the MSM too
for what it has been worth.
Perhaps then Trump dares to go against the deep state swamp and stop wars instead of following the dictates of CIA, Israel and
Military Industrialists. That would be a real POTUS PLUS result.
""It's troubling. It is shocking," North Carolina Rep. Mark Meadows said. "Part of me wishes that I didn't read it because
I don't want to believe that those kinds of things could be happening in this country that I call home and love so much.""
***
Come on, child! Enough with that spectacle. Get real. Have the basic courage to know and to admit what everybody has known
about your country for ages!... The entire world already knows.
More proof, if any were needed, that the only threat to the people of the USA comes from their own government. The 'external
threat' is a fiction calculated to enslave the US population and enrich the Oligarchy.
Somebody's going to leak this in short order. Let's take a real look at what both Dems and Repubs just expanded, let's look
at the monster they are feeding in broad daylight.
"... Sally Yates essentially said 'all DOJ is subject to oversight, except the National Security Division'. ..."
"... In short, FISA "queries" from any national security department within government are allowed without seeking court approval. ..."
"... We know NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers became aware of an issue with unauthorized FISA-702(17) " About Queries " early in 2016. As a result of a FISA court ruling declassified in May of 2017 we were able to piece a specific timeline together. ..."
"... At the same time Christopher Steele was assembling his dossier information (May-October 2016), the NSA compliance officer was conducting an internal FISA-702 review as initiated by NSA Director Mike Rogers. The NSA compliance officer briefed Admiral Mike Rogers on October 20th 2016. On October 26th 2016, Admiral Rogers informed the FISA Court of numerous unauthorized FISA-702(17) "About Query" violations. Subsequent to that FISC notification Mike Rogers stopped all FISA-702(17) "About Queries" permanently . They are no longer permitted. ..."
"... Mike Rogers discovery becomes the impetus for him to request the 2016 full NSA compliance audit of FISA-702 use. It appears Fusion-GPS was the FBI contracted user identified in the final FISA court opinion/ruling on page 83. ..."
"... What plan came from that April 19th,2016 White House meeting? What plan did Mary Jacoby and Glenn Simpson present to use the information they had assembled? How and who would they feed their information to; and how do they best use that 'valuable' information? This appears to be where Fusion-GPS contracting with Christopher Steele comes in. ..."
"... Contacted by Fox News, investigators for the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) confirmed that Nellie H. Ohr, wife of the demoted official, Bruce G. Ohr, worked for the opposition research firm last year. ..."
"... The precise nature of Mrs. Ohr's duties – including whether she worked on the dossier – remains unclear but a review of her published works available online reveals Mrs. Ohr has written extensively on Russia-related subjects. HPSCI staff confirmed to Fox News that she was paid by Fusion GPS through the summer and fall of 2016. ( link ) ..."
"... DOJ Deputy Bruce Ohr and his wife Nellie Ohr had a prior working relationship with Fusion-GPS founder Glenn Simpson. Together they worked on a collaborative CIA Open Source group project surrounding International Organized Crime. ( pdf here ) Page #30 Screen Shot Below . ..."
"... Nellie Ohr is a subject matter expert on Russia, speaks Russian, and also is well versed on CIA operations. Nellie Ohr's skills would include how to build or create counterintelligence frameworks to give the appearance of events that may be entirely fabricated. ..."
"... Knowing the NSA was reviewing FISA "Queries"; and intellectually accepting the resulting information from those queries was likely part of the framework put together by Glenn Simpson and Mary Jacoby; we discover that GPS employee Nellie Ohr applied for a HAM radio license [ May 23rd 2016 ] (screen grab below). ..."
"... Accepting the FBI was utilizing Fusion-GPS as a contractor, there is now an inherent clarity in the relationship between: FBI agent Peter Strzok, Fusion-GPS Glenn Simpson, and 'Russian Dossier' author Christopher Steele. They are all on the same team. ..."
"... The information that Fusion-GPS Glenn Simpson put together from his advanced work on the 'Trump Project', was, in essence, built upon the foundation of the close relationship he already had with the FBI. ..."
"... Simpson, Jacoby and Ohr then passed on their information to Christopher Steele who adds his own ingredients to the mix, turns around, and gives the end product back to the FBI. That end product is laundered intelligence now called "The Trump/Russia Dossier". ..."
"... The FBI turn around and use the "dossier" as the underlying documents and investigative evidence for continued operations against the target of the entire enterprise, candidate Donald Trump. As Peter Strzok would say in August 2016: this is their "insurance policy" per se'. ..."
"... In October 2016, immediately after the DOJ lawyers formatted the FBI information (Steele Dossier etc.) for a valid FISA application, the head of the NSD, Asst. Attorney General John P Carlin, left his job . His exit came as the NSD and Admiral Rogers informed the FISC that frequent unauthorized FISA-702 searches had been conducted. Read Here . ..."
"... Yes, the FBI was working with Christopher Steele through their contractor Fusion-GPS. Yes, the FBI and Clinton Team were, in essence, both paying Christopher Steele for his efforts. The FBI paid Steele via their sub-contractor Fusion-GPS. ..."
"... Lastly, when the DOJ/FBI used the Steele Dossier to make their 2016 surveillance activity legal (the October FISA application), they are essentially using the outcome of a process they created themselves in collaboration with both Fusion GPS and the Clinton campaign. ..."
"... All research indicates the intelligence information the DOJ and FBI collected via their FISA-702 queries, combined with the intelligence Fusion GPS created in their earlier use of contractor access to FISA-702(17) "about queries", was the intelligence data delivered to Christopher Steele for use in creating "The Russian Dossier". ..."
"... Christopher Steele was just laundering intelligence. The Steele "dossier" was then used by the DOJ to gain FISA-702 approvals – which provided retroactive legal cover for the prior campaign surveillance, and also used post-election to create the "Russian Narrative". ..."
"... The ENTIRE SYSTEM of FISA-702 surveillance and data collection was weaponized against a political campaign. The DOJ and FBI used the FISA Court to gain access to Trump data, and simultaneously justify earlier FISA "queries" by their contractor, Fusion GPS. FISA-702 queries were used to gather information on the Trump campaign which later became FBI counterintelligence surveillance on the officials therein. ..."
Following the released transcript of Fusion-GPS Co-Founder Glenn Simpson's testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee
by Senator Dianne Feinstein , several media outlets have begun questioning the relationship between the FBI investigators, Glenn
Simpson and dossier author Christopher Steele.
What we have discovered highlights the answer to those relationship questions; and also answers a host of other questions, including:
Did the FBI pay Christopher Steele? Yes, but now how media has stated. Was the FBI connected to the creation of the Steele Dossier?
Yes, but again, not the way the media is currently outlining.
"... Stop right there. Rather than the generously imply that Trump had good intentions in the first place, isn't it time to at least consider the possibility that Trump's campaign was a calculated "bait and switch" fraud from the beginning? ..."
"... Not "paranoid" but "PNAC" as in PNAC manifesto for world domination and control ..."
"... "It is plainly obvious that the Neocons are now back in total control of the White House, Congress and the US corporate media. Okay, maybe things are still not quite as bad as if Hillary had been elected, but they are bad enough to ask whether a major war is now inevitable next year." ..."
"... "Rather than generously imply that Trump had good intentions in the first place, isn't it time to at least consider the possibility that Trump's campaign was a calculated "bait and switch" fraud from the beginning?" ..."
"... A point that cannot be made often enough, IMO. Trump is the Republican Bill Clinton. ..."
"... Maybe it's time for Americans to admit that their quadrennial Mr. America contest amounts to little more than a "suck Satan's c *** " audition for the deep state, and that the contestants have no qualms about getting on their knees. It is far more comforting to believe that "your" guy was subverted after the (s)election, but that's not how it actually works. ..."
"... I'm imagining a bumper sticker with Trump's laughing face and a sad-looking deplorable in a baseball cap, with the caption "Bait and Switch- the American Way." Someone also once suggested "There are two kinds of Republicans: millionaires and suckers." ..."
"Not only has the swamp easily, quickly and totally drowned Trump "
Stop right there. Rather than the generously imply that Trump had good intentions in the first place, isn't it time to
at least consider the possibility that Trump's campaign was a calculated "bait and switch" fraud from the beginning?
"Furthermore, the Trump Administration now has released a National Security Strategy which clearly show that the Empire
is in 'full paranoid' mode."
Not "paranoid" but "PNAC" as in PNAC manifesto for world domination and control.
"It is plainly obvious that the Neocons are now back in total control of the White House, Congress and the US corporate
media. Okay, maybe things are still not quite as bad as if Hillary had been elected, but they are bad enough to ask whether a
major war is now inevitable next year."
Maybe Trump was the "deep state" candidate of choice? Maybe that's why they ran Clinton against him rather than the more electable
Sanders? Maybe that's why Obama started ramping up tensions with Russia in the early fall of 2016 – so as to swing the election
to Trump (by giving the disgruntled anti-war Sanders voters a false choice between Trump or war with Russia?
"Rather than generously imply that Trump had good intentions in the first place, isn't it time to at least consider
the possibility that Trump's campaign was a calculated "bait and switch" fraud from the beginning?"
A point that cannot be made often enough, IMO. Trump is the Republican Bill Clinton.
Maybe it's time for Americans to admit that their quadrennial Mr. America contest amounts to little more than a "suck Satan's
c *** " audition for the deep state, and that the contestants have no qualms about getting on their knees. It is far more comforting
to believe that "your" guy was subverted after the (s)election, but that's not how it actually works.
I'm imagining a bumper sticker with Trump's laughing face and a sad-looking deplorable in a baseball cap, with the caption
"Bait and Switch- the American Way." Someone also once suggested "There are two kinds of Republicans: millionaires and suckers."
"... Whitehead documents how hard a not guilty verdict is to come by for an innocent defendant. Even if the falsely accused defendant and his attorney survive the prosecutor's pressure to negotiate a plea bargain and arrive at a trial, they are confronted with jurors who are unable to doubt prosecutors, police, or witnesses paid to lie against the innocent defendant. ..."
"... The question is: why do Americans not only sit silently while the lives of innocents are destroyed, but also actually support the destruction of the lives of innocents? Why do Americans believe "official sources" despite the proven fact that "official sources" lie repeatedly and never tell the truth? ..."
"... The only conclusion that one can come to is that the American people have failed. We have failed Justice. We have failed Mercy. We have failed the US Constitution. We have failed Truth. We have failed Democracy and representative government. We have failed ourselves and humanity. We have failed the confidence that our Founding Fathers put in us. We have failed God. If we ever had the character that we are told we had, we have obviously lost it. Little, if anything, remains of the "American character." ..."
"... The failure of the American character has had tremendous and disastrous consequences for ourselves and for the world. At home Americans have a police state in which all Constitutional protections have vanished. Abroad, Iraq and Libya, two formerly prosperous countries, have been destroyed. Libya no longer exists as a country. One million dead Iraqis, four million displaced abroad, hundreds of thousands of orphans and birth defects from the American ordnance, and continuing ongoing violence from factions fighting over the remains. These facts are incontestable. Yet the United States Government claims to have brought "freedom and democracy" to Iraq. "Mission accomplished," declared one of the mass murderers of the 21st century, George W. Bush. ..."
"... The question is: how can the US government make such an obviously false outrageous claim without being shouted down by the rest of the world and by its own population? Is the answer that good character has disappeared from the world? ..."
"... Or is the rest of the world too afraid to protest? Washington can force supposedly sovereign countries to acquiesce to its will or be cut off from the international payments mechanism that Washington controls, and/or be sanctioned, and/or be bombed, droned, or invaded, and/or be assassinated or overthrown in a coup. On the entire planet Earth there are only two countries capable of standing up to Washington, Russia and China, and neither wants to stand up if they can avoid it. ..."
"... For whatever the reasons, not only Americans but most of the world as well accommodate Washington's evil and are thereby complicit in the evil. Those humans with a moral conscience are gradually being positioned by Washington and London as "domestic extremists" who might have to be rounded up and placed in detention centers. Examine the recent statements by General Wesley Clark and British Prime Minister Cameron and remember Janet Napolitano's statement that the Department of Homeland Security has shifted its focus from terrorists to domestic extremists, an undefined and open-ended term. ..."
"... Americans with good character are being maneuvered into a position of helplessness. ..."
"... When Clinton's Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, was asked if the Clinton's regime's sanctions, which had claimed the lives of 500,000 Iraqi children, were justified, she obviously expected no outrage from the American people when she replied in the affirmative. ..."
"... ... Americans are "intentionally ignorant" of other countries' rights and sovereignty while other countries had been well-informed of America's malicious intents of destroying other countries' rights and sovereignty ... ..."
"... No, I don't think Americans are intentionally ignorant, any more than other nationalities. What they are tribal. Tribal peoples don't care whether their policies are right or wrong; they are instinctively loyal to them and to those who formulate them. ..."
"... "The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ...We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. ...In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons...who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind." -- Edward L. Bernays, Propaganda ..."
"... "Americans need to face the facts. The loss of character means the loss of liberty and the transformation of government into a criminal enterprise." ..."
"... "When a population becomes distracted by trivia, when cultural life is redefined as a perpetual round of entertainments, when serious public conversation becomes a form of baby-talk, when, in short, a people become an audience and their public business a vaudeville act, then a nation finds itself at risk; a culture-death is a clear possibility." ..."
"... Look at the demographics of the Western Hemisphere. If you have a shred of honesty you just can't hang the blame on 'whites', put it on a bumper sticker or a #shittyhashtagmeme and go back to fucking off. The disgusting fraud of Manifest Destiny was a fig leaf to hide the enormity of these crimes; but, they are most obviously European crimes....& has Europe changed since the West was settled? Did Europeans even stop their warring amongst themselves? ..."
"... "The loss of character means the loss of liberty and the transformation of government into a criminal enterprise." ..."
"... I agree with Paul Craig Roberts. He asks "Why" and "How." Well, Paul, here is my answer. Decades of Public Education and over 50 years of mass media monopoly. In an age where FOX is the top rated News station and CNN is considered liberal? Where kids in Public school are offered Chocolate milk and frozen pizza for school breakfast before going to class rooms with 30-40 kids. When Texas political appointees chose school text book content for the nation? A nation where service has ended, replaced with volunteer soldiers signing up for pay and benefits, instead of just serving as service, like we did in the 70's? ..."
"... There is a difference between IGNORANCE and STUPIDITY. As Ron White said, "YOU CAN'T FIX STUPID". In todays information age, ignorance is a choice. ..."
"... The problem is that we have no "Constitution." That is a fable. The constitution of the separation of powers has been undermined from almost day one. Witness the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. ..."
"... Yes sir. Globalization has failed us. The infinite growth paradigm has failed us, as we knew it would. Castro's Cuba, based in a localized agrarian economy, is looking pretty good about now. Localization is the only way back to sustainability. ..."
"... Books? Who said books? You mean reading books? Let me throw a couple out there: I read 'The Image: A Guide To Pseudo-Events In America' last year, it was published 50+ years ago by a very recommended writer and accomplished historian. Boorstin's observations are truer today and even more concerning thanks to our modern, ubiquitous "connectivity". http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/159979.The_Image ..."
"... Adorno famously pointed out in 1940 that the "Mass culture is psychoanalysis in reverse." ..."
"... He doesn't blame the masses because he simply points out the fact that Americans are completely ignorant and blindly believe anything MSM spoon-fed to them. ..."
"... Paul Craig Roberts believe that the people are capable of creating a better and more just society. Instead the people have voted against their own best interest and overwhelmingly believe the propaganda. ..."
"... "... the transformation of government into a criminal enterprise ..." ..."
"... Governments were created by the history of warfare, which was always organized crime developing on larger and larger scales. In the context, the greater problem is that people like Paul Craig Roberts are reactionary revolutionaries, who provide relatively good analysis, followed by bogus "solutions" based upon impossible ideals. ..."
"... The "American People" are the victims of the best scientific brainwashing that money could buy. As Cognitive Dissonance has previously stated on Zero Hedge: "The absolute best controlled opposition is one that doesn't know they are controlled." ..."
"... The article above was another illustration of the ways that the typical reactionary revolutionaries, Black Sheeple, or controlled opposition groups, respond to recognizing the more and more blatant degrees to which there has been an accelerating "transformation of government into a criminal enterprise." THE PROBLEM IS THAT THEY CONTINUE TO STAY WITHIN THE SAME OLD-FASHIONED BULLSHIT-BASED FRAME OF REFERENCE, INSTEAD, AROUND AND AROUND WE GO, STUCK IN THE SAME DEEPENING RUTS, since they do NOT more fully "face the facts" regarding how and why the only realistic solutions to the real problems would require developing better organized crime. INSTEAD, they continue to promote the same dualities based upon false fundamental dichotomies, and the associate bogus "solutions" based upon impossible ideals ... ..."
How can the life of such a man
Be in the palm of some fool's hand?
To see him obviously framed
Couldn't help but make me feel ashamed to live in a land
Where justice is a game.-Bob Dylan, "Hurricane"
Attorney John W. Whitehead opens a recent posting on his Rutherford Institute website with these words from a song by Bob Dylan.
Why don't all of us feel ashamed? Why only Bob Dylan?
I wonder how many of Bob Dylan's fans understand what he is telling them. American justice has nothing to do with innocence or
guilt. It only has to do with the prosecutor's conviction rate, which builds his political career. Considering the gullibility of
the American people, American jurors are the last people to whom an innocent defendant should trust his fate. The jury will betray
the innocent almost every time.
As Lawrence Stratton and I show in our book (2000, 2008) there is no justice in America. We titled our book, "How the Law Was
Lost." It is a description of how the protective features in law that made law a shield of the innocent was transformed over time
into a weapon in the hands of the government, a weapon used against the people. The loss of law as a shield occurred prior to 9/11,
which "our representative government" used to construct a police state.
The marketing department of our publisher did not appreciate our title and instead came up with "The Tyranny of Good Intentions."
We asked what this title meant. The marketing department answered that we showed that the war on crime, which gave us the abuses
of RICO, the war on child abusers, which gave us show trials of total innocents that bested Joseph Stalin's show trials of the heroes
of the Bolshevik Revolution, and the war on drugs, which gave "Freedom and Democracy America" broken families and by far the highest
incarceration rate in the world all resulted from good intentions to combat crime, to combat drugs, and to combat child abuse. The
publisher's title apparently succeeded, because 15 years later the book is still in print. It has sold enough copies over these years
that, had the sales occurred upon publication would have made the book a "best seller." The book, had it been a best seller, would
have gained more attention, and perhaps law schools and bar associations could have used it to hold the police state at bay.
Whitehead documents how hard a not guilty verdict is to come by for an innocent defendant. Even if the falsely accused defendant
and his attorney survive the prosecutor's pressure to negotiate a plea bargain and arrive at a trial, they are confronted with jurors
who are unable to doubt prosecutors, police, or witnesses paid to lie against the innocent defendant. Jurors even convicted
the few survivors of the Clinton regime's assault on the Branch Davidians of Waco, the few who were not gassed, shot, or burned to
death by US federal forces. This religious sect was demonized by Washington and the presstitute media as child abusers who were manufacturing
automatic weapons while they raped children. The charges proved to be false, like Saddam Hussein's "weapons of mass destruction,"
and so forth, but only after all of the innocents were dead or in prison.
The question is: why do Americans not only sit silently while the lives of innocents are destroyed, but also actually support
the destruction of the lives of innocents? Why do Americans believe "official sources" despite the proven fact that "official sources"
lie repeatedly and never tell the truth?
The only conclusion that one can come to is that the American people have failed. We have failed Justice. We have failed Mercy.
We have failed the US Constitution. We have failed Truth. We have failed Democracy and representative government. We have failed
ourselves and humanity. We have failed the confidence that our Founding Fathers put in us. We have failed God. If we ever had the
character that we are told we had, we have obviously lost it. Little, if anything, remains of the "American character."
Was the American character present in the torture prisons of Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, and hidden CIA torture dungeons where
US military and CIA personnel provided photographic evidence of their delight in torturing and abusing prisoners? Official reports
have concluded that along with torture went rape, sodomy, and murder. All of this was presided over by American psychologists with
Ph.D. degrees.
We see the same inhumanity in the American police who respond to women children, the elderly, the physically and mentally handicapped,
with gratuitous violence. For no reason whatsoever, police murder, taser, beat, and abuse US citizens. Every day there are more reports,
and despite the reports the violence goes on and on and on. Clearly, the police enjoy inflicting pain and death on citizens whom
the police are supposed to serve and protect. There have always been bullies in the police force, but the wanton police violence
of our time indicates a complete collapse of the American character.
The failure of the American character has had tremendous and disastrous consequences for ourselves and for the world. At home
Americans have a police state in which all Constitutional protections have vanished. Abroad, Iraq and Libya, two formerly prosperous
countries, have been destroyed. Libya no longer exists as a country. One million dead Iraqis, four million displaced abroad, hundreds
of thousands of orphans and birth defects from the American ordnance, and continuing ongoing violence from factions fighting over
the remains. These facts are incontestable. Yet the United States Government claims to have brought "freedom and democracy" to Iraq.
"Mission accomplished," declared one of the mass murderers of the 21st century, George W. Bush.
The question is: how can the US government make such an obviously false outrageous claim without being shouted down by the
rest of the world and by its own population? Is the answer that good character has disappeared from the world?
Or is the rest of the world too afraid to protest? Washington can force supposedly sovereign countries to acquiesce to its
will or be cut off from the international payments mechanism that Washington controls, and/or be sanctioned, and/or be bombed, droned,
or invaded, and/or be assassinated or overthrown in a coup. On the entire planet Earth there are only two countries capable of standing
up to Washington, Russia and China, and neither wants to stand up if they can avoid it.
For whatever the reasons, not only Americans but most of the world as well accommodate Washington's evil and are thereby complicit
in the evil. Those humans with a moral conscience are gradually being positioned by Washington and London as "domestic extremists"
who might have to be rounded up and placed in detention centers. Examine the recent statements by General Wesley Clark and British
Prime Minister Cameron and remember Janet Napolitano's statement that the Department of Homeland Security has shifted its focus from
terrorists to domestic extremists, an undefined and open-ended term.
Americans with good character are being maneuvered into a position of helplessness. As John Whitehead makes clear, the
American people cannot even prevent "their police," paid by their tax payments, from murdering 3 Americans each day, and this is
only the officially reported murders. The actual account is likely higher.
What Whitehead describes and what I have noticed for many years is that the American people have lost, in addition to their own
sense of truth and falsity, any sense of mercy and justice for other peoples. Americans accept no sense of responsibility for the
millions of peoples that Washington has exterminated over the past two decades dating back to the second term of Clinton. Every one
of the millions of deaths is based on a Washington lie.
When Clinton's Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, was asked if the Clinton's regime's sanctions, which had claimed the
lives of 500,000 Iraqi children, were justified, she obviously expected no outrage from the American people when she replied in the
affirmative.
Americans need to face the facts. The loss of character means the loss of liberty and the transformation of government into a
criminal enterprise.
benb
The American people have been scientifically mis-educated, propagandized, and beaten down. A disproportionate number of the
under 30's are societal DOAs thanks to ... weaponized TV. But I am being too optimistic...
PrayingMantis
... Americans are "intentionally ignorant" of other countries' rights and sovereignty while other countries had been well-informed
of America's malicious intents of destroying other countries' rights and sovereignty ...
BarnacleBill
No, I don't think Americans are intentionally ignorant, any more than other nationalities. What they are tribal. Tribal
peoples don't care whether their policies are right or wrong; they are instinctively loyal to them and to those who formulate
them.
Also, I have to say that I believe the US empire is a long, long, way from collapse. It is still expanding, for goodness sake.
Empires collapse only when the shrinking process is well under way. (The recent Soviet Empire was exceptional, in this regard.)
It will take several more generations before the darkness lifts, I'm afraid.
macholatte
The only conclusion that one can come to is that the American people have failed.
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element
in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the
true ruling power of our country. ...We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely
by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers
of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. ...In almost
every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking,
we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons...who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the
masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind."
-- Edward L. Bernays, Propaganda
OldPhart
"Americans need to face the facts. The loss of character means the loss of liberty and the transformation of government
into a criminal enterprise."
I think that happened August 13, 1971, but didn't get fully organized (as in Mafia) until 2000.
PT
The majority have their nose to the grind stone and as such can not see past the grind stone. They rely on "official sources"
to put the rest of the world in order for them, but have no time to audit the "official sources". Would public education suffer
if mothers and fathers were monitoring what the children were learning? But who has got time for that when both parents are working?
How many non-work organizations were your parents and grand-parents involved in (both the wage-earner and the housekeeper)? How
many organizations are you involved in?
Do you constantly hassle your local politicians or do you just say, "I'll vote 'em out in four years time"? (Yes, I know, you
just don't vote. Fair enough, this question is for the voters.)
Yes, some of us are guilty of not fighting back. We had "Shut up and do as you're told" and "Well, if you're not happy with
what you've got then work harder" beaten into us. Some of us are a little awake because, despite all our efforts, the grind stone
was removed from us and then we got to see the larger picture of what lies behind the grind stone. Others are still busy, nose
to the wheel, and all they see is the wheel.
And that is before we even consider HypnoToad on the Idiot Box. Some "need" the idiot box to help them wind down. Some can
no longer enjoy the silence. (Remember Brave New World? It's true. Many people can no longer stand to be around silence, with
nothing but their own thoughts.) I tell everyone that TV is crap. Radio is crap. Newspapers are crap. Turn that shit off for six
months to a year, then go back to it and see what you really think of it. But they can't handle the thought of being away from
"the background noise".
Ever spoken to grandparents who remember wars and depressions? And even amongst the rations and the hardships they still find
positive memories? Time to talk to them again. Or not. I guess we'll get first-hand experience soon enough.
Allow me for a moment to share a brief anecdote about the new "American Character".
Last Sunday I was at the local supermarket. I was at the bakery counter, when suddenly a nicely dressed, Sunday best, non-Caucasian
woman barrels into my cart riding a fat scooter. She rudely demands from the counter person a single cinnamon bun and then wheels
off towards the front. Curious, I follow her up the aisle as she scarfs down the pastry in three bites. She then proceeds to stuff
the empty bag between some soda bottles and scooters through the checkout without paying for her item. In the parking lot she
then disembarks from her scooter, easily lifts it into the trunk of her Cadillac and walks to the drivers side, gets in and speeds
off with her kids, who were in the back seat.
Amazed at what I had just witnessed, I went back into the store, retrieved the empty bag, included it in my few items at checkout
and then went to the manager to share this story with him. He laughed and said there was nothing he could do.
The new "American Character" is that of a sense of entitlement and apathy.
I weep for the future.
Headbanger
Having character is not politically correct. Plus there's no need to develop character anymore because there's no jobs requiring
any!
Consumption is the ONLY value of the inDUHvidual today.
And the less character they have, the more shit they'll consume to feel fulfilled cause they can't get that from themselves.
clymer Sat, 07/25/2015 - 07:34
Macholatte, i don't think PCR is writing from a point of view that is haughty and contemptful of the American people, per se,
but rather from a perspective that is hopeless and thoroughly depressed after contemplating what the American people of many generations
ago has taken for themselves as natural rights from a tyrranical government, only to see the nation slowly morph into something
even worse than what was rejected by the founders.
"A nation can survive its fools and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within...
He rots the soul of a nation; he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city; he infects the body
politic so that it can no longer resist."
ThroxxOfVron
"The loss of character means the loss of liberty and the transformation of government into a criminal enterprise. "
"I think that happened August 13, 1971 "
The entirety of the Western Hemisphere, not just 'The United States', was seized by invaders from Europe.
It is not an 'American' disease: it is a European disease and always was.
The indiginous populations of the Western Hemisphere were suystemaically and with forethought expropriated, ensalved, and slaughtered.
The indiginous persons that dwelled within the geographical domain that presently comprise the USA were still being margialized,
forcibly relocated, and murdered, long after the so-called 'American Civil War' had been decided.
...& As much as it is fashionable and/or politically expedient to vilify and blame the 'white' Europeans both for this history
and extenuate that history to inform the present state of affairs, the Dutch, the French, the Portuguese, and the Spanish ( most
eggregiously IMHO) were brutal and savage.
Look at the demographics of the Western Hemisphere.
If you have a shred of honesty you just can't hang the blame on 'whites', put it on a bumper sticker or a #shittyhashtagmeme
and go back to fucking off.
The disgusting fraud of Manifest Destiny was a fig leaf to hide the enormity of these crimes; but, they are most obviously
European crimes.
...& has Europe changed since the West was settled? Did Europeans even stop their warring amonsgst themselves?
Neither in Europe itself, nor in the settled West.
The Pacific Ocean wasn't named for calm waters.
It was named thusly because it is the natural geographic boundary where the mayhem and brutality and genocide ceased, if only
because the greedy and ruthless Europeans had run out of land in the Western Hemisphere with people upon it to plunder and murder...
El Vaquero
The US will collapse within the next decade if some serious new technology is not developed and the infrastructure to use it
is put in. There is too much debt and not enough material resources to continue growing the ponzi scheme that is our monetary
system at an exponential rate without something breaking. The question is, will it be at the end of this boom-bust cycle, or the
next? And if you look at what is being done on the financial front, which is the backbone of our neo-empire, that is shrinking.
The USD is slowly falling out of favor. There will come a point where that rapidly accelerates. We've been in a state of collapse
for 15 years.
Abitdodgie
ignorance is choice these days and Americans love it.
AetosAeros
Not only a choice, but the ONLY choice they are prepared to accept. Cognitive Dissonance at it's finest. And to make matters
worse, in only the best American fashion, we've asked if if it can be Supersized to go along with the Freedom Lies we feed ourselves.
I've seen the enemy, and....
But only if I'm willing to look in the mirror. Today's American doesn't look for what's right there in front of him/her, we
look for all the new 'Social Norms' that we aren't living up to. This article is completely on target, and I hope Roberts hasn't
decided to do any remodeling, cause too many idle nails guns make for a great Evening News sidebar mention.
Damnit all to hell.
Fun Facts
Fun Facts's picture
protocol #1 - Take control of the media and use it in propaganda for our plans
protocol #2 - Start fights between different races, classes and religions
... ... ...
protocol #13 - Use our media to create entertaining distractions
protocol #14 - Corrupt minds with filth and perversion
protocol #15 - Encourage people to spy on one another
Rubicon727
We educators began seeing this shift towards "me-ism" around 1995-6. Students from low to middle income families became either
apathetic towards "education" or followed their parent's sense of "entitlement." Simultaneously, the tech age captured both population's
attention. Respecting "an education" dwindled.
Fast forward to the present: following the 2007-8 crash, we noted clear divisions between low income vs middle/upper class
students based on their school behavior. Low to slightly middle income students brought to school family tensions and the turmoil
of parents losing their jobs. A rise in non-functioning students increase for teachers while the few well performing students
decline significantly.
Significant societal, financial shifts in America can always be observed in the student population.
reader2010
Mission Accomplished.
"When a population becomes distracted by trivia, when cultural life is redefined as a perpetual round of entertainments,
when serious public conversation becomes a form of baby-talk, when, in short, a people become an audience and their public business
a vaudeville act, then a nation finds itself at risk; a culture-death is a clear possibility."
- Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business, 1985
Lea
"The American people have been scientifically mis-educated".
You've got the answer there. The education system is the root cause of the problem. I'm from Europe, but if I've understood
correctly, the US education policy is to teach as little as possible to children, and expect them to fill in the gaps in the Universities,
past a certain age.
Only, it can't work. Children WILL learn, as childhood is the time when most informations are stored. If the schools don't
provide the knowledge, they will get it from the television, movies or games, with the consequences we can see: ignorance, obsession
with TV and movies stars, inability to differentiate life from movies, and over-simplistic reasoning (if any).
In Europe, we knew full well children learn fast and a lot, and that was why the schools focused on teaching them as much general
knowldge as possible before 18 years old, which is when - it is scientifically proved - the human brain learns best.
Recently, the EU leading countries have understood that having educated masses doesn't pay if you want to lead them like sheep,
so they are perfidiously trying to lower the standards... to the dismay of parents.
My advice, if I may presume to give any, would be to you USA people: teach your children what they won't learn at school, history,
geography, literature (US, European and even Asian, why not), a foreign language if you can, arts, music, etc; and keep them away
from the TV, movies and games.
And please adapt what you teach them to their age.
Refuse-Resist
Bang on! One anecdotal example: insisting that all 3rd graders use calculators "to learn" their multiplication tables. If I
didn't do flashcards at home with my kids they wouldn't know them. As somebody who majored in engineering and took many many advanced math courses, I always felt that knowing your 'times tables'
was essential to being successful in math.
What better way to dumb down otherwise intelligent children by creating a situation where the kid can't divide 32 by 4 without
a calculator. Trigonometry? Calculus? Linear Algebra? Fuggedaboudit.
doctor10
The CB's and MIC have Americans right where they want them. the consequences of 3-4 generations of force feeding Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny
ThroxxOfVron
Some of US were never fucking asleep. Some of us were born with our eyes and minds open. We were, and are: hated, and reviled, and marginalized, and disowned for it. The intellectual repression was, and is, fucking insane and brutal. Words such as ethics and logic exist for what purpose? What are these expressions of? A bygone time? Abstractions?
Those that have tried to preserve their self awareness, empathy, and rationality have been ruthlessly systematically demeaned
and condemed for confronting our families, our culture and institutions. We all have a right to be angry and disgusted and distrustful of the people and institutions around us. I am very fucking angry, and disgusted, and distrustful of the people and institutions around me.
But I still have hope. Nothing lasts forever.. This self-righteous nation called The United States, this twisted fraud of a culture called America, is most dangerously overdue
for receipt of chastisment and retribution. It would be best if the citizenry of the United States taught themselves a lesson in stead of inviting Other nations and cultures
to educate them.
A serious self education may be tedious and imperfect; but, it would be far far cheaper than forcing someone to come all the
way over those oceans to educate Americans at the price they will be demanding for those lessons...
I do not require representation. I will speak my own mind and act of my own accord.
Every time other so-called Americans take a shit on me for thinking and speaking and acting differently it is a badge of honor
and a confirmation of my spiritual and intellectual liberty. They don't know it but they are all gonna run out of shit before
I run out of being free.
ThroxxOfVron
"The loss of character means the loss of liberty and the transformation of government into a criminal enterprise. "
"I think that happened August 13, 1971 "
The entirety of the Western Hemisphere, not just 'The United States', was seized by invaders from Europe. It is not an 'American' disease: it is a European disease and always was.
The indiginous populations of the Western Hemisphere were suystemaically and with forethought expropriated, ensalved, and slaughtered.
The indiginous persons that dwelled within the geographical domain that presently comprise the USA were still being margialized,
forcibly relocated, and murdered, long after the so-called 'American Civil War' had been decided.
...& As much as it is fashionable and/or politically expedient to vilify and blame the 'white' Europeans both for this history
and extenuate that history to inform the present state of affairs, the Dutch, the French, the Portuguese, and the Spanish ( most
eggregiously IMHO) were brutal and savage.
Look at the demographics of the Western Hemisphere. If you have a shred of honesty you just can't hang the blame on 'whites', put it on a bumper sticker or a #shittyhashtagmeme
and go back to fucking off. The disgusting fraud of Manifest Destiny was a fig leaf to hide the enormity of these crimes; but, they are most obviously
European crimes....& has Europe changed since the West was settled? Did Europeans even stop their warring amongst themselves?
See for yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_Europe
That would be: Hell NO. Neither in Europe itself, nor in the settled West. The Pacific Ocean wasn't named for calm waters. It was named thusly because it is the natural geographic boundary where the mayhem and brutality and genocide ceased, if only
because the greedy and ruthless Europeans had run out of land in the Western Hemisphere with people upon it to plunder and murder...
Mini-Me
"The loss of character means the loss of liberty and the transformation of government into a criminal enterprise."
I agree with the first part. As for the latter, "government," by definition, is a criminal enterprise. It doesn't start out
pure as the driven snow and then change into something nefarious over time. Its very essence requires the initiation of violence
or its threat. Government without the gun in the ribs is a contradiction.
The fact that those in power got more votes than the losing criminals does not magically morph these people into paragons of
virtue. They are almost without exception thoroughly deranged human beings. Lying is second nature to them. Looting is part of
the job description. Killing is an end to their means: the acquisition and aggrandizement of power over others, no matter how
much death and destruction results.
These people are sick bastards. To expect something virtuous from them after an endless string of wanton slaughter, theft and
abuse, is simply wishful thinking.
Jack Burton
I agree with Paul Craig Roberts. He asks "Why" and "How." Well, Paul, here is my answer. Decades of Public Education and over
50 years of mass media monopoly. In an age where FOX is the top rated News station and CNN is considered liberal? Where kids in
Public school are offered Chocolate milk and frozen pizza for school breakfast before going to class rooms with 30-40 kids. When
Texas political appointees chose school text book content for the nation? A nation where service has ended, replaced with volunteer
soldiers signing up for pay and benefits, instead of just serving as service, like we did in the 70's?
Paul Craig Roberts points out the police war against the people. That comes right from the very top, orders filter down to
street cops. Street Cops are recruited from groups of young men our fathers generation would have labeled mental! But now they
are hired across the board, shaved heads, tatoos, and a code of silence and Cops Above Justice.
Schools
Media
Crazed Cops
And a corporate owned government.
The people have allowed the elites to rule in their place, never bothering to question the two fake candidates we are allowed
to vote for.
Jtrillian
There is a difference between IGNORANCE and STUPIDITY. As Ron White said, "YOU CAN'T FIX STUPID". In todays information age, ignorance is a choice.
Part of the problem that no one is talking about or addressing is the population explosion. And it's not linear. Those who
are the least educated, fully dependent others for their survival (welfare), the most complacent, and often with violent criminal
records are breeding the fastest.
Evolution is not guaranteed. It can be argued that the apathy we experience today is a sign of the human race de-evolving.
It takes a certain amount of cognitive ability to observe and question what is going on.
Further, the society we have created where "60 is the new 40" creates very little time to pay attention to what is going on
in the world. Many people rely on mainstream media which is not really news any more. When six corporations control more than
90% of the news, it's the message of the corporate elite that we are fed. This becomes painfully obvious when you start turning
to other sources for information like social media and independent news. Mainstream media today is full of opinion bias - injecting
opinion as though it were fact. They also appeal to the lowest commmon denominator by focusing on emotionally charged topics and
words rather than boring facts. Finally, the mainstream media is extremely guilty of propaganda by omission, ignoring important
events altogether or only presenting one side of the story as is being done with regard to ISIS, Syria, and Ukraine today. People
who watch the mainstream media have no idea that the US played a significant role in arming ISIS and aided in their rise to power.
They have no idea that it was likely ISIS that used chemical weapons in Syria. They have no idea that the US has propped up real
life neo nazis in high government positions in Ukraine. And they have ignored the continuing Fukushima disaster that is STILL
dumping millions of gallons of radioactive water into the ocean every single day.
To sum up, democracies only work when people pay attention and participate. People are either too stupid, too overworked, are
are looking to the wrong sources for information.
Until we break up mainstream media, remove incentives for those who cannot even care for themselves to stop breeding, and make
fundamental changes to our society that affords people the time to focus on what is happening in the world, it will only get worse.
Much worse.
serotonindumptruck
A dying empire is like a wounded, cornered animal.
It will lash out uncontrollably and without remorse in a futile effort to save itself from certain death.
Enough Already
The problem is that we have no "Constitution." That is a fable. The constitution of the separation of powers has been undermined
from almost day one. Witness the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798.
In the centuries since then, there has been no "separation of powers." Marbury v Madison (1803) gave the Supreme Court the
right to "decide" what the "law" was. Although, only in the 20th century did the "Supreme" court really start "legislating" from
the bench.
We're just peons to the Overall Federal Power; the three "separate" parts of the federal government have been in collusion
from the first. But like all empires, this one is in the final stage of collapse; it has just gotten too big.
gswifty
Yes sir. Globalization has failed us. The infinite growth paradigm has failed us, as we knew it would. Castro's Cuba, based
in a localized agrarian economy, is looking pretty good about now. Localization is the only way back to sustainability.
napples
Books? Who said books? You mean reading books? Let me throw a couple out there: I read 'The Image: A Guide To Pseudo-Events In America' last year, it was published 50+ years ago by a very recommended
writer and accomplished historian. Boorstin's observations are truer today and even more concerning thanks to our modern, ubiquitous
"connectivity". http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/159979.The_Image
Another by Boorstin, The Discoverers was my fav, like Bryson's 'Short History' on steroids:
I'm currently trying to fathom all of the historical implications of the claims Menzies is making in his book '1434', where
apparently everything I learned about history is a lie. While he's making a lot of claims(hoping some sticks?) I'm not truly convinced.
It is a very good, believable thought experiment. It almost makes perfect sense given the anglo/euro history of deceit & dishonesty,
but I digress: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavin_Menzies
Adorno famously pointed out in 1940 that the "Mass culture is psychoanalysis in reverse." It takes 75 years for someone
such as PCR to reiterate. He doesn't blame the masses because he simply points out the fact that Americans are completely
ignorant and blindly believe anything MSM spoon-fed to them.
George Orwell once remarked that the average person today is about as naive as was the average person in the Middle Ages. In
the Middle Ages people believed in the authority of their religion, no matter what. Today, we believe in the authority of what
Adorno called Culture Industry and MSM, no matter what. Today we are indeed in another Dark Age
PoasterToaster
"Americans" are not one person. Individuals are not fungible. Reasoning from the "average American" leads to false conclusions.
reader2010
Jacques Derrida says, "The individualism of technological civilization relies precisely on a misunderstanding of the unique
self. It is the individualism of a role and not of a person. In other words it might be called the individualism of a masque or
persona, a character [personnage] and not a person." There are many Americans but they all play the same role in the Pursuit of
Happiness, aka wage slaves, career slaves, debt slaves, information junkies, and passive consumers.
Moccasin
Paul Craig Roberts believe that the people are capable of creating a better and more just society. Instead the people have
voted against their own best interest and overwhelmingly believe the propaganda.
When do the people or the society take responsibility for its greater good or own the crimes of those they put into power?
Blaming the aristocracy or the oligarchs seems like a scapegoat when the people have never stood up to the corruption in a
cohesive or concerted way. imho, After a few generations of abuse and corruption the people need to take responsibility for their
future. I expect that most will just buy into the charade and live the lie, on that basis as a society we are doomed to live in
a corporatocracy fascist state.
Aldous Huxley called it a scientific dictatorship, Edward Bernays referred to us as a herd.
Moccasin
In the USA being white, monied and having the capacity to afford a good education is privileged. To his credit he speaks to
the greater population, the 'average citizen' and not the plutocratic class.
MSorciere
What we have is the result of conditioning and commoditizing a population. The country is filled with consumers, not citizens.
Teach the acquisition of money and goods as the main goal and individualism as the only acceptable social unit. We end up with
a nation of insatiable sociopaths, ruled by power-hungry psychopaths.
Divisive politics, jackbooted authority from the DC scumpond down to the cop on the beat, the constant preaching of the cult
of the individual as a sustitute for true liberty... all of these have served to destroy a sense of community and decentness between
Americans.
The ONLY thing that could threaten the ruling class is a banding together of the people - in large numbers. 'They' have purposefully
and effectively quashed that.
TrulyStupid
Shifting responsibility to the usual suspects is simply a manifestation of the American moral collapse. Man up and do some
self evaluation.
T-NUTZ
"what I have noticed for many years is that the American people have lost, in addition to their own sense of truth and falsity,
any sense of mercy and justice for other peoples"
Unfortunately, Paul, the American people have lost any sense of mercy and justice for their own people.
Painful as it may be, we need to rationally look at US history/society. The nascent US was formed by stealing land from the
native population and using human capital (read African Slaves) to generate wealth (it took a civil war with circa 500K casualties
to stop this- one could argue the US "civil war" never ended). More recently, the US has been almost continuously at war since
1940, we dropped atomic bombs on Japan. Currently, the US/NATO war theater extends from the Levant, to Caspian Basin, Persian
Gulf, China Sea, Indian Ocean, Horn of Africa (Saudi/US war on Yemen), the Maghreb and E Europe and Russian Border.
"... the transformation of government into a criminal enterprise ..."
Governments were created by the history of warfare, which was always organized crime
developing on larger and larger scales. In the context, the greater problem is that people like Paul Craig Roberts are
reactionary revolutionaries, who provide relatively good analysis, followed by bogus "solutions" based upon impossible ideals.
The "American People" are the victims of the best scientific brainwashing that money could buy. As Cognitive Dissonance
has previously stated on Zero Hedge: "The absolute best controlled opposition is one that doesn't know they
are controlled."
It is practically impossible to exaggerate the degree to which that is so, on such profound levels, because of the ways that
most people want to continue to believe that false fundamental dichotomies and impossible ideals are
valid, and should be applied to their problems, despite that those mistaken ideas cause the opposite to happen in the real world,
because those who promote those kinds of false fundamental dichotomies and their related impossible ideals, ARE "controlled
opposition."
Rather, the place to begin would be by recognizing that all human beings and civilizations must necessarily operate as entropic
pumps of energy flows, which necessarily are systems of organized lies operating robberies. Everyone has some power to rob, and
power to kill to back that up. Governments assembled and channeled those powers. There was never a time when governments were
not organized crime. There could never be any time when governments were not organized crime. The only things that exist are the
dynamic equilibria between different systems of organized lies operating robberies. Those dynamic equilibria have become extremely
unbalanced due the degree that the best organized gangs of criminals were able to control their opposition.
Paul Craig Roberts, as well as pretty well all of the rest of the content published on Zero Hedge, are presentations
of various kinds of controlled opposition groups, most of which do not recognize that they are being controlled by the language
that they use, and the philosophy of science that they take for granted. THAT is the greatest failure of the American People,
as well as most of the rest of the people everywhere else. They believe in false fundamental dichotomies, and the related impossible
ideals, and therefore, their bogus "solutions" always necessarily backfire badly, and cause the opposite to happen in the real
world.
After all, the overwhelming vast majority of the American People operate as the controlled opposition to the best organized
gangs of criminals that most control the government of the USA. Therefore, the FAILURES of the American People are far more profound
and problematic than what is superficially presented by guys like Paul Craig Roberts, and also, of course, his suggested bogus
"solutions" are similarly superficial.
The ONLY things which can actually exist are the dynamic equilibrium between different systems of organized lies operating
robberies. The degree to which the American People, as well as most of the rest of the people in the world, FAIL to understand
that is the degree to which they enable the best organized gangs of criminals to control them, due to the vast majority of people
being members of various controlled opposition groups. Controlled opposition always presents relatively superficial analysis of
the political problems, which are superficially correct. However, they then follow that up with similarly superficial "solutions."
Therefore, magical words are bandied about, that express their dualities, through false fundamental dichotomies, and the related
impossible ideals.
Governments must exist because organized crime must exist. Better governments could be achieved through
better organized crime. However, mostly what get presented in the public places are the utter bullshit of the biggest
bullies, who dominate the society because they were the best organized gangs of criminals, who were also able to dominate their
apparent opposition. Therefore, instead of more realistic, better balancing of the dynamic equilibria between different systems
of organized lies operating robberies, we get runaway developments of the best organized gangs of criminals being able to control
governments, whose only apparent opposition is controlled to stay within the same bullshit frame of reference regarding everything
that was actually happening.
The mainline of the FAILURES of the American People have been the ways that the international bankers were able to recapture
control over the American public "money" supply. After that, everything else was leveraged up, through the funding of the political
processes, schools, and mass media, etc., being more and more dominated by that fundamentally fraudulent financial accounting
system. Of course, that FAILURE has now become more than 99% ... Therefore, no political possible ways appear to exist to pull
out of that flaming spiral nose dive, since we have already gone beyond the event horizon into that social black hole.
Most of the content on Zero Hedge which is based upon recognizing that set of problems still acts as controlled opposition
in that regard too. Therefore, the bogus "solutions" here continue to deliberately ignore that money is necessarily measurement
backed by murder. Instead of accepting that, the controlled opposition groups like to promote various kinds of "monetary reforms."
However, meanwhile, we are actually already headed towards the established debt slavery systems having generated debt insanities,
which are going to provoke death insanities.
In that context, the only realistic resolutions to the real problems would necessarily have to be monetary revolutions,
that may emerge out of the future situations, after the runaway debt insanities have provoked death insanities. Indeed, the only
genuine solutions to the problems are to develop different death control systems, to back up different debt control systems, which
must necessarily be done within the context that governments are the biggest forms of organized crime, controlled by the best
organized gangs of criminals.
The various controlled opposition groups do not want to face those social facts. Rather, they continue to want to believe in
the dualities expressed as false fundamental dichotomies and the related impossible ideals, which is their greatest overall FAILURE.
In my view, the article above by Roberts contained a lot of nostalgic nonsense. There was never a time when there
were any governments which were not based on the applications of the principles and methods of organized crime, and there
could never be any time in the future when that could be stopped from being the case.
The greatest FAILURE of the American People, as well as most of the rest of the world's people, has been to become so brainwashed
to believe in the biggest bullies' bullshit world view, that there is no significant opposition that is not controlled by thinking
inside of the box of that bullshit. The government did NOT transform into a criminal enterprise. The government was necessarily
ALWAYS a criminal enterprise. That criminal enterprise has become more and more severely UNBALANCED due to the FAILURE
of the people to understand that they were actually members of an organized crime gang, called their country. Instead, they were
more and more scientifically brainwashed to believe in bullshit about everything, including their country.
The ONLY connection between human laws and the laws of nature is the ability to back up lies with violence. The development
of the government of the USA has been the developed of integrated systems of legalized lies, backed by legalized violence. Those
systems of ENFORCED FRAUDS have been able to become more extremely unbalanced because there is almost nothing which is publicly
significant surrounding that core of organized crime but various controlled opposition groups.
Of course, it seems politically impossible for my recommendations to actually happen within the foreseeable future, as the
current systems of debt slavery drive through debt insanities to become death insanities, but nevertheless, the only theoretically
valid ideas to raise to respond to the real problems would have to based upon a series of intellectual scientific revolutions.
However, since we have apparently run out of time to go through those sorts of paradigm shifts sufficiently, we are stuck in the
deepening ruts of political problems which guys like Roberts correctly present to be the case
... HOWEVER, ROBERTS, LIKE ALMOST EVERYONE ELSE, CONTINUE TO PRESUME UPON DUALITIES, AND THEREFORE,
HAVE THEIR MECHANISMS REGARDING "SOLUTIONS" ABSURDLY BACKWARDS.
Rather, we should start with the concept of SUBTRACTION, which then leads to robbery. We should start with the recognition
that governments are necessarily, by definition, the biggest forms of organized crime. Governments did NOT transform
into being that. Governments were always that. The political problems we have now are due to the best organized gangs
of criminals, which currently are primarily the biggest gangsters, which can rightly be referred to as the banksters, having dominated
all aspects of the funding of politics, enough to capture control over all sociopolitical institutions, so that the American People
would more and more be subjected to the best scientific brainwashing that money could buy, which was built on top of thousands
of years of previous history of Neolithic Civilizations being based on backing up lies with violence.
The runaway systems of ENFORCED FRAUDS, or the integrated systems of legalized lies, backed by legalized violence, that more
and more dominate the lives of the American People are due to the applications of the methods of organized crime, and could not
be effectively counter-balanced in any other ways. However, the standing social situation is that there is no publicly significant
opposition that is not controlled to stay within the same frame of reference of the biggest bullies, which is now primarily the
frame of reference of the banksters. Indeed, to the degree to which people's lives are controlled by the monetary system, they
are debt slaves. Moreover, the degree to which they do not understand, and do not want to understand, that money is necessarily
measurement backed by murder, then they think like controlled opposition groups, who have their mechanisms absurdly backwards,
when they turn from their superficial analysis of what the political problems, to then promote their superficial solutions of
those problems.
I AGREE that "Americans need to face the facts." However, those facts are that citizens are members
of an organized crime gang, called their country. "Their" country is currently controlled by the best organized gangs of criminals.
However, there are no genuine resolutions for those problems other than to develop better organized crime. Since the controlled
opposition groups that are publicly significant do not admit any of the deeper levels of the scientific facts regarding human
beings and civilizations operating as entropic pumps of energy flows, but rather, continue to perceive all of that in the most
absurdly backward ways possible, the current dynamic equilibria between the different systems of organized lies operating robberies
continue to become more and more extremely UNBALANCED.
In the case of the article above, Roberts does NOT "face the facts" that governments were
always forms of organized crime, and must necessarily be so, because human beings must live as entropic pumps of energy
flows. Rather, Roberts tends to illustrate how the controlled opposition takes for granted certain magical words and phrases,
such as "Liberty" or "Constitution," that have no adequate operational definitions to connect them to the material
world.
We are living inside of an oxymoronic scientific dictatorship, which has applied the progress in science primarily to become
better at backing up lies with violence, while refusing to allow scientific methods to admit and address how and why that has
been what has actually happened. Therefore, almost all of the language that we use to communicate, as well as almost
all of the philosophy of science that we take for granted, was based on the biggest bullies' bullshit, which is now primarily
manifested as the banksters' bullshit, as that bullshit developed in America to become ENFORCED FRAUDS.
ALL of the various churches, corporations, and countries are necessarily various systems of organized lies operating robberies.
Those which are the biggest now were historically the ones that were the best at doing that. The INTENSE PARADOXES are due to
human systems necessarily being organized lies operating robberies, wherein the greatest social successfulness has been achieved
by those who were the best professional liars and immaculate hypocrites. That flows throughout ALL of the established systems,
which are a core of organized crime, surrounded by controlled opposition groups.
The degree to which the American People, as well as the rest of the world's people, have been more and more scientifically
brainwashed to believe in bullshit about governments in particular, and human beings and civilizations in general, is the degree
to which the established systems based upon ENFORCED FRAUDS are headed towards some series of psychotic breakdowns. For all practical
purposes, it is politically impossible to get enough people to stop acting like incompetent political idiots, and instead start
acting more like competent citizens, because they do not understand, and moreover have been conditioned to not want to understand
that governments are necessarily organized crime.
Roberts ironically illustrated the deeper nature of the political problems that he also shares, when he perceives that governments
have somehow transformed into being criminal enterprise, when governments were always necessarily criminal enterprises.
Similarly, with those who recognize that, but then promote the impossible solutions based upon somehow stopping that
from being the case, which is as absurdly backwards as stopping human beings from operating as entropic pumps of energy
flows, which then also presumes that it would be possible to stop human civilizations from being entropic pumps of energy
flows.
Rather, the deeper sorts of intellectual scientific revolutions that we should go through require becoming much more
critical of the language that we use to communicate with, and more critical about the philosophy of science that we presumed was
correct. Actually, we were collectively brainwashed to believe in the biggest bullies' bullshit, which is as absurdly backwards
as it could possibly be. However, due to the collective FAILURES of people to understand that, as reflected by the ways that the
core of organized crime is surrounded by nothing which is publicly significant than layers of controlled opposition, there are
no reasonable ways to doubt that the established debt slavery systems will continue to drive even worse debt insanities, which
will provoke much worse death insanities. Therefore, to be more realistic about the foreseeable future, the development of new
death control systems will emerge out of the context of crazy collapses into chaos, wherein the runaway death insanities provide
the possible opportunities for new death controls to emerge out of that situation.
Of course, the about 99% FAILURE of the American People to want to understand anything that I have outlined above
indicates that the foreseeable future for subsequent generations shall not too likely be catalyzed transformations
towards enough people better understanding their political problems, in order to better resolve those problems. Rather, what I
mostly expect is for the psychotic breakdowns of the previous systems of ENFORCED FRAUDS to give opportunities to some possible
groups of controlled opposition to take advantage of that, to perhaps emerge as the new version of professional liars and immaculate
hypocrites, who will be able to operate some new version of organized lies, operating robberies, who may mostly still get away
with being some modified versions of still oxymoronic scientific dictatorship, due to social success still being based upon the
best available professional liars and immaculate hypocrites, who were able to survive through those transformations, so that the
new systems arise from some of the seeds of the old systems.
At the present time, it is extremely difficult to imagine how the human species could possibly reconcile progress in
physical science by surpassing that with progress in political science. Rather, what mostly exists now is the core of
organized crime, which gets away with spouting the bullshit about itself, such as how the banksters dominate the mass media, and
the lives of everyone else who depend upon the established monetary system (which is dominated by the current ways that governments
ENFORCE FRAUDS by privately controlled banks), while that core of organized crime has no publicly significant opposition that
is not controlled by the ways that they think, which ways stay within the basic bullshit world view, as promoted by the biggest
bullies for thousands of years, and as more and more scientifically promoted to brainwash the vast majority of people to believe
in that kind of bullshit so completely that it mostly does not occur to them that they are doing that, and certainly almost never
occurs to them that they are doing that in the most profoundly absurd and backward ways possible.
That is how and why it is possible for an author like Roberts to correctly point out the ways in which the government of the
USA is transforming into being more blatantly based on organized crime ... HOWEVER, Roberts is not willing and able to go through
deeper levels of intellectual scientific revolutions, in order to recognize how and why governments were always necessarily manifestations
of organized crime. Therefore, as is typically the case, Roberts does not recognize how ironically he recommends that Americans
should "face the facts," while he himself does not fully do so.
The whole history of Neolithic Civilizations was social pyramid systems based on being able to back up lies with violence,
becoming more sophisticated systems of legalized lies, backed by legalized violence, which currently manifest as the globalized
electronic frauds of the banksters, were are backed up by the governments (that those banksters effectively control) having atomic
bombs. Those are the astronomically amplified magnitudes of the currently existing combined money/murder systems. Therefore, it
appears to be politically impossible at the present time to develop better governments, due to the degree that almost everyone
is either a member of the core groups of organized crime, or members of the surrounding layers of groups of controlled opposition,
both of which want to stay within the same overall bullshit frame of reference, because, so far, their lives have been socially
successful by being professional liars and immaculate hypocrites.
Ironically, I doubt that someone like Roberts, or pretty well everyone else whose material is published on Zero Hedge
is able and willing to recognize the degree to which they are actually controlled opposition. Indeed, even more ironically, as
I have repeated before, even Cognitive Dissonance, when he previously stated on Zero Hedge:"The
absolute best controlled opposition is one that doesn't know they are controlled." DOES NOT "GET IT" regarding the
degree to which he too is controlled opposition, even while superficially attempting to recognize and struggle with that situation.
(Indeed, of course, that includes me too, since I am still communicating using the English language, which was the natural language
that most developed to express the biggest bullies' bullshit world view.)
Overall, I REPEAT, the deeper problems are due to progress in physical science, NOT being surpassed by progress in
political science. Instead, while there EXIST globalized electronic frauds, backed by atomic bombs, practically nothing
regarding the ways of thinking that made that science and those technologies possible has found any significant expression through
political science, because political science would have to go through even more profound paradigm shifts within itself in order
to do that.
The INTENSE PARADOXES continue to be the manifestation of the oxymoronic scientific dictatorship, that deliberately refuses
to become any more genuinely scientific about itself. Therefore, the banksters have been able to pay for the best scientific brainwashing
that money could buy, for generation after generation, in order to more and more brainwash most of the American People to believe
in the banksters' bullshit world view. While there exist electronic frauds, backed by atomic bombs, practically nothing regarding
the physical science paradigm shifts that made that possible have even the slightest degree of public appreciation within the
realms of politics today, which are almost totally dominated by the biggest bullies' bullshit world view, despite that being as
absurdly backwards as possible, while the controlled opposition groups, mostly in the form of old-fashioned religions and ideologies,
continue to stay within that same bullshit world view, and adamantly refuse to change their perceptual paradigms regarding political
problems.
However, I REPEAT, the issues we face are NOT that governments have transformed to become criminal enterprises,
but that governments were always necessarily criminal enterprises, which had the power to legalized their own lies, and
then back those lies up with legalized violence. Thereby, the best organized criminals, the international bankers, as
the biggest gangsters, or the banksters, were able to apply the methods of organized crime through the political processes. Meanwhile,
the only "opposition" that was allowed to be publicly significant was controlled, to basically stay within the same bullshit world
view, which is what Roberts has done in his series of articles, as well as what is almost always presented in the content published
on Zero Hedge.
The NEXT LEVEL of "the need to face the facts" is to recognize that the political economy is based
upon ENFORCED FRAUDS, or systems of debt slavery backed by wars based on deceits. However, the NEXT LEVEL "the need
to face the facts" is the that the only possible changes are to change the dynamic equilibria between the different
systems of organized lies operating robberies, i.e., change those ENFORCED FRAUDS, in ways which CAN NOT STOP
THOSE FROM STILL BEING ENFORCED FRAUDS, because of the degree to which money is necessarily measurement backed by murder.
For the American People, as well as the rest of the world's people, to stop being such dismal FAILURES would require them to
become more competent citizens. However, at the present time they appear to be totally unable to do that, because they are unwilling
to go through the profound paradigm shifts that it would take them to become more competent citizens inside of world where there
exist globalized electronic frauds, backed by atomic bombs. The vast majority of the American People would not like
to go through the severe cognitive dissonance that would be required, to not only recognize that "their" government was a criminal
enterprise, but that it also must be, and that they too must necessarily be members of that organized crime gang. However, without
that degree of perceptual paradigm shifts of the political problems, then enough of the American People could not become more
competent citizens.
Somehow, most people continue to count on themselves never having to think about how and why progress was achieved in physical
science, by going through series of profound paradigm shifts in the ways that we perceived the world. Most people continue to
presume that it is not necessary for their perception of politics to go through profound paradigm shifts, that surpass those which
have already been achieved in physical science. We continue to live in an oxymoronic scientific dictatorship, that employs science
and technology to become better at being dishonest and violent, but does not apply science and technology to "face
the facts" about that scientific dictatorship as a whole.
At the present time, technologies which have become trillions of times more capable and powerful are primarily used as special effects within the context of repeating the same old-fashioned, stupid social stories, such as promoted by the biggest
bullies, and their surrounding controlled opposition groups. Ironically, especially when it comes to politics, that tends to manifest
the most atavistic throwbacks to old-fashioned religions and ideologies being relied upon to propose bogus "solutions," despite
that those kinds of social stories adamantly refuse to change their paradigms in light of the profound paradigms shifts which
have been achieved in physical science.
The article above was another illustration of the ways that the typical reactionary revolutionaries, Black Sheeple, or controlled
opposition groups, respond to recognizing the more and more blatant degrees to which there has been an accelerating "transformation of government into a criminal enterprise." THE PROBLEM IS THAT THEY CONTINUE TO STAY WITHIN
THE SAME OLD-FASHIONED BULLSHIT-BASED FRAME OF REFERENCE, INSTEAD, AROUND AND AROUND WE GO, STUCK IN
THE SAME DEEPENING RUTS, since they do NOT more fully "face the facts" regarding how and why the only
realistic solutions to the real problems would require developing better organized crime. INSTEAD, they
continue to promote the same dualities based upon false fundamental dichotomies, and the associate bogus "solutions" based upon
impossible ideals ...
Given that overall situation, that there there almost nothing which is publicly significant than the core of organized crime,
surrounded by controlled opposition groups, I see no reasonable hopes for the foreseeable material future of a civilization controlled
by ENFORCED FRAUDS, since there is no publicly possible ways to develop better dynamic equilibria between the different systems
of organized lies operating robberies, since the biggest forms of doing that were most able to get away with pretending that they
are not doing that, which was facilitated by their controlled opposition promoting the opinions that nobody should do that, while
actually everyone must be doing that.
Roberts' article above, to me, was another typical example of superficially correct analysis, which implies some bogus "solutions"
because those are based upon the same superficiality. It is NOT good enough to recognize "transformation of government
into a criminal enterprise," unless one goes through deeper levels of analysis regarding how and why that is what
actually exists, and then, one should continue to be consistent with that deeper analysis when one turns to proposing genuine
solutions to those problems, namely, I REPEAT THAT the only realistic resolutions to the real political
problems requires the transformation of government into a better organized criminal enterprise, which
ideally should be based upon enough citizens who are competent enough to understand that they are members of an organized crime
gang, which should assert themselves to make sure that their country becomes better organized crime.
If this is true, then this is definitely a sophisticated false flag operation. Was malware Alperovich people injected specifically
designed to implicate Russians? In other words Crowdstrike=Fancy Bear
Images removed. For full content please thee the original source
One interesting corollary of this analysis is that installing Crowdstrike software is like inviting a wolf to guard your chicken.
If they are so dishonest you take enormous risks. That might be true for some other heavily advertized "intrusion prevention" toolkits.
So those criminals who use mistyped popular addresses or buy Google searches to drive lemmings to their site and then flash the screen
that they detected a virus on your computer a, please call provided number and for a small amount of money your virus will be removed
get a new more sinister life.
"... Disobedient Media outlines the DNC server cover-up evidenced in CrowdStrike malware infusion ..."
"... In the article, they claim to have just been working on eliminating the last of the hackers from the DNC's network during the past weekend (conveniently coinciding with Assange's statement and being an indirect admission that their Falcon software had failed to achieve it's stated capabilities at that time , assuming their statements were accurate) . ..."
"... To date, CrowdStrike has not been able to show how the malware had relayed any emails or accessed any mailboxes. They have also not responded to inquiries specifically asking for details about this. In fact, things have now been discovered that bring some of their malware discoveries into question. ..."
"... there is a reason to think Fancy Bear didn't start some of its activity until CrowdStrike had arrived at the DNC. CrowdStrike, in the indiciators of compromise they reported, identified three pieces of malware relating to Fancy Bear: ..."
"... They found that generally, in a lot of cases, malware developers didn't care to hide the compile times and that while implausible timestamps are used, it's rare that these use dates in the future. It's possible, but unlikely that one sample would have a postdated timestamp to coincide with their visit by mere chance but seems extremely unlikely to happen with two or more samples. Considering the dates of CrowdStrike's activities at the DNC coincide with the compile dates of two out of the three pieces of malware discovered and attributed to APT-28 (the other compiled approximately 2 weeks prior to their visit), the big question is: Did CrowdStrike plant some (or all) of the APT-28 malware? ..."
"... The IP address, according to those articles, was disabled in June 2015, eleven months before the DNC emails were acquired – meaning those IP addresses, in reality, had no involvement in the alleged hacking of the DNC. ..."
"... The fact that two out of three of the Fancy Bear malware samples identified were compiled on dates within the apparent five day period CrowdStrike were apparently at the DNC seems incredibly unlikely to have occurred by mere chance. ..."
"... That all three malware samples were compiled within ten days either side of their visit – makes it clear just how questionable the Fancy Bear malware discoveries were. ..."
Of course the DNC did not want to the FBI to investigate its "hacked servers". The plan was well underway to excuse Hillary's
pathetic election defeat to Trump, and
CrowdStrike would help out by planting evidence to pin on those evil "Russian hackers." Some would call this
entire DNC server hack an
"insurance policy."
"... I accept your point that the Democrats and the Republicans are two sides of the same coin, but it's important to understand that Putin is deeply conservative and very risk averse. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton may be a threat to Russia but she knows the "rules" and is very predictable, while Trump doesn't know the rules and appears to act on a whim ..."
"... However, given the problems that Hillary Clinton had to overcome to get elected, backing her against Trump would be risky. So the highly risk averse Putin would logically stay out of the election entirely and all the claims of Russia hacking the election are fake news. ..."
"... As for the alleged media campaign, my response is "so what!". Western media, including state-owned media, interferes around the world all the time so complaining about Russian state-owned media doing the same is pure hypocrisy and should be ignored. ..."
On your surmise that Putin prefers Trump to Hillary and would thus have incentive to
influence the election, I beg to differ. Putin is one smart statesman; he knows very well
it makes no difference which candidates gets elected in US elections.
I accept your point that the Democrats and the Republicans are two sides of the same
coin, but it's important to understand that Putin is deeply conservative and very risk
averse.
Hillary Clinton may be a threat to Russia but she knows the "rules" and is very
predictable, while Trump doesn't know the rules and appears to act on a whim , so if
Putin were to have interfered in the 2016 presidential election, logic would suggest that he
would do so on Hillary Clinton's side. However, given the problems that Hillary Clinton
had to overcome to get elected, backing her against Trump would be risky. So the highly risk
averse Putin would logically stay out of the election entirely and all the claims of Russia
hacking the election are fake news.
As for the alleged media campaign, my response is "so what!". Western media, including
state-owned media, interferes around the world all the time so complaining about Russian
state-owned media doing the same is pure hypocrisy and should be ignored.
Neocons dominate the US foreign policy establishment.
In other words Russiagate might be a pre-emptive move by neocons after Trump elections.
Notable quotes:
"... The dogma does not come from questioning this conclusion. Because Putin, during the campaign, complimented Trump, does not support the conclusion with its insinuation that those who voted for Trump needed to be influenced by anything other than being fed up with the usual in American politics. Same with Brexit. That dissatisfaction continues, and it doesn't need Russian influence to feed it. This is infantile oversimplification to say so. ..."
"... "The centrepiece of the faith, based on the hacking charge, is the belief that Vladimir Putin orchestrated an attack on American democracy by ordering his minions to interfere in the election on behalf of Trump. The story became gospel with breathtaking suddenness and completeness. Doubters are perceived as heretics and as apologists for Trump and Putin, the evil twins and co-conspirators behind this attack on American democracy. Responsibility for the absence of debate lies in large part with the major media outlets. Their uncritical embrace and endless repetition of the Russian hack story have made it seem a fait accompli in the public mind. It is hard to estimate popular belief in this new orthodoxy, but it does not seem to be merely a creed of Washington insiders. If you question the received narrative in casual conversations, you run the risk of provoking blank stares or overt hostility – even from old friends. This has all been baffling and troubling to me; there have been moments when pop-culture fantasies (body snatchers, Kool-Aid) have come to mind." ..."
"... But I do believe Putin, and for that matter Xi Jinping of China too, should make efforts to infiltrate the USA election processes. It's an eye for an eye. USA has been exercising its free hands in manipulating elections and stirring up color revolutions all around the world, including the 2012 presidential election in Russia. They should be given a taste of their own medicine. In fact, I believe it is for this reason that the US MSM is playing up this hocus pocus Russian-gate matter, as a preemptive measure to justify imposing electioneering controls in the future. ..."
"... USA may not be vulnerable as yet to this kind of external nuisances, as the masses have not yet reached the stage of being easily stirred. But that time will come. ..."
I have great respect for the reporting on this site regarding Syria and the Middle East. I
regret that for some reason there is this dogmatic approach to the issue of Russian attempts
to influence the US election. Why wouldn't the Russians try to sway the election? Allowing
Hillary to win would have put a dangerous adversary in the White House, one with even more
aggressive neocon tendencies than Obama. Trump has been owned by Russian mobsters since the
the 1990s, and his ties to Russian criminals like Felix Sater are well known.
Putin thought that getting Trump in office would allow the US to go down a more restrained
foreign policy path and lift sanctions against Russia, completely understandable goals. Using
Facebook/Twitter bots and groups like Cambridge Analytica, an effort was made to sway public
opinion toward Trump. That is just politics. And does anyone really doubt there are
incriminating sexual videos of Trump out there? Trump (like Bill Clinton) was buddies with
billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Of course there are videos of Trump that can be used
for blackmail purposes, and of course they would be used to get him on board with the Russian
plan.
The problem is that everything Trump touches dies. He's a fraud and an incompetent idiot.
Always has been. To make matters worse, Trump is controlled by the Zionists through his
Orthodox Jewish daughter and Israeli spy son-in-law. This gave power to the most openly
extreme Zionist elements who will keep pushing for more war in the Middle East. And Trump is
so vile that he's hated by the majority of Americans and doesn't have the political power to
end sanctions against Russia.
Personally, I think this is all for the best. Despite his Zionist handlers, Trump will
unintentionally unwind the American Empire through incompetence and lack of strategy, which
allows Syria and the rest of the world to breathe and rebuild. So Russia may have made a bad
bet on this guy being a useful ally, but his own stupidity will end up working out to the
world's favor in the long run.
there is considerable irony in use of "dogmatic" here: the dogma actually occurs in the
rigid authoritarian propaganda that the Russians Putin specifically interfered with the
election itself, which now smugly blankets any discussion. "The Russians interfered" is now
dogma, when that statement is not factually shown, and should read, "allegedly interfered."
The dogma does not come from questioning this conclusion. Because Putin, during the
campaign, complimented Trump, does not support the conclusion with its insinuation that those
who voted for Trump needed to be influenced by anything other than being fed up with the
usual in American politics. Same with Brexit. That dissatisfaction continues, and it doesn't
need Russian influence to feed it. This is infantile oversimplification to say so.
To suggest "possibly" in any argument does not provide evidence. There is no evidence.
Take a look at b's link to the following for a clear, sane assessment of what's going on. As
with:
"The centrepiece of the faith, based on the hacking charge, is the belief that Vladimir
Putin orchestrated an attack on American democracy by ordering his minions to interfere in
the election on behalf of Trump. The story became gospel with breathtaking suddenness and
completeness. Doubters are perceived as heretics and as apologists for Trump and Putin, the
evil twins and co-conspirators behind this attack on American democracy. Responsibility for
the absence of debate lies in large part with the major media outlets. Their uncritical
embrace and endless repetition of the Russian hack story have made it seem a fait accompli in
the public mind. It is hard to estimate popular belief in this new orthodoxy, but it does not
seem to be merely a creed of Washington insiders. If you question the received narrative in
casual conversations, you run the risk of provoking blank stares or overt hostility –
even from old friends. This has all been baffling and troubling to me; there have been
moments when pop-culture fantasies (body snatchers, Kool-Aid) have come to mind."
I echo you opinion that this site gives great reports on issues pertaining to Syria and
the ME. Credit to b.
On your surmise that Putin prefers Trump to Hillary and would thus have incentive to
influence the election, I beg to differ. Putin is one smart statesman; he knows very well it
makes no difference which candidates gets elected in US elections. Any candidate that WOULD
make a difference would NEVER see the daylight of nomination, especially at the presidential
level. I myself believe all the talk of Russia interfering the 2016 Election is no more than
a witch hunt.
But I do believe Putin, and for that matter Xi Jinping of China too, should make efforts
to infiltrate the USA election processes. It's an eye for an eye. USA has been exercising its
free hands in manipulating elections and stirring up color revolutions all around the world,
including the 2012 presidential election in Russia. They should be given a taste of their own
medicine. In fact, I believe it is for this reason that the US MSM is playing up this hocus
pocus Russian-gate matter, as a preemptive measure to justify imposing electioneering
controls in the future.
USA may not be vulnerable as yet to this kind of external nuisances, as the masses have
not yet reached the stage of being easily stirred. But that time will come.
"... By Manuela Cadelli, President of the Magistrates' Union of Belgium ..."
"... Every totalitarianism starts as distortion of language, as in the novel by George Orwell. Neoliberalism has its Newspeak and strategies of communication that enable it to deform reality. In this spirit, every budgetary cut is represented as an instance of modernization of the sectors concerned. If some of the most deprived are no longer reimbursed for medical expenses and so stop visiting the dentist, this is modernization of social security in action! ..."
By Manuela Cadelli, President of the Magistrates' Union of Belgium
The time for rhetorical reservations is over. Things have to be called by their name to make it
possible for a co-ordinated democratic reaction to be initiated, above all in the public services.
Liberalism was a doctrine derived from the philosophy of Enlightenment, at once political and
economic, which aimed at imposing on the state the necessary distance for ensuring respect for liberties
and the coming of democratic emancipation. It was the motor for the arrival, and the continuing progress,
of Western democracies.
Neoliberalism is a form of economism in our day that strikes at every moment at every sector of
our community. It is a form of extremism.
Fascism may be defined as the subordination of every part of the State to a totalitarian and nihilistic
ideology.
I argue that neoliberalism is a species of fascism because the economy has brought under subjection
not only the government of democratic countries but also every aspect of our thought.
The state is now at the disposal of the economy and of finance, which treat it as a subordinate
and lord over it to an extent that puts the common good in jeopardy.
The austerity that is demanded by the financial milieu has become a supreme value, replacing politics.
Saving money precludes pursuing any other public objective. It is reaching the point where claims
are being made that the principle of budgetary orthodoxy should be included in state constitutions.
A mockery is being made of the notion of public service.
The nihilism that results from this makes possible the dismissal of universalism and the most
evident humanistic values: solidarity, fraternity, integration and respect for all and for differences.
There is no place any more even for classical economic theory: work was formerly an element in
demand, and to that extent there was respect for workers; international finance has made of it a
mere adjustment variable.
Every totalitarianism starts as distortion of language, as in the novel by George Orwell. Neoliberalism
has its Newspeak and strategies of communication that enable it to deform reality. In this spirit,
every budgetary cut is represented as an instance of modernization of the sectors concerned. If some
of the most deprived are no longer reimbursed for medical expenses and so stop visiting the dentist,
this is modernization of social security in action!
Abstraction predominates in public discussion so as to occlude the implications for human beings.
Thus, in relation to migrants, it is imperative that the need for hosting them does not lead to
public appeals that our finances could not accommodate. Is it In the same way that other individuals
qualify for assistance out of considerations of national solidarity?
The cult of evaluation
Social Darwinism predominates, assigning the most stringent performance requirements to everyone
and everything: to be weak is to fail. The foundations of our culture are overturned: every humanist
premise is disqualified or demonetized because neoliberalism has the monopoly of rationality and
realism. Margaret Thatcher said it in 1985: "There is no alternative." Everything else is utopianism,
unreason and regression. The virtue of debate and conflicting perspectives are discredited because
history is ruled by necessity.
This subculture harbours an existential threat of its own: shortcomings of performance condemn
one to disappearance while at the same time everyone is charged with inefficiency and obliged to
justify everything. Trust is broken. Evaluation reigns, and with it the bureaucracy which imposes
definition and research of a plethora of targets, and indicators with which one must comply. Creativity
and the critical spirit are stifled by management. And everyone is beating his breast about the wastage
and inertia of which he is guilty.
The neglect of justice
The neoliberal ideology generates a normativity that competes with the laws of parliament. The
democratic power of law is compromised. Given that they represent a concrete embodiment of liberty
and emancipation, and given the potential to prevent abuse that they impose, laws and procedures
have begun to look like obstacles.
The power of the judiciary, which has the ability to oppose the will of the ruling circles, must
also be checkmated. The Belgian judicial system is in any case underfunded. In 2015 it came last
in a European ranking that included all states located between the Atlantic and the Urals. In two
years the government has managed to take away the independence given to it under the Constitution
so that it can play the counterbalancing role citizens expect of it. The aim of this undertaking
is clearly that there should no longer be justice in Belgium.
A caste above the Many
But the dominant class doesn't prescribe for itself the same medicine it wants to see ordinary
citizens taking: well-ordered austerity begins with others. The economist Thomas Piketty has perfectly
described this in his study of inequality and capitalism in the twenty-first century (French edition,
Seuil, 2013).
In spite of the crisis of 2008 and the hand-wringing that followed, nothing was done to police
the financial community and submit them to the requirements of the common good. Who paid? Ordinary
people, you and me.
And while the Belgian State consented to 7 billion-euro ten-year tax breaks for multinationals,
ordinary litigants have seen surcharges imposed on access to justice (increased court fees, 21% taxation
on legal fees). From now on, to obtain redress the victims of injustice are going to have to be rich.
All this in a state where the number of public representatives breaks all international records.
In this particular area, no evaluation and no costs studies are reporting profit. One example: thirty
years after the introduction of the federal system, the provincial institutions survive. Nobody can
say what purpose they serve. Streamlining and the managerial ideology have conveniently stopped at
the gates of the political world.
Terrorism, this other nihilism that exposes our weakness in affirming our values, is likely to
aggravate the process by soon making it possible for all violations of our liberties, all violations
of our rights, to circumvent the powerless qualified judges, further reducing social protection for
the poor, who will be sacrificed to "the security ideal".
Salvation in commitment
These developments certainly threaten the foundations of our democracy, but do they condemn us
to discouragement and despair?
Certainly not. 500 years ago, at the height of the defeats that brought down most Italian states
with the imposition of foreign occupation for more than three centuries, Niccolo Machiavelli urged
virtuous men to defy fate and stand up against the adversity of the times, to prefer action and daring
to caution. The more tragic the situation, the more it necessitates action and the refusal to "give
up" (The Prince, Chapters XXV and XXVI).
This is a teaching that is clearly required today. The determination of citizens attached to the
radical of democratic values is an invaluable resource which has not yet revealed, at least in Belgium,
its driving potential and power to change what is presented as inevitable. Through social networking
and the power of the written word, everyone can now become involved, particularly when it comes to
public services, universities, the student world, the judiciary and the Bar, in bringing the common
good and social justice into the heart of public debate and the administration of the state and the
community.
Neoliberalism is a species of fascism. It must be fought and humanism fully restored.
One of the side-effects of these periodic moral panics that sweep through
American society --
Trayvon ,
Ferguson , Charlottesville -- is that they unmask people -- bring
out their inner nature.
Well, two weeks ago on the podcast
I said some kind words , or at least not un -kind words, about
TV talking head Charles Krauthammer. I said that while I'd written him off for
years as a, quote, "cucky neocon Israel-first GOP establishment front man,"
more recently I've been warming to him because of the mostly sensible things
he's said on Tucker Carlson's show.
Well, I'm biting my tongue. Last Tuesday on Fox News Krauthammer reverted
to cucky type, acting scandalized that Trump dared suggest there is anything
wrong with masked anarchists throwing rocks at citizens lawfully demonstrating.
Fortunately Laura Ingraham was there to counter him. I have,
as I have often noted , a very soft spot for Ms. Ingraham. Not to be shy
about it, I would walk over hot coals for her, leap the ice floes of a swollen
river for her, wrestle alligators for her.
So OK, I yield. I got Krauthammer right the first time: cucky neocon
shill.
"Shill"? A shill is a bogus competitor employed by a casino to promote
interest in the blackjack tables. Krauthammer isn't a shill.
He's had a certain political trajectory over the years: from mainline
Democrat to dissenting Democrat to mainline Republican (a trajectory traversed
over the period running from about 1979 to 1995). There is no indication
he's ever advocated anything but what he thinks or that he favors the party
he's not formally affiliated with; his antagonism to Trump is an indicator
of the crevasse which separates starboard opinion journalists from starboard
voters.
A real shill would be someone employed by the media to play a Republican.
The WaPoo hired David Weigel to do this, but the act wasn't credible after
his private correspondence was published in the Journ-O-List scandal.
Tyler Cowen, whose public writings suggest he's consumed with anxiety
about status considerations in faculty settings, might be seen as a manifestation
of libertarian pseudo-opposition on the George Mason payroll (since he never
critiques any progtrasn sacred cows). Bruce Bartlett, the Republican whose
signature is attacking other Republicans, might be considered a shill or
a poseur depending on who is paying his bills.
And, of course, 'neocon' is a nonsense term.
Krauthammer is a Canadian-reared scion of a very prosperous family. He's
lived pretty much all his life in New York, Montreal, Boston, and Washington.
His brother spent his adult life in Los Angeles. His son lives in the Bay
Area, his niece and her husband in Washington.
Between them, his parents lived in a half-dozen countries during the
course of their lives before landing in Quebec. He does not have any natural
affinity for the Trump constituency.
The best he can do is to attempt to appreciate it, and at that he is
very hit-and-miss.
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
7 minutes ago Thanks Q! I bring up Montgomery all of the time here. The Eff Bee Eye and Dee oh
Jay have all of the documents and are sitting on them. This is how the IC controls everything
in the Swamp.
<img alt="Faith could bring us together. But too often it divides us"
src="//cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/191121180252-20191121-fractured-states-religious-leaders-large-169.jpg">
DONATE
Slide title
Write your caption here
Button
Slide title
Write your caption here
Button
Slide title
Write your caption here
Button
Slide title
Write your caption here
Button
Website Builder.
Share by:
Anonymous
Shpakova
☭@NovaShpakova
euro is beginning to look like a credible rival to the dollar.
Note that the candidate swears to be "faithful" to the "interests, welfare and success of
the Democratic Party," but not to its principles. That's because there aren't any.
© AFP 2018 / Timothy A. CLARY Congresswoman
Tulsi Gabbard Speaks the Truth on Syria, Gets Smeared by the Mainstream Media
© AP Photo / Marco Garcia 'Assad's
Mouthpiece in Washington': Controversial Dem. Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard Announces 2020
Run
© REUTERS / Omar Sanadiki US Lawmakers
Call for Syria Strategy Where Assad Leaving Post, Russian Military Pulls Out
©
AP Photo/ J. Scott Applewhite
House Democrats Will Expand Russiagate in 2019 to Push Trump Toward War
